One of the mysterious figures of the case, Tara Levicy, the zealot who changed her story as Mangum changed hers and who claimed that she never encountered a woman who lied about rape, is now up.
As with their cross-examination of Himan, the Nifong defense attorneys are using the witness in part to put the lacrosse players on trial.
Levicy says she was subpoenaed to testify.
In a short cross-examination, Levicy admits her 3-14-2006 report was clear: no condoms were used.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(872)
-
▼
June
(174)
- The Bitter-Enders
- Brodhead Wins a Sheldon
- Cline on Quadruple Homicide Case
- The Group in Action
- 9-22 Transcript
- The Meehan Deposition
- Smith Sets Date
- Nifong Hearing
- Nifong Deposition: Personal Issues
- Nifong Hearing Tomorrow
- Freedman: Communication Matters
- Assorted Deposition Items
- Responding to Syl Jones (and Nifong)
- Linwood Bails on Nifong
- Nifong Deposition, Part II
- Nifong Rationalizes His Statements
- More from Wonderland
- Nifong Deposition, Part I
- Linwood Is Out
- Ethical Dimension
- More Foolishness
- Nifong Hearing
- Weekly Roundup
- "Mr. Obfuscation" in Action
- The Herald-Sun: Wrong Again
- "Mr. Obfuscation"
- The Gottlieb Deposition
- Nifong as "Unique Person"
- The Wacky World of Dr. Meehan
- WRAL Headline Saturday
- Still Foolish
- Nifong: An "Old-Fashioned" Guy
- The Sanctions Motion
- Eviscerated
- The Worst of Witt: "Egregious" Mistakes
- The Worst of Witt: The DNA Evidence
- The Worst of Witt: The Neophyte Defense
- Hardin's Choices
- Nifong: What?! Non-Laxers Were There?
- Nifong: "I Don't Read Discovery Requests"
- Nifong Explains His Approach to DNA
- Nifong & Emostafa
- Chronicle Op-Ed
- "Something Happened"
- Judge Tjoflat's Perspective
- Nifong: Politics and the Press
- Jones Renews Call for Federal Inquiry
- Easley: Hardin as Interim DA
- When Suspects Aren't Suspects
- The Great Dissembler
- Nifong Defends the "Old-Fashioned Way"
- The Origin of Hooligans
- Nifong's "Law Enforcement Purpose"
- McClain: Group of 88 Defiant, Despite Settlement
- On the Bookshelf, II
- Montgomery-Blinn and NC "Innocence"
- Praising Beth Brewer
- Lane Williamson
- A Wild Day
- Nifong Is Out
- Nifong and Williamson
- Easley: Nifong Should Go Now
- Bannon on Absolute Innocence
- Duke and Three Families Settle
- Nifong Resigns . . . Eventually
- Marsha Goodenow Testimony
- Professor Bannon's Lecture
- Reflections on the Hearing
- More from Wonderland
- Beard on Nifong
- Nifong Defends Linwood Wilson
- The Himan Smoking Gun
- Brad Bannon on Nancy Grace
- Williamson Remarks
- Sunday Hearing Roundup
- Findings
- Nifong Accepts Disbarment
- MaryEllen Finnerty
- David Evans
- Bar Character Witnesses--Jerry Parnell
- Verdict
- Brocker Follow-up
- Freedman Closing
- Nifong: "Old-Fashioned Guy"
- Nifong Closing Statement
- Nifong Inconsistencies
- Nifong and DNA: Closing Statement
- Nifong False Statements
- Bar's Closing Statements, Continued
- Closing Arguments: "Minister of Injustice"
- Nifong's Selective Memory
- Mike Nifong's "Flexible" Apology
- Nifong Trial, Day Four
- Bar Rebuttal
- Nifong Character Witnesses
- Tara Levicy
- Nifong: "Something Happened"
- Nifong: "I Don't Read Files"
- N&O: Nifong Is Out
- More Nifong Cross
-
▼
June
(174)
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
130 comments:
this should be fun
woo hoo...the queen bee is one the stand....WRAL live
JLS says...,
Ms. Levicy how many times did you bang pots outside the house on Buchanon?
Cool, arrogant.
Smart girl, not answering til she looks at documents.
Good way to keep your lies to a minmum.
I've always been fond of the saying that the most powerful force in the universe is stupidity.
If anyone has ever doubted the profound truth of these words, today should have convinced them.
notice that they did not allow her to be an expert witness, but only a witness to facts
JLS says...,
Gee when I am an expert, I REVIEW MY DOCUMENTS THE NIGHT BEFORE! The same could have been said for Nifong's testimony too.
I wonder if she had any relations with Mangum?
Doesn't understand the question? What is she, an idiot?
geez just a bit of Paris Hilton look and demeanor.
JLS says...,
Having to interupt you own witness this early is a bad sign.
Baldie is so eloquent.
What's her story? Some kind of feminazi and embraced CGM for ideological reasons?
This lady should be so proud of herself.
She single handedly got the ball rolling for this whole mess.
All because she took the word of an alcoholic, junkie whore.
Wis something very bad could happen to her also.
"What's her story? Some kind of feminazi and embraced CGM for ideological reasons?"
That's sounds about right--charitable, but more-or-less correct--to me.
Interviewed Jan 2006....Dang that was before it even happened
JLS says....,
If you encounter someone 6 or 7 or so hours after an event when they have been with the police or in hospital those 6 or 7 or more hourse, would one expect them to show signs of intoxication?
Did this moron just claim she was interviewed on this matter in January 2006?
JLS - yes, she said January of 2006.
She was prepped.
Read everything, answer bear minimum, think before you speak.
Come on... ask the questions
she seems to not know which prepared answer they want her to give to which question.
Well, I might give her a break on "2006"--nerves and all--but didn't she earlier refer to the counseler from the "Drug Crisis Response Center" (freudian slip?)--or does she just mumble so that "Durham" sounds like "Drug"? It's interesting how hard it is to understand her after one gets used to listening to the North Carolina lilts.
Neither Freedman nor Levicy has used the term "in training". I expect the SB will bring that up.
"Did this moron just claim she was interviewed on this matter in January 2006?"
Yup that's what I heard also.
I think they're dragging this out in hopes that the cross-examination will be cut short.
Did the direct end? What wa sthe point of this?
Did the cross just end? I am confused.
Interesting that she is there under subpoena--either she didn't want to get involved or they subpoenaed her so she would not look like she had a pro-Nifong bias.
Why so easy on cross.
Levicy is ready fall apart.
I think Tara needs some action where "a condom is not used". That way she can determine whether or not a condom has been used!
Uncertainty?
KC -
All I heard several times was "no condoms were used."
Why even bother to have her there? The direct was nothing.
The cross was nothing, but potential civil litigants may have asked them to not take her apart before they get her in a civil trial.
Looks like a good ole boy coming to the defense.
The SB only felt the need to make one point: Levicy documented quite thoroughly that the accuser said no condom was used.
Is that Boss Hogg?
damn I thought that was Linwood at first
I think Tara needs some action where "a condom is not used". That way she can determine whether or not a condom has been used!
My bet is the kind of "action" Tara enjoys doesn't require a condom for protection.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Thank Gd - She looked professional - sounded professional and could use the binder as well as Brad. Subpoened - does this answer any of the Levicy questions? Certified since March, 06 = you go girl.
I'm surprised they didn't ask her on cross about her January 2007 meeting w/Nifong where she or he proffered the new theory that despite her contemporaneous notes from Mangum's rape kit, that 'maybe' Mangum was really not sure about condoms afterall....
Otherwise, I have to say I told you so, that Levicy would be of virtually no importance to this hearing or to any future litigation.
It would seem the point of this was to provide a reason for Nifong's alleged belief that a rape had occurred, because the SANE nurse said the exam results were "consistent" (or actually she is now saying "congruent") with that scenario. The point-counterpoint over the condoms was a bonus, clearly won in the end by the bar counsel despite Freedman's efforts on redirect.
Presumably Freedman didn't want to ask any open ended questions because he didn't know what answers he would get (or he didn't want to open the witness to cross on a lot of the issues noted by KC, such as the fact that Manly actually did the exam, or the fact that, while the exam was "consistent" with assault it was also "consistent" with a lot of other possibilities, including a yeast infection).
7:38 WTF - that is a beautiful, posed, well educated, well spoken young lady. Ms Jean was on her side.
levicy is not on trial here; Nifong is. One of the salient issues (I recall) is that Nifong said that condoms might have been used, at a stage when he must have known that Levicy's clear witness statement is that there was no use of condoms.
That's lethal.
This should put to rest all the criticizism from Nurses Peggy Perfect.
I see a posed, well educated man-hating lesbian who played a large role in this whole mess. Her hostility towards men biased her views and set the ball rolling.
7:40--
Apparently they didn't need to ask her about that, because Nifong's lawyer did it for them, after which the bar counsel reiterated their main point. Levicy isn't actually on trial here; there's no need to hammer on inconsistencies in her statements or weaknesses in her opinions. It's only necessary to establish whether Nifong had any basis for his statement after the DNA came back negative that maybe condoms were used. Based on the SANE report, he didn't, which was clear from Levicy's testimony.
7:21 What lies ?????? everything she testified to is documented .
Subpoened - SOP for hospital employees testifying.
Based on the SANE report, he didn't, which was clear from Levicy's testimony.
Exactly.
She is not a lesbian - how do I know, because I am a female and you can always tell. My male gay friends also say she is not gay. I don't know if she hates men, but the picture she presents, you can be sure men like her.
Actually WHEN in March 2006 she was certified is a very pertinent question. For all we know she could have been certified on March 31, 2006.
I'm 7:45 again--
And PS--there's no need to speculate on Ms. Levicy's sexual orientation, sexual experience, or even personality. She was a witness called to testify to some limited matters, which she did. If you think she did her job as SANE nurse in a biased or inadequate fashion, that's one thing. Drawing unsupported and unnecessary conclusions about her personal life is quite another--and a pretty cheesy form of argument anyway.
How come neither the Bar or Nifong's lawyers knew she was the lynchpin of the entire hoax? Remember Bill, Without her opinions, their was no case? The only thing that mattered was what was documentated on the rape kit checklist - you also remember documentation.
Did your wife ever complete that critique of KC's post as you promised two months ago?
Just to clarify, the 7:49 pm post is by the first 7:45 post, though I don't have any problem with the other 7:45 comment as far as that goes (don't know whether he or she would have a problem with mine).
I see a posed, well educated man-hating lesbian who played a large role in this whole mess. Her hostility towards men biased her views and set the ball rolling.
Oh for crying out loud. Go see your optometrist then.
Levicy: CGM said no condom was used.
That makes the DNA evidence (or lack thereof) exculpatory.
I think KC's last paragraph should read:
In a short cross-examination, Katherine Jean ascertains from Levicy an admission that the only information in her 3-14-2006 report would have led a reader to believe that there was never any uncertainty about whether condoms were used.
KC--later when you have time, if you need to clean things up, I think in your blogging haste you may have mistyped at the end of this entry. I think you meant "no information in her . . . report would have led a reader to believe that there was any uncertainty" or else "the only information . . . would not have lead a reader. . . "
"
In a short cross-examination, Katherine Jean ascertains from Levicy an admission that the only information in her 3-14-2006 report would have led a reader to believe that there was any uncertainty about whether condoms were used.
"
I'm having trouble parsing the above. There was no information in her 3-14-2006 report would have led a reader to believe that there was any uncertainty about whether condoms were used, was there? Didn't the report come down clearly in the "no condom was used" camp?
7:47 She received the hard copy of the certification on the 14th of March. As most of us know, we usually reveive the hard copy after we already know we have passed the course.
The complaints about her was smoke and mirrors - some people should be ashamed of what was said about this impressive nurse.
Wow, 7:52, I'm 7:45-7:49, and I love your post--so economical and direct, making the point I labored over so much more efficiently. Thanks! (PS just in case anyone misinterprets, this is not a sarcastic post, it's a serious one.)
Well the Levicy cross was dissappointing. It is true that the case is not about her but it would have been nice to see a couple of tough questions asked. There are so many possibilities! I guess we will have to wait for the civil trials for that.
Question - Ms Levicy, in March of 2006 did you believe it to be true that women never lie about rape?
Answer - Yes, I did.
That is all Ms Levicy. Thank you.
Levicy was always a bit player in this from the beginning.
Nifong didn't care what she said or thought, obviosly, since he went on TV and said 'maybe' condoms were used when Levciy's report said the exact OPPOSITE.
She was a young nurse, who probably had only dealt with a handful of rape victims, she never saw what hit her when the lying crazy whore showed up, acting hsyterical, shaking and crying to make sure she got sympathy from the white girl. All the crap posted her about her, and how she should be driven out of the profession, and lord, lord, lord she might have signed the form in the wrong place [never proven], and it was ALL her fault for saying vaginal swelling is consistent w/blunt force trauma was misdirected rage.
The few questions she was asked on direct show that she doesn't have much more supportive to say about the case.
Nurse Levicy: Would vagina swelling and redness be consistent with using a dildo in the past 24 hours?
A: Yes
Nurse Levicy: Would vaginal swelling and redness be consistent with having consensual sex with 10 men in a week?
A: Yes
Nurse Levicy: Could hysterics be the product of bipolar disorder or an attempt to gain sympathy or drugs?
A: Yes
It doens't matter whether or not she had ever met a woman who lied about rape or if she too, thinks 'something happened' to Mangum.
We need Debrah's views.
7:37 I don't know why they called her, but i am glad they did. Obviously, although lovely is a no body in the case. The people who have looked at all the evidence think so too.
7:30 Guess not - and she was not in training but fully certified.
Dr Manly is the author of the Vaginal Swelling issue - not this nurse.
to Anon @ 8:06 - I wouldn't say that Levicy needs to be driven out of the profession. What needs to happen is for the feminist ideology to be driven out of the profession. Feminism is a one-sided ideology that fuels its jets on the myth of oppression. I would be willing to bet that Levicy was taught under that model and picked up plenty of sexist ideology along the way. The three players payed a deep price for that one-sided hatefulness.
You don't have to worry about her leaving the profession. The average nurse practices three years and can not get out fast enough. What would you know about RNs anuway. That is one reason we have a nursing shortage, that is only getting worse.
It is only your perception that the SANE profession is full of feminist ideology, you wouldn't expect it to be full of people who think all rape victims should automatically suspect would you?
Rape victims are treated badly in our society and our judicial system, that doesn't mean every woman who says she was raped is telling the truth, or that crazy, inconsistent claims should be steadfastly believed simply because a woman is making them, BUT, its a horrible crime that is little understood and there are still alot of wrong notions and prejudices about the crime.
And really, all a SANE nurse does is write down facts, no nurse is ever going to be asked if she 'believes' a woman was raped or not, all the nurse will be asked is 'what was her demeanor, what did the test show, blah, blah'
Its making a mountain out of a molehill.
Nurse Tara said only spoke with LE twice - March 16th on phone and Jan,07 - some want to write, "she lied to the bar.: WTF - This is a "well, they peed off the proch" statement.
9:05 That is exactly the point, the SANE nurse writes down the answer to the checklist. No allows them to make speechs, lecture or give their personal opinion from the witness box. It is a 84 hour certification course, not brain surgery.
Actually my wife is a nurse and one of my good male friends is also a nurse. Having worked in hospitals for years I am familiar with nurses.
Anon 9:05 said It is only your perception that the SANE profession is full of feminist ideology, you wouldn't expect it to be full of people who think all rape victims should automatically suspect would you?
I would expect a professional to go into an interview such as that with an open and compassionate mind. I think feminism negates that possibility. I can see why you might think that it is simply my perception that feminism is linked to SANE and in a way I agree. However, I took the time a while back to go to amazon.com and browse several textbooks for SANE programs using the convenient "look inside" feature that amazon offers and was not surprised in the least to see the books spouting the same rape/sexual assault propaganda and statistics that is spouted by the radical feminists. It was the same stuff just in a nursing textbook. That convinced me that radical feminism has infiltrated that profession as it has in almost all of the rape related occupations.
If we were only talking about "stranger rape" I would have to agree with you that it is a horrid crime that leaves its victims in quite a mess and we have a history of mistreating those who have experienced that trauma as well as other truamas. However, the feminists have successfully watered down the definition of rape to such a degree that it now includes such things as deciding after what appears to be consentual sex that you were raped. Rape "Studies" report a huge percentage of women who have been raped but don't tell you that those numbers were derived by asking quesitons that diluted rape to such a degree that if a boyfriend stuck is finger in your vagina in a playful manner and you told him to take it out and he did...that would be counted as a rape. It's a shell game with the outcome geared twoards painting a stereotype of men as perps and women as victims. It's a mess and has no place in the profession of nursing.
KC - i don't think your first paragraph is fair. Less so now, after her testimony. Two meeting, eleven months apart soes not add up to the 5 to 9, she was reported to have made with Nifong. We know nothing about her agenda or lack of one. Why do you have it out for this nurse?????
10:06 - Other reports have Levicy talking to Gottlieb, Levicy talking to Nifong 4-5 times in meetings, sometimes accompanied by her SANE Supervisor Arico.
Anonymous 9:05 And really, all a SANE nurse does is write down facts, no nurse is ever going to be asked if she 'believes' a woman was raped or not, all the nurse will be asked is 'what was her demeanor, what did the test show, blah, blah'
Its making a mountain out of a molehill.
Except that she did base her "medical certainty" entirely on her feelings and interpolation of medical evidence she did not collect into an unauthorized diagnosis of "blunt force trauma consistent with rape".
The Special Prosecutors came in with medical experts and concluded that Good Nurse Tara's assertions to law enforcement and Nifong were without basis of any medical evidence collected or proper from diagnosing Dr Manly's exam and writeup - and were entirely subjective and derived from what Crusty the whore told her happened and "where it hurt".
Remember, her feminist training is women never lie about rape, so why wouldn't good nurse Tara take Crusty's claims as evidence??
Also, whether or not her certification was just the classroom phase and she was not authorised to do exams unsupervised is not clear. Nor is it clear from her testimony when she got her cert in the mail - pre-March14th, or post.
No, I daresay the lawyers are not done with good nurse Tara...lawsuits and Nursing Board hearings beckon.
And her testimony indicates either nurse Tara lied or Gottlieb lied about a March 16th conversation that was part of the basis of the search warrants authorized by the NTO and compulsory samples. Then either Nurse Tara lied earlier about her 4-5 meetings with Nifong then, or lied in her testimony today of no contact with law enforcement between March 16th and Jan of 2007.
So the truth is still not known, and the digging will be fun.
Gottlieb claimed that he inerviewed Levicy on March 21st.
http://www.newsobserver.com/141/v-print/story/479650.html
Cederford - You just posted a lot of facts which is entirely unsupported by the evidence,
NC Nursing Board not interested or they would have been in this months ago.
AG came to the conclusion based on the Manly/Levicy exam - no evidence of rape.
We have no idea what she said because it is all based on speculation. The questions were on the WHO< WHAT, WHERE, WHEN and HOW of the exam. No questions about her ideology. Ms Jean made a point to make note she was subpeoned.
KC,
Please address this. I think we found out from you that Tara Levicy told Kingsbery she did makes statements about the Blunt force trauma on 3/21 - now she says there was no 3/21 meeting. Kingsbery also was said to have said that she had met 5 times or more with the DPD - now she says she's had one meeting - and one very brief phone call?
I would appreciate it if you'd address this large discrepancy.
Thank you
11:41
Yeah, Vegas, keep it up. If you are going to post everywhere the same old stuff it shouldn't be too hard to sign your name to your posts.
No one who has filed a complaint with the Board of Nursing has received notice of the disposition of any Levicy complaints going back several months. Not surprising because she is in the middle of a major criminal case, an independent SP investigation, millions in tort damages pending and professional boards tend - wisely - not to step in in the middle of a pack of lawyers and do their own thing.
Either Nifong & Gottlieb lied in depositions or Levicy did.
She was not on trial with the Bar, Nifong was. They appear to be happy just to demolish her "condoms might have been used" defense KC pointed out she had strategized with Nifong over to explain no DNA - by getting her to agree that her own exam and data definitively ruled condoms from what Crusty was saying.
Bar is done with Levicy. Next up will be seeing who was lying under oath about meetings. Then the civil suits Levicy will be party to.
Cedarford, you ignorant slut,
Levicy was talking about rape victims in general possibly not knowing. You can imagine what it must be like to have a gun in your face while being raped? Checking for or even remembering if a condom was used might be unknown unless
Right, but she had the option on her report to say, more or less, that the "victim" didn't know whether or not condoms were used. IF that was the case, she could have indicated as such. But she put "Not Used" in 3 different places. So at the time, on her report, she said Condoms were not used. Then when DNA comes up nil, suddenly condoms might have been used? How convenient.
Cedarford, I think Bob Anderson has hijacked your pass word.
12:01 In your dreams - no civil suit and no crucification today. Oops = guess you guys were wrong, again. The NC State Board is laughing you folk off - particulary with lack of documentation of the "evil" event.The report was clear "no condoms" - any condom would have let its own footprint. Today, they can even identify the manufactur of the footprint. To suggest she LIED to the BAR is plain stupid.
There is no listing on the NC board of any complaints - Not in the middle of a criminal case - just a cog in the DUMC wheel.
KC - 12:00 questions are well taken. If this nurse had lied under oath to the bar, she would be charged with perjury. She is not sacraficing her license for anyone - Please clarify this issue.
Do you Levicy supporters understand what Tara meant when she said "congruent with sexual assault"?
John said...
I wonder if she had any relations with Mangum?
Jun 15, 2007 7:22:00 PM
Not likely, Crystal had more "male DNA" in her than most males do. She could get another woman pregnant a week later.
If Levicy really believed that women (for example CGM) cannot reliably say whether or not condoms are used in vaginal/anal rape, why did she leave off doing a test for latex condom use on CGM?
The only reason for not doing that part of an exam would be an acceptance of the reliabilty of the alleged victims statements about the matter.
One problem for Levicy is that she apparently believed CGM when she said "No condoms used" when she was in the DUMC emergency room but tells authorities in Jan, 07 (after many new and unwelcomed facts came out) that Mangum was not sure. If she believed that to be true in March 06, why did she not perform a condom-use exam? I mean, if that part of the SANE process had been carried out, much subsequent discussions/speculations would have taken place.
I meant that much speculation would Not have taken place.
Cedarford, you ignorant slut,
Levicy was talking about rape victims in general possibly not knowing. You can imagine what it must be like to have a gun in your face while being raped? Checking for or even remembering if a condom was used might be unknown unless
Jun 16, 2007 12:09:00 AM
Sorry, but speaking of ignorant, how ignorant can you be? You have a seasoned prostitute, a very well seasoned one from the "Louvre of DNA" festooning her body and panties, claiming 3-hole's worth of ejaculation. Besides the fact she is a lying, psychotic whore, it strains credulity for good nurse Tara to think even a non-whore would be unable to tell the difference between "money-makin' man juice" as Crusty would put it, and a condomed penis being in her mouth. Or any woman who knows that "dribble" happens from vaginal or rectal ejaculation.
As I remember, no gun was alleged. The whore claimed she was beaten and levitated by anti-gravity by from 3 to 20 men. No signs of any of that.
When it looks like you have a lying whore, and a physically repellant one at that - the feminist mantras of "always believe the victim", "trauma makes rape victims say multiple stories", "repellancy doesn't matter because rape is all about power! Men are as likely to rape a male visitor, a 400-lb black woman, a 76-year old Asian, as a drunken Angela Jolie dumped in a den of depraved rapist wannabes"?
Well, those feminist mantras confront Occam's Razor...if someone like Crusty appears to be lying like crazy, claims she was beaten and has no marks, claims attractive guys with attractive GFs who found her smelly and repellant raped her....the simplest explaination for everyone, especially SANE nurses, is someone like Crusty is likely lying.
I haven't followed the Levicy testimony, or her alleged public or reported statements. I simply want to strongly emphasize that if Levicy reported that her medical exam of GCM was "consistent/congruent with rape", This Is Always True.
The reason why this is the case is that any medical exam whatsoever of a physically normal adult female is consistent with rape. Rape is not a medical diagnosis.
Unfortuneately, the usual conventional use of "consistent with" instead implies something more like "indicative of" - which, again, is simply not the medical meaning of "consistent with" in cases of alleged rape, where the phrase alone essentially means nothing.
So Levicy would be off the hook on that count.
It seems to me that all of these people who go on about "feminist training" haven't a clue. What is "feminist training"? Is it simply a way to vent at women? It sure doesn't help the discussion here.
Ditto referring to Crystal Mangum as a "whore." Where does it get you? It's easy enough to use adjectives that are accurate: delusional, unbalanced, etc., without employing gendered insults.
anon 6:17 said: It seems to me that all of these people who go on about "feminist training" haven't a clue. What is "feminist training"? Is it simply a way to vent at women? It sure doesn't help the discussion here.
What is feminist training? Oh boy. Look no farther than the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which funds nearly 1 billion dollars a year into the coffers of radical feminist driven organizations. A large chunk of that goes to "Education" of law enforcement and judicial professionals. Your tax money is spent paying radical ideologues to "teach" our law enforcement and judicial professionals their radical misandrous and biased version of reality. It is hard to believe we have been so stupid. Here's a quote from an article by Phyliss Schaffely. She is not a liberal favorite but the old gal is honest in her views and forthright.
VAWA money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and the police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. The feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when the police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.
Importantly this money and trainings are exactly what gave Nifong and his cronies the idea that women never lie about rape. Our entire system is now saturated with that lie and many other hateful lies thanks to VAWA and our idotic legislators who voted for it unanimously.
And so it goes.
I suppose I'd rather have my moeny spent that way that on the war in Iraq & whatever other wars get dreamed up.
The point here is that your radical feminists/radical feminist agenda didn't drive what happened. A bunch of men did. And, I suspect if those falsely accused had not fit your political agenda, you might not be so interested in the situation. My impression, from reading this blog, is that some of the participants are trying to score political points--as if justice is a liberal/radical/conservative/libertarian rather than universal value.
My impression of Phyllis Schaffley is that she's not very nice and I'd probably not want to lunch with her.
Name calling is not very useful. Societies don't function very well when some people expect to have their views respected, but to dismiss those of others.
Well 7:15 at first you asked about the reality of "feminist training." Once given information on that you switch to focus on the messenger rather than the message. This is a typical trick to distract attention. And so it goes.
The fact is that feminist training was one piece of the puzzle of the lax case. There were lots of pieces. Race, class, chivalry, political correctness, radical feminist bigotry and much more.
If you want to discuss feminism I would suggest you go here. You will find some articulate folks there who are interested to hear from feminists who might want to defend their beliefs. So far, very few have the courage of their beliefs. Maybe you will be different?
Hello, Kilgore (and others?),
I consider myself fairly knowlegeable about feminism, but I've simply never heard about feminist training. Where does one get it? When? And what kind of certificate does one get?
I think there is another piece of the lax case and I suspect it caused these poor young men some trouble: assumptions, perhaps, incorrect, about white male privilege.
It seems to me that the assumption that feminists should have to discuss/defend feminism--as if equality is to be debated--doesn't do the lax players much good in terms of support. I thought justice and equality were for all.
Ditto referring to Crystal Mangum as a "whore." Where does it get you? It's easy enough to use adjectives that are accurate: delusional, unbalanced, etc., without employing gendered insults.
Unfortunately, being a drug addled prostitute goes to issues of character and credibility. Whores are adept liars and so are junkies. One could say their lifestyle partially rests on their daily lies.
Counselors dealing with both, train in their profession that lying is a "norm", and to be expected and dealt with.
Yes, as feminists love to say, even a prostitute could be raped. Even a prostitute with a history of making false sexual allegations, drug addled behavior, multiple mental impairments, and from 12-14 wildly conflicting stories....
But Occam's razor requires skepticism from all but the most dogged feminist whose ideology requires her to believe "No woman lies about rape!".
Which feminist ideology says no woman lies about rape? It seems to me that there are lots of feminist ideologies out there. Perhaps, I am incorrect.
True enough that a sex worker who is delusional is probably not to believed--not without hard evidence--but to attack Tara L.as a feminist and/or lesbian for believing her doesn't move the discussion anywhere.
It's the recourse to name-calling that hurts/has hurt the credibility of LAX: some people were not as likely to give them the benefit of the doubt because of the way some of their supporters framed the issues.
At least, it seems that way to me.
Hello 11:28 - If you are interested in learning more about the basics of the "feminist training" idea you can go to this paper that gives an outline of some of the problems.
Simply put, we need to move towards a world where all people are treated with dignity and respect, not just those who the pc world claim are the "real" victims.
"It seems to me that the assumption that feminists should have to discuss/defend feminism--as if equality is to be debated--doesn't do the lax players much good in terms of support. I thought justice and equality were for all."
The problem is that feminists--both Levicy and commentators on some feminist blogs--didn't actually act to further justice and equality in this case. They helped keep an unjust prosecution going or, on some blogs, actually prejudged the case.
That doesn't necessarily indict feminism, but one has to wonder about the connection. Two concerns I have are that 1) It is never acceptable to say in public that most or all of women lie about rape, but it is acceptable in some publicly funded arenas to say women never lie about rape. But both propositions are absurd, and the latter very much imperils the presumption of innocence that exists for every other crime. 2) Feminists have consistently ignored or slighted the specifics of the case to make generalized points about rape in our society. Just as it's disturbing for Bush to overlook the details in Iraq to talk about terror in general, it's scary for feminists to belittle this specific case because it might be atypical. Before the details came out, some feminists assumed guilt because of their general ideology, and now they’re refusing to alter their ideology because it’s “just” one public case. That overriding focus on ideology over detail or individuality reliably creates gross injustice.
I take your points, but I suspect that even members of the LAX team would argue that it's somewhat different--and probably worse--for Bush to lie about Iraq (where lots of people have died) than for some feminists to consistently ignore or slight specifics of this case.
I would feel much better if the word "some" sometimes appeared in front of feminists. They are no more a monolith than men.
I would like to know the truth here. Kc and others reported numerous interviews with Levicy and Nifong - including one with her supervisor. This was from "Kingsbury" - not under oath, of course. This nurse was vilified on that accussation.She testifies under oath that it was two, seperated by ten months). No perjury action as yet from the Bar. She is telling the truth. Whats with this????????
Did not check for condom use - what- SBI checked for everything. They have their own proceedures and are not dependent on a staff nurse at DUMC. I told you so also.
"take your points, but I suspect that even members of the LAX team would argue that it's somewhat different--and probably worse--for Bush to lie about Iraq"
Sure, but this is still very wrong. I don't think people here do or have to believe that this is the greatest injustice of our time to disapprove.
"I would feel much better if the word "some" sometimes appeared in front of feminists. They are no more a monolith than men."
Eh, see that false comparison is telling. "Feminists" are not counterparts to "men." That implies feminists represent all women, similar to the earlier statement that implied feminism was just about "equality" and "justice."
But it's not so simple. This case is a stark example of how feminism can be perverted against men (not for women) and against justice and equality. How often that tends to happen and where exactly it ranks on the hierarchy of evil, I'll leave to each to judge.
But "feminism" wasn't perverted. What I notice here is people applying the term to others as an insult. I am not sure that all of those who thought the members of the LAX were guilty were feminists of any stripe.
Perhaps something similar to "feminist" as used here so often is "white male privilege." Lotta the bloggers don't like that.
And, hierarchies of evil are fairly clear. What Nifong did--and it was horrible--was to a countable number of people. What the Bushies have done is destroy a country. I'm thinking difference in kind...
Two observations:
First --
A number of posters (or perhaps one poster posting multiple times) seem to be arguing that Levicy must have done everything right because she hasn't suffered consequences yet. "No perjury action as yet from the Bar. She is telling the truth." Of course, this is strikingly similar to what Nifong told the world about Judge Smith -- since Judge Smith didn't sanction him yet for misconduct, obviously there was no misconduct. We saw how well that worked out for Nifong -- Smith went on record and made it clear that the "yet" was in fact a very significant consideration.
Second, there are indeed many different varieties of "feminism". Unfortunately, many of those who call themselves feminism do not believe in equality -- they believe in bigotry. "Women never lie about being raped" is an example of such a bigoted statement. Evil people will lie about anything they think people will believe -- especially if some people are foolish enough to announce "oh, I will believe every single claim of a particular description, regardless of how badly the evidence contradicts it." To say "Women never lie about being raped", therefore, is to assert that evil people can only be men, and never women. That is bigotry, no matter how you dress it up; whether it should also be called "feminism" is a side issue.
I don't know that Nurse Tara did everything right - I do know the team was exonerated for DNA from the materials provided in the rape kit - AG noted that also. I do know that when she testified she had two meeting - ten months apart with LE none of the high priced Lawyers challanged her testimony or accussed her of perjury. That means all the statements and conspiracy theories written about this nurse is untrue - including "blunt force trama." She may not have done everything right, but no one can prove she did anything wrong.
anon 1:20 said **I am not sure that all of those who thought the members of the LAX were guilty were feminists of any stripe.**
This is probably correct. However if you look at the gang of 88 I would guess that a very large percentage self identify as feminists. Like it or not feminism has morphed into that which it hates. These folks make patricarchy look like a tinker toy. Harsh, controlling, unforgiving, narcissistic, finger pointing etc.
[quote]I would like to know the truth here. Kc and others reported numerous interviews with Levicy and Nifong - including one with her supervisor. This was from "Kingsbury" - not under oath, of course. This nurse was vilified on that accussation.She testifies under oath that it was two, seperated by ten months). No perjury action as yet from the Bar. She is telling the truth. Whats with this????????[quote]
I seems to me that there are three, no, four leaders of the pack on destroying Levicy - Kethra, Bill Anderson, KC Johnson, and Kathleen - volumes have been written by these 'Get Levicy' leaders, Levicy was called the THE ONE PERSON RESPONSIBLE for the Hoax, Levicy has been called an embarrassment to nursing, and much worse, she has been called upon to turn in her nursing license, their followers have attacked Levicy from every direction. Shameful.
Weather or not what the Gang of Four have said about Levicy is true I don't know. But a rush to judgment in condemning them is not right either. Let's give them a chance to regroup and reflect. If they have made a mistake, or have rushed to judgment I'm sure they will publicly apologize.
Having read this thread with fascination, I have a feeling that some of the posters have seen the same person that I had, and others encountered someone entirely different. I saw a tense, scared woman trying to hide her fear under a thin mask of pretend arrogance. The notion that she might be attractive never crossed my mind (I am male, about the same age as Mike Nifong); she looks vicious. A look at the web shows a history of what I call "intellectual gutter": talking to
one's vagina, women never lie about rape, a Women's Studies degree, etc. Has anyone here LOOKED at what they tell each other in Women's Studies programs? The sheer senseless stupidity! For about 10 years, she worked as a rafting guide, apparently on a shoestring; tried to be an AIDS activist or some such thing... Massage... Then some sort of minimal nursing degree, with a rape-related tilt. None of this is illegal, but very feminist, not very smart, and mostly nasty - and very consistent, and a lot of it. She is not THAT young...
Conclusions: She is bad news. Man-hater, will lie, perjure, and cheat. All in the name of equality of genders, no doubt. After many years of relative poverty, must be quite greedy, and will cheat for many other reasons. Fortunately for would be victims, she appears to be cowardly and is reasonably stupid. Actively tried to frame the kids; helped ruin Nifong in the process (can't blame her for that, though). Driving her from her profession would be nice in a purely moral sense; whether it will improve the profession is a different matter.
The constituation states "Innocent until Proven Quilty". Not just for Lax players, but everyone. She testified under oath in a trial in a court room. Her testimony must be believed unless she is charged with perjurym tried in a court of law and convicted of perjury.
Lawyer williamson stated "Except for nIfong, no one testifying had ever done it under oath."
Hello 12:18
Drunk again?
You sound just like Bob Anderson without an editor.
It appears that some of the posters are going after this woman. I wonder why? Reread your descriptions and you'll notice that there is an assumption of guilt--the same assumption you attack when it has to do with the men of the LAX.
No one cares what you think of this woman's looks! What does that have to do with anything?
Are all people who have lived for years in poverty "greedy"? What about the self-made men and women that this countries glorifies? Interesting. Very interesting.
Where does name calling get one?
Several points.
1. We are not sending Tara Levicy to prison; this is not a trail, and we are not a jury. We are simply trying to figure out what happened. She is not entitled to presumption of innocence here.
2. As something of a self-made man myself (perhaps more "self" than "made"), I know something about people who have been living in relative poverty. Some develop drive, compassion, and other admirable qualities. Others become bitter and greedy in a petty sort of way. It seems very much to depend on how much they are inclined to blame others (men, racists, minorities, whoever) for their problems. Becoming an agressive feminist is prima facie evidence of a tendency to blame others for one's problems.
3. In trying to understand her role in this sordid story, we have to use whatever information is available. Her appearance, history, prior statements (under oath and otherwise) are all legitimate things to look at. Having seen many feminists in action (admittedly, in the academic setting, not in the medical one), I recognize the whole package.
4. Her story tended to change whenever Mangum came up with a new version of the events. Apparently Tara did not lie under oath, at least before 6.16.07. This last fact might keep her out of serious trouble, but does it make her believable?
5. She is bad news.
Are you arguing that people become feminists because they've been poor?
11:10 This is what it has come to. No presumption of innocence - Very sad that the injustice that infected this case - is now being carried on by blogger.
Poverty certainly does not make people into feminists. However, feminists tend to be women who blame others for whatever problems they might have. And this is not a characteristic conducive to success in life (unless your ambition is to teach Women's Studies or something like that - brrr!). And then the results of their destructive attitides become a proof that their attitudes were justified in the first place. I have met 19 year old Ivy League students (of both sexes) that sounded bitter and were sure that the world was determined to wreck their lives; girls who sound this way invariably describe themselves as feminists. And in most cases, they have very little going against them - except their own self-defeating world-view.
In fact, we do not know that little Tara was born poor; she seems to have chosen to live in RELATIVE poverty for more than 10 years - (roughly between 20 and 30, and these are good years!) - and then get a degree in Women's Studies. We know that she is something of a cooky feminist (talking to vaginas, etc.). I have met people of this type - and always was shure to have a female witness in the room!
Oh Dear...
12:42 and 11:10 have trodden in monsieur's bucket.
Why do you call her "little Tara"? Is she short? Or do you mean she's young? You sound bitter to me. Did you grow up poor? Are you a feminist? What's your excuse?
I'm an Ivy League graduate, a feminist, and very happy. And, a feminist, I should think.
*happy feminist
Ivy league happy feminist? :smile:
Oh yeah, one of those privileged white women who enjoy an unprecedented amount of free time and choice due to the sweat, blood, sacrifice and tears of generations of white males. That kind? lol The ones who blame the world's ills on those same white males? uh huh.
Actually, I come from a long line of white males...some of whom also had Ivy League educations. If I were a right winger, I'd assume I had the genetic right to this education, but as it happens, I simply did well in school. (You know, the kind of well that you probably think only white males can do: math, science, etc., test scores--gee! Maybe I'm a white guy and don't know it. ;-)
And, for the record, I'm thinking I am quite productive. Maybe, even more productive than you are. Imagine! A woman! A feminist! I know: I should be home, bare foot and pregnant. I did that, too.
And, I don't blame too much on anyone.
No need to be barefoot and pregnant. Productivity is not so important. Only need is to be loving and grateful and abandon the harsh judgment of others. Love and understand your sons as much as you love your daughters. Love and understand the men in your life as much as the women while taking personal responsibilty for your own shortcomings. The radical feminism I have seen tends to short circuit this. Maybe you are able to do this just fine. Maybe not.
In my experience women (especially feminist women) don't have a clue about men and their unique ways of doing things. They tend judge men based on the female model and how closely they tend to act like women. You know, the whole moral superiority thing.
In response to 1:27: Most kids you meet at Ivy League schools are a pleasure to deal with - and tend to do very well afterwards. Over the 30+ years that I have been teaching at one of the said schools, I have talked to a few students who seemed to have problems; among these, girls tended to talk like feminists, and boys seemed to be more interested in drugs and such (though the latter fact had to be guessed, since they were not confessing). These are just personal observations of a fairly well-informed person. And by the way, my daughters both have Yvy League degrees and both are white-skinned; one of them is more productive then myself (at least, in terms of salary), and neither of them is a feminist. I think they are both happy (and so does my wife, who is also not a feminist), but then what do parents know?
Oh, yes, little Tara. This was simply an expression of disrespect on my part. I do not know how short or tall she is.
A bunch of posters were taken in the the SANE nurses in residence. Wiser heads pleaded for restraint in their unjustified criticizm of Nurse Tara. Now that the testimony, under oath, has shown a spotlight on the very wrong assessments of this nurse, posters refuse to apologize for the hounding of this nurse. Little Tara indeed - Poster have shown they can not stand up and admitt their error.
Post a Comment