THEORY: He was identified through DISTANT familial DNA

[richporce]

I think that what LE have indicated so far suggests that he was identified through DISTANT familial DNA analysis of the California state criminal DNA database.

I don't think that they used ancestry.com or other databases, as there are a ton of legal/privacy issues with doing that and the possibility that doing so would endanger the case and allow him to mount a credible legal defense.

Normally familial DNA analysis used by law enforcement detects for close relatives only. A son, father, brother, etc. No-one at that genetic distance was found to match EAR's DNA within the databases. However over the past few years there have been articles about how progressions in DNA science would one day allow for more thorough comparisons so that relations like nephews, cousins or uncles would be identifiable.

I think that this is what has happened, they can now search criminal databases and detect for more distant genetic matches. This was the trajectory that DNA-comparitive science was on and I believe that this is one of the first cases in which it has been used, due to how high profile it is.

This aligns with what LE have said so far, that "sophisticated DNA techniques" were responsible for DeAngelo's capture. Upon this technology going live, they found a distant familial DNA match to EAR'S DNA, probably a problem nephew or cousin that was a California felon. From there they reconstructed the match's family tree and due to DeAngelo's age, location history and firing from Auburn PD they focused in on him as a suspect. This matches with what LE have said about the DNA giving them a general direction to look in; they knew that EAR was a distant familial relative of a named felon that they had in their database.

I believe this is more likely than the idea that they used online ancestry databases because this possibility has no legal ramifications and is simply an extrapolation of current DNA technology. The use of criminal DNA databases to find distant genetic matches is NOT a legal minefield whereas using online databases IS, as one is a database of felons and the other is a database of private citizens.

[bd]

Apr 26, 2018 8:25:38 GMT richporce said:

I think that what LE have indicated so far suggests that he was identified through DISTANT familial DNA analysis of the California state criminal DNA database.

I don't think that they used ancestry.com or other databases, as there are a ton of legal/privacy issues with doing that and the possibility that doing so would endanger the case and allow him to mount a credible legal defense.

Normally familial DNA analysis used by law enforcement detects for close relatives only. A son, father, brother, etc. No-one at that genetic distance was found to match EAR's DNA within the databases. However over the past few years there have been articles about how progressions in DNA science would one day allow for more thorough comparisons so that relations like nephews, cousins or uncles would be identifiable.

I think that this is what has happened, they can now search criminal databases and detect for more distant genetic matches. This was the trajectory that DNA-comparitive science was on and I believe that this is one of the first cases in which it has been used, due to how high profile it is.

This aligns with what LE have said so far, that "sophisticated DNA techniques" were responsible for DeAngelo's capture. Upon this technology going live, they found a distant familial DNA match to EAR'S DNA, probably a problem nephew or cousin that was a California felon. From there they reconstructed the match's family tree and due to DeAngelo's age, location history and firing from Auburn PD they focused in on him as a suspect. This matches with what LE have said about the DNA giving them a general direction to look in; they knew that EAR was a distant familial relative of a named felon that they had in their database.

I believe this is more likely than the idea that they used online ancestry databases because this possibility has no legal ramifications and is simply an extrapolation of current DNA technology. The use of criminal DNA databases to find distant genetic matches is NOT a legal minefield whereas using online databases IS, as one is a database of felons and the other is a database of private citizens.

I hope you are exactly correct. Another poster suggested that they shared a sample with Australian authorities, under the pretext comparing it to "mr. cruel" and that was how access to a commercial data base was achieved. I hope that is not correct. 

[vapors]

Apr 26, 2018 8:25:38 GMT richporce said:

I think that what LE have indicated so far suggests that he was identified through DISTANT familial DNA analysis of the California state criminal DNA database.

I don't think that they used ancestry.com or other databases, as there are a ton of legal/privacy issues with doing that and the possibility that doing so would endanger the case and allow him to mount a credible legal defense.

Normally familial DNA analysis used by law enforcement detects for close relatives only. A son, father, brother, etc. No-one at that genetic distance was found to match EAR's DNA within the databases. However over the past few years there have been articles about how progressions in DNA science would one day allow for more thorough comparisons so that relations like nephews, cousins or uncles would be identifiable.

I think that this is what has happened, they can now search criminal databases and detect for more distant genetic matches. This was the trajectory that DNA-comparitive science was on and I believe that this is one of the first cases in which it has been used, due to how high profile it is.

This aligns with what LE have said so far, that "sophisticated DNA techniques" were responsible for DeAngelo's capture. Upon this technology going live, they found a distant familial DNA match to EAR'S DNA, probably a problem nephew or cousin that was a California felon. From there they reconstructed the match's family tree and due to DeAngelo's age, location history and firing from Auburn PD they focused in on him as a suspect. This matches with what LE have said about the DNA giving them a general direction to look in; they knew that EAR was a distant familial relative of a named felon that they had in their database.

I believe this is more likely than the idea that they used online ancestry databases because this possibility has no legal ramifications and is simply an extrapolation of current DNA technology. The use of criminal DNA databases to find distant genetic matches is NOT a legal minefield whereas using online databases IS, as one is a database of felons and the other is a database of private citizens.

My gut says your right about a distant family member being arrested for a felony and accidentally flagging JJD.

[known_unknown]

Paul Haynes:

"Perhaps the biggest mystery now is just how law enforcement identified DeAngelo as a person of interest in the crimes 40 years after they began. So far, officials have declined to explain, but Haynes has his suspicions. During the press conference, Sheriff Scott Jones said, “Although it was DNA ultimately that led us down the road, there was a lot of places that road could have led.” Haynes thinks it likely that investigators used DNA markers posted on genealogy websites to identify a possible ancestor of the killer and then followed the ancestor’s family tree down to the present, looking for male descendants who fit the profile. But this, he cautions, is only an educated guess, and what evidence law enforcement used to pinpoint DeAngelo is “the No. 1 thing I want to know.”" 






slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/paul-haynes-researcher-for-ill-be-gone-in-the-dark-on-how-police-found-the-golden-state-killer-suspect.html

[paxtoncrawford]

Nice work. This is the best theory I’ve seen so far, in terms of matching what the DA and police said at the presser. I think you’re on to something.