Identified! TX - Huntsville, 'Walker County Jane Doe', WhtFem 14-16, 91UFTX, Nov'80 Sherry Ann Jarvis

[Bit of hope]

No i don't have inside information.
A) I'm Australian
B) I was *born* in April 1980.

Thank you Paul! Ok...your question was "was she stripped before or after the act" I can't recall she was stripped at all....or am I missing something?

 

[Bit of hope]

Well, she was found nude so her clothes were removed at some point, either by her under force, or him.

Ok, so she was nude completely?? ....shoes thrown at her side...why her clothes were not?...have to think about that for a while.

 

[shadowdancer]

Ok, so she was nude completely?? ....shoes thrown at her side...why her clothes were not?...have to think about that for a while.

I would assume her clothes possibly had his bodily fluids on them, but her shoes did not. Given her shoes had high heels, she may well have taken them off because her feet were sore and therefore they did not get messy during the attack.

Thats why I would assume he dumped the shoes with the body, but kept the clothes to dispose of separately.

 

[Roselvr]

I don't think she was sheltered or anything. She knew enough about sex appeal to be carrying high heels and high heels show off a girl/woman's to its best advantage.

Her shoes were what most of us wore

Did he force her to strip, or did he strip her after she was dead?
How easy would it be to strip a human corpse in the cramped confines of a truck?

He raped her. He probably ripped her clothes off while she was fighting him.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I would assume her clothes possibly had his bodily fluids on them, but her shoes did not. Given her shoes had high heels, she may well have taken them off because her feet were sore and therefore they did not get messy during the attack.

Thats why I would assume he dumped the shoes with the body, but kept the clothes to dispose of separately.

In 1980 DNA was still years away from being used in crime fighting. In fact Professor Alec Jeffreys didn't even think of the idea until 1984 so the most that could have been determined from body fluids on her clothing would be blood group and a very few other markers such as secretor/non-secretor. He would have put himself more at risk by picking up her shoes to throw away and leaving his fingerprints on them.

 

[shadowdancer]

In 1980 DNA was still years away from being used in crime fighting. In fact Professor Alec Jeffreys didn't even think of the idea until 1984 so the most that could have been determined from body fluids on her clothing would be blood group and a very few other markers such as secretor/non-secretor. He would have put himself more at risk by picking up her shoes to throw away and leaving his fingerprints on them.

I didn't mention DNA. I was actually thinking of blood. If there was a struggle its possible that his blood was on her clothing and blood typing was used as evidence since at least the 1960s.

As for fingerprints on the shoes, these would have been very straightforward to wipe, or more likely he used gloves. It was November after all. He almost certainly would have had some gloves in the truck.

 

[paul1980]

He didn't plan it. It was pure chance that WCJD fell into his clutches.

 

[shadowdancer]

He didn't plan it. It was pure chance that WCJD fell into his clutches.

Its an opportunistic thing. I bet she wasn't his first victim. She might have been the first murder, but he almost certainly had a history of violence and sexual offenses. He might not have been convicted of those things of course though.

I would also think it likely that he killed again after WCJD.

 

[Bit of hope]

What if we forget the not totally solid statements of people who (could) have seen her, said she stated "who cares" etc. Witnesses, although helpful and willing, are known for not remembering everything in the right way, especially when time passes. Would this thought change our theories or open up new insights....just stretching my brain...I'm so frustrated that she still isn't identified.

 

[Bit of hope]

Its an opportunistic thing. I bet she wasn't his first victim. She might have been the first murder, but he almost certainly had a history of violence and sexual offenses. He might not have been convicted of those things of course though.

I would also think it likely that he killed again after WCJD.

I think I have to agree with you.

 

[paul1980]

What if we forget the not totally solid statements of people who (could) have seen her, said she stated "who cares" etc. Witnesses, although helpful and willing, are known for not remembering everything in the right way, especially when time passes. Would this thought change our theories or open up new insights....just stretching my brain...I'm so frustrated that she still isn't identified.

The problem with your theory that not only were the witnesses interviewed immediately after the crime, so their memories would have been fresh, they were shown the body.

 

[Bit of hope]

The problem with your theory that not only were the witnesses interviewed immediately after the crime, so their memories would have been fresh, they were shown the body.

Maybe you are right but tests show different. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/eyewitness-testimony Maybe this is a different situation but still. I meant it more like a "what if" to get a more open view, getting out of the box of what could have happened and who she is.

 

[paul1980]

It's a shame that show with Robert Stack never covered WCJD. Even seeing someone playing WCJD who couldn't act for toffee would have been worth the publicity for the case.

 

[sunnynz]

What if we forget the not totally solid statements of people who (could) have seen her, said she stated "who cares" etc. Witnesses, although helpful and willing, are known for not remembering everything in the right way, especially when time passes. Would this thought change our theories or open up new insights....just stretching my brain...I'm so frustrated that she still isn't identified.

This is an excellent reminder. Eye witness statements are notoriously unreliable.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I didn't mention DNA. I was actually thinking of blood. If there was a struggle its possible that his blood was on her clothing and blood typing was used as evidence since at least the 1960s.

The earliest use of blood typing in forensics was soon after the turn of the 20th century but it was not much use at the time other than to rule a suspect out if his blood group did not match that of blood found at the scene of a crime.

As for fingerprints on the shoes, these would have been very straightforward to wipe, or more likely he used gloves. It was November after all. He almost certainly would have had some gloves in the truck.

Yes, they'd have been easy to wipe if her killer had remembered to do it. As to him wearing gloves, well maybe not. Given what she was wearing (jeans, yellow and white pullovers) when she was seen by witnesses the weather can't have been that cold.

 

[paul1980]

Robert Stack could sell you on the flimsiest story and give it gravitas, like Orson Welles and peas.

 

[shadowdancer]

Yes, they'd have been easy to wipe if her killer had remembered to do it. As to him wearing gloves, well maybe not. Given what she was wearing (jeans, yellow and white pullovers) when she was seen by witnesses the weather can't have been that cold.

Teens don't dress for the weather, they dress to look cool/stylish/fashionable. I have had this battle many times with my four kids, and their friends are all the same. We really can't use WCJD's attire as an indicator of the weather.

Also, remember that truck drivers are often on the road for several days at a time. Even more so in the greater distances in the US. Even if the weather was mild that particular day, he had no guarantee that it would be that way for all of his trip, especially if he was heading north, or had driven down from the north.

 

[shadowdancer]

It's a shame that show with Robert Stack never covered WCJD. Even seeing someone playing WCJD who couldn't act for toffee would have been worth the publicity for the case.

I wish there was more TV coverage for unsolved cases. There are dozens of shows which tell the stories of crimes that have been solved and they are very interesting, but unsolved cases are the ones which need the coverage most and in my opinion they are equally fascinating.

 

[Bit of hope]

It's a shame that show with Robert Stack never covered WCJD. Even seeing someone playing WCJD who couldn't act for toffee would have been worth the publicity for the case.

Personally I find it very sorry that you don't reacted on my post about the witness tests I mentioned. Because you have a different approach to this case you could be the key for opening up different stuff...

 

[paul1980]

I didn't know what to say, that's why i didn't say anything.