OH OH - Lea Anna Allen, 33, Cincinnati, March 16, 1982

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Murkywaters

Murkywaters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
3,836
Original


The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Lea Anna went missing from Cincinnati, OH on March 16, 1982.
 
devertere said:
I stumbled across Ms. X today. She was found in April 1982 in Fosters or Romulus, Alabama. She looks a lot like Lea, although if she vanished in 1980 instead of 1982, it's unlikely due to the timeline...

108UFAL
The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) (POSTMORTEM WARNING)

View attachment 280033 View attachment 280036 View attachment 280035
View attachment 280037 View attachment 280034

Height and Age fit.
Click to expand...
I see a resemblance. Wouldn’t hurt to submit and let them sort out the date of disappearance. You might even inquire about that when you submit them. Sometimes I get a response, other times I don’t.
 

Thank you so much @tallen626 for linking these articles about Lea Anna's disappearance. I will screenshot them and post them below this comment so everyone can read them. I see that your username is Allen? did you know Lea Anna?

WAtrE7K.png
YoL5llc.png
 
1 Unidentified Person Exclusion:


Case Photo

Unidentified Person / NamUs #UP74
Date Body FoundJuly 22, 2005
StateKY
CountyJefferson
 
Caring1 said:
1 Unidentified Person Exclusion:


Case Photo

Unidentified Person / NamUs #UP74
Date Body FoundJuly 22, 2005
StateKY
CountyJefferson
Click to expand...
I did see that they compared this unidentified person to her on NameUs, but that's the only Jane Doe they compared. I wonder what the credentials are for comparing Doe's? why are some compared to many missing persons and then others only have one. Comparing only one Doe found when she has been missing for so many years is crazy! I think they need to look at the other possible Doe's that are unidentified. It must have to do with funding or something.
 
detective_kenzie3 said:
I did see that they compared this unidentified person to her on NameUs, but that's the only Jane Doe they compared. I wonder what the credentials are for comparing Doe's? why are some compared to many missing persons and then others only have one. Comparing only one Doe found when she has been missing for so many years is crazy! I think they need to look at the other possible Doe's that are unidentified. It must have to do with funding or something.
Click to expand...
I feel relatively certain she has been compared against more Jane Does, we just don't see that information.

If her DNA is in the NDIS/Codis system, or if there is a family reference sample there, then as I understand it that info is compared against UIDs. Back when Namus first started there was much record entry (2005ish) which included indicating prior exclusion by MEs. From a logistical standpoint, it would be impossible to report out in the Namus record all exclusions that are being compared in such a way.

If prints or dentals are on file, the comparison is a much more manual process. Prints can be submitted/resubmitted through AFIS which has evolved and doesn't require manual fingerprint analysis to the degree as in the past. I do not know if this is still the situation or not, but I remember being told some years ago by an LE officer in a small department that they didn't have access to AFIS and in order to have their prints scanned and included in AFIS the department had to pay for the service, therefore most of their analysis was conducted manually, was very time consuming with resources only being spent on those high probability of success cases. I do not believe dentals are generally compared "automatically" - which is a good thing really because so much of the information is incorrect - entered backwards, using a different dental recording system, etc. - I believe Namus has forensic odontologists on staff/volunteers who may be helping correct some of the inaccuracies. I believe I recall one time reading many years ago that there had Never been a single identification of a UID based on dental records that were entered into the NCIC system.

Having said all of that, DNA is definitely the way to go if at all possible.

Here is some info off of the Namus website that may provide some better explanation of how the DNA is compared. Funding is always a problem, but in the no-so-distant past, Namus/UNT would send kits to LE to facilitate in the collection of familial samples. Don't know if that is still the situation or not. Anyone please do feel free to correct me, clarify, etc., it's good info to know and has evolved over the years, important to be correct.
1663796613031.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 2,183 (members: 181, guests: 2,002)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,002
Total visitors
2,183
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,116
Messages
18,103,996
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top