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 ...
some might consider a moving vehicle and weapon. Either way you and Recall have my curiosity, is there a link to the story somewhere?
It also seems that there are no comparisons to the second story you posted. Its comparing apples and onions.
She hasn't been certified as nuts, so far as we know. If you know something different, please share the source. Being diagnosed as bi-polar, something we've also seen no proof of, is not remotely close to being certified as nuts. Even if she is bi-polar, so what? Bi-polar people know right from wrong as well as any non-afflicted person does.
We don't know if she has one or not, or if that's what she was on that night. That's what she said after the incident to explain certain things, but she's a proven liar on much larger issues than that, so there isn't a word she says that can be believed.
This is getting off topic, but if you are interested, here is the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301550.html
The evidence was compelling and overwhelming that the officer tried to get out of the wasy, the driver changed directions and increased speed, and hte officer shot when he got backed up against a car with the driver hurtling toward him.
THe only relevance that incident has to the Duke rape hoax is that on one side you have consistent facts, and overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence, and on the other you have shifting stories changing as new evidence emerges, and not a scrap of credible evidence to back up the allegations.
The third-world hellhole would be more likely created by punks and thugs running out on their bill and trying to run down cops or anybody else who tries to hold them accountable than it would be by a cop doing the job he was hired to do.
As for the "you people" comment, you people who stick up for lying whores and punks and thugs who target the vulnerable make me sick. I can only hope you're not an American and are posting from some third-world shithole you call paradise. We don't need your kind here. We need people who respect the rule of law instead of anarchy.
Cops like Gottlieb live in the moment. The manufactured notes are an expediency. His primary concern is the criminal trial. He's got an investment in Nifong now, so his concern is to bolster Nifong's faltering case. In for a penny; in for a pound. There may be a thought about a civil trial in the back of his mind, but he doesn't have a dog in that fight other than some thought of general revenge against these rich northern boys (in his mind) just for being rich northern boys. Gottlieb's bread gets buttered on the criminal side of the case, not the civil side.
With the media, handmaiden to the 'rats, playing it down for them, they likely won't suffer much, I'm sorry to say.
Gottlieb's "notes" and the NYT remind me of Rathergate. Anybody else see the similarity?
Here is an editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201678.html
that sides more with muawiyah than RecallMoran on this. It certainly smells of a police whitewash to me. I certainly do not believe that we need police officers on duty or off killing young people in the streets.
The off-duty guy had a duty in the law to retreat if he could. You can use deadly force but not if it is not needed. Sounds to me like Man1, but I don't know Va law. I am tempted to ask what the race of the victim and the race of the perp were since the two things I have looked at so far don't picture either. Makes on wonder?
Interesting editorial from the Post. It contradicts the news story it published on the incident, e.g. the news story said that the officer was backed against hte car. THa said, the editorial is correct that it was a tragicc and avoidable incident, but for different reasons-- a stoned kid panicked and tried to run over a cop instead of stopping when he was told. The cop did try to get out of the way, as you suggest, but the driver kept turning in his direction until the officer was backed against a car. The evidence and reports conclude strongly that the officer was in imminent danger not of his own doing. That doesn't make this incident any less tragic.
That incident came down to a choice between physical and eyewitness evidence and after the fact opinion and speculation, and not even the liberals in the People's Republic of Alexandria could hang this on the officer.
Please see the link in post 304
Sorry for the repeat posts, but I noticed that the editorial is in March 2006, and the report was issued in June 2006, so the Compost did not have the benefit of facts. This was a hot local issue and I remember the liberals tossing around allegations of wild eyed, gun happy cops going after kids. The report put an end to that stuff. The link in post 304 contains a lot of detail about what happened.
No problem, I am not going to worry about that case much anyway. It did just dawn on me what I think happened.
I suspect the police cleared their guy who could have been charged with Man1 and in exchange the other kids in the car were not charged in the death which they could have been. Afterall someone died while they were committing a crime which is in most jurisdictions is makes you legally liable for the death.
I suspect that was the trade-off and the authorities played it up as justifiable. I suspect the off duty guy would have had much more trouble if the only suspect was the driver and he killed him. There would have been no trade-off to make then. I would not necessarily believe how it was played up by the person presenting the report.
The WaPo article was written prior to the investigation. The investigation cleared the cop.
I also contend that the WaPo is consistently pro-perp (unless the victim is a female or black). They've written articles before defending gang activity. And when they pose questions such as, "How would that square with bullet holes in the side of the car?" in indignation, it's clear to me where they're coming from. They probably should have given that question more thought or talked to a ballistics expert before they posed it, hoping the dumb-ass public would say, "Gee, yeah, how can that be?"
The March editorial was typical WaPo pandering and jumping the gun. It's typical of their irresponsibility which is starting to match that of the NYT's. The March editorial was clearly written before the incident was fully investigated. As for not having benefit of the facts, they should act responsibly and either keep their mouths shut until they do or at least refrain from stirring the pot. But we all know that the more they stir the pot, the more papers they sell.
I also notice that the WaPo report about the results of the investigation is much briefer and less detailed than the original hit piece challenging the cop's story. The report on the investigation results says as little as possible. "Oops! Looks like we stepped in it again. Let's hurry up and get this swept under the carpet."
Police shootings aren't investigated that way nor do they make trade-off prosecutions in the manner you suggest in officer-involved shootings. Further, the kids in the car would not be liable for the death because the shooting was done by a peace officer.
I tend to agree it is Gottlieb's response to what he perceives are the immediate demands of the situation. He is unlikely to have asked himself, what happens if this report is demonstrated to be fabriicated. He is likely to have what fighter pilots call "target fixation" - a nasty way to hit an obstacle or get hit.
We can over-analyze this. Normally the simplist line of reasoning is the most accurate. We have seen nothing to suggest that Gottlieb has more than your avergae smarts (indeed somewhat the opposite).
What I also wonder about is the level of oversight the DA's office had on this. It is so bad, surely Nifong did not see it - preserving plausible deniability.
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.
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.