regarding the missing person case of the navy man who supposedly died in the Vietnam war, Mark Dennis. His family believes he was not killed and the remains in Mark's grave are not his.
They have done forensics on the bones and the gov't. contends the remains are those of Mr. Dennis.
Why hasn't DNA been done?

from the update I saw:

1) They ID'd the guy in Newsweek as being someone else
2) They found out this "John Wolf" guy was lying about knowing Mark or being a POW
3) They had an independant expert analyze the bones and he determined that the vertebrae were identical to the ones shown in an x-ray of Mark. Apparently this is just as indicative as a fingerprint or DNA.

from the update I saw:

1) They ID'd the guy in Newsweek as being someone else
2) They found out this "John Wolf" guy was lying about knowing Mark or being a POW
3) They had an independant expert analyze the bones and he determined that the vertebrae were identical to the ones shown in an x-ray of Mark. Apparently this is just as indicative as a fingerprint or DNA.

oh, yeah. the brother of mark dennis is convinced that his brother didnt die in the helicopter. even though his 20 years of investigating has been refuted in about 8minutes.

i love relatives in denial. its one of my favortie things about UM. atleast he didnt say his brother was wroking to stop drug dealers, so he had to be silenced.

from the update I saw:

1) They ID'd the guy in Newsweek as being someone else
2) They found out this "John Wolf" guy was lying about knowing Mark or being a POW
3) They had an independant expert analyze the bones and he determined that the vertebrae were identical to the ones shown in an x-ray of Mark. Apparently this is just as indicative as a fingerprint or DNA.
Sounds good. But, with the family being in so much denial (rightly so) you would think they would have demanded a DNA test just to make sure. Why leave a stone unturned? How can they explain away the burning of the "new" dog tag?

At the time this story was filmed, DNA testing would not have been as common (if used at all) as today.

I also think the government doesn't want to shell out the money for a DNA test because they feel as if they have made a 100% postive identification. In the government's eyes, a DNA test isn't necessary.

I also think the government doesn't want to shell out the money for a DNA test because they feel as if they have made a 100% postive identification. In the government's eyes, a DNA test isn't necessary.
The family could pay for it. With all they have done that has cost money, this surely would be something they would pay for. DNA has been around since 1986, give or take. I am sure by 1990 or later they could have had this done. Maybe they have, and there just hasn't been an update.