Advancing Justice for the Missing and Unidentified Through Research

One of the highlights of the 2024 NIJ Research Conference was the plenary panel, Advancing Justice for the Missing and Unidentified Through Research. Lucas Zarwell, director of NIJ’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, moderated a lively discussion among four experts about the complex issue of resolving long-term missing and unidentified person cases while finding dignified and legal outcomes for the deceased.

How NamUs Works

NamUs is a database that allows for advanced searching and cross matching of missing and unidentified persons. This functionality helps professionals find commonalities and drive resolutions. The database is accompanied by program staff who provide support to investigative agencies through multidisciplinary team-based cold case reviews upon request. NamUs staff can also search for additional biometrics and provide analytical and forensic support.

Heather McKiernan is a senior manager of forensics at RTI International and the NamUs forensic services project manager where she coordinates traditional DNA and forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) testing for users. She spoke about many of the misconceptions about NamUs. One is that the program focuses on adults, but they also handle cases of missing juveniles. Another misconception is that all missing and unidentified cases in the United States are entered into NamUs, but only 16 states require that law enforcement enter information into the NamUs system. Otherwise, NamUs relies on voluntary entry of case information from family members, law enforcement agencies, and medical examiners or coroners. An additional misconception is that NamUs has a research focus, but its main purpose is to provide a practical tool to help solve challenging missing and unidentified persons cases. 

Another challenge is growth. Since its inception, the volume of NamUs cases has grown nearly tenfold. There are currently around 70,000 active cases in NamUs and less than a dozen staff available to support such an enormous case volume. 

Since its inception, the volume of NamUs cases has grown nearly tenfold. There are currently around 70,000 active cases in NamUs.

NamUs and NIJ Help Law Enforcement Fulfill Its Mission

Brandon Elkins, a special agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) who oversees its cold case and human remains initiative, noted how law enforcement investigators need a different knowledge base than even 20 years ago.  In addition to more traditional law enforcement investigation techniques, they must know a little about DNA, anthropology, odontology, and other forensic fields. Good investigators also need a team of people — including forensic scientists and intelligence analysts — who can help with complex cases. 

According to Elkins, NamUs is the gold standard in handling unidentified human remains and missing persons cases. His office uses it constantly. If a person is missing, NamUs takes their biometric information and tracks it until the case is resolved. This means that when unidentified remains are found, information contained in NamUs gives law enforcement a place to start. “We’ve seen cases we turned around quickly just from the information contained within NamUs. It’s fantastic. It’s a great resource for law enforcement seeking forensic testing,” Elkins said. TBI teaches all its new agents how NamUs works.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has also been a great resource for TBI, which has a $470,000 grant through OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance that allows them to target cold cases with complex DNA that need advanced testing. The grant also pays for overtime for their scientists and intelligence analysts and provides funds to bring back a retired agent who examines cold cases. Now TBI knows how many cold cases it has, and they have developed a strategy for managing them. “We’re seeing successes because of tools like NamUs and the assistance of OJP,” Elkins said. 

Advancements in DNA Testing

Erin McBride, vice president of forensic operations at Bode Technology, explained that Bode’s primary business is as a DNA service provider, including using DNA to identify human remains. They test approximately 20,000 cases a year and provide consulting to agencies across the country and the world. They are able to see which challenges their customers face; that perspective drives the decisions about which research grants they apply for. Their participation in research then benefits their services because it ensures they are using the best technology to help these cases. Most public labs do not have the resources to do a lot of research, so Bode can help the community by making research widely available, allowing the entire field to benefit.

Currently, Bode is working on techniques to test DNA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). This technology could change the landscape of human remains identification because it would allow investigators to solve more cases involving highly degraded remains that contain poor quality DNA samples. McBride explained that bone is one of the most challenging sample types for DNA analysis; many labs will not test bones because of the advanced technology and skills required. NIJ has supported a lot of research to improve and validate different technologies for testing degraded remains with the goal of more widespread adoption. 

Using FIGG for Identification 

Traditional DNA analysis and the short tandem repeat (STR) markers that it relies on are really intended for direct comparisons of two DNA samples from the same individual. STRs are very successful at that application; the FBI’s CODIS database has greater than 50% success rate. But this approach cannot identify long distance familial connections. McKiernan noted that STR DNA analysis uses 20 points of data to compare DNA samples, but degraded bone samples may only yield half as many points of comparison, making reliable CODIS matches difficult if not impossible. FIGG collects 600,000 points to over a million points of comparison. This provides genetic connections to people an individual is distantly related to. The success rate for unidentified individuals in CODIS is 13-16%, but NamUs has seen 50% success rate for the 200 FIGG cases it has studied.

Traditional DNA analysis uses 20 points of data to compare DNA samples. Forensic investigative genetic genealogy collects 600,000 to a million points for comparison.

The traditional STR DNA testing (the kind of information found in CODIS) has come a long way, but it still faces challenges. When investigators run a search in CODIS for unidentified remains, they might not get a match for the individual’s DNA. FIGG is a game changer for these types of unsolved cases. 

Elkins discussed how Tennessee committed itself to using DNA technologies across the state. Their law enforcement officers used to run into a “CODIS wall”; the DNA was not a match for anyone in the database. However, FIGG provides a way to get over the wall. “Since we started using it, we’ve seen great successes,” he observed. TBI received funding from the governor of Tennessee to target 14 unidentified remains cases; seven have already been identified through FIGG technology. TBI is also using it with current cases and seeing great success. Elkins sees a need for greater education — both for the public to understand why investigators might need someone’s DNA and for law enforcement officers to recognize the technology’s potential. 

However, McKiernan cautioned that while FIGG is an exciting new tool, it is not the only tool available. NamUs has experienced cases where FIGG was requested only to find that fingerprints, tattoo, or dental records could have resolved the case more quickly and at a much lower cost. McKiernan noted that more than 600 cases have been solved by rerunning latent prints that had been run previously. Research has improved algorithms, so they can now make matches they could not make before. She also observed that NamUs had added a tattoo database to improve identifications. 

Investigators should exhaust other avenues and biometric comparisons before considering FIGG, which always requires the assistance of a qualified lab with the proper technology. If the lab uses a noisy or incomplete profile that was not cleaned of bacterial contamination, the genealogist will not get the necessary information, or it will be incorrect. 

New Developments in Forensic Anthropology

Dawnie Steadman, professor of anthropology and director of the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee, discussed recent developments in both human remains identification and discovery. Because the Center often deals with challenging cases, advancements with forensic genealogy are exciting for the staff who feel the technology is not only applicable to cold cases involving human remains but also for mass fatality incidents and human rights work. 

Other exciting developments in forensic anthropology include the potential for microbiomes to be individualized and used for identification purposes and remote sensing techniques that help find remains. New chemistry techniques like laser induced breakdown spectroscopy can help investigators differentiate individuals from commingled skeletal remains. 

The key to all these potential resources is testing and validation. When researchers add new technology, they need to understand its limits. What are the technology’s boundaries? When does it work and when doesn’t it? What are the associated errors and ethical implications? NIJ’s basic science grants help researchers answer these questions.

Testing Bones for DNA

Bode’s partnership with the University of Tennessee goes back to 2001 when the lab was testing human remains from the World Trade Center attack. During this important work, investigators observed that small hand and foot bones were yielding better DNA samples than more conventional samples like long bones such as femurs.

The issue had never been formally studied, so it became the first project that the University and Bode did together. They ranked each bone in the body based on how much DNA it would yield. They studied skeletons on the surface as well as buried remains. It was important to bring forensic anthropologists and DNA specialists together; the research benefits from multi-disciplinary perspectives. Bode still uses the results of the DNA yield study in practice and communicates specimen preferences through their submission guidelines.  For example: If someone is planning to send bones for DNA analysis, Bode often asks for hand and foot bones or intact molars. McBride noted that the femur is also useful because its size helps it withstand harsher environments to serve as a source for DNA.

The Body Farm

Steadman described the Forensic Anthropology Center’s anatomical donation program, which provides human specimens for criminal justice research and training. In one example, Steadman described the “body farm” which uses anatomical donations to study how human bodies decompose under different environmental conditions. All the University’s anthropological research is possible through the generosity of people who donate their bodies to science. Since inception, the program has had approximately 6,000 pre-donors and 2,000 donors who have contributed and are accepted by the program. Many people become donors because they have an interest in the criminal justice system and forensics, and they want to be a part of the research that strengthens the science. 

Steadman noted, “The Forensic Anthropology Center is set up nicely to test the assumptions that forensic science makes and do basic science testing. NIJ basic science grants are perfect for that.” The center conducted studies about how bodies’ internal variables can affect decomposition and demonstrated how a decedent’s diseases and medications may alter the lifecycles of insects that contribute to the decomposition process. 

"The Forensic Anthropology Center is set up nicely to test the assumptions that forensic science makes and do basic science testing. NIJ basic science grants are perfect for that.” &emdash; Dawnie Steadman

Steadman also discussed how isotopes can help investigators identify a body. She explained that bones and teeth are composed of minerals which contain isotopes that vary according to what and where an individual eats and drinks. Understanding variations in isotopes in these samples may permit investigators to know where a person has lived and therefore may contribute to helping identify a deceased individual. Currently, the Center collects information about donors’ diet and residential history because it may help researchers understand the isotopes they observe in the donors’ specimens and inform the Center’s research. 

The panel gave the audience a good sense of the breadth and pace of scientific developments in this field. These developments will help authorities give names to the nameless and provide more resources to the law enforcement community.