How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Important to remember that we're not debating Ellerman's guilt or innocence....that's a foregone conclusion.

At the heart of this thread is the concern over the Chron's decisions to use or withhold certain information....whether the reporters acted within the boundaries of good judgment and ethics.

The key question seems to be the way the Chron handled the reporting of the motion to dismiss, and their subsequent interaction with Ellerman.

Dave's point--if I understand correctly, and perhaps I don't--is if you're in Bronstein's office figuring out how to handle this at the time, you're looking at the entirety of the defense's accusation, knowing of all the things in that motion it sure isn't going to be the leak accusation that might prevail--especially since it was truthful--and you move forward with the rest of the reporting.

And those two sentences could have referred to another leak.

All of which makes me wish we had more of the story, instead of playing guessing games and arguing faulty logic, one way or another.

 

Yes. I realize that.

I have said all along they have no obligation to explain.

 

Boom-70 says, "Since Ellerman was charged with obstruction of justice obviously the judge felt those "2 sentences" were important. Perhaps Ellerman was vague because he did not want to draw direct attention to that leak. Certainly the judge was aware of it even if it was not included in brief."

Do you think it's possible that the reason there is little about the transcript leaks in the defense motion filed is because Ellerman had little to do, if anything, with the writing of the motion to dismiss? Was Ellerman simply riding on the coattails of other attorneys who were actually doing the work in the case? Is it possible that many here are simply giving Ellerman far too much credit regarding his brainpower? Some of these answers may be more simple than we realize.

creamora

 

This is about the Libby case, but a lot of it applies here, too, I think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/opinion/07lewis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

I was listening to ESPN Radio yesterday, and the host had Jon Wertheim on as a guest. Wertheim and another guy have been doing investigative stuff for SI on the topic of HGH.

So anyway, the host intro'd Wertheim and the other guy as, "The Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada of the East Coast"... and went on to say something like, "Just as those BALCO guys did a great job reporting on steroids, Wertheim's been doing great investigative work on HGH..."

Wertheim seemed to take it as a compliment.

Again, I think the only people upset with the Chron are a few Pointy heads and some you guys....

 

Let's all face it. The leaks that mattered to the judge in the BALCO case were the grand jury transcript leaks. That's the reason the investigation was ordered and the two Chronicle reporters were pressured. Leaks of other types of evidence were routinely reported by the Chronicle for six months before the defense even had the discovery in their possession. So, those initial leaks of evidence very likely came from the government, period. How could the defense have leaked information from documents they did not have in their possession. The judge didn't really seem to care much about the pre-indictment leaks of evidence. The defence vehemently argued that it had to be the government who leaked the evidence. The judge basically said, "OK. It's the government. But I need a name." There simply wasn't much she could do at the time. She also didn't seem to have much concern about the information that went to USADA through Congress. However, when the GJ transcript of Tim Montgomery was leaked to the Chronicle, she immediately ordered an a full-blown investiagion. In short, it seems to be the bullets that hit the bull's eye that do the damage.

creamora

 

Actually, if bullets hit anywhere on the target, they do damage.

 

From the column ...

 

I prefer ZIMA

Doesn't make me less of a man