CO: Denver police to review 422 sex assault cases handled by discredited CBI scientist Missy Woods

Source: denverpost.com 4/7/25

The Denver Police Department will independently review more than 400 sex assault cases handled by now-discredited Colorado Bureau of Investigation scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods to ensure the DNA testing was valid.

The police department’s crime laboratory started a process to review the reports from at least 422 sexual assault evidence kits that Denver police submitted to CBI for DNA testing over the last 12 years, spokesman Doug Schepman said in a statement Friday.

From that initial review, the lab will determine how many kits should be re-tested, he said. If re-testing reveals new DNA evidence, police will investigate the sex assault cases further, Schepman said.

The move to review the cases comes after CBI discovered Woods mishandled DNA testing in more than a thousand cases during her nearly 30-year tenure as a DNA analyst at the statewide law enforcement agency. Woods retired in lieu of termination in late 2023 after an internal investigation found she deleted, omitted or manipulated DNA data in at least 1,003 criminal cases.

She was charged with 102 felonies in January; the criminal case against her is ongoing.

The review by the Denver Crime Laboratory is separate from — and redundant to — CBI’s internal review of Woods’ cases. CBI reviewed more than 10,000 cases that Woods handled — including the 422 Denver cases — and found problems in 1,003 cases.

The agency did identify problems in a subset of the 422 Denver cases, CBI spokesman Rob Low said. He and Schepman both declined to give a specific number.

“We welcome the opportunity to work with the Denver crime lab in its assessment to determine if any Denver PD cases warrant retesting,” Low said in a statement.

During CBI’s internal investigation, Woods admitted to taking shortcuts when she was testing Denver sex assault cases, an internal affairs report shows. She said she did so after Colorado legislators passed a law in 2013 that required authorities to test nearly all sexual assault evidence kits, regardless of whether the case was likely to result in an arrest or prosecution.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments