< Previous page

Nifong told Cotter he hadn't read any of the records yet; Cotter urged him to read them before meeting Mangum, thinking the prosecutor would understand why the defense didn't think Mangum was credible.

On Jan. 10, Wilson and Himan met with Nifong's other critical witness in the case: Tara Levicy, the Duke Hospital nurse who helped examine Mangum in the Duke emergency room the morning after the lacrosse party. Levicy had received special training to become a sexual assault nurse examiner to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. She would have been Nifong's chief witness in corroborating Mangum's claim that a rape had occurred.

In March 2006, Levicy told police she found evidence "consistent with a sexual assault."

The Jan. 10 interview focused on the absence of the players' DNA in the rape kit. Levicy had written in her March 14 report -- shortly after the party -- that no condoms were used. On Jan. 10, she hedged, according to Wilson's report: "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 forensic nurses make medical observations and not legal judgments, Levicy also put forward a second theory: "I wasn't surprised when I heard no DNA was found because rape is not about passion or ejaculation but about power."

Second thoughts

A few days later, Levicy called Wilson with second thoughts. She wanted to clarify her statement about rape and power. "Ms. Levicy stated that there are numerous reason [sic] why semen is not found in a victim and include: 1) condoms were used; 2) No ejaculation; 3) It didn't happen."

The lacrosse case had been marked by the number of people Nifong didn't interview. He didn't discuss the case with defense lawyers. His office didn't interview Mangum until Dec. 21; Nifong said he first spoke with her about the case Jan. 11, a day before he recused himself because of the State Bar's charges.

Another key witness was never interviewed by Nifong, Wilson or the Durham police.

On the morning of March 14, Levicy had asked Dr. Julie Manly to perform the pelvic examination on Mangum. Manly had performed numerous rape exams.

Mangum was different in several ways. Most rape victims are withdrawn and quiet but cooperative. Mangum, on the other hand, called attention to herself by screaming; Manly had never seen that behavior before, she told defense lawyer Doug Kingsbery in October.

Manly made one notation on the rape kit report: "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls." It was the only medical evidence in Nifong's files that might support Mangum's version of what occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

In an interview with Kingsbery, Manly said she did not recall seeing that kind of swelling in any of her previous sexual assault exams. Manly had seen similar swelling in others of the hundreds of routine pelvic exams she had performed, but there were other reasons for it.

During the exam of Mangum, Manly had seen discharge she assumed could be semen. After learning the rape kit turned up none, Manly came up with another possibility:

Mangum had the whitish discharge and vaginal swelling common to a yeast infection.

It's a routine and unremarkable diagnosis -- one that could have been discovered much earlier in Mike Nifong's investigation. But the "rogue prosecutor" described last week by Attorney General Roy Cooper was looking only to prove the stories of Crystal Gail Mangum.

Two days after Cooper declared Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann innocent, Nifong appeared at a hearing before the State Bar, which soon could take his law license. As he left, he was surrounded by reporters and photographers, much like last spring.

This time, he wasn't talking.

< Previous page