MD MD - Frederick, WhtFem 17-45, UP7477, in steamer trunk in state park, Spondylolysis, Aug'82

Alleykins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
5,939
Reaction score
9,123
Yeah. I have a hard enough time getting anyone to ADD the exclusions so I won't complain about anything when they actually do.
I asked a NamUs rep about adding names to the lists. This is my understanding of how it works, based on my interactions with them. It may have changed since then.

At the time, they told me that updating the list is a manual process. But they said they don't put names/cases on the rule out lists that were ruled out automatically by CODIS. They said if both have DNA in CODIS, and they're not on the rule out list, to assume they have been compare, even if not listed. The problem is we can't see who's holding the DNA, or who has DNA anymore. They only update it when there's been a manual comparison to make the rule outs. They do this because the automatic ruleouts would be in the hundreds, possibly thousands, if they had to list each and every one a set of remains was compared to. And someone would have to go in and add it. Twice. One on the MP side, one on the UP side. For each exclusion. That's how it sounded to me when they explained it.

I think they make exceptions, though, for example, like when they're bombarded with suggestions for the same MP over and over for a UP. I also know they made a couple of exceptions for adding Canadian missing people to a UP's list, which they normally don't do. When Patricia Salamandyk was ruled out for Buckskin Girl, Marcia King, they listed her in the rule outs, even though she was from Canada. I think they did that because of the preponderance of suggestions for them to be a match.
 

Schiellj

A Genetic Genealogy obsessed Laboratory Scientist!
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
85
Website
findbarbcotton.com
I asked a NamUs rep about adding names to the lists. This is my understanding of how it works, based on my interactions with them. It may have changed since then.

At the time, they told me that updating the list is a manual process. But they said they don't put names/cases on the rule out lists that were ruled out automatically by CODIS. They said if both have DNA in CODIS, and they're not on the rule out list, to assume they have been compare, even if not listed. The problem is we can't see who's holding the DNA, or who has DNA anymore. They only update it when there's been a manual comparison to make the rule outs. They do this because the automatic ruleouts would be in the hundreds, possibly thousands, if they had to list each and every one a set of remains was compared to. And someone would have to go in and add it. Twice. One on the MP side, one on the UP side. For each exclusion. That's how it sounded to me when they explained it.

I think they make exceptions, though, for example, like when they're bombarded with suggestions for the same MP over and over for a UP. I also know they made a couple of exceptions for adding Canadian missing people to a UP's list, which they normally don't do. When Patricia Salamandyk was ruled out for Buckskin Girl, Marcia King, they listed her in the rule outs, even though she was from Canada. I think they did that because of the preponderance of suggestions for them to be a match.
I have actually heard something similar. My understanding was that comparisons are ran periodically (monthly or something) and it searches for matches between any of the DNA profiles in the database. I had assumed that it obviously did not auto report mismatches otherwise there would be so many more exclusions. Sounds like a good upgrade to me!
For now, I can't help but think of an easy remedy for this predicament. They could just indicate on the profiles if DNA is or is not in CODIS so that we can make that determination vs. pestering them with it.
 

carbuff

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
28,785
Reaction score
63,232
Website
www.colealicem.com
I have actually heard something similar. My understanding was that comparisons are ran periodically (monthly or something) and it searches for matches between any of the DNA profiles in the database. I had assumed that it obviously did not auto report mismatches otherwise there would be so many more exclusions. Sounds like a good upgrade to me!
For now, I can't help but think of an easy remedy for this predicament. They could just indicate on the profiles if DNA is or is not in CODIS so that we can make that determination vs. pestering them with it.

There are apparently legal reasons why they can't give us that information any more.

Also apparently the other markers (dentals, demographics, etc.) aren't handled the same way--they generate a "check this out" report of some kind and LE investigates and updates, or doesn't. Those are the ones that generate the duplicate reports.
 

Schiellj

A Genetic Genealogy obsessed Laboratory Scientist!
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
85
Website
findbarbcotton.com
There are apparently legal reasons why they can't give us that information any more.

Also apparently the other markers (dentals, demographics, etc.) aren't handled the same way--they generate a "check this out" report of some kind and LE investigates and updates, or doesn't. Those are the ones that generate the duplicate reports.
Well, they could get to work on adding the exclusions then lol. (Sorry, my tolerance for all of this is just at capacity lately. I'm not even getting replies to my emails and I'm a family member. It's frustrating)
 

carbuff

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
28,785
Reaction score
63,232
Website
www.colealicem.com
Well, they could get to work on adding the exclusions then lol. (Sorry, my tolerance for all of this is just at capacity lately. I'm not even getting replies to my emails and I'm a family member. It's frustrating)

Frustrating the general public is one thing. Frustrating family members is just cruel.
 

Schiellj

A Genetic Genealogy obsessed Laboratory Scientist!
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
85
Website
findbarbcotton.com
Frustrating the general public is one thing. Frustrating family members is just cruel.
I agree. However, I really don't take lightly to frustrating the public though either.
In my opinion, if improvements are going to be made to how missing and unidentified person cases are handled ..... It will be in response to a frustrated public.
 

Schiellj

A Genetic Genealogy obsessed Laboratory Scientist!
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
85
Website
findbarbcotton.com
I was not aware of that. Sounds a bit like closing the barn door after the horse got out, considering how much of that info is already out there.
Agreed, obviously I'm not suggesting that the general public be privy to DNA data of any kind. Just a YES/NO as to if the person currently has it available for comparison.
 

carbuff

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
28,785
Reaction score
63,232
Website
www.colealicem.com
rsbm

I was not aware of that. Sounds a bit like closing the barn door after the horse got out, considering how much of that info is already out there.

I'll see if I can find the source again. It was after the database moved under the Department of Justice control. I know I saved it somewhere in here.

eta: Doenetwork has added DNA, dental, and fingerprint information to many of their cases.

eta2: this doesn't have the information about restrictions on what can be made public, but it answers a lot of other questions About
 

Schiellj

A Genetic Genealogy obsessed Laboratory Scientist!
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
85
Website
findbarbcotton.com
I'll see if I can find the source again. It was after the database moved under the Department of Justice control. I know I saved it somewhere in here.

eta: Doenetwork has added DNA, dental, and fingerprint information to many of their cases.

eta2: this doesn't have the information about restrictions on what can be made public, but it answers a lot of other questions About
Don't trouble yourself over it for my sake.
 

Alleykins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
5,939
Reaction score
9,123
From the article. Thank you for posting.
Johnson says this women is believed to be between 17 and 27 years of age, but could be as old as 45. It’s estimated she had been there for at least a few months, but may have died ten year prior. An anthropologist concluded that she had back and feet issues that correspond with spondylolysis, and had extensive dental work.
Are they stating the trunk with her body in it had been there for a few months, but that she could have died up to ten years prior? That's how I'm interpreting this, that her body could have been somewhere else for years but relatively recently dumped in the woods, in the trunk.
 

marylandmissing

Active Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
239
From the article. Thank you for posting.

Are they stating the trunk with her body in it had been there for a few months, but that she could have died up to ten years prior? That's how I'm interpreting this, that her body could have been somewhere else for years but relatively recently dumped in the woods, in the trunk.
I believe they mean in the trunk, but I'm not entirely sure...

I personally don't think she'd been there long...It's described that she was found not far off from a gravel road, but on Gambrills Park Road...People are out scouting morels in March, and mushroom hunters would have likely came across this then...People fish around there, and there's a ton of hiking trails around this road...Not uncommon for hikers to go down the main road after a hike...There's houses there (not a lot), but a trunk would have been noticed there...I've been told once she was found around Tower Road area/Sand Flats area (not confirmed), and if so, that wouldn't have gone unnoticed long...
 

carbuff

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
28,785
Reaction score
63,232
Website
www.colealicem.com
I believe they mean in the trunk, but I'm not entirely sure...

I personally don't think she'd been there long...It's described that she was found not far off from a gravel road, but on Gambrills Park Road...People are out scouting morels in March, and mushroom hunters would have likely came across this then...People fish around there, and there's a ton of hiking trails around this road...Not uncommon for hikers to go down the main road after a hike...There's houses there (not a lot), but a trunk would have been noticed there...I've been told once she was found around Tower Road area/Sand Flats area (not confirmed), and if so, that wouldn't have gone unnoticed long...

Generally speaking, the medical examiner's report will only include the ME's estimate of post-mortem interval, time of death, etc. So from a forensics perspective, dead from several months to as long as ten years. If investigation can later narrow that time frame, it doesn't change the medical examiner's report and might or might not make it into the case file.

So I guess I would kind of lean to it meaning that she could have been in the trunk for up to ten years, but the trunk with her in it wasn't where it was found for very long?

I dunno. It is puzzling.
 

Alleykins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
5,939
Reaction score
9,123
Did they ever publicize how she died?
There's no DNA on file for her, so do we know if she's buried somewhere she could possibly be exhumed, or was she cremated?
 
Top