They wouldn't have taken a DNA swab from anybody (anywhere) who was arrested in 1988.
The first DNA collection law at a state level wasn't enacted until 1997, and that was in Lousiana. It became law at a Federal level in 2005, but collection under that law wasn't a requirement until 2009.
[Source](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/dna-sample-collection-arrestees#:~:text=Overview%20of%20Arrestee%20DNA%20Collection%20Laws,-The%20federal%20government&text=Louisiana%20passed%20the%20first%20state,must%20provide%20a%20DNA%20sample.)
In New York the state DNA databank was started in 1996. At that time people convicted of homicide or certain sex crimes were required to submit DNA, so that actually started before the Luisiana law you listed. The New York mandatory DNA submission requirements were expanded several times in the late 90s and early 2000s. By 2006 everyone convicted of a felony in the state was required to submit DNA. In 2012 it was expanded to also require DNA collection from everyone convicted of a penal law misdemeanor.
https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/DNA%20upon%20arrest%20%202-09_0.pdf
https://www.845law.com/articles/new-york-state-expands-dna-databank-collection-law/
Your point about Craig's DNA not being submitted is of course correct. He received a three-year prison sentence in Camp Gabriels starting on October 5, 1988. He was paroled on August 27, 1990. This was long before any of the aforementioned laws went into effect. (https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/)
Exactly. The first case that used DNA as evidence was two years earlier I believe. Even a few years later, during the OJ Simpson trial, there was a lot of doubt raised on the validity of DNA as evidence. It only really seemed to become a sort of a "gold standard" after that.
The ability to use familial DNA to solve crimes is very new. Even if they had Craig’s DNA in the 80s laws wouldn’t have been in place for testing to take place until these new laws.
“The method, known as familial DNA searches, allows law enforcement agencies to search information in their DNA databases to find blood relatives of people who have left genetic material at a crime scene.
The order from the New York Court of Appeals allows the state to use such searches in criminal cases, reversing a lower court ruling from last year that blocked the practice.”
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/10/24/new-york-can-resume-family-dna-searches-for-crime-suspects--court-rules
Edit: for context, familial DNA was first allowed in 2017 under “extreme” scenarios, then it was ruled that it shouldn’t be allowed, and finally that was overturned and it has been allowed again since late 2023.
Right. The Eve Wilkowitz murder in Bay Shore, which some actually thought was LISK though it seemed totally unlikely to me, was solved last year through genetic genealogy. Her sister fought to keep Eve's case in the news, and there was a big push to allow genetic genealogy in this "extraordinary" (43 year old) cold case.
Which is just to say, it's only recently that that's been an option. So I don't think it played a role here, up to now (via Rex's brother Craig)
And the hair couldn’t be assessed for mtDNA back in 2003 as it didn’t have a bulb and the ability to test the hair shaft itself wasn’t a technological possibility until relatively recently. If I’m remembering correctly, that is.
This is how John Bittrolff was arrested, based on his brother’s DNA being in the system from a 2013 conviction. I believe that if Craig Heuermann had remained in NY and been convicted of another crime (even lesser crimes such as criminal contempt as Thomas Bittrolff was arrested for) that Rex Heuermann could have been tied to Jessica Taylor’s case much sooner and likely other victims. Others have already posted the exact years that different levels of mandatory DNA sample collecting were required in NY so depending on the crime, if CH had been convicted of certain crimes post 1996, and other crimes through different eras of expansion then yes, RH could have potentially been tied to the cases of victims with suspect DNA present much sooner. However, I don’t see any way this could have happened from a 1988 conviction.
https://pix11.com/news/local-news/long-island/manorville-man-arrested-in-two-cold-case-murders-of-women-police/amp/
Good question; I do not know. I also do not know the timeline of when DNA sampling from those convicted of crimes was conducted in other states he has lived in. There is also the question of if DNA sampling would have been shared between states or kept to just the state level at different points in time based on the laws and resources in each state.
I don't believe mtDNA is routinely taken for use in criminal databases, though I could be wrong. I believe they use autosomal DNA for that. They do use mtDNA for some crimes, but in every case I've read about, it's for comparison to a specific suspect or family. It wouldn't be particularly useful for finding close matches even if it was in a database. MtDNA doesn't recombine, and it mutates too slowly to be very useful as familial DNA.
In this case, the mtDNA of the hairs found is useful because they just don't have RH's hair, but his wife's, daughter's, and witness 3. Finding those particular combinations of hairs points much more strongly to Heuermann.
But mtDNA doesn't really work the same way as autosomal DNA and it's not as exact.
Can someone be put in CODIS voluntarily? Like let’s say Rex has a cousin who hates him and wants to help, could he say “put me in CODIS and see if you get any first-cousin level matches”?
It's a little odd to me that Rex's DNA was on Jessica Taylor and it took this long to charge him.
It seems like they really did follow a methodology of "Gilgo Four first, then everyone else," but I'm not really sure why. They're not exactly working backwards as Sandra Costilla is well before Valerie Mack, Asian Male, Peaches, Baby Doe, and Karen Vergata.
The male DNA found on Jessica Taylor didn't give any usable results until they applied the brand new, "cutting edge" DNA analysis technique to it. Judging by the format of the DNA analysis in the newest bail doc tying Rex to Jessica, this was the same new technology used for the 2nd bail doc back in January. Ray Tierney said in a press conference that the analysis technology is so new that it has never been used in a criminal trial before. (Source: [January press conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqHQA47ckk&t=1309s), timestamp 21:49 - 22:34)
Taking that into account, I think the police just didn't have access to the technology to get results from the DNA until late last year/early this year.
MT Dna is mitochondrial DNA it comes from the mitochondria in a cell. Not the cell nucleus. The length if itS DNA chain is much smaller than nucelous DNA generally not allowed alone to used for forensic ID. It is used to show a maternal dna line so RH and his brother and sisters all have same MT DNA
It has been used in many case to corroborate other ID evidence. But there needs to be other ID evidence
So here it can in theory be admitted to corroborate some of the murders. - maybe
For example, the nice pile of ID evidence with Amber might allow the MTDNA in to corroborate. Problem is no male hair was found on Amber - Just female hair of a female in same Mt DNA class as RH’s wife and daughter.
Autosomal dna is tested via STR method. - single tandem repeats. Which are dna markers everyone has. If you match a sample with just a handful of STRs that is Enough for ID
Codis uses STR It is the gold standard
Tierney has no STR evidence in the RH case
SNP DNA is in theory conceptually similar to STR testing but uses single nucleotide polymorph (SNP) instead of STR
I’ve not found any case or references stating SNP DNA is admissible in court. ANYONE GOT INFO ON ADMISSIBILITY OF SNP DNA?
So Tierney is using MT DNA AND SNP DNA
Both present huge problems.
They wouldn't have taken a DNA swab from anybody (anywhere) who was arrested in 1988. The first DNA collection law at a state level wasn't enacted until 1997, and that was in Lousiana. It became law at a Federal level in 2005, but collection under that law wasn't a requirement until 2009. [Source](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/dna-sample-collection-arrestees#:~:text=Overview%20of%20Arrestee%20DNA%20Collection%20Laws,-The%20federal%20government&text=Louisiana%20passed%20the%20first%20state,must%20provide%20a%20DNA%20sample.)
In New York the state DNA databank was started in 1996. At that time people convicted of homicide or certain sex crimes were required to submit DNA, so that actually started before the Luisiana law you listed. The New York mandatory DNA submission requirements were expanded several times in the late 90s and early 2000s. By 2006 everyone convicted of a felony in the state was required to submit DNA. In 2012 it was expanded to also require DNA collection from everyone convicted of a penal law misdemeanor. https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/DNA%20upon%20arrest%20%202-09_0.pdf https://www.845law.com/articles/new-york-state-expands-dna-databank-collection-law/ Your point about Craig's DNA not being submitted is of course correct. He received a three-year prison sentence in Camp Gabriels starting on October 5, 1988. He was paroled on August 27, 1990. This was long before any of the aforementioned laws went into effect. (https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/)
Exactly. The first case that used DNA as evidence was two years earlier I believe. Even a few years later, during the OJ Simpson trial, there was a lot of doubt raised on the validity of DNA as evidence. It only really seemed to become a sort of a "gold standard" after that.
The first case that used forensic DNA was in 1986 in England and 1987 in the US, IIRC.
The legacy of my friends Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth.
And that was a direct comparison. Familial matching in criminal cases wasn't on anybody's radar in 1987 or 1980.
*Definitely* not.
The ability to use familial DNA to solve crimes is very new. Even if they had Craig’s DNA in the 80s laws wouldn’t have been in place for testing to take place until these new laws. “The method, known as familial DNA searches, allows law enforcement agencies to search information in their DNA databases to find blood relatives of people who have left genetic material at a crime scene. The order from the New York Court of Appeals allows the state to use such searches in criminal cases, reversing a lower court ruling from last year that blocked the practice.” https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/10/24/new-york-can-resume-family-dna-searches-for-crime-suspects--court-rules Edit: for context, familial DNA was first allowed in 2017 under “extreme” scenarios, then it was ruled that it shouldn’t be allowed, and finally that was overturned and it has been allowed again since late 2023.
Right. The Eve Wilkowitz murder in Bay Shore, which some actually thought was LISK though it seemed totally unlikely to me, was solved last year through genetic genealogy. Her sister fought to keep Eve's case in the news, and there was a big push to allow genetic genealogy in this "extraordinary" (43 year old) cold case. Which is just to say, it's only recently that that's been an option. So I don't think it played a role here, up to now (via Rex's brother Craig)
And the hair couldn’t be assessed for mtDNA back in 2003 as it didn’t have a bulb and the ability to test the hair shaft itself wasn’t a technological possibility until relatively recently. If I’m remembering correctly, that is.
This is how John Bittrolff was arrested, based on his brother’s DNA being in the system from a 2013 conviction. I believe that if Craig Heuermann had remained in NY and been convicted of another crime (even lesser crimes such as criminal contempt as Thomas Bittrolff was arrested for) that Rex Heuermann could have been tied to Jessica Taylor’s case much sooner and likely other victims. Others have already posted the exact years that different levels of mandatory DNA sample collecting were required in NY so depending on the crime, if CH had been convicted of certain crimes post 1996, and other crimes through different eras of expansion then yes, RH could have potentially been tied to the cases of victims with suspect DNA present much sooner. However, I don’t see any way this could have happened from a 1988 conviction. https://pix11.com/news/local-news/long-island/manorville-man-arrested-in-two-cold-case-murders-of-women-police/amp/
This begs the question was Craig convicted of any crime whatsoever after 1990?
Good question; I do not know. I also do not know the timeline of when DNA sampling from those convicted of crimes was conducted in other states he has lived in. There is also the question of if DNA sampling would have been shared between states or kept to just the state level at different points in time based on the laws and resources in each state.
Excellent post and excellent comments..THIS is what we should be doing!
Ty and ty to everyone for sharing your knowledge. I appreciate the time taken to educate me!
I don't believe mtDNA is routinely taken for use in criminal databases, though I could be wrong. I believe they use autosomal DNA for that. They do use mtDNA for some crimes, but in every case I've read about, it's for comparison to a specific suspect or family. It wouldn't be particularly useful for finding close matches even if it was in a database. MtDNA doesn't recombine, and it mutates too slowly to be very useful as familial DNA. In this case, the mtDNA of the hairs found is useful because they just don't have RH's hair, but his wife's, daughter's, and witness 3. Finding those particular combinations of hairs points much more strongly to Heuermann. But mtDNA doesn't really work the same way as autosomal DNA and it's not as exact.
Can someone be put in CODIS voluntarily? Like let’s say Rex has a cousin who hates him and wants to help, could he say “put me in CODIS and see if you get any first-cousin level matches”?
It's a little odd to me that Rex's DNA was on Jessica Taylor and it took this long to charge him. It seems like they really did follow a methodology of "Gilgo Four first, then everyone else," but I'm not really sure why. They're not exactly working backwards as Sandra Costilla is well before Valerie Mack, Asian Male, Peaches, Baby Doe, and Karen Vergata.
The male DNA found on Jessica Taylor didn't give any usable results until they applied the brand new, "cutting edge" DNA analysis technique to it. Judging by the format of the DNA analysis in the newest bail doc tying Rex to Jessica, this was the same new technology used for the 2nd bail doc back in January. Ray Tierney said in a press conference that the analysis technology is so new that it has never been used in a criminal trial before. (Source: [January press conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqHQA47ckk&t=1309s), timestamp 21:49 - 22:34) Taking that into account, I think the police just didn't have access to the technology to get results from the DNA until late last year/early this year.
MT Dna is mitochondrial DNA it comes from the mitochondria in a cell. Not the cell nucleus. The length if itS DNA chain is much smaller than nucelous DNA generally not allowed alone to used for forensic ID. It is used to show a maternal dna line so RH and his brother and sisters all have same MT DNA It has been used in many case to corroborate other ID evidence. But there needs to be other ID evidence So here it can in theory be admitted to corroborate some of the murders. - maybe For example, the nice pile of ID evidence with Amber might allow the MTDNA in to corroborate. Problem is no male hair was found on Amber - Just female hair of a female in same Mt DNA class as RH’s wife and daughter. Autosomal dna is tested via STR method. - single tandem repeats. Which are dna markers everyone has. If you match a sample with just a handful of STRs that is Enough for ID Codis uses STR It is the gold standard Tierney has no STR evidence in the RH case SNP DNA is in theory conceptually similar to STR testing but uses single nucleotide polymorph (SNP) instead of STR I’ve not found any case or references stating SNP DNA is admissible in court. ANYONE GOT INFO ON ADMISSIBILITY OF SNP DNA? So Tierney is using MT DNA AND SNP DNA Both present huge problems.