Genealogy website leads to Golden State Killer

[Wyatt Burp]

This prolific serial killer/rapist has finally been caught after over 40 years, and just a few miles from me. How did they catch him? Seems a relative of his went on Ancestor.com or another such site. His/her DNA proved to be a partial match to the unknown killer. So they investigated this person’s relatives until they found a likely suspect. They then got His discarded DNA off a soda straw or something and got a match.
I didn’t know DNA sent to these sites by regular folks checking their genealogy was accessible to the police. I’m not complaining about it, but I just wonder if this is a well known thing by people as far as privacy is concerned. It seems like there would have been privacy violation accusations if was. Maybe there has been.

 

[trooper2899]

Probably got a search warrant to access the relative (familial) data -
and they were related to someone on their persons of interest list

 

[Shark Bait]

Anything that results in the apprehension of a violent criminal is fine with me. I don't think anyone was harmed by this. It sure would be a bummer to find out that you're related to a serial killer, but it would be worth it to solve the case for the victims' families.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

Probably got a search warrant to access the relative (familial) data -
and they were related to someone on their persons of interest list

That couldn’t be the case here. After 40 years they had no clue to this guy. He was never on the radar until a week ago or so. So the police wouldn’t know who a relative of his was. But that relative’s DNA innocently given to the genealogy site was found to match the killer’s DEA from various crimes since the 1970s. So DNA is shared somehow with authorities. And again, I, too think it’s a good thing since they caught him. And who knows. When using these websites people might be told their DNA could be accessed by the police, or automatically goes into database. I think that would be great. The cops need all the help they can get.

 

[Absalom]

Actually, all the genealogy services contacted by the press so far, like Ancestry.com, are denying that they are the ones or that they provide info to law enforcement.

Of course they wouldn't want to scare off customers by publicizing that. But I could imagine a scenario where they run the killer's DNA anonymously against their databases, and if they get a match, police get a warrant for the personal data. That way they would be somewhat protected from complaints that they voluntarily handed over private information.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

Actually, all the genealogy services contacted by the press so far, like Ancestry.com, are denying that they are the ones or that they provide info to law enforcement.

Of course they wouldn't want to scare off customers by publicizing that. But I could imagine a scenario where they run the killer's DNA anonymously against their databases, and if they get a match, police get a warrant for the personal data. That way they would be somewhat protected from complaints that they voluntarily handed over private information.

That would make a lot of sense and a good collaboration. I've never heard of a criminal being caught through a gene. site like that before. I wonder if was an idea, if your logical scenario is correct, initiated for the first time looking for this guy. Or maybe the police feed them DNAs all the time to check out and they just happened to catch the biggest fish out there.

 

[ExcitableBoy]

Saw something on the tube recently (pre-DeAngelo) about DNA gathered by the pay-for-genetic-history sites: If they discover some kind of rare marker, or deviation, some of the material is sold to legitimate researchers for decent $$$. The original "donor" is not informed and receives nothing in recompense.

This does not take away anything from the unwavering hunt for the Golden State Killer. Any and all methods to track down the psycho-scum DeAngelo were warranted. But it does bring to mind that there is a need for the genetic history people to fully disclose what may be done with your personal DNA; do you own it, or do they own it?

I've never felt the urge to send in a sample to find out "who I am", but if I ever did, I certainly would want to establish who owns what, and what's it worth to someone else. To me, it would seem to be analogous to a copyright, subject to payment, and a matter of ethics.

 

[sar4937]

Ancestry is heavily promoting themselves right now ( and 23 & me). Sometimes I wonder who is backing them financially. (tinfoil hat in place) it would ruin their business model to admit to providing info. Years ago we scoffed at the idea of allowing our DNA to be sampled at all, now they have made it cool (you know, in case you are related to Napoleon, or Martin Luther King, or Kin Jung Un). I would like to keep my DNA private.

 

[Nightowl]

DNA was not even on the radar until the early 1990s. So to make any comparison to 1970s crimes, police would have to go back to evidence collected from the original crime scene and run that DNA against the recent sample from the suspect. Pretty amazing that the evidence collected had been secured for that long in some huge warehouse somewhere.

To me, there are some really interesting issues here. The privacy issue is certainly part of it, as well as how police submitted their DNA from criminal acts, for comparison? Is this common? It would require that genealogy places would do the comparison with submitted DNA and police samples. Interesting relationship. Who is paying the cost of analysis?

 

[bushmaster1313]

There are reports in the press about people who find out they were related to other people they never knew based on DNA sent to these sites.

I wonder if there is some way to send in your DNA, ask if there is a match with anyone and then seek that person's consent to contact. If so, the LEO's could send some DNA in, ask if there are any matches, and if there is a match to seek a search warrant.

 

[SteveA]

Interesting discussion on privacy. I do a lot of 4th Amendment litigation. What privacy right exists once you put data on the web? I suppose an argument could be made if one protected such information with firewalls etc, and made sure it was not dispersed beyond their person or that of their spouse (in order to invoke spousal privilege) or some other person such as their attorney, but my somewhat jaded view is that once its out there on the web, privacy is non-existent.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Shades of Orwell's "1984".

 

[Muss Muggins]

I didn’t know DNA sent to these sites by regular folks checking their genealogy was accessible to the police. I’m not complaining about it, but I just wonder if this is a well known thing by people as far as privacy is concerned. It seems like there would have been privacy violation accusations if was. Maybe there has been.

Almost anything is accessible by the police with either consent or the proper search warrant or investigative subpoena . . .

 

[Wyatt Burp]

Interesting discussion on privacy. I do a lot of 4th Amendment litigation. What privacy right exists once you put data on the web? I suppose an argument could be made if one protected such information with firewalls etc, and made sure it was not dispersed beyond their person or that of their spouse (in order to invoke spousal privilege) or some other person such as their attorney, but my somewhat jaded view is that once its out there on the web, privacy is non-existent.

With all the controversies over phone companies and social media network sites helping the gov't fighting terrorism, this is bound to cause a stir. One company refused to let the FBI and police look into the San Bernardino terrorist's phones. But here there was cooperation and it might put a dent in business of these genealogy sites if people didn't know others had access to their DNA.

 

[johnbeaver]

Doesn't California collect DNA from all felons? Maybe they got a match from a relative that way.
I would think that cold cases with DNA material would be checked when they have the time and money.

 

[sar4937]

The MSN article said they got the info from a geneology site.

 

[SteveA]

California, Kansas and a number of states require DNA submission after conviction. There is a National Database kept as well. At least in Kansas, the defendant is assessed the cost of the DNA submission which is $200.

 

[Erich]

Okay, so there are several companies that do DNA tests. These will tell you about your relatives in their databases - but can't tell you about other companies' results.

So, there's a central, not-for-profit DNA database (GEDmatch) to which you can upload your DNA test from whichever company. You share your profile with the public (well, with others who've uploaded profiles) and can thereby compare your test results to others who did not test with the same company and thus find a greater number of relatives. GEDmatch also hosts some interesting studies regarding prehistoric DNA and ancestry profiles. (I've uploaded my FTDNA test results to GEDmatch.)

Anyhow, from what I understand (see below from the GEDmatch site today), the police uploaded the DNA they recovered from some of these cases to GEDmatch. They then found several people related to the donor of this DNA and used the identities of these people to extrapolate the identity of the suspect. I'm sure they've gotten a warrant and obtained DNA from the suspect by now.

Amusingly, a number of people from a GEDmatch issue group where I'm a member have expressed unhappiness with "their" DNA being used in this way by the authorities. The site makes absolutely clear that it exists so DNA profiles can be shared (and the suspect's DNA was not ever shared!), so I have no idea how they could be surprised or troubled by the development - or what they were thinking when they voluntarily decided to upload their own test results (which is pretty easy but takes a little bit of doing - it's not a one-click process you can do by accident). Oh well, people!

Anyhow, here's the post at GEDmatch:

April 27, 2018 We understand that the GEDmatch database was used to help identify the Golden State Killer. Although we were not approached by law enforcement or anyone else about this case or about the DNA, it has always been GEDmatch�s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the Site Policy ( linked to the login page and GEDmatch.Com Terms and Policy Statement). While the database was created for genealogical research, it is important that GEDmatch participants understand the possible uses of their DNA, including identification of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes. If you are concerned about non-genealogical uses of your DNA, you should not upload your DNA to the database and/or you should remove DNA that has already been uploaded.To delete your registration contact [email protected]

 

[S&WIowegan]

I think it's quite possible that the police in the California case are not telling us ALL the steps and procedures they used. I expect the defendant's legal team will be challenging the admissability.

 

[jtcarm]

I read about that and didn’t quite comprehend how the genealogy site led to him, unless they matched the sample to relatives.

That’s assuming a serial killer is smart enough not to get a DNA profile of himself and submit it to a public database.

Interestingly, the very first use of DNA in a criminal case was in the UK, where they don’t have the protections we do. Every man in the area of the rape/murders was required to submit a DNA sample (meaning blood back then.)
The killer eluded the dragnet by getting a coworker to go in his place, but was later caught when his buddy got drunk & blabbed it.