Replies

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.

I'm not sure why you think the defense would be entitled to the full report at the time the SBI results came back, since their clients weren't under indictment. If someone is tested, LE has to give that person (suspect) the results as they pertain to that person, but I don't believe that suspect is entitled to the full report in terms of other findings and results as to other suspects tested. The reason this is even coming up at all is because we have an indictment of some suspects for whom there was no match. The remaining parts of the report that don't pertain to a particular suspect are part of an ongoing investigation and surely should not be divulged to somebody who was a "maybe" because that person can then pass that information on to the public or even a party that the relieved suspect knows is guilty but whose name hasn't come into play as another possible suspect. If a truly guilty party knew there was no viable semen sample taken from the victim, then he knows he can deny any sexual activity rather than getting into a "he said, she said" dispute that it was consensual if he's ever named and tested, for instance.

Lord knows I despise Nifong, but I would have to agree that not giving the full report at that point was the proper thing to do if the prosecutor wants to protect an investigation. I don't say that was Nifong's motive for not giving the full report, but as a policy matter, it's the only thing that makes sense so I don't view it as sandbagging. The sandbagging came with the identifications and the indictments that fly in the face of the DNA results.

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
The Molecular Genetics Section

http://sbi.jus.state.nc.us/sbimain/molecule.htm

snip:
The Section offers a full service DNA typing laboratory to provide state-of-the-art analysis PCR based STR typing procedures in casework. Evidence provided by this Unit has been crucial to solving some of the State's most violent rape and homicide cases. The Section is offering a PCR based typing system called STRs which has a faster turn around time for cases with a high probability of discrimination.
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

"...cases with a high probability of discrimination."

"...which has a faster turn around time..." - (with Nifongs election clock running, this might have been the most attractive option for him......)