tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post3703000562881876844..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Meehan Testimonykcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67566749801988239052007-06-13T23:20:00.000-04:002007-06-13T23:20:00.000-04:00Was the 'public' part of "Number of items from pub...Was the 'public' part of "Number of items from public hair combings " a freudian slip?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55235416264049941012007-06-13T16:30:00.000-04:002007-06-13T16:30:00.000-04:00that's fine as far as it goes :)1. if you believe...that's fine as far as it goes :)<BR/><BR/><BR/>1. if you believe the details of her sotry, then the ID cant be right. it was the 4 John Does<BR/><BR/>2. If the ID was right of the 3 LAX players, then all the details of who did what when w/o condoms etc has to be completely wrong AND some magic likely occurs to prevent her DNA from occuring on the magic towel, and the lax guys skin or latex residue or lubricant etc (LOL, wood splinters) from remaining behind for the swabs to find.<BR/><BR/><BR/>lets drop it :)The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41079525207217599982007-06-13T16:05:00.000-04:002007-06-13T16:05:00.000-04:00Works for me.Thanks.Works for me.<BR/>Thanks.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52061983147647569312007-06-13T15:55:00.000-04:002007-06-13T15:55:00.000-04:00Okay, before this fighting gets any stupider and w...Okay, before this fighting gets any stupider and wastes any more time, I'm going to list what I think appear in the comments above as the points everyone's agreed on and the points where there's disagreement. Okay?<BR/><BR/><B>Points agreed upon by all sides</B><BR/><BR/>For rape charges <I>in general</I>, failing to find the DNA of a suspect does not mean the suspect did not commit the alleged rape did not take place. There are possible explanations for why the DNA evidence might not have been left on the victim (use of condoms, for one) or might have been there but gone by the time of testing (the victim waiting to seek help or cleaning up for their own emotional needs). That is for rape charges <I>in general</I>.<BR/><BR/>For <I>these</I> rape charges, the DNA tests made it nearly impossible that the rape alleged by Mangum could ever have happened. She specifically described the ejaculations into her mouth, ruling out the "perhaps DNA evidence was not left in the first place" theory. She was tested within a few hours of the alleged rape and never suggested that she or anyone else had done anything which would have removed DNA evidence -- save for the "magic towel" she alleged, which could not have removed DNA evidence from her without becoming a source of such evidence itself. At this point it is unlikely that a violent gang rape occurred as described but somehow left no DNA from those alleged to be the rapists. However, when the DNA of <I>four</I> other males <I>is</I> found, by the procedures by which the DNA of the alleged rapists <I>is not</I> found, the chances that the rape still could have happened as described is so fantastically improbable that it doesn't even merit discussion.<BR/><BR/><B>Points on which there is disagreement</B><BR/><BR/>. . .<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this sum it up correctly? Have I correctly listed the points on which there is actually any remaining disagreement to thresh out? Great; let's stick to threshing those.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16126797738792765572007-06-13T14:59:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:59:00.000-04:002:56I do understand: the use of a condom/gloves et...2:56<BR/>I do understand: the use of a <BR/>condom/gloves etc. can thwart<BR/>a DNA test. (Apparently, criminals<BR/>are using these when they pre-plan<BR/>their crimes.)<BR/><BR/>It would take some great <BR/>preparation for these boys to<BR/>have avoided leaving "samples."machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15433283947200793352007-06-13T14:56:00.001-04:002007-06-13T14:56:00.001-04:00BTW,Epithelial cells ARE used inDNA rape-tests. ...BTW,<BR/>Epithelial cells ARE used in<BR/>DNA rape-tests. (Maybe not<BR/>in this one, but you can Google<BR/>it.)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15122646799717506442007-06-13T14:56:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:56:00.000-04:00What I was trying to do, apparently with no succes...What I was trying to do, apparently with no success, was to differentiate making a blanket statement --no DNA exonerates a rape suspect-- with the specific in THIS CASE, and that even in this case UNLESS you take all of the evidence..that she said no condoms were used, that she said they ejaculated, etc. etc. that lack of player DNA and presence of other DNA did not necessarily exonerate the players.<BR/><BR/>The reason in this case that the lack of player DNA IS exculpatory is because she said no condoms and she claimed ejaculation and she was examined only a couple of hours after the imaginary attack. But, without those facts, lack of player DNA and presence of other DNA wouldn't exonerate anyone.<BR/><BR/>But forget it, its either too subtle a point or you are not understanding waht I'm saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-10634733192193538752007-06-13T14:55:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:55:00.000-04:00"Nasty Panties"?I smells a book title!"Nasty Panties"?<BR/><BR/>I smells a book title!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21971768878772624472007-06-13T14:51:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:51:00.000-04:00Epithelial DNA.Um. I think Meehan was actuallyref...Epithelial DNA.<BR/>Um. I think Meehan was actually<BR/>referring to the samples taken<BR/>from the boys, not what was on<BR/>CGM's nasty panties.<BR/>My bad.<BR/><BR/>But the Drill Sgt. is correct,<BR/>even if I wasn't.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81098427906910418632007-06-13T14:41:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:41:00.000-04:00I said it is stupid and wrong to think that DNA is...<I>I said it is stupid and wrong to think that DNA is left behind in all rape cases or is available in anything but a tiny number of criminal cases, and that is correct, you can feel free to look it up. </I><BR/><BR/>Not all rapes, but surely this one. <BR/><BR/>She was, how do you say it? experienced? <BR/><BR/>She claimed that they wore no condoms and ejaculated in her mouth (and everywhere else). she claimed to have tasted it, and she had some experience. She did not shower, douche, brush her teeth, and went fairly directly to the hospital. <BR/><BR/>NDA from the rape absolutely should have been there from the attackers unless she lied. Nobody questioned the issue.The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76213877589986400312007-06-13T14:34:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:34:00.000-04:00I didn't insult you by comparing youto Tara: she s...I didn't insult you by comparing you<BR/>to Tara: she said the same thing<BR/>you're saying.<BR/><BR/>Most of the time DNA isn't<BR/>available, it's because the<BR/>person waited before reporting <BR/>it, douched like crazy in order<BR/>to escape the feeling of being <BR/>slimed, or because they really<BR/>weren't raped. Especially with<BR/>anal rape, which - (even with<BR/>consensual activity) - usually<BR/>causes rectal tearing. (Ever<BR/>hear of AIDS?) <BR/><BR/>Again, there WAS NO SPERM that<BR/>Meehan referred to: it was <BR/>epithelial DNA.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67996167056423254202007-06-13T14:26:00.002-04:002007-06-13T14:26:00.002-04:00Believe what you want to believe, DNA is not alway...Believe what you want to believe, DNA is not always left behind when there is physical or sexual contact.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully you will never serve on a jury where lack of DNA evidence that you believe should exist because you watch too much CSI won't cause you to let a dangerous criminal back out onto the street.<BR/><BR/>You made the first attack comment by comparing me to Tara Levicy.<BR/><BR/>I didn't call you stupid I said it is stupid and wrong to think that DNA is left behind in all rape cases or is available in anything but a tiny number of criminal cases, and that is correct, you can feel free to look it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88664013227551497702007-06-13T14:26:00.001-04:002007-06-13T14:26:00.001-04:00BTW, 2:10:It is not "extremely exculpatory,"it is ...BTW, 2:10:<BR/>It is not "extremely exculpatory,"<BR/>it is "complete exoneration."machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21080687707161020082007-06-13T14:26:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:26:00.000-04:002:10, I said before in THIS CASE, given what THIS ...2:10, <I>I said before in THIS CASE, given what THIS witness said, lack of DNA evidence is extremely exculpatory but to say in blanket form that 'no DNA from the boys automatically exonerates them' is stupid and wrong. </I><BR/><BR/>I think the point that I and others are trying to make is:<BR/><BR/>- she claimed to have been raped<BR/>- she claimed no condom and ejactulation by multiple men in 3 orifices<BR/>- she claimed no recent sex with others<BR/>- she had a less than strong ID of 3 attackers (several attempts and weak results)<BR/><BR/>no you get DNA back with no semen from the 3 players and semen from 4 others.<BR/><BR/>That leads me to conclude that IF a rape occurred, it MUST have been 4 different men, the ID was flawed, release the players and look for 4 mystery men.<BR/><BR/>what's the weak point in that logic tree? If Nifong didn't even look at that path, he was guilty of incompetence or criminal conspiracy.The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33770820227514551222007-06-13T14:22:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:22:00.000-04:002:10 The issue is not the guilt or innocence of ...2:10<BR/> The issue is not the guilt or innocence of the Duke 3. The issue is did Nifong exclude evidence he was required to turn over and did he do it knowingly. He knew there was male DNA in the rape kit. He knew that none of the LAX players were a match. He turned over the fact there was no match but left out the fact there was male DNA. The fact he omitted the information is what is going to hurt Nifong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26775896809701322282007-06-13T14:20:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:20:00.000-04:00By the way,you must not have been paying attention...By the way,<BR/>you must not have been paying attention: <BR/>the male doesn't have to ejaculate <BR/>for DNA to be left behind. <BR/>Ever hear Meehan speak <BR/>of "epithelial DNA?"<BR/><BR/>He said it this morning!<BR/>This was where the DNA<BR/>came from, not sperm.<BR/><BR/>Epithelium? <BR/><BR/>Maybe someone can look it up<BR/>for you: I don't appreciate<BR/>the fact that you called<BR/>me "stupid."machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3781345789106456822007-06-13T14:15:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:15:00.000-04:00In this case, lack of DNA evidenceexonerates the b...In this case, lack of DNA evidence<BR/>exonerates the boys.<BR/>It could be that a rape occured<BR/>by someone else, at some other time,<BR/>(perhaps while Ms. Mangum was<BR/>being levitated by aliens from<BR/>the planet Polanski is from?) <BR/><BR/>In THIS CASE, it proves that<BR/>no rape occured via the boys.<BR/>That's what the lab director said; <BR/>that's what the AG said; that's<BR/>what we're talking about:<BR/>this case. <BR/><BR/>No DNA from boys + DNA from others = innocence.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34700179685240717962007-06-13T14:10:00.000-04:002007-06-13T14:10:00.000-04:00You are mixing two different issues.Lack of DNA do...You are mixing two different issues.<BR/><BR/>Lack of DNA doens't mean no rape took place. Presence of DNA doens't mean a rape took place.<BR/><BR/>When you have unprotected sex and a man ejaculates it is very likely that DNA will be left behind.<BR/><BR/>These are separate issues, Mangum clearly had tons of unprotected sex and her donors left behind DNA evidence, we have no way of knowing there are another dozen guys she had sex w/that left no DNA because they didn't use condoms, didnt ejaculate or ejaculated somewhere else.<BR/><BR/>How can NO DNA exonerate anyone from a rape charge in and of itself?<BR/><BR/>What if the woman said the man used a condom? What if the rape kit test was done 24 hours later when DNA may have washed away? What if there was penetration but no ejaculation? What if the man is a non ejaculator, eg. doens't leave sperm behind? What if the victim didn't go to the hospital in time or at all for any DNA to be found? <BR/><BR/>How does 'other' DNA prove no rape occured? What if the woman had consensual sex with someone right before the rape? How does that mean no rape occured?<BR/><BR/>Please try and leave off the stupid smartass commnents like 'is that you Tara'.<BR/><BR/>I said before in THIS CASE, given what THIS witness said, lack of DNA evidence is extremely exculpatory but to say in blanket form that 'no DNA from the boys automatically exonerates them' is stupid and wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85797869887833925372007-06-13T13:54:00.000-04:002007-06-13T13:54:00.000-04:00DNA evidence WAS found.1:40You're right: no DNA fr...DNA evidence WAS found.<BR/>1:40<BR/>You're right: no DNA from<BR/>the boys exonerates the boys:<BR/>none of it was theirs.<BR/><BR/>1:39<BR/>If DNA is so easy to wash<BR/>away, why were "no-less than"<BR/>4 individuals DNA found on her<BR/>panties? That means that<BR/>she had some form of <BR/>intercourse with 4 other <BR/>individuals, and theirs <BR/>showed up, but not the boys'? <BR/>Hmmm?<BR/>(Is that you, Tara?)<BR/><BR/>By the way, the Investigators<BR/>should have let Levicy know about<BR/>the DNA, as well. They should <BR/>have told her about CGM's mental<BR/>illness, too.machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13529520373962527722007-06-13T13:44:00.001-04:002007-06-13T13:44:00.001-04:00People are brainwashed by CSI into thinking that D...People are brainwashed by CSI into thinking that DNA has to be found in every case, the majority of ALL crimes have no DNA evidence, no fingerprints, no hair samples, no skin cell fragments.<BR/><BR/>This idea that if someone kicks/hits or comes in contact with its going to leave DNA is WRONG, totally wrong and is leading to guilty people being acquitted every day.<BR/><BR/>What IS virtually impossible is that someone can ejaculate in a woman's mouth and leave no DNA residue that shows up in a test done less than 6 hours after the attack w/no claims the woman drank or ate anything or brushed her teeth.<BR/><BR/>Fiber evidence? Give me a break, so you think that if two people come in contact, even have a fight there has to be fiber evidence? That is a TV dreamworld.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86749988678959680942007-06-13T13:44:00.000-04:002007-06-13T13:44:00.000-04:00"Meehan's complicity comes asa passive participant..."Meehan's complicity comes as<BR/>a passive participant"<BR/><BR/>The question I'm asking is a detailed legal question. There are various professions such as medicine and childcare where there are strong legal rules on what you can, can't or must say. They're often pretty complicated too, with "mandated reporting" rules and "patient privacy" rules sometimes in direct contradiction.<BR/><BR/>My question was whether crime labs have any such rules, beyond the usual ones regarding commercial entities and their clients.<BR/><BR/>There were a lot of passive and semi-passive participants in this case. At least some of them were probably neglecting some action they were legally supposed to take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49086372147050183092007-06-13T13:43:00.000-04:002007-06-13T13:43:00.000-04:00Wouldn't the statute also cover the verbal reports...<I>Wouldn't the statute also cover the verbal reports given by Meehan on the 10th and 25th? </I><BR/><BR/>More importantly, Nifong already has stated in open court and in his filings to the Bar (which hates above all to be lied to, or thought to be stupid) that he had NO substantive discussions with Meehan at those meetings. those did not memorialize them subject to discovery.The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-90355214461856605642007-06-13T13:40:00.000-04:002007-06-13T13:40:00.000-04:00Not really, presence of other DNA doesn't preclude...<I>Not really, presence of other DNA doesn't preclude that a rape occured. In this case it did, but that doesn't make a criminal conspiracy and DNA other than the accused doenst' automatically mean the accused is innocent. </I><BR/><BR/>The absence of the accused DNA and any trace of the accused in the form of such things as fiber evidence, coupled with the presence of the DNA of others, would indicate that if a rape occurred, the accused were not responsible.<BR/> <BR/>Nifong insisted that the absence of the boys' DNA did not mean that nothing happened, only that "nothing was left behind" by them. I dont buy this. It is basically impossible to come into close contact with someone, as happens in a rape, and leave no trace of yourself. Maybe it could happen once. But three times during a rape that took place in a small bathroom--without condoms? No way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53826503064996535962007-06-13T13:39:00.000-04:002007-06-13T13:39:00.000-04:00Mac,It doens't work that way, lack of DNA, in and ...Mac,<BR/><BR/>It doens't work that way, lack of DNA, in and of itself, does not exonerate anyone from a rape charge. <BR/><BR/>You don't go 'oh, there isn't any DNA from suspect X' and then automatically drop the rape charge.<BR/><BR/>In this case, given the totality of the circumstances and Mangum's description, lack of DNA is a virtual case killer, but legally, no DNA is a bonus for the defense but hardly grounds for dropping charges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17275250115042581682007-06-13T13:38:00.001-04:002007-06-13T13:38:00.001-04:00"The statute says 'report' of all tests, he provid..."The statute says 'report' of all tests, he provided the 'interim report' he had"<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't the statute also cover the verbal reports given by Meehan on the 10th and 25th?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com