I would be interested to see how this shakes out. I work in a lab environment (not forensic but close enough that the processes will be almost identical). The general rule of thumb is that you...
Exemplary
I would be interested to see how this shakes out. I work in a lab environment (not forensic but close enough that the processes will be almost identical). The general rule of thumb is that you have to chain of custody for your samples, report everything, review equipment audit trails, make sure calculations are done correctly, and that your conclusions match the data that you have generated.
If there is a discrepancy somewhere, that means there is an internal investigation that needs to be done. If you are doing testing in duplicate and one result is "as expected" and one result looks way different you've got to retest a set number of replicate samples per a protocol.
When you are dealing with data that has a profound effect on somebody's life, you don't want to mess that up, take shortcuts, or be sloppy in your work. If you are in this industry, you should know better. She's in for a rough go. Depending on what their analysis pops up (particularly for data generated over the last 10 years or so when electronic audit trails have become more robust) I wouldn't be surprised if a criminal prosecution happens.
I was really hoping there was somehow a long track record of massive mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems likely malicious. I have to wonder why she did it. I don't know much about criminal DNA...
The agency said its forensics team discovered Woods deleted and altered data that served to conceal evidence of her tampering as well as her failure to “troubleshoot issues within the testing process.” The agency said Woods’ manipulations “appear to have been the result of intentional conduct.”
I was really hoping there was somehow a long track record of massive mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems likely malicious.
I have to wonder why she did it. I don't know much about criminal DNA analysis, but my previous assumption was it was a strictly scientific analysis ("does this hair match this blood" etc) distinct from the prosecution and investigation. I guess real life is more like Ace Attorney than I'd like...
In many scenarios it is largely not scientific or reliable, and shrouded in proprietary mystery. Most forensic DNA samples are incomplete fragments, from stray skin cells or hair or whatever. And...
In many scenarios it is largely not scientific or reliable, and shrouded in proprietary mystery. Most forensic DNA samples are incomplete fragments, from stray skin cells or hair or whatever. And those samples could be exposed to harsh conditions before they're collected. This means forensic DNA matching is often trying to match a small fragment.
DNA testing is also just a tool, which is only as good as the logical interpretation of the circumstance it is found in and the physical handling of the evidence. It's not the magic oracle that people are often convinced it is. Someone's hair or skin or whatever ending up on someone who was murdered pretty much just means they knew each other or shared a taxi. It's all about context.
Where DNA testing really shines is the Innocence Project: it's much more sound to prove that someone doesn't match DNA evidence by virtue of being improbably dissimilar.
Just how many lives were possibly ruined because of this person. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, but if she IS proven guilty, I hope she gets a life sentence or similar. You can't...
Just how many lives were possibly ruined because of this person. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, but if she IS proven guilty, I hope she gets a life sentence or similar. You can't handwave ruining people's lives as shit happens.
Given that she was found to have violated CBI's data retention policies, what she did is clearly not considered "routine". And the CBI report linked to in the article goes into more detail about...
Discarding data in DNA analysis feels routine
Given that she was found to have violated CBI's data retention policies, what she did is clearly not considered "routine". And the CBI report linked to in the article goes into more detail about all the other questionable things she did too:
Internal Investigation of Yvonne “Missy” Woods Highlights
The CBI Internal investigation, dated February 26, 2024, determined that Woods:
Omitted material facts in official criminal justice records
Tampered with DNA testing results by omitting some of those results
Violated CBI’s Code of Conduct and CBI laboratory policies ranging from data retention to quality control measures
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.
And the final line of the report is also pretty telling:
Because this is an active criminal investigation no further information can be provided at this time.
Yes, and this... ...is a big deal. One incidence of this in a healthcare setting would be pretty serious internal disciplinary discussion and maybe even regulatory referral. I can't imagine that...
Yes, and this...
Deleted and altered data that concealed Woods’ tampering with controls
...is a big deal. One incidence of this in a healthcare setting would be pretty serious internal disciplinary discussion and maybe even regulatory referral. I can't imagine that criminal forensics are more tolerant of dishonesty.
Tampering with evidence and evidentiary records by intentional omission of material facts is also a pretty fucking serious violation in the field of forensics. And also probably explains why this...
Tampering with evidence and evidentiary records by intentional omission of material facts is also a pretty fucking serious violation in the field of forensics. And also probably explains why this is now being treated as a criminal investigation, not just an internal disciplinary one anymore.
For reference, controls here refer to positive and negative controls. A positive control is designed to "pass" specific test. A negative control would be a sample that is designed to "fail" a...
For reference, controls here refer to positive and negative controls.
A positive control is designed to "pass" specific test.
A negative control would be a sample that is designed to "fail" a specific test.
You would use these controls to make sure that the test that you are running works the way that you would intend.
For example if I have an unknown sample and I want to see if its arsenic, I might do a flame test. A positive control would be a known arsenic sample that would give me a blue-green flame. A negative control could be sodium, which would give me a bright yellow flame. If my controls don't give me those colors, then whatever result I get from my real test sample might be a garbage result.
If you screw around with these controls, or results from them are ambiguous, you basically have a test that wouldn't be working consistently.
I would be interested to see how this shakes out. I work in a lab environment (not forensic but close enough that the processes will be almost identical). The general rule of thumb is that you have to chain of custody for your samples, report everything, review equipment audit trails, make sure calculations are done correctly, and that your conclusions match the data that you have generated.
If there is a discrepancy somewhere, that means there is an internal investigation that needs to be done. If you are doing testing in duplicate and one result is "as expected" and one result looks way different you've got to retest a set number of replicate samples per a protocol.
When you are dealing with data that has a profound effect on somebody's life, you don't want to mess that up, take shortcuts, or be sloppy in your work. If you are in this industry, you should know better. She's in for a rough go. Depending on what their analysis pops up (particularly for data generated over the last 10 years or so when electronic audit trails have become more robust) I wouldn't be surprised if a criminal prosecution happens.
I was really hoping there was somehow a long track record of massive mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems likely malicious.
I have to wonder why she did it. I don't know much about criminal DNA analysis, but my previous assumption was it was a strictly scientific analysis ("does this hair match this blood" etc) distinct from the prosecution and investigation. I guess real life is more like Ace Attorney than I'd like...
For reference:
https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/10/11/farak-cases-dismissed-by-sjc
In many scenarios it is largely not scientific or reliable, and shrouded in proprietary mystery. Most forensic DNA samples are incomplete fragments, from stray skin cells or hair or whatever. And those samples could be exposed to harsh conditions before they're collected. This means forensic DNA matching is often trying to match a small fragment.
DNA testing is also just a tool, which is only as good as the logical interpretation of the circumstance it is found in and the physical handling of the evidence. It's not the magic oracle that people are often convinced it is. Someone's hair or skin or whatever ending up on someone who was murdered pretty much just means they knew each other or shared a taxi. It's all about context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling (See: Issues with forensic DNA samples)
https://www.science.org/content/article/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-innocent
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/02/dna-in-the-dock-how-flawed-techniques-send-innocent-people-to-prison
Where DNA testing really shines is the Innocence Project: it's much more sound to prove that someone doesn't match DNA evidence by virtue of being improbably dissimilar.
Just how many lives were possibly ruined because of this person. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, but if she IS proven guilty, I hope she gets a life sentence or similar. You can't handwave ruining people's lives as shit happens.
Given that she was found to have violated CBI's data retention policies, what she did is clearly not considered "routine". And the CBI report linked to in the article goes into more detail about all the other questionable things she did too:
And the final line of the report is also pretty telling:
Yes, and this...
...is a big deal. One incidence of this in a healthcare setting would be pretty serious internal disciplinary discussion and maybe even regulatory referral. I can't imagine that criminal forensics are more tolerant of dishonesty.
Tampering with evidence and evidentiary records by intentional omission of material facts is also a pretty fucking serious violation in the field of forensics. And also probably explains why this is now being treated as a criminal investigation, not just an internal disciplinary one anymore.
For reference, controls here refer to positive and negative controls.
A positive control is designed to "pass" specific test.
A negative control would be a sample that is designed to "fail" a specific test.
You would use these controls to make sure that the test that you are running works the way that you would intend.
For example if I have an unknown sample and I want to see if its arsenic, I might do a flame test. A positive control would be a known arsenic sample that would give me a blue-green flame. A negative control could be sodium, which would give me a bright yellow flame. If my controls don't give me those colors, then whatever result I get from my real test sample might be a garbage result.
If you screw around with these controls, or results from them are ambiguous, you basically have a test that wouldn't be working consistently.