EDITOR'S NOTE: (Forensic Magazine): "This article is a first-person narrative written by Andrew Draper, who is currently incarcerated at Sterling Correctional Facility in Colorado. In June 2009, Draper was sentenced to life without parole after he was convicted of murdering Monet Turner in June 2006. Now-disgraced CBI DNA analyst Yvonne Missy Woods analyzed DNA in Draper’s case, and also testified in court. In this article, Draper details some of the inconsistencies he believes he experienced at the hands of Woods. Forensic has been following the Woods scandal since it was made public in September 2023. On Monday, we reviewed three murder cases that have been impacted by Woods’ misconduct. Draper’s case is not officially one of them, but this article offers a relevant perspective given the current landscape.'
————————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In September 2023, the CBI finally began investigating Woods for her questionable lab practices after she admitted to manipulating and omitting data in hundreds of cases. This new evidence brought hope, but it also revealed just how precarious the truth can be in our justice system. Hundreds of convictions, spanning from 1994 to 2008, are now being reexamined due to Woods’ actions. Yet even in the face of these revelations, I remain imprisoned, my life hanging in the balance because of a system that values perception over fact and the person that killed Monet is still free."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO CAPTION: "While incarcerated, Andrew Draper has the University of Denver’s Prison Arts Initiative (DU PAI) — a program that connects incarcerated people and their communities through creative learning experiences. Draper has taken part in a podcast, radio shows, an arts journal, and more."
FIRST PERSON NARRATIVE: It was a warm June evening when Monet Turner called, asking me to come by. She had things weighing on her mind, and I hoped I could help ease her worries.
Monet was a quiet soul with a boundless curiosity and a sharp wit. At 23, she had an eagerness to learn, and despite her reserved nature, she often attended church with my mom.
She had been there for me during hard times, letting me stay with her when things were tough at home. That night we went to the park and spent time talking about spiritual things.
I never once suspected that would be the last time I’d see her alive. Just two days later, Monet was officially reported missing.
The day after she was reported missing, police discovered her body in a burned-out apartment in Aurora, Colorado, her life extinguished in a horrific act of violence.
Her apartment was drenched in gasoline, and she had been bound at her hands, feet, and neck. Evidence piled up against me, almost as though a case had been crafted before any meaningful investigation had even begun.
This is the story that the prosecution would tell.
I was seen on surveillance footage at a pawn shop, they claimed I had pawned Monet’s belongings.
A little while later, I was involved in a rollover car crash while driving Monet's car.
Once I was airlifted to the hospital police found among my belongings her cellphone, checkbook, and in my wallet was her check card.
As I lay gravely injured in the hospital, the police seized on every single item they found in my possession, using each one as a piece in their puzzle of presumed guilt.
Monet's apartment told its own terrifying story. Investigators found a gas can, lighter fluid, and three aerosol cans in the microwave (intended, they claimed, to make a bomb), a partially burnt paper towel tube, and various other random items that looked suspicious under the microscope of forensic examination.
They tested everything for fingerprints and DNA, and the results seemed to miraculously support the narrative the prosecution had begun to spin.
Using Monet’s phone, detectives pieced together a questionable trail.
They discovered calls made to a woman who had been in contact with a man named "Jack," a person she had met on a phone dating service using Monet’s phone number
. Based on this single association, detectives concluded that I was “Jack,” asserting that I was responsible for everything, even though I had never used Monet's phone.
The prosecution's story would make anyone look guilty—even I would question my own innocence if I didn’t know the facts that had been conveniently overlooked or twisted to fit their narrative.
For instance, the day before I met with Monet, she had flushed a drug dealer’s cocaine down the toilet, an act that didn’t go unnoticed.
This dealer, enraged, had threatened her life directly.
What exactly did the drug dealer say to me? Just use your imagination, three ounces of cocaine worth approximately $7,000 was lost that day to the Aurora sewers.
Although police insinuated that I was the last person to see Monet alive, witnesses saw her parking her car just two days after we last met.
On the same day the fire was set, a neighbor reported seeing a man leaving Monet’s apartment with her key, a man who did not match my description in the slightest.
The prosecution inferred that the person that killed Monet was using her cellphone.
At the time of the fire, I was seen on video camera at the pawnshop, and I was not using a phone.
There is proof that the drug dealer was using her cellphone, as calls were made to a lady he had met on a dating website, her friend, and several others.
These individuals told police in an official interview that they did not know me.
My clothes, which should have been soaked in gasoline if I had indeed set Monet’s apartment ablaze, contained no traces of fuel.
The items in Monet's apartment — the gas can, the lighter fluid — all bore DNA that didn’t match mine.
The aerosol cans contained DNA that was deemed "uninterpretable," and, astonishingly, a lab technician’s DNA was discovered on the paper towel tube they claimed I had used to ignite the fire.
The truth, as it turns out, lay buried under layers of forensic misconduct.
When DNA analyst Yvonne Missy Woods testified against me, her words carried weight.
She presented DNA evidence as though it were conclusive, even though her own practices, we would later discover, were deeply flawed.
A fingerprint analyst under her leadership, mixed my personal belongings with crime scene items on the same table, without changing gloves or following basic contamination procedures.
This same analyst admitted in court that he and another technician were "horseplaying" while analyzing critical pieces of evidence causing contamination.
In court, Yvonne Woods claimed my DNA linked me to Monet’s murder, though her own reports were filled with inconsistencies.
Ms. Woods stated that I matched DNA on the lighter but ten months later she reported a new male profile that could not be interpreted.
Female DNA was found on the grip of the gas can, ten months later she reported male DNA on that same gas can that excluded me.
In reference to a Coke can, from the crime scene, it was reported unidentified male DNA was found; 21 days later she said the Coke can had no DNA.
On one aerosol can in the microwave, Ms. Woods reported there was no DNA; a later report states that she found uninterpretable DNA.
Just to recap, none of the items that were used in the fire contained my DNA.
In September 2023, the CBI finally began investigating Woods for her questionable lab practices after she admitted to manipulating and omitting data in hundreds of cases.
This new evidence brought hope, but it also revealed just how precarious the truth can be in our justice system.
Hundreds of convictions, spanning from 1994 to 2008, are now being reexamined due to Woods’ actions.
Yet even in the face of these revelations, I remain imprisoned, my life hanging in the balance because of a system that values perception over fact and the person that killed Monet is still free.
The prosecution’s case stretched across nine and a half days, painting me as a cold-blooded killer.
In stark contrast, my defense attorney, under-resourced and unprepared, managed to muster just a single hour in my defense, calling only one witness.
The facts that should have exonerated me — the misidentification of a man leaving Monet’s apartment, the absence of gasoline residue on my clothes, and the flawed DNA testing procedures — went largely unmentioned.
Despite the long odds, I am determined to prove my innocence.
Woods’ admission, while devastating to others affected by her misconduct, offers a glimmer of hope for me.
I hope my story sheds light on the injustices and the cracks in our justice system, where the truth can be buried beneath powerful narratives and manipulated evidence.
Today, I’m fighting not just for my freedom, but for a chance to finally have my voice heard.
My story may be a tragic one, but it’s a call for change and a demand for justice — a plea for a system that values truth over perception and recognizes the grave impact of wrongful convictions."
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://www.forensicmag.com/3425-Featured-Article-List/616255-An-Incarcerated-Perspective-A-Disgraced-DNA-Analyst-and-a-Flawed-Justice-System/PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————-
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
