Clueless

.

Several months ago, District Attorney Mike Nifong released his expert witness list to the attorneys defending against his Hoax. At the time, it appeared curious that two experts from DNA Security, Inc. were listed among the expected witnesses. Considering the limited amount of DNA evidence revealed at the time, it appeared unlikely that the State would find significant value in presenting the opinions of two experts from DNA Security. According to the report provided by DNA Security, it appeared that the only DNA evidence to be addressed would be the non-exclusion of David Evans’ DNA from the DNA recovered from his bathroom trashcan and the DNA matched to the accuser’s boyfriend from her vaginal swab.

.

Considering that Dr. Brian Meehan was already on record as dismissing the value of the Evans' non-exclusion, it was even more difficult to decipher the anticipated expert testimony.

"A DNA link is not clear cut with the type of test used in this case, DNA experts told ABC News. ABC News spoke with DNA analysts, including Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security, the Burlington, N.C. laboratory that conducted the set of tests used in the case. All of the analysts agreed that the most one could say about a specific person — the alleged third attacker in the Duke rape investigation — was that he could not be ruled out, but also could not be definitively ruled in." ABC News

Noting that, by law, the District Attorney was prevented from fluffing up his witness list with experts he did not reasonably expect to call, the puzzle became slightly more complicated.

“Give notice to the defendant of any expert witnesses that the State reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the State shall furnish to the defendant, a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The State shall also furnish to the defendant the expert's curriculum vitae, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The State shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subsection within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court.” § 15A‑903. (2)

The events of the past few days, however, have given some clarity to the issue. It appears that the experts from DNA Security will be called by District Attorney Mike Nifong not to validate their scientific findings but rather to debunk the science of DNA and the merits of their own laboratory. In what appears to be professional suicide, Dr. Brian Meehan gave a preview of what we might expect his testimony to resemble if the Hoax endures to trial. To explain how no DNA could be left behind by the suspects in the course of a thirty minute, brutal, condom-less gang rape, Dr. Meehan offered this explanation:

"A person can rob a bank and never leave a fingerprint; it doesn’t mean they didn’t rob a bank.”

We fully expect that Dr. Meehan will offer an equally non-scientific explanation for how he concluded that the overwhelming amount of unidentified DNA was somehow irrelevant.

While we have no idea what the second expert, Dr. Bo Scales, will be expected to testify to, we are curious to know if he was involved at all in the DNA testing or the analysis of the results. Dr. Scales is listed as DNA Security's technical leader but it appears that Dr. Scales may be a “technical leader” in name only. Considering that Dr. Scales serves as the director of his own laboratory in Brandon, Mississippi, the following comments from a recent article on Dr. Meehan may be quite telling.

"In 2003, Meehan decided he wanted to expand the company and get into forensic DNA testing, which is used in criminal investigations and court cases.

"Doing so meant Meehan's small lab had to be certified by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/ Laboratory Accreditation Board so that results of any tests he did would be admissible in court. While Meehan had the technical expertise -- he had worked in forensic DNA at National Legal Labs -- there were still plenty of hoops for his small company to jump through.

"He teamed up with another scientist in Mississippi who also ran a small DNA lab, and the two of them agreed to act as "technical leaders" for each other's companies. Having a technical leader was part of the certification requirement." Triangle Biz

According to the standards set by the FBI, a technical manager is defined as:

"Technical manager or leader (or equivalent position or title as designated by the laboratory director) is the individual who is accountable for the technical operations of the laboratory." FBI

There does not appear to be any requirement that the technical leader actually work on-site but rather they simply accept accountability for the technical operations of the lab. One can only wonder if that accountability extends to ensuring that the technical operations prevent the lab director from contaminating samples with his own DNA. Dr. Meehan concedes that this contamination undermines his own lab's credibility.

“Brad Bannon asked Meehan to discuss the concept of “transference.” Meehan feigned ignorance, so Bannon explained how the transference of one or two cells—from, say, intermingling in a trashcan, or through a spec of dandruff—can lead to finding a partial match of someone’s DNA on an item.

“The example he cited: Meehan’s own DNA, which was found on one of the items in the rape kit. Meehan conceded that this discovery (which he didn’t include in his initial “report”) undermined his lab’s credibility. And, of course, the theory offers the likely explanation for the partial match to Dave Evans’ DNA, on a fingernail that was in a trashcan in Evans’ bathroom.” KC Johnson

Considering the mutual back scratching arrangement that gives Dr. Meehan accountability for technical operations at Scales Biological Laboratory Scales Biological Laboratory, his ineptitude and apparent disdain for the science of DNA would also appear to call into question the credibility of Dr. Scales' lab. KC Johnson is reporting that the agency responsible for accreditation of DNA labs has agreed to investigate DNA Security, Inc.

“In last Friday’s court session, Dr. Brian Meehan admitted that he and Mike Nifong entered into an agreement to intentionally exclude from his report any mention that DNA tests had discovered results from five unidentified males in the accuser’s rape kit.

"Meehan also conceded that the decision reached by Nifong and him violated his company’s protocols. It also ran counter to the Supreme Court’s Brady decision and North Carolina’s Open Discovery law. The former requires the state to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense; the latter requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence to the defense.

“Despite this revelation, there has been no sign that the North Carolina State Bar has abandoned its passive approach regarding Nifong’s misconduct. Meehan, however, might face a different fate.

“His lab is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). I emailed the board to ask if it planned to investigate Meehan’s accreditation status in light of Friday’s testimony. Executive Director Ralph Keaton responded,

“As the accrediting body for the laboratory in question, ASCLD/LAB will
conduct a review of the issue in question. ASCLD/LAB is aware of the ongoing legal process and will take that into consideration in determining
the appropriate time to review the circumstances.” KC Johnson

Since it is unknown to what degree Dr. Scales has participated, or intends to participate, in the Meehan-Nifong Conspiracy, it is unclear whether a review of Dr. Scales' lab accreditation appears to be warranted as well. One thing that is certain, however, is that Dr. Meehan’s inept reporting and complicity in the conspiracy to deceive the public and withhold evidence from the defense has raised the ire of his peers.

Forensic Talk’s Dr. Kathleen Eckelt shares her displeasure and that of another esteemed colleague at her website:

“No matter what field we are in, when colleagues fail to follow standard protocols and / or behave in an unethical or unprofessional manner, it sheds a bad light on all of us. The rest of us have worked too long and hard to create and maintain standards of protocol, to maintain our credibility, and our professionalism.

“Those in the forensics field don't appreciate having a profession they take pride in being placed in an unfair light or subjected to scorn and redicule (sic) because a small number choose to forget what professionalism is all about.

"Brent Turvey, of Forensic Solutions LLC, is a forensics scientist, criminal profiler, and consultant. He is the author of several forensics books including, Criminal Profiling, Rape Investigation Handbook, Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, and Crime Reconstruction.

"I contacted Brent after reading his posts and requested further comments.

"Kathleen ... State prosecutorial agencies, and those in their employ, have a duty to disclose ALL potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense, per Brady v. Maryland. What Dr. Meehan has admitted to, under oath, is that he personally conspired with prosecutors to conceal actual exculpatory findings from the defense. He has further testified that this is a violation of his own lab's policies - policies that he would have written. There is no good reason for such conduct, and there can be no excuses for such conduct. Moreover, Dr. Meehan has admitted to contaminating suspect samples with his own DNA. In other words, his house is not in order from a scientific perspective. A full investigation by ASCLD, the agency that certifies his lab, is warranted.

"This is no small matter for Dr. Meehan, or the private forensic lab industry. Dr. Meehan's conduct in this case has single-handedly demonstrated that privately funded and operated forensic labs are just as easily influenced by zealous prosecutors as their government lab counterparts.

"And to the question, "Have you ever willfully conspired with the prosecution to conceal evidence that you to be exculpatory?" - he must forever answer yes, while under oath in future cases. For many in the forensic science community, this would be a career headshot. - Brent" Forensic Talk

As a final note of curiosity regarding Dr. Meehan, it has been reported that DNA Security has not performed any public work prior to being contracted for the Hoax.

“DNA Security had done no public work, whether for a judge, district attorney, public defender or court appointed lawyer, according to financial records of the Administrative Office of the Courts dating to January 2002.” N&O

It appears that this report is not entirely accurate. Recently, DNASI hosted a two day workshop for crime scene investigators from Alamance County and other law enforcement agencies from across the country.

“Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the knife, or Mrs. White in the study with the gun?

“These were some of the questions crime scene investigators were asking themselves at DNA Security Labs crime scene training this week in Burlington, where they gathered for in-depth and forensic training.

“The two dozen investigators from across the country found that, without DNA analysis, solving a crime scene is a lot like playing Clue.” Times-News

Given the revelations of the past few days, these investigators would have been better served playing Clue than training with Dr. Meehan who quite obviously doesn’t have one.