Legal Expert: I've been involved in DNA analysis, the results are from another organization.

Witness William Goodwin during his testimony at The Hague stated that he was not involved in DNA analysis, nor in the process from the beginning, nor in the creation of reports he read during instructions.

As a result, he claimed that his origins are actually conclusions of others.

<x0)

Afterward, the lawyer told the witness in the form of the question that sometimes the report can be identified and sometimes not”. The witness confirmed this, adding that he never spoke to the people who gave him such reports.

He even added that the prosecution did not ask them either.

I didn't ask for it, nor did I ask for it”, the witness said.

The witness claimed that all reports were sourced by the ICMP and that the witness had written a report for one.

He also confirmed that these reports cited an identity compliance with persons linked to this court case.

Goodwin claimed that the prosecution gave him some information as a basis for his work and that he was asked to be focused on his answers.

Kadri Wessel's lawyer, Colleen Rohan, asked the witness whether he was asked by the prosecution to do a new analysis of the first one that means Tʹi himself analyzed DNA profiles and draw conclusions for himself where the probability of a match would be.

“From a practical point of view not required. I've never done a review of the analysis, I've revised the findings”, said Goodwin denying that he was asked to essentially prove the accuracy or authenticity of those data.

He also confirmed that he was not asked to see if the methodology practiced is in line with relevant standards.

As for the reports, he confirmed that samples have been extracted from the bones during exhumation processes. So what Goodwin saw in these reports were tests from the skeleton remains of exhumation.