965 users online (190 members and 775 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854

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

    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.
    Last edited by CarlK90245; 03-30-2013 at 10:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    I've been looking at Elizabeth Ann Miller as a possible to this UID.

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



    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)
    Last edited by CarlK90245; 02-28-2011 at 05:57 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlK90245 View Post
    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)
    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)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    3,538
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlK90245 View Post
    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?)
    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!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    Quote Originally Posted by webrocket View Post
    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!
    Not just that, but also that it calls into question many presumed rule-outs based on nucDNA from a single FRS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    3,538
    here is a possible match - Theresa Ann Bier. Theresa disappeared in CA on June 1, 1986, was 5'5", 16 y.o. at the time:

    https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/4023/2/

    as per this page, she had protruding front teeth:

    http://dojapp.doj.ca.gov/missing/det...=1718721000001

    the height discrepancy does not bother me as they only had partial skeletal remains for the UID. Theresa is not on the rule out list for the UID.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    I'd say that's a good possible. I'd say she's worth a look.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    3,538
    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,622
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    Quote Originally Posted by webrocket View Post
    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'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),
    Last edited by CarlK90245; 04-07-2011 at 10:34 PM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlK90245 View Post
    Not just that, but also that it calls into question many presumed rule-outs based on nucDNA from a single FRS.
    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....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    3,538
    did you ever submit Theresa Bier Carl? she's not on the rule out list.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    El Segundo, California
    Posts
    7,854
    Quote Originally Posted by webrocket View Post
    did you ever submit Theresa Bier Carl? she's not on the rule out list.
    No, I didn't.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    136
    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.
    Last edited by Essbee; 08-30-2011 at 01:17 AM. Reason: typo

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    3,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Essbee View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-07-2017, 09:10 PM
  2. CA CA - San Bernardino Co., WhtFem 101UFCA, 25-45, in desert off I-40, May'91
    By PonderingThings in forum The Unidentified
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-07-2017, 08:52 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 01:15 AM
  4. CA Jennifer Gomez (16) - San Bernardino CA, 2012
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2012, 09:53 PM

Tags for this Thread