Investigators in the brutal stabbings of four University of Idaho students in November 2022 focused on a knife sheath DNA sample but initially found no matches in law enforcement databases. They turned to consumer DNA databases, potentially violating Justice Department policy, leading to the identification of Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student charged with the murders. Despite privacy assurances from some DNA companies, the FBI’s actions raised concerns about the implications of using genetic genealogy in investigations. Legal experts call for clearer regulations as the technique, while promising, poses risks of wrongful scrutiny for innocent individuals. The case moves toward trial amid ongoing debates.
As investigators worked tirelessly for weeks to identify the individual responsible for the horrific stabbings of four University of Idaho students in the fall of 2022, they concentrated on a crucial piece of evidence: DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene.
Initially, they attempted to match the DNA against law enforcement databases, but were unsuccessful. They then explored more extensive DNA profiles present in consumer databases, where users had agreed to allow potential law enforcement access; however, this approach also yielded no results.
According to recently disclosed testimony, F.B.I. investigators took an extra step, comparing the DNA profile from the knife sheath with two databases that are typically off-limits for law enforcement access: GEDmatch and MyHeritage.
This move seemingly breached important guidelines outlined in a Justice Department policy that instructs investigators to operate solely within DNA databases that explicitly inform users and the public of potential law enforcement use.
It also appears to have paid off: Just days after the F.B.I.’s investigative genetic genealogy team began examining the DNA profiles, they identified a previously unknown individual: Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in criminology, who has since been charged with the homicides.
This case underscores both the potential and the unchecked power of genetic technology in a time when millions readily share their DNA profiles with recreational databases, often for the purpose of finding family members. In the past, law enforcement officials were required to obtain a direct match between crime scene DNA and that of a specific suspect. Now, they can leverage consumer DNA data to construct family trees that may lead to a person of interest — within certain policy boundaries.
While some companies allow users to control whether their DNA information can be utilized for criminal investigations, the decision by authorities to bypass those restrictions raises concerns about the effectiveness of the companies’ privacy promises.
Erin Murphy, a law professor at New York University who specializes in DNA and contemporary policing methods, expressed her astonishment that the F.B.I. may have disregarded rules that the federal government had carefully established. She also voiced concerns about the lack of consequences for investigators who might bypass established protocols.
“What we are teaching law enforcement is that the rules are meaningless,” she remarked.
Steve Kramer, a former F.B.I. attorney with expertise in genetic genealogy investigations, noted that the rules were intended to serve as a framework rather than strict legal prohibitions. While they can guide typical investigative practices, he indicated that in significant cases with limited investigative options, such as the Idaho matter, investigators might find it necessary to take additional measures.
“Thank goodness we’ll never know what Bryan Kohberger might have done if he had not been apprehended,” he stated.
On the morning of November 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students — Madison Mogen, 21; Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20 — were discovered dead in an off-campus residence, victims of a vicious stabbing incident. The police spent weeks searching for a suspect, and residents of the small college town of Moscow, Idaho, lived in fear.
Behind the scenes, investigators were scrutinizing a diverse array of individuals: classmates, individuals with prior assault charges, and others with minimal connections to Idaho. DNA was discovered on a knife sheath found near two of the victims. However, when investigators submitted the sample to the federal law enforcement database CODIS, no match was identified.
In recent testimony from a closed-door court session, Idaho officials recounted how on November 22, investigators presented the DNA sample to Othram, a Houston-based company adept in genetic genealogy, which often aids law enforcement in resolving decades-old cold cases through advanced DNA analysis techniques. Othram commenced genetic genealogy activities and established a family tree, reportedly adhering to Justice Department protocols.
Mr. Kramer indicated that the policy was established following the utilization of genetic genealogy to solve the Golden State Killer case in 2018. Investigators had employed online services to pinpoint a new suspect. While some of these services expressed discomfort with the intrusive methodology, others, like GEDmatch, have since enabled users to consent to their data being utilized in DNA analysis tools accessible to law enforcement.
The Justice Department policy prohibits the use of genetic DNA databases that object to law enforcement access, yet it includes a broad note stating that it “does not impose any legal limitations on otherwise lawful investigative” methods.
In the Idaho investigation, as per recent testimony, Othram produced a preliminary report indicating that the closest match they were examining shared 70.7 centimorgans of DNA with the sample from the crime scene. Mr. Kramer opined that this represented a low match, typically indicating two individuals who might share an ancestor several generations removed.
To further develop the family tree, Othram sought to enhance the DNA data by contacting someone from the tree — one of four brothers — to see if they would be willing to provide their DNA to verify if the team was on the right track. The identities of these brothers were not disclosed in the publicly available records; however, it was confirmed that their last name was not Kohberger.
Matthew Gamette, the director of forensic services for the Idaho State Police, testified that the brother declined to participate and requested not to be contacted again. Eventually, Othram was asked to cease its operations on December 10, anticipating that the F.B.I. would take over the genealogy investigation.
In a memo referenced in the testimony, the F.B.I. acknowledged resorting to MyHeritage and an expanded version of GEDmatch that includes individuals who have not opted in for law enforcement inquiries.
The two companies did not respond to inquiries for comment.
Leah Larkin, a genealogist collaborating with Mr. Kohberger’s defense team, testified that investigators discovered a match of 250 centimorgans somewhere within the family tree, providing much more opportunity for a conclusive match. Photographs indicated that investigators had constructed a family tree on a whiteboard, Ms. Larkin noted, with handwritten annotations outlining familial connections.
The findings seemingly led to Mr. Kohberger on December 19. Shortly thereafter, investigators visited his family home in Pennsylvania, where he was residing with his parents during the winter break, and collected trash from the residence that further linked the crime scene DNA to him.
Mr. Kohberger’s defense team has contested much of the evidence presented by the state and sought to undermine the DNA evidence by claiming that officials violated his constitutional rights by not obtaining warrants prior to searching the DNA data. Yet, a judge in the case has dismissed these arguments as the legal proceedings advance toward trial this summer.
Mr. Kramer, the former F.B.I. attorney, noted that the application of genetic genealogy could serve to avert other forms of law enforcement invasions by narrowing the scope of an investigation. In the Kohberger matter, he observed, a white Hyundai Elantra had been spotted in proximity to the victims’ residence, and such evidence could lead detectives to scrutinize the lives of numerous Elantra owners who had committed no wrongdoing.
Conversely, Ms. Murphy, the law professor, emphasized that many individuals’ DNA might inadvertently end up at what could later become crime scenes, suggesting that expanding investigative tools could expose innocent individuals to exhaustive investigations or wrongful accusations, particularly in the absence of clearly defined guidelines.
She expressed that there are increasing calls for legislation and legal reviews to create mandatory protocols regarding the use of genetic genealogy.
“If this is a method we want to adopt as a society, we need to establish rules we can collectively agree upon and then expect adherence to those rules,” she stated.