Solving murders with forensic genetic genealogy
Solving murders with forensic genetic genealogy
The DNA: ID podcasts features in-depth reporting on police investigations using genetic genealogy
The DNA: ID podcast, which explores cases where the use of forensic genetic genealogy has led to arrests and convictions, provides a fascinating window into murder investigations and how they work. I recently talked with DNA: ID podcast host, Jessica Bettencourt, who started the show in 2021.
Ann Brocklehurst: I wanted to begin with one thing that has jumped out at me after listening to almost all the DNA: ID podcasts, and tosee if it resonates with you as well. I am continually struck by the fact that in many of these cases, there appear to have been several suspects, who all seem very viable. I find myself thinking, Yeah, that sounds like the guy. And then it turns out he’s not the guy, but there’s another guy who crops up and seems very suspicious too, and I think, Well, it must be him, but it's not. There are far more people who appear to be pretty good suspects than I ever would have thought, but then DNA shows they didn’t do it. Is that something that has struck you as well?
Jessica Bettencourt: In many of these cases, it seems like there are really good suspects and when I marvel about that, I realize that you have to remember how many how many unsolved homicides there are in our country, which is about 200,000. And if you think about it that way, it's not that unbelievable that, in so many of these cases, there [are multiple suspects] because there are a lot of people who do bad things out there.
AB: The other thing that I'm personally curious about is how often do you find that the murderer is someone who the cops had never looked into or who had never been a suspect at all?
JB: I would say that’s true in the vast majority of the cases that I've covered on my show, but I'll give you the caveat, which is that's why these cases are unsolved, and why we're using genealogy on them, because these cases have been unsolvable. When there's no nexus between the killer and the victim, and the guy isn't from the area and is just passing through town, or even if he’s from the area but is a seemingly upstanding citizen, there was often no connection. Back in the day, before GPS, surveillance cameras and phones, it was literally impossible for the police to find that person. It just wasn't doable. So as a result, those cases went unsolved and grew cold. And that's why we're using genealogy on them, because it's the only way to solve them at this point.
I can’t put a percentage on it, but it’s only in very, very slim minority of the cases that I have covered that the guy has been mentioned in the case file.
AB: That makes sense because otherwise they would have tried to get their DNA tested and then they wouldn't have had to do a genetic genealogy investigation. Would you say most of the cases you cover were the really tough ones as opposed to cases where there was a bad investigation?
JB: Believe me, I'm aware there's some rancour toward the police in today's society, for reasons that we don't need to get into but are obvious – racial relations and so on. But these cases [that I cover] are a little different because they are so long standing. And the detectives and investigators really, really cared about solving them because they were so inexplicable. I will say that in the absolute vast majority of these cases, the detectives did everything they could do, they did a great job. And I can only think of one or two, maybe three, where the cops tell me today, These guys screwed up back in 1980.
AB: I have a bit of a personal bugaboo, and I want to see what you think about this if you care to weigh in on it. When I hear people say, Oh, the cops knew who did it, they just couldn't prove it, it drives me nuts because my feeling is that if they can't prove it, they can’t know for sure who did it.
JB: I've seen police get very, very creative when they can’t prove something, they are going to move heaven and earth to get some evidence. All these old case files from the 70s, 80s, early 90s, before they had all the evidence stuff that we have today, they would go to the ends of the earth to look at every single person who was in the bowling alley that night and interview somebody's cousin. That's why these case files are thousands of pages long. If they don't have evidence, they really do their damnedest to get the evidence. And then they use different tactics. That’s different than just saying, Oh, we can't prove it, so let’s move on. I personally think that's ridiculous.
AB: How did you end up in this niche?
JB: I saw that all these cases were getting solved. And the blurb from AP or USA Today would roll across my phone. It would say something like, Kenny Smith murdered Mary Jane Doe in Oregon. And then they would move on to the weather report. I was left asking, What do you mean? Who's Kenny Smith? What was his relationship, blah, blah, blah? At the time, I was working for a bunch of other podcasts and I found myself saying somebody needs to do a show on these cases, to treat them as a as a cohesive unit and look at the patterns. And so, I just decided to do it since no one else was doing it. As for what the patterns are, there's a lot of really bad neighbors, which is what's so depressing. In so many of these cases, it's just random bad luck and the victims are almost universally women.
AB: I wanted to ask you about people's reaction to the use of genetic genealogy in solving cases. After the Golden State Killer case showed how it could be done in 2018, there were a lot of people who were saying this was a violation of privacy, that genetic genealogy would be thrown out of court and so on. Have we seen that idea die down? Do you think people have become more familiar with genetic genealogy and aren't as bothered by it as they seemed to be back then?
JB: Well, that's a complicated question. We have the group of people, who pride themselves on being what they call “genetic witnesses,” people whose DNA is in all the databases, and they've opted in to police searching. They're excited about the fact that their second cousin Louis might have killed someone, and they're going to help catch him. So I think that in that regard, people are absolutely thrilled to be helping. On the other side of it, there are still people who – and part of this, I believe, has to do with not trusting the police – are not understanding how the controls work. The police are not accessing your genetic code.
Now, the courts have to consider this issue of whether, as a defendant, you have standing to contest, based on privacy grounds, that your DNA and your identity was located by your relatives’ DNA. And they've all said, no, you don't have privacy rights in your cousin’s, your uncle's, your aunt’s DNA. It’s bad luck that we are all related, but that's just the way humanity is. Because we can find your aunt, we can find you. There's nothing you can do about that. And it's not a privacy matter. So that's where the courts are right now. And they all agree on it.
AB: I’ve heard that in several states it’s required that investigators pursue all other avenues before they try this newfangled DNA thing. What’s that all about?
JB: There are a couple of states that have passed restrictions, and Maryland is the most onerous. Maryland law says basically that [genetic genealogy] has to be an absolute last resort. There has to be judicial oversight of the whole process. The police have to have body cams on when they go knock on the door and ask people for a DNA sample.
AB: What do you think's behind the Maryland thing? Is it just a few people who have a bee in their bonnet about this?
JB: I have to think that eventually it will be amended, that they will ease up. I think they're still wrapping their heads around this, judges are still being educated on it.
AB: On the other side of things, you have situations like the Idaho students murder case – the first high profile active case where we know genetic genealogy was used – where the police and prosecutors didn’t even mention, at first, that that’s how they cracked the case. I think, to a lot of people, that made it look like they were covering something up.
JB: That did come back to bite them because in the [Bryan] Kohberger [probable cause] affidavit, it was not mentioned that they used DNA forensic genetic genealogy. But 99% of the detectives I talk to are thrilled to talk about these cases because they're proud of the work that they're doing. They want the public to have education about genealogy so they'll put their DNA in databases, because they know it's not threatening to anybody. And yes, I've had maybe two, or three [detectives], who kind of feel we shouldn’t talk about this. I had one guy recently, a detective who closed a cold case murder using genealogy, who asked me not to address the genealogy because he doesn't want to scare people away from putting their DNA in the databases. I personally find that mentality completely wrong. We want people to be doing this knowingly and voluntarily. Hiding it from people makes it look suspicious, shady, suspect, and like it can be manipulated. Education is the way to get people to be comfortable with this. And that's where my podcast has gone from the beginning.
AB: I noticed from your podcast too that so many of the people are giving their DNA voluntarily, and even when they know they're being considered suspects.
JB: it's kind of amazing, actually, and something I've remarked on is how many people want to help. The cops knock on their door, and they say, Hey, you know, we're doing this investigation. Can you give us your DNA? And they say, Sure, here you go. The vast majority of people want to help and are happy to give their DNA.I am often surprised people are so blase about it.,
AB: So what do you see in the future? Are we going to keep hearing about these cases being solved? Or is the well going to dry up for your podcast?
JB: My dad has asked me, Are you ever going to run out of material? And I told him there are 200,000 unsolved cold case murders in the US. Detectives are dying to use this technology. There are nonprofit [organizations] that are handing out grants to fund lab work in individual cases, based on people applying and then getting money. So it's not going anywhere. The public loves these stories of these cases being solved, cases that have resonated with the community for decades. But don't forget about the John and Jane Doe identity cases, the poor dead man or woman and no one knows who he or she is. That's a tragedy. And [genetic genealogy] is now literally providing answers to these cases daily.
AB: What case out there, where you know there's DNA, would you most like to see solved?
JB: Jon Benet Ramsey. I think there is DNA in that case, from what I understand. We’re waiting to see if it's enough DNA to be usable and if it’s degraded. There’s a lot of TBD here.
AB: Well, our time is up. This was very helpful for me and, again, I find your podcast fascinating. It’s enlightening to hear how all those cases were investigated.
The interview was edited for clarity and concision.