I recommended this blog and take your point that the cop's report was apparently tweaked to make them look better. Even if my following speculative scenario is completely correct, it does not change the significance of your point.

First, I am assuming that the neighborhood was a predominately white one. That would mean that the cop would probably, even if not consciously, expect that the house he was approaching was the home of a white person. The fact that a single officer responded to the call and upon arriving at the scene saw a nice car or limousine [I'm guessing here again] parked in the driveway and then walked up to the door and rang the bell would indicate to me that , despite his training and his long history of police experience, or maybe because of it, he was not expecting a criminal to answer the door. If he was consciously or unconsciously expecting a white person to answer the door and a black person did instead, he might have reacted with some surprise and shown by as little as a subtle change in body language that he wondered why he was looking at a black man. This could [possibly] be what first offended Gates.
If the dispatcher had, in fact, stated that a black person was seen entering the house Crowley may have reacted differently when Gates answered the door. Who knows?

The dispatcher's call to Crowley states "unknown on race, one may be Hispanic. I'm not sure." Dispatcher also says, "They have suitcases."

The police report states the Crowley talked to Lucia Whalen on the sidewalk in front of the house. "told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black men with backpacks on the porch of -- Ware street. She told me her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he were trying to force entry."

Wendy Murphy, attorney for Lucia Whalen, has a different version

But Murphy, speaking on Whalen's behalf, says the only interaction between Whalen and Crowley occurred at the scene when she gestured to him and told him she was the 911 caller and he told her to stay where she was.

Another officer asked for her identification, but no officer interviewed her at the scene, Murphy says. Whalen stayed about five minutes and then left, Murphy says.

Murphy says Whalen does not want to reopen a debate or stir up controversy with the Cambridge police or with Gates. She says Whalen only wants to set the record straight

If we are to believe Whalen no discussion occurred at the scene. No talk of black men, backpacks, no discussion of observation of one wedging his shoulder into the door. If so it would appear that Crowley made up a whole conversation. I could understand a discrepancy between two versions and chalk it up to completely understandable bad memory. But I don't see how bad memory can create a conversation, albeit short, that didn't occur. Either Crowley or Whalen is lying. Considering that Whalen's version matches the 911 audio and the dispatchers call I tend to believe that is the correct version.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Ms. Whalen is lying. It's just a question of how more accurate and reliable the details become in a firsthand as opposed to a secondhand statement.
I appreciate her wish not to be involved, but the unpleasant reality is that she is already involved.

Wendy Murphy is a reputable atty and has served as spokesperson on many occasions for various causes and clients. I cannot believe she would accidently misrepresent her clients words. A portion of the witness' statements are corroborated by the dispatch tapes.

Wendy Murphy is frequent guest on MSNBC, FOX, FOXNEWS, and CBS. She is an adjunct law professor at the New England School of Law.

With no court action I don't see why she would be involved. She was merely correcting the public record.

If there is further action, I've always felt that in the end, Professor Gates would be making a large donation to a worthy charity (settled out of court).

Figueroa walks in to Gates' house, and finds an uncooperative man yelling at Crowley. Figueroa is so concerned about the situation that Carlos Figueroa he walks out to get information from Ms Whaley.

Ms Whaley says that she never talked to Crowley. why would Ms Whaley not tell the truth?

If Crowley is not telling the truth about talking to a witness, can we trust hi version of what the exchange was between the Sgt and Prof Gates?

Is it possible Crowley "dry-labbed" his interview with Whaley? Did he and Figueroa combine information to make a script work better?

Why would Ms Whaley speaking with a different officer have any bearing on what appears in Crowley's report? Certainly you aren't implying that Crowley mistook Figueroa for Ms Whaley?

We're not talking about elapsed days here, or even hours. This conversation was written in an incident report. The statement is either dishonest or based on disorientation of the memory. In neither case can Crowley be given the benefit of the doubt any longer on the remainder of the report without plausible explanation both of the mistake and why it should not impact the view of the rest of his narrative.

First blame the victim, then we blame the concerned citizen. How many scapegoats are we going to sacrifice? Ms. Whaley is not the one who needs to answer more questions here.

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

...But "that info did not make it's way to Crowley"? Your itemised point does not make any sense, as written.

As I pointed out earlier, actually asking Gates whether he had gotten locked out off the bat (when the old guy did not take off running at the sight of a cop) would probably have changed the entire dynamic of the situation, but I do not really feel like rehashing whether it is appropriate to arrest people for not being sufficiently deferential to the police.