The Date as Published

NamUs MP139789 identifies Ramos as 17 at disappearance. Its Date of Last Contact field spells out January 6, 2025; the circumstances account gives 01/06/2025 as the last-contact date.¹ The spelled-out field clarifies the date label used here, while repetition inside one record does not provide independent corroboration.

The narrative does not say whether the contact was in person, by telephone, through a message, or otherwise. It supplies no observer, time of day, companion, or destination. The original question behind this guide therefore remains open: what documented event supports the contact-date entry?

Houston as the Listed Locality

The location fields give Houston, Texas, postal code 77009, and Harris County.¹ They provide geographic context without identifying an exact observation site. This paper does not treat the locality or map reference as a home address or a documented departure point.

Identification and Agency Reference

NamUs lists black hair, brown eyes, height five feet, and weight 100 pounds. Its clothing and distinctive-feature sections have no entered information.¹ Those physical fields can help match a later notice, but they do not explain the circumstances of the contact.

The agency entry names Houston Police Department at (832) 394-1872 and case 24944-25.¹ Keep that person-specific case reference with any further source. A name match in a family notice, directory, or unrelated document is insufficient to add its people and events to this file.

The Administrative Dates

The agency Date Reported is January 6, 2025, the same day as the contact-date field. NamUs Case Created is March 7, 2025; the surrounding webpage displays May 7, 2026 under Date Created.¹ Matching contact and reporting days does not establish a single simultaneous event. The later database and webpage dates do not establish later contact.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

The reviewed record gives a labelled contact day, a matching report day, and later publication-related dates, but no account of the contact’s means.¹ It does not establish conflicting witness accounts. The missing detail is the event behind the date.

Can you find an attributable agency account identifying what contact occurred on January 6? A dated description of its means and observation context could distinguish a physical sighting from another communication without assuming either.

When you compare numeric date wording in another notice, can you identify the source and the event it labels? Match MP139789 and case 24944-25. A repeated date is more useful when its source explains whether it describes contact, observation, or reporting.

Here’s where you come in: explore that original source question in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Keep the date wording, locality, and administrative history separately labelled as you save sources and notes. Leave unsupported movements and explanations open; relevant information belongs with investigators.

Conclusion

The Houston record provides a clear contact-date label and a reporting reference. A fuller chronology depends on identifying the contact itself. Preserving that distinction keeps the entry useful without converting a date field into an unreported last-seen narrative.