Match! TX - Houston, WhtFem UP4601, 15-20, Red Hair & Freckles, Jul'82 *Michelle Garvey*

Discussion in 'Identified!' started by annemc2, Jun 4, 2011.

  1. Roselvr

    Roselvr Ask me how to get your loved one in NamUs

    Messages:
    7,421
    Likes Received:
    1,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were different people working on it on both sides. Michelle's brother was trying to get her into NamUs; then you have Pokey Puppy who caught Michelle's profile when it 1st went online. Pokey called Dr D who had no knowledge of Michelle until Pokey called. See my post here... To me & to others here; it sounds like PP's tip helped. It is very possible that NamUs got the hit; we do not know. See a recent match by a WS member Margo Walden where both Margo as a UP & Margo's MP family DNA both showed as DNA complete on NamUs since as far back as February but they were not in the same system according to someone I know at NamUs.

    Pokey Puppy was new here when she 1st posted; she did not understand what happened; so she was bummed. Heck; I would be too; especially if it was my 1st potential match; which I have not made yet..
     


  2. Still_Seek_Answers

    Still_Seek_Answers Hope is our strength......love is our determinatio

    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I agree with Roselvr. I do not think anybody is keeping score or worried about who gets credit, however it was PP who saw the profile as soon as it went online, and she was very correct that MG was our UP in this case. I see no harm in saying job well done to her for that accomplishment.

    I am probably gonna get a time out for this, or my post will most likely get edited or removed, but I very well have a problem with anybody who feels they have to police someone elses work, or criticize anybody for getting credit for a job well done. If someone submitted potential and then they turned into match's and they did not mention it before hand, then they either did not belong to this forum, or perhaps they do not belong in it. This is a group effort and not a grandstanding side show.

    As someone with a missing family member out there, I would gladly give credit to the person who finds her, and I would want them to receive all the recognition possible for that accomplishment. It is taking every bit of will power in me to not just bluntly ask, WTH are you to judge others, and what gives you the right to be so critical? The people who spend hours trying to get the UP home are doing a great service for those of us with someone out there somewhere. They sure do not need anybody talking down to them, and quite honestly, I find it a huge insult.

    Everybody knows I spend hours looking at the UPs and that my underlying goal is to get my sister home. If along the way I help another family get out of the never ending hell my family is stuck in, then that would make me quite happy also. If nothing else we have their faces out there in MP groups and any place else we can post them, so at the very least we are trying. I hope and pray every day that someone is trying for my sister too, and who knows, maybe someday that persons post will cross our page, or maybe not. Either way, IMO the only effort wasted is the effort wasted to belittle others and what they accomplish.

    As for rule outs and NAMUS, the system is not perfect. I have said it a 100 times and I am sure I will say it 100 more. The system is however the best system we have ever had. I remember a time when we had no system, you want to talk about a nightmare, that was a nightmare. Many people do not seem to understand that not all DNA samples are held by UNT. (NAMUS) So I always object to the ruled out by default theory. I sometimes get upset with the rule outs when they are done by panels and not DNA, then again, what information does that panel have that we do not have access to? That rule out is not done by 1 person, it done by the agreement of a group of people. Yes, I still feel all submits should be checked by DNA. Maybe someday we will become advanced enough for that to be done.

    I do not, nor have I ever seen anybody say that a match does not require a group effort. Most certainly nobody said that in this case. On the other hand, I feel PP was most certainly one of the people and I think PP deserves a huge Thank you for her hard work, and most certainly she does not deserve anybody criticizing her for it.
     
    aThousandYearsWide likes this.
  3. BaxterDE42

    BaxterDE42 Active Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I agree with you on NamUS and I just can't bring myself to waste more time on them. I have seen enough of reversed negatives (happened a lot in earlier photos) being dismissed before an investigation or someone who just glances at a photo and dismisses it without knowing any circumstances....see? I can get on a roll with them but am so very grateful there are individuals who are actually doing the work.

    I totally understand about the issues about missing loved ones or family members. I made a decision not to turn it over to namus for some of the reasons mentioned. However there are many qualified persons actively investigating her case as I am sure you have and yes, I will scream from every media outlet if NamUS and their mighty fine (not) data base takes "credit".

    As stated, I meant no offense and am very encouraged there are human eyes here on these cases. Kudos!
     
  4. Roselvr

    Roselvr Ask me how to get your loved one in NamUs

    Messages:
    7,421
    Likes Received:
    1,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry that you have a missing loved one. I was going to ask you about it in the NamUs thread last year but never got back to it. How long have they been missing and is there a report?

    I personally do not have a missing loved one; I do this because of people like SSA who do; I actually do this with SSA as you may have realized on Cali's thread. There are a handful of us; big enough that we have different input but small enough that we do not have too many people that just side track what we do.

    As I have said; I have not made a match; but if I had; I would like to be thanked; it is common courtesy. That does not mean I would want my name in the "paper" but something along the lines of an advocate for missing and unidentified persons. If people are not acknowledged they will not keep doing what we do. Same goes for if I'm helping on an MP case; common courtesy of thank you.
     
  5. BaxterDE42

    BaxterDE42 Active Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Roselvr,
    I do not want to put out any info on my relative just yet. Aside from the help I have, I have seen enough here to know I want to have a small group, perhaps such as you have who excel in different areas of research who would like to volunteer to do some research.

    I am in the process of collecting info but no one is talking. I am not quite sue how I want to organize that yet. No, she is not listed because I have to know the location from which she went missing and there are three different jurisdictions in conflict. She went missing mid 60's from either WV, OH or IL. At the moment, the search is focused on genealogy.

    Most people don't realize that when Namus gets a DNA reference donor if it is NOT a match and it was taken from a genealogy tree, well they have done nothing but mine false data. People who call themselves genealogists and want a family tree, go online and copy someone elses information to build a family tree and what they may end up with is a tree with a half dozen unrelated members. Not much is actually authenticated. I am working on family genealogy in three states and am amazed to find people in a couple of my family trees are not related. The real work is public records in real time and visits to the library among a host of other things. So if someone says they found an ancestor after two hours online and that ancestor submits DNA....well, no wonder there are rule outs.

    Also worth noting sometimes the mtDNA is not even from a biological relative. If we are looking at the early 1800s when the mormon movement was traveling west, it was not uncommon for a child to live with a parent (parents) who were not biologically related. So when just one census record is used and a tree built based on a child being named as the child of head of house, you can imagine the nightmare that creates. I have worked on several cases from that time period and one has been ongoing for 2 years with no conclusive evidence of a family member. Sorry for side tracking.....

    Basically we are at the point of checking off a list that hopefully covers all bases (problems). If this works, I do believe it will shed some unwanted light on one big data base agency. Physical searches, meaning, I have accepted she will be an unidentified case, have been ongoing since I found out she was missing and that was about two years ago. I will keep you posted and if you and or seeking want to offer up some suggestions I am grateful to hear your input.

    I was not and would never knock anyones manner of search or question their input that helped solve a case. I pay more attention to the methods here because most you you are comming from a different place in your method - or bringing to the table your unique style and knowledge and yes - even instinct. Speaking of this case thread, Carl nailed the recon! The other one made this young girl look like she was in her 20's. I am not knocking the other, but Carl's had an overall better likeness. So here I am, in awe of the work you do while all the money from DOJ can't seem to fix the broken Namus system! Okay, not another word about Namus. I think we have all had our dealings ast some point.

    Each of you deserves a major amount of thank yous but big egos in big (and small) agencies just can't accept how these cases really get solved!
     
  6. bflocket

    bflocket Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ID #1 - http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/identified6.html (second row)
    v/s

    ID #2 - http://www.doenetwork.org/identifiedindex.html (in the lower part of 2014)


    It seems certain that the 2006 "identification" was an error since she was once again identified earlier this year. I just find it odd that both of these announcements are still up (albeit in different places) on DoeNetwork.

    Did anyone ever figure out why the ID was announced in 2006 or who they thought it was back then and why they thought that?
    I know it didn't give a name. I went through the thread to see if it was ever mentioned and couldn't find it.

    I would just take it with a grain of salt, but the 2006 ID is still up and I don't know why (or why it was there to begin with).

    Sorry for continuing to wonder about this since it has finally been confirmed to be Michelle Garvey. I guess my OCD and ADHD collided today.
     
    aThousandYearsWide likes this.
  7. bflocket

    bflocket Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    aThousandYearsWide likes this.
  8. dotr

    dotr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,235
    Likes Received:
    32,843
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bumping annemic2's first link concerning a number of interesting cold cases.

    "Cold cases: Details on 28 cold murder cases from 1952 to 1999
    Posted on May 30, 2011 | By Dean Betz"
     
  9. imjustagirl123

    imjustagirl123 Justice for Morgan and Hannah

    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just reading that list is giving me the chills, oh my g*d!!! Scary. I hope one day they can get a proper burial and be back with their families :(
     
  10. Springrain

    Springrain Buckskin Girl was Marcia King

    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I recently learned of Michelle Garvey's case. It touched me how online sleuthers care for these UIDs. Great job, pokypuppy.
     
    aThousandYearsWide likes this.
  11. paul1980

    paul1980 Member

    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    18
    the most likely scenario is that some bloke tried to get Michelle to have sex with him, she refused and so he either raped her and killed her or just killed her.
     
  12. Springrain

    Springrain Buckskin Girl was Marcia King

    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't recall any mention of sexual assault, so most likely just the killing.
     
  13. paul1980

    paul1980 Member

    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's interesting that she was just killed, if what i hypothesis is true and she was killed because she refused to have sex with a bloke - which i think is very likely given that she was a teenage girl runaway hitchhiking. And she made it to Texas... where was she headed? California?
     
  14. zelda_s

    zelda_s New Member

    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can I just ask out of interest, Michelle's eyes look a little strange to me in that PM photo, sort of red. Or is that just me? I've lost my reading glasses for the millionth time so I may be wrong. She just looks a little strange. No disrespect. Poor young girl.
     
  15. Springrain

    Springrain Buckskin Girl was Marcia King

    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I've never seen the PM photo. Were her eyes open? Maybe she was beaten severely around the eyes.
     
  16. zelda_s

    zelda_s New Member

    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think so. I think they were closed or semi closed. I had lost my glasses for the millionth time when I looked at the photo so it was hard to tell :blushing: the PM pics are hard to look at, very very sad. She was so young. It really makes me fear for young people who run away all the time because there are so many monsters out there.
     
  17. CarlK90245

    CarlK90245 UID Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    8,026
    Likes Received:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The photo was probably discolored after sitting in a casefile for 25-30 years.

    Her eyes were slightly open in the PM photo, and the eyelids were sort of drooped. She didn't appear to be beaten. There were no apparent bruises. She was a redhead, so her eyelashes don't frame her eyes like dark eyelashes do.
     
  18. paul1980

    paul1980 Member

    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think she probably also looked strange to someone who is not used to post mortem photos because she was dead and the look on dead people's faces - especially those who have been violently strangled like Michelle - can be unsettling.
     
  19. Jake479

    Jake479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    63
    RIP Michelle Garvey
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice