I am very confused by what is going on here. They claim the skull had intact teeth. There is no need to remove a tooth for dental comparison. All they would need is to take an x-ray of the skull's teeth and compare those to known x-rays for Lauren's. And it shouldn't take long at all. I presume Lauren had been to a dentist and taken an x-ray? So what in the world are they doing?
"At the scene of the crime, odontologists collect the skull or remaining teeth, which are taken back to the forensic laboratory for the postmortem dental investigation. X-rays are taken and if the jaw is completely intact and the dental records used to compare are recent, the job of proving a match is a relatively simple one. Dentists mark on a chart the position of missing teeth, crowns, bridges, fillings, caps, root canals and various other treatments during a patient's routine check-up. The task of identifying a victim is made more difficult when the dentist records and x-rays are out of date or when the skull is severely damaged and has parts missing."
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/pti_dental_matching.htm
Or maybe that means the teeth are in really bad condition...
I have no idea. Lauren's mother said LE has had Lauren's dental records and DNA for ages now, on her latest post. I am really confused about what they are doing as well.
this sounds really morose, but is it possible for a head to detach from the body if its submerged in a river for a year?
Well if they have her dental records then nothing makes sense to me whatsoever. Why don't they just say it isn't her or it is her? Dental record comparison shouldn't take long at all. And teeth aren't removed for dental record comparison. You don't compare one tooth removed from the skull to the dental records (unless that skull only had one tooth-but report said it had teeth). You compare x-rays of the skull's teeth to known x-rays of the victim. So whatever they are trying to sell, I am not buying it.
Maybe the cops are holding the media back while they build a case, i hope?
Someone is hypothesizing that her body was dumped into the White River near the point that the river flows under 82nd/86th St. in Indianapolis, which is close to Lake Clearwater, which is an area where POI ZO has lived.
The 82nd/86th St. (82nd St runs NW over the river and then becomes 86th St.) bridge is heavily traveled and not a place where one would dump a body without being seen. IMHO, in that area there is no good place along the river to park and carry something to the river without being seen, except maybe the possible in the cemetery for the church on Union Chapel Road.
hey, if it's what they need to do in order to make an arrest, then its fine by me.
though this is pure conjecture, i'd think teeth could take some damage and wear if they were submerged for over a year in water that was frozen for a few months. maybe it was a partial match and before confirming anything they want to be 100% sure?
What if the dental records did not seem to match up with the DNA result of the hair? So they aren't sure if they have two people? So they need to check the DNA inside the tooth? I don't know, I am grasping now, but I don't think they withhold identity to make perps squirm, certainly not from her parents.
"Deputy coroner Alfarena Ballew told the paper last week that a tooth would be cross-referenced with Spierers dental records. Willis said the office has since decided that subsequent DNA testing of the tooth is necessary to prove a connection."
Is this saying that after they compared the dental records, the senior deputy coroner decided they needed further proof? I think the use of 'subsequent' implies that.
If that's the case, one would think they wouldn't need more evidence if it clearly was not a match, right?
It is my understanding that dental records are considered an accurate form of an identification. The teeth are also very stable and should have survived submersion in water without being destroyed.
"Dental records have been used for over 200 years in this country for the identification of deceased. The teeth are uniquely qualified for identification in many ways, but especially since they are virtually impossible to destroy. They survive fire, decomposition and submersion in water or earth for many years. This survivability and the fact that most persons have dental records is the key to the success of dental records for the identification of deceased. Even now, with many persons having no dental restorations, the teeth and their surrounding structures provide a myriad of distinctive characteristics useful in identification."
http://pennsylvaniamissing.com/homepage/forensicinformation.html
That's all true. But in the era of DNA, confirming what the dental records may show using DNA would leave absolutely zero possibility for error. That's exactly why I think it must be LS. If the dental records were no match, there would be no reason to go for DNA. JMO.