Case Study - The Golden State Killer
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Utah Valley University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2065
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by AmbassadorNeutronCrab25
Excerpts from and case study adapted from:
Forensic Genealogy, Bioethics, and The
Golden State Killer Case
By
Ray A. Wickenheiser
Laboratory System Director, New York State Police Crime Laboratory System, Albany, NY
Published in Forensic Science International: Synergy, July 2019
Background
Forensic DNA typing began in 1985 with a discovery by Sir Alec Jeffreys that DNA patterns
could be obtained from unknown biological samples. Further development of the technique with
the Forensic Science Service's Peter Gill enabled the comparison of DNA patterns developed
from crime scenes to samples from known individuals to establish a likely identity [21,22].
Serological comparisons had been in use in forensic laboratories for decades prior, however
lacked the level of specificity and relative stability that DNA could provide. The protein
variations detected using serology have the disadvantage of being shared by more people than
DNA variants, and were also more labile, leaving them more susceptible to breakdown by heat,
microbial and environmental factors, rendering specimens unusable.
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) developed by Cary Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel
Prize for his ground-breaking work, enabled additional targeted copies of DNA to be generated
from crime scene and suspect samples, dramatically increasing sensitivity [24]. With the
discovery of trimeric and tetrameric tandem repeats and the development of use of fluorescently
labelled PCR primers for detection of PCR products [25-28], the sensitivity of forensic DNA
typing went from 250 ng to less than a single nanogram to develop a useable profile. One
nanogram is one billionth of a gram of purified DNA, which is virtually invisible to the naked
eye. The DNA contained in a spot of blood the size of a head of a pin is more than sufficient to
develop a complete CODIS DNA profile using modern forensic profiling methods. This increase
in sensitivity opened the potential of specimens beyond those from traditional sources of blood,
semen and saliva, to include trace or touch DNA, which is DNA transferred by contact with skin
and hands [29,30].
Biological material containing DNA is frequently left behind at a crime scene by offenders. This
abandoned crime scene material is generally considered discarded akin to trash; therefore, an
individual is generally considered to have no right to privacy for this sample [31,32]. However,
given the ever-increasing level of specific information that is available with DNA, there is
rationale for debate depending on use [33]. Crime laboratories analyze this crime scene evidence
and provide investigative leads, including or eliminating individuals submitted for comparison.
Known samples may be for elimination, such as people who are expected to be there, like the
owner of a car when their car is stolen. A sample is also taken from potential suspects. Crime
labs participating in the National DNA Index System (NDIS) have a Local DNA Index System
(LDIS), which provides for more discretionary uses of DNA profiles. All laboratories who have
access to the NDIS must be accredited, and therefore abide by all requirements of the DNA
Identification Act, protecting privacy and dictating compliance with extensive quality assurance
measures. When the case does not have a viable suspect, or does not get a hit on the database, it
may grow cold. Crime laboratories continue to search unsolved cases on a weekly basis, however
at some point, the suspect is not in the database and the investigators turn to more innovative
methods. For this case study, we will focus on forensic genealogical searching.
The Case of the Golden State Killer
The Golden State Serial Killer is a burglar, stalker, peeper, rapist and killer known to have
murdered 12 victims and raped over 50 others in California from 1974 through 1986 [1]. The
case, which remained unsolved for decades, was broken with the arrest and charging of Joseph
James DeAngelo in Orange County on April 24, 2018 [7]. DeAngelo began as a burglar, known
as the Visalia Ransacker in 1974-1975, operating in Visalia, California, between Fresno and
Bakersfield. The severity of his crimes escalated to sexual assault as the East Area Rapist from
1976 to 1979 in the Sacramento area. He then graduated to murder, as the Original Night Stalker
from late 1979 to 1986, committing homicides in Orange County and Santa Barbara [7-16].
Forensic tools unavailable when crimes were originally committed have shed new light on
previously unsolved offenses, permitting investigators to connect cases to establish previously
unseen trends and combine intelligence. In the Golden State Killer Case, DNA evidence linked
various crimes to combine what was originally thought to be unconnected offenses in different
areas, to be the crimes of a single individual. Despite the development of single source DNA
profiles at multiple crime scenes, there was no match made to a suspect, and no matching profile
found in NDIS. The Golden State Killer case remained unsolved for over 40 years from the
commission of the original crimes.
The break in the Golden State Serial Killer case came when DNA from the crime scene deposited
by the assailant was further analyzed and compared to an open-source genealogical website,
GEDMatch [8-16]. Presumably GEDMatch was used in favor of other ancestry and genealogical
websites as other providers had more restrictive policies on law enforcement access and
GEDMatch aggregated data from these other providers, with participants moving their data to
GEDMatch specifically to search for relatives. On the website, individuals affirm a privacy
statement acknowledging their genetic DNA information will be available for searching for the
purposes of being located. Upon learning of the Golden State Killer case, GEDMatch updated
their confidentiality statement to include information that genetic information can be searched by
law enforcement [17,18]. Police investigators, with the assistance of a genealogist, reconstructed
the family tree that included the crime scene profile, which matched to a probable 4th cousin [4].
It took about 4 months of family tree construction and investigative legwork to narrow potential
suspects in the tree to males of the age and geography that could have committed the crimes.
Eventually investigators narrowed their search for male relatives fitting the age and description
to Joseph James DeAngelo. Placing him under surveillance, discarded DNA samples were
obtained without the suspect's knowledge, including a discarded tissue and a swab taken from the
handle of a car door. Once these samples were found to directly match those from the crime
scene, DeAngelo was arrested and charged. He was later sentenced to 11 consecutive life
sentences without the possibility of parole.
Bioethics and Forensic Genealogy
While innocent individuals are examined and eliminated on a routine basis through traditional
investigation, the use of databases and genetic data represents a unique situation of exposure of
specific personal information. Searching individuals via traditional investigation often requires a
form of reasonable suspicion, where there is normally a presumption of innocence. This
causative barrier is frequently in place, to prevent legal and procedural violations, discrimination
and provides respect for privacy. Hand in hand with the presumption of innocence comes an
expectation of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, providing a balance between
competing interests of individual rights to privacy versus personal and public safety.
Individuals who commit violent crimes inflict tremendous grievous emotional and physical harm
on their victims and their families, expressing individualism and autonomy while infringing on
the rights of others, practicing recidivism. Recidivism is the commission of repetitious and
frequently increasingly violent infractions on new victims. To illustrate this cost, the damage to
the individual in a case of sexual assault is estimated at over $111,000 [5]. The societal return on
investment from the testing of all sexual assault kits ranges from 9874% to 64,529% [6]. The
existing cycle of recidivism represents a growing opportunity for disruption of a criminal career
earlier in its cycle, which can prevent future victimization and associated costs to both the
individual and society. This opportunity warrants an examination of the ethical balance between
the individual right to privacy and autonomy, versus the public's right to personal safety and
integrity, not to have harm inflicted on them by an individual.
The ethical issues that arise in genealogical searching are similar to those of familial searching,
which include privacy, protection from wrongful incrimination, confidentiality and potential
misuse of genetic information [51-53]. Once traits can be connected to DNA which is examined
in forensic genealogical searching, access and use of information could be misused in
applications including and beyond crime solving and prevention. This potential for misuse has
implications at the crime scene, with respect to elimination samples and for database application
issues. Potential for misuse must be balanced against public safety issues. The level of privacy
afforded to individuals placing their genetic information into databases that are searched against
profiles generated at the crime scene must be determined and individuals informed.
There must be a process to ensure genealogical searching is conducted properly scientifically and
from a public policy perspective. There should be transparency of policies, procedures and
documentation to guide and demonstrate appropriate use [
82
]. Collection of statistics can
demonstrate the outcome of cases, to provide objective evidence to support or deny the efficacy
of forensic genealogical searching to inform decisions on its most appropriate use. Forensic
genealogical searching, like many new forensic and genetic techniques, has tremendous
opportunity to do good, while any potential harms should be identified and managed
appropriately. Prudent application will ensure that the risks are managed to provide the
maximum benefit, thereby meeting the ethical principle of proportionality while balancing
autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, objectivity and right to privacy.
Forensic laboratory and law enforcement's duty is to maximize the value of evidence. If
probative DNA is left behind at the crime scene, if it can be ethically and legally examined
further to solve and prevent crime, should it be? Is there a public safety obligation to proceed?
The author submits, given the cost of the investigation and the potential of future harm to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
innocents, there is a duty to apply the best techniques to solve those crimes, however to also do
so in a transparent, ethical and legal manner.
NAME: Jack Thompson
SECTION: 208
DATE: 10/6/23
1.
(4 points) What four reasons did the article state that DNA typing was superior to
serology?
-
Serology is shared by more people than DNA variants
-
Serology is more labile, leaving them more susceptible to breakdown by heat,
microbial and environmental factors
-
Serology lacks specificity
-
Serology lacks relative stability
2.
(1.5 points) What is the NDIS, LDIS, and the DNA Identification Act?
(1.5 points) How do each of these work and/or what is their purpose?
°
-
NDIS (National DNA Index System) – operates local, state, and national databases of
DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence, and missing
persons
°
- LDIS (Local DNA Index System) – maintain its own local database of forensic profiles
and upload approved profiles
°
- DNA Identification Act - protects privacy and dictates compliance with extensive
quality assurance measures
°
3.
(2 points) What is forensic genealogical searching and why was it used in the Golden
State Killer case? (2 points) What were some reasons that investigators of the Golden
State Killer used GEDMatch versus other genealogical websites?
-
Forensic genealogical searching is law enforcement’s use of DNA analysis combined
with traditional genealogy research to generate investigative leads for unsolved
violent crimes. Forensic searching was used in the Golden State Killer case to connect
the crimes that had once been thought to be unrelated.
-
other providers had more restrictive policies on law enforcement access
4.
(4 points) What are the potential positive and negative consequences of using forensic
genealogical searching?
-
Negative: false positives may create burdens for innocent people
-
Positive: the ability to link together the evidence left behind at individual crime
scenes