A New DNA Test Could Potentially Solve the Lindbergh Baby Mystery After 93 Years
As the nation is gripped by the upcoming trial in the case of the 'Long Island Serial Killer,' a surprising breakthrough has come along regarding possible additional victims. Two bodies found 14 years apart near Long Island's Gilgo Beach have finally been identified—and even more shockingly, they're connected.
A dismembered adult body found in Hempstead Lake State Park, which had commonly been referred to as 'Peaches' due to a tattoo of the fruit being one of the only defining characteristics to remain, has been identified through DNA analysis as 26-year-old Tanya Jackson. The body of a 2 year old child found roughly 20 miles away from Jackson has been identified as her daughter, Tatiana Dykes. Now, investigators are trying to determine how these two victims died, and if they are connected to killings suspect Rex Heuermann is currently accused of having committed.
When a story of modern forensic technology leading to a breakthrough in a cold case comes along, it's common for historians and true crime enthusiasts alike to wonder what would have happened if this tech had been around during some of the more infamous crimes of past eras. It raises the question: Could the cutting-edge DNA analysis currently being deployed in the Gilgo Beach case have secured—or even overturned—the verdicts in some of the most infamous trials of the past century?
According to a report in Long Island's Newsday, some believe it still could.
In what was called the Crime of the Century, the child of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh was kidnapped and held for ransom on March 1, 1932. The child's dead body would ultimately be recovered not far from Lindbergh's New Jersey home from which they had first been absconded. A German immigrant named Bruno Hauptmann was ultimately convicted of the kidnapping in 1935 and subsequently executed. But with a trial that hinged on elements like analysis of the wood grain of a ladder, some observers (both then and now) have been unconvinced of Hauptmann's guilt—or, at the very least, are convinced Hauptmann did not act alone.
Now, as Newsday notes, three of those doubters have come forward with a lawsuit, seeking to utilize the same modern DNA analysis technology deployed to identify the potential victims of the Gilgo Beach killings to re-examine 90-year-old evidence from the Lindbergh case.
'The plaintiffs want access to certain pieces of evidence—namely several envelopes that contain the original ransom notes,' Newsday wrote, '[...] so they can submit the stamps and adhesives for forensic testing to possibly identify others involved in the crime and prove a conspiracy.'
An attorney for the plaintiffs, comprised of 'an American history professor at the University of Kansas, a retired New Jersey teacher, and a developmental psychologist,' hope to recover DNA from the adhesive materials in much the same manner as investigators were able to recover samples from the heavily degraded bodies on that Long Island beach. In a statement for the court filing, genetic genealogist Colleen Fitzpatrick remarked that 'it has only been recently that DNA testing and analysis have evolved with the potential of testing those envelopes to produce definitive investigative leads that could resolve lingering uncertainties.'
While not one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Fitzpatrick spoke to Newsday about the intended goal of the suit, stating that 'in essence, genetic genealogy could allow researchers to backtrack through public databases to find other modern-day relatives of any potential and long-dead coconspirators in the kidnapping.' She notes that DNA had previously been extracted from 19th century envelopes, so such an effort is not without precedent.
The attorney who filed the complaint, Kurt W. Perhach, asserts that such analysis could clarify if Hauptmann had assistance in the crime, including (possibly) an accomplice close to the Lindbergh family. 'There are far too many circumstantial things [in] this case,' Perhach wrote, 'to have any possible belief that one strange person acted alone.'
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC Sports
an hour ago
- NBC Sports
Tony Buzbee responds to Shannon Sharpe's claim that he targets Black men
Anyone who has been following the NFL since 2021 knows the name Tony Buzbee. He arrived on the scene as the lawyer representing the first plaintiff who sued then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson for misconduct during massage-therapy sessions. Eventually, Buzbee represented more than 20 plaintiffs against Watson. Most recently, Buzbee settled a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who claimed that Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe committed sexual assault. After the lawsuit was filed in April, Sharpe attacked Buzbee personally, claiming among other things that he 'targets Black men.' In a new Esquire profile, Buzbee responded to that claim. 'I didn't wake up one morning and say, 'I want to sue Shannon Sharpe.' He has no relevance in my life,' Buzbee said, via Sean Keeley of 'I actually think he's very entertaining when he yells and screams and talks about sports that he's not involved in. But if I think it's a legitimate case, then I pursue it. And I think this is worth my time.' Buzbee's business model, if he's doing it properly (and the results would suggest he is), doesn't discriminate. He told Esquire that he receives as a fee roughly 40 percent of any recovery his clients get. That's how the American civil justice system works. Individuals who have grievances and who can't afford to pay lawyers by the hour hire them based on a contingency fee. This creates a strong business incentive for those lawyers to take good cases, not weak ones. The question of whether a case is worth pursuing has three prongs: clarity of liability, amount of damages, and the ability to collect on a settlement or verdict. Beyond that, nothing else should matter. And given that Sharpe's lawyer immediately admitted that at least $10 million was offered to settle the case before it was filed and that the case was eventually settled without Sharpe ever responding to the civil complaint, chances are that Buzbee walked away from the Sharpe case with at least $4 million in fees. That's how it works. Find strong cases, pursue strong cases, settle or try strong cases. Buzbee did that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, generating more than $500 million for more than 10 thousand clients who pursued claims against BP. 'I guess a bunch of old white men could say I'm targeting them, and a bunch of multinational corporations could say I'm targeting them as well,' Buzbee said. 'I guess you could say I was targeting BP. . . . Well, I probably was targeting BP.' That's how it works. For anyone who represents individuals on a contingency fee. For Buzbee, the Watson case made him a go-to choice for anyone with valid claims against current or former NFL players. Without the Watson cases, there's a good chance the plaintiff in the Sharpe case wouldn't have known Buzbee's name. That also explains Buzbee's publicity-driven style. At a time when plenty of lawyers advertise their services with gigantic billboards and goofy TV commercials, the best advertisement remains free advertisement from news coverage. Buzbee knows that. His business thrives on that. And there's no reason to pursue a weak case simply to harass someone. That said, a case that seemed strong can turn out to be weak, if the lawyer mistakenly believed a client whose story didn't hold up under scrutiny. That's what may have happened in Buzbee's misadventures with Jay-Z, which resulted in the plaintiff acknowledging inconsistencies in the story she was telling about allegations of rape when she was 13 and the case eventually being dismissed without a settlement. The Esquire profile contains this curious statement: 'Buzbee later withdrew from the case because he has not been admitted to practice law in the Southern District of New York.' The presence of that assertion in the final product, frankly, shows that whoever wrote and/or edited the story has no idea how the legal system works. Lawyers licensed in one jurisdiction routinely seek and receive what's known as pro hac vice (Latin, 'for this occasion') admission in other jurisdictions in a specific case. As long as a local lawyer who is licensed to practice in that court is personally involved in the case, pro hac vice admission is routinely granted. Actually, that's how Buzbee pursued Sharpe. The primary lawyer on the complaint filed in Las Vegas was Nevada lawyer Micah D. Nash. Buzbee's name appears on the document below Nash's, with this designation: 'Pro Hac [Vice] Forthcoming.' This doesn't mean Buzbee was targeting Jay-Z because of his race. The more plausible explanation is that Buzbee took on a case that ended up being far weaker than he thought it was, so he found a way to retreat. Of course, he's now facing a lawsuit from Jay-Z claiming that the lawsuit sparked $190 million in business losses. Unfortunately for Buzbee, he's got the money that would make him a target for a lawyer who represents plaintiffs on a contingency fee. That's the primary motivation in this specific form of legal practice. It's good business to take strong cases with significant damages against defendants who have money. The personal characteristics of the defendants do not matter. All that matters is: (1) did they do something they shouldn't have done?; (2) did those actions cause tangible and significant harm?; and (3) can they easily write a check to make things right?
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: Verdict in 'Black Sox' trial
In 1873, inventor Andrew S. Hallidie successfully tested a cable car he had designed for the city of San Francisco. In 1876, frontiersman 'Wild Bill' Hickok was shot and killed while playing poker at a saloon in Deadwood, Dakota Territory, by Jack McCall, who was later hanged. In 1921, a jury in Chicago acquitted seven former members of the Chicago White Sox baseball team and two others of conspiring to defraud the public in the notorious 'Black Sox' scandal (though they would later be banned from Major League Baseball for life by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis). Advertisement In 1923, the 29th president of the United States, Warren G. Harding, died in San Francisco; Vice President Calvin Coolidge became president. In 1934, German President Paul von Hindenburg died, paving the way for Adolf Hitler's complete takeover. In 1945, President Harry S. Truman, Soviet leader Josef Stalin, and Britain's new prime minister, Clement Attlee, concluded the Potsdam conference. Advertisement In 1974, former White House counsel John W. Dean III was sentenced to one to four years in prison for obstruction of justice in the Watergate cover-up. (Dean ended up serving four months.) In 1985, 137 people were killed when Delta Air Lines Flight 191, a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, crashed while attempting to land at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, seizing control of the oil-rich emirate. (The Iraqis were later driven out by the US in Operation Desert Storm.)
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Black Sox players acquitted
Today is Saturday, Aug. 2, the 214th day of 2025. There are 151 days left in the year. Today in history: On August 2, 1921, a jury in Chicago acquitted seven former members of the Chicago White Sox and two others of conspiring to defraud the public in the notorious 'Black Sox' scandal (though they would later be banned from Major League Baseball for life by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis). 1919 Black Sox: What to know about the World Series scandal, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and moreAlso on this date: In 1790, the first United States Census began under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson; a total of 3,929,214 people were counted in the census, nearly 700,000 of whom were enslaved. In 1873, inventor Andrew S. Hallidie successfully tested a cable car he had designed for the city of San Francisco. In 1876, frontiersman 'Wild Bill' Hickok was shot and killed while playing poker at a saloon in Deadwood, Dakota Territory, by Jack McCall, who was later hanged. In 1923, the 29th president of the United States, Warren G. Harding, died in San Francisco; Vice President Calvin Coolidge became president. In 1934, German President Paul von Hindenburg died, paving the way for Adolf Hitler's complete takeover. In 1945, President Harry S. Truman, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Britain's new prime minister, Clement Attlee, concluded the Potsdam conference. In 1974, former White House counsel John W. Dean III was sentenced to one to four years in prison for obstruction of justice in the Watergate cover-up. (Dean ended up serving four months.) In 1985, 137 people were killed when Delta Air Lines Flight 191, a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, crashed while attempting to land at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, seizing control of the oil-rich emirate. (The Iraqis were later driven out by the U.S. in Operation Desert Storm.) Today's Birthdays: Author Isabel Allende is 83. Actor Butch Patrick (TV: 'The Munsters') is 72. Rock music producer/drummer Butch Vig is 70. Actor Mary-Louise Parker is 61. Filmmaker Kevin Smith is 55. Actor Sam Worthington is 49. Actor Edward Furlong is 48. Actor Lily Gladstone is 39. Singer Charli XCX is 33. Olympic swimming gold medalist Simone Manuel is 29.
