Anthropological Studies


Forensic Genealogy; Identifying the Culprit

Article Number: RIB600106 Volume 04 | Issue 01 | April - 2021 ISSN: 2581-4966
12th Mar, 2021
23rd Mar, 2021
19th Apr, 2021
29th Apr, 2021

Authors

Ruchika Dwivedi, Dr. Mohd. Amjad Bhatt

Abstract

It has been perceived in past years that the cases of DNA which have been unresolved by direct matching with DNA Database can be easily resolved by linking the SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) data with sequestered as well as open genomic databases. In this way, using the mixture of traditional genealogical research and genome comparison, the investigators can easily trace the distant relatives of the perpetrator whose DNA has been found on the crime scene and ultimately identify the real culprit of a violent crime. The approach is thriving in identifying the culprit with lesser crime and identifying the unknown deceased person. Such advances are bringing focus into the ethical question such as how much access of DNA Database should be granted to law enforcement agencies and how to control over DNA Data of public genome contributor with its best empowerment. The needful policies may take more time to developed but till then at least we could be better informed about such kind of familial searching policies which have already been developed for the use of Federal DNA Database searches and about the interest of anonymity and privacy of civilians Keywords: Forensics, Genealogy, DNA, Genomic Database, Crime Scene

Introduction

Forensic genealogy is simply a way to match the genetic data base of the nearest relative of the perpetrator whose DNA has been found at the crime scene. It involves using the DNA data base like GEDMatch for purpose of comparison from the sample found from the crime scene with the database Populus to find the closest genealogical match.

Forensic genealogy, put simply, involves using a DNA database such as GEDmatch to compare a sample (generally obtained from a crime scene) to the database populous to search for closest genealogical matches. From there, investigators can create a family tree by combining the genetic data with other data types (such as electronic health records, social media, and public records) and practise them to narrow down which person(s) could qualify as being potentially involved in the case (either as victims or perpetrators) based on factors such as age or known geographic location at the time of the occurrence (www.law.cornell.edu, 1996).

Once said individuals have been identified, law enforcement then tries to acquire a current DNA sample of the suspected individual to compare with that obtained from the crime scene to check whether it is a match. This technique was used to recognise a suspect in a case called the Golden State Killer case (www.theatlantic.com, 2018). In another recent case, through the use of such searches, a man in California was exonerated subsequently spending 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t committed, showing just how powerful this tool can be as a vehicle of justice (www.theguardian.com, 2020).

That said, qualms have arisen over the unsolicited use of such data since most people being assessed during these law enforcement searches did not consent to having their information used for this purpose—even though the suspects identified through familial searches also have not surely shared voluntarily their genetic profile even if one of their genetic relatives has done so. To address these concerns, some entities have responded by doing more to protect user information. GEDmatch, for example, has edited its privacy policy to allow users to choose between two public DNA settings: opt-in and opt-out—the only difference being that an opt-out user cannot have their DNA compared with ‘‘DNA kits acknowledged as being uploaded for Law Enforcement purposes” (www.gedmatch.com, 2019).

References

Ancestry. "Ancestry Guide for Law Enforcement." Ancestry (2019). Accessed on 8 March 2021.

Butler, John. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation. 1st ed., Academic Press, 2014.

Cornell Law School—Legal Information Institute. “45 CFR subpart E—privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (1996), Accessed on 8 March 2021.

FBI. “Frequently asked questions on CODIS and NDIS.” (2017), Accessed on 8 March 2021.

GEDmatch. “GEDmatch.Com Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.” (2019), Accessed on 8 March 2021.

Guerrini, Christi J., et al. “Should Police Have Access to Genetic Genealogy Databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and Other Criminals Using a Controversial New Forensic Technique.” PLOS Biology, vol. 16, no. 10, 2018, p. e2006906.

Hill, Kashmir and Heather Murphy. “The New York Times Your DNA profile is private? A Florida judge Just Said Otherwise.” The New York Times (2019), Accessed on 8 March 2021.

Kain, Robert, et al. “Database Shares That Transform Research Subjects into Partners.” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 37, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1112–15. 

Kaiser, Jocelyn. “New Federal Rules Limit Police Searches of Family Tree DNA Databases.” Science, 2019. 

Ram, Natalie, et al. “Genealogy Databases and the Future of Criminal Investigation.” Science, vol. 360, no. 6393, 2018, pp. 1078–79.

The Guardian. “California Man Freed After 15 years in Prison Thanks to Genealogy Website Data.”. (2020), Accessed on 8 March 2021.

Zhang, Sarah. "The Coming Wave of Murders Solved by Genealogy." The Atlantic (2018). Accessed on 8 March 2021.

Zhang, Sarah. "The Messy Consequences of the Golden State Killer Case." The Atlantic (2019). Accessed on 8 March 2021.

How to cite this article?

APA StyleDwivedi, R., & Bhatt, Dr. Mohd. A. (2021). Forensic Genealogy; Identifying the Culprit. Academic Journal of Anthropological Studies, 04(01), 22–25.
Chicago Style
MLA Style
DOI
URL

Create Your Password

We've sent a link to create password on your registered email, Click the link in email to start using Xournal.

Sign In

Forgot Password?
Don't have an account? Create Account

Create Account

Already have an account? Sign In

Forgot Password

Do you want to try again? Sign In

Publication Tracking