Identified! MS - Pascagoula, WhtFem Child 45UFMS "Delta Dawn", 1-3, Dog River @I-10, Dec'82 - Alisha Heinrich

[Still_Seek_Answers]

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children posted a different composite of this little girl --

http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMU/1103997/1#poster

She's such a pretty little girl -- it seems like someone should be able to remember her and who she is.

Thank you. Yes, I know they posted the new composite. That is where I saw her case at. I still feel y'all were onto something and that she needs checked against Brandi. Worst case, we get a rule out.

I'd really like to know if police ever located the trucker and were able to question him. His story is, IMO, more full of holes than a waffle ball.

 

[Sleuthster]

Namus file https://identifyus.org/en/cases/12191

 

[carbuff]

A somewhat late comment, but depending on currents in a body of water, and slight differences in where two bodies might have gone in, they could drift a considerable distance apart. There's also considerable weight difference between the two, which would increase the differences. I would think most likely the mother, being heavier, sank deeper and was snagged on something that prevented her from being found. Dragging, even when a thorough job is done, isn't very accurate.

I agree the truck driver's story sounds, um, questionable.

edited to add: looking on the map, I'm not sure what to think. Escatawpa is upstream from the I-10 bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/1e91n Does anybody know if the river is tidal there, so bodies could be pushed upstream by the tides?

 

[sloane7777]

Well from everything I have read ( except Herrings confession) The reports of the woman in distress and not wanting help , sounds like a murder -suicide to me , sadly! Did the ever determine if the womans body was recovered and just lost or not recovered?

 

[carbuff]

Well from everything I have read ( except Herrings confession) The reports of the woman in distress and not wanting help , sounds like a murder -suicide to me , sadly! Did the ever determine if the womans body was recovered and just lost or not recovered?

Yeah, that's possible also, sadly.

Doenet indicates that it's unclear whether the mother's body was recovered. Most likely not, is my guess, because I think if it had, it would be mentioned. Mother and daughter found, that sort of thing.

 

[Ambercat]

Thank you. Yes, I know they posted the new composite. That is where I saw her case at. I still feel y'all were onto something and that she needs checked against Brandi. Worst case, we get a rule out.

I'd really like to know if police ever located the trucker and were able to question him. His story is, IMO, more full of holes than a waffle ball.

That was the first time I saw it (last Friday). Each of the reconstructions of this girl look like a completely different child to me. While it wouldn't hurt to check to see if she is Brandi, I have doubts because of the distance between San Bernardino County, CA and Pascagoula, MS and there are quite a few places to hide a body in the California desert, you don't need to go that far.

From the trucker's description of the lady's clothing, I wonder if he saw her jump from the bridge (instead of seeing her in the river below)? [Just IMO] I don't think he would have called it in if it was his fault that she was down there.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

That was the first time I saw it (last Friday). Each of the reconstructions of this girl look like a completely different child to me. While it wouldn't hurt to check to see if she is Brandi, I have doubts because of the distance between San Bernardino County, CA and Pascagoula, MS and there are quite a few places to hide a body in the California desert, you don't need to go that far.

From the trucker's description of the lady's clothing, I wonder if he saw her jump from the bridge (instead of seeing her in the river below)? [Just IMO] I don't think he would have called it in if it was his fault that she was down there.

Sorry, but I just am not buying into this truckers tail. He saw the body of a woman, while driving over a bridge in his truck? He saw her clear enough to describe her clothing? Yet, in all these years, her body has not turned up anywhere?
I have never seen anybody drift upstream. I think maybe he took advantage of a situation. The woman's body was never found, what evidence is it to say she jumped? (Not accusing, only speculating)

 

[carbuff]

A body will move upstream in a tidal river, especially a sluggish one. The tide pushes it a little farther upstream each cycle.

 

[Ambercat]

Sorry, but I just am not buying into this truckers tail. He saw the body of a woman, while driving over a bridge in his truck? He saw her clear enough to describe her clothing? Yet, in all these years, her body has not turned up anywhere?
I have never seen anybody drift upstream. I think maybe he took advantage of a situation. The woman's body was never found, what evidence is it to say she jumped? (Not accusing, only speculating)

I'm not saying that I believe it; what I am saying is that to describe her clothing like that, I think he had to see her prior to her entering the river. I guess he could have also encountered her earlier in his trip (at a rest stop or something like that). I don't know about Mississippi, but some states have laws about failing to aid a person in distress and things of that nature (which could be a reason for the trucker to say he saw a dead body as opposed to the woman before she entered the river/was in the process of entering the water). I think sometimes long haul truckers would take uppers so that they could travel longer distances (currently, there is legislation to try to curb this). Do you know how long after he saw the body that he reported it? IMO, the trucker might be hiding something but I really don't see why someone would call in a dead body if they were the one who put it there especially if no one else knew that it was there (and bring attention to himself).

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

I'm not saying that I believe it; what I am saying is that to describe her clothing like that, I think he had to see her prior to her entering the river. I guess he could have also encountered her earlier in his trip (at a rest stop or something like that). I don't know about Mississippi, but some states have laws about failing to aid a person in distress and things of that nature (which could be a reason for the trucker to say he saw a dead body as opposed to the woman before she entered the river/was in the process of entering the water). I think sometimes long haul truckers would take uppers so that they could travel longer distances (currently, there is legislation to try to curb this). Do you know how long after he saw the body that he reported it? IMO, the trucker might be hiding something but I really don't see why someone would call in a dead body if they were the one who put it there especially if no one else knew that it was there (and bring attention to himself).

That is if the woman's body was ever in the river. We know several people saw the woman along the road. WE know it went over the CB radio, the area she was in and what she was wearing. Only one person ever saw her in the river. I know bodies can get lost in the water. Every thing past that we only have one persons view on.

 

[traacker13]

I know that the heights/weight estimate is off for this possibility but this is the closest that I could find. What does anyone think about this possibly being Jackie Dene Hay?

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/200dfks.html

 

[carbuff]

A friend of mine who drives a truck says yes, it's quite likely a truck driver might have seen a body that nobody else noticed. In the cab of a truck, you sit up way high, she says, and you can look over the railings that block the view for a car. If it was daylight, he might well have been able to get a good look at her.

Cell phones weren't around that much in 1982. If he didn't have a CB radio--they were common, but not every trucker had one--he would have had to drive to an exit or truck stop to find a phone before he could report it.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

A friend of mine who drives a truck says yes, it's quite likely a truck driver might have seen a body that nobody else noticed. In the cab of a truck, you sit up way high, she says, and you can look over the railings that block the view for a car. If it was daylight, he might well have been able to get a good look at her.

Cell phones weren't around that much in 1982. If he didn't have a CB radio--they were common, but not every trucker had one--he would have had to drive to an exit or truck stop to find a phone before he could report it.

I have no doubt that he could have seen her. My brother drove for years, and I know the view is much different. I just find all the circumstances as odd. A trucker with no CB, that would have been very very weird. Guess I just wonder if the police found him......and if his story stayed the same. I find it odd that they did not find a trace of her body. Also, my dad was an over the road trucker for years, back then truckers just had certain rules they followed. If he had pulled over, a fellow trucker would have stopped and offered assistance. Just curious if they got to follow up with him after all these years.

 

[honesty]

I'm not saying that I believe it; what I am saying is that to describe her clothing like that, I think he had to see her prior to her entering the river. I guess he could have also encountered her earlier in his trip (at a rest stop or something like that). I don't know about Mississippi, but some states have laws about failing to aid a person in distress and things of that nature (which could be a reason for the trucker to say he saw a dead body as opposed to the woman before she entered the river/was in the process of entering the water). I think sometimes long haul truckers would take uppers so that they could travel longer distances (currently, there is legislation to try to curb this). Do you know how long after he saw the body that he reported it? IMO, the trucker might be hiding something but I really don't see why someone would call in a dead body if they were the one who put it there especially if no one else knew that it was there (and bring attention to himself).

Back when this happened, the driver could have been high on something, BUT... In today's times it is unlikely. I don't know what you mean by some legislation to curb truckers taking uppers.... I have driven a truck for over 20 years, managed a company for 12, I take random drug tests, and to be quite frank, there are less truckers using drugs than there are people on the streets using per capita. Truckers not only has to wiz in a cup, they also at times have to blow for alcohol testing. EVERY trucking company is part of a drug consortium and a high percentage of numbers are drawn randomly each quarter, so many are drawn for urine testing, so many are drawn for both urine and breath testing. Truck drivers are more regulated on MANY levels, not just drug testing, they must pass a physical that has higher standards than a airline pilot, they are also computer tracked and logged these days. Some companies have cams In the cab to ensure they are not using their telephone while driving and a front facing cam to record accidents etc. In a few years all trucks will have OBR's or they will not be able to get insurance or be allowed to keep their operating authority and DOT numbers, ALL these things I have talked about including the testing for drugs and alcohol are regulated by the FMCSA. Each company not only files quarterly with the FMSCA but the state DOT comes and looks at their records at will anytime, no advance notice required.

I know these things because when I retired I became certified for reasonable suspicion testing, I freelance as a broker who sets up companies, I properly put their files together and sit in on their DOT audits.

I'll step off my soapbox now, it just irritates me to no end when people assume things they do not understand.

 

[carbuff]

Thank you. I'm glad you explained that. I was going to, but since I'm just a mildly informed friend of a trucker, I don't have as much cred.

 

[Ambercat]

Back when this happened, the driver could have been high on something, BUT... In today's times it is unlikely. I don't know what you mean by some legislation to curb truckers taking uppers.... I have driven a truck for over 20 years, managed a company for 12, I take random drug tests, and to be quite frank, there are less truckers using drugs than there are people on the streets using per capita. Truckers not only has to wiz in a cup, they also at times have to blow for alcohol testing. EVERY trucking company is part of a drug consortium and a high percentage of numbers are drawn randomly each quarter, so many are drawn for urine testing, so many are drawn for both urine and breath testing. Truck drivers are more regulated on MANY levels, not just drug testing, they must pass a physical that has higher standards than a airline pilot, they are also computer tracked and logged these days. Some companies have cams In the cab to ensure they are not using their telephone while driving and a front facing cam to record accidents etc. In a few years all trucks will have OBR's or they will not be able to get insurance or be allowed to keep their operating authority and DOT numbers, ALL these things I have talked about including the testing for drugs and alcohol are regulated by the FMCSA. Each company not only files quarterly with the FMSCA but the state DOT comes and looks at their records at will anytime, no advance notice required.

I know these things because when I retired I became certified for reasonable suspicion testing, I freelance as a broker who sets up companies, I properly put their files together and sit in on their DOT audits.

I'll step off my soapbox now, it just irritates me to no end when people assume things they do not understand.

Maybe I phrased what I was trying to say poorly, but you misunderstand me. I did not mean to imply that the driver was “high” on anything; just that, especially prior to Ronald Reagan’s signing of Executive Order 12564 in 1986 (more rules were introduced in 1991 after congress passed the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act) some people did certain things so that they could stay awake for longer periods of time and cover more mileage with less sleep.

The Oklahoma City Legal Examiner states this about drug use in the trucking industry prior to 1986 --

Truck drivers have used amphetamines to combat symptoms of somnolence, as well as to increase their concentration while driving. Amphetamine use was especially prevalent prior President Reagan’s signing of the Executive Order 12564, which initiated mandatory random drug testing of all truck drivers.

http://oklahomacity.legalexaminer.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/distracted-trucking/

More information about the legislation itself --
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12564.html
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/overview-drug-and-alcohol-rules

I did not intend to besmirch anyone. My point was that even if the truck driver was hiding something from/not being 100% forthright with LE [as has been implied here], it absolutely does not mean that he did something to the woman [who has never been located] or the little girl. I probably should not have cited examples of something a person in that situation might possibly be more likely to hide than what I thought was being implied. If I said it badly and offended you, I am very sorry.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

I am not meaning to imply what the trucker did...or did not....do. I just find the circumstances odd.

He is driving along and he sees a body in the water from the cab of his truck. Yet he did not pull over and try to give assistance, or get assistance. From that distance he'd not know if it was someone who jumped off of a bride, or someone who accidentally fell in while walking along the river bank. I'd think it'd be impossible from his view to ascertain rather or not the person was deceased? Yet he reported seeing a body in the water, and not a person in the water. I just find the wording unusual. (JMHO)

Once he finally gets to the truck area, he calls in a report. Back then there were pay phones everywhere, were there no exits between when he saw the body....and where he called and reported it? ( Just Curious)

He could not accompany LE back to show them where he saw the body? Once again my mind says....what made him just assume this person was deceased?

That is the reason why I am wondering if LE were able to find him in order to ask him more questions, as it is stated they wished to do.

 

[honesty]

Maybe I phrased what I was trying to say poorly, but you misunderstand me. I did not mean to imply that the driver was “high” on anything; just that, especially prior to Ronald Reagan’s signing of Executive Order 12564 in 1986 (more rules were introduced in 1991 after congress passed the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act) some people did certain things so that they could stay awake for longer periods of time and cover more mileage with less sleep.

The Oklahoma City Legal Examiner states this about drug use in the trucking industry prior to 1986 --


http://oklahomacity.legalexaminer.com/tractor-trailer-accidents/distracted-trucking/

More information about the legislation itself --
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12564.html
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/overview-drug-and-alcohol-rules

I did not intend to besmirch anyone. My point was that even if the truck driver was hiding something from/not being 100% forthright with LE [as has been implied here], it absolutely does not mean that he did something to the woman [who has never been located] or the little girl. I probably should not have cited examples of something a person in that situation might possibly be more likely to hide than what I thought was being implied. If I said it badly and offended you, I am very sorry.

No harm done, I do get defensive, I will be the first to admit that. As a 4th generation truck driver, albeit one that entered a "mans" world before it was "mainstream" for a lady to drive I have the natural instinct to defend our profession. The work that I do now centers on staying up to the minute with legislation, rules and regulations within the industry, that is why it struck me to ask what was going on in congress.

Back in 1982 a trucker very well could have been on a upper. "Toothpicks" and little white pills were a common thing in that day. Men, and very few women would drive 1000 miles plus without a nap, so you did have a lot of tired truckers out there.

I am not meaning to imply what the trucker did...or did not....do. I just find the circumstances odd.

He is driving along and he sees a body in the water from the cab of his truck. Yet he did not pull over and try to give assistance, or get assistance. From that distance he'd not know if it was someone who jumped off of a bride, or someone who accidentally fell in while walking along the river bank. I'd think it'd be impossible from his view to ascertain rather or not the person was deceased? Yet he reported seeing a body in the water, and not a person in the water. I just find the wording unusual. (JMHO)

Once he finally gets to the truck area, he calls in a report. Back then there were pay phones everywhere, were there no exits between when he saw the body....and where he called and reported it? ( Just Curious)

He could not accompany LE back to show them where he saw the body? Once again my mind says....what made him just assume this person was deceased?

That is the reason why I am wondering if LE were able to find him in order to ask him more questions, as it is stated they wished to do.

I do find the truckers reaction or lack of reaction to be odd myself. Even in this day and time there is still a certain creed if you will, that the knights of the highway lend a hand when something is out of place or they see someone in need. The thing that makes me wonder about his statement is he claims to have seen a body in that water, while you can see a lot from that far up in a seat over the highway, his attention to the road would have created a hazard to the public had he taken the time to look long enough to give the details he gave. Something just stinks about the story to me and that is just my opinion. He could have been being honest and legit, but something does not sit right.

The chances of the driver being alive today to be able to be interviewed again (if one could locate him) would be slim as the average lifespan for a long haul trucker is only in the early to mid sixties, and that is if he took care of himself fairly well. Lots of drivers make bad health choices that shorten their lifespans. People were not as "health" aware back then as they are now.

 

[carbuff]

Considering the way people who report things have their motivation and behavior criticized and torn apart by everybody who wasn't there second-guessing what happened, I'm surprised anybody reports anything these days.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

Considering the way people who report things have their motivation and behavior criticized and torn apart by everybody who wasn't there second-guessing what happened, I'm surprised anybody reports anything these days.

These days are much different than the 80's. He told the police he saw a body and then drove off.....so that makes me think he was not being questioned the way someone would be today.