Posted on 12/13/2006 1:36:38 PM PST by Howlin
A private laboratory hired by the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case failed to report that it found DNA from multiple males in the accuser's body and underwear, according to a defense motion filed today. The lab, DNA Security of Burlington, found that the DNA did not match the three defendants, their lacrosse teammates or anyone else who submitted their DNA to police, including the accuser's boyfriend.
The new evidence emerged in thousands of documents handed over to the defense in October.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Yeah, lol, I certainly was. I did not hear about the Feb. due date claim from Liefong until Greta tonight.
I am still puzzled, though. Liefong says the baby is due in Feb., but he also says she got pregnant about two weeks after the party. That doesn't add up, unless Liefong is thinking in terms of water buffalo which, considering whom we're talking about, may very well be.
Doesn't literature about rape victims state that such victims are averse to intercourse and other sexual activity for long periods of time following a rape? Yes, it does.
She must be wrapping your presents. :>
"If you can't afford to investigate, you won't get justice from L.E. trust me."
That simply isn't true, and I am sick and tired of you making that claim based on your single experience out of the millions of cases investigated, brought and prosecuted or dropped for insufficient evidence each year in this country.
"What the defendants seek, and what they are entitled to under the Constitution, is a trial in a community which has not been polarized by pretrial publicity or torn apart by the circumstances of these cases," Friday's written motion said. "Regrettably, Durham is not that community."
Defense lawyers said The Herald-Sun was partially responsible.
"In its editorial positions, The Herald-Sun has relentlessly condemned the Duke lacrosse team and encouraged a prosecution of the defendants in these cases," attorneys wrote. "In its first significant editorial on these cases, The Herald-Sun stated that not only had a crime occurred, but that those present during the crime were guilty of an additional 'outrage' by not confessing to the crime."
Troubling litany of police incidents
December 15, 2006 11:38 pm
It's been a bad stretch lately for law enforcement officers charged with abusing their power.
In Durham, police officers lost their jobs for an off-duty altercation outside a Raleigh sports bar. And sheriff's deputies were fired and one faces criminal charges of drug trafficking after allegations at a north Durham nightclub. And police are investigating an incident in which an officer threw a news photographer on a car hood and arrested him.
The incidents haven't been limited to Durham. Raleigh police and Wake County sheriff's deputies also face charges of using excessive force. And a New Hanover County sheriff's deputy is under investigation for mistakenly shooting into an apartment, killing the unarmed resident, an 18-year-old college student from Durham. New York police are under intense scrutiny after officers fired 50 shots into a car, killing an unarmed bridegroom the night before his wedding.
Now another charge has been added to the Durham list, that city officer C.S. Barkley severely injured a 15-year-old Jordan High school girl as he attempted to break up a fight with another girl at the school. Family members of Capricia Crennell say Barkley hit her in the head with a flashlight, fracturing her skull. Barkley remains on inactive duty while the charge is investigated. But now others are coming forward to allege that Barkley has a history of violent behavior.
There is no connection between these incidents, and no reason to assume Barkley did anything wrong. Nor should we automatically dismiss the charges, which is what used to happen when accusations were leveled at law enforcement officers.
The recent litany of incidents is troubling, but it's also a reminder of how difficult a police officer's job is. Officers need training to help them make split second, life or death decisions and to keep a cool head in high tension situations. And police leaders need to constantly emphasize the importance of officers' setting a good example for the public.
We ask police officers to do an important job,for little pay and with rare positive feedback. But with their weapons and the mantle of authority they carry, the police also wield considerable power. We must insist that they use it sparingly, and within the law.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-799934.cfm
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Nifong's petty motive
I have often asked myself why the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case told police no condoms were used in the alleged attack, even though condoms would have explained the lack of DNA evidence. Nine months later I have my answer. A recent Herald-Sun story submits that Mike Nifong is either unjustly maligned for his dogged prosecution of the players, or is grossly incompetent.
I submit that he is neither. He simply chose the wrong case to draw attention to himself and, having done so, is too proud to admit his mistake. Nifong needs to at last do the right thing and drop this case. He can't possibly win. His only motivation for continuing is to bleed the families of the accused as much as he can.
Nifong is a petty and vindictive man. And when this is over, he will be a beaten man, with neither reputation nor credibility.
DAVID HIGHLANDS
St. Petersburg, Fla.
December 16, 2006
He should be tossed into prison for ruining these kids' lives.
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/522112.html
Lab chief: Nifong said don't report all DNA data
Testimony reveals that lab testing that could have been favorable to defendants in the Duke lacrosse case was omitted from a report and was not disclosed to the defense
Joseph Neff, Benjamin Niolet and Anne Blythe, Staff Writers
The head of a private DNA laboratory testified Friday that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed last spring not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
The testimony of DNA Security director Brian Meehan could create difficulties inside and outside the courtroom for Nifong. The district attorney did not challenge Meehan's testimony, but he said after court that he did not withhold evidence. He said the defense could have asked for that material all along.
North Carolina law requires Nifong to hand over all evidence regardless of whether it has been requested. The sanctions for violating this law could include a dismissal of all charges against the three players.
Friday's testimony also will provide grist for those calling for Nifong to be disciplined or prosecuted. A North Carolina congressman recently asked the FBI to investigate the case. And the N.C. State Bar has received a number of complaints calling for Nifong to be disciplined for his public comments condemning the lacrosse players and for directing a police photo identification lineup that violated Durham Police Department policies.
"I tell you, the more you hear about his missteps, the more you have to question whether it's purely a matter of incompetence or worse," said James E. Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who has been critical of Nifong.
In court Friday, Meehan said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear and body of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected her underwear and samples from her body a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.
Privacy concerns
Meehan struggled to say why he didn't include the evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. Under pointed questioning by defense lawyer Bradley Bannon, Meehan cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, the fact that he didn't know whose DNA it was, and his discussions with Nifong at meetings in his Burlington lab.
"Had Mr. Nifong said, 'We want a report on everything,' that is what we would produce," Meehan said.
"You violated the protocols of your own lab," Bannon said.
"Correct ... I don't have a legal explanation for it," Meehan said. "I was just trying to do the right thing."
A standing-room only crowd packed a small courtroom. Reporters and bloggers stood along the walls, friends and family of the accused filled the seats, and a half-dozen lacrosse players and other Duke students sat in the jury box.
The three defendants sat at the table with their legal teams, the first time the former teammates -- Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J. -- have been in court together. Charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense, they have said that they are innocent and that the accusations are lies.
In April, Meehan told a Durham police investigator that his firm was eager to be involved in the case, according to the investigator's notes. Friday's hearing was not a good advertisement.
Besides acknowledging breaking his own rules, Meehan said he didn't keep logs of phone calls, e-mail messages or notes of meetings. And he failed to report in May that a tiny bit of his own DNA, perhaps a single cell, had probably contaminated one piece of evidence.
"This goes to the credibility of your lab, correct?" Bannon asked.
"Absolutely," Meehan replied.
Not a single cell
After Bannon questioned Meehan for 90 minutes, one of Seligmann's attorneys, Jim Cooney of Charlotte, spent about 10 minutes getting Meehan to summarize his testimony.
"You didn't find anything from Reade Seligmann anywhere in any of those tests," Cooney said. "Not even a single cell?"
"Correct," said Meehan, who then acknowledged the same was true for Finnerty and Evans.
Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted weeks before your May 12 report, Cooney said. If Meehan wrote in the report that Seligmann was excluded, how would that violate his privacy?
"It was a failed attempt to provide a minimal amount of information to the public," Meehan said. "Maybe it could have been done better."
Intentional decision
Cooney continued: Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests?
"I believe so," Meehan said.
"Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?" Cooney asked.
"I believe so," Meehan said.
Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of Meehan and the district attorney? Cooney asked.
"Yes," Meehan replied.
At that answer, several people in the courtroom clapped. Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III warned the crowd to be quiet or leave.
Throughout much of Meehan's questioning, Nifong sat slumped forward in his chair, resting his face on one hand or leaning his chin on folded hands.
When his turn came, Nifong was brief in questioning Meehan. The scientist acknowledged that his report was less than the full truth.
"Did you intend to put in less than the full truth?" Nifong asked. "Did anyone ever tell you to conceal or hide any of your results?" "Did anyone ever tell you who you were supposed to come up with results of, who we wanted you to pick?"
No, Meehan replied each time.
At the beginning of Friday's hearing, Nifong made a statement that differed from Meehan's subsequent testimony:
"The first I had heard of this particular situation was when I was served with this particular motion" on Wednesday, Nifong told the judge.
After court, Nifong amended his remarks and said he knew about the DNA results.
"And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it," Nifong said.
Staff writer Joseph Neff can be reached at 829-4516 or jneff@newsobserver.com.
FRIDAY'S DEVELOPMENTS
* Lawyers agreed to schedule hearings during the week of Feb. 5. During those hearings, District Attorney Mike Nifong said he would put the accuser on the witness stand. The lawyers would have their own witnesses, and the judge will consider whether to throw out the accuser's identification of the three lacrosse players.
* Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III ordered a paternity test for the accuser's child, even though both sides agree there's no chance one of the three indicted players could be the father. Nifong said the accuser is due the first week of February. The events that led to charges occurred in March.
* The judge entered an order allowing defense lawyers access to unspecified sealed records. The lawyers had previously requested access to military, social services and hospital records kept on the accuser.
* Defense lawyers requested a change of venue.
No, it doesn't keep you from going to jail, although it did once upon a time. Something like 4000 pregnant women are arrested and jailed awaiting trial each year. Each state, or most every state (I'm unaware of any that don't), has established "Minimum Jail Standards" which require the medical treatment units within each jail system to provide for treatment of pregnant inmates. That's not to say that the cop on the street or even a judge won't cut somebody some slack if their pregnancy is advanced, but from what I've seen that is much more likely to occur in cases of misdemeanors and low-level, non-violent felonies.
Nifong is waiting for the case to fall apart on other reasons so he doesn't have to dismiss it and suffer the ire of black Durhamites salivating at the thought of three rich white boys going to prison for a long time for something they didn't do.
I think that is a big part of it, too, although I believe he wishes to lay the dismissal at the foot of the judge instead of doing it himself. But yes, I'm sure he would like to at least get sworn in before the state bar starts in on him (to whatever feeble level that will even go), lol!
NC presents a unique set of circumstances and laws that are much more conducive to the miscarriage taking place in this case than other states's laws and procedures are.
No, a prosecutor does not have to go forward because an accuser wants to. A prosecutor has a duty to drop a case if his evidence is insufficient even if he believes the suspect is guilty, and he has a duty to further the investigation before charging the case if he believes the suspect is innocent. The decision isn't up to the accuser at all. These are criminal cases, not civil suits.
But Liefong knows that prolonging it will not allow him to avoid the inevitable investigations and examinations, and may make any civil action against him even more damaging and expensive.
Obviously not.
"In its editorial positions, The Herald-Sun has relentlessly condemned the Duke lacrosse team and encouraged a prosecution of the defendants in these cases," attorneys wrote. "In its first significant editorial on these cases, The Herald-Sun stated that not only had a crime occurred, but that those present during the crime were guilty of an additional 'outrage' by not confessing to the crime."
Or to put it another way, the Herald-Sun better get lawyered up.
Public opinion, removing all doubt as to any of the boys not being the father, especially for those who will say the date on the birth certificate was changed because the boys bribed the hospital administrators or some other nonsense such as the pregnancy was extra long because of this or that, which would be important to the boys whether there is or isn't a trial. I'm quite surprised they got the order and I'm very tentatively encouraged by the judge agreeing to it.
Well, it may open the door, if there's a trial, to a wider look at Mangum's sexual activities before and after the party, and who those people were.
I wonder if Jakki-Jabba-the-Hut is willing NOW to come back on Greta, seeing as how she misled her and Greta's viewing public. Another liar in the family. We've heard from a grand total of three family members - Crystal, Travis, and Jakki - and each of them has turned out to be a pathetic, gross liar.
Missed this on the first go. She has no offical postion in this case. She's a "civil rights advocate".
Less so now than in the past, and generally only when the charges are on the minor side rather than the serious side. Scenario: A pregnant woman gets picked up on, say, her third shoplifting (petty theft) offense. At least in CA, that would probably be charged as a felony because of the two priors, assuming the convictions were misdemeanors, but it's a low-grade felony. She would be looking at jail time for sure, but probably not prison time (although she could be, depending on a number of things). If she was nearing delivery around sentencing time, most likely a judge would either give her an extended probation (pay a fine, restitution, obey all laws, etc.) and suspend the jail sentence if she's real lucky, or he would allow her to report to the jail to serve her sentence in, say, six months, or give her weekends in jail or some kind of work project service. But it's unlikely the judge would reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. In other words, she might catch a break of sorts on the sentencing and how she serves it, but not the charging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.