Forever Crystal Vault

From the Marketing Geniuses of DNA Security, Inc comes the

Forever Crystal Vault!

"This beautiful vault will provide you and your family with a unique and elegant way to remember your loved one forever. A graphic representation of their unique DNA code, their name, and their life dates, are engraved deep inside a decorative hand polished crystal. Purified DNA captured on silica beads, is forever sealed inside the crystal as well...

Your Forever Crystal Vault set includes the engraved crystal, and illuminated rotating stand with power supply, a velvet lined presentation box, and a certificate of authenticity attesting to the accuracy of the underlying DNA analysis." DNASI

Attorney Brad Bannon could not reached for a comment, but I am sure he will be relieved to know that DNASI is now providing a certificate of authenticity of the underlying DNA analysis!

Judge Probative

Did Nifong Meet With The Accuser Prior To ID, and Indictments?

In the complaint brought against him by the North Carolina State Bar, rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong is charged with, among other things, making false statements to the Court and opposing counsel. (Misrepresentations and False Statements to Court and Opposing Counsel) The subject of those charges are statements Defendant Nifong made to the Court regarding the DNA evidence he conspired with Dr. Brian Meehan to withhold and the substance of his three documented, but non-memorialized, meetings with Dr. Meehan. Meehan is the director of DNA Security Inc., the private lab Nifong hired to conduct further DNA testing after the NC SBI lab's tests showed no DNA matching any of the 46 lacrosse players in or on Crystal Magnum or her belongings.

In his January response to the Bar complaint, Nifong denied making misrepresentations to the Court. However, at last Friday’s hearing on his motion seeking to dismiss some of the numerous charges, Nifong attorney Dudley Witt admitted to Disciplinary Hearing Committee Chair F. Lane Williamson that Defendant Nifong was made aware of the exonerating DNA evidence in April. Witt’s admission appears to make it impossible for the rogue prosecutor to continue to deny that he made repeated misrepresentations to the Court. Williamson's questioning of Witt also debunked Nifong’s ridiculous assertion that he had not analyzed whether Dr. Meehan's finding DNA from multiple unknown men in the accuser's rape kit was material evidence.

Williamson:

I believe your Answer admits that Mr. Nifong knew from meeting with Dr. Meehan that there were positive results for these other individuals. Is that true?

Witt:

That's correct.

Williamson:

Okay. And there is I think asserted in your Answer to the effect--and I think it's an issue for trial to be heard--which is that Mr. Nifong had not yet focused on--he was looking for evidence to link the players to the accuser's allegations, not--and had not focused on what might be exculpatory.

Witt goes so far as to admit the the State Bar has a valid claim for those misrepresentations.

"They can say that he misrepresented the facts to the court, but they have a misrepresentation claim; that is, they don't have a claim that he was ever ordered by a court to do it."

Witt's admissions appear to belie the denials contained in Defendant Nifong's answer to the State Bar's amended complaint.

247. In response to a question from the Court, Nifong represented that DSI's report encompassed all tests performed by DSI and everything discussed at his meetings with Dr. Meehan in April and May 2006.

247. Defendant incorporates his statements, as more particularly outlined, in the transcript of the hearing before the court on September 22, 2006 in response to the allegations raised in paragraph 247. Any allegations contained in said paragraph which are inconsistent with said transcript are denied.

248. The following exchange occurred immediately thereafter on the Duke Defendants' request for memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements: Judge Smith: "So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?" Mr. Nifong: "No other statements. No other statements made to me."

248. Defendant incorporates his statements, as more particularly outlined, in the transcript of the hearing before the court on September 22, 2006 in response to the allegations raised in paragraph 248. Any allegations contained in said paragraph which are inconsistent with said transcript are denied.

249. Nifong's above statements and responses were misrepresentations and false statements of material fact to a tribunal because Nifong had discussed with Dr. Meehan only several months earlier the potentially exculpatory DNA test results and DSI's report did not include these results.

249. The allegations contained in paragraph 249 of plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied.

While the State Bar has brought charges against Defendant Nifong based on the meetings with Dr. Meehan, his failure to reveal truthfully the substance of those meetings, and his misrepresentations to the Court, the State Bar, and opposing counsel in an effort to disguise the existence of at least one of those meetings and to delay disclosing the substance of them, to date no action has been taken against Defendant Nifong for his similar attempts to withhold the substance of his alternately admitted and denied meetings with false accuser, Crystal Mangum.

At last Wednesday’s press conference, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper fielded questions after declaring that the victims of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax were innocent. Cooper’s answer to one question relayed by phone raises the specter of whether Defendant Nifong made additional misrepresentations to the Court in an effort to prolong his Hoax long enough to ride it to his election victory. In response to whether the district attorney had spoken to the accuser prior to bringing indictments, Cooper stated:

“I don't want to say for sure whether Mr. Nifong talked with her before charges were brought. I know he talked with her at some point, but I don't know the answer to that question. We can find that out for you.

Last Ocober in its article about the just concluded court hearing, the Associated Press reported the astounding news that, despite having brought charges against three suspects, Nifong told the Court he had not yet spoken to the accuser about the Hoax:

The district attorney prosecuting three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a woman at a team party said during a court hearing Friday that he still hasn't interviewed the accuser about the facts of the case.

"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Mike Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."

Nifong made the statement in response to a defense request for any statements the woman has made about the case.

"I understand the answer may not be the answer they want but it's the true answer. That's all I can give them," the prosecutor said after the hourlong hearing.

Defense lawyers said outside court that they found Nifong's statement surprising.

"One of the most interesting things to me of course is Mr. Nifong did admit that he in fact has basically never talked to this woman and has absolutely no idea what her story is, and yet he has chosen to continue to go forward with this case," defense lawyer Joseph Cheshire said.

Nifong said none of his assistants have discussed the case with the woman either and only have spoken with her to monitor her well-being. They have left the investigation of the case to police, he said.

…

Nifong said he met with the accuser and an investigator on April 11, but didn't discuss details of the case because the woman was "too traumatized." Nifong said the woman didn't make eye contact with him and often seemed on the verge of crying. Their discussion centered around how the case would develop, he said.

"She probably did not speak 15 words during the meeting," Nifong said.

Joe Neff's second installment of the News & Observer’s five part series on the Nifong/Mangum Hoax indicates that, contrary to Nifong’s repeated assertions to the Court, he did claim to have spoken with the false accuser prior to bringing indictments and more importantly, prior to her identification of four “attackers” at the corrupt April 4 identification lottery.

“[Defense Attorney Bill] Thomas said Nifong wouldn't listen: "He said that he had personally interviewed her and had spoke with her at length about this case, and that he fully believed every word she said about this incident, and that he knew a lot more about this case than I did, and that he was going to proceed as he saw fit."

“Nifong was smug and self-assured, Thomas said: "I had 27 years of experience with him, and he was looking me in the eye. He said he had interviewed her, he discussed the details of the case, he believed her and that my view of her as perhaps being a call girl working for an escort service, running around making things up for financial gain, was absolutely false. ... He went on to say what a wonderful person she was. He said she was fully believable, she was intelligent, articulate ... and telling a convincing story about what happened."

Nifong’s statements to Thomas confirm the assertions he made to the Friends of Durham political action committee while seeking their political endorsement before the general election and to the Court in a motion seeking payment for testing.

To Friends of Durham:
Today, we learn from David Smith, chairman of Friends of Durham, by way of the Herald Sun’s William West, that Mr. Nifong has indeed interviewed the accuser.

"And we asked Mike Nifong, and one of his comments was that he's the only one that's interviewed this victim," [chairman of Friends of Durham, David] Smith said. "And he feels confident in his case."

To the Court:

In a motion filed on September 20, District Attorney Mike Nifong states that the Duke Hoax accuser has the “ability to recall in great detail the events prior to and during” her alleged assault. Considering that nearly all of the details she has provided in her police statements, her statements to medical personnel, her “identification” sessions, and her News & Observer interview have been contradicted by her own words, forensic evidence and the statements of other witnesses, it is difficult to imagine on what basis Nifong has concluded that she has the “ability to recall in great detail.”

If DA Nifong is to be believed, neither he, nor anyone else from his office, has asked the accuser to relate her recollections, therefore, the basis for Nifong’s affirmation of the accuser’s great "memory" cannot be his personal evaluation of her sincerity, clarity or credibility with regard to these “details.” It seems absurd that Mr. Nifong would vouch for her “ability to recall in great detail” without ever having heard those details recalled firsthand. His claim also appears to be contradicted by his continual willingness to offer his own contradictions of many of those "details" supposedly recalled.

Defendant Nifong’s statements to Smith, Thomas, and to the Court clearly contradict other statements he made to the Court and opposing counsel. Both sets of opposing assertions cannot be true. Either the rogue prosecutor lied to the Court and opposing counsel when asserting that he had not interviewed the accuser, or he lied to opposing counsel when he told Attorney Thomas that he had interviewed the accuser at length about the case and found her credible, to the court when he stated definitively that she could recall the event that never occurred in great detail, and to the local PAC when stating that he had interviewed the false accuser. While none of these statements were included in the State Bar’s complaint, it would appear that one set or the other merits consideration.

We look forward to NC Attorney General Roy Cooper following through on his offer to find out whether Nifong discussed the case with the accuser prior to indicting three innocent men. For the sake of both the State Bar’s evaluation of Defendant Nifong’s intent and the State's evaluation of possible obstruction of justice charges, the important question of whether Nifong discussed the Hoax with his co-Hoaxer prior to her false identifications and his contempible rush to indict innocents must be answered.

Text of Cornacchia Letter to Easley and Cooper

Dear Governor Easley and General Cooper:

I represent Collin Finnerty and write you on his behalf with several requests in connection with the so-called "Duke Lacrosse Case" wherein General Cooper, after an extensive investigation, found that he and his two former teammates were "innocent" of the charges filed in Superior Court in Durham County and, furthermore, that no crimes ever occurred in the first place.

My first request is that you both publicly call on Michael B. Nifong. the sitting Durham County District Attorney, to resign immediately from office. Governor Easley, you have publicly stated, when you were in New York recently, that selecting Mr. Nifong was "the worst appointment of [your] career." Furthermore, you also publicly stated at that time that Mr. Nifong apparently lied when he represented to you that he would not seek permanent office as District Attorney which was a condition of your interim appointment. Finally, General Cooper branded Mr. Nifong as a "rogue" and "unchecked" prosecutor because he had three innocent, young men, arrested, indicted and prosecuted for crimes that General Cooper found did not occur. Finally, and incredibly, Mr. Nifong continues in office as the chief law enforcement officer in Durham County, making life-altering decisions about who should be the subject of prosecution and handling the most sensitive and important cases. Mr. Nifong has not done the honorable thing and tendered his resignation. He may do so if you both publicly and unequivocally call for that resignation.

My second request is that, if Mr. Nifong refuses to take the honorable and responsible step of voluntarily tendering his resignation, you both join in the application for his removal pursuant to North Carolina General Statute ("NCGS") Section 7A-66, now pending in Durham County Superior Court before the Honorable Orlando Hudson. Your moral suasion and the prestige of your offices, as well as the resources that you can bring to bear, will assist the private litigant who has brought this petition and ensure the appropriate effort and resources are dedicated to this serious matter.

The third request is that a special prosecutor be appointed, either an attorney in private practice of the highest caliber and integrity, or members of General Cooper's Special Prosecution Unit who demonstrated their professionalism so well in their recent investigation, Once appointed, a special prosecutor can seek court approval for the convening of an "investigative grand jury" pursuant to NCGS Section 15-623, There is ample predicate for this. After all, General Cooper has found that Mr. Nifong and the Durham Police Department arrested and prosecuted three innocent, young men for crimes that did not occur. With the impaneling of such a grand jury, a special prosecutor can subpoena witnesses and documents and conduct an investigation under grand jury secrecy to determine whether there have violations of criminal statues including, but not limited to, possible violations of North Carolina's official "misbehavior in office" statutes (NCGS Sections 14-230 and 23 i) and false reports to law enforcement agencies ( NCGS Section 14-225). Those whose roles must be examined include Mr. Nifong, the Chief investigator for his office, Lindell Wilson, Sergeant Mark Gottlieb, Investigators Benjamin Himan and Michele Soucci, their Durham Police Department commanding officers and Brian Meehan of the DNA Security Lab who admitted, under oath, that he agreed with Mr. Nifong to withhold what Mr. Meehan knew to be exculpatory evidence and submit a false DNA report.

Let me be very clear, I do not, in any way, suggest by naming these individuals that they committed crimes or engaged in misconduct of any type. That determination, if made, would be up to a special prosecutor, a judge and jury. These individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence and should not be prejudged. We do not do so by this request but only ask for a full and impartial inquiry.

It has been said that the institution of ethics charges against Mr. Nifong is sufficient to address the situation. This is not so. This forum only will determine if the codes governing the conduct of attorneys, generally, and district attorneys, specifically, have been broken by only Mr. Nifong. It will not, and cannot, address the conduct of the members of Mr. Nifong's office, the officers of the Durham Police Department and others such as Mr. Meehan. Others say to wait to see what the Ethics Commission determines but their action is limited and will not address the conduct of the participants in what, based on General Cooper's investigation arid public statements, can only be characterized as a "frame-up" of three young men whose parents had sent them to your state for an education. The view that the institution of a criminal investigation will somehow prejudice the Ethics Commission in its inquiry is absurd and an insult to the three members of the body hearing this matter.

My final request is that an investigation be commenced into the continued licensing of Mr. Meehan to operate a DNA laboratory in North Carolina . Once again, we do not prejudge the result of such an inquiry but there certainly exists ample predicate for such an investigation, given Mr. Meehan's statements under oath in Durham County Superior Court concerning his complicity in the withholding of DNA evidence.

We respectfully submit that it is necessary for you to put these steps into action lest it be known, or even suspected, that a person in North Carolina is immune from proper scrutiny of their actions because of their official position. The efforts of North Carolina to respond to the tragedy and injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case have been demonstrated by the institution of the ethics inquiry of Mr. Nifong and the courageous finding of innocence of my client and his former teammates by General Cooper. The actions outlined in this letter are necessary and appropriate to continue these efforts.

My client, his family and I stand ready to assist you in any way to implement these requests.

Respectfully yours,

Michael Cornacchia

The DNA Hoax

In our Hoax Within a Hoax series, we have detailed the various misleading statements and unethical actions that Durham County District Attorney Nifong has used throughout the case to spitefully prosecute three innocent young men. We now have another Hoax to add to the list, perhaps the most serious to date - the purposeful non-disclosure and misrepresentation of DNA test results and their evidentiary implications. The DNA chronology, when examined with dates and events in sequence, unambiguously demonstrates Mr. Nifong's, and others', intentional misconduct and abuse of power.

A recent motion by the defense attorneys contained new information from the much delayed discovery turned over to them by Nifong in late October. It has been a long and torturous process to have the unwilling prosecutor comply with the State of North Carolina’s Discovery rules. Several months later, he has still not fully complied. The prior two judges on this case, Ronald Stephens and Kenneth Titus, seemed content to unquestioningly accept Mr. Nifong's shallow excuses for his continuing delays in providing the mandated discovery. Showing no desire to move the matter along in a timely fashion, despite the repeated pleas of defense attorneys, the judges facilitated Nifong's stalling. Only now, many months later and with a neutral judge in charge, is it clear why the defense had to fight to obtain the information Nifong tried so hard to deny them.

DNA Securities and DA Nifong

At the December 15 hearing, Lab Director Dr. Brian Meehan of DNA Securities, whose private lab was hired by Nifong to perform additional DNA tests, testified under oath that he and DA Nifong had agreed to withhold part of the DNA lab results, including scientific evidence proving no DNA was found that matched the three defendants. Also, they agreed to purposefully withhold the evidence that DNA from multiple unknown males was found on the accuser's panties, around her genital area, and in her rectum. The illogical reason given for omitting this indisputably exculpatory information from the lab's official report, once it was discovered by the defense, was that it was of no probative value. Adding to that absurdity, both Meehan and Nifong also claimed that they were concerned about the privacy of the lacrosse team, which the tests totally exonerated.

The reality is that the sensitive YSTR tests proved that no lacrosse player sexually assaulted the accuser. DA Nifong admitted to the NY Times that he knew of those unreleased exculpatory results, yet did not inform the defense on May 18 when he offered the court a signed document swearing that the discovery information he was providing the defense was all that he had or knew of. To the Times he characterized this purposeful, self-serving lie as merely "a mistake." N&O

March 23 Non-Testimonial Order

On March 23 Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens took the unprecedented and, in our opinion, unwarranted step of ordering DNA tests for the entire Duke lacrosse team, minus the one black player.

In that order submitted by Asst. DA David Saacks requesting DNA samples and photos of the players, it states:

"Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience"

It also included this:

ATTACHMENT FOR APPLICATION FOR NONTESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION ORDER IV

Facts That Establish Reasonable Grounds

.

"The ' DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim" Motion to Suppress

Since then, it has been stated in motions, and confirmed by independent reporters who have examined the actual SANE Exam, that it did not make any conclusions as to rape, and the accuser did not have those injuries. Indeed, DA Nifong’s most recent admission, taken from his dismissal of rape charges, stated this:

“Since penetration of the vagina by a penis is one of the elements of this offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and since there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim’s testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis, the State is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense” N&O

Nifong, despite what his defenders have claimed for months, finally admitted in that dismissal there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the accuser's testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis. Thus, nothing from the SANE Exam forensic evidence backs her accusations. There was no justifiable reason for the DNA order, as it falsely presented what the SANE Exam showed. In truth, no DNA from any lacrosse player was found in those twice-tested samples. There is no forensic evidence of an assault and never was! There was no rape, only unfounded accusations! There should have never been such a far-reaching non-testimonial order, and certainly no indictments once the DNA results were known.

Again, that 23 March order states:

“The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim”

That was the very basis and justification of the unusually broad order, yet Nifong violated its stated purpose almost immediately. When the second set of tests once again completely cleared the entire lacrosse team, Nifong withheld those results. Yet they did find DNA of others! Did Nifong direct the DPD to follow up and find whose it was?

Tests at SBI labs

In North Carolina, when accusations of a multiple rape are made, all SANE kits are sent to NC SBI Laboratories, the governmental lab responsible for assisting LE investigations. The technicians there are agents of the State of North Carolina. The first testing procedure is to look for semen, blood, and saliva in swabs. It is a simple test and the results are immediate.

From the Defense Motion 13 December, Page 3, Paragraph 7:

"On March 28, 2006, Agent Winn examined the vaginal swabs and smears, oral swabs and smears, rectal swabs and smears, and panties from the rape kit, none of which showed the presence of semen, blood, or saliva. She did not forward any of those items to the DNA Section for further testings. She did, however, forward the swabs containing the DNA reference samples from the lacrosse players." DNA Motion

So while the press was reporting stories of team behaviour, such as drinking and urinating on lawns, and the town gown racial upset, unbeknownst to everyone outside of a small group of LE and DA representatives, and eventually Judge Ronald Stephens, the investigation had been dealt a serious blow. There wasn’t any semen, blood, or saliva detected. Indeed, Agent Winn didn’t even send those samples for STR DNA sampling. There was no testing possible for DNA by SBI labs in those swabs taken on or in the accuser's vagina, anus, mouth and clothes using STR. If the accuser had been assaulted in the manner she described, DNA would have been found in STR testing.

April 5 Order to transfer samples

We know by April 5 Judge Stephens was aware that this investigation was in serious trouble when he signed the order submitted by ADA Saacks for the transfer of the rape kit items to DNA Security for Y-chromosome DNA testing.

From the DNA Motion, Page 8, Paragraph 13:

"On April 5, 2006, the Durham County District Attorney's Office sought and obtained an order from Judge Ronald Stephens to allow it. In doing so, the State informed the Court:

“Tests conducted by the S.B.I. laboratory failed to reveal the presence of semen on swabs from the rape kit or the victim's underwear. In cases without semen present, it is sometimes possible to extract useful DNA samples for comparison purposes using a technique known as Y STR. This technique isolates cells containing a Y chromosome from the entire sample, which must have been contributed by a male person. The S.B.I. laboratory is not equipped to conduct Y STR DNA analysis. DNA Security is a private laboratory in Burlington, North Carolina that can conduct Y STR DNA analysis and has agreed to undertake this analysis in an expedited manner.”

Stephens, an experienced judge & former DA, should never have invaded the privacy rights of the lacrosse team in the first place. There was scant evidence; only an accusation by an accuser who had twice failed to identify anyone. Ordering 46 DNA tests was far too over-reaching. Judge Stephens has prosecuted cases of rape and presided over rape trials. He cannot claim ignorance of police procedure, lab techniques, and DNA tests.

Why did Judge Stephens sign that order? Why weren’t those samples at least examined and tested before subjecting the entire team to DNA testing and the accompanying public notoriety? Imagine the difference in this case if that had been done? Did Judge Stephens ever ask to see those medical records and proof the "victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally?” Clearly, there is no evidence of it. Those questions remain unanswered to this day.

McFadyen E-mail Release

Also on April 5, Judge Ronald Stephens released the previously sealed McFadyen e-mail. Why would Stephens have done that on the same day he should have understood the likelihood that no assault took place? McFadyen fits no description given by the accuser; he is 6’6” and weighs 225 lbs. It should also be noted that the source of that e-mail was claimed to be anonymous, and, according to defense attorney Joe Cheshire, the authorities failed to also release exculpatory e-mails along with the e-mail that was almost a verbatim reference to a passage in the book, American Psycho.

With the release of the e-mail, a failing investigation got a huge PR boost by enraging the community. Duke immediately cancelled the lacrosse team's season, fired the coach, and suspended McFadyen. The eventual defendants, their identities unknown even to the defense at that time, would be seriously harmed by Judge Stephen's decision for no apparent reason, as they were not the source of what is admittedly a disgusting satire with no probative value to this case. However, it was used nightly on newscasts across America to falsley show the mindset of these players, and imply that the unsupported accusations were likely to be true. As we have seen previously, the misconduct in the dissemination of false and misleading statements leads one to question the motivations behind this release, along with just who was pushing for it.

The Results of the DNA Securities Tests

Meanwhile, the nation and the inflamed Durham community waited for the DNA test results, promised within a week. Many of us wondered why their release was taking so long, especially as Nifong got the SBI to expedite them and put them first in line, causing protests from other NC prosecutors whose evidence had languished there untested for months. Now we know the truth. The tests were basically done and the results were known, but DA Nifong didn’t like what they showed.

So, on April 4, at Nifong's direction, DPD Officer Soucie learned from Dr. Meehan of DNA Securities that the turn around time for the YSTR testing was 3-5 days. On April 6, 2006, the rape kit items (Including the oral, vaginal, and rectal swabs; the cheek scrapings; and the panties), known blood sample, and the lacrosse players' reference DNA swabs were all transferred from Agent Leyn back to DPD/CSI Ashby, who transferred them to DNA Security. True enough, the 3-5 days turn around time was correct, and on April 8, 9, and 10 DNA Securities analyzed those results.

From the DNA Motion, Page 4 Paragraph 15:

"On April 8, 9, and 10, 2006, DNA Security analyzed the DNA profiles extracted from the cheek scrapings, oral swabs, vaginal swabs, rectal swabs, and panties from the rape kit items taken from the accuser at Duke Hospital in the early morning hours of March 14. While DNA Security's final report would not reflect the findings from that analysis, underlying documents provided to the Defendants on October 27, 2006, reflect that DNA from multiple male Sources was discovered on the rectal swabs and panties from the rape kit It was all compared to the known reference samples from the lacrosse players; and none of it matched any of the players."

Page 6 Paragraphs 19 & 20:

"Thus, by April 10, 2006, DNA Security analysts had apparently discovered multiple male source DNA on the rectal swabs and panties from the rape kit; had compared it to the lacrosse players' DNA; and had concluded that none of it matched the lacrosse players, including the Defendants. However, none of those findings would be included In DNA Security's final report."

That same day, in late afternoon, Nifong finally released the results of DNA tests from SBI, but not the DNA Securities results which he had just discussed with Dr. Meehan. Unbelievably, after just learning there was no YSTR DNA from any lacrosse player and that multiple DNA samples from other unknown men were found, Nifong said:

"I believe a sexual assault took place. I'm not saying it's over. If that's what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed." FOX News

The First Grand Jury – April 17

As we have reported in an earlier article, Nifong refused to meet with defense attorneys prior to the April 17 grand jury. They were trying to show him exculpatory data and were at a loss as to why he wouldn’t meet with them. Little did they realize DA Nifong himself was sitting on what should have been case-ending exculpatory evidence! We revealed that Durham PD Officers Gottlieb & Himan were the only witnesses appearing before the grand jury that indicted Reade Seligmann & Collin Finnerty on April 17. Gottlieb & Himan accompanied DA Nifong on April 10 to his visit with Dr Meehan in which they went over the DNA results. No transcripts exist showing what Gottlieb & Himan told the grand jurors, but it is pretty obvious they withheld Dr. Meehan's finding the complete lack of DNA evidence against the players and the finding of other DNA from five other unknown sources. LS

DNA Motion, Page 9 Paragraph 28

Thus, by April 20, 2006, DNA Security analysts had discovered DNA from multiple male sources on the rectal swabs, pubic hair combing, and panties from the rape kit; had compared it to the lacrosse players' DNA; and had concluded that none of It matched the lacrosse players, including the Defendants. They had also apparently discovered possible contamination in the testing of at least one item in this case. However, none of those findings would be induced in DNA Security's final report.

Several questions remain. Why were Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans indicted at all? Why would an accredited DNA lab purposely withhold obviously exculpatory evidence in a police investigation? Why would a DA withhold exculpatory evidence and file a court document he knew was a lie? Why would any DA interested in evidence and truth refuse a rare golden opportunity to view the defense's evidence? What did Officer Gottlieb & Himan say to the grand jury? Did they knowingly lie or mislead them? Were they instructed to do so? Why were so many falsehoods spread by so many?

Baldo

Statement from DNASI

DNA Security, Inc. has issued a statement defending their DNA testing procedure, report, and compliance with discovery laws. A review of the statement reveals that Dr. Brian Meehan's lab is in full blown damage control mode as he attempts to shift responsibility from himself to his client, District Attorney Mike Nifong. It is also quite clear that DNA Security, like so many of the other villains in this tragedy, finds itself unencumbered by conscience, truth, and professional integrity.

As you read this statement, please keep in mind that, despite the protestations that the motive in withholding information was to protect the privacy of those individuals who tested negative, Dr. Meehan's initial report dated May 12 included the names of all the suspects (as he described “reference samples” in his initial report or “possible perpetrator” as DNASI prefers to define “reference sample” in this statement) and the consensual partners who did test negative. These names can be found on pages three and four of the ten page report he submitted to Investigator Benjamin Himan. DNASI specifically states that they did not list these names, yet Dr. Meehan in fact did. DNASI claims that the intent was to prevent the stigma of being a suspect, yet they define them as such in this report. The only names not listed are those that remain, reportedly, unknown. It appears that the only individuals whose privacy was protected by the conspiracy to withhold the full testing results are the several unknown, unidentified, uninvestigated, and unnamed male sources of the semen found where one might expect it to be found on a genuine rape victim.

In addition to the privacy spin, there are a few other items to watch for. Pay attention to the bias revealed by referring to the transparently false accuser as the “victim.” Note too that they attempt to mischaracterize a non-exclusion as a match.

Further, pay heed to the attempt to deflect blame by stating that Dr. Meehan's initial report noted that there were additional DNA profiles from reference samples and evidence retained by his lab. In his initial report, he falsely described this additional evidence as “non-probative.” Quite clearly the additional evidence is probative, as DNA Security admits in the penultimate paragraph below.

Most importantly, do not be fooled by DNA Security’s false claim that the information was provided to the defense in the course of normal discovery procedures. Despite the attempts to create the impression that Dr. Meehan willingly complied with discovery laws, his full compliance came only after:

• Dr. Meehan and the District Attorney initially agreed to keep the exculpatory findings secret
• Dr. Meehan falsely reported that the exculpatory evidence was non-probative
• The defense filed multiple motions to compel discovery
• The District Attorney stated in writing to the court that he was unaware of any additional exculpatory evidence two months after such was reported to him by Dr. Meehan
• District Attorney Nifong claimed falsely that his meetings with Dr. Meehan were not evidentiary in nature
• Dr. Meehan objected vehemently, in writing to the court, to turning over the complete findings
• District Attorney Nifong took "no position" while chiding the defense attorneys' demand as a "witch hunt" and mocking them for having stated that the incomplete and misleading test results they had been given in the Spring exonerated their clients
• Being compelled to testify at a pre-trial hearing
• Defense attorneys combed through thousands of pages of discovery to find and decipher the missing results
• The defendants, exonerated by his April findings have spent, in the eight months since, an estimated two million dollars in trial related fees.

The Ever-Growing LieStoppers Team

DNA Security, Inc. Statement

re: the Duke Lacrosse Case Tests

December 19, 2006

The high profile “Duke Lacrosse Team” case has generated a flurry of complaints and accusations from both those who support the Lacrosse team members and those who support the victim. Some unfounded and unfortunate accusations have been leveled against just about everyone, including our laboratory, DNA Security, Inc.

It is appropriate to clarify some obvious misconceptions about DNA testing, and what our lab does when we are hired by a client in criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions.

Neither DNA Security nor any other private accredited lab is an investigatory or a prosecutorial entity. Although currently popular television shows regularly show forensic scientists and DNA experts independently working to solve a crime, convict the defendant, or have charges dropped, most DNA testing labs like ours work for a client who hires us. We do not voluntarily show up at crime scenes or hospitals with teams of scientists, and solve the crime in one episode.

Rather, we are usually provided with samples from the client. That client specifies the testing to be performed, typically to determine whether evidentiary DNA (from a crime scene or victim) matches DNA of a known individual or individuals (reference specimens). That is basically the service we performed in the Duke Lacrosse Team case for our client, the Durham County District Attorney’s Office. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation performed similar DNA tests in this case.

After the completion of tests using accepted scientific methods and procedures, we generally prepare a summary report, the extent of which will vary depending on the case. Our report in this case detailed only the DNA profiles of reference specimens that were consistent with DNA profiles obtained from evidence items as of that date (commonly referred to as “matches”). The report described three identifications: one from a sexual assault kit sample, and two from the victim’s fingernails. Because of the high profile of the case and the number of identified male DNA specimens tested, those individuals that were negative were not listed, to avoid creating the stigma of being a “suspect” if (when) the report became public.

Our report also specifically stated that DNA profiles obtained from additional reference specimens and evidence items were being retained pending instructions.

Our report AND the additional results of tests where there was no DNA match were provided to our client, and then to defense counsel in the normal criminal pre-trial “discovery” process.

Our findings have been disclosed and discussed in Motions filed with the Court and available for public review, and in testimony in an open Court hearing on December 15, 2006.

The attorneys from each side must evaluate the effect of our test results on their case. That is not the function of a DNA testing lab.

Two things about real-life DNA testing are often overlooked:

(1) There may be any number of samples from the crime scene or victim that labs are not able to “match” to a sample from a known reference specimen (possible perpetrator). This can occur when a sample from the crime scene or victim does not contain DNA, or when the DNA present is not from any reference specimen that was provided for testing. It is not the DNA lab’s job to search for people whose DNA would match samples from the crime scene or victim.

(2) While DNA laboratories such as ours are confident in determining identity when there is a match between the evidence and an individual reference specimen, the absence of a match, by itself, does not exclude a possible perpetrator. Of course, evidence of the inability to match a defendant’s DNA with that found at the scene or on the victim certainly presents an argument for a defendant or his counsel.

DNA Security is well aware of the importance of scientifically reliable DNA testing to the police, the prosecution, the public, and a suspect or defendant. We have and will continue to use the best scientific methods and practices to reach accurate and reliable results.

Hat tip: RK

Credit for the above post is due the members of the LieStoppers Forum who contributed directly to its compostion and who have become a welcome extension of the original LieStoppers team. The post was composed in full from the thoughts, observations, and research posted by the LS Forum members last night and early this morning. If the villains we hound have found us an annoyance when we numbered in the teens, let this post serve notice that there are now hundreds of members to the LieStoppers Team.

If you haven't yet taken the opportunity to visit the forum, I encourage you to do so. Over the past few weeks, the discussion has grown in quantity and quality. In the past seven days, the board has experienced over 200,000 page views and thousands of posts. Many of the commentators offer a wealth of relevant legal, law enforcement, forensic, scientific, medical, journalism, and other topical career knowledge and experience. Others present local perspective and insight. All contribute greatly, whether from occupational or life experience, to both the discussion found on the forum and the items presented here.

To give a better impression of the insightful, informed, and intelligent discussion found on the forum, here are samples of some of the posts that were incorporated into today's blog:

"The statement is a red herring. So what if Nifong asked that the analysis be limited to determining whether there was any DNA matching the targets? The point is that they found DNA from multiple unidentified sources. The original request from Nifong was moot; the obligation was to turn it over, regardless of what Nifong asked. Clearly, this will be Nifong's defense: I asked whether it matched Duke LAX players; the answer was no match. Everything past that is irrelevant. Incredibly weak answer, but Nifong and Meehan are in full retreat mode because they both know the significance of concealing information." - Haunches

"I think it was clearly an attempt to shift blame to Nifong. They hit "client" really hard. That should scare everyone to death. The state hires these labs apparently to prosecute people, not to find out the truth. They want to say "Nifong told us to hide stuff and we were therefore obligated to do so because he was the client."

"They are ruined no matter what they say. Perception is everything. Anybody would be stupid to hire them. Still, I am very frightened by the revelation of this attitude. I think it reflects the fact that most criminal defendants can not pay for such testing and therefore cannot become "clients." Accordingly the state hires these guys and if they say there's a match, you're guilty, and if they say there's not a match, well then, you may be guilty anyway. Completely ludicrous. Who knows how many innocent people are sitting in jail because of this type of garbage. God help us all." - Ralph

"The first glaring thing that jumps out at me is the fact that all individuals that gave reference samples WERE in fact "listed" on the original report. And in addition, the report refers in several places to those who gave reference samples as "suspects" (describing matches with "suspect reference speciman" even in the case of Kevin Coleman"

"Here's the second major thing that jumps out at me. The report doesn't specifically state "that DNA profiles obtained from additional reference specimens and evidence items" are being retained. What is says is "Individual DNA profiles for non-probative evidence specimens and suspect reference specimens are being retained at DSI pending notification of the client." (emphasis added) There is a huge difference between these two statements.

"This statement does NOT make it clear that there was additional DNA recovered that didn't match any of the reference samples. Generally, "non-probative evidence" would be something like samples from a case in which someone has confessed or has already been convicted, or duplicate samples (multiple cuttings from the same blood stain that has already been tested.) It is not evidence that you expect to have any value to a court case. In a situation like this case, finding a match to the AV on her own clothes would be considered non-probative evidence.

"The very misleading wording of that sentence is very problematic for several other reasons as well: First, the DNA lab is supposed to report EVERY DNA result regardless of whether it is nonprobative. Second, the DNA lab has NO BUSINESS making judgements about what evidence might have probative value in an open case. If the DNA lab is making its own decisions that finding DNA from multiple men on and in the AV is non-probative, that shows that their objective was not to find the truth, but rather to prove that the "suspects" did it. That evidence is only "non-probative" to the prosecution." - Nonimouse

"The real weakness in this statement is that (1) the people of North Carolina, not Nifong is their client and (2) if they had any privacy concerns the way to address that was to go to the judge and the defence and seek a protective order. What DNASI did was enter into an arrangement to conceal evidence from the defence and then assist Nifong in trying to persuade the court not to grant defence requests for access to the concealed material." - Alan

"If you conspire with a "prosecutorial entity" to suppress exculpatory evidence -- in violation of your own protocols -- then you have engaged in conduct that is unethical at best and criminal at worst...If it was that simple, then why didn't Mikey simply give you your instructions in writing? Why did he have to schlepp out to Burlington to chat with you face to face?...Umm, who exactly do you claim you were protecting? Reade Seligmann? Colin Finnerty? Unindicted lacrosse players? Do you honestly believe that there is a "stigma" that comes with a negative result? Especially where everyone in the country already knows that you've turned over a DNA sample? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you?...Did it state that unidentified DNA profiles from the accuser's person were floating around?...But it is the lab's job to report the facts, no?...Interesting that you are aware of this. And decided to omit this sort of helpful (read exculpatory) evidence from your report...that's if you retain your accreditation and if anyone cares to hire you, knowing that for the rest of your career, when attorneys cross-examine you, they will ask about this little incident. I'm really hoping that you lose your accreditation and get prosecuted right along with Nifong." - lskinner

LS Forum

DNASI May 12 Report

DNASI December 19 Statement

Kneefong's "Expert"

The Good News Is...

"When requesting documents for discovery, it may be important to consider the privacy of all the individuals that were included in DNA testing for this case." - Response to the Court written by Dr. Brian Meehan, at the request of DA Nifong.

LS Forum: Lab Director's DNA Found Where?