Freedman: The fact there is no DNA doesn’t mean there wasn’t contact, correct? Meehan: Yes.
Freedman’s hung up on Meehan’s use of the word non-probative to refer to the non-matching DNA samples. Meehan says he said these samples were non-probative because they weren’t germane to the case!!!
Talking about weak DNA profiles now. 16 markers the best, 14 could be used but 2 markers useless, says Meehan. 11-plus thought to be the standard minimum, he explains. Less than 11 can still be used to exclude someone, he said.
Freedman: So weak DNA may mean it’s been there a long time? And you can’t tell how long it’s been there? Meehan: Yes. Boy, that is an unattractive thought.
Not sure I get this line of questioning. No one doubts the DNA samples were analyzed correctly, only that some of them were not disclosed to the defense. So, what’s Freedman getting at? Is he hoping that Meehan will eventually look incompetent enough to disqualify his reports? Or is he implying that Dave Evans actually raped this woman but his DNA degraded? Again, pretty despicable of Nifong and his attorneys.
