FL FL - Monica Libao, may have been abducted as infant, 1963-64

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

2 yrs old is still young enough not to remember who u are. Honestly, I don't think she was taken as an infant. My big thing is babies tend to look alike, and if they took her as a baby, no one would recognize her, but as a child had she been taken, posters could be made, and there would be a reason to run and move from place to place. Honestly, I don't believe she was taken as a baby, because it would be much too easy to pass her off as your own. IE - No one asking when you had her, or saying she looks so much like that kid that was stolen on the poster.
 
The woman who was stealing babies from their mothers was Ethel Nation. She was a nurse and she would drug them and trick them. Such a evil lady.
 
Laura_Bean said:
2 yrs old is still young enough not to remember who u are. Honestly, I don't think she was taken as an infant. My big thing is babies tend to look alike, and if they took her as a baby, no one would recognize her, but as a child had she been taken, posters could be made, and there would be a reason to run and move from place to place. Honestly, I don't believe she was taken as a baby, because it would be much too easy to pass her off as your own. IE - No one asking when you had her, or saying she looks so much like that kid that was stolen on the poster.
Click to expand...

I agree -- if she was taken as an infant, why bother hiding her on school picture day?

However, on Unsolved Mysteries her sister said she remembered her parents hiding "a tiny infant" from the police. Also, putting the baby in a cardboard box in the car (not something that would be easy to do with a toddler).
 
awagner said:
I dont know why she doesnt submit her DNA to the Ancestry.com DNA bank to see what Family names she is associated with. It could put a lot to rest. It doesnt cost that much to find out.
Click to expand...
It is expensive to have a DNA test done Around $450 for one test.
 
Perhaps MOnica will join us here and can answer questions for herself.
 
Teresa Larson said:
It is expensive to have a DNA test done Around $450 for one test.
Click to expand...

its not the same kind of test. Ancestry.com sells it for like 150.00. It matches a person against others that submitted it. People often find s surname chain to follow.
 
I still say she looks a lot like the mother daughter set who went missing. The have the same features. Very close.
 
I know why they'd have to hide her on picture day if she was taken as an infant. I think I get it now. Give me some time, and let me see what I can find. Don't want to get anyone's hopes up as I may be barking up the wrong tree... But I think I finally understand why, if she was taken as a baby, she would have to be hidden, moved constantly around, and why she was hidden specifically on picture day. Other than taking her as a child, I can think of only one other potential reason.
 
Laura_Bean said:
I know why they'd have to hide her on picture day if she was taken as an infant. I think I get it now. Give me some time, and let me see what I can find. Don't want to get anyone's hopes up as I may be barking up the wrong tree... But I think I finally understand why, if she was taken as a baby, she would have to be hidden, moved constantly around, and why she was hidden specifically on picture day. Other than taking her as a child, I can think of only one other potential reason.
Click to expand...

I'm totally intrigued!
 
I guess she won't come to this board, because she's been asked. OH well, you can't help people who don't want to be helped, and I am hopeful that someone would have tried to help find her parents.
 
Okay. I think I may be barking up the right tree. I think that if she was taken as an infant, but needed to be hidden all of those yrs, and also the reason why they had to move so often, was probably because they stole the baby from a family member. If their family knew that the mother couldn't have anymore children, and knew they were too old to have children anyway, they would have questioned the child being with them. BUT beyond that a question kept bugging me. Why couldn't the couple just say they adopted the girl? Why did they keep her home on picture day? Than it came to me, if the baby looked just like whoever they took her from, (brother cousin sister nephew aunt, whatever), and was the SAME AGE as the child that went missing, and the ear thing was the same as the baby, well that seems to make sense. Yes at that point they would HAVE to hide the child away.

What do you all think?
 
If she was taken as a small child and not as an infant, I wonder if she has ever considered trying some sort of hypnosis to see if she could retrieve some memories from her childhood. Just a random thought...
 
Laura_Bean said:
Okay. I think I may be barking up the right tree. I think that if she was taken as an infant, but needed to be hidden all of those yrs, and also the reason why they had to move so often, was probably because they stole the baby from a family member. If their family knew that the mother couldn't have anymore children, and knew they were too old to have children anyway, they would have questioned the child being with them. BUT beyond that a question kept bugging me. Why couldn't the couple just say they adopted the girl? Why did they keep her home on picture day? Than it came to me, if the baby looked just like whoever they took her from, (brother cousin sister nephew aunt, whatever), and was the SAME AGE as the child that went missing, and the ear thing was the same as the baby, well that seems to make sense. Yes at that point they would HAVE to hide the child away.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

I think your theory is a good one.
 
Laura_Bean said:
Okay. I think I may be barking up the right tree. I think that if she was taken as an infant, but needed to be hidden all of those yrs, and also the reason why they had to move so often, was probably because they stole the baby from a family member. If their family knew that the mother couldn't have anymore children, and knew they were too old to have children anyway, they would have questioned the child being with them. BUT beyond that a question kept bugging me. Why couldn't the couple just say they adopted the girl? Why did they keep her home on picture day? Than it came to me, if the baby looked just like whoever they took her from, (brother cousin sister nephew aunt, whatever), and was the SAME AGE as the child that went missing, and the ear thing was the same as the baby, well that seems to make sense. Yes at that point they would HAVE to hide the child away.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

Hi, I've been lurking. I think this theory is a really good one. It makes a great deal of sense and in the period in which it happened, it's very believable. The child might have been taken because the mother was perceived as not being able to care for the child correctly or just because these family members wanted a child. After that, they would have to hide out from the rest of the family.
 
We'll never know because she doesn't want to join. She was even sent Laura's latest theory.
 
Maybe she doesn't want to join because it's not true? Maybe she knows and doesn't want to be exposed. Like that woman a few years ago. She and everyone else thought she was abducted, then it was exposed to be a hoax. I'm not saying I don't think it's true, because if she believes it I'm willing to believe her. But if she doesn't want to search for answers, there's got to be a reason. And the people on this board are very good at getting to the raw truth.
 
Mr. E said:
Maybe she doesn't want to join because it's not true? Maybe she knows and doesn't want to be exposed. Like that woman a few years ago. She and everyone else thought she was abducted, then it was exposed to be a hoax. I'm not saying I don't think it's true, because if she believes it I'm willing to believe her. But if she doesn't want to search for answers, there's got to be a reason. And the people on this board are very good at getting to the raw truth.
Click to expand...

Well said, Mr. E!

One thing that gives me pause in a situation like this is that a person brought out their story on a television show, but now, today, we have so many more resources (with the www) and they prefer not to share their story when it could potentially reach a gazillion more people than it has.

I guess it just puzzles me? :waitasec:
 
Mr. E said:
Maybe she doesn't want to join because it's not true? Maybe she knows and doesn't want to be exposed. Like that woman a few years ago. She and everyone else thought she was abducted, then it was exposed to be a hoax. I'm not saying I don't think it's true, because if she believes it I'm willing to believe her. But if she doesn't want to search for answers, there's got to be a reason. And the people on this board are very good at getting to the raw truth.
Click to expand...

...and that would be Delia Cly.

Perhaps she's learned some truth about her past and just wishes to leave it be. If she isn't interested in the assistance, there are SO very many cases that need attention here at WS. I'd respect her wishes and move on.

jmho
 
Everyone has their own reasons, they aren't always deceptive or salacious. Sometimes people just stop wanting to know. I hope she changes her mind, she seems like a very sweet person, but....she knows where we are if she changes her mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 55 more.
Total: 225 (members: 56, guests: 169)

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
169
Total visitors
225
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,001
Messages
18,248,412
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top