Identified! OK - Caddo Co, WhtFem 16-25, UP6604, in shallow grave, Apr'95 - Katrina Kay (Burton) Bentivegna

[Aeronomy]

When they say Skeletal Findings: Possible term or near-term pregnancy, I don't think they meant that the Jane Doe was pregnant at the time of her death. I think they are saying that she had carried a pregnancy to full-term some time prior to her death.

Thanks Carl!

That actually causes me to wonder a bit more about it being Rachel, though. Since NamUs states "possible" term or near term pregnancy due to the skeletal findings, I wonder if the doubt was due to what was there or what wasn't there as far as bone formation goes. Since a pregnant female experiences new bone growth beginning in the early stages of pregnancy and knowing that reproductive adolescent females are oftentimes still experiencing their own adolescent bone growth, I wonder if it could lead to uncertainty as far as the remains being someone who'd had a child. I guess I'm just wondering what factor played into the uncertainty.

Since she was in her first trimester in January and whoever this was had been dead for several months, I don't think they are the same person.

Unfortunately, I've seen differing reports on how far along Rachel was in her pregnancy when she went missing. I've seen first trimester and both 5 and 6 months in reports and from some of the old news articles in Kansas. But echoing on what I'd mentioned to Carl, I wonder if being in her first trimester would cause her own early pregnancy bone growth, and at the same time be too early for fetal bone growth since that doesn't typically happen until the beginning of the second trimester.

In case of any confusion and just for clarification, estimated postmortem interval is stated as months, not several months. Rachel was reported missing just over three months prior to the time these remains were found.

Aeronomy, have you submitted Rachel?

I didn't want to submit her before seeing if there were any feedback here first and decided to give it a day or two. I will submit her now. Thanks.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

They don't normally list past pregnancies in the skeletal remain section, imo. I think it could mean they found remains of a near full term fetus mixed in with her remains.

How can they tell if a skeleton is right or left handed?

 

[CarlK90245]

They don't normally list past pregnancies in the skeletal remain section, imo. I think it could mean they found remains of a near full term fetus mixed in with her remains.

That's not true. The skeletal section would be where prior pregnancies were noted. A prior pregnancy can be determined by examining the pubic symphysis on the pelvic bones. The pregnancy causes the pubic symphysis to develop a rough pitted texture.

How can they tell if a skeleton is right or left handed?

On the scapula, the points where the tendons attach to the bone are more rugged on the side of the dominant hand, and the elbow and shoulder joints get more wear on the dominant side.

Also, if the person is wearing shoes, the laces are tied differently depending on whether the wearer is right or left handed.

 

[Tssiemer]

On the scapula, the points where the tendons attach to the bone are more rugged on the side of the dominant hand, and the elbow and shoulder joints get more wear on the dominant side.

Also, if the person is wearing shoes, the laces are tied differently depending on whether the wearer is right or left handed.

Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aeronomy]

They don't normally list past pregnancies in the skeletal remain section, imo. I think it could mean they found remains of a near full term fetus mixed in with her remains.

The word "possible" has thrown me for a loop. I feel like they'd list fetal remains if they found a fetal skeleton or they'd list the pregnancy without the word possible.

I also keep wondering if the decedent's skeletal remains present strong indications of pregnancy or parturition, but not enough to definitively conclude the bone changes were due to either of the two. . .or if there were indications of the pregnancy, but not parturition such as the case with a cesarean birth.

I don't know. I'm confused. I sent an email earlier to submit Rachel, but I'll call tomorrow just to see if I can get further clarification that can be shared about the possible pregnancy information.

 

[Tssiemer]

It just seems like an odd thing to add if she wasn't pregnant when she died.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I'll keep my fingers crossed for a Carl K recon on this one...

Honestly, I think even if you just kept the face and took off the old-lady wig (no young girl in 95 wore her hair like that!!) and put on some different hair that would be a big improvement. I wonder if I can figure out a way to do that. I am so challenged on this laptop!

 

[Aeronomy]

I sent an email earlier to submit Rachel, but I'll call tomorrow just to see if I can get further clarification that can be shared about the possible pregnancy information.

This is just to confirm I did contact the medical examiner's office; however, the person I needed to speak with had left for the day. I was informed I'd receive a callback in the morning and to give them another call if not. I was also given the working hours to call between if I needed to call back. Hopefully, tomorrow will bring the clarification.

 

[Aeronomy]

UPDATE:

The anthropologist at the OK OCME confirmed the skeletal remains indicated this woman had been pregnant at one point in her lifetime. She was not able to conclude if she miscarried, had a caesarian delivery, etc. However, skeletal findings indicated she likely carried the baby for the majority of her pregnancy. My understanding was this would probably rule out any female that had never carried a baby for at least seven months, (eliminating Rachel).

Other Confirmations:

There was no evidence of dismemberment.

Scattered and missing remains were due to animal activity.

Death was caused by sharp force trauma. (stabbing, etc.)

 

[EmmaliLucia]

I thought her body was buried?

 

[Aeronomy]

I thought her body was buried?

NamUs states she was found in a shallow grave so the depth she was buried couldn't have been very deep. This would indicate the depth of the dirt, leaves, debris, or etc that was used to cover her probably wasn't any more than a few inches. Animals have no problem with sniffing out decomp and digging through a few inches of dirt to get to the source.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

That's not true. The skeletal section would be where prior pregnancies were noted. A prior pregnancy can be determined by examining the pubic symphysis on the pelvic bones. The pregnancy causes the pubic symphysis to develop a rough pitted texture.



On the scapula, the points where the tendons attach to the bone are more rugged on the side of the dominant hand, and the elbow and shoulder joints get more wear on the dominant side.

Also, if the person is wearing shoes, the laces are tied differently depending on whether the wearer is right or left handed.

Thanks! I learn something new every single day.

 

[velocitygirl]

There's a few faces that i think resemble the recon...i think the jawline is quite distinct.

Just a few ideas : http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1089dfca.html Michelle Jean Barnett
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1063dfnv.html Camille Dorothy Dardanes

 

[skydelta3574]

Ugh I so agree!!

Crikey, the recon makes her look menopausal. I hope they took good pics of the skull so another artist can give it a try. And soon.

:facepalm:

 

[Nikon]

Fascinating. So is there a definite difference between giving birth and carrying to full term on the pelvic bone?

 

[skydelta3574]

Fascinating. So is there a definite difference between giving birth and carrying to full term on the pelvic bone?

I would imagine that the act of birth itself probably changes your pelvic structure.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

 

[carbuff]

The following people have been ruled out as being this decedent:

First Name Last Name Year of Birth State LKA

Buffy Harris 1958 Oklahoma
Crystal Lynn Ortega 1981 Texas
Misty Ortega 1979 Texas

Dentals and DNA available

https://identifyus.org/cases/6604

 

[Ylva]

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/8290/2/

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/9495/4/ Laura looks uncannily similar to the recon from Carl in my opinion!

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/28493/6/

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/6388/10/

 

[Ginger21]

3 new rule-outs per namus. Rachel is listed twice in the list.
MP2503 Myra Manley 09/02/1983 Philadelphia , PA
MP6543 Rachel Pratt 01/16/1995 Finney , KS
MP38632 Barbara Ferree 10/03/1991 Grady , OK

 

[carbuff]

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Several new exclusions:
MP5993 Monique Daniels 06/02/1992 Cleveland OK
MP38632 Barbara Ferree 10/03/1991 Grady OK
MP8290 Buffy Harris 07/12/1994 Tulsa OK
MP2503 Myra Manley 09/02/1983 Philadelphia PA
MP6468 Crystal Ortega 08/08/1995 Cherokee TX
MP6469 Misty Ortega 08/08/1995 Cherokee TX
MP6543 Rachel Pratt 01/16/1995 Finney KS

I don't usually dump on the reconstructions because I've poked at it a little bit myself and I know how terribly hard it is. But that reconstruction looks like somebody's mother, not a young woman wearing lace underwear.