I was in the process of drawing up a Make-a-List Monday when I went and checked the NamUs entry for Timothy Scott Parry, and on the “physical” section of his NamUs page, it says he had “Cro-Magnon eyebrows.”
Who on earth put that in? Maybe it’s just me, but I find that pretty offensive, especially given that Timothy was physically and mentally disabled. I would be offended if I was a family member or friend of Timothy’s. His eyebrows don’t even look that strange to me in the pictures, just a bit thicker than usual.
I doubt whoever put that into NamUs was trying to upset anyone. This other picture, included in the NamUs profile, is a scanned copy of a paper flier for Timothy, and it says “Cro-Magnon eyebrows.” My guess is that whoever entered the info into NamUs just copied it without thinking. But I think it should be rephrased.
It reminds me of another MP case profiled on another website, not NamUs, where it said the female MP had a “tramp stamp.” That’s a derogatory term for a tattoo on a woman’s lower back. The term, in addition to being offensive, could also be confusing for people, perhaps non-English speakers, who don’t know what a “tramp stamp” means. They should have just said she had a tattoo on her lower back. With Timothy, they could say he has a protruding brow ridge or something that doesn’t sound like they’re making fun of him.
(If you’re wondering, btw, why I sometimes talk on this blog about issues I think NamUs should fix, it’s not to make them look bad. I think NamUs is a great resource, as evidenced by how often I use it for Charley Project research. Rather, it’s because some of the people who volunteer for it don’t like me and have made this abundantly clear, and I’m afraid they wouldn’t listen to me if I emailed them privately about the issue.)
(Sorry, I accidentally posted my Select It Sunday post today instead of Flashback Friday. I removed it immediately and rescheduled it for Sunday. I missed both FF and SIS last week; my apologies. Ironically, it was because I was so busy harvesting website update info that I forgot all about those regular weekly blog features until it was too late. And it’s almost too late tonight; it’s after eleven. I ought to start pre-scheduling these like I usually do with my Make-a-List Mondays.)
This week’s FF case is Irene M. Matheson. She barely qualifies; Flashback Friday cases are for people who disappeared before my birthdate of October 5, 1985, and she disappeared on October 1 of that year. I added her in late 2014 and haven’t updated her case since.
Irene, who vanished from her home in Miami, was 69 disappeared; she would now be 100 years old if she’s still alive. I don’t have much on her. I think she left her home of her own accord, because her car disappeared and she left the doors locked. There were some dishes in the sink but I’m not sure how significant that is; some people wash their dishes right away after a meal (or coffee in this case; there was only a coffee cup and a spoon), and some people wait.
Other than the dirty dishes the home was clean and neat with no indications of a struggle. Irene’s car turned up in an apartment complex parking lot, also neat and clean with no indications of a crime. Oddly enough, although Irene had been missing for two months by then, the car had only been in that parking lot for a week.
I would like to know whether Irene suffered from dementia or any other condition that would cause her to become disoriented and wander away. I think not, because none of the articles I found mention it and because she was working at the time of her disappearance, but I wish I knew for sure.
There’s been no press about this case since December 1985, a few days after her car was found.