RECALLED POSSIBLE VICTIM ASSOCIATED WITH MY PARENTS: A WORKING VICTIMOLOGY 2026

 

WORKING VICTIMOLOGY

RECALLED POSSIBLE VICTIMS ASSOCIATED WITH MY PARENTS

CPTSD Cold Case Texas  |  “Send the Dead Home”

EVIDENTIARY STATUS: This is a working classification of fragmented recollections. It is not a confirmed victim list, criminal finding or clinical determination. Clusters may overlap. Every detail requires independent comparison with official records and physical evidence.

Purpose and analytical unit

This victimology organizes the remembered characteristics, settings and possible points of access connected with fourteen priority case clusters. It does not attempt to assign a definitive victim count. The purpose is to help investigators decide what records, locations and unidentified-remains files might be compared first.

Preliminary victim-pattern observations

·   Remembered possible victims span children, adolescents and adults; no single age group explains the entire collection.

·   Several recollections involve people connected with schools, youth activities, neighborhoods, churches, walking or jogging routes, shopping areas and other ordinary community settings.

·   Drainage channels, ravines, wooded areas, a backyard and transportation corridors recur as possible concealment or disposal settings.

·   Irving and the greater DFW area form the geographic center; Pineville, Louisiana is a separate early-childhood recollection; Sherman is a family-history starting point.

·   Apparent access through family, school, neighborhood or authority relationships should be treated as an investigative hypothesis, not a proven method of victim selection.

Priority safeguards

Do not publish exact coordinates, unreleased victim characteristics or details that could be used to contaminate witness testing. Preserve original writings and emails with dates. Separate firsthand recollection, later family statements, agency correspondence and interpretation.

Core victimology fields for each possible person

·   Identity indicators: approximate age, sex, ancestry description, height, build, hair, clothing, uniform, jewelry and personal effects.

·   Life-context indicators: school, employment, church, youth group, neighborhood, recreation, family or transportation connection.

·   Event indicators: last-known setting, weather, vehicle, companion, approach method, injury or restraint recollection and possible witnesses.

·   Recovery indicators: possible disposal environment, land alteration, construction history, jurisdiction and unidentified-remains comparison status.

 

PRIORITY WORKING CLUSTERS  •  1–8

#	WORKING CLUSTER	AGE EMPHASIS	RECALLED / TESTABLE FEATURES
1	Twin Falls drainage area	Mixed ages	Several possible remains; Scout-uniform recollection; teen girl; toddler; possible overlap must be tested.
2	MacArthur/Irving area	Adolescent	Possible athlete or cheerleader; winter/sleet context; school and activity records may be useful.
3	Irving residential area	Adolescent	Possible jogger; older-brother association; possible backyard disposal recollection.
4	Lee Britain school community	Adult	Three possible school-connected adults; employment, attendance and personnel records may be testable.
5	Drainage area — “Rachel”	Child	Small-child recollection; may overlap another drainage cluster and must not be double-counted.
6	Pineville, Louisiana	Child	Possible tennis-court abduction; neighborhood child reportedly witnessed the event.
7	Irving Mall area	Adult	Possible adult woman associated with a parking-lot recollection.
8	Other Irving/DFW family-linked episodes	Mixed/unknown	Catholic/community and other fragments; identities, counts and overlap remain unresolved.

Working commonalities

·   Vulnerability or routine exposure: childhood, adolescence, school/community ties, walking or recreation.

·   Geographic opportunity: Irving/DFW roads, drainage systems, wooded edges and residential access.

·   Record pathways: missing-person reports, school rosters, employment files, yearbooks, property histories, unidentified-remains records and historical police assignments.

·   Overlap risk: drainage-area fragments and repeated age descriptions may refer to the same person or event; deduplication is essential.

Do-not-combine rule

Keep every cluster separate until at least two independent identifiers support a match. Similar age, hair color or location alone is not enough. Record both supporting and contradictory details so an outside reviewer can see why two fragments were—or were not—linked.

 

ADDITIONAL WORKING CLUSTERS  •  9–14

#	WORKING CLUSTER	AGE EMPHASIS	RECALLED / TESTABLE FEATURES
9	Sam Houston Junior High area	Child/adolescent	Recalled possible orphan burial sites; exact locations and identities remain protected and unverified.
10	Alleged 1970s multistate spree	Mixed/unknown	Possible spree episodes across previously referenced states; state list and event dates must be verified from source materials.
11	Grand Prairie / hay-barn areas	Adult women	Recalled possible undocumented Mexican women subjected to sexual violence and buried near Grand Prairie or beneath hay barns; no confirmed count.
12	Known family residential properties	Mixed/unknown	Possible backyard burials at family-linked addresses; maintain addresses only in a protected property appendix for record and ground review.
13	Alleged licensed-hunting lottery killings	Mixed/unknown	Recalled category involving hunting or lottery framing; licensing, terminology, jurisdictions and records require clarification.
14	Alleged family-annihilation episodes	Mixed ages	Possible household or family-group deaths during the alleged spree; identities, locations and linkage remain unverified.

Protected-location rule

Do not publish exact burial coordinates, private residential addresses or directions to family-linked properties. Maintain a separate protected appendix listing each address, ownership period, structures, land alterations, utilities, aerial images, previous searches and the agency authorized to receive it.

Sensitive-victim classification

The Grand Prairie/hay-barn entry should be compared with missing-person, unidentified-remains, immigration, labor, medical-examiner and community records without assuming that every woman was undocumented or that every fragment describes a separate victim. Use respectful identifiers and avoid publishing graphic sexual-violence details.

Witness and coercion status

Maintain separate witness sheets for firsthand witnesses, people who received contemporaneous reports, family/community witnesses and later record custodians. Maintain a separate protected category for any person recalled as enslaved, trafficked, confined, forced to participate or otherwise coerced. These statuses may overlap with a possible-victim cluster and must not be added as extra people without independent identification.

 

COLOR-CODED TIMELINE

Three chronological layers

The timeline separates: (1) alleged family-history activity beginning in the 1950s; (2) possible childhood events centered in the 1970s and extending into later decades; and (3) adult recall, documentation and reporting beginning in 1999. The date of a recollection is not automatically the date of the possible event.

Investigative sequencing

·   First compare high-specificity details: locations, uniforms, school roles, weather, approximate ages and distinctive circumstances.

·   Then test historical records without revealing every protected detail in advance.

·   Next compare possible disposal areas with property, construction, aerial-imagery and unidentified-remains histories.

·   Finally document confirmations, contradictions and unresolved points in a neutral comparison log.

Timeline interpretation key

Purple identifies the alleged family-history layer; red identifies recalled possible events; orange identifies the beginning of homicide flashbacks; blue identifies documentation and reporting; green identifies later agency or independent-review efforts. The colors classify the source and period of information—not whether a claim is true.

Minimum comparison standard

A useful comparison should identify the source of each detail, the date it was first written, whether it was known publicly at that time, the official record checked, the result, and who performed the comparison. A contradiction must be preserved rather than explained away.

 

CLUSTER COMPOSITION AND NEXT STEPS

Chart basis: fourteen priority clusters classified by the age emphasis of the recollection—not fourteen confirmed victims. A mixed cluster can contain more than one possible person, and two clusters may describe the same event.

Records most likely to clarify the victimology

·   Historical missing-person and unidentified-remains records for Texas and Louisiana.

·   Irving-area school rosters, yearbooks, staff records, student-teacher placements and activity lists.

·   Scout troop records, church/community directories and local newspaper archives.

·   Property ownership, construction, drainage, utility and aerial-imagery records for possible disposal settings.

·   Contemporaneous police intake, assignment, evidence, coroner and interagency-transfer records.

·   Original dated writings, emails and attachments demonstrating what was recorded and when.

Questions for independent review

Which clusters contain details specific enough for blinded comparison? Which may overlap? Which remembered characteristics were documented before outside information was obtained? Which locations have been altered? Which records could independently confirm or disconfirm the account?

Prepared by Brian “Happy” Bryanson  |  CPTSD Cold Case Texas  |  CPTSDcoldcase@gmail.com

 

WITNESSES AND ALLEGED ENSLAVEMENT / COERCION

Chart basis: analytical record groups, not counts of people. The two witness categories are (1) firsthand or contemporaneous-event witnesses and (2) family, community or later record witnesses. The enslavement/coercion category is a protected working category. All can overlap with the fourteen possible-victim clusters.

Witness sheets should record

·   What the person personally saw or heard, separated from what someone else later said.

·   The approximate date, location, age of the witness and relationship to the event.

·   When and to whom the witness first reported the information.

·   Independent records that might establish the witness’s presence, identity or contemporaneous report.

·   Protected details held back for blinded comparison and contamination control.

Enslavement or coercion indicators

·   Confinement, threats, dependency, transportation control, forced labor, sexual exploitation or compelled participation.

·   Who exercised control, the setting, duration, means of escape or release and possible corroborating witnesses.

·   Trafficking, labor, immigration, medical, shelter, church, school and law-enforcement records that may assist identification.

·   Respectful language: describe a person as allegedly enslaved, trafficked or coerced rather than defining the person only as a “slave.”

Counting rule

Never add a witness or coerced-person record to the victim total unless independent evidence shows that it represents a separate identifiable person. Preserve overlaps explicitly.

 

QUESTIONS FOR INDEPENDENT LAW-ENFORCEMENT REVIEW

These questions do not assume that every recalled event occurred. They ask how an independent agency could test whether a real pattern was missed, fragmented, misclassified, suppressed or contradicted by existing records.

1. Were missing-person, unidentified-remains, homicide, runaway, accident and family-violence records from the relevant decades ever compared across Irving, Grand Prairie, the wider DFW area, Pineville and any other verified jurisdictions?

2. Could related events have remained invisible because different agencies, counties or states used incompatible names, classifications, dates, racial descriptions or record systems?

3. How many relevant files were destroyed, purged, lost, never digitized, transferred without indexes or closed without a documented comparison to unidentified remains?

4. Were marginalized people—including undocumented women, children without stable caregivers, people described as orphans, coerced persons and transient workers—less likely to generate complete missing-person reports?

5. Were possible family-annihilation episodes recorded as domestic incidents, accidents, fires, disappearances, murder-suicides or relocations without being compared to one another?

6. Were rural properties, hay barns, hunting areas, drainage channels, ravines and family-linked backyards ever associated with complaints, searches, excavation, construction discoveries or human-remains reports?

7. What licensing, hunting-lottery, land-use, vehicle, property and travel records still exist that could test the recalled hunting-related or multistate allegations?

8. Could school, church, Scout, foster-care, orphanage, employment or neighborhood records identify possible victims or witnesses who never appeared in police databases?

9. Were sexual-assault reports, trafficking indicators, hospital records, community reports or unidentified remains involving Mexican or Latina women reviewed together rather than treated as isolated matters?

10. Did any historical conflict of interest, personal relationship, assignment, supervisory decision or unauthorized access affect missing-person intake, evidence retention or referral decisions?

11. Which details in this collection were documented before they could have been learned from public sources, and which details are contradicted by official records?

12. What blinded comparison process can an independent agency use now to determine whether these recollections correspond to real victims, duplicate known cases or have no documentary support?

Requested outcome

I am asking for a documented, independent comparison—not a predetermined conclusion. Please identify what was checked, what could not be located, what was contradicted, what requires protected follow-up and which agency has responsibility for the next step.

Brian “Happy” Bryanson  |  CPTSD Cold Case Texas  |  “Send the Dead Home”  |  CPTSDcoldcase@gmail.com

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUPPORTIVE LITERATURE

Scope note

These sources support investigative organization, cold-case review, missing-person and unidentified-remains comparison, historical imagery research, and a cautious understanding of trauma and autobiographical memory. They do not verify any particular recollection, victim, offender, location or allegation in this working document.

Investigative and forensic literature

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Serial murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-serial-murder-serial-murder-july-2008-pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Serial murder: Pathways for investigations. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/reports-and-publications/serialmurder-pathwaysforinvestigations.pdf/view

National Institute of Justice Cold Case Investigation Working Group. (2019). National best practices for implementing and sustaining a cold case investigation unit. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252016.pdf

Davis, R. C., Jensen, C. J., Burgette, L., & Burnett, K. (2011). Cold-case investigations: An analysis of current practices and factors associated with successful outcomes. RAND Corporation / National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237558.pdf

National Institute of Justice. (2025). National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). https://nij.ojp.gov/namus

National Institute of Justice. (2000). Crime scene investigation: A guide for law enforcement. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration. (2020). Cartographic and architectural records. https://www.archives.gov/research/cartographic/general-info-leaflet-26

Trauma, memory and evidentiary caution

Brewin, C. R. (2007). Autobiographical memory for trauma: Update on four controversies. Memory, 15(3), 227–248. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17454661/

Brewin, C. R. (2011). The nature and significance of memory disturbance in posttraumatic stress disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 203–227. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21219190/

Staniloiu, A., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2014). Dissociative amnesia. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(3), 226–241. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26360734/

Christianson, S.-Å. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 284–309. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454896/

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., et al. (2019). The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1072–1095. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31584864/

Crespo, M., & Fernández-Lansac, V. (2016). Memory and narrative of traumatic events: A literature review. Psychological Trauma, 8(2), 149–156. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25915647/

 

SELECTED WRITINGS BY BRIAN “HAPPY” BRYANSON

The following are cited as unpublished working papers, narrative accounts, poems, victim sheets and documentary collections. Dates and titles should be checked against the original files before any formal filing, publication or evidentiary submission.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (1999–2026). CPTSD Cold Case documentary collection: dated emails, victim-description sheets, timelines, maps, correspondence and narrative recollections. Unpublished archive.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). Three Red Headed Girls Combined Victim Sheets. Unpublished working paper.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). Will the Van Children Ever Be Found. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). Apology Letter to the Lady Missing a Lip. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). Good Bye Skinny Red Head Girl. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). Hate My Poetry Hate My Life. Unpublished writing.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). When You Look at Me What Do You See. Unpublished writing.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2025). From a Distant Shore a Savior Arrived. Unpublished writing.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (n.d.). Pain Finds Me Again and Again. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (n.d.). A Strange Way to Find Justice. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (n.d.). A Breakthrough in Glenda Flashbacks. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (n.d.). How Did the Vice Manage His Cravings. Unpublished narrative.

Bryanson, Brian “Happy.” (2026). The Screams, the Smells, the Gates to Hell. Unpublished poem and narrative account.

Archive handling note

Preserve the original electronic files, filenames, creation and modification dates, complete email headers, attachments and earlier drafts. A bibliography identifies materials; it does not establish that their contents are factually correct. Independent comparison with official records and physical evidence remains necessary.