Identified! AR- West Memphis -"Laundry Lady" WhtFem 643UFAR, 45-60, Sep'87 No Name Available

[believe09]

It might be the service road was undergoing construction at that time. A DEP complaint over wetlands came up in one of my searches. Would explain the car occupants thinking they had hit a barrel.



Believe09 is in contact with both LE for Rose & MedEx for LL.

LE for Rosie is pretty interested in the possibility-I think it will come down to DNA....jmo. I will let you know when I hear more from either side! :blowkiss:

 

[Fairy1]

LE for Rosie is pretty interested in the possibility-I think it will come down to DNA....jmo. I will let you know when I hear more from either side! :blowkiss:

Thank you, believe09. Fingers crossed!

 

[Mr. E]

My fingers are crossed, too. Good call!

 

[believe09]

LE was interested to see dearmont's flip of the photo, so I sent it along to him. Good Job dearmont!!!!:blowkiss:

 

[ASU2USC]

This is such a good match - I've been checking back for any updates, keeping my fingers crossed!

 

[believe09]

nothing yet. I will check in on Monday. I don't know what it might take to pull some DNA on LL unless they had something available to test without exhuming her??? I mean I would have to believe that there was a c section scar and everything in the autopsy report....

 

[believe09]

Rosie Baker's LE found the match very compelling. They have requested AR pull DNA on LL. There is none on file, so it is likely there will need to be an exhumation. And of course they have to find where she is buried first.

Note:
Rosie had upper and lower dentures, according to LE. There is a chance there might be some dental information available for her like castings or XRAYS. If it can be found, it will likely be faster than the exhumation/DNA avenue.

Fingers crossed!!!!!

 

[christine2448]

Fanflippintastic work y'all! I changed the thread title to submitted. Believe09 has been keeping me updated on this one and I am so excited about the work you all have done and are doing! :dance: FWIW.

 

[tatertot]

I agree, this match looks so good. If this is indeed Rose, I wonder how much of a role the reversed autopsy photo played in her delayed identification. Of course there are other factors like the seven years between Rose's disappearance and LL's fatal accident and I'm not faulting anybody, but maybe they should use plastic letters "L" and "R" along with the coroner's ruler in photos to make sure the photos don't end up switched.

 

[capoly]

I agree, this match looks so good. If this is indeed Rose, I wonder how much of a role the reversed autopsy photo played in her delayed identification. Of course there are other factors like the seven years between Rose's disappearance and LL's fatal accident and I'm not faulting anybody, but maybe they should use plastic letters "L" and "R" along with the coroner's ruler in photos to make sure the photos don't end up switched.

Not sure if the reversed photo previously delayed identification but IMO dearmont's correction of the photo allowed for factors to be seen beyond a resemblance. Huge difference. Quite a nice piece of work, dearmont.

 

[chaddylex]

I am keeping my fingers crossed. Seems like a match to me....

chaddylex

 

[capoly]

Below is another NamUs listing for LL (info in clothing, hair,eyes). This listing states she was a chain smoker: BGE CIG CASE-CHAIN SM0KER/MERIT 100

In one of Brains & NoBull posts above there is a link to an archived site of Rose Baker is Missing. Unfortunately, the link will not show the picture now. But when first posted the link went to a photo of Rose where I am certain she was holding a cigarette. Another piece in the ID puzzle?


https://identifyus.org/?p=case&i=4719&=16&s=DateFound_DESC&from=search

 

[amethyst]

This new listing also says she is 30 to 40 years old as opposed to the other which says 45 to 60.

 

[capoly]

This new listing also says she is 30 to 40 years old as opposed to the other which says 45 to 60.

It isn't a new listing as it's listing date is earlier than the one we've been going by. Just another listing though don't know why the NCIC #U266144136 didn't connect the listings. IMO, with all due respect to LL, the age range of 45 to 60 would appear to be the one that fits the picture.

 

[believe09]

Below is another NamUs listing for LL (info in clothing, hair,eyes). This listing states she was a chain smoker: BGE CIG CASE-CHAIN SM0KER/MERIT 100

In one of Brains & NoBull posts above there is a link to an archived site of Rose Baker is Missing. Unfortunately, the link will not show the picture now. But when first posted the link went to a photo of Rose where I am certain she was holding a cigarette. Another piece in the ID puzzle?


https://identifyus.org/?p=case&i=4719&=16&s=DateFound_DESC&from=search

This new listing also says she is 30 to 40 years old as opposed to the other which says 45 to 60.

It isn't a new listing as it's listing date is earlier than the one we've been going by. Just another listing though don't know why the NCIC #U266144136 didn't connect the listings. IMO, with all due respect to LL, the age range of 45 to 60 would appear to be the one that fits the picture.

The Arkansas State Crime Lab number for LL is 320-87. LL age range as capoly pointed out is 45-60 which is right I believe. Beyond that, I believe that LL was wearing a green T shirt with the town of Roseburg on it...did the other UID listing state a Tshirt that said Rosebud??

I think they may be two different simply because NCIC U266 is wearing levis and a red sleeveless shirt that reads Rosebud. LL was wearing a different brand name jean with a green T I thought????

 

[believe09]

I sent the person who listed AR ME case number 87090657 under the same NCIC number as LL an email to ask if she listed the correct NCIC for her case....

 

[capoly]

I sent the person who listed AR ME case number 87090657 under the same NCIC number as LL an email to ask if she listed the correct NCIC for her case....

With all the UID listings being made to NamUs this may occur again so it's good to get clarification now. Thanks!

 

[capoly]

There are actually a few AR UID's with double entries. It looks like the NamUs Focus group posted first entries and MedExs posted 2nd entries. Age range between the entries differ on all. Some things are listed in one entry but not the other.

ETA In some cases the 'date found' differs yet other info is same.

It's new and will take time for them to work out the kinks.

 

[JaneInOz]

That is why they say there are no fingerprints because there are NONE on this entry
But on the other entry the one that I found originally it has a set of fingerprints.

Can they not use those to compare to Rosie ? ETA Just realized that Rose doesnt have any

I wholeheartedly agree that Dearmont did such a great job in working out that the picture on namus was reversed

How on earth they did that I do not understand - because it could have impacted on her identification. If it hadn't of been for Dearmont seeing it was reversed that vital clue could have been missed

do we know what size shoe Rosie wore ? as it says LL was wearing size 8 shoes

interesting about the cigarettes as that was not mentioned on the original report

 

[capoly]

The Arkansas State Crime Lab number for LL is 320-87. LL age range as capoly pointed out is 45-60 which is right I believe. Beyond that, I believe that LL was wearing a green T shirt with the town of Roseburg on it...did the other UID listing state a Tshirt that said Rosebud??

I think they may be two different simply because NCIC U266 is wearing levis and a red sleeveless shirt that reads Rosebud. LL was wearing a different brand name jean with a green T I thought????

UDRS # 2882
Case # 320-87
Crittenden Co. AR
45 to 60 year old
White Female

NCIC Number U266144136
Date Found 1987-09-09
Date Entered 2008-12-11 16:02

1 pair of blue jeans with a "Dakota" label, 1 pair of white panties with green trim, 1 white brassier, ! red t-shirt with the words "Kawloon Roseburg, Oregon" on the front and the word "Tiki Room" on the back.1 pair of beige shoes-size 8M
https://identifyus.org/?p=case&i=2882&=5&s=DateFound_DESC&from=search


UDRS # 4719
Case # 87090657
Arkansas Co. AR
30 to 40 year old
White Female

NCIC Number U266144136
Date Found 1987-09-09
Date Entered 2008-10-30 00:00

LEVI JEANS-RED SLEEVELESS P/0 INSC/K0WL00N R0SEBUD,
0R-TAN SANDALS S/8
BGE CIG CASE-CHAIN SM0KER/MERIT 100
https://identifyus.org/?p=case&i=4719&=16&s=DateFound_DESC&from=search


The 'chain smoker' aspect would seem important to establish should LL & Rose not be a match.

The UDRS # 4719 listing was made by NamUs Focus Group volunteer Debbie Culberson. Her daughter, Carrie, went missing in 1996. What courage these parent volunteers have.

http://www.findcarrieculberson.com/