Possible Victim: Fire Island Jane Doe, UP9098, found Davis Park Apr 1996 & Ocean Parkway Apr 2011 - Karen Vergata

[gwaterjetski]

She's been submitted, everyone who has been submitted is listed in the forum. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?326826-Submissions-*NO-DISCUSSION*

Thanks. I'm learning more every day.

Sent from my XT1093

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Hello Everyone.

I got a response from a very very nice Regional System Administrator at Namus on the DNA.

DNA is more of a complicated process indeed. When the lab has an “association” – a report is sent out for the local coroner or medical examiner left to call it an ID. Sometimes, they want a little more detail to feel comfortable with making an identification.

I’m also hoping that Lori Bruski will also weigh in on this message. Her background before joining NamUs was in the DNA field.

“Sample Submitted” means that a sample has been collected from a family member and sent to the lab. The process of processing the DNA can talk quite a bit of time before testing is considered complete.

Very often a family reference sample of DNA for a missing person is submitted with the theory of a match to a particular unidentified. So, during the process of submission the agency specifically wishes for a report on a particular case(s) in which they feel are a strong probability for a match. In that case, the agency want to note that particular match as an exclusion.

Sometimes, the DNA on unidentified remains might be very weak and a solid association is a bit elusive. We can usually see cases that are not at a sufficient level for an ID.

I have been very surprised at cases that I was positive of a match turn out to be an exclusion.

When a missing or unedified person are submitted into NamUs, the system generates a list of potential matches based on several criteria that can be adjusted. The investigator can turn race on or off, they can adjust height, weight, age, sex etc. So, the level of filtration can be fine-tuned.

He provided an example, which I won't share here, but basically it show matches based upon the criteria and level of filtration he mentions above.

With the search criteria I set in the initial search, the system flagged 67 possible matches to unidentified. We can set them up side by side to compare images and biometric records.
The number of system suggested matches can be far higher depending on how I set my filter. Sometimes partial remains are found and the height weight and sex etc might not be known. I can turn off certain filters to broaden my search.
From here it becomes a process of elimination. If the unidentified has dental records uploaded, we can compare and exclude based on dental records. Same thing with fingerprints. Too often we have cases where we have no prints due to decomposition and dental records are not always available for comparison. Then it’s left to DNA.
Even IF an investigator could logically assume that CODIS would have notified them of any DNA hits among the list of potential matches – they might still wish to exclude them from the list. In that case, they will ask that a DNA analyst add a specific exclusion.
Most often, if the MP and UP are in NamUs, they system has already made the investigator aware of any potential matches. So, often we are already aware of match suggestions that are submitted. But, we might not have enough information to issue a forensic exclusion. We can’t always reveal that a case has a low probability of an ID as that might not be something the agency chooses to share due to an investigation.
I do wish more agencies used the case matching tool and marked the exclusions. The DNA exclusions would be very numerous and the investigator will often look past the flagged cases that have DNA searching in national CODIS.
Very often we have cases where there have been no collected samples of DNA. Perhaps due to no immediate next of kin to submit a sample, or maybe remains buried or cremated. They then have to rely on the dental or fingerprint records if available.
We are on a constant search for additional biometric information on all of our cases. Sometimes additional information might be located well after the initial submission into NamUs.
NamUs can hold the actual print cards and dental x-rays in addition to coding. The DNA profile itself is NOT in NamUs. It maintains a record of testing status, relationship of family reference sample, type of DNA obtained, lab name, reference number, ORI and comments.

My simulated missing profile shows that a sample was taken from my son. He would NOT be a source of mitochondrial DNA. That would have to come from my mother or my siblings who have the same mother etc.

This is why we seek more than one family reference sample for a missing person.

I then asked him if "Can NamUs show exclusions or is that strictly the investigators who do that? It kind of sounded like NamUs can but not just based upon DNA, you would have to have other qualifying information such as dentals or fingerprints or other identifying information? Would that be a correct statement to make?"

As NamUs staff – we see everything. The RSA team – Regional System Administrators – are effectively the front line for the system. http://www.untfsu.com/Staff/Staff.html
They help to enrich and curate the reports and they also help train investigators on how they can make the most of the system.

We review and accept most exclusions into the system. We strongly discourage any exclusions that are not scientific in nature. Sometimes there are exclusion that the investigator choose not to share based on an investigation. There are certainly exclusions that have been established outside of NamUs, so we work to try and make sure all are included if possible.

The exclusions can come from both sides. Law enforcement comparing their missing to the unidentified and medical examiners comparing their unidentified to the missing. We have 2 forensic dentists and 2 fingerprint analyst on staff to help review and issue exclusions.
I also asked him what the community could to to help them as well. Here is his response.

Certainly pointing out cases of the unidentified that are not in the system is something I am very interested. If you see any, please let me know. A puzzle with missing pieces cannot be assembled.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but there is a lot of information the RSA shared with me today, for which I am grateful and happy to share with all of you. I hope it helps answer some of your questions as it did mine.

 

[Kellyd]

Hello Everyone.

I got a response from a very very nice Regional System Administrator at Namus on the DNA.

DNA is more of a complicated process indeed. When the lab has an “association” – a report is sent out for the local coroner or medical examiner left to call it an ID. Sometimes, they want a little more detail to feel comfortable with making an identification.

I’m also hoping that Lori Bruski will also weigh in on this message. Her background before joining NamUs was in the DNA field.

“Sample Submitted” means that a sample has been collected from a family member and sent to the lab. The process of processing the DNA can talk quite a bit of time before testing is considered complete.

Very often a family reference sample of DNA for a missing person is submitted with the theory of a match to a particular unidentified. So, during the process of submission the agency specifically wishes for a report on a particular case(s) in which they feel are a strong probability for a match. In that case, the agency want to note that particular match as an exclusion.

Sometimes, the DNA on unidentified remains might be very weak and a solid association is a bit elusive. We can usually see cases that are not at a sufficient level for an ID.

I have been very surprised at cases that I was positive of a match turn out to be an exclusion.

When a missing or unedified person are submitted into NamUs, the system generates a list of potential matches based on several criteria that can be adjusted. The investigator can turn race on or off, they can adjust height, weight, age, sex etc. So, the level of filtration can be fine-tuned.

He provided an example, which I won't share here, but basically it show matches based upon the criteria and level of filtration he mentions above.

With the search criteria I set in the initial search, the system flagged 67 possible matches to unidentified. We can set them up side by side to compare images and biometric records.
The number of system suggested matches can be far higher depending on how I set my filter. Sometimes partial remains are found and the height weight and sex etc might not be known. I can turn off certain filters to broaden my search.
From here it becomes a process of elimination. If the unidentified has dental records uploaded, we can compare and exclude based on dental records. Same thing with fingerprints. Too often we have cases where we have no prints due to decomposition and dental records are not always available for comparison. Then it’s left to DNA.
Even IF an investigator could logically assume that CODIS would have notified them of any DNA hits among the list of potential matches – they might still wish to exclude them from the list. In that case, they will ask that a DNA analyst add a specific exclusion.
Most often, if the MP and UP are in NamUs, they system has already made the investigator aware of any potential matches. So, often we are already aware of match suggestions that are submitted. But, we might not have enough information to issue a forensic exclusion. We can’t always reveal that a case has a low probability of an ID as that might not be something the agency chooses to share due to an investigation.
I do wish more agencies used the case matching tool and marked the exclusions. The DNA exclusions would be very numerous and the investigator will often look past the flagged cases that have DNA searching in national CODIS.
Very often we have cases where there have been no collected samples of DNA. Perhaps due to no immediate next of kin to submit a sample, or maybe remains buried or cremated. They then have to rely on the dental or fingerprint records if available.
We are on a constant search for additional biometric information on all of our cases. Sometimes additional information might be located well after the initial submission into NamUs.
NamUs can hold the actual print cards and dental x-rays in addition to coding. The DNA profile itself is NOT in NamUs. It maintains a record of testing status, relationship of family reference sample, type of DNA obtained, lab name, reference number, ORI and comments.

My simulated missing profile shows that a sample was taken from my son. He would NOT be a source of mitochondrial DNA. That would have to come from my mother or my siblings who have the same mother etc.

This is why we seek more than one family reference sample for a missing person.

I then asked him if "Can NamUs show exclusions or is that strictly the investigators who do that? It kind of sounded like NamUs can but not just based upon DNA, you would have to have other qualifying information such as dentals or fingerprints or other identifying information? Would that be a correct statement to make?"

As NamUs staff – we see everything. The RSA team – Regional System Administrators – are effectively the front line for the system. http://www.untfsu.com/Staff/Staff.html
They help to enrich and curate the reports and they also help train investigators on how they can make the most of the system.

We review and accept most exclusions into the system. We strongly discourage any exclusions that are not scientific in nature. Sometimes there are exclusion that the investigator choose not to share based on an investigation. There are certainly exclusions that have been established outside of NamUs, so we work to try and make sure all are included if possible.

The exclusions can come from both sides. Law enforcement comparing their missing to the unidentified and medical examiners comparing their unidentified to the missing. We have 2 forensic dentists and 2 fingerprint analyst on staff to help review and issue exclusions.
I also asked him what the community could to to help them as well. Here is his response.

Certainly pointing out cases of the unidentified that are not in the system is something I am very interested. If you see any, please let me know. A puzzle with missing pieces cannot be assembled.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but there is a lot of information the RSA shared with me today, for which I am grateful and happy to share with all of you. I hope it helps answer some of your questions as it did mine.

This was very helpful, thank you for sharing!!!

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[WesternArtist]

Very helpful indeed. Thank you BigCityAccountant!

 

[cricket]

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1539dfct.html

April Dawn Pennington

I'm Greg and I approved this message.

Respectfully, I don't think FI Jane Doe could be April Pennington because the dates don't work. Parts of FI JD were found over a month before the last seen date of April. (It's creepy to say parts of....)

 

[dexter75]

Hello Everyone.

I got a response from a very very nice Regional System Administrator at Namus on the DNA.

DNA is more of a complicated process indeed. When the lab has an “association” – a report is sent out for the local coroner or medical examiner left to call it an ID. Sometimes, they want a little more detail to feel comfortable with making an identification.

I’m also hoping that Lori Bruski will also weigh in on this message. Her background before joining NamUs was in the DNA field.

“Sample Submitted” means that a sample has been collected from a family member and sent to the lab. The process of processing the DNA can talk quite a bit of time before testing is considered complete.

Very often a family reference sample of DNA for a missing person is submitted with the theory of a match to a particular unidentified. So, during the process of submission the agency specifically wishes for a report on a particular case(s) in which they feel are a strong probability for a match. In that case, the agency want to note that particular match as an exclusion.

Sometimes, the DNA on unidentified remains might be very weak and a solid association is a bit elusive. We can usually see cases that are not at a sufficient level for an ID.

I have been very surprised at cases that I was positive of a match turn out to be an exclusion.

When a missing or unedified person are submitted into NamUs, the system generates a list of potential matches based on several criteria that can be adjusted. The investigator can turn race on or off, they can adjust height, weight, age, sex etc. So, the level of filtration can be fine-tuned.

He provided an example, which I won't share here, but basically it show matches based upon the criteria and level of filtration he mentions above.

With the search criteria I set in the initial search, the system flagged 67 possible matches to unidentified. We can set them up side by side to compare images and biometric records.
The number of system suggested matches can be far higher depending on how I set my filter. Sometimes partial remains are found and the height weight and sex etc might not be known. I can turn off certain filters to broaden my search.
From here it becomes a process of elimination. If the unidentified has dental records uploaded, we can compare and exclude based on dental records. Same thing with fingerprints. Too often we have cases where we have no prints due to decomposition and dental records are not always available for comparison. Then it’s left to DNA.
Even IF an investigator could logically assume that CODIS would have notified them of any DNA hits among the list of potential matches – they might still wish to exclude them from the list. In that case, they will ask that a DNA analyst add a specific exclusion.
Most often, if the MP and UP are in NamUs, they system has already made the investigator aware of any potential matches. So, often we are already aware of match suggestions that are submitted. But, we might not have enough information to issue a forensic exclusion. We can’t always reveal that a case has a low probability of an ID as that might not be something the agency chooses to share due to an investigation.
I do wish more agencies used the case matching tool and marked the exclusions. The DNA exclusions would be very numerous and the investigator will often look past the flagged cases that have DNA searching in national CODIS.
Very often we have cases where there have been no collected samples of DNA. Perhaps due to no immediate next of kin to submit a sample, or maybe remains buried or cremated. They then have to rely on the dental or fingerprint records if available.
We are on a constant search for additional biometric information on all of our cases. Sometimes additional information might be located well after the initial submission into NamUs.
NamUs can hold the actual print cards and dental x-rays in addition to coding. The DNA profile itself is NOT in NamUs. It maintains a record of testing status, relationship of family reference sample, type of DNA obtained, lab name, reference number, ORI and comments.

My simulated missing profile shows that a sample was taken from my son. He would NOT be a source of mitochondrial DNA. That would have to come from my mother or my siblings who have the same mother etc.

This is why we seek more than one family reference sample for a missing person.

I then asked him if "Can NamUs show exclusions or is that strictly the investigators who do that? It kind of sounded like NamUs can but not just based upon DNA, you would have to have other qualifying information such as dentals or fingerprints or other identifying information? Would that be a correct statement to make?"

As NamUs staff – we see everything. The RSA team – Regional System Administrators – are effectively the front line for the system. http://www.untfsu.com/Staff/Staff.html
They help to enrich and curate the reports and they also help train investigators on how they can make the most of the system.

We review and accept most exclusions into the system. We strongly discourage any exclusions that are not scientific in nature. Sometimes there are exclusion that the investigator choose not to share based on an investigation. There are certainly exclusions that have been established outside of NamUs, so we work to try and make sure all are included if possible.

The exclusions can come from both sides. Law enforcement comparing their missing to the unidentified and medical examiners comparing their unidentified to the missing. We have 2 forensic dentists and 2 fingerprint analyst on staff to help review and issue exclusions.
I also asked him what the community could to to help them as well. Here is his response.

Certainly pointing out cases of the unidentified that are not in the system is something I am very interested. If you see any, please let me know. A puzzle with missing pieces cannot be assembled.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but there is a lot of information the RSA shared with me today, for which I am grateful and happy to share with all of you. I hope it helps answer some of your questions as it did mine.

You've answered a couple of questions that have been on my mind a while, my friend:tyou:

 

[cricket]

BigCityAccountant - I agree! Extremely helpful info. Thanks for getting it and sharing it!

 

[Hotpotato]

Could someone with more skills than I take the top middle picture from this link and do a side by side with the blonde FIJD?
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/s/solensky_dawn.html
I'd like to know if others see what I'm seeing

 

[scotiansleuth]

Could someone with more skills than I take the top middle picture from this link and do a side by side with the blonde FIJD?
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/s/solensky_dawn.html
I'd like to know if others see what I'm seeing

here ya go Hotpotato

 

[Hotpotato]

here ya go Hotpotato

Thanks scotiansleuth!

 

[Hotpotato]

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/r/ruffini_maryanne.html
Has Maryanne Ruffini been discussed?

 

[Hotpotato]

Another possibility. Missing since 1990 but has a scar on left ankle like FIJD
ww.charleyproject.org/cases/g/grimes_camora.html

 

[scotiansleuth]

Another possibility. Missing since 1990 but has a scar on left ankle like FIJD
ww.charleyproject.org/cases/g/grimes_camora.html

No mention of FIJD having tattoos.

 

[Hotpotato]

No mention of FIJD having tattoos.

This MP didn't have tattoos on their legs/feet which were the only body parts found that weren't skeletal

 

[WesternArtist]

Sandra Cifuentes??

The dates are a little off, I wonder if the family reported her missing much later than she actually went missing? I think the scars might fit as well. Assuming her hair was longer than the picture, we don't know how old the picture is. Missing from NJ.

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/8820/35

Maybe now that we have updates from NamUs that some of our favorite matches have been somewhat ruled out by DNA being in CODIS we should reconsider Sandra Cifuentes. She's the only suggestion I've seen come up with semi-matching scars. The biggest concern with her was the timeline, which we presumed to be accurate since she was reported missing by the psychiatric hospital she was a patient at. However, Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital wasn't exactly a responsible facility...
https://usahitman.com/mphhhttp/
(Patients abused and dying, sex offenders on the staff, illegal practices...)
IMO reporting/record keeping could have easily been poor at a place with that many other issues.

 

[PictureSnatcher]

The legs were found in April 1996..Dawn last seen May in Fl

 

[Armchair-reader]

How do y'all feel about Lisa Schmidt from New Jersey who disappeared in 1994.
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1713dfnj.html

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Has Melissa Espinoza from Sacramento County Ca been considered for Fire Island Jane Doe? She would have been a long way from home, but you never know.

5'1", 125 lbs. Missing since 12/23/1993. 12 years old. Left her residence after a fight with her mother. Destination was unknown. Generic scars on BOTH knees and 1' scar on chin.

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/5668/4

 

[Hotpotato]

Has Melissa Espinoza from Sacramento County Ca been considered for Fire Island Jane Doe? She would have been a long way from home, but you never know.

5'1", 125 lbs. Missing since 12/23/1993. 12 years old. Left her residence after a fight with her mother. Destination was unknown. Generic scars on BOTH knees and 1' scar on chin.

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/5668/4

That seems a bit young. Even though they say pre-50 it seems like if she could potentially be 49 years old then that's a lot different than a 15 year old teenager. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems unlikely imo

 

[BigCityAccountant]

That seems a bit young. Even though they say pre-50 it seems like if she could potentially be 49 years old then that's a lot different than a 15 year old teenager. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems unlikely imo

Minimum age

18 years https://identifyus.org/en/cases/9098