Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Feet Identified

We've been following the strange story feet washing ashore on the Salish Sea shore (Pacific Northwest).

By our count:

* 10 have washed ashore since 2007
* 2 fakes have been planted
* 1 early foot was found in 1999
* 2 pairs are officially matched

And now one of the two pairs has been identified as belonging to a missing man from Surrey, England, no further details provided.

This is the third identified ... body, for lack of a better word.

Interestingly, as the incidents have become more numerous, the officially released details have been become more vague. Early on, shoe size, left/right, color, make, and gender were identified. The 2 most recent findings seem to have been reported without a left/right designation; 3 of the 5 most recent reports seemed to have failed to commit to a gender designation.

Why the increasing vagueness even as more concrete details (like matches to actual missing people) are apparently being discovered?


  1. Link to the article: Two more mystery feet identified

    Do you suppose the vagueness is to guard deets which could be used to ensnare a killer? Would it be in the interest of the police to say no foul play was suspected in order to lull a killer into a false sense of ease?

    These questions popped into my head but I think it's unlikely....if a killer were suspected I think the police would want to try and warn people (jogging near waterways?) to take extra precautions. ?


  2. Blogger is often a big fat piece of shit, I've come to learn.


  3. Cool find SD....will try to watch this!

  4. @ comments 1 & 2: You being impersonated, Daurade?

    As for the big fat piece of shit, Anoymous, I've been known to lay down a 14 incher, easily as big as your forearm.

    But why the complaints on this post? Did I say something that's not true?

  5. @ SD: Nice. I only seem to see a 2 minute sample video on the site? Am I doing it wrong?

  6. @ Anoymous#1: I confess that I was misleadingly suggesting that idea, but like you, I sort of doubt it. My very best speculations wonder if there might be multiple co-existing causes:

    1. Perhaps some key details may be left out on purpose just in case there's a killer even though the possibility seems remote? For example, we no longer hear about sock color.

    2. Might some details be lost by a new sense of caution by the mounties? For example, they might they now say a "juvenile or woman's shoe" instead of assuming it's a female foot?

    3. Could some sloppy reporting be fueling my sloppy research? So, for example, when I wonder if a shoe were left or right because I didn't see these facts mentioned, I have to confess that I relied on someone else's reporting, but I didn't track down police reports, did I?

  7. Comments 1 and 2 are really from me, but Blogger was acting up and not letting me post...kept making me log back on to no avail; hence, my comment that Blogger is sometimes a turd! Not a reference to the post at all. And really, a 14-inch turd? Actually, I don't think I want any confirmation on that one....

    I think we'll have to find a downloadable version of the documentary to see the whole thing...the site only provides a trailer or teaser I think. Attn: I'm talking legal downloads, obviously. ;)

  8. Good questions Gid. I suspect it's #3. Then again, this latest article is just about the identification of the feet, not that they've just washed up. I suspect the details lacking in this report were present in the report when they were found.


Thanks for taking the time to comment!

Need to add an image? Use this code: [ximg]IMAGE-URL-HERE[x/img]. You will need to remove the the boldface x's from the code to make it work.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.