Dr. Meehan is now up.
Meehan has prepared a chart making clear that the entire sexual assault kit (vaginal swab, rectal swab, panties): all analysis was available on April 10, or before any indictments were made.
Meehan called Nifong to let him know that initial results were done the morning of April 10. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan arrived in Burlington that afternoon--for a 2-hour meeting.
Meehan: "We reviewed all of the data that we had to this point in the case." Also provided an interpretation of the tests.
"We went through--specifically went through all the results from this case with Mr. Nifong."
"They were not classic results--they were not the best results."
Nifong asked questions in that meeting--despite earlier suggestions he had not done so.
[Nifong, who said he didn't take any notes during his meetings with Meehan, is taking notes during Meehan's testimony today.]
Meehan says that he was "sure" he would have told Nifong that multiple unidentified DNA in the rape kit at the 4-10 meeting--or seven days before indictments.
Q: Is that exclusion 100%?
Meehan: Yes.
Meehan says he went over this information with Nifong on April 10: he knew that no DNA matches to Seligmann or Finnerty.
Meehan admits that between April 10 and April 21, his office did additional amplification on the rape kit in the hope of providing material that could be used to identify "additional suspects." who were not lacrosse players.
"My best guess is that there was a minimum of four males" in DNA--none were lacrosse players. This information was shared with Nifong on April 21.
Clear from Meehan testimony that conversations with Nifong were extensive and that Nifong was fully aware that multiple male, unidentified DNA was found.
Evans fingernail item--mixture and a match--not anywhere near as reliable as an exclusion. Made this clear to Nifong.
"Number of items" from public hair combings and sexual assault kit that had male DNA; none matched the lacrosse players.
"We spent a lot of time" discussing the Evans fingernail.
April 21: Nifong said he would need a report that showed all the matches they had for a "court proceeding."
Meehan: "Clear that for whatever the proceeding was, it was important that he receive a report that identified whatever match we had."
"Clear to me that there would be other suspects coming in."
"This was the first time we had been asked while a case was going that we were asked for such a written report."
'It was uncommon to be asked for a report while the case was ongoing."
The "first interim report that we had ever produced."
May 12 meeting was around an hour--long enough to make sure that Nifong understood what was in the report.
May 11 test--found that at least two sperm male DNA on panties. Went over this item with Nifong on May 12 meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
Can somebody please go help these people with the binders!
This guy is nervous, and appropriately so. Among other things, his business is being flushed down the toilet. Watch him reflexively and incessantly "spin" his wedding band.
Here it comes...
Richard Clark (e?) was also present at the DNASI meeting. He was the president of the company.
This blog being updated every couple of minutes reminds me of, the anticipation involved in watching, those old WWII movies where you can see the torpedo in the water heading for your ship. And it seems to take forever. Keep'em comming KC Nifongs hull is made of balsa wood!! KA-POW!!
Now we get to it, 'none of the referenced players matched any of the DNA profiles found on the panties'
Finally.
Nervous is the understatement of the year!
Thank you for the body language comments from those of us who cannot view the proceedings. They are important and revealing.
[Nifong, who said he didn't take any notes during his meetings with Meehan, is taking notes during Meehan's testimony today.]
Ever the Boy Scout trying to be prepared, the forward-thinking 'Fong is taking notes so that if he does prison time for his felonious abuse of power, he'll have something to read.
These notes will help him pinpoint the answer to his question: "Where did I go wrong?"
Nifong is taking notes? From the lack of notetaking by members of the Durham LE community, I was under the impression that it was illegal for them to take notes.
Then, again, this being Durham, LE seems to lean towards the illegal whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Will the few leaving crude remarks please refrain and allow KC an easier job to do.
Gaaaa! CourtTV's feed is down. Thanks for giving us highlights, KC.
Does anyone know where we can get a live internet feed of the proceedings???
Nifong new of the exculpatory DNA evidence on April 21. The torpedo just hit.
Of course everyone here knows this, but I just have to scream it out...The date when Nifong knew that he had zero, zilch, nada on the Duke boys was April 10, 2006. That's 2006! The following year of hell for the LAX3 should have never proceeded past 4/10/06. Fry the bastard.
I don't think CTV's feed is down. I think the studio crowd just wants to talk.
WRAL is covering it live, go to their web site and click on the video stream.
Does ANYONE have any idea how Nifong thinks he's going to get around his in court comments not being blatant lies given that there is now no doubt he knew that (a) there were no matches and (b) there were at least 4 other male DNA fragments found on the skank???
Internet feed is coming through from Fox .. also down
wral.com is still up and running
Is it meaningful that Nifong knew on 4-10 that there was no DNA from the lacrosse players but did not know until 4-21 that DNA was present from at least four unidentified non lacrosse players?
This is like watching two trains collide at 15,000 frames per second. We're getting to see the 'Fong dismantled in slow, agonizing detail. Where's the popcorn?
Does ANYONE have any idea how Nifong thinks he's going to get around his in court comments not being blatant lies given that there is now no doubt he knew that (a) there were no matches and (b) there were at least 4 other male DNA fragments found on the skank???
More to the point, Nifong, Gotlieb and Himan knew all of that before they went to the GJ. One could argue that this constituted a criminal conspiracy to defraud three Innocent men of their civil rights.
Now he's doing the Dave Evans 'match' which hopefully they will explain isn't really a "match" since a "match" ususally involves odds of several quadrillion to one...
More to the point, Nifong, Gotlieb and Himan knew all of that before they went to the GJ. One could argue that this constituted a criminal conspiracy to defraud three Innocent men of their civil rights.
--------
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.
What is with the DNA lecture? THis should be about the conspiracy to hide evidence.
I'm confused, how many male DNA profiles are we talking about 4 total, or 4 on panties and others on rectal and vaginal swabs?
It is all about providing context. They are laying ground work.
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.
Jun 13, 2007 12:16:00 PM
taken by itself, this statement is true. looking at all of the other information avaiable at the time, it's a case killer.
This guy is SUCH a jerk...Nifong needed a 'report' that outlined the 'matches' for a 'court proceeding' but he doesn't know what the court proceeding was.
Please. What an ass.
Live feed: Go to
http://www.wral.com/
Click on the little live video icon.
Though I prefer the summary. KC on content, and comments on who is spinning their wedding bands, number of drops of sweat on forehead, pot banging pantomimes etc.
Thanks
GOOD GRIEF,
Let's get to why he left out the rest of the DNA results!
Not really, presence of other DNA doesn't preclude that a rape occurred. 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.
agree with the limitation that once you take the victim statement that she did not have sex with others, no condom was used, the NTO claim that providing reference samples would prove without a doubt the guilt or innocence of the players, and then 4-5 other peoples semen is found and you go indict 3 players and never look for the other men? As we said in the Army, that goes beyond coincidence to be active illegal action against those 3 young men
What we are hearing now is that there was no match on the male DNA found in the rape kit. We make much of the fact that there was no match. This is not what is important. What is important is that Nifong knew there was other male DNA and he did not turn this information over. This is one of the charges against him, witholding evidence.
So, we have 4 separate DNA profiles on the panties and 2 separate profiles in the vagina!
Nice.
For those of yew who've never seen a trail, Lawyers have a particular way of questioning/argument that is very effective also in normal life (when you just want to win): You define the terms of the argument and then force answers on those more restrictive terms:
"(lawyer) If there was a party, with drinking, young males present AND a woman says she was raped: Does the probability that a rape occurred go up or down? (you) Wait a minute ... (lawyer) Don't converse, just answer the question, is the probability higher or lower than average? (you) Uh, higher. But that's not ... (lawyer) Thank you, no more questions."
I suppose we make so much of the fact that there was no match since it pertains to the men indicted by this creep. I don't have any interest in knowing who the other DNA donors are, just some more Durham lowlifes for sure.
When the DNA came back negative, this moved from legal criminal prosecution of alleged rapist to incompetent criminal frame under the color of law.
Anonymous said...
So, we have 4 separate DNA profiles on the panties and 2 separate profiles in the vagina!
sort of tells you she wasn't changing her panties every day, doesnt it. ugh :)
her vagina was cleaned more often than the panties. LOL
WHY didn't the lawyer hammer home that the 'match' to Dave Evans isn't really a 'match' it only means he's among several thousand people who could NOT BE EXCLUDED.
This is really pissing me off, since it makes it seem like there might have been some rationale reason to suspect Evans of a crime.
Why are they letting him get away with claiming it was an INTERUM REPORT.
How can it be an interum report when he's tested ALL the items he's been given?
The state bar is not doing a very good job here.
....but Gary, if you're a good lawyer, you have your client prepared in advance to respond "Sir, I can't answer that question because I don't accept your premise upon which it is based...."
Westpole says
The characterization of the "interim" report is Meehan saving his ass. He is prepared to throw Nifong under the bus by discussing the extensive discussions about other male dna but the request of the "interim report" helps them both but Meeham more. He can now say I was going to give them all the information he just asked for this "unusual interim report of only matches"
yeah right..
12:37
If a crime occured - and Nifey
had said a crime occured - then
presence of 4 DNA strands would
be material for consideration.
What's revealed here is that
they probably couldn't use the
DNA and run it through a perp-
file. They could exclude known
perpetrators, but they couldn't
include anyone - (a high-level
official, for example.)
A ways of explaining this:
if they took Brodhead's DNA
and compared it, they could
rule him out - (we should hope!) -
as possessing the DNA. We might
not be able to conclusively
prove that it was his, since
the DNA was somewhat compromised.
12:40
"Not doing a very good job here?"
And you graduated from which law school? You have how many decades of trial experience?
And Nifong is sitting in front of the Bar because they don't have very good lawyers?
I disagree, this helps Nifong, it does nothing for Meehan.
1) This was no interum report, where is the evidence they ever planned to produce a follow up report?
2) He's never produced an 'interum report' before but claims this was an interum report w/no evidence other than his own assertion that he was ever going to produce a complete report with all findings.
3) Isn't he already on record saying that it was against HIS OWN POLICY to provide a report that did not include all test resutls?
The bar should be going after him a lot more strongly instead of letting him skate off with his bullshit about interum reports and 'matches' to Dave Evans, cracking jokes the whole time.
Very unhappy w/this questioning.
No smartass, I am not a lawyer, but I am intelligent enough to realize that if Nifong is allowed to claim the report was an 'interum' report, and that a future final report with all test results was 'in the works' the whole time then the plausibility of his defense that he was not withholding the evidence on purpose and always planned to turn it over in the 'final report' becomes MUCH HIGHER.
This was the only report Nifong ever intended to provide, it was not an interum report, but the report Nifong wanted and asked for. Letting Meehan get away with this characterization is absurd.
At this rate, Nifong is going to get away with his claim that he wasn't withholding evidence at all...though he is still apparently sunk on lying to the court.
mac- My point is that when the players were excluded, the case needed to move away from them, not headlong towards them. I'm not really sure what you are attemptiong to tell me since the players were excluded. As stated before, I have no interest in the identity of the other DNA donors or where Team Nifong should have taken this "investigation" after the players were excluded.
When was the final report going to be produced? It had not appeared by December 15, 2006? It still does not get Nifong off. The other DNA should have been reported to the Defense in a timely manner.
It was never directly provided to the Defense.
Here's a thought:
If Meehan couldn't dissuade
Mikey Nifey from proceeding
with a GJ - (not with persuasion,
with evidence) - then why would
Himan feel like sticking his
neck out?
I'd guess he and a few of the
others were saying to each other:
"Fork it! He said we were forked -
(my word, "forked") - let him
take this non-evidence and go fork
himself with it!"
Unfortunately, some of them weren't
so passive about "letting" Mikey
attempt to fork the boys: they
actively participated, even though
they knew what Meehan and Mikey
knew. That is what makes it a
criminal conspiracy.
For those people who want to
exclude the other collaborators
from civil liability?
Go fork yourself; it's not up to
you.
You're so smart, spell "interim"
correctly , smartass.
sorry it's "interim" report.
Oh well I guess that negates the entire content of the previous post, then.
I spelled INTERIM wrong, so obviously everything else I said is wrong.
How about you explain to me how allowing Meehan to characterize his report as an INTERIM report is helping the bar's case against Mike Nifong.
I await your response eagerly.
12:58
Not slamming your comment: I agree
with you. Much earlier, I had
opined that if Nifey really believed
a crime had occured, he should have
used the DNA to solve it, even
if it took the case away from the
Lacrosse party.
In other words, knowing that CGM's
mental state was so "fragile,"
that she might have been tripping
about another event, in another
place - (maybe even on another
night) - Nifey obviously didn't
believe that a crime occured
against CGM.
Really, shows Nifey's hypocrisy
and disregard for his "victim:"
it was all about his election.
I'll try. The interim label was used by Meehan in reference to the fact that his testing was not complete, as far as he knew. My questions are, was there more testing done later and was there another report issued later? The witness hasn't been passed yet.
It is not hurting the Bar's case at all. He can call it whatever he wants.
There was information that was not include in that report that was provided to Nifong. Nifong failed to turn that information over to the Defense as required by Law. Nifong failed to disclose it even in the December 15 hearing.
Calling it an interim or final or preliminary is legal hair splitting and irrelevant.
Nifong purposely did not tell the defense about exculpatory evidence.
all good mac- didn't think it was a slam at all, just didn't understand where you were going!
Legal hairsplitting is the bread and butter of our system, for god's sake, how do you think he plans to weasle out of this if not on shades of grey, legal hairsplitting and the exact or implied meaing of language.
If he can call it an interim report then he is off the hook, at least theoretically, for failing to provide the full/final report to the defense. He will claim the 'final, conclusive report' was the one he was legally bound to turn over and that he would have done so, once Meeham produced it...and he did turn over the 'interim report' thus proving what a great guy he is.
Nifong did turn over the so called interim report, like the nice law abiding DA we know him to be.
He 'would' have turned over the final report, except he didn't have it...Meehan never got around to it.
1:05
I'd say that terming a request for
an "interim" would help Nifey's
case, but only for the short-
term: he would have to provide
that, too, regardless of whether
it was interim or preliminary or
whatever. That's why it was
so damning, rather than the other
way around: it should have gotten
to the defense much, much sooner.
Sort of like turning in your
midterm after you've taken the
finals.
Mac,
He DID turn it over. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to call it an interim report.
He gave the defense the 'interim' report that had the matching tests and the no matches but ommitted all the other non lacrosse DNA evidence.
Basically, the DNA report was
the finals. Nifey flunked
the Midterm, to the extent that
it wasn't neccessary to take the
finals. It was up to him
to provide what he had, and it
all he had was the Midterm,
that was what his grade would be
based upon.
In other words, what we're hearing
today from Meehan is the same
thing as the mid-term. It was
conclusive enough that Nifey
should not have even tried to
proceed.
Remember: Meehan
stated unequivocably that there
needn't be a follow-up, since
the results would have been the
same.
End result: Nifey flunked.
IIRC, later Nifong agreed in writing to the court that the report in question was the final report. That agreement came after the indictments, and maybe after the election - I don't recall. Maybe someone else can fill in the dates and verify the details ... ??
As I seem to be only person who finds this a serious concern, I will shut up about it.
I think its going to come back and bite the bar in the a** when the defense gets their turn, but we'll see.
The statute says 'report' of all tests, he provided the 'interim report' he had, he did not provide any other 'report' becuase he didn't have another report, that final report was never completed, to me, this gives him significant wiggle room to argue it is not conclusively proven that he withheld evidence intentionally, he provided the one 'report' that he had, this was an interim report...
That they called it an "interim" report is less important than that they also said that they had never done anything even remotely like it before in the company's history.
Nifong was not following standard procedure. That puts him in an even worse position than he already was. Now he has to come up with a convincing justification for not following standard procedure, and for deliberately ordering an incomplete report that left out information known to both him and the lab. Lots of luck!
Of course, this is all a bit of self-servingness on the lab's part. "Oh no, we weren't helping with a frame-up so we could get repeat business from Durham County. We were just giving the customer what he asked for."
Related question:
When it was clear that Nifong was leaving out important info in his discussions with the defense, did the lab have any legal duty to report that ommision to either the judge or the defense team?
From the time Meehan told Nifey
and the Investigators - verbally -
that the evidence exonerated the
2 boys in question at this date,
they should have dropped them
from their list of suspects.
Meehan stated that he told them -
in a lengthy session.
It also doesn't matter to the Bar;
they're not judging themselves
in this matter: they're judging
Nifong.
"IIRC, later Nifong agreed in writing to the court that the report in question was the final report. "
I hope the lab has a purchase order or invoice or something with the word "interim" on it. Because Meehan, by saying Nifong understood that it was interim, has in effect accused him of perjury.
Ralph Phelan,
I've gotta shut up...but I've
gotta say: the D.A. is the one
who's responsible for the
disposition of the evidence.
Meehan's complicity comes as
a passive participant, someone
who allowed themselves to be
forked by Nifey in order to
fork the students.
"The statute says 'report' of all tests, he provided the 'interim report' he had"
Wouldn't the statute also cover the verbal reports given by Meehan on the 10th and 25th?
Mac,
It doens't work that way, lack of DNA, in and of itself, does not exonerate anyone from a rape charge.
You don't go 'oh, there isn't any DNA from suspect X' and then automatically drop the rape charge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't the statute also cover the verbal reports given by Meehan on the 10th and 25th?
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.
"Meehan's complicity comes as
a passive participant"
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.
My question was whether crime labs have any such rules, beyond the usual ones regarding commercial entities and their clients.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DNA evidence WAS found.
1:40
You're right: no DNA from
the boys exonerates the boys:
none of it was theirs.
1:39
If DNA is so easy to wash
away, why were "no-less than"
4 individuals DNA found on her
panties? That means that
she had some form of
intercourse with 4 other
individuals, and theirs
showed up, but not the boys'?
Hmmm?
(Is that you, Tara?)
By the way, the Investigators
should have let Levicy know about
the DNA, as well. They should
have told her about CGM's mental
illness, too.
You are mixing two different issues.
Lack of DNA doens't mean no rape took place. Presence of DNA doens't mean a rape took place.
When you have unprotected sex and a man ejaculates it is very likely that DNA will be left behind.
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.
How can NO DNA exonerate anyone from a rape charge in and of itself?
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?
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?
Please try and leave off the stupid smartass commnents like 'is that you Tara'.
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.
In this case, lack of DNA evidence
exonerates the boys.
It could be that a rape occured
by someone else, at some other time,
(perhaps while Ms. Mangum was
being levitated by aliens from
the planet Polanski is from?)
In THIS CASE, it proves that
no rape occured via the boys.
That's what the lab director said;
that's what the AG said; that's
what we're talking about:
this case.
No DNA from boys + DNA from others = innocence.
By the way,
you must not have been paying attention:
the male doesn't have to ejaculate
for DNA to be left behind.
Ever hear Meehan speak
of "epithelial DNA?"
He said it this morning!
This was where the DNA
came from, not sperm.
Epithelium?
Maybe someone can look it up
for you: I don't appreciate
the fact that you called
me "stupid."
2:10
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.
2:10, 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 think the point that I and others are trying to make is:
- she claimed to have been raped
- she claimed no condom and ejactulation by multiple men in 3 orifices
- she claimed no recent sex with others
- she had a less than strong ID of 3 attackers (several attempts and weak results)
no you get DNA back with no semen from the 3 players and semen from 4 others.
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.
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.
BTW, 2:10:
It is not "extremely exculpatory,"
it is "complete exoneration."
Believe what you want to believe, DNA is not always left behind when there is physical or sexual contact.
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.
You made the first attack comment by comparing me to Tara Levicy.
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.
I didn't insult you by comparing you
to Tara: she said the same thing
you're saying.
Most of the time DNA isn't
available, it's because the
person waited before reporting
it, douched like crazy in order
to escape the feeling of being
slimed, or because they really
weren't raped. Especially with
anal rape, which - (even with
consensual activity) - usually
causes rectal tearing. (Ever
hear of AIDS?)
Again, there WAS NO SPERM that
Meehan referred to: it was
epithelial DNA.
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.
Not all rapes, but surely this one.
She was, how do you say it? experienced?
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.
NDA from the rape absolutely should have been there from the attackers unless she lied. Nobody questioned the issue.
Epithelial DNA.
Um. I think Meehan was actually
referring to the samples taken
from the boys, not what was on
CGM's nasty panties.
My bad.
But the Drill Sgt. is correct,
even if I wasn't.
"Nasty Panties"?
I smells a book title!
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.
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.
But forget it, its either too subtle a point or you are not understanding waht I'm saying.
BTW,
Epithelial cells ARE used in
DNA rape-tests. (Maybe not
in this one, but you can Google
it.)
2:56
I do understand: the use of a
condom/gloves etc. can thwart
a DNA test. (Apparently, criminals
are using these when they pre-plan
their crimes.)
It would take some great
preparation for these boys to
have avoided leaving "samples."
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?
Points agreed upon by all sides
For rape charges in general, 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 in general.
For these 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 four other males is found, by the procedures by which the DNA of the alleged rapists is not found, the chances that the rape still could have happened as described is so fantastically improbable that it doesn't even merit discussion.
Points on which there is disagreement
. . .
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.
Works for me.
Thanks.
that's fine as far as it goes :)
1. if you believe the details of her sotry, then the ID cant be right. it was the 4 John Does
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.
lets drop it :)
Was the 'public' part of "Number of items from public hair combings " a freudian slip?
Post a Comment