Joe Cheshire and Jim Cooney harshly criticized the Baker/Chalmers report in an article that appeared in today’s Chronicle.
“I would not be surprised if [an independent investigation] would uncover conduct that was criminal in nature as it relates to obstruction of justice and creation of evidence.”
“The report by the city manager and police begs for a lawsuit to be filed against the City of
Cooney:
“It is fairly clear that the chain of command in this case got usurped,” Cooney said.
“If the identification process was to ID witnesses only, why was that videotaped? The fact of the matter is that was the only piece of so-called evidence that allowed this case to continue, and it’s just flat-out wrong.”
“I don’t know how change can come from [the report] because they don’t admit they were wrong. What this police department still needs to explain is how they managed to arrest three innocent people for a crime that never happened-you’ve got to work really hard to do that.”
Cooney also ridicules the report’s claim that the police were interested in exculpatory evidence: “What [DPD] also failed to address is when they received evidence of Reade Seligmann’s innocence-they arrested one of his alibi witnesses. How is that an attempt to find innocence? Blaming the defense attorneys isn’t doing that either.”
123 comments:
Love Cheshire and Cloony, So lets see the lawsuits - Mayor Bell must be "on the job" answering the mail coming his ways to fire Police chiefs, etc.
Carolyn says:
Cheshire and Cooney are awesome! Every single legal point that needed to be said, they said accurately and eloquently.
Damn, they're good!
Now we need to start the campaign for Easley...notice he can call an investigation. Fat chance, huh?
Whenever one deals with liars, it is not surprising that lies will follow. Knowing what they must know, the attorneys really must have been angered by this report.
I love the final line:
"when they received evidence of Reade Seligmann’s innocence - they arrested one of his alibi witnesses."
Absolutely classic.
I don't like, calling folk liars and names. Totally meanspirited and unnecessary to do so. Particularly, when there is no proof that it is true, except someone's word. We went through that with Nifong and some others. No one gets covered with glory following the same behavior. Judge not, that you be not judged.
To anon. 3:42
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."--John Adams
Wonder if they're gonna represent
the witness, Mr. Elmostafa?
Someone ought to be chasing
that particular emergency vehicle -
(and I say that with respect and
admiration, in this case.)
The DPD and DA's office did more than just arrest the alibi witness -- they also forced him to go to trial on a completely bogus shoplifting charge. It was a blatant attempt at witness intimidation. I hope the cab driver sues their a$$e$ off for his own malicious prosecution.
I agree with both you and John Adams about facts - not speculation, name calling and harassment.
I have no problem calling these people liars. They have said they actively looked for exculpatory evidence but that the attorneys hid it from them. We KNOW that is not true, and the record proves it.
These charges were a lie, and a transparent lie at that. So, I will say unequivocally that Gottlieb, Himan, Addison, Baker, Chalmers, Wilson, Levicy, and Nifong are liars. These people knew what they were doing; if they were so interested in the truth, then why did THEY hide evidence and then lie in court about it?
Well Bill, that attitude is what has lost you credibility.
Cheshire is right: one (or more) of the injured parties in this case must file a lawsuit against the DPD, or the filth and corruption will never be addressed. Cooper has already denied Bell's request to have the DPD's conduct in this case investigated by the SBI. Easley will likely do the same. Unless the truth is forced to the surface during civil depositions and/or a trial, all the garbage will be swept back under the rug, to fester and grow even more rotten there until the next victim comes along.
Good things are happening in Durham!!
I don't think there is any evidence of Baker, Addison, Chalmers, Wilson or Levicy "lying in court." As no transcripts for the GJ hearing, we do not know what Gottleib or Himan said. We do have the spoken words from Nifong that he did,in fact, lie in court. This blog is not filled with uneducated folk with short or long term memory defects.
Maybe they didn't specifically state it in court, but by their actions or lack of actions they effectively lied.
If people are going to lay moral judgements on the team for hiring a stripper when it is legal in your area, we may as well make the other issues based on morality instead of legality.
"We hear only those questions for which we are in a position to find answers."
Frederich Nietzsche
Space Puppy
4:00
Perhaps your belief that Bill Anderson has somehow endured a
"loss of credibility" means
something else: that you are
formulating a judgement.
Credibility, after all, is highly
subjective.
And who are you, dear Madame
or whatever, that you might be
calling him "incredible?"
4"28 That is the point - We are supposed to be better than them. We are supposed to not rush to judgement and presume innocent until proven quilty. Whether you agree or not with the AG, he did investigate for three months, with the full resources of the State of NC. He interviewed the principals and experts in this case. He wrote that "based on the evidence of the Manly/Levicy exam, there was no credible evidence of a rape."
Mac - like you, a simple educated blogger.
lie - an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to decieve.
3:42
The lies told by Nifong and his enablers are numerous and well-documented. Identifying a liar as a liar is not unethical.
How do you know I'm "educated?"
I might consider the word
"educated" a pejorative, a kind of
libel, even, if I were "educated"
by some folk - such as
Mr. "Prowess Envy" himself!
A lie is a lie is a lie,
A lie by any other name
still smells like
Durham.
(Apologies to William S.)
Other than Crystal and Nifong, whose lies and what lies are well documented?
Shall we start with the DPD,
and dance all the way to the NY Times?
How about UBUNTU? Have you seen
their website, which - last I saw -
still lied about the "rape?"
How about the lies that Duke
professors told about the "rapists"
in their classes?
Gosh, you must be just joining
the discussion! Might want to
look at Liestoppers, too.
Unless their name puts you off.
Why do you play games with those such as 5:19? Don't you have better things to do than spar with
jerks? Your are wasting your intellect and energies.
That is as good a respone to any, when you can not answer a question or show proof.
Space Puppy 4:28 quoting Frederich Nietzsche ...
..."We hear only those questions for which we are in a position to find answers."
::
Duke and Durham's response to Nietzsche was: We didn't find answers to our questions so we tried to read between the lines.
I wonder if all of these people will take a moment now to study the implications on truth telling ...of :
1. Google
2. Blogs
3. LexisNexis
4. Online Course Syllabi available for anyone to read
5. Duke Students who understand 1, 2, 3 and 4
The World has changed.
::
GP
My guess is a lot of the lawsuits will start after the results of the liefong bar trial come in. During the process of civil suits, it will be assured that criminal charges will be forthcoming out of that process. Just my opinion.
Time for a reality check. If you think the mainstream media is interested in covering a case of white men whose civil rights were violated, then I've got a nice chunk of oceanfront property in New Mexico you may be interested in. The same goes for the U.S. Department of Justice--they coudln't care less that a city like Durham (mostly Black and mostly Democrat) has tried to put three white men in prison on trumped-up charges. The only hope is that Cheshire or some other attorney takes the initiative and sues the crap out of the whole lot. Absent that, things will continue as before in Durham. Sorry to be a party-pooper, but neither government nor our fourth estate will do dick on this one.
...and another thing: stop feeding the trolls!
4:00, who did Bill lose credibility with??? Liars???
I would add this quote to the Group of 88 and Levacy:
“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves.”
How about CGM? does this work:
“Clever liars give details, but the cleverest don't.” OOPS, she gave too many details and couldn't keep them straight.
As for the DPD:
"A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth." They've lied so much, we'll never believe them again.
No, Bill. I think for most your credibility is intact.
cf
PhD in IB said
Bill's language is very direct (and while that may offend the sensibility of some) and accurate. Civility does not demand nuance and diplomacy; instead they are concessions one might offer. Bill does not and I applaud his honesty and passion.
5:30
Thank you. I believe you're right.
5:40
5:48
Yup: June 12 is the sound of the
starting bell.
Aaaannnnndddd they're off!
Note to Durham residents. Be prepared for your property taxes to increase next year. When the defendents and their counsel win a huge legal award your good city will need to float a bond and raise property taxes. Hope you enjoy your incompetent city council, mayor and police chief as they are going to cost you millions.
"Well Bill, that attitude is what has lost you credibility.
May 17, 2007 4:00:00 PM"
LOL. Bill Anderson has more credibility in his little toe than the entire DPD, Duke Administration and those who supported Nifong. The problem people have with Bill is that he tells the truth and it's painful for them to read the truth about themselves.
All I can say is I hope Durham, DPD and Nifong are massively sued for this. Like Jim Cooney said, you've really got to work hard to arrest three innocent people for a crime that never happened.
Thanks, all. Actually, only Nifong lied in court, but the others lied elsewhere. Somehow, I don't think that Gottlieb was telling the truth with his straight-from-memory report last summer, and he and Himan were the ones presenting information to the grand jury, and we know that what they presented was not true.
These men were experienced enough to know Crystal was lying, but they wanted to throw some Dukies into prison and figured they were Really Big Stuff. Remember how Nifong was strutting around during Reade's hearing a year ago? I didn't see him strutting when he went to his April 14 hearing.
I think that Kethra and Kathleen on the LS board have identified exactly where Levicy was lying -- and she WAS lying. She signed the exam as though she was the main examiner, and then told police and others that Crystal had injuries that were not documented and that other people did not see, either.
Addison declared on a poster that Crystal was raped, beaten, sodomized and robbed. We know that none of that was true and he still has not come clean. We know that Kammie Michael was aware that Kim made the 911 call when she told the press she did not know who made it. That is called lying.
Interestingly, the people who were most vilified -- the Duke LAX players -- were the ones who told the truth. That is most telling of all in this sorry tale.
So, if I have lost credibility with some, so be it. I will call it as I see it, and after having written for many years on law and the courts, I have come to the conclusion that people in authority are just as likely to lie as Crystal and Kim.
I might add that Joe Cheshire called the points made by Baker and Chalmers -- that it was the attorneys hiding all the exculpatory evidence -- a "bald-faced lie." Guess Cheshire is losing credibility, too.
Bill,
Well, ol' 4:00 pm can go back to
writing her column.
It's interesting to see their comments. They and Dr. Johnson have encyclopedic familiarity with this case that blog readers cannot.
Assuming that civil suits are filed, it will be very interesting to see the defendants' strategy. For instance, it sometimes happens that lawyers, because of their involvement in an initial matter, then are conflicted out of a subsequent matter, usually a civil suit, because they have unique knowledge of the initial matter.
For instance, in this case, were I the city attorney defending the Durham PD, I would want to take the momentum from the plaintiffs by claiming that their criminal lawyers would be witnesses in a civil suit and, therefore, could not represent the plaintiffs.
Such a claim might be based, for instance, on the conflicting claims as to efforts made by the defense lawyers to furnish Mr. Nifong with exculpatory evidence, and his assertion that this did not happen.
Thus, the city might respond to a civil suit by filing a motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel and, to make it appear their claim was legitimate, file notices to take their depositions.
I think such a move would be baseless, but would be surprised if we do not see this happen.
Fortunately a civil rights action can be filed in US District Court, so there should be a very good and unbiased judge hearing the matter and prospective jurors drawn from a multi-county area, both lessing the chance of home-cooking on pre-trial motions and verdicts.
Lawyers dream of having a case with all the equities on their side, solvent and lying defendants and the high likelihood a gunbattle will break out among the defendants.
This is such a case, and I'll bet the lawyers for the plaintiffs-to-be are ready to rumble, right after the disciplinary hearing, where they'll get free discovery, and Mr. Nifong will get whacked.
Lawyers dream of having a case with all the equities on their side, solvent and lying defendants and the high likelihood a gunbattle will break out among the defendants.
This is such a case, and I'll bet the lawyers for the plaintiffs-to-be are ready to rumble, right after the disciplinary hearing, where they'll get free discovery, and Mr. Nifong will get whacked.
May 17, 2007 6:50:00 PM
I agree. There will be lawsuits filed soon enough, but I think people are waiting to see what happens with Nifong. Something tells me he will negotiate a settlement, as a trip to the Bar Woodshed would be utterly humiliating for him.
Now, given that Nifong has no shame, he might choose to take it to trial, but he needs to remember that he does not have Ronald Stephens and Kenneth Titus covering his backside anymore. Furthermore, we should not forget that the defense has much, much more information that has not been released, but that would be further devastating to Nifong and the police.
In other words, it is going to get very, very interesting.
To 3:42
I need you to explain how Clakkie and Travis Mangum weren't lying.
ex-prosecutor:
Well-put. You must teach
somewhere - (or should.)
Not sure if the plaintiff's
lawyers are the same ones
representing the students
in the criminal matter.
I didn't think so,
but I could be wrong.
Besides, isn't there a possibility
that the attorneys who handled the
criminal cases might sue the DPD
and the City of Durh for the
allegations that they didn't
provide exculpatory evidence?
That sounds to me like they
were saying that the Lawyers
were providing slipshod work,
neglectful and incompetent.
Sounds to me like fightin' words.
What amazes me in looking back is how easily the case against the 3 young men unraveled once once witnesses were fairly questioned and had to truthfully respond. When Nifong finally couldn't hide and had to put up or shut up on December 15, he did neither. Cooney & Bannon spending ten minutes in court with Meehan was all it took to reveal the utter lack of DNA evidence and expose Nifong as a DA that had not dealt in good faith with the accuser, the witnesses, the evidence, the court, the defense attorneys, the LAX team, and the indicted players. A week later the rape charge was dropped.
"The fact must be faced that, AG Cooper, interviewed the principals and experts and came to the conclusion that based on the Manly/Levicy exam, there was no reliable evidence of rape. Cooper, is obviously disagreeing with the nurses, slandering Nurse Levicy. They certainly did not prove to the AG, she was lying.
The June 12th bar hearing will be an absolute spectacle. You will see Mike Nifong, a man with absolutely no shame whatsoever, plead the Fifth on so many things. The only question is whether he starts with that, or whether he arrogantly tries to defend himself first and then accedes to his frantic lawyer who will be counseling him to do that.
The problem for Nifong is that when he takes the Fifth, that will almost force a criminal investigation. Could the feds possibly ignore that? Can the state folks ignore it? It will be difficult to resist.
Joe Cheshire has all the credibility in the world. His complaint is against Baker and Chalmers stating "The defense lawyers did not bring the exculpatory evidence to the police". Not the same as trying to get people to lose their jobs on no evidence.
Both Levicy and Manly signed the exam. If Manly has no complaint, why do you?
AG Cooper also had no complaint -
4:00PM
Bill Anderson's work speaks for itself. He has relentlessly pursued the truth in this case from the beginning, and has made a difference. Ferreting out the lies of liars makes for dirty work, and most people shy away from this. Bill Anderson has worked to untangle the web of lies from early on. There is nothing new here.
8:01
I'd guess there'll be some
discovery issues raised.
If I were Dr. Manley, I'd be
cooperating with the attorneys
who represent people who are
likely to sue. (I won't
hazard any opinion about what
Dr. Manley believes or does not
believe about the evidence,
evidence collection, Nurse Tara
etc.)
If I were Levicy, I would stop
sending people to these kinds
of sites to see what kind of libel
I could dredge up. You know?
If I were Levicy, I would run
to the same attorneys as I would
if I were Dr. Manley, and I would
attempt to clear my name.
How would I do that?
Well, I would - (if I were Nurse
Tara) - claim that Nifong
pressured me; I would claim that
he "put the screws on me," as he
(or someone in the DPD) attempted
to do to Mr. Emostafa. I would
claim a shake-down.
But I would only claim those things
if they were the truth.
If they weren't the truth,
I'd practice throwing up and
peeing my britches, hoping for
sympathy from the court.
I would state and show it in writing from the AG, that the evidence I helped collect cleared the defendents. Next
Right: the EVIDENCE cleared
the accused.
What didn't clear the accused
is the impressions gained
from GATHERING the evidence,
nor the testimony to the
investigators about the
evidence, demeanor of the
complainant (CGM) etc.
Unless that testimony was
coerced, Nifey and friends
are gonna claim that the
SANE Nurse assured them
that a rape occured.
As one post said earlier:
when the defendants start
shooting at each other, it'll
get really interesting.
Better get your friend to
shoot first.
Next.
Never are Witt and Freedman claiming Lecivy supposed statement made them do it. These guys are lawyers not gossip columnist.
I would state and show it in writing from the AG, that the evidence I helped collect cleared the defendents. Next
Is that you, Tara.
No, Not Tara. If I were, I would already be suing the nurses and Anderson for the libel and slander.
There may be two trials - or more.
I would suspect Nifey will make
a plea with the Bar, and try
a plea-bargain at the criminal
trial. He'd be wise - I guess,
in my non-legal opinion - to hold
his water for the 2nd trial,
or for the civil suit.
WTF is this abnout a "gossip columnist,"
Are you a lawyer? You think
Nurse Tara has a case against
KC? Against Nurse Kethra?
Lawyers?
BTW, I forgot to add:
TROLL!
As "they peed off the porch" has become a joke - so is "Troll" and "Troll Alert."
So have 9:18' posts,
which are the equivalent.
Can't you do better than that?
Actually, troll is quite
appropriate, considering that
the writer (8:53, 9:18, 9:28
are all the same I presume)
comes on board, offers not
a scintilla of evidence that
she/he/it knows anything about
the case, or why she/he/it
would think that "KC and the
Nurses" ought to be sued for
slander or libel.
Where is your evidence?
C'mon: you demand evidence
from everyone else: we're
waaaaiiiittiinnnng.
First of all, the City of Durham's attorney will probably not defend the lawsuits that will surely be filed. The City of Durham, like most cities, will have liability insurance, or self insurance through a pact with other cities that is administered by an insurance company that covers lawsuits. Most of these policies have a "liability cap" of 1-2 million dollars, and since the "injuries" to the boys far exceed that, they will likely attempt to settle the case out of court.
Cities like Durham are sued all the time so they know the routine. The difference in this case is the potential for the city to lose millions of dollars. They'll hire the best civil defense attorneys in the state (All at taxpayers expense of course).
The attorneys defending the City will initially argue they have immunity from these type of lawsuits and seek summary judgement. If that move fails in the courts, then they'll try to settle.
The best case against the individual officers would be punitive damages that insurance or pact groups typically will not pay.
I have mentioned this before, but the public in general has forgotten about this case once the boys were aquitted. There is no national initiative on anyone's part to conduct a criminal investigation against Durham PD, even though there appears to be ample evidence of at least some criminal wrong doing. The standard of proof is much lower in civil cases, and it's tough to convince juries that police officers are criminally liable.
As Coach Pressler was told..."it's not about the truth."
I hope I'm wrong, but....
Here's another suggestion for your book, KC.
"What does a human disaster sound like?"
Apparently, you'd only have to get within a few miles of Durham or within sight of any TV airing Nancy Grace, not to mention any internet connection with access to the vile, putrid hatespeak flowing from Amanda Marcotte, to have it positively ringing in your ears. Very sad.
No, Not Tara. If I were, I would already be suing the nurses and Anderson for the libel and slander.
May 17, 2007 9:18:00 PM
Vegas,
I would WELCOME such a suit, and then I would countersue. Believe me, Levicy would be in real trouble if she tried to sue anyone for slander, as she would be deposed unmercifully.
I remember when the former South Carolina women's basketball team and a player sued Sports Illustrated for libel -- and ended up in federal prison for perjury. The only way Levicy could keep going was to tell even more lies.
Vegas, you have to understand something: I don't just want Levicy to lose her job; I want her to face the bar of justice. She promoted the Hoax against all truth and all evidence, and conspired with a prosecutor to frame innocent people. Losing her job would be the least of her worries if I had anything to do with it.
well bill anderson, the last time i checked you were not in durham nor involved with the legal system here in anyway nor are you part of the nurse's regulatory system here so you do not have anything to do with what happens to nurse levicy. for the record, i hope she does sue you and kc for libel; she would definitely win.
As they say in Durham, that why we want a trial for the truth to come out - although the AG's opinion is good enough evidence for me.
Bill lost some credibility when it was revealed he was a Waco Wacko.
24 days and counting.
I doubt that the bar trial is a venue in which 5th is used. After all defendant need not appear.
Mac - The evidence is in their posts - the nurses and Anderson - folk can read it for themselves.
Bill lost some credibility when it was revealed he was a Waco Wacko.
May 17, 2007 10:55:00 PM
What is a "Waco Wacko"? Someone who believes the raid was unjustified, and that the government triggered the biggest domestic government massacre of the 20th Century? I think the documentary that was nominated for an academy award, "Waco: The Terms of Engagement" was pretty powerful.
It is interesting, is it not, that we disapprove of the misuse of state power in the Duke case, but endorse it elsewhere? So, by all means, call me a Wacko for holding to the point that the government should obey the laws the rest of us are forced to obey.
As for Levicy, her record speaks for itself. And Kethra and Kathleen already have taken her Vegas and Levicy apart on the LS board.
go away vegas/DK
hey, where is that report?
LOL
Not in my view, they didn't. They showed they can dish it out, but can't take it. Not to most Health Care Professional who criticized their opinions ad Nauseum, until their was no audience left but the few supporters with no medical knowledge.
i agree. kethra did not prove anything; i showed her posts to my gynecologist and he said he did not think she was even a sane nurse. all she did was libel levicy and so did kc and bill anderson. and no it does not surprise me anderson is a waco wacko; look at how unobjective and knee jerk his opinions on these boards are. he is definitely reactionary and right wing and is anti-government except when it comes to preventing a case from going to trial. I would not be surprised if he is a member of john birch or something.
"Dead Man Walking Mikey" Anderson is not quoting the NBBP - WOW
I think that the most telling point in all of this is that Bill Anderson is totally transparent. His email, office phone, and credentials are clearly available on the web. I can't think of anyone else in these supposed conflicts who has been so very available. So you would either have to assess that he is completely insane and vulnerable, or that he speaks the truth, which is a defense in civil cases. Having actually contacted him by way of his web credentials, I must say that I believe him to be quite forthright and available, as opposed to those who hide behind the "anonymous" label and never let anyone know quite who they are. I do not wish to reveal who I am, simply because I am a hapless bystander who watches this modern tragedy unfold, and have little to offer other than my observations of the online banter/dialogue.
"and no it does not surprise me anderson is a waco wacko; look at how unobjective and knee jerk his opinions on these boards are. he is definitely reactionary and right wing and is anti-government except when it comes to preventing a case from going to trial. I would not be surprised if he is a member of john birch or something."
Hmmm, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...
If ALL parties involved in this case had been HONEST and ETHICAL from the very beginning, the actions of those who weren't so honest and ethical (ahem, liars) wouldn't have to be a topic of discussion. AND you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself.
4:18
I second your motion.
Anyone who didn't see that there
was a problem in Waco is either
a dud from ATF (they're the
CETA-equivalents from other
agencies) or they're a shill
for hang 'em high Reno.
One does not have to be "right-wing"
to understand that 17 children
did not have to die at Waco,
nor to understand that the Durham
Police have a habit of violating
civil rights - (including some
that KC cited.)
Basically, some of you who criticize
Bill and KC can just bugger off.
You haven't anything useful to
say.
Besides that, when you threaten a lawsuit
against the one person who exposed
most of the Hoax, you open yourself
up to the justified criticism
that you are a troll.
The word works.
I've used it wrongly before,
but in this case, it fits like
a diaper on a "red diaper baby."
(Thanks, Tom Wolfe)
Mac: You rock!!
12:21
Interesting.
The AG says that the DNA evidence
proved that there was no DNA from
the students, yet the DA continued
with the case.
Nifong continued with the case
after consulting Nurse Tara Levicy.
Nifong surely did not interview her
5 times to talk about the weather,
since that was 5 times more than
Nifong spoke with the accuser,
did he?
So...
What did they talk about?
Once again, so that you challenged-
types can understand it:
the evidence clearly indicated a
non-rape by those accused.
Why would Nifong continue with the
case...unless he thought he had a
witness who would testify as to
the demeanor of the accuser on
the night in question?
And if you think that question is
libellous, you better check the
straps on your gurney: you may
not be strapped-down tight
enough for your own safety.
And, no, I am not a member of the John Birch Society. And I am not right-wing.
And I really do not mind Vegas' attacks, given the source. I speak my mind on this, and have done so for many years. If people do not like my extreme civil libertarian points of view, they do not have to read them.
I'd say that Vegas' attacks are a "badge of honor," but that does violence to "honor." Let us just say they provide entertainment.
Levicy has not been libeled. As I have said before, I hope that losing her license and her job are the LEAST of her troubles in this case. She joined forces with a rogue prosecutor to frame three innocent men; that deserves real punishment.
I think he is angry because he does not have a book deal.
How did this thread get back to the SANE nurse? You guys are too much.
Cheshire and Cooney both said the ONLY evidence that allowed the prosecution to move forward was the line up ID, that kind of puts an end to the prattle on this blog about it all being the SANE nurses fault.
Odd that nobody is mentioning the comments that the report is BEGGING for a lawsuit...which seems to me Cheshire sending a message to Durham that they ARE going to sue, and its up to Durham how much money their going to have to pony up...if they clean their own house less, if they continue down the Nifong path of denial/more.
The SANE nurse is largely irrelevant since rape cases go forware every day without rape kit evidence, SANE nurses opining that the victim seemed credible to them or even DNA evidence.
I think he is angry because he does not have a book deal.
May 18, 2007 10:18:00 AM
I am not interested in a book deal. I've been that route before on books, and there are easier ways to make money.
My point on Levicy is that she gave Nifong the necessary medical backing that he needed to declare his certainty that there was a rape. It was Levicy who gave us the "blunt force trauma" comment, and it was Levicy who told all of DUMC that Crystal was beaten and raped. So, don't make her a bit player. She is a major reason that the Hoax went on as long as it did.
10:18
Is that you, Wendy?
Cheshire and Coony both said " The only evidence to allow the case to go forward was the line up ID" That does say it all. but what do they know, they are just the defense attorneys. It does put an end to the prattle about the SANE nurse, except for the two (one not SANE certified) who want to carry this on - I quess to be somebody in the event.
Save your defense of Levicy - it's most tiring. She was a key enabler who saw an opportunity or was caught up in the politically correct moment. Legal? I don't know. Without honor? Absolutely.
Ed
"(with statement author Wahneema Lubiano later admitting that she gave some signatories only six hours to decide whether to sign, thereby ensuring that the statement would appear before the DNA tests that Mike Nifong had promised would exonerate the innocent came back with no matches)."
Why did she want the statement of appear before the DNA tests came back? Why rush? What was gained by publishing it before the DNA results?
BTW, the left always screams "conspiracy", "hate", etc. whenever anyone dares to disagree with them. They embody perfection and concern so if anyone disagrees it stems from evil even in the face of their lies because it's not the means but the result.
Al Franken here.
Based on the odorous facts of this case, looks like I have sequel material for "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
I'm not doing much these days anyway. Hmmmm, where do I begin?
Wait! These are lying Democats?
Never mind.
I only pointed out that it was Joe Cheshire who said the ONLY evidence that existed that allowed the case to proceed was the line up ID.
Since it has been posted on her ad nasium that the reason the case went forward was Tara Levicy, seems only fair to point out that it appears the posters here were wrong.
While Levicy was obviously a delusional enabler, if she had never existed, never said anything to the DA, never supported Mangum's version or made any conclusions at all, even said her story didn't match her injuries, the case would still have gone forward.
How do I know this? Mike Nifong said it himself.
The amount of 100% exculpatory evidence that was completely ignored, tampered with or hidden is massive. Clearly, since alibi evidence was totally ignored it wouldnt' have mattered what the SANE report said. It's idiotic to think given all facts of the case that anything this dumb nurse said or didnt' say would have made an iota of difference in prosecuting the case.
Cnce Nifong had a black woman claiming rape by white Duke students he was off to the races.
Mangum didn't ID anyone SIX TIMES until it was clearly told to her that everyone in the line up was at the party and could thus, have been her 'rapist'...
Tara Levicy could have been screaming from the rooftops that this chick was a liar and Mike Nifong would have discounted her like he did every other person or fact that went against his desire.
Agreeing that Levicy is without honor is enough for today...
I don't agree Nurse Levicy is without honor, nor do many others. The NC Regulatory board, DUMC and her supervisor do not support this position. Just a few bloggers who refuse to face the evidence of the defense attorneys and the AG. Now Nifong and Meeham - there is someone without honor.
1:18
A question for Levicy:
at what point in time
did Ms. Levicy decide
that the students were
innocent, and that no
crime occured?
Since so many people defending
her claim to know so much about
her innocence etc., perhaps you
will know the answer to this question?
1:18
Not sure if she's 'without honor' but she clearly let her bias get the best of her, and it appears she, like Mike Nifong, didn't let the facts get in the way of her belief.
If she was still making excuses for the victim in JANUARY 2007, then she has to fall in the camp of "I believe a rape happened because I want to believe it"
My issue with this blog is that I dont' think Levicy was a critical component of the non case or that anything the rape exam found or didn't find would have affected Nifong's decision to take the case to trial.
Levicy's obvious bias hurts the SANE program and hurts real rape victims, just like Mike Nifong's malicious prosecution hurts real rape victims and even other crime victims since the Duke case is now being referred to by defense attorneys around the country in their own cases.
Levicy might be called a
"cheerleader" for Nifong
et al.
Okay, rather than talking about her honor, let's talk about what she did GOOD, or how she served to justice....
(silence)
1:27 How can the SANE testifying, who, wht, where and when they collected the materials to be examined hurts anyone accussed of rape? No one is asking "Do you think a rape occurred?" in a court of law. They are not permitted to lecture the jury or give their personal views. An ADA is prosecuting the case. The SANEs are truly cogs in the wheel.
12:00 --what??? Did she claim blunt force trama?
It is my opinion that Levicy is truley one of the dis-honorable cogs in this wheel (cogs make the wheel go)
Ed
Nax - I would quess Levicy knew they were innocent, when the AG stated they were. No inside information here. I would also quess, she was grateful to the AG for stating "Based on the Manly/Levicy exam, no reliable evidence existed that a rape occurred."
Okay, so Levicy is both dishonorable AND unreliable.
2:16
So why did she (Levicy)
calculate the "blunt force
trauma" into the equation,
if no evidence existed?
And...
remember, it said based upon
the "exam," not the opinion
of Nurse Tara.
Wasn't there an opinion she
expressed about "blunt force
trauma.
Right?
Based on what evidence?
"consistent with blunt force trauma" is a fairly subjective interpretation.
if you've ever followed a rape trial you know the defense always asks if the injury, no matter what it was, could be also 'consistent with consensual rough sex'
in almost all cases the nurse/doctor/expert will say yes.
there was a case where the girl's vaginal injuries were so severe she almost died from blood loss and was rushed into emergency surgery, the defendant, who had previously been convicted of a sex crime argued 'consensual rough sex' and he was ACQUITTED. the defense attorneys also beat up on the ER nurse for not doing a full SANE exam...of course she said the reason was she had to rush the girl into surgery to save her life.
women with bleeding, tears, scratches, bruises are always said by the defense to have consented to the acts.
the moral of the story is whatever levicy said would have been of little consequence in a trial and easily dismissed by the defense.
Based upon what evidence?
Don't leap forward to outcomes:
based upon what evidence?
Her experience?
What she saw?
The same evidence that caused
the AG to say "no evidence"
from the exam?
Help me a little here.
I don't understand how she
came to her conclusion.
Certainly it wasn't in the
report, and Dr. Manley didn't
say it.
Why did she say it?
C'mon. You can clear all this
up right now. Help us poor
idiots to understand.
Still wanna sue KC?
You'd get hacked to pieces.
The moral of the story is that Levicy is revealed for what she is - admissable in court or not.
In case you didn't believe me about the other case where the girl almost died from vaginal injuries and the guy with the previous sex crime conviction was acquitted:
http://www.ergogenics.org/446.html
One more time. Yes, Levicy was unprofessional and clearly biased. It doesn't change the fact that genital injuries in rape trials are not the slam dunk you seem to think.
The reason I posed about this other case is to show that even when the injury was LIFE THREATENING and that a jury of idiots apparently thought it possible a woman would have sex so rough it caused her almost to bleed to death.
In other words, the results of the rape exam are never very strong prosecution evidence.
3:31
No one is disbelieving you;
most of us - if not all -
know rape is a terrible thing.
Some of us have our own experiences
in different ways.
In court, the exam might not
have been - in this case -
strong evidence, perhaps
very weak. Perhaps?
I forgot: there was NO evidence
(according the the AG,)
only an unsubstantiated opinion
of a semi-qualified Nurse.
I would sue the three who engaged in libel and slander in open boards on the internet. Nurses Peggy Perfect and Anderson.
That's getting as old as
"troll."
maybe you should just go buy
an inflatable doll.
Well Mac - you asked and I answered.
Righto. I didn't see the
time or "Mac," so it looked like
another disembodied vapor,
haunting the blog.
I did ask. And you can believe
what you want. Unless you have
some astute observation about
why you think you are right,
other than you "think so,"
I won't bother to ask again.
Mac - Gotta to tell you - I think you are fun and enjoy your posts a lot. I am sincere.
8:05
Thanks.
Have you ever considered
choosing a blog identity?
I mean that, too.
When I see Gary Packwood's
name come up - (he writes stuff
that is really entertaining and
enjoyable to read, as well as though-provoking) -
I know who - sort of - who is
writing.
Thanks again.
12:41 Does it mean anything that Joe and Jim do not agree with you?
11:18
So...you propose that Chesire and
Cooney don't agree with 12:41.
Obviously, you are begging the
question. Speaketh your mind
or holdeth your tongue!
What exactly would Anderson counter sue Levicy for? She has not called him slandered his name or called for his job and license.
No, but Nifong can throw
her under the wheels of the
bus. And he might, to save
his own neck.
Hey, Tara: you still aren't
listening.
Post a Comment