Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Understanding SANE: Tara Levicy

Recently the defense filed notice that it planned to call as expert witnesses all of Mike Nifong’s expert witnesses save one—SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. A recent post by Kathleen Eckelt explains why.

According to Eckelt, Levicy belongs nowhere near a courtroom as an expert witness. As of March 14, she had almost no experience as a nurse, and was listed as only a SANE nurse-in-training. “It takes time,” Eckelt notes, “to develop the ability to make snap decisions needed in emergency situations. It takes time to learn about things like the bio-mechanics of trauma and patterns of injury. It takes time and skill to recognize personality disorders and manipulative and attention seeking behaviors that some patients will exhibit.” Only experience can provide the learning for such matters.

The role of a legal nurse consultant—experts who can testify in court—usually requires 10 years of experience, “because the primary job of an LNC is to be able to review medical records to determine if there has been any deviation from the standard of care (SOC) provided to a patient.” A nurse who can testify as an expert witness requires “a strong clinical background which can only be obtained through years of hands on practice.”

Those who train as forensic nurses have similar need for experience.Forensic nurses,” in short, “are registered nurses with advanced, specialized training in forensic sciences and the law.” They’re not people just beginning their careers as regular nurses, like Levicy was on March 14. In Eckelt’s mind, “there is no way I would have even considered becoming a SANE nurse with only a few months nursing experience, much less walk into court to testify as an ‘expert.’” Indeed, she wonders, “How does one maintain they have ‘specialized knowledge’ when they haven't even finished their training yet?” A SANE-in-training “means you have almost zilch experience,” and that “you should still be supervised by an experienced SANE nurse during any exam” (which appears not to have occurred in this case).

Eckelt solicited a wide range of opinions from professional colleagues in various fields:

An RN:

Six months is not enough time to be an expert on anything. We grow into our positions learning more every day. An expert needs to have a goodly amount of hands on experience beginning as a novice and progressing through out the various stages until reaching expert. I wouldn't consider anyone an expert without a minimum of ten years.

An insurance investigator:

I can say from experience that from an insurance company standpoint, a good expert that would be credible on a witness stand would be someone who has at least 5-10 years’ experience in their field.

In regards to nursing experts, someone who has a masters degree and teaching experience would be an ideal “expert.” In addition, how they would perform in front of a jury is key to being a good expert. Someone with less than 5 years experience is still learning their craft and would be a very unimpressive witness.

Another investigator:

If they are using an expert classification to establish a point, ask them to cite the articles that they wrote on the subject, the cases that they testified in, their education studies on the subject, which court certified them as an expert, what research they conducted.

Retired matron of a forensic hospital in England:

A person can have 20+ years as a forensic nurse but their “experience and expertise” can be limited. I think that it has to be a combination of experience (clinical and/or managerial—all in the field of forensics), academic achievement and the verification and endorsement of at least two others in regards to the area of expertise.

An arson investigator:

Yeah, it is a huge problem in our field. I know people who have 30 years field experience but no degree who don't qualify, but engineers with no field experience or practical training are considered experts. That is why in our field (Fire/Arson) attorneys are almost always doing a Voir Dire and Daubert Challenge in every single case.
A Forensic Scientist:

I use work-product to estimate expertise. Using this standard is far more useful in terms of separating those who have some grasp of what they are doing from those who do not ... real experts don't need to tell you how many years they've been doing what they do, or how many letters come after their name, to support their conclusions; they show their work and render conclusions in such a way that makes their expertise clear to any reader.
An Emergency Room RN:

I cannot imagine any new grad nurse being subjected to a SANE course. It is not that they could not do the course work, you and I both know this, but the sheer experience needed to make judgment calls simply comes with time and time only.

For any nurse manager to subject a new nurse to this is beyond the pale. I understand we are in a nursing shortage, but to subject both the patient and the nurse to this type of experience is unprofessional in the extreme.
Eckelt offered similar testimony from other experts in her post yesterday, and concluded, that "any nurse who should decide to take the SANE / FNE training course and go into forensic nursing should first have several years [preferably at least ten] experience in the ED, Trauma, or Maternal-Child Health fields before venturing forth into this highly specialized area of nursing."

"Most certainly, I do not feel that any SANE nurse still in training should be doing an exam without supervision by another experienced SANE nurse. Even after finishing our training, we still don’t know everything."

This lack of experience perhaps explains the only “injury” that Levicy noticed (“diffuse edema of the vaginal walls") appears to have many explanations other than rape, and is rarely, if ever, found independently of other injuries.

Eckelt's post poses an unanswerable question for Mike Nifong: “If a Medical Director, with many years experience in both trauma and sexual assault, as well as other FNE's with years of experience too, couldn't be sure that what they were seeing was diffuse vaginal edema, how could someone with only seven months nursing, and almost no SANE experience be so certain?”

So, upon what (if anything) did Levicy base her opinion? Her seven months’ experience as an RN, of which she had spent almost no time as a SANE nurse? Or her ideology?

Relatively little has appeared in the public record about Levicy. What is known doesn’t suggest a figure whose neutrality would inspire confidence. Her undergraduate degree, from the University of Maine, came in women’s studies—the discipline that produced copious Group of 88 members, and home of feminist law theory, which contends that women never lie about rape.

She stated that one of her proudest moments in college came when she produced and directed a performance of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues. Before becoming a nurse, Levicy worked as a healthcare associate for Planned Parenthood, a whitewater rafting guide, and a leader of outdoor programs for the University of Maine. Directly before coming to North Caroline, she was employed by a wilderness program, where she told people, “If saying the word, vagina feels foreign, then I recommend looking into a mirror and saying, vagina . . . vagina . . . vagina.” This rhetoric is not exactly mainstream on issues of gender.

In short, if Nifong could invent a figure to assist him in the medical aspect of the case, it would be Levicy: underqualified professionally, but of the appropriate ideology.

That said, Levicy must be one person who desperately hopes this case never makes it to trial—because if it does, it could be her last trial. The Department of Justice’s SANE Development and Operation Guide states that “physicians need not be concerned that injuries will be missed by the SANE if they understand that she will err on the side of caution when evaluating and referring sexual assault victims to them.”

Yet, according to Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s “straight-from-memory” notes, Levicy blatantly violated this protocol. In her report, she described the accuser’s injuries as non-bleeding scratches on the heel and knee—certainly seeming to carry out the DOJ guidelines by erring on the side of extreme caution in listing “injuries.” But Gottlieb claimed that a week later, Levicy told him that the accuser’s injuries included “blunt force trauma” that was consistent with rape.

If a trial occurs, Levicy is doomed either way. She can back up Gottlieb, thereby ensuring her dismissal as a nurse for violating protocol, and possibly exposing herself to a civil lawsuit from the accuser. Or she can expose Gottlieb as a liar, thereby becoming a persona non grata with the none-too-professional DPD.

No wonder the defense doesn’t view her as an expert. Perhaps Levicy will wind up returning to Maine and her previous career, where at least she can deal with more ethical colleagues.

164 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. Why do you feel the need to do a hatchet job on some SANE nurse in training?

Sadly, you seemed to have moved from providing solid fact based analysis to being a mouthpiece for the defense. If this is true you are no better than the New York times.

Anonymous said...

The 'make-up' of the SANE nurse has always been a question in the back of my mind.

Since the issue of rape was initiated by the SANE nurse, by asking the question of rape and prompting a response - one always had to wonder what circumstances surrouned that questioning - meaning, did she ask the question nodding her head up & down, etc

Your research on this SANE nurse tells me that she is yet another "Ellen James feminist" from a John Irving novel.

It could well be she saw rape in this hapless stripper because that is her lense on life -

Chicago said...

12:20-

You must be trolling. Did you read the full story? Levicy will be absolutely grilled if she takes the stand.

Let us not forget what Brad Bannon did to Brian Meehan, a man who actually had some experience in his field and who, though completely unethical, did do good work (he found plenty of DNA in the false accuser, just none belonging to LAX players).

Levicy did not even do good work. Levicy sited cuts that 60 Minutes showed the false accuser to have suffered prior to her arrival at the house (they are likely from being dragged through a Hillsoborugh strip club's gravel parking lot after she passed out). If Levicy did in fact tell Gottlieb that information and he did not fudge it, she will be torn apart on the stand.

GPrestonian said...

12:20am Anon:

"Wow. Why do you feel the need to do a hatchet job on some SANE nurse in training?"

Surely you jest? The SANE report is crucial evidence in this case, said report having been mischaracterized early on by Nifong as he was fanning the flames to get elected.

The bona fides, background, and competence of the SANE nurse are certainly important to the case.

12:23am Anon:

I believe it was the nurse at Durham Access who first broached the subject of rape. Crystal saw her change to avoid being locked up at Access, and took it.

LOL! Good call on the Ellen Jamesians - I've thought about that a lot lately, esp re: the Trinity Park cabal. ;>)

hman said...

To 12:20
First of all, the nurse in training wrote the report. It seems that she had no active back-up from more senior folks. It seems that she took on the entire responsibility for doing the SANE exam.
The fact is, her report records her doing and saying things that were improper and the slant of all of it was to spin support for a rape claim. How many reasons are there for that?

Anonymous said...

12:20 AM,

If you have an argument to support your hatchet-job accusation, why not make it? To me, it does not seem like a hatchet job, but I would certainly consider your argument.

Otherwise, you seem to be one of the trolls (and for all we know, there is only one) who appear to have decided they will run interference for someone: Nifong, the Gang of 88, Brodhead, or whomever. My guess is that you think that if you can discredit the messenger, maybe you can mitigate the damage caused by the message.

Anonymous said...

I woukld think that if a woman showed up under the influence, say she was raped, the sane nurse would take and keep blood and urine samples. For some reason no samples were kept.

Was this the nurse's inexprience or is it not gen. practice.

Common sense would say "she's under some influence, lets find out what's wrong", she was found unconscience by police.

GPrestonian said...

my 12:41am post:

Should be
"Crystal saw her chance...

All:

Interesting situation - the SANE report was really the first good news the defence had in this case in that on its face it doesn't support the claim of rape (esp a rape of the violent sort that Crystal described in Versions 1, 3a, 4c, and 5d :).

Just because she shouldn't be considered an expert (she isn't) nor called as an expert witness, she could nonetheless be called to testify. The defence doesn't want to trash a witness whose report helps their case, thus calling into question the accuracy of that report.

We'll leave her alleged statements to Gottlied for another day...

Anonymous said...

Nurse Levicy has never said a word to anyone outside the hospital - maybe no one in the hospital about the incident. I am an RN and when it comes to legal issues, people want to see MD its the only opinion that counts. She certainly stated she was a SANE nurse in training, I do not believe she made any comments to Gottlieb about the condition of Crystal.We have nothing but his word that she did. The hospital was remiss if she had no supervision.

GPrestonian said...

12:55am Anon:

Were no samples kept, or no samples taken?

According to Kethra on LS, the patient has to agree to the taking of blood & urine samples for tox screens. Dunno how that squares with whatever pregnancy test they supposedly gave her that night, though.

It's (possibly) unfortunate that no tox screen was run that night - the hair follicle test performed a month later didn't actually test for the most common drugs (GHB, roofies) that the DA suggested she may have taken.

Michael said...

re: 12:20

This topic has been around for a few days on other websites (see the links on the main blog page) including one with heavy credentials in this area. It looks like KC put together pieces from various areas and added his own analysis.

I saw a bit of it a few days ago but didn't pay a huge amount of attention to it as I didn't really understand the point of the analysis. Reading it here made it a lot easier to understand the implications.

KC Johnson said...

Indeed.

To the 12.20:

The people doing the "trashing" of Levicy are experts in the field. If forensic nurse specialists start saying it's normal procedure to have a nurse-in-training give an unsupervised exam; or say things to a sergeant that she doesn't put in her report, I'll take note of this development.

Thus far, I have seen no such links, but if you have any, please provide them.

everett0011 said...

KC,

Whether or not the Durham DA calls her as an expert, rest assured that the SANE nurse is a fact witness and she'll be called.

And that will be yet another powerful piece of evidence for the defense, if things ever get that far.

I continue to appreciate the wonderful work you do in presenting the facts of this absolutely historic event.

Best,
Sam George, MD, JD.
Duke Medical Faculty, 1991-99
JD, Duke Law, 1999

Anonymous said...

I've got to support 12:20 on this one. Mrs. Levicy doesn't seem to have misrepresented her skills or the events, talked to the press, or been guilty of anything other than inexperience. Maybe the hospital was negligent in allowing her to perform this procedure herself, maybe not, either way, Mrs. Levicy's behavior isn't the root of the injustice in this case.

I'd also believe her report, written at the time it was taken, rather than the recollections of Mr. Gottlieb. I'm not sure about NC, but in the state I live in, medical records are legal documents and those who write them are given some pretty simple but clear instruction on what they should contain and how they should be written. Accuracy is pretty important after all.

Anonymous said...

12:20 is an example of the utter desperation of the Nifong-Gottlieb enablers. Typical, too, to call it a hatchet job and offer no evidence. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Like the person who asked KC why he needed to do such a "hatchet job" on the SANE nurse, I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with some of Prof. Johnson's posts. He should be careful not to Nifong himself.

Levicy's credentials, training, and experience are legitimate matters for discussion, but I think that it is over the edge to call into question her honesty or impartiality just because of where she went to school; or the fact that she is proud of organizing and directing the "Vagina Monologues"; or because she suggested that women look into a mirror and say "vagina, vagina, vagina" so that they can be more comfortable using that word. And Johnson has no way at all of knowing whether or not Nifong found someone of "appropriate ideology"---meaning, I suppose, that at a minimum she took the Accuser's saying she was raped as the unquestioned truth---in Levicy. For all we---and I suspect Johnson---know, Levicy may be Durham's biggest rape-skeptic.

And there seems to be a kind of unseemly delight in the dilemma Levicy finds herself:

"If a trial occurs, Levicy is doomed either way. She can back up Gottlieb, thereby ensuring her dismissal as a nurse for violating protocol, and possibly exposing herself to a civil lawsuit from the accuser. Or she can expose Gottlieb as a liar, thereby becoming a persona non grata with the none-too-professional DPD....Perhaps Levicy will wind up returning to Maine and her previous career, where at least she can deal with more ethical colleagues."

I usually find Prof. Johnson's writing on the Durham case to be balanced, knowledgeable, fair, and non-hysterical; of late, unfortunately, he seems to be slipping. I hope that he will return to giving us the sort of dependable information and analysis that we have come to expect from him.

Anonymous said...

I think that the defense won't want to call her as I'm guessing that she did the work to collect the evidence for later DNA testing and the defense is happy with those results.

Nifong may not want to call her due to the problems that KC wrote about.

There's a rumor floating around at LS that Mike is going to recuse this week. I guess we'll see. I think that everyone would prefer a dismiss.

justice58 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Some are simply trying to get the professor to doubt himself.

hman said...

Toxicology screens are controversial in SANE work ups because they often come back positive and are then used for ammunition by the defense - as in "How can you be so sure, look at your blood alcohol level."
The same set of attitudes that support the notion of rape shield laws also strive to give the accuser privacy as to her chemical habits.
Some disclosure: I am an MD who has paid his dues working in big city ERs. And much about the accounts surrounding the SANE report make no sense to me.
"Blunt trauma" is not a meaningful diagnosis.
Writing one thing down and telling a cop something different is completely crazy if you value your license.
Telling anything to anybody about a patients situation is nowadays governed by very strict regulations. I would NEVER chat about the results of an exam with anybody not for sure entitled to know. It is a strongly developed reflex.
Lastly, "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls"??? Give me a break. If real sex happens, the outer muscular ring takes the strain and shows the signs of abrasion, etc. All non-virgins know this.

GPrestonian said...

1:28am Anon:

"...he seems to be slipping.

Not at all, but I am concerned about what KC's reaction will be once the G88, Brodhead, et al start calling for more 'collegiality' on campus! ;>)

Anonymous said...

1:28 am
Her OBJECTIVITY does come into question when her lack of expirience combined with questionable diagnosis is looked at in the context of radical feminist "Women don't lie about rape" ideology.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

People here don't seem to want to accept that fact that once you become an advocate you reduce some other opportunities in your life.

I would suspect that once on became a strong advocate for PETA, one would not really qualify to make judicial decisions about which animals are put down or whether someone has abused their animal or not. You just are not credible as an impartial arbiter.

Similarly when someone has the background of the SANE in training in this case, it is hard to view them as an impartial collector of evidence. So I certainly think I see the points Professor Johnson is trying to make here. And this one of a biased background is really an important one for me.

Anonymous said...

2:19 and 2:24,

Prof. Johnson wrote:

"Her undergraduate degree, from the University of Maine, came in women’s studies—the discipline that produced copious Group of 88 members, and home of feminist law theory, which contends that women never lie about rape."

The fact that Levicy has her degree in Women's Studies tells us only that, nothing more. Graduating from a Women's Studies program is not an ideological commitment like joining PETA. We have no idea what her beliefs about feminist law theory are; for all we know, she has completely rejected it. Unless Levicy has written of or otherwise indicated a clear lack of commitment to objectivity in her work, for Johnson to say, "In short, if Nifong could invent a figure to assist him in the medical aspect of the case, it would be Levicy: underqualified professionally, but of the appropriate ideology" is simply unfair. She does indeed appear to be under-qualified to work unsupervised, but however does Johnson know that she is of "appropriate ideology"?

Cedarford said...

Wow. Why do you feel the need to do a hatchet job on some SANE nurse in training?

It is not on her. What is important is what was said to the Grand Jury by Nifong and Gottlieb, and what would be probative in a trial that likely will never happen - based on the SANE trainee's actions.

1. Did Gottlieb lie to the Grand Jury about the trainee's eval of "blunt force trauma and injuries consistent with rape"?
OR -
Did the SANE trainee exceed her limits based on training and experience to make "expert evals" outside her written report she was not qualified to make?

2. Unanswered still is why no tox tests with a woman reported by cops to have been found in a stupor and making conflicting claims, accusations of rape, kidnapping, and grand theft (by Kim Roberts) and strongly suspected of being drunk or "on something" by cops. Cops who initially took her to Detox, and by earlier med personnel who had seen and screened her - why no toxicology test, even a breathylizer was ordered.

Why was none done? If it is suggested that privacy blocks it, like with a drunk driver - isn't the assumption made by law that refusal indicates a serious level of impairment is conceeded to by the drunk driver, etc.. and the patient is instructed in the legal ramifications of refusal and signs a State legal form acknowledging test refusal will be held against them??
What is the rape testing protocol when a patient claiming rape is evaluated for what is a "he said she said situation", whose judgement is known to be possibly impaired through willing drug or booze usage, or who may have been slipped a drug? Is refusal to submit to testing considered a legal admission of impairment?

[Perhaps a forensic nurse can explain the protocol]

3. If the SANE trainee was unqualified, or assessed by Duke medical to be limited in the level of duties and opinions she could offer...where was her supervision?? Or, is it possible she exceeded her authority and convinced she "could handle it" - decided on her own not to call in an experienced, fully qualified SANE nurse??

4. Does the SANE nurse's feminist politics influence her medical judgment? Or was her work mischaracterized by Nifong in statements? And she did not set the record straight - or her supervisors belatedly gag her?

Anonymous said...

I'm a big fan of KC, but on this I'm with 1:23 on this one.

And I repeat my earlier comment:

It seems as if, over time, KC has become engaged in a sisyphean struggle to cast every player who has evidenced any degree of intellectual and moral cowardice in this sordid affair as the epitome of evil.

It is not all black and white – not everyone who faltered need be relegated to Hades.

This is especially true of this SANE nurse in training.

KC you presume too much when you take a few facts about her a reach the conclusion she is in Liefong's camp...

Get some sleep, champ.

Anonymous said...

KC 1:08 AM

Give me a break, you did trash Mrs. Levicy by implying that her ideology had something to do with her report. I don't share her beliefs but as long as she is doing her job to the best of her ability, I don't see any reason to fault her for holding them. You produced some information to indicate she might not be qualified to be an expert witness or even to have done the exam, but none of this indicates she is being dishonest. She didn't seek this case, it came to her, and I don't see any reason to trash her for her beliefs unless you can show she acted inappropriately in some way.

Anonymous said...

will you people please wake up? you have been reading this blog for months and surely it should be evident by now that;

1.KC Johnson is nothing but a shill for the defense and especially for the LAX families

2.he is very un-objective about this case and will villify anyone with a dissenting view about it

3.as such, he is definitely going to attack the weak link in the sane evidence which is the trainee nurse; please note that the defense has said precious little about dr. Manley's exam as a duke md is harder to smear on the stand as duke is one of the biggest and most famous hospitals in the world. KC always follows the defense's talking points. When they tell him to attack manley, he will do it

4.btw, this is a moot point as the case will never go to trial so KC wasted his time denigrating Levicy for nothing.

psych said...

I am going to put up a post similar to one I put up on the court tv message boards months ago.

I am a fully trained board certified psychiatrist. That means at one time in my life I was a resident in psychiatry. I am also a board certified child psychiatrist. I also had a period of training in that subspecialy as well. I do not have any real experience working with SANE nurses but I understand the situation of being in training.

Believe it or not even in psychiatry I would be involved in potentially life or death situations. Those decisions generally involved deciding whether or not to admit someone involuntarily to the hospital. I can think of one particular case where If I admitted a woman to the hospital the business where she worked would take a significant hit. (It would likely close because everyone else who could do a necessary task was out of town) (I confirmed this with her husband). I woke up the attending to discuss this with her before any decision was made. On another occasion in the wee hours of the morning I woke up the hospital attorney.

I knew that my decisions had consequences not only for the people who I examined but also for the attendings who were supervising me. I ask who was supervising her? Who signs off on her work? When I was in training the attending was ultimately responsible for the work I did. That this lack of supervision occured says something about the quality of education of atleast one other Duke program.

As a psychiatrist who still covers an emergency room, I ask how could you not do an alcohol and drug screen on this women. Forget the issue of rape, you have a woman who is brought in on a police hold. In the state I live in that means she is accompanied by a statement from a police officer that describes the situation in which she was found and led to her being brought to a medical facility. In this case she was passed out drunk and acting in a bizarre manner.

Why was not an examination done to explain why this occured. Like I said before I am not a SANE nurse and am not even a nurse but why was this woman not examined for all the signs and symptoms?

I am not sure Duke university undergraduate schools are the only things to be avoided in Durham. Duke emergency rooms may be another.

Anonymous said...

I am astonished to find this posting on a blog devoted to the defense of threatened civil liberties.

1. This woman is a professional in training. To fault her for being “inexperienced” is absurd. People in training are by definition inexperienced. The way you become experienced is by having experience. Part of her training experience, by no choice of her own, was happening to be on duty when this episode occurred. The adequacy of her training program and the competence of the examination she conducted might or might not become subjects for proper interrogation in a courtroom. There is now every reason to hope that the case will never go to trial.

2.So far as I know, or read in this post, she has made no claim to a level of expertise she lacks. She had made no comment about the case at all beyond those required by her job or solicited by authorized investigators. She has not put herself forward in any way. Her behavior has been proper and professional.

3.Her choice of field of concentration at her accredited undergraduate institution is irrelevant. So are her literary tastes, dramatic or otherwise. That a person whose profession involves the medical investigation of vaginas says that we ought not to find the word “vagina” difficult to say strikes me as unexceptionable.

4.Although this posting does nothing to advance the cause of justice in the Duke Rape Hoax, it does unfortunately provide an easy target for those who, for one reason or another, oppose the mission of this blog or suspect it of ideological bias. I suggest in a friendly way that the posting is a strategic mistake.

M. Simon said...

KC,

I like the way you look at the case.

The tactics likely to be employed by the defence and prosecution.

The defence will look to impeach the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution will do like wise. So what are the weaknesses?

To look at the possiblilities gives us outsiders a view of the case otherwise unavaiable.

If I was in your position and had studied the case as you have, I would do just what you have done: call 'em as I see 'em.

I have been wrong and eaten crow. Some times I have been right and crowed.

I hate the on the one hand, on the other... analysis that comes to no conclusion.

As to some who say you are getting your marching orders from the defence? I suppose the counter claim is that they take their marching orders from the prosecution. In other words - a wash.

Give me the evidence. Present your case. Let me decide if you have come close to the target.

Anonymous said...

I guess the situation of the vagina is irralevant, as the woman is a prostitute. One can expect a somwhat swollen vagina. It doesn't proof or disproof anything in this case.

What does matter is the absence of additional wounds, which would attest that this woman was not subjected to violence.

Anonymous said...

I deal with drug addicts all the time. Tara Levicy would be easy meat for a hustler like Crystal.

Anonymous said...

I always wondered why they didn't do a tox screen at the hospital. Could it be that the Crystal told the nurse something to make the nurse believe such a test would not be helpful to their (the nurse's and Crsytal's) goals (to convict a rapist)?

bill anderson said...

In this case, it would seem that ideology WOULD matter. The Gang of 88 in making its accusations, not to mention the other protesters at Duke, have been applying ideological arguments against specific individuals.

In the aftermath, we have seen a Duke faculty member compare the lacrosse players to the murderers of Emmitt Till, we have read that "white innocence means black guilt," and so on. Nifong early on declared this to be a race-based "hate crime."

Thus, people who have the same ideology as Ms. Levicy have been at the forefront of insisting FOR IDEOLOGICAL REASONS that the lacrosse players raped Crystal. And because the "injuries" (or perhaps, better, Non-injuries) to Crystal are not compatible with the vicious beating that Nifong has insisted occurred, the only people still trying to insist that a rape, or at least sexual assault occurred, are people with ideological baggage at the table.

While I suspect that Gottlieb's "report" is a work of fiction, if Levicy DID tell him these things, but did not write it in her report, then I could only imagine that she was trying to prop up a lie by adding a few of her own.

I do not underestimate the willingness of ideologues to lie in a situation like this. In fact, they already have. K.C. is NOT in the wrong for raising the issues he has raised.

Furthermore, those people who seem to worship at the shrine of "The Vagina Monologues" are the same people who have been insisting that we have a real rape case. So, Levicy's involvement in these issues is NOT a red herring.

Anonymous said...

I agree with those who say that some of the criticism of Levicy has been unwarranted.

Chicago: it was Levicy's job to document the scratches (and any other injuries she observed or thought she observed) on Crystal Mangum's body. Levicy's report did not indicate when or how Crystal obtained the scratches. We now know how and when Crystal likely received the scratches, but we did not have that information on the night of the Buchanan party -- and neither did Levicy. Levicy merely noted the existence and location of the scratches -- which is what she was supposed to do.

As far as Gottlieb's story that Levicy told him there was evidence of "blunt force trauma" consistent with rape, I am inclined to give Levicy the benefit of the doubt on this one. I have no reason to believe that Levicy is a liar -- but I have plenty of reasons to believe that Gottlieb is.

As for Levicy's "political ideology," we simply don't know what it is. None of us have spoken with her, and she has not made any public statements (that I'm aware of) indicating what her beliefs are. I have no reason to believe that Levicy subscribes to absurd notions such as "women don't lie about rape" (an assertion consistently contradicted by every study done to date). I don't think it's fair to assume that we know what Levicy thinks or feels about anything, and until we have some actual evidence on this point, I'm going to withhold judgment and give Levicy the benefit of the doubt.

GPrestonian said...

5:46am Anon:

"1. This woman is a professional in training. To fault her for being “inexperienced” is absurd. People in training are by definition inexperienced.

"2.So far as I know, or read in this post, she has made no claim to a level of expertise she lacks.

KC's post attempts to explain why Levicy is not on the defence's list of expert witnesses. She is on the prosecution's list of expert witnesses.


"3.Her choice of field of concentration at her accredited undergraduate institution is irrelevant."

Of course it is relevant - education, training, and experience are required to become an expert. She has 'none of the above'. Again - it is the prosecution that has filed notice of intention to call her as an expert witness.

Anonymous said...

changing the subject: does anyone know who is Fred Battaglia, quoted in the H-S today?

"Attorney Fred Battaglia stood up for Nifong on Monday, saying he thought the chief prosecutor was getting a raw deal from the State Bar.

"The issue is whether he can prosecute the lacrosse case and also defend himself," said Battaglia. "I don't see a problem. I think a person could do both, at least in a theoretical sense."

Battaglia noted that Nifong wasn't the only person talking publicly about the case in its early stages, since the defense team also was outspoken.

"If you match things up, it seems the same complaint could be made against each defense lawyer," Battaglia said. "I think they should all be quiet. Either we're going to treat everyone equally or not. I personally take a dim view of what's being done to the prosecutor. The timing of it is suspect in my book

Anonymous said...

Could the SANE nurse's inexperience work against the defense in that Nifong could claim that if she was that inexperienced then perhaps she didn't collect the DNA correctly?

Anonymous said...

A poster on one of the LieStoppers threads looked up Battaglia. Apparently Battaglia is one of Nifong's cronies from traffic court in Durham.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GPrestonian said...

7:38 Anon:

Thanks for the scoop.

I believe the appropriate word is 'supplicant', not 'crony'. ;>) Why is this guy still supporting Nifong - he's gotta know that the DA won't be a DA much longer.

The info from LS - Battaglia

Wow, lota good articles in LS' Media Roundup today!

Michael said...

re: 7:28

That may be why they aren't calling her.

But she did a good enough job to find the other DNA so I think that there's a presumption that she did a competent job here. If someone thinks that she didn't do a competent job, then the defense would need to verify that the DNA matched one person like the driver.

roper said...

Levicy's background and level of experience are highly relevant, in that in the early days of this case, much of the rush-to-judgment was based on a blind acceptance of Nifong's alleged "reading of the medical report".

We can assume that it is likely that Levicy's "report" was in some manner distorted, or otherwise misrepresented, by Gottlieb and Nifong. But if such were the case, why has Levicy, nor anyone associated with her department, spoken out? The implication is that Levicy has been complicit, in her own way, in Nifong's misuse of the medical report.

Finally... it seems that there have been an increasing number of posts recently criticizing KC, accusing him of "hatchet jobs", and such, without any substantiation. It is my guess that these posts, which seem to have a surprisingly similar "voice", come from members of the Duke faculty or administraton, who have come to recognize the extreme threat to their ability to conceal their parts in this drama under the searing stage lights of KC's analysis.

They may be okay with KC so long as he limits himself to exposing such bad actors as Nifong, but when he includes also such enablers as Levicy (or members of the Duke administration and faculty) then that becomes "highly unacceptable".

KC... keep up the great work.

Michael said...

Battaglia should just read the complaint (so far) if he doesn't know what Nifong did wrong. I shudder to think of attorneys condoning railroading innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Battaglia seems to imply Nifong got in trouble with the bar because he was "outspoken." Didn't Mr. Nifong got in trouble with the bar because of what he was saying?

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with 6:56 - let's not make assumptions about the ideology of a player in this case we know next to nothing about (and who has not made any public comments). If you want to argue her credentials and qualifications that is one thing - but let's not try and guess her mindset at this stage.

Otherwise, keep up the good work KC!

Anonymous said...

"Could the SANE nurse's inexperience work against the defense in that Nifong could claim that if she was that inexperienced then perhaps she didn't collect the DNA correctly?"

I really do not think that prosecution, in a court of law, will be allowed to argue that their own expert witness did not do a proper job, and that's why they didn't get the results. In US, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Durham, NC is in US.

Anonymous said...

H-S of manages yet again to find people who defend Nifong's conduct. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that defense attorneys are allowed to talk in defense of their clients. On the other hand, prosecutors are not supposed to say things that enhance public condemnation of the accused. And this, I believe, is why Nifong is in trouble with the bar, while defense is not.

Anonymous said...

Question. If member of DPD misrepresented what Levicy told him, would/could/should Levicy come forward and say so? It's being a long time. Could/should/would she make a statement? Can anything be assumed since she didn't come forward (that I know of) and said her statements were misrepresented?

Michael said...

Finnerty's DC Record Cleared

Great news!

Michael said...

Correction: the Judge said he would sign the order that would wipe it off his record but hasn't signed it yet.

Michael said...

Pretty interesting article talking about the climate on campus. Talks about Curtis, the Economics dept and several other things that have been on this blog lately.

Duke leader calls for manners

"It appears they are being pushed by bloggers and pulled by consultants," Haynie said of the administration, "and that's how they're governing."

Anonymous said...

"If you have an argument to support your hatchet-job accusation, why not make it? To me, it does not seem like a hatchet job, but I would certainly consider your argument."

I am the one that posted the original comment. There is a huge difference between going after Nifong and the "players" in this case such and Meehan and going after some low level nurse is a hospital doing her job. Heck, the nurse was still in training.

Now, I have no problem challenging the validity of her findings and it is fair game to challenge how proper the exam was. However, it is way out of bounds and incredibly shoddy reporting to in effect attack her character by strongly suggesting that she has an agenda because she took feminist classes. What if she hadn't take feminist classes but instead was a strong republican? Would KC have reported that she had an agenda to protect rich white boys? There is simply no evidence to support KC's claims.

KC's reporting on the SANE nurse was at best second rate. I think KC has done the absolute best reporting on this case and I agree with 99% of what he has said. But, his excellent reporting does not give him a free pass when his reporting is shoddy.

Also, I think KC doesn't really understand what a SANE nurse does. She is only an expert at gathering the evidence. She is not an expert at interpeting the evidence. Prosecutors try to turn them into one and defense lawyers are usually terrible at attacking this point.

dk

Michael said...

[Brodhead's letter points out that no matter what the university does, it gets criticized. "During these hard months, some have seemed to imply that if you insist on the students' innocence, then you must not care about the underlying issues," he wrote. "Others have seemed to suggest that if you insist on the underlying issues, then you must not care about fair treatment for the students."]

Brodhead could start with a simple apology as could the G88.

Cedarford said...

3:31AM She didn't seek this case, it came to her, and I don't see any reason to trash her for her beliefs unless you can show she acted inappropriately in some way.

This case came to her and her supervising MD. As with other trainees in a wide range of professions, responsibility rests with the supervisor and the responsibility for communicating "opinions" or facts to external parties is done by the supervising person or the supervising person monitoring and approving every spoken or verbal communication the trainee does.

*****************
5:46 So far as I know, or read in this post, she has made no claim to a level of expertise she lacks. She had made no comment about the case at all beyond those required by her job or solicited by authorized investigators. She has not put herself forward in any way. Her behavior has been proper and professional.

Only if Sgt Gottlieb is lying.

What she did was end up being quoted as "the expert examiner, the SANE nurse", saying signs of rape were found - by both the cops and Nifong.
As a not yet qualified trainee, she had no business making comment to media or to police investigators. She wasn't qualified to opine. That should have been handled by her supervising nurse or MD. A person qualified and cleared to go on record.

Someone's ass should be in a sling at Duke Medical Center over this, unless Gottlieb and Himan lied. The "SANE nurse" quote was used to indict. It is the stuff of dreams of sweet legal torts regarding medical malpractice coming...

Because:

It was trainee Levicy that was interviewed by the police, not her attending MD that night, Dr. Julie Manly. And it was "sexual assault expert" & "SANE nurse" Levicy's proclaimation that medical evidence existed that the assault was consistent with rape that formed a key part:

1. Of the reason Gottlieb was able to obtain search warrents on the lacrosse players.
2. Of the grand jury testimony given by Himan and Gottlieb on basis that a major crime alleged, met probable cause standards.
3. Levicy's quote was released and created national news as "SANE rape expert confirms evidence consistent with rape exists."
4. Nifong was repeatedly quoted on assertions "medical evidence points to rape".
5. Some speculation is that the "blunt force consistent with rape" came from a general discussion with another SANE nurse on WHAT in a hypothetical patient would be signs of rape...but Levicy made no effort to protest her linkage to the evaluation, being named on search warrants as the authority that had concluded "injuries consistent with rape"

Where Dr. Manly was in all this aftermath is unknown. Where Duke Medical was in letting a trainee employee's words become the Duke Medical statement of record instead of her qualified supervisor that night, Manly, is unknown.

Anonymous said...

At 8:14, Anonymous said...

"I completely agree with 6:56 - let's not make assumptions about the ideology of a player in this case we know next to nothing about"

I guessing you didn't mean lacrosse player(s).

It appears K.C. has laid a trap for all of those quick to judge the defendants in this case, and they stepped in it quicker than their rush to judgment of the defendants.

Anonymous said...

The "Perfect Storm" analogy comes to mind. While I am sympathetic to those who would refrain from dragging yet another person into this, it is very interesting to see how there is at least the possibility of some amount of unconcious bias here. It is also very dubious that the DA would try to bring a novice in as an expert witness.

If one assembled this cast of characters for a work of fiction, most would find it beyond belief.

The thing that makes this important is that it is really the only thing any unimpeached witness has said that comes anywhere close to corraborating that something happened. Of course it is probably not going to come to this but the history to date does not inspire confidence. Also, there is a much more likely scenario for how any injury of this nature came about.

One could leave the name off, but then there are those who would be less likely to be convinced. I tend to agree that these people are beyond convincing, or beyond admitting it anyway.

Anonymous said...

9:07 - I am 8:14 and I have supported the accused in this case from the very beginning. I have written several letters to the Herald Sun, to members of the Duke administration and to members of the Group of 88 explaining to them my criticisms of their actions in this travesty. I read KC's blog every day and feel he is owed an enormous debt of gratitude for the spotlight he has shown on this case and the hideous actions of those responsible for the hoax (primarily Nifong and the AV). The point of my post earlier this morning is that, to date, I have not read anything about the SANE nurse (in training) that would lead me to believe she is an enabler. Inexperienced? Yes. As another poster noted, she is inexperienced by definition. But she has not made any attempt to "Nifong" these players that I am aware of as of this date. And I do not think we should assume that she will simply because she is a Women's Studies major.

GPrestonian said...

9:04 Cedarford:

"4. Nifong was repeatedly quoted on assertions "medical evidence points to rape"."

Reports on FR & LS were that Nifong commented on (and mischaracterized) the contents of the SANE report even before it was printed. Suggests either inappropriate discussion w/ SANE nurse or Manley, or an outright lie.

Horrified said...

''We can't really determine what the nurse's ideology is'.

True.

But we can speculate.

Fortunately, we have experts among us who can spot a "right wing wacko" a mile away.

Here's the question: How many "right wing wackos" do you know that have degrees in women's studies and produce the "Vagina Monologues"?

Being a right-blog-hooligan-winger, I must confess that I don't know any. I do know people that have read, watched, appeared in, or seem to live the Vagina Monologues. And none of them want to go to Republican committee meetings with me. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

I am a reconstructive pelvic surgeon. The report of vaginal edema does not warrant a statement of blunt force trauma. All of the early statments by police and others stating the exam showed evidence of rape were inflamatory and just plain wrong. Much of the early emotional reponse to the rape was based on this erroneous information. I would doubt that the nurse had seen the inside of 100's of normal vaginas. Therefore I doubt that her report of edema is credible. The nicest thing to say about her is that she is just inexperienced. Perhaps if a true expert had looked into the vagina he would have found it to be more compatible with that of an experienced sex worker. Her impact on this case has been monumental. The defense will have a field day with her.

Anonymous said...

I agree with those who believe this one went too far.

Legitimate was the reports of experts in having inexperienced nurses to SANE testing. This is Duke's fault, not Levicy's. The Gottlieb report is laughable on its face, based on both its writer and its not being contemporaneous to the facts it describes.

Saying that Levicy, by nature of her undergrad, has a similar bent as the exposed members of the group of 88 is pure speculation. We attack the group of 88 for what they wrote, we attack Anderson and Curtis for what they wrote.

I have serious doubts that all women's studies students look for rapes where none occurred. I doubt that they all throw morality to the wind if they get the opportunity to push their (fill in the blank) agenda.

Bill Anderson, you have no idea if her ideology crosses that line from 'feminist' to 'feminazi'? Are all people who watched 'The Vagina Dialogues' complicit in this event? All are unable to extract ideology from guilt/innocence?

Treat her as an individual. And fairly.

Anonymous said...

Great work, KC..

If I'm ever accused of raping somebody, I don't want the SANE nurse to be a femininst with an agenda.

It's just terrifying, what's going on in Durham.

It used to be we should research the schools and job opportunities before moving to a new community. Now, I wonder if we should research the authorities too!

AMac said...

The critical reading skills of anonymous commenters seem to be a bit low this morning. Starting with #1, the 12:20am.

Restated, the "hatchet job" theme is, "KC, you shouldn't be bringing up these points." Reasons include:

1. Johnson is a mouthpiece for the defense, a shill.
2. Levicy's privacy is being invaded and/or her feelings hurt.
3. Levicy's lack of experience is irrelevant.
4. Levicy's behavior isn't the core injustice of the case.
5. Hints from Levicy's past as to her ideological stance are irrelevant.
6. Levicy's exam is irrelevant if the case doesn't go to trial, which it won't.
7. Johnson is being unseemly, is engaged in a sisyphean struggle, can't see shades of gray.

Put that way, the charges peing preferred against Johnson are pretty lame. See Cedarford's 9:04am for amplifications of some of the specifics raised in the body of the post.

Johnson has been clear from his early posts at the web-log "Cliopatria" that he sees the importance of this case as going well beyond what happens in court. It is a story of how institutions respond to crisis: regrettably, it has largely been a story of institutional failure.

As an academic, "The Academy" has been Johnson's bete noire. But why must he limit himself to the Courts and the University? Duke University Medical Center is a part of this story as well.

How is DUMC's performance to be evaluated if its employees' roles are off-limits on the grounds of propriety, etc.? Absent such information, how can the DPD's role be properly understood?

Hatchet-jobbers:

-- Have as much faith in others' reading comprehension skills and discretion as you have in your own.

-- Focus on what KC Johnson really should be delivering to his readers. Assertions that are factual, and sourced. Inferences that follow logically from the facts. Speculations and musings that can be seen as what they are, not dressed up as Facts or Inferences.

(In my opinion, Prof. Johnson fell down in his recent post Curtis-Gate, where the sources of the facts he recites are not shared with readers.)

This post, "Tara Levicy," gets another "A".

Kilgore said...

Thank you Bill Anderson for your post at 6:48 which spoke my own thoughts better than I could have written them.

Ideology in this case is critical. Her past in women's studies and association with the Vagina Monologues tells us important information about her view of the world. This view was sure to impact her work as a sane nurse.

Notice the attack is pointed at KC personally not at the evidence or content. This is so typical.

Thanks KC for all you do.

Anonymous said...

"I am a reconstructive pelvic surgeon. The report of vaginal edema does not warrant a statement of blunt force trauma."

I do not believe that the SANE nurse says in her written report that the vaginal edema is consistent with blunt force trauma. I think that this is an assertion attributed to her by the investigating police officer. Although I am only speculating, I think the police officer was lying when he attributed this statement to the nurse or was at least reading what he wanted to hear into a perhaps more nuanced statement by the nurse.
My wife is an RN and I am very much aware that nurses tend to be very careful about making official statements that exceed their expertise.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me what KC is writing about the SANE nurse is only what would come up at trial were she to testify for the prosecution. I think KC is just giving us what the defense would bring up to impeach her testimony. No reason for us not to know it now even if it seems unfairly critical of the nurse.

KC Johnson said...

A quick response to some of the rather odd criticisms:

Re what a SANE nurse does/"trashing" Levicy/timing of post:

This post came as a result of two highly critical posts of Levicy at Forensics Talk, a blog run by a person with decades of experience as a SANE nurse who runs her own SANE nurse consulting firm. I think she knows what she's talking about.

Re Levicy as a witness: the prosecution has claimed a desire to want to call her as an expert witness.

Finally, last spring Nifong repeatedly said that her report was going to be his main evidence at trial. To me, that means she's relevant.

Anonymous said...

Maybe some of you don't remember how many people (bloggers, talking heads, etc) in the beginning claimed the allegations of rape were likely true because the accuser was said to have injuries consistent with rape. So, of course discussion of the SANE exam and the person who performed it, and what she said or didn't say is important to this case.

Anonymous said...

4:24 am,

"will you people please wake up? you have been reading this blog for months and surely it should be evident by now that;

1.KC Johnson is nothing but a shill for the defense and especially for the LAX families

2.he is very un-objective about this case and will villify anyone with a dissenting view about it"

I laughed out loud. what are you doing up early morning criticizing KC? We dont need a blog to comprehend the injustice done to the defenders. Look, like a majority of folks, I felt like these lax kids must be guilty of something, but the way this is unfolding is a great travesty to our legal system.

state your case for nifong. KC has been very objective throughout.

~a yankee

Anonymous said...

I believe a lot of people are commenting yesterday and today who have not closely followed the case and who have quite a bit of reading to do to catch up with the pertinent and available public information on this matter.

To the commenter concerned that Mr. Nifong has been singled out for censure from a host of attorneys who have been bad actors in this case, I have these points:
1. Mr. Nifong's ethical duties are completely different than those of the defense attorneys. To understand how, read the NC Code of Professional Responsibility or go back to posts from KC Johnson on this subject. The defense attorneys have done NOTHING wrong. They have performed their jobs very well.
2. Mr. Nifong's public comments and claims were consistently false. Those of the defense attorneys were consistently true.
3. Read the complaint against Mr. Nifong from the Bar. That barely scratches the surface of what Mr. Nifong has done wrong in this case.

To those concerned that KC Johnson has unfairly criticized Nurse Levicy's professionalism, please read the very thorough and informative analysis provided by Kathleen Eckelt. She has written numerous essays on this case. If you find anyone of similar expertise whose thinking differs materially from Ms. Eckelt's, we would be most interested to hear it.

Ms. Levicy's educational and ideological backgrounds and level of experience are completely relevant to our understanding. Ms. Levicy IS in a pickle. Read and compare the SANE report to Sgt. Gottlieb's report. It is NOT professional to make comments to Sgt. Gottlieb a week after the exam that include information not recorded in the SANE report. If Ms. Levicy actually made them, defense lawyers will make mincemeat of her comments and her professionalism--as they should! And, if she did not make them, Sgt. Gottlieb fabricated them. And if Sgt. Gottlieb, who already looks completely incompetent because of his multi page report (1)produced months after the alleged incident (2)almost entirely from memory (3)contradicted by the contemporaneously written and timely filed reports from his fellow police officers, fabricated these comments, he loses ALL credibility and probably his job. Let's hope that if this happens, the DPD understands the reasons for this outcome and does not hold it against Ms. Levicy.

If Ms. Levicy did make these comments to Sgt. Gottlieb, we all want to know why she acted so unprofessionally. Prof. Johnson is trying to help us understand why she may have done this: (1) inexperience and (2) ideology. He is not "trashing" her because of her inexperience; it is simply a fact that has to be taken into account. And, although we cannot be absolutely sure of her ideology based on her affinity for Women's Studies, the Vagina Monologues, and comments to wilderness explorers, it IS relevant information that provides valuable context for those of us trying to follow the case and its nuances. As Bill Anderson so aptly notes, ideology has driven an extraordinary amount of unprofessional and unethical conduct by numerous people related to this case.

Finally, since this is NOT the New York Times, 12:20 AM and others of the same view, you have found a fantastically nimble formum for argument and discussion. You will find that Prof. Johnson is most honorable and gracious. The facts simply favor the defense.... overwhelmingly. If you actually find some that do not, we are all ears.

Observer

RK483 said...

Comments from Kilgore and others who claim that they know Ms. Levicy's ideology because of her college major or activities are committing the same sort of group prejudice that the worst of the 88 have demonstrated. We Duke 3 supporters rightly criticized the Group of 88 for their assumptions that white males who play a sport like lacrosse are all just privileged objectifiers of women. But we know from the Coleman report that this is simply not true. So then how can KC and Kilgore and others presume to know from Ms. Levicy's college major or participation in the Vagina Monologues that she is a radical man hating feminist? How is that any different than what the 88 did? And it is an even worse leap of judgment to assume, as Kilgore did, that her ideology would impact her performance of her professional duties. I believe KC has referred to himself somewhere as a centrist democrat. Shall we then assume that less moderate democrats or republicans are graded poorly in his classes because they don't conform to his ideology? Let's have the decency to assume the best in people until we have evidence otherwise. If the 88 had done so we would all be better off.

For now, Ms. Levicy entire role in this case was to note diffuse vaginal edema and some scratches on Crystal, which appears to be a pretty honest and accurate description from what we know based on the photos of that night and the activities Crystal engaged in shortly before. Gottlieb we already know is a liar from his contradiction of Himan. So if we want to review Ms. Levicy’s level of experience and whether that qualifies her as an expert or whether her report on Crystal should be relied upon, that's all fair game. But let's not stoop to the 88's level by painting Ms. Levicy with an ideological brushe because of what school she went to, what she studied or what her extracurricular activities were. After all, even Kyle Dowd and one other lacrosse player took a class taught by Kim Curtis...does that make THEM radical feminists!?

I believe KC is a hero. He lends credence to the old adage that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Through this blog, KC has refused to "do nothing" as Nifong railroaded these young men and he deserves the gratitude of all of us who believe in justice. So defenders of this particular post by KC can save the straw man arguments that us critics of it are merely apologists for Nifong or the Group of 88. Even our heroes can be wrong once in a blue moon, and I think KC is wrong here and he should reconsider parts of this post as it relates to the assumptions about Ms. Levicy's ideology. Let her lack of experience be fair game, but until she opens her mouth and expresses some ideological bent like Houston Baker, Kim Curtis and the rest of the potbangers, let's leave that out of it.

DK said...

For a moment, let's just forget whether Levicy is fair game or not and focus of on a couple of KC's arguments.

premise: Levicy took feminist classes
premise: Levicy produced the Vagina Monologues
Premise: Feminists are incapable of clear and fair thought
Implied Conclusion: She is unfit and incapable of being neutral.

That is very weak sauce. If you are going to attack down this line you need to make a much stronger connection as you can't get to the conclusion for KC's premises. KC provides no factual basis, expert quotations, etc. to support this. His whole argument seems to hinge on, "anyone who is a feminist is incapable of logical and fair thought". Can I extend this and say that no judge who is a Democrat is fit because they cannot be impartial? KC is using the same ad hominen type attack that he criticized others for.

premise: Levicy took woman studies
premise: Woman studies produced the group of 88
conclusion: Levicy should be lumped in with the group of 88

This one is too easy. The second premise is a mess and there is no way to get to the conclusion from the premises.

Also, KC should be scolded for sloppiness and incompleteness for not telling us what a SANE nurse does. In fact, I would assume he does not know. They are evidence collectors. They do not make conclusions whether there is sexual assault or not. Certainly, the prosecutor tries to turn them into one - but they are not.

My wife used to be a SANE nurse (she is a labor and delivery nurse now) so I know a bit about the subject. She wore this beeper and when it went off she would go to the hospital. It always freaked me out when that beeper went off because it meant something really bad may have happened to someone. She would go down to the hospital and scramble for 3-4 hours to get everything done and to follow every procedure while at the same time try to be gentle with the potential victim. There were lots of evidence activities to do and there were lots of documents to fill out. There is no time for any ideology as it is simply not the type of job were you advocate anything. It is simply evidence gathering.

My wife also testified at many trials and she never once said it was or wasnt sexual assault. I believe she has been asked a few times if the evidence was consistent with rape to which she answered yes because she intuitively thought it was. The defense (usually public defenders) never crossed with the brutal - "what training do you have in determining what is or isnt rape?" to which he answer is "none".

There are many strong ways to attack SANE nursing but KC doesnt' hit on any of them and instead goes after some nurse in training because she produced the vagina monologues. wow.

duke09parent said...

I agree with 6:56 am.

From the beginning the words "consistent with rape" seemed almost neutral to me. It could be consistent with a few other activities, which we know now occurred. It was the prosecution and its supporters who turned that phrase into proof of rape, not Levicy.

NC lawyers would be able to tell you what is required to qualify as an expert. The state's statutes and court decisions will already have addressed that. It could be that in the eyes of the court she could qualify to give opinions (i.e. be an expert witness) although the value of her opinions would be subject to question and perhaps for the weight of her evidence. If so, whether to believe her or a defense expert (to the extent they may differ) might be up to a jury.

However, no one knows now whether Levicy will try to make conclusions which go beyond the modest level of her expertise. If she tries to become an advocate for CGM and tries to pass herself off a highly qualified expert, then her ideology and past would be fair game for cross-examination. But if she just stays to the facts of her observations, she would be supportive of the defendants' theory of the case. The lawyers have to make that judgment when she testifies. And they have to be ready for either a destructive (of credibility) or supportive cross-examination, whichever makes sense at the time. It's too early to accuse, but not too early to be prepared.

Unless there is evidence of her advocacy of the idea that women never lie about rape, there is little reason to believe she is "one of those". Her past education may have led her to her occupation and many of us have pointed out that a false accusation harms the cases of those women who are truly raped. She may see as part of her mission to sort out the false from the true. The experienced SANE nurses seem to say that.Her views on whether women ever lie about rape may have been informed by what happened since she did this exam.

If Levicy denies she told Gottlieb what he says she said, I know who I'll believe. Gottlieb is close to being persona non grata to the DA's office (once Nifong is gone) already.

Anonymous said...

The real issue is the divergence of Levicy's written SANE report, and Gottlieb's record of her verbal statements to him. As I see it, there are three possible scenarios that account for this discrepancy, and in one of them her ideology is germane.

In the first (and in my opinion, most likely) scenario, Ms. Levicy observes the injuries noted in her written report, and verbally gives that same information to Gottlieb. He then juices the account up when Nifong demands something he can take to the judge for the DNA warrant. Ms. Levicy does nothing dishonest or unprofessional. Only Gottlieb has done something wrong here.

In the second, Ms. Levicy notes extensive indications of rape during her exam, and relays that information to Gottlieb. However, she only documents a few minor injuries. Here, both Gottlieb and Levicy are honest, but her professional performance is completely unacceptable, and the prosecution must impeach her written report somehow. I consider this scenario least likely, since all nurses (regardless of experience or speciality) know that the chart is the legal record of all thier actions and must be complete.

The last scenario is the most interesting. Ms. Levicy made her exam and found the injuries noted in her written report, and relayed that information to Gottlieb. Gottlieb gives this information to Nifong, but Nifong insists that Gottlieb produce a new written report (destroying any notes taken before) that will give him enough to get a broad search warrant for DNA, which will surely uncover the guilty. Gottlieb goes back to Levicy, explaining that those hooligans and thugs will get away with it unless they can get DNA samples. Tara spices things up a little bit, convinced that the DNA will make this such a slam dunk that her report will never come up. In this scenario, Gottlieb is not technically lying, but he knows better. Levicy's ideology comes into play, because a true believer in the ultra-feminist orthodoxy would have no problem fudging a statement if it uncovered the "greater truth" of male misogyny.

Anonymous said...

To 12:20 AM's many permutations :

If Gottlieb's rendition of Levicy's comments were untrue, why did she not publicly refute them? And if they are true, why did she not put them in her report?

I believe Levicy's report/commentary is perhaps the number 1 (aong several) factor that gave this hoax the long legs it had: the escort's testimony buttressed by the SANE nurse's observations.

If it wasnt her ideology that kept this going than what was it? Please explain, Mr. Brodhead Shill !

Anonymous said...

Certainly you can have some idea of a person's ideology by knowing the underf grad major. I once wrote a tongue in cheek article,"The Importance of Being Fuzzy" where the co author and I had students rate majors for degree of difficulty and asked how they voted in the preceeding preseidential election.The less rigorous majors (social sci,gender studies) were overwhelming ly Democratic.And we restricted our pool to whites because we didn't want to have selection problems.So,she has a probability of certain beliefs-increased by her Vagina Monolog spiel.Does this mean she can't be honest -or even objective?Of course not.
Here's the kicker .Can she be competent?No.I don't think she's even a graduate nurse /NP.I can't imagine why she was doing an unsupervised exam.She will be roasted if she tries to claim expertise.Either,she represented herself as someone with expertise to gain a feeling of accomplishment,or someone was brain dead enough to ask her to do this. I didn't feel competent to know what I was seeing/feeeling until I was a 3rd year resident,and even then there was an attending phuysician within the hospital or delivery suite at all times.
Corwin

Anonymous said...

I did think the post did a disservice to anyone not familiar with the case in that it suggests that we can rely on the law enforcement officers'/prosecution's accuracy as to statements made by her, without the context that many of such statements have proven to be false in this case. It also, I think, does not put into context her article regarding getting comfortable using the word vagina. This was contained in an article addressed to leaders of wilderness expeditions in the context of emphasizing the importance of leaders becoming comfortable discussing issues of feminine hygiene/medical problems so that potential problems on wilderness trips can be resolved or avoided. I think this lack of context is troublesome when discussing an individual who may well have approached this examination with all the objectivity one could wish. Certainly, I know a number of women with very similar backgrounds who are as aware of the existence of false rape claims, and the problems such claims create, as anyone.

Anonymous said...

12:23-Someone at Durham Access 9drunk tank) asked Crystal if she had been raped - not Nurse Tara. Nurs Tara was responsible for noting any physical injuries present on Crystal (non bleeding closed wound is an indication of an old injury). Its not a written report - its a printed form with questions - from what i have read Nurse Tara made no comment on rape - nor is her job to do so. The real report is what did the two Medical Doctors observe. This nurse in no way represented herself as an expert in anything.

Anonymous said...

12:55 Nurses order nothing - the Medical Doctor does the ordering and nurses follow through on their orders. Can anyone get a copy of Duke Hospitals on the rape kit protocal?

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson 6:48 AM:

I have grown to expect better from both you and KC. To assume either of you know much, if anything, out her ideology is a stretch…

You too are starting to sound like a shill for the defense, and I am absolutely of the belief that the three are being railroaded, that the DPD, Nifong, G88, MSM types like W. Murphy, Cash, el al are worth of intense scorn...

.. but this is unjustified and an unfounded hatchet job.

Kilgore said...

RK - I can understand your concern. Let me ask you a question. If a situation involved a black man who was evaluated by a hospital employee for judicial proceedings and the employee was later found out to be a card carrying member of the KKK would you feel that the employee's ideology might impact his worldview?

The situations are not that different. Feminism has been exposed as a hate group it just hasn't been identified by MSM as such. An interesting take on this idea here.

Here's what some feel comprises a hate group.

**Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
**Propagates discrimination against the target group
**Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
**Teaches that the target group is a threat
**Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
**Tolerates violence towards the target group

My understanding says that feminism fits those criteria pretty well. The linked site above goes into detail about why feminism should be considered a hate group. I can't disagree with his points.

Anonymous said...

1:28 I believe this is a valid criticism. Nurae Levicy will testify that all her written answers is what she observed. Joe is to smart to harass her. I doubt anyone in the DPD cares about her. She is probably already gone from NC.

Anonymous said...

4:24am
Writing a well supported blog, such as KC has done,is to invite discussion (such as you have done),why would KC write anything that doesn't support his own view? (if you want to write a different view, you are certainly free to do so). Putting forth his ideas sparks responses of all kinds (such as yours). It is no more a waste of KC's time, than your own...
It may not matter at all what the SANE nurse noted, now that the FA says she wasn't raped, but just the same, this is a wonderful forum for discussion and exchange of ideas, KC ignites diverse thoughts from his writing,and enlightens many with the work he has done on this forum.

Anonymous said...

5:36 If you are a physician, then you know that the folk ordering tests are the Medical Doctors. If the Nurse had been ordered to take samples or it was in the protocal, she would have done. No matter what you people think, nurses are handmaidens and only follow MD orders and hospital protocals.

Anonymous said...

9:35:
"If I'm ever accused of raping somebody, I don't want the SANE nurse to be a femininst with an agenda"
Ditto!
That's part of the reason why we go through a jury selection process! Potential jurors are quickly eliminated if their "agenda" or mindset would in any way effect the outcome of the case. People (no matter what profession) often can only see things through their own thoughts and beliefs. If left to interpret their own observations, it is only natural that people will do it according to their own ideals, values & morals.What other means of interpretation do we have? That's why OJ is walking free...that jury had a mindset that destroyed the outcome of that trial.

Anonymous said...

WEll apparently KC has now stepped on some tender toes. He is pointing out only what many people have known from their college days, that is that womens studies and ethnic studies classes are a Wonderland. Taking one ( like I did where our Professor assigned text was the manifesto "Our Bodies Ourselves" ) certainly does not make you an ideologue. However a major in this quite subjectively graded group of studies has been steeped in this stuff for 4 years. Indoctrination has been quite thorough and perhaps complete.

Viewing the play Vagina Monologues is also a bit different than producing it. More steeping of the brew.

Anyway is she an ideologue? I have no idea. My antenna has been raised though, given that some of the most hate filled people I have met in my 50 some years have been folks who fervently believe the "crap" that is spooned out in large portions in gender and ethnic based study programs. I would certainly like to know.

If the truth hurts, you can have the same type and form of apology that the gender and ethnic based profs in the Group of 88 have offered the falsely accused. In other words stick it where the sun dont shine.

AMac said...

Late at night, a woman under the influence of alcohol/drugs is brought to DUMC by the police after claiming she had been raped.

What are the standard procedures at DUMC for this not-uncommon event?

Are they in accord with best medical and forensic practices?

Were they followed in this case?

Did the written or verbal reports made by DUMC employees have an effect on how the case was subsequently handled?

I don't think that complete answers to all of these questions are in the public record.

DUMC might have fallen short of its own standards. Or not: I don't know.

Having a trainee SANE nurse involved in such a case strikes me as wholly unremarkable. After all, this is how beginners gain experience.

Having the trainee write the report and (apparently) communicate orally with the police seems very unusual.

Other possible issues include the nature of her supervision, the qualifications of her (physician, not SANE nurse) supervisor, whether the supervisor was physically present for the exam, and what roles the supervisor played in preparing and signing the final report.

Tara Levicy is vulnerable to scrutiny because of her role that night. But--as a trainee--she is by definition not responsible if she followed protocol as best she could.

What were the specifics of Levicy's supervision? What role did Levicy's superviser play in writing and signing off on the written report? Did Levicy take on a bigger role than her position allowed? Who communicated additional information to the police?

On the issue of institutions' performances over the course of the Hoax, these questions seem worth asking. In my opinion, Kathleen Eckelt's post and this KC Johnson post provide information that is key to developing some answers.

Horrified said...

A false comparison has been employed several times. It claims that KC's assertion is that any participation in womens studies must lead to ideological bias. This is then compared to the bias that since the players are white, and are on the lacrosse team, then they must be violent rascist criminals.

My understanding is that KC is questioning whether ideological bias crept into the decision making process of this nurse, while noting a DEGREE (not merely a class)in women's studies. He also cited participation in a production of the Vagina Monogloges. Ideological bias has manifested itself on the part of most Duke faculty, its administrators and some 'civil rights' leaders. In these cases, their professional conduct was most certainly impaired by that bias.

Also, I don't see any passages where he claims this bias to be a fact. I can cite multiple instances where the 'villiany' of the lacrosse players has been treated as fact (consider Brodhead's "underlying causes", and "unsavory activities").

This was asserted only after experts in this field have questioned this part of the investigation.

We should be able to approach law enforcement, university personnel and medical professionals with the knowledge that they are acting as professionally as possible. The alternative has produced and prolonged this mess.

We should be able to question the qualifications of a witness, and understand motives. We should also do so in a civil manner. To that end, we shoud look at Duke University, and then do the opposite of what they did. We will question, but not vilify. We will speculate, but not demand pyhisical mutilation. We will observe due process, but not condemn. We will attempt to learn the facts of the matter by investigation, not by levelling a shotgun of invective at a group.

Anonymous said...

For months everyone has called Gottlieb and Nifong a "liar". Now, they are telling the truth about the Nurse in training! Who would believe that? KC is a hero to me also,but in this instance I believe he is going after the wrong person. WHERE ARE THE DOCTORS IN THIS DEAL?

Anonymous said...

I am a practicing Emergency Department physician in North Carolina with approximately 20 years of experience, both academic and community-hospital based. During my practice I have had specific experience in the emergency evaluation of sexual assault through my work at a sexual assault treatment center (SATC) in a major metropolitian area in Florida.

One of the first things I was taught during my tenure at the SATC was that the determination of "rape" was a legal matter and not a clinical one. In fact, to prevent any misunderstandings from developing, were were instructed to tell the patient, as well as any law enforcement personel, that we could only say our exam was consistent with recent vaginal trauma or, if a wet prep was performed on-sight and spermatozoa were present, that the exam was consistent with recent sexual intercourse. The only way an examiner could say, with any certainty, that intercourse was non-consensual would have been to have witnessed the assault itself.

It would be exceedingly irresponsible for any health care provider, be it a SANE nurse or a physician, to state that any part of a sexual assault evaluation was "consistent with rape." The determination of forced sexual intercourse is a question which is answered in a court of law, not during a clinical evaluation.

duke09parent said...

Kilgore @11:50

I don't agree that feminism is anywhere close to equivalent to KKK.

The argument of the link you provide is much like Limbaugh's straw man attacks on "liberals". He says liberals believe in X (which he describes in terms of the most ludicrous loopy left ideas imaginable) and therefore all liberals are loopy left and not worthy of belief. I have many liberal beliefs (some conservative too, but more liberal) and what he often says liberals believe in are not what I believe in--nowhere close.

Similarly, your website author says this in regards to the items describing hate groups:

"Now certainly it is easy to show that feminism does all this to men as a group."

Well, no not in my experience. What I would recognize as a feminist does not believe in those things. Oh sure, you can pull stuff from Andrea Dworkin's and Catherine Mackinnon's writings, but they are far from the mainstream of what I would recognize as feminists.

That would be like equating my neighor, who is a Muslim born in Pakistan but who has lived in the U.S. peacefully, honorably and productively for 30 years and who has raised three wonderful young adults to Bin Laden or some other wacky radical muslim fanatic from Pakistan.

I read a lot of Marcuse when I majored in political philosophy in college. Even in the immediate years after I graduated I was hardly a marxist. I read other stuff too and kept learning through life experiences. I would probably be embarrassed now if someone pulled out papers I wrote 30 years ago (could be also I was writing to respond to a professor's biases).

Levicy's educational choices are enough for the defense lawyers to be prepared to use them and to be alert for inappropriate advocacy, but they are not near enough for any of us to draw conclusions about her.

duke09parent said...

Another point on the "consistent with rape" phrase. Does anyone here know if that phrase is in her report.

Consider this hypothetical phone call and following press statement:

Nifong: Ms. Levicy are the conditions you saw consistent with rape?

Levicy: Yes, sir, but they may be consistent with many other activities.

Nifong hangs up and a the end of the day trots out to the press:

Ladies and gentleman, the SANE nurse at the hospital said that the victim's condition was consistent with rape.

Anonymous said...

The SANE nurse in training did not represent herself as a forensic nurse. this is apples and oranges folks. Reading idiology into a 2:20AM observation of injuries is laughable.

Anonymous said...

12:16 says.."I believe he is going after the wrong person"

Then, again, I ask: if Gottlieb did not tell the truth when he said that she told him there was blunt trauma, why did she not speak up when the gag order was lifted? Why the zipped lips??

And perhaps we can agree that if she really did tell him that, then she's created a potential ethical problem for herself?

Why is it illegitimate to probe for answers to this, one of the several perplexing factors in what looks more and more to be a hideous conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

11:28

I'm one of the permutations on 12:20 AM (1:23 AM) so I'll take a swing at an aswer.

"If Gottlieb's rendition of Levicy's comments were untrue, why did she not publicly refute them?"

I expect that these medical records are private and it would be unwise for the nurse to make public comments about any evidence before a trial takes place. I certainly don't fault her for her silence and would say that many others (Mr. Nifong and the Duke 88 in particular) could learn a lesson from it. I also don't see why Mr. Gottlieb's recollections are taken seriously. Someone's memory months after the fact is no replacement for observations which are recorded while they are taking place. Mr. Gottlieb's recollections are probably not accurate enough to be useful as evidence.

Her report wasn't what turned this case into a specticle, Mr. Nifong's actions did that even before he saw the report. I haven't seen anything to indicate she reported anything other than what she observed.

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 11:38AM - The real report is what did the two Medical Doctors observe. This nurse in no way represented herself as an expert in anything.

Unfortunately, that is not true. Somehow, it was the name of the unqualified trainee that formed the basis for judicial issuing search warrants with her name as the expert establishing probable cause that "injuries consistent with rape" happened. Her name was on the warrants, which is why her role was highlighted early on.

Her alleged words were used by Nifong in interviews with media and were a big part of igniting the firestorm by "a sex crimes medical expert" confirming SOMETHING DEFINITELY HAPPENED - SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH RAPE!!

Police claim she spoke to reps on the details as much as she could given HIPAA - not her qualified supervisor.

To which KC's speculations of her background are germane in bringing up a possible motive why she readily talked rather than refer the police to the MD who legally signed for the SANE exam - or a qualified SANE nurse used to dealing with Durham PD.

Now, as those criticizing KC properly say, just being a women studies major and being a producer of feminist theater doesn't PROVE she felt a need to be the victim's champion or such..Nor a fact KC didn't mention - that she worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic doing abortions..but it is background.

amac - Having a trainee SANE nurse involved in such a case strikes me as wholly unremarkable. After all, this is how beginners gain experience.

Having the trainee write the report and (apparently) communicate orally with the police seems very unusual.


Amen. Very unusual. We all in the professions tend to be very touchy of who can or who cannot do work, or speak to external parties. We define "stress" as a dicey situation where you are supervising one or several trainees that you want to see deal with it under your eyes, but with awareness that if it goes from dicey to crap because a trainee screws up, YOU are the responsible person, not the trainee.

And trainees are normally acutely sensitive of what they have or do not have authority to say or do without training supervision's concurrence.

Making the Duke Rape case take on another odd dimension. An unqualified trainee's name shows up as the authority behind justification of court search warrants, in Gottlieb's grand jury testimony, her alleged opinion quoted by Nifong, activists, and the national media. A trainee, who they referred to as the SANE nurse expert..Perhaps the biggest single reason why so many initially believed in Precious. Evidence consistent with rape existed!! (Similar to a coroner attendent trainee telling cops a beached corpse had "injuries consistent with murder" and the next thing you know, media and the DA run it as "Coroners's Office declares evidence exists man on beach was murdered")

Yet not a peep by her to correct the record in case she was misquoted.
Or by Duke Medical to point out she was an unqualified trainee.

Hmmmmmm....don't know what to make of that..Maybe Duke lawyers swept in and told everyone to hush up and let events blow over...

Anonymous said...

Kilgore,
I have considered myself a feminist for at least thirty years, and I really have great difficulty thinking of feminists in general as a "hate group" such as you describe. But your comment has given me a chuckle, nonetheless.
Just as there is much twisted logic in Prof. Brodhead's equating the widespread public condemnation of the LAX team with the criticism directed toward the Duke administration and faculty, there is much twisted logic in equating Prof. Johnson's speculation about Ms. Levicy's ideology based on her educational choices and background and the Group of 88's speculation about the guilt of the LAX defendants of a felony based on characteristics determined by accident of birth and expertise in a sport. Surely, with a little reflection the absurdity of the two comparisons are evident to all. If not, let me know, and I will take the time to explain further.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Julie Manly was only a resident at DUMC.

Levicy was supervised by Manly.

Manly has since moved on to Nash County.

RN said...

12:29, the MD makes an excellent point. The SANE RN report has been often cited as justification for continuation of this hoax. As a former ER RN who was involved in collecting evidence in rape cases, I find it hard to believe that she was willing to confirm that a rape had occurred. KC's hypothesis that her political beliefs colored her judgement is reasonable. I worked with many RNs who let their attitudes affect the care the delivered. Her silence shows that she stands behind her statement or that lawyers have advised her not to speak. Is the report available anywhere online or in the filings?

Kilgore said...

Duke09parent - By the dictionary definition of "feminists" I am certainly also a member of that group. I want all people, both my son and my daughter, to be treated with dignity and respect and offered similar opportunities. I'm sure you want the same. We are far from that state at this point.

Sadly, the dictionary definition doesn't come close to covering what is being taught in many women's studies courses. If you read people like Christina Hoff Sommers you start to see the lines of demarcation between what she terms the "equity" feminists and the "gender" feminists. It is the "gender" feminists who are more hate filled.

About 5 years ago I would have agreed with all that you have said. Since then I have read some women's studies 101 texts, the work of Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, and others including the landmark books by Nathonson and Young Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry and have come to very different conclusions.

I would highly recommend reading "Legalizing Misandry" to get a sense of what I am talking about. Written by academes from McGill University it is truly an eye opener.

Anonymous said...

Only a resident,that involves 4 years of medical school - one year of an internship and 2 to 4 years of a residency. As Manly has moved on, he/she was in the last months of the residency - not an inexperienced Doctor( Manly was in charge). What does the Manly notes say?

Anonymous said...

Only a resident,that involves 4 years of medical school - one year of an internship and 2 to 4 years of a residency. As Manly has moved on, he/she was in the last months of the residency - not an inexperienced Doctor( Manly was in charge). What does the Manly notes say?

Anonymous said...

Many posts have wondered why Levicy wouldn't speak out if she was misquoted by the DPD. Isn't it likely that: 1) she has an attorney that has told her not to speak to anyone; and 2) she HAS spoken to someone just not the press. She would seem to have little to gain personally by doing anything other than keeping a low profile. Would any of you want to jump under the microscpoe that is the Duke Lacrosse Case?

duke09parent said...

"Maybe Duke lawyers swept in and told everyone to hush up and let events blow over."

Absof***inglutely!

I have some experience with hospital lawyers. Somewhere early on when the nurse's "findings" were being trumpeted in the media, I am sure a hospital lawyer met with all the nurses (maybe the doc too) in the hospital administrator's office for a woodshed session. The advice would be something like this: Do not talk to any member of the public about this case and if you are contacted by police, prosecutor or defense lawyer, have them call me. You will meet with them only when I am present.

Anything the nurse said which was false could lead to hospital liability--to the defendants if a false statement went against them or to the accuser if the false statement went against her.

Anonymous said...

12:36 No - Gottlieb said she said " it was constant with rape," I imagine the hospital lawyers have told everyone involved to make no comments on the matter. I am an ED RN also and the only interest my coworkers were interested in was abortion.

AMac said...

June 9, 2006 N&O:

The lawyers argued that the records Nifong gave defense lawyers undercut Himan's claims:
* The accuser told the examining nurse she was not choked.
* The only physical trauma found by the nurse, who was in training, was the scratch and cut.
* The accuser told two doctors that she was assaulted vaginally and mentioned no other assault. She denied being hit.
* The nurse's pelvic examination found swelling in the vagina but no other injuries.
* The nurse made no conclusions or opinions about rape or sexual assault in her report.

Questions arising:

-- Senior resident Dr. Julie Manly was Levicy's supervisor (#11 at Johnsville FAQ). Was Manly qualified for this role?
-- Did DUMC protocol call for Dr. Manly to be physically present for parts of the exam? Was she?
-- What forensic report(s) was/were written and submitted to the police? Who should have written and signed it/them? Who did?
-- What oral reporting was done to the police? Who was authorized to make statements? Who did? What was said?
-- Did Tara Levicy stay within the boundaries prescribed for a senior SANE trainee?

Anonymous said...

9:36:

1. Johnson is a mouthpiece for the defense, a shill.
2. Levicy's privacy is being invaded and/or her feelings hurt.
3. Levicy's lack of experience is irrelevant.
4. Levicy's behavior isn't the core injustice of the case.
5. Hints from Levicy's past as to her ideological stance are irrelevant.
6. Levicy's exam is irrelevant if the case doesn't go to trial, which it won't.
7. Johnson is being unseemly, is engaged in a sisyphean struggle, can't see shades of gray.

This is a rediculous set of premises.

1) I read it, I ignore it. We all read this blog primarily because of his informed, reasoned approach.

2) Her privacy is being invaded. She has done nothing but her job to this point (as far as anybody knows). Therefore, her work product is all that is fair game.

3) I have no clue where this became a non-issue. Her work product is fair game.

4) This is laughable. Levicy could be describing the effects of a vibrator earlier in the evening. The interpretation by the prosecution is the core injustice.

5) Hints from her past are completely irrelevent until something makes it relevent. Please show me where she joined a conspiracy to hide data, share data inappropriatley, whatever.

Her diagnoses can be refuted by experts, If needed, her past can be countered by legal means, if needed.

She has done nothing (that has been revealed that I know of) to make her past a core analysis of this community.

6) Her exam is relevant, and if it goes to court is arguable for its content.

7) Johnson is the King of the Hoax. He has done a great service in his work. I give him a 'we are not worthy' daily.

And for those who lump all feminists in the same bucket, shame on you. There are worlds of difference between opinions and all-cost radicalism if the Curtis variety.

Unless, of course, all lacross players and their coach should be lumped together and excoriated for the supposed actions of a few.

Y'all seem to want it both ways.

duke09parent said...

Kilgore,

Thanks for the reference to the Legalizing Misandry book. ("Misandry" is the hatred of men for folks like me who are not familiar with the term.)

Here is a quote from a review on the Amazon site:

"Nathanson and Young make clear that they only oppose the aspects of feminism that they find to be gynocentric and misandric. In principle at least, there doesn't have to be any conflict between feminism and criticizing sexism against men, unless feminists make one. Indeed, Nathanson's and Young's work on misandry can be seen as an attempt to consistently apply the feminist tools of identifying and analyzing sexism, since so many feminists themselves refuse to do so when men become the objects of sexism."

RK483 said...

Kilgore-
Interesting hypothetical. I believe that your scenario leaves out some important context however that might help better explain where I’m coming from. I would have to know what exactly was in the KKK member's hospital report vs. what do we already know about the black victim's condition from other evidence. Let me explain: In the Duke situation, Levicy’s observation of diffuse vaginal edema and a few scratches are 100% consistent with everything we know about that night from the cell photos and testimony about Crystal's earlier activities. There is simply no hint or suggestion by any party that what Levicy put in her report was anything other than honest reasonable observations. So why are we casting aspersions on her professionalism based on perceived ideology? I just don’t get it. Now, if her report had claimed extensive injuries to Crystal that conflicted with the photos and the DNA evidence, then perhaps in our search to explain such a big discrepancy we could start to explore Levicy's perceived ideology as a possible factor that could motivate her to invent injuries consistent with rape. Indeed, if Levicy was to publicly come out and support Gottlieb’s version of her words, then by all means we should start to pursue this line of inquiry. In fact, I would argue that if she were to come out in support of Gottlieb, that by itself would be much stronger concrete evidence of an ideological bias than any college courses she took. But alas, she has made no such statements (perhaps on the advice of lawyers, so let’s not infer anything from her failure to refute Gottlieb in public either – that would be a pure Mike “only the guilty need lawyers” Nifong move.) So, to get back to your KKK example, my answer is that if neither the black victim, nor the accused perpetrators, nor the defense attorneys nor the prosecutors nor anyone else was claiming that the hospital report was in any way deficient and it did not conflict with any other evidence, then no, I don’t believe that the employee’s KKK affiliation is relevant to anything.

Your hypothetical actually has a close parallel in reality, so let me bring up the example for arguments’ sake. Do you believe that Mark Furhman’s use of the N-word in interviews was an important relevant factor in evaluating OJ Simpson’s actual guilt or innocence? Or do you think the detective’s racist ideology was just a distracting “race card” that was played to influence the jury in the face of overwhelming physical evidence. From the way you asked your hypothetical to me, I am tempted to say that you believe it was relevant in the OJ case.

Finally, while I went along with your hypothetical to clarify my position, I don’t truly believe that feminism and the KKK are necessarily on par in the hate department. I am not an expert on feminist principles, but my understanding is that feminism is not an organized structured group espousing a single body of principles as is the KKK. Rather, I believe you can find a fairly wide range of ideologies under the feminist umbrella, from radical man haters to rather benign proponents of simply equal rights. Which only points to the futility of trying to pigeonhole Ms. Levicy into one of them based on scant evidence.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson:

You are doing a great job.

Keep up the good work.

I look forward to reading your analysis every day.

Sammy Dash

Anonymous said...

12:53PM sez:


I'm one of the permutations on 12:20 AM (1:23 AM) so I'll take a swing at an aswer.

"If Gottlieb's rendition of Levicy's comments were untrue, why did she not publicly refute them?"

I expect that these medical records are private and it would be unwise for the nurse to make public comments about any evidence before a trial takes place. I certainly don't fault her for her silence and would say that many others (Mr. Nifong and the Duke 88 in particular) could learn a lesson from it. I also don't see why Mr. Gottlieb's recollections are taken seriously. Someone's memory months after the fact is no replacement for observations which are recorded while they are taking place. Mr. Gottlieb's recollections are probably not accurate enough to be useful as evidence.


There is another interpretation possible, and that is that Levicy was prepared to use silence to let the DPD's misrepresentation of her statements (if that is what they were) damn those privileged, white, racist, msogynist rapist.


Her report wasn't what turned this case into a specticle, Mr. Nifong's actions did that even before he saw the report. I haven't seen anything to indicate she reported anything other than what she observed.


Well, not really. The claims that the DPD attached to the report were just as instrumental in the creation of this preversion of justice as any other actor or action, in my view.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to a large pdf file containing a Development & Operation Guide for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. It was apparently produced and distributed by the US DOJ a few years ago. I had to break up the URL because of spacing.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc
/publications/infores/sane/saneguide
.pdf

Kilgore said...

Hi RK - Thanks for your post. I hope you don't think I was trying to pigeonhole the sane nurse in my comments. My observation was meant to simply applaud KC for adding the fact that she is a women's studies graduate to our understanding of who she is. In this circumstance I think that knowing that information is relelvant. I make no claims about her report or its accuracy. I think I have erred by saying "This view was sure to impact her work as a sane nurse." I apologize for this statement considering it clearly implied that she made some sort of error or was intentionally trying to send the lax boys up the river. That is not what I meant. My intention was to point out that her work would likely be colored by her ideology and assumptions based on that ideology. Is it possible for a feminist sane nurse to be fair and evenhanded? Of course.

You are correct about the diversity of feminism. It is sad though that most of those who are pushing for legislation or running women's studies departments are also those who have a good dose of misandry. If you don't believe me have a look at the domestic violence industry. Feminists are battling to maintain their billion dollar a year funding AND to insure that men who are victims of domestic violence don't get funding. I was involved in the VAWA renewal and seeking aid for male victims and was shocked by what I saw. If you aren't familiar with the situation...peer reviewed research clearly shows that men are 38% of the seriously injured victims of domestic violence yet they recieve ZERO services and are left to rot or worse yet are blamed for their partners violence and jailed. It's a real mess. domestic violence studies

I am not sure about your question about OJ. I think I have forgotten most of the details of that one. If it is important that I respond to that please help me understand what you are asking.

Kilgore said...

Duke09parent - Your quote from the Misandry book is no surprise. One of the authors, Katherine Young, is a feminist.

Read the book and you will get a birds eye view of how feminism has been twisted and now has become something it was never meant to be.

per said...

I really don't see how you can justify your commentary on Levicy; particularly, I think it is unfair to castigate the nurse, because of comments by Gottlieb. I am not aware that there is enough in the public domain that allows criticism of the nurse's actions/ statements.

Being cynical, if Nifong hasn't called her as a witness, one would want to know why. I think your assumption that her testimony will be adverse to the LAX players needs examination. She may well provide information favourable to the defence; for example, she may well have been able to develop a view on the accuser's sobriety, or testify as to the accuser's conversation.

I also fail to see that the pathology that the nurse saw necessarily represents an adverse finding.

per said...

kc said:
"If forensic nurse specialists start saying it's normal procedure to have a nurse-in-training give an unsupervised exam; or say things to a sergeant that she doesn't put in her report, I'll take note of this development."
Neither of these is a criticism of the nurse (necessarily). If durham has a different procedure for sane nurses, or were short-staffed, that isn't the nurse's fault. Likewise, you seem to be relying on Gottlieb's accuracy; not a trait you have previously displayed.

Anonymous said...

anon at 9:33AM sez:


The report of vaginal edema does not warrant a statement of blunt force trauma. All of the early statments by police and others stating the exam showed evidence of rape were inflamatory and just plain wrong. Much of the early emotional reponse to the rape was based on this erroneous information.


Well said.

Anonymous said...

With rape statistics higher/100,000 people than New York City, Durham is not new to rape...Nifong knows this is not how rape cases are handled.
http://losangeles.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Durham&s1=NC&c2=New+York&s2=NY

duke09parent said...

For students of trial practice the Fuhrman portion of the OJ case is fascinating. Fuhrman was the officer who found both gloves (one at the murder scene, the other at Simpson's home), much of the blood drops at Simpson's home, and who entered Simpson's estate without a search warrant due to exigent circumstances.

I remember when Nicole Simpson's murder hit the news and the LA cops went into the house without a warrant. I wondered WTF did they need to do that for? Getting a warrannt under the circumstances would neither be difficult nor necessary to preserve evidence since OJ was out of town.

The defense needed to find a way to discredit Fuhrman and to support their theory that OJ was singled out and framed for racial reasons.

Here's the wikipedia entry on him, which is fascinating to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

Fuhrman was recorded for 15 hours by a screenwriter who was trying to develop a film and Fuhrman apparently was to be the consultant for the police angle. Whether he was just trying to talk tough to get the gig or really did do the things he talked about on the tape, he certainly use the taboo "N" word several times.

OJ's defense team had the tapes before they cross examined Fuhrman.
F.Lee Bailey's cross was at once pompous, overbearing and devastating. "Are you telling me, Marine to Marine detective Fuhrman, that you have never used the word nigger in the last ten years?" "That's what I'm telling you." "Are you as sure about that statement as you are about everything else in your testimony, detective Fuhrman?" "Yes, I am."
OK, now play the tapes, a treasure trove of stories of police abuse towards blacks.

Johnnie Cochrane, in defense to those who criticized him for playing the race card, wrote that the prosecution was as guilty of that as anyone by making Fuhrman the center of their case.

Anonymous said...

12:53 says,

"it would be unwise for the nurse to make public comments about any evidence before a trial takes place. I certainly don't fault her for her silence and would say that many others (Mr. Nifong and the Duke 88 in particular) could learn a lesson from it. I also don't see why Mr. Gottlieb's recollections are taken seriously"

The NYT wrote a long apologia based on Gottlieb's piece; you dont think that's "serious"? Why wouldnt she want to correct the record if Gottlieb lied about her? That certainly would have put a kibosh on what was left of his credibility, wouldnt it have ?

Isnt it fascinating how the only people that shouldn't be so "unwise" as to speak out are the ones who could tell the TRUTH and help free these boys from their persecution?? There was no obvious reticence on the parts of Nifong(even after the gag order), the Gang of 88 and other talking heads from spouting their "opinions", so why couldnt a major actor in this farce have spoken up to set the record straight? All she needed to say was.."Gottlieb is a liar". And leave it at that.

I think the truth may be that she is a part of this conspiracy of intentional misdirection. I say "may" because I don't know for sure. But surely it's worthy of investigation, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

I like the post and don't think it goes too far. It is delicate yes, but in this case it does look like ideology is important, especially feminist ideology. I do feel bad for the nurse but I do have to admit things don't look good for her. I actully don't think it would have been fair in this case not to mention her previous degree in woman study as sexual assault is such a big part of this ideology. People can make what they want of this information, it surely does not mean she is guilty but at the same time it is something that is sure to come into questions if there are problems. For sure the defence will bring this up if they suspect bias and they would I think they would be right.

At this point it does look like a few things needs explanation on this front, and I will take it with a grain of salt as usual, but I still feel hidding this information would be wrong.

I do admin to a bit of a bias myself on that point due to an incident that occured 20yrs ago during my first year at the University of Toront. Me and some friends were called rapist by a girl because we were men and all men are rapist. My friends and I were shocked, but one guy in the group was able to explain her statement because his girlfreind took a woman's study class and his girl friend had explained to him what they learn. I guess I'm saying this to both admit my own bias which hopefully will help understanding my comments.

In the end, I am nearly positive that the defense will question them about her ideology because in this unfortunate case it could (but I admit, not necessarily) be relevant. For this reason I beleive KC was right to mention the possiblity and explain the reason, but like many pointed out it does not mean he is right. right now I say its 50/50

RK483 said...

Hi Kilgore,

Your retraction of the "sure to impact her work" statement is most welcome. That was the part I most took issue with in your original post...as it seemed to imply that even if you/KC were correct in guessing Levicy's ideological views (which I don't grant that you are) it was even more of a stretch to assert that it was "sure to" affect her professionalism.

No need to comment on the OJ issue. It was just an interesting example that came to mind of the “is ideology relevant in criminal trials” question. After all, as much as we may debate the issue on this blog, the REAL question it seems to me is, would any judge allow Ms. Levicy’s college major or production of the Vagina Monologues to be considered by a jury when evaluating her credibility as a witness? I think the obvious and correct answer is no, and I think that says alot about the ultimate relevance of KC’s post.

Anonymous said...

3:23 PM

"The NYT wrote a long apologia based on Gottlieb's piece; you dont think that's "serious"? Why wouldnt she want to correct the record if Gottlieb lied about her?"

Nope, Mrs. Levicy, and those who are professionally involved, should stick to presenting the facts in court, not the NYT. It would be better if all involved would have done so. Maybe it's only my memory which is so untrustworthy that I need to write stuff down and I'm just projecting, but I would not expect Mr. Gottlieb's memory is more accurate than the nurse's notes.

"Isnt it fascinating how the only people that shouldn't be so "unwise" as to speak out are the ones who could tell the TRUTH and help free these boys from their persecution??"

No, many of those who have spoken out about the events in this case have ended up looking foolish or being investigated. Mrs. Levicy's statements can't free these boys. I have no reason suspect her medical report, that the AV had a few scratches and signs that she had vaginal sex, isn't accurate.

"I think the truth may be that she is a part of this conspiracy of intentional misdirection. I say "may" because I don't know for sure. But surely it's worthy of investigation, don't you think?"

If there is one thing we should all take away from this case, I'd say that we should not throw out accusations as lightly as Mr. Nifong. If you have any evidence to support this please present it. Someone's political views are not a good reason to accuse them of a crime, and that is all which seems to have come up.

GPrestonian said...

3:50pm rk483:

"...would any judge allow Ms. Levicy’s college major or production of the Vagina Monologues to be considered by a jury when evaluating her credibility as a witness? I think the obvious and correct answer is no, and I think that says alot about the ultimate relevance of KC’s post."

KC's post can be broken down in these simple segments:

1) - Nifong has a list of expert witnesses he expects to call, including Levicy

2) - the defence has filed notice of their intent to call all of Nifong's expert witnesses, except Levicy

3) - here's why the defence won't call Levicy as an expert witness
- ~18 paragraphs dealing w/ her bona fides or lack thereof
- ~ 5 paragraphs dealing with questions as to her ideology

As I & others have pointed out, she would certainly be called as a fact witness - her report is inexorably tied to several early prosecution documents, including warrants, the ID Motion, and the GJ proceedings.

Her college major would certainly pertain were she called as an expert witness, and probably still as a fact witness. Ideology as expert - probably. As fact witness - no.

Most commentors have missed the humor in this situation - Levicy never claimed (apparently) to be an expert. KC certainly didn't make that claim. The defence obviously didn't make it.

Only Nifong has classified Levicy as an expert.

Paul said...

I have to say, this is one of the weakest posts I've read on this blog. Conspiratorial throughout, but the end is a tour de force of ridiculous logical leaps. Women's Studies! The Vagina Monologues! Wilderness Programs! (A shock if America's students are actually showing any stewardship toward the planet, I guess.) Since when does female empowerment automatically lead to collusion in a rape case? It's sloppy of an academic to equate a women's studies department with blanket approval of "feminist law theory." This is similar to saying that history departments are home to Holocaust revisionists. And then to simplify the literature to "women never lie about rape" is basically just lazy. This post did not need to be published.

Anonymous said...

Levicy has never claimed to be a forensic nurse. Kertha articles are interesting but do not relate to what Nurse Tara does, Here is this simple nurse stuck on the night shift,making probably $25.00 an hour being touted as a co-conspirator of Nifongs. Please... Joe and the boys are not looking to hang her. She has been called because she is part of the record,

Raymond said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rk483 said...

gprestonian:

Of course I agree that college major is relevant to establish expertise...my question should have been finer: Would a judge allow it to be used in this case by defense attorneys to establish or suggest Ms. Levicy's "feminism" and thus her bias? Of course not. Can you imagine the circus of testimony citing the works of feminist authors and the percentage of womens studies majors who espouse those views etc? Nor of course would her production of Vagina Monologues be allowed into evidence in any fashion that I can foresee.

As for humor, I just don't see the humor in KC's snarky prediction that she goes back to Maine to deal with more ethical colleagues (more ethical than her? or more ethical than Gottlieb?) or that she will be "doomed" simply for doing the right thing and calling Gottlieb a liar on the stand. We should all hope and pray she does exactly that. It would the right and honorable thing. And if DPD retaliates against her, we should stand by her as we have the Duke 3.

hman said...

I seems likely to me that Levicy did the SANE proceedures and wrote the report by herself. It is often busy in a city ER and OgByn Residents do not like to get tied down with an hours long process if they are not required to be there. Beside, there were no injuries to treat or even diagnose - only to be described in the proper way. And that is what SANE nurses are supposedly best at. So, I see little that is strange about the apparently minimal involvement of the Medical Staff.
I bet that Gottlieb spoke with Levicy directly rather than with the supervising MD because he figured she would be easier to induce her to blurt out the words he needed, "It could have been rape, yes." If she was inclined towards feminist man-hatred, it may have indeed been easier to coax her into saying such words, but that is hard to know. So then Gottlieb and Nifong run to the cameras and tell the world there was a rape based on the SANE report.
I think that this is evidence that they were hoax minded even at this point in time. I do not know their policies at Duke, but I bet SANE trainees are not supposed to chat with COPS -precisely because exact wording matters. It looks to me like Gottlieb and Nifong were even then trying to be selective in where they got information. IOWs, they avoided the written report (by speaking before its limited findings were set in written concrete and they apparently avoided speaking to anyone else who might have poured water on the fire they were trying to fan.
What stinks is that they used Levicy as the expert of record to go to the G.J. with. It is rotten in two ways - she is a trainee not an expert and it means that the actual experts in the local SANE program were deliberately not talked to. I see no other way to read this. The opinion of the senior and ultimately responsible professionals (who are available) are not sought and the second hand verbal version from the student is used exclusively for the legal process.
Only in Durham.

duke09parent said...

I agree with hman. I see no reason to pillory Levicy unless she takes a advocacy stance for CGM and I don't see any evidence that she has or will.

Anonymous said...

4:12 PM,says
"Mrs. Levicy's statements can't free these boys"

Well, as absurd as Gottlieb's manifest was, neither the accuser, nor Hinman nor Nurse Levicy stood up to call him on his "inaccuracies". You think it would have made no difference whatsoever if they had? Nifong had no case without Gottlieb's notes (in particular re: the accusers words). You think Levicy would have put herself in legal jeopardy if she had told the truth (fact, not opinion)?

Thou protesteth too mucheth, I thinketh. The problem with this case is too many "good" people saying NOTHING while a trio of innocents ( of the crime alledged) got victimized and railroaded by the State.

Anonymous said...

Seems like the DUKE Univ trolls are out in force these days!! A clear sign the blogs are having an effect!

The SANE nurse's bias (if any) will come out on cross. Don't ever underestimate what the best defense bar in NC will get to the jury. I just can't wait!!!!!

Anonymous said...

On a different note, I am pleased with the nature of this discussion and fairness of presenting points of view.

Cash Michaels ever get this response from his missives?

AMac said...

After reading these comments (esp. rk483), I have changed my opinion on discussing Levicy's "ideology." I now think it is a spotlight into her private life that is not called for.

In the post, KC Johnson wrote:

"So, upon what (if anything) did Levicy base her opinion? Her seven months’ experience as an RN, of which she had spent almost no time as a SANE nurse? Or her ideology?"

KC earlier noted that "the only 'injury' that Levicy noticed ('diffuse edema of the vaginal walls') appears to have many explanations other than rape..."

The wilderness program newsletter that KC cites is a discussion of female genitourinary issues that can arise during hiking trips. It's practical advice, not ideology.

Questions:

-- Is there evidence that Levicy herself stated that the A.V. was raped, rather than that Gottlieb or Nifong claimed that she had so stated?

-- Has she proposed herself as an expert witness?

-- Has she demonstrated an ideological bias in this case in other ways?

I think the answers are "No." If so, that suggests that the spotlight should be on what DUMC's rape protocols are, the extent to which they were followed, and the adequacy of Dr. Manly's supervision of Levicy.

Unless I am missing something, the most that Levicy seems to have done is overstep in preparing and signing the DUMC report. Per Cedarford's 1:04pm comment, this is more the concern of the supervisor than of the trainee.

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 4:12 PM resonding to:

The NYT wrote a long apologia based on Gottlieb's piece; you dont think that's "serious"? Why wouldnt she want to correct the record if Gottlieb lied about her?"

Nope, Mrs. Levicy, and those who are professionally involved, should stick to presenting the facts in court, not the NYT.

Your logic would work except for 3 issues, even if she was under legal counsel:

1. Public knowledge of her role came out because her name was on the search warrants waiving Duke lacrosse 4th Amendment Rights on her witness statements (alleged) to Gottlieb that indicated she confirmed Precious's claims "blunt trauma consistent with rape."
If she was with her own or Duke counsel, it was absolutely imperative that she or her attorney contact the Court and set the record straight that her testimony was misrepresented by Nifong and the Police.

But defense discovery found no evidence introduced in court by Tara Levicy disputing Nifong and Gottliebs claims.

This would not be a matter any attorney could let rest if their client was saddled with purported false statements associated with search warrants. It would be a big slam on her counsel to let civil rights infringements go unchallenged.

2. Same situation if Levicy and counsel had reason to suspect - and in this case Nifong said in national news and local newspapers that the SANE nurse witness statements would be presented by police to a Grand Jury. To obtain an indictment.

3. There is also the matter of her good name. With her testimony that "medical evidence was consistent with rape" touted by Nifong and then Gottlieb being one of the 3-4 central elements of the case, it strains credulity that she would just accept her name going along with a colossal lie. Waiting up to a year "so it all comes out in trial and the damage and misperceptions of the lie are finally straightened out in the only venue lies can ever be challenged...trial...holy trial!!"

Nah, all she had to do was go to court and swear a statement that her witness testimony was being misrepresented. Or talk to media with a Duke or private counsel simply to state she disputed police and Nifong claims she was a SANE expert that found medical evidence consistent with rape.

Levicy didn't.

And it appears to have put her in career trouble.
And the only thing that makes sense was that she was emotionally or ideologically persuaded to make cause with "the victim". That Gottlieb didn't lie about her interview statements she made while an unqualified trainee.

Of course Dr. Manly should have been aware that Levicy's statements did not match the report the doctor as Levicy's training supervisor stated was completed properly.........but that's another mystery.

I do again point out that there is possible medical malpractice exposure because the "evidence is consistent with rape" statement was not disputed by medical staff as warrants, grand jury indictments, and defamation and slander of all 46 lacrosse players, the firing of the coach were all predicated on "The expert SANE nurse's findings".

AMac said...

Arrgh, major mistake in my comment of 5:39pm (up two from here). I wrote,

-- Is there evidence that Levicy herself stated that the A.V. was raped, rather than that Gottlieb or Nifong claimed that she had so stated?

The phrase "stated that the A.V. was raped" is far too strong, and should have been replaced by suggested that the A.V. had injuries consistent with rape.

Apologies.

Anonymous said...

On top of everything else, remember Nifong quoted the medical report five days before it was picked up at the hospital by the detective - much ado about nothing.

AMac said...

Cedarford 5:45pm --

Excellent exposition. So the key question re. Levicy seems to be, "Why didn't she challenge Nifong's characterization of her words?"

Would your analysis be shared by nearly all qualified lawyers? Is it possible that some (DUMC's in-house counsel?) might have advised, "Enough damage and enough exposure to liability already; don't say anything more to anybody"? (Just asking; IANAL.)

Cedarford said...

Oops erratum, sorry! I left out an important modifier at the end of my post:

"all partially predicated on "The expert SANE nurse's findings".

And for another oddball thought that came to me, about the only straw of evidence Nifong can now claim as a basis why he went forward in good faith despite a dubious ID lineup and admission that he didn't talk to Precious is that he had expert SANE nurse confirmation that "evidence consistent with rape existed".

Which might mean Levichy may be important outside the Duke 3 trial which likely will never happen.

Levichy may be the only straw Nifong is clutching to prevent himself from going under at disbarment hearings. If he says he was acting on expert witness testimony and acted on the SANE witnesses evaluation given to Gottlieb and not disputed by her for 10-11 months Levicy might just be in the witness box after all. And opposing counsel will be asking all sorts of questions about credentials and medical malpractice sharks will circle those proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Dr Manley is ultimately responsible for what is noted on the SANE notes - Does anyone really believe in this day of law suits a Physician is going to sign off on a petient they have not examined? Her malpractice would be canceled.

GPrestonian said...

4:52pm rk483:

If we knew for a fact that Levicy was the source of the "blunt force trauma and injuries consistent with rape"? assertion, I'd say that it would be entirely appropriate to delve into her motives in Court.

I don't think it's inappropriate to do so here, either, even though we don't know.

The provenance of the statement 'tis a puzzlement, isn't it? Did Gottlieb lie? Did Nifong lie? Or did Levicy say it, and watch silently as Rome burned around her?

Reminds me of that female NCCU reporter who had some serious scoop on Crystal early on, and decided not to write an article because it conflicted with 'supporting her sister'.

And the humor - I just think it's hilarious that Nifong is the only party who considers Levicy an 'expert'. Thank god he's such an idiot, or he may have been able to pull this off.

duke09parent said...

amac @5:56 pm.

Yes. See mine at 1:39 pm this thread.

Anonymous said...

I have not seen a definative explanation of why or why not a thorough tox/drug screen of the AV was not performed as part of or as a precurser to the SANE exam of a known (past) drug abuser and potentially impaired patient. My (fuzzy) recollection is that the SANE nurse trainee did not run the tests, possibly at the request of the AV.

Question - Do we know the circumstances of why the drug/tox screens were not performed and did the SANE nurse trainee deviate from procedure or could she have exercised discretion/judgement in this matter?

hman said...

To 6:01 (and others)
The responsible MDs did not see this particular ER visit as a medical matter because the accuser had no more than trivial "injuries". IOWs, there was nothing for them to diagnose or treat. I suspect that is why they seemed to have skimmed over the matter that night
I doubt that Levicy said "Injuries consistent with rape" I bet she was asked "was anything consistent with rape?" and she was too green to avoid saying some version of "yes"..
As for a tox screen, some SANE programs do not do them because evidence of impairment can help the defense. Whether that is fair or not is another matter.
The most revealing fact in all of this to me is that Nifong could have used one of the more senior and better credentialed folks who signed off on the report as his expert of record chose not to - which is odd because they were actual experts and she was not. How many innocent explanations can you surmise for that?
The obvious actual reason was that Levicy was the only one that was naive enough to be scammed into saying what they needed. And with purely spoken "evidence", there is no record and that lets them embellish to their evil hearts content.
Hospital lawyers always tell you to say nothing in public, in my experience. It is a deep reflex. I do not see Levicy remaining silent as very significant even if doing so is unwise for her career.

Anonymous said...

I have been reading and occasionally commenting on this Blog since late summer. During this time, I have been awed by the thoroughness, fairness and professionalism of KC's work (hats off to a fellow Bay Ridgeite). However, even the best of them have a day or a time that doesn't quite measure up to their usual level of expertise. KC you have spoiled us and for that I am proud because you have done so much to carry the weight and counter the media, when the voices and opinions were on the wrong side of this issue.

Nonetheless, today's post isn't an A and isn't as well focused or positioned as your usual work. I agree that there some issues here, but there is too much speculation about Levicy's ideology and whether or not it contributed to this mess. If the post was focused on the conflicts with Gottlieb. her inexperience and her possibly being an expert witness for Nifong, that would have been sufficient for now. Even if you are correct on the ideology (and we just do not know, and such speculation is unfair and may be used to detract from the overall credibility of the rest of this blog), it was not necessary or timely to call that question.

That said, please keep up the good work and maybe I'll run into you in Keyfood, the Family Store or at Tuscany Grill.

Anonymous said...

KC's ability to come up with new, interesting and provocative slants on Hoax-related issues, sometimes several times a day, is extraordinary. There's nothing wrong with a bit of intelligent speculation sometimes.

Anonymous said...

There has been a fair amount of comments regarding potential malpractice. It strikes me as odd that the DUMC wouldn't REQUIRE a toxology on a patient delivered by the police from a detox center. Wouldn't that subject them to IMMENSE liability in the event that a medical problem sprang from whatever substance sent the patient to detox in the first place? Hadn't they better figure out/know from what the person was diagnosed as impaired so that they could anticipate and potentially treat any side effects that arise?

M. Simon said...

RK483,

I think the nurse's college major would come up. It would indicate how many science/math/medical courses she took before deciding on a nursing career.

In other words it has a bearing on her expertise.

Anonymous said...

Nursing school if where you go for the science/math/medical courses.

Anonymous said...

Several things trouble me about the role of Nurse Levicy. First, the police overstated her qualifications in the probable cause affidavit, as they failed to point out her trainee status. Second, in his report, Gottlieb noted that he thought her statements did not match the medical report, yet he failed to check with Dr. Manly to see if she or other medical professions had the same impression. Finally, the police and DA are trained to not to jump to conclusions too early in an investigation because important details could be missing. Why then did the police not re-interview the medical personnel when the DNA results failed to link any of the players, and ask them if such a finding was consistent with their initial impressions and observations? The DA was fully aware of the DNA results before the Grand Jury presentation. And, I'm sure the GJ would have appreciated this information. Don’t be too hard on the nurse.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Johnson wrote:

"Relatively little has appeared in the public record about Levicy. What is known doesn’t suggest a figure whose neutrality would inspire confidence. Her undergraduate degree, from the University of Maine, came in women’s studies—the discipline that produced copious Group of 88 members, and home of feminist law theory, which contends that women never lie about rape. She stated that one of her proudest moments in college came when she produced and directed a performance of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues. Before becoming a nurse, Levicy worked as a healthcare associate for Planned Parenthood, a whitewater rafting guide, and a leader of outdoor programs for the University of Maine. Directly before coming to North Caroline, she was employed by a wilderness program, where she told people, “If saying the word, vagina feels foreign, then I recommend looking into a mirror and saying, vagina . . . vagina . . . vagina.” This rhetoric is not exactly mainstream on issues of gender. In short, if Nifong could invent a figure to assist him in the medical aspect of the case, it would be Levicy: underqualified professionally, but of the appropriate ideology."

In the context of the above quote, there is no reasonable way to read the last sentence as meaning other than that Levicy is a radical-feminist ideologue and a Nifong partisan. She may be; on the other hand, her studies and experiences may have left her rape-skeptical or absolutely committed to being as objective as she can be. Neither we nor Johnson know, it was very unfair of him to say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

7:37 The responsible individuals (the doctor - for instance) are required to treat all Emergency Departments visits as medical matters. They do not get to pick and choose their level of involvement. See yourself in court with an attorney saying "Well doctor/Nurse, explain to me how you decided this patient did not require your medical services, in spite of your medical oath." Poor Nurse Lecivy is not the villian in this case - See Nifong, enablers, etc.

Anonymous said...

Clients are not prisioners of the hospital.They can not be forced to undergo any proceedures (unless they are unconscious - then its implied concent.)They can and do refuse services offered or ordered by the Doctor. To force any client to take a blood test or get a urine specimen is assualt and battery.

Anonymous said...

I advise public entities who operate facilities employing SANE nurses, and similar personnel. It is their policy that such personnel does not provide informal statements outside the normal channels (preparation of report and possibly supplemental report, and appearing as required to testify. Frankly, a nurse in that position who spoke regarding substantive aspects of the examination to the press or anyone else outside the facility and our office would be disciplined. That would be true, even if the press and DA were misrepresenting statements she did make. I'm not saying that such misrepresentations would go unremarked, but it would be handled through counsel. I think considering the nurse's silence as suggesting some complicity or agreement with the DA's representations is unfair.

hman said...

To 10:06
If the "patient" is not obviously impaired, there is little reason to order a tox screen unless you have a reason to document something.
Degree of impairment is mostly a clinical judgment call. Impairment (or the lack thereof) is not the same as tox screen results.
This is an informed guess as to what was said in the ER that night:
Clerk to Dr. Manley "We have an alleged rape victim coming in."
Dr.Manley "Is she hurt or beaten up in any way?"
Clerk: "No, the cops think she might be faking it.They said she did not seem hurt."
The Doctor."Well, call up the SANE nurse to do her thing. If she finds any real injuries have her page me. I will be in the call room."

AMac said...

So the key question should be addressed to Duke University Medical Center's counsel:

"Why did you let Gottlieb and Nifong's representation of the findings of the SANE exam pass unremarked?"

Possible (frank) answers:

-- "Because of HIPAA regulations or internal policy, DUMC never comments on forensic exams, even when doing so would be to DUMC's advantage."

-- "Because SANE trainee Levicy's oral remarks to Gottleib were reported accurately, thus any comment would make matters worse from DUMC's point of view."

-- "Because there are as-yet unpublicized irregularities in how the A.V.'s care was handled, and any comment could bring unwelcome attention to them."

RK483 said...

m. simon-

See my post of 4:52 PM where I clarified in what manner her college major would be allowed into court. In would not be allowed in the fashion that KC uses it here - to establish or suggest an ideological influence. Expertise? Of course that goes without saying.

Anonymous said...

2:37 Medical Doctors are not asking clerks their opinions on patients - ever. The patient is admitted to the ED and prepared by the nurses for the Doctor to evaluate. The hospital lawyers are not about to allow the employees to hold press conferances about patients. Has anyone questioned Dr Manly,who is in charge of the case what happened that night? Medicine is not like running a gas station.

Anonymous said...

I thought that the whole point of having SANE nurses was that they could have the non-medical aspects of sexual assault/rape delegated to them. I have been to an ER and had a cut sewed up by a medical student after it was looked over briefly by an intern. Somebody was no doubt taking final responsibility for it all but whoever it was was not around much.

Eric said...

It's interesting to read the comments on this entry with the benefits of hindsight. About the time that the comments wound down, Levincy apparently had a new interview with Linwood Wilson. The following, from the News & Observer, may answer some of the comments...

http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/565336-p3.html

The Jan. 10 interview focused on the absence of the players' DNA in the rape kit. Levicy had written in her March 14 report -- shortly after the party -- that no condoms were used. On Jan. 10, she hedged, according to Wilson's report: "Ms. Levicy stated she asked if condoms were used and Ms. Mangum said 'no' but wasn't really sure. Ms. Levicy stated that it was her opinion as a [sexual assault nurse examiner] that 'victims can never be sure if condoms are used because if they can't see them how would they know for sure. You can't feel them so you have to realize there is always a possibility that a condom could have been used.' "

Even though forensic nurses make medical observations and not legal judgments, Levicy also put forward a second theory: "I wasn't surprised when I heard no DNA was found because rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power."

Anonymous said...

Mr. Johnson,
As a professor of law conducting research on the current Nifong trial, I happened to read some of your recent blogs and was bewildered by the amount of time and effort you have devoted to making ridiculous, unfounded claims and slandering various individuals involved in this case. Looking at your (lack of) credentials (your a history professor?!), I see no way in which you can claim to be any kind of authority on legal matters, particularly when your research skills are apparently limited to google searches (hardly a reliable source of information) and hearsay. It wasn't until researching your background that I was able to understand the convoluted agenda you seem to be serving. That is, you teach at Brooklyn College where you were tenured only AFTER much ado about suing the school after you were dismissed for unprofessional behavior, etc, etc. I contacted your department chair and he seemed quite dismayed that you are connecting Brooklyn College and the History department with such slanderous blogs-- further evidence of your total lack of professionalism. In any case, it seems you have a "thing" against college and university institutions after your personal struggle for tenure and now make it your mission to blindly attack colleges, universities and any individuals even remotely affiliated with them whenever the opportunity presents itself. In the case of the Duke University lacrosse rape case, you don't care who is right or wrong, you just want the university and anyone "on their side" to go down. You have less than zero credibility. And really, have you nothing better to do with your time? After all you've carelessly written, you'll be luck not to be charged with slander and put on trial yourself.

Anonymous said...

Good Day!!! durhamwonderland.blogspot.com is one of the best informational websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. Keep it that way.