Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers

NY Times ^ | Published: August 25, 2006 | By DUFF WILSON and JONATHAN D. GLATER

[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.

[JLS]

What would be great is if we can come up with another piece of Gottlieb fiction and compare the two to estimate just how much help he had writing this travesty.

Excellent idea, his notes and reports from other cases must be part of the public record. Surely the defense will compare them. It does not matter if the notes or reports are true or fiction in the other case, what will matter is do the notes and report on the Mangum hoax match that writing style.

[luv2ski]

Another FReeper suggested that if he was an attorney with a client convicted of a crime as a result of Gottlieb's testimony and "notes", he would revisit the case and ask that it be reviewed if it is shown that Gottlieb fabricated this report. If he did it once, it's highly likely, he had done it before.

[Ken H]

Joan Foster at Liestoppers is asking for our help:

_____________________________________________

I would ask our readers to do this service...for Collin, Reade and Dave.

Hold your nose and jump into those hell-holes of hate and post a word of reason and support for the boys.

Be sure to leave them links to this blog [Liestoppers] and our comrades in the blogosphere listed to your right.

We've seen blogs bring down the mighty before. We're waiting here, you NYT propaganda puppets.

BRING IT ON.

_______________________________________

And just what hell-hole is she speaking of? This one! --

-- http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=31

[jennyd]

Exactly. Even when Gottlieb claimed that police officer noted bruises on the woman (starting to develop), NYT admits the officer's report does not mention bruises. And that was a few days after the party.
And how long does it take the bruises to develop anyway?
After two days, I would think the bruises should have been developed.
Yet no one but Gottlieb is able to see them.

[Jezebelle]

When a cop carries on an off-duty moonlighting job, the same rules of engagement apply.

What you're talking about on the other topic is accomplice liability that arises from the felony-murder rule adopted in some states. Except for the driver, the kids in the car were not accomplices to the attempt to run over the cop, so they have no accomplice liability, and it wouldn't have been forseeable to them that the driver would make an attmpt to run over the cop, so they wouldn't have been eligible for M2. Some jurisdictions use the "agency" theory of liability while others use the proximate cause theory of liability, but I've never heard of a proximate cause jurisdiction that doesn't have an exception of application of the statute when the killing of a co-felon is done by a peace officer. If you know of one, I'd be interested to read the statutes.

In order to explore your theory, the first thing that you have to ascertain is if the jurisdiction has adopted accomplice liability. If so, the next thing to figure out is how to shoehorn these kids into felon accomplices if the jurisdiction has no exception for co-felon death by cop in its accomplice liability statutes.

[Jezebelle]

I agree. Occam's Razor.

It may be hard to grasp, but Nifong must have seen the report before he turned it over. It's his office that turns over the discovery. If Nifong saw it for what it is, it seems like he would have returned it to Gottlieb and suggested he rethink his report. So, either he liked the report or perhaps even had a hand in it. Nifong is turning out to be pretty dumb in his own right. He either relied on Gottlieb;s false statements early on, or he facilitated them. Either way, he's an idiot.

[Jezebelle]

Very, very good point.

As I said yesterfay or whenever it was that the NYT article revealed Gottlieb's late-blooming report notes, the defense is going to have a field day with this. I don't think Gottlieb has clue one what's in store from him. He will be destroyed on the stand. Obliterated.

[old and cranky]

look what was just posted on the abc11tv message board:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/page?oid=35723

[abb]

I 'spect we best ping this one...

[Ken H]

You wrote on 07/23/2006 (link to post): ...the N&O has a new article up with Gottlieb's picture:

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/463542.html

The article is still there, but the picture is gone.

[TommyDale]

Barf alert would have been nice... :-(

[abb]

hush yo mouf...

[TommyDale]

That is one ugly guy...

[maggief]

[abb]

Wonder if C. Destine will be emceeing this function?

[Ken H]

I happened to stumble across your post looking for the abc.local article on the alleged attack by Herr Gottlieb at Blinco's.

That seems to be the flagship article on the incident, with the most complete information. Do you have a link to the abc.local article?

[maggief]

Those "girls" would be all over C. Destine! LOL

[maggief]

Okay, any local want to FReep this event? ;)

http://www.indyweek.com/pdf/Queen_Triangle_06.pdf

[old and cranky]

Do you suppose the "Come and get it boys" was because of you all finding Come and get some Destine?

[TommyDale]

That's not my orientation!