Steve Kramer

And then when we arrived, I'm like, this has to be our guy.

And then when we arrived, I'm like, this has to be our guy.

I wanted them to look at it and verify it. And we knew this, too, from working at the FBI on the genetic genealogy team. Thankfully, they're not going to just take somebody's word for it and go take somebody's DNA or anything like that just because somebody says that's the person.

I wanted them to look at it and verify it. And we knew this, too, from working at the FBI on the genetic genealogy team. Thankfully, they're not going to just take somebody's word for it and go take somebody's DNA or anything like that just because somebody says that's the person.

The FBI is going to do their homework, verify that there's a reason that they should be out there collecting DNA from an individual.

The FBI is going to do their homework, verify that there's a reason that they should be out there collecting DNA from an individual.

So essentially, we were out of the loop until they did the surreptitious collection of this fork in July. And then they sent that fork to this private lab in California to create the STR to match it against the profile from the crime scene. And because of my understanding, it was an injunction by the Innocence Project in this case. There was an agreement that that lab

So essentially, we were out of the loop until they did the surreptitious collection of this fork in July. And then they sent that fork to this private lab in California to create the STR to match it against the profile from the crime scene. And because of my understanding, it was an injunction by the Innocence Project in this case. There was an agreement that that lab

wouldn't do anything on that case without the Innocence Project agreeing to it and also the Innocence Project being privy to the results of that. So at that point, we knew that the lab had DNA that was collected by, I assume, the local police and or the FBI from this individual. And we learned a few days later that that fork actually, the DNA contained on that fork,

wouldn't do anything on that case without the Innocence Project agreeing to it and also the Innocence Project being privy to the results of that. So at that point, we knew that the lab had DNA that was collected by, I assume, the local police and or the FBI from this individual. And we learned a few days later that that fork actually, the DNA contained on that fork,

from this individual, Albert Laurel, matched perfectly the DNA that was found on the body and clothing of Dana Ireland, so that we knew we had our guy. So I said earlier, 98% sure, now we're 100% sure, got right guy. This is him.

from this individual, Albert Laurel, matched perfectly the DNA that was found on the body and clothing of Dana Ireland, so that we knew we had our guy. So I said earlier, 98% sure, now we're 100% sure, got right guy. This is him.

So at that point, then generally, and when I say generally, like 99.9, I think every single case that we've ever done, the next step is you write up an arrest warrant for the individual. And your probable cause becomes not the genetic genealogy. You don't use that for probable cause. You use the DNA STR from the crime scene matches that for. And that's your probable cause.

So at that point, then generally, and when I say generally, like 99.9, I think every single case that we've ever done, the next step is you write up an arrest warrant for the individual. And your probable cause becomes not the genetic genealogy. You don't use that for probable cause. You use the DNA STR from the crime scene matches that for. And that's your probable cause.

And it'll have crazy odds. Like the odds of a random match will be one out of 50 septillion or something like that.

And it'll have crazy odds. Like the odds of a random match will be one out of 50 septillion or something like that.