9 ms·

Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

62 points by yskchu 5y ago

liquidify 5y ago
The first thing that comes to mind after reading this article is that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that the fact that there were sperm in the victim that weren't from her boyfriend actually means that they were murdered by the creator of said sperm. It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Come on, we all know that any woman who cheats on her boyfriend is immediately murdered by the same guy she cheated with.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Just like we know that the spouse that has a life insurance policy opened on them is immediately murdered by the surviving spouse, instead of the life insurance agent We don't! We just assume!
    - geoduck14 5y ago
      I watch a lot of Forensic Files, and one of the tropes is "the spouse had a $30k life insurance policy, therefore he/she had motive". I've always wondered who is motivated to murder by as little as $30k. Sure you can murder for NON financial reasons, but if money is top of mind - $30k, really?
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors from handling to a desire to close the case can lead to a wrong conclusion. The most that can be said is that the detectives are satisfied enough to stop digging, not that the case is solved. Let's remember that a posthumous process allows for zero defense and criminal justice depends on defense. And besides all of that, it strikes me as wildly unethical to burden the family with this information just to satisfy detective curiosity and desire for closure. I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died. The corpse's ashes can't go to prison. The family just lives with this now. That's a negative outcome.
- temp8964 5y ago
  A. They tested the suspect's children's DNA and got a positive. B. It's true sperm doesn't equal murder. But in this case the victim was asexually assaulted and then murdered. The likelihood of both crimes committed by the same person is way higher than two different persons.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Does my reasonable doubt count? The fall guy they pulled in for a raped and murdered jogger in NYC was willing to confess and then was like "woah woah I didn't do the rape where did that charge come from" There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead. Too many examples for me to make that conclusion. So, my reasonable doubt would count if I was on the jury. Convicting/Acquitting someone is one thing, we all pat ourselves on the back, but the thing that really bothers me is when the dangerous person is still out there. Who cares about debating the doubt when there is a greater likelihood of ongoing danger in the community but now the investigation isn't even happening. Its debating someone's freedom versus debating the safety of the community which is a larger group of people, the greater doubt is actually about whether the community is now safe instead of whether I like this person's alibi.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - valuearb 5y ago
      So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?
      - vmception 5y ago
        That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand. The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
kolanos 5y ago
Here's a list of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified via genealogy databases. [0] This case is not in this list (yet). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators_of_crimes_identified_with_GEDmatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators...
drewcoo 5y ago
NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Are you against forensic science or do you doubt the validity of it?
  - julienreszka 5y ago
    There is plenty of evidence that DNA tests are unreliable. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-innocent https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong...
  - zzt123 5y ago
    Much like cryptography, the science of DNA is good, but the roll-your-own DNA forensics implementations have had issues. https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cases-in-new-york-relied-on-disputed-dna-testing-techniques https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dna-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn... A quote from The NY Times article: “The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.” There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person. As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science. But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.
  - jhomedall 5y ago
    A lot of forensic science, such as hair analysis, bullet casing analysis, and bite mark analysis, is either partially or entirely bunk. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-jun... - http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-forensic-pseudoscience-criminal-justice http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-fore...
uvesten 5y ago
Who involved really is better off, after hearing of the ”solution” to this crime? Except for maybe the police department, possibly a detective with an itch to scratch, and definitely the firm used for the genealogical dna profile (mentioned by name in the article), I can think of no one.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Often fraudulent forensic science gets a nice PR boost, and jurors will be more willing to trust forensic evidence and expert witnesses without doubting them than they were before. It's also PR against some of restrictions on genealogy data some governments are passing.
vmception 5y ago
What state restrictions on scouring DNA databases would you like? The article points out how incoming state laws would make this investigation impossible, but it turns out it was just a few states being referenced. I think this needs to be treated as property of the individual as well, or even of an individual's estate, and there must be consent granted for each use and compensation for it. Consent can be revokable and a record of the consent's state should be attached to every piece of data. It leaves the avenue open for this same kind of investigation to occur.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?
- awb 5y ago
  I can’t find the link but apparently there was a case of someone riding an escalator with gloves later used in a murder and several people’s DNA being found on the gloves. I think the police then track down each of these individuals and establish a motive or an alibi. But DNA alone shouldn’t convict someone.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I think about the Lukis Anderson case every time DNA is used to “solve” a crime.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
  Unabomber collected hair from public restrooms to sprinkle in with his mailbombs.
Roy78 5y ago
I've personally followed Andrew Singer's/BODE's work and have been present in his (and other forensic genealogists) presentations to the forensics community. I was literally in the audience 2 days ago for another of his. I am a professional Forensic Scientist who is specialized in DNA. My educational background is in biochemistry & molecular genetics. Feel free to ask me anything. There is a lot of misunderstandings in this thread so far. For one, on the idea that "sperm does not automatically equal murder," is of course logically true. DNA evidence doesn't equate that point, but it does suggest that there is a putative perpetrator who could be responsible for the crime. It's not up to forensic scientists to decide who committed what crimes. We can tell that the person was "there." It's up to the detectives to argue/figure out, and ultimately the judicial system to decide the outcome/verdict. She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator. Secondly, to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce. There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened. If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond. The absoluteness of DNA mixture interpretations is getting better and better. Google "probabilistic genotyping." A human can reasonably look at data and discern multiple DNA profiles up to a few people when it comes to certain limited mixtures. Prob. Gen. software can deconvolute up to about 10 distinct people in a DNA mixture. It's basically brute force computing. I bring this up because some of the examples other's posted here happened when such tech didn't exist and bogus interpretations were going on. As for the ethics point. I have met with many victims personally. Not one has ever not returned genuine overly emotional gratefulness of our efforts. Many brave victims become spokespeople and support for other victims. They tour my lab all the time in wonder. I can't tell you how many cases we've solved. DNA evidence, investigations, then a line up, then "that's the one!" happen all the time. These would have never happened without DNA evidence.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Upvoted, but even large cities continue to have problems with labs making mistakes. That is, the science is sound but I feel private citizens (whether accused or accusing) need second and third independent verifying just to be sure.

62 points by yskchu 5y ago

The first thing that comes to mind after reading this article is that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that the fact that there were sperm in the victim that weren't from her boyfriend actually means that they were murdered by the creator of said sperm. It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Come on, we all know that any woman who cheats on her boyfriend is immediately murdered by the same guy she cheated with.
- vmception 5y ago
  Just like we know that the spouse that has a life insurance policy opened on them is immediately murdered by the surviving spouse, instead of the life insurance agent We don't! We just assume!
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    I watch a lot of Forensic Files, and one of the tropes is "the spouse had a $30k life insurance policy, therefore he/she had motive". I've always wondered who is motivated to murder by as little as $30k. Sure you can murder for NON financial reasons, but if money is top of mind - $30k, really?

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors from handling to a desire to close the case can lead to a wrong conclusion. The most that can be said is that the detectives are satisfied enough to stop digging, not that the case is solved. Let's remember that a posthumous process allows for zero defense and criminal justice depends on defense. And besides all of that, it strikes me as wildly unethical to burden the family with this information just to satisfy detective curiosity and desire for closure. I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died. The corpse's ashes can't go to prison. The family just lives with this now. That's a negative outcome.

temp8964 5y ago
A. They tested the suspect's children's DNA and got a positive. B. It's true sperm doesn't equal murder. But in this case the victim was asexually assaulted and then murdered. The likelihood of both crimes committed by the same person is way higher than two different persons.
- vmception 5y ago
  Does my reasonable doubt count? The fall guy they pulled in for a raped and murdered jogger in NYC was willing to confess and then was like "woah woah I didn't do the rape where did that charge come from" There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead. Too many examples for me to make that conclusion. So, my reasonable doubt would count if I was on the jury. Convicting/Acquitting someone is one thing, we all pat ourselves on the back, but the thing that really bothers me is when the dangerous person is still out there. Who cares about debating the doubt when there is a greater likelihood of ongoing danger in the community but now the investigation isn't even happening. Its debating someone's freedom versus debating the safety of the community which is a larger group of people, the greater doubt is actually about whether the community is now safe instead of whether I like this person's alibi.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - valuearb 5y ago
    So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?
    - vmception 5y ago
      That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand. The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.

kolanos 5y ago

Here's a list of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified via genealogy databases. [0] This case is not in this list (yet). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators_of_crimes_identified_with_GEDmatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators...

drewcoo 5y ago

NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?

ALittleLight 5y ago
Are you against forensic science or do you doubt the validity of it?
- julienreszka 5y ago
  There is plenty of evidence that DNA tests are unreliable. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-innocent https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong...
- zzt123 5y ago
  Much like cryptography, the science of DNA is good, but the roll-your-own DNA forensics implementations have had issues. https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cases-in-new-york-relied-on-disputed-dna-testing-techniques https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dna-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn... A quote from The NY Times article: “The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.” There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person. As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science. But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.
- jhomedall 5y ago
  A lot of forensic science, such as hair analysis, bullet casing analysis, and bite mark analysis, is either partially or entirely bunk. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-jun... - http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-forensic-pseudoscience-criminal-justice http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-fore...

uvesten 5y ago

Who involved really is better off, after hearing of the ”solution” to this crime? Except for maybe the police department, possibly a detective with an itch to scratch, and definitely the firm used for the genealogical dna profile (mentioned by name in the article), I can think of no one.

heavyset_go 5y ago
Often fraudulent forensic science gets a nice PR boost, and jurors will be more willing to trust forensic evidence and expert witnesses without doubting them than they were before. It's also PR against some of restrictions on genealogy data some governments are passing.

vmception 5y ago

What state restrictions on scouring DNA databases would you like? The article points out how incoming state laws would make this investigation impossible, but it turns out it was just a few states being referenced. I think this needs to be treated as property of the individual as well, or even of an individual's estate, and there must be consent granted for each use and compensation for it. Consent can be revokable and a record of the consent's state should be attached to every piece of data. It leaves the avenue open for this same kind of investigation to occur.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?

awb 5y ago
I can’t find the link but apparently there was a case of someone riding an escalator with gloves later used in a murder and several people’s DNA being found on the gloves. I think the police then track down each of these individuals and establish a motive or an alibi. But DNA alone shouldn’t convict someone.
elliekelly 5y ago
I think about the Lukis Anderson case every time DNA is used to “solve” a crime.
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
Unabomber collected hair from public restrooms to sprinkle in with his mailbombs.

Roy78 5y ago

I've personally followed Andrew Singer's/BODE's work and have been present in his (and other forensic genealogists) presentations to the forensics community. I was literally in the audience 2 days ago for another of his. I am a professional Forensic Scientist who is specialized in DNA. My educational background is in biochemistry & molecular genetics. Feel free to ask me anything. There is a lot of misunderstandings in this thread so far. For one, on the idea that "sperm does not automatically equal murder," is of course logically true. DNA evidence doesn't equate that point, but it does suggest that there is a putative perpetrator who could be responsible for the crime. It's not up to forensic scientists to decide who committed what crimes. We can tell that the person was "there." It's up to the detectives to argue/figure out, and ultimately the judicial system to decide the outcome/verdict. She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator. Secondly, to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce. There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened. If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond. The absoluteness of DNA mixture interpretations is getting better and better. Google "probabilistic genotyping." A human can reasonably look at data and discern multiple DNA profiles up to a few people when it comes to certain limited mixtures. Prob. Gen. software can deconvolute up to about 10 distinct people in a DNA mixture. It's basically brute force computing. I bring this up because some of the examples other's posted here happened when such tech didn't exist and bogus interpretations were going on. As for the ethics point. I have met with many victims personally. Not one has ever not returned genuine overly emotional gratefulness of our efforts. Many brave victims become spokespeople and support for other victims. They tour my lab all the time in wonder. I can't tell you how many cases we've solved. DNA evidence, investigations, then a line up, then "that's the one!" happen all the time. These would have never happened without DNA evidence.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Upvoted, but even large cities continue to have problems with labs making mistakes. That is, the science is sound but I feel private citizens (whether accused or accusing) need second and third independent verifying just to be sure.