Thursday, February 2, 2012

The misguided and unenlightened hurt themselves

It is such a rarity when politicians tell the truth, especially Republicans, that it is quite refreshing when, on occasion, they do. One incident of actual truth-telling occurred yesterday, when Republican presidential hopeful Mitch Romney, giddy from his thorough trouncing of his party’s competitor for the presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, put his brain on cruise control and allowed his mouth to speak without monitoring its content. In response to a question posed to him during a television interview, Mitt Romney stated that he’s “not concerned about the very poor.” This should be no revelation to anyone who follows politics in this country as no Republican cares about the very poor. Not John Boehner, not Eric Cantor, not Renee Elmers, not Thom Tillis... the list goes on. What is surprising is that he actually said it.

Now Newt Gingrich was quick to pounce on Romney’s statement by stating that he “cares about all Americans.” I have a problem with such a hypocritical statement coming from Newt as it is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans. Everyone with a scintilla of common sense knows that Gingrich no more cares about the poor or the very poor than does Romney or other conservative Republicans. At least Romney put a health care system in his state of Massachusetts that covered the health care needs of most of its residents and was the national model of what’s become known as “Obamacare.” However, Romney exhibits his lack of courage by denying ownership of it because the Conservatives and Tea Partyers started bandying about the term “socialized medicine” when discussing it. Instead of shrieking from it, Romney should have boasted about it. After all, what is the alternative for the poor and needy who lack health insurance… to let them die?

Take the following example: suppose an infant with a high fever showing signs and symptoms of meningitis presents at the emergency room door, and he/she is not covered by health insurance. The Conservatives’ answer is to deny him/her medical treatment and allow him/her to die. This would not occur in a country with socialized medicine; not even a Third World nation. Many of the poor and the very poor, and even the not so poor in this country are lacking health insurance, and yet the Republicans are trashing President Obama’s efforts to provide health care coverage for all by labeling his endeavors as “socialized medicine.”

Socialism is a term that the majority of Americans have been taught to fear. What is so ludicrous is that the millions of Americans who are poor and/or in dire financial straits should be embracing its principles, which place the best interests of society before those of a privileged few. Instead, they are railing against the socialists policies that would work to their greatest benefit. In other words, they are brainwashed to act against their own interests by the wealthy and those in power.

In a follow up, Mitt Romney, whose wealth has been estimated at a quarter of a billion dollars and who pays an income tax rate of 13% (which is substantially lower than that paid by the majority of poor), stated that he didn’t worry about them because of the “safety net” that is in place for the indigent. What safety net? The millions of American citizens who are living on the streets, in automobiles, and in shelters would like to know about these so-called “safety nets.” He must have been referring to the room and board and medical care provided by the Prison Industrial Complex, for in some states it is a crime to be poor. In Wake County and the city of Raleigh, for example, it is a crime to panhandle without a permit… the Wake County permit must be renewed weekly. And the requirements for Johnston County’s panhandling permits are even more stringent, requiring a photo id and a criminal background check.

Food stamps, health care provided by Planned Parenthood, and other charitable programs and agencies have been under an onslaught by Republicans on a national and state level depriving needy Americans and Tar Heelians of the basic necessities of survival. And the GOP members, especially North Carolina’s own Congresswoman Renee Elmers, have been obstructionists in preventing President Obama and some of the Democrats from passing legislation to provide relief for those who have suffered from economic policies that have for so long favored the wealthiest. Without doubt, their motive in dragging down the country in a whole scale manner is to provide enough discontent amongst voters in order to cast blame on the incumbent president and persuade those who are suffering most to elect a corporate friendly GOP presidential nominee.

Americans need to enlighten themselves and take measures to protect the interests of all instead of the few at the summit. Most Americans should support the Occupy movements which call for economic equity and which call for an end to corporate greed. But all too often those individuals ensconced deep within the bowels of the 99% and who are without jobs, shelter, and do not know where their next meal is coming from, are the very ones who are detractors of the very movement that is attempting to come to their aid. They are not enlightened and are victims of a massive Jedi mind trick perpetrated by the avaricious privileged.

When Duke University discriminated against me in April 2010 because of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, I fought back, and continue to fight, for the protection of the First Amendment Rights of all Tar Heelians. Duke University, relying on its relationship with the media and heavily counting on the courts for help, has been waging an all-out battle to deprive me of my rights. Make no mistake, I am fighting not only for myself, but for all of the millions of residents in this state. Yet, many are misguided by the anti-Nifong propaganda that has flooded the state. Those who have been blinded by the murky media marketing and have failed to see the light are the ones who have taken glee in chiding and mocking me for fighting the good fight. What my detractors fail to realize and/or understand is that our fates are all linked together, and if you value your First Amendment Rights to have independent thought, opinions, and beliefs, then you should be standing besides me in the trenches.

An unenlightened populous will be more likely to elect officials under whose policies they will suffer most, be more prone to attack movements which are paradoxically fighting for their legal and social interests, and are most apt to ridicule the efforts of those making sacrifices on the social justice front lines to protect their liberties.

287 comments:

1 – 200 of 287   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Best yet.....winds the award for "Total meltdown by a whacko".
Since you and Victoria are in love, and since VP doesn't think gays and lesbians ought to have domestic partner health insurance benefits because they are disease ridden, and since not every single gay and lesbian person in this country is rich, then I guess we all find it hard to believe that YOU, Sid, "care about the poor". What YOU care about is entitlements, hand outs, racial quotas. government run healthcare, and racist/bigoted/homophobic agendas. That, fella, is what YOU care about.
Instead of yelling about what Romney and Newt are doing, not doing, how about you get off your socialist backside and actually go out and help your neighbor? how about that, DOCTOR Harr?

Anonymous said...

You are not a "movement". You are not fighting for my rights. You do not represent me. The Occupy movement, whatever the hell that is, MAY have had a few people in it initially with good intentions and bright ideas. Now, it has degenerated into a bunch of church desecrating, property wrecking thieves, drug users, rapists and thugs. Join em, Sid. You ought to fit right in....only,geez, I thought you didn't go for "beer guzzling debauchery and ogling women". I guess that must be OK for your crowd under certain circumstances.....

Anonymous said...

It's Mitt Romeny not Mitch Romney.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "When Duke University discriminated against me in April 2010 because of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, I fought back, and continue to fight, for the protection of the First Amendment Rights of all Tar Heelians. Duke University, relying on its relationship with the media and heavily counting on the courts for help, has been waging an all-out battle to deprive me of my rights. Make no mistake, I am fighting not only for myself, but for all of the millions of residents in this state."

Pardon my French but French is indicated here.

BULLSHIT!!!!

You are carrying on a vendetta against three innocent men because they were not convicted after Crystal Mangum falsely accused them of rape.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Those who have been blinded by the murky media marketing and have failed to see the light are the ones who have taken glee in chiding and mocking me for fighting the good fight."

Sid-ninny, we call you out because you are a deluded megalomaniac.

Further you have done nothing except make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations.

Don't forget, you claimed the media reported that Mr. Daye was stabbed with a paring knife. The media said he was stabbed with a kitchen knife.

You then said that a paring knife qualified as a kitchen knife, therefore you reported accurately.

Yet you can't see why no one takes you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney.

Anonymous said...

You da man, Sid, you da man.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, this kitchen knife/paring knife thing must have really caught you unprepared. I notice you do not resort to your usual dodge, namely, I have my information from my reliable sources.

Walt said...

Sid, Romney's comment about the poor was inappropriate, if accurate. However, what he was saying is we have a good safety net for the poor. As far as that goes, Mit Romney is right. The error of his comment is that we do not have enough social mobility to allow more of the poor to move out of poverty. That social mobility has never been worse than it is today. Of course a part of that has to do with Obama protecting the too big to fail banks and brokerages who fund his campaign.

Turning to taxes, it is the Democrats, particularly Bev Perdue who has raised and tried to raise even more the taxes that fall most heavily on the poor. The sales tax and the lottery. True the lottery is voluntary, but we knew before it passed that poor people play the lottery in disproportionately high numbers.

Writing of taxes, you are plainly wrong when you claim Mit Romney pays a lower rate than poor people. If a poor person does not have a job, he or she pays no federal income or social security taxes. If he does work, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts a poor or even low wage earner pays no federal income taxes! None, zip, zilch, nada. And, it's Bev Perdue and the NC Democratic Party that wants to raise the sales tax that falls most heavily on the poor. But, you wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Finally, turning to health care, a poor child in the emergency room gets Medicare or SCHIP insurance coverage. So, no concern about his or her medical care. Indeed, Medicare or SCHIP will pay for wellness checks and Doctor visits outside of the ER as well. Indeed because doctor visits outside the ER are much less expensive, medicare and SCHIP prefer that the poor take advantage of those services.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
It's Mitt Romeny not Mitch Romney.

Thanks. Must've been a typo.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "When Duke University discriminated against me in April 2010 because of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, I fought back, and continue to fight, for the protection of the First Amendment Rights of all Tar Heelians. Duke University, relying on its relationship with the media and heavily counting on the courts for help, has been waging an all-out battle to deprive me of my rights. Make no mistake, I am fighting not only for myself, but for all of the millions of residents in this state."

Pardon my French but French is indicated here.

BULLSHIT!!!!

You are carrying on a vendetta against three innocent men because they were not convicted after Crystal Mangum falsely accused them of rape.

I have no vendetta against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. I am not suing them. I'm suing Duke University for violating my First Amendment Rights. Plain and simple.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid, Romney's comment about the poor was inappropriate, if accurate. However, what he was saying is we have a good safety net for the poor. As far as that goes, Mit Romney is right. The error of his comment is that we do not have enough social mobility to allow more of the poor to move out of poverty. That social mobility has never been worse than it is today. Of course a part of that has to do with Obama protecting the too big to fail banks and brokerages who fund his campaign.

Turning to taxes, it is the Democrats, particularly Bev Perdue who has raised and tried to raise even more the taxes that fall most heavily on the poor. The sales tax and the lottery. True the lottery is voluntary, but we knew before it passed that poor people play the lottery in disproportionately high numbers.

Writing of taxes, you are plainly wrong when you claim Mit Romney pays a lower rate than poor people. If a poor person does not have a job, he or she pays no federal income or social security taxes. If he does work, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts a poor or even low wage earner pays no federal income taxes! None, zip, zilch, nada. And, it's Bev Perdue and the NC Democratic Party that wants to raise the sales tax that falls most heavily on the poor. But, you wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Finally, turning to health care, a poor child in the emergency room gets Medicare or SCHIP insurance coverage. So, no concern about his or her medical care. Indeed, Medicare or SCHIP will pay for wellness checks and Doctor visits outside of the ER as well. Indeed because doctor visits outside the ER are much less expensive, medicare and SCHIP prefer that the poor take advantage of those services.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I still say, "What safety net?" If there was a safety net in place, millions of people would not be homeless, hungry, and unable to afford the basic health care. The Republican influence has been used to deprive women in need of healthcare when the Conservatives forced the Komen Foundation to stop making its measly donations to Planned Parenthood. Face it, neither Romney, Trump, Gingrich, nor most Republicans care about the very poor.

And the reason that the very poor don't pay taxes is because they don't have the money. They don't have homes or addresses. They don't have jobs. Income tax is based on income, and if there is no income how do you expect them to pay income tax? Romney with his mainly investment income of $42million annually, should not be paying 13%, but should be paying at least 75%. Republicans should be grateful that I'm not in politics.

Lance the Intern said...

"Republicans should be grateful that I'm not in politics.

Trust me when I say that it's more than just republicans that are glad you're not in politics.

Based on your commits regarding Mr. Daye and his death, there's undoubtedly quite a few that are glad you no longer practicing medicine, too.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I have no vendetta against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. I am not suing them. I'm suing Duke University for violating my First Amendment Rights. Plain and simple."

You would not have published the things you have published if you had no vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players. You would not be questioning their innocence.

You couldn't sue the Lacrosse players because you have no standing to sue them.

And you are suing Duke because you are a deluded megalomaniac.

Walt said...

Sid, take a deep breath. "And the reason that the very poor don't pay taxes is because they don't have the money. They don't have homes or addresses. They don't have jobs."

For those people, there is no tax on income. However, they do come into money and they do buy things. There is a sales tax and Perdue wants to increase it. Further, we know that the sales tax falls most heavily on the poor. Again, Perdue and the Democrats want to increase the sales tax. The GOP does not.

"Income tax is based on income, and if there is no income how do you expect them to pay income tax?"

Prior to the Bush tax cuts, the income tax reached much lower into the low income section of earners. His tax cuts did away with that.

"Romney with his mainly investment income of $42million annually, should not be paying 13%, but should be paying at least 75%."

Mit Romney paid all the tax that he owed. Yes, he has mostly interest, dividend and capital gains income. Thus he pays a lower tax rate because the law allows him to. For decades we have pursued a lower tax on dividends, interest and capital gains because economic studies indicated that those investment activities generated jobs and a stronger economy. By the way, Romney pays closer to 15% federal income tax and gives to charity about an equal amount. He's not the bad guy in this. And we should not begrudge him his success.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney.

Anonymous said...

Hi sid. How's Victoria? Being courageous? Tolerating us disease ridden drags on good clean Christian folks?

Anonymous said...

Hi sid. How's Victoria? Being courageous? Tolerating us disease ridden drags on good clean Christian folks?

Anonymous said...

You da man, Sid, you da man.

Anonymous said...

"instead of shrieking from it, romney should have boasted about it". .....sid
Sid what exactly is "shrieking from it" ?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny:

I believe, a few years ago, you published in your blog that Mike Nifong could have convicted the Lacrosse Defendants beyond a reasonable doubt even though he had no credible evidence.

You would have published something like that only if you believed the Lacrosse players were guilty.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, you made a big deal of Crystal's ability to identify David Evans, Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty as her assailants.

You did not make a big deal as to how unreliable those ID's were:

She had been unable to give a description of Colin Finnerty when first questioned by police.

She could not identify either David Evans and Reade Seligman at two previous identification sessions.

Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty were not present in the Lacrosse house at the time of the alleged crime.

Crystal said she would be 100% sure David Evans had assaulted her if he had had a mustache. David Evans never had a mustache.

You would never have posted such things about Crystal's ID's of her assailants unless you believed them guilty.

Anonymous said...

Sure sid thinks the rich evil white boys got away with raping the innocent exotic dancer who was just a single mom, college student, trying to make a,living for her children. Right. And i believe that someday i will be slim, run the marathon, live on a houseboat and not have to work.
About as likely as Reverend Barber drinkin' sugar free ice tea

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, you keep saying you should not have to testify for Crystal, that the murder charges against her should be dismissed.

If your knowledge of the case is such strong evidence that the charges should be dropped, wouldn't it make sense you go to court and testify on your behalf?

Why do you not want to?

Anonymous said...

Like i said, i would buy a ticket to see,sid,on a,witness stand. Now that's entertainment!!!!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid, take a deep breath. "And the reason that the very poor don't pay taxes is because they don't have the money. They don't have homes or addresses. They don't have jobs."

For those people, there is no tax on income. However, they do come into money and they do buy things. There is a sales tax and Perdue wants to increase it. Further, we know that the sales tax falls most heavily on the poor. Again, Perdue and the Democrats want to increase the sales tax. The GOP does not.

"Income tax is based on income, and if there is no income how do you expect them to pay income tax?"

Prior to the Bush tax cuts, the income tax reached much lower into the low income section of earners. His tax cuts did away with that.

"Romney with his mainly investment income of $42million annually, should not be paying 13%, but should be paying at least 75%."

Mit Romney paid all the tax that he owed. Yes, he has mostly interest, dividend and capital gains income. Thus he pays a lower tax rate because the law allows him to. For decades we have pursued a lower tax on dividends, interest and capital gains because economic studies indicated that those investment activities generated jobs and a stronger economy. By the way, Romney pays closer to 15% federal income tax and gives to charity about an equal amount. He's not the bad guy in this. And we should not begrudge him his success.

Walt-in-Durham

With all due respect, Walt, I wholeheartedly disagree. As far as I'm concerned, Mitt Romney is nothing more than a parasite, like many of the wealthiest. He rakes in the money, but doesn't contribute to society. As far as business goes, he might be good at making a profit... but unfortunately, that sometimes means cutting the work force and shipping manufacturing and jobs overseas where it's cheaper. His success in business is in making profits, not creating jobs.

As far as him legally paying taxes... what do you expect? The rich politicians make laws that benefit the wealthy... themselves. Doing something that is legal and doing something that is morally fair are not the same thing.

In my opinion, he is a bad guy who doesn't care about the poor, the very poor, or anyone other than the wealthy.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"instead of shrieking from it, romney should have boasted about it". .....sid
Sid what exactly is "shrieking from it" ?

Thank you for the grammatical question. The word I intended to use was "shrinking" instead of "shrierking"... which is a noise.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny:

I believe, a few years ago, you published in your blog that Mike Nifong could have convicted the Lacrosse Defendants beyond a reasonable doubt even though he had no credible evidence.

You would have published something like that only if you believed the Lacrosse players were guilty.

I don't recall. If you could be more specific about the blog I will look into it. As with most things, it needs to be taken in context.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny, you made a big deal of Crystal's ability to identify David Evans, Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty as her assailants.

You did not make a big deal as to how unreliable those ID's were:

She had been unable to give a description of Colin Finnerty when first questioned by police.

She could not identify either David Evans and Reade Seligman at two previous identification sessions.

Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty were not present in the Lacrosse house at the time of the alleged crime.

Crystal said she would be 100% sure David Evans had assaulted her if he had had a mustache. David Evans never had a mustache.

You would never have posted such things about Crystal's ID's of her assailants unless you believed them guilty.

I don't know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty or not. To my knowledge, I have never stated in writing in my blog that I believed that they were guilty. That's really not my focus... never has been. I'm more concerned about the injustice against Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny, you keep saying you should not have to testify for Crystal, that the murder charges against her should be dismissed.

If your knowledge of the case is such strong evidence that the charges should be dropped, wouldn't it make sense you go to court and testify on your behalf?

Why do you not want to?

I would have no problem testifying at a trial for Crystal, the problem is that the prosecution wouldn't dare to call me!

Nifong Supporter said...


Hold on to your hats! A new flog is about to be posted... maybe tomorrow.... maybe Tuesday... No later than Wednesday of this week.

Enjoy the Super Bowl, mon amis.

May enlightenment enter your craniums.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I would have no problem testifying at a trial for Crystal, the problem is that the prosecution wouldn't dare to call me!"

But the defense would if you had anything which would benefit Crystal. Obviously, you know nothing which would support her case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I don't recall. If you could be more specific about the blog I will look into it. As with most things, it needs to be taken in context."
The context was, someone quoted to you Mr. Nifong's admission that he had no credible to incriminate the Lacrosse defendants. You went into some monologue about credible evidence being tangible evidence and non credible evidence being intangible evidence, e.g.. circumatantial evidence. As I recall, you claimed Mr. Nifong had enough non tangible evidence to convict.

I hope that refreshed your recollection.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I don't know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty or not. To my knowledge, I have never stated in writing in my blog that I believed that they were guilty. That's really not my focus... never has been. I'm more concerned about the injustice against Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum.'

you never would have published what you have unless you believed they were guilty. you may not have written the words but your attitude is clear.

So far as Mr. Nifong, you know the NC bar will not unilaterally restore Mr. Nifong's law license. Your devotion to that cause is a justification for your blog, which is a vendetta against the innocent Lacrosse players whom Crystal Mangum falsely accused.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, specify exactly were the injustices perpetrated against Mr. Nifong and Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Hold on to your hats! A new flog is about to be posted... maybe tomorrow.... maybe Tuesday... No later than Wednesday of this week."

Boy, isn't that thrilling - NOT!!!

Anonymous said...

"dont take things out of context".......really sid? As in what you did to romney over his remarks about not being concerned with poor people? What a bleepin hypocrite you are!
We get it ,sid. You are a no class sad little man. I hope the day comes when brodhead and you Both eat so much crow, you choke on it. And that day WILL come.

Anonymous said...

"The misguided and unenlightened hurt themselves"

And sid-ninny is a perfect example.

Anonymous said...

In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty. the three individual who were falsely charged are innocent. they were NOT proven guilty. etc.etc.etc., Sid. How many times do you need to be reminded that you are living in and enjoying the benefits of the United States of America, where "innocent until proven guilty" is a bedrock of our justice system? You want to be a socialist? There are other countries that have this form of government; I urge you to consider relocation to a country that suits your political leanings and, according to you, takes much better care of its citizens.

Anonymous said...

I think Sid-ninny has put on his Darth Vader suit and is waving his aems around, thinking he us causing cataclysmic events to happen, like the upcoming day of reckoning for the anti Nifong forces.

Lance the Intern said...

"Hold on to your hats! A new flog is about to be posted... maybe tomorrow.... maybe Tuesday... No later than Wednesday of this week."

But will this one be the EPIC one you've been promising for months now?

Given your recent track record, I very much doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Sid has a pattern. here it is.
1. make wild accusations and postulate wild theories, as though they are FACTS. these are sid-isms.
2. Offer no proof to back up his Sid-isms.
3. tell us he has sources that supply his information, on the inside. very sinister. very sophisticated. very cool.
4. when challenged, sid either goes silent or answers with a silligism....a silly, beside the point nonsense statement. he learned this from Kenny Hissy Fit
5. If further questioned, Sid begins to wave his black-victim-evil-oppressor-justice-truth-socialist flag. god bless the socialist republic!
6. When the kitchen begins to heat up, sid bails and starts a new "flop" on a different topic.
7. Sid attempts to be humorous. He fails.
8. Sid attempts to be accurate. He fails.
9. Sid gets caught with his pants down, over and over, when confronted by the truth.
10. Sid pouts, trots out his "I am a doctor" suit and, if all else fails, calls up the spirit of jesus.
and so it goes.....as the stomach turns

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ February 6, 2012 9:49 AM:

Permit me to disagree with you. I say again that, like the kid in the VW commercial from the 2011 Super Bowl, Sid-ninny puts on a Darth Vader suit, waves his arms and thinks he is causing cataclysmic events :-).

Lance the Intern said...

"Mitt Romney is nothing more than a parasite, like many of the wealthiest. He rakes in the money, but doesn't contribute to society....In my opinion, he is a bad guy who doesn't care about the poor, the very poor, or anyone other than the wealthy."

Sid -- A quick google search revealed that Mitt Romney and his family donated $7 million dollars to charity over the last 2 years. Some of the recipients include:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (obviously),
The Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis,
Dana Farber Cancer Institute,
George W. Bush presidential library,
Harvard Business School


The Romney family charitable giving was 16.4% of their income. How much of your income is given to charity?

kenhyderal said...

undertaiAnonymous @ 9:49 AM said: "(When challenged).. "answers with a silly, beside the point nonsense statement. he learned this from Kenny Hissy Fit"............. Could you site an example, that demontrates this phenomena, you claim Dr. Harr has learned from me

Anonymous said...

ah, we see here the classic example of another tactic that the distinguished dr. harr has learned from Kenny hissy fit......the "please give me an example"....a tactic as was recently employed by Sid when he tried to dodge a poster's statements about sid's references to the "guilt" of the lacrosse guys. we all love it when kenny and sidney (twins, some would say.....) hold hands and sing kum-ba-ya.

Anonymous said...

Ken-Ninny-hyderal:

A recent example of a Sid-ninny silligism is the issue of the weapon used to stab Reginald Daye. Sid-ninny has been proclaiming the media said it was a paring knife. The media said it was a kitchen knife. Sid said a paring knife qualifies as a kitchen knife and therefore he accurately reported what was in the media.

A silligism of your own is your hypothesis about the night of 13/14 March 2006:

You say that unidentified people at the party perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault on Crystal(Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape).

You further say that the Lacrosse players knew who the perpetrators were, but covered up for them, to the extent that they would allow three innocent players to be indicted for the crime by a rogue DNA who was determined to convict regardless of the lack of evidence of the alleged crime.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny, specify exactly were the injustices perpetrated against Mr. Nifong and Ms. Mangum.

Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred, and forced to resign from his elected position as the Durham district attorney. Furthermore he was denied immunity from civil prosecution for his actions as a prosecutor, the Attorney General's office refused to represent him at his hearing before the State Bar, and Attorney General Cooper called on the U.S. Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Mr. Nifong for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case.

Regarding Crystal, all of the charges in the February 2010 incident were trumped up against her as a vendetta prosecution. She was the victim of domestic abuse in that instance. In the April 2011 incident, she stabbed Reginald Daye in self-defense and should not be charged with first degree murder or larceny, as Daye's death was due to medical malpractice or a hospital homicide. The larceny charge... ridiculous, as she paid for the money orders that she was alleged to have taken with her. In all instances, trumped up bogus charges as a vendetta prosecution against her.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"Hold on to your hats! A new flog is about to be posted... maybe tomorrow.... maybe Tuesday... No later than Wednesday of this week."

But will this one be the EPIC one you've been promising for months now?

Given your recent track record, I very much doubt it.


The upcoming flog is not the epic one. That is still months away from online release. It is one that you won't want to miss. The upcoming flog, which will probably be posted tomorrow, is about my lawsuit against Duke. And it is very enlightening.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"Mitt Romney is nothing more than a parasite, like many of the wealthiest. He rakes in the money, but doesn't contribute to society....In my opinion, he is a bad guy who doesn't care about the poor, the very poor, or anyone other than the wealthy."

Sid -- A quick google search revealed that Mitt Romney and his family donated $7 million dollars to charity over the last 2 years. Some of the recipients include:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (obviously),
The Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis,
Dana Farber Cancer Institute,
George W. Bush presidential library,
Harvard Business School


The Romney family charitable giving was 16.4% of their income. How much of your income is given to charity?

I'm not really impressed by Mr. Romney's so-called charitable giving... I am not impressed by some of the organizations he gave his donations to either...
the Bush library and Harvard Business School? I'm sure he made donations because he was politically motivated to do so, and because he was able to get a big tax write-off as a result.

I do not have the financial assets of Romney and am not in a fraction of the top 1%, but if I had his wealth, I would donate around 50% of my annual wealth to worthy causes to help the many "very poor."

Thereby go ye enlightened.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred, and forced to resign from his elected position as the Durham district attorney. Furthermore he was denied immunity from civil prosecution for his actions as a prosecutor, the Attorney General's office refused to represent him at his hearing before the State Bar, and Attorney General Cooper called on the U.S. Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Mr. Nifong for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case."

Another example of a Sid-ninny silligism.

It is obvious to anyone but a ninny that Mr. Nifong was prosecuted and disbarred because he attempted to perpetrate a wrongful prosecution of innocent men for his own political advantage.

All of what Sid-ninny cited regarding Crystal Mangum had nothing to do with the false allegations of rape she made against the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

Another Sid-ninny silligism:

The Durham police went into Crystal's apartment and started the fire in the bathroom just so they could charge her with arson.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I do not have the financial assets of Romney and am not in a fraction of the top 1%, but if I had his wealth, I would donate around 50% of my annual wealth to worthy causes to help the many 'very poor.'"

Your advocacy of Mike Nifong as a vehicle by which you can carry on your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players shows you wouldn't know a good cause if it bit you.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The upcoming flog is not the epic one. That is still months away from online release. It is one that you won't want to miss."

Yes it is.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Thereby go ye enlightened."

A deluded megalomaniac is incapable of enlightening any one, spacially himself

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "[Reginald] Daye's death was due to medical malpractice or a hospital homicide."

Who told you this?

Was it the same source who told you Reginald Daye was stabbed with a paring knife?

That source would be your deluded megalomaniacal imagination.

Anonymous said...

charitable donations are deductible....for the rich and for the poor, sid. do you not file a tax return these days? what per cent of your income DO you donate to the "very poor" and just how do YOU determine who is worthy of your charity? You didn't mention the Mormon church donations made by Romney because that would be just too, well, just toooo obvious, wouldn't it, sid?
Last time I checked, this was still a free country and we are still able to pick our charities. One of these days, let's have a look at the charities that Obama donates to.....and see about the per cent of HIS income he donates. shall we? Could it be that your dream president donates to the evil establishment, too?

Anonymous said...

Sid-Ninny: "[Reginald] Daye's death was due to medical malpractice or a hospital homicide."

Why are you so reluctant to testify to that for the defense?

Another Sid_ninny silligism:

"I would have no problem testifying at a trial for Crystal, the problem is that the PROSECUTION(emphasis added) wouldn't dare to call me!

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I do not have the financial assets of Romney and am not in a fraction of the top 1%".

But you would like to be closer to them, considering you statement that if anyone deserved a $20 million settlement from Duke it is you.

Another Sid-ninny silligism:

He was caught violating Duke's solicitation policy. Now he's suing Duke over that to protect everyone's First Amendment rights.

Quite a statement for someone who condoned Mr. Nifong'disregard for the constitutional rights of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Lance the Intern said...

"I'm not really impressed by Mr. Romney's so-called charitable giving."

Here I'll note several things

-- It's not "so-called" charitable giving. It's actual charitable giving. One would think a purported physician (even a retired one) would recognize the important work being done at The Dana Farber Cancer Institute or the Pediatric MS Center.

-- Mitt Romney is an alumnus of Harvard Business School, which would explain his donations to that organization.

--I'll also note that you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask once again...How much of your income is given to charity? I'll further ask -- what charity specifically do you give to?

Anonymous said...

Let's review, as they say.....
Nifong didn't do it
Sister didn't do it
Sid didn't do it
Cline didn't do it
Victoria didn't do it
But those evil white boys DID IT! What else is there to say....
Who needs justice? We have Sid.
Hosanna...

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 12:03 said: "You say that unidentified people at the party perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault on Crystal(Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape)"..... No, that assult could have deposited un-identified DNA. Crystal was under the influence of a intoxicating substance, not self-administered, so her recolection of her assult is, understandably, sketchy. Anonymous also said: "You further say that the Lacrosse players knew who the perpetrators were, but covered up for them, to the extent that they would allow three innocent players to be indicted for the crime"....... Two of the charged Players had solid alibies. Perhaps the third charged person was involved in non-DNA depositing crimes and commanded the loyalty of those non-involved players who were only witnesses. The unidentified non-team members could, perhaps, have implicated team members, who were also involved, had these members revealed their identities.

Anonymous said...

No kenny. You have it all wrong.
Elvis did it!
What a dip xxxx you are.......

Anonymous said...

Always remember - no white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum even if she paid them.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Two of the charged Players had solid alibies. Perhaps the third charged person was involved in non-DNA depositing crimes and commanded the loyalty of those non-involved players who were only witnesses. The unidentified non-team members could, perhaps, have implicated team members, who were also involved, had these members revealed their identities'

Another example of a ken-ninny-hyderal sillygism.

Again, French is indicated:

BULLSHIT!!!

More later when I have the time/

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Two of the charged Players had solid alibies. Perhaps the third charged person was involved in non-DNA depositing crimes and commanded the loyalty of those non-involved players who were only witnesses."

The third charged player was David Evans. Crystal could not reliably identify David Evans as an assailant. She said she would have been 100% sure that David Evans was an assailant if he had had a mustache. David Evans never had a mustache. Shortly after his indictment, David Evans spoke to the press and denied that any sexual assault had taken place.

It is implausible that David Evans, after being wrongfully accused, would have refused to identify the real perpetrators had there been any real perpetrators and had he known them.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

Again, Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape perpetrated by a number of Lacrosse players. If that had indeed happened, there would have been evidence on the rape kit. There was no such evidence.

Mr. Nifong made it clear, despite the lack of evidence, he would prosecute. At his behest, three men were charged with a class I felony which carried a sentence of 30 years in prison.

Your hypothesis is that unknown people, whose existence can not be established, perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault. You say members of the Lacrosse team knew who the perpetrators were.

What your implausible hypothesis boils down to is that innocent men would submit to indictment, prosecution by a rogue prosecutor who was determined to convict in spite of the lack of evidence, run up millions of dollars in legal expenses, all to cover up for the real perpetrators.

You can protest you concern for Crystal all you want. I say, like Sid-ninny, you are angry that Crystal's false allegations did not result in the wrongful conviction of innocent white men.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, you express indignation at the discreditation of Crystal Mangum, something the innocent lacrosse players' attorneys never orchestrated.

But you do not think it was inappropriate for Crystal to falsely accuse them, causing all the opprobrium to which they were subjected, causing them to spend millions of dollars to defend themselves.

Whatever you think, I believe it is a bit wrong to subject innocent men to such treatment.

Anonymous said...

The REAL reason behind Sid's and Kenny's (twins, separated at birth, no doubt) angst is NOT Nifong. Nifong/Mangum is a cover, more PC correct, NON racist cause that these two wingnuts can support. They do not have the cajones to admit to the REAL burr under their saddles...which is....the evil rich white men did not do a damn thing to Mangum. The thing that just chaps Sid's backside (and kenny's) is that these men were INNOCENT. These guys, the infamous 88, administrators at Duke who suck up to the liberal gender/sex/class academic airheads (like Wahneeeeeena Lubiano) and the NY Times were literally salivating that they had their prototype villans who should be castrated. And, gosh darn it, the problem with the whole tale was that the men did not do it! Shucks and golly.
So, rather than admitting to their racism, sid, kenny, victoria and a handfull of whackos like them transfer their righteous anger from the failed plan to crucify the lacrosse guys to the new "victims"......poor Sister and poor Nifong.
Call it whatever you wish, Sid and Kenny. We ALL know what really just frost your Axx.....the guys didn't do it.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred..."

No. He was given a fair hearing. A hearing where the evidence showed that he lied to the court. He held numerous (50+) press conferences and media availability where he misrepresented facts to the public. He concealed evidence even after he had been ordered to turn it over. He violated the NTI process by not immediately turning over the results as required by the NTI statute. That is all in the record, not opinion or supposition.

"..., and forced to resign from his elected position as the Durham district attorney."

That's what the law requires when you are no longer permitted to practice law.

"Furthermore he was denied immunity from civil prosecution for his actions as a prosecutor,..."

As those actions, persuing a prosecution without probable cause, were outside the scope of authority of the District Attorney, he was rightly denied civil immunity. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the appropriate remedy for prosecution without probable cause is civil liability.

"the Attorney General's office refused to represent him at his hearing before the State Bar,..."

Correct they were. The Attorney General never represents lawyers in disciplinary actions.

Nifong is the worst of a bad lot. Disbarring him was an absolute necessity.

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @3:14 AM said "Again, Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape perpetrated by a number of Lacrosse players. If that had indeed happened, there would have been evidence on the rape kit. There was no such evidence"..... Crystal did not know who was who. DNA deposition can not be timed. Anonymous also said :"
Your hypothesis is that unknown people, whose existence can not be established, perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault" No, I beleive they did leave DNA

Anonymous said...

Oh, so you think DNA was left which was, let me guess, destroyed by Dave Evans' mother.....and her evil heehaw jihad. you betcha, kenny......

kenhyderal said...

Found but un-identified.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:"Your hypothesis is that unknown people, whose existence can not be established, perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault" No, I beleive they did leave DNA".

Why did the forensic exam of the rape kit reveal only old, degraded male DNA which did not match any member of the Lacrosse team.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal did not know who was who."

So why did Crystal tell the police early on she did not know who instead of falsely accusing members of the Lacrosse team.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Your hypothesis is that unknown people, whose existence can not be established, perpetrated a non DNA depositing sexual assault" No, I beleive they did leave DNA"

Still, if a criminal defendant were to offer as a defense that some other individual perpetrated the crime, that would not constitute reasonable doubt unless the defendant could show that individual had, among other things, opportunity and motive.

In your implausible belief, you can not even establish the existence of these other people.

So explain how your implausible hypothesis creates doubt about, no sexual assault took place at 610 North Buchanan on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You still have given no plausible explanation for this, that men who could identify these unknown perpetrators(whose existence you can not establish) would not reveal those perpetrators once they had been indicted by an obviously rogue prosecutor who was determined to convict them in the face of no evidence of the alleged crime.

For this to even begin to be a possibility, let alone a plausible possibility, you would first have to establish that these unknown perpetrators exixted.

For the record, DNA from Crystal's boyfriend was recovered from her person.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

I again point out that DNA security concluded, and Sid-ninny and Wendy Murphy accepte that this DNA was not deposited on Crystal's person at the time of the alleged rape.

I say, even you accepted that. You did state in a comment toone of Sid-ninny's blog posts that Crystal, like most coeds, was sexually active and the finding of old, degraded DNA on her person was not remarkable.

Basically, you have not established the presence of male DNA on Crystal's person that belonged to any male.I remind you, the forensic exam of the rape kit found no evidenc of what would have been left behind in a DNA depositing rape.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal did not know who was who."

G read Crystal's statement. Read also the transcript of the improper lineup procedure in which Crystal supposedly identified assailants.

Crystal alleged that multiple members of the Lacrosse team, who did not wear condoms, who penetrated her, ejaculated upon her.

It is possible to tell the difference between old, degraded DNA and fresh DNA. Brad Bannon learned that prior to exposing the conspiracy between Mike Nifong and Brian Meehan to conceal the finding of that old, degraded DNA on Crystal's person.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, you should consider the implications of what you are saying. You are saying the non Lacrosse DNA was deposited at the time of the alleged rape, that it belonged to the unknown rapists.

What you are saying is that Mike Nifong deliberately concealed exculpatory evidence. He concealed evidence which would identify the real perpetrators so he could prosecute innocent men.

Run that by Sid-ninny and see what he thinks.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Furthermore he[Mike Nifong] was denied immunity from civil prosecution for his actions as a prosecutor,...".

Sid-ninny, you have just admitted that Mr. Nifong did not adhere to the ethical standards required of a prosecutor.

If he had adhered to those standards, for what acts should he have been granted immunity?

Anonymous said...

From me: "So why did Crystal tell the police early on she did not know who instead of falsely accusing members of the Lacrosse team."

I should have said: So why did Crystal not tell the police early on she did not know who instead of falsely accusing members of the Lacrosse team?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyeral

The transcript of the improper lineup is in either "Rush to Injustice" or "It'd Not About the Truth".

Anonymous said...

Once again, for the challenged, Mangum, the wingnut left poster child for downtrodden conspiracy victims, LIED.
There were multiple male samples in and on her body (from the kit analysis) that included non-degraded DNA. (five plus distinct samples). One false fingermail, found in a wastebasket full of trash from the homeowners, had Evans' DNA, as I recall. None from the three in, on, around her body. NONE.
Mangums told Levicy the men did NOT use condoms....four times. When Mangum was confronted with the truth of no DNA from the accused in or on her, she CHANGED her story. (well, yeah, maybe they did not condoms). How convenient!
There were no zero zilch nada defense marks on Mangum. NONE.
She claimed to be "sore" (subjectively reported to Levicy) but there was no Objective finding of pain during assessment.
Remember within a couple of days, Mangum was back pole vaulting......on the same night the pot-bangers staged their candlelight vigil at the house, yelling that the players should be castrated and that the poor victim was in "agony".
If we are to believe Kenny-hissy, we have to believe that the phantom rapist, who was unknown to and unseen by the partygoers, crept into the house during the party, raped Sister and left no DNA, and spirited himself out without being seen.
Yep, I am absolutely convinced.....Elvis did it

Anonymous said...

correction: when mangum changed her story about the condoms, having heard that the accused left no trace of themselves in or on her, the changed story was that the accused DID use condoms.
as I said, convenient.....

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "DNA deposition can not be timed."

Therefore you can not establish as fact that the "unknown DNA" allegedly found on Crystal's person was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

With regard to condoms, at the ethics trial, Tara Levicy pointed out in least three places in the medical record that Crystal's alleged assailants did not use condoms.

Mr. Nifong, before the Medical record was available, explained the absence of evidence by claiming the alleged perpetrators had used condoms.

Anonymous said...

So far as David Evans DNA on Crystal's false fingernail, it was kilgo(one of Ken-ninny-hyderal's sources) who trumpeted this was evidence of a Sexual assault. When challenged to explain how male NA on a woman's false fingernail could be evidence of sexual assault, kilgo slunk away.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, in case you didn't get it the first time, the presence of unidentified male DNA does not give your hypothesis credibility.

Anonymous said...

Ken-nnny-hyderal, if the timing of DNA deposition can not be determined, what was the point of the DA's office getting the Non Testimonial Order requiring the Lacrosse players to give samples for DNA testing.

How could the finding of DNA on Crystal be considered incriminating evidence, if it could not be established as fact that it was deposited at the time of the alleged rape?

Anonymous said...

"Remember within a couple of days, Mangum was back pole vaulting......on the same night the pot-bangers staged their candlelight vigil at the house".

And a number of weeks after this alleged brutal rape, Acrystal was with another man conceiving a baby.

Anonymous said...

DNA degrades over time. There is a substantive difference in the appearance of the DNA evidence as it time passes. I am NOT a pathologist and I claim NO expertise in this area. (of course, we will all soon hear the experts, Kenny and Sid, touting their opninions. I get my information from a pathologist who currently is the Chief of Pathology and Chairman of the Department of Pathology for a major academic medical center in a state other than NC. He has no bias and could care less about the Duke case. According to him, it is routine to assess the relative "newness" or degradation of DNA evidence. So, Kenny and Sid, as far as I am concerned, when Bannon says there were at least five samples in and on Mangum and NONE were from anybody at the party, and ALL showed no significant degradation.....I pretty well have to believe that Sister was a reallllly friendly girl who liked to party with more than one fellow....and that she did not score with anybody at the lacrosse party.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "DNA deposition can not be timed."

So let's go over this again.

If "DNA deposition can not be timed.", then one can not establish as fact when DNA was deposited. One can not establish as fact that the unidentified male DNA found on Crystal was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. One can therefore establish as fact that any male or group of males perpetrated a DNA depositing rape on Crystal n the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Therefore, you can not, by your own admission, establish as fact that a roup of unknown males raped Crystal at the Lacrosse Party.

Good luck extracting your foot from your mouth.

Anonymous said...

I said "If 'DNA deposition can not be timed.', then one can not establish as fact when DNA was deposited. One can not establish as fact that the unidentified male DNA found on Crystal was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. One can therefore establish as fact that any male or group of males perpetrated a DNA depositing rape on Crystal n the night of 13/14 March 2006.

I should have said "I said "If 'DNA deposition can not be timed.', then one can not establish as fact when DNA was deposited. One can not establish as fact that the unidentified male DNA found on Crystal was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. One can not therefore establish as fact that any male or group of males perpetrated a DNA depositing rape on Crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006."

Anonymous said...

Has Sid stopped flogging himself yet? Can't wait to see the results.

Anonymous said...

If kenny now is trying to tell us that somebody else raped Sister....other than the three men who were falsely accused....then, geez, whiz, wow.....I guess that kinda makes Nifong look even more like an incompetent amoral creep. Too bad old KennyBrain wasn't in Durham to hold sister's hand and guide the DA....

Anonymous said...

Betcha old Victoria "fags are dirty" peterson is about to have one of her infamous come-apart fits....considering that the Court of Appeals upheld as unconstitutional Prop 8 in CA. I wonder if she and Sid are having a caucus on how to establish J4CHets committee......as in Christian Heterosexuals. can't wait....stay tuned.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:23 said : " Still, if a criminal defendant were to offer as a defense that some other individual perpetrated the crime, that would not constitute reasonable doubt unless the defendant could show that individual had, among other things, opportunity and motive"..... Crystal is not a defendant. Peole there had the oportunity. I'll leave the motive for rape for you to decide. It's usually pathological. Anonymous @ 9:17 said: "So why did Crystal tell the police early on she did not know who instead of falsely accusing members of the Lacrosse team"..... Crystal knew it was someone at that party.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 10:28 Said: " There were multiple male samples in and on her body (from the kit analysis) that included non-degraded DNA. (five plus distinct samples .... Crystal provided the names of the persons she had consensual sex with.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

What does Crystal being a defendant have anything to do with it?

Your latest allegation was that unknown people perpetrated a DNA depositing rape against Crystal. If that is true, then it is irrelevant whether or not the Lacrosse players had an opportunity. You are admitting they did not do it.

You are not able to establish the existence of those unknowns. So how can you establish that these unknowns had motive or opportunity?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal provided the names of the persons she had consensual sex with."

However Crystal was not able to reliably identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant.

Your explanation was that unknown people, the existence of whom you can not establish, perpetrated the alleged rape.

Plausibility, thy name IS NOT Kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Ken: "Crystal provided the names of the persons she had consensual sex with."

All of the them? How could she do that if she didn't know all of the names? Does Crystal check the drivers licenses for all of her late night "dates" in hotel rooms? Does she write down the names in her diary?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Peole there[610 N. Buchanan] had the oportunity. I'll leave the motive for rape for you to decide".

So you are admitting you can not provide a motive for why anyone would rape Crystal. Yet you believe that unknown people, whose existence you can not establish, committed a rape.

I say again, Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape. Forensic exam of the Rape kit revealed no DNA on Crystal's person except DNA which was old and degraded, which had been deposited before the night of 13/14 March.

Please explain why you believe that a DNA depositing rape did occur.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal(quoting me): "So why did Crystal tell the police early on she did not know who instead of falsely accusing members of the Lacrosse team"..... Crystal knew it was someone at that party."

You said Crystal did not know who was who at the party. The question was, why did she not say that to the police. Why did she say members of the Lacrosse team had raped her.

That would indicate Crystal did know who was a Lacrosse player and who was not.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 11:10 said " How could the finding of DNA on Crystal be considered incriminating evidence, if it could not be established as fact that it was deposited at the time of the alleged rape" ....Only if it can be established that it came from someone present at the party. According to Kilgo this will eventually come out because a Player, who is totally innocent, is having a case of conscience, à la Raskolnikov The case is dropped. Reasonable doubt existed. Skillful Lawyers can usually create reasonable doubt. Doubt that oft-times seems unreasonable (ie OJ Simpson,Casey Anthony, Robert Blake) Continuing to discredit Crystal, though, serves the greedy and oportunisic civil suits.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:46 said: " Your latest allegation was that unknown people perpetrated a DNA depositing rape against Crystal. If that is true, then it is irrelevant whether or not the Lacrosse players had an opportunity. You are admitting they did not do it:..... I reiterate; other serious crimes were committed, for which all in attendance, identified and unidentified, are possible suspects

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I reiterate; other serious crimes were committed, for which all in attendance, identified and unidentified, are possible suspects".

To put it in legalese, you are presuming facts that are not in evidence.

It was never established as fact that any crime ever happened.

You, with your implausible hypotheses have not raised any evidence of other crimes.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "According to Kilgo this will eventually come out because a Player, who is totally innocent, is having a case of conscience".

Ken-ninny, if you are relying on Kilgo as a relieable source, that is like relying on a Nigerian 419 scammer to make you rich.

In spite of all his blustering, Kilgo has not established he knows anything about the Lacrosse case. When challenged to reveal his extensive intimate knowledge of the case, he always ran away.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Reasonable doubt existed."

Reasonable doubt existed because there was no credible allegation, there was no evidence that a crime had happened.

Yet, Mr. Nifong prosecuted anyway.

And you claim the three indicted, who were facing a rogue prosecutor who was focused on convicting them and sending them to prison for 30 years would cover up for the real perps.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Continuing to discredit Crystal, though, serves the greedy and oportunisic civil suits."

How is anyone connected to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players "Continuing to discredit Crystal"? Crystal has not been named in any of the suits.

This is yet another implausible sillygism promulgated by Ken-ninny.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Skillful Lawyers can usually create reasonable doubt. Doubt that oft-times seems unreasonable (ie OJ Simpson,Casey Anthony, Robert Blake)"

It is true that skillful lawyers can often create reasonable doubt out of nothing.

However, in the Lacrosse case, reasonable doubt was created before anyone was ever indicted, when forensic exam of the rape kit revealed no evidence of a DNA depositing rape.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Anonymous @ 11:10 said ' How could the finding of DNA on Crystal be considered incriminating evidence, if it could not be established as fact that it was deposited at the time of the alleged rape' ....Only if it can be established that it came from someone present at the party."

It was established that the DNA found on Crystal did not come from any one at the party. So why do you allege that someone at the party perpetrated a DNA depositing rape?

Your allegation that unknown party goers perpetrated the rape is not plausible considering you can not establish the existence of said unknowns.

kenhyderal said...

There's the two charges, other then rape, that were laid ie. first degree sexual offence and kidnapping. Then there's two alleged crimes for which no charges were laid ie admisitering a noxious substance and theft. An inadequate Police investigation hampered any prosecution of these crimes despite sufficient evidence to indict

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You should look up "Presuming facts which are not in evidence".

I reiterate, the rape as described by Crystal was a DNA depositing rape. The forensic evidence was that a DNA depositing rape did not happen. There is no way one can assume from that, that other serious crimes happened.

Unless, of course you are a kilgo-believing ninny.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "There's the two charges, other then rape, that were laid ie. first degree sexual offence and kidnapping."

No S--t, sherlock. Both those charges were found to be without foundation.

"Then there's two alleged crimes for which no charges were laid ie admisitering(sic) a noxious substance and theft."

The only one who alleged the crime of administering a noxious substance was you, and you provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Theft, that is a bit more problematic. However, if anyone was responsible for the loss of Crystal's money it was the police. You have admitted the police impounded the money and kept it.

Anonymous said...

Ken-niny-hyderal: "An inadequate Police investigation hampered any prosecution of these crimes despite sufficient evidence to indict".

What evidence was there to indict anyone for any crime other than the ones for which the innocent falsely accused lacrosse players were indicted. They were indicted in spite of the lack of evidence.

Enigo Montoya said...

You keep using that word (noxious). I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny.

Anonymous said...

You da man, Kenny, you da man.

J Van Hook said...

I don't believe that Crystal provided all of the names of the men with whom she had consensual sex.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @5:42 said: "You keep using that word (noxious). I do not think it means what you think it means" The Canadian term, used in the Criminal Code for the crime of surreptitiously druging someone is "aministering a noxious substance" I'm not sure what The North Carolina Criminal Code would call this crime

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The Canadian term, used in the Criminal Code for the crime of surreptitiously druging someone is "aministering(sic) a noxious substance" I'm not sure what The North Carolina Criminal Code would call this crime".

And you have no evidence that anyone administered Crystal a noxious substance at the Lacrosse party.

Anonymous said...

kenny can fantasize up all kinds of scenarios......drugs, unknown phantom rapists....theft....you name it. FACTS and EVIDENCE are not necessary with a fantasy; all he needs is his imagination.
funny stuff, kenny. keep it up...

Anonymous said...

well, sid, you and victoria must be feeling great today. The westboro baptist church has taken up its protesting again....this time in front of a junior high school where a teacher was fired because he allowed kids in his class to circle around and beat up a little boy.....because the boy was, in the words of the teacher, "faggy". So, the westboro folks are protesting the school's decision to fire the teacher. Gee, wwjd, sid....courageous victoria must be tickled that her moral partners are out there, defending her values

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Has Sid stopped flogging himself yet? Can't wait to see the results.

Your prayers are about to be answered.


Prepare to be enlightened by Flog 14.

Anonymous said...

oh goody. flop 14 Better than Tracey Cline winning her third grade spelling bee, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Prepare to be enlightened by Flog 14."

Your Flog 14 shows that a deluded megalomaniac is incapable of enlightening anyone, especially himself.

kenhyderal said...

J Van Hook @ 6:40 PM 2-7-12 said"I don't believe that Crystal provided all of the names of the men with whom she had consensual sex" Are you suggesting she concealed this information from the investigators or that she does not know the names of those she had sex with. I can assure you that Crystal does not engage in anonymous sex.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Are you suggesting she concealed this information from the investigators or that she does not know the names of those she had sex with. I can assure you that Crystal does not engage in anonymous sex."

Crystal, however, did lie to the police about being raped by a number of Duke Lacrosse team members. As I recall, she told the police she had not engaged in sexual activity for a week prior o the party. She had engaged in sevxual activity right before she went to perform at the party.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 10:42 said: " As I recall, she told the police she had not engaged in sexual activity for a week prior o the party. She had engaged in sevxual activity right before she went to perform at the party".... No, It was on the Sunday prior, with her regular driver. Not with Taylor her driver the night in question. She initially said a week because she did not wish that her boy-friend would find out about this. It came out in his second interview.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "No, It was on the Sunday prior, with her regular driver. Not with Taylor her driver the night in question. She initially said a week because she did not wish that her boy-friend would find out about this. It came out in his second interview."

Crystal admitted doing something with a vibrator for some couple prior to the Lacrosse party.

Anonymous said...

"The police did as instructed: On April 6, they brought in Jarriel Johnson, a Raleigh man who drove Mangum around the Triangle on the weekend before the lacrosse party. Johnson said he took Mangum to at least three hotel rooms in Raleigh and Durham, and a night performing at a Hillsborough strip club.

Mangum had told police one encounter involved a couple and the use of a small vibrator. Those hotel encounters could have explained the only abnormal finding from Mangum's pelvic examination at the Duke emergency room hours after the lacrosse party: diffuse swelling of the vaginal walls.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2007/04/15/71518/a-case-starts-to-unravel.html#storylink=cpy"

Ken-ninny-hyderal, this, as you can see, comes from the News and Observer. (http://www.newsobserver.com/2007/04/15/71518/a-case-starts-to-unravel.html)

Anonymous said...

"Crystal admitted doing something with a vibrator for some couple prior to the Lacrosse party."

Ken, did she give the police their names?

kenhyderal said...

The names were available from Allure Escorts provided, that is, they used their real names for the booking. Unlike, for instance, Dan Flannery did when he hired exotic dancers for the party

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, the point is(besides the one on the top of your head) is that Crystal misrepresented facts. The fact was that Crystal did engage in sexual activity immediately prior to the party, then alleged she had not.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal,

What evidence is there that anyone at the Lacrosse party could have been indicted for anything. It is obvious that the three individuals indicted for rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were wrongfully indicted.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:25 said: " immediately prior to the party"..... Make that 2 days prior with her regular driver

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, the incident with the vibrator was reported to have happened immediately before the party.

In any event you concede Crystal misrepresented the facts when she claimed she had not engaged in sexual activity for a period of one week before the party.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You have alegged Crystal was raped by unknown non LAXers on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You have wavered between calling it a DNA depositing rape and a non DNA depositing sexual assault.

Have you gone to the Police with your information?

If not, aren't you obstructing justice?

Anonymous said...

Hey, Ken-ninny-hyderal,

Kilgo, whom you so fervently admire, has claimed he has extensive, intimate knowledge of what happened on the night of 13/14 March of 2006, that he could blow the case wide open.

Why hasn't he done so?

By not going to the police with such knowledge, wasn't he aiding and abetting criminals? Wasn't he obstructing justice?

kenhyderal said...

Hopefully Kilgo will reappear and answer for himself but it's my understanding that he is a friend of a player who was present at the party and that player is struggling with his conscience about whether to reveal, or not, what he witnessed. At one point, former DA Nifong threatened to lay charges against anyone found guilty of "covering up" for perpetrators. I'm not sure, with the case dismissed, if that still applies. I never liked Kilgo's style of debate on this blog. It's like much of the juvenile postings of so many of the anonymous posters with their rants and chants. Kilgo however did put his money where his mouth was in helping Crystal financially

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:05 said: " You have alegged Crystal was raped by unknown non LAXers on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You have wavered between calling it a DNA depositing rape and a non DNA depositing sexual assault"....... I believe both crimes occurred perhaps by different individuals.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Kilgo however did put his money where his mouth was in helping Crystal financially".

However, when challenged to reveal what he knew, Kilgo shut up rather than put up. That says he had no information to reveal. I would predict that his friendship with a conscience-stricken Lacrosse player is another BS claim he has made.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "'Anonymous @ 9:05 said: " You have alegged Crystal was raped by unknown non LAXers on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You have wavered between calling it a DNA depositing rape and a non DNA depositing sexual assault'"....... I believe both crimes occurred perhaps by different individuals."

In other words, you are wavering again.

I apologize for having mis spelled alleged.

You haven't answered the question, if it was a DNA depositing rape, why was there no DNA found, except old degraded DNA which had been placed there before the alleged rape.

Anonymous said...

Kenny-hyderal: "former DA Nifong threatened to lay charges against anyone found guilty of "covering up" for perpetrators."

You are a bit confused, aren't you Ken-ninny? One usually files charges against someone you have probable cause to believe guilty. Except, of course for Mike Ni-nny-fong. who filed charges to enhance his chances of winning the election for DA.

You should look at Marsha Goodenow's testimony during the Ni-nny-fong ethics trial. Threatening to prosecute someone for aiding and abetting if that individual did not come forth with incriminating information is not ethical. Mr. Ni-nny-fong threatened to prosecute Lacrosse players who did not provide incriminating testimony.

Further, if any one did come forth with incriminating testimony in response to such a threat, such testimony would not be plausible. You could not know whether the witness would be telling the truth or just trying to avoid criminal charges. Mr. Ni-nny-fong had the three Lacrosse players indicted even though he had no evidence to incriminate them.

I ask you again, if Kilgo indeed have knowledge of a crime at 610 North Buchanan(something which is doubtful) wasn't he aiding and abetting criminals?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, how could any of the Lacrosse players have been found guilty of aiding and abetting if charges had not yet been filed?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "At one point, former DA Nifong threatened to lay charges against anyone found guilty of "covering up" for perpetrators"

DA Ni-nny-fong threatened to file charges of aiding and abetting against players who did not come forth with incriminating testimony.

No player came forth.

That would indicate to anyone but a ninny that there was no incriminating information to come forth with.

Of course, Ken-ninny believes innocent Lacrosse players would rather risk wrongful conviction, imprisonment, and millions in legal expenses rather than reveal who the perpetrators are.

Anyone reading this, draw your own conclusions.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:12 PM 2-9-12 said" "why was there no DNA found, except old degraded DNA which had been placed there before the alleged rape"..... DNA deposition can not be timed. Five samples of contemporary DNA were found besides some old degraded DNA. One sample came from a boyfriend and one from her regular driver. Of the other three found none matched any player that was tested and it's sources remain unknown. All the players were tested, even some who were not in attendence. All, that is, except the black team member. Two non-team members were also tested but only because they happened to appear in seized photographs. Many players in attendence were not seen in photographs. There may have been several non-players there who have not been identified. Would anyone willingly give up these names or do all, there present contend that only two non-players were there at this party?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Would anyone willingly give up these names or do all, there present contend that only two non-players were there at this party?"

So far, the only one who has contended that there were people at the party, unknowns who were not tested is you. You have offered no corroboration. Therefore, all you have done is make an unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegations, to borrow Sid-ninny's words, have no legal weight.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, to my last post I add:

Unsupported allegations do not raise doubt about anything. To raise doubt, you need evidence to support those allegations.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "DNA deposition can not be timed. Five samples of contemporary DNA were found besides some old degraded DNA."

Yet you say you can determine that the old DNA and the "contemporary(your word) were deposited at different times.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Would anyone willingly give up these names(of the unidentified)"?

They would if the alternative would be wrongful indictment for a felony, a corrupt DA who was determined to convict, a possible thirty year prison term, and millions of dollars in legal expenses.

Anyone but a ninny could see that.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Many players in attendence were not seen in photographs."

How does that establish that there were non team members there who were not photographed.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Five samples of contemporary DNA were found besides some old degraded DNA."

If, as you say, DNA deposition can not be timed, how does the finding of "Five samples of contemporary DNA" establish that the DNA was deposited at the time of the party? In turn, how does that establish that there were unknown people at the party who deposited that DNA?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

Let's get back to Kilgo who, you say, knows a guilt stricken Lacrosse player who wanted to come forward. It has been almost six years since Crystal made her false allegations. The simple fact is, no one has come forth. That simple fact makes Kilgo's claim implausible, especially since no Lacrosse player came forth when three innocent Lacrosse players were facing a wrongful indictment, a corrupt prosecutor, an unfair trial and millions of dollars in legal expenses.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Five samples of contemporary DNA were found besides some old degraded DNA."

If, as you say, Crystal never engaged in anonymous sex, why did she not name the 5 men with whom she had sex.

That she did not, I think, does suggest she intended to falsely accuse the Lacrosse players. Why else would she withhold that information, if not to bolster her accusations?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

The descriptive term for your reasoning is Bass-Ackward.

You say one can not time when DNA was deposited.

Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party.

The unknown DNA can not be linked to anyone who was at the party.

So now you say that the presence of that unknown DNA establishes that there were unidentified people at the party.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:33 AM said : "Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party"..... Duh
Anonymous also said: "Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party"..... Ass-backwards. First, we have to identify and test all who were present especially the persons that Kilgo's informant says were involved but have not yet been identified. Players who were involved in other crimes associated with the assult realize that if a rapist is identified then that person would be likely to give up others, possibly including some players who may also be involved.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4: 39 said: "Yet you say you can determine that the old DNA and the "contemporary(your word) were deposited at different times" ..... One can reasonably assume that degraded DNA is older then non-degraded. Two of the five samples detected have been dated by statements given. Crystal's boyfriend at one week and Crystal's driver at 2 days. One explanation, possible, is that the three other samples came from the sexual assult Crystal claims happened to her.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "One explanation, possible, is that the three other samples came from the sexual assult Crystal claims happened to her."

The DNA did not match the DNA of anyone at the party, specifically it did not match the three innocent men she falsely accused, facts you wish to obscure.

You, by your own words, can not establish the time of deposit of that DNA unless you can match it to someone at the party. While you can suggest there were unidentified men at the party, the presence of unidentified DNA on Crystal's person, does not establish the presence of unidentified men.

Contrary to your unsupported allegation, the fact that no Lacrosse player, even under the threat of criminal charges of aiding and abetting, suggests there were no unknowns there.

Again, it is not plausible that after three innocent men were wrongfully indicted by a rogue prosecutor, facing a biased court, running up millions of dollars in legal expenses, would cover up for unknown men who actually perpetrated the alleged crime.

How come Crystal always insisted she had been raped by the Lacrosse players?

Why did forensic exam of the rape kit show no evidence of a rape?

You unsupported allegations do not support Crystal's allegations.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "First, we have to identify and test all who were present especially the persons that Kilgo's informant says were involved but have not yet been identified."

Ken-ninny, only a ninny would believe that this informant exists.

Each and every time Kilgo was challenged to reveal his information, he backed down. That says he had no information to reveal, no source of information.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Players who were involved in other crimes associated with the assult realize that if a rapist is identified then that person would be likely to give up others, possibly including some players who may also be involved."

You have offered any evidence that any players were involved in any other crimes in the first place.

The three innocent players who, I say again, when faced with wrongful indictment by a rogue prosecutor who intended to put them before a biased jury and convict them would not cover for the real perps.

Even if those non existent real perps were to implicate any Lacrosse player in other crimes(crimes which you can not document), why would anyone find those allegations credible? Why would people not think those unknown perps would be trying to discredit the witnesses against them?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal @ 10:22 AM: 'Anonymous @ 9:33 AM said : "Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party"..... Duh
Anonymous also said: "Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party"..... Ass-backwards. First, we have to identify and test all who were present especially the persons that Kilgo's informant says were involved but have not yet been identified. Players who were involved in other crimes associated with the assult realize that if a rapist is identified then that person would be likely to give up others, possibly including some players who may also be involved.

What I said at 9:33 AM: " Ken-ninny-hyderal:

The descriptive term for your reasoning is Bass-Ackward.

You say one can not time when DNA was deposited.

Then you say that linking DNA to people who were at the party establishes it was deposited at the party.

The unknown DNA can not be linked to anyone who was at the party.

So now you say that the presence of that unknown DNA establishes that there were unidentified people at the party."

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Players who were involved in other crimes associated with the assult realize that if a rapist is identified then that person would be likely to give up others, possibly including some players who may also be involved."

That pre supposes there were other crimes at the party. In spite of his rabid determination to convict Lacrosse players, Ni-nny-fong never presented any evidence of other crimes.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 11:47 said: "How come Crystal always insisted she had been raped by the Lacrosse players" Crystal had no idea who were Players and who were not. She was subjected to a patently flawed
photo lineup. I hate to be racially insensitive but it can often be more difficult to distinguish peole, of another race, apart. The science on photo-lineups is clear. They are not a reliable method to determine who a perpetrator was even when the witness seems positive about their pick

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 12:11 said : "So now you say that the presence of that unknown DNA establishes that there were unidentified people at the party"..... No, I am saying if you can identify people at the party that presently remain unidentified and test them, you might discover that their DNA matches the unidentified DNA found on Crystal. It would seem to me that basic police investigation should make every attempt to discover all who were there present and had the opportunity to perpetrate the alleged crime. This was not done.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal had no idea who were Players and who were not. She was subjected to a patently flawed photo lineup."

Crystal was exposed to three photo arrays. She was exposed to those arrays because she alleged that multiple members of the Lacrosse team raped her.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "They are not a reliable method to determine who a perpetrator was even when the witness seems positive about their pick".

So why did Ni-nny-fong use the photo lineup as a reason to indict the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

I point out, Sid-ninny justified the indictment of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players on the basis of Crystal's identification of them as her assailants.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I am saying if you can identify people at the party that presently remain unidentified and test them, you might discover that their DNA matches the unidentified DNA found on Crystal."

That is a big if, since you have not established that said unidentified people even exist.

And your scenario is totally implausible.

You have also not established that other crimes occurred. You have not established that Crystal was raped. You duck the issue, that forensic exam of the rape kit shortly after said rape did not show evidence of a DNA depositing rape.

You claim that these unidentified people raped Crystal, that members of the Lacrosse team witnessed the rape.

You claim that because Lacrosse players feared prosecution of those alleged other crimes, they covered up for the alleged unidentified perpetrators.

Three innocent Lacrosse players were indicted for the alleged rape. The DA who had them indicted was determined to convict them although he had no evidence. They incurred millions of dollars in legal expenses to defend themselves. You say they, in the face of all this, would cover for the unidentified perpetrators because they were afraid of being charged with lesser crimes on the word of those unidentified perpetrators.

What you are basing all this upon is Kilgo's claim he has an informant who witnessed all this. Kilgo, in spite of multiple opportunities, has never demonstrated he had any first hand knowledge of what happened in the bogus Duke rape case.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, is spite of how you try to explain your implausible hypothesis, the bottom line is you are saying the presence of unidentified DNA found on Crystal establishes that there were unidentified people at the party who should be suspected of raping her.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:15 said: " They incurred millions of dollars in legal expenses to defend themselves" Given the evidence, albeit circumstantial, they needed to mount a legal defense. If DA Nifongs case was so weak it should not have cost them millions to defend themselves. In the end, given the obscene settlement they they received from Duke University they ended up profiting financialy. Now they are attempting to get even more from the City of Durham.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous@4:17 said : "the bottom line is you are saying the presence of unidentified DNA found on Crystal establishes that there were unidentified people at the party who should be suspected of raping her" Not yet established but it definitely needed to be investigated, given her allegation that she was raped at the party and that unidentified DNA was found on her person that could not be accounted for by her checked-out sexual history. Determining every person, there present, was never done. In my opinion the charges were laid prematurely especially after some, identified by the photo line-up, had alibis and the DNA of those tested was negative. At a minimum the three unknown DNA samples should have been sent to a data bank to see if they brought up any hits. Not surprisingly because of sloppy Polce work the charges had to be dismissed. In the pending civil suit against Durham I would suggest the city hire a Private Investigator to determine a comprehensive list of all who were present and if possible ask them to voluntarily submit DNA samples

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyeral: "Not yet established but it definitely needed to be investigated, given her allegation that she was raped at the party and that unidentified DNA was found on her person that could not be accounted for by her checked-out sexual history."

Her allegation was that she was raped at the party by members of the Lacrosse team.

"Not surprisingly because of sloppy Polce work the charges had to be dismissed."

The charges were dismissed because there was no corroborating evidence that she was raped at the party.

I ask again, why did the forensic exam of the rape kit and the physical exam reveal nothing pathognomonic of rape?

I will concede the scenario you came up with is a possibility, but it is not a plausible possibility. It is, unknown men at the party raped Crystal, members of the Lacrosse team witnessed the rape, rather than name the perpetrators they would incur millions of dollars in legal expenses and risk wrongful conviction and a long prison term, that they would do all this because they feared the perpetrators would implicate them in lesser, other crimes.

I say again, you have not established that these other crimes happened.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

This is from Devon Sherwood: "Sherwood said he found it 'impossible' to believe that the rape allegations are true.
'I'm 100 percent confident,' he said. 'I know nothing indeed happened that night at all.'"

This comes from an interview on Good Morning America on October 31, 2006. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2617301&page=1#.TzZxEF25Z94).

So, why does Kilgo, who was not there, insist that something did happen?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

Devon Sherwood was the only black member of the Duke Lacrosse team. He was not under suspicion for anything because Crystal falsely accused Caucasian members of the team of raping her.

If Devon Sherwood and Kilgo had testified as to what happened at the party, Devon Sherwood's testimony would be evidence. Kilgo's testimony would not be admitted as it was hearsay.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

So what if the unknown DNA on Crystal might have identified someone in a national data bank. It would not establish that this individual had been at the party.

E.G. what if the person identified had been someone who could prove he had been hundreds of miles away from the party on the night of the alleged crime?

And again, forensic exam and physical exam revealed nothing pathognomonic of rape.

In addition, there is the eye witness testimony that Crystal was pole dancing at a club just a couple days after said alleged brutal rape.

There is also the fact that a few months after the alleged rape she engaged in sex with another man by whom she became pregnant.

The only supposed evidence you actually had of rape is Crystal's allegation, and Crystal's allegation is not credible.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:09 said: "And again, forensic exam and physical exam revealed nothing pathognomonic of rape"......
The probable cause affidavit for a search warrant stated:
“Medical records and interviews that were obtained by subpoena revealed that the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.”

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny: “Medical records and interviews that were obtained by subpoena revealed that the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.”

The examination was performed by an ob-gyn resident, not by the SANE. The only objective finding was diffuse vaginal edema, something which was not pathognomic of rape.

The so called SANE had just finished her training, had little to no hands on experience doing a rape exam.

Said SANE recorded multiple times in the Medical record that Crystal sad her alleged assailants did not use condoms. Later she claimed Crystal did not recall whether or not condoms had been used.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You omitted this conclusion from AG Cooper's report:

“No medical evidence confirmed her [the accuser’s] stories. The SANE based her opinion that the exam was consistent with what the accusing witness was reporting largely on the accusing witness’s demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence.”

From Joe Neff's News and Observer article on April 18, 2007:

”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 was untrained, SANE trainee who recorded those findings you find so significant. The Doctor who actually performed the exam did not think the findings were significant.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

One more thing from Joe Neff's article:

"It's(diffuse vaginal edema) a routine and unremarkable diagnosis -- one that could have been discovered much earlier in Mike Nifong's investigation".

In othrer words, there were no findings on the physical rxam which were pathognomonic of rape.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Julie Many was not interviewed by the DPD or the DA's office. The interview with Attorney Kingsbery was conducted to cast doubt on the the information in the examining report. Dr. Manly assumed she saw semen but did not document it. When pressed by Kingsbery she admitted it might have been an exudate from a candida infection. Crystal had no such infection at the time. DNA was found in the rape kit it just did not match the players who were tested. Her finding of difuse edema of the vaginal wall although not pathognomic of rape can certainly be a rape finding. The Players "Dream Team" effectively challenged every piece of evidence creating reasonable doubt. So successful were they that it gave the defendants grounds to launch a Civil Suit. Cooper had no choice because of inadequate evidence gathering to dismiss the charges that were prematurely laid.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Cooper had no choice because of inadequate evidence gathering to dismiss the charges that were prematurely laid."

AG Cooper had no choice because the evidence indicated no crime had happened.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The interview with Attorney Kingsbery was conducted to cast doubt on the the information in the examining report".

No shit Sherlock. The interview revealed that Tara Levicy did not conduct a hands on investigation, that her opinions were not based on actual physical findings.

You seem to think the Defense Attorney had no right to question the prosecution's evidence.

Why did the DPD and DA not question Dr. Manly, who actually did the examination. Considering Mike Ni-nny-fong's attitude towards exculpatory evidence, it was likely he did not want to hear anything which would exonerate his chosen victims.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Dr. Manly assumed she saw semen but did not document it. When pressed by Kingsbery she admitted it might have been an exudate from a candida infection."

You got it wrong.

Dr. Manly first thought it was semen. Then she learned the forensic exam of the rape kit found no evidence of semen and concluded the white substance was not semen - if it had been then the rape kit would have tested positive for semen.

As Joe Neff's report stated, Dr. Manly had done a number of previous rape exams and had never found the diffuse vaginal edema which she, not Tara Levicy, had found. She had found such a finding commonly in yeast infections.

The failure to find semen on the rape kit would indicate the DNA found on Crystal was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006, and there was no reason to suspect it would lead to the identification of any perpetrator.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The Players "Dream Team" effectively challenged every piece of evidence creating reasonable doubt. So successful were they that it gave the defendants grounds to launch a Civil Suit."

Which would tell you that the players were wrongfully accused. Reasonable doubt is one thing. Reasonable doubt does not give the defendants grounds to file a civil suit.

If you recall, reasonable doubt got OJ Simpson off, but it was not enough to protect him from a civil action.

Which brings up the question again why did Crystal not file a civil suit?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Her finding of difuse edema of the vaginal wall although not pathognomic of rape can certainly be a rape finding.

However, one can not say such a finding proves a rape.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "When pressed by Kingsbery she[Dr. Manly] admitted it might have been an exudate from a candida infection. Crystal had no such infection at the time.

How do you know that? Was Crystal ever tested for such an infection at the time the rape kit was taken?

Dr. Manly's statement was that first she thought it might be semen. When the testing of the rape kit revealed no semen, she thought the white substance was an exudate and the finding of diffuse vaginal edema was more consistent with a yeast infection than with a rape.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

Let's consider the rape kit again.

What the state crime lab found was the rape kit tested negative for semen.

That would mean that the DNA found on Crystal did not happen via a deposition of semen on the night of 13/14 March 2006. For that matter, the rape kit testing revealed no foreign bodily fluid, i.e. no fluid transfer between any alleged assailant and Ms. Mangum,

So why would anyone think that unknown male DNA could have gotten on her via the kind of rape she described.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Dr. Manly assumed she saw semen but did not document it."

So the issue of whether or not semen was detected became an issue because the defense attorney questioned her.

"Dr. Julie Many(sic) was not interviewed by the DPD or the DA's office."

It is a real isse, why neither the DPD or the Durham DA did not question Dr. Manly.

If it was semen which r. Manly saw, why did the rape kit test negative for semen?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 6:31 PM said: "If it was semen which r. Manly saw, why did the rape kit test negative for semen" .....In a forensic examination, semen can be detected by the presence of the enzyme acid phosphatase. Because this enzyme is present elsewhere in the body, however, the test is not absolute proof of it's presence or absence. Investigative Bureaus need to extract DNA from sperm cells to make an identification. The detection of sperm is the only thing that is conclusive because semen is a heterogeneous fluid.

Anonymous said...

Kenininny-hyferal: "Investigative Bureaus need to extract DNA from sperm cells to make an identification. The detection of sperm is the only thing that is conclusive because semen is a heterogeneous fluid."

So why did the NC SBI fail to find semen on the rape kit. Are you allleging that the SBI was unaware of that? Did the SBI report the DNA found on her came from sperm cells?

And you are dodging the question, how could male DNA have gotten on to Crystal's person at the party if there was no deposition of male bodily fluids on her person? Crystal alleged that deposition of bodily fluids took place.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Investigative Bureaus need to extract DNA from sperm cells to make an identification. The detection of sperm is the only thing that is conclusive because semen is a heterogeneous fluid."

If the SBI did not detect sperm cells, what would that mean?

Keep in mind that Mr. Ni-nny-fong's job was to find evidence that something did happen.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "[Dr. Manly's] interview with Attorney Kingsbery was conducted to cast doubt on the the information in the examining report.

Are you implying that a criminal defendant, via his attorney, does not have the right to confront a potential prosecution witness?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal;

Crystal alleged one of her assailants ejaculated in her mouth and then she spat out what was deposited there.

Was any non-degraded male DNA found in her mouth?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, if what Dr. Manly saw in Crystal's vagina was semen, why did her rape kit not test positive for semen.

If a rape victim is found to have semen in her vagina, wouldn't her clothing have semen on it. If that clothing had been tested, what is the likelihood that it would not return an abnormally high acid phosphatase level?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Because this enzyme[acid phosphatase] is present elsewhere in the body, however, the test is not absolute proof of it's presence or absence."

I ask again, in a rape in which semen is deposited in the victim's genitalia, what is the likelihood that testing of her clothing will not disclose abnormally high levels of acid phosphatase?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @9:31 said: "if what Dr. Manly saw in Crystal's vagina was semen, why did her rape kit not test positive for semen" The negative finding for semen in the vagina is irrelevant, since sperm cells were detected. The vehicle for sperm delivery is semen. If sperm cells were detected one can only conclude that semen had also been present.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @3:54 said: "If the SBI did not detect sperm cells, what would that mean?" If no condom was used that would indicate either no ejaculation occured or that there was no penetration. But it's hypothetical; sperm cells. from which DNA was extracted, were found. Five of the samples could be judged as cotemporary. Two of them were identified by Crystal's sexual history. Three remain unidentified and given her charge that she was raped, and the finding at DUMC of a fluid in her vagina, that might have been semen, along with difuse edema of the vaginal walls, efforts needed to be made to identify who this DNA belonged to. It's mute now, since the case was dropped, but before that time if anyone had been interested in clearing all
who were present identifying it's source would have been helpful

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal @ February 12, 2012 4:04 PM:

"The negative finding for semen in the vagina is irrelevant, since sperm cells were detected. The vehicle for sperm delivery is semen. If sperm cells were detected one can only conclude that semen had also been present."

Ken-ninny-hyderal @ February 11, 2012 9:18 PM:

"In a forensic examination, semen can be detected by the presence of the enzyme acid phosphatase. Because this enzyme is present elsewhere in the body, however, the test is not absolute proof of it's presence or absence. Investigative Bureaus need to extract DNA from sperm cells to make an identification. The detection of sperm is the only thing that is conclusive because semen is a heterogeneous fluid."

Yesterday you were implying that sperm cells were not detected and the finding of no semen was less than 100%

Today you are stating that sperm cells were detected.

What is the source of your information?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

This from a summary of the Duke Rape Case:

"during Michael Nifong's ethics trial on June 14, 2007, the complete DNA findings were revealed during Brad Bannon's testimony. It revealed, according to conservative estimates, that the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her panties; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina."

It says nothing about identification of sperm cells.

URL: http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-24.htm#dna

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninjy-hyderal:

More from the same URL:

"DNA results revealed that the woman had sex with a man who was not a Duke lacrosse player. Attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tests indicated DNA from a single male source came from a vaginal swab taken from Mangum. Media outlets reported that this DNA was from her boyfriend. However, it was later revealed that DNA from multiple males who were neither the lacrosse players or Mangum's boyfriend had been found, but that these findings had been deliberately withheld from the Court and the defense."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 287   Newer› Newest»