Attorney for Michael Gardner Denies WUSA-TV Report

October 12, 2011

Peter Greenspun, attorney for Michael Gardner, issued a statement today denying WUSA-TV’s October 11 story, which was reported late yesterday in the Falls Church Times.  The text of the press release is printed here in full:

Re: Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Michael Gardner

Due to false press reports, it is necessary to clarify information regarding a DNA lab report filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County.  Under Virginia law, there is a requirement that certain lab reports be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court before trial, including DNA findings.  In Mr. Gardner’s case, the press has obtained information from a DNA report, and has inaccurately reported that Mr. Gardner was the source of sperm found in the crouch area and pant leg of the pajama pants of one of the children involved in this case.  In fact, the DNA report says no such thing, and actually states the opposite, that Mr. Gardner is eliminated as a contributor of the sperm.

Therefore, false press reports have led to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Gardner is guilty.  The only fact found by the DNA report is that there was an unknown contributor of sperm to the pajama pants of a child who is a complainant in this case.  We do not know who that sperm is identified with, except that it is not identified with Mr. Gardner.

Beyond that, the DNA report filed with the Clerk indicates what we only already knew:  that Mr. Gardner’s DNA was throughout his house, allowing routine cell transfers to occur.  The far more important finding is of DNA and sperm not belonging to Mr. Gardner on the pajama pants of a child, raising significant questions about the rush to judge and charge Mr. Gardner before the investigation was complete.

October 12, 2011 


6 Responses to “Attorney for Michael Gardner Denies WUSA-TV Report”

  1. anonymous, anchorage on October 13th, 2011 10:19 am

    perhaps THIS will end this witch hunt & stop all these false allegations against an innocent man? what else do we need? it is so very painfully obvious that this man has been tried {and convicted!} in the media, and now we find out conclusively what has been so apparent all along: the media is/has been completely biased against mr. gardner from the very beginning, even to the point of *deliberately* “misinterpreting” {aka sensationalizing it, to further indict him in the “court of the media”} this DNA report. the media should be ashamed of their collective self, although, {i’m just guessing here!} they won’t be. shame on them!

  2. notfacts on October 13th, 2011 9:00 pm

    Every newspapers interpertation of the DNA report is just that, to include the Defense attorneys. They pull out single sentances and make bold statements about them. They purposely leave out the follow-on statments that might give context. None of us are hearing the whole story behind the DNA. DNA is brought to court and the techs who compile it testify as to what it all means. Its not a simple “The DNA matched”, like we see on all our TV shows. Real life is much more detailed than that. To say that because you read this statement FROM THE DEFENSE attorney mean he must be innocennt makes you just as guilty of deliberately misinterperating and rushing to judgment,

    Because of the small town nature of falls church, Im sure that all along the way, from the parents, to the police, to the Arlington Prosecutor, who decided to call in the Loudoun prosecutor, to the DNA techs, to the DNA lab supervisors, there are alot of checks and balances in place. Alot of meetings between people on the next logical step based on factual information being presented. If the professionals in every one of these organizations seem to feel that this needs to continue to go froward, then Im still not letting my kids any where near Mike Gardner.

  3. Dabby Mac on October 13th, 2011 9:43 pm

    Hopefully you’ll let your kids near a spell check *L*

  4. DNA_UPDATE on October 17th, 2011 10:27 pm
  5. Dabby Mac on October 18th, 2011 9:23 am

    So if I read LOT #7 correctly, the semen collected on the PJ’s isn’t from the victim, another victim or Mr. Gardner. This begs the question, who’s semen is it?

  6. Kelly Conrad, DC on October 19th, 2011 5:26 pm

    “…on Item 4, ‘A DNA profile foreign to the alleged victim was developed of interior crotch of the underpants and Michael Gardner cannot be eliminated as a contributor…Michael Gardner’s DNA profile is 20.7 quadrillion times more probable than in a coincidental match with an unrelated Caucasian.'”

    Translation: Michael Gardner’s DNA was found IN THE CROTCH of one little’s girl’s UNDERWEAR.

    Unless you want to take the one in 20.7 quadrillion chance it belongs to someone else, and those aren’t very good odds.

Feel free to leave a comment. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your FULL NAME and CITY. All comments are subject to editing for courtesy and content.