CA CA - Colton, WhtFem 321UFCA, 45-55, GSW, flannel pajamas, Jun'87

Ok, Ive been debating with myself about putting this up, but here goes - As I'm scanning MP reports and the likes I run into the report for Joan Rogers, missing since June 15, 1987 from Colton, CA. As soon as I saw her, a picture flashed in my mind to an UF found in Los Angeles, CA on June 19, 1987. Colton, CA is a little under 2 hrs from LA. I don't see a mole on Ms. Rogers picture, but I think they're similar enough looking and with the time frame to throw it out into the ring. It's hard to imagine they haven't been compared, but I can't find anything that says they have been.

I can't seem to find any kind of Namus file and Doe does not have the MP file.

Take a look and tell me what you think.

Joan Rogers
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/r/rogers_joan.html

UF
http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/gallery/ncmaprofile_all.php?U200600053S

NamUs:
https://identifyus.org/en/cases/5997

Quick side by side:

I think you are really really good at this. I have seen some of your other possible matches and you do a very good job. I think it does look like it could be a match.

not the same. read the eye color~! but yes quite similar!

Eye color after death is not a concise science. Also, many people are listed as having green or brown eyes, but may in fact be hazel. Anyone listed as a brown or green should also be considered for hazel. I think this is a good match.

I am alittle bit confused about the Doe network listing, however. At the top of Doe it says she was found in Colton, San Bern. but at the bottom it says she was found in Arroyo Grande. Arroyo Grande is in Central California, north of Santa Barbara, near Pismo Beach, not near Los Angeles. Did Doe get her mixed up with someone else?

fleececreations said:

not the same. read the eye color~! but yes quite similar!

Click to expand...

Julessleuther said:

Eye color after death is not a concise science. Also, many people are listed as having green or brown eyes, but may in fact be hazel. Anyone listed as a brown or green should also be considered for hazel. I think this is a good match.

I am alittle bit confused about the Doe network listing, however. At the top of Doe it says she was found in Colton, San Bern. but at the bottom it says she was found in Arroyo Grande. Arroyo Grande is in Central California, north of Santa Barbara, near Pismo Beach, not near Los Angeles. Did Doe get her mixed up with someone else?

Click to expand...

Yep- looks like they got it mixed up with hotcase #121. The Colton lady is hotcase #122. :doh:

It certainly is a very good likeness. IMO worth calling in

I have wondered when they report someone missing and they are missing under stange conditions do they use information reported by a person ,or do they use things as a DMV records and maybe arrest logins to fill out the vital statics?

Doe is listed as having Light brown hair dyed blonde while Ms. Rogers is listed as having gray hair.

Doe has 2 moles or growths on right side of her nose but Ms. Rogers doesn't appear to have any.

Doe is listed as 132-135 pounds and Ms. Rogers is listed as being 105lbs.

Doe is listed between 40 and 50 years of age. Ms. Rogers is listed as 58 years old.

Click to expand...

The hair color is a real concern - light brown/dyed blonde - clearly they should be able to identify the natural hair color and Joan Rogers appears to have lightly dyed gray hair so on that basis, I'd say probably not a match.

The growths/moles would not be a huge concern for me - if Ms Rogers was not reported missing for a long time then a small growth/mole that had recently appeared might easily have been overlooked. The growths/moles on the Doe don't exactly leap out although they are there.

There is an enormous discrepancy of 7" in the Doe's possible height range (due to dismemberment?) If there is that much discrepancy in height, weight could also be an estimate based on a mid point - if that's the case then if she were Joan, who was at the very bottom of the height range, her weight could actually have been much lower and within a small change from a reported weight. 105 is really very light and even at 5'1", 132 wouldn't be a large build. If an estimate or based on an older DMV record I wouldn't exclude based on that.

The age discrepancy is maybe only 8 years ... not huge but not enough to rule out.

The difference between postmortem hazel and brown eyes is too small to even consider a discrepancy IMO. Eye color changes after death and the definition of what constitutes brown and hazel eyes for different people means I would consider them basically the same unless shown the eye colors side by side.

The timeline and location are a great match ... maybe only 50 miles from disappearance to location and within 4 days. For that reason alone I think this is potentially worth further sleuthing if the resources are available to us. IMO It is more likely than not that it won't be a match, mainly because of the age and hair... but there is potentially a lot more to discover about these cases that can help us work smarter in the future if we do try to line them up.

I mentioned this case yesterday to the Coroner Investigator because her body is in his jurisdiction. He checked to see if he could find anything on Joan Rogers (I don't think this is her), but he couldn't either. Apparently, the CA attorney general's office did a "data dump" last year, which goes something like this. They send an email to the missing persons jurisdiction (LA County), if they didn't receive an email back, it was purged.
He scooted on over to Charley, and noticed the link was uploaded in 2004/2005. He said if she was still missing then, she probably was never found, but her record was "purged". Of course, she may be alive and well, or her family found her, ect. ect.
He pulled up the UF file for me because she was not in Namus, and yesterday night..... he had added her. So, here is her namus file.
I am going to email him a big Thank You! today.

https://identifyus.org/report.php?p=individual&i=5997

Snufamonbobball said:

I mentioned this case yesterday to the Coroner Investigator because her body is in his jurisdiction. He checked to see if he could find anything on Joan Rogers (I don't think this is her), but he couldn't either. Apparently, the CA attorney general's office did a "data dump" last year, which goes something like this. They send an email to the missing persons jurisdiction (LA County), if they didn't receive an email back, it was purged.
He scooted on over to Charley, and noticed the link was uploaded in 2004/2005. He said if she was still missing then, she probably was never found, but her record was "purged". Of course, she may be alive and well, or her family found her, ect. ect.
He pulled up the UF file for me because she was not in Namus, and yesterday night..... he had added her. So, here is her namus file.
I am going to email him a big Thank You! today.

https://identifyus.org/report.php?p=individual&i=5997

Click to expand...

Great job in getting her into NamUs! I find it to be a very important tool in trying to find additional information and resolving discrepancies.

Even if they aren't a match...this is one step closer in perhaps solving her case.

Kudos to you Snufamonbobball!

Maz

:cow:

Thanks Snuf!!!

The artists rendering picture is a little scary and doesn't help much. I noticed she had on pajamas so it made me think that she could have been a wife murdered by her husband. Her husband might have told people, including family, that she left him for another man so there may not be a missing persons report filed on her. He could have driven her many miles from their home and dumped her.

Just throwing out a scenario...

I agree Lucys Mom, I think because of the PJ's she was someone local. I wonder if she was never declared missing?

Thanks Snuf for all your hard work!

Some possibles:

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1007dfca.html


Notice all the alias...http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/409dfca.html

Joan Rogers was found safe in 2008. Her case file has been updated after it was checked into because of this possible match.

Happy Thanksgiving All!

Appreciating.
Snuf

Julessleuther said:

Some possibles:

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1007dfca.html


Notice all the alias...http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/409dfca.html

Click to expand...

Mary Darlene Evans is on the ruleouts list on Namus.
https://identifyus.org/en/cases/5997

Unidentified Female
◾Date of Discovery: June 19, 1987
◾Location of Discovery: Colton, San Bernardino County, California
◾Estimated Date of Death: June 19, 1987
◾State of Remains: Not stated
◾Cause of Death: Homicide




Physical Description
** Listed information is approximate

◾Estimated Age: 45-55 years old
◾Race: White
◾Gender: Female
◾Height: 5'1
◾Weight: 132-135 lbs
◾Hair Color: Light brown, reddish hair, dyed blonde; short (2-4 inches)
◾Eye Color: Possibly hazel eyes


◾Distinguishing Marks/Features: Moles on face (right temple and right of nose). 3 cm scar right wrist, 10 cm scar right lower abdomen, 5 cm tan nevus (birthmark) right thigh, 3 cm scar right leg (near kneecap), 9 cm scar left knee. Light complexion.


◾Dentals: Available (X-rays); Partial upper denture.
◾Fingerprints: Available (at CAL-ID (909-890-5000), case #87-12654)
◾DNA: Insufficient DNA for profiling.

Clothing & Personal Items
◾Clothing: Light-blue, flannel pajamas with small print.


◾Jewelry: Yellow metal, stud earrings.


◾Additional Personal Items: Unknown





Case History

The victim was located dead of a gunshot wound.

Doe Network Profile
http://doenetwork.org/cases/321ufca.html

Namus Profile
https://identifyus.org/en/cases/5997

I think Elizabeth Crawford looks like this UID. The distance and age doesn't line up exactly but the description does, right down to the moles on her face, though UID's says right and Elizabeth Crawford's are listed as right but if you are not looking at the person to see then that would be an easy mistake to make.

Namus Profile

https://identifyus.org/en/cases/5997

Doe Network Profile
http://doenetwork.org/cases/517dfsc.html

I've revised my reconstruction for this Jane Doe since it was used for her DoeNet casefile, but I never posted it here. So here it is.

This photo of Marjorie Joan Linehan was taken in 1971 (i.e., 11 years prior to her disappearance, and 16 years prior to this Jane Doe's death.

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/14899/0

So, if you can imagine what she would look like about 16 years older, I would say she's pretty close.



And BTW, if you look close enough at her cheek at her right side of her nose, it looks like she might have that same mole. There is also a common mole on the crease between her chin and lower lip, just to her right of the centerline.