TX TX - Vidor, near I-10, WhtFem 12-20, 72UFTX (UP4574), Skeletal, previous braces, Jan'84

Instead of your second paragraph, you might want to say something like the following:

Authorities have not been able to verify the possible connection of Mindi to the skeletal remains found in Orange County TX on 01-Jan-1984 (NCIC #U-159371356). As I understand it, it is because they are unable to locate any suitable maternal relatives from which to construct a Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) profile, and the University of North Texas has been unable to construct a nuclear DNA (nucDNA) profile on the skeletal remains to compare to the nucDNA of her paternal relatives.​
 
the UID is NOT Mindi Chambers.

I got word back from the Mesa, AZ PD that they have mtDNA from Mindi's maternal aunts as well as the nucDNA from a step-sibling and this particular UID has been ruled out as Mindi on DNA grounds.
 
the UID is NOT Mindi Chambers.

I got word back from the Mesa, AZ PD that they have mtDNA from Mindi's maternal aunts as well as the nucDNA from a step-sibling and this particular UID has been ruled out as Mindi on DNA grounds.

Frankly, I don't believe them. The aunts are paternal, not maternal.

I do know that they collected DNA from her father's sisters. She was living with relatives on the father's side of the family in Mesa AZ. If they had also collected DNA from maternal aunts, then they would have said that they had DNA from the step sibling, and from aunts on both sides of the family.
 
Frankly, I don't believe them. The aunts are paternal, not maternal.

I do know that they collected DNA from her father's sisters. She was living with relatives on the father's side of the family in Mesa AZ. If they had also collected DNA from maternal aunts, then they would have said that they had DNA from the step sibling, and from aunts on both sides of the family.

I gave them the married names of Mindi's mother's sisters who are in FL. I found an address for one of them conveyed that and the officer said he had their names, addresses and that they had both given mtDNA samples.
 
I was just looking at the dental chart in the Jane Doe's NamUs casefile:

https://identifyus.org/en/cases/4573

In the comments, it says "mandible not recovered"

Then in the chart, all the lowers are marked "N" for "natural tooth with no filling". Obviously they goofed on the dental chart.

If this UID did have any fillings, missing teeth, or restorations on her lower teeth, the system will not be able to match her up on dentals. Any MP with fillings on her lower teeth will be ruled out based on "irreconcilable inconsistencies".
 
That's not entirely true that there is zero chance for a definitive match-up.

In the event that this UID was not Mindi, there is still the chance that the UID and Mindi could be matched up to their correct counterparts.

The UID has mtDNA available but no nucDNA. Mindi has familial nucDNA from paternal relatives available and in CODIS. But no maternal relatives are available to provide a mtDNA sample.

The two DNA types are incompatible for comparison, but if this is not Mindi, the UID could be matched up if a MP case with mtDNA from maternal relatives was input to CODIS. And Mindi could be matched up to a UID with nucDNA available.

However, since this UID is probably Mindi, the above is all academic.

And failing all that, couldn't they exhume Mindi's mother's body and collect DNA from her if they really wanted to put this thing to rest?
 
I contacted Melanie Schramm of TXDPS. She has nothing in her records to indicate that Mindi Chambers has ever been ruled out. But she will check with Mesa PD to see what they have.
 
Has Marie Ann Blee been compared against Orange County Jane? http://doenetwork.org/cases/219dfco.html

I realize the distance is by no means close, and there are several years in between LKA and UID's suggested time of death but here is why I like the potential:

*Marie was last seen in a V neck, Jane had a V Neck
*Height close
*Hair color off, but hairstyle close
*Facial features close
*Marie had braces removed three months before disappearance

i agree mindi seems like a likely match, but i also believe it never hurts to look outside the box
 
There are two OC TX Jane Does found on the same day with similar age ranges:
Namus 4573, case 84-0003 and Namus 4574, case PA84-0009. How is it possible that two teen girls with brown hair around the same age were discovered on the same day in the same county, and the info isnt referenced in each case? There appear to be two different ME's.

If 4573 isnt Sondra Rambler, maybe it is more reasonable that 4574 is. There was still soft tissue attached to the 4574 remains. The mandible was missing from this set as well.

ETA:

Link to 4574 https://identifyus.org/en/cases/full_report/4574
 
There are two OC TX Jane Does found on the same day with similar age ranges:

Namus 4573, case 84-0003 and Namus 4574, case PA84-0009. How is it possible that two teen girls with brown hair around the same age were discovered on the same day in the same county, and the info isnt referenced in each case? There appear to be two different ME's.

I was just looking at these two cases, trying to figure out if they are the same girl and if someone has royally screwed up the data entry. I think this is in fact one UID with two different entries on NamUs, and here's why:

http://www.harriscountytx.gov/CmpDocuments/21/UDF2011/1984-01-01-0009.pdf

This Unidentified Decedent Notice from Harris County gives a HCME case number of PA84-0009 and a police agency number of Orange County SO 84-0003, thus the origin of two different case numbers.

As far as the two different MEs, one is the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences and the other is the Orange County Justice of the Peace. Many smaller jurisdictions in Texas routinely forward cases to Harris County for more advanced examination.

There are, however, other discrepancies that concern me:

Doe #72UFTX gives a height estimate of 4'11" to 5'2" with shoulder-length hair (per sketch)
NamUs #4573 gives no height estimate at all, no hair length specified
NamUs #4574 gives a height estimate of 54", which would be 4'6" tall, hair was 2" long
The Harris County ME's case report gives a height estimate of 5'6" tall, hair was 2" long

So this girl could be anywhere from 54" to 66" tall. I tend to think that the info coming directly from the Harris County ME's office would be the most accurate, so I'm gonna take a wild leap here and say that this UID was 5'6" tall with very short brown hair.
 
I never heard anything about Amy having previous braces though...
 
If Amy ever did have braces, it is very doubtful that she would have been done with them at 13 years old.
 
ME from Harris County will be looking into the duplicate entry in NamUs and why the sketch has not been posted. So hopefully by the end of the month (Oct 2013) some of this confusion can be cleared up.
 
About braces: train tracks cause a shortening of the roots of teeth, because they are being forced against the bone and it erodes them. Perhaps an x-ray showed her roots were short? Or maybe she had a combination of extremely straight teeth with some of her pre-molars missing, as these are the teeth usually pulled for orthodontics. Or it could be that there were traces of the adhesive still left on her teeth, along with "craze lines" - minor cracks that appear in the surface of the enamel after train tracks are removed (having one train tracks removed is very painful by the way!). When I had train tracks, I didn't have any teeth removed as I didn't have crowding, but I still have traces of glue which makes my teeth feel rough and craze lines years later from the removal. Apparently this is normal. My teeth look perfectly normal and healthy, it's only me that can see it when I look very close up or feel them with my tongue.
 
Can you clarify for me (tired brain tonight). The 2 NamUs profiles mentioned above, found the same day, were in fact only ONE set of remains?

Yes, just one, and although she is drawn with long hair ME recorded 2 inches in length.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
2,697
Total visitors
2,872

Forum statistics

Threads
590,031
Messages
17,929,195
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top