Cassian Creed

True crime, told to be understood — not consumed as entertainment. Sourced case files. Every victim named in life first. What's proven vs. what's still open, on every case. The Case Files of Cassian Creed are open → cassiancreed.com

4/ Our take: the answer isn't fear. It's honest rules — transparent permissions, narrow use, a lead is not proof, and confirmation before any name is announced. Full piece here: cassiancreed.com/post/whose-con… #Genealogy #GeneticGenealogy

3/ It gets harder across borders: a sample in one country, matched to relatives who tested in another, under very different rules. "Europe bans it, the US allows it" is too simple — both are patchworks.

1/ Forensic genetic genealogy can put a name to someone who was lost for decades. It can also identify a person who never took a DNA test — through a cousin who did. When genetic data is shared across a family, whose consent counts? 🧵

4/ Presumption of innocence is absolute. We report the record as it stands, for the children and for a fair process.

3/ On the charges: the strangulation/suffocation counts were dropped (nolle prosequi) on July 9 as redundant. The charge structure is three counts of first-degree murder. Judge William F. Sullivan presides.

1/ Two clarifications on the Lindsay Clancy case as jury selection begins Monday in Plymouth. Accuracy matters here. 🧵

4/ Why we cover this: a fair process is what lets a verdict mean something. Presumption of innocence stays absolute. We follow the record, for the victims and for the integrity of the outcome.

3/ An RJA finding doesn't decide guilt. It addresses *how* the system handled the case — bias in charging, in argument, in process — and gives the court tools to correct it, from reduced charges to other remedies.

1/ A Racial Justice Act violation isn't a technicality. In California, it means a court found race played a role in how a case was charged or tried — and the law requires a remedy. Here's what that actually means. 🧵

4/4: The evidence-literacy rule: do not count experts like votes. Compare methods, assumptions, source records, cross-examination and the evidence as a whole. After conviction, the legal question is whether new material meets the test for formal appellate review. We wrote a plain-language guide to reading evidence like a court does: cassiancreed.com/start-here/

3/4: Here, an international medical panel disputes the prosecution's medical interpretation. Other experts defend the trial evidence. The CCRC is reviewing new submissions; it has not ruled on guilt, and the convictions remain in force. That is the record — without declaring either side proved by a press conference.

1/4: The babies' families remain at the center of the Lucy Letby case. Their loss and continuing trauma should never become fuel for an online faction fight. But the new expert scrutiny raises a real evidence-literacy question: what happens when qualified experts disagree after a verdict?

4/4: This is one of the clearest goods this science can do: return identity, give a family an answer and replace "John Doe" with a person's name. We write about how this science works at cassiancreed.com

3/4: It took preserved evidence, forensic-grade DNA sequencing, genetic-genealogy research, family-tree leads, interviews and reference DNA from possible relatives. Those leads guided investigators; comparison and the full record confirmed the identification.

1/4: Joseph Louis Serrao Jr. was from Hawaii. His family last heard from him in 1998, after he had traveled in Washington. For nearly 26 years after his remains were found near the Sol Duc River, the public knew him only as a John Doe.

4/4: Cora, Dawson, and Callan are why care with this process matters. A fair trial protects the integrity of the verdict, the rights of the accused, and the children's memory. Our plain-language guide to what happens on day one: cassiancreed.com/post/what-actu…

3/4: "Impartial" does not mean arriving with no opinions. In a widely discussed case, that may be unrealistic. It means being able to follow the judge's instructions, test the prosecution's case against the required burden of proof, and decide without loyalty to either side.

1/4: Monday's first task in the Lindsay Clancy trial is not opening statements. It is jury selection. Voir dire asks a harder question than "Have you heard of this case?": Can you set aside what you have heard and decide only from evidence presented in court?