How Genealogy Websites Make It Easier To Catch Killers (ieee.org) 73
An anonymous reader quotes a report from IEEE Spectrum: Over the past six months a small, publicly available genealogy database has become the go-to source for solving cold case crimes. The free online tool, called GEDmatch, is an ancestry service that allows people to submit their DNA data and search for relatives -- an open access version of AncestryDNA or 23andMe. Since April, investigators have used GEDmatch to identify victims, killers, and missing persons all over the U.S. in at least 19 cases, many of them decades old, according to authors of a report published today in Science. The authors predict that in the near future, as genetic genealogy reports gain in popularity, such tools could be used to find nearly any individual in the U.S. of European descent.
GEDmatch holds the genetic data of only about a million people. But cold case investigators have been exploiting the database using a genomic analysis technique called long-range familial search. The technique allows researchers to match an individual's DNA to distant relatives, such as third cousins. Chances are, one of those relatives will have used a genetic genealogy service. More than 17 million people have participated in these services -- a number that has grown rapidly over the last two years. AncestryDNA and 23andMe hold most of those customers. A genetic match to a distant relative can fairly quickly lead investigators to the person of interest. In a highly publicized case, GEDmatch was used earlier this year to identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s, but was never caught. In April, investigators were able to use a genealogy database to narrow down DNA data from crime scenes and identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s.
GEDmatch holds the genetic data of only about a million people. But cold case investigators have been exploiting the database using a genomic analysis technique called long-range familial search. The technique allows researchers to match an individual's DNA to distant relatives, such as third cousins. Chances are, one of those relatives will have used a genetic genealogy service. More than 17 million people have participated in these services -- a number that has grown rapidly over the last two years. AncestryDNA and 23andMe hold most of those customers. A genetic match to a distant relative can fairly quickly lead investigators to the person of interest. In a highly publicized case, GEDmatch was used earlier this year to identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s, but was never caught. In April, investigators were able to use a genealogy database to narrow down DNA data from crime scenes and identify the "Golden State Killer," a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're trawling trough a database of everyone's genes it means per definition that they are ALL suspects.
Saying "everyone" is a suspect is the same as saying no one is a suspect. It is meaningless.
DNA evidence has more often been used to exonerate the innocent than to convict the guilty. Just ask the Central Park Five, although Donald Trump still insists they are guilty [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
DNA evidence has more often been used to exonerate the innocent than to convict the guilty.
It's used to convict the guilty all the time, you just don't see it because it completely shut down the "it wasn't me" defense when it totally was you. In fact before DNA profiling many cases would probably never get near a court room, because if the drunk/drugged/assaulted woman couldn't pick out the rapist from a line-up there wasn't really anything to go on. Now they all claim it was voluntary which DNA can't say anything about, but the goal posts moved. Same with a lot of other serious crime, before you
Re: (Score:2)
Nice fearmongering, Ivan. Don't kill/rape/offend anyone and you have nothing to worry about.
Right.
Unless you consider that planting DNA at a crime scene is easy as swiping a hair/tooth brush, or combing through your trash for kleenex and toothpicks.
Re: (Score:1)
If you had line of sight to this in the 70s/80s then you were a genius. This method primarily is used on cold cases from years in the past. Criminals these days mostly know about DNA evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
primarily
Re: (Score:1)
Nice fearmongering, Ivan. Don't kill/rape/offend anyone and you have nothing to worry about.
Right.
Unless you consider that planting DNA at a crime scene is easy as swiping a hair/tooth brush, or combing through your trash for kleenex and toothpicks.
It's considerably worse than that.
Your DNA might end up on the scene of a crime as easily as either the perp or the victim using the same seat on any form of public transportation as you have used earlier, or simply passing them on the street.
And that's ignoring the entire issue of errors in the lab, or simple probability. I don't remember the odds for getting a positive DNA-match off-hand for the wrong person, but it's not insignificant. Let's, for the sake of argument, say it's one in a million. Now, how
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Where everyone is a suspect and you're guilty unless proven innocent.
It doesn't work that way. Even a DNA match alone is not enough to convict. There has to be corroborating evidence.
But if the DNA match flags 20 people, and 19 of them live in other states, and the other one is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a domestic violence restraining order on him, then he's goin' down.
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:4, Interesting)
>"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."
Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.
Re: (Score:1)
and because their was no corroborating evidence he was not charged with anything. Applying for a highly charged political position is always going to result in reputation damage
Re: (Score:2)
Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.
If you are a false positive living in NJ, and the victim is in Los Angeles, you will just be crossed off the list, and you will never know you were flagged. It will have no effect whatsoever on your life.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
>"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."
Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.
I think there's no problem with someone having drank a lot in college. However, what I saw during the Senate hearing was a belligerent guy who did not know his place and was an asshole and a liar to the people who were about to decide his nomination. To be honest, if politics wasn't as polarized as it is in the US, this guy should have never been accepted. But, as it is, the Republicans will say yes to anything their side proposes and no to anything the Democrats offer (and vice versa). So, a guy who lied a
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, Dr. Ford, the accuser, got nothing out of the experience other than a chance to confront her (alleged) attacker.
Remember, Gorsuch got through with hardly any drama, so this can't just be about politics.
Lesson 1: Don't drink so
Re: (Score:2)
Considering he now has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I'd say it worked out pretty well. You sound like the President: oh woe is Kavanaugh, you poor thing! He
Yes and no (Score:4, Interesting)
Investigate Police First? (Score:3)
Well, it seems those really hard to solve crimes often involve corrupt law enforcers perhaps start the DNA search there ;D?
Re: (Score:3)
Using a limited city budget and hard work finally gets a name. In their own database.
A computer reports to the person that police have looked up their name.
Can the investigation be stopped? Will an arrest be made?
That would make a good movie plot.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me nervous (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't help that juries are overly emotional. I've been on a jury where a women said, no joke, "We can't allow our personal feelings to sway our ruling and we need to get this guy off the streets". She didn't even pause for breath when she contradicted herself, which given her girth was impressive...
Re: (Score:3)
This also makes me nervous because 1) framing someone just got a lot easier and 2) my body closet is running out of space. ;)
I have always thought it was like facebook. (Score:3)
I have always thought that submitting your information to those sites was kind of like submitting your information to sites like facebook and since I don't have a facebook account I won be using them either.
Any information you make available at large on the Internet may be used, not only to catch serial killer but for other reasons as well. It may also be used by serial killers to target you!
Re: (Score:3)
It is in that "your information" also includes information on your relatives (and in FB's case, friends).
Oh, you didn't know. Yeah, FB already is correlating everything they can on you, because they scanned your Mom's phone, and got your phone and email, and then correlated that to a phone number on som
Re: (Score:3)
Results work both ways (Score:2)
Undercover police who got into crime to keep a deep cover story. Who become corrupt.
Police informants who expected city and state police never to question their crimes as their information was so vital.
The use of military and special forces units to do police work. Wait for other nations to ask the USA for results.
The smart people doing DNA work don't know about any police deals done.
Those databases should not be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those databases should not be available to law enforcement. We don't let law enforcement DNA test random or innocent people, why should they get access to these databases to go around the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
people voluntarily made their DNA public to the whole world, you are going to tell them they can't do that?
Re: (Score:3)
people voluntarily made their DNA public to the whole world, you are going to tell them they can't do that?
I submitted my DNA to 23andMe. I clicked on fully public. Maybe I will link up with a 2nd cousin I didn't know. Maybe I will help catch a killer. Maybe my insurance company will peek at my info, see I am very healthy, and give me a loyalty discount. What have i got to lose?
Re: (Score:2)
The accuracy of DNS evidence has been called into question enough that it should concern you. You might get fingered for a murder your uncle or other relative committed.
Re:Those databases should not be... (Score:5, Informative)
Your insurance rates go up or you get DROPPED from insurance without knowing why. They don't have to inform you that new research shows you are 95% going to get cancer after 50.
Some new HR service bans you from recommendations for jobs for their clients and they don't even know why you were not recommended for the job. But your DNA might match some lame AI pattern for people with criminal records! WRONG! I know you're thinking that is too stupid; well, if you think business uses actual proven science you are thinking too much. They can use voodoo in decision making as long as they don't disclose any details that can make them look racist or sexist in their practices.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying law enforcement should be allowed to use it, public or not. A relatives consent doesn't mean the rest of the family consents, and certainly not for the case of law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
your relatives do not have the same genome you do, it is unique. The information about my genome rightfully belongs to me and I can make it public.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a publicly available database (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't let law enforcement DNA test random or innocent people, why should they get access to these databases to go around the law?
We do if law enforcement can get ahold of some "abandoned" DNA and it has been that way for years.
http://volokh.com/2011/10/06/c... [volokh.com]
catch killers (Score:3)
or dissedents
it would be useful to submit some fake data (Score:1)
I'd think it would be useful to submit some fake data but I'm sure of the legality of it. Probably legal if you submitted someone else's DNA with their approval as your own but beyond that who knows and that would pretty much be a one time thing that doesn't scale. If you don't care about laws, well then, the sky is the limit.
A recent case impicated the wrong person (Score:3)
How its used (Score:2)
The data itself could be very valuable - but it can also be badly misused.
I remember when prosecutors claimed that DNA evidence only had a 1 in 6 trillion chance of being wrong. A statement that is wildly wrong for a great many reasons - not the least of which is that crime labs make mistakes far more often than that.
Using genealogy databases that you could have a positive feedback of investigating a related group of people more often, resulting in more convictions, resulting in more investigations. Si
Words (Score:2)
I wonder if the germans have a word for scared shitless, yet simultaneously in awe and happiness at the karmatic overtones of this form of justice.
Kevin Bacon did it (Score:2)
In April.... (Score:1)
Today Killers and Rapists (Score:1)