- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 10,188
- Reaction score
- 16,161
Right ,were they mistaken as one set for a while?No. I'm Apt to believe the 1st uid (the one this thread is for) has been Identified, and this is the 2nd set of remains found commingled
Right ,were they mistaken as one set for a while?No. I'm Apt to believe the 1st uid (the one this thread is for) has been Identified, and this is the 2nd set of remains found commingled
The two UIDs did have close but different ME case numbers (W1985-00005 and W1985-00006). I wonder why the first one never mentioned the second set of remains? They actually mentioned only the skull had been found. I suppose they did a search after finding the skull and found more remains the same day, but somehow this second find never made into NamUs, even though there were considerably more remains found.No. I'm Apt to believe the 1st uid (the one this thread is for) has been Identified, and this is the 2nd set of remains found commingled