Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan: Something Strange Afoot - The Exceptional Case of Kleanthis Konstantinidis

Episode Date: January 1, 2023

In April of 2019, police are investigating the death of a man named Phillip Pointer, who’s believed to have died of natural causes. When searching his property to confirm this, they stumble across a bucket, inside which they find a severed human foot. Little did they know that this foot would contain answers to a case police had been investigating for three years. In this episode of Body Bags, forensics expert Joseph Scott Morgan and Jackie Howard discuss the difficulties of tracking body parts found in different locations, identifying a body, phenotyping, and more. Subscribe to Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan : Apple Podcasts Spotify iHeart   Show Notes: 0:00 - Intro 1:25 - Background and overview of the case 2:48 - What the police found at the scene 5:00 - What do investigators do to determine if there are any more remains on the property? 8:50 - Figuring out who the foot belongs to 10:50 - Is there a database that tracks body parts and when they are found? 12:55 - Connecting the dots 17:00 - What was the purpose behind the crime? 18:25 - Cause of death and how it was determined 22:45 - Identifying the body parts 26:50 - Identifying tattoos 29:20 - Different types of identification 32:38 - Phenotyping 35:50 - Identifying the victimSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan. I don't clean up my house necessarily the way I probably should, particularly out in the yard. I've got an old shed and tools and whatnot laying around. I don't keep them in the best order, probably, by some people's standards. And I've often wondered, if I suddenly passed away, what would happen to everything I own?

What kind of impression would that leave with the folks that have to come up and kind of clean up after me? I know it's kind of morbid, but it happens. It happens on a regular basis. But I want to tell you about a case where a gentleman passed away naturally and the police, when they were at his house, found something that I think that they'll never, ever forget. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is Body Bags. Jackie Howard, executive producer of Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, is with me. Jackie, I got to tell you, I don't know about you. I'm sure your house is in great order. Maybe you got a tool shed. But for me, I got to tell you, it really does bother me. I think about, I guess it's because I've been out to so many death scenes.

And I think there, but for the grace of God, go I kind of look around and man, when you die, it's just the way it is. You know, if you didn't clean up before you died, it's just going to stay that way. And I guess it leaves an impression on the people that come out and find you and the people that have to clean up after you. Absolutely. And in this case, as in many others we've talked about, it did. I've told you before, Joe, if I run across something and I don't know what it is, I'm not opening it. And this is another one of those cases. This gentleman died of natural causes. Yet, as with any death, the

police came out. They're looking around to make sure that it is indeed natural causes. Yet, as with any death, the police came out, they're looking around to make sure that it is indeed natural causes, and they find in a bucket a severed foot. I can only imagine the condition of this foot. We don't know how long it's been there. We don't know where it came from. We don't know how it was stored. All we know is that it was in a bucket. What did the police find? I just wish I could have been kind of an independent observer, knowing what was coming just to see the expression on their faces, because that's one of those, oh my God, moments. Just imagine, and this is in Biloxi, Mississippi, and it's the busy jurisdiction. And these guys are just going out and look, my hat's off to them because our working assumption is in any kind of death

investigation as forensic investigators, certainly, you know, we say our supposition is that every death, not some deaths, but every death is a homicide until we can prove otherwise. So these guys were doing their job out there. You know, they were just checking to take everything into consideration to try to understand what was going on. And what exactly do you do when you find a foot? How in the world are you going to try to make sense of this? You got a guy that's died of natural causes. I think my first inclination would be, well, let's go examine this guy's body one more

time to make sure he's got both of his feet. And in this case, he did. So, then you have to ask yourself from an investigative standpoint, why would a man, first off, have a foot that has obviously been dissected away from another person and it's in a bucket, it's in an advanced state of decomposition, which to me is kind of fascinating. But it was in such a state, it was not as far gone as maybe we might think because the police were instantly able to still understand that they were staring at a foot that belonged to some person out there. So, it wasn't just like a collection of bones where they had to kind of go through it and say, well, this might be a bone that originated from a hand or maybe this is a bone that originated from a foot. No, they say that this is a severed human foot. So, automatically, you know, you're thinking, well, I got a foot. Where's the rest of the body? Because you have

to answer that question. It's not one of these findings from an investigative standpoint that you can just kind of gloss over and say, well, yeah, he had a human foot. We'll just move on to the next thing. Let's close this case. No, that begs more questions. The first thing that would have to be done is retrieval of the foot, obviously. But as you said, the question is, where's the rest of the body? What would investigators have done on the scene to determine if there was more remains on that property? Well, first off, you're going to look if you've got a if you have a an element of a body in this case of foot. Essentially, the way it's been presented is that it's in a bucket beneath the house. You're going to treat this as if there might be the rest of the remains.

When you say that the bucket was underneath the house, you don't mean that it was buried? No, no, no. It was just underneath in a crawl space or something? Right, yeah. This would have been in plain view for the police. It would have been enough so that they're searching beneath this guy's home, and they look. There is a bucket. Well, let's look in the police. It would have been enough so that they're searching beneath this guy's home and they look, there is a bucket. Well, let's look in the bucket. They pull the bucket out and they see the foot there. So, you have to think, well, if there's a dismembered foot here, this entire area surrounding the foot and the placement of it is a potential that has to be

examined, maybe even excavated at that point in time, because you're going to go through here and see if maybe the rest of the remains had been dismembered and buried beneath the house. So that's something just from Jump Street that you would have to consider to see if you can find anything that's going to match up with the dismembered foot. Do you find a leg bone, for instance, that has actually got saw marks on it where dismemberment may have taken place? Then you have to go into the house because if you have a person that is storing, okay, for lack of a better term, or retaining a severed foot, you have to think, well, are they retaining other

parts? Are there other items inside the house that might be associated? Some mortal remains of someone, you know, is this person, have they taken a body apart and preserved organs, for instance? There have been cases of that where people have done this. You have people that obviously that have taken bodies apart, preserved individual parts, say, for instance, like organs, hearts, lungs, these sorts of things, and put them in jars and put preservative in there. You have people that retain heads. Jeffrey Dahmer famously did that. And there have been other people that like to do this sort of thing or that are compelled to do it for whatever reason. There are people that have been caught ordering human body parts through the mail or over the internet over the years. And of course,

they try to stem that, U.S. Customs does. But, you know, there have been cases where things have come into this country. So, you know, I guess the big thing here is you're trying to find a point of origin and where's the rest of the body. So, as an investigator, you would go from stem to stern in this fellow's house, looking through the house, trying to determine what's there. Is anything odd out of place? You would have to really begin to pick apart this guy's life. And keep in mind, at this point, Tom, he's dead. He's dead. It's not like you can take him downtown and sit him at a table and begin to question him. You know, where were you on this date? What had you been doing on this date?

How did you come into possession of a severed human foot? You don't have that person to ask those questions of. And to my way of thinking, if he's got close friends or relatives, unless he is really out of his mind, this is not something he's going to disclose to anybody else. So his family might not even be aware that he had this there. His friends might not be aware that he had this there. This is some kind of secret that he has taken with him to his grave. So then the investigation turns to trying to discover the identity of this foot? Who does this foot belong to? And how did it end up in a bucket? DNA is your friend, is it not? Of course it is. There's not a lot you can do from an anthropological standpoint. Kind of let me put a finer point on that. When you look at a foot, unlike a skull, for instance, where we can do kind of a typology where you think about you can look for certain racial characteristics.

You can look for indications of whether or not this is a male versus female skull. There's terms that we use, for instance, with a male skull versus a female skull. Like the features of a male skull tend to be what are called robust. You think about your brow line, kind of run your finger across your brow there. Males tend to have kind of what's called a protuberant brow line, very pronounced. Whereas with female skulls, you'll have, they use the term gracile. I love that term, by the way, means kind of fine and it's less robust. And that would be it. But you don't have that with a foot. How are you going to actually begin to narrow this

down? Right you are, Jackie, and saying that DNA would be your friend. I think the key is, are you going to be able to recover any kind of viable DNA from this foot? How well preserved is it? Because, you know, we talk about this all the time where you have a sample and the term that we use is degradation. It becomes degraded where the sample will be no longer viable. What your source would be is so decomposed to the point where you're not going to be able to find viable DNA. But I think in this particular case, that's what they were relying on. So they were able to actually retrieve a DNA sample from the foot. And I think that that's when the story actually takes a turn here. So let me throw another scenario into the mix. This foot was found in 2019. What if you had another body part found, say, three years earlier, 2016, in another state? How do we see if there's a connection?

Excellent question. And it's kind of simple. All it's going to require on the part of the investigators over in Bilox legs or they found a torso or they found an arm or they found a head, but yet the feet are missing in this particular case. That's actually where you start from an investigative standpoint. And then I think that some of the tools that we now have at our disposal, these repositories that exist for individuals that are currently unidentified, like NamUs and those types of places, where they have a repository of DNA sample from unknown bodies. If you can retrieve a DNA sample from that item that you have and submit it, are you going to get a DNA match? That kind of intensifies the investigation. And of course, if you come up with zero,

then you have to kind of rethink your approach to the case. In this particular case, they were able to find, I think, a match in this case. It does actually go back to a case that originated in 2016. I've never been one for puzzles. I've never particularly liked jigsaw puzzles. I lose my patience with them. When I was a kid, I'd be compelled to have to participate in that activity. It's just something I lose my patience with really quickly. In this particular case, we've got kind of a human jigsaw puzzle at this point in time. How are we going to match up a foot that's found in Biloxi, Mississippi with any other dismembered body that might be found, I would assume, in a kind of a regional context? Because you got to think that whoever took the foot off of this body didn't go too far with it, perhaps.

And I think that that's what the police were looking at here. What happened in this case, a body was found along the side of US 90 in Louisiana in St. Tamity Parish. And it was also not intact body. It was just a torso. The man's arm was missing and one leg had been severed just below the knee. Now, again, this was in a different state. It obviously took three years to put these body parts together. How did they do it? What is the connection here? Well, the connection is the fact that in 2016, when this dismembered remain was found, the coroner at that particular time, at St. Tammany was found, the coroner at that particular time, at St. Tammany Parish, the coroner at that time made the determination of the cause of death. He knew that he was dealing with a body that was missing both arms, but the head was intact, most of the torso was intact, and like you said, one of the feet were missing.

And there was also some other trauma that would have been what's called superior to where the foot was dissected off. It's almost like somebody got into the knee. They were going to attempt to also dissect that knee. They'd taken the foot off, then they'd moved up the leg to the knee, and they kind of stopped midway through this. And that gives you an idea that there was an attempt perhaps to take apart the entire body. Maybe they just lost energy. Maybe they were scared, thought that they were going to be found out. And they essentially put the body into a vehicle and then dumped it along U.S. Highway 90, which runs along the Gulf Coast. 90 is actually the old road, U.S. Federal Highway, that people would go back and forth on. Now I-10, which is just to the north of it, has taken the place of that. But U.S. Highway 90 still exists.

Interestingly enough, where the foot was found was over in Biloxi. Where the body was found back in 2016 was roughly about only 60 miles away. And that's what? That's like a 55-minute car drive, maybe. If you're just staying within the speed limit, say you're driving 65 miles per hour, 55 to an hour and five minutes, depending upon how fast you're going. It's not that far away. So the question I think for me is, why is it that an individual would take apart this body to a certain degree, dump it in Louisiana, and then travel down the road to their home and retain the foot.

Why in the world would you retain the foot? Because you would think that the body itself would be the biggest obstacle to overcome. You're trying to dispose of it. You just throw it out alongside the road. There's no indication that there was an attempt to really hide it or anything like that. It's almost like it was a dump, if you will, just alongside the road. A thoroughfare where somebody's traveling so conveniently, they just kind of take it and lay it out alongside the road. But yet they retain the foot and take it home with them. That's super bizarre. I'm like you though, Joe. I'm beginning to question why. I guess the better question would be what was the purpose as opposed to why would they do it? What purposed them to engage in this? Are they attempting to hold on to the foot as a

trophy item or are they forgetful? Say, well, you know, I got the foot in a bucket. I'm just going to stick it under the house and I'll get to it eventually. What's your purpose for retaining the foot if you're the perpetrator? I have no idea. Maybe there's some kind of psychological attachment to it. But the fact that he did have it is what led to the break in the case. Because the coroner over in St. Tammany, when obviously they've got this horrible remain that they recovered off of Highway 90, in addition to their assessment, the physical assessment of the body, they did take a DNA sample. And so that DNA sample was sent to a repository where you have these individuals that are unknown. And hopefully at some point in time, in the future, they would be able to get a hit, maybe a familial hit on a family member where

they could say, yeah, well, we have a human remain that is more than likely related to this living person. I don't know that in their wildest fantasies, they would have thought that the connection would have been made between the dismembered foot and the body that they had found three years earlier. What was the cause of death? The body was found, discarded on the side of the road, not sure how long it had been there. What was the cause of death and how was that determined considering that there were body parts missing? Well, let's get to the cause of death. I like that and I really want to talk about the missing arms. The cause of death in this case is going to be blunt force trauma.

And what that means is that somebody had taken this fellow and literally beaten him to death because the way the coroner terms it, he had sustained massive skull fractures. There was massive skull trauma, multiple fractures. So, if you just imagine cracking of an egg and that represents a skull, every time you kind of strike an egg, say a hard-boiled egg, that's a better example than an unboiled egg, a hard-boiled egg, every time you strike the exterior, that external table of that shell, you're going to create a fracture. And it'll kind of have like a spider web appearance. I think that most people can kind of appreciate that. So, for every one of those little spider webs that you see, imagine that it's a wagon wheel with a hub. For every one of those, that represents an individual impact, okay? So, when you hear a coroner or medical examiner say,

well, we've got multiple blunt force trauma to the head, what they're saying is they can appreciate, first off, what's called a focal area of hemorrhage. If you have soft tissue remaining, that is the scalp. And then underlying, perhaps, there's this kind of egg-like fracture that has taken place. And you'll have multiple of these. So for every, say, for instance, you have this skull fracture that is radiating out like the spokes on a wagon wheel. Every time this fellow is struck, it's leaving behind this evidence of individual strikes all the way around it. And in addition to that, not only was he struck about his cranium, okay? But he's also got multiple fractures over his face as well.

So, whoever did this to him intended to bring about his death as a result of literally beating him to death. So, you've got these fractures that are existent. And one of the difficult things in the morgue, when you have multiple fractures like this, you'll have these kind of interrelated communicating fractures, okay? And what that means is that where an individual is struck, it radiates out like the spider web. And then from an adjacent fracture point of impact, you'll have those radiating lines that'll come out and they kind of overlap many times. And if you've got a lot of them, it takes some time for the pathologist to sit there and say, okay, this little line of fractures is related to this impact. This one is related to this impact.

And you say, well, Maureen, why is that even important? Well, it's important because you get an idea as to perhaps the sequencing of the injuries. You know, in what order did they occur? If there's any evidence of, for instance, this is very important where we have no hemorrhage, that indicates that this is a post-mortem injury, that somebody continued to beat this guy after he is dead. So you have to kind of assess all of that as you go along, and it puts a fine point on what brought about this guy's cause of death. For my money, you learn more about the dead from the life that they led,

those things that they were associated with, family, friends, all those sorts of things. You learn more from their identification many times than you do about their cause of death. And with this victim that was partially dismembered, we know specifically what brought about his death. He was pummeled to death. He was beaten to death with multiple skull fractures, facial fractures. But if you really want to get to the heart of the story, you have to find out who he is. And for the police in both Mississippi and in Louisiana, it was a head scratcher for them. They had no idea. Trying to identify this person who's been left on the side of the road and identifying and matching this foot. How is that done? Obviously, we know they made the DNA match. That's how they

were able to connect the two different body parts. But this gentleman was still not identified. The arms were missing, which meant they couldn't do fingerprints. How did they make the identification? I actually had a case in my distant past where I found a body in a creek and both of the hands were missing off of the body. And it wasn't the smartest person that had done this because they left the guy's wallet in his back pocket, but they cut the hands off of this individual and immediately you begin to think well they cut the hands off because they wanted to impede the ability of us to get him identified through fingerprints but in this case you've got both arms missing which is is odd in and of itself and what do you accomplish by that

what a lot of this is supposition on our part as an investigator. You have to kind of think, what's the purpose behind removing not just the hands, but also the arms? And this is my thought. Nowadays, with proliferation of tattoos, tattoos are specific identifiers that we look at. So, if anybody has tattoos on their arms, you can look at it and say, that appears to be the same tattoo that my brother had or my dad had or whatever the case might be when you're trying to get a body visually identified. Removing the arms, it can mean that maybe the individual had tattoos and you're trying to impede the investigation by doing that. And oh, by the way, at the end of the arms, you've also got hands, which you can roll a print off of. And if the person has a record anywhere, and not necessarily just a record, but for those of us that have been in the armed forces,

for instance, if you've never been printed before in your life, you're going to get printed in the armed forces. And today they do DNA swabs, but you're going to get printed. And so you've got a print card on file somewhere out there. Certain employers keep print cards. And then not to mention the criminal population, anybody's been booked at any point in time. You've got a print card somewhere. So that's something else from was it just part and parcel of dismembering a body to try to make it compact so that it would make for easier disposal? Or are you trying to hamper the authority's ability to roll a print or make a visual ID with the tattoos. What's fascinating about this case, and I can't get past this, having grown up in this area, you have got possibly two of the apex predators in the world that inhabit this area. You've got alligators, because the body was actually found immediately adjacent to an area

that's called the Rigolese. And the Rigolese is a pass, essentially, a pass in the water that goes from Lake Pontchartrain into what another body of water is called Lake Bourne. And then that opens out into the Gulf of Mexico. So you've got alligators that are in dwell this area out there. There's actually swamp tours in this particular area. People go out on boats and they see alligators. They're everywhere down there. And then out in the Gulf of Mexico, you got sharks. So why just take the body and kind of dump it right there on the side of the road when it could have been more easily facilitated where nobody would ever find the remains, potentially, if you placed it out there.

And the fact that they went to these laborious lengths of trying to dissect out a body and then just kind of suddenly dump it is kind of fascinating to me, I think. It's almost like it was an incomplete attempt at getting rid of a body. But thankfully, because they were able to retain and capture DNA, they were able to get a positive ID on this individual. You mentioned a couple of times in there, Joe, about being able to identify tattoos. How is that? Are you talking about recognizing the pattern, the kind of inks? How do you do that?

Dependent upon the artist that actually – look we we can let's just say it plainly tattoos are far more common than they used to be in the early days there were specific people that that were highly skilled at identifying the work of specific tattoo artists i don't know if people understand this you would sit the people that would learn to kind of perform tattoo artistry would sit at the feet of a master, essentially, and they would kind of learn how to do this. And they all kind of had this family tree that they would descend out of. Well, this looks like so-and-so's work, okay? So, you could almost regionalize it. There was like several famous tattoo artists. I think there was one in particular in Baltimore that was very, very popular and he was well known. And you could see people that had kind of copied

his work or learned from him. So, that's kind of a tieback. But nowadays, you've got people that have shops everywhere. There's been a real proliferation. So, it kind of waters down your ability as an investigator, kind of narrow down what the actual origin of that is. Now, if you've got an older gentleman that's had a tattoo for a protracted period of time, it used to be that you would have people that were in service, particularly people that had traveled overseas to like the Philippines that would get tattoos, say around Subic Bay and those areas like that, that were in the Navy, those were specifically identifiable. Then you have more rough-hewn tattoos, which actually kind of make it easier to identify an individual. And I'm thinking

things like homemade tattoos and jailhouse tattoos, because certain tattoos, you look at it and you can say, well, yeah, that kind of looks like a jailhouse tattoo that somebody had this done in prison. It doesn't have the same precision to it. It doesn't have a variety of inks. And so those are little indicators to us as to the origin of the tattoo. Well, if you got a jailhouse tattoo, guess what? That's invaluable when it comes to an investigation because you can say, well, this person has done time in the joint perhaps. And depending upon the type of tattoo, it might lead back to a specific point of origin and where they had done time. At least you have a place to start. That's the important thing about getting IDs done.

In forensics, in death investigation, we kind of have this old idea that doesn't really exist anymore of visual ID. Visual ID is the worst kind of ID that you can do, where you kind of have this droopy old morgue attendant you think about from the movies years ago, where a weeping family member comes into the morgue and they pull the sheet back and they say, yes, that's my brother or whatever. Doesn't really happen like that anymore. And if it does, it shouldn't happen that way because we have so many tools at hand to get people identified. So, there's three levels of identification that we have. We have unidentified, which means we have no idea who this person is, which in this case certainly happened. We had a foot and then we had a partially dissected remain that was in another

state, had no idea who they were.. So that's unidentified. Then we have something that's called presumptive ID. Presumptive ID is kind of that mushy middle ground that you have. And I've had cases where I had no DNA to necessarily work with, or the individual had no family members to compare the identity to. I had a case in particular where a woman was locked in her house with her dogs for about five months, and the dogs had consumed a goodly portion of her body. And so, the house was locked from the inside. Her keys were there. Her wallet was there. Her car was there. But there was nothing of her that remained from her waist up, okay? Had no fingerprints to go on. She had no living relatives. So, that would be a presumptive ID. That body was a female body. She was African-American

and she resided there. We knew that that was her home and we had nothing else to hang our hat on. Okay. So that's a presumptive ID. And then we have a positive ID where scientifically, we've been able to verify through DNA, fingerprints, dental, that sort of thing that definitively is that person. The least reliable probably is a visual ID because you can have, there are too many things that can happen with a visual ID. First off, people are terrified when they show up to the morgue to see a body. They're so emotional many times that they're wrecked.

I've had multiple bodies misidentified over the years through visual ID. I never rely on government ID. It's something that it's a starting place. You know, if somebody has a driver's license on them, it's a starting place. But I have to be able to verify that to say, OK, I think that this is who I have. If I've got a body that is just torn to shreds, I can't look at a driver's license and actually say, well, yeah, this is the same person. It kind of looks like them. How are you going to do that when a person's face is horribly disfigured? It's a starting place, okay? I don't trust any kind of ID because it can be forged

a year from now after I've stated that definitively that I got that body ID through a driver's license and it turns out not to be them, well, I've just put myself in a heck of a position, not to mention the horror that descends upon the family at that point in time because I assumed something. I assumed something and it turns out not to be their loved one. That has happened as well. So you have to be very definitive about these things. And one of the most definitive things you can do nowadays, and there's no excuse not to use it, is DNA. There's another component here, and that is phenotyping. What is that,

and how does it come into play? Well, with phenotyping, you're taking a sample of DNA, okay, and based upon the markers within that DNA, as it is examined, you can come up with certain traits or characteristics that are unique to that DNA strand. And what that means is that they can, and listen, listen, it's not 100%, okay? It's not. But it's really quite amazing technology because they can hazard an educated guess. They can say that with phenotyping, based upon the markers that we see on this strand of DNA, we can offer an opinion that this individual, say for instance, is Middle Eastern in origin. Okay. So therefore, they're going to be more dark complected, maybe olive complected. There's a high likelihood they'll either have brown or green eyes. Their hair might be black and straight, brown and straight, maybe slightly wavy. We can get an idea for height in many of these cases. They can also get an idea for the build of the person. And if they really

dig deep with this, they can see certain markers that might be indicative of the type of health the subject may have had. There might be some kind of DNA predispositions to certain types of health issues they might have in their life. And when you do that, you begin to kind of bring this picture together of who this person might be. And, you know, amazingly, with these types of cases, they can create a composite of these individuals, a DNA snapshot. And these DNA snapshots are absolutely amazing. They can create and generate an image of a person. Now, like I said, imagery, going back to driver's licenses, imagery itself is not necessarily enough to confirm an identification.

This is merely a place to start. So just because you have a phenotype that gives you an outline of what the person or who the person might be, what their point of origin is, it doesn't mean that you have a specific of what the person or who the person might be, what their point of origin is, it doesn't mean that you have a specific identification on the body, okay? And I got to mention this as well. In this particular case, the LSU FACES lab got involved with this case. The LSU FACES lab was the first lab in the United States located at Louisiana State University. They were the first lab where they actually digitized a human skull and were able to model a skull to great effect.

And they also do clay modeling. And they generated a clay model on this gentleman that they found in St. Tammany Parish back in 2016 and were able to get an idea of what he may have looked like in life in a 3D sense like that. So you couple that along with the phenotyping, and now an image begins to appear. The key, though, the key is to find specific connectivity linkage, if you will, through DNA to a family member. Ultimately, this gentleman was identified. His name is Cleanthus

Constantinides. They were able to, through the DNA, match to a family member of North. And not surprisingly, the phenotype sketches of what they thought this man would look like matched, Joe. Isn't that amazing? DNA is a modern wonder from a forensic standpoint. Clay modeling is fine, and we've done that for a number of years, and that was kind of the first step, I think, for many of us. But when we see what they're doing with these so-called phenotyping snapshots, if you will, it's absolutely amazing how you can take those base elements that we kind of spring from and capture a picture, capture a picture of

a real person and kind of conjure them up out of this DNA phenotyping. And the similarities are absolutely just striking. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan, and this is Body Bags. This is an iHeart Podcast.