Update Teresa Sue Hilt
This newspaper article from August 14, 1974 was sent to me and it contains information about the crime scene re Teresa Sue Hilt that will make Sue jump up and down across the pond! Hair particles found at the crime scene showed the one who left that hair had a rare scalp disease that makes the hair brittle and fall out. It is called monilethrix.
From Wikipedia: “Monilethrix is caused by mutations affecting the genes KRTHB1 (KRT81), KRTHB3 (KRT83), or KRTHB6 (KRT86) which code for type II hair cortexkeratins.
The disorder is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. This means that the defective gene(s) responsible for a disorder is located on an autosome, and only one copy of the gene is sufficient to cause the disorder, when inherited from a parent who has the disorder.”
The age of onset, severity, and course may vary from person to person.
There is no cure for monilethrix.
Some have reported spontaneous improvement, particularly during puberty and pregnancy, but the condition rarely disappears completely.
The newspaper article is below. of course, the question now is … do we still have those hairs? Have they been tested for DNA and if so, have those test results been entered into any database?
To be continued!
Categories: Cold Case News, Forensics, Unsolved
Tags: Autopsy, Crime Scene, Cruelty, DNA, DNA Database, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Finger Printing, Forensics, Identification, Investigations Division, Knife Attack, Missouri, monilethrix, Police, Rape kits, Teresa Sue Hilt, Unsolved Homicide, Victim, Witnesses
Vidster!
This is indeed an interesting development. Whilst you picture me jumping up and down (and I don’t wish to ruin that image for you!), let’s take a step back for a moment and look at what this might mean:
With my scientist / investigative hat on, my first question is, “How do they know?” Ever the sceptic, I’m surprised to learn of these hair tufts. They haven’t been mentioned before. Whilst they might have a specific appearance suggesting this disease, might it be possible that hair tufts would have similar characteristics for other reasons? It would be interesting to know the opinions of the experts who examined the hair tufts. (This is an interesting article that describes the beaded appearance of the hair shaft in affected individuals: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/monilethrix)
Assuming that the killer did have this disease, then what does this mean for the investigation?
Firstly, and I think, most importantly, the killer would likely have a distinctive appearance. (Check out the photos in the first monilethrix link in your post.) Surely someone would have noticed someone with an ‘unusual quality of hair’. Also, if it’s true that this disease is more prevalent within certain racial groups / geographical regions (which I haven’t researched, but is mentioned in the article), then this might be useful intelligence, and the report suggests that investigators at the time started to consider this.
Interestingly, it seems that the severity of the condition varies amongst affected individuals. In some, only the hair to the back of the head is affected, but in those most severely affected, all their hair, head and body, can be affected. Perhaps in the struggle, Teresa pulled out some of the killer’s hair. Strange that some was found in her mouth though. Was it put there deliberately, I wonder.
Secondly, and this, I’m guessing is why you’re full of anticipation, given the genetic reason for this disease, then where does this lead any forensic investigation? Well, if the hair evidence has been retained, then it might be possible to obtain DNA from it. However, the hairs would need to have roots, since there is no nuclear DNA (the type routinely examined forensically) in the hair shaft. If Teresa did pull out her killer’s hair, then there might be roots. Even hairs with roots are not guaranteed to yield useful DNA information though. Hairs are, in my experience, one of the more difficult biological materials to get useful DNA from.
If a forensic DNA profile were obtained, then it’s unlikely that this in itself would indicate the mutation causing monilethrix, since current routine forensic DNA testing examines the bits of DNA between genes, rather than the genes themselves. However, we would have no need to detect the disease. That would only confirm something we already suspect. A forensic DNA profile from hair roots might be enough to help us to identify the killer.
I look forward to finding out if the hairs have been retained & despite my scepticism, this is a very interesting development!
Sue.