Says to keep in mind this was a case that was still in the discovery phase. Says he was going to argue that no one had gone to jail so what’s the big deal, but when he heard Seligmann’s testimony he realized how just being arrested and charged changes one’s life. [He didn’t understand that already? He’s a defense lawyer, fercryinoutloud!]

Freedman: You’re asking us to believe that someone who did it right for 28 years all of a sudden decides to hide evidence, and he didn’t even attempt to hide it. He submitted the entire documentation. Says Bannon did great work, but they had the info.

Freedman: Says it would be hard to come out of any meeting with Meehan and really understand what he said. This was in reponse to Williamson asking him what he made of the probative-non-probative remark question. Meehan’s “all over the board.” Says there was an agreement, says there was no agreement, says there were no limits on the info, says there were limits, etc.

Says neither Himan or Gottlieb ever said there was a limit placed on the DSI report.

Williamson: Again says the agreement issue is not that important to this case. What was in Meehan’s mind or Linwood Wilson’s mind is not important. What’s important here “is what was in Mr. Nifong’s mind.”

Freedman: Meehan says no one ever told him how to write the report. Said another DNA expert would understand the probative-non-probative jargon.

Williamson: Says Meehan’s testimony is not going to be decisive here.

Freedman: Says Nifong is said to have had a myopic view of this case, but some people probably have a myopic view of this case and will see everything presented as negative. [Williamson didn’t like that, thought it reflected on the panel.] Makes the argument again about Nifong being new to a case like this.

Williamson: Has a problem with that. Nifong said it was friend who told him he was talking too much that made him shut up, not Joe Cheshire or the concerns with legall ethics. Says these non-lawyer friends were concerned about his election.

Freedman: Says that’s not a correct interpretation.

Williamson: We can only find out what’s in a person’s mind by circumstantial evidence. “And we have a lot of circumstantial evidence,” he says.

Freedman: As of May 11 he no longer had an opponent, if his motives were political why didn’t he drop the case on May 12.?

Williamson: But he’s not doing it just for the election. He’s already staked himself so far out there that he couldn’t say, “Well, I was wrong about that.”

Freedman: Says Nifong wouldn’t risk a career by hiding evidence that he thinks came from men pawing Mangum’s panties while she was performing. [My interpretation.] Says he wouldn’t do that. Says another DNA expert would have looked at those 1,800 pages and come to the same conclusions as Bannon. They had the underlying info.

Williamson just referred to the dropping of the rape charges in December as a “half measure.”

Freedman: Why would he throw his career away by hiding something that he knew would be discovered?

Williamson: Not any guarantee it would have been discovered. We see conduct all the time by attorneys that is not rational. “Sometimes people do things for which there are no rational explanations.” The answer to why Nifong did this is, “I don’t know. I don’t think we’ll ever know.” Why do lawyers take money from their trust accounts when they know it will be discovered? “I don’t know.” Doesn’t think we need to know.

Freedman: There’s no way Nifong doesn’t know this will be discovered.

Williamson: I disagree with your premise.

Freedman: Well, you’re the trier of fact.

Williamson: Yes, I am.

Williamson just called Meehan “Dr. Obfuscation.” The audience chuckled at that.

Freedman says because Nifong didn’t try to cover his tracks that this is consistent with someone who just hadn’t been paying attention rather than someone who was being intentionally evasive. Says he didn’t even object to Meehan testifying and being cross-examined pre-trial.

Williamson: What you see as generous might have been Nifong figuring that he’d put Meehan on the stand and the defense would not be able to find out anything, given the short notice to prepare.

Freedman: Says he messed up but not intentionally.

Williamson: Mentions his questioning of Nifong yesterday about whether he ever thought about the ethics of what was happening, even after Joe Cheshire’s March 30 letter. Said he never took into account the rules of professional conduct as he prosecuted this case. What concerns me is that in order to act ethically you have to be thinking about what the ethical issues are. You have to have a component in your thinking that guides you as to what the ethical issues are. He didn’t seem to do that.

Freedman: Disagrees since this is the first complaint he’s had in 28 years. A high-profile case is just different. When he realized it was wrong, he stopped talking to the media.

Williamson: He didn’t stop because it was wrong. That wasn’t his testimony. He stopped because his friends told him he should stop.

Freedman’s just repeating himself now. He has nowhere else to go. He says this is really only about one thing not being produced. “Everything else was produced.”

[This reminded me of when Pat Paulsen was running for president in 1968 and he was asked about a litany of problems and he responded, “Picky, picky, picky.]

Freedman finally sits down.