^^^ ^^^^^^^ 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....