‘Child’s Foot’ Found on Queens Lawn Is Not, Actually


Earlier today, both the Daily News and the New York Post reported the gruesome news that what appeared to be a toddler’s foot had been discovered by an unlucky fellow taking out the trash in Queens. “That’s somebody’s baby!” the Post quoted a horrified woman as saying. Fortunately, that was not correct, and, frankly, a little bit sensational. The New York Times quotes the Medical Examiner’s Office: “Our anthropologists examined it,” Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the office, said. “It’s still unclear what it is, but it’s definitely not a human foot.”

Whew! The Post and the Daily News say it belongs to an animal, but remember, they also said it was a baby’s foot at one point. We suspect it could be any of the following:

• A pig foot from someone’s Halloween costume.
• A very chewed chew toy much loved by a dog.
• Some garbage, organic or otherwise.
• Something from the other night that we don’t want to talk about, O.K.?
• An animal’s foot.

Here’s how you decide something looks like a baby foot:

“It looked just like a piece of meat, a skinless piece of meat with bone,” said Lawrence, 49, a ground-floor resident. “I looked closer and decided it looked like a foot.”

Friends, our lesson here is that what may appear a baby foot upon first glance often deserves further investigation before it is announced as such in the papers. Still, this appears to be a win-win! The Daily News says, “Neighbors were unnerved by the discovery and the possibility of an unfolding homicide investigation in the area — but now, those fears can be forgotten.”

Unless there’s some vicious toddler out there planting imitation baby feet around in Queens lawns. That would be disturbing.

Update! It was a bear paw.

Object Found on Queens Lawn Is Not a Human Foot [NYT]
Foot found on Queens lawn belonged to an animal, not child: cops [NYP]
Flesh and bone found in Queens are animal remains, not child’s foot [NYDN]


Most Popular