Viewing Single Post From: Updated Duke Lacrosse Case Chronology March 13-31, 2006

Viewing Single Post From: Updated Duke Lacrosse Case Chronology March 13-31, 2006
Q.A.	Jun 22 2009, 12:51 AM
Posts: 142 Group: Members Member #439 Joined: Feb 27, 2009	This dialogue is sooo good; the jigsaw-puzzle is nearing completion, and things are being put into their proper perspective. Completing the description that puts the role of Levicy into its proper perspective has eluded me, but is becoming more clear. Of course, the facts of her malicious misrepresentations have been clear for a long time; but how did she come to be the contact-person for production of the medical records? It was as if she was their official custodian, with the power, if not the authority, to amend them. The National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations describes, among other things, the Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit [which, by the way, it never refers-to as “ The Rape-Kit”], and states[p.70]: “Documentation of the chain-of-custody information is vital to ensuring that there has been no loss or alteration of evidence prior to trial. Educate all those involved in handling, transferring, and storing evidence regarding the specifics of maintaining the chain of custody.” These specifics are lengthy, but include detailed documentation of every step in the chain-of custody of the evidence, including the S.A.E. Report, its hand-over to clerks for storage in a secure place, with times, places, signatures, and retrieval from the secure place. The subpoena that apparently lead to the production of a Medical-Records-Copy of CGM’s 03/13-14/2006 ER medical record, is dated 03/20/2006, is requested by Michael B. Nifong, signed “MBNifong” , addressed to THERESA ARICO (RECORDS), FORENSIC NURSE EXAMINER, [DUMC. DUKE NORTH EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT...], and does not seem to specify the items to be produced “for the court.” There appears to be no signature of receipt of the subpoena, but “L.V.W. Hyman” signed-off that he delivered “a copy of the subpoena to the person named above” [Arico]. Is Arico the custodian of this record? Is it that simple? Discovery should reveal any chain-of-custody documentation, and how it came about that Levicy had the access necessary to alter this evidence. As alleged in the complaint there seems to have been a lack of supervision. over Manly, Arico, and Levicy. This is a chronic problem in medical research centers, such as DUMC. Faculty with supervisory responsibilities tend to neglect these responsibilities because they are boring, and take time away from what they really want, which is to do research, lengthen their CV with publications [or perish], make more money, get higher academic rank, academic tenure, and research grants. ________________________________________________________________________________ It is not my understanding that Ekstrand’s complaint alleged an over-arching conspiracy whose purpose was to send persons to jail for a crime they did not commit. It is my understanding that Ekstrand’s complaint was alleging a particular confluence of facts amounting to an association-in-fact enterprise, satisfying the legal definition of the word “conspiracy” , a word that in legal usage has fewer dramatic overtones than it does in non-legal usage. It is certainly true that such an association-in-fact enterprise could have the effect of sending persons to jail for a crime they did not commit. Edited by Q.A., Jun 22 2009, 12:53 AM.


Updated Duke Lacrosse Case Chronology March 13-31, 2006 · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers