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

[neesaki]

Madea, interesting find but I can't see any reference to a file entitled "death_certificate_issued_3-18-1967[1]". I trust that you have seen reference to this document.

I am trying to sort through why this imposter would go through the trouble of getting a birth certificate for a child who died on March 18, 1967 (born an as of yet unspecified time period before that) yet use it to apply for a social security card claiming to have been born 27 months later in July 1969. that makes no sense unless she skillfully altered the document enough so that she would become a new LEK instead of a duplicate LEK. I can see how one could change a 7 to a 9 in the year, but changing "March" to "July" or "3" to "7" is a bit of a stretch.

ETA - see how screwed up we can get with dates? I was adding 27 months to the date of death to come up with the July 18, 1969 date of birth. I would think that if one is going to change a single digit to invent a new date of birth of 7/18/69, it would be to change a real year of birth of 1964 to 1969 by encircling the 4 to make it appear to be a 9.

Same here, no reference that I can find to "death_certificate_issued_3-18-1967". Sounds like it was there, but now it's not, removed for some reason? :waitasec:

 

[webrocket]

I have given this a bit more thought. the old fashioned way to obtain a new identity was to simply find a dead child, get the birth certicate and voila, you become that person and hope no one figured it out. before the advent of the internet and tighter control over identifying documents, a person could fairly easily pull it off.

since we now have reason to believe the real LEK died on March 18, 1967, it appears to me that the imposter did not want to assume the actual identity of LEK, i.e. use the exact same data, rather she obtained the birth certificate and somehow altered it to become a LEK with a different date of birth. (I assume she used the same parentage on the BC as that would be too much to change). on this level she was smart to avoid any detection that she was an imposter for the exact identity of the dead baby LEK. one of her mistakes, however, (if I remember all the twists and turns here) she could applied for her own SS# as there would be no risk of there being a duplication in the event the real LEK had one of her own. where I get confused is whether the SS# she used was actually issued by the SSA in the late 1980's or whether she made one up and it appeared to have been issued in 1988. had she simply applied for a real SS# using her altered BC, I'm not sure the SSA would have been investigaing this.

 

[alllads]

Does anyone have an Ancestry acount? If you search for LEK's full name on google, one of the last results is a private member's tree on Ancestry, which says it has "You will also find attached to this person
•3 attached records
•3 sources
•3 attached photos
•19 people in this member tree"

The person is listed as born in 1969 in Scottsdale. Could this be the deceased infant? Sorry if this had already been brought up somewhere!

 

[webrocket]

I do but that must pertain to the imposter as the real LEK died in 1967 (so it seems).

the tree is set to private so the only way to get information is by asking the owner of that tree and given the fact that there is a federal investigation going on, I seriously doubt the tree's owner is going to give out any information to mere strangers. besides, I guarantee you the only information in that tree relates to the imposter LEK, later known as LER and not the real LEK who died as a small child.

ETA - by the way, I checked for any other LEKs out there. since it was not the common practice for infants to be assigned social security numbers back then, she either died without a SS# ever having been assigned or they did not retire the number and collect the death benefit. I looked for deaths on March 18, 1967 and there were no children among the few listed people.

Does anyone have an Ancestry acount? If you search for LEK's full name on google, one of the last results is a private member's tree on Ancestry, which says it has "You will also find attached to this person
•3 attached records
•3 sources
•3 attached photos
•19 people in this member tree"

The person is listed as born in 1969 in Scottsdale. Could this be the deceased infant? Sorry if this had already been brought up somewhere!

 

[dizzigirl1]

it is all very strange isnt it? I found a free site that has social security numbers & played around for a bit but the closest match i could find was a deceased adult with an "a" instead of "i" in the first name who passed in 1965 in Arizona. I also went through ancestry but found nothing except that tree and matched the name from the familytree site i found. I don't know why this story bugs me so much. I just know that i want to know more!!!

 

[fred&edna]

I found (via LDS Family Search) LER & JBR were married in Denton TX 2004. However, her birth year is different than stated on obit.

I cannot find a record of their daughter's birth.

I thought I'd try something different by going backwards through records to see if I could gain any additional info (but I've found nothing).

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VTVH-JSD

 

[webrocket]

many, if not most, states do not put recent birth records in the public domain. that's probably why you can't find the birth record of the K child.

I found (via LDS Family Search) LER & JBR were married in Denton TX 2004. However, her birth year is different than stated on obit.

I cannot find a record of their daughter's birth.

I thought I'd try something different by going backwards through records to see if I could gain any additional info (but I've found nothing).

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VTVH-JSD

 

[alllads]

I don't see the file reference either unfortunately, for me the bottom of the file menu just shows a list of the last PDFs I've had open.

 

[ClaireNC]

When you click on the document link here; https://identifyus.org/en/medias/download/17149 and then after opening and viewing go to "file" and click on that, at the bottom where there is a list of attached documents to this PDF file, it says " death_certificate_issued_3-18-1967[1]" and other files, but that one date struck me as a clue to the date of death for the real LEK. Searching ancestry.com for LEK's first name and that date of death or March 1967, there is someone (actually several someones) but not with "K" as a last name!
(snipped)

I am a little confused. After downloading and viewing the pdf, when I click on "file" at the top left, the list at the bottom is a list of the last 5 or 6 pdf files I opened on my computer. Those files have no relationship to the file that I am currently viewing, which in this case is the Jane Doe flyer from the Social Security office.

I think the reference to a death certificate issued in 1967 is taking us down the wrong rabbit hole. The SS office flyer says that the pictures were from 1990 and the identify theft (of a deceased child's identity) took place two years earlier. So we are looking for a child named LEK that died in or before 1988.

 

[alllads]

My guess is still that the real LEK was born on the 1969 birthdate, because it would be falsely using the birth certificate that constituted stealing this child's identity. Because if she didn't take the whole name, or a birthdate, then it's not really stealing the identity, it would more be creating one.

 

[fred&edna]

I don't usually toss out wild ideas, but with this case, well, why not?

Could FLEK have known rapist/murderer Dale Wayne Eaton? And, possibly needed a new identity?

Lisa Marie Kimmell was born July 18 1969 she disappeared while traveling from her home in Colorado to Billings Montana. She was murdered by Eaton in March 1988. Eaton may have abducted and murdered others.

I know, I really know... it's a very "out there" thought and it doesn't begin to tell us who FLEK might be. I'm just mentioning it :blushing: Don't throw rotten tomatoes, k! If you don't like it... just keep moving

 

[alllads]

I found (via LDS Family Search) LER & JBR were married in Denton TX 2004. However, her birth year is different than stated on obit.

I cannot find a record of their daughter's birth.

I thought I'd try something different by going backwards through records to see if I could gain any additional info (but I've found nothing).

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VTVH-JSD

I'm pretty sure the birth year is different because it's an estimate, on marriage records all they have is the person's age, and when the wedding took place. So for the purpose of the estimated year of birth, in this case it's just 2004-34. And since birthdays don't actually work like that the estimate is frequently off by a year.

I think finding the "real" LEK might be the trick in this case, because it would give us a likely location for FLEK to have been in at one point. At the time she would have assumed the identity (or earlier if she came across the news of real LEK having died BEFORE she took the identity), she must have come across this person somehow - a child's grave in a cemetery, a notice in a paper, gossip about someone only distantly tied to her, there must have been something that told her this person exists. This was pre-internet, making it significantly more complicated to find these things. Because if she went to get this new birth certificate, claiming she was this person, she would first need to know LEK's name and birth date, and ahead of time know this person had died. I doubt she went to the records office and just asked if they just so happened to have the birth certificates of any deceased children.

On findagrave I came across a deceased child with the right birth date and right K surname, but the wrong name and middlename. The baby died on the same day as she was born and is buried in Alabama. There are also a lot of children's grave with the name not listed or that just says "baby" or "infant", and where birth date or death date is only the year.

 

[DrDMike]

I'm lost. Is the unidentified a woman who assumed the identity of the drug addict?

 

[alllads]

I'm lost. Is the unidentified a woman who assumed the identity of the drug addict?

No, the addict mentioned in the earlier posts in this thread is just another person that happened to die on the same day as this unidentified woman. The addict was also briefly unidentified, but they have nothing to do with one another.

This unidentified woman died, and was later discovered to have been using a false identity - she stole the identity of a deceased child. So no one knows what her real name is.

 

[DrDMike]

No, the addict mentioned in the earlier posts in this thread is just another person that happened to die on the same day as this unidentified woman. The addict was also briefly unidentified, but they have nothing to do with one another.

This unidentified woman died, and was later discovered to have been using a false identity - she stole the identity of a deceased child. So no one knows what her real name is.

She was probably hiding from something. My first reaction was a con artist but her fingerprints came back dead.

 

[alllads]

She was probably hiding from something. My first reaction was a con artist but her fingerprints came back dead.

Seems like it about the hiding, though she used the false identity for 22 years, and even married and had a child.

Who knows, maybe she just wanted a fresh start. She must have been barely turned an adult when she took on the false identity.

 

[CherBearSTL]

Seems like it about the hiding, though she used the false identity for 22 years, and even married and had a child.

Who knows, maybe she just wanted a fresh start. She must have been barely turned an adult when she took on the false identity.

You would have to be hiding from someone or something to go to those lengths. I still wonder if she was trying to escape being charged with a crime that had just been committed...would explain why there are no fingerprints on file. For example, there was a recent case on Dateline where the lady completely changed her identify because she knew she was being looked at for a murder. She lived decades without being found...started a new life with a new name.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

 

[JupiterAmmon]

Some musings on this Jane Doe:

I wonder if she could have possibly been a foreigner? Is it not the case that usually people who do not have an SSN (aka illegal immigrants) are the one's who "steal" them from deceased children? If she was a foreigner would there be a way to tell? Perhaps dental work?

Also, someone brought this up earlier, but can we safely assume that she was NOT in the Federal Witness Protection Program? I would assume/hope that the agency responsible for investigating this case would have cleared this first, but can we be certain of this?

Also, I know others suggested that perhaps she had a sex-change and changed her identity to a female one, and I considered it also, especially from her appearance from the recent photos we have of her. But seeing the new circa 1990 photo I think this theory can be dismissed. She looks much more feminine then, and I don't think many have sex reassignment surgery at that early of an age, especially back then.

I have a feeling that this Jane Doe was never reported missing. I wouldn't be surprised if she came from an uncaring, and possibly abusive household (the abused often marry the abused, and her husband seems to have been abusive), that would not even care about her whereabouts. I don't think we'll find her on any missing persons websites.

 

[DrDMike]

You would have to be hiding from someone or something to go to those lengths. I still wonder if she was trying to escape being charged with a crime that had just been committed...would explain why there are no fingerprints on file. For example, there was a recent case on Dateline where the lady completely changed her identify because she knew she was being looked at for a murder. She lived decades without being found...started a new life with a new name.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

Unlikely since LE would have her fingerprints.

 

[CarlK90245]

Also, I know others suggested that perhaps she had a sex-change and changed her identity to a female one, and I considered it also, especially from her appearance from the recent photos we have of her. But seeing the new circa 1990 photo I think this theory can be dismissed. She looks much more feminine then, and I don't think many have sex reassignment surgery at that early of an age, especially back then.

If she had a sex change, it would have shown up in the DNA testing. A man can snip off his parts and take hormone shots, but it doesn't change his DNA.