Dorothy Marie Silzel was assaulted and killed in February 1980.
  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
    542·
    2 months ago

    forensic genetic genealogy

    I’m happy they got the guy, but this is why people submitting their DNA to any lab should understand that it also reveals the DNA of all your blood relatives to some extent, not just yours and yours alone.

    Not everyone would be pleased to find out they inadvertently got their child arrested for whatever crime even if it is ‘just’.

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      25·
      2 months ago

      I’d be cool with it if it was murder. That being said fuck these companies selling data to police and insurance companies

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
        13·
        2 months ago

        They don’t sell it, to my knowledge. That serial killer in CA was found because they submitted it the same way you or I would, and waited for the company to return familial matches.

      • piecat@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        Almost everyone would be good with it if the crime were murder or sone sex thing.

        But like you point out, the data could be sold. It’s going to be in data leaks soon enough. And who knows what happens if the government you live under gets fascist.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      19·
      2 months ago

      I’m a twin. I do not have exclusive license over my DNA, and also I fear I’m gonna get picked-up for some crime he committed 20 years ago.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      415·
      2 months ago

      They matched the guys own DNA to DNA he left at the crime scene. Did you eve read the article, or do you just need something to be outraged about today?

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
        19·
        2 months ago

        Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said on social media that his office’s sexual assault kit initiative funded forensic genetic genealogy testing that “narrowed the list of suspects.”

        so…

        Did you eve read the article?

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          81·
          2 months ago

          Thanks. Not only that but did I sound outraged? People should know to check with all their direct blood relatives and get their approval before submitting potential evidence to 23AndMe or similar to avoid potential family friction/crises. That’s all.

        • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          I don’t get that—they got eleven matches in their database, which presumably only covers a fraction of the whole population. So there are potentially tens or hundreds of people out there who could match, most of which they don’t even know. And the article doesn’t really say how they narrowed down the list to him in particular, especially since he’s not even from the same state.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            5·
            2 months ago

            Easy. You have 11. Eliminate the women because they would know it’s male based on DNA. Now we’re at 6. 4 were verifiably in different states at the time of the crime. 2 left. Stake them out for a bit and gather some garbage likely to have DNA. 1 sample is a perfect match.

            Alternatively, those last 2 sample could both not match and then they just continue their investigation.

            • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              2 months ago

              But my point is, those original eleven weren’t an exhaustive list of the possibilities, just the ones that happened to be in their database—so narrowing it down to one means nothing.

              • meco03211@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 months ago

                That’s not how DNA works. It’s not like a vague description of a person so they round up a bunch of perps for a line up. They would get an exact match on DNA before arresting someone.

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            It wasn’t a direct match. It partially matched to 11 people so they did follow-up investigative work on the 11 matches looking for anyone in their families that stood out as a likely suspect due to things like work proximity, lifestyle, criminal record, familiarity with the victim and so on.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      124·
      2 months ago

      CBS is left-center? The AP is left-center? ABC is left-center?

      Does anyone know what number I can dial to reach MBFC’s “fuck all the way off you bunch of frauds” department?

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        54·
        2 months ago

        Neither CBS, AP, or ABC organizations appears to support the removal of a woman’s right to choose her reproductive habits, nor do they make any claims that the 2020 election was stolen, never even seen them make claims that climate change is fake.

        However, I also haven’t seen them advocate for single payer healthcare, or expansion of pathways of citizenship for the undocumented, or extreme restriction of gun ownership.

        So left-center seems pretty sound to me. So what part of “left-center” offends you in that bot’s analysis?

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          Sorry, no, even in the right-wing Overton window hellhole that is the US, not giving credence to the completely, obviously baseless and brazenly fascist lie that the 2020 election was stolen isn’t bias toward the “center-left”.

          The offense I take is that MBFC consistently conflates reporting actual, undeniably factual statements with left-wing bias, which is emblematic of the ridiculous place it chooses to plant its center (US politics is their stated location). But more importantly, even from that ridiculously skewed starting point, it’s patently ridiculous to call these organizations “center-left”.

          MBFC is a trash organization that poisons the well for sources by calling them left-biased on the basis that they report true things. They themselves show consistent bias toward the right-wing (for example, they consider both The Guardian and Breitbart “MIXED” in their factual accuracy based on wild double standards) but then try to equate basic factual reporting as political bias.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            11·
            2 months ago

            even from that ridiculously skewed starting point, it’s patently ridiculous to call these organizations “center-left”.

            I think Stephen Colbert said it best: “Reality has a well known liberal bias”

            What labels are the alternatives here?

            • center-right? Reporting containing new fossil fuel exploration and development while simultaneously including potential climate change impacts would invalidate this label.
            • far-right? The clear acceptance that other colors of skin besides white are acceptable and/or that women’s agency deserves recognition would disqualify this label.
            • far-left? Regular reporting of rising costs of rent without calls abolishing landlords ability to own and rent property, repeated reports of industrial capacity status and layoff notices without of calls to encourage labor workers to seize manufacturing assets would disqualify this label.

            So what label would you be happy with?

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
              5·
              2 months ago

              I think you forgot “center”. From the perspective of US politics, these are basically the most centrist publications you can get your hands on without penalizing “not reporting false, far-right conspiracies as true or even plausible” as a leftward bias. And if you determine in the context of US politics that undeniable facts are biased, then why on earth would you explicitly choose to plant your center in US politics? MBFC absolutely has a choice in that regard.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              41·
              2 months ago

              You can use the same terms as political scientists. Left leaning, right leaning, far left, far right, centrist, non-aligned, specific ideology, specific demographic, objective, non aligned.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          52·
          2 months ago

          You think banning abortion and election conspiracies are center right? Fucking hell, normalisation has done a number.

          Anyways the correct thing for a news organization that is objective is either the word objective, or non-aligned.

  • JoYo@lemmy.mlEnglish
    312·
    2 months ago

    stop promoting the idea that DNA is evidence.