FL FL - Peggy Houser, 18, Tampa, 14 June 1981

[CarlK90245]

... I can see from the limited views here a difference in the chin/jaw structure between the two. Houser appears to have a slightly forward tilt to her lower jaw whereas the UP does not. Also Houser has a 'flatter' face, the cheek bones of the UP being more prominent than Houser. Third, I see the brow bone structure being less prominent in Houser. I did not check to see if the reason was given but that would be interesting to know.

ETA the gap on the side of Houser appears wider than that of the UP. jmo

Here are the two straight-on images, scaled and rotated so that they can be dragged over one another for comparison.

The UID's eyes are very slightly narrower than Houser's. Not sure if that is real, or if it is an artist's error.

I don't see too much difference in their chins. There is quite a difference in cheeks, but those appear to be soft-tissue differences, not skeletal differences.

As for the gap "on the side of Houser" (I think you mean between #7 and #8), it could appear wider because her head is turned slightly to her left, resulting in a more direct view of the gap.

 

[Mensch]

Here are the two straight-on images, scaled and rotated so that they can be dragged over one another for comparison.

I don't understand the 'rotate and drag' concept in identification. One of the subjects is an image close up and the other far away. They are not direct on as Houser's face is tilted and to our viewing R. There are too many variables in facial structure to simply say an outline 'fits'. If this is the limit, one is leaving out structure and comparing a flat image which does not depict the bone structure and that is the core or the base for the flesh. This is precisely why there are certified forensic artistics who have knowledge of not only pen and paper or computers but of decomp rate, age progression, genetic probability. This is a science and I can't speculate further in this vein because it would not be productive or helpful in determining the ID.

The UID's eyes are very slightly narrower than Houser's. Not sure if that is real, or if it is an artist's error.

Yes they are closer. Also as I pointed out the brow bone is different. I would have to say it is real as I always defer to the experts.

I don't see too much difference in their chins. There is quite a difference in cheeks, but those appear to be soft-tissue differences, not skeletal differences.

There is enough difference to warrant a professional opinion. Here the clay image is presented with fuller cheeks and yet the images (both) of Houser show a flatter face structure. This is obvious when using both images of Houser and including also the enhanced image as the forensic professional would know how the structure would progress. She/he cannot of course determine things like moles scars or other blemishes. Only bone structure and then how the tissue lays over the bone.

As for the gap "on the side of Houser" (I think you mean between #7 and #8), it could appear wider because her head is turned slightly to her left, resulting in a more direct view of the gap.

As to the teeth, the other image showing the teeth would have to be used for comparison and Houser's lip is too close to the the top teeth to determine if one front tooth is a bit shorter than the other one as depicted in the forensic reconstruction. If I had to only give one reason for the differences - it would be the flat face, but I see many and wish there were other photos available.
I hope they made the rule out by DNA because these are similar.

 

[Mensch]

Had a double post so I deleted it.

 

[Mensch]

Another helpful mode of identification in this case is that the complete skeletal remains were found and there is no mention of a damaged bone in the elbow or broken wrist which Houser experienced preceding the time of her disappearance. There are a lot of MP ruled out on NamUS. It would be great if they gave a reason why.

 

[CarlK90245]

I don't understand the 'rotate and drag' concept in identification. One of the subjects is an image close up and the other far away.

The "drag" concept is illustrated in this youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qECurg8R0zU

They are not direct on as Houser's face is tilted and to our viewing R.

Therein lies the need for the "rotate concept". I rotated the image back to level so that they could be compared in this manner.

There are too many variables in facial structure to simply say an outline 'fits'.

I never claimed that this was a means of positive identification. In fact, I've mentioned before that it is not a foolproof means of identification. It's just one tool of many that we non-professionals have at our disposal, especially when our access to crucial information is severely limited.

I would have to say it is real as I always defer to the experts.

Some "experts" are more expert than others. I've seen well done facial reconstructions, and others that were not so well done (including some which I have done). Porchlight has a section called ID'd Comparisons, where you can see after a person was ID'd how accurately the "expert" depicted them. As for the distance between the eyes, since an eye socket is much larger than the eyeball, it is possible that the artist did not position the eyes correctly within the sockets. They are not that far off to discount that possibility.

 

[Mensch]

Look at your post # 17. Now look at the newest one with the overlay. You now have the nose off to the viewing right of the mouth.

Notice also that the photo was taken at a slightly upward angle.

How does anyone 'rotate' a FLAT image I have spoken with and worked with a lot of forensic experts and an image overlay can only be done if all things are equal and then it is done for other reasons other than complete id. It works for images of mole sizes or other body markings. These are FLAT images. One can only 'rotate' the three dimensional reconstruction - not a photo of the three dimensional head but the actual piece. A flat surface cannot be rotated for angle for obvious reasons. The FLAT image CAN be measured and calculated by careful concise measurements from one point to another, i.e. measure from inside corner of one eye to the other; from nose to lip; from chin to lower lip and so on. Even these measurements must take into consideration the facial expression and the experts knowledge of muscle tone to compensate for variables. Again this is a science not an art project. Looking at the clay reconstruction, it is obvious the eyes are placed as they should be in relation to the socket. Otherwise, what we would see if you want them moved farther apart is a a wild stare outward with a whole lot of white showing at the center.

If this was one of your cases, I am sorry it was not a match. I am more sorry for the victim, but I cannot cling to something that is not feasible in identifying a UP and that is rotate, drag and overlay or the possibility a professional forensic artist is not familiar with the basics in the anatomy, physiology & pathology of the human eye. If that is truly the case, which is becoming a trend on one network, then we
are wasting our time. I am more optimistic. The opinion of the professional backed up with results is a good direction to follow.
Thanks Carl, you provide great topics for discussion.

ETA Among other problems is that the overlay of the clay onto Houser, her more pointed chin is lost in the outer image.

 

[CarlK90245]

How does anyone 'rotate' a FLAT image.

In fact, two dimentional photos are rotated (i.e., tilted side to side, not turned toward or away) all the time. Every photo editor package has a "rotate" function. The low-budget photo editing software rotates only 90 and 180 degrees. The better packages rotate in 1/10 degree increments.

If this was one of your cases, I am sorry it was not a match.

This is not one of my cases. I was only commenting on the very unusually common traits of their dentals, and that it would seem extremely extraordinary for two woman go missing in the same city around the same time and are the same height and approximate age, and have such extraordinarily similar dental characteristics. That a mistake might have been made is not impossible.

it is obvious the eyes are placed as they should be in relation to the socket. Otherwise, what we would see if you want them moved farther apart is a a wild stare outward with a whole lot of white showing at the center.

A sculptor can position an eye a millimeter or two off and the eye would still be pointed in the right direction, and still look relatively normal. What you are describing would only occur if the eye was pointed in the wrong direction.

ETA:

Look at your post # 17. Now look at the newest one with the overlay. You now have the nose off to the viewing right of the mouth.

The two photos in posts #17 and #21 are the same photos. In fact, it is post # 17 that is being filmed in the YouTube video at post #21. I just realized that you were referring to the single-frame shown at the beginning of the You Tube video which is taken from the middle of the video (as the overlay is in progress). That is why her "nose off to the viewing right of the mouth.".


I won't add anything more, except that I apologize that I got you so stirred up.

 

[Mensch]

As to the 'rotating' of a photograph, please rotate the photo so I can see a three-quarter view of either image. It cannot be done. One can make a photo more narrow or wider and manipulate it to 'fit' but that distorts the identity, which defeats the purpose.
No apology necessary. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss! It is rare to find anyone in the social forums who want to discuss the logistics of reconstruction and identification. Thanks for the input.

 

[carbuff]

As to the 'rotating' of a photograph, please rotate the photo so I can see a three-quarter view of either image. It cannot be done. One can make a photo more narrow or wider and manipulate it to 'fit' but that distorts the identity, which defeats the purpose.
No apology necessary. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss! It is rare to find anyone in the social forums who want to discuss the logistics of reconstruction and identification. Thanks for the input.

From here it sounds like you guys are using different definitions of "rotate."

 

[chaddylex]

Carl, I turned this possible match in a few yrs back and the contact from Namus told me they were ruled out from dentals. (I turned this in before I joined Websleuths, I believe) I thought they were mistaken also!

 

[CarlK90245]

As to the 'rotating' of a photograph, please rotate the photo so I can see a three-quarter view of either image. It cannot be done. One can make a photo more narrow or wider and manipulate it to 'fit' but that distorts the identity, which defeats the purpose.

I never claimed that a photo could be rotated to three-quarter view. I agree that it can't be done.

Here is the manner of rotation that I have been describing. It in no way violates the integrity of her facial structure.

 

[Mensch]

I never claimed that a photo could be rotated to three-quarter view. I agree that it can't be done.

Here is the manner of rotation that I have been describing. It in no way violates the integrity of her facial structure.

I completely understand about rotating a piece of paper the image is on. I don't understand how that changes the fact the clay reconstruction is a straight on image can be 'overlayed' or superimposed onto an image that was taken from an upward angle with her head tilted to one side and have them fit. The fact the angles are not the same would preclude that.

The nose, even if it was the same shape, which it isn't would not match because it is viewed from slightly upward. The outlines can't match because Houser's chin is more pointed and the 'overlay' obscures that fact and the other features as well.

Overlays or superimposed images are excellent when used for comparing bite marks! I was reading about how a man as convicted of sexual assault by his bite mark on the body photo being superimposed onto his dental xrays. I was looking for the link but that will ltake awhile and its late. Amazing technology.

Thanks for all your effort Carl and keep up the good work!
ETA Thanks Chaddy for clarifying how this MP was ruled out. I hope someone starts another thread on possibilities because the unique dentals should make this easier. Maybe not if she was not reported missing.

 

[CarlK90245]

Carl, I turned this possible match in a few yrs back and the contact from Namus told me they were ruled out from dentals. (I turned this in before I joined Websleuths, I believe) I thought they were mistaken also!

The chart below is a screenshot of the dental chart in the NamUs case file for the UID in question.

From DoeNet and the Dental Comments Section of NamUs:

Dentals: Available. #'s 1, 16, 17, 32 - impacted

In the squares corresponding to #'s 1, 16, 17, 32, it indicates "N" (Natural Tooth - No Filling). If these teeth were impacted, they should have been marked "I" (Impacted).

From DoeNet and the Dental Comments Section of NamUs:

retained primary (deciduous) second molars K&T.

The second molars are #2, 15, 18, and 31. The primary (deciduous) teeth are known informally as "baby teeth". The boxes corresponding to #2, 15, 18, and 31 are also marked "N". This is a little more ambiguous, as they are "Natural Teeth", but I would think they should be marked "O", because they are abnormal features described in the comments section.

Since the wisdom teeth are definitely incorrectly notated, and the second molars are possibly incorrectly notated, could this be why Peggy Sue Houser was ruled-out on dentals?

I know that NamUs has an automated system that suggests possible matches. Is their process for verifying possible matches also automated?

If so, I would want to know if the the dental based rule-out was done by a forensic odontologist looking at dental x-rays, or just a preliminary rule-out based on chart comparison. If the latter, was it based on the data in the chart shown here? - Was it done by a NamUs automated process based on the NamUs chart?

ETA: Peggy Sue Houser's Charley page indicates that four of her upper permanent teeth and two of her lower permanent teeth were un-erupted. Two uppers and two lowers are accounted for as the second molars. I had previously speculated that the two upper impacted wisdom teeth may have been incorrectly described as "unerupted". However, I see from the chart that upper teeth 5,6, and 13 are marked "A" Antemortem Loss. Could two of these three missing teeth actually be the other two upper teeth that never erupted?

 

[chaddylex]

Like I have read in other possible matches, one thing that they think matches up can be mistakenly ruled out... I would ask again.

 

[Billylee]

And so, after all this discussion, does anyone think they would actually re-evaluate this one? My first thought in viewing this thread tonight was the gaps in the teeth don't look identical, but it may very well be angles and images, other than that I think the resemblances, timing, location, etc. seem to correspond amazingly. What does it take to get them to "check again"? It seems hard enough to get them to check the first time, does it not?

 

[CarlK90245]

And so, after all this discussion, does anyone think they would actually re-evaluate this one? My first thought in viewing this thread tonight was the gaps in the teeth don't look identical, but it may very well be angles and images, other than that I think the resemblances, timing, location, etc. seem to correspond amazingly. What does it take to get them to "check again"? It seems hard enough to get them to check the first time, does it not?

They probably would not, but I would be interested in finding out the answers to my questions nevertheless. If for nothing else, I'd like to know How NamUs works. As I recall, during one of the long discussions I had with Hal Brown (Delaware ME), he explained that there is an automated process in NamUs for doing quick and easy dental rule-outs. He brought it up because he was saying that every one of the 18 Delaware UID's (There are now 19) had their dentals incorrectly entered in NamUs, and he had to go back in and correct the dental charts.

I looked long and hard at the color photo vs the recon, and I can't see any differences in the visible teeth that couldn't be explained by the differences in camera angles.

But another seeming inconsistency that Mensch didn't mention is that she apparently took off to Ohio with an unnamed male, and there is no indication that she ever returned home. One would think that if she did return to Tampa, she would have let someone know that she was back. I wouldn't rule her out on that, but it does complicate the narrative.

I have plenty of other cases on my plate though, and I don't think I'm quite ready to get mixed up in this one, other than the lively debate on this thread.

 

[carbuff]

There's a MA UID (lady in the dunes) who they thought was going to match up with a Florida woman -- the quite unique dentals matched except for one tooth. I've read that they thought there might be a mistake and did followup DNA which confirmed the non-match. So I can believe they were that close and not identical.

 

[Cymro]

But another seeming inconsistency that Mensch didn't mention is that she apparently took off to Ohio with an unnamed male, and there is no indication that she ever returned home. One would think that if she did return to Tampa, she would have let someone know that she was back. I wouldn't rule her out on that, but it does complicate the narrative.

Carl, I spotted that - but I'm not sure it's an inconsistency at all.

This is an old website (10 years ago!) that was put up to try to locate Peggy Sue:

(Peggy Sue's mother, Hattie) Oglesbee believed it had been a local call.

“I had a feeling she was in Piqua, and I went to the old Sohio station on North County Road 25A and took Houser’s picture and showed it to an attendant,” Oglesbee said. “Peggy had been there with a man on a motorcycle who took the phone out of her hand and hung it up.” (Emphasis mine).

The attendant didn’t see which direction they were going, and by the time police responded, Peggy was gone."

From what I can tell, PSH's mother lived in Miami County, Ohio until she died in 2001. Her father lived in Florida, as did she for a time, apparently. Project Jason suggests that she was believed headed for Florida, i.e., she either decided not to return home or was prevented from doing so. The gas station where PSH was last seen is only a mile from her mother's address, which is still live on Zabasearch. If she met the motorcycle man in Florida, it's quite feasible that she'd have been taken back there.

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Peggy Sue Houser

Endangered Missing from Tampa, Florida since June 14, 1981

Age: 18 --Height: 5'4"-5'5" -- Weight: 102-115 lbs -- Hair Color: Brown -- Eye Color: Hazel

Peggy has a tattoo of a pink pig on her breast. She has a gap between her upper front teeth.


Peggy was last seen at a bar at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida on June 14, 1981. She apparently had an argument with friends and walked to the bar's parking lot in an attempt to get a ride. She disappeared shortly afterward. She was not reported missing for 4 days because she had a history of leaving unexpectedly.

Peggy called her mother a few weeks later from a gas station in what is now Piqua, Ohio. She asked if she could come home, and her mother told her she could. Witnesses said she was accompanied by an unknown male riding a motorcycle with Michigan plates at the time. The man apparently took the phone out of Peggy's hand as she was talking to her mother and disconnected the call. Peggy never made it home and has never been heard from again.


Doe Network

Charley Project

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Discuss Peggy's case here:

FL FL - Peggy Houser, 18, Tampa, 1981 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community