Identified! OH - North Bend, 'Pearl Lady' 606UFOH, 55-75, Nov'06 - Barbara Precht

[Mensch]

Shortly after I submitted the above MP case for review to the UIP here, I was told that there have been NO matches as of that date (see post). All submitted MP cases were excluded, so if anyone has a case to follow up on you can get your info straight from your contact I suppose as there are no names listed on the rule out list that was submitted here yet they are excluded. Prior to my finding out this information, I sent in another MP case that I had been working, not as a possible match but as a living MP. I mentioned to my contact that each time I pick up her folder to do trace work, I see the "River Woman" (meaning a similarity). I sent it to her for an opinion. If I have gone nuts, then I have taken a anthropologist and a DOJ investigator with me because they are handling the case now. Due to the nature of the case, it is unknown when I will get a confirmation or a exclusion report but I have complete confidence that the case is being handled by true professionals.

So, what I am saying in short is my case, listed or not is ruled out and so are the other possibles in this thread. This is just a heads up to get theirs confirmed so we can continue?:twocents:

 

[lieber32]

Do you understand what that means that NamUS doen't see your submission as a possible match? I am really trying to figure out how this system, which initially seemed like a great tool for searching for the missing and matching to UP.

Am I correct is assuming that IF a UID has DNA complete and entered in CODIS, and a missing person has DNA in CODIS, then there is an 'automatic' check? If so, I have no (okay little) problem with that. However, looking at this UID, she has NO CODIS entry, she has NO mention of chipped and crooked teeth, yet the very investigator who was at the scene know this! Why isn't it on the dental chart? Why is there no xrays available? NO mention of full body x rays either.

So, imagine this. A woman goes missing, or more to the point, she is said to have left of her own free will. Then we get a UID that has very questionable circumstances but so much matches and the UID was found months or even years later and deceased only a day before being found. Is it the presumption of NamUS or other data bases that it is an IMPOSSIBLE match because of the time line? Are they kicking out matches based on the date found that certainly cannot in many instances match the MP?

This case is very troubling to me. The UID CLEARLY has a lump on upper orbital area (OUR viewing L) her right eye. She has bruising consistent with those of someone wearing glasses and suffered face trauma (localized at eye center) and across the center of her face is the most swelling. YET, NamUS states there is NO evidence of foul play and she has no distinguishing marks. YET, in another source (looking for the article now) it is said this woman suffered broken ribs and nose. So, my question is: did the UP have the broken ribs and nose prior to her death?

She is an old woman. How did she get so old and have NO arthritic joints, no teeth problem, no scars, etc? I will let you know if I get any answers. I hope to speak directly with the case manager tomorrow.
Any other thoughts on how NamUs operates is greatly appreciated. I hate to think all the hard work done here is wasted because some computer did not 'compute' the info or someone was just too lazy to open the woman's mouth and take an xray!

I do know that NamUs scans through for certain criteria, and puts the MP on a list for that UID if the criteria are met. The case manager, LE or ME person then goes over the list and marks them off if they can rule them out. Those rule-outs are then published on the NamUs publicly viewable case file. The ones that remain unmarked (and still possible) are invisible to the general public.

What I do not know is what the criteria are. I've pointed out before where MP's ended up on the list even though their Date of Last Contact was years after the UID died.



There is an automatic check for DNA in CODIS, but AFAIK, there is no such automated DNA check in NamUs. But I am pretty sure there is an automated dental chart comparison feature in NamUs. For the MP, the dental data is in the system in many cases. It just isn't visible to the public as the UID dental data is.

In theory, NamUs is a fantastic idea. In practice, there are too many people entering data who are too cavalier about being complete and correct. That's the problem with a decentralized do-it-yourself system. Some users (e.g., VanNorman, Hal Brown, Chris Edwards, et. al.) are very meticulous. Others are satisfied with just creating a casefile with no detail, or don't double-check their data entry, and you end up with female UID's that are listed at 8 1/2 feet tall.



Obviously, NamUs is not kicking out matches for that reason.
Pardon me if I am ther_beatingA_Dead, but ...
We had previously discussed a case where a woman about 19 years old with a postmortem interval of three days was found in 1993. NamUs proposed a PM to a woman (Evelyn Hartley) who went missing in 1953 when she was 15 years old. If you ignore the postmortem interval, no it's not impossible because her remains could have been there for 40 years. But all things considered (including PM interval), even with a generous margin for error, this possible match would be virtually impossible because the UID wasn't even born until approximately 20 years after the MP was last seen. If you are going to allow for such a wide margin for error as to include Evelyn Hartley, then why not just propose every 5'7 to 5'9 Caucasian female in the database on the grounds that there might be an error? (For that matter, maybe it does.)



I am very big on using technology, but you can't replace human judgement to decide whether the data entered is reasonable, or whether key data might have been omitted. I would like to see those MP dental charts, and decide for myself whether to consider the possibility of data entry error.

But I agree with you that there shouldn't be computers making that decision for us, and then saying "don't bother looking because it's not a match". And LE should not be using NamUs as an excuse not to exercise their human judgement.

I have always questioned IUD and Missing Person being ruled out on dentals. A decent percentage of people who go long periods without seeing a dentist or their life circumstances change in a way that effects their dental health (fillings falling out, abusive spouse/boyfriend punching them in the mouth causing the loss of teeth etc.) would not match up if being compared to previous dental charts. How strigent are they, do every tooth and filling have to match up? Maybe someone here could answer that?

 

[CarlK90245]

I have always questioned IUD and Missing Person being ruled out on dentals. A decent percentage of people who go long periods without seeing a dentist or their life circumstances change in a way that effects their dental health (fillings falling out, abusive spouse/boyfriend punching them in the mouth causing the loss of teeth etc.) would not match up if being compared to previous dental charts. How strigent are they, do every tooth and filling have to match up? Maybe someone here could answer that?

They do take into consideration the possibility that the dental records in hand do not necessarily represent the last dental appointment for the missing person.

So for example:

• A MP's missing tooth would be inconsistent to a UID's existing tooth, but a UID's missing tooth would not be inconsistent to an MP's existing tooth.
• A MP's filled tooth would be inconsistent to a UID's unrestored tooth, but a UID's filled tooth would not be inconsistent to an MP's unrestored tooth.
• A MP's chipped or capped tooth would be inconsistent to a UID's complete unrestored tooth, but a UID's chipped or capped tooth would not be inconsistent to an MP's complete tooth.

So if the UID has 10 teeth filled or restored, and all of the wisdom teeth removed, and the MP had 32 perfect unrestored teeth, they would not call that a rule-out

 

[CarlK90245]

Pearl Lady???

Patricia J. Mast
http://www.nampn.org/cases/mast_patricia.html

WARNING - Postmortem Photo At Link Below
http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums...em Photos/2577141220045078242S425x425Q851.jpg

She's a little heavier than Pearl Lady, but nevertheless, she Looks pretty close to me.

ETA: Pearl Lady doesn't have a mole right of center between chin and neck, as PJM does, but the right ear is spot-on.

ETA2, Pearl Lady's chin has been photoshopped right where the mole would be.

 

[CarlK90245]

I haven't heard anything back yet, but here's one more PM. It drives me nuts there aren't any demographics to go on, but it looks like she'd have to loose a little weight, but here she is:

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/mast_patricia.html

Oops, I see that Snufamonboball already spotted this one in Charley Project. I saw it in NAMPN case additions, and thought she was a newly listed MP. (She is for NAMPN, but not for Charley).

 

[BaxterDE42]

Any update on this comparison (any of the above)? It has been over a year since any activity on this thread. Who does the follow up to check progress or a rule out?
Thanks

 

[DippyBlonder]

I'm pretty sure this is the same lady, look at the marks I've highlighted. Has this been chased?

 

[BaxterDE42]

I'm pretty sure this is the same lady, look at the marks I've highlighted. Has this been chased?

Thanks DippyBlonder. My question is why there has been no activity in over a year and who does a follow up on these photos that are submitted for consideration? It is a shame to put the pics out there without tracking the progress. Just curious if someone knows the answer?

is this what you mean by "chased"?

 

[sayd]

More information regarding this UID.


"Gray with artificially-dyed highlights of light brown to blonde; hair measures six inches in greatest length.
this is far from the 'very short' all over that was implied.

And notice the hair; that seems like a match also. Someone else mentioned earlier that it looked like the Pearl Lady was wearing glasses and got hit with glasses on. Note the glasses!

 

[southern_scout]

Wow, that looks pretty close to me.

 

[Redwood146]

The one thing that bothers me is the time between Patricia going missing in Jan 2004 and the Pearl lady being found in Nov 2006. If it is Patricia what was she doing between going missing and her body being found in Nov 2006? I wish there was more information available about Patricia.

 

[bessie]

Any update on this comparison (any of the above)? It has been over a year since any activity on this thread. Who does the follow up to check progress or a rule out?
Thanks

The members keep up with the progress by checking NAMUS for rule outs or to see if the UID is still listed. If you see a case is falling behind in the threads you can bump it up to the front and ask other members for their input. Carl is the main mod in the UID forum, and he couldn't be more helpful. It's a shame that cases sometimes fall by the wayside. But with so many it's bound to happen. When it does, it only takes a member to send out a shout and say, "look at meee!"

 

[webrocket]

based on the two profiles available for Patricia Mast they have no identifiers for her or at least none that are mentioned.

no dentals, no DNA, and for that matter no height or weight. it's as if no one even bothered to find out from DMV what height and weight were put on her driver's license.

 

[BaxterDE42]

The members keep up with the progress by checking NAMUS for rule outs or to see if the UID is still listed. If you see a case is falling behind in the threads you can bump it up to the front and ask other members for their input. Carl is the main mod in the UID forum, and he couldn't be more helpful. It's a shame that cases sometimes fall by the wayside. But with so many it's bound to happen. When it does, it only takes a member to send out a shout and say, "look at meee!"

Thank you Bessie! I can certainly seel how there is a case pile up. MOO, we need a revision of the system that seemed so promising with NamUS. Now, inlstead of LE being the good point of contact the cases are referred to Namus and many do enen have a case manager. I am afraid that system was not well planned. Thanks again!

 

[CherBearSTL]

I'm pretty sure this is the same lady, look at the marks I've highlighted. Has this been chased?

I did a little research on Patricia. It appears that she had at least 1 child. Her husband filed for divorce in 2009 and indicated she hadn't been seen in over 6 years. It looks like she last resided in Meadville, Mo. That's all I have for now.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

 

[JupiterAmmon]

I like PJM as a possible match.

 

[CherBearSTL]

Has anyone submitted this? If not, I can.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

 

[BaxterDE42]

Has anyone submitted this? If not, I can.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

-
CherBearSTL,
I would be wonderful if you would do that or at least check on her case jprogress. I am on overload at work and cant.
It is a shame these cases get talked about but not worked for so long. Thanks!

 

[DippyBlonder]

I've finally got a 'friend' a Namus who is really interested in helping! :seeya:

I've highlighted this case to her.

DP

 

[webrocket]

Patricia Mast is now in Namus. interesting finding. Patricia had what was described as an abdominal scar while the UID had what was described as "Abdominal straie (stretch marks)". if Patricia had a real scar from say a surgical procedure that would presumably be a rule out if the only marks on the UID were stretch marks.

otherwise there are still no dentals or DNA to compare the two.

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/16957/0/