CORRUPTION: FORENSIC MISUSE OF DNA IN THE LABS AND COURTROOMS

Part 4: MISSY WOODS: FORENSIC DNA FRAUD IN COLORADO

Yvonne “Missy” Woods is a former Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) forensic DNA analyst. Ms. Woods worked at the CBI’s Denver/Arvada facility for 29 years. This analyst manipulated DNA data from an enormous inventory of criminal cases. Once a September 2023 CBI internal investigation began to dissect the tip of this iceberg, it was clear that all of the casework conducted by Ms. Woods needed to be retroactively subjected to intense scrutiny. On October 3, 2023, Missy was placed on administrative leave. As the inquiry unfolded, the analyst decided to “retire”—on November 6, 2023. By February 2024, the CBI’s Quality Management Team had documented a comprehensive internal review. In the hands of Ms. Woods, the results from 652 cases—analyzed between 2008 and 2023—were characterized as “manipulated”.

Also pending, is a supplemental review of casework conducted by the disgraced analyst—during her early years, ranging from 1994-to-2008. Due to the overwhelming volume of these case examinations, the CBI has incorporated assistance from outsource investigative entities. A separate, criminal investigation of Ms. Woods has also been initiated—as CBI management intends to cooperate on that front, with various law enforcement resources.

In an attempt to validate that the Missy Woods catastrophe is an isolated series of circumstances, the CBI launched comprehensive audits of numerous additional forensic DNA employees. In the midst of these frantic internal investigative processes, CBI management discovered separate instances of analyst misconduct—this time, originating out of the Northern Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory, in Greeley, CO. Upon scrutinizing results from this added inquiry, the Weld County Sheriff’s Office terminated yet another DNA analyst. That individual was apparently engaging in the manipulation of forensic DNA test results—on a lesser scale, by comparison to Ms. Woods.

On February 26, 2024, results were released from the internal investigation that was launched by the CBI, back in September, 2023. The investigation demonstrated that Missy routinely cut corners, deleted portions of her casework data, including results establishing that DNA contamination incidents had occurred. Ms. Woods often avoided any required troubleshooting of her casework DNA processes. In some instances, she deleted specific segments of data—altogether. To be 100% clear, the CBI internal investigative report characterized these events—not as errors—but as intentional, manipulative acts of misconduct.

This horrifying series of events will precipitate a lofty fiscal cost. The fraudulent misuses of forensic DNA resources will cost Colorado taxpayers an estimated $7.5 million—in order to repeat the abundance of casework subjected to the ill-conceived acts of tampering. Added to that aspect of the fiscal disaster, district attorneys will be obligated to devote time and effort to the legal impact on various questionable cases, working through the post-conviction review process. The DAs will subsequently need to prioritize the appropriate cases for new trials. These processes will cost the Colorado taxpayers an additional estimated $4.4 million.

The internal affairs investigation into transgressions committed by Missy Woods began as a consequence of observations from a ‘whistleblower’. A CBI forensic DNA lab intern had been assigned to a ‘data mining’ research project, delving into various ordinary lab results. In doing so, the intern noticed missing data from previous casework--which had been conducted by Ms. Woods.

In May of 2024, a motion was filed by defense attorneys handling a Boulder County triple homicide case. Within that motion, defense counsel exposed the fact that the 2023 intern was not the first ‘whistleblower’ to voice a grievance with CBI Crime Lab management—regarding faulty casework conducted by Missy. As far back as 2013 and 2014, multiple reports of improper DNA handling/testing, as well as deletion of data, were revealed to the supervisors responsible for Ms. Woods. Unfortunately, no effective remedies were explored.

In July 2018, a CBI coworker was asked to peer review some ‘batch notes’ from a high-profile homicide case that was being processed by Missy Woods. Within those documents, the peer reviewer noticed evidence of DNA contamination. As a consequence, she pointed out this fact to Ms. Woods—reminding her that added steps were required--in order to explore whether or not a detectable DNA contamination profile could be uncovered. To the surprise of the peer review coworker, instead of performing the customary DNA typing, Missy came back with a secondary DNA quantification—suggesting zero DNA contamination. The coworker was further surprised, upon realizing that the original DNA quantity value had been deleted, ...apparently in an attempt to cover up any issue. The peer reviewer requested assistance from yet another analyst, to observe the mysteriously missing contamination data, in order to verify that she was not *somehow* misreading the spreadsheet. The peer reviewer took the logical next step, by directly accessing results from the DNA instrument used—in the first place—to estimate the amounts of DNA in each sample. She was astonished to find that the instrument harbored the irrefutable confirmation of contaminating DNA. The peer reviewer voiced her anger to Missy, for placing her in this dreadful, perilous situation. She explained that—due to the blatant, intentional data deletion—she could not sign off on Missy’s batch review.

After giving this ugly situation plenty of thought, the peer review coworker approached the CBI forensic lab’s DNA Technical Leader, as well as the lab’s Quality Director, and explained her observations. In line with previous instances of ‘suspicious behavior’, involving Missy, CBI lab management failed to initiate adequate resolutions. On one hand, a Quality Incident Review (QIR) was created in 2018. On the other hand, it was apparently assumed that the instances of contamination data deletion were *probably* isolated. Various forensic DNA coworkers were asked to exercise confidentiality on these matters—as they were more relevant to casework backlogs, job stress, and mental health—rather than any form of malicious manipulations.

The authors of the May 2024 triple homicide case motion referenced this succession of events as a blatant crime lab management “cover-up”—spanning over the course of a decade. One of the ‘whistleblowing’ co-workers went so far as to emphasize to the CBI Lab Director and a CBI Deputy Director, that Missy Woods should—“never touch evidence again!”. Despite those unambiguous warnings, little was done to pre-emptively defuse the ticking time bomb.

Suppose that arguments can be formulated as follows: 1) Ms. Woods was a rare, isolated event; 2) The misconduct was identified (eventually), and future concerns are being carefully placated; 3) Any references to “ticking time bombs” are nothing more than hysterical over-reactions.

Decades ago, similar arguments could have been made, regarding safety concerns with the technology tied to nuclear power—at least up until April 26, 1986—Chernobyl. Prior to that fateful day, the human race appeared to be safely utilizing a relatively uncomplicated scientific process, and successfully generating phenomenal quantities of valuable electrical power. The drawback to that remarkable technology coincides with one of the fundamental facts we all learn in our freshmen chemistry classes: “NEVER HEAT A CLOSED SYSTEM”. In order to generate the quantity of heat that is converted into sufficient power to fuel entire cities, a frightening scale of materials needs to be properly assembled, carefully regulated, and CONTAINED. Tragically—for those infamous few moments in April of 1986—those processes/materials were not effectively contained, ...and Chernobyl became part of our history.

Was it sensible to blindly trust the engineers, technicians, and regulators who continually promised to keep all of us safe? Before contemplating that challenging question, consider the following consequences: The exclusion zone created by this catastrophe spans over 1000 square miles. The site itself will remain uninhabitable for 20,000 years into the future. Note that, not long after the initial catastrophic explosion, secondary events needed to be prevented—which threatened to render vast areas of Europe 100% barren. Despite doing everything in their power to downplay/cover-up the magnitude of this disaster, the Soviet government got lucky—it could have been enormously worse.

Perhaps it is reasonable to mount the counter-argument: What does Missy Woods, and her abuse of the power of polymerase chain reactions, have to do with human-induced disasters, such as Chernobyl? Answer: The operation of nuclear power facilities involves enormous quantities of radiation, and no humans can actually SEE this radiation. The operation of crime labs involves generating enormous quantities of DNA fragments during the amplification process. No humans can actually SEE those products either. While we can expect radioactive materials, and radioactive gases to be propelled in all directions, moments after a reactor explosion, the invisible DNA fragments in crime labs can also become mobilized, by fundamental carelessness, handling transfer events, and aerosols.

Before April 1986, various nuclear engineers and regulators offered their opinions that: “Our personnel are thoroughly trained, and our facilities are audited by a multitude of regulatory agencies.” Hilariously, they also voiced their 100% disproven claim that:

“A nuclear reactor cannot just blow up.” 

Parallel with this nonsense, I have witnessed countless forensic DNA analysts and lab managers voicing their faulty assurances that: “Our personnel are thoroughly trained, and our facilities are routinely audited by the FBI, and inspected by accreditation organizations.” Comically, they also boast that: “While it is true that the human eye cannot detect cells, nor DNA, nor aerosols, we utilize a multitude of clean techniques, and containment safeguards—to ensure that any cross-contamination event is extremely unlikely.” The history of DNA contamination catastrophes—worldwide—has proven such assurances to be profoundly faulty.

At the end of Part 2 of this series—within the article entitled: “The NM-DPS Crime Lab—Misrepresentation of DNA Contamination Errors”, I provided the following commentary: “It is always troubling when errors are committed by individuals who have been entrusted with sophisticated resources—such as DNA technology. However, a profoundly deeper social plague emerges when an ethos of arrogance, denial, and misrepresentation pollutes the deployment of those formidable resources, and the sworn testimony that follows.” A parallel commentary on human recklessness was offered by the character, Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by the actor, Jeff Goldblum), in the 1993 film—Jurassic Park. Dr. Malcolm proclaimed that: “Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet’s ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that has found his Dad’s gun. I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: It didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, ...and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, ...so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could. Before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunch box—and now you’re selling it!”

While Jurassic Park was clearly an exaggerated fictional account of improbable events, please observe the superseding outcome: The terrifying monsters escaped, ...they ate people, ...and the technological enterprise suffered a breathtaking failure. God protect any individuals who follow in the footsteps of Dr. Malcolm—‘whistleblowers’—daring to criticize the abuses of DNA technology. You might recall that—at the end of the popular film—Dr. Ian Malcolm escaped the fictional location, Isla Nublar. However, ...within Michael Crichton’s novel, ...Ian died.

Published by Michael J. Spence, Ph.D., on August 5, 2024