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.

284 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 284 of 284
Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

So far as your allegation that Defense attorneys manufactured the story of Crystal wanting to shake down members of the Lacrosse team:

"The strip club's security officer said that Mangum told co-workers FOUR DAYS(emphasis added) after the party that she was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who had not paid her, mentioning that the boys were white. The security guard did not make a big deal of it because he felt that no one took her seriously.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

The identification of foreign DNA was made by DNA Security Inc. According to accounts, they performed a sophisticated test for male DNA. They did not examine for sperm cells.

So why do you claim the DNA identification was made via the identification of sperm cells?

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

From the URL http://www.lashawnbarber.com/DNA_Motion_with_Attachments[1].pdf there is a description of how NC SBI handled the rape kit. An Agent Winn examined all the rape kit material and failed to find evidence of blood semen or saliva to test. Therefore SBI did not test for DNA.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 5:09 said: "It says nothing about identification of sperm cells" The DNA found in Crystal was extracted from sperm cells. One of the four listed as un-identified was later identified as her regular driver.

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The DNA found in Crystal was extracted from sperm cells. One of the four listed as un-identified was later identified as her regular driver."

The DNA found in Crystal was identified by DNA Security. DNA Security identified more than four non Lax males. By the time DNA Security got the rape kit material any sperm cells deposited on Crystal on or before 13/14 March 2006 would have been degenerated.

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

Please answer:

If semen is found on a rape victim's genitalia, what is the likelihood that a test for acid phosphatase on her clothing will not show an abnormally high level?

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal< there is one ther issue whic casts implausibility on your hypothesis, that Crystal was raped by unknown men at 610 N. Buchanan.

This from Crystal Mangum's statement: "Brett, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom while, the other guys were watching television, and they closed the door slightly."http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/842#.TzlJcsq5Z94.

This from Mike Nifong: "[T]here are three people who went into the bathroom with the young lady,
and whether the other people there knew what was going on at the time,
they do now and have not come forward. I'm disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward. And if they would have
spoken up at the time, this may never have happened.46
URL: ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4328&context.

Reference 46 : Viv Bernstein & Joe Drape, Rape Allegation Against Athletes Is Roiling Duke, N.Y.
Times, Mar. 29, 2006

The accusing witness and the DA both alleged that the accusing witness and her assailants were in the bathroom simultaneously.

It has been reported on the web that the bathroom was too small to accommodate 4 adults simultaneously.

Anonymous said...

next

kenhyderal said...

next

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous %:38 PM 2-12-12. Thanks for the link to the 66 page Motion to compel Discovery/Expert DNA Analysis. I would like to study this document and then I will respond

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4: 54 said : "If semen is found on a rape victim's genitalia, what is the likelihood that a test for acid phosphatase on her clothing will not show an abnormally high level" Very high. High enough that this test although routinely doneis given little weight.

kenhyderal said...

@ Blog Host Dr. Harr. Can you resolve the problem of accessing page two of this thread?

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Very high. High enough that this test[acid phosphatase] although routinely done is given little weight."

Who determined sperm cells were present on Crystal Mangum? It was not the SBI crime lab. I say again, by the time DNA Security got the rape kit, any sperm cells would have been degenerated.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, This comes from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/AN00281: "Sperm ejaculated outside the body may survive only minutes to a few hours."

From http://uclue.com/?xq=2071: "Sperm can surive for a few hours outside the body. Although they are still capable of fertilization, they generally are less robust than they would be otherwise (that is, they don't swim nearly as well, and lose some of their ability to reach and then fertilize and egg)."

The rape kit was taken on the morning of 14 March 2006. The material did not go to DNA Security until after April 10, 2006.

The SBI Crime lab did not test for DNA because it found no evidence of any source of DNA, including semen.

On what basis was the SBI Crime lab decision made?

From http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/23/north-carolinas-corrupted-crim

"A stunning accompanying investigation by the Raleigh News & Observer found that though the crime lab’s results were presented to juries with the authoritativeness of science, laboratory procedures were geared toward just one outcome: putting as many people in prison as possible. The paper discovered an astonishingly frank 2007 training manual for analysts, still in use as of last week, instructing researchers that “A good reputation and calm demeanor also enhances an analyst's conviction rate.” Defense attorneys, the manual warned, often “put words into the analyst's mouth to try and raise inaccuracies.” The guide also instructs analysts to beware of “defense whores”—analysts hired by defense attorneys to challenge their testimony."

The SBI crime lab usually bent ver backwards to give the DA inculpatory evidence.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: From http://www.prostatespecificantigen.net/

"PSA is an accurate test which will only be positive if semen is found."

From http://www.semenonpanties.com/AP.htm:

"It is therefore considered a presumptive chemical test for the presence of semen and semen must be confirmed by other means (sperm detection or PSA)."

And: "Finding a significantly elevated acid phosphatase level is consistent with the presence of semen. For example, if semen is present the acid phosphatase assay is normally very robust."

That seems to be contrary to your opinion.

Also, there are methods other than sperm detection by which Semen may be detected.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

From http://www.wavesignal.c/Forensics/Semen.html:

"Various naturally occurring chemicals present in body fluids such as semen, as well as latent fingerprints, may fluoresce under appropriate lighting conditions. Fluorescent body secretions include semen, saliva, and sweat (perspiration). Constituents of significance to the forensic scientist include various fluorescent enzymes and proteins contained in body fluids.

Original references to fluorescence in cells of human spermatazoa resulted from tests exhibiting visible fluorescence from the Y chromosome when stained or treated with quinacryne (22). Thus, semen contains a chemical in the Y chromosome that will fluoresce when stained with quinacryne. Normal semen also contains small amounts of a fluorescent enzyme called choline (a nutrient, essential for cardiovascular and brain function, and cellular membrane composition and repair)."

This another reference to a method by which the presence of semen may be detected.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, from the same URL:

"In addition, excitation and emission spectra of untreated dry semen (24) indicate clearly that there is an alternative to using UV radiation when searching for semen stains. The primary features of these data are the following:

1) Under standard conditions of visible light (500 nm) illumination, untreated dry semen has a broad band of emission from 350 – 400 nm, just below the range of visibility to the naked eye.

2) Long wavelength UV (350 nm) illumination of untreated dry semen produces a more narrow band of emissions centered near the blue visible region.

3) Illuminating dried semen with a band of visible (450 nm) light produces strong visible fluorescence in a broad region with a maximum around 520 nm (orange)."

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

If the SBI crime lab performed multiple tests for semen, none of which detected semen, what is the likelihood that Semen is there?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, let's go through this again.

You say the DNA found on Crystal Mangum was extracted from sperm cells.

The SBI crime lab did not do that. In all likelihood, the SBI used a number of tests to rule out the presence of semen. By all accounts, the SBI Crime lab did not test for DNA once the presence of bodily fluid had been excluded.

By the time DNA Security got the rape kit, there would have been no sperm cells to identify.

In his presentation to the panel trying Mr. Ninny-fong, Brad Bannon mentioned a "sperm fraction". He was referring to products which would have come from degenerated sperm cells.

Considering Ms. Mangum's documented sexual activity, it would be impossible to determine whose sperm those products came from.

In any event, the prsence of unknown males at the party has not been documented.

And, it is implausible that, if these unknowns had perpetrated a rape, and if Lacrosse team members could have identified them, they would have covered up for them.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate-specific_antigen:

"PSA was first identified by researchers attempting to find a substance in seminal fluid that would aid in the investigation of rape cases.[43] PSA is now used to indicate the presence of semen in forensic serology.[44] The semen of adult males has PSA levels far in excess of those found in other tissues; therefore, a high level of PSA found in a sample is an indicator that semen may be present. Because PSA is a biomarker that is expressed independently of spermatozoa, it remains useful in identifying semen from vasectomized and azoospermic males.

References cited:

Hara M, Inorre T, Fukuyama T. (1971). "Some physicochemical characteristics of gamma-seminoprotein, an antigenic component specific for human seminal plasma". Jpn J Legal Med. 25: 322–324.

Bill O. Gartside, Kevin J. Brewer & Carmella L. Strong (April 2003). "Estimation of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Extraction Efficiency from Forensic Samples Using the Seratecâ PSA Semiquant Semiquantitative Membrane Test"

. Forensic Science Communications 5 (2). Archived from the original

on 2008-04-09. Retrieved 2008-05-11.

M. Hochmeister, O. Rudin, U.V.Borer, A. Kratzer, Ch. Gehrig and R. Dirnhofer (1997). Evaluation of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Membrane Tests for the Forensic Identification of Semen

. Eighth International Symposium on Human Identification. Retrieved 2008-05-11.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:25 said: "Who determined sperm cells were present on Crystal Mangum? It was not the SBI crime lab. I say again, by the time DNA Security got the rape kit, any sperm cells would have been degenerated" Dna can be extracted from "degenerated" sperm cells

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Dna can be extracted from 'degenerated' sperm cells".

True. However, inside the body sperm cells can survive 7 days. Ms. Mangum was sexually active within those previous 7 days. Some of the unidentified male DNA was older than 7 days. The finding of male DNA on Crystal Mangum, combined with the fact that no bodily fluids, including semen, was found on the rape kit says whatever sperm cells degenerated were deposited before the night of March 13/14 2006.

What about the bathroom which was too small to simultaneously accommodate 4 adults?

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Very high. High enough that this test[Acid Phosphatase] although routinely done is given little weight.

The references I have cited do not say that.

Anonymous said...

I would say, had I been Dr. Maanly's attending, I would have criticized her for not doing a wet mount in the ER.

Judging retrospectively from the results of the SBI tests, a wet mount would have not shown the presence of sperm cells.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 5:39 said: "I would say, had I been Dr. Maanly's attending, I would have criticized her for not doing a wet mount in the ER"...... It's hard to blame Dr.Manly for making the assumption that she thought she saw semen. Afterall, Crystal was brought to the Hospital by the Police claiming she had been raped. She was un-impaird and at that time and there was no reason to doubt her claim. Nurse Levicy, although not a certified as a SANE at the time but not totally inexperienced noted that her findings were consistant with the patients account of her ordeal and Dr, Manly signed off on what Levicy found. After own her examination Manly noted the presence of difuse edema of the vaginal walls. From their point of view Crystal was a patient and a putative victim. The job of discrediting her was the job of the alleged perpetrator's attornies. Crystal was their patient and they had no reason to practice c.y.a medicine. The Players were clients of the lawyers who had every reason to question everything that might incriminate their clients

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

ken-ninny-hyderal

First, if the most reliable way to document the presence of semen was to identify sperm cells. If sperm cells could have been documented via a wet mount, then Dr. Manly was remiss in not doing a wet mount. That would not have been personal posterior camouflage. That would have been a simple way of documenting the possibility of a rape.

Tara Levicy did not actually examine Crystal. She took her history and then recorded physical findings without actually examining her. That's not how to do a physical exam. Even a 3rd year medical student on his/her first clinical rotation would know that.

At the time, no Lacrosse player had retained an attorney. Why would they have retained counsel? They were not accused of anything.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

Look at it this way. Had Dr. Manly done a wet mount and had identified viable sperm cells, Crystal would have had evidence corroborating a rape, wouldn't she?

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

Consider this.

In the Crystal Mangum case, Dr. Manly thought she saw semen. She could have confirmed that by doing a wet mount. In the sources I consulted, a wet mount is considered an essential part of the exam.

If she is deposed, do you doubt she will be asked did she do a wet mount? If asked that question, she would have to answer, no. She would then be asked, why not. Could she then explain herself by answering, I did not want to practice cya medicine?

Cya medicine is something like hearing hoof beats, observing a horse, and then going through an extensive, expensive procedure to document the absence of zebras.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Afterall, Crystal was brought to the Hospital by the Police claiming she had been raped. She was un-impaird(sic) and at that time and there was no reason to doubt her claim.

If that were so, then why do a physical exam, why accumulate a rape kit for forensic exam?

If the purpose of a physical exam was to obtain evidence of a rape, then why not do a wet mount, a simple test which, if positive for sperm, would have been strong evidence of a rape?

Not to have done a wet mount would be like not doing a test for occult fecal blood in a patient you screening for colo-rectal cancer.

Anonymous said...

here we go again.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Nurse Levicy, although not a certified as a SANE at the time but not totally inexperienced noted that her findings were consistant with the patients account of her ordeal and Dr, Manly signed off on what Levicy found."

Wrong.

Tara Levicy was not credentialed to do a physical exam.

Tara Levicy did not actually do the physical exam. Dr. Manly did, with Crystal observing.

In any event, what Ms.Levicy recorded was that Crystal had findings which were consistent with a rape. That would be unacceptable Medical record keeping even if the case were not a rape case. If I, as an intern, had recorded that on an H&P, one of my superiors wuldhave bounced it back to me saying, record the specific findings.

Suppose Ms. Levicy is deposed in the upcoming lawsuits. She would be asked, what were the specific findings. She might give a list of findings. Then the lawyer would give her a copy of the record and ask her where she listed those findings. She would not be able to. Then the lawyer would ask, did you really discover those findings. Tara might answer, yes. Then the lawyer would ask why she did not document the specific findings. The lawyer would probably cite some text on physical diagnosis saing that specific findings are to be documented. There would go Tara's credibility.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The job of discrediting her[Crystal] was the job of the alleged perpetrator's attornies(sic)."

That is true.

Whether or not Dr. Manly believed Crystal, her job was documentation, and to document, including whether or not Crystal had semen on her person. According to you, a definitive way is to identify sperm cells.

Dr.Manly did not do that. Thereby, she did what you say the defense attorneys were supposed to do, discrediting the accusing witness.

Maybe that is moot. Dr. Manly never would have found sperm cells.

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

I said "Tara Levicy did not actually do the physical exam. Dr. Manly did, with Crystal observing."

I should have said: Tara Levicy did not actually do the physical exam. Dr. Manly did, with Tara Levicy observing.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:11 said: "Maybe that is moot. Dr. Manly never would have found sperm cells" But the rape kit did.

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal "'Maybe that is moot. Dr. Manly never would have found sperm cells' But the rape kit did.

No it did not.

I repeat, the SBI crime lab ruled out the presence of semen and other bodily fluids. The SBI crime lab then did not test for DNA.

By the time the rape kit materials reached DNA Security any sperm cells would have degenerated and unidentifiable.

DNA Security's testing was biochemical and did not specifically involve identifying sperm cells.

DNA Security's tests involved extracting a sperm cell fraction from materials. I say, since the presence of semen was ruled out by the SBI Crime Lab, the only logical conclusion is that the sperm cell fraction must have come from sperm cells deposited before the night of 13/14 March 2006.

I repeat, at the time, the SBI Crime lab was focused on providing the DA with whatever evidence he/she wanted. That is why I believe the SBI Crime lab used more than Acid Phosphatase assay to rule out semen.

If they had not, why would Mr. Ni-ninny-fong, engage DNA Security rather than direct the SBI Crime lab to do further testing for DNA?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, consider this:

Outside the body, sperm cells do not survive for more than a few hours. The best chance for identifying sperm cells would have been a wet mount in the ER at the time of the exam of the alleged victim. That was not done. You say a wet mount would be "cya" medicine.

Anonymous said...

more

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

From http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/0c6b24c3-af68-4efa-a0e7-17a55f1b1147/Body-Fluid-SOPs-Rev-O6.aspx:

"Semen Analysis.

Acid phosphatase
Sperm identification: Christmas Tree Stain
RSID Semen Test"

This is how the SBI Crime Lab tests for semen.

From http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/forensic-tests-for-semen-what-you-should-know/:

"The Christmas Tree Stain: The most reliable confirmation for the presence of semen is the positive visual identification of sperm cells (or spermatozoa) using the Christmas tree stain. Click here to read the NC State Crime Lab’s procedures for semen analysis."

I would say if the SBI Crime lab did test for semen and found none, they used the Christmastree stain and found no sperm.

From http://www.ifi-test.com/rsid_semen.php:

"- Other human body fluids do NOT cross-react with this test[RSID test for semen] procedure. (Fluids tested: saliva, blood, urine, vaginal secretions)
- Animal seminal fluid does NOT cross react with test procedure. (Samples tested: bovine, porcine, caprine, and ovine semen)"

Anonymous said...

Kin-ninny-hyderal

This comes from http://www.ifi-test.com/rsid_saliva.php:

"Detect as Little as 1µL of Human Saliva

This from http://www.ifi-test.com/pdf/RSID_Semen_Flyer_v2.pdf

"- RSID™-Saliva Results Correlate with ySTR procedure."

SBI had a reliable test procedure for identifying semen other than detection of sperm. This test could have identified miniscule amounts of Semen.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

http://www.ifi-test.com/pdf/RSID_Semen_Flyer_v2.pdf

I said "Detect as Little as 1µL of Human Saliva".

The brochure did say:

"Detect as Little as 1µL of Human Seminal Fluid".

Check it out.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for copying and pasting the wrong text.

Anonymous said...

go!

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @2:06 said: "DNA Security's tests involved extracting a sperm cell fraction from materials. I say, since the presence of semen was ruled out by the SBI Crime Lab, the only logical conclusion is that the sperm cell fraction must have come from sperm cells deposited before the night of 13/14 March 2006"..... My comments in parenthesis..... "Dr. Brian Meehan was hired by District Attorney Mike Nifong to conduct DNA testing on evidence collected hours after the alleged attack last March. What Meehan discovered in his lab has undermined the prosecution's case (for the three charged and all the other team members tested) because he found DNA on the rape kit and the accuser's underwear that belonged to at least four unidentified men (one subsequently identified), none from any of the lacrosse players. But when Meehan issued a report of his findings, he left out that potentially exculpatory information about the other men" ... My contention is that these three unidentified persons could have been the guys who raped Crystal

Anonymous said...

newer

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "My contention is that these three unidentified persons could have been the guys who raped Crystal".

My contention is that since the SBI Crime lab determined there was no semen on the rape kit, evidence of any other bodily fluid, said DNA was not deposited on the night of the alleged rape. Ergo, the three unknowns could not have raped Crystal on the night of the alleged crime.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: If semen was present in Crystal at the time the rape exam was done, what was the probability that the tests the SBI crime lab ran would not detect the presence of semen.

The SBI Crime Lab's protocol was to determine Acid Phosphatase level, do a Christmas Tree stain, and do the RSID test for semen.

I repeat, the RSID is capable of detecting miniscule amounts of semen.

Anonymous said...

yet more

Anonymous said...

Kin-ninny-hyderal

Your contention is also that the Lacrosse team members knew who these unknowns were, knew they had perpetrated the rape, and covered up for them even though it was obvious the DA was out to get members of the Lacrosse team for the crime.

Even before the DNA evidence, Mr. Ni-nny-fong was it public proclaiming that the crime had happened, and that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators.

Anonymous said...

more more more

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

It is your contention that identification of sperm cells is the most reliable method of identifying semen.

You also contend that Dr.Manly's failure to do an easy test to identifying sperm cells in suspected semen would have been cya medicine.

Your contentions seem a bit contentious.

Anonymous said...

here comes more, maybe

Anonymous said...

more

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @2:53 AM said: "Your contention is also that the Lacrosse team members knew who these unknowns were, knew they had perpetrated the rape, and covered up for them even though it was obvious the DA was out to get members of the Lacrosse team for the crime"..... Team members present, knew they themselves were innocent and that no forensic evidence could connect them to the crime of rape. Other then the three charged, two with solid alibis, these players didn't need to tell on the perpetrators in order to clear themselves. The third player, without an alibi, might have been guilty of other serious crimes against Crystal and if so could have needed immunity in order to testify. The photo line-up was obviously flawed. Kilgo claims his friend and informant was a player at the party. He told him that David Evans did, commonly, have a "5 o'clock shadow moustache" and there exists photographic evidence of the same, albeit never produced.

Anonymous said...

next

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The photo line-up was obviously flawed. Kilgo claims his friend and informant was a player at the party. He told him that David Evans did, commonly, have a "5 o'clock shadow moustache" and there exists photographic evidence of the same, albeit never produced."

Kilgo has never documented he had any first hand or second hand knowledge about what happened at the Lacrosse party.

So far as David Evans is concerned, Crysta claimed he had a mustache. As you contend, "photographic evidence of the same(David Evans 5 o'clock shadow}...[was] never produced.

To anyone but a ninny, that would mean that photographic evidence of David Evans' mustache did not exist.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Other then the three charged, two with solid alibis, these players [who were not charged] didn't need to tell on the perpetrators in order to clear themselves."

It is still not plausible that those unindicted players would cover for those alleged unknown perpetrators.

It is implausible that the three indicted players would have covered for these alleged unknown perpetrators.

David Evans always insisted he was innocent, that nothing had happened at the party. So far as a robbery charge, David Evans' statement indicated he did not take Crystal's momey, that he tried to recover it. He had no reason to fear indictment for any other crime.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Team members present, knew they themselves were innocent and that no forensic evidence could connect them to the crime of rape."

You forget, Mike Ni-nny-fong knew not only did he have evidence of a crime but also he had evidence to show the indicted players were innocent. He went after them anyway. This improper photo lineup to which you refer was an attempt on the part of Mr. Ni-nny-fong to manufacture evidence.

The three indicted players had every reason to fear they would be wrongfully convicted even though "that no forensic evidence could connect them to the crime of rape."

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

You duck the question.

SBI Crime lab protocol for testing for Semen includes 1) Acid Phosphatase level,2) Christmas tree stain and 3)RSID test for Semen.

Finding no semen on the rape kit means all three tests were negative.

If Crystal really had semen on her person, what is the probability that all three tests would turn up negative?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The third player, without an alibi, might have been guilty of other serious crimes against Crystal and if so could have needed immunity in order to testify."

David Evans was indicted for first degree rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. The only other charge for which he might have been indicted was the theft of of Crystal's $400.

That he was not indicted indicates that the DA did believe what David Evans said on his statement, that he was not involved in taking Crystal's money.

The "third player" had no reason to fear any other "serious crimes against Crystal".

So far as the alleged crime of giving Crystal a noxious substance, you have not shown any real evidence of that alleged crime.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Other then the three charged, two with solid alibis, these players didn't need to tell on the perpetrators in order to clear themselves."

If there were unknown perpetrators, those players did need to tell on them. The whole team was punished for the party and subjected to rather extreme hatred and opprobrium. Only a ninny would think they would put up with all this and not reveal those unknown perpetrators, the existence of whom said ninny has not been able to document.

You also forget that Mr. Ni-nny-fong was blaming the whole team for what he said had happened at the party, alleging a wall of silence, claiming they knew what happened in the bathroom an would not come forth.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "The photo line-up was obviously flawed.

No shit, Sherlock.

So go tell your friend Sid-ninny who insists that flawed lineup justified Mr. Ni-nny-fong's wrongful prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You contend that it is a fallacy that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players for political advantage.

So exactly why was he so intent on prosecuting members of the Lacrosse team when he had evidence of their innocence.

I ask again, since all tests for Semen on Ms. Mangum's rape kit turned up negative, as did tests for blood and saliva, what was the likelihood that anyone at the party, known or otherwise, had deposited his bodily fluids on Crystal?

Anonymous said...

I said: "You forget, Mike Ni-nny-fong knew not only did he have evidence of a crime but also he had evidence to show the indicted players were innocent. He went after them anyway. This improper photo lineup to which you refer was an attempt on the part of Mr. Ni-nny-fong to manufacture evidence. '

I should have said: You forget, Mike Ni-nny-fong knew not only did he have no evidence of a crime but also he had evidence to show the indicted players were innocent. He went after them anyway. This improper photo lineup to which you refer was an attempt on the part of Mr. Ni-nny-fong to manufacture evidence.

Anonymous said...

ken-ninny-hyderal

I have already posted this:

"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."

DNA from more than 4 unidentified ales was found on Crystal's person.

Anonymous said...

I said "DNA from more than 4 unidentified ales was found on Crystal's person."

I should have said DNA from more than 4 unidentified males was found on Crystal's person.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:54 said: "If Crystal really had semen on her person, what is the probability that all three tests would turn up negative"..... Obviously high, since subsequent testing of the rape kit specimens, by DNA Security, was able to extract DNA from sperm cells and since semen is the vehicle for sperm it's presence could be deduced.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Anonymous @ 4:54 said: "If Crystal really had semen on her person, what is the probability that all three tests would turn up negative"..... Obviously high, since subsequent testing of the rape kit specimens, by DNA Security, was able to extract DNA from sperm cells and since semen is the vehicle for sperm it's presence could be deduced."

Wrong!

Since the SBI Crime lab testing showed definitively that semen had not been deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006, the only thing that could be deduced was whatever sperm cells were on Ms. Mangum, they were deposited before 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal:

You have admitted that Crystal was sexually active. DNA Security found male DNA from more than 3 unknown males. Try at least 5.

Male DNA would have been found on her person, regardless of her false claim of rape.

Ergo, the Male DNA found on Crystal would it not indicate rape unless it matched DNA actually extracted from Semen on her person. The SBI Crime lab did not find evidence of semen, blood or saliva on her rape kit. The only conclusion which can be drawn from that is, no male bodily fluid was deposited on Crystal's person on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Your reasoning seems to be, Crystal alleged there was a rape, DNA, some of it from Sperm, was found on her person. So you believe that establishes that a rape occurred and that it happened on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Since the tests revealed no semen, and the time of sperm deposition can not, in this case, be established, the finding of unidentified male DNA, Even from sperm, does not establish that a rape took place.

I suggest you ask an authority, someone like Sid-ninny's alleged friend Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Physical evidence may link a person to another but contact may have happened some time ago, and it does not explain the nature of the contact."

This from:

http://iambecauseweare.wordpress.com/myths-about-sexual-assault-rape-myths/

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 8:59 AM 2-16-12 : Thanks for this exellent link on the facts and myths surrounding rape. I beleive, in the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal falls within the 96%-98% who do not make a false accusation of rape.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "@ Anonymous 8:59 AM 2-16-12 : Thanks for this exellent link on the facts and myths surrounding rape. I beleive, in the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal falls within the 96%-98% who do not make a false accusation of rape."

So how do you explain that there was no forensic evidence that she was raped? The crime she alleged was a crime which would have left forensic evidence.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I beleive(sic), in the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal falls within the 96%-98% who do not make a false accusation of rape."

Regardless of what you believe, Crystal falsely accused three innocent men of raping her.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 284 of 284   Newer› Newest»