Familial DNA leads to Grim Sleeper arrest

[Math Is Hard]

Familial DNA leads to "Grim Sleeper" arrest

Peace for the families of the victims; uneasiness for the ACLU. Some interesting food for thought in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09sleeper.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

LOS ANGELES — The arrest in the case of the “Grim Sleeper” — a serial killer who terrorized South Los Angeles for two decades — has put one of the hottest controversies in American law enforcement to its first major test.

Only two states, Colorado and California, have a codified policy permitting the use of so-called familial search, the use of DNA samples taken from convicted criminals to track down relatives who may themselves have committed a crime. It is a practice that district attorneys and the police say is an essential tool in catching otherwise elusive criminals, but that privacy experts criticize as a threat to civil liberties.

 

[KalamMekhar]

I hope that we can live one day without Al Sharpton or the ACLU. Excellent catch by the LAPD.

 

[rootX]

It is the first time an active familial search has been used to solve a homicide case in the United States.

The use of the practice demonstrates that law enforcement can “stop criminals in their tracks and lock up some of the most vicious and dangerous members of our society,” Mr. Brown said. “That’s why this technology is so important.”

But in 2008, the California Department of Justice began using familial searches — in the face of significant protests — to solve hard crimes. The state restricted the practice to major, violent crimes in which all other investigative techniques had proved fruitless.

Not very impressive.




As for the serial killer itself:

Gurtha Cole, 80, lives with her 38-year-old granddaughter in a building across the street from the home of Mr. Franklin, who the police say worked as a mechanic for the city’s Department of Transportation. She expressed surprise. “He’s very social with us,” she said. “On holidays and stuff he would invite the neighbors to come over to a picnic, and host everyone.”

 

[Jack21222]

I'm waiting for the follow-up story where the tests are shown to be flawed and they release him. DNA is much better at exonerating people than convicting them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, it boils down to this: Who do you fear more, the government or serial killers?

If I lived in the US I don't know if I would be too sure...

 

[Jack21222]

Well, it boils down to this: Who do you fear more, the government or serial killers?

If I lived in the US I don't know if I would be too sure...

After an Oregon attorney was arrested after a "100% match" on his fingerprints to the Madrid bombing, I'm just a little skeptical of forensic evidence providing 100% matches. That starts with the assumption that the DNA fragments tested are 100% unique.

As far as I can tell, that's a baseless assumption.

 

[stevenb]

Well, it boils down to this: Who do you fear more, the government or serial killers?

If I lived in the US I don't know if I would be too sure...

As someone who lives in the US I can say that fear is not the issue. My personal concerns relate to rights and justice in a situation like this. In this case I feel good that justice is being done in stopping this guy. I have a tough time complaining about a marginal invasion of privacy, when people are losing their lives to an animal on the prowl. There is no worse invasion of privacy than murdering someone.

 

[stevenb]

As far as I can tell, that's a baseless assumption.

This is why we have defense attorneys. If they have the right guy, a pile of other evidence should be easily found. The main problem in these cases is generating leads.

 

[Jack21222]

This is why we have defense attorneys. If they have the right guy, a pile of other evidence should be easily found. The main problem in these cases is generating leads.

I'd feel much more comfortable if a pile of other evidence was found.

 

[Klockan3]

I'd feel much more comfortable if a pile of other evidence was found.

This isn't evidence, this is just a way to get more clues. Also DNA checks are made all the time already, this is just expanding that into seeing if they have some chromosomes with perfect match but others which don't then it is likely that they got a relative who did it.

This gives a new list of suspects, most which probably can be removed fairly easily. The reason people are against this is because the relatives will then be suspects of things they might have nothing to do with.

 

[Borg]

I'm waiting for the follow-up story where the tests are shown to be flawed and they release him.

They based the arrest on the man's own DNA. The son's DNA highlighted someone in the family which narrowed the search.

Police then conducted around-the-clock surveillance of Mr. Franklin, following him as he walked or went on drives, and retrieved a plate and napkin he had thrown away after eating pizza, which provided the DNA match.

 

[Jack21222]

That was a non-sequitur, Borg. It doesn't matter that they tested his DNA; such tests can be flawed.

That was my only point, I never claimed they tested somebody else's DNA.

That's why I hope Klockan is right in saying "this isn't evidence."

All this DNA proves is that he could be the killer, not that he is.

 

[Borg]

That was a non-sequitur, Borg. It doesn't matter that they tested his DNA; such tests can be flawed.

There is nothing non-sequitur about attempting to clear up a point.

That was my only point, I never claimed they tested somebody else's DNA.
That's why I hope Klockan is right in saying "this isn't evidence."

Klockan was referring to the son's DNA as not being evidence - not the father's. You say that you didn't claim that someone else's DNA and then back it up with a statement where Klockan is talking about just that. Please excuse me if I have a hard time following your logic.

All this DNA proves is that he could be the killer, not that he is.

No, it doesn't prove that he is the killer but, it does prove that his DNA was at the crime scene. That is pretty powerful circumstantial evidence. Even if they don't find any other evidence, he is going to have a tough time explaining why his DNA is at the scene of multiple murders of people he didn't know.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

No, it doesn't prove that he is the killer but, it does prove that his DNA was at the crime scene. That is pretty powerful circumstantial evidence. Even if they don't find any other evidence, he is going to have a tough time explaining why his DNA is at the scene of multiple murders of people he didn't know.

Not necessarily. DNA testing has a non-negligible false positive rate (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20). Although the rate is low, the chances of false positives increase as you increase the number of comparisons you perform (for example, as you increase the size of your DNA sample database, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive) and as you relax the criteria for a match (as they must do in order to identify familial DNA matches). These problems are further compounded if one of the samples is incomplete or present in low quantity (for example, see http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html). Thus, the match provides some evidence that the person in question was at the crime scene, but investigators must provide other independent sources of evidence to confirm this is true and that the DNA match is not a false positive.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Well, it boils down to this: Who do you fear more, the government or serial killers?

If I lived in the US I don't know if I would be too sure...

I don't comment on a sailors life when I am not in the navy, so why should you comment on US domestic affairs, when you don't live in the United States?

 

[my_wan]

I hope that we can live one day without Al Sharpton or the ACLU. Excellent catch by the LAPD.

I have no real issue with the use of familial DNA. Neither do I accept the racism claimed simply on the basis of the racial makeup of the prison population. Though it's likely indirectly race related through social factors. Doesn't make a crime not a crime.

I do support the ACLU though. The issue is much bigger than just familial DNA. The ACLU statement: “It has the potential to invade the privacy of a lot of people,” is not a general proclamation against such techniques. When news sources use the term "privacy advocates" it doesn't mean it's an ACLU stance. I think you have implicitly conflated a few issues in naming Al Sharpton and the ACLU in the same sentence, as if it is synonymous. That statement by the UCLA wasn't a complaint, just a fact of the situation.

So what are the real issues, that go beyond the serial killer? Should everybody be required to submit DNA to a database? If not, what level of crime justifies adding DNA to such a database? Arrested without being charged or found guilty, like New York? Speeding? Do you know what other things they can know about you with a good DNA analysis? Do you think law enforcement is the only people with access? Do you want your insurance company or employer to have this information?

What about traffic stops with cops taking DNA samples in search of a criminal, like Florida?
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15232197/detail.html

They can use whatever tool they can come with to catch a criminal. If I'm committing such acts and get caught through some thuggish kins DNA, big deal. But when they start using every excuse in the book to build a complete database on me, just because some people are criminals, the data will end up becoming more useful to industry and even criminals than to law enforcement.

When social security numbers were first created, it was promised they would have one purpose and one purpose only. Now you read your academic grades on the wall with the last 4 digits of your SS#. Many states even started making SS#'s and drivers license numbers the same, until identity theft started killing the practice.

It's only reasonable to consider how far law enforcement should be allowed to go. Should they be allowed to spy on your internet activity at will? Why is my DNA any different? To pretend such concerns are a direct objection to one use, like the scumbag they just caught, is being extremely naive.

 

[rootX]

I don't comment on a sailors life when I am not in the navy, so why should you comment on US domestic affairs, when you don't live in the United States?

This is off topic but, would you ignore the domestic affairs of Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Nigeria, ... I don't have sufficient time to specifically point out the examples.

 

[KalamMekhar]

This is off topic but, would you ignore the domestic affairs of Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Nigeria, ... I don't have sufficient time to specifically point out the examples.

I don't live there, I do not know what it is like. I have talked to a few Iranians and Pakistanis, and they all (men and women) seem to enjoy where they are living. Beyond that, I am in no position to say "Iran's government is a POS" I can say their leader is a coocoo, but for me to say their government is wrong, I would have to live there, and experience it myself.

 

[rootX]

I don't live there, I do not know what it is like. I have talked to a few Iranians and Pakistanis, and they all (men and women) seem to enjoy where they are living. Beyond that, I am in no position to say "Iran's government is a POS" I can say their leader is a coocoo, but for me to say their government is wrong, I would have to live there, and experience it myself.

I don't think you would like to experience it yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10545062.stm

If you want more, I can certainly provide them but I believe you should know many instances where being a human you cannot simply ignore the domestic affairs in other countries.

 

[Jack21222]

No, it doesn't prove that he is the killer but, it does prove that his DNA was at the crime scene.

No, it doesn't. Ygggdrasil makes my point perfectly. If you can't follow my logic, I really hope you can follow his (or hers?).

Lets wait until we see all the evidence before declaring this crime solved. It very well could be that they've finally caught this killer. I hope they have. But a positive result on a DNA test alone doesn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.

I don't know if this is mentioned in any of Yggdrasil's links, but there was a man in Britain accused of raping a woman when his DNA "matched" the evidence but he had an iron-clad alibi: he was disabled, and physically incapable of committing the crime.

I might be misremembering a detail of the case.

 

[Loren Booda]

Then there was the case of the man with two distinct sets of DNA. Apparently his body had absorbed that of a twin in utero.

 

[Borg]

No, it doesn't. Ygggdrasil makes my point perfectly. If you can't follow my logic, I really hope you can follow his (or hers?).

Lets wait until we see all the evidence before declaring this crime solved. It very well could be that they've finally caught this killer. I hope they have. But a positive result on a DNA test alone doesn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.

Ygggdrasil makes the point clearer. I have no problem with a close examination of the facts but, I don't expect flawed results because of flawed investigative techniques in another case.

I agree that the case must run its course. None of us has actually performed the tests or looked at the actual evidence. Our judgements are only be based on what we get from the media at this point. The jury will have to decide on the quality and quantity of the evidence that is presented to them. Based on what I have read from MIH's original post, that guy has a lot of explaining to do.

I don't know if this is mentioned in any of Yggdrasil's links, but there was a man in Britain accused of raping a woman when his DNA "matched" the evidence but he had an iron-clad alibi: he was disabled, and physically incapable of committing the crime.

I might be misremembering a detail of the case.

I would be interested if you could provide the link. I searched Google and could not find an exact match with the details that you provided. Could it be one of these?

• http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100404092014755C100352" The woman in this case is a 9 year old girl, it occurred in South Africa and there is no mention of DNA evidence in that article.
• http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Are_DNA_%E2%80%98cold_hits%E2%80%99_resulting_in_miscarriages?"[/URL] (halfway down the article). This was in the UK but it was a burglary. The case was reported in several sites as the "first recorded case of mistaken DNA identity that occurred in Britain". The initial match was based on a 6 point match but a closer examination of the DNA evidence (10 points) exonerated him.
  [*]
  [/LIST]
  [quote="Ygggdrasil, post: 2794100"]Not necessarily. DNA testing has a non-negligible false positive rate ([URL]http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20[/url]). Although the rate is low, the chances of false positives increase as you increase the number of comparisons you perform (for example, as you increase the size of your DNA sample database, see [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive[/URL]) and as you relax the criteria for a match (as they must do in order to identify familial DNA matches).[/QUOTE]
  Yes, the initial DNA matches are not based on a complete profile but on a limited set of points that is stored in the database. It may be that the FBI will need to reexamine which points they are looking at or increase the number of samples. However, if someone is truly innocent, I would think that they could have their lawyer ask for more points to be tested against the crime scene sample as in the Raymond Easton case above.
  [quote="Ygggdrasil, post: 2794100"]These problems are further compounded if one of the samples is incomplete or present in low quantity (for example, see [url]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html[/url]). Thus, the match provides some evidence that the person in question was at the crime scene, but investigators must provide other independent sources of evidence to confirm this is true and that the DNA match is not a false positive.[/QUOTE]
  This may be true if there was only one crime scene but, it's doubtful that none of the crime scenes in this case had a good sample.
  [quote="Loren Booda, post: 2794483"]Then there was the case of the man with two distinct sets of DNA. Apparently his body had absorbed that of a twin [i]in utero[/i].[/QUOTE]
  And, oddly enough, a negative result in these cases wouldn't be proof of innocence.
  [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Evidence_of_genetic_relationship"[/URL]
  [I]It's also possible to use DNA profiling as evidence of genetic relationship, but testing that shows no relationship isn't absolutely certain. While almost all individuals have a single and distinct set of genes, rare individuals, known as "[PLAIN]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)"[/URL]", have at least two different sets of genes. There have been several cases of DNA profiling that falsely "proved" that a mother was unrelated to her children.[/I]

 

[skeptic2]

Also troubling is that many defense lawyers and most juries don't have the expertise to evaluate DNA evidence.

When comparing DNA from a suspect to the evidence found at the crime scene, a single mismatch can exonerate the suspect, but with familial DNA investigators are looking for matches not mismatches. How many matches prove a relationship and how many mismatches disprove it? How can a jury be sure the prosecution hasn't cherry picked the matches and excluded exculpatory mismatches?

 

[Office_Shredder]

They aren't using his match to a family member as evidence. They used that as a lead to collect his DNA, which matched. So concerns over whether familial DNA matching will stand in court are unnecessary

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, it boils down to this: Who do you fear more, the government or serial killers?

If I lived in the US I don't know if I would be too sure...

I don't comment on a sailors life when I am not in the navy, so why should you comment on US domestic affairs, when you don't live in the United States?

We are participating in a forum with an international character. We share ideas and opinions here. We do not welcome insulting 'opinions' of each others countries nor do we generally find rebuffing the opinions of those who live else where very conducive to discussion.
Please do not tell anyone that their opinions are not welcome and valued even if you may not value them personally.

So what are the real issues, that go beyond the serial killer? Should everybody be required to submit DNA to a database? If not, what level of crime justifies adding DNA to such a database? Arrested without being charged or found guilty, like New York? Speeding? Do you know what other things they can know about you with a good DNA analysis? Do you think law enforcement is the only people with access? Do you want your insurance company or employer to have this information?

What about traffic stops with cops taking DNA samples in search of a criminal, like Florida?
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15232197/detail.html

They can use whatever tool they can come with to catch a criminal. If I'm committing such acts and get caught through some thuggish kins DNA, big deal. But when they start using every excuse in the book to build a complete database on me, just because some people are criminals, the data will end up becoming more useful to industry and even criminals than to law enforcement.

You may want to consider the fact that corporations are much freer to record and keep your information than any government agency. I believe just a couple years ago there was a 'scandal' when it was found that a government agency website was still using cookies when it had apparently been decided by the court that no government website may install anything on your computer.
There is a horribly cheesy novel I read called The Broken Window by Jeffrey Deaver. I do not think that it is very far off from reality if somewhat exaggerated. Basically the idea is that when the government decides its time to start invading your privacy they will likely find a corporate market of 'consumer information' ready and waiting to provide the service for them.

They aren't using his match to a family member as evidence. They used that as a lead to collect his DNA, which matched. So concerns over whether familial DNA matching will stand in court are unnecessary

It will be evidence at trial. They can not exclude evidence used in tracking the alleged serial killer. Essentially it will be used to substantiate probable cause. Obviously it can not be used directly to implicate him but it will be used to establish how they came to suspect him and that will give the defense the opportunity to challenge its use in this manner.

 

[Jack21222]

They aren't using his match to a family member as evidence. They used that as a lead to collect his DNA, which matched. So concerns over whether familial DNA matching will stand in court are unnecessary

I don't think anybody here has argued otherwise.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't think anybody here has argued otherwise.

My impression is that was what

When comparing DNA from a suspect to the evidence found at the crime scene, a single mismatch can exonerate the suspect, but with familial DNA investigators are looking for matches not mismatches. How many matches prove a relationship and how many mismatches disprove it? How can a jury be sure the prosecution hasn't cherry picked the matches and excluded exculpatory mismatches?

was supposed to be arguing

 

[Jack21222]

My impression is that was what



was supposed to be arguing

Perhaps you're right. I'm getting the "matches" and "mismatches" mixed up in that post, and I'm having a hard time following. Upon further examination, you appear correct.