Meet In CommonNews

Local

DNA nonprofit helps investigators revisit Cache Creek cold case

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: WyomingNews.com

JACKSON — Three of the man’s wisdom teeth had been removed. But one was still in his mouth.That detail helped Teton County sheriff’s investigators narrow down hundreds of missing-person records to seven possible matches for the man whose bones were found up Cache Creek in 1998.But still, investigators failed to find any family connections to the man without a name. Nothing matched the evidence at that time.Now, 28 years after a hiker found the unknown Cache Creek man’s skull, the sheriff’s office has signed a $6,600 contract with the DNA Doe Project, hoping the man’s DNA will lead investigators to his relatives and, ultimately, his name.“We want to give a family closure and just answers to their question of what may have happened to their loved one,” Sgt. Robert Osmond said this week.The DNA Doe Project is a nonprofit that helps authorities identify unknown human remains. Its volunteers use DNA matches and family trees to develop leads.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at WyomingNews.com

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Communities should test major changes on a small scale before making them permanent.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

You find a rare library book your father kept for forty years. Do you return it anonymously?

While clearing your father's attic, you find a rare book stamped by the local library and due in 1986. The library would be thrilled to recover it, but returning it openly would expose a secret he apparently kept for decades—and might produce a spectacular overdue fine.

Does making an old wrong right require admitting who did it?

Explore this quandary