Joan Foster

Jun 23 2009, 10:58 AM

Let's turn this around a bit.

If Mangum was as believable as Baker, Levicy et al. would later tell us she was...then, assuming the DPD is a fine police department and DUMC is a stellar medical facility...then what we are seeing is their best and standard effort dealing with a possible rape "victim."

I would question all them from that perspective.

"So... when a woman suffering "blunt force trauma"as your employee Levicy described... and all the attending injuries (certainly some had to be visible to the naked eye...remember three strong athletes had raped beaten, kicked her,slammed her head)...when a woman presents like this to DUMC, it is your standard of care to allow her to lay around FOR HOURS...until the next morning?

If so, how do you justify treating any possible rape victim as you treated Mangum? If it is NOT your standard level of care for rape victims, what made a difference in your treatment of Mangum?

EITHER IT IS YOUR STANDARD LEVEL OF CARE or YOU TREATED MANGUM DIFFERENTLY. Which is it?

Of course, we KNOW the answer: THEY DID NOT BELIEVE HER...but this sets up a situation where either THAT is admitted or DUMC is one god-awful hospital in regard to any real rape victim.

Likewise, ask DPD if the questions you pose are standard operating procedure for a criminal investigation of a heinous rape? Yes? No?

Either they admit they did not believe Mangum or they are one extremely poor excuse for a police department.

Is this how they treat a rape victim Baker says they so ardently believed?

I'd love to see them choose how to reply: negligence?, incompetence?..or..well..ahhh...we didn't believe her either.