Toddler's Mother/Peaches/Jane Doe #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
watergirl62 said:
Toddler: Found in 2010, but dead and buried 13 years. Ish.

Peaches is reported to be light-skinned AA.
Click to expand...
Estimated post mortum is 1 year according to Namus
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0587.jpg
    IMG_0587.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 296
Maybe the toddler was frozen immediately after being killed, and her body only placed on the Parkway a year before its discovery.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Well thank you but it still doesn't make sense.
If the toddler is peaches child and the toddler died 1 year before she/he was found that would make it 2010. I had also read the toddler had been deceased for 5-6 days.
Not trying to be funny but there is no way a woman deceased in 1997 could give birth to a 3 year old in say 2007 or 2008.
something is not right in dodge.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing this out. It has me really confused..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BigCityAccountant said:
It was reported that the toddler was between 16-36 months and someone posted on here that namus showed the child was deceased less than a year. I'm just using the high end of the range.
Click to expand...
Evidently LE did not want us to have all the information. I had a feeling Peaches was the toddlers mother and figured they passed on wrong info for their own reasons.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Didn't rhe tattoo artist say she said she was from NY?
Click to expand...

Well I meant she may have originally lived in Georgia probably Atlanta area maybe birthplace....and later moved to NYC. Just a thought. Some are questioning his credibility. I am not leaning one way of another in regards to him right now. I hope he is telling the truth.
I wonder if he does often do tatt's for John's in the area on their girls.
MOO
 
Aleph said:
Maybe the toddler was frozen immediately after being killed, and her body only placed on the Parkway a year before its discovery.
Click to expand...
I've thought too that maybe he kept them frozen as a trophy.
He may have later dumped he remains due to the killer possibly having a girlfriend so the trophies had to go. Hence the difference in the decomp of the bodies. Just a possibility and my own opinion. It wouldn't be the first time a SK has kept bodies in the freezer.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Well thank you but it still doesn't make sense.
If the toddler is peaches child and the toddler died 1 year before she/he was found that would make it 2010. I had also read the toddler had been deceased for 5-6 days.
Not trying to be funny but there is no way a woman deceased in 1997 could give birth to a 3 year old in say 2007 or 2008.
something is not right in dodge.
Click to expand...

I know you not trying to be funny, but it made me chuckle.

BigCityAccountant said:
Estimated post mortum is 1 year according to Namus
attachment.php
Click to expand...
There could be many reasons why information could be wrong.

a) Autopsy reports, or estimates coming from them, of skeletal remains are often wrong (e.g - age, weight, height and even post mortem intervals). Younger the person more accurate age estimate gets due to different stages of bone fusions in our body. Last bone completing their growth, fusion, is collar bone, at around the age of 20.

b) body of toddler could have been frozen as suggested by some, but autopsy should show that
c) what I am finding out in Burke thread, lots of information of cases in Suffolk county were skewed on purpose...

d) Most logical explanation to me - What I read from members here on WS entering information into NamUs is highly complicated and confusing task. There are unfortunately too many errors there, typos, wrong information quite often not done on purpose.

I see that toddler Namus case https://identifyus.org/en/cases/9704 was updated on 8th December (and Peaches on 13th December). There is big possibility that just new information were added (that peaches and toddler are linked by DNA) and nothing else was changed or deleted/updated.

I have read somewhere that this update in NamUs of their cases was done by Medical Examiner, not LE. ME had results of their DNA since summer 2015, but only because of some kind of law deadline they had to input this new information into system now. It is now law in NY for LE and ME to input information and updates of UIDs(unidentified) into NamUs!

On that note and due to this law, I hope Cherry Doe will make it into NamUs very soon too.
 
In the earliest reports of Jane Doe # 3 being a dna match for the toddler, it was simply stated that Jane was somehow related to the toddler. I often wondered how that turned into a declaration that Jane Doe # 3 was the mother of this child. If there was sufficient, non-degraded dna in both of these remains to determine that one was the mother of the other, why did LE simply say they were somehow related?

I'm wondering if bad reporting might be what is leading to all this confusion.

We know that Peaches had a scar from a cesarian section sometime prior to 1997. That would have been at least 14 years prior to the toddler's remains having been found. What happened to that child? If the initial reports that Jane Doe # 3 was simply biologically related to the toddler is the correct version, perhaps the toddler was a grandchild. Or a niece.

I would think that the best way to try to clear this confusion up is to go back and track down the initial reports.

JMO

ETA: sorry for the less than clear writing here. First sip of coffee.
 
I'm so confused, so Baby Doe was killed in '97 along with peaches? Whats all this about Baby Doe supposedly only being killed a few years prior to discovery of her remains? (BTW, was Baby Doe determined a girl?)

Sorry Sleuther's! I am having a slow day so excuse my confusion!
 
One more way too early morning post...just to be a thorn in everyone's side.

Cullen (the tattoo artist) has changed his story several times now. Initially, the client came into the shop with an aunt and a cousin, and was from Long Island. Now the story has changed into the client coming into the shop with a young friend, and being from Bristol, CT. Those are some pretty stark differences. Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable under the best of circumstance. This is an eye witness account that is 20 years old, and has changed over time.

Boatload of salt and all that. ;)
 
Mountain_Kat said:
In the earliest reports of Jane Doe # 3 being a dna match for the toddler, it was simply stated that Jane was somehow related to the toddler. I often wondered how that turned into a declaration that Jane Doe # 3 was the mother of this child. If there was sufficient, non-degraded dna in both of these remains to determine that one was the mother of the other, why did LE simply say they were somehow related?

I'm wondering if bad reporting might be what is leading to all this confusion.

We know that Peaches had a scar from a cesarian section sometime prior to 1997. That would have been at least 14 years prior to the toddler's remains having been found. What happened to that child? If the initial reports that Jane Doe # 3 was simply biologically related to the toddler is the correct version, perhaps the toddler was a grandchild. Or a niece.

I would think that the best way to try to clear this confusion up is to go back and track down the initial reports.

JMO

ETA: sorry for the less than clear writing here. First sip of coffee.
Click to expand...

There is a great amount of DNA that can be taken from bone marrow. This is the best bet LE or the FBI has. Testing the DNA from the bone marrow of both the toddler and Peaches can make it clear if Peaches is indeed the mother. I'm pretty sure that was already done, and have read, and do understand, that Peaches is in fact the toddler's mother.

I also believe scientists can now determine which DNA belongs to the mother and which belongs to the father.

On another note, because we have a Rubbermaid tub, black plastic bag it was wrapped in, a pillow case, and a maroon towel (Was the toddler wrapped in a blanket as well?), I want to know if anyone is using "Touch DNA" to gather more evidence?
 
kpetrova_x said:
I'm so confused, so Baby Doe was killed in '97 along with peaches? Whats all this about Baby Doe supposedly only being killed a few years prior to discovery of her remains? (BTW, was Baby Doe determined a girl?)

Sorry Sleuther's! I am having a slow day so excuse my confusion!
Click to expand...
This was LE effort to throw everyone off. ME did say there was something about the toddlers mom LE did not want out there. Evidently is was Peaches and the mom was one in the same.
 
I see. I missed the Namus info. Interesting.


1. There were many sets of remains found in a relatively brief period. This in and of itself could introduce errors in the record.

2.There was pervasive obfuscation of unformation <-- (typo but it stays) by authorities.

3.Namus data are difficult to maintain accurately.

4.The DNA match indicates Peaches and toddler are related.

5. Remains could have been preserved, or not.

:thinking:

I am left wondering if Peaches has, had a sister? Another victim?


The mind reels.
 
deedee21 said:
This was LE effort to throw everyone off. ME did say there was something about the toddlers mom LE did not want out there. Evidently is was Peaches and the mom was one in the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks deedee.

Why would LE not want people to know Peaches and Jane were one and the same?
 
deedee21 said:
Evidently LE did not want us to have all the information. I had a feeling Peaches was the toddlers mother and figured they passed on wrong info for their own reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, if the toddler (may she RIP) was frozen before being discarded on the parkway, that's something they might want to hide. It's one thing to dismember people and fling their body parts around, it's another to dismember and save the body parts for when you really want to make a point. It would lend credence to Peter Brenda's theory that this is two killers having a conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 936 (members: 141, guests: 795)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
795
Total visitors
936
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,487
Messages
18,048,616
Members
230,014
Latest member
solaria
Back
Top