Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Weird Wednesday- Baby John's Mummy Disappears


In 2006 the police seized a mummified baby from the home of Charles Peavey in Concord, New Hampshire. The body, known as Baby John, was supposed to be a still born relative from 100 years ago, and it had never been buried. It is possibly the illegitimate son of a great-great uncle. The police were called in when a four year old niece had told her preschool that her uncle had a dead baby in a dresser drawer. No evidence of foul play was found, but the Peavey family grieved to lose what they called a “family heirloom.”

The seizure made big news at the time, and Peavey went to court to retain custody of the body. He could not afford the DNA test to prove that the child had been a relative. In the end a judge ordered the remains to be buried in an unmarked grave at a The Blossom Hill Cemetery in Concord in 2008.

On May 3, 2010 it was discovered that Baby John had been stolen from his grave. The little casket was left behind. Police searched Peavey’s home and car, but he has not been named as a suspect or charged with a crime. In New Hampshire it is a class B felony to disturb a burial site, and it is also a felony to be found guilty of “abuse of a corpse.” Anyone with information is urged to call the Concord Regional Crimeline at 603-226-3100 or to submit information to the website www.concordregionalcrimeline.com All tips will remain anonymous.

Just as a genealogical aside, the Peavey family seems to be quite numerous in New Hampshire. According to Charles Thornton Libby’s “Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire”, page 590, the first known Peavey was Thomas Peavey who married Martha Eaton on 8 December 1687. The name is sometimes spelled “Peve” in early records.

----------------

Copyright 2010, Heather Wilkinson Rojo

5 comments:

  1. “‘Tis strange – but true; for truth is always strange;
    Stranger than fiction” (Lord Byron). And I agree!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a weird story...kinda gives me the creeps! Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm never going to think of the term "family heirloom" in the same way again....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh yes, I just heard about it in the news. Interesting and strange.

    ReplyDelete