Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Busted! Georgia Goslee

On with MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson last night, Georgia Goslee, former prosecutor and current compulsive spinner, was at her prosecution spinning worst, spitting out false statements one after another. Our favorite:

CARLSON: Let me ask you a really simple question here. We know that the accuser in this case told medical personnel directly after the rape allegedly occurred that she was raped by three men in various ways and that they weren‘t wearing condoms. And that they—that the sex act resulted in completion here.Why do you think there is no physical evidence of any kind, no DNA evidence, and, frankly, no physical evidence, no abrasions consistent with rape?

GOSLEE: Well, first of all, that‘s not true. There is evidence. There was evidence of DNA of Seligman who lived in that house. There was two or three other specimens of semen found on a towel and some other areas of that house.

CARLSON: Well, I mean, on the victim.

To Mr. Carlson’s discredit, he lets her slide on this pile of spin. We, however, cannot overlook this steaming pile of agenda serving inaccuracy.

LIESTOPPERS: Ms. Goslee, either you are entirely uninformed as you make these inaccurate statements, or you are well informed and are intentionally trying to spin this simple and readily available information into something other than the truth. Neither is acceptable. To show you why you are either unprepared or deceitful, let's start with the facts as presented in Joseph Neff’s News and Observer article.

1. Reade Seligmann did not live at 610 Buchanan.

2. There was no evidence of Reade Seligmann’s DNA from either semen or specimen found anywhere at the house you erroneously contended he lived.

3. There were not two or three other samples of semen in addition to whomever you have mistaken for Mr. Seligmann. Only two semen samples were found in the house, but none belonged to Mr. Seligmann. The sample found on the floor of the bathroom in question belonged to exonerated player who lived in the house. The other sample was found on a towel in a hallway outside another bathroom.

With your “s’s" and your “and's” you sloppily attempt to further your agenda and bolster your argument with deception and misdirection. Your statements define spin, and while it may have played well in your former career, it does not work before this audience. You have been busted as a spinstress.

We refer you to the article you should have read for verification of the facts, which dispute your lies. You might want to read it before your next public performance.

Care for dessert?

Another favorite:

GOSLEE: She was offered $2 million, Tucker. And why would she be offered $2 million by the Duke alumni if nothing happened?

LIESTOPPERS: Why indeed? Unfortunately for you, Georgia, you are either sadly misinformed, or purposely spreading misinformation again. "[the alleged victim] denied that she had ever received such an offer"

Yet another favorite:

GOSLEE: No. I remember reading a story that the accuser‘s mother said that she was a little concerned that the DNA didn‘t show up because it was actually tested by some of the people involved at Duke University. I‘m not saying that‘s the case. That‘s what the mother of the accuser has said.

LIESTOPPERS: DNA didn't show up? Well, that's news to us-maybe because that information is false. DNA did show up, but unfortunately for Georgia's insinuation, it belonged to the accuser's boyfriend.

And last, but not least:

GOSLEE: Why are there four or five different people, other than Nifong? We have a bail commissioner, we have two or three judges involved, we have police officers, we have a nurse, all who say her trauma was consistent with rape.

LIESTOPPERS: Ms. Goslee. We are afraid to even guess how in the world a bail commissioner or multiple judges would have a basis, a need, or a desire to express an opinion on whether the accuser’s “trauma” was consistent with rape. You are not suggesting that the bail commissioner or multiple judges were among potential witnesses Nifong intended to round up for the purpose of disproving that “trauma” to the accuser’s nether region existed before the party? As far as we are aware, from the descriptions in publicly available court documents, there has yet to be a nurse who reported that the accuser’s “trauma” was consistent with rape. We know that investigator Himan states otherwise regarding his phone conversation with S.A.N.E. nurse-in-training Levicy, and this shady invention seems to be the only fragment that fits your imagination. So, there are not four or five different people who said what you claimed they did . There is only one who wrote that a nurse said it, and he must have had his fingers crossed while writing it.

Thanks for filling the crock pot!


Anonymous said...

Where do they find these former prosecutors? From Georgia Goslee, Pam Bondi, Lisa Weihl, Susan Filan, to Wendy Murphy all I ever hear from them are falsehoods and inane reasons why they believe(hoping) Nifong MUST have something. I still remember her comment from one show where she said the reason the doctors at Duke didn't find bruises was because the AV was Black. Thank goodness a Doctor was on the show and said that was rubbish.

ME said...


This post has nothing to do with the always unprepared (and now apparently completely lost in a fog) Ms. Goslee, but it does deal with an item that recently caught my attention.

I may be suffering from a dose of the Captain Queeg syndrome but Ted Vaden, the N&O public editor and “readers’advocate,” yesterday posted commentary at his blog (and was quoted by WTVD) with what seemed to be an effort to undercut the impact of Joe Neff's recent article.

The following was posted at Vaden's N&O Readers' Corner Blog and at The Editor's Blog.

If LieStoppers will permit me to try and drive traffic for just a moment, I encourage all that are interested to help bring a moment of enlightenment to Mr. Vaden (he did solicit comments).
His blog address and email are at the end of my post.

Mr. Vaden:

I hope N&O reporter Joseph Neff recovers sufficiently from that stealthy knife-in-the back he experienced yesterday. I refer of course to the quotes attributed to you by WTVD and your August 8 blog post. As one who has followed the Duke Lacrosse case closely and understands many issues related to the case as well as many N&O editors, I am appalled by your overreaction.

With the Neff article, the N&O takes an informed stance with regard to the wide chasm between what District Attorney Mike Nifong promised early on (and continues to promise today) and what the actual evidence in the case reflects to date. And apparently the DA Nifong apologists now make their stand.

There very well may have been a misstated document date in the N&O story. But you know full well that inaccurate date and what Mr. Neff may have intended the date to represent was but one in a long litany of examples of actions by the Durham police and words and actions of the Durham prosecutor outpacing the facts and evidence of the case. Further, you should know full well that the inaccurate date was neither “particularly glaring” nor did it “mar the story” taken as a whole. The error could not in any way be described as “substantial” within the context of the entire story.

It is not possible that the error could “impact a reader’s overall perception of the story” (the story taken as a whole) if that reader has just a modicum of understanding of the underlying facts related to the case. Can there be but a handful of Durhamites or interested readers around the country that lack the necessary modicum of understanding relating to the case to be so severely misled as you suggest?

Mr. Vaden, did WTVD quote you accurately? How could WTVD come to the conclusion that the first five paragraphs of the N&O story reported “other key information wrong?” Perhaps you could tell me and your readers precisely what “other key” information was reported incorrectly in the first five paragraphs of the story.

And let me clear up what appears to be a gross mischaracterization on your part—where you say: “That's important, because the later date was after the lacrosse players were indicted, suggesting that Nifong pursued their indictment before having all the facts in hand. Based on the erroneous information, the story asserted that ‘the words and actions of police and prosecutors had outpaced the facts in the file.’"

With your statement, and the misleading use of the words “the story,” you leave your readers with the implication that what you refer to as the “erroneous information” is the only example of how DA Nifong pursued indictments against the Duke Lacrosse players before having all the facts in hand. Such an implication is extremely misleading, and in fact, nothing could be further from the truth because the misquoted date and the suggestion it may have given is just one of many, many examples of how the DA pursued the indictments before having crucial facts in hand (as even a casual reader of The Editor’s Blog has known for months). And, in fact, Neff gave several additional examples later in his article. Further examples not cited by Neff (and for the benefit of those industrious enough to read further than the first five paragraphs of this commentary) would include: it has been widely reported that DA Nifong refused to meet with defendants and defendants’ council to review exculpatory evidence. Consequently, it was reported that DA Nifong sought to obtain pictures of the events of March 13 and 14 from various reporters; and it appears that DA Nifong now obtains such crucial evidence as defendant’s phone records and defendant’s banking activity photos from defendant’s attorneys’ motions.

Mr. Vaden, I urge you to become much better informed on the Duke Lacrosse case in order to provide more thoughtful commentary on the article correction. Accordingly, let us both turn to others much more informed on this topic and how it relates to the N&O’s corrected story. Frequently quoted historian and blogger Robert KC Johnson just said in his August 8 post, “The Soucie Memo:”

Neff’s latest story provides a devastating account of Nifong’s procedural misconduct and lack of evidence in the lacrosse case, uncovering critical and heretofore unrevealed information about the medical reports, the accuser’s initial descriptions of her alleged assailants, the odd timing of the accuser’s ultimate statement to police, and Nifong’s hands-on involvement with the police investigation. Neff made a rare error, however, in the story, inaccurately describing a memorandum by Durham PD Investigator Michelle Soucie as having been penned on April 17, when actually the memo was written on April 4. The N&O promptly issued a correction.

The error, however, meant only that Neff’s story was excessively kind to Nifong, and affected none of the story’s conclusions. The material in the excerpted portions of the Soucie memo, in combination with other facts and documents already publicly available, reinforces the pattern of this case: the more material released, the more indefensible Nifong’s behavior appears.

The previously unreleased Soucie memorandum brought four items to light. In its correction statement, the N&O writes that the corrected date for the memorandum (from April 17 to April 4) “changes the implication of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and prosecutors outpacing the facts in the file.” The words of the correction were poorly chosen. For, in fact, as Neff’s original article claimed, “the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and prosecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”

Mr. Johnson says much more in his article and he offers this conclusion: “But, contrary to the insinuation of the correction text, the memo’s earlier date actually raises more questions about Nifong’s conduct, rather than weakening any of the article’s conclusions.”


Also on August 8, John In Carolina posted thoughtful commentary at The Editor’s Blog and on his blog on this topic:

Dear Melanie:

Regarding DPD Inv. Michelle Soucie's memorandum of April 4 which the N&O incorrectly reported as being written on April 17 you say:

"The error means the lead illustration on the story does not have the significance we thought it did. We have removed the illustration from our Web site."

In a front page correction today the N&O says in part: “This error changes the implication of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and persecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”

No it doesn’t change "the implication of the first five ...."

Much more from JinC on 8/08/06 at 15:44 The Editor’s Blog and at his blog:


To conclude my thoughts, Mr. Vaden, precisely what did you mean when you wrote: “…and, potentially, of the newspaper's future reporting on this emotionally charged story.”?

While my thoughts on your commentary are probably clear, nonetheless I have taken the time to address your comments and the WTVD quotes. Further, I have directed some pointed questions to you. They are asked in earnest and are not rhetorical. Should you decide to reply to my comments and questions, I ask you to respond at your blog for the sake of openness and clarity for all your readers.


copies to Melanie Sill and Joseph Neff

Vaden N&O Readers' Corner Blog: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/readers/

Vaden email: mailto:ted.vaden@newsobserver.com subject=readers_corner_blog_comment

WTVD article: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4442161

NDLax84 said...

Kindly accept the following two links for inclusion within Busted!

Back in June, I took on Andrew Cohen.

In July, I felt compelled to respond to NOW deceivers, Lisa Bennett and Jessica Hopper.

Anonymous said...

They are all former prosecutors for a reason - nobody wants them.

NDLax84 said...

Cash? Nope, Busted!

NDLax84 said...

Andrew Cohen and the WP are being Blasted! today.

Anonymous said...

Georgia Goslee, You are in the same catagory as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. You see she is not willing to accept what this woman accused these three young men of. There is no news media to put them on stage and ask them if they can forgive or what good they were doing. She supports separation of race. If you don't believe me than watch her news clip. I support the Duke players, I believe their college, coach, alumni did not support them and I would like to see them brought up on this issue. I don't believe I would ever see a black person, female, male ever come forward to support this.

Anonymous said...

Where is the press for these three young men in Duke? Where is the apology to them? I hope the white race supports them now. This issue will divide us more as it never has before. Is this what they want"
Where's Jessee? Al? Can't find them now!!!!

Anonymous said...

I hope the parents of the Duke INNOCENT boys post their attorney bills. I will be interested to here the comments why African Americans think its ok to mortgage your home to pay attorney on a false accusation. Ok yes I believe the prosecutor should be liable but also the adult black woman who started this. He co-host that was with her told everyone she lied. I will do my best to support them and I pray yes pray this woman is prosecuted for her lies. I guess she could never pay her bill so maybe time she should serve.