Cece Moore

They would reanalyze it from scratch and create that genetic genealogy profile, which I believe was likely sent back to the FBI investigative genetic genealogy team.

So I think it's very likely they did the genetic genealogy in-house.

We saw how closely involved the FBI was in this case.

And they've been training agents all over the country since you and I met to do this work.

So for almost five years, the FBI has been training their agents to do it.

I suspect strongly they kept this in-house, but they would have had to use a private lab to create that profile.

Actually, neither.

It is a profile of genetic markers, somewhere between probably 500,000 and a million genetic markers of those SNPs, those single nucleotide polymorphisms that I mentioned earlier.

And so it doesn't tell you anything on its own.

It's only going to give you important information if you either compare it against others, their own genetic files, or if

phenotyping.

Now, I have no information that they performed phenotyping in this case.

I don't think they did because they didn't work with Parabon and they're really the ones doing that work.

So they would have created that SNP profile that looks just like if you spit in a tube at Ancestry or 23andMe and mailed that in and got your own raw data file.

And so you're always going to get matches in the genetic genealogy database, but if they're way too distant, if it's too small amount of shared DNA, then you're not going to be able to perform genetic genealogy on it.

So everyone has matches, but maybe not close enough matches.

And then you're right.

If you could not use genetic genealogy to point toward that suspect, they would have to try to find him in other ways and then collect his DNA or a close relative's DNA

and compare it against that original profile that was created by the crime lab.

Do I have that right?