Friday, September 14, 2007

More Unanswered Questions

On Monday, the blog offered some unanswered questions that remain about the case. At the time, I invited readers to offer their own—and reproduce some of the more intriguing ones, some slightly modified for clarity (with a few answers, for those to which I know the response).

The Lacrosse Players’ E-mails

Who was responsible for the “sting” e-mail? This was the e-mail that appeared to originate from the account of one of the players, and “informed” his teammates that he was sick of “covering up” and would be going to the police to tell them who was responsible for the “crime.”

What is Duke’s policy on their network and computers? I would assume McFayden computer was his own, but would also assume that the network and servers used for connection were Duke’s. So -- would Duke claim the right to give LE that email without a subpoena as it was on their network and their server? This is the rule I work under at my company....no right to computer privacy -- it’s their computer, their network, etc.

This set of unanswered questions is critical; and there has been no light shed on the origins of the “sting” e-mail, the bogus Collin Finnerty e-mail, or who forwarded the McFadyen e-mail to the police. It does seem very unlikely that the police obtained the McFadyen e-mail from the captains’ computers, as I originally had believed. Duke’s John Burness has also told me that no one from Duke officially supplied the McFadyen e-mail to police.

The Federal Government

Did the DPD, Michael Nifong’s DA’s office, or DUMC use ANY federal funds via the Violence Against Women Act in conjunction with any aspect of this case? If so, the feds do not have to look any farther for a hook on which to hang a criminal investigation.

Crystal Mangum

Crystal’s children - where are her kids? If she had mental problems substantial enough so she could not be indicted, is the state of NC allowing her to keep her kids?

This one’s been asked - (by me and lots of others) - but it deserves an answer: whose DNA was on CGM’s person? Whose “privacy” was Nifong protecting?

Why did the Durham access intake nurse suggest to Mangum she was raped? Did this nurse know Mangum was a nut job and want to pass her on to someone else? Or is this a common part of the intake process?

[A reader provided a thoughtful answer:

I am a psych nurse that has worked many years in various Crisis/Intake units. It is NOT a a direct question I would ask unless the client indicated to me that they had a specific physical trauma that needed to be immediately medically addressed. If clients don’t state they were raped as a chief complaint in their initial explanation of why they are there, the events surrounding their coming to the unit, it would be totally inappropriate to ask. You do not give often unreliable and manipulative psych clients suggestions. It’s improper interviewing.

Both nurses in this sordid saga were sub-standard clinicians in my opinion. I can’t figure out how Tara Levicy was able to operate with so much autonomy. Before I ever spoke with police, I would have accessed the doctor and probably the administration to review all clinical records and opinions.

Tara Levicy should no longer have a nursing license. She violated nursing ethics. The other nurse was just stupid, most likely poorly trained.]

How much money did the City of Durham, County of Durham and State of North Carolina respectively spend on room, board and other support for Crystal Mangum? What is their usual policy and practice with regards to supporting witnesses?

Police & The Investigation

Will Crimestoppers - (and its posters) - be an issue in the case against Durham?

[Answer: Yes.]

I have wondered why it took [Kim Roberts, on the night of the party] so long to get from 610 Buchanan to the Kroger store [where Roberts called 911 to ask the police to take Mangum off her hands]? What happened during that time?

Did the DPD and/or someone in the DA’s office coerce or coach CGM to make an ID in the taped session?

Duke made the effort to crack down on campus drinking and immature behavior and then provided off campus rental houses to students which resulted in de facto “Frat Houses” which were unregulated and unsupervised. How does the DPD feel about Duke outsourcing their issues with student drinking to the Durham community? Will Duke take back its responsibility in this area?

Duke & Related Matters

Why was Chauncey Nartey not appropriately punished? (Setting aside the race issue--he threatened a child!) Where were the local child rights types? Why no outrage or anger?

[I’ll add another to this question: who selected Nartey for membership in the Campus Culture Initiative and to join President Brodhead at the Charlotte “Duke Conversation” event?]

President Brodhead made this statement in his August interview with 60 Minutes:

The facts kept changing. Every day we learned new things that no one knew the day before. Every day we were being urged to speak with certainty about facts that were full of great uncertainty at that point. (emphasis added)

Who was “urging” Brodhead to speak and what was the nature of that “urging”? Was there any written communication or e-mails that memorialized that urging? And if so, were any of the faculty or other administration officials consulted by or about those who urged Brodhead to speak with certainty?

Have attorneys ID’d people photographed with the “castrate” poster? I’d like their names published. Not for really for lawsuits, but for public shame, as this case wraps up.

The Authors of the Vigilante Poster: Duke students and employees, or outsiders? Sam Hummel? Serena Sebring? Were such Duke parties part of the Duke Settlement?

The Group of 88’s Ad

In submitting the Group of 88’s ad for publication, what assurances did Wahneema Lubiano provide to the Chronicle to support her claim that five academic departments officially endorsed the ad?

What steps has Duke as an institution (rather than KC and others privately) taken (a) to determine whether the faculty departments in question in fact endorsed the ad in accordance with department procedure, (b) if not, to determine if individual faculty members knowingly used the name of the concerned department(s) without proper authorization, (c) to determine whether department funds were used to pay for the ad and, if so, was that in accordance with applicable Duke procedures, (d) to determine if publication of the ad, whether or not properly authorized and funded, was consistent with applicable Duke procedures and the obligation to protect the interest of students, (e) determine if any Duke faculty member engaged in misconduct with respect to the treatment of lacrosse team members or their supporters in class or in grades, (f) if improper conduct occurred, to seek to prevent such conduct from occurring in the future and (g) if improper conduct occurred, to hold the individuals and departments engaged in that conduct publicly accountable for their misconduct.

I have some questions about the Gang of 88 ad in the Chronicle. I understand the ad received formal endorsement from five Duke academic departments. Who actually paid for the ad? Was it paid for by one of these departments with Duke University funds or was it paid for by one of the individual professors? If it was paid for with Duke funds, are there no rules covering University money expenditures?

[A: According to e-mails from April 2006, the ad was paid for by Duke funds, funneled through the African-American Studies Program. This action violated official Duke policy.]

How many names and email addresses are in Wahneema Lubiano’s email filter? Is this her idea of dialogue?

[A: A good question indeed.]

Law Enforcement Enablers

How did her fellow jurists—both in Durham and around the state—react to Judge Marcia Morey’s sworn testimony that it is less important for attorneys to be candid at trial than in pre-trial proceedings?

Why is Dr. Meehan still in business? How can anything from his lab be trusted?

[A: I don’t know; and nothing from his lab can be trusted.]

What sort of conversations occurred between Nifong, Linwood, and DPD about the arrest of Elmostafa, & between Nifong and Ashley Cannon regarding the prosecution of Elmostafa?

[Liestoppers provided a comprehensive analysis.]

Who else in the DAs office helped with this case? Why are they so quiet?

Did anyone in the Durham D.A’s Office ever have any doubts about Nifong’s actions? I can’t believe he was able to maintain a total vacuum around the case. I would presume there was some “shop” talk between ADA’s, paralegals and administrative folks. One would think at least a few people asked Nifong a probing question or two.

[A disturbing answer to the two questions above was provided in an interview yesterday by interim DA David Saacks.]

Tara Levicy

Here’s a question in line with my earlier statement, why did the hospital administration allow Tara Levicy to be point person in this high profile case? Her continued egregiously unsubstantiated insistence that Magnum was raped to the police had to have come to light and should have had them combing the records and interviewing the attending doctor. She should have been be put on leave or fired as soon as it became clear what she was doing.

Was Tara Levicy asked to leave DUMC? Did her leaving have anything to do with Duke’s (and presumably DUMC’s) settlement with the accused?

Outside Enablers

Wendy Murphy. Because she claimed to be talking in an official capacity as a law professor representing New England School of Law in her various media rants, and because she regularly wrote defamatory statements on the Federal government supported website (via CDC) National Sexual Violence Policy Centers - Murphy’s current defense that she is just a pundit paid to say provocative things on TV simply for entertainment value, and not just the Duke case, seems very weak.

Q: Why are there so many unanswered questions in this matter?

A: [from another reader] It seems the more questions that get answered, the more questions that arise.

Q: I believe one thing is apparent. The frame-up was conducted with the cooperation of the DPD, the city fathers, the Duke administration, certain district judges and the media. The breadth of it is stupefying.

The single most important question (that will be answered soon) is: what will the City of Durham do?

[A: I’ll be discussing this issue in Monday’s post.]

slight delay tonight with post.

95 comments:

rrhamilton said...

KC asked, The single most important question (that will be answered soon) is: what will the City of Durham do?

Here's my guess: Durham will settle and for pretty much the full $30 million ride. Why? Because Duke will tell them to and Duke will pay most of the settlement (openly or secretly). Why would Duke do that? Because any lawsuit brings the possibility that Duke will have to watch as it's professors are completely morally and intellectually eviscerated on the witness stand by plaintiffs' lawyers. Duke will pay almost any amount of money to avoid exposing to the world the products of its "commitment to diversity". So Duke will tell Durham: "Settle. Pay. We'll kick in." And that will be that.

That's my guess.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Johnson,


Three inconsequential typos for the next edition :

p54
"In an October 2005 case, neighbors complained of Dukies (not lacrosse"

presumably "players)" is missing



p222
"male DNA found on the public hair comb"

presumably it was a "pubic" hair comb



p379

"But it's true that prosecutors often come under stong community pressure TO give the accuser"




And one serious critique :

You and Stuart Taylor grossly underestimated the importance of Durham-in-Wonderland. With just a lone reference on p269 as one of the "two principal case-related blogs", you did a disservice to those book readers who have not closely followed your blog.

Your humility is admirable but, as a historian, you miserably failed to accurately portray your damn near superhuman scholarship in exposing the hoax.

Anonymous said...

KC -- your link to a "disturbing answer" from Saacks is (I believe) to the wrong source.

Anonymous said...

Two boards of nursing and DUMC disagree with the Levicy assessments. She not only did not lose her license but got a new one in NH. No discipline action recorded on the BON websites against this nurse. One would assume NCBON and DUMC know more about the nurses's actions or lack there of than anyone on the net.
I wonder why KC is out to get this nurse but not Ruthie and the NO, who inflamed the Community and this case before Nifong goe into it.

Anonymous said...

FYI: When you click on the link to the David Saacks interview..you are directed to the aforementioned Liestoppers link about Elmostafa:

Anonymous said...

I think rrhamilton is basically correct: plenty of Duke & Durham officials would pay plenty to avoid seeing all the facts come out.

Joe T. said...

Boy, I'm reminded again what a vast and varied nest of vipers we're dealing with in this case. Maybe (hopefully?) this legal action will get them turning against each other in ways we can only guess at.

Serena Sebring said...

I was not an author of the poster, nor was I involved in any way with its creation.

I am not part of the Duke Settlement.

I have answered your questions, and would appreciate it if you would correct the above text as it is now no longer an unanswered question.

Debrah said...

TO the dear informative suppurating sebring--

Justice would be appeciative if you would correct your entire behavior from the Spring of 2006.

Don't you like being held responsible for your slander and your libel?

Yet you come here, post haste, whining that your bad name is mentioned?

ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

One Spook said...

rrh @ 1:16 AM, regarding Duke paying part Durham's settlement of a potential lawsuit with the lax families, writes:

Why would Duke do that? Because any lawsuit brings the possibility that Duke will have to watch as it's professors are completely morally and intellectually eviscerated on the witness stand by plaintiffs' lawyers. Duke will pay almost any amount of money to avoid exposing to the world the products of its "commitment to diversity".

On my first reading of that, I concluded you had gotten into Inman's Scotch. So, I read it again and it makes a lot of sense (and I'm not drinking any alcohol!).

And, it's an interesting theory. Duke in essence is already paying for the former defendants to sue Durham. No doubt the families are using some of the money from the settlement from Duke to pay for their attorneys who are planning to sue Durham. Duke knows how much money the families got, and its is no doubt an amount that will pay for a lot of even BIG attorney time. And they've hired some of the BIGGEST plaintiff's attorneys money can buy! Duke has probably been advised by their own counsel that the plaintiffs will likely prevail in court against Durham and that such a case would involve calling Duke administrators, professors, and employees as witnesses.

Duke already gives a lot of "protection" money to Durham to keep some of the Durham natives from burning down the university, and a huge portion of the unskilled labor force at Duke is made up of Durham residents.

So, your theory makes sense, RRH, why not just pay more? Duke has the money, they're used to an appeasement philosophy, they're scared to death of Durham and some of its residents, and what the heck, it isn't the administrators' money anyway.

Your theory makes good sense, RRH!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

in re:Crystal's kids. If the state were to take away the progeny of all mentally unbalanced Americans, even California wouldn't hold them.

Debrah said...

Hey Sebring!

Who's sorry now?

LOL!!!
LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

KC - Why does Melanie Sil at the News and Observer think that you and the paper compliment each other?

Debrah said...

TO 2:21PM--

Because Melanie Sill, Ted Vaden (their ombudsman...LOL!!!...), and most of their staff are seasoned BS artists---with a few exceptions.

They had to be led and shamed into covering the lacrosse hoax properly.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 2:11 writes:

in re:Crystal's kids. If the state were to take away the progeny of all mentally unbalanced Americans, even California wouldn't hold them.

True, because California already has a gigantic number of the progeny of mentally unbalanced Americans. A good portion of them live in San Francisco.

One Spook

hman said...

To the Defender of Levicy using many names:
Your only remaining argument - that her State Board has not canned her - could have several interpretations.
The Boards might be asleep and have not gotten around to reading their mail. (Very possible)
The Boards do not consider her ill advised free lance law enforcement to help frame some defendants to have enough to do with her scope of nursing practice. (Very Likely)and so they see her crimes as irrelevant to her licensure.
Or lastly, the SANE program has a collective death wish, a sorta spiritual need to fail with strongly masochistic overtones.
If they are actually standing by Levicy, who is attempting to change all previous notions of good record keeping and fidelity to those records, maybe they actually get off on public rejection. Maybe they secretly feel out of place in Court Rooms and Lawyers Offices are are subconsciously wanted to be roughly, thoroughly, achingly kicked out of those places. Which will happen when word gets around that they testify to things contrary to their own reports.
I knew they were perverts all along.

ABC said...

KC has another whiny nurse here to tell us how awful Levicy was. Boo Hoo Don't forget to tell her the DPD are liars! Show her the defense interview, and show it to me too. As far a Levicy goes, the jury pool is poisoned here, except for me. I'm just a RN with 36 years experience. And I hope you all will remember to apologize to Levicy after she proves she is innocent. She will probably testify in the Civil case against Durham.

Anonymous said...

As a non - American, it seems that the "New" South is just as sordid as the "Old" South; only the colour of the protagonists has changed.

Anonymous said...

Re: Prof Wendy Murphy: The Wikipedia entry on NESL commences with the following sentence -

"The New England School of Law (NESL) is located in Boston, Massachusetts in the theater district. NESL is characterized by substantive instruction with a strong foundation in ethics." ....

Makes you think doesn't it !!!

Anonymous said...

Uh, Serena...

Time to confess.

GPrestonian said...

1:19am Anon

p222
"male DNA found on the public hair comb"

presumably it was a "pubic" hair comb


A good case could be made that her pubic area was public. ;>)

Kilgore said...

I still have questions about Nifong's relationship to the Mangum family. There were some reports that he knew the mother from a previous trial. What contact did he have with any Mangum family member after the incident? Could his personal relationship with this family have also played a role in his behavior?

gwallan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gwallan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gwallan said...

Anonymous @1:21 AM said...
Two boards of nursing and DUMC disagree with the Levicy assessments. She not only did not lose her license but got a new one in NH. No discipline action recorded on the BON websites against this nurse. One would assume NCBON and DUMC know more about the nurses's actions or lack there of than anyone on the net.
I wonder why KC is out to get this nurse but not Ruthie and the NO, who inflamed the Community and this case before Nifong goe into it.


Which proves little more than that Tara is not the only one who thinks railroading innocent people in the name of ideology is just dandy.

KC is not out to "get this nurse". At the same time others here are well aware of the ideology she represents. Personally I have no problems with her working as a general nurse if she is qualified to do so. However as a SANE nurse her ideology makes it impossible for her to be trusted to operate ethically or honestly.


One Spook said...
True, because California already has a gigantic number of the progeny of mentally unbalanced Americans. A good portion of them live in San Francisco.

I recall somebody once saying that at some point the US was picked up by the east coast and given a good shaking. Thus all the loose bits fell to the bottom.

TaterCon said...

Is Duke U. the biggest taxpayer in Durham? If a Civil Rights Action verdict or pretial settlement above $5M is going to make the locals' taxes rise anyway, that'll include Duke's taxes...

So rrham and One Spook, y'all may be onto something -- maybe Duke sees good PR in magnanimously stepping forward to ease the citizens' tax burden over the next five years. If they haven't thought about that yet (after all, you're still speculating), maybe a committee should be organized from this blog-post to buy an ad in The Chronical to push Duke into such a good PR move.

Heh. Heh.

Anonymous said...

Did Nifong pay his Bar bill? Did someone else pay it for him?

Gary Packwood said...

TaterCon 7:57 said...
...Is Duke U. the biggest taxpayer in Durham? If a Civil Rights Action verdict or pretial settlement above $5M is going to make the locals' taxes rise anyway, that'll include Duke's taxes...
...So rrham and One Spook, y'all may be onto something -- maybe Duke sees good PR in magnanimously stepping forward to ease the citizens' tax burden over the next five years. If they haven't thought about that yet (after all, you're still speculating), maybe a committee should be organized from this blog-post to buy an ad in The Chronical to push Duke into such a good PR move.
...Heh. Heh.
::
What?!

Duke doesn't pay property tax!

They also do not pay income tax on the earning from the $4B endowment!

That is a big part of what this is all about.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

"How did her fellow jurists—both in Durham and around the state—react to Judge Marcia Morey’s sworn testimony that that it is less important for attorneys to be candid in court at trial than in pre-trial proceedings?"

I think this is actually the opposite of what Morey was getting at, though her testimony could be interpreted either way: I think she was saying that it was at pre-trial proceedings that attorneys could be laxer about whether they told the truth. Of course, either way is horrifying, because as was pointed out by (I believe) Judge Smith, many cases are settled by plea bargains, and if an innocent defendant is coerced into accepting an unjust punishment because a dishonest prosecutor is falsely claiming to have the evidence that will result in a greater unjust punishment -- the fact that the case never gets to the actual trial does not mean that the defendant's rights have not been violated.

hygate said...

"What is Duke's policy on their network and computers?"

Pretty vague if this is any indication:

"the University may find it necessary to access and disclose information from computer and network users' accounts to the extent required by law, to uphold contractual obligations or other applicable University policies, or to diagnose and correct technical problems. For this reason, the ultimate privacy of messages and files cannot be ensured."

To paraphrase, we can pretty much do anything we want with your e-mail once it transverses one of our servers; we just have to find some semi-plausible excuse that refers to some "applicable university policy."

http://www.oit.duke.edu/netid-security/security/policy/groupemail.html

If the case had gone to trial there might have been a small chance of discovering the source of the sting e-mail, depending on whether or not the defense attorney's felt it worthwhile to pursue the issue in discovery. As it is, it is doubtful we'll ever know.

By the way, if the e-mail was sent from McFayden's computer without his permission then whoever did so committed a misdemeanor under NC law:

"Any person who willfully and without authorization, directly or indirectly, access or causes to be accessed any computer, computer program, computer system, or computer network for any purpose other than those set forth in subsection (a) above, [makes accessing computers to fraudulently change grades a felony] is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_60.html

They may also have violated The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. However, standard disclaimer, IANAL, I just work in information security.

miramar said...

Since academia seems to be getting stranger by the minute, Duke law professor Erwin Chemerinsky just had a job offer rescinded to be the dean at the new law school at the University of California, Irvine. It appears that he is too...liberal! By coincidence, Chemerinsky is scheduled to speak today on the lacrosse case in Williamsburg VA along with Stuart Taylor and colleagues James Coleman and Walter Dellinger. Seems like a perfect day for discussing politics and academia.

KC has commented on the possibility that Duke could contribute to Durham's settlement with the three players. If so, it certainly would not be the first time. Duke is planning a $350 million expansion on central campus, but they have had some trouble getting the city to go along with all of their plans. To grease the skids, Duke has committed $7.5 million to a new performing arts center in downtown Durham. Since Duke can't contribute directly to the settlement, expect a commitment to some other downtown project. After handing out all this money, I hope that the university also insists that DPD change their policy of targeting Duke students.

Anonymous said...

"Here's my guess: Durham will settle and for pretty much the full $30 million ride. Why? Because Duke will tell them to and Duke will pay most of the settlement (openly or secretly)."-RRH

This is probably the funniest thing I've read here in awhile. Talk about conspiracy theories!

Anonymous said...

It does seem very unlikely that the police obtained the McFadyen e-mail from the captains’ computers, as I originally had believed.

As much as I've tried to follow this mess, I missed this. Why does it seem unlikely to have come from the captains' computers. Is it because the captains computers had not been "searched" by the time the McFadyen e-mail was leaked?

jvj

Anonymous said...

Why would Duke faculty be called to the witness stand in a case against Durham if they were not called in the case against the three players?

gwallan said...

@Serena Sebring

Just how do you feel about the accuser being hard at work during your candlelight vigil?

What was the "clear evidence of some sort of an assault having happened"?

What sort of accountablity does the Duke administration have for a crime that never occurred?

Would you now be willing to agree that the "46 misogynist racists” who committed “racial verbal assault" were in need of protection from the likes of yourself?

Do you still believe Tara Levicy?

Did you consider the negative DNA results which suggested that the "disaster" didn't happen to have been "moving backwards"?

Are you still seeking justice for "the Survivor of the March 13, 2006 rape?"

Are you, at this point, willing to apologise for your own rush to judgement and for encouraging the creation of a extremely threatening environment for many innocent people?

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

Ralph Phelan said...

"Why is Dr. Meehan still in business? How can anything from his lab be trusted?

[A: I don’t know; and nothing from his lab can be trusted.]"

There is a substantial question in here - as both practical and legal matters, how does a court determine whether an "expert" is trustworthy? How do they determine a lab is competent and trustworthy.

Given DSI's continued existence, the process, whatever it is, has flaws. What are they?

Anonymous said...

I’ve always thought that by asking for $30M RC&D were doing the city a favor. If they asked for a smaller figure the city would pay and sweep it under the carpet with a blame Nifong chorus.

This way they have the best chance for reform. If a payment is made then the taxpayers are going to ask why and an investigation would be launched to explain why they city costs the taxpayers so much money.

If the city refuses to settle then the discovery will serve to clean-up Durham. Either way Durham gets cleaned-up.

Personally I always felt that as part of the settlement that everyone in Durham should be forced to read KC’s book and write a book report explaining why the checks and balances broke down.

Anonymous said...

re: ABC at 4:30...

I've been following the Levicy discussions with interest, and appreciate the comments by 'defenders of nursing'. To help me understand, is there anything in the blog postings, or in the book, that is not fact related to Levicy's actions or documentation? I'm not asking about many of the nuts that comment on the blog postings, nor am I asking about the conclusions drawn from the reported facts: I'm asking about the reporting.

The reason I'm asking is that the authors, and readers (like me), reach certain conclusions based on the 'facts as reported'. We can all argue about the conclusions drawn, but if we're not on a common baseline regarding the underlying timeline and facts, then there is no use arguing about the conclusions.

Your post indicates that Levicy will probably testify against Durham, and you make the claim that the DPD are liars. Do you have specific information that the DPD lied about what Levicy told them? This is quite a critical point. What specifically did the DPD lie about or inappropriately attribute to Levicy? Answers to these questions are required if there is any hope of correcting the factual record and changing peoples minds about Levicy's actions.

I'm open to considering "Levicy as victim" arguments, but you've got to put something on the table to make the case and allow me to draw a conclusion.

Joe K

haskell said...

miramar 8:25

"I hope that the university also insists that DPD change their policy of targeting Duke students."

I understand that Duke's "Good Neighbor" policy in fact encourages the DPD to be aggressive in targeting Duke students. /sigh

Ralph Phelan said...

Another Mangum question:

What are the connections between Mangum's family and the NC NAACP?

Anonymous said...

Sorry to be off topic, but the stuff at www.mindingthecampus.com is especially interesting (at least to me) today. It covers PC teaching, preferences in applications, and Chemerinsky.

Seems like the type of material that the DIW crowd discusses.

SAVANT

hman said...

Re:Levicy - 8:47
I will defer to others to provide some "facts" about the veracity of the Defense Attornies memoralization of his discussions with Levicy. All I know is that KCs book describes conversations between Levicy and defense lawyers in which she confirms the police version of her statements.
But I would offer this logic based approach: How likely does it seem to you that the cops would lie about this? They seemed anxious to get this to trial. Levicy was the only witness they had even interviewed from the ER that night. Nifong had declared in front of cameras that what the SANE nurse reported was crucial to his case. Nothing was stopping Levicy from saying, "That is not what I said" at any point in the process.
Nifong could at least try to hide exculpatory DNA evidence, but never a human witness, especially one with a professional reputation (ie, career) to protect.

haskell said...

Savant 8:54

Thanks very much for the URL. Most interesting, and very well done.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there automatic reciprocity between N.C. and NH on nursing licenses? Tara could have applied for the NH one before hightailing out of N.C., before any action had been/will be taken by the NCBON.

christoph said...

I want to amplify the fact that Duke, through an old exemption for educational institutions, pays no property taxes to Durham. I think this arrangement must highly warp the relationship between the two: Duke dare not offend its hosts, and Durham leaders can count on Duke's indulgence. Adults among both parties must resent it. How does thirty million dollars, the full cost of the settlement, compare to a year's lost tax on Duke's property values?
::
On Levicy's conduct: I seems to me that her written report is fine. The controversy is over her statements of opinion to law enforcement.
There are two meanings of "opinion": One, "the way my mind is working," as in, "everybody is entitled to their opinion", or, "a bartender's opinion about the cause of a plane crash." Two, "opinion" can be "a professional finding of fact based on the best available evidence and on scientific protocols," as in, "the NTSB's opinion about the cause of an airplane crash."
Which meaning of "opinion" describes Levicy's commentary to law enforcement officers? Clearly, the first, for reasons KC has documented. Which meaning describes the public's reception of Levicy's commentary? The second. I can't tell you how persuasive Nifong's restatements of Levicy's opinion were to the community here in Durham: we thought a professional investigator had concluded, after evidence-gathering, theory-testing, and objective analysis, that Mangum had been assaulted.
The nursing profession needs to decide whether nurses are, in fact, scientists, or not. If so, then only after applying scientific method and rigorous theory-testing to objective data should they ever open their mouths to state an "opinion", and sloppy public statements of opinion are unprofessional. If not, then nurses are useful helping professionals who can also be public blowhards to be taken with a grain of salt. About like a bartender.

Debrah said...

From the H-S:


Student groups at Duke backed

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Sep 13, 2007 : 11:08 pm ET

DURHAM -- One of the key proposals to emerge from a study of Duke University's campus culture looks like it's on the way to the scrap heap following a review by the school's provost.

Dismantling the selective-living system that allows fraternities and a few other groups to book large blocks of dorm rooms, as the campus culture task force urged in February, "would be inconsistent with our aspirations to create a vibrant, pluralistic community," according to a new report from Provost Peter Lange's office.

While it does seem that fraternities have too great an influence on the university's social scene, the way to deal with that is to strengthen the ability of other students to band together, the new report said.

To do that, the university likely would have to modify its housing program to accommodate new groups, the report said. Duke also will have to subsidize new players on the social scene to ensure that they have the resources to compete with old-line groups.

Fraternities hold the upper hand in Duke's scene because they're among the few organizations on campus that have the space, money and know-how to navigate the school's rules and organize social events, the report said.

The report from Lange and his staff set the stage for a series of 11 campus forums that will begin Monday. Lange and Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki will lead the forums, which are supposed to gather more comment before Lange settles on a set of recommendations for Duke President Richard Brodhead sometime this winter.

Early reactions suggest that Lange's take -- which emerged from the provost's consultations this spring with 37 student, faculty, staff and alumni groups -- has more fans than the campus culture task force's did.

"The previous approach in the Campus Culture Initiative didn't reflect a very deep or specific understanding of the way undergraduate culture functions," Duke Student Government President Paul Slattery said. "The notion that if the social scene is not ideal, the solution is to obliterate it, doesn't seem very compelling to me."

Over the next few weeks, Lange hopes to pin down reactions to five key questions. Chief among them is whether the administration should rethink its plans for housing on Central Campus.

Up to now, officials have been assuming that any housing on Central would be designed mostly for seniors. Lange wants to know whether the administration should broaden the plan to include other classes too.

That would address one of the chief faults students see in the campus social scene, which is that outside of fraternities, there are few avenues for freshmen and sophomores to interact socially with older students.

Coupled to the question about Central, Lange wants advice on what types of "theme houses" might entice students, and about what types of housing people think would serve independents and students interested in banding together.

Criteria for deciding what groups should receive space figure in another question, and a query about dining space rounds out the list.

The report from Lange's office, and the provost's comments in an interview, suggest that people on campus see an expansion of the campus social scene as a counter to the pressures that encourage underage drinking.

The theory is that if students have more social outlets, there won't be as much pressure on them to drink.

"We believe that by creating lots of meaningful social alternatives, we will have an impact on the alcohol issue," Lange said. "I don't believe the words 'solve' and 'alcohol' on college campuses can be put in the same sentence. But the kinds of changes we're talking about in social spaces and programming would have a significant impact."

Lange's approach to the problem is winning praise from faculty members.

The February report was the result of a somewhat hurried process, while the new one from Lange's office benefited from the decision to consult widely, said Michael Gustafson, an engineering professor who chairs Duke's Faculty-Student Interaction Committee.

Lange's report is also "not clearly linked to one night in March 2006," Gustafson said, referring to the Duke lacrosse case. "That's important because campus culture transcends all that. If we're going to make changes, it has to be based on all the things Duke has done and will be able to do."

christoph said...

In this case, so many professionals have leveraged and exploited the public trust in their occupations: Nifong as a minister of justice; Stephens as a judge; Gottlieb and Hyman as cops; Meehan as forensic scientist; G88 as academics; Joyner as civil rights monitor; Levicy as nurse; and even Wilson as journalist. Each one said, "trust me, I'm a professional." Each one arranged to be presumed by the public to be living up to some serious professional standard which they in fact had no intention of upholding. And each one damaged the reputation of their occupation.
Is it typical for one incident to corrupt so many different occupations?
I guess the unifying thread is ideology.

Debrah said...

What are the connections between Mangum's family and the NC NAACP?

Ralph, you don't really need an answer to that question.....do you?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

rrhamilton 1:16
one spook 2:07

Re - Duke of the Monstrous Endowment skims off a fraction to pay off Durham for settling the $30M civil suit.

From the 'characters' of the administrations involved, this seems at least plausible. But couldn't a decent forensic accountant track the transfer of funds and subject the parties to some intense scrutiny, based on the charters of their respective organizations? Do you think that either the City Charter or Duke's corporate bylaws provide for accepting/paying of, essentially, a payoff to avoid a proper lawsuit?

Just building another monument downtown somewhere wouldn't do it - the City has to account for all the costs of said monument, and even if a 'donor' kicked in $30M extra, there's probably some ordinance about accounting.

But I haven't been around Durham for decades, and maybe there are such loopholes available.

Anonymous said...

Duke made the effort to crack down on campus drinking and immature behavior and then provided off campus rental houses to students which resulted in de facto “Frat Houses” which were unregulated and unsupervised.

As a recent Duke alum I can clarify this point a bit. A few years ago when Duke started cracking down on drinking, some students responded by moving to off-campus rental houses. These "Frat Houses" raised the ire of the residents in those neighborhoods, who complained loud and often to anyone they could.

This lead to Duke making an arrangement in which they would purchase the houses, renovate them, and sell them to non-students. I believe Duke had purchased the house in question and was preparing to hand it over to non-students at the end of the 2006 school year.

Thus, the sequence of events was

1) campus drinking crackdown
2) students create "Frat Houses"
3) neighbors complain
4) Duke buys house

In your original post your sequence of events assumes 1-4-2.

As an aside, over the last few years that part of Durham (a relatively nice and well-kept area) had become well known as a student-heavy area, yet many new people who moved to the area were shocked - SHOCKED! - that their college-age neighbors threw loud parties. My wife worked with a few of these people, and some of them were convinced that the lax players were guilty based on the fact that the players were rowdy neighbors.

Anonymous said...

To Joe K.

You say, " Do you have specific information that the DPD lied about what Levicy told them?"

More to the point, is there specific information that the DPD told the truth? Their track record is not good.

Anonymous said...

I'm finding it a bit interesting right now to see how this recent case in West Virginia is being handled. One notable difference is that the alleged perpetrators aren't of a perceived wealthy, "privileged" class. They are distinctly ... well ... Appalachian.
Anyway, there's an interesting article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson in the Huffington Post today that discusses why it "makes perfectly good legal and political sense" not to treat this case as a "hate crime." There's no mention of Duke but several quotes stood out for me especially: "Few state prosecutors will chance inflaming racial passions and hatreds by slapping a hate crime tag on a case."

Look for the article at www.huffingtonpost.com

Anonymous said...

Ms. Sebring:

Thank you for the answers to the questions.

Since you are interested in getting the record straight, I would like to direct your attention to the Ubuntu site which still contains the following statement:

"UBUNTU was born in the aftermath of the March 13, 2006 rape of a Durham, North Carolina black woman by members of the Duke University lacrosse team."

Since no rape occurred , could you please correct this statement?

Debrah said...

Letters in H-S from Durham residents:

Questions for players

According to news reports, the lacrosse players are suing me and my fellow Durham taxpayers. If they get what they are asking for ($30 million), estimates put my personal cost at aboutproximately $1,000. They are punishing me for the sins of Mike Nifong. I have to ask, how is that different from Nifong trying to punish them for the sins of the lying stripper? Are they no better?

Apparently their justification for the suit is that Nifong was an employee of the taxpayers, and we are responsible for the actions of our employees. If that's the case, shouldn't the taxpayers be suing the players? After all, they hired the stripper and she put this whole fiasco in motion.

Shouldn't they be held accountable for the actions of their employee?

For the record, I wrote many letters in their support, including one printed by this newspaper and one read on the air by Bill O'Reilly.

BOB CASH
Durham
September 14, 2007


Avoid corrosive battle by settling lacrosse case

The abrupt halting of the review of the lacrosse case reported in The Herald-Sun is disappointing. Let's hope that suspension of the committee's work will be only temporary. It would be most unfortunate to deprive the people of Durham of the wisdom and judicial skill of Willis Whichard, and benefits of the work of the remarkably talented and broadly representative committee that he assembled.

Why can't the City of Durham and its insurers follow Duke's example by addressing Durham's legal liabilities in this case proactively through a settlement out of court? That could forestall a knock-down, dragged-out legal battle that would carry huge monetary and non-monetary costs to both sides. Such a battle would also be more corrosive than enlightening.

DEL STICKEL
Durham
September 14, 2007

How to raise millions

I have an idea how we can make up some of the $30 million to the LAX players:

-- Collect from the Rev. Jesse Jackson the money that he is going to give to the accuser for school and maybe the Rev. Sharpton will throw in his usual 2 cents.

-- Have the accusatory Black Panthers, return to Durham and hold a fund raising benefit.

-- Have Mayor Bill Bell, Duke President Richard Brodhead and the "Durham Committee" who supported Mike Nifong at the public lynchings/meetings, pitch in a few dollars. Have Victoria Peterson do the collecting, she is good at getting the publicity. This would help make up for the civil rights violations.

-- Maybe the Duke "Gang of Profs' will chip in at least a few dollars each, it will give them some more publicity.

-- All the voters for Nifong, should pitch in at least a dollar.

Citizens of Durham, please remember: "Its Not About the Truth" in the Bull City, everything always comes down to race, even in the newspaper. This might not make up all of the needed funds but it will make me feel better about my hometown.

RONNIE FERRELL
Durham
September 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

Only the defense attornies were anxious to get to trial - not Nifong or the DPD, The guys were declared innocent in April, 07 and not only had a trial date not been set, no judge had ruled on any of the motions from the defense.

Anonymous said...

Off-topic

Chemerinsky and Drake are both on Minding The Campus today. They are both so BLAND as to be positively strange.

Anonymous said...

FYI: When you click on the link to the David Saacks interview..you are directed to the aforementioned Liestoppers link about Elmostafa. Does anyone have the link to the Saack's interview? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Please, please, please don't rush to assume that this is the actual Serena Sebring we're talking to. Remember, this is Serena Sebring. Why would she come here to a blog that tells the truth about the case when there are still blogs she can go to that cling to the denial of reality she favors? I suspect this is a return visit by a famous movie director and that the real Sebring avoids this place like Napoleon would avoid Waterloo.

And to Gwallan -- it was Thavolia Glymph, not Sebring, who said that the negative DNA results had caused things to start "moving backwards".

Topher said...

The question I have - is it possible Mangum was coerced or threatened into her flipfloppy stories?

We already know that Durham law enforcement attempted to intimidate Elmostafa, and according to Bill Anderson, Ryan McFayden as well. Perhaps in addition to mental illness, she was being blackmailed into giving stories that framed the facts at the time.

Since Nifong didn't interview her until late in the life of the investigation (if at all) it couldn't have been him, but given her sordid record I can imagine someone in the DPD or the ADAs had something on her.

Debrah said...

N&O on Saacks

Anonymous said...

KC:

A few days ago, you promised that you would respond on Thursday to the open questions concerning the players' threatened $30 million lawsuit. These questions include:

- Why you have failed to blog about their excessive and greedy demands, even though the news has been widely reported in the MSM

- Whether you have learned how much the players received from Duke, and if so, whether you will report this news to your readers

You have not addressed any of these questions, notwithstanding your promise to do so. You blog voluminously on this case, but you have a real problem talking about anything that challenges your view of these players as pure souls.

BTW, before the deluge of comments comes in proclaiming that "no amount of money" would be enough, that is not the standard by which the players' claims will be or should be evaluated. There are limits on damages. You don't get a billion dollars for the loss of one or even both eyes, even though - to you - a billion is inadequate to restore your sight or relieve your suffering.

The bottom line is that, in the realm of malicious prosecution cases, even deserving plaintiffs (such as these players) do not get $10 million a piece for 7-9 months of anxiety, no conviction, no trial, and no jail time. Their demand is a greedy attempt at a windfall, and we shouldn't avoid that conclusion simply because it conflicts with a view of these men as pristine victims of a corrupt system.

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.47:

If you read the last line of today's post, you would have seen the following sentence, "I’ll be discussing this issue in Monday’s post."

Anonymous said...

Re: Levicy --

I believe it was at Nifong's ethics hearings that Levicy claimed that a particular meeting Gottlieb claimed he had had with her had in fact never occurred, and that all the statements attributed to her at that meeting were just as much figments of Gottlieb's perjurious imagination as the contents of the Gottlieb report. This is frankly rather a plausible scenario, so I agree that we should not judge Levicy on any statement that we have only Gottlieb's word she made.

However, that being said, a great deal of the statements and actions that showed her bias in this affair were made in the presence of witnesses other than Gottlieb. Levicy's defender(s) are known to claim that no one without nursing experience themselves is qualified to question Levicy's judgment (and that those who have far more nursing experience than Levicy, and judge her based on that experience, are somehow to still be discounted.) However, you don't need any degree of nursing experience to realize what's wrong with Levicy's statement that "I wasn't surprised when I heard no DNA was found because rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power." Levicy should have realized that the question was not "how is it possible for some sort of rape to have occurred?" but "how is it possible for the rape that Mangum described to have occurred?", to which the answer was "it isn't." Even if you argue that Levicy wasn't familiar enough with the case to know that Mangum had specifically claimed that one of the players had ejaculated into her mouth and she had spit it out beside the toilet, Levicy should have known as a nurse that DNA transfers in ways other than just ejaculation.

kbp said...

Thanks KC!

The Crystal questions reminded me that some we considered as reliable sources had posted on LS there should be a trail of paper work if Crystal was admitted to Access before being transported to DUMC.

If Crystal was out of the officers custody and sight when she was responding to the question about being raped, it seems like she was in the custody of Access at that point.

I guess if I am accurate here (big "if"), that staff in Access being lazy and/or poorly trained might be a solid explanation for the lack of paperwork, as well as their excuse.

Ralph Phelan said...

Debrah said...
"What are the connections between Mangum's family and the NC NAACP?

Ralph, you don't really need an answer to that question.....do you?"

Yes, I do. Is it merely shared skin color or is there more? I remember seeing something on the Liestoppers bulletin board about there being someone named Mangum involved in the founding of the NC NAACP, and some other family connections. But I don't remember the details, and they are scattered in dribs and drabs all over the Liestoppers site.

I'd love to see it all pulled together - maybe political opportunism was not the only reason the NC NAACP jumped so heavily onto the bandwagon, and stubbornly stayed on it until long after the wheels had fallen off.

no justice, no peace said...

Minding the Campus discussion referenced above

Anonymous said...

12:47-

It's not about the money, stupid !

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:47 in attempting to cast as poor a light on the accused players says:


You have not addressed any of these questions, notwithstanding your promise to do so. You blog voluminously on this case, but you have a real problem talking about anything that challenges your view of these players as pure souls.


You know, compared with Mangum and the disgusting and corrupt individuals in the DPD, Nifong and the Gang of 88, the innocent players are indeed, angels.

Deal with it.

Topher said...

To the 12:47 -

Now that I'm done laughing, I can address the substance of your post. For 3 families, $30 mil/3 = $10 mil (this is arithmetic even the Group of 88 might be able to handle). When you consider the costs of attorneys who can competently prosecute an entire city gov't, I don't think 10 mil per party is that unreasonable.

There's a punitive aim to civil suits, as well - a judgment so severe it would all but bankrupt Durham. That would send a serious message to other communities that they might actually be held responsible for violating the civil rights of their residents.

The men _are_ pristine victims of a corrupt system - one that either targeted them from many fronts, or was so incompetent it couldn't protect their civil rights from a rogue prosecutor and his band of enabling fools.

Let it be said - the ledger with Duke is all but balanced. The families don't have to sue Durham, they could walk away and be done with it. I doubt it's a fun time preparing for this case after a year under the gun for the false charges.

I'm inclined to thnk they're doing it in the name of the justice for the next falsely accused or wrongfully convicted party that falls victim to the corrupt and ethically null highwaymen of Durham law.

I have no idea what the legal costs are, but I would estimate they go into the seven figues. A question for you - what would be a fair "non-greedy" judgment in your mind? $10,000? The firing of someone? 88 cents? Would you fire everyone in the city? Fire those who conspired to forward this bogus case?

Anonymous said...

The McFadyen computer belonged to him, not leased through Duke. The police took his computer during the bogus room search,remember Magnum did not recognize him as being at the party and Nifong already knew his DNA was nowhere. The police refused to give his coputer back until April 2007!!!!!!

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.58:

"I believe it was at Nifong's ethics hearings that Levicy claimed that a particular meeting Gottlieb claimed he had had with her had in fact never occurred, and that all the statements attributed to her at that meeting were just as much figments of Gottlieb's perjurious imagination as the contents of the Gottlieb report. This is frankly rather a plausible scenario, so I agree that we should not judge Levicy on any statement that we have only Gottlieb's word she made."

Levicy made no such statement at the ethics hearing (the subject of her discussions with Gottlieb never came up, either on direct exam or on cross).

Anonymous said...

KC--re: 12:47. She won't read Monday's post--she's obviously already made up her mind as to what's right and what's not.

She has her opinions and others differ. A civil jury will decide if Durham doesn't settle. My personal opinion (and I'm labeling it as such) is that $30M is VERY reasonable and the term "greedy" has never crossed my mind. I cheered Rae Evans on when she said they'd picked the wrong families to screw (ok, I paraphrased that).

And to OneSpook at 2:07--The families are most likely not incurring any legal fees for this round of potential litigation with Durham. It's extremely likely that these are contingent cases and the attorneys will get a large slice of the pie when these cases settle or are won.

Ralph Phelan said...

"- Why you have failed to blog about their excessive and greedy demands, even though the news has been widely reported in the MSM"

He mentioned the settlement talks in one of his Sunday roundups. Not much has happened since then to report on.

That their demands are "excessive and greedy" are a conclusion you're assuming and that not all share.

How about if they were to receive $2,000,000 compensatory damages each, and Durham also paid 10 times that amount per person in punitive damages to the Innocence Project? That would cost Durham more, but it would allay your concerns that they're just cashing in out of greed.

Anonymous said...

re: Serena Sebring @ 1:42am (Assuming this was truly you.)

When you entered the arena in the spring of 2006, I'll bet you and your fellow-bangers thought you were gonna be the Lions. As it stands, you surely were not.

Don't worry - you'll heal.

Somewhat.

The scar isn't very attractive, though. (You might want to put some ice on it.)

I won't insult you and your buds by saying you instead have been playing the role of the Christians in the arena.

Well, in part of the role you have done well: receiving a flensing, as did the originals.

- TombZ

ABC said...

re: Joe K 9/14/07 8:47 AM

Joe K said:
I've been following the Levicy discussions with interest, and appreciate the comments by 'defenders of nursing'. To help me understand, is there anything in the blog postings, or in the book, that is not fact related to Levicy's actions or documentation?
>
There are numerous unsupported facts in the blog postings and in the statements recorded in police notes and Wilson's notes. There are numerous accusations that have only been "proven" using the above notes. Himan, Gotleib and Wilson are liars. If you believe them on one thing then why not believe them on everything?
>
There is a posting on this blog regarding the defense interview with Levicy that supposedly reveals more damning evidence. The posting is written with a confusing combination of hysteria and breathless wonder. Fragments of statements attributed to Levicy are wrapped in suspicion, and mockingly presented without context. I do not have the book. Is the transcript of the interview presented there?

Joe said:
I'm not asking about many of the nuts that comment on the blog postings, nor am I asking about the conclusions drawn from the reported facts: I'm asking about the reporting.
>
Newspapers seem to me to be a very poor vehicle from which to condemn a licensed professional who has not been duly investigated by the licensing body. It seems very unprofessional for KC to trot out people and present them as nurses who hiss - Levicy should lose her license! It is a mistake to advocate nursing practice regulation through mob rule.

Joe said:
The reason I'm asking is that the authors, and readers (like me), reach certain conclusions based on the 'facts as reported'. We can all argue about the conclusions drawn, but if we're not on a common baseline regarding the underlying timeline and facts, then there is no use arguing about the conclusions.
>
This is why Levicy, the DPD, Wilson and others need to go under oath and answer the questions that need to be asked. The 'facts as reported' will always come from an agenda driven source - testimony in a court of law or in a Board of Nursing hearing have a better chance of revealing the truth.

Joe said: Your post indicates that Levicy will probably testify against Durham, and you make the claim that the DPD are liars. Do you have specific information that the DPD lied about what Levicy told them? This is quite a critical point. What specifically did the DPD lie about or inappropriately attribute to Levicy? Answers to these questions are required if there is any hope of correcting the factual record and changing peoples minds about Levicy's actions.
>
You do not have a factual record on Levicy. You have her testimony at the Bar Hearing. You have a SANE check list. If you have a defense interview with Levicy let's see it, the whole transcript.
>
The rest of what you've got has been covered above.
>
I will reserve judgment on Levicy until there is an unbiased review of all of the facts. Unfortunately our host has decided such a review was not necessary.

Anonymous said...

Professor J:

Was Professor Erwin Chemerinsky a group of 88 signer? There is an article in the LA times saying he was denied a transfer from Duke to UCI due to "Conservative" influences.

link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucilaw13sep13,0,5893599.story

Anonymous said...

1;36 Good laugh - "though they were going to be the lions" is right on.

Anonymous said...

KC - She said she had "two meeting with and a phone call." Certainly, within the context of challenging Gottlieb's recollections. Not the same as the 9 plus meeting, you noted. There have been no charges of perjury from the authorities (the bedpan bangers charges do not count). How about writing her entire sworn testimony for full disclosure.

Anonymous said...

Rape is not about passion. It is about power = goggle rape and read what the experts have to say about the subject. She was right.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Wendy Murphy. Because she claimed to be talking in an official capacity as a law professor representing New England School of Law in her various media rants"

Hmmmmm.... Did the New England School of Law ever challenge that assertion? If not, might they have any liability in defamation claim?

Do law schools have the same sort of extra immunity from defamation claims that media entities do under Supreme Court rulings?

Does Massachusetts recognize "false light" complaints?

KC Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KC Johnson said...

To the 1.41:

Chemerinsky (who's actually on a panel as I type with Jim Coleman, Walter Dellinger, and Stuart Taylor) most definitely was not a Group member!

The UCI's action--which was bizarre, to put it mildly--as been widely and appropriately denounced, including by figures such as John Leo of the Manhattan Institute and Anne Neal of ACTA.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.55pm:

Neither I nor (to my knowledge) anyone else, by name, ever said that Levicy had nine meetings with Gottlieb.

Ralph Phelan said...

anonymous 2:00 pm:

Sigh.


(1) I am already aware of the current feminist dogma. I just think it's bullshit, and have no confidence in those you consider "experts."

(2) It's "google," not "goggle."

Anonymous said...

KC - You wrote there were far more than two and a phone call. You wrote that she was in contact with Nifong and LE frequently - as did Kingsbury. This was not substantiated at all at the bar hearing. how many do you think she had ?

Anonymous said...

anon 2:00 pm said:
"Rape is not about passion. It is about power = goggle rape and read what the experts have to say about the subject. She was right."

---

You miss the point, or pretend to. Levicy was being questioned in her capacity as a nurse, and she responded with a political screed, not as a nurse but as a gender feminist. It was totally unprofessional. Her job was to answer the question, in nursing terms, not as a feminazi liar.

One Spook said...

christoph's comments @ 10:46 and 11:05 are outstanding.

The kind old nurse who keeps defending Levicy needs to read what KC has posted about Levicy, AND ... read the links he has included to the views of trained, experienced SANE nurses regarding Levicy's "freelancing" statements.

Levicy confirmed the statements she made to law enforcement to defense lawyers, when they questioned her. Thus her freelance statements are a matter of record, and those are the errors she made that resulted in Nifong and law enforcement being able to exploit Levicy's naive, agenda-driven opinions.

And christoph very accurately describes the damage Levicy did, saying "I can't tell you how persuasive Nifong's restatements of Levicy's opinion were to the community here in Durham: we thought a professional investigator had concluded, after evidence-gathering, theory-testing, and objective analysis, that Mangum had been assaulted."

The old nurse, bless her heart, keeps repeating the canard that inaction of the nursing boards constitutes some sort of exoneration of Levicy. That tired argument is irrelevant and totally useless.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

At the bar hearing, the subject came up of "How many meeting had she had with LE and/or Nifong," The answer was two meeting - ten months apart and a phone call. Levicy can only testify to what she did during the exam. What in the world do folk think she could testify to "about Durham?"

Ralph Phelan said...

KC Johnson said...

"Chemerinsky (who's actually on a panel as I type with Jim Coleman, Walter Dellinger, and Stuart Taylor) most definitely was not a Group member!"

However, his loud and public passion on all sorts of civil rights cases (like the treatment of Gitmo detainees) except for the one that played out right under his nose does raise the concern that he is a cowardly hypocrite.

Deans sometimes need to stand up to faculty. Which administrator would you expect Chemerinsky to more resemble - John Silber or Dick Brodhead?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

To the 12:47, who sayeth “Their demand is a greedy attempt at a windfall”:

Sorry, but the lawsuit against the City of Durham is for the benefit of EVERYBODY, particularly defendants in legal processes held in Durham’s jurisdiction.

All too well aware of Durham’s version of lynch law as practiced since March 2006, the plaintiff lacrosse players are asking for quite a lot more than 30 million in damages. Per the News&Observer: “The settlement also would require the City Council to pass resolutions urging the state legislature to pass criminal justice reform laws, including mandatory videotaping of identification procedures, recording of grand jury proceedings and creating a state ombudsman position to review complaints against prosecutors and intervene as necessary. And the city would be required to form an independent commission to review residents' complaints about police.”

So the City is in a delicious position between the (Blue) Devils and the deep blue sea. They can pay the $30 million AND act to institute legal reforms to benefit future unjustly charged defendants - or they can defend the lawsuit.

Should the lawsuit commence, the City has the added burden of defending the flawed Baker-Chalmers report, which purported to examine the legal travesty, and concluded that nothing was seriously out of line with their procedures. Chief Chalmers might just be the new version of the tanker captain snug in his bunk while the Exxon-Valdez went on the rocks.

Those who believe in accountability may prefer to see Durham stand trial. It would shine bright lights on the individuals whose actions combined to defame three innocent men for almost a year. Rigorous discovery and cross examinations may also reveal connections and illegal cooperation between the administrations of Durham and Duke University, and allow some bright sunlight to penetrate behind the wall of silence erected by Duke’s previous settlement with the lax players.

This is justice, not greed. And compensation for a year of hell foisted on three innocent men by Durham, Duke and most of the national media is no windfall.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2:00 wrote: "Rape is not about passion. It is about power = goggle rape and read what the experts have to say about the subject. She was right."

Yes, that is right . . . but criminal convictions are about proof beyond a reasonable doubt; proof based on evidence, including scientific evidence. While psychology is appropriate in understanding the criminal mind and treating victims of crime, evidence is what the State needs to attempt to deprive an accused of his/her liberty. As the Attorney General reported in this case, "there was no credible evidence" that a crime even occurred, i.e. nothing happened. If I allege that you shot me, but I have no bullet wound, you have no gun powder residue on your hand and there is no gun which fired a shot or a temporal opportunity for you to have fired a gun at me, there is no evidence of a crime. Standard psychological motives behind a violent crime aside, without evidence of a crime, there is no crime to prosecute.

Anonymous said...

2:12PM You miss the point. We have no idea what questions was put to her. We do not have "discovery" or a printing of the interview. All that has been quoted is snippets of an interview, taken out of context. We do not have a depositon from the bar hearing as it appears none was done. The cost to Nifong for the hearing did not include a deposition from Levicy. Nor has Nifong ever said "The nurse made him do it." Although, Duff from the Times did claim "The nurse made him write his pieces."

Anonymous said...

We all agree with 2;26 - Although, the AG did say "The Manly/Levicy exam exonerated the team."

Anonymous said...

Well, One Spook - I have read everything on the blogs since day one and the book. Kathleen at Forensics Talk has written a backhand apology to Levicy. Ketha has not been heard from since it was pointed out to her, she was engaging in Libel - not to mention her "insider" information that Ward Churchill was going to collect millions from CU, as it was a first ammendment rights issue.