Correct me if I am wrong, but this was in a cut limestone plate. So if it was a crime, I am sure the murderer is long deceased and probably not even a homo sapiens.
If it was a "murder", it had to be a homo sapiens. Killings by wild animals aren't called "murders".
However, if this was a Neanderthal person, it's quite possible the murder was by a fellow Neanderthal, aka homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
(Apparently it's still debated whether the Neanderthals are a distinct species or a subspecies of homo sapiens.)
Seriously overestimating the willingness of police to give a shit about what are clearly _really old_ remains.
The CYA part about talking to authorities (whoever applicable in your jurisdiction, not necessarily police) still applies. There are often laws about human remains. THOSE would show on your record if this is mishandled.
That's not even remotely close to how police records work in the US. It fits the narrative, but is completely ignorant of reality.
it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
> Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here.
A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.