Posted on 08/24/2006 8:01:43 PM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C. — On March 21, a week after an African-American woman charged that she had been raped by three white Duke University lacrosse players, the police sergeant supervising the investigation met with the sexual-assault nurse who had examined the woman in the emergency room. The sergeant, Mark D. Gottlieb, reviewed the medical report, which did not say much: some swelling, no visible bruises.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I believe she had previously been treated at UNC.
Having lost her purse, she may have returned the next day for more Flexeril.
And what did they have to say?
I had to TiVO it. They reported on the NY Times story, but a panelist added that it looks suspicious that the cop added his typed notes after the fact. Also, they still see no new evidence. Actually, it was sort of a counterattack on the NY Times. I will play it back later when I get the chance.
There's our story. A report 33 typed pages from 3 pages of handwritten notes and recalled "mostly" from memory. Yeah, right.
I say we don't even acknowledge Gottlieb's report when it's brought up. It's a work of pure fiction.
I wonder if in addition to the Flexeril, if she requested meds for her bipolar disorder. Without a tox screen , we're all just guessing. She was out of it by all accounts.
According to the NYT, she herself admitted at UNC not telling the doctors the night before about her pain because she was too drunk to feel pain. Yet the nurse's oral report said the accuser was in a great deal of pain when the vaginal exam was done.(even though the nurse never included this fact in her notes) Huh?
That poor cook. I wonder what's being held over him to keep quiet about "Baldo." Gottlieb is a piece of work.
I would imagine the Blinco's cook is scared sh!tless!
Where's the NAACP, Je$$ie Jackson, et al?
How does Gottlieb get access to medical records without a subpoena?
When on March 21 and to whom? Certainly not the SANE nurse. Seems to me that this is all way too neat. There are so many inconsistencies and oddities that the Defense is going to have a hard time knowing where to begin.
One weakness of our legal system is that bald faced liars can perjure themselves on the stand, under oath with very few consequences.
Gottlieb's notes, according to the Times, were typed, with little or no hand-written material.
The Times' conclusion: should the notes be treated with suspicion? No: The notes show that there is a "more ambiguous picture" than the defense suggested; "it shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury."
Goittlieb's notes, of course, didn't exist when Nifong took the case even to the grand jury. In a case where typed notes turned in months after the fact contradict items produced in a timely fashion; and when those notes amount to the only evidence the state possesses (as the Times makes clear), perhaps a wee bit of journalistic skepticism is in order?
Gottliebs notes are not evidence.
I read that the subpoena was served on March 21.
The records were printed on March 30.
And, picked up from Duke by Himan on April 5.
Some of the commentary here very distressing. Nifong was at least sucessful in ginning up a lynch mob...
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=31
Gottlieb apparently went right down with the subpoena on the 21st and was allowed to see the records. Probably while they were still in the computer.
Nifong violates gag order per RCP. Pinging the DukeLax List
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/08/the_duke_lacrosse_files.html
August 25, 2006
The Duke Lacrosse Files
So, District Attorney Mike Nifong leaked all 1,850 pages of evidence in the Duke Lacrosse rape case to the New York Times in hopes of countering the public perception that the whole thing is a sham and a textbook example of prosecutorial abuse. Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater only partly oblige, producing a lengthy and detailed account that, while certainly promoting aspects of the case that are favorable to the prosecution, still contains a whole lot of question marks and red flags about the accuser's story and, most importantly, about the way this case has been prosecuted.
Perhaps the biggest question raised by the story is the source for much of what appears in the article itself: 33 pages of typed notes and 3 pages of handwritten notes by Sergeant Mark D. Gottlieb. Defense lawyers say Gottlieb initially told them he "took few handwritten notes" on the case, so they were surprised to receive 33 pages of typed notes from him with details addressing specific problem areas of the prosecution's case in a final disclosure of documents made to the defense four months after the rape allegedly took place. Wilson and Glater write:
The sergeant's notes are drawing intense scrutiny from defense lawyers both because they appear to strengthen Mr. Nifong's case and because they were not turned over by the prosecution until after the defense had made much of the gaps in the earlier evidence.
Joseph B. Cheshire, a lawyer for David Evans, one of the defendants, called Sergeant Gottlieb's report a "make-up document." [snip]
Mr. Cheshire said the sergeant's report was "transparently written to try to make up for holes in the prosecution's case." He added, "It smacks of almost desperation."
Even beyond the issue of Gottlieb's notes, there are so many interesting tidbits and angles in the article you should really sift through it all yourself. But here are two things that really jumped out at me. First, here is how Wilson and Glater report the initial police search of the house on North Buchanan street:
Mr. Evans and the two other team captains who shared the house were there. Police reports say they cooperated fully. Not only had there been no rape, they said, there had been no sex at all. They talked for hours without lawyers, gave DNA samples and offered to take polygraph tests. The officers declined the polygraph offer because, they said, DNA evidence would solve the case.
Initial reactions often say quite a bit, and if the police report is accurate - and we have no reason to believe it's not - it would appear to describe the actions of three innocent people. David Evans is among one of the three charged in the case, so it seems implausible, to say the least, that he would sit down and talk with police for hours without a lawyer present and offer up a DNA sample (later requested by the prosecution and eventually coming back negative) were he guilty of raping someone just a day prior.
The other bit that struck me was Nifong's refusal to meet with Reade Seligmann's attorney to hear evidence of his alibi:
In mid-April, the defense lawyers tried repeatedly to meet with the district attorney to share what they describe as evidence favorable to their clients. He rebuffed them, they say.
Mr. Nifong met with three of the lawyers on April 13 but cut them off when they talked about exculpatory evidence, saying he knew more about the case than they did, according to James D. Williams Jr., who represents a player who was not charged.
Mr. Osborn says he offered to show Mr. Nifong proof of a solid alibi for Mr. Seligmann. That includes cellphone records, an A.T.M. record, a time-coded dormitory entry card and a taxi driver's account. Time-stamped photos show that the women were dancing at the party until 12:04 a.m. According to his cellphone bill, between 12:05 and 12:13, Mr. Seligmann made eight brief calls, of 36 seconds or less, six of them to his girlfriend's number, and then phoned a taxi at 12:14 a.m. and left the party shortly after.
Mr. Nifong has never explained his refusal to meet with the lawyers or review their evidence.
"I've known the guy for 25 years," Mr. Osborn said in mid-April. "I went over and thought surely he'd listen to me on it. And he sent some messenger out and said, 'I saw you on the TV saying your client was absolutely innocent, so what do we have to talk about?' He wouldn't even see me himself."
The timeline seems to indicate Nifong was hell bent on delivering indictments. After three weeks and three different sessions, the accuser finally made identifications on April 4. On April 10, Nifong turned over the results of DNA tests to the defense showing that not a single match had been found. On April 13, he rebuffed defense attorneys' attempts to provide exculpatory evidence, including what appears to be an air tight alibi for Seligmann. Five days later, on April 18, Nifong indicted Finnerty and Seligmann (it took another month to indict Evans, on May 15). All of this was occurring while Nifong was running for reelection in a primary that took place on Tuesday, May 2.
Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:15 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/9736876/detail.html
"Nifong and defense attorneys met with Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith for an hour Friday morning to discuss the case. Smith, who was appointed last week to handle all aspects of the case, set a Sept. 22 hearing for pretrial motions and issued an order barring cameras and recorders from the courtroom for all pretrial hearings."
But it does suggest that the defense needs to be careful what they reveal about their defense given that Nifong et al seems to be more than willing to fabricate evidence and testimony.
Which raises another chilling thought: Does some of the great analysis here help the defense or Nifong? It is scary how corrupt law enforcement can undermine an open society. Reminds me of Alexander Solzenitsyn's "We never make mistakes".
GOTTALIE (My nickname for that skum ) should be in jail for the attack on the cook.
I wish there was a way to get an independent whistle-blower to TAKE DOWN the KGB Durham police
That Corrupt Police Force of Durham ALMOST makes Chicago's Cook County Look More Honest LMA0 !!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.