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?
Link to the article: Two more mystery feet identified
ReplyDeleteDo 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. ?
Daurade
Nat. Geo Documentary . .
ReplyDeleteCool find SD....will try to watch this!
ReplyDelete@ comments 1 & 2: You being impersonated, Daurade?
ReplyDeleteAs 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?
@ SD: Nice. I only seem to see a 2 minute sample video on the site? Am I doing it wrong?
ReplyDelete@ 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:
ReplyDelete1. 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?
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....
ReplyDeleteI 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. ;)
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.
ReplyDelete