GUILTY GA - Tara Baker, 23, Athens, 19 Jan 2001 *Arrest 2024*

[Weki]

Judge threw the whole law library at defendant! Two life sentences + 2-3 consecutive sentences equalling 45 years.

Defendant and his attorney were chatting and acting unbothered. Wow. So innocent and so unbothered! The injustice! LOL

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Does Chris Melton get charged for lying about his alibi for 23 years to police?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Watching the sentencing now and defense lied to the court and said they never got notice that the state was going to use prior convictions in its sentencing argument. When the prosecutor corrected him and said they had provided notice, the defense asked the judge to review the record (why isn't he reviewing the record to ascertain? It's not the judge's job!). Judge was ready though! She's used to this defense lawyer's games and she said she had reviewed the record and the state is correct. And he had to shut his mouth and sit down.

A few minutes later he got back up and argued again that there's a specific timeline for the notice that the state failed to meet in their updated notice and got overruled again!

Why are you focusing more on the defense lawyer than you are on the facts of the case? Who cares what the defense lawyer says. I mean yeah the uppity black guy I guess really enrages people. How about thinking about the mislabeled swabs? How about thinking about why didn't they test for Edward Fausts DNA 23 years ago? Why don't you think about why Tara Baker's DNA didn't show up on her own swabs? Why don't you think about how did police let Chris Melton get away with lying about his alibi for 23 years? You know those are the important things to think about. Not, wow, that black attorney has a snippy attitude.

 

[tricia]

​

We’re trying something new — a two-day Guardian Zoom.
Join us Today (Friday) and Saturday from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM Eastern. (Friday, Feb 20th, and Saturday, Feb 21st.)
You do not have to stay the whole time. Pop in, say hi, stay five minutes or stay all afternoon.
*We’ll talk moderation questions,
*Discuss anyone interested in becoming a volunteer mod?
*Cover whatever chaos the day brings. Former Prince Andrew arrested? Is the world losing its mind?
As always, it will be lively, unpredictable, and fun. You truly never know what will happen.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
If you want to become a Guardian member for 3 dollars a month and help keep Websleuths ad-free, CLICK HERE

 

[Rikissa]

Article from 19 February 2026:

On Tuesday, a Clarke County jury found Edrick Lamont Faust guilty of the 12 charges he faced, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sodomy, burglary, tampering with evidence, and first-degree arson.

Man convicted of murdering UGA law student Tara Baker sentenced to life in prison

Edrick Faust, the man convicted for the 2001 murder of University of Georgia law student Tara Louise Baker will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[SeesSeas]

Another thing I learned in the trial today, from one of the lab techs Ashley Hinkle, was that this time around, they used a DNA lab test that was established in 2017. So we know that the DNA from this case could have been at least been tested in 2017. And I'm wondering why nobody tried to test it in 2017 with the latest tech. That was 6 years before he was arrested. If it was a money problem, I'm sure the family and others could have contributed with some donations to test the DNA. And I don't think DNA tests are that expensive nowadays.

But just because they used the latest tech from 2017 this time around, does not mean that that was the test that they 'needed' to use. Could they have used earlier versions of these tests? Because I still have not heard what exactly what new technology they needed back then, that they did not have back in 2001. I've listened to all the testimony and I'm still not clear on that yet. The state has just rested, and so maybe the defense will bring that up.

Because I think that's an important question. Why didn't they match the DNA back then? The first time. People are assuming it's because of new technology, but I have not heard one thing that's says that explicitly. I have not heard any tech say, well we needed to use this new specific type of test, and this is when this new test was established etc. One of the techs said that they used the ability to separate out male and female DNA to get the male DNA. And I looked that up and I saw they had that back in 2000. So I want to know what it was they needed, and when it was that that test was established. Because I find it highly unusual they could not match the DNA the first time around, since they said they got DNA, and because they had the match in the CODIS system back then. So what went wrong there.

I think this likely explains how they eventually matched the DNA:

Switching to 20 Core CODIS Loci and the Impact on SAKI Testing | Office of Justice Programs

This training and technical assistance resource for grantees of the federal Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) - which involves implementation of a model to reduce backlogs of untested sexual assault kits (SAKs) in local and state jurisdictions - provides information on and suggestions for...

www.ojp.gov

Switching to 20 Core CODIS Loci
On January 1, 2017, laboratories participating in the national DNA Index System (NDIS) switched to a DNA amplification kit that types a minimum of 20 core loci from the CODIS to align with the FBI requirement that was enacted that same day. Expanding the CODIS core loci became imperative as CODIS continued to grow in size, so as to reduce the possibility of fictitious matches. Other benefits of expanding the core loci are also outlined in this paper. Regarding vendor response to this change, three main vendors dominate the U.S. market for amplification kit chemistry, and each designed kits to test, at a minimum, the 20 core loci; improve discrimination power; increase recovery of degraded and inhibited samples; and heighten sensitivity. Vendors also decided to include additional markers compatible with earlier versions of kits and/or adding in Y-STR markers, creating 24- to 27-locus kits. Some examples of the names of these locus kits are listed in this paper. This paper advises that collaboration with laboratory personnel is critical during this transition period. The laboratory can help in determining whether samples involved in CODIS hits that were processed with different kits would benefit from additional testing or explain when further testing is unwarranted or unnecessary. Profiles developed with the 13 core CODIS loci are valuable, and effort should be made to obtain the proper documentation for upload authorization.
:

CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet | Federal Bureau of Investigation

A compilation of frequently-asked questions about the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the National DNA Index System (NDIS).

www.fbi.gov

19. What are the CODIS core loci?​

Effective January 1, 2017, the CODIS Core Loci include the following 20 loci:
[...]

The Original CODIS Core Loci, required from October 1998 until December 31, 2016, included the following 13 loci:
[...]
^ ^ ^ At the FBI.gov link is a list of the current 20 core loci and the previous 13 core loci.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I think this likely explains how they eventually matched the DNA:

Switching to 20 Core CODIS Loci and the Impact on SAKI Testing | Office of Justice Programs

This training and technical assistance resource for grantees of the federal Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) - which involves implementation of a model to reduce backlogs of untested sexual assault kits (SAKs) in local and state jurisdictions - provides information on and suggestions for...

www.ojp.gov

Switching to 20 Core CODIS Loci
On January 1, 2017, laboratories participating in the national DNA Index System (NDIS) switched to a DNA amplification kit that types a minimum of 20 core loci from the CODIS to align with the FBI requirement that was enacted that same day. Expanding the CODIS core loci became imperative as CODIS continued to grow in size, so as to reduce the possibility of fictitious matches. Other benefits of expanding the core loci are also outlined in this paper. Regarding vendor response to this change, three main vendors dominate the U.S. market for amplification kit chemistry, and each designed kits to test, at a minimum, the 20 core loci; improve discrimination power; increase recovery of degraded and inhibited samples; and heighten sensitivity. Vendors also decided to include additional markers compatible with earlier versions of kits and/or adding in Y-STR markers, creating 24- to 27-locus kits. Some examples of the names of these locus kits are listed in this paper. This paper advises that collaboration with laboratory personnel is critical during this transition period. The laboratory can help in determining whether samples involved in CODIS hits that were processed with different kits would benefit from additional testing or explain when further testing is unwarranted or unnecessary. Profiles developed with the 13 core CODIS loci are valuable, and effort should be made to obtain the proper documentation for upload authorization.
:

CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet | Federal Bureau of Investigation

A compilation of frequently-asked questions about the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the National DNA Index System (NDIS).

www.fbi.gov

19. What are the CODIS core loci?​

Effective January 1, 2017, the CODIS Core Loci include the following 20 loci:
[...]

The Original CODIS Core Loci, required from October 1998 until December 31, 2016, included the following 13 loci:
[...]
^ ^ ^ At the FBI.gov link is a list of the current 20 core loci and the previous 13 core loci.

Yeah it had such great new powers, but it didn't even detect Tara Baker's DNA on her own swabs. Do you have any idea why that happened?

Also I don't believe that it was stated in the trial that they actually needed this test to get the DNA match. Yes I'm sure a new test helped but do we know for certain that they could not have gotten it before? You know what would have been interesting, is to run the test with the old DNA test and see if they got the same match. I will bet 10 bucks that it would have been exactly the same.

But even still, then the Tara Baker investigators when they heard about a new DNA test in 2017, should have tested it in 2017. In fact every time there was a new style test they should have tested it again. If they were taking that case as seriously as they claimed to take it, they should have done that.

Apparently they had to wait for the Coleman Baker act to test the DNA again. I find it odd that they did not retest after 2017 or after new tech came out, instead they tested it after 2023 that 'required' that they reinvestigate the case. Which the family had to force through, through the governor. Because they didn't feel like the police were still investigating the case properly. I mean that's why that act came about, because the family and friends felt like they weren't getting good service from the police. So they had to make an actual LAW to get the police to act correctly and force investigators to test the DNA again. So everyone's acting like that new law was such a great thing, but it came about because there was a lot of frustration from the families.

Then surprise surprise they finally find the DNA on it. Once they made an actual law saying that the family now had access to all the information. And I would assume that would include even the DNA samples.