June 9, 2025 • 40 mins
Forensic Genetic Genealogy (FGG) stands at the frontier of criminal justice, offering new hope for cases that have remained unsolved for decades. This groundbreaking conversation takes us inside the Center for Human Identification (CHI) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth - the first public lab in the nation providing comprehensive FGG services to law enforcement.
In this episode, Robert Moore, Director of the Investigative Support Unit, explains how this technology is revolutionizing criminal investigations by comparing crime scene DNA to profiles in public genealogy databases. The process has breathed new life into cold cases across Texas, particularly benefiting smaller agencies with limited resources. With 254 counties in Texas and many police departments averaging just 18 officers, CHI's free DNA testing services provide a lifeline for investigations that might otherwise remain unsolved.
The most powerful moments in this conversation come from genealogist Susan Davis, who shares her personal journey as both a sexual assault survivor and genetics expert. Her vulnerability in discussing her own 1981 attack by a serial predator underscores the human impact of this technology. "Had FGG been available then," she reflects, "it would have saved lives and prevented other women from suffering similar attacks." Her story illustrates how science can transform trauma into purpose—Davis now spends her days identifying perpetrators in hours rather than the years it often took traditional methods.
Through compelling case studies, including that of a serial rapist identified in just five hours after decades evading justice, we witness the transformative potential of genetic genealogy when placed in capable hands. The conversation reflects both scientific precision and profound human compassion for victims who have waited far too long for answers.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The subject matter of this podcast will address
difficult topics multiple formsof violence, and identity-based
discrimination and harassment.
We acknowledge that thiscontent may be difficult and
have listed specific contentwarnings in each episode
description to help create apositive, safe experience for
all listeners.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes
are reported every year.
That is one every second.
Out of that, every 24 minutesthere is a murder.
Every five minutes there is arape.
Every two to five minutes thereis a sexual assault.
Every nine seconds in thiscountry, a woman is assaulted by
someone who told her that heloved her, by someone who told
(00:43):
her it was her fault, by someonewho tries to tell the rest of
us it's none of our business andI am proud to stand here today
with each of you to call thatperpetrator a liar.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Welcome to the podcast on crimes against women.
I'm Maria McMullin.
Forensic Genetic Genealogy, orFGG, is reshaping criminal
investigations and breathing newlife into cold cases by
blending cutting-edge DNAanalysis with traditional
genealogical research.
This process works by comparingcrime scene DNA to profiles in
(01:14):
public genetic genealogydatabases kind of like the ones
people use to trace theirancestry and these identify
unknown human remains ordiscover potential new suspects,
even when they were previouslyunknown to law enforcement.
Leading this charge is theCenter for Human Identification
at the University of North TexasHealth Science Center at Fort
(01:36):
Worth, the first public lab inthe nation to offer
comprehensive FGG laboratory,genealogical and Investigative
Support to Law Enforcement.
Operating within the scope ofthe DOJ's 2019 Interim Policy on
FGG, the Center focuses onqualifying cases involving
violent crimes and unidentifiedhuman remains, helping agencies
(01:58):
recover new paths to justicewhere old ones ran cold.
With me today, to discuss howFGG is transforming the
landscape for law enforcementare two representatives from CHI
Robert Moore, director of theInvestigative Support Unit, and
genealogist Susan Brown Davis.
As the Director of theInvestigative Support Unit for
the Center for HumanIdentification, robert Moore
(02:21):
manages CHI's integrated team ofgenetic genealogists and
investigators to provideforensic genetic genealogy
services to criminal justicestakeholders.
Throughout his 30-year careerin Texas law enforcement, moore
served as a person's crimesinvestigator, pio-slash-agency
spokesperson, tactical sniper,multi-jurisdictional street
(02:42):
crimes unit investigator, da,child abuse investigator and law
enforcement academy director.
Moore earned a BA in journalismfrom the University of Texas at
Arlington and an MS in policeand public administration from
the University of North Texas inDenton.
Susan Davis is ananthropologist and serves as
genealogist for CHI.
(03:03):
She has conducted genealogicalresearch for 25 years and for
the past 20 years, she has usedgenetic genealogy as an
inductive and deductiveinvestigative tool to help solve
complex casework.
Since 2019, she has beeninstrumental in providing
investigative leads to the TexasRangers, in addition to federal
, state and local lawenforcement agencies, to help
(03:26):
solve cold cases of homicide,sexual assault and unknown human
remains.
Her background in the criminaljustice system spans more than
40 years, with insight as avictim and a survivor.
She is currently a PhDcandidate in criminal justice,
focusing on criminology.
Susan Rob, welcome to thepodcast.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, marie, for havingSusan Rob.
Welcome to the podcast.
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Thank you, Marie, for having us.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
I am so excited to talk with both of you because
we've covered the topic offorensic genetic genealogy
several times on the podcast onCrimes Against Women, and it's
just a growing field that we cannever really learn too much
about, as well as too much abouthow it's being used, which is
central to the work that you doat the Center for Human
(04:09):
Identification.
So, rob, I'd like to start withyou with an overview for those
who may not be familiar withyour work.
Tell us what the Center forHuman Identification, or CHI,
does and why this work is soimportant.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
CHI has been a DNA lab for many, many years.
We were doing paternity back inthe 80s and they've just
evolved, so we are basically aDNA crime lab located on the
campus of the University ofNorth Texas at the Health
Science Center in Fort Worth.
We serve all Texas lawenforcement agencies and medical
legal authorities medicalexaminer's offices with
(04:43):
state-funded DNA testing, andthat's primarily to identify
unidentified human remains.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
And so unidentified human remains that are typically
related to cold cases orsomething else.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
Cold cases, outstanding cases that just
happened, you name it.
We also have an anthropologyunit that responds to the scene
to assist with boneidentification and excavation.
You know we assist lawenforcement with understanding
of the different types of DNAtesting because you know they
tend to think there's just onetype.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Right, and I thought there was one type until I've
worked with others on this showand talking about the subject
that I know now there is notjust, there's more than one type
and they all can be verydifferent, exactly.
Yeah, I would like to referlisteners back to the episode
that we did a few weeks ago withtwo former FBI employees, steve
(05:32):
Bush and Steve Kramer.
We're on the show to talk aboutthe case of Eva LaRue.
Go back in our podcast libraryand learn more about genetic
genealogy and how the FBI hasbeen using it.
So then, rob, how does CHI atUNTHSC provide investigative
leads for law enforcementagencies?
Speaker 4 (05:50):
We do that through a variety of testing.
We are the state's missingpersons database for DNA, all
DNA.
So every law enforcement agencyor medical legal authority when
they obtain a sample fromunidentified human remains legal
authority, when they obtain asample from unidentified human
remains they send those samplesto us and we keep those in a
database.
We conduct testing on those.
(06:10):
Based on the, we determine thebest testing technology for the
DNA in its current state, andthat depends on a number of
factors.
You know how much DNA ispresent, how degraded is it and
some other scientific measuresthey use.
Different technologies requiredifferent things to be present
in the DNA for them to be ableto best utilize those.
(06:33):
So we work with the lawenforcement agencies to
determine what that best DNAtesting is and the best samples
to send us.
We want to make sure they don'tjust throw everything in a box
and ship it off to us.
So, we consult with them aheadof time and they tell us what
evidence they have and we willdetermine, based on discussion
with them, what should they sendus.
(06:53):
Dna is easier to pull out ofblood cards or bone or teeth,
any bodily fluids, so we ask forthose things first and the best
samples of those.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So from across the whole state of Texas, yes, which
is a big state.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Oh yes, 254 counties 254 counties.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
So approximately how many might that be in a year?
I guess there are varyingfactors, but what could that
look like for?
Speaker 4 (07:18):
a year.
We process thousands of samplesat our lab.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So thousands of samples?
Is it thousands of individualcases, or is that?
Speaker 4 (07:28):
a number of samples, thousands of individual cases.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So how does this help victims and families then?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Well, I mean there's agencies throughout Texas have
unidentified whether they'recold cases or they happened last
weekend, and the bigdepartments in Texas.
They know their resources.
So we really tried to focus onthe small departments.
The average police department,for example, in the state of
Texas is 18 officers and anagency with 18 officers doesn't
(07:58):
have the experience to workhomicides as a large department
might.
18 officer department may nothave a homicide every 10 years
and the detective may only workone in their career at that
agency.
They may not have a situation itmay be a once in a career where
they find unidentified humanremains, or UHRs as we refer,
(08:20):
and they may not be sure what todo.
Now the Texas Rangers are thereto assist those agencies.
They have the expertise and sothe resources to come in.
But as far as the DNA testing,those agencies don't know what
can be done.
So we try to reach to outreachto those agencies and say look,
we offer this service and wewill do state funded UHR
(08:42):
identification.
That means it won't cost thatagency money and there are a
number of private labs out theredoing a lot of good work but
those small departments may haveto do crowdfund or seek out
grants and so forth to pay forthat.
But we will do that for freefor these agencies in Texas.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
And that's really important for agencies that are
listening to this show tounderstand that there is this
free service.
And just to go back to yourpoint, there are 254 counties in
the state of Texas and many ofthem are rural.
Yes, and that's why they haveso few officers.
And we see that here at theConference on Crimes Against
Women, which we're actually onsite at the conference this week
(09:20):
recording this episode, that wehave lots of people from across
the state of Texas and aroundthe world really at the
conference, but many of themcome from very small police
departments.
So let's talk about how CHI gotstarted, tell us a little bit
about the history and whosupports it.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
We're on a UNT system campus in Fort Worth and, as I
had mentioned before, we wereperforming paternity testing
back in the 80s.
And that's how we got our startand we've been doing DNA testing
ever since.
We have an R&D department, sowe have faculty and staff
working on their degrees thatare also publishing and
(10:00):
performing studies and so forth.
We became a state designatedcriminal justice agency in the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, chapter 63.
That's where we were alsodesignated to be the missing
persons DNA databaseclearinghouse for the entire
state.
Since then we have we've helpedDPS with help clear their
(10:22):
backlog of sexual assault kitcases because there was a big
push to make sure they get thosethings off the shelf and get
them tested.
So we helped clear that backlogand they now passed a law that
those kits have to be processedin 90 days.
We're constantly moving withthose sexual assault kits and
that is a daily thing for uswith those sexual assault kids,
(10:47):
and that is a daily thing for us.
In 2023, we decided to moveinto the FGG space, which was
previously occupied by just theprivate labs, and, like I said,
they've been doing a lot of goodwork.
So we became the first publiclab to step into this space and
we created this investigativesupport unit.
They decided that they wantedthis unit to be separate from
the lab.
They hired me, a retired lawenforcement officer, to direct
(11:12):
that portion of the unit.
We hired genetic genealogistsfull-time staff and we were the
first public lab to step intothis space I know in the country
, probably in the world, and wewere the first ones to put FDG
on staff, because up to nowgenetic genealogists were mostly
contract work.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
They were people that had not Hobbyists, more or less
Self-educated.
Okay, yes, I like that term.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
A wealth of experience.
So when we decided to hire somegenealogists, we stole Susan
here from the FBI.
We got another genealogist,wendy, and they've got decades
of experience.
So we're trying to tell theseagencies as well.
The FBI has a training programfor forensic genetic genealogy.
(12:00):
It's a 40-hour course andthat's great.
But these departments thatmaybe are not very large.
If they go to that class, theywe've got decades of experienced
genealogists here which arealso state funded.
(12:28):
So why not let us do that foryou?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah, that does make perfect sense.
Now are you the only public labin Texas doing this work?
Speaker 4 (12:36):
I believe DPS has hired some genealogists and
they're beginning to do that.
And what about in the country?
There are a few labs state labsthat have gone on to hire
genealogists on their staff aswell.
So we're seeing those labs popup across the nation.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
So you talked about the rape kits and UHRs,
unidentified human remains butwhat does the actual workflow
look like?
Take us through the processfrom crime scene to lab to
forensic genetic genealogy andgenerating investigative leads.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Okay, well, because we're the missing persons
database, we have access to anumber thousands of cases
already existing.
So the first thing we did waswe culled through that missing
person database to see whatcases qualified for FGG, that we
already had samples in ourpossession.
We contacted those lawenforcement agencies, the
(13:25):
medical examiner's offices, andsaid, hey, you know, if you
haven't sent that sample tosomeone else, if you haven't
already identified this person,would you like us to attempt FDG
on these cases?
So we loaded up, I guess thebeginning we did about 60 or so
cases that we had identifiedthat we could proceed with and
we've conducted the lab work onthat.
And as we were doing that, westarted trying.
(13:48):
My unit started engaging inoutreach to those area
departments.
I was going to conferences inthe state and letting everybody
know that here we are and tryingto notify people.
Hey, send us your stuff now.
And a lot of times when wecontacted them about those older
cases that we had in ourpossession, sometimes I got on
the phone with a detective andthey said that's great that you
(14:09):
do this, but I got two otherones and I'm like send them, you
know, send them.
So we started establishing thatlink so they could send it.
They knew to send us theircurrent cases and stuff that
they wanted us to work.
But we got the samples.
We conducted a SNP testingsingle nucleotide polymorphism
profiles and if we could developa good enough profile then we
(14:29):
would look and see whichtechnology we had that we could
utilize.
We have three technologies sofar.
One is about the whole genome.
Sequencing is about to goonline here in the fall and that
maps the entire genome.
So we're real excited that'sbeen through our R&D and we're
(14:49):
confident we're going to be ableto start offering that service
in the fall.
But we also had sequencing,which is intelligence which maps
a very small portion of the DNA, like 10,000 SNPs.
And we also have microarraywhich maps like 650,000 SNPs.
So we look at C based on thedegradation and the amount of
sample we have and all theseother factors and if we could
develop that SNP profile throughone of those technologies, we
(15:11):
would then upload those profilesto one or two of the accessible
genealogy databases.
There's two that right now thatlet law enforcement upload
profiles to them so thatGEDmatch and FTDNA allow that.
So we upload to that and thenwe assign the cases to the
genetic geologists, five at atime and they start their
(15:33):
research work, and that could be45 minutes or it could be, you
know, several, several weeks ofmaking attempts to narrow down
to see if they could help comeup with an investigative lead
for the agency.
If we are able to develop aninvestigative lead, we contact
that.
We send the office of thedepartment a report to let them
know that we have that.
(15:54):
Generally, what we're askingthem to do is go out and target.
We're asking them to go out andfind.
Like we say, we think that thetarget or the source, the donor
of this DNA is this person andwe've identified this close
family member.
We'd like you to go see if youcan find them and see if they'll
give you a family referencesample, give them a cheek swab
(16:14):
and send that back to us so wecan do an actual comparison for
verification.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
What about a success rate related to all of this?
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Well, we have just stepped into the, moved into
this area.
We have less than 10 caseswhere we've made identifications
, but we do that also.
We do identifications alsothrough CODIS, the national
system.
So I think our indigenouspopulations, through the MERG
grant, I think they've made like30 or so identifications
(16:43):
through that, like 30 or soidentifications through that.
So we have access to docomparisons, not only in the FGG
route but we're also doing itthrough other means as well.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Amazing.
So let's talk about FGGforensic genetic genealogy.
Susan, what can you tell usabout FGG, how does it work and
how does it differ from othergenealogical studies?
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Originally there was just kind of genealogy in
general, right, just traditionalgenealogy, which was no
genetics involved.
20 years ago we were just doingpaper trail type of lookup and
research.
And then genetic genealogy kindof stepped into the world of
genealogy and around early 2000sit was introduced as a way to
(17:26):
connect to your cousins, yourgenetic cousins, to verify your
paper trails, to explore,confirm some of the trails that
you've had, the paper trailsthat you may have searched all
those years.
And then forensic geneticgenealogy really stepped in as a
way to well, some airship likepeople who have filed for in the
(17:47):
court system for airship,looking for relatives,
descendants of a particularperson, to resolve those types
of cases field.
But then forensic geneticgenealogy is more obviously
using the forensic side, alsoinvestigative side, to help
(18:10):
solve cases, to help provideinvestigative leads.
And so since the Golden StateKiller case came about in 2018,
the word forensic geneticgenealogy really became an item,
like it became the new paradigmfor resolving or providing
investigative leads.
And so I've been doinggenealogy, you know, from 30
(18:32):
years ago.
I've been through the wholeparadigm the whole different
types and I've watched it evolveover the years, all the
different actors that have been,you know, all through the years
, and it's been interesting tosee the evolution of how we are
where we are today, and so Ithink that I'm excited about
this new tool, I'm excited abouthow it works.
(18:53):
But just to go back, so I'vebeen working with since 2019,
I've been working with federalagents, texas Rangers, other
agencies, law enforcementagencies across the nation,
helping them provideinvestigative leads for their
cold cases and have been, youknow, successful with those and
have helped a lot of victims andfamilies to find answers and to
(19:19):
provide some resolution onthose types of cases.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
It seems like this requires the collaboration of
experts across numerous fields,so give us an idea of what's
involved in going through theprocess of FGG for the purpose
of trying to provide leads orsolve a case.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Yes, so it really is a collaboration between
investigators.
I would say it begins withinvestigators understanding,
looking for, researching theircases to understand what they
have in their case, like thatwould be.
The investigator really is kindof the beginning point of the
case.
So they need to look in theirfile, they need to look to see,
(20:01):
they need to check with theirDNA analyst in their department
or maybe the lab or maybe themedical examiner's office.
They need to collaborate withtheir other agencies or someone
within their department toidentify if there is DNA part of
the case.
So, and hopefully there is DNApart of the case.
(20:22):
And then the next question ishow much DNA?
So that's kind of where our labcomes in.
Experts come in to try toidentify what could be
quantified, what type of extract, how it can be extracted and
what type of quantification canbe done to get us to a SNP right
, what we talk about as a SNP.
(20:42):
As a genealogist, I'm lookingat the SNP results to work on my
genealogy part of it.
So going back, it's basicallythe investigator and then
looking at what's in the caseand then working with a DNA
analyst.
And then the next questionobviously is is a district
attorney willing to prosecute acase?
(21:03):
Is there enough evidence thereto prosecute a case?
That's where they need toconsult with the DA's office to
see if that's viable, you know,if it's a viable option in
perpetrator type cases.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Does that help you kind of prioritize what cases
you're going to work on if a DAsays that yes, we want to
prosecute this?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
CHI traditionally was a UHR system.
We mostly identified humanremains.
So for our FTG, the cases thatappear to be homicides, those
move to the top of the list.
If an agency contactsspecifically and says we need
this case, we're activelyworking on this case.
(21:47):
Maybe it's a fresh case,whatever that might move up the
priority.
But we're also moving into thatrealm of forensic cases where
we would assist identifying theperpetrator.
So if we're looking at tryingto help them identify a violent
offender who may be?
out and about, then those caseswould move to the top of the
list as well.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
So, susan, then do you have to stop working on one
case and then move on to anotherif this priority changes?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Yes, and that would be the case.
If we have one that comesthrough the door and it's a high
priority, especially if it'shaving to do with safety, safety
issues we're going to put it atthe top and begin working,
because it's most highimportance that it is designated
as high importance.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Yeah, that's a relief .
Yes, Can you give us an exampleof some successful case or
something that was reallymeaningful to you to work on?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Well, I think it's interesting because my
experiences with the federalagency FBI began in 2019.
And you know, we learned a lotof things along the way about
how to process FGG cases and howwe look at matches and how we
(23:01):
determine which particular partof the tree that we need to look
at, for, you know, doingreference testing.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
And sometimes.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Originally it was kind of called target testing
but I think that word hasevolved to reference testing.
But you can hear it either waytarget or reference.
So one of the first cases I didwas with Susan Eade's case and
she was sexually assaulted,raped and then murdered.
Her perpetrator, arthur RaymondDavis, he actually passed away
(23:31):
probably within about threemonths of the murder but this
case wasn't solved until 40years later.
So it took 40 years for us tobe able to provide answers to
the family.
And it was really meaningfulbecause I, you know, I was able
to go to her memorial serviceand, you know, see the family
(23:51):
and that was very meaningful tobe able to provide them some
answers about who theperpetrator was and who had
murdered Susan, and so that wasvery meaningful.
Another case that I think ishere in Dallas is a David Thomas
Hawkins case and he's a Texastraveling rapist that you know
(24:14):
he raped probably at leastpossibly 30, up to 30 women
across kind of range of areasShreveport, dallas, all the way
up to the Amarillo area and withthat case it took me probably
about five hours to identify orto provide the investigative
(24:35):
lead.
I should say All of the geneticmatches pretty much led to him.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yes, and so Did he have a profile on CODIS as well.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Yes, because, well and this is where the victim
advocacy comes in is because alot of the women that their kits
had not been tested anduploaded had.
Finally they pushed forward andthey said we need our cases to
be processed, we want DallasCounty to process these.
(25:06):
And so they did.
And of course, the mail profilethen was uploaded into CODIS.
So, yes, his profile was inCODIS but had never hit what we
consider as a hit.
We used FGG.
Right, we used FGG to do this,and the beautiful thing about it
is, like I said, it's afantastic investigative tool and
(25:27):
it can be, you know, we can useit, provide investigative leave
or solve a case within, youknow, a couple hours, like you
know, and you think aboutinvestigators how long they
spend on a case.
I mean, I think some spendyears trying to find a
perpetrator and this new tool isjust a game changer for
(25:47):
everyone.
You know, for victims and forfamilies, and some of the women
here in Dallas have been waiting40 some odd years for to find
an answer, and so we were ableto provide that to them, which
is fantastic.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Yeah, and that can be so helpful and life-changing
for victims who've been waitingdecades to know if their you
know perpetrator was behind barsor dead or you know otherwise
could now stand you know trialfor their actions.
Yes, in the case that you werejust referring to, the one in
Texas, what happened to thatperpetrator?
Speaker 3 (26:24):
David Thomas Hawkins.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
He is in prison right now and he is serving, I
believe it's full back-to-backlife sentences, for I believe
there were at least four casesor five cases that were brought
and all adjudicated servingback-to-back.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Excellent, Susan.
So you and I talked about thatyou are a sexual assault
survivor.
Will you share your story withus?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Yes, thank you for asking me because that's you
know, that's always something Ithink difficult for some people
to ask.
But just tell me about yourstory and so I will.
I want to kind of take youthrough my journey and where we
are now with FGG and I kind ofgo through some of the things in
my case that could have beendone, that wasn't done and how
(27:12):
FGG could have helped at thetime.
So my sexual assault I alsojust call it rape, I think rape
for me is more of a brutal wordthan sexual assault.
But in January of 1981, theagency say that I was probably
one of the first rapes of WesleyWayne Miller.
(27:32):
We didn't know at the time buthe went on to rape, sexually
assault other women andeventually murder, rape and
murder a victim, aretha Stratton.
So at the time of my sexualassault, my rape, the police
came and of course, first of all, I just want to say that the
(27:53):
sexual assault was very violentand the police came and I was 16
at the time and I, you know,they took my police report and
just kind of walked away Likeokay, and what am I supposed to
do with this?
Right, I wasn't taken to thehospital, I wasn't, a rape kit
was not done.
All the things that shouldhappen didn't happen.
(28:16):
But I write it off as beingearly 1980s, that it was.
Still.
Maybe they didn't understandwhat to do those kinds of things
.
But there was DNA on me.
I mean, there was geneticmaterial on me that could have
been tested.
(28:45):
My point with that part of it isthat if you are a sexual
assault victim, demand that yougo to the hospital with a police
officer or have a friend takeyou, have a family member.
Take you Whatever you need todo, go to the hospital.
It's hard, I know it's hard,but go to the hospital and get
some help.
Make sure that you have asexual assault kit processed.
(29:06):
Make sure that you get the helpthat you need at that moment.
Don't wait, do not take a bath,Do not take a shower, do not do
anything Immediately.
Go to get some help and to getthe sexual assault kit performed
, because the sexual assault kitis what's holding the key to
(29:26):
who is your perpetrator and thatis the DNA.
And that part is where that allleads into FGG and where we are
now.
So previously, 1981, you knowreally all we had, I think even
before 1990, we just basicallyhad fingerprints, right, right.
And so in 1990, 1994, we startedto get the STRs, the short-term
(29:52):
repeats that would be put intoCODIS, and so we've kind of been
living on the CODIS spectrum Icall it the CODIS spectrum since
the 1990s.
But we're now in the currentday FGG world and it's a game
changer for so many, so manypeople and so many sexual
(30:12):
assault survivors and homicidevictims and UHRs and everyone
that could be victims and hasDNA that's available it now is
really helping to resolve someof those cases.
So had we had this tool back in1981, we probably would have,
(30:34):
you know, they could haveprocessed if they had taken me
to the hospital, had they done arape kit, had they preserved
the DNA and processed it.
If there was no kit in CODIS,then we could now process it
through FGG and use geneticgenealogy to help at least
narrow down to someinvestigative leads within a
(30:56):
short amount of time.
Right, and not just aninvestigator knocking on
someone's door or doing a canvasof a neighborhood knocking on
doors and saying did you seeanything?
I mean they still need to dothat portion of investigative
work.
They still need to dointerviewing.
Again, that's a collaboration.
Part of it is thatinvestigators have their part in
(31:19):
this whole picture, but it'sall the things that
investigators have learnedpreviously, but now they need to
know FGG is.
What is the process, what arethe protocols?
When they go and they ask forsomeone to do reference test or
a target test, we need to makesure consent forms are signed.
We need to make sure that they,you know, that they understand
(31:41):
what some of the protocols are.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
With having a protective FGG world, you know,
using this new tool, so, had FGGbeen available at the time of
your assault, how might theoutcomes for other victims of
the serial perpetrator have beendifferent?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Yes, and I meant to touch on that earlier as well.
So there were at least sixwomen that were sexually
assaulted, possibly more, but Ido believe that had FGG had been
available at the time, that itwould have saved Ritha's life.
I think it would have savedadditional women from being
(32:22):
sexually assaulted by a serialrapist.
It just would have.
It would have helped so much.
And you know, I my work is.
I love my work, because I knowI'm helping other people and I
know that I'm helping provideanswers to victims and survivors
and families, and because Iknow what it's like to be there.
(32:45):
I know what it's like to wait ayear and that's a year is not
very long.
Some women have been waiting 20, 30, 40 years and we finally
have this new tool that can helpwith those victims and people
that are families of homicidevictims, to provide answers to
(33:06):
them as well.
So it really would have beenthis tool had it been in the
1980s.
You know, looking back, itwould have.
I think it would have changedthe case tremendously and I
think it would.
The outcome would have been alot different for some of the
women by not going through thesexual assault, the brutal
sexual assaults that they wentthrough and so it's yeah, it's
(33:30):
an amazing tool and I just Ihope everyone, like I said, if
you're, if you are, a sexualassault victim number one, make
sure you go to the hospital, getthe sexual assault kit
completed, but know that.
Or if, for some reason, yourcase has been sitting there for
20 years, go to your agency.
Go to the agency thatoriginally processed your case
(33:54):
and say I want my case reopened.
I want you to look at FGG.
I want you to see if there'senough DNA in my case.
Is there enough there to try tomove forward with doing some
kind of additional investigativework through the FGG process?
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Yeah, and it can take time for survivors to be able
to self-advocate in that way andreally take charge of their
case, because unfortunately alot of the onus gets put on that
survivor to follow up withpolice and law enforcement and
other agencies to find out whatis going on with their case,
where is it in the process, wasmy rape kit tested, and so on.
(34:33):
And that's why, to your point,susan, victim advocates are so
important to this process tomake sure that things keep
moving along and to also empowersurvivors to ask the right
questions and to try to be moreinvolved in the process of
getting some kind of resolution.
Because in your case it turnedout the perpetrator was someone
(34:56):
that you knew.
Yeah, and most often that isthe case for women who
experience sexual assault orrape, especially when it's
related to maybe a formerintimate partner, which I don't
think that was the case for you.
But it was someone that youknew and a life could have been
saved if the process wasdifferent back in the 80s.
So how do you envision FGGdeveloping in the years to come?
(35:22):
Are there some possibilitiesfor advancement in this
technology or its application?
Speaker 3 (35:27):
Yes, so right now we're using GEDmatch and we're
also using FTDNA, which arebasically, for the genetic
genealogists from the early2000s, databases that citizens
just wanted to know what theirancestry was.
And so I personally I envision,I would hope that we someday we
(35:48):
would have a system similar toCODIS that would be not so much
driven by volunteer citizens orsomeone who's just uploaded
their you know, wanted to knowtheir ancestry, that kind of
thing.
So I would hope that at somepoint we would move that
direction.
But you know, that could beyears away, but I would rather
(36:09):
see it more in that realm.
I think that that would be good.
But as far as education, I thinkeducation is really important.
I think it needs to be forgenealogists.
There needs to be either adegree or a master's degree in
this, which would includecriminology coursework, legal
coursework, forensic coursework,victimology coursework, all the
(36:33):
different types of crime scenecoursework.
And there's really not aprogram, there's really not an
educational program yet, butthat I envision, that I hope
that at some point we will havean institute that will encompass
all of the different subjects,that forensic, genetic genealogy
, where it your?
Speaker 1 (36:54):
story and your experience with us.
I think having that context isreally meaningful to
understanding in a kind of 360way, not just what the Institute
does, but also how forensicgenetic genealogy really was
full circle for you as both aprofessional and a survivor.
(37:17):
Now, rob, I want to ask youwhat is the future of CHI?
Speaker 4 (37:24):
We're looking at fee-for-service models for
out-of-state cases.
We already are offering ourservices to out-of-state cases
through the SAKI grant from theBJA, so we'd like to start
working some forensic cases toID violent offenders seeking
more federal grants that mightassist in us being able to
expand the scope of our servicesto a greater range of
(37:46):
stakeholders.
We'd like to connect withvictim advocacy agencies all
over, at least starting in Texas, so that they can help us refer
those victims to us for knowingthat there's an entity out
there that can perform thisservice for free and they don't
have to do some kind ofcrowdfunding thing or something
(38:06):
like that to get it done,collaborating with other missing
persons organizations in thestate, so that we're making sure
we're working all on the samepage.
And to me, most importantly isto uphold the public trust is to
uphold the public trust.
Fgg is a very volatilediscussion and you have some
(38:28):
people that have some verystrong ideas and opinions about
law enforcement's use ofdatabases and that's why there's
only two, but there's severalof the big name databases that
their databases are huge, thatwere we able to lawfully go in
and utilize those databases, wecould solve a whole lot of cases
that way, because it would bejust a large database to compare
(38:49):
across.
But the only way we're going toget those databases to allow
that and the people whopatronize those agencies is to
maintain that public trust.
Wear the white hat, follow theDOJ interim policy, follow terms
of service with the services wedo use and make sure we're
always trying to do the rightthing and we need to gather that
(39:09):
public trust and lawenforcement has had a long and
rocky road in maintaining that.
So that is a big ask.
But it's imperative on theentities that are performing FGG
to make sure that we arefollowing all the rules to get
there so that we can convincethose people to upload their
(39:30):
kits to GEDmatch and not beafraid to opt in and that kind
of thing, so that we can solvemore cases.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
Sure Sounds good to me.
How can people learn more aboutCHI or get connected with
someone at the center?
Speaker 4 (39:43):
We're on the web.
We have an email address, isu,at unthscedu and that is
monitored by my whole unit.
So myself and anotherinvestigator and the two
genealogists.
We have a toll-free number800-763-3147.
And, like I said, we offerthese services, these UHR
(40:04):
services, to every agency inTexas At no cost.
At no cost to them, yes, safefunding.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
And what's your website?
It?
Speaker 3 (40:11):
is unthscedu slash chi.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Thank you for that, and Susan and Rob, thank you so
much for talking with me today.
Speaker 3 (40:20):
Thank you, maria, thank you for having us, thank
you, thanks so much for that,and Susan and Rob thank you so
much for talking with me today.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Thank you, maria.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, thanks so much forlistening.
Until next time, stay safe andfollow us on social media.
At National CCAW.
The subject matter of this podcast will address
difficult topics multiple formsof violence, and identity-based
discrimination and harassment.
We acknowledge that thiscontent may be difficult and
have listed specific contentwarnings in each episode
description to help create apositive, safe experience for
all listeners.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes
are reported every year.
That is one every second.
Out of that, every 24 minutesthere is a murder.
Every five minutes there is arape.
Every two to five minutes thereis a sexual assault.
Every nine seconds in thiscountry, a woman is assaulted by
someone who told her that heloved her, by someone who told
(00:43):
her it was her fault, by someonewho tries to tell the rest of
us it's none of our business andI am proud to stand here today
with each of you to call thatperpetrator a liar.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Welcome to the podcast on crimes against women.
I'm Maria McMullin.
Forensic Genetic Genealogy, orFGG, is reshaping criminal
investigations and breathing newlife into cold cases by
blending cutting-edge DNAanalysis with traditional
genealogical research.
This process works by comparingcrime scene DNA to profiles in
(01:14):
public genetic genealogydatabases kind of like the ones
people use to trace theirancestry and these identify
unknown human remains ordiscover potential new suspects,
even when they were previouslyunknown to law enforcement.
Leading this charge is theCenter for Human Identification
at the University of North TexasHealth Science Center at Fort
(01:36):
Worth, the first public lab inthe nation to offer
comprehensive FGG laboratory,genealogical and Investigative
Support to Law Enforcement.
Operating within the scope ofthe DOJ's 2019 Interim Policy on
FGG, the Center focuses onqualifying cases involving
violent crimes and unidentifiedhuman remains, helping agencies
(01:58):
recover new paths to justicewhere old ones ran cold.
With me today, to discuss howFGG is transforming the
landscape for law enforcementare two representatives from CHI
Robert Moore, director of theInvestigative Support Unit, and
genealogist Susan Brown Davis.
As the Director of theInvestigative Support Unit for
the Center for HumanIdentification, robert Moore
(02:21):
manages CHI's integrated team ofgenetic genealogists and
investigators to provideforensic genetic genealogy
services to criminal justicestakeholders.
Throughout his 30-year careerin Texas law enforcement, moore
served as a person's crimesinvestigator, pio-slash-agency
spokesperson, tactical sniper,multi-jurisdictional street
(02:42):
crimes unit investigator, da,child abuse investigator and law
enforcement academy director.
Moore earned a BA in journalismfrom the University of Texas at
Arlington and an MS in policeand public administration from
the University of North Texas inDenton.
Susan Davis is ananthropologist and serves as
genealogist for CHI.
(03:03):
She has conducted genealogicalresearch for 25 years and for
the past 20 years, she has usedgenetic genealogy as an
inductive and deductiveinvestigative tool to help solve
complex casework.
Since 2019, she has beeninstrumental in providing
investigative leads to the TexasRangers, in addition to federal
, state and local lawenforcement agencies, to help
(03:26):
solve cold cases of homicide,sexual assault and unknown human
remains.
Her background in the criminaljustice system spans more than
40 years, with insight as avictim and a survivor.
She is currently a PhDcandidate in criminal justice,
focusing on criminology.
Susan Rob, welcome to thepodcast.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, marie, for havingSusan Rob.
Welcome to the podcast.
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Thank you, Marie, for having us.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
I am so excited to talk with both of you because
we've covered the topic offorensic genetic genealogy
several times on the podcast onCrimes Against Women, and it's
just a growing field that we cannever really learn too much
about, as well as too much abouthow it's being used, which is
central to the work that you doat the Center for Human
(04:09):
Identification.
So, rob, I'd like to start withyou with an overview for those
who may not be familiar withyour work.
Tell us what the Center forHuman Identification, or CHI,
does and why this work is soimportant.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
CHI has been a DNA lab for many, many years.
We were doing paternity back inthe 80s and they've just
evolved, so we are basically aDNA crime lab located on the
campus of the University ofNorth Texas at the Health
Science Center in Fort Worth.
We serve all Texas lawenforcement agencies and medical
legal authorities medicalexaminer's offices with
(04:43):
state-funded DNA testing, andthat's primarily to identify
unidentified human remains.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
And so unidentified human remains that are typically
related to cold cases orsomething else.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
Cold cases, outstanding cases that just
happened, you name it.
We also have an anthropologyunit that responds to the scene
to assist with boneidentification and excavation.
You know we assist lawenforcement with understanding
of the different types of DNAtesting because you know they
tend to think there's just onetype.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Right, and I thought there was one type until I've
worked with others on this showand talking about the subject
that I know now there is notjust, there's more than one type
and they all can be verydifferent, exactly.
Yeah, I would like to referlisteners back to the episode
that we did a few weeks ago withtwo former FBI employees, steve
(05:32):
Bush and Steve Kramer.
We're on the show to talk aboutthe case of Eva LaRue.
Go back in our podcast libraryand learn more about genetic
genealogy and how the FBI hasbeen using it.
So then, rob, how does CHI atUNTHSC provide investigative
leads for law enforcementagencies?
Speaker 4 (05:50):
We do that through a variety of testing.
We are the state's missingpersons database for DNA, all
DNA.
So every law enforcement agencyor medical legal authority when
they obtain a sample fromunidentified human remains legal
authority, when they obtain asample from unidentified human
remains they send those samplesto us and we keep those in a
database.
We conduct testing on those.
(06:10):
Based on the, we determine thebest testing technology for the
DNA in its current state, andthat depends on a number of
factors.
You know how much DNA ispresent, how degraded is it and
some other scientific measuresthey use.
Different technologies requiredifferent things to be present
in the DNA for them to be ableto best utilize those.
(06:33):
So we work with the lawenforcement agencies to
determine what that best DNAtesting is and the best samples
to send us.
We want to make sure they don'tjust throw everything in a box
and ship it off to us.
So, we consult with them aheadof time and they tell us what
evidence they have and we willdetermine, based on discussion
with them, what should they sendus.
(06:53):
Dna is easier to pull out ofblood cards or bone or teeth,
any bodily fluids, so we ask forthose things first and the best
samples of those.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So from across the whole state of Texas, yes, which
is a big state.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Oh yes, 254 counties 254 counties.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
So approximately how many might that be in a year?
I guess there are varyingfactors, but what could that
look like for?
Speaker 4 (07:18):
a year.
We process thousands of samplesat our lab.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So thousands of samples?
Is it thousands of individualcases, or is that?
Speaker 4 (07:28):
a number of samples, thousands of individual cases.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So how does this help victims and families then?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Well, I mean there's agencies throughout Texas have
unidentified whether they'recold cases or they happened last
weekend, and the bigdepartments in Texas.
They know their resources.
So we really tried to focus onthe small departments.
The average police department,for example, in the state of
Texas is 18 officers and anagency with 18 officers doesn't
(07:58):
have the experience to workhomicides as a large department
might.
18 officer department may nothave a homicide every 10 years
and the detective may only workone in their career at that
agency.
They may not have a situation itmay be a once in a career where
they find unidentified humanremains, or UHRs as we refer,
(08:20):
and they may not be sure what todo.
Now the Texas Rangers are thereto assist those agencies.
They have the expertise and sothe resources to come in.
But as far as the DNA testing,those agencies don't know what
can be done.
So we try to reach to outreachto those agencies and say look,
we offer this service and wewill do state funded UHR
(08:42):
identification.
That means it won't cost thatagency money and there are a
number of private labs out theredoing a lot of good work but
those small departments may haveto do crowdfund or seek out
grants and so forth to pay forthat.
But we will do that for freefor these agencies in Texas.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
And that's really important for agencies that are
listening to this show tounderstand that there is this
free service.
And just to go back to yourpoint, there are 254 counties in
the state of Texas and many ofthem are rural.
Yes, and that's why they haveso few officers.
And we see that here at theConference on Crimes Against
Women, which we're actually onsite at the conference this week
(09:20):
recording this episode, that wehave lots of people from across
the state of Texas and aroundthe world really at the
conference, but many of themcome from very small police
departments.
So let's talk about how CHI gotstarted, tell us a little bit
about the history and whosupports it.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
We're on a UNT system campus in Fort Worth and, as I
had mentioned before, we wereperforming paternity testing
back in the 80s.
And that's how we got our startand we've been doing DNA testing
ever since.
We have an R&D department, sowe have faculty and staff
working on their degrees thatare also publishing and
(10:00):
performing studies and so forth.
We became a state designatedcriminal justice agency in the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, chapter 63.
That's where we were alsodesignated to be the missing
persons DNA databaseclearinghouse for the entire
state.
Since then we have we've helpedDPS with help clear their
(10:22):
backlog of sexual assault kitcases because there was a big
push to make sure they get thosethings off the shelf and get
them tested.
So we helped clear that backlogand they now passed a law that
those kits have to be processedin 90 days.
We're constantly moving withthose sexual assault kits and
that is a daily thing for uswith those sexual assault kids,
(10:47):
and that is a daily thing for us.
In 2023, we decided to moveinto the FGG space, which was
previously occupied by just theprivate labs, and, like I said,
they've been doing a lot of goodwork.
So we became the first publiclab to step into this space and
we created this investigativesupport unit.
They decided that they wantedthis unit to be separate from
the lab.
They hired me, a retired lawenforcement officer, to direct
(11:12):
that portion of the unit.
We hired genetic genealogistsfull-time staff and we were the
first public lab to step intothis space I know in the country
, probably in the world, and wewere the first ones to put FDG
on staff, because up to nowgenetic genealogists were mostly
contract work.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
They were people that had not Hobbyists, more or less
Self-educated.
Okay, yes, I like that term.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
A wealth of experience.
So when we decided to hire somegenealogists, we stole Susan
here from the FBI.
We got another genealogist,wendy, and they've got decades
of experience.
So we're trying to tell theseagencies as well.
The FBI has a training programfor forensic genetic genealogy.
(12:00):
It's a 40-hour course andthat's great.
But these departments thatmaybe are not very large.
If they go to that class, theywe've got decades of experienced
genealogists here which arealso state funded.
(12:28):
So why not let us do that foryou?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah, that does make perfect sense.
Now are you the only public labin Texas doing this work?
Speaker 4 (12:36):
I believe DPS has hired some genealogists and
they're beginning to do that.
And what about in the country?
There are a few labs state labsthat have gone on to hire
genealogists on their staff aswell.
So we're seeing those labs popup across the nation.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
So you talked about the rape kits and UHRs,
unidentified human remains butwhat does the actual workflow
look like?
Take us through the processfrom crime scene to lab to
forensic genetic genealogy andgenerating investigative leads.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Okay, well, because we're the missing persons
database, we have access to anumber thousands of cases
already existing.
So the first thing we did waswe culled through that missing
person database to see whatcases qualified for FGG, that we
already had samples in ourpossession.
We contacted those lawenforcement agencies, the
(13:25):
medical examiner's offices, andsaid, hey, you know, if you
haven't sent that sample tosomeone else, if you haven't
already identified this person,would you like us to attempt FDG
on these cases?
So we loaded up, I guess thebeginning we did about 60 or so
cases that we had identifiedthat we could proceed with and
we've conducted the lab work onthat.
And as we were doing that, westarted trying.
(13:48):
My unit started engaging inoutreach to those area
departments.
I was going to conferences inthe state and letting everybody
know that here we are and tryingto notify people.
Hey, send us your stuff now.
And a lot of times when wecontacted them about those older
cases that we had in ourpossession, sometimes I got on
the phone with a detective andthey said that's great that you
(14:09):
do this, but I got two otherones and I'm like send them, you
know, send them.
So we started establishing thatlink so they could send it.
They knew to send us theircurrent cases and stuff that
they wanted us to work.
But we got the samples.
We conducted a SNP testingsingle nucleotide polymorphism
profiles and if we could developa good enough profile then we
(14:29):
would look and see whichtechnology we had that we could
utilize.
We have three technologies sofar.
One is about the whole genome.
Sequencing is about to goonline here in the fall and that
maps the entire genome.
So we're real excited that'sbeen through our R&D and we're
(14:49):
confident we're going to be ableto start offering that service
in the fall.
But we also had sequencing,which is intelligence which maps
a very small portion of the DNA, like 10,000 SNPs.
And we also have microarraywhich maps like 650,000 SNPs.
So we look at C based on thedegradation and the amount of
sample we have and all theseother factors and if we could
develop that SNP profile throughone of those technologies, we
(15:11):
would then upload those profilesto one or two of the accessible
genealogy databases.
There's two that right now thatlet law enforcement upload
profiles to them so thatGEDmatch and FTDNA allow that.
So we upload to that and thenwe assign the cases to the
genetic geologists, five at atime and they start their
(15:33):
research work, and that could be45 minutes or it could be, you
know, several, several weeks ofmaking attempts to narrow down
to see if they could help comeup with an investigative lead
for the agency.
If we are able to develop aninvestigative lead, we contact
that.
We send the office of thedepartment a report to let them
know that we have that.
(15:54):
Generally, what we're askingthem to do is go out and target.
We're asking them to go out andfind.
Like we say, we think that thetarget or the source, the donor
of this DNA is this person andwe've identified this close
family member.
We'd like you to go see if youcan find them and see if they'll
give you a family referencesample, give them a cheek swab
(16:14):
and send that back to us so wecan do an actual comparison for
verification.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
What about a success rate related to all of this?
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Well, we have just stepped into the, moved into
this area.
We have less than 10 caseswhere we've made identifications
, but we do that also.
We do identifications alsothrough CODIS, the national
system.
So I think our indigenouspopulations, through the MERG
grant, I think they've made like30 or so identifications
(16:43):
through that, like 30 or soidentifications through that.
So we have access to docomparisons, not only in the FGG
route but we're also doing itthrough other means as well.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Amazing.
So let's talk about FGGforensic genetic genealogy.
Susan, what can you tell usabout FGG, how does it work and
how does it differ from othergenealogical studies?
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Originally there was just kind of genealogy in
general, right, just traditionalgenealogy, which was no
genetics involved.
20 years ago we were just doingpaper trail type of lookup and
research.
And then genetic genealogy kindof stepped into the world of
genealogy and around early 2000sit was introduced as a way to
(17:26):
connect to your cousins, yourgenetic cousins, to verify your
paper trails, to explore,confirm some of the trails that
you've had, the paper trailsthat you may have searched all
those years.
And then forensic geneticgenealogy really stepped in as a
way to well, some airship likepeople who have filed for in the
(17:47):
court system for airship,looking for relatives,
descendants of a particularperson, to resolve those types
of cases field.
But then forensic geneticgenealogy is more obviously
using the forensic side, alsoinvestigative side, to help
(18:10):
solve cases, to help provideinvestigative leads.
And so since the Golden StateKiller case came about in 2018,
the word forensic geneticgenealogy really became an item,
like it became the new paradigmfor resolving or providing
investigative leads.
And so I've been doinggenealogy, you know, from 30
(18:32):
years ago.
I've been through the wholeparadigm the whole different
types and I've watched it evolveover the years, all the
different actors that have been,you know, all through the years
, and it's been interesting tosee the evolution of how we are
where we are today, and so Ithink that I'm excited about
this new tool, I'm excited abouthow it works.
(18:53):
But just to go back, so I'vebeen working with since 2019,
I've been working with federalagents, texas Rangers, other
agencies, law enforcementagencies across the nation,
helping them provideinvestigative leads for their
cold cases and have been, youknow, successful with those and
have helped a lot of victims andfamilies to find answers and to
(19:19):
provide some resolution onthose types of cases.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
It seems like this requires the collaboration of
experts across numerous fields,so give us an idea of what's
involved in going through theprocess of FGG for the purpose
of trying to provide leads orsolve a case.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Yes, so it really is a collaboration between
investigators.
I would say it begins withinvestigators understanding,
looking for, researching theircases to understand what they
have in their case, like thatwould be.
The investigator really is kindof the beginning point of the
case.
So they need to look in theirfile, they need to look to see,
(20:01):
they need to check with theirDNA analyst in their department
or maybe the lab or maybe themedical examiner's office.
They need to collaborate withtheir other agencies or someone
within their department toidentify if there is DNA part of
the case.
So, and hopefully there is DNApart of the case.
(20:22):
And then the next question ishow much DNA?
So that's kind of where our labcomes in.
Experts come in to try toidentify what could be
quantified, what type of extract, how it can be extracted and
what type of quantification canbe done to get us to a SNP right
, what we talk about as a SNP.
(20:42):
As a genealogist, I'm lookingat the SNP results to work on my
genealogy part of it.
So going back, it's basicallythe investigator and then
looking at what's in the caseand then working with a DNA
analyst.
And then the next questionobviously is is a district
attorney willing to prosecute acase?
(21:03):
Is there enough evidence thereto prosecute a case?
That's where they need toconsult with the DA's office to
see if that's viable, you know,if it's a viable option in
perpetrator type cases.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Does that help you kind of prioritize what cases
you're going to work on if a DAsays that yes, we want to
prosecute this?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
CHI traditionally was a UHR system.
We mostly identified humanremains.
So for our FTG, the cases thatappear to be homicides, those
move to the top of the list.
If an agency contactsspecifically and says we need
this case, we're activelyworking on this case.
(21:47):
Maybe it's a fresh case,whatever that might move up the
priority.
But we're also moving into thatrealm of forensic cases where
we would assist identifying theperpetrator.
So if we're looking at tryingto help them identify a violent
offender who may be?
out and about, then those caseswould move to the top of the
list as well.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
So, susan, then do you have to stop working on one
case and then move on to anotherif this priority changes?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Yes, and that would be the case.
If we have one that comesthrough the door and it's a high
priority, especially if it'shaving to do with safety, safety
issues we're going to put it atthe top and begin working,
because it's most highimportance that it is designated
as high importance.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Yeah, that's a relief .
Yes, Can you give us an exampleof some successful case or
something that was reallymeaningful to you to work on?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Well, I think it's interesting because my
experiences with the federalagency FBI began in 2019.
And you know, we learned a lotof things along the way about
how to process FGG cases and howwe look at matches and how we
(23:01):
determine which particular partof the tree that we need to look
at, for, you know, doingreference testing.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
And sometimes.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Originally it was kind of called target testing
but I think that word hasevolved to reference testing.
But you can hear it either waytarget or reference.
So one of the first cases I didwas with Susan Eade's case and
she was sexually assaulted,raped and then murdered.
Her perpetrator, arthur RaymondDavis, he actually passed away
(23:31):
probably within about threemonths of the murder but this
case wasn't solved until 40years later.
So it took 40 years for us tobe able to provide answers to
the family.
And it was really meaningfulbecause I, you know, I was able
to go to her memorial serviceand, you know, see the family
(23:51):
and that was very meaningful tobe able to provide them some
answers about who theperpetrator was and who had
murdered Susan, and so that wasvery meaningful.
Another case that I think ishere in Dallas is a David Thomas
Hawkins case and he's a Texastraveling rapist that you know
(24:14):
he raped probably at leastpossibly 30, up to 30 women
across kind of range of areasShreveport, dallas, all the way
up to the Amarillo area and withthat case it took me probably
about five hours to identify orto provide the investigative
(24:35):
lead.
I should say All of the geneticmatches pretty much led to him.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yes, and so Did he have a profile on CODIS as well.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Yes, because, well and this is where the victim
advocacy comes in is because alot of the women that their kits
had not been tested anduploaded had.
Finally they pushed forward andthey said we need our cases to
be processed, we want DallasCounty to process these.
(25:06):
And so they did.
And of course, the mail profilethen was uploaded into CODIS.
So, yes, his profile was inCODIS but had never hit what we
consider as a hit.
We used FGG.
Right, we used FGG to do this,and the beautiful thing about it
is, like I said, it's afantastic investigative tool and
(25:27):
it can be, you know, we can useit, provide investigative leave
or solve a case within, youknow, a couple hours, like you
know, and you think aboutinvestigators how long they
spend on a case.
I mean, I think some spendyears trying to find a
perpetrator and this new tool isjust a game changer for
(25:47):
everyone.
You know, for victims and forfamilies, and some of the women
here in Dallas have been waiting40 some odd years for to find
an answer, and so we were ableto provide that to them, which
is fantastic.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Yeah, and that can be so helpful and life-changing
for victims who've been waitingdecades to know if their you
know perpetrator was behind barsor dead or you know otherwise
could now stand you know trialfor their actions.
Yes, in the case that you werejust referring to, the one in
Texas, what happened to thatperpetrator?
Speaker 3 (26:24):
David Thomas Hawkins.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
He is in prison right now and he is serving, I
believe it's full back-to-backlife sentences, for I believe
there were at least four casesor five cases that were brought
and all adjudicated servingback-to-back.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Excellent, Susan.
So you and I talked about thatyou are a sexual assault
survivor.
Will you share your story withus?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Yes, thank you for asking me because that's you
know, that's always something Ithink difficult for some people
to ask.
But just tell me about yourstory and so I will.
I want to kind of take youthrough my journey and where we
are now with FGG and I kind ofgo through some of the things in
my case that could have beendone, that wasn't done and how
(27:12):
FGG could have helped at thetime.
So my sexual assault I alsojust call it rape, I think rape
for me is more of a brutal wordthan sexual assault.
But in January of 1981, theagency say that I was probably
one of the first rapes of WesleyWayne Miller.
(27:32):
We didn't know at the time buthe went on to rape, sexually
assault other women andeventually murder, rape and
murder a victim, aretha Stratton.
So at the time of my sexualassault, my rape, the police
came and of course, first of all, I just want to say that the
(27:53):
sexual assault was very violentand the police came and I was 16
at the time and I, you know,they took my police report and
just kind of walked away Likeokay, and what am I supposed to
do with this?
Right, I wasn't taken to thehospital, I wasn't, a rape kit
was not done.
All the things that shouldhappen didn't happen.
(28:16):
But I write it off as beingearly 1980s, that it was.
Still.
Maybe they didn't understandwhat to do those kinds of things
.
But there was DNA on me.
I mean, there was geneticmaterial on me that could have
been tested.
(28:45):
My point with that part of it isthat if you are a sexual
assault victim, demand that yougo to the hospital with a police
officer or have a friend takeyou, have a family member.
Take you Whatever you need todo, go to the hospital.
It's hard, I know it's hard,but go to the hospital and get
some help.
Make sure that you have asexual assault kit processed.
(29:06):
Make sure that you get the helpthat you need at that moment.
Don't wait, do not take a bath,Do not take a shower, do not do
anything Immediately.
Go to get some help and to getthe sexual assault kit performed
, because the sexual assault kitis what's holding the key to
(29:26):
who is your perpetrator and thatis the DNA.
And that part is where that allleads into FGG and where we are
now.
So previously, 1981, you knowreally all we had, I think even
before 1990, we just basicallyhad fingerprints, right, right.
And so in 1990, 1994, we startedto get the STRs, the short-term
(29:52):
repeats that would be put intoCODIS, and so we've kind of been
living on the CODIS spectrum Icall it the CODIS spectrum since
the 1990s.
But we're now in the currentday FGG world and it's a game
changer for so many, so manypeople and so many sexual
(30:12):
assault survivors and homicidevictims and UHRs and everyone
that could be victims and hasDNA that's available it now is
really helping to resolve someof those cases.
So had we had this tool back in1981, we probably would have,
(30:34):
you know, they could haveprocessed if they had taken me
to the hospital, had they done arape kit, had they preserved
the DNA and processed it.
If there was no kit in CODIS,then we could now process it
through FGG and use geneticgenealogy to help at least
narrow down to someinvestigative leads within a
(30:56):
short amount of time.
Right, and not just aninvestigator knocking on
someone's door or doing a canvasof a neighborhood knocking on
doors and saying did you seeanything?
I mean they still need to dothat portion of investigative
work.
They still need to dointerviewing.
Again, that's a collaboration.
Part of it is thatinvestigators have their part in
(31:19):
this whole picture, but it'sall the things that
investigators have learnedpreviously, but now they need to
know FGG is.
What is the process, what arethe protocols?
When they go and they ask forsomeone to do reference test or
a target test, we need to makesure consent forms are signed.
We need to make sure that they,you know, that they understand
(31:41):
what some of the protocols are.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
With having a protective FGG world, you know,
using this new tool, so, had FGGbeen available at the time of
your assault, how might theoutcomes for other victims of
the serial perpetrator have beendifferent?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Yes, and I meant to touch on that earlier as well.
So there were at least sixwomen that were sexually
assaulted, possibly more, but Ido believe that had FGG had been
available at the time, that itwould have saved Ritha's life.
I think it would have savedadditional women from being
(32:22):
sexually assaulted by a serialrapist.
It just would have.
It would have helped so much.
And you know, I my work is.
I love my work, because I knowI'm helping other people and I
know that I'm helping provideanswers to victims and survivors
and families, and because Iknow what it's like to be there.
(32:45):
I know what it's like to wait ayear and that's a year is not
very long.
Some women have been waiting 20, 30, 40 years and we finally
have this new tool that can helpwith those victims and people
that are families of homicidevictims, to provide answers to
(33:06):
them as well.
So it really would have beenthis tool had it been in the
1980s.
You know, looking back, itwould have.
I think it would have changedthe case tremendously and I
think it would.
The outcome would have been alot different for some of the
women by not going through thesexual assault, the brutal
sexual assaults that they wentthrough and so it's yeah, it's
(33:30):
an amazing tool and I just Ihope everyone, like I said, if
you're, if you are, a sexualassault victim number one, make
sure you go to the hospital, getthe sexual assault kit
completed, but know that.
Or if, for some reason, yourcase has been sitting there for
20 years, go to your agency.
Go to the agency thatoriginally processed your case
(33:54):
and say I want my case reopened.
I want you to look at FGG.
I want you to see if there'senough DNA in my case.
Is there enough there to try tomove forward with doing some
kind of additional investigativework through the FGG process?
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Yeah, and it can take time for survivors to be able
to self-advocate in that way andreally take charge of their
case, because unfortunately alot of the onus gets put on that
survivor to follow up withpolice and law enforcement and
other agencies to find out whatis going on with their case,
where is it in the process, wasmy rape kit tested, and so on.
(34:33):
And that's why, to your point,susan, victim advocates are so
important to this process tomake sure that things keep
moving along and to also empowersurvivors to ask the right
questions and to try to be moreinvolved in the process of
getting some kind of resolution.
Because in your case it turnedout the perpetrator was someone
(34:56):
that you knew.
Yeah, and most often that isthe case for women who
experience sexual assault orrape, especially when it's
related to maybe a formerintimate partner, which I don't
think that was the case for you.
But it was someone that youknew and a life could have been
saved if the process wasdifferent back in the 80s.
So how do you envision FGGdeveloping in the years to come?
(35:22):
Are there some possibilitiesfor advancement in this
technology or its application?
Speaker 3 (35:27):
Yes, so right now we're using GEDmatch and we're
also using FTDNA, which arebasically, for the genetic
genealogists from the early2000s, databases that citizens
just wanted to know what theirancestry was.
And so I personally I envision,I would hope that we someday we
(35:48):
would have a system similar toCODIS that would be not so much
driven by volunteer citizens orsomeone who's just uploaded
their you know, wanted to knowtheir ancestry, that kind of
thing.
So I would hope that at somepoint we would move that
direction.
But you know, that could beyears away, but I would rather
(36:09):
see it more in that realm.
I think that that would be good.
But as far as education, I thinkeducation is really important.
I think it needs to be forgenealogists.
There needs to be either adegree or a master's degree in
this, which would includecriminology coursework, legal
coursework, forensic coursework,victimology coursework, all the
(36:33):
different types of crime scenecoursework.
And there's really not aprogram, there's really not an
educational program yet, butthat I envision, that I hope
that at some point we will havean institute that will encompass
all of the different subjects,that forensic, genetic genealogy
, where it your?
Speaker 1 (36:54):
story and your experience with us.
I think having that context isreally meaningful to
understanding in a kind of 360way, not just what the Institute
does, but also how forensicgenetic genealogy really was
full circle for you as both aprofessional and a survivor.
(37:17):
Now, rob, I want to ask youwhat is the future of CHI?
Speaker 4 (37:24):
We're looking at fee-for-service models for
out-of-state cases.
We already are offering ourservices to out-of-state cases
through the SAKI grant from theBJA, so we'd like to start
working some forensic cases toID violent offenders seeking
more federal grants that mightassist in us being able to
expand the scope of our servicesto a greater range of
(37:46):
stakeholders.
We'd like to connect withvictim advocacy agencies all
over, at least starting in Texas, so that they can help us refer
those victims to us for knowingthat there's an entity out
there that can perform thisservice for free and they don't
have to do some kind ofcrowdfunding thing or something
(38:06):
like that to get it done,collaborating with other missing
persons organizations in thestate, so that we're making sure
we're working all on the samepage.
And to me, most importantly isto uphold the public trust is to
uphold the public trust.
Fgg is a very volatilediscussion and you have some
(38:28):
people that have some verystrong ideas and opinions about
law enforcement's use ofdatabases and that's why there's
only two, but there's severalof the big name databases that
their databases are huge, thatwere we able to lawfully go in
and utilize those databases, wecould solve a whole lot of cases
that way, because it would bejust a large database to compare
(38:49):
across.
But the only way we're going toget those databases to allow
that and the people whopatronize those agencies is to
maintain that public trust.
Wear the white hat, follow theDOJ interim policy, follow terms
of service with the services wedo use and make sure we're
always trying to do the rightthing and we need to gather that
(39:09):
public trust and lawenforcement has had a long and
rocky road in maintaining that.
So that is a big ask.
But it's imperative on theentities that are performing FGG
to make sure that we arefollowing all the rules to get
there so that we can convincethose people to upload their
(39:30):
kits to GEDmatch and not beafraid to opt in and that kind
of thing, so that we can solvemore cases.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
Sure Sounds good to me.
How can people learn more aboutCHI or get connected with
someone at the center?
Speaker 4 (39:43):
We're on the web.
We have an email address, isu,at unthscedu and that is
monitored by my whole unit.
So myself and anotherinvestigator and the two
genealogists.
We have a toll-free number800-763-3147.
And, like I said, we offerthese services, these UHR
(40:04):
services, to every agency inTexas At no cost.
At no cost to them, yes, safefunding.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
And what's your website?
It?
Speaker 3 (40:11):
is unthscedu slash chi.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Thank you for that, and Susan and Rob, thank you so
much for talking with me today.
Speaker 3 (40:20):
Thank you, maria, thank you for having us, thank
you, thanks so much for that,and Susan and Rob thank you so
much for talking with me today.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Thank you, maria.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, thanks so much forlistening.
Until next time, stay safe andfollow us on social media.
At National CCAW.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!