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.

No Notes Wilson

While defending the persecution of defense witness Moezeldin Elmostafa, District Attorney Mike Nifong's strongman, Linwood Wilson, claimed that it was routine for him to run extensive background checks on all victims and witnesses encountered by the DA's office.

"The investigator, Linwood Wilson, said he runs such checks on every victim and witness that the District Attorney's Office encounters." N&O 8/16

For Elmostafa, this check included investigations of his insurance history, driving record, several years worth of drug tests [all negative] and a criminal record check. Assuming that Linwood Wilson was being truthful when he stated that "he runs such checks on every victim and witness that the District Attorney's Office encounters," one would expect that he conduct the same investigation on: the accuser, Kim Roberts, Jason Bissey, the entire lacrosse team, the security guards at Kroger and Durham Access, and many others.

Curiously, he appears to have taken no notes, nor produced any discoverable material, as a result of these multiple investigations.

"The Cheshire letter, more explosively, asks for the notes and reports of Nifong’s investigator, Linwood Wilson...Nifong, remarkably, has given the defense no material produced by Wilson."

KC Johnson

Perhaps he can ask Sgt. Gottlieb to help him write up his notes now.

Caught By His Own Words

.

The North Carolina District Attorney’s Conference opens its Fall Association Meeting at the Sea Trail Resort tonight with a seminar on ethics from 7 to 10PM followed by a meet and greet in the lounge. We’re going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Michael B. Nifong is not the featured speaker for the ethics instruction, and perhaps not the most popular fella at the social event.

.

It is with fitting irony that the start of this event coincides with a new defense letter "sent to District Attorney Mike Nifong on Wednesday and included in the court file,” that appears to have cornered Mr. Nifong in additional ethically challenged statements. Citing Nifong’s motion filed September 20th, his statements in court and his statements while seeking an endorsement from the Friends of Durham PAC, defense attorneys are seeking details of his conversation(s) with the Duke Hoax accuser.

Regarding the new defense request and the apparent lies Mr. Nifong has been caught in, Benjamin Niolet of the News and Observer notes:

“In a recent court hearing, Nifong agreed that under state law, he would have to hand over a written report recounting anything the woman said about the incident. But Nifong told the lawyers in a hearing last month before Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III, that he had no statements to hand over.”

“In a motion Nifong filed Sept. 20, Nifong wrote that the woman told him that she had not taken the drug Ecstacy on the night of the party.”

"’The necessary implication is that, as of the date of our hearing before Judge Smith, you had spoken with [the accuser] about the facts of the case,’ Cheshire and Bannon wrote in the letter."

The Herald Sun further demonstrates the apparent estrangement of Nifong and Ashley by adding the following details:

"In the letter filed Wednesday, defense attorneys cite two pieces of evidence indicating Nifong has discussed the facts of the case with the accuser: a court motion in which Nifong states the accuser told him she had not taken Ecstasy on the night of the party, and comments from the chairman of a local political action committee saying that Nifong said "he's the only one that's interviewed this victim."

"It is clear that you have spoken with (the accuser) about the facts of this case. ... It is equally clear that we still have no reports of any factual statements (the accuser) has made to you in the investigation and prosecution of this case, whether in the presence of others or not," the attorneys wrote."

The defense also said that it had not received any handwritten notes from Durham Police Investigator Benjamin Himan for his activities in the case after May 15; no reports from Himan after June 26; and no reports from Sgt. Mark Gottlieb since July 14. Defense attorneys also asked for any reports on the activities of Linwood Wilson, an investigator in Nifong's office."

Professor KC Johnson stays hot on Nifong's [sea] trail:

"According to the Cheshire letter, Nifong, remarkably, has given the defense no material produced by Wilson. The district attorney, as of March 24, functioned as the de facto head of this investigation. Surely the defense is entitled to the reports of all the people who worked under him."

"Yet again, the district attorney has flouted the Open Discovery Law by refusing to produce evidence until the defense demands it, despite his obligation to turn over all evidence, and to have done so months ago."

A review of the Nifong’s motion cited in the Niolet’s article reveals that Nifong also attests to the accuser’s great recall of the evening in question. One would naturally question how Nifong could vouch for her great recall, without hearing what and how she recalled, and how this claim of great recall could be made in spite of the fact that the only man she identified with certainty in two different line ups as having been at the party was not there.

Other curiosities about Mr. Nifong’s September 20th motion include his willingness to selectively choose his “facts” to support his motion, and his failure to document any of the assertions he makes with anything other than his word.

Recently we wondered whether Mr. Nifong’s “I’m the only one who has interviewed her” statement to the Friends of Durham was true, or whether his statement in court was true. It appears that we should soon have an answer as to which statement was false (or at least some new Nifongese to decipher).

The real question, however, may be, "Why is Mr. Nifong so adamantly insistent on hiding the contents of his conversation(s) with the accuser?"

Uhm...da

I'm a Natural