After 40+ years the Golden State Killer may be in custody

[calgarybornnraised]

What’s the old saying, If your not guilty what do you have to worry about?

If some old family member did bad things then I’ll be glad to help out and bring justice to the poor families wondering about their family members.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Her book is a huge reason this remained in the public spotlight, which in turn is one of the reasons why the police continued to pursue it.

That's a remarkable claim. The book was published two months ago. It may have sold, I don't know, 50k copies. Police have been working on this case for decades.

Are you honestly suggesting that the release of a book by a niche blogger roused the police to ramp up their efforts after decades of investigation, and this resurgent effort leads them to - within a few weeks - find the evidence that resulted in an arrest?

I know it makes a nice narrative. But there really isn't anything to connect the McNamara and an arrest except that it makes nice narrative.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

What’s the old saying, If your not guilty what do you have to worry about?

Yes, that's the old saying (well, with you're intead of your) that's always used by people who are trying to convince you to give up rights/privacy in the name of security.

I haven't fully formed an opinion on this case yet, but I usually come down on the opposite side of that argument.

[calgarybornnraised]

So is a public genealogy company allowed to aid in a criminal investigation?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Years later, in an attempt to crack the 20-year-old cold-case murder of Angie Dodge, police conducted a familial DNA search in that very database, and found an anonymous donor who appeared to be a very close match to the killer's DNA. After obtaining a search warrant for Ancestry.com to reveal his name, detectives learned it was a man named Michael Usry Sr. When cops built out his family tree they found Usry had a son. Cops tracked him down and began investigating.

This kid was wrongly treated as a suspect based on police going through ancestry.com.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-saf...rivacy-rights/

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's a remarkable claim. The book was published two months ago. It may have sold, I don't know, 50k copies. Police have been working on this case for decades.

Are you honestly suggesting that the release of a book by a niche blogger roused the police to ramp up their efforts after decades of investigation, and this resurgent effort leads them to - within a few weeks - find the evidence that resulted in an arrest?

I know it makes a nice narrative. But there really isn't anything to connect the McNamara and an arrest except that it makes nice narrative.

That niche blogger was married to a famous comedian who has been talking about her work for the past year. Millions of people have heard about the case from his appearances on TV, radio and podcasts. I’m not a true crime fan so I never would have known about it otherwise.

The police mentioned at the press conference announcing GSKs arrest that the book renewed interest in the case. Of course it’s pure speculation whether the book led to his arrest in any meaningful way, but I wouldn’t dismiss it entirely.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

That niche blogger was married to a famous comedian who has been talking about her work for the past year. Millions of people have heard about the case from his appearances on TV, radio and podcasts. I’m not a true crime fan so I never would have known about it otherwise.

The police mentioned at the press conference announcing GSKs arrest that the book renewed interest in the case. Of course it’s pure speculation whether the book led to his arrest in any meaningful way, but I wouldn’t dismiss it entirely.

The publicity certainly exposed many people to the story, including you. Many of us have been reading about the case for most of our lives. This story never went away, but over time it slowly gets buried. I spend a lot of time in the region, this story really never went away.

I happen to know victims that have kept on the case and kept on the police to not let it go, for many many years.

The assorted online communities are really impressive, McNamara was one of them. Her book and the arrest are likely just coincidental. There will be more DNA cases similar to this which is pretty cool.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The publicity certainly exposed many people to the story, including you. Many of us have been reading about the case for most of our lives. This story never went away, but over time it slowly gets buried. I spend a lot of time in the region, this story really never went away.



I happen to know victims that have kept on the case and kept on the police to not let it go, for many many years.



The assorted online communities are really impressive, McNamara was one of them. Her book and the arrest are likely just coincidental. There will be more DNA cases similar to this which is pretty cool.

I think maybe a few are seeing Oswalt take a lot of credit for this on behalf of his wife. Maybe trying to cash in on the recent development. I guess he could just be proud of his wife as well, but that isn’t how it’s coming across. It’s more like he is acting like a publicist. I am sure this hasn’t hurt book sales.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's a remarkable claim. The book was published two months ago. It may have sold, I don't know, 50k copies. Police have been working on this case for decades.

Are you honestly suggesting that the release of a book by a niche blogger roused the police to ramp up their efforts after decades of investigation, and this resurgent effort leads them to - within a few weeks - find the evidence that resulted in an arrest?

I know it makes a nice narrative. But there really isn't anything to connect the McNamara and an arrest except that it makes nice narrative.

That’s quite the leap which isn’t really relevant to what I said though.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by ernie

So the criminal databases held no DNA matches. They uploaded the profile the GEDmatch.comwhich is a site used by genealogists. It allows anyone to upload raw DNA data and does not guarantee privacy (and you can use an alias). A relative of the suspect had uploaded some data. They traced the data back to a common relative in the 1800s and found a section of the family tree that came out west.

This blows my mind.

I wonder how often this guy thought about his crimes, or whether he might be caught. I’m guessing he fully expected at this stage of his life that nobody would have ever found out his past.

[ASP#26525]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I imagine he is. He was on the My Favourite Murder podcast recently talking about the case. They had other people familar with GSK who described his crimes and he sounds like a complete psycho. Hopefully they've got the right guy.

My (very close) second favourite podcast after The Dollop I am about a month behind, though, so I haven't listened to this one yet. Looking forward to it.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

This blows my mind.

I wonder how often this guy thought about his crimes, or whether he might be caught. I’m guessing he fully expected at this stage of his life that nobody would have ever found out his past.

EAR was calling victims for years after his last known crimes.

The zodiac should be next, but I dont believe he actually existed.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

EAR was calling victims for years after his last known crimes.

The zodiac should be next, but I dont believe he actually existed.

Why don’t you think the zodiac existed?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by gargamel

As badly as this guy deserves to be punished, I don't think I'm comfortable with the police using DNA evidence in this way. It will be really interesting to see what happens.

Well, the people who put their DNA on the web signed off on it, they agreed to forfeit their privacy(and their relatives). The police just used legal tools that are readily available, very crafty and resourceful I must say.

The fault lies with people who give up privacy in such a trivial way. I doubt most of the DNA sites even do what they say.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well, the people who put their DNA on the web signed off on it, they agreed to forfeit their privacy(and their relatives). The police just used legal tools that are readily available, very crafty and resourceful I must say.

The fault lies with people who give up privacy in such a trivial way. I doubt most of the DNA sites even do what they say.

Are you legally aloud to give up someone's privacy like that though? This item may end up tested in court soonish.

[Wormius]

That seems like a tool that could be easily abused by crazy stalkers and health insurance providers.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are you legally aloud to give up someone's privacy like that though? This item may end up tested in court soonish.

Of course you are, its typically all in a privacy agreement when you sign up with a big fat "I agree" button. Customers do this sort of thing all the time. People do it willingly, generally because they get something in return. The Genealogy sites seem quite questionable to me though, there asking for a lot but are not clear on what they offer you.

Certainly the onus is on the individual to be careful what they sign up for. For example Facebook went beyond what people agreed to, thats where companies can get into trouble.

[Swift]

There seems to be some misconceptions here regarding genealogy sites. I can only speak for Ancestry.

When a person creates a family tree on there, they have the option of making it public or private. If private, no other user can see the tree unless specifically invited by the owner of the tree.

If made public, any living person entered into a tree is automatically blanked out as private to anybody but the owner of the tree (and invited users) All people marked as deceased are viewable to all other users.

From what I read earlier, the police in this case didn't actually use Ancestry or 23andme and I don't see how they could do so this in most cases. At least for Ancestry, you need to submit a vial of saliva for testing and I'd imagine there isn't that much saliva lying around at crime scenes. You can't just submit some blood or hair or whatever.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Of course you are, its typically all in a privacy agreement when you sign up with a big fat "I agree" button. Customers do this sort of thing all the time. People do it willingly, generally because they get something in return. The Genealogy sites seem quite questionable to me though, there asking for a lot but are not clear on what they offer you.

Certainly the onus is on the individual to be careful what they sign up for. For example Facebook went beyond what people agreed to, thats where companies can get into trouble.

I meant someone else's privacy, not your own. Obviously yes, you can give up your own legally.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are you legally aloud to give up someone's privacy like that though? This item may end up tested in court soonish.

I've been wondering if the reason they did this with a 30+ year old cold case was specifically to open it up to a legal challenge that could be argued up to the Supreme Court.

Based on how long ago this guy started, they would have known he would be a senior citizen by now (if he was still alive).

If this goes to the Supreme Court and they say it's legal, that would open the door for its use on future cases without worrying about them getting thrown out. If it fails at the Supreme Court, all they've lost is one old man whose life of crime is well behind him and who will die knowing his secret was revealed.

Originally Posted by Wormius

That seems like a tool that could be easily abused by crazy stalkers and health insurance providers.

The Health Insurance issue is definitely something to be concerned about. Although, there's nothing stopping them from offering potential insurance savings based on a voluntary DNA check (like how you can get a monitor in your vehicle to track your driving to get a better insurance rate), and I'm sure many people would do so.

The big question will be if they can use your relatives' voluntarily submitted DNA to change your insurance rates or coverage.


I'm not sure how a stalker could use such information though.