What the publicly accessible evidence allows is this: the researchers who developed the method, who spent fourteen years on the problem, who have extensive expertise in ancient DNA analysis, concluded that the data supported the claimed relationship. Their institution, the University of Cambridge, published the result in *Science Advances*, a peer-reviewed journal of high standing. The result is therefore credible within the standards of peer-reviewed science.
What it is not, in isolation, is absolute proof. It is strong corroboration of a claim that was already supported by documentary evidence, institutional determination, and oral tradition. That is a different and more defensible statement than “the DNA proved it.”
LaPointe understood this, which is why he described the DNA result as “a scientific connection” — one type of evidence among four, all of which pointed in the same direction. The word “confirmed” in media coverage reflected genuine scientific support; it should not be read as implying a certainty that the probabilistic method cannot, by its nature, provide.
—
## Aftermath: The Article That Changed Coverage
When the *Science Advances* study was published on October 27, 2021, it attracted substantial media attention. The story had all the elements that make for wide coverage: a famous historical figure, a living relative, a dramatic scientific first, a lock of hair that had spent a century in storage.
LaPointe gave interviews. He described what the result meant to him and to his family. He expressed his objections to the framing that implied the DNA test had “identified” him for the first time. He reiterated his plans for eventually pursuing a reburial with proper ceremony. He spoke about his great-grandfather and about how he wanted him to be remembered.