Saturday, August 30, 2008

Cooper Response: Duke's SANE Brief

The unindicted players’ lawsuit against Duke focuses on two areas: (1) the actions of the administration; (2) the performance of Duke Hospital, especially former SANE nurse-in-training/feminist zealot Tara Levicy.

Duke attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Dan McLamb have thus far struggled to develop a consistent legal justification for Levicy’s actions—which, in all fairness, is not easy to do. First, they challenged the Attorney General’s report by asserting that Levicy had not misled investigators when she said that the medical exam could corroborate a rape claim. The Duke duo even dipped into the “something happened” mantra by joining Mike Nifong and Victoria Peterson in deeming Crystal Mangum a “victim.” In a subsequent filing, they reversed themselves, implied that Levicy might have given false information, but maintained that Duke wasn’t legally liable for her actions, since Levicy never could have known that her giving false information could cause the players harm. According to this line of argument, Nifong deserved all the blame for using Levicy’s false information to plow ahead with the case.

Meanwhile, the Duke attorneys offered a description of the issues involved in the Levicy area of the lawsuit that bordered on the comical: “Our system of justice encourages individuals to cooperate with the police, not to hinder them, and to provide information to prosecutors, not to stonewall them.”

The implication: if a medical professional whose job is to provide authorities with accurate information about a possible crime instead “cooperates” with police by providing false information; and if that individual is a SANE nurse-in-training who shouldn’t have been in that position in the first place; and if that SANE nurse-in-training’s supervisor publicly supports the false or misleading findings . . . well, that’s the way “our system of justice” is supposed to work.

It’s hard to believe many judges would find that argument persuasive.

The Cooper response:

1.) Duke’s assertion that no one at Duke could have foreseen the consequences of Levicy’s behavior defies common sense.

To quote the brief, “Defendants knew or should have known that having an inadequately trained SANE, such as Levicy, examine Mangum could foreseeably result in an erroneous criminal investigation of alleged rapists in light of the role that SANEs play in collecting forensic evidence of sexual assaults.

“As for the false statements Levicy made to the Durham Investigators, any reasonable person can foresee that a person erroneously implicated in a criminal rape investigation might suffer a variety of injuries, including humiliation, severe emotional distress, harassment, threats, financial costs, disruption, and lost reputation and opportunities. Levicy made some of her false statements about the medical and physical evidence to the Durham Investigators, in part pursuant to their subpoena, which she had induced; she therefore knew or should have known she was speaking about an incipient criminal rape investigation of Duke lacrosse players and therefore that Plaintiffs could be harmed by her statements.

“As the corrupt investigation progressed, the players suffered grievous harm in very public fashion, and Mangum’s credibility continued to erode. Levicy knew or should have known that her subsequent false statements to the Durham Investigators would cause Plaintiffs new harm. And prolong and enhance existing harm because the investigators repeatedly and publicly placed great weight on her statements – coming from a nurse ostensibly ‘specially trained in sexual assault’ at ‘the best trauma center in the area,’ Duke University Hospital – to justify the investigation.”

As for the University, “The failure of these Defendants to correct Levicy’s false statements foreseeably injured Plaintiffs. Defendants’ assertion that “medical evidence … exonerated the players” is irrelevant and incorrect. Levicy’s false statements and the other Defendants’ ratifications thereof helped create, and then stoked, the fire.”

In all fairness to the Gorelick/McLamb presentation, Duke doesn’t have much to argue with on this point. Nonetheless, a claim that no one at Duke could have reasonably foreseen the problems of putting an undertrained nurse who believed that women never lie about rape in the position of providing key medical testimony about a rape claim defies the laugh test.

2.) Duke’s assertion that the unindicted players suffered no real harm because they were never indicted misses the mark: as the brief notes, “That [the unindicted players weren’t indicted] is true but irrelevant – Plaintiffs suffered many harms because of Defendants’ wrongful actions, and formal criminal consequences are not a predicate of liability. Defendants argue, in effect, that they should not be held liable for playing Russian roulette with Plaintiffs because the loaded revolver did not fire.”

3.) Duke’s claim that the University and Levicy can’t be held liable because Nifong and the police made the key decisions on whether to indict misses the mark.

This line of argument, the Cooper brief contends, misrepresents the facts of the case: “Levicy’s false statements about the medical and physical evidence breathed life-giving credibility into Mangum’s otherwise facially implausible rape allegations, and Levicy repeatedly coordinated with Nifong and the Durham Investigators, altering medical records and continually changing her story to fit Nifong’s and the Durham Investigators’ evolving theory of the case.” Absent Levicy, in short, there was no case.

The Cooper brief maintains that Duke officials’ behavior was particularly troubling in this regard given the increasing amount of publicly available information that Nifong’s case had major holes. Therefore, they knew or should have known that Levicy’s false or misleading information was the key to Nifong’s ability to plow forward: Levicy’s and supervisor Theresa Arico’s “false statements were the only ostensibly inculpatory evidence that Nifong and the Durham Investigators had, and they carried the weight of a nurse ostensibly ‘specially trained in sexual assault’ at ‘the best trauma center in the area.’”

4.) Duke’s assertion that the players’ claim against Levicy is a claim of medical malpractice is wrong.

It’s not clear why Duke even made this assertion. Despite the odd passages in the Gorelick/McLamb brief, no attorney for the unindicted players (or the falsely accused players, for that matter) has argued that Levicy or other Duke Hospital employees mistreated Mangum. Lots of people have argued that Levicy then offered misleading information about that treatment to authorities. The first claim would be medical malpractice; the second claim is negligence.

The Cooper brief adds that Duke had an obligation to correct false statements about Duke students by Duke personnel—chiefly, when Levicy’s then-supervisor, Theresa Arico, publicly affirmed Levicy’s “diagnosis.”

5.) Grounds for a § 1983 filing exist, according to the brief, because the lacrosse players can (1) cite the Duke Police’s status as a state entity; and (2) use Levicy’s actions to establish a conspiracy between Duke and Durham officials to violate the students’ civil rights.

The Gorelick/McLamb brief strongly disputed the second claim, contending that responsibility for proceeding with the investigation fell solely with Durham and/or Nifong. Levicy, on the other hand, merely provided information to police, or at most might have pressed for an investigation.

The Cooper response: “Levicy did much more than that. At her first meeting with the Durham Investigators, she told them, falsely, that the medical and physical evidence supported Mangum’s gang rape accusations. Levicy, as the NTO states, said that ‘there were signs consistent with sexual assault during her test,’ even there were no such signs. That false statement enabled investigators to obtain a subpoena compelling production of the SANE report and Mangum’s other medical records . . . Levicy also made to Gottlieb several statements about the medical and physical evidence that were not only false or misleading, they were also patently contradicted by the SANE report: she said there was evidence of ‘blunt force trauma’ ‘consistent with’ Mangum’s allegation of forcible gang rape, but neither Levicy nor Dr. Manly had noted any such evidence in the SANE report, and she said that Mangum ‘had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally,’ but the SANE report stated that there was ‘nothing notable’ discovered during Mangum’s anal exam and the vaginal ‘edema’ was nothing more than commonplace swelling.”

“Levicy’s false statements provided the Durham Investigators with a justification for obtaining the NTO and continuing the rape investigation, despite the SANE report’s evident lack of support for Mangum’s claim. These events strongly suggest that Levicy and the Durham Investigators acted in concert.” Gottlieb and Levicy also had motive to lie: Gottlieb because of his dislike of Duke students, Levicy for ideological reasons.

Even at this late stage, very little information has come out publicly about the Duke Police’s role in the case. But Gorelick and McLamb dismissed as absurd any claim that Duke officials might have conspired with Durham authorities, citing a lack of plausible motive.

The Cooper brief had little difficulty in rebuffing this point: “the University and its Defendant officials had a powerful motive to capitulate to the demands of an angry mob and to sacrifice the rights and interests of their innocent students, too: avoiding embarrassment to Duke and minimizing criticism of Duke and its officials. For example, University officials candidly admitted that their decision to punish Plaintiffs by canceling lacrosse games, suspending and then canceling the season, and firing the coach was “not about the truth” or doing what was “fair,” but rather about keeping their and the University’s reputation lustrous.”

If we have learned nothing else in this case, it’s that a rather timid Duke president had ample reason—if only to pacify the Group of 88—to see the case go away quickly, through timely arrests.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is Levicy a Communist?

Jamie said...

Duke's bizarre line of argument seems to me to be a true indication of how some of the central figures in this fiasco thought - in fact, how they probably still think today.

I don't imagine that Levicy or Brodhead could then, or can now, fathom how presuming the LAX players guilty made them victims. The LAX guys just weren't the victim types - and after all, they lived in America: they could still try to prove their innocence.

In the meantime, the LAX were white, CGM black. LAX male, CGM female. LAX rich, CGM poor. LAX many, CGM almost alone. The LAX players were strong, CGM was weak. LAX kept their clothes on, CGM stripped.

Men rape women, don't they? Whites victimize blacks, don't they? The rich enjoy treating the poor like garbage, no?

This was the no-brainer of no-brainers.

Everything, they thought - even the lack of evidence - conspired to victimize CGM. To even this inequity, at the very least CGM needed in her corner a SANE nurse who had never heard an accuser lie and a college president who didn't need to know what had happened, because whatever it was, it was bad enough. This would only be fair.

Plus, those LAX crybabies were not even indicted, so how could they possibly be victims? I'll bet it mystifies Brodhead and Levicy to this day.

Anonymous said...

As KC's astute, razor-like analysis suggests, it is on this front that Duke's legal exposure is especially accute.

Anonymous said...

Must be a slow day in Wonderland to bring Levicy back in the picture. She did not examine Crystal and just assisted dthe Physician in her job as a Registered Nurse.

Anonymous said...

“Levicy’s false statements provided the Durham Investigators with a justification for obtaining the NTO and continuing the rape investigation, despite the SANE report’s evident lack of support for Mangum’s claim."

No Levicy, No Hoax.

What is so incredible about the Hoax is that as the events unfolded, NO ONE from DUMC stepped up to correct Levicy's false statements.

I cannot imagine what, if anything, was said by DUMC counsel, their Board, etc. to justify such non-action.

The conspiracy charge seems strong to me, and would, I think, seem so too to any reasonable person on a jury.

For so many months I have written here that DU and DUMC had every opportunity to stop the Hoax and yet they didn't.

Wow.

Sucks to be them.

Just sayin'.

MeTooThen

KC Johnson said...

To the 6.16:

I am a bit puzzled by your comment re "bringing Levicy back in the picture." Since this post analyzed the brief just filed (in which she was mentioned dozens of times), I'm not sure how I could have summarized the brief without mentioning Levicy.

Your final sentence--"She did not examine Crystal and just assisted dthe[sic] Physician in her job as a Registered Nurse"--is factually inaccurate. That, of course, is all Levicy did medically. She then repeatedly supplied false or misleading information to Durham Police, Linwood Wilson, and Nifong--which is the subject of the lawsuit. I'd urge you to refresh yourself on the basic facts of the case.

Anonymous said...

Every medical center including Duke has a code of ethics. North Carolina has a nursing regulation board. It is a requirement that every registered Nurse provide competent care and does not provide false information regarding examinations and what goes on the patient's chart. If Duke chooses not to enforce this rule, then the State of North Carolina should

It appears that Levicy has lied and caused great harm to the defendants. If so, Levicy violated the rules that govern her licensure. The defense needs to file a formal complaint with the NC Nursing board.

http://www.ncbon.com/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=1198

bobo1949 said...

I have waited for someone with a more keen intellect than me to describe why the Group of 88 did what they did, when they did it. To date, no reasonable explanation has been given for their strange actions. I ask that you follow with me a supposition to its’ conclusion.
Let us suppose that the Group of 88 knew the status of the original allegation and the preliminary police investigations contemporaneously with the Duke University Administration. (This, based upon subsequent promotions of group members is not an unreasonable assumption.) The administration had, most probably, concluded that the tempest was in a tea pot and shortly going away. The Gang of 88 had to strike before the case was dismissed so that it would be operating from a “high” moral plane in the aftermath of the dismissal of the case. The group could make any allegations it chose about the character of the Lacrosse Team members or sports dominated by rich white men without the fear of formal investigations. This opportunity to run rampant across the University must have been seen as a godsend to Wahneema and others of her ilk, at least those that were not atheists.
Nifong’s decision to prosecute the case must have been as baffling to the group members as it was to the indicted players, their families and defense counsel. Nifong made it formal and the case just wouldn’t go away.
This explanation is short and simple, as well as possibly being simple minded. It does explain why the Group of 88 jumped into the fray when it did. After the case had gone away, the members could say what ever they wished without fear of follow-up or investigation. Nifong shafted them as well, they just didn’t know it at the time.

Debrah said...

OK, everyone.

I'm going to need a little help from some of you here.

"holy smokes" is clueless as to what actually took place.

This might be another Tyson thread which needs to be explained to the unwashed masses.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 6:20 comments, in part:

”No Levicy, No Hoax.

What is so incredible about the Hoax is that as the events unfolded, NO ONE from DUMC stepped up to correct Levicy's false statements.”


In my view, the hoax would have gone on regardless of Levicy, but clearly, Levicy's departure from the facts that were gathered in the examination constituted ideologically driven "freelancing" and was the single-most damaging act of negligence committed by anyone at Duke. Levicy’s statements and the absence of any clarification from Duke gave a level of credibility to the charges that could not have come from any other source.

And, as the 6:20 states, NO ONE from DUMC stepped up to correct Levicy's false statements. And that is the reason both Duke Medical and its parent, Duke University, share equally in Levicy’s negligence.

The proper position for Duke would have been to immediately issue a public correction of Levicy’s freelancing statements with a very simple statement that said, ”Apart from the patient’s statements, nothing in the SANE report can prove that any rape occurred.”

Period. That is the truth.

And why did Duke not do this?

Duke did not do this because the SANE department, like the Anger Studies departments at Duke, is pathologically polluted with the very same ideologically driven, politically correct cancer that affects not only Duke, but also many major universities in this country. Truth and facts take a back seat to ideology.

This is the common thread that is at once both omnipotent and ubiquitous in everything that Duke did in this hoax.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

That Duke's president and BOT were more concerned with the public image of Duke than they were with their own students speaks volumes about the university's attitude in general (and one could possibly say that it is indicative of perhaps many educational institutions' attitude) toward those from whom obscene amounts of money are taken in return for what might very well be a questionable education (particularly if one is taking courses from some of the members of the Gang of 88).
I would agree with the poster that suggested that the potbangers saw the case (in its very early stages) as an attempt to fire a long volley across the deck of the Duke administration as a warning that they should be taken seriously and given more of a say in the university community. In this they were highly successful. That the rest of the faculty felt so cowed that they refused to stand up to Lubbiano and her ilk speaks volumes to the climate of "supposed free speech" (only their freedom to speak is allowed - dissenting views are stifled by accusations of misogny, racism, and classism) that exists not only on college campuses but in secondary and elementary institutions today. Brodhead and BOT allowed themselves, either through their stupidity or callous disregard for their students to be maneuvered into granting a forum for those elements within the Duke community who wanted their own world view to be the dominant view on campus. While Brodhead and Bob steele may very well have thought that on appeal RCD would have had their convictions reversed, the fact that they were so willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of those who they were so willing to take money from for a Duke education only points again to the cupidity of that institution. Duke, probably like most institutions is more than happy to wrap itself in glory when its athletes or incoming athletes do well (look at its willingness to tout that the fencing bronze medalist will be a Dukie next year) but should there be some hint of scandal (whether true or not) the university is quick to divorce itself from those students who might be offenders and to begin damage control immediately.
Duke needs to pay big - because it is only when the pocketbook is affected that real change occurs.
cks

af said...

To the 6:16
If you need clue's address, some of us here may be able to help you. Obviously, you don't have it.

Bobo,
Hammer to nail. You've gotten it correct. The University didn't want to be correct. They just needed an opportunity. The Gang--so appropriately named for their thuggish qualities--did hang their collective intellect out to dry on this one. So sad to see people with such lofty degrees made to be complete and utter fools. Sadly, these whimpering misfits will thrive in the walls of academia like a larva in a cocoon. The really sad part is that parents continue to send their hard earned money to institutions (mental or not) like Duke.

To the medical governing body in NC--are you part of the conspiracy too? The North Carolina Medical Board was established by the General Assembly “in order to properly regulate the practice of medicine and surgery for the benefit and protection of the people of North Carolina.” Is the reason for inaction the fact that the LAX players were not "people of North Carolina" or is protecting your own?????

af said...

Unfortunately for the Duke administration and BOT, they are less likely to win this suit than the football team is to win this season! Let's not even discuss the fickle faculty.

Anonymous said...

Here, in a nutshell, is Duke's response:

--Nothing wrong was done.
--If something wrong was done, we didn't do it.
--Even if we did it, you can't hold us liable.

And yet, they want students to learn the values of honesty and personal responsibility?!

Duke Prof

Gary Packwood said...

bobo1949 11:05 said...

...I have waited for someone with a more keen intellect than me to describe why the Group of 88 did what they did, when they did it. To date, no reasonable explanation has been given for their strange actions. I ask that you follow with me a supposition to its’ conclusion.
::
Rather than intellect how about someone like me with a little experience with these people and their hatred of young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger.

The G88 which includes Anger Studies faculty have few junior and senior level undergraduate students as 'majors' and the market for their research is very nearly nonexistent.

Parents gets 'snippy' with their kids who are thinking about majoring in Women's Studies or African and African American Studies (get a J.O.B) and reader/customers of amazon.com are not prone to 'chuck up' $35.00 for a book of theories about how gender roles for men and women were determined SOCIALLY three thousand years ago...in the Congo.

These faculty need to convince Brodhead and Co. that a required DIVERSITY course for all students is a better idea than sliced bread and of course such a required course will provide full employment for a whole boat load of faculty for the rest of eternity.

But alas, young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger traditionally tear up and ridicule required diversity courses that talk about young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger ...as villains.

You don't say!

And...if they can enable and provoke at the same time... a group of young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger to do something dreadful... all of the men's sports teams and fraternities (especially fraternities) will fall like a house of cards and that REQUIRED diversity course will pop-up to save the day on the campus of Duke.

Halleauah!

The faculty dreams up the plan and Duke staff members with Durham townies implement the plan all-the-while other G88 at similar universities across the USA sit back and ask...You suppose this PERFECT STORM is going to work?

There made one big mistake. The Duke G88 and staff did NOT know their own students.

This group of young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger lacrosse athletes are good people with great families.

Whoops!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Gary Packwood - you are spot on!
The only thing is that the group did get its desire because students have to take a diversity course in some form or another - not just at Duke either - that keeps those who found "anger studies" an easy way to attain a Ph.D.
cks

skwilli said...

Ah, I just love The Bart Simpson Excuse. (No one saw me do it, you can't prove anything...)

peroxisome said...

This one is going to be interesting. It is one thing giving evidence as a witness of fact, it is another thing giving evidence as an expert witness; i understand that expert witnesses are allowed to give opinions.

Admissibility of expert opinion is of course an issue where there is precedent. But having an expert witness having a zany opinion (so long as it is not corrupt or negligent) does not automatically enable a finding against the expert's employer. Again, the recent nature of the nurse's qualifiction all make the case that any evidence she could give would be without any weight in a trial.

"First, they challenged the Attorney General’s report by asserting that Levicy had not misled investigators when she said that the medical exam could corroborate a rape claim. "

this is utter nonsense. There are many prestigious experts who have pointed out that rape need leave no physical signs of damage whatsoever. To that extent, the medical exam at duke could corroborate a rape charge in principle, although it would certainly be at odds with a rape story that involved severe physical violence.

"She then repeatedly supplied false or misleading information to..."

that is a very interesting statement. "Misleading" is of course open to interpretation, and intent will be of interest. "False" is very clear. I will be looking forward to see some examples of this extremely serious charge. For this to stick, the false charges are going to have to be material to the case, and they are going to have to be early in the case.

They are also going to have be sensible transcripts, rather than the brief, out-of-context quotes which have seen daylight so far.

yours
per

bill anderson said...

It would have been much more difficult for Nifong to have proceeded without Levicy's help. She was his main corroborating witness outside Crystal, and her "blunt force trauma" comments played a major role in this case, and was a big part of the infamous New York Times' story of August, 2006, that claimed there was evidence to take the case to trial.

In a very real sense, Tara Levicy was the hoax/frame. Without her insistence that there was a rape, Nifong could not have proceeded. Remember that she met with him and the police for a year, and, according to the attorneys for the players, was "digging in her heels" during the affair. Duke wants us to believe she was a minor player, but she played as important a role as did Nifong himself, in my opinion.

And forget about the North Carolina BON doing anything about it. That board has received hundreds of complaints about her, but has done nothing. Levicy presently is practicing in New Hampshire. In fact, she moved there to be part of a new SANE team (receiving, from what I have heard from my sources, glowing recommendations from DUMC), but was removed when one of the other nurses who was familiar with the Duke case complained.

Levicy committed a number of felonies, but don't look for Roy Cooper or anyone else in North Carolina to investigate. If you want to understand the system of justice in that state, keep in mind that the ONLY people indicted were people who did not commit crimes.

Police, prosecutors, and Levicy all broke the law, but are not having to pay any price for it. That is North Carolina justice. There is none other.

bobo1949 said...

To GP @ 2:55PM.
I have always appreciated a keen intellect being brought to bear on any question. You have addressed the "why they did what they did" aspect of my comment more fulsomely than me. I appreciate your acute analysis. They, the G88, thought they could take advantage of the issue so they set out to do it and, for a few days, succeeded. I still think the timing issue is important. Your thoughts would be most seriously appreciated.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.27:

You wrote, "'First, they challenged the Attorney General’s report by asserting that Levicy had not misled investigators when she said that the medical exam could corroborate a rape claim.' this is utter nonsense. There are many prestigious experts who have pointed out that rape need leave no physical signs of damage whatsoever."

Undoubtedly there are many such experts. Levicy, however, did not make such a claim in this case. She stated that the physical evidence (which, it turned out, didn't exist), corroborated a rape allegation.

You wrote, ""She then repeatedly supplied false or misleading information to...' that is a very interesting statement. "Misleading" is of course open to interpretation, and intent will be of interest. "False" is very clear. I will be looking forward to see some examples of this extremely serious charge. For this to stick, the false charges are going to have to be material to the case, and they are going to have to be early in the case."

On March 21, 2006, Levicy asserted that the medical exam showed signs of anal edema. That statement was false. On March 21, 2006, Levicy asserted that the medical exam showed signs of "blunt force trauma." That statement was false.

Anonymous said...

How about a new synonym for 'troll' - 'squid'. Whenever they swim into our ken, the sure sign is all the black ink in the water. But, then comes the application of Dr Johnson's Patented Squid Ink Eradicator and simple facts again become clear.

What is simple and clear is that Duke is soooo hosed. This case is literally open and shut. Oh, how the mighty and correct Duke shall be brought low and verily the Defendants, strong in justice and righteousness, will rain frogs on Duke.

And our dear, dear Tara is going to play a really big part in this morality play. The words of her mouth will not only sink Duke itself, but she makes the case for Durham to say it's all Duke's fault: "Oh, if only Duke medical employee Levicy hadn't mislead out police investigators and caused Durham to perpetrate this horrible injustice on these innocent boys!" I don't know about you, but I hear those Durham officials saying that right now. As if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

So degenerate. So grotesque. So exquisite.

One Spook said...

To KC:

As the issue of SANE Nurse-in-Training Levicy’s criminal behavior is again being discussed, it might be helpful to link back to a few of your earlier postings describing her actions and also the comments of the SANE nurse who had a blog during the pendency of the original criminal case against the players. As I recall, her postings and comments were an excellent synopsis of the standards of how a trained, ethical SANE should offer testimony and information to investigators. She also did an excellent job of pointing out precisely how SANE Nurse-in-Training Levicy deviated from those standards.

Also, I seem to recall that you posted information revealing that counsel for at least one of the parties to the suit against Duke had retained the services of a renowned nationally known expert on SANE procedures whose testimony was expected to counter the false statements offered by Levicy.

To Bill Anderson:

You wrote @ 8:46 PM:

"And forget about the North Carolina BON doing anything about it [Levicy's actions]. That board has received hundreds of complaints about her, but has done nothing. Levicy presently is practicing in New Hampshire. In fact, she moved there to be part of a new SANE team (receiving, from what I have heard from my sources, glowing recommendations from DUMC), but was removed when one of the other nurses who was familiar with the Duke case complained."

I think all of us would appreciate further expansion of your information in that statement. The idea of Levicy working as a SANE ANYWHERE on earth is one of the most chilling thoughts I have heard in connection with this case. In a perfect world, Levicy should be criminally convicted and banned from ever practicing as a SANE nurse forever. If your information is correct, this New Hampshire hospital is VERY fortunate that another nurse was familiar with Levicy’s most egregious errors and saved that hospital from potential serious liability.

One Spook

Gary Packwood said...

bobo1949 8/31/2008::9:46PM...said...

To GP @ 2:55PM.
I have always appreciated a keen intellect being brought to bear on any question. You have addressed the "why they did what they did" aspect of my comment more fulsomely than me. I appreciate your acute analysis. They, the G88, thought they could take advantage of the issue so they set out to do it and, for a few days, succeeded. I still think the timing issue is important. Your thoughts would be most seriously appreciated.
::
I agree. Timing was so very important and I think we can trace the Duke case all the way back to the voters in California when they voted down affirmative action as a factor in university admissions for undergraduate students.

Extremists professors and staff members of universities tend to agree with each other that the California decision created a vacuum for women and people of color who were denied admission to the best universities in California.

The dream for these extremists professor and staff members was AND IS to solve the vacuum problem by finding a wealthy university in the South with a deep commitment to 'diversity' who is willing to recruit women and people of color and thus evolve slowly into the Harvard of the South...and the new 'model' for the rest of the country.

Finally at last, women and people of color will have their own Tier #1 University.

But first things first.

Young-privileged-white-males-with-a-swagger need to go before this new and improved Duke university is launched and that includes all helmeted sports and fraternities. You can't have CONFIDENT white 'Dudes' running around a campus that is about to become the home for victimized women and people of color.

There are many logic problems with this reasoning starting with the definition of 'diversity' which apparently does not include 'diversity' of thought; the assumption that new groups of students for Duke would meet the Duke admission criteria and the much larger question of the truthfulness of the problem statement that 'hatched' this plan for women and people of color in the first place.

Why would anyone allow these professors and staff members go through the gyrations of creating a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) in collaboration with people in Durham in order to launch a new worldview of higher education for women and people of color?

The central issue for me has always been centered around the question of why people at Duke want to be Harvard. What is wrong with being Duke?

Let Duke be Duke. Leave it alone.
::
GP

Kilgore said...

Interesting discussion of the reasons for the G88 to take their ridiculous actions. GP and others have made great points. The objective of getting a diversity course is obviously true and is validated by their demands.

I would add that their actions make more sense once you realize that they resemble a hate group. There is an interesting page on the web that offers the basics of any hate group and then goes into detail explaining why feminism should be included. Looking at the points below do you think the G88 fit? The KKK?

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

Once we understand that the G88 have marked similarities to other hate groups it makes it a smaller jump to understand their actions. I tend to see Brodhead like the Sheriff who turns a blind eye to the local KKK. He knows that if even a small amount of light shines on their actions their hatred will be exposed and they will be seen as a fraud and he will be seen as an accomplice.

Anonymous said...

DIW readers who may want more details about Ms. Levicy's involvement in the lacrosse case should read the following articles from Liestoppers:

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2008/05/our-collective-voice-allegations.html

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2008/05/our-collective-voice-part-ii.html

One Spook said...

Anon @ 11:50 PM writes:

"What is simple and clear is that Duke is soooo hosed. This case is literally open and shut. Oh, how the mighty and correct Duke shall be brought low and verily the Defendants, strong in justice and righteousness, will rain frogs on Duke."

As much as I hate to rain frogs on your parade of mixed metaphors in this sarcastic defense of Levicy, it is important to note that among the "Defendants" is Duke University. The case being discussed is EDWARD CARRINGTON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

That you cannot even correctly identify the Defendants in the case suggests a rather gross misunderstanding of the issues on your part.

per @ 8:27 writes:

"False" is very clear. I will be looking forward to see some examples of this extremely serious charge. For this to stick, the false charges are going to have to be material to the case, and they are going to have to be early in the case." (my emphasis)

Page 2. of the PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO THE DUKE SANE DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and (6) (via the link KC Johnson provided) states, " Yet Levicy assured Nifong’s investigators on March 16, two days after the alleged rape, that Duke Hospital’s forensic examination had yielded evidence “consistent with sexual assault.” (my emphasis)

I would suggest that false charges made just two days after the alleged rape rather easily meets the test of “early in the case.”

It might be helpful if both of you read the material presented before offering comments. By doing that, it allows you to ask yourselves the question, “Who am I going to believe, Duke University or my lyin’ eyes?”

One Spook

bill anderson said...

The 8:27 poster is correct in that a woman CAN be raped and not have all sorts of other physical signs of trauma. However, as K.C. rightly points out, that was NOT what was being claimed in this case.

From the start, the police insisted that Crystal was brutally beaten, with bruises all over her face, and her not even being able to sit down without pain. THOSE kinds of injuries will show up on a medical exam, and had that been the case, none of us would be blogging about that case today, as there would have been clear signs that Crystal and the police were telling the truth.

Instead, we saw Levicy take a report which demonstrated that there were no injuries as were described by police and Nifong's office in the NTO, but then insist that those injuries actually existed. Furthermore, even when confronted with the reality of the medical report, Nifong, the police, and Levicy on dug in their heels further.

(The attorneys for the defense were shocked when they finally read the report and saw there was nothing to corroborate the public statements of police and prosecutors.)

We also should not forget that Manly was not the first physician to look at Crystal. She was examined generally when she arrived at the ER, and I have serious doubts that any of the attending physicians and nurses thought she was raped or assaulted. The only reason there was a rape exam was because federal law requires such an exam for any woman who claims to have been raped.

Not only that, but I guarantee you that the police and Nifong were giving lurid tales to journalists and other pundits. For example, Wendy Murphy declared on the Nancy Grace show that "they ripped open her vagina." That was untrue, and while Murphy has a rather vivid imagination, I suspect that she got that information from an "official" source in Durham.

What strikes me about this is that the police, Nifong, and Levicy felt perfectly free to lie, even though they knew that the real medical reports ultimately would be made public. In other words, none of them were one bit afraid of the consequences of being found out, which tells me that they expected no consequences.

And, so far, that is being borne out in the aftermath of this case. All of the people who committed crimes have been able to skate by and live their lives normally, unlike the lacrosse families whom they tried to destroy.

Debrah said...

"All of the people who committed crimes have been able to skate by and live their lives normally, unlike the lacrosse families whom they tried to destroy."


And this is the heart of the matter.

Some people wonder why there is such a desire for justice now and they want to pretend that this kind of coming together of events has happened to lots of other men in the past.

I say, unequivocally, no.

In my lifetime I have never seen such a blatant attempt to prosecute innocent people....along with all the other factions---the city, Duke University, and many residents of Durham---pushing hard for this to happen.

And this continued even as everyone knew there was no evidence.

It's really quite shocking.

Debrah said...

Wendy Murphy declared on the Nancy Grace show that "they ripped open her vagina."


This is so grotesque.

I didn't watch Nancy Grace except for the YouTube loops that were played. We all recall how she attacked Stephen Miller from Duke when he was on her show.

I find women like Grace and Murphy pathetic parodies of themselves who are hired by some of the cable shows to shock ignorant viewers.

I would have pulled Murphy from the show immediately after that "vagina" comment. If something like that had happened to any woman she wouldn't be walking around.

Again, I didn't know about that comment. It's very easy to see why the country was so whipped up after listening to such gross commentary.

One Spook said...

kilgore @9:10 writes:

"I tend to see Brodhead like the Sheriff who turns a blind eye to the local KKK. He knows that if even a small amount of light shines on their actions their hatred will be exposed and they will be seen as a fraud and he will be seen as an accomplice."

Indeed, and the Deputy Sheriff who was indicted in the killings of three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 was found to be a member of the KKK.

Similarly, as we learned early on in this case, when Brodhead came to Duke, he parked his academic credentials with a department aligned and sympathetic with the group of 88.

Your analogy that the Group of 88 is like a hate group (such as the KKK) is perhaps stronger than you might think.

One Spook

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Your analogy that the Group of 88 is like a hate group (such as the KKK) is perhaps stronger than you might think."

That is why I refer to them as the Klan of 88. Group and gang do not convey a describe them properly. Klan on the otherhand very aptly describes how they acted.

One very important point that is missing from Kilgore's list is that the Klan of 88 did act on their beliefs. It was not all talk and they actively incited others to act as well.

The Klan of 88 yelled fire in a crowded theatre.

Anonymous said...

I would sure like to have the seven million each from Duke than lose my job and law license. This is skating???

per said...

hi
there is a view that it is important to get it right, and I do so in a constructive manner. You may have access to information I do not. Nonetheless:

"On March 21, 2006, Levicy asserted that the medical exam showed signs of anal edema. That statement was false."

All I can find on that is this quote:
First, according to the Gottlieb memorandum, she stated that Mangum “had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally.”
i would need to see the context; the construction of the sentence is ambiguous, and it isn't clear if it is just the "tenderness to palpitation" which is subject to the last clause. So this doesn't necessarily back up your claim of a clear falsehood.


"On March 21, 2006, Levicy asserted that the medical exam showed signs of "blunt force trauma." That statement was false."

In your same article, you set out what Levicy said, and why she said it, quite clearly. The sign that convinced Levicy was the patient's claim of pain; and it is clear that this is not an adequate basis to diagnose blunt force trauma in this case. So her diagnosis was wrong; it seems to me that there are various ways you can characterise her judgement.

Nonetheless, "false" seems to me to have the clear connotation that Levicy was lying. I don't think you have substantiated that case, and as you have posted clearly to indicate her relative lack of experience, it would appear possible that alternative explanations are possible, i.e. that an inexperienced rookie made a mistake.

I think you are going overboard with claiming falsehoods. However, if you have further evidence, it would be interesting to see.

per

KC Johnson said...

To the 5.15:

You write, "However, if you have further evidence, it would be interesting to see."

I base my assertions on the SANE nurse report, signed in Levicy's own hand. (I suppose it's possible her signature was forged, but she has never claimed it.)

That report indicated no anal trauma of any type. Her representation to the contrary to Gottlieb was therefore false. Unspecified pain, for which there was (in the words of the AG's report) no "objective" substantiation, does not constitute evidence of "blunt force trauma."

I hope this information is helpful.

per said...

one spook
"“consistent with sexual assault.”"
good quote, but the point is that a physical examination of any woman is "consistent with sexual assault". So the quote is not helping you.

Bill Anderson
"From the start, the police insisted that Crystal was brutally beaten, with bruises all over her face, and her not even being able to sit down without pain. THOSE kinds of injuries will show up on a medical exam,"

and this is really the point. The physical exam performed at the hospital (by levicy and manly) provided the evidence that showed Mangum to be a fantasist. It was the job of the DA/ police to evaluate how the medical report backed up mangum's claim; not Levicy's job.

Wacky expert witness statements are unfortunately rather common. You can get an expert who will say (more-or-less) anything, and we are talking frequently about Mangum's comments as an expert witness (not witness of fact). Just because an expert witness has an outrageous (or even incompetent or insane) view, does not mean that they are false views, and does not necessarily mean that there is liability.

per

per said...

I think we are in agreement on the facts of the matter here; that mangum claimed pain, but that there was no physical/objective evidence to substantiate the claim. But I think there is a difference in viewpoint.

As i understand, your belief is that the only way to explain Levicy's comments is that she deliberately lied. For my part, I do not see that this is necessary. The alternative possibility of an inexperienced nurse making an error (and a serious error at that) seems to me to be a more likely possibility.

It may not be a moot point. Experts can sometimes have immunity for the opinions they offer, and this immunity can be lost if there was malicious intent on the part of the expert.

The rest of the suit should be interesting !

bill anderson said...

I believe that there is something that needs to be pointed out regarding Levicy, and that she was eager to continually change her own story throughout the year. In the world of medical care, there is a constant refrain: "If it is not documented, it did not happen." That is something I have heard again and again from medical personnel from doctors to nurses to administrators.

Levicy tried time and again to push statements THAT WERE NOT DOCUMENTED. She signed an exam that she did not do AS THOUGH SHE HAD DONE IT. As Kathleen Eckelt pointed out more than a year ago, that if fraud, and people who commit that kind of fraud can be charged with federal and state felonies.

Second, Levicy changed her own personal statements on a number of occasions, her "new" statements contradicting what already was documented. In nursing and medical care in general, this is verboten. Whoever does it had better have very good reason, and the "Oh, I just remembered" excuse does not cut it.

Levicy clearly lied on several occasions. She was part of a criminal frame, and she is fortunate that she still can practice her profession -- and is not in jail or awaiting trial.

In my opinion, she needs to go to prison for what she did, but the criminal authorities, federal and state, are gutless cowards. They had no problem indicting innocent people, but cannot summon the courage to go after guilty people.