Identified! CO - Douglas Co, Hwy 67 near Horse Creek, WhtFem 13-20, 154UFCO, Jun'93 - Rebecca ‘Becky’ Redeker

New Posts

future criminologist said:
has Kelly Dae Wilson been ruled out?

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/647dftx.html
Click to expand...


Kelly Dae Wilson would be my first option. Nobody ever answered future criminologist's question. Does anyone know if she has been submitted or ruled out?

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/w/wilson_kelly.html

2601950520045078242S425x425Q851.jpg
wilson_kelly.jpg
 
It appears that Future was last in contact with LE, so maybe she already got her answer?

This doe is in NAMUS:
https://identifyus.org/cases/2703

According to what is posted here, they have her weight around 140, not 140-160 (which is listed on Doe) It also appears that her DNA has been completed, though it does not indicate where it is listed. It does not list any ruleouts for this Doe.
 
I found this post on the findcarrie website.

"Kelly Wilson moved to Gilmer from Natchitoches, La., about a year before she disappeared to get to know her mom, Waveryln Wilson said. She was moving back to Louisiana on Jan. 10, 1992, and had already sent a load of belongings there."

This connects Kelly with Louisiana which is the place the cop at Rainbow Falls said the campers were from.

Her stepmom may have not known of a previous splenectomy.

Did she travel with friends from La. to Co. a year later?
 
I just contacted the Douglas County Medical Examiner's office, and talked with Patricia Dunn. She says that the name Kelly Dae Wilson has not yet been submitted.

I asked her if a rule-out list is available, and she said that they use NamUs to publicize their rule-outs. (The NamUs list only includes Tiffany Sessions, and doesn't include Wilda Benoit, but I didn't press the matter).

But she asked me to send her an e-mail with all of the info on Kelly Wilson.

Here is my e-mail message to her.

Ms. Dunn:

As we just discussed, I have been looking for possible matches to your unidentified female decedent found on June 15, 1993 in Douglas County, Colorado (Case Number: 9304194; 93-068).

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/154ufco.html

I found the case of Kelly Dae Wilson of Gilmer, TX (DOB 18-May-1974).

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/w/wilson_kelly.html

I believe that Ms. Wilson is a strong possible match to this case for the following reasons:

• Age: Her age at the date of the unidentified decedent’s death (19) is within the decedent’s estimated age (i.e., 13 to 20).
• Height: Her height (5’7”) is within an inch of the decedent’s measured height (5’8”)
• Hair: Like the decedent, she had shoulder length blonde hair.
• Louisiana Connection: According to the findcarrie website (http://findcarrie.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=missingchildren&action=display&num=1094842637
• ), Kelly D Wilson was born in Nachitoches, LA, and was in the process of moving back to Louisiana when she disappeared. The Doe Network profile on the unidentified decedent indicates that she may have been a runaway from Louisiana.
• Facial Analysis: Using photo editing software, I traced the facial features of the facial reconstruction of the decedent, and transferred the trace lines over to the photo of Kelly D Wilson. The trace matched virtually spot-on with the exception of her left cheek. Then, using MS Excel (which has the feature of making photo objects transparent as they are being dragged over a spreadsheet), I overlaid the two photos over one another. The eyes, nose, teeth, and chin overlaid perfectly from one photo to the next (See the attached Kelly D Wilson Comparison.jpg file)

I ask that you look into this possible match, and let me know the results.

2428872140045078242S600x600Q851.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I called Patricia Dunn's office for an update on this case. She wasn't in the office, but her assistant said that they have ordered dental records, and I will receive a call tomorrow from Patricia regarding where they are in the process.
 
CarlK90245 said:
I called Patricia Dunn's office for an update on this case. She wasn't in the office, but her assistant said that they have ordered dental records, and I will receive a call tomorrow from Patricia regarding where they are in the process.
Click to expand...

Patricia Dunn just called me back. She said that there were enough similarities in their cases that it is well worth pursuing. They have received Kelly D. Wilson's dental records, and the records are in the possession of their Forensic Odontologist. No ruling yet.

But she says that she will send me an e-mail regardless of whether it is match or no match.
 
I had some doubts because the circumstances of her disappearance didn't fit with her being a runaway or wearing a Harley Davidson tee-shirt. But everything else was pretty close.

That just goes to show that although the trace-line test might be helpful, it is not as reliable as a fingerprint. The test is probably more useful for ruling out someone than it is for ruling them in.
 
I called Patricia Dunn back and reminded her that she once told me that she puts all rule-outs into NamUs, but Tiffany Sessions the only other rule-out listed in NamUs.

She replied that there have been a "couple dozen" other rule-outs, and that she will enter them in NamUs.
 
I just checked NamUs again, and I see that she has already entered a few names (although it looks like there are more that are yet to be entered).

What cracks me up though is that the names of the people who they have looked at include the following (keep in mind that this UID was found in 1993, and had been dead for about 3 days when found):

Evelyn Hartley - missing since 1953
Catherine Sjoberg - missing since 1974
Debra Spickler - missing since 1968
Cherry Greenman - missing since 1976
Debra Pscholka - missing since 1971
Margaret Holst - missing since 1977
Debora Lowe - missing since 1972

Maybe it's family members who have heard that it's skeletal remains without knowing what the postmortem interval is.

But if it's the NamUs system that suggests these possible matches, it seems that the matching algorithm needs a little work.
 
CarlK90245 said:
I just checked NamUs again, and I see that she has already entered a few names (although it looks like there are more that are yet to be entered).

What cracks me up though is that the names of the people who they have looked at include the following (keep in mind that this UID was found in 1993, and had been dead for about 3 days when found):

Evelyn Hartley - missing since 1953
Catherine Sjoberg - missing since 1974
Debra Spickler - missing since 1968
Cherry Greenman - missing since 1976
Debra Pscholka - missing since 1971
Margaret Holst - missing since 1977
Debora Lowe - missing since 1972

Maybe it's family members who have heard that it's skeletal remains without knowing what the postmortem interval is.

But if it's the NamUs system that suggests these possible matches, it seems that the matching algorithm needs a little work.
Click to expand...

We have seen cases resolved and identified 20 + years after the person goes missing. Why are these submissions out of the realm of possibility? Just curious.
 
Mensch said:
We have seen cases resolved and identified 20 + years after the person goes missing. Why are these submissions out of the realm of possibility? Just curious.
Click to expand...

The woman was estimated to have died three days before she was found in 1993, and was estimated to be in her teens or early 20's. That would seem to make someone missing for 40 years very unlikely.

I already noted in my earlier comment that if it was family members, they might not know all of the circumstances.

But if it is a NamUs algorithm, it should have all of the info available, and be able to come up with possibles that are more likely.
 
CarlK90245 said:
The woman was estimated to have died three days before she was found in 1993, and was estimated to be in her teens or early 20's. That would seem to make someone missing for 40 years very unlikely.

I already noted in my earlier comment that if it was family members, they might not know all of the circumstances.

But if it is a NamUs algorithm, it should have all of the info available, and be able to come up with possibles that are more likely.
Click to expand...
I understood the calculation. I just wondered if you or anyone else skips by a person because the time line seems 'unlikely'? There are run-aways who are never reported. There are missing who are not endangered but get reported that way because it is the only way a report will be taken or has been by some departments. So if a run away left home 30 + years ago it is conceivable they could die today and be identified today - or next week.

One of my employees has a stickey on his pc which reads: Q) Is a picture worth a thousand words? A) Sometimes words (circumstances) are worth more than a thousand pictures. Just always curious how people approach these cases. Thanks.
 
Your point well taken.

All I'm saying is that there are plenty of missing women with the same height, race, etc. who are not suggested by NamUs.

And BTW, I have no problem with considering a possible with a long timeline. the Aundria Bowman / Crystal Rae case is a perfect example of where we (i.e. both you and I) called in the possible despite the long timeline.

ETA: Another example of a head-scratcher in a NamUs exclusions list is case 6476. The UID died in 1997. William Smolinski disappeared in 2004, but is still listed as having been considered. I don't know if that was NamUs that suggested WPS as a possible, or if someone called WPS in without any info on the UID's date of death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 4,184 (members: 69, guests: 4,115)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
4,115
Total visitors
4,184
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,549
Messages
17,970,864
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top