[ltc8k6]

What is sent to the lab may certainly be from a live person. In that case the lab found DNA on a live person, word games notwithstanding.

Yes, I still think the state lab found nothing at all on CGM.

Cheshire also said the SBI found nothing that would indicate CGM had sex recently.

To me, that means the SBI found no male DNA on the vaginal swabs.

Cheshire's statements are pretty strongly worded. No DNA at all, and nothing to indicate recent sexual activity.

[JLS]

What is sent to the lab may certainly be from a live person.

Certainly. This is often the case.

In that case the lab found DNA on a live person, word games notwithstanding.

Certanly not. That is why in court the person who collected the material will testify and then the person who tested the material at the lab will testify. The person who collected the material establishes where it came from. The person from the lab testifies what was on the in this case swab.

There are no word games here. A lab determines what evidence sent to them is. A technician of somekind collects the evidence. For example a lab does not FIND blood, it may determine a blood type.

Yes, I still think the state lab found nothing at all on CGM.

Right neither lab found anything on her. They did not look at her.

Cheshire also said the SBI found nothing that would indicate CGM had sex recently.

Right and as I said before our choices are:

1. Nifong sandbaged Cheshire and the defense by giving them only the part of the DNA results associated with their clients and only gave them the complete DNA results when he was required to by discovery rules.

2. Cheshire got it wrong when he spoke originally.

3. The state lab could not find DNA from the swab on her, but somehow Nifong knew this microscopic material was there and that he should send it to another private lab?

I opt for number 1. You opt for number 3. Give the evidence I have available to me, Nifong sandbagging someone looks more likely than the NC state lab being this bad. You and Nifong may know something about the NC state lab that I don't know giving you a reason for selecting number 3. To me, that means the SBI found no male DNA on the vaginal swabs.

Cheshire's statements are pretty strongly worded. No DNA at all, and nothing to indicate recent sexual activity

Certainly if you have reason to believe the NC state lab is not very good or corrupt or something. Personally, I have seen enough evidence that Nifong is corrupt to suspect him of sandbagging Cheshire and the defense. But then I know little of the NC state crime lab.

[Jezebelle]

Nifong had no obligation to relate anything to defense counsel except the results as they pertained directly to their clients, so if Cheshire said that the SBI lab found nothing to indicate that Mangum had had sex recent to the alleged event, that was true as far as he knew. He just didn't have the whole story from Nifong. The more I think about it, the more surprising it would be if Nifong had given the defense that information at that point in time.

Then, a miracle happened!!! Mangum remembered what the three looked like!!! Halleleujah!