A Lock Of Sitting Bull’s Hair Was Tested More Than A Century Later – And The DNA Confirmed A Family Claim

The comparison required a reference sample from a living individual (LaPointe) and a hypothesis about the relationship to test.

The test found the hypothesis consistent with the data.

It did not independently identify Sitting Bull from the hair sample as a matter of forensic certainty.

This distinction is important because it clarifies the evidentiary status of the finding.

The study found that the genetic evidence is consistent with the family’s claim.

It did not find that the genetic evidence proves the family’s claim in the sense of ruling out all alternatives.

The difference between “consistent with” and “proves” is meaningful in scientific communication, and the researchers maintained that distinction in their publication.