The article makes no sense. First, as I posted above, Gottlieb's notes are not evidence, they are an after the fact recording of what he claims is evidence. So, who cares what they say. Second, on all the critical points, the NY Times article just punts. The New York Times says it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA. Okay, NY Times with access to any possible expert, how common is it for a violent attack to leave no DNA and it is say, 10% (which seems crazy high) how common is it for it to happen with three separate assailants. Why coulnd't they find one person to comment on this absolutely central issue. Third, it gives different "facts" equal weight. Apparenly conceding that the "rape" could not have ocurred until after 12:05, why does all the babble about Gottlieb matter if independent real evidence says Reade was on the phone and out the door.
I just found it totally bizarre--but not unexpected.
You read my mind. The article says:
Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence.
We need to find out who these unnamed outside experts are, and put your questions to them.