4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[NextSprint]

Even if the DNA is ruled inadmissible, the DA can prove he owned the knife, fit the description the witness provided and was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene.

BK is going down. From the desperation by his attorney, I think the DA is refusing to offer a plea deal.

JMO

There isn't a knife though. As far as we know it was never found.

 

[Balthazar]

My first speculation is that the other ‘foreign DNA’ fails the ‘attributable to a presumed perpetrator’ test.

It's unknown male DNA found within the crime scene of the horrific murder of 4 people. How on earth could its fail that test? Further there are 2 footprints in evidence - a Vans footprint outside of DM's bedroom door and a footprint outside that CSI marked with evidence marker 3. Evidence marker 3 looks like a hiking boot or shoe footprint, not a Vans footprint.

 

[iamshadow21]

It's unknown male DNA found within the crime scene of the horrific murder of 4 people. How on earth could its fail that test?

Ooooh, just off the top of my head...

It could be unclear that it's related at all (the glove outside, for example).
It could be in an area of the house not part of the crime scene.
It could be on an item known to be handled by others not suspects (the jack in the box bag and food wrappers, the grub hub food containers, take away drink cups, mail, library books, assignments that have been graded and returned, city garbage bins).
It could be in areas of the house frequently touched by outsiders (furnace, electrical and water meter, doorbell or knocker).
It could be in an area of the fabric of the building most likely to have been left by someone who built or finished the home (in Gannon's case there was an unknown male profile they concluded may have been left by a worker who laid the carpet or otherwise finished the home before Gannon and his family moved in).

Probably plenty more possibilities.

MOO

 

[snickums]

I agree with your points.

Also, another issue is perhaps the car plates had been circulated as being red hot and for all LE to watch, monitor, gather information if seen etc but the intention was not to keep *stopping* BK at all, then some people got it wrong and pulled him over.

Except the FBI would not be aware unless a police dept. contacted them..as in they would have had to ask for FBI help, so yeah weird

 

[10ofRods]

There isn't a knife though. As far as we know it was never found.

Yep. We're just going on a wing and a prayer that the Amazon to PA wholesaler trial turned up evidence of a knife purchase.

My intuition says that they did get this confirmation, but I definitely could be wrong.

 

[10ofRods]

Genealogical DNA evidence is like a reverse dragnet.

The FBI gets to go out into this massive pool of DNA held by private companies, and apparently override the opt-out that people select when providing their DNA.

This provides them with a massive dragnet that they can test non-CODIS-matching DNA against.

It's like taking the DNA of every person in America if there were a murder investigation. That wouldn't be constitutional, and it wouldn't sit well with the public. It is forbidden by the DOJ.

Genealogical databases without regulation have opened a massive can of worms... Regardless whether they've heralded "good" results up to now. I think the window is rapidly closing on how the FBI use them without any oversight or regulation.

Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Court | DNA Dragnets

Learn more about the principles of forensic DNA, with an emphasis on collection of DNA Evidence from suspects and arrestees, specifically DNA dragnets.

nij.ojp.gov

I don't think you are correct about what the FBI is entitled to do - but you certainly are entitled to view it that way. No way to prove that the FBI doesn't sometimes use those databases. I've mostly seen the FBI say, "Nope, we got what we got, and they aren't in our databases).

Do you have any news articles or other information saying that the FBI is regularly breaking the rules of known contracts? Or that any genetic genealogy companies have allowed it? Does the FBI hack in or do they just show up? I simply can't envision how it could happen and I do not believe the FBI would risk cases (except maybe very very cold ones) with that kind of tactic.

So, I think you need to back your statement up with facts - this is not what FBI (or any LE) does, IMO. That's certainly not what they are taught to do. And it would be illegal, IMO.

Which databases are unregulated? Can you give an example? What actual cans of worms have there been?

TIA. I agree that the window (if it was ever open) is closing for unfettered access to large online databases (I am very familiar with Ancestry and 23andme and would like to think I've read about ALL of the cases in which they allowed LE to use their databases without a warrant - for 23, it's zero cases (and only 1 warrant last time I checked) and Ancestry also requires a warrant - but has responded to half a dozen of those warrants.

Requiring a warrant is a form of regulation. 23andme and its Board of Directors have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars battling LE on this issue and have won (and kept their records to themselves) every time (always requiring a warrant, no cooperation whatsoever, otherwise).

That would not keep an end user from sharing their own results with whomever they wished, though. If I thought a relative of mine was a murderer, I could upload my DNA to Othram (which I would do) and then contact LE and tell them to "go for it." Othram tells all end users that they will use the data for forensic purposes. However, even if you combined 23, Ancestry and Othram, it would come no where close to most people - because there are many repeated data sets (90% or more of Othram or Parabon's customers had their DNA run via saliva samples with Ancestry or 23).

IMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I see the DNA in this case a little differently. Nothing about this process should be secret.

A well thought out and well argued post imo.

I think they have to protect the material here. The identity of the family members in the family tree should not be made public. They can explain the process to the defense of how they work it, but the defense wants all of their notes along with all of the relatives' names. In one of their many responses the state said that much of the information relied on by the FBI was only viewed through the user portal in the publicly available genetic genealogy service(s) and other investigative databases. They didn't download or create copies of those records. I don't think they are allowed to do that tbh, but could be wrong. I think there are some note, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, and those notes were turned over. But, the defense is asking for additional material that doesn't exist. Their position from what I have heard them say to the judge is "Judge, we think they're lying". MOO

I have also seen cases where DNA is given for one purpose and then used for another and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. It seems to me that BK's distant family member gave their DNA to a database for some other reason than identifying a family member for a crime. I even wonder if this situation could open up the family member who gave their DNA for other purposes to liability as well as the company which had the DNA profile should BK be found not guilty. Did the family member actually opt in for LE purposes or not? If not, this opens up a whole can of worms.

I didn't think companies would allow LE to access profiles unless a person opted in? Maybe with a warrant it might be different. How could BK sue a family member for that family member giving his or her own DNA? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? He has no rights over that person. jmo

For example, a rape victim in San Francisco was identified for a 2016 property offense via her rape kit.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/San-Francisco-police-linked-a-woman-to-a-crime-16918673.php

This was later found to be a violation of the 4th amendment.

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/APPLYING-THE-FOURTH-AMENDMENT-WHEN-DNA-COLLECTED-FOR-ONE-PURPOSE.pdf

Is this situation a violation of BK's fourth amendment? It probably is.

I can't see the article (paywall) but I can see the law review article. Is there a reference in the law review article (a scholarly thought for process exercise usually) that refers to the case and states it was found in violation of the 4A? And, if so, was this bc the use of IGG in that state violated state statute? Bc that would make sense imo.

As a general matter, this is a debate that has been going round and round for some time imo, and we have begun to see some states respond by enacting legislation to claw back on the use of IGG in an effort to afford privacy protections. We see this in MD, in the Rachel Morin case that's going on rn. (See https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/Statute_Google/gcp/17-102.pdf) There are requirements that must be met before using IGG. They don't rise to the level of requiring a warrant as they do in Montana but they are pretty specific. They meet those thresholds in that case. Idaho AFAIK does not have any statutory limitations governing the use of IGG as an investigative tool. But, it was used as a tool only. They had no intention of offering it as evidence in this case (they have a direct match here). Now they will probably have to bc I see the judge giving great deference to the D just to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s and to do away with any ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

I don't see how this is any 4A violation of BK. MOO I am curious why you think there might be though bc it might help us to see where the defense is going here.

Then there is the whole question of the technique used to identify BK:

IMO how DNA identifications are made in the future for criminal justice are going to need to be documented step by step with replicable results to be admissible in court. This process should be replicable to remove any question about exactly how the identification was made and if it was done correctly. Without this information, I don't think that the DNA in Kohberger's case should be admissible in court, unfortunately.

I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.

As above, what follows is all jmo

How they made his DNA identification is already well documented imo. It's so well documented in fact that this is the only reason the defense is attempting to compel the genealogy. It's so tight that she needs to go backward to see (hope) that they can find some other flaw in the process that can be used to disqualify all that flowed from it (can't see this happening) or to confuse the jury into thinking the state and feds acted in an untoward or nefarious way (I think this is what she's going for bc it's all she's got).

I liken IGG to a lie detector test. They are both tools. They both have flaws. It is because of this that they are not considered reliable enough to be admitted into evidence. So because of this, I don't think your wish that IGG requirements that the process become so well documented that it one day becomes admissible in court will ever come to pass - for the same reason that lie detector tests are inadmissible.

But this doesn't mean that a LE lead based off a lie detector test gets all of the evidence generated from that lead suppressed.

All jmo

 

[maskedwoman]

It's unknown male DNA found within the crime scene of the horrific murder of 4 people. How on earth could its fail that test? Further there are 2 footprints in evidence - a Vans footprint outside of DM's bedroom door and a footprint outside that CSI marked with evidence marker 3. Evidence marker 3 looks like a hiking boot or shoe footprint, not a Vans footprint.

Mr. Thompson said those samples didn't qualify for testing. There are rules LE has to follow to determine if DNA is eligible to be included in testing that is done. I don't now if Idaho has rules similar to those posted earlier for another state, but apparently these 3 samples did not meet Idaho's standard. I googled and only found this, explaining the limitations for what and how much can be submitted for testing.

For example, if there is more than one homicide victim, LE can submit 8 samples to start.

This next part surprised me until I thought it through: "If probative information is obtained from the first submission, additional items will not be accepted unless special circumstances exist and the laboratory, investigating officer and/or prosecuting attorney discuss the submission of this additional evidence." I suspect this is both a budgetary and resource issue. If they did not limit how much can be submitted for testing, they would be inundated with samples to test just in case - which is address in this next statement below this one.

"If no probative information is obtained from the first submission, additional items may be submitted. Please contact the laboratory to discuss additional testing. Additional samples will not be tested to merely disprove all possible scenarios."

If I'm reading this correctly, they could not test those 3 samples just to disprove a possible but unlikely scenario. My guess is that they would have needed some other indication that at least a second intruder was present. Something they did not have.

I'm happy to hear other posters interpretation of this information.

Biology DNA

isp.idaho.gov

 

[Cool Cats]

Even if the DNA is ruled inadmissible, the DA can prove he owned the knife, fit the description the witness provided and was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene.

BK is going down. From the desperation by his attorney, I think the DA is refusing to offer a plea deal.

JMO

They can't prove he owned the murder weapon even if they show he purchased a Ka-Bar knife and sheath from Amazon - as alleged by the show Dateline.

However, it could be highly circumstantial evidence if the defense couldn't explain why he made the purchase and couldn't explain where the knife and sheath are located.

In other words, did Kohberger purchase the knife/sheath for camping and are they in with his camping gear? Or did he give them as a gift?

Without any reasonable explanations for the purchase and location, it does become strong circumstantial evidence.

But is this enough when added to:

1.) Car video
2.) Phone pings
3.) Witness description that doesn't rule him out
4.) No specific evidence confirming an alibi, just vague "driving around"
5.) BK places himself driving around that night in the Moscow area giving him the opportunity to access King Rd

Or is this a Case dependent upon the DNA?

 

[Balthazar]

Ooooh, just off the top of my head...

It could be unclear that it's related at all (the glove outside, for example).
It could be in an area of the house not part of the crime scene.
It could be on an item known to be handled by others not suspects (the jack in the box bag and food wrappers, the grub hub food containers, take away drink cups, mail, library books, assignments that have been graded and returned, city garbage bins).
It could be in areas of the house frequently touched by outsiders (furnace, electrical and water meter, doorbell or knocker).
It could be in an area of the fabric of the building most likely to have been left by someone who built or finished the home (in Gannon's case there was an unknown male profile they concluded may have been left by a worker who laid the carpet or otherwise finished the home before Gannon and his family moved in).

Probably plenty more possibilities.

MOO

Why would CSI test items so obviously outside of the framework of the crime scene? That makes zero sense. They are there to bring order to chaos, not add to it. If it exists and is unclear that it is related, it should be tested in every case. There is nothing worse than people making assumptions in a situation like this because that means they are actually directing the direction of the case as opposed to simply collecting evidence and testing it and letting the answers be revealed.

 

[justtrish]

The 3 unknown DNA samples HAD to have been tested, because you cannot visually ascertain that something is DNA.

DNA is so small that when it was first discovered, it was through biochemistry and could not be resolved under microscope. It is one of the smallest encoded pieces of information, if not the smallest, in the known universe.

You can't say you have "male DNA" without testing it. DNA does not pop up and say, "Hey, I'm a Y chromosome." There's only one way to find out you're even looking at DNA - and that's to do forensic DNA testing in a specialized lab, like ISL (and they do it all the time).

Unless Idaho is out of step with the entire rest of the forensic world, every single first responder already has their DNA on file. And, I do believe I read early on that many friends of the murdered students voluntarily gave DNA samples.

DNA persists for centuries. The unknown male DNA could well be from prior occupants in the house (whose profiles would be easily found, even today, if they used a forensic vacuum - which we saw them carrying into the house during the investigation). This happens all the time (stranger DNA is found at a crime scene).

If required, the State can counter the Defense's claim by showing where, exactly, it was found. I have no idea where they vacuumed. We saw with our own eyes that at least 10-12 males were in and around the house in just that one (noise complaint) party - and there were other parties. I'm sure they also tested door handles and the slider. I figure the only reason the number of unknown profiles is so low is that so many voluntarily gave up DNA samples to LE.

BTW, the Defense is getting dangerously close to trying to impugn young men whose DNA was present AND known. They aren't doing that because the Judge would be very displeased - Idaho law prevents just randomly giving the names of non-suspects as potential criminal defendants in a murder case. They would need something besides just that DNA.

It would amuse me if the State submitted those three unknowns to Othram - and found them. And found they were past occupants of the house, now living far away. OTOH, I am very much against dragging people into a case without just cause. If the sheath DNA did not exist, this case would be quite different.

But it does exist and the Defense can't change that. If they intend to use the same types of experts they just used, I don't think the jury is going to buy the "expertise" - it'll be a lot like the Letecia Stauch trial.

IMO.

Exactly! That house was a party house for years prior to these murders. The residents there seemed to have many friends and they enjoyed having people around. If they found DNA on say a random closet doorknob or in the bathroom or the kitchen, it could be from anyone that ever visited, partied there, did any construction/work on the house between years/tennents. When we look at this crime and want to find the killer I think DNA on the victims or in very close proximity to the victims, on any weapons in the area (or in this case a knife sheath that we now know belongs to the killer) should be top priority. When all the ohter pieces start fitting about the vehicle, who owns the vehicle, him being in the area "driving around" (with his phone off at that) then it really does become clear and we can see WHY they focused their attention toward the person belonging to the DNA on the sheath and not to the random unknowns. If the DNA on the sheath wasn't BK's then okay they go back and look at things again. But it was his, the only way it gets there is if he puts it there. He was in that house!

Now if he admitted that and said so and so helped him, then maybe they hunt down some other DNA lead, but all info points to him doing this alone and now his defense trying to muddy the waters to say the police didn't do their job, when they did a phenomenal job!

 

[10ofRods]

They can't prove he owned the murder weapon even if they show he purchased a Ka-Bar knife and sheath from Amazon - as alleged by the show Dateline.

However, it could be highly circumstantial evidence if the defense couldn't explain why he made the purchase and couldn't explain where the knife and sheath are located.

In other words, did Kohberger purchase the knife/sheath for camping and are they in with his camping gear? Or did he give them as a gift?

Without any reasonable explanations for the purchase and location, it does become strong circumstantial evidence.

But is this enough when added to:

1.) Car video
2.) Phone pings
3.) Witness description that doesn't rule him out
4.) No specific evidence confirming an alibi, just vague "driving around"
5.) BK places himself driving around that night in the Moscow area giving him the opportunity to access King Rd

Or is this a Case dependent upon the DNA?

I respectfully disagree - just a little. This is a jury trial and the jury decides what to make of the evidence. There is no general standard for what makes circumstantial evidence strong or weak, IMO. Too many variables in each case.

For me, if there are receipts that Kohberger bought a Ka-Bar knife with sheath, and the stores have receipts and it was delivered to him, I"m good. That's proof for me. DNA on Ka-Bar sheath? Check. Proof of purchase of Ka-Bar? Check (but DNA is already strongly convincing me). This entire case is circumstantial, except for DM's tentative identification of a man in black matching Kohberger's general description.

Each member of the jury gets to use their own standard of proof and barring the actual knife showing up, that's the second best proof. Combined with the DNA of Kohberger's on the Ka-Bar knife sheath, that's enough for me. I am pretty sure i'm not alone in that. I'd regard it as proof, is what I'm saying. If a Ka-Bar knife was purchased and delivered to BK, then I will believe he had a Ka-Bar knife (which, apparently, disappeared at some point?)

I see it as regular circumstantial evidence (with or without the other evidence) and don't really know what is "highly" circumstantial about financial records.

Surely if Kohberger still has the knife and is innocent, he'd tell his lawyers that. Be pretty great if they could produce a DNA-free Ka-Bar knife. Or are they actually discouraging him from talking to them? Because no Ka-Bar knife (which is not the best for camping) turned up at his PA home or in his apartment or car. Or, if he still has the knife, is there a reason the Defense isn't letting anyone else know?

I think it's strong circumstantial evidence, especially if that purchase was after he was admitted to grad school but before he arrived in WA. And, if as I suspect, he had it delivered to an Amazon locker, even stronger. Did he hide the presence of the knife from family members? I'd love to know that - and at trial, we may all learn the answer.

This case is not dependent on any one thing. No case ever is, IMO. It's the overall fact pattern that matters. I do hope the forensic examination of the bodies confirmed the fact that a Ka-Bar was used. Sometimes I ponder whether he had two knives with him, and if so, I hope they figured out what both of them were.

I do think that the digital record of Kohberger online (which must surely be known by now) will add another layer of circumstantial evidence. LE either found SM pictures of some of the victims on Kohberger's phone - or they didn't.

JMO. I'm guessing I"m not the type of juror that AT wants.

 

[Boxer]

It's unknown male DNA found within the crime scene of the horrific murder of 4 people. How on earth could its fail that test? Further there are 2 footprints in evidence - a Vans footprint outside of DM's bedroom door and a footprint outside that CSI marked with evidence marker 3. Evidence marker 3 looks like a hiking boot or shoe footprint, not a Vans footprint.

It could fail just for starters because where it was found was not suspicious, or if it was discovered under another layer of material datable to before the murders.
We have seen that for DNA to be qualified for CODIS there needs to be suspicion that the subject is a perpetrator.

 

[justtrish]

As I've said before, this is a game to him. Maybe even more fun than the actual killings, who knows.

He reminds me a lot of Bundy, and Bundy was arrogant enough, intelligent enough, and had just enough education to get himself into trouble at trial, too. He doesn't have the superficial social skills Bundy had, but he doesn't need them at this stage. He's not representing himself or cracking jokes with reporters outside courthouses. All he has to do is sit there in his new suits and steer his defense the way he wants. Hopefully, right into the rocks.

MOO

It's so disturbing. The murders were horrific and unimaginable. Then we find out it's BK who is so calculated with many things.. wearing gloves and putting things in baggies in his neighbors trash, turning off the phone, and the survey he had for his "class" about committing crimes. It is as if he thinks he can commit a perfect crime and he seems to enjoy the process and all that goes along with this. It's so disturbing to think he could be reliving the crime and getting some type of "kicks" off of trying to manipulate and control the case. Ugh I just don't understand people like this and it's disturbing to consider that there are many other like him out there.

 

[Ksfarmer8]

Snipped

This case is not dependent on any one thing. No case ever is, IMO. It's the overall fact pattern that matters. I do hope the forensic examination of the bodies confirmed the fact that a Ka-Bar was used. Sometimes I ponder whether he had two knives with him, and if so, I hope they figured out what both of them were.

I do think that the digital record of Kohberger online (which must surely be known by now) will add another layer of circumstantial evidence. LE either found SM pictures of some of the victims on Kohberger's phone - or they didn't.

JMO. I'm guessing I"m not the type of juror that AT wants.

Your comment about two knives is a very good point. If the Perp had a lick of sense and intended this much carnage another knife would make sense. If for some reason the Perp drops the primary knife in a fight, the odds are drastically changed. A backup knife would be in order for this sort of attack. Knife number one could quickly be dulled or nicked and number 2 could then be used. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

There isn't a knife though. As far as we know it was never found.

Well, we know at least 2 were seized from the PA residence. We don't know if the first one is related. It's curious it's not identified. #1; #5

jmo

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150419-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(hyundaielantra),inventory,exhibits.pdf

ETA ignore the title. The person who uploaded these to the docket attached the wrong titles to the warrants. Maybe they didn't know what they were looking at. Who knows. The Elantra title is the PA home; the PA home is of his person (on arrest in his kitchen); the warrant labeled for his person, is the car.

 

[Cool Cats]

I respectfully disagree - just a little. This is a jury trial and the jury decides what to make of the evidence. There is no general standard for what makes circumstantial evidence strong or weak, IMO. Too many variables in each case.

For me, if there are receipts that Kohberger bought a Ka-Bar knife with sheath, and the stores have receipts and it was delivered to him, I"m good. That's proof for me. DNA on Ka-Bar sheath? Check. Proof of purchase of Ka-Bar? Check (but DNA is already strongly convincing me). This entire case is circumstantial, except for DM's tentative identification of a man in black matching Kohberger's general description.

Each member of the jury gets to use their own standard of proof and barring the actual knife showing up, that's the second best proof. Combined with the DNA of Kohberger's on the Ka-Bar knife sheath, that's enough for me. I am pretty sure i'm not alone in that. I'd regard it as proof, is what I'm saying. If a Ka-Bar knife was purchased and delivered to BK, then I will believe he had a Ka-Bar knife (which, apparently, disappeared at some point?)

I see it as regular circumstantial evidence (with or without the other evidence) and don't really know what is "highly" circumstantial about financial records.

Surely if Kohberger still has the knife and is innocent, he'd tell his lawyers that. Be pretty great if they could produce a DNA-free Ka-Bar knife. Or are they actually discouraging him from talking to them? Because no Ka-Bar knife (which is not the best for camping) turned up at his PA home or in his apartment or car. Or, if he still has the knife, is there a reason the Defense isn't letting anyone else know?

I think it's strong circumstantial evidence, especially if that purchase was after he was admitted to grad school but before he arrived in WA. And, if as I suspect, he had it delivered to an Amazon locker, even stronger. Did he hide the presence of the knife from family members? I'd love to know that - and at trial, we may all learn the answer.

This case is not dependent on any one thing. No case ever is, IMO. It's the overall fact pattern that matters. I do hope the forensic examination of the bodies confirmed the fact that a Ka-Bar was used. Sometimes I ponder whether he had two knives with him, and if so, I hope they figured out what both of them were.

I do think that the digital record of Kohberger online (which must surely be known by now) will add another layer of circumstantial evidence. LE either found SM pictures of some of the victims on Kohberger's phone - or they didn't.

JMO. I'm guessing I"m not the type of juror that AT wants.

The question was:

"Would there be enough to convict BK without any DNA evidence to present to the jury?"

"Is the Case strong enough without the DNA?"

I do think there are different "degrees" of evidence, that some evidence is stronger than other evidence but of course it is up to the jurors to weigh the "degrees."

The knife evidence (without the DNA) has various degrees of strength:

BK buys a large steak knife before the crimes = circumstantial evidence
BK buys a Ka-Bar knife specifically = stronger CE
BK also buys a Ka-Bar knife sheath = more stronger CE
BK will not explain why he bought this Ka-Bar knife and sheath and will not account for where they are located = strongest CE

Weighing the totality of the evidence

2 Cents

 

[wendy44]

They absolutely don't need a court order. And as we've seen in the evidence given this week, the agencies can opt to see matching results whether or not a person opts in or opts out.

They do need a court order, a warrant, or some other type of legal process to access records of private companies like ancestry and 23&me (and even with a court order the private companies will often try to fight it).

GEDmatch is a little different in that it doesn't offer testing. With GEDmatch, you take a file of the test you did with a company like ancestry and load it so it can be compared to profiles of people from other private companies like 23&Me, MyHeritage, etc. GEDmatch allows the user to opt in for law enforcement purposes. So in those cases a court order isn't needed.

When I read the Notice of Filing Declaration, what I think Vargas is saying is this--there are two sides to GEDmatch. There's a side where law enforcement can load an unknown profile and there's a side where an individual can load their own profile. The individual can opt into allowing the law enforcement side to see them as a match to their unknown profile. They can also choose to opt out. So law enforcement won't see them as a match, but on the other side, the individual side, they will still show up as matches to other individuals and this allows them to do their research.

I think what Vargas is saying is that law enforcement is loading their unknown profiles to the other side, the individual side, allowing them to see matches that have opted out of the law enforcement side. Clearly against terms of use if true. Apparently they didn't use GEDmatch so hopefully everything in this case was done properly. It's so completely unnecessary to work around the terms of use.

 

[schooling]

They absolutely don't need a court order. And as we've seen in the evidence given this week, the agencies can opt to see matching results whether or not a person opts in or opts out.

Ya, people should always assume that a company is going to be compelled to share their data. 'Opt outs' are for our psyches. The options "Yes/No" should be re-labeled to "Yes, Share Openly" or "No, Force them to get a warrant". There is no "No, Never Ever".

If GEDMatch really cared about users privacy they'd go a step past merely encoding the data. They'd do something like giving you your own key and destroying their copy of it. Then they could require some sort of handshake...requiring your key and your approval to open up results to requesters who you may have anonymously matched with.

But they won't do it because It would be hell on the user experience. Put it out of reach of a lot of people. And if you lose your key(s) then your account is POOF. Gone. And any method of account/key recovery presents another opportunity for LE. It's doable though. And the should do it now. What happens if someone hacks them and gains access to all of their keys?

But GEDMatch and it's private competitors have such gigantic lead that even a ancestry startup that took users privacy seriously would gain no traction.

Also, username and password is enough to create a reasonable expectation to privacy. But GEDMatch is technically public and a means to publicly share and find potential relatives. As long as it's "Public" that expectation is gone and it will always be a losing battle for them.

So a lot of people think the courts are going to come in and eventually crack down on this behavior. NOPE. They'll put guidelines on it and provide a legal legitimate avenue. Which will just further commercialize it and make this issue 1000000x worse.

 

[wendy44]

I believe that less than 10% of ancestry, 23&me, etc., users load their kits to GEDmatch. A really small percentage. These are generally serious researchers who understand the implications of having their profiles on GEDmatch. And it's only on GEDmatch that you can opt into law enforcement matches. You can't do that on ancestry (not sure about 23&me). I think you can on FTDNA, but that's a very small percentage of overall testers.

I hope if GEDmatch discovers abuse of the law enforcement/individual partition, they will address that.