The Idaho Student Homicides and the Future of Forensic Genetic Genealogy

Abstract

Forensic GenomicsVol. 3, No. 1 PerspectiveFree AccessThe Idaho Student Homicides and the Future of Forensic Genetic GenealogyNicole M.M. NovroskiNicole M.M. Novroski*Address correspondence to: Nicole M.M. Novroski, PhD, Forensic Science Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, L5L 1C6 Mississauga, Canada. E-mail Address: nicole.novroski@utoronto.cahttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9071-9278Forensic Science Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:15 Mar 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/forensic.2023.0004AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Violent crime is an everyday occurrence. Although the number of complainant(s), the severity of the violence, and the consequence(s) of the investigation vary for each case, there is a fundamental (societal) desire to find out who did it? In response to the now (in)famous Moscow, Idaho student homicide investigation, where four University of Idaho students (Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Xana Kernodle, 21; and Ethan Chapin, 20) were fatally stabbed on November 13, 2022, the world has been watching and waiting to find out the details of the attacks, and how investigators used traditional police work and forensic evidence to apprehend the suspect(s). According to various sources, the accused, Bryan Kohberger, was apprehended roughly 7 weeks after the fatal attack. While this investigation continues to unfold within the criminal justice system, it is my opinion that forensic genetics, familial searching, and forensic genetic genealogy are being discussed by the public more than ever.Contained within the 18-page State of Idaho Affidavit (Exhibit A: Statement of Brett Payne)1 was information about DNA left on button snap a knife sheath left at the crime scene. The Affidavit states that Brett Payne located a tan leather sheath that was later processed by the Idaho State Lab for DNA evidence. The media have reported that the DNA evidence on the knife sheath was used to eventually connect the accused, Bryan Kohberger, to the crime scene in Moscow, Idaho.2 Kohberger was arrested on December 30, 2022, at a family residence in Pennsylvania. The DNA recovered from the knife sheath was processed by the Idaho State Laboratory, according to the affidavit.1Trash collected from the residence in Pennsylvania where the accused was apprehended also was sent to the forensic laboratory for DNA evidence processing, interpretation, and comparison. A comparison of DNA profiles between the DNA recovered from the sheath and the DNA recovered from the trash revealed a familial (parent–child) relationship between the two evidentiary items, according to the affidavit.1 On January 3, 2023, a Nondissemination Order was issued in the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Latah County, preventing any communication between the plaintiff, defendant, investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, agents of attorneys, and so on from making any extrajudicial statements.3 The remainder of the case, therefore, will unfold in due course.When considering the evidence discussed in the investigation, such as the DNA profile generated from the knife sheath that showed relatedness to the DNA profile generated from the discarded trash,1 it is important to understand how concordance, or a “match,” can be established between a DNA profile from one piece of evidence to an individual (or DNA profiles being concordant between a group of related individuals). The gold standard in forensic genetics involves DNA typing of short tandem repeats (STRs), which are human genetic markers that exist throughout the genome and lend well to human identification.As STRs are inherited bi-parentally (i.e., an individual has two copies of DNA at each STR, where one copy is inherited from their biological mother, and the other copy inherited from their biological father),4 a DNA profile can inherently be used to establish kinship (or relatedness) in some investigations. Interpretation and comparison of DNA profiles requires a comprehensive review of all alleles (copies of a gene/locus/marker) at all loci being analyzed. DNA profiles should be first analyzed independently according to a laboratory's' standard operating procedures before a comparison to any other DNA profile can occur.During a profile comparison, when there is discordance of one or more alleles at one or more loci, a review of the data is necessary to make an exclusion (aka a “non-match”) of the DNA profiles—a common practice when comparing DNA profiles in forensic investigations. Concordance of all alleles at all loci between two DNA profiles typically results in an “inclusion” and requires a secondary review. Alternatively, it is possible to compare DNA profiles for kinship (i.e., relatedness to one another) determinations, when appropriate, using traditional (autosomal) STRs and other genetic markers, such as Y-chromosome specific STRs (Y-STRs) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).5–7 In the Idaho college student murder case, a male DNA profile from a piece of trash was used to infer a connection between the accused (Bryan Kohberger) and the recovered evidence at the Idaho crime scene, where a DNA profile generated from the biological material on the trash could not be excluded as the biological father of the suspect profile.1DNA typing of the Y chromosome does not narrow down a single individual.8 The Y-chromosome is passed down (genetically) from a biological male (XY) parent to all male progeny, unchanged, barring mutation (i.e., a polymorphism arising in a single individual within a lineage). Therefore, when a Y-chromosomal DNA profile is generated, the analyst can infer that a suspect as well as all biological male relatives within the paternal lineage share the same DNA profile (again, barring mutation). However, Y-chromosomal DNA typing can, when mixed with DNA from non-male sources, generate a single source profile suitable for comparison with other Y-chromosomal DNA profiles.8Familial DNA searching is another forensic tool that may be used in some investigations.9 When familial DNA searching is conducted, a forensic (crime scene) or unidentified human remains sample (associated with a crime) is searched using a targeted method against a DNA database of offenders with the intent to identify the best candidate(s) to be a potential relative(s) of the unknown sample.10 Although the legislation around familial DNA searching varies from state-to-state (and country to country), authorities may turn to familial searching in investigations where all other leads have been exhausted in an effort to find relatives of the perpetrator or unknown individual using the database DNA profiles that share many of the same alleles at the typed loci (i.e., not an inclusion, but a sufficient similarity at multiple loci to suggest relatedness).10 However, familial DNA searching should not be confused with forensic genetic genealogy.Forensic genetic genealogy (FGG), also known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), or forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), has become a consistent topic of conversation within the forensic genomics community and society since the 2019 investigation and eventual apprehension of Joseph James DeAngelo (The Golden State Killer).11 In 2021, the state of Maryland became the first state in the United States of America to pass legislation regulating the use of FGG in legal and forensic investigations.12,13 Although public privacy is at the forefront of the Maryland law, questions remain about Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable government search and seizure, as well as more generalized concerns of the use of forensic DNA science to develop investigative leads.12,13 Yet, FGG continues to be utilized in the United States and worldwide to solve both active and cold case investigations for >400 crimes.14The interest of FGG implementation (i.e., the ability for a laboratory to carry out the technology/workflow in-house) in both private and public laboratories is expanding, with a growing number of laboratories coming online to offer forensic genealogy services to their clients, and collaborations between laboratories across the United States are in place to develop a clear path forward for FGG implementation in routine forensic casework. DNA Labs International, Inc., founded in 2004, was the first accredited laboratory to use ForenSeq™ Kintelligence (Verogen [now a QIAGEN company], San Diego, CA) for in-house forensic genealogy services.15Peck et al., of Signature Science, LLC., recently published (in Forensic Genomics) a developmental validation of the commercially available ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit (Verogen) for use in FGG casework.16 In 2019, Verogen partnered with GEDmatch, a website for genetic genealogy research, to streamline FGG sample generation, upload, and searching. Although the public (free) GEDmatch database remains operational, with over 1.4 million global members, GEDmatch PRO™ was created to be used by law enforcement and forensic professionals.The goal of GEDmatch PRO is to serve as a dedicated portal to support police and forensic teams when making investigative comparisons to GEDMatch data.17 In 2022, an additional partnership was formed between Verogen and Gene by Gene Ltd., the parent company of FamilyTreeDNA (a private ancestry DNA service provider) to provide consumers with a more streamlined approach for FGG data generation and upload.18 In addition, Othram, Inc.,19 a Texas-based private company focused on forensic DNA applications for law enforcement, and the parent company of DNASolves® genetic database, continues to provide private services to agencies and individuals (sometimes through crowdfunding initiatives) in areas of FGG and familial relationship testing.20In 2022, the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs https://nij.ojp.gov) awarded two funding opportunities that focus on FGG research. The first grant was awarded to the Research Triangle Institute, in collaboration with Othram, Inc., with a value of $556,300 USD for their study, “The Effectiveness of Forensic Genetic Genealogy Techniques for Black, Indigenous and Persons of Color,” with listed goals to develop genetic genealogy methods that would be inclusive of BIPOC persons.21The second grant was awarded to San Francisco State University (SFSU), with a value of $266,406 USD for their study, “Quantifying the accuracy of low-quality DNA sample analysis from genotyping to genealogical searching and integration as a bioinformatic pipeline.”22 A primary outcome from the SFSU project is to increase the understanding of the variability and limitations of different methodologies used in genotyping and genealogical software as well as their impacts on the accuracy of identifying familial relationships.22 In 2021, Bode Cellmark Forensics, Inc. was awarded $437,383 for their project, “Comparative Evaluation of Genotyping Technologies for Investigative Genetic Genealogy in Sexual Assault Casework.”23The response to FGG is further captured by the sudden and rapid development of certificate programs and courses designed to train forensic and law enforcement professionals in FGG practice(s) and implementation. Within the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science at the University of New Haven (New Haven, CT), the first ever online graduate certificate program in FGG has been developed and is fully operational, providing training opportunities to individuals in both the private and public sector(s) to advance their education and develop the necessary skills to be successful in genetic genealogical methods.24 Led by program director Dr. Claire Glynn, the UNH program is the first of its kind and has already experienced tremendous success and growth in enrollment.25Another online offering comes from Tritech Training in the form of a 4-h webinar (3-h lecture; 1-h assignment) in IGG. Led by Lisa Desire, the lecture content focuses on understanding the differences between ancestry, familial searching, forensic genealogy, and IGG.26 The Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy has developed an educational Forensic Genealogy Institute, which is a 4-day-long program of fundamental, advanced, and continuing education courses that span all aspects of forensic genealogy,27 and the National Institute of Genealogy Studies offers a basic course in DNA and Genetic Genealogy (i.e., for individuals with a general understanding of genealogy and genealogical applications) in the Professional Development Certificate Program.28For Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)-funded grantees (i.e., law enforcement, attorneys, and crime analysts), the BJA National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative Training and Technical Assistance Program developed a Forensic Genetic Genealogy Virtual Training to discuss best practices, identify approaches to common challenges, and establish collaborations so that, as we move forward, the forensic community can retain a best foot forward approach into our investigative workflows.29The National Association of Attorneys General hosted a six-part Forensic Genetic Genealogy Webinar Series in November 2022 (still accessible online) that incorporated perspectives and presentations from various legal, law enforcement, and scientific professionals working in forensic genetic genealogy.30A four-part seminar series was released by Verogen in 2022 to provide law enforcement a practical guide for using forensic genetic genealogy and includes several prominent FGG experts from the field.31 Also in 2022, alumni from the first cohort of the FGG Certificate Program at the University of New Haven launched IGGnite DNA, LLC., a FIGG service-based company for law enforcement and private individuals/families.32Numerous peer-reviewed publications on FGG implementation, ethics, and education are available to create dialogue, educate, and develop new strategies for FGG implementation and use in the criminal justice system. For example, Forensic Science International published in fall 2022 an article describing the formation of a new Board for Certification of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (BCIGG), where the authors focus on a need for regulation in forensic genetic genealogical practice—coming in the form of internal oversight within the field.33Table 1 highlights a subset of relevant peer-reviewed FGG articles published for the past 5 years.Table 1. A Subset of Current Literature Relating Directly to Forensic Genetic GenealogyArticle titleAuthor(s)JournalIssue/yearThe need for standards and certification for investigative genetic genealogy, and a notice of action33David Gurney, Margaret Press, CeCe Moore, Carol I. Rolnick, Andrew Hochreiter, Bonnie L. BossertForensic Science InternationalDecember 2022Forensic genetic genealogy: A profile of cases solved34Tracey Leigh DowdeswellForensic Science International: GeneticsMay 2022Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019–202235John M. ButlerForensic Science International: SynergyVolume 6, 2023Analysis of the genealogy process in forensic genetic genealogy36Mine Su Erturk, Colleen Fitzpatrick, Margaret Press, Lawrence M. WeinJournal of Forensic SciencesSeptember 2022Bridging Disciplines to Form a New One: The Emergence of Forensic Genetic Genealogy11Claire L. GlynnGenesAugust 2022Regulating Forensic Genetic Genealogy13Natalie Ram, Erin E. Murphy, Sonia M. SuterScienceSeptember 2021Operationalising forensic genetic genealogy in an Australian context37Nathan Scudder, Runa Daniel, Jennifer Raymond, Alison SearsForensic Science InternationalNovember 2020Investigative genetic genealogy: Current methods, knowledge, and practice38Daniel Kling, Christopher Phillips, Debbie Kennett, Andreas TillmarForensic Science International: GeneticsJanuary 2021Pedigrees and Perpetrators: Uses of DNA and Genealogy in Forensic Investigations39Sara H. KatsanisAnnual Review of Genomics and Human GeneticsApril 2020Genetic genealogy for cold case and active investigations40Ellen M. Greytak, CeCe Moore, S. ArmentroutForensic Science InternationalJune 2019Responsible genetic genealogy41Thomas F. CallaghanScienceOctober 2019Forensic genealogy: Some serious concerns42Denise Syndercombe CourtForensic Science International: GeneticsSeptember 2018As we navigate the role and expectations of genetic genealogy in the forensic arena and in society, there is one thing we can be certain of: the use of genetic genealogical approaches in solving current (active) and cold (inactive) casework is not going anywhere. FGG is changing forensic genomics, where law enforcements' use of FGG is only one aspect of that change. Although not every case will require or benefit from FGG, I believe that we will continue to see an increase in solved case(s) and/or the development of additional investigative lead(s) because of genealogical use in both police and forensic casework. I look forward to contributing to the development and implementation of FGG in criminal casework, and I am committed to educating (and minimizing misinformation) on how FGG can be applied to forensic biological evidence.Thanks for reading,Nicole Novroski, PhDNOTE: The opinions discussed in this release are of the author and do not represent the opinions of the institutions with which the author is affiliated. Information has been cited, where appropriate.Author Disclosure StatementNo competing financial interests exist.Funding InformationNo funding was received for this article.