
Seattle police use family DNA, latest science to identify killer 52 years later - curtis
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/52-years-seattle-woman-killed-police-use-family-dna-latest-science-identify-killer/
======
saagarjha
Getting your DNA sequenced is a bit like letting an app have access to your
contacts: in both, your choice has consequences for hundreds of other people.
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like it’s possible to undo the effects of
something your friends/family might have done :/

~~~
iwasakabukiman
That's a good analogy.

At what point does what we're giving up become worth it to solve all these
crimes?

I don't have an answer, I'm just wondering.

Obviously solving 1 or 2 crimes isn't worth giving up so much private
information. But 10,000? 100,000? Is there even a number?

~~~
jeffdavis
Crime is a declining problem in the U.S. and many other areas. Most of the
criminals left have poor impulse control and/or are involved in gangs -- not
exactly CSI material. Cops on the beat will do a good job without the fancy
lab.

------
Fnoord
I've been part of the group who got asked to give a DNA sample in the Nicky
Verstappen [1] case. This was voluntarily, and I reluctantly did this (for
[mostly ethical] reasons which would make this post very long), and had a good
discussion about it with the 2 policemen who came to my house to take the
sample. The technique used (family DNA) is the same in that case as in the
topic we discuss.

Now, I knew I didn't do it, and I knew it would be highly unlikely (but not
impossible) that a male member of my family did this (not emotional but
practical reasons: my uncle didn't quite live near the region, my father was
almost blind and could barely walk, and my cousin was like 10 or so when this
happened). So I didn't quite get the point. However, because I volunteered,
the police could flag my entire family off the list of suspects. This narrowed
the net around the perpetrator.

Thanks to people like me, not to mention the hard work of hundreds of
policemen, the case is now solved (or well, to be precise there's a suspect on
trial; not yet a convict). Because _there was a match_ with a family member of
him. And as you can read at [1] the bird had flown cause it got too hot around
him.

I recently got a letter from the government that my DNA got destroyed. Whether
you believe that letter or not is up to you; during my interview I had the
chance to decide for it to be kept or destroyed after the case was final, and
I went with the latter. I'd like to hope my choice is respected by my
government.

I get it though that with common law and in the USA you gotta be very careful
when talking to the police but my experience in The Netherlands with the
police has been positive or in some occurrences neutral at worst. Could be
white male privilege though. YMMV.

As for

> If the host is the planet, what is the claim on the other guests to your
> body.

On Earth's "body" the other guests are alive; you're dead. They can contribute
to the future of planet earth and its inhabitants while your time is done for.
So it makes sense that whatever is done with your remains and inheritance goes
to the inhabitants, with a (slight) prejudice towards your direct ancestors
(family). The good news is, our legal systems have law to provide for such as
it is.

As for the other inhabitants in your body, we're at the point where pets have
a few rights whereas cattle and such have barely none. Lets not think about
the rights of bacteria and parasites and such (they don't even have a CNS to
begin with, and while their usefulness is up for debate, they're not exactly a
dying breed).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nicky_Verstappen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nicky_Verstappen)

~~~
conanbatt
> I've been part of the group who got asked to give a DNA sample in the Nicky
> Verstappen [1] case. This was voluntarily, and I reluctantly did this

Great story and thanks for sharing this. I want to answer why I think this is
a bad idea however.

First, I would talk to a legal defense attorney before doing this. A famous
video about this topic is here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE).

1) The police might have told you it was for one case but it was for another,
as the police can lie.

2) The DNA test itself might give a false positive on you or your family
members, putting your family to a harsher scrutiny by the police that would
have otherwise, and with more judicial justification. In the investigatory
zeal they might find other lesser crimes they might want to prosecute just to
not be empty handed. In the U.S., they might have charged a family member on a
false positive with a ridiculously overblown crime. People have killed
themselves over that prosecutorial technique
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz))

3) The police could fiddle with the samples and plant evidence if they thought
you or someone else did it. (Steven Avery case)

4) The lab might fake results if they are in tandem with the DA
([https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-
scandal-r...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-scandal-
results-more-20-000-convictions-dropped-n747891))

You are gambling with your life and the life of your family members when you
make that choice. And if you were so sure a family member of yours did not do
it, then the police could have come to the same conclusion on their alibis and
physical state of your family members.

Even if you believe non of that is "likely to happen" there is a risk you are
taking in exchange for a very small benefit (feeling good about assisting in a
real investigation). And I assure you that if you had asked that, in exchange
for the dna sample, your family and yourself have absolute criminal immunity
for any case not related to the Nicky Verstappen, no DA would have signed off
on that.

~~~
Fnoord
Thanks for your interesting reply as well. I recommend Americans to read it
thoroughly.

> A famous video about this topic is here
> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE).

Yes, I know that video. I've seen it more than once. Its very interesting, and
I've seen other videos by ACLU on the matter as well. These videos though are
all about the US of A which isn't the country where I live. All your examples
are also from the USA. My comment is _not about the USA_ (which kinda makes it
off-topic in this thread). I can't comment about the legal system in the USA;
I'm far too clueless about it.

> 1) The police might have told you it was for one case but it was for
> another, as the police can lie.

True, but I'm not afraid for such. I mean, of course I did a few naughty
things in my youth (like running around with a replica plastic colt .45 which
had these plastic arrows. I bought it when I was like 3 or 4 in Spain
_crickets_ ) but there's also statute of limitations.

I myself was part of the target group. And as much as I said it to be unlikely
male family members were involved, I could not be sure. Now I am 100% sure.

 _If_ the government wants to screw me over, they easily can. They easily can
break in my house and plant some evidence in it, or on my computer. Locks
aren't hard to pick, for starters. They can MITM my phone as well. What they
cannot do is request my data at Facebook, cause I don't have such.

I'm also a father. If my kid was raped and murdered when she was to be 12, I'd
want to see the person who did this behind bars (well, if not something else,
but lets not get into that, cause that's why its good that I am not the judge
on my own case, and why it is good that we _have_ a legal system). Not just
for my partner or my loved ones or myself; I don't wish the pain I'd endure as
a father on _any_ parent. So I want this perpetrator to be stopped. Family DNA
is very costly procedure, so the police only resort to it when all other leads
have come to a dead end.

I mean, to me, if I'd die today, that'd be less worse than seeing my (only)
kid die. I had my father die a few years ago, I don't think I'll ever fully
recuperate over that. But my child, my offspring, is -for me- almost the most
important living organism on this planet. (Except for the planet itself.)

------
gniv
> She was able to match a palm print recovered from the elevator control
> panel, and lifted during initial crime scene processing, to those taken from
> Wypych in 1971 when he was arrested for larceny, SPD said.

So, why didn't they attempt this kind of matching in the first place? Much
easier than DNA.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _why didn 't they attempt this kind of matching in the first place?_

There is no palm print database.

~~~
mkl
But there was reason to suspect him, so could they not have looked at the
evidence from his other crimes?

~~~
IshKebab
That crime was several years later.

~~~
mkl
Yes. I guess the earlier case was cold. The link was there to find, but they
only found it much later.

------
carbocation
The use of DNA in ways not anticipated by _informed_ [1] consent is wrong.

1 = Not just a signature on the form. But a real understanding of what we're
going to use it for.

~~~
ebg13
Even with a warrant?

~~~
carbocation
How well were the participants informed about how warrants would be used to
access their information?

~~~
ebg13
The state has decided that you don't need to be informed in advance that a
warrant will let them search through your things. The whole point of a warrant
is that it lets them search. "I didn't know they could look inside my bag"
isn't a legal defense.

~~~
carbocation
You're talking about _malum prohibitum_ and I'm talking about _malum in se_.

~~~
ebg13
I don't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant
search warrants in the course of investigating murders? Because it seems to me
that the alternative is that then all one needs to do to never be convicted of
a crime is to just not consent to being investigated. So which is the lesser
problem, invading privacy with a warrant or never being able to prosecute any
crimes?

~~~
carbocation
Are you replying with questions that imply I said something that I never said?

 _Edit_ : At the time of my reply, the prior post read (in its entirety): _I
don 't understand. Are you saying that it's wrong for the state to grant
search warrants in the course of investigating murders?_

I won't be replying to further posts in this thread.

~~~
jobigoud
His first question was "even with a warrant?" Which you replied to with
another question. As I see it he's asking you to clarify your initial
statement. No need to get all defensive.

------
mirimir
There are further implications.

For example, since WWII, there have been huge efforts to identify and locate
war criminals. So now, where there's DNA evidence, that could continue, even
though such criminals had died. And in future wars, combatants will perhaps
make efforts to retain DNA evidence.

Having war be less anonymous is arguably a great thing.

~~~
anthuman
There have been efforts to identify and locate "war criminals" of one side. No
effort has been made to identify, locate and charge war criminals of the other
side ( which has far more war criminals if we are being honest ).

~~~
mirimir
I was aiming for neutrality.

But yes, you're probably right. Although I'm not sure which "other side" you
mean. And still, none of that is relevant to the point about anonymity of war.

------
superbaconman
Voluntarily shared third party info isn't private (at least under the law).
This may actually end up being a good thing long term for healthcare.

~~~
doesnt_know
A decade or two (probably less) and health insurance will plug your details
into some shared DNA database and automatically disqualify you because your
genetics predispose you to a laundry list of conditions, not worth the risk.
Or, we will cover you but not for these genetic disorders as they are
considered "preexisting conditions".

~~~
lotsofpulp
Affordable Care Act does not allow for discrimination based on pre existing
conditions in the US.

~~~
astura
GINA also forbids the use of genetic information in health insurance and
employment.

------
jayalpha
From a behavioral perspective it is odd that a guy would do this and then stop
doing it.

~~~
partiallypro
The "serial killers never stop" is a myth. In fact it's pretty common. Life
happens to even the worst people, and they are unable to carry out their
previous hobbies... In this car being murder.

~~~
jayalpha
Source?

Once you cross the bridge for "your thing", it feels to good to stop. Be it
murder, rape or sex with minors. This is actually one of the reasons why it is
so important to catch a criminal. Not to punish for previous crimes but to
prevent new ones.

~~~
astura
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/health/serial-killers-
gol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/health/serial-killers-golden-
state.html)

------
verisimilitudes
I find it disconcerting that someone's remains would be violated due to being
a murder suspect. This is one of many reasons to have your remains cremated, I
suppose. It also avoids wasting space in a graveyard and whatnot.

I'm beginning to seriously hear people discuss that it's perfectly okay to use
DNA people submit in these ways and even that it would be okay for the
government to collect trash and other things that would contain DNA to add
people to databases. Such arguments are usually emotional and follow the ''If
just one person is saved'' trope.

This is rather harrowing, don't you agree?

~~~
mikeash
If you’re dead, what do you care what happens to your remains?

I see no problem with exhuming a corpse to solve a murder case as long as
there’s probable cause and a warrant, which there was here.

~~~
vkou
> If you’re dead, what do you care what happens to your remains?

Because our society believes in body autonomy, to the point that it won't use
your body's organs to save other human beings, without your express consent.

Your body is your property, and it takes a damn good reason for someone else
to access your property, contrary to your will.

~~~
jacquesm
> it won't use your body's organs to save other human beings, without your
> express consent

No longer true here in NL:

[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/new-dutch-law-
orga...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/new-dutch-law-organ-donors-
bn-intl/index.html)

~~~
conanbatt
I blame the Predictably Irrational guy for making opt out so popular world-
wide.

I personally find it abhorrent. I used to be an organ donor before they made
it opt-out in argentina: after that in protest I took myself out.

~~~
licebmi__at__
Can you elaborate about this? I can't really see reasons for outside of
superstition and clinging to false hopes to be against it being opt out; and
even on an opt out system, I find that doctors still "request" the permissions
to the family because no one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble.

Even following the anti authoritarian reasoning, which I'm kind of fond, I
find it silly to worry about this, with all the stuff the state decides over
your life.

~~~
conanbatt
It reverts the burden of proof. It is now on you and your family to prove
otherwise.

> I find that doctors still "request" the permissions to the family because no
> one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble.

Until they don't need to. In argentina for example, the legal requirement of
getting consent from family members was lifted with the introduction of the
opt-out. Funny thing about the opt-out, its an online registration!

I've seen opt-out described as a "libertarian paternalism" proposal to say
that you have the liberty to choose anything but that there is an opinionated
default. I find such reasoning to always lead to a death by a thousand cuts:
if every single policy was implemented opt-out, you would definitely be able
to manipulate the population into something.

> with all the stuff the state decides over your life.

I worry about any of them. And I don't find it comforting at all to argue that
because individual liberties are breached many times, whats does one more
stripe do to the tiger.

~~~
mikeash
There’s always an opinionated default about everything. Having the default be
no organ donation is as much a decision of the state as having the default be
the opposite.

~~~
conanbatt
I think I understand the general point, but in this particular case the
default is obviously you can't mess with a dead body.

You can't go to a cemetery and dig up corpses because "they didn't opt-out of
grave-robbery". I would say that the body naturally falls under the concept of
private property, which is why it is heinous to desecrate bodies and their
belongings when people die.

What's crazy to me is that this problem looks so easy to resolve: if you want
organ donors, pay for them. A form of reverse insurance: that will get you
people in.

~~~
mikeash
What makes it obvious? Just because it has usually been done that way in the
past?

Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.

~~~
conanbatt
Because you wouldn't take things from a corpse in any other situation, as it
is considered unsacred (disrespectful to the body) and robbery (say, take the
shoes & wallet of a recently diseased person).

> Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.

Nobel prizes have been awarded on one solution to this problem alone!

------
Iamhisalt
Buried in there:

“Do you realize, for example, that when you upload your DNA, you’re
potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family?”
Elizabeth Joh, a UC Davis law professor who studies the Fourth Amendment and
technology, told the magazine.

~~~
pfdietz
I can inform on a serial killer in my family even if I didn't know they were a
serial killer?

Shut up and take my DNA.

~~~
homonculus1
Bold of you to assume this will only ever be used to hunt serial killers.

~~~
pfdietz
It could also be used to hunt for deadbeat fathers, or rapists who didn't
murder anyone, or...

Why exactly am I supposed to be opposed to this? Your feelings and inchoate
fears?

------
thrax
Quelle surprise.. another military/police type.. just like EAR/ONS... Seems
like we could save some time and just check dna against known mil/police dna
first.

~~~
macinjosh
I agree. If you’re going to be a police officer we should use all means
necessary to ensure you’re not a rapist/murderer. Seems like a low bar to me.

