- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 11,833
- Reaction score
- 1,310
I think it's likely that Megan Huntsman was such a strung out mess that infanticide was her regular birth control method and it's that simple. Hard as it is for sane people to fathom it.
It could be boxing them up and storing them in the garage was just quick and easy and she thought it less likely that someone would find them in her garage vs. disposed of off of her property somewhere. If she was too scattered to plan birth control, maybe also too scattered to plan better body disposals? And, after all, it did work for almost two decades, if the timeline she's given is true.
I've heard that with murders where they find children's bodies, a clue that the mother was the murderer is the child's body being wrapped in a blanket, maybe having a toy with it, that kind of thing that shows some feeling for it. I didn't hear anything on that. Not that it matters, I guess, but just wondering if it would shed any light on her thought processes at the time.
If the timeline she gave was true, her youngest daughter would have been born in the midst of the murders. I wonder why she let that one live?
Or, who knows, maybe the murdered ones were all boys and she specifically didn't like boys for some reason.
Or her timeline is a lie and her daughters gave birth and the murders were to cover up child prostitution for drugs, or incest. Which wouldn't be that hard to believe, compared to murder.
It could be boxing them up and storing them in the garage was just quick and easy and she thought it less likely that someone would find them in her garage vs. disposed of off of her property somewhere. If she was too scattered to plan birth control, maybe also too scattered to plan better body disposals? And, after all, it did work for almost two decades, if the timeline she's given is true.
I've heard that with murders where they find children's bodies, a clue that the mother was the murderer is the child's body being wrapped in a blanket, maybe having a toy with it, that kind of thing that shows some feeling for it. I didn't hear anything on that. Not that it matters, I guess, but just wondering if it would shed any light on her thought processes at the time.
If the timeline she gave was true, her youngest daughter would have been born in the midst of the murders. I wonder why she let that one live?
Or, who knows, maybe the murdered ones were all boys and she specifically didn't like boys for some reason.
Or her timeline is a lie and her daughters gave birth and the murders were to cover up child prostitution for drugs, or incest. Which wouldn't be that hard to believe, compared to murder.
Last edited: