Obstructions to matching the missing and UID -Q&A's/FAQ's only please!

[kpdx]

I was reading some info about the large amount of open cases of MPs from the Yakima Indian Reservation and connected murder investigations from 80s-90s. The local newspaper used the Freedom of Information Act to acquire files from the FBI on the victims.

Given the enormous amount of MPs reported to be in FBI files (39,000 according to LE in Snohomish County http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64324&page=5) which is substantially larger than even those CarlK has diligently compiled, I am wondering if anyone has attempted to file a FOIA request to obtain the list FBI has given LE.

I'm not well versed in this sort of process, but it seems like there is some kind of precedent.

 

[CarlK90245]

I was speaking this morning with a detective who is quite involved with NamUs and CODIS, and he told me something about CODIS that I did not previously know.

CODIS will not accept DNA profiles on a missing person unless that person is suspected of being a victim of a crime. However, NamUs will accept DNA profiles on all missing persons, as long as there is a MP report on file with a LE agency in the U.S..

Missing children who are classified as runaways and persons who are believed to have disappeared voluntarily or as a result of an accident are not eligible for CODIS.

 

[Donjeta]

How does Namus determine if the strength of the profile or the probability for an ID is high or low? Do they only see if there are dentals, DNA and fingerprints on file?

For example, this case is marked low probability
https://identifyus.org/cases/9656 although it seems like a no-brainer because they found a driver's license with a name on it and there is a matching person missing in the area.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/e/eakin_daniel.html

They only found partial remains so there is not much identifying info in the bones themselves.

This UID now has a

Complete mitochondrial DNA profile uploaded to NDIS. A partial (12/14) STR profile was uploaded to NDIS, and a complete LOW COPY STR profile is available at UNT for comparison. CL

and the probability has been upgraded to medium.

I don't know what the hold up is, the MP has had DNA tests taken.
Sample submitted - Tests complete
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/9668/0/

Was it not a match?

 

[Donjeta]

Both cases have been removed from Namus now so I guess it just took some time to compare the profiles.

 

[CarlK90245]

I've been keeping a spreadsheet of all missing persons listed in Charley Project, plus cases in the other sites (NAMPN, DoeNet, and NamUs) that aren't in Charley. The spreadsheet includes basic info (e.g., gender, age, DLC, DOB, height, etc.), and includes about 13,000 names.

This week, I've added an extra column to include the NamUs MP # for all MP cases from NamUs. I am in the process of reconciling those cases to the casefiles from other sites to determine which cases are in NamUs and not in other sites, and vice-versa.

In doing so, I've discovered a very troubling problem. There is a very large number of instances where the Dates of Last Contact as indicated in NamUs don't agree with those listed in Charley and the other sites. I would guess that there are DLC discrepancies for about 10-20% of NamUs cases.

For the more substantial discrepancies of several months or years, I've done further research to see which is correct (if possible). I found a few errors that were made by Meaghan at Charley Project, but for the vast majority of the discrepancies, the error was in NamUs. There is a very surprising number of instances where the MP Report Date was entered as the DLC.

In most cases where I was able to conclusively prove which site was wrong, I sent out an e-mail to ask them to correct the error. But in cases where the difference was only a week or two, or cases where I couldn't determine who was wrong, I had to let it go, and used the earlier date on my spreadsheet. There are far too many errors to send out an e-mail for every error that I spot.

So when entering search parameters in the NamUs UID database looking for matches to a specific MP, I suggest that you set your lower date limit for a month or two prior to the MP's Date of Last Contact ("Date LKA").

... or if your are entering search parameters in the NamUs MP database looking for a match to a specific UID, you should set the upper date limit for a few months after the UID was estimated to have died.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I've been keeping a spreadsheet of all missing persons listed in Charley Project, plus cases in the other sites (NAMPN, DoeNet, and NamUs) that aren't in Charley. The spreadsheet includes basic info (e.g., gender, age, DLC, DOB, height, etc.), and includes about 13,000 names.

This week, I've added an extra column to include the NamUs MP # for all MP cases from NamUs. I am in the process of reconciling those cases to the casefiles from other sites to determine which cases are in NamUs and not in other sites, and vice-versa.

In doing so, I've discovered a very troubling problem. There is a very large number of instances where the Dates of Last Contact as indicated in NamUs don't agree with those listed in Charley and the other sites. I would guess that there are DLC discrepancies for about 10-20% of NamUs cases.

For the more substantial discrepancies of several months or years, I've done further research to see which is correct (if possible). I found a few errors that were made by Meaghan at Charley Project, but for the vast majority of the discrepancies, the error was in NamUs. There is a very surprising number of instances where the MP Report Date was entered as the DLC.

In most cases where I was able to conclusively prove which site was wrong, I sent out an e-mail to ask them to correct the error. But in cases where the difference was only a week or two, or cases where I couldn't determine who was wrong, I had to let it go, and used the earlier date on my spreadsheet. There are far too many errors to send out an e-mail for every error that I spot.

So when entering search parameters in the NamUs UID database looking for matches to a specific MP, I suggest that you set your lower date limit for a month or two prior to the MP's Date of Last Contact ("Date LKA").

... or if your are entering search parameters in the NamUs MP database looking for a match to a specific UID, you should set the upper date limit for a few months after the UID was estimated to have died.

I, too, have noticed discrepancies in the "date last known alive" dates on NamUs, Charley Project and Doe Network. While I attribute some of that to human error in entering the data, I think a lot more of it is because in many cases families, friends, etc. aren't sure when the missing person was last seen.

I recently read of a woman whose date last known alive was listed as a date after her body was actually recovered.

So my tip to those of us who routinely search these databases, always question the date last known alive if you find a match that is good otherwise.:twocents:

 

[CarlK90245]

I recently read of a woman whose date last known alive was listed as a date after her body was actually recovered.

I know of at least four instances where the Date LKA was after the date the body was found.

Paula Beverly Davis
Identified! OH - Englewood, "Blue Bandanna Girl" WhtFem, 17-25 - Aug'87 - Paula Beverly Davis


Michelle Yvonne Haggadon
Identified! SC - Darlington County - WhtFem (112UFSC), 19-35, Aug 2000 - Michelle Yvonne Haggadon


Samantha Bonnell
Identified! CA- Montclair - WhtFem - about 17 - Hit by car on Freeway - Sep'05 - Samantha Bonnell


Heidi Balch
Identified! NJ - Mercer County - WhtFem 288UFNJ, 18-30, J. Rifkin Victim, Mar'89 - Heidi Balch

 

[danzn16]

I am new to this site. If we think we have a match do we just email the address listed with the file of the deceased? Or should we post on this site and see what others think?

 

[Kimster]

I am new to this site. If we think we have a match do we just email the address listed with the file of the deceased? Or should we post on this site and see what others think?

I like to bounce it off of others here first to see if I've missed something. Then I'll email the address listed. But please note that you have written them on the thread so another member doesn't send it also. :tyou:

 

[Christiana]

Could an admin/mod please private message me. I would love to add an unidentified person to this forum but its saying I do not have permission and it is definately not already on here. Thank you, nd sorry for posting here just have no idea where else to ask

 

[little lulu]

I don't know where else to post this. While Namus is wonderful...I find it very frustrating after days' of searching and comparing, I submit a Doe as a possible match, and then the response is: Already Submitted. There is a rulled out list, but not a submitted list for us to go by, a lot of time and energy goes into these searches before we submit...just wish this could be added at some point.

 

[Celtsleuth]

I don't know about NamUs because I haven't used it much but I have been using the Doe Network and Charley's project to try to match the missing with the UID.
I agree that a ton of time goes into this and it can be frustrating. Some jurisdictions give very detailed accounts of the people and others barely anything. A lot seems to depend on the person submitting the information. I don't like that NamUs asks for specifics but again, I haven't used it much. I like searching the large databases myself. Hope you can contact someone about the submitted list. If I feel I have a good match, I call the police directly. I am pretty new to this so can you tell me if I am doing it correctly? Should I be using NamUs more? Do they have more info than Doe Network and Charlie's project? What about Porchlight International? Are there others out there aside from the individual state'
s databases? I would love to take some kind of course on this to become a better searcher. Anyone know of such a course anywhere?

 

[biscuits222]

I don't know where else to post this. While Namus is wonderful...I find it very frustrating after days' of searching and comparing, I submit a Doe as a possible match, and then the response is: Already Submitted. There is a rulled out list, but not a submitted list for us to go by, a lot of time and energy goes into these searches before we submit...just wish this could be added at some point.

Indeed that would be useful -- it makes me wonder whether there is ever any point submitting anything except in cases where the MP or UID case has just gone up in the last day or two. The early bird and all that.

 

[pallacat]

Currently there is a doe case that I'm working on that I'm not entirely sure they put the right race for. The doe was found in 1981 and is listed as "white" but to me he looks more Hispanic or Native American. Is there a way to ask a case manager to have DNA done to double check their findings?

My other question is I have a strong feeling that the doe I'm researching hasn't been reported missing. In that case, what is the next step? He has DNA and dental records so i don't feel like he's a lost cause, but I feel like I'm at a dead end.

 

[kat913]

I am sure this is a very dumb (and maybe obvious) question but I don't know where to find the answer nor ask the question! Is it always a guarantee that all NamUs cases (both MP and UP) have been cross-referenced for all identifiers available (fingerprints, DNA, dental)? So, once in their system, there is no chance there is a match waiting to be done? It sounds dumb as I ask!! It's a database so I am assuming this is true but is it always accurate?

Thank you!!

 

[dorothyland]

I am sure this is a very dumb (and maybe obvious) question but I don't know where to find the answer nor ask the question! Is it always a guarantee that all NamUs cases (both MP and UP) have been cross-referenced for all identifiers available (fingerprints, DNA, dental)? So, once in their system, there is no chance there is a match waiting to be done? It sounds dumb as I ask!! It's a database so I am assuming this is true but is it always accurate?

Thank you!!

I'm wondering the same thing. I can't find anywhere on NamUs that says DNA samples of missing and UIDs are automatically compared.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dorothyland]

I am sure this is a very dumb (and maybe obvious) question but I don't know where to find the answer nor ask the question! Is it always a guarantee that all NamUs cases (both MP and UP) have been cross-referenced for all identifiers available (fingerprints, DNA, dental)? So, once in their system, there is no chance there is a match waiting to be done? It sounds dumb as I ask!! It's a database so I am assuming this is true but is it always accurate?

Thank you!!

After reading through the entire thread, I still share this question. This thread was started in 2011, but have there been any improvements to the NamUs system since then that would guarantee automatic comparisons?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AlwaysHopeToHelp]

I was watching the National Geographic channel last night, and they were doing a story about the famous National Geographic magazine cover photo of the Afghan Girl with the amazing green eyes, taken at a refugee camp in 1984. For years, the photographer who took that photo had wondered what became of the girl and went great lengths trying to find out what ever became of her. After showing the photo to people all over Pakistan and Afghanistan and encountering numerous false leads, he finally located her, married with children and living in Pakistan.

To verify that they had located the same woman, they sent her photo to facial recognition experts at the FBI and the NCMEC, and by analyzing the detail in their irises, they verified with over a million-to-one probability that it was the same woman, despite the fact that her eyes seem to have darkened somewhat with age.

In ruling out one of the false leads, the FBI facial recognition expert mentioned something that I thought to be relevant to our efforts. He said that 99% of the time, a small mole on someone's face will not disappear. It will remain there for life, or grow larger.

He had originally pointed out a spot on the right side (her right, not ours) of the girl's upper lip, and didn't see a corresponding spot on her older photo. But after looking at other photos taken of the girl at the same time, it turned out to be just a spot of dirt on her face. But you can see other spots on her forehead and below the right corner of her mouth in the "then" photo that match up on her "now" photo.

So we should keep this in mind when when comparing MP photos to UID postmortem photos. If you see even a tiny mole on the face of the MP that doesn't appear on the UID, you can be reasonably certain that it is a non-match. But you should be certain that it truly is a facial blemish, and not just a speck of dirt.

I watched an amazing documentary on this! It's called the Afghan Girl. I am a photographer so I came across it and very much enjoyed it! You will love it!!!!

 

[i'm someone]

I've been interested in missing persons for 30 years or more. Once thing that baffles me when I look through the Jane/John Doe photos is some of the reconstructions. While some are spot on(think Grateful Doe), some are really vague and some are downright terrible. Why do some of the sculpted older reconstructions still not have a newer update? Did they make those using the actual person's skull? Can it be removed/tested for DNA and resculpted? Some of those images have really spooked me over the years. Some of them don't even look remotely human. Not trying to be judgmental of the artists, but come on, no one is going to be able to recognize their family member with some of those, and same with some of the more vague sketches. I can link to a few if people want me to, but if you google jane/john doe images, you can get the idea pretty quickly of what I mean.

 

[i'm someone]

I've been interested in missing persons for 30 years or more. Once thing that baffles me when I look through the Jane/John Doe photos is some of the reconstructions. While some are spot on(think Grateful Doe), some are really vague and some are downright terrible. Why do some of the sculpted older reconstructions still not have a newer update? Did they make those using the actual person's skull? Can it be removed/tested for DNA and resculpted? Some of those images have really spooked me over the years. Some of them don't even look remotely human. Not trying to be judgmental of the artists, but come on, no one is going to be able to recognize their family member with some of those, and same with some of the more vague sketches. I can link to a few if people want me to, but if you google jane/john doe images, you can get the idea pretty quickly of what I mean.

OK, I didn't think I would find an example of this so quickly, but it actually came up in a news feed that they did take one of the 1998 reconstructions and did a new composite. I don't think it's helpful though, since it looks like Ellen Degeneres and we know she's not missing. Article is here. Lab reconstruction is terrifying, IMO.
Delaware police hope DNA rendering of woman brutally murdered in 1977 can heat up cold case