Murphy, Heather. “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html

    Following the discovery of a mummified hand by an 11 year old girl in a volcanic cave in western Idaho, investigative officials were immediately called to the scene. After some digging and careful excavation, the investigators were able to recover a partially mummified male torso. Anteceding extensive investigations and cross referencing of current case files in Idaho, no male missing person that had been reported was able to be matched to the body. However, following a deep dive by investigators not only into the historical records of crime in the area but also relatively new types of forensic investigation like genealogy, the investigators were finally able to determine who the body belonged to. The deceased male found in the cave was Joseph Henry Loveless, a bootlegger with a history of escaping jail back when he lived in the late 19th century. By using the aforementioned strategies and investigative techniques, the final identification was able to be made, putting a centuries old mystery to rest.

    The most significant forensic aspect of this investigation is that this case is able to demonstrate the tremendous power and potential that exists with the application of genealogy to forensic investigations. In order to make the final identification, the investigators were able to get in contact with the bootlegger’s 87 year old grandson, in order to obtain a DNA sample. Having travelled from Idaho to California to obtain the DNA, the investigators were relieved to have been able to make a match. Despite the body having been dead for over 103 years, the incredible technology that is at the disposal of forensic investigators allowed them to make a positive identification in spite of the large time interval that separates the moment of the suspects’ death and the moment the body itself was discovered by the investigators. This perfectly shows how genealogy is decisively part of the future of forensic science. By taking DNA from known relatives of suspects, invigilators are able to make a spotivie genetic identification without needing a direct sample from the suspect. This will likely prove useful in solving many cold cases going forward. 

    There are a few areas of improvement that I noted in the article. In laying out the background of the criminal history of the person involved, the author provided a very interesting and compelling story, but simultaneously neglected the same attention to detail when it came to the actual forensic aspects of her article. Instead of talking so much about how the body was found, I would have preferred a more in depth discussion of how genealogy actually works, how effective it is, and with what degree of accuracy it can prove or provide for some genetic match. Another question to consider is how distant a relative one can contact in order to obtain sufficient similar genetic evidence to prove a solid case. All of these concerns are central to the widespread use of genealogy, and in neglecting them, the author significantly detract from her work.