Julessleuther
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,696
- Reaction score
- 295
It was not a relative who told about the tattoos--she was not even a family friend, just an acquaintance of Deanna's from school. We do not know why the information about the tattoo is still being used, as the person who gave that info to police has had "credibility problems" in the past. I believe that Missie does not consider the tattoos to be credible, IMO.
As far as the SS #, if she used a different name, she would have a different social. The detective in charge of Deanna's case has already checked with the SS admin. She has never applied for a drivers license, birth cert, etc using her existing social sec #.
As far as the SS #, if she used a different name, she would have a different social. The detective in charge of Deanna's case has already checked with the SS admin. She has never applied for a drivers license, birth cert, etc using her existing social sec #.
This happend when my niece applied for a social security card at 16. Her Mom had gotten hers when she was born, but she didn't know that, as I raised her.
When she 'met' her Mom, at 19, she gave her the original, which had the same number. (She is 26)
I found this section of the newspaper article interesting:
Possibly during a traffic stop, Deanna's name and date of birth were run through a Hurst police computer in October 1995, Davis said.
Between 2000 and 2002, an out-of-state relative reported that Deanna, sporting several tattoos visited and told the relative that she wanted to remain hidden.
As I didn't know her information was run as part of a traffic stop, as well as the fact that I was not aware that it was a relative that reported the tattoos.