Identified! NV - Washoe Co., WhtFem 156UFNV, 25-35, Sheep's Flat Trail, Jul'82 - Mary Edith Silvani

New Posts

No new updates as of this time. I'm still checking in with the detective every few weeks. Nothing new.

As of now I am still working on my online segment of the case that I hope to produce and release to an audience of people who may recognize her.
 
Might have hit some pay dirt today. I was speaking with my manager and he said that all police reports are public property. As long as you have a case number you can access a police report for how ever many cents they charge per sheet of paper.

The case number is on doe network. I think I'll head up to the sheriffs office tomorrow and see what I can get.
 
Charlie99909 said:
Might have hit some pay dirt today. I was speaking with my manager and he said that all police reports are public property. As long as you have a case number you can access a police report for how ever many cents they charge per sheet of paper.

The case number is on doe network. I think I'll head up to the sheriffs office tomorrow and see what I can get.
Click to expand...


I don't want to rain on your parade, hope you can get something useful from the police report. My job is selling police reports, in my town and state everyone is entitled to a public release, basically the incident. Different people are entitled to different things, LE everything but warrant info, Insurance/Lawyers everything but warrant, etu,. Victims their info, Suspects their info, depending on status of case, closed (warrent refused, etc.) everything but suspect name and what they were charged with. Juveniles names always come out even in car accidents. Sometimes I give out almost everything and others with lots of great info redacted. Public Releases tend to have lots of info redaxed. A full sixteen to twenty six page report will be two or three. Again hopefully your state is different from ours and you get some answers.
 
I imagine there will be certain things can get like crime scene photos and certain other info.
 
I have recently found some new info regarding the infant discovered a few months before the Jane Doe.

Date Found: February 24, 1982
Washoe County Coroner Case #0145-82
Newborn, white, infant female, brown hair, found in double-bagged trash bag floating in Truckee River at Flash Dam,*Sierra County, California.
Cause of Death: Undetermined/Homicide
Agency: Sierra County Sheriff


Whoever dumped her took to the time to really pack her up and toss her. Poor child. No word yet if there is a connection on the two, the chances are slim I know but anything is possible.
 
I have to add my 2 cents about the clothes as well. It's really bothering me.

I do not understand how it is physically possible for her to wear a size 10 jeans, no matter where the waist is. Unless she had a belt, which it sounds like there wasn't one. To put it into perspective - I'm 5 feet even and 105lbs give or take. I wear anywhere from a 3 to a 5. This woman was much thinner than me (5 lbs-ish heavier, almost half a foot taller). This is model thin - ballerina thin. You can see in her face how thin she was. Not an ounce of fat under her skin. I'm sorry but size 10 doesn't make sense when she was a 3 at the most, most likely a 0. It would be like me being about 90 lbs.

I want a waist measurement on the jeans. And the shoe size? Again, 5 ft tall, I wear a 6.5 or 7. That is more likely though, especially since we now know the bruise was not caused by the shoes.

So, IMO something is wrong. I don't think her weight is wrong because of her face. I think the size of the jeans is wrong. It just doesn't make sense. Thats 4 or 5 sizes too big. My soon to be MIL is an 8 and about that height and while she isn't overweight by any means, she is very curvy. Maybe weighs about 140 (guessing here)? She was a 10 for a while.

It would be like putting a stick in a potato sack. Seriously.
 
Claudette said:
I have to add my 2 cents about the clothes as well. It's really bothering me.

I do not understand how it is physically possible for her to wear a size 10 jeans, no matter where the waist is. Unless she had a belt, which it sounds like there wasn't one. To put it into perspective - I'm 5 feet even and 105lbs give or take. I wear anywhere from a 3 to a 5. This woman was much thinner than me (5 lbs-ish heavier, almost half a foot taller). This is model thin - ballerina thin. You can see in her face how thin she was. Not an ounce of fat under her skin. I'm sorry but size 10 doesn't make sense when she was a 3 at the most, most likely a 0. It would be like me being about 90 lbs.

I want a waist measurement on the jeans. And the shoe size? Again, 5 ft tall, I wear a 6.5 or 7. That is more likely though, especially since we now know the bruise was not caused by the shoes.

So, IMO something is wrong. I don't think her weight is wrong because of her face. I think the size of the jeans is wrong. It just doesn't make sense. Thats 4 or 5 sizes too big. My soon to be MIL is an 8 and about that height and while she isn't overweight by any means, she is very curvy. Maybe weighs about 140 (guessing here)? She was a 10 for a while.

It would be like putting a stick in a potato sack. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.

I know that since 1982 clothing measurements have been drifting upwards. So that could make a difference. A size 10 in 1982 could well be smaller than a size ten in 2011. I know that nowadays American size zeros are more like an American size four would have been when my extremely skinny sister bought jeans in the 1970s.

Also, sizes tend to vary between countries and America tends to size for larger bodies. I know this mainly in plus size clothes, if you buy a size 20 in America it is likely to be equivalent to a UK 22. Maybe the jeans could have been labelled for a different market that had a slightly different sizing system?

Also, back in 1982 stretch jeans were all the rage, including a form of stretch jean that had a deeply ridged sort of crepe texture before it was put on and stretched a lot to fit. You'd honestly think that sort of jean wouldn't fit a rolled up newspaper if you saw it hanging up. I have no idea if Lee ever made that sort of jeans, though.
 
Charlie99909 said:
http://www.shopnational.com/p/Relax...ferralID=4da73dfd-1d3d-11e0-af68-001b2166becc

Basically these are the style jeans.

Friday is my only day off from work. I'm going to a local mega thrift store to see about locating vintage lee riders. For comparison I'll find a pair from today.
Click to expand...

If that's the style, and just going on current day size 10 measurements, the only way i can see our skinny Jane Doe wearing a pair without using a belt or holding them up with her hands is if she rolled the waistband over two or three times so they rode lower.
 
When I asked the detective if she was swimming in the jeans he said no. He inherited this case is 86/87. And has been working it since.
 
reasypeasy said:
If that's the style, and just going on current day size 10 measurements, the only way i can see our skinny Jane Doe wearing a pair without using a belt or holding them up with her hands is if she rolled the waistband over two or three times so they rode lower.
Click to expand...

I thought I read that it was size 10 to today's standards? Either way, the detective said they fit her :waitasec:
 
Charlie99909 said:
I have recently found some new info regarding the infant discovered a few months before the Jane Doe.

Date Found: February 24, 1982
Washoe County Coroner Case #0145-82
Newborn, white, infant female, brown hair, found in double-bagged trash bag floating in Truckee River at Flash Dam,*Sierra County, California.
Cause of Death: Undetermined/Homicide
Agency: Sierra County Sheriff


Whoever dumped her took to the time to really pack her up and toss her. Poor child. No word yet if there is a connection on the two, the chances are slim I know but anything is possible.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. Im confused here - how would it be possible the newborn and the UID would be related? The UID had what we assume is a C-section scar which would lead me to assume that she hadnt recently given birth - we dont know how well healed the scar was but from the reports they say its 'possible' she may have given birth before, if she had a fresh c-section scar I dont think they would say that it was possible?

Once a woman has a c-section its very unlikely she would be allowed to deliver naturally in any following pregnancies so its unlikely this baby had any relation to her.
 
Charlie99909 said:
There was other evidence, I can't specify what, but it would support that the killer and the victim both came from somewhere else that day. Also there is a reason to believe that she wasn't killed at night. It could be possible she was killed that evening or even that morning.
Click to expand...

Mhm.. What time was it that she was spotted walking like she was 'sleepy?

It makes more sense that she would have been killed in the evening/morning - one of the most confusing things to me was why she would be out walking around in the cold and snow in the middle of the night. Makes sense that she would have no problem walking around during the day.

I wonder if they made note of the contents of her stomach? That could help with the timeline as well as *maybe* help find any locals that may have seen her while eating.
 
Claudette said:
I have to add my 2 cents about the clothes as well. It's really bothering me.

I do not understand how it is physically possible for her to wear a size 10 jeans, no matter where the waist is. Unless she had a belt, which it sounds like there wasn't one. To put it into perspective - I'm 5 feet even and 105lbs give or take. I wear anywhere from a 3 to a 5. This woman was much thinner than me (5 lbs-ish heavier, almost half a foot taller). This is model thin - ballerina thin. You can see in her face how thin she was. Not an ounce of fat under her skin. I'm sorry but size 10 doesn't make sense when she was a 3 at the most, most likely a 0. It would be like me being about 90 lbs.

I want a waist measurement on the jeans. And the shoe size? Again, 5 ft tall, I wear a 6.5 or 7. That is more likely though, especially since we now know the bruise was not caused by the shoes.

So, IMO something is wrong. I don't think her weight is wrong because of her face. I think the size of the jeans is wrong. It just doesn't make sense. Thats 4 or 5 sizes too big. My soon to be MIL is an 8 and about that height and while she isn't overweight by any means, she is very curvy. Maybe weighs about 140 (guessing here)? She was a 10 for a while.

It would be like putting a stick in a potato sack. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Wasnt it the style to wear jeans super tight then?

It could just be the sizing though, I remember reading in the evelyn hartley thread that she wore a size 16 in jeans (1953) - she was 5'7 and 126 pounds.
 
Just something to add regarding the clothing sizes. I live in the U.K. the majority of shops here only stock clothes from size 8 upwards. Our sizes are very different from American sizes. Size 10 would be considered small here - in other words you would have to be slim. Also size 6 shoes are what I wear at 5ft 6 inches. Our shoes sizes are also different. I take a size 12 UK size and I am 9stone 8 pounds (not sure what that is in pounds and too lazy to add it up right now, lol)!! Just something to consider. Lee jeans were very popular here too in the early 80's!

MOO
 
She was never spotted walking around "sleepy".


All I had mentioned was when she was dead on the ground the people who saw her body thought she was sleeping on the ground.

The way she was though, no one would think she was asleep. It was just another way of saying "I do not want to get involved."

To reiterate, she was never seen walking around. If anyone saw her that day, they have yet to come forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 245 more.
Total: 3,133 (members: 246, guests: 2,887)

Online statistics

Members online
246
Guests online
2,888
Total visitors
3,134
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,666
Messages
17,972,724
Members
228,855
Latest member
Shaunie
Back
Top