Just the Facts *No Discussion*

Please post links to support what is claimed as fact.

Hi all, I've stickied Cymbeline's post as a "No Discussion" thread. The goal of this thread is to provide a fact based list of information.

Here are the basic rules:

• Please post a single fact per post with a supporting link.
• The link must point to a court document or police report.
• Youtube interrogation videos are fine as long as you include the time mark.

For example:


For the above "example" the link points to the document, nn is the page, and ll is the line number, if applicable.

Again, this is a "No Discussion" only thread. So, no commentary. Just the fact and the corresponding link. Notably, any post that does not meet this criteria will be unapproved, as opposed to moved. So, if your post disappears, that's why.

That said, thanks in advance for helping to build this thread!

Death record of TH:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Exhibit-16-Halbach-Death-Certificate.pdf

*I get on my soapbox ready to talk about Lab Testing*

Note: Forensic labs are notorious for not following requirements defined by regulations.

Link: Basic science, Analytical chemistry, and also here.
Quotes:
"Contamination with human material, however, is a possible source of concern for DNA tests."

"The important consequences of those sorts of contamination are that samples might appear to be mixtures of material from several persons and, in the worst case, that only the contaminating type might be detected."

"Knowledge of the genetic types of people who might contribute contaminating material can be used to assess the possibility of contamination from those people. Testing for multiple loci increases the chance of differentiating between contaminant and true sources of a sample. Finally, redundancy in testing provides a consistency check; the chance that multiple samples would all be contaminated the same way is small."

"A wrongly accused person's best insurance against the possibility of being falsely incriminated is the opportunity to have the testing repeated. Such an opportunity should be provided whenever possible. As we have previously noted, retesting provides an opportunity to identify and correct errors that might have been made during the course of analysis.

Whenever feasible, investigative agencies and testing laboratories should provide for repeat testing. Evidence items should be divided into two or more parts at the earliest possible time, and one or more parts retained for possible repeat testing. Ideally, the division should be made before DNA is extracted, and each part should be handled by different personnel. If division before DNA extraction is not feasible, the division should be made as soon as possible afterward and certainly before any analytical tests are initiated. Retained samples should be stored separately from analyzed samples under conditions that inhibit deteriorative loss, that is, at freezer temperatures and, for intact specimens, in the dry state. If retesting is called for, it should be done by an independent laboratory with different personnel. A defendant who believes that the match is spurious should welcome the opportunity for an independent repeat test. Legal aspects of retesting are discussed in Chapter 6."

Link: any Lab Quality Control procedure. GLP.

An analyse must make a note of inconsistencies including contamination at the time that it happens. Just because you can identify the source of the contamination when looking at data, it doesn't mean that you may speculate on the source of the contamination. There is also proof that you contaminated one sample, so there is no reason not to suspect that you didn't contaminate another sample even if it is different sources of contamination. You have show that whatever you were doing in the lab is invalid for the whole group of samples not just one sample. You need to retest the sample and only report the results if all the Quality Control samples pass. If you can't retest, you're .

Zellner's filing as of August 18, 2022: