No bones about it…

October 15, 2009

Bones found in California kidnap case probably old

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Bone slivers found near the home of a California man accused of kidnapping Jaycee Dugard and holding her for 18 years did not yield human DNA and are probably old Native American remains, police said on Friday.

“The DOJ Bureau of Forensic Services was not able to recover human DNA from any of the bone fragments,” Contra Costa County Sheriff’s spokesman Jimmy Lee said. “A forensic anthropologist says the bones are probably human, old and likely Native American.”

This article presents misleading information. The article says “for 18 years did not yield human DNA and are probably old Native American remains, police said on Friday.”

Problem: Are Native American remains not Human?

The article reads as if Native Americans are not human and is disrespectful. Thank you for your time.

Al, an Archaeologist

It would have been clearer from the start if the lead had not used the word human. However, a quote in the story, “A forensic anthropologist says the bones are probably human, old and likely Native American,” makes it very clear that Native American bones are human bones: GBU Editor

Join the Good, Bad, Ugly Facebook Blog Network

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Al, you must have been BORED!

Posted by Shingebis | Report as abusive

DNA on bone could have been animal. Any human DNA associated with the bone would have degraded over time.

Posted by Missourian | Report as abusive

Get a life, AI.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive