CO CO - Sturgis Lee Wittenburg, 14 mos, Brighton, 2 Jul 1997

New Posts

F

Fuuro

spicy user
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
424
Reaction score
1,181
I was looking through the Charley Project updates and I came across a very unusual case: a cute young girl named Sturgis Wittenburg who looked VERY young, but had no age available. There were also no details of her disappearance. I looked up her name on Google "Sturgis Wittenburg" in quotation marks and I only found 2 search results from the same website: colorado.gov, which said that she was only 14 months old (her DOB is Apr. 30, 1996, she went missing on Jul. 2, 1997), which really threw me off, because in her picture, she had a full head of hair and GLASSES, although now I'm pretty sure the picture was a joke after looking at it closely (silly Fuuro is silly :facepalm:). I also found out that she went missing from the city of Brighton, CO, so now we have a county and a city. Unfortunately, the circumstances of her disappearance, her eye color, and vital statistics are unknown still. As for her eye color, I'm pretty sure it's brown, as the quality of the picture is decent enough. As for the circumstances of her disappearance, she could've been taken by someone who wanted children and is living somewhere unaware of her true identity, just like many of the other babies who have been missing for over a decade. She is now 17 years old and she probably has a driver's license and she could possibly have a job. Hopefully, if she was abducted, she finds out her true identity soon. I don't see why she had no vital statistics available. Did she live with her parents? Was she ever taken to the doctor? I just don't understand, although I really think that she's alive somewhere.

If anyone knows anything about the case that hasn't been disclosed, please call LE (Adams Co. Sheriff's Office) or post here. And if any young women out there think they may be Sturgis herself, you need to talk to your parents and find out what's going on.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/w/wittenburg_sturgis.html
https://www.colorado.gov/apps/coldcase/casedetail.html?id=62
 
What makes you think the picture is a joke? That would be in very poor taste, IMO. I think it's also possible there is a typo on the DOB or date of disappearance. OR it's a family abduction and they somehow have a photo of her after her abduction. Or it was uploaded in error. Or a host of other possibilities.
 
I meant that the picture was taken in a comical way and that she didn't really look that way in everyday life. She had a full head of hair (it looks like very, very long hair at that and the "hair" is red, and Sturgis's is listed as brown) and wore glasses, and babies usually don't need to wear glasses...

As for the picture being from AFTER July 1997, she still looks very much like an infant in the picture, so it would have to be a short period of time afterwards, but I was also wondering if she was abducted by a family member. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't known to the public yet, since her height and weight aren't even known. Could it be possible that Sturgis was living with a grandparent or someone who did not have custody but was trying to and her custodial parents removed her from the home? Maybe that's why she's not listed as a Family Abduction, since her parents could've technically had custody and just left... MOO :twocents:
 
It's an odd picture for sure if she's a one year old baby. The child looks to be at least three years old. It's hard to pinpoint the age of a child who is obese. The clothing is odd for a child of any age. It's more like something a 50 year old woman might wear.

Even though sometimes a one year old may have to wear glasses for various eye issues, I agree with you that this is a weird case.
 
I think someone put an adults glasses on the baby to take a silly picture because there is no way those glasses would be given to a one year old in 1997. The hair I can't figure out.

I have been searching for hours for more info on this child. I did find some Lee Wittenburgs but nothing else.
 
It's also worth nothing that that High School (Jefferson High School) is in Edgewater, CO and is located a little over half an hour from where Sturgis went missing. Very interesting. Sturgis would also be in High School at the time that the article was written.
 
Canadian4 said:
I think someone put an adults glasses on the baby to take a silly picture because there is no way those glasses would be given to a one year old in 1997. The hair I can't figure out.

I have been searching for hours for more info on this child. I did find some Lee Wittenburgs but nothing else.
Click to expand...

But the glasses do look fitted to the size of the child.

I agree this child does not look 1 year old.

Very curious.
 
Actually, those glasses look like they WERE made for her. Notice the sides conform to the sides of her head. What they resemble to me are the one-piece glasses with curved lenses made for very young children. They do not have side posts like regular glasses, but instead are made from a rubbery substance and are made like swim goggles- 'circular' if you understand my meaning. The way the flash from the camera reflects off the lenses convinces me that these are infant/toddler prescription glasses.
Not that any of this helps find this little one- but she may have been a preemie (I see them often in our clinics)
 
If the Sturgis in the Honor Roll article was the Sturgis, she would have to have been no older than 4 years old when the picture was taken, since the article was from 2010, meaning she would have to had been born after mid-late 1992, and she looks a lot younger than that. But for all we know right now, that Sturgis Wittenburg can be a male, but I really don't think that it's a coincidence that 2 people living 30 minutes away from each other around the same age share the same, very uncommon, name. According to themeaningofnames.org, the name "Sturgis" likely has less than 5 occurrences each year in each state, so this Sturgis could very possibly be the only "Sturgis Wittenburg" in the U.S.

http://www.themeaningofnames.org/?n=Sturgis&m=&d=&y=&go=Go
 
Fuuro said:
If the Sturgis in the Honor Roll article was the Sturgis, she would have to have been no older than 4 years old when the picture was taken, since the article was from 2010, meaning she would have to had been born after mid-late 1992, and she looks a lot younger than that. But for all we know right now, that Sturgis Wittenburg can be a male, but I really don't think that it's a coincidence that 2 people living 30 minutes away from each other around the same age share the same, very uncommon, name. According to themeaningofnames.org, the name "Sturgis" likely has less than 5 occurrences each year in each state, so this Sturgis could very possibly be the only "Sturgis Wittenburg" in the U.S.

http://www.themeaningofnames.org/?n=Sturgis&m=&d=&y=&go=Go
Click to expand...

Maybe the "situation" was resolved, but she was not taken off these 2 sites about her being missing. OR maybe it wasn't resolved.....
It seems plausible that it is her considering where the high school is located and her name, etc.
IMOO.
 
Anyone had a subscription to one of the yearbook websites?????
 
Bump bumpity bump bump (it's been almost a year)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 3,598 (members: 150, guests: 3,448)

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
3,448
Total visitors
3,599
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,815
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top