Monday, August 8, 2011

“Race played no role” in Governor’s denial of pardon for Daniels


Click Link below to view interactive flog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog6redo.html

Script of flog

On Friday, September 9, 2008, Erick Daniels, at 22 years of age was freed after more than seven years of incarceration after being convicted of a September 21, 2000 armed robbery. His road to freedom had begun in late 2004, when attorney Carlos Mahoney began to appeal Daniels’ conviction. Despite several unsuccessful appeals, including a setback in January 2007 when the state’s Court of Appeals denied his case, Mahoney was undaunted and persevered.

Then in September 2008, state prosecutors, knowing they had a pitifully weak case against Erick Daniels, offered an Alford plea deal… wherein he would deny involvement in the crime but acknowledge evidence existed for his conviction in exchange for his immediate release. Had he accepted the plea deal, Daniels would forever be branded a felon. With faith in his attorney, Daniels refused to accept the deal… he would take his chances with an appeals hearing in hopes of getting a new trial.

During two days of the hearing, in which attorney Mahoney dissected the prosecutors’ case against Daniels like a skilled surgeon, the evidence to support Daniels’ innocence was so substantial and overwhelming, that Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson took the initiative to dismiss the charges and proclaiming that Erick Daniels was innocent.

Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”

Lending support to Judge Hudson’s assessment was the fact that in 2003 Daniels submitted to a polygraph tests in which he denied robbing the victim, denied pointing a gun at the victim and denied being present when the robbery took place. According to polygraph examiner Steve Davenport, “It is my opinion there were no reactions indicative of deception to those relevant questions.”

Not only that, but a young man who fit the description of the armed perpetrator and had a history of committing armed robberies, had confessed to his attorney that he was responsible for the September 2000 armed robbery for which Daniels was convicted.

Shortly after Daniels was proclaimed innocent by the judge and released, Durham attorney Gladys Harris began filing a petition for a pardon of actual innocence on behalf of Erick Daniels. Such a pardon was a prerequisite for him to be able to receive financial compensation for his years of wrongful incarceration… as legislated at the North Carolina General Assembly.

In 2010, attorney Carlos Mahoney met with Eddie Speas, Will Polk, and Barry Jenkins, and he requested that Governor Perdue grant Daniels’ petition and issue a pardon of actual innocence. To assist the governor, Mahoney even provided a notebook containing pleadings and trial transcripts.

Apparently in February 2011, the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency denied a pardon of actual innocence for Erick Daniels, but failed to notify him or his attorney. It was only in mid-April 2011 that Daniels accidentally uncovered the panel’s decision. An article titled, “Erick Daniels denied pardon,” in the April 20, 2011 edition of the “Independent Weekly” brought this to my attention, as all other mainstream media outlets ignored the story.

Erick Daniels’ petition for a pardon was not the only one presented to Governor Perdue… she also received one from Gregory Flynt Taylor.

I had been a staunch supporter of Gregory Taylor since 2009 when I first learned through the media of his questionable conviction for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Like many others, I admired and was in awe of Greg Taylor’s integrity, principles, courage and ethics. Rather than falsely implicate an African American man, who Greg knew to be innocent, at the urgings of prosecutor Tom Ford in the Thomas murder case, Greg refused, and as a result spent seventeen of his best years behind bars. He was facing life in prison.

Gregory Taylor, who was found innocent of the murder by a unanimous three panel judge during mid February 2010, immediately sought a pardon from the governor after his exoneration.

When a pardon for Taylor was not forthcoming in what I considered a timely manner, I hand delivered a letter to Governor Perdue on April 12, 2010. I questioned the delay in her response to his request for a pardon. No reply was forthcoming.

The following month, on May 21, 2010, I hand-delivered another letter to the Capitol building for the governor. Again, I received no response. However, shortly thereafter an official pardon was granted by Governor Perdue.

On June 1, 2011, a little over a month following the “Independent Weekly” article about Daniels’ petition for a pardon being denied, I hand-delivered a letter to the governor. I pointed out how Erick Daniels had been unjustly convicted, served seven years wrongly incarcerated, and how he, like Gregory Taylor, had been declared “innocent” by a judge or judges.

Finally, I asked the governor to explain why the Office of Executive Clemency denied Daniels’ request for a pardon. I did not hear from her office.

On July 13, 2011, roughly six weeks after the previous letter, I hand delivered another for the governor. In it, I praised her for granting the pardon to Gregory Taylor, although belatedly. Furthermore, I specifically expressed that I did not feel that because Erick Daniels is an African American that he should be disqualified from being given a pardon. I expressed to her that unless I received an explanation for the denial of Erick Daniels’ petition, I would conclude that the decision to deny his request for a pardon was racially based. To this letter, I did receive a reply from the Office of the Governor.

On July 27, 2011, I received a letter from the governor’s office dated July 26th. It was written by her general counsel Mark A. Davis. He vigorously denied that race played any role in Governor Bev Perdue’s decision to deny Erick Daniels a pardon… that it was based on results of their extensive investigation that failed to prove his innocence. Then he stated that “confidentiality concerns” prevented him from sharing details of this investigation with me.

I have many serious problems with Mr. Davis’s reply. First he suggested that the Governor’s Office conducted an extensive investigation. I don’t believe it. If they did, in fact, investigate Daniels’ case as he claimed, then it was an extravagant waste of taxpayer dollars.

Secondly, he averred that due to “confidentiality concerns” he was unable to share results of the investigation. The confidentiality concerns excuse is commonly used to obstruct and to make opaque and keep from the public information that is damaging to officials, be they in the corporate or governmental spheres. However, what I find most hypocritical is the illusion that Governor Bev Perdue places a high value on “transparency.”

Thirdly, and most importantly, the governor decided that the findings of their alleged investigation did not support Erick Daniels’s innocence. By such a statement it is inferred that she approached the Daniels’ case with a presumption of guilt… this, after Judge Hudson dropped the armed robbery charges against Daniels and proclaimed that he was innocent.

What the governor fails to understand is the basic concept found in Civics 101 called the separation of powers. The governor, like the attorney general, belongs to the executive branch of government. Judicial decisions are handed down by those belonging to the judicial branch of government. Proclamations of “innocent” or “guilt,” whether made by the governor or the attorney general, carry no legal weight.

Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 promulgation in which he declared the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent” is as invalid and irrelevant as Governor Perdue’s claim that Erick Daniels is “guilty” of armed robbery.

To summarize, the entire gist of the governor’s letter was that race played no role in the governor’s decision to deny Daniels’ request for a pardon of innocence, and that the secret extensive investigation they conducted contradicts the ruling of Judge Hudson… but they can’t divulge results of their investigation due to confidentiality concerns.

This letter from the Office of the Governor actually hurt my feelings as my intelligence was justifiably insulted. Mr. Davis’s letter profoundly failed to convince me that the denial of a pardon for Erick Daniels was not based on racism.

The onus remains on the governor to come up with another excuse for denying Daniels a pardon, or to do the right thing by reversing the February 2011 decision, and granting Erick Daniels a pardon of innocence.


37 comments:

Walt said...

Sid, you almost got it right, but then you let Nifong get to you. If you were to FOIA the pardon's office and the Governor, you could obtain the results of their investigation. Instead you let Nifong talk you into trying to use Erik Daniels' case to advance the hoax. Shame on you.

It's too bad you won't look independently into the Daniels case.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Sid, you almost got it right, but then you let Nifong get to you. If you were to FOIA the pardon's office and the Governor, you could obtain the results of their investigation. Instead you let Nifong talk you into trying to use Erik Daniels' case to advance the hoax. Shame on you.

It's too bad you won't look independently into the Daniels case.

Walt-in-Durham"


Walt, do you honestly believe that the Governor's Office conducted an investigation? Of course they didn't. And if they did, why not reveal the results. "Confidentiality concerns" is a well-worn excuse used to obscure, obfuscate, and shield the truth... the truth being that no investigation was conducted.

However, the fact is that Erick Daniels was proclaimed "innocent" by a judge, and that is all that should matter. Should someone in the executive branch be permitted to overrule a judge? I don't think so.

Bottom line, Walt: Do you think Governor Perdue should pardon Erick Daniels?

Anonymous said...

Typical Sid...No proof that the Governor's office did or didn't conduct an investigation, but you're gonna say they didn't anyway.

You are aware that Erick Daniels can have his pardon case reviewed again in light of new evidence, right? He also has the option of having his record expunged.

Oh, and he still intends to pursue a civil complaint against the cash-strapped City of Durham for the role of its employees in his wrongful conviction.

That last part sound familiar?

Anonymous said...

Sid, you completely ignored what Walt said. YOU CAN FOIA THE PARDON'S OFFICE AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. They have to provide you with the results of any completed investigations or give you good cause that it is to be kept under wraps. Daniel's case has merit, please don't infuse it with your ill will in the LAX hoax. I happen to think he deserves a pardon, and I hope he as well as the Duke LAX defendents further starve the "cash-strapped" city of Durham of even more cash so maybe they'll finally wake up and start acting right.

Anonymous said...

In Walt's defense (not that he needs it) -- Walt is telling Sid to FOIA the Governor and Pardon's Office.

The problem is that Sid would rather make sh!t up than actually take the time to research.

Anonymous said...

"This letter from the Office of the Governor actually hurt my feelings as my intelligence was justifiably insulted."

Based on the garbage you post here, I refuse to believe it is possible to insult your intelligence.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, you completely ignored what Walt said. YOU CAN FOIA THE PARDON'S OFFICE AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. They have to provide you with the results of any completed investigations or give you good cause that it is to be kept under wraps. Daniel's case has merit, please don't infuse it with your ill will in the LAX hoax. I happen to think he deserves a pardon, and I hope he as well as the Duke LAX defendents further starve the 'cash-strapped' city of Durham of even more cash so maybe they'll finally wake up and start acting right."


I do not for a minute believe that the governor's office conducted a realistic investigation into Erick Daniels. That is a bogus lie. The reason they cannot share any information with me is not because of "confidentiality concerns", but because there's no report to begin with. Everything overwhelmingly points to Erick Daniels being innocent.

I don't agree that the cash-strapped city of Durham should suffer, as that would be detrimental to all Durhamians. However, I feel he definitely deserves the compensation as guaranteed by the General Assembly for his wrongful years of incarceration.

Anonymous said...

"I do not for a minute believe...."

There's belief, Sid, and there's fact. You apparently cannot tell one from the other, and continually argue from your beliefs rather than fact.

Here's a quick English lesson:

Bogus:not genuine

Lie: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

A "bogus lie" would therefore be a statement that is genuinely believed to be true, or an assertion that is genuinely made with no intent to deceive.

Therefore go ye enlightened

Walt said...

Well Sid, if you won't FOIA the records, you'll never know.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Guys, guys....you forget something here. Sid has NO interest in facts, truth, evidence, research or anything else that does not match his one-eyed racist wing nut self-stroking view of the world. We have had years of this dribble spilled out from a person with a room temperature IQ. Judge Sid knows all, folks. Just ask him.... what a waste of oxygen

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'I do not for a minute believe....'

There's belief, Sid, and there's fact. You apparently cannot tell one from the other, and continually argue from your beliefs rather than fact.

Here's a quick English lesson:

Bogus:not genuine

Lie: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

A 'bogus lie' would therefore be a statement that is genuinely believed to be true, or an assertion that is genuinely made with no intent to deceive.

Therefore go ye enlightened"


Anonymous, thank you for showing me the light. I will never use the phrase "bogus lie" again.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Well Sid, if you won't FOIA the records, you'll never know.

Walt-in-Durham"


Walt, don't you understand. No independent investigation about Erick Daniels was conducted by the Governor's Office. There's nothing for the FIOA to look up.

Furthermore, if the Governor's Office did conduct such an investigation, it would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Walt said...

Amazing Sid, you wrote: "Walt, don't you understand. No independent investigation about Erick Daniels was conducted by the Governor's Office. There's nothing for the FIOA to look up."

Sid, if you made the request, you would find out if the Governor's office did, or did not do an investigation. You have a letter that says they did. Of course, you don't seem all that interested in the facts. Indeed, you seem afraid to send a FOIA request. Might that request discover some facts you are afraid of?

"Furthermore, if the Governor's Office did conduct such an investigation, it would be a waste of taxpayer money."

On this point we agree, though I suspect for differing reasons. Your "research" on the Daniels case is, as with your research on so many things, incomplete.

Article III, Section 5(6) of the North Carolina Constitution (which you do not have to FOIA to find and read) gives the Governor the power to grant pardons and clemency, though not parole, after conviction of any crime, excpet impeachment. Had Erik Daniels applied for a pardon sometime before September 19, 2008 the Governor would have had the power to pardon or commute his sentence. However, on September 19, 2008, the Superior Court vacated his conviction and dismissed the charged against Daniels for lack of evidence. Thus, after September 19, 2008 there was no conviction from which Daniels could be pardoned. Note the contrast between the power of the Governor to pardon only after conviction and the power of the President under the U.S. Constitution (again something you don't need to FOIA) to grand pardons for all offenses, regardless of conviction or even charge.

The letter you recieved from the Governor's general counsel Mark Davis reflects the poor quality of legal advice she is receiving. He should have advised her, and written you that the Governor has no power to pardon where there is no conviction. Daniels conviction was vacated and the charges dismissed. That is bettter than a pardon by any objective standard.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sid said:
"I don't agree that the cash-strapped city of Durham should suffer, as that would be detrimental to all Durhamians."

Well if they continue to elect and appoint to office those who cause these problems, then they should suffer the consequences. Only true consequences harshand pleasant change behavior, which is perhaps why CGM ended up where she is as she never received any harsh consequences for her bad/criminal behavior in the past. She has, however, received coddling and praise from apologists likes you, which have likely served to reinforce her bad/criminal behavior.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Amazing Sid, you wrote: 'Walt, don't you understand. No independent investigation about Erick Daniels was conducted by the Governor's Office. There's nothing for the FIOA to look up.'

Sid, if you made the request, you would find out if the Governor's office did, or did not do an investigation. You have a letter that says they did. Of course, you don't seem all that interested in the facts. Indeed, you seem afraid to send a FOIA request. Might that request discover some facts you are afraid of?

'Furthermore, if the Governor's Office did conduct such an investigation, it would be a waste of taxpayer money.'

On this point we agree, though I suspect for differing reasons. Your 'research' on the Daniels case is, as with your research on so many things, incomplete.

Article III, Section 5(6) of the North Carolina Constitution (which you do not have to FOIA to find and read) gives the Governor the power to grant pardons and clemency, though not parole, after conviction of any crime, excpet impeachment. Had Erik Daniels applied for a pardon sometime before September 19, 2008 the Governor would have had the power to pardon or commute his sentence. However, on September 19, 2008, the Superior Court vacated his conviction and dismissed the charged against Daniels for lack of evidence. Thus, after September 19, 2008 there was no conviction from which Daniels could be pardoned. Note the contrast between the power of the Governor to pardon only after conviction and the power of the President under the U.S. Constitution (again something you don't need to FOIA) to grand pardons for all offenses, regardless of conviction or even charge.

The letter you recieved from the Governor's general counsel Mark Davis reflects the poor quality of legal advice she is receiving. He should have advised her, and written you that the Governor has no power to pardon where there is no conviction. Daniels conviction was vacated and the charges dismissed. That is bettter than a pardon by any objective standard.

Walt-in-Durham"


So according to your reasoning, Walt, since Greg Taylor was declared "innocent" by a three judge panel, he was not eligible for the pardon he received by the governor... right?

Anonymous said...

Nope, Sid. Try your best to understand. It's big words.... the charges against Taylor were never dropped, therefore, he WAS eligible. Good grief, Sid. Take your medication.

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

Anonymous said...

Yo Sid,

Where's that review of the Reginald Daye autopsy report you've been promising? I'm expecting it will be hysterical. Have you been consulting again with your sources who had the information regarding Mr. Daye's condition while he was hospitalized?

Walt said...

Sid, anonymous on August 11, 2011 7:16 AM has it right. When you wrote: "So according to your reasoning, Walt, since Greg Taylor was declared "innocent" by a three judge panel, he was not eligible for the pardon he received by the governor... right?"
You were completely wrong. You mis-characterized the constitution of this state. Given that I don't have a full copy of the letter you recieved from the Governor's general counsel, I am now very much in doubt of its contents as well.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Yo Sid,

Where's that review of the Reginald Daye autopsy report you've been promising? I'm expecting it will be hysterical. Have you been consulting again with your sources who had the information regarding Mr. Daye's condition while he was hospitalized?"


I haven't had time to write about my opinions of the Autopsy report on Reginald Daye, but suffice it to say that it is loaded with problems. Especially when the cause of death is listed as "complications from a stab wound." Surely the medical examiner should be able to get a little more specific. I'll probably write about it in a blog, then, time permitting, follow up with a flog.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Sid, anonymous on August 11, 2011 7:16 AM has it right. When you wrote: 'So according to your reasoning, Walt, since Greg Taylor was declared "innocent" by a three judge panel, he was not eligible for the pardon he received by the governor... right?'
You were completely wrong. You mis-characterized the constitution of this state. Given that I don't have a full copy of the letter you recieved from the Governor's general counsel, I am now very much in doubt of its contents as well.

Walt-in-Durham"


Hey, Walt.
The letter I received is on the flog I just posted. All you have to do is click the button that says "Click to View" in order to view the documents, which includes the letter from General Counsel Mark A. Davis. Let me know if you have any problems accessing it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Nope, Sid. Try your best to understand. It's big words.... the charges against Taylor were never dropped, therefore, he WAS eligible. Good grief, Sid. Take your medication."


You are mistaken. A pardon of innocence is granted to someone who is convicted of a crime and in which the charges are later dismissed or dropped... as Judge Orlando Hudson did in Erick Daniels' case.

Walt said...

"You are mistaken. A pardon of innocence is granted to someone who is convicted of a crime and in which the charges are later dismissed or dropped... as Judge Orlando Hudson did in Erick Daniels' case."

No Sid, you are the one who is mistaken. The conviction stood, thus the Governor had the authority under the constitution to issue a pardon. The charges are dismissed, but the conviction stands. Thus the Governor has the authority to issue a pardon. A distinction with a significant difference. Had the legislature authorized the three judge panel to vacate the conviction, then no excutive pardon would be needed as the defendant's record would show a charge, conviction, vacation of the conviction and dismissal. In otherwords, the defendant would return to his status as innocent by virtue of the vacation of the conviction. Again, you are ignoring the constitution and the laws. That severely diminishes your credibility.

Walt-in-Durham

PS, there are two types of pardons in North Carolina, one the type where the defendant admits guilt and asks for clemency the other where the defendant denies guilt and asks the executive to declare him/her innocent. At common law we understood the executive to only possess the power to issue clemency. However, the NC Constitution grants the governor much broader power, though not as broad a power as the US Constitution grants the President.

Anonymous said...

No white man would ever touch an ugly prostitute like Crystal Mangum.

Harr Supporter said...

The Governor can grant a Pardon of Innocence “when an individual has been convicted and the criminal charges are subsequently dismissed. Application for this type of Pardon allows an individual to petition the Governor for a declaration of innocence when the individual has been erroneously convicted and imprisoned and later determined to be innocent. In such cases where this Pardon is granted, an individual is allowed to seek compensation from the State. Please refer to N.C.G.S. § 148-82, regarding Provision for Compensation and N.C.G.S. § 148-84, regarding Evidence; Action by Industrial Commission; Payment and Amount of Compensation.”

Source: http://www.doc.state.nc.us/clemency/
glossary.htm

However, as is often the case, Sidney is confused.

He confuses a Pardon of Innocence with innocence under the law. They are different concepts. The pardon is a statutory power designed to permit the wrongfully convicted to be compensated by the State. The State cannot be sued as a result of its sovereign immunity. Legal innocence is not the only requirement; the Governor retains the power to deny a pardon to those who are legally innocent.

Perdue is not “overruling” Hudson. Daniels remains legally innocent despite her decision to deny a pardon.

Based on the information available, Daniels appears to deserve a pardon and compensation. However, Sidney’s inaccurate analysis weakens his case. When readers conclude that he has no understanding of basic concepts and little interest in facts, they may dismiss his opinion altogether.

Anonymous said...

"I haven't had time to write about my opinions of the Autopsy report on Reginald Daye, but suffice it to say that it is loaded with problems."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Keep on dreaming Sid.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "No white man would ever touch an ugly prostitute like Crystal Mangum."

Another overt racist statement. When bored, just write another racist comment and reveal the underlying prejudice.

Anonymous said...

Racist statements by anybody, including YOU, Sid, are a sure sign of fear, ignorance, and, well, in your case, limited capacity. Before you point your judgmental finger at anybody else, take a look in the mirror, pal.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of what a Duke co-ed said at the time of the rape hoax - "Those guys could get any girl they wanted.They would never have to stoop that low."

Anonymous said...

Mike and I really enjoy reading your blog, Sid. Keep up the good work, and don't be deterred by the yahoos who post here.

Anonymous said...

Sid, three physician friends of mine read the autopsy report on Reginald Daye and the Police Incident report in depth. All of them agree that the findings are (a)completely accurate, (b)not at all surprising, (c)show no evidence at all of any problems, and(d)are highly consistent with the damage from the huge initial stab wound. Per the reports, Mr. D. had a cardiac arrest on April 6, and subsequently never recovered from a comatose state. His internal injuries were massive. By the way these physicians are trauma surgeons, and, one has extensive forensic experience. What gives you the superior experience and skill, as a retired primary care doctor, to say that you have problems with the findings? And what exactly are these "problems"? Let's hear something substantive for a change and SPARE US the dribble about your "sources".

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...

"I haven't had time to write about my opinions of the Autopsy report on Reginald Daye, but suffice it to say that it is loaded with problems. Especially when the cause of death is listed as 'complications from a stab wound.' Surely the medical examiner should be able to get a little more specific. I'll probably write about it in a blog, then, time permitting, follow up with a flog."

Sid,

The suspense is killing us. Why the delay? Still searching for more of your nutjob sources?

Anonymous said...

Good old Durham Justice:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08
/17/1417805/without-bones-no-
murder-trial.html#ixzz1VJ8UGbO7


Looks like Tracey Cline is as good a "minister of justice" as her mentor, Mike Nifong.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, three physician friends of mine read the autopsy report on Reginald Daye and the Police Incident report in depth. All of them agree that the findings are (a)completely accurate, (b)not at all surprising, (c)show no evidence at all of any problems, and(d)are highly consistent with the damage from the huge initial stab wound. Per the reports, Mr. D. had a cardiac arrest on April 6, and subsequently never recovered from a comatose state. His internal injuries were massive. By the way these physicians are trauma surgeons, and, one has extensive forensic experience. What gives you the superior experience and skill, as a retired primary care doctor, to say that you have problems with the findings? And what exactly are these "problems"? Let's hear something substantive for a change and SPARE US the dribble about your "sources"."


Do me a favor and have your three physician friends look at the flog that I am about to post... then tell me what they think.

The reports are very telling... they tell of a sloppy report and poor cover-up. No one knows why Daye died... How did a stab wound in the torso lead to cardiac arrest? Too many questions. Look at the flog.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Nifong Supporter said...

'I haven't had time to write about my opinions of the Autopsy report on Reginald Daye, but suffice it to say that it is loaded with problems. Especially when the cause of death is listed as 'complications from a stab wound.' Surely the medical examiner should be able to get a little more specific. I'll probably write about it in a blog, then, time permitting, follow up with a flog.'

Sid,

The suspense is killing us. Why the delay? Still searching for more of your nutjob sources?"


The suspense is nearly over. I will post the flog in a few seconds. It was a rush job, and is not up to my usual standards... sound effects and background music are missing... some of the transitions are a bit jerky. But I was in a rush to upload it before taking a week off.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Mike and I really enjoy reading your blog, Sid. Keep up the good work, and don't be deterred by the yahoos who post here."


Thank you for the kind words. The yahoos don't bother me. I enjoy mentally jousting with them... with the hopes that they might eventually become enlightened.

Anonymous said...

"How did a stab wound in the torso lead to cardiac arrest?"

Really Sid? I honestly mean it this time -- really? You WERE a freakin' medical doctor and you don't know that The most common causes of cardiac death (not related to cardiac disease) are: trauma, non-trauma related bleeding (such as gastrointestinal bleeding, aortic rupture, and intracranial hemorrhage), overdose, drowning and pulmonary embolism.

a 2 minute google search will give you this information.

You're an embarrassment to the medical profession.