"Some" flooding is not a little thing. Water is powerful. Someone linked info re this stream that explained exactly how a such a thing could happen. A small body could be wedged under a log or some brush where it is impossible to see, for years, until another flood dislodged it.
Thank you. I was wondering when the discovery of these remains was made. Who found them and how were they found, is my question? Was this ever in the news? Because this is a small child, I'm surprised that this was not bigger news, if not publicized. There are thousands of transients who can easily disappear and never be located and it's easy for an adult to take off, but when a child is found, that should be a huge deal because most children are tracked carefully. When a child goes missing, that is noticed. And it would be easier to match up a child who is missing with remains, I believe, than an adult.
Do we know how old the remains are? I saw some technical discussion on the other thread that may have had something to do with that but I don't understand. Surely there is a way to determine the age, how long the remains have been there? That would further narrow who this child could be.
Are you saying that the discovery was sort of not discussed or publicized or put in a data base for six years? Why would that be? I'm trying to understand what's up here. TIA.
God bless Anna and her mama.
Thank you for the excellent questions gitana1.
According to NamUs, the discovery was made in March of 2006 by a citizen on the beach between San Gregorio Beach and Pomponio (sp?) beach. The discovery was not entered into NamUs until Dec 11, 2011. So yes, the discovery was not publicized for almost 6 years. At least not publicized that the remains are those of a child.
Dr. Doogie and I both recall knowing something was found on San Gregorio beach, but nothing we recall reading indicated these might be remains from a child. I know myself, I spent two years seeking information on someone with a Kukoda birth father, who was eventually ruled out, so I know had we had any inclination these were from a child we would have followed much closer and much sooner.
I have gone back and tried to find the article which Doogie and I may have learnt of this find. I can't find it. All I have discovered is that there was heavy flooding in San Mateo County in the spring (March/April) of 2006. So heavy that certain counties were declared disaster area's. This leads me to believe it is possible these remains were dislodged (possibly from the creek) during the spring flooding of 2006 versus being in the ocean for 30 plus years prior to being washed up on shore.
All we know about who made the discovery and when is from the NamUs file, which tells us a citizen found the bone on the beach in March of 2006.
NamUs indicates these remains are from a child of 5-7, gender and race is unknown. Post mortem at NamUs only says years. So yes, the question remains when did the coroners office know these were remains from a child of 5-7 and why was it missed that Anna went missing at age 5 from the same county, San Mateo, in which this bone was found? Seems to me someone sat on this until shortly before it was entered into NamUs. Had the coroners office bothered to check for missing 5-7 year old children from within their own county when it was discovered these were from a child, they would have discovered Anna's case.
My step dad is retired LE and retired from LE in 83. When I asked his thoughts on this discovery, his answer was (paraphrased) the jaw of a child of 5-7 would be much different than an infant or toddler (due to discussing what the O meant) and would be easy to distinguish to the naked eye of someone like myself, a LEO, not trained in the medical field. IOW it should have been obvious just on a visual.
