Traces of phosphorus on bones does not mean that the whole body was dissolved by criminals.įor example it possible that the phosphorus could have ended up on the bones after being dumped in the area by a farmer and the remains came in contact with it. Sometimes it's "traces of phosphorus" and other times it's "the bones were bleached" which are not both necessarily the same thing. There also seems to be some inconsistency regarding the bones. When reading an article like this (or any article) you should always be trying to disagree with the author's logic, playing devil's advocate, to see if they jumped to any conclusions too early. Instead, the fleshy tissue was dehydrated and fell off, while the bones were preserved. The assailant had hoped that it would quickly dissolve the remains. Then a few lines later blatantly stating that foul play was a 100% certainty:Ī novice criminal, possibly someone young, sprinkled lime on the remains and buried the remains in a hole, which also had phosphate fertilizer remnants in the soil. Therefore if she died from an accident and her remains were found in or near the river, we can assume that her remains must have been “swept” into the river at some point from increasing water levels. This article is a bit messed up in my opinion, it's titled as "bleached bones" but a lot of the article is about conditions in the forest, rainfall, animals, etc, and the author often jumps between saying other natural causes of death are possible, such as : There is no reason for two experienced travelers to disappear simultaneously near frequently used walking paths. In the case of two girls going missing at the same time under these conditions – it’s almost 100% certain that criminal activity was involved. And the author, who is normally quite unbiased, says things in this article like: I think there are a lot of leaps in logic in this article, especially in regards to traces of phosphorus leading to the conclusion that foul play was a certainty.
0 kommentar(er)
