Attorney Shelley Mack has responded to the Outpost’s questions about claims she makes in her complaint against the city of Arcata. Unfortunately, she didn’t reply until five days after first contacted, and the story was published without her comments.

Following is a summation of the Outpost’s questions and Mack’s replies:

Outpost: First, you say the knife found at the scene of David Josiah Lawson’s fatal stabbing was later determined to be the murder weapon. This has never been said before. Could you tell me how you confirmed that evidence? The judge who refused to hold (Kyle) Zoellner to answer stated it was unknown whether the knife found was the weapon used on Lawson. And as you know, the one fingerprint on the knife was not Zoellner’s, and fibers on the knife did not match his clothing.

Mack: Several months after the preliminary hearing, the APD confirmed to the Lawson family that the knife found at the scene is indeed the murder weapon. To clarify with respect to the print found on the knife, the APD has told the Lawson family that that print is a smudged partial palm print, not a finger print, and that the print is so damaged as to be useless for purposes of either ruling Zoellner in or out as its source. At least based on what I and Ms. Lawson have personally been told by the APD, I do not believe it is accurate to say that that smudged partial palm print was “not Zoellner’s” — it simply is too damaged and incomplete to confirm or exclude him as the source. Additionally, while the preliminary analysis of the fibers found on the knife found that they did not match the clothing Zoellner was wearing that night, it bears noting that the APD chose not to collect any of the clothing Zoellner’s companions were wearing that night, so we will never know whether those fibers would have matched items worn by Ortega, Wilkins, McFarland, or Gleaton.

Outpost: Second, you state Lawson was stabbed multiple times with a 10-inch kitchen knife. Can you tell me how and when this was determined?

Mack: By the autopsy conducted by Dr. Mark Super. These details are part of his autopsy report.

Outpost: At the preliminary hearing, the knife was described as 10 inches long with a 6-inch blade. How was the total length of the knife established?

Mack: I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to this question. Our information regarding the length of the knife comes solely from the conclusions the APD has disclosed to us, but I do not know the process by which they or Dr. Super reached those conclusions.

Outpost: Third, you state the Arcata Police Department has never analyzed Zoellner’s cellphone or computers. Zoellner went to court in late June 2017 to ask for his computers, and his request was denied because of the ongoing investigation. Can you confirm how you know the computers have never been analyzed?

Mack: The APD and Arcata city officials have told the Lawson family, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that these devices have not yet been analyzed.

Outpost: Fourth, you indicate blood from both Lawson and Zoellner was found on the knife, and further testing needs to be done to determine whether blood from others might be present. No-one involved with the investigation has ever said blood of any kind was found on the knife. During the preliminary hearing, the fingerprint and fibers were discussed but blood was never mentioned.

Mack: At the time of the preliminary hearing, preliminary forensic analysis was still underway and had not yet been completed. Once those preliminary results came back, I want to say around October of 2017, the APD told the Lawson family that those results showed multiple DNA contributors, including Lawson, Zoellner, and potentially at least one other contributor. The evidence is now in line for DNA deconvolution testing at the State DOJ lab, which should be able to separate the DNA strands and identify the various separate contributors. I understand that the DNA deconvolution testing software is still being installed, debugged and tested at the state DOJ, and once it is up and running, this evidence will be on a second-tier testing list because the state DOJ lab gives first priority to evidence from cases where a suspect already is in custody, so it could be many months before those results are available.