"Under any circumstances, the first step is to determine whether or not there is DNA that can be identified, foreign to the victim, and then once we get past that stage, we could then compare any DNA that was found." - Mike Nifong, March 31, 2006 [MSNBC]
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Take yourself outside the Hoax for a minute and imagine the ramifications of the illegal Nifong-Meehan conspiracy in the context of a hypothetical real crime, instead of the imaginary one hijacked by Inspecteur da. Imagine a genuine victim of a brutal, thirty minute gang rape, rather than a false accuser perpetrating a Hoax. Considering the circumstances as described by the pseudo-victim as if they were real and the subsequent actions of Dr. Meehan and District Attorney Nifong offers frightening consequences for future real victims.
Imagine that a hypothetical victim was actually raped orally, vaginally, and anally by multiple men. A rape kit, collected immediately after the attack, was soon forwarded to Dr. Meehan’s “lab” for analysis. Dr. Meehan identified eighteen semen and epithelial fragments. With the understanding that the hypothetical victim stated that she had no consensual sexual relations in the week prior to the attack, the conclusion can only be that the DNA evidence collected from inside the victim and on her undergarments is that of her assailants. Forty six possible suspects’ DNA is compared to the DNA left behind by the attackers. Each of the forty six suspects is definitively excluded by Dr. Meehan’s testing as the source of each of the eighteen semen and epithelial fragments found. The hypothetical victim, confronted with the evidence of DNA not belonging to the expected suspects, is then asked if she did have a consensual partner that perhaps she had been afraid to admit to. The hypothetical victim offers a list of multiple consensual partners, all of whom are then tested as possible sources of the DNA found. Only one of the partners from the list provided by the hypothetical victim matches one of the eighteen fragments recovered. Multiple fragments from multiple men remain unidentified. In a case involving a genuine victim, wouldn’t the conclusion by an honest lab and an honest DA acting as chief police investigator then be that the unidentified DNA belonged to the predators who committed the crime? Would any reputable lab or ethical prosecutor find that information irrelevant, or worse yet, conspire together to hide it?
It’s difficult to imagine that an honest investigator would not at that point conclude that the unidentified DNA, which did not belong to the genuine victim’s consensual partners, must belong to the unknown attackers. Logically, how else could semen from five, or more, additional men find its way into her rectum, her mouth, and her panties? If not derived from consensual relations, then it must have come from the true victim's rape. After reaching this conclusion, does an ethical prosecutor working as chief investigator then pursue the scientific evidence that points in very specific directions? Or does he ignore it and indict random people who this scientific evidence specifically and irrefutably eliminates as suspects?
If this had been an actual gang rape, rather than a fabricated Hoax, real predators would even now remain dangerously at large, while innocent men were being persecuted in their stead. For all the victim advocates who have championed DA Nifong’s actions in the Hoax, yesterday’s revelation that he willfully ignored evidence, which in any other situation would firmly point to the actual perpetrators, must be a devastating realization. For months, victim advocates have blindly supported the man they thought genuinely believed the pseudo-victim. But now, it appears the entire time he only pretended to believe her as an excuse to capitalize on her false accusations for his own political benefit. If Nifong genuinely believed the accuser, his only recourse upon discovery of the existence of multiple unidentified DNA fragments that did not match the listed consensual partners, nor the initial suspects, would have been to pursue the actual sources of the DNA. Instead, he callously chose to indict politically expedient, yet provably innocent, young men. It is impossible to believe that an ethical prosecutor working as chief investigator of a real crime would make that same choice.
By championing DA Nifong’s willful disregard of DNA evidence, victim advocates, and each and every other Nifong supporter, have also championed egregious actions that, if allowed to go unpunished, gravely damage the genuine claims of real victims everywhere.