You're right, you have more experience with 1970s records by now than anyone should be forced to have. Please forgive me for not remembering that.
And it's not that I disagree with you at all. It appalls me that a relatively low-cost (nowadays) means of connecting lost people with their loved ones should still be so little used. But it is as you say to get what few old files do still exist and do what is necessary to get them properly listed requires a lot of toe-stomping and a lot of qualified and patient toe-stompers.
Yeah, this is important. And in cases where the report was filed more than a few years ago, to make sure it is still on file, start the NamUs entry, and keep it updated.
She has gone unidentified for so long that no possibility should be dismissed out of hand, but investigators and researchers in all the most recent articles really emphasize the possible southwest connection. I hope that anyone looking at old yearbooks, etc. doesn't take that lightly. Since we are not privy to the details of exactly how the study was done, what else was in the pollen prints, or how strong the conclusions are, I don't know how much we can really speculate about whether the researchers got it right or not. This goes double for the possible isotopic analysis claims, for which we have no hard copy reference at all.
I would not count myself as a Caledonia Jane Doe searcher though, so take it with a grain of salt. I think if she's ever identified it's going to either be through a CODIS hit or via the kind of chance family/friend encounter and years and years of investment Todd Matthews put into finding the Tent Girl.
Having said that, here's the far-flung and very far-fetched possible I'll throw in the ring, an Australian girl of about the right age. There are several others on the same site that might fit the bill as well.
Marion Carol Rees
Missing since April 7, 1975 from Malabar, New South Wales, Australia
https://www.ebiz.police.nsw.gov.au/.../displayIndividualDetails.do?photoRefNum=1163
Skimming through the thread I see a lot of questioning and some confusion about the evidence as it's presented in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to out myself as the author of most of the current Wikipedia text, which was posted using a friend's account. (If you have sharp eyes you'll notice I made another couple small edits today.)
I affixed citations to most of the statements in the article. If you aren't sure where a piece of information came from, please follow the citation link and see if that answers your question. If you can't find it or feel I made a mistake, please don't hesitate to ask about it here. I'll answer to the best of my ability. To answer one issue that has been raised several times: in cases where I read conflicting information from multiple sources, I did my best to reconcile it by generally going with the data from the sources that had more detail and newer information.
I've since done a little more reading about palynology. After looking back over the forensic palynology slides PDF I plan to change the line about the best pollen match to refer to the areal and forensic evidence pollen prints as a whole, not just the
Casuarina grains.