Red Flags and More Red Flags; White Flags to Come?

On May 3rd, immediately after his primary election victory, District Attorney Mike Nifong sought to reassure the public that his indictments of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty on April 17th for rape were valid. Describing the DNA reports that many believed strongly suggested the accused were innocent, he told WRAL,

“My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that they would not be asking if they saw the results…They're not things that the defense releases unless they unquestionably support their positions…So, the fact that they're making statements about what the reports are saying, and not actually showing the reports, should in and of itself raise some red flags."

Well, Nifong was right about a couple of things. Many people are asking many questions, and “not actually showing the reports” does indeed raise red flags. The problem, however, is that after reading the information contained in the defense motion yesterday, it is Nifong who should finally wave the white flag and end this ludicrous persecution of three obviously innocent young men. The motion details with impeccable precision all the information contained in the DNA reports, including all the information that was originally omitted and subsequently provided to the defense, ironically, only after a court order from Judge Smith. “Actually showing the reports,” and not just providing truncated summaries, required Nifong to reveal that the testing showed DNA from “multiple males in the accuser’s anus, in her pubic region, and on her panties.” None of these samples matched the DNA of any of the three accused players or any other members of the lacrosse team.

To briefly review the samples tested: There were (i) 5 stains on the accuser's panties; (ii) oral, cheek, vaginal, and rectal swabs; and (iii) a pubic hair comb. In many instances, the samples were a mixture, meaning multiple males deposited their DNA. The accuser’s boyfriend’s DNA matched the DNA recovered from the vaginal swab, but not the DNA recovered from the panties, rectal swab, or public hair comb. All of this evidence suggests the escort service engagements of the accuser in the days leading up to the lacrosse party, documented in Jarriel Johnson’s statement, involved a bit more than companionship. The News & Observer reported back in August that on April 4th Investigator Michelle Soucie took the following notes after a meeting with the District Attorney:

“Mike Nifong stated that: Also need documentation on escort service and how they do business…Need to nail down what victim did on the day before arriving at 610 N. Buchanan so we can show that she did not receive trauma prior to the incident -- with witnesses." N&O

The defense motion reveals that the presence of all the samples documented above was known before the indictments of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. The DNA extractions from the panties’ stains, vaginal swab, and rectal swab were performed on April 7th, and the DNA extractions from the pubic hair comb were performed on April 13th. What more evidence of the "how escort services do business" and the likely cause of the “trauma” (i.e, diffuse edema of the vaginal walls) could one possibly have? How in the world can one justify going to the grand jury with a deeply flawed identification, inconsistent stories, weak medical evidence, and overwhelming DNA evidence suggesting the accused are innocent? Furthermore, how can one justify hiding the exculpatory DNA evidence from the accused after they have been indicted and expected to stand trial?

In June, Newsweek’s Susannah Meadows tried to ask the District Attorney for information that might answer these questions. In a tersely worded e-mail, the District Attorney lamented:

“What has surprised me is the utter lack of any degree of skepticism of the part of the national media with respect to the claims of the defense attorneys, many of which are misleading and some of which are absolutely false. As an example, when those attorneys held press conferences to announce that the first round of DNA testing "completely exonerated" the players (a claim that, on its face, is rather preposterous), I saw not a single report that any reporter had actually seen the test results (none of them had), or had asked to see them and had that request denied (which is what happened to those who bothered to ask).” WRAL

Now that the full results of the DNA tests have been revealed, who is guilty of making “misleading” and “absolutely false” statements? Whose claims are “rather preposterous”? That defense attorneys would state the obvious fact that no DNA evidence strongly suggests there was no sex with any lacrosse player? Or that a District Attorney would not only hide exculpatory evidence from the same defense attorneys, but practically brag about it to the news media and suggest the hidden results would help the prosecution? This whole fiasco began with a story about DNA tests. It should end with this story about the results.

Enough red flags. It’s time for the white one