Is NamUs MP #643 (Erica Franolich) a match for NamUs UP #2607

Author: Shane Lambert

Original Time of Writing: February 2018; updated December 26th, 2020

All articles are subject to editing after the original posting.

Article summary: This article is an argument for a rule-out. The picture below on the left is of missing person Erica Franolich. I think there is enough resemblance to the Jane Doe on the right and that the case details match-up well enough that they should be looked at as a match.

Missing Person: Erica Jayne Franolich (Erica Poprafsky -- maiden name)

Last seen or contact date: October 13th, 1986 at about 9pm

Where last seen: Middleburgh, New York near Main Street and Rail Road Avenue 

Hair: Brown

Eye Color: Brown

Other: mole on left knee

Clothing: Baggy shirt, blue denim overalls

It was in February 2017 when I suggested to the relevant NamUs personnel that Erica Franolich could be considered as a match to Namus' Unidentified Person #2607, a Jane Doe. Below readers will find a copy and paste of the email I sent, one which was sent to Lori Bruski on February 1st, 2017. A snip of the websleuths.com posting that drew my attention to the possible match is after the email message.

From my personal account on Gmail: "Hi, I was reading at Websleuths.com about Erica Jayne Franolich (NamUs MP 643). I saw a member of that website had mentioned UP #2607 listed as a potential match for Erica, but I don't know that anyone ever suggested it to authorities. The missing person and unidentified remains are in the same state (New York). The composite sketch bares a striking resemblance to Erica in my view. Furthermore, the remains were found just 2 years after Erica went missing. I wondered if this should be investigated. I know the post-mortem inverval [sic] doesn't match up, but I also saw that the UP was compared to other people with similar birthdates to Erica./Shane Lambert"*

*note: statement about "similar birthdates" was the wrong phrase to use.

Click to enlarge

A good reason to be skeptical about the match

The post-mortem interval is 15 years. The UP was found in 1988 and the interval means that she, whoever the unidentified person is, was estimated to have died in 1973. That is a major reason to discount the UP and the MP because Erica was known to have been alive in 1986 (ie. there is a 13-year gap between the UP's estimated year of death and Erica's last-seen-alive time).

Judith Brown

However, coroners don't always get things like post-mortem intervals right. The UP has numerous rule outs listed at NamUs, some of which went missing well after 1973 or even well beforehand. That seems to suggest that there is some doubt as to the post-mortem interval's length.

• Judith Brown (MP #3070) went missing in 1977 and she was still looked at as a potential match;
• Marie Blee (MP #5860) went missing in 1979 and she was still looked at as a potential match;
• Barbara Bruno (MP #11582) was last seen in 1980 and she was still looked at as a potential match;
• Charlotte Heimann (MP #5665) was last seen in 1981 and she was still looked at as a potential match. 

Barbara Bruno

Marie Blee

Charlotte Heimann

That they looked at someone, Charlotte Heimann, that went missing eight years after the UP was thought to have died shows that there is not 100% confidence in the year-of-death estimations. That's a good reason to stay open-minded as to potential matches, even when a detail doesn't seem to corroborate. 

None of the MPs just mentioned had the same striking resemblance to the composite sketch that Erica had (although Judith Brown had a very-reasonable resemblance).

DNA for the UP not sufficient

One point that could be added to the points made above is that DNA would not match the Missing Person to the UP even if it was one and the same person. They do have Erica's DNA but according to NamUs the UP's DNA is insufficient. That means that DNA isn't a tool that can be used in this case.

Case under review? No rule out listed

I did get a reply from Bruski on February 2nd, 2017 claiming that the case would be reviewed and the information forwarded:

"Hello,

We have forwarded your email to the primary investigators for their review. They will contact you if they require any further information. The cases will also be reviewed by our staff.

Thank you,

Lori

Lori Bruski
Regional Systems Administrator
National Missing & Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)"

At this point, there is no update and Erica's name has not been listed as a rule out of the Jane Doe's.

Niece of Erica Franolich thinks resemblance is striking

The potential that the UP and the MP might be the same person has caught the attention of an individual on Facebook that I've briefly chatted with. Necia C. Labrador, who says that she is (was?) Erica Franolich's niece, called the resemblance between the MP and the UP's sketch "scary": "That really could be my aunt. The drawing looka just like her" [sic; "looka" probably meant to be "looks"].

In regard to the resemblances, there is, of course, the skin color and the hair color. But don't ignore other points of comparison: the hair length, the hair parting, and the similar teeth. The nose in the photo above and the sketch seem off but that's not going to be an exact science when sketching from decomposed remains.

Where to go from here?

 Where do websleuths go from here? We either want a rule out listed at the UP's NamUs site or we want a match.

Websleuths interested in this case should be looking for information that suggests that they are NOT one in the same person. Looking for a contradiction is the proper way to proceed. To that end, some possible rule-out contradictions are looked at below. However, I don't think any of them are 100% convincing as rule outs. If nothing more convincing can be found, then hopefully this match is examined as a rule out. If it already has been ruled out, then hopefully Erica's name is added to the Doe's profile.

Contradictions:

• UP #2607's age range of 14 to 23 does not match Erica's age when last seen (she was 26);
• The height of the UP is 2 inches off of Erica's height;.

A three-year difference in an estimated age of an Unidentified Person and the known age of a Missing Person is not a big deal in my view. I'm sure any websleuth out there that's looked at lots of cases will have come across bigger discrepancies that ended up being a match. A height of 2 inches is no big deal either: people often get the heights of those they knew wrong when reporting the demographics of missing people to authorities. Furthermore, getting the in-life height of skeletal remains isn't a perfect science.