Sunday, August 27, 2006

Supplemental To What?

Today’s News and Observer features an article by Joseph Neff that offers an objective view of Sgt. GottLieb’s notes, contrasting with the opinion put forth by the New York Times just a few days ago. The editorial staff of the N&O again disappoints with yet another misleading headline, this time employing obnoxiously bold type covering four lines and three and one half inches including spacing:
Cop says
nurse found
trauma in
Duke case

Despite the deceptive headline, Neff makes clear several of the inconsistencies in the magical mystery notes produced by immaculate conception well after the fact by Sgt. Gott-Lies. While much of what Neff relates to his readers is a repeat of "inconsistencies" first noted by TJN , here at LieStoppers and throughout the photosphere (see New York Times fan club link section to the right for a brief sampling of blog critiques of Duff & Co.), Neff’s article is far from a simple rehash of observations previously offered.

To highlight a few of these “inconsistencies” offered by GottLieb’s Hail Mary pass, Neff notes:
“The lead investigator in the Duke lacrosse case wrote that a Duke Hospital nurse said the accuser had been subjected to "blunt force trauma" consistent with a sexual assault. Sgt. Mark Gottlieb made this observation in a typed, single-spaced, 33-page summary of the case handed to defense lawyers in July. It is not clear when it was written. Parts of Gottlieb's account differ at key points from medical records, other investigators' notes and other documents in the prosecutor's files. For example, the accuser's descriptions of her alleged assailants in Gottlieb's account of his first meeting with her contradict the descriptions found in handwritten notes his partner took at the same meeting.”
Among the many new factual revelations we learn:
  • GottLieb’s handwritten notes total 2 pages not 3 as had been reported by the New York Times.
  • Neff offers observations from the esteemed Wade Smith including:

Gottlieb's account contradicts notes and documents generated earlier in the investigation, according to Wade Smith, a Raleigh defense lawyer who represents Finnerty.

Smith was troubled by the lack of handwritten notes from Gottlieb, who produced only two pages of handwritten notes to accompany his 33-page typed account.

"Where are his notes? How can you interview the most important witness you've ever interviewed in your life and not take notes?"

  • The two pages of handwritten notes were taken on April 27 and appear to only describe a search for a lab to conduct hair analysis. (To digress momentarily, we must ask why on April 27 was a lab to analyze hair being sought? Did the hair self-manufacture 6 weeks after the fact just as GottLieb’s notes miraculously appeared 4 months after the non-event? If two pages of handwritten notes in one instance grows to 33 pages of single-spaced typed notes, are we to believe that Blinco’s regular GottLieb finds his memory enhanced by regular imbibement, or is it easier to believe that it is his imagination that gets stimulated by his apparently chosen muse?)
  • No handwritten notes exist to support GottLieb’s claims that S.A.N.E nurse-in-training Tara Levicy:
    "stated the victim had [swelling] and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally. She stated it was so painful to have the speculum inserted vaginally, that it took an extended period of time to insert same to conduct an examination. I asked her if the blunt force trauma was consistent with the sexual assault that was alleged by the victim. She stated the trauma was consistent with the victim's allegation."
  • Duke Hospital medical records make no mention of blunt force trauma.
  • The sexual assault examination form has a section where the examiner is told to "Describe all signs of physical trauma."
  • Levicy wrote that the woman had two nonbleeding scratches on her right knee and a nonbleeding scratch on her right heel.
  • Under "Physical Examination," the nurse noted diffuse swelling of the vagina. The nurse left all other parts of the pelvic examination section blank, including the line for a rectal exam. Gott-Lies noted that "the victim stated she had bruising that was beginning to show up from the assault," 60 hours after the party. He ordered Investigator R.A. Reid to take photographs, and claimed "Reid stated she had the onset of new bruises present." Reid's typed report makes no mention of bruises, only a cut heel, a cut toe and bandages on both knees. Reid's photographs of the accuser's face and neck show no bruises.
  • In an entry marked 14:15 on March 16, GottLieb wrote that he asked another investigator "to put together several photo line ups based on the potential suspects named ADAM, BRETT and MATT." (Apologies for another digression, but how in the world does a “Supplemental Report” immaculately conceived sometime later and produced on July 17 contain an entry from March 16 with an exact time notation? Forget those late night infomercials that offer methods to increase your memory power. Head to Blinco’s for some magical memory enhancing (wink wink) Budweiser.

Read Neff’s article in full by clicking here.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

One problem is that CBS producers and on-camera employees read The New York Times. It is up to bloggers and readers to inform Sean McManus, head of CBS News, of the actual facts in the case. This might lead to a more balanced report on 60 Minutes.

Anonymous said...

Gottlieb has invented a new technique in LE. Don't take notes and then after all the holes are pointed out in the case write a report to cover your ass!

And a rather large Ass he is!

Luk said...

I find it extraordinary that the Seligman motion for a bill of particulars filed in June hasn't been ruled on yet. Why is it important? Because his first demand is for the who, what, where, when and time of the alleged attack. The prosecution's timeline will then become one they have to commit to and will provide the framework for the defense. (Actually, I find it extraordinary that one has to make a motion for a bill of particulars ... it is device that the defense should be free to send to the prosection independent of any court action.) And while the prosecution is very well aware of Seligman's evidentiary timeline, they are unaware of that of the other two.

Anonymous said...

The previous post makes an excellent point. Does anyone have an explanation for this? If the new judge has any integrity, this can't go on.

ME said...

ONE HELL OF A RECOLLECTION

Having read the NYT’s spin on the Sgt. Gottlieb version of events from Mar 14 to Jul 17, one cannot help but be struck by the following:

• Gottlieb’s ability to expand two pages of hand-written notes into thirty-three single spaced pages of notes produced months after the fact apparently from a capacity for memory that will be studied by law enforcement trainees from now through the ages.

• Gottlieb’s disconnect between facts recorded contemporaneously by other DPD personnel and Gottlieb’s recollection of the facts.

• Gottlieb’s inability to square his recollection of events with facts as they existed at the time (e.g. Gottlieb’s inexplicable failure to include Finnerty in the Mar 16 and Mar 21 photo ID lineups even though Gottlieb now says he obtained and noted a remarkably dead-on description of Finnerty from a Mar 16 interview of the complainant).

In summary, the BALD one exhibits an almost clairvoyant ability to plug-up the manifold holes in DA Nifing’s hoax to date.

It is now totally transparent, even to the blind and the disinterested, why the BALD Brawler was never charged in the Blinco’s caper and why the internal investigation into the Brawler’s violations of the DPD Code of Conduct may never be made public (certainly will not be made public before the conclusion of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax or the November general election).

Where’s the justice in Durham?

Apparently, the only justice in Durham will come in the form of a cross-examination from hell.


ME