TX - 'Lori Ruff', Longview, WhtFem UP9863, *General Discussion and Theories* #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, I was pondering...do you think the family has found out who she is and just hasn't shared publicly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe. I previously thought that the fact she is still on Namus means definitely no. But through researching another websleuths case I found three missing women in a row who are on Namus and also simultaneously alive and well on social media. So I am no longer sure how up to date they really keep Namus.
 
PLEASE remember to Alert on broken quotes as soon as possible. To have to go back through posts to try to figure out who said what can be very difficult and time-consuming for Mods/Admi when a broken quote gets re-quoted.

:tyou:
 
If we could get authorities involved with the findagrave angle, we might have some kind of information to work with.

Findagrave does require a person to create an account in order to leave a "flower". So, whoever left that flower, had to provide an email address and a name at a minimum. ( When you leave a flower, you can leave it "anonymously" and you can also choose to leave a typed personal message or not - but that is separate from the fact that you have to create an account.)


I sent another email to the Greggs County Sheriff's office. This time I sent over ALL the info I have.

In my email, I sent them the link and a screenshot of the comment made on Lori Ruff's find a grave website. And also mentioned how someone said that the authorities can contact findagrave and find out who left the comment.

Not sure if they'll follow up on it, but wanted you to know that I did pass along this info to them.
 
Do we have any photos of FLEK that show her from a side view/profile? Or any candid pictures of her laughing?
 
I haven't seen any.

Thanks, I couldn't find any either. I have a yearbook photo I want to compare but it's a profile/semi profile of a tall basketball playing woman. Her eyes, face shape, hair, height and hands seem to match but I can't be sure about the nose unless I see a clear side view of FLEK. Plus, still researching if the person in the photo I found is alive or elsewhere before I post it. I don't want to send the internet chasing down info on someone still alive and no connection to FLEK.
 
Thanks, I couldn't find any either. I have a yearbook photo I want to compare but it's a profile/semi profile of a tall basketball playing woman. Her eyes, face shape, hair, height and hands seem to match but I can't be sure about the nose unless I see a clear side view of FLEK. Plus, still researching if the person in the photo I found is alive or elsewhere before I post it. I don't want to send the internet chasing down info on someone still alive and no connection to FLEK.
Understand. If you want help them feel free to pm me the name/photo and I can do some research too. Do you have an ancestry account? I don't but there are a lot of people on here who do who might be able to help you too.
 
Understand. If you want help them feel free to pm me the name/photo and I can do some research too. Do you have an ancestry account? I don't but there are a lot of people on here who do who might be able to help you too.

Thanks sunnynz! I have Ancestry. One thing that intrigues me about this case is that FLEK did her husband's family's genealogy. I used to go to library as a child with my grandmother to do genealogy the old fashioned way (before the internet) with card catalogues, indexes, and microfiche. The internet has now made things much faster but not everything is online. Anyway the scratches she left behind makes me think that FLEK was a researcher and someone taught her how to research people at the library. I would not be surprised if she is related to the BST somehow and knew of her death from doing her family genealogy--she could be a distant cousin no one knew. I also would not be surprised if her name was really Becky Turner and she took that ID first because it was easiest to get--she could have done the pre-internet version of "Google your name" where you instead search for your name in the library. There were A LOT of Becky and Rebecca T's in her age range. She could have looked up the fire on archived newspapers without even traveling to the graveyard in Washington. Or maybe she did her husband's genealogy because it was comfort to her--something she did as a child with a loved one she no longer had or a way to connect with the past without connecting with HER own past. This is all MOO, of course. Since she died so recently, I wonder if FLEK had an Ancestry account?
 
Since she died so recently, I wonder if FLEK had an Ancestry account?

From what little we know of her, LEK was very engaged with the Internet. (I'm reminded of a scene in one of Lawrence Block's novels where the recovering alcoholic PI Matt Scudder loses himself for hours following links on the Internet -- something I'm sure everyone can relate to.) Based on her interest in her husband's family genealogy, the only reason I can think of that she didn't have an Ancestry account would be because it costs money. (I know, it's roughly the cost of a newspaper subscription, but if she struggled with her finances she may have been reluctant to spend money when she thought she could get the information for free.) If she didn't have one, she may have been a regular at the local library or genealogical society -- & the latter sometimes provide use of their resources for free.

A list of Texas genealogical societies can be found at http://www.txgenweb.org/tx/society.htm
 
From what little we know of her, LEK was very engaged with the Internet. (I'm reminded of a scene in one of Lawrence Block's novels where the recovering alcoholic PI Matt Scudder loses himself for hours following links on the Internet -- something I'm sure everyone can relate to.) Based on her interest in her husband's family genealogy, the only reason I can think of that she didn't have an Ancestry account would be because it costs money. (I know, it's roughly the cost of a newspaper subscription, but if she struggled with her finances she may have been reluctant to spend money when she thought she could get the information for free.) If she didn't have one, she may have been a regular at the local library or genealogical society -- & the latter sometimes provide use of their resources for free.

A list of Texas genealogical societies can be found at http://www.txgenweb.org/tx/society.htm

Brilliant thoughts, thanks! At the time she did her husband's genealogy she would have been married to him and living off his income so he might have sprung for an ancestry account for her to research his family. Almost 6 years have now passed so it wouldn't be active/available but any info she posted to the message boards would still be there. I'll have to dig into Ancestry's terms of service and find out if they delete family trees once a user stops paying for access. I do wonder though if the investigator thought to question anyone at the Texas Genealogical Society/Texas library about what they may remember about her (assuming she went to the library or GS meetings) and her research habits. It would be a long shot that they would remember, but she could have asked one of the librarians for reference access to something that's not related to her husband's family (like resources for Idaho/California/Arizona/Washington, etc) or she could have checked out books/other media and that could be a clue.
 
I sumitted a match in 2014 and received a similar reply:

RE: NamUs UP # 9537

The computer would have HIT on them if there had been a match, sorry

Janet Franson
Regional Systems Administrator
National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)
3500 Camp Bowie Bl.
Ft. Worth, Texas 76107
ORI: TX220035Y
Phone 817-217-7928
E mail : janet.franson@unthsc.edu
Web: www.untfsu.com

Maybe. I previously thought that the fact she is still on Namus means definitely no. But through researching another websleuths case I found three missing women in a row who are on Namus and also simultaneously alive and well on social media. So I am no longer sure how up to date they really keep Namus.

These two posts give me a little bit of concern. If the system is automated enough that entries are automatically screened & compared then it should be automated enough to quickly remove or update people who are no longer missing? Am I missing something here? I suppose that if someone was willingly "missing" but easily found on social media, that perhaps the family would contact someone to let them know? Or perhaps some sort of US social security use index- say, this person is apparently working 4 states over, either they aren't missing or we have some identity fraud to investigate. That kind of thing. Just caught my attention, I have been working two jobs so I don't have any time to research at the moment. But I am trying to keep up with reading & hopefully have a little more time to work on some thoughts soon!
 
I'll have to dig into Ancestry's terms of service and find out if they delete family trees once a user stops paying for access.

They don't delete them. I've had membership on and off for years, and my trees are still there.
 
These two posts give me a little bit of concern. If the system is automated enough that entries are automatically screened & compared then it should be automated enough to quickly remove or update people who are no longer missing? Am I missing something here? I suppose that if someone was willingly "missing" but easily found on social media, that perhaps the family would contact someone to let them know? Or perhaps some sort of US social security use index- say, this person is apparently working 4 states over, either they aren't missing or we have some identity fraud to investigate. That kind of thing. Just caught my attention, I have been working two jobs so I don't have any time to research at the moment. But I am trying to keep up with reading & hopefully have a little more time to work on some thoughts soon!
I know, I was shocked. One of the cases is a girl who has lived in group homes so her family may not be actively involved, and maybe the police don't have the time or resources to keep updating Namus. Not sure. But my point I guess is that just because FLEK is on Namus, doesn't mean she hasn't been id'd.

Having said that, the response I got from the Gregg County sheriff indicates the case is still open. I think if it were closed and she had been identified they would have said? Rather than giving me the open ended reply that they will 'look into the information I sent'.
 
Okay, then, we'll just need to check all the user names in the appropriate message boards -- YIKES!

IIRC, someone came up with a post that used an email address that Blake used?

(or is this just another Senior Moment....)

:seeya:
 
Okay, then, we'll just need to check all the user names in the appropriate message boards -- YIKES!

IIRC, someone came up with a post that used an email address that Blake used?

(or is this just another Senior Moment....)

:seeya:

I found an account on Ancestry that matches the timeline that FLEK would have used it. This user joined Ancestry in Feb 2008, made an extensive family tree and the last time anything was added was in 2010. It has 1000's of pictures and though I'm still looking, I don't find anything added after 2010. The tree is public and though it has the Ruff ancestors in there somewhere they are not the focus or even closely related to the main family this user was researching. In fact, I had trouble finding them in the tree/figuring out their connection. Ancestry trees have you set a "home" person and if you mark the person as still alive then they do not show any info (except sex) for anyone except the account user. This account starts with a home person that is a woman and both parents were alive at the time the tree was made. Both those parents passed away in 2012 and 2013 (from my researching elsewhere) and the user's tree was NOT updated. SO this strongly leads me to believe the user is also deceased (MOO) or otherwise unable to get access to ancestry to update.

There is something else strange going on with the tree where a person that is the home person is listed as "married" to someone born in 1877. That person's name has been written as "K Living" but obviously they could not still be alive and married to someone likely born in the 1950's or 60's. The user had to have written that name as Living (not ancestry) because I can click on the person and see an attached census record, the last name, DOB, etc is there. I suspect this person was attached as married solely to make a connection between the home person's family tree and the Ruff's that was not too obvious. However I am having difficulty proving my hypothesis--the Ruff's are VERY hard to find in this huge tree. Also, I'm having trouble finding out the name of the home person. I need help if anyone else has an Ancestry account. I will PM the account name/link to the account I'm looking at.
 
I found an account on Ancestry that matches the timeline that FLEK would have used it. This user joined Ancestry in Feb 2008, made an extensive family tree and the last time anything was added was in 2010. It has 1000's of pictures and though I'm still looking, I don't find anything added after 2010. The tree is public and though it has the Ruff ancestors in there somewhere they are not the focus or even closely related to the main family this user was researching. In fact, I had trouble finding them in the tree/figuring out their connection. Ancestry trees have you set a "home" person and if you mark the person as still alive then they do not show any info (except sex) for anyone except the account user. This account starts with a home person that is a woman and both parents were alive at the time the tree was made. Both those parents passed away in 2012 and 2013 (from my researching elsewhere) and the user's tree was NOT updated. SO this strongly leads me to believe the user is also deceased (MOO) or otherwise unable to get access to ancestry to update.

There is something else strange going on with the tree where a person that is the home person is listed as "married" to someone born in 1877. That person's name has been written as "K Living" but obviously they could not still be alive and married to someone likely born in the 1950's or 60's. The user had to have written that name as Living (not ancestry) because I can click on the person and see an attached census record, the last name, DOB, etc is there. I suspect this person was attached as married solely to make a connection between the home person's family tree and the Ruff's that was not too obvious. However I am having difficulty proving my hypothesis--the Ruff's are VERY hard to find in this huge tree. Also, I'm having trouble finding out the name of the home person. I need help if anyone else has an Ancestry account. I will PM the account name/link to the account I'm looking at.

I found the person that is set to the home person for this account and she was alive and posting on social media in 2012. So there goes my theory she is FLEK. I also found her yearbook photo and she is not a match to FLEK. SO, disregard the above request for help. I'm back to following other leads.
 
In the 13th and 14th rows of pictures, there are three girls with distinctly different tops from the rest of the pictures. I don't know if it was a fashion thing back then, but the tops seem ultraconservative compared to the rest.

From memory, they were quite fashionable in the UK around that time. In fact I seem to recall that ruffled shirts and blouses were a regular style for Princess Diana during the earliest years of her marriage.
 
Just a warning- this is kind of a long winded blurb of my thoughts of the past couple days. Like I said, I've been working like crazy, so this is not organized or as thorough as I would like, but I just thought I'd put it out there. You've been warned! :bud:

Bringing this idea over from the Ben Perkins discussion... Looking at her striped shirt in the Idaho ID and putting together that Perkins is also the name of a chain diner, there was speculation that maybe a lead could be found in looking at vintage uniforms. I don't know how far anyone else looked, but I looked pretty extensively and didn't have any luck. McDonalds tops were close, but the pattern of the stripes were off.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c5/f6/40/c5f6404fb2284622744e69622a5950c6.jpg

That got me thinking about what kind of work she did. If the stripping story is true, what did she do with all that money? Some estimates I have seen for income potential range from $500 to $3-4000 per night! If she worked 2 nights a week earning the minimum range, that is still $4000 of tax free money a month. We know she was in school part of the time, but she didn't rush through school (enrolled in 1989, graduated in 1997 with a bachelors). That is attending part time, taking summers off or attending full time, but taking years off. What else was she doing with all that free time?

Do we know when she left Dallas Community and enrolled in U of T at Arlington?

How much of her education did she finance through student loans? If it was 100%, then seriously, where was that $4000 a month (MINIMUM) going? She didn't drive a flashy car, Honda or something, right? Nice cars, but subtle, reliable, and practical. Strikes me as she was the type that didn't flash money around. There are people who keep their money out of sight, and these are usually people who have grown up comfortable but careful with money, or learned a hard lesson like a big stockbroker failure (dad- her story from Scottsdale). The people that could afford to cruise around in something sporty and fun, but know the value of a more durable car.

The more I think about her decisions, the reported social awkwardness, and the sometimes really intelligent things she did I think she definitely was on the ADD or Aspergers spectrum. Maybe she was blowing all her money on coke? Maybe she was sending cash to siblings that were out in the world on their own, or still at "home" trying to get themselves out (LDS/Cult/big controlling family theories).

Sorry for the brain dump!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
3,362
Total visitors
3,441

Forum statistics

Threads
604,346
Messages
18,170,955
Members
232,420
Latest member
Txwoman
Back
Top