UID Victim: The Female Toddler, UP9704, found Gilgo Beach Apr 2011

[wcasewatch]

Men like RH (Lisk) seem to be suitable for someone, who one day in his past had a certain interest for a SW with a female toddler in tow. Think of his Google searches!
What, if his wife cared for the toddler, after toddler's mum disappeared? Until the toddler disappeared also.
Thoughts only and speculation!

I don't buy the theory that his wife was involved. He struck when she was out of town and he continued to use burner phones to meet sex workers. That suggests she had caught him cheating before and was keeping a close eye on his real phone.

 

[Red Clover]

I don't buy the theory that his wife was involved. He struck when she was out of town and he continued to use burner phones to meet sex workers. That suggests she had caught him cheating before and was keeping a close eye on his real phone.

IIRC RH has had SW to the house when his wife was present per at least one witness.

 

[wcasewatch]

IIRC RH has had SW to the house when his wife was present per at least one witness.

I'm not too confident in these recent statements from John Ray's supposed witnesses.

Even if it's true, and she was (at one time) OK with him patronizing sex workers, that situation may have changed, or she may not have been OK with the frequency that he was seeing them. The fact that he was using burner phones tells me she wasn't as supportive as some are suggesting. These were common tools for johns who wanted to hide their "hobby" from their significant others. They even advised each other on various forum websites on how to use them. The reason they became popular during the Craigslist era is that many sex workers would advertise their services by sending a text message to all of their recent contacts—not a message you wanted to receive if you were sitting beside your partner. Some had been caught cheating with sex workers and had significant others who would check their phones and/or phone bills.

 

[snooptroop88]

Just noting, I've got no guess as to how much (if anything) the wife knew at this point. It made an impression when she was trying to have the guns sold. I understand financial strife is debilitating, but those were weapons tied to someone just accused of murdering three (now four) young women, with a likelihood of (perhaps many) more victims. It made an impression when she signed on for this Peacock deal. It made an impression when people came forward with affidavits about the swinging. But as of now, nobody knows, and until it's proven she did know, in my mind, she didn't.

But RH is a different situation, and I'm taking it as a conclusion for the sake of hypothesizing that RH killed Peaches and her daughter. Why did he put them at opposite ends of his "graveyard"? Supposing for the moment there was no logistical/pragmatic advantage to this, what was his motivation? I heard someone at one point speculating about the cruelty of it, separating the child from her mother even in death. The mother and baby had matching jewelry, it seems to magnify his vileness by doing this, separating them. Is he doing this to draw a line between an actual graveyard where such bonds would be respected and what he considers to be nothing more than a dumping ground? Like is this his way of putting an exclamation mark after the idea of "dumping ground"??

I can't see how he'd benefit logistically/pragmatically. Maybe he might reason that if the remains of the mother were discovered, he could easily move the child's remains. But even after they recovered the first set of Peaches' remains, he evidently didn't move the child.

 

[kdsmith21]

Just noting, I've got no guess as to how much (if anything) the wife knew at this point. It made an impression when she was trying to have the guns sold. I understand financial strife is debilitating, but those were weapons tied to someone just accused of murdering three (now four) young women, with a likelihood of (perhaps many) more victims. It made an impression when she signed on for this Peacock deal. It made an impression when people came forward with affidavits about the swinging. But as of now, nobody knows, and until it's proven she did know, in my mind, she didn't.

But RH is a different situation, and I'm taking it as a conclusion for the sake of hypothesizing that RH killed Peaches and her daughter. Why did he put them at opposite ends of his "graveyard"? Supposing for the moment there was no logistical/pragmatic advantage to this, what was his motivation? I heard someone at one point speculating about the cruelty of it, separating the child from her mother even in death. The mother and baby had matching jewelry, it seems to magnify his vileness by doing this, separating them. Is he doing this to draw a line between an actual graveyard where such bonds would be respected and what he considers to be nothing more than a dumping ground? Like is this his way of putting an exclamation mark after the idea of "dumping ground"??

I can't see how he'd benefit logistically/pragmatically. Maybe he might reason that if the remains of the mother were discovered, he could easily move the child's remains. But even after they recovered the first set of Peaches' remains, he evidently didn't move the child.

I think they were separated in the hopes they would not be connected as mother and daughter and harder to identify. If so, DNA ruined that for him

 

[FromGermany1]

GUILTY - Australia - Khandalyce Pearce (Wynarka) and Karlie Pearce-Stevenson (Belanglo) #11

Earlier reports said Hazel Passmore had a young daughter in the car, who survived the accident and who was about the same age as Khandalyce. There was a photo of her wearing a pink wool-lined jacket that was said to be the same or similar to one of Khandalyce's. I thought that daughter was her...

www.websleuths.com

Murder of mother and daughter by a pedo. Peaches and her toddler make me thinking of this (horror) case, IMO.

 

[wcasewatch]

He was very cautious at first. He separated the remains and dumped them in multiple places to hinder their identification and make things difficult for investigators. If they don't have the hands, then they don't have fingerprints. If they don't have a head, then they can't match the teeth against dental records. If someone found the toddler by chance, then Peaches' arms and legs would still be hidden further up Ocean Parkway. And vice versa. The first known victim, Karen Vergata (1996), was also dumped similarly. Her torso was never found, only her skull and legs, which indicates that he used three dump sites during that murder. Peaches' skull was never found, which means he used a total of four dump sites during her murder (1997). In 2000 (Valerie Mack) and 2003 (Jessica Taylor), he switched to using two dump sites per victim. Most likely because he thought it wasn't worth using 3-4 sites. This was the first sign that he was beginning to grow complacent and possibly overconfident. Then 2007 comes along and he just starts dumping them whole. By that point, 11 years had passed, and none of his victims' identifying remains had been discovered.

 

[iamshadow21]

He was very cautious at first. He separated the remains and dumped them in multiple places to hinder their identification and make things difficult for investigators. If they don't have the hands, then they don't have fingerprints. If they don't have a head, then they can't match the teeth against dental records. If someone found the toddler by chance, then Peaches' arms and legs would still be hidden further up Ocean Parkway. And vice versa. The first known victim, Karen Vergata (1996), was also dumped similarly. Her torso was never found, only her skull and legs, which indicates that he used three dump sites during that murder. Peaches' skull was never found, which means he used a total of four dump sites during her murder (1997). In 2000 (Valerie Mack) and 2003 (Jessica Taylor), he switched to using two dump sites per victim. Most likely because he thought it wasn't worth using 3-4 sites. This was the first sign that he was beginning to grow complacent and possibly overconfident. Then 2007 comes along and he just starts dumping them whole. By that point, 11 years had passed, and none of his victims' identifying remains had been discovered.

By the time he was dumping victims whole, society in general was also well aware of the power of DNA. CSI was into its seventh season. Forensic Files had been running even longer. Why go to the time and effort of dismembering a body (and it is a time consuming effort) if DNA will tell LE how to put the puzzle back together anyway? Might as well just skip it, and hide the bodies a little better (camo burlap), and hope the harsh conditions along the coast will degrade the body enough to make any forensic evidence difficult to recover.

MOO

 

[snooptroop88]

Who thinks the dismemberment pattern may be tied in with his vehicle choices? I have tried to get a year for that original green Avalanche, from what I can see (?), that's probably 2004, but I just can't pinpoint it 100% to a certain year. So just pure speculation, but I'm wondering if there was something "new" about that vehicle (as compared to his prior vehicle) in terms of size, features, what have you, that allowed him to comfortably bypass the dismemberment process entirely. At first, I was mostly concerned with his travel history, and I still am. But this person's vehicular history is going to tell us a lot. Whereas other people, when they purchase a vehicle, they might be thinking of space for the kids, comfort on road trips, mpg, that sort of thing, this guy went in with a whole, whole different type of agenda. And those vehicles reflect it, and I'd love to know what his prior vehicles were like. I see "first generation" Chevy Avalanche with production years 2002-2006. Just basing it off images, I'd say 2004 for his.

 

[wcasewatch]

Who thinks the dismemberment pattern may be tied in with his vehicle choices? I have tried to get a year for that original green Avalanche, from what I can see (?), that's probably 2004, but I just can't pinpoint it 100% to a certain year. So just pure speculation, but I'm wondering if there was something "new" about that vehicle (as compared to his prior vehicle) in terms of size, features, what have you, that allowed him to comfortably bypass the dismemberment process entirely. At first, I was mostly concerned with his travel history, and I still am. But this person's vehicular history is going to tell us a lot. Whereas other people, when they purchase a vehicle, they might be thinking of space for the kids, comfort on road trips, mpg, that sort of thing, this guy went in with a whole, whole different type of agenda. And those vehicles reflect it, and I'd love to know what his prior vehicles were like. I see "first generation" Chevy Avalanche with production years 2002-2006. Just basing it off images, I'd say 2004 for his.

I think he was driving a truck in 2000. The location where he placed Valerie Mack (Manorville) isn't the type of place you'd drive into with a regular car.