Lawrence Drotleff’s name emerged after DNA testing pointed investigators toward his son in Euclid.
DOVER TOWNSHIP, Ohio — The unidentified man whose remains were found in suitcases on Tuscarawas County roads in 1998 now has a name: Lawrence A. Drotleff, authorities said.
The identification gives a personal answer to a case long defined by its most disturbing evidence. Lawrence Drotleff was about 93 when children found the first suitcase on Winkler Hill Road. Investigators now say his son, Larry J. Drotleff, admitted cutting up and discarding the body after finding his father dead at home. The son has not been charged with murder or abuse of a corpse, but he faces federal charges alleging he stole Social Security and pension payments that continued after his father’s death.
Lawrence Drotleff had remained anonymous because the 1998 evidence could not tell investigators who he was. The first suitcase, found Feb. 1, 1998, contained several male body parts. A second suitcase with additional remains was found days later on Boltz Orchard Road in Jefferson Township. The two sites were about 15 miles apart. DNA testing at the time showed the remains came from the same person, but it did not match a known individual. Fingerprints and evidence from the suitcases also failed to identify him. Deputies investigated leads over the years, but the case stayed cold.
The break came after the sheriff’s office reopened the file in 2023. Sheriff Orvis L. Campbell assigned the case to detectives who reviewed whether newer DNA methods could identify the victim. The department used funds seized from an older drug investigation to pay for advanced testing. That testing found a possible relative in the Euclid area. Working with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and analysts Lisa Savage and Jenn Dillion, investigators narrowed the lead. Further testing showed that the remains belonged to Lawrence Drotleff and that Larry Drotleff was his biological son.
The father-son connection changed the direction of the investigation. Authorities said they learned Larry Drotleff had previously collected benefits tied to his father after the elder Drotleff’s death. He had allegedly told investigators that his father moved away, an explanation that left the death unconfirmed. Once DNA identified the remains, the claim could be measured against the physical evidence found in Tuscarawas County. Federal prosecutors later accused Larry Drotleff of stealing about $111,485 in Social Security benefits and $135,040.36 from Lawrence Drotleff’s General Electric pension. The total alleged theft is more than $246,000.
In January 2024, investigators interviewed Larry Drotleff about what happened to his father. The sheriff’s office said he told them he had been living with Lawrence Drotleff and returned from work one day to find him dead. He said he then used a manual hand saw to cut up the body, placed some remains in two suitcases and discarded other remains in bags in a dumpster near his workplace. Authorities said he gave a DNA sample that confirmed the biological relationship. They have not said they proved that he caused his father’s death.
Campbell said the lack of a murder finding did not lessen the seriousness of the case for his office. “It remains difficult to comprehend that the greed of theft could cause someone to treat their father’s body in this manner,” he said. He also said the handling of the body was inhumane and inexcusable. The sheriff’s office said the treatment of the remains kept the case active in the department’s mind even when no suspect had been identified. Capt. Adam Fisher said investigators wanted the public to understand that old cases still matter. “We do care. We don’t forget,” Fisher said.
The law now limits what Ohio authorities can do about the body disposal. Officials said the statute of limitations for abuse of a corpse has expired. That leaves no state charge for that conduct, even though investigators say Larry Drotleff admitted it. The federal case instead focuses on the alleged theft of money after Lawrence Drotleff’s death. The sheriff’s office worked with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio to pursue those charges. The case is pending in federal court, where Larry Drotleff is presumed innocent unless convicted.
The case also shows how an unidentified body can affect more than a death investigation. Without a confirmed name, investigators could not connect the remains to benefit records, family history or the person who last lived with him. The government continued to treat Lawrence Drotleff as alive for payment purposes, prosecutors allege, while his remains had already been found in another county. The gap lasted because the remains found in Dover and Jefferson townships were not tied to his name until DNA testing advanced. That gap is now central to the federal charges.
For Tuscarawas County, the case began as a local shock. Children playing near woods found the first suitcase and brought deputies to a scene that offered few simple answers. A second suitcase expanded the search and confirmed the body had been divided and left in more than one place. The rural setting made the discovery feel random, but investigators later traced the case to a family home and to benefit payments connected to the victim. Authorities have not released every detail about Lawrence Drotleff’s final day, and they have not announced evidence showing how he died.
The identification returns the focus to Lawrence Drotleff as a person rather than an evidence file. He was an elderly father whose remains went unnamed for decades. His son is now accused not of the death, but of taking money meant for him after that death. The unresolved questions are narrower than they once were: how the federal case will proceed, whether Larry Drotleff will contest the allegations and what records prosecutors will present. The discovery itself no longer belongs to an unnamed victim.
Authorities say Lawrence Drotleff has been identified and the cold case has been resolved. Larry Drotleff’s federal theft case remains pending, with future dates to be set or reflected in court filings.
Author note: Last updated May 19, 2026.