CA CA - San Bernardino, WhtFem UP2589, 13-18, protruding incisors, Mar'87

New Posts

CarlK90245

CarlK90245

UID Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
8,242
Reaction score
6,689
NamUs UP # 2589 https://identifyus.org/cases/2589

No Image Available

Unidentified White Female
* The victim was found on March 09, 1987 in a City Creek ravine near San Bernadino CA.

Distinguishing Characteristics
Age: 13 to 18
Height: 62 inches (5'2"), Estimated
Clothing: Blue checked shirt, slip-on tennis shoes.
Dental: Fillings in 1, 3, 14, 15, 18, 30, and 31. Upper two incisors are distinctive because they are higher in the gum line and protrude outward, quite visible.

B]Case History[/B]
* Skeletal remains found scattered in a remote ravine northeast of San Bernardino. Identity can only be established by dental X-rays or DNA.
 
I've been looking at Elizabeth Ann Miller as a possible to this UID.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/miller_elizabeth.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/69dfco.html

miller_elizabeth.jpg
miller_elizabeth2.jpg


Aside from the fact that her height, age, and timeline are consistent, her upper front incisors fit the description of being "higher in the gumline and protruding outward".

Regarding DNA, it appears on the face that both are in CODIS. However, according to DoeNet, Elizabeth's CODIS profile is based on mtDNA, and according to NamUs, the UID's profile is based on nucDNA (and mtDNA is unchecked). As I understand it, the two DNA types are incompatible for purposes of comparison.

I sent an e-mail to David Van Norman to verify whether my understanding is correct. (and if it is, to request that he compare the two cases)
 
CarlK90245 said:
Regarding DNA, it appears on the face that both are in CODIS. However, according to DoeNet, Elizabeth's CODIS profile is based on mtDNA, and according to NamUs, the UID's profile is based on nucDNA (and mtDNA is unchecked). As I understand it, the two DNA types are incompatible for purposes of comparison.

I sent an e-mail to David Van Norman to verify whether my understanding is correct. (and if it is, to request that he compare the two cases)
Click to expand...

And Bang! Just like that, I get a response.

(My questions were (1) Is it a correct assumption that If only a mtDNA sample is available for a missing person, and only a nucDNA sample was available for the unidentified decedent, CODIS would not be able to identify the match? -- and (2) If only one sample of familial nucDNA is available to compare to the nucDNA of the UID, is there a significant risk of a false negative?)

Answer #1: Correct – nucDNA = apples and mtDNA = oranges! Or nucDNA is BluRay and mtDNA is VHS. The problem is California’s lab philosophy to develop nucDNA first (because it gives a higher confidence chance of a match and “positive” ID), whereas other labs go for mtDNA first.

Answer #2: Correct – In fact if there is only one familial sample submitted for a missing case, so I am told by the folks at UNT, CODIS will not even bother comparing that profile against UHR due to the sheer volume of matches it will elicit. They require two or more to search. Sadly, they aren’t advertising that so cops who watch too much TV stupidly continue to submit just one family member when many are available. I had an LAPD detective tell me that they didn’t have to sample the mother of a missing man’s child since she contributed nothing to his DNA. Apparently he hadn’t heard about exclusionary samples. (PS – That child’s DNA was subsequently matched by a cold DNA hit to skeletal remains found after a fire near Griffith Park).

In regard to the match between Jane Doe #07-87 and Elizabeth Ann Miller, there appear to be three irreconcilable dental inconsistencies.

(Dental Charts Redacted)
Click to expand...
 
CarlK90245 said:
And Bang! Just like that, I get a response.

(My questions were (1) Is it a correct assumption that If only a mtDNA sample is available for a missing person, and only a nucDNA sample was available for the unidentified decedent, CODIS would not be able to identify the match? -- and (2) If only one sample of familial nucDNA is available to compare to the nucDNA of the UID, is there a significant risk of a false negative?)
Click to expand...

I guess that is a definitive response to what some of us have surmised regarding the two types of DNA. so for future reference, if there are inconsistent types of DNA on file between a MP and a UID, then they are NOT rule outs by default.

thanks for that inquiry and double thanks for the prompt and professional response!
 
webrocket said:
I guess that is a definitive response to what some of us have surmised regarding the two types of DNA. so for future reference, if there are inconsistent types of DNA on file between a MP and a UID, then they are NOT rule outs by default.

thanks for that inquiry and double thanks for the prompt and professional response!
Click to expand...

Not just that, but also that it calls into question many presumed rule-outs based on nucDNA from a single FRS.
 
I'd say that's a good possible. I'd say she's worth a look.
 
I was going to compose an email to Mr. Van Norman and then realized a sad reality. as per the case history of the UID, identity can only be established by DNA or dentals. They have nucDNA for the UID but no mtDNA for her.

Theresa's profile says neither dental x-rays nor DNA exists. if I understand the DNA business, if they had mtDNA for the UID, they could compare that to mtDNA for any female relative of a missing person? nucDNA is peculiar to the person.

any thoughts Carl?
 
I don't know the answer but I sure would like to find a MP site or flyer that explains it all in laymans terms so it could be distributed to the families of MP's and LE, as well as to understand it better myself.
 
webrocket said:
I was going to compose an email to Mr. Van Norman and then realized a sad reality. as per the case history of the UID, identity can only be established by DNA or dentals. They have nucDNA for the UID but no mtDNA for her.

Theresa's profile says neither dental x-rays nor DNA exists. if I understand the DNA business, if they had mtDNA for the UID, they could compare that to mtDNA for any female relative of a missing person? nucDNA is peculiar to the person.

any thoughts Carl?
Click to expand...

I'd go ahead and send him the e-mail anyway. NamUs isn't always accurate with respect to which identifiers they have and which ones they don't.

And to clarify your comment about mtDNA, it's not "any female relative". It's any relative (male or female) connected in the family tree by a continuous chain of females.

For example, it could be your mother's-mother's-mother's-daughter's-daughter's-son (i.e., your third cousin, twice removed), as long as there are no males in between.

Simpler examples include a sibling (with the same mother) or a maternal aunt or uncle (as long as the mother and the aunt/uncle have the same mother),
 
CarlK90245 said:
Not just that, but also that it calls into question many presumed rule-outs based on nucDNA from a single FRS.
Click to expand...

In 50 years websleuthers will look back on these cases and say "if only they had our technology!" just like when I am on the cold cases....sigh....
 
did you ever submit Theresa Bier Carl? she's not on the rule out list.
 
I just read the above posts and did another search on Theresa Bier. Check out this Charley Project profile.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/bier_theresa.html

At age 16, she was last seen camping with a 43 year old man.
"Welch eventually stated that Bier had been forcibly taken by Bigfoot."

!!!!!
I would love to see this one torn apart by Nancy Grace et al.
 
Essbee said:
I just read the above posts and did another search on Theresa Bier. Check out this Charley Project profile.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/bier_theresa.html

At age 16, she was last seen camping with a 43 year old man.
"Welch eventually stated that Bier had been forcibly taken by Bigfoot."

!!!!!
I would love to see this one torn apart by Nancy Grace et al.
Click to expand...

I thought the distance sounded too far but per Mapquest, it is 5 1/2 hours drive between Bass Lake and San Bernardino. Welch reappeared a few days later per Charley Project so there is a window of opportunity there.
 
The year listed as Theresa Bier's disappearance on NamUs is incorrect. Every other source reports it as June 1, 1987.
 
Ruled out:
MP6579
Sherry Roach
06/08/1976
San Mateo, CA
MP11390
Sandra Lowe
01/05/1987
Orange, CA
Anna Jo Valladares (who I can't find any record of)
CA
MP11390
Sandra Lowe
01/05/1987
Orange, CA
MP11390
Sandra Lowe
01/05/1987
Orange, CA
George Day
CA
Charlotte Houle
CA
Marjorie Webb (No record)
CA
Katherine Pires (also can't find a record of her)
CA
Billie Houle
CA
MP4590
Stacey Kelekoma
08/18/1986
Kauai, HI
MP6405
Elizabeth Miller
08/16/1983
Clear Creek, CO
Denise Pflum
IN
MP1174
Gina Hall
06/28/1980
Radford, VA
MP3063
Joyce Walcott
05/29/1986
Los Angeles, CA
MP3875
Rochelle Ihm
07/13/1986
Maricopa, AZ
Catherine Malcomson
MA
Chavelle Wheeler
CA
MP1337
Ramona Beal
05/19/1985
San Bernardino, CA
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 3,808 (members: 89, guests: 3,719)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
3,719
Total visitors
3,808
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,529
Messages
17,953,970
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top