Identified! IL - Chicago, WhtFem Skeletal UP10693, 13-18, by Little Calumet River, Apr'05 - NamUs removed

CarlK90245

UID Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
8,242
Reaction score
6,659
Here's a new NamUs UP casefile just added a couple of days ago:

NamUs UP # 10693 https://identifyus.org/cases/10693

Unidentified White Female

Found April 28, 2005 on 13060 S Indiana Ave, Chicago, IL. 60627

Body condition: Not recognizable - Partial skeletal parts only
Probable year of death: Not Indicated
Estimated postmortem interval: Not Indicated

Age: 13 to 18 years
Height: 63 to 65 inches (5'3" to 5'5")

Fingerprints: Not Available
Dental: Available
DNA: Sample available - Not yet submitted

Circumstances Unknown bones recovered
 
I wonder if they have considered Rachel Marie Mellon
mellon_rachel.jpg

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/mellon_rachel.html

The address provided as the location of discovery appears to be adjacent to the Calumet River. However, it doesn't indicate whether the bones were found on the banks of the river or whether they were more inland.

If they were on the banks, then the Calumet River leads almost directly from the Bolingbrook area to that area.

Her listed height is a little shorter than the height estimate for the Jane Doe, but given the age, it would seem that she would be an obvious possible.
 
As a local, I don't think these remains would belong to Rachel. I don't know that the river has anything to do with this case. I'm not seeing it mentioned in the NamUs link (or I missed it?)

A street view of the address given at NamUs shows a wooded area out of view with lots of trash alongside the road. Looks more like a dumping ground not within view of buildings.

13060 S Indiana Ave, Chicago - Google Maps

I think this is a pretty rough area and it could be a great many possibilities for a deceased person.
 
If these remains belong to someone reported missing and in one of the databases we use regularly, I'd go with Nancy O'Sullivan. South Holland isn't that far from where these remains were found and in an area similiarly developed.

Bolingbrook was fairly rural until recently and it's not far to get to rural area's from Bolingbrook. IMO, it would make sense for someone to go to a more rural area for disposal of a body from Bolingbrook rather than to drive east into a much more heavily populated area.

Whoops, forgot to add Nancy O'Sullivan's NamUs link:

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/6475/80/
 
The NamUs casefile doesn't say anything one way or the other regarding whether they were found on land or on the riverbank.

The reason I suspect that it might have something to do with the river is that if you look at the overhead-view, there is a building adjacent to the river which would probably bear the address 13060 (or something close to that number).

There are no buildings on the 130 block of South Indiana Ave, though there appears to be a foundation of a long-gone building on that block.

The specific address provided must have come from somewhere. And if it was in the rough vegitation on that block, it seems they would have rounded the address to 13000 or 13100.

Also, that spot is right at the point of a hairpin in the river, and a logical collection point for debris from the river.
 
Is this just a collecting point in the river and just a coincidence?
 
Is this just a collecting point in the river and just a coincidence?

We still don't know exactly where this Jane Doe (i.e., the topic of this thread) was found with respect to the river. But with a hairpin in the river, it seems to me that debris would tend to drift against the outside bank, and could easily become hung-up against the bank.
 
yeah, sorry if that was confusing- it is two different cases.
 
3 Rule out's:

Diamond Bradley 1997 Illinois
TIONDA Bradley 1991 Illinois
Melinda Creech 1965 Indiana
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
2,661
Total visitors
2,749

Forum statistics

Threads
590,010
Messages
17,928,910
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top