Is Arico actually saying there was blunt force trauma? I don't think so at all. She is describing what you can say in the process. She is not talking about the exam of Mangum at all, but only describing what a nurse can or can't say. Sombody is trying to make it look like Arico is describing CGM, but she isn't.
From that article:
"Theresa Arico is a sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of that program at Duke.
She described the process as a comprehensive combination of interviews and physical examinations of the person making the sexual assault complaint.
"You can say with a high degree of certainty that there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury" by the physical examination, which uses a device called a colposcope to magnify a woman's internal parts where injuries consistent with a sexual assault would occur, Arico said.
But sexual assault nurse examiners do not render an opinion on whether a rape has occurred. That is for the State Bureau of Investigation to determine through its forensic lab work.
"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told," Arico said.
If DNA evidence is present where the assault was said to have occurred, that can further corroborate the victim's account, Arico said.
A typical exam might collect oral swabs, blood samples, hair and pubic hair. Special equipment might be used that emits a light that fluoresces when semen is present, for example. Fingernails could be scraped to look for an attacker's tissue. Any DNA material that does not match the victim's might be collected.
Arico said the DNA suspect kits that the Duke players provided under court order collect the same samples -- blood, oral swabs, hair and pubic hair."
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/479220.html
Rape case judge will ban cameras
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-764257.html
Lacrosse judge bars pre-trial cameras
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 25, 2006 : 8:41 pm ET
DURHAM -- The Superior Court judge newly assigned full time to the Duke lacrosse case met Friday for the first time with District Attorney Mike Nifong and defense attorneys.
Judge Osmond Smith ruled that no media cameras or recording equipment will be allowed in the court room for future preliminary proceedings in the case.
Smith did not indicate whether cameras and tape recorders would be permitted during the actual trial next spring.
The meeting came the same day The New York Times published a lengthy article reporting that its examination of all 1,850 pages of prosecution evidence "yields a more ambiguous picture" of alleged gaps in Nifong's case than previously portrayed by defense attorneys.
The Times did not disclose how it obtained a copy of the evidence, which included 33 pages of previously unrevealed typed notes and three pages of handwritten notes by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb of the Durham Police Department.
Defense lawyers got the notes on July 17 as part of the third batch of information shared by the prosecution under the state's pre-trial discovery rules.
The Times reported that Gottlieb noted that the alleged rape victim was in extreme pain when he talked with her several days after the alleged attack.
Defense lawyers contended medical reports did not support a rape charge and that they sent The Times' reporters photos of the alleged victim, reportedly taken within days of the alleged attack, in which no bruises are visible.
Gottlieb also noted that the alleged victim, after some initial inconsistencies, generally gave police consistent accounts of what she said happened to her, The Times reported. Defense attorneys contend the differing versions eroded her allegations against the lacrosse players.
Gottlieb's account also said the woman gave descriptions of the alleged attackers that closely matched the defendants -- contrary to an earlier account in another investigator's notes, The Times reported.
Defense attorneys say they didn't get Gottlieb's notes, which appear to strengthen Nifong's case, until after they had cited gaps in the evidence.
The Times quoted Joseph B. Cheshire, a lawyer for defendant David Evans, as calling the notes a "make-up document" written out of desperation and designed to plug holes in the prosecution's case.
Internet interest in The Times' report was widespread, with bloggers -- online commentators -- around the country followed the latest developments closely.
One accused Nifong of leaking the documents to The Times "in hopes of countering the public perception that the whole thing is a sham and a textbook example of prosecutorial abuse."
Another said that, "with ? Nifong on the ropes, The New York Times is seeking to rig the rape prosecution. ?"
Nifong supporters were equally vocal.
One said the article "puts a dent in the sinister agenda of the prosecution's naysayers."
Another said The Times' story "proves what will come as no surprise to anyone with a brain: the defense team these Good Old Boys bought has been ruthless in their exaggeration of this case's supposed flimsiness."
Friday's meeting was held in the Durham County Superior Court judge's chambers and was not open to the press or public.
It was the first get-together of its kind since the state Supreme Court last week declared the lacrosse case "exceptional" and appointed Smith, who is form Person County, to oversee all proceedings from here on out.
Without the "exceptional" designation, the case might have been overseen by as many as four different judges at various times. Two judges other than Smith already have been involved.
Court officials believe the designation of one judge will expedite the proceedings and make for greater consistency and efficiency.
The case involves three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping and sodomizing an exotic dancer during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
The suspects are Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. All are free under $100,000 bonds as they await trial.
What business will be conducted during the Sept. 22 lacrosse hearing Smith scheduled Friday isn't know yet.
Sources close to the case said they didn't expect Smith to rule on such major issues as defense allegations of police misconduct.
If Smith accepted those allegations as accurate, significant blocks of evidence might be thrown out.
The sources added, however, that a request to modify a judicial quasi-gag order might be considered on Sept. 22.
The order, issued by Judge Kenneth C. Titus of Durham, prevents parties in the case from making public statements except in very limited circumstances.
Defense lawyers contend the order was too broad, covering not only attorneys but also family members and friends of the accused. They believe the order should be changed to allow non-lawyers to speak out.
Meanwhile, discussions have begun about how the lacrosse trial might be accommodated in a 28-year-old Durham courthouse that is bursting at the seams.
Officials say some thought is being given to using a large and relatively lavish federal courtroom on the second floor of Durham's main downtown post office. The room once was used for federal trials but has rarely been used in recent years.
Moving the case to federal facilities might not be free to taxpayers, however.
Officials said the U.S. government probably would require a rental fee, along with compensation for federal marshals who would be called upon to maintain security.
-- Staff writer Bill Stagg contributed to this story.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson138.html
Desperate Times
Bridges, not walls
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/479084.html
ONe problem the record does not show those "internal" tests revealed any damage.
From the Liberal NYT:
"The sergeant, Mark D. Gottlieb, reviewed the medical report, which did not say much: some swelling, no visible bruises."
Why wasn't any of this in the record? This is like an urban legend. Did the people working on this woman read the papers - read about her terrible injuries her father described on local Television and recall the incident incorrectly?
The Record has none of this.