RE: Meehan told the investigator that he "can possibly adjust prices because they would really like to be involved in case,"
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 ...
mark
ditto
Meehan and Nifong are proffering the theory that DNA results are wholly irrelevant unless a direct match to a suspect/defendant. Of course, they did not bother to inform anyone of their novel theory that contradicts every legal principle in the book, and the defense was never supposed to find out about this. Nifong applied this theory to the line ups -- that is, the only relevant fact is the the FA picked these three, and anything else htat happened is irrleevant. The hearing in February will dispose of this theory as well.
What we are seeing is a systematic legal exposure of Nifong creating his own law as he went along to achieve a desired result, without bothering to inform the court that he was creating these novel laws, or changing them as he went along to fit a preconceived narrative. Amazing.
Did you get the sense from the judge that he was starting to wise up to Nifong?
Excellent stuff, LB! Thank you.
Nifong will take this case the distance. Victoria Peterson and Kim Brummell, a frequent H-S letter to editor writer, will see to it.
(No link-archives)
Citizens' group to support Nifong
Organization aims to counterbalance criticism of DA
Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC)
August 28, 2006
Author: JOHN STEVENSON jstevenson@heraldsun.com; 419-6643
Estimated printed pages: 3
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who faces a write-in rival on the November ballot as well as an effort to recall him from office, now has a group on his side.
A "Citizens for Mike Nifong Committee" has formed, aimed largely at counterbalancing a torrent of criticism Nifong has weathered over his handling of the controversial Duke University lacrosse case.
The new group was organized by Kim Brummell, a corporate security officer and writer, and community activist Victoria Peterson. Their goal is to keep Nifong in office when the November general election rolls around.
The chief prosecutor faces competition from Steve Monks, chairman of the local Republican Party who is running as an unaffiliated write-in candidate.
In addition, a group of voters calling itself the "Committee to Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek" recently was formed to oust the district attorney.
That organization is urging people to vote for Lewis Cheek, a county commissioner who has said he would not serve even if elected.
Still, his name will be on the November ballot because about 10,000 voters petitioned the Board of Elections to have it placed there.
If Cheek won the district attorney election, the governor would have to appoint someone to serve in his place.
Nifong has worked in the Durham District Attorney's Office for roughly 28 years. He received a gubernatorial appointment to head the agency last year after his predecessor, Jim Hardin Jr., became a judge.
In an interview last week, Nifong said he was pleased about the "Citizens for Mike Nifong Committee." But he said he had nothing to do with forming it.
"They came to me and told me what they had done," Nifong said of Brummell and Peterson. "I was very pleased. It made me feel good."
Nifong conceded he has received an avalanche of criticism over the lacrosse case, in which Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans are accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
But Nifong insisted that the negative attention was not the full story.
"The great majority of the feedback I receive is very positive," Nifong said. "All of the sentiment in Durham is not to remove me from office. There are people who feel very strongly that I should remain. That's encouraging. It's a very positive response, and I'm grateful for it."
Brummell said 51 people as of last week had expressed possible interest in joining the effort to keep Nifong in office. The group will hold an organizational meeting Thursday.
Brummell said she was aware that many people have called for dismissal of the lacrosse case, citing an apparent lack of incriminating DNA evidence and various purported inconsistencies and contradictions in the accuser's version of events.
But Brummell said such questions should be left to a jury.
"We feel Mike Nifong is the best person to handle the lacrosse case and other cases as well," she said. "If Mike Nifong was to lose the election, there would be a slimmer chance of this [lacrosse] case going to trial. Mr. Nifong has proved his loyalty to the case. We feel the case should go to trial. It should be decided by a jury and not by the court of public opinion."
Peterson agreed.
"I do not want this case thrown out or dismissed," she said. "I believe Mr. Nifong will take it all the way to the end."
Peterson said she believed Nifong also was best qualified to handle all of Durham's other criminal cases, too.
"Mr. Nifong has almost 30 years of experience here in Durham County," Peterson added. "You have a man who knows what he is doing. ... Steve Monks is too new. He doesn't have the history. He's only been in Durham a few years. You have to know the land to be district attorney."
(snip)
More on Peterson here:
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/08/duke-lacrosse-nifong-campaign-disaster.html
RE: Meehan told the investigator that he "can possibly adjust prices because they would really like to be involved in case,"
By the way, Dearie, wish me a happy birthday, tomorrow, I made it through another year.
Or at least the next two dollars...
Well, it was 100% of the cases she was involved with.
That AP weasel headline shows just how out of touch AP and NYT are about the story.
From:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/nifong-and-naf.html
Another revelation from the hearing, meanwhile, cast strong doubt upon Meehan’s self-proclaimed position as an ardent privacy-rights advocate. He admitted that in one document turned over to the state, his lab included the names of three other men who were subjects of another case. Concern for their privacy appears not to have formed a major priority of the lab director.
More:
Before the hearing, Nifong would have done well to have reminded Meehan of the 5th amendment: on several occasions, the lab director essentially admitted to a conspiracy with Nifong.
Meehan remarks about this issue included:
* Nifong “specifically wanted to know: does any reference specimen match any of the profiles we gave?”
* Before indictments, Nifong knew that there was no match to Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty but that matches to other unidentified males existed.
* The match to unidentified males from the rectal swab not reported because it was “not probative evidence,” an approach on which “we agreed.”
* “This report was a specific report on a request from Mr. Nifong.”
* “We were in agreement that the alternative would have been to produce names and profiles of everybody in the case.”
* “We would be glad to provide a more thorough report upon the request of our client.” [Meehan repeatedly referred to Nifong as the “client.”]
* Had Nifong said, “‘I want a report on everything,’ that’s what we would produce.”
* Violated his own lab’s protocol, but “not just because the district attorney told me to.”
And, the killer question: Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney?
Meehan: Yes.
I agree, but considerartion of the rape shield law is liefong's figleaf. And this guy has shown he can make a whole suit out of a figleaf.
Anyway, now he can claim that while the law "might be unclear" with respect to the rape shield law, since the information has been turned over well before the trial, no harm.
"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."
That's my opinion, as well.
The headline probably belongs to a NY Times headline writer which matches their continuing bias in this case.
Intent...Intent....Intent. Always the hardest to prove!! The Defense nailed both Nifong and Meehan. And you can bet your booties that the first judge (Stephens?) also knew about the other DNA....but at what time??
The first judge sealed some stuff IIRC. I'll have to go back and see if that includes the DNA stuff.
Anybody checked the lab's and/or Meehan's political contributions?
Jezebelle, I think Neverforget01 was some what spoofingly saying the H-S confusing in an article which defendant is which, ie Evans has gradaute while Finerty and Seligmann compared to the H-S saying Seligmann has graduated while Evans and Finnerty have not, is the D-H showing the Durham public how easy it is to confuse these yankee white boy lacrosse players which is why she had so much trouble with her IDs?
"Political Favors" = Money, (win-win) no matter how you cut it. I'll do you a favor and you send the stuff to my lab. I'll send you a bill. I believe Nifong & Meehan even discussed a "special rate".
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.