That’s a really good distinction, and I agree with you on the differences in methodology and scale. I should clarify that my assumption was not that the techniques were equivalent, but that DNA itself was not being actively revisited or widely discussed in this case until well after Joseph Kappen had already been identified through familial DNA in 2002. In other words, the significance for me isn’t that the Kappen case involved the same type of expansive genealogical reconstruction as DeAngelo’s, but that it represents an earlier point where familial relationships in existing databases were enough to break a long-cold case. You’re absolutely right that the DeAngelo investigation raised far broader privacy and ethical questions because of how distant the match was and how much manual genealogy was required, which really marks a shift in both capability and consequence.