Nifong: "I Don't Read Files"

Nifong is now engaging in word games about what constitutes a "positive match" of DNA.

Brocker is now going through Nifong's previous depositions, noting that Nifong had previously stated that he considered the DNA Security report confined to "positive matches" of lacrosse players.

Nifong now says that he doesn't stand by the answer he had given to the Grievance Committee.

[This Nifong switch is an abrupt one--over and over again, he had contended that the Meehan May 12 report was an "interim" one. Now he is saying that he believed the DNA Security report was complete.]

Nifong's lawyer has just made an extraordinary objection: because this is a civil proceeding, Nifong shouldn't be bound by his deposition.

Presence of other male DNA was not specifically exculpatory, because there was no way to determine when it was deposited.

After his teary resignation, Nifong is back to referring to Crystal Mangum as the "victim." (Twice.)

Nifong has just repeated Meehan's kindergarten teacher example (comparing the unidentified male DNA in Mangum's rectal or oral swabs to students' DNA that might be left on a kindergarten teacher).

Four times Nifong has described Mangum as victim.

DNA: "Its probative value in this case never struck me as significant whatsoever."

Nifong: "We did follow up"--got DNA from the boyfriend, other people with whom Mangum might have had sexual contact. [And, of course, they found no matches except for one item with the boyfriend.]

Williamson: "You were looking for evidence that supported the inference that there was a crime," and that a lacrosse player committed it. What specifically was Nifong's mindset: were you looking for evidence that linked the players to the rape, and not looking for evidence that broke the link?

Nifong: No.

Williamson: "Evidence doesn't have to resolve the case to be important in the case."

The DHC chairman seems baffled by Nifong's approach to the unidentified male DNA issue.

Wm'son: Why no follow-up work done to identify the source of the unidentified male DNA, when it got put there, and how it got put there?

Nifong: Doesn't know.

The obvious question: why didn't they ask Mangum this information?

Panelist: Why didn't you stop and think that this unidentified male DNA could belong to the perpetrators?

Nifong: No, this did not occur to me.

Brocker now brings up the Leroy Summers case, to impeach Nifong's claim that he had never previously dismissed a rape claim simply because of unidentified male DNA.

Nifong says that he doesn't recall the specific case.