Freedman: There’s no indication any of this DNA came from sexual contact? (Huh!) Meehan: Yes, could have been saliva, epithelials or blood, but it wasn’t semen.
Freedman: There were five stains on the panties and none were definitive for semen? Meehan: Can’t really say for sure.
Freedman: Everything you tested was negative for semen, right? Meehan: Yes.
Freedman: All the DNA you found was negative for semen? Meehan: No, all the stains were negative for semen.
Whoa! Meehan just said Nifong “was a better student” than Freedman when Freedman asked if he had explained all this to Nifong. Count me confused, too.
Freedman mentions several times that mishandling of evidence may be why the DNA samples were degraded. Is this where he’s going? And even if it is, what’s that got to do with what Nifong’s charged with, which is withholding evidence from the defense?
