October 14, 2024 • 47 mins
Discover the groundbreaking world of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) with our guest, Leighton D'Antoni, a seasoned prosecutor and DOJ-certified expert in forensic genetic genealogy. Join us as Leighton takes us on his transformative journey from defense attorney to a leading figure in cold case prosecutions, shedding light on the innovative methods that are reshaping how violent crimes are solved. Learn how his passion for justice and the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) has revolutionized the approach to sexual assault cases in Dallas.
This episode offers invaluable insights into the distinctions between IGG, forensic genealogy, and familial DNA searching as Leighton recounts his pivotal role in the successful prosecution of serial rapist Christopher Michael Green. This episode reveals how traditional investigative work meshes with advanced DNA technologies, such as SNP and STR testing, and emphasizes the collaborative efforts required to solve complex cases. We'll also discuss the potential of IGG databases to surpass traditional CODIS systems in effectiveness, thanks to their higher success rates in linking DNA profiles to potential relatives.
Finally, we explore the profound impact of a victim-centered approach in seeking justice for marginalized communities. Leighton shares his firsthand experiences of building trust with survivors and the dedication necessary to pursue truth and justice, even in the face of historical skepticism. This episode underscores the importance of believing and supporting victims, ensuring their voices are heard and their cases are brought to resolution. Don't miss this enlightening conversation that not only highlights the strides made in prosecuting offenders but also honors the resilience of survivors in their pursuit of justice.
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.
Investigative genetic genealogy, also known as forensic genetic
genealogy, materialized asrecently as 2018 as a viable
tool to be utilized in criminalinvestigations, with the
identification of the GoldenState Killer propelling its
value to the national limelight.
(01:14):
Colloquially, investigativegenetic genealogy, also known as
IgG, may be perceived as lawenforcement's version of tracing
a suspect's ancestry.
However, officially, accordingto the National Library of
Medicine, igg is the applicationof advanced sequencing
technologies to forensic DNAevidence samples and performing
(01:35):
genetic genealogy methods andgenealogical research to produce
possible identities of unknownperpetrators of violent crimes
and unidentified human remains.
Additionally, it may beimportant to note that
investigative genetic genealogyshould not be confused with
forensic genealogy, whichprimarily deals with
(01:55):
identification without using DNA.
Nor should it be confused withfamilial DNA searching DNA
searching, which is a deliberatesearch of a criminal DNA
database to search for partialmatches between forensic
profiles and offender profilesin that database, the major
difference between the two beingthat familial DNA searching
(02:15):
deals with known DNA, whereasIgG deals with unknown DNA.
The use of IgG has beenmonumental in identifying and
holding offenders accountablewho may otherwise have escaped
justice for their crimes.
This episode will be aconversation with a seasoned
prosecutor who successfullyconvicted a serial rapist
(02:35):
through the benefit of IgGtechnology, making it the first
IgG jury trial in Dallas Countyhistory.
That prosecutor is LeightonD'Antoni, a passionate and
dedicated felony chief at theDallas County District
Attorney's Office, where hehandles cold case, homicides and
sexual assaults.
With almost 20 years ofexperience in criminal law, mr
(02:58):
D'Antoni is also DOJ certifiedin forensic genetic genealogy,
using cutting-edge DNAtechnology to identify and
prosecute serial killers andrapists.
His mission is to seek justicefor the victims and their
families and to prevent futurecrimes by these offenders.
In addition to his casework, mrD'Antoni is a national trainer
(03:20):
for cold cases, serial killers,serial rapists, DNA and IgG,
working with the Department ofJustice, fbi, bja, ihia and
multiple national districtattorneys associations, sharing
his knowledge and expertise withother prosecutors,
investigators and lawenforcement agencies to help
them solve their mostchallenging and complex cases.
(03:42):
Additionally, he contributes tothe development and
implementation of the SexualAssault Kit Initiative, a
nationwide program that aims toreduce the backlog of untested
sexual assault kits and enhancethe response to sexual assault
cases.
He joins us today to break downthe successful prosecution of
convicted serial rapistChristopher Michael Green using
(04:05):
IGG.
According to an article inSimply Forensic found on
simplyforensiccom.
Green spent more than twodecades terrorizing women with
sexual violence and remained atlarge from 2001 until 2024, when
IGG was used to positivelyidentify him as a suspect in at
least 10 reported sexualassaults.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Leighton- welcome to the show.
Good morning.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Good to be with you.
We are here to discuss the useof investigative genetic
genealogy in the prosecution ofChristopher Michael Green, and
that is the case that yousuccessfully prosecuted earlier
this year using IgG orinvestigative genetic genealogy.
Before we talk about that,let's talk about your expansive
(04:51):
career in criminal law for thepast 20 years.
How did you get intoprosecuting cold cases and
sexual assaults, and when didyou first experience IgG?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
So I actually went to law school in California and
worked in San Diego for sixyears before coming to Dallas.
I worked on the other side.
I was a defense attorney and Iwas trained at the public
defender's office in San Diego.
My family and I we moved toDallas in 2011 and pretty
quickly I took a job at the DA'soffice, got my feet under me
(05:25):
learning Texas criminal lawversus California, but by 2015,
it was prosecuting violentfelonies, murders, aggravated
robberies, and I had heard thatour office was applying for a
federal grant through theDepartment of Justice and BJA
for cold cases.
I didn't know much about it,but you know I had worked on
(05:46):
some cold cases back in SanDiego.
They've always fascinated me.
So when I heard that our officewas doing that, I tried to find
out you know as muchinformation as I could found out
that our sex assault chief atthe time, amy Derrick, was
writing the grant.
So you know I think I reachedout to her.
Let her know that.
You know I was certainlyinterested and you know I had a
murder trial down to the 292nd.
(06:08):
She came down to watch me and Ithink you know it was just a
great fit.
Our office did receive the grant.
It wasn't really.
You know what I thought it was.
I thought it was cold cases andwhile it was cold case related
what the grant really is it'scalled the Sexual Assault Kit
Initiative and that's alsocommonly what we call SACI.
(06:28):
And what SACI was really a bigpublic national policy push to
test untested rape kits, youknow, across the country back in
2014.
I mean, we're talking thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of untested kits.
Here in Dallas, we certainlyhad almost 5,000 untested kits
that we inventoried, and so theSACI grant would allow us to.
(06:52):
You know, not only it was inconjunction with testing the
kits, but a big part of it iswhat do you do once you test
these kits?
Now there's different types ofSACI grants for different types
of agencies all over the country.
Some are for testing kits, youknow, paying for the testing of
kits, and ours was not.
We actually had no money thatwas earmarked to test the kits.
(07:13):
It was more of aforward-thinking, progressive
idea of what do you do when youget all these DNA notifications
or CODIS hits.
Do we have the resources totackle that?
And so, you know, provided forprosecutors, investigators,
victim advocates and really justwe've been very blessed over
the last decade here in Dallasto be, you know, funded by SACI.
(07:36):
And you know, once I wasselected to kind of start the
team, it takes a while to learn.
I didn't have a clue whatvictim-centered investigation
was.
I had never heard of the termneurobiology of trauma.
But with SACI they flew us allup that first year and there was
just a handful of sites acrossthe country who got that first
(07:59):
year grant in 2015.
But they flew us up to theDepartment of Justice and really
just started training us on allthese things victim-centered
investigations, and you know DrRebecca Campbell teaching us
about the neurobiology of traumaand you know, before you can
really even get into these typesof cases you have to have that
foundation and that knowledge.
(08:19):
Once we, you know, kind of wentthrough that crash course, you
know we were off and running andit started with just sexual
assault cases.
We learned quickly on that.
There was also a tremendousamount of unsolved sexual
assault-related homicides inDallas and we applied for more
funding and received that so wecould kind of expand what our
(08:41):
team was going to be doing.
And you know we've been off andrunning ever since.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
So that was started in 2015.
Fast forward, here we are in2024, and we're now using
investigative genetic genealogy.
Is this the first case that youwere able to prosecute or even
use that type of investigativetechnique on?
Speaker 3 (08:59):
No, so you know, it was for my journey in IgG and
just for your listeners IgG, FGG, fig.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
there's a lot of different terms we're all
talking about the same thing.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I think it's just a matter of semantics, but I do
refer to it as IGG.
Igg came on my radar, you know,back in March of 2018, I was
reading a book by MichelleMcNamara.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Also read the book.
Yes, I know exactly the bookyou're talking about.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I'll be gone in the dark.
You know, having gone to lawschool and lived in California
for a long time, I knew aboutGSK.
You know, before it was calledGSK it was called Ear East Area
Rapist.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
So that was you know kind of one of the big cases
that everybody do, especially ifyou practice criminal law in
California.
I finished her book in March of2018.
And then, about a month laterI'll never forget it April 24th
2018, the big announcement theyhad caught the Golden State
Killer D'Angelo.
(10:00):
He gets arrested.
And I'll just say, for thatweek, week after, all I did was
try and find out how they caughthim because, as a cold case
prosecutor, I'm you know, was it?
You know it wasn't a CODIS, it.
We already knew his DNA was inCODIS and there was never any
hints.
There was just case-to-casematches right, um, and then you
(10:21):
know, I realized and heard about, you know polls and all these
guys that what they were doingwith the genealogy and FBI
agents in Los Angeles, and Ihave this email framed on my
office from May 8th 2018, whereI emailed every detective I
could think of at the DallasPolice Department that would
have anything to do with eithercold cases, sex assault,
(10:42):
homicides, and I just blastedthem and I was like, you know,
have you guys ever heard ofgenetic genealogy?
Have you ever heard of jetmatch?
Jet match is the open sourcedatabase that was, you know,
used to help identify D'Angeloand you know, of course, nobody
was like, no, you know, a coupleof men heard about GSK, but
(11:03):
wasn't really sure how he gotcaught or didn't know anything
about it, and so then I justkind of forwarded over to the
FBI.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
So that case for people who I'm sure everybody
knows who this is If you listento this podcast, you've probably
heard of GSK.
Last year, in 2023, probably inmaybe June or so we did cover
(11:37):
the case a little bit and talkwith some of the survivors.
If you want to go back in ourpodcast library you can listen
to that and catch up on whatthat is, because it was a game
changer for everyone For victims, it changed the game for
prosecutors, not to mentionscientists and, of course,
perpetrators.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
I couldn't agree more and you know, I think, even
though it has been six years,the ramifications and I think
you know we're still very earlyin the seismic shift in criminal
investigations that geneticgenealogy is bringing and will
bring, and that's certainlysomething I'm very passionate
about is, you know, helpingothers.
(12:13):
You know, whether it be inTexas or across the country,
utilize this technique, and Idon't think it's just a cold
case technique, you know, Ithink it needs to be and has
been used for all kinds of cases, but it's just so incredibly
successful.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
It is and it allows one to overcome some obstacles
in these cold caseinvestigations.
Can you give us some examplesof those obstacles and how IGG
helps to alleviate some of thechallenges from a prosecutorial
perspective?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
some of the challenges from a prosecutorial
perspective.
Sure, so for cold cases, youknow, unquestionably the biggest
issue is identification of yoursuspect.
You know everything else.
You know time, place, victim,what happened, and it's usually
just a matter of if it's a casethat's gone cold, identifying
the suspect.
And that's what IGG does.
It is an investigative toolthat helps identify suspects and
(13:07):
sometimes it's not suspects,you know, I think a big national
narrative is that.
You know, igg is just this verypowerful prosecutorial tool.
But IGG is helping to exoneratepeople.
It helps free, you know,wrongfully convicted people.
I've had a case where somebodywas wrongfully arrested and was
in jail and we were able toprove with IGG that he wasn't
(13:29):
the right suspect and, you know,we were able to release him.
So in terms of investigativetools for identity, it's the
best I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, it is doing some amazing things and I know
that across the country they'reworking to kind of build these
databases and have more IGGinvestigators who can work on
that process, because it is aprocess right.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
It is a process, you know, and it takes a lot of
people.
You know they say it takes avillage, but you know it's not
just a scientific only tool.
You really do have to combinetraditional law enforcement
investigative work.
It's not just you know gettinga your listeners don't know it
it's.
There's a type of DNA testingcalled SNP testing, which is
(14:13):
different than what we wouldhear DNA.
What we're really talking aboutis STR DNA.
This is the gold standard DNAthat's been used in court since
1986.
And it's still the goldstandard that we use in court
today.
But once you get those resultsback, you're going to have a
suspect pool when you start thetree building process and that
does really require sometimeshours.
(14:35):
I mean hundreds of hourssometimes of just, you know,
rolling up the sleeves, doingonline research again
traditional investigative,detective work that you know,
it's a real combination of both.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And there are whole companies dedicated to just that
process of doing thatinvestigation.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
You know there are certainly, you know, a lot of
the big traditional private DNAlabs across the country
certainly have gotten involvedwith IGG and you know I was just
at ISHI last week, which is theInternational Supposed Human
Identification one of the bigger, you know, conferences for labs
and everybody is getting intothe space, which I think is good
(15:17):
but also, you know, requires abit of caution because it is,
you know, somewhat unregulated.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Yeah, that's a very interesting point.
I also want to point out forour listeners again, to go back
to our podcast library.
In 2022, we did do an episode Ibelieve it was in June of 2022,
talking about the differenttypes of DNA and DNA testing.
If you want to get a littlemore information and background
on that, go back in our podcaston Crimes Against Women library
(15:46):
and you will find that episodeto listen to.
The case we're going to talkabout right now is the case of
Christopher Michael Green, aserial sexual predator and
rapist in Dallas who eventuallywas captured, convicted and
sentenced to life in prison.
Tell us about that case.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
So I had known about these cases that ultimately were
attributed to ChristopherMichael Green almost as soon as
I started doing the Saki cases.
Todd Hager is a longtime DallasPolice Department sex assault
detective.
I tried my first big serialrapist trial, you know, two or
(16:25):
three months after starting inthe spot.
He was, you know, leaddetective on that case and you
know he and.
I just kind of hit it off.
You know, I think, share thatsame kind of passion and
enthusiasm for these types ofcases and he had always told me
about these cases.
You know, at the time he wascalling him the South Dallas
Trucker and you know we had someDNA case to case matches.
(16:48):
We, you know and we're not justtalking about a few cases I
think they had a belief evenback then that there was at
least double digit victims.
But you know, just couldn'tsolve the case.
And as a prosecutor, you know,sometimes it's like on the TV
show, the first 30 minutes youknow the police doing their
thing, then they hand the caseover and then we do our thing.
But I really enjoy beinginvolved in the investigative
(17:11):
side of things or, you know,assisting law enforcement when
they have a case like this.
So Todd and I and you know Amyand Derek, we went through
everything we could do on thiscase.
We tried all kinds of you kindsof different types of DNA
testing, private lab, amy and Iwent to our bosses and got a lot
of money to do some DNAphenotyping, which was kind of
(17:35):
an advanced thing.
We had never done that before.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
But we just couldn't solve the case Meaning you
couldn't identify a suspect.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Couldn't identify a suspect.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Now I've read different reports about this
case, Some say more than 10victims.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Yeah, I think that's easily more than 10.
You know, if you look atstudies that say you know if you
have a serial rapist and you'reable to for sure say you know
because of DNA we link them upto this many cases, it's usually
a minimum of three to four Xmore than that.
And we've, you know, had someserial rapists that we've been
able to debrief and agree to sitdown with us and tell us.
(18:13):
You know, we had a guy who wehad six DNA cases on and he told
us it was easily 30 to 50.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Wow, that's incredible.
I also read about thisparticular case that this
perpetrator was a little bitmore challenging to identify and
apprehend because he did nothave another felony on his
record, so he wasn't already inyour system and people looking
for him.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, and again, a big part of IGG is, I think
nowadays the first thing peoplecome to me is hey, I got DNA
matching one in CODIS.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Can we do?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
IGG on it and that is certainly the first
prerequisite.
These cases are cases where wehave a known DNA profile.
It has been uploaded into CODIS, which is the national FBI's
offender database, and there'sno match.
There's a lot of cases.
I mean, again, we were going tobe busy for a long time having
(19:08):
this criteria and that's why youknow IGG.
In my mind, the studies haveshown so far your success rate
or the chances of solving oridentifying your suspect are so
much greater with IGG thantraditional DNA encodes.
You know, I've hadconversations with you know
people at CODIS, you know fromthe FBI that run it.
(19:29):
I don't know if it'll be in ourlifetime but I strongly believe
that you know a SNP database orIgG database will replace CODIS
one day, because everybodyyou're matched to everybody,
even in GEDmatch right now,everybody you're in there.
Even in GEDmatch right now,everybody you're in there.
(19:50):
It might be very distant butwe've never uploaded a profile
that didn't have what we callcinnamorgans, some kind of
relation to another relative,and with CODIS, you know, it's
maybe like 20, 25% chance ofgetting ahead.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
So, as we mentioned in the intro of this episode,
this particular case was thefirst jury trial in Dallas
County based on investigativegenetic genealogy.
How does this unprecedentedjury trial impact sexual assault
cases going forward,specifically for prosecutors in
Dallas?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Well, so it was the first case we took to jury and
to verdict.
That had been you know wherethe suspect was identified with
IGG.
But we had had some, you know,pretty groundbreaking IGG
convictions.
Before we had a guy, davidHawkins, who was the guy I was
talking about.
We had 60 in eight cases matchedand he told us it was at least
(20:40):
30 to 50.
That was the first convictionin Dallas County.
Earlier this year we had thefirst murder conviction, laborio
Canales, which was solved.
Again, he was identified usingIgG and you know this case
follows in that pattern and thefact that.
So when you have this sort ofrepeated success and you're able
to demonstrate, you know wehave a good working formula for
(21:01):
the repeated success it getspeople to buy into it and that's
what we really need.
You know we have a good workingformula for the repeated
success.
It gets people to buy into itand that's what we really need.
You know you need buy-in.
I need buy-in from myadministration here at the DA's
office to allow us to continueto do this Certainly.
Dallas Police Department,dallas FBI.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
You know now that we are showing a pattern of success
.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
and again, these are cases people told us were
unsolvable.
Yeah, and yet the, the IgGevidence cannot be submitted as
evidence in the trial.
Is that correct?
Well, you know, it's, it's newand this will.
This will change, I think, injurisdictions, and there'll be
certainly, you know, courtopinions and appellate courts
who rule on this.
But from my point of view, I amnever trying to admit any of the
IgG evidence at trial becausethat's not the evidence I'm
using to prove my case.
So you know, when we go totrial, we have an indictment.
(21:52):
That indictment has certainelements that we have to prove
and obviously in these cases,identity it's a big part of it.
I'm not using anything from IgGor the IgG portion of the
investigation to prove identity.
We are still using thattraditional STR DNA and that's
the evidence that we wouldpresent to court.
So you know, it's an incrediblystrong and powerful
(22:15):
investigative tool, but it's notevidence and people, I think,
sometimes have not a problem butan issue of just kind of
comprehending that.
You know, I've gone and donetrainings for prosecutors all
over the country about it andthey always think, oh, yeah, so
you just you know how do you putyour IGG evidence on.
And I'm like I don't, you know,just like if you had done, your
officer or your detective haddone a polygraph on a suspect
(22:37):
and that is an investigativetool that helps you kind of move
the ball down the line.
But you're not going to beputting any polygraph evidence
in a trial.
Cases get solved with anonymoustips all the time.
That evidence is admissible itcan show how it led the
investigation to.
You know that point whereyou're able to get probable
cause or a search warrant.
But you know proving identityand using the traditional STR
(23:00):
DNA.
You know it's still the same,yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
So, from what I read about this particular case, the
IgG helped to identify thesuspect, but then the actual
victims were able to positivelyID this perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
And so and this was in all cases are certainly
different than usual.
This was you know.
Typically, what you're going todo is you're going to hopefully
build your tree to a pointwhere you sometimes you get one
suspect Sometimes there'sbrothers, cousins, they're all
you know in terms of the scienceand your tree building could be
possible suspects and you haveto painstakingly eliminate each
(23:42):
one, and that could be, you know, doing a trash pull or checking
you or checking DNAsurreptitiously.
In this case, we had done somesurreptitious DNA collections on
other suspects that were notChristopher Michael Green, and
we were able to eliminate those.
And that's exactly how it'ssupposed to be.
You're not supposed to jump thegun.
You go through methodically,make sure that you're getting to
the right person.
And you know, you go throughmethodically, make sure that
you're getting to the rightperson.
(24:03):
And it just happened to beright when we kind of started
eliminating almost everybody andGreen was sort of the last guy
left, the detectives brought insome of the victims and they all
I mean four out of six.
you know, popped them right awayand it's, you know, when
(24:23):
somebody identifies a suspect,especially in such a horrific
crime as aggravated sexualassault, and you just feel the
emotion and the overwhelming.
They were all 100%, it's thisguy.
It's this guy and thatultimately ended up being the
probable cause that was used toarrest Green.
But then also we get a searchwarrant and that search warrant
is for what we call a buckleswab and that's, you know, the
(24:45):
Q-tip and the cheek.
And so when he's arrested wehave the probable cause to get
his DNA from his cheek, take theswab and then that goes to the
crime lab and that's where weget our match to the crime
evidence.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Well, kudos to you and the team for apprehending
this individual, because he hada long history, from what I
understand, of violent sexualcrimes against women.
He did.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
I mean this was a bad , bad dude, and I mean obviously
anyone who commits sexualassault or aggravated sexual
assault, not a good person, butthere are.
You know, there are differentdegrees of them and he was
violent.
There was one case back in 1999where I think he really thought
he had killed her.
He had beat her so badly and heused a knife a lot of the times
(25:33):
and left her for dead under anoverpass in South Dallas under
I-45.
But he wasn't sure she was deadso he took a cigarette and was
poking her in the chest to seeif she would move.
And she just remembers being inand out of conscience.
But then she described it kindof having an overwhelming
(25:53):
feeling that she felt was verygodly, that just allowed her to
play dead Uh-huh, Even thoughthey were, and she still has the
scars all over her chest.
But he thought he killed herand she plays dead and is able
to get away.
But now he was.
He was horrifically violentwith his victims and you know I
(26:15):
reserve this term for only theworst of the worst, but he was
definitely a monster.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, that is sounds like what he was or is Now in
various news coverage about thecase.
You mentioned that theassistance of the Bureau of
Justice's Sexual Assault KidInitiative, also known as SAKI,
as you mentioned, was highlyinstrumental in aiding the
prosecution of this case.
I just want to ask you toclarify what SAKI is and how it
(26:43):
works, and, in conjunction withIGG, how does it help identify,
capture and convict sexualoffenders?
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Sure, so again, SAKI is the name of the BJA DOJ's
grant, and there are differenttypes of SAKI grants, I think,
as I mentioned before, and oursspecifically is to help fund the
prosecution and ultimatelyconvicting sexual predators,
serial rapists.
You know, we've even had serialkillers.
(27:10):
We've identified and convicted.
And what's so important is, youknow and it's not just here in
Dallas, but you know, whetherit's law enforcement or
prosecutors, everyone's strapped.
You know, money is always anissue and these cases cold cases
in general are far morecomplicated than regular cases.
They require a higher intensityof investigation travel.
(27:32):
Dallas is a very transient city.
So, we're working on cases inthe 80s and 90s.
Most of those witnesses don'tlive here, so we have to spend a
lot of money going to.
We go fly out to differentstates, we fly people in from
different states, differentcountries.
Sometimes To put these cases onthat would be very difficult
without BJA's assistance.
So, first and foremost, thatfunding has been the driving
(27:55):
force to help us and it allowsme and my team to really sit
down and spend time on thesecases.
You know it's not.
You know, unfortunately, someother.
you know divisions and otheroffices I've worked in you know,
you are kind of flying by theseat of your pants and you might
be walking into court not asprepared as you should be or
want to be, but because of BJA'sfunding we're allowed to really
(28:16):
, you know, do right by thesecases and these survivors and
you know I look back on the lastdecade we have tested all of
our 5,000, almost 5,000backlogged kids.
Our team has now identified 440offenders and that represents
800 total victim survivors.
We have gotten 150 criminalindictments.
(28:40):
13 of those indictments are nowfor sexual assault-related
murder.
We have 83 convictions and 16life sentences.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
That is incredible and that's really due to the
funding that you received thatallowed the team to investigate
all of these cases.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
It would be such a small fraction had we not had
BJA's assistance and funding,and it's not just funding, you
know.
What I love about SACI is thatit's become.
It's a small, you know.
We started kind of as a smallgroup and it's certainly gotten
a lot bigger, but it's a veryclose group, so it's not
uncommon for me to be talking toprosecutors all over the
(29:18):
country.
You know, and it's at the pointnow, since we're sort of the
senior one of the the UnitedStates, that we get calls from
oh we just got this grant.
Hey, what do we do?
And we were those people 10years ago.
So we love returning the favorand, especially with IGG, the
success we've had with IGG isdirectly because of BJA, not
(29:40):
just the funding but therelationships that we had built
even pre-2018 with the FBI FBIabsolute best in class in any
IGG work.
You know we certainly, and theDallas FBI office in particular.
Their IGG team is phenomenal.
But you know I was able to havesome relationships with those
(30:02):
folks prior to IGG coming on thescene.
That you know it really helpedget me into the door.
You know they took me seriously, I took them seriously and then
in 2020, when Agent Whitestarted running the Dallas FBI
IGG team, you know he and Iagain just sort of like with
Todd Hager at DPD you know wewere just very like-minded,
(30:22):
passionate in this work and youknow we were able to create this
repeated formula for success.
But it all goes back to BJA andtheir, you know, assistance and
not just funding again andtraining relationships.
It's really the key to all ofthis.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Let's talk about one of the other acronyms many, many
acronyms that we have today forall of these subjects, and that
one is CODIS.
For people who may not befamiliar with what CODIS is,
could you tell us what thatstands for and how it is helpful
, but sometimes not enough, andwhy?
Igg would really be beneficial.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
So CODIS is the combined offender database
system that is run andmaintained by the FBI, and what
it essentially is is that youhave been convicted of a felony
anywhere in the United Statesand, going back a pretty good
ways, your DNA is going to betaken, typically either before
you're released from prison oryou know and again, it's state
(31:24):
by state they do it differently.
But what it should be is that,even if you were convicted of a
felony and put on probation, youknow the probation officer
would take your DNA and we couldspend a whole another hour on
what we call lawfully owned DNA.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Yes, there are many, many, many opinions on all of
those things.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
And so when we have DNA from a crime scene that you
know isn't directly comparableto any suspect or there's no
suspect to compare it to, thatDNA profile is uploaded into
CODIS and if there is a match,then the law enforcement agency
would get notification of thatmatch.
And you know we solve tons ofcases with CODIS.
You know it's still, you knowprobably, you know in terms of
(32:04):
numbers, our best tool.
But there are certainly lots ofcases where the suspect has not
ever been convicted of a felonyor, as we've come to find in
one of our recent homicide cases, had been convicted of a felony
, multiple felonies but theynever got his DNA, for whatever
reason you know it was theprison's fault, probation
(32:25):
department's fault.
you know, and that's anunfortunate reality that we face
is that many of these peopleshould be in CODIS or not.
But the fact is, if you're notin CODIS and we don't have a
suspect, DNA is not going tosolve that case.
Traditional STR DNA.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Yeah, understood.
So how do all of these systemsthen work with VICAP?
Speaker 3 (32:44):
So VICAP is also an FBI house and VICAP is great
because, you know, this wasstarted a few decades ago.
Really, I think the birth ofVICAP came from people
committing serial offenses indifferent jurisdictions.
A lot of that was truck driversand things like that, and
(33:04):
agencies weren't talking to eachother.
You know you might haveagencies like you know, for
instance, here just in northtexas, you have so many agency
here in dallas county.
You know collin county has lotsof agencies, tarrant county
didn't, but a lot of theseagencies don't talk to each
other.
Or you do have people that arecommitting crimes, maybe in
louisiana, Arkansas and Texas,and they have such unique traits
(33:28):
.
You know the modus operandi is.
You know very specific, thatVICAP allows law enforcement to
enter that information intotheir system and you know be
able to say, hey look, you knowthese similarities, the way they
operated, you know the methodsthat they were used, these
unique characteristics.
There's a possibility that theycould be connected.
(33:49):
It could be the same offender.
Let's at least have thatconversation.
Those agencies should betalking to each other.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
Right.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
And the FBI does a great job, you know,
facilitating that.
One thing I haven't mentionedyet are what we call the interim
DOJ guidelines for IGG.
I haven't mentioned yet what wecall the interim DOJ guidelines
for IGG and it's again a bestpractice manual.
It's not mandated at this pointfor all agencies, but certainly
if you're receiving federalfunding to work these cases or
(34:16):
you are a federal agency likethe FBI you absolutely have to
follow these guidelines.
And one of those guidelines is,you know, certainly it has to be
a DNA profile that's beenuploaded to CODIS, doesn't hit
anybody, but the case has to beentered into VICA.
You know, it's not just a hey,it didn't match anybody in CODIS
.
Let's just start, you know,doing IGG.
You have to do a lot more.
(34:37):
You kind of have to reallyexhaust all you know
investigative techniques beforeyou go to IGG.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Let me just make sure I understand what you just said
.
If you want to use IGG usingfederal funding, the case had to
be in CODIS and you have to putit in VICAP before you can use
IGG.
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yeah, and there's several other things you have to
do as well, and you know we are, we are very adamant even if
it's so.
We have agencies that certainlydon't receive either receive
federal funding or are not boundby the DOJ interim guidelines.
But I tell them we're not goingto take your case unless these
guidelines are followed, andthat's to protect.
You know, the privacy, rightsof the citizens and the ethics
(35:18):
for using IGG are so importantthat you know I always tell
people my big fear is thatthere's going to be someone who
messes this up for everybodyelse because they were reckless.
And they didn't either adhere tothe DOJ guidelines or you know
they weren't trying to protect.
You know third parties andinnocent folks.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Yeah, that's.
That is an excellent point andI hadn't really thought about
that no-transcript.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Sure, and I think the DOJ intern guidelines certainly
take that as an important.
You know, anytime you'reworking any sort of
investigation with lawenforcement, you know there are
tons of ethical guidelines.
There are more so, I think,with IGG, because you know there
are misconceptions out there.
I do think there's people outthere who think that law
(36:12):
enforcement are, you know, usinglike 23andme or you know
ancestrycom's databases, andthey're not.
They're completely prohibitedfrom using it.
Don't even try and use them andjust kind of back up a little
bit how the process really worksis you know, for example, say
you or somebody who sends offfor a 23andme or ancestry kit.
You know you're curious aboutyour own genealogy and history
(36:37):
and they'll send you.
You know, basically what isyour SNP profile.
You can then take thatinformation and upload it to
other databases.
Some are protected and they'reall very clear.
Like you know what you'regetting to.
The one that we talk about themost is JetMatch because it's
the largest repository, but itis an open source website and
(36:58):
they are very clear.
You know you've got to check abunch of things and click a
bunch of boxes and say, hey,just so you know anybody can
search this.
You know literally anybody, lawenforcement, anybody.
So if you are uploading yourprofile, which you own, you know
you have a right to do whateveryou want with it.
Just so you know it can be usedby anybody and searched by
(37:19):
anybody.
But if that person elects notto do that and they want to keep
it private on one of the, youknow, private consumer databases
we're, you know lawenforcement's not going to have
access to that and it's notgoing to be searched against.
So at the end of the day, youknow you own the privacy rights
of your profile and if you wantto, we have used IHG, again,
like I said, to help exonerate,to help clear suspects.
(38:02):
You know, when we're buildingthe trees and we have that
suspect pool and there could be,you know we've had I think we
had one case.
They showed me a tree that waslike 32 people at the same
cousin level that were males,that potentially could have been
the suspect and I tell them youcan't arrest anybody, get a
search warrant for anybody or doanything based on IGG.
(38:23):
Even if you got down to theright person, you still have to
be able to get that traditionalSTR DNA and it has to be a match
before we arrest anybody andbefore, certainly, we charge
anybody.
And that's just following thoseDOJ guidelines, guidelines.
If you follow the dojguidelines, you're not going to
be arresting the wrong personand in fact it's quite the
(38:43):
opposite.
You're going to be able toclear suspects and clear people
and, like I've had theexperience, somebody was falsely
accused of one of our casesbefore we, our office, got
involved and we were able toreally, you know, know, fix that
wrong.
And I can't stress it enough.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, I mean, using this technology is incredibly
helpful.
It has had amazing results inconvictions and getting justice
for survivors but it's complex.
The process itself is verycomplex and it requires a lot of
people to collaborate in orderfor it to work.
So I'm curious about how thisparticular case might be used as
(39:24):
a model for prosecutors andothers who are handling similar
cases, in particular, if youcould help us understand the
critical need for collaborationacross departments and agencies
when IGG has a central role in apossible conviction.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
Sure.
So you know, once we were ableto, you know work a few of these
cases, and again it was theDallas FBI office and we've done
it with multiple lawenforcement agencies here in
Dallas, not just Dallas PoliceDepartment.
We've solved cases for Mesquite, garland, but again, sticking
with, you know kind of how wedid it at the very beginning
(40:01):
with the Hawkins case.
You know, working with the FBI,working with Todd Hager at DPD
and creating that formula.
And you know, I always stressto them, whether it's IGG or any
type of investigation, creatinga repeatable formula that can
show you to be successful.
Do it right and it will repeatitself.
(40:22):
And so we certainly in Dallashave several what we call MDTs,
multi-disciplinary teams.
We have a SART program that'sone of the best in the country,
one of the best in the country,and for those who don't know
what SART is, it's an MDT thatin this case it's the Dallas
County District Attorney'sOffice, several of our local law
(40:42):
enforcement agencies, all ofthe hospitals that are
participating in the SANEprogram.
So that's Parkland, methodist,baylor, presby, and then you
know, we have our MDT communitypartners, which Dallas again has
some of the best in the country.
We have the SANE Initiative,courtney's Place, darcy, turning
Point.
We're all collaborating, we'reall meeting, you know, talking
(41:04):
about these cases Our crime lab,we call it SWIFT's, but they're
an incredibly important part ofthis process process and so
when we bring something like IGGto, you know a SART meeting
which also goes to the TexasDepartment of Public Safety's
crime lab, and we're tellingthem, and especially for SWIFT,
our local crime lab, you know,here I'm telling you know, I
(41:26):
know y'all are like completelyoverworked with so much to do.
You're not, and since y'alldon't do this type of SNP
testing, but here's what I needyou to do.
I need you to go find evidence.
I need you to what we call wantit.
See how much is there DNA left.
You know, extract it.
I need a CODIS approved lab toextract the DNA and then package
(41:48):
it off and send it off.
You know that's not in their jobresponsibilities and that takes
a lot of time and time awayfrom all the other things that
they're doing.
But you know they answer thecall time and time again and I
think that's because of our youknow what we call big start, our
dallas start in dt um.
We've been doing it for for solong, you know, I think what 15
(42:08):
years or so?
Right, and we all know we'reall good at what we do, that
we're committed to and most ofus have been in our roles for
quite a long time.
But you have to have thatbuy-in and, even at a smaller
level, what I call our kind ofIGG MDT, with our office, dallas
FBI office and our local lawenforcement agencies and SWIFTs
(42:28):
again, when we started solvingthese cases, convicting know
success just breeds buy-in atall levels.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
Yeah, that's important advice for anyone who
has a new cold caseinvestigation initiative or
otherwise working on with IGG orwith multidisciplinary teams.
Before I let you go, I did findsome interesting other
information about this case.
(42:56):
In a press release from DallasCounty about the case.
There was a quote from yourclosing argument where you
stated quote Predators can'tlive with the truth, survivors
can't live without it.
So let's talk about the truthfor a minute.
Dr Judith Herman wrote in herbook Truth and Repair that what
survivors have told her theywant is to be believed.
(43:18):
They need the truth to beexposed.
They need law enforcement andprosecutors and others to work
with them and on their behalf toget to the truth so truly as
you said they survivors cannotlive without the truth.
What can you share with thoselistening who work on similar
cases about the pursuit of truthand, ultimately, the pursuit of
justice for victims of thesecrimes?
Speaker 3 (43:40):
So with the Green case and you know, really like
any of our big serial rape casesor trials we've had over the
last decade, or, you know,serial killers and homicides,
because, again, going back tothe funding we get from BJA to
really turn these investigationsand prosecutions into a
victim-centered approach, a lotof these cases were cold because
(44:02):
police maybe didn't believe thevictims, or they were.
You know what we call ourmarginalized community.
They may have had drug problems, prostitutes, mental health
issues, but for a variety ofreasons nobody listened to them
or nobody thought they weretelling the truth.
We you know, megan, this is abig thing for me we need to
spend as much time buildingrelationships with our survivors
(44:26):
ever before we take them intocourt and I think our success in
trials is a direct reflectionof those relationships we build.
You know most of thesesurvivors.
When we're going and knockingon their doors, you know they
still look at us as, like youknow, the police from 20, 25
years ago.
Nothing was victim centered atthat point.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
And you really have to be able to get them to trust
you and you build on thatrelationship.
And in this green case, youknow, we got to know and we're
talking about such a variety ofdifferent victims.
You know all races, alldifferent.
You know different ages,backgrounds.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
And some of these cases happened so long ago.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Yep, we had cases going back to 1999.
And I think our latest case was2012 or 13.
And most of them were verydistrusting of law enforcement.
So you know we did spend thetime and you let them know.
Here's the deal.
I can't fix what happened, youknow, 20 years ago.
But here's what we can tell youis that we believe you, we know
(45:28):
this happened to you and Ialways tell them I don't care if
you did drugs or prostitute,you know, none of that stuff
matters.
And I always use the example.
One of my first big serial rapetrials.
I had a victim who we had tobring back from prison because
she had been convicted ofcapital murder.
I said I don't care what you'vedone.
You can be a convicted capitalmurderer, but before that you
(45:48):
had been sexually assaulted.
You do deserve to have your dayand you do deserve to be able
to speak your truth.
These are difficult cases totry.
Juries often struggle,especially in a he said, she
said case, and we don't winevery case.
But even the cases that we'veeither lost or it was a hung
jury, you know, just for thatsurvivor to be able to go into
(46:10):
that courtroom and speak theirtruth is so powerful that
oftentimes and they've told me,you know the outcome wasn't as
important as me being able to dothat.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
That's so perfect, because that's exactly what Dr
Herman said.
It wasn't about the sentencefor the perpetrator, it was
about being believed, and by thepeople who matter?
Speaker 3 (46:34):
And in these cases I think we're an incredible
example of that because you know, I mean it was flat out written
in some of these reports.
You know back in the day thatthe human officers didn't
believe.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
And you know it's frustrating to you know, when
you start working a case likethat to see that.
But I and I don't want to, youknow, speak badly of law
enforcement back in the day, butthere has been a pretty
significant shift in how thesecases I mean Dallas Police
Department really has led thecharge here locally and
victim-centered investigations,and former Sergeant Amy Mills
(47:08):
deserves a lot of credit forreally transforming the sexual
assault division there and it'sa different time.
We're more educated, people aremore enlightened and it's great
to see it's a different timewe're more educated, people are
more enlightened and it's greatto see that.
We have a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
We do and I think you're, for what it's worth
doing.
A great job, leighton Dan.
Tony, thank you so much fortalking with me today.
Thanks so much for listening.
Until next time, stay safe.
The 2025 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women will take place in
Dallas, texas, may 19th throughthe 22nd at the Sheraton Dallas
.
Learn more and register atconferencecaworg and follow us
(47:45):
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.
Investigative genetic genealogy, also known as forensic genetic
genealogy, materialized asrecently as 2018 as a viable
tool to be utilized in criminalinvestigations, with the
identification of the GoldenState Killer propelling its
value to the national limelight.
(01:14):
Colloquially, investigativegenetic genealogy, also known as
IgG, may be perceived as lawenforcement's version of tracing
a suspect's ancestry.
However, officially, accordingto the National Library of
Medicine, igg is the applicationof advanced sequencing
technologies to forensic DNAevidence samples and performing
(01:35):
genetic genealogy methods andgenealogical research to produce
possible identities of unknownperpetrators of violent crimes
and unidentified human remains.
Additionally, it may beimportant to note that
investigative genetic genealogyshould not be confused with
forensic genealogy, whichprimarily deals with
(01:55):
identification without using DNA.
Nor should it be confused withfamilial DNA searching DNA
searching, which is a deliberatesearch of a criminal DNA
database to search for partialmatches between forensic
profiles and offender profilesin that database, the major
difference between the two beingthat familial DNA searching
(02:15):
deals with known DNA, whereasIgG deals with unknown DNA.
The use of IgG has beenmonumental in identifying and
holding offenders accountablewho may otherwise have escaped
justice for their crimes.
This episode will be aconversation with a seasoned
prosecutor who successfullyconvicted a serial rapist
(02:35):
through the benefit of IgGtechnology, making it the first
IgG jury trial in Dallas Countyhistory.
That prosecutor is LeightonD'Antoni, a passionate and
dedicated felony chief at theDallas County District
Attorney's Office, where hehandles cold case, homicides and
sexual assaults.
With almost 20 years ofexperience in criminal law, mr
(02:58):
D'Antoni is also DOJ certifiedin forensic genetic genealogy,
using cutting-edge DNAtechnology to identify and
prosecute serial killers andrapists.
His mission is to seek justicefor the victims and their
families and to prevent futurecrimes by these offenders.
In addition to his casework, mrD'Antoni is a national trainer
(03:20):
for cold cases, serial killers,serial rapists, DNA and IgG,
working with the Department ofJustice, fbi, bja, ihia and
multiple national districtattorneys associations, sharing
his knowledge and expertise withother prosecutors,
investigators and lawenforcement agencies to help
them solve their mostchallenging and complex cases.
(03:42):
Additionally, he contributes tothe development and
implementation of the SexualAssault Kit Initiative, a
nationwide program that aims toreduce the backlog of untested
sexual assault kits and enhancethe response to sexual assault
cases.
He joins us today to break downthe successful prosecution of
convicted serial rapistChristopher Michael Green using
(04:05):
IGG.
According to an article inSimply Forensic found on
simplyforensiccom.
Green spent more than twodecades terrorizing women with
sexual violence and remained atlarge from 2001 until 2024, when
IGG was used to positivelyidentify him as a suspect in at
least 10 reported sexualassaults.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Leighton- welcome to the show.
Good morning.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Good to be with you.
We are here to discuss the useof investigative genetic
genealogy in the prosecution ofChristopher Michael Green, and
that is the case that yousuccessfully prosecuted earlier
this year using IgG orinvestigative genetic genealogy.
Before we talk about that,let's talk about your expansive
(04:51):
career in criminal law for thepast 20 years.
How did you get intoprosecuting cold cases and
sexual assaults, and when didyou first experience IgG?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
So I actually went to law school in California and
worked in San Diego for sixyears before coming to Dallas.
I worked on the other side.
I was a defense attorney and Iwas trained at the public
defender's office in San Diego.
My family and I we moved toDallas in 2011 and pretty
quickly I took a job at the DA'soffice, got my feet under me
(05:25):
learning Texas criminal lawversus California, but by 2015,
it was prosecuting violentfelonies, murders, aggravated
robberies, and I had heard thatour office was applying for a
federal grant through theDepartment of Justice and BJA
for cold cases.
I didn't know much about it,but you know I had worked on
(05:46):
some cold cases back in SanDiego.
They've always fascinated me.
So when I heard that our officewas doing that, I tried to find
out you know as muchinformation as I could found out
that our sex assault chief atthe time, amy Derrick, was
writing the grant.
So you know I think I reachedout to her.
Let her know that.
You know I was certainlyinterested and you know I had a
murder trial down to the 292nd.
(06:08):
She came down to watch me and Ithink you know it was just a
great fit.
Our office did receive the grant.
It wasn't really.
You know what I thought it was.
I thought it was cold cases andwhile it was cold case related
what the grant really is it'scalled the Sexual Assault Kit
Initiative and that's alsocommonly what we call SACI.
(06:28):
And what SACI was really a bigpublic national policy push to
test untested rape kits, youknow, across the country back in
2014.
I mean, we're talking thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of untested kits.
Here in Dallas, we certainlyhad almost 5,000 untested kits
that we inventoried, and so theSACI grant would allow us to.
(06:52):
You know, not only it was inconjunction with testing the
kits, but a big part of it iswhat do you do once you test
these kits?
Now there's different types ofSACI grants for different types
of agencies all over the country.
Some are for testing kits, youknow, paying for the testing of
kits, and ours was not.
We actually had no money thatwas earmarked to test the kits.
(07:13):
It was more of aforward-thinking, progressive
idea of what do you do when youget all these DNA notifications
or CODIS hits.
Do we have the resources totackle that?
And so, you know, provided forprosecutors, investigators,
victim advocates and really justwe've been very blessed over
the last decade here in Dallasto be, you know, funded by SACI.
(07:36):
And you know, once I wasselected to kind of start the
team, it takes a while to learn.
I didn't have a clue whatvictim-centered investigation
was.
I had never heard of the termneurobiology of trauma.
But with SACI they flew us allup that first year and there was
just a handful of sites acrossthe country who got that first
(07:59):
year grant in 2015.
But they flew us up to theDepartment of Justice and really
just started training us on allthese things victim-centered
investigations, and you know DrRebecca Campbell teaching us
about the neurobiology of traumaand you know, before you can
really even get into these typesof cases you have to have that
foundation and that knowledge.
(08:19):
Once we, you know, kind of wentthrough that crash course, you
know we were off and running andit started with just sexual
assault cases.
We learned quickly on that.
There was also a tremendousamount of unsolved sexual
assault-related homicides inDallas and we applied for more
funding and received that so wecould kind of expand what our
(08:41):
team was going to be doing.
And you know we've been off andrunning ever since.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
So that was started in 2015.
Fast forward, here we are in2024, and we're now using
investigative genetic genealogy.
Is this the first case that youwere able to prosecute or even
use that type of investigativetechnique on?
Speaker 3 (08:59):
No, so you know, it was for my journey in IgG and
just for your listeners IgG, FGG, fig.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
there's a lot of different terms we're all
talking about the same thing.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I think it's just a matter of semantics, but I do
refer to it as IGG.
Igg came on my radar, you know,back in March of 2018, I was
reading a book by MichelleMcNamara.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Also read the book.
Yes, I know exactly the bookyou're talking about.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I'll be gone in the dark.
You know, having gone to lawschool and lived in California
for a long time, I knew aboutGSK.
You know, before it was calledGSK it was called Ear East Area
Rapist.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
So that was you know kind of one of the big cases
that everybody do, especially ifyou practice criminal law in
California.
I finished her book in March of2018.
And then, about a month laterI'll never forget it April 24th
2018, the big announcement theyhad caught the Golden State
Killer D'Angelo.
(10:00):
He gets arrested.
And I'll just say, for thatweek, week after, all I did was
try and find out how they caughthim because, as a cold case
prosecutor, I'm you know, was it?
You know it wasn't a CODIS, it.
We already knew his DNA was inCODIS and there was never any
hints.
There was just case-to-casematches right, um, and then you
(10:21):
know, I realized and heard about, you know polls and all these
guys that what they were doingwith the genealogy and FBI
agents in Los Angeles, and Ihave this email framed on my
office from May 8th 2018, whereI emailed every detective I
could think of at the DallasPolice Department that would
have anything to do with eithercold cases, sex assault,
(10:42):
homicides, and I just blastedthem and I was like, you know,
have you guys ever heard ofgenetic genealogy?
Have you ever heard of jetmatch?
Jet match is the open sourcedatabase that was, you know,
used to help identify D'Angeloand you know, of course, nobody
was like, no, you know, a coupleof men heard about GSK, but
(11:03):
wasn't really sure how he gotcaught or didn't know anything
about it, and so then I justkind of forwarded over to the
FBI.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
So that case for people who I'm sure everybody
knows who this is If you listento this podcast, you've probably
heard of GSK.
Last year, in 2023, probably inmaybe June or so we did cover
(11:37):
the case a little bit and talkwith some of the survivors.
If you want to go back in ourpodcast library you can listen
to that and catch up on whatthat is, because it was a game
changer for everyone For victims, it changed the game for
prosecutors, not to mentionscientists and, of course,
perpetrators.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
I couldn't agree more and you know, I think, even
though it has been six years,the ramifications and I think
you know we're still very earlyin the seismic shift in criminal
investigations that geneticgenealogy is bringing and will
bring, and that's certainlysomething I'm very passionate
about is, you know, helpingothers.
(12:13):
You know, whether it be inTexas or across the country,
utilize this technique, and Idon't think it's just a cold
case technique, you know, Ithink it needs to be and has
been used for all kinds of cases, but it's just so incredibly
successful.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
It is and it allows one to overcome some obstacles
in these cold caseinvestigations.
Can you give us some examplesof those obstacles and how IGG
helps to alleviate some of thechallenges from a prosecutorial
perspective?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
some of the challenges from a prosecutorial
perspective.
Sure, so for cold cases, youknow, unquestionably the biggest
issue is identification of yoursuspect.
You know everything else.
You know time, place, victim,what happened, and it's usually
just a matter of if it's a casethat's gone cold, identifying
the suspect.
And that's what IGG does.
It is an investigative toolthat helps identify suspects and
(13:07):
sometimes it's not suspects,you know, I think a big national
narrative is that.
You know, igg is just this verypowerful prosecutorial tool.
But IGG is helping to exoneratepeople.
It helps free, you know,wrongfully convicted people.
I've had a case where somebodywas wrongfully arrested and was
in jail and we were able toprove with IGG that he wasn't
(13:29):
the right suspect and, you know,we were able to release him.
So in terms of investigativetools for identity, it's the
best I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, it is doing some amazing things and I know
that across the country they'reworking to kind of build these
databases and have more IGGinvestigators who can work on
that process, because it is aprocess right.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
It is a process, you know, and it takes a lot of
people.
You know they say it takes avillage, but you know it's not
just a scientific only tool.
You really do have to combinetraditional law enforcement
investigative work.
It's not just you know gettinga your listeners don't know it
it's.
There's a type of DNA testingcalled SNP testing, which is
(14:13):
different than what we wouldhear DNA.
What we're really talking aboutis STR DNA.
This is the gold standard DNAthat's been used in court since
1986.
And it's still the goldstandard that we use in court
today.
But once you get those resultsback, you're going to have a
suspect pool when you start thetree building process and that
does really require sometimeshours.
(14:35):
I mean hundreds of hourssometimes of just, you know,
rolling up the sleeves, doingonline research again
traditional investigative,detective work that you know,
it's a real combination of both.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And there are whole companies dedicated to just that
process of doing thatinvestigation.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
You know there are certainly, you know, a lot of
the big traditional private DNAlabs across the country
certainly have gotten involvedwith IGG and you know I was just
at ISHI last week, which is theInternational Supposed Human
Identification one of the bigger, you know, conferences for labs
and everybody is getting intothe space, which I think is good
(15:17):
but also, you know, requires abit of caution because it is,
you know, somewhat unregulated.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Yeah, that's a very interesting point.
I also want to point out forour listeners again, to go back
to our podcast library.
In 2022, we did do an episode Ibelieve it was in June of 2022,
talking about the differenttypes of DNA and DNA testing.
If you want to get a littlemore information and background
on that, go back in our podcaston Crimes Against Women library
(15:46):
and you will find that episodeto listen to.
The case we're going to talkabout right now is the case of
Christopher Michael Green, aserial sexual predator and
rapist in Dallas who eventuallywas captured, convicted and
sentenced to life in prison.
Tell us about that case.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
So I had known about these cases that ultimately were
attributed to ChristopherMichael Green almost as soon as
I started doing the Saki cases.
Todd Hager is a longtime DallasPolice Department sex assault
detective.
I tried my first big serialrapist trial, you know, two or
(16:25):
three months after starting inthe spot.
He was, you know, leaddetective on that case and you
know he and.
I just kind of hit it off.
You know, I think, share thatsame kind of passion and
enthusiasm for these types ofcases and he had always told me
about these cases.
You know, at the time he wascalling him the South Dallas
Trucker and you know we had someDNA case to case matches.
(16:48):
We, you know and we're not justtalking about a few cases I
think they had a belief evenback then that there was at
least double digit victims.
But you know, just couldn'tsolve the case.
And as a prosecutor, you know,sometimes it's like on the TV
show, the first 30 minutes youknow the police doing their
thing, then they hand the caseover and then we do our thing.
But I really enjoy beinginvolved in the investigative
(17:11):
side of things or, you know,assisting law enforcement when
they have a case like this.
So Todd and I and you know Amyand Derek, we went through
everything we could do on thiscase.
We tried all kinds of you kindsof different types of DNA
testing, private lab, amy and Iwent to our bosses and got a lot
of money to do some DNAphenotyping, which was kind of
(17:35):
an advanced thing.
We had never done that before.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
But we just couldn't solve the case Meaning you
couldn't identify a suspect.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Couldn't identify a suspect.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Now I've read different reports about this
case, Some say more than 10victims.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Yeah, I think that's easily more than 10.
You know, if you look atstudies that say you know if you
have a serial rapist and you'reable to for sure say you know
because of DNA we link them upto this many cases, it's usually
a minimum of three to four Xmore than that.
And we've, you know, had someserial rapists that we've been
able to debrief and agree to sitdown with us and tell us.
(18:13):
You know, we had a guy who wehad six DNA cases on and he told
us it was easily 30 to 50.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Wow, that's incredible.
I also read about thisparticular case that this
perpetrator was a little bitmore challenging to identify and
apprehend because he did nothave another felony on his
record, so he wasn't already inyour system and people looking
for him.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, and again, a big part of IGG is, I think
nowadays the first thing peoplecome to me is hey, I got DNA
matching one in CODIS.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Can we do?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
IGG on it and that is certainly the first
prerequisite.
These cases are cases where wehave a known DNA profile.
It has been uploaded into CODIS, which is the national FBI's
offender database, and there'sno match.
There's a lot of cases.
I mean, again, we were going tobe busy for a long time having
(19:08):
this criteria and that's why youknow IGG.
In my mind, the studies haveshown so far your success rate
or the chances of solving oridentifying your suspect are so
much greater with IGG thantraditional DNA encodes.
You know, I've hadconversations with you know
people at CODIS, you know fromthe FBI that run it.
(19:29):
I don't know if it'll be in ourlifetime but I strongly believe
that you know a SNP database orIgG database will replace CODIS
one day, because everybodyyou're matched to everybody,
even in GEDmatch right now,everybody you're in there.
Even in GEDmatch right now,everybody you're in there.
(19:50):
It might be very distant butwe've never uploaded a profile
that didn't have what we callcinnamorgans, some kind of
relation to another relative,and with CODIS, you know, it's
maybe like 20, 25% chance ofgetting ahead.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
So, as we mentioned in the intro of this episode,
this particular case was thefirst jury trial in Dallas
County based on investigativegenetic genealogy.
How does this unprecedentedjury trial impact sexual assault
cases going forward,specifically for prosecutors in
Dallas?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Well, so it was the first case we took to jury and
to verdict.
That had been you know wherethe suspect was identified with
IGG.
But we had had some, you know,pretty groundbreaking IGG
convictions.
Before we had a guy, davidHawkins, who was the guy I was
talking about.
We had 60 in eight cases matchedand he told us it was at least
(20:40):
30 to 50.
That was the first convictionin Dallas County.
Earlier this year we had thefirst murder conviction, laborio
Canales, which was solved.
Again, he was identified usingIgG and you know this case
follows in that pattern and thefact that.
So when you have this sort ofrepeated success and you're able
to demonstrate, you know wehave a good working formula for
(21:01):
the repeated success it getspeople to buy into it and that's
what we really need.
You know we have a good workingformula for the repeated
success.
It gets people to buy into itand that's what we really need.
You know you need buy-in.
I need buy-in from myadministration here at the DA's
office to allow us to continueto do this Certainly.
Dallas Police Department,dallas FBI.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
You know now that we are showing a pattern of success
.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
and again, these are cases people told us were
unsolvable.
Yeah, and yet the, the IgGevidence cannot be submitted as
evidence in the trial.
Is that correct?
Well, you know, it's, it's newand this will.
This will change, I think, injurisdictions, and there'll be
certainly, you know, courtopinions and appellate courts
who rule on this.
But from my point of view, I amnever trying to admit any of the
IgG evidence at trial becausethat's not the evidence I'm
using to prove my case.
So you know, when we go totrial, we have an indictment.
(21:52):
That indictment has certainelements that we have to prove
and obviously in these cases,identity it's a big part of it.
I'm not using anything from IgGor the IgG portion of the
investigation to prove identity.
We are still using thattraditional STR DNA and that's
the evidence that we wouldpresent to court.
So you know, it's an incrediblystrong and powerful
(22:15):
investigative tool, but it's notevidence and people, I think,
sometimes have not a problem butan issue of just kind of
comprehending that.
You know, I've gone and donetrainings for prosecutors all
over the country about it andthey always think, oh, yeah, so
you just you know how do you putyour IGG evidence on.
And I'm like I don't, you know,just like if you had done, your
officer or your detective haddone a polygraph on a suspect
(22:37):
and that is an investigativetool that helps you kind of move
the ball down the line.
But you're not going to beputting any polygraph evidence
in a trial.
Cases get solved with anonymoustips all the time.
That evidence is admissible itcan show how it led the
investigation to.
You know that point whereyou're able to get probable
cause or a search warrant.
But you know proving identityand using the traditional STR
(23:00):
DNA.
You know it's still the same,yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
So, from what I read about this particular case, the
IgG helped to identify thesuspect, but then the actual
victims were able to positivelyID this perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
And so and this was in all cases are certainly
different than usual.
This was you know.
Typically, what you're going todo is you're going to hopefully
build your tree to a pointwhere you sometimes you get one
suspect Sometimes there'sbrothers, cousins, they're all
you know in terms of the scienceand your tree building could be
possible suspects and you haveto painstakingly eliminate each
(23:42):
one, and that could be, you know, doing a trash pull or checking
you or checking DNAsurreptitiously.
In this case, we had done somesurreptitious DNA collections on
other suspects that were notChristopher Michael Green, and
we were able to eliminate those.
And that's exactly how it'ssupposed to be.
You're not supposed to jump thegun.
You go through methodically,make sure that you're getting to
the right person.
And you know, you go throughmethodically, make sure that
you're getting to the rightperson.
(24:03):
And it just happened to beright when we kind of started
eliminating almost everybody andGreen was sort of the last guy
left, the detectives brought insome of the victims and they all
I mean four out of six.
you know, popped them right awayand it's, you know, when
(24:23):
somebody identifies a suspect,especially in such a horrific
crime as aggravated sexualassault, and you just feel the
emotion and the overwhelming.
They were all 100%, it's thisguy.
It's this guy and thatultimately ended up being the
probable cause that was used toarrest Green.
But then also we get a searchwarrant and that search warrant
is for what we call a buckleswab and that's, you know, the
(24:45):
Q-tip and the cheek.
And so when he's arrested wehave the probable cause to get
his DNA from his cheek, take theswab and then that goes to the
crime lab and that's where weget our match to the crime
evidence.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Well, kudos to you and the team for apprehending
this individual, because he hada long history, from what I
understand, of violent sexualcrimes against women.
He did.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
I mean this was a bad , bad dude, and I mean obviously
anyone who commits sexualassault or aggravated sexual
assault, not a good person, butthere are.
You know, there are differentdegrees of them and he was
violent.
There was one case back in 1999where I think he really thought
he had killed her.
He had beat her so badly and heused a knife a lot of the times
(25:33):
and left her for dead under anoverpass in South Dallas under
I-45.
But he wasn't sure she was deadso he took a cigarette and was
poking her in the chest to seeif she would move.
And she just remembers being inand out of conscience.
But then she described it kindof having an overwhelming
(25:53):
feeling that she felt was verygodly, that just allowed her to
play dead Uh-huh, Even thoughthey were, and she still has the
scars all over her chest.
But he thought he killed herand she plays dead and is able
to get away.
But now he was.
He was horrifically violentwith his victims and you know I
(26:15):
reserve this term for only theworst of the worst, but he was
definitely a monster.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, that is sounds like what he was or is Now in
various news coverage about thecase.
You mentioned that theassistance of the Bureau of
Justice's Sexual Assault KidInitiative, also known as SAKI,
as you mentioned, was highlyinstrumental in aiding the
prosecution of this case.
I just want to ask you toclarify what SAKI is and how it
(26:43):
works, and, in conjunction withIGG, how does it help identify,
capture and convict sexualoffenders?
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Sure, so again, SAKI is the name of the BJA DOJ's
grant, and there are differenttypes of SAKI grants, I think,
as I mentioned before, and oursspecifically is to help fund the
prosecution and ultimatelyconvicting sexual predators,
serial rapists.
You know, we've even had serialkillers.
(27:10):
We've identified and convicted.
And what's so important is, youknow and it's not just here in
Dallas, but you know, whetherit's law enforcement or
prosecutors, everyone's strapped.
You know, money is always anissue and these cases cold cases
in general are far morecomplicated than regular cases.
They require a higher intensityof investigation travel.
(27:32):
Dallas is a very transient city.
So, we're working on cases inthe 80s and 90s.
Most of those witnesses don'tlive here, so we have to spend a
lot of money going to.
We go fly out to differentstates, we fly people in from
different states, differentcountries.
Sometimes To put these cases onthat would be very difficult
without BJA's assistance.
So, first and foremost, thatfunding has been the driving
(27:55):
force to help us and it allowsme and my team to really sit
down and spend time on thesecases.
You know it's not.
You know, unfortunately, someother.
you know divisions and otheroffices I've worked in you know,
you are kind of flying by theseat of your pants and you might
be walking into court not asprepared as you should be or
want to be, but because of BJA'sfunding we're allowed to really
(28:16):
, you know, do right by thesecases and these survivors and
you know I look back on the lastdecade we have tested all of
our 5,000, almost 5,000backlogged kids.
Our team has now identified 440offenders and that represents
800 total victim survivors.
We have gotten 150 criminalindictments.
(28:40):
13 of those indictments are nowfor sexual assault-related
murder.
We have 83 convictions and 16life sentences.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
That is incredible and that's really due to the
funding that you received thatallowed the team to investigate
all of these cases.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
It would be such a small fraction had we not had
BJA's assistance and funding,and it's not just funding, you
know.
What I love about SACI is thatit's become.
It's a small, you know.
We started kind of as a smallgroup and it's certainly gotten
a lot bigger, but it's a veryclose group, so it's not
uncommon for me to be talking toprosecutors all over the
(29:18):
country.
You know, and it's at the pointnow, since we're sort of the
senior one of the the UnitedStates, that we get calls from
oh we just got this grant.
Hey, what do we do?
And we were those people 10years ago.
So we love returning the favorand, especially with IGG, the
success we've had with IGG isdirectly because of BJA, not
(29:40):
just the funding but therelationships that we had built
even pre-2018 with the FBI FBIabsolute best in class in any
IGG work.
You know we certainly, and theDallas FBI office in particular.
Their IGG team is phenomenal.
But you know I was able to havesome relationships with those
(30:02):
folks prior to IGG coming on thescene.
That you know it really helpedget me into the door.
You know they took me seriously, I took them seriously and then
in 2020, when Agent Whitestarted running the Dallas FBI
IGG team, you know he and Iagain just sort of like with
Todd Hager at DPD you know wewere just very like-minded,
(30:22):
passionate in this work and youknow we were able to create this
repeated formula for success.
But it all goes back to BJA andtheir, you know, assistance and
not just funding again andtraining relationships.
It's really the key to all ofthis.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Let's talk about one of the other acronyms many, many
acronyms that we have today forall of these subjects, and that
one is CODIS.
For people who may not befamiliar with what CODIS is,
could you tell us what thatstands for and how it is helpful
, but sometimes not enough, andwhy?
Igg would really be beneficial.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
So CODIS is the combined offender database
system that is run andmaintained by the FBI, and what
it essentially is is that youhave been convicted of a felony
anywhere in the United Statesand, going back a pretty good
ways, your DNA is going to betaken, typically either before
you're released from prison oryou know and again, it's state
(31:24):
by state they do it differently.
But what it should be is that,even if you were convicted of a
felony and put on probation, youknow the probation officer
would take your DNA and we couldspend a whole another hour on
what we call lawfully owned DNA.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Yes, there are many, many, many opinions on all of
those things.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
And so when we have DNA from a crime scene that you
know isn't directly comparableto any suspect or there's no
suspect to compare it to, thatDNA profile is uploaded into
CODIS and if there is a match,then the law enforcement agency
would get notification of thatmatch.
And you know we solve tons ofcases with CODIS.
You know it's still, you knowprobably, you know in terms of
(32:04):
numbers, our best tool.
But there are certainly lots ofcases where the suspect has not
ever been convicted of a felonyor, as we've come to find in
one of our recent homicide cases, had been convicted of a felony
, multiple felonies but theynever got his DNA, for whatever
reason you know it was theprison's fault, probation
(32:25):
department's fault.
you know, and that's anunfortunate reality that we face
is that many of these peopleshould be in CODIS or not.
But the fact is, if you're notin CODIS and we don't have a
suspect, DNA is not going tosolve that case.
Traditional STR DNA.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Yeah, understood.
So how do all of these systemsthen work with VICAP?
Speaker 3 (32:44):
So VICAP is also an FBI house and VICAP is great
because, you know, this wasstarted a few decades ago.
Really, I think the birth ofVICAP came from people
committing serial offenses indifferent jurisdictions.
A lot of that was truck driversand things like that, and
(33:04):
agencies weren't talking to eachother.
You know you might haveagencies like you know, for
instance, here just in northtexas, you have so many agency
here in dallas county.
You know collin county has lotsof agencies, tarrant county
didn't, but a lot of theseagencies don't talk to each
other.
Or you do have people that arecommitting crimes, maybe in
louisiana, Arkansas and Texas,and they have such unique traits
(33:28):
.
You know the modus operandi is.
You know very specific, thatVICAP allows law enforcement to
enter that information intotheir system and you know be
able to say, hey look, you knowthese similarities, the way they
operated, you know the methodsthat they were used, these
unique characteristics.
There's a possibility that theycould be connected.
(33:49):
It could be the same offender.
Let's at least have thatconversation.
Those agencies should betalking to each other.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
Right.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
And the FBI does a great job, you know,
facilitating that.
One thing I haven't mentionedyet are what we call the interim
DOJ guidelines for IGG.
I haven't mentioned yet what wecall the interim DOJ guidelines
for IGG and it's again a bestpractice manual.
It's not mandated at this pointfor all agencies, but certainly
if you're receiving federalfunding to work these cases or
(34:16):
you are a federal agency likethe FBI you absolutely have to
follow these guidelines.
And one of those guidelines is,you know, certainly it has to be
a DNA profile that's beenuploaded to CODIS, doesn't hit
anybody, but the case has to beentered into VICA.
You know, it's not just a hey,it didn't match anybody in CODIS
.
Let's just start, you know,doing IGG.
You have to do a lot more.
(34:37):
You kind of have to reallyexhaust all you know
investigative techniques beforeyou go to IGG.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Let me just make sure I understand what you just said
.
If you want to use IGG usingfederal funding, the case had to
be in CODIS and you have to putit in VICAP before you can use
IGG.
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yeah, and there's several other things you have to
do as well, and you know we are, we are very adamant even if
it's so.
We have agencies that certainlydon't receive either receive
federal funding or are not boundby the DOJ interim guidelines.
But I tell them we're not goingto take your case unless these
guidelines are followed, andthat's to protect.
You know, the privacy, rightsof the citizens and the ethics
(35:18):
for using IGG are so importantthat you know I always tell
people my big fear is thatthere's going to be someone who
messes this up for everybodyelse because they were reckless.
And they didn't either adhere tothe DOJ guidelines or you know
they weren't trying to protect.
You know third parties andinnocent folks.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
Yeah, that's.
That is an excellent point andI hadn't really thought about
that no-transcript.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Sure, and I think the DOJ intern guidelines certainly
take that as an important.
You know, anytime you'reworking any sort of
investigation with lawenforcement, you know there are
tons of ethical guidelines.
There are more so, I think,with IGG, because you know there
are misconceptions out there.
I do think there's people outthere who think that law
(36:12):
enforcement are, you know, usinglike 23andme or you know
ancestrycom's databases, andthey're not.
They're completely prohibitedfrom using it.
Don't even try and use them andjust kind of back up a little
bit how the process really worksis you know, for example, say
you or somebody who sends offfor a 23andme or ancestry kit.
You know you're curious aboutyour own genealogy and history
(36:37):
and they'll send you.
You know, basically what isyour SNP profile.
You can then take thatinformation and upload it to
other databases.
Some are protected and they'reall very clear.
Like you know what you'regetting to.
The one that we talk about themost is JetMatch because it's
the largest repository, but itis an open source website and
(36:58):
they are very clear.
You know you've got to check abunch of things and click a
bunch of boxes and say, hey,just so you know anybody can
search this.
You know literally anybody, lawenforcement, anybody.
So if you are uploading yourprofile, which you own, you know
you have a right to do whateveryou want with it.
Just so you know it can be usedby anybody and searched by
(37:19):
anybody.
But if that person elects notto do that and they want to keep
it private on one of the, youknow, private consumer databases
we're, you know lawenforcement's not going to have
access to that and it's notgoing to be searched against.
So at the end of the day, youknow you own the privacy rights
of your profile and if you wantto, we have used IHG, again,
like I said, to help exonerate,to help clear suspects.
(38:02):
You know, when we're buildingthe trees and we have that
suspect pool and there could be,you know we've had I think we
had one case.
They showed me a tree that waslike 32 people at the same
cousin level that were males,that potentially could have been
the suspect and I tell them youcan't arrest anybody, get a
search warrant for anybody or doanything based on IGG.
(38:23):
Even if you got down to theright person, you still have to
be able to get that traditionalSTR DNA and it has to be a match
before we arrest anybody andbefore, certainly, we charge
anybody.
And that's just following thoseDOJ guidelines, guidelines.
If you follow the dojguidelines, you're not going to
be arresting the wrong personand in fact it's quite the
(38:43):
opposite.
You're going to be able toclear suspects and clear people
and, like I've had theexperience, somebody was falsely
accused of one of our casesbefore we, our office, got
involved and we were able toreally, you know, know, fix that
wrong.
And I can't stress it enough.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, I mean, using this technology is incredibly
helpful.
It has had amazing results inconvictions and getting justice
for survivors but it's complex.
The process itself is verycomplex and it requires a lot of
people to collaborate in orderfor it to work.
So I'm curious about how thisparticular case might be used as
(39:24):
a model for prosecutors andothers who are handling similar
cases, in particular, if youcould help us understand the
critical need for collaborationacross departments and agencies
when IGG has a central role in apossible conviction.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
Sure.
So you know, once we were ableto, you know work a few of these
cases, and again it was theDallas FBI office and we've done
it with multiple lawenforcement agencies here in
Dallas, not just Dallas PoliceDepartment.
We've solved cases for Mesquite, garland, but again, sticking
with, you know kind of how wedid it at the very beginning
(40:01):
with the Hawkins case.
You know, working with the FBI,working with Todd Hager at DPD
and creating that formula.
And you know, I always stressto them, whether it's IGG or any
type of investigation, creatinga repeatable formula that can
show you to be successful.
Do it right and it will repeatitself.
(40:22):
And so we certainly in Dallashave several what we call MDTs,
multi-disciplinary teams.
We have a SART program that'sone of the best in the country,
one of the best in the country,and for those who don't know
what SART is, it's an MDT thatin this case it's the Dallas
County District Attorney'sOffice, several of our local law
(40:42):
enforcement agencies, all ofthe hospitals that are
participating in the SANEprogram.
So that's Parkland, methodist,baylor, presby, and then you
know, we have our MDT communitypartners, which Dallas again has
some of the best in the country.
We have the SANE Initiative,courtney's Place, darcy, turning
Point.
We're all collaborating, we'reall meeting, you know, talking
(41:04):
about these cases Our crime lab,we call it SWIFT's, but they're
an incredibly important part ofthis process process and so
when we bring something like IGGto, you know a SART meeting
which also goes to the TexasDepartment of Public Safety's
crime lab, and we're tellingthem, and especially for SWIFT,
our local crime lab, you know,here I'm telling you know, I
(41:26):
know y'all are like completelyoverworked with so much to do.
You're not, and since y'alldon't do this type of SNP
testing, but here's what I needyou to do.
I need you to go find evidence.
I need you to what we call wantit.
See how much is there DNA left.
You know, extract it.
I need a CODIS approved lab toextract the DNA and then package
(41:48):
it off and send it off.
You know that's not in their jobresponsibilities and that takes
a lot of time and time awayfrom all the other things that
they're doing.
But you know they answer thecall time and time again and I
think that's because of our youknow what we call big start, our
dallas start in dt um.
We've been doing it for for solong, you know, I think what 15
(42:08):
years or so?
Right, and we all know we'reall good at what we do, that
we're committed to and most ofus have been in our roles for
quite a long time.
But you have to have thatbuy-in and, even at a smaller
level, what I call our kind ofIGG MDT, with our office, dallas
FBI office and our local lawenforcement agencies and SWIFTs
(42:28):
again, when we started solvingthese cases, convicting know
success just breeds buy-in atall levels.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
Yeah, that's important advice for anyone who
has a new cold caseinvestigation initiative or
otherwise working on with IGG orwith multidisciplinary teams.
Before I let you go, I did findsome interesting other
information about this case.
(42:56):
In a press release from DallasCounty about the case.
There was a quote from yourclosing argument where you
stated quote Predators can'tlive with the truth, survivors
can't live without it.
So let's talk about the truthfor a minute.
Dr Judith Herman wrote in herbook Truth and Repair that what
survivors have told her theywant is to be believed.
(43:18):
They need the truth to beexposed.
They need law enforcement andprosecutors and others to work
with them and on their behalf toget to the truth so truly as
you said they survivors cannotlive without the truth.
What can you share with thoselistening who work on similar
cases about the pursuit of truthand, ultimately, the pursuit of
justice for victims of thesecrimes?
Speaker 3 (43:40):
So with the Green case and you know, really like
any of our big serial rape casesor trials we've had over the
last decade, or, you know,serial killers and homicides,
because, again, going back tothe funding we get from BJA to
really turn these investigationsand prosecutions into a
victim-centered approach, a lotof these cases were cold because
(44:02):
police maybe didn't believe thevictims, or they were.
You know what we call ourmarginalized community.
They may have had drug problems, prostitutes, mental health
issues, but for a variety ofreasons nobody listened to them
or nobody thought they weretelling the truth.
We you know, megan, this is abig thing for me we need to
spend as much time buildingrelationships with our survivors
(44:26):
ever before we take them intocourt and I think our success in
trials is a direct reflectionof those relationships we build.
You know most of thesesurvivors.
When we're going and knockingon their doors, you know they
still look at us as, like youknow, the police from 20, 25
years ago.
Nothing was victim centered atthat point.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
And you really have to be able to get them to trust
you and you build on thatrelationship.
And in this green case, youknow, we got to know and we're
talking about such a variety ofdifferent victims.
You know all races, alldifferent.
You know different ages,backgrounds.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
And some of these cases happened so long ago.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
Yep, we had cases going back to 1999.
And I think our latest case was2012 or 13.
And most of them were verydistrusting of law enforcement.
So you know we did spend thetime and you let them know.
Here's the deal.
I can't fix what happened, youknow, 20 years ago.
But here's what we can tell youis that we believe you, we know
(45:28):
this happened to you and Ialways tell them I don't care if
you did drugs or prostitute,you know, none of that stuff
matters.
And I always use the example.
One of my first big serial rapetrials.
I had a victim who we had tobring back from prison because
she had been convicted ofcapital murder.
I said I don't care what you'vedone.
You can be a convicted capitalmurderer, but before that you
(45:48):
had been sexually assaulted.
You do deserve to have your dayand you do deserve to be able
to speak your truth.
These are difficult cases totry.
Juries often struggle,especially in a he said, she
said case, and we don't winevery case.
But even the cases that we'veeither lost or it was a hung
jury, you know, just for thatsurvivor to be able to go into
(46:10):
that courtroom and speak theirtruth is so powerful that
oftentimes and they've told me,you know the outcome wasn't as
important as me being able to dothat.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
That's so perfect, because that's exactly what Dr
Herman said.
It wasn't about the sentencefor the perpetrator, it was
about being believed, and by thepeople who matter?
Speaker 3 (46:34):
And in these cases I think we're an incredible
example of that because you know, I mean it was flat out written
in some of these reports.
You know back in the day thatthe human officers didn't
believe.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
And you know it's frustrating to you know, when
you start working a case likethat to see that.
But I and I don't want to, youknow, speak badly of law
enforcement back in the day, butthere has been a pretty
significant shift in how thesecases I mean Dallas Police
Department really has led thecharge here locally and
victim-centered investigations,and former Sergeant Amy Mills
(47:08):
deserves a lot of credit forreally transforming the sexual
assault division there and it'sa different time.
We're more educated, people aremore enlightened and it's great
to see it's a different timewe're more educated, people are
more enlightened and it's greatto see that.
We have a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
We do and I think you're, for what it's worth
doing.
A great job, leighton Dan.
Tony, thank you so much fortalking with me today.
Thanks so much for listening.
Until next time, stay safe.
The 2025 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women will take place in
Dallas, texas, may 19th throughthe 22nd at the Sheraton Dallas
.
Learn more and register atconferencecaworg and follow us
(47:45):
on social media at National CCAW.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.