Per the NamUs case for James Charles Stanford, “James had told family members before he went missing that he wanted to move to Texas or California to join a convent.”
But James is male. And not even a little child, a teenager. I’m pretty sure they don’t let teenage boys join convents. That has got to be frowned upon at the very least.
Do they mean a monastery maybe?
So I wrote up a runaway case off the NCMEC. Her name is Breanna. After I wrote up the basics from her poster, I was doing more research on the case for details to add to her casefile. She wasn’t in NamUs. I soon discovered why: an article saying she was found safe in August 2016.
I called the NCMEC about this and yup, she was found safe almost two years ago. But she’s still on their website. This is like the sixth time this has happened.
NamUs did have another Breanna listed, a young woman, so I decided to post that case instead. And the same thing happened: I wrote up the case with the NamUs details, then on further research discovered this Breanna had been found murdered in January 2017, only a few months after she disappeared. And she is still on NamUs.
I am seriously fed up.
So NamUs 2.0 has been launched and I have to say, I personally like the improvements a lot. It’s nice to have everything on one page, for example, instead of having to keep clicking through multiple sections. You can search for more than one state at a time.
Best of all, you can now follow more than 50 cases! I’ve spent the last day or so going through cases just following them. It’s going to take awhile obviously. But being able to follow more cases is just great for me.
So I just added the case of Charles Edward Tear, missing from Fargo, North Dakota, to Charley. And there’s an issue. Namely this:
Tear’s NamUs profile gives the date of disappearance as June 29, 2011. But this article has it as June 29, 2001.
One or the other of them is clearly wrong, but I’m damned if I know which. The difference is simply the slip of a finger, a typo. Oh, and ten full years.
I’m going with what NamUs says for now, but I wish I was more certain that was accurate. NamUs isn’t always correct. (Case in point: Tejin Thomas is still listed as a girl on there.)
Writing up a case and she’s got tattoos. Her NamUs page mentions several, including “Right shoulder: Tiger Lilly”. Which gives me pause.
Because several species of lily are sometimes called “tiger lily” (note the spelling difference). There’s also a character in the Peter Pan book and Disney animated movie called Tiger Lily (again, spelled differently), and this MP has a Mickey Mouse tattoo, and that’s also a Disney character.
I believe this MP’s tattoo is neither of those and “Right shoulder: Tiger Lilly” means the WORDS “Tiger Lilly”, probably someone’s name. But that’s only an educated guess and I wish people would be more clear.
[EDIT:] Orrrr perhaps not. See this photo of her.