Where in the World is Mr. Obfuscation?

Dr. Brian W. Meehan, better known as Mr. Obfuscation, is no longer Lab Director at DNA Security, Inc. A recent announcement on their web site indicates that Joe Chimera, Ph.D. is now their General Manager and Laboratory Director.

June 2007 DNASI Web Site

Current DNASI Web Site

Perhaps Civil Lawsuit No. 07-73 9 which includes DNA SECURITY, INC and Brian Meehan as defendants might have something to do with his replacement.

So we ask the question, where in the world is Mr. Obfuscation?

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!

The Return of Mr. Obfuscation

NC State Bar Disciplinary Hearings Commission Chairman Lane Williamson coined the term Mr. Obfuscation in regards Dr. Brian Meehan of DNASI. In June Chair Williamson expressed his frustration at Dr. Meehan's rambling and confusing answers to questioning at Nifong's Disciplinary Hearing. Today Dr. Meehan returned to the witness stand in Nifong’s criminal contempt of court hearing.

Dr. Meehan tried to explain why the exculpatory DNA discovered at his lab wasn’t in his report of May 12, 2006. In earlier testimony Durham PD Investigator "With What" Himan testified that Dr. Meehan had discussed that DNA was found in the swabs from the false accuser and than did not match any Lacrosse Player. Himan also testified that no one had taken any notes at the meeting April 10, 2006 where Nifong, Sergeant Gottieb, Dr. Meehan and himself were present.

A Tale of Two DNA Experts

Dr. Brian Meehan, Lab Director of DNA Security Inc., followed Investigator Benjamin Himan as the second witness against Defendant Nifong. The essence of Dr. Meehan's testimony was, “I didn’t do anything wrong and you can’t prove I did.” Meehan admitted that while DNA from several unidentified men recovered from Crystal Mangum's panties and nether regions was disclosed to District Attorney Mike Nifong repeatedly, he neglected to include those findings in the report apparently used to secure the indictment of David Evans and later provided to each of the Hoax defendants as if it was a full and complete final report. When asked why he didn’t include it in his report, Meehan flippantly responded to the effect that he would have been more than happy to include it in his final report if Nifong ever asked for it. While Dr. Meehan did offer the condemning suggestion that for most investigators, unlike Nifong and his DPD lackeys, these findings would have been important, the beleaguered witness appeared, at times, to be performing “The Sidestep” as he danced around accepting responsibility for his role in the framing of innocent men.

An exasperated State Bar Judge Williamson asked the slippery Dr. Meehan:

"Does the fact that you find no DNA that matches the people who are on trial but you do find DNA of other unidentified people, knowing that you do find DNA of other unidentified people, if you're deciding, one, was a crime committed and two, was it committed by these defendants, does that fact have any bearing on your deciding in your own mind whether these three men did it?

After several attempts to deflect the question, Meehan eventually answered with a raised voice:

"If I were a juror and the only information I had was that one-line sentence that said there was DNA there, I would want to know that, I would want to know what the hell are you talking about there's DNA here? I would want to know what it is. I would want to know what this DNA is because this could be crucial to this case." N & O

SBI Agent Jennifer Leyn followed Dr. Meehan to the stand. In stark contrast to Dr. Meehan's evasive nervousness and petulant demeanor, Agent Leyn displayed a professional attitude while answering all questions directly. Agent Leyn testified to a March 30, 2006 phone conference with Defendant Nifong to discuss the results of DNA testing that belied the false accusations of Crystal Mangum. In that conference call, according to Agent Leyn, Defendant Nifong was informed that, since no semen was detected, the rape kit swabs would not be forwarded for STR testing.

In contrast to Dr Meehan’s practice of not keeping meeting notes, Agent Leyn read from two separate SBI employees' notes about the phone conference. More importantly, Agent Leyn contradicted Defendant Nifong's claim that the "interim" report produced by Dr. Meehan emulated the standard SBI report by noting that it was SBI policy to report all DNA profiles discovered by their testing.

Duke Prof Channels Wendy Murphy

What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson?

.

Have logic and justice left and gone away? This question should be on everyone’s mind after reading Duke Law School Professor Robinson Everett’s defense of DA Nifong in the Herald-Sun yesterday.

.

Professor Everett endorsed DA Nifong in the primary and general elections. Unlike Citizen’s Committee Co-Chair Kim Brummel, who demanded Nifong apologize for his unethical conduct, Professor Everett apparently sees nothing wrong with DA Nifong’s decision to hide evidence in the Hoax. He apparently believes that Wendy Murphy understands the issues raised by Nifong’s conduct better than his fellow Duke law professor James Coleman. Everett argues that it is unclear whether “Nifong had any duty to provide the defense with evidence about the presence on the accuser’s body of semen from other persons who were not lacrosse players.” Everett cites North Carolina’s rape shield law, rule or evidence 412 and suggests that it allows a District Attorney to hide evidence he doesn’t think will ultimately be admitted at trial.

.

Everett states:

“Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence that alleged victim had sexual relations with persons other than the lacrosse players; but, after examining the rule, I doubt that those exceptions would apply in this case. Therefore, Judge Smith, who will try the case, may not allow the jury to hear this evidence – although the evidence clearly should be admissible that the tests revealed no semen from the lacrosse players on the body of the accused…I wonder whether the district attorney violated any constitutional or statutory requirement if he had the laboratory delete from its “reports of test result” those that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.”

Rule 412 states the following:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:

(1) Was between the complainant and the defendant; or

(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant; or

(3) Is evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior so distinctive and so closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove that such complainant consented to the act or acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented; or

(4) Is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.

Let’s set aside (4) and its potential relevance for the time being. How in the present case is it even remotely possible to argue that (2) does not apply? How can anyone, let alone a distinguished professor of law, argue that multiple DNA samples found on the accuser in this case are not “evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendants”? Isn’t that exactly why the other DNA from at least four unidentified males is relevant? Nifong didn’t even try to argue the Robinson Everett/Wendy Murphy theory to the court, to the media, or to the NC Bar Grievance Committee. Does Professor Everett really believe the lawyer he publicly endorsed for district attorney is so incompetent that he didn’t raise an obvious argument in his own behalf and instead chose first to deny knowledge and then to make up a story about protecting the players’ privacy? Even with his career on the line, does Everett actually believe that Nifong just missed that argument or forgot his true motivations?

.

Perhaps DA Nifong’s reluctance to use Everett’s argument was due to the fact that he said repeatedly on national television and to local Durham media that he believed the accuser’s story because of the medical report from Duke Hospital, which he asserted showed vaginal trauma, and which the police described in multiple search warrants by stating, “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.”

.

Setting aside the fact that the medical records said no such thing and only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, is Professor Everett seriously arguing that DNA found in the vaginal vault, in the rectum, and on the accuser’s underwear that doesn’t match any of the lacrosse players should be excluded from evidence because it isn’t relevant? Is he seriously arguing that DA Nifong was justified in withholding this evidence, even as his office leaked to the press the “non-exclusion” of Dave Evans from a DNA pool created from multiple plastic fingernails found in the trashcan in Evans’ bathroom? How exactly could a defendant respond to such claims in Mr. Robinson’s evidentiary neighborhood? The prosecution would assert the “injuries” were caused by the defendant, because if the defendant didn’t cause them, who did? Then the defendant would say what? Does Robinson Everett really believe a court would prevent a defendant from suggesting that the multiple donors of the recovered DNA samples may have caused the “injuries”? As controversial as rape shield laws are, does Everett really believe they operate that irrationally?

.

Furthermore, the additional DNA samples in this case are highly relevant for two other important reasons. First, the accuser claimed that at least one of the accused ejaculated. The apparent justification for why no DNA was found is a magic towel that managed to wipe away all the accused’s DNA, but left the DNA of other men. How can the defense be precluded from offering the other DNA as evidence against the magic towel theory? Second, the accuser claims that she didn’t have sexual relations with anyone prior to the party and only had sex with her boyfriend a week earlier. This claim is directly relevant to the significance attached to any medical evidence of “trauma” in her vaginal area. How can DNA evidence to the contrary possibly be considered irrelevant to the question?

.

Most importantly, it must be noted that Everett supports his argument by miscontsruing the rape shield law in stating, "Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence." In fact, Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow presentation of evidence at trial and does not speak to receipt of evidence except to specifically state the opposite of what Everett falsely claims: "...all evidence relating thereto shall be open to inspection only by the parties, the complainant, their attorneys and the court and its agents."

.

Further, the statute outlines the procedure by which the evidence in question must be presented to the court so that a ruling on admissibility is made by a judge and not the prosecutor.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless and until the court determines that evidence of sexual behavior is relevant under subdivision (b), no reference to this behavior may be made in the presence of the jury and no evidence of this behavior may be introduced at any time during the trial of:
(1) A charge of rape or a lesser included offense of rape;
(2) A charge of a sex offense or a lesser included offense of a sex offense; or
(3) An offense being tried jointly with a charge of rape or a sex offense, or with a lesser included offense of rape or a sex offense.

Before any questions pertaining to such evidence are asked of any witness, the proponent of such evidence shall first apply to the court for a determination of the relevance of the sexual behavior to which it relates. The proponent of such evidence may make application either prior to trial pursuant to G.S. 15A-952, or during the trial at the time when the proponent desires to introduce such evidence. When application is made, the court shall conduct an in camera hearing, which shall be transcribed, to consider the proponent's offer of proof and the argument of counsel, including any counsel for the complainant, to determine the extent to which such behavior is relevant. In the hearing,the proponent of the evidence shall establish the basis of admissibility of such evidence. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Rule 104, if the relevancy of the evidence which the proponent seeks to offer in the trial depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court, at the in camera hearing or at a subsequent in camera hearing scheduled for that purpose, shall accept evidence on the issue of whether that condition of fact is fulfilled and shall determine that issue. If the court finds that the evidence is relevant, it shall enter an order stating that the evidence may be admitted and the nature of the questions which will be permitted.

Nowhere in Rule 412 is there a provision for allowing the prosecutor to usurp the role of the court in determining what evidence is admissible and what evidence must be provided to the defendants. It is difficult to understand how the court could rule on the admissibility of evidence hidden from it by a prosecutor. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin appears to agree with our assessment that Everett misconstrues the letter of the statute:

"The State primarily argues that the undisclosed information is not material because it would not have been admissible, as it does not meet the Pulizzano exception to the rape shield law...

.

"We also disagree with the State's argument that this evidence is not material because we determine that the State's nondisclosure of this evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of Harris's criminal proceeding. While the State argues at length that the undisclosed evidence is not material because it does not meet the Pulizzano test, we find this argument to be unpersuasive because the State never afforded Harris the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion in the first place. We need not determine whether the five factor Pulizzano test would have been met in this case because even if the test would have been met, the circuit court would still have been obligated to balance Harris's right to present the evidence against the interest of the State in excluding it." State v. Harris

Robinson Everett ignores all these well-known facts and obvious questions and suggests that Nifong was justified in hiding evidence “that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.” One wonders whether Everett is following any of the facts in this case or is instead just writing letters to the News & Observer and Herald-Sun because he assumes his intellect is so superior that the community would benefit from his baseless musings. We can only hope that justice’s version of “Joltin’ Joe” and the rest of the defense team can ultimately convince the special prosecutors to dismiss the charges in this Hoax. Until that day comes, Hoax enablers like Robinson Everett can only cause the rest of us to look to the sky and remember that “heaven holds a place for those who pray.”

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

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.

Estrich Rips Nifong

As the Hoax began, USC Law Professor Susan Estrich was a firm supporter of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong. As Nifong's Hoax began to unravel, Estrich became critical of his disregard for procedure. Today, she finally appears to see clearly the rampant misconduct and deception that defines the Hoax. In a devastating missive at Fox News, Estrich shreds Nifong.

"This is not the way the system is supposed to operate. Prosecutors are supposed to be out for justice, not blood; committed to the truth, at all costs, not winning, without more.

"Prosecutors aren’t just morally obliged but legally required to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.

"Prosecutors aren’t just one side in a battle.

"You can’t come across the smoking gun covered with fingerprints on it – come across it because you have the power of the state to collect all the evidence – and then decide to ignore it because they don’t match the fingerprints of the guy you’re prosecuting for the crime. You certainly can’t file the report from the lab for your eyes only.

"You have to tell the defendant that the smoking gun has someone else’s prints on it. He has a right to know that, and the prosecutor has a duty to tell him.

"There is a reason that the rules are such. The prosecutor represents the people. The people’s goal is winning, which doesn’t have to mean a perfect conviction rate.

"The goal is supposed to be to convict the guy who did it, not frame the guy you’ve got."

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

Read the rest here: Duke Justice Demands Nifong's Removal

Discuss the article here: Susan Estrich Article 12-08-2006, YOWSAH!

The Nifong-Meehan Conspiracy

"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]

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.

LS Forum: Cold-Blooded Frame

LS Forum: There was a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!

Lunacy

I’m convinced that John Stevenson of the Herald Sun just can’t stop himself from distorting the truth. His compulsion to distort appears at times to be pathological. Yesterday’s change of venue motion filed by the defense featured the Herald Sun’s systematic distortions quite prominently yet it appears to have made no difference to Stevenson. In commenting on yesterday’s hearing, Stevenson writes:

“Also during a Friday court hearing, Judge Osmond Smith ordered paternity tests to determine if any of the rape suspects was responsible for the accuser's newly disclosed pregnancy.

“Nifong said the woman is expected to give birth in early February. He conceded the rape defendants almost certainly did not impregnate her, but he concurred with defense attorneys that paternity tests should be done anyway.”

Incredibly, Stevenson attempts to leave open the possibility of an immaculate conception some two months after the non-rape. While horses have a gestation period of eleven months, Stevenson hints at the possibility that pseudo-victims do too. With a due date in early February, simple math would indicate a date of conception in mid-May making Stevenson himself a far more likely candidate as the father than the defendants considering that at least Stevenson was in Durham at the time in question.

The latest Snooze Room lunacy follows local and national false reports from the accuser’s family that the child had been born nine months after the hatching of the Hoax. According to Greta Van Sustern, FOX News, and WRAL’s Julia Lewis the birth announcement was “confirmed.” On television with Greta, spokes-cousin Clyde Young, aka Cousin Jakki, shed crocodile tears while suggesting that one of the accused could be the father. Commentator Ted Williams made a mockery of himself, again, by quickly jumping on the hoax baby bandwagon. In some mainstream media reports it was noted that no less than five members of the false accuser’s family, including grandmother Gertrude, verified the birth.

Viciously, DA Nifong refused in court to stipulate that any of the defendants were not the father despite acknowledging that conception occurred well outside the relevant timeframe. In response to Nifong’s petty refusal, the defense requested that the judge order the paternity testing to debunk this nonsense. Yesterday, UNC hospital issued a statement confirming the pregnancy and the expected February due date. Despite the absolute impossibility that the father is one of the accused, Stevenson would have his readers believe that such a possibility exists.

Kneefong's "Expert"

More Meehan

Flashback:

"The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant [Seligmann]," Nifong wrote in a court filing [May 18].

Today:

"Meehan struggled to say why he didn’t include the favorable evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. He cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, his discussions at several meetings with Nifong, and the fact that he didn’t know whose DNA it was.

"Under questioning by Jim Cooney, a defense attorney for Seligmann, Meehan admitted that his report violated his laboratory’s standards by not reporting results of all tests.

"Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests?" Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

“Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?” Cooney asked

I believe so,” Meehan said.

"Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney?" Cooney asked.

“Yes,” Meehan replied."

Head of DNA lab says he and Nifong agreed not to report results [N&O]

Meehan Testifies

Judge Smith has granted the defense DNA motion and ordered Dr. Brian Meehan to testify under oath. Dr. Meehan admitted in court today that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong intentionally decided to not disclose to the defense the results from DNA testing that showed eighteen semen and epithelial fragments did not match any of the indicted players nor their teammates but rather belonged to several other men. Incredibly, Dr. Meehan, whose own DNA appears to have been discovered in the testing, contends the conspiracy to hide the full results was intented was to protect the lacrosse team.

"Brian Meehan, the director of a private lab that tested DNA samples, testified Friday about the testing procedures and the report the lab delivered to Nifong's office, which defense attorneys maintain was incomplete. The defense said the full report showed DNA samples from several men on the woman and her underwear, but none of the genetic material matched any of the players."

"Their motion also said that some of Meehan's own DNA contaminated the sample. Meehan said the lab didn't try to withhold information. He said he and Nifong chose not to release the full report to protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't
implicated in the case." WRAL

LS Forum: Live Discussion and Updates of Today's Hearing

Update:

In his continued testimony at today's hearing, Dr. Meehan admits that he discussed the test results with District Attorney Nifong as several meetings. Further, Meehan states that Nifong wanted the reports to specifically say only whether the reference samples matched the evidence recovered from the victim. DA Nifong appears to deny Dr. Meehan's allegations by telling the court that he had no knowledge until Wednesday of this week that DNA recovered from the victim did not match the indicted players.

District Attorney Mike Nifong told a judge during today's Duke lacrosse case hearing that he was unaware of DNA that did not match the accused lacrosse players until this week, when defense lawyers included the information in a motion.

The head of a private lab that did the testing said he had discussed testing results with Nifong at several meetings.

Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security, the private lab that did the testing, said the evidence of other DNA was not included in the final report given to Nifong and defense lawyers because of privacy concerns and because he was not asked to provide that.

"Mr. Nifong specifically wanted us to say if the reference specimens matched any of the evidence. That's what we gave him."

Unaware? Didn't know? If Nifong didn't know that there were multiple DNA matches to other men, he may have been the only one following the case to not know and it didn't take any of us several meetings with the director of the lab to find out. Even the "word in the street" seemed to know:

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Good News Is...":

What's the good news??? I know you're kidding...if you think this is the big bombshell?? This thing about multiple dna not being linked to lacrosse players was known 7 months ago. Get real and report real news b/c this is not it.

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

Meehan Letter

Meehan Letter

DNA Security Log

Click to view DNA security log

Saacks' Petition For DNA Testing

Click to view Saacks' Petition and Stephens' Order

How does DNA exonerate you?

In March, Durham County District Hoax-ist, Mike Nifong asked: "How does DNA exonerate you?”

Being the helpful sort of folks that we consider ourselves to be, we thought Mr. Nifong might appreciate a hand in finding an answer to his question. Initially, our research led us to believe that the answer to the question might be something along the lines of, “DNA exonerates you when it belongs to someone other than you” or perhaps, “DNA exonerates you when an fictional thirty minute five minute "brutal", three orifice, gang rape leaves none of your DNA on or in an accuser’s person.”

Quickly, and for obvious reasons, we dismissed those options as they certainly don’t seem to be the answers Nifong was looking for. While the rest of the free thinking world accepts that DNA would indeed exonerate you in those situations, DA Nifong pretends that the science of DNA is an opinion to be dismissed when it contradicts his perceived infallibility.

Realizing that these generally accepted answers would not suffice for his highness, and of course, being eager to please the master, we dug a little deeper and thought a little harder. The next stops on our quest took us to the Justice Project and the Innocence Project where we discovered 187 clues in the form of case details on men and woman who combined spent a total of nearly 3,000 years in jail for crimes they did not commit before being exonerated by DNA.

Exonerations based on DNA Evidence:

ALABAMA

Dale Mahan, 1998

Ronnie Mahan, 1998

ARIZONA

Larry Youngblood, 2000

Ray Krone, 2002

CALIFORNIA

Mark Diaz Bravo, 1993

Frederick Daye, 1994

Kevin Green, 1996

Herman Atkins, 2000

Albert Johnson, 2002

Leonary McSherry, 2002

David Allen Jones, 2003

Peter Rose, 2003

CONNECTICUT

Rickey Hammond, 1992

Mark Reid, 2003

James Tillman, 2006

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Edward Green, 1990

FLORIDA

Frank Lee Smith, 2000

Jerry Frank Townsend, 2001

Wilton Dedge, 2004

Luis Diaz, 2005

Orlando Boquete, 2006

Alan Crotzer, 2006

GEORGIA

Calvin Johnson, 1999

Douglas Echols, 2002

Samuel Scott, 2002

Clarence Harrison

Robert Clark, 2005

IDAHO

Charles Fain, 2001

ILLINOIS

Gary Dotson, 1989

Steven Linscott, 1992

Ronnie Bullock, 1994

Rolando Cruz, 1995

Alejandro Hernandez, 1995

Kenneth Adams, 1996

Verneal Jimerson, 1996

Willie Rainge, 1996

Richard Johnson, 1996

Dennis Williams, 1996

Donald Reynolds, 1997

Billy Wardell, 1997

David Gray, 1999

Ronald Jones, 1999

John Willis, 1999

Marcellius Bradford, 2001

Calvin Ollins, 2001

Larry Ollins, 2001

Omar Saunders, 2001

Alejandro Dominguez, 2002

Paula Gray, 2002

Michael Evans, 2003

Dana Holland, 2003

Paul Terry, 2003

Lafonso Rollins, 2004

INDIANA

Dwayne Scruggs, 1993

Jerry Watkins, 2000

Richard Alexander, 2001

Larry Mayes, 2001

KANSAS

Joe Jones, 1992

Eddie James Lowery, 2003

KENTUCKY

William Gregory, 2000

LOUISIANA

Clyde Charles, 1999

Gene Bibbins, 2003

Calvin Willis, 2003

Ryan Matthews, 2004

Dennis Brown, 2005

Michael Anthony Williams, 2005

Willie Jackson, 2006

MASSACHUSETTS

Marvin Mitchell, 1997

Neil Miller, 2000

Eric Sarsfield, 2000

Ulysses Rodriguez Charles, 2001

Angel Hernandez, 2001

Kenneth Waters, 2001

Dennis Maher, 2003

Stephan Cowans, 2004

Anthony Powell, 2004

MARYLAND

Kirk Bloodsworth, 1993

Anthony Gray, 1999

Bernard Webster, 2002

MICHIGAN

Eddie Joe Lloyd, 2002

Kenneth Wyniemko, 2003

MINNESOTA

David B. Sutherlin, 2002

MISSOURI

Steven Toney, 1996*

Armand Villasana, 2000*

Larry Johnson, 2002

Lonnie Erby, 2003

Anthony Woods, 2005

Johnny Briscoe, 2006

MONTANA

Chester Bauer, 1997

Jimmy Ray Bromgard, 2002

Paul D. Kordonowy, 2003

NORTH CAROLINA

Ronald Cotton, 1995

Keith Brown, 1997*

Lesley Jean, 2001

Darryl Hunt, 2004

Leo Waters, 2005

NEBRASKA

Jeremy Sheets, 2001

NEW JERSEY

David Shepard, 1994*

McKinley Cromedy, 2000*

John Dixon, 2001*

Larry Peterson, 2006

NEW YORK

Charles Dabbs, 1991*

Leonard Callace, 1992*

Kerry Kotler, 1992*

Terry Chalmers, 1995*

Victor Ortiz, 1996*

Warith Habib Abdal, 1999*

James O’Donnell, 2000*

Hector Gonzalez, 2002

Antron McCray, 2002

Kevin Richardson, 2002

Yusef Salaam, 2002

Raymond Santana, 2002

Kharey Wise, 2002

Michael Mercer, 2003

John Restivo, 2005

Dennis Halstead, 2005

John Kogut, 2005

Jeffrey Deskovic, 2006

Scott Fappiano, 2006

Douglas Warney, 2006

OHIO

Brian Piszczek, 1994*

Walter Smith, 1996*

Danny Brown, 2001*

Anthony Green, 2001*

Donte Booker, 2005

Clarence Elkins, 2005

OKLAHOMA

Thomas Webb, 1996*

Timothy Durham, 1997*

Robert Lee Miller, Jr., 1998*

Dennis Fritz, 1999*

Ronald Williamson, 1999*

Jeffrey Pierce, 2001*

Arvin McGee, 2002

David Johns Bryson, 2003*

Calvin Lee Scott, 2003

PENNSYLVANIA

Bruce Nelson, 1991*

Dale Brison, 1994*

Vincent Moto, 1996*

Willie Nesmith, 2000*

Bruce Godschalk, 2002

Nicholas Yarris, 2003

Bruce Laughman, 2003

Thomas Doswell, 2005

Drew Whitley, 2006

SOUTH CAROLINA

Perry Mitchell, 1998*

TENNESSEE

Clark McMillan, 2002

TEXAS

Gilbert Alejandro, 1994

Kevin Byrd, 1997

Ben Salazar, 1997

A.B. Butler, 2000

Roy Criner, 2000

Carlos Lavernia, 2000

Anthony Robinson, 2000

Richard Danziger, 2001

Christopher Ochoa, 2001

David Shawn Pope, 2001

Victor Larue Thomas, 2001

Calvin Washington, 2001

Mark Webb, 2001

Joe Sidney Williams, 2001

Wiley Fountain , 2003

Josiah Sutton, 2004

Donald Wayne Good, 2004

Brandon Moon, 2004

George Rodriguez, 2005

Entre Nax Karage, 2005

Keith E. Turner, 2005

Arthur Mumphrey, 2006

UTAH

Bruce Dallas Goodman, 2004

VIRGINA

David Vasquez, 1989

Walter Snyder, 1993

Edward Honaker, 1994

Troy Webb, 1996

Earl Washington, 2000

Marvin Anderson, 2001

Julius Earl Ruffin, 2003

Arthur Lee Whitfield, 2004

Willie Davidson, 2005

Phillip Leon Thurman, 2005

WISCONSIN

Frederic Saecker, 1996

Anthony Hicks, 1997

Steven Avery, 2003

WEST VIRGINIA

Glen Dale Woodall, 1992

Dewey Davis, 1995

Gerald Davis, 1995

William O’Dell Harris, 1995

James Richardson, 1999

Larry Holdren, 2001

*Innocence Project

With the understanding that his Fongness might deem his opinion superior to those of the 187 mortals listed above and the 187 judges, attorneys, governors, juries and/or scientists who made the determinations of innocence based on DNA evidence in their cases, we decided as a last resort to consult the words of the oracle himself in order to complete our servile mission.

From a News and Observer article dated July 12, 2000, we found that our aim was at last true and our quest had been fulfilled.

New suspect sought in rape

DURHAM -- Police issued an arrest warrant for a man suspected in a February rape in Trinity Park on Tuesday, days after DNA evidence exonerated another man they had charged with the crime. The suspect, Jeffrey Lamont McNeill, 30, also might be a suspect in a second Trinity Park rape earlier this year. The two assaults put residents of the neighborhood next to Duke University's East Campus on edge for weeks. They went door-to-door with wanted posters and composite drawings of the rapist, and some organized self-defense classes as a result. Police refused to elaborate on a poster they issued with McNeill's picture that said they were looking for him in connection with the "Trinity Park Sexual Assaults."

On Friday, after receiving the results of a DNA test, police released from the Durham County jail the man they had charged with one of the Trinity Park rapes. They said the evidence exonerated him - but matched McNeill. Leroy Samuels who has been in jail for more than three months with his bail set at $150,000 in connection with an assault on Green Street on Feb. 3. He was charged April 6 after several witnesses, including the victim, identified him as he stood near Broad and Main streets, blocks from the assaults.

On Friday, charges of first-degree rape, first-degree kidnapping, first-degree burglary and first-degree statutory sexual offense were dropped after the DNA test results were received from the State Bureau of Investigation laboratory.

"Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime," prosecutor Mike Nifong wrote."

It would appear that, the correct answer to "How does DNA exonerate you?" is:

In Durham County, DNA exonerates you if, and only if, Mike Nifong says it does.

(Please Note: The list above includes only men and women who have been falsely convicted prior to being exonerated by DNA evidence. Countless other people have been exonerated, just as Mr. Samuels was by DA Nifong, by DNA evidence without having to stand trial nor having to face the prospect of being falsely convicted.)