.
Feedback

Police Release Sketches, Jewelry in Quest to ID Gilgo Victims

Homicide investigation into the deaths of eight women, a child and one male is making progress, police say.

Suffolk Police Tuesday released facial sketches and jewelry items related to three of five unidentified bodies discovered last spring in the ongoing Gilgo Beach killer .

The black-and-white-renderings are of a young Asian male, between the ages of 17 and 23, and a woman, between 18 and 35 years old, whose remains were found in April. Photos of gold jewelry belonging to the unknown female, called Jane Doe #6, and to a toddler victim were also on display during the press conference.

“We are hoping that by releasing the sketches and information that someone will recognize these victims or the jewelry and who they belonged to,” Suffolk Police Commissioner Richard Dormer said.

Police say the 5-foot-6 Asian male was found dressed in women’s clothes, had poor dental hygiene and was missing his bottom molars.

The 5-foot-2 woman, depicted as having shoulder length straight hair, had a tattoo on her right ankle.

The jewelry items are an adult gold necklace and bracelet and a girl’s gold bracelet and pierced hoop earrings.

Police also revealed today that DNA test results have linked the toddler, who was between 16 and 32 months old, to female remains found near Jones Beach in Nassau, seven miles from where the toddler was found in Gilgo Beach. Police can’t confirm whether the adult female found with the child is the child’s mother.

“What we hope is we that we will get a break and an ID will help us further on these cases,” Dormer said.

Suffolk, Nassau and New York State Park Police have been involved in a homicide task force formed shortly after the first of four female remains were discovered in Gilgo Beach area at the start of the year. Police were searching at the time for Shannan Gilbert, who went missing in Oak Beach in May 2010. She has not yet been found, said police, and that investigation continues.

The Gilgo investigation has included beach and aerial searches of Ocean Parkway in both Nassau and Suffolk. Five of the eight female remains have been identified as women who worked as escorts.

Back in May Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota initially stated that two sets of bones found on Ocean Parkway near the Jones Beach water tower in April, were not related to the Gilgo cases, and neither were the remains of two women discovered in Yaphank and Gilgo Beach. One of those women was later identified as Jessica Taylor.

Dormer said the police are investigating all options and have not determined if the victims were killed by one person or various people.

Jane Doe #6 was likely last seen in late summer of 2000 and may have worked as an escort, Dormer said. 

The Asian male could have been killed as early as five years ago or as far back as 10 years ago, Dormer said. 

Suffolk Police ask anyone with information to call Suffolk County Crime Stoppers at 1-800-220 TIPS, or text “SCPD” and a message to CRIMES (274637), or visit tipsubmit.com.

The hotline has received and evaluated 1,200 tips, Dormer said. 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Babylon Village Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Adam Crowley May 15, 2013 at 06:53 pm
As I explained, my post was made on behalf of another village resident. However, I did take theRead More time to read the statute and do have an independent viewpoint on this subject. While I do not feel that all dogs require a muzzle at all times, if you have a dog that you know to be a threat to other dogs or humans, you would have a duty to take measures to eliminate that threat before bring that dog into public. If that measure is a muzzle, then that's what must be done. As my post indicated, I believe strict enforcement would be exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, unnecessary (at least with respect to the muzzle requirement). However, a total lack of enforcement is dangerous and unacceptable. I think a little common sense goes a long way and I have confidence that those charged with enforcing the Village code could do so selectively. I understand that selective enforcement may be a concept that many feel uncomfortable with. However, just because the law requires a muzzle, that is hardly a reason to disregard it in its entirety and allow dogs with vicious propensities to roam around unleashed. I will leave it up to Village lawmakers to remove the muzzle requirement (and suggest that they do so) if that is what it would take to make people comfortable with the leash requirement.
Concerned Citizen May 15, 2013 at 05:37 pm
Did you read the law? unless it be properly muzzled and effectively restrained by a chain or leashRead More I'll bet neither dog was muzzled Do you really want them to enforce this law