I agree with you completely. I put her at 12 or 13. She was just a baby.Walker County Jane Doe looks as if she's younger than 14. I'd say she could most likely be 12 -16
That’s what makes me think she was with someone at the hitchin post. Had them already off and with her stuff in his vehicle. Or possibly she was not wearing any And he had themI am assuming she was wearing pantyhose with the shoes. I can't believe she would have been walking around without her shoes if she was wearing hose though.
Idk Mary was possibly abducted. There was even a ransom with a phone call from her and her abductor. They do look really similar, though.BINGO!!
Look at these photos. They are really UNCANNY!
The missing girl is Mary Rodermund, missing since March 2, 1978.
Idk Mary was possibly abducted. There was even a ransom with a phone call from her and her abductor. They do look really similar, though.
Oh yea? Why do you say that? I think she looks young but not that young, in my opinion. 16 maybe, but no younger I’d say. I’ve seen the crime scene photo and she looks like woman, not a girl (sorry to be graphic). It could be the perspective though. Again, just my opinion.Walker County Jane Doe looks as if she's younger than 14. I'd say she could most likely be 12 -16
Please remember to post links also, not only images, TmmEye.
Links to Mary Leah Rodermund:
Missing Person Case
3846DFLA - Mary Leah Rodermund
Mary Leah Rodermund – The Charley Project
Have you seen this child?
IIRC, Mary also has DNA in, according to NamUs, and should be a rule out by default.
Please remember to post links also, not only images, TmmEye.
Links to Mary Leah Rodermund:
Missing Person Case
3846DFLA - Mary Leah Rodermund
Mary Leah Rodermund – The Charley Project
Have you seen this child?
IIRC, Mary also has DNA in, according to NamUs, and should be a rule out by default.
Mary’s DNA may have been recently added to NamUs.