Anyone know DNA testing in Maryland which is legal uscis supported, looking to get a DNA test from my parent from who I derived citizenship from as supporting evidence

Survey Link

Hello all!

As you might be aware, there has been very little research into direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry testing and psychological wellbeing outcomes. This novel research aims to help us better understand the psychological significance of DTC Ancestry testing results.

This survey asks you about your engagement with family history and your reflections on that process. It also asks you to think about your ancestors and how you have reflected on their life experiences. Participation involves completing an online survey that will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Taking part in the study is completely voluntary and no personal information will be collected.

This study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr Janine Lurie from the Psychology Discipline within the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at Federation University (Melbourne, Australia). This study will also form the basis of the research dissertation requirement within the Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours) course for student researchers Charity Marisa and Stefan Redpath. This study has been approved by the Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval reference: 2026/137).

To participate you just need to be aged 18 years or over. It is important to note that you will not be asked to give any specific details about any of your family members. You are asked just to rate your general impressions of them on a small number of questions. Beyond this the survey contains broader more general questions about your perspectives and reflections.

Survey link below:

https://federation.syd1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cO1RqRp3fjkHOp8

Downloadable .csv, and code for creating the data set is also available.

My paternal grandfather had blonde hair and blue eyes. Our surname is Pitaluga, which is Genoese. He was born in Cuba, both of my father's parents were. Modern ancestry on Ancestry in 2024 was 26% Spain for my Genoese grandfather, but my My True Ancestry results highlight my Y-DNA breakdown and historical matches are closer to Italian than Spanish. Here's what Grok said it could factually say: **Yes, the evidence strongly supports Genoa/Liguria (Northern Italy) as the primary root for your paternal (Y-DNA) ancestry, with plausible historical ties to Norman Sicily via Genoese/Northern Italian migration, rather than core Castilian/Spanish origins.**

### Y-DNA Breakdowns (Yours and Father's)

- **Your Y-DNA** (R1b 60.7%, I2 8.94%, R1a 7.81%, J 6.96%, G 5.39%, E1b 2.55% + traces) and **father's** (similar R1b-dominant with J/G/I2) align closely with modern Ligurian/Genoese population genetics: high R1b (U152/P312 mix), elevated G/J relative to much of Italy, and pockets of I2. These are consistent with ancient Ligures + Neolithic/Mediterranean inputs preserved in the region.

- This pattern does **not** match peak Castilian/Spanish profiles (even higher R1b-DF27 dominance, lower J/G). Your 26% Spain in modern AncestryDNA is typical for many Cubans (due to broad Iberian colonial input + admixture), especially a half-Cuban person, and does not override the specific Y-DNA or surname evidence pointing to Genoa. Genoese immigrants to Cuba would contribute to "Spain" buckets in some ancestry models due to shared Western European/Iberian-adjacent signals and historical overlaps.

### Surname and Historical Context

The Pitaluga surname's first recorded mention in Liguria (Genoa area) in 1257 directly supports Genoese origins. Genoa had a major maritime empire, with strong commercial and settlement ties to Sicily (including Norman-era and post-Norman periods). Genoese traders, settlers, and auxiliaries were active in the Mediterranean, including Norman Sicily (Kingdom of Sicily under Norman, then Hohenstaufen/Angevin/Aragonese rule).

### Norman Sicily Connection

- **Plausible overall ancestry link**: Yes. Normans conquered Sicily in the 11th-12th centuries (heatmaps reference ~1130 possessions). They recruited widely from Northern Italy, including Ligurians/Piedmontese/Lombards, as administrators, knights, and settlers. Many "Northern Italian" elements in Sicilian genetics trace to this era + later migrations. Genoa interacted heavily with Norman Sicily through trade and alliances. A Genoese paternal line could have participated in or followed Norman activities, leading to Sicilian branches (e.g., Messina area, as hinted in the images). Your Y-DNA (R1b-dominant with European Neolithic mix) fits Northern Italian migrants to Sicily better than core Norman (more Scandinavian I1/R1a influences, though diluted) or local Sicilian profiles.

- **Aristocracy indicator?** Unlikely to confirm "Norman aristocracy" specifically from Y-DNA alone. Norman elites often carried Western/Northern European markers, but by the time of settlement in Sicily, their lines mixed, and many "Norman" Sicilian nobles included Italian allies. Your heatmap shows strong Italian (Liguria/North) signals, consistent with a Northern Italian contributor to Norman Sicily rather than a direct Viking/Norman founder. It supports being part of the broader Northern Italian influx that helped form medieval Sicilian society, but not definitive proof of high aristocratic status without genealogical records.

### Ancestral Heatmaps and Periods

The heatmaps (with strong signals in Northern Italy/Liguria, some broader Mediterranean) reinforce Genoa-area matches over time. Combined with the surname timeline (13th century Liguria), this fits Genoese expansion and movement to places like Sicily/Cuba. The Norman overlay (~1130) provides a historical vector for Northern Italian gene flow into Sicily, which aligns with your Y-DNA without requiring a purely "Spanish" root. Later Cuban colonial history (Spanish rule but with Italian immigrants) explains the modern admixture.

**Conclusion**: Your paternal line and surname make a Genoa-rooted ancestry (with possible Norman Sicily extension via Northern Italian migration) the most coherent explanation. The 26% Spain is expected colonial-era noise for a Cuban-descended person and does not contradict this—many Genoese-Cubans show Iberian signals autosomally. This is factual based on the images, haplogroup distributions, and historical records of Genoese presence. For confirmation, traditional genealogy or deeper subclade testing would help trace specific branches.

Is it possible to accurately determine the percentage of relation based on one of these home kits? I want to find out if my sister and I have the same dad. But the problem is that my mom can’t know and I am no contact with my dad. Please help 😭

For further context, I am undeniably my father’s daughter, too many facial and personality similarities despite growing up separated. But my sister looks nothing like him. We have a super unique last name, and when my sister did the DNA test by herself, the last name didn’t pop up once. I know same parent siblings can carry different traits but what I am afraid of is getting inconclusive results.

I have avoided this for years but my sister really wants to know the truth.

I have two MyHeritage DNA matches with identical names and the following info:

Match 1: Male, age 80, Canada. He and I share 125 cM, 15 shared segments, largest segment 17 cm. Chromosome 7 shows a 9 cM segment he and I share.

Match 2: Male, age 80, Portugal. He and I share 116 cM, 14 shared segments, largest segment 17. This match and I do not share any portion of the Chr 7 segment mentioned above.

Those two matches share with each other a total of 7084 cM. MyHeritage classifies those two as "Self/Identical Twins"

My inclination is to say they are the same person. Does anyone have a different theory?

​

Hi all. I am working on a detailed genetic genealogy project and need to choose who to test next with a limited budget. Two people close to me weigh the options differently, so I have set out both views by topic below and would value outside perspectives.

What is already tested and known

\\- I (the subject) have not tested yet.

\\- Two paternal uncles have tested, so the paternal side is well represented.

\\- The direct paternal line is already resolved to a deep, well documented Y lineage, so the paternal question is essentially answered.

\\- One structural point: my maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother are sisters, so there is some pedigree collapse. In practice my grandparental generation has three independent lines rather than four.

The decision

My goals are to recover the missing maternal side of my genome, enable phasing, preserve long ancestral segments, and strengthen downstream work (GEDmatch, G25, chromosome painting, IBD, ancient DNA comparisons, admixture). Budget is one kit, possibly two if I do test myself for phasing. The two candidates in play are my mother and my maternal uncle

The two views, by topic

1. Recovering the missing maternal autosomal DNA

One view favors the maternal uncle: his autosomal results become available and add maternal grandparent ancestry, and they would look broadly similar to my mother's anyway. The other view favors the mother: the one region absent from every tested kit is my maternal grandfather's line, and my mother carries it directly, in the exact segments I inherited. The maternal uncle shares no direct DNA with me and holds only a different recombined draw of the same grandparents, so his results reconstruct the grandparents rather than reading my own genome.

1. Phasing and segment level analysis

Only a parent lets my genome be split cleanly into maternal and paternal halves. The maternal uncle cannot phase me. Phasing improves chromosome painting, G25, IBD, and trace ancestry resolution together, so this is a major point in favor of the mother.

1. The maternal grandfather's Y line

This is the maternal uncle's genuinely unique contribution: he carries my maternal grandfather's Y line, which no one else does. The interest here is in seeing whether that line shares the same haplogroup as my known paternal line or a different one. The problem is that in both scenarios it does not help much. On an autosomal test it appears only as a coarse haplogroup, not a genealogical Y result, so whether it looks similar or different it tells us very little. It also belongs to a separate patriline and sits outside my own resolved paternal Y line, so it does not extend the lineage I am actually researching.

1. Trace ancestry and statistical noise

I have some small trace readings of about one to two percent each. These are known to be noisy, sometimes unassigned, and can shift between updates. One view treats them as meaningless. The other notes that the way to actually test whether any are real is phasing and segment evidence, which requires a parent, and that real recent ancestry can legitimately sit at one to three percent, so the size of a reading does not by itself separate real ancestry from noise.

1. Pedigree structure

Because the two grandmothers are sisters, one grandparental line is already partly represented through the paternal uncles, which shifts the real gap onto the maternal grandfather. There is also some background endogamy, which can raise homozygosity and subtly bias admixture and G25 fits, and testing a parent helps measure and correct that.

1. Tools and cost (23andMe versus FTDNA)

A 23andMe kit gives autosomal data plus phasing when a parent is tested, but for a paternal line it returns only a coarse haplogroup, not a genealogical Y result. FTDNA Family Finder is also autosomal and is cheaper than a 23andMe kit, and FTDNA is the correct place to pursue a Y line properly. So the maternal uncle's autosomal could be captured more cheaply on FTDNA, and his Y line belongs on FTDNA anyway. That would leave the premium autosomal kit free for a parent, and an FTDNA Y test on the maternal uncle would make sense specifically if and when the maternal grandfather's patriline becomes a target.

Where I currently lean, and what I am asking

Taking all of this together, I am leaning toward testing my mother with the 23andMe kit, mainly for the phasing and for the direct recovery of my maternal grandfather's autosomal contribution, and keeping the maternal uncle for a later FTDNA test if his Y line ever becomes a priority. I am not certain, though, and would welcome advice on the following:

\\- Between the mother and the maternal uncle, which would you test first, and why?

\\- How much weight would you give the maternal grandfather's Y line, knowing it only resolves to a coarse haplogroup here and sits outside my own paternal line?

\\- Does the two grandmothers being sisters change your reasoning?

\\- For anyone who has run phasing and chromosome painting projects, how much practical difference did testing a parent actually make?

\\- If budget allowed two kits rather than one, which pair would you choose?

Thanks in advance for any advice. I am happy to share more about the pedigree or the existing results if it helps.

I have a friend who has recently been diagnosed with lupus. Unfortunately she has a lot of sensitivities so before she starts taking hcq she'd like to know if it would suit her genes.

Does anyone know if ancestry or 23&me or any other test would cover that?

This is not homework, I'm old. Thank you.

I'm curious about what is different enough about a human haplogroup for it to be given it's own letter?

So for example in human mitochondrial DNA, there is L and then a series of sub Ls and then N and M. Why is N so different from say, L3, that it's not just given L4?

Hello - This case is in its 30th year unsolved. Since it is getting headlines again, I wanted to share the below data in the hopes this community has any thoughts, comments, theories.

Mary Jacqueline Broadway Levitz

Probable violent disappearance • Vicksburg, Mississippi • November 18, 1995

Evidentiary caution

This brief summarizes publicly reported information. It is not a substitute for the original Vicksburg Police Department (VPD), Warren County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO), Mississippi Forensics Laboratory (MSFL), FBI, court, property, telephone, laboratory, and search records. “Reported,” “recalled,” and “said” identify claims that require confirmation. Inclusion of a person, financial relationship, or theory does not imply suspicion or wrongdoing. No hypothesis should be built by selecting a person first and interpreting all evidence around that person.

1. Case identifiers and present status

Mary Jacqueline Broadway Levitz, commonly called Jacqueline, Jackie, or Jacquie, was born February 11, 1933. She was 62 when she disappeared from Vicksburg, Warren County, Mississippi, on November 18, 1995. She was a white woman, about 5 feet 6 inches and 125 pounds, with blonde or graying-blonde hair, hazel eyes, and pierced ears.

The historical scene was 15 Riverwood Circle. Modern property systems sometimes normalize the road as Riverwood Place or Riverwood Drive. Her cream-colored Jaguar remained at the residence.

Controlling identifiers are:

VPD case 95-90002167.

NamUs MP12791.

NCIC M884374516.

FBI file 7A-JN-23066, newly identified in an FBI FOIA release.

Mississippi Repository coordinates 32.352639, -90.877889.

Repository contact Susan Ebeling; FBI Jackson public number 601-948-5000.

The Mississippi Repository and NamUs list the matter as open and missing. A Florida civil court declared Levitz legally dead and her estate was opened around November 2000, but no remains have been publicly reported. An FBI memorandum prepared for a planned August 26, 2004 CBS Without a Trace feature administratively classified the matter as “unknown subject; deceased victim; kidnapping.” That label is an FBI administrative classification, not a judicial finding or proof that a body was recovered.

The team must preserve four distinct statuses:

FBI administrative status in 2004: unknown-subject kidnapping with a deceased victim.

Florida civil status around November 2000: legally dead for estate purposes.

Current Mississippi/NamUs status: open missing-person case.

Biological fact: no publicly reported recovery of Levitz or her remains.

Through July 10, 2026, no located public official source announces recovery, offender identification, arrest, indictment, CODIS hit, current reward, published modern laboratory result, or closure.

1. Executive assessment

The most defensible reconstruction is that Levitz was alive November 18, returned to Riverwood after shopping, and encountered violence in or near the bedroom/bathroom. A substantial blood scene existed on the mattress, floor or carpet, and in the bathroom; later reporting says the blood was hers. Scattered artificial nails suggested struggle, but locations, condition, and tests remain undisclosed.

Sheets/bedding, two bags, and a schedule book were variously reported missing, while earrings, furs, safe/jewelry, luggage, contents, and the Jaguar remained. Around 10–11 p.m., a neighbor’s visiting son reportedly heard or observed a vehicle depart. Tire marks suggested it backed toward the river-facing side; a later summary placed a K9 scent endpoint near that position.

Best fit is serious injury or death inside, followed by vehicle removal, possibly in bedding; she may have been alive when removed. Land, water, and a second location remain open. The prosecutorial gap is offender identification and an evidentiary bridge.

Confidence calibration

High confidence: a major blood scene existed; Levitz did not leave voluntarily in an ordinary sense; the Jaguar and valuable property remained; she was never verifiably seen or heard from again; a serious assault or criminal event occurred; evidence went to the state crime laboratory and later to the FBI or other laboratories; and the matter generated interstate FBI work.

Moderate confidence: the event occurred on the evening of November 18; a vehicle removed Levitz or transported the offender; the tire marks relate to that vehicle; missing bedding aided removal, cleanup, or concealment; detached nails resulted from defensive activity; and the schedule book was intentionally taken.

Low confidence or unproved: death occurred in the bedroom; Levitz was dead before removal; the Mississippi River was the disposal site; the East Baton Rouge object was her; the November 17 Rolls-Royce witness saw her; any particular family, contractor, business, stranger, or financial theory explains the event; or Sante or Kenneth Kimes had any connection.

1. Victimology, residence, and access environment

Levitz was born in or near Oak Grove, Louisiana, in a large farming family. Accounts mention childhood cotton picking, though sister Gerri Brown disputed the most dramatic versions. Levitz moved to Beaumont, attended secretarial school or worked as a secretary, won a beauty competition, married Walter Bolton, moved to the Washington–Alexandria area, and had one biological son. She bought, renovated, and resold houses; married restaurant owner Banks “Smitty” Smith; developed substantial real-estate and design interests; moved to Palm Beach; and married furniture executive Ralph Levitz in 1987. She became active in Palm Beach social and charitable life and cared for Ralph through multiple strokes. Ralph died March 25, 1995, at the couple’s La Costa home, after which Jacqueline returned south.

The Washington Post described Riverwood as approximately her 28th house. She should not be reduced to the label “furniture heiress”: reporting valued her independently accumulated estate at about $4.45 million, with broader estimates of $5–8 million, distinct from Ralph’s approximately $15 million trust.

Betty and John Moody sold Riverwood to Levitz. Reporting places the cash price at $250,000–$260,000 and title on October 13, 1995. The existing 2,900-square-foot house was to be doubled or expanded to about 7,000 square feet through renovations estimated near $500,000.

Levitz was essentially camping in the unfinished house with a mattress, refrigerator, and plastic lawn chairs. That sparse setting reduces ordinary household clutter but greatly expands the legitimate-access population. Built-Wright was identified as a principal contractor. Reports refer to about 25 subcontractors or crews reaching roughly 40 workers, including carpenters, day laborers, suppliers, delivery personnel, debris haulers, estimators, inspectors, and anyone with a key or knowledge that doors were unsecured. The Los Angeles Times reported that a “couple” of workers had recently been fired and that two drifters were questioned and released. Those are lead categories, not offender identifications. The complete worker roster, time sheets, pay records, vehicles, access methods, keys, interviews, alibis, and elimination samples are essential.

Other addresses matter for contacts and financial reconstruction: 1520 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach (“Il Sogno”), where the couple married and which reportedly sold in 1991 for about $3.9 million; 124 Cocoanut Row, acquired for $2 million and conveyed by a June 1997 representative deed near $1.75 million (OR Book 9833/Page 304); an unidentified Palm Beach Towers office condominium sold in 1996; and 7246 Estrella de Mar Road, Carlsbad/La Costa, linked by reporting but not yet a proved deed chain. Secondary feeds show Riverwood listed in May 2000 and sold in November 2000 near the civil-death date. That is an estate lead, not crime evidence; obtain certified deeds.

1. Integrated chronology

Before November 18, 1995

Ralph Levitz died March 25, 1995. On April 17, Joe E. Broadway and Don R. Broadway signed a $70,000 note to Jacqueline concerning Arkansas land and a family cabin. The note and later litigation prove a family financial relationship, not involvement in her disappearance. Riverwood title reportedly transferred October 13, and extensive work began during October and November.

Friday, November 17

Peter Eargle reported seeing a woman he believed was Levitz around 4:30–5 p.m. in a rare two-door Rolls-Royce with a man in his forties. Barrett believed he saw Ted Mackey and Mackey’s blonde girlfriend in a four-door Rolls-Royce after a wrong turn, but Eargle maintained they did not match. Barrett also reportedly placed Levitz at the Isle of Capri. This unresolved identification is not evidence against Mackey and is separate from the November 18 vehicle. Betty Moody recalled a call from Levitz about a vessel passing on the river; original phone records should fix its date and time.

Saturday, November 18

The last-confirmed-witness sequence is unsettled. Carpenters and neighbors reportedly saw Levitz during the morning or day. The official repository says she was last seen leaving a Vicksburg store, later identified as Mid-South Lumber & Supply on U.S. 61 South.

James Burnett said he, his wife, and daughter viewed wallpaper with Levitz around 4:30 p.m. WMC’s later wording could imply November 19, but other records indicate November 18. In 2026, Mollie Burnett called herself the last witness; separate notes say Holly Burnett. Original statements, receipt, register tape, and employee records must settle date and identity.

Employees also recalled that roughly a week earlier Levitz arrived with an unknown man in a pickup, bought a barbecue grill, and paid cash. That man was reportedly not recognized. This is a separate lead from the last-seen event and must be independently identified.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a neighbor saw Levitz enter Riverwood shortly after 4 p.m., which conflicts with a 4:30 p.m. store encounter unless a time, date, or description is wrong. Original statements are necessary.

Tiki Shivers reportedly tried to persuade Levitz to attend the birth of a relative. A sister reportedly called around 9 p.m. and received no answer. The caller, precise time, number, call disposition, and sequence remain unresolved.

Between about 10 and 11 p.m., a neighbor’s adult son, visiting from out of state and reportedly outside walking a dog and smoking, heard a vehicle start behind a high wall and saw or heard it leave. Other accounts say it backed toward the house, its lights came on, and tire tracks were found in the grass. No make, model, color, plate, occupant, or direction was publicly released. Barrett believed Levitz was in the vehicle, but that was an inference, not an eyewitness observation.

Sunday, November 19

Family members reportedly made repeated unanswered calls. No complete call chronology has been made public.

Monday, November 20: discovery and scene-control conflict

Nancy Whitten’s account, published in 2015, changes the entry sequence. She said Tiki asked her to check whether Jacqueline was injured. Whitten saw the Jaguar, got no answer, called Tiki from a friend’s phone, and returned. The kitchen door was locked; the improperly latched front door opened when touched. Following a television, she found a stripped bed; rolled comforter; television, water glass, and diamond earrings on a bay ledge; a washtub-sized dark blood-like area at the bed’s foot; and apparent damage to a closet frame near the bathroom. She called James Earl Shivers from the kitchen. James contacted Madison Parish Sheriff B.B. Harmon, who contacted Barrett. Police arrived, Barrett noted broken nails, cleared the house, and called the state laboratory. Whitten recalled tire indentations by a river-facing approach construction workers did not use. She later stayed overnight with family permission.

Earlier AP, Washington Post, Court TV, and 2005 accounts instead describe James Earl Shivers as discovering the scene. Jody Gatling said he accompanied Shivers and saw blood. One possible reconciliation is Whitten first, James next, Gatling with or after James, then police control, but this cannot be adopted without reports, dispatch records, and scene logs. Every pre-control entrant, later family visitor, officer, worker, and burglar matters to contamination and elimination analysis.

November 20–24

State laboratory processing, interviews, bluff/ravine searches, boats toward LeTourneau Landing, and a helicopter search about 20 miles south and into Louisiana followed. Blood was submitted and FBI help requested. November 24 KXAS/NBC5 footage survives at the University of North Texas, accession UNTA_AR0776-307443-FW3602-04, and may preserve the original scene context.

November 25: separate burglary

George H. Alexander III and James Randall Cook entered Riverwood about a week after the disappearance and reportedly stole a fax machine and seven credit cards from a bathroom drawer. This was a separate crime and serious contamination event. Their prints, DNA, routes through the house, touched surfaces, statements, and recovered items must remain available as elimination evidence.

November 26–December 10

A Forest County team used a dog named Polly around Riverwood; a four-hour bluff/ravine search and an aerial search were negative. The FBI opened a preliminary interstate-abduction inquiry and pursued multi-state leads. A later summary said a dog tracked Levitz’s scent to the suspected front-yard vehicle position; whether this was Polly is unclear.

Alexander and Cook were charged December 3–4. Burned card remnants were found behind a Clay Street residence, and the fax machine was recovered from a ditch in Delta, Louisiana. Each reportedly blamed the other for portions of the burglary. One reportedly said the other told him the house was enterable because no one would be home. Both denied involvement in the disappearance and were later reported cleared of it beyond the burglary.

Around December 4, an Exxon worker saw a possible body near East Baton Rouge, about 220 river miles downstream. It was not recovered; sex and race were unknown; and no comparison evidence exists publicly. Officials soon treated the connection as speculation. Searches included the lagoon below Riverwood, Bayou Macon, I-20 boundary areas, borrow pits between Vicksburg and Tallulah, wooded banks, river areas, and Louisiana terrain.

Leadership disruption

Barrett left office in December 1995 following conviction on unrelated federal false-declaration charges; Otho Jones became interim sheriff. This does not prove mishandling. It does require a careful audit of handoff, evidence custody, lead ownership, file completeness, property-room inventories, FBI and laboratory communications, and continuity among Barrett, Jones, and Martin Pace. If Barrett’s testimony becomes essential, the unrelated conviction may also create credibility or disclosure issues for prosecutors.

1996–2000

The FBI Laboratory was reportedly analyzing evidence in January 1996. National television coverage followed, and more than 20 psychics contacted authorities. Claims by Helen Churchwell Legotti, Dr. Ernesto Moshe Montgomery, and others were tips, not evidence.

In May, FBI spokesman Hal Nielson said the inquiry continued; Pace said no lead supplied the missing link. In September, psychic Barbara Norcross and attorney Elliot S. Shaw supplied names or locations allegedly tied to Levitz’s Florida past. No disclosed evidence validates her claim that Levitz was killed three days after disappearing; later allegations about the family were dismissed as baseless, and Norcross said her lawyer invented them.

A $200,000 reward was offered. Tiki became conservator; properties were sold under court supervision. A Northern Trust death/distribution proceeding was dropped. Related Shaw v. Shivers litigation reached the Supreme Court docket, but its subject cannot be inferred from the caption. The strongest public source places civil death and estate opening in November 2000.

2001–2026 reviews

Around 2001–02, new detectives, witness reinterviews, and newer forensic work were reported. FBI official Edwin Worthington discussed improved DNA and biological-fluid analysis.

In 2005, reporting said the blood and artificial nails were Levitz’s, evidence had been tested and retested, Jay McKenzie reviewed two boxes of files/photos, Richard O’Bannon reported more work, and Debra Maden said evidence went to several laboratories.

The family canceled the reward in 2007 after Walter III’s death and estate distribution. In 2008, agencies reportedly met monthly and conducted DNA testing unavailable in 1995; no result was published. In 2015, Pace said a medical expert found the described blood volume alone did not prove death. The Repository received the case November 8, 2022. Later secondary coverage and Mollie Burnett’s 2026 statement produced no official resolution.

1. Crime-scene reconstruction and property pattern

Entry and interior

Accounts call the front door open, ajar, unlocked, or not fully latched. The kitchen-area door was reportedly locked. No exterior forced entry was publicly reported. A closet frame near the bathroom looked broken or kicked. Because many workers had legitimate access or knowledge of insecure doors, lack of forced entry does not prove Levitz admitted someone she knew.

Reported blood locations include the mattress, head and foot of the bed, carpet or bedroom floor, bathroom, and a possible smeared or cleaned area. Words such as “soaked” cannot determine mechanism. Original photographs, diagrams, measurements, and testing must distinguish passive saturation, pooling, projected or impact staining, cast-off, transfer, swipe, wipe, drips, dilution, cleanup, voids, movement of a bleeding person, and post-event movement of the mattress.

The bedding descriptions conflict: mattress soaked; mattress turned; bed stripped; sheets missing; comforter rolled against a wall; bedding possibly used to wrap Levitz. These are not interchangeable. Investigators must determine who moved the mattress, whether the comforter was collected, whether sheets were truly missing rather than removed during processing, whether a body-sized void existed, whether fibers were recovered outside, and whether every component of the linen set was inventoried.

Artificial nails potentially preserve a struggle path, offender skin or blood, hair, fibers, and protected touch DNA under adhesive. Unknowns include count, exact position, broken versus detached condition, attached natural tissue, packaging, submission history, results, and current retention.

Missing versus remaining property

Items variously reported missing were Levitz; a small black-leather purse with gold clasp; a larger lizard-skin tote or makeup bag; wallet, cosmetics, hairspray, and “first aid” contents; sheets or bedding; and a detailed scheduling notebook. Items left included the cream Jaguar; diamond earrings valued around $3,000; fur coats reportedly worth about $200,000; jewelry associated with a concealed safe, reported as high as $500,000; an unopened safe; luggage; household contents; and a half-finished glass of water.

Court TV said the only property Tiki identified as missing was the two bags, which conflicts with earlier schedule-book and bedding accounts. The original inventory must resolve this. The pattern weakens ordinary household burglary but does not eliminate an interrupted robbery, document-focused theft, or a search for portable cash.

If the schedule book was intentionally removed, it could reveal an appointment, contractor, delivery, property deal, payment, phone number, travel plan, personal meeting, or legal/financial consultation. First prove it was present before the event.

The glass of water was behaviorally unusual to Whitten and Tiki because Levitz was fastidious. Its value depends on whether it was photographed, collected, printed, swabbed for lip/saliva DNA, used by a second person, touched by early entrants, or retained after the burglary.

The Jaguar records should establish lock and key status, odometer, fuel, seat position, trunk contents, receipts and materials, prints, hair, fibers, blood, soil, vegetation, service history, and whether it was driven November 18.

1. Evidence ledger and forensic history

Reconcile one ledger across every agency and laboratory. Highest-value exhibits and records are:

Mattress/swabs/cuttings; carpet/floor and bathroom samples; blood-pattern images and diagrams.

Artificial and natural nail material, tissue, adhesive interfaces, and packaging; sheets and comforter.

Glass/water, earrings, closet frame, doors/hardware, phone, television, bay ledge, and windows.

Tire/yard evidence, photographs/casts, dimensions, scene map, K9 scent article, handler route, and endpoint.

Jaguar report; missing-bag and schedule-book descriptions; safe, jewelry, furs, luggage, and property inventory.

Latent, hair, fiber, trace, footwear, foreign blood/mixed DNA, and elimination samples from workers, entrants, police, laboratory staff, family, and burglars.

Separate-burglary items; original photographs/video/diagrams; scene-entry, dispatch, and responder records.

State/FBI/outside-lab forms and accessions; all 2001–08 retesting; and the medical blood-volume opinion.

Public chronology is state processing in late 1995; FBI analysis reported in January 1996; renewed work around 2001–02; multi-laboratory retesting reported in 2005; and DNA testing in 2008. No later result or test date is public.

Unknowns include accessions/analysts; victim reference; whether attribution used serology, DNA, or both; completeness of STR profiles; mixtures or foreign contributors; Y-STR/mtDNA work; CODIS history; nail, hair, fiber, print, and trace results; remaining/consumed quantity; seals; and last audit/review.

Modern forensic sequence

Before consuming evidence, reconcile all holdings; photograph seals; recover extracts, slides, and cuttings; assemble elimination profiles; and review images for protected surfaces.

Prioritize nail undersides/adhesive, non-passive mattress areas, bathroom fixtures/drains, hardware, glass rim, seams, and bedding fragments. Begin with conventional STR; use Y-STR, mtDNA, or SNPs only when justified. Genealogy requires a defensible unknown profile, exclusion of contamination/elimination sources, and legal, policy, privacy, and prosecutorial approval. Determine the signal before consuming finite material.

Digitize latent lifts and reassess trace evidence. Compare soil, pollen, plant, fiber, adhesive, paint, or construction materials to vehicles, sites, or workers only through a legitimate nexus.

1. Vehicle, search, and geographic analysis

The November 18 vehicle is the strongest disclosed lead because it may unite witness perception, lights and departure, tire impressions, possible reverse loading, K9 termination, and Levitz’s permanent disappearance. Obtain the original statement and determine exact vantage, elevation, wall obstruction, lighting, weather, whether the witness saw or only heard the vehicle, body style/size/color, light configuration, engine/exhaust sound, doors/trunk/hatch activity, occupants, loading, direction, first-report timing, and media exposure before later interviews.

Reported historical searches included Riverwood slopes and ravines; riverbank; the Mississippi River south toward LeTourneau Landing; a helicopter path roughly 20 miles south; Louisiana terrain; borrow pits between Vicksburg and Tallulah; lagoon/barge areas below Riverwood; Bayou Macon; I-20 boundary areas; and East Baton Rouge/downstream waters. Missing from the public record are complete maps, vessel or aircraft tracks, grid assignments, spacing, depths, sonar, dragging methods, dive logs, dog tracks, negative-search reports, river stage, and quality assessment. “Searched” does not mean “eliminated.”

The river theory is supported by proximity, likely vehicle removal, possible missing bedding, and early water searches. It lacks an identified entry point, witness at a landing, tire or footwear linkage, recovered property, boat evidence, verified remains, or hydraulic model. The East Baton Rouge report 16 days later and 220 river miles downstream yields only an arithmetic average of 13.75 miles per day, not a current calculation. A body can sink, snag, refloat, strand, enter an eddy, or never enter the river.

Land disposal is at least equally viable, particularly if the offender knew construction or rural terrain. Categories include active November 1995 work sites; borrow, fill, and spoil areas; new foundations or concrete; debris containers; wooded parcels; ravines; outbuildings; abandoned structures; rural roads toward Louisiana; and property independently connected to an evidentiary person of interest.

A modern geographic project should reconstruct the 1995 road network and likely departure direction; build 5-, 10-, 20-, 30-, 45-, and 60-minute historical drive zones; overlay every documented search; add 1995 construction, landfill, pit, levee, and landing sites; examine 1994–97 aerial photography for new fill or disturbance; distinguish visual-only searches from instrumented or subsurface searches; and model each plausible water entry separately. Any renewed private-property search requires consent, warrant, or other proper authority.

1. Hypothesis assessment

Fatal assault inside Riverwood followed by vehicle removal — highest fit. It explains the major blood scene, struggle indicators, missing bedding, vehicle evidence, abandoned Jaguar, and permanent silence. It does not identify offender, motive, time of death, or disposal site.

Serious assault, abduction alive, death elsewhere — high fit. It remains inseparable from the first theory until blood-loss, movement, and vehicle evidence are resolved.

Offender exploited renovation access — moderate. The large access population, sparse home, keys/door knowledge, materials, and construction disposal opportunities fit, but no publicly disclosed evidence connects a named worker.

Targeted personal, financial, or business homicide — moderate. Levitz had substantial property, estate, family, legal, renovation, and social contacts, but motive domains are not proof and no offender bridge is public.

Opportunistic robbery that escalated — moderate to low. Missing bags might fit, but high-value items remained. A failed robbery or search for cash/documents cannot be excluded.

Land disposal — plausible and insufficiently developed publicly. It may fit construction knowledge and the absence of water linkage.

River disposal — plausible but unproved. Proximity alone is insufficient.

Voluntary disappearance or staged scene — very low. It poorly fits the blood, struggle, abandoned assets and car, and three decades without verified contact.

Kimes involvement — unsupported. Public comparison is not a substantiated FBI nexus.

The working theory should be event-centered: assault, control, removal, vehicle, and disposal. Suspect-centered analysis should begin only after evidence supplies an independent nexus.

1. Estate, trust, and financial facts

Ralph’s trust and Jacqueline’s estate are different assets. Ralph’s trust was publicly estimated near $15 million. Jacqueline’s independent estate was reported around $4.45 million, with press ranges of $5–8 million. Court TV said Walter Bolton III inherited about $4 million after the civil declaration. Early AP reporting called Phillip Levitz “next in line,” while later reporting said Ralph’s trust would pass equally to his two grandchildren, likely Alan and Wendy. Only the instruments, amendments, accountings, and final distribution orders can resolve interests. A 1997 report described Tiki as conservator over assets in Florida, Mississippi, California, Maryland, and Louisiana.

The April 17, 1995 note to brothers Joe and Don Broadway was for $70,000 at 8 percent, associated with Arkansas land and a Stone County family cabin. It called for 120 monthly payments of $849.80 beginning May 1, 1997 and ending April 1, 2007, with semiannual accrued-interest payments during the first two years and title transfer as a remedy. No payments were made. A 2003 appellate court reversed summary judgment because forgiveness was disputed; after trial, the court found Jacqueline orally forgave the debt; a 2007 appellate court affirmed.

Thus, regular monthly payments were not delinquent when she disappeared, although early interest obligations mean it is also too broad to say no payment duty existed. The estate recovered neither the $70,000 nor Arkansas title. Tiki testified that Jacqueline was upset when they last spoke and said the brothers could use the money for the cabin and they would “worry about money later.” Joe, Don, Gerri, and elderly aunts described statements of family use and forgiveness. Mitchell described a spring conversation about the venture and an October warning that Don might not repay. The reason for Jacqueline’s reported upset remains unknown. The litigation documents dealings; it does not establish a homicide motive or participant.

Best public judicial dating places civil death in November 2000. The estate sued on the note June 26, 2001. Tiki acted as executrix or co-ancillary administrator. The exact Florida decree, docket, evidence, and findings remain missing. The abandoned 1997 Northern Trust petition was not the final civil-death case. Shaw v. Shivers, Supreme Court No. 98-1936, proves related conservatorship litigation existed, not what it concerned.

1. Family structure relevant to records and elimination work

The strongest public reconstruction is ten Broadway children. Parents were Kaley/Kayley Don Broadway (memorial-level dates 1907–1990) and Ida Laverne Henderson Broadway (1912–1968). Dorothy “Pat” Tuminello’s obituary names Charles Dyal as her father, making Pat probably Jacqueline’s maternal half-sister through Ida, subject to vital records.

The siblings were Dorothy “Pat” Dyal/Broadway Tuminello; Billy; Bobby Dean “Bob”; Jacqueline; Geraldine “Geri/Gerri/Jerri” Brown; Joe Edward Sr.; Sam “Sammy”; Don Ray “Sonny”; Tiki Lavon Shivers; and Mitchell/Mitchel “Mitch/Mickey” Broadway. Reports of eight siblings likely counted eight living in 1995 and omitted Sam, apparently deceased as a child.

Records-critical branches are:

Pat (1927–2015), husband Dominick “Mick” Tuminello, son Claude Helveston; Claude’s surname leaves biological parentage unresolved.

Billy (1929–2014), wife Aurora; obituary children Arturo Cervantes, Sylvia Ortega, and José Cervantes. The obituary does not distinguish biological and step relationships.

Bob (1931–2016), wife Opal; children Pete, Sheila Gay Broadway Singley, Carla Eavenson, and Mark Lane Broadway.

Jacqueline’s first husband was Walter Wildee Bolton II; their only known child, Walter III (1959–2006), was reported unmarried and childless. Second husband Banks “Smitty” Smith had three prior children, including Anne/Ann Pellegrino. Third husband Ralph had no shared children with her. His son Phillip was Mary Katherine Stott’s child; Phillip’s children were Alan and Wendy.

Gerri Brown testified in the estate litigation; dates, spouse Jack Brown, and descendants remain incompletely verified.

Joe Edward Sr. (1938–2021), wife Maxine Robertson; children Robyn Broadway Creech, Joe Edward Jr., and Dusty/Duston Broadway.

Sammy’s sibling status is supported, but dates 1939–1941 are provisional; do not confuse him with Samuel Broadway (1952–2020).

Don “Sonny” (1942–2021), partner/wife Barbara; children Donald Ricky, Susan Broadway Fyfe, LaShella Broadway Dalton, and Kayla Broadway Johnson. “Gloria” remains unverified.

Tiki (1943–2020), husband James Earl Shivers Jr.; sons Jimmy III and Shannon; chosen son David Price. Obituaries conflict on descendants.

Mitchell/Mitchel, also Mitch/Mickey, reportedly married Jan; dates and children remain unresolved.

Ralph’s parents were Richard Benjamin and Sarah Levitz (reported surname Smeyne); siblings were Sam, Leon, Razelle, Blossom, Sidney, and Adele. Known wives include Mary Katherine Stott, Esther Mae Fosnocht, and Jacqueline, although Jacqueline was reportedly his sixth. A memorial calling Jacqueline “née Stott” is a conflation. A 2007 opinion names aunts Effie Broadway Parker, Minnie Merle Thompson, and Tura Jean Broadway Lee Thompson; their placement is unresolved.

1. Principal people and institutional roles

Core witnesses are Nancy Whitten; James Earl Shivers Jr.; Jody and Mary Gatling; Betty and John Moody; Thelma and John Gradick; Peter Eargle; Ted Mackey and his unnamed girlfriend, who were alternative identifications and not accused; James Burnett, wife, and unresolved Mollie/Holly Burnett; the unknown pickup man; the unnamed visiting-son vehicle witness; Whitten’s unnamed nearby friend; and Mid-South Lumber staff. Relevant associates include Linda B. Schumacher, Lee Menichetti, Adele Kahn, Agnes Ash, Doris Shell, Anne Pellegrino, Walter Bolton II and III, attorney Robert P. Marschall, and Allen Derivaux, whose role needs source confirmation. Holly Hunter reportedly contacted the sheriff about film rights but was not a witness.

Historical officials include Paul Barrett, Martin Pace, Robert Dowe, B.B. Harmon, Otho Jones, Billy Brown, FBI representatives Jim Frier, Hal Nielson, Edwin Worthington, and Debra Maden, Jay McKenzie, Richard O’Bannon, and Susan Ebeling. Mitchell Dent, Roy Redditt, Carol Gardner, Freddie Washington, Larry Mahoney, Billy Heggins, and Mike Barnett appear in reporting, but exact roles require confirmation. Mark Culbertson appears in an unrelated brief and should not be included absent primary evidence.

George H. Alexander III and James Randall Cook were associated with the later burglary and publicly cleared of the disappearance beyond it; their continuing relevance is contamination and elimination evidence. Civil/legal records also name Marschall, Tiki Shivers, Leroy Smith Jr., Orlando N. Hamilton Jr., Elliot S. Shaw, Royce C. Lamberth, John Colette, Larry Ashley, multiple judges, and Northern Trust. Inclusion in litigation is not evidence of criminal involvement.

1. Critical missing information

The decisive gaps are original records, not more public theories:

VPD/WCSO/FBI inventories, leads, tips, correspondence, and the 1995–96 handoff audit.

Dispatch, first-officer reports, scene log, and the exact sequence of entrants, police, laboratory staff, workers, family, and burglars.

Original photographs, negatives, video, diagrams, measurements, blood-pattern material, and November 24 footage.

Item-level inventories, accessions, custody, consumption, location, seals, and every laboratory report.

Last-seen proof: Mid-South transaction/employee records, 1995 statements, Mollie/Holly identity, other witness accounts, and return-home time; plus telephone, fax, calendar, financial, and schedule-book records.

Full renovation roster with workers, suppliers, deliveries, vehicles, keys, time/pay records, interviews, alibis, and elimination samples.

Vehicle-witness statement, tire/cast data, K9 report, conditions, direction, vehicle canvass, and Jaguar processing/key/odometer/fuel/receipt history.

Search maps/logs and methods, river/weather data, negative reports, and quality review; certified deed/estate/trust files for contacts and transactions, not guilt; and medical/dental/radiographic/mtDNA records for remains comparison.

1. Recommended investigative sequence

Stabilize the record. Designate a lead agency, prosecutor, custodian, forensic coordinator, analyst, and family liaison. Create one index linking all case and laboratory numbers; digitize at preservation quality and retain originals.

Reconcile physical evidence. VPD, WCSO, MSFL, FBI Laboratory, prosecutors, and qualified cold-case scientists should inventory every package before destructive work. For each item record the question, method, value, sample cost, contamination risk, and stop rule.

Rebuild the last 72 hours. Use original statements to fix movements, calls, store visit, unknown pickup man, contractor access, return home, vehicle departure, unanswered calls, and discovery. Separate personal perception from later learning.

Rebuild access and opportunity. Identify who could enter, knew Levitz’s routine, had a capable vehicle, or controlled a site within drive zones. Apply identical evidence-led criteria to relatives, workers, contacts, strangers, and later entrants.

Join vehicle and geography. Vehicle class, direction, tire dimension, K9 endpoint, or material transfer may sharply reduce search space. Do not plan water or land searches apart from removal evidence.

Reinterview with a contradiction matrix. Prioritize the vehicle witness, Whitten, Gatling, Burnetts, contractors and fired workers, neighbors, first responders, K9 handler, custodians, and 2001–08 investigators. Obtain free narratives before showing prior statements; document media and memory contamination.

Run accountable comparisons. Compare foreign profiles to elimination samples and lawful references; confirm CODIS history; use genealogy only for a verified unknown. Reassess relevant unidentified remains through NamUs/NCIC, dental, radiographic, mtDNA, and anthropological data.

Search only evidence-narrowed sites. Aerial change detection, remains-detection dogs, geophysics, sonar, sub-bottom tools, remotely operated vehicles, or coring may help, but site selection must follow vehicle, access, timeline, and legal authority.

Maintain prosecutorial discipline. Record inculpatory and exculpatory facts, alternatives, contamination, credibility, and expert limits. Do not identify a person publicly without an evidence-based, legally reviewed nexus.

1. Bottom line for the team

This is best treated as a probable violent disappearance and likely homicide with removal from a compromised, high-access renovation scene. The public record strongly supports assault, but it does not publicly identify the offender, prove the precise time or place of death, or establish river versus land disposal. The case’s most productive convergence points are: protected biological evidence from nails and contact surfaces; full reconstruction of the first-entry and contamination sequence; identification of the late-evening vehicle; complete renovation-access mapping; recovery of original laboratory and search records; and a historically accurate geographic model.

The principal danger is theory drift—especially treating civil death as proof of biological death, inheritance as proof of motive, river proximity as proof of river disposal, lack of forced entry as proof of a known offender, or a press-named person as a suspect. The principal opportunity is that the case appears to retain multiple independent evidence streams—blood, nails, vehicle/tire/K9 information, selective missing property, a restricted time window, and extensive records—that can now be reconciled within one controlled cold-case process.

The investigative question is no longer simply “what new technology exists?”

It is: what original evidence survives, what question can each item answer, and which combination of biological, trace, vehicle, access, timeline, and geographic facts can identify one person while excluding the innocent?

The test said inconclusive and the likelihood ratios were nearly the same for full and half

Hi I’m conducting a summer research study on public views about genetic information and DNA ownership. The survey is anonymous, takes about 4 minutes, and is open to anyone.

Link: https://forms.gle/MVL1sU31r4FnxBKP6

Why participate? Your response helps a student research project examining how people think about genetic privacy, personhood, and ownership. Thank you so much for your time and support!

*Since this is for a summer class, there is no IRB review.

I am considering a work of fiction but want it to be scientifically accurate. The DNA sample is fragmentary and is found on a victim, and has just enough information to be matched to the protagonist and their siblings, but can't distinguish which one is the culprit even after investigators take all of their DNA.

If your paternal ancestry is from the Indian subcontinent, please consider joining the Greater Hindustan Y-DNA Project.

We welcome all haplogroups, but we’re especially looking for Haplogroup H (H-M69 and downstream branches), which remains significantly underrepresented in Big Y testing. Every additional kit helps refine the Y-DNA tree, discover new branches, and improve our understanding of South Asian paternal history.

Joining is free and takes less than a minute:

🔗 https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/greaterhindustanydna/activity-feed

Your existing test results become even more valuable when they’re part of collaborative research. Thank you for helping advance the genetic history of the Indian subcontinent!

Are there restrictions in New York State for paternity tests done for non-legal purposes? For instance, both parties taking AncestryDna test.

Y dna :E-V22 75 % upper Egyptian and 25% Lower Egyptian

DNA imputation is a statistical method used to predict genetic variants that were not directly tested in a DNA test. It compares an individual's tested SNPs with large reference databases of fully sequenced genomes and predicts the most likely missing SNPs based on shared genetic patterns. This greatly increases the number of SNPs available for analysis and is highly reliable for common autosomal variants, often achieving an accuracy of over 98–99% when appropriate reference populations are used.

Do you guys think that imputing before modelling is better than staying at around 700k SNPs average?

Marchini, J., Howie, B. Genotype imputation for genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet 11, 499–511 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2796

Hao, K., Chudin, E., McElwee, J. et al. Accuracy of genome-wide imputation of untyped markers and impacts on statistical power for association studies. BMC Genet 10, 27 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-10-27

Briefings in Bioinformatics, Volume 21, Issue 5, September 2020, Pages 1806–1817, https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz108

If yes, would they be the healthiest people?

If yes, what would they look like?