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 ...
Yes........at 10 to the hour.
And the rerun is on right now!
Motions take on DNA tests
BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun, Dec 14, 2006
DURHAM -- Tests conducted by a Burlington lab showed that the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case had DNA from several men on or in her underwear, groin and rectum, but that none was from the three men charged with the alleged rape.
A motion and supporting documents filed Wednesday by defense lawyers for David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann also said the previously undisclosed traces found by DNA Security Inc. weren't from anyone on the 2006 lacrosse team or who had given investigators samples for testing.
Defense lawyers also called Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith's attention to the potential contamination of one sample by the lab's owner, Brian Meehan.
His DNA showed up in the lab's tests of a sample a doctor and nurse at Duke University Hospital had taken from the accuser's pubic hair while gathering evidence on the night of the alleged crime.
Wednesday's motion -- filed two days before prosecutors and defense lawyers are due in court for the latest in a series of pre-trial hearings -- asked Smith to order DNA Security to turn over the results of all the tests it has conducted on the prosecution's behalf since it began working on the case in early April.
Lawyers also want logs of the lab's dealings with investigators and a comparison database it used in the testing.
The defense already has received 1,844 pages of documents and a CD of computer files from DNA Security. After studying the material, lawyers concluded the firm still was holding back information that could prove their clients' innocence.
The documents show that the firm conducted more tests than it noted in a May 12 report that said analysts found Evans' DNA on a fake fingernail belonging to the accuser that police discovered in a trash basket at the scene of the alleged crime, a bathroom in 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.
Evans and two other co-captains of the lacrosse team, Dan Flannery and Matt Zash, were renting the house and hosted a team party there the night of March 13 and March 14.
Flannery called local escort services and hired two women -- the accuser and another woman, Kim Roberts Pittman -- to perform a strip show at the party.
The May 12 report from Meehan's lab also said analysts found the DNA of an unindicted lacrosse player, Kevin Coleman, on a fake fingernail left on top of a computer in Evans' bedroom, and the DNA of the accuser's boyfriend, Matthew Murchison, in a sample taken from her vagina.
The additional tests sought DNA traces in samples taken from five stains on the accuser's panties, and from samples taken from her cheek, mouth, rectum and pubic hair.
But none of the results of those tests showed up in the May 12 report, or in the material District Attorney Mike Nifong had given the defense before Sept. 22, when Smith ordered him to hand over DNA Security's files.
The batch of documents revealed a month later in compliance with Smith's order contained what defense lawyers termed "disturbing" signs that the lab had analyzed more samples than Nifong has revealed, and that it kept on working after submitting its May 12 report.
For example, the lab on June 27 received a sample from Brent Saeli, "a non-lacrosse player who was at the party," and ran comparisons against at least some of the evidence gathered from the accuser, the motion and supporting documents said. Those tests came back negative.
Duke's campus directory lists Saeli as a student.
The technician who pulled testable DNA from Saeli's sample also logged doing the same for samples from "Bobby" and "Owen," but the documents given the defense to date don't include any results or explanation for why that work was done.
"This phenomenon repeats itself throughout the underlying materials from DNA Security," the lawyers complained.
State law requires prosecutors to turn over "a report of the results of any examination or tests" conducted by their expert witnesses, a stipulation that applies in this case because Nifong already has said he's likely to ask Meehan to testify.
The defense is supposed to receive the information "within a reasonable time prior to trial," as dictated by the judge hearing the case.
If he believes Nifong has failed to comply with the disclosure requirement, Smith could hold him in contempt of court and in addition impose "appropriate" penalties, up to and including the dismissal of the case.
The comparisons the lab is known to have conducted have been with samples from 46 lacrosse team members -- everyone on the 2006 squad save Devon Sherwood, the team's only black player -- plus Saeli and three men connected to the accuser, Murchison, Jarriel Johnson and Brian Taylor.
Sherwood wasn't tested because the accuser said none of her alleged attackers was black.
Johnson and Taylor have admitting driving the accuser to escort-service and exotic-dancing engagements.
Save for the positives reported on May 12 for Evans, Murchison and Coleman, none of the DNA tested has matched that taken from the accuser, defense lawyers said.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-799249.cfm
Somehow I doubt he's gonna make it to the stand.
Thanks, I will try to check it out. I am watching Mythbusters and might forget.
30 minutes! I'll remind you!
Tick tock.......10 minutes!
Here it comes!
Thanks, I just manage to miss the part I previously saw and saw the second half of the panel.
They were a bit better on this. I am not sure they fully understood the import of this. It is more than withholding excuplatory evidence, it smacks of meeting with the lab guy and agreeing to how the report would read. That sounds like a crime to me.
What is this "underwear" of which you speak?
prisoner6
Right, but even if he didn't, he still wouldn't have the will to do it in a state such as rat-run NC.
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! You're right, initially she didn't say all that much other than to give her interpretation/account of what she supposedly actually saw and to state she didn't know whether the 'victim' had been raped or not. If memory serves she also said she didn't know the 'victim' or hadn't met her prior to that night. In effect, she flip-flopped after this statement where she just didn't know to where she was saying a rape did take place and then flip-flopped again to say she (the witness) and the 'victim' had lied. So, initially she did support the 'victim' by lying in her initial statement and then supporting the 'victim's' statement as being true the 2nd time.
This is another straw man. If you were the delivery man and brought the keg, hung around because you though(t)sic more beer could be sold and the party got you to give them an extra keg and then refused to pay for it, it would be simple theft. Not theft of services as you confusingly claimed.
You failed in your reading comprehension of my example. I distinctly said "If you or any frat member lay hands on me because I won't bring in another keg at no charge then it's not simply theft of services, it's assault." Lay hands on someone for their refusal and it's assault. I did not say they got me to give them.
Had she agreed to have sex with someone and any of them been the least bit interested and had sex with her and then blew off paying her, it would be theft of services NOT rape.
They can be interested all they want but if she didn't agree to have sex with any of the other's then they used coercion, they constrained her, they controlled and/or intimidated or threatened (even if a threat wasn't verbalized) her because she didn't consent.
Do you know the definition of rape?
rape1 /reɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reyp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.force
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object) 9. to commit rape.
Check out the word duress. No, here, I'll save you the trouble!
du·ress /dʊˈrɛs, dyʊ-, ˈdʊrɪs, ˈdyʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doo-res, dyoo-, door-is, dyoor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2. Law. such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3. forcible restraint, esp. imprisonment.
Well, darn! There's that word I used...constraint and it's being used under the definition of duress which in turn was used under the definition of rape.
So far you've accused me of using strawman arguments, using leftist propaganda (even if you did finally offer the caveat of me not knowing it was leftist propaganda when in actuality there wasn't anything leftist about it), you've twisted my words and have told me I'm wrong. You like to use the word guess which lets you off the hook to an extent as you can always come back to say you weren't being definitely definitive.
If you lay hands on me without my permission and do not immediately stop, you have assaulted me. Assault is a form of duress and can be construed as a non-verbal threat. As I said, rape is about control and violence because there's nothing sexy or sexual about coercion, assault, duress, being constrained and all of the other words I've used in my posts.
There's nothing leftist about any of that.
I am not taking up for the 'victim' in any shape, fashion or form. From the git-go I've expressed I doubted rape took place in this case. I also said I was initially willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Silly me, I do that until concrete facts come in.
In my initial post I asked questions of r9etb because he and I have traded posts in the past on different subjects. I consider him a pretty level-headed poster. You decided to answer me and while I did learn some information from your post I had a problem when you used the word guess about whether a prostitute could be raped or not.
Thanks.
It all depends on how much the people of NC push the gov, the AG, the state bar, and the feds to actually do something.
As an addendum, another poster reports that the reason the defense got this information is not because the October discovery showed the complete report, but rather because it showed only the final report of 5/12 which was just a summary indicating no match to the lax boys. It did not state that the DNA of five other men were found, and that is the crux of the entire issue. The defense then filed a motion to compel DNA Security and Nifong to produce the full report. That report was issued, and hence the motion filed today is now before the court.
Mark
Pinging with updated NandO story from this morning's paper...
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/521326.html
Motion says lab withheld DNA findings
Lawyers in the Duke rape case say evidence helps their clients and damages the accuser
Joseph Neff and Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writers
A laboratory hired by the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case found DNA from unidentified men in the accuser's body and underwear but none from the defendants, according to a defense motion filed Wednesday.
DNA Security of Burlington in May produced a report to Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that made no mention of finding the genetic material.
Wednesday's motion raised questions about whether Nifong and DNA Security withheld evidence favorable to the defense. It also cast further doubt on accounts given by the accuser, who told nurses and police that her attackers ejaculated and did not use condoms. The tests revealed no DNA evidence from any of 46 lacrosse players then suspected in the case.
"This is strong evidence of innocence," said the motion, which was signed by attorneys for all three defendants. "There is not a single mention of this obviously exculpatory evidence in the final DNA Security report."
Defense lawyers for months pressed Nifong in court to release all test documents from DNA Security. The evidence in Wednesday's motion was contained in thousands of DNA Security papers that a judge in October ordered Nifong to give to the defense.
Defense lawyers, citing the state's open file discovery law and the U.S. Supreme Court requirement that prosecutors surrender all helpful evidence, asked for more lab records, including analyses, notes, e-mail and logs of phone calls. They also asked that Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, be questioned under oath. A hearing is scheduled for Friday in the case.
Nifong could not be reached Wednesday. Meehan said he could not answer questions without reviewing his file.
Three former Duke University lacrosse players, Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Collin Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., are charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense. The players have said that they are innocent and that the accusations are lies.
The News & Observer typically does not identify the complainant in sexual assault cases. The woman has been unreachable since April.
Genetic material
The accuser, then an escort service worker, was one of two women hired to dance at a lacrosse team party in March. The accuser said three men gang-raped her in a bathroom over a 30-minute period. She told nurses that she was raped anally, orally and vaginally, that one or more men ejaculated, and that her assailants did not wear condoms.
DNA Security found that the genetic material taken from the accuser did not match the defendants, their teammates or anyone who submitted DNA to police in this case, according to the motion.
Early on the morning of March 14, a few hours after the party, a Duke Hospital doctor and nurse examined the woman and collected standard rape kit evidence: panties, hair and swabs of the woman's orifices.
On March 28, the laboratory at the State Bureau of Investigation tested the rape kit items and found no evidence of semen, blood or saliva, according to SBI records.
Additional testing
After meeting with Nifong on April 4, Investigator Michele Soucie called DNA Security to inquire whether the laboratory could do additional evidence testing, according to Soucie's handwritten notes.
Meehan said his lab could perform Y-chromosome testing, which is more sensitive than the SBI tests, according to her notes. The tests isolate cells containing a Y chromosome from the sample, thereby analyzing only male DNA. The lab would test the swabs and panty samples for DNA and look for matches with the 46 players who were then suspects, the accuser and any other DNA samples collected from her boyfriend and other acquaintances.
Meehan told the investigator that he "can possibly adjust prices because they would really like to be involved in case," according to Soucie's notes.
DNA Security had done no public work, whether for a judge, district attorney, public defender or court appointed lawyer, according to financial records of the Administrative Office of the Courts dating to January 2002.
On April 8, 9 and 10, DNA Security found DNA from men on the panties and rectal swab from the rape kit; none matched the lacrosse players. The motion was unclear about how many different DNA profiles the samples included.
On April 10, Meehan met in his office with Nifong and the two lead investigators, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Investigator Benjamin Himan.
Finnerty and Seligmann were indicted April 17, based on the accuser's identification of them from an April 4 photo lineup.
On April 18 and 19, DNA Security ran tests on pubic hair from the rape kit. Male DNA was found that did not match the players or any other sample taken by police, the motion said.
On April 20 or 21, Meehan again met with Nifong and the investigators in his Burlington office. Nifong later said in court that at the first meeting he discussed only whether Meehan's lab could do the tests. Nifong said that at the later meeting he got test results, which he gave to defense lawyers the same day. He said he did not ask Meehan questions about the evidence because all the information was in a summary Meehan gave him.
Players ruled out
Meehan included none of these DNA results in his final report to Nifong on May 12. The report ruled out all 46 lacrosse players as sources of sperm found on a vaginal swab and identified her boyfriend as the likely source.
Meehan also examined DNA on artificial fingernails that police collected from the house; one was found on top of a computer in a bedroom, and three were in a trash can in the bathroom where the accuser said the assault occurred. The tests of the nail found on the computer excluded 99.99 percent of the population, but one player, Kevin Coleman, could not be excluded.
Meehan also examined DNA taken from the nails found in the trash can. The tests excluded 98 percent of the population, but not Evans, a team captain who lived in the house.
Evans was indicted May 15.
The May 12 report violated DNA Security's own policies, which state that reports shall include "results for each DNA test," according to a copy of the policy filed with the motion.
At a hearing in September, Nifong told a judge that defense lawyers were on a witch hunt, looking for ways to attack the DNA testing. He read a letter from Meehan objecting to providing the documents because of cost and privacy concerns. The judge ordered Nifong to produce the documents; the defense lawyers received them Oct. 27.
(Staff writer Anne Blythe contributed to this report.)
Staff writer Joseph Neff can be reached at 829-4516 or jneff@newsobserver.com.
Staff writer Anne Blythe contributed to this report.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson156.html
Durham and Scottsboro
by William L. Anderson
First I thought the DA had something, anything, nobody goes up against Duke students 'wit nut'n?' ... too many people will help out with defense Money just to save the value of their own diploma.
No DA is going to risk his bar card get to get a conviction that an appellant court will throw out.
(Ya right)
Then I hear the lads passed a poly, so I sez to self, this going to be interesting but I've already made two strikes by now.
Third: I'm thinking the investigators are holding their noses, trying to appease an out of control DA. I assumed they had integrity and were mindful of their oaths?
> Strike Three!
Now a state retained crime lab has augured in at Mach 1?
what has happened to a system of checks and balances and civil rights?
I just don't understand why this hasn't already been thrown out of court with a loud thud.....
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.