• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
Woman in suitcase likely died of natural causes: ME

This is Brooke MacBeth.
1zntv5x.jpg

She was 28 years old when she died. Or maybe 27. We don't know the exact age because she was found stuffed into a suitcase in her mother's closet, six to twelve months after her death, and it was no longer possible to determine exactly when she had died.

Brooke had cerebral palsy and an intellectual disability which has been described as giving her the "cognitive ability of a two-year-old". She used a wheelchair and she depended on her mother for the basic necessities of daily life.

When she last saw a doctor, she weighed 80 pounds. At her death, coroners estimate she weighed only 40. She had marijuana, oxycodone, and amphetamines in her system.

Because her mother left her body to rot in the closet, any evidence of the exact cause of her death was gone by the time she was found. The only thing the coroner was able to tell was that she hadn't died violently.

Brooke's death was judged "natural" by default, since the police could not actually prove that she had died by starvation or neglect and had found no evidence of trauma. They could accuse her mother only of hiding her body.

Brooke's mother, Bonnie MacBeth, is not being prosecuted.
 
Brooke's mother, Bonnie MacBeth, is not being prosecuted.
Umm...WTF? Like, isn't that abuse of a corpse or something, at minimum?

How does your child die and you DON'T want her to have a proper funeral and burial?

I'm sure caring for a disabled person can take its toll after years...but damn.
 
That was my reaction, too. When a body is found hidden, weighing much less than it should, with drugs detectable in their system even though their intellectual disability means they're incapable of deciding to take said drugs themselves, I suspect foul play. Not so much worried about the marijuana, and the oxycodone could've been prescribed, but... meth?
 
If it wasn't foul play which I highly doubt.....the only other reason to hide a disabled persons corpse would be to continue receiving her disability check so isn't that a crime?
 
If it wasn't foul play which I highly doubt.....the only other reason to hide a disabled persons corpse would be to continue receiving her disability check so isn't that a crime?
Yes, of course it is. I don't know whether Brooke was receiving disability checks, though.
 
If it wasn't foul play which I highly doubt.....the only other reason to hide a disabled persons corpse would be to continue receiving her disability check so isn't that a crime?


Exactly what I was thinking. Mom is getting disability payments perhaps, or at the least some type of tax advantages for having an adult disabled dependent.
 
I think it varies from state to state, but in Oklahoma, we had something similar (a guy hid the death of his elderly mother and kept her in a big ass freezer) and was charged with "unlawful disposal of human remains"
 
I think it varies from state to state, but in Oklahoma, we had something similar (a guy hid the death of his elderly mother and kept her in a big ass freezer) and was charged with "unlawful disposal of human remains"

I don't understand how they made that stick. How can it be unlawful disposal when he didn't dispose of her at all? :shrug:
 
"Unlawful disposal" includes pretty much anything you might do to a body, including keeping it in a freezer, or just not doing anything at all. Not reporting a death when you're capable of doing so and it's your responsibility to do so is something you can be charged for, though in most cases where the only crime is not reporting a death, I'm pretty sure the punishment would be something like a fine. When I see people charged for it, it's usually added on to other charges, like killing the person in the first place or neglecting to get them medical care or watching them OD without calling an ambulance.

Another charge I've seen is "abuse of a corpse", which includes things like burning or dismembering a body. Point being, it's illegal not to treat the dead with a reasonable amount of respect, and stuffing somebody in a freezer instead of calling a funeral home is pretty disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
How do those things figure into a death from "natural" causes?

Seems like if anything it would have been rules "undetermined".
I'm as baffled as you are, honestly. I don't think it was natural, either, and if it were up to me, I'd put an "Undetermined" on it, too.

There's not enough evidence to tell whether this was a homicide, because the evidence disappeared over time, because Brooke's body was hidden away for so long.

I can think of a few scenarios where this wasn't homicide--Brooke's jaw problems cause pain, thus the oxycodone and the emaciation; Mom decides to medicate her with marijuana as well, which makes sense because she has seizures and there's some evidence of benefit there. Brooke dies, maybe from a massive seizure, maybe from pneumonia; Mom thinks she did something to cause it, feels guilty, and hides her away; or, she knows Brooke will test positive for drugs, and wants to hide it.

But a more likely scenario is this:
Brooke has jaw problems; she complains about this, because it fricking hurts. Mom gets tired of her complaining, and doses her up with a bunch of random meds to kepe her quiet. Brooke is already thin, and doesn't get very good care; it's hard for her to chew things, and Mom doesn't really have the patience to feed her. When she complains about being hungry and dirty and uncomfortable, Mom drugs her up again to keep her quiet, because drugs solve everything. And over time, Brooke gets weaker, and her immune system can't fight a minor infection; eventually, the combination of poor care, malnutrition, drug exposure, seizures, and general ill health does her in. When she dies, Mom panics because she knows she hasn't been treating Brooke very well and, unlike a mother in denial who might just keep her child in her bed or wheelchair, she knows Brooke is dead but doesn't know what to do because she knows she might be charged for abusing or neglecting her. Eventually, she just wraps Brooke's body in a whole lot of plastic bags, and then puts the whole bundle in a suitcase, and piles old clothes on top of it, and wishes the problem would just go away. Years later, facing eviction and in the middle of a drinking binge, she tells the cops who've come to her door that she has something to show them, and leads them to the body.
 
Amphetamines (pharmaceutical speed) are legally prescribed all the time. If she had ADHD as part of her diagnoses, for example, the "amphetamine" could have been Ritalin, Adderall, etc. It didn't say methamphetamines. The oxy is also legally prescribed all the time for pain control, and the marijuana, who knows? Maybe mom was getting it for to her to help ease her involuntary muscle movements, her symptoms, her pain, suffering, etc. I personally don't see anything out of the ordinary with her tox screen given her diagnoses.
 
I personally don't see anything out of the ordinary with her tox screen given her diagnoses.
It's not just her tox-screen but the totality of the circumstances. Had she simply passed and those substances were found I could see the explanation of medically necessary but not only did she die but she was also stuffed in a suitcase for 6 to 12 months in the closet and had lost somewhere around 40 pounds before her death. Putting all those things together is what raises the questions for me not just the tox results.
 
@Krystal - Yup. I singled out the tox screen b/c by itself it's not necessarily medically suspicious and b/c meth was mentioned. It's the totality, as you so aptly said, that makes it smell like something's very rotten in Denmark with this mom.
 
Amphetamines (pharmaceutical speed) are legally prescribed all the time. If she had ADHD as part of her diagnoses, for example, the "amphetamine" could have been Ritalin, Adderall, etc. It didn't say methamphetamines. The oxy is also legally prescribed all the time for pain control, and the marijuana, who knows? Maybe mom was getting it for to her to help ease her involuntary muscle movements, her symptoms, her pain, suffering, etc. I personally don't see anything out of the ordinary with her tox screen given her diagnoses.
Yes, I see what you're saying, too; it's the whole picture that looks wrong to me.

I take Concerta for ADHD myself; it's extended-release methylphenidate, and it's a controlled substance because, if you were to take a whole bunch of it at once, you could technically get high. Being prescribed a controlled substance is interesting, because there are checks and balances. For every prescription, I get 30 days' worth of medication, with no refills allowed. A doctor has to directly prescribe each refill, and that means I have to go to a doctor's office and see someone who is able to prescribe controlled substances every 30 days. Both oxycodone and amphetamines are controlled substances, and both of them would be under the same restrictions. If she was taking them legally, she would have had to have seen a doctor less than 30 days before her death. Did she? If she did, why did that doctor not see she was dying? And if not, where did her mother get those meds?

That, combined with...
Mom hiding the body for months to over a year.
Her very low body weight.
Her mother's likely abuse of alcohol; one reported drinking binge--how many more?
Her inability to communicate meaning she could not ask for help.
...makes me extremely suspicious.
 
Yes, I see what you're saying, too; it's the whole picture that looks wrong to me.

I take Concerta for ADHD myself; it's extended-release methylphenidate, and it's a controlled substance because, if you were to take a whole bunch of it at once, you could technically get high. Being prescribed a controlled substance is interesting, because there are checks and balances. For every prescription, I get 30 days' worth of medication, with no refills allowed. A doctor has to directly prescribe each refill, and that means I have to go to a doctor's office and see someone who is able to prescribe controlled substances every 30 days. Both oxycodone and amphetamines are controlled substances, and both of them would be under the same restrictions. If she was taking them legally, she would have had to have seen a doctor less than 30 days before her death. Did she? If she did, why did that doctor not see she was dying? And if not, where did her mother get those meds?

That, combined with...
Mom hiding the body for months to over a year.
Her very low body weight.
Her mother's likely abuse of alcohol; one reported drinking binge--how many more?
Her inability to communicate meaning she could not ask for help.
...makes me extremely suspicious.

Exactly. Assuming she had a legit doc who wasn't on the take (or getting it from a dealer), she would've had to have been seen by FDA & DEA regs.

When they changed the regs on controlled subs (Sched. II & III) several years ago (I think it was 2011-ish), any patient on them was mandated to see their doc/prescriber for an office visit at least every three months. And last November, when hydrocodone was changed to a Sched. II, it just got even more complicated.

Though my doc and his group are on the three month schedule to help save patients time and copays (they write Rx's for indiv. 3 mos. in consecutive order for the next two upcoming months which used to be illegal before the regs changed and allowed them to post-date them), a lot of docs I know now require their narcotic/cont. sub. patients to have an office visit every month for a "Med Check," the point being the doc has to reeval. the patient's need for the drug. The Sched. II's have always been Rx's that have to be picked up in person and can't be called in, but now, the DEA has so many good docs scared of Rx audits they feel they have no choice but to require a full visit in order to write monthly Rxs instead of patients just being able to go to their offices and pick them up. A few months ago, my doc was happy to report the Feds and his insurance provider changed their protocol to every 6 mos., but three mos. later, he said they changed it back b/c the recreational users and street dealer probs (pharmacy break-ins, lawsuits from ODs, stealing Rx pads, people posing as docs, etc.) had gotten worse according to the stats his carrier provided.

So, as I mentioned, the tox profile itself wouldn't be seen as necessarily suspicious, *but* given the drug laws, you're right on in that there's really no doc in their right mind who could've looked at her even within a three month period and not questioned why she was so emaciated and nutritionally defunct. Again, I hope someone cares enough to keep up an investigation to get to the truth. It's sad enough her quality of life was so impaired, but to think her own mother was more concerned with how her death was going to affect her instead of treating her daughter's life with respect is just heart-breaking.
 
Last edited:
It depends on several factors. If someone is disabled AND their family can't care for them fully, then they get disability checks; but if they're disabled and their "expected family support" (something along those lines) is high enough, they won't actually get any money, because their family can support them. This is different for people who've worked--Brooke would have been eligible for SSI because she was born disabled; someone who's worked would pay into SSDI and if they became disabled later in life be able to receive support from that. SSDI is easier to get, especially if you've worked for ten or more years. The 50-year-old guy who lost his arm in the farm equipment last year is probably on SSDI; the 25-year-old with Down syndrome is probably on SSI. (Or possibly working. Some DS people can support themselves.)

Full disclosure--I'm on SSI; I was born with my disability. I'm autistic with ADHD, dyspraxia, and recurrent depression since age 9, but if you want to be less technical about it, I have a weird brain. It took me only 6 months to be approved for SSI, but most people take about 18 months. BTW, this doesn't apply in Brooke's case, because she'd have been able only to do supported employment, but if you are on SSI like me, don't give up on working, go to your vocational rehab office and see if they can help you. I am four classes short of a college degree and I will be working as a lab assistant when I graduate. I still have an aide visiting every week and accommodations at school but that's about it. I am so pumped to get working finally, doing a job I can actually do! And yeah, my own experience with disability is why I do disability advocacy volunteer work. I know how lucky I am to be able to communicate clearly and stand up for myself. Not everybody with a disability can do that. Like Brooke here, who deserved better.

Anyways. If Brooke was on SSI, she probably would've gotten about $600 per month assuming her mom was low-income enough not to be expected to support her. That's barely enough to keep a person alive (trust me, I know), but it's enough to tempt a predatory person who sees only the money and not the fellow human being. Brooke's case fits this pattern I keep seeing over and over when I monitor the news: A disabled person stays with a relative; they're never seen; their health deteriorates; and then one day they're dead and it's discovered that their "caregiver" has been spending their disability check on themselves, leaving their disabled victim to die. Cerebral palsy is an especially common disability for people this happens to, because CP can impair people's mobility and communication to the point that they cannot escape their abuser or call for help, and can be associated with intellectual disability that keeps them from out-thinking their abuser even if they haven't been so beaten down that they don't know escape is possible.

So, yeah, I guess I have some personal feelings about this one. My mom isn't the nicest person, and she loves money entirely too much; I can't help but think, what if I'd been more autistic or had an intellectual disability too; might it be me in the paper one day? It's just luck that it's not, y'know?
 
SSI, but most people take about 18 months.
This is actually possibly a low-ball estimate.

I did Social Security for 10 years. I know that as a recipient you are aware of the procedure but I'm going to expand on your answer for those who haven't had any experience with it.

First is the initial application which is sent through the District Department of Determinations, with the appropriate fact-finding attempted. Unless one knows what to do or has a rock-solid case, generally one gets an initial determination of able to work.

From there a request is filed for a hearing in front of an ALJ, which wait times vary wildly. According to the official Social Security site California has wait times in the 14 to 17 month range. In saying that when I was regularly doing SS cases, I worked out of the Syracuse (NY) DO with a 16 month wait time, to Buffalo with 36 months, Wilkes-Barre, PA with 18-20 months, but the worst was always Tampa, Florida with a 4 YEAR wait time from request to hearing.

The ALJ has a limited time to decide, most reps have a decision within a month but I've seen them take 2.

Another denial gets you an appeal to the Appeals Council or a new application. The Appeals Council can also turn you down leading to another application.

Upon a new application the whole time-clock starts again and nothing is sped up because you've done it once or twice or three times before.

Thanks, @chaoticidealism for letting me expand on your answer.
 
I
If she kept losing weight mom may have resorted to unusual methods to try and get her to eat more.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It's possible that when she lost her appetite the mom gave her marijuana hoping to stimulate her appetite.
 
Yeah, the pot really didn't bug me all that much. It's a low-toxicity drug and besides, it's detectable in the body weeks to months after exposure. Giving a loved one marijuana as a medication isn't abusive, just illegal (and occasionally ill-advised). It's the whole picture that's problematic--the amphetamines, the heavy duty painkillers, the hidden body, the binge-drinking mom. Makes me wish I knew whether those disability checks got cashed after Brooke died.

Giving someone marijuana when they lose their appetite and start losing dangerous amounts of weight--okay. Not taking them to the doctor and asking for help--suspicious.

Many people in Brooke's situation can solve their problem with a feeding tube for supplemental nutrition. They eat what they can normally, and make up the rest by tube, so they never have to worry about not being able to get enough calories. There would have been some rather simple solutions to her problem. If Mom decided to dose her up with pot instead of seeing a doctor, even while she was dying, then that is either terminally stupid or reprehensibly neglectful.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top