[Ken H]

Well, unlike Gottlieb, who creates his story after the fact, the players provided contemporaneous accounts that match the evidence collected later.

Key point. Their accounts have remained unchanged, and they match the forensic evidence.

[streeeetwise]

everything they said matched what came out LATER. I dont know why NY Times is blind to this point. Why can't they compare statements made in advance that match actual evidence (the DNA) to the credibility of statements written afterwards that don't match. Gottlieb did what defendants normally do, having heard what happened, they try to weave a tale and find it does not fit.

The whole thing continues to sicken me.