UNSOLVED CA - Redding, Female, >45, Found in A.C.I.D. Canal, Mar'13

New Posts

Taking another look at those photos -- I know the description says otherwise, but it does not look to me like she was wearing that dress. They show it spread out on a screen at what appears to be the site -- they wouldn't have undressed the body there, would they?
 
carbuff said:
Taking another look at those photos -- I know the description says otherwise, but it does not look to me like she was wearing that dress. They show it spread out on a screen at what appears to be the site -- they wouldn't have undressed the body there, would they?
Click to expand...

There was no "body" it was only bones found. I cant imagine a dress staying perfectly on a pile of bones. The dress could have been found near the bones or possibly entangled on the bones but the thought of a full skeleton perfectly wearing a dress in the bottom of a body of water for 10+years seems highly unlikely. Also, believe it or not this dress style was very popular when I was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s. When I imagine a grown woman wearing this with sneakers it does seem strange. It is possible she was a prostitute who have been known know to wear skimpy clothing with sneakers. They do walk the streets alot and need some sort of comfort...
 
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/2693/9/
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/436/4/

I have two possibles. I'm not sure how "petite" they are compared to the UID
But I can tell you that drug use is apparent in one, which over time, drugs can make your bones more susceptible to osteoporosis. And the other girl had an eating disorder with the same affect. Both have wire rimmed glasses. Got lucky because the first girl's dental charts are actually listed in the namus profile. I used the ages 22-44 without a specific state involved. I hope it helps.
 
JillyNJ said:
There was no "body" it was only bones found. I cant imagine a dress staying perfectly on a pile of bones. The dress could have been found near the bones or possibly entangled on the bones but the thought of a full skeleton perfectly wearing a dress in the bottom of a body of water for 10+years seems highly unlikely. Also, believe it or not this dress style was very popular when I was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s. When I imagine a grown woman wearing this with sneakers it does seem strange. It is possible she was a prostitute who have been known know to wear skimpy clothing with sneakers. They do walk the streets alot and need some sort of comfort...
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but that doesn't affect my question. Would they have untangled the dress from the bones at the site? It's probably not significant. It just made me wonder. And it doesn't look very deteriorated for something that's supposed to have been there 20 years.

I remember the style being popular in the '80s but I didn't remember it making a comeback later. For women my age, it's pretty common to change to sneakers for driving to/from something and then put on the heels when you get there. You don't want to have to wear the heels one moment longer than absolutely necessary.
 
carbuff said:
Well, yes, but that doesn't affect my question. Would they have untangled the dress from the bones at the site? It's probably not significant. It just made me wonder. And it doesn't look very deteriorated for something that's supposed to have been there 20 years.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like she was actually in the water; the article says she was found "near Locust Street and the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation Canal in Redding." There's a bridge at Locust Street that crosses the canal with lots of trees/brush on the banks. But, whether she was in or out of the water, I don't see a dozen years' worth of deterioration in the fabrics (1999 is the earliest possible date, according to the coins). Unless she was directly under the bridge, protected from the elements? Hmmm...
 
You'd think after being in the elements for ten years those scissors would be rusty.

The trenchcoats and shoes look like they've been out there for a decade. I could see the dress looking that good if the trenchcoat was hiding it from the elements. But, wouldn't there be more (For lack of better term) dead body on the dress?
 
The beige/tan garment with no hood is definately a dress. They were popular back then.

Why was she layered up in two very different styles of clothing? Carbuff mentioned the dress looks like onethat someone would wear when they are " doing Marilyn" which made me think singing telegram! If she did singing/ stripping telegrams for a living she might where her costume under her clothes. Show up looking dowdy...strip down to Marylyn?


Just a thought.
 
OkieGranny said:
It doesn't sound like she was actually in the water; the article says she was found "near Locust Street and the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation Canal in Redding." There's a bridge at Locust Street that crosses the canal with lots of trees/brush on the banks. But, whether she was in or out of the water, I don't see a dozen years' worth of deterioration in the fabrics (1999 is the earliest possible date, according to the coins). Unless she was directly under the bridge, protected from the elements? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

I also read this in the same article "The most recently discovered bones from the ACID canal are those of a woman, Breshears said, and she was probably at least 45 years old. She was about 4 feet, 10 inches to 5 feet, 4 inches tall, Breshears said.

That seems to imply that they took her out of the canal, but you're right we shouldn't assume that considering how vague it is.

carbuff said:
Well, yes, but that doesn't affect my question. Would they have untangled the dress from the bones at the site? It's probably not significant. It just made me wonder. And it doesn't look very deteriorated for something that's supposed to have been there 20 years.

I remember the style being popular in the '80s but I didn't remember it making a comeback later. For women my age, it's pretty common to change to sneakers for driving to/from something and then put on the heels when you get there. You don't want to have to wear the heels one moment longer than absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

They believe based on the coins the remains have been there the earliest 1999, which was only about 14yrs ago. I was thinking maybe it stayed so well preserved because in a canal there isn't necessarily large amounts of plant life growing, wildlife such as fish, or large movements in the water such as currents. Is that correct or am I only assuming that based on the few concrete canals i have seen in my life? Also, again not 100% sure she was in the water based on the vagueness of the article. Its common for girls and women of any age to do that with their shoes carbuff. I can assure you the dress was popular during the 1999-2002 time frame where I grew up. I had a few and remember them clearly being sold in clothing stores such as Mandees (mostly for junior sizes) over here in NJ.
 
I'm more inclined to think these remains were found on land by the canal. The sneakers have dirt packed into the crevices and even roots sprouting from said dirt; they look like discarded shoes you come across in the woods from time to time. If you've ever found a shoe underwater (or hooked that proverbial boot while fishing) it tends to be dark and slimy all over from prolonged submersion.

There's some kind of thin rope or twine tied with a knot around the right halter strap of the red dress.

The non-hooded garment appears to have a tag and perhaps the others do as well. Finding out when they were manufactured would no doubt help date this mystery. Also in the garment photo there's a white plastic spoon next to the sewing kit.

Those mini sewing kit pouches are sometimes given away as promo items or given as courtesies at hotels. I wonder if there's any trace of a name or logo on the blue pouch.
 
She was not in the A.C.I.D. Canal. I don't know the exact spot she was found but it was a narrow stretch of right-of-way along the canal very close to downtown. The area is surrounded businesses and houses but ther is areas of dense vegetation. Homeless people do hang our there during the day and kids play there and people us the pathway along the canal. I would think that we're a person to just die there (heart attack, OD whatever), the body would be found quickly. I suspect this was a homicide and the body was concealed in the brush.

The dress and trench coat suggest a woman better dressed than your averag e homeless/transient. This is not sort of place someone "just passing through" would know about.
 
I couldn't find a thing about this woman. Shasta County doesn't appear to list its unidentified in either Namus or the county medical examiner's website. No updated articles or anything, though the old articles are all still available.
 
No updates. She still isn't in Namus.

Sometimes I think most of California doesn't care about their unidentified decedents...
 
hi, I wrote to the manager Namus for UID cases related to California, to enter this case in NAMUS hopefully good!

UID Female California case not in Namus

Romulus <romoloabate1953@gmail.com>
14:40 (3 minuti fa)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

a allison.oneal
cleardot.gif


Hello, I am writing to report that this case is not yet present in Namus


New clues emerge from three sets of bones found in Shasta County

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/ca-redding-female-45-found-in-a-c-i-d-canal-mar13.205240/

I hope it will be posted soon. Kind regards.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 3,975 (members: 141, guests: 3,834)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
3,834
Total visitors
3,975
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,498
Messages
17,969,970
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top