UID Victim: The Female Toddler, UP9704, found Gilgo Beach Apr 2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

The toddler's remains were found earlier this year close to the location of Jane Doe No. 6 but authorities say there was no connection between the two. In fact, DNA linked the toddler, who was between 16 months and 32 months of age, to another unidentified female victim whose remains were found seven miles away in April. Police said it was likely that the two were mother and child.
Click to expand...

Source CNN
 
A female, non-Caucasian toddler thought to be 16 to 32 months old, who was also found April 4, is a blood relative of another woman found 7 miles away in Nassau County on April 11 near Jones Beach. "It is likely that these two individuals are mother and child," Dormer said.
Police released images of hoop earrings and a rope necklace worn by the toddler, as well as two bracelets found with her adult relative. The bracelets are both gold in color, and have a pattern of Xs embedded with stones that resemble diamonds. The woman and child are believed to have been dead one to five years before their discovery.
Click to expand...

Source Newsday

This would put the child between the ages of 16 months and 32 months during the years 2006 to 2011 when the child died.

This makes the toddler victim much younger than Sabrina Beck and their time of death is many years after Sabrina and Yvette went missing.

Sorry. It cannot be them.
 
Lets stop trying to prove the next person wrong! FOCUS...esp on this thread... on trying to ID this tiny baby! Get mad if you want to...and if you do...you are not focused on what this thread is all about...the child victim!
 
Seaslug44 said:
Source Newsday

This would put the child between the ages of 16 months and 32 months during the years 2006 to 2011 when the child died.

This makes the toddler victim much younger than Sabrina Beck and their time of death is many years after Sabrina and Yvette went missing.

Sorry. It cannot be them.
Click to expand...

Now that the confusion to which JD is the child's mother, I hope it helps finding their identity.
 
mysterymom7 said:
Now that the confusion to which JD is the child's mother, I hope it helps finding their identity.
Click to expand...

It seems almost like arguing semantics to me. We all know who we are speaking of...they are NOT a number they have names...It's more important to find their names...than to spend time figuring out what number they are! JMHO
 
It's not about being correct or winning an arguement. It's about maintaining the integrity of the data/facts of the case and respecting not just the victims of this case but also the families of people like Sabrena and Yvette.

This case is extremely complex.

I get it.

But don't you think we owe it to the families of people like Sabrena and Yvette to research the facts before posting their names in connection with this case?

Just imagine the anxiety attack and emotional outburst that would be experienced by one of their family members if a Google search of Sabrena and Yvette's names turns up results that suggest that they both could have been a victim of the LISK?

Then imagine the anger that would overcome them when they later learn that the information was posted in error because the author confused a Jane Doe who died in 2000 with one who died some time between 2006 to 2010 as well as confusing a toddler who died at age one or two at a time when Sabrena Beck would have been between the ages of seven and twelve.

Seriously... there is absolutely no indication that either Sabrena or Yvette are dead. Even the FBI states that it is very likely that they fled to Spain or France. To suggest that either of them fell victim to a serial killer is a horrible, horrible thought to put out there for all the world to read on the internet. Doing it with facts that don't even support the theory is just wrong in so many more ways.

It's very nice to continue to search for an identity for the toddler. It's just not so nice to do it in a reckless manner that could be emotionally shocking and hurtful to the families of missing victims who have absolutely no ties to this case and who don't fit the proper age/time frame to even be considered one of the UID victims of this killer.

If you want to sleuth missing people, toddlers, and every woman on America's Most wanted list of fugitives privately then by all means go for it. But just be responsible before rushing to publically post those missing person's names in connection with a serial killer case. Please be mindful of the pain, confusion, false hopes and anger it can cause to those who loved and are still in anguish for those who are missing.
 
Seaslug44 said:
It's not about being correct or winning an arguement. It's about maintaining the integrity of the data/facts of the case and respecting not just the victims of this case but also the families of people like Sabrena and Yvette.

This case is extremely complex.

I get it.

But don't you think we owe it to the families of people like Sabrena and Yvette to research the facts before posting their names in connection with this case?

Just imagine the anxiety attack and emotional outburst that would be experienced by one of their family members if a Google search of Sabrena and Yvette's names turns up results that suggest that they both could have been a victim of the LISK?

Then imagine the anger that would overcome them when they later learn that the information was posted in error because the author confused a Jane Doe who died in 2000 with one who died some time between 2006 to 2010 as well as confusing a toddler who died at age one or two at a time when Sabrena Beck would have been between the ages of seven and twelve.

Seriously... there is absolutely no indication that either Sabrena or Yvette are dead. Even the FBI states that it is very likely that they fled to Spain or France. To suggest that either of them fell victim to a serial killer is a horrible, horrible thought to put out there for all the world to read on the internet. Doing it with facts that don't even support the theory is just wrong in so many more ways.

It's very nice to continue to search for an identity for the toddler. It's just not so nice to do it in a reckless manner that could be emotionally shocking and hurtful to the families of missing victims who have absolutely no ties to this case and who don't fit the proper age/time frame to even be considered one of the UID victims of this killer.

If you want to sleuth missing people, toddlers, and every woman on America's Most wanted list of fugitives privately then by all means go for it. But just be responsible before rushing to publically post those missing person's names in connection with a serial killer case. Please be mindful of the pain, confusion, false hopes and anger it can cause to those who loved and are still in anguish for those who are missing.
Click to expand...

Great point! I meant no malice in posting their names. It was also more than just the sketch that brought their names to the forefront to me. While Baby Doe and JD#10 might not be these 2 in particular, JD#6 fits the description of this particular missing mother. This particular child may be in another location, or may be alive and well. I only want to give a name to the UI. Like I said, now that the confusion of which JD is the toddler's mother, it will hopefully help find their identities. I still believe it's most likely a parental abduction case.
 
I don't understand why they cannot ID this baby. This is the one part of this case that really, really makes me sick. Someone somewhere must have reported this child missing right?
 
Not if they killed the only relative the baby had....IE its mother.

I doubt the father was around, or we would have heard about it.
 
LINative13 said:
Not if they killed the only relative the baby had....IE its mother.

I doubt the father was around, or we would have heard about it.
Click to expand...

Unless the father believes the mother just abducted the child... As a parent, that fate is a much better one than the former.
 
:maddening:
WI1987 said:
I don't understand why they cannot ID this baby. This is the one part of this case that really, really makes me sick. Someone somewhere must have reported this child missing right?
Click to expand...

It might help if LE released a sketch of the child, together with her wearing her earrings. Also a picture/description of her blanket and any other items she may have been found with (shoes, clothing, a toy).
 
NoviceSleuth said:
:maddening:

It might help if LE released a sketch of the child, together with her wearing her earrings. Also a picture/description of her blanket and any other items she may have been found with (shoes, clothing, a toy).
Click to expand...

Why they haven't done a facial reconstruction and sketch is a huge mystery and not releasing pictures of all the items found with the dead...after all this time...just seems irresponsible.
 
LINative13 said:
Not if they killed the only relative the baby had....IE its mother.

I doubt the father was around, or we would have heard about it.
Click to expand...
That's one of the possibilities I was thinking, that the baby was born while the killer was holding the mother. It makes me sick to think about things like that :banghead:
 
From what was reported, we hear from AD that SG had a few abortions. We know that MW & MBB were mothers. I have wondered if all of the women (JT, GB4, UIDs) visited the same women's clinic or had abortions. Maybe it is a med tech or receptionist/aide at a clinic or a nurse.
 
WI1987 said:
That's one of the possibilities I was thinking, that the baby was born while the killer was holding the mother. It makes me sick to think about things like that :banghead:
Click to expand...

The thing is, Baby Doe was between 16 and 32 months, relatively 1.5-3 years old. My guess is that they say that because her 3 year molars hadn't come in, yet. Not every child gets their 3 year molars at exactly 3 years. It could be 3.5-4 years old before they come in. There's a set of molars that come in around 2 years. So, I wouldn't hold out the possibility that she could be slightly older than 3, maybe up to 4 years.
 
PreciousDust said:
Most stories I see about the toddler identify her as between 18 and 24 months old:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20109432-504083.html

The average height of a 24-month old female ranges from 31.5 to 36 inches:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/233730-what-is-the-average-weight-height-for-toddlers/

According to your links, that girl was 55 months old when she disappeared, and 40 inches tall.
Click to expand...

I've read between 16-36 months. The reason I believe they may have said that is because of the 3 yr molars, which may not come in until 4 yrs+.
 
PreciousDust said:
Most stories I see about the toddler identify her as between 18 and 24 months old:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20109432-504083.html

The average height of a 24-month old female ranges from 31.5 to 36 inches:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/233730-what-is-the-average-weight-height-for-toddlers/

According to your links, that girl was 55 months old when she disappeared, and 40 inches tall.
Click to expand...

I called it in to SCPD Homicide. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... If I'm right, the victims have a name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 2,992 (members: 123, guests: 2,869)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
2,869
Total visitors
2,992
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,915
Messages
18,101,514
Members
230,955
Latest member
ClueCrusader
Back
Top