TX - Longview, WhtFem (UP 9863), 41-50, Suicide - Assumed Identity, Dec'10

[Magnum P.E.]

So it was the ol' paper chase again.

If someone knows where the real LEK is buried we could have an idea at least where FLEK (Faux LEK, for want of a better description) was at that time, to have got the data from the tombstone. Wonder how she got the real LEK's SSN? THAT is not on ANY tombstone, and you would have to know it to request a replacement card. Any thoughts? Could she have been close to the real LEK's family? Did children get SSNs shortly after birth at that time, or was FLEK simply the initial SSN applicant using the real LEK's birth document?

She looks like her nose had been broken long before her marriage. Sports injury maybe? I have seen girls get volleyball injuries like that. It is distinctive, and may help in the ID.

I would not have recognized her earlier pic as LR. To me she has a kind of Bebe Newirth look about her.

 

[Magnum P.E.]

I reread the thread and answered one of my own questions: the SSN was issued to FLEK in Texas in 1988. Wonder how, then, they ever discovered that she used a fake birth certificate from Arizona to get it? Hmmmm.

 

[stefanrae]

Yeah, I could believe that the "new" photo was taken in 1990 but the one we've had is much more recent. Does anybody recognize the letters in the background of the newly-released photo? It must be from a drivers license or ID.

If you look closely, the letters were printed on top of the photo. You can see a portion of the E on her forehead. That doesn't mean it's not still some sort of ID though.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[webrocket]

the questions I have Magnum are slightly different from yours.

I checked findagrave.com and saw no grave record for a child L.E.K. the old way of doing things was to find a headstone or old obituary of a child who died and was of a similar age and same race as the person who wants to assume the identity. then somehow try to get a genuine copy of the birth certificate and use that as the basis for getting the new I.D.

nowadays it is common practice to get a SS# right after birth but it was not the practice back in the 60's. here is my mystery question. since it looks like the real L.E.K. never had her own SS#, I don't know why this imposter didn't just apply for a real # under her assumed name. somehow the SSA is saying the number was fake yet the SSDI while not listing a #, says it was issued in 1988. that is what I don't understand.

a fake # is not issued by the SSA so there is no way there was a fake # issued in 1988. perhaps that is the earliest record they have of the imposter using the fake #. I don't know. it does not make sense to me.

 

[webrocket]

as for the lettering in the pic there are three that are clear REP and then the beginnings of another letter. I am guessing REPLICA?

 

[KateB]

Is it possible that SS is so inefficient, that she could have stolen the number, but used a different name? Meaning, there might not be a "real" LEK.

 

[CarlK90245]

Wonder how she got the real LEK's SSN? THAT is not on ANY tombstone, and you would have to know it to request a replacement card. Any thoughts? Could she have been close to the real LEK's family? Did children get SSNs shortly after birth at that time, or was FLEK simply the initial SSN applicant using the real LEK's birth document?

Normally the reason why criminals choose dead infants for identity theft is because it is unlikely that a SS# has been issued prior to the infant's death. They can obtain a copy of the birth certificate, and the SocSec Admin has no record of the infant's existence and no way to prove that the impostor and the infant are not one-in-the-same.

 

[annemc2]

Okay - I think I'm getting it - thanks, guys. So the real LEK probably had no SS# as she died when she was a child. That's why she's not listed anywhere in the SSDI. I was going to start looking for her in Canada but that's probably not necessary. Hmmmm.

Somewhere earlier on this thread I posted about how I got a SS# in Texas in the 1980s when I was probably 10 or 12 years old. My sister, who is almost 5 years younger than I am, has a number that is very close b/c my mom applied for them at the same time.

 

[Magnum P.E.]

Normally the reason why criminals choose dead infants for identity theft is because it is unlikely that a SS# has been issued prior to the infant's death. They can obtain a copy of the birth certificate, and the SocSec Admin has no record of the infant's existence and no way to prove that the impostor and the infant are not one-in-the-same.

Yep. So I wonder how they discovered that she WASN'T LEK in the first place? I can't imagine what started the whole investigation. If you have a birth certificate, drivers license, and SSN, pretty much you ARE that person. I'd really like to know what told them anything different? The real LEK so far as we know never had a SSN, so never existed to the SSA. The only thing that could have possibly tripped FLEK up that I can think of is her footprints vs. those associated with the real LEK's birth certificate. And who on earth ever checks those?

 

[Magnum P.E.]

as for the lettering in the pic there are three that are clear REP and then the beginnings of another letter. I am guessing REPLICA?

"Replacement" for a Drivers License? Republican voter card? Hmmmm

 

[CherBearSTL]

The latest picture makes me question exactly how crooked her nose really is. I think the lighting in the first picture played a role in making us feel her nose was extremely crooked. The newest photo doesn't appear very crooked at all. I believe the latest photo was probably taken in 1990, while the first photo was taken later in 1990, my guess would be 1996 or later. I wore my hair the same way and the same types of sweater in the late 90s.

 

[CherBearSTL]

The latest picture makes me question exactly how crooked her nose really is. I think the lighting in the first picture played a role in making us feel her nose was extremely crooked. The newest photo doesn't appear very crooked at all. I believe the latest photo was probably taken in 1990, while the first photo was taken later in 1990, my guess would be 1996 or later. I wore my hair the same way and the same types of sweater in the late 90s.

I also think that the latest photo looks a lot like Christi Nichols. I realize they both have DNA on file, but I can't help but see the resemblance between the 2.

 

[neesaki]

the questions I have Magnum are slightly different from yours.

I checked findagrave.com and saw no grave record for a child L.E.K. the old way of doing things was to find a headstone or old obituary of a child who died and was of a similar age and same race as the person who wants to assume the identity. then somehow try to get a genuine copy of the birth certificate and use that as the basis for getting the new I.D.

nowadays it is common practice to get a SS# right after birth but it was not the practice back in the 60's. here is my mystery question. since it looks like the real L.E.K. never had her own SS#, I don't know why this imposter didn't just apply for a real # under her assumed name. somehow the SSA is saying the number was fake yet the SSDI while not listing a #, says it was issued in 1988. that is what I don't understand.

a fake # is not issued by the SSA so there is no way there was a fake # issued in 1988. perhaps that is the earliest record they have of the imposter using the fake #. I don't know. it does not make sense to me.

This is the first time I've been on here in almost a week so am catching up, so maybe I missed something. Just confused as to why you say back in the 60's? That is, since this pseudo identity LEK obtained the SS # in 1988, and it was from a deceased baby or young child.
Also, I was reading that in order to claim your child as a dependent a SS # is required.

 

[neesaki]

Changes made to Namus include this image & updated fingerprint information. Also, a link to a flyer pdf titled Identity Theft Suspect issued by Social Security that includes both photos:
https://identifyus.org/en/medias/download/17149

Thanks so much for this update. This photo has to be several years earlier than the one previously posted here as she looks much younger . I mean, this is a girl / young woman. The original one posted here was of a definite 40 something woman. Big difference, imo. I have to believe that this was surely a misprint on the flyer? :waitasec:

 

[webrocket]

This is the first time I've been on here in almost a week so am catching up, so maybe I missed something. Just confused as to why you say back in the 60's? That is, since this pseudo identity LEK obtained the SS # in 1988, and it was from a deceased baby or young child.
Also, I was reading that in order to claim your child as a dependent a SS # is required.

I will assume that a baby girl named L.E.K. was born on July 18, 1969 and died as a child, actual age unknown. that is the date of birth of the married L.E.R. who is the subject of the SSA investigation.

I was born in the 1960's about 6 yrs before L.E.K. I did not get a SS# until I was about 15 and wanted to get a job when I was 16. I do not have children, however, it is my understanding that it is the present-day norm for SS#s to be issued to infants.

so baby L.E.K. apparently had no SS# of her own so the imposter could have filed an application for a real, genuine and bona fide SS# in her assumed name. it looks like she made up a number which may have been a fatal error although it took years to unravel.

I don't recall the business she was in but it could be that she or her employer got an inquiry from the SSA that her number was not legit. from there it could have caused a cascade of events leading up to a divorce being filed and her eventual suicide.

 

[Magnum P.E.]

the questions I have Magnum are slightly different from yours.

I checked findagrave.com and saw no grave record for a child L.E.K. the old way of doing things was to find a headstone or old obituary of a child who died and was of a similar age and same race as the person who wants to assume the identity. then somehow try to get a genuine copy of the birth certificate and use that as the basis for getting the new I.D.

nowadays it is common practice to get a SS# right after birth but it was not the practice back in the 60's. here is my mystery question. since it looks like the real L.E.K. never had her own SS#, I don't know why this imposter didn't just apply for a real # under her assumed name. somehow the SSA is saying the number was fake yet the SSDI while not listing a #, says it was issued in 1988. that is what I don't understand.

a fake # is not issued by the SSA so there is no way there was a fake # issued in 1988. perhaps that is the earliest record they have of the imposter using the fake #. I don't know. it does not make sense to me.

Webrocket, you raise a good point. As I see it, the SSN is real (as opposed to one randomly made up) but was issued to someone using a real birth certificate that was not hers.
Since no one else ever used the number (the real LEK certainly never did) how did they determine that FLEK was not who she said she was?
It must have somehow been triggered by her husband applying for her death benefits. Anyone had experience with the SSA and know what happens when that is done?
I know that to curb the paper chase somewhat, at some point states started connecting death records to birth records. Maybe the SSA checked with AZ after FLEK's death and they said "Wait a minute - she's already dead."

 

[webrocket]

Webrocket, you raise a good point. As I see it, the SSN is real (as opposed to one randomly made up) but was issued to someone using a real birth certificate that was not hers.
Since no one else ever used the number (the real LEK certainly never did) how did they determine that FLEK was not who she said she was?
It must have somehow been triggered by her husband applying for her death benefits. Anyone had experience with the SSA and know what happens when that is done?
I know that to curb the paper chase somewhat, at some point states started connecting death records to birth records. Maybe the SSA checked with AZ after FLEK's death and they said "Wait a minute - she's already dead."

investigation could have been triggered by application for the SS death benefit but my hunch is that she realized that she had been exposed as a fraud by her husband or would be exposed through the divorce proceedings which led her to commit suicide.

the US has NO central registry of births, deaths, marriages or divorces. so I think the SSA just easily determined the # to be bogus and maybe made contact with the parents listed on the birth cert and then whoops!

 

[CarlK90245]

It is a well-known practice for criminals to browse through graveyards looking for gravestones for people who died in infancy and had the same approximate birth year as the impostor.

I don't know if the SSA has been able to overcome that weakness, but it was a common practice in years past.

The book A Beautiful Child (about the "Sharon Marshall" case) details how her captor Franklin Delano Floyd changed both his and her identity on several occasions. She went from being Suzanne Davis to Sharon Marshall to Tonya Tadlock, and then to Tonya Hughes (After marrying Floyd and adopting one of his stolen surnames).

He said that he obtained many of his and her aliases from gravestones.

 

[Magnum P.E.]

investigation could have been triggered by application for the SS death benefit but my hunch is that she realized that she had been exposed as a fraud by her husband or would be exposed through the divorce proceedings which led her to commit suicide.

the US has NO central registry of births, deaths, marriages or divorces. so I think the SSA just easily determined the # to be bogus and maybe made contact with the parents listed on the birth cert and then whoops!

I think you may be on to the most likely explanation. (treading carefully here) Many nasty things have been known to be done during divorce proceedings, for leverage concerning custody. The gloves do come off sometimes. I must leave it at that. I can't think of any other way the SSA would have been tipped off that she was not the real LEK.

 

[webrocket]

with 300 million people here, most of whom have SS#s you can imagine how easy it has been to just make one up.

that said, I believe the SSA now randomly checks numbers and notifies employers when something is amiss. so if she got a letter and Mr. R found out about it, imagine how distressed he would be to find out the woman he has decided to spend his life with has been keeping major secrets. I'd say he is entitled to end the marriage and thus file for divorce.