2002: DNA Deception

Speaker: DYE CASE & INTRO

Jennifer Kerr: why? Why? You know, why would you take the life of somebody so vibrant and a young mother? I can't comprehend it.

Speaker: On November 26, 1979, Evelyn Day disappeared. She was a student at AIMS community college an hour outside of denver. Evelyn was last seen locking up the doors to the lab. The next morning, her station wagon was found parked under a water tower. They discovered her body in the back of the car. She was raped and strangled with a belt. It was 1979... almost a decade before DNA was ever used as evidence in a criminal case. Despite all that, investigators swabbed Evelyn's body, as well as under her fingernails. That evidence sat on a shelf for almost 40 years. We probably given up and figured it would never be solved. Jennifer Kerr, Evelyn's cousin felt hopeless. What are the chances a cold case form 1979 will ever be solved. But then she receieved this news... The coldest of cold cases in Weld County might finally be solved. It has been more than 40 years since the death of Evelyn K. Day. And now, Weld County says they have arrested this suspect in that murder. That suspect's name is James Herman Dye.

James Kerr: To get that phone call. Just the reality of it was like,

Jennifer Kerr: wow, this just kind of came out of nowhere and it does feel like a victory

Speaker: And this was only possible because the Weld County Sheriff's Office created a cold case detective position. Detective byron Kastilahn (cast-ti-lian) ran the DNA evidence collected when they found Evelyn Day's body and within months got a hit. James Dye, the suspect, denied having anything to do with the murder. However, his criminal record was hard to ignore. James Dye was previously arrested four times for sexual assault. In one of those arrests, He was accused of sexually assualting a woman after she picked him and gave him a ride home. DNA.. it's the ultimate proof of guilt or innocence. Unlike other forensic techniques, such as fingerprint evidence, eye witness testimony, bite mark analysis... DNA seems ironclad. The technology revolutionized criminal investigations enabling prosecutors to secure convictions and on the flipside, has exonerationed the wrongly accused. But is DNA evidence as reliable as we think it is? This past November, James Dye is a free man. Despite the dna evidence used to convict him, he was released from prison and the two counts of first-degree murder for rape and strangulation of Evelyn Kay Day were dropped. How could this happen? Well it turns out that the key DNA evidence in the case was compromised and more than six hundreds cases just like his in colorodo could be thrown out. I'm Javier Leiva and this is PRETEND... Stories about real people pretending to be someone else. ///INTRO///

Jennifer Kerr: So what went wrong in the case against James Dye. Police had DNA from the rape kit. He was a match in the database. Why would the prosectutors just drop the charges on this 40-year cold case and let this convicted killer and rapist lose?

Speaker: It turns out, the answer is a little bit complicated. Yvonne “Missy” Woods was a senior forensic scientist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), where she worked for nearly 30 years. Some of Missy Woods previous cases include the rape trial of the late Kobe Bryant, and other Colorado's high profile cases. But now she's being investigated for cooking the books, so to speak. Missy Woods is not being accused of fabricating DNA results, basically the reporting of results without performing any actual testing. That's called “dry-labbing” — Instead, Missy Woods was working and analyzing real dna samples but it appears she was ommiting failed controls. This is Dan Krane, a forensic scientist and professor, from the Hidden Killers podcast.

Dan Krane: in at least 652 cases, she had, um, taken out of the file for the case controls that didn't meet her expectations. Uh, so a negative control, for instance, that showed A result or a reagent blank that showed a DNA profile or a positive control that failed to show the DNA profile of just the, uh, the reference sample that's put in to show that the whole test kit is working.

Jennifer Kerr: Let me explain.

Speaker: When DNA labs run tests, they use three key controls to ensure accurate and reliable results: a negative control, a reagent blank, and a positive control. Think of these controls like steps in a recipe to make sure everything is working as it should. The negative control is like checking your mixing bowl before baking—it shouldn’t have any unexpected ingredients in it. The reagent blank is like testing your sugar to make sure it’s pure and hasn’t been contaminated with salt or flour. The positive control is like baking a test cookie to ensure your oven is working properly and your ingredients are good. Missy Woods is not accused of framing suspects with fake DNA. No, it's believed she edited or deleted data to make it appear as no contamination occured. To go back to our cooking analogy. It's like finding dirt in your sugar, but instead of reporting it, you erase the data saying the sugar is clean. Or adding clean sugar to the test spoon to hide the dirt. This type of tampering of data is considered lazy, unprofessional, irresponsible and can have a huge effect on every case Missy Woods has ever been involved with for the last 29 years. More than a 1000 cases will be re-examined because of this. Now every single dna sample she handled will have to be retested. One of those cases was THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO VS. Garrett Coughlin. COUGHLIN CASE Start Denver seven at 10 with breaking news. In just the past two hours, we have uncovered new details about the man now charged with murdering three people in Boulder County. Investigators caught 24 year old Garrett Coughlin in Lakewood In April 2017, Garrett Coughlin was charged with killing three people just outside of Boulder, Colorodo.

Kathy Eppler: my brother, Wallace White, yeah, Lance, he went by his middle name and my other brother Lee, he went by his middle name and my sister in law Kelly.

Speaker: This is Kathy Eppler... She instantly lost a big part of her family the say her two brothers and sister in law were were brutally murdered. And we were kind of an uber close family. Very, very much so. Um, we ran a garage door company together for a very long time. I worked in their home. daily for years and years, uh, over a decade, let's put it that way before they went into this, the pot business. Um, and that was over running your own small business and the insurers and what it was costing when Kelly needed a kidney transplant hep C. So they turned to the pot business and we were a very, Probably overly involved in everybody's pocket and business. Family, I mean, everybody spoke to each other almost every day The suspected gunman, Garrett Coughlin, was a family friend battling addiction. Garrett was Kelly's godson from one of her best friends since third grade. So Garrett had been in and out of the, our, our lives forever, you know, his whole life. And Lance pushed him to get into a trade, get into a real job, you know, that kind of thing. He tried to help him with money and encourage him forward.

Javier: what do you think could have driven him to

Kathy Eppler: Oh, greed and ego. Greed and ego and, you know, addiction, of course, but I mean, if you really wanted to rob them, you could have done it when nobody was home. Five days before they were at my daughter's wedding. That was my last time with my family as we were at my, my, my youngest wedding.

Javier: yeah, is that the picture that's, that was used in the article or,

Kathy Eppler: Yes.

Speaker: DNA evidence became a cornerstone of the investigation, tying him to the crime scene. Little did Kathy Eppler know that that DNA evidence would be the thing that will eventually set him free. Yvonne Missy Woods, the senior forensic scientist who handled the case is now accused of deleting and manipulating the data in the coughlin case. An internal investigation revealed traces of another man’s DNA on the murder weapon—evidence that was either ignored or deliberately removed from records. As prosecutors prepared for a second trial in the coughline case, their case crumbled. Eventually Garret Coughline was offered a plea deal— that reduced Coughlin's chrages from first-degree murder to second-degreee. One top of that, Coughlin's sentenced was reduced and will be available for parole in 24 years.

Javier: How does it make you feel to know that the Garrett could get out in 24 years?

Kathy Eppler: Heartbroken, angry, I'm totally devastated. How did I walk away with any? Faith out of our justice system now whatsoever. I, I mean, 24 years for three lives and it was premeditated as heck.

Javier: Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's terrible and all because of a technicality.

Kathy Eppler: Yeah. Um, and because of the way people are running their job and have been allowed to do it.

Speaker: That's right... Missy Woods was suspected of misconduct years before the internal affairs investigation officially began. Colleagues had raised repeated concerns about Woods' work, including suspicions of data deletion, manipulation, and irregularities in her DNA testing procedures. Yet... Despite these warnings, Colorado Bureau of Investigations failed to investigate the allegations. The concerns were either dismissed or not addressed, allowing Woods to continue working on these critical cases. victims families have their hearts broken again

Kathy Eppler: Cutting corners and pushing it out to make her numbers and her quota. And they knew about it. They knew about it for an extensive amount of time and really did nothing to correct it. Um, that's what offends me the most. And the fact that there are so many people that are going to have their hearts broken all over again

Speaker: It wasn’t until an intern discovered anomalies in Woods' casework during a routine quality control review that the issue was escalated. The intern’s findings triggered the official internal affairs investigation that ultimately uncovered the botched results in the Garrett Coughlin case but every case Woods was involved in. volume of cases

Javier: This is just the tip of the iceberg, right? Yeah.

Kathy Eppler: uh, out of Missy Woodstuff to come up to trial and have them be affected by what she's done.

Javier: It's staggering, right? To think that, like you said, it could be 600 cases. It could be 800 cases. It could be even more the, the longer they look into this.

Kathy Eppler: years on the job.

Javier: Yeah. And to think that all those cases could be reexamined, reopened. Uh, some of these people who have committed crime could be.

Kathy Eppler: Innocent.

Javier: yeah, or released or their sentences shortened.

Speaker: I mean, even if they did commit the crime, you

Kathy Eppler: very much. So, and people having to face retrials, having their worst nightmares where the boogeyman is real and having to go back to court on it and watch this person get, get off free on technicality stuff.

Speaker: The last six weeks of my life has been the longest six weeks of my life because I don't sleep. And I'm consumed with this

Kathy Eppler: That audio is from a 2023 interview with investigators after the intern fond problems with her work. For those who can't make out what she said, The last six weeks of my life has been the longest six weeks of my life because I don't sleep. I am consumed by this.

Speaker: The investigators told her that they're quote, "try ing to determine how bad the problem is for us." oh, it's a big problem. They confronted her about deleting, manipulating or reporting irregularities in her DNA testing procedures. Do you ever remember doing that? I don't have an independent recollection of that. No, For over an hour, Missy Woods repeated the same claim. I don't remember. She reated that she has no memory of these mistakes but when investigators asked her how this could have happeneed. She said Why would you do that? I think I'm burnt out. How did you feel about what you were doing? Did you feel bad about it? Did you feel, or did you wrap your mind? I I didn't even think about it until five weeks ago. But at this point, If this stays the way it is, your legacy is more than likely to have tarnished us and you. So what reprocussions did Missy Woods face? Did she get diciplined? Get fired? Nope, she was allowed to resign. It's clea her repuation and credibility as a foresic analyst is irreperably damaged, it's not clear whether she'll face any criminal charges for her misconduct. Here's kathy eppler again. no apology

Kathy Eppler: And there's nothing, there's nothing there for us. There's no apology from her. You figure even her as a human being, let alone a sworn oath taking member of this. I, there's been no apology

Speaker: They forget how deep and how many lives each one of those tests affects I'm, I'm just heartbroken over what's getting the. People that should never see public again, that are going to get released. Children that were raped or hurt that are going to have to face their monsters again and have them released. I it's, it's appalling. And it's not just the fear of having guilty people released or have their sentences shortened. Kathy Eppler says that people forget the toll these criminal trials take on the victim's families. we had our grief process hijacked pretty good with the way this went down, but it's we're, we're on the end stage now. At least we're no longer constantly going to court. I'm no longer losing jobs because I have to go, Oh, wait a minute. You know, that kind of thing. ///ad break////

Kathy Eppler: We we return from the break, we're going to flip the scenario on it's head. We just talked about how sloppy DNA analysis can set a possibly guilty criminal free, what happens when DNA is used to incarcerate an innocent man.

Speaker: JOSIAH SUTTON CASE INTRO

Kathy Eppler: In our first segment, we talked about the mishandling of DNA evidence by veteran DNA analyst Missy Woods. At first, I thought the Colorado scandal was an isolated incident. But as I started looking into it, it turns out this kind of sloppy DNA analysis is much more pervasive than I realized.

Speaker: Our next case takes us to Houston, tx. And for that, I'm calling a friend.

Celisia: I'm Celicia Stanton and I am the creator and host of truer crime podcast,

Speaker: While researching this next case, I stumbled upon Celicia Stanton's episode on Josiah Sutton. In 1998, a 16-year-old boy named Josiah Sutton was arrested and charged with sexual assault in Houston, Texas. The case against him hinged almost entirely on DNA evidence processed by the Houston Crime Lab. At first glance, the science seemed irrefutable, the results presented as undeniable proof of guilt. But what the jury didn’t know was that the DNA analysis was flawed. Javier_Leiva: As you recall this case, you know, this took place on October 25th, 1998, and there was a 41 year old woman. She was in a parking lot of her apartment complex when she was approached by two men with a gun. Can you kind of tell me how the events unfolded from what you remember?

Celisia: Yeah, so she was actually, yeah, she was abducted at gunpoint by these two men, um, and she reports that they took turns actually sexually assaulting her in the backseat of an SUV. Um, after that attack, they abandoned her in a remote area and she immediately decides to report the crime. Um, they're able to do a rape kit and take some semen samples from the car, um, and and take all that in as evidence.

Speaker: Um, and eventually she kind of like, well, she tells police some fact things about the, about the, the, the men who had abducted her, that they were two young black men that they're about five, seven in height and, um, weighed maybe about like 135 pounds. Um, and specifically, she remembered that one of them was wearing a skull cap and the other one had on this sideways baseball cap. So, About five days after that assault, she ends up walking, uh, or she, she actually see is three young men walking nearby her apartment. And she identifies two of those men and thinks, you know, two of these guys are the other men that kidnapped me. Um, and those two men end up being Josiah Sutton and Gregory Adams Javier_Leiva: It was just something like she saw these guys, almost had like this flashback, like, Oh my God, could these be the guys? But, but their appearance, even though the head gear was spot on, you know, they had a sideways cap and, uh, and a beanie, um, was it, Oh no, sorry. I got a skull cap. So even though one of them had a sideways hat cap and, uh, the other one had a skull cap.

Celisia: Yeah.

Speaker: Javier_Leiva: There was some discrepancy between what she recalled her attackers looking like and what these young men looked like in terms of

Celisia: Yeah. And specifically, um, Josiah Sutton, um, he was very, he was pretty tall. He was six, over six feet tall. Um, whereas she remembered her talker being shorter and he was over 200 pounds. So he just was a lot taller and heavier than The person that she had initially described.

Speaker: Celisia was able to talk with Carol Beatty, Josiah Sutton's mother. mom: By the time I got the call that the neighbors had told my other kids that Josiah had been arrested and he was at the police station, he had no idea what he was there for. None of them. They, they said an assault. But they were thinking a fight because Josiah had previously had a fight in our complex from a bully that was picking on him. So he was thinking that was the reason that he was there. remember the first time that I saw him in jail, behind the glass, and I said, baby, don't you ever admit to anything that they tried to convince you to. He said, oh no, mama, my mind is made up. I didn't do it. I know I didn't do it. And I'm not. Javier_Leiva: So you discussed that the police had to, you know, this is like, um, on paper, it seems like an open and shut case, right? The police had the DNA. They collected the semen from the car seats where the assault occurred. They had the rape kit. Um, they had, uh, Well, the DNA sample, the DNA mixture. Did I have DNA from both her attackers and the victims? I mean, is

Celisia: Yeah. So basically they, so they had all these, they had a bunch of DNA samples, right? Because they had done the rape kit. They had a semen sample that from inside the car, like lots of different kinds of DNA to go off of. But this is sort of like. I guess like a mess of findings, right? Because it's a ton of different DNA from different people.

Speaker: Some from her, there's two attackers, right? Um, and, but you know, when they test some of that DNA, they're actually able to exclude Gregory, which was the person that was walking with Josiah that she had identified. And so Gregory is like, they're like, he's not a match and he's kind of just let go. Whereas Josiah, they're like, no, his DNA is a match. It is extremely likely that his DNA matches up to the DNA samples that they had found. Javier_Leiva: So the police and the prosecutors, now they have the victim ID'ing the suspect, they have a DNA match, right? And they're able to link Josiah directly to this attack Christy Kim, a DNA Analyst with the Houston Police Department said under oath assured the jury that no two people have the same DNA except identifcal twins. And that Josiah's dna was found in everything she tested. The semen on the car seats, the vaginal swab from the rape kit, even on the victim's jeans. So the prosecutors had all they need. They have a victim ID'ing the suspect, they have a DNA match, linking Josiah directly to the this attack. It was a slam dunk case. Josiah Sutton was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Celisia: Essentially how it works DNA is like, you know, all of us share 99. 9 percent of our DNA is the same.

Speaker: That 0. 01 percent of DNA that differs between all of us, that's what they're really comparing. So when she, as the, as the analyst is looking at that like little sliver of DNA, she's basically comparing. The sample that they got from Josiah to the samples they have from the crime scene, and she's comparing them at a bunch of specific points to see if they match up. Forensic DNA analysis uses statistical calculations to estimate the likelihood that a DNA profile from a crime scene matches a specific individual. This involves determining the probability that a random person from the general population would have the same combination of genetic markers. These statistics provide a measure of how significant a DNA match is and help contextualize the strength of the evidence in a criminal investigation. And so when it came to Josiah, she said, It's a match. It's definitely a match. They very, they very much overemphasize the likelihood that it could have been somebody else who, whose DNA might've been similar. So she says that the chance of this being Josiah's DNA is like one, er, sorry, the chance of this, let me see. Javier_Leiva: Yeah.

Celisia: Let me get this right.

Speaker: Javier_Leiva: One out of 694, 000.

Celisia: Um, okay, yes. So she says that the DNA type of Josiah, Is expected to occur in one out of 694, 000 individuals, which means the likelihood that Josiah is just by chance matching up to this DNA is extremely low. And that kind of puts the idea into the jury's mind, just like anybody who kind of hears DNA evidence.

Speaker: of course this is foolproof. The what are the that she Javier_Leiva: Yeah, Yeah. Who's going to question this? I mean Christy Kim, she is obviously an expert in her field. She's worked at the Houston Police Department crime lab for 17 years. She has a degree in biology. I mean, like no one in that court is questioning her credentials or her expertise, right? Yeah.

Celisia: exactly.

Speaker: Javier_Leiva: so Josiah's case just seemed hopeless, right? It just seemed like he just, You know, was found guilty despite this, you know, insurmountable evidence, right? And, but, but on November 2002, everything changed, right? Like this case, which seemed like it was closed, no hope for him, completely turned on its head.

Celisia: Yeah. So basically what happened was, um, a local news station in Houston had, Done this sort of like deep dive investigation into the crime lab. Um, and they had found just an obscene number of errors.

Speaker: And that was a segment that Josiah's mom, Carol Beatty, had been watching they hadn't specifically looked into Josiah's case, but it sort of had highlighted to her, like, there were issues. There was a possibility that maybe, you know, they would be able to free her son. Javier_Leiva: And she sprung to action, right? His, his mom just took that and ran with it.

Celisia: I remember when I talked to her, she basically said that she had jumped up. She'd never been so excited about something

Speaker: So she ends up emailing the local news outlet and kind of telling them about Josiah's case and asks, you know, figures out like maybe she can get. Josiah's records sent over to them for them to look at Sutton's lawyer had bad news on his test results. He said, well, your DNA is positive. And, uh, I was like, I How? I mean, how possible? Ain't no way. It's impossible. So a jury found Josiah Sutton guilty and sentenced him to 25 years. But Sutton still insists something's wrong. And now it turns out he may be right.

Celisia: They decided to send Josiah's records then to a criminologist that they had been working with, who's named William Thompson. And then William Thompson was going to give an independent review.

Speaker: As I look over the test results in a case like this, I think this is ridiculous. Remember when DNA analyst Christy Kim testified at trial that Josiah Sutton's DNA was a 1-in-694,000 match with the rapist’s? Well it turns out that Josiah Sutton's DNA wasn't found in any of the police samples. Thompson report concluded that

Celisia: He's an expert in DNA. Um, and so he looks at, uh, he looks at all of Josiah's records.

Speaker: The quality of the work here is in this lab is just grossly inadequate. I think that we have a clear miscarriage of justice here.

Celisia: Christy Kim ran tests on three separate DNA samples from the victim, but the resulting profiles were different, which is a big problem because if she can't get consistent results from the victim, how can she accurately analyze a more complex mixture in the rape kit?

Speaker: we all know that our DNA is unique, right? We all have an individual DNA profile. You got one. And so what was weird about some of Christy Kim's work is that she was, um, she had taken this DNA sample that was provided by the victim and She ran it three times to see, okay, what's, well, let's get a type, let's get a, like, get a, uh, a type four based on that sample. And every single one of those three times, she comes back with a different type for the victim. Which. is impossible. You got one. So that automatically should have been a major red flag for her work. If a technician can't reliably get consistent results from a single person, the victim, how can they accurately interpret a complex mixture with potentially multiple suspects? It turns out that DNA matching is more subjective that we were led to believe. statistics Javier_Leiva: We're really talking about probability and statistics here, right? Rather than the smoking gun that everyone thinks DNA is.

Celisia: why they talk about when they testify, when they're doing their research, when they're writing, you know, their papers, uh, and doing their studies, it's always written as a, like, probability. What is the probability that this person's sample matches the DNA found? It is never a slam dunk, but based on sort of popular media and how we kind of understood DNA and our culture, that's not our understanding.

Speaker: Javier_Leiva: That's true. Yeah. And, and you point out in your piece that just the fact that there is DNA evidence could be enough for somebody to take a guilty plea just because they feel like. Hey, I, how am I going to, you know, defend myself against DNA evidence when in culture and in our society, we think it is a slam dunk when really there's a lot more gray area, right?

Celisia: Yeah, exactly. And I think in general, you know, most cases end in a plea bargain. You know, most folks plea out and, and, and that's in a case where there is DNA or isn't DNA. So if you have DNA evidence that's being held against you, um, It doesn't matter if you think you're innocent, right? Because you're also up against a system that will prosecute you based on the evidence presented.

Speaker: And if you're in front of a jury of your peers, you know, I'm saying that in quotes, I guess, if you're in front of a jury, then that all of that sort of like cultural understanding really does play into their north carolina Javier_Leiva: you mentioned that in some places like in North Carolina, analysts are even compensated for the work that leads to conviction. So talk about some of the incentives that these DNA analysts have to, to produce results, to produce convictions.

Celisia: , yeah, in North Carolina, analysts are able to be compensated, um, for work if it does lead to a conviction. That's obviously a messed up incentive because,

Speaker: if I find a match and that leads to conviction and I payout, that maybe is going to lead me to be less critical. I'm not going to be going out of my way to make sure it wasn't actually a match. shutting down the lab Javier_Leiva: what ended up happening with Christy Kim, the DNA analyst who was working this case for Houston Police Department?

Celisia: yeah, so once Roma Khanna and the other reporters at the local news outlet had kind of looked into the case, they also were kind of diving into the background of the crime lab and the people that were working there. And they actually found that nobody who worked at that DNA lab, so not just Christy Kim, but none of the analysts, had the proper education that they needed to do their job.

Speaker: Only one of those analysts had even completed, like, the necessary math and science courses, which is pretty, pretty disturbing, obviously. Like, I feel like this is complex stuff for us to even be discussing, much less the one actually, you know, being trusted to testify on this. You would think you would have had these sort of foundational undergrad classes, even. Um, And, you know, we're talking also just kind of some of the basic classes, statistics, genetics, biochem, biology, like super foundational stuff. Um, and they also found that there wasn't any sort of like testing methods to ensure that any of these analysts had actually mastered these skills. So even if it's like, okay, maybe they didn't take the classes, but they figured they learned this stuff on the job, or they had some sort of like training experience where they were able to like pick up these skills. There was no testing or, um, you know, sort of like checking, you know, accountability to make sure that those things were actually known. Um, and for Christy Kim in particular, she had never even taken a statistics class, which is again, highly disturbing in a field where, which relies so heavily on statistics. And they, when they were like analyzing her work in particular, they found a ton of, uh, statistical mistake, statistical mistakes. Um, and even the person who was leading the crime lab, the founder of the crime lab, lacked expertise. Um, one of the former DNA supervisors, after failing his proficiency exam and getting suspended for mismanagement, was actually promoted to head of quality control. Um, so it's kind of just, not only was it the individual analyst. didn't have the proper education, but the people who are leading up the lab are supposed to be kind of like steering the direction of the ship were not making any moves to improve the accuracy of the findings that was coming out of the crime lab. Javier_Leiva: and ultimately the crime lab was forced to close right and undergo this review. Um,

Celisia: it. Thankfully. I mean, it was very lucky that the, these investigators had looked into it to begin with, but, um, so yeah, they had to shut down while it was, while the review is being. And they were also reviewing all these cases to figure out, look, like, are there other cases, um, like Josiah's, like the sort of, like, are any of these errors that we found, did they actually lead to wrongful convictions?

Speaker: Time is a tricky concept to swallow. Because of this faulty DNA evidence, it took the jury two hours to reach a verdict. And a 25 year sentence for a crime Josiah did not commit. His life, as he knew it, was over. Just like that. Here's Carol Beatty, Josiah's mom. mom: In some way, me and my family was in prison. We didn't celebrate Christmas. We didn't celebrate holidays. You know, I always had this thing to take family portraits with my kids. We didn't do that because it was always a missing piece. In prison, Josiah earned his GED and turned to his faith. Luckily, the investigative news piece into the Houston PD crime lab aired when it did, and Josiah's mom happened to be watching that night. Otherwise, Josiah would still be in prison today. 4 and a half years into his sentence, Josiah Sutton was finally released. But his conviction stayed. It wasn't until a year after leaving prison, that Texas Governor Rick Perry pranted his pardon. And what did the state of Texas give Josiah for this miscarriage of justice? $118 THOUSAND dollars. $26 thousand dollars for every year he lost. Life after prison was tough. Josiah's mom said he has a tough time maintianing relationships... even with his own family. And his kids are older now and they're getting angry because they have not established a relationship with him as of today. And he has trouble finding a job. Not because he doesn't want to work but because most places won't hire him. Josiah does not work because most places will not hire him because the arrest record is still there. CLOSE mom: I want to thank Celissia Stanton with the Truer Crime Podcast with her help on this episode. If you're interested in learning more about josiah's case, check out her episode about him. She goes into much more details, that just didn't make it into this episode. Before working on today's show, I would have never considered DNA junk science. From my lack of understanding, it seemed like the ultimate barometer of truth. But now, it doesn't seem so clear. I don't know if i would go as far as putting DNA in the same catagory as using witching rods or psychics in an investigation. It's still a powerful tool. But it's only powerful, because we as a society believe it is. And in the wrong hands, and weilded just right, it's clear it can destroy lives. When forensic scientists cut corners, they could potentially let guilty people walk free. And who pays the price for that? The victim's family, knowing that the person who destroyed their family is just out there. Or having to relitigate their criminal cases all over again, which takes a tremendous toll. On the flipside, sloppy DNA work can lead to the conviction of innocent people like Josiah Sutton. We talked about two different cases today. Two different DNA analyst, Missy Woods in Colorado and Christy Kim from the Houston PD crime lab. Their stories proved that manipuating DNA work has the potential to destroy lives. So next time you hear a case hangs soley on DNA evidence, take that with a grain of salt. Defense lawyers, do your own independent testing. Law enforcement agencies, make sure you have the proper oversight to make sure the people doing this type of work are properly trained and aren't overloaded with too much work. I know it's easier said than done. But at least we all know the pressures at hand and we can make better decisions when a prosecutor is waving DNA evidence in our face.