RULED OUT: Have we found Anna? Possible match to NamUs case UP 9597 - *NO MATCH*

[Cubby]

I spent some time pondering this today... you made me realize something.

A lot of us spend quite a bit of time researching these cases, and I think we reach a point where we become almost numb to reading/posting about certain subject matter, just because we see it so frequently. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is necessary to be somewhat numb to it, in order to be able to do this type of work and remain sane... but I think there is a fine line between a healthy numbness, and an inability to be sensitive and to feel the magnitude of how disturbing some of this stuff actually is... and I was wondering if I had crossed that line a bit...

Thank you for making me stop and think about this... it was something I needed to think about but I just didn't know it.

I am really sorry if we have posted anything that was offensive.

Thank you for this post Odyssey. What wise thinking, and yes, I agree, this is something we need to continuously be aware of when posting.

With regards to the wait........ I'm having a hard time gathering my thoughts so bare with me here. When I first made this discovery of a potential match, I was completely unaware of the possibility of a lengthy wait. It honestly blindsided me.

In the past, with most of the research done on Anna's case, we started by doing as much research and learning as many facts as possible before posting. Many times we'd post the results. I wanted so badly to be able to do so much more research prior to bringing this to both Anna's family and the forum.

When I first found the match, the first thing I asked myself is why Anna wasn't on the rule out list and if she had been compared. When I saw that DNA was available via the NamUs case file, I honestly thought it was going to be a much more simple matter of giving Dr. Doogie the information. His making a call to the coroners office to determine if Anna had been ruled out and just not been added to the rule out list, or a comparison could be done quickly. Neither Dr. Doogie or I expected or were prepared to learn that the NamUs information indicating DNA was available was in fact human error.

We both wanted to find out more about how soon it might be before a comparison could be made and having some more 'solid answers' prior to bringing the information to Annasmom and family. Neither of us wanted them to endure a long and agonizing wait.

It was then we had to make a decision. Find out more information first or tell Annasmom of this discovery now. It was not an easy decision to make. Knowing there was a general discussion thread already set up for this NamUs case file along with how savy WS'ers are, I knew if we did not bring this to Annasmom first, we risked her and the family first learning about it here because it was likely just a matter of time before a WS'er made the connection in the general discussion thread.... Then for her to learn Dr. Doogie and I were aware of this discovery and did not share it with her allowing her to learn from us first, I could not let that happen. That felt too much like a betrayal to me. It's one thing to post possible matches when family does not post here. It's entirely different to keep such a discovery from family when they do post here. Instead of this being a quick and relatively simple procedure for a determination, we had to make the decision of which was the worst of two evils. We decided Anna's family learning of this discovery from someone other than those working Anna's case - who were already aware of the discovery - was worse than giving the family this information now while so many questions were still unanswered.

It's hard to have had to make this decision knowing the wait would be long and agonizing. The one thing I have learned from this experience, is I will no longer rely on DNA information listed at NamUs as being accurate. Especially when the information on DNA is indicated as being nuclear DNA now that we know nuclear dna degrades quickly and easily, or is not as stable as mt-dna (mitochondrial dna). At the time I did not know that should have been a flag to question the accuracy of such information, I know now. Had I known, I would have called the coroner first and done my best to find all or as many of the answers surrounding the wait. Then brought the discovery to Dr. Doogie....

That said, the hardest part for me (now) is not the ultimate answer but the unanswered question surrounding an indefinate wait at this point. The answer is going to be what it is...

Thanks for letting me share that.

Hugs and peace to all while we wait, especially Anna's family.

 

[Cubby]

It's hard to have had to make this decision knowing the wait would be long and agonizing. The one thing I have learned from this experience, is I will no longer rely on DNA information listed at NamUs as being accurate. Especially when the information on DNA is indicated as being nuclear DNA now that we know nuclear dna degrades quickly and easily, or is not as stable as mt-dna (mitochondrial dna). At the time I did not know that should have been a flag to question the accuracy of such information, I know now. Had I known, I would have called the coroner first and done my best to find all or as many of the answers surrounding the wait. Then brought the discovery to Dr. Doogie....

Sorry to quote myself. I pulled this part out of my above post so I could disclose or clarify because it is likely to come up. No, I do not think there are any other possibles out there that we may have inadvertently or mistakenly ruled out by possible error on DNA being available on other cases. When I made this discovery, my search was based on age only. So that included all pre-adolescent unidentifieds. There is nothing out there at this time that we may have missed.

Also, Annasmom informed us in the spring of 2009 or 2010 that Gerry Nance from NCMEC had run Anna's dna against all UID's in codis. So we know anything listed prior to the information from Mr. Nance has already been compared.

hth and clarifies.

I'm keeping the experts/scientists who will be responsible for obtaining a viable dna sample in my prayers that they are able to do so succesfully and soon.

raying:

 

[SideKick]

Quote from Cubby..
When I first found the match, the first thing I asked myself is why Anna wasn't on the rule out list and if she had been compared. When I saw that DNA was available via the NamUs case file.

~~ I thought that on the NamUs site below mentions about 5 rule outs. Is that true? If so, how were they ruled out without DNA from the speciman?

 

[SideKick]

To clarify my question:

https://identifyus.org/en/cases/9597

The following people have been ruled out as being this decedent:
First Name Last Name Year of Birth State LKA
James Bordenkircher 1963 California
Todd Collett 1960 California
Sir-Kristopher Marshall 1973 California
Fannie Stuart 1976 California

 

[Cubby]

Quote from Cubby..
When I first found the match, the first thing I asked myself is why Anna wasn't on the rule out list and if she had been compared. When I saw that DNA was available via the NamUs case file.

~~ I thought that on the NamUs site below mentions about 5 rule outs. Is that true? If so, how were they ruled out without DNA from the speciman?

I answered this question upthread a few times. I'll try and answer again.
Rule outs can come from two places; the coroner or NamUs volunteers who review a panel or list of potential matches.

Rule outs can be made two ways, by dental charts or dna.

From the information known at NamUs regarding the dentals, we know the unidentified decedent was of an age to have had the #14 tooth. The number 14 tooth is a molar on the upper left. The rule outs listed at NamUs are age 2 years and age 3 years. My best unprofessional guess, based on the known information regarding the dentals, is a 24-36 month old child would not have developed a #14 tooth to the extent the #14 tooth on the decedent was developed.

Because no dna exists for the decedent, we can conclude that the listed rule outs were ruled out based on dentals and not dna.

hth

ETA: I'm going to assume the information at NamUs that the one present tooth is in fact a baby tooth, number 13, versus number 14- since a #14 is not a baby tooth but an adult tooth. According to the following childrens dental chart the #13, erupts at 25-33 months. This would indicate when the eruption begins. a child of 2-3 could be ruled out by dentals as they would not have a fully developed #13 tooth at such a young age.

Here is the tooth eruption chart for children:
http://www.sacchildrensdentist.com/your_baby/tooth_chart.html

 

[Cubby]

Lord help me, now I am even more confused regarding the dentals listed at NamUs. ullhair:

According to NamUs, (click on dentals which has more information on dental charting than clicking on case report) listed as present is baby teeth present and the only tooth present is listed as being #14.

https://identifyus.org/en/cases/9597

According to the following dental information/charting giving the numbers and alpha charting for desiduous or baby teeth, if I am reading this right, the #14 tooth is an adult molar and not a baby molar.

Universal tooth numbering system
Teeth numbering chart for adult teethupper leftupper right

lower leftlower right



Universal tooth numbering system
Teeth numbering chart for deciduous (primary) teethupper leftupper right

lower leftlower right
- tooth number diagram 1b -

http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/abyss/dep1151_1.htm

The corresponding change from Alpha in the above chart to numbers for baby teeth, would indicate that J or the last baby molar would convert to #13, not #14. (and would read as follows. Upper baby teeth or primary teeth, convert as follows with the permanent teeth.

A=4
B=5
C=6
D=7
E=8
F=9
G=10
H=11
I=12
J=13

A-J is the entire set of upper baby or primary teeth.

So, is there yet another error in NamUs on/at the dental chart? If I am reading this right, a #14 tooth would be the first adult molar and if Anna had not yet had any of her adult molars erupt, than perhaps she can be ruled out. If it was known; some of my sons adult molars came in before he lost any baby teeth and because he never suffered from teething, I was completely unaware those first back adult molars erupted.

Now, it could be that the coroner mistakingly notated what should have been the #13 baby tooth as the adult #14 molar. Since it is notated the one present tooth is a baby tooth. It just can't be the number 14, because the number 14 is not a primary/baby tooth.

Ah, another question to add to the list for Dr. Doogie to confirm with the coroner. Is the tooth present the baby tooth #13, the adult tooth #14, or am I reading this wrong? :crosseyed: :crosseyed: :crosseyed:

 

[GraceBlue]

I came on here this morning to say I was thinking of Anna and her fanily. I am just learning of this new information. My heart is heavy for Anna's mom and Anna's family. You all are in my thoughts. ((hugs))

 

[nanny2five]

my prayers today are with Annasmom and her family that they find the truth about what happened to Anna, whatever it may be. also my prayers are with the Websleuths family who have put so much time, effort and heart into trying to find her.
and Cubby, you are an inspiration to all of us and a reminder that we can all do just a little more. so, in honor of you, Cubby, i have stored my braves jacket in top of the closet and this year, i will be a Cubs fan

 

[Cubby]

my prayers today are with Annasmom and her family that they find the truth about what happened to Anna, whatever it may be. also my prayers are with the Websleuths family who have put so much time, effort and heart into trying to find her.
and Cubby, you are an inspiration to all of us and a reminder that we can all do just a little more. so, in honor of you, Cubby, i have stored my braves jacket in top of the closet and this year, i will be a Cubs fan

Thank you nanny2five. I need to hear this sometimes when I get frustrated with those in real life who tend to belittle and chastize the volunteer work we do here. Or roll their eyes and insist we should be getting paid for this type of volunteer work. My rewards are the joy in helping people find closure or answers, and I know my rewards will be in heaven one day.

Sometimes I just have to bite my tongue from snapping back at them and replying with something like, if your child was missing, or you had a family member missing, or one of your family members was the victim of an unsolved murder you sure would want volunteers helping find those answers. I just remind myself those exist who will belittle everything everyone else does because they are so miserable with themselves they want everyone else to feel miserable so they can feel better. Then I remind myself of the narrow road versus the wide road type thing....

Sorry for the vent.

As for the Cubs, lol. I'm sure I would get caught up in the excitement if they ever made it to the World Series, but now that I am addicted to WS, I tend to find myself wishing for cases to be solved and even sometimes think it would be far more rewarding to say sit at a sentencing hearing to see those responsible be forced to pay the consequences for their actions.

Hugs~

 

[Cubby]

Kind of OT. This is a good thread to read for those interested in MP and UID investigations. Two PDF files in this thread which are well worth the read. I just love David Van Norman, who is the deputy coroner investigator in San Bernardino County. He rocks!

A bigger picture - What every MP investigator/family member must know - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Ransom]

Lord help me, now I am even more confused regarding the dentals listed at NamUs. ullhair:

Snipped........

Ah, another question to add to the list for Dr. Doogie to confirm with the coroner. Is the tooth present the baby tooth #13, the adult tooth #14, or am I reading this wrong? :crosseyed: :crosseyed: :crosseyed:

It's reading as #14 (dental) is present, JMO. IF that is true, then this is not Anna.
JMO.

 

[katydid23]

It's reading as #14 (dental) is present, JMO. IF that is true, then this is not Anna.
JMO.

But at the same time, Namus has estimated the UID's age at about age 5. So?

 

[Ransom]

But at the same time, Namus has estimated the UID's age at about age 5. So?

I was just going by tooth #14 (NAMUS) dental as a natural tooth (no filling). Cannot be a 5 year old but maybe the "NAMUS dental" is a mistake? We'll see and I DO hold out hope that little Anna will be found.

 

[OzzieMum]

Thank you nanny2five. I need to hear this sometimes when I get frustrated with those in real life who tend to belittle and chastize the volunteer work we do here. Or roll their eyes and insist we should be getting paid for this type of volunteer work. My rewards are the joy in helping people find closure or answers, and I know my rewards will be in heaven one day.

Sometimes I just have to bite my tongue from snapping back at them and replying with something like, if your child was missing, or you had a family member missing, or one of your family members was the victim of an unsolved murder you sure would want volunteers helping find those answers. I just remind myself those exist who will belittle everything everyone else does because they are so miserable with themselves they want everyone else to feel miserable so they can feel better. Then I remind myself of the narrow road versus the wide road type thing....

Sorry for the vent.

As for the Cubs, lol. I'm sure I would get caught up in the excitement if they ever made it to the World Series, but now that I am addicted to WS, I tend to find myself wishing for cases to be solved and even sometimes think it would be far more rewarding to say sit at a sentencing hearing to see those responsible be forced to pay the consequences for their actions.

Hugs~

Oh Cubby, you just brought tears to my eyes. Don't let the naysayers upset you, these are just people that would not do a good deed for anyone unless there was something in it for themselves. They are selfish and self centered.

God help these people if anything like this happens to one of their loved ones. I know first hand the pain and suffering of loosing a young loved one under "not natural" circumstances and it is not an easy road to travel.

Maybe you need to politely bite back some times and give some people a reality check.

Just keep doing what you're doing and go to sleep at night knowing that you have made a difference in someones life through a find, a result or just by supporting them.

Love, hugs and kisses to you.

 

[Cubby]

I was just going by tooth #14 (NAMUS) dental as a natural tooth (no filling). Cannot be a 5 year old but maybe the "NAMUS dental" is a mistake? We'll see and I DO hold out hope that little Anna will be found.

It reads both #14 and baby teeth present.
If it's the baby tooth, then it has to be #13.
If it is the #14, then it should read, or I think it should read, no baby teeth present.

I agree, if it is the adult #14 tooth, then it is most likely a 6-7 year old and not someone a few months into their 6th year.

When I next speak with Dr. Doogie, I will ask him to contact the coroner and see if he can get this clarified.

ETA: Or I will call myself, and not mention Anna, but say I am a volunteer advocate that tries to match up the missing and unidentified and just say I was hoping to clarify what I might be misinterpreting as a civilian volunteer about the dental information. Dr. Doogie mentioned this coroner listed at the NamUs link doesn't work a regular 8 or 9-5 shift. I think second or a later shift with evening hours and is in the office the second half of the week. I should be speaking with him before the end of the week so I'll ask if he'd like to call, or I will.

I'm not that concerned about many calls to the coroners office like I would be the detective handling Anna's case. The coroners job is to identify this decedent, regardless of who that may be. In my experience, the ME side is often more receptive to calls to help identify the decedents than the LE side is on the MP cases.

 

[Cubby]

I thought of something else......

I wonder if this decedent may be the child of a seasonal migrant worker.
There are a few cases of unidentified children where it is believed they may be a child of migrant seasonal workers. That's a possibility, as we know there is some farming in this area. How much, I don't know as a non local, but I would imagine the area does get seasonal migrant farm workers.

 

[Annasmom]

I thought of something else......

I wonder if this decedent may be the child of a seasonal migrant worker.
There are a few cases of unidentified children where it is believed they may be a child of migrant seasonal workers. That's a possibility, as we know there is some farming in this area. How much, I don't know as a non local, but I would imagine the area does get seasonal migrant farm workers.

Yes, this is a farming area and we have many farm workers here, some of them migrant, but I don't quite get the connection...children of the farm workers go to school, so they are not undocumented. As regards the tooth, that is mind-boggling. The #14 tooth, according to the chart I'm looking at, should erupt at age 9-11 (not sure I'm reading the chart right.) Anna was four months into her sixth year, having passed her fifth birthday the previous September.

 

[Cubby]

Thank you Annasmom, you're right, she would have been a few months into her 6th year. :doh:

According to the following dental chart, the #14 tooth or first adult molar erupts at age 6-7.
http://www.sacchildrensdentist.com/_media/downloads/chart_eruption_perm.jpg


ETA: What is called a first molar in a toddler is later replaced (in the same spot) by what is called an adult first pre-molar. Kind of confusing as what is called the first adult molar erupts in a different space than the toddler first molar.

 

[Cubby]

With regards to seasonal migrant workers. I'm sure most are documented, but the possibility exists, even if a remote possibility, that some are undocumented.

 

[Annasmom]

With regards to seasonal migrant workers. I'm sure most are documented, but the possibility exists, even if a remote possibility, that some are undocumented.

That's true, of course, though the farm workers I know keep very close tabs on their children. Another possibility: There have been many, many shipwrecks over the years on this part of the California coast. Detective Gilletti corrected my impression that these bone fragments date from our time. He said nobody as yet had any idea how old the specimen is. I have a book on shipwrecks in our area which I haven't read yet (Christmas present). I'll look at it today.