Familial DNA Testing Nabs Alleged Serial Killer 258
cremeglace writes "A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On July 7, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the 'Grim Sleeper.' The key evidence? A match between crime-scene DNA and the suspect's son, obtained by a search through the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons."
Familial Testing Was ONLY Part 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Familial testing gave them the ballpark family.
Regular policework found the bad guy from there. They stalked the suspect, who was nabbed after DNA was found on a meal that the suspect discarded. THAT DNA was the stuff that got him busted.
This would be great except.... (Score:5, Informative)
Familial searches from a DNA database the size of the one in California are very, very likely to produce false positives. For example, a study of the Arizona CODIS database carried out in 2005 showed that approximately 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci, that approximately 1 in every 1,489 profiles matched at 10 loci, 1 in 16,374 profiles matched at 11 loci, and 1 in 32,747 matched at 12 loci. http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html [maa.org]
With California currently having the third largest DNA database in the world, the odds of ANY new genetic evidence matching on a cold search is way too likely.
Re:Why don't they find the serial killer gene inst (Score:4, Informative)
I direct you to my response to GP (well, with the "their/there" error corrected):
Because there probably isn't one.
I never said there was a social benefit of becoming a serial killer of any kind; I said that (because links between genes and behavior are rarely simple) its quite likely that if there is a gene or set of genes that increases the overall likelihood of someone with it becoming a serial killer, the same gene or set of genes could quite possibly also have other effects, which are socially beneficial. Whether in any particular person the undesirable effects, the desirable effects, both, or neither manifest could be (as is often the case) determined not by the genetics alone but the genetics combined with environmental triggers.
Re:Why don't they find the serial killer gene inst (Score:5, Informative)
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that both down syndrome and psychopathy are genetic, and that as we can detect and prevent the former, so too should we be able to detect and prevent the latter. And I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.
My personal qualm with is not an ethical one, but a practical one. I sincerely doubt that the propensity for being a serial killer can be linked to a single gene, and I'm not even sure it can be described as genetic. Put simply, I do not think we will ever be able to screen for and prevent such traits.
The comparison to down syndrome is fundamentally incorrect, as down syndrome is entirely determined by a minor mutation on the gamete cell before conception leading to chromosomal trisomy. Meaning it's entirely caused by genetic, and not environmental, factors. Even if there is a genetic complex shared by all serial killers (which there is no evidence to suggest that I am aware of), it is likely that environmental factors in the killer-to-be's upbringing play a bigger role.
Re:Only thats not really true. (Score:5, Informative)
Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?
Were it possible, I would agree with you. It isn't. And isn't likely to be in the future either.
Look, your argument seems to be that:
A) Serial killers possess a common mental illness.
B) This illness is genetic (as in, 100% genetic with no other factors, like down syndrome)
C) Prenatal screening will one day be able to test for this illness, allowing a serial killer to be aborted or fixed in utero.
Is this correct? Have I got your argument right?
Now, the problem with this is B. Serial killers likely do share a common, rare mental illness. There is no evidence that it is genetic. In point of fact, most mental illnesses aren't genetic to begin with, as they're non-selective traits.
Illnesses like down syndrome are the exception, not the rule. Down syndrome is 100% genetic, without fail. Autism (to use an example you yourself brought up) is more typical; we've known about it for decades now, studied it extensively, and still don't know for sure what causes it. It's likely a constellation of factors, possibly including more than one distinct diagnosis based on causes that we aren't yet equipped to identify.
In other words, and if you take nothing else from my post please, please understand this, it is very likely that no serial killer gene or genes exist. You cannot screen for genetic factors in a non-genetic illness.
Re:Data mining gone wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think that's true at all. You can treat a human life as something with inherent value, greater than the value of anything else, and use utilitarian ethics to examine life and death issues.
Why is there blood on your hands if you support a law that lets a government employee kill an innocent, and not blood on your hands when you support a law that lets a criminal kill an innocent?
I know our gut tells us that when we act and it results in death it's worse than when we fail to act and it results in death, but I think our gut's wrong.
For more interesting variations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [wikipedia.org]
Re:This would be great except.... (Score:3, Informative)