I just ran across this profile on NamUs and am getting caught up on the thread. I do not understand why LE thinks that this UID died in the 1990s or later. With a 1969 coin and a 1966 watch found with the body, it is practically screaming to me, "I DIED SOMETIME BEFORE 1980!" (though I do agree that Judy sounds like an extremely good match and I am dismayed to see so many rule-outs without her name on the list -- it's been 3 years since her sister reported the potential match and since Judy has living relatives, and since it seems they've been able to do DNA comparisons with other MPs, why is it taking so long to rule Judy in or out?). I mean, just one of those things and I would dismiss it as "she just had a really old item" -- but both? And if she was a prostitute, how many of those fancy vintage watches? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Next thought: Pantyhose? If the UID was wearing pantyhose, I think she died sometime long before 1992. By the 1990s (even really, by the 1980s, if I recall), very few young non-professional (as in white collar worker, not prostitute) women were wearing them except in the most formal of circumstances or if they were forced to (like I was as a waitress in the 90s). They were definitely not something I would have worn very often if left to my own devices. Yet, my mother's generation would have not been caught dead without them in the 1960s-1970s. So, to me, that's another piece of data that suggests to me that this woman/girl died long before 1992. Finally... bits of sequins and such does not, I hope, mean "prostitute" since I and many of my friends have been known to wear sequins, just sayin'!