• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    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.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.win
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              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.win
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.