The Meehan Transcript

Today’s post begins with a multiple choice quiz.

Mike Nifong waited until December 21 to have a representative from his office speak to the accuser about her recollections of March 13-14 because:

a.) Using his skills as an amateur psychologist, Nifong determined that it would take no fewer than 281 days for the accuser to overcome her “traumatized” mindset about the evening’s events.

b.) Nifong feared that acting anytime sooner could be interpreted as questioning the report of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, whose ability to recall months-before conversations verbatim is legendary.

c.) Based on his experience as an investigator, Nifong needed multiple conversations with the accuser about her children to determine whether she was credible enough to speak about the night in question.

d.) Nifong was panicked by the December 15 in-court revelation of his conspiracy to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, and dispatched Linwood Wilson to order the accuser to come up with a version of events that would minimize the significance of the DNA results.

Those who answered (a), (b), or (c): I hear that positions (as unpaid interns, due to resource limitations) are available at the Herald-Sun. Bob Ashley is always looking for new talent.

The transcript of Dr. Meehan’s stunning testimony at the December 15 hearing is now available. Below are some quotes that I suspect we will encounter again before this case ends. Undoubtedly all of these quotes were on Nifong’s mind as he decided to manipulate the evidence again, dropping the rape charges but keeping the others.

---------

Nifong offers the first of what would become three explanations as to his role in concealing the DNA test results.

MR. NIFONG. The first that I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports—this motion on Wednesday of this week . . . The nature of the subject matter contained in this motion is obviously very important. I contacted Dr. Meehan. First, I faxed him a copy of the motion for him to read and then I contacted him the next morning, which would have been yesterday morning, and told him that because of the nature of the items that were raised, I did feel it was appropriate to address these right away. (pp. 14-15)

---------

MR. NIFONG. The state agrees that these are matters of importance to the case. They are items of importance because it’s crucial that everybody have access to all of the evidence in this case. (p. 16)

---------

Nifong, of course, has since retracted these statements—made in open court—and claimed first that privacy concerns and then the distraction from overwork explained why he entered into an agreement to conceal evidence.

Dr. Meehan, meanwhile, opened his testimony by challenging the defense interpretations of the DNA data. If there weren’t, in fact, multiple male DNA samples, there could be no conspiracy to conceal. Unfortunately, the doctor quickly discovered that Brad Bannon had mastered the data, and had to “modify” his initial denial that the testing revealed several males other than lacrosse players and the accuser’s three acknowledged sexual partners.

DR. MEEHAN. Unless I’m reading [the defense motion] incorrectly, it says that DNA from multiple male sources was discovered on the rectal swabs, panties in the rape kit. And if that’s read to mean that each one of those specimens had DNA from multiple males, it would be incorrect. (p. 20)

---------

MR. BANNON. And those male characteristics—if I’m not correct, please tell me if I’m not—indicate that there’s more than one male’s DNA there; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And all of those DNA characteristics were compared to all of the reference suspects’ swabs in this case; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That is also correct.

MR. BANNON. And there was not a match to anyone; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes, that is correct.

MR. BANNON. Including the defendants?

DR. MEEHAN. Right, that’s correct. Didn’t match anyone. (p. 35)

---------

Dr. Meehan’s most novel claim came in his assertion that he failed to report the exculpatory evidence because of privacy concerns. He repeatedly struggled to explain the relationship, however, between the concealment of evidence and privacy matters. This stance would form Nifong’s second justification for withholding the DNA results, but even the district attorney eventually would abandon it to cite overwork as his justification.

MR. BANNON. Let me ask you, whose privacy would it have violated if you had simply reported the male DNA characteristics found on multiple rape kit items from multiple different males who you didn’t have reference swabs for? Whose privacy would it violate?

DR. MEEHAN. That, that wouldn’t have violated anybody’s privacy. (p. 61)

---------

MR. COONEY. I want to make sure I’m understanding this. You were concerned that if you put a sentence in your report saying that Reade Seligmann is excluded from all DNA analyzed under these items as a sentence in your report, that would have violated his privacy rights? . . .

DR. MEEHAN. I can’t answer with a yes or no . . . A typical report, and this was not a typical report, but a standard report will reflect all the DNA profiles of that, all the DNA data from that information, from that person . . . So could we have said that? Could we have done that? Yes, perhaps we could have.

---------

Dr. Meehan offered what could be termed unusual definitions of what constituted a final report; and what should be considered exculpatory evidence.

MR. BANNON: The final report of your work in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. It’s the report we issued on May 12.

MR. BANNON. Well, have you issued any other report in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. No.

WITNESS: Could I get a drink of water, Mike?

MR. NIFONG: Yes, sir. [pp. 22-23]

---------

MR. BANNON. Do you know what exculpatory evidence is?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. What is exculpatory evidence?

DR. MEEHAN. It’s evidence that would provide information that would release a person as a suspect, so to speak in lay terms. Evidence to indicate that you were not party to that.

MR. BANNON. So it’s evidence that tends to negate the guilt of a person charged with a crime; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. You understood this case to be a rape case, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. You understood it to be a case where the allegation was that a person had been raped by multiple males?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And that those males had not been wearing condoms?

DR. MEEHAN. I don’t remember if I knew that or not.

MR. BANNON. Of course, why—the point being you were testing for the presence of DNA from males, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Right, right. But it could have been one person wearing a condom and one person not.

MR. BANNON. Okay. But you knew, you were testing for the presence of male DNA because a rape allegation had been made?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. Correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Correct.

MR. BANNON. And you found male DNA from multiple different sources on those rape kit items, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. Wouldn’t that tend to negate the guilt of the person who is charged with raping someone?

DR. MEEHAN. You know what? We—no. (pp. 62-63)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We were asked to determine if any of the evidence items match any of the reference specimens or really, can we exclude any of these reference? Who can we exclude in this reference group? That’s what we do. We exclude suspects. (p. 37)

---------

MR. COONEY. I’ve just got a couple more questions, Dr. Meehan. Is that one notebook in front of you or two notebooks?

DR. MEEHAN. This is one.

MR. COONEY. About how high is that? Six inches? Five inches?

DR. MEEHAN. Yeah, five or six inches.

MR. COONEY. Five or six inches. And those represent the underlying data that was produced by you on October 27, 2006?

DR. MEEHAN. As well as chain of custody documentation and stuff, yes.

MR. COONEY. And in order for Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty or Dave Evans to have found the results of the tests that excluded them, they needed to go through those six inches of paper to find them; isn’t that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That is correct.

MR. COONEY. Because you hadn’t put them in the report; is that fair?

DR. MEEHAN. That is fair. (pp. 85-86)

---------

Privacy, exculpatory evidence, what constitutes a “final report”—these proved to be side issues in the hearing. The central tale: a packed courtroom watched as the conspiracy unraveled and was publicly revealed.

DR. MEEHAN. It is true that we did not release the full profiles of all the players in this case. And I did that after discussions with Mike Nifong because of concerns about getting those profiles out into the public media. (p. 23)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Now, had the client himself, Mr. Nifong, or through him, you, would request that additional information, we would gladly supply it. (p. 24)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. But if it were a full profile and did not match any of the evidentiary—any of the reference specimens, our client, Mr. Nifong, specifically wanted us to, he wanted to know does any, do any of the reference specimens match any of the evidence. And that’s the report that we gave him. (p. 30)

---------

MR. BANNON. So you find in a rape case where male DNA is found on multiple items from a rape kit not probative evidence?

MR. NIFONG. Objection, argumentative. He’s explained.

THE COURT. Overruled.

DR. MEEHAN. No, that’s not a general rule, okay. This report was a specific report at the request and in discussions with Mr. Nifong that we would report only specimens that matched evidence items. (pp. 59-60)

---------

MR. BANNON. But of course, you discussed [with Mr. Nifong] all the results of your tests?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. Correct?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes.

MR. BANNON. But you only wrote a report about some of those pieces of evidence, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And is that because Mr. Nifong told you to write the report that way?

DR. MEEHAN. I don’t think he told me specifically to write it that way. I think we were in agreement that the alternative would have been, as I said earlier, to produce names and profiles of everybody in the case. (p. 60)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Mr. Nifong agreed with me that it was okay to do this. (p. 61)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. Mr. Nifong agreed that it was okay to report the evidence items and reference items that matched.

MR. BANNON. But at the same time, he knew that there were male DNA characteristics on some of those rape kit items that didn’t match reference swabs, correct?

DR. MEEHAN. I would have to assume that he did know that, right. (p. 61)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We limited the scope of this report to only that evidence that, in my words, in my terms, was probative. All right. That being the evidence, as it says on the report, that matches suspects to evidence. (pp. 64-65)

---------

DR. MEEHAN. We would be glad to provide a more thorough report, a report of every single profile upon the request of our client as was indicated on this report. Explicitly says this information was retained pending notification of the client. So, and Mr. Nifong is our client and had he said, “Listen, I want a report on everything,” that’s what we would produce. (p. 65)

---------

MR. BANNON. You didn’t include the results for each DNA test in your report dated May 12; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. So you violated this protocol of your own lab?

DR. MEEHAN. That’s correct.

MR. BANNON. And you violated this protocol of your own lab because the district attorney told you to; is that correct?

DR. MEEHAN. No. It’s not just because the district attorney told me to. [emphasis added] (p. 66)

--------

DR. MEEHAN. We agreed with Mr. Nifong that we would report just the stuff that matched so that it would, so the report was limited in its scope. However, it’s not a – and by the letter of the law, by the letter of the wording of the standard, you’re [Brad Bannon] absolutely correct. It diverges from the letter of that standard, okay. (p. 66)

--------

MR. COONEY. And as of the date you wrote your report, were representatives of the State of North Carolina aware that none of the DNA you had found matched Reade Seligmann?

DR. MEEHAN. I believe so. (pp. 83-84)

---------

MR. COONEY. [Was Nifong] aware that all the testing that you had done excluded Reade Seligmann with a hundred percent scientific certainty as of the date you wrote your report?

DR. MEEHAN. I believe so. (p. 84)

---------

MR. COONEY. If you had been requested by representatives of the State of North Carolina at any time after May 12 to prepare a report reporting on the results of all of your tests and examinations, would you have done so?

DR. MEEHAN. Certainly. (p. 86)

---------

MR. COONEY. Did your report set forth the results of all of the tests and examinations that you conducted in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. No. It was limited to only some results.

MR. COONEY. Okay. And that was an intentional limitation arrived at between you and representatives of the State of North Carolina not to report on the results of all examinations and tests that you did in this case?

DR. MEEHAN. Yes. (p. 85)

---------

Mike Nifong maintains that the exchanges above had nothing to do with his abrupt decision to depart from his eight-month precedent and send Linwood Wilson to interview the accuser; and then to use that interview to drop the rape charges. It’s all a coincidence, suggests the district attorney.

He must hope that the court is as gullible as Dr. Meehan.

[The full transcript of the December 15 hearing is here.]