Familial Searching
9/21/2015
DEFINING AND REFINING A FAMILIAL DNA SEARCH POLICY – THE WISCONSIN EXPERIENCE
Jennifer Honkanen DNA Databank Technical Unit Leader Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Bureau - Madison
CODIS Search – No Matches Locus
Evidence Profile
D3S1358
17
18
TH01
6
9.3
D21S11
29
31.2
D18S51
16
16
Penta E
7
14
D5S818
12
12
D13S317
9
11
D7S820
8
11
D16S539
9
13
CSF1PO
12
12
Penta D
12
13
Amelogenin
X
Y
vWA
16
19
D8S1179
14
15
TPOX
11
11
FGA
20
23
• A Familial Search is an additional tool we can use to deliberately and systematically search for biological relatives of an unknown forensic profile obtained from crime scene evidence. • This tool is based on the concept that first-order relatives, such as siblings or parent/child relationships, will have more genetic data in common than unrelated individuals. 2
Great Idea, Now What? • Do state laws allow a familial search? • Does laboratory administration support familial search? • Would law enforcement agencies know what to do with the results? • What resources are needed to start a familial search program? – Software? – Additional staff? – Autosomal STR and Y-STR capabilities? – Training for analysts and law enforcement 3
1
9/21/2015
Is Familial Search Possible in Wisconsin? • Do state laws allow a familial search?
YES!!!
• What is the expected success rate?
20 to 40%
• What is the Wisconsin database offender hit rate?
3%
4
Migration in the Familial Search States
5 Image adapted from: “Mapping Migration in the United States” The New York Times. August 15, 2014.
Is Familial Search Possible in Wisconsin? • Would law enforcement agencies know what to do with the results?
We think so…
• Does laboratory administration support familial search?
Yes, but….
6
2
9/21/2015
Resources Needed • Personnel – No additional personnel would be requested • Performing search and creating candidate list requires minimum analyst time • Most of the DNA typing process is performed robotically • Time to implement a familial search program – Six months to one year • Policy development • Software validation and SOP development • Training – Kinship statistics for analysts – Materials for law enforcement 7
Final Policy • Requests made by head of LE agency and DA’s office • Acceptable cases: unsolved violent or attempted violent crime or critical public safety concern and all investigative leads exhausted • Suitable evidence profile: single source, major contributor, deduced single source profile with results at 13 CODIS core loci and single source or major contributor Y-STR profile
• All female candidates will be reported • All other candidates not eliminated by Y-STR analysis will be reported • Committee review requests and administration approves/denies
8
Familial Search Committee • Administrative and scientific personnel – Evaluate cases for suitability – Triage cases – Make recommendations for approval – Inform agency when requests denied • Committee “practiced” triaging multiple requests – Serial cases – “Warm” cases – Weapons used – Crimes against children 9
3
9/21/2015
Validation • Software (DFSP) – 1 month for proposal and plan – 9 months to complete • 100 synthetic and 7 unsynthesized families – Parent/offspring – Full siblings • 2 sets of LR thresholds used to obtain candidate list • Capture rates evaluated • Determined desired maximum number of candidates to evaluate 10
Validation Results Capture Rate (%) Family
Top 10
Top 15
Top 20
Synthetic Parent-Offspring
98.5
99
99.75
Top 50
Top 80
Unsynthesized Parent-Offspring
100
100
100
Top 100
Synthetic Full Siblings
85
89.5
91
Unsynthesized Siblings
100
100
100
How many candidates should be evaluated? • Parent-Offspring: Top 15 candidates in 3 population groups • Full siblings: Top 50 in 3 population groups 11
SOPs • Follow the current procedure for confirming offenders involved in a hit – Autosomal STR analysis – Verifying fingerprints
• Y-STR analysis for males • Reporting – Y-STR matches (i.e. all DNA types match) – Y-STR inconclusive (i.e. 1 or 2 DNA type mis-matches) – Females and destroyed offenders
12
4
9/21/2015
Training • Kinship Statistics – Two analysts attended advanced kinship training – In-house training of additional analysts • Law Enforcement – Submitting Agency and Prosecutor’s Office • Opening meetings • Closing meetings – Fusion Centers (2 in the state)
13
Let’s Give It A Try • 3 cases selected: serial sexual assault and two cold case homicides Summary of FS results for first case: Case Number
Case Type
FS14-1*
Serial Sexual Assaults (2003 2012)
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
4
108
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
2
3
13
Destroyed
TAT (days)
3
90
*PowerPlex®Y used
Summary of investigative results: • Suspect identified within hours of receiving report • Within 24 hours, report issued stating “Michael Dixon is the source…” 14
Next…A Cold Case Homicide Summary of FS results for second case: Case Number
Case Type
FS14-2*
1984 HomicideSexual Assault
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
1
100
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
0
0
11
Destroyed
TAT (days)
5
75
*PowerPlex®Y used
Summary of investigative results: • After months of investigating, no suspect was identified 15
5
9/21/2015
A Victim Of Our Own Success • Move over cold case homicide… Summary of FS results for third case: Case Number
Case Type
Sexual Assault of FS14-3+ 101 yr old woman
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
1
96
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
2
0
Destroyed
TAT (days)
1
31
16
+PowerPlex®Y23
Summary of investigative results: • Suspect identified within hours of receiving report • Within 24 hours, report issued stating “Antoine Pettis is the source…” 16
Pilot Program Continues Summary of FS results for next three cases: Case Number
Case Type
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
Y-STR Y-STR Matches Inconclusive
Females
Destroyed
TAT (days)
1979 FS14-4* HomicideSA
1
94
0
1
12
3
54
FS15-1+
Serial SA (2011 2014)
3
88
0
0
14
3
23
FS15-2#
1976 Double Homicide
1
103
0
0
5
0
51
*PowerPlex®Y used, +PowerPlex®Y23 used, #PowerPlex®Y and PowerPlex®Y23 used
17
Still In Pilot… Summary of FS results for next four cases: Case Number
Case Type
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
Y-STR Y-STR Matches Inconclusive
Females
Destroyed
TAT (days)
0
4
4
26
1
0
12
4
26
94
0
0
1
6
53
85
0
0
0
2
53
Serial SA FS15-3* (2011 2013)
3
106
1
FS15-4+
Serial SA (2006 2014)
2
103
FS15-5+
Serial SA (2011 2014)
2
FS15-6#
Serial SA (2010)
2
*PowerPlex®Y used, +PowerPlex®Y23 used, #PowerPlex®Y and PowerPlex®Y23 used
18
6
9/21/2015
Summary of Searches • Since March 2014, we’ve worked 10 cases. Suspect Identified
No suspect identified
Still investigating
No investigation
3
3
3
1
Current Success Rate 30%
19
The Wisconsin Experience • Reporting – Minimize the number of candidates we report • Procedure – Better use of resources to perform Y-STR testing first – Better to stagger FS cases rather than working two simultaneously • Training – Opening and closing meetings have worked well • Case selection – The FS Committee works well for evaluating and triaging cases – Serial sexual assaults and “warmer” cases have worked best so far
20
Questions Acknowledgements: Denver Crime Laboratory Virginia Department of Forensic Science California Department of Justice Texas Department of Public Safety
Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Bureau Contacts: Jennifer Honkanen (Databank Technical Unit Leader) Kara Raymond (State CODIS Administrator) Jennifer Naugle (DNA Supervisor - Databank)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 21
7
DEFINING AND REFINING A FAMILIAL DNA SEARCH POLICY – THE WISCONSIN EXPERIENCE
Jennifer Honkanen DNA Databank Technical Unit Leader Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Bureau - Madison
CODIS Search – No Matches Locus
Evidence Profile
D3S1358
17
18
TH01
6
9.3
D21S11
29
31.2
D18S51
16
16
Penta E
7
14
D5S818
12
12
D13S317
9
11
D7S820
8
11
D16S539
9
13
CSF1PO
12
12
Penta D
12
13
Amelogenin
X
Y
vWA
16
19
D8S1179
14
15
TPOX
11
11
FGA
20
23
• A Familial Search is an additional tool we can use to deliberately and systematically search for biological relatives of an unknown forensic profile obtained from crime scene evidence. • This tool is based on the concept that first-order relatives, such as siblings or parent/child relationships, will have more genetic data in common than unrelated individuals. 2
Great Idea, Now What? • Do state laws allow a familial search? • Does laboratory administration support familial search? • Would law enforcement agencies know what to do with the results? • What resources are needed to start a familial search program? – Software? – Additional staff? – Autosomal STR and Y-STR capabilities? – Training for analysts and law enforcement 3
1
9/21/2015
Is Familial Search Possible in Wisconsin? • Do state laws allow a familial search?
YES!!!
• What is the expected success rate?
20 to 40%
• What is the Wisconsin database offender hit rate?
3%
4
Migration in the Familial Search States
5 Image adapted from: “Mapping Migration in the United States” The New York Times. August 15, 2014.
Is Familial Search Possible in Wisconsin? • Would law enforcement agencies know what to do with the results?
We think so…
• Does laboratory administration support familial search?
Yes, but….
6
2
9/21/2015
Resources Needed • Personnel – No additional personnel would be requested • Performing search and creating candidate list requires minimum analyst time • Most of the DNA typing process is performed robotically • Time to implement a familial search program – Six months to one year • Policy development • Software validation and SOP development • Training – Kinship statistics for analysts – Materials for law enforcement 7
Final Policy • Requests made by head of LE agency and DA’s office • Acceptable cases: unsolved violent or attempted violent crime or critical public safety concern and all investigative leads exhausted • Suitable evidence profile: single source, major contributor, deduced single source profile with results at 13 CODIS core loci and single source or major contributor Y-STR profile
• All female candidates will be reported • All other candidates not eliminated by Y-STR analysis will be reported • Committee review requests and administration approves/denies
8
Familial Search Committee • Administrative and scientific personnel – Evaluate cases for suitability – Triage cases – Make recommendations for approval – Inform agency when requests denied • Committee “practiced” triaging multiple requests – Serial cases – “Warm” cases – Weapons used – Crimes against children 9
3
9/21/2015
Validation • Software (DFSP) – 1 month for proposal and plan – 9 months to complete • 100 synthetic and 7 unsynthesized families – Parent/offspring – Full siblings • 2 sets of LR thresholds used to obtain candidate list • Capture rates evaluated • Determined desired maximum number of candidates to evaluate 10
Validation Results Capture Rate (%) Family
Top 10
Top 15
Top 20
Synthetic Parent-Offspring
98.5
99
99.75
Top 50
Top 80
Unsynthesized Parent-Offspring
100
100
100
Top 100
Synthetic Full Siblings
85
89.5
91
Unsynthesized Siblings
100
100
100
How many candidates should be evaluated? • Parent-Offspring: Top 15 candidates in 3 population groups • Full siblings: Top 50 in 3 population groups 11
SOPs • Follow the current procedure for confirming offenders involved in a hit – Autosomal STR analysis – Verifying fingerprints
• Y-STR analysis for males • Reporting – Y-STR matches (i.e. all DNA types match) – Y-STR inconclusive (i.e. 1 or 2 DNA type mis-matches) – Females and destroyed offenders
12
4
9/21/2015
Training • Kinship Statistics – Two analysts attended advanced kinship training – In-house training of additional analysts • Law Enforcement – Submitting Agency and Prosecutor’s Office • Opening meetings • Closing meetings – Fusion Centers (2 in the state)
13
Let’s Give It A Try • 3 cases selected: serial sexual assault and two cold case homicides Summary of FS results for first case: Case Number
Case Type
FS14-1*
Serial Sexual Assaults (2003 2012)
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
4
108
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
2
3
13
Destroyed
TAT (days)
3
90
*PowerPlex®Y used
Summary of investigative results: • Suspect identified within hours of receiving report • Within 24 hours, report issued stating “Michael Dixon is the source…” 14
Next…A Cold Case Homicide Summary of FS results for second case: Case Number
Case Type
FS14-2*
1984 HomicideSexual Assault
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
1
100
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
0
0
11
Destroyed
TAT (days)
5
75
*PowerPlex®Y used
Summary of investigative results: • After months of investigating, no suspect was identified 15
5
9/21/2015
A Victim Of Our Own Success • Move over cold case homicide… Summary of FS results for third case: Case Number
Case Type
Sexual Assault of FS14-3+ 101 yr old woman
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
1
96
Y-STR Y-STR Females Matches Inconclusive
2
0
Destroyed
TAT (days)
1
31
16
+PowerPlex®Y23
Summary of investigative results: • Suspect identified within hours of receiving report • Within 24 hours, report issued stating “Antoine Pettis is the source…” 16
Pilot Program Continues Summary of FS results for next three cases: Case Number
Case Type
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
Y-STR Y-STR Matches Inconclusive
Females
Destroyed
TAT (days)
1979 FS14-4* HomicideSA
1
94
0
1
12
3
54
FS15-1+
Serial SA (2011 2014)
3
88
0
0
14
3
23
FS15-2#
1976 Double Homicide
1
103
0
0
5
0
51
*PowerPlex®Y used, +PowerPlex®Y23 used, #PowerPlex®Y and PowerPlex®Y23 used
17
Still In Pilot… Summary of FS results for next four cases: Case Number
Case Type
Total Cases Total Involved Candidates
Y-STR Y-STR Matches Inconclusive
Females
Destroyed
TAT (days)
0
4
4
26
1
0
12
4
26
94
0
0
1
6
53
85
0
0
0
2
53
Serial SA FS15-3* (2011 2013)
3
106
1
FS15-4+
Serial SA (2006 2014)
2
103
FS15-5+
Serial SA (2011 2014)
2
FS15-6#
Serial SA (2010)
2
*PowerPlex®Y used, +PowerPlex®Y23 used, #PowerPlex®Y and PowerPlex®Y23 used
18
6
9/21/2015
Summary of Searches • Since March 2014, we’ve worked 10 cases. Suspect Identified
No suspect identified
Still investigating
No investigation
3
3
3
1
Current Success Rate 30%
19
The Wisconsin Experience • Reporting – Minimize the number of candidates we report • Procedure – Better use of resources to perform Y-STR testing first – Better to stagger FS cases rather than working two simultaneously • Training – Opening and closing meetings have worked well • Case selection – The FS Committee works well for evaluating and triaging cases – Serial sexual assaults and “warmer” cases have worked best so far
20
Questions Acknowledgements: Denver Crime Laboratory Virginia Department of Forensic Science California Department of Justice Texas Department of Public Safety
Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Bureau Contacts: Jennifer Honkanen (Databank Technical Unit Leader) Kara Raymond (State CODIS Administrator) Jennifer Naugle (DNA Supervisor - Databank)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 21
7
