Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Plaintiffs’ Response to Nifong’s Motion to Dismiss
Topic Started: Jan 31 2009, 12:32 AM (8,065 Views)
sceptical

JSwift
Feb 3 2009, 10:25 PM


I believe that posters make three critical mistakes.

First, posters tend to imply that all participants had the same objectives. Participants had different motivations for joining the frame. They had different amounts of information and enlisted in the frame and/or cover-up at different times. They are not a monolithic group and we should not treat them as such.

Second, posters exaggerate Nifong’s importance. I do not believe that Nifong was the primary driver of the frame. He was merely one of many participants—albeit someone in the DA’s office was required to move the case forward. I don’t believe that Durham powers had any interest in Nifong or his election. He was merely a resource to be used and a convenient scapegoat to be blamed if things went wrong (which explains the decision to give Nifong responsibility for the DPD investigation).

Third, posters underestimate the importance of the N&O’s interview with Crystal. This interview, published on March 25, transformed the case into a racially-motivated attack.

This interview changed the case. Once the case had gained this racial dimension, any decision to drop it risked severe political fallout (I am not talking about Nifong here). All potential opposition in Durham and at Duke had effectively been neutralized. A frame would face little resistance from local leaders.

I believe that the decision to proceed with a frame was made sometime after this article was published.

Another outstanding post by jswift!

There was a convergence of interests which led to the frame-up.

Levicy was motivated by her radical feminist ideology and inexperience when she was hoodwinked by Crystal, and then encouraged by Gottlieb to embellish her findings.

Gottlieb was looking for every opportunity to get back at Duke students for his banishment. Himan sought experience and to show his talents in his first big investigation.

I am still unsure of what roles Jeff Lamb and Cheif Chalmers played in ceding control to Nifong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

JSwift
Feb 3 2009, 10:25 PM

I believe that a deliberate frame started sometime after Nifong received the negative DNA results on March 28. The design of the April 4 identification procedure is consistent with this view.
I am not in the main discussion. I noticed this while skimming it. This is picky, but...

Whatever happened on April 4 may be evidence of a frame on April 4, but says nothing about whether or not there was a frame earlier.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tidbits

Sometimes the discussion is too much examination of details for my taste, although details can appeal to me.

My view is simple. It is the same as when I first read about the Fake Rape, and knew at once it was a Fake Rape.

It is simple.

40 odd intelligent college students from various backgrounds were at a party. Some were fans of CSI and similar shows and movies. Some knew about DNA.

1. If there was sex, the DNA evidence would prove sex. The only issue would be consent. A false claim that there was no sex would destroy credibility. Such a claim is dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Someone would know that. Someone would tell the others. Maybe one could be that dumb, but not 40.

2. If there was no sex, a claim that there was no sex is smart. It would work. DNA's absence would confirm it. The instinct to tell the truth is the smart thing to do. That is what would happen. They would say, "nothing happened" because nothing happened.

They said nothing happened.

There was no rape. There was no sex.

It is simple.

It is simple enough for me, for the cops, for the DA, for the judge, for the University.

The fact that they said nothing happened proved that nothing happened. The DNA would confirm that.

Anyone who claimed there was, or might be, a rape, was saying something so absurd that they were either dumb, dumb, dumb, or trying to pull off a wildly implausible frame.

How can you frame someone for rape when the DNA will show that there was no sex?

Dumb.

But, in Durham, they "can get away with anything." Or so they thought.

Frame? You betcha. No other plausible explanation exists.

Yes, CSI.

At the time of the party, when jurors underwent examination to determine biases etc,, there almost always included CSI fans. Prosecutors and defense lawyers knew this, and they knew that it changed the process. Prosecutors had to try to convince the jury that, in real life, there rarely was the scientific evidence like on TV. Jurors might acquit if there was no scientific expert to prove guilt. So, prosecutors knew. Defense lawyers knew. Cops knew.

Did 40 college kids all miss knowing about CSI and DNA? No. No chance.

So, hearing their defense, I knew at once there was no sex and no rape.

Case closed.


Edited by Tidbits, Feb 3 2009, 11:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Samiha claims she first was tipped off the the alleged assault by reading it on the Trinity Park List-Server. She said that on her LaxCast interview. Gottlieb sent out that e-mail early morning March 17. Samiha was on the Police beat in Durham for the N & O

Why do I now call it Frame/Hoax? Because it was an attempt to frame any Lacrosse Player and either the DPD, Nifong, and others were pushing false information about the events from the very start when they made their first comments. Information they knew was false. It was an attempted Frame on the players and a Hoax on the general public.

I will go over my Project Blue Book files to give a better description of why I believe these events started earlier than March 24 and that they go directly back to March 15, 16, and 17. You deserve a more complete answer.
Edited by Baldo, Feb 4 2009, 01:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

JSwift
Feb 3 2009, 10:25 PM
pjr
Feb 3 2009, 08:31 AM
The argument that the existence of a later frame proves an earlier frame is a logical non-starter; that later bad faith necessarily taints earlier practical police actions, ditto.

I believe that this case was one that morphed as things came up. And that the later actions were so outrageous that, if the suits are allowed to proceed, will result in staggering amounts.
I continue to agree with pjr. Most posters seem to misunderstand the conclusion pjr and I have reached. We are not arguing that Nifong, the DPD and others did not attempt a deliberate frame.

I believe that a deliberate frame started sometime after Nifong received the negative DNA results on March 28. The design of the April 4 identification procedure is consistent with this view. The decision to deliberately frame three players for a crime the conspirators knew had never occurred became irreversible when Nifong filed the indictments after the NCCU forum on April 11.

A deliberate frame by this time is not at issue. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The evidence of a later frame and cover-up, however, is not proof that the frame was underway earlier. The flaws in the non-investigation after about March 28 (including the design of the identification lottery) prove nothing about earlier intentions.

I have seen insufficient evidence that a single grand scheme was in place at the outset. I continue to believe that different participants had different motivations and that they joined the frame and/or cover-up at different times.

I believe that Gottlieb, with the probable support of his superiors (within the DPD and perhaps in City Hall), was conducting a “fishing expedition” when he took over the case on March 15. During the first week, the investigation was limited to interviews with Levicy, Crystal and Kim and the execution of the search warrant. The player interviews and DNA (and the NTO after the interviews were canceled) were the focus of their efforts.

Gottlieb wanted to see what “evidence” he could drum up. Only then would he (and his superiors) decide what charges, if any, to pursue.

I believe they would have dropped the case at the outset (or pursued only minor charges) if they knew then what they know now.

They knew quite early that they had no case (witness with no credibility; no reliable descriptions or identifications; no consistent allegation; no injuries; no corroborating evidence except Levicy’s unsupported statements). They did not, however, know how much exculpatory evidence they would have to overcome, including:

•No player interviews and ability to twist statements
•No DNA matches with any players
•DNA matches to several unidentified males
•Alibi evidence
•Other electronic evidence (cell phone records, pictures, etc.)

Most importantly, they enormously underestimated how strongly the defendants would fight back and how effective good lawyers can be. The DPD learned that a frame is far more successful when the defendant has no resources and there is no public scrutiny.

pjr is correct; the early activities will not be the focus of discovery. There are far more egregious actions beginning with Addison’s inflammatory statements on March 24.

I believe that posters make three critical mistakes.

First, posters tend to imply that all participants had the same objectives. Participants had different motivations for joining the frame. They had different amounts of information and enlisted in the frame and/or cover-up at different times. They are not a monolithic group and we should not treat them as such.

Second, posters exaggerate Nifong’s importance. I do not believe that Nifong was the primary driver of the frame. He was merely one of many participants—albeit someone in the DA’s office was required to move the case forward. I don’t believe that Durham powers had any interest in Nifong or his election. He was merely a resource to be used and a convenient scapegoat to be blamed if things went wrong (which explains the decision to give Nifong responsibility for the DPD investigation).

Third, posters underestimate the importance of the N&O’s interview with Crystal. This interview, published on March 25, transformed the case into a racially-motivated attack.

This interview changed the case. Once the case had gained this racial dimension, any decision to drop it risked severe political fallout (I am not talking about Nifong here). All potential opposition in Durham and at Duke had effectively been neutralized. A frame would face little resistance from local leaders.

I believe that the decision to proceed with a frame was made sometime after this article was published.

I continue to believe that this interview is critical in understanding the origin of the frame and raise the following questions:

•Who tipped off Samiha Khanna?
•Was the tipster part of the initial “investigation” team or someone not previously involved (i.e., someone unaware that the case was a fraud)?
•What was the tipster’s motivation? Did they intend to force the case to move forward, apply pressure on the DPD to solve the case or simply lose control?
•Did the tipster intend to transform the case into a racial attack?
•What were the ground rules for questions?
•Did Crystal stay on script?
•When was Khanna tipped off?
•Was Nifong given responsibility for the investigation (and set up as the scapegoat) before Khanna was tipped off?
•How did the potbangers react so quickly? Were they alerted prior to publication?



Swifty, you have some very good points. Here you said:

Quote:
 

Gottlieb wanted to see what “evidence” he could drum up. Only then would he (and his superiors) decide what charges, if any, to pursue.

I believe they would have dropped the case at the outset (or pursued only minor charges) if they knew then what they know now.

They knew quite early that they had no case (witness with no credibility; no reliable descriptions or identifications; no consistent allegation; no injuries; no corroborating evidence except Levicy’s unsupported statements).


I would contend that if any honest investigator pursued a case BEYOND the point you describe, that is the classic definition of a "Frameup."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=frame-up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameup

I suppose I've read too many Mike Hammer books and watched too many Rockford Files episodes to be a dispassionate commentator, but it is interesting to see how many of the fictional examples cited in the Wiki entry parallel what we've all lived through.

I would agree that at that point the conspiracy wasn't as widespread as it would later become. But there is no doubt Gottlieb tried to hang anything he could on the Laxers, whether it was true or not.

My friend, that is a Frame. It ain't an aw-shucks, or an oops, or "mistakes were made" or any of those things. It was an on purpose attempt to put someone in jail for something they didn't do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

JSwift
Feb 3 2009, 10:25 PM
pjr
Feb 3 2009, 08:31 AM
The argument that the existence of a later frame proves an earlier frame is a logical non-starter; that later bad faith necessarily taints earlier practical police actions, ditto.

I believe that this case was one that morphed as things came up. And that the later actions were so outrageous that, if the suits are allowed to proceed, will result in staggering amounts.
I continue to agree with pjr. Most posters seem to misunderstand the conclusion pjr and I have reached. We are not arguing that Nifong, the DPD and others did not attempt a deliberate frame.

I believe that a deliberate frame started sometime after Nifong received the negative DNA results on March 28. The design of the April 4 identification procedure is consistent with this view. The decision to deliberately frame three players for a crime the conspirators knew had never occurred became irreversible when Nifong filed the indictments after the NCCU forum on April 11.

A deliberate frame by this time is not at issue. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The evidence of a later frame and cover-up, however, is not proof that the frame was underway earlier. The flaws in the non-investigation after about March 28 (including the design of the identification lottery) prove nothing about earlier intentions.

I have seen insufficient evidence that a single grand scheme was in place at the outset. I continue to believe that different participants had different motivations and that they joined the frame and/or cover-up at different times.

I believe that Gottlieb, with the probable support of his superiors (within the DPD and perhaps in City Hall), was conducting a “fishing expedition” when he took over the case on March 15. During the first week, the investigation was limited to interviews with Levicy, Crystal and Kim and the execution of the search warrant. The player interviews and DNA (and the NTO after the interviews were canceled) were the focus of their efforts.

Gottlieb wanted to see what “evidence” he could drum up. Only then would he (and his superiors) decide what charges, if any, to pursue.

I believe they would have dropped the case at the outset (or pursued only minor charges) if they knew then what they know now.

They knew quite early that they had no case (witness with no credibility; no reliable descriptions or identifications; no consistent allegation; no injuries; no corroborating evidence except Levicy’s unsupported statements). They did not, however, know how much exculpatory evidence they would have to overcome, including:

•No player interviews and ability to twist statements
•No DNA matches with any players
•DNA matches to several unidentified males
•Alibi evidence
•Other electronic evidence (cell phone records, pictures, etc.)

Most importantly, they enormously underestimated how strongly the defendants would fight back and how effective good lawyers can be. The DPD learned that a frame is far more successful when the defendant has no resources and there is no public scrutiny.

pjr is correct; the early activities will not be the focus of discovery. There are far more egregious actions beginning with Addison’s inflammatory statements on March 24.

I believe that posters make three critical mistakes.

First, posters tend to imply that all participants had the same objectives. Participants had different motivations for joining the frame. They had different amounts of information and enlisted in the frame and/or cover-up at different times. They are not a monolithic group and we should not treat them as such.

Second, posters exaggerate Nifong’s importance. I do not believe that Nifong was the primary driver of the frame. He was merely one of many participants—albeit someone in the DA’s office was required to move the case forward. I don’t believe that Durham powers had any interest in Nifong or his election. He was merely a resource to be used and a convenient scapegoat to be blamed if things went wrong (which explains the decision to give Nifong responsibility for the DPD investigation).

Third, posters underestimate the importance of the N&O’s interview with Crystal. This interview, published on March 25, transformed the case into a racially-motivated attack.

This interview changed the case. Once the case had gained this racial dimension, any decision to drop it risked severe political fallout (I am not talking about Nifong here). All potential opposition in Durham and at Duke had effectively been neutralized. A frame would face little resistance from local leaders.

I believe that the decision to proceed with a frame was made sometime after this article was published.

I continue to believe that this interview is critical in understanding the origin of the frame and raise the following questions:

•Who tipped off Samiha Khanna?
•Was the tipster part of the initial “investigation” team or someone not previously involved (i.e., someone unaware that the case was a fraud)?
•What was the tipster’s motivation? Did they intend to force the case to move forward, apply pressure on the DPD to solve the case or simply lose control?
•Did the tipster intend to transform the case into a racial attack?
•What were the ground rules for questions?
•Did Crystal stay on script?
•When was Khanna tipped off?
•Was Nifong given responsibility for the investigation (and set up as the scapegoat) before Khanna was tipped off?
•How did the potbangers react so quickly? Were they alerted prior to publication?



I agree with this post. But I have a question...when did the Police Chief remove himself from the case (with pay) to care for his "sick mother?"

To me, this is someone getting out of Dodge because, although he hasn't the courage or backbone to do what's right, he hasn't the stomach to be a particpant in the Frame.

Did he object and was told to leave until it was over ... and that enabled the Framers to install Nifong as the reliable "Inspector D.A.? "

This is the point where there must have been collusion among the powers that be..that this WAS going to trial...no matter what means it took to get it there. Anyone NOT on board had to get out of the way. Like good "mafiosos"...they took care of their own...as they did with Chalmers.

This is when a plan between the parties was in place. This is when the real Frame began. When the Police Chief had to be replaced to get done what needed to be done. There HAD to be conversations, orchestrations, collusion at this point.

But I also believe that, except for the zealot feminist in the emergency room, who was hellbent to create her own medical "frame" to collaborate Crystal's lies...there was no "frame" at the very first. Just the ugly confluence of actions of morally challenged and inept individuals creating a racial flash-flood in a PC race-and-class -obsessed city.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Feb 4 2009, 09:05 AM
I agree with this post. But I have a question...when did the Police Chief remove himself from the case (with pay) to care for his "sick mother?"

To me, this is someone getting out of Dodge because, although he hasn't the courage or backbone to do what's right, he hasn't the stomach to be a particpant in the Frame.

Did he object and was told to leave until it was over ... and that enabled the Framers to install Nifong as the reliable "Inspector D.A.? "

This is the point where there must have been collusion among the powers that be..that this WAS going to trial...no matter what means it took to get it there. Anyone NOT on board had to get out of the way. Like good "mafiosos"...they took care of their own...as they did with Chalmers.

This is when a plan between the parties was in place. This is when the real Frame began. When the Police Chief had to be replaced to get done what needed to be done. There HAD to be conversations, orchestrations, collusion at this point.

But I also believe that, except for the zealot feminist in the emergency room, who was hellbent to create her own medical "frame" to collaborate Crystal's lies...there was no "frame" at the very first. Just the ugly confluence of actions of morally challenged and inept individuals creating a racial flash-flood in a PC race-and-class -obsessed city.
If I may pick at this nit just a bit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameup

A frameup or setup is an American term referring to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime.[1] It is likely to derive from the English word frame meaning to cause someone innocent to appear guilty by "putting the person in a picture frame of suspicion".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

If I may expound a bit. From the start way back on FR, I have said this thing was intentional. That is to say it wasn't a "hoax," or a "mistake," or an "error." There is a big difference.

That is why I lobbied so hard 2 1/2 years ago to have it referred to as a Frame rather than a hoax. Words mean things. It goes to the Supreme Court decision from last week that said immunity doesn't apply when ministers of justice do wrong things.

And every action that we have examined for the past three years indicates Levicy, Gottlieb, Nifong, Bell and all the rest knew that there was no rape and no crime. Yet they did what they did anyway.

To me, its the heart of the case.
Edited by abb, Feb 4 2009, 09:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

How in the world did Gottlieb get the case assigned to him?

How does one reassign cases in the DPD (or in LE generally)? Do superiors have to sign off on something like this?

The DPD had just transferred Gottlieb out of district 2 and away from Duke students, presumably
in answer to Duke's complaints about the way he treated their students. Now, within a couple of weeks, they agree to transfer him back to a major case involving Duke students? Who had to agree to this? And why? (Is an officer who has just been removed because of complaints, the one you would assign to handle a sensitive case involving Duke?)

And who supervised him? (Given the above circumstances of his removal, wouldn't he have been a candidate for close supervision on this case?)

And who left him on the case, when it would have been possible for the DPD to remove him and let others handle the investigation--at any time during the case. And there would have been no risk of public disapproval, since the investigation would still have been continued, only with different officers in charge.

Why did the chief take an unheard of leave of absence?

Why did the DPD turn the case over to Nifong?

Why didn't--or couldn't--the chief have taken charge, removed Gottlieb, and practiced hands-on supervision over the biggest case of his career (or in Durham's history)? (When else have satellite trucks camped out in front of the courthouse?) What chief wouldn't relish being on the cover of Newsweek or the subject of an interview about how he solved the Duke rape case?

IOW, it appears that someone higher than the chief was running the DPD. And no one in the police chain of command could remove Gottlieb from the investigation.

(JMOO, of course.)






Edited by Quasimodo, Feb 4 2009, 09:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
IOW, it appears that someone higher than the chief was running the DPD. And no one in the police chain of command could remove Gottlieb from the investigation.


And if that were so (speculation, of course), then who put Gottlieb on the case in the first place?

(Pure speculation); but Crystal had time to phone her handlers, and tell her where she was, and why she wouldn't be sharing her portion of the night's take with them. They would have been upset. But once they learned she was crying "rape" with some Duke students, the wheels might have started to turn.

Is the underworld in Durham so far removed from the DPD that they exist in two different worlds?
We know the DPD has had past accusations of running prostitution from their own HQ. And that for two years' running there were no arrests for prostitution in Durham (2004-2005) by the DPD.
Odd, that...

Who knows where all that might lead? (But it wasn't just Nifong, IMHO)

(JMOO, as always, and just for discussion purposes.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Wasn't nifong the anonymous source for the N&O article by ruth sheehan on the 27th? I think she indicated that he was. It is speculation that he was the anonymous source for other N&O articles very early on in the case also. If he only found out about the case on the 23rd when he "accidently" found the NTO info on the copy machine late that day, and was assigned to the case on the 24th and was first updated by himan and gottlieb on the 27th then how could he have gotten all the information he needed to become an annonymous source for the N&O article that was published on the same day he was being updated?

There may not have been an organized frame by that early time but someone was sure nailing the boards together.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

We all agreed Addison remarks to the local media on March 24 started an explosion of false and malicious press about the Lacrosse team. It did not spring from nowhere. It came from earlier actions that started and moved to a larger and larger venue. Addison, not the normal DPD spokesman, declared a victim was "sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed." He said they were not going to stop until they found out who was responsible. It was a choreographed series of Newspaper and TV reporters who were briefed by him. Going “Live” outside the Lacrosse field this Hoax received a massive assist from the media. Who briefed Addison? It is stated that it was Himan. I am doubtful we have heard the complete story. Addison declarative statements were wrong. He stated them as fact. Addison had to know he was stepping way over the line, he must have sought and received senior approval.

Here was Addison E-mail he sent out

On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan. The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.

Durham CrimeStoppers needs your assistance in solving this case. Although, we have received many calls expressing concerns and anger about this incident, we have not received any calls which will allow us to assist in resolving this case.

We are asking anyone who has any information which will allow the Durham Police Department to make an arrest in this case, please contact Durham CrimeStoppers at 683-1200.
You will notice it was the same wording as the Police flyer that was being handled out as late as April 8. This was to be a series of violations of the entire team’s civil rights.


From all accounts the responding officers considered these charges baseless on March 14. We have gone over Sgt Shelton, Officer Sutton, Inv Jones reports or beliefs that these charges had no merit. Shelton even bellowed loudly at DUMC that she was lying. We have heard the opinion of Kethra that Crystal fooled no one in the ER that night. Sceptical’s meticulously detailed two articles covers the events at DUMC

I believe Ekstrand's lawsuit & UPI lays out the basic facts. This case was going to be closed on March 14 or 15, yet Gottlieb gets command over it. It is my understanding that Inv Jones did not asked him to take it over but rather Gottlieb grabbed it. He took over this case when he is not a sexual assault investigator. If this case was to proceed over Inv Jones’s correct decision it belonged at DPD HQ with their experienced sexual assault investigators. Gottlieb had just three weeks before been transferred out of the Duke Watch over his aggressive harassment of Duke students. This was known to his DPD superiors and to Duke's Administration. He had to have approval to take over than case.

Who gave Gottlieb the cover? That is one of the questions that need to be answered. Who had the power to overrule Jones and proceed with what the Police thought was false?

It is here where the we see start of the pursuit of the Lax Team.

It is why on the night of March 20 Ekstrand summons the lacrosse players and parents to his office and they pull an all-nighter (pg 50 UPI) He had discovered by chance talking with Dan Flannery about his noise violation that Gottlieb was running the case. He immediately knew the danger the Lax team was in. Ekstrand’s dossier on Gottlieb tells the story of an out of control cop. He predicted exactly what we now know what was to happen. It was first shown on March 16 with Gottlieb's & the DPD behavior at the search warrant. I do not dismiss his actions as anything but a man on a mission, not a police investigator searching for the truth, but a effort to find something.

By the end of that March 16, 17 what do we now know? Crystal had no facial bruising the result of a 30 minute brutal beating and rape. Crystal couldn't ID anyone. According to Himan Levicy confirmed injuries consistent with rape. What I do not know is where is the SANE kit & the SAE it contains? Was it still in the hands of DUMC, Duke PD as it was stated to whom Levicy gave it to, or was it in the hands of the DPD?

As for the captains they co-operated without counsel, gave full statements, agree to DNA sampling, and offered to take polygraphs. Their statements written separately are consistent and in fact Dave Evans’s account is the most detailed narrative of what actually happen.

Remember Gottlieb had access to Shelton's belief & Jones decision to not pursue the case and Crystal's criminal record. Everything, except Levicy's comments to Himan which we do know know exactly, was pointing towards a false accusation.

Yet Gottlieb goes on public list-servers and makes the case they are investigating at sexual assault at 610. Why?

More on that later.
Edited by Baldo, Feb 4 2009, 10:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

chatham
Feb 4 2009, 10:05 AM
Wasn't nifong the anonymous source for the N&O article by ruth sheehan on the 27th? I think she indicated that he was. It is speculation that he was the anonymous source for other N&O articles very early on in the case also. If he only found out about the case on the 23rd when he "accidently" found the NTO info on the copy machine late that day, and was assigned to the case on the 24th and was first updated by himan and gottlieb on the 27th then how could he have gotten all the information he needed to become an annonymous source for the N&O article that was published on the same day he was being updated?

There may not have been an organized frame by that early time but someone was sure nailing the boards together.
That is what John in Carolina alleges. See his post on that from a few days ago.

http://www.johnincarolina.com/
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Plaintiffs will question Nifong's press contact before Mar. 27, 2006
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lodge Pro 345
Member Avatar

.
I think Gottlieb was feeding reporters in the early days - maybe others were too. I don't doubt John in Carolina.

I spoke to reporters that told me they were getting info from Gottlieb - strictly off the record info.

Then a station blew Gottlieb's cover when he contacted them asking for photos of the party.

On March 15th, Samiha Khanna runs an unrelated article and she quotes Sgt. Mark Gottlieb in that article.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Lodge Pro 345
Feb 4 2009, 10:16 AM
.
I think Gottlieb was feeding reporters in the early days - maybe others were too. I don't doubt John in Carolina.

I spoke to reporters that told me they were getting info from Gottlieb - strictly off the record info.

Then a station blew Gottlieb's cover when he contacted them asking for photos of the party.

On March 15th, Samiha Khanna runs an unrelated article and she quotes Sgt. Mark Gottlieb in that article.

Speaking of Samiha, has anyone heard from her since she left the NandO?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply