Replies

"By chance, do you remember anymore about this: "Cooney points out that Meehan is sitting in front of a 5-6" ring binder (no kidding - it was a monster) and points out that RS&CF had to go through the entire ring binder to draw the conclusion that they hadn't matched anyone." Do you remember exactly what you meant by this? Why was it different for DE versus RS&CF?"

Well RS&CF were completely excluded by all the DNA testing. The May 12 report _could have_ said that RS&CF were not matched by any of the DNA tests. It apparently did not but was more vague. At the time I remember arguments between Cheshire and Nifong as to whether the report completely exonorated the laxers and this explains why. If was only after the defense got ALL the tests and went through that 6" ring binder that the defense was able to categorically state that conclusion. DE kinda sorta maybe showed up on one of the fingernails so he wasn't, completely strictly speaking, 100% excluded from all DNA tests.

"Can you objectively say whether Meehan's testimony left the impression that Liefong definitely wanted or requested or urged that the exculpatory results be left out of the report?"

Meehan categorically stated that he was not asked to do this by Nifong but rather it was Meehan's idea to which Nifong agreed. You can guess what is my impression about that statement.

"There was no satisfactory answer as to why giving the results that five (or ever how many) other male DNA was in Mangum would be an invasion of privacy? Whose privacy? Was Liefong trying to argue rape shield law as the reason for not reporting the exculpatory evidence? Did any of the lawyers try to argue to the judge that it was evidence of Mangum lying about when she last had sex so rape shield doesn't apply, and that it was also exculpatory inasmuch as Mangum said the attackers and Kim wiped her off/cleaned her up before dressing her and putting her in the car which can't be true if other men's DNA was found on her but not theirs?"

Nifong made no rape shield argument and in fact said very little other than to point out the May 12 report had a CYA sentence that indicated that the report did not have complete data. I think the other arguments will be made at the Feb 5 hearing where I think the judge plans to rule on any number of the motions.

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?