Results 16 to 30 of 33
10-06-2011, 11:39 PM #16
I hate to see rule-outs based on height, because I've seen many instances where after a person is identified, the UID height differed from the MP's listed height.
12-26-2011, 08:10 PM #17
How does Namus determine if the strength of the profile or the probability for an ID is high or low? Do they only see if there are dentals, DNA and fingerprints on file?
For example, this case is marked low probability
https://identifyus.org/cases/9656 although it seems like a no-brainer because they found a driver's license with a name on it and there is a matching person missing in the area.
They only found partial remains so there is not much identifying info in the bones themselves.
03-09-2012, 12:36 PM #18Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
I was looking on NamUs and an UID was listed with almost no information. It just had race, date found and where found. No height, weight, age guess- nothing. Does that happen often, or is it a mistake? What do you do about this?
I was trying to match a missing person up and I felt like a hit a brick wall. Newbie here so I am hoping this question is in the right place.
The Following User Says Thank You to deca For This Useful Post:
03-09-2012, 06:55 PM #19Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
03-14-2012, 01:30 PM #20
I was watching the National Geographic channel last night, and they were doing a story about the famous National Geographic magazine cover photo of the Afghan Girl with the amazing green eyes, taken at a refugee camp in 1984. For years, the photographer who took that photo had wondered what became of the girl and went great lengths trying to find out what ever became of her. After showing the photo to people all over Pakistan and Afghanistan and encountering numerous false leads, he finally located her, married with children and living in Pakistan.
To verify that they had located the same woman, they sent her photo to facial recognition experts at the FBI and the NCMEC, and by analyzing the detail in their irises, they verified with over a million-to-one probability that it was the same woman, despite the fact that her eyes seem to have darkened somewhat with age.
In ruling out one of the false leads, the FBI facial recognition expert mentioned something that I thought to be relevant to our efforts. He said that 99% of the time, a small mole on someone's face will not disappear. It will remain there for life, or grow larger.
He had originally pointed out a spot on the right side (her right, not ours) of the girl's upper lip, and didn't see a corresponding spot on her older photo. But after looking at other photos taken of the girl at the same time, it turned out to be just a spot of dirt on her face. But you can see other spots on her forehead and below the right corner of her mouth in the "then" photo that match up on her "now" photo.
So we should keep this in mind when when comparing MP photos to UID postmortem photos. If you see even a tiny mole on the face of the MP that doesn't appear on the UID, you can be reasonably certain that it is a non-match. But you should be certain that it truly is a facial blemish, and not just a speck of dirt.
Last edited by CarlK90245; 03-14-2012 at 02:03 PM.
03-15-2012, 04:15 PM #21
I was reading some info about the large amount of open cases of MPs from the Yakima Indian Reservation and connected murder investigations from 80s-90s. The local newspaper used the Freedom of Information Act to acquire files from the FBI on the victims.
Given the enormous amount of MPs reported to be in FBI files (39,000 according to LE in Snohomish County http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=64324&page=5) which is substantially larger than even those CarlK has diligently compiled, I am wondering if anyone has attempted to file a FOIA request to obtain the list FBI has given LE.
I'm not well versed in this sort of process, but it seems like there is some kind of precedent.'Nothing clears up a case so much as stating it to another person.'
The Following User Says Thank You to kpdx For This Useful Post:
04-02-2012, 04:31 PM #22
I was speaking this morning with a detective who is quite involved with NamUs and CODIS, and he told me something about CODIS that I did not previously know.
CODIS will not accept DNA profiles on a missing person unless that person is suspected of being a victim of a crime. However, NamUs will accept DNA profiles on all missing persons, as long as there is a MP report on file with a LE agency in the U.S..
Missing children who are classified as runaways and persons who are believed to have disappeared voluntarily or as a result of an accident are not eligible for CODIS.
05-06-2012, 10:52 AM #23
Complete mitochondrial DNA profile uploaded to NDIS. A partial (12/14) STR profile was uploaded to NDIS, and a complete LOW COPY STR profile is available at UNT for comparison. CL
I don't know what the hold up is, the MP has had DNA tests taken.
Sample submitted - Tests complete
Was it not a match?
05-31-2012, 07:45 PM #24
Both cases have been removed from Namus now so I guess it just took some time to compare the profiles.
06-16-2012, 01:23 PM #25
I've been keeping a spreadsheet of all missing persons listed in Charley Project, plus cases in the other sites (NAMPN, DoeNet, and NamUs) that aren't in Charley. The spreadsheet includes basic info (e.g., gender, age, DLC, DOB, height, etc.), and includes about 13,000 names.
This week, I've added an extra column to include the NamUs MP # for all MP cases from NamUs. I am in the process of reconciling those cases to the casefiles from other sites to determine which cases are in NamUs and not in other sites, and vice-versa.
In doing so, I've discovered a very troubling problem. There is a very large number of instances where the Dates of Last Contact as indicated in NamUs don't agree with those listed in Charley and the other sites. I would guess that there are DLC discrepancies for about 10-20% of NamUs cases.
For the more substantial discrepancies of several months or years, I've done further research to see which is correct (if possible). I found a few errors that were made by Meaghan at Charley Project, but for the vast majority of the discrepancies, the error was in NamUs. There is a very surprising number of instances where the MP Report Date was entered as the DLC.
In most cases where I was able to conclusively prove which site was wrong, I sent out an e-mail to ask them to correct the error. But in cases where the difference was only a week or two, or cases where I couldn't determine who was wrong, I had to let it go, and used the earlier date on my spreadsheet. There are far too many errors to send out an e-mail for every error that I spot.
So when entering search parameters in the NamUs UID database looking for matches to a specific MP, I suggest that you set your lower date limit for a month or two prior to the MP's Date of Last Contact ("Date LKA").
... or if your are entering search parameters in the NamUs MP database looking for a match to a specific UID, you should set the upper date limit for a few months after the UID was estimated to have died.
06-16-2012, 02:42 PM #26
I, too, have noticed discrepancies in the "date last known alive" dates on NamUs, Charley Project and Doe Network. While I attribute some of that to human error in entering the data, I think a lot more of it is because in many cases families, friends, etc. aren't sure when the missing person was last seen.
I recently read of a woman whose date last known alive was listed as a date after her body was actually recovered.
So my tip to those of us who routinely search these databases, always question the date last known alive if you find a match that is good otherwise.
Last edited by CarlK90245; 06-16-2012 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Added Quote box to bring post to current page
06-16-2012, 03:13 PM #27
Paula Beverly Davis
Identified! OH - Englewood, "Blue Bandanna Girl" WhtFem, 17-25 - Aug'87 - Paula Beverly Davis
Michelle Yvonne Haggadon
Identified! SC - Darlington County - WhtFem (112UFSC), 19-35, Aug 2000 - Michelle Yvonne Haggadon
Identified! CA- Montclair - WhtFem - about 17 - Hit by car on Freeway - Sep'05 - Samantha Bonnell
Identified! NJ - Mercer County - WhtFem 288UFNJ, 18-30, J. Rifkin Victim, Mar'89 - Heidi Balch
Last edited by KateB; 04-06-2015 at 12:13 AM. Reason: repair url tags.
06-17-2012, 12:44 PM #28
I am new to this site. If we think we have a match do we just email the address listed with the file of the deceased? Or should we post on this site and see what others think?
08-19-2012, 02:01 AM #29Former Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
01-18-2013, 01:33 PM #30
Could an admin/mod please private message me. I would love to add an unidentified person to this forum but its saying I do not have permission and it is definately not already on here. Thank you, nd sorry for posting here just have no idea where else to ask
By capoly in forum The UnidentifiedReplies: 31Last Post: 02-27-2014, 01:44 PM
By rpipergirl in forum Facebook for the MissingReplies: 4Last Post: 03-28-2010, 01:15 PM
By christine2448 in forum Missing ArchivesReplies: 62Last Post: 06-14-2007, 09:38 PM