Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[cynic]

I presented three statement that I believe are independently verifiable. 1. DNA has been found in 3 locations (on both sides of her JonBenet's leggings and in her underwear) 2. The killer was in almost assuredly in contact with these three locations. (regardless of who the killer is, even if it is the Ramseys) and 3. It is extremely unlikely (approaching impossible) that the DNA is from secondary transfer. Here is a scholarly article that supports this last statement http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Which of these statements do you disagree with?

I personally believe it was secondary transfer. Don't forget that we are dealing with a child here, and the article that you reference is dealing with adults in an experiment.
Kids can get "down and dirty" and "up close and personal" in their contact with other kids and pick up significant DNA.
Further, although there appears to be some confusion as to whether LCN DNA testing was used by the lab, I can see only one link that indicates regular DNA testing was used. Many links seem to indicate that LCN was used.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/ramsey-breakthrough-comes-touch-dna/
Here are some highlights from an article on secondary transfer:

• Secondary transfer refers to the fact that, through physical contact with other people, individuals can inadvertently carry and deposit other people’s DNA onto objects of evidence. For example, two people shaking hands will transfer their own DNA to each others’ hands. If each then goes on to touch another object such as a coffee mug, baseball bat, knife etc., they could transfer the other’s skin cells to the object. If that object is a murder weapon, the identification of DNA through LCN could prove problematic and misleading.

• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.

• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.

• Given the nature of variable shedding and secondary transfer, the risk of obtaining a mixture is increased when applying a technology with increased sensitivity such as LCN. It is impossible to amplify the “right” DNA profile because all of the DNA that is contained in a biological evidence sample will be amplified.
Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf

And finally, since the DA has not released exactly what kind of "match" the DNA on the leggings was we can only guess.
My guess is that is a low marker match, perhaps similar to the fingernail DNA.

 

[Jayce]

I personally believe it was secondary transfer. Don't forget that we are dealing with a child here, and the article that you reference is dealing with adults in an experiment.

The experiment was conducted in conditions that would be ideal to finding secondary transfer DNA. In reality, the odds would be even less likely.

Further, although there appears to be some confusion as to whether LCN DNA testing was used by the lab, I can see only one link that indicates regular DNA testing was used. Many links seem to indicate that LCN was used.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/ramsey-breakthrough-comes-touch-dna/

There is no confusion. No where in your article does it state that LCN testing was used. It refers to Touch DNA, but that does not imply LCN testing. Here is the AP article http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh52kcyVPfSCXQv7rZ-DA9UO0l5gD91QJD180

It says "While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough that it was processed in the routine way for analysis, Williamson said."

Here are some highlights from an article on secondary transfer:

• Secondary transfer refers to the fact that, through physical contact with other people, individuals can inadvertently carry and deposit other people’s DNA onto objects of evidence. For example, two people shaking hands will transfer their own DNA to each others’ hands. If each then goes on to touch another object such as a coffee mug, baseball bat, knife etc., they could transfer the other’s skin cells to the object. If that object is a murder weapon, the identification of DNA through LCN could prove problematic and misleading.

• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.

• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.

• Given the nature of variable shedding and secondary transfer, the risk of obtaining a mixture is increased when applying a technology with increased sensitivity such as LCN. It is impossible to amplify the “right” DNA profile because all of the DNA that is contained in a biological evidence sample will be amplified.
Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf

And finally, since the DA has not released exactly what kind of "match" the DNA on the leggings was we can only guess.
My guess is that is a low marker match, perhaps similar to the fingernail DNA.

Your article deals with LCN testing, not regular testing. Secondary transfer is a problem with LCN testing, but LCN testing was not used in this case.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

You'll have to do better.

You must not to be keeping up with the news.

The Ramseys have been exonerated.

Easy case.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, I most assuredly HAVE kept up with it. And I'm not the only one:

Kane: No, I wouldn't say that at all. I wouldn't say that at all, Dan First of all, I think that I guess you have to look at this evidence in the light that it is. It's a conclusion of this prosecutor that it exonerates somebody, but there is going to be an election next November and the next prosecutor is free to say that it doesn't. I am not trying to devalue the fact that it's a significant piece of evidence. Standing alone it doesn't exonerate anybody and I think that the district attorney sending this letter really doesn't accomplish very much. I know she's felt and made it clear, for a long time, publicly, that they, no one in the family was under suspicion. I am not saying that they should or they shouldn't be. I'm simply saying, that at the time that this investigation started given all the facts, that the police department knew, and all the circumstances and given they way some of the family members were reacting to the investigation, I don't think anybody was at fault for following the path that they followed.

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[cynic]

The experiment was conducted in conditions that would be ideal to finding secondary transfer DNA. In reality, the odds would be even less likely.
.

Seriously, are you a parent? Kids have no hygeine - JBR was notorious.

There is no confusion. No where in your article does it state that LCN testing was used. It refers to Touch DNA, but that does not imply LCN testing. Here is the AP article http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh52kcyVPfSCXQv7rZ-DA9UO0l5gD91QJD180

It says "While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough that it was processed in the routine way for analysis, Williamson said."


Your article deals with LCN testing, not regular testing. Secondary transfer is a problem with LCN testing, but LCN testing was not used in this case
.

LCN is equated with "touch DNA" everywhere.

 

[Jayce]

Seriously, are you a parent? Kids have no hygeine - JBR was notorious.

Thats not the point. The point is that the study was designed to give a very high likelihood that secondary transfer DNA would be found. Higher than in real life. Did you actually read the study?

LCN is equated with "touch DNA" everywhere.

I gave you the exact quote (reported in the Associated Press) from the people that did the testing that said that regular testing was used. "Touch DNA" is merely a term that is used to describe DNA that is left over from skin cells from a person's touch. Since the amount of such DNA is usually miniscule, it can only be profiled through LCN (Low Carbon Number) testing. But as I earlier said, there was enough "Touch DNA" to use regular, rather than LCN testing.

The reason LCN testing is associated so closely with Touch DNA is because most Touch DNA requires LCN testing.

 

[cynic]

Thats not the point. The point is that the study was designed to give a very high likelihood that secondary transfer DNA would be found. Higher than in real life. Did you actually read the study?

I don't agree with you. If you feel that what was described there would be more likely to produce secondary transfer than an unhygienic child in the real world then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I gave you the exact quote (reported in the Associated Press) from the people that did the testing that said that regular testing was used. "Touch DNA" is merely a term that is used to describe DNA that is left over from skin cells from a person's touch. Since the amount of such DNA is usually miniscule, it can only be profiled through LCN (Low Carbon Number) testing. But as I earlier said, there was enough "Touch DNA" to use regular, rather than LCN testing.

The reason LCN testing is associated so closely with Touch DNA is because most Touch DNA requires LCN testing.

With regard to the LCN issue, Lacy and virtually all media outlets were consistently talking about this new DNA testing method and then following up with the term "touch DNA". The only relatively "new" technology involving trace or touch DNA is LCN. Perhaps Lacy as usual didn't know what she was talking about and that led to all the confusion because certainly STR PCR is nothing even remotely new. If that source that you linked to was reported accurately then they should have simply stated that further DNA testing produced a match with a previous sample and not imply that there was anything new about the technique.

It is still possible that that single AP story contained an error and that LCN was indeed used as that is the most common way to deal with trace DNA.
As I have said before, if there was an impressive match from their "massive" DNA sample they would have been bragging about the number of markers.

Touch DNA and LCN are consistently spoken of together because logically you will not be getting large samples from this type of contact.

DNA Low Copy Number (DNA LCN) is an extension of the routine SGM Plus profiling technique and enables scientists to produce DNA profiles

- The main application of this technique is to target areas on items where it is believed that an offender may have transferred DNA through touch, like the residue believed to have come from cells such as skin or sweat, left in a fingerprint. DNA LCN profiles have also been successfully generated from items such as discarded tools, matchsticks and weapon handles.
http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic_t/inside/news/list_press_release.php?case=45&y=

DNA Low Copy Number (DNA LCN) is an extension of the routine SGM Plus® profiling technique and enables scientists to produce DNA profiles from samples expected to contain very few cells, even if they are too small to be visible to the naked eye. Initially used for the most serious crime cases, the technique is now also used to help police investigating crimes such as burglaries and thefts. More recently the FSS has been called in to carry out DNA LCN testing in international cases, where standard DNA testing has failed to get a result.

The main application of this technique is to target areas on items where it is believed that an offender may have transferred DNA through touch, like the residue believed to have come from cells such as skin or sweat, left in a fingerprint. DNA LCN profiles have also been successfully generated from items such as discarded tools, matchsticks, weapon handles and grabbed clothing.
http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic_t/inside/news/documents/DNA_Low_Copy_Number_000.doc

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/

 

[Jayce]

With regard to the LCN issue, Lacey and virtually all media outlets were consistently talking about this new DNA testing method and then following up with the term "touch DNA". The only relatively "new" technology involving trace or touch DNA is LCN. Perhaps Lacey as usual didn't know what she was talking about and that led to all the confusion because certainly STR PCR is nothing even remotely new. If that source that you linked to was reported accurately then they should have simply stated that further DNA testing produced a match with a previous sample and not imply that there was anything new about the technique.

I agree that the way Lacey and much of the press reported the story was confusing. As the people who did the testing said, there was nothing new about the technique. The idea that you can retrieve DNA from a single touch is relatively new.

It is still possible that that single AP story contained an error and that LCN was indeed used as that is the most common way to deal with trace DNA.

Very, very unlikely that the Associated Press made up this quote. The AP is considered definitive. It is the source that almost every major news outlet uses.

Touch DNA and LCN are consistently spoken of together because logically you will not be getting large samples from this type of contact.

Except this time they did get enough for routine analysis.


The main points are these...

1. Secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but is extremely unlikely to be detected with routine testing (which is evidenced by this scientific study http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf ).

2.They didn't use LCN testing on the DNA found on the leggings; they used routine testing (according to the head of the company that did the analysis.

3. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the DNA found was the result of secondary transfer.

 

[Jane Osa]

This may not be the place to post this - but, I just visited the 'darla routier' case & it's seems obvious to me (and apparently most folks) that she is guilty - and talk about a ludricrous, unlikely story she had...and the sheer violence she expressed. Anway, if touch DNA suddenly were a factor in this case and showed that, (not necessarily someone else being at the scene, i.e., intruder), but showed DNA of someone unknown on something (possibly only one thing) of some significance (such as clothing) would the folks who exonerate the R.s exonerate Darla as easily? Just wondering....if this post isn't appropriate I'm sure it'll be zapped into the internet ether...
PS - I'm not that familiar with DR case (I assume there was never any DNA found aside from the Routiers themselves...what I read made me so sick I stopped)

 

[txsvicki]

Wudge mentioned the twin doll in an earlier post. Does anyone know if the doll was taken by LE and checked for stains or evidence of an intruder doing anything weird with the doll? I know that Patsy's sister came and took things, but can't remember if she took the doll or not.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I find it very interesting that LE sources refuse to say exactly WHAT the fluid was that was the source of the male DNA. They say that is was not semen. But won't say what it was. Pre-pubescent males will produce a kind of "pre-semen" type fluid on ejaculation. So the fact that they are saying it was not semen, yet won't say what it was makes me very suspicious. If they are willing to say that it was not semen, why make a point of refusing to identify the liquid? And the theory that maybe it's because they are keeping this information private so that it is something only the killer would know- that doesn't make sense because then they shouldn't have said that it wasn't semen. They shouldn't have said anything.

I figure that the whole case is now a massive screwup.

As to the fluid that males ejaculate, men who have had vasectomies ejaculate prostatic fluid, which is what pre-adolescent boys also ejaculate. Prostatic fluid does not contain DNA of itself but it usually has cells from the urethra or skin in it. However, rarely, it contains no DNA at all.

 

[Solace]

Scientific studies concerning secondary transfer indicate that this DNA was not the result of such a transfer. The paper that you deride as a "miniscule printed document" is a peer reviewed scientific study conducted by forensic professionals including Dr. Henry Lee.


Dr. Henry Lee was on tv the other day saying this new test just means we are back to "square one". Obviously, you are reading more into it than Lee does. Lacy had absolutely no right to compose and send that letter to the Ramseys. She is contradicting her own words prior to this that the only way we can have a resolution is by a trial (not verbatim), but you get the gist. Lacy is known for her tactics; she is known for folding when Lin Wood said he would sue the town of Boulder and I believe her office. She has no place being in office. She is an embarrassment to Boulder; and therefore, I take everything she does with a HUGE grain of salt. She arrested JMK (I don't even like to use the name) and wasted money and time on all of it and gave him what he and the Ramseys wanted most - someone to look at. John does not even hold any animosity towards the man who at the very least drooled over his daughter in e-mails to that lower than low Tracey. And we can stick Lou Smit right in there with them also as someone who has traded his integrity for his alliance with Tracey.

No Jayce, this does not wash as the be all and end all of exculpatory evidence for the Ramseys. It is something to keep and look at. That is it. It no way exonerates anyone. We are not even going by the norm of 13 markers, it is 10. So they use 10 in Europe. They do a lot of things in Europe that the US does not; such as giving the okay on drugs way before the US would. I don't care what they use in Europe. We are here in the US and the standards are as high as they should be. The Fingernail DNA is of no use whatsoever since it is only 3 or 4 markers worth and yet I hear that touted as a match.

This is blown out of proportion because of Team Ramsey, a Team consisting of the likes of Augustin who cannot even get the autopsy straight or the evidence in the basement. It has been 11 years and he still does not take the time to get it straight. This is the second time I have seen him on tv making a complete azz of himself by not even knowing what "chronic inflammation" means. I have yet to hear someone who believes in the innocence of the Ramseys who in one way or another are out and out wrong about evidence. That is bad.

You can hold this new "evidence" in abeyance as far as I am concerned. But, right now, as it stands - it is IN NO WAY EXCULPATORY evidence. And Ramsey knows this -but this is his MO. He wants to throw out anything at all - just so he can say what he is saying. And I have yet to hear anyone say to him what has been said by SD and o thers on this Board. He is not questioned at all about it. That is his goal and he got it.

Not by me though.

 

[Jayce]

Dr. Henry Lee was on tv the other day saying this new test just means we are back to "square one". Obviously, you are reading more into it than Lee does.

No. I would agree with Lee that we are back to "square one", meaning that we have no suspects. Here is what Lee said "But now it’s even colder than before,” Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.”

No where does he critique the recent DNA evidence....or my point about the extreme unlikelihood of the DNA being the result of secondary transfer. They simply found too much DNA on the leggings for it to be secondary transfer. As I have said, this enabled them to use regular testing rather than LCN.

No Jayce, this does not wash as the be all and end all of exculpatory evidence for the Ramseys. It is something to keep and look at. That is it. It no way exonerates anyone. We are not even going by the norm of 13 markers, it is 10. So they use 10 in Europe. They do a lot of things in Europe that the US does not; such as giving the okay on drugs way before the US would. I don't care what they use in Europe. We are here in the US and the standards are as high as they should be. The Fingernail DNA is of no use whatsoever since it is only 3 or 4 markers worth and yet I hear that touted as a match.

10 is enough to be virtually certain. That is a mathematical fact. 10 is enough in the US to be entered into CODIS and to go to trial. The amount that they use in Europe is relevant; they have a well-respected and effective system. Europe's policy on drugs is completely irrelevant to any point we are discussing.

 

[Ames]

Oh, I most assuredly HAVE kept up with it. And I'm not the only one:

Kane: No, I wouldn't say that at all. I wouldn't say that at all, Dan First of all, I think that I guess you have to look at this evidence in the light that it is. It's a conclusion of this prosecutor that it exonerates somebody, but there is going to be an election next November and the next prosecutor is free to say that it doesn't. I am not trying to devalue the fact that it's a significant piece of evidence. Standing alone it doesn't exonerate anybody and I think that the district attorney sending this letter really doesn't accomplish very much. I know she's felt and made it clear, for a long time, publicly, that they, no one in the family was under suspicion. I am not saying that they should or they shouldn't be. I'm simply saying, that at the time that this investigation started given all the facts, that the police department knew, and all the circumstances and given they way some of the family members were reacting to the investigation, I don't think anybody was at fault for following the path that they followed.

Nothing lasts forever.

WOW..thanks for posting that little diddy by Kane!!!

 

[LI_Mom]

This may not be the place to post this - but, I just visited the 'darla routier' case & it's seems obvious to me (and apparently most folks) that she is guilty - and talk about a ludricrous, unlikely story she had...and the sheer violence she expressed. Anway, if touch DNA suddenly were a factor in this case and showed that, (not necessarily someone else being at the scene, i.e., intruder), but showed DNA of someone unknown on something (possibly only one thing) of some significance (such as clothing) would the folks who exonerate the R.s exonerate Darla as easily? Just wondering....if this post isn't appropriate I'm sure it'll be zapped into the internet ether...
PS - I'm not that familiar with DR case (I assume there was never any DNA found aside from the Routiers themselves...what I read made me so sick I stopped)

That's the part I don't get either.....

I bet EVERY victim & EVERY crime scene will have unidentified "touch dna" all over the place if they test for it.


Worse yet... investigators won't test every known person that JB had contact with the night before... they seem very afraid to find the dna is from an innocent source.

 

[LI_Mom]

I figure that the whole case is now a massive screwup.

Not for nothin' but this case was a massive screwup even BEFORE Steve Thomas was assigned to the case.

 

[Solace]

No. I would agree with Lee that we are back to "square one", meaning that we have no suspects. Here is what Lee said "But now it’s even colder than before,” Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.”

No where does he critique the recent DNA evidence....or my point about the extreme unlikelihood of the DNA being the result of secondary transfer. They simply found too much DNA on the leggings for it to be secondary transfer. As I have said, this enabled them to use regular testing rather than LCN.


10 is enough to be virtually certain. That is a mathematical fact. 10 is enough in the US to be entered into CODIS and to go to trial. The amount that they use in Europe is relevant; they have a well-respected and effective system. Europe's policy on drugs is completely irrelevant to any point we are discussing.

Jayce,

Dream on. Any respected forensic in this case who knows about this case or lawyer, e.g. prosecutor Wendy Murphy, and is aware of the prior abuse that is documented in the autopsy report "chronic inflammation" knows this child was being abused - as earlly or as late as three days prior - Be it corporal punishment or sexual abuse, she was being abused. Anyone who is familiar with this case and I do mean familiar, is aware that this newest "front" by the Ramseys DOES NOT prove anything. It is intereseting at best.

You can cling to this "somewhat interesting" information as exculpatory all day long, but the fact remains, someone was abusing the child and it wasn't an intruder, who magically TOOK OFF HIS GLOVES for one moment and then put them back on and wrote a three page ransom note that is uncannily similar to Patsy's, where fibers from Patsy are alll over the crime scene and under the tape over her mouth - GIVE ME A NEW YORK BREAK. It is bad enough that Lacy managed to get this crap out without further explanation - I doubt you are going to convince anyone.

And I did not bring up Europe you did, so please don't be so rude as to tell me what is relevant and what isn't. You open a door and we can enter.

And as far as Henry Lee goes, he has said many times that he believes the Ramseys were cleared years ago BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT CONVICT. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. This does not mean he believes them to be innocent. He is also on record as saying it could have been an accident made to look like an intruder. So he has made conflicting statements - one that they were cleared, but one that may not necessarily be true. Sell that bs somewhere else about Henry Lee. His saying we are back to square one is his saying they were cleared by the Grand Jury, but does not necessarily believe the Ramseys are innocent. Where do you think you are Sickamore?


Dr. Henry Lee: There are many theories about the suspect of the case. It boils down to two major groups, either a family member or an unknown intruder.

 

[Medea]

That's the part I don't get either.....

I bet EVERY victim & EVERY crime scene will have unidentified "touch dna" all over the place if they test for it.


Worse yet... investigators won't test every known person that JB had contact with the night before... they seem very afraid to find the dna is from an innocent source.

Lacy doesn't say who else they compared the DNA to...one would assume it was compared with any sample they had acquired during the investigation...which I think also exonerates all of the other 'suspects' that were named by the Ramsey family.

I've simply never heard of a case where 'touch DNA' from an unidentified source on a murder victim is considered exculpatory evidence by a prosecutor.

Mary Lacy doesn't have any more idea whose DNA it is than I do. It might be a pedophile/intruder/murderer or it might be a former houseguest of the Ramsey's with an ironclad alibi for the night of her death.

The overwhelming majority of DNA exonerations come from rape cases where the semen is found out not to be a match for the individual convicted of the rape. In this case, DNA evidence is central to the case, the woman was raped by a single individual who left his DNA and the DNA does not match the man convicted so he cannot be the rapist.

This touch DNA bears NO RESEMBLANCE to that type of case and until it is identified it cannot exonerate or inculpate anyone because the sample is too small and of indeterminate orgins to conclude how or when it got there.

 

[Jane Osa]

LI_Mom - I would think that as well. I was wondering what the threshold is for the people on this board who equate what was found with = Ramseys innocent. What would it take for it not to prove that in their minds. I'd be interested in, say, Jayce having a theory of what happened in detail. Because once one tries to piece the puzzles together via intruder theory it becomes muddled very quickly whereas the pieces fit when taken the R.s as the starting point.
I read an investigators report (hired by the R.s, I think) that came up with some 'definitive' intruder theory....ransom note was written first & left on back stairs (but, of course!) and when Jonbenet struggled as he tried to get her through the window (although no signs of any activity of any kind at said window) he was strangling her with the garrote ('cause it's easier to get a six-year old through a tiny window if she's got a garrote on, can't recall if she's supposed to be 'restrained' at this point, at any rate, she didn't claw at her neck or him, but, I digress) & then, in anger/frustration, etc. whacks her over the head. Now, I guess she screamed at some point & this master-mind doesn't leave the scene...nope, he 'stages' a 'scene' - but, my point (this is what happens to me whenever I do the 'intruder' scenario in my head, I forget 'the point' in the morass) is: the motive for striking her on the head was frustration with getting her out the window - well, if she's dead = no struggle, so why didn't he take her? If it's cause, aw, shucks, now he can't get his big fat 118,000, so, no kidnapping, leave her behind....oh puhleeze! I don't think anyone expected her to actually be ransomed.

By the way - when did John want to fly out (to Atlanta?) - but, was told he wasn't going anywhere...(why would he want to?)...sometimes I think they (R.s) planned to take Jonbenets body out at that time and have it disappear....

 

[JMO8778]

Yes,that's a ridiculous thought that an intruder would try to shove her through that window;intruders have a plan,(esp.if John was saying he'd been in the house during the time they were gone),and he would have had time to figure out what he was going to do,then execute that plan accordingly.Not suddenly turn into a flob of a kidnapping,ransoming,pedo killer who can't even get the body out of the house.