Current Doe links:
Teresa Alfonso
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/2dffl.html
it says her DNA is in CODIS.
The UID:
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/424uffl.html
It says her DNA is in CODIS as well, so it would rule Teresa Alfonso out as a match, wouldn't it?
Yes, if it was Teresa Alfonso you would probably get a CODIS hit.
Who understands the dentals?
UID:
Dentals: Available. #'s 1, 16, 17, 32 - impacted. retained primary (deciduous) second molars K&T. #'s 8-9- Diastema. #2- pulp stone.
Peggy Houser:
Dentals: Available. She has a gap between her front teeth. She is missing her upper 4, 5, 12 and 13 teeth and her lower 20 and 29 teeth. These 6 teeth never erupted.
If you compare the description of Peggy's dentals provided in DoeNetwork, they are indeed inconsistent to the UID's dental chart in NamUs. The UID's NamUs chart says that the UID is missing 5, 6, and 13
antemortem. These would be her upper-right canine and the adjacent first bicuspid; and an upper-left second bicuspid. From Peggy's DoeNet description, it says that she is missing her upper 4, 5, 12 and 13 teeth and her lower 20 and 29 teeth. So if you assume that the UID's chart and Peggy's dental description are correct, this would be a rule-out because although they are both missing #5 and #13, the 4, 12, 20, and 29 are described as missing for PSH, but present for the UID.
However, I can see several problems with the charting of the UID's teeth, and the dental comments below the chart.
In the comments, it says that the UID has "retained primary (deciduous) second molars K&T". Deciduous teeth are known commonly as "baby teeth". Normally, a child has 10 baby teeth on the lower jaw, indexed K through T (left to right). So if the UID still had the K&T teeth, she never lost her the rear-most baby teeth on both sides of the lower-jaw. However, when you look at the chart, the teeth in the positions where K&T would be, it is notated "N" for natural tooth. It seems to me that it should be marked "O" for "Other Features (described in dental comments)".
It also says that 1, 16, 17, and 32 (i.e., the four wisdom teeth) are impacted, meaning that they grew horizontally into the adjacent molars. These teeth are notated on the chart with an "N", when they should have been marked "I".
Finally, it says that #2 consists of pulp stone. This is a calcified mass of core-material from a partially deteriorated tooth. Tooth #2 is also notated on the chart with a "N".
I am suspicious of the accuracy of the charts (1) due to the charting errors mentioned above, and (2) because Peggy retained her baby teeth well into her teens. Are the missing 4, 12, 20, and 29 actually baby teeth that recently fallen out and were replaced by permanent teeth after she last visited a dentist?
If the rule-out was based on just a chart comparison and not an actual evaluation of her dental x-rays by a Forensic Odontologist, I would suspect the validity of the rule-out.
