CBI finds DNA scientist manipulated data

[Ranb]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html

A now-former forensic scientist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) manipulated or omitted DNA test results in hundreds of cases, an internal affairs investigation found, which prompted a full review of her work during her nearly 30-year career at the agency.

The CBI released the findings of the investigation into Yvonne “Missy” Woods Friday, which concluded Woods’ handling of DNA testing data affected 652 cases between 2008 and 2023, including posting incomplete results in some cases. A review of her work from 1994 to 2008 is also underway, according to the CBI.

“This discovery puts all of her work in question, and CBI is in the process of reviewing all her previous work for data manipulation to ensure the integrity of all CBI laboratory results,” the agency said. “CBI brought in third-party investigative resources to protect the integrity of the inquiry.”

This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

 

[gabeygoat]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html


This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

This kind of thing is one of the main reasons I don't support the death penalty. There's just too much doubt to make such an irrevocable decision.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html


This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

From the CBI link:

CBI’s DNA forensics team identified the following types of manipulation in Woods’ work:

Deleted and altered data that concealed Woods’ tampering with controls
Deleted data that concealed Woods’ failure to troubleshoot issues within the testing process
Failed to provide thorough documentation in the case record related to certain tests performed

These manipulations appear to have been the result of intentional conduct on the part of Woods.

The review did not find that Woods falsified DNA matches or otherwise fabricated DNA profiles. She instead deviated from standard testing protocols and cut corners, calling into question the reliability of the testing she conducted.

Just for more information for those who haven't clicked the link.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From the CBI link:



Just for more information for those who haven't clicked the link.

However:

From October 3, 2023 to present, CBI’s Quality Management team has been reviewing all of Woods’ work. At this time, 652 cases have been identified as affected by Woods’ data manipulation between 2008 and 2023. A review of Woods’ work from 1994 to 2008 is also underway.

It looks like a judicial review of these case would be in order. The potentially inaccurate results my require new trials.

 

[Orphia Nay]

However:


It looks like a judicial review of these case would be in order. The potentially inaccurate results my require new trials.

Yep. Could lead to A LOT of appeals.

 

[Roboramma]

Seems one way to avoid this sort of thing would be for all cases that use DNA evidence to require results from at least two labs.

Of course, whether or not that's reasonable depends on how common this sort of thing is. But I doubt that the case that's been discovered is the only case that exists.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

it's just like fingerprints, shoeprints or phrenology: cops and prosecutors convincing themselves and a jury that they don't need to build a case if they have a Magic piece of evidence.
None of that stuff should be admissible as a key piece of evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

it's just like fingerprints, shoeprints or phrenology: cops and prosecutors convincing themselves and a jury that they don't need to build a case if they have a Magic piece of evidence.
None of that stuff should be admissible as a key piece of evidence.

Are you sure you want to go with this?

A man rapes and murders a young girl. The man's seminal fluid is found on and inside the girl's body. Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have.

How about now? Still inadmissible?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are you sure you want to go with this?

A man rapes and murders a young girl. The man's seminal fluid is found on and inside the girl's body. Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have.

How about now? Still inadmissible?

I didn't say inadmissible - but it should not be a slam-dunk, the way it is usually portrayed.
It's trivially easy to introduce foreign DNA into your own crime scene, even in case of rape.

 

[rjh01]

I didn't say inadmissible - but it should not be a slam-dunk, the way it is usually portrayed.
It's trivially easy to introduce foreign DNA into your own crime scene, even in case of rape.

I agree. There should be some other evidence that the person did the crime. Plus the lab should be given several samples, but only one is from the suspect.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree. There should be some other evidence that the person did the crime. Plus the lab should be given several samples, but only one is from the suspect.

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

if there was some, that would be double reason not to trust the laboratory's work.

 

[PitPat]

FBI lab work has been under scrutiny for a time, especially hair (non-DNA) and fiber. A lot of cases got overturned for that due to faulty premise. Not really a precise science for now.

 

[Checkmite]

It sounds like it's not being alleged that results were fabricated, but rather that this particular tech just cut a lot of corners and did a lot of shoddy work, and omitted or changed portions of the data that would've revealed that.

If that's true then it seems less likely that innocent people were convicted on false evidence and that makes me feel better - but, there's a lot of room now for reasonable doubt for sure, so I imagine any competent defense attorneys are going full nose-to-the-grindstone right now.

 

[Donal]

Sadly, even if it were enough to overturn a conviction, judges are not often looking to negate the work of the courts. They will tell themselves "the prosecution would have gotten the conviction anyway".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This has some similarity to the case of Charles Smith (pathologist)^WP here in Ontario. Though the results of his "errors" were more obviously serious.

Smith diagnosed every baby death that came to him as a result of "shaken baby syndrome". This lead to multiple parent convictions and the removal of children from their parents.

After it was all over:

Justice Goudge's report, released on October 1, 2008 concluded that there were serious problems with the way suspicious deaths involving children are handled in Ontario. He pointed to the problems that had been found with the 20 or so problematic cases that Charles Smith had handled as evidence of serious problems in the Ontario system.

Also in 2008, the chief forensic pathologist for Ontario began a public inquiry into 220 cases of shaken baby syndrome to determine if anyone was wrongfully convicted in the babies' deaths.

Individuals that were wrongly accused by Smith were entitled up to $250,000 as a "recognition payment".

 

[smartcooky]

if there was some, that would be double reason not to trust the laboratory's work.

Just going back to this for a moment - how do you reconcile these two statements you made?

None of that stuff should be admissible...

I didn't say inadmissible...

I think its is a very bad idea to go introducing extra opportunities for contamination by having additional contaminant, unrelated DNA, in the lab? I'm sure glad you aren't running any crime labs!

No, I would go along with Roboramma's suggestion, that the samples be submitted to two separate labs for parallel, independent testing. I would add that the samples must be split at the points of collection - both at pathology and from the suspect. It would be very simple to do.

The person doing DNA collection will have specially marked evidence bags for "in-lab" and "out-lab" . The tech dealing with the victim takes two swabs and puts one in each, putting the first swab into a bag and sealing it before taking the second swab - same when collecting from the suspect. Those bags are from then on dealt with by two different people so that there can be no chain of custody issues, the "in-lab" bag is taken directly to their local lab, the "out-lab" bag is sent directly by courier to whatever lab will be doing the parallel testing.

Its not absolutely foolproof, but it would sure be an improvement on what is happening now, and it requires nothing more that some minor changes to procedure and some additional consumables. With the cost of DNA testing being what it is, a few more evidence bags and some courier fees are not going to significantly impact anyone's budget!

 

[lobosrul5]

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

The DA's office or whomever, submits a DNA sample from the crime scene. And 4 DNA samples marked "A", "B", "C", "D", one of whom is from the suspect the other 3 are from samples from non-suspects. They ask the question which of these 4 samples, if any, match the crime scene DNA. If a lab cannot do this without cross contamination, then its not a lab worth relying on.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just going back to this for a moment - how do you reconcile these two statements you made?





I think its is a very bad idea to go introducing extra opportunities for contamination by having additional contaminant, unrelated DNA, in the lab? I'm sure glad you aren't running any crime labs!

No, I would go along with Roboramma's suggestion, that the samples be submitted to two separate labs for parallel, independent testing. I would add that the samples must be split at the points of collection - both at pathology and from the suspect. It would be very simple to do.

The person doing DNA collection will have specially marked evidence bags for "in-lab" and "out-lab" . The tech dealing with the victim takes two swabs and puts one in each, putting the first swab into a bag and sealing it before taking the second swab - same when collecting from the suspect. Those bags are from then on dealt with by two different people so that there can be no chain of custody issues, the "in-lab" bag is taken directly to their local lab, the "out-lab" bag is sent directly by courier to whatever lab will be doing the parallel testing.

Its not absolutely foolproof, but it would sure be an improvement on what is happening now, and it requires nothing more that some minor changes to procedure and some additional consumables. With the cost of DNA testing being what it is, a few more evidence bags and some courier fees are not going to significantly impact anyone's budget!

I have worked in a lab, and there is zero risk of cross contamination if you follow a protocol. Furthermore, you split your sample before you do anything, keeping as much of the original as you can and test only from a fraction. That way, you can and will retest before submitting a positive result, as well as leave enough for someone else to repeat the test.

If you need to rush things, you can mix fractions of all samples, and test the mixture - if that doesn't match, you only have to do that one test to get a negative.

 

[smartcooky]

The DA's office or whomever, submits a DNA sample from the crime scene. And 4 DNA samples marked "A", "B", "C", "D", one of whom is from the suspect the other 3 are from samples from non-suspects. They ask the question which of these 4 samples, if any, match the crime scene DNA. If a lab cannot do this without cross contamination, then its not a lab worth relying on.

1. Do you have any idea how much DNA testing costs? Well, now multiply by four.

2. Who is going to volunteer their DNA for these three additional samples to be tested by the police lab?

3. Keep in mind the fact that these samples will be evidence related to the case (evidence as to the veracity of the target DNA) and all evidence has to be retained for some period of time after the case is done. This means the volunteers' samples and the results are going to be in an evidence locker somewhere, and if the case is never solved, that could be decades. How are you going to guarantee to those people that their samples and tests will NEVER be retained and later used against them?

No, I still think Roboramma's idea to send the samples off for parallel independent testing by a separate lab is the best solution.