
To Identify Suspect in Idaho Killings, F.B.I. Used Restricted Consumer DNA Data
As investigators struggled for weeks to find who might have committed the brutal stabbings of four University of Idaho students in the fall of 2022, they were focused on a key piece of evidence: DNA on a knife sheath that was found at the scene of the crime.
At first they tried checking the DNA with law enforcement databases, but that did not provide a hit. They turned next to the more expansive DNA profiles available in some consumer databases in which users had consented to law enforcement possibly using their information, but that also did not lead to answers.
F.B.I. investigators then went a step further, according to newly released testimony, comparing the DNA profile from the knife sheath with two databases that law enforcement officials are not supposed to tap: GEDmatch and MyHeritage.
It was a decision that appears to have violated key parameters of a Justice Department policy that calls for investigators to operate only in DNA databases 'that provide explicit notice to their service users and the public that law enforcement may use their service sites.'
It also seems to have produced results: Days after the F.B.I.'s investigative genetic genealogy team began working with the DNA profiles, it landed on someone who had not been on anyone's radar: Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in criminology who has now been charged with the murders.
The case has shown both the promise and the unregulated power of genetic technology in an era in which millions of people willingly contribute their DNA profiles to recreational databases, often to hunt for relatives. In the past, law enforcement officials would need to find a direct match between DNA at the crime scene and that of a specific suspect. Now, investigators can use consumer DNA data to build family trees that can zero in on a person of interest — within certain policy limits.
While some companies have allowed users to choose whether their DNA information may be used to help criminal investigations, the decision by the authorities to skirt those limits could mean that the companies' privacy assurances are essentially meaningless.
Erin Murphy, a law professor at New York University who focuses on DNA and new policing methods, said she was surprised that the F.B.I. might have violated rules that the federal government had spent so much time working to establish. She was also concerned that investigators seemingly had no repercussions for doing so.
'I think what we are teaching law enforcement is that the rules have no meaning,' she said.
Steve Kramer, a former F.B.I. lawyer who has specialized in genetic genealogy investigations, said the rules were designed as a framework, not a legal limitation. They can help guide typical investigative work, he said, but when it comes to a serious case where other investigative options are limited, such as the Idaho case, investigators may need to take additional steps.
'We'll never know, thank God, what Bryan Kohberger would have done had he not been caught,' he said.
On the morning of Nov. 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students — Madison Mogen, 21; Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20 — were found dead in an off-campus home, the victims of a vicious stabbing spree. The police spent weeks looking for a suspect as residents of the small college town of Moscow, Idaho, waited in fear.
Behind the scenes, investigators were examining a wide range of people: classmates, people charged with prior assaults and some people with the thinnest connections to Idaho. On a knife sheath found next to two of the victims, investigators found DNA. But when they put the sample into the federal law enforcement database CODIS, there was no match.
In recent testimony from a closed-door court hearing, Idaho officials described how on Nov. 22, investigators brought the DNA sample to Othram, a company near Houston that specializes in genetic genealogy, often helping law enforcement solve decades-old cold cases by taking a modern analysis of the DNA profile. Othram began doing genetic genealogy and building a family tree, apparently following the protocols of Justice Department policy.
Mr. Kramer said the policy had been put into place after he and other investigators used genetic genealogy to solve the Golden State Killer case in 2018. In that case, investigators had used online services to identify a new suspect. Those services were uncomfortable with the intrusion, but some, such as GEDmatch, have since allowed users to consent to having their data included as part of a DNA analysis tool that can be used by law enforcement.
While the Justice Department policy prohibits use of DNA genetic databases that object to law enforcement access, the policy offers a broad footnote, saying that it 'does not impose any legal limitations on otherwise lawful investigative' techniques.
In the Idaho case, according to the recent testimony, a preliminary report produced by Othram said the closest match it was working with shared 70.7 centimorgans of DNA with the crime scene sample. Mr. Kramer said that was a low match, typically representing two people who would perhaps share a great-great grandparent.
To enhance the family tree, Othram hoped to expand the DNA data available by approaching someone on the tree — one of four brothers — to see if they would be willing to contribute their DNA to help determine whether the team was on the right path. The identity of the brothers was not disclosed in the publicly available records, though their last name was not Kohberger.
Matthew Gamette, the director of forensic services for the Idaho State Police, testified that the brother was not interested in participating and had asked not to be contacted again. Othram was eventually asked to stop its work on Dec. 10, with the F.B.I. expected to take over the genealogy search.
In a memo, according to the testimony, the F.B.I. acknowledged turning to MyHeritage and a broader version of GEDmatch that includes people who have not opted in to law enforcement searches.
The two companies did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Leah Larkin, a genealogist working with Mr. Kohberger's defense team, testified that investigators discovered a match of 250 centimorgans somewhere on the family tree, a level of comparison that offers much more potential to uncover a final match. Photos showed that investigators had built a family tree on a white board, Ms. Larkin said, with handwritten notes mapping out lines of relatives.
What they found appears to have led to Mr. Kohberger on Dec. 19. Days later, investigators went to his family home in Pennsylvania, where he was staying with his parents during the winter holidays, and collected trash from the home that better connected the crime scene DNA to him.
Mr. Kohberger's defense team has challenged much of the state's evidence and sought to undermine the DNA evidence by arguing that the authorities violated his constitutional rights by failing to obtain warrants before searching the DNA data. But a judge in the case has rejected those arguments as the case moves toward trial this summer.
Mr. Kramer, the former F.B.I. lawyer, said that the use of genetic genealogy could prevent other kinds of law enforcement intrusions by helping narrow the scope of an investigation. In the Kohberger case, he noted, a white Hyundai Elantra had been seen driving near the victims' home, and that kind of evidence could lead detectives to examine the lives of many Elantra drivers who had done nothing wrong.
But Ms. Murphy, the law professor, noted that many people's DNA could be shed at what might later become the scene of a crime, and that the widening tools had the potential to bring innocent people under extensive scrutiny or false charges, without clear rules.
She says there are growing calls for legislation and legal review to establish mandatory parameters for the use of genetic genealogy.
'If this is a method that we want to use as a society, we should be able to come up with rules we can agree on, then expect people to follow them,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
How the Indictment Against Rep. LaMonica McIver Could Flop
The indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver on Tuesday marks the latest dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to quell public and political opposition to the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. It's also likely to be a dud. The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration. The Justice Department's prosecution of McIver — stemming from a scuffle with Homeland Security agents in Newark last month — cannot be disentangled from this context. And that may ultimately prove to be the undoing of the case. Ordinarily, there is a baseline assumption in any given federal prosecution that the Justice Department will obtain a conviction, because that is what happens more than 90 percent of the time. In McIver's case, however, the factual circumstances and charges are unique, and they come with all sorts of quirks and political freight — not the least of which is the fact that the administration prosecuting her over a fracas at a government facility is the same one that pardoned hundreds of people accused (and in many cases convicted) of violently assaulting or resisting officers during the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Ultimately, conviction at a trial — if it ever gets there — is far from assured. And for a variety of reasons, the odds that McIver will ever spend a day in prison on the charges appear to be low, if not close to zero. The indictment charges McIver with two felony counts of physically assaulting, resisting or impeding two Homeland Security agents during an altercation that occurred last month after McIver and two other House members showed up to inspect an ICE detention facility in Newark. New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka was also present. A third count in the indictment appears to charge McIver for the same conduct in the form of a single misdemeanor. Prosecutors initially charged McIver with the first two counts in a criminal complaint shortly after the encounter. A criminal complaint is a charging document that requires approval only by a magistrate judge, and it is often used when prosecutors want to begin a case quickly (without having to empanel and present evidence to a grand jury). In order to proceed on felony charges, however, prosecutors must eventually get an indictment from a grand jury. The Justice Department alleges that one of the agents instructed Baraka to leave a secure part of the area outside the facility while at the same time acknowledging that as a member of Congress — who has the legal right to inspect ICE detention facilities without providing advance notice — McIver could remain. A scuffle ensued as McIver and others sought to prevent the removal of Baraka, who was eventually arrested on a trespassing charge. The indictment alleges that McIver 'slammed her forearm into the body' of one agent and 'reached out and tried to restrain [him] by forcibly grabbing him.' The indictment further alleges that, after Baraka's arrest, McIver 'pushed past' the second officer and used 'each of her forearms to forcibly strike [him] as she returned inside of the secured area of the facility.' The felony charges come with a maximum penalty of eight years — and no readily identifiable precedent. (The misdemeanor count maxes out at a year.) We are relatively used to seeing members of Congress charged with white-collar crimes, like insider trading or bribery. Lawmakers are also sometimes arrested during nonviolent protests. That happened, for instance, during the Biden administration, when 17 members of Congress were arrested during a protest outside the Supreme Court over abortion rights. They each paid a $50 fine to resolve the matter. The claim against McIver is that she attempted to forcibly interfere with Baraka's arrest, but the first red flag against DOJ's argument is that prosecutors quickly dropped the charge against Baraka. The federal magistrate judge overseeing the Baraka case described the 'hasty arrest' as a 'worrisome misstep' and the dismissal of the charge as an 'embarrassing retraction.' It is not the sort of fact pattern that generally gives rise to prosecutions of secondary figures on the scene, much less a sitting member of Congress. McIver also has defenses that she can assert at the pretrial stages and, if necessary, during a trial itself. One possible defense out of the gate is for McIver to invoke the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, which provides civil and criminal immunity for members of Congress engaged in legislative activity, including oversight activity. Still, it is not clear how a judge would resolve this argument, since the law in this area is notoriously unclear, and cases are often decided on fact-specific grounds. Here, there is little question that McIver's oversight activity at the facility — at least as an initial matter — is entitled to some form of criminal immunity, but the dispute will concern the precise scope of that protection. Prosecutors are likely to argue that any such immunity does not extend to a physical assault on federal law enforcement officers because that particular conduct is not legislative in nature. If the case does go to trial, it should be brief — perhaps a one- or two-day affair. McIver is being represented by Paul Fishman, a well-regarded former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, who has previewed the trial defense in comments to the press in which he has described a 'melee' prompted by federal agents who were seeking to arrest Baraka and a resulting 'fracas' that enveloped McIver. 'At times she was barely able to keep her balance,' Fishman said, and at others 'she was shoved and seemed to raise her arm in an effort to free it.' He added, 'To say a jury could conclude she should be convicted criminally, when the charges against Baraka have already been dismissed, is a stretch to say the least — especially given that she was not arrested at the scene and agents later allowed her to conduct the site visit.' This is a sound defense, particularly given the fact that the statute requires the Justice Department to establish — beyond a reasonable doubt — that McIver 'forcibly' assaulted or resisted law enforcement officers. The video available to date is not crystal clear about what took place, but it does suggest something far less nefarious — a regrettable scrum in which McIver, who is not exactly a towering or physically intimidating figure, tried to maintain her balance while reacting to a highly unusual altercation with officers that was premised on an arrest that they have since effectively disavowed. The politics of the venue could also come into play and work sharply against the Justice Department. The jury pool for the court in Newark where McIver was charged is drawn from counties in northern New Jersey that, in the aggregate, are not favorable terrain for Trump. Former Vice President Kamala Harris outperformed Trump in those counties in the 2024 election by a margin of roughly 55-42 percentage points. Then there is the broader political context, which may prove impossible for some jurors to ignore. Shortly after McIver's initial arrest, Trump told reporters, 'She was shoving federal agents. She was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country.' This may come as news to anyone whose memory stretches all the way back to January, when Trump pardoned hundreds of violent criminals who tried to overrun the U.S. Capitol in a clash with law enforcement in order to overturn the 2020 election in his favor. Or to anyone who knows that Trump has pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of dozens of political allies who were convicted of serious offenses. Trump's campaign of selective and politically expedient benevolence is not exactly consistent with the tough-on-crime ethos that he has otherwise tried to project. Under the circumstances, it is not hard to envision one or more jurors refusing to convict McIver on these grounds alone — or, indeed, for her to be fully acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the jurors. The charges certainly appear to many as both politically motivated and, at a bare minimum, unwarranted as a matter of appropriate prosecutorial discretion. Meanwhile, in the event that McIver is convicted in a trial, the odds of her being sentenced to any prison time are low. Perhaps she would get a fine, but she would be a first-time offender, and one of the factors that sentencing judges must consider is 'the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.' In that context, if Justice Department prosecutors actually sought prison time, Trump's Jan. 6 pardons could present a major — and perhaps insurmountable — obstacle. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration has already sought to project an air of confidence around the case in public comments, with acting New Jersey U.S. Attorney (and former Trump lawyer) Alina Habba saying that Tuesday's 'decision by the grand jury is the next step in a process that my Office will pursue to a just end.' The truth is that, depending on how things play out, the whole thing could eventually blow up in their faces.

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
The Justice Department wants to end an agreement it reached with a Pa. bank it accused of redlining in Philly
Two years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice accused a Pennsylvania bank of redlining - avoiding lending in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia. ESSA Bank & Trust, based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, denied the accusations but entered into a settlement agreement with the federal government in which the bank had to give more than $2.9 million in loan subsidies to homebuyers in formerly redlined communities. The bank also agreed to devote resources to soliciting mortgage applications from Philadelphia residents in neighborhoods it was accused of ignoring, to include Philadelphians in its program for low- and moderate-income homebuyers, to work with local groups to provide homebuyer education, and to target historically excluded neighborhoods with its advertising. On Friday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to allow it to end the five-year agreement three years early. The court filing is in line with other recent Justice Department moves across the country to end similar fair-housing and antidiscrimination settlement agreements. Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance, said in a statement that by taking these actions, "this administration is empowering bad actors and leaving millions of our nation's most vulnerable unprotected and exposed." The Justice Department said in its motion Friday that ESSA Bank "has demonstrated a commitment to remediation," including disbursing required loan subsidies, and is "substantially in compliance" with other terms of the court order. The bank did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The department noted that its motion was "unopposed." But on Monday, the National Fair Housing Alliance and local civil rights organizations filed a motion asking to join the case and opposing cutting short the legal agreement. "This effort would strip West and Southwest Philadelphia communities of the hard-won protections they were promised just two years ago," Rachel Wentworth, executive director of the nonprofit Housing Equality Center of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "For decades, banks of all kinds have used redlining to deny neighborhoods of color access to wealth and opportunity, and ending this consent order sends a devastating message to these communities." The Philadelphia-based Public Interest Law Center and the law firm Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC, which has offices in Philadelphia and Marlton, are representing the Housing Equality Center, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and POWER Interfaith, the Pennsylvania faith-based community organizing network, as they oppose the Justice Department's motion to end the agreement. Eli Segal of Stapleton Segal Cochran said in a statement that "the rule of law demands more here than vague assurances of 'substantial compliance.' It demands court-ordered action." Olivia Mania, attorney and Penn Carey Law Catalyst Fellow at the Public Interest Law Center, said in an interview that "communities in and around Philadelphia deserve access to a lending market that's free from discrimination." "This isn't just about one bank," Mania said in a statement. "It's about whether the federal government will honor its role in dismantling structural racism in the housing market - or walk away when the cameras are off. The parties should be held to the terms of the consent order to ensure real, lasting change." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.


New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
How Many People Have Been Arrested Since the L.A. Protests Began?
More than 350 protesters in at least five cities have been arrested since Friday in demonstrations against federal immigration raids. Though the encounters have turned tense at times, leaving some protesters and law enforcement officers with injuries, the protests have remained largely peaceful and confined to only small sections of cities. Here's how many people have been arrested, cited and released nationwide, according to statements from law enforcement officials. More than 160 people have been arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department since the protests began on Friday, with a majority of the arrests happening Monday. Over 100 of those arrested faced charges for failure to disperse, though a few have more serious charges, including assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder with a Molotov cocktail. Fourteen faced charges for looting. As of Tuesday, it was not immediately clear how many of the arrested protesters had been released. At protests throughout the weekend and on Monday, the California Highway Patrol also arrested 19 people and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department arrested 7 people, according to spokespeople for those departments. Federal authorities arrested an additional nine people protesting workplace raids in Southern California according to the Justice Department. Among them was David Huerta, a union leader. Six, including Mr. Huerta, were released. In San Francisco, 154 people were arrested on Sunday although all but one were cited and released, Paul Yep, the city's acting chief of police, said at a news conference. Six of those arrested were juveniles, Mr. Yep said. More protesters were arrested Monday, but precise numbers were not available Tuesday afternoon. In Austin, at least 12 people were arrested on Monday during a protest that began outside the state Capitol. They faced charges including criminal mischief, resisting arrest, harassment and reckless driving. In New York City, three people were arrested and four were issued summonses after blocking traffic outside a federal building in Lower Manhattan. Twenty-four people were issued summonses for a protest at Trump Tower, according to the police. In Dallas, one person was arrested during a protest on Monday for hitting a police car, according to The Dallas Police Department. Protesters also gathered in cities like Philadelphia, Boston and Atlanta over the last few days, but it was not immediately clear if any arrests had been made in connection to the demonstrations. Sonia Rao, Lina Fisher and Chris Hippensteel contributed reporting. Alain Delaquérière contributed research.