Hello everybody, my name is Ann Macphetridge and I would like to welcome you to today's webinar an Inside Look at the Facts and Fiction Surrounding Genetic Genealogy. Before we begin, I'd like to go through some housekeeping items on your console. There are multiple engagement windows. All of these windows are movable and resizable, so feel free to move them around to get the most out of your desktop space. If you have any questions during the webinar, you can submit them through the ask a question box. We are here to answer these during the webinar, but we're also going to be saving some for the end to share during the live Q&A after the presentation. If we run out of time, they'll be answered later via email. You will also find some very helpful additional resources in the Resource Library along with a copy of today's slide presentation, and we encourage you to download any resources or bookmark any links that you might find useful. After the presentation, there is a survey. Please be sure to take a moment to answer these few short questions. We really appreciate your feedback and we take the feedback very seriously as we continuously try to improve our webinar program. Included with today's webinar is closed captioning, so you can just click on the CC in the media player to activate that. If you happen to experience any issues with the console, the best way to address that is to press F5 on your keyboard, which will refresh your browser. The Chrome browser works best for Windows and for those of you who might be on a Mac, we recommend Firefox. The on demand version of the webinar will be available approximately one day after the broadcast, so you can look for it later tomorrow afternoon or Friday and can be accessed using the same link that you received after you registered. There will also be a follow up email that you'll receive with the link itself. Now I'm going to introduce our presenters today. We have Steve Busch and Steve Kramer with us. Oh I forgot sorry I'm gonna go back. I want to talk about, We have a three part series. So this first one is being done by Steve Busch and Steve Kramer. They're going to present us with their insights about genetic genealogy. Then our next session is going to be closing the genealogy gap from extraction to prosecution that will be presented by Rachel Oefelein from DNA Labs International that's happening on May 4th and then Part 3 is finishing up on May 25th by Danny Helwig from Intermountain Forensics and it's called decoding the laboratory options for forensic genetic genealogy. Now I will introduce our speakers, so we have Steve Busch and Steve Kramer. Steve Busch was an FBI agent for 19 years during which he co-founded their forensic genetic genealogy team and he was an architect of the FBI's National forensic Genetic Genealogy program. Previously, he worked investigative assignments, including counterterrorism and complex financial crimes. He also honed his leadership skills as a SWAT sniper team leader, routinely solving multifaceted problems in a high threat environment. He is departing the FBI pre retirement to develop market disrupting automated identity resolution software. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Cornell University and with a captain on their football team. Steve Kramer was the FBI in House counselor for 20 years where he was responsible for legal matters in the FBI's criminal and national security investigations, and he oversaw their investigative techniques and strategies. Previously, he worked as a federal prosecutor and a Deputy DA, where he prosecuted homicide cases, corporate fraud cases, and national security cases. After assembling and leading the team of investigators that helped solve the notorious Golden State killer case, he finished his career at the FBI as co-founder of their FGG team. He has an accounting and finance degree from the University of Arizona, a JD from California Western School of Law, and an MBA from UCLA. Welcome, gentlemen. We're thrilled to have you as our presenters today. Hey good morning, my name is Steve Kramer. I am here today to talk to you about genetic genealogy. Joining me is my colleague Steve Busch. Both Steve and I were at the FBI for a a long time. Steve was a special agent. I was an FBI attorney several years ago. We actually formed the FBI's genetic genealogy team. We trained every single FBI agent currently using genetic genealogy. In addition, we trained probably hundreds of detectives both nationally and internationally on genetic genealogy. Today we want to kind of give you an inside look behind the curtain from our perspective inside law enforcement about genetic genealogy. We'll talk about some of the facts and some of the fiction actually surrounding this particular technique. I hope you'll find it interesting, so we'll start with the origins of FGG, specifically the Golden State killer, which I had the opportunity to be a part of. And then Steve's talked about some of the best practices and law enforcement on this technique, and then I'll get into, yeah, the boring legal stuff. Legal considerations, probable cause, things like that. And then after that Steve Busch is going to talk about some of the common myths surrounding FGG. The origins of FGG began with a case known as the Golden State Killer, and this was the watershed case for genetic genealogy because it was a case that lent itself really well to this technique, and it was obviously very prolific high profile case. So one of the things that makes the Golden State killer case unique is that it actually took DNA in and of itself to connect the crimes and to realize that we had a serial killer, the Golden State killer was known by several different names, and they weren't even connected for decades. He was first known as the Visalia Ransacker from 1974 to 1975, and then we had the east area rapist individual that was active in the Sacramento East Sacramento area. From 1976 to 1979 and then we had the original night Stalker in Southern California. The original night Stalker was an individual that had killed 10 people, raped four women in three different counties over 6-7 year time period, and law enforcement didn't even realize it was saying pillar until decades after those crimes occurred in 1998. The DNA from the original night stalker Orange County crime lab connected the DNA with all three counties, and that's when law enforcement realized that they had a serial killer operating in Southern California. He was dubbed the original Night stalker because Night Stalker was already taken by Richard Ramirez, who was the night Stalker who actually committed his crimes. After the Golden State killer. So he was dubbed the original night stalker. About three years later, in 2001, 2002, the DNA from the original night stalker was connected with the East Area rapist series, and that's when law enforcement realized that they had an individual who had been raping and murdering people up and down the coast of California. And all of these individuals became known as the Golden State Killer after the arrest of Jodi Angelo in 2018, and he was actually connected to the Visalia Ransacker based upon geography and other factors at the time of the arrest. So the first series, the Visilia Ransacker, started in this town called Visalia, and it's the name in Central California and you can see there on the right hand side. That's a close up of the town with the stars, Red Stars representing some of his burglaries that he did. He committed over 120 burglaries in just over a year, including one murder where he tried to kidnap a 16 year old girl and her father tried to stop it and he turned and shot and killed her father. That's the blue star on the top left. The circle there is the College of the Sequoias. His burglaries never resulted in major valuables being stolen. Now and then he'd steal a weapon and or something like that, but mostly he just ransacked the house, going through pulling the drawers open and throwing him on the bed, going to people's purses and wallets, and just leaving the items there. And sometimes he'd take like 1 earring from a pair. Sometimes he would, you know, tear out the photo from a family picture of the women, some of their detectives described the burglaries that sexual in nature. He'd take some of the underwear from the women and lay it out across the bed or the sofa. Things like that. In any case, this stopped at the end of 1975 in December when he got into a shootout with the police officer who had been following him following a stakeout. So following the conclusion of the the Saudi Ransacker in December of 75. About six months later, in June 76 we had the beginning of the East Area Rapist. Now this is an individual that raped over 50 women committed 2 murders during this time period, and he his MO was essentially to break into homes in the middle of the night while the couples were sleeping. So once inside the house, the East Area Rapist then would proceed to the couple's bedroom, where he'd wake them up, and all they would see is like this image. An image of a masked individual shining a flashlight into their face, and he would growl through clenched teeth, telling the woman to tie up her husband or boyfriend. He'd throw her pre tied shoelaces and he'd tie her up. He take plates, China some type of makeshift alarm system, put them on top of the man, and then take the woman to another room where he would proceed to sexually assault her. He would do this numerous times. He would then go when you take a break, go make himself something to eat in the kitchen. Go have a beer and then come back to sexually assault the woman all the time. Checking on the man. This would sometimes go on for three or four hours at a time, so this series went on for years and again accumulated in at least 50 sexual assaults of women during the time period of this series. So following the conclusion of the East Area Rapist series seems a live 1979 about six months later, about three 400 miles South in Southern California, we had the beginning of the original night stalker and the original night Stalker was very serious progression in the Golden State killers crimes, where now he began killing every person. In fact there, other than one attempt, we believe there had been no survivors from the original night stalker. He would go in similar to the East Area Rapist, tie up the couple. You know bindings were found and then after sexually assaulting the woman he would brutally bludgeon the couples to death. If he they tried to get loose or anything like that, fight him back, he would just shoot them. So extremely violent series. Orange County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, the last crime being an 18 year old girl in 1986 in Irvine. So throughout this entire crime spree, no one ever knew what the Golden State killer looked like, who he was, or anything. He always wore a mask. He always had gloves on. He was very, very careful about leaving evidence at the scene except for his DNA from his sexual assaults, the sketches that we see here, or someone, just the dozen sketches that were released of the Golden State killer. Either people that were seen near the crime scene before or after that seemed suspicious, or actual sketches of the individual wearing the mask. As you can see, little of this did anything to help solve this case. So let's take a look at some of the numbers that went into to investigate this case. Starting you know, back in 1974, 1975, we have a case that was cold for at least 43 years. There were 650 detectives, some full time, some part time on this case, 15 different law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, who spent over 200,000 man hours on this case, over $10 million is actually spent by the taxpayers on this case, to try to resolve it. We had a suspect list that had over 8000 people on it. 8000. And we of those we swallow swabbed approximately 300 people for DNA to confirm whether or not they were the Golden State killer. And all of those efforts, all of those swabs produced that number there, circled in Red 0 suspects. Now, let's talk about genetic genealogy, and let's see what it did in this particular case. So. Our team of six people for $217.00 spent 63 days to identify one individual who we know today as Joseph D'Angelo, the Golden State killer. So how do we do this? How did this all come about? What were the origins of this particular technique? So it started with myself and my partner, and at that time Paul Holes, who was an investigator for Contrasta County, DA's office. And he and I, having looked at everything in this case, figured the only way we're going to solve this case. So one consistency that we have in this case is that we have as DNA. Like I said, there's no fingerprints. We have no real ID on him. So the only way we can ID him is going to have to be through the DNA. Unfortunately his DNA which is in the national DNA index system CODIS, hasn't produced any matches in all this time. And despite all these efforts to swab people, we cannot identify who he is. So we took another attack. What if we look at the other way? People are able to find all their relatives on these genealogy sites. Perhaps we could do the same thing. And if we can identify some cousins of the Golden State killer, then perhaps we can find out who he is. Now, the problem is, is what we didn't have, you know a you know tube of saliva from the Golden State killer. We can't really go and swab his cheek either like you would need for a lot of these tests like ancestry or 23 and me or even family tree DNA for that matter. So we had to figure out a way to do that and so that's one of the things I started doing is picking up the phone, calling ancestry, calling 23 and me, calling Family Tree DNA to see if anybody would help us learn the identity of this guy and bring some justice to all these victims. So fortunately one of the CEO's of one of these companies, Bennett Greenspan at FTDNA or family tree DNA he agreed. He's like this is a terrible crime we need to solve it, and if I can help I will do it. So that's exactly what we did. I was able to get DNA from the Charlene Smith sexual assault and we took that DNA and we sent it directly to Family Tree DNA. They have a lab. And they're able to produce a DNA profile, a snip as we call it, that we could upload to their database and solve the case. And that's exactly what we did. We took that DNA, got some matches, found the cousins of the Golden State killer, which was obviously a super exciting moment for all of us. And we started building family trees. And after you know, close to 50-60 days of building trees, we started to zero in on who our potential subjects could be. And this is, you can see here on this slide, this was the part of the family tree that we used to identify Joe DeAngelo. This was actually the tree where he's identified both he and his brother there are in orange on it. And so we started going through all the potential subjects that could be the Golden State killer and looking at them. As we honed in on Joe de Angelo, we found a few things in the newspapers that were pretty interesting. For instance here on the left hand side, this article talks about Joe DeAngelo. He was caught shoplifting. He was a police officer and he was stealing dog repellent and a hammer. Now why would a cop, you know steal of all things dog repellent, let alone a hammer. I don't know if he was using the dog repellent, you know, during the course of those rapes to you know, keep the dogs at Bay. We have no evidence of that, but it was pretty interesting. But the more interesting aspect of this article was he was arrested on July 21 of 1979. That was an interesting number to me because the last sexual assault or attempt by the East Area Rapist was a couple weeks earlier on July 5, 1979. There was never another East Area Rapist attack after Joe DeAngelo was arrested. So that was pretty interesting. At that point, then he moved down to Southern California. So that was very, very interesting. The other one is this article here, says Joe DeAngelo was engaged to a Bonnie. During one of the sexual assaults in Sacramento during the East area Rapist Series the victim said that he had been yelling about this woman named Bonnie, who he hated, saying I hate you Bonnie. So at the time we didn't put a lot you know of stock in that you know the fact that you know he'd use the name Bonnie. Maybe he was just making up a name. But when we found this it was another interesting, if not super compelling reason to look at Joe de Angelo a little more seriously. So one of the things that we wanted to look at was he was a police officer. Where do you go to the police Academy? When we pulled his records from the state of California, we learned that he was actually a police officer in Exeter, the town right next to Visalia, at the same time frame that the Visalia Ransacker was robbing or burglarizing all those homes. In fact, when he went to the police Academy in 1974 and 75, the police Academy for Exeter guess where it was right there in that circle in the center of town of Visalia. So when he's a cadet, you know training to become a police officer, he was going out at night and actually doing all these burglaries and committing the murder that he did there. So all of this work accumulated in the arrest on April 24th, 2018 of Joe DeAngelo as the Golden State Killer. And you can see there on the right hand side, that photo is the first photo taken of Joe Di Angelo when we arrested him and that was a conclusion of that case. The investigative part of the case. We thought at this point in time that it was going to be a big deal because of catching a serial killer. Little did I know in our team know that the way we caught this individual was going to make even bigger news. So as the news went out of how we caught Joe DeAngelo as the Golden State killer through this method called genetic genealogy, you can imagine you know our phone is ringing off the hook at the FBI asking how we did it. Other law enforcement departments and companies are trying to figure out how to do this and solve cases. I mean, within the first nine months, I think there were over 30 cases solved through this technique and it was named, you know, one of the top ten science stories are 2018. The chief scientist at the FBI actually called me and said, look, this is the biggest innovation in law enforcement since the fingerprint. So it's had a super big impact. I'm really happy to be a part of it, and I want to protect this technique and keep it going in the future. And I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Steve Busch and he's an actually talk about some of these best practices that he and I developed at the FBI to continue to make this an amazing technique. Steve, onto you. Well thank you kindly Steve for the nice introduction. My name is Steve Busch. I'm often referred to as the other Steve. I'm the CEO here at Indago Solutions. Formerly a special agent with the FBI. I just finished 19 years there where Steve and I co-founded the FBI's forensic Genetic genealogy program. Excited, blessed, honored to be able to talk to you guys here today about this technique that I think is perhaps the most valuable technique I've ever seen in my law enforcement career. I'm going to talk to you guys briefly today about some of the best practices involved with the usage of this technique. At that point I'm gonna turn it back over to Steve and let him hit a few of the probable cause and legal considerations. And then I'm going to finish out with a few of the common myths that we've seen and discussed here with folks regarding this technique Forensic genetic genealogy. So in order to get into it, what I'm going to do first here is I'm just going to talk a little bit about what this process looks like. You got to kind of understand at least the high points of what this process looks like and the process, as we all know it, starts with identifying the right cases, cases where we have suspect DNA. And then from that DNA we're going to obtain a snip profile for our suspect. We're gonna upload that profile into direct to consumer databases like GED match and Family Tree DNA. And you guys know those databases aren't going to tell us who are bad guy is, but it is going to tell us who his relatives are and from those relatives we're going to be able to build family trees, connect to those trees, and then triangulate who our potential suspect or unknown victim might be. At that point to finish this process, we surreptitiously collect DNA from our suspect and we compare it to the crime scene. And that's key that one to one comparison to make sure that we're getting the right guy. And we'll get into some of those details in a little bit. Now, because time is short for today, I'm not going to be able to hit all of these, but I am going to hit some best practices in these top two areas, identifying cases and what we call the DNA conversation. So I'm going to hit those real quick and then and then we're going to move on. So bottom line, for all of this stuff is we want to make sure that everything in this process is is pushing toward these two goals that you see on your screen here in front of you, and that is solving cases and protecting the technique. We want to balance these two because obviously if we're solving cases in a way that jeopardizes the use of this technique, and in the future, that's that's not OK, because we want this technique to exist from now into the future to be able to solve these cases. And the opposite is also true, though we don't want to protect the technique. So much that we're not able to solve cases. So balancing these two missions is critical, and I think you'll see that these best practices are in line with both of them. So to identify the right right cases, I first want you guys to just think about for a second, how many cases are actually out there. If you go to the national DNA index system, otherwise referred to commonly as CODIS, the combined DNA index system that was congressionally authorized by the FBI and is currently run by the FBI, the CODIS website will tell you that as of the end of December of 2021, there were over 1.1 million unknown forensic profiles in their database. Now why is that relevant? Why I bring that up? Well, these are all potential cases that could be. I say could be because they're not all. It's not. It's not a given yet, but they could be potential cases for FGG. Now that numbering that number to me is a staggering number. And think about this too, that at the state and local level where the Estes and Eldis databases are maintained. Those numbers are actually going to be higher because as you guys know, not all of the profiles that are eligible for Estes and Eldis can be put into endis. So that's just a staggering number to me to think about that. Now, most detectives that I've talked to, they all have that case. That one case that they want to do FGG on, and that's great. We should, absolutely, you know, hit those high profile cases for these folks, but I want to think even broader than that. I want detectives to start looking criminalists to start looking lab folks to start looking even broader than that and cast a wider net to to realize that there are just so many potential cases out there that could potentially be used for this. Now, what types of cases are those? Well, the the US DOJ interim policy. It went into effect back in 2019. It's still in effect I don't know when the permanent policy will come out, but that policy is pretty clear about what we should be using these cases for. And I think I think the policy got most of it right. Homicides and sexual assaults for sure. There are also two carve outs in that policy that I really like that discuss ongoing threats to public safety and ongoing threats to national security. So any of the cases that meet those criteria are cases that we wanna be considering. Certainly we want to make sure that the that your lab is on board with this and that your prosecutors on board and then also we want to have suspect DNA to compare to at the end of this. As you'll see later in the presentation, it's very important. In fact, it's critical to have a sample to compare against. So we've been doing those comparisons with STR's at the end where we take the suspects DNA and make sure it matches the crime scene DNA. There are other ways to do it, in my opinion that we could maybe talk talk about in another presentation, but you do have to have that suspect DNA for the end to end comparison. The last thing is don't be, don't be dissuaded by the money factor. OK, in the beginning 2018 we were when we first started doing this, money was very, very difficult to come by., And I know money is still hard. But there have been several grant opportunities that have popped up. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has some options. The sexual Assault Kit initiative has some options, and we've even seen some crowdfunding options for funding some of these cases. In fact, our company Indago Solutions has provided money to some departments to help privately fund some of the solutions to these cases as well. So there's there's plenty of options out there. And so to sum this up guys, the best practice the first best, best practice when we're looking to find these cases is just be proactive. OK, don't take no for an answer. Push around in your case files in your department and figure out where these cases are because finding a case that is eligible for forensic genealogy that has DNA, it is almost a guarantee that you're going to solve this case if we can get a snip for your unknown suspect. So be that guy in your department that figures out how to make something. And be motivated about it and and be proactive. So moving on now that after you've found the right case and and you're now ready to move into what we call the DNA conversation, I wanna hit another quick best practice here for you guys so that you can kind of understand this. Now we all know that you have to have suspect DNA in order to move forward and in the beginning back in you know 2018-2019 when we were having these conversations, it was laughable how much DNA we thought we needed. You know back then we were talking about 40 nanograms or 20 nanograms for arrays and those numbers over the years have just continued to go down and down and down to the point where it's almost any amount of DNA is possible to get a SNP this point. And so because of that you can really start looking at different potential sources that maybe you wouldn't have thought about before. Now it's it's a pretty simple, you know it's simple to put together the fact that if you have an STR in CODIS then it's most likely that you have extract that is remaining in evidence at some at some place that is the extract that that original STR came from. And if you can find that, extract. It's the best place to start. It's the simplest place to start. You don't have to type it again. Frequently we're able to do that. Sometimes that's not the case and you have to go back to the original piece of evidence where that extract came from. You know perhaps it was a semen stain or a blood stain on a piece of clothing that you punched in order to get the original extraction. That's fine, you can go back to that stain, and you can punch it again, you can retype it and we can use that that DNA for the SNP. Now if that's not if that's not available, sometimes the container that that extract used to be in that the swab used to be in. Maybe the stick that it used to be on. We've we've gotten DNA from all of these areas. And so the reason I'm bringing this up is I want you guys to just think outside of the box in terms of suspect DNA. Because we're we're now at the day and age were 50 picograms you know, maybe enough DNA in order to get you a SNP profile to solve your case. That wasn't something that was on the table, even just a few years ago. Now, in the event that none of those options are available, you have to start looking at other, maybe less common places that you can find DNA And those places might be a rootless hair. There we've solved cases with FGG using rootless hair. Something that people thought before was not possible to get autosomal DNA from. We now know that we can, and we can successfully get SNPs from that. We've also solved cases from touch DNA. We did a case with 187 picograms of touch DNA where we solved it with forensic genealogy, So I just throw that out there so that you don't don't give up when you think the DNA situation is bad, continue to dig. You might be surprised what you can find, especially back in the evidence locker when it's been. It's been in there for several, several decades. Now, in terms of the methods that we're using to get SNPs,, arrays are still working. It's, you know they're not they're not very expensive compared to some of the other options. And I would say that if you have a a large amount of DNA and it's good single source and really good quality that an array might be a good option. It's it's a very lower cost option. Sequencing is also an option, and then we've even got some other options coming online. Veriton's got a new process that they're looking at that's that's that's producing SNPs down to 50 picograms. That was the one I mentioned earlier. So very, very exciting. The take away there guys, if you have any amount of DNA, I think it's possible that you could potentially get a SNP. Now, how do you make for How do you make that decision? Which lab are you going to go with? How's that going to happen? Well, this is what I put in parentheses down here at the bottom of the slide. I call it "The Call". And basically this is just do your homework. Read the lab reports. Let's get the private lab on the phone with the public law enforcement lab and let the smart people talk to each other. I will tell you you will save yourself so much pain and suffering by just letting the smart people talk and let them get hash it all out on the phone. You can ask all your questions where you've got both of the experts in the same place and it makes life a lot easier to make a decision moving forward. And so this kind of wraps up what I would call best practice #2, which is dig deep guys for this DNA. Don't don't take no for an answer. I've actually had labs tell me, hey, we don't have any DNA available on this case, but what they really meant was they had DNA that was underneath the quantity that was required for them to get an STR. And we all know that there's that you know that is a quantity that still is usable by us for a SNP. So and then get get the the lab folks on the phone and let them talk to each other. So that just kind of helps move things along. So here's here's kind of the two best practices that I want to leave you guys as a take away, Cast that net wide when you're looking to to to find these cases, be assertive, dig, ask around. The the media actually, we, Steve and I have solved several cases where we just read about it in the media and it sparks our interest that, hey, there might be a case there that we could follow up on and see if we can help solve it. We contact the local department and make something happen. So just have have your FGG investigator lenses on and try to see these cases through that lens as a as a means to potentially solving that case. And then on the DNA front you know, dig for it, find it. And then in the last thing I'll leave you with with the best practice is conserve that DNA when you can. We all know that once you use this DNA to get a profile, the DNA is consumed in the process and so make sure that we're we're educating our lab folks to say, look, let's not burn up any excess DNA unless we have to. Let's burn the smallest amount possible in order to to get our profiles. So what I'm going to do now, I'm actually going to turn it back over to Steve Kramer. Steve's going to hit kind of the last big best practice, and that is discussing some of the probable cause and legal considerations that follow in this process. All right, so I'm back to talk about the probable cause and legal considerations surrounding genetic genealogy. The reason this is really important is Steve and I always preach about how important it is to protect the technique. Sure, we want to solve a lot of cases, but protecting the technique is really important. And as I go through some of the legal issues, hopefully, and I'm just taking kind of a high level view but I want to drive the point home that genetic genealogy is awesome. Super innovative technique. But we gotta use it. You know carefully and use it the right way and that includes on the legal aspect. So one of the first things I tell detectives when they're getting ready to go arrest an individual that they've identified through genetic genealogy is that when you write your arrest warrant and arrests are based on usually an affidavit written by a detective summarizing his or her findings about the case to articulate probable cause about why this individual actually committed the offense. And they take it to a judge and swear it out underoath and then the judge will give the detective a warrant to go out and arrest a person. So what I want the detectives to do is to articulate their probable cause based upon why they think this guy is their individual, without articulating anything about genealogy. Why? One, genealogy is simply an investigative technique. It's not anything that's going to be used to prove this individual is guilty or not. This is how we found the person. Whether or not that person committed the crime, how they committed the crime. Their intent to commit the crime is going to be established by the prosecutor with other evidence developed in the case. The genealogy genealogy is simply there for us to identify the individual. So therefore articulate the probable cause about why this person committed the crime, not with genealogy. Keep it out of it. If you mention it, yeah, you should be able to redact it, and the affidavit would still have probable cause in it. So what is the probable cause for a genealogy case? The probable cause is going to be the crime scene DNA, the CODIS STR, the short tandem repeat that's found at that crime scene, and you'll hear Steve talk about this later after me. Specifically the CODIS STR's the, like the Powerball, it's a set of numbers that are so unique to this individual that the chances of somebody coincidentally having that same number is astronomical. Generally, the Powerball odds are you know one out of almost 300 that somebody else would have the same number. Well with DNA STR's that number is even greater. So the key is when you've identified the subject and you go get their DNA. Maybe you pick it up from their trash or how you ever you get their DNA. You take that DNA back, you take it to the crime lab. Their crime lab gets an STR from the suspect. They put it in CODIS, the same place that the crime scene STR is. And if they match. You've identified your individual. That is the probable cause that STR confirmation, IE. It's like having that lottery ticket that matches the Powerball number. That is the confirmation that that person is the suspect. You're going to use that. Generally, that's going to be one of the heavy pieces of probable cause for your affidavit. There might be other things too, like the individual lived, you know, by the crime scene or drove the same type of vehicle that the suspect was seen there. We have a variety of issues as to other circumstantial evidence in the case. But you notice genealogy doesn't need to be there. So what does an arrest warrant language include? Well, this is some of the arrest warrant language that I used in the Golden State killer case. And we didn't really talk about genealogy. We just indicated that there had been additional DNA testing. We're just letting the judge know how the investigation proceeded. And we indicated that we identified a potential relative of the East Area Rapist in this case., And through the family line, we believe Joe DeAngelo was actually a potential subject. But to confirm that we went out recovered trash and from his trash we found something that we could get DNA on, I believe it was a tissue. And from that tissue they compared the DNA, the STR on that tissue to the crime scene DNA. And that was the 100% match. That was the PC in addition to other circumstantial evidence that led the judge to sign the warrant that allowed us to arrest the Golden State killer Joe DeAngelo. OK, so how do we get that DNA that we're going to use to connect the suspect that we identified through genealogy to the guy that committed the crime? Well, as we talked about, we're going to use the STR, the DNA, the shortener repeat that's in CODIS to compare it to him. We need to go get his the suspects DNA. Where do we get it? Well, collecting his or her trash is generally the most favorite technique I think by detectives because we know what day the trash has put out and it's easy to go pick up the trash. Unfortunately, the getting trash you know can be tricky. If multiple people are living at the house, you have the DNA DNA of multiple people there, and particularly if you're looking to say from man and there's multiple men living there, you'll never know if you actually have the right person unless it matches and you know you can't really prove a negative if it doesn't match him. You can't say the DNA didn't match. It must not be him because you could have gotten somebody else that was at the house. Most states allow their collection of trash once the trash has been put out on the curb. Supreme courts weighed in on that. It's you've essentially have no expectation of privacy when you put that trash out on the curb for collection. Few states require search warrants and have certain procedures for that, but generally it is allowed. Another way we recommend getting it is through a ruse or consent., abandoned DNA. Abandoned DNA being like you've left a beer bottle, a beer can or a cigarette on the ground. We can get your DNA from that. We've actually used consent. Just asking people hey, can we have that water bottle? We'll throw it away and they give us a water bottle. We've also had you know, restaurant employees pick up eating utensils for us at our request. So those are all ways that are legally permissible for us to get DNA. We do not recommend getting a search warrant. Sometimes detectives are like I'll just go get a search warrant. I'll explain the genealogy as my probable cause. The same reason we don't want genealogy used as probable cause in an arrest warrant. We don't want genealogy used as probable cause in a search warrant. Can you imagine taking forcibly taking DNA from somebody based on genealogy and it turns out they're not the person. It just gives kind of a black eye, I think to genetic genealogy. In addition, you know certain areas that we'd be trespassing to take DNA from a car door handle, believe it or not, is a trespass requiring a warrant. So we teach all of those as different ways to get DNA for the STR confirmation and things that we should not do. So the next area that I want to talk about is disclosure of the genetic genealogy information. Prosecutors have a duty to turn over evidence to the defense of the case. This is called the discovery process. And the prosecutor's duty is to prove that the subject the defendant committed the crime. So the prosecutor has to prove the elements of a a sexual assault. The elements of the crime of a homicide. And turn over all evidence that relevant to that, including exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor does not need to prove how the police found the subject who had been hiding you know, for five years or 10 years. That is simply an investigative lead. It's not part of the proof. The burden of proof that the prosecutor carries in the case. He's not going to use it to prove in any way that this guy committed the actual, say, sexual assault. The defense is not going to use it. It doesn't help them. It's not exculpatory. More importantly, the matchless. The names of you know the 1000 people that are first, second or third cousins to the subject are not relevant. These are innocent people that we want to protect their privacy. We don't need to turn over this match list. Unless somehow some way there's some relevancy to that which a judge can to decide. You know, we always encourage detectives and prosecutors you know to disclose the fact that we did genetic genealogy on this particular case, but it's actually not relevant and should not be disclosed. Now, the California Superior Court weighed in on this in 2019 and wrote a really good opinion about this. So I use this a lot, both in presentations and with detectives and prosecutors. This is the Norcal Rapist case, as it was known in the media. But in that particular case, the defense attorney, on behalf of the defendant, challenged whether law enforcement use of the genealogy sites was an invasion of privacy of the users of those sites by uploading the subjects DNA without his consent to these sites. And the court found that the defendant would be very hard pressed. In other words, to have any standing to challenge any violation of a third party. As a criminal defendant, you have challenged you have standing to challenge your own searches against you, but you can't challenge a third party's violation of a third party. A third parties violation of their privacy rights. Not to mention the fact that everybody in these genealogy sites has agreed to match their DNA with anybody in that database. So there's a whole separate argument on whether or not there is any type of expectation of privacy in these sites. But beyond that, the defendant cannot challenge the third party privacy rights as the court found. The other aspect that the court found that that was interesting and seems to make a lot of sense is that the information that is received from these websites is not evidence that's going to be used against them. The prosecutors the prosecutors not going to get up and talk about the genealogy as to why this is the individual. They'll use, the CODIS STR as we talked about earlier. That's the identifying characteristic. DNA found at the crime scene is a perfect match to the DNA that belongs to the defendant, not the genealogy. Moreover, the genealogy is not going to assist the defense in discrediting the prosecution in any way. So another argument that the defense made in this case if they couldn't use the genealogy in their case but wasn't helpful to them and they couldn't get access to it, then their next argument was, well, perhaps we can challenge the reliability. Maybe the lab wasn't accredited. Maybe we can poke holes in how that genealogy testing was done. Well, the court saw right through that. I mean, clearly there's no reason to look at the reliability of the genealogy testing. It's not going to be used at trial. But what's key here is that the identification was done through that CODIS STR. So the genealogy be could be completely failed. All we had to do is throw a dart at a board with names on it and it comes back to Joe DeAngelo. We go to Joe DeAngello's house. We take his trash and guess what his DNA matches the crime scene. That's gonna be the evidence that's going to be used at trial that STR confirmation as we talked about. So the inability of the defendant to look at the genealogy testing and you know, test the reliability doesn't in any way hamper his or her defense. So with that I'm done. I'm gonna turn it over to my colleague Steve again and Steve is going to talk to you about some of the myths of genetic genealogy and some of the PR issues affecting it, and I think you'll find it very interesting. Steve on to you. Alright, well Steve, thank you so much for that legal information. So important guys we want to see these cases all the way through to prosecution successfully and then information is incredibly helpful. So thanks for that Steve. Last thing we're going today. We've only got about 10 minutes left and we're going to discuss something that I love to talk about. And those are some of the common myths that we see surrounding this process. Now it's been my experience that people tend to fear what they don't understand, and I love to educate people about what this process is and also what it's not. So that folks can have just a thorough understanding. And and these conversations could happen at conferences like this. It could happen in the family room of a reference test candidate that's gonna, you know, try and help us solve a case by donating their DNA. But it's just important to get people the truth and get them the facts. And So what I'd like to do today is just talk through what I think are a few of the common myths surrounding this process. Now I'm not going to be able to hit them all because of time, but I am going to hit a few of them. I will submit to you that every single statement that's on this screen in front of you, these are false statements. OK, this is these are things that the police are not in fact doing. Although although members of the public and even some of those in the media think that we are. And so I'm not going to be able to hit them all today. But I am going to hit myths 2, 4 and 5 we're going to talk about those in depth. And then in the Q&A that will follow after this, if you guys have questions about other other myths, certainly there are more, even those that aren't listed here on this on the screen. So first big myth is that the cops are looking at the private genetic code of innocent third parties. I can tell you for one we don't need to see the private genetic code of innocent third parties to solve these cases. It's just not necessary. But in order to prove that point, I'm gonna do something here today on this presentation I've never done before. I'm a little bit nervous about doing it. I hope you guys won't make me live to regret this this stunt, but here it is. Steve's private genetic code on display for you guys to see. Now I was too I was too embarrassed to show you chromosome 21 because that's my smallest chromosome. I think it may be your smallest chromosome as well, but I wanted to show you my chromosome 12. Here it is on full display, at least a piece of it. You can see by looking at this guys. It it's even if we did look at this, which we don't, it doesn't tell you anything to see this. Now we do see this on the suspect, right? We see the suspects private genetic code and it doesn't tell us anything about him by looking at it either other than the percentage of shared DNA that he has with people. So to kind of make that make that point. I also went ahead and reached out to Elon Musk. I asked him now that he's, you know, taking a large share in Twitter if he would give us just kind of some maybe a look behind the scenes and some of the the the code that are going to be putting out at Twitter and he sent this to me right here. So if you guys want to look at the back end code of some of the new Twitter tools that's written right here as well. You can see obviously the point I'm trying to make guys is that even if you did see this stuff, it's not something that means anything to us anyway. It's not something that's going to going to move the needle. So the question then becomes if we're not looking at people's private genetic code, then what are we actually looking at? Well, in order to in order to show that to you, I've decided to kind of change the the numbers here. We're going to use phone numbers instead of genotype files, just because it's a little bit easier to discuss. And for this example, we'll show show you the suspects phone number up here, the 213 number that's on top and then the number on the bottom is an innocent third parties phone number that's been put into a public database where everyone's cell phone number is stored for the cops to use to solve cases. Now no one would want that right? I don't want anyone else having my cell phone number then already has it. I get enough spam calls as it is, but what do we look at these algorithms? Well, they're going to look at the suspect SNP, they're going to look at the third party SNP, and they're going to figure out where do those SNPs have anything in common right. Now you can see here the 1st digit and the 7th digit are the same. The same digit in this in these two phone numbers. Now it doesn't show us these these these directed consumer databases don't show us the third party's phone number. What they do is they give us this. They say, well, if two of 10 digits match then you share 20% of your phone number with somebody else. OK, we we get those results in the in the form of centimorgans from you know GED match and from Family Tree DNA which just tells us how distant or closely related somebody is to somebody else. Now having 20% if someone's phone number does you no good. You can't call me, you can't text me if you have 20% of my phone number. So I would submit to you that myth #2 is clearly clearly busted after looking at that. Now moving on. Myth #4 and this is a big one. I've heard lots of people say hey this this technique is gonna lead to wrongful convictions that you're you're gonna just put the bad guys DNA into a database. You're going to pull out the name of someone from the database. You're going to go put handcuffs on the wrong person. I would submit to you this myth is false as well. And and in order to prove that to you, I'm we're going to play a little game here. And this is the first time I've done this. I hope this will be helpful for you guys. Newsflash, I actually won the lottery last night. Got the winning lottery ticket in my hand at least I had it yesterday, and what I did was I took that lottery ticket and I hid it inside of the mailbox of a of a residential home. It was it was within walking distance of the capital of this mystery capital city that you guys are going to try to determine and I think the house was near a basketball court if I remember. And so what I did was I took that lottery ticket, I just put it in the mailbox and I'm going to give you guys 24 hours to go find it. If you can find it, you can take the $640 million from the from the Lotto. Now. With the facts I've given you, you guys would agree this is this would be a pretty impossible task, right? We've got 50 states in the nation. There's 50 capital cities, God only knows which capital I'm talking about. That would be a a wild goose chase. We're not going to be able to solve that with the information given. But I'm. I'm a nice guy. I'm going to give you a few other data points that might help you out here. And so if I were to tell you that our mystery capital city is within 1200 miles of Sacramento, you could very cleverly write a 1200 mile radius circle around Sacramento and you would narrow the 50 capitals down to 10. And you'd say, well, OK, we got we got a little bit of a better shot now at finding this, but still a pretty impossible task. Agreed? So I'm gonna give you another data point and say well, this mystery capital is also within 700 miles of Des Moines. Now you can kind of see how this starts to frame in right now. Cheyenne, Denver and Santa Fe are the only three potential capital cities that could be. Now with the third data point 500 miles from Austin, TX, it becomes clear and that the only capital city I could have been referring to was Santa Fe, NM, OK. Now go with me here, I'm going to bring this all home here in just a second. So you guys with the information that you have now you know that I was in a residential neighborhood near the Santa Fe, NM Capital. You think, well, you know what? Maybe maybe I get a shot at this guy. I'm going to go take a look. And so you go, you take a plane to Santa Fe. You arrive at the big Rotunda, as is typical in most of these capital cities. And and you start looking around. And you look off to the other north and you realize these these look mainly like government buildings off to the north and not the residential area that the Steve described with the lottery ticket. Then you kind of move off to the South here and you realize, oh wait, a second, this looks like all residential area and maybe this is the area that Steve was talking about. In fact, here's a basketball court right here, and maybe this could be the court. The mysterious court that Steve's talking about. And so you drive down there to a Weber St in Santa Fe, NM. You see the basketball court and you figure you know what, hey, let's take a shot. Let's take a shot at this. We're just going to start checking mailboxes and see what we can find. And so you do. You walk down Weber St. You go to the first mailbox that you find right here on the wall. And and you open it up, and what do you find? Bam, Powerball ticket. Guess what's the first thing you're going to do? I mean, what are the odds that someone even had a Powerball ticket in their mailbox for starters, but you're gonna check the numbers, right? Are these the same as the numbers that Steve gave me? And lo and behold, they are now. How compelling is that though? How compelling is that that you would find the winning lottery ticket in somebody's mailbox? Does anyone know off the top of their head with the Powerball odds are? You're pretty astronomical one in 292,000,000. It's actually written on every ticket, which that sounds pretty impossible. So in order to kind of put that in perspective, I went to the CDC's website and I thought, what are the odds of being struck by lightning? This is actually on the CDC's website. If you go there, the CDC will tell you that you have about a one in 500,000 chance of being struck by lightning. Now that's insane to me, because that means in order to win the lottery, that's what's 600 times more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to win the lottery. Which sounds pretty crazy. I'm gonna bring this home for a second. OK, now Steve Kramer talked to you guys earlier about the Golden State killer case. Does anyone know, it was actually written one of Steve slides, does anyone know what the odds are that the DNA taken off of the tissue in Joe D'angelo's trash matched the crime scene DNA from the Golden State killer crimes. Does anyone know? Well, this is the number 1 in 47.5 septillion. That mean that number is is unfathomable to me when you look at the odds of winning the lottery. So why is this relevant? Guys why is any of this relevant? Well this is exactly how genealogy works. OK we take the suspects DNA and we put it into a direct to consumer database and it's going to give us data points just like Sacramento, Des Moines and Austin. And from those data points we can triangulate about where we think that person might be on a family tree. And then we're gonna go out and we're gonna collect their DNA and we're going to compare it to the crime scene DNA. Now, back to the lottery ticket example, when you guys found that winning lottery ticket in that mailbox, what was the most compelling piece of evidence in your possession that you had won the lottery? Yeah yeah, the most the most compelling piece of evidence is that the numbers match. And so that's the final piece of all of these cases is you check the ticket. OK, and the odds are astronomical. So I'll go back to the to the myth. Is it possible we're going to arrest the wrong person? Not if you use this technique the way that we've used it. Not if you do a direct comparison of the crime scene DNA to the suspect DNA that makes this myth impossible. All right, last one I'm going to hit and this is a this is a good one too. I hear a lot of people say just how invasive this process is. This forensic genealogy process and how it's actually more invasive than traditional investigation. I can submit to you anyone that has said that has never been under investigation by the FBI. So I'll ask you guys this question, have you ever been audited by the IRS or or investigated by the FBI? Maybe even just pulled over by the police. I will tell you that I've actually had all three of these things happen to me. And you might say, well, Steve, why are you investigated by the FBI? Well, every FBI agent is investigated by the FBI. You have to get investigated a background investigation to get hired. And then every five years they redo it again. And so and that's not an investigation that's going to result in a criminal prosecution. That's just a routine background investigation, and even that is still pretty invasive. They want to talk to everybody about everywhere you've been and everything you've done. So what I'm going to show you here and these are just some samples. This is just touching the tip of the iceberg. These are just some things that happen during the course of a routine law enforcement investigation. Every one of these yellow post-its that's popping up on the screen in front of you, these are all things that I personally have done in investigative efforts. Not by any stretch you know everything,, but just a good representative sample of what happens during a a criminal investigation. And some of these things are very invasive. Reading emails, you know, surveilling your property, you serving warrants on your home, your family members are involved. Not a pleasant situation for anybody. Now let's just juxtapose this briefly against what the post-it's on the forensic genealogy investigators desk look like. We take the bad guys DNA and we put it into a public database and we look at shared percentages that he has with other people. And then we do open source research on on the Internet in order to see how we can build family trees and connect these matches together. And then we're going to collect DNA from a person and compare it to the crime scene. And you guys just saw that you know the odds are are literally 10 billion times more likely to be struck by lightning than it is to, you know have your STR match a random STR pulled out of the trash to a crime scene. So it to me it just it really, really emphasizes the point that this is actually a much, much less invasive technique for law enforcement to use. And I would submit to you that this myth is busted as well. So so it turns out, all five of these, all five of these myths that are on the screen in front of you are actually all true, right? Right here these are the true statements written out here that we're only using this for for violent crimes and, and we're only looking at shared percentages of DNA between people. We're not actually looking at your private genetic code. We access public databases the same way that everyone else does. Everything that we see is the same as what you see. This technique is for investigative leads only. We're not arresting somebody until we've actually compared their DNA to the crime scene. DNA and All in all, guys, this is actually a much less invasive technique. So what we're going to do now, guys, we're going to turn it over and we're going to open it up to some questions. Really looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks again for your time and hopefully we can see you again in the future. Take care. Can you hear me now? Sorry about that. Is that better? Yeah, if we can hear you Anne OK, I hear you. Thank you, sorry about that. All right, so I don't know what happened there just kind of went a little haywire. So we're going to be answering a few questions. Please keep submitting them while we go through the ones that have already been submitted. So the first question is - How do you think the state laws in Maryland and from other states will impact IGG in the future? Steve, you want me to take that? Yeah, go go for it. I, I don't think there's a huge impact on it. So many of the Montana law there's not much of an impact. There's some overlap with the DOJ policy, which we already use in our investigations when we're at the FBI, and I think most agencies follow that. The Maryland law, I don't think there's a huge hiccup. There's a few quirks in it with regard to some of the training, some of the accreditation, which I don't think it is necessary uh, based upon my presentation that you heard today. So the accreditation of you know some of the labs isn't that important as far as I'm concerned. The counseling needed for the investigators on genetic counseling I don't think that matters at all. I mean, you have detectives that are interviewing people about homicide, sexual assault, you know, telling family members, you know that you know their loved one had been killed. The last thing I think they need is any training on genetic counseling. But that's just my opinion. But I we've solved cases there in Maryland it hasn't been, you know, too much of a hiccup. OK. Great, alright, here's another question for you. Do you have an example of a privately funded or crowd sourced case and what were the steps to make that happen? And then what would you recommend to the various cold case, 501(C) (3)S or NGO's to facilitate them getting that funding to investigative agencies? So I I'll take that one Steve. So when I when I made that comment I was actually referring to some crowdfunding cases that I have seen on Othrums website. Othrum is the a lab in The Woodlands, TX that has has done some of that. And they I believe there was one that was just recently solved through that. So that would be something you'd have to contact the lab directly. In that case I don't believe the funding actually went to the investigative agency the the funding was utilized to pay for the SNP itself, which is oftentimes, you know, a big expense for these for these folks up front. OK, terrific. Let's see. Here is one. Is there any specific SNP array being used for FGG? Steve, you wanna take that? No you go ahead Steve. So I mean it. It it kind of depends. I mean if you go depending on what lab you go to, you could get a you know you go to lab A you're gonna get a SNP array A, you go to lab, you're gonna get SNP array B. So the answer would be no, there's not a specific one that is used you know, in exclusivity for this process. And obviously you guys know when you utilize whole genome sequencing, it's not following the template of any of those arrays. And so the SNPs that are produced are different. And it's it's not tough you guys can Google the the overlaps in some of those different chips. And it's very, very different. You know the the overlap from one chip is not the same as it is from another chip. So the short answer to the question is no, but kind of the question behind the question is you know which which SNP I guess array would be best for genealogy. And the answer is they all work as long as you can get a comparison. If you can get it to upload to the DTC databases Jed match and ftdna if it will upload and produce matches then that is that's going to help you solve your case. OK, terrific. So we have another question about you guys mentioned that law enforcement uses direct to consumer databases like Family Tree DNA and GED Match to help solve these cases. Why don't cops use Ancestry and 23andMe? Great question, I'll maybe I'll hit that first Steve then if you want to hit it as well. So I mean, we actually do. We do use Ancestry. We do use ancestry and 23 and me, but we don't use them in the same ways that we use Gedmatch and Family tree DNA. If you've used either of those services, ancestry or 23andMe, you know that the only way to get your SNP profile into their database is you have to spit in a tube or swab the inside of your mouth, you send them your genetic material. They will generate the SNP and put it into the database. Those Ancestry and 23andme don't accept what we call third-party autosomal transfers, Meaning you can take a text file of a SNP that was generated elsewhere and upload it to their database to find matches. In fact, they are both, Ancestry and 23andMe, are very vocal about their opposition to the police using their databases in that way. FTDNA and Gedmatch, on the other hand, have allowed their customers to opt in to law enforcement matching, and they do accept third party autosomal transfers. So you can, you know, upload a SNP file that was created literally anywhere, as long as it meets their upload thresholds it will go into their database and produce matches. So so, but Ancestry and 23andme we do use their software. Ancestry's records for tree building are fantastic and very helpful. So we do use our software. We just don't use the DNA side of their database. Yeah, and sometimes we'll contact or we'll use an ancestry or 23andMe kit and will ask somebody if they'll take a 23andMe or an ancestry test because we think there are relative, so we'll get their matches off of their databases. Sometimes on ancestry, people will say on their profile contact me if you have any questions about you know my family and my genealogy,, so we'll pick up the phone or send that person an email and ask him if they'll help us out. So we do use ancestry and 23andme in those regards. OK, terrific. The next question is, can crime labs themselves do FGG or is there a path for them to do this in the future? Currently I do not believe there are any forensic labs, any crime labs out there that actually produce a SNP, at least a SNP that is uploadable currently to these databases like Family Tree DNA or GED match. I do think that's gonna change. I know there are certain sequencers out there right now that can actually produce an uploadable uploadable SNP. Verogen has one, the MiSeq FGx that's out there and we believe that in the future that's where a lot of these SNPs will come from. You know from you know that's actually, you know the starting plate to do any of these cases from the crime lab. So it's a lot easier to start in the crime lab obviously, than take the evidence from a crime lab, mill it out to a private lab. So ideally, that would be the place we'd like to see it start from. OK, and then probably one last question here. When do you think FGG will be a regular technique introduced in court and then the second part is do you have concerns about not using accredited labs to perform testing if you will be presenting this in court? As I as I talked about earlier during my presentation, I don't think FGG should be used in court at all. It's an investigative technique, and that's where it stops. It's not used to prove somebody is guilty or not. It helps us identify you know who the person that committed the crime might be. And I say might be because then you'll use other techniques to prove that was the person that committed a crime. Whether it's the CODIS STR, or whether it's other circumstantial evidence. Whether that could be a confession, or time and circumstance that puts that person at the scene. But I don't think it should be put into court as a part of the burden of proof. It's not used in that way. OK, terrific since we got a couple more in. If you guys are up for one more I'll finish up with this one. How many approximately how many FGG cases have you personally been involved in and do you have a rough percentage of the solve rate when using FGG? So I I mean personally Steve and I have solved about 50 cases doing this method. There is actually a great article though that just came out. There's an author I don't know her personally. Her name is Tracey Leigh Dowdeswell, I think is how you pronounce it. That talks about kind of the the totality of what this looks like nationally and she her article claims that she believes there have been about 151 suspects identified. I think this was as of the end of 2020 through this process, and that's in totality, not just us. So that was, I thought, kind of a good data point to start with. Steve, did you have any comments on that too as well? I think that covers it. I think ours, you know our solve rate I mean we solved out of 52 cases I think 51 of them and it's just a matter of time before the 52nd one would be solved. But most cases we did were solved within 12 months or less, and generally under six months. Terrific, OK, I want to thank you both for your time today for your terrific presentation. For the audience, I want to remind you, don't forget about the rest of the series. If you haven't registered for that, there is still plenty of time to do so. We thank you for attending today and you'll be able to catch this on demand. If you are interested in watching again as early as tomorrow afternoon, thank you very much. _1735208103643