Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
DPD frame started by March 16th?
Topic Started: Mar 5 2010, 09:21 AM (408 Views)
Quasimodo

Pressler Book - It's not about the Truth pg 24-25

The captains were separated into individual rooms at the police station and each gave a written statement of what happened the night of their party, which would remain consistent throughout the entire investigation. Then Gottlieb printed off the pictures of every Duke lacrosse team member and had each captain identify who was definitely at the party, who definitely was not, and who might have been there.

While Evans was looking through the pictures, Clayton called and claimed to have found cocaine in Evans's drawer at 610. Evans denied having it, and Clayton laughed and said he was just kidding. "They kept trying to scare us to gauge our reactions," Zash said. Zash was tired of their questions and constant intimidation techniques, so he offered to take a lie detector test to prove he was telling the truth. Gottlieb told him it would take too long to set up and it was not even admissible in court. "It's only used for investigative purposes," Gottlieb said. But Zash was confused. Wasn't this an investigation? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't let him take a test to prove he was telling them the truth. Little did he know that Gottlieb was denying him for a reason: He was more interested in DNA samples.

"I told Gottlieb that they were wasting their time and that they needed to bring the second dancer down to the station and she would corroborate our entire story," Flannery recalls.

Gottlieb visited each of the players' interview rooms with the same story. "Both of your roommates have agreed to a suspect kit. Will you take one?" he asked. The co captains had no idea they'd been deceived and happily agreed to the series of tests, which would obtain samples of their DNA. They agreed to go to the hospital, and while waiting there with Officer Clayton, they noticed that he had only two rape kits in his hand. The players asked where the other kit was. "Oh, one of you has been eliminated as a suspect," said Clayton. Their faces lit up. "Who?" they asked. "Just kidding," he replied, making his third cruel joke of the night; he was on a roll.


[Apparently, this was NOT an investigation, or at least not one that the officers had any faith in; because they did NOT want to talk to the second dancer; and they did NOT agree to give lie detector tests (without attorneys present)--which might have been expected to give them leads if this was a real investigation.

They appear to have been interested only in obtaining evidence they could use against Duke students.

As well--in searching the house, were some fingernails left out of the inventory of things seized? If so, why? Was there a possible plan to use those in an attempt to create evidence?

IOW, even at that stage were they planning to be sure they could "get evidence" against Duke students--even if no crime had been committed?]
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 5 2010, 09:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

And I believe that by the 16th even Duke knew this was going on with its own students. They sure knew what was going on the night of the 13th and morning of the 14th. Just ask Dean Sue.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

None had been Mirandized at that point, IIRC. At what point did Dean Sue (since whitewashed by the NC Bar - I have documentation of that) tell them not to worry about lawyers?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pjr

This part of the story is going to backfire if used in court as an attempt to prove a conspiracy by DPD on 3/16. Basically, it reinforces Gottleib's prime quest to have the case be determined by DNA. Not lie detectors. Not laxer declarations of innocence. Not Bissey. Not "stolen" money. Not another dancer. Definitely not Crystal.

No, DNA. DNA in the rape kit and possibly on some fingernails.

That evening, Gottleib had conflicting information. Crystal was obviously a loser, yet earlier DUMC had given him information that something happened. Gottleib focused on the prime evidence of the case, and matching the two. The question front and center in court will be: if Gottleib knew for certain that the charges were bogus and that the real evidence would prove it, why didn't he make an attempt to send false DNA samples to the lab, then? Was he suicidal on 3/16? There's no way of getting around that logical high hurdle.

This ongoing attempt to establish an early conspiracy that flies in the face of the evidence at this late date baffles me. It's a stretch at best. It can only distract a jury from the real meat, and possibly create doubt or distrust. It might deflect attention from the slam-dunk evidence of the definite conspiracy(ies) that later formed. It's bad strategy, not to mention a likely untruth. This episode DOES additionally prove that certain DPD defendants were cruel dirtbags; combine that with the bona fide evidence of later conspiracies and the money awards will be gigantic. What's the point of this?

I doubt that the laxer attorneys will go down this path.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Because it ain't about the money. It's about the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JSwift
Member Avatar

pjr
Mar 5 2010, 11:30 AM
This ongoing attempt to establish an early conspiracy that flies in the face of the evidence at this late date baffles me. It's a stretch at best. It can only distract a jury from the real meat, and possibly create doubt or distrust. It might deflect attention from the slam-dunk evidence of the definite conspiracy(ies) that later formed. It's bad strategy, not to mention a likely untruth. This episode DOES additionally prove that certain DPD defendants were cruel dirtbags; combine that with the bona fide evidence of later conspiracies and the money awards will be gigantic. What's the point of this?
I agree. I think they were waiting for the DNA. Only then would they see what they could make stick.

I continue to believe that the situation changed when the N&O interview with Crystal made the case into a racial event. The critical question is whether that was planned or they lost control.
Edited by JSwift, Mar 6 2010, 10:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
I continue to believe that the situation changed when the N&O interview with Crystal made the case into a racial event. The critical question is whether that was planned or they lost control.


Slightly OT, but here is a peek at how the N&O handles its daily content.

(Consider how it must have treated the arrival of the Mangum story. I'd love to see the interoffice memos about the lax case. What e-mails exist between Linda Williams, Samiha, and Ruth Sheehan?)


http://gearino.com/?p=340


The curtain pulled aside


Sept. 5, 2008

(snip)

It’s common for a top editor at the N&O to send out an inter-office note most days celebrating the high points of that morning’s paper (as well as occasionally pointing out a lapse).

Among the staff, those notes prompt a daily exercise in something very close to Kremlinology, as they are pondered and studied for clues as to which way the management wind blows.

Below is the note that was distributed to the staff yesterday, reprinted here as I received it. I will make no comment, lest I sway your judgment on what it reveals about the people who oversee the most influential newspaper in the state. But feel free to share your thoughts.

A few comments on some good work in today’s paper:

–A lively front page that gave our readers plenty to talk about.

Has the political right truly turned the corner and will cease to demonize opponents on so-called moral issues, or are we witnessing the boldest, most cynical, most hypocritical political spin in modern history? What is one to make of John McCain’s greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America’s most famous baby mama [Sarah Palin's daughter] with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described “f***ing redneck” baby daddy? Are we now celebrating teenagers’ raging hormones?

The claims department feature (see 8a) is a great reader service. I would like to see more scrutiny of the “facts” in Sarah Palin’s speech last night.

Now to our local politicians….Is Kenn Gardner just an inept liar or a man so greedy that he doesn’t care whether we think he’s an inept liar as long as he gets paid?

–A newsy and entertaining Triangle&Co. front.

I’d bet that Barry Saunders is hearing a lot of amens this morning as well as feeling a lot of hate. Good. A columnist should stir ‘em up. Much of America may have forgotten, but the black community has a very long memory of Republicans demonizing black unwed moms. The black wire–radio and a growing black blogesphere–is crackling this morning with wicked “Juno” jokes. In general, black bloggers (wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com. A warning to the easily offended, the name is a big clue) are having a great time with the GOP show in Minneapolis.

–Lots of interesting people stories in the sports section about college athletes and the pros. For those following tennis’ sibling rivalry, Serena has gained a slight lead by beating older sister Venus in the U.S. Open quarterfinals.

–Good, timely story–and an inviting headline (Life over breasts)– on the Life, etc. cover
.

Actually, I will make one comment: The “respectable negroes” blog is pretty damn funny.

---------------------------------------------------[END]




POSTER COMMENTS:

--------------------------
Are the editors at the N&O as overtly partisan as they appear to be in their memo’s…what a haughty, self-righteous tone in this one that barely conceals the disdain for Republicans. They never taught it this way when I went to journalism school - the same one where Gearino matriculated.

--------------------------
I hate to say it, but if this is the climate of the newsroom on McDowell Street, I’m kinda glad to watch them slowly whither on the vine.

--------------------------
Can there be any possible way that that memo is real? “Facts”? The RIGHT as a chief demonizer? C’mon — somebody made this up, no?

-------------------------
First time blog visitor…always enjoyed your work at The N&O and don’t at all want to come across as skeptical…but are you SERIOUS that N&O editorial mgt would send something so blatantly partisan to staff? Am I so naive that I can’t believe this is possible? If true, this is disgraceful and all the cuts going on in the newspaper industry are like karmic justice.

-------------------------
It occurs to me that there may have been more competition for the title of “America�s most famous baby mama” and the “f***ing redneck� baby daddy if this particular N&O editor and his associates had elected to actually cover the recent story of the former NC Senator and Presidential candidate and his baby mama which was happening right in their hometown.

Maybe a relative analysis of the maturity level of Rielle Hunter and hometown boy John Edwards would have been interesting as well. (Gee, if only John and Rielle had had access to comprehensive sex education.)

But no, that wouldn’t provide the opportunity to show your moral superiority in mocking 17 and 18 year old teenagers to advance your particular political beliefs.

You stay classy N&O.

------------------------
This editor’s e-mail reveals what many N&O and general media critics say; that they are nothing more than left wing mudslingers. When an editor of the paper is comfortable enough sending a condescending, clearly slanted viewpoint to the organization, it is not a difficult leap to suspect that same slant and attitude will influence the content of the paper.

The N&O is supposed to be a balanced news outlet, but as this blog entry states, the curtain has been pulled aside. Self-righteous braying does not equal journalism, and that is the problem.

----------------------
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 5 2010, 11:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENT by JOHN IN CAROLINA on this article:

“This editor's e-mail reveals what many N&O and general media critics say; that they are nothing more than left wing mudslingers. When an editor of the paper is comfortable enough sending a condescending, clearly slanted viewpoint to the organization, it is not a difficult leap to suspect that same slant and attitude will influence the content of the paper.”

Sure, there are no doubt N&O reporters and editors who do their best to steer clear of “left wing mudsling[ing],” but an executive editor sets the tone for a newsroom.

Drescher’s email reads like something MoveOn.org would circulate as the day’s talking points; and I think it’s fair to say most people at the N&O will want to go with the bosses “talking points.”

Drescher asks rhetorically: “What is one to make of John McCain's greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America's most famous baby mama with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described "f***ing redneck" baby daddy? Are we now celebrating teenagers' raging hormones?”

I would ask Drescher and other journalists: “What is one to make of the N&O’s decision to withhold from its Mar. 25, 2006 front page story it said, with no suggestion of doubt, was about a woman’s “ordeal” which ended “in sexual violence” the news it had of the Duke lacrosse players extensive cooperation with police and instead promulgate what it knew was the “wall of solidarity” lie which almost immediately morphed into the “wall of silence” lie?

What is one to make of Ruth Sheehan’s Mar. 27, 2006 “Team’s silence is sickening” McCarthyite screed hyping the “wall of silence” lie?

[Disclosure: Some months later Sheehan apologized to the players for the column. In “It’s Not About the Truth,” pub. in Apr. 2007 she’s quoted extensively explaining how Mike Nifong served as the anonymous source for her Mar. 27 column with the N&O newsroom having passed on to her from Nifong the false information on which she based her column. No one at the N&O has denied what Sheehan’s quoted as saying. Publisher Orage Quarles emailed me saying only that the N&O doesn’t talk about it anonymous sources.]


I thank G. D. Gearino for putting Drescher’s disturbing email out there.

I wish Drescher would come on the thread, explain it and answer questions.

Thank you.

John in Carolina
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
The critical question is whether that was planned or they lost control.


I also wonder if the massive media response was something that wasn't planned for, but got out of control.

(In that sense, bringing in the NYT and NEWSWEEK was a mistake of disastrous proportions; it focused too, too much
attention on what might have been a local problem, "fixed" locally, with a minimum of fuss.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://gearino.com/?p=340

The curtain pulled aside

Sept. 5, 2008


http://gearino.com/?p=343

On Sept. 15

“This just gets better (and sadder).”

What follows here is the complete text of an email message I got from News & Observer senior editor Linda Williams, in the wake of two posts last week that brought into question the N&O’s public stance of non-partisanship. I publish Williams’ email at her urging, as you’ll see, and exactly as it was received.

What a sanctimonious, phony gasbag you are. Your recent posts are certainly revealing of your own utter lack of integrity. I recall an e-mail I received from you once in which you were praising me for a comment I made which you interpreted as being anti-liberal. I also recall that you sent that message to several people here at the paper.

Now you have seized upon a short commentary I made on how some of readers might discuss stories on our front page because of their own experiences to puff up your skinny little chest in outrage. Your interpretation was wrong then and it’s wrong now. But why the double standard?

I can only conclude that like so many of your ilk who cowardly rail from the safety of your keyboards that you have concluded that perpetuating the big lie is more lucrative.

I have absolutely no doubt that my professional integrity would hold up to any serious scrutiny of how I do my job. You’re shown during a series of inaccurate posts recently that you have no integrity, professional or otherwise.

Whether you choose to share this with your readers in its entirety will also shed light on your character.


[Williams, of course, was on duty when "Dancer gives details of ordeal" was published--an article which was fiction rather than fact; and from which the paper deliberately omitted Crystal's negative remarks about her co-dancer.

Williams defended the omissions, saying that "nothing about that information shed light on what happened that night, nor would the publication have made a difference in how this case has played out."]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Law enforcement, politicians and lawyers are acutely aware of, and intimately involved in shaping news coverage. Much of their day is spent trying to influence what appears in the morning newspaper and the six o'clock news. The administration of the public's business is often incidental to their quest for power, money, re-election and favorable PR.

As a working reporter, I now see it up close and in person.

The NandO was working hand-in-glove with the Power Structure to build the frame. When the defense team wouldn't play ball and knuckle under, the Structure decided to go nuclear, put it on the front page and call in the networks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
The NandO was working hand-in-glove with the Power Structure to build the frame. When the defense team wouldn't play ball and knuckle under, the Structure decided to go nuclear, put it on the front page and call in the networks.


Does anyone think the Newsweek cover and the early NYT coverage was just accidental?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply