Identified! TN - Knox Co, 'Shotgun Jane Doe' WhtFem 607UFTN, 21-30, Jun'87 - Tena Marie Gattrell

I have no idea if Nellie is Shotgun Jane Doe, but the doenetwork picture of the guy Nellie left home with in 1979 reminds me a lot of maybe a less old and haggard and bald looking Gary M Hilton in his facial features. Unfortunately I can't find any pictures of Hilton from around 79 to compare.

CarlK90245 said:

Nellie is believed to be this Jane Doe found in Colusa County CA.

http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase409.html

However, authorities were unable to get DNA out of the remains, and they were unable to come up with any other means of positive ID. The details and vital stats fit Nellie though.

Click to expand...

They got DNA and the Colusa County UID was NOT Nellie Flickinger:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/PorchlightUSA/index.php?showtopic=13156

(see discussion found in last post on Porchlight thread)

reasypeasy said:

I have no idea if Nellie is Shotgun Jane Doe, but the doenetwork picture of the guy Nellie left home with in 1979 reminds me a lot of maybe a less old and haggard and bald looking Gary M Hilton in his facial features. Unfortunately I can't find any pictures of Hilton from around 79 to compare.

Click to expand...

I thought I recognized him, too, but I thought he looked like one of the male UID's we've looked at recently. But it might be that he looks like Gary Hilton. He sure looks like somebody I've seen before.

For what its worth, this is a link to the photo that made me really wonder if it was him. The ears, the way the head is at almost the same angle to the camera and the ears are almost the same in how much down the side of they appear to extend and how much they appear to extend out from the head. Also, his brows are less grey in that photo than other photos, and they are bushier than Nellie's chap, but about the right color.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WzJvFF4O8...M/Gk9yJgYyIGM/s1600-h/zNEWS+GARY+HILTON+1.jpg

I was going to submit Nellie Flickinger as a possible match but I wanted to share the proposed email here for any suggestions, critiques, etc.

I don't think there is a template as such for suggested submissions other than the pointers mentioned in the tips before submitting section.

here is the text. I put comments of mine in red to explain why I said certain things. I would appreciate any input as this can help all of us with future submissions:

Dear *advertiser censored*,

I frequent a website called Websleuths.com, which among other things provides a forum for ordinary citizens to discuss missing persons and unidentified deceaseds. (we are supposed to identify Websleuths and in case the recipient never heard of the site, I did not want them to have to guess what WS is). There is a UID found in Knox County, TN, on June 1, 1987, case #UT87-8F. (this was the case # found in the Namus profile which is supposed to be the local agency's reference #) You are listed as the contact person at the Namus profile. (explaining why the email went to this particular destination in case the file has changed hands) This woman has the following general description:

a white woman, estimated to be between 20-30, between 100-120 lbs, 5'4" with brown hair. the UID was listed as having this medical information "radius healed fracture; right tibia healed fracture; left tibia healed fracture secured by metal pin; fibula healed fracture secured by metal plate manufactured by "Synthes".

here is her profile at Namus:

https://identifyus.org/cases/1567

here is her profile at Doe Network:

http://doenetwork.org/cases/607uftn.html

There is a woman named Nellie Florence Cornman Flickinger missing from Erie, PA on March 1, 1979. Nellie was listed as being 29 y.o., 5'0" - 5'4" and between 120-140 lbs with brown hair. Also Nellie was noted to have "plates and/ or screws in her leg due to a motorcycle accident" along with skin graft scars.

it is my understanding that the UID had given birth and Nellie also was a mother of several children. (I read this in the threads but not sure what the source of the UID's pregnancy info was)

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/2313dfpa.html

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/1737/0/


There is no mention of any scarring present on the UID; however, that is impossible since she had medical hardware implanted in her at some point in her life and there had to have been surgical scarring. (lest the reader instantly rule out the submission based upon a lack of any scarring mentioned on the UID, I want the reader to know the UID had to have had scars) in addition, while Nellie is a bit older than the estimate range for the UID, there are not many missing women with plates in their legs. Nellie's weight is listed as being on the high end of that stated by the UID, but it is possible she lost weight in the years she was missing.

Given the fact we have two people matching in height, hair color, both had given birth and the presence of at least one plate in a leg, I thought I'd pass this name on for your consideration.

I am also sending a copy of this email to *advertiser censored*, who is listed as the contact person for Nellie's missing person case. (letting the recipient know someone else will be receiving an email as well)

am I omitting anything?

webrocket,

I'm not sure if you have seen this thread for tips on possible matches, there is some good info here.

Possible Match Tips before submitting - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



When I send an email I usually keep it a bit shorter to be honest. Too wordy and it may not get read. I mention I am a volunteer researcher/advocate for with an online group of advocates who try to match the unidentified with missing persons. (Tricia is cautious about people calling or saying they are doing something on behalf of Websleuths, so mentioning Websleuths is something I would run by Tricia or Admin first.)

After mentioning I'm a volunteer advocate.... I line up the comparsions either in bullet point or kind of like columns with contact info for both the ME and LE so they can do a quick comparison. And add the links for both the MP and UID. I send to both ME and LE - or I call either agency and ask for an email address (if one is not provided online). If I can get the LE or ME on the phone I will give them a short synopsis and let them know I will be sending the email and let them know what email address it will be coming from. I include my name and telephone number in case they wish to reach me but 99.5% of the time follow up communication is via email.

The best thing is to keep it simple, point out the similiarities and pro's - make it a quick easy read so it will get read! The more wordy the less likelyhood it will get read.

hth and please feel free to ask any questions. CarlK may have some other advise to offer - or- other WS'rs who have submitted possible matches may offer some other suggestions, but the above is how I submit.

hth

ETA: I do check back a few days later to ensure they received the email and ask if they would let me know if the possible match has been ruled out. Sometimes I hear about a rule out sometimes not, but I do make the effort to try and find out either by email or by phone.

Cubby said:

webrocket,


Possible Match Tips before submitting - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Click to expand...

I've seen this but I do not know how to do the clicking of the photo thing and some of the composite drawings do not resemble the actual person at all.

Cubby said:

When I send an email I usually keep it a bit shorter to be honest. Too wordy and it may not get read. I mention I am a volunteer researcher/advocate for with an online group of advocates who try to match the unidentified with missing persons. (Tricia is cautious about people calling or saying they are doing something on behalf of Websleuths, so mentioning Websleuths is something I would run by Tricia or Admin first.)

Click to expand...

I thought I had read on countless threads that Websleuthers are supposed to identify WS. I can try to find them but I am certain I've read that.

I also did not say I was doing anything on behalf of WS, just that I frequented the site. we have seen some ME's actually visit the site or threads in question as recently happened with the Jane Doe in Missouri. the LE or ME contact looked at all the names we threw about and was going to look at them all (except any who were excluded by dates).

Cubby said:

When I send an email I usually keep it a bit shorter to be honest. Too wordy and it may not get read.

[snipped]

The best thing is to keep it simple, point out the similiarities and pro's - make it a quick easy read so it will get read! The more wordy the less likelyhood it will get read.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the input Cubby. my thought process to the somewhat wordier email is to let the reader know I did some homework before submitting it and asking that they look into it. I want them to take the inquiry seriously.

I would be interested to know the thoughts of others on these points.

thanks

I agree with Cubby regarding brevity. You can show that you've done your homework without being long-winded.

My e-mails usually follow the following format:

Regarding the unidentified [male/female] found on [Date] in [location] ([Agency Case Number])

[DoeNet Link Here]
[NamUs Link Here]

Have you ever considered [Name], who was last seen in [Last Known Location] on [Date of Last Contact], as a possible match to this decedent?

[Charley Project Link Here]
[DoeNet Link Here]
[NamUs Link Here]

If not, I ask that you consider this possible match for the following reasons:

* [Bullet Point 1]
* [Bullet Point 2]
* [Bullet Point 3]
etc.

If you have any questions or comments, you may contact me at [your phone #]
Thank you
[Your Name]

Click to expand...

You may want to revise the "Regarding the unidentified female ..." wording in this instance to describe the unusual circumstances of her death (e.g., "the unidentified female who was killed by a shotgun blast while attempting to enter a home in Knox County TN")

BTW, I had one of my possibles summarily rejected by the detective in charge of this case, and he said that he wasn't going to bother with it because their ages were inconsistent. So don't be surprised if he does so with Nellie.

ETA: If both Charley and DoeNet pages are available, you should include both. Charley tends to provide more detail of the circumstances of disappearance, but DoeNet provides MP case numbers, and info regarding which identifiers are available.

I was unaware any ME were here..... and from other cases area's of WS I am certain Tricia is cautious about mentioning WS which is why I brought it up. I've asked admin/the mods to review what the appropriate protocal is for submitting possible matches and mentioning WS. Hopefully they will chime in and clarify that for us.

Here is an example of what I meant in how I line up the comparisons in an email to LE/ME.

Dear ME (insert name) or LE insert name -

I am a volunteer advocate with a group of online researchers who try and match up the missing with the unidentified. You have a Jane doe Case number XXXXX found in county, city on date. I would like to submit the following possible match to MP name who may be a match to your jane doe.

Your Jane Doe is listed at X ht. MP name is listed at X ht.
The jane is listed at X wt. MP is listed at X wt.
Your jane has the following markers ( list what they are scars, indications of surgery etc. ) the MP has similiar listed - specify which. Or does not list specific scar but had x surgery.

I do something similiar for all that I have found that lines up including date MP went missing and when UID was found.

I may add something about distance and pro's or cons. Such as they were found within X miles or X drive time.

Add links to both UID and MP and provide contact info for both the ME and LE so they can contact each other easily.

I would very much appreciate your time comparing the two to see if your jane may be MP name.

Should you have further questions or would like to discuss this further please contact me via email or (telephone number). If you could please let me know if this match has been ruled out I will share the rule out (or rule in) with the online group of researchers to avoid possible resubmitting of this possible match. (or something along those lines.)

Thank you for your time and consideration with this possible match.

name
telephone number


hth

Thank you Carl, I like the way you explained how you submit better than mine...... the points are similiar.

Thanks for chiming in!

ETA: With regards to LE not taking the possible match seriously, that is why I always submit to ME and LE and I will push with the ME more so than LE. In my experience, of the two, ME's will take more time with a possible match. They want their unidentified named. LE of course has much less time to spend on Missing Persons cases with their work load which includes so much more than just MP's.

JMO

Hi All,

It has been a while since I have been on WS BUT I am back and ready to take another look at SJD as she had a special place in my heart.

I have got back in contact with Lee Jantz (the ME) in relation to getting an update on exclusions etc and I have noticed that she now has DNA available to compare to which is fantastic.

When I receive a reply from Lee I will update you all, but if you have anything new I am all ears

Pearly

I have also just contacted the homicide department following up on the SJD, will let you know when I get a reply :crazy:

Morning all from Australia

I have been in contact with the case manager Lee Jantz and she has let me know that Barbara Jean Monaco (the missing person) who I submitted in late 2009 was ruled out as our SJD via dentals.

I have noticed that some people have put forward other possibles on this thread, would you like me to submit?

Pearly

pearly said:

Morning all from Australia

I have been in contact with the case manager Lee Jantz and she has let me know that Barbara Jean Monaco (the missing person) who I submitted in late 2009 was ruled out as our SJD via dentals.

I have noticed that some people have put forward other possibles on this thread, would you like me to submit?

Pearly

Click to expand...

hi Pearly,

sure, why not? so long as you made contact I see no harm in it. let us know what happens.

Back again....I have queried whether or not we were able to perhaps have another facial reconstruction done of SJD, however due to injuries obtained as a result of the shotgun, the skull is too fragile to do a clay reconstruction.

I have queried if SJD had ear piercings and to her eye colour as this is absent on her namus file (I am presuming this may be due to the shotgun blast also).

The ME welcomes any potential matches on this case and is very welcoming to the prospect of help. I have therefore submitted Nellie Flickinger and will let you know how it goes.

Good to get this case bumped and more people aware

Thoughts.....

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/508dfny.html

CarlK90245 said:

Do you suppose...?

New DoeNet case just added today:

Nancy Debra Willis
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/2985dftn.html

It says that she had previously broken her right leg in 8 places. No mention of her left leg, or any medical hardware. But given the number of breaks, one could say that there might be a some medical hardware in her leg(s).

She is also the right age, has similar curly hair in one of the photos, had given birth (as did SJD), and went missing approx 6 months prior to SJD's death, and was last seen in Tennessee.

However, she is a tad short compared to SJD.

Click to expand...

Nancy Willis is now on the rule-out list.