- Joined
- Nov 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,259
- Reaction score
- 7,199
(Copying this post from Phyllis Berry's MP Thread)
I called Phyllis Eleanor Berry as a possible in to TX DPS a couple of years ago. They contacted Broward County and were told that it was a CODIS rule-out by default.
I have a feeling though that they were just blowing it off. Florida has a reputation for botched rule-outs (e.g., Colleen Orsborn and Peggy Sue Houser)
Looking at the NamUs MP and UP casefiles for PEB and the Jane Doe, it is not clear whether both cases are in CODIS. There is a mtDNA profile for the Jane Doe at the Univ. of North Texas, but they were unable to develop a nucDNA profile for her. For Phyllis, it says "Sample available - Not yet submitted." However, it is unclear whether "Not yet submitted" applies to NamUs, or CODIS (or both).
But I noticed that they finally entered the dentals into the Jane Doe's NamUs UP casefile. So we can compare the description of the Jane Doe's dentals to the visual of PEB's teeth.
Here's a close-up of Phyllis' teeth (with the #8 and #9 teeth labled for reference).
Regarding the 295UFFL Jane Doe's teeth the NamUs casefile indicates the following:
In the photo of PEB's teeth, note the large gap next to (i.e., on her right of) her #8 tooth where her #7 tooth would normally be. I don't think that's her #7 on the other side of the gap. The #7 appears to be missing, I can't tell if that tooth is her #6, or if it is a primary tooth as is described of the UID.
But nevertheless, it could be consistent to the description of the Jane Doe's teeth.
Again, not conclusive, but the tooth next to (i.e., on her left of) her #9 tooth appears to have come in crooked, as if it is the #11 filling the gap left by a missing #10.
No way to judge that one way or the other from this photo.
The photo is a little too blurred to be sure, but there appears to be a significant gap between #8 and #9.
I called Phyllis Eleanor Berry as a possible in to TX DPS a couple of years ago. They contacted Broward County and were told that it was a CODIS rule-out by default.
I have a feeling though that they were just blowing it off. Florida has a reputation for botched rule-outs (e.g., Colleen Orsborn and Peggy Sue Houser)
Looking at the NamUs MP and UP casefiles for PEB and the Jane Doe, it is not clear whether both cases are in CODIS. There is a mtDNA profile for the Jane Doe at the Univ. of North Texas, but they were unable to develop a nucDNA profile for her. For Phyllis, it says "Sample available - Not yet submitted." However, it is unclear whether "Not yet submitted" applies to NamUs, or CODIS (or both).
But I noticed that they finally entered the dentals into the Jane Doe's NamUs UP casefile. So we can compare the description of the Jane Doe's dentals to the visual of PEB's teeth.
Here's a close-up of Phyllis' teeth (with the #8 and #9 teeth labled for reference).
![PhyllisEBerryTeeth_zpsf1036ec9-1_zps2906b646.jpg](/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi1354.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq697%2FCarlkopp90245%2FSide-By-Side%2520Comparisons%2FPhyllisEBerryTeeth_zpsf1036ec9-1_zps2906b646.jpg&hash=cece00ef8d6307c41f739c2d6e3fb44f)
Regarding the 295UFFL Jane Doe's teeth the NamUs casefile indicates the following:
Decedent has teeth #6 and 7 congenitally missing with primary teeth C and D retained.
In the photo of PEB's teeth, note the large gap next to (i.e., on her right of) her #8 tooth where her #7 tooth would normally be. I don't think that's her #7 on the other side of the gap. The #7 appears to be missing, I can't tell if that tooth is her #6, or if it is a primary tooth as is described of the UID.
But nevertheless, it could be consistent to the description of the Jane Doe's teeth.
Tooth #10 is also congenitally missing and tooth # 11 has erupted in #10 position.
Again, not conclusive, but the tooth next to (i.e., on her left of) her #9 tooth appears to have come in crooked, as if it is the #11 filling the gap left by a missing #10.
primary tooth H is retained in positon of tooth #11.
No way to judge that one way or the other from this photo.
Large diastema (space) between teeth #8 and #9
The photo is a little too blurred to be sure, but there appears to be a significant gap between #8 and #9.