Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland, Diamond executive producer with iHeart Radio and how the tech are you? It's time for a tech Stuff classic episode. This episode is called d n A Forensics. It originally published on October seventh, two thousand fifteen. In this episode, Ben Bolan, host of such shows as Ridiculous History as well as Stuff they Don't want you to know and as a tireless producer, the kind of person you can ask to be on your show and he'll say yes, even if he's already committed to like a billion other things, and he'll somehow find a way to do all of them. I don't understand this man anyway. He joined the show to talk about DNA forensics. Hope you enjoy this classic episode. Ben has had people mark all over him and crayon today. I'm not gonna ask why I don't get into personal lives in the show. Well, you know, it's it's a big deal. Whenever I could be on the show and I wanted to do something special, my suits at the cleaners got a bunch of sharpies and asked people to go nuts. It's kind of like body paint, but really they'll super like on the cheap because we just can't. We don't have that in our budget, honestly, right, not yet. But Hope springs eternal. And what's weird about having um all these all these colors and markers all over me is that anything I touched literally is leaving a trace. Yeah, and that kind of you know, we were going to have a really in depth conversation on how catalytic converters work, but once I noticed you're doing that, I thought, why don't we talk about DNA forensics, like the traces people leave behind. So that's why I decided to switch in the last minute. I hope you can roll with it. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. And just in in you know, Ben and I have talked a little bit about our our mutual interest in the true crime uh discipline, the whole the whole true crime like field, and it turns out we're not the only ones in the office. There are certain people in the office who have a really deep interest in this sort of stuff, and so we thought, you know, it'd be kind of fun to explore the concept in different shows. So if you listen to all of How Stuff Work shows, you may have noticed things popping up here and there that's not entirely by accident, and so, uh really was one of those things where as we all started talking, we're like, hey, you know, I would like to do something in that and we can kind of It's almost like an easter egg for those of you who subscribe to lots of different shows, and you should let us know if you thought it was really cool. So from the technology standpoint, we thought DNA forensics would be really really interesting to cover and to talk about how it actually works. Uh, what are the processes, what are some of the challenges, What are some of the things that people are doing with DNA forensics now that might end up helping uh, like investigations in the future where could it actually end up giving us a false positive, because there there is the possibility of that as well. But to start it all off, we really kind of have to lay the groundwork. Yeah, I was gonna I was just gonna ask you. I hate to be the bad kid in class right now, but what's what's DNA d oxy ribonucleic acid, man, Yeah, that's that's what it is. It's so obviously you know, anyone who's had science class, like a biology class anything recently, you know all about DNA. But you know, we gotta build from the ground up. So DNA is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions that govern the development, function, and reproduction of organisms. DNA is found in all of your cells. Essentially, an entire blueprint of what makes you you is in every single one of your cells in the form of d N A UH. And the molecule is in that double helix form. So that says, if you were to make a ladder and then twisted in to a twisty shape, that's the DNA double helix. The rungs on that letter are made up of pairs of what we call nucleotides, alright, So each rung on the ladder is two different nucleotides that that bond together. Uh. There's adenine and thymine. Those always pair up together. So those are your two base pairs of nucleotides that will always join. And then there's guanine and cytosine and those always join. And it's the sequence of these pairs that end up determining what makes you you. Right yeah, yeah, so it could be. And these pairs can affect multiple the order of these pairs can affect multiple characteristics. Sure, yeah, absolutely. And also what's really interesting to me is that point nine of all the DNA that is in you is shared with every other human Like we we have ninety nine of our DNA in common, which means the stuff that makes you who you are as indifferent from every other person makes up just point one percent of your DNA. But that's all it takes. Is that point one percent. That's about three million base pairs that are unique to you unless you have an identical sibling. Ah ah the old Now this goes into um, this verges into some good detective fiction. Now, yes, that old The evil twin, Yeah, exactly, it wasn't me. It was my evil twin or or evil triplet or evil quadruplet really which we did an ill fated brain Stuff but it was, oh my gosh, we did. We did. Yeah. If you if you watch brain Stuff the video series and you look up how twins work, Ben and I did a funny At the time, I thought I still thought there were parts of it that were funny. Honestly, Ben, I still fully enjoy it, but my sense of humor is very corny. So but if you want to see you want to see me and Ben dressing up in two different types of outfits, like we're the the good Ben and Jonathan and then there's the evil Ben and Jonathan and we each have an eyepatch. Jonathan I were talking and it was it was strange because when we were talking about doing this episode and said, well, how could we represent evil twins like I patch is clearly because you know, the the goatee is not gonna work for right, because it wasn't like neither of us were going to end up shaving just so that I can be the good twin. But both of us are the kind of person who would have an I patch. And actually I ended up taking a quick walk to a nearby toy store to pick some up um. So, at any rate, if you do have an identical sibling, your identical sibling shares your DNA. There they are identical like the d N. If you were to compare the two and look at those base pairs, they're going to be the same all the way down, right, So that's one of the that's one of the exceptions. Really the exception so our DNA can be found in twenty three pairs of chromosomes. That's what humans have. Not all animals have that many, so have fewer, and etcetera, etcetera. So chromosomes are ribbons of protein essentially have a strand of DNA that are wrapped up in that and within each pair, one chromosome comes from your mother, one chromosome comes from your father, and that's what uh you know, those are the ingredients that come together to create the unique individual that is you and or your identical siblings. Uh So, if we took look at each person's DNA and pay attention to the order of those base pairs, we get something like a d NA fingerprint. It is unique to that person. But we can't just look at one section. We have to look at several different sections also known as loci in the in the parlance of forensics to get a robust fingerprint profile. So, just as we would look at a fingerprint and look for points of comparison to from from a from a fingerprint that we've gathered from a suspect, let's say, and a fingerprint that is left at the scene of a crime, you would have to look at several different points to make sure that all those points correspond to one another to say that there's a match. Same thing with DNA DNA forensics, you would look at several different locations along a strand of DNA and see if the same sequence of nucleo tides were appearing on both sets, because that would tell you what are the statistical probabilities of the person that you suspect and the the evidence that was left behind are one and the same, right, Okay, So each time there's a new location, the more loci there are, the more certitude you have that you've got your catch. Yeah, if you were to say, look at just one location, then that would mean you would have a very you know, there's actually quite a good chance depending upon the sequence, that coincidence could could completely explain away any any uh duplication there. Right, So it could just be coincidence. It could be that this person just coincidentally has that same sequence. As you add more loci, that becomes less and less likely. Uh FBI. The FBI has thirteen that they suggest, so thirteen specific loca that's their standard, and that that results in about a one in a billion chance that if you were to take all thirteen loca and compare the two strength you know, the stuff that was left at the evidence and the suspect or whatever is in the database. If you were to compare the two and they were to come up equal at all thirteen, it's a one in a billion chance that somebody else besides the person you're looking at possesses that. So seven of the six other people in the world. Yeah, it's like flash forward to that day in court where someone's doing that horrible reference joke and going, so you're saying that there's a chance. Yeah, And honestly, people who are analyzing the stuff they speak in statistical probabilities, because you cannot say for certain that this person left behind that DNA. You can say, like, what is the statistical probability that they did? And then you look at other elements of the case, right like saying, all right, can we put the person in that area, because let's say that it's in a small town. Well, if it's a one in a billion chance and you know that the suspect was in that small town, that's a pretty darn compelling yeah, because why are the chances of the other one of the other six people in the entire world was also in that small town. Not good, Ben and I will be back to talk more about DNA forensics after we take this quick commercial break. So where do we get the DNA evidence from? Well, stuff that people leave behind, Uh, a much anything that has cells, like living tissue that was left behind our living or stuff where living cells could have been in before being deposited at the crime scene. So stuff like blood or saliva or semen or skin cells, mucus, ear wax, sweat. Yeah, all of that, All of that can leave behind cells that we can pull DNA from that. What about hair, hair not so much, not not not for traditional DNA hair follicles, yes, but hair itself is dead. Those are dead cells. So you can do some some DNA analysis, but not the the standard kind that most people use in DNA. For instance, Uh, fingernails, same thing, but fingernails often come with other tissue attached to it, and that's where you find the DNA. So if we want to look at the history of people actually saying hey, why don't we use this this DNA stuff to try and help with investigations, you've got to look back to the nineteen eighties when a brit named Alec Jefferies, who now you may refer to as Professor Sir Alec John Jefferies f R S hang okay, good, Professor Sir Alec John Jeffries, FRS. Uh, that would be his full title. Now. He hit upon the idea of using DNA as a means of genetic fingerprinting, and he realized that the unique sequences of DNA could serve as a means to link an individual to a scene where DNA samples were found. And his process was first applied in the court system in nineteen eight five. In that case, it was an it was an immigration case. It wasn't like a murder or a rape or something like that. It was to ascertain if the identity of a British boy was actually related to a family who had originally immigrated to the United Kingdom from elsewhere. And he did. Uh. The first time it was used in a criminal case would be nine seven. That was yeah, not not long after, and that wasn't a case. Uh. The The suspect was named Colin Pitchfork, which is a heck of a name. Talking about nominative determinism, Yeah, and he was arrested on suspicion of rape and murder, and he was the first criminal cut as a result of DNA screening. So this was DNA screen that led to his capture. He actually confessed to his crimes, so the DNA didn't lead to his conviction. He confessed UH and he received life in prison as a result. So I wanted to talk a little bit before we get into some of the pros and cons about what actually happens with DNA because you hear like DNA forensics and you're like, well, what goes into that? Yeah, this is a great thing to contextualize right now because there are a lot of fans and tech stuff who have probably seen and scoffed at the various entertaining but inaccurate crimes shows c s I, CSI being the big one, Like they're there are are FRIENDSIC specialists who say that c s I is probably one of the most damaging things that have happened to their their career path ever because people have unrealistic expectations, specifically, juries have unrealistic expectations, which can hurt a trial case because juries will often one want DNA UH data when it's not even relevant to a case. Like they're like it's not necessary for them to make a determination in a case, but they want it because it's one of those things that people associate with. Oh, d NA gets you the the locked in answer was that person there were they not there? Um, just run the DNA enhanced the photograph. I see what the problem right? Exactly. Yeah, let's pull up one of those three dimensional holographic images. We're just we're just throw every single science fiction CSI trope in there, so early friends. Now, this actually used a process called restriction fragment length polymorphism or r f LP, and that involves taking a sample of DNA that has repeating base pairs, like they can repeat from anywhere between one and thirty times. They're called variable number tandem repeats or v N t r s. And what they would do is they would dissolve this DNA in an enzyme to break the strand at specific locations along that the DNA. So uh saying like, um, when there are this many repetitions, this enzyme is going to break the strand at that point, so that way we can measure how long the strand DNA is in and out point. Yeah, So imagine that you've got like a ribbon, right, And let's say that little ribbon is maybe three ft long, and you're going to cut out a six inch segment of that ribbon. Use this enzyme, and it cuts it at the very specific locations along that strand that you want. You do the same thing with the material that was left behind at the scene. So let's say you've got you've got your your DNA sample from your suspect, you've got the sample from the scene, and you compare the two and you're essentially measuring them against each other, like literally measuring the length of them, because it's those repeating pairs that determine how long that segment is. So if the two are about the same length, or actually they are the same length, then you know, or at least you you have a good uh inclination to say that this person was the one who left behind that DNA. That's not really used that frequently anymore, but more frequently now we use a method called short tandem repeat analysis, which is more reliable, more popular, And in this method, analysts take a sample of DNA and they count the repetition of those base pairs along certain locations the loci of that sample. So for or five base pair repeats, like where you get you know, your your those nucleo tied pairings I talked about, sometimes those pairings repeat in a sequence, right, They look for uh, preferably four or five base pair repeat segments. So that way, because it's less likely than if you would have two or three in a row. Yeah, the more you have in a row, the less likely you're going to find that exact same repetition in another in an unrelated person's DNA. And these are by the way, called tetra nucleotide or penta nucleotide repetitions because of the number tetra being four, penta being five. Um. There, those are best in order to indicate an accurate match. So the FBI, like I said, says, thirteen specific locai to find this, you would do this in thirteen different locations along the strand of DNA. And if you were to find these, uh, these base pair repeats that are identical in both and both samples, that's a really good indication that they belong to the same person. And this this investigation technique, while it is while it's pretty solid and there's solid science behind it, it doesn't work in every in every case, it's not a silver bullet, and this is kind of some dark territory. Yeah yeah. In fact, there there are a lot of reasons why, uh, this can be this can be problematic. Um. One other thing I want to talk about before we get into the challenges, specifically things like contamination and chain of possession and this chain of custody, thank you, before we get into that, is to talk about all right, So you know, I gave these these overviews of how they're analyzing the DNA, but one of the big issues here is that often when you're in the field and you're looking for anything that has you know, remnants of DNA on it, you may not have a very large sample to work with, Right, So you've got a tiny amount of d and a how do you make sure you can do the tests you need with a tiny little amount? And the answer is you duplicate the crap out of it? What how? Yeah? Okay, So this is this is gonna get super weird because I'm gonna get into molecular biology and chemistry. But starting it, I want to Okay. So they use a process called polymerase chain reaction or PCR to duplicate a specific region of the DNA in a sample. So this process was developed in three by Carrie Mullis who actually he won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work in this field. And what they'll do, because they'll take samples of DNA, they'll take a string of DNA. So you've got your double helix right, and then you heat it to between ninety four and ninety six degrees celsius for a few minutes. Yeah, so it's almost boiling um for a few minutes. And this is to d nature the sample, which means that the DNA straightens out, so it's no longer a twisted ladder, it's a ladder, and the rungs split apart. So those base pairs split and you get two strands, two half strands of DNA, all right, So then you end up changing the temperature. You lower it to between fifty and sixty five degrees celsius for a few minutes. That first one only takes a few minutes to so you lower it down to fifty to six degrees celsius for a few more minutes. That allows the left and right primers. These are small sections of DNA that have matching nucleo tides to the two separated pieces that you've created. Think of them as almost like half zippers. So you've got the right and left half of a zipper on either like they're they're spreading out there there there's apart from one another. You've got a small section that interlocks with each side. Because that you've got the the complementary base pairs. Uh, those will then connect to those sections. Now that's only a tiny little part overall part of the full DNA. But um. They then raise the temperature to seventy two degrees celsius for a few minutes to allow the tach polyme race. Now this is the material that can then build and synthesize new DNA to the two separate strands. So if you think about it like a video game. All right, so you get your little you get your little segment that's locked onto the half ladder of DNA, the stuff you started off with in the first place. At one end of that, imagine that you get a little bitty blob, all right, a little big blob just builds the corresponding rungs and goes down the line rebuilding the DNA. And it doesn't you know, there's one on both sides. There's a primer on each half strand of DNA, so at the end of this process you end up with two strands of d N. A. Okay, we've got more to say in this classic episode of tech stuff after these quick messages. Now you started with one, but because you've used this molecular biology slash chemistry approach, you've been able to duplicate it. And then you repeat that process, so you do it again. Those two become four, the four become a You see how this expands very rapidly. You do it over and over, so that way, even if you started with a very small sample of DNA, by the end you've got plenty to work with, so you don't have to worry about you know, we had one little drop of sweat at the scene and and we blew it on on a test that didn't work out. You don't have to worry about that. I'm sorry to be like, uh, emotionally or mentally a nine year old here, Jonathan, but can we can we make it a booker? I just love picture in us as cops or like no, no one knows who stole the bus. We have only this single the mysterious picker has struck again. Yeah, okay, so you're in Yeah, well we weren't talking about urine. We were talking about the boogers, all right, you got me. But this is but this is a great that that's a great explanation of how this occurs. Because given that you're essentially destroying the evidence every time that you you conduct this kind of this, this kind of investigation, than being able to reproduce it is fundamental. Yeah, it's absolutely key because again, if you do not have very much of that material, then you really have to be careful. And there are a lot of things that can complicate this, and that's kind of where we were leading to a little bit earlier. There are a lot of reasons why you cannot just say that DNA forensics is going to solve you know, the crimes out there as long as someone's left something behind. Because even though it's versatile, even though we have this amazing capability, life is weird and things can go wrong, and they can go wrong either accidentally or on purpose. So one thing that can happen is multiple people could be involved in a an incident crime of some sort, and so the more people who are involved, the harder it is. To be absolutely certain that the DNA samples you're working with all linked to a specific individual. In fact, there are currently some changes in the way DNA can be handled UH in cases court cases actually to the point where it's in the legal case since UH in Texas and other places as well, and so forensics labs are having to put in greater restrictions because forensics analysts would go into testify in court cases and say, there's a one in a billion chance this belonged to someone else. But if you start the factor in that there is more than one person's DNA found at the scene and the contamination issues that result from that, then people would say like, all right, well, really it's more like one in a thousand or one in a hundred. And then at this point you might say, well, the DNA evidence is not strong enough for it to be a compelling argument for the guilt or innocence of a person, because there's enough like if you're in a really dense urban area and you say there's a one and a hundred chance that's you know, it's it's hard to say that shouldn't introduce reasonable doubt that it doesn't meet the burden of reasonable doubts. But and then you have to try to chase down all the other possibilities. And that's that's if there are multiple people involved. But even if there's not multiple people involved, obviously you have to be very cognizant of the possibility of contamination. Yeah, okay, we we can talk about this a little bit, because we this is something that you might not see on Hollywood as often as you see it in real life. Yes, exactly, Jonathan. So let's say you know the Let's say you're the detective, right and Noel is the prosecutor, and I'm the I'm the JABRONI at the scene. You was supposed to pick up the stuff and bring it, right, Yeah, So you're you're your job is to actually go in and collect the evidence before anyone else can go through that area, right, Yeah, because as soon as you introduce other people, then you've introduced other DNA that could be left at the scene. But I've been having a I've been having a crazy time work lately, and I've been cutting corners a little and everybody knows. Nobody said anything yet because it's not a big deal yet. But here's what happens. Uh, while I'm on while I collect the evidence. Let's see, I get blood samples, and I'm on the way back. I stop it cook out because my diet is as much of a train wreck as my life, and and because I'm personable, I shake hands with six people as I'm walking back into our holding, right, I don't wash my hands. And I also kept the sample for some reason, in the bag from cookout. Yeah, that would there there might be a chance that that was encountered some form of contamination from the scene to the point where you get to the lab and then you you run the d NA. Yeah, right, Well, clearly the suspect was a roast pig. Right, Yeah, clearly suspect was a roast pig. Or even more dangerously, Uh, clearly the suspect, Uh, the suspect maybe someone that already pings in our database, who just got out of prison for grand theft auto and now works out of cookout. Yeah. Yeah, that's I mean that that's a you know, it's it seems like it's a convoluted example, except for the fact that this is the source of stuff that can happen r. Yeah, it's not. I would say it's possible, but that one is not plausible. No, No, But but the example you give does show that there has to be great care the the people who come in to collect the evidence have to do so before there can be a lot of disturbance of the crime scene. Because the more disturbance there there is, like I said, the more chances other people will leave behind DNA skin cells, or or um sweat or blood or whatever it might be. Um might be that there were other people who were involved in it who have no or you know, people who maybe the person who stumbled upon the scene left something behind without intending to, like cutting a hand on a on a piece of glass or something, letting themselves into see what's happened. Yeah, even something as simple as that. So there's there's that you have to be aware of contamination there. You also have to be aware of contamination through the moment you've collected it, all the way through the testing phase. So that's where the chain of custody comes in. By the way, if you ever see people like putting stuff in plastic bags in order to preserve it, that's pretty much a fiction because plastic will will contain moisture, right anything, Any moisture that's in the bag will stay there and moisture can can degrade DNA samples, so usually they're actually put in paper, so it's usually a paper envelope or a paper bag that's quickly labeled, and then there's this chain of custody that must be documented through the entire process until it gets to the lab, and then at the lab. Even at the lab, they have to be very careful with the equipment they're using. They have to make certain that it's completely clean and that way you don't end up cross contaminating from a previous test into your current test. That's happened a couple of times. There actually been a couple of cases. Yeah, there was a case where, uh, there was a victim of a crime and there was another crime that was committed, and the initial DNA test results of the crime that was committed came back with the victim from the other crime as a positive. And they realized that the reason why that was happening was that there were two different DNA tests that had been performed, and the victim from the first one that their DNA had not been completely cleaned out of the system before they started doing the next test, and so they were getting these false positives, and they knew it couldn't have been the victim because the victim was the victim was victimized, the victim was not capable of committing that crime. Um. So it was already like one of those things that proved that there was an issue here. And in almost every case, in fact, I'll go ahead say the vast majority of cases, this has to do with a person either mistakenly or purposefully, not following procedure or not making certain that that everything is on the up and up. Rather than the process itself being a failure, it's it's it's a human error, either intentional or otherwise introduced typically um. And so another thing that you have to worry about is whether or not someone has purposefully introduced DNA. There have been cases where in order to try and either uh, to hide one's involvement in a crime or to implicate someone else specifically in a crime, people have left behind samples of DNA in order to throw people, throw investigators off the track. Whether again, whether it is to protect yourself, like let's say that you committed the crime and you leave behind the DNA of you know, your uh, your your hated cousin. So that your cousin takes the rapid you don't, or you're an investigator and you're like, well, there's this really awful guy, and we want to get him for this crime. We really like him for this crime, but we don't have the direct evidence for him. However, I do have this DNA from a separate incident. I can leave this behind the crime scene collected, and therefore we can finally get the guy. I'm pretty sure he did it anyway, you know, solid solid. Yeah. So that's again, this is not something that happens all the time. It's not not something that's even prevalent, but it's it's one of those things that you have to be aware of. That's why these things like the chain of custody is so important to maintain. I have a question, sure, uh, And I don't know if I'm jumping ahead here, no, please ask, But I was kind of foreshadowing this while we're asking about hair follicles. So the it sounds like the home run for UH, for DNA testing would be something, as you said, containing living cells, so blood, bodily fluid, stuff like that. But if that's a home run, the kind of stuff that people are much more likely to leave behind would be things like hair follicles or flakes of skin. You know, so, what what's the deal with that? How how does that work? It's still the same same process in the sense that these are things that can leave behind traces of DNA, like as long as as long as for instance, let's say that you have h you're at a murder scene scene and you are you are investigating one of the things, You're going to look for our traces of any skin under the victim's fingernails, because that that's a an indication that the victim fought back against his or her murderer and may in fact have samples of that skin underneath his or her fingernails. And so you can collect that and then do the same process I was talking about. You can extract the DNA from those cells and then do the same process to duplicate that DNA and then run it either against suspects DNA or or use a database. We mentioned the databases briefly to a little bit about yeah, let's do that, because there are a couple of different ones. There there are state databases, there's a national database, and then there's the FBI's database. Uh So, These are all databases that contain the DNA information of various people who have been booked for specific types of crimes. It's not every crime. Don't worry, the FBI does not have your genetic blueprint because one time you purposely parked in a handicap spot. Although Jonathan and Nolan I do judge you for that, Yes, we think you should definitely never do that. If you don't, if you do not have a the handicap label, uh, then don't park in that spot. But now these are specifically pretty serious crimes where that's really the only way that they that that the state or federal government is allowed to to collect a DNA sample from you to use in this database when they've got a lot of people. I've got some statistics here to yeah, please hit me. Okay, so let's let's go with the big one, right, Okay, The big one here in the States is the National DNA Index or in d I S. That's the that's the Fed's, that's the FBI. It contains a little under twelve million offender profiles, specifically eleven million, eight hundred twenty two, nine hundred and twenty seven. It has to a little over two million R s D profiles and a little over six hundred thousand forensic profiles. That's as of June. If you visit the FBI's website, you can learn a lot about their biometric analysis, which does also contain print work. It's it's sort of a mixtape of all the stuff that they could use to investigate. And here's the thing you can do if you live in the US and you would like to feel a little bit less comfortable each day. Okay, it's there's a breakdown by state, so you can see how many offender profiles are are located in your state. Here in Georgia, in our case, it's two hundred nine five thousand, nine hundred and thirty eight. Considering the population of Georgia, that is a significant number. Right. You can see the forensics profiles, the arrestees. You can also see the number of investigations aided in labs participate. Now, one of the things I want to point out is that this also goes back into the drawbacks or the challenges of forensics, is that forensic labs can get really backed up with this stuff, Like the backlogs can be can be crazy because while I I you know, I mentioned that process just for duplicating the DNA. That can take a couple of hours to do that process, and then of course you've got all the cleaning of the material that has to happen in order for you to be able to use it again. That's not that doesn't even involve the actual analysis of the DNA that tends to require a forensic specialist to do this. It's not like it's all automated, although there are more and more automated systems that help, but generally speaking, it's it's sort of an augmented approach where you still have forensic expert do the the look you know they're doing. They're looking at the DNA to look at those base pairs and actually makes certain visually that they are in fact identical. So it takes a lot of time. And meanwhile, while you're doing all this, more samples are coming in, so there's a backlog that starts to build up, and depending upon the area and the number of labs that are available, it might be a very serious backlog. And there was also a pre existing backlog because if we look at how recently this occurred and off air we talked about this in the course of your research. You send in some great stuff about cold cases. Yeah, so there was already a built in backlog for this technology, and they're already been cases of people who were in jail for years, decades, Yeah, who were innocent. Yeah, yeah, where the DNA evidence ended up clearing them like it could not possibly have been that person. Um. And you know, actually, that's when I say that there are some serious restrictions and tax us about this multi person DNA approach. It's specifically so that there is every attempt to make certain that innocent people aren't incarcerated. There is a huge obviously there's a huge pressure on law enforcement to to assign guilt and uh and bring somebody in for particularly awful crimes. And there's an enormous pressure because of course, the community wants to feel safe, they want to feel that something is being done. That has to be balanced against making sure you get the right person. Yeah. Yeah, because we know that we live in an age of instant gratification. Yeah, things should be right immediately and right the first time and right now and right now, yes, the three rights. But unfortunately the wheels of justice hows those saying go. Man, they grinds low but exceedingly fine. Yes, as opposed to go round and round. Yes, the wheels in the bus. I was thinking, you know we would be here, terrible lawyers. Yeah, we would be Actually, I know I would be. I remember participating in a mock trial in school and not knowing what the heck I was doing? What was your what was your rule? I was defense and it was terrible. It was terrible. I did not want to do it. I was. I was. I was bullied into it and I it was awful. I could see you doing like a judge or maybe a bailiff who's over it, like sit down. Yeah, no, I was. Uh my my client would have gotten the chair. It was terrible for a very minor offense too, That's how bad I was. We'll wrap up this discussion about DNA forensics after this quick break. So I away getting back into DNA forensics. Uh so, yeah, you mentioned cold cases. I've got one specific one I'll mention, and it's not it's one that has not been um seen to completion yet. In other words, there there hasn't been a conviction yet in this case, but it does show how how far reaching this can go. So in December, the body of a young lady named Crystal Lynn bez bes Lana, which was found along the Provo River in Utah. She was seventeen years old when she was killed, and she had been sexually assaulted and murdered, uh perhaps bludgeoned to death with rocks. That was what the police believed at the time. Now, the original investigator of the crime, it was a guy who became the the deputy sheriff, I believe, but Todd Bonner decided to continue investigation even long after all the leads were drying up, like they just could not find any leads, and in a lab was able to extract what's called touch DNA. It was left behind on a granite rock that the police had believed was used in killing this young lady, and the lab used a vacuum instrument to pull this touch DNA off the granite rock and then put it through this analysis process and the results ended up matching DNA from a suspect that people were interested in but had no direct connection to the crime. The suspect's name was Joseph Michael Simpson, and they got the sample DNA from a discarded cigarette butt he had tossed us a cigarette but the cops scooped it up, they tested the DNA, they found a match. They arrested him back in Uh, he has a previous conviction for murder. He had actually been out on parole for eight months for before Brasilanta, which is death. Yeah, so he had been in jail for several years but got paroled and then uh, eight months later Brisilana, which was dead, and he's been linked to this and arrested for the crime. Now that being said, the last I checked into this case, you know, that was back in the last I checked into this case. It's still not it still hasn't been tried. There's been request for more evidence on the prosecution side, including uh an actual DNA sample from Simpson himself to confirm that the findings are in fact accurate, so in other words, not just from the cigarette, but but from Simpson in custody. And then there's also a request to get a print sample because of a partial print that was left behind on the victim herself. So, uh, this case is not one that's like cut and dry and it's definitive, but it does Indica eight that this approach is able to start pulling up connections that otherwise would have been unlikely or even impossible to make. And this brings us to this is just a sidebar, Okay, this brings us to a dangerous thing. And you know, of course that I who can sometimes be a cartoon of myself and am required to mention this. What do you think about the idea of blanket DNA sampling? They're taking every citizen. You know, some prominent members of the UK legal system have advocated this for all British citizens, and Kuwait is doing the same thing. Well, let me put it to you this way. Okay. There's always the argument that some people will make that if you're not doing anything wrong, then what do you have to fear? Right, Well, here's what you have to fear, I'm gonna tell you. Okay. So there have been at least a couple of companies that have shown that through a little bit of your DNA, they and do a very similar process to duplicating DNA, which means that they can synthesize your DNA, which means then that if your DNA can be synthesized, it could be created and dropped somewhere. And you had never been to that place. Oh wow, So you all of a sudden, you get a summons for some horrendous crime in uh Iceland or something. You say, I've never been Yeah, this is the weirdest thing because I've never been there. Like, but this is match to your DNA. There's a one and a billion chance that someone else did this, um and you you know that's that's a thing like, that's we're in a world where technologically it is possible to do this. Now, is that likely to happen? It's definitely, like and it's in the realm of possibility, but not plausibility. However, as long as it's possible, then I would argue that it is too invasive to demand from your population that everyone submit to d n A like submitting a DNA sample and yeah, yeah, what about well, let's take a step further. What about the idea that there would be what about the idea that this stuff, which is you set a blueprint in some ways. Also it's it's similar to metadata. Okay, let's I can see where you're saying. So the ability then to build this enormous sample size let's say the entire population of the UK. I think right now they're only at maybe five of the population because you have to get you know, you have to get pinched. So if they had this enormous sample size, then they could start comparing and collating and analyzing this stuff on a larger scale such that they would be able to possibly again possibly not plausibly, uh predict um not epo genetic trends, but but predict the likelihood of someone incurring a certain disease or something. Well, we're getting into more of a genomic sequencing at that point. Yeah, yeah, when you're when you're getting into genomic sequencing, it's it's much further, it's much it's a much longer process. Because again, this is very close to when they call a genetic fingerprinting. It makes sense to call it that because you're really just looking at the physical resemblance of two strands, right, Like like two drawings and there are two drawings of ladders, and if the two drawings of ladders are the same, then you know you've got a one and a billion chance of it not being that person. So that's a lot different than going through and identifying things like which genes do want I mean, we still don't even know, right, So in case you guys are not terribly familiar with with genetics. The genes can be pretty complicated things. Think about like a giant switchboard. Right, You've got an enormous switchboard, and there's like a thousand switches on little metal toggle switches, the classic up down toggle switches. Right, unlabeled. That you have a bank of lightbulbs in front of you, also unlabeled. You flip one switch and one lightbulb comes on. You flip a second switch, that lightbulb stays on. Three other lightbulbs come on. You turn off the first switch. Only one lightbulb goes off, and you start thinking, Okay, wait, what how is this? Well, that's the thing about genes is that they it's not so simple as to say that this one gene is in charge of this one trait. It's it can be much more complicated, where it's a a selection of genes that some are active, some are not active. Um So, because of that, even if you've got all the DNA from an entire population, you might be able to say, well, this one person suffered from a particular inherited disease. Let's examine the DNA and then compare it to other people who have suffered from that same disease and see where the points of comparison are. But that is I mean, it's a monu mental task because you just it's beyond taking points along a strand and comparing the them against a second sample. Right, it's it's a it's another it's almost like a an order of magnitude greater in the amount of effort that you have to take. Yeah, that's a really good way to put it. And that that a squatches some of my apien predictions. I do have one other question, all right, So we talked about in identical twins, right there, there is another, Um, there's another possibility where a person could get pinched with the wrong DNA. Are you going with a clone? What's your Well, there's a there's another possibility. Wait, maybe not. It's not the same as identical twins, but it throws another monkey wrench into this. Uh uh chimeras. Oh interesting, Yeah, okay, uh, all right, Well I want to hear your thought process on this, because this is not something I specifically looked into, because chimerism is not that it's super rare. Yeah, it's not that it's like an episode of SPU for that time. Um, And so yeah, it's true though it sounds crazy. And you guys talked about this on one of your other shows, right yeah, and Forward Thinking, we talked about cameras and yeah. It was one of those things where where the more you talked about it, the more the more like unsure I was that I was reflecting reality because it seems so weird. It seems very very strange. So it's a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells. So you might have, um, I think the first time I was discovered it was related to blood type, right, yeah, I believe, So I believe you're correct. So somebody had more than one blood type, which is already so trippy to me. I just felt like to do the to do just to this topic, we would have to mention that that is one of those very very exceedingly rare cases where DNA testing is not again a silver bullet. Yeah, so you could in a bizarre like this is almost like a science fiction novel. Yeah, Like to the point where you're like, for this to work, so many things would have to fall in line perfectly that you might as well say it's impossible. But imagine that you have a scenario in which you have a chimera and DNA is left behind at the scene, but it's only one type of DNA somehow, and then the sample they get is somehow just the other type of DNA, thus exonerating your your perpetrator um practically. Yeah, there's no, it's impossible. The only way that that could really affect it is if there were somehow a chimera on the involved in this scene and it became a contaminating factors, then they would say, well, aside from the victim, it seems it appears that there were three people here. Yes, that that would certainly, that would certainly cause problems, right, that would certainly cause confusion in the whole process. But it's also so rare for someone to be a criminal. I think it's already yeah, begging beggaring belief right right, like like like you you already have. Like if you think of the population of people who have some form of of that, you know, the chimera DNA thing going on, and then within that population, what percentage of those people are our master yeah, are are committing these sort of crimes. It's got to be pretty pretty small number. Sorry, man, I'm sorry, I just had to bring it up. No, No, it's fine, like you know, it's it's you know, but what if so one other thing I wanted to talk about. I almost forgot about this. So did you read up about the um the technology of reconstructing a person's face using just DNA material, and you, like you you had sent that to me off there, And I was initially skeptical when I was looking at it, but I'm out. It's it's called Snapshot, and it's from a company called Parabond and Snapshot what it's what it attempts to do is take the information from a DNA sample and create a essentially a police sketch of a person, a three dimensional uh representation of what a person might look like. Now, when I say might look like, you've got to be super generous with this because if all you have is the DNA, if that's all you have, like you don't have any any knowledge of what the person's face looks like, otherwise how old they are, they're height, or anything. What you'll be able to do is probably approximate their skin tone, their ethnicity, their gender, at least their biological gender there, they're hair color, their eye color, that kind of stuff, whether or not they have freckles, that kind of thing. But beyond that, you're not gonna be able to tell their age. You're not gonna tell their higher weight, So you can't you can't tell how heavy said or thin they may be. How you don't know how much how much like what sort of wrinkles would you need to add in if they're you know, if they're older. Yeah, you wouldn't know any of that. Uh, And you wouldn't know their skull shape, Like you wouldn't know their face shape, right, like the DNA wouldn't. So, so what you can do is create like a very generic looking person but with those traits. So it may not be so useful in the sense of using this as a means of trying to track down the suspect there may not come in handy. Where it might help is if you have unidentified remains. So let's say you've found the remains of a person and you're able to extract some DNA information, but you're not able to ascertain the identity of this this person. Uh. This would allow you once if you have the person's like skull, like if if that's part of the remains that are left behind, you then know at least the dimensions of the skull. And there are also other technologies that allow people to approximate lot of person's face looks like based upon their skull shape. So combining those two where you you say, all right, this is what they're they probably look like based upon the the shape of their skull. Plus here are their characteristics that they had according to their d n A, then you might be able to create a few different looks for that particular individual that might help in identifying who that person was. Yeah, and that that I think is the most tremendous possibility of this technology, absolutely right, because we're seeing already that the study of d n A and and the application of this sort of science has fundamentally changed the nature of crime and investor negation. Yeah, to the point where again it can affect juries, uh and there and their perception of a case to the So so it can be a frustration, right, like if you have if you have other lines of evidence that clearly indicate that the person accused of the crime has committed it, but because there was there was no DNA evidence, or maybe there was some problem with the chain of custody, that can create enough doubt in a jury's mind, a jury that's been conditioned to believe the DNA evidence is the end all be all that it can it can cause problems in that case. This is this is the thing, is that human beings were messy, right, Like we're not just messy and that we leave DNA behind. We're messy in the way we try to process information. And so sometimes you know, when you go through an entire process of when a crime is committed, to figuring out who potentially did it, to apprehend that person, to then trying that person for the crime, to then deciding whether or not they're guilty. I mean, there's so much stuff going on through that whole process. I hope you enjoyed that classic episode with Ben Bolan guest hosting. Was a lot of fun. Having him on always is fun. Occasionally you might hear me pop on his show Ridiculous History as a character called the Quister, where I am even more obnoxious than I am on this show. And I know that's hard to believe, but it is true. If you would like to reach out with suggestions for topics I should cover on future episodes of Tech Stuff, there are a couple of different ways of doing that one is to download the I heart Radio app, navigate over to the text Stuff page, use little microphone icon, record a message up to thirty seconds in length letting me know what you would like me to cover, or you can reach out on Twitter. The handle for the show is text Stuff H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.