ChelseaRustad

I won an AncestryDNA kit in 2015, and from there, I linked it to my Ancestry tree. But no one can access someone's DNA if all they did was take an AncestryDNA kit. I also uploaded the raw DNA file from the kit to GEDmatch at the suggestion of my genealogist cousin. This was before GEDmatch changed their policy allowing people to choose to "opt-in" or "opt-out" of their DNA being available to assist with criminal investigations.

So while technically I was not asked, I knew that by sharing my DNA on GEDmatch, there could potentially be some surprising discoveries and I was OK with that. The fact that it ended up solving a 31 year old cold case was shocking but something I support because of what it meant to the families, and the horrific nature of the crime and what happened to Jay and Tanya.

It was a strange combination of being deeply disgusted by his actions and also weirdly ashamed of being related to him, even though I had never met him or his immediate family in my life. I felt that because of my connection to him, and the research I had conducted on my family that could help with the investigation, that it was incumbent upon me to try to help the victims' families however possible. I tried to put myself in their shoes and think about what they were going through, and realized maybe they were worried that his cousins from GEDmatch would take his side or defend him. So I wanted to make sure they knew that wasn't the case.

My feelings are that if someone committed a horrific assault like rape or murder, it doesn't matter to me if we are related. They don't deserve to be shielded from consequences for that. If that happened to our loved ones we would demand justice, and rightly so. I just have no sympathy for anyone capable of such terrible acts. So I absolutely would have opted in no matter what.

My immediate family had no problem with it, but Talbott's sister, my second cousin Malena, unfriended me from Facebook after the sentencing. We weren't close at all and I barely knew her, so I think that her refusal to accept the guilty verdict is her issue to deal with. If she wants to be mad at me for her brother's behavior, it seems like a pretty clear case of misplaced anger.

I definitely still would have made the choice to share my DNA, knowing what I know now. It made me feel empowered, not just as a genetic witness, but as a survivor of assault myself. Victim advocacy is very important to me, and this is something folks can do to significantly improve the odds of these cold cases being solved.

Still, I would certainly always advise people to stay cautious, maintain healthy skepticism, and keep their wits about them any time they are dealing with police. Remember that you don't have to answer any questions you don't feel comfortable with. You don't have to send them your DNA file -- by the time they've found you, they've already identified the suspect. And it's OK to ask important questions about privacy and how these consumer DNA companies are using our data. Ensuring that encryption and other security measures are in place to protect your data is important, the same way you'd protect your credit card info or Social Security Number. Use with discretion and handle with care.

And it's just very interesting to me how some of the opponents of IGG seem to frame this so that the rapists and murderers are the victims, and we're the bad guys for "exposing" them. There's a really easy way to guarantee that they don't get the finger put on them as a suspect for a crime, and that's to not kill someone or commit a sexual assault. It's just really telling that the immediate knee-jerk response people seem to have is "But what about the murderer's privacy?" They surrendered that when they left their DNA all over a crime scene.