Today chicagotribune.com headlines:
”DNA links 3rd player to alleged attack”The Tribune news services' story begins:
Prosecutors believe they have DNA evidence to tie a third Duke lacrosse player to the alleged attack on a 27-year-old exotic dancer, news outlets in Durham reported Thursday.The lead paragraphs certainly support the Tribs headline: “DNA links 3rd player to the alleged attack.”
The local ABC affiliate, citing sources, reported that the third player is the same person who was identified with "90 percent" certainty by the alleged victim in a photo lineup. That lineup was conducted by police weeks after the March 13 off-campus lacrosse team party where the alleged incident took place.
The potential evidence--a DNA sample found under a fake fingernail worn by the alleged victim and linked to the lacrosse player--was recovered from the off-campus home where the alleged attack took place. […]
But if you read down to the story's last two paragraphs, you learn:
The Durham Herald Sun newspaper reported Thursday that the tissue sample used for testing did not allow for a 100 percent match, but it was "consistent" with DNA of the third player. Because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the sample on the fingernail, it was impossible to match that sample with near certainty to the third player, the newspaper said.Given the information in the last two paragraphs, how can the Trib justify its headline, “DNA links 3rd player to the alleged attack,” or its lead paragraphs?
Defense sources told the ABC station that results from this set of DNA tests are also inconclusive and that there is no match, and that to say otherwise is "very misleading." They also say it would not be unusual to find players' DNA in the bathroom or garbage can of a house where many spent time.
The Trib’s headline and its equally misleading lead paragraphs are further examples of MSM news bias directed against the Duke lacrosse players
6 comments:
"consistent with" is the same perjurious description the FBI is in trouble over when it was found that "consistent with" according to their "expert scientific" testimony could mean that the item described belonged to the same physical world that the real evidence might have, if they had found any.
For example: "The hair sample taken at the scene of the crime is consistent with the sample taken from the defendant." That has been shown to mean that both samples were hair, but dissimilar in every other respect. Convictions have been won on this type of spurious evidence because defense attorneys did not know to question the findings of the FBI labs and the integrity of the testifying expert. Some have now been overturned and others are on appeal.
"Consistent with..." means absolutely not a goddamned thing except "we don't have proof, but if we can fool the jury to believe we said something we didn't, we win."
Nifong's gotta be having a really bad weekend.
Here it was to be his big bombshell...but instead....
The conclusion from the 2nd DNA lab that the AV (hell let's just drop the charade at this point)-the false accuser - had semen from another (Identified) man in her vaginal swabs is devastating to the prosecution.
1. It eliminates any chance that they could argue that semen couldn't be found due to a poor exam or time delay
(In other words it essentially proves that absence of Duke DNA is proof that no rape occured)
2. Recent sex (likely the same night) will discredit any but the most traumatic findings on the gential exam.
3. The DA hide this fact from the media (and likely the grand jury) even though he must have known about it for weeks.
All bad for Nifong.
dj (returning the visit)
straightarrow,
Your right about "consistent with."
It really doesn't mean anything more than "maybe."
"Location and length of surgical scar is consistent with patient report of prior appendectomy."
Scientific translation:
"I saw a scar on the guy's tummy that looked a lot like appendectomy scars I've seen and the guy says he's had an appendectomy, so maybe he has. But I'm not certain. Could the guy be lying? Sure. Could that scar be caused by something other than an appendectomy. Of course, why do you think I said "consistent with?"
dj,
Thanks for the heads up on the latest DNA info.
I hope you post some more about it either at Melanie's or here.
Hats off for all your posting at Melanie's blog.
I'll say more about people who post there tomorrow here in a post I'll call something like "Talking with JinC regulars."
Also, do you have a blog?
Best to you both,
John
I think this is consistent with Nifong and the MSM's usual behavior, don't you?
-AC
And today we find out that it's "consisent with" being in the bottom of a bathroom trash can for two days and being covered with all the usual stuff you might expect. Don't expect a retraction.
I think I get the picture here. Let's say I lived at the Duke Lacrosse house. Let's even say I was maybe a captain of the Lacrosse team living at that house and let's say, after the party, I found myself with a runny nose due to the overpowering perfume used by the AV. Let's further assume that I blew my nose and deposited the tissue in that same trash can (because, afterall, I live there according to this hypothetical). After a couple of days of my used tissue being in the same trash can with these fingernails, is it possible that my DNA would find itself on those same fingernails? Just curious.
Post a Comment