Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
KC on Duke's Factual, Semi-Factual, & Non-Factual Response
Topic Started: Apr 15 2011, 04:58 PM (841 Views)
MikeZPU

nyesq83
Apr 15 2011, 10:25 PM
What Duke is saying is that they relied an inexperienced incorrect nurse's word that CGM's inflamed vagina walls were evidence of rape.
Sorry, that's gross, but remember Kethra's excellent expert discussion that any experienced SANE nurse would have seen and known that CGM's vajayjay was not traumatized by a rape, especially since it was from the body of a drug-abusing sex-worker.
Forgive me if I mischaracterized what Kethra wrote.
In addition, Kethra noted that Levicy & Manly could not make the diagnosis of
diffuse endema because she did not have a baseline for Mangum to compare with.

And here's some more fun: Levicy herself disputed the diffuse edema claim in
her January 2007 statement to Linwood Wilson. She ascribed the diffuse
edema diagnosis to Manly, but stated that since Manly was not a SANE, the
finding of diffuse edema should NOT be considered a SANE finding.

Here's what's written in Levicy's January 10, 2007 statement to Linwood:

"Ms. Levicy stated that on her Medical History Form, Step 10 - Page 1 under
Section D. Pelvic Subsection B: Vagina: the writing saying "diffuse edema
of the vagina walls" was written in by Dr. Manly and therefore is not a
forensic finding since it was not from a SANE nurse."


So, Levicy herself backed away from the claim of diffuse edema.
Posted Image
Edited by MikeZPU, Apr 16 2011, 07:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply