According to neighbors, the killer was outside his house, building a table, when he was arrested. They described him as “fit” and said he was a bike rider. He told police he had a roast in the oven.
Today, he was wheeled into the courtroom in a wheelchair, looking sedated, frail, and weak. I wonder if he is putting on a show of being unable to understand the charges or being too frail to be tried.
Didn’t work for Bill Cosby with the grandpa sweaters and the guy leading him into court, and I hope it won’t work for this man either.
Re: #20
Referring to this article? http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article209999469.html
It should not be surprising that parties in a court case could try to present themselves in a particular way to try to influence jurors in ways other than the actual testimony.
This guy sounds pretty violent and awful, provided he’s the correct person. Yuck!
I hope the fact that they matched his DNA to those in the database doesn’t become a big deal in terms of admissible evidence.
They still had/have to match his DNA to whatever DNA they have from the crime scenes. Although he was supposefly fairly thorough in his cleanups, in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, DNA was not yet known so he could have left behind trace evidence that he would never have dreamed could have ultimately been used to track him.
My concern is that, while his relative voluntarily surrendered his or her right to privacy by submitting their DNA results to a public site, this man did not. That’s the slippery slope.
But as users constantly tell me after I give them warnings for Terms of Service violations - “Nobody reads the site policy!” I tell them they should.
@techmom99, his “discarded DNA” did indeed match to the DNA left at the crime scenes.
In other words, the DNA profile left at the crime scene was submitted to the ancestry site under a fictional name. When it partially matched to another person on that site as a relative, investigators began homing in on the suspect. When he “discarded” something with his DNA on it, detectives were legally entitled to it. They tested it and lo and behold, it matched that of the DNA left at the crime scene.
@Nrdsb4 -
That’s good as it means they have the right guy, but there’s still a concern that his lawyers will argue that the police were only turned on to him because of the link and that he didn’t consent to have his DNA (sort of) up there on that site. If the only reason he was being surveilled was because of the relative link, there might be an issue. I took con law in 1980 so I don’t pretend to be up on it, but it seems a little grayish to me.
@techmom99 ,They didn’t need his permission. He also “discarded” his DNA at the crime scene. Therefore legally, he gave up his ownership of that DNA. They submitted the crime scene DNA to the site, not DNA from a present day sample.
You can’t leave semen at a rape/murder scene and then claim they need your permission as to what they do with it.
I must be naive. Assumed he would be a loner & single.
@Nrdsb4 -
He discarded his DNA, yes, so the police had it legally, and it matched evidence from the crime scene, but he didn’t consent to have his DNA up on that genealogy site. That’s what I meant by his right of privacy, not the drinking straw or whatever he tossed out and the cops picked out of the garbage. If his relative hadn’t put their own DNA up on that site, the cops wouldn’t have gotten a match. I just don’t know that your relative has the right to, in essence, give up your DNA. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with this if he had uploaded his own DNA (though, in this day and age, if I were a serial killer or a rapist, I wouldn’t be spitting into a tube and sending it off in the mail).
That said, I am really glad they caught this guy and I hope that the method of tracking him holds up. It’s similar to the familial DNA method that was used to get that other California serial killer a year or so ago except that, in that case, the relative’s DNA was in the police database and not a public one.
Technically, it was not “his” DNA on that site. Is my DNA really my DNA or just a mix of two paternal DNAs? Do I need both parents’ consent to put my DNA on any site because my DNA contains their DNA and they own it? How about my sister’s DNA? My grandkids?
Oh how I hate autocorrect. “Parental” not “paternal.” Argh. 
I think @techmom99 is right that it is possible this could cause a glitch in his case, or at least be a cause for appeal after they convict him on it (which they almost surely will). Does it constitute some kind of illegal search or privacy violation for them to have used the relative’s DNA for the initial match? Personally, if I have a relative who is a rapist or murdered, I’m down with the police finding them through my DNA. Obviously my relative would see it differently… But I could see how challenges to this might wind up in the Supreme Court at some point, whether from this case or some other similar one.
The relative voluntarily put their DNA profile on the internet in order to generate matches with family members. Given that, what presumption of privacy would there be for that relative? And secondly, a privacy invasion of a family member has little to do with the privacy of the killer. He left his DNA at a crime scene. Why would HE have any presumption of privacy whatsoever over a sample he DISCARDED at a residence where he killed the occupants?
LE did not illegally invade the killer’s residence to get a sample from him to put on the internet.They used the profile from the DNA the killer left at a crime scene. LE did not illegally obtain the relative’s DNA; by submitting the killer’s profile to the site, it generated a match from the relative, as it is intended to do by virtue of the web site’s stated mission. I’m not understanding why anyone believes that the killer would have any legal say as to what is done with the DNA he discarded at the murdered couple’s home? I’m not understanding why anyone believes that using DNA he discarded at a murder scene is invading his privacy. Once you “discard” your DNA, you no longer have ownership of it.
As to the suspect’s slack jawed, frail appearance yesterday in court:
“Paul Holes, the newly retired Contra Costa County investigator who chased the East Area Rapist for 24 years and was part of the team that watched DeAngelo in recent weeks, questioned DeAngelo’s frail court appearance.“No, no, no, no,” Holes said. “This guy was moving around like a young 50-year-old. He was riding his motorcycle, bombing down the freeway at over 100 miles per hour. Stop signs are optional for this guy.””
@Nrdsb4 -
I agree with you that use of the DNA he discarded at the murder scene and the DNA taken from anything he discarded in the present day that was used to match to the crime scene DNA is clearly legal and appropriate. The issue that may arise is with the method that was used to connect the two. How did the police know to follow HIM as opposed to anyone else around and try to get something he threw out present day to compare to the murder scene evidence? That link apparently came from the DNA uploaded by the relative to the public genealogy website. The potential issue is that, while the relative clearly surrendered his own, personal right to privacy, did the relative have the right to incriminate his kinsman by his choice to upload their shared genetic materials? Does any person have the right to privacy of their own genetic materials if they choose not to put them out there. That’s the question that I think will arise in the context of this prosecution.
In another context - what if a company that is considering writing a health or life insurance policy for you uses this website and finds that your uncle or first cousin has uploaded DNA indicating a family tendency towards cancer or some other debilitating illness and, based on that, decides to not write you a policy or charge you extra? You most likely wouldn’t think that was fair play. The issue here is very fraught because the man is accused of being a notorious serial killer and rapist (and he probably can’t be prosecuted for the rapes since the statute of limitations has likely long since expired, so any victim who could ID him was the victim of a crime he can’t be charged for), but the constitutional concern is the same.
This is what they said in a statement: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/26/1…-investigation
" “Although we were not approached by law enforcement or anyone else about this case or about the DNA, it has always been GEDmatch’s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the Site Policy,” the statement reads. “While the database was created for genealogical research, it is important that GEDmatch participants understand the possible uses of their DNA, including identification of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes.”"