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 tried to get a bit of background info on Gottlieb tonight. Was not very successful. Nothing that has not been mentioned here.
Yet Gottlieb spins out a pack of lies that will be examined by 100s or thousands or even millions of people. He had to know it would not work. I could see a rookie like Himan thinking he could get away with this, but an experienced investigator? It is shocking.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
His thought process could've been affected by Desperation! Remember Gottlieb had personally signed one of the affadavits submitted for court approval, where he swore that the Medical Records obtained by Supoena revealed that the woman had injuries consistent with being sexually assaulted ANALLY and Vaginally.
So his goose was partially (or already) cooked. How can one man change the fact that Duke Computer system and the custodians of their records had already provided information that the Medical Records weren't given to Police until 4/5?
Better yet, how can one man change the fact that the Medical records don't say what he said in an official sworn affidavit in order to garner court approval?
He can't change those things, it's impossible, but the next best thing is to create a scenario that would support what he had officially sworn to in affidavits.
So, with this is mind, it's a much smaller leap for him to modify his notes. What authority is going to pursue Gottlieb? Nifong? The corrupt DPD?
I suspect this isn't the first time someone's been railroaded in Durham - by the same crew.
No one is coming to town to see that Durham follows the law.
DC is a good example. Their mayor was on Video doing Coke, and he had a very corrupt citywide system that was heavily criticized. What did the people of DC do? They relelected Mayor Barry and later he was convicted of other charges and he still hold elected office in D.C.
^^^ ^^^^^^^ HERE's ONE FOR YOU !!
Ponder this. It's a well known fact that Duke Police (Campus Police and Duke MED CTR Security) largely want to become DP Officers. Some of the little background we have on Gottlieb is that he was for allowing the Duke Police into their union - a movement that later failed. Gottlieb was or is involved as a REP or officer in the Police Union.
So, having supported the Duke Officers and having pull in the DPD as HEAD of INVESTIGATIONS - one would think the Duke
MED CTR Police are friendly with him - and view him as someone that could help them land a coveted job.
Did a certain person (a Bald person) have knowledge of exactly how long Duke Med Ctr kept surveilance video?
Was the 4 month delay so that evidence would be overwritten - evidence that could prove that someone had NOT been at the hospital on a certain day in March?
Just considering possibilities.
How many other things in this case are more than unusal.
_
Check your Freep mail
2.) The Gottlieb notes. The framing of the Times story--which lead off with the notes and rely on them heavily--suggests that the authors of the piece treated these notes as reliable.
Yet, as the piece itself repeatedly observes, these notes (produced three months after the first indictments and the very last items turned over in discovery) contradict significant contemporaneous items in the file--the SANE nurse in training's recollections of the accuser; his fellow officer's contemporaneous recollections of the accuser's initial descriptions.
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."
Gottlieb's notes, of course, didn't exist when Nifong took the case even to the grand jury....
It's like a bad movie, but remember when a lot of us thought Judge Stephens would take Nifong to task when he was confronted with the evidence?
I'll breathe easier when a court finally makes a decision that
is consistent with how most of us view the evidence.
thanks
Let's see:
1. You hit on Gottlieb's error. He should have left one of those descriptions to include a 260 to 270 lbs person and just say she did not get one of the IDs right. The reason he didn't probably is they are going to claim the various police misheard how many people she claimed raped her. You can not claim every inconsistency was due to someone mis-hearing or mis-understanding Mangum.
2. Himan may find that if he testifies like this he won't need a job anytime soon as he will be in federal prison. That is the wild card out there. There may be enough for federal perjury charges right now.
3. Sure they probably railroaded what they thought were bad guys before. Maybe they were bad guys. They have bitten off something different this time.
"You can say with a high degree of certainty that there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury."
"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told."
This was actually Arico and not Levicy. It was in a 4/1 Herald-Sun article titled:
Lag in search of Lacrosse homes draws questions
Is Arico actually saying there was blunt force trauma? I don't think so at all. She is describing what you can say in the process. She is not talking about the exam of Mangum at all, but only describing what a nurse can or can't say. Sombody is trying to make it look like Arico is describing CGM, but she isn't.
From that article:
"Theresa Arico is a sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of that program at Duke.
She described the process as a comprehensive combination of interviews and physical examinations of the person making the sexual assault complaint.
"You can say with a high degree of certainty that there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury" by the physical examination, which uses a device called a colposcope to magnify a woman's internal parts where injuries consistent with a sexual assault would occur, Arico said.
But sexual assault nurse examiners do not render an opinion on whether a rape has occurred. That is for the State Bureau of Investigation to determine through its forensic lab work.
"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told," Arico said.
If DNA evidence is present where the assault was said to have occurred, that can further corroborate the victim's account, Arico said.
A typical exam might collect oral swabs, blood samples, hair and pubic hair. Special equipment might be used that emits a light that fluoresces when semen is present, for example. Fingernails could be scraped to look for an attacker's tissue. Any DNA material that does not match the victim's might be collected.
Arico said the DNA suspect kits that the Duke players provided under court order collect the same samples -- blood, oral swabs, hair and pubic hair."
Agree with your assessment of Stephens 100%, same with Titus, mainly because of the gag order. Smith may be a turkey, too, but until he shows his colors, I'm betting on the defense having bettered their plight with him as an out-of-towner and having gotten out of the queue. I'm willing to wait and see, hoping for some positive movement.
I agree with you. Smith disagrees with us. But I do know that judges have their own way of doing things and he may not give a rat's patoot if we're happy about it or not or what it might portend. I think that if there is a trial, whether there are cameras in there or not, the supporters or whichever side loses is going to throw a fit.
I want cameras in there. We all do. I want to see Mangum taken apart piece by dirty piece and to watch Nifong lose his ass, but we don't get to decide the question of cameras. Maybe Smith is trying to lower the decibels for what he believes would be in everyone's best interest and disallowing cameras may be a step in that direction in his way of thinking. I don't agree with that - just trying to give a little insight into what his perspective might be. Or, as I said before, he may just be a stubborn old coot who doesn't believe in cameras in the courtroom and he just isn't going to allow them, period, end of story.
Yes, I hope Megun is there. She's sharp as a whip, and there are several others who are also. I'm curious if Dan Abrams will attend. He had quite an interest in this case and was giving excellent coverage in it, being a Duke grad. He's VP of MSNBC now and may not participate much more, although he has appeared on a couple shows as a legal analyst since his appointment to VP.
As long as Goslee isn't there. God spare us. Ditto for Nancy Grace.
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/479220.html
Rape case judge will ban cameras
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-764257.html
Lacrosse judge bars pre-trial cameras
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 25, 2006 : 8:41 pm ET
DURHAM -- The Superior Court judge newly assigned full time to the Duke lacrosse case met Friday for the first time with District Attorney Mike Nifong and defense attorneys.
Judge Osmond Smith ruled that no media cameras or recording equipment will be allowed in the court room for future preliminary proceedings in the case.
Smith did not indicate whether cameras and tape recorders would be permitted during the actual trial next spring.
The meeting came the same day The New York Times published a lengthy article reporting that its examination of all 1,850 pages of prosecution evidence "yields a more ambiguous picture" of alleged gaps in Nifong's case than previously portrayed by defense attorneys.
The Times did not disclose how it obtained a copy of the evidence, which included 33 pages of previously unrevealed typed notes and three pages of handwritten notes by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb of the Durham Police Department.
Defense lawyers got the notes on July 17 as part of the third batch of information shared by the prosecution under the state's pre-trial discovery rules.
The Times reported that Gottlieb noted that the alleged rape victim was in extreme pain when he talked with her several days after the alleged attack.
Defense lawyers contended medical reports did not support a rape charge and that they sent The Times' reporters photos of the alleged victim, reportedly taken within days of the alleged attack, in which no bruises are visible.
Gottlieb also noted that the alleged victim, after some initial inconsistencies, generally gave police consistent accounts of what she said happened to her, The Times reported. Defense attorneys contend the differing versions eroded her allegations against the lacrosse players.
Gottlieb's account also said the woman gave descriptions of the alleged attackers that closely matched the defendants -- contrary to an earlier account in another investigator's notes, The Times reported.
Defense attorneys say they didn't get Gottlieb's notes, which appear to strengthen Nifong's case, until after they had cited gaps in the evidence.
The Times quoted Joseph B. Cheshire, a lawyer for defendant David Evans, as calling the notes a "make-up document" written out of desperation and designed to plug holes in the prosecution's case.
Internet interest in The Times' report was widespread, with bloggers -- online commentators -- around the country followed the latest developments closely.
One accused Nifong of leaking the documents to The Times "in hopes of countering the public perception that the whole thing is a sham and a textbook example of prosecutorial abuse."
Another said that, "with ? Nifong on the ropes, The New York Times is seeking to rig the rape prosecution. ?"
Nifong supporters were equally vocal.
One said the article "puts a dent in the sinister agenda of the prosecution's naysayers."
Another said The Times' story "proves what will come as no surprise to anyone with a brain: the defense team these Good Old Boys bought has been ruthless in their exaggeration of this case's supposed flimsiness."
Friday's meeting was held in the Durham County Superior Court judge's chambers and was not open to the press or public.
It was the first get-together of its kind since the state Supreme Court last week declared the lacrosse case "exceptional" and appointed Smith, who is form Person County, to oversee all proceedings from here on out.
Without the "exceptional" designation, the case might have been overseen by as many as four different judges at various times. Two judges other than Smith already have been involved.
Court officials believe the designation of one judge will expedite the proceedings and make for greater consistency and efficiency.
The case involves three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping and sodomizing an exotic dancer during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
The suspects are Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. All are free under $100,000 bonds as they await trial.
What business will be conducted during the Sept. 22 lacrosse hearing Smith scheduled Friday isn't know yet.
Sources close to the case said they didn't expect Smith to rule on such major issues as defense allegations of police misconduct.
If Smith accepted those allegations as accurate, significant blocks of evidence might be thrown out.
The sources added, however, that a request to modify a judicial quasi-gag order might be considered on Sept. 22.
The order, issued by Judge Kenneth C. Titus of Durham, prevents parties in the case from making public statements except in very limited circumstances.
Defense lawyers contend the order was too broad, covering not only attorneys but also family members and friends of the accused. They believe the order should be changed to allow non-lawyers to speak out.
Meanwhile, discussions have begun about how the lacrosse trial might be accommodated in a 28-year-old Durham courthouse that is bursting at the seams.
Officials say some thought is being given to using a large and relatively lavish federal courtroom on the second floor of Durham's main downtown post office. The room once was used for federal trials but has rarely been used in recent years.
Moving the case to federal facilities might not be free to taxpayers, however.
Officials said the U.S. government probably would require a rental fee, along with compensation for federal marshals who would be called upon to maintain security.
-- Staff writer Bill Stagg contributed to this story.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson138.html
Desperate Times
Bridges, not walls
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/479084.html
She may not ultimately be held accountable, but she's got a probation order for mandatory testing. In other words, it's up to the court to decide if she gets a break because she's bi-polar, not the street cop. There's an order to test, so they're going to test. Mangum weasled out of the testing by crying rape. This woman has no sense of right and wrong. She's amoral, and not because she's a whore. She's the quitessential narcissist who cares nothing for those she destroys.
You're missing the point. In her mind, there is in fact a probation order requiring her to submit to testing. We don't know if she was on Flexeril or not that night. She said she was. So what? She also said she was raped. Don't you think that someone who lies about being raped would also lie about what drugs they were on, and claim that whatever she was on was legal, especially is they went so far as to lie about a non-existent rape in order to avoid being tested?
The legal talking heads have scoffed at the Gottlieb notes. They all know they're contrived at the last minute to fill in the gaps and buttress Nifong's feeble, lame-assed case.
Morning, abb. Thanks for the links. :>
One good thing to come of the NYT piece is that it put the story back on the tv shows. Now there are TWO idiot District Attorneys in the spotlight, Nifong and Boulder County DA Mary Clary.
After digesting the NYT piece for 24 hours and backing up to look at the big picture, I'm thinking this: Gottlieb's work of fiction is more to mitigate against the upcoming civil suits than to prop up the prosecution's case.
What say you?
I think he's trying to buttress the flimsy identifications and the search warrants.
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.