Saturday, August 26, 2006

Duke Case: Poor Reviews for NY Times Article


Reaction to The NY Times "drive-by-shooting" article by Duff Wilson and Jonathan D. Glater about the Duke lacrosse case has been swift and energetic.

The story has been minutely parsed, hacked, shredded, dissected, disassembled, and found to be pitifully weak spin for the prosecution.

Still looking for a positive pointed review of the journalistic hackery.

William L. Anderson at

The first thing to remember is that the Times is desperate for this story to be "true," and if the facts don't warrant its truth, the Times will use other methods....The dishonesty here is breathtaking...

it also tells us that when an agent of the state lies, and uses the prosecutorial apparatus in a dishonest and abusive way, the agent can find refuge in the New York Times if the desired outcome can validate the Times’ politically-correct view of the world.
a brief summary of the unforgivable flaws and omissions in Duff Wilson’s article:

Timeline...Kim Roberts Statements and Alleged Role in the Assault...The Accuser’s Story...Incomplete Explanations of DNA Evidence...Contradictions in Gottlieb’s Notes...Investigator Knowledge of Contents of the Medical Report...Evidence of Anal Trauma...Suspect Descriptions...Conclusion

The New York Times has published an article that is lengthy but chooses to ignore many of the basic facts of the case.
KC Johnson at Durham-In-Wonderland:
There are three serious problems with the Times piece...Bias...Questions for Nifong...Gottlieb and the Missed Headline

The main source for the Times duo is the late-arriving report of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. The Times reveals that Gottlieb possesses extraordinary memory skills: his report was typed months after the events it described, with, apparently, virtually no contemporary notes.
Crystal Mess:
While the headline of this disgraceful piece of "investigative journalism" proclaims that Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers, Duff, aided and abetted by Jonathan D. Glater, exhausts the equivilent of seventeen pieces of 8.5"x11" dead tree, excreted from my desk top printer, fashioning an answer to, indeed, a justifcation of, D.A. Michael B. Nifong's, um, election to proceed with what "[d]efense lawyers...Duke alumni and a group of bloggers" would color the "flimsiest" of rape allegations.

Incredibly, however, Duff & Glater prop up their transparently desired conclusion ...

Despite the incorrect, contrary conclusion spun by Duff and Glater, nothing "exposed" by them in this puff piece may be said to remotely approach "evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Tucker Carlson and Dan Abrams discussed the NY Times article on Carlson's show Friday. described it:
Interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Abrams, who until taking over as head of MSNBC had his own justice-oriented show on the network, came out guns ablazin'.

"I thought it was shameful. I think it was an editorial on the front page of what is supposed to be the news division of the newspaper."

Michael Gaynor at surely seems to have been written to buttress the floundering prosecution as much as possible...Why is The Times trying to help Mr. Nifong now? Could it be because the lessons of the Duke case discredit the political correctness crowd and at least part of the agenda of The Times?

Tom Bevan at writes:
So, District Attorney Mike Nifong leaked all 1,850 pages of evidence in the Duke Lacrosse rape case to the New York Times in hopes of countering the public perception that the whole thing is a sham and a textbook example of prosecutorial abuse. Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater only partly oblige, producing a lengthy and detailed account that, while certainly promoting aspects of the case that are favorable to the prosecution, still contains a whole lot of question marks and red flags about the accuser's story and, most importantly, about the way this case has been prosecuted.
Betsy's Page:
...What I missed the first time around is that these two widely different descriptions of the men came from the same conversation. How does that happen? Being more experienced doesn't explain how these different descriptions could have been heard by two policeman at the same time. Just try to mix and match the descriptions from each officer's notes and figure out what she could have said that could have led two policemen to write down what they did...
Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute blog:
The NY Times gains access to the prosecutor's file in the Duke lacrosse case. The Times acknowledges the possibility that we are looking at fraud by the Durham police and DA...
Nicholas Stix at
With DA Mike Nifong on the ropes, the New York Times is seeking to rig the rape prosecution against three Duke lacrosse players, by weaving evidence out of whole towels.
Jeralyn Merritt at wrote:
My first question is just how did the New York Times get the entire discovery file? After that, I wonder about the accuracy of some of the police reports....

Much of the article reads like a prosecution motion....

Yet, even the Times has to agree, there's no definitive evidence a rape occurred.
TalkLeft forum comment:
It's obvious the DA or DPD provided the information the NYT - and they are rewarded with a very favorable story

Large Points missed or minimized by the NYT:

(1) They intimate the Towel near Evan's room fits into the woman's story - they NEGLECT to mention DNA is comingled with Evans - and it doesn't match the AV or ANYONE at the party...

(14) The Fact the after other detectives ran IDs and Lineups and failed to produce ONE suspect - GOTTLIEB, again, comes to the rescue...
Another TalkLeft forum comment:
Wow, that is indeed troubling. Gottlieb, the same cop who guided the bogus line up, took forever to write his report and, when finally produced, mirrors the Nifong story. I want to be fair, but this sounds an awful lot like a coordinated framing to me.
Comments from
"How about answers and no details?" ...

Typical NYT spin on a story that is DOA if it ever goes to court...

NY Slimes trying to put the best face on things....

It is a fascinating attempt by the NY Times to reconcile all of the conflicts and deficiencies in the case...
Dr. Melissa Clouthier:
Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater, authors of this editorial, I mean article...

which ostensibly covers revealing details about the Duke Rape debacle, represent the worst sort of journalists. They write a startling headline on the front page, and reveal themselves to be no more factual or unbiased than the breathless neighborhood gossip. Why, oh why, did I even bother reading it? I should know better by now.

Where to start? The piece was so irritating I didn't even want to blog on it--which is why I waited 'til tonight.
More thoughts regarding the Sgt. Gottlieb script changes at - - 3 Pages of Notes??:
It strains credulity that, in a case as important as this, the lead investigator only produced 3 hand-written pages of notes, according to the NYT article.

With all the search warrants, evidence, witnesses, and investigations, I find it hard to believe a police officer would not commit more information to paper. Does he have a photographic memory, did he purposefully not put anything in writing, or did he not produce all of his notes??

The defense attorneys specifically moved that all police notes be preserved (see Kirk Osborn's website)

While the type-written report is important, contemporaneous notes are a lot more credible. There is something fishy about the paucity of Gottlieb's notes submitted in the discovery.
Desperate Times [William L. Anderson |, Aug. 25, 2006]
Enough from Duff [LieStoppers, Aug. 24, 2006]
More Bad Times
[KC Johnson | Durham-In-Wonderland, Aug. 25, 2006]
[CrystalMess, Aug. 25, 2006]
Abrams: 'Shameful' Times Report on Duke Rape Case 'Editorial on Front Page' [, Aug. 25, 2006]
The New York Times is trying to save Mike Nifong [Michael Gaynor |, Aug. 25, 2006]
The Duke Lacrosse Files [Tom Bevan |, Aug. 25, 2006]
Rereading the Duke rape story in the NYT [Betsy's Page, Aug. 25, 2006]
The Times On The Duke Debacle [JustOneMinute, Aug. 24, 2006]
N.Y. Times to Duke Three: Drop Dead [Nicholas Stix |, Aug. 25, 2006]
Duke Lacrosse Case: NYT Reviews Evidence [Jeralyn Merritt |, Aug. 25, 2006]
Problems with the New York Times article [, Aug. 25, 2006]
New York Times Article - 25 Aug 2006 [, Aug. 25, 2006]
Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers [, Aug. 25, 2006]
Duke Rape Details Are Duds [Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Aug. 25, 2006]
3 Pages of Notes?? [, Aug. 25, 2006]


New York Times [CrystalMess, Aug. 26, 2006]
Duke lacrosse: The blogs are on Times [John In Carolina, Aug. 25, 2006]
Creative Police Work
[, Aug. 26, 2006]
The Adventures of Baldo [, Aug. 25, 2006]
Report: Police Notes Bolster Prosecution Of Duke Lacrosse Case [, Aug. 25, 2006]

Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]


The New York Times responded by posting this correction:
Correction: Aug. 26, 2006

A front-page article yesterday about evidence in the case of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape misattributed a criticism of the method used to identify possible suspects. Lawyers for the defendant Reade Seligmann — not for the defendant David Evans — said the process was "a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers, a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey identification."

Okay, TJN does subscribe to the Sunday edition of The New York Times, don't hold it against us. But, for the last couple of Friday's the newspaper delivery person has been throwing the Friday edition on the doorstep? So this afternoon we get the automated telephone sales pitch: The NY Times will give us a free 3 day weekend offer (Fri, Sat, & Sun) upgrade for eight weeks if we call and sign-up for the weekend upgrade. Not very good timing.

Twitter | Ukraine World

Twitter | Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Ukraine President)

Twitter | Euromaidan Press

Twitter | The Kyiv Independent

Twitter | Ukraine Weapons Tracker

Daily Reckoning