I'm back on the minutae of the Duke case.
There is a lot of discussion going on about the work of the nurse who collected the rape kit and the doctor who actually did the exam.
With more discussions here and here.
Let me deal with just the work of Dr. Manly (who is a woman).
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 Most rape victims are withdrawn and quiet but cooperative.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.Let me refresh your memory on the time line. October of 2006 would be at least four months after Mike Nifong announced that no semen from the Duke players was found on Magnum (the dancer). It was several months before it was announced that semen from others was found on Magnum. Also note that no discharge was noted in the medical exam (rape kit) report.
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.
This seems quite strange. Unless Dr. Manly thought she was covering her tracks for some sin of omission or commission. Isn't there any one associated with the Durham side of this case competent? Or at least with enough honor to tell the truth?
Newport at Liestoppers has altered my view of this question. There was in fact no semen (in detectable quantities) found. What was found was a very few sperm from a number of different men.
Still called into question was why the rape kit report did not have the "discharge" observation noted and why no pictures were taken of Magnum's injuries.