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

[CarlK90245]

Does anyone know how all those MP got ruled out when the DNA is not even complete? I sent an email hoping to get some answers.

I've already voiced my puzzlement at the NamUs automatch feature and the rule-outs that it generates. Just yesterday, a detective on one of my cases said that he didn't want to bother with my submission because the MP was too old, and he added: "and besides, NamUs doesn't even propose her as a possible match".

Maybe he's right about the age, but the fact that a possible isn't proposed by NamUs automatch is a lousy reason to refuse to look at it.

On the dentals Carl, so you see anything at all to indicate the UID has crooked or chipped teeth? It is mentioned in another source for this UID.

My only source for dental info is the NamUs dental charts. There is nothing in NamUs on this UID with regard to crooked or chipped teeth. The dental comments read as follows:

Lower left posterior teeth just fx/decayed root tips. Original NCIC charting done by Dr. Franklin D. Wright, DABFO​

I wish they would provide dental info in NamUs for MP's like they do for UID's. It would be a huge help in deciding whether or not to call in a possible match.

Here is the link to the UID's NamUs file: WARNING POSTMORTEM PHOTO AT LINK
https://identifyus.org/cases/4969

BTW - This possible match (Sheila Adamo) was submitted by Snufamonboball. I haven't heard much from her lately.

 

[Mensch]

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!

 

[Mensch]

Adding this from your post Carl:

I wish they would provide dental info in NamUs for MP's like they do for UID's. It would be a huge help in deciding whether or not to call in a possible match.

OY! Be very careful what you ask for! If that happens, we just might have more problems because the data wasn't entered correctly and the computer will spit out a perfectly good match!

 

[CarlK90245]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Obviously, NamUs is not kicking out matches for that reason.
Pardon me if I am :deadhorse:, 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.)

OY! Be very careful what you ask for! If that happens, we just might have more problems because the data wasn't entered correctly and the computer will spit out a perfectly good match!

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.

 

[Mensch]

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 :deadhorse:, 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.

Thanks Carl for taking us through the completely illogical workings of NamUS. Honestly, I feel very bad making such a negative statement because I have interacted with some very conscientious case managers. However, I do not know how much the input of those case managers influences the outcome of review. One of my favorite ME case managers, when pointed out the missing or incorrect information on a UP found at other places, was genuinely upset about the misinformation and is going through each of her cases as she has time and double checking the information and reentering as necessary. She even asked for conflicting information to be sent to her. She and those you mention are rare and I am hoping they are able to set the standard at NamUs.

As to this UID, I am attaching the link to an article where some of the information contradicts what is in the NamUS file. This IS important info when researching the MP.
-------------
..."What she did after she dabbed on her makeup and tied her Easy Spirits is a cipher. Her narrative disappears for a while, until the moment her body smacked into the Ohio River so hard purple bruises spread across the porcelain skin of her chest and her lungs slapped against her ribs like ripe fruit in a runaway grocery cart...."

..." Hamilton County’s then–deputy coroner Michael Kenny; and Nancy Woolum, an investigator from the coroner’s office, got their first look at her. She was about five-foot-two and perhaps 60 years old. Her teeth, crooked and chipped, implied a certain amount of personal neglect. But she was wearing makeup, her short gray hair was highlighted, and her clothes and jewelry suggested that she took care of herself—or that someone looked after her..."

...There are several ways you can end up deceased in the river. You can jump in, you can fall in, or you can be shoved in, dead or alive. An on-the-spot examination suggested to investigators that foul play was unlikely, and eventually the sheriff’s office released information about the body of a white female, aged 55-65, found in the river in the vicinity of North Bend....

As seen in this article, the investigating case manager for the ME office KNEW this woman had chipped and crooked teeth.

****Note the following where it is assumed the lady jumped or fell because the injuries are NOT attributed to being knocked around in the water. What is the basis for this assumption? She could have been killed somewhere else and dumped.

..." Most bodies that go into the river sink then reemerge days later, bloated and buoyed by the gases of decomposition. And often, by the time they’re recovered, they’ve been knocked around by barges and gnawed by turtles. But the River Lady was spared those indignities; she wasn’t particularly bloated or battered, so she hadn’t been in the water too long—less than two days, maybe less than one. The bruises on her chest and her lungs indicated trauma; so did her broken ribs—injuries consistent with a fall from a high structure, Kenny told the detective. But none of these were sufficient to end her life, and ultimately Kenny listed drowning as the cause of death.

NOTE: I misstated the fact this UP had a broken nose. But then with all that is missing in the report it is not out of the realm of reality.
http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article.aspx?id=74426

 

[Mensch]

I spoke with the case manager this morning and know nothing more than before making the call. She said she forwarded my inquiry to medical personnel (no name) and she will get back with me. So the only thing I can reasonably conclude is that the unknown medical person is a female.
Before calling I amended the initial email with more questions. Where are this woman's fingerprints? They are 'trying to find them" and yet they were taken at the time of recovery from the water. Why is there no clear description of dentals? The article states that the ME and Investigator Woolum noted 'chipped and crooked teeth'. Was there actually an autopsy? If so, there would be toxicology reports which would reveal any medications the UP would have taken if she had any medical conditions. More questions and it seems no one can answer them. There are obvious identifiers on the skin of the UP not noted on NamUS. I will give them two weeks to respond before making contact again. Will update if anything new. As it is now, we cannot come to any logical conclusions on any identity because there is really nothing of substance in the report. At this point, without DNA I would not rule out any of the MP listed on this case at NamUS.

 

[Mensch]

Okay, I think I need more coffee and stronger glasses but I cannot let this alone. Tenacity. Not a bad thing until it leads to sleep deprivation.

I made the mistake of checking out the Doe network. Now I have more conflicting information, or disinformation but I like to look at the drawings and the clay representations of the UP before deciding what is relevant when compared to the postmortem photos. I found a couple of things interesting in the drawings.

Would anyone like to speculate why the drawing on the left shows a white or lighter area on the top lip of the UP? Also why the dark area on the other drawing, lower lip?

Also, if there are any medical folks reading or researching this UP, would you please comment on the condition of the face? I have studied the three postmortem photos and I have come to the (medically non-professional ) conclusion that the UP suffered a broken nose. I noticed more swelling on the R side of her face (viewing L) and her eye takes on a longer appearance than the other one. If this is the case, we cannot make a comparison by the bridge of the nose.
Any thoughts? Anyone?
http://doenetwork.org/cases/606ufoh.html
ETA link

 

[carbuff]

My eyesight's not that good, but it looks to me like the dark spot is there in the other reconstruction, too, only not so large.

 

[Billylee]

Just a comment on the conversation above, after hanging around here for almost a year now, I continue to say there needs to be a Federal standard for reporting the missing and the unidentified. It seems each state in the union does it "their own way"; inputs whatever information they themselves deem pertinent and that's it. How many of us have seen soooo much more info from follow up media articles or family websites that should have been included in the first report? And simple things like when is coat a coat and when does it become a parka, or a jacket? It would make searching, and therefore Matching, so much easier!

(Of course, if a standard were law, what would we do for a rather bizarre pastime? LOL)

 

[Mensch]

Just a comment on the conversation above, after hanging around here for almost a year now, I continue to say there needs to be a Federal standard for reporting the missing and the unidentified. It seems each state in the union does it "their own way"; inputs whatever information they themselves deem pertinent and that's it. How many of us have seen soooo much more info from follow up media articles or family websites that should have been included in the first report? And simple things like when is coat a coat and when does it become a parka, or a jacket? It would make searching, and therefore Matching, so much easier!

(Of course, if a standard were law, what would we do for a rather bizarre pastime? LOL)

I agree Billylee, but I would not want to address THIS governmental administration for reform. Profiling, don't ya know...
To my knowledge, ALL police agencies are required to make note or enter in computer each and every tattoo, scar and mark visible when booking a person on any charge. That means a simple traffic ticket if they are booked into custody. This means if a teenager gets hauled in on a small traffic charge and has a tattoo, it is entered into NCIC. Should the need arise for identification, there is a cross reference like CODIS. I wish they would enforce this one small rule and it would help so much.

The jailer's jobs depend on their performance but that does not change the fact they are lazy and simply don't care and stay employed. But consider this is also a 'government' job so I am not sure government is up to any reform.

ETA Carbuff,
Thanks for the input. I have looked at the drawing and think the dark lines are there to indicate the orbital area because the bridge of the nose is so flat the shape is not clear. Could be wrong, but they usually don't draw postmortem bruising.

 

[Billylee]

I agree Billylee, but I would not want to address THIS governmental administration for reform. Profiling, don't ya know...
To my knowledge, ALL police agencies are required to make note or enter in computer each and every tattoo, scar and mark visible when booking a person on any charge. That means a simple traffic ticket if they are booked into custody. This means if a teenager gets hauled in on a small traffic charge and has a tattoo, it is entered into NCIC. Should the need arise for identification, there is a cross reference like CODIS. I wish they would enforce this one small rule and it would help so much.

The jailer's jobs depend on their performance but that does not change the fact they are lazy and simply don't care and stay employed. But consider this is also a 'government' job so I am not sure government is up to any reform.

ETA Carbuff,
Thanks for the input. I have looked at the drawing and think the dark lines are there to indicate the orbital area because the bridge of the nose is so flat the shape is not clear. Could be wrong, but they usually don't draw postmortem bruising.

I did not know that. Thanks. Ahh yes, there probably are already laws and procedures on the books, and no one bothers to follow them, sadly, much the same with RSO's these days!

 

[Mensch]

I said I would post if I heard further regarding this unidentified person. I do not want to appear cryptic but as of today, I cannot comment publicly on this case. The UID has now gone to a manual check by a forensic anthropologist. There is so much misinformation in the MP and UID report it absolutely boggles my mind. I continue to collect data from both sides and will not let this go. Ever.

 

[carbuff]

Thanks, mensch. It makes you wonder how many other missing people are unidentified because of a mistake in the reports...

 

[Mensch]

More information regarding this UID.

Identifiers I can comment on.

The NamUS page has now been updated.

Although there is no mention of childbirth the 'the deceased had "abdominal striae" (stretch marks).
This is important to consider in searching as that is a possibility she was pregnant at some point.

"All her organs were present".

"Timing of the fractured ribs was not explicitly stated in the autopsy report, however, the fractured ribs were not said to be antemortem."

Skeletal Findings: "Moderate arthritis in the spine (thoracolumbar/mid-low-back region), osteoarthritic changes of the bones of the fingers."

"She did have pierced ears."

"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.

Still corresponding on issues of facial markings, the chipped and broken teeth that were left off the report and how they do their exclusions. I have requested the dental x rays be public as many of them are.

Information per Professor Murray (Biology and Forensic/Biological Anthropologist)
NamUs Forensic Sciences Services Anthropology Team

ETA hair

 

[Mensch]

More changes.
IF this is the last communication, then it looks like the dental x rays won't go public AND I won't get to hear another version of how the possible matches are eliminated.:croc:

NamUs Case # 4969 has had changes made. You can view the case by clicking the url below

URL: https://identifyus.org/cases/4969

The following fields have been changed:
Physical / Medical : Piercings changed
Physical / Medical : Piercings Details changed
Physical / Medical : Eye Description changed
Physical / Medical : Hair Color changed
Physical / Medical : Head Hair changed
Physical / Medical : Scars and Marks changed
Physical / Medical : Finger and Toe Nails Details changed
Physical / Medical : Scars and Marks Details changed
Physical / Medical : Distintive Body Features Available changed
Physical / Medical : Body Hair changed
Physical / Medical : Finger and Toe Nails changed
Dental : Comments changed
Dental : One or more teeth present changed
Dental : Filling or crown present changed
Physical / Medical : Skeletal Findings Details changed
Physical / Medical : Skeletal Findings changed
Police Information : Phone changed
Clothing and Accessories : Jewelry changed
Clothing and Accessories : Clothing On Body changed
Fingerprints : Fingerprint Comments changed
Clothing and Accessories : Footwear changed
Physical / Medical : Other Distinctive Physical Characteristics changed
Physical / Medical : Other Distinctive Physical Characteristics Details changed
DNA : Location changed
DNA : Comments changed
DNA : DNA Status changed

 

[reasypeasy]

One of the things that most brings out my curiosity with this Doe is the way her shoes are not that congruent with the rest of her clothing. We all know old ladies who wear trainers or lace up shoes all the time because they've become very practical about things like discomfort and the chance of slipping. However, those old ladies in my experience almost always own a pair of darker colored shoes of similar design for wearing with darker or more formal clothing... in particular, those old ladies who like to wear things like strings of pearls are also likely to pay attention to how well their accessories match their outfit. I wonder whether she usually wore more formal shoes and put her trainers on even though they didn't match so well because she was going on a river cruise and wanted the extra traction? Or maybe the sidewalks were icy and those were the only shoes with decent grip she'd brought with her. Whatever the answer is, I think it fair enough to say that the shoes were some sort of compromise stylistically for her. I sort of wish LE had a podiatrist take a look at her feet to tell me whether there was evidence she normally wore a different style of shoe!

Given that she still had all her teeth in functioning order, I don't see her bad teeth as out of character with her otherwise good presentation, more an indication that she was probably a very practical person in life, who rated other things more important during the prime years of her life. You put off fixing them for enough decades and suddenly they don't seem so out of place with your greying hair and wrinkles.

EDIT: OK, now I checked the changes to her namus record, it appears she did have absent teeth, but not in front. Maybe she had the same attitude my mother in law has to teeth, that if you need a root canal it isn't worth the money unless the tooth is up front?

 

[Mensch]

Subbing for Mensch today and need to update earlier post.
Some of the misinformation in various resource material regarding this UID have been corrected in her NamUS file 4969.
https://identifyus.org/home/

Her dental chart does not reflect a personal account of her appearance when she was found. That somewhere on this thread. The anthropologist dealing with the UP will go by the chart when comparing to missing persons.

Our investigation into the missing person *Margarett Marion has not indicated she expired on the day she left home. She has been submitted as a possible match to NamUS 4069 and all agencies and case workers notified. Just waiting.
http://www.crimesolvers.com/crime/Marion_missing.php

 

[ValerieKay]

bump.

 

[Mensch]

No rule out or confirmation on the MP I submitted.

 

[Mensch]

No confirmed rule out or match on the MP I submitted. There has been a lot of time wasted in discussion dealing with issues of crime scene photos posted online for this UP. These are photos the case manager did not have and photos that were not with the UP file. This is on my list to follow up on in Dec.
ETA....My previous post just went *poof* before I finished so I reposted.