Thursday, June 21, 2007

Nifong Explains His Approach to DNA

In a torturous cross-examination from first Doug Brocker and then Lane Williamson, Mike Nifong attempted to explain why he did not consider the unidentified male DNA never reported to the defense relevant to the case. Eventually, he told Williamson that the results weren't "probative"--coincidentally, the very same legal phrase that had appeared in the May 12 Meehan report.


Anonymous said...

Whoa!!! Nifong says that the lack of DNA is exculpatory and serves as evidence that the guys did not rape Crystal. That is NOT what he was saying on April 11 and elsewhere.

By the way, did they tell the grand jury about the lack of DNA? Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Everyone check this out. You leftists can have this guy and I will take Ann Coutler any day of the week:

Nifong Trial Lets The 'Dukes Of Hazzard' Off The Hook

Anonymous said...

The guy who give dope Nifong a recommendation for the DA job, is now the interem DA. WTF -

Anonymous said...

the "victim"?? this guy is delusional

Anonymous said...

When do Nifong's other cases get investigated?
William H. Macy as Mikey in the movie?

Anonymous said...

Seems that the old-fashioned way of prosecuting cases involves establishing a theory and making all evidence fit into that theory. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then toss it out. But by all means, go forward with the case.

Thanks to JLS for the link. Add Boyce Watkins to the list of fools referred to by Lane Williamson.

Anonymous said...

Love how he says as a dancer one would expect her to have DNA on her since she is in contact with strange men (even adding Meehan's testimony about a school teacher having DNA on her) considering where they found the stranger DNA (rectal swab and underwear) makes his argument dumb and dishonest. But what did we expect. PS- can't stand to hear him say victim...

Anonymous said...

I've got to better understand "exculpatory" in legal terms to make sense of this.


re: Nifong Trial Lets The 'Dukes Of Hazzard' Off The Hook

"Dr" Boyce Watkins keeps refering the the Duke "Trial":
~"I recall watching the start of the Duke rape trial last year..."~
~"Since the trial took place, these guys have received high paying jobs on Wall Street..."~

I wonder what "trial" he's refering to? Either he does not even have the slightest clue about the Duke event or he is so doltish as to not understand what a trial is... or both.

Anonymous said...

Boyce Watkins is deluding himself as well, especially to compare the LAX players with O.J. Simpson.


Anonymous said...

On the stand Meehan said one reason hadn't yet prepared a final report was that he was expecting more suspect samples.

Mr. Meehan, why were you expecting more suspect samples?

Um, because the testing showed that none of those guys did it.

Meehan thought the DNA he found was probative. He wanted to match it.

Anonymous said...

If you would expect that a stripper would have male DNA on her, wouldn't the same thing go for a supposed rape victim who testified that she was beated, choked, and that the rapists ejaculated on her? It's absurd to say that the DNA evidence is non-probatory since it confirms that a) she was a stripper and prostitute, and 2) that she was not a rape victim.

I think we need to follow up on this the old fashioned way. We needd to get Dr. Meehan on the stand to tell his story, then Mr. Nifong to tell his story, and then we can have the judge decide.

Anonymous said...

JLS - what a bozo. And just why does it not surprise me that this cretin is an academic.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University.

The rot our on college campuses is astounding.

Anonymous said...

Right, Teach1975. This is just crazy. Actually I think he's just evil. This is painful to watch...


Anonymous said...

Dr Watkins, I presume...

Is never one to let facts get in the way of a losing, baseless argument!

His intimate knowledge of this fiasco goes about as deep as Nifong's pockets soon will be, as in empty! This affirmative action "gravy trainer" is obviously busy poisoning the minds of students of all ethnicities.

As they say, "a mind is a terrible thing to waste", and Dr Watkins is living proof.

S. Holmes

Anonymous said...

OMG! Boyce Watkins has more in common with Nifong than he thinks....he doesn't know the facts in the case!

Anonymous said...

JLS and others:

I'm not surprised that Boyce Watkins is a finance professor at Syracuse. In academia in the field of finance, blacks and women are given preference over white men in admissions to PhD programs, hiring for professor positions, and promotion and tenure decisions.

So, don't be surprised that you end up with a racist bozo like Watkins.

Anonymous said...

When the "non-probative" DNA came to light in December, I read up on DNA forensic testing. The term "non-probative" in conjunction with DNA testing was always (in the literature I reviewed) used with known DNA donors; i.e. it refers to a control sample assure that the test procedure is working properly.

Meehan had to know that applying the label "non-probative" to the unknown DNA found on CGM was improper, and it is hard to believe that he would have used the "non-probative" label to hide the DNA from unknown men unless there was some understanding or direction from Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Watkins is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.

Anonymous said...

This case has left me with a growing disrespect for African Americans:
their use of the term "racist" is so worn out, it can be used for any behavior whatsoever.
If I'm fair, kind and thoughtful to people of all races, and yet still get called a racist?
Guess what? I guess it means that being a racist isn't so bad, after all. Sort of like the "N" word.
It's a stupid word.
I wish KC would edit out all the users of the word "racist," as long as he's going to edit the
"N"- word. It's the same word, used by like-minded people.

BTW: Nifong reminds me of Percy in The Green Mile.

MikeZPurdue said...

During this trial discussion about DNA,
Nifong made the statement (paraphrasing):
"I wasn't really interested in the DNA of
the four non-lacrosse players. I was more
interested in that fingernail match."

That really ticked me off! That in a nutshell
captures what we have said all along: anything
that exonerated the boys was systematically
ignored. And he grasped at that tenuous
fingernail match -- just unbelievable!
He admitted this in open court! with the
cameras rolling!!

mac said...

Grant Farred probably convinced
Nifey that the young men could -
(with their superior sexual prowess
that gifted young white male
athletes possess) - levitate
Precious, magically make the DNA
disappear, and live in a
multidimensional state where
they could simultaneously be in
two places at once.
Oh, and harbor a secret racism
at the same time.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Anonymous said...


You have just pointed out yet another professor who can count his name on the list of those about to get rocked. IMHO: That column is not anger fits perfectly the definition of a tortious, slanderous statement. There are mistatements of fact, that directly slander the good name and reputation of the aggrieved and directly brings them into disrepute without factual basis to back it up.

I will specualte that this guy may end up spending a lot of his ESPN consulting money, not to mention his Syracuse salary, to settle some big ass lawsuits with the Duke 3

Anonymous said...

1:37 "...establishing a theory and making all evidence fit into that theory. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then toss it out..."

A fair definition of Marxism, an the extensions class, race, and gender studies....

mac said...

JLS 1:28
Thanks for the link.
I'm beginning to think Polanski
sounds reasonable, especially compared to this doofus.
That's unsettling, to say the least.

I hope he's sued.

Anonymous said...

Nifong didn't even consider that the DNA could have been from a rapist? She says she was raped, and they found DNA. If one were investigating this case, they would follow the DNA. Sounds like he didn't even consider this possibilty.

Apparently, only LAX DNA can be from a rape, but other DNA must be from casual contact...since it didn't match their case....