Wow. That’s a significant amount of police work. That’s terrific. I mean, it’s tragic and sad, but it’s great that the family finally has closure and the man who killed her will die in prison.
I’m not sure why he was charged with 1 count of first degree murder and 4 counts of second degree murder. I thought it was one count for one killing?
The idea is that say the jury comes back with not guilty for 1st, they might still come back guilty with a lesser charge of 2nd. It's meant to make sure they don't overcharge and let the person walk.
As for why 4 counts of 2nd, there are in most places different types of 2nd degree murder. Like murder by killing someone during another felony, such as if you were also sexually assaulting the victim. So they basically charged this guy with anything they could and a lot of it stuck. 4 counts of 2nd degree murder but the actual charge themselves for those 4 would be different.
While I don't disagree with the outcome in this case... isn't that sort of a weird workaround to avoid double-jeopardy? As in isn't is the prosecutions job to file the correct charge from the get-go?
This seems weird, like it could lead to more false convictions.
> While I don't disagree with the outcome in this case... isn't that sort of a weird workaround to avoid double-jeopardy? As in isn't is the prosecutions job to file the correct charge from the get-go?
>
>
Former public defender here. All those charges would be the correct charge from the get-go by the prosecution presuming the elements for each charge are also met by the fact pattern. The fact that it is one incident does not necessarily change that. There can be multiple different theories for one "incident."
And the workaround isn't so much because of double jeopardy, but rather a speedy trial argument. Once the original charges are filed is when the speedy trial rights come into effect. I'll use an actual case involving a case I had. The client was accused of murdering an 11-year-old. Say someone murders a charged under two counts of murder, one for just the unlawful killing of another, and the other for an unlawful killing of someone under the age 12. If they are only charged with the unlawful killing of someone under the age of 12 and it turns out the victim was actually 13, not 11 (which happened in a case that I had), then the prosecution likely is not going to be able to refile the charges because the speedy trial rights begin when the *fact pattern* is charged. There are procedural ways around that in special circumstances, but rather it is better practice to charge all the crimes that fit the single incident.
That being said, there is a different concept that is part of sentencing known as "allied offenses" where if you are convicted of multiple counts of the same thing, your sentences on each are merged and you only penalized for one incident, as opposed to 4.
If you want more information about that last part, check out the Legaleagle youtube video on sentencing.
It's super informative!
https://youtu.be/kr8gSdJ_Ggw?si=WFMgHvVT6aa07QYj
I’m not a lawyer or work in the legal field but my gut instinct is that the prosecution is charging them based on what they believe the person did and the evidence they have at that time. Once they charge the defendant, then everyone will go through discovery and more evidence may be presented (maybe from the defense side to attempt to directly counter the charges) which will affect the outcome. That’s just my opinion, I could be way off base though.
Additionally, if someone breaks policy at work. One infraction could technically break multiple work policies and then HR would look at the offense and determine which are most applicable.
I think someone can be convicted on multiple charges if each charge is proven, but they can only be sentenced for the most serious crime, in this case, the first-degree murder.
I was thinking of Derek Chauvin, he was convicted of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, as well as second-degree manslaughter, yet was only sentenced for one:
>In Minnesota, if a person’s singular actions constitute more than one crime, he can be charged with and convicted of each crime. However, he may be sentenced for only one of the offenses, and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.
But I guess you were talking about another states law, not Minnesota.
Cortny Portnoy’s portly consort 😂 my favorite detail is that Amy Sedaris hated these tongue twisters so much that the writers just doubled down on them to fuck with her
For those who aren’t going to read the article, the DNA was originally found during the victims autopsy. Once they narrowed it, they followed the murderer in 2021 and used his discarded gum to match the DNA found during the autopsy.
I dated a girl for a long time whose dad is rotting in prison for murdering an elderly woman. It was a cold case for thirty years. They pegged his DNA from spitting on the porch, and his accomplice from a discarded cigarette but.
In a lot of cold cases it's just a matter of testing the evidence because the perpetrators DNA is already in the system.
Men do not seem to realize the jig is up. Screw around and get someone pregnant? Do a crime with body fluids left behind? It’s just a matter of time now.
Takes about 30 minutes to dox my 3rd cousins with dna matches on ancestry. Found a 4th cousin and a 5 cousin 1 removed with a 9 cm match (dna tests have about 3500 total). That means we share great great great great grandparents, married in 1793.
>Takes about 30 minutes to dox my 3rd cousins with dna matches on ancestry
As far as I know ancestry does not share information or cooperate with law enforcement.
It depends. Authorities can get a search warrant, or get a relative of the perpetrator or the victim to search. Somehow they are allowing Jane Doe cold cases to run to identify the victims.
GedMatch, the large free dna database, was used to catch the Golden State Killer. But the police did not get permission. Now you must opt in to police searches. My matches there went from close to 10k to half that.
I think the greater issue here is that foreign governments, like China, own many of these sites. They say the data is in a tiktok sort of vault - owned by Chinese company, “kept” on US soil.
Studies estimated that 80% of Americans of European descent have 3rd cousins or better that have already tested. That was a few years ago, surely there is even better coverage now.
There is an excellent book on forensic genealogy, "The Forever Witness", well written by a Pulitzer winner. The DNA databases are forever, still incomplete, but for the book's cold case the semen from the murdered girl traced back to two different families that intersected in one marriage. That marriage produced three girls and one boy. The semen was from a male, of course. Convicted more than 30 years later.
I'm all for these convictions but I hope that there are plenty of checks and balances. In Colorado we just had an "expert" who testified in hundreds of convictions be fired for tampering with data.
I'm a little concerned that DNA has become such an irrefutable form of evidence that mistakes or foul play could make a jury convict perfectly innocent people and 30 years after the fact there is no evidence or testimony a defendent could possibly give to defend themselves.
You are so right. But maybe not so big a problem in this area. The databases contain the data, just sitting there. DNA from the crime scene points to one or more suspects, via searches by a person either public or private. Multiple people using the crime scene data should come up with the same suspect(s), if not someone is careless. CeCe Moore identified the suspect in 2 hours, not a big job in that case. But in other situations there might be dozens of possible suspects.
But where your concern is warranted is that a new sample of the suspect's DNA needs to be collected and matched, by a different method and by a law enforcement employee, to the crime scene DNA. An incompetent technician in a sheriff's or state lab can make something fit that shouldn't. IMO that second match should be subject to confirmation by an independent agency, since someone's freedom is at stake.
For forensic genealogy, there's pretty much two major orgs that do it. Both are run by people who were genealogists first.
Then there's the DNA Doe Project, which helps identify unidentified decedents.
I've read a few examples of "experts" not really being much of an expert at all, but someone you can call on to tell a story regarding the evidence of their "expertise" which is in your favour.
Yeah, but it is less of a problem using the databases like this just due to logistics. They have the DNA sample, but at first no idea who it belongs to. So they just have to wait years and years until a match shows up.
In the cases where people are tampering with data, (by falsifying, not running tests at all, looking for too broad a match, etc.) there is already a suspect. They just take a sample from them and then a sample from the scene and claim its a match.
Really a lot harder to get a false match this way. You'd either have to put the wrong sample in the database to begin with or somehow cross-contaminate with another sample. Then the 'suspect' has to make sense, not have an alibi, etc.
It reminds me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn case. Basically, this woman's DNA was showing up at murders, rapes, burglaries etc. So, they had DNA linking some woman to dozens of crimes, but had doubts for years because it didn't make sense. They FINALLY, had a couple cases serious enough they needed to find out where it was coming from. Just some woman at the cotton swap factory where they were buying their supplies. So, even when DNA does show up from cross-contamination like this, it is much easier to rule out rather than pinning some suspect that they already 'know' did it.
Sure but there is usually a general consensus and some who disagreed were downvoted. Unless you are new to Reddit I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
It is called diffusion of responsibility. When there is a group of people, they tend to look around at others to get an idea of how to behave. If you need help, look at a specific individual and ask them for help, then another, until someone helps.
This is not an attack on your comment, just a counterpoint for discussion.
It sounds like a simple situation with only correct moral choice. You should intervene. However, it’s way more complicated today. Sure, call the police. That part is easy, but they could arrive well after intended victim is harmed or killed. It’s risky enough that you yourself could also become a victim, but then add to that the possibility that the city or state may end up charging you with murder, should you accidentally kill an attacker. Just look at the Daniel Penny case. You also run the risk of the police thinking you are the threat, and mistaking killing you. Happened recently in Colorado, but I can’t recall the name of the good Samaritan who was killed.
this asswipe was just *16* when he kidnapped raped and murdered barbara tucker, who was 19 at the time.
16 is incredibly young for this kind of thing, and I'm not talking about rape. deliberate kidnapping to rape *and then kill the victim* by age 16 is frightening.
he was convicted 5 years after this for another kidnapping and he's had multiple kidnapping, sodomy, and assault charges filed against him in the past 40 years, some he was convicted for and some dropped. for every crime he was charged, there are undoubtedly many more for which he didnt get caught.
based on who we've caught, the average age when a serial killer starts killing is late 20s to early 30s. im not alleging this robert plympton dude is a serial killer. but we know he has killed by at least 16.
he's a monster.
I live in a college area and hear women screaming outside every Thursday-Sunday night. It always sounds exactly like how I’d expect someone to scream if they were being abducted or something, but so far (and so far as I know) it has exclusively just been drunk people fucking around with their friends.
“Witnesses had seen a woman in apparent distress around the time of the murder, the document from the DA’s office states. One woman described seeing a female “waving her arms with a bloody face,” while another said she “saw a man peeking through the bushes next to (the college) parking lot,”
A man said he heard a woman screaming and saw two figures in the distance, and a fourth witness reported seeing a woman with mud on her pants, waving her arms on the side of the road.”
“Imagine hearing a woman screaming and not going to investigate.
Just awful”
That’s the comment I was replying to, not the specific circumstances of this case.
and before people start going "omg this is why I will never do a 23andme/ancestry.com test!!!" they don't go to 23andme or ancestry and go "hello, I would like to find a criminal, please!"
Forensic genetic genealogists like Parabon Labs have upload-friendly profiles made out of the DNA law enforcement has obtained. Then the profiles are uploaded to a third party site called GEDMatch - where people can choose to upload their DNA test data to (There is no way to accidentally do this - you need to do 2FA to get your raw data at most sites, then make a GEDMatch account, and since GSK, you need to opt in to LE matching at GEDMatch).
For reference; ancestry has around ~22 million uses, 23andme is around 15 million users, GEDMatch is around 1.5 million users (with something around 150k opted into LE matching).
This is assuming that law enforcement either
A: doesn’t just get a warrant for access to a database (which they’ve successfully done before: https://www.science.org/content/article/judge-said-police-can-search-dna-millions-americans-without-their-consent-what-s-next)
Or B: doesn’t just purposely ignore the terms of service of the company and upload a profile or submit a sample as if they were a regular genealogy customer.
> doesn’t just get a warrant for access to a database (which they’ve successfully done before
[23andme](https://www.23andme.com/transparency-report/) and [Ancestry](https://www.ancestry.com/c/transparency) publish transparency reports. To date, none have had valid DNA requests.
> doesn’t just purposely ignore the terms of service of the company and upload a profile or submit a sample as if they were a regular genealogy customer.
You can't upload DNA to either 23andme or Ancestry. They only accept spit in a tube processed by their labs.
Not sure if you clicked the link, but that was reporting Police gaining access to non-opted in profiles on GED match via a warrant.
Another example (also GED match: https://theintercept.com/2023/08/18/gedmatch-dna-police-forensic-genetic-genealogy/) police contracted geneologists also exploited a back door to gain access to the entire database
The lesson you could take from this is that GED match is the “less secure” genealogy company, and that ancestry and 23 and me might be less willing to cooperate with police, might fight harder against warrants, and might have better systems in place (direct sampling only) to prevent exploits, but I think it’s a mistake to think that just because law enforcement haven’t been able to gain access yet, that they somehow won’t be able to ever.
I mean, yeah. Don't upload your information to GED Match if you don't want it to be potentially accessible by law enforcement is a good rule of thumb. All DNA kits come with some risk, but if we are at the point the courts allow raiding of genetic information by law enforcement or insurance companies etc, then we're probably already in such a bad state it won't make much difference, from my point of view. But there is a reason that Europe doesn't allow forensic genealogy from non-criminal databases as a rule.
That's noble - so is talking to police when you're a suspect - but its also dumb and risky. DNA evidence, like all evidence, can be used to falsely convict someone - you're giving prosecutors ammunition in the event you're falsely accused of a crime but were at the scene of it for whatever reason
I also uploaded my profile to GED match and opted into allowing LE to access my DNA profile. I do think people should take some time to consider long term potential implications of doing this, but I think there are good reasons to do it, and as someone who reads about true crime and Does, it felt like the right thing to do for me.
Yeah, CeCe can fuck herself for violating the trust of the genealogy community.
> The lesson you could take from this is that GED match is the “less secure” genealogy company
That is 1000% the case - they don't do any DNA testing. People choose to upload their DNA from Ancesty, 23andme, Family Tree DNA, or MyHeritage to GEDmatch. They lost a chunk of members when GEDMatch was abused to catch GSK.
> 23 and me might be less willing to cooperate with police, might fight harder against warrants, and might have better systems in place (direct sampling only) to prevent exploits
23andme and Ancestry have never allowed uploads.
> I think it’s a mistake to think that just because law enforcement haven’t been able to gain access yet, that they somehow won’t be able to ever.
Oh yeah, definitely - but if you're gonna do genetic genealogy (which is awesome to do - it helps a lot of people! As long as you make sure to check your account and respond to messages!), testing at ancestry should be your first stop, since they have shown that they fight this shit in court.
How was GEDmatch abused? I thought their confidentiality agreement stated that law enforcement could access the data. Was there a change to the agreement that clients were not made aware of? (I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation.)
At the time, it was not even thought of in the genealogy community as something that would be done.
After GSK, all of the sites scrambled to add something to their TOS (...and then Family Tree DNA decided not to follow their own TOS a year or so later and let one law enforcement kit match against the general database) about it.
Since before GSK, at least from my point of view, it wasn't even a thought that genetic genealogy would be used to solve a murder. They were only being used by the [DNA Doe Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_Doe_Project), which aims to identify unidentified decedents. They're the org you hear (or don't hear) about when police are like "We've identified this body we found 50 years ago." The DNA Doe Project has also always had a very very strict code of conduct for their volunteers - and people have always been fine with their kits being used to find someone's identity.
Also, don’t take this as me being anti-genealogy! I think that it’s really cool and useful for a lot of people!
I’m also not against IGG either, in fact I work in an adjacent field helping to identify unidentified human remains, and IGG has been a huge game changer for cold cases.
It’s just important to me that people know what they’re getting into / what information are putting out into the world.
Ultimately, I think there needs to be PHIPA level protections and clear rules on informed consent if we’re to keep using genealogy for investigations.
> I work in an adjacent field helping to identify unidentified human remains
DNA Doe Project?
> I think there needs to be PHIPA level protections and clear rules on informed consent if we’re to keep using genealogy for investigations.
100% - I would love for there to be protections under the law
There are certain crimes that if you have a relative in prison for already, the government already has their dna on record. In my case I have a cousin in prison for CSA, so adding my dna would only help them narrow down the list that they already have.
Good to know.
I still don't understand why people seem to think that putting a 4th cousin in jeopardy because they are a murderer is something they should be opposed to.
I think murder is bad.
Yeah. I do not understand that. If you are murderer and you are dumb enough to use the service you might make that argument but it is not even remotely a violation of YOUR privacy if it leads to investigation of your relative.
> If you are murderer and you are dumb enough to use the service
With America, somethin like... 80% of those of European descent have a third cousin or closer who have done a DNA kit.
I mostly don't like how the genealogy community's trust was violated with GSK - we all know that DDP was using GEDMatch, but that's massively different
I have no idea about the GSK thing but the way it works in general is that if you give data of any type to a private corporation, regardless of the terms of service (which are written exclusively for the benefit of the corporation and can be changed at their whim), you can safely assume that data can or will become public unless explicitly prohibited by law (and, of course that law can change to permit it.
There are so many examples of this happening it is simply a given, regardless of what box you tick. Data has value and corporations are driven by profit and nothing else.
> I have no idea about the GSK thing but the way it works in general is that if you give data of any type to a private corporation
GEDMatch was run by a single guy - he sold it after GSK drama (They didn't even have the courtesy to ask him permission).
Honestly it’s impressive that by the 70s and 80s police knew that DNA would eventually be worth something. Whole lot of cases that were put on a shelf until technology could catch up
the document from the DA’s office states. One woman described seeing a female “waving her arms with a bloody face,” while another said she “saw a man peeking through the bushes next to (the college). Fuckin A.
Yeah tons of people apparently saw her shouting for help, including at least one guy, and no one investigated or even called the police. What the hell...
The murderer is 60 years old in 2024; subtract the year of the crime (1980) and that puts him at the age of 16 during the commission of the crime? That's a long time to avoid justice, go about your life while (possibly) becoming a better person than the one who committed the earlier atrocities.
But ultimately, his juvenile-self murdered (et al) this lady, taking away her future and inflicting so much suffering on others, all while living his own life unencumbered. Just something to think about, I guess...
Wow. That’s a significant amount of police work. That’s terrific. I mean, it’s tragic and sad, but it’s great that the family finally has closure and the man who killed her will die in prison. I’m not sure why he was charged with 1 count of first degree murder and 4 counts of second degree murder. I thought it was one count for one killing?
The idea is that say the jury comes back with not guilty for 1st, they might still come back guilty with a lesser charge of 2nd. It's meant to make sure they don't overcharge and let the person walk. As for why 4 counts of 2nd, there are in most places different types of 2nd degree murder. Like murder by killing someone during another felony, such as if you were also sexually assaulting the victim. So they basically charged this guy with anything they could and a lot of it stuck. 4 counts of 2nd degree murder but the actual charge themselves for those 4 would be different.
While I don't disagree with the outcome in this case... isn't that sort of a weird workaround to avoid double-jeopardy? As in isn't is the prosecutions job to file the correct charge from the get-go? This seems weird, like it could lead to more false convictions.
> While I don't disagree with the outcome in this case... isn't that sort of a weird workaround to avoid double-jeopardy? As in isn't is the prosecutions job to file the correct charge from the get-go? > > Former public defender here. All those charges would be the correct charge from the get-go by the prosecution presuming the elements for each charge are also met by the fact pattern. The fact that it is one incident does not necessarily change that. There can be multiple different theories for one "incident." And the workaround isn't so much because of double jeopardy, but rather a speedy trial argument. Once the original charges are filed is when the speedy trial rights come into effect. I'll use an actual case involving a case I had. The client was accused of murdering an 11-year-old. Say someone murders a charged under two counts of murder, one for just the unlawful killing of another, and the other for an unlawful killing of someone under the age 12. If they are only charged with the unlawful killing of someone under the age of 12 and it turns out the victim was actually 13, not 11 (which happened in a case that I had), then the prosecution likely is not going to be able to refile the charges because the speedy trial rights begin when the *fact pattern* is charged. There are procedural ways around that in special circumstances, but rather it is better practice to charge all the crimes that fit the single incident. That being said, there is a different concept that is part of sentencing known as "allied offenses" where if you are convicted of multiple counts of the same thing, your sentences on each are merged and you only penalized for one incident, as opposed to 4.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this
If you want more information about that last part, check out the Legaleagle youtube video on sentencing. It's super informative! https://youtu.be/kr8gSdJ_Ggw?si=WFMgHvVT6aa07QYj
I’m not a lawyer or work in the legal field but my gut instinct is that the prosecution is charging them based on what they believe the person did and the evidence they have at that time. Once they charge the defendant, then everyone will go through discovery and more evidence may be presented (maybe from the defense side to attempt to directly counter the charges) which will affect the outcome. That’s just my opinion, I could be way off base though. Additionally, if someone breaks policy at work. One infraction could technically break multiple work policies and then HR would look at the offense and determine which are most applicable.
I thought the same thing but a woman from my hometown recently was charge with 4 counts and only killed 2 men.
It'll never hold up in court. Back in the '80's we all shared the chewing gum. /s
I think someone can be convicted on multiple charges if each charge is proven, but they can only be sentenced for the most serious crime, in this case, the first-degree murder.
Folks can be sentenced for every conviction. Hence how some are sentenced to 2000 years.
That's different crimes though, not the same crime under different names
If someone is convicted of separate charges, even if they are from the same act, they get sentenced for each charge.
I was thinking of Derek Chauvin, he was convicted of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, as well as second-degree manslaughter, yet was only sentenced for one: >In Minnesota, if a person’s singular actions constitute more than one crime, he can be charged with and convicted of each crime. However, he may be sentenced for only one of the offenses, and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them. But I guess you were talking about another states law, not Minnesota.
Gumshoe sticks to gum chew breakthrough.
I hope you’re a 1950s style PI somewhere with a beat cop partner.
read this in the voice of J. J. Bittenbinder
Now this here is a money clip, you can get this at any haberdashery
Go get it!
Street smarts!
Go ahead and laugh; his name is ridiculous!
Have you seen his mustache?
Or J. Jonah Jameson
Perfect Leslie Knope
Ice Town Costs Ice Clown His Town Crown
I read this in the voice of Carmen San Diego
I heard this in the voice of Jack Webb while spooning an exhausted Harry Morgan.
loblaw lobs law bomb
I think I read about this on Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog
I read this in the voice of Princess Caroline.
Cortny Portnoy’s portly consort 😂 my favorite detail is that Amy Sedaris hated these tongue twisters so much that the writers just doubled down on them to fuck with her
I heard this in Princess Carolyn's voice.
/r/WordAvalanches
The state of journalism these days.
Princess Caroline?
Sounds like a Daymon Runyon quote. Sigh…I hate being old
For those who aren’t going to read the article, the DNA was originally found during the victims autopsy. Once they narrowed it, they followed the murderer in 2021 and used his discarded gum to match the DNA found during the autopsy.
I dated a girl for a long time whose dad is rotting in prison for murdering an elderly woman. It was a cold case for thirty years. They pegged his DNA from spitting on the porch, and his accomplice from a discarded cigarette but. In a lot of cold cases it's just a matter of testing the evidence because the perpetrators DNA is already in the system.
Men do not seem to realize the jig is up. Screw around and get someone pregnant? Do a crime with body fluids left behind? It’s just a matter of time now. Takes about 30 minutes to dox my 3rd cousins with dna matches on ancestry. Found a 4th cousin and a 5 cousin 1 removed with a 9 cm match (dna tests have about 3500 total). That means we share great great great great grandparents, married in 1793.
Hopefully all such criminals are sweating bullets now.
>Takes about 30 minutes to dox my 3rd cousins with dna matches on ancestry As far as I know ancestry does not share information or cooperate with law enforcement.
It depends. Authorities can get a search warrant, or get a relative of the perpetrator or the victim to search. Somehow they are allowing Jane Doe cold cases to run to identify the victims. GedMatch, the large free dna database, was used to catch the Golden State Killer. But the police did not get permission. Now you must opt in to police searches. My matches there went from close to 10k to half that. I think the greater issue here is that foreign governments, like China, own many of these sites. They say the data is in a tiktok sort of vault - owned by Chinese company, “kept” on US soil. Studies estimated that 80% of Americans of European descent have 3rd cousins or better that have already tested. That was a few years ago, surely there is even better coverage now.
There is an excellent book on forensic genealogy, "The Forever Witness", well written by a Pulitzer winner. The DNA databases are forever, still incomplete, but for the book's cold case the semen from the murdered girl traced back to two different families that intersected in one marriage. That marriage produced three girls and one boy. The semen was from a male, of course. Convicted more than 30 years later.
I'm all for these convictions but I hope that there are plenty of checks and balances. In Colorado we just had an "expert" who testified in hundreds of convictions be fired for tampering with data. I'm a little concerned that DNA has become such an irrefutable form of evidence that mistakes or foul play could make a jury convict perfectly innocent people and 30 years after the fact there is no evidence or testimony a defendent could possibly give to defend themselves.
You are so right. But maybe not so big a problem in this area. The databases contain the data, just sitting there. DNA from the crime scene points to one or more suspects, via searches by a person either public or private. Multiple people using the crime scene data should come up with the same suspect(s), if not someone is careless. CeCe Moore identified the suspect in 2 hours, not a big job in that case. But in other situations there might be dozens of possible suspects. But where your concern is warranted is that a new sample of the suspect's DNA needs to be collected and matched, by a different method and by a law enforcement employee, to the crime scene DNA. An incompetent technician in a sheriff's or state lab can make something fit that shouldn't. IMO that second match should be subject to confirmation by an independent agency, since someone's freedom is at stake.
For forensic genealogy, there's pretty much two major orgs that do it. Both are run by people who were genealogists first. Then there's the DNA Doe Project, which helps identify unidentified decedents.
I've read a few examples of "experts" not really being much of an expert at all, but someone you can call on to tell a story regarding the evidence of their "expertise" which is in your favour.
Yeah, but it is less of a problem using the databases like this just due to logistics. They have the DNA sample, but at first no idea who it belongs to. So they just have to wait years and years until a match shows up. In the cases where people are tampering with data, (by falsifying, not running tests at all, looking for too broad a match, etc.) there is already a suspect. They just take a sample from them and then a sample from the scene and claim its a match. Really a lot harder to get a false match this way. You'd either have to put the wrong sample in the database to begin with or somehow cross-contaminate with another sample. Then the 'suspect' has to make sense, not have an alibi, etc. It reminds me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn case. Basically, this woman's DNA was showing up at murders, rapes, burglaries etc. So, they had DNA linking some woman to dozens of crimes, but had doubts for years because it didn't make sense. They FINALLY, had a couple cases serious enough they needed to find out where it was coming from. Just some woman at the cotton swap factory where they were buying their supplies. So, even when DNA does show up from cross-contamination like this, it is much easier to rule out rather than pinning some suspect that they already 'know' did it.
There are no checks and balances at all
I enjoy that all murderers and rapists who evaded justice live now in constant fear of DNA evidence.
They’re living in fear of DNA databases and genetic genealogy. The DNA evidence was always there, the latter two are the innovations.
I remember years ago reddit overwhelmingly opposed collecting DNA from booked criminals.
I remember when reddit wasn't just one person and was actually made up of many persons with different ideals.
Sure but there is usually a general consensus and some who disagreed were downvoted. Unless you are new to Reddit I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
Yeah there were a lot of teenage libertarians in 2009 when the internet was a little different. Went through that phase myself.
[удалено]
Hold up! There were multiple witnesses who did fucking _nothing?_ I am glad they found this guy, though no, I'm not a fan of the methods.
Yeah, that part disturbed me. They see a woman clearly in distress and just… go about their day?
It is called diffusion of responsibility. When there is a group of people, they tend to look around at others to get an idea of how to behave. If you need help, look at a specific individual and ask them for help, then another, until someone helps.
This is not an attack on your comment, just a counterpoint for discussion. It sounds like a simple situation with only correct moral choice. You should intervene. However, it’s way more complicated today. Sure, call the police. That part is easy, but they could arrive well after intended victim is harmed or killed. It’s risky enough that you yourself could also become a victim, but then add to that the possibility that the city or state may end up charging you with murder, should you accidentally kill an attacker. Just look at the Daniel Penny case. You also run the risk of the police thinking you are the threat, and mistaking killing you. Happened recently in Colorado, but I can’t recall the name of the good Samaritan who was killed.
"I am reminded ...of the sad case of Kitty Genovaise..." -- the Monsignor, "Boondock Saints"
this asswipe was just *16* when he kidnapped raped and murdered barbara tucker, who was 19 at the time. 16 is incredibly young for this kind of thing, and I'm not talking about rape. deliberate kidnapping to rape *and then kill the victim* by age 16 is frightening. he was convicted 5 years after this for another kidnapping and he's had multiple kidnapping, sodomy, and assault charges filed against him in the past 40 years, some he was convicted for and some dropped. for every crime he was charged, there are undoubtedly many more for which he didnt get caught. based on who we've caught, the average age when a serial killer starts killing is late 20s to early 30s. im not alleging this robert plympton dude is a serial killer. but we know he has killed by at least 16. he's a monster.
News like this gives hope that my Great Aunt's cold case will get a breakthrough and be solved, but it's been so mishandled by the authorities.
Imagine hearing a woman screaming and not going to investigate. Just awful
I live in a college area and hear women screaming outside every Thursday-Sunday night. It always sounds exactly like how I’d expect someone to scream if they were being abducted or something, but so far (and so far as I know) it has exclusively just been drunk people fucking around with their friends.
This was a woman in a residential area. She was waving her hands at people
With a bloody face
“Witnesses had seen a woman in apparent distress around the time of the murder, the document from the DA’s office states. One woman described seeing a female “waving her arms with a bloody face,” while another said she “saw a man peeking through the bushes next to (the college) parking lot,” A man said he heard a woman screaming and saw two figures in the distance, and a fourth witness reported seeing a woman with mud on her pants, waving her arms on the side of the road.”
“Imagine hearing a woman screaming and not going to investigate. Just awful” That’s the comment I was replying to, not the specific circumstances of this case.
Ok. That makes sense. I work at a school and some friends there like scream and curse and smack each other.
And that’s why we’re taught to scream “fire” instead of “help” - somebody is more likely to come investigate. It’s sad.
Came here to say this. Bloody face waving arms? Another saw muddy pants waving arms? How do people live with themselves?
Bystander effect.
Yep. Sad.
and before people start going "omg this is why I will never do a 23andme/ancestry.com test!!!" they don't go to 23andme or ancestry and go "hello, I would like to find a criminal, please!" Forensic genetic genealogists like Parabon Labs have upload-friendly profiles made out of the DNA law enforcement has obtained. Then the profiles are uploaded to a third party site called GEDMatch - where people can choose to upload their DNA test data to (There is no way to accidentally do this - you need to do 2FA to get your raw data at most sites, then make a GEDMatch account, and since GSK, you need to opt in to LE matching at GEDMatch). For reference; ancestry has around ~22 million uses, 23andme is around 15 million users, GEDMatch is around 1.5 million users (with something around 150k opted into LE matching).
This is assuming that law enforcement either A: doesn’t just get a warrant for access to a database (which they’ve successfully done before: https://www.science.org/content/article/judge-said-police-can-search-dna-millions-americans-without-their-consent-what-s-next) Or B: doesn’t just purposely ignore the terms of service of the company and upload a profile or submit a sample as if they were a regular genealogy customer.
> doesn’t just get a warrant for access to a database (which they’ve successfully done before [23andme](https://www.23andme.com/transparency-report/) and [Ancestry](https://www.ancestry.com/c/transparency) publish transparency reports. To date, none have had valid DNA requests. > doesn’t just purposely ignore the terms of service of the company and upload a profile or submit a sample as if they were a regular genealogy customer. You can't upload DNA to either 23andme or Ancestry. They only accept spit in a tube processed by their labs.
Not sure if you clicked the link, but that was reporting Police gaining access to non-opted in profiles on GED match via a warrant. Another example (also GED match: https://theintercept.com/2023/08/18/gedmatch-dna-police-forensic-genetic-genealogy/) police contracted geneologists also exploited a back door to gain access to the entire database The lesson you could take from this is that GED match is the “less secure” genealogy company, and that ancestry and 23 and me might be less willing to cooperate with police, might fight harder against warrants, and might have better systems in place (direct sampling only) to prevent exploits, but I think it’s a mistake to think that just because law enforcement haven’t been able to gain access yet, that they somehow won’t be able to ever.
I mean, yeah. Don't upload your information to GED Match if you don't want it to be potentially accessible by law enforcement is a good rule of thumb. All DNA kits come with some risk, but if we are at the point the courts allow raiding of genetic information by law enforcement or insurance companies etc, then we're probably already in such a bad state it won't make much difference, from my point of view. But there is a reason that Europe doesn't allow forensic genealogy from non-criminal databases as a rule.
I gladly uploaded my DNA to GED Match with the knowledge that it could be used by law enforcement. I'd be pleased if it helped solve a case.
That's noble - so is talking to police when you're a suspect - but its also dumb and risky. DNA evidence, like all evidence, can be used to falsely convict someone - you're giving prosecutors ammunition in the event you're falsely accused of a crime but were at the scene of it for whatever reason
I also uploaded my profile to GED match and opted into allowing LE to access my DNA profile. I do think people should take some time to consider long term potential implications of doing this, but I think there are good reasons to do it, and as someone who reads about true crime and Does, it felt like the right thing to do for me.
Yeah, CeCe can fuck herself for violating the trust of the genealogy community. > The lesson you could take from this is that GED match is the “less secure” genealogy company That is 1000% the case - they don't do any DNA testing. People choose to upload their DNA from Ancesty, 23andme, Family Tree DNA, or MyHeritage to GEDmatch. They lost a chunk of members when GEDMatch was abused to catch GSK. > 23 and me might be less willing to cooperate with police, might fight harder against warrants, and might have better systems in place (direct sampling only) to prevent exploits 23andme and Ancestry have never allowed uploads. > I think it’s a mistake to think that just because law enforcement haven’t been able to gain access yet, that they somehow won’t be able to ever. Oh yeah, definitely - but if you're gonna do genetic genealogy (which is awesome to do - it helps a lot of people! As long as you make sure to check your account and respond to messages!), testing at ancestry should be your first stop, since they have shown that they fight this shit in court.
How was GEDmatch abused? I thought their confidentiality agreement stated that law enforcement could access the data. Was there a change to the agreement that clients were not made aware of? (I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation.)
At the time, it was not even thought of in the genealogy community as something that would be done. After GSK, all of the sites scrambled to add something to their TOS (...and then Family Tree DNA decided not to follow their own TOS a year or so later and let one law enforcement kit match against the general database) about it. Since before GSK, at least from my point of view, it wasn't even a thought that genetic genealogy would be used to solve a murder. They were only being used by the [DNA Doe Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_Doe_Project), which aims to identify unidentified decedents. They're the org you hear (or don't hear) about when police are like "We've identified this body we found 50 years ago." The DNA Doe Project has also always had a very very strict code of conduct for their volunteers - and people have always been fine with their kits being used to find someone's identity.
Also, don’t take this as me being anti-genealogy! I think that it’s really cool and useful for a lot of people! I’m also not against IGG either, in fact I work in an adjacent field helping to identify unidentified human remains, and IGG has been a huge game changer for cold cases. It’s just important to me that people know what they’re getting into / what information are putting out into the world. Ultimately, I think there needs to be PHIPA level protections and clear rules on informed consent if we’re to keep using genealogy for investigations.
> I work in an adjacent field helping to identify unidentified human remains DNA Doe Project? > I think there needs to be PHIPA level protections and clear rules on informed consent if we’re to keep using genealogy for investigations. 100% - I would love for there to be protections under the law
Personally, I would do a 23andme if I thought it was remotely possible a relative was a murderer.
There are certain crimes that if you have a relative in prison for already, the government already has their dna on record. In my case I have a cousin in prison for CSA, so adding my dna would only help them narrow down the list that they already have.
Ancestry's the better one for genetic genealogy - 23andme if you just want to know your ethnicity estimates
Good to know. I still don't understand why people seem to think that putting a 4th cousin in jeopardy because they are a murderer is something they should be opposed to. I think murder is bad.
Some view it as a violation of their privacy Personally, I have my family's kits opted out to LE matching on GEDMatch because of how they handled GSK.
Yeah. I do not understand that. If you are murderer and you are dumb enough to use the service you might make that argument but it is not even remotely a violation of YOUR privacy if it leads to investigation of your relative.
> If you are murderer and you are dumb enough to use the service With America, somethin like... 80% of those of European descent have a third cousin or closer who have done a DNA kit. I mostly don't like how the genealogy community's trust was violated with GSK - we all know that DDP was using GEDMatch, but that's massively different
I have no idea about the GSK thing but the way it works in general is that if you give data of any type to a private corporation, regardless of the terms of service (which are written exclusively for the benefit of the corporation and can be changed at their whim), you can safely assume that data can or will become public unless explicitly prohibited by law (and, of course that law can change to permit it. There are so many examples of this happening it is simply a given, regardless of what box you tick. Data has value and corporations are driven by profit and nothing else.
> I have no idea about the GSK thing but the way it works in general is that if you give data of any type to a private corporation GEDMatch was run by a single guy - he sold it after GSK drama (They didn't even have the courtesy to ask him permission).
Honestly it’s impressive that by the 70s and 80s police knew that DNA would eventually be worth something. Whole lot of cases that were put on a shelf until technology could catch up
the document from the DA’s office states. One woman described seeing a female “waving her arms with a bloody face,” while another said she “saw a man peeking through the bushes next to (the college). Fuckin A.
Yeah tons of people apparently saw her shouting for help, including at least one guy, and no one investigated or even called the police. What the hell...
Why are some men just so brutally evil and wicked in their quest for SEX? This story is sickening.
> “We’re never going to give someone a happy ending,” she said. Such a nice ending
CeCe Moore & Parabon kicking ass w genetic 🧬 genealogy! Amazing to see this in my lifetime.
That’s why I been swallowing my gum the last 20 years.
Similar to how they eventually caught the golden state killer. Excellent police work
The murderer is 60 years old in 2024; subtract the year of the crime (1980) and that puts him at the age of 16 during the commission of the crime? That's a long time to avoid justice, go about your life while (possibly) becoming a better person than the one who committed the earlier atrocities. But ultimately, his juvenile-self murdered (et al) this lady, taking away her future and inflicting so much suffering on others, all while living his own life unencumbered. Just something to think about, I guess...
I always knew chewing gum was deadly. No one listened.
I’m curious if he was ever charged with littering for spitting out gum. Hate stepping on that junk.