Nifong: this report would be used for a proceeding.
"No question that this was not a final report."
[Yet the reference seems to be for additional evidence items received after May 12, not recapitulating the items received before May 12.]
"He never specifically detailed to us what he expected to see in the report"--despite what he claimed in his Dec. 28 letter to the Bar.
Nifong--despite his claim to the bar on Dec. 28--never referenced this in his discussions with Meehan at the time.
Meehan: "It's expected that I should know what's in the report."
His report "very different" than SBI summary report--even though Nifong claimed in his letter to the Bar that he had instructed Meehan to mimic the SBI summary report in the Meehan report.
Meehan concedes under examination that the SBI report made clear when there were no matches to DNA evidence. Meehan further concedes that he did not follow this policy.
"I did attempt to make it clear that 'there is other information here, it doesn't match anything, but it is here.'" Would have listed this if a final, conclusive report.
Meehan: one difference between our report and SBI report is that DSI report listed individual DNA profiles.
[How exactly does this fit with his "privacy" concerns?]
Meehan: Himan called back to say that Nifong did not want a final report that would take into account any new tests.
Didn't produce final report "because we were never asked."
"Of course" expected that Nifong would request a final report--but Nifong never did so in this case.
Concedes that August discovery request was "quite extensive."
Q: Did Nifong then note that he would need to produce a final report, in response to this motion?
A: Meehan--no, but raised cost and privacy concerns.
Nifong tells Meehan it would be "very important for me and my company" to appear at the 12-15 hearing. Meehan says that he had doubts that he could be prepared for the hearing.
His testimony at the Dec. 15 hearing was "truthful and accurate." Concedes that he then issued a "supplemental report," which "aligned our report a little more closely to the SBI report."
For the first time, Meehan is using the phrase "interim report" to describe his May 12, 2006 document.
Meehan: "we supplied amended report on our own"--Nifong never requested it.
Concluding question: Nifong never asked for a complete report. Meehan would have provided one had he asked.
So what does it mean if Meehan offers testimony under oath that proves Nifong has lied to the bar?
ReplyDeleteNever issued a final report. They were never asked. They were waiting for Nifong to ask for the final report. Ouch!
ReplyDeleteguilty
ReplyDeleteMeehan expected a request for a final report from Nifong but never received one.
ReplyDeleteNifong's "privacy concerns"
ReplyDeletewere what led me to speculate
that someone in Durham didn't
want to have their DNA scrutinized,
and told Mikey to stop before
it got embarrasing.
Their privacy, not the boys'
privacy.
Any suspecions about who might
have been on CGM's client list?
He he he: I'ms got suspecions.
ReplyDeleteAgain, pretty silly to think that this skanky, crazy ho had any heavy hitters in Durham high society as her clients. She was one step up from a street walker, using her strip gig to get clients, I;m sure her clients were the most low class low lifes that Durham had to offer.
ReplyDeleteWhy the need to embellish things and promote crazy conspiracy theories.
What was he going to do, get another NTO and test the whole town to find out who she had sex with? We don't even know whether or not she ever gave the names, and who cares anyway?
I find Meehan to be a total sleaze bag. I would rather put my faith in Ben Himan any day that this slippery guy.
ReplyDeleteDid the good doctor just commit perjury?
ReplyDelete2:14
ReplyDeleteYup. You're probably right.
But then, consider - just humor
me - that some of the low-class
lowlifes might be...
officials from the City of Durh?
Not naming names!
I'm just saying that high-society
and Durh City officials aren't
the same octane.
In any case, that's the only thing
that could make Mikey's privacy
comment plausible. It probably
was a convenient "out."
We all need to keep in mind that most of the areas that Nifong's counsels are getting into don't have much to do with the narrowly defined areas contained in the Bar complaint. By going into these ancillary issues, Freedman and Witt are not doing much to help Nifong, and may actually be harming his case by pissing off the panel members. Those who have never sat through a court proceeding are surprised it doesn't look like "Inherit The Wind" or a Perry Mason show. Reality just isn't that way, folks; court proceedings are dry, boring, and uninteresting, especially a bench proceeding like this one where the lawyers aren't trying to hoodwink the jurors. Patience.
ReplyDeleteThe bar needs to review Meehan's December testimony in a hurry.
ReplyDeleteHis privacy comment is not plausible at all. The male DNA was not identified so there is no privacy concern for an anonymous source. The players DNA that was not identified were already publicly known to have given their DNA, lack of their DNA being found is good news, not bad news and again there is no privacy interest since its already public knowledge their DNA was taken for comparison sake.
ReplyDeletemac 2:06 said...
ReplyDelete...Nifong's "privacy concerns"
were what led me to speculate
that someone in Durham didn't
want to have their DNA scrutinized,
and told Mikey to stop before
it got embarrasing.
...Their privacy, not the boys'
privacy.
...Any suspecions about who might
have been on CGM's client list?
::
Or whose DNA (Duke Student[s])was already planted on CGM?
::
GP
Crystal is a nickel corner type of gal.
ReplyDeleteSo Nifong's DEFENSE is that he pushed for an indictment based on a 'preliminary report', and that he deliberately did not want to see a final report based on more evidence?
ReplyDeleteWow.