It's bad enough when a family member rats you out, this really has to hurt.

IE the police have no idea except that the guy is a great x 15 grandchild of a guy who lived 380 years ago.

great police work there lou.

this seems like one of the more fanciful ways to solve a crime..

seems like it'd just be more efficient to have everybody's DNA on record in a world that gives Ron Paul nightmares instead of having a DNA dragnet over someone related to a guy from the 17th century.

What was so special about this girl that an entire family had to travel back in time in order to kill her?

RobbieFal: this seems like one of the more fanciful ways to solve a crime..

seems like it'd just be more efficient to have everybody's DNA on record in a world that gives Ron Paul nightmares instead of having a DNA dragnet over someone related to a guy from the 17th century.

You scare me.

ParagonComplex: What was so special about this girl that an entire family had to travel back in time in order to kill her?



You get the idea

Crap. My last name is Fuller. Thankfully I was like three months old when she was killed.
/Also my family lives in Minnesota.

So basically, the king of England can come in here and start pushing us around? IS THAT WHAT WE WANT? !?!?

Someone was killed a long time ago. The DNA is close to someone who died 400 years ago. Thats a hell of a lead. Im gonna go wrap up the paperwork since we know who did it..

Non story

So does this mean that they are going to get a warrant to test every one of his living decedents DNA? Because if they try I'm going to buy popcorn futures.

I left some colonial-era DNA on my girlfriend's tits.

/our colonial era ended in 1997, so it's still pretty fresh!

thatboyoverthere: Crap. My last name is Fuller

I got all your brushes.

abb3w: For the more usual estimate of 10% bastardy, it's only about 20% chance at this point.

People always forget this important fact when they go on and on and on about how they are descended from Charlemagne.

/yea..great...so is every Eurasian and most Americans. But you can't farking trace it, so shut the fark up.

cman: Well, if there was no adoption that resulted in a changed last name, then I guess we can farking celebrate

I can trace ancestry back to the Mayflower. William Brewster, in fact. There hasn't been a Brewster in my direct line for at least 3 generations...

thatboyoverthere: Crap. My last name is Fuller. Thankfully I was like three months old when she was killed.
/Also my family lives in Minnesota.

How's your Dad?

And by the way you make shiat spanners.

Call us back when last names actually mean something in this country.

+1 for the headline, subby.

since the DNA trace follows male descendants, there was "a high degree of probability" that the man police are looking is named Fuller.

"Mighty fine lookin' family you got there, Frank." - Good friend and trusted neighbor Ferd Berfel Fuller

Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Why are they spending time and money on a 20 year old crime?
Federal Way is an overgrown, trashy, stripmall.

Didn't Torchwood do this?

"Colonial Family" my ass - in this country we are all muts - it's our best feature.

This just in: The police have determined that the suspect is a relative to one individual named "Eve" that is said to have lived about 4000 years ago.

0Icky0: I left some colonial-era DNA on my girlfriend's tits.

/our colonial era ended in 1997, so it's still pretty fresh!

1997? Where ya from, Palau?

Arkanaut: 1997? Where ya from, Palau?

Honk Kong, baby.

Great,Great,Great,Great,Great,Great,Great,Great,Great,Great Grandpa must be really disappointed in his lineage.

cman: doglover: This is stupid and breaks amendments.

On one hand, you want to solve murders. On the other hand we are defended against unnecessary search and seizure. Someone distantly related to you 15 generations back POSSIBLY committing a crime more than 20 year ago fits that bill.

I would not submit to DNA testing based on this kind of crap. Nice science, but it's Rube Goldbergesque policing and unconstitutional to boot.

How does it break the law to compare DNA left at a crime to people who have been dead for nearly 400 years?

The match was to members of the family of Robert Fuller ie DNA from the descendent's of Robert Fuller was tested. But not just them, everyone else in the database. If you have a male relative (however distant, so there is a really good chance you do) in that database, the police have just had your DNA searched on suspicion of murder of a 16 year old girl.

I'm with doglover on here, this is a really dangerous precedent... The odds on two random DNA profiles matching in 1 in 1 million which means that there are 307 people who match your DNA profile alive in the USA today. If you just compare the profiles of people who with the surname Fuller its a non random selection and puts a large thumb on the scales on probability.

This actually happens with some frequency in criminal databases.

Some families just have a lot of criminals and you'll get hits that are like a 50% match, at that point you know you're looking for someone in that family.

This media reports of this story also could be a beating of the bushes to make the suspect get paranoid and do something stupid.

cman: doglover: This is stupid and breaks amendments.

On one hand, you want to solve murders. On the other hand we are defended against unnecessary search and seizure. Someone distantly related to you 15 generations back POSSIBLY committing a crime more than 20 year ago fits that bill.

I would not submit to DNA testing based on this kind of crap. Nice science, but it's Rube Goldbergesque policing and unconstitutional to boot.

How does it break the law to compare DNA left at a crime to people who have been dead for nearly 400 years?

That in and of itself isn't unconstitutional.

Let's say that narrows the field down, though, to your extended family (including relatives you know nothing about). Can the police compel you to give a DNA sample? What if you refuse to voluntarily give one, does that place you under greater suspicion? Can they get a warrant for your DNA based upon the following fact pattern:

1. The killer is related to X, who died 400 years ago.
2. You are related to X, and thus are a potential suspect.
3. You refused to voluntarily give a DNA sample.

What if you do give them a sample, and you are excluded as the suspect. What happens to your DNA sample (or the digitized pattern thereof) then? I'd bet you it gets retained in whatever system they use to store them. Once they have it in their system, they own it, so to speak, and don't need a warrant to include you in whatever searches they may do for rapists, etc.

mjl: I'm with doglover on here, this is a really dangerous precedent... The odds on two random DNA profiles matching in 1 in 1 million which means that there are 307 people who match your DNA profile alive in the USA today. If you just compare the profiles of people who with the surname Fuller its a non random selection and puts a large thumb on the scales on probability.

Seems odd that they were even allowed to check it. I guess participants never read the privacy agreement, but I'm not surprised that the database maintainers allowed it. I hope they are for profit companies and not publicly funded through grants research agencies.

If they don't already call the suspect the "mullet murderer", I'd be very disappointed.

What a violent colonial family might look like:



/All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again

Potential Suspect:

Not Bucky!

TehNacho: doglover:
I would not submit to DNA testing based on this kind of crap. Nice science, but it's Rube Goldbergesque policing and unconstitutional to boot.

Pffffffffft. Ever handled a penny? The government has your DNA. Why do you think they keep 'em in circulation?

/definitely obscure

Not as obscure as my ass pennies.