Identified! CA - Dana Point, WhtFem 23UFCA, 18-23, cliff jump, Sep'87 - Holly Glynn

[KLCD620]

Hello....this is my first time posting. I saw the list of Dana Point Jane Doe possible matches. My sister, Carol Lubahn is listed as a possible match, however I think she can be ruled out. My sister, Carol had blue eyes and blonde hair. She disappeared March 30, 1981.
In looking at the Dana Point Jane Doe profile, it says brown eyes and light brown hair.
I really appreciate this website. If anyone would like more information about my sister, please let me know. Thanks

Did you report your sister, Carol Lubahn, as missing person from the database?

 

[CarlK90245]

Hello....this is my first time posting. I saw the list of Dana Point Jane Doe possible matches. My sister, Carol Lubahn is listed as a possible match, however I think she can be ruled out. My sister, Carol had blue eyes and blonde hair. She disappeared March 30, 1981.
In looking at the Dana Point Jane Doe profile, it says brown eyes and light brown hair.

I really appreciate this website. If anyone would like more information about my sister, please let me know. Thanks

Welcome to Websleuths, stillwaters. I went to El Camino College in the late 80's, and I am well-familiar with the old Red Onion restaurant chain, as I worked as a bartender at the Manhattan Beach Red Onion in 1985. Carol has come up on my radar a few times while looking at possible matches, but none enough to actually call-in.

If there is any additional information that you have on Carol that is not in her Charley Project profile, It would be great if you could provide that info to Meaghan Good (administrator of Charley Project), so she can update Carol's page.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/l/lubahn_carol.html

You might also want to start a discussion thread for Carol's case in the "Missing but Not Forgotten" forum. Although your previous comment is quite on-topic, any extensive discussion of Carol's case on this thread would probably stray from the topic (Dana Point Jane Doe), and the moderator would probably intervene.

ETA: I see that the NamUs page indicates that there is no DNA sample available for Carol. I suggest that you contact the Law Enforcement agency in charge of Carol's case and ask that they enter Carol's DNA profile in CODIS (i.e., the national DNA database). Assuming that you and Carol have the same mother, you would be able to provide the reference sample, and it would be processed free of charge. (See Believe09's post below for details of how this can be achieved)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Submitted IA - Missing in Iowa - Houston unidentified

 

[Cymro]

Earlier in the thread I said this:

Jane was 18-23 years old biologically. Their argument is that it is more likely that, in San Diego in 1977, an 8-13 year old girl (who apparently never went on to get a criminal record with fingerprints, or we'd have IDed her) stole a purse (and not just any purse, but one with someone else's name on), kept it for 10 years, and then had it with her on the day she killed herself.

Alternatively the stolen purse could have been found and donated to Goodwill, or donated by the thief who'd gotten tired of it, or kept by the thief lying around, and given to Jane (who could have been a sibling, hooker, friend, lover or acquaintance of that person), or just passed around a bunch of homeless people, none of whom would care that someone else's name was on it...

Jane was carrying a stolen purse with ID from 10 years previously. It sounds crazy but Rachel Ziselman went missing almost exactly ten years before Doe was found. It seems odd that anyone would keep using the same purse for an entire decade, especially at this age, so could it have been a staged clue? Could Rachel have been kept in some kind of Jaycee Dugard-like situation and been unwilling or unable to divulge her former identity but not quite able to let it go?

Or is that just plain nuts? The thought crossed my mind and seems to make sense to the Doe Network but it doesn't hang together very well.

 

[stillwaters]

Thanks for your reply, I am still learning how to maneuver in this website! I wanted to answer you, and then will go to the "Missing but not Forgotten" website to add any further information about my sister, Carol Lubahn. Just to reply that Carol's DNA is on file in the database, and also dental records. And, coincidentally Carol (and myself) both went to El Camino College! She was attending there at the time of her disappearance.
Well, thanks to you and everyone else for your replies.

 

[Ada Wong]

I'm bumping this up to both thank stillwaters, the sister of Carol Lubahn, for posting in this topic, and to bring this topic back up to the attention of some of this site's extremely talented sleuths. The hope and desire that this young woman will be identified has long been stuck deeply in my gut, and it never leaves.

I'll end this post with a very short and heartbreaking quote from an April 26, 1994 article that was in the Los Angeles Times. I hope it presents some insight into why I, and hopefully others, can never give up on this one.

Said [Cullen] Ellingburgh, who handled the case, "She was still alive for some time at the bottom of the cliff, because she had made angel wings with her arms in the sand, you know, like children do in the snow."

 

[Stephani]

Wow, Ada...your quote from the aritcle is heartbreaking...I have never read about this case before. I am very intrigued...

 

[Ada Wong]

Wow, Ada...your quote from the aritcle is heartbreaking...I have never read about this case before. I am very intrigued...

To further your intrigue and that of others, I present more information about this case that's generally not reported on sites such as The Doe Network.

Her death was first reported in the September 21, 1987 issue of the Los Angeles Times. At the time of the report, Sergeant Ron Green stated that the woman appeared to be in her twenties, and she had been discovered by passers by at approximately 6:40 AM. This discovery presumably occurred on the twentieth, but was reported in the paper on the next day.

An August 17, 1989 article reveals that Jane's cause of death was ruled to be a suicide by Cullen Ellingburgh, then a deputy coroner. He emphatically states that the case was, "Very much a suicide." Also according to the article, the hotel desk clerk at the Hampton Inn in Mission Viejo was asked by Jane whether or not there were any tall buildings in the area; however, she later placed a call asking for a taxi to take her to the Ritz-Carlton hotel. Oddly enough, the Ritz-Carlton is not a high rise, and it would not be a suitable location to attempt a suicide via jumping.

The article goes on to state that partway on her journey to the Ritz-Carlton, Jane realized she didn't have enough money for the rest of the taxi ride. She then paid her last eighteen dollars, using one ten dollar bill and eight ones, and exited the cab. It is purely my speculation, but it does not seem as though she truly ever intended to go to the Ritz-Carlton in the first place. Even if she had arrived there, she had no money that would have allowed her to purchase a room. She was also not clad in clothing that would have remotely suggested the possibility of prostitution or any other means of making money quickly enough to obtain a room. If ever she truly wanted to go there, it was almost certainly not for her own sake.

The April 26, 1994 Los Angeles Times article that I previously quoted offers further details. Within it, it is revealed that Jane's body had been cremated sometime in the interim between the 1989 and 1994 articles. It is further explained that the cremation process cost four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and that her ashes were taken out to sea in Dana Point and were then dumped. According to the Orange County Sheriff's Department, this is standard practice for cases of unidentified people that have persisted for eighteen to twenty-four months.

Ellingburgh is quoted again, this time as stating that, "No one should have to die that way." He also refers to Jane as, "My girl," and states his refusal to give up on the case. Ellingburgh claims that he has not and will not give up on solving her case or that of other unidentified people in Orange County. As a religious man, he wonders aloud whether the unidentified's spirits are able to rest until their relatives are told of their loved one's fates. He states that he hopes that each unidentified decedent is headed toward a better place, but he believes that anywhere is likely better than the places they've been.

The 1994 article references Jane as a young freckle-faced teenager. This is in direct opposition to the original 1987 article that stated that she was in her twenties. At some indeterminate point after this article, the age range was officially decided to be between eighteen and twenty-three.

The article concludes by stating that there was no visible moon in the early morning of September 20, 1987, and Jane would have looked down from the cliff and seen absolutely nothing. She only would have heard the sound of the Pacific Ocean smacking against the rocks below, and she quite literally leapt blindly into the near total darkness. Ellingburgh goes on to explain the angel-like figure Jane made in the sand prior to her death, and the article writer seems to suggest that it must have been a very important thing to her.

It is also stated that despite the press coverage that Jane's death had received, as of April 1994, there had been literally no leads ever submitted about the case.

A 2000 article that briefly mentions the case again puts emphasis on the heartbreaking fact that investigators were no closer to solving the case than than they were in 1987.

To the best of my knowledge, Jane's case has not been mentioned in the Los Angeles Times since the 2000 article, but I would be extremely interested in knowing of any other stories they've featured, or other newspapers or print publications that have covered her story.

Unsolved Mysteries briefly covered the story in 1995, but they made a number of glaring mistakes. They claimed that her height was five feet and eight inches tall, when she was in fact four inches shorter than that. Unbelievably, their site still states at the time of this writing that the death occurred on May 18, 1987. Where they even got that date from is anyone's guess, and I have e-mailed them corrected info on numerous occasions. Thus far, I've received no response, and it appears that the current owners of the show have unfortunately very little interest in providing accurate information or solving cases.

Other television shows may have also covered the story, and I'd be interested in seeing or at least knowing about any other coverage that this woman has received.

I apologize to anyone who may be bothered by the sheer length of this post; however, I hope that it has provided a more complete understanding of this case than other locations on the internet have done thus far.

 

[Ada Wong]

The following post contains information that is a matter of publicly and freely available record from the Superior Court of California: County of San Diego. It is related solely to the missing person Alexis Christina Owens who has been previously speculated as a possible match for the unidentified decedent who is the subject of this topic. If anyone wishes to independently verify my findings, they can do so here: http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov

---

After having been told that Alexis Owens was probably the Dana Point, California Jane Doe, I have long been intrigued but very skeptical. For whatever reason, I had a feeling in my gut that Ms. Owens was likely either still alive, or was alive for some time after September 20, 1987. I believe that I have now located information that confirms as much.

On Februrary 27, 1989, Amy Owens, one of Alexis Owens' currently known aliases, had a criminal complaint filed against her. Furthermore, a March 13, 1992 complaint followed. While this is interesting, it doesn't actually prove anything other than the fact that some woman, who apparently did not give a birthdate, shared an alias with a missing person and was in criminal trouble twenty years ago.

What makes this far more interesting is the following: Guess who else also had trouble, this time civil, in San Diego during the same time period? Sherry Ann McGallion, another of Owens' known aliases. During the latter part of 1992, McGallion had suit filed against her by a landlord over an issue of unlawful detainer. Following this event, Sherry McGallion and Amy Owens seemingly disappear from San Diego's public record. However, it is important to note the utter odds against both names showing up in San Diego in 1992 if these women were not actually Alexis Christina Owens.

Statistically, McGallion is the 118236th most popular last name in the United States. No, that was not a typo. Adding to this, Sherry is the 237th most popular name in the United States. If one mathematically works this out, you come up with a name that probably shouldn't mathematically exist, and certainly would be an utter miracle if it existed multiple times within the United States. It would be especially miraculous if it existed multiple times within the state of California.

While this does not fully answer, nor does it intend to, the question of what eventually became of Alexis Owens, it should remove any reasonable suspicion that she and Dana Point's Jane Doe are the same person.

If anyone wishes to continue looking into Owens' case, and this is something I wholeheartedly encourage, I have also turned up links between Sherry Ann McGallion and Los Angeles, California. However, it is important to note that Los Angeles County's records are not freely available, and a simple one time search through their electronic database costs $4.75. While this is quite affordable on the surface of things, it could get prohibitively expensive when a sizable list of aliases are complicating matters.

 

[q64ceo]

I am throwing two more possibles out there.

#1, http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/629dfca.html
There is a scar next to her left side of mouth, there is a blemish on the reconstruction in about the same area. Same height as Jane Doe and correct weight range.

#2, http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/745dfca.html
Looks similar.

 

[Ada Wong]

I noticed today that this Jane Doe has finally been added to NamUs. The link to her file is here: https://identifyus.org/cases/7661

It's currently not of much interest because it references a number of things that simply aren't there. It claims that a dental chart is attached to the NamUs file, and it's not; it claims that there's no DNA for the Jane Doe, and there is; and it claims she was found with no personal belongings, and that isn't accurate either.

The most interesting part of the NamUs file is that there's a brand new and much higher resolution scan of the facial sketch. It amazes me how much more detail is now easily visible. It appears as though Jane Doe had two skin blemishes of some sort beneath her right eye, and she also had one below the right edge of her lower lip. There are also several parts of her face which are very darkly shaded, and I'm not sure if that's intended to indicate that she was extremely freckled, or if it's just indicative of Marilyn Droz really being exacting about shadow detail. I may e-mail her and ask.

As for q64ceo's post: Thank you for taking an interest in this case! I was starting to feel quite lonely on this one, so it's very, very good to see anyone offering suggestions.

As for your suggestions, Christina Smith is an interesting one that I personally have not looked into before. You're right about the apparent blemish, and she also seems to have something going on beneath her eye as well. However, there are things going against her as a match. Unless her hair had been dyed in the picture, it looks much too dark to ever be thought of as strawberry-blonde. She appears to lack any noticeable freckles, and she also lacks the well-defined jawline of the unidentified woman. Jane Doe was described as slender, but "well built" at 127 lbs. On the other hand, Smith seems to be carrying extra weight in her face at a listed 113 lbs. At a weight nearly fifteen pounds heavier, I doubt she could have been described as particularly slender.

I have attached an image to this post, because the highest resolution image of Smith I could find had really wonky colors. I tried to compensate for this as best as I could, and I believe the result is an image that's probably far closer to what Smith looked like than the original version.

I think Schneider is a lot easier to disqualify though. While there are some facial similarities between her and the unidentified, if they are one in the same, she would have been twenty-nine years old at the time of her death. While a six year age difference isn't usually an insurmountable issue, it likely is in a case where the coroner offers such a narrow age range for a young woman. As far as I'm aware, the most probable reason for a narrow age range such as 18-23 would be due to whether bones had fused and stopped growing completely. Growth would have almost certainly stopped in all but the incredibly rare twenty-nine year old woman.

Schneider's hair also seems to be really, really dark. It honestly looks more like it's black than the brown that is listed. She also doesn't show any signs of freckling, nor of the skin blemishes that Jane Doe possessed. I would personally consider her an extremely unlikely match, but I could, of course, be wrong. I have also attached a hopefully more color accurate picture of Sally Schneider to this post.

 

[JupiterAmmon]

Wow Ada, you are so invested in this case, keep up the good work! I hope someday we will be able to give a name to this unidentified young woman. I am glad that uploaded that larger sketch to Namus. I wonder if this JD was ever reported missing. It seems with all of the media (LA times articles, Unsolved Mysteries, etc) that someone would have known who this woman is!
I also think it is rather strange she wanted to go to the Ritz Carlton hotel. It is a very upscale hotel, and she clearly had no money to rent a room. There is a large cliff at the back of the hotel, but I'm not sure if the fall is big enough to kill someone. I was just at the hotel this summer and thought of this JD. Let us know of any more information you come across! I really appreciate your work on this case!

Also, the large blemish/freckle/mole that appears on Alexis Owens cheek is not present on the big/detailed sketch for the JD, which leads me to believe that the deceased is probably not Owens. I doubt the artist would leave this detail out if they included the two small blemishes below JD's eye.

 

[Ada Wong]

Wow Ada, you are so invested in this case, keep up the good work! I hope someday we will be able to give a name to this unidentified young woman. I am glad that uploaded that larger sketch to Namus. I wonder if this JD was ever reported missing. It seems with all of the media (LA times articles, Unsolved Mysteries, etc) that someone would have known who this woman is!

I'm certainly beginning to wonder the same thing. When I first started following this case, I thought for sure that she would have been reported missing for a number of reasons. For one, she has six dental fillings, had undergone a root canal, and shows indications of prior orthodontic treatment. Even if she had one had dental insurance, these things are quite expensive, and they're indicative that she either once had a significant amount of money or someone, probably a family, who was taking care of her.

Furthermore, at 127 pounds, she was described as well-developed by law enforcement at the time. This would indicate that she was receiving, at least up until near her death, an adequate amount of food. If she had been on her own, potentially homeless, and reliant on second hand clothing, the obvious question is from where was she receiving the continuously adequate stream of food that she had apparently gotten?

Then we have the secondary issues of things that suggest that she probably was largely alone in the world at the time of her death. She had dental caries (tooth decay) in three of her teeth at the time of her death, and this seems to indicate that the dental care she had been receiving abruptly stopped for some reason. She was described as wearing probably second-hand clothing that included a purse with another person's name on it, and she was carrying almost no money or other worldly possessions.

There are only a few conclusions that I can come up with that fit all of the above evidence. The most obvious of which is that she was, probably sometime within a year or two of her suicide, kicked out by her family or caretakers and left to fend for herself. If we accept this as the most likely scenario, we must then go on to trying to figure out why she would have been removed from her home and the care she was receiving.

1. There is speculation that she might have given birth at some point in her lifetime. While the reports stress that she may have simply undergone a dilation and curettage procedure, an unplanned or unwed pregnancy might have been sufficient grounds in her family's eyes for cutting her out of their lives. Presuming she had been born in the middle to late 1960s, her parents would have grown up in a 1940s-1950s generation that likely would not have looked upon the pregnancy of an unwed woman favorably.

Of course, this theory has its complications in the simple question of where is the child or children that the decedent would have given birth to? Were there reports of any abandoned children found around the time of September 1987? If not, why not? A miscarriage or abortion would have likely redeemed her somewhat in her family's eyes, and it's difficult to imagine a pregnancy ending either of these ways and the decedent still being on her own.

2. The second option in my mind is that the decedent was homosexual. While some women do wear male underwear for comfortability reasons, men's underwear and male clothing in general sees some use within lesbian culture. If her sexual orientation became obvious to her parents or caretakers, it would have a very high probability of leaving her on her own.

It's important to remember that 1987 is long before homosexuality of any sort started seeing any major acceptance in mainstream society. It wasn't until 1992 that major musicians such as K.D. Lang and Melissa Etheridge publicly revealed their sexual orientations, and it wasn't until 1997 when Ellen Degeneres famously came out on national television and made doing so acceptable. Of course, even the 1990s were very heated for gays and lesbians. 1993 featured the infamous public book burning of Nancy Garden's lesbian-themed novel Annie on My Mind, and 1998 featured the brutal murder of Matthew Shepherd and the public emergence of the Westboro Baptist Church hate group.

Being openly gay or lesbian in 1987's America meant having a difficult time finding employment, housing, and support from the outside world.

3. Americans, particularly those of older generations, often find the act of suicide to be inherently shameful. If Jane left of her own volition, her family may simply not want her reported as having ended her own life. To them, it's entirely possible that they might envision her suicide as something that reflects poorly on themselves. If this is the case, they have every incentive not to report her as missing.

Essentially, these three reasons boil down to, "Why try to find her if we believe that what she's doing or what she did is horrible and shameful?" It is, of course, my sincerest wish that I am terribly wrong in my hypothesis. No one should ever have to go without having a single person out there who would look for them.

I also think it is rather strange she wanted to go to the Ritz Carlton hotel. It is a very upscale hotel, and she clearly had no money to rent a room. There is a large cliff at the back of the hotel, but I'm not sure if the fall is big enough to kill someone. I was just at the hotel this summer and thought of this JD. Let us know of any more information you come across! I really appreciate your work on this case!

When you describe a cliff behind the Ritz Carlton hotel, I'm presuming that you're talking about this area in particular? http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7694/googlemaps1292832699196.jpg (I did not attach this image because it's admittedly quite gigantic)

Prior to reading your post, I had never taken a good look at the Ritz-Carlton and its surrounding areas before. Thank you for pointing it out! This actually perfectly answers the question of why she'd want to go there. She had decided on jumping, and the Ritz-Carlton happened to be situated near a cliff from which she could leap. In absence of that opportunity, she must have improvised by leaping from where she did. I think this helps contribute to a workable psychoanalytic theory of Jane at the time of her death.

I'm going to try to avoid speculation as much as possible in the following, but it's bound to creep in. Do forgive me for as much, and feel free to correct me if I get anything incorrect. Here goes:

1. Jane was a young woman who was most likely given up on by parents or caretakers.

2. She had probably most likely attempted suicide at least once in the past. She may have been hospitalized for it. Were such medical records checked? (Statistically, women attempt suicide far more often than men; however, they succeed much less often due to generally using non-violent means. A woman would probably only attempt a very gruesome suicide by means of jumping if another method had previously failed)

3. She was likely not a drug user, prostitute, or any other form of petty criminal. She was never reported as acting anything other than perfectly clear-headed prior to her suicide; she wasn't dressed in a way that would generally facilitate prostitution, nor was she carrying money that would almost invariably result from such activity; and the only questionable property in her possession was a purse that had been stolen approximately ten years prior and from a different part of the state of California.

4. Jane was at least moderately religious, and she believed in the afterlife. This is exhibited by means of her creating a sand angel while she lay dying.

5. She was well educated on the means of eliciting her own death. Her suicide was planned out well in advance, and she had even picked out a specific place to leap from. It is possible that her original spot carried some sort of sentimental value to her for whatever reason. Perhaps she had once spent a positively remembered time at the Ritz-Carlton hotel with her family or a lover. Statistically, people seldom choose to attempt or commit suicide in locations that are uncomfortable or do not hold any particular value to them.

6. At the time of her death, she probably lived in California or had lived in California during her childhood or early teenage years; however, her decision to carry a map of the state most likely means that she did not live in Dana Point or know the area very well. Her ownership of the once stolen purse is a solid indicator that she had at least spent some period of time in San Diego or its surrounding areas.

I can provide statistical and anecdotal evidence for the statistical probabilities I mentioned above.

Also, the large blemish/freckle/mole that appears on Alexis Owens cheek is not present on the big/detailed sketch for the JD, which leads me to believe that the deceased is probably not Owens. I doubt the artist would leave this detail out if they included the two small blemishes below JD's eye.

This is kind of a weird way to end this post, but do you, or anyone else, think that the two blemishes underneath Jane's eye might be a result of acne scarring? Growing up, I had a particularly terrible and difficult to treat case of acne, and my face has a handful of blemishes that appear similar to those shown in the sketch. However, these scars are not particularly noticeable unless one is inspecting my facial features very closely. Considering my own experiences, it does make me curious as to whether the marks below Jane's eye could be light "ice pick" scarring from a teenage problem with acne.

If this is the case, it makes me wonder if one should, due to the generally low resolution of missing persons photographs, not focus all that much on whether or not these marks are visible. Does anyone have any thoughts on this particular matter?

 

[Mensch]

If this is the case, it makes me wonder if one should, due to the generally low resolution of missing persons photographs, not focus all that much on whether or not these marks are visible. Does anyone have any thoughts on this particular matter?

Generally speaking it is not a good idea to hang your hat on any case based on what might appear as 'skin blemishes". There is too much to consider. If it is a sketch or bust, I generally ignore these markers unless they are mentioned because a professional forensic artist will (should) look for such signs and include then in their presentation and if so, they would be included in a report.

Second, a person not trained in the process of decomp could not tell the difference between a skin breakdown marking and that of an ante mortem identifier. These are generally picked up in the hills and valleys of skin scanning which is complicated. This process not the scientific exam as originally hoped and is the main reason facial recognition has not caught on as a viable tool for identification.

They can be used as a point of interest to keep in mind when searching for a match to the core elements which are the facial shape, bone structure, brow features and hair lines.

In sketches, the artist frequently leaves marks on the image due to pen pressure or simply letting the pen drop on the paper (hesitation marks). We notice them only if we are so focused on the detail.

Then you must consider the condition of the image that was scanned and used as our reference. If it had debris or damage, that is what we get. With all that said, we can only hope the original postmortem image was kept intact as original as possible without unnecessary clean up and work from there.

There is truth to the saying...."Garbage in - garbage out."

 

[Ada Wong]

Second, a person not trained in the process of decomp could not tell the difference between a skin breakdown marking and that of an ante mortem identifier.

While this is true, I'd like to point out that Jane Doe's body was found within a few hours of her death. At that point, she wouldn't have even reached complete rigor mortis, and it's extremely unlikely that any minor autolysis would have caused identifiable skin markers to appear in that time frame.

Furthermore, Ms. Droz is very well regarded as a forensic artist. In 2006, the Los Angeles times actually wrote an article about her expertise in determining the facial features of numerous deceased persons, and this even included a man who had died twenty-eight years prior. She surely understands decomposition very well.

Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/09/local/me-sketch9

In sketches, the artist frequently leaves marks on the image due to pen pressure or simply letting the pen drop on the paper (hesitation marks). We notice them only if we are so focused on the detail.

Then you must consider the condition of the image that was scanned and used as our reference. If it had debris or damage, that is what we get. With all that said, we can only hope the original postmortem image was kept intact as original as possible without unnecessary clean up and work from there.

It's pretty unlikely that the marks mentioned, those below the decedent's right eye, are hesitation marks of any sort. They aren't terribly close to any of the major facial features, and they seem fairly large and even slightly shaded compared to what is probably a slightly errant marking on her upper left cheek, and what is clearly an errant marking on her lower left forehead.

Also, the drawing appears to have been done in pencil. This should mean that any major marking errors, and the marks beneath her eye would've had to have been that, could have been removed without much in the way of problems. The drawing itself appears to be in very good shape. It looks to have been drawn on a heavy and durable style of paper, and there are no signs of stray dust, hair, or other debris that often plagues scanners in more conventional settings. Thankfully, Orange County seems to have done a very, very good job in preserving information related to this woman.

 

[Mensch]

Uhh huh! I was responding to your argument that attention should NOT be paid to the marks and now you say they are good identifiers.

If this is the case, it makes me wonder if one should, due to the generally low resolution of missing persons photographs, not focus all that much on whether or not these marks are visible. Does anyone have any thoughts on this particular matter?

My bad!
As to the term "pen", that would mean pencil or charcoal stub. The Internet if full of stetches where there are marks that appear to be blemishes and even moles and they are merely a stroke of the pen.
Good points though.:twocents:

 

[Ada Wong]

I think I'm just being unnecessarily confusing, and I can't quite figure out how to write this clearly enough. It's honestly quite embarrassing considering that whole thing where I'm an author by trade.

What I'm trying to say, and I hope this time it's clear, is that I believe the marks are accurate representations of how Jane looked at the time; however, I don't necessarily believe that they would have been noticeable immediately if at all to anyone who knew her. Does this explanation of my thinking make sense?

I'm sorry for eliciting such confusion.

 

[Bobby88]

Does anyone know if the purse had the owner's first and last name on it, or just the first name? If it was the latter, I was wondering if Jane Doe could have had the same first name as the woman who owned it. Since her clothes were most likely second-hand, is it possible that she saw this purse at a yard sale, thrift shop, Goodwill, etc. and bought it because it happened to have her name on it?

Given how long before her death the purse was snatched, I'm sure this victim had no way of knowing that the purse was stolen property.

 

[Ada Wong]

Does anyone know if the purse had the owner's first and last name on it, or just the first name?

It wasn't ever explicitly stated, but it's safe to say that it must have been a first and last name. Reportedly, law enforcement had an easy time locating the original owner of the purse. That's something that would be virtually impossible with only a first name, and it would probably be difficult even with a fairly uncommon last name. Furthermore, if it was only one or the other, the name would have assuredly been released by this point because it would be a potential clue to anyone who knew her.

One might imagine that they could have identified the purse as stolen by means of finding the original report of its theft. However, this is unlikely to be the case. The statute of limitations on theft in California is three years, so any record San Diego's police had of the purse being stolen would have almost assuredly been destroyed at a time ten years later. There's simply no purpose in keeping records of no longer prosecutable minor thefts, and they'd swiftly run out of storage space if they did so in the pre-digital age.

 

[Ada Wong]

I'm bumping this topic to state that Jane Doe's NamUs file was updated yesterday.

A link to it again: https://identifyus.org/cases/7661

A few notable change stuck out at me, and the first is the following in the scars and marks section:

acne scars to upper back and shoulder area

While this isn't directly referring to her face, it seems obvious that she did have acne scarring, and that essentially answers the, "What are the mysterious marks under her eye?" question.

Her clothing is also described in more detail for the first time in any report that I'm aware of. According to the report, she was wearing a short dress of light brown color, and its size was medium. The dress' brand is listed as "Penie-Cal". Is anyone familiar with this brand? Google seems to turn up absolutely nothing.

The name seems to be a play on the word pinnacle, and there is a Pinnacle Boutique women's clothier that has been based out of Malibu since 1978. I haven't a clue whether the two are related. Pinnacle Malibu's site can be found here: http://pinnaclemalibu.com/ Their page is, quite honestly, largely incomplete and a mess.

Intriguingly, Jane died in Orange County. Orange County is immediately bordered to the South by San Diego County, and we have good reason to believe she was in San Diego. Malibu is in Los Angeles County. What's directly above Orange County? Los Angeles County. This might mean absolutely nothing, but it's at least something to look into.

The men's BVD underwear that she was wearing were size 34. This size would be currently sold as men's mediums.

Her shoes are described as canvas, turquoise in color, size six, and made in China. Though no brand is listed, I can only imagine that the shoes were cheaper clones of the ever-popular Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star canvas sneakers. If so, they would've looked similar to these: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5287/31ajbiya6clsx342.jpg Unfortunately, copies of Converse shoes are extremely common, and they could have been purchased almost anywhere and at almost any time. Canvas shoes are fairly flimsy but nigh indestructible, so she could have had them for years.

 

[Donjeta]

https://identifyus.org/cases/7661

Hazel Klug is the only one listed as an exclusion.