FL FL - Davie, WhtFem 635UFFL, 14-20, white clogs, 'Give a Damn' panties - May'73

[DS2021]

I reached out to the medical examiner and asked if they could add this doe and the doe @Fuuro mentioned to NamUs. I will let you know if I hear anything back.

 

[theshadow45]

The 49th anniversary of Davie Jane Doe’s discovery passed recently.

 

[theshadow45]

Davie Jane Doe has been unidentified for 50 years today.

 

[Richard]

50 year anniversary of this unsolved case...

 

[paulhaynes]

Hi. I believe the date of discovery for the 1973 Davie Jane Doe (635UFFL) is incorrect — on DoeNetwork and every other source. The correct date is August 19, 1973. See the attached contemporaneous articles (from August 1973).

 

[phantomstrider]

I reached out to the medical examiner and asked if they could add this doe and the doe @Fuuro mentioned to NamUs. I will let you know if I hear anything back.

Did you ever hear anything back.

 

[DS2021]

Did you ever hear anything back.

I dont think so

 

[Richard]

Bumping thread up...

 

[Fuuro]

Hi. I believe the date of discovery for the 1973 Davie Jane Doe (635UFFL) is incorrect — on DoeNetwork and every other source. The correct date is August 19, 1973. See the attached contemporaneous articles (from August 1973).

Wow; thank you so much for sharing. In hindsight, this makes sense. I was thinking about this case and that of the black Jane Doe that was also listed as being discovered on May 21, 1973, which I posted about on here several years ago.

I also did a bit of digging and discovered a bit more information about the case of the other Jane Doe via the Unidentified Wiki, namely, this contemporary news article. This article, written the day after the Jane Doe had been discovered, specifies that she had indeed been murdered via bludgeoning. Upon reading the article, two things threw me off: 1) the fact that the postmortem interval was estimated as being 24-30 hours and 2) the fact that the thread topic Jane Doe was not mentioned anywhere in the article.

The issue regarding the postmortem interval comes from the fact that the thread topic Jane Doe was described as decomposed, while the Jane Doe from the May 1973 article had only died about a day prior. This suggested to me that they likely weren't killed at the same time. However, being from Florida, a body being noticeably decomposed after 1-2 days of being exposed to the elements in late May doesn't sound that outlandish in hindsight.

The major red flag for me here was that if the two people were discovered on the same day in the same exact location, then I would expect that the article covering the case(s) would include information on both discoveries rather than just one, considering that there could have been an obvious connection there.

I think what happened is that given the close proximity between where the two victims were located, as well as the fact that they were both found in the same year, whoever posted the thread topic Jane Doe's case online may have simply mixed the dates up with that of the other (possibly unrelated) case. It definitely doesn't seem as if the two were found on the same day after all.

 

[annemc2]

@Fuuro ro that makes total sense and I applaud you on being able to explain all of that in such a coherent manner - nice job!!

 

[Richard]

This is a good example of how information on these cases can vary widely from source to source and from one newspaper account to another.

The August 1973 articles have date of death estimates ranging from 3 weeks to 6 months, and seemingly settle on 3 months. This would place the date of death some time in May 1973, as listed in most website accounts.

The unidentified victim is the same person referred to in all references.

It has been 51 years and this girl has yet to be identified. Perhaps DNA tests could be done?