How Many People have sent samples to GED Match or something similar

[Ryan Vitug-Gavieres]

http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article209908769.html

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article209987599.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27/golden-state-killer-dna-website-gedmatch-was-used-to-identify-joseph-deangelo-as-suspect-police-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.75c2bb8dfd49

Yes its after doing Saliva Samples to obtain DNA or parts of a genome. in some cases it might be sent to hospitals. Nice though that Sacramento County Sheriffs Department got their guy through these means though.  

[Cathal Garvey]

Extremely not nice, considering there's a strong case now for illegal evidence collection and a mistrial. And if I were the judge, I wouldn't hesitate to rule mistrial. Certainly this would be illegal in Europe, probably used to be in the US but these days, who knows..

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

Sounds like they used data that was explicitly publicly available on GEDmatch, used that to track down someone with a partial match to their DNA sample, identified male relatives of teh right age range who lived around Sacramento, and then got DNA off some chewing gum or a cigarette butt to confirm their culprit.

There's a good chance this was entirely legal, especially if they got the cooperation of the relative on GEDmatch. I'm sure we'll be hearing a LOT more about this in the coming weeks though...

Patrik

[Cathal Garvey]

Is it legal to collect DNA evidence from a suspect without either a warrant or consent, in the US?

[Matt Lawes]

They were able to match DNA from a saved copy of a rape kit that had been carefully saved away in a freezer from the unknown rapist/murderer against GEDmatch DNA identities ... which can be either anonymous or not when you post (as I have) but do include emails etc for contact. You can find relatives out to the 4th / 5th cousin level. Find enough of these and you can follow the pedigrees which many GEDmatchers also post. You may also get luckier and find siblings, children and first/second genetic cousins posted.
So far none of this requires a warrant, nor should it.

>matt

Sent from my iPhone

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/60020210-F340-4211-B2F7-3A191056A23B%40cathalgarvey.me.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Hodder]

On 29 April 2018 at 13:44, Matt Lawes <ma...@insysx.com> wrote:

So far none of this requires a warrant, nor should it.

I only had a quick read over the articles, so I might be missing stuff that is already out there... 

But the issue they seem to be focusing on is the collection (and subsequent testing) of the "discarded DNA" from the Sacramento police and the FBI surveillance operations;

The notes on the Prop 69 law that California passed on the ballot indicate that "collecting" DNA evidence requires "consent or a warrant" - https://oag.ca.gov/bfs/prop69/faqs#suspect

"Law enforcement agencies may, however, submit to their primary lab services provider for DNA testing and entry into the State Database a known sample of a suspect’s blood, saliva, or other biological substance that has been obtained without regard to Proposition 69 (e.g., by consent or warrant). (Cal. Pen. Code, § 297(b)(1).) "

However the phrase being used is ... "Discarded DNA", which kind of suggests that no warrant was obtained for either of the samples that they obtained. There is some analysis here from the 25th, where the author assumes that it was obtained without a warrant ... "Whatever it was, something was discarded, and it contained DeAngelo’s DNA. The police took it and tested it, most likely without a warrant. " - https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/how-discarded-dna-helped-cops-legally-catch-the-suspected-golden-state-killer/

That article also mentioned previous cases;

"California v. Greenwood (1988), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutionally-protected privacy right to discarded items."

and

"Minutes after the interview concluded and [the suspect] had departed the station, the police, who had noticed [the suspect] rubbing his bare arms against the armrests of the chair in which he had been seated, took swabs of the armrests in an attempt to collect his DNA. The police submitted those swabs to the crime lab for DNA analysis, which revealed that the DNA extracted from the swabs matched DNA samples investigators had collected from the scene of the rape."

...

"The issue the court examined wasn’t the collection of the DNA, but the subsequent testing of the DNA. The Maryland court ruled that the testing was legal"  - Raynor v. Maryland (2015)

 

[Matt Lawes]

I think this is bad journalism not bad police protocol. The article I read described a second rape kit that had been collected along with the originally collected and processed rape kit from one of the 1970s/80s rapes and stored carefully in a freezer .... 'just in case'. Someone thinking ahead. Not "discarded" in any sense of the word I know.

Bad journalism is the cause of most of the misunderstanding and evil in the world currently....... 😡

Sent from my iPhone

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAB%2BzPJCc%3DEN-D3_%2BHBqENH81E%3DtxARk%2BwNpwp3FP3VG1BfSibA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Hodder]

On 29 April 2018 at 14:59, Matt Lawes <ma...@insysx.com> wrote:

I think this is bad journalism not bad police protocol. The article I read described a second rape kit that had been collected 

Again, I might be wrong here. But my understanding is that we have 3 relevant sets of DNA. 

1) Suspect's DNA.

The kits would have been used to collect and preserve the DNA of the suspect. Presumably it's uncontroversial that this DNA can be collected, stored and tested.

2) Relative's DNA.

(Again I am assuming...) That a relative of the suspect had voluntarily uploaded DNA data from a service like 23andme (looking at GEDmatch.com it seems to support Ancestry, FTDNA, WeGene, MyHeritage and "generic") which provides matches against relatives. I assume this was done with the consent of the relative

The site notes:

 "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 https://www.gedmatch.com/policy.php). 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. "

It seems that the Police/FBI created a profile on GEDmatch using the analysis of the Suspect's DNA collected historically. The GEDmatch service provided a list of people who were relatives of the Suspect, and using that information, along with their original profiling of who they were looking for, they identified DeAngelo as a potential suspect, so he was put under surveillance.

3) DeAngelo's DNA.

During the surveillance operation, DeAngelo discarded items which the officers collected. From the DNA obtained from these items (DeAngelo's DNA) they were able to determine using standard forensic DNA techniques that DeAngelo's DNA matched the Suspect's DNA. He was arrested.

 

[Tom Hodder]

On 29 April 2018 at 15:46, Tom Hodder <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:

(Again I am assuming...) That a relative of the suspect had voluntarily uploaded DNA data from a service like 23andme (looking at GEDmatch.com it seems to support Ancestry, FTDNA, WeGene, MyHeritage and "generic") which provides matches against relatives. I assume this was done with the consent of the relative

Oops. I meant that the relatives DNA was uploaded with the consent of the relative. Not that the police obtained the relative's consent to make the connection....

 

[Tom Hodder]

here's another clarification to my previous, though it's probably obvious what I meant

On 29 April 2018 at 15:46, Tom Hodder <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:

1) Suspect's DNA.

The kits would have been used to collect and preserve the DNA of the suspect. Presumably it's uncontroversial that this DNA can be collected, stored and tested.

1) Suspect's DNA.

The kits would have been used to collect and preserve the DNA of the suspect from the victim, at the scene of the crime, as evidence. Presumably it's uncontroversial that this DNA can be collected, stored and tested.

 

[Matt Lawes]

I agree with your statement of facts Tom. A good summary. I hadn't fully appreciated item 3, but find it unremarkable. DNA equivalency of fingerprint collection.

Sent from my iPhone

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAB%2BzPJB3Z_RhAZcd33bTRmJHpj%2BEk%2Btt%2BJCoVBYi%3DHBj5mxLqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ryan Vitug-Gavieres]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0rELEZvseg

I forgot to mention this but Sacramento back in the 1970's and 1980's had a major issue with Serial Killers. It just happen to be some of the samples they had were cold cases when other murders were taking place.

[Cory J. Geesaman]

It's probably hidden in the EULA for Ancestry and 23andme.

[Ryan Vitug-Gavieres]

http://abc7news.com/vallejo-police-hoping-for-dna-match-to-zodiac-killer/3423564/

An update Vallejo Police are attempting to use the same methods that Sacramento police did to catch the killer.

Expect this method to be national for unsolved crimes not just in Solano and Sacramento counties in California.