VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wed, November 20 2019, 11:07:55Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]89 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Fri, July 08 2005, 21:27:40
Author: Joyce Ussery
Author Host/IP: 12-160-115-105.getgoin.net / 12.160.115.105
Subject: Re: It's Possible.
In reply to: Jeff Northridge 's message, "It's Possible, But Not Very Likely" on Fri, July 08 2005, 10:25:34

We knew we didn't have the remains of Carl Ussery at the time of exhumation...or the Ussery family would have never had the grave disinterred in the first place. It's certainly not anything we had anticipated doing! It wasn't the many questioned documents with numerous inconsistencies, although they alone would have warranted it...and it wasn't the nonmatching dental charting...at that time, we only had Carl's SF 603 dental enlistment charting that we knew to be correct and had not received the additional SF 603 confirming document or the IDPF file yet, when the grave was disinterred. However, we had very credible reason for bringing up that grave when we did...we could not have convinced the local authorities to do so if not. Thank God it was in a private/non-government cemetery. Surely nobody thinks a family go through such an ordeal without VERY good cause.

One IDPF file document we have states that there were "no identifying statements" for the remains we have. We were told that Graves Registration went to the crash site themselves and recovered remains/not recovered by the unit on the ground, this from some of the B 1/5 members who were there and they remarked that they found that unusual. We find that interesting in that some of the still classified/still withheld portions of the accident report include the section of the "tracking and recovery data." When we were advised by some officials to file a Mandatory Declassification Review Request for that and the still withheld Exemption 5/still "privileged" sections of the report, we finally...another 21 months later.. were notified by Office of the General Counsel of the Army that they were upholding Ft. Rucker's decision to withold the privileged/or still classified sections and that we were not entitled to the information. OGC told us that if we wished, we could appeal their decision through the U.S. District Court System. That choice is outrageous and I think we all know how that appeal would have turned out. Can anybody tell this family...and the many POW/MIA famlies we know...why ANY documents would still be classified from the Vietnam era?!

As for mitochondral DNA (mtDNA), it is the type used to identify ancient remains, requires a maternal line relative of the questioned sample and is not as precise/individual-defining as nuclear DNA. As a matter of fact, they are finding out more and more that more than one individual can have the same mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Therefore, even AFDIL will agree that mtDNA should NEVER be used as a PRIMARY SOURCE of identification, but only as a confirming tool when it correlates with the additional non-DNA facts and additional evidence presented. We personally discovered that there is also no uniform set of protocols that require private labs to follow universal mtDNA testing procedures/or the same as AFDIL and other government labs follow, or at least there wasn't in 1997-98...and all of the private labs doing mtDNA testing weren't even required to be a certified forensic lab to do the test...ours wasn't, we found out after the fact. If that hasn't changed by now, it should!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:



Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (required):

Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.