6 ms·

I agree with what you say but more interesting to me is that the way DNA is used in forensics is pseudoscientific nonsense, along with bite and footprint matchi

I agree with what you say but more interesting to me is that the way DNA is used in forensics is pseudoscientific nonsense, along with bite and footprint matching. As a separate issue, this guy is dead and has no ability to defend himself in court such as by providing an alibi. In the Golden State Killer case, the first "match" they found in their cold hit/blind match search (using an extremely small number of 9 to 13 SNPs) found a guy that had a solid alibi. They shrugged, kept looking, and found some other guy who didn't have an alibi. Which proves nothing given the state of cold hit against massive databank methodology combined with a bare minimum of competence at genetics and statistics. Such is the unprofessional state of so-called DNA forensic "science". Frank Wypych, as an undisputable legal fact, is innocent until proven guilty. Since there's no been trial or jury verdict LEGALLY HE IS INNOCENT. That is the legal fact. Anyone claiming otherwise, such as the experts in this article, is lying and should forever more not be trusted to speak their own weight much less decide who is guilty of a capital crime.

dahinds 7y ago
You seem to think that these cases are being solved using old school CODIS database matching but that's just false. This case and the Golden State Killer case were solved using modern distant relative matching methods that are widely used in the genetic genealogy community and are far more powerful than traditional forensic DNA matching and typically use 500,000 or more markers.
- droithomme 7y ago
  David, your claim that these cases used 500,000 markers on both sides of the "match" is absolutely incorrect and 100% total nonsense. Hey post your evidence that the police presented a full sequence for the match. You know you don't have that data. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally and publically request that the company you are a high level employee of, 23andme, immediately publish a full disclosure of exactly what they are doing with their victims (sometimes called client's) personal private medical data. Especially with regard to your company's total and complete lack of HIPAA compliance. I'm also interested in your opinion as to whether all or just a portion of your rogue company should be criminally prosecuted and sent to prison for your overt crimes.
  - dahinds 7y ago
    Most of this new class of DNA searches, including the one in the article, are being carried out by Parabon NanoLabs: http://docs.parabon.com/pub/Parabon_Snapshot_Scientific_Poster-ISHI_2018.pdf http://docs.parabon.com/pub/Parabon_Snapshot_Scientific_Post... https://www.genomeweb.com/applied-markets/parabon-nanolabs-genetic-genealogy-service-helps-solve-murder-cases-privacy https://www.genomeweb.com/applied-markets/parabon-nanolabs-g... [sorry, paywalled]: "Parabon uses Illumina’s SNP microarray platform. It doesn't disclose which particular array product it uses but said that the array contains more than 98 percent of the SNPs that are on the chip used by Ancestry.com." Ancestry.com uses a ~700K SNP array. I never claimed full sequences were used. I do work at 23andMe, I'm not aware of criminal activity there, overt or otherwise. I think we try to be responsible and transparent about how we use customer data. We are not a HIPAA covered entity, but we are GDPR compliant.
    - droithomme 7y ago
      DNA is not medical data? It's obvious that it is and disingenuous to pretend it is not in order to avoid compliance with the law. Galvin's sample, along with other cold cases, was pulled out of evidence storage and analyzed in 2002. Your assertion is that that analysis did not in fact use the legal tools at the time for this, but instead used the microarray Paradon currently uses with the same ~700k SNP points, and that this microarray was somehow commercially available and being used by law enforcement to analyze cold cases in 2002? That is a remarkable claim.
      - dahinds 7y ago
        You keep doubling down on this? The article says that DNA from the clothing sample was sent to Parabon for analysis in July of 2016, and was used in a GEDmatch search at that time. There's nothing remarkable about my claim, it is right there in the article. Also it simply isn't possible to submit a CODIS profile to GEDmatch, they only accept SNP array data, the matching algorithms only work for dense SNP array data, and CODIS markers are not even SNPs, they are STRs. I did not claim genetic information isn't "medical data". I said that 23andMe is not a "covered entity" under HIPAA. HIPAA only applies to "covered entities". Maybe you should say specifically what it is you think 23andMe is doing that is improper?
Dylan16807 7y ago
It's not lying to call someone guilty based on sufficiently high non-court standards. Sometimes things skip courts, sometimes the prosecutor doesn't do their job, sometimes courts or juries get it wrong. > They shrugged, kept looking, and found some other guy who didn't have an alibi. And based on that, they got a search warrant. Don't imply that their claim is based on the preliminary test.

dahinds 7y ago

You seem to think that these cases are being solved using old school CODIS database matching but that's just false. This case and the Golden State Killer case were solved using modern distant relative matching methods that are widely used in the genetic genealogy community and are far more powerful than traditional forensic DNA matching and typically use 500,000 or more markers.

droithomme 7y ago
David, your claim that these cases used 500,000 markers on both sides of the "match" is absolutely incorrect and 100% total nonsense. Hey post your evidence that the police presented a full sequence for the match. You know you don't have that data. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally and publically request that the company you are a high level employee of, 23andme, immediately publish a full disclosure of exactly what they are doing with their victims (sometimes called client's) personal private medical data. Especially with regard to your company's total and complete lack of HIPAA compliance. I'm also interested in your opinion as to whether all or just a portion of your rogue company should be criminally prosecuted and sent to prison for your overt crimes.
- dahinds 7y ago
  Most of this new class of DNA searches, including the one in the article, are being carried out by Parabon NanoLabs: http://docs.parabon.com/pub/Parabon_Snapshot_Scientific_Poster-ISHI_2018.pdf http://docs.parabon.com/pub/Parabon_Snapshot_Scientific_Post... https://www.genomeweb.com/applied-markets/parabon-nanolabs-genetic-genealogy-service-helps-solve-murder-cases-privacy https://www.genomeweb.com/applied-markets/parabon-nanolabs-g... [sorry, paywalled]: "Parabon uses Illumina’s SNP microarray platform. It doesn't disclose which particular array product it uses but said that the array contains more than 98 percent of the SNPs that are on the chip used by Ancestry.com." Ancestry.com uses a ~700K SNP array. I never claimed full sequences were used. I do work at 23andMe, I'm not aware of criminal activity there, overt or otherwise. I think we try to be responsible and transparent about how we use customer data. We are not a HIPAA covered entity, but we are GDPR compliant.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    DNA is not medical data? It's obvious that it is and disingenuous to pretend it is not in order to avoid compliance with the law. Galvin's sample, along with other cold cases, was pulled out of evidence storage and analyzed in 2002. Your assertion is that that analysis did not in fact use the legal tools at the time for this, but instead used the microarray Paradon currently uses with the same ~700k SNP points, and that this microarray was somehow commercially available and being used by law enforcement to analyze cold cases in 2002? That is a remarkable claim.
    - dahinds 7y ago
      You keep doubling down on this? The article says that DNA from the clothing sample was sent to Parabon for analysis in July of 2016, and was used in a GEDmatch search at that time. There's nothing remarkable about my claim, it is right there in the article. Also it simply isn't possible to submit a CODIS profile to GEDmatch, they only accept SNP array data, the matching algorithms only work for dense SNP array data, and CODIS markers are not even SNPs, they are STRs. I did not claim genetic information isn't "medical data". I said that 23andMe is not a "covered entity" under HIPAA. HIPAA only applies to "covered entities". Maybe you should say specifically what it is you think 23andMe is doing that is improper?

Dylan16807 7y ago

It's not lying to call someone guilty based on sufficiently high non-court standards. Sometimes things skip courts, sometimes the prosecutor doesn't do their job, sometimes courts or juries get it wrong. > They shrugged, kept looking, and found some other guy who didn't have an alibi. And based on that, they got a search warrant. Don't imply that their claim is based on the preliminary test.