Wednesday, May 02, 2007

The Levicy Exam

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this case comes in the realization that a massive fraud—the indictment of three innocent people without, as the attorney general publicly declared, any probable cause to do so—required so few figures from law enforcement to execute.

Mike Nifong obviously was the critical player in the case. But he had help:

  • from a lab director willing not to report all DNA test results even though state law required him to do so;
  • from an office “investigator” who the AG’s report went out of its way to suggest was unprofessional;
  • from a police officer who constructed “straight-from-memory” notes that conveniently filled in then-apparent holes in the DA’s case.

And, finally, from a SANE nurse-in-training whose own story appeared to change every time Crystal Mangum’s did.

The conduct of Dr. Brian Meehan, Linwood Wilson, and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb has received considerable attention throughout the case. This and tomorrow’s post will examine the role played by SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. (Levicy has subsequently received her SANE certification, but at the time of the March 14 exam she was still in training.)

If this case had gone to trial, Levicy would have been one of the state’s key witnesses—the only person willing to provide medical testimony to corroborate whatever story Mangum happened to tell on the stand.

Mangum’s Arrival at Duke

Crystal Mangum arrived at Duke University Medical Center just before 3.00am on March 14. None of the various doctors and nurses who examined her, it appears, considered credible her claims of sexual assault. Mangum was behaving in a hysterical fashion atypical of real rape victims; one doctor speculated that she might be a candidate for psychological commitment.

Hospital policy requires any woman who claims sexual assault to receive a SANE exam. According to a November 2004 policy statement, Duke’s hospital employed “14 Duke SANE nurses—enough so there is at least one on-site during all shifts.” Yet a SANE nurse does not appear to have been present when Mangum arrived, and she waited more than four hours for her SANE exam. There has been no clear explanation why Duke failed to provide a timely SANE exam for Mangum.

SANE nurse-in-training Levicy arrived for work at 6.45am the morning of March 14. Since Mangum still hadn’t been seen by a SANE nurse, the Charge Nurse asked Levicy to examine the patient. It remains unclear as to why Duke allowed a SANE nurse-in-training to perform this task without supervision from a certified SANE nurse.

Levicy’s Background

Tara Levicy received a B.A. in women’s studies, with a minor in outdoor education, from the University of Maine. While there, she produced and directed a showing of Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues, an event she recalled with fondness. After graduation, she worked as an outdoor rafting guide and an associate at Planned Parenthood in Maine. In late 2003, she went back to school at a 15-month program at the University of Southern Maine, which allows humanities majors to nursing degrees.*

Levicy joined the staff of Duke hospital as an emergency nurse in February 2005. In August 2005, she began work on her SANE certification. At the time that she examined Crystal Mangum, Levicy had less than eight months’ experience as a SANE, and scarcely a year’s experience as a nurse in any capacity.

Kathleen Eckelt is a SANE nurse with decades of experience, who trains SANE nurses in her home state. She noted, “It takes time to develop the ability to make snap decisions needed in emergency situations. It takes time to learn about things like the bio-mechanics of trauma and patterns of injury. It takes time and skill to recognize personality disorders and manipulative and attention seeking behaviors that some patients will exhibit.” Only experience can provide the learning for such matters.

Levicy’s Examination

On March 14, Levicy conducted a detailed interview of Mangum, which lasted more than an hour and became the basis for her report. In the interview, Mangum claimed that she last had intercourse one week before (a statement subsequent DNA tests would prove to be untrue). Mangum denied digital penetration or penetration by a foreign object (a statement she would later contradict). She said her assailants didn’t use condoms. She added that one of her assailants said he was getting married the following day.

As Levicy later admitted in a November conversation with defense attorney Doug Kingsbery, her report did not include a critical piece of information—Mangum’s claim that the “attack” occurred around 1.00am. Levicy did not explain why she omitted this information from her report.

This exclusion was of considerable significance. More than nine months after the alleged attack, Mangum would assert that she was certain the “attack” occurred at 11.40pm. This time frame would have required her to be chatting on the cellphone with her father as she was being dragged against her will back into the house; and also on the cellphone during her dance at the lacrosse house. Photos did not show Mangum talking on the cellphone during the dance--one reason why the attorney general's report dismissed Mangum's last-minute timeline change.

Following procedure, Levicy took photographs of the only “injuries” that she documented during the exam—non-bleeding scratches and bruises on Mangum’s knee and heel. Levicy had no way of knowing, of course, that one of the lacrosse players had photographed Mangum during the dance, which showed these very same “injuries” while Mangum was dancing—or before she claimed she was raped, beaten, kicked, and/or strangled.

While Levicy photographed no other “injuries,” her report described Mangum as in severe pain and demonstrating tenderness to the touch virtually everywhere on the patient’s body. As last week’s Attorney General’s report observed, no objective medical evidence (such as an elevated blood pressure rate or signs of sweating) confirmed Levicy’s diagnosis. Levicy instead cited Mangum’s facial expressions and verbal responses as evidence that the patient was in pain from a rape.

This wholly subjective evaluation proved particularly troubling given Levicy’s apparent biases. As she conceded in a November interview with defense attorneys, she had never seen a woman who had claimed sexual assault behave hysterically as Mangum did during the examination. Did this atypical behavior raise alarm bells? No. Levicy, it turns out, isn’t particularly discerning in evaluating the truthfulness of a sexual assault patient’s verbal claims. When asked whether she had ever received a sexual assault report from a patient that turned out to be false, she replied, “No, never.”

Levicy and Theresa Arico, director of the SANE program at Duke University Medical Center, declined two requests for comment for this post. The day after I contacted her, Levicy’s e-mail address and office phone number disappeared from the Duke website.

The Manly Examination

Because Levicy wasn’t certified as a SANE nurse, she had to find someone else to perform the pelvic examination and evidence collection from the patient’s body. Under normal Duke procedure, this exam would have been conducted by a fully certified SANE nurse. Instead, Levicy turned to a resident, Dr. Julie Manly. Since under normal Duke procedures, SANE nurses rather than residents did such exams, it turns out that Crystal Mangum was the only sexual assault patient treated by Manly during her stay at Duke hospital. (Manly had done a handful of rape exams at her previous hospital, in Idaho.)

As she recounted in a conversation with defense attorney Doug Kingsbery, Manly detected a whitish fluid in Mangum’s vagina that she assumed was semen. Several months later, as she learned more about the case and the results of DNA tests, she realized Mangum was probably suffering from a severe yeast infection. This condition, she further noted, could also explain the only “injury” that Manly’s examination discovered—“diffuse edema in the vaginal walls.”

Manly noted no injuries to the anal area. As a result, the sexual assault form co-signed by Manly and Levicy made no indication of such injuries.

During this portion of the exam, Levicy was simply observing. The SANE nurse-in-training noted that Mangum claimed to be in extraordinary pain when Manly inserted a speculum for the vaginal examination. This item, in her opinion, fortified her belief that the patient had suffered through a traumatic experience. In fact, as Kathleen Eckelt later commented, this behavior should have tipped off Levicy that Mangum was lying:

In my experience, that’s very unusual. Sure, I’ve had patients who were sore, but those were patients who had significant injuries such as redness, tears, and abrasions and their behavior was nothing like that. In those cases, I just used the smallest sized speculum and went very slow and careful. I can’t recall a single exam where I had that much difficulty.

The ability to discern when a patient is likely lying is one reason why most SANE programs—especially at well-regarded hospitals such as Duke’s—require examinations to be conducted by SANE nurses with considerable experience, rather than people who didn’t even have their SANE certificates and whose total nursing experience was less than two years.

Manly also swabbed the vaginal and rectal areas for DNA; in interviews with defense attorneys, she later expressed surprise that she saw no signs of bruising in the rectal area, given the attack that Mangum claimed occurred. No item, anywhere in the rape form, could be construed as even suggesting that Mangum experienced rectal trauma; and Levicy performed no rectal exam of her own, independent of Manly’s work.

Manly further stated that Mangum’s hysterical conduct was not consistent with that of other sexual assault victims that she had treated. Kethra, another longtime SANE nurse who frequently posts at Liestoppers, hypothesized that Mangum’s behavior “was in direct contradiction to the level of non-injury found. She put on a good show for the examiners, needless to say.”

In short, had a trial occurred, Manly would have been a devastating witness for Mike Nifong: the doctor who performed the medical portions of the exam would have said that alternative explanations existed for Mangum’s condition, and that Mangum’s behavior didn’t resemble that of actual victims of sexual assault.

Yet between March 14, 2006, when Manly concluded her exam, and January 12, 2007, when Nifong recused himself from the case, no one from the Durham Police Department or the district attorney’s office ever interviewed Manly.

Levicy, on the other hand, was a favorite of DPD and of Nifong. Tomorrow’s post will examine her interaction with Durham law enforcement.

*--clarified from original

232 comments:

1 – 200 of 232   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

KC - The ks have hood winked you on their importance and the importance of this exam. The rape kit was done appropriately and cleared the boys. Manly may not have done rape exams - but lots of vaginal exams. the only thing Levicy could have testified to was her own work - never was she an expert. The 1:00AM timing is the work for police. I hope the nurse is smart enough to get out of Durham. clinical requirements for SANE is 44 hours.

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC. I smell cover-up by DUMC as they let these three innocent young men suffer for a year. I truly hope they bring a civil suit against Duke & Levicy.

Anonymous said...

This has to be a movie.

Let's see. We have the "Vagina Monologues."

Think there was a Greek chorus in Panties' crotch.

Anonymous said...

Ignore the first post KC, it is the common Troll "Vegas" who has made her retirement career to make ridiculous posts in support of Levicy.

Newport

Anonymous said...

"No medical evidence confirmed her stories. The SANE based her opinion that the exam was consistent with what the accusing witness was reporting largely on the accusing witness’s demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence." Cooper's Report

There goes Levicy's career as a SANE Nurse.

Anonymous said...

12:22 The facts are the facts -

Chicago said...

Congrats DUMC, you just added your name to the growing list of civil suit recipients.

Anonymous said...

Would someone please explain what is the cover up? The sickest patients are treated first and in the ED we say "If they take you first - start worrying."

jamil hussein said...

There goes Levicy's career as a SANE Nurse

Perhaps he should join Nifong and seek teaching positions, and write a book. Dare I propose the following NCCU course:
"Ethics, Law and Vagina Monologues in the context of race, gender and class" by Prof Levicy & Prof Nifong. Credits: 400

Chicago said...

Jamil-Don't cut Irv Joyner out of that class. I am sure he would like to teach a portion of it. ;)

hman said...

What strikes me as extremely odd is that a SANE nurse in training would undertake to do a formal exam without her SANE staff person present. DUMC apparently has a policy (like every other ER with a SANE training program) that trainees without final cetification must have a certified SANE nurse in attendance. I mean, a University Teaching Hospital is full of partly trained folks of every description and they all need hands on experience. But the only legal way for any of them to get "hands on experience" is under the supervision of someone with a valid license and full hospital staff priviledges - as an MD, RN, SANE Nurse/ whatever.
Someone went way out on a limb here.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic article. Your attack on the nurse for being a feminist is disgraceful. I used to love your writing but you have taken on the same "us v them" narrow agenda just like the Group of 88. The only difference is in the agenda itself. I used to think you were trying to get at the truth and thus your writing had credibility. Now, it is increasingly clear that you are a shill for boys.

Finally, you haven't got a clue about SANE nurses. My wife, a SANE nurse, has read everything you have written about Levicy and my wife's respond, "this guy is talking out of his ass. He is embarrassing himself"

Hey, given your newfound love for silly unsubstantiated attacks, maybe you and Wendy Murphy can start hanging out - ya know, since you have so much in common these days.

dk

Anonymous said...

12:42 Thank you and your wife - I was beginning to think I was going crazy. The harassment and persecuation of this nurse is appalling -Anderson said "the earth was going to shake" Yeah sure

Anonymous said...

DK - Irregardless of the classy way your wife has of expressing her opinion, I see nothing out of line with KC's analysis. My bet is that DUMC will settle quickly and settle with a huge number of dollars - having this untrained nurse perform the SANE was a travesty.

Feminists have proven over and over in this case and others that their biases will affect the way they intepret data and situations, pointing out her background is perfectly legitimate.

Mo

Anonymous said...

12:42/DK:
I think you must have forgotten to include the "i" and "c" that belong between the "d" and "k" plus "head" after the"k". Sure, a feminist SANE nurse would be free of any agenda. Wonderland indeed---yours.

Soobs said...

I am a 40 year old woman, who was raised in a "medical" family. I have taught all my children to use the correct terminology for their body parts, as well as everything else. I have NEVER had "discussions about my vagina", especially "all night." And I can say the word, without having to look in the mirror, and repeating it. She's nuts.

hman said...

Hey DK
If you expect anyone to take seriously your critique of KC in regard to the SANE exam you really must bring out something specific. Because otherwise, 100% of the folks here will conclude that you are Vegas from TL and you are spinning a story about your SANE nurse wife out of thin air. Indeed, SANE nurses are extremely rare in real life. The odds alone of a reader of this blog even knowing a working SANE nurse are vanishingly small.
You are delusional if you think anyone is fooled by this sort of transparent (and desperate sounding) spin.
Besides, Levicys formal dis-embowelment is not until tommorrow.

wayne fontes said...

To 12:42

Since the exam showed only vaginal edema do you think Levicey's statements that it was "consistent with rape" and "blount force trauma"
were motivated by her love for the wilderness? I would suggest the motivation to make those statements came from another source.

Hopefully you will see this comment and respond.

Anonymous said...

12:55 I am Vegas and have no need to hide my identy - I have spelled out my views ad nauseun - Time will Tell

kbp said...

That "classy way [dk's] wife has of expressing her opinion" should be directed at Cooper, his SP's and all the professional staff they relied upon to determine the credibility of Levicy's opinions.

Anonymous said...

Don't want to be crude, but aren't African vaginas larger, to accommodate the larger African phallus?

Did anyone at the hospital notice how dirt ugly she was? That's a red flag.

The more I read about this woman, the more repused I am.

Anonymous said...

KC, the following is an excerpt from a Herald Sun article under the Way byline that contains the following interview with Arico:


"Theresa Arico is a sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of that program at Duke.

She described the process as a comprehensive combination of interviews and physical examinations of the person making the sexual assault complaint.

"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.

But sexual assault nurse examiners do not render an opinion on whether a rape has occurred. That is for the State Bureau of Investigation to determine through its forensic lab work"

My question is do you know if Manly used the referenced colposcope on Mangum?

Newport

Anonymous said...

KC, great post! And such a tease. (Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the trial and the execution!) Love it. From now on I will surely fear the politics of every nurse on my (hopeless) case. I have a terribly awful illness (I won't bring you down by going into it right now). Just think, I trusted the nurses to give me the right medicine, to hold my hand, to wipe my brow and wipe my a$$ (different cloths of course, one was cool, one was warm). Nurses, I see now, are only in it for the power and the glory. They just want to push people around to make statements all over the place - in hospitals, and news papers, and blogs, and you name it. Heck. Except for your excellent advisers, of course. I'll never trust a nurse again. You have really opened my eyes! Those ignorant sluts! Burn the witches! Any "profession" that would take a solemn oath, and "dedicate" itself to "helping" "humanity" (for G-d's sake) is just about as Mickey Mouse and ridiculous as you can get.

Dr. Johnson, it it true that lawyers say that, no matter what, just sue the deepest pockets?

rrhamilton said...

KC wrote:

Crystal Mangum arrived at Duke University Medical Center just before 3.00am on March 14. None of the various doctors and nurses who examined her, it appears, considered credible her claims of sexual assault. Mangum was behaving in a hysterical fashion atypical of real rape victims; one doctor speculated that she might be a candidate for psychological commitment. (emphasis added)

This reminds me of the famous Whitakers Chambers observation, "In my experience innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Maybe that's the experience of those experienced doctors and nurses, too.

Chicago said...

DK-Would love to hear what your wife has to say if she truly is a SANE. However, by saying "this guy is talking out of his ass" and leaving it at that, you qualify as a Wendy Murphy like character who throws out a statement and then does not back it up. If Mrs. DK is so darn bright, have her post her thoughts on here in a constructive manner and have her explain her position.

hman said...

To Vegas
"Time will tell?" Like, some new information is going to come to light that will make Levicys involvement in this case seem less incompetent and evil-smelling?
Go ahead and try to make something up. Even a good imagination is useless here. There was no rape or assault and Levicy offered an opinion to LE (contrary to the written report) that the exam was "consistent" with there having been a crime.
Seriously, what do you see in the future for Levicys career as a SANE nurse? Her misconduct and aggressive incompetence in this case will be explained in detail to every jury before whom she might venture to testify. It is time for her to look for something she might be good at.

Anonymous said...

1:12 That says it all - thanks

AMac said...

dk at 12:42am --

Pathetic article... attack... disgraceful. I used to love your writing... I used to think you were trying to get at the truth... you are a shill for boys... you haven't got a clue about SANE nurses... silly unsubstantiated attacks...

These are just unsupported opinions. Everybody has 'em.

My wife, a SANE nurse, has read everything you have written about Levicy and my wife responds, "this guy is talking out of his ass."

Note that Johnson has drawn on the extensive writings of two SANE nurses, Kathleen Eckelt and 'Kethra.' Many in this audience would welcome hearing from other experts, meaning SANE nurses. Could your wife to contribute a rebuttal of the details that she thinks Johnson has gotten wrong?

Your or your wife's or my own general, unsupported opinions arent' terribly important here. It's the details. What are the standard hospital procedures, the SOPs, the safeguards, the typical interactions with law enforcement? The collection of evidence and chain of custody? The training, experience, certification, and continuing ed requirements for SANE nurses? How are trainees supervised? What state-to-state variations in practice exist?

If your wife would care to address questions like this within her area of expertise, I think she'd get a respectful hearing.

huesofblue said...

When I try to put myself in Levichy's place, I can't muster up the same condemnation for Levichy that seems to be the norm around here. She got into work at 6:45 a.m. and was probably told there was a rape victim in room X who had been waiting 4 hours for a SANE exam. For all we know, this could have been Levichy's first time ever interviewing a potential victim without supervision. And here she encounters CGM sobbing, acting totally hysterical and looking as beat up as ever. Levichy didn't know that CGM was crazy, and she didn't know that CGM always looks beat to hell. All she knew was that CGM was claiming to be the victim of a horrible crime, had various cuts and bruises on her body, and claimed to be in great pain.

Levichy didn't actually do the pelvic exam or swabbings, so there's a good chance she never even saw CGM's lack of injury. All Levichy saw was CGM writhing(sp?) and screaming
in pain while Dr. Manly performed the exam - maybe she was even holding CGM's hand through the apparently excruciating ordeal.

The whole experience had to be traumatic as hell. So when a cop asked Levichy if CGM's injuries were consistent with rape, I don't blame her for thinking that they were. She was just in training and probably had no idea what was normal. And in the same shoes, I can't say that I wouldn't have thought the same thing.

I'm not absolving her of all culpability in this disaster, but she's not even in the same league as Nifong, Wilson, Meehan or Gotlieb. And at the end of the day, the evidence collected during the Sane exam did as much to establish the innocence of the accused as anything else in the case.

She was young and naïve and got taken by a life-long charlaten, the likes of which most of us will never encounter. I'm more than willing to cut her some slack.

Anonymous said...

HMAN
Your postings on this blog have been so profoundly, deeply wise that my life has been changed in every way for the better. If I ever have a son I promise to name him after you...
I remain, paralyzed with admiration,
Evett

Anonymous said...

Levicy set herself up to be made an example of.

DUMC also set themselves up.

I hope they both get sued.

Next time perhaps we will see more professionalism.

hman said...

To 1:31
Except that SANE training emphasizes from the first day that their job is to gather trial-grade evidence, record it in an un-impeachable fashion, and never claim or say anything that is not charted.
I think it is a live question why Levicy apparently disregarded in this case just about everything she had been taught to do or not do since she started nursing school, much less her SANE training..

Anonymous said...

Mangum wasn't beat up at all. She had a couple of non-bleeding cuts. The SANE nurse jumped to conclusions that were unfounded. She based her opinions to the police on subjective considerations rather than the objective record. She didn't even perform the exam, wasn't qualified to do the exam in any event, and spoke outside the scope of her experience and she got it wrong, way wrong. She stated that there were injuries when there were none. To further exacerbate matters she failed to correct. She gave the police probable cause to go forward through her statements. She did absolutely nothing to clear anybody. You couldn't be more wrong, Hues.

She's negligent as hell and so is DMC

huesofblue said...

Hman,

While I'm sure that's true for the actual SANE report, I don't think that's the case with respect to subsequent interviews with investigators. I suspect the reason is that a SANE report that includes conclusionsabout whether a rape occured would be dramtically more dificult to admit in court. Without the conclusions there are significantly less hoops to jump through.

But that doesn't mean the examiners are prohibited from sharing their opinions with investigators after the fact. It certainly was't wrong for Dr. Manly to speculate on the cause of the "injuries" in subsequent interviews with the Defense. The same goes for Levichy in her interviews with the Police. A SANE's opinion may not be admissible in court, but I imagine it can be pretty valuable as part of an investigation.

The problem wasn't that Levichy's opinion was wrong or that she should have stayed silent, the problem was that Nifong and the police chose to ignore the mountains of exculpatory evidence that later came to light.

Deklan Singh said...

I fail to see how Tara Levicy's placement as a SANE nurse is any different historically from strategic placement of KKK members within the Southern establishment following the Civil War. Perhaps the bigot-regime indicated by Levicy's behavior is more of a grassroots program than the Aryan Nations, but their effect is commensurate. Levicy is a foot-soldier on the front lines of hateful bigots vs. Caucasians/Athletes/Males and she is working her advantage too its fullest.

The advantage is the enduring power of mindless hate and its transference from one generation of weak willed to the next. Welcome to the club, Tara Levicy!

Anonymous said...



Levicy was running wild, but it was DUMC that had no problem with her running wild and making statements that bore no resemblence to the record.

LEVICY IS STILL EMPLOYED THERE because that whole Department is mismanaged.

KC's information also explains DUMC's silence for so long.

Thanks KC!

Anonymous said...

hnn - time will tell - will their be any civil suits against Duke Hospital and Nurse Levicy for negliance or the other words you folk throw around? For getting the evidence collected correctly? As an another poster wrote, "the trial is over tomorrow and the execute" Its "injustive in the making" "trial by public opinion" Sad, but the Dealy Plaza folk were never able to accept that a great tragedy can occur from an ordinaly dope. The 88 and their rush to judgement is very similar to what is going on here.

Anonymous said...

2:02 and 2:10 anonymous said
The SANE nurse jumped to conclusions that were unfounded. She based her opinions to the police on subjective considerations rather than the objective record. She didn't even perform the exam, wasn't qualified to do the exam in any event, and spoke outside the scope of her experience and she got it wrong, way wrong. She stated that there were injuries when there were none. To further exacerbate matters she failed to correct. She gave the police probable cause to go forward through her statements. She did absolutely nothing to clear anybody. You couldn't be more wrong, Hues.
She's negligent as hell and so is DMC


That's right! Give them heck! Burn the witches! Don't let anybody try and tell you any different.

You sound like a smart person. Do you know about sane nurses? You sure sound like you know your stuff!

huesofblue said...

2:02,

I disagree. By all accounts CGM was falling down left and right during the party (and aparently in the days leading up to the party too). Pictures from the party show her with cuts and bruises on her legs. She looks like a run-over road whore. Can you imagine what she looked like at 7:00 am after that bender, sitting under the harsh floresent lights of the hospital after staying up all night. If someone had thrown her down a flight of stairs I'd doubt she would look much different.

If you didn't know that she always looked that way, I think most people would believe her story. Levichy didn't have the benefit of CGM's 12 different accounts or the negative DNA evidence. All she had was a very haggard prescious who looked the part.

Levichy probably shouldn't have said anything to the cops, but I don't think that's on par with the malice and willful ignorance that drove so many others in this case.

Anonymous said...

Hues,

Why don't you go back to the time when you were a lowly law clerk, a second year law student not even admited to practice law. You receive a big job and big money for the summer clerking in the litigation department of a big powerful firm. As part of your training you were allowed to go along with a senior partner on an important client meeting where he met with key company employees to gather facts for an antitrust opinion that the firm had been asked to prepare. You observed the interviews and listened intently, you even took a few notes. You go back to the office.

The senior partner has his notes transcribed and gives them to you to use for a research memorandum on the antitrust issue.

At some later time you happen to see the CFO of the company in your big firm offices for another meeting. This guy is a big wig who also happens to be in charge of legal. You make nice talk with him and he remembers seeing you out at his company and he asks you what you were doing. You are proud of your new job and you explain to him that you were part of an interview process for an important antitrust opinion matter. You don't tell him that you are just a law clerk and that you didn't really take the interview, you just observed things. He says, "well, what do you think." Now, you have read a few cases about antitrust law and know that there is a market power concept and a few other things. So, you say, what the hell, I might as well impress this guy and show my stuff. You then proceed to disregard the written interview materials because you think the employees might not be correct in their answers. You give your opinions on the antitrust matter and they ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE RECORD. The thankful CFO goes back to the company and makes decisions based on your advice. You tell no one. Your later research leads you to understand that what you told the CFO might not be right. You fail to correct.

DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD GET A PERMANENT JOB? DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE JUDGED INCOMPENT, and DANGEROUS?

Thank you.

Newport.

You proceed to

Anonymous said...

So let's get this right. You have an alleged rape victim who has been waiting for several hours, and DUMC puts pressure on a nurse-in-training to do the exam. The nurse in training misjudges stuff- because she is after all a nurse IN TRAINING.

So far, the evidence of bias, or malice, is zero. Yet I detect an animus towards Levicy that is really quite unbecoming.
per

AMac said...

anon 2:27am --

You like Nurse Levicy, and that's fine.

What would help in this discussion is if you would identify what the key SANE nurse performance standards are, and how Levicy met them. Or whatever other defense you want to present (e.g. that DUMC put her in a situation beyond her training).

In the post, Johnson made a number of very specific points. It's not much of a rebuttal to resort to talk of witch burning.

Purps said...

None of the various doctors and nurses who examined her, it appears, considered credible her claims of sexual assault. Mangum was behaving in a hysterical fashion atypical of real rape victims; one doctor speculated that she might be a candidate for psychological commitment.

I'd be interested to know whether Levicy was aware of the opinions of the more experienced medical and nursing staff. Were they documented? Would a SANE typically review the patient's file before undertaking the exam, or is it protocol to avoid doing so - to undertake the exam without prior information that might affect their judgement?

It is utterly outrageous that the law enforcement staff hadn't interview Manly by 12 January 2007.

Levicy was a SANE-in-training. Whether she should have been, given her very brief experience as a nurse, is questionable. But she was. Trainees are expected to make mistakes. That is all part of learning. That is why trainees must be supervised. So, Levicy is entitled to a degree of generosity in judging her work.

I'd like to know now the SANE program recommends that trainees' interactions with law enforcement are supervised? Are they instructed not to so interact? Or, should a qualified SANE be present to qualify any statements the trainee might make that are unsupportable by the evidence or inappropriate?

KC, I'd be grateful if you would review the comment at 1:05.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The cops did not believe her stories. Shelton announced to the emergency room that she was a liar. Both Manly and Levicy stated that it was unusual for a rape victim to present such screaming and hollering as good ole' Precious presented.

SHE HAD NO INJURIES.

SHE HAD NO BRUISES.

Levicy did far more than get the initial assessment wrong and speak outside the scope of her learning and experience. She failed to correct after numerous evidentiary items were revealed that showed her initial NEWBIE assessments to be wrong. She was Nifong's principal witness right up until the bitter end. Manly at least had the sense to be open to the receipt of new information. Levicy dug in and maintained.

Levicy was the primary source of information that caused the NTO to be erroneously granted. Her opinions also factored prominently in the indictment of all three men.

I'd say she did a lot of damage. When the SANE medical expert is telling the police that Miss Precious was raped what do you expect them to do? Even in the most honest of police jurisdictions, Levicy telling the cops that a rape occurred through her blunt force trauma statements and other causative conclusions would have caused the police to move forward with the NTO.

Newport.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you are just back to playing the devils advocate, Hues.

But I don't think this case is one for entertainment.

Newport

Anonymous said...

"Levicy was a SANE-in-training. Whether she should have been, given her very brief experience as a nurse, is questionable. But she was. Trainees are expected to make mistakes. That is all part of learning. That is why trainees must be supervised. So, Levicy is entitled to a degree of generosity in judging her work."

Really! Under what legal system is that standard applied? The next time I am needing medical care and an in-training person treats me and screws up when they shouldn't be because they lack proper training and experience I will be sure to remember that one.

Newport.

ER 31Yrs said...

I am a board certified emergency physician and have been director of emergency services and worked in our current emergency department for over 31 years, having seen over 150,000 emergency patients, including a large number "alleged" sexual assaults. Only the courts can render a verdict of rape.

Tracy Levicy’s comment that she had never (in all of 8 months) seen an alleged rape victim “lie” about rape reminds me of overhearing a young Paramedic once state that he had never had difficulty intubating a patient. I responded to the Paramedic, “Well, then you haven’t attempted intubation very many times.”

In the rape exam the alleged victim is best served by having the most experienced examiners, particularly since this is a legal exam and the findings and documentation can have extremely serious consequences for anyone accused of sexual assault. This rape hoax case is probably unique in that an apparently substandard and biased exam initiated false charges in and of itself, which is very unusual. The most likely consequence of a poor exam is that a truly guilty party may not be able to be successfully prosecuted.

The physician’s first responsibility to the alleged victim of a sexual assault is addressing any physical, medical, and mental health issues of the patient. The rest is meticulous evidence gathering and documentation. The physician is not the policeman or the prosecutor. The actual determination of sexual assault is made in the court room not at the exam table.

It appears that Ms. Levicy misrepresented her role in this exam and worse yet, replaced simple clinical observation and evidence gathering with unsubstantiated subjective opinions. This poses significant liability problems for her and her employer.

kbp said...

I'm seeing quite a few posts focused on excusing Levicy one way or another for an inaccurate diagnosis of causation, some just reducing her level of responsibility for her actions.

EXAMPLE
Huesofblue
I'm not absolving her of all culpability in this disaster, but she's not even in the same league as Nifong, Wilson, Meehan or Gotlieb.


While many excuse her for her initial claims, none explain why she stuck with those claims through the negative DNA tests, 5 meetings with Mikey, being interviewed by the defense and still holding on in January after the rape charges had already been dropped.

Can't she read the SANE report (Man'y's exam results) or even the newspapers?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC, your review of Tara Levicy has obviously struck a nerve with the trolls. I've never seen so many of them attacking you on this site!

Just ignore them - they're wrong. If anything, your review of Ms. Levicy has been way too kind - her actions are criminal in both duty and intent.

As far as duty is concerned, Levicy failed that on the morning of March 14, 2006, when she ignored her duty to report on the chart that she observed NO evidence corroborating the lunatic ravings of a black prostitute claiming to have been gang raped by at least 3 burly men in a tiny bathroom for nearly an hour.

Levicy failed in intent when she then twisted her observation to support a lie about a gang rape she wanted to believe happened.

It may have been Nifong who tried to imprison 3 innocent young men for a rape that never happened - but it was Levicy who did her damndest to turn the screws.

She is criminal.

Bella said...

huesofblue,
"And here she encounters CGM sobbing, acting totally hysterical and looking as beat up as ever."

-Wrong, no physical evidence of being "beat up." The only "injuries" Levicy observed were the scratches on Mangum's leg, which were present in pictures taken during her dance at the house.

"Levichy didn't actually do the pelvic exam or swabbings, so there's a good chance she never even saw CGM's lack of injury."

-She didn't do the exam, yet she used the term "blunt force trauma" to describe the "injuries." Hmmmm...

"So when a cop asked Levichy if CGM's injuries were consistent with rape,"
-
She should have referred the police to Dr. Manly, WHO ACTUALLY DID THE EXAM.

I'm sorry, this woman is a professional nurse working in a large hospital. She crossed the line (as pointed out by the AG in his report) and the hospital allowed this to happen. She may not deserve all of the blame but she certainly should be recognized for her part in this whole thing.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I've haven't seen the Trolls come out of the walls like this since Tony Soprano went to Blinco's!

We've even got medieval technicality wannabes from the English commonwealth Trolling.

KC hit a big nerve somewhere!!

Newport

Anonymous said...


I think Levicy's type is very familiar to the hard-core feminists
and they are fired up in their support of one of their sisters.

Levicy bias and agenda caused her to do the things she did here.

Why does DUMC still employ her?

Anonymous said...

The 3:23 am has nailed it! This is the feminazi attack from all corners of the earth. It sure isn't DUMC at 4:00 a.m. unless Tara is on nights now.

Newport

Anonymous said...

3:07 Newport said
The next time I am needing medical care and an in-training person treats me and screws up when they shouldn't be because they lack proper training and experience I will be sure to remember that one.

Doctors:

A) Doctors in the U.S.: 700,000

B) Doctor-caused accidental deaths per year: 120,000

C) Accidental deaths per physician per year: 17.14

(Source: U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services)

Anonymous said...

from a SANE nurse-in-training whose own story appeared to change every time...
I cannot see any documentation that Levicy changed her story, let alone that she did so regularly.
per

Anonymous said...

In the past, Levicy’s defenders have repeatedly pointed out that most rape victims do not have visible injuries. They argue that this fact means that SANEs (and everyone else) should never doubt a woman’s claim that she was raped simply because the woman presents in the ER with no injuries. But it’s worth pointing out that rape victims often do not have injuries for the simple reason that they did not resist the rapist. (This occurs for a number of reasons: e.g., the woman is incapacitated by drugs and/or alcohol and is physically unable to resist; the rapist threatens the woman (and/or others, such as her children) with physical injury or death if she resists; the woman chooses not to resist in the belief or hope that her cooperation will end the assault and allow her to get away from the attacker sooner, etc.).

In Crystal’s case, however, she described a violent struggle in which she was actively fighting off three large, young, athletic men in a small room. She claimed that the “rapists” were punching, kicking, and choking her (at least in some versions of her many stories). She also claimed that she resisted so forcefully that she broke off several of her fake fingernails. If Crystal had been telling the truth about her “rape,” there would have been injuries, and lots of them. Instead, Crystal appears in the emergency room with her clothing intact and no visible injuries other than some mild vaginal wall swelling, an old bruise on her knee, and a few small, scabbed-over scratches on her leg and foot.

The inconsistencies between Crystal’s rape story and her physical condition in the ER should have raised all sorts of red flags in Levicy’s mind. Add to that the fact that Crystal was screaming dramatically and behaving in a manner that is uncommon for real rape victims. Add to that the fact that Crystal was claiming to feel severe pain when there was no physiological reason for such pain. All of these things should have given Levicy reason to be extremely cautious in making any kind of conclusions about what happened to Crystal. Yet somehow, it didn’t. Levicy ignored all these very obvious warning signs and bought into Crystal’s “rape” story hook, line, and sinker. Levicy was completely conned by a mentally ill, drug-addled prostitute.

I don’t know how old Tara Levicy is, but I have to assume that she is very young. Most adults (except for some of the very young or the very sheltered) have enough life experience with liars and cons to be able to recognize one when they spend several hours in close contact with them. It’s telling that several of the police officers who dealt with Crystal in the hours after the party recognized her for what she is and doubted her rape claims -- even though they spent far less time with Crystal than Levicy did.

I know the US is facing a chronic shortage of nurses, but this case serves as a cautionary example of the damage that can occur when standards are lowered so much that someone as naïve and inexperienced as Tara Levicy is permitted to function in a role that she clearly is not qualified (either by training or by life experience) to perform.

Anonymous said...

This was a GANG Rape attack. She was beaten and kicked supposedly too.

If a Gang-Rape including anal rape doesn't produce evidence sumfin is wrong

Mike Kell said...

3:40 Anon can't get the math right?

Doctors:

A) Doctors in the U.S.: 700,000

B) Doctor-caused accidental deaths per year: 120,000

C) Accidental deaths per physician per year: 17.14

(Source: U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services)

"Deaths" per "physician"? Is Physician the same as "doctor"? If there are MORE doctors than deaths, than you can't have deaths per doctor more than "1". More like 1/6 or 0.1714

Is one or more of your numbers wrong here?

huesofblue said...

Newport,

I absolutely see your point. In the senario you present the law student isn't going to get an offer. But I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. Levichy didn't just sit in and observe. She performed the external exam of CGM, she spent a substantial amount of time with CGM during the first 10 hours after the alleged attack (much of which was spent alone), she photographed the alleged injuries, and I believe she wrote and signed the actual SANE report. All of this at the direction of her supervisors. After the exam, she was interviewed by the police (which she should have been) and got things wrong.

A more accurate analogy would be the following: Why don't you go back to your first year as a lawyer. You've pased the bar and have been admitted for a little over a year and are working in the relatively small litigation department of a 100 lawyer office. Firm policy requires associates to log 100 in-court pro-bono hours before appear before a judge on behalf of a paying client. You've got 30 hours under your belt, but still have a lot to learn. With that stage set, imagine you're sitting in on a trial with one of the partners and today the partner will be cross examining an expert witness on a particularly tricky issue that's key to the case. Only the partner is stuck in rush hour traffic and running late. You're able to buy a little time with the judge, but after 15 minutes the partner calls and says he hasn't even moved. He tells you to try and examine the witness on your own. You swallow hard, stand up and start. A half hour in, everything is going better than expected. You've scored some minor points have even gotten an objection overuled. Unfortunatly, the really intricate part of the exam that you're just not qualified or prepared to perform is looming. Fortunatly, the partner arrives just in time. You're able to request a short recess and hand the cross examinatio off to the professional. You sit down in a bit of a daze. The partner is having a little trouble with the cross, but manages to catch the witness in a subtle yet key contradiction. You think you catch the judge nodding his head in agreement.

The court breaks for lunch and you find yourself eating alone with the client while the partner makes some calls. The client starts asking you some general questions, then abruptly puts you on the spot, "Do you think we did enough today to win this thing today?" You pause to think about it. It's a hard call, but your gut tells you things went well. You tell the client, "Yeah, I think we did it."

In fact, you're totally wrong. The partner was close enough to see that the judge was actually nodding off, and barely awake when that crucial contradiction came out. And as soons as he gets off the phone he's going to tell the client to seriously consider accepting a settlment offer that's still on the table.
Unfortunatly, the client never talks to the partner. Instead, he gets up immediatly after talking to you and tells opposing cousel to take the settlment and shove it.

If that happened do you really think you'd get fired?

Mike Kell said...

per (ip logged, don't forget to tell the cave)

Patience. Let's re-read carefully: this is part I of II, (or as those of the arabic per-suasion could scribe 1 of 2).

Come back tomorrow. And bring the witch's broom stick!

huesofblue said...

Newport,

I'm not playing Devil's advocate. I see Levichy as someone young and in experienced who got duped. As the episode at UNC med shows, CGM is an old hand when it comes to lying to medical personel to get the diagnosis she wants.

But Levichy's misguided opinion is not what kept this case alive or even got it started.

By the time Nifong went to the grand jury he already knew that CGM had told multiple inconsistent stories, he knew that the DNA results were negative, and he knew that CGM couldn't pick her alleged assailants out of a legal line-up. Nifong & Co didn't make a mistake, they made a calculated decision to igore the evidence and prosecute 3 innocent men.

Tara Levichy's wrong conclusion was based only on her initial physical exam of CGM. And if Levichy thought that CGM's "injuries" were consistent with having been gangbanged and thrown to the ground repeatedly, it might be because CGM had banged five different dudes since she last changed her underwear, had fallen countless times during the night(including an apparent spill down the back steps) and been dragged out of Kim's car in the kroger parking lot. Her mistake did a lot of damage, but nothing Levichy did created a link between CGM's real or imagined injuries and the Duke LAX team. That was entirely the doing of Nifong and the DUPD.

Cedarford said...

Morning! Well, it seems that the situation as we suspect at DUMC that was bad in terms of liability just got a lot worse for Duke.

Another fine submission, KC. I hope you are keeping in touch with Joe Neff as he may want to run another Levicy piece following on the last section of his 5-parter.

You may wish to review the accuracy of Levicy's Background.

You write:

Tara Levicy received a B.A. in nursing, with sub-specialties in women’s studies and outdoor education, from the University of Southern Maine. While at USM, she produced and directed a showing of Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues, an event she recalled with fondness. After graduation, she worked as an outdoor rafting guide in Maine.

My understanding is that Levicy was a Woman's Study Major with a minor in outdoor education. After graduating, she continued her 10 year "career" as a white water rafting guide and instructor. Then, after several years (unsure how long) she went back to school to obtain a RN degree through a special one-year program that makes 4-year graduates with a humanities degree into a Registered Nurse candidate (BSN awarded).

Somewhere along the way she worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic as a helper/assistant. And qualified as a wilderness EMT.

Anonymous said...

I am a gynecologist with 40 years experience. Great post KC. I agree with ER31 years. Posts by Kathleen and Kethra elsewhere have been on target. The exam was poorly done. The vaginal edema comments are meaningless. The discharge should have been examined by the doctor under the microscope immediately. A review of the literature shows the colposcope(apparently not used) is of no particular value in rape exams. If you can't see it with your eye any suttle changes revealed by the colposcope might have been the result of normal intercourse and therefore not helpful. There is no significant data on its use. Levicy is a key player in this awful hoax.

bill anderson said...

K.C.,

It seems that some True Believers are going to defend Levicy to the end.

Remember what you wrote about the lack of proper procedures in this case and damaging they were? Susan Estrich's comments that procedures exist so there will not be outrage applies here as well.

Apparently no one at DUMC during that time gave a damn about proper procedures. Thus, the entire thing was hijacked by someone with an agenda, and we see what happened.

I am not surprised at comments like I see from dk and others. They are going to defend Levicy to the very end, yet when one begins to understand the damage that she did by pursuing a collectivist feminist agenda rather than pursuing the truth, it is no wonder that she has become a target. She helped let this beast out of the cage, and bears some responsibility for what happened.

Anonymous said...

Tara Levichy's wrong conclusion was based only on her initial physical exam of CGM. And if Levichy thought that CGM's "injuries" were consistent with having been gangbanged and thrown to the ground repeatedly, it might be because CGM had banged five different dudes since she last changed her underwear, had fallen countless times during the night(including an apparent spill down the back steps) and been dragged out of Kim's car in the kroger parking lot. Her mistake did a lot of damage, but nothing Levichy did created a link between CGM's real or imagined injuries and the Duke LAX team. That was entirely the doing of Nifong and the DUPD.

Precious may have fallen countless times during the night, but her physical symptoms were diffuse oedema and some scratches. It's a stretch to call that banged up.

Levicy did not do the exam. Rather, she represented that she'd done the exam, represented that she was certified to do the exam, substituted her own conclusory statements for the results of the exam, and reported signs, symptoms and injuries that are not recorded in the exam and ten engaged in 5 unreported meetings with Nifong. . She did not say that the accuser looked banged up, she reported signs, symptoms and injuries. No such signs, symptoms and injuries appear in the exam.

She is essential to the hoax, because without the invented signs, symptoms and injuries Nifong would have had literally nothing to represent that he had a case.

Being essential to the case does not take anything away from Nifong's culpability, but Levicy reported signs, symptoms and injuries that just weren't there. Even if she'd merely stated that the accuser had a demeanour consistent with sexual assault that would be a different story.

Anonymous said...

I've read posts in a couple of earlier threads, mentioning that a photo of Levicy is online -- maybe on Liestoppers or elsewhere -- but I've not been able to find it.

I'd like to look into her eyes, so to speak, and see what kind of character she appears to be.

Can anyone please post a link or give a pointer to finding the photo?

Anonymous said...

KC,
Excellent post. I don't agree with posters who want to give a pass to the nurse because she is a selfless angel of mercey. The hospital, supervisors and this unqualified, uncertified, opinated "nurse" deserve a lawsuit for malpractice. This is the FIRST time they got caught delivering substandard care. Watch the Salisbury Post and the Charlotte Observer hardcopy and online newspapers, for the massive cover-up in 12 "unexpected" post-surgical deaths, at the W.G."Bill" Hefner Veterans Administration Hospital in Salisbury, N.C.

scott said...

Per the post ...

There has been no clear explanation why Duke failed to provide a timely SANE exam for Mangum.

If it is policy that a fully trained SANE nurse is to be on duty during all shifts, why wasn't one on duty during the time Mangum was at DUMC? If Mangum arrived just before 3 AM and Levicy didn't come on duty until 6:45 AM, that means there was at least almost 4 hour during which there was no one on duty with any SANE training at all. Then a patient that presents unusual symptoms for an assault victim (extreme pain where no clear evidence of of injury has been sustained, hysteria, etc.) is examined by a doctor with limited experience in rape exams and a SANE nurse IN TRAINING.

This is just another in a long list of things that happened during the Nifong Scandal Case for which "there is no explanation" even many months after they occured. And not only is there no explanation, but as in the other instances that have occured, there is apparently no follow-up to even try to determine if an explanation is possible nor has anyone in a management position at DUMC, DPD, DA's office, Duke, etc., etc., etc. been sanctioned for dereliction of duty.

huesofblue said...

6:56,

How are bruises, cuts, endema and complaints of pain and tenderness not signs, symptoms, and injuries? Yes, all of these injuries were either pre-existing or self inflicted. And obviously CGM's syptoms were a fraud. But It's not like Levichy made these things up on her own! We have pictures from the party showing cuts and bruises on CGM's legs. We have reports of Dr. Manly's interviews with defense lawyers werein she seems to confirm that edema was present and that she initially attributed it to the alleged attack.

Levichy was obligated to record this stuff in the SANE report. She wasn't obligated to say that the injuries were consistent with the violent rape alleged, but they certainly might have seemed that way at the time.

Multiple cuts and bruises on the legs aren't normal for a 29 year old woman. That's what I mean when I say CGM was banged up.

Anonymous said...

There were no bruises. There were 2 non-bleeding scratches. Diffuse vaginal oedema is not a sign, symptom or injury. The accuser's demeanour is not a sign, symptom or injury. 2 scratches does not equal banged up. A SANE exam that does not disclose any rectal symptoms is not a sign, symptom or injury consistent with anal rape. Even Precious' demeanour, the main thing on which Levicy relies, is according to Manly and others, atypical for rape victims.

2 scratches is not banged up. Levicy did not state that she relied on the accuser's demeanour. She invented signs, symptoms and injuries to validate her own prejudices and Precious' account.

It is really quite extraordinary, if you spend any time in a criminal court, the number of defendants under the impression that mens rea is intent to break the law, rather than intent to carry out the elements of the offence. Levicy almost certainly did consciously decide to aid, abet, counsel or procure an obstruction of justice. Levicy did intend to fabricate evidence which enabled, and was essential to, an obstruction of justice.

another.anon said...

"scott said... (7:28:00 AM )
Per the post ...

There has been no clear explanation why Duke failed to provide a timely SANE exam for Mangum.

If it is policy that a fully trained SANE nurse is to be on duty during all shifts, why wasn't one on duty during the time Mangum was at DUMC? If Mangum arrived just before 3 AM and Levicy didn't come on duty until 6:45 AM, that means there was at least almost 4 hour during which there was no one on duty with any SANE training at all."

Actually, it's worse than that. It means there were two *shifts* where there was no SANE nurse: The shift when Crusty arrived, and the shift following when Levicy came to work. Unless Duke is happy with newbie trainees doing things unsupervised...

Anonymous said...

"Feminists have proven over and over in this case and others that their biases will affect the way they intepret data and situations, pointing out her background is perfectly legitimate."

How is this different than, "rich white boys have proven over and over......"

This is EXACTLY the same kind of condemnation used to justify the attack on the boys as rapists.

To those who doubt my wife is a SANE nurse or who would like a rebuttal from her - she will write something later today. If KC would post it on the site itself, she would write a serious article and offer her name. But, I doubt KC would agree to that because this site is not about the truth.

People need to remember - KC is not the divine ruler of truth for all things relating to the Hoax. He is simply a blogger writing way too many articles way too fast (for any of them to be vetted properly).

DK

Nifong's hat trick said...

huesofblue

Your description of Levicy's arrival at work to find the hysterics of CGM is probably accurate.

It's true that new, inexperienced nurses can often get caught up in the moment, clouding an understanding of what they are actually seeing.

The problem with Levicy is that she allowed her personal politics to interfere with her need for objectivity which then lead her to perform SANE duties outside her legal boundaries.

Levicy's inexperience and her feminist interpretation of the moment were a lethal combination that helped push this false accusation forward.

As KC notes, Levicy would have been one of the state's key witnesses if this case had gone to trial. Although the defense would have made mincemeat out of her testimony, what if they couldn't?

Gary Packwood said...

TEACHABLE MOMENTS

ER 31Yrs 3:13 said...

...I am a board certified emergency physician and have been director of emergency services and worked in our current emergency department for over 31 years, having seen over 150,000 emergency patients, including a large number "alleged" sexual assaults. Only the courts can render a verdict of rape.

...It appears that Ms. Levicy misrepresented her role in this exam and worse yet, replaced simple clinical observation and evidence gathering with unsubstantiated subjective opinions.
::
The 'unsubstantiated subjective opinions' mentioned by this ER Physician are called TEACHABLE MOMENTS by those who are trained to be activists.

That is a serious problem as no one asked Ms.Levicy to teach anything to anybody. She grabbed the TEACHABLE MOMENT and violated her own code of ethics and probably the law.

The backlash we are seeing on this board is from other activists who know that one of their clan has been caught...with the smoking gun.

These people are absolutely driven to change the behavior of others...whether 'others' want to be changed or not.

Did Ms. Levicy learn about Teachable Moments at a workshop held in communist China?

This is what the propaganda machine looks like folks!
::
GP

miramar said...

Some people have defended Levicy, which they have a right to do, but I find it curious that Kathleen Eckelt made a better "examination" from long distance than the SANE in training ever did. That's pretty impressive for Nurse Eckelt, but should be of great concern for DUMC.

AMac said...

DK 8:21am (and earlier 12:42am) --

> To those who doubt my wife is a SANE nurse

Um, on the internet, "DK" might or might not be married to a SANE nurse...

> [My wife] will write [a rebuttal]later today.

That would be very helpful!

> If KC would post it on the site itself, she would write a serious article and offer her name.

Suggest that she email KC. Another alternative to posting the article as a comment here: I'm willing to start a thread at the high-traffic website LieStoppers with her rebuttal and link it here. If she wishes, your wife can contact me at

AMac-2007 at usa dot net

hman said...

A question about this case for some time now has been, "What about the Assistant DAs and all of the cops - that must have known how much was bogus here?"
The contribution from Levicy might be the answer. It is what the rank and file knew Nifong "had" that apparently was not in doubt and was not going away.
There is no excuse for what Nifong did because he definitely knew the full story. But I doubt if very many others in Durham LE were let in on the plot. Whatever motivation they might have had to resist Nifong must surely have been criticaly weakened by the existence of the real fact that the ER experts had already said there were findings consistent with a crime. This might be a large part of the overall puzzle.
I do not know about civil iability and have not speculated about it. But on the matter of Levicys bias and unsuitability to be in a job that requires detachment - the fact that she said she had never seen a false rape claim says it all. Because she had no way to know, for sure, who was lying and who was not, even after the resolution of a case. That she would take such a stand just means that her education in womens studies made her awfully closed-minded to the possibility that rape claims are often bogus. If she does not think something exists, how would she recognize it?
Not the right attitude for a SANE nurse.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised that DPD gave so much weight to Levicy's exam/opinions. After all, they must have known that the case was imploding, and Levicy's word was all they had to back them up (and perhaps save their jobs in the future). We should remember Nifong's words to the effect that "My reading of the report indicates a rape did occur," before he ever saw the report. I would suspect that he really didn't want to see the report, and so he went with the only supporting information he for his case. That way when the case went south, which he must have known would happen, he could defend himself by saying 1) I have "my victim" and 2) I have my nurse to back her up. At first he only needed to ride this story for a few weeks to get past the primaries since there was no Republican candidate at the time. Little did he know how complicated this would get, and that he would have to keep lying to cover up the previous lies.

Anonymous said...

Of interest. CGM falsely claimed, at one point, that one of her assailants was getting married the next day, the 14th.

One wonders if the DNA found matches someone who did get married on the 14th? One who was not an assailant, but a client.

Anonymous said...

Alev says:

Whatever conclusions one draws about Levicy, it's hard to draw any conclusion about Duke Medical Center other than that they do not have standards that would assure that patients get competent treatment by qualified professionals. (As a local who might need to use DUMC in an emergency, this is concerning.) Having no trained SANE on for two full shifts in contradiction to their policy is inexcusable. The result was foreseeable--that either a false accusation could be substantiated OR , that a true rape victim would not have the qualfied expert testimony needed for justice.

Huesofblue makes assertions that she saw bruises and scratches so she can't be faulted for her conclusions that her patient looked beaten up. The appearance of bruises and scratches changes over time. Why wouldn't a medical professional be able to distinguish between a new bruise/scratch and an old one? Most mothers can.

Levicy's comment that she's never seen someone falsely claim rape may have well been true--she'd had hardly any experience! It's a claim, however, about as powerful as our family laugh about a 3 year old looking up in the sky and exclaiming, "That's the biggest plane I've ever seen in my whole life!" Gee whis, less than a year, and still a trainee, how many rape victims could she have seen? However, given that lack of experience, professionalism would have required the muting, not amplifying of opinion. Media reports have indicated that the delivery of these opinions continued into January.

I do think the belief system of the nurse is relevant to Levicy's conclusions in a way that is not comparable to the race and economic status of the accused young men that led many people to rush to judgment. Feminism per se is not a negative, and a compassion and concern that rape victims receive care that doesn't repeat the trauma they have suffered is absolutely appropriate. A feminism like Susan Estrich's, that can admit the possibility of an alleged victim lying is not a problem. A feminism determined to support the creed that "women don't lie about rape" is a problem. It appears this latter form is what is in play here. I base this on reports of Levicy's reported statement in JANUARY 07 explaining away the lack of DNA with speculation about condom use in direct contradiction to what her patient had said, and in contradiction to common sense .The patient alleged oral ejaculation that she spit out. That statement would have had to rule out condom use by anyone with common sense, let alone medical expertise.

Everyone has biases, and professionals have to be very careful in evaluating cases where their biases might come into play. That is part of being a professional. Levicy was a SANE in training, but was a professional nurse. She had a responsibility to be objective, and to tread carefully in an area in which her belief system might affect her professional judgment. ALL professionals must do this, not just nurses,and not just feminists. It's part of the "know thyself" practice of responsible professionals of any ilk.

jamil hussein said...

a bit off-topic but gang88 has a local chapter at Tufts University:
Stalin-Esque Show Trial At Tufts University

Conservative student periodical had mocked race quotas and we all know what happens next. Show trial included endless list of witnesses who described "emotional distress".

"Barbara Grossman, the radical left chair of the CSL, compared printing the carol to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue. If you're against affirmative action -- if you feel, as Justice Clarence Thomas does, that it is inherently degrading -- you may be guilty of harassment at Tufts..Victimology trumps all. As was concluded: "We don't like you. Nobody likes you," he said. "There should be consequences."

This sentence is in essence what Angry Studies is about. If Angry Studies do not like you (ie you are white, male, athlete, or god forbid, a conservative) there will be consequences. Just ask Duke Lacrosse team.

Barbara Grossman sounds like a potential new Duke President.

Chicago said...

Listen folks, at this point no one can argue that Levicy did not, at best enable this whole thing and at worst, assist in the hoax. Why else would Nifong, Gottlieb, and Linwood always go back to Tara Levicy and NOT to the doctor or any other expert at DUMC. Additionally, why did Tara wait until she met with the defense to say the Crystal mentioned the incident happened at 1am.

Tara may have been duped a bit by Nifong, Gottlieb and Crystal herself, who no doubt is indeed an old pro at playing the pain card for pills. However, at any point during this long and grueling process Tara could have spoken up and stated that something was not right and she did not. Additionally, Tara changed her story on the condoms when CGM flat out stated condoms were not used initially. Tara needs to be out on the streets and not employed at Duke. I am sure she can get her old job back at the river white water rafting.

Michael said...

12:42 KC has access to two SANE nurses with a lot of experience that have been willing to go on the record with their comments on the case.

If you feel so strongly that KC is wrong here, at a minimum, present your evidence. If you want even more credibility, present your name, your wife's training and credentials.

From what I can tell, KC works pretty hard to protect his personal reputation by check, rechecking and asking experts where he isn't one. We know his reputation and he has put his name on the line. If you want to throw rocks, at least put yours on the line too.

Anonymous said...

One of the key issues many posters seem to be overlooking in Levicy's involvement here is that it is solely based on her inappropriate supposition that this case moved forward.

There are indeed many issues here from exceedingly poor procedure in the ED (which used personel not qualified) to the imposition of personal agenda by Levicy.

With all the weight of (my words) Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner says (which she was not) behind them, the DPD and Nifong were able to use the courts and the mass media for THEIR own agenda.

Without Levicy's ill concieved and fabricated opinion, there would have been no basis for the orginal NTO nor would Nifong have been able to give at least 10 very damning and public interviews using the SANE's words.

I must admit surprise here that so many cannot see this very simple fact nor can they see how critical a role Levicy played in furthering the prosecution of three innocent men.

That alone should damn her in the eyes of the public. That does not include the fact she was outside her scope of practice and DUMC not only knew about it, they encouraged it. If you adhere to the NC SANE requirements, she was not even allowed to do any part of a SANE exam except under direct supervision of another SANE. According to DUMC they adhere to those policies (well except in this case apparently).

Oh and KC, this is from an article Levicy wrote in August of 2003 where she states she has a BA in Womens studies not Nursing. "Tara Levicy Schnitker, WEMT -B, WMA instructor, has her BA in Women’s Studies, and a certificate in Outdoor
Education from the University of Maine. She works for Planned Parenthood as a healthcare associate and is hoping to begin a nurse
practitioner program in the spring."

Apparently she did the one year BA to BSN program.

I also am a Nurse FNE and all the SANE/SART/FNE people I know are appalled personally and professionally by her behavior.

jamil hussein said...

Local Angry Studies student at MSU got caught..
Hate Crime Report a Sham

Apparently, Minnesota has a better police department. Nifong would have already parared some white atheletes in front of TV cameras.

Police said Tuesday a Minnesota State University Moorhead student’s claim that he was the victim of a hate crime was a sham.
A local gay rights group that organized a march and rally in the wake of Marquardt’s claims


gang88 mentality is well and alive..

KC Johnson said...

A quick reply to huesofblue on the non-bleeding cuts:

Having seen the photos, these are minuscule non-bleeding cuts. No reasonable person would have concluded that a "victim" who experienced the attach Mangum alleged would have come away with these and only these non-bleeding cuts.

On Mangum's behavior possibly fooling Levicy: given that Levicy herself stated that she never encountered a woman who lied about rape, it appears her standards of endorsing a woman's claim are low. Yet, as even Levicy admitted, she had never encountered a "victim" who behaved as Mangum did--hysterical outcries, ostentatious claims of pain. As Eckelt has pointed out, this is one reason why experience is so important for a SANE nurse--to provide context for interpreting atypical behavior.

To DK: I would urge your wife to identify herself and her credentials and accept amac's offer to post her essay on the Liestoppers forum. I look forward to reading her essay.

AMac said...

Alev 9:26am --

Very insightful remarks.

Re: frequency of false rape accusations--there are very few reliable studies on the subject.

Wendy McElroy wrote an essay on the subject in 2006 with the self-explanatory title False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought: Is it the new 1-in-4 statistic?

In the comments of this blog, I offered the following opinion in January: "I would guess that the proportion of rape claims that are false is often somewhere in the range of 6% to 12%." For the reasoning and a link to the UK Home office study it is based on, go to this D-i-W post and search for "Jan 26, 2007 1:44:00 PM".

The take-home point is that an inexperienced SANE trainee may not have handled a case known to be false. Having few cases under her belt, she may never have observed a false accusation. Given a trainee's lack of ability to distinguish the genuine from the contrived, Levicy is unlikely to have recognized any actual false accusations that she did encounter.

As Alev noted, greater self-awareness of the limitations of her professional judgment would have suited this inexperienced trainee.

sceptical said...

Anyone in the health care professions must act 1) within the scope of their practice, and 2) consistent with their experience and training. For example, a nurse is not a physician and (with a few exceptions with advanced training) do not make diagnoses or write prescriptions. A physician can technically do anything in medicine but a pediatrician is not going to do neurosurgery.

Once we learned that Manly did the pelvic exam, we assumed that this was because of Crystal's hysterical behavior. What KC points out in his post is that Levicy, by turning to Manly for the pelvic exam, was admitting that she was not qualified to do a complete SANE exam, which includes the pelvic exam and collection of internal swabs and samples.

Levicy was a rookie, with the most minimal training and experience as of March 2006. She could not even legally do a pelvic exam for SANE purposes because of her lack of certification.

Had the case gone to trial, her opinions would have been shredded by the defense attorneys precisely because she lacks the credentials and experience to form such opinions-- she was not an "expert witness."

sceptical

Anonymous said...

"If you feel so strongly that KC is wrong here, at a minimum, present your evidence. If you want even more credibility, present your name, your wife's training and credentials"

As I already stated, if KC would post it on the site itself {assuming it was well written and passed some determined credibility check) then I she would be more than happy to do so. However, she wouldn't simply post her name on a blog and there isn't much point it writing a long rebuttal in the response section. However, she will point on a few things later today when she has time.

To me, one of the biggest problems with KC's vile attack on Levicy is that he is missing a much bigger story about rape in this country. The institution of SANE nursing itself and how it is used by the police and prosecutors is highly condemnable. A man accused of rape is often dead meat because of this institution. But, that is not an attack on an unjustified attack on an individual. It is attack on the system.

At the end of the day, the attack on Levicy, justified or not, is a news story of no importance. All KC's writing on it simply feeds the rabid crowd. However, a story about a warped institution that deals with the prosecution of rape in this county is a big story.

Note - my wife doesn't believe it is a warped institution but I do. We have discussed and analyzed it a 1000 times. Although I am not a SANE nurse, I am world class at the analysis of systems. Given the vast amount of time I have spent on analyzing SANE nursing (because I find it fascinating and because that was what we talked about at dinner often), I would hazard to say that I am an expert on the critique of it.

dk

jamil hussein said...

"justified or not, is a news story of no importance".

Just like Nifong's, gang88's and DPD's behaviour was of no importance. Unfortunately, gang88 mentality is well and alive and they are winning the war. I would quote Harry reid: This war is lost. Gang88 won. Gang88 will not be punished (instead, it got rewarded) and it will continue its witch hunt against anybody who disagree. They will have their thought crimes, show trials and activist marches and willing co-conspirators with newspapers, police departments and academia. This country is doomed.

AMac said...

dk 10:17am (and earlier) --

See my 9:17am and KC's 9:53am comments upthread.

My offer stands. I'm happy to put up your wife's essay at LieStoppers (1) under her name, or (2) after she's allowed me to (confidentially) vet her credentials, or (3) anonymously. Obviously, readers will factor that in as they evaluate her expert critique.

Anonymous said...


The result was foreseeable--that either a false accusation could be substantiated OR , that a true rape victim would not have the qualfied expert testimony needed for justice.


And, of course, if a true rape victim did not get the qualified expert testemony they needed, could they successfully sue? Unlikely, and I imagine that people in charge in DUMC knew that.

It is only when the perfect storm of a case arises when false allegations are supported by their improperly supervised staff that they would be in trouble.

Anonymous said...

dk says:


To me, one of the biggest problems with KC's vile attack on Levicy is that he is missing a much bigger story about rape in this country. The institution of SANE nursing itself and how it is used by the police and prosecutors is highly condemnable. A man accused of rape is often dead meat because of this institution. But, that is not an attack on an unjustified attack on an individual. It is attack on the system.


Hmmm, it seems to me that Levicy is part of that system. It seems to me that she takes the ideological approach that there is one thing women never lie about.

What was needed that night was professionalism. It was sorely lacking.

gwallan said...

Carolyn said at 3:19:00

KC, your review of Tara Levicy has obviously struck a nerve with the trolls. I've never seen so many of them attacking you on this site!

Just ignore them - they're wrong. If anything, your review of Ms. Levicy has been way too kind - her actions are criminal in both duty and intent.


The feminists are circling the wagons. One of their own is under attack. They cannot afford to lose this one. Their deceitful rhetoric regarding sexual and physical abuse and their politicisation of surrounding issues make it impossible for a feminist to operate as a SANE in anything like a professional and dispassionate manner. Tara Levicy deserves a medal for demonstrating the truth of this for all to see.

Fundamental to the whole Duke mess is gender politics and the rampant bigotry of feminists. Surrounding it with issues of race and class serves their purposes only as a distraction from their underlying expectation that in any conflict between a male and a female the female MUST be believed. That any accusation made by a woman against a man MUST be believed. It amazes me how oblivious so many are to this rank bigotry.

Anonymous said...

"See my 9:17am and KC's 9:53am comments upthread.

My offer stands. I'm happy to put up your wife's essay at LieStoppers (1) under her name, or (2) after she's allowed me to (confidentially) vet her credentials, or (3) anonymously. Obviously, readers will factor that in as they evaluate her expert critique."

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post. Thank you for the offer. Accepted. Please give her a bit of time to write a proper critique. She will provide you verifiable credentials.

dk

Anonymous said...

"Just like Nifong's, gang88's and DPD's behaviour was of no importance. Unfortunately, gang88 mentality is well and alive and they are winning the war. I would quote Harry reid: This war is lost. Gang88 won. Gang88 will not be punished (instead, it got rewarded) and it will continue its witch hunt against anybody who disagree."

That is my point. The story about the Group of 88 is a big story because it speaks to the bigger issue of institutional behavior. There will always be bad people. There is nothing too interesting or important about that. The big issues usually revolve around institutional behavior that has influence.

a duke dad said...

Quality of Care at DUMC

My daughter went on a 10 day 'wilderness experience' sponsored by Duke for entering freshmen. Met her (dirty and happy) when she got back, and helped her move into her dorm. When we met the following morning, she said she had terrible joint pain and had made an appointment at DUMC. They were very nice and prompt there; she was seen by a Physician's Assistant, who determined she was suffering from nervousness at starting college. He prescribed Benedryl, an antihistamine. I politely questioned his conclusions, and he said that a second opinion was easily obtained. A doctor appeared shortly, examined her, prescribed an antibiotic, and placed a call to their infectious disease specialist. Two hours later, the medication was changed to the standard treatment for Lyme's disease.

If we had gone along with the first diagnosis - nervousness - she might well have faced a very debilitating infection... masked by a prescribed antihistamine. DUMC’s policy was: marginally qualified individuals who work for lower salaries (because they have much less training).

'Real, qualified' doctors are there, as are specialists, but you have to insist.

Anonymous said...

Levicy was obviously unprofessional in what she said to police and used poor judgement in failing to match Crystal's behavior with her injuries, her failure to document the time the victim claimed the attack occured is bizarre and very problematic. If Levicy acted the same way with a real victim she would have harmed not helped the case.

However, I believe the vitriol on this blog as it relates to this SANE nurse comes from the many people following this case who simply don't believe rape is a serious problem or that the SANE program itself has any value. They hate not only Levicy but any program or person who fails to treat rape victims with skepticism. That's the real issue. They don't like any SANE nurses because these exams are often helpful to rape victims and since they strongly believe that most or many women who say they are raped are lying, they don't support any program that helps them.

Anonymous said...

"That any accusation made by a woman against a man MUST be believed."


yeah. I mean, if they allow this, what next? Equality between all races? Equality between people with different gender? Surely, this cannot be allowed to happen (so expect to see a lot of feminazis defending on the their own - Tara "Vagina Monologue" Levicy).

AMac said...

anon 11:04am --

Consider that some of us are female.

For the rest, many of us have sisters. Some of us have girlfriends or wives.

Most of us have mothers.

Your glib explanation of skepticism as to the adequacy of Levicy's and DUMC's conduct is that "They don't like any SANE nurses because these exams are often helpful to rape victims."

Perhaps this could be revised to take the points I raise into consideration. Or is there evidence to support your contention?

Anonymous said...

KC,
Excellent post. Several things jump out at me from this thread.

Motivation? Why is Tara Levicy Schnitker, now Tracy Levicy? Divorce I guess. If not why the name change.

Also from Google, she is the daughter of Vickie Parsons of Boca Rotan, Fl. This is not a low rent district, and NOTE her last name doesn't match her mothers. Divorce again, I guess. No mention of a man anywhere.

Sounds like Tracy, Tara or whatever has grown up with the "agenda".

Or these are two different people?

Just a thought.

Kemp

gwallan said...

Anonymous @11:04:00 AM said...
They don't like any SANE nurses because these exams are often helpful to rape victims and since they strongly believe that most or many women who say they are raped are lying, they don't support any program that helps them.

Wrong.
We disrespect feminist SANE nurses who allow their idealogical bigotry to ignite grievous miscarriages of justice.

Anonymous said...

I guess Duke Angry Studies has moved on..Another huge goverment conspiracy exposed: Truth about 4/29

Don't miss critical posts like "The 'Truck' and the 'Driver'", and "Did Arnold know?". Rosie was kicked out of the View just in time. She would have exposed this to american people, just like the 9/11 conspiracy she exposed!

KC Johnson said...

To the 11.04:

In my posts on this issue, I have repeatedly cited both Kathleen Eckelt--a longtime SANE nurse who trains SANE nurses in her home state--and Kethra, another longtime SANE nurse.

I'd be hard-pressed to argue that the blog has a blanket hostility to SANE nurses.

Anonymous said...

Levicy is a bit player in all this, she would have been evicerated on the witness stand. The BEST she could come up with is to say that the victim didn't know what she was talking about when she made her statements about no condoms and that she 'acted' upset and in pain...not a very ringing endorsement, especially since she would have been confronted with the facts that her injuries didn't match her actions and likely wtih her prior history of acting injured in the ER in order to get pain medication.

Thus, the massive amount of posts about this nurse trainee, demanding she be fired, investigated and sued, that Duke Hospital be sued, must be due to something beyond her small part in the hoax. In my opinion.

No Justice, No Peace said...

"Regardless-of-the-truth", New Criterion article

Joe Bob, sez check it out.

"...But there are at least two other aspects of the case that deserve comment. One is the role of the media, which with few exceptions descended on the story like Lord Byron’s fabled Assyrian and his cohorts pursuing the destruction of Sennacherib. Oh, how The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and countless other bastions of liberal self-satisfaction loved it! Race. Class. Sex. Victimhood...."

No Justice, No Peace said...

More from the New Criterion articled linked above...

"...As Vincent Carroll, writing recently in the Rocky Mountain News, noted, 'the most astonishing fact, hands down, was and remains the squalid behavior of the community of scholars at Duke itself. For months nearly the entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues to set the tone.'"

Anonymous said...

I've read KC's blog for some time, and there has always been an undercurrent of hostility toward rape victims in general and any measure or protection they are afforded.

How many times has the false Linda Farstein quote about half of rapes never happening been posted here? How many times the 20 year old single study that found 40% of rapes were false been posted?

This case was a huge boon to the men's rights nuts and those others who believe the myths about women crying rape at the drop of a hat.

No Justice, No Peace said...

Wow!

"...According to the Group of 88, the alleged rape of a black woman by three white men was just business as usual in racist America. In fact, as the journalist Robert VerBruggen reported, “white-on-black rape is so rare there really isn’t any way to measure its ups and downs.” For five out of the last ten years, the National Crime Victimization Survey put the number at zero for its respondents..."

See above linked story.

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

11:31 says

"Levicy is a bit player in all this, she would have been evicerated on the witness stand."

She would not have appeared on the witness stand until after millions of dollars were spent on legal fees and about a year had passed during which time irreparable damage occurred. Whether she would have been discredited very late in the process has no bearing on whether her actions led to significant damage prior to that time.

Anonymous said...

"I've read KC's blog for some time, and there has always been an undercurrent of hostility toward rape victims in general and any measure or protection they are afforded.

How many times has the false Linda Farstein quote about half of rapes never happening been posted here? How many times the 20 year old single study that found 40% of rapes were false been posted?

This case was a huge boon to the men's rights nuts and those others who believe the myths about women crying rape at the drop of a hat."

Oh nonsense. And for your information the 30 year old study that only 2% of all rapes are false is quoted frequently on the feminist sites.

No one here begrudges in the LEAST the protections offered a rape victim. That is not what this is about nor has it ever been about this. Your statements reek of agenda.

Just to bring you current, there are only 5 current studies on false rape claims, all in localized demographic areas, those studies show numbers anywhere from 45% to 74% of claims were false. There has been no definative study of rape claims and their veracity in 30 years.

What you miss is the anguish of many bloggers that the impact the lies of Crystal Gail Mangum, Mike Nifong and company and Tara Levicy have done to the truly innocent victim of a rape.

You should be outraged at that. For I assure you, it is the INNOCENT victims that will pay for the fabrications, ego and lies that happened in Durham.

Kgun said...

I had the pleasure of sitting through an entire sexual assault trial, as one of my acquaintences and his buddy had been charged with the crime.

Many of the facts of this case are similar, except the motive for the false allegation was different. In this case, the liar didn't want to upset her fiance (again) for having cheated on him. Also, there was no dispute that sexual acts took place between the two, as the case came down to consent.

I wont bore you (although I found it quite informative and entertaining, myself) with the overwhelming amount of exculpitory evidence presented at trial. However, I will share one fact that's relative to this article. The ONLY witness to testify in the case (besides the accuser and her fiance) that stated to the court that they believed an abuse occured was the SANE nurse that administered the rape exam. Even the police officer that made the initial arrest and the detective assigned to the case testified that they had serious doubts about the accuser's story. Nevertheless, this case went to trial where my acquaintence was found not-guilty...After 45 minutes of deliberation.

Under cross-exam, the SANE nurse would NOT admit that the pustuals(sp?) found during the exam could occur during "rough, consenual sex". She insisted that only a forcable act of sexual assault was the only way this kind of mini-bruising could occur. I guess she thinks that people bruise differently depending on how much, or how little, they enjoy getting the bruises.

The bottom line is: There are many Tara Levicys out there.

AMac said...

anon 11:38am --

> [How many times has Linda Farstein been quoted here?]

Google says Farstein has been quoted on D-i-W once.

> How many times has the false Linda Farstein quote about half of rapes never happening been posted here?

Google says, "never."

> How many times the 20 year old single study that found 40% of rapes were false been posted?

You tell us. How many?

> [At KC's blog,] there has always been an undercurrent of hostility toward rape victims in general and any measure or protection they are afforded.

Prove it.

> This case was a huge boon to the men's rights nuts and those others who believe the myths about women crying rape at the drop of a hat.

Whew, a good ol' fashioned opinion--a refreshing change.

Learn how to format HTML links or use tinyurl.com to support your assertions. If they can be supported.

kgun said...

anon 11:38 -

I'm a men's rights activist, and I don't consider myself a nut.

In fact, most MRAs treat rape as a very serious and heinous crime. As is the case with feminism, however, the nuttiest of the bunch always seem to find their way into the newspapers.

Anonymous said...

there are only 5 current studies on false rape claims, all in localized demographic areas, those studies show numbers anywhere from 45% to 74% of claims were false.

Bullshit. There isn't any credible current study out there that has found this level of false accusations. I have previously posted NUMEROUS recent credible studies and statistics compiled by government agencies that disprove this men's rights talking point, all to no avail.

Anonymous said...

It seems that two major mistakes were made. One is a staffing error made by DUMC. Tara should have never been assigned to the case. She was not qualified.

The second error was that Tara seems to become an advocate as opposed to just the facts type of person. Tara, given her inexperience, should not have offered a professional opinion.

On the other hand the detectives, had they been honest about it, would have talked to Manly as she was clearly more experienced.



It looks like there is plenty of blame to pass around on this one.

Anonymous said...


How many times has the false Linda Farstein quote about half of rapes never happening been posted here? How many times the 20 year old single study that found 40% of rapes were false been posted?


Would you care to provide some evidence that the statement was never made by Linda Farstein, or that if she made the statement, that it was a false statement.

Also, would you care to provide a statistic for the number of false rape claims?

Anonymous said...

11:50

Sounds to me like your buddy was lucky. It is very unusual for women to get bruises during consensual sex, but the 'rough sex' defense is all the rapist has in those few cases where he actually does injure his victim.

Anonymous said...

"Half of Rape Claims are False," screams a recent press release from a group called RADAR, which stands for Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting. The group backs up this astounding claim with a quote from Linda Fairstein, formerly a prosecutor with the sex crimes unit in New York County.

Feinstein's quote, which has been repeatedly endlessly throughout the blogosphere, holds that half of the rapes annually reported in Manhattan "did not happen." RADAR and others attribute this quote to Feinstein's 1993 book, Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape.

But Feinstein disclaims the quote: "I don't believe that and don't know where they got it." Recently, in connection with the Duke case, Feinstein said prosecutors "have to acknowledge that false accusations do happen, though they are less than 10% of reported rapes."

Anonymous said...

Here's the link on her disavowing the half of rapes reported in NYC never happened.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=6469

Anonymous said...

Anon says:


But Feinstein disclaims the quote: "I don't believe that and don't know where they got it." Recently, in connection with the Duke case, Feinstein said prosecutors "have to acknowledge that false accusations do happen, though they are less than 10% of reported rapes."


You would be more credible if you provided links, even ones that we have to cut-n-paste. Otherwise it just looks like you are making up more bullshit to enable women to go on making false rape claims.

WestToast said...

Levicy was hardly only "negligent" and "inexperienced." Not if her exam noted "injuries" not "abrasions." Then she tried to buttress Mangum by injecting her view that "rape is about power," and that condoms (which the "victim" first denied) could have been used after all.

What next: toxicologists noting that an accused showed the well-known effects of "demon rum?"

The speculative assertion that Levicy might have been "shredded" at trial assumes a jury willing to listen. A judge willing to enforce basic rules of evidence instead of deferring to the prosecutor (which the judge can do in his "discretion," and which is difficult to challenge and then only after a long appeal while you're in prison). The case never should have made it past 30 days. Trial never should have been set in the first place.

The more of this I see after 29 years of (civil) law practice, the more shocked I am. And the more impressed I am with that NC state bar (which I had originally assumed would act limpet-like and wait till trial was over).

The trial judges should have interceded as Nifong's erratic representations and evidence dumping became clear. Instead they were pretty much spectators in the arena, and it might fairly be said that one had his thumb down early on.

If it hadn't been for blogs like this one, that Meadows woman at Newsweek, and the NC Bar, the case might have made it. Supported by Levicy, an unbalanced accuser a scheming DA and a complicit DPD, the financially overwhelmed parents might have folded. The kids would be felons and maybe in prison.

You all really deserve a medal or somehting. Sorry but I guess awards are only for celebs adopting a tree or going to rehab. You are all real heros in this.

Anonymous said...

Here's the link on her disavowing the half of rapes reported in NYC never happened.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=6469

rod allison, detroit said...

From a March 29, 200g interview on MSNBC;

ABRAMS: Are you convinced there was a rape here?
NIFONG: I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir.
ABRAMS: And why are you so convinced of that?
NIFONG: 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.

--------------

Medical exam and demeanor.

That is all Nifong had to support Precious' claims, and its the only explanation he gave for believing a rape occured in any of his several interviews.

Its likely he could not have perpetrated the hoax without these two tidbits. And they both came from SANE nurse in training Tarah Levicy.

Levicy looks like a reckless ideologue who was an active and willing participant in the railroading.

Anonymous said...

All along, Mangum must of been thinking how dumb these white folks are...unbielivable.

Anonymous said...

Anon says:


Here's the link on her disavowing the half of rapes reported in NYC never happened.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=6469


Actually, anon, you aren't doing a good job of proving that you can think.

That is a reporter's claim that Feinstein disclaims the statement you allege was falsely put into her mouth.

Come back when you have something better.

Anonymous said...

Her statement is in QUOTATION MARKS, meaning she said it verbatum.

You are using Mike Nifong logic now. When confronted with a link that has a direct quote from Linda Farstein disavowing the 'half of rapes never happened' statement instead of believing the obvious, you choose to believe that the reporter made up the quote.

kgun said...

anon 12:13 -

The exculpitory evidence was quite clear, although I agree that in the absence of that, he would have been in trouble.

One of the biggest things that sunk the case was the fact that the accuser stated her shirt was forcefully pulled off of her while she had her back pinned against the inside of a car door. The top she wore that night was a sequins cutoff, and nary a sequin was missing, nor was the top in any way stretched, torn, or otherwise.

I'm not sure what the specific evidentiary rules were in this case, but testimony was given that the accuser had been checked into a mental hospital, she had contracted HPV (this came up during the cross of the SANE), and on the night in question, had flipped out on her boyfriend because she saw a seen from "The Fast and the Furious" that she said, was a "trigger" for her overriding condition (which was not Bi-polar Disorder, but something similar...MPD, I believe).

AMac said...

anon 11:38am misspelled Linda Fairstein's surname as Farstein.

There are two D-i-W posts quoting Fairstein, not one, as I claimed at 11:52am. Neither refers to an estimate by Fairstein of the prevalence of false rape claims.

Anonymous said...

I don't know, it doesn't sound too definitive to me. Are you saying its impossible for a woman's skirt to be pulled off without getting ripped or that you can't be raped without getting your shirt torn up?

As far as I know most rape victims don't have their clothes torn up.

However, if the woman was in the midst of some kind of other mental breakdown then it would certainly affect her credibility maybe even her memory.

Anonymous said...

amac says:


anon 11:38am misspelled Linda Fairstein's surname as Farstein.


Are we taling Fairstein or Feinstein?

There seems to be two different people being quoted.

Perhaps the anon moron is correct that Feinstein never said what Fairstein is alleged to have said.

Oh, why does the real world have to be so complicated? Why can't we just go back to a world where we can believe that women never lie?

kgun said...

anon - 12:31

You'll have to forgive my memory, as this took place back in 2002, but her story (with regard to her top) was the problem. Unlike CGM, the accuser in this case only changed her story twice, and that was early on. Fortunately, her description of how her clothes were didn't fit with the evidence, and she was essentially "stuck" with it, lest she change her story for a third time. She said something to the effect that her top had been "ripped off", and that her hands were pinned behind her against the car door (which is why she didn't/couldn't fight back). She wilted on cross exam, and answered "I don't know." to the last six or seven "how is it possible that..." questions she was asked...The first being "How could he tear your top off, with no damage to you or the clothing, while your hands were behind your back and pinned to the door?"

The case was dead before that point anyway.

It was the first jury trial held in the 12 year history of that court building. That's not relavant to anything...I just thought it was interesting.

Anonymous said...

The quote and the link are clear who is being quoted.

This is exactly the type of hostility to rape victims that I mentioned earlier. You don't like the real quote from the former sex crimes prosecutor so you try and make it out to be a lie or by someone else. No better than Mike Nifong or Wendy Murphy only at the other end of the ideological spectrum, instead of 'women never lie about rape' it is 'women always lie about rape'

Anonymous said...

Well, look at this:

Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, has written, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

and:

Feinstein's quote, which has been repeatedly endlessly throughout the blogosphere, holds that half of the rapes annually reported in Manhattan "did not happen."

It seems that at least one of the anons who are unhappy about false rape claims simply cannot tell that the article they use to support their claims is a shoddy piece of work that cannot even get right the name of the person they allege did not make claims about false rape claims.

Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

12:44

I'm not being argumentative, but it just doesn't sound like that was much reason to disbelieve her, this doesn't strike me as that much of an inconsistency. I can easily see how a woman's shirt could be rippped off while her hands were behind her back and not get physically ripped in the process. Kind of like the Alex Kelly rape trial where the first jury hung because the victim said he never took his hand off her throat, forgetting that he took one hand off long enough to put the seat down.

Anonymous said...

Linda Fairstein has said she DID NOT SAY THIS.

Oh My God. What is wrong with you people? A link was posted to an article from this week where she SPECIFICALLY says this quote that has been around the Internet is false, she never said, doesn't agree with it!!!

Anonymous said...


This is exactly the type of hostility to rape victims that I mentioned earlier.


No, anon. Real rape victims deserve every bit of sympathy.

My hostility is to morons like you who want to preserve the myth that people don't lie about things that are to their benefit.

Get real. Also, move beyond Rhetoric 101, please.

Anonymous said...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=2971265&page=3

Here Fairstein is telling ABC NEWS that less than 10 percent of rape claims turn out to be false.

So give it up guys, its time to admit that Fairstein never said any such nonsense about half of rapes in NYC being reported never happening.

Anonymous said...

No, anon. Real rape victims deserve every bit of sympathy.
-----------------

Sure they do, except in your world 'real rape victims' are hard to find, you don't believe in date rape, don't believe 'real rape' occurs without torn clothing and significant vaginal injury, don't believe 'real rape' victims ever fail to call the cops ASAP, don't believe real rape victims ever have any consensual sexual contact and then say no...on and on it goes.

Anonymous said...

All that any of us write here is mere speculation advised by the experiences of people and places we have witnessed throughout our lives.

Of course there are mentally deranged men who enjoy inflicting pain and raping; however, those kinds of individuals would enjoy raping both men and women.

So much of the war between the sexes cannot be defined clearly. I just don't happen to believe that most women are all that helpless. Unless she is involved with or married to a man who is violent and prone to crime and abuse, "rape", by its very nature, is a very complicated discussion.

For example, many times a woman will engage in heavy petting after an entire evening of "come hither"....while dressed in hot and sexy fashion to get attention.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's fun and liberating.

However, one must also empathize with the man who becomes--naturally--aroused by the show.......and is told to stop immediately when they have been in the throes of passion for a length of time.

IMO, the woman who screams rape when the guy is having a difficult time shutting down has contributed to the situation in a very big way.

This is why---aside from deranged rapists who hide in bushes and jump total strangers---crying "rape" is often a very layered issue.

Yes, women have been abused throughout history.

They have also benefited from the fact that for most aroused men....." an erect penis has no conscience".

LOL!


Debrah

kgun said...

anon 12:24 -

I don't think you're being argumentitive. I wouldn't have posted it if I wasn't ready to defend its legitimacy. No worries.

My question to you is how? This shirt had no buttons. In order to get it off without tearing it, either her arms had to be extended upwards at some point, or else he would have had to stretch the shirt (which was tight-fitting) over her head, then down her arms, which were supposedly pinned against the inside of the car door.

The accuser stated that her arms never went up into the air, and the fact that the shirt was in perfect condition made it all but impossible for the other scenario to have occured. Her story may have even been more specific (as to how the top was removed) but I'm afraid that's as much as I can remember.

Anonymous said...


Sure they do, except in your world 'real rape victims' are hard to find, you don't believe in date rape, don't believe 'real rape' occurs without torn clothing and significant vaginal injury, don't believe 'real rape' victims ever fail to call the cops ASAP, don't believe real rape victims ever have any consensual sexual contact and then say no...on and on it goes.


Well, since you don't actually know what I believe, anon, let me set it out.

There are three types of rape claims:

1. Real rape victims who were minding their own business and get raped. Perhaps they had a drink at a bar and said hello to some guy, just being polite, and so forth. However, they wind up being raped.

2. False rape claims, where for a variety of reasons, the alleged victim makes a false claim. Reasons include getting out of trouble with parents, boyfriend, husband, etc, or staying out of the drunk tank, or getting even with ex-husband or boyfriend that dumped her or whatever. I think a figure of around 10% is probably a good working figure.

3. Situations where things went further than the woman wanted them to, and she now regrets it, so she rationalizes it as rape. There is an amusing case with a video on the web where a woman claimed to have been gang raped by five guys. However, the video shows something completely different. I figure that at least another 10% fall into this category.

Finally, it's real simple to avoid rape. Avoid the sort of guys that rape and carry a gun.

Anonymous said...

1:02

I was picturing her arms pinned over head, shirt going up over head and arms, would be fairly easy to get off w/out tearing.

If she said her arms were pinned down, by her side, then that would be virtually impossible. So, I guess you are left with one of three conclusions, she was too traumatized to remember exactly how her shirt was pulled off; her shirt was not pulled off at all which is why her story doesn't make physical sense, or thirdly you can't be sure how the shirt came off and so it doesn't point to rape or consent...that would leave two out of three conclusions pointing to a not guilty verdict.

Anonymous said...

Finally, it's real simple to avoid rape.
-----------

That is hands down the stupidest comment I have read on this blog or any other dealing with rape.

If it was SIMPLE to determine in advance which guys were willing to commit rape and which ones weren't nobody would ever get raped.

KC Johnson said...

To the 11.38am:

I have just done a search of my 605 posts on this case. Not once have I mentioned a Linda Fairstein quote about the number of false rapes that are reported. As Amac noted, I have mentioned Fairstein at all only in two posts.

To the 11.31:

Levicy as a "bit player." This, certainly, was not the perspective that defense attorneys had.

gwallan said...

Anonymous @12:44:00 PM said...
This is exactly the type of hostility to rape victims that I mentioned earlier. You don't like the real quote from the former sex crimes prosecutor so you try and make it out to be a lie or by someone else. No better than Mike Nifong or Wendy Murphy only at the other end of the ideological spectrum, instead of 'women never lie about rape' it is 'women always lie about rape'

For your reading displeasure
Rempt-Rape at the U.S. Naval Academy - Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson - January 2007

False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought by Wendy McElroy

And still you don't get it do you? This has nothing to do with rape victims. It's to do with those who FALSELY claim to be victims.

I am a rape victim. CGM and those who concocted this farce are my worst nightmare and my biggest enemy all rolled into one. Those who enabled it for reasons of ideology are excrement.

Anonymous said...

KC,

My original post about Linda Fairstein wasn't referencing what YOU posted, but what was posted in the various threads by others.

I absolutely remember seeing the quote about Fairstein saying half of rapes never happened numerous times here and asking what was the original context in which she said it, because having seen her on many programs talking about the difficulty of prosecuting sexual assault it seemed at odds with her perspective and everything else I have ever read/seen her say about rape cases.

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

Once again - what came out of Duke Hospital were the swabs that cleared these guys and a report that underminded Crystal/s claims. The defense attorneys are finding fault with that???

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.36pm:

If my post conveyed the impression that defense attorneys were finding fault with Dr. Manly's DNA swabs, I apologize. I certainly had not intended to convey that impression.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't every defense attorney in a rape case try to use the SANE exam to advantage no matter what the results? If there were injuries they would be attributed to rough sex. If no injuries were found that would be evidence of consent. If no torn clothing found, that is evidence of consent. If torn clothing is found, that is evidence of consensual rough sex. If DNA is found, that is evidence of consensual sex. If the victim admits to drug or alcohol use, that is evidence she isn't credible. If there is no drug or alchol use, its a non issue. If the victim did cry, she's acting. If the victim didnt' cry, she wasn't raped.

I would think you would have to look long and hard to find a SANE nurse who would conclude a victim was lying, therefore, every defense attorney is going to consider the nurse a biased and hostile witness.

gwallan said...

Anonymous @1:36:00 PM said...
Once again - what came out of Duke Hospital were the swabs that cleared these guys and a report that underminded Crystal/s claims. The defense attorneys are finding fault with that???

Due to an unqualified, idealogically compromised, SANE operative stating that the crime happened, Nifong proceded with the case. Unfortunately by the time the test results from those swabs were available he was too invested to withdraw.

Understand this. The prosecution proceded on the basis of Tara Levicy's verbal report.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn said: "Fundamental to the whole Duke mess is gender politics and the rampant bigotry of feminists. Surrounding it with issues of race and class serves their purposes only as a distraction from their underlying expectation that in any conflict between a male and a female the female MUST be believed. That any accusation made by a woman against a man MUST be believed. It amazes me how oblivious so many are to this rank bigotry."

Spot on. The logical corollary to "women never lie" in he said/she said disputes is that "men always lie." That says it all re. feminism and it's place in such matters, i.e., that is has no place in such matters.

Levicy is simply one of many that are a plague on our society. The sooner we expose feminists for who and what they are, the sooner we can rid ourselves of the scourge.

hman said...

Defenders of Levicy are missing something important, imho. It is not OK for SANE nurses to openly take on the role of "victims advocate". The only reason their work will be taken seriously and given credence at trial is if it is clearly perceived that their only advocacy is for the truth regarding the evidence. Any good that the SANE program might accomplish will certainly be un-done as soon as their image becomes what Levicy seems to have been in this case - someone unable to leave ideology out her approach to an individual case.

rrhamilton said...

dk said:

"Feminists have proven over and over in this case and others that their biases will affect the way they intepret data and situations, pointing out her background is perfectly legitimate."

How is this different than, "rich white boys have proven over and over......"

This is EXACTLY the same kind of condemnation used to justify the attack on the boys as rapists.


You know how it's different, dk? Cuz if you had finished that sentence factually, it would've stated "rich white boys have proven over and over that they don't rape black women"

For proof, see No Justice, No Peace's 11:40 AM post:

Wow!

"...According to the Group of 88, the alleged rape of a black woman by three white men was just business as usual in racist America. In fact, as the journalist Robert VerBruggen reported, “white-on-black rape is so rare there really isn’t any way to measure its ups and downs.” For five out of the last ten years, the National Crime Victimization Survey put the number at zero for its respondents..."


dk, like you, Nurse Levicy was a victim of the Group of 88's "meta-narrative" that, in part, promotes a false history of white men commonly lusting after and raping black women. It didn't happen during slavery; it didn't happen in the last 40 years; and it didn't happen on March 13, 2006.

(Btw, I can now confess to how I knew in less than 24 hours that the whole thing was a hoax: Because I knew the REAL facts about "white-on-black" rape, and I knew all along that the "meta-narrative" that is used to brainwash Americans today never happened.)

Since I'm here again, I want to repeat my call for April 11th (411 is a memorable number, isn't it?) to be an unofficial Duke student holiday until the day the meta-narrative is finally smashed and it becomes an official holiday. My recommended names for the 4/11 holiday are "Innocence Day" or "Civil Rights Day."

In fact, why don't we just designate the whole month of April as "White History Month". It's going to take more than a day to deprogram the minds, like dk's and Levicy's, that have been warped by the meta-narrative.

Duke 85 said...

Question: Why are those who believe that men have rights too considered (by some) to be "nuts"?

--Mother of 3 sons

becket03 said...

DK is funny. Not a single substantative rebuttal to KC in his post, just a bunch of ad hominem, mixed in with hiding behind his wife's nurse's apron.

beckett

Anonymous said...

the 1:36 poster is attempting to derail any discussion of Tara's possible role as Hoaxtress. green monkeys could have taken the swabs. perhaps green monkeys would have been a better choice seeing what happened.

Anonymous said...

Why Civil suits are important !!

The behavior of many in this case was not just unethical, it was despicable, and in many instances, illegal. The problem is, that people of power, or people with criminal traits will tend to repeat thier actions unless sanctioned.
It is my belief, that the DPD, the University, the MSM, and the NC NCAACP will be all but happy to repaet their performance if they are not held accountable for their actions. We should not tolerate a society where racism trumps facts, and where personal ideology trumps civil rights.
I am counting on the Duke players to continue to promote justice, fairness and accountability to the law by proceeding with lawsuits that will not only hopefully recover some of the monies lost, and reputations shattered, but more importantly, correct the corruption that exits in Durham, and it is not just Mike Nifong. If this does not happen, the people who propegated this hoax will do it again, only this time it may be on someone less able to expose the lies, and this my friends, would be a tragedy.
Crystal Magnum should not be prosecuted according to the DA becasue of apparent mental illness, however, she is not so ill that she is not allowed to continue to care for 3 kids, who I beleive are endangered if she is a sick as she is made out to be.
Wendy Murphy made statements that were knowingly, factually false, hence, she should be sued for defamation. Nancy Grace did the same, the Black Panthers did the same, the Herals Sun did the same, the Wilmington Journal did the same (oh my, I could go on).
The DPD literally fabricated evidence, this is so wrong it transcends ugly. As much as Mike Nifong, they need to be punished and cleaned up.
Anyone who threatened the Duke 3, their families, the coach, etc, needs to be prosecuted for hate crimes. I am sorry, if people are marching outside your house with castrate signs and you fear for your life, that my friends, is NOT free speech, it is illegal. I am sure the corrupt DPD can identify the people in those marches and arrest them.
Those responsible or involved in propegating this hoax will do it again if not held accountable.

BDay MD

Matthew said...

Look, she neither has the proper training or she does not have the right to speculate on what occured. She stepped overbounds on both of these. This is bad.

Look, I am a lifeguard. I have pulled about 10 kids out of the water and filled out incident reports. Never, anywhere in the report, are lifeguards to speculate what happened. We are asked what we saw and where did it occur and was any first aid procedures (like a band aid) given. Thats it.

She was not certified to do what she did. Your darn right she is heavy liable. If I was lifeguarding at the pool and I saved an injured kid, and the parents sued, and it is found out I dont have O2 administration (which is entirely possible in Ohio as you are not allowed to use o2 on a pool deck), I am liable because I dont have all the certification (and just for those wondering, I am lifeguard, cpr, aed, o2, and first aid certified).

The SANE nurse does not have the proper certifications to do what she did. Even if she did everything right, she and who she works for is still liable. Why is this so hard to understand

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:24 said...
...Of interest. CGM falsely claimed, at one point, that one of her assailants was getting married the next day, the 14th.

...One wonders if the DNA found matches someone who did get married on the 14th? One who was not an assailant, but a client.
::
A client of the same escort service and the party was down the street, no doubt.
Precious was told to expect a groom to be...but... she went to the wrong party.
Those guys might just all have the luck of the Irish.
::
GP

kgun said...

anon 1:02 -

Sorry about the delay in responding. I had a webinar to attend.

You were correct in your assumption about the accuser's arms. I should have used the term "handcuffed style" to describe her account. That is to say, her hands were supposedly behind her back as if they were hancuffed, while also being pinned in between her back and the inside of the car door.

Like you pointed out, it's tough to imagine this actually taking place. I felt quite sorry for the fiance, who was trying desperately on the stand to walk the fine line between supporting his partner, and not looking like a niave fool. He also had to recount the other incedents of cheating in their relationship, which I can only imagine was a barrel of monkeys.

Black & White said...

I am white, my former girlfriend of six years is black. By coincidence, she's qualified in the medical field (RN), having raised herself up from the deepest part of the ghetto.

When you spend six years with a person, you learn a lot, either directly or by osmosis. Here, my comments concern "rape," or more specifically, the difference between "white" rape vs. "black" rape.

I was the white fly on the black wall when Mike Tyson was accused and subsequently convicted of "rape." If I remember correctly, the accuser's name was Washington, a black girl, contending for Miss Black America. She had gone to Tyson's hotel room voluntarily, which is exactly where the case fell apart among black women.

"She better pray for a white-woman jury," observed my then girlfriend, as did every one of her equally black female associates and friends. The reason? "You can't get 'raped' partying with a ‘man’ in a hotel room." (Unless he has money)

Although not directly related to the Mangum case, it goes to motive, but more importantly, to the differences in black and white.

Generally, white females tend be naive when it comes to interpreting sexual behavior involving African Americans, which is the cause of much [private] humor among their black counterparts. Without being graphic, you don't lead a horse to bed... and then call it rape.

By the same token, you don't ask a white feminist what constitutes rape based on a melodramatic, hysterical, third-party assertion. Particularly when their so-called victim is black.

More to the point, sexual attitudes are very different in the black community. For one, it’s considered a normal part of daily life, without the “white” baggage. Sex is not simply anticipated, it’s expected, signifying sexual equality. No, not “easy” in the sense of automatic availability, but based on undisguised and mutual attraction/passion.

Crystal Mangum took a shot, but unlike Ms. Washington, she missed. Yet, had the case gone to a jury, a “white-woman” jury, chances are she would have hit the jackpot.

Anonymous said...

KC, KC, KC. You've gotten it all wrong. You can't go after the SANE, no matter how much a snake-oil, agenda-driven partisan she is, because she is not a white male! You're in academia for goodness sakes, how do you not know by now that when a black female files a false police report under penalty of perjury, it is all a white man's fault (Nifong)? What part of the MS. in Ms. SANE don't you understand? Get with it man.

AMac said...

anon 12:48pm --

You told a tale in which a website typo (Fairstein -> Feinstein in this article)discredits a direct quote.

Author Bill Lueders has now corrected that minor error.

Sheesh.

Matthew said...

Bottom line, whatever line you fall on the scope, there is no debating that she was not a fully certified sane nurse.

Levicy did not have the proper certifications to do what she did alone. And even if she was with someone, they would have to sign off on their approval. So if the case did go to court, MANLY would have to testify, not Levicy. Levicy couldnt testify as a medical expert. The second Nifong or the state would have put Levicy on the stand, the defense objects because she is not medically certified.

So, her testimony cant be taken as any more or less than any bystander. Thats the bottom line.

Anonymous said...


Question: Why are those who believe that men have rights too considered (by some) to be "nuts"?

--Mother of 3 sons


Oh no, Mother of 3 sons. You must be one of those evil anti-feminists who teach their sons to rape. Do you hate your mother?

Cedarford said...

Amidst all the troll fodder, there is a very good post by Anonymous 9:43AM. I urge people who may have missed it scolling by the eruption of troll screeds and troll rebuttals to go back and look at her statements as a nurse and as someone with good familiarity in Levicy's background.

Anonymous said...

I think the assumption that Levicy would have been a significant prosecution witness is unwarranted. Due to her limited experience and the availability of an examining physician, her testimony would have probably been limited to reporting what the accuser told her, and her specific factual observations--assuming she was called at all.

As an attorney, I think my problem with considering Levicy a major player is that evaluating the credibility of a potential witness is a fundamental function of any litigator. You look at the witness and consider all the strengths and blemishes which come in a variety of types--poor memory, biases, inexperience, errors in documentation, consistency with other evidence, etc. When considering medical evidence, the first place you look is at the contemporaneous written documentation as the strongest evidence. I don't know any practicing litigator who doesn't substantially discount the testimony of a medical professional who purports to recall significant facts not contained in the contemporaneous records.

I don't have a clear understanding of exactly what she said/wrote and to whom, and hopefully the next article will clarify. So much of the discussion of her involvement has not clearly set out the source of specific statements attributed to her (law enforcement report, direct statement to defense attorneys, etc.)which makes such a major difference in this case due to the lack of credibility and established falsehoods contained in so much of the documentation generated by law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Matthew - why you people feel compelled to make this non related comparions is beyond me. This nurse assisted a Doctor in preforming an exam - thats what nurses do - Its their job - She was not in training to be a Registered Nurse, only a SANE nurse with its 40 hour training. This SANE thing has grown all out of proporation - The SANEs put on a fur coat and now think they are King Kong.

Duke 85 said...

Levicy did indeed provide the "expert" statement that Nifong needed to propel the case forward. Was she malicious or, in her world view, couragous for speaking truth to power. I believe that some of these feminists (and we know she is one by her major)are so bent in their perceptions that they don't know what they see--they can only see what they know.

Further evidence of this mindset is the "men's rights nuts" moniker. What non-brainwashed person would put those 3 words together? (in that order).

But what can you expect coming from the for-profit Planned Parenthood?

Anonymous said...

Why are those who believe that men have rights too considered (by some) to be "nuts"?
-------------------------------

There is a difference between believing men have rights too and believing such tales as that women phyically abuse men at the same rate as men abuse women, while discounting the murder rate of women by their partners, or of believing that it's more likely for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape than it is for a rapist to deny he committed a crime, or that there is terrirble educational conspriracy against boys.

Anonymous said...

Tara Levicy is not to blame for the hoax or for Mike Nifong's actions.

If she had kept her mouth shut and said nothing to the police, the case would have gone forward because the complaining witness continued to say she was raped.

If she had said there were no injuries found, the case would still have gone forward because lack of injury doesn't mean no rape took place and the complaining witness continued to say she was raped.

If the Dr. had 'diagnosed' Mangun with a yeast infecion as many think she should have, the case would still have gone forward since having a yeast infection doens't mean there is no semen present on the swabs.

If Levicy had espressed skepticism about the complaining witness to police or others she would have likely been reprimanded for being a racist and told she wasn't there to make judgmement calls, and the case would have gone forward because the complaining witness continued to say she was raped.

Hopefully Levicy HAS BEEN reprimanded and told that she should not speculate or read into medical data things that are not there.

However, to say that this nurse in training could have stopped the case is silly and wrong.

Anonymous said...

KC

Clean up at 11:44.

Thank you.

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 3:56 PM -

You're nuts!

Without Levicy, all cops would have had was a local prostitute screaming some guys raped her at a party, was under intoxicating substances, couldn't indentify anyone, and the SANE exam showed no preliminary indications that her exam backed her story in any way.
They would have had an extraordinarily hard time getting a ADA to go to Judge Stevens to get a sweeping NTO order waiving the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights of 46 accused people with no significant criminal past.

They would have had no basis for Cpl Addisons defamatory statements.

They would have had serious problems taking the case to a grand jury without the trainees "medical certainty" that a brutal rape happened in her expert medical opinion.
Nifong, Brodhead would have hesitated for sure in the critical decisions they made...

If Levicy had espressed skepticism about the complaining witness to police or others she would have likely been reprimanded for being a racist...
OK, you're an idiot, in addition to being nuts.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong, sorry.

Prostitutes can and do get raped as do intoxicated people. She wouldnt' have been shown any photos of Duke players for at least a few days so her inability to recognize anyone or give the same description twice would not have been noticed at that time.

If you really believe a SANE nurse in training who told anyone that a black self confessed rape victim was lying shortly after her rape exam was performed WOULD NOT have been reprimanded and likely branded a racist you are the NUT. This is a freaking school where 88 professors went public with an ad all but condoning vigilante justice and you think some dumbass nurse in training who said 'hey, maybe this chick is lying' would not have been read the riot act about the downtrodden black sex worker??????? Please.

hman said...

To 3:51
I am not sure what a "mens rights activist" is exactly. However, I would argue that a basic unfairness has been put at the heart of things if Law Enforcement and the Courts are prone to automatically believe the womans story about alleged rape and who hit whom first.
If women can lie about such things without fear of consequences then how can men feel safe from having their lives ruined by false accusations? The "LAW" is not there, apparently, to help keep men safe from such mischief.
As far as DV, it is pretty well established that women initiate violence at least as often as men. The murder rate is a different matter, for all sorts of reason.
Education? Boys that are home-schooled do not show any of the falling behind observed with the little guys who have fallen into the hateful clutches of the man-hating lesbians that formulate policy in the Gulag of Public Education.
I should stop before I start saying what I really think.

kgun said...

anon 3:51 -

So I suppose that anyone that lends credence to any of the "tales" you site is a "nut".

While I certainly don't believe that "it's more likely for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape than it is for a rapist to deny he committed a crime", legitimate studies have been done to show both sides of the other talking points that you mention. At the very least, the jury is still out on the topics that you so flippantly disregard. So please forgive us "nuts" for trying to get to the bottom of things, and for wanting the TRUE gender equality that is espoused by so many.

Anonymous said...

If you were being honest you would know that LE now takes domestic violence seriously because for many decades it was considered a family thing and cops showed up, saw the beaten up woman and failed to take action. Only after a series of extremely high profile killings where the woman had repeatedly called the cops and nothing had been done did the protocols start to change.

This is actually one reason why I don't believe there are a lot of false rape accusations since a woman is on MUCH safer ground to claim the man hit her rather than raped her. Once she accuses him of hitting her, he is going straight to jail and she will have the unfailing sympathy of all involved, unlike the rape victim.

As far as police believing a rape victim, the rape victim should be treated the same as any other crime victim, no more skepticism and no less. Obviously, police do treat some cases with skepticism since charges are not always filed and sometimes women are charged with filing false charges. Why should a rape victim have to prove her case to a higher degree than any other victim of a violent crime?

I find it totally ridiculous to believe that there is a conspiracy among educators all across the country in every state that results in harm to boys. That IS nuts.

Duke 85 said...

Anon 3:51
How about the truth? How about the facts? How about PROVING accusations and not believing anyone out of hand? How about treating everybody equally under the law as well as in public opinion? The great injustice in this case was Nifong, Group of 88, Levicy, the media, etc., etc. proceeding without real evidence. Men probably do beat up women more often than women beat up men for no other reason than women tend to be smaller. I'm still on the fence about whether women falsely accuse men of rape less often than men deny it. As we don't have good statistics (facts) then we don't know. As for the educational conspiracy--you bet boys are at a disadvantage, especially in the early grades. More women are matriculating into colleges than men in an even population. I hesitate to call it a "conspiracy" because I don't have evidence of a "conspiracy" only a feeling that the man-haters with angry-studies degrees are permeating all levels of education.

We know one thing, women are not falsely accused of physical felonies as often as men.

-- Double alumna mother of 3 lacrosse playing boys

rod allison, detroit said...

The Levicy complicity is the great untold story of the hoax.

KC, once again, is way out ahead of everyone else in reporting it.

183 comments so far and counting. I can't wait for tomorrows post on Levicy's collaboration with Nifong.

I'm sure the feminist brigade will weigh in tomorrow too.

hman said...

To 4:31
The part of the SAT exam in which guys most out-performed women had to do with drawing analogies. It was dropped entirely. No part of the exam where women have had an advantage has been dropped.
Grade inflation, which has been rampant, shifts higher average letter grades to women when applied to identical numeric test scores as before. Also, making testing easier will predictabily give women on average more good grades than men. It is a simple matter of gaussian mathematics.
Boys need running around-time and cool stories about war and adventure to keep them in their seats. That is just how Gd made them. These things have been systematically eliminated.

Anonymous said...


I find it totally ridiculous to believe that there is a conspiracy among educators all across the country in every state that results in harm to boys. That IS nuts.


My wife is a high-school teacher. Recently, she came home and started talking about how in their continuing education courses, they are being taught about 'male' privilege and 'white' privilege.

Draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

I'm still on the fence about whether women falsely accuse men of rape less often than men deny it.

----------

For that to be true it would have to mean that most women who say they were raped are lying. There isn't a legitimate study out there that has ever found a majority of rape victims were lying. What multiple studies have found is that people--cops, lawyers, judges, the public--BELIEVE women lie about rape at higher rates than they actually do. Actual crime statistics don't support the idea. Government studies dont' suport the idea. In fact, there is only ONE study ever conducted that found this kind of high rate of lying women and the study itself isn't available only the author's conclusions and that study is almost 20 years old.

But, people will believe what they want to believe and a lot of people find it comforting to believe that all these girls who say they were dated raped are lying rather than to believe all these boys wouldn't take no for an answer.

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

My problem with Levicy is that she apparently starts from the premise that a person claiming to have been raped is always telling the truth. There is always a rape. She then looks for evidence to back up that belief and skews her comments along those lines.

This works out if you have someone who actually has been raped but in a case where there is a false accusation - as was the case here - it causes a heap of trouble. The basic problem is that Levicy is not objective. She is really more of an advocate and that is not what the role of a SANE is supposed to be.

It's incredible that Duke Medical didn't have an experienced SANE on site. Allowing the inexperienced Levicy and Manly, who although a physician, didn't have the specialized training that a SANE does, to do the exam was a big mistake. It seems like there were quite a few indications that this was a false allegation and an experienced SANE would have noted them. Levicy either didn't have the experience or just ignored the warning signs.

I don't have a problem with feminists. I myself have seen the Vagina Monologues as well as another Eve Ensler production called The Body. I have a big problem with Levicy's conduct in this case though and I think KC is right. SANEs should objectively collect evidence and report findings. I don't think Levicy did that. The medical findings in no way supported Crystal's allegations. Yet Levicy took the position Crystal had been raped apparently based on her demeanor and not based on any objective medical evidence. This is not a good thing. Apparently Crystal's hysterical demeanor and protestations of pain when she appeared to have no injuries should have been a red flag. Beyond that I have to suspect that Levicy is more of an advocate than an objective medical professional based on her actions in this case.

hman said...

So, standing up for equal rights for men equals hating women? Women Studies Logic Impairment Syndrome strikes again.

Anonymous said...

5:01

I totally agree with that. I believe an experienced SANE nurse would have found Crystal's screaming to be a red flag. Even the MD, who apparently hasn't done many rape exams found her behavior out of the norm.

Levicy definitely stepped over the line into unprofessionalism, I just don't happen to think had she done things the correct way it would have made a difference in the case.

If Nifong could ignore photos, bank videos, cell phone records, DNA findings, mental illness, prior 3-man gang rape beat down accusations and every other piece of exculpatory evidence, the idea that a skeptical SANE nurse would have made a difference to him doesn't fly.

hman said...

To 5:06
We can never know for sure what influenced Nifongs decision to go for broke with this case. Perhaps he was un-deterrable from the instant he first heard about it. On the other hand, perhaps the existence of the Levicy input - which well preceded his decision - gave him the confidence that he could ride this horse long enough to get elected and force some kind of plea deal from the terrorized, exhausted defendants. The thing is, there had to be a moment of doubt in Nifongs brain about whether or not this plan of his work work. Levicys comments were - my guess - the biggest single confidence builder he ever got in this rotten saga.

Anonymous said...

I know this is slightly off-topic, but while we're on the subject of suing Dook, can Mike Pressler sue Dook for wrongful termination? I sure hope so. He's so cute. :)

Anonymous said...

Maybe, but we heard about how the rape exam really, really supported Mangun's story but when it was released we find out that it didn't. No vaginal tearing, no anal tearing, nothing but some redness. No bruises, black eyes, redness, thumbprints. No date rape drugs. The actual report was a bunch of nothing when compared with her statements about what happened..kicking, beating, strangling. It is true that Nifong rode the SANE exam horse as long as he could. It would be very unlikely for a SANE nurse to go on record as being skeptical, let's be honest here, the SANE program is designed to help rape victims and collect any and every shred of evidence that might support their story. While the exam itself and the testimony is to be objective, the entire purpose of the SANE program is to provide better support and better evidence in order to secure more convictions. That isn't to say that a seasoned SANE nurse might not have doubts about some women's claims...but it seems just as bad for them to be voicing an opinion either way when the evidence is inconclusive.

My recollection is that Nifong was gangbusters on this case well before the DNA results came back which tells me, as soon as he knew about the complaint he saw black votes and nothing more.

Anonymous said...

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. 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 Creedmore 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. Numerous 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.

C. Thonas Kunz

Anonymous said...

I think Nifong's confidence builder was the N and O story on 3/25. Ruthies "We Know .." column and the 88 Listensing statement.

Anonymous said...

5:01 What was the Vagina Monolouges about?

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with what 3:41 said:
I don't have a clear understanding of exactly what she said/wrote and to whom, and hopefully the next article will clarify. So much of the discussion of her involvement has not clearly set out the source of specific statements attributed to her (law enforcement report, direct statement to defense attorneys, etc.)which makes such a major difference in this case due to the lack of credibility and established falsehoods contained in so much of the documentation generated by law enforcement.

I do hope we'll be unambiguously told in tomorrow 's post whether or not Levicy actually made all the statements attributed to her by Himan and Gottlieb, or whether some of the attributions may be fabrications by the proven liars of the DPD.

If Levicy really said that there were signs and injuries indicative of anal rape, then she was going well beyond sloppiness in reporting facts and bias in interpretating them to outright lying, and beyond tortuous to criminal behavior, an important distinction.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 232   Newer› Newest»