The Lancaster County, PA, district attorney announced an arrest in the county’s oldest cold case–the 1975 murder of 19-year-old Lindy Sue Biechler.
The county worked with third-party lab Parabon NanoLabs to identify the 68-year-old POS suspect. Said the DA: “Am I astounded by the DNA technology? Even though I’ve seen it before in previous cases, yes, it astounds me what CeCe Moore and her company can do,” Adams said.
Let’s assume the MSP capitulates and reruns the evidence in the biggest unsolved serial murder case in Michigan history. The vice is getting tighter because the agency itself has used a third-party lab in other cases.
Many, many other jurisdictions, including small agencies with small budgets, have used third-party labs and genetic genealogy to solve very cold cases. Many things concern me about the OCCK investigation, but two concerns present immediately on the subject of reevaluation of the evidence in this case. 1. If no additional DNA can be discovered using the most advanced techniques being used by third-party labs (and NOT state labs), why was it that the evidence was not stored or filed properly in the serial murder case with four young victims? 2. If some genetic genealogy leads are developed, can the MSP be trusted to expeditiously perform the actual detective work that will be required to act on them?
One thought on “Another Cold Case Solved With “Nontraditional” DNA Methods”
My apologies for initially incorrectly assuming it was Lancaster County, Michigan, when it was Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Comments are closed.