No news yet from the AFDD in Chili.
Meanwhile, I want to address the data found in Northern American records "Race/ethnicity" because our JD is a typical case where it happens.
In US and Canada, "Race" is based on declaration. But in other countries like it was in SA during the apartheid (I know that our JD is not from this context, but it highlights the issue), the State authority determines the race/ethnicity on your ID. Furthermore, in France to speak about a country I know, statistics by ethnicity are absolutely forbidden: you won't find them on your ID.
Furthermore, in some European countries, you can find "Race: Mediterranean", and they can look like a First Nation person in North America.
Mediterranean can also be of Middle East like Lebanon, which is not strictly a Mediterranean country.
I bring it up because our JD may be of European descent and when we compare PM with her, we can be easily strayed by "Race/Ethnicity", so writing off a PM based on this disrespectancy.
If you have a PM where "Race/Ethnicity" is determined by the State authority and you compare with a US JD where this data is declarative, you can be sure that you'll get such disrespectancy.
When we compare PM from out of US and Canada, we can easily be fooled by this element.
I think that when we compare our JD with PM, we should completely ignore this specific data and focus on the rest (if story matches, if the post-mortem findings match... Ex, a First Nation Canadian PM with substance abuse problems, past or present, will have dental problems and signs on her organs at the autopsy. Our JD has none of it. So, even with uncanny resemblance between the post-mortem photo and the PM, the substance abuse will be a blatant rule-out).
Otherwise, we'll be swayed on this disrespectancy while this data is managed differently in the two countries.
Then, when we submit a PM, we can explain the disrespectancy (ex: the PM is of Northern African descent, so the foreign file classifies her as "Arab/Mediterranean" as COUNTRY X says while US classified her estimated race as "Caucasian").
We should focus less on this aspect and more on how the JD and PM are a good match.
I suggest first to search what makes the match impossible.
Here, an impossible match is a MP with substance abuse active or inactive as no autopsy shows any sign and her dental care is not consistant with substance abuse, transiant lifestyle as her clothing and her grooming don't match a transiant lifestyle.
Not having given birth is an inconsistency, but it is also an event she may have hidden to even her closest relatives.
Meanwhile, I want to address the data found in Northern American records "Race/ethnicity" because our JD is a typical case where it happens.
In US and Canada, "Race" is based on declaration. But in other countries like it was in SA during the apartheid (I know that our JD is not from this context, but it highlights the issue), the State authority determines the race/ethnicity on your ID. Furthermore, in France to speak about a country I know, statistics by ethnicity are absolutely forbidden: you won't find them on your ID.
Furthermore, in some European countries, you can find "Race: Mediterranean", and they can look like a First Nation person in North America.
Mediterranean can also be of Middle East like Lebanon, which is not strictly a Mediterranean country.
I bring it up because our JD may be of European descent and when we compare PM with her, we can be easily strayed by "Race/Ethnicity", so writing off a PM based on this disrespectancy.
If you have a PM where "Race/Ethnicity" is determined by the State authority and you compare with a US JD where this data is declarative, you can be sure that you'll get such disrespectancy.
When we compare PM from out of US and Canada, we can easily be fooled by this element.
I think that when we compare our JD with PM, we should completely ignore this specific data and focus on the rest (if story matches, if the post-mortem findings match... Ex, a First Nation Canadian PM with substance abuse problems, past or present, will have dental problems and signs on her organs at the autopsy. Our JD has none of it. So, even with uncanny resemblance between the post-mortem photo and the PM, the substance abuse will be a blatant rule-out).
Otherwise, we'll be swayed on this disrespectancy while this data is managed differently in the two countries.
Then, when we submit a PM, we can explain the disrespectancy (ex: the PM is of Northern African descent, so the foreign file classifies her as "Arab/Mediterranean" as COUNTRY X says while US classified her estimated race as "Caucasian").
We should focus less on this aspect and more on how the JD and PM are a good match.
I suggest first to search what makes the match impossible.
Here, an impossible match is a MP with substance abuse active or inactive as no autopsy shows any sign and her dental care is not consistant with substance abuse, transiant lifestyle as her clothing and her grooming don't match a transiant lifestyle.
Not having given birth is an inconsistency, but it is also an event she may have hidden to even her closest relatives.