OK OK - Jamison Family: Truck, IDs and Dog Found Abandoned 08 Oct 2009 - #12

[little726]

Not for the "faint of heart." Human skulls being sold on Ebay! Lot of good information, though!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Rea...ating-Head-Trauma-Skeleton-Bone-/181299037367

 

[salgtrn]

Wow. Didn't know there were no teeth. That's also quite interesting. Why is there no dental records??

No dental records, and no teeth left to compare with dental records to anyway. Waiting in line for DNA testing.

 

[OkieGranny]

I don’t think they had dental records for the McStay children but they were identified via DNA the week after being found. Obviously they must’ve pushed them to the top of the list to get DNA results back so quickly. It’s too bad this isn’t the case with this poor family, I’d especially like to know if that sweet young girl is still alive or not. Cases involving children really get to me.

I believe California does their own DNA testing. Oklahoma cases, along with those from many other states, get shipped off to Texas.

 

[TDoc72]

At first, the hole in the skull didn't really seem all that alarming to me. After 4 years in such a densely wooded area with known wildlife around, and being unburied, it would make sense that the fragments would start to fall apart over time, as I'm sure Mother Nature hasn't been gentle with them. But after doing a search online as well, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think one way or another on this. I wish we had more info from Mr. G to understand what exactly he saw that would make him think "ain't no coyote did that." Was it more like a gut feeling, intuition thing? Or did it not appear to be a natural break? KWIM?

I know exactly what you mean! Mr. G is a hunter, so I would assume he knows what a bullet hole looks like. I wish he would have described it more.

I'm left wishing, once again, that we had more info. Fingers still crossed that LE knows more than they are saying.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

Something I noticed in the article was the wife taking off down the trail and then yelling, "I found another one." This indicates to me that the bodies were not lined up in a row.

I wondered when I read that if she meant, "I found another body" OR just "I found another bone." I think he said he saw the skulls and she saw the femur, so maybe she saw more of what she'd already seen. Hard to tell from the article.

Animal activity probably scattered the bones a fair bit. Maybe there was a femur or pelvic bone or other large bone pulled off to a distance and that's what she saw. It's only a thought. I have no way of knowing, of course.

Imagine how nightmarish for the family who found them. I reckon you'd never get those images out of your head.

 

[OkieGranny]

I wondered when I read that if she meant, "I found another body" OR just "I found another bone." I think he said he saw the skulls and she saw the femur, so maybe she saw more of what she'd already seen. Hard to tell from the article.

Animal activity probably scattered the bones a fair bit. Maybe there was a femur or pelvic bone or other large bone pulled off to a distance and that's what she saw. It's only a thought. I have no way of knowing, of course.

Imagine how nightmarish for the family who found them. I reckon you'd never get those images out of your head.

Good point. NS said on Find the Jamisons that the remains were basically a skull and a body bone each, so nowhere near complete.

I was watching one of those true crime shows on TV the other day and I've already forgotten the details, but a group of archaeology students from the local university was brought in to find any evidence of burned remains in an Arkansas missing persons case. I think they found a tooth or something. Anyway, it was enough to prove the missing person was deceased.

Of course, I immediately thought of the Jamisons, and wished a group of archaeology students would be let loose on the site where the remains were found. I bet they could turn up more bones and possibly some evidence. There was only a two-day search at the site, as I understand it, and I don't think it was thorough enough.

 

[watcher9]

Good point. NS said on Find the Jamisons that the remains were basically a skull and a body bone each, so nowhere near complete.

I was watching one of those true crime shows on TV the other day and I've already forgotten the details, but a group of archaeology students from the local university was brought in to find any evidence of burned remains in an Arkansas missing persons case. I think they found a tooth or something. Anyway, it was enough to prove the missing person was deceased.

Of course, I immediately thought of the Jamisons, and wished a group of archaeology students would be let loose on the site where the remains were found. I bet they could turn up more bones and possibly some evidence. There was only a two-day search at the site, as I understand it, and I don't think it was thorough enough.

What a wonderful idea!
It's sad to hear that they only found the skull and a body bone from each of the victims. A thorough search should have turned up more than that. Maybe they found more, but that's all the sheriff's office sent to the lab. There is no wonder the remains have not been identified yet. There probably are bones (and teeth) scattered all over that hillside hidden under leaves, etc. If the site has been released by LE and property owners agree, it would be a great opportunity for students of both archaeology and forensic science to participate in such an endeavor, as well as help in bringing some closure to this case. I wonder if the sheriff or any other legal agency in other cases have considered using students as tools in their investigations?

 

[OkieGranny]

What a wonderful idea!
It's sad to hear that they only found the skull and a body bone from each of the victims. A thorough search should have turned up more than that. Maybe they found more, but that's all the sheriff's office sent to the lab. There is no wonder the remains have not been identified yet. There probably are bones (and teeth) scattered all over that hillside hidden under leaves, etc. If the site has been released by LE and property owners agree, it would be a great opportunity for students of both archaeology and forensic science to participate in such an endeavor, as well as help in bringing some closure to this case. I wonder if the sheriff or any other legal agency in other cases have considered using students as tools in their investigations?

It would be very cost-effective. They're students! You don't have to pay them!

The students in the Arkansas case conducted a grid search and screened the soil. Great field experience for them and exactly what I think is needed in the Jamison case.

 

[OkieGranny]

Just FYI, in another Oklahoma case, it was reported today that the remains of Lisa Kregear, Wendy Camp, and Cynthia Britto have been positively ID'd. They were found last April and this is January, so it took about nine months. The article doesn't say DNA testing was done at the University of North Texas, but I'd bet money that was the case.

ME: Pawnee County Remains Identified As Trio Missing Since 1992

 

[Dallen]

I wondered when I read that if she meant, "I found another body" OR just "I found another bone." I think he said he saw the skulls and she saw the femur, so maybe she saw more of what she'd already seen. Hard to tell from the article.

Animal activity probably scattered the bones a fair bit. Maybe there was a femur or pelvic bone or other large bone pulled off to a distance and that's what she saw. It's only a thought. I have no way of knowing, of course.

Imagine how nightmarish for the family who found them. I reckon you'd never get those images out of your head.

I keep reading the article over and over hoping this would be more clear, but hasn't changed yet. Ha! I'm with you in thinking the skulls were probably closer together since he said they were face down, and she probably found another bone. Nothing to back that up, just my speculation. And I agree, remaining bones are probably scattered over the San Bois Mtns.

 

[Dallen]

In the article it said that he and his family went there annually since 2000.
"I got my biggest trophy buck up there in 2001." "So we decided to go up and see if we could find some old bucks running the same path."
Meaning they've been on the same path annually? Think they would have seen the bones before now?? I wish the article would have specified just how small the small one is. I have a sister that's 3' 11'' that's 35 yo and looks 13.
Also, if the ME said 6 months or more, why they don't see this as higher profile and move it ahead of some of the others they're behind on?

I found something else interesting. Checked out people in the area that had the same last name as KB (the "boarder") and there were some that had been charged/convicted of lewd or indecent proposals/acts with a child and another with procure/produce/distribute/possess child pornography. One with the same last name lives near Bristow. All may not be related but some have same coloring as KB. Just throwing that out there.

I agree that it seems like the same path, so 2009-2013 since the family went missing...that's 5 annual trips. Seems as though the family was very familiar with the area, so I'm sure they are familiar with the case (maybe not details, but enough to be on the lookout for unusual things).

Very interesting about the last name and the charges, considering it's not a highly populated area. Will definitely be keeping that in the back of my mind. I wish we knew if KB knew the family would be on that mountain that day. Or where his alibi places him (and who with, perhaps family?).

 

[watcher9]

On the first page of the article, it says that "the skeletons were on top of the ground, but sunk a little bit into the soil." Mr G goes on to say that "From being there so long, they had settled down into the ground, face down. All I could (sic) was the back of their heads."

To me, the word "skeletons" sounds like there were some more bones there, at least enough to make out the shape of the bodies. Otherwise, I would think he would have just said he found some skulls.

I also take it that when he said all he could see was "the back of their heads," it meant more than one and that they were all three lying there pretty close together. I wonder why he would think they were laying on top of the ground, but sunk down, rather than uncovered over time from a shallow burial site? Is the ground up there on hillside soft enough for bodies to sink down in it? From the photos we have been seeing, the ground looks more like clay. The clay stuff around here requires a pickaxe to even dig a small hole.

As to the possibility of a coyote making the hole in the top of one skull, wouldn't the skull have been moved into a different position if the coyote bit into it?

 

[OkieGranny]

I agree that it seems like the same path, so 2009-2013 since the family went missing...that's 5 annual trips. Seems as though the family was very familiar with the area, so I'm sure they are familiar with the case (maybe not details, but enough to be on the lookout for unusual things).

Very interesting about the last name and the charges, considering it's not a highly populated area. Will definitely be keeping that in the back of my mind. I wish we knew if KB knew the family would be on that mountain that day. Or where his alibi places him (and who with, perhaps family?).

KB was in and out of jail a couple of times that year, but I couldn't figure out from court records whether he was in or out when the Jamisons went missing.

 

[OkieGranny]

On the first page of the article, it says that "the skeletons were on top of the ground, but sunk a little bit into the soil." Mr G goes on to say that "From being there so long, they had settled down into the ground, face down. All I could (sic) was the back of their heads."

To me, the word "skeletons" sounds like there were some more bones there, at least enough to make out the shape of the bodies. Otherwise, I would think he would have just said he found some skulls.

I also take it that when he said all he could see was "the back of their heads," it meant more than one and that they were all three lying there pretty close together. I wonder why he would think they were laying on top of the ground, but sunk down, rather than uncovered over time from a shallow burial site? Is the ground up there on hillside soft enough for bodies to sink down in it? From the photos we have been seeing, the ground looks more like clay. The clay stuff around here requires a pickaxe to even dig a small hole.

As to the possibility of a coyote making the hole in the top of one skull, wouldn't the skull have been moved into a different position if the coyote bit into it?

How do you get a dead person's head to stay face down? That just strikes me as very odd. I mean, wouldn't the head roll to one side or the other because of the nose? We know the ground was muddy from rain that week, so I'm wondering if their faces were pushed into the mud. It seems like at least one of the skulls might have rolled over as the months passed and the skeletons became disarticulated, so what held them all in the same position?

 

[Mapman]

How do you get a dead person's head to stay face down? That just strikes me as very odd. I mean, wouldn't the head roll to one side or the other because of the nose? We know the ground was muddy from rain that week, so I'm wondering if their faces were pushed into the mud. It seems like at least one of the skulls might have rolled over as the months passed and the skeletons became disarticulated, so what held them all in the same position?

I've been wondering the same thing. It seems surprising that all three skulls could remain face down for four years even if they were deliberately placed that way initially. It occurred to me that possibly the face of a fully decomposed skull might be flat which would increase the possibility that the skulls would eventually become oriented face-down regardless of its original position. If face-down is the most stable position this might be possible. I looked at several pictures of human skulls but I couldn't decide what appeared to be the most stable resting position for a human skull. This is another mystery.

 

[OkieGranny]

I've been wondering the same thing. It seems surprising that all three skulls could remain face down for four years even if they were deliberately placed that way initially. It occurred to me that possibly the face of a fully decomposed skull might be flat which would increase the possibility that the skulls would eventually become oriented face-down regardless of its original position. If face-down is the most stable position this might be possible. I looked at several pictures of human skulls but I couldn't decide what appeared to be the most stable resting position for a human skull. This is another mystery.

Yeah, I just don't know. It's been bugging me a lot. Seems like if there was any movement at all from a skull's original position, rolling down a slope or dislodged by an animal or whatever, its most likely position when it came to rest would be on its side, or possibly on its base if the mandible had also come loose. I'll have to study on this some more.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Does this video perhaps drive right by where the bodies were found?

Driving up a mountain in Latimer County, Oklahoma - YouTube

 

[OkieGranny]

Does this video perhaps drive right by where the bodies were found?

Driving up a mountain in Latimer County, Oklahoma - YouTube

No, this road goes up to the spot where the truck was found. The remains were found 2.7 miles northwest of there.

 

[ZooSleuth]

No, this road goes up to the spot where the truck was found. The remains were found 2.7 miles northwest of there.

Thanks. I know their bodies were close to a road and wasn't sure if it was the same road.

 

[TobyWong*]

Imo hole on top of head of large skull might indicate he was on his knees. Otherwise if he were standing, it would be hole lower on skull (side, back or forehead). And again imo especially for a hunter you know what a bullet hole vs coyote riping it apart looks like.