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 ...
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/enough-from-duff.html
"..Police had placed a total of five officers on administrative duty after a cook at Blinco's sports bar in Raleigh said he exchanged words -- including some racial slurs -- with the passenger of a black truck as it sped away from the restaurant July 20.
Among the five were Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the supervisor of the Duke lacrosse rape investigation, and Officer Richard Clayton, who reports to Gottlieb and has assisted with the Duke case. .."
HERE you GO!
Finnerty was NOT included in two Police lineups given prior to the well known 4/4 lineup.
IF GOTTLIEB NOTED ONE OF HER ATTACKERS WAS TALL and SKINNY on Mar 16th, WHY WASN'T THE TALLEST SKINNY KID ON THE TEAM PUT IN EITHER OF THOSE LINEUPS ?
BUSTED !!!!
Yep. That's a really good piece. Too bad the Times didn't put that kind of thought into it.
If anyone got assaulted, it was the boys. Momma always said: "don't let a drunken black whore with a bad attitude into the house after dark."
Barry Saunders is gutless. He attacked them unmercifully early - and now he won't touch the case.
He won't deal with any facts or circumstance since they came to light. Hit and Run.
Someone with credibility would admit the error and say they were wrong. Just more sniping and avoidance from the Sultan of Fashion.
-
I can see the cross of Gottlieb on just the descriptions now:
Defense: Mr. Gottlieb are you saying that Mr.Hinman made up those weights and heights he attributes to Ms. Mangum?
Gottlieb: No? [I don't see how he can say yes.]
Defense: Then you must not have missed that part of the conversation where she gave specific weights?
Gottlieb: Yes.
Defense: Did you not listen to Ms. Mangum because she is the type of person you call racial slurs?
Nifong: Objection.
Defense: Withdrawn
Defense: Mr. Gottlieb did you possibly miss what Ms. Mangum specifically said about weights because you tired having been out late the night before yelling racial slurs at cooks?
Nifong: Objection.
Defense: Withdrawn, sorry that was a few days after you wrote up your report.
Nifong: Object and request that the jury be instructed to ignor the defense counsels comments.
Judge: The jury is to ignor the questions the defense counsel withdrew and his comment while withdrawing. Counselor lets move this on.
Defense: Mr. Gottlieb you don't have any explannation for missing the detailed weights in Ms. Mangums statement that Mr.Hinman heard and put in his report that he wrote up much closer to the actual time the two of you talked to Ms. Mangum, do you?
Gottlieb: No.
On balance, the NY Timnes article is a plus for us. Everyone will believe Gottlieb's four month old report is something done after they all got together to get their stories straight.
Plus, the front-page treatment will help put the story back on the TV talk shows. More pressure on Smith to dismiss, IMO.
Nofong's only hope is jury nullification.
He's counting on it. Another OJ jury that will convict and chalk it up to "reparations."
The thing that really ticks me off about the Times piece is that they're trying to float the idea that the accuser didn't really change her story. What? The N&O, (who have not generally been friendly to the defense), looked at the same material and found five different stories. Dan Abrahms saw alot of conflicting stories. Numerous blogs have laid out the many stories in great detail. It's been discussed by all the Talking Heads. But the Times thinks it all goes together.
This makes me think the Times was really trying to write a pro-prosecution piece or else they were asleep at the wheel.
Read the article. It is a fascinating attempt by the NY Times to reconcile all of the conflicts and deficiencies in the case.
Thanks for the ping.
So let's see:
1) The NYT seems to be arguing on behalf of the prosecutor that because the hooker was in pain a few days later, she must have been raped.
2) Similarly, the mention her bruises that are now appearing but later mention that when Sgt. Shelton got her out of the car, she fell, which is a likely explanation for her bruises.
3) I loved the line about how "except for her initial accounts with police", she told a consistent story. Oh, yeah. Now that she sobered up a few hours later and realized she'd better get her act together.
4) She initially told Sgt. Shelton she was groped but not raped.
5) The hooker told police she'd had sex with her boyfriend a week before the party but his is the only DNA taken from her body. And the boyfriend has lied about when they had sex.
6) The hooker denies other physical assault but later tells docs she was kicked and punches. Oh, yeah. That's a consistent story, which the NYT keeps telling us she told.
7) The hooker gave physical descriptions that don't match the defendants. Given 4 chances on different days weeks after the party to identify the players? Sheesh.
The DriveBy Media will never admit they were wrong from the start of this hoax...
I guess not. That makes me worried about what 60 Minutes might have in store for all of us.
the times is so disfunctional now that a case like this actually matters to their agenda not to mention the democratic party.
The manufacturer has two warnings of interest. One is to not use this particular drug with alcohol since it will amplify the more serious side effects and "may be fatal". The other is "Symptoms of a Flexeril overdose may include drowsiness, fast heartbeat, tremors or shaking, slurred speech, confusion, nausea, vomiting, HALLUCINATIONS (seeing things), chest pain, or seizure (convulsions).
The "convulsions" part might also have been observed by others later that evening.
Going all the way back to my first (or maybe second) post on any thread concerning this case, I asked about drug use.
Looks like there was drug use of the type, and under the conditions that would possibly lead this dancer to believe (albeit falsely) that she was being attacked.
Case closed.
It's pretty clear from other evidence that the rape accusation was, in fact, her hallucination! The stumbling around, loss of shoe, etc. is consistent with the side effects of this drug with alcohol.
I don't know. She was out of it but she wasn't THAT out of it. I don't think she hallucinated to the point that she thinks she was raped. I think she knows nothing happened.
What accounts for all her stories? She was out of it and confused and was trying to make up a story on the fly.
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.