AZ AZ - New River, UnkRace/UnkAge/UnkGender, calotte (skullcap) in desert found by cadaver dog, #UP103540, Apr ‘23

[EmiliaRT007]

Here’s the unknown Doe since I forgot to post about them yesterday! Sorry for the delay guys.

On April 19, 2023, in New River, Arizona, a human calotte was found. The calotte is the upper portion of the skullcap that protects the brain, ears and eyes. The rest of their body has not been located.

We know nothing. Just that only the calotte was found and that it was found by a cadaver dog in the desert.

 

[iulia]

Per Maricopa County ME their DNA is available, however the sex cannot be determined.

- Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner Unidentified Persons Bureau

NamUs #UP103540: The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

 

[EmiliaRT007]

Per Maricopa County ME their DNA is available, however the sex cannot be determined.

- Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner Unidentified Persons Bureau

NamUs #UP103540: The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Even with the DNA? I’m guessing insufficient DNA for profiling.

 

[iulia]

Even with the DNA? I’m guessing insufficient DNA for profiling.

That struck me as add too. At first I thought there is a sample available and/or submitted and the results have returned yet. But it says "DNA on file at OME", so that would mean to me that the results are back. Would the DNA results be back in a month?

 

[EmiliaRT007]

That struck me as add too. At first I thought there is a sample available and/or submitted and the results have returned yet. But it says "DNA on file at OME", so that would mean to me that the results are back. Would the DNA results be back in a month?

I’m not sure. I’m not an expert on DNA but this might be different than when you do an at home DNA test on yourself. Usually those results come back in a couple weeks IIRC.

 

[EmiliaRT007]

Here’s what I’m thinking about the DNA. Since only one bone was found they cannot get a conclusive DNA profile. They have to probably go back to that desert and find more bones, and then they bring them back to the lab. They can then take some DNA from the bones and compare them to this individual. If the other bones in fact belong to them, then they can eventually get enough DNA to make a profile and determine some things about them.

They should have probably looked at the size of the bone to check since children have smaller bones than adults. But it’s harder with children. Are we talking about a two year old or a ten year old? That makes it harder. I’m sure we can tell the difference between, say the bone of a 5 year old and the bone of a 20 year old, but the bone of a 15 year old and the bone of a 20 year old OTOH would be the same size.

I think that they should go back to the desert and recover more bones and compare them to the calotte. If it’s the same individual they can create a profile for them. But here’s the problem we don’t know if they died a month ago, a year ago, a decade ago, or perhaps a century ago. We would probably have to look at the patina on the bone, which may tell us some clues. If they died 1 year ago we can get some good DNA, but if they died a hundred years ago the DNA would be very degraded.

 

[RickshawFan]

Here’s what I’m thinking about the DNA. Since only one bone was found they cannot get a conclusive DNA profile. They have to probably go back to that desert and find more bones, and then they bring them back to the lab. They can then take some DNA from the bones and compare them to this individual. If the other bones in fact belong to them, then they can eventually get enough DNA to make a profile and determine some things about them.

They should have probably looked at the size of the bone to check since children have smaller bones than adults. But it’s harder with children. Are we talking about a two year old or a ten year old? That makes it harder. I’m sure we can tell the difference between, say the bone of a 5 year old and the bone of a 20 year old, but the bone of a 15 year old and the bone of a 20 year old OTOH would be the same size.

I think that they should go back to the desert and recover more bones and compare them to the calotte. If it’s the same individual they can create a profile for them. But here’s the problem we don’t know if they died a month ago, a year ago, a decade ago, or perhaps a century ago. We would probably have to look at the patina on the bone, which may tell us some clues. If they died 1 year ago we can get some good DNA, but if they died a hundred years ago the DNA would be very degraded.

But...a child's skull bones don't bond together entirely far into teens (?), and a two-year-old's skull bones would look entirely different from an older child. If they have the outer border of a skull cap, maybe a forensic anthropologist can get the age.

 

[EmiliaRT007]

But...a child's skull bones don't bond together entirely far into teens (?), and a two-year-old's skull bones would look entirely different from an older child. If they have the outer border of a skull cap, maybe a forensic anthropologist can get the age.

Oh! It’s been a hot minute since I looked at some skulls. The most I knew was that the fontanelles close up at like 18 months I believe.

 

[John/Jane Doe]

The age range cannot be determined so these remains could have belonged to any person of any age.

 

[EmiliaRT007]

The age range cannot be determined so these remains could have belonged to any person of any age.

I was thinking they could estimate based on the size and development of the remains.

 

[Molly's Mom]

I was thinking they could estimate based on the size and development of the remains.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course, I am not an expert either. But, there is a difference, as you said earlier. The fontanelles are not completely closed until later in life so they should have a rough estimate of age. Also, I'm assuming it's not an infant as that should be obvious by the skull cap.

 

[EmiliaRT007]

That's what I'm thinking. Of course, I am not an expert either. But, there is a difference, as you said earlier. The fontanelles are not completely closed until later in life so they should have a rough estimate of age. Also, I'm assuming it's not an infant as that should be obvious by the skull cap.

Yeah so we can rule out anything from age 0-2. Meaning this individual was 2-99. 2 wide to be a good age estimate!

 

[Molly's Mom]

Yeah so we can rule out anything from age 0-2. Meaning this individual was 2-99. 2 wide to be a good age estimate!

So we ARE experts! LOL J/K!

 

[EmiliaRT007]

So we ARE experts! LOL J/K!

I knew my armchair detective work would pay off! I’ve been into Doe cases since I was ten. I know a thing or two

 

[kccorona]

We know nothing. Just that only the calotte was found and that it was found by a cadaver dog in the desert.

At first, when I read the initial post, my first thought was why the cadaver dog was being used in the first place- i.e. was it out looking for a missing person, conducting a training exercise, etc? But reading the posted release from OME, it says it was a dog, not designated as cadaver or otherwise. Wonder if it was just a hiker out w their pup who happened upon this skull cap? Or maybe there’s more news/articles that detail the circumstances of this discovery.

As far as the remains, with this limited amount to go on, I wonder if they will be able to tell how long the calotte has been out in the elements. Seems that *may* be easier to determine than age of deceased, but I have no actual idea if that’s true.

 

[EmiliaRT007]

At first, when I read the initial post, my first thought was why the cadaver dog was being used in the first place- i.e. was it out looking for a missing person, conducting a training exercise, etc? But reading the posted release from OME, it says it was a dog, not designated as cadaver or otherwise. Wonder if it was just a hiker out w their pup who happened upon this skull cap? Or maybe there’s more news/articles that detail the circumstances of this discovery.

As far as the remains, with this limited amount to go on, I wonder if they will be able to tell how long the calotte has been out in the elements. Seems that *may* be easier to determine than age of deceased, but I have no actual idea if that’s true.

Oh. That in fact you’re right about. I was thinking of a cadaver dog.

Whelp, I tried searching for some news but didn’t find anything. Usually I don’t see anything about UIDs on the news unless it’s a child. And usually it’s just a body found in the search for a missing child.

Maybe it could tell us a little bit, yes, finding out how long the calotte was exposed to the elements.