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.