Identified! TX - Huntsville, 'Walker County Jane Doe', WhtFem 14-16, 91UFTX, 1 November 1980 - id'd November 2021 - Sherri Ann Jarvis (14)

[paul1980]

VF is right. Also how many American Rambos who claim they'd save a woman from a rapist/killer turn into [p-slur] when faced with an actual attack on a girl or woman?

 

[Vital Forces]

BBM. Can you explain this please? Thank you.

Of course. It's about hindsight and our after-the-fact biases.

After a crime has been committed, there are some (not all) people who believe that potential witnesses must have seen something or should have been more vigilant.

No one knows that a crime is being committed when it happens except the criminal and victim. Unless the crime is very ostentatious and obvious.

We can't assume that any given person in Huntsville that night must have been anything because no one knew to look for her or for any strange activity when the events took place.

In summary, bystanders don't know when a crime is being committed so they don't know to be on the lookout. That's with any case. No one is constantly on the lookout and it isn't helpful to act like people are making constant mental records of everything just in case later it might be helpful.

 

[Alleykins]

Of course. It's about hindsight and our after-the-fact biases.

After a crime has been committed, there are some (not all) people who believe that potential witnesses must have seen something or should have been more vigilant.

No one knows that a crime is being committed when it happens except the criminal and victim. Unless the crime is very ostentatious and obvious.

We can't assume that any given person in Huntsville that night must have been anything because no one knew to look for her or for any strange activity when the events took place.

In summary, bystanders don't know when a crime is being committed so they don't know to be on the lookout. That's with any case. No one is constantly on the lookout and it isn't helpful to act like people are making constant mental records of everything just in case later it might be helpful.

I must be the exception because I'm suspicious of everything that just doesn't seem or look right. Normal, everyday things not so much, but like the old lady who walks by my house everyday then one day turns down the tote road across the street, I wrote down the date in case she turned up missing cuz that wasn't usual for her.

 

[LucyOso]

Of course. It's about hindsight and our after-the-fact biases.

After a crime has been committed, there are some (not all) people who believe that potential witnesses must have seen something or should have been more vigilant.

No one knows that a crime is being committed when it happens except the criminal and victim. Unless the crime is very ostentatious and obvious.

We can't assume that any given person in Huntsville that night must have been anything because no one knew to look for her or for any strange activity when the events took place.

In summary, bystanders don't know when a crime is being committed so they don't know to be on the lookout. That's with any case. No one is constantly on the lookout and it isn't helpful to act like people are making constant mental records of everything just in case later it might be helpful.

Vital Force, I agree with your behavioural theory ideas, I understand diffusion of responsibility, bystander effect, situational awareness, etc, etc, etc. Yes, motorists might not have notice or recalled seeing something such as a big rig parked on the side of the road. Thats in itself is a norm. Coupled with it being Halloween, motorists where more likely to focus on the road and children darting into their path. To expect situational awareness from all of society at any given time, is certainly a tall order. Not to mention the linear time elapsed since this crime. I get you on that.

However, I disagree with you stating someone's ideas, question, or input is not helpful. Websleuths is a place where all can share ideas, lament, express sadness, frustration, and all get respectful constructive feedback or if disagreed with no comment at all. This isn't about one persons ideas, knowledge base, educational attainment, opinion, or superiority. It is about collectively brain storming to help identify these victims. And some theories are off the wall but can lead to new ideas. We all must work together. And we must all understand there are language and cultural differences and be respectful. Respectfully, IMOO stating twice that someone's input is not helpful is not what Webslueths is about.

 

[LucyOso]

I must be the exception because I'm suspicious of everything that just doesn't seem or look right. Normal, everyday things not so much, but like the old lady who walks by my house everyday then one day turns down the tote road across the street, I wrote down the date in case she turned up missing cuz that wasn't usual for her.

Me too. I am a constant scanner. LOL

 

[CarlK90245]

In summary, bystanders don't know when a crime is being committed so they don't know to be on the lookout. That's with any case. No one is constantly on the lookout and it isn't helpful to act like people are making constant mental records of everything just in case later it might be helpful.

I agree that most people don't notice, and it is unreasonable to expect people to notice everything. However, To say it "isn't helpful" is taking it too far.

People remember mundane events all the time, especially if asked within a day or two of the event. If someone was to ask me if I remember the person in the car in front of me while I was filling my gas tank this morning, I would probably be able to remember simple details. If asked to describe the guy sitting next to me at the coffee shop counter while I was eating breakfast this morning, or even the person sitting next to me while I was having dinner a couple of days ago, I probably could. Last month, probably not. Do I remember seeing a person standing on a specific street corner while I drove by this morning? No. But perhaps I would have if the person was behaving unusually.

Should we expect people to notice mundane events? No. But sometimes people do notice mundane events. And it is not un-helpful to ask if someone noticed something.

 

[Vital Forces]

LucyOso,

I didn't say anyone's particular post was not helpful.

I said the particular attitude, which I have described in detail, and which I've seen in many places, is not helpful.

I will leave it at that and will not discuss this any further in this thread.

 

[Peppered_peach]

I must be the exception because I'm suspicious of everything that just doesn't seem or look right. Normal, everyday things not so much, but like the old lady who walks by my house everyday then one day turns down the tote road across the street, I wrote down the date in case she turned up missing cuz that wasn't usual for her.

I guess I’m right there with you. I mean I’m not always looking for something suspicious in every second of everyday, but if I read or hear about something that happened and I was around that area at that time, I try to remember anything about it that could help. Which is where I was going with this whole thing.

 

[carbuff]

Others have already explained that a big rig pulled over on the side of a highway isn't unusual.

We also have to remember that no one knew a crime was being committed at the time. The average person is not on the lookout for suspicious activities every moment of their lives. I've seen such expectations in other cases and it isn't realistic or helpful.

Accidental post that Tapatalk doesn't want to let me delete.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[turbo_sloth]

Interesting article from The Atlantic called, "Solving a Murder Mystery With Ancestry Websites". It made me think of Walker County Jane Doe: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/jane-doe-murder-ancestry/536916/

Apparently a teenage girl was murdered in Washington state in 1977 and while they were able to capture the girl's killer, police have never been able to identify the victim. The only thing the killer knew about the victim was that she said she lived in a trailer with two guys near the lake where the murder took place.

Excerpt from the article:
"But after so many dead ends, investigators might have found a way to finally close the case. Jane Doe’s DNA has so far failed to identify her, but perhaps it can be used to identify a family member instead. As genetic testing has become more accessible and popular, the Snohomish County sheriff’s office is cautiously optimistic that a parent, a sibling, a cousin—some relative of Jane Doe—has explored websites like Ancestry.com to learn more about their family tree. If someone has wondered enough about their heritage to submit a DNA sample to one of these genealogy databases, there could be a genetic crumb trail that leads to Jane Doe’s identity."

Would be nice to think that since they likely have Jane Doe's DNA police might be able to determine her identify through relatives that might have submitted their DNA to genealogy websites. That and if there was DNA collected from the bite mark on Jane Doe's shoulder it might also help point police in the direction of her killer.

 

[sunnynz]

Interesting article from The Atlantic called, "Solving a Murder Mystery With Ancestry Websites". It made me think of Walker County Jane Doe: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/jane-doe-murder-ancestry/536916/

Apparently a teenage girl was murdered in Washington state in 1977 and while they were able to capture the girl's killer, police have never been able to identify the victim. The only thing the killer knew about the victim was that she said she lived in a trailer with two guys near the lake where the murder took place.

Excerpt from the article:
"But after so many dead ends, investigators might have found a way to finally close the case. Jane Doe’s DNA has so far failed to identify her, but perhaps it can be used to identify a family member instead. As genetic testing has become more accessible and popular, the Snohomish County sheriff’s office is cautiously optimistic that a parent, a sibling, a cousin—some relative of Jane Doe—has explored websites like Ancestry.com to learn more about their family tree. If someone has wondered enough about their heritage to submit a DNA sample to one of these genealogy databases, there could be a genetic crumb trail that leads to Jane Doe’s identity."

Would be nice to think that since they likely have Jane Doe's DNA police might be able to determine her identify through relatives that might have submitted their DNA to genealogy websites. That and if there was DNA collected from the bite mark on Jane Doe's shoulder it might also help point police in the direction of her killer.

Do LE match UID DNA against sites like ancestry? The article above implies that they do but I always though they didn't.

 

[Triss]

I read somewhere that they don't, but I might be wrong.

 

[Alleykins]

I don't think they use ancestry DNA searches as par for the course. Carbuff can explain it better, hopefully she'll weigh in. It has to do with privacy laws and those sites not wanting authorities to use them for criminal purposes as well.

 

[carbuff]

Basically it violates the constitution's unreasonable search and seizure clause. The people in the ancestry database didn't give their permission to have their information used like that, so LE has to have probable cause and get a warrant to search. Many judges refuse to grant such warrants for a "maybe somebody is in there" search. (It's called a "fishing expedition.") Such searches haven't been terribly productive anyway; there are an astonishing number of secret adoptions, concealed affairs, and black sheep scrambling most people's family tree. Advocates of searching tend to underestimate the trauma and drama of having something like that sprung on you.

As Alleykins mentioned, state privacy laws and company policies also enter into it.

In this case, I think a professional ancestry researcher might be useful. They can do things that LE.



Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[Alleykins]

Basically it violates the constitution's unreasonable search and seizure clause. The people in the ancestry database didn't give their permission to have their information used like that, so LE has to have probable cause and get a warrant to search. Many judges refuse to grant such warrants for a "maybe somebody is in there" search. (It's called a "fishing expedition.") Such searches haven't been terribly productive anyway; there are an astonishing number of secret adoptions, concealed affairs, and black sheep scrambling most people's family tree. Advocates of searching tend to underestimate the trauma and drama of having something like that sprung on you.

As Alleykins mentioned, state privacy laws and company policies also enter into it.

In this case, I think a professional ancestry researcher might be useful. They can do things that LE.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Thanks, Carbuff! I think I will copy and paste this as a quote attributed to you on different threads whenever this comes up.

 

[Vital Forces]

Something I've wondered is who was keeping this case in the public mind before the Internet age? The case was mentioned in the 1990 book Forensic Art and Illustration. Other than that, where else was it discussed for all those years? Her case has never appeared on America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, Dateline or any other crime program.

The people of Huntsville probably knew about her, but who else? Has her case been receiving continuous attention since 1980, or was it "rediscovered" after websites such as one came to be?

I realize I could ask this of any old case, but I'm wondering specifically about this one.

 

[Alleykins]

Something I've wondered is who was keeping this case in the public mind before the Internet age? The case was mentioned in the 1990 book Forensic Art and Illustration. Other than that, where else was it discussed for all those years? Her case has never appeared on America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, Dateline or any other crime program.

The people of Huntsville probably knew about her, but who else? Has her case been receiving continuous attention since 1980, or was it "rediscovered" after websites such as one came to be?

I realize I could ask this of any old case, but I'm wondering specifically about this one.

I wonder if NCMEC did. They predate the internet.

 

[sunnynz]

Something I've wondered is who was keeping this case in the public mind before the Internet age? The case was mentioned in the 1990 book Forensic Art and Illustration. Other than that, where else was it discussed for all those years? Her case has never appeared on America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, Dateline or any other crime program.

The people of Huntsville probably knew about her, but who else? Has her case been receiving continuous attention since 1980, or was it "rediscovered" after websites such as one came to be?

I realize I could ask this of any old case, but I'm wondering specifically about this one.

Interesting question, I'm keen to know the answer too.

 

[sunnynz]

Basically it violates the constitution's unreasonable search and seizure clause. The people in the ancestry database didn't give their permission to have their information used like that, so LE has to have probable cause and get a warrant to search. Many judges refuse to grant such warrants for a "maybe somebody is in there" search. (It's called a "fishing expedition.") Such searches haven't been terribly productive anyway; there are an astonishing number of secret adoptions, concealed affairs, and black sheep scrambling most people's family tree. Advocates of searching tend to underestimate the trauma and drama of having something like that sprung on you.

As Alleykins mentioned, state privacy laws and company policies also enter into it.

In this case, I think a professional ancestry researcher might be useful. They can do things that LE.



Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Thanks, that makes total sense. So in the WA case referenced in the article above, the Snohomish County sheriff’s office must have somehow got a warrant to do it, sounds as though they are using Ancestry etc as an avenue of investigation.

 

[Alleykins]

Thanks, that makes total sense. So in the WA case referenced in the article above, the Snohomish County sheriff’s office must have somehow got a warrant to do it, sounds as though they are using Ancestry etc as an avenue of investigation.

I can see where it might be allowed in the Snohomish case because the killer was already convicted of her murder, any results wouldn't be used for a criminal case because it was already concluded. I think he recently passed away, too.