Possible Victim: Valerie Mack, 24, Manorville Jane Doe #6, missing 2000, found Nov 2000 & Gilgo Beach Apr 2011

[DQN]

The ones that stand out to me are cases that have a specific poi, some even jailed. The peaches case: when the person disappeared and was pregnant, but they disappeared long enough ago said fetus would be too old to be toddler doe. Also very dark skinned women or, jumping back to pregnancy, when women disappear and it's close enough to June '97 that they couldn't have a child old enough in that time.
That's just a few that come to mind. And I agree that while completely possibly the UP disappeared 20 years ago, it's not in all likelihood the most probable. Perhaps those should be bumped off the short list but not completely disregarded?

The fetus would be too old to be a toddler, she could have not carried the baby to term, or put it up for adoption. I submitted a 12 year old missing from Manhattan as Peaches, she could have been taken into sex trade and just continued to lead that life....was told a story about her family that was left behind. Sometimes the match isn't so obvious as missing Cali in Florida ended up with a bullet in her head in a field in New York State. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hing-identify-girl-found-dead-in-ny/22471701/

 

[Hotpotato]

The fetus would be too old to be a toddler, she could have not carried the baby to term, or put it up for adoption. I submitted a 12 year old missing from Manhattan as Peaches, she could have been taken into sex trade and just continued to lead that life....was told a story about her family that was left behind. Sometimes the match isn't so obvious as missing Cali in Florida ended up with a bullet in her head in a field in New York State. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hing-identify-girl-found-dead-in-ny/22471701/

I didn't say anything was impossible. In fact I asked if it would be better to only submit the higher probability ones. A few of us agreed, you clearly don't. Western Artist then asked my opinion of what factors would make them less likely, not impossible, and I answered.

 

[DQN]

I guess we could all submit the higher probability ones, and once they are ruled out the lower probabilities. If I understand the process correctly, the Doe Network panel reviews the submission, if they think everything lines up they forward it to law enforcement. I also think it's human nature to go with the obvious matches, when the match may not be so obvious.

As Big City Accountant pointed out in Peaches case we were submitting African American woman, then some sites listed her as Hispanic and one said she was 3-4% African American which means she could very well be white.

 

[scotiansleuth]

I think we all have our own methods for figuring out who we should submit and that's what makes the community so great. With so many differing opinions we surely won't miss someone just because there isn't a consensus.

 

[DQN]

I think we all have our own methods for figuring out who we should submit and that's what makes the community so great. With so many differing opinions we surely won't miss someone just because there isn't a consensus.

Agree! I may consistently look for the same things in missing and unidentified and someone else may look for something completely different.

 

[WesternArtist]

We know that. I think western artist was just discussing/listing his ideas that we can bounce off each other. The point is that rather submitting people with a high probability that they aren't the UP, that we discuss it here first.

Yes. I went through this thread start to finish in order to updated the submissions *NO DISCUSSION* thread with submissions others had made, but only did so when they posted stating that they had submitted someone. While doing that I went ahead and created a parallel list of suggestions that had not for sure been submitted. I posted that list so we could reconsider some of those and any good suggestions wouldn't get lost and neglected upthread. I decided it would be easy enough to updated it from time to time. Would this be helpful to keep doing?

 

[DQN]

Yes. I went through this thread start to finish in order to updated the submissions *NO DISCUSSION* thread with submissions others had made, but only did so when they posted stating that they had submitted someone. While doing that I went ahead and created a parallel list of suggestions that had not for sure been submitted. I posted that list so we could reconsider some of those and any good suggestions wouldn't get lost and neglected upthread. I decided it would be easy enough to updated it from time to time. Would this be helpful to keep doing?

Yes it would be very helpful, thank you for putting so much into it!

 

[Mountain_Kat]

A few things I look for when trying to evaluate the likelihood of a possible match:

1. The obvious things like time frame, height, weight, age etc.
2. Geography. In the LISK case we have 4 known victims...all of them from the east coast, all known sex workers. While it's true that sex workers do travel for work, it seems very unlikely that one would travel from the west coast to the east coast to take clients (not cost effective). With that in mind, I tend to rule out most west coast missing person cases, unless there is evidence that they may have travelled to the area, were familiar with the area, or could be a possible run away.

3. Background info on missing person. Was there a history of domestic violence? Was there a vehicle found abandoned? Was there a suspect in the disappearance? Was blood evidence left behind? Things of that nature generally tell me I'm probably on the wrong track. Not always, of course, but generally.

4. Obvious physical things that would make a missing person stand out from a known UID...breast implants, braces, gold teeth, metal implants, tattoo's etc. In the LISK/Manorville case, we obviously can't always go by these things because in some cases, we're missing body parts, but in cases where we have a body, either intact or with matching remains, we can and should be looking for things like this or ruling people out based on NOT finding these things.

All just my opinion.

 

[scotiansleuth]

While I was mapping our submissions this just occurred to me, both Mary Kopacz and Patricia Vaughan are missing from East Hartford, CT and have a very similar look....just bouncing things off the wall.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

While I was mapping our submissions this just occurred to me, both Mary Kopacz and Patricia Vaughan are missing from East Hartford, CT and have a very similar look....just bouncing things off the wall.

.
From my correspondence with NamUs, it doesn't sound likely that FI Jane Doe is Mary Kopacz. According to NamUs, they can see the potential DNA ruleouts as well as LE that the system generates. Accordingly, if every MP is compared to the UID, there would be thousands upon thousands of rule outs, they cannot list every single one. It sounded like the RA might have been looking at something that he could not say for certain without dentals or fingerprints, but it sounds like just based upon DNA should would be a rule out. At least nothing was matching in the system that gave a "might be" in his eyes.

FWIW

I don't think she should be listed as a rule out until NamUs or LE definitely makes that call and lists her on NamUs as a rule out.

 

[WesternArtist]

On the Manorville John Doe thread scotiansleuth posted a link to this news article http://www.doenetwork.org/media/news18.html

This stood out to me: "Fitzpatrick is still withholding the image of a tattoo located on the female victim for verification purposes if they ever get a call through Crimestoppers" (Isn't Fitzpatrick the one who wrote in a fishy letter to the news about SG's 911 call?)

Here's some conflicting info from another news story http://archive.longislandpress.com/...ictim-sketches-released-in-gilgo-murder-case/

[FONT=&amp]"Dormer... added the woman probably had some kind of tattoo or identifying mark on her right ankle since that part of her was cut off by her killer."

[/FONT]So is there an intact tattoo with a photo of it or was the tattoo cut off?

 

[PictureSnatcher]

On the Manorville John Doe thread scotiansleuth posted a link to this news article http://www.doenetwork.org/media/news18.html

This stood out to me: "Fitzpatrick is still withholding the image of a tattoo located on the female victim for verification purposes if they ever get a call through Crimestoppers" (Isn't Fitzpatrick the one who wrote in a fishy letter to the news about SG's 911 call?)

Here's some conflicting info from another news story http://archive.longislandpress.com/...ictim-sketches-released-in-gilgo-murder-case/

[FONT=&amp]"Dormer... added the woman probably had some kind of tattoo or identifying mark on her right ankle since that part of her was cut off by her killer."

[/FONT]So is there an intact tattoo with a photo of it or was the tattoo cut off?

The million dollar question! Or did she have a tattoo on her torso and her ankle

 

[scotiansleuth]

The million dollar question! Or did she have a tattoo on her torso and her ankle

In reading the press releases doesn't option 2 make the most sense?

 

[deedee21]

Jane Doe #6
Note: Victim #6 is not the mother of the toddler.
Namus UP #9680

Halsey Manor Road
Manorville
Suffolk County, NY

19 November, 2000

11:00 am, in Manorville, Suffolk County. On Nov. 19, 2000, three hunters walking in the woods about a half-mile west of Halsey Manor Road, north of the Long Island Expressway, discovered plastic trash bags containing human remains. Investigators believe she was placed there in Sept 2000.

They were later determined to be those of a female who died several weeks before. She was nude, her body was chopped into pieces and her head, hands and right foot were missing.

A forensic exam determined she was a brunette, white or Hispanic, no more than 5-foot-5 or 125 pounds, and between 35 and 40 years old." (NY Times)

---

Jones Beach State Park
Ocean Parkway
Gilgo Beach
Nassau County, NY

4 April 2011

"Her head, hands and right foot were recovered on April 4 on a stretch of a Long Island beach where nine sets of other human remains were found."

"She had a tattoo or marking on her right ankle." (ABC)

“'This woman would have been last seen alive in the late summer/fall of 2000,' said Dormer, who added the woman probably had some kind of tattoo or identifying mark on her right ankle since that part of her was cut off by her killer." (LI Press)

---

Namus UP #9680

Case No. 00-629549
Est. probable year of death - 2000

The decedent's torso was recovered in a wooded area of Manorville, NY on 11/19/00.

The decedent's head, hands and right foot were recovered in the Vicinity of Ocean Pkwy, Gilgo Beach, NY on 4/4/11.

• Right and left nasal bones have been fractured and healed.

Rule Outs:
Sandra Sollie
Colleen Voitik McHugh

Local Contact:
Suffolk County Medical Examiner's Office
(631) 853-5555
Case #00-3946
Case Mgr: Stephen Jacobs

---

Can You Identify Me

Newsday Map

Shadowraith's Map

grayhuze youtube video tour of the landscape

I remember when we assumed Jane doe #6 had a tattoo. That would be because her right foot is missing.

 

[WesternArtist]

Hey I never said it didn't happen! I said scpd could have been lying, I personally spoke to Kenny and I don't see why or how could have been mistaken about what Fitzpatrick said. So why did say it?

That's great you got in touch with the journalist who wrote that! http://www.doenetwork.org/media/news18.html
It's been challenging trying to find good matches for her not knowing if there was a tattoo on her right ankle for sure... We still might not be sure based on this, but IMO it sounds more and more like she did have tattoo there (and evidence of that beyond the removal of that body part). Of course, not all missing persons reports are complete and women who were missing longer and could have gotten the tattoo after they were reported missing so good matches without a right ankle tattoo are still worthwhile to look at. It would be ideal if we could get a photo or description of the tattoo, but completely unlikely I know.

 

[PictureSnatcher]

That's great you got in touch with the journalist who wrote that! http://www.doenetwork.org/media/news18.html
It's been challenging trying to find good matches for her not knowing if there was a tattoo on her right ankle for sure... We still might not be sure based on this, but IMO it sounds more and more like she did have tattoo there (and evidence of that beyond the removal of that body part). Of course, not all missing persons reports are complete and women who were missing longer and could have gotten the tattoo after they were reported missing so good matches without a right ankle tattoo are still worthwhile to look at. It would be ideal if we could get a photo or description of the tattoo, but completely unlikely I know.

But the whole point is if she had a tattoo on her ankle and that's why the killer cut her right leg, then how could scpd have a picture of it? The foot wasn't found until 2011. So what tattoo did Fitzpatrick claim they had in 2001

it just doesn't make sense

 

[WesternArtist]

But the whole point is if she had a tattoo on her ankle and that's why the killer cut her right leg, then how could scpd have a picture of it? The foot wasn't found until 2011. So what tattoo did Fitzpatrick claim they had in 2001

it just doesn't make sense

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I was thinking of it differently... I was thinking that back in 2001 before this case had the publicity and notoriety of a big SK case SCPD did release info and there was a tattoo or part of a tattoo on the victim's right ankle. In 2011 when this case became connected to this whole LISK matter SCPD got tight lipped about it and tried to deny the info from 2001. All JMO of course.

 

[PictureSnatcher]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I was thinking of it differently... I was thinking that back in 2001 before this case had the publicity and notoriety of a big SK case SCPD did release info and there was a tattoo or part of a tattoo on the victim's right ankle. In 2011 when this case became connected to this whole LISK matter SCPD got tight lipped about it and tried to deny the info from 2001. All JMO of course.

Hm did you read the New Island Ear article posted? After they found the bodies in 2001 SCPD claimed that Jane Doe had a tattoo on her but they were withholding the image for verification purposes. Nothing happens with her case until 2011 when SCPD finds the right foot (and head and hands) that had been dumped on OP. Then SCPD said that they think the killer cut off her right foot because she had a tattoo or identifying mark.

 

[WesternArtist]

Hm did you read the New Island Ear article posted? After they found the bodies in 2001 SCPD claimed that Jane Doe had a tattoo on her but they were withholding the image for verification purposes. Nothing happens with her case until 2011 when SCPD finds the right foot (and head and hands) that had been dumped on OP. Then SCPD said that they think the killer cut off her right foot because she had a tattoo or identifying mark.

Yes I did read it when it was initially posted and again just now to refresh. It doesn't say where that alleged tattoo was on the body in 2001. In the 2011 info it's saying the tattoo was on the right ankle so IMO it's possible it was partially severed where the foot was cut off or there's a totally separate tattoo that was referred to in 2001 somewhere else on the body. Either way I don't think we can really know the truth. The New Island Ear article seemed more credible to me than a lot of press because it was critical of SCPD and therefore maybe not influenced or sanitized by them. That's partly why I was inclined to consider the 2001 tattoo info possibly credible. I saw you were asking about Fitzpatrick on another thread. Did you find anything out?

 

[PictureSnatcher]

From the journalist? Not much but it seems counterintuitive he could have ****ed up that detail about the tattoo being withheld. Seems very specific to me.