Breakthrough in Missing Child Case From 37 Years Ago
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The use of DNA technology has enabled a breakthrough in a missing child case from over 30 years ago.
When remains were found along the highway in Newburyport, Massachusetts, in November 1992, all investigators could determine was that they belonged to a teenage boy.
Now, with the use of forensic technology, scientists have been able to determine that the bones belong to Anthony Angelli Rea, a teen who went missing from Newbury, Massachusetts, in 1988.
Newsweek has contacted the Essex County DA's office via email for comment.
Anthony Angelli Rea, circa 1980s in images released by the Essex County DA's office.
Anthony Angelli Rea, circa 1980s in images released by the Essex County DA's office.
Essex County District Attorney's Office
The Context
Rea's disappearance has gone unsolved for over three decades, and would have likely remained unsolved if it were not for new forensic technology.
What To Know
According to the Essex County DA's office, Rea was born in 1973 and lived for at least some of his life in Malden, Massachusetts. He was at the Harbor School in Newbury in August 1988 when he went missing.
Partially buried skeletal remains, which investigators now know to be Rea's, were found in marsh grass alongside Route 95 South in Newburyport. The autopsy conducted at the time also could not determine the cause of death, per the Essex County DA's office.
Investigators in 2025 were able to use support from NamUS, a missing persons criminal justice program funded and run by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) via a contract with Research Triangle Institute International (RTI), to pay for work conducted by private forensics lab Othram, located in Texas.
Forensic genetic genealogy scientists at Othram were able to use Forensic-Grade Genome Sequencing® to create a profile for the remains, which is how they identified relatives of the deceased, and ultimately solved who the remains belonged to, explained the Essex County DA's office via a press release.
What People Are Saying
The Essex County DA's Office in a press release: "For 32 years, the State Police assigned to the Essex County District Attorney's Office and the Newburyport Police attempted to identify the remains.
"Although investigators developed significant leads, due to the limitations in DNA identification, they were unable to make a positive identification.
"Today, the Essex District Attorney's Office, with the assistance of Othram, a private forensic laboratory in Woodlands, Texas, can positively identify the remains as that of Anthony Angelli Rea."
What Happens Next
Police are still investigating what happened to Rea and have asked for the public to contact the State Police Unresolved Case Unit at 855-MA-SOLVE with any information they may have.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
8 hours ago
- CBS News
Unresponsive person pulled from water off Nantasket Beach in Massachusetts
An unresponsive person was pulled from the water off Nantasket Beach Saturday afternoon in Hull, Massachusetts. Massachusetts State Police said their Marine Unit and the United States Coast Guard were searching the water and beach after reports of a capsized boat. An unresponsive person was found in the water and CPR was performed. The person's current condition is unknown and their identity has not been released. "At this time, preliminary information does not indicate any outstanding individuals or vessels," said State Police in a statement. WBZ-TV has a crew on the scene and will have more information as soon as it becomes available.
Newsweek
12 hours ago
- Newsweek
Mexico Quashes Fears of US Military 'Invasion'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. military will not enter Mexico, the country's president has said, after it was reported Donald Trump had authorized such a move to tackle Latin American drug cartels. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that her country would cooperate with the U.S. "but there will be no invasion." Her comments follow a report in The New York Times that the U.S. president had secretly signed a directive to begin using military force on foreign soil. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment. President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum at Palacio Nacional on August 06, 2025 in Mexico City, Mexico. President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum at Palacio Nacional on August 06, 2025 in Mexico City, It Matters The Trump administration has pledged to crack down on drug trafficking, targeting Latin American gangs, which it has declared foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). In recent months, Mexico has worked with the U.S. to curb the illegal flow of both migrants and drugs through the countries' border but the U.S using the military to target the groups would mark a significant escalation in enforcement. Sheinbaum's comments set down a red line over the reported but unconfirmed Trump policy at a tricky diplomatic time as the U.S. leader imposes tariffs on trading partners. What To Know The New York Times, citing sources close to the matter,reported that Trump had directed the Pentagon for military operations at sea and on foreign soil to target cartels. This reported directive, which has not been confirmed, appears to follow an executive order Trump had earlier signed designating eight drug cartels as terrorist entities, six of which are Mexican. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico said in a statement Friday both countries would use "every tool at our disposal to protect our peoples" from drug trafficking groups without giving further details. But Sheinbaum told reporters that the U.S. "is not going to come to Mexico with their military," which would be "absolutely off the table." Brandan Buck, Cato Institute foreign policy research fellow, previously told Newsweek that such a unilateral action by the U.S. "would assuredly fail to stem the flow of drugs into the United States while causing significant diplomatic fallout." In May, Sheinbaum had said she had rejected Trump's offer of direct U.S. military assistance, saying that "our territory is inalienable." U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said on X that fentanyl seizures at the border were down and noted the collaboration between Sheinbaum and Trump. What People Are Saying Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum: "There will be no invasion—that is rejected, absolutely United States is not going to come to Mexico with troops." U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson in a statement Friday: "We are united. We will use all the tools at our disposal to protect our peoples, working collaboratively, as two sovereign allies." White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in a statement to Newsweek on Friday said that Trump's "top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations." What Happens Next The White House has not yet addressed the reported directive.
Newsweek
13 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Suffers Double Legal Blow Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats within hours on Friday. A judge in California ordered the release of a Syrian national it has been seeking to deport while a federal Rhode Island judge blocked the imposition of new conditions on domestic violence programs as part of the president's campaign against "gender ideology." Details of both cases were shared on X by Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and press inquiry form respectively. Why It Matters With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy. The administration has suffered a number of prominent legal defeats including courts striking down punitive measures introduced by Trump against law firms involved in proceedings against him, blocking a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and removing sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees. Release of Salam Maklad U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston, of the Eastern District of California, on Friday instructed the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian from the Druze religious minority who arrived in the United States in 2002 without valid entry documents and claimed asylum, according to court documents seen by Newsweek. Maklad went on to marry a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status. President Donald Trump listening to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump listening to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Win McNamee/GETTY On July 9, Maklad was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after arriving for what she believed was a routine "check-in" meeting and subsequently placed in "expedited removal proceedings" seeking to deport her from the U.S. Thurston noted that Maklad had no criminal history and wasn't considered a flight risk, and concluded that "the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad." Consequently she ordered her release from custody and said authorities are blocked from rearresting her "absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing." Domestic Violence Funding Friday also saw Senior District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island rule the Trump administration couldn't impose fresh conditions on funds granted by the Violence Against Women Act due to the president's Executive Order 14168 titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." This funding is distributed by the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women. Trump's order stated that sex is a person's "immutable biological classification as male or female," and that the federal government should "prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms" associated with this position. The Office on Violence Against Women updated its policy on what constitutes "out of scope activities," and therefore should not be funded by its grants, after this order was issued in "approximately May 2025," according to the court filing. This added spending on "inculcating or promoting gender ideology as defined in Executive Order 14168" to the prohibited list. The case was brought by a coalition of 17 nonprofit groups which argued adhering to President Trump's position on gender was impeding their ability to assist victims of domestic violence. Judge Smith backed the coalition's position concluding that the fresh requirements imposed by the Trump administration "could result in the disruption" of services for victims of domestic and sexual violence. What People Are Saying In the California case Judge Thurston ruled: "Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re[1]arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing. "At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present." In his ruling Judge Smith wrote: "On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA. "This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life[1]saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does." What's Next It remains to be seen whether the Trump's administration will seek to appeal either of Friday's rulings.
