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

New Posts

Schiellj said:
Yeah. I have a hard enough time getting anyone to ADD the exclusions so I won't complain about anything when they actually do.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alleykins said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Schiellj said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
carbuff said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Schiellj said:
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)
Click to expand...

Frustrating the general public is one thing. Frustrating family members is just cruel.
 
carbuff said:
Frustrating the general public is one thing. Frustrating family members is just cruel.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CCJD said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CCJD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
carbuff said:
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
Click to expand...
Don't trouble yourself over it for my sake.
 
marylandmissing said:
www.wfmd.com

Anniversaries This Week For Two Frederick Cold Cases

One is the body of a woman found in a steamer trunk 40 years ago this week
www.wfmd.com www.wfmd.com
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alleykins said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
marylandmissing said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Alleykins said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's speculated strangulation, but not proven. At this time, Maryland sent indigents and unidentifieds to the anatomy board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 198 more.
Total: 1,572 (members: 199, guests: 1,373)

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
1,373
Total visitors
1,572
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,773
Messages
17,958,620
Members
228,604
Latest member
leannamj
Back
Top