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

[katydid23]

Could it be a Native American child from earlier times? There are burial grounds sprinkled throughout the area. I grew up South of Purisima, alongside Atascadero Creek. There were lots of Indian artifacts that we found during childhood there.

 

[Cubby]

That's true, of course, though the farm workers I know keep very close tabs on their children. Another possibility: There have been many, many shipwrecks over the years on this part of the California coast. Detective Gilletti corrected my impression that these bone fragments date from our time. He said nobody as yet had any idea how old the specimen is. I have a book on shipwrecks in our area which I haven't read yet (Christmas present). I'll look at it today.

Respectfully, Did the coroners office specifically tell Det. Gilletti that this specimen may be ancient remains or did they tell him they could not pinpoint a specific date? Because in every case I have read where bones were found and determined to be ancient remains, the coroners office was able to make that determination within appx 2 months or so of the discovery. I have never seen ancient remains listed at NamUs.

My impression based on following many unidentified cases is they couldn't specifically pin point a time period, such as 5-10 years, 20 years.... A forensic anthropologist should be able to determine within a very short amount of time if they were ancient remains. That would not be an unknown almost 6 years later.

Though, on the other hand, I'm not sure what I think of the San Mateo County coroners office at this point. They were made aware of the error in NamUs indicating dna is available for this decedent and that error has not been corrected. Additionally we found what might be yet another human error in the entry of the dental records. Thirdly, I'm at a loss why an investigation into the remains of a child aged 5-7 has been so slow. Clearly a 5-7 year old doesn't just have the choice to leave on their own and may have been a victim of a crime. It's possible whomever this is, was a victim of a crime and records exist with previous reports to a Child Protection Services agency (CPS or DFS or something like that) or perhaps there where prior police reports of domestic violence.

I should probably refrain from saying what I'm thinking about the SM ME office right now. Especially after having tried to search many articles to find the origin of how Dr. Doogie and I first learnt of this find, not finding the article, but finding evidence and news of reported sexual harrasment allegations and all kinds of baloney going on in the SM ME office. :banghead:

Sadly, I think it is almost impossible that these would be determined to be ancient remains this many years later. And if it did take the San Mateo County ME office that long to determine these are ancient remains, that is not a good sign.

 

[Annasmom]

Respectfully, Did the coroners office specifically tell Det. Gilletti that this specimen may be ancient remains or did they tell him they could not pinpoint a specific date? Because in every case I have read where bones were found and determined to be ancient remains, the coroners office was able to make that determination within appx 2 months or so of the discovery. I have never seen ancient remains listed at NamUs.

My impression based on following many unidentified cases is they couldn't specifically pin point a time period, such as 5-10 years, 20 years.... A forensic anthropologist should be able to determine within a very short amount of time if they were ancient remains. That would not be an unknown almost 6 years later.....

It is my understanding that budget cuts, staff cuts, and case loads all enter into this situation and that it was only because of a large grant that some of the very old cases could be re-examined. Although this case is so important to us, I know that it is just one of hundreds. I have no complaints about San Mateo County. They have given countless hours to a frustrating 39-year-old case and are still putting in the time. I just received an e-mail from the coroner's office putting some of my worries to rest and saying that the extended waiting is one reason they usually do not involve the possible family until more concrete information is known.

That said, I have to tell you, Cubby and angel-sleuths, how much strength I draw from your concern, your energy, your interest and your affection.

 

[Annasmom]

There is a confidentiality caution on that letter from the deputy coroner; otherwise I would post it here. However, I think it is OK to tell you that the remains were examined by a Forensic Anthropologist and a Forensic Odontologist (who knew there was such a thing?) and that while Anna is in the lower age range and therefore a "long shot", the deputy coroner says that they have an obligation to the unidentified child to continue the process.

Are we then back to Square One? I admit that I thought this was it. However, Cubby and Doogie did the right thing by alerting me early on, because as soon as that post went up on NamUs, I would have found out about it one way or another, probably in a much more jarring way.

 

[Cubby]

There is a confidentiality caution on that letter from the deputy coroner; otherwise I would post it here. However, I think it is OK to tell you that the remains were examined by a Forensic Anthropologist and a Forensic Odontologist (who knew there was such a thing?) and that while Anna is in the lower age range and therefore a "long shot", the deputy coroner says that they have an obligation to the unidentified child to continue the process.

Are we then back to Square One? I admit that I thought this was it. However, Cubby and Doogie did the right thing by alerting me early on, because as soon as that post went up on NamUs, I would have found out about it one way or another, probably in a much more jarring way.

Admittedly, I am a little lost here...

Does this mean they are going ahead with the dna comparison? If so, did they give an estimated time in which they think DNA will be obtained on the decedent?

Did they give you any information on the dentals? Did they clarify if it was a baby tooth (#13) or if it was the first adult molar (#14) which usually erupts at age 6-7?

On what basis did they decide it was a long shot?

:waitasec:

 

[Annasmom]

Admittedly, I am a little lost here...

Does this mean they are going ahead with the dna comparison? If so, did they give an estimated time in which they think DNA will be obtained on the decedent?

Did they give you any information on the dentals? Did they clarify if it was a baby tooth (#13) or if it was the first adult molar (#14) which usually erupts at age 6-7?

On what basis did they decide it was a long shot?

:waitasec:

The info I cited is really all I have, and I have to say I am glad to get any response at all from all the e-mails I have written. Yes, they are going ahead with the DNA comparison; no, there was no time frame given; no, there was no specification as to baby tooth or permanent tooth. The "long shot" term was because Anna would be at the lower part of the age range specified in the report.

 

[Oriah]

Annasmom, I don't post on Anna's thread often, but I read- and wanted to let you know that if you are back to square one...we at WS's are back in full force.

In hope-

 

[Shamrocker99]

It is not easy to read all this speculation, and I would like to refer people back to the book Searching for Anna. The dogs tracked UPSTREAM, to the east, rather than downstream to the west, before they gave up, and their owner said results were completely inconclusive because of the wet ground. The neighbor, who was on horseback on the pavement at least a quarter-mile away from the creek, said that she heard movement in the bushes UPSTREAM a short time before she heard the sirens and that her first thought was that someone was stealing something. The late Sgt. Brendan Maguire, who conducted initial investigations in person, said that nothing at all was conclusive either way.

I of all people am finding it incredibly difficult to wait, but I must ask all of you to avoid jumping to conclusions until the facts are in. Jumping to conclusions was one reason that the case was sidelined many years ago. I don't see how you can jump to a conclusion before you have any evidence.

That said, I now feel that the family, Detective Gilletti, Doogie and the members of WebSleuths are the only people who really care about this case now. So often I have felt isolated in my misery, but you have all made the journey with me this far and you have probably saved my sanity (I suspect that many of my friends and acquaintances think I am completely loony and obsessed about this and just wish I would get on with my life.)

The media has expressed no interest whatsoever in reviving this story...which maybe goes to prove my point.

At any rate, thank you all.

How frustrating it must be for you to wait!! I don't always have the best relationship with God, but I am sending up prayers that you have an answer on this, one way or the other, very soon. Also, never worry about someone thinking you are "obsessed" or believing you should get on with your life, I don't know how a mother couldn't be obsessed with searching for her beloved daughter that disappeared. Time doesn't always make things any less painful.
I can't imagine how hard it has been for you and your family all these years and I am grateful to be a part of this site that has so many caring people all trying to help you find the answers you seek.

 

[Cubby]

There is a confidentiality caution on that letter from the deputy coroner; otherwise I would post it here. However, I think it is OK to tell you that the remains were examined by a Forensic Anthropologist and a Forensic Odontologist (who knew there was such a thing?) and that while Anna is in the lower age range and therefore a "long shot", the deputy coroner says that they have an obligation to the unidentified child to continue the process.

Are we then back to Square One? I admit that I thought this was it. However, Cubby and Doogie did the right thing by alerting me early on, because as soon as that post went up on NamUs, I would have found out about it one way or another, probably in a much more jarring way.

Thank you. As hard as it was deciding on when and how, I'm glad Doogie and I alerted you early on in the manner we did. I knew it would be hard for you, but I couldn't imagine you learning of this discovery any other way.

As for the back to Square One question. Admittedly, I am still hung up on the dental questions. (I always say I am like an inquisitive 4 yr old with questions..). My very first impression when I read them, and saw the O's (unerupted or undeveloped) was that they possibly only charted the adult teeth. Not sure why I thought that, other than that was the only explanation which made sense to me with all the O's. And why those O's didn't say post mortem loss as the one did. (I hope that makes sense).

I think if I had the answers to those dentals questions I'd be far more confident in a long shot. I am leaning greater on the side of long shot, but still have the lingering questions. And of course, I personally would not be satisfied with a dentals info rule out, solely because I have seen cases in which dentals inaccurately ruled (adult) persons out who were later id'd with dna. We see so many fewer unidentified cases with children, it's hard for me to have a better idea. ETA: I do strongly agree there is more precision in estimating the average age of a child than that of an adult. And I am confident they believe 5 is lower end of the range and less likely. (I just wish I knew why... because we WS'ers always want the why's that is why we are here.)

And yes, if we are back to square one, we are all here to continue the search for Anna, who is now in all of our hearts. She's there for good.


ETA: Just hopefully for a little smile, in this difficult time. We have 3 generations of Cub fans in my family, and already 2 generations interested in searching for Anna. Me and my little guy, who remarkably came home from school a few weeks ago and told me. I found Anna mom, Anna Waters. What he had seen was the name of another student in his school with a similiar name. Spelled differently, but phonetically to a 3rd grader, would sound exactly like Anna's. I thought it was sweet and demonstrative of his compassionate side. So I know, he too is praying and hoping we find Anna one day. And we know we have at least one more generation interested in finding the missing.
Hugs~

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

To Anna's family; I am so very sorry for the pain and anguish you have went through all these years. I know from experience the agony of having no answers. I hope you get the answers you need in the near future. I am lighting you a candle, and keeping you in my prayers.

 

[OzzieMum]

Thank you. As hard as it was deciding on when and how, I'm glad Doogie and I alerted you early on in the manner we did. I knew it would be hard for you, but I couldn't imagine you learning of this discovery any other way.

As for the back to Square One question. Admittedly, I am still hung up on the dental questions. (I always say I am like an inquisitive 4 yr old with questions..). My very first impression when I read them, and saw the O's (unerupted or undeveloped) was that they possibly only charted the adult teeth. Not sure why I thought that, other than that was the only explanation which made sense to me with all the O's. And why those O's didn't say post mortem loss as the one did. (I hope that makes sense).

I think if I had the answers to those dentals questions I'd be far more confident in a long shot. I am leaning greater on the side of long shot, but still have the lingering questions. And of course, I personally would not be satisfied with a dentals info rule out, solely because I have seen cases in which dentals inaccurately ruled (adult) persons out who were later id'd with dna. We see so many fewer unidentified cases with children, it's hard for me to have a better idea. ETA: I do strongly agree there is more precision in estimating the average age of a child than that of an adult. And I am confident they believe 5 is lower end of the range and less likely. (I just wish I knew why... because we WS'ers always want the why's that is why we are here.)

And yes, if we are back to square one, we are all here to continue the search for Anna, who is now in all of our hearts. She's there for good.


ETA: Just hopefully for a little smile, in this difficult time. We have 3 generations of Cub fans in my family, and already 2 generations interested in searching for Anna. Me and my little guy, who remarkably came home from school a few weeks ago and told me. I found Anna mom, Anna Waters. What he had seen was the name of another student in his school with a similiar name. Spelled differently, but phonetically to a 3rd grader, would sound exactly like Anna's. I thought it was sweet and demonstrative of his compassionate side. So I know, he too is praying and hoping we find Anna one day. And we know we have at least one more generation interested in finding the missing.
Hugs~

I have been thinking a lot about the dentals too and came to the same conclusion as you, only the adult teeth are charted. This makes sense when you look at the chart, they state that tooth #9 is P (postmortem loss, open socket) which to me would indicate that it was an adult tooth. If it were a baby tooth, you think they would chart #9 tooth as an O (unerupted or not developed). Tooth #14 is stated as N (natural tooth). I find it interesting that they don't say on the O teeth if the baby teeth are in situ or not.

I am certainly no expert but from all the dental charts I have looked at they would indicate that this child would be more in the 6 to 8 year old bracket not the 5 to 7 year old bracket. The charts all indicate that the #9 tooth erupts at 7 to 8 years however, I do know some 6 year old children that have the permanent #9 tooth erupting. The charts also indicate that the #14 tooth erupts at 6 to 7 years old.

As Anna was only 5yrs 4mths old and still had her baby teeth, I can not possibly see how this could be her even if I did believe the creek scenario, which I do not.

 

[SideKick]

Sending warm hugs and loves to Anna.

:grouphug:

 

[SideKick]

There was a little girl, who had a little curl..... Anna Christian Waters.

xoxoxo

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Cubby, that story about your son really did make my heart smile. Thanks for sharing that!

 

[Cubby]

I have been thinking a lot about the dentals too and came to the same conclusion as you, only the adult teeth are charted. This makes sense when you look at the chart, they state that tooth #9 is P (postmortem loss, open socket) which to me would indicate that it was an adult tooth. If it were a baby tooth, you think they would chart #9 tooth as an O (unerupted or not developed). Tooth #14 is stated as N (natural tooth). I find it interesting that they don't say on the O teeth if the baby teeth are in situ or not.

I am certainly no expert but from all the dental charts I have looked at they would indicate that this child would be more in the 6 to 8 year old bracket not the 5 to 7 year old bracket. The charts all indicate that the #9 tooth erupts at 7 to 8 years however, I do know some 6 year old children that have the permanent #9 tooth erupting. The charts also indicate that the #14 tooth erupts at 6 to 7 years old.

As Anna was only 5yrs 4mths old and still had her baby teeth, I can not possibly see how this could be her even if I did believe the creek scenario, which I do not.

I'm glad to know I am not the only person who had these thoughts/questions on the dentals.

In addition to what you posted, I also can not figure out how the loss of a baby tooth would leave an open socket if lost post mortem. Imo, it just doesn't make logical sense that this #9 tooth with this decedent would be a lost baby tooth versus a lost permanent tooth leaving the empty socket.

I'm not an expert and I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression when a child is approaching the time their permanent teeth erupt the roots of the baby teeth disolve. Based on thinking along the lines of how baby tooth look when they fall out on their own naturally as the permanent teeth erupt. I've never seen one with a root on a child. And the only way I could even comprehend a root being on a baby tooth is if it had to be pulled at a much younger age due to bottle rot or the correct term for baby's who are put to bed or down for naps with a bottle. I think the correct term might be milk rot.

I also agree I'd extend the age range to 8 but likely 6-7.

 

[Cubby]

I find it interesting that they don't say on the O teeth if the baby teeth are in situ or not.

Respectfully snipped. I tried searching the answer to the above question as well as if a baby tooth lost post mortem would leave an open socket. I did not find the answer to that question. However, what I did find was a state form for Nebraska, which provided a list of information to submit on a missing person. It listed all the obvious which we know of, however the dental chart provided on this particular form only requested information on permanent teeth. It left me thinking California likely had a similiar form and the questions or form requested more information on permanent teeth only. Leaving the O was for as much or as little of an explanation as the LE or ME chose to enter. Imo, San Mateo was just not that descriptive on the dentals for this decedent.

After the research I did, I now believe it was NOT an error as I wondered, but rather a much briefer explanation of the O area than I would have hoped for or thought helpful. We eventually arrived at this 'conclusion' here as a group, questioning the information we had available to us.

Had that information been more descriptive on the dentals when I first found the possible match, I believe Doogie and I would have been able to present this to Annasmom already knowing it was a long shot and 'armed with the information' on why it was a long shot. I am terribly sorry I was not able to determine such sooner. This was a learning experience for us all.

Hugs all.... Here is to praying one day we find Anna and she can read the story about all the efforts made to find her. I hope we all see that day.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

with all my respect,can this maybe help in this case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-cold-cases/2011/06/06/gIQAkmPL9H_story.html

sorry if not, I just want to help!
my greetings to annasmom from Germany

 

[MissMarple]

I did not know abot this update until this moment....
Totaly surprised...

 

[Annasmom]

with all my respect,can this maybe help in this case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-cold-cases/2011/06/06/gIQAkmPL9H_story.html

sorry if not, I just want to help!
my greetings to annasmom from Germany

Thanks for the interesting link, Dirk. If I were starting over, choosing a career, forensic anthropology would certainly be a top choice for me. A forensic anthropologist has examined the bone fragment in question, but I believe it is probably too small for them to work with. Good to hear from you.

 

[Cubby]

Thanks for the interesting link, Dirk. If I were starting over, choosing a career, forensic anthropology would certainly be a top choice for me. A forensic anthropologist has examined the bone fragment in question, but I believe it is probably too small for them to work with. Good to hear from you.

BBM. This gave me a big smile. Me too! I would love to have the opportunity to choose a forensic anthropology career. However my HS science background is so poor I'm afraid I'd have to take so many below 100 level science courses it would not be a beneficial choice for me. It is a fascinating field of study.