Tear Em Asunder

General Discussion Board


Joined: 2/12/02 Posts: 43153
Likes: 8981

In this particular case they had the suspected killer's DNA

They ran search algorithms through a database where people allowed their DNA to be searched via the terms of service. They found family matches. They searched through the ancestry of those two matches, found a common ancestor, and then searched down from that ancestor, finding descendents of about the correct age. They aren't going to have DNA for everyone to search up, and back down so are going to have to dig through marriage and birth records, the kinds of stuff that genealogy experts do all the time. In this case they determined that it had to be someone from one family, and that family only had one son. It turned out the son lived close to where one of the bodies was dumped. They trailed the guy for awhile and picked up a soda cup that blew out his car window. They tested DNA from the cup and it matched the DNA found in the rape kit and on a pair of the victim's jeans that were found in the victim's van.

This case is interesting in that they don't really have any direct physical evidence for murder. It would seem rape is almost a slam dunk and maybe you get to murder for the wife. The husband's body was found 90 miles from the wife's body with no evidence to connect the guy. From what I heard I would guess they convict on rape, probably the wife's murder, but not the husband's. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if they didn't convict on her murder but I don't know the details of what evidence they do and don't have.

So in this case they had semen, and used these genealogy records to identify the owner of the semen. The same thing happened in the Golden State Killer case.

(In response to this post by DurwardRam)

Posted: 06/10/2019 at 3:23PM


Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:

Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:

Current Thread:
  I think it is a privacy invasion ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 1:06PM
  What part of it is a privacy invasion? ** -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 2:41PM
  It requires a lower standard to obtain evidence -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:45PM
  If used to convict, you should -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:03PM
  It weakens probable cause to compel a DNA sample IMO -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:44PM
  Good to know -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:55PM
  Yeah, if it has not happened yet, it inevitably will ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 4:18PM
  Certainly ** -- CSURamFan 06/10/2019 4:24PM
  So do I not have a right to publish my own DNA -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:19PM
  So here is where I stand right now -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:23PM
  And I also don't know that the lineage -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:27PM
  We actually agree more than disagree ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:36PM
  In a recent Star Trek enterprise I just watched... -- Hopsblues 06/10/2019 3:09PM
  I listened to a NYTimes podcast on this -- CSURamFan 06/10/2019 12:49PM
  That is an odd standard to use ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 1:25PM
  Agree with Cowtown here -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:25PM
  My point is that DNA is such a strong -- DurwardRam 06/11/2019 05:54AM
  Why, I like to see criminals punished. ** -- DurwardRam 06/10/2019 2:18PM
  I like to see due process followed. -- 60s Rammie 06/10/2019 4:37PM
  Because the Fourth Amendment exists -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:30PM
  It's an investigation using public knowledge. -- DurwardRam 06/10/2019 2:44PM
  Correct, I worded that part poorly. ** -- DurwardRam 06/11/2019 06:03AM
  "Public" knowledge -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:47PM
  Can a person run into a theater and scream fire? -- 60s Rammie 06/10/2019 5:26PM
  Yeah, I don't have a problem with this -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:31PM
  It definitely went around probable cause -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:06PM
  And this is a really good debate -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:51PM
  Sounds like the DNA from the suspect was obtained legally -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:35PM

Support RamNation: Shop at Amazon!

Think You Know Football?