The Special Prosecutors Become Involved

On January 12, 2007 Nifong recused himself from the case because of the NC Bar ethics charges. Attorney General Roy Cooper appointed James Coman and Mary Winstead as Special Prosecutors. Over a 3 month period, the Special Prosecutors exhaustively investigated Mangum charges.

Speaking to representatives of the Special Prosecutors, Levicy again altered her opinions about what happened at the party.

“Soon after Nifong was removed from the case, Levicy met with investigators from the North Carolina Attorney General’s office and conceded, for the first time that it was possible that ‘no attack had occurred.’” (C 466)

On April ll, 2007 Attorney General Cooper dismissed all charges against Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann and stated that “these three individuals are innocent of these charges.” (2)

A written report later that month blasted Levicy’s conclusions about the SANE exam. The Special Prosecutors had access to all of the medical records in the case. The Attorney General’s report stated, “No medical evidence confirmed [the accuser’s] stories. The SANE based her opinion that the exam was consistent with what the accusing witness was reporting largely on the accusing witness’s demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence.” (2)

This statement implies three things. First, the objective findings on Mangum’s physical exam (minor leg scratches from a previous injury and diffuse vaginal swelling) were not suggestive of a brutal rape by three large athletes. Second, the negative DNA findings from the rape kit, which were part of the medical evidence, proved conclusively there had been no physical contact, let alone a rape, between the lacrosse players and Mangum (although DNA from multiple other men was found). Third, Levicy paid too much credence to Mangum’s loud and hysterical behavior, which has been described by experts in field as atypical for a true rape victim. Finally, Levicy’s reliance on Mangum’s “demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence” is consistent not only with Levicy’s inexperience at the time as a nurse and as a SANE, but also with her ideological bias.

As KC Johnson later noted: “This wholly subjective evaluation proved particularly troubling given Levicy’s apparent biases. As she conceded in a November [2006] interview with defense attorneys, she had never seen a woman who had claimed sexual assault behave hysterically as Mangum did during the examination. Did this atypical behavior raise alarm bells? No. Levicy, it turns out, isn’t particularly discerning in evaluating the truthfulness of a sexual assault patient’s verbal claims. When asked whether she had ever received a sexual assault report from a patient that turned out to be false, she replied, “No, never.” (10)

A Critique of Levicy’s Actions by An Experienced SANE

A SANE with many years of experience writing under the pseudonym “Kethra” evaluated the performance of Levicy and Manly in an extensive on-line post (12):

“The important part of the above is that Dr. Manly alone is responsible for the vaginal exam and Dr. Manly made ONE notation on the SANE paperwork that being “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls.” Dr. Manly did not make a note as to patient demeanor nor to the extended amount of time the vaginal exam too OR to the finding of a “white exudate.” Dr. Manly did sign the SANE as having participated but Tara Levicy, signed the SANE as the examiner. In Interviews with the DPD [Durham Police Department] she took credit for Dr. Manly’s examination and in interviews with the DPD did nothing to disabuse them of the notion she was wholly responsible for the exam. These statements were rightfully attributed to Ms. Levicy by the DPD based on what she was quoted as saying, when in fact it was the Physician’s note and examination that she was claiming as her own work.

“Ms. Levicy committed one of the worst acts an RN and a SANE can commit; that of injecting her opinions and beliefs onto the patient and into the case. Ms. Levicy stepped out of her required role as an impassionate forensic examiner and into the role of a feminist with an agenda. She made stated conclusions not based on an evidence based practice, but instead based on her own personal agenda and skewed world view. Nowhere in the SANE exam or the medical examinations that occurred was there any evidence to support Ms. Levicy’s statements of “Signs consistent with sexual assault during her test.”( Himan notes). There was no evidence to support her statements to Gottlieb on March 21, “I asked her if the exam was consistent with blunt force trauma, and she replied, ‘Yes,’ ” “She stated the victim had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally. She stated it was so painful for the victim to have the speculum inserted vaginally that it took an extended period of time to insert same to conduct an examination. I asked her if the blunt force trauma was consistent with the sexual assault that was alleged by the victim. She stated the trauma was consistent with the victim’s allegation.”

“Nor did the evidence support her statements made on January 10, 2007 of “"Ms. Levicy stated she asked if condoms were used and Ms. Mangum said 'no' but wasn't really sure. Ms. Levicy stated that it was her opinion as a [sexual assault nurse examiner] that 'victims can never be sure if condoms are used because if they can't see them how would they know for sure. You can't feel them so you have to realize there is always a possibility that a condom could have been used.' " Even though her own documentation denied this claim.

“Instead ALL physical examination documented, directly contradicts these ongoing claims made by Ms. Levicy. Incredibly enough, Ms. Levicy herself notes in the systems examination portion of the SANE “Head, back neck, chest, breasts, nose, throat, abdomen and upper and lower extremities were all “normal” and in the Pelvic Examination portion of the SANE Ms. Levicy writes “Diffuse edema of the vaginal walls”(echoing the actual Physicians findings since she did NOT do the vaginal exam) and recorded “nothing notable” in the subsection for the Anal exam.

“In DIRECT contradiction to not only her own notes, but those of Dr. Manly and other Physicians and nurses that examined Crystal Mangum, she [Levicy] begins telling her “she was raped” conclusion to DPD. She not only was inaccurate as a forensic examiner but she was untruthful. There is no documentation that supports her claims of “the victim had edema and tenderness to palpitation both anally and especially vaginally” (Gottlieb notes) other than Crystal Magnums’ hour long display of hysterics for the Physician which interestingly is NOT noted in Levicy’s documentation. It is somewhat beyond me that a patient could present like this and the SANE documentation indicate “nothing notable”..snipped..

“In Closing:

“Ms. Levicy’s actions were unconscionable, unprofessional and the inherent sign of an incredibly biased person and nurse. She alone, is responsible for the start of this witch hunt in my opinion. By not telling the actual facts, by misrepresenting to the police the signs and symptoms of a rape victim, by “embroidering “the true patient findings and historical story, by her sheer ignorance of appropriate forensic evidence collection technique, her sheer ignorance of basic pathophysiology, her sheer ignorance of general medical conditions and the identification of those conditions and by her glaring egotistical need to portray herself as an expert, she sent the police down the trail of deception. Combine that with a rogue prosecutor and shoddy police work (didn’t they read the stupid medical reports for themselves?) she almost put 3 innocent men in jail. “ (12)