Your DNA… do you help the police with it?

[Scout]

So after Idaho and listening to Bear Brook, these murders were solved using DNA technology, as far as I understand.

I think only one database can be used by the police, and it's not Ancestry or 23 and me. It's one where you volunteer your DNA to the database. The catch is, once a family member donated theirs, you are in. Once you put yours in, you have now added your family members.

So, do you help catch that third-cousin serial rapist?

 

[Starman]

I suspect that horse leaves the barn about the third time you take a blood test at any medical facility more advanced than the Walgreens drive-through lane.

 

[The Big Ragu]

It's more than one database. They have two ways to go at it.

First, they can run DNA samples against a database the FBI maintains of people who have had run ins with the law.

Then, they can hit a couple of databases maintained by the commercial genealogy companies. The two biggies, Ancestry DNA and 23 and Me, do not open their databases to law enforcement. But Family Tree DNA and GEDmatch do (unless a customer has opted out, and then their DNA is not included in the database the cops have access to). Those databases allow them to look for relatives of an unknown perpetrator, and even from distant relatives, they can try to reverse engineer a family tree to see if it leads them to someone based on other evidence they have gathered.

 

[britwrit]

I've used GEDmatch when dealing with adoption stuff. Hooray for being free but it's also super hit-or-miss.

Not as many people use it as, say, Ancestry. It's also really liberal when determining if you're genetically related to someone. (In most populations, such as an area of a country, there are certain parts of your DNA that are shared by a lot of folks and their descendants. Other sites will disregard these. GEDmatch doesn't seem to.) You get a lot of false hits that you pish away time on.

So, sure. If some police department somewhere wants to chase down someone who may or may not my fourth cousin once removed, go to it.

 

[Batman]

I've used GEDmatch when dealing with adoption stuff. Hooray for being free but it's also super hit-or-miss.

Not as many people use it as, say, Ancestry. It's also really liberal when determining if you're genetically related to someone. (In most populations, such as an area of a country, there are certain parts of your DNA that are shared by a lot of folks and their descendants. Other sites will disregard these. GEDmatch doesn't seem to.) You get a lot of false hits that you pish away time on.

So, sure. If some police department somewhere wants to chase down someone who may or may not my fourth cousin once removed, go to it.

Seems like it casts way too wide a net if that's the case, though. What if that fourth cousin once removed does something nefarious, and then the police decide that out of several dozen relatives you or another innocent person is the one they're looking for?
There are also serious Fourth and Sixth Amendment questions with that process as well.
In addition, once it becomes more than an ingenious novelty and a tried and true method of investigation, it likely won't take long before its use is expanded beyond solving felonies.

This was how they finally solved the Golden State Killer case in California. They had other evidence, but hunting through a DNA database is what led to the big break after 30 or 40 years of it being a dormant case. He pleaded guilty, though, so I'm not sure if the serious constitutional questions about the police's methods will get consideration until another case comes down the pipeline.

 

[Scout]

Seems like it casts way too wide a net if that's the case, though. What if that fourth cousin once removed does something nefarious, and then the police decide that out of several dozen relatives you or another innocent person is the one they're looking for?
There are also serious Fourth and Sixth Amendment questions with that process as well.

This was how they finally solved the Golden State Killer case in California. They had other evidence, but hunting through a DNA database is what led to the big break after 30 or 40 years of it being a dormant case. He pleaded guilty, though, so I'm not sure if the serious constitutional questions about the police's methods will get consideration until another case comes down the pipeline.

Idaho just gave them another one.

The speed in cross referencing is getting better and faster everyday.

 

[Tighthead]

This was how they finally solved the Golden State Killer case in California. They had other evidence, but hunting through a DNA database is what led to the big break after 30 or 40 years of it being a dormant case. He pleaded guilty, though, so I'm not sure if the serious constitutional questions about the police's methods will get consideration until another case comes down the pipeline.

They had no other evidence on DeAngelo whatsoever. He had never come up in any way in any investigation. It was solely the genealogical DNA that resulted in his arrest.

 

[Batman]

They had no other evidence on DeAngelo whatsoever. He had never come up in any way in any investigation. It was solely the genealogical DNA that resulted in his arrest.

They had other evidence, just no idea it was DeAngelo (or any suspects, IIRC). They used a DNA sample from one of the crime scenes to GEDmatch. Once they got the DNA they were able to come up with a pool of people and then rule them out based on the other evidence, like by checking alibis and whatnot.

 

[sgreenwell]

It's a kind of fascinating Pandora's Box. Essentially, does your DNA have a right to privacy? And, is your right to that privacy superseded by the right of another family member to learn more about their own DNA? As I understand it, all of these databases get stronger and more accurate as more samples are accrued.

As someone brought up on the Bear Brook podcast, I think the general public is probably OK if DNA is used to solve crimes of a certain threshold. Say, felony level. But, *right now,* it would be possible for an insurance company to comb through DNA records and identify health traits that might run through branches of the tree more. (heck, they could be doing it already.) Or, what's preventing incels or Proud Boys-like organizations using these databases in gross ways? As we go along here, things are going to get fraught.

 

[Scout]

They are catching the uncatchable. Zodiac is on the table and will probably be solved soon.

Unidentified deaths will be identified.

And, yet, with this power comes tremendous responsibility. We have Presidents who lie. We have elected politicians lie about everything, get caught. And . Nothing.Happens.

My own DNA? Probably not, for now. I'm sure I have a third or fourth cousin that can connect me to a crime.

 

[justgladtobehere]

They are catching the uncatchable. Zodiac is on the table and will probably be solved soon.

Unidentified deaths will be identified.

And, yet, with this power comes tremendous responsibility. We have Presidents who lie. We have elected politicians lie about everything, get caught. And . Nothing.Happens.

My own DNA? Probably not, for now. I'm sure I have a third or fourth cousin that can connect me to a crime.

What makes you say that Zodiac will be solved soon? Is there DNA?

 

[DanOregon]

I remember reading Joe Wambaugh's book "The Blooding" about a case in the UK that was the first to use DNA to solve a murder. It was fascinating. It's still absurd when you think about the backlog on rape cases.