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?

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.

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.

Christmas in Hoaxland

Twas two weeks before Christmas, not much was new.
Down there in Durham, it seemed rather subdued.
.
News cycle was quiet... Ashley kept his street "cred"
With the pro-Nifong op-eds that danced in his head.
.
The bloggers and posters knew each Nifong shame.
They could whistle, and shout them, and call them by name.
.
And though things were slow, as the hearing drew near
Who, to our wondering eyes should appear?
.
But Cash Michaels, reporter, and Cassandra du jour
Nightly making the strangest discussion board tour!!
.
Leaving giddy warnings and predicting a quake
(I believe his exact quote one time was just..."S_H_H_A_A_A_K_E!!")
.
And Hoax aficionados like the ancients of Greece
Now found their Delphi...right at WTVD!
.
Some opined Cash knew something...right from Nifong's lips
Some felt...Bartlett's Quotations was an early Christmas gift
.
But then! A call for the Feds shook the Hoax to the quick!!
And Cash just didn't seem either...lively or quick...?
.
So after the taunting, the sparring...the quotes
Cash declared the game over and up the chimney he rose!

But more rapid then eagles, the bombshells they came!
We heard of a baby born just that day!
.
Five family members gave the new birth their backing!
So on their credibility...Greta booked Cousin Jakki!
.
But Cousin Clyde Young didn't laugh like a bowl full of jelly
He hinted one of the players just could be the daddy!
.
Now today we learn February is the date baby's popping!
Greta, Cousin Clyde Young put coal...in your Christmas stocking!

And the last lively elf to appear on the scene
Is the oh-so obliging Dr. Brian Meehan!
.
As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
He shrank before Bannon as he tried to tell why?
.
WHY he agreed, after Nifong drove out for chats,
To just send a summary that omitted THE stats...?
.
"They agreed" to omit exculpatory results...
Uu-m-m, we just couldn't drag those..."hooligans" through the mud!
.
And not a creature was stirring as Cooney made him repeat...
"We agreed. We agreed." Yes, "The Client and me!"
.
And visions of ashes and switches beseeched him
When admitting he violated his OWN procedures!
.
And his eyes didn't twinkle when he had to confess,
Meehan's own DNA had shown up in the mess.!!!
.
Yet we heard Meehan exclaim ere he drove out of sight...
"I was only concerned with their privacy rights!!"
.
That's Christmas in Hoaxland...and to all a Good Night!

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