CBS' 60 Minutes and the Duke Rape case

 

 

                   

 

 

 

     I watched with interest the CBS' 60 Minutes special on the Duke Lacrosse rape case.

   I'm glad to say I wasn't disappointed. I thought the show and Ed Bradley did an excellent job and it reinforced the feelings I've had about this case since the beginning.

     My suspicions of course have arisen not just because of my job as a forensics nurse but also because I've spent the last 30 plus years caring for patients from all different races, ages, and socio-economic groups. I've cared for patients from general medical - surgical units to the coronary and intensive care units.

    I've cared for patients in wealthy homes and in homes where there were more medicines on the table than food in the cupboard. From the mentally sound to the deranged, they have all crossed my path at one time or another.

      As any other medical professional can tell you, you can't work with such a diverse community over the years without developing a good sense of what people are about. After awhile, we rely on that sense which tells us whether a patient is being truthful or not, whether or not they may be exaggerating their symptoms, making alot of excuses, or just plain being evasive.

   Our senses become fine tuned, enabling us to pick out discrepancies and inconsistencies in patient's stories and behavior. Our experiences have taught us to look beyond what's on the surface, often finding something far different beneath.

   It's this experience that caused the warning bells to start going off as soon as I read the initial police report on The Smoking Gun site last Spring. I thought it didn't make any sense. Just from the initial report, the whole thing of how she was pulled into the bathroom by two males, then attacked by three.

   The initial report stated she said they were performing in the master bedroom. Hmmmm. What were they doing in the master bedroom? I thought they were supposed to be in the living room. Of course, the photos shown on 60 Minutes clearly show them performing in the living room. Strike one.

   OK, where did the third guy come from? Was he in the bathroom waiting? Did he knock on the door and ask to join in ... what?

   Of course, she later reports that it actually took six strong, athletic players, in top physical condition, to pull apart these two women who were half their size - one of whom was so impaired that she couldn't even stand up right. She was actually photographed sprawled on the floor. Strike Two.

   Mixing alcohol and flexeril - not a smart thing to do. I'm sorry but I do question whether this was typical past behavior. Those who abuse drugs / alcohol usually do it more than once. Even more important, I feel it could have seriously impaired her judgment, mobility, and thinking processes - even to the point of possibly causing delusions.

   I even asked my criminology professor, at what point on the BAL scale would he consider a witness to NOT be credible. He stated, " Anything past the euphoric stage but most definitely by the confusion stage. I am reminded again of the picture showing the accuser sprawled on the floor. Strike Three.

   Of course, that whole business with the strangulation, and the kicking, and the beating... I just couldn't buy it. The strangulation bit alone made me question her story.

   Despite the fact that it doesn't usually happen in fraternity type rapes, she said she broke her fingernails fighting them off. How? How did she manage that when, according to all witnesses and the photos, she wasn't in any condition to fight off a kitten, much less three strong, young athletes.

   Based on my research, the combination of alcohol / drugs, and the compression which would have been caused by the type of choke hold that was demonstrated to the media, I believe she would have passed out immediately.

   I don't believe she would have even had the chance of breaking those false fingernails of hers. Of course, show me some signs, show me where she was so hoarse afterwords she could hardly talk and I might feel differently.

      But, let me see ... Wasn't Kim just saying on 60 Minutes that there was nothing wrong with the accuser afterwords?

   If she had been sober and someone had put a choke hold on her, her arms would have immediately gone up and her nails would have dug into his skin. This is the body's protective response kicking in - what's called the fight or flight syndrome.

   I believe had this really happened the way she said it did, she would have broken more than just a couple false fingernails. I believe she would have torn real nails off.

   There should have been blood under her nails. There should have been deep, crescent shaped or long scratches on the perpetrator. It was stated that her attacker might have worn long sleeves. That doesn't matter. You can still gouge someone's skin through long sleeves, especially thin sleeves in warm weather.

  Not to mention ... isn't that Reade Seligmann in this picture with the short sleeves on? You know, the one taken at the party? Strike Four.

   The whole scenario at the first place they took the accuser to was just weird, in my opinion. I have a real problem with any nurse asking a patient if they've been raped. Never, ever would I do that!

   That goes back to my days in nursing school when we were taught to never put words in our patient's mouths. We don't give them ideas. I have followed those instructions for over 30 years now and still adhere to them.

   I would never have said, " Were you raped?"
   I would instead have said, "Tell me what happened?"
Strike Five.

  The report that Sergeant Gottlieb gave four months later is just bizarre, I think. I find it very hard to believe that any SANE nurse would be so careless as to go off and leave the exam room unlocked while the patient and the evidence were still in it. I know how well the NC SANE nurse would have been trained and I just refuse to believe that. Someone would have to prove it to me.

   The second thing Sergeant Gottlieb reported - about the speculum exam taking an extremely long time to complete. Oh boy, the warning bells were ringing with this one!

   As I told KC Johnson, I've never had a patient respond that severely. Sure, there's some soreness. And there's not a woman alive who doesn't hate the sight of a speculum coming at her. But that extreme for a woman who's had two children? And without any visible injuries? I seriously question that.

   The majority of my patients who have had children have tolerated the exam fairly well. There have been a few who were quite sore, and we had to take it slow, but they also had tears, abrasions, and extreme redness to go along with it.

   I have had a couple of cases where there appeared to be very exaggerated symptoms, inconsistent with the physical findings, and in both of those cases, I strongly suspected the patients were delusional. Even then, they weren't as extreme as in this case. Strike six.

  Which brings me to another matter. Exaggeration of symptoms has been noted to occur frequently with patients claiming back injuries. That's not to say that all back injuries are fake. Far from it.

   I developed a herniated disk and have suffered on and off for twenty years now. The difference is that it's a chronic problem I treat naturally. I may take an Advil or Ibuprofen once in awhile and use heat or ice but that's it . That is the recommended treatment for chronic low back pain. Once a patient gets past the acute phase( 3-6 mos.), they aren't supposed to be taking meds like Flexeril.

    Studies have shown that 90% of all back pain is in the lower back (not the neck as well). Studies have also shown that 80-90% of back pain heals in the first few weeks after injury. After that, there is usually no need for muscle relaxants.

   Most patients go on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. In fact, one of the studies I read stated that Flexeril added to Ibuprofen showed no improvement in pain and that it was not recommended.

   So I had to ask myself, why was this woman, with a chronic back pain problem, getting Flexeril at this point? Did she recently have an accident or a DV incident?

   And was the fact that she was knowingly mixing it with alcohol, to the point of impairment, an indicator of past drug / alcohol abuse behavior?

   Part of my training in the last couple of years, has been in recognizing health care fraud, such as fraudulent claims or doctor shopping in order to get medicines.

   One of the red flags in claimant fraud is the over exaggeration of symptoms. However, those exaggerated symptoms seem to disappear when the person doesn't know that they're being observed - or video taped. 

   Persons filing injury complaints are often investigated and unknowingly videotaped in an attempt to determine if there is fraud. When the video shows behavior inconsistent with the complaints and / or behavior at the doctor's office, Boing, Red flags pop up!

   So I have to ask: Did the accuser know that she was being videotaped by the 60 minutes crew?

   Just two weeks prior to that video, she was in the hospital complaining of neck, back, and knee pain. It was reported that she blamed it on the 3 alleged Duke attackers, yet she was already being treated for that same (chronic) condition.

   When I read that report, I questioned why a 27 year old would have both neck and back pains - unless there had been a motor vehicle collision or domestic violence.

   With acute * low back pain, there's usually a great deal of pain and limited range of motion. Yet, it was reported on 60 Minutes that the accuser had been working continuously with no problems.

   I saw the video. She certainly didn't seem to be in pain and she certainly seemed to have normal range of motion while she was dancing around that pole! Strike Seven.

   Kim Robert's interview: There were a couple moments where I questioned her words but, on the whole, I think she sunk the accuser. Strike Eight.

   No DNA evidence from a vicious assault involving three attackers?  Strike Nine

   No transfer of evidence from an a vicious assault involving three attackers?  Strike Ten.

The Duke Player Interviews: I've read where some think they were coached. Possibly. But on the whole, I think they came across as sincere and completely believable. No strikes.

October 17, 2006 8:46pm
 I'd like to add to the previous comments regarding Sergeant Gottlieb's conversation with the SANE nurse. I noticed a remark by another forensics nurse on the Liestoppers forum. Gottlieb said he asked the SANE nurse if the accuser's injuries were "consistent with sexual assault", and she replied, "Yes."

   The discussion board nurse stated, " We don't talk like that!"

   She's absolutely correct and I should have mentioned this on here before. We don't talk like that. In fact, I've never had a detective ask me if a patient's injuries were consistent with sexual assault. They just ask if she had any injuries and I tell them yes or no and what type. But then again, maybe they do things differently in North Carolina.

Comments

[BlindJustice58]

Well done Justice58, you win the PIS award (Perserverance in Stupidity) for your ongoing efforts to make the truth be ignored.
So it turns out the stripper was lying. So it turns out Nifong lied too and really sucks at his job. I'm sure that won't stop you telling all the blogs you can respond to that she really was raped and the Duke guys really are the rapists. Who needs any credible evidence when they have misguided opinions?
Once again, congratulations, you really take the PIS

[justice58]

Abe

Did you hear?

Mike Nifong has been elected as Durham's DA. The voters have spoken and it was loud and clear. Mike Nifong is going all the way with this case and there's nothing you duke supporters can do about it. Mike is going to win this case as well. Deal with it!

[Kathleen]

Abe:
I just happen to find outright cussing offense. I also feel that as mature adults, we can find more appropriate language to use.

I don't care if you want to use BS or **** type of thing but please just be considerate of other viewers who may feel as I do. Thanks!

[abe]

Two things, first, how about a list (with first letters and *'s of course) of what you consider to be "foul language". If that is why my last post was deleted. As for personal attacks, does "Thinking your unsupported opinions came down from the mountain on stone tablets" count?

As for you justice58, proving the Duke 3 guilty is not Nifong's job. Proving any specific person guilty is not any prosecutor's job. Prosecuting people who the _evidence_ says are guilty is part of a prosecutor's job. The other half is refraining from prosecuting people who the evidence doesn't prove are guilty. So he isn't doing either half of his job.

He isn't refraining from prosecuting 3 men the evidence says are not guilty. He isn't prosecuting a woman the evidence says is guilty of filing a false police report.

Maybe the other stripper's account of what the accuser said wouldn't be such a shock to him if Nifong had ever bothered to interview her about the case.

I bet you were 100% behind the other stripper as a paragon of truth and honesty as long as she was supporting the accuser.

That said, the other stripper's statements imply a premeditation about the false accusations that I don't think was there. By all accounts she was too drunk to be thinking that long term at the time.

If the accuser said that it may have been along the lines of "go ahead and leave bruises, it will look good when I have you arrested for attacking me". As sarcasm or reverse psychology.

You are the one stating the accused's guilt as a fact. Stating something as a fact means you can either prove it, or are dishonestly implying that you can prove it.

So can you prove it, or are you being dishonest?

Same goes with your accusation against the witness. You are stating that she was paid off. Can you prove it, or are you being dishonest again?

The only people in this case who we can prove got money in their pockets for taking the position he did of this are the lawyers, including Mike Nifong.

Nifong had loaned his campaign $30,000. If he lost the primary, he was never going to get the donations to pay that back. Before he brought these unwarranted charges, he was losing the primary (according to the polls).

So now that he won the primary, and is kowtowing to racist blacks, too blinded by prejudice to consider that a white man might not be guilty, his campaign gets the donations, and pays back the loan.

That means Nifong had about 30,000 reasons to bring these charges that had nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

[Kathleen]

I have asked that there be no foul language or personal attacks. Any posts with either have been & will be deleted.

[justice58]

Abe

I don't have to prove they're guilty. That's MIKE Nifong's job and he WILL prove it.

That little stunt that Kim Pittman pulled this morning is nothing but devious lies. After 7 months, she has decided to come clean. Please!!

It's all about money with her. Look at her track record. It speaks for itself. Kim will sell her soul for a dollar. Someone paid her money and most likely a substantial amount to try and damage Mike Nifong's election. I tell you, the defense is scared. Look, the 60 minute lie didn't work, so they're trying again at this one. The voters are NOT falling for this, pure and simple. I say to the defense: Nice try flake, but you lose bigtime today.

[justice58]

Hold on Abe

"Whiny little girl"!!

Now I resent that! You know very well that Mike Nifong cannot discuss the evidence of the case before trial. Shame on you! Are you people just so angry that Mike Nifong has the audacity to charge these white elite students of Duke on the word of a poor black stripper??? How dare him??

Listen: You're in denial about the duke 3. Don't try and fix it like they're just college kids that were partying a little too hard. Look at their behavior prior to the party. Where was the respect for the law? Where was the respect for the neighbors and Duke University? These dukies were allowed to do whatever without any consequences. Now that their behinds are facing possible prison time for their out of control actions, they want people like you to sympathize with them and call this woman a liar. Their behavior was a train wreck waiting to happen and it did on the night in question. They're playing on your feelings now. Yes, you've been played.

At the same time, the defense is just racking it up and laughing all the way to the bank. Well, I can tell you this, money will not buy their way out of this one. HOLLAR!

[abe]

drinking between 18 and 21 I mean.

[justice58]

Now Listen Abe

There is MORE than one criminal here. So watch yourself now. Collin Finnerty is on PROBATION in DC...Okay. Dave Evans has had a run in with the law also. Listen, were you also there that night? Can you say with certainty that a rape didn't happen. Bottom line...I believe a rape occured and so does investigators in the case and Mike Nifong. Her parents spoke with Megan Kendal of that awful fox news and said their daughter was very adamant about testifying at trial. Hey, I'm with her on this one until the end. The defense is running scared and are trying to bamboozle the public with all the bs. Mike Nifong is too smooth for the defense and they know it. If you don't think so....just wait until trial because he's going to make them look like idiots. Listen Abe... he has evidence that is solid and it's going to strike down any unreasonable doubt. Did you hear me?? HOLLAR

[abe]

(Innapropriate words / comments deleted)

justice58, was you there Charlie?

Did you see it happen, or are you just b ? Or do you know of any evidence at all besides the word of a criminal that shows that these guys even had sex with her, much less raped her?

Let's face it, even the DA doesn't believe her story. If he did, he would have talked to her about it, instead of very carefully remaining ignorant so he can say "I don't know of anything that disproves it".

[justice58]

Abe

Fact is: The duke 3 did it. Case closed!

[Abe]

While we're at it, imagine your son had an airtight alibi but was being prosecuted anyway because the DA refused to listen to it.

And because a grand jury took all of 6 minutes listening to two cops before voting an indictment.

To be fair, the 5 minutes is an estimate, figure an eight our day, minus a break for lunch and 80 indictments handed down that day.

[Abe]

Imagine your son is falsely accused of rape by someone with no credibility and a race-pandering DA wants to put him in prison for 30 years for a crime he didn't commit. Just so the DA can win an election.

Imagine you are a DA who is so desparate not to know that his case is crap that you refuse to talk to the accused _or_ the accuser about it.

[justice58]

Kathleen

Point taken.

But, she started it.

[Kathleen]

I welcome comments but please be polite and keep the language clean. I have just removed two comments due to foul language and personal attacks against each other. Thanks