Investigators say genetic genealogy and a later DNA comparison connected Mayra Velasquez to blood preserved from Irasema Chavez’s apartment.

ARLINGTON, Texas — A small drop of blood that could not identify a suspect in 2012 became the center of a murder case 14 years later, after Arlington police and the FBI used investigative genetic genealogy to develop a lead and then matched DNA from discarded items to 42-year-old Mayra Velasquez. Velasquez is charged with capital murder in the killing of her former friend, Irasema Chavez, and has denied involvement.

The case illustrates how evidence that once reached a technological dead end can take on new value years later. Chavez, 32, was found dead in her South Collins Street apartment on Jan. 20, 2012. The Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office determined that she had been stabbed more than 100 times. Police recovered surveillance video showing a person entering the apartment complex, found that a television was missing and collected a blood droplet from a television stand that did not belong to Chavez. For years, however, investigators could not connect that DNA profile to a known person.

Arlington police said the unidentified blood was tested during the original investigation but produced no match in criminal databases. Detectives also released surveillance images in 2012 in hopes that someone could identify the person seen approaching or entering Chavez’s apartment the night before her body was found. Those efforts generated leads but did not produce an arrest. Police continued to revisit the homicide while working other cases, preserving the DNA and other evidence as forensic technology changed. The blood sample eventually became the route investigators used to reopen a question that had remained unresolved for more than a decade.

The major shift came in November 2024, when Arlington homicide investigators approached the FBI’s Dallas Field Office about using its Investigative Genetic Genealogy program. The technique does not require an exact match to a person already in a law-enforcement DNA database. Instead, investigators can use an unknown crime-scene profile to identify possible relatives through genealogy resources that permit such searches. Genealogists then construct family trees and examine factors such as age, geography and the timing of the crime to narrow the pool of people who could have contributed the DNA. Police said that process produced a significant lead in April 2026: Velasquez, who had once been a close friend of Chavez and lived only a few miles away at the time of the killing.

Investigative genealogy alone did not establish that Velasquez was the source of the blood. Detectives still needed a direct comparison. According to police and reporting based on the arrest affidavit, investigators followed Velasquez after she met friends for lunch in May and recovered discarded items, including plastic forks and dishes that she had used. The material was submitted for testing. Police said DNA recovered from the discarded items matched the profile from the blood droplet preserved at Chavez’s apartment. That comparison, authorities say, transformed a genealogical lead into evidence directly connecting Velasquez’s DNA to the scene.

Police have offered a theory for why the blood is important but have not publicly established how it came to be there. Investigators say it is common for a person using a knife repeatedly to accidentally cut themselves and believe that could explain the blood droplet. Velasquez’s defense attorneys reject the suggestion that the DNA proves she killed Chavez. They have emphasized that the two women were friends and that Velasquez had been inside the apartment before. Attorney Dustin Hoffman has argued that finding her DNA in a place she regularly visited is not, by itself, proof of murder. The defense also disputes investigators’ characterization of the blood as appearing fresh when Chavez was found.

The surveillance video has become another point of conflict. Police say investigators are confident the person shown in baggy clothing and a hoodie was Velasquez. Her attorneys say witnesses have told them that investigators initially focused on a male suspect and contend that the figure in the recording does not resemble their client’s body type. Arlington police have disputed the claim that investigators identified the person in the footage as a man. A 2012 police release referred only to a “person” shown on the video. The arrest affidavit also describes small bloody shoeprints that investigators believed could have been left by a woman or a small man, according to later reporting on the court document.

Authorities say their case is broader than a single DNA match. Arlington homicide Detective Tracey Dixon said investigators have information from Chavez’s cellphone as well as statements obtained during an interview with Velasquez. Police have not publicly detailed that evidence, and the full strength of the prosecution’s case has not been tested in court. Investigators have also said they are not searching for another suspect, although they continue to investigate a motive. An affidavit cited a tip that Velasquez’s husband at the time may have been jealous of the women’s close friendship, but police have not declared that jealousy to be the motive for Chavez’s killing.

Velasquez was arrested July 16 in Hurst without incident and initially held without bond on one count of capital murder. The missing television is part of the allegation underlying the capital charge, according to defense statements about the case. Her lawyers challenged the initial bond decision through a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court had not established a sufficient basis to keep her jailed without bail. They also emphasized that Velasquez had no criminal record and argued that her history of international travel did not make her a flight risk. She was later granted a $450,000 bond and released with conditions that include GPS monitoring and surrender of her passport.

The arrest drew attention in part because of the life Velasquez had built during the years after Chavez’s death. She worked in real estate in North Texas, started a family and posted about travel and professional accomplishments. A former real estate colleague told KERA before the later court developments that she knew Velasquez as kind, outgoing and family-oriented and was shocked by the arrest. Those impressions, however, are not evidence about what happened inside Chavez’s apartment. The criminal case will turn instead on the admissible forensic evidence, testimony, records and other material prosecutors and defense attorneys ultimately present.

After her release, Velasquez made a brief public statement alongside her lawyers and expressly denied killing Chavez. “I am Mayra Velasquez. I did not do this,” she said. She described Chavez as her friend and said she hoped investigators would find the person responsible. Her attorneys have urged authorities to examine other possible suspects and have said the public has so far heard only part of the evidence. Police, by contrast, have said they are confident in the identification and point to the DNA comparison, the friendship between the women and additional evidence they have not fully disclosed.

More than 14 years after Chavez was found dead, the case has therefore moved from an unsolved homicide to a contested criminal prosecution rather than a final resolution. As of Aug. 24, Velasquez remains free on bond under court-imposed conditions and is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Publicly available reporting has not established a trial date, and authorities have not announced a definitive motive. The blood sample that survived from 2012 may have provided investigators with their long-awaited suspect, but its meaning, along with the rest of the evidence, will now be tested through the court process.

Author note: Last updated August 24, 2026.