MD MD - Frederick, off I-270, WhtFem 15-29, UP1665, Sz 11 denim skort, jewelry, Jul'91

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Did they mean Baker Valley Rd? I used to drive on I-270 for work. If it's actually Baker Valley Rd, not Baker Hill...then the dump was a hell of a catch. The embankment is really tiny. I don't know if she was dumped from I-270 or on Baker Valley Road. The immediate area hasn't changed a lot over the years but then again I haven't been over that way for quite a while, either.

She does look local to me. But the metro area does have a lot of transplants...
 
From the Doe Network:

In 1995, authorities looked into a truck driver from North Carolina about this killing. He had been arrested for killing an Ohio woman, whose body was found in Kingsport, Tennessee, and was suspected of killing as many as seven women and dumping their bodies on the side of highways. A search of his house found women's shoes and undergarments. The victim was found without shoes or undergarments.
 
Although the trucker's name was not revealed on the Doe Network page, a cursory internet search brought this up:

http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/goble-sean-patrick.htm

Sean Patrick Goble did indeed kill Alice Hanes, a prostitute from Columbus, OH, and the body was found in Kingsport, TN. So I am pretty certain this is our guy. He's currently serving two consecutive life terms. Potential victims are estimated to be in the double digits. He's been convicted of three murders (including another UID victim not related to this case), but it's suspected that he has had many other victims in the early '90s and perhaps even earlier. I wouldn't be surprised. I suppose LE has done all they could to get a confession, and that he's not definitively been ruled out as the killer of our Jane Doe...

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/19/us/trucker-confesses-to-a-third-killing-carolina-police-say.html
 
I'm disappointed that the reconstructions of this Jane Doe all look so different. I'm surprised how some make her appear just plain hideous when the others make her appear attractive.

BeFunky Collage.jpg
 
I'm disappointed that the reconstructions of this Jane Doe all look so different. I'm surprised how some make her appear just plain hideous when the others make her appear attractive.

View attachment 86645

Would be nice if Carl could work his magic on her, but not all LE will give the PM photos.
The old clay was how they used to do it; or should I say used to do it. That's probably why she hasn't been ID'd yet
 
All reconstructions are approximations, even CarlK's. They're somebody's best guess as to what she might have looked like before she spent several weeks lying in the weeds in the ditch. Things like the tip of the nose and the shape of the lips are generally guesswork. Even in a more intact face, the artist has to deal with issues such as, "How much of the facial swelling is from post mortem causes and how much because she had a heavier face?" and "What did her nose look like before she landed face down in the dirt?" and "Did the gunshot wound to her head affect her face any?" (I don't know whether those specific questions applied to this Jane Doe or not; they're things CarlK and another artist I know have mentioned in other cases.)

In this case it looks like they might be unsure about how bad her front teeth were and how much they affected her appearance, so when we're looking at unidentified people, we need to take that into account.
 
I'm not putting much stock in the recons for this UID. Each looks different and it's hard to capture an exact likeness from skeletal remains.

Given the time frame in which the UID was found, I was thinking that Brenda Condon could be a possible match:
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/c/condon_brenda.html

State College , where Brenda was last seen, is about 2.5-3 hours away from where this UID was found.
 
Yeah, but there's this. From http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/237ufmd.html:

"Protruding and reversed front tooth on upper left side". But this reconstruction shows the protruding tooth on our left, which would be the woman's right (click to enlarge): 237UFMD2.jpg

Mary also had a protruding central incisor. From Mary's Charley page (http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/burnette_mary.html): "right upper central incisor protrudes prominently."

Her general stats are in the ballpark and she was known to be alive at least a year after she left home, and to have traveled away from home, so Maryland is a possibility. She was 16 in 1984, which would make her 23 in 1991, within range for the UID.

They both appear to have DNA, so if it was a match, it probably would have been picked up by now, but there are enough glitches in the system that it's probably worth checking to make sure that the samples are in the same databases.
 
i got this email today they are lookimg at Mary Jo as a possible match.....



Thank you very much. We will forward this information on to the law enforcement agencies investigating these cases.

Regards,

Brenda Galarza
NamUs Coordinator
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
(703) 837-6276
BGALARZA@ncmec.org
From: diana white [mailto:diane.w.8398@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Brenda Galarza <BGALARZA@ncmec.org>
Subject: Re: Mary Jo Burnett namus Mp3974
 
I thought we were up to twelve exclusions, but the first and last rule outs were repeated on NAMUS. Mary Jo has not been ruled out yet.

Current rule outs:
Kelly Dove 1961 Virginia
Michaela Garecht 1979 California
Shelley Hoke 1969 Arizona
Alicia Markovich 1972 Pennsylvania
Tammie McCormick 1972 New York
Mary Plavnick 1962 Florida
Patricia Schmidt 1964 Virginia
Tiffany Sessions 1968 Florida
Terry Slaugenhoupt 1962 Maryland
Heide Wilbur 1974 Vermont
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
317
Total visitors
521

Forum statistics

Threads
608,772
Messages
18,245,670
Members
234,446
Latest member
CuriousDetective
Back
Top