Thursday, May 03, 2007

Levicy and Law Enforcement

While Durham law enforcement officials ignored Dr. Julie Manly, the doctor who performed the March 14 medical exam of Crystal Mangum, Tara Levicy was on their speed dial. Over the course of the case, Levicy had no fewer than four meetings and three telephone calls with Durham police officers or representatives of the district attorney’s office.

For Mike Nifong, Levicy was a dream witness. Though endowed with forensic credentials, she proved willing—as the Attorney General’s report noted—to base her diagnoses solely on subjective criteria. These criteria, coincidentally, conformed to her experience that women never lie about being raped.

As has been widely noted, the first Durham police officers who came into contact with Mangum (chiefly Sgt. Shelton) did not perceive her as a rape victim. Did Levicy’s initial contact with law enforcement help change this perception?

---------

On March 16, she told Officer Ben Himan that Mangum’s physical exam revealed evidence consistent with a sexual assault. (The Durham Police used this statement as justification to obtain a warrant to search 610 N. Buchanan.) In a later interview with defense attorneys, Levicy confirmed that she had, in fact, passed along to Himan this diagnosis—based, she said, on her subjective evaluation of the hysterical Mangum’s pain.

In other words: Mangum said she was raped. Mangum said she was in pain. Therefore, the physical exam corroborated Mangum’s story.

Kethra, a longtime SANE nurse who frequently posts at Liestoppers, has expressed outrage at Levicy’s March 16 behavior:

That means it looks like Ms. Levicy is speaking as if she did the exam rather than simply watch, which we now know is exactly what occurred. However, Ms. Levicy did not disabuse the police of that notion . . . This, as any RN will tell you, is very unprofessional and is in fact professional misrepresentation.

Not only did Himan not interview Manly on March 16: at no point in the investigation did anyone from either the Durham police or Nifong’s office speak with Manly.

Levicy’s next contact with a Durham police officer came on March 21, in one of the most controversial events of the case. According to the memorandum Sgt. Mark Gottlieb subsequently produced, Levicy told him that Mangum experienced “blunt force trauma,” which was “consistent with the victim’s allegation.” Duff Wilson led off his widely ridiculed August 25 New York Times story with the item.

In her November 15 defense interview, Levicy confirmed that Gottlieb’s report quoted her accurately. Doug Kingsbery then asked Levicy how she defined this term. It meant, she said, that the tissue had been forced against. And how did she diagnose that Mangum experienced “blunt force trauma”? Her subjective observations of Mangum in pain.

So, in short: “blunt force trauma” amounted to a nurse who never came into contact with a woman who lied about rape passing along the assertions of a patient who showed no physical signs of pain, much less “blunt force trauma”—and who was behaving atypically from real rape victims.

A question to ponder: how many New York Times readers believed that was what Duff Wilson and his editors meant on August 25, 2006, when the paper gave such prominence to Levicy’s assertion?

In an April 3, 2006, interview the Herald-Sun, Theresa Arico, herself a SANE nurse and coordinator of the Duke SANE program, explained the process for detecting “blunt force trauma”:

“You can say with a high degree of certainty that there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury” by the physical examination, which uses a device called a colposcope to magnify a woman’s internal parts where injuries consistent with a sexual assault would occur, Arico said.

Yet in Mangum’s examination, the report shows no indication that a colposcope was used. (Levicy appears to have lacked sufficient training to use the instrument.) Neither Levicy nor Arico ever explained why Levicy didn’t follow the policy publicly outlined by her supervisor.

---------

In her interview with Gottlieb, Levicy added two other items that never appeared in her March 14 report. First, according to the Gottlieb memorandum, she stated that Mangum “had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally.”

Yet Julie Manly’s examination had shown no anal edema or tenderness; indeed, the doctor later told defense attorneys, she had expressed surprise that no anal bruising existed given Mangum’s claims. Nor did the March 14, 2006 report co-signed by Manly and Levicy contain any mention of anal edema. And Levicy later admitted that she had no first-hand knowledge of either the vaginal or the anal examinations, since she couldn’t see Mangum during Manly’s work.

Levicy has never explained these discrepancies; she, along with Theresa Arico, declined two requests for comment about this post. The day after I contacted her, Levicy’s e-mail address and phone numbers disappeared from the Duke website.

In her interview with Gottlieb, Levicy also noted another previously unmentioned tale—that Mangum had become hysterical after Levicy left her in the examination room with a male rape crisis counselor. Who was this person?, Doug Kingsbery later asked Levicy. She couldn’t recall his name, the SANE nurse replied. She could only remember that he was white and soft-spoken.

So, according to Levicy, Duke hospital sent in a white, male rape crisis counselor to comfort a black female who was claiming that three white males had raped her. But the SANE nurse-in-training couldn’t provide specifics on the identity of the person who could corroborate her story.

Kathleen Eckelt, a SANE nurse with decades of experience who trains SANE nurses in her home state, was dubious:

The name of any person in that room, besides the nurse, must be documented. If it’s an unlocked room, the door is shut and the curtain is pulled to protect the patient’s privacy. The staff know not to enter and the nurse must remain in the room with the evidence until it’s locked up.

----------

In his pre-primary publicity barrage, Nifong highlighted Levicy’s statement in virtually all of his public appearances. (That the district attorney did not distort what Levicy told Himan and Gottlieb in no way mitigates the impropriety of his statements; the only aspect of the Bar’s ethics charges involving Levicy revolves around Nifong’s misrepresentation of the report’s unequivocal statement that Mangum said she didn’t use condoms.) To Dan Abrams on March 29:

The circumstances of the case are not suggestive of the alternate explanation that has been suggested by some of the members of the situation. There is evidence of trauma in the victim’s vaginal area that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital. And her general demeanor was suggestive of the fact that she had been through a traumatic situation.

Nifong gave similar statements to CNN, CBS, and local television and newspapers.

Nifong’s highlighting of Levicy’s March 16 comments to Himan—which reappeared in the March 23 non-testimonial order—helped shape media coverage: journalists, unsurprisingly, took Levicy’s representation as suggesting that forensic evidence existed of a crime. Given his biases, Duff Wilson unsurprisingly played up the comments: his April 11 article strongly implied that an “emergency room physician” joined Levicy in her findings.

But even fair-minded reporters had to include Levicy’s statements in any early articles on the case. Take, for instance, Ben Niolet’s exceptionally even-handed March 30 N&O article, which quoted from both protesters and defense lawyers extensively. Niolet summarized the state’s rationale for moving forward:

At Duke Hospital, a nurse trained in sexual assault forensics and a doctor examined the woman, court documents say. “Medical records and interviews showed that the woman had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally,” according to the order a judge signed that required the team to submit DNA.

On the ground, the Levicy item likewise carried weight. Durham resident C. Thomas Kunz (whose wife, Diane, is a well-regarded diplomatic historian who I briefly met several years ago at a professional conference) yesterday passed along “a personal anecdote demonstrating how ‘strongly’ the Levicy statement that the results of the exam were consistent with sexual assault influenced peoples’ early views of the hoax.” He wrote,

I was at one of my daughter’s 5th year birthday party in Durham. The parent attendees were mostly doctors (mostly from DUMC) and lawyers. The party was the day the story of CGM’s previous allegation of rape hit the newspapers (the Creedmoor thing). I speculated to the parents that this was the end of the hoax and that there was no way this could proceed in the face of this news. Many of the parents remained convinced that “something happened.” In all cases the reason cited was that the nurse “expert” who did the “rape kit” said that the injuries were “consistent with a sexual assault.” I argued but got nowhere in the face of the “expert’s” statement.

---------

While Levicy facilitated Nifong’s effort behind the scenes, Arico went public. In an April 3 interview with the Herald-Sun, Duke’s SANE supervisor stated, “I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told.” In the article, Arico left unclear whether she was talking about Mangum specifically or about sexual assault patients in general. According to a memorandum of law penned by its chief attorney, Al McSurely, and posted on its website last August, the state NAACP interpreted the statement as referring to Mangum. (See item 50.) Arico appears to have taken no steps to remove the information if she considered it false—the item remains present even as of this posting.

After the three indictments, Levicy remained the key medical figure in the case. As Nifong continued to ignore Manly, on June 9, Levicy and Arico traveled to the district attorney’s office for a 9.00am private meeting to discuss the case. Much like his conversations with Dr. Brian Meehan, Nifong produced no memorandum of this conversation, despite its obvious relevance to the case.

Arico’s presence suggested that even as massive evidence of innocence had emerged—Mangum’s changing stories, the exclusion of all lacrosse players’ DNA from the rape kit—Duke hospital was standing firmly behind Levicy’s work.

At the June meeting, Arico had an opportunity—regardless of Levicy’s biases—to correct the record for Nifong. Did Duke hospital wish to re-examine the wholly subjective criteria that Levicy employed? Did the medical staff want to press Nifong to summon Manly for an interview? Did the SANE staff wonder why DNA tests that seemed likely to confirm guilt if Levicy’s hunches were correct instead strongly suggested innocence? Was the hospital willing to defend being represented by a then-SANE-in-training in such a high-profile case?

If Arico expressed any concerns about these issues, no record of it survives: Duke’s SANE department remained firmly in Nifong’s corner, even as his case began to collapse. And as it did, as tomorrow’s post will explore, Levicy displayed memory skills that put Sgt. Gottlieb’s “straight-from-memory” report to shame.

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

This woman diagnosed "nefarious forced entry" when even "forced entry" wasn't apparent.

hman said...

"Negligence" is not strong enough a word. Reckless disregard for the truth" does not get there either.
"Criminal conspiracy" fits pretty well. I need another drink.

Gary Packwood said...

The lesson for me is ...Read the Newspaper story and then check the Blogs before I made a decision about factual information.
Thank Goodness for Bloggers.

Anonymous said...

.

Arico and DUMC - DUKE has a lot to answer for.

Levicy is a radical feminist first and foremost and DUMC evidently wants people of that ilk working in their department.

Arico's comments were purposeful to affect public opinion on the case, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Hey, that bottle with the oily fluid for elevators looks like it can double as a detergent for disinfecting surgical tools! Let's go use it! Hey, you look like a qualified SANE nurse! Why don't you examine this rape victim? And be as unprofessional and subjective as you can be! Gee, DUMC, exactly how many gaps in policies and operating procedures do you have?

Anonymous said...

Adgenda-driven "reality". These people wanted the worst to be true. They have been used and, in the process, exposed.

Anonymous said...

Plus, wasn't there a recent reported instance of transfusing a mis-matched blood product?

Anonymous said...

DUMC is a disgrace for allowing this fraud to work at its hospital. I would protest any & all SANE Exams given at that Hospital until they clean up their act & fire Levicy, Arico, and whomever is their superior.

Anonymous said...

The Smoking Gun is a toy pistal with a red flag on the end. There is nothing here but quess work and Levicy even has a witness Theresa. Now that every effort has been made to convict this bit player for original sin and the Duke Lax Case - hopefully, she will be left alone. Or at least have Duke Hospital Lawyers at her back - which appears likely, Despicable !!

Michael said...

Did that guy with the SANE nurse for a wife on the other thread ever send in her thesis on what happened?

For those doubting the Levicy angle (hopefully numbers are getting smaller) it looks like KC has quite a bit of material on this aspect of the case too.

This really is like an engineer screwing up a piece of work that results in a construction failure with lives on the line.

Anonymous said...

When will the Duke board of trustees take action? This sounds like a criminal conspiracy. Will the feds ever investigate? What about Cooper and North Carolina? When will the civil lawsuits begin?

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12: 24 said...
...Adgenda-driven "reality". These people wanted the worst to be true. They have been used and, in the process, exposed.
::
Absolutely! Well Said.
Now where did it start?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Do have another drink - its helping your judgement as always.

Anonymous said...

1. Are Manly and Levicy still at Duke?

2. Did Manly (a resident in training) have a supervising attending physician?

Anonymous said...

What can you say?

I'm speechless.

Newport

Anonymous said...

and DUKE isnt allegedly liable on many plateaus ?

allowing a TRAINEE to comment on legal issues ? BEFORE THE PRESS AND THE POLICE ?

allowing her biased non professional testimony NOT BE alledgely VETTED by the UNIVERSITY or the hospital ?

where was broadrot and the BOARDS on this issue ?

where was management ?

the more we develop the DATA, the more the ALLEGED LIABLILITY of many people are at issue ?

let the games begin...let the group of 88 be forced to disclose who PAIS for the AD, detailing their alleged hidden agendas...

hman said...

For the next decade or so, SANE nurses can expect to seen as ruthlessly dishonest advocates against the interests of male defendants and (male) objective truth.
Levicy and her co-conspirator (ie supervisor) most likely did not set out to acheive this, they just wanted to ruin the lives of three innocent young men. And since, in their worldview, doing that is a form of virtue, they must have assumed that the goddess would bless and protect their scheme.
Time will tell...

Anonymous said...

K.C., Thanks. I'd like to know more about the 9 June meeting between these three Hoaxsters. Any chance you can tell us why Arico was present?

M. Simon said...

Let us start with bad engineering design, bad placement of the rebar, not enough cement in the concrete, too much water in the concrete, lousy aggregate no slump test before the pour, loaded too soon after the pour, freak weather, forms taken down too soon after the pour to allow proper curing, steel not up to standards. etc.

i.e. just about every mistake in the book.

Any one or even several mistakes might not matter due to safety margins. Get them all together and you have a disaster.

Anonymous said...

Dr Johnson, please don't let Dr Anderson and Nurse Kethra write anymore of your DIW posts. This just doesn't sound like the work of a process person:

Tara Levicy was on their speed dial.

For Mike Nifong, Levicy was a dream witness.

So, in short: “blunt force trauma” amounted to a nurse who never came into contact with a woman who lied about rape passing along the assertions of a patient who showed no physical signs of pain, much less “blunt force trauma”—

But the SANE nurse-in-training couldn’t provide specifics on the identity of the person who could corroborate her story.

But even fair-minded reporters had to include Levicy’s statements in any early articles on the case.

While Levicy facilitated Nifong’s effort behind the scenes, Arico went public.

Arico’s presence suggested that even as massive evidence of innocence had emerged—Mangum’s changing stories, the exclusion of all lacrosse players’ DNA from the rape kit—Duke hospital was standing firmly behind Levicy’s work.

Anonymous said...

Alev says:

KC,
Did Levicy also admit in her interview with defense attorneys that she told Gottlieb that
Mangum “had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally.” Cause unless she says Gottlieb made that up, then it appears that she made it up since she didn't witness that part of the exam, and it contradicts the actual findings. SOMEBODY made it up.

Attorneys out there: is this obstruction of justice? What is it called when medical personnel or LE make stuff up?

As for my reaction as a local woman: I now know that should I ever be a victim of rape,and am taken to Duke, not only could I be examined by untrained personnel unsupervised during the examination but to top it off, they could send in a MALE rape crisis counselor! Sweet. Wonder what happens to people who go in with life-threatening symptoms ...

Liestoppers: a suggestion for your fundraising: a LIGHT BLUE armband that says, "In case of emergency, take me to UNC."

Anonymous said...

"Ellen James Society" - I'm tellig you - its alive in Durham

- unbelievable !

becket03 said...

I was surprised in yesterday's thread to see several defenders of Levicy appear. What would convince anyone to cut the woman some slack when it's long been obvious that she was central to Nifong's efforts to foist the hoax on the public? Without her he had nothing.

If the Duke 3 families decide to litigate (I believe they will because justice demands it), four people at the core of the hoax must be dragged into court: Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson and Levicy. Arguments can be made to include others also, but these four must be targeted first and foremost.

Precious needn't be sued but somehow they've got to get her testimony, fully cross examined, on record, on video.

beckett

Anonymous said...

Dr Johnson, plese don't let the rape-nazi Trolls smear two of the blog hooligans/heros of this case.

Anonymous said...

I'm just waiting for the civil suits.

KC has been spot on so far.

Anonymous said...

Even Duff is cleared of his articles. WOw

Anonymous said...

As has been asked on the LS board.," Why are the nurses on the boards not supporting K?"

Anonymous said...

The nurses at LS are supporting K.C. Trolls claiming to be nurses here are nipping at K.C.'s pantleg without doing any damage.

Texette said...

I believe this post may provide the critical information needed to understand how Nifong expected to resolve this mess. Initially, I think he expected to intimidate the young men into a plea bargain. The DNA results and the defendents' resolve derailed this plan, and his "expert" Levicy, though willing, turned out to have no actual expertise. But, DUMC, through the supervisor Arico, may have come to the rescue, largely, in my opinion, to cover their own liability issues. As long as supervisor Arico was willing to back up trainee Levicy, Nifong could drag out the legal process until Levicy could finish her SANE certification. Then, he would call her as an "expert" to testify about what she found as a "trainee" with her previous "supervisor" for backup testimony. Sound crazy? With a compliant judge and a Durham jury, it likely could have worked.

Deklan Singh said...

So, if the treatment of Tara Levicy is any indication, it would seem to be a real possibility that the Duke SANE program is chalked full of crazed, unprincipled "medical professionals" and administrators who would support a medical determination of rape on a trash can or a book shelf or even a ridiculous farce victim like Crystal Gail Mangum.

So, it would appear to be open season for any female wanting to get back at any male for any reason. You don't even have to booty call your ex-boyfriend anymore for purposes of highjacking his DNA for evidence. You don't have to punch yourself in the thighs or otherwise self-inflict injuries. Just go the Duke emergency room and make sure that you get a SANE nurse. She'll be happy to make sure there's a clear medical record of the trauma you'd like to be recorded for evidence in the trial. It's no different than a racist jury convicting scores of innocent black defendants or refusing to convict abusing husbands. Tara Levicy seems only to be interested in revenge for rape victims even if it only by proxy through a crazy, drug addled prostitute.

Seriously, Tara Levicy has put justice for women in the US back 100 years or more. So, mothers and fathers out there, when your daughter is raped and the DA is unable to convict the rapists because of doubts about the medical evaluation, you can thank Tara Levicy for eroding the credibility of THE GROUP THAT IS MOST TRUSTED TO PROTECT US. It is likely that there will now be more rapes because of the perceived damage that Tara Levicy has done to the credibility of medical professionals.

Anonymous said...

If this were a recruiting investigation, the actions of Arico would raise up the big "institutional control" flag.

It has been commonplace for many people to call for lawsuits against Brodhead, G88, and the BOT for their actions and lack of actions. While I would quite enjoy seeing them pay for their poor behavior, it has escaped me as to how the lawyers could find a really concrete way to get at them. However, this tidbit on Arico, which had escaped my notice all this time, looks tailor made for a big fat juicy lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

"Did that guy with the SANE nurse for a wife on the other thread ever send in her thesis on what happened?"

She was waiting for this essay. However, it sounds like Mr. Johnson is writing another piece about Levicy tomorrow. So, she will wait for that essay to see if Mr. Johnson will provide anything of substance. So far, he hasn't. In fact, one has a very hard time discerning exactly what Mr. Johnson is alleging as his writing style on this has a "collage" feel. One minute he is talking about Levicy and the next he is talking about the DUMC and the next he is talking about Nifong.

Trying to discern what Mr. Johnson is saying is further complicated by his inflammatory writing style. For example, he used the phrase "Levicy conceded to defense attorneys". This implies there was a change in story. However, the article he links to states "Levicy told defense attorneys". That has a much different connotation. So, is Mr. Johnson leveling a charge here that needs to be addressed or is he taking a pot shot? The reader cannot tell.

Also, in all fairness, my wife is going to attempt to run her critique of Mr. Johnson's evaluation of Levicy with some prominent SANE experts she knows to make sure they concur.

Ultimately though, it doesn't appear that Mr. Johnson is directly alleging that Ms. Levicy lied, concealed evidence, or knowingly pushed a false case. Thus, the only story is Mr. Johnson using his bully pulpit to engage in the same type of behavior as the group of 88. It would be nice is Mr. Johnson could actually summarize what the heck he is alleging. Otherwise, one must conclude what another poster here put so eloquently "The Smoking Gun is a toy pistol with a red flag on the end. There is nothing here but guess work...."

DK

Anonymous said...

12:56 Then how come so many of you were asking "Why are the nurses not supporting K"

Anonymous said...

This is feminism run amok.

Duke and DUMC is overrun with feminist agendas. This is bad. Wanna bet Arico has Feminist, Lesbian, or anti-male ties?

The Durham Police should have easily figured this out since the medical records showed zero - absolutley none - of these injuries. The DPD wrote the false affidavits and lied to the Grand Jury.

maddad said...

It is questionable how a SANE program so lacking in intellectual honesty as Duke's could remain accredited by organizations seeking to maintain anything other than sham standards.

Just as Crystals false accusation has hurt all real victims of sexual assault, Duke's SANE program seems to be trying to tell us that professionalism and integrity aren't essential to the SANE process, at least at DUMC. Ms. Arico, does your program's mission statement accurately reflect the values you seem to have implemented?

Anonymous said...

Nurse Levicy did lie. She signed the SANE Exam when she wasn't certfied and pretend to be an expert. She also admitted she never saw the anal part of the exam. It means she was out of the room.

Any way you cut it DUMC is in big trouble. Because in the end there was No Assault and Levicy said there was evidence which there wasn't.

Anonymous said...

In her interview with Gottlieb, Levicy added two other items that never appeared in her March 14 report. First, according to the Gottlieb memorandum, she stated that Mangum “had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally.”

Yet Julie Manly’s examination had shown no anal edema or tenderness... Nor did the March 14, 2006 report co-signed by Manly and Levicy contain any mention of anal edema. And Levicy later admitted that she had no first-hand knowledge of either the vaginal or the anal examinations...

In her interview with Gottlieb, Levicy also noted another previously unmentioned tale—that Mangum had become hysterical after Levicy left her in the examination room with a male rape crisis counselor. Who was this person?, Doug Kingsbery later asked Levicy. She couldn’t recall his name, the SANE nurse replied. She could only remember that he was white and soft-spoken.


Levicy simply cannot overcome this. Stating that there was medical evidence to Gottlieb that not only was not stated in her original report but is refuted by the person who actually DID the exam is both claiming work she did not perform (the exam of Mangum) and an outright lie of what was found in the exam.

She obviously fabricated the story of the white male in the room, which I'm sure can easily be proven. Defense surely has acquired the names of all rape counselors used by DUMC and can identify who, if any....heh, was called to visit Mangum. THAT should be an interesting revelation.

And anyone who would call Arico a WITNESS for Levicy just doesn't understand the gravity of what Levicy, and DUMC as her employer, has done and the results of her deliberate and malicious false testimony. Arico is now officially and personally responsible for Levicy's negigence and malicious conduct. It is now known that Arico was complicit in the conspiracy to frame the Duke three. She will be, albeit hostile, certainly, a witness for the plaintiff in civil court.

Since there is no memorialization of the meetings with Nifong, I have a feeling that Arico will be turning so quickly, we'll all hear her snapping of her neck!

One must wonder how Mangum could carry on like an hysterical maniac for four straight hours awaiting the SANE exam. (And, as Kethra has pointed out, the fact that she waited for that indicates DUMC was negligent again, although I'm sure the wait was probably due to the fact that nobody believed she was raped at all...yet that, too, is negligence since it is not DUMC's responsibility to make that call.)

Does anyone else believe that Mangum was performing her drug shopping routine? Intense pain and trauma? "Aw, poor dear, would like a little something to ease that pain, and a little something added to that to help you calm down?"

Surely, Sutton has a LOT to say about the hours with Mangum in the ER, right? Or is she best buds with Levicy and Arico? Or, perhaps, best friends with the feminaze agenda?

Twaddlefree

becket03 said...

This guy DK is a hoot. Can he read?

KC has been quite explicit is describing Levicy's role.

I await DK's wife skewering of KC with boundless anticipation.

beckett

Anonymous said...

KC,

How did it come to pass that Levicy ultimately DID talk to the defense.

Did Levicy and DUMC turn down defense requests to talk prior to November?

Did someone at DUMC suddenly find religion and tell her she needs to do the interview, or did the defense just not seek her out before November?

maddad said...

Ms. Arico, we are waiting for you to present your side of this, but perhaps we will have to wait for the depositions.

Cedarford said...

KC - I join with Newport.

I am speechless. The SANE supervisor joins the hoax rather than setting the record straight!

I imagine the flock of medical malpractice tort lawyers now circling above DUMC waiting for the last tremor in the carcass to subside are speechless, too.
It's like that when a windfall waits that is so huge, so juicy, one does not know what to say.

John Edwards might regret running for President when he could have had a piece of this baby..systemic management failures, cover-up of malpractice - almost 50 students and a coach damaged, dozens and dozens more cases possible...

Anonymous said...

Last 1:13 am was me KC.

Newport.

I wonder if the Herpetic Scum and Mortimer Stevenson will pick up this outstanding series of investigative reporting and there own article?

How long should I wait.

hman said...

DK
Until we read a response from your sanenursewife, it remains hard to evaluate your position. You have never said much more than, "My wife says you are wrong".
But you should be mindful of this: About 100% of Medical and or Legal professionals see the behaviour Of the whole DUMC Sane program as somewhere between aggressively incompetent and viciously criminal. Unless fundamentally new facts appear, that is not likely to change. But here is my point; if a SANE person defends DUMCs actions they will just further convince interested obervers that the whole edifice of SANE nursing is morally and intellectually bankrupt. To repair this firsestorm of damage a SANE spokesman needs to either tell a different and convincing story about what happened or find a way to distance the image of SANE nursing from this case.

Anonymous said...

DK says:

Ultimately though, it doesn't appear that Mr. Johnson is directly alleging that Ms. Levicy lied, concealed evidence, or knowingly pushed a false case....It would be nice is Mr. Johnson could actually summarize what the heck he is alleging.

KC doesn't have to "allege" anything. It's all right there in front of your eyes. It takes only a logical conclusion to KNOW Levicy lied, pushed a false case, misrepresented herself and DUMC, and lied some more. It's unfortunate that you and Mrs. DK are incapable of going beyond the facts to the conclusion, because you don't want to.

It's obvious you have not followed this case. The direct result of Levicy's negligence and lies was the NTO and indictment of three innocent men before a grand jury. If you don't get that this is a violation of one's civil rights and is laid on the backs of Levicy and DUMC as major players, then we now understand why you also cannot come to logical conclusions based on facts in front of your face.

And, since there is a part three, you might expect KC to summarize for you. Then again, you may need to ask nicely since he presumes the rest of his readers have the ability to retain and comprehend and analyze information. Or, you could buy his book. I'm sure he'll summarize quite nicely in that, hopefully with an ending that reads, "Civil suits are pending as this book went to press..."

Twaddlefree

KC Johnson said...

To Newport:

Judge Smith entered an order in September which, among other things, made it legally possible for the doctors and nurses who treated Mangum to speak with defense attorneys without violating HIPPA.

It's my understanding that DUMC counsel then arranged for the interview, and were wholly cooperative on the matter.

Anonymous said...

I am starting to wonder if the other 43 families have cause to sue DUMC. This whole sordid affair starts with Levicy giving an opinion when she didn't do the exam and fraudlently sign the SANE Exam. Her "expertise" was false and it cause great damage to 46 players & families.

It is shocking DUMC didn't set the record staright. I imagine it was cowardice, fear of upsetting the pc viewpoint, and fear of civil lawsuits. They decided to say nothing. Dumb, Real Dumb

Anonymous said...

Hi 1:19

"Until we read a response from your sanenursewife, it remains hard to evaluate your position. You have never said much more than, "My wife says you are wrong".

Completely fair. She simply wants to wait until KC's attack is complete so she can respond. Also, as I said she will attempt to double check her comments against other SANE experts much higher up the SANE food chain to see if they concur. So please, give her a bit of time.

"But you should be mindful of this: About 100% of Medical and or Legal professionals see the behaviour Of the whole DUMC Sane program as somewhere between aggressively incompetent and viciously criminal. Unless fundamentally new facts appear, that is not likely to change. But here is my point; if a SANE person defends DUMCs actions they will just further convince interested obervers that the whole edifice of SANE nursing is morally and intellectually bankrupt. To repair this firsestorm of damage a SANE spokesman needs to either tell a different and convincing story about what happened or find a way to distance the image of SANE nursing from this case."

I have huge problems with the SANE nursing program. I always have. I believe if fosters too strong a bias towards the women. Also, hospitals are notoriously bad at handling rape cases. DUMC is highly condemnable here and their behavior is disgraceful.

Our contention is Mr. Johnson's direct personal attack on Levicy, which we see as unjustified. The problem is not neccessarily that he is pointing out some errors, which may exist. The problem is that he is directly challenging her character and he is lumping her in with the likes of Nifong.

People will see soon enough if we are trolling :) But we are not. What interested me in this case in the first place is my fascination and critique of SANE nursing.

Also, we think Mr. Johnson has been a hero in this case. But, that doesn't shield him from criticism when criticism is due.

DK

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC.

Keep kicking ass and taking names.

Newport.

Anonymous said...

"the doctors and nurses who treated Mangum to speak with defense attorneys without violating HIPPA."

fyi - it is HIPAA. I spent years in healthcare consulting and everyone calls it HIPPA for some reason :)

And you would be aghast at the HIPAA violations that take place today. Simply aghast.

DK

Anonymous said...

KC the marksman. Well done. Duke is a major player in this hoax.

texette 12:58am - You are correct about intimidation to force a plea-bargain, aka extortion. This would not be anything out of the ordinary for Nifong. It would, in fact, be standard procedure for any prosecutor. The "search for truth" is lip service. Nobody really has time to do that much work for no personal gain. Prosecuting, unfortunately, is just another job where the standards for professionalism are dubious. Durham is not an isolated case.

Regardless, Duke has it's grubby fingerprints all over this.

Anonymous said...

.
Great Stuff, KC!

Thank you.

How far DUMC has sunk.

I estimate Levicy has gotten two raises since her babysitting of Crystal on March 14th.

Matthew said...

DK, make sure those SANE nurses have KC's take and all the evidence before them as well as what your wife writes.

I think simply hearing these assertions were made by Levicy as a nurse in training would send up red flags...

Nifong's hat trick said...

Levicy's feminist blinders prevented her from seeing CGM as anything but a real victim of rape!

Levicy was overzealous in recounting her dealing with a screaming, hysterical rape victim and in the process said things she wasn't legally qualified to say.

At most perhaps malpractice? Although her actions were harmful beyond description, I don't think Levicy's intent was criminal. I think she really believed she was being a good little feminist! She was going to be the hero! She was going to fight against the bad barbaric men who raped the poor defenseless prostitute...I mean college student and mother of three.

Anonymous said...

Our contention is Mr. Johnson's direct personal attack on Levicy, which we see as unjustified. The problem is not neccessarily that he is pointing out some errors, which may exist. The problem is that he is directly challenging her character and he is lumping her in with the likes of Nifong.


I'd say that several meetings with Nifong and Gottlieb where her "mistakes" were repeated and embellished is cause for a "challenge." The cronyism that enabled this persecution of three innocent men continues in every so-called society of professionals. It's time for individuals to be called to account and for professions to clean up their rank and file or lose all credibility.

I would think that any nurse, any SANE, any doctor, any hospital, any teaching univerity medical center would WANT to keep this at an individual level. It was ONE (actually two now that we know Arico was complicit) individual that took it upon herself to enable HELL for innocent men.

You don't perpetuate a mistake if you know you were wrong. Levicy didn't make a mistake. She proffered, sustained and embellished a lie, repeatedly. She is individually accountable for that.

And, yes, DUMC is corporately responsible for it because they allowed an inexperienced NURSE, first, then an uncertified SANE, second, to take responsibility for at a level she was unqualified to handle on behalf of DUMC. Then, no one was willing to ever correct the record. So, they BOTH go down. That's the way it should be.

Twaddlefree

gwallan said...

hman said...
For the next decade or so, SANE nurses can expect to seen as ruthlessly dishonest advocates against the interests of male defendants and (male) objective truth.
Precisely. And this is a disaster for real victims.
There is simply no way an individual with Womens' Studies and the Vagina Monologues in their resume can be considered objective in a SANE role.

and further...
Levicy and her co-conspirator (ie supervisor) most likely did not set out to acheive this, they just wanted to ruin the lives of three innocent young men. And since, in their worldview, doing that is a form of virtue, they must have assumed that the goddess would bless and protect their scheme.

I doubt that the "three innocent young men" ever entered their thinking. Levicy is idealogically disinclined to consider the possibility of a false allegation. The administration are simply covering their own arses.

Anonymous said...

Some SANE programs initially had their funding dependent on the percent of rape convictions- the program had to show that it increased the percentage of convictions.
clinical endpoint should not be a judicial effect. If she signed someone else's report as if she did an exam and did not do one herself; that may be an ethics issue for the nursing board. If she submitted a charge for examining the patient and did not that may be medicaid fraud, unlikely as she is a student. I've thought all thru this that SANE programs may be a causualty of this case, that would be too bad

Purps said...

Darn it, KC. I was so looking forward to this post, but two problems in the second paragraph have undermined your credibility for me.

Though endowed with forensic credentials, she proved willing—as the Attorney General’s report noted—to base her diagnoses solely on subjective criteria. These criteria, coincidentally, conformed to her experience that women never lie about being raped.

First, the AG said she based her diagnoses largely on CGM's demeanour and complaints, rather than objective evidence, not solely on subjective evidence.

Second, if the latter sentence is based upon the Kingsbery interview reported in Part 1, then it is an unfair distortion of what she agreed to. Saying you haven't, in your short time as a SANE-in-training received a rape allegation from a patient that turned out to be false (by what mechanism one has these things confirmed, is left to the imagination) is NOT the same as saying, "in my experience, women don't lie about rape". What does that mean, anyway, "in my experience"? In my experience, followed by a gross generalisation. In my experience, American men don't rape women. But then I live in Australia and don't know many Australian men, let alone any whom I know to have committed the crime of rape.

If you're going Levicy's "No, Never" to be ludicrous, you'll need to work harder than that. I know you'll have plenty of believers. And I am no defender of Levicy. I just want to be able to see that allegations made against her are supported by objective evidence. Innocence being the starting position, the evidence needs to be there before ambiguous circumstances are construed against a person.

I face the rest of the post now with more skepticism, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

The boys were found Innocent - Year, but they hired strippers and had illegal drinking. Peeded off the porch and called racial stuff. Look familiar to what is being written here?

Red & Grey said...

DK - In deference to your wife, you're coming across as somewhat of a loose cannon here. I hope you haven't set up the Misses for a fall, since she'll have to deal with the same set of facts as the AG -- whom, by the way, found no evidence of a rape.

Anonymous said...

And don't forget, she and the Doc wrote their name on the wrong place on the form - gotta be fraud.

hman said...

To 2:14
No one forced Levicy to speak to the question of how many false rape accusations she had dealt with. She answered a question that she had not been asked. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that she was announcing her bias. Because she was proud to be biased in the way that she was.
Exactly why her personal experience - as a half trained SANE nurse with a few weeks in the ER - should be somekind of Lodestar of truth in her mind is more than I can process this time of night.
I have been dealing with ER situations for many years now and if I have coped with an issue - say 3000 times - I might get dogmatic about it if I was rudely challenged. But I would still rather treat each case as a seperate problem.

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

But then I live in Australia and don't know many Australian men, let alone any whom I know to have committed the crime of rape.


Wow, you must live a sheltered life, Purps. You live in Australia and don't know many Australian men? And, you're a lawyer? Do you live in a female commune that has it's own courts system?

Take the body of evidence, please, instead of parsing every word that KC uses to write. Your parsing has every sign of trollhood, something that methinks has been deliberately concealed over at LS. KC is not going to go back over months of work and republish the facts for newbies who decide to use ignorance to challenge new facts.

Oh, and by the way, your parsing of Cooper's statement: the AG said she based her diagnoses largely on CGM's demeanour and complaints, rather than objective evidence, not solely on subjective evidence.

You're right. The LARGELY was demeanour and complaints (which IS subjective in the medical world because you cannot trust ONLY the words of a patient...there must be physical evidence to make a diagnosis, otherwise you write that the "patient states," NOT "there is evidence of...").

The REST of the "evidence" Levicy used was her LIES. Largely + Lies = TOTAL CONSPIRACY.

Twaddlefree

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Texette @ 12:58

Cedarford said...

I am starting to wonder if the other 43 families have cause to sue DUMC.

Wonder not.

The NTO signed by Judge Stevens that abrogated their 4th and 5th Amendment rights was written specifying Nurse Levicy's expert diagnosis and SANE report as cause in addition to the hooker's story. At the time, before Levicy weighed in with her certitude, all that existed was a whore with 6 different stories police disbelieved unable to identify a single attacker. Without Levicy, no NTO, no Grand Jury indictments, no Pressler firing, no media firestorm, no Duke employees and students creating and distributing the Vigilante Poster.

Add in the other 43 had estimated legal bills of 10,000 each by early April, large family expenses as parents flew in, hotel bills as they were told campus wasn't safe for them. Plus personal suffering.

Oh yeah! If I was in the 43 or a parent of the 43 I'd be suing for a lot....and not for the money as much as the satisfaction.

Besides the 43 and the 3 accused, Coach Pressler has a monster suit he could bring. And even poor Miss Crystal....knowingly treated by an unqualified examiner...might get enough to keep her in the good pain meds for years courtesy of the Bank of Duke.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford states it well. Those defending Levicy simply don't understand the violation of civil rights that Levicy's lies initiated. This is a huge problem for Levicy and DUMC. Levicy will not PERSONALLY pay the price, although she should lose her license and go back to the forest to live out her days in a kayak with the other feminazes.

Duke is gonna pay bigtime!

Twaddlefree

gwallan said...

Purps said...

If you're going Levicy's "No, Never" to be ludicrous, you'll need to work harder than that. I know you'll have plenty of believers. And I am no defender of Levicy. I just want to be able to see that allegations made against her are supported by objective evidence. Innocence being the starting position, the evidence needs to be there before ambiguous circumstances are construed against a person.

The gender feminist is entitled to a presumption of innocence but that same feminist would DENY the presumption of innocence to half the population.

You say you are Australian. Do you think the Duke fiasco could happen here? I suggest you look up Patrick Waring and bear in mind that while he spent a year in prison from the age of fifteen his lying accuser remains anonymous and uncharged even though her aim was defrauding the state of victim compensation.

Purps said...

The 9 June meeting is potentially devastating for Arico and DUMC.

Thanks, KC.

Purps said...

Hman, at 2:53, says:

To 2:14
No one forced Levicy to speak to the question of how many false rape accusations she had dealt with. She answered a question that she had not been asked. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that she was announcing her bias. Because she was proud to be biased in the way that she was.
Exactly why her personal experience - as a half trained SANE nurse with a few weeks in the ER - should be somekind of Lodestar of truth in her mind is more than I can process this time of night.
I have been dealing with ER situations for many years now and if I have coped with an issue - say 3000 times - I might get dogmatic about it if I was rudely challenged. But I would still rather treat each case as a seperate problem.



When asked whether she had ever received a sexual assault report from a patient that turned out to be false, she replied, “No, never.”

Looks like she was asked a question to me. Hman, I wouldn't suggest her response was wise. But, this wasn't a case of her volunteering something. She was asked a very specific question. It simply isn't justifiable to say Levicy said, "In my experience, women don't lie about rape."

Again, I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for the things she did say and do.

I appreciate your care about not generalising.

Anonymous said...

KC - the moment I read that the only proof of gang rape on Crystal was 'diffuse edema of the vaginal walls', I knew no rape happened at all.

Excuse me, hon, don't wish to embarrass you but I've got to let you in on a bit of wisdom from this middle-aged broad. For nearly 4 decades, I endured pelvic exams. Trust me, you lay even once half naked on an examining table with your feet in metal stirrups while a total stranger peers into your crotch and begins to shove in an icy cold metal speculum - the experience gives you an insight into the medical world whether you want it or not.

And trust me, when that experience is repeated over decades, that knowledge of the medical world damn well covers the terminology associated with it - specifically, the term 'diffuse edema' - more specifically, how easy it is get that. Fellas, trust me - the exam itself can do that. In fact (and my apologies for grossing you out) struggling to insert a tampon can also do it. In other words, it's not this horrific 'injury'.

So, take it from this old broad when I say that when I hear a nurse state that proof of a violent gang rape by 3 men of a struggling woman for at least half an hour inside a tiny bathroom is only - 'diffuse edema' - I have the right to say that that is NO proof at all! And when that nurse insists nearly a year later that it is still proof, then I say something else - liar!

GrĂ¡inne O'Donovan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Purps said...

gwallan at 2:51am says:

The gender feminist is entitled to a presumption of innocence but that same feminist would DENY the presumption of innocence to half the population.

You say you are Australian. Do you think the Duke fiasco could happen here? I suggest you look up Patrick Waring and bear in mind that while he spent a year in prison from the age of fifteen his lying accuser remains anonymous and uncharged even though her aim was defrauding the state of victim compensation.


Hi gwallan. The Duke fiasco can happen anywhere that people of good will and rational thought don't stand up when the lynch mob wants to scream "guilty" without due process. Of course it can happen in Australia.

Does Tara Levicy deserve due process? I don't know that she deserves it, but I know that I won't agree to deny due process to her or Saddam or John Howard or any other sick bastard who gets lined up in someone's viewfinder. I'd rather it be done fairly, and right, and the consequences follow as they will.

Just my 2 cents.

Bella said...

Bottom line...she made statements she was not qualified to make, since she did not do the actual exam. And she stated her "conclusions" more than once. As far as we know, she did not refer investigators to Dr. Manly, who was the only one authorized to speak to the physical evidence in this case, since she conducted the exam. Feminist or not, good person or not, it sounds as if she had plenty of chances to do the right thing...but she didn't. I don't want to hear the excuse that she was a SANE-in-training and just got caught up in everything, blah, blah, blah. If she lacked the ability to be professional and objective, then she is in the wrong profession.

Why are people willing to excuse this?? Is this the type of person you want involved in your care? I certainly wouldn't want her to be my nurse. Lord knows what she'd write in my chart.

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

Levicy should be fired and an investigation of the SANE Department at DUMC should ensue.

This is ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

"And, finally, from a SANE nurse-in-training whose own story appeared to change every time Crystal Mangum’s did."
still waiting for this line to be justified.

Yet more unwarranted venom against Levicy, e.g.
"Mangum’s physical exam revealed evidence consistent with a sexual assault"
"In other words: Mangum said she was raped."

the first quote does NOT justify the second phrase.

Kind of nice if you come up with something soon.
per

Masculist Man said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Masculist Man said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
james conrad said...

and DUKE charges 40k a year for this? gee wiz, what a deal, SIGN ME UP!!!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Levicy if sued will claim she didn't violate HIPPA because she didn't tell the truth about Magnum.....

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of people are missing the point of the post. KC is not on a witch hunt to get Levicy.

What you have is a naive, untrained nurse, educated in an ideologically driven women's studies program, making conclusions based on political narratives rather than physical evidence.

This is picked up by a prosecutor seeking election who sees a chance to revive his fading electoral prospects. Race exploiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson seize the opportunity to get in front of a TV camera and make accusations of racism. The New Black Panthers run down to Durham and are allowed to sit in a courtroom and threaten the defendants.

The usual left wing students and their local Durham buddies jump in with their pot banging lynch mob that demands that the students be castrated.

The identity studies faculty jump in, fanning the flames of gender and racial animosity, making claims that they regularly make to maintain and enhance their budgets and to protect themselves against academic scrutiny.

The identity studies faculty are joined by the liberal white enablers in related areas in the humanities and social sciences who spend their careers whipping themselves for the crimes of white people committed decades before they were born.

The national media with its appetite for a sensational story and its stable of politically correct reporters and columnists jump on the bandwagon with their narratives of privileged white athletes indulging in racial and sexual violence.

The spineless administrators go into public relations mode and placate the growing lynch mob by making statements about how even if the charges are false what they did was bad enough.

They attempt to pacify the professors from women's and African American studies departments by creating the campus cultural initiative, CCI, which gives the identity studies faculty free reign to create programs to indoctrinate the campus in their narrative of pervasive institutional racism and sexual violence.

The university's president having learned from his previous experience at Yale that throwing the accused under the bus is the path to career advancement in academic administration, suspends the accused, cancels the lacrosse season and fires the coach.

Duke was like a forest after four years of draught. It was a tinder box just waiting for a spark. Chrystal Magnum's fairy tale of sexual assault was simply the match that started the confligration. The streetwise second stripper and the first policeman on the scene thought they had stamped out the fire, but Levicy gave it oxygen and the other players blew it into a raging forest fire.

What is important is to see the whole picture because the same conditions prevail at most colleges and universities around the country. The Duke case was very spectacular but similar cases have occurred in the past and more will happen in the future.

This isn't a matter of left versus right or liberal versus conservative. There is a witches brew of political correctness and craven administration that makes these witch hunts possible.

The point of this blog in addition to getting justice for the wrongly accused, was to expose the tinder box of forces that created the mess in the first place.

bill anderson said...

Like other DIW readers, I await the last part of this series. I am sorry that DK has chosen to attack K.C.'s account, and I suppose that he is going to defend Levicy to the end.

To 12:58, Kethra and I are avid DIW readers. K.C. does not need our help in writing his posts. All I can say is that he has outlined the actions of a person with an agenda -- and that agenda was not the truth.

I do not see how anyone can defend what Levicy did. Furthermore, the idea that a person of her lack of experience could carry this case as far as she did is horrifying, because one wonders how many other times something like this has happened.

Levicy's less-than-truthful claims were exposed because of determined and well-financed lawyers, and an equally-determined blogosphere. What happens to men who do not have such support behind them? They go to prison, and the Innocence Project never will be able to spring them.

These posts outline just how easy it is for someone with an agenda, and who is in a key position, to railroad people into prison for something that never happened.

Somehow, I guess that is OK for people like DK and the other trolls on this page.

Clarencedarrow said...

I'm a nurse and have posted it several times. Just a couple of comments: 1.) I have (as have many others) the ledger on credibility in this case. Any prosecution participants have none. I am appalled at the alleged behavior of this so-called SANE nurse. 2.) How DK can try to defend this person in the face of even her own physician's examination is ludicrous. She violated just about every tenet of professional behavior. She should lose her license at the least. 3.) If anything can cause a lawsuit, this should be it. I believe that Duke could be taken to the cleaners on this one. 4.) Ideologues will never be silenced no matter how ridiculous they look. They must be exposed to the entire world and their credibility must be so thoroughly destroyed that they become irrelevant.

scott said...

The last couple of days, KC's posts have focused on Levicy and Murphy.

It is appropriate to review their actions simultaneously because there is a constant theme running through the analysis of both of these players who were responsible for enabling the Hifong Scandal Case, especially in the early days when it was gaining momentum.

This post touches on it with its description of the reactions of the people at the kid's birthday party. The fact is, Levicy and Murphy possess credentials that, to many people, make them experts on topics that the general population are not. When these perceived "experts" provide information, many people automatically assume the information being provided is accurate -- 1) because they have the credentials and why would people with such credentials not tell the truth; Levicy and Murphy are representatives of the medical and legal fields, respectively, and, therefore, worthy or our attention and 2) because the average person does not have the insider medical or legal knowledge to dispute the statements of the "experts."

This makes people armed with credentials and an agenda, like Levicy and Murphy, dangerous. They've both demonstrated their propensity to distort and to have those distortions believed by enough people to let a rogue prosecutor continue his frame of 3 innocent men.

That is why it is so important to destroy the credibility of Levicy and Murphy -- to make it obvious to even the average person that not all people with credentials are worthy of them.

bill anderson said...

That is why it is so important to destroy the credibility of Levicy and Murphy -- to make it obvious to even the average person that not all people with credentials are worthy of them.

May 3, 2007 7:23:00 AM


Actually, they have done a good job of destroying their own credibility. It is up to us to point out their lies.

Nifong's hat trick said...

How old is Levicy?

Anonymous said...

KC...

but when did DUKE lawyers interview LEVICY ?,,,what did they learn ?who conducted the investigation ?..what did they conclude ?...who did they tell it too?....what did they do about it ?

Anonymous said...

When asked whether she had ever received a sexual assault report from a patient that turned out to be false, she replied, “No, never.”

Well, I guess she can't say THAT again!
cf

Anonymous said...

remember ITS WAS DUKES OWN FORMS she filled out

...it was DUKES responsibility to allow an untrained novice to fill out the medical forms, and to permit her to comment on what appeared in the forms to the durham ploice political and legal officials...

i cannot believe that NO ONE in seniority at duke reviewed these forms EX POST especially when the case exploded...or didnt have the RIGHT to KNOW what she alleged to these officials...is duke saying that NO ONE from the institution was present at these meetings ?

Anonymous said...

I have a question that maybe a intellectual property rights attorney can answer:

Who owns the rights to these comments? I mean, if Prof. Johnson wants to use a comment from here in his forthcoming book, does he own the comment or does he need permission from the author? What if it's an anonymous comment?

This question is purely one of academic curiosity. Prof. Johnson is welcome to use any of my comments in his book, gratis.

And yes, I wrote all the "anonymous" comments :)

Anonymous said...

What I fail to understand is how long Dr. Manly stayed under the radar. Was she also in training and therefore reluctant to refute these public proclamations. After all, her signature is on the SANE report and the report does not comport with Levicy statements. Why did Manly tolerate it?

Purps said...

cf at 8:11am says:

When asked whether she had ever received a sexual assault report from a patient that turned out to be false, she replied, “No, never.”

Well, I guess she can't say THAT again!


So true! :D

P. Rich said...

Anon 6:05

Excellent macroscopic view. I must differ, however, with the following:

"This isn't a matter of left versus right or liberal versus conservative. There is a witches brew of political correctness and craven administration"

Political correctness is a product and tool of the Left. It has grown out of the same radical class/race/gender agenda that underlies the Gang of 88 and Levicy behavior.

And the whole bunch lives in the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that rational, moderate Democrats wish this weren't the case, but it clearly is. While all Dems are not modern liberals (to distinguish from classic liberals), all modern liberals are Dems. This is where political and radical ideologies intersect in the Duke lax case.

Nifong's hat trick said...

KC is wise in exposing Levicy’s contributions in railroading the Lax 3. Whether or not Levicy’s intent was criminal, it was dreadfully wrong!

Feminist agendas have weaseled their way into shaping our rape laws to view all men as potential rapists and prostitutes as pillars of the community.

All men should unite in making sure that Feminists-in-Wonderland,(like Levicy),are kept from using rape as a weapon in their hateful war against men.

Anonymous said...

This will be my only post of the day, so you don't have to worry about any trolls.

Kethra is not credible and KC is making a mistake to take her criticism so seriously, she has made many previous mistakes in her analysis and has seized on completely insignificant details like who signed which line and made outragious claims that Levicy purported that she had herself done the pelvic which is not supported.

Duke Medical is not going to get sued over the SANE exam. You should all put that right out of your minds. Levicy acted unprofessionally and was clearly too inexperienced to spot a nut job like Crystal Mangam, that makes her biased, unprofessional and inexperienced, not a monster like Mike Nifong, Wilson or Gottleib who broke the law and actively tried to imprison 3 boys they knew to be innocent.

Please feel free to continue on in your SANE feeding frenzy and your insane beliefs about Duke Medical forking over millions to the players. Levicy may get fired, but she isn't going before any board of nurses. This thread is exactly the same kind of hysterical projection of your own desires and beliefs as all the other blogs and ads about how the 3 boys 'must' have been guilty. Very disappointing.

emmy said...

It's utterly laughable that these true believers, these Nurse Tara cheerleaders, can *still* defend her...going down with the ship, eh? Well, I salute your stick-to-it-iveness, if not your judgment!

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

Hostile Work Environment Harassment

Cedarford 2:45 said...
...Oh yeah! If I was in the 43 or a parent of the 43 I'd be suing for a lot....and not for the money as much as the satisfaction.
::
How about the satisfaction of knowing that they ended the Hostile Work Environment Harassment at Duke?
Learning that you paid cash money to sent your kid into the arms of danger would move me off the dime in a hurry.
I would also demand that Duke establish an Office of Campus Ombudsman and that they do so ...quickly.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

DK's wife's magnus opus in a nutshell:

Stop picking on a poor little gurl.

P. Rich said...

Polanski wrote:

'Can we please 86 eumphemisms like "political correctness"?'

Well, no. It is a useful collective term in situations where, as here, various radical agendas coincide.

Al Sharpton, for example, has a particular "Black agenda" as does the Nation of Islam; and I don't believe many would find those synonymous with "political correctness." Now I am wandering off-topic.

/end

Anonymous said...

beclett:
I was thinking Magnum needs to be sued becasue of the "OJ" syndrome, meaning, if she has a judgement against her, she can't get money from the book 10 years from now. She can pay for this lie for the rest of her life !!

BDay

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

Levicy is a disgrace to the nursing profession!
Remeber, there are actions and consequences. Let everyone in the DUKE HOAX pay the consequences.
I hope the Families don't disappoint their supporters and go "easy" on a nurse o ANYONE who supported the false charges!
Remeber, Nifong, Levicy, Gottlieb, etc all had an agenda- too bad it backfired.

Gary Packwood said...

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)

Here is the HIPAA information everyone is talking about

Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA
Medical Privacy - National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Anonymous said...

here is the BLACK AGENDA ON THE NAACP

still on their website WITH ALL the ERRORS to this day...that this is still posted may well be legally actionable as the AGs report has proven all of this to be INCORRECT

http://www.naacpncnetwork.org/Publicity/768/

i quote "# The nurse observed that Ms. M�s answers were "more of a traumatic response rather than a drunk response, because her thoughts were broken, but logical due to her trying to hold on to reality." The Access staff directed the police to take Ms. M to Duke Emergency Room.
# An hour and a half after Ms. Roberts brought Ms. M to the Kroger�s parking lot around 1 a.m., and about 2 � hours after some of the players gave Ms. M a clear liquid drink around midnight Durham PD Officer Willie Barfield transported Ms. M. to the Duke ER.
# Within 20 minutes, Durham P.D. and the Duke Rape Team officially classified the complaint as "rape." A full rape analysis was done and the Durham P.D. collected DNA samples from the rape kit, took photos of her wounds, and interviewed her.
# The sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) found the "victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." The SANE also said the injuries and the victim�s behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience. Theresa Arico, the SANE coordinator at Duke Hospital said "there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury" and that the injuries the victim suffered were "consistent with the story she told." The ER doctor on duty that night also has reported that Ms. M. suffered trauma consistent with her story.
# During the early morning hours, according to notes of the different police officers and staff at the ER, Ms. M.�s account of the rape included an accusation that Ms. Roberts had urged her to have sex with her and with the men, and that Ms. M. was taken into the bathroom and raped anally, vaginally and orally, and the three men used racial and sexual slurs during the assault.
# The serial killer in American Psycho followed a similar pattern with his female victims.
# The Duke PD wrote a report trivializing the incident, based on what a Duke cop had overheard of one side of a phone conversation a Durham cop was making. According to a study paid for by Duke, Duke President Brodhead was not told anything about the rape charges for several weeks."

Anonymous said...

Does DK have Multiple Personality Disorder? The least he (and I question if DK is really a man) could do is change his quite obvious writing style; instead of pretending that there are several others who support his position. In blog jargon that's called "sock puppetry."

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

Whats laughable is that Victoria appears to be right "Duke messed with the evidence" The 88 and their supportes are laughing too -"They are just like us" and most of you are - name calling,attempt to stife free speech and persecuation. KC - I don't know why you are supporting this hate and viciousnees but it is a sad conclusion to a great blog.

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

Anonymous at 9:03:00 AM said...

Kethra is not credible and KC is making a mistake to take her criticism so seriously, she has made many previous mistakes in her analysis and has seized on completely insignificant details like who signed which line and made outragious claims that Levicy purported that she had herself done the pelvic which is not supported.

Duke Medical is not going to get sued over the SANE exam. You should all put that right out of your minds. Levicy acted unprofessionally and was clearly too inexperienced to spot a nut job like Crystal Mangam, that makes her biased, unprofessional and inexperienced, not a monster like Mike Nifong, Wilson or Gottleib who broke the law and actively tried to imprison 3 boys they knew to be innocent.

Please feel free to continue on in your SANE feeding frenzy and your insane beliefs about Duke Medical forking over millions to the players. Levicy may get fired, but she isn't going before any board of nurses.



Could the anonymous at 9:03:00 AM, please share with us your purported expertise, and why you think your assertions are correct? If you want me to believe you, I'd like to know why I should. Convince me.

Also, it would be nice if these anonymous posters would at least identify themselves with an internet pseudonym so that the rest of us following can tell one poster from another. What are you so afraid of? Once you get to the posting page, all you have to do is choose 'other' instead of anonymous. I don't have a web page, but signing in in this fashion at least allows others to discern my postings from another. Plus, if someone really wanted to know who I was, I have no doubt that my IP could be identified whether I post as 'anonymous' or 'KT'. If you prefer people to be courteous to you, it's helpful to be courteous as well.

emmy said...

Well, since Vic P. was alleging that Duke messed with the evidence in order to *clear* the guys, no, it's still evident that Vic P. was speaking out of her racist *ss on that one...Duke apparently didn't mess with any evidence, they "just" allowed their now disgraced non-certified SANE nazi to run amok and say whatever the hell she wanted to say, helping to put the guys through hell...don't forget that this non evidence, this, "consistent with" crap that Levicy was advancing, did GREAT damage...DUMC is a f*cking joke, sad to say, and Levicy should go back to the wilderness, where her ability to wreak havoc on innocent young men will be greatly minimized...

emmy said...

"...she has made many previous mistakes in her analysis and has seized on completely insignificant details like who signed which line..."

Yes, of course, that's *such* an insignificant detail, who signed which line...BIG, GIGANTIC, eye roll here...keep talking, because it just shows that you don't have a clue what you are saying...

Anonymous said...

9:03

In the same paragraph you wrote:

"Duke Medical is not going to get sued over the SANE exam."

shortly followed by:

"Levicy acted unprofessionally and was clearly too inexperienced to spot a nut job like Crystal Mangam, that makes her biased, unprofessional and inexperienced"

You can't see how idiotic of a paragraph that is?

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

DK's remarks are those of an informed bystander. He has the same status as many other commenters here, myself included. The readiness of many anti-Hoax people to move quickly to ad hominem attacks is disappointing. It would be better to remain civil and to discuss the argument, not the person.

DK's wife's forthcoming essay should be welcomed by everyone interested in the genesis of the Hoax--KC expressed this point of view in the last Levicy thread. The views of a SANE nurse are very valuable to understanding both the facts and the perspective of the case. Kathleen Eckhelt and the pseudonymous Kethra have contributed a great deal of insight into how hospitals handle rape cases, and on the procedures that have evolved at the intersection of medical care and law enforcement. As each has pointed out, there are some tricky issues and conflicts to resolve.

So, why the pre-emptive attacks on DK's wife--a person who has yet to comment? Her credibility will rise or fall on what she writes. Which is as it should be.

----

And I second KT's 9:52am request that "anonymouses" offering repeated comments choose some pseudonym. It would help the rest of us figure out which of "you" is shouting in this crowded bar.

Anonymous said...

Please consult a lawyer to understand that an individual acting unprofessionally even criminally or negligently does not automatically expose the institution to legal liability.

Yes, who signed which line is an insignificant detail. It's like evidence being suppressed because the warrant was executed at night not the day time, its technical bullshit that has no bearing on the content of the report.

There is no evidence that Levicy ever represented that she herself did the physical part of the exam as Kethra has repeatedly claimed. In fact, based on KC's post today it appears she NEVER claimed it, inferred it or misrepresented her level of participation in any way.

Shouting Thomas said...

It's amazing how much harm a person can do when they think they are doing good.

This woman obviously thought that she was operating from those famous "good intentions." If we have good intentions, our actions can't possible be bad. Right?

Anonymous said...

I haven't given up hope for Tara Levicy. It will take a lot of work, but she can become a productive member of society again. As what, I'm not qualified to speak.

Anonymous said...

Anyone with the interest to do so can head over to LS board and read what Kethra and the other nurse members have written on the case for months. You will not find any errors in their postings. Be sure to check out the un-documented ramblings of the newer "nurses" that rushed in to defend Tara. Huge difference!

Face up trolls- Tara is going down. (bad choice of phrase) and DUMC is gonna pay. I remember when the boards and blogs were full of folks telling us Nifong would never recuse himself, that a player would "turn" and all the other bull. As long as there exist an active blog hooligan community dedicated to outting these creeps, NO Hoaxster is safe.

Anonymous said...

Houston Baker called for the immediate dismissal of the Lax team, Sound familiar to what is going on with nurse Tara and now Arico. Farm animals = trolls -

Anonymous said...

10.04

this legal issue is a matter for a court to decide...we all have opinions on what a jury might conclude

there is a DUTY for an institution to make accurate statements when such result in TORTS to others...this duty can be enforced when it is clear that MISREPRESENATION is at hand..

the role of management is to minsure that all suties are understood and there is a lot of evidence in the AG etc report that there was plenty of time to review the accusations, and correct them

this wasnt done...and your assertion of dukes innocence is only YOUR OPINION

Anonymous said...

The fact that you call anyone who doesn't support the extreme view that Levicy is a criminal or Duke is going to get sued due to her role in the case a "troll" is pretty telling.

Duke University is not going to get sued or settle with the players. Duke Medical is not going to get sued and settle with the players.

Durham will likely get sued and settle with the players,hopefully for several million each.

Anonymous said...

Interesting related reading:

No More Witch Burnings for PC Offenses

AMac said...

A point which has been made repeatedly but seems to get lost in the noise is worth raising again.

Some professions are highly structured and regulated, and require contemporaneous, written documentation of what is done (and in some cases, what is said).

For instance, in manufacturing pharmaceuticals, pre-approved, written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have to be followed; technicians have to document that SOPs are followed. There are even SOPs about writing SOPs and documenting SOP compliance!

To later claim "I properly followed the SOP, but didn't document my compliance" is the same as admitting "I violated the SOP."

In medicine, trainers caution practitioners, "If you did something but didn't write it down--It didn't happen!"

For both medical and legal reasons, the delivery of care must be contemporaneously documented.

This is not optional. This is not trivial. It is crucial. People misremember, make errors in judgement, forget, rationalize, engage in CYA, get embarrassed, feel shame and remorse, cover for friends, and the like. The medical, legal, and nursing professions are well aware of these human failings. Thus the requirement for contemporary documentation.

Any claim that Levicy, Manly, or Arico made after the morning of March 14 must -- must -- be documented in the patient records or the SANE report of that day.

Levicy has apparently made a number of statements about events of that morning during the spring, summer, fall, and winter. Her claims are apparently not supported by the contemporary DUMC and law-enforcement (SANE report) written records.

This is a huge red flag!

Do Levicy's defenders at least concede that much?

Anonymous said...

the trolls have all turned into lawyers now! nobody win sue Tara, nobody will sue DUMC, nobody will sue Duke, blah, blah, blah. go back to being fake nurses.

Chicago said...

Until he can prove otherwise, I am going to assume DK is just a troll. He has not backed up a single word he or his supposed wife has alleged. Meanwhile, KC has made some very valuable points.

Tex-I like your theory as well.

Anonymous said...

During the Salem Wtich trials, one questioned asked was "If you are not a witch, why does my daughter scream when you enter the room?" EEO would disagree with your assessment that a male nurse/rape counselor is inappropriate?

Anonymous said...

Do Levicy's defenders at least concede that much?

Who is defending her? I've said she was biased, unprofessional, inexperienced, used bad judgement and should be reprimanded. But she should be criticized for the actual things she did wrong, not things that are made up or read into by bloggers.

That doesn't make her a criminal, mean she should lose her nursing licence or open up Duke to a lawsuit.

I said I wasn't posting anymore today and now I am going to stick to it. I also still believe the wrath against this nurse is due to the dislike of the SANE program itself, the underlying theme is that the SANE program is too biased in favor of rape victims, but you won't admit it, just like the Group of 88 won't admit they presumed the players guilt or what their ad was designed to do. You are hostile to the SANE program because many of you don't believe rape victims deserve to be supported or believed by anybody.

Anonymous said...

10:04 Well yeah - that is why the Durhman citizens wanted a trial, to let the courts decide. They did not get theirs either. Guess the old court system ain;t what it use to be,

Anonymous said...

I think the wrath against this nurse was caused by the wrong and inappropriate comments made about the whole event by the Ks. Although, with all the comments made about how SANE is agenda driven, etc, they got more than they bargained for.

gwallan said...

Puprs said...
The Duke fiasco can happen anywhere that people of good will and rational thought don't stand up when the lynch mob wants to scream "guilty" without due process. Of course it can happen in Australia.

It already has and it occured in almost the identical time frame. The parallels are eerie.
Catholic schoolboy free after rape accusation nightmare
(Sorry about the source but it seems ALL media outlets have removed the story from their servers)
Patrick was freed the same week the Duke charges were dropped. He was denied bail because the woman lied about him phoning and threatening her. The cops didn't even check the phone records to confirm this.


Does Tara Levicy deserve due process? I don't know that she deserves it, but I know that I won't agree to deny due process to her or Saddam or John Howard or any other sick bastard who gets lined up in someone's viewfinder. I'd rather it be done fairly, and right, and the consequences follow as they will.

I stated in the post you are responding to that Levicy is entitled to a presumption of innocence - as is anybody. Unfortunately she would almost certanly deny that right to others particularly if they belong to a certain gender.

The documented facts, however, make it clear that she puts her own idealogical concerns ahead of those of the patient and the truth. She is patently unsuited to the role and clearly has a conflict of interest. Personally I wouldn't be interested in punishing her beyond ensuring that she never works in any role that involves issues relating to sexual assault. I would also hope it would prompt an inquiry into feminist involvement in the SANE process more generally.

Anonymous @9:45:00 AM said...
Whats laughable is that Victoria appears to be right "Duke messed with the evidence" The 88 and their supportes are laughing too -"They are just like us" and most of you are - name calling,attempt to stife free speech and persecuation. KC - I don't know why you are supporting this hate and viciousnees but it is a sad conclusion to a great blog.

No. Tara Levicy, feminist with an agenda, "messed with the evidence".

You miss the distinct difference between the enablers and KC's blog. KC actually has real documented facts to back it up. The enablers were out to lynch innocent people. Truth didn't matter and was trumped anyway by their own fantasies. They were attempting to create a truth all of the own and enforce it on others. KC and the rest of us wish to ensure the enablers NEVER, EVER do it again.

Shouting Thomas said...
It's amazing how much harm a person can do when they think they are doing good.
This woman obviously thought that she was operating from those famous "good intentions." If we have good intentions, our actions can't possible be bad. Right?


Ah yes. The road to hell...

Anonymous @10:27:00 AM said...
You are hostile to the SANE program because many of you don't believe rape victims deserve to be supported or believed by anybody.

Oh tommyrot. The SANE process is essential and very valuable. So much so that NO feminist should ever be allowed anywhere near it.

Anonymous said...

Wrong blog troll, nobody here is hostile to the SANE system in itself. We are hostile towards agenda driven individuals that misuse the power of the state or istitutions of trust that employ them to further Hoaxes against Innocent folks.

More attempted thread derailing by agenda driven trolls.

Be gone, troll

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

Does anyone know if the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) has taken an interest in the Levicy/Manly examination?

Anonymous said...

"So, why the pre-emptive attacks on DK's wife--a person who has yet to comment?"

That is a easy one. Almost all groups have an incredible ability to avoid self reflection and to instantly attack any criticism of the group, especially criticism from within. This is true whether it is those here or whether it is the Group of 88. It is why groups have such a difficult time self correcting. New Scientist magazine just had a very interesting article about group dynamics, "They Made Me Do It" (apr. 14th, 2007)

DK

emmy said...

Tara said, Blunt force Trauma, having not even been privvy to the Pelvic exam!! She couldn't see Crystal while Manly was performing the exam!!!! HOW COULD SHE CLAIM BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA WHEN SHE COULDN'T SEE CRYSTAL DURING THE EXAM??? Oh, but I'm sure that's just a big misunderstanding! I'm sure there's some innocent explanation!

Nurse Tara sycophants, heed these words...fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times, tuck your tail between your legs, throw up your hands, and shout, No Mas...oh, and I agree with anon at 10:23..."the trolls have all turned into lawyers now! go back to being fake nurses."

bill anderson said...

I said I wasn't posting anymore today and now I am going to stick to it. I also still believe the wrath against this nurse is due to the dislike of the SANE program itself, the underlying theme is that the SANE program is too biased in favor of rape victims, but you won't admit it, just like the Group of 88 won't admit they presumed the players guilt or what their ad was designed to do. You are hostile to the SANE program because many of you don't believe rape victims deserve to be supported or believed by anybody.

May 3, 2007 10:27:00 AM


That is crap. I have had three women very close to me who have been raped, none of them in a "date rape" situation, but real-live, old-fashioned, forcible rape of the go-to-jail kind.

What Levicy has done is to make a mockery of women who have been raped. By choosing to help frame three innocent men -- and that is what she did -- she also has helped to make others much more skeptical of rape claims. I, for on, am going to pay much more attention to what SANE nurses say in the future.

I am sorry, but the Vagina Monologues are fiction. What happened at Duke is real life. There is NO defense for what happened at DUMC. None. From the beginning, everything was built on a lie.

Levicy does not deserve only to lose her license, but she deserves to go to prison for conspiring to frame three people. I hate to tell you this, but framing innocent people is a very serious felony.

Anonymous said...

Nurse Tara isn't the only one. Check out this discussion on a professional Forensics Nurse blog
Forensics Talk

Anonymous said...

DK- I eagerly await your wife's article. For over a year, we have been told that we would see things that would help us understand the case and how and why things were happening in the crazy way they did. We have yet to see anything sane from any defender of the Hoax. Not one single thing. I hope that Mrs. DK will prove to be a trailblazer in this area.

Anonymous said...

in a search of levicy she shows up signing petitions for the democrat DEAN, 10 year white water rafter guide and outdoors medical assistant, besides her college education which is feminazi AND LIBERAL DEMOCRAT driven...

the citation for forensic nurses showed the potential legal liability as these ERs get federal funds, etc and as such are liable for their actions of misrepresenation....

THE TIMELINES THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED ARE THERE BECAUSE THE LIBERAL WACKO LEGAL BAR HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS...which is why procedures are SO INSTITUTIONALIZED to defend against the medical pervs out to collect lawsuit money

KT said...

Anonymous (still!) 10:27:00 AM says:

"That doesn't make her a criminal, mean she should lose her nursing licence (SIC) or open up Duke to a lawsuit.

It is amazing to me that you don't think that Levicy's actions have not opened up either herself or DUMC for a lawsuit! In the litigious world that we live in today? Where someone sues a large company for negligence, causing pain and suffering, and is awarded mega bucks for something that should have been common sense (think McDonald's for serving hot coffee that the consumer spilled in their own lap!) In this day and age, you think that Duke is not possibly liable for this poor judgment? You don't think that Ms. Levicy has anything to fear in the way of repercussions?

You go on...
I said I wasn't posting anymore today and now I am going to stick to it. I also still believe the wrath against this nurse is due to the dislike of the SANE program itself, the underlying theme is that the SANE program is too biased in favor of rape victims, but you won't admit it, just like the Group of 88 won't admit they presumed the players guilt or what their ad was designed to do. You are hostile to the SANE program because many of you don't believe rape victims deserve to be supported or believed by anybody."

I find it interesting that you think many of the posters here are hostile to the SANE program and that many think rape victims are not worthy of being believed or supported by anybody. I don't find that to be the case. What I see is a group of people who are outraged that a purportedly fine and reputable institution like Duke and DUMC would put up with the incompetence that has been uncovered here. Duke has had a great reputation for a long time, so they are expected to provide outstanding service to their patients. To discover that Crystal Mangum was not seen by a SANE until Nurse Levicy arrived is hard to swallow. That is unprofessional on it's face. What if she really were a rape victim? Waiting for that length of time would traumatize a true rape victim further.

To make matters worse, the person assigned to look her over is a newbie at best. Unqualified to do the job without supervision. Only enough classroom hours completed so that clinical hours can begin. Where was Levicy's supervisor? Even after the exam was finished, doesn't a supervisor need to look over the paperwork before it is sent to DPD/SBI? Before this case even made it's way out of the hospital and on to law enforcement, look at how many mistakes/improprieties had already happened! If SANE is going to be valued, which I think it should be, how can any of those in connection with SANE/SART be happy about this? The procedures are there for a reason, and this case is probably a textbook example of what those procedures are intended to avoid! Shame on DUMC, Levicy, and her supervisor! IF this shoddy work is typical of what happens in rape cases, then there should be something done, so that true rape victims are not traumatized further by what will ensue for them as the case moves forward.

KT said...

Anonymous 10:59:00 AM said...

Nurse Tara isn't the only one. Check out this discussion on a professional Forensics Nurse blog
Forensics Talk


I'm not seeing the discussion going on. Is it on the sidebar or somewhere else? Please advise.

rrhamilton said...

Re. the possible lawsuits against Duke or DUMC:

The elements of a negligence cause of action are: (1) Duty, (2) Breach, (3) Causation, and (4) Damages. Stated as a question, it is, "Did the defendant(s) owe a duty to the plaintiff(s), and if they did, then did they breach that duty, and if they did, then was that breach the cause of harm to the plaintiff(s), and if it did, then what was the harm that it caused?"

I think it would be interesting to hear lawyers here discuss possible theories of liability for Duke University and/or DUMC.

duke09parent said...

There are two comments on this whole string I found particularly good and worth a review.

Nifong's hat trick at 1:57 a.m. said:
"Levicy's feminist blinders prevented her from seeing CGM as anything but a real victim of rape!

Levicy was overzealous in recounting her dealing with a screaming, hysterical rape victim and in the process said things she wasn't legally qualified to say.

At most perhaps malpractice? Although her actions were harmful beyond description, I don't think Levicy's intent was criminal. I think she really believed she was being a good little feminist!"

The net result of the DUMC exam of Mangum was that DNA swabs provided the best evidence of the defendants’ innocence. It’s hard for me to work up a lather against Levicy. Her work here seems to be an example of Hanlon's Razor “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”


I wish Anonymous at 6:05:00 a.m. had given himself/herself a handle I could look for other examples or his/her viewpoints. That post is the best 10 paragraph summary of how and why the whole case happened I have read. The summary is:

"What is important is to see the whole picture because the same conditions prevail at most colleges and universities around the country. The Duke case was very spectacular but similar cases have occurred in the past and more will happen in the future.

This isn't a matter of left versus right or liberal versus conservative. There is a witches brew of political correctness and craven administration that makes these witch hunts possible."

The main section of Anony there says this but I would add this ingredient to the “witches brew”—an opportunistic and unscrupulous politician abusing his position of power.

Anonymous said...

And over at Pandagon we see that they are unrepentent:


For who-knows-what reason, there’s been a small influx of nasty comments from the Apologize to the Duke Lacrosse Team NOW brigade. Don’t know what set them off–I suppose it could just be a periodic hormonal fluctuation–but stalwart lacrosse team defenders, it’s time to move on. This is fixing to outstrip (!) the Clenis fixation with you people.

Which brings up a good question: If Clinton had hired strippers for a party, hurled racist slurs at them, and later emailed his cabinet to notify them of his Patrick Bateman-inspired murder fantasies, would Republicans have come out swinging against a rush to judgment? I believe the answer is spelled “HAHAHAHAHAHAyouhavegottobefuckingkiddingme.”

Anonymous said...

duke09parent says:


The net result of the DUMC exam of Mangum was that DNA swabs provided the best evidence of the defendants’ innocence. It’s hard for me to work up a lather against Levicy. Her work here seems to be an example of Hanlon's Razor “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”


However, stupidity also gets you sued.

duke09parent said...

I meant to add this to the analysis of Levicy and Arico. I never took seriously the "consistent with rape" mantra. This is from my years of experience cross examining medical professionals in personal injury lawsuits who say in their reports "consistent with ...." That almost NEVER means "proves" or "is evidence of". It's what I call a weasel word that sounds like it means something when it doesn't. Diffuse vaginal edema is also consistent with consensual sex with multiple partners the day before; it is also consistent with her having milk to drink that morning. It proves nothing except that it cannot DISPROVE that a sexual assault occurred.

I recognize now, though, that the public and the media really do place credence in that phrase "consistent with".

Anonymous said...

Duke09parent:

I'm not an atty, and I think I remember that you are. Why wouldn't lying to LE in the course of an investigation be a crime? I thought that's what Martha Stewart did time for, and what Scooter Liddy was convicted of. In neither of those cases were any criminal charges brought

From KC's piece, it appears that Levicy said to Gottleib that there was edema and tenderness to palpitation anally when she didn't even witness that part of the exam. The doctor who did the exam never made the finding of anal edema nor tenderness on palpitation. It sounds like it was outright fabrication. If that is true, why would it not be criminal?

Alev

Stephen said...

My question would be; are these two women still working at DUMC, and if so, WHY?? Using their positions, how many more innocent men will be sent to the gallows because of their personal beliefs? They should and MUST be held accountable, especially Levicy.

becket03 said...

Hey 6:05 AM that was a very cool synopsis, written with panache and keen insight.

beckett

Anonymous said...

I have had three women very close to me who have been raped, none of them in a "date rape" situation, but real-live, old-fashioned, forcible rape of the go-to-jail kind.
-------------------------

But of course, 'real rape' isn't 'date rape' those women who say someone they know raped them are all liars and even if they didn't consent, its a boys will be boys thing, no jail time required!

30yr ob/gyn said...

Every rape victim deserves a thorough and competent evaluation. KC has documented the known facts and they show her evaluation was very poor. DUMC, Tara and all those involved should be critized for their inadequate performance. Hopefully those that do rape evaluations can learn from this experience. I am appalled by the inexperience of the examiners. No examiner that hates men or has a strong feminist agenda should be involved in this work. This is a serious conflict of interest. I have come to respect the posts of both Kethra and Kathleen. They are accurate and very professional. I look foward on commenting on the comments of DK's wife.

Anonymous said...

duke09parent

what you fail to understand is that MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND HOSPITALS are now subject to organizational and management controls necessary to PROVIDE LEGAL SAFE HARBOUR...

THE RECORDS THAT LEVICY created are a mess according to reports...she is NO NOVICE as a nurse eventho she was a novice in forensic nurse rape care...

you are simply too KIND...and naive about her duty to duke..to patients and anyone who is falsely charged due to her INCOMPETANCE and misjudgement

if a doctor made a mistake on your child, are you telling me you wouldnt take action ?

BUT you posit that the families of all who she and duke, as accessories, have created tortious actions are supposed to TURN THE OTHER CHEEK ?

there is a reason why women cant fight and win wars ...they dont have the tosterone to win...

WestToast said...

Can Levicy Be Successfully Sued?
Under whatever NC law mandated the use of SANE examiners, (1)is Levicy's exam and conclusion a privileged act? (as in "no SANE examiner shall be liable based upon any alleged act or omission done or not done during any SANE exam...; (2),or is Levicy entitled to a presumption of "good faith" that would have to be overcome in any lawsuit? (e.g., someone would have to show more than a dumb mistake--they would have to show gross recklessness or malice?

Appalling as all she did seems to have been, isn't it likely that NC has or will enact a statute that protects SANE examiners from lawsuits for fear the job will be hard to fill, cost a fortune in lawsuits to hospitals etc?

emmy said...

Anonymous at 12:01, I don't think Bill was casting doubt on all date rape victims...what I took from his post was that he was stating that there was no ambiguity about his three friends' rapes...let's be honest here...there are MANY cases of "date rape" that are anything but clear, or cut-and-dried...and when you consider that radical feminists are now trying to put forth the notion that it is *indeed* rape if a woman changes her mind, *after the fact*, that she consented to having sex, then I think you should be quite troubled, and by necessity, look with a *very* critical eye, at these claims of "date rape"...and it's a damn shame, but the rape nazis *are* INDEED ruining the prospects for GENUINE rape victims, whether they know their attacker or not, from receiving protection and justice...when rape can be described as "whatever the woman believes", then we're in BIG TROUBLE...

becket03 said...

BDay 9:25 AM:

Excellent point which I hadn't thought of.

Yeah I guess they do need to slap an OJ/Son of Sam injunction on her.

beckett

rrhamilton said...

KC, from one of your female fans:

Amanda Marcotte
May 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm


Having never accused anyone directly of anything, I have no idea what I’m supposed to apologize for.

Oh yeah—being a feminist and opposed to rape and sexual harassment.


Found in the "comments" section of http://pandagon.net/2007/05/01/get-a-life-kids/

R.R. Hamilton

Duke 85 said...

To anon at 6:05- awesome post.
To Cedarford: Nifong could contend that he was misled by Levicy. His life (deservedly) is pretty much toast due to DUMC providing him bad info (although he had plenty of opportunity to check it out and didn't).

Anonymous said...

Emmy,

Do you really think that if a woman consents to vaginal sex but doesn't want anal sex and the man forces her that she wasn't raped?

You are misreading what these laws are about, that consenting to sex act A doesn't mean you've consented to sex acts B-Z, that you can withdraw your consent at any time and your partner has to stop. But, in reality very few of these kinds of cases ever make it to court.

All date or acquantance rapes are generally murky and hard to prove. When the complainant and the defendant are the only two witnesses it is very difficult to "prove" who is telling the truth. But, the reality is that most rapes are this type, not the clear cut stranger with a weapon.

duke09parent said...

Alev at 11:45,
I am in civil litigation rather than criminal but most states do make lying to LE some sort of crime. I think they are rarely prosecuted. I think it is unfortunate that prosecutors tag on these offenses and get convictions on them when they can't convict on any charges that started the investigations to begin with. That includes the Stewart and Libby convictions in my book.

rrhamilton raised this question on possible lawsuits against Duke or DUMC, and whether the elements for a "tort" can be met:

The elements of a negligence cause of action are: (1) Duty, (2) Breach, (3) Causation, and (4) Damages.

There are potentials for suits against Duke on violations of the student/university privacy act (FERPA?) which others have addressed elsewhere ans which don't fit this area. Also, some folks think there may be some libel exposure to Duke from continued publication of the Listening Statement on the university website. But as to liability of DUMC or Levicy, the 4 elements do need to be met. I think the case against them is weak-- not much of a duty past the patient to third parties (particularly since nothing Levicy did identified the third parties, indeed ultimately exonerated them); proximate causation is a problem, since the eventual indictments took a lot more activity of others to bring about, but as has been pointed out the NTO was crucially based on her report; damages would not be a problem for the three defendants, but might be for the rest (one could argue that their attorney fees were not required and ultimately not necessary).

My answers may anger those who are angry at all the enablers and want them all to pay. That's why we eliminate from juries people who bring a preconceived view and anger about what happened in a particular case.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how anything Levicy did can exonerate Nifong. He ignored alibi evidence, demanded a rigged line-up and conspired to hide and did hide for six months exculpatory evidence, that's leaving out the unprovable but true witness tampering and witness intimidation and falsification of the memory report. None of these acts can be blamed on Levicy.

Duke 85 said...

To anon at 10:21. You are exactly right about writing down anything that happens in a hospital. It's good to know that if you request a service or test and are ignored or they say they can't provide it right now, you tell them to write down on your chart (and show it to you) that you requested it. It's amazing how fast you get the requested test or service. Tara didn't perform the vaginal or anal exam yet felt free to comment on it to Nifong. There's the rub. She, even with little experience, should know about drug shoppers in the ER.

emmy said...

Anon 12:25
"Do you really think that if a woman consents to vaginal sex but doesn't want anal sex and the man forces her that she wasn't raped?"

I did not use that scenario as an example...I said that if a woman later decides that having sex with a particular person was not a good idea, then that to me does not constitute rape...and it should NOT constitute rape to any reasonable person...the scenario you suggest is a totally different can of worms, but it was not what I was speaking to.

Anonymous said...

I said that if a woman later decides that having sex with a particular person was not a good idea, then that to me does not constitute rape...and it should NOT constitute rape to any reasonable person
-----------

It doesn't constitute rape legally or to any reasonable person.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, are meaning instances where if a woman doesn't immediately call the police and go to the hospital but waits a day or a week to report it that means she wasn't really raped? I can't support that view either, I don't believe its unreasonable that if someone she knows commits a rape that a woman might not need some time to consider whether or not to go to police. Given the skepticism about date rape, taking time to be sure you wanted to open yourself up to that kind of criticism would seem normal to me.

Look at the Duke case, the hoaxer claimed rape within an hour, her quickness to say she was raped obviously had nothing to do with the truth of her statements, why shouldn't the reverse be true?

Anonymous said...

If you think KC's arguments relating to Levicy are harsh. Imagine Levicy, under oath, on the witness stand being cross-examined by the defence

emmy said...

I'm speaking more to the advocacy that the rape nazis are pushing...they are saying that a woman can CHANGE HER MIND about being raped! If a woman had consensual sex with a guy, and afterwards decided that she shouldn't have done it, she could go to the police and say she was raped, and she would have to be taken seriously...and there was a case where a woman told the guy no mid-way and the guy stopped, but he was *Still* charged with rape! If the rape nazis get their way, any woman can claim rape at any time for any reason, even months after the fact...if that doesn't trouble you, then I guess you're someone who subscribes to the "women never lie about rape" theory...if a woman waits to go to police, sadly, she does it at her peril...crap, it's terrible to even think about it, because I can see your point about a woman being unsure about reporting an acquaintance rape...but just like defending free speech means defending speech one hates, enforcing the concept (legally) of reasonable doubt surely means that some guilty people are going to go free...but as terrible as that is, it's far worse in my opinion for an innocent man to be convicted and sent to prison...

Anonymous said...

Emmy says:


I did not use that scenario as an example...I said that if a woman later decides that having sex with a particular person was not a good idea, then that to me does not constitute rape...and it should NOT constitute rape to any reasonable person...the scenario you suggest is a totally different can of worms, but it was not what I was speaking to.


I think that this post Maxed Out speaks to that issue.

However, I find it difficult to believe that you are a woman. Surely no woman can speak so lucidly and calmly about sexual regrets!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:25pm

You said:

1) "All date or acquantance rapes are generally murky and hard to prove. When the complainant and the defendant are the only two witnesses it is very difficult to "prove" who is telling the truth."

2) "But, the reality is that most rapes are this type, not the clear cut stranger with a weapon."

IMHO 2) does not follow from 1), in fact, the sequence of the two statements strikes me as a contradiction.

I have no polemic intent, just want to understand.

How do we know that "most rapes are this type" if this is the very type for which it is hard to establish it is a rape in the first place?

Statement 2) requires an established, reliable procedure for sorting out the competing claims of the two parties. What is this procedure? And what data shows that most of the murky situations in 1) are in fact rapes?

Perhaps in 2) you meant to say "most ALLEGED rapes are this type"?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Other than Wendy Murphy and a few other nuts, I don't think anyone believes women NEVER lie about rape, that's a straw man argument used to make the belief that women RARELY lie about rape, which is supported by much research, to seem crazy and extreme.

There are cases where women definitely lied about being raped. There are cases where guilty men definitely were acquitted of sex crimes. There are cases where innocent men were convicted of sex crimes. There are cases where rape victims were wrongly accused and sometimes convicted of making a false report.

All of these things happen and cannot be ruled out, this is why each case must be taken on its own merits.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of women who say they were raped WERE raped, however that alone doesn't mean you have a provable or winnable criminal case or even that you SHOULD prosecute. It all depends on the particular circumstances. IF that makes me a rape nazi, so be it.

gak said...

Why this woman is allowed to practice any sort of medicine is beyond me. The fact that she got certified after all this tells me that the SANE profession is just a bunch of rank amateurs trying to be "BIG TIME"

Anonymous said...

How do we know that "most rapes are this type" if this is the very type for which it is hard to establish it is a rape in the first place?
-------------------

The Department of Justice keeps statistics on rape. Their statistics show that a majority of rape victims knew their attacker. There are statistics on the different rate of arrest, prosecution and conviction for acqutantance and stranger rape.

There are numerous studies that have been done on how victims of acquantance and stranger rape differ in recovery.

There are numerous anonymous studies and surveys done of all women, college women, women in the military all finding a similarly high percentage of acquantances vs. strangers.

But, of course, if you don't believe a woman was raped unless she not only files a criminal compliant but wins in court, then, there isn't much to say to you, I guess you believe OJ was innocent and Avila was innocent in his first child molestation trial as well.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Duke09parent. I understand that many want some kind of payback in the form of lawsuits, but i have long questioned how unindicted players could really claim damages. I know they paid for lawyers and their parents flew down, and their season was canceled. While I would have done just as they did, they cannot definitively say they HAD to hire expensive lawyers since their sons were not indicted. And, theoretically, they are at Duke first and foremost for the education--the sport is not the priority, nor is it guaranteed.

Anonymous said...

For those who seem to believe the trustees are accountable for the actions of DUMC, I think that Duke Univ. and DUMC are separate entities, and that the trustees (and Brodhead) have no resposibility for the medical center. Does anyone know for sure?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Thank you, Tara Levicy.

For nearly two decades, I have watched you and your kind bury feminism in the grave of male hatred. You buried it deep, Tara -you've been shoveling for a long time. And all that while the media helped you dig - like when it buried the face of bruise-free Crystal but printed the faces of Reade and Collin on the cover of Newsweek. The law helped bury too when Nifong buried the lab reports, and the judge buried justice when he let racists scream 'dead man walking' at Reade in that court house. They were all digging, Tara - but yours was one of the first shovels.

How smug you must have been that morning of March 14, 2006 when you marched into the hospital with your righteous shovel over your shoulder and was told that a screaming, black prostitute was yelling that she'd just been gang raped by white boys.

You dug with such smugness - calmly signing for an exam you never did, distorting a knee scrape and minor swelling of the vagina to 'prove' a gang rape by three burly men for half an hour in a small bathroom, dug even deeper when you sat in that office with your supervisor to face the most stinking grave digger of all - Nifong - as you all dug the graves of Reade, Collin and Dave that would be 30 years deep.

Oh, those were glorious moments, Tara. The anthem of self-righteousness must have sang at you in Nifong's office like the Horst Wessel anthem of the Brownshirts. As jackboots once crunched on the glass of Kristallnacht, your lies stomped on the rights of Reade, Dave and Collin. Nothing could stop you.

Damn, Tara - you should have checked first to see if there was a Walter Duranty to help you dig. He'd have buried your crimes like he buried Stalin's. Except - shit, Walter's dead. Well, of course, you consoled yourself that the Times was still burying the truth in his memory - but it must have come as a stinking shock to hear the sound of those strange shovels digging. Damn, a lot of them - and all bought at a store called the "Internet". Yup, some bow-tied professor from the North had a helluva shovel, some guy called John in Carolina was digging too, and hell, some righteous diggers calling themselves LieStoppers could even rhyme while they dug. And damn, honey, they were digging hard!

They dug up the truth of what really happened that night of March 13/14, 2006. They dug up the digital photos, the video of Crystal stumbling like a drunken nut case muttering "I'm a cop", the cab driver's testimony, Reade's stunning alibi, the phone calls, they dug up Meehan's report that he buried, etc. And they dug up you, Tara. You.

They dug up your stunning lack of experience, the medical rules you broke signing a form for an exam you didn't do, your lies to the investigators, the 'facts' that never existed except in your mind and in the mouth of a lying prostitute, etc. They dug it all up.

And now the manure of your bullshit is steaming in the open air for all to wrinkle their noses at. I've had to wrinkle mine for too many years, dear. So you'd better believe what joy and pleasure it will give me to watch the faces of the jury wrinkle in disgust as you twist and lie on the witness stand. That will be almost as great as watching DUMC dig deep into its purse to pay for the lies you told from the start. Oh, joy!

That's why I thank you, Tara. Who knew that when you started burying the facts that morning of March 14, 2006 that you would shock others to unearth the truth?

Keep digging, Tara. Who knows? Maybe you can white water raft on the river Styx?

MB said...

A Hoax-defender said: "I also still believe the wrath against this nurse is due to the dislike of the SANE program itself, the underlying theme is that the SANE program is too biased in favor of rape victims, but you won't admit it, just like the Group of 88 won't admit they presumed the players guilt or what their ad was designed to do."

Not exactly, but close. My wrath against this nurse isn't because she's a SANE per se, it's because she's a feminist who as a SANE nurse was in a position of power to indulge her sexist ideology and railroad three innocent men. Further, I think that feminism is the common theme linking Levicy, Nifong, Gottlieb, Murphy, et al. To me, this is an example of a "Perfect Storm" of feminism and power run completely amok.

Consider that feminists have weaseled their way into the medical and legal professions, law-enforcement, etc., via their programs to "educate" judges, DAs, police, physicians, nurses, and other professionals with the 'fact' (read: myth) that "women never lie" about rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or anything else for that matter. The logical corollary is that in such he said/she said situations, 'men always lie.'

Levicy, Nifong, Gottlieb, the Group of 88, Potbangers, and all the other sorry players who joined the lynch mob are all simply products of the feminist indoctrination campaign, which is why we have to throw those 'educators' out on their sorry arses ASAP. Frankly, there should be no place in a civilized society for such thinking.

rrhamilton said...

Duke09Parent at 12:26 PM says s/he doubts that DUMC "owed a duty of care" to the possible lacrosse plaintiffs. I'm going to disagree. I think whenever rape examinations are done, the persons who are charged with the rape are certainly "foreseeable third parties".

As an example of this for the non-lawyers here of this principle of "foreseeable third parties": If I drive negligently and crash into a firetruck which is speeding to a housefire, I could be liable not only for the damage to the firetruck but also for the damage to the house -- since my negligence prevented the firetruck from reaching and putting out the fire.

"WestToast" at 12:09 suggests there may be a statute protecting SANEs from liability. There may well be, but I don't know that such a statute would protect Levicy (who was "in training" and thus not a SANE). And I have serious doubts that the statute would protect DUMC.

"WestToast" at 12:09 also suggests that the law may hold SANEs to a "gross negligence" standand -- either by statute or through public policy concerns of the courts. I would not be surprised if WestToast is (or will be) correct about this.

Btw, again for the non-lawyers: "Gross negligence" is ... hmmm, basically like negligence on steroids. It is not a mere oversight, a mere slipup; it's a "COMPLETE absense of care". As my torts prof said, "Gross negligence means 'DAMNNNNNNEDDD negligence". What it means for plaintiffs' lawyers is that they must prove a more-culpable level of "breach of duty" than they would if the case is tried under "ordinary-negligence" rules.

Did the actions of Levicy and/or DUMC reach the level of gross-negligence?

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:12

Thanks for the answer.

But why the anger? I did not accuse you of anything nor claimed that ALL women lie about being raped. I asked my question because I assumed that you knew what you were talking about and I am not familiar with the literature on this subject.

Let me rephrase my question: Outside of legal proceedings, how do we establish in a she says - he says situation who is telling the truth? I imagine that if we could do this with some reliability, then we could sort out what percentage of murky situations were in fact rapes instead of consensual sex. An example could be a case that does not go to trial because the prosecutor does not feel that he can win. How would such a case be handled in collecting statistics? Is it recorded as a rape, an alleged rape, an unfounded accusation or just as a don't know?

Anonymous said...

All 46 Duke players had a right to privacy violated by a false statement made on the NTO. In addition, they were publicly smeared - as a result - for shielding three purported rapists in their midst. So there is no harm, no foul, you say?

Tara Levicy might have made a newbie error. That gets her as far as April 1, 2006, maybe. But for what went on after that, fair game. She's definitely going to pay.

becket03 said...

I also still believe the wrath against this nurse is due to the dislike of the SANE program itself, the underlying theme is that the SANE program is too biased in favor of rape victims, but you won't admit it, just like the Group of 88 won't admit they presumed the players guilt or what their ad was designed to do. You are hostile to the SANE program because many of you don't believe rape victims deserve to be supported or believed by anybody.

Truly an inSANE comment. Speaking for myself (obviously, since that's all I can speak for) I never even heard of SANE until this case popped up. Therefore I positively had no bias one way or the other concerning the program. Furthermore, I have a relative who was the victim of rape, and I'm heavily biased in favor of "support[ing] rape victims"!

There was NO RAPE in this case, and Tara Levicy, the first medical professional to examine the purported rape victim and write a report, displayed abysmal professional skills in her efforts, misdiagnosed the patient, misled the police on matters of fact, and in several followup opportunities never corrected the record, but instead dug herself a deeper hole.

Given her past as a gender rights ideologue, her bias is suspect, and reasonable people are entitled to think she was motivated to lie in service to a political agenda.

She's got, in my opinion, one more shot to avoid the Mack truck heading in her direction and now roughly 100 feet away. The next public comment she makes needs to be laced with soft words of apology and remorse. Strident, Waheema-like words of defiance and certitude just about guarantee that she'll become part of the blacktop, RoadRunner style.

beckett

mb said...

Anonymous stated: "I believe that the overwhelming majority of women who say they were raped WERE raped"

Among other legitimate scientists, Dr. Eugene Kanin, who conducted a very good study on false rape allegations (Archives of Sexual Behavior 23(1):81-92 (2005)), would disagree with you on this.

Anonymous said...

To 6:05, You sure were thinking clearly at such an early hour. Well done. Thanks!

To 12:28, There will be no exoneration for Mr. Nifong. He will almost certainly be disbarred and, I believe, face criminal prosecution. What I meant when I said Nurse Levicy is Mr. Nifong's best defense to criminal (not ethics charges, for which he has little defense) is this: Nurse Levicy's statements about (1)"blunt force trauma," (2) Ms. Mangum's "pain" during her pelvic exam, and (3) behavior of Ms. Mangum indicative of a "traumatic" experience (among other statements) offer the best cover Mr. Nifong has for pursuing charges against the innocent defendants. His argument is that he pursued the case because of the medical reports and statements from medical personnel indicating rather strongly the liklihood of a rape. This argument will probably not get him out of his legal troubles--it's just the best argument he has for demonstrating his own good faith and demonstrates pointedly why it is so extremely important everyone adhere to professional standards of conduct. Nurse Levicy (and now Nurse Arico) are not minor players. They were a significant part of a multi-system failure.

M.Simon, So glad you are back!

Observer

Anonymous said...

Outside of legal proceedings, how do we establish in a she says - he says situation who is telling the truth?
---------------

You can't. I would argue you have to use common sense. So, for example, if a woman is date raped and the prosecutor decides the case isn't winnable, but she goes to counseling for a year or two to deal with the 'alleged rape' or has confided in friends or family about her rape, it's a good bet that she was raped. There are several cases on record of college girls who 'claimed rape' never pressed charges and then killed themselves, leaving diaries including entries about their rape. Seems to me, this is a good bet for a 'real rape'.

As far as recording rapes, I believe the stats are recorded as an "arrest" and then whatever the disposition of the case..not prosecuted/prosecuted/plea bargain/trial, etc. For those reported rapes that don't result in an arrest the police dept. rules vary on how they are recorded, some as 'false' or 'unfounded' or lack of evidence, etc.

One of the ways these types of 'grey' areas can be dealt with is by looking over the date over time. If over a period of 10 or 20 or 30 years a given statistic stays relatiively the same, its a good bet its a correct interpretation. If results of surveys and studies over time come to the same or similar conclusions, its a good bet the conclusions are accurate. There are a gazillion surveys and studies about rape, rape victims that didn't report it, who are they, what their reasons were, rape victims who went through the criminal justice system, what happened. This body of data, while it still has many holes and areas that need further investigation and documentation has been pretty consistent over the last 30 years about rates of stranger rape vs. acquantance rape and rates of reporting rapes vs. not doing it.

Legislatures all across the country didn't wake up one day in thrall to feminist thinking when they enacted changes in the law dealing with rape. The laws were changed based on numerous cases, case law, studies and recommendations from various experts.

Rape is always going to be difficult to prove in criminal court given the built in bias toward defendants that our system has, meaning we would better put our resources to prevention.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Crystal was seen by three doctors and three other nurse before Nurse Tara came on the scene - the facts in this case undermine your arguments - Your folk are dancing in the streets that you have another person to harass - Nurse Arico.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers WiTT and Freedman are probably laughing their heads off at this nonsense argument that Nifong did it due to the Nurse.

Anonymous said...

Panties will be posing in Playboy.

It's a special primate issue.

Anonymous said...

12:28 So true, but this is a smear not a fact finding mission.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone think of anything more repulsive than Crystal Gail Mangum naked?

And Collin, David, and Reade were accused of risking their lives to have sex with this cow?

Isn't that Preccccccciousssssssss!

Aristotle Smith

Anonymous said...

Thanks, anon at 10:21 a.m., for the link to Daniel Henniger's Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "No More Witch Burning for PC offenses."

His opening paragraph is a list of and a reminder of some of the better known PC targets and victims:

"Don Imus, Bernard McGuirk, Trent Lott, Larry Summers, the Duke lacrosse team, Jimmy the Greek, the kid who yelled "water buffalo" at Penn, Howard Cosell, Jon Stewart, Chief Illiniwek, Jackie Mason and "South Park" all have in common only one thing: They have not been Politically Correct."

The mainstream media needs more such articles to counter the PC wave that rolling across the country. PC is not about correctness; it's all about power.

I'm looking forward to KC's book to address the many forms and instances of PC running amok in the Duke Hoax.

Gary Packwood said...

SANE-SART FUNDING & EVALUATION

The Office for Victims of Crime
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
/ovc/

...has a SANE-SART Web site
http://www.sane-sart.com/

...and funding is disussed
SANE program and funding Overview
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
ovc/publications/bulletins/
sane_4_2001/9.html

...with special emphasis on Grants
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
BJA/grant/jag.html

...which must be coordinated with the Prosecution office
Table 9.2: Impacts on Prosecution Offices (Scroll Down to almost the end)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
BJA/evaluation/guide/
documents/stop5-9.html

Mike Nifong would be the central figure in any SANE grant application.

It makes no sense to have a SANE program if their are no convictions. How many convictions did Durham count for Calendar or Fiscal Year 2005 or 2006?
(Rape or Sexual Assault)

Anonymous said...

156


again ur a dope

none of them were SANE...for a reason SO they paperwork would be filled out...she saw the er room and they turned her over to the rape specialists

Anonymous said...

What do you think the purpose of the SANE nurse is? Do you think they are there to trap false accusers?

The entire premise of the SANE program is to gather evidence to support criminal prosecution. It was found that rape victims going to the ER generally had to wait several hours, were seen by male ER docs, and there weren't any standardized procedures for getting a statement, saving clothes, taking pictures, etc.

While the SANE nurse, private setting and other elements of the protocol help from a psychological standpoint, the primary reason for the entire group to exist is to get evidence that supports the victim.

Definitely, as in this case, the evidence did not support the victim and the rape exam results are often as helpful to the defense as the prosecution but the PURPOSE of the forensic sexual assault exam is to get evidence to increase prosecutions and convictions.

While I agree that Levicy's bias was over the line, who do you think chooses to get a SANE certificate if not women who are sympathetic to rape victims???

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:53pm

Thanks. This is very useful. I find refreshing your opening line: "You can't. I would argue you have to use common sense." This is what I'm trying to do, use my common sense -- and all the things I learned about socio-economic statistics on my way to a PhD.

Let me add one last thing.

I have been reading this blog for months now. My sense is that most of the regular posters are people who are outraged at the injustice of this case because they hate injustice in general.

If we want to understand how this mess could have happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again, we must question everything.

This includes claims like the one you made. I think it is clear that very few people here are willing to take at face value anything anymore concerning rape, particularly when it is asserted in an anonymous comment. My guess is that those with your views and expertise (to the extent that I can infer them from what you said here) need to be prepared to address patiently and calmly a lot of concerns raised by the general public without ascribing sinister motives or beliefs. (You might be surprised to hear my views on the OJ case, rape, race, life in general and other things that are only loosely related to this exchange.)

Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question in such detail.

Anonymous said...


There are several cases on record of college girls who 'claimed rape' never pressed charges and then killed themselves, leaving diaries including entries about their rape. Seems to me, this is a good bet for a 'real rape'.


I think you are using an emotional appeal to make your case without carefully considering all the facts.

Young males kill themselves with distressing frequency. Most of them do so because they have convinced themselves that they worthless and because they are depressed.

Some people can convince themselves of anything, and having done something on the spur of the moment because their hormones were demanding they do so, can then be filled with remorse after the fact and can rationalize their prior willing behavior as being forced by someone else.

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous at 1:58 PM said...
Lawyers WiTT and Freedman are probably laughing their heads off at this nonsense argument that Nifong did it due to the Nurse.

I'm not sure who WiTT and Freedman are, but no lawyer is laughing at this argument. Here is why:

At the outset, let me state that I'm not in full command of the pertinent facts. Many others here have a better grasp of them than I do at this point. That said, I still have enough of a command of the facts to know that a good case can be made that:

"but for Levicy's actions, the damages to the lacrosse team members (including the uncharged players), including cost to their reputations and their pocketbooks would not have been as great as they were."

It's as in the "firetruck accident" example that I gave earlier: The fact that I negligently crashed into the firetruck did not cause the house to catch on fire, but it caused the final damages to the house to be greater than necessary. Thus, I would be liable for part of the damages attributable to my negligence.

So, Anonymous at 1:58 PM, I again assure you that no lawyer is laughing who is looking at Levicy and her employer's potential liability in this case.

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

Nurse Tara has absolved Duff Wilson of his smear piece - the N$O is not far behind = I quess that will include Ruthie. I am sure if you think real hard, you can include the 88 as her victims also. When you write 1st medical professional that needs to be true - not the 6th.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me Hamilton if I don't agree with you at all.

Anonymous said...

Witt and Freedman are Nifong's defense lawyers - you don't know that but are commenting on this case - So much for the fire truck.

rrhamilton said...

If Witt and Freedman are Nifong's lawyers, then in any civil suit they are going to be looking to attribute Nifong's actions to the wrongful conduct of every possible third party, including Levicy and DUMC, in order to reduce Nifong's liability.

"Members of the jury, my client was a faithful public servant of umpteen years with a spotless record and only did what he did to those poor lacrosse boys because of that no-good lying feminazi SANE and the incredible negligence of DUMC!"

R.R. Hamilton

Nifong's hat trick said...

If instead of a feminist, Levicy was an advocate for the protection of white men from false rape allegations, how would this have played out?

Never mind...that's a rhetorical question...there are no advocates for protection of white men anywhere for anything.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Witt and Freedman are representing Nifong in defending the charges from the NCBar. The bar, who for some bizarre reason seem to think Nifong perpetrated the hoax.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»