She took a DNA test. Police used it to charge her grandma with a 1997 murder | Hacker News Reader

She took a DNA test. Police used it to charge her grandma with a 1997 murder

cnn.com

19 pointsMilnerRoute8 comments

From the DNA side of the story, I think this is the order of events.

In 2017 the police reopened the cold case and contacted Astrea Forensics to extract DNA from a 'partial femur'. The police sent the results to Identifinders International to search for relation matches.

The story names FamilyTreeDNA as the DNA data source. I assume IdInt mined FTDNA's data, found familial matches and then FTDNA returned all they could, including identities and contact info.

In 2020, the accused's granddaughter (Jenna) bought a FTDNA kit and submitted her DNA. A few months later, police contacted Jenna, said she was a DNA match and informed her that IdInt would be calling her.

After the police's call Jenna talked it over with her mom (Kara) and they wondered if it was part of a scam. When IdInt called Jenna, they apparently asked for her FTDNA login and Jenna hung up on them - suspecting it was part of a scam.

Police then approached Jenna's cousin who worked in the prosecutor's office. The cousin visited Kara to explain the case and solicit her cooperation. Kara then made a 'distressed call' to Jenna and asked her to come over asap.

Jenna came over and the case was explained. Jenna "was terrified police would think she was trying to hide something because of her refusal to speak with Gillis. She immediately called [Gillis]."

At this point, I assume Jenna provided her FTDNA login creds to Gillis.

Another excellent case study in why your first call after being contacted by authorities should be to the best lawyer you can find/afford.

I had some trouble following the shifts between 1st and 3rd perspective. Reader mode helped.

keeps surprising me that, in a time where everybody seems to be concerned about privacy, people willingly "give away" their dna profile...

If you don't want to keep being surprised, you should internalize that what people say and what they do are usually 2 different things.

> what people say and what they do are usually 2 different things.

True. Progress in that area can be a factor. I know some people who understood right away the risk from submitting DNA and some people who took time to absorb it.

Alternatively, it can be 2 different people. I know people who dismissed the risk as inconsequential. The folks I'm thinking of also maintained eagerness to aid LEO.

People don't realize the magnitude of the information that they're giving away. They also don't read the TOS/Privacy Policies so they don't realize they're often giving ownership of their data.

I think it's important to remember that people can say one thing and intend to act in accordance with that, but do otherwise out of ignorance. Of course, however, that's not always the case.

In 1997, remains of a deceased newborn were found at a campground. Police investigated, found no suspects and it became a cold case.

What happened before: A woman gave birth unexpectedly alone, at home - which had with no cell or landline. She tried to self deliver in a bath tub and the baby asphyxiated. When she recovered enough, she wrapped the remains and left them at a campground.

From this, the police are charging her with murder (for failing to seek medical help) and concealing death. Each carries a life sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com