Identification of a decedent in a 103-year-old homicide case using forensic anthropology and genetic genealogy

Abstract

Anthropologists are often the custodians of long-term unidentified human remains though their positions as curators of university or museum skeletal collections. Various factors decrease the solvability of these legacy cases including the passage of time, the loss of provenience for specific cases, and lack of documentation or case records. While anthropologists can contribute important information toward identification, it is often necessary to explore novel and cross-disciplinary strategies to resolve difficult cold cases. In long cold cases, the postmortem interval, in particular, may be difficult to estimate leading to further challenges in achieving identification. Modern advances in radiocarbon bomb pulse dating, isotope analysis, and actualistic studies have contributed to positive identification of unidentified human remains in some legacy cases, but may not be available to all forensic practitioners and law enforcement from resource-poor agencies. Pooling resources, as well as collaborating with professionals outside of forensic anthropology, is a useful strategy to pursue when anthropological methods are exhausted.The case study presented here demonstrates a collaborative approach between forensic anthropologists, forensic genetic genealogists, and law enforcement in a century-old homicide. The dismembered and mummified parts of a male body were recovered in a remote cave in 1979 and again in 1991. Despite forensic anthropologists creating and updating the biological profile over the decades from recovery to present, no identification was made until the application of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) to the case in 2019. New interpretations of bone microstructure and trauma analysis are presented for the case, alongside the historical documentation and "proof of life" evidence used by the genealogy team. A review of the FGG methods underscores the challenges in this case (e.g. significant endogamy, multiple aliases used by the victim) and the steps taken toward resolution. Ultimately, a combined anthropology and genealogy approach resulted in a confirmed identity for a man who was murdered in 1916.Key pointsForensic scientists should leverage a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach toward human identification.When combined with forensic anthropology methods, forensic genetic genealogy is a valuable tool linking biological and cultural-historical aspects of identity.Forensic anthropologists should review challenging cases in their labs as new methods are introduced and new resources become available.

Keywords: Forensic sciences; forensic anthropology; cold case; forensic genetic genealogy; human identification; investigative genetic genealogy; postmortem interval; skeletal trauma.

Figure 1.

Skeletal inventory of Joseph Henry Loveless presented as a case timeline. Gray elements indicate those never recovered. Black elements were recovered in 1979. Blue elements were recovered in 1991. Red areas were cut and sampled by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1979 and not present for current analysis. Yellow areas indicate cuts made in 1979 by the Smithsonian. The green area indicates the histological section made by Idaho State University (ISU) 2019. The orange areas indicate the bone window made on the right femur in 2015 for DNA sampling (sent in 2017), and the 2019 DNA sampling of the left tibia. Dotted lines indicate perimortem dismemberment locations.

Figure 2.

C6 vertebra, posterior–superior (image left) and anterior–superior (image right) views. Inset A: closeup of linear incised defects anterior and inferior to the defect across the right superior articular facet. Inset B: closeup of a defect on the right superior endplate.

Figure 3.

Right femur, anterior view. Inset A: closeup of defects on the anterior femoral surface; the chop marks described in the text are indicated by black arrows. Inset B: fracture surfaces of the midshaft transection; small arrowhead indicates direction of fracture propagation (from failure in tension to failure in compression) and large arrowhead indicates direction of force application (from compression to tension). Inset C: microscope image of a false start kerf on the anterior femoral surface associated with the distal shaft transection. Inset D: kerf walls of the distal shaft transection; arrows indicate direction of blade progress. Note: the femoral head cut mark was made by analysts at the Smithsonian in 1979.

Figure 4.

Left femur, anterior view. Inset A: distal kerf wall; arrows indicate direction of blade progress. Note: the midshaft transections are associated with sampling for histological analyses in 1979 and 2019.

Figure 5.

Left humerus, posterior view. Inset A: proximal kerf wall. Inset B: distal kerf wall; arrows indicate direction of blade progress.

Figure 6.

Right humerus, anterior view. Inset A: proximal kerf wall. Inset B: distal kerf wall; arrows indicate direction of blade progress. Inset C: microscope image of a false start kerf on the anterior surface of the distal section.

Figure 7.

Wanted poster describing the homicide of Agnes Loveless thought to be committed by her husband, Joseph Henry Loveless (alias: Walt Cairns).

Figure 8.

The headstone for “Joseph Henry” (born 1870) in the Loveless family plot in Payson City, UT.