MA - Bella Bond, 2, found dead, Deer Island, Boston Harbor, June 2015 - #2

[Inthedetails]

Those statements may seem to conflict each other, but I am thinking it is possible that she got into the medicine cabinent or found a drug stash. "Chemicals" is an interesting word to use, it makes me think they are referring to what we would think of as poision (it's only purpose being to kill the victim). Maybe they are saying that no one put together a concocation with rat poision or w/e else, but it's possible that Baby Doe found something in the house that killed her.


- See more at: http://www.bostonnewstime.com/regio...ikely-from-the-area.html#sthash.crWd7Fy6.dpuf

I'm assuming they eliminated chemicals that would leave easily-detectable evidence in the body, but haven't yet eliminated substances that need lab-work to detect. They are still awaiting the full lab-work results.

 

[SwizzleStix]

Again with the underpants. Who would know the child by her underpants? Really?

Exactly. If someone knows a child well enough to know what underwear they wear, you'd think they'd recognize the photo plastered all over. The underwear is a non-issue to identifying her.

As for no underwear, maybe she wasn't wearing any because she dressed herself. Maybe she didn't wear any to bed. My 6 year old still likes to sleep in just her underwear. Kids are strange and quirky. We don't know and it isn't important at this time, imo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[LisaB]

http://www.amazon.com/Cannon-Microplush-Fleece-Stripe-Blanket/dp/B00N02K00K

The blanket (new)

I am not able to find a photo of Circo brand size 4T black and white (or white and black) leggings OR pajamas (some reports call them leggings, while others refer to them as PJs) other than the pair they found on the child. Those leggings sure do look CLEAN to me. I assume she was NOT in them when she died, both because she did not seem to have had them on long enough to get them dirty (they look brand new!) and due to the apparent lack of feces or urine released at death, indicating that they were put on her after she died. I checked every childrens' retailer and ebay and found nothing.

 

[SwizzleStix]

http://www.amazon.com/Cannon-Microplush-Fleece-Stripe-Blanket/dp/B00N02K00K

The blanket (new)

I am not able to find a photo of Circo brand size 4T black and white (or white and black) leggings OR pajamas (some reports call them leggings, while others refer to them as PJs) other than the pair they found on the child. Those leggings sure do look CLEAN to me. I assume she was NOT in them when she died, both because she did not seem to have had them on long enough to get them dirty (they look brand new!) and due to the apparent lack of feces or urine released at death, indicating that they were put on her after she died. I checked every childrens' retailer and ebay and found nothing.

It's not the actual items. They're digital images of the blanket and pants. I can't find the link that says that but it was talked about in the first thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[elepher50]

How does a 4-year-old die in her sleep? How common/rare is that?

Drug overdose - accidental or otherwise.

 

[greengables]

Those statements may seem to conflict each other, but I am thinking it is possible that she got into the medicine cabinent or found a drug stash. "Chemicals" is an interesting word to use, it makes me think they are referring to what we would think of as poision (it's only purpose being to kill the victim). Maybe they are saying that no one put together a concocation with rat poision or w/e else, but it's possible that Baby Doe found something in the house that killed her.


- See more at: http://www.bostonnewstime.com/regio...ikely-from-the-area.html#sthash.crWd7Fy6.dpuf

I think this is likely too. I think she has ingested something (medicines or illegal drugs) and the parent has failed to get help, put her to bed and hoped for the best. Perhaps the parent was under the influence of something and thought the girl would be okay and failed to get her to hospital, then got up through the night or next morning (rather more sober) and found that the little one didn't make it through the night. I just feel that she was loved but not the parent's priority much of the time, especially as she weighed so little.

 

[mrsu]

Thanks for these. I'm guessing that In that last photo, they just pulled off into the grass around say 3am?? Then carried her to the shore. Surely they would have avoided that hill.

I'm surprised there are no cameras!!!!! Those buildings and parking lots seem like they'd have cameras.

Or perhaps over the curb and to the access road?

 

[T4Tide]

Jonbenet Ramsey had on a pair of panties with the wrong day of the week and many sizes too big. That was a BIG red flag. If this girl had on "Tuesday" panties and was found on a Thursday, one might assume she died on Tuesday. Some little girls will only wear "silky" panties, while others want Disney designs. Some at that age are still in the thicker training panties. So it matters. I'd have expected them to have at least MENTIONED that she had on panties, leggings, a green tank top, and green socks if that was the case. And considering the predominantly white leggings, a pair of panties in a dark color or a high-contrast print would suggest to ME that a man dressed her, as women are more aware of the possibility of colored panties showing through white pants.
I am not some creeper who wants to see a little girl's panties, but knowing IF there were some, and even the TYPE could be useful, without photos. Same for the shirt. it could be stained and unable to be shown, but it could certainly be described.

ETA: I do not have any reason to think she had on green socks and green top, I offered this as an example. Shoes would also be a "thing" and if she was found in a bag, even items she had on that fell off would be inside the bag with her.

As a mother of five, I can promise you that if my daughter had "day of the week" panties before she could read, they would ALWAYS be the wrong day. I mean, now she can read, and I still bet they would be wrong because she just goes in and grabs a pair after her bath. Also, size wouldn't mean anything to me, either. My daughter is 8 years old, and her underwear drawer has sizes anywhere from 2t/3t to 8....and they all fit. (I keep trying to get rid of some of the 2t/3t pairs, as they have seen better days, but she says, "But, Mom! Those are my FAVORITE! ") [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]

 

[Steleheart]

Drug users are known to drug their kids to sleep.

Zanny the Nanny (Xanax - Caylee Anthony) So Mom could party.

Noah Thomas left alone and possibly given or got into methadone and dumped in a septic tank.


MOO

 

[mrsu]

It's not the actual items. They're digital images of the blanket and pants. I can't find the link that says that but it was talked about in the first thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Has this been determined for sure? In this link you can definitely see that the blanket is dirty when you click to enlarge. Perhaps she wasn't there long at all and the blanket protected the pants from getting dirty?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/0...ooking-for-help-in-identifying-toddler-whose/

 

[T4Tide]

However, as a mother, I do think there is significance in her just having on leggings, if that is indeed the case. If my daughter died accidentally, and I was placing her body to be found, I would lovingly dress her fully in what she would normally wear. Probably not socks and shoes, but definitely considered "fully clothed" because I wouldn't want my baby found nude. If it's true that this baby was found in just leggings, it says to me that she was hastily dressed by someone who either didn't have other clothes for her, had only the leggings left (shirt and/or panties having vomit, blood, or other fluids on them,) or they didn't want to take a chance on being caught with a completely naked child that they couldn't pass off as "sleeping." MOO

 

[LisaB]

It's not the actual items. They're digital images of the blanket and pants. I can't find the link that says that but it was talked about in the first thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Strange. The blanket looks dirty, and if I can't find these leggings, where did they find a pair to photograph?
You can see the stitching on the waist and hems, so it doesn't look like a computer image.

 

[LisaB]

As a mother of five, I can promise you that if my daughter had "day of the week" panties before she could read, they would ALWAYS be the wrong day. I mean, now she can read, and I still bet they would be wrong because she just goes in and grabs a pair after her bath. Also, size wouldn't mean anything to me, either. My daughter is 8 years old, and her underwear drawer has sizes anywhere from 2t/3t to 8....and they all fit. (I keep trying to get rid of some of the 2t/3t pairs, as they have seen better days, but she says, "But, Mom! Those are my FAVORITE! ") [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]

And a relative or babysitter who KNEW those were your daughter's "FAVORITES" would probably consider that if they were in the description of a found child that was similar in appearance. Especially if (as Jonbenet) they were a size that seemed "wrong" for her age.

 

[Inthedetails]

However, as a mother, I do think there is significance in her just having on leggings, if that is indeed the case. If my daughter died accidentally, and I was placing her body to be found, I would lovingly dress her fully in what she would normally wear. Probably not socks and shoes, but definitely considered "fully clothed" because I wouldn't want my baby found nude. If it's true that this baby was found in just leggings, it says to me that she was hastily dressed by someone who either didn't have other clothes for her, had only the leggings left (shirt and/or panties having vomit, blood, or other fluids on them,) or they didn't want to take a chance on being caught with a completely naked child that they couldn't pass off as "sleeping." MOO

Okay, fine. But if you're Law Enforcement trying to identify a little girl, is it honestly helpful to show the girl's underwear to the public??

The underwear (or lack of underwear) will likely play a role in investigating the death. But is it needed to IDENTIFY the child? That's what LE is doing now with the release of the photos....they want to know who this is. The photo rendering, the clothing, and location all should help identify the child. I can't see how knowing what the underwear looks like will provide a name for this girl.

But, yes, details like underwear are significant in a crime investigation. Not so much when asking people, "Do you recognize this girl?"

 

[Inthedetails]

And a relative or babysitter who KNEW those were your daughter's "FAVORITES" would probably consider that if they were in the description of a found child that was similar in appearance. Especially if (as Jonbenet) they were a size that seemed "wrong" for her age.

But wouldn't that person recognize the child's face? We know what the girl looked like.

 

[Inthedetails]

We need a break in the case. I'll be back then.

 

[Steleheart]

Has this been determined for sure? In this link you can definitely see that the blanket is dirty when you click to enlarge. Perhaps she wasn't there long at all and the blanket protected the pants from getting dirty?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/0...ooking-for-help-in-identifying-toddler-whose/

I just don't understand how many times this needs to be posted, The National Center For Missing and Exploited Children prepared the images As digitally reconstructed photos of what was found with the child.

Here is a quote from the poster file;

<snipped>
"Digitally reconstructed images of the leggings and blanket are depicted above. The additional image is a facial reconstruction completed by a NCMEC Forensic Artist and depicts what the child may have looked like in life.
http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMU/1250459/1/screen

Also;
<snipped>
"WBZ spoke exclusively with the woman who created the image for a closer look at the crucial clue.
“We try to bring these children back to life as it were through an image,” says Christi Andrews, a forensic artist at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia.
http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMU/1250459/1/screen

Jumping in at the end without reading the thread just derails any discussion IMO.

Still we are looking for stains! SMH


MOO

 

[T4Tide]

Okay, fine. But if you're Law Enforcement trying to identify a little girl, is it honestly helpful to show the girl's underwear to the public??

The underwear (or lack of underwear) will likely play a role in investigating the death. But is it needed to IDENTIFY the child? That's what LE is doing now with the release of the photos....they want to know who this is. The photo rendering, the clothing, and location all should help identify the child. I can't see how knowing what the underwear looks like will provide a name for this girl.

But, yes, details like underwear are significant in a crime investigation. Not so much when asking people, "Do you recognize this girl?"

I'm sorry for the confusion. I wasn't saying that we (the public) need a picture of underwear to help identify this baby. I was simply stating my thoughts on how I thought the presence or lack of them was significant. The exclusion of them, IMO, is a clue. Not the exclusion of a picture of them, if that makes more sense.

Lots of people on this thread may not have young daughters, and I was simply giving a glimpse of what I thought was "normal."

 

[mrsu]

I just don't understand how many times this needs to be posted, The National Center For Missing and Exploited Children prepared the images As digitally reconstructed photos of what was found with the child.

Here is a quote from the poster file;

<snipped>
"Digitally reconstructed images of the leggings and blanket are depicted above. The additional image is a facial reconstruction completed by a NCMEC Forensic Artist and depicts what the child may have looked like in life.
http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMU/1250459/1/screen

Also;
<snipped>
"WBZ spoke exclusively with the woman who created the image for a closer look at the crucial clue.
&#8220;We try to bring these children back to life as it were through an image,&#8221; says Christi Andrews, a forensic artist at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia.
http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMU/1250459/1/screen

Jumping in at the end without reading the thread just derails any discussion IMO.

Still we are looking for stains! SMH


MOO

I am not looking for stains. I apologize if this is a touchy subject. It's important to keep in mind that people are only looking for clues and want to help. In looking at the very large up close images posted on the Suffolk County District attorney's office website (where it is not noted that they are computer generated), I can agree that the leggings were computer generated or perhaps cleaned up for the photos that were released. I can see pixelation and areas of differentiating color. I think it's important to note the blanket photo file is very large in comparison where textures, fuzz, HAIR!, and soiled areas are clearly visible in great detail. Not to mention shadowed areas along the edge of blanket that appear to be from the camera flash. I think we can make our own deductions as to why the leggings might have been computer generated and not the blanket. I am not trying to argue the point, just pointing out my observations. I have worked with photographs and lighting for 13 years in my day job.

Link below and click to enlarge the images.

http://www.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/sketch-photos-released-in-deer-island-toddler-mystery/

 

[T4Tide]

Also, I understand not wanting threads derailed, but some posters do not have the time or ability to read every thread from start to finish and memorize every detail. Some of us lead very busy lives, but still check in on cases of interest to us. If you don't find those posts helpful, or tire of people commenting/debating/asking the same things, I suggest you just skip over their posts and read/comment on the ones that are of your interest. It's awfully rude to belittle posters who merely think their opinion or comment might help. Otherwise, we'd need to just make a list of people "verified" or worthy enough to post on each case.