FL Bronson, Levy County- Black Female, 18-50 - UP153350- July 7, 1978

[PatLaurel]

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Circumstances of Recovery: Partial skeletal remains were found in a wooded area near Bronson, FL.

0 Missing Person Exclusions

 

[iulia]

https://www.doenetwork.org/cases//software/main.html?id=1661UFFL

Cause of Death: Unknown; possible homicide

Dentals: Poor dental health with destruction of one crown by caries, several abscesses; no evidence of dental treatment
Fingerprints: Unavailable
DNA: Unavailable

Circumstances of Discovery

A skull and other human bones were discovered in a remote area north of U.S. 27, 2.5 miles east of Bronson, by two men picking rosemary bushes. The remains were actually discovered July 12, but went unreported until the men returned home and discussed the matter.

Marks on the skull indicate the decedent may have suffered several blows to the head, which indicated to the investigators she may have been murdered. They further believe the remains were at the site where they were discovered at least 18 months and possibly as long as five years prior to being found. Most of the investigators also believe the entire body was at the scene before the skeleton was disturbed by animals.

The remains discovered consist of the skull, maxilla, clavicle, tibia, and first rib only.

 

[The4TierBridge]

https://www.doenetwork.org/cases//software/main.html?id=1661UFFL

Cause of Death: Unknown; possible homicide

Dentals: Poor dental health with destruction of one crown by caries, several abscesses; no evidence of dental treatment
Fingerprints: Unavailable
DNA: Unavailable

Circumstances of Discovery

A skull and other human bones were discovered in a remote area north of U.S. 27, 2.5 miles east of Bronson, by two men picking rosemary bushes. The remains were actually discovered July 12, but went unreported until the men returned home and discussed the matter.

Marks on the skull indicate the decedent may have suffered several blows to the head, which indicated to the investigators she may have been murdered. They further believe the remains were at the site where they were discovered at least 18 months and possibly as long as five years prior to being found. Most of the investigators also believe the entire body was at the scene before the skeleton was disturbed by animals.

The remains discovered consist of the skull, maxilla, clavicle, tibia, and first rib only.

This case was listed as Identified by Doe Network in 2021 and re-opened only after this new NamUs file was created (this case had never been in NamUs before). The associated FLDE webpage for the Doe Network page listed a discovery date of July 13, not July 7 like the modern NamUs file. Florida Unidentified Decedants Database

I don't know if these are the same case or two different ones found in the same place at similar times, but either way there's some kind of mistake that's happened at some point.

The DN page cites two newspapers with no links. These could help clear up the confusion but I can't find them online
Ocala Star-Banner (Ocala, FL) - Jul. 19, 1978
The Tampa Tribune - Jul. 19, 1978

 

[iulia]

This case was listed as Identified by Doe Network in 2021 and re-opened only after this new NamUs file was created (this case had never been in NamUs before). The associated FLDE webpage for the Doe Network page listed a discovery date of July 13, not July 7 like the modern NamUs file. Florida Unidentified Decedants Database

I don't know if these are the same case or two different ones found in the same place at similar times, but either way there's some kind of mistake that's happened at some point.

The DN page cites two newspapers with no links. These could help clear up the confusion but I can't find them online
Ocala Star-Banner (Ocala, FL) - Jul. 19, 1978
The Tampa Tribune - Jul. 19, 1978

I can't find this case on Doe Network's closed cases from 2021 to 2025. I do find that it's been changed in November 2021 from Hot Case 1029 to 1661UFFL. I am pretty certain it's been up on Doe Network since at least September 2022.

I too noticed the date discrepancy, but the agency case number was the same for both Doe Network 1661UFFL and UP153350 so I submitted a case update to Doe Network for them to add the newly created NamUs profile as a source. IIRC the date before they updated the file was July 13, 1978, which I believe is the correct one. Their circumstances of discovery seem to have been taken from the two newspaper articles, and they state the date of discovery was actually July 12, but was reported later by the people who found the remains. I think Doe Network had the right date, but they changed the date to July 7 in order to match NamUs.

ETA: you can still see the old page using the old Doe Network URL:

1661UFFL

 

[The4TierBridge]

I can't find this case on Doe Network's closed cases from 2021 to 2025. I do find that it's been changed in November 2021 from Hot Case 1029 to 1661UFFL. I am pretty certain it's been up on Doe Network since at least September 2022.

I too noticed the date discrepancy, but the agency case number was the same for both Doe Network 1661UFFL and UP153350 so I submitted a case update to Doe Network for them to add the newly created NamUs profile as a source. IIRC the date before they updated the file was July 13, 1978, which I believe is the correct one. Their circumstances of discovery seem to have been taken from the two newspaper articles, and they state the date of discovery was actually July 12, but was reported later by the people who found the remains. I think Doe Network had the right date, but they changed the date to July 7 in order to match NamUs.

ETA: you can still see the old page using the old Doe Network URL:

1661UFFL

You appear to be right. Could you link the versions of the articles you found if able? Thank you for your time.

 

[iulia]

You appear to be right. Could you link the versions of the articles you found if able? Thank you for your time.

I don't have an paid account on newspapers.com, unfortunately. It was just my assumption that DN took their information from those two articles, as their other cited source, FLUIDDB, didn't offer all the details that they wrote in the circumstances field. Hopefully someone with an active account can dig in a bit.. @PatLaurel can you take a look?

 

[PatLaurel]

You appear to be right. Could you link the versions of the articles you found if able? Thank you for your time.

I don't have an paid account on newspapers.com, unfortunately. It was just my assumption that DN took their information from those two articles, as their other cited source, FLUIDDB, didn't offer all the details that they wrote in the circumstances field. Hopefully someone with an active account can dig in a bit.. @PatLaurel can you take a look?

UP153350

 

[iulia]

UP153350

That was fast, thank you very much!