RULED OUT: Have we found Anna? Possible match to NamUs case UP 9597 - *NO MATCH*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

i hope nothing major happens while i am gone will be leaving for vegas tomorrow and will be without internet till sunday late night
 
Annasmom said:
According to Anna's case worker at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Bode technology has been successful in retrieving DNA from very marginal and very old sources, so there is reason to believe that an answer may be forthcoming. As far as the family, we try to go by that old British advice: Keep calm and carry on! Thanks for your good wishes.
Click to expand...


After speaking with Dr. Doogie, I think I misintepreted the above post to mean the lab had succesfully obtained dna on the speciman we have been waiting on. :blushing: :doh: Apparently what the post meant was simply the private lab has been succesful with older samples, in general, versus with the sample we are waiting on. Whoops.

The wait continues and I will continue to pray the experts are succesful in this case too. :praying:
 
I spoke to the coroner's office again - nothing new to report. There is still no estimated time for the results. Sorry.
 
Thank you, Doogie. At this point, I think all we can do on our end is maintain contact with the ME on a regular basis to remind them a family is still waiting.

It would be nice to know what is happening on the ME's end and to have confirmation they are in regular contact with the private lab with regards to this specific sample after confirmation of receipt by the private lab.

I'll be honest, it never occured to me we might still be waiting in September. I thought for sure we would have an answer by the time Anna's birthday rolled around. :sigh: I honestly thought the likelyhood of not having an answer in September was as likely as the Cubs winning the world series in a season they're on target to reach 100 losses.

Maybe the detective handling Anna's case can put a call in and at least get confirmation the private lab is still working on this and it isn't sitting. I'm not used to seeing no news/no info from the ME. In other possible match cases, we usually have some kind of info with regards to what type of problems are arising........ So hard to not have any idea of what is happening in this case.

So hard waiting. It's this hard for me, a stranger. I can not begin to imagine how hard the wait is for Anna's mom and family.

Praying for a successful dna sample from the private lab soon. And hugs, patience and prayers for all as we continue the wait.
 
Checking in again... I drive about once a week from the South Bay to SF (via 280) and think of Anna and her family every time I see the 92 HMB exit. I hope for everyone waiting with bated breath that results are in very very soon.
 
I'm new here, but have been following this case for a long time.

I hope Anna's family get the answers they've been waiting for. (For what it's worth, based on these threads and everything taken together, I don't believe this is Anna).
-----------
Regardless, San Gregorio State Beach . . .

If this is a state beach, it may be part of the Department of Parks and Recreation or some other such entity. Almost always these types of beaches are cleared at the end of the day. Lifeguards or workers walk along the shore and collect items that have washed up or been left behind--buckets, boots, clothing and the like. (This is true where I live, and the park rangers are often lifers). What do they do with these items that are unclaimed? Maybe they log the items? Donate them?

It occurs to me that in the weeks or months prior to this bone washing up that other items could have come ashore as well and been placed in the bucket, held for a few weeks, donated or logged? If a worker were to find a rain boot (or something else exclusive to Anna) he or she would not have phoned the police as these things are common finds on beaches. Given that a bone fragment was found, the workers may remember other items that washed up during this time frame more vividly than at other times.

This is a long shot, but does anyone think these types of things would have been logged or remembered, especially in the days or weeks following the discovery of the bone?
 
BobbieA said:
I'm new here, but have been following this case for a long time.

I hope Anna's family get the answers they've been waiting for. (For what it's worth, based on these threads and everything taken together, I don't believe this is Anna).
-----------
Regardless, San Gregorio State Beach . . .

If this is a state beach, it may be part of the Department of Parks and Recreation or some other such entity. Almost always these types of beaches are cleared at the end of the day. Lifeguards or workers walk along the shore and collect items that have washed up or been left behind--buckets, boots, clothing and the like. (This is true where I live, and the park rangers are often lifers). What do they do with these items that are unclaimed? Maybe they log the items? Donate them?

It occurs to me that in the weeks or months prior to this bone washing up that other items could have come ashore as well and been placed in the bucket, held for a few weeks, donated or logged? If a worker were to find a rain boot (or something else exclusive to Anna) he or she would not have phoned the police as these things are common finds on beaches. Given that a bone fragment was found, the workers may remember other items that washed up during this time frame more vividly than at other times.

This is a long shot, but does anyone think these types of things would have been logged or remembered, especially in the days or weeks following the discovery of the bone?
Click to expand...

Bobbie A, welcome to our pages. These are all good questions, but as you know, the bone fragment in question was found years before it was discovered to be that of a child. The matter of some 40 years or so is daunting, but also those in a position to answer some of these questions are not really communicating with us. The only recent development is that Anna's case worker at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a call in to the sheriff's office, asking for an update.
 
Just for clarification purposes. When I spoke with my step dad, retired LE, about this find, he indicated to me that it would have been noticable immediately that the speciman belonged to a child. A jaw bone including some teeth, even if partial teeth, would have clearly been identifiable fairly easily. If not to the person who found the speciman, it would have been easily identifiable as belonging to a child to whomever was at the coroners office.
 
I mentioned the little bit of information we know about the UID's teeth to the dentist this afternoon. (Had an appt this afternoon.) She said that yes, it is very possible for a female child 4 months after a 5th birthday to have the 6 year molar/#14 tooth (as is the case with this UID).

The dentist told me girls are about 18 months ahead of boys with regards to the timing for their teeth. So if these remains belong to a female child, they could be closer to the earlier age range as opposed to the older end of the age range for a male child. I hope that makes sense....

Thought I'd share that while we continue the wait.
 
I just noticed that two new San Mateo County UID cases were added last month to NamUs:

One from Jan 1975, the torso and upper legs of a 7 to 8 year old Male, found 250 yards south of the Point Montara Light House.

https://identifyus.org/cases/10639

The second from Dec 1977, the torso and upper legs of a 10 to 20 year old male (possibly white) found in the same place - the Point Montara Light House.

https://identifyus.org/cases/10640

I wonder if this skull fragment found in Mar 2006 that is currently being compared to Anna is related to one of these two headless torsos found less than 20 miles away.

https://identifyus.org/cases/9597
 
Didn't someone confirm the wee skull was from age 3-7 years or something like that?
 
Thank you, Carl. Of the three the last two were much older.... This uid only had one adult tooth, the 6 year molar. That would rule out those two latter that are said to be 10-20 or 18+.

I am curious about the younger male remains, the first possible listed. however, discussion on other possibles for NamUs 9597 should be kept at the thread for this UID within the UID forum. Thank you for letting us know to check the general discussion thread for further possibilities, Carl!


BRB. Having a hard time finding the general discussion thread for this case in the UID forum.... will come back with link shortly.
 
I have to run out shortly, but this UID that Carl mentioned upthread, could possibly belong to the speciman 9597. The coroners office would need DNA on both 9597 and 10639 to determine if they belong to the same person.

https://identifyus.org/cases/10639

Either way a dna answer is still forthcoming...... but this UID 10639 can very well be related to 9597. The age is right, and the location is right..... and we don't have any indication of an estimated TOD for 9597...


gotta run, will try and look a little more into this later.
 
SideKick said:
Didn't someone confirm the wee skull was from age 3-7 years or something like that?
Click to expand...


I'm adding a little more detailed explanation for those who follow Anna's case but might not follow the UID forum closely.

The NamUs case file for case #9597 gives an age range of 5-7 based on the one adult tooth, #14, which is the 6 year molar.

That would exclude the second and third examples CarlK posted above as being related to NamUs 9597, as the second and third examples are believed to be 10-18 and 18-30. The age range exludes them..

The first one CarlK added is believed to be that of a 7-8 yr old male. NamUs case file UP10639 found in January of 1975.

If DNA were obtained it could be determined that NamUs Case file 10639 and NamUs 9597 should be combined into the same case # because DNA concluded they were the same person, even if still unidentified.

If that were the case, then clearly we'd know this was not Anna, because info indicates the remains found in 75 belong to a male.

This find of CarlK's gives us reason to believe it is possible the remains found in March of 2006 could be related to those found in January of 1975. The locations are not far from each other and it is not uncommon to find remains of the same victim years apart. We really would not know with certainty until DNA is obtained.

I hope this makes sense...
 
CarlK90245 said:
I just noticed that two new San Mateo County UID cases were added last month to NamUs:

One from Jan 1975, the torso and upper legs of a 7 to 8 year old Male, found 250 yards south of the Point Montara Light House.

https://identifyus.org/cases/10639

The second from Dec 1977, the torso and upper legs of a 10 to 20 year old male (possibly white) found in the same place - the Point Montara Light House.

https://identifyus.org/cases/10640

I wonder if this skull fragment found in Mar 2006 that is currently being compared to Anna is related to one of these two headless torsos found less than 20 miles away.

https://identifyus.org/cases/9597
Click to expand...
I really cannot understand the delay in correlating these cases with the fragment found in San Gregorio. Does anyone have any ideas about how we can URGE the powers that be to get on with the analysis or to tell us that no DNA is available?
 
I hear you, Anna's mom. Seems like we're just left in limbo here waiting for information either way. I know with a small sample the lab is limited to the amount of material they can test, so that of course takes longer. There is no way to make a correlation between the examples Carl posted, or Anna without dna from this small sample. So we wait.....

Maybe if someone can get in contact with the detective currently working Anna's case and ask him to check the status of where the lab is at in process, perhaps they'd be willing to give LE more info than they would civilians like us?
 
I had a letter from Richard Leonard, Anna's case manager at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He had heard from Sgt. James Gilletti, who said he had recently checked with the coroner and that there was no update on the bone fragments. Rich Leonard said the last he heard, the backlog at the California Department of Justice was about nine months. Sgt. Gilletti said "I know it is frustrating for all involved and time even drags slower when waiting for results such as this, but I've been reassured that I will get any news as soon as the Coroner gets it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 216 more.
Total: 2,843 (members: 217, guests: 2,626)

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
2,626
Total visitors
2,843
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,698
Messages
18,098,237
Members
230,901
Latest member
IamNobody
Back
Top