New DNA testing methods could bring justice for Jonelle

Detectives in Greeley, Colorado, hope innovations in forensic testing will provide an answer to one of their biggest and oldest questions: What happened to 12-year-old Jonelle Matthews?

 

Matthews disappeared in 1984, which was two years before DNA evidence made its first appearance in a criminal investigation, according to Black’s Law Dictionary. Countless breakthroughs in forensic science have occurred since, allowing police departments around the world to solve their most notorious cold cases. The Greeley Police Department announced they were re-examining Matthews’ case on Dec. 20, 2018—exactly 34 years after she went missing—citing these forensic innovations as one of their primary motivations.

 

Currently, the only DNA evidence collected in this case belongs to Matthews. Robert Cash, who has been the lead detective on the case since 2013 at The Greeley Police Department, said this sample could be beneficial in identifying her body if it is recovered.

 

Detectives have not obtained a suspect's DNA, but Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke said several forensic techniques that were unavailable when evidence was last tested in this case could help lift a sample from the items in evidence.

 

“The statistical numbers that we’re getting with some of the new technology are one in 370 quadrillion,” Rourke said. “Huge numbers with 15, 21 zeros at the end, more people than have ever been alive on the planet in the history of the world.”

 

Touch DNA

 

Touch DNA is one testing option to consider. It is a method that allows forensic analysts to lift a DNA sample off an item that someone touched. According to Forensic Magazine, the likelihood of using Touch DNA to lift a sample increases with the pressure a person applies.

 

“In theory, if I throw this water bottle away, and they find it six, eight, 10 months down the road, depending on the condition it’s found in, they could probably pull my DNA off of it, simply by me touching it,” Rourke said.

 

Touch DNA was notably used to identify an unknown male suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey case in 2008 and to exonerate Tim Masters of Peggy Hettrick’s murder the same year.

 

Ramsey was a child beauty queen who was murdered in her Boulder, Colorado, home in 1996 when she was 6-years-old. Countless people—from experienced detectives to true crime fans—suspected Ramsey’s parents and older brother. Although these suspicions are still rampant, the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office cleared the family after Touch DNA identified an unknown male’s sample on Ramsey’s underwear, according to 9NEWS in Colorado.

 

Similarly, Touch DNA was used to clear Masters of Hettrick’s 1987 murder in Fort Collins, Colorado. Analysts found Hettrick’s ex-boyfriend’s DNA on the inner-strap of her underwear. But, unlike the Ramsey family, Masters was not a suspect when he was cleared; he was a convicted murderer serving a life sentence. According to The National Registry of Exonerations, at the time he was proven innocent and released from prison, Masters had already served nearly 10 years for Hettrick’s murder.  

 

Although innovations like Touch DNA are helpful in weeding out suspects and even exonerating the wrongfully convicted, Denver criminal defense attorney Dr. Matthew Greife said using potentially unreliable techniques can promote injustice because the experts tasked with ensuring the validity of new testing methods are often biased and promote prosecution.

 

“Deep down, the checks that need to be there aren’t there,” Greife said. “All these people are working towards a common goal, and the supposedly independent scientists are not independent. I would not be shocked if they nabbed the wrong person from time to time.”

 

Despite these concerns, Cash said the department is open to implementing new techniques in the Matthews’ case. Touch DNA could be used to re-test items collected from her home the night she disappeared. If it reveals a new sample, they could be one step closer to learning the identity of Matthews’ abductor and possible murderer.

 

STRmix

 

Weld County Assistant District Attorney Robert Miller, who was a 10-year-old living in Greeley when Matthews went missing, said STRmix is another consideration.  

STRmix is a recent invention that allows forensic analysts to separate up to four DNA profiles from one sample, Miller said. Before STRmix, if detectives collected DNA evidence with more than one unidentified contributor, it would be untestable.

 

STRmix, which originated in New Zealand, became available for use in the United States in 2014. If successfully implemented in Matthews’ case, Miller said the evidence could be subject to a Shreck hearing, which is named after the 2001 case People v Shreck in which the Colorado Supreme Court established new standards for scientific expert testimony.

 

Attorneys who wish to enter forensic evidence that is not widely accepted may have to prove that the scientific principle used to collect the evidence is reliable and demonstrate the qualifications of their expert witness at one of these hearings prior to presenting the evidence at trial. Shreck hearings exist to prevent attorneys from showing unreliable evidence or presenting unreliable testimony to juries. However, some question the process because there is a history of once reliable forensic evidence becoming unreliable.

 

For example, on April 20, 2015, the FBI, the United States Department of Defense, The Innocence Project and The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers published a report disqualifying hair follicle evidence as scientifically valid. According to the report, false statements were made in 96% of the reviewed cases in which experts relied on microscopic hair analysis to accuse a defendant.

 

“We’ve come to except these myths because some guy or gal in a white lab coat says they are (valid),” Greife said. “The problem is judges are just judges. What they end up doing is just deferring to the fancy talk. It’s not because they’re truly dumb or something like that. They just don’t have the extra training to understand how you scrutinize scientific methodology.”

 

Touch DNA and STRmix are among the numerous advancements in DNA testing that analysts could utilize to locate a suspect’s sample in Matthews’ case. If one of these processes leads to the successful identification of unknown DNA, detectives would face several options.

 

They could compare the DNA to the DNA of their suspects. They could upload the sample to the Combined DNA Index System to determine whether it belongs to a known offender. Or they could attempt a DNA practice that has garnered recent media attention: genealogy comparison.

 

Genealogy

 

Using genealogy to identify suspects grew in popularity following the 2018 capture of the alleged Golden State Killer, who committed 45 rapes and 12 murders in California in the 1970s and early 1980s.

 

According to Time Magazine, after uploading DNA found on one of the crime scenes to the public ancestry database GEDMatch, detectives identified a relative of The Golden State Killer. This discovery narrowed their suspect list to 72-year-old Joseph James DeAngelo.

 

Detectives followed DeAngelo, waiting for him to discard an item with his DNA on it. Once he did, detectives collected DeAngelo’s DNA and sent it in for testing. It was a 100 percent match. Police arrested DeAngelo the next day.

 

Genealogy DNA has solved numerous cold cases since; notably, Jack the Ripper was identified as polish barber Aaron Kosminski on March 18 after DNA from a shawl found on one of the crime scenes was a familial match to one of his living relatives. The testing method is becoming so popular that in Feb., Bode Technologies, the largest forensic company in the United States, announced it was launching its own DNA genealogy service.

 

Genealogy may be at the forefront of nearly every criminal justice conversation recently, but some have fears regarding violations of privacy. Not everyone who uploads their DNA to an ancestry database wants to aid in the capture of a serial killer, but others are ecstatic about the prospect.

 

Additionally, with cold cases seemingly being solved every day since the advent of genealogy DNA, Greife fears the focus on forensics is too strong. Cases are not always re-examined because of new tips or new evidence. In some instances, resources are being diverted to cold cases for the sole purpose of trying one of these new techniques—namely, genealogy.

 

“This reliance on forensics and somehow that it’s going to be the savior and it’ll help us solve all these cold cases I think is basically like buying magic beans from the guy on the street corner,” Greife said. “There’s only so much forensic evidence can do.”

 

Because genealogy DNA is in its prime, the Greeley Police Department has not used it yet. However, if detectives discover a new sample, Cash said the department will consider all forensic testing options available that they believe would yield positive results.

 

If implemented in Matthews’ case, it would be the first time Rourke’s office introduces genealogy DNA evidence in court.

 

“We haven’t done the ancestry genealogy stuff because we haven’t had to yet,” Rourke said. “But, heck, we use the DNA technologies that we’re talking about—you know, the ultra-sensitive DNA technologies or different ways of analyzing the data to try to identify DNA to a particular person—in cases all the time.”

 

Whether these technologies prove beneficial in Matthews’ case or not, Rourke said the efforts on behalf of forensic scientists and detectives to perfect their practices is crucial. One reason is to combat what Rourke calls the “CSI Effect.”

 

“Jurors will walk in and have certain expectations of what they are going to see based upon what they’ve seen on TV,” Rourke said.

 

But that’s not the main motivation.

 

“Above and beyond that, it’s to make sure that we get it right,” Rourke said. “Every once in a while, you hear horror stories, not here but other places, of people being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit.”

 

Greife does not discount forensic science entirely. However, he is worried about the lack of independent scrutiny on the process.

 

“It’s a bad day for good science,” Greife said. “That’s my true concern.”

 

When considering the potential for solving Matthews’ case with new DNA technology, it’s important to note that these testing methods take time. Weld County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer David Moore said DNA testing in Colorado can take up to 18 months unless sent to a private testing lab. Even then, the process is not expedited significantly.

 

Despite this, and despite the case being more than 34 years old, Greeley, its detectives and its prosecutors will keep searching for answers.

 

“There’s the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied; we don’t want to deny justice to anybody,” Rourke said. “...There are a lot of people in this community who have not forgotten, and I think we owe it to them to work our tails off and do what we possibly can to try to solve it.”

​