Evidence: well sourced. Imported from the supplied 65-Case Master Edition, dated September 19, 2026. Source links and classifications are retained as an attributed case account; import is not an independent source review.
Case at a glance
- Case number
- 031
- Date / range
- 2018
- Sector
- Law enforcement and forensic genetics
- Genetic asset
- Unidentified remains and genealogy profile
- Security principle
- Restorative Identification
Event summary
The 2018 identification of the woman long known as Buckskin Girl as Marcia King became one of the earliest prominent successes of investigative genetic genealogy for unidentified remains.
Source: dnadoeproject.org — Buckskin Girl / Marcia King source 1.
The case in context
The identification of Marcia King shows a use of genetic genealogy directed toward restoring a name to unidentified remains. It shares the relative-matching mechanism of suspect investigations while serving a different immediate purpose.
The distinction does not remove the need for careful confirmation or consideration of living relatives. A genealogy lead, documentary research, and the final identification play different roles. Respectful family contact and clear retention decisions help keep a beneficial outcome connected to an accountable process rather than treating success as proof that every method was appropriate.
Acquisition and processing
unidentified remains → DNA extraction/profile → genealogy matches → family tree → candidate identity → family confirmation
The sequence of events
- unidentified remains
- DNA extraction/profile
- genealogy matches
- family tree
- candidate identity
- family confirmation
What became inferable or exposed
Unidentified remains and genealogy profile
The 2018 identification of the woman long known as Buckskin Girl as Marcia King became one of the earliest prominent successes of investigative genetic genealogy for unidentified remains.
Affected parties and consent
- Direct parties
- Marcia King and relatives contacted during identification
- Indirect parties
- Relatives and connected participants may be relevant where the asset contains relationship information.
- Direct count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Indirect count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Consent status
- The authority for collection and comparison must be assessed in the specific investigative or legal context; affected relatives may not have participated themselves.
Security dimensions
Confidentiality
The confidentiality question concerns unidentified remains and genealogy profile. Exposure and further inference must be distinguished from the fact of collection or availability.
Integrity
The integrity question is whether the described material, permissions, processing, or interpretation can be relied upon. Restorative Identification identifies the particular boundary examined here.
Availability
Access and continuity are assessed for the described event; potential effects are not presented as confirmed outages or losses.
Provenance
The relevant chain follows unidentified remains and genealogy profile through the stages shown below. Missing public detail is not proof that internal records did not exist.
Consent, persistence, and relational exposure
Consent
The authority for collection and comparison must be assessed in the specific investigative or legal context; affected relatives may not have participated themselves.
Persistence
Later reuse depends on the actual asset and links to other records; no future misuse is asserted.
Relational exposure
Relatives and connected participants may be relevant where the asset contains relationship information.
Case-specific assessment
confidentiality complex; integrity/provenance critical; consent unavailable; relational exposure extended-family scale; public-interest benefit high.
GeneticSecurity.org analysis
Genetic Exposure Radius
No single level is assigned where the supplied dossier gives a range, conditional outcome, or broad institutional consequence. The affected parties and proposed assessment are shown separately.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Persistence Risk
Persistence depends on the specific biological material or information retained. A potential effect is not treated as an observed genomic disclosure.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Provenance Integrity
A numeric provenance level is not inferred from the existence of a source or court record. It requires evidence of the relevant custody and processing controls.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Proposed classification and its limits
Suggested GER: GER-2/3. Suggested GPR: GPR-4. Suggested GPI: GPI-4 if chain and confirmation are documented.
These are proposed classifications from the supplied case dossier. Conditional scores describe an assumed exposure; they are not evidence that it occurred. A single numeric value is left unassigned when the asset or outcome is not sufficiently bounded.
What this case does not prove
A genealogy lead is not a final identification and does not imply that every database or relative was searched.
Mitigations and lessons
- Case eligibility criteria
- Respectful family contact
- Independent confirmation
- Database-policy compliance
- Minimization
- Genealogist documentation
- Post-identification data retention rules
Primary sources
- PRIMARY SOURCE dnadoeproject.org — Buckskin Girl / Marcia King source 1
Secondary sources
No additional source listed. See the evidence notes for limitations.
Policy and standards
Genetic Security Policy and StandardsReview and correction history
Source edition: September 19, 2026. Imported case account; no substantive corrections recorded.
Correction policy and logCite this case
GS-CASE-031. Buckskin Girl: Genetic Genealogy Gives a Jane Doe Her Name. GeneticSecurity.org. https://geneticsecurity.org/cases/031-buckskin-girl-marcia-king-identification/