Identified! CA - Sacramento, WhtFem UP2382, 45-60, living photo, alias names, Sep'91 - Dorothy A. Sandusky

  • #41
Some things are a bit off and her chin is not good visible, but could she be this woman? This lady had mental issues and an appendix scar. She was born in 1937.

I noticed the UID had almost a square chin, very pronounced cupid, she has a heavy ridge above her eyes. Almost aboriginal traits. UID is estimated to be 45 - 60. That would mean she was born between approx. 1931 - 1946.





View attachment 390868
I think it might be a pretty interesting potential match, I hope you'll submit it.
 
  • #42
Some things are a bit off and her chin is not good visible, but could she be this woman? This lady had mental issues and an appendix scar. She was born in 1937.

I noticed the UID had almost a square chin, very pronounced cupid, she has a heavy ridge above her eyes. Almost aboriginal traits. UID is estimated to be 45 - 60. That would mean she was born between approx. 1931 - 1946.





View attachment 390868
The height is pretty far off - the UID was quite a tall woman. But I do see the rest of it adding up and can see the facial resemblance. I think you should submit it.
 
  • #43
The height is pretty far off - the UID was quite a tall woman. But I do see the rest of it adding up and can see the facial resemblance. I think you should submit it.
Yes, the height is a bit confusing. Namus states 5'11 but the Sacramento coroners file states 5'1 1/2. See up-thread #33 and #35. Btw. I notified the Namus contact about this discrepancy and kindly asked her to check that with the coroner/LE.
 
  • #44
As we all say, anything is possible! She does have a similar look but I'm thinking the photo of the mp was not a recent one.
I wonder when LE had their first contact with the UID?
Two years is quite a short period of time to lose all of your top teeth, have a denture made and lose most of your bottom teeth. Not impossible but I'm thinking if she had been living unhoused in that time and transient, not to mention mix in the mental illness, its highly unlikely that in those two years she was seeing a dentist.
I do however see similarities between both these women, so for that reason alone I would submit. We could quite easily be wrong but just as easily be right.
 
  • #45
pixlr_20221231154530113.jpg I think the lips and brow look very similar.
 
  • #46
Some things are a bit off and her chin is not good visible, but could she be this woman? This lady had mental issues and an appendix scar. She was born in 1937.

I noticed the UID had almost a square chin, very pronounced cupid, she has a heavy ridge above her eyes. Almost aboriginal traits. UID is estimated to be 45 - 60. That would mean she was born between approx. 1931 - 1946.





View attachment 390868

Please submit this. I am convinced it is the same woman. Well done.
 
  • #47
Some things are a bit off and her chin is not good visible, but could she be this woman? This lady had mental issues and an appendix scar. She was born in 1937.

I noticed the UID had almost a square chin, very pronounced cupid, she has a heavy ridge above her eyes. Almost aboriginal traits. UID is estimated to be 45 - 60. That would mean she was born between approx. 1931 - 1946.





View attachment 390868
Here is Gloria Gerber's thread:

 
  • #48
  • #49
Bumping for this lady. It's one of those cases I think about from time to time and it would be fantastic to see her identified.
 
  • #50
Some things are a bit off and her chin is not good visible, but could she be this woman? This lady had mental issues and an appendix scar. She was born in 1937.

I noticed the UID had almost a square chin, very pronounced cupid, she has a heavy ridge above her eyes. Almost aboriginal traits. UID is estimated to be 45 - 60. That would mean she was born between approx. 1931 - 1946.





View attachment 390868

@Bit of hope

Did you ever submit this?
 
  • #51
Bumping for this lady again, in three weeks it will be 32 years since she was found.

A few months ago I did some research online about this case (I'm in the UK) and waited a couple of months to see if there were any developments, but as of now she is still viewable on NAMUS and on the Sacramento County Coroner's website, so I presume she remains unidentified. I've also looked for her on the Doe Network but didn't manage to find her (doesn't mean she isn't there of course!)

There is a large difference in the lady's height between those two sites, Sacramento County says 5' 1 1/2" and NAMUS says 5' 11", NAMUS also says measured so thinking this is the right one? (I did consider contacting Sacramento County to clarify this, but as I'm in the UK and very much a novice when it comes to the unidentified, am unsure of the appropriate way to go about things. Also someone else posting here may have already enquired).

As per post #1 that states her DNA tests are complete, does this mean she would be eligible to suggest as a case to @othram for their help? Again, not sure if this is appropriate or not.

I think about this case from time to time and it would be great to see her go home.

Any thoughts, advice would be appreciated!
 
Last edited:
  • #52
  • #53
  • #54
  • #55
  • #56
Last edited:
  • #57
I don't know why I didn't notice this before. Her face is quite long and large. If her reported height and shoe size are correct she was way above the size of an average woman. Could she have had acromegaly? If her appearance was altered by the condition it would be much more difficult to make a comparison. I wish we could see her hands in that photo! The autopsy makes no notation of anything outside of the range of normal (e.g. pituitary tumor) but as we know, the quality of autopsy and the reported information can vary greatly.

Here's an example: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...to-diagnosis-Note-This-article_fig3_235381204
 
  • #58
Hi, I found this link to Sacramento County re: her case:


Hopefully that works OK.
 
  • #59
  • #60
I don't know why I didn't notice this before. Her face is quite long and large. If her reported height and shoe size are correct she was way above the size of an average woman. Could she have had acromegaly? If her appearance was altered by the condition it would be much more difficult to make a comparison. I wish we could see her hands in that photo! The autopsy makes no notation of anything outside of the range of normal (e.g. pituitary tumor) but as we know, the quality of autopsy and the reported information can vary greatly.

Here's an example: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...to-diagnosis-Note-This-article_fig3_235381204
Interesting. Never heard of it. It bothers me that there is still a big difference between the height mentioned in the Namus file and on the Sacramento coroner's file (5'11 and 5'1 1/2.

I did send an email to the Namus contact, asking attention for the discrepancy in both files and suggested Gloria Faye Farber as a possible match.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
2,732
Total visitors
2,880

Forum statistics

Threads
633,200
Messages
18,637,868
Members
243,444
Latest member
PhillyKid91
Back
Top