Identified! DE - Bear, WhtFem 16-25, UP7097, pregnant, in laundry bag, Mar'67 - NamUs removed

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Hey everyone. I'm looking on doing a podcase and featuring this case. I've been researching and going through the thread. I know this is going to spark a lot of debate - but if there is one thing I need to know or one question I need to ask...what is it?
 
I think this poor woman was apart of the foster care system or runaway....no one looking for her...sad.
But she was pregnant...did the father not know ...or is he the one who dumped her body?
To leave her naked and placed on a construction pile...
She needed medical care, which leads me to think someone was scared of doing so because of the abortion attempt. Ugh!!
 
doecast said:
Hey everyone. I'm looking on doing a podcase and featuring this case. I've been researching and going through the thread. I know this is going to spark a lot of debate - but if there is one thing I need to know or one question I need to ask...what is it?
Click to expand...

Can the foetus be DNA tested?
 
So they had a maternal DNA link to either Virgina or West Virginia and Tennessee. However, when interviewed, she was not recognized. Maybe she was given up for adoption and pregnancy covered up.
Someone left her naked and dumped...and did not seek medical treatment for her.
She is now buried in a DE potters field. Sad she has been without a name since 1967!
 
Sweetluv said:
So they had a maternal DNA link to either Virgina or West Virginia and Tennessee. However, when interviewed, she was not recognized. Maybe she was given up for adoption and pregnancy covered up.
Someone left her naked and dumped...and did not seek medical treatment for her.
She is now buried in a DE potters field. Sad she has been without a name since 1967!
Click to expand...


A "maternal link" means only that they had a mitochondrial DNA match, indicating that she and the match are related by a continuous chain of female ancestors. That could mean that they share mothers or 10th great grandmothers. So unless that mitochondrial match was connected by a common mother or maternal grandmother, it is unlikely that they knew each other.
 
Carl...I know at one point, you were in touch with Hal Brown.
Do you know if a sample was taken from the fetus....maybe a DNA connection to the father?
 
Accurate and well explained. Imho MtDNA is useless for UID identification unless you know who to compare them to. Best example, I share the same mtDNA haplogroup with Merovingian Queen Arnegonde, who died 1400 years ago. Is she closely related to me? Nope. She is not even a direct ancestress. Our last common female ancestress could have lived 10.000 years ago.

It is just the oldest DNA research technique that is around, id say about 15-20 years. Most famous case that was solved through it was the Romanoff Czar family. But the ones who made the ID knew who to compare them to and had a suspicion.

For a completely unknown UID it is useless. You need a full autosomal test.

CarlK90245 said:
A "maternal link" means only that they had a mitochondrial DNA match, indicating that she and the match are related by a continuous chain of female ancestors. That could mean that they share mothers or 10th great grandmothers. So unless that mitochondrial match was connected by a common mother or maternal grandmother, it is unlikely that they knew each other.
Click to expand...
 
Susikatze said:
Accurate and well explained. Imho MtDNA is useless for UID identification unless you know who to compare them to. Best example, I share the same mtDNA haplogroup with Merovingian Queen Arnegonde, who died 1400 years ago. Is she closely related to me? Nope. She is not even a direct ancestress. Our last common female ancestress could have lived 10.000 years ago.

It is just the oldest DNA research technique that is around, id say about 15-20 years. Most famous case that was solved through it was the Romanoff Czar family. But the ones who made the ID knew who to compare them to and had a suspicion.

For a completely unknown UID it is useless. You need a full autosomal test.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It could be a useful tool in conjunction with FGG though, as explained in a recent ISHI blog post from a DDP volunteer: Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: How Misattributed Parentage and Other Challenges Can Complicate Your Investigative Genetic Genealogy Case - ISHI News
 
Sweetluv said:
Carl...I know at one point, you were in touch with Hal Brown.
Do you know if a sample was taken from the fetus....maybe a DNA connection to the father?
Click to expand...
No, I do not know. I do know they got her DNA from a sample of her heart tissue that had been kept in cold-storage for nearly 50 years. But I don't know if they kept anything from the fetus. I don't even know if the fetus had been removed prior to her death.
 
ntt1 said:
Indeed. It could be a useful tool in conjunction with FGG though, as explained in a recent ISHI blog post from a DDP volunteer: Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: How Misattributed Parentage and Other Challenges Can Complicate Your Investigative Genetic Genealogy Case - ISHI News
Click to expand...

The X chromosome is more useful for analyzing maternal ancestry in FGG, because if two persons have a matching X chromosome, they can not be related by a chain of two or more consecutive male ancestors.

The reason is as follows:
A male is XY, and a female is XX.
A father passes his X chromosome to his daughters, and his Y chromosome to his sons.
A mother passes one of her two X chromosomes to her child, regardless of gender.

In the case of Grandmother >>> Father >>> Daughter, the daughter will get one of the paternal grandmother's X chromosomes that passes by way of the father.
In the case of Grandmother >>> Father >>> Son, the son will get the father's Y, and one of the mother's X chromosomes. The X passed from Grandmother to father cannot pass to the son.

So an X chromosome cannot pass through two or more consecutive males in the line of descendancy.
 
Last edited:
CarlK90245 said:
No, I do not know. I do know they got her DNA from a sample of her heart tissue that had been kept in cold-storage for nearly 50 years. But I don't know if they kept anything from the fetus. I don't even know if the fetus had been removed prior to her death.
Click to expand...

Also from my understanding, there was no fetus present anymore. Otherwise they would not have gotten the idea of "botched abortion". But you can tell that there was a recent pregnancy from the size and structure of the uterus. It keeps that way for several weeks after a miscarriage/abortion, even at an earlier stage of pregnancy.

There is an interesting case from 20 years ago about a young woman in Germany who was found in her burnt apartment. It was soon clear she had met with foul play because her tonguebone was broken (indicates strangulation) and someone had poured gasoline over her before she was set aflame.
Her uterus was intact, there was no fetus present, but shape and structure indicated a pregnancy of 10 weeks. They found minuscule amounts of fetal DNA in the remains of chorionic vili that were still buried in the uterine wall.
They found out the woman had undergone an abortion 2 weeks prior to her death and they checked all acquaintances of her. They found a man who denied having had a relationship with her. His DNA was a match to the fetal DNA and he was identified as a short affair the woman had. She did not want to continue the relationship due to his abusive nature and he killed her.

Long story short, if they preserved uterine tissue, it may be possible to isolate fetal DNA, even if there is no fetus left.
 
Susikatze said:
Also from my understanding, there was no fetus present anymore. Otherwise they would not have gotten the idea of "botched abortion".
Click to expand...

I'm lost - if there was an unsuccessful botched abortion attempt, wouldn't the fetus still be there, unless it had been posthumously removed? Or was it a successful abortion that she just died from? I'm confused about this aspect.
 
Billylee said:
Wanted to pass this on to you all: This match is still being looked into, but the info coming from Mr. Brown is also invaluable should she turn out NOT to be a match. (And I'd still like to find Glenda's body for her own peace! What a horribly sad situation that girl had to endure!) I removed his assistant's name that he refers to for privacy sake, but other than that here is his latest response in this case:

I have found a pathology record dated June 15, 1967 that reported analysis of uterine contents revealed the presence of soap and glycerol. This was the alleged chemical method of inducing abortion in this cases (versus mechanical). I've located a second death certificate for a unidentified white male stillborn fetus found in maternal uterus of this woman.

My duties at the OCME are quite extensive, so I work on these cases often after hours or when I take a lunch break. As such, I am now very pleased to have I have a laboratory technician in my employ , who previously served as a forensic intern. He (xxxxx) has a a degree in forensic anthropology and has been of tremendous assistance to me on these cases. As a recent graduate of the University of Delaware, he has boundless energy and great attention to detail. I will have (*****) compile a list of previous exclusions from the lengthy police investigation; perhaps that will provide some more clues.

While we have no idea if this will provide to be a match, we are none-the-less thinking outside the box and putting our heads together in a collaborative effort. Again, I thank you so very much and also thank so many others like yourself, who pour forth personal time and effort for our many lost and forgotten souls. Keep up the good work and I hope to hear back from you very soon with any ideas or thoughts you may have on this case. I too, will keep you posted on developments.

Very best regards, -Hal

So, if anyone has any more insight to this JD's case, please forward it to them. How totally refreshing to find someone who is as interested as we are in giving these lost souls peace. I think Hal may just be an :angel:
Click to expand...

I think that old post clarifies it. The fetus was present and removed and autopsied. But apparently not preserved as evidence as her heart tissue was (or maybe it was but got lost).
 
I think at this point I'd be very surprised if many of these high profile longtime cold cases have not engaged with genetic genealogy yet (though maybe this is a bit naive). It's been around long enough, with enough successes, for the agencies to know what it is. We just won't hear about it until they are solved.
 
ntt1 said:
I think at this point I'd be very surprised if many of these high profile longtime cold cases have not engaged with genetic genealogy yet (though maybe this is a bit naive). It's been around long enough, with enough successes, for the agencies to know what it is. We just won't hear about it until they are solved.
Click to expand...

This case was one of the first forensic genetic genealogy cases I recall. Only the relatives investigators found and contacted had no idea who she was. And they never disclosed how close the relationship was, only that it was maternal.

What I wonder is if they go in every once in a while and check for closer matches than they had before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 284 (members: 91, guests: 193)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
193
Total visitors
284
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,824
Messages
18,246,064
Members
234,459
Latest member
mclureprestige
Back
Top