Tuesday, August 2, 2011

In response to the Unbelievers: the "Innocent Promulgation"

On July 31, 2011, a blog commenter with the moniker of Sid Owes Another Apology said...
“Sid,

I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.

Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.

Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers.”


This comment was in response to the previous blog in which I railed against the media for constantly misleading the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were proclaimed “innocent.” This claim was obviously based on the infamous April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation of Roy Cooper.” The A.G. made the unprecedented move of proclaiming the defendants innocent at the strong, arm-twisting urgings of Joseph B. Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon. The clever defense attorney needed this admission in order to utilize Rae Evans’ decade-long past history as CBS News executive to its fullest.


Once Cooper publicly stated that the Duke defendants were innocent, the biased mainstream media took hold of it and ran with it. Everywhere you looked the media presented as fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been proclaimed “innocent.” To many of the naïve, but trusting public, they took this to mean that they were “legally” found to be innocent. I repeatedly challenged the media about this purposely false misrepresentation, pointing to a statement made by former Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker. He stated that only a jury or judge, in lieu of a jury, can make determinations of innocence or guilt. The opposition has failed to provide a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so.

Due to the hullabaloo I continued to raise about this subject, the media’s statements about the Duke boys’ alleged “innocence” has morphed. As I pointed out in my previous blog, WRAL, in one of their online articles attribute to reporter Erin Hartness, wrote that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent by “state officials”… plural. In other words, it was trying to disguise the fact that the attorney general, from the executive branch of government made the proclamation. By using the plural, and suggesting that more than one person proclaimed them innocent, WRAL was trying to increase the credibility of the statement.

After confronting the station, I received a response from the news director. WRAL deserves kudus for replying to my e-mail and blog on the subject. The response I received supported my assertion in my previous blog that their statement of “innocence” was based on Cooper’s promulgation, and not upon declarations by “state officials” as stated in the article.

Blog commenter Sid Owes Another Apology doubted that I received any communication from WRAL and challenged me to post it. So, I will paste below the statement I received via e-mail on the matter:

“Gall, Rick to me, Aysu
show details Jul 17

Sid,

Thank you for contacting WRAL and sharing your thoughts. When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a news conference that charges against the three lacrosse players were being dropped, he specifically said they were "innocent". That's the source of our reporting.

Rick Gall
NewsDirector WRAL News”


So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official, who was from the executive branch of government, made the proclamation of “innocence”… a proclamation that carries no legal weight and is false and misleading.

Finally, in regards to statements I make, you can count on them being truthful. For me to present falsehoods in my blog would only take away from its credibility… and that is what this blog site is all about.

40 comments:

Sid Owes Another Apology said...

So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official… made the proclamation of “innocence”…

This statement is demonstrably false.

The statement that WRAL relied on Cooper’s statement does not “prove” that only Cooper declared the defendants innocent. In his press conference, he discussed the investigation conducted by “our lawyers and investigators.” (Note the plural.) He noted the conclusion reached by his team: “we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.” (Again, note the plural.)

As noted in the comment to which you replied, the AG’s report issued noted that Coman and Winstead joined in the “declaration” of innocence.

the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges…

You ignore the evidence.

Even if WRAL incorrectly believed that Cooper’s statement was the only source available to support their story, the assertion you made to me is demonstrably false. You may not rely on a misstatement by others to “prove” an assertion directly contradicted by evidence.

I apologize to you for doubting that you had received correspondence from WRAL.

Your statement is demonstrably false.

I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your last 2 blogs; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner; (4) apologize to your readers for your transparently false responses; and (5) apologize to me for ignoring the evidence I provided.

You have now failed to correct your error for 9 days. 


Sid Owes Another Apology said...

The opposition has failed to provide a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so.

You misrepresent what “the opposition” has claimed.

No one has claimed that the AG has the power to change the status of a defendant as guilty or innocent under the law. No one.

No one has provided “a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so” because no has made that claim.

For example, in my 7/31 comment you quoted in this blog, I stated: “No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight.”

In my 7/30 comment, I stated: “Cooper, Coman and Winstead did not claim their declaration of innocence had legal effect. No one has made this claim.”

Other comments have included statements to the same effect.

What do you find unclear?

I believe that you owe your commenters an apology. No commenter on this board has ever claimed that Cooper’s statement had legal effect. No one disagrees with this point.

I can only conclude that your repeated attempt to argue a point that is not contested is a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… “

Lance the Intern said...

I really can't understand what Sid's issue here is anyway. I don't think he has a problem (based on his previous statements) with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I would like to think that, since the Duke LAX 3 were not proven guilty in a court of law, Sid would agree that they are innocent of the charges brought against them.

His sole issue would appear to be WHO stated in a press conference that the LAX 3 were innocent, rather than their actual guilt or innocence. That's a ridiculous argument,IMO.

Sid Owes Another Apology said...

The A.G. made the unprecedented move of proclaiming the defendants innocent

Unfortunately, prosecutors or police rarely declare defendants to be innocent when they dismiss charges. Commenters have provided several examples of these declarations.

Justice would be better served if prosecutors provided greater clarity whenever "no credible evidence" supports charges and prosecutions are not justified.

Sid's use of the term "unprecedented" is false. He knows that.

Sid Owes Another Apology said...

Lance the Intern said...

His sole issue would appear to be WHO stated in a press conference that the LAX 3 were innocent, rather than their actual guilt or innocence. That's a ridiculous argument,IMO.

I think Sid starts with the premise that everyone is a complete moron with no understanding of how the justice system is supposed to work. I will concede that this assumption may be justified with some of the media.

Perhaps he benefits from personal experience. He felt the need to consult with Anthony Baker to confirm that Cooper's statement had no legal effect. Most of us already knew that answer.

Walt said...

Lance the Intern said: "His sole issue would appear to be WHO stated in a press conference that the LAX 3 were innocent, rather than their actual guilt or innocence. That's a ridiculous argument,IMO."

Agreed. It just goes to show how twisted Nifong's mind is.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Walt makes the point of the day! I believe that Sid actually contributes very little to this blog, instead getting his ideas, words and marching orders from Mr. Disbarred Nifong himself. (This also explains why Sid is so incompetent at defending his arguements effectively)

Anonymous said...

botom line, guys........who gives a flying rip what this racist thinks? As a person of color, I can tell you that I sure as heck don't! Sid just enjoys stroking himself with all his pseudo controversy, theft of other's work, bragging, and bull*** nonsense.
Pathetic little man with only his bitterness and racist views to bolster his ego

Anonymous said...

http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=MjAxMS8xMC0xMDkxLTEucGRm
Brian Meehan gets his day in court and gets slammed...again. If you have any lingering doubts that Nifong and Meehan collaborated and intentially with held exculpatory evidence this pretty much clears it up.

Anonymous said...

They were completely innocent because they had no physical contact with Crystal Mangum.No white man would even be able to have sex with her.It just isn't possible.

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

Anonymous said...

WHERE



IS



THE



GREAT



kilgo?

Harr Supporter said...

WHERE IS THE GREAT KILGO?

Unfortunately, The Great Kilgo has been the victim of a tragic accident.

As we know, The Great Kilgo is obsessed with the thought of anal sodomy using lacrosse sticks. She suggested that lacrosse players shoved lacrosse sticks up Crystal’s butt and were guilty of a sexual assault that left no DNA, and, importantly, no injuries. You may also recall that she anonymously (the comment had the same style and obsession) suggested that Crystal was charged with attempted murder in the Milton Walker altercation because Crystal tried to shove lacrosse sticks up Walker’s butt, again leaving no injuries.

In order to test her theories, The Great Kilgo asked some men she met in a bar to shove several lacrosse sticks up her butt. Unfortunately, she learned that anal sodomy with long, hard objects, such as lacrosse sticks, causes significant injuries. She suffered severe hemorrhaging and lost a significant amount of blood. She almost died.

As a result of this tragedy, she has been unable to post.

She continues to recover from her injuries. The prognosis is good for a partial recovery. She recognizes that if she posts again, she will be forced to admit that her theory was incorrect—Crystal would have suffered severe injuries had she been anally sodomized with lacrosse sticks—and she dreads making that admission. Others argued earlier that a SANE exam finding no anal injuries was proof that the sodomy hypothesis she suggested was false. The Great Kilgo, however, failed to research the Louima case as suggested by readers—to her current dismay.

As a result, The Great Kilgo feels foolish. She realizes now that she could have avoided a lot of pain and suffering if she had listened to others.

I am sure that you join me in wishing The Great Kilgo a full recovery.


Note to kenhyderal: I am being facetious.

Nifong Supporter said...


Sid Owes Another Apology said...
"So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official… made the proclamation of “innocence”…

This statement is demonstrably false.

The statement that WRAL relied on Cooper’s statement does not “prove” that only Cooper declared the defendants innocent. In his press conference, he discussed the investigation conducted by “our lawyers and investigators.” (Note the plural.) He noted the conclusion reached by his team: “we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.” (Again, note the plural.)

As noted in the comment to which you replied, the AG’s report issued noted that Coman and Winstead joined in the “declaration” of innocence.

the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges…

You ignore the evidence.

Even if WRAL incorrectly believed that Cooper’s statement was the only source available to support their story, the assertion you made to me is demonstrably false. You may not rely on a misstatement by others to “prove” an assertion directly contradicted by evidence.

I apologize to you for doubting that you had received correspondence from WRAL.

Your statement is demonstrably false.

I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your last 2 blogs; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner; (4) apologize to your readers for your transparently false responses; and (5) apologize to me for ignoring the evidence I provided.

You have now failed to correct your error for 9 days."


First, no apology is needed, although I will graciously accept it. I see nothing wrong with questioning the veracity of certain statements... however, I realize that if I make a false statement, I will be the one to suffer when it comes to credibility. Therefore, if I say I received communications from someone, you can take it to the bank.

Regarding the Cooper Promulgation, the A.G. may have said that Coman and Winstead agreed the defendants should have been pronounced innocent, but neither Coman nor Winstead stood before a microphone in front of media-types and made such a claim. So even if the we (plural, meaning Cooper, Coman, and Winstead) all believed that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent, only Cooper (singular) made the statement... and the statement to which the media relies upon in its reports to the public.

My delay in responding to many of the comments has to do with the fact that I don't have internet at home, and only have access to the web less than an hour a day. In addition, a lot of my time is spent working on flogs, very labor intensive... especially the next flog which will contain interactive buttons.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"I really can't understand what Sid's issue here is anyway. I don't think he has a problem (based on his previous statements) with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I would like to think that, since the Duke LAX 3 were not proven guilty in a court of law, Sid would agree that they are innocent of the charges brought against them.

His sole issue would appear to be WHO stated in a press conference that the LAX 3 were innocent, rather than their actual guilt or innocence. That's a ridiculous argument,IMO."


I believe that there should be a presumption on innocence by a jury in a criminal trial. However, when defendant(s) have been charged with a crime, it becomes the province of a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury to confer "innocence" or "guilt."

At the newsconfab on April 11, 2007, Attorney General Cooper, at the behest of Cheshire's underling Bannon, made a declaration of "innocence." Being from the executive branch of government, he is unable to do that. Media-types know that, yet they persist in giving credence to Cooper's declaration.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Lance the Intern said: 'His sole issue would appear to be WHO stated in a press conference that the LAX 3 were innocent, rather than their actual guilt or innocence. That's a ridiculous argument,IMO.'

Agreed. It just goes to show how twisted Nifong's mind is.

Walt-in-Durham"


It is important who makes the declaration of innocent. A three judge panel unanimously declared that Gregory Taylor was "innocent." Judge Orlando Hudson declared that Erick Daniels was "innocent." These declarations carry weight and validity, unlike the declaration of innocence that the attorney general made about the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

Thereby go ye enlightened.

Lance the Intern said...

"I believe that there should be a presumption on innocence by a jury in a criminal trial. However, when defendant(s) have been charged with a crime, it becomes the province of a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury to confer "innocence" or "guilt."

OK -- In the event that a prosecutor determines that there is either no evidence or not enough evidence to move forward with a trial and the charges are dropped, what then? Are the defendants not "innocent"?

Lance the Intern said...

"It is important who makes the declaration of innocent..."

Let me ask you a question, Sid -- is "innocent" a legal term?

Anonymous said...

"Note to kenhyderal: I am being facetious."

Where is ken the camel?

Harr Supporter said...

Sid,

A quick quiz. What was the legal status (i.e., innocent or guilty under the law) of the following defendants at the times indicated?

A. The lacrosse defendants
(1) when Nifong asked to be recused;
(2) prior to Cooper’s declaration of innocence;
(3) after Cooper’s declaration of innocence; and
(4) after prosecutors filed to have charges dismissed.

B. Alan Gell
(1) when defense attorneys discovered that prosecutors Hoke and Graves failed to provide exculpatory evidence that apparently cleared him;
(2) when a court set aside the prior verdict and Cooper ordered a new trial;
(3) after all evidence had been heard in that trial, but before the jury began deliberations; and
(4) after the jury delivered its verdict.

C. Greg Taylor
(1) when the Innocence Commission first took on his case;
(2) when a 3 judge panel agreed to hear the case;
(3) when the panel had heard the evidence, but before they rendered a decision; and
(4) after the panel rendered their verdict.

D. Erick Daniels
(1) when new evidence was discovered that apparently cleared him;
(2) when Hudson agreed to hear the case;
(3) after all evidence had been presented, but before Hudson delivered his decision; and
(4) after Hudson rendered his decision.

kenhyderal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kenhyderal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kenhyderal said...

Harr Supporter said... Note to kenhyderal: I am being facetious. 'T aint funny Magee. In fact it's rather sophmoric.

kenhyderal said...

Annonymous @ 5:46 wrote "Where is ken the camel?" I'm present and being enlightened by Dr.Harr

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"'I believe that there should be a presumption on innocence by a jury in a criminal trial. However, when defendant(s) have been charged with a crime, it becomes the province of a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury to confer "innocence" or "guilt."'

OK -- In the event that a prosecutor determines that there is either no evidence or not enough evidence to move forward with a trial and the charges are dropped, what then? Are the defendants not 'innocent'?"


No they are defendants against whom charges have been dropped. They have not been proclaimed "innocent" by a jury or judge in lieu of a jury. The media would like the public to believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants went through a legal process whereby the evidence was presented before a judge or jury and a verdict of "innocent" was reached. This is outrageous. Instead of saying that the Duke boys were "proclaimed innocent," "were cleared," "were exonerated," etc., what they should state is that "charges against the defendants were dropped." That is accurate and not misleading.

Nifong Supporter said...


Harr Supporter said...
"Sid,

A quick quiz. What was the legal status (i.e., innocent or guilty under the law) of the following defendants at the times indicated?

A. The lacrosse defendants
(1) when Nifong asked to be recused;
(2) prior to Cooper’s declaration of innocence;
(3) after Cooper’s declaration of innocence; and
(4) after prosecutors filed to have charges dismissed.

B. Alan Gell
(1) when defense attorneys discovered that prosecutors Hoke and Graves failed to provide exculpatory evidence that apparently cleared him;
(2) when a court set aside the prior verdict and Cooper ordered a new trial;
(3) after all evidence had been heard in that trial, but before the jury began deliberations; and
(4) after the jury delivered its verdict.

C. Greg Taylor
(1) when the Innocence Commission first took on his case;
(2) when a 3 judge panel agreed to hear the case;
(3) when the panel had heard the evidence, but before they rendered a decision; and
(4) after the panel rendered their verdict.

D. Erick Daniels
(1) when new evidence was discovered that apparently cleared him;
(2) when Hudson agreed to hear the case;
(3) after all evidence had been presented, but before Hudson delivered his decision; and
(4) after Hudson rendered his decision."


Thank you for taking time for the very interesting and thought provoking quiz.
My answers are as follows:

A. The Lacrosse players - None of the above, because the defendants had charges dismissed before the case went to trial.
B. Alan Gell (4) After the jury delivered the verdict. The jury proclaimed Gell "innocent." That is my point.
C. Gregory Taylor - (4) After the panel rendered its verdict. The three judge panel declared Taylor to be "innocent." Had they not reached that verdict, then he would be "guilty in the eyes of the law."
D. Erick Daniels - (4) After Judge Orlando Hudson rendered his decision. As Law Professor Anthony Baker stated, either a jury or judge in lieu of a jury can make a determination of "innocence" or "guilt" and have it legally binding.

Thank you again for the exercise.

Anonymous said...

Ken,
If you're enlightened by Sid, you must be ignorant as a brick to begin with. Seek higher sources and achieve true enlightenment.

kenhyderal said...

Camel? Brick? “If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”- Elbert Hubbard

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney,

I am please that you found my quiz instructive.

Unfortunately, you failed the test.

The correct answers are as follows:

A. (1) innocent; (2) innocent; (3) innocent; (4) innocent.
B. (1) guilty; (2) innocent; (3) innocent; (4) innocent.
C. (1) guilty; (2) guilty; (3) guilty; (4) innocent.
D. (1) guilty; (2) guilty; (3) guilty; (4) innocent.

You demonstrate a fundmental misunderstanding of the American justice system. A defendant is innocent under the law until he is found guilty in a court (by a jury or a judge in lieu of a jury). A defendant who has been found guilty is guilty under the law until a court sets aside that guilty verdict. At that point , the defendant is again innocent under the law.

Your answer for A is incorrect. The defendants were never found guilty in a court of law. As a result, the were innocent at all times. Cooper's declaration had no legal effect. They were innocent before and they remained innocent afterward.

Your answer for B is incorrect. Gell was again innocent under the law when the guilty verdict was set aside. A second trial was not necessary for him to regain his innocence. Had Cooper decided against a retrial, the jury could not have delivered a not guilty verdict, but Gell would nevertheless have been innocent under the law.

Your answers for C and D are correct. They were both guilty at the time of their hearings because the guilty verdict had not been set aside. The verdicts in those hearings set aside the earlier verdicts.

I agree that this quiz has been enlightening. You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding.

I suggest that you study the legal concept of innocence. We know that you do not want to continue to make the same mistake. Three years is long enough.

Anonymous said...

"I'm present and being enlightened by Dr.Harr."


Then, why don't you share with the group your views on the latest predicament in which your heroine, Crystal Gail Mangum, finds herself?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

When can we expect to see your analysis of the Reginald Daye autopsy report? Are you standing by your story that he was walking around and ready to leave the hospital shortly before his death?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid,

When can we expect to see your analysis of the Reginald Daye autopsy report? Are you standing by your story that he was walking around and ready to leave the hospital shortly before his death?"


I have just received by e-mail a copy of the autopsy report on Reginald Daye. You can bet that I will be going over it and producing a flog about it as soon as possible. First, however, I have a flog that is almost ready to be posted... it is regarding a pardon for Erick Daniels.

Anonymous said...

Mr Harr,
You owe nothing less to your readers than a complete retraction of all statements made in your April 16, 2011 blog about the manner of Reginald Daye's death. Currently available and certified information prove your "sources" to have been telling you falsehoods which you repeated here. A retraction, clarification and, to be nice, an apology are called for. He was brain dead as a direct result of trauma and its sequelae and the "plug pulled." He was at no time after admission "up and walking around" ready for discharge as you so eargly wanted to portray. He was stabbed with a narrow, long blade it seems and has defensive wounds to prove he was being attacked. Can't wait to hear some twisted logic and new conspiracy theories!

Anonymous said...

Sid -- I'll note here that my comments from last week have been removed. They were quite enlightening -- especially to kenhyderal.

Lance the Intern said...

Another thing to note-- The autopsy report had this to say about Mr. Daye:

"Liver....
The capsule is intact and the angles are sharp. On section, the red brown surfaces are unremakable with out evidence of cirrhosis or neoplasia." Odd, considering the drinking problem you reported, isn't it Sid?

Lance the Intern said...

Hmm -- posted a comment regarding Mr. Daye's autopsy results and notes from the medical examiner, came back to the site, and the comment was gone.

We'll see how long this one lasts, but I'll simply note you can google "Reginald Daye Autopsy results" and read them for yourself.

The medical examiner investigation notes can be found here:
http://lincolnparishnewsonline.fi
les.wordpress.com/2011/08/reginal
d-daye-investigation.pdf

Needless to say, there's no way that Mr. Daye is up walking around before he died. He was in a severe coma (Glasgow coma score = 3) from April 6th on.

Sid does indeed owe a retraction for all of his lies.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Mr Harr,
You owe nothing less to your readers than a complete retraction of all statements made in your April 16, 2011 blog about the manner of Reginald Daye's death. Currently available and certified information prove your 'sources' to have been telling you falsehoods which you repeated here. A retraction, clarification and, to be nice, an apology are called for. He was brain dead as a direct result of trauma and its sequelae and the 'plug pulled.' He was at no time after admission 'up and walking around' ready for discharge as you so eargly wanted to portray. He was stabbed with a narrow, long blade it seems and has defensive wounds to prove he was being attacked. Can't wait to hear some twisted logic and new conspiracy theories!"


I haven't had a chance to go over the autopsy, which was released after a four month delay, but from a cursory review, this is the first mention that I've heard of any "defensive wounds to the arm." Can you cite me any source prior to the appearance of the autopsy report wherein there is mention of "defensive wounds" or injury to Daye's arm? Surely, the media would have mentioned it... no?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid -- I'll note here that my comments from last week have been removed. They were quite enlightening -- especially to kenhyderal."


Did you remove your comments? I certainly did not. My policy is strictly against removing, or in any way censoring comments... regardless of their content and taste.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"Hmm -- posted a comment regarding Mr. Daye's autopsy results and notes from the medical examiner, came back to the site, and the comment was gone.

We'll see how long this one lasts, but I'll simply note you can google 'Reginald Daye Autopsy results' and read them for yourself.

The medical examiner investigation notes can be found here:
http://lincolnparishnewsonline.fi
les.wordpress.com/2011/08/reginal
d-daye-investigation.pdf

Needless to say, there's no way that Mr. Daye is up walking around before he died. He was in a severe coma (Glasgow coma score = 3) from April 6th on.

Sid does indeed owe a retraction for all of his lies."


Again, this blog site does not remove comments or engage in any form of censorship. Feel free to re-post if you feel the need.

Regarding Reginald Daye, I will post a blog about it later this week.

Anonymous said...

"I'm present and being enlightened by Dr.Harr."


"Then, why don't you share with the group your views on the latest predicament in which your heroine, Crystal Gail Mangum, finds herself?"

Has kenhyderal gone missing, or is he just too embarrassed by his past posts to comment further?