Posted on 12/18/2007 11:12:12 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
By Tamara Gibbs
DURHAM -- In a filing Tuesday in Federal Court, unindicted Duke Lacrosse players are suing Duke University, the City of Durham, Duke University professors, Mike Nifong and the DNA lab involved in the case.
The suit also names doctors and nurses who treated the alleged victim the night she claimed she'd been raped at a party. The players are also suing City Manager Patrick Baker and former Durham Police Chief Stephen Chalmers. As part of the investigation, the unindicted players had to give up DNA samples and were named in the school paper.
In the 404-page lawsuit, the players say that Duke University, the City of Durham and the other defendants were part of a "conspiracy to railroad 47 Duke University students" based on "the transparently false claim of rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping made by a clinically unreliable accuser." Also in the lawsuit, the players say that the accuser's claim was "taken virtually from her lips and fashioned into a weapon in the hands of those who would leverage outrage."
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
......and the race baiting hustler Al Sharpton.
Another attack from the white racist, sexist, homophobic society that belittles the problems of minorities.
(/sarcasm)
Yeah, like "The three Duke LaCross members were Mangumed with Rathered evidence."
Not in this case though - the nurse aided and abetted the entire process from start to finish. So, hang 'em all.
As much as I’d like to see that, even he was smart enough to stay away from this one.
Moderately graphic details of the medical exam follow. You’ve been warned.
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/dukeplayerslawsuit_pt2.pdf
G. The Clinical and Forensic Medical Evidence Collected at DUMC
Corroborates Mangum’s Recantation and Adds to the Already
Overwhelming Proof That Mangum was Lying
1. The Clinical Medical Evidence
290. Mangum was present at DUMC for approximately 11 hours. During that time, many physicians, nurses, and other providers observed, examined, and interviewed
Mangum. To the extent that Mangum responded at all to inquiries about her rape claim, she never gave the same account twice. In addition, Mangum also revealed a propensity to lie when self-reporting her symptoms with a particular proclivity for reporting pain that doesn’t exist. The DUMC providers’ clinical observations and reports of Mangum’s various accounts of the alleged assault were documented in Mangum’s DUMC charts.
a. Nurse Jeni Hauver, R.N.
291. At 2:53 a.m. Jeni Hauver, R.N. was the triage nurse who first interviewed Mangum when she presented to the E.D. Mangum told Nurse Hauver that she had been “sexually assaulted,” and Nurse Hauver noted that Mangum appeared to be “anxious.” On the pain scoring scale, ranging from 1 (“mild”) to 10 (“worst ever”), Mangum scored her pain as a perfect “10.” Nurse Hauver performed
several tests designed to test the veracity of a high self-report of pain. Nurse
Hauver tested Mangum for symptoms associated with pain and found none. In Mangum’s chart, Nurse Hauver noted that Mangum appeared to her to be “in no acute distress, no obvious discomfort.”
b. Dr. Jaime Snarski, M.D.
292. From 3:14 a.m. – 3:40 a.m., Mangum was clinically examined and interviewed by Dr. Jaime Snarski, M.D. Mangum reported to Dr. Snarski that she was “stripping at a bachelor party,” and “the bachelor [and] other guys…put their fingers and penises” in her “vagina against her will.” To Dr. Snarski, Mangum complained of extreme pain. Mangum denied being hit. When asked to describe the pain, Mangum said it was “only in her vagina.” Dr. Snarski examined Mangum for symptoms that would corroborate Mangum’s self-report of pain but found none.
c. Nurse Carole Schumoski, R.N.
293. At 3:28 a.m., as Mangum was being interviewed by a police officer, a nurse, Carole Schumoski, examined Mangum and asked Mangum to score her pain. Mangum reported that her pain was a “10.” When Nurse Schumoski asked Mangum to describe the pain, Mangum said it was “down there.” Nurse
Schumoski examined Mangum for symptoms associated with pain, and found none. Shortly thereafter, Nurse Schumoski found Mangum, alone, resting quietly in no apparent distress.
2. The Forensic Medical Evidence
294. Roughly 6 hours after Mangum presented to the E.D. complaining of a sexual assault, Mangum’s Sexual Assault Examination (“SAE”) began.
a. Tara Levicy Misrepresented Her Involvement in the SAE and Her Competence to Conduct an SAE
295. Defendant Tara Levicy did not perform Mangum’s SAE. Levicy’s report of the exam, Sexual Assault Examination Report (“SAER”), however, fails to disclose that fact or the fact that Dr. Julie Manly actually performed Mangum’s SAE.
296. Defendant Levicy did not perform the SAE because she was not qualified or authorized to do so pursuant to DUMC policy. By signing the SAER and failing to clearly document those facts on the SAER, Levicy knowingly created a false
and misleading medical record in order to create the false impression that DUMC deemed her qualified and competent to collect and interpret forensic medical evidence, and to give credibility to her unfounded observations.
297. Defendant Levicy’s supervisor, Defendant Theresa Arico, R.N., would also knowingly and willfully bolster Levicy’s false claims about Mangum’s SAE in public statements to the media. Arico knowingly and willfully added credibility to
forensic findings that Levicy in fact did not—and could not—make.
298. Upon information and belief, Defendant Levicy was not deemed competent or qualified pursuant to DUMC’s competency standards, or qualitative evaluations of her made by DUMC Administrators and/or Supervisors. At the time of Mangum’s exam, Levicy was a “SANE in Training” and was not qualified or competent to administer an SAE or to identify, collect, or interpret forensic medical evidence.
b. Mangum’s SAE was Abandoned and Never Completed
299. At approximately 9:00 a.m., Defendant Julie Manly, Duke Physician, initiated the SAE with Defendant Levicy in tow. Manly conducted the SAE, while Levicy filled in the blanks and checked boxes on the pre-printed SAER.
300. Defendant Manly never completed Mangum’s SAE; it was abandoned in midstream because Mangum refused to allow the exam to continue.
301. To initiate the pelvic exam, Defendant Manly inserted a speculum, which allows the examiner to use a coloposcope to visually inspect the vaginal walls and cervix at high levels of magnification. Mangum quickly protested and insisted that the examination cease. According to Levicy, Mangum was responding to intense pain. However, if Defendant Manly believed Mangum’s pain was too severe to continue with the pelvic exam, the appropriate medical response was to diagnose the source of the pain and treat it. Once the pain (and its source) is treated, the exam can continue. That did not happen.
302. When Defendant Manly abandoned the SAE, much of the SAE had not been done.
For example:
(1) No pelvic exam was conducted.
(2) No rectal exam was conducted.
(3) No forensic toxicology tests had been ordered.
(4) No forensic blood draw was taken.
303. Defendant Manly found no injury to Mangum’s pelvic region whatsoever, including the vaginal walls, cervix, rectum, or anus. The only notation Manly made was “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls.” Diffuse edema is not an injury; it is a symptom. It can be caused by many things. Further, diffuse edema cannot be clinically identified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty without a baseline
reference for comparison (e.g., a prior observation of the vaginal walls at a time when they were not edemic).
c. The only evidence of injury observed in the SAE were
injuries that demonstrably pre-dated Mangum’s arrival
at 610 N. Buchanan
304. Several photographs were taken in the SAE that did, in fact, show injury to Mangum’s feet and knees. However, even the nominal injuries documented in the SAER were not new. Specifically, the minor injuries photographed and documented in the SAER included:
(1) A scratch on Mangum’s right heel, about 2cm in length.
The same scratch
can be seen on Mangum’s right heel in a photograph taken at 12:00:21 a.m. during the dance.
(2) A scratch on Mangum’s right knee about 7cm in length. The same scratch can be seen on Mangum’s right knee in a photograph taken at 12:00:40 a.m. during the dance. If she sustained the injury from a sexual assault, the sexual assault took place before Mangum appeared at 610 N. Buchanan.
305. If she sustained those injuries from a sexual assault, the sexual assault took place before Mangum appeared at 610 N. Buchanan. Further, the remainder of the SAER indicates no evidence was found of a brutal sexual assault. For example:
(1) Mangum denied receiving any physical blows by the hand.
(2) There was no swelling, edema, cuts or abrasions (even microscopic) of the
anus or the exterior pelvic region.
(3) Contrary to Mangum’s occasional claim that she was bleeding “down there,” neither the SBI nor DNASI labs detected even a trace amount of blood on the vaginal or rectal swabs in Mangum’s Sexual Assault Kit.
(4) No cuts, abrasions, or abnormalities on or around Mangum’s vagina or anus were observed or documented with the high-magnification coloposcope.
306. In the many “Systems Examinations” that were done by DUMC doctors and nurses on the morning of March 14, 2006 (and the UNC doctors and nurses the next day), they all concluded, upon examination, that Mangum’s head, back, neck, chest, breast, nose, throat, mouth, abdomen, and upper and lower extremities were all “normal,” and Mangum was consistently noted to be in “no obvious
discomfort,” even when she was scoring her pain as a “10 out of 10.” With the exception of Levicy, every provider who examined Mangum for symptoms to corroborate Mangum’s pain scores found none.
307. At the conclusion of the SAE, according to Levicy’s notes the evidence was collected, gathered up, and delivered to the custody of a representative of the “Law Enforcement Agency,” Duke Police Officer Joyce Sale.
308. On her discharge, Mangum was instructed to set an appointment to check for bacteria in her throat, vagina, cervix, and anus. Mangum pursued a doctor’s visit
the next day, but not to obtain a bacteria check.
Details, details....
Wrong. The case will indeed settle, but it will settle for many millions of dollars.
There's a very simple reason: None of the major defendants (i.e., Duke University and the City of Durham) will dare expose themselves to the discovery process. The dirt that would come out from all the hidden documents and witness statements is just too devastating.
So after a bit of negotiation, the defendants will cough up a ton of money under a sealed settlement.
While I detest frivolous lawsuits and our legal system which lacks a "loser-pays" feature to protect victims of unscrupulous lawyers, this is one of those instances where lawsuits are very appropriate. All the Duke Lacrosse players (and their coach) deserve to be compensated for the injustice visited upon them, and the perpetrators need to be taught a very expensive lesson.
Two little words: Judgment Proof.
Good for them. Defamation of character, mental duress, etc.
Hopefully they'll get dropped from the suit. They had no hand in crafting the case or falsifying reports. They were just collecting evidence and had no reason to disbelieve her. And from what we've heard about her, um, "dating" habits there was plenty to collect.
Pretty detailed. 10 out of 10 on the pain chart? Someone was looking for some attention.
Not true - read my #108.
Commie Hillary totally innocent? Bwahahahahaha!
Not exactly. This information has been out there for a while now. LB covered it in this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941317/posts?page=106#106
Thank you for the post.
How about: She wasn't charged because some people involved in the case were also involved with her.
No problem. This case has been one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen.
Most of us love our kids, but I'm thinking this lady is rich, has plenty of time on her hands and might be willing to give up a Mercedes or trip to Europe every two years to put a law firm into the business of making everyday , a sue the cr#p out of Duke, NIfong and Durham day.
When Nifong gets "back to work" , I'm sure it'll be in the environmental engineering (janitorial) business after working his way up the ladder. bwahahahahaha.
As for the golden "88" profs. Oh, I'm sure that mommy has something just extra special for these asshats.
Maybe make Duke fire them in order to stop the torrent of more litigation. Maybe even "re-education" camps for the professors. hahahahahahaa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.