Cold cases being solved through genealogical DNA

[cabanafrau]

In case it's not clear, I do know that cases have been prosecuted successfully with DNA obtained through trash, etc. When I said I don't personally know any cases IRL where that's happened, I literally mean personally because my job means I see cases like this go through the court system.

 

[lifesavacation]

I'm all for using ancestry DNA to identify perpetrators of crime. I don't understand why there are months and years of backlogs in getting rape kits processed. Why are we not trying harder to find these rapists through dna? In WA state alone there are 6500 rape kits that are unprocessed.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ies-nearly-6500-untested-rape-kits-statewide/

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm all for using ancestral DNA to identify perpetrators of crime. I don't understand why there are months and years of backlogs in getting rape kits processed. Why are we not trying harder to find these rapists through dna? In WA state alone there are 6500 rape kits that are unprocessed.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ies-nearly-6500-untested-rape-kits-statewide/

The answer is plain and simply dollars and cents. ETA -- the increasing availability of ancestral DNA isn't really the answer of making the backlog of unprocessed rape kits any cheaper. Unprocessed indicates that the kit has not been submitted to the lab to first determine if a perpetrator's DNA is present and identifiable in the sample for comparison to even CODIS as a starting point.

Even in major murder cases prosecutors and police think long and hard about exactly what pieces of evidence are going to the crime lab for testing, whether it's DNA, ballistics, etc. A case would almost have to be nationally prominent like the OJ Simpson case for all DNA evidence obtained to be sent to the lab and tested.

Defense attorneys are well aware and make great use of the fact that these 5 shellcasings or only 2 bullets out of 6 were examined by the lab because they realize if they talk something up enough the odds are high at least one member of the jury will be confused or will somehow become convinced the police are hiding something, etc. The plain truth is they try to figure out the very best evidence and have it tested to carry the case.

 

[lifesavacation]

The answer is plain and simply dollars and cents.

Even in major murder cases prosecutors and police think long and hard about exactly what pieces of evidence are going to the crime lab for testing, whether it's DNA, ballistics, etc. A case would almost have to be nationally prominent like the OJ Simpson case for all DNA evidence obtained to be sent to the lab and tested.

Defense attorneys are well aware and make great use of the fact that these 5 shellcasings or only 2 bullets out of 6 were examined by the lab because they realize if they talk something up enough the odds are high at least one member of the jury will be confused or will somehow become convinced the police are hiding something, etc. The plain truth is they try to figure out the very best evidence and have it tested to carry the case.

Yes, of course, it's always about money.

I can't imagine having my child be the victim of a violent crime and the evidence sits untested on a shelf somewhere. I would lose all faith in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that they're using DNA to solve cold cases. OTOH, what are they going to use these "innocuous" Ancestry-type DNA samples for? A national database is not out of the question. What if insurers want to know if you have a profile with, say, a propensity towards diabetes or cancer? Could they vary their rates, based on your DNA? Or could you be denied a conceal carry permit, because you share DNA with a serial killer? Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I just could see a bunch of nefarious purposes in having your DNA profile in a database. Not to mention, some people may regret turning over that proverbial rock--you know, finding out that your dad really wasn't your bio dad, for example.

I should make it clear, I have very little sympathy for criminals who get caught this way. I'm thinking more of the innocent relatives.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes, of course, it's always about money.

I can't imagine having my child be the victim of a violent crime and the evidence sits untested on a shelf somewhere. I would lose all faith in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

I absolutely understand what you're saying and I certainly would hope never to be in that position either. To a certain extent I understand how some decisions are made about which and when to go forward with some types of testing with certain cases. I also have a major beef with how some things get quite easily dropped into the easily overlooked file and have strong feelings about exactly why that is. That's not a topic I can pursue here.

 

[Disney_Alli]

Yes, of course, it's always about money.

I can't imagine having my child be the victim of a violent crime and the evidence sits untested on a shelf somewhere. I would lose all faith in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

There is a really fascinating TED Talk about 40,000ish untested rape kits in Detroit I think it was. Very sad.

 

[Darcy03231]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that they're using DNA to solve cold cases. OTOH, what are they going to use these "innocuous" Ancestry-type DNA samples for? A national database is not out of the question. What if insurers want to know if you have a profile with, say, a propensity towards diabetes or cancer? Could they vary their rates, based on your DNA? Or could you be denied a conceal carry permit, because you share DNA with a serial killer? Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I just could see a bunch of nefarious purposes in having your DNA profile in a database. Not to mention, some people may regret turning over that proverbial rock--you know, finding out that your dad really wasn't your bio dad, for example.

I should make it clear, I have very little sympathy for criminals who get caught this way. I'm thinking more of the innocent relatives.

This is one of the reasons DH and I decided not to do it. We talked to our children (all young adults) as some of them were talking about sending it in, without thinking through the pitfalls. In the end they decided not to do it. We have a pretty detailed genealogical history on both sides - - one done by my aunt and one done by DH's aunt - - so we're pretty confident in our history. DH's sister decided to do it and didn't get any surprises.

 

[lifesavacation]

This is one of the reasons DH and I decided not to do it. We talked to our children (all young adults) as some of them were talking about sending it in, without thinking through the pitfalls. In the end they decided not to do it. We have a pretty detailed genealogical history on both sides - - one done by my aunt and one done by DH's aunt - - so we're pretty confident in our history. DH's sister decided to do it and didn't get any surprises.

I think this is why it’s controversial actually. Even though you and your children chose not to provide and store your dna data, your husband and children are all still very traceable since your SIL did. It casts a very wide net.

I’ve yet to see this type of dna data be used in a nefarious way so I’m still in support of it, but I acknowledge the potential is there for misuse.