How We Research, Verify and Preserve the Record

Historical accounts are rarely complete at first publication. News reports may disagree, official statements can change, court proceedings develop, and a photograph or firsthand account may circulate without enough context. The same discipline applies to Hadi’s case and to the wider July 2024 record.

A useful public record lets readers see who said something, when, on what basis and with what limits. It preserves disagreement when the evidence cannot resolve it. These principles guide the site’s editorial work; they are not a claim that every existing entry has passed an identical or complete verification process.

The record draws on institutional publications, public statements, independent journalism, original recordings, photographs and documents. A firsthand account or archived webpage can be a lead, but its origin and context still need examination. The aim is to reach the statement’s origin, not repeat an unattributed version of it.

The current source registry uses the tiers below. It has no Tier A or D records or public labels for them; those categories are not presented here as operating classifications. A tier identifies origin and proximity, never a percentage of truth.

An established event, a reported statement, an allegation, a denial, an opinion and an editorial interpretation do different work. The wording and attribution must tell a reader which one is being presented. Source authenticity and verification of a claim are separate questions.

For example, an authentic newspaper article may show that investigators made an allegation. It does not establish the allegation’s truth. An order may establish that a court took a procedural step, without proving assertions in a filing. These are illustrative distinctions, not examples of a particular case event.

Cross-checking asks whether accounts have independent origins, whether dates and identities match, and whether an original document or recording supports the exact wording. Headlines alone are insufficient. Later corrections, denials and legal developments can materially change how an earlier report should be read.

Two sources do not form a mechanical proof rule. Different counts, chronologies or witness descriptions may reflect changed information, different definitions or a real disagreement. When the available material cannot settle it, the public account should identify each source and preserve the uncertainty rather than manufacture consensus.

An allegation, investigation, arrest, charge, trial, conviction, acquittal and court order have distinct meanings. Arrest does not establish guilt; a charge is not a conviction; a filing is not a judicial finding. Even an authenticated court record proves neither every claim it quotes nor every allegation it contains.

A legal status belongs to the correct person, case, court and date. It can change. A historical description must not be presented as a current status without a current supporting source. The investigation record distinguishes investigators’ statements from findings; the court register records procedural developments; and the case evidence catalogue shows how selected records bear on claims.

A consequential allegation about an identifiable person needs its originating source, exact attribution and relevant response or denial in view. Publication requires human editorial judgment about the available evidence, legal status and potential harm; this site does not claim a universal two-reviewer clearance or continuous court monitoring.

An event date, document date, publication date, retrieval date and editorial review date are different facts. A report published on Tuesday may describe Monday’s event. A photograph can enter an archive years after it was taken. The chronology model supports exact days, months, years, ranges, approximate dates and unknown dates.

Where only a month is established, an exact day is not supplied for visual neatness. When later evidence changes a date, the attribution and related records need review. The same care applies to the broader July history, including its public events, participants, survivors and accountability questions.

Before publication, wording should be checked against the source, uncertainty carried into the headline and summary, and consequential allegations attributed. Relevant denials, responses and subsequent findings should be considered when available. A source appearing in a catalogue is not evidence of a completed independent review of every statement it contains.

Private contact details, identifying documents, medical information, unreleased evidence and details that could endanger a witness or survivor are not published simply because they appear in material obtained by the project. Graphic violence is not used as illustration. Human review can call for metadata only, redaction, restricted access or withholding an item entirely.

Citation is different from permission to reproduce. A public webpage, photograph or recording may remain with its publisher while this site records its metadata and link. A licensed copy, permitted derivative or restricted item requires its own rights and access decision.

Pages disappear, reports are revised and recordings become unavailable. A useful source record retains its creator or issuer, original address, publication details, source type, associated claim and rights information where known. An authorized capture, when held, should be distinguishable from the publisher’s original and from a later derivative.

The public source registry currently keeps basic publication metadata and original links, without a general capture or retrieval history. Some court documents are known through reporting but have not been acquired as files. The archive does not promise permanent copies of every external source. An absence in this collection does not show that a historical event did not occur.

A wrong date, misidentification, inaccurate attribution, missing context, corrected source, new court development or rights concern can require a change. A consequential revision should explain what changed and retain appropriate editorial context, rather than silently converting an earlier allegation into an established fact.

Changes to the published record currently depend on manual editorial work. There is not yet a public correction-submission channel or a site-wide revision log. Those mechanisms remain work to establish; the absence of a form is not a reason to describe the existing record as final. The archive is selective, some records are inaccessible, and disputed evidence may remain unresolved even after careful review. The corrections account explains the distinctions and present limits.