Could a familial DNA search find JonB...

Could a familial DNA search find JonBenet's killer?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#1 Oct 26, 2011
I was watching a program the other night about a cold case in England which was finally solved 20 years later after a familial DNA search. In 2000 a woman was arrested on a DUI charge and her DNA entered into the national database. Six years later, her DNA profile led to the arrest of her brother, James Lloyd, the "shoe rapist".

"Between 1983 and 1986 women in the area around Rotherham, South Yorkshire, lived in fear of a violent rapist. During this time six women came forward to say they had been attacked late at night. In each case the rapist had stolen their shoes and tied some of the women up with tights. The South Yorkshire police mounted a high-profile campaign to catch the attacker but their investigations were unsuccessful. The police returned to the cases several times but never with any positive result.

In 2001 the police hoped DNA might reveal the rapist's identity. Semen stains on the victims' clothes did reveal a profile but not one that matched with any on the national database. In 2002 the police turned to Crimewatch; hoping a reconstruction, a clear photo fit and psychological profiling might give them a lead. But once again they failed to find the culprit. Then, in 2006, developments in the analysis of familial DNA gave police a new avenue of research - they found they had 43 profiles that might be related to the rapist.

Finally, luck was on their side. The third person that they visited was asked if she had a male relation who would now be middle aged with links to the Rotherham area. She told them of her brother James Lloyd, a successful Yorkshire man, the manager of a printing press and father of three, but said she was certain it could have nothing to do with him. But when Lloyd was told of their investigation his world crumbled. Almost immediately he attempted to commit suicide but was stopped by his son. Not long after this he was arrested and admitted his guilt to the police.

A search of his workplace revealed a hidden hoard of female shoes, tights, jewellery and handbags. There were more than 126 single shoes many in pairs, others single. It's not known where many of these shoes came from; it's possible belong to victims who have yet to come forward.

James Lloyd was sentenced to life in 2006 and this long-running police case was finally closed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/solved/howthe...
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#2 Oct 26, 2011
What is a Familial Search?
As a result of the growing number of DNA profiles stored in DNA databases worldwide, a controversial technology has emerged onto the forensic scene. Criminals whose DNA profile has never been entered into a DNA database because they were never arrested, prosecuted or convicted of a crime can still be identified through a technique called familial searches.

Today, your DNA kinship can be sufficient to link you to a crime.

According to the National District Attorneys Association,

"Familial searching is a technique whereby a crime scene profile is deliberately run through the offender databank in the hopes of getting a list of profiles that are genetically similar to the DNA evidence and using this information as an investigative lead to interview family members of the near matches."
When a DNA profile is obtained from a crime scene and that profile is passed through the FBI's electronic program, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). A perfect hit will be obtained if all 26 alleles match a DNA profile in the database, indicating that the DNA sample is from the same person. But if a partial match occurs on at least 15 or more alleles then this could indicate that a close relative left the sample at the crime scene. A relative whose past conviction or arrest required them to provide their DNA can now send another family member to prison.

Familial searches should not be confused with partial matches. According to Jeffrey Rosen law professor at George Washington University, legal affairs editor of the New Republic and director of the Brookings Project on Technology and the Constitution School, "partial matches emerge inadvertently from a routine search of the DNA database, while family searches represent a second deliberate trolling of the database for close biological relatives after the first search had failed to produce a perfect match."

http://www.dnaforensics.com/FamilialSearches....

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#3 Oct 26, 2011
That is a good question Lynette. Colorado does allow familial searchs:

Colorado
A strong proponent and advocate of familial searches is Mitch Morrissey the District Attorney of Denver, Colorado. Over the years Morrissey has given several excellent presentations on the subject. In 2009, Morrissey launched a familial search research project with the Denver Police Department. A familial search software program was designed by the DA's office and the Denver Police Crime Lab. The program would only extend to siblings and parents. When a hit is made, family members could not be questioned unless investigators isolate a suspect using traditional detective work.

This software program resulted in the first case ever to use a deliberate familial search in the United States. In February 2008, several cars were burglarized in a Denver apartment complex. In one car, blood stains were left on the front seat. After extracting the DNA profile, the police ran it through the DNA database, but did not get a match. They then processed the sample as a familial search and a brother of the offender was identified. This led law enforcement to 21 year-old, Luis Jaimes-Tinajero. Police received a court order to take his blood and it was a perfect match to the evidence sample. Jaimes-Tinajero pleaded guilty on September 10, 2009 to criminal trespass and was sentenced to two years probation. Although this case was only designed to test the new familial search software, it would probably have received more publicity had it led to the arrest of a rapist or murderer and not a car burglar who apparently stole only $1.40 in change.

As part of the testing phase for the familial search software, the Denver Police Crime Lab also examined 2,000 DNA profiles of unknown offenders found at crimes scenes and ran the samples as a familial search to see if any relatives could be identified. Thirteen familial DNA matches were found. Morrissey has stated that investigations using the familial search software would focus on catching violent criminals such as serial rapists, serial sexual murderers and murderers.

In October 2009, Colorado adopted safeguards when to use familial searches. The chief of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation signed into action the procedures for the DNA Familial Search Policy. The policy outlines that law enforcement agencies must undergo training and must agree to check public records to verify a family relationship before questioning potential suspects.
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#4 Oct 26, 2011
Thanks for that information, Seuss. Yes, familial searches are still a controversial issue, but they are allowed in Colorado.

Since the the DNA left on JB's clothing has never been matched, the person it belongs to, IMO the killer, is probably not an ordinary criminal, which is exactly what I've always suspected. However, he may have a relative whose DNA profile is in Codis and this could provide the police with a useful investigative lead which could ultimately lead to the arrest of the killer.

Nowadays, are DNA samples taken as a matter of routine from anyone who breaks the law in the US, Seuss, do you know, or only from those who commit serious offences such as rape or murder?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#5 Oct 26, 2011
That is also a state decision Lynette, and I would have to look up Colorado to see. I do know there was controversy pertaining DNA obtained for a specific investigation and when the investigation ended the extraneous DNA was supposed to be purged, and it wasn't, therefore the waters are muddy in a lot of places regarding familial testing using source DNA from a previous investigation. I believe even voluntary samples given were mistreated and not purged from the systems and that would be a 4th amendment violation for a case not related to the initial investigation. I think it is an area that really needs some stringent controls wrapped around it.
Lynette wrote:
Thanks for that information, Seuss. Yes, familial searches are still a controversial issue, but they are allowed in Colorado.
Since the the DNA left on JB's clothing has never been matched, the person it belongs to, IMO the killer, is probably not an ordinary criminal, which is exactly what I've always suspected. However, he may have a relative whose DNA profile is in Codis and this could provide the police with a useful investigative lead which could ultimately lead to the arrest of the killer.
Nowadays, are DNA samples taken as a matter of routine from anyone who breaks the law in the US, Seuss, do you know, or only from those who commit serious offences such as rape or murder?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#6 Oct 26, 2011
Lynette wrote:
Thanks for that information, Seuss. Yes, familial searches are still a controversial issue, but they are allowed in Colorado.
Since the the DNA left on JB's clothing has never been matched, the person it belongs to, IMO the killer, is probably not an ordinary criminal, which is exactly what I've always suspected. However, he may have a relative whose DNA profile is in Codis and this could provide the police with a useful investigative lead which could ultimately lead to the arrest of the killer.
Nowadays, are DNA samples taken as a matter of routine from anyone who breaks the law in the US, Seuss, do you know, or only from those who commit serious offences such as rape or murder?
A familial DNA search was also used in the BTK killer. The daughter's pap smear was used for a match.
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#7 Oct 27, 2011
DrSeussMd wrote:
That is also a state decision Lynette, and I would have to look up Colorado to see. I do know there was controversy pertaining DNA obtained for a specific investigation and when the investigation ended the extraneous DNA was supposed to be purged, and it wasn't, therefore the waters are muddy in a lot of places regarding familial testing using source DNA from a previous investigation. I believe even voluntary samples given were mistreated and not purged from the systems and that would be a 4th amendment violation for a case not related to the initial investigation. I think it is an area that really needs some stringent controls wrapped around it.
<quoted text>
For opponents of familial searching, the biggest concern seems to be that it could be racially discriminating due to the high percentage of convicted criminals who come from minority backgrounds because it is felt that it would be unfair to put large numbers of minority families under genetic surveillance. Other concerns are that arrestees who are acquitted would not have their samples purged from the system as you pointed out, Seuss, and also that it is unconstitutional to take a DNA sample from someone who is arrested but not yet convicted.

I understand these concerns and obviously anything can be subject to abuse, but IMO the positives of familial searching far outweigh the negatives and the negatives can be minimized if strict rules are put in place and adhered to.

California, Colorado and I think Virginia are three states which now allow it and apparently Pennsylvania is considering it. I think in time it will become nationwide and IMO it will lessen crime, save many lives and help exonerate the innocent.

The unknown male DNA on JB's clothing belongs to SOMEONE and I think it is a perfect case for a familial search. If it belongs to the killer, it may lead us to him and if it's innocent transfer and can be traced to the source, it will lay the DNA dispute to rest for good.
Lynette

Germiston, South Africa

#8 Oct 27, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
A familial DNA search was also used in the BTK killer. The daughter's pap smear was used for a match.
That's true, Kassie, it did help convict BTK and was another case solved using familial searching. Had Dennis Rader not been arrested, who knows how many more victims would have died at his hands?

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Familia...

"Investigators obtained a court order without the daughter's knowledge for a Pap smear specimen she had given five years earlier at a university medical clinic in Kansas. A DNA profile of the specimen almost perfectly matched the DNA evidence taken from several BTK crime scenes, leading detectives to conclude she was the child of the killer. That allowed police to secure an arrest warrant in February 2005 and end BTK's murderous career.

The BTK case was an early use of an emerging tool in law enforcement: analyzing the DNA of a suspect's relatives. In the BTK example, police had a suspect and were looking to tie him to the crime. But now, states are moving to conduct familial searches of criminal databases, looking for close-to-perfect matches
with DNA from crime scenes. A partial match with a convicted criminal could implicate a brother or daughter or father of the convict. Such searches, advocates say, constitute a powerful law enforcement tool that, experts say, could increase by 40 percent the number of suspects identified through DNA."

Did you know familial DNA was also used to identify Osama bin Laden's body?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#9 Oct 27, 2011
I agree that once a stringent regulation process is put into place to deflect abuse, that it should help in solving numerous crimes, but a lot needs to happen before that can of worms is opened up. All of the prior regulations on how long familial DNA is to be retained in the database based and when and how the DNA was obtained would need to be resolved first. It could certainly serve to lead investigtions in the right direction, but like anything else would only be a single component of the evidence. It is not unconstitutional to request and obtain DNA prior to a conviction, it is done all the time in all kinds of investigations whether voluntary or court-ordered via warrant. The purging of non-related DNA when excluded from being evidence against the specific crime is the biggest issue in my mind.
Lynette wrote:
<quoted text>For opponents of familial searching, the biggest concern seems to be that it could be racially discriminating due to the high percentage of convicted criminals who come from minority backgrounds because it is felt that it would be unfair to put large numbers of minority families under genetic surveillance. Other concerns are that arrestees who are acquitted would not have their samples purged from the system as you pointed out, Seuss, and also that it is unconstitutional to take a DNA sample from someone who is arrested but not yet convicted.
I understand these concerns and obviously anything can be subject to abuse, but IMO the positives of familial searching far outweigh the negatives and the negatives can be minimized if strict rules are put in place and adhered to.
California, Colorado and I think Virginia are three states which now allow it and apparently Pennsylvania is considering it. I think in time it will become nationwide and IMO it will lessen crime, save many lives and help exonerate the innocent.
The unknown male DNA on JB's clothing belongs to SOMEONE and I think it is a perfect case for a familial search. If it belongs to the killer, it may lead us to him and if it's innocent transfer and can be traced to the source, it will lay the DNA dispute to rest for good.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10 Oct 27, 2011
I have been away from these message boards for quite some time doing my own research and trying to learn more about this case. I watched a press conference yesterday in which Mary Lacy was the speaker. She said the foreign male DNA on JB's body may or may not pertain to the killer? If it may not belong to the killer then why did she let JMK go free?
Dave In Columbus

Southfield, MI

#11 Oct 27, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
I have been away from these message boards for quite some time doing my own research and trying to learn more about this case. I watched a press conference yesterday in which Mary Lacy was the speaker. She said the foreign male DNA on JB's body may or may not pertain to the killer? If it may not belong to the killer then why did she let JMK go free?
Better still - if it may not belong to the killer, why did she exonerate the Ramseys?

JMK was released because there was no evidence connecting him to the murder. NONE.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#12 Oct 28, 2011
Dave In Columbus wrote:
<quoted text>
Better still - if it may not belong to the killer, why did she exonerate the Ramseys?
JMK was released because there was no evidence connecting him to the murder. NONE.
Perhaps there is evidence that sleuthers don't know about. Maybe she exonerated them because of the evidence that exists to prove that the Ramsey's are innocent. Perhaps she exonerated them so that LE can focus on catching the real killer. Too much time was spent on trying to prove the the Ramsey's killed their daughter. After all these years, there has still never been a trial or a charge in JB's murder. Mary Lacy knew it was time to focus elsewhere.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#13 Oct 28, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps there is evidence that sleuthers don't know about. Maybe she exonerated them because of the evidence that exists to prove that the Ramsey's are innocent. Perhaps she exonerated them so that LE can focus on catching the real killer. Too much time was spent on trying to prove the the Ramsey's killed their daughter. After all these years, there has still never been a trial or a charge in JB's murder. Mary Lacy knew it was time to focus elsewhere.
On the flip side of that in all fairness, perhaps not

Perhaps there were other reasons that aren't as honorable
Dave in Columbus

Farmington, MI

#14 Oct 28, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps there is evidence that sleuthers don't know about. Maybe she exonerated them because of the evidence that exists to prove that the Ramsey's are innocent. Perhaps she exonerated them so that LE can focus on catching the real killer. Too much time was spent on trying to prove the the Ramsey's killed their daughter. After all these years, there has still never been a trial or a charge in JB's murder. Mary Lacy knew it was time to focus elsewhere.
Oh, I see. Lacy gets a pass for exonerating the Ramseys but not for JMK, according to you.

Lacy is a moron and she was WRONG for exonerating the Ramseys just because she *thinks* they are innocent. No one should be exonerated until someone is arrested and convicted.

How was LE "focusing" on the Ramseys for the past 10 or so years? How were they "trying to prove" the Ramseys killed their kid for the past 10 or so years? Totally lame, Kassie. Bad answer.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#15 Oct 28, 2011
Dave in Columbus wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see. Lacy gets a pass for exonerating the Ramseys but not for JMK, according to you.
Lacy is a moron and she was WRONG for exonerating the Ramseys just because she *thinks* they are innocent. No one should be exonerated until someone is arrested and convicted.
How was LE "focusing" on the Ramseys for the past 10 or so years? How were they "trying to prove" the Ramseys killed their kid for the past 10 or so years? Totally lame, Kassie. Bad answer.


JMK confessed to her murder. I am not saying he killed her but I am not sure that he was thoughly investigated. LE tried to connect the Ramsey's to the crime. They went back and forth between John and Patsy and they constantly changed the motive. Their reasoning was far fetched. The truth is that JOhn and Patsy were loving parents, they did not abuse their children, Patsy was not trying to "make an angel" out of JB. She did not strangle her with a garotte for wetting the bed etc. You are nothing more than a bitter RDI.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#16 Oct 28, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
JMK confessed to her murder. I am not saying he killed her but I am not sure that he was thoughly investigated. LE tried to connect the Ramsey's to the crime. They went back and forth between John and Patsy and they constantly changed the motive. Their reasoning was far fetched. The truth is that JOhn and Patsy were loving parents, they did not abuse their children, Patsy was not trying to "make an angel" out of JB. She did not strangle her with a garotte for wetting the bed etc. You are nothing more than a bitter RDI.
That should also apply to FW who was cleared in writing but I don't see anyone advocating for him that Lacy cleared him.

JMK may have confessed. He wasn't the only nut in history to confess to a crime he didn't commit. As for you not "being sure" he was thoroughly investigated, it would seem that they investigated him enough to know that they couldn't place him in Boulder, he had no friendship with the Ramseys, etc. It's funny that the wife who gave him an alibi later said she couldn't be sure. Originally, she said it was JMK who took the pictures, so yeah, he was with them and explained why he wasn't in the photos.

Oddly, now that she isn't "sure" anymore, nobody has come forward to say that THEY in fact, took the pictures.

Either Lacy is wrong with her 'clearings' or she isn't. You can't have it both ways. To say she was right about the Ramseys but wrong about everyone else is much like the NK story about her being right on about everything BUT John Ramseys

You can't be that selective and say you want the truth

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#17 Oct 28, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
JMK confessed to her murder. I am not saying he killed her but I am not sure that he was thoughly investigated. LE tried to connect the Ramsey's to the crime. They went back and forth between John and Patsy and they constantly changed the motive. Their reasoning was far fetched. The truth is that JOhn and Patsy were loving parents, they did not abuse their children, Patsy was not trying to "make an angel" out of JB. She did not strangle her with a garotte for wetting the bed etc. You are nothing more than a bitter RDI.
Kassie, I agree with you completely. In fact, I've spent most of the past several days researching old posts in Websleuths and accidentally came across something I had never before heard. But if the poster is correct, there was a completely different reason why JonBenet was wiped down after the crime. I think the common belief was that she was wiped down to remove all traces of semen, saliva, etc., in order to keep the killer's DNA from being identified. There are posters here who were posting at the time and should know to what I'm referring. However, since this aspect more completely reinforces Karr's involvement in the crime (something that was not even thought of at the time the posts were made), I'm sure that is why this aspect has not been brought out by these RDI's who are now posting here.

I'm fairly certain that LE knew what the poster claimed. They probably felt rather smug when (if) they saw how posters were so intent upon the perp wiping down JonBenet's body to remove all traces of DNA when they knew the real reason why he wiped down her body!

I believe considering this new information (old info but new to me), there is not much doubt that Karr was involved. It would have been a typical act on his part...

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#18 Oct 28, 2011
Kassie Morgan wrote:
<quoted text>
JMK confessed to her murder. I am not saying he killed her but I am not sure that he was thoughly investigated. LE tried to connect the Ramsey's to the crime. They went back and forth between John and Patsy and they constantly changed the motive. Their reasoning was far fetched. The truth is that JOhn and Patsy were loving parents, they did not abuse their children, Patsy was not trying to "make an angel" out of JB. She did not strangle her with a garotte for wetting the bed etc. You are nothing more than a bitter RDI.
Please keep in mind that not all RDI think Patsy did it and only one that I know of has the "angel" theory. The RDI have many varied opinions. That is akin to saying that all IDI think FW did it or that all IDI think JMK did it or that all IDI think Santa did it etc., etc.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#19 Oct 28, 2011
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Kassie, I agree with you completely. In fact, I've spent most of the past several days researching old posts in Websleuths and accidentally came across something I had never before heard. But if the poster is correct, there was a completely different reason why JonBenet was wiped down after the crime. I think the common belief was that she was wiped down to remove all traces of semen, saliva, etc., in order to keep the killer's DNA from being identified. There are posters here who were posting at the time and should know to what I'm referring. However, since this aspect more completely reinforces Karr's involvement in the crime (something that was not even thought of at the time the posts were made), I'm sure that is why this aspect has not been brought out by these RDI's who are now posting here.
I'm fairly certain that LE knew what the poster claimed. They probably felt rather smug when (if) they saw how posters were so intent upon the perp wiping down JonBenet's body to remove all traces of DNA when they knew the real reason why he wiped down her body!
I believe considering this new information (old info but new to me), there is not much doubt that Karr was involved. It would have been a typical act on his part...
Which WS? The single B or the double BB?
Why don't you just post it instead of insinuating the RDI are purposely NOT bringing something up? Put it up for discussion, Lord knows we could use it!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#21 Oct 28, 2011
BPD knows all about familial DNA, it's used in Colorado, and I believe it's been used in this case, and like everything else, turned up NOTHING.

It was a familial DNA match that turned up the Grim Sleeper rapist of 30 plus years in Los Angeles. A familial match matched his son, who was in prison.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Think family...helter skelter type of family 16 min candy 5
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 2 hr stoned luck aka ... 211
Sig 21 hr stoned luck aka ... 11
Gates hired the hit (Dec '15) Fri stoned luck aka ... 28
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) Fri berrytea333 169
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) Fri icu2 425
Questioning Burke Ramsey (Dec '08) Fri moonjack 278
More from around the web