Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Only in Durham; Talk News

In today’s only-in-Durham moment, N&O reporters uncovered that the appointment of interim DA David Daacks might violate a North Carolina law—passed just one month ago.

In today’s N&O, Anne Blythe and Eric Ferreri write,

A bill that Easley signed into law Aug. 19 says nobody can be appointed to fill a vacancy in any state or local elected office without being qualified to vote for that office.

"No person is eligible for appointment to fill a vacancy in any elective office, whether state or local, unless that person would have been qualified to vote as an elector for that office if an election were to be held on the date of appointment," the law states.

Easley’s office contends that the appointment is legal: a spokesperson for the governor contended, “The North Carolina Constitution created the office of district attorney, established eligibility requirements and gave to the governor the exclusive and sole authority to fill a vacancy. The legislation enacted by the General Assembly is not applicable to the Durham district attorney appointment because it establishes requirements that exceed those set out in the ... constitution.”

Perhaps so. But why didn’t Easley or his aides make this claim when they appointed Saacks? It appears as if they forgot the recently passed law.

The reactions:

UNC political scientist Thad Beyle: “This is a real tricky situation. I would think they could make the argument that what trumps [the new legislation] is that the governor has these powers.”

Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand: “This just sets in place a mess” in Durham.

Given that Saacks was easily the most qualified of the candidates that Easley was reported to be considering, it would be unfortunate if the governor’s oversight caused further chaos in the Durham DA’s office.

---------

My thanks to those who attended last night’s talk. A video of the talk will be available soon; on the Ethical Duke site. I’ll post a link as soon as it becomes available. The talk, I believe, went very well—as the N&O reported, several hundred people attended, the questions were all excellent ones. I divided the talk into three segments (Nifong’s allies within the Durham criminal justice arena, Nifong’s faculty enablers, and those on the Duke campus who rallied against Nifong’s abuses). In one of the comment threads, a person who allegedly attended the talk noted that the questioners included a Group of 88 member. Since the video will be posted, people can determine the validity of that claim for themselves.

My thanks to Ken Larrey and Gary Hull for arranging everything for the talk (and to defense attorneys Bill Thomas and Brad Bannon for attending).

In the talk, I singled out three criminal justice enablers of Mike Nifong: Tara Levicy, Mark Gottlieb, and Ron Stephens, each of whose actions was critical in keeping the case alive for Mike Nifong to exploit. A commenter in a thread below noted that Saacks signed the non-testimonial order, and asked whether Saacks shouldn’t be held equally responsible as Judge Stephens, who then authorized the order.

The answer is no. The person in the DA’s office who participated in drafting the NTO—assistant district attorney Tracey Cline—should be held responsible for the civil liberties violations in the NTO. Saacks signed the NTO only because Cline was out of the office at the time Det. Himan came by: in short, his signature was nothing more than a professional courtesy to a colleague.

Stephens, on the other hand, had an independent responsibility, as a judge, to determine that some cause existed to treat each of the 46 white lacrosse players as suspects. He failed to perform his job, and instead blindly authorized the order that brought the case into the media.

87 comments:

Ralph Phelan said...

"In today’s only-in-Durham moment, N&O reporters uncovered that the appointment of interim DA David Daacks might violate a North Carolina law—passed just one month ago ... why didn’t Easley or his aides make this claim when they appointed Saacks? It appears as if they forgot the recently passed law."

Maybe before he signed the law Easley read it with the same concentrated diligence Nifong says he applies to case files.

One correction though: Easley isn't in Durham, he's in Raleigh.

This isn't a Durham moment, it's a North Carolina moment.

I don't know if North Carolina is more corrupt than New Jersey or Rhode Island, but it's certainly much more bumblingly incompetent. Which is what makes North Carolina so much fun to watch.

Debrah said...

Ken Larrey is a wonderful guy.

Aside from working on every aspect of organizing KC's appearance......just after Stephen Miller spoke, and just before KC was introduced.....Larrey had everyone in attendance observe a moment of silence for the victims of 9/11.

Anonymous said...

My recollection is that there are various law situations where if you sign something as a professional courtesy, or in some other casual way, you can find your ass in stir. I'm not surpirised that such irresponsible signings by law enforcement have no penalty.

Saacks' twisted view that the case proves that the system works tells you all you need to know about this sadistic and inhuman officer.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your visit. I thought the vignette about the prof who was afraid to apologize publicly for the Listening Statement due to fear was a great way to end. This case is as much about reasonable and decent people failing to act as it is about dishonesty and malice. The craven are the best allies of degenerates.

I was also pleased at the civility of the whole event. After hearing about the reception for Horowitz, I did not know if there would be a scene like at Columbia where Leftist goons actually attacked the speaker.

Perhaps your detractors were present and remained civil. Perhaps Duke's intellectual bullies, like all bullies, are cowards underneath and did not want to come to an event they could not control.

Regardless, it was informative and pleasant and you provided some worthwhile insights and ideas, especially the need for some sort of "truth and reconciliation" exercise to learn from the mistakes (but not to punish anyone). I believe that Mr. Burness was present and, if so, he can pass this great idea along to President Brodhead.

Thanks for coming down.

Anonymous said...

Ralph,
This is what you get with a one party rule state. As long as the Democrats keep the Black vote, it's anything goes. That is why Cooper didn't indict Cystal. They can not piss off the Black vote.
Kemp

Anonymous said...

Thank you KC - I attended your talk last night and have to say, you are just as impressive live as you have always been on this blog. When the student asked about the $30MM, I totally agreed with your assessment, that in your opinion, it should be much more. I am a Durham taxpayer and just looking at the letters to the editor of the HS make me so angry. Joe Bowser is an idiot and always has been. This settlement is now becoming the rallying call again for the mindless black and potbanging liberal community. They are taking to this just like they did CGM. I also heard on talk radio station 101.1(the Brad and Brett show)that they received an email from someone stating the reason the AG didn't want to press charges against CGM was that no one wanted her to really get on stand and tell what "really" happened. Both Brad and Brett said they didn't believe that, but the point is, they said it on the radio, and apparently, plenty of people still believe it. There are so many people who need to be held accountable and probably will not. So, as a TAXPAYER in durham, NO AMOUNT IS ENOUGH!
Thanks again, KC, for the priviledge of hearing you talk last night, and all that you have done! You are a HERO!
Sharyn

Topher said...

Good God. North Carolina's government is a combination of corrupt, lazy and recalcitrant. This is worse than when I lived in Massachusetts.

My friend's daughter's (white) family lives there; I can't believe they can feel safe after all this has been exposed.

Anonymous said...

Other than Burness, were any other Duke admins in attendance... Dean Sue?, Trask?, L Mo?.

A "truth and reconciliation" exercise is a great idea.

If Brodhead could be convinced that he would be following in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela, then he almost certainly would follow.

One Spook said...

KC writes:

"The talk, I believe, went very well—as the N&O reported, several hundred people attended, the questions were all excellent ones."

Here is the link to the N & O coverage of KC's speech:

N & O Coverage of KC Johnson's Speech

One Spook

D.M. said...

Perhaps your detractors were present and remained civil.

I was present... and civil... and I believe I would qualify as a detractor. I do not claim that Johnson is all bad. His main effort of speaking out for "due process" is a good one; but, he has been overzealous denouncing certain secondary characters in the case. The example that I find most evident and disturbing is that of Nurse Levicy. I have followed the blog, checked out the book (I'll admit I didn't buy a copy) and looked at the source notes. Considering his sources, the descriptions of the nurse seem cruelly exaggerated and some of the statements (e.g., that she "...would repeatedly tell police that she thought Mangum had been raped.") seem to have no source at all. Perhaps KC can provide clarification; but, my impression is that he has not extended to the people he accuses the same courtesy of fairness he rightly demands for the innocent men who were accused of crimes.

P.S. I do recognize the courtesy KC extends by posting critical comments. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

KC - Time to give up the persecuation of Nurse Tara. None of the two nursing boards who govern her license agree with you. Only the rabid bedpan bangers agree.

bill anderson said...

I agree with your point on Tracey Cline and Judge Ronald Stephens. The NTO clearly was illegal by any stretch. Police are not free to go on fishing expeditions, period, and that is exactly what this was.

First, and most important, NO ONE HAD ESTABLISHED THERE HAD BEEN A RAPE. We had Crystal's stories, which were unbelievable.

Second, it is clear that the police and prosecutors were pushing on for political reasons, not because of evidence. It was obvious Crystal had not been raped, and in ordinary circumstances nothing would have been pursued.

Prosecutors and judges have the heavier burden of staying within the bounds of the Constitution. They are supposed to know their boundaries, and are expected to respect them. It seems, however, that all too many prosecutors see themselves as swashbuckler who are free to do what they want, and as long as compliant judges don't object, then in their minds what they are doing is "legal."

No legal system can survive such attitudes, as we then replace justice with outright tyranny. And that is what we have seen in Durham: tyranny.

Debrah said...

Chronicle on KC's visit

Anonymous said...

Well, you must have hit some bulls' eyes because you brought out some anonymous trolls today--cowards who resort to name-calling today instead of making their points known (if they had any) last night!

north said...

Ronald Stephens and the ADA's still haven't paid up.

They should wear a badge of shame for the rest of time. Their children and their children's children down to the eighth generation should be made aware of their shameful behavior.

Anonymous said...

The talk was very interesting, and one "thread" that I got out of it was this:

it appears that "in hindsight" is getting blamed for a whole lot of stuff. "in hindsight" is not an acceptable excuse for incompetence. "in hindsight" it looks like a lot of people weren't doing their jobs. Durham and NC officials need some foresight instead of counting on "hindsight"
(As I recall, it seems to be one of Nifong's favorite words too.)

Lots of this story would not have happened if people paid attention at the time it was happening, instead of counting on "hindsight" to make excuses later.

Anonymous said...

Judge Stephens was obviously biased against the defense team, hence the reason I put a note of his name in my computer to remind myself to NOT vote for him the next time he is up for election.

Anonymous said...

Re" 12:17

I am a nurse. I taught nursing at Duke.

It is up to nurses to evaluate the proper conduct and professional behavior of nurses.

Ms. Levicy violated the most basic tenants of medical procedure. Rather than remaining impartial and objective, she brought her own "agenda colored" eyes to the situation. From then on, professional objectivity was impossible.

She appears to have HOPED there was a rape. Maybe she did not actually mean to do that, but we certainly do not hear any evidence to the contrary.

Of all places, in the field of medicine/ nursing, a patient's life can depend on truth and honesty.

In this case, Ms. Levicy appeared willing to compromise integrity for agenda.

Anonymous said...

dm says...the descriptions of the nurse seem cruelly exaggerated and .. seem to have no source at all.

You should try reading the book. Her interview with Gottleib March 21st or so is what got this case off the ground, filled with subjective distortion and lies. The Jan 10 (!) interview with Wilson in which she suggests condoms could have been used (from where did she get that?) is inexcusable. This is also memorialized.

IMO, she should be punished as one of the main enablers of this hoax.. And what is your connection to her, just wondering? Are you also a "women's right (to accuse) activist" ?

Anonymous said...

First, and most important - the lack of team DNA proved the accusations from Crystal, was not true.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Given that Saacks was easily the most qualified of the candidates that Easley was reported to be considering, it would be unfortunate if the governor’s oversight caused further chaos in the Durham DA’s office."

Given that Easely's criteria for considering a candidate seemed to include the requirement that he be part of the Durham corrupt old boys railroading network, the chaos may be preferable.

Anonymous said...

I am not ready to give Saacks a pass on signing a 46 man DNA Sweep as a professional courtesy. That is not a good precedence to set although I suspect Saacks might have been "set-up" by passing this NTO to him. Saacks was the Number two man in that office, not some rookie ADA.

Saacks presented with a 46 Man DNA sweep should have said WHOA! That is his job! Let me see the evidence. An ADA with 15 years of experience cannot be held to a lower standard of justice in any of their signatures. This was a 46 Man DNA Sweep which was a violation of the rights of many players and contained false information.

Again on April 5 he submitted an order to transfer the rape kit & swabs to DNASI for Judge Stephens. That again was a WHOA moment! I don’t buy these excuses. Experienced Das & ADAs know the significance of no DNA discovered, nothing should have been signed until a full report was received from SBI.

It is interesting that these two very important documents were presented to Saacks as Cline & Nifong were out of the office.

Perhaps Saacks is an honest man who was caught up in a scandal quite innocently, but to abrogate his responsibility to investigate what he was signing isn’t good enough for me.

We bring charges of perjury against a witness who lies on the stand, are we now to give passes to ADAs who swear the documents they are submitting are an accurate representation as a professional courtesy?

Not in my book

Anonymous said...

1:15PM If you believe Nurse Levicy "got this case off the ground", you have no understanding of what this case was about. Votes and election is the case - Nifong needed no help with that.

Anonymous said...

Again we see the hand of someone coming to the defense of Levicy. She is gone now as she put her house up for sale a few days after AG Cooper made his declaration.

I doubt we will ever see a SANE nurse receive such a overt smack down in a report.

NC AG Summary of Conclusions
"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."

So It cannot say she did not received her fair hearing. Her SANE Exam was inspected by experts and witnesses interviewed.

I believe Levicy was indemnified by Duke University in their settlement which covered all of their employees. It is doubtful she will ever conduct another SANE Exam again!

Anonymous said...

1:10PM - I am a Registered Nurse also. Both of this nurse's governing bodies - the Board of Nursing have evaluated her and her professionalism - No discipline action was taken by NC and NH gave her a new license. That pretty much says it all. You should know that. If the Nursing Boards judgement is not good enough for you,trying to convert your thinking is hopeless. Rabid potbangers have filled the new with hearsay about this nurse. Sorry to see you join them.

Anonymous said...

1:56 - Amen!!

Ralph Phelan said...

Topher said...
"Good God. North Carolina's government is a combination of corrupt, lazy and recalcitrant. This is worse than when I lived in Massachusetts."

It's not the corruption that gets me.

Massachusetts is certainly corrupt, and has its share of colorful characters, such as the brothers Bulger.

Rhode Island is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

Louisiana is an open and unabashed kleptocracy.

What's uniquely hilarious about North Carolina is the bumbling incompetence.

These guys are so incredibly minor league. It's hard to believe Easley is a state governor - I've seen more accomplished grafters at the county level (Nassau County, NY. Yes, that's right, I remember back when Senator Alphonse D'Amato was a small time crook.)

Ralph Phelan said...

"We bring charges of perjury against a witness who lies on the stand, are we now to give passes to ADAs who swear the documents they are submitting are an accurate representation as a professional courtesy?"

Hate to bring up the OJ case again, but it sure looked like a couple of cops and a forensic scientist or two lied through their teeth on the stand and were never even investigated for perjury, let alone prosecuted.

The punishments that the legal system imposes on those who lie to subvert its process only apply to us civilians.

Anonymous said...

Always a good laugh, when someone writes "never do another SANE exam." Who cares about this low rent sub speciality? Being a Certified Emergency Nurse is "uptown". Yes, she was given a fair evaluation by her Nursing Boards and found, not quilty or wanting.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Anon 1:56

I'm not ready to give Saacks a pass either for signing the NTO. I might give KC Johnson one for his belief that the placing of Saacks' signature on a document prepared by another was a 'professional courtesy', but let's bear down on that idea a little more.

Normally a 'professional courtesy' occurs when one licensed professional performs services for another without fee (say Doctor A removes Doctor B's appendix and billeth not, expecting the reverse courtesy in future). However, in my experience with professional license laws, the action of signing or sealing a document prepared by another is a raging no-no. It's directly addressed and prohibited by those laws, and is grounds for removal of the license of the individual who commits the 'proxy' signing.

That's because of accountability. Granted, I'm an engineer and land surveyor, but the parallels with the legal profession are very close (in fact they overlap). You design it, you sign it.

Doctors can bury their mistakes. Lawyers can appeal their mistakes. Surveyors monument their mistakes and record them in perpetuity at the courthouse.

Hmmm... and in North Carolina, Judges validate the DA's mistakes, while others weep and sing backup.

Anonymous said...

JLS say....,

And from Barry Saunders of the N&O today:

The players are asking for $30 million. That seems a bit high for the inconvenience they suffered, but they certainly deserve some recompense. After all, the strippers they hired didn't even finish their hootchy-kootchy dance.

How about a compromise figure? Instead of $30 million, how about a fish sandwich, a Yoo-hoo and a one-way Greyhound bus ticket?


Click Here for the rest of this garbage

One Spook said...

Anon @ 1:15 PM in replying to the thoughtful comment of dm @ 12:17, writes:

"You should try reading the book. Her interview with Gottleib March 21st or so is what got this case off the ground, filled with subjective distortion and lies. The Jan 10 (!) interview with Wilson in which she suggests condoms could have been used (from where did she get that?) is inexcusable. This is also memorialized."

Well-said! And although DM claims to have followed the Blog, it might help DM to review KC's two major posts about Levicy's actions.

And, a nurse who commented @ 1:10 wrote:

"Ms. Levicy violated the most basic tenants of medical procedure. Rather than remaining impartial and objective, she brought her own "agenda colored" eyes to the situation. From then on, professional objectivity was impossible."

That is the bottom line. Levicy's enabling of the hoax wasn't from her very average, at best, SANE report. Her problems began when she deviated from the written report and began to "freelance" when interviewed by both Nifong and Gottlieb.

Experienced (and unscruplous) investigators like Nifong and Gottleib love to question and manipulate inexperienced "experts" like Levicy who are easily led to make statements well out of the purview of their expertise.

And that is exactly what Levicy's "opinions" about the act of rape, use of condoms, and re-interpertation of the objective facts in the report many months after the fact were --- careless, dangerous, incorrect "freelancing" that she should not have done.

Levicy's "freelance" statements thus became "facts" that both Nifong and Gottleib then manipulated and pointed to in justifying their persecution of the LAX players.

Levicy is to blame, but so are her Duke Medical supervisors who permitted this inexperienced, agenda-driven, starry-eyed "do-gooder" to participate in interviews with law enforcement unsupervised. One such interview apparently included Levicy's immedicate supervisor, and what was she thinking?

Levicy is a NITWIT. A Nurse-In-Training With Inept Training.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Actually, the AG stated "the Manly/Levicy exam exonerated the boys."
There is no evidence to support that Duke University settlement included DUMC. DUMC provided the rape kit that cleared the team.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Tara, many think that her background may have led to a stereotyped-based ideology that unfairly contributed to the LAX hoax - and could have contributed to innocent students spending 30 years in prison. The thing that is so distasteful - whether Levicy, the 88, Nifong, the NAACP, many in Durham, etc. - is that the aggressive ideological principles that guide their rhetoric appear to be limited to special groups. That is not justice, that is bigotry. Whether she is legally culpible or not, I don't know. She will never be, however, one of my facebook friends. I think she and those of her ilk are, at a minimum, distasteful and, at a maximum, dangerous to justice.

BTW, someone earlier posted that KC is "sensoring" posts that he does not like. Do those light up when detected, or is there a graph read-out. :)

Peace out,

Ed

Anonymous said...

Ralph 2:25 - Very Funny, Very Sad, Very True.

hman said...

MDs have their own licensing boards. All sorts of stress can be heaped onto them when they screw up in public but overt action by the State Board is rarely a factor.
Besides, most (or perhaps all)of Levicys bad deeds were outside of the scope of nursing practice.
Even if the relevant boards took an interest in her case, which I doubt, they probably did not study the details of this mess. They would need a reason to overcome laziness..
As far as her future career; who knows. But one thing is for sure, any SANE nurse that that followed her example of making statements to law-enforcement that are not supported by any written records - and in fact contradict them - will be useless to her clients if things go to court.
By the way,m we are still waiting to hear from your wife the SANE nurse just why Levicy was OK.

gak said...

I read here and elsewhere that Levicy put her house up for sale. Did she go back to Maine or someplace. Is she still in NC. She sure jumped ship in a hurry if she left the state. Putting her house up for sale a few days after the DHC trial, that was quick.

gak

Anonymous said...

The law doesn't impede the governor from appointing a new DA to fill in a vacancy. It just limits that selection to the county where there is a vacancy. The way the governor in NC is looking at it he can appoint anyone in the world with a NC bar license.

Anonymous said...

Re. 2;12 To the "RN" responding to me.

Boards of Nursing can focus only upon "Accepted Professional Practice" in evaluating the performance of a procedure / duty.

Levicy may have actually DONE her exam properly, according to that criteria.

Ms. Levicy's culpibility, IMO, rests in her behavior OUTSIDE the exam room.

There, I still maintain, she was agenda and bias driven. No Nursing Board can prove/ disprove that. But legal authorities CAN.

I hope they will.

If any long-term value is to be derived from this whole sordid mess, I believe that this forced evaluation of the various institutions involved in conspiring to frame the innocent LAX players may alert the lethargic public that we are in SERIOUS danger of loosing control of the very institutions that were meant to serve us for social good.

When those charged with protecting our health and educating our children are exposed as unprincipled, agenda-driven cowards or criminals, we at least have a choice.

First, the legal system has a choice of whether to prosecute them.

Others, outside the legal system have a choice to either weigh into the fray and TAKE back the institutions, or sit back and loose them. (Duke Alumni are among those facing such a choice, as are the members of the NC legislature)

Ms. Levicy is not just a flawed human being, she is a flashing blue light of warning.

It could happen to anybody, not just the Lacrosse players.

If Levicy does not have to give account for her words, actions, and implications, the precedent will provide a safe harbor for others of her persuasion. Is not the choice between truth and reliability, or agenda-driven deception?

I think it matters.

And I am QUITE sure, that if the Levicy defenders ( even of my own profession) were parents of the LAX players, they would be singing an entirely different tune.

That's the problem with these people. Their morality shifts to fit their agenda. They do not believe that there is any such thing as objective, unbiased truth.

THAT is where the REAL "culture war" is being fought. It isn't Republicans or Democrats, or liberal or conservative. It is about truth versus relativism.

This case has shone the light on that culture war more intensely than anything we have seen in a generation.

Thanks to KC, whose relentless pursuit of TRUTH has uncovered the pervasiveness and frightening magnitute of this problem!

My biggest fear is that we will all be just little sleepy Durhamites... uninvolved, and lazy, and letting the "other people" do our thinking and fight our battles.

If that happens, all of KC's work will have been in vain.

Truth demands response.

The fact that Ms. Levicy has left NC is inconsequential. It is what she did here that matters.

NH may welcome her services. Not the point. I would hope that she has learned her lesson and will be more careful about letting her biases interfere with her professional objectivity. If I were the Board of Nursing in NH, I would be watching carefully, lest that happen again. If they care.

Anonymous said...

2:05,2:12.2:44 et al

Since it's beneath you to read the book, On pg 47 KC describes (in sourced commentary) Gottlieb's first meeting with the angel Tara..

"The SANE nurse already had told Himan that Mangum had shown injuries consistent with sexual assault . Levicy also-contrary to accepted medical practice- dramatically expanded upon those records...Did Mangum exhibit the effects of blunt force trauma"? Yes, replied Levicy"

Even with Gottlieb's hatred of the Dukies, I think this thing would have ended except for Levicy's "beyond the pale" subjective, dishonest remarks and opinion. She's a major factor in this hoax , which is perhaps why she has disappeared into the ether. Do you shills have another explanation?

Anonymous said...

Tara Levicy will get thrown under the bus (where she belongs) if someone in Durham thinks they can save their own skins by doing so.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Levicy's actions were not deemed to be worthy of punishment by the nursing board is great. But it's also about the lowest standard you could possibly apply to her when evaluating her actions.

From the N&O:

"Ms. Levicy stated that it was her opinion as a [sexual assault nurse examiner] that 'victims can never be sure if condoms are used because if they can't see them how would they know for sure. You can't feel them so you have to realize there is always a possibility that a condom could have been used.' "

And-

"I wasn't surprised when I heard no DNA was found because rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power."

I don't see how anyone can say these statements from Levicy are anything but completely out of line.

I also don't think she deserves much of the treatment she received, but to say she did nothing wrong because the nursing board decided not to take action is like saying Mike Nifong made no mistakes because he spent only a day in jail.

Anonymous said...

What's really scary is that Tara Levicy is probably practicing in a Rape Crisis unit in another state.

This whole sordid saga should make everyone wonder how many innocent men across the nation are rotting prison with a rape convictions thanks to the "presumed guilty" of feminist dogma.

When are people going to wake up to the damage done to this country by victim agendas?

Michael said...

I think that Levicy's license in NH allows her to practice in other states - that was the impression I got looking at her license details.

Anyone know which town she's in?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: anon 4:17

Ms. Levicy's culpibility, IMO, rests in her behavior OUTSIDE the exam room.

There, I still maintain, she was agenda and bias driven. No Nursing Board can prove/ disprove that. But legal authorities CAN.


Duh and then they would have proven that her opinion was her opinion. So you have just mounted her defense.

The only crime Levicy could have committed in this situation is if she had sworn to something false. Since what she swore to was her OPINION that Mangum's behavior and condition were consistent with having been raped, to find that Levicy committed a crime the state would need to show that this was not Levicy's real opinion.

That is the state would need to for example find someone who Levicy told she really did not believe Mangum was raped PRIOR to her sworn statement to the police. Other than that Levicy certainly did not commit a crime AS YOUR DEFENSE OF HER SHOWS.

The lesson you should learn here is the one juries generally are pretty good at understanding. Experts and everyone else in the world come with a particular point of view. What they say should be evaluated in that light.

Duke1965 said...

Maybe I'm missing something. Do we even know what Levicy said, other than through the notes and recollections of Gottlieb, Nifong and Wilson (and perhaps Himan)? They are the last people in the world I would trust with hearsay testimony........... Did Levicy ever grant a recorded public interview where she made such statements? In my mind, those facts are critically important............

no justice, no peace said...

Inre; "...It is about truth versus relativism...."

John Burness would likely take exeception to that position, would he not?

Anonymous said...

No Duke 65, she did not. Kingsbury made a statement, which has never been backed up by a deposition or further comment. The only true arbitrators are her two nursing boards - which, NC did no discipline action and NH granted her a new license - no clouds of darkness.

Anonymous said...

5:54 Levicy made no sworn testimony to anyone, least of all the Police. At Nifong's bar trial, Lawyer Williamson noted "Other than Nifong, no one testifying had done so under oath. It is all hearsay from dubious sources. Nifong has never made a comment about her, other than the "My reading of the nurse's report..." was and is not true. Her report in no way supports Nifong's comments or that a rape occurred.

Anonymous said...

Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers and Indian Chiefs must get a license from each state they would practice. If a Nurse's Boards are high enough, a nurse can get a waiver to not take that states boards. Obviously, Levicy had high Nursing Boards as there is no record of her having to take either NC or NH boards.

Anonymous said...

Actually, 5;12, the Innocent Project states most of the "wrongly convicted" came from eyewitness identification. Today, we have DNA and other advanced data to help not make these mistakes.

Anonymous said...

4;38 = Both statements are true and can be verified by goggling the experts on rape. Someone, said she made those statements but Who?

Anonymous said...

For those of us, who are RNs and not bedpan bangers, the Nursing Board is the big Kahuna.

Anonymous said...

You can be sure the Nursing Board is not watching her carefully or carelessly. Non nurse bed pan bangers have their answer from the Board and that is the end of that -no matter what KC writes. As it turns out, bed pan banger have had no effect on her career or license - that is what makes them so made.

Anonymous said...

Whoever called this an "Only in Durham" moment was misinformed. DA Saacks was appointed by Governor Easley, and this has zero to do with Durham. While I don't know Saacks, he never attempted to hide that he lived in another county. Blame the state govt not Durham.
I wasn't there last night and do no longer get the HS, after 28 years of subscribing, but whoever commented on Mr. Bowser must have the same source I have. He is NOT to be taken in ANY WAY as a representative of Durham.

Michael said...

At least Nifong has been disbarred, found guilty of
contempt, lost his job, etc, and Tara is gone --
Gottlieb is the worst after Nifong AND he needs to go!
At the very least, he should be dismissed from
the police force BUT charges should also be brought
against him.

Michael said...

Question: did Stephens ever rule against Nifong
at any point in the Lacross case? I would
appreciate knowing the answer to that -- thanks!

hman said...

It is true that we must depend on Nifong, Gottleib, et al for the nature of Levicys input to this case. And maybe they lied about it. On the other hand, how likely is that? Levicy would have had the right to instantly and publically denied the wrong statements. This certainly never happened. One assumes she knew about them.
And what about the trial that they clearly wanted to take place? By all accounts, certainly by all defense assumptions, she would be put on the stand early and prominently. Think about that for a second. Was that being planned for if she was going to deny it all?
And the Nursing Boards are irrelevant to this whole matter because, as I said, her misdeeds were not within the scope of nursing practice. Giving stupid, misleading answers to law-enforcement is not specifically a nursing error.
Especially now, she could clear her name and the record by speaking out about this. If she was misquoted, it is hard to imagine why she would remain so silent. Like this is all going to away. Like KCs book is not going to be read everywhere for years and years. And Google; let us not forget that one either..

Anonymous said...

For those of us, who are RNs and not bedpan bangers, the Nursing Board is the big Kahuna.

If not for Duke indemnifying her, she'd be on the list of people who could be sued by the Duke 3 for unproffesional and untrue statements made that progressed the case and which she did not refute.

She's kept her license and flown the coup. What a career she's having! How enobling! To which I say, good riddance.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that Nifong, Gottleib and the rest of those guys are considered liars - EXCEPT - when they make claims about the nurse?

I do not understand the animosity toward that woman. Why are some so willing to believe hearsay when it comes to her?

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.21:

As I have said repeatedly--in most detail in the three Levicy posts--in interviews with defense attorneys, Levicy was asked about (a) her 1-10-07 interview with Wilson; (b) her March 21, 2006 conversation with Gottlieb; (c) whether she had a June 2006 private meeting with Nifong. She confirmed the Nifong/Gottlieb/Wilson version of events on each occasion.

Defense attorneys were not the only people present for these interviews; Duke University attorneys also were present.

No one, it seems to me, should trust the word of Gottlieb, Nifong, or Wilson. But if the three of them state that Levicy told them X; and then Levicy herself says that she told them X; it seems reasonable to assert that Levicy said X.

Anonymous said...

To 9:21 and the rest of the Levicy shills, why are you so intent on defending her? Because she didn't lose her nursing license and she didnt go to jail ? Well, Gottlieb is still a cop and Broadhead is still a University President and Stephens is still a judge. Thats why many of us still come here. It is an injustice that she and the Duke 88 ideologues get to walk away from this thing virtually unscathed, despite their perverted and jaundiced attitudes and behaviors.

Anonymous said...

I defend her because she is innocent of the charges made against her by the rabid bed pan bangers bloggers. I am also an RN and familiar with nursing and hospitals. The BON did not discipline her or take her license. Obviously, they found her not quilty of the stuff, you folk claim.
I am not a shill - I doubt that anyone else who defends her is a shill or a troll either. Many of you do not understand that a difference of opinion is just that - a differencee of opinion - Like Twain said "Difference of opinions is what makes horseraces."

Anonymous said...

KC - Lets see the deposition of her meeting with Duke and defense lawyer Kingsbury. Gotta show the proof on this one.

Anonymous said...

There is no evidence that Levicy or DUMC were part of the Duke University settlement. Sue her - on what?

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.23:

I have tried but failed to obtain the results of any BON inquiry. You note that they "found her not guilty." Could you point me to an official finding in this regard?

hman said...

Oops. My bad. I did not know Levicy confirmed those quotes with defense attorneys. That would seem to settle this with some finality.
BTW. Just finished "Until Proven Innocent". There should now be no mystery, at all, why Duke settled in a heart-beat. And it looks to this reader that things are much, much worse for the City of Durham N.C.
"Until Proven Innocent" was emotionally overwhelming for me to read. I suspect that any decent American would react the same way. It has Pulitzer written all over it and may well put the Gangs of 88 in Academia into a permanent state of retreat.
I was ranting on this blog back in July 06 that the good guys were going to win in a spectacular fashion - mainly based on instinct. I have the same instinct about the trajectory of this story today.
Very well done, KC.

Anonymous said...

When the rabid bloggers were unable to "get" Levicy for her nursing skills and professionalism (not from lack of trying), their new claim is "But she peed off the porch." Sound familiar - It should as this is the same approach used by the Lax accussers.

Anonymous said...

KC.9:31. That would make sense to most people who understand logical thinking.

By now we've noticed that some folks can't follow that equation.

BTW: Does Duke's settlement with the 3 cover anybody except the 3?

And does Duke University also speak for Duke Medical Center, or are they separate legal entities?

i can't imagine the scientists and researchers and doctors at Duke Medical Center under any kind of authority structure represented by Brodhead. They could eat his lunch intellectually!

PS: Not all nurses are as obtuse as my "opponent" on this blogsite who holds such high regard for Ms. Levicy.

Also, the State Boards of Nursing have a reciprocity agreement among all US states. Your score on your state board exam has to meet the minimum standard of the particular state in which you wish to practice. If it does not, you cannot practice in that particular state until you take the exam and make that score. I assume that Ms Levicy's original score was at least high enough to merit reciprocity for her in NC and NH. But none of that is really the point. It proves nothing about this case. Liars are liars, regardless of their State Board scores.

Anonymous said...

KC - The fact that the BON, neither disciplined her,put a codicle on her license or took her license shows that any inquiry made came up negative. If the
Board found her wanting, any of these actions would be on their web site against her name. NH issued her a license with no restiction. which they would not have done if there was a problem in NC. Lack of action is evidence of lack of a finding,
Please KC - we need the deposition - not snippets.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I have missed something, but has the Board of Nursing actually reviewed Ms. Levicy's conduct? And, if not, what steps must be taken to see that they undertake this review? Just curious.

Observer

Anonymous said...

While attending the Page Auditorium discussion of the lacrosse case I thought I heard someone say that many posters on the Duke campus announcing K.C. Johnson's visit and discussion had been removed. Still, there were several hundred in attendance. The audiance was attentive and applauded on several ocassions during the night. KC, thanks for the autographed books.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson said...
To the 10.23:

"I have tried but failed to obtain the results of any BON inquiry. You note that they "found her not guilty." Could you point me to an official finding in this regard?"


Don't hold your breath....

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 10:23 said...

The BON did not discipline her (Tara) or take her license. Obviously, they found her not guilty of the stuff, you folk claim.
::
Do we have evidence that any Board of Nursing (BON) processed a complaint about her nursing practices?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Most of the people at Liestoppers and Bill Anderson, wrote that they had not only written complaints to the NCBON, but also wrote to the NHBON. They could be making it up but I doubt it.

kbp said...

What exactly did Saacks sign for?

"There is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that an offense punishable as a felony or a Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanor has been committed and REASONABLE GROUNDS to suspect that the PERSON [that's singular] named or DESCRIBED above committed the offense. The results of the requested nontestimonial identification procedures will be of material aid in determining whether this PERSON committed the offense."

Date 3/23/07 Signature of Prosecutor (Saacks)

Saacks signed this request for the NTO 8 times, on 7 different pages. It was "Sworn and Subscribed" to by Saacks.

There were three matters there Saacks signed (actually SWORE to in this instance) his name to:

1) Probable Cause
This one passed, if ALL 46 were suspects, which they were not.

2) Reasonable Grounds
This one hangs the signer. It makes the names questionable and illustrates, along with the Probable Cause that it was a fishing expedition.

3) Person Named or Described
This is the real kicker as I see it. This list carries 4 of his 8 signatures. An alarm has to be going off as one is signing these sheets, holding 46 PERSONS names.

Cline is in no trouble because someone else SIGNED her work. That sounds like the perfect out for anyone, if it is permited. This is the man appointed DA now. The one ALL of Durham must trust to protect the innocent.

While Saacks is performing this "professional courtesy to a colleague", he should have seen "an independent responsibility, as a [prosecutor serving the public], to determine that some cause existed to treat each of the 46 white lacrosse players as suspects. He failed to perform his job, and instead blindly [signed for] the order that brought the case into the media."

Anonymous said...

No regulatory entity has taken any action against either DNA Security or Mehan -- this is not proof that they did nothing wrong. One could argue that this reveals various things in support of this theory or that, but this is not proof of innocence!


The way some try to defend Levicy despite clear evidence of her complicity in the frame is almost enought to make one think there was some sort of Lesbian love thing going on... At least, it again shows for many, adgenda trumps truth.

Anonymous said...

10:59 We agree on a few things, I can not believe Duke University made a settlement for DUMC - Under any circumstances, DUMC did nothing wrong - they provided the rape kit and the Doctor and Nurse assist to collect the speciments and have the QA answered.
I agree about the Nursing Boards - The fact that Levicy scored high in her boards, challanges the opinion that she was unable to do the job correctly due to her age (over thirty) and experience (a year of training and a jear of of OJT . This is a sorry case and many will be coming out losesm

Anonymous said...

The pro Levicy troll is vegas or old lady. They will continually tell us that Tara did nothing wrong, and in fact, helped free the players! Funny to me that Tara RAN the hell outta N.C. asap when the BDH was over. They know nothing about what the NCBON did or did not do to Tara. Stop wasting your time with them.

Anonymous said...

9/12/07 11:05 AM
Other than Burness, were any other Duke admins in attendance... Dean Sue?, Trask?, L Mo?.


Dean Sue was there.

Anonymous said...

We know there is no discipline action on her license in NC, We know she got a new license in NH. That says it all. Leaving Durham does not appear to be a bad decision,

Anonymous said...

I can't help wonder if Levicy left DUMC and Durham because she lost her job. Does anyone have any idea of what DUMC's policy is on speaking to LE? In lots of organizations, employees are required to contact legal departments and management if they become part of an investigation. I wonder if Tara jumped into the fray without the proper authorization from DUMC and she was eventually forced out.

Anonymous said...

2;18 A year later - I doubt it. I wonder if the land of "Live Free or Die" answered the complaints made to the BON with "Don't bother us with this nonsense." DUMC certainly knew about the investigation as her Supervisor Thersa went to a meeting with the Fong with her. But then she "peed off the porch" - just like the team.

AMac said...

Anon 9/12/07 4:17pm wrote --

"...Ms. Levicy's culpibility, IMO, rests in her behavior OUTSIDE the exam room.

"There, I still maintain, she was "agenda and bias driven. No Nursing Board can prove/ disprove that. But legal authorities CAN.

I hope they will..."


Anon, your comments speak to the heart of the matter, and contribute to the discourse. I hope you continue commenting in the time that remains (and pick a pseudonym so that your thoughts stand out).

Anonymous said...

Thanks, AMAC, I do comment a good bit, but I'm pretty intimidated by most of the highbrow contributors on this blog. I don't need to be known or "stand out". If I can make an occasional point worth considering that's enough for me.

Meanwhile, I have learned a TON from this blogsite and really really regret that KC is leaving. But I also know that the past months of research and commitment to this work has been intense and all-consuming. I am hoping he will refresh himself and enter once again into the blog world with his sharp mind and incisive dissection of truth from spin.

We really really need people with his character and commitment. He does for us what we could not do for ourselves.

Thanks for the kudos.

dsl

Eric said...

"Saacks signed the NTO only because Cline was out of the office at the time Det. Himan came by: in short, his signature was nothing more than a professional courtesy to a colleague."

I also call baloney on this one. When you sign stuff, you are generally taking ownership of it. This is true in the military (my background), and apparently several other professions as other posters noted above. I can't imagine it is not true for the legal realm. Especially when it was such a sweeping NTO, and as someone documented above, required several signatures. This is not dropping off a letter at the post office for someone else.

If Cline wrote up the order, and Saacks signed it, they both own it.

elb

Anonymous said...

What happened to the young woman who "claimed" to have been raped?