She didn’t. Her sister had an ancestry.com account that linked to her address.....so apparently she was in contact with the sister? If Audrey herself submitted DNA there was no indication of it in the article....nor even that her sister had submitted her own DNA.
I have an ancestry.com account and have never submitted DNA.
For the address where they “found” her to be linked to her sister’s ancestry.com account, someone had to have linked it. Either she or her sister or some other relative that knew where she was.
That means her whereabouts was already known before the detective “found” her.
So the whole story is anti-climactic …. she wasn’t missing - and she obviously wasn’t trying to hide her location from anybody.
The family knew where she was, but no one bothered to inform the police.
How and why would the sister who had no idea where the estranged sister lived, actually link her own ancestry account to the estranged sister? Makes no sense at all.
It’s hard to figure given the limited information, but it looks like she left her husband and kids for whatever reason I’m sure she claims abuse they always do and my guess also is that she had some contact with her own family over the years, but the cops never knew what happened to her and that’s what this is really all about
I do find it odd she left her children with an abuser. Just an observation
And why I choose to go to Indianapolis from rural Wisconsin unless you know someone there
That’s right I’m the detective of lost souls and I’ll guarantee there’s more of the story