Sunday, June 17, 2012

Durham Prosecutors: “Oops!” Charges dropped against two in the Durham cult murder case

Word count 1,183


On Tuesday, June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dismissed charges of “accessory after the fact” against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Falisha Moses, the mother and sister respectively of Peter Lucas Moses Jr. The day before, Peter Moses pled guilty to the murders of four year-old Jadon Higganbothan and Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, in her late twenties. Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses were amongst a group of six people other than Peter Moses who were charged with murder shortly after the bodies of the two victims were discovered a year ago around June 8, 2011.

The reasons the Durham prosecutors had for dismissing the charges against Peter Moses’ mother and sister are unknown to media, and not having access to prosecution discovery, I can supply no reason either, other than the fact that evidence for bringing the charges never existed in the first place. A year ago, when the two were arrested, Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses were charged with murder and ordered to be held without bail. However, some time during the interval, the charge used to hold them behind bars was changed to “accessory after the fact.”

What is bothersome regarding the others who are charged with “accessory after the fact” in the cult murder case is the probability that much of the prosecutor’s case will rely on testimony from Peter Lucas Moses, who entered into a plea deal to spare him from the death penalty. Surely such testimony from a confessed murderer in cooperation with prosecutors lacks credibility from the git-go.

Dismissal of the accessory charge against them was not of insignificant consequence as both of them in essence served a one year term for committing no crime. In dropping the charges, the Durham prosecutors are admitting to mistakenly arresting and incarcerating Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses… holding them in jail custody for more than a year… and subjecting them to scorn, shame, and ridicule by media reports spreading their names and faces across the state. Dropping the charges against them will not restore the lost year of their lives, which the prosecutors were all to eager and unapologetically to take from them… neither will it remove the emotional and physical scars they suffered as a result of their unjust incarceration… nor will it cleanse their reputations that have been smeared by the reckless charges and arrests.

The problem with mass arrests and incarcerations based on “accessory after the fact” charges is that it tends to entrap many innocent people who are related to the criminal perpetrator, as in this case, or have a brief interaction with a suspect after the commission of the crime. Prosecutors use the accessory charge to place individuals in jail who are not suspected of taking part in the defining criminal act… they are often implicated solely for their contact with the criminal, not matter how innocent or trivial.

The accessory after the fact charge is too frequently abused by North Carolina prosecutors, often to incarcerate innocent African Americans. This is the charged that was brought by Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster against James Arthur Johnson of Wilson, NC, when prosecutor Bill Wolfe’s bluff was called in his failed attempt to get Johnson to take a plea deal after serving 39 months for murder, rape, and kidnapping charges he obviously did not commit. What is particularly tragic about Johnson’s case is that he provided information which solved the heinous crimes against Brittany Willis. Instead of receiving, from the family and friends of the victim, thanks and the $20,000 reward he earned for going to the police with information that cracked the case open, all Johnson received was more than three years in jail and a criminal record.

However, it is not a rarity in North Carolina for innocent blacks to be arrested and held in jail for lengthy periods of time without there being credible evidence of their being charged. Carletta Alston of Knightdale was recently arrested and charged with the murder of her stepfather. She was imprisoned for a year before the charges against her were dropped. Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford (who prosecuted an innocent man Gregory Taylor) was evidently unable to find someone to give perjured testimony against Ms. Alston.

The entire North Carolina justice system mentality that approves charging and arresting African Americans first then coming up with credible evidence later, is what nearly led to my arrest at Duke University in April 2010. It was not enough that Duke harassed, humiliated and intimidated me just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong, but it had no compunction about tossing me in jail because I am an African American… fortunately crossing paths with Duke Law Professor James Coleman prevented that.

There is another case in Durham County Prosecutor’s docket that should be immediately dismissed. The murder and larceny charges against Crystal Mangum, the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, lack credible evidence and are based on bogus and fraudulent documents… all part of a vendetta prosecution for payback because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks conspired with her predecessor on the case, Kelly Gauger, and medical examiner Clay Nichols to trump up the murder charge against Mangum. Governor Bev Perdue and the Durham district attorney she appointed, Leon Stanback, are aware of the injustice in the charges against Mangum and are in position to rectify them… however, by remaining silent, they are conspirators after the fact.

The fiasco surrounding the charges against Mangum would not be happening if Mike Nifong were the Durham district attorney. Mr. Nifong was a prosecutor of highest integrity who was professionally represented a paragon of a “minister of justice.” Prosecutors and politicians who allow innocent people to remain incarcerated for political reasons are lacking in integrity and morals.

Crystal Mangum has been incarcerated 441 days as of today… a victim of domestic abuse who stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense… a non-fatal stab wound to Daye, who died after elective removal from life support due to an unrelated botched medical procedure by Duke University Hospital staff… a victim of a trumped up larceny charge for cashier’s checks given to her by Daye; cashier’s checks she could not convert for her use; cashier’s checks which Daye retained value of despite lacking physical possession of the paper documents.

It is past time for the state to drop charges against Mangum and release her from jail so that she can reunite with her three young children who have suffered because of her absence in their lives. By dropping charges against Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses, the state has shown its proficiency in destroying lives of innocent people by taking away years of their liberty. If the state has an ounce of compassion, humanity, ethics, or sense of true justice, it would immediately drop the bogus charges against Crystal Mangum and release her from custody.

Durham prosecutors need to face the fact that Mangum’s freedom is inevitable, and it needs to cut its losses by doing the right thing now, rather than later.

356 comments:

1 – 200 of 356   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

"Durham prosecutors need to face the fact that Mangum’s freedom is inevitable, and it needs to cut its losses by doing the right thing now, rather than later."


Bahahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The entire North Carolina justice system mentality that approves charging and arresting African Americans first then coming up with credible evidence later, is what nearly led to my arrest at Duke University in April 2010. It was not enough that Duke harassed, humiliated and intimidated me just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong, but it had no compunction about tossing me in jail because I am an African American".

That is a manifestation of your attitude that because you are a Black man you are above the law.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Explain why you expect this mockery of a legal treatise to be accepted as credible when you have admitted that you, the author, have little to no expertise in legal matters.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Durham prosecutors need to face the fact that Mangum’s freedom is inevitable, and it needs to cut its losses by doing the right thing now, rather than later."

Disgraced, disbarred former Durham Prosecutor NIFONG never did the right thing once he became aware that Crystal was alleging she had been raped.

That is why he went from being DA NIFONG to being disbarred, disgraced, former DA NIFONG>

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Instead of receiving, from the family and friends of the victim(Britanny Willis), thanks and the $20,000 reward he(James Johnson) earned..."

SIDNEY, why doesn't your committee get together and pay for a lawyer for James Johnson sue the Willis family for what you allege he earnde?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"There is another case in Durham County Prosecutor’s docket that should be immediately dismissed."

So why are you so reluctant to insist on a hearing(via Crystal's attorney) to have the charges dismissed?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"the state(of NC) has shown its proficiency in destroying lives of innocent people by taking away years of their liberty."

Just like they did via DA NIFONG's wrongful prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players?

Anonymous said...

Two words......bull crap.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"However, it is not a rarity in North Carolina for innocent blacks to be arrested and held in jail for lengthy periods of time without there being credible evidence of their being charged."

Such happened with innocent Black men Frankie Washington and Leon Brown, wrongfully incarcerated by disgraced, dismissed, soon to be disbarred Black former DA Tracey Cline, a situation about which you try mightily to avoid.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"However, it is not a rarity in North Carolina for innocent blacks to be arrested and held in jail for lengthy periods of time without there being credible evidence of their being charged."

Yet you do not think it was an injustice that three innocent Caucasian men were falsely accused of raping Crystal Mangum and then wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt DA who tried to deny them a fair trial.

Racist Hypocrite, thy nameis SIDNEY HARR.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"neither will it remove the emotional and physical scars they suffered as a result of their unjust incarceration… nor will it cleanse their reputations that have been smeared by the reckless charges and arrests."

You have said in your blog that the three innocent Lacrosse defendants had to spend not one day in jail, as if they did not suffer significant emotional scarring as a result of being falsely accused and wrongfully prosecuted.

I guess you will claim ignorance of all the hate and scorn which was directed at them. That is what you usually do when you do not want to confront certain facts.

SIDNEY, I again name you hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

I add to my last comment:

DA NIFONG had no intention of allowing the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse defendants out on bail. He requested and got an exorbitant amount of bail. Compare to Michael Jermaine Burch, a black man who raped a Caucasian woman who made a comparitively small bail and then raped another woman.

DA NIFONG intended to keep the innocent Lacrosse defendants incarcerated for an indefinite length of time.

Yet you call him a minister of justice.

Anonymous said...

Point One. The REASONS for dropping the charges of accessory have NOT been fully disclosed, even to you, harr. There have been recent developments in this case that changed the basis for the charge and, when those developments came to light, the charges were dropped. There is no question that these women were involved, i.e., that they knew about the circumstances of the murders. The issue was whether their silence and stonewalling of information constituted the basis for an accessory charge. You try to pretend that there was no basis for the charges, in the first place, and that view, harr, is absolutely inaccurate.
Point Two. Your non-case harrassing lawsuit against Duke was not only thrown out of court, harr....you got a scathing reprimand from a very senior and totally objective judge. If Professor Coleman thought you had a case, and if YOU thought you could call him as a witness in your non-case, I am 100% certain, you would have tried to do so. The FACT that you did NOT try to get him involved speaks clearly about the airbag value of your noncase.
Point Three. You, through you self-ego-inflating nonsense and interference, have caused delays in Mangum's progress toward a court date. YOU. I also remind you that Mangum wanted Shell, NOT Vann, to defend her. Vann was removed from the case, the first time arou8nd, at HER request and Shella assigned to it. YOU screwed the case up and Shella walked....and Vann is back. I guess, now, Mangum will have an attorney that SHE did not want a year ago.......because of YOU.
Point Four. Continue to whine about poor Mangum....but, for god's sake, don't get off your whining backside and bail her out. The reasons why you don't spring for her bail are very clear. You don't give a damn how long she is in jail. You know she would likely commit another crime and you might be in the ditch over her bail money. You are all talk and no substance.

Anonymous said...

thank god the word count is below the hurl level on this last chapter in the whine monologue. harr has gotten long winded lately......

Anonymous said...

Geez, old courageous vicky ought to be just tickled rainbow colors that the murder of the four year old boy (the case in which the two women harr is ranting about) were involved. The baby boy was murdered because the leader of the cult thought the little boy was homosexual. There you go,vicky, all happy now? At least there will be one less disease ridden perverted little boy to cost you taxpaying citizens of durham money. I hope you are happy, harr....being all cozy with courageous vicky.
Yet another example of the kind of religious mumbo jumbo that is endorsed by Peterson ....leading to the murder of an innocent child.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Durham prosecutors need to face the fact that Mangum’s freedom is inevitable, and it needs to cut its losses by doing the right thing now, rather than later."

Disgraced, disbarred former Durham Prosecutor NIFONG never did the right thing once he became aware that Crystal was alleging she had been raped.

That is why he went from being DA NIFONG to being disbarred, disgraced, former DA NIFONG>


You are absolutely wrong! When Mike Nifong determined that the charge against the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not meet those of rape, he took the initiative to dismiss the rape charges and proceeded with the sexual assault charges.

You, like many others have been misled by the media, and that is why you can find the truth and enlightenment at this blog site.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Instead of receiving, from the family and friends of the victim(Britanny Willis), thanks and the $20,000 reward he(James Johnson) earned..."

SIDNEY, why doesn't your committee get together and pay for a lawyer for James Johnson sue the Willis family for what you allege he earnde?


Why waste our money. The only thing a lawyer would do is run up a big bill... probably more than $20,000. If James Arthur Johnson decides to go to court to retrieve the money that is due him, then I would suggest that he file Pro Se. I would help him draft a complaint, however, that is against the law, as I now am aware... so therefore, I will not do so.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"There is another case in Durham County Prosecutor’s docket that should be immediately dismissed."

So why are you so reluctant to insist on a hearing(via Crystal's attorney) to have the charges dismissed?


I have no problem with Crystal's attorney filing a motion to have the charges against her dismissed. I even encouraged that he do so, but I cannot twist his arm and force him to do what I believe is in Mangum's best interests.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Why waste our money(hiring a lawyer to represent James Johnson). The only thing a lawyer would do is run up a big bill... probably more than $20,000."

SIDNEY again reveals he will not put his money where his mouth is.

SIDNEY, how about this. You and your gang agree to pay $20,000 to James Johnson but only if Crystal's case does go to trial.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I have no problem with Crystal's attorney filing a motion to have the charges against her dismissed. I even encouraged that he do so, but I cannot twist his arm and force him to do what I believe is in Mangum's best interests."

You reveal that yes you do have problems with Crystal having to testify in open court.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"the state(of NC) has shown its proficiency in destroying lives of innocent people by taking away years of their liberty."

Just like they did via DA NIFONG's wrongful prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players?


Boy, do you need a reality check! First of all, it was never proven that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent... just because Attorney General Cooper says so doesn't make it so. Secondly, the Duke Lacrosse defendants never spent one day in jail... what loss of liberty are you talking about? And finally, the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with the help of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke University for $20 million each... but that's not enough as they're trying to squelch the City of Durham out of $10 mil each.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"However, it is not a rarity in North Carolina for innocent blacks to be arrested and held in jail for lengthy periods of time without there being credible evidence of their being charged."

Yet you do not think it was an injustice that three innocent Caucasian men were falsely accused of raping Crystal Mangum and then wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt DA who tried to deny them a fair trial.

Racist Hypocrite, thy nameis SIDNEY HARR.


Mon ami, there is a big difference between the two cases. I have not been privvy to the prosecution discovery in the Duke Lacrosse case, although from what I have heard about it, it seems very logical that there are grounds for the prosecution of the three defendants.

Regarding the ludicrous case against Mangum in Daye's death... and the larceny of cashier's checks, I have seen important prosecution discovery and so I am therefore able to intelligently argue why the prosecution's charges against Mangum are bogus. Comprende?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"First of all, it was never proven that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent... just because Attorney General Cooper says so doesn't make it so."

Second of all(which you ignore), the defendants are not required to prove them innocent. The DA, the Prosecutor has the obligation to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here we have more evidence that you believe you are above the law and you do not respect the law.

Third of all, it was proven that the defendants were innocent as a matter of Fact, not judicial opinion. There was no evidence a crime was committed. Since no crime was committed, the innocent men accused of said crime could be nothing else but innocent. More evidence you do not know the law, more evidence you believe you are above the law, more evidence that you do not respect the law.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"neither will it remove the emotional and physical scars they suffered as a result of their unjust incarceration… nor will it cleanse their reputations that have been smeared by the reckless charges and arrests."

You have said in your blog that the three innocent Lacrosse defendants had to spend not one day in jail, as if they did not suffer significant emotional scarring as a result of being falsely accused and wrongfully prosecuted.

I guess you will claim ignorance of all the hate and scorn which was directed at them. That is what you usually do when you do not want to confront certain facts.

SIDNEY, I again name you hypocrite.


I am sure that the hatred and scorn directed at the Duke Lacrosse defendants has been sufficiently assuaged by the $20 million they each received after shaking down Duke University.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

At least you are no longer trying to correctly spell "contraire".

"Mon ami, there is a big difference between the two cases. I have not been privvy to the prosecution discovery in the Duke Lacrosse case, although from what I have heard about it, it seems very logical that there are grounds for the prosecution of the three defendants."

What makes you think your having access to the prosecution discovery in the phony Duke case would have made a difference? You have admitted on a number of separate occasions you have no legal education or training.

The fiasco of your frivolous lawsuit against Duke shows you are not capable of recognizing what is legally meritorious and what is not.

Why don't you list the specific grounds for the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am sure that the hatred and scorn directed at the Duke Lacrosse defendants has been sufficiently assuaged by the $20 million they each received after shaking down Duke University."

Yet you argue that the innocent Lacrosse players had no cause of action against Duke.

So, instead of dodging, explain why Duke would have settled rather than defend.

That Joe Cheshire may have persuaded them that their insurance carrier would pay the settlement is not a plausible explanation. It is a really deluded fantasy on your part.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

At least now you are trying Spanish rather than French.

"Regarding the ludicrous case against Mangum in Daye's death... and the larceny of cashier's checks, I have seen important prosecution discovery and so I am therefore able to intelligently argue why the prosecution's charges against Mangum are bogus. Comprende?"

What I comprehend is that on one hand you claim limited knowledge of the law and use that as an excuse for your violations of Federal Law.

Then on the other hand, you say you are capable of understanding what the prosecution has against Crystal and that you can definitively say the case has no merit.

And, this is all from a deluded megalomaniac who believes DA NIFONG had a case against the Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

I say again.

List specifically what grounds DA NIFONG had to justify indictment and prosecution of the Lacrosse Players.

Crystal's word does not count. Her rape allegations are not credible.

That she identified three lacrosse players as her assailants does not count. Her identifications were the result of an improper lineup procedure and even though the procedure was rigged against the Lacrosse team, her identifications were not reliable.

Anonymous said...

Poor sidney....still cant grasp the fundamental principle of innocent till proven guilty.......not guilty till proven innocent. What an idiot!
It just frosts his racist backside that those white boys actually didnnt do a damn thing to Mangum. Just twists him a good one, bless his heart. Must be some sorry way to go through life, seeing himself as the victim and sole source of wisdom in a world full of conspirators.
Please note that harr has been asked the fundamental DNA questions NINE times and he is still hiding.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"You are absolutely wrong! When Mike Nifong determined that the charge against the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not meet those of rape, he took the initiative to dismiss the rape charges and proceeded with the sexual assault charges."

No I am absolutely correct.

The sexual assault alleged by Crystal was a penetrating semen depositing rape. Forensic examination in late March 2006, the results of which DA NIFONG knew about, indicated no such crime had happened. At that point he was ethically obligated to drop the charges.

Instead he manufactured evidence via the improperly conducted lineup at which Crystal failed to reliably identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant. Then he used that manufactured evidence to indict three players against whom he had no real evidence.

He was backed into dropping the rape charges not because he uncovered new evidence but because he and his office FAILED to interview Crystal until December of 2006. When they did, Crystal could not recall penetration which was an essential element of the crime of rape.

DA Nifong continued the prosecution because he thought he could outlast the defendants, because he believed he could force them to plead to something.

Unfortuantely, he did not understand he was up against innocent men who had the integrity and the means not to cave in and take a plea.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Boy, do you need a reality check! First of all, it was never proven that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent... just because Attorney General Cooper says so doesn't make it so."

You seem to think that your belief that they are not innocent renders them not innocent.

Again you demonstrate your belief, that you are above the law, and you do not respect the law.

What makes them innocent is that they did not commit the crime with which they were charged.

Answer this, if you can without dodging or setting up a straw man, what evidence was there that the Lacrosse players did perpetrate a crime?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"...the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with the help of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke University for $20 million each... but that's not enough as they're trying to squelch the City of Durham out of $10 mil each."

SIDNEY, don't dodge. Explain why the defendants did not have a cause of action against Duke.

Explain why Duke would settle with plaintiffs who had no cause of action rather than defend against them.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"You, like many others have been misled by the media, and that is why you can find the truth and enlightenment at this blog site."

You believe that by stating two lies you can tell the truth.

It does not work that way, SIDNEY.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY, eight straight posts(by me) unanswered by you - have you run out of straw, or out of dodges.

Lance the Intern said...

"I am sure that the hatred and scorn directed at the Duke Lacrosse defendants has been sufficiently assuaged by the $20 million they each received after shaking down Duke University."

Please either provide a valid source for your "$20 million" claim, or stop stating this as if it is a fact.

The truth is neither you nor I know the settlement amount. To keep proclaiming it as such in the absence of truth is, well, a lie.

Lance the Intern said...

Sid, in America, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, thus it was never necessary for it to be "..proven that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent"

It's a concept most 4th graders seem able to grasp....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Explain, if the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse defendants had no cause of action against Duke, why did Duke settle with them rather than defend.

Anonymous said...

Harr would certainly have us believe that his supposed ignorance of the law around practicing law without a license and illegally publishing HIPPA-PHI would entitle him to "innocent until proven guilty" protection. It's just that he does not think justice ought to be equal. He is a racist, through and through.....the worst kind....because he refuses to admit it and because his own prejudice and weakness is hidden behind a kind of puffery and arrogance that he believes is a surrogate for intelligence and wit. A sad little man.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Who says he respects the law and does not try to deprive people of rights:

Via your comment, that the innocent Lacrosse players were not proven innocent, you again show you do not respect the law. You say, de facto, Caucasians accused by Black people, even if they were falsely accused, are not entitled to due process, i.e. the presumption of innocence.

So again I name you a hypocrite and a racist.

Anonymous said...

What I find silly and disgusting about this whole stupid flop (J4N) is that harr is spouting the same crap he was spouting several years ago. It's all the same pointless nonsense about nifong and mangum and, of course, the star of his own show, HIM. Hilarious and a flaming waste of time and bandwidth. By contrast, the comments from KC Johnson remain as fresh, interesting, informative, provocative and timely as when the LAX hoax began in 2006. (see the latest piece on Coach K's hypocrisy in criticizing Penn for firing Paterno yet keeping his distance from the LAX players till it was safe to jump on their bandwagon). Johnson is not a hardcore right wing Republican as Harr and silly Kenny would have us believe. His work has received international recognition and his scholarly research into the Duke LAX rape hoax has been, and remains, outstanding. I occasionally read this site for comic relief; I read DIW for Professor Johnson opinion and perspective because he is well informed, a brillant writer, and a true scholar. Harr is a joke and an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

harr, name ONE thing you have done, actually done, that has helped Nifong and Mangum. From what I hear, Nifong wants no part of you....at least publicly.....though many of us think you are nothing but his puppet. Mangum? You have caused a fine attorney to resign from her case and, now, she gets Vann.....who she said she did not want.

Walt said...

Sid, you've taken a beating for this posting, and normally I wouldn't pile on. But, you made a statement that just ignores the facts. You wrote that Nifong changed the charge once he learned that the facts wouldn't support rape. That is not true. The facts, once the SBI lab report was in would not support rape or sexual assault. Instead of dismissing then, as the law required, Nifong went hunting for a different lab result. Given the SBI's record, I almost don't blame him for that. When his second lab couldn't come up with results that implicated anyone at the party, Nifong persisted with his false prosecution. That was indefensible.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding that Mangum, when finally questioned, said she could not clearly remember whether she had, in fact, been actually penetrated. (a requirement for a charge of rape in NC). I believe she said this AFTER she learned that there was no LAX semen in/on her....therefore, she "adjusted" her memory and couldn't confirm penetration.
Walt, correct me if I am wrong.....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

In view of Walt's latest comment, do you still maintain your blog is the definitive source of truth.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ June 19, 2012 7:48 AM:

I am not Walt.

As I remember the situation, neither DA NIFONG nor anyone in his office interviewed Crystal until I believe December of 2006, about 9 months after the case started.

On that interview, she stated she could not remember being penetrated, although in the medical record and during the improper lineup procedure she did claim she had been penetrated.

SIDNEY HARR at one time claimed it was an example of how ethical DA NIFONG was that he dropped the rape charge in December of 2006.

If there had been nothing else in the case, DA NIFONG's failure to interview the complaining witness in a rape case would have been cause for firing him as Durham DA. It was unadulterated legal negligence.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you 7:48, 100%. It's one thing to be incompetent. It's another to be crooked.....and bathrobe boy was BOTH.

Anonymous said...

Lance and Walt, do you think Harr "practiced law without a license" when he filed motions for Mangum? He claims she knew about it and signed the paperwork, which, as I read the NC applicable statutes, is really not relevant. I have also understood that whether a fee was charged (or not) is also not relevant. Is filing motions considered the "practice of law" in your opinion? I can't find a definition of what constitutes "practice of law". If he gave her "legal advice", would that behavior constitute "practicing law without a license"? I heard rumors about the Bar's investigation of his behavior but nothing substantive. Sure would like to hear from you about these questions....

Anonymous said...

Here's what I found in NC re the definition of practicing law:
North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES ANNOTATED. CHAPTER 84. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW. ARTICLE 1. QUALIFICATIONS OF ATTORNEY; UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
§84-2.1. “Practice of law” defined.
The phrase “practice law” as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories, accounts or reports of guardians, trustees, administrators or executors, or preparing or aiding in the preparation of any petitions or orders in any probate or court proceeding; abstracting or passing upon titles, the preparation and filing of petitions for use in any court, including administrative tribunals and other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, or assisting by advice, counsel, or otherwise in any legal work; and to advise or give opinion upon the legal rights of any person, firm or corporation: Provided, that the above reference to particular acts which are specifically included within the definition of the phrase “practice law” shall not be construed to limit the foregoing general definition of the term, but shall be construed to include the foregoing particular acts, as well as all other acts within the general definition."
sounds to me like this fits harr......though not being a lawyer, I have no clue.....

kenhyderal said...

Anonymius @ 6:10 said " Johnson is not a hardcore right wing Republican as Harr and silly Kenny would have us believe. His work has received international recognition and his scholarly research into the Duke LAX rape hoax has been, and remains, outstanding. I occasionally read this site for comic relief; I read DIW for Professor Johnson opinion and perspective because he is well informed, a brillant writer, and a true scholar" Here's another view of the vaunted KC http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-17--1263-view-347

Anonymous said...

sure, kenny.....have you checked the source of this opinion? if I were you, I might do that.....

Anonymous said...

wow, i guess harvard and all those other dumb folks are just dips to you, huh, kenny. An award to this man, at this level of scrutiny, means a little tiny bit more than this halfass comment

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Charles Piot, like you and SIDNEY HARR, chooses to ignore facts and believe that unsupported allegations are the truth.

In citing Charles Piot, you again demonstrate you are not either a profound or astute thinker. You demonstrate your attitude towards the phony Duke rape case is delusional.

Anonymous said...

Charles Piot did not and could not provide ANY substantive dispute of any of the facts and assertions that Johnson wrote. In fact, all Piot did was make blanket criticism of Johnson, saying Johnson was a racist because Johnson strongly supported due process and fairness for the LAX guys........unlike the Duke 88 who clearly supported a harr "guilty without trial, lynch the Fxxxxxx now" mentality.
When Johnson did make a mistake in his research or writing, he admitted it and corrected his errors.......also unlike harr who routinely blames his pseudo air sources for his repeated lies.
Say what you will, ken edwards, comparing harr to johnson is like comparing MacDonald's burger to filet.....they are both meat but the MicD is filled with sawdust and toenails.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

One of Charles Piot's delusions is that the group of 88 statement was not about the Duke Lacrosse players or about the alleged rape.

The gang of 88 changed their tune about their guilt presuming statement after it became clear that no rape had happened.

As I have said a few times on DIW, it is amazing to what extents intellectual snobs will go to to avoid admitting they were wrong.

However, the designation "intellectual snob" does not apply to you, someone who has shown very little in the way of an intellect.

You will notice that this piece by Charles Piot was published in 2007, about 4 months after AG Cooper announced his belief that the Lacrosse players were innocent. Since then, Charles Piot, like Jesse Jackson, Kilgo, Al Sharpton, Justice 58, Nancy Grace have all been silent about the Duke rape hoax.

A comment about Charles Piot from RateMyProfessor.com:

"Very easy class that boils down to "WHITE PEOPLE DID IT(emphasis added)." The tests are 100% based on the notes and are fairly simple, although they do have some tricky items. The two essays are four pages each, which makes it ridiculous that they are worth 25% of the grade each. They are also graded rather arbitrarily. Still, easy A overall

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"kenhyderal said...

Anonymius(sic)"

Please note the proper spelling is "Anonymous".


The missepelling "Anonymius" was not copied and pasted from the Anonymous comment posted at 6:10AM today.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ June 19, 2012 10:33 AM:

Comparing SIDNEY HARR, in any way to McDonalds is gross defamation of McDonalds.

Anonymous said...

LOL, my deep apologies to Mickey D........:)
harr is, indeed, macwhacked....

Anonymous said...

Piot has published a book concerning this concept.....
"droits de l'homme
1n (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)"
Apparently his views don't extend droits de l"homme to innocent white men.....because they don't fit his essential worldview of
"evil white oppressors who are responsible for all things bad". In other words, if you happen to be white, you're satan with legs.

Lance the Intern said...

....And here's KC's rebuttal to the Piot article:

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Are we going to see more "Right on, Kenhyderal" and "Brilliant analysis, Kenhyderal" type of pseudo comments in response to your Piot post?

Anonymous said...

Lance, I just read the rebuttal, yet again. What I enjoy about Johnson's work is that he nails, I mean nails, his points. Piot is a fraud and he has been exposed, over and over, since 2007. A snake oil salesman if ever there was one. To fail to disclose his personal relationship with Allison would, under normal circumstances, be grounds to not only dismiss his work but also to dismiss HIM. Cultural Anthro, my left foot! To Piot, it's just reaaaaaalllly simple....make money, keep a fat job at Duke and sound smart by using four dollar words (incorrectly) when a quarter word would do. He is a Wahneeeeeeema clone.....and drinks Karla's koolaide for lunch.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ken Edwards,
My name is Malek. I went to Hillside High School with Crystal. She is a nice lady.

Signed,
Charlie....er, uh.....Malek

Anonymous said...

I say again, both SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL have run out of straw and dodges.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

At least you are no longer trying to correctly spell "contraire".

"Mon ami, there is a big difference between the two cases. I have not been privvy to the prosecution discovery in the Duke Lacrosse case, although from what I have heard about it, it seems very logical that there are grounds for the prosecution of the three defendants."

What makes you think your having access to the prosecution discovery in the phony Duke case would have made a difference? You have admitted on a number of separate occasions you have no legal education or training.

The fiasco of your frivolous lawsuit against Duke shows you are not capable of recognizing what is legally meritorious and what is not.

Why don't you list the specific grounds for the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants.


First of all, the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not in jail, have been declared "innocent" by the attorney general, are doted on by the media, and shook down Duke University for $20 mil. They're water under the bridge.

Crystal, on the other hand, is in jail on trumped up charges of a vendetta prosecution.

Finally, my misspelling of "contraire" was unintentional. I'll try to do better next time.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"...the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with the help of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke University for $20 million each... but that's not enough as they're trying to squelch the City of Durham out of $10 mil each."

SIDNEY, don't dodge. Explain why the defendants did not have a cause of action against Duke.

Explain why Duke would settle with plaintiffs who had no cause of action rather than defend against them.


I cannot explain why the defendants do have a cause of action against Duke. What did Duke do the the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers? They received plenty of warning to rein in their rowdy behavior from President Brodhead... but they didn't.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I cannot explain why the defendants do have a cause of action against Duke. What did Duke do the the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers? They received plenty of warning to rein in their rowdy behavior from President Brodhead... but they didn't."

Sidney recycles used, ineffective dodge.

SIDNEY, the question which you are trying to dodge is, why would Duke settle with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players(who did nothing to Crystal, as was proved by the facts) if they had no legitimate cause of action against Duke and Duke could have prevailed in court?

You have claimed Duke could have prevailed in court. So explain why they did not defend in court if they could have prevailed.

Hint: a defendant like Duke settles because they can not defend and they do not want the plaintiffs' complaint to become part of the public record.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

The "beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers" are a figment of your deluded, megalomaniac imagination.

The facts of the case show, the party was no where near what you describe it to be, and that Crystal was too impaired to do anything worth ogling at.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

""I cannot explain why the defendants do have a cause of action against Duke."

Your assertion is that the Lacrosse players shook down Duke for millions of dollars. Your assertion is that Duke could have prevailed in court. Ergo, you assert the Lacrosse players did not have a cause of action against Duke.

I am not asking why the Duke defendants had a cause of action. Put it this way. If the Duke Lacrosse players had no cause of action, why did Duke settle with them?

I assert, if the Lacrosse players had o cause of action, Duke would not have settled. They would have defended the case.

So I repeat the question. Why did Duke settle with them.

You once claimed, in your frivolous lawsuit against Duke, if you had retained an attorney, Duke would have bought him off to sabotage your case against Duke. Why did Duke not buy off the attorneys for the innocent Lacrosse players?

Let's see if you can do a double dodge.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 1:58 said: " The "beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers" are a figment of your deluded, megalomaniac imagination".......... Talk about being in denial.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:58 said: 'The "beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers' are a figment of your deluded, megalomaniac imagination".......... Talk about being in denial."

I have been talking about denial for a long time - the state of denial which you and SIDNEY try to pass off as a crusade for justice.

Anonymous said...

I thought crystal was just a dancer,kenny hissy. Seems to me you and harr are the ones now calling her a stripper. I guess when you show up at a party in your underwer, strippin isnt much of a chore

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said :The "beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling raucous lacrosse partygoers" are a figment of your deluded, megalomaniac imagination"............
"Subdued lemonade sipping choir- boys who averted their eyes when the show-girls appeared? Yeah sure, give me a break. You reflexively defend the Players, just like their "Mommies" do, no matter what. Shades of Joren van der Sloot's Parents.

Anonymous said...

Stripping is not illegal, self righteous kenny. The ONLY thing the guys did that was illegal was underage drinking!! Oh my god, perish the thought........college kids drinking........holy jesus. It is not illegal to oooooogle strippers. It is not illegal to guzzle beer. You and harr can judge all you want. The boys should not have been drinking if they were underage. I guess they all should go to prison for that awful offense.
Meanwhile your sweet little victim killed a man.......

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Yeah sure, give me a break. You reflexively defend the Players, just like their 'Mommies' do, no matter what."

The story of the beer guzzling stripper ogling bacchanalia was fabricated by DA NIFONG and then promulgated by chronic deluded liars like yourself and your Fearliss Fosdick SIDNEY.

Give you a break? You, via your deluded racism, are already irretrievably broken.

Anonymous said...

KENHYERAL:

I add, Crystal was already impaired when she arrived at the house and incapable of doing anything worth ogling at.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You are getting awfully desperate for retorts.

Anonymous said...

Lets see.........mangun, nine convictions, including drunk driving, violence against property, child abuse, resisting arrest. A real saint.
The lax guys........underage drinking, disturbing the peace, one guy urinated in public, noise..........yep, hard core criminals. Lock em up for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Maybe you can post another "Right on, Kenhyderal" comment.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Since you regard Crystal as your Dulcinea, I question whether or not giving you a break will do any good.

In spite of multiple breaks, allowing to plead to misdemeanors in the cab theft, drunk driving, assault on a policeman case, avoiding prosecution for filing a false police report, having an arson charge dismissed after a hung jury, Crystal still manages to screw up.

If given any kind of break, you would still be a blatant, unrepentant racist.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You indulge in a behavior which is common among real rapists, victim blaming.

It's the Lacrosse players fault that they were charged with rape. If they hadn't drunk beer at the party and in the past, if they hadn't hired strippers, we would not have falsely accused them.

Right on, KENHYDERAL.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"You reflexively defend the Players, just like their 'Mommies' do".

Is your resentment towards the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players based on a dysfunctional relationship you had with your own mother?

Is said dysfunctional relationship the reason Crystal is your Dulcinea?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

From BillCosby(not sureif it is a word forword quote):

You must really have had a bad mother to put a bullet in the furnace.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Glass Houses

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You can not prove the Lacrosse party was a beer guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanalia, so you resort to attacking the players' mothers.

Right on, KENHYDERAL

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Freudian slip?(you will now accuse me of implying Sigmund Freud was a cross dresser).

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

In legal terms, you opened the door.

Anonymous said...

I am amazed at the ignorance and blind stupidity of ANYBODY who would defend Mangum at this point. I am not speaking about the murder charges she is facing. That charge is not yet settled and we will have to wait for the trial and verdict. But, I AM talking about her years and years of lousy behavior, blaming others, breaking the law, getting "breaks", using other people, BLAMING white people and some kind of fantasy conspiracy for her own screw ups.....endlessly. Know what, she may have a point, folks. It's our fault Mr. Daye is dead. OUR fault, right? We all abused poor Crystal. We all made her sleep with multiple partners and sell it. We all made her drink and abuse drugs. We all made her commit crimes that resulted in nine convictions. And, of course, we all made her LIE about being raped by those evil rich white boys. And now we made her stab Reginald Daye.
yep, no doubt about it, harr and kenny are right.....we ought to march down to the jail right now and turn ourselves in.....damn evil white oppressors, exercising our white privilege all over the place, setting up our carpetbags and jihaddddding. saluting Mrs. Evans. Yep, you betcha!

Anonymous said...

I think old Kenny is just flailing away, as usual. So what, same old self righteous little man.....those evil rich white boys, oogling Sister, and dancing around in their togas, engaging in wild debauchery like something straight out of the Old Testament. Geez, you would think Moses-Kenny would come down off the mountain, stone tablets in hand, and smite the Lax guys.
I don't know about you, but I am quite willing to admit that I did my fair share of underage drinking in college. So, lock me up, Kenny. Sure, it was stupid and illegal and absolutely dumb. Sure, I managed to mature a bit, eventually, and now I look back on those days with embarrassment. But, it is a enormous leap from stupid silly drunk boys, hiring dancers.....to accusing the these guys of gang rape. It's same kind of flawed logic that was used in the days of slavery and horrible bigotry when white juries wrongly convicted black men of raping white women......just because the accused man was "colored" and his so-called victim was white. Just because of blind hate and racism. What we had in 2006 is just the same.....blind hate and racism....turned in the opposite direction.
It is just as wrong NOW and it was THEN.

Anonymous said...

Say, harr, would you let sandusky go today before the trial ends.....based on HIS testimony and denial that he sodomized those little boys? Would it be enough, for you, just to hear him give his side of the story and, if he said, "I didn't do it"....would you let him walk?
Just wondering.....????/ Since you are saying that mangum's story is enough for you....that all charges should be dropped and she should just walk out of the jail.....just based on her denial. So, if Mangum can go free today, because she says she didn't do it......then can Jerry?

Anonymous said...

Any day now I expect we will hear another hairball rant from harr about evil duke shooting Aaron Dorsey. Remember him? In front of Duke hospital, Duke officers shot him and killed him. Cline did not press charges, and I recall, there were no grounds to go forward with charges because the officers acted with appropriate force. Now his family wants money and has filed a civil suit. So, here we go again.....harr will tell us the big bad evil Duke cops used excessive force and deliberately murdered this person. Of course, harr won't wait for all sides to present their evidence in court. harr will immediately assume that duke murdered this guy in cold blood because harr world view is that all white people are evil and all black people are righteous and all people who don't agree with him are stupid and need "enlightenment". Damn due process. Damn justice. Damn the courts. Damn lawyers. (oops, except Nifong). Damn everybody who doesn't share his myopic racist vision.
Dorsey's family has every right to sue. And, if the courts find in their favor, they have every right to collect money from Duke. But, harr won't wait for that process to go forward. harr will decide, soon, that duke police murdered Aaron Dorsey, just for the fun of it

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @5:29 said: "Is said dysfunctional relationship the reason Crystal is your Dulcinea" .... The fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one. It has implications for all who wish to end selective justice that is based on race, class and means. I'm not tilting at windmills. The giants in this case are very real and destructive. They threaten society as a whole.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one."

You have got it wrong.

If you were fighting for justice for Crystal and DA NIFONG, you would be fighting for criminal convictions and prison terms for both, Crystal for filing a false police report and DA NIFONG for conducting a deliberate, illegal, wrongful prosecution.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"he fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one".

Yes it is Quixotic because it is a delusional one on your part.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"It has implications for all who wish to end selective justice that is based on race, class and means."

No it doesn't. It is an attempt to promulgate black racism against innocent Caucasians.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"I'm not tilting at windmills."

If you tried to tilt at a windmill, you would lose worse than Don Quixote.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ken Edwards. Selective justice should not be based on race, class and means. EVEN, Ken, when the targets of selective injustice are white, and have means! Your definition of race, class and means justice equality only extends to certain groups...........most definitely NOT to the innocent "evil rich white boys" , as you and harr describe them. so, yeah, pal.....what's good for your goose is also good for your gander.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The giants in this case are very real and destructive. They threaten society as a whole."

You are correct. However you have misidentified the giants in this case.

One giant is your racist belief that innocent Caucasian men who are accused of a crime by a black woman should be summarily convicted, even it the accusations are demonstrably false.

Another is that it is acceptable to deny to innocent Caucasian men the rights of due process when they are falsely accused by a black woman.

A third giant, promulgated by your Fearless Fosdick SIDNEY, is that it is acceptable prosecutorial behavior to conceal exculpatory evidence, to undermine defendants' rights, to publicly presume defendants guilty.

Right on, KENHYDERAL.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @5:29 said: 'Is said dysfunctional relationship the reason Crystal is your Dulcinea'"

Are you admitting you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother?

Glass Houses, KENHYDERAL

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You could escape your glass house by admitting and apologizing for your gratuitious attack on the Mothers of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

In your most recent comment, you do not deny that you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother.

According to the legal logic SIDNEY applies to the Lacrosse case, if one accused of a crime can not prove himself innocent, then he is not innocent.

So if you do not deny that you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother, does that mean you can not prove your relationship was not dysfunctional?

If you can not prove your relationship was not dysfunctional, then what?

Glass Houses, KENHYDERAL

Anonymous said...

I am reminded of the truly scummy remark made by Houston Baker in an email sent to the mother of one of the accused LAX players. In this correspondence he referred to this woman as the mother of a farm animal. I guess that kind of trash is just fine with Ken and Harr. For those who don't know, Houston Baker was a member of the Duke faculty at the time and one of the infamous 88.......he also is infamous for referring to black female students at the college where he went, when he left duke, as "black bitches". Real nice .....just the type Ken and Harr admire....

Anonymous said...

So, harr, do you think jerry sandusky should go free, now, just because he says he didn't rape those little boys?
Huh????
If Mangum should go free, in spite of evidence that supports a charge of murder, you think she should go free because she says she is not guilty of that charge.
If Mangum should go free on her story, then I assume you think Sandusky should, too.
right, harrrrrrr??????

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one".

If you recall "The Impossible Dream" from "Man of La Mancha", a description of "quixotic" is given as being willing "to fight for the right without question or pause".

Fighting to convince the world that DA NIFONG was not a corrupt prosecutor, to convince the world that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006, is not fighting for the right.

What are you fighting for:

Something Happened In There.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

What are you fighting for?

S omething
H appened
I n
T here

Anonymous said...

Here is the exact full text of the email that Baker sent to one of the LAX mothers in response to an email she had sent out, requesting support for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to replace Nifong.
Baker replied...ver batim,

"LIES! You are just a provacateur on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympaathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay man [sic] in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like “a bunch of farm animals” near campus.

I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... umhappy [sic] new year to you ... and forgive me if your really are, quite sadly, mother of a “farm animal.”
This ....from a faculty member at Duke, who is now an Vanderbilt. It was at Vanderbilt that he got himself in major trouble for referring to female students as "black bitches".
And THIS crap is the kind of communication that both Harr and Ken Edwards have praised as speaking out against the evil rich white boys.
Yeah, I think the "Mommies" of the LAX guys did exactly what I would do if my son were falsely accused by a serial liar and a scumbag of a DA......I would fight like HELL to ensure my kid got fair treatment.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 10:49 said: " Are you admitting you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother?".......... Spare us the amateur psychoanalysis. It makes you look pathetically ignorant.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 10:38 said: "No it doesn't. It is an attempt to promulgate black racism against innocent Caucasians"............ Reverse racism is a myth. Ask any Professor of Sociology at any American University.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Reverse racism is a myth. Ask any Professor of Sociology at any American University."

The Crystal Mangum false rape allegations, the Tawana Brawley hoax, the activities of the NBP party, of people like SIDNEY, Victoria Peterson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton show those professors are completely out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Spare us the amateur psychoanalysis. It makes you look pathetically ignorant."

The suggestion that you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother touched a nerve, didn't it.

You haven't denied it.

Glass houses, KENHYDERAL.

Anonymous said...

I find your comment about the mothers of the lax guys to be, well, typical of both you and harr........crude, silly, not relevant, evasive and utterly without class. You are just the same as Baker......attack the parent, not the liar. Attack the dead man, not his killer. Attack the lawyer and the judge and the media and the AG and entire white race and oreo cookies!!!.......but never ever assume responsibility for self. You and harr will always be the same as you are today because you lack the courage, grace and integrity to admit you are wrong about mangum and nifong. You will harbor the same hate and bigotry that blinds you to the truth.......while you go on pointing fingers, judging, and blaming others. Sad.
When mangum goes to trial, then come down to durham and sit behind her in court. You and petreson can discuss your homophobia and your crystal fan club.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:


"Reverse racism is a myth. Ask any Professor of Sociology at any American University."

Your own anti Caucasian activity shows those professors are out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:


"Reverse racism is a myth. Ask any Professor of Sociology at any American University."

Did DA NIFONG consult any professor of sociology at any American university before he ran for DA in 2006?

He seemed to believe in reverse racism. He exploited reverse racism in Durham to win that election.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous " 6:09 said: 19`Ì am amazed at the ignorance and blind stupidity of ANYBODY who would defend Mangum at this point`....... My propensity is to defend those who most need defending; especially victims, like Crystal, of a mob mentality that has been deliberately inflammed by the most egregious kinds of slanders. You, who know nothing of Crystal, other then the lies you have been told, have obviously bought into these distortions.

Anonymous said...

Oh so reverse racism does not exist? Reeeeeaaaaly? Wow, ken.....thats a stunner. Golly geez whiz.....lets call up eve carson's parents and inform them that when her killers began to beat her up, they were only kidding when one said to the other, "F------ white whore, kill all of em, and start with this bitch". Or perhaps we ought to see what your buddy farrahkan says about inferior white people and gutter religion jews. Or maybe we should ask some of our fine rappers to share the lyrics of their "music"with you....about F-------white ho up the A---, she aint nothing, white scum, white trash".
Black hate on whites is real.. Black hate on mexicans is real. Black hate on jews and gays and asians is real. It is just as wrong and evil going one direction as it is the other.........
To say that reverse racism does not exist is just about the dumbest comment you've made

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous " 3:15 said: The Crystal Mangum false rape allegations, the Tawana Brawley hoax, the activities of the NBP party, of people like SIDNEY, Victoria Peterson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton show those professors are completely out of touch with reality ........... I suppose you or those you know have been the victim of black on white racism. Tell us your story

June 20, 2012 3:15 PM

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Read the comment posted by Anonymous June 20, 2012 1:06 PM and tell me that is not a blatant example of black racism directed at Caucasians.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"I suppose you or those you know have been the victim of black on white racism."

Fortunately I have not been the victim or racism.

However, unlike you or your Fearless Fosdick SIDNEY, I do not believe my experience is universally significant.

And what does that have to do with the cases I have cited of Black on White racism.

You are dodging the issue. Like SIDNEY, you bury your head under tons of sand and pretend, because you ignore the issue it does not exist.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"My propensity is to defend those who most need defending; especially victims, like Crystal, of a mob mentality that has been deliberately inflammed by the most egregious kinds of slanders."

Your propensity is to be seriously uninformed.

Crystal was the victim of no one in March of 2006.

All the mob mentality that manifested during the Lacrosse hoax was directed at the Lacrosse team and the Lacrosse defendants(I suppose you think the potbanger demonstrations at 610 North Buchanan were anti Crystal demonstrations.)

The only one who tried to tried to inflame the mob mentality was DA NIFONG. Do you think his statements presuming guilt on the part of the Lacrosse team were anti Crystal statements.

KENHYDERAL, I again name you delusional.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"You, who know nothing of Crystal, other then the lies you have been told, have obviously bought into these distortions."

The only people who tried to tell lies in the phony Duke Lacrosse case were people like DA NIFONG, the gang of 88, Houston Baker, the New Black Panthers, Ruth Sheehan when she wrote her Silence-is-Sickening piece, Tara Levicy when she told the police that Crystal had injuries consistent with rape.

No one orchestrated any campaign against Crystal.Her allegations were false and her falsehoods collapsed around her.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous " 3:15 said: The Crystal Mangum false rape allegations, the Tawana Brawley hoax, the activities of the NBP party, of people like SIDNEY, Victoria Peterson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton show those professors are completely out of touch with reality ........... I suppose you or those you know have been the victim of black on white racism."

KENHYDERAL< you are ducking the issue of black on white racism.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous " 4:11 PM said;KENHYDERAL< you are ducking the issue of black on white racism``........... No, what I said is that socialogically speaking the concept of reverse racism has been discredited by academics at least in the American context. Individual bigots might use racial epithets but the type of discrimination that adversly affects the lives of minorities depends on the institutionalization of power in the hands of the majority. But hey don`t take my word for it look at the research yourself.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"what I said is that socialogically speaking the concept of reverse racism has been discredited by academics at least in the American context".

It has not been discredited in reality. In reality, reverse racism happens(there was a reported incident of black youths beating up a white boy in retaliation for the death of Trayvon Martin>

If you think American University academics are in touch with reality you are naive. The performance of the gang of 88 and their guilt presuming anti lacrosse player statement is indicative of the state of American University academics.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"But hey don`t take my word for it look at the research yourself."

I don't take your word for anything, since you are neither an astute nor a profound thinker, because the word you come up with is entirely non credible.

Anonymous said...

Kenny is spewing the typical academy race class gender white privilege racism is systemic not individual oppressor post colonial deconstruction bull shit that pours out of what passes for scholarship in afro studies depts like duke's . Total crap. Read wahneeeema lubiano and see for yourself.......oh, and throw in Piot and Baker and all the rest of the 88. These pseudo intellects publish papers on topics like"deconstructing white privilege through the riot imperative of rodney king". Oh my personal fave in this crowd refers to himself as "thugniggaintellectual". Yep, surendoes.......but if a white perwon calledmthis creep the N word, he would likely get stabbed by the bro. Look at any curriculum of women's studies or afro studies, and you will find kenny' bull.
In the REAL world, kenny, racism is alive and well among black folk in america.......just as it is among black folk in canada.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Houston Baker, the author of the racist rant about the mother of a Duke Lacrosse player being the mother of a "farm animal", is an American University academic.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Wahneema Lubiano(sp?), who authored the racist, guilt presuming we're listening statement is an American University Academic. Wahneema, as an academic, is supposed to publish. Her publishing history is anemic, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Charles Piot, whose rant against KC Johnson, full of distortions and errors, is a black American University Academic. If you read the quote I copied from RateMyProfessors.com, Charles Piot blames everything on the evil white man.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

The riots in the wake of the acquittal of the LA Police officers in the Rodney King beating was black on white racism, totally out of proportion to the verdict.

Caucasian people did not riot when OJ Simpson was acquitted(wrongfully, a number of Caucasians) of murder, there were no riots.

Anonymous said...

Not sure but i think Piot is white. What i am sure of is that he is dishonest and morally bankrupt......and of course he has made a nice living sitting in a white endowed university, getting all the benefits of so called white privilege while he trashes white people. A total hypocrite.......so no wonder kenny loves him.....

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 20, 2012 5:14 PM

You got me. Charles Piot is white.

Gross mistake on my part for which I apologize.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

My attitude(after reading a bunch of Academic literature) on University academics is this:

The Academics say reverse racism does not exist.

Examples of reverse racism in the past 20 years have been described in the news, broadcast, published, on line.

I see it happen but the Academics say it is not there. I question the academics.

Anonymous said...

No matter his race, Piot is not worthy of the tile of professor

Anonymous said...

Great to have you back, kennyhyderal. Where were you? Visiting Bremerton again?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:19 said: "
When mangum goes to trial, then come down to durham and sit behind her in court. You and petreson can discuss your homophobia and your crystal fan club"............. I do not know Victoria Peterson and I certainly do not agree with her views on "gays". I'm a Canadian In Canada homosexual,lesbian and transgendered people have full and complete civil rights and cannot, as a matter of law, be discriminated against. We also have hate speech laws that could put her at risk for some of the things she is reported to have said.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"We also have hate speech laws that could put her at risk for some of the things she is reported to have said."

Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

A point about American University Academics:

A group of Duke University Academics, the infamous gang of 88, once strongly supported Crystal Mangum. It has been years since any member of the gang of 88 spoke up in support of Crystal.

Charles Piot's article, which you cited, published in 1907, claimed the group of 88 statement was never about the Lacrosse case.

What does that say about Crystal's credibility, about Crystal's support.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was hilarious that Piot claimed the Listening Ad wasn't about the LAX party.....especially since it mentioned the specific incident AND it praised the demonstrators.....such as those who hung up lynching posters and those who marched around the campus beating on pots and carrying signs that read "castrate" them. Neither Lubiano and ANY other member of the 88 ever had the courage, cajones, and grace to admit they were wrong and to apologize. Not a single one of them. That lack of character and decency on their part is a clear statement as to the kind of lies they told and the kind of unethical bull they spew in their classes.
I wonder if harr would think he might be entitled to a bit of money from duke if the faculty members there paraded in front of his home, carrying signs that said "lynch harr" or "castrate the black Baxxxxx". (which is what one of the signs read, "castrate the white baxxxxxx>"
Would harr think maybe he might try to "shakedown" duke, then?
hmmmmmmmmm......

Anonymous said...

Anybody who supports harr, supports peterson. period. if harr were truly a man of integrity and consistent ethical standards, he would completely distance himself from this bigoted disgrace of a black woman, and kick her bigoted backside off his web site. he stands by her and you, ken, stand by him......that makes you a bigot, too

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

""I cannot explain why the defendants do have a cause of action against Duke."

Your assertion is that the Lacrosse players shook down Duke for millions of dollars. Your assertion is that Duke could have prevailed in court. Ergo, you assert the Lacrosse players did not have a cause of action against Duke.

I am not asking why the Duke defendants had a cause of action. Put it this way. If the Duke Lacrosse players had no cause of action, why did Duke settle with them?

I assert, if the Lacrosse players had o cause of action, Duke would not have settled. They would have defended the case.

So I repeat the question. Why did Duke settle with them.

You once claimed, in your frivolous lawsuit against Duke, if you had retained an attorney, Duke would have bought him off to sabotage your case against Duke. Why did Duke not buy off the attorneys for the innocent Lacrosse players?

Let's see if you can do a double dodge.


I'm not dodging! I just do not have any idea why Duke allowed the avaricious Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys to shake them down for $20 mil each. That is a mystery that rivals that of what occurred on the grassy knoll in Dallas of November 1963... or what happened to Amelia Earhart (sp)... or where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

Why don't you write Duke University President Brodhead and ask him. I would, except that I am in the process of legal action against him and I seriously doubt that he would respond to me.

Anonymous said...

Duke settled with the LAX guys because they KNEW they were grossly wrong in their behavior and that the discovery process, had it occured, would have been extremely embarrassing to a whole bunch of Administrators and Board members. They screwed up big time and knew they had to settle....or face not only even more expense, but also public/national exposure. It's that simple, harr. why you can't grasp it is the only mystery. even my teenaged kids get it.
They are, to this day, still doing everything they can to fight discovery, postpone, dodge, and sneak away....
it's kinda like what E. Holder and Obama are doing....dodging, running, covering up and stalling. And one day, the bill for what happened that led to Officer Terry's death is gonna come due, harr.

Anonymous said...

Well, harr, why hasn't crystal gone on off to canada, since you insist she is gonna be set free any hour now? can we help buy her a ticket?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I'm not dodging! I just do not have any idea why Duke allowed the avaricious Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys to shake them down for $20 mil each."

You are dodging. It is not a great mystery and the question is easily comprehended. Why would Duke settle with the Lacrosse players if they could have prevailed in court.

Rather than answering, you are again burying your head beneath tons of sand. That, by any definition is a dodge.

The answer is, since you are so afraid to confront it, the Lacrosse players did have a cause of action against Duke(exactly what it was is irrelevant), Duke could not defend if the Lacrosse defendants filed suit, and Duke did not want the specifics of their cause of action to become an official part of the public record.

Now, get your head out of the sand and at least try to enlighten yourself.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

More about black on white racism:

DA NIFONG publicly proclaimed that a crime had happened, that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated said crime and that said crime had been racially motivated.

If DA NIFONG had publicly proclaimed that a crime had happened, that a group of black athletes had perpetrated a crime and that the crime had been racially motivated, William Barber and the North Carolina NAACP would have pushed for a change of venue for any trial.

In the Duke phony rape case, William Barber and the NC NAACP opposed a change of venue.

Irving Joyner, who was the NAACP's observer of the phony Duke Rape case argued that the case should be tried in Durham. I believe he also said, a Durham Jury would have been more likely to bring in a guilty verdict.

If that is not black on white racism, then what is?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:20 AM said "Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race" ...... In Canada the race of the accused is simmply not a factor in how they will be dealt with by the Judicial System. I keep seeing examples in the U.S.A. that for black defendents this is not always the case. When I look back at the Milton Walker case, Crystal spent months in gaol, her life and that of her Children was disruppted, she lost her job and had to interupt her College courses. In Canada that incident would have been dealt with, the next morning, in a Magistrate's Court and the worst that could of come of it would have been a "no contact order" and had it been judged she had damaged his property a "restitution order". Incidently the incidence of domestic violence is much lower in Canada. In her present situation the this case would have been thrown out by a Judge simply on the basis of her Citizen's right, when arrested, to a speedy trial. I'm not saying Canada is a paradise but in so many ways it's a far more just society.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Why don't you write Duke University President Brodhead and ask him. I would, except that I am in the process of legal action against him and I seriously doubt that he would respond to me."

Another dodge on the part of SIDNEY.

Why don't you have your friend Professor Coleman ask President Brodhead why Duke settled rather than defended?

Rather, why don't you ask your supposed friend, distinguished Law Professor Coleman his opinion as to why Duke settled rather than defended. If he is truly your friend, why don't you turn to him for enlightenment.

I would call you chicken, but that would be defaming Colonel Sanders.

Lance the Intern said...

"...why Duke allowed the avaricious Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys to shake them down for $20 mil each..."

Provide actual proof of this "$20 mil each" claim, or stop making it.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 3:20 AM said 'Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race'"

Why are you so evasive. You must have had a good day fishing because you have dumped a large number of red herring into this question.

It was a simple question and a simple direct answer would have sufficed. If someone had asked me, "Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race", I would have answered, yes it is.

Why are you reluctant to give a simple direct answer.

Harr Supporter said...

Lance,

You owe Sidney an apology.

You act as though you do not understand the rules of this blog. Sidney and his supporters are able to treat as fact any assertion that cannot be proven false beyond all doubt. Sidney's critics, on the other hand, are not able to rely on any assertion unless they can prove with certainty that no alternative explanation is even remotely possible. Probability is irrelevant.

Sidney has stated that Duke settled with each of the defendants for $20 million. This amount was included as speculation in media coverage of the IRS lien against Seligmann. Although readers noted the highly flawed logic of the speculation at the time, no one can prove with certainty the actual settlement amount without its explicit disclosure. As a result, Sidney is able to treat this as fact.

Similarly, many believe Duke's settlement was motivated by their concern that they would lose at trial and/or be required to disclose highly embarrassing information in discovery. However, no one can prove this motivation (largely because Duke has successfully delayed or prevented disclosure of their actions). Sidney has stated that Duke, despite its access to expert advice and significant resources, was convinced by the players' attorneys that their insurance company would reimburse all amounts, even amounts significantly in excess of the $10 million policy limit. No one can prove with certainty that Duke's administrators and trustees were not that incredibly stupid. As a result, Sidney is able to treat this as fact.

I hope this explanation is helpful.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 1:24 said: "Anonymous @ 3:20 AM said 'Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race'"
.............. In the abstract the answer, to this, is "yes it would be" but as, it referrs to The Duke LaX Case, it contains a false premise.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

More about American University Academics, basically things I recall.

A black academic at Syracuse, whose name I recall, was a very strong advocate of:

S omething
H appened
I n
T here

He has been silent in the past few years.

Your thoughts?

kenhyderal said...

Harr Supporter said: "I hope this explanation is helpful"......... I certainly found it so.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Madonna Constantine was a black academic at Teachers' College of Columbia University. She came under investigation for plagiarism, and was eventually dismissed from her position for plagiarism. An outside Law Firm who investigated the charge found she had appropriated students' work and included it in her publications as her own.

Madonna Constantine attempted to sue Teachers' College, alleging her firing had been racially motivated. The suit was dismissed.

Do you suppose SIDNEY might have gotten legal advice from Madonna Constantine.

So much for American University Academics.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:24 said: "Anonymous @ 3:20 AM said 'Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race'"
.............. In the abstract the answer, to this, is "yes it would be" but as, it referrs to The Duke LaX Case, it contains a false premise."

Unfortunately for you, KENHYDERAL, you again show your blatant unrepentant racism.

In the phony Duke rape case, the innocent were accused of a crime because of their race. DA NIFONG did it to exploit black on white racism, correctly believing that accusing Caucasian men from well to do families of raping a black woman would stir Durham's black voters to vote for DA NIFONG in the primary election for Durham DA.

The Lacrosse players were wrongfully accused. You yourself have admitted that the forensic evidence "cleared(your word)" the members of the Lacrosse team.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:56 said: "He has been silent in the past few years..... Might you be mistaking this person as a Black male Professor? There was a Syracuse Professor named Linda Alcott who was outspoken in this regard and who came udner attack by KC Johnson.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:24 said: "Anonymous @ 3:20 AM said 'Is or is it not hate speech to falsely accuse someone of a major crime based mainly on his/her race'"
.............. In the abstract the answer, to this, is "yes it would be" but as, it referrs to The Duke LaX Case, it contains a false premise.

The answer "yes it would be" is correct in more than an abstract sense. It is hate speech to accuse anyone of any race of a crime because of the accused's race. That applies to Caucasians accused of a crime as well as Blacks.

Your response shows you do not believe that. De facto, although you will deny it, you do not think it is hate speech to accuse a Caucasian of a crime, even when it is because of his race, even when it is obvious the accusation is false.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:13 said: "You yourself have admitted that the forensic evidence "cleared(your word)" the members of the Lacrosse team"....... It cleared Seligmann and Finnerty only. It cast reasonable doubt on whether Evans and other members of the team had committed a semen depositing assult (ie. rape) since none of their DNA was found. They were never cleared by "forensic evidence" of crimes such as administering a noxious substance with intent to assult, kidnapping, theft and sexual assult.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

First, the woman's name is Linda Alcoff, not Linda Alcott. Do you ever do any reaearch.

Second, the blogger who responded to Linda Alcoff(note correct spelling) was Nicholas Stix: (http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2011/06/feminist-professor-lies-like-whore.html. Mr. Stix, in publishing his disagreement with Ms. Allcoff(notAlcott)'s narrative, cited a number of comments to one of KC Johnson's blog post. In that blog post, Professor Johnson never directly mentioned Ms. Alcoff(not Alcott).

Linda Alcoff's(again not Alcott) writing on the phony Duke Lacrosse rape was a lame attempt to say, in total disregard of the facts, that the Lacrosse players are guilty.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

The person I remembered was male, obviously not Ms. Alcoff(not Alcott).

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"They were never cleared by "forensic evidence" of crimes such as administering a noxious substance with intent to assult, kidnapping, theft and sexual assult."

You yourself have admitted that no forensic testing turned up evidence of a date rape drug. Your talk about Chloral Hydrate is speculation, nothing more, and has no legal weight, is not evidence of date rape drug administration.

I again cite the blog, Forensics Talk. Crystal did not behave like someone who had been administered a date rape drug.

There is no legal justification to say they have not been cleared of a charge of administering a noxious substance to Crystal, for whatever reason. There is nothing to charge them with administering a noxious substance.

Do a little bit of legal research, real objective legal research not just looking for reasons to believe your racially motivated fantasy about the non-rape.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"It cast reasonable doubt on whether Evans and other members of the team had committed a semen depositing assult (ie. rape) since none of their DNA was found."

In the words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious".

A DNA depositing rape is alleged. The only male DNA found on the alleged victim does not match the DNA of any of the suspects. And you say that does not clear the suspects?

I remind you, Crystal, upon whom you rely, told medical personnel that her assailants did not use condoms and had deposited semen on her.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Explain, in a DNA depositing rape, where multiple males are named as suspects, how does the failure to find any of their DNA on the victim's person, not exonerate them?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Let me put it in a different way to show just how confused you are.

"They were never cleared by 'forensic evidence' of crimes such as administering a noxious substance with intent to assult, kidnapping, theft and sexual assult(sic)."

What specific forensic evidence showed what specific crimes had occurred?

If there is no forensic evidence of any crime, what legal justification is there to suspect anyone of committing a crime.

Maybe you share SIDNEY's attitude. Caucasian males accused of rape should have to prove themselves innocent, even though the allegations are patently false.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

to harr supporter:

"Harr Supporter said: 'I hope this explanation is helpful'......... I certainly found it so."

I am sure you do, since you seem to believe, as does SIDNEY, that if you make an allegation, it is not up to you to prove it(you have never proven Crystal was given Chloral Hydrate), it is up to someone else to disprove it.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Linda Alcoff(not Alcott) looks like she is white.

I said the professor I remembered was black.

In any event, Linda Alcoff(not Alcott), like this male, black Syracuse professor whose name I can not remember, has not expressed any support for Crystal in recent years.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

The Syracuse University Professor was Doctor Boyce Watkins.

Check out his picture and compare it to Linda Alcoff(not Alcott)'s picture.

Anonymous said...

Right on, kennyhyderal.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:56 said: " since you seem to believe, as does SIDNEY, that if you make an allegation, it is not up to you to prove it(you have never proven Crystal was given Chloral Hydrate), it is up to someone else to disprove it"..... It was up to the Durham Police to do a broader screen that included the second most frequently used date rape drug, Chloral Hydrate; especially since circumstantial evedence in the form of a statement by Crystal's Driver says she was sober when he dropped her off. Evidence was also obtained that she was offered a drink upon her arrival but shortly thereafter she was observed to be severely impaired and unable to do her performance. If as the Players claimed she arrived in this severely impaird condition why did they give her a drink? This contradictory evidence needed to be sorted out. Chloral Hydrate is very quick acting but it is relatively short lived compared to GHB which they tested for. The other drugs they tested for that came up negative were cocaine heroin and canabis all substances that Crystal has never used. Chloral Hydrate, being administered to her would account for her recovery at Kroegers shortly after. Why Police they did not procede with the theft charge is inexplicable. Some of this money was to be paid as a commision to the booking agency and some of it was meant to feed Crystal's children. For a dissatisfied customer to arbitrarily remove this money from Crystal's purse & give it to the winner of some gambling game that was played amounts to theft. By the way the remaining proportion of this money that was recoverd in a search warrant has never been returned to Crystal and is still in the posession of the Durham Police. Her efforts to recover it have been futile

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

All your blathering and ranting and raving does not change the fact, there was no evidence that Crystal was given a date rape drug at the party. How do you explain the circumstantial evidence that Crystal did not behave like someone who had been given a date rape drug?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You state there is a false premise behind my question about falsely accusing someone of a crime because of race.

You do not know what a premise, true or false, is.

Two essential premises behind any criminal prosecution in the US(but not necessarily in NC) are 1) that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty and 20 the DA's role is not to prove guilt but to prove the truth.

You presume the Lacrosse players were guilty and that the DA's job and the Police's job was to prove them guilty.

Meanwhile, you can not come up with any evidence that there was a rape in the first place. All you have come up with is speculation and possibilities which add up to a totally unbelievable scenario.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

So far as giving Crystal a drink when she arrived impaired, I do not think that was appropriate.

To call that circumstantial evidence of a date rape drug is to presume that the Lacrosse team hired the exotic dancers with the intent of raping them. You have nothing to establish that as fact except your presumption, unsupported by any evidence, that a rape did occur.

The evidence confirms that no rape did occur.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Chloral Hydrate, being administered to her would account for her recovery at Kroegers shortly after."

It does not explain why she did not behave lie someone who had been given a date rape drug, i.e. fall asleep and wake up with no memory of what happened.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The other drugs they tested for that came up negative were cocaine heroin and canabis all substances that Crystal has never used."

There is evidence she used drugs other than cocaine, heroin and canabis, and used them inappropriately.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Why Police they did not procede with the theft charge [of Crystal's money] is inexplicable."

Crystal's money is a red herring which became "inexplicable" only after it became apparent that Crystal had falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of rape.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"For a dissatisfied customer to arbitrarily remove this money from Crystal's purse & give it to the winner of some gambling game that was played amounts to theft."

That is an unsupported allegation and another form of the previously noted red herring.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"By the way the remaining proportion of this money that was recoverd in a search warrant has never been returned to Crystal and is still in the posession of the Durham Police. Her efforts to recover it have been futile".

So get after the police.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Evidence was also obtained that she was offered a drink upon her arrival but shortly thereafter she was observed to be severely impaired and unable to do her performance."

There was also evidence she was impaired before she was offered the drink. There was also evidence she did not consume the drink.

You are proceeding from a false premise(other than your presumption of guilt): evidence which supports your presumption of guilt is significant: evidence which does not is invalid.

A false premise like that is one of the things that led to DA NIFONG's disbarment, e.g. concealment of exculpatory evidence.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"...circumstantial evedence(sic)..."

The proper spelling is evidence.

The e key is typed with the left hand.

The i key is typed with the right hand.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Chloral Hydrate, being administered to her would account for her recovery at Kroegers shortly after."

According to Officer Shelton, Crystal was feigning unconsciousness when he examined her at Kroegers, which is not how the victim of a date rape drug acts.

Check out the blog Forensics Talk.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

When Crystal was taken to the Durham Access Center, she was asked, Were you raped.

Based on what I read on Forensics Talk, a victim of a date rape drug would have replied, I don't know.

Crystal replied, Yes I was raped.

I add, after being taken to DUMC ER, Crystal waivered between, yes I was raped, and, no I wasn't raped before deciding on Yes I was raped, which does not add up to a credible allegation of rape.

She then waivered between the number of assailants, 3, 5, 20.

It does not add up to credible evidence that a date rape drug was administered.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Chloral Hydrate, being administered to her would account for her recovery at Kroegers shortly after."

Not being administered Chloral Hydrate would account for her feigning unconsciousness at Kroegers and her non credible allegation of rape.

Of course, that does not support your presumption of guilt on the part of some Caucasians, so you believe, ala DA NIFONG, that evidence should be suppressed.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Does Canada have the presumption of innocence?

One would not think so from your take on the phony Duke rape case.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"It was up to the Durham Police to do a broader screen that included the second most frequently used date rape drug, Chloral Hydrate".

Check out http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/date-rape-drugs.cfm#a

According to that URL, the three most common date rape drugs are Rohypnol, GHB, gamma hydroxybutyric acid, and Ketamine.

Your research seems biased towards supporting your presumption of guilt on the part of some innocent Caucasian men, which does not help your credibility.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Officer Shelton's encounter with Crystal at Kroegers.

Crystal appears to be unconscious.

Officer Shelton tries to administer smelling salts.

Crystal starts breathing through her mouth, which shows she is feigning unconsciousness.

Officer Shelton tries to remove her from the car but she clings to the inside of the car, resisting removal, again indicating she is feigning unconsciousness.

All of this is not typical of someone given a date rape drug.

Check out Forensics Talk.

Anonymous said...

"some of the money was to be paid to the booking agent"......????? Funniest quote ofmthe week. Kenny wins again!!!!
Hilarious.......the booking agent? Realllly??? Have you seen the web site "precious" was photographed on and what she was doing in the photo? Uh, kenny, old pal......the word is PIMP.........not booking agent.

Harr Supporter said...

Anonymous 4:00am:

Ken actually makes a good point. The failure of the DPD to follow up the theft allegation was "inexplicable" (but only if you assume that the DPD was trying to solve a crime).

Mangum alleged that someone took her money. She accused Kim, players and Off. Barfield at different times. Evans' statement indicated that a couple of players took some and he told them to return it. Money was missing.

Normal police procedure would have required that they investigate. Interviews with the suspects named by Evans seem obvious. The DPD of course did nothing.

This failure to investigate the theft provides additional evidence that Gottlieb and Himan never believed the rape allegation. Otherwise, they could try to cut a deal with the thieves--they could drop the misdemeanor theft charges if they testified against the attackers. The DPD of course did nothing.

This failure to investigate the theft supports the theory that the DPD attempted a deliberate frame. Under this theory, Gottlieb and Himan did not interview the theft suspects because they did not want additional evidence that no sexual assault had occurred.

A deliberate frame is just a theory. Further investigation is required. Some find it more compelling than the alternative--the DPD investigators and supervisors were all grossly incompetent and they did not understand what a crime investigation requires. Some find incompetence hard to believe in the most highly publicized crime investigation in Durham history.

ken rejects the frame theory because...well, because he rejects it. He opposes an investigation of the DPD's actions (as discovery in the civil suits would permit) because... well, because he opposes it.

I hope this explanation is helpful.

Nifong Supporter said...


Harr Supporter said...
Lance,

You owe Sidney an apology.

You act as though you do not understand the rules of this blog. Sidney and his supporters are able to treat as fact any assertion that cannot be proven false beyond all doubt. Sidney's critics, on the other hand, are not able to rely on any assertion unless they can prove with certainty that no alternative explanation is even remotely possible. Probability is irrelevant.

Sidney has stated that Duke settled with each of the defendants for $20 million. This amount was included as speculation in media coverage of the IRS lien against Seligmann. Although readers noted the highly flawed logic of the speculation at the time, no one can prove with certainty the actual settlement amount without its explicit disclosure. As a result, Sidney is able to treat this as fact.

Similarly, many believe Duke's settlement was motivated by their concern that they would lose at trial and/or be required to disclose highly embarrassing information in discovery. However, no one can prove this motivation (largely because Duke has successfully delayed or prevented disclosure of their actions). Sidney has stated that Duke, despite its access to expert advice and significant resources, was convinced by the players' attorneys that their insurance company would reimburse all amounts, even amounts significantly in excess of the $10 million policy limit. No one can prove with certainty that Duke's administrators and trustees were not that incredibly stupid. As a result, Sidney is able to treat this as fact.

I hope this explanation is helpful.


Fact is that the Duke Lacrosse defendants may have received much more than $20 mil each, but I have elected to use the lesser amount as figured by certified public accountants across the country. As you are aware, the amount the boys received is outrageous... and that is why all the secrecy. If the transaction were valid and above board, then they would simply state how much the out-of-court settlement was for... right?

So, actually, I am giving the lacrosse defendants the benefit of the doubt by using the lowest possible amount that they might have received.

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney:

Thank you for confirming so quickly and so clearly that my description of the rules of this blog is correct..

You are able to treat as fact any assertion that cannot be proven false beyond all doubt.

Lance the Intern said...

"...but I have elected to use the lesser amount as figured by certified public accountants across the country.

Name one.

"..If the transaction were valid and above board, then they would simply state how much the out-of-court settlement was for... right?"

Wrong.

Duke settled because they knew that if the case went to court, they would lose in the court of public opinion -- losing potential students and current alumni donations -- even IF they didn't lose the actual case. Not letting the settlement amount be known was one way of protecting the Duke image.

The bottom line is that Duke dictated the settlement amount and the terms of the settlement -- the LAX players simply agreed to them. You somehow view this as the fault of the players. Odd, that.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As you are aware, the amount the boys received is outrageous... and that is why all the secrecy. If the transaction were valid and above board, then they would simply state how much the out-of-court settlement was for... right?"

Outrageous only to you.

I believe there was a confidentiality agreement or whatever which prevented the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants from revealing what they received.

So you, as usual, are wrong.

kenhyderal said...

Lance @ 8:42 said: "The bottom line is that Duke dictated the settlement amount and the terms of the settlement -- the LAX players simply agreed to them. You somehow view this as the fault of the players. Odd, that".......... How do you know that Duke did not have to acquiesce to rapacious demands made by the Player's Lawyers. Believing that Duke dictated a settlement, reluctantly accepted by the Players, seems to me to be awfully naïve.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"How do you know that Duke did not have to acquiesce to rapacious demands made by the Player's Lawyers."

I believe absolutely that Duke had to cave in to the innocent Players and to their Attorneys, although I would say their demand were not rapacious considering the amount of legal fees.

I also absolutely that Duke would have caved in to the Innocent Lacrosse players and their Attorneys only because they did not want the players' allegations to become part of the official public record.

Are you afraid to confront the fact SIDNEY fears to confront. Duke settled because Duke was guilty of some rather significant wrongdoing.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"How do you know that Duke did not have to acquiesce to rapacious demands made by the Player's Lawyers."

If Duke had to acquiesce, that would indicate Duke did not think the demands were "rapacious". If Duke had, it would not have settled.

Anonymous said...

We all looking forward to more of your brillant posts, kennyhyderal.

Lance the Intern said...

Kenhyderal says "How do you know that Duke did not have to acquiesce to rapacious demands made by the Player's Lawyers. Believing that Duke dictated a settlement, reluctantly accepted by the Players, seems to me to be awfully naïve"

The same way I know that Duke didn't acquiesce to Sid's rapacious demands.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:06 said: " I believe absolutely that Duke had to cave in to the "innocent" (your words) Players and to their Attorneys, although I would say their demand were not rapacious considering the amount of legal fees........... The legal fees would be a pittance of the amount the Lawyers scored, as contingency fees, on the multi-million dollar settlement from Duke; possibly 33-40% With more big payouts to possibly come from the tax payers of North Carolina. This was dream case for civil suit trial lawyers. Once the Police botched the investigation all they had to do was trash the accuser and discredit the DA who was seeking justice for those he was elected to serve. The Universiy's righteous upset at the actions of the previously warned LaX Players backfired on them once the sloppy Police work had created reasonable doubt that precluded any convictions. This opened the door for huge obscene civil suits. The Faculty and Administration by acquiesence failed in their fiduciary duty. It seems to their mind it was OPM. That's why they could be so willing to do such an irresponsible settlement

Anonymous said...

Why is it there are so few cases of white men raping black women? We just don't find then attractive at all.Anyway does anyone know when lying hooker Mangum will actually go to trial and is Nifong really trying to get his worthless law license back?

Anonymous said...

Ken - the police didn't botch the investigation at all.There was no rape.As a Duke coe-ed explained at the time - those guys cold get any girl they wanted.They would never have to stoop that low.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The legal fees would be a pittance of the amount the Lawyers scored, as contingency fees, on the multi-million dollar settlement from Duke; possibly 33-40% With more big payouts to possibly come from the tax payers of North Carolina. This was dream case for civil suit trial lawyers."

All that is irrelevant. The fact that Duke settled with the Lacrosse players rather than defend is a de facto admission on the part of Duke of wrongdoing worth millions of dollars.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Once the Police botched the investigation all they had to do was trash the accuser and discredit the DA who was seeking justice for those he was elected to serve."

First, DA NIFONG at the time was not the elected DA for Durham County. He was appointed to fill out the term of the previous DA who had been appointed to the bench. Research, KENHYDERAL. Do you ever do any before sticking your foot in your mouth.

The APPOINTED DA discredited himself at the start of the case when he decided to prosecute innocent men in the face of evidence which, according to you, cleared them. He further discredited himself when he failed, for 9 months, to interview Crystal.

Crystal trashed herself, via her non credible allegation of rape, by her inability to identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant.

The non existent bad reputation of the Lacrosse team was something DA NIFONG fabricated(it was not supported in the report prepared by his SIDNEY"s so called friend Professor Coleman) to inflame public opinion against the Duke Lacrosse team.

DA NIFONG obligation to the public he supposed to serve was to discover the truth, not prove guilt. Instead, he exploited black on white racism to get himself elected to a full term as DA.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The Universiy's righteous upset at the actions of the previously warned LaX Players backfired on them once the sloppy Police work had created reasonable doubt that precluded any convictions."

What sloppy police work?

What created not reasonable doubt as to the Players' guilt but absolutely no doubt of their innocence was the lack of any evidence at all that a rape had occurred. In spite of that lack of evidence, DA NIFONG sought to get convictions via trashing the suspects in public and undermining their rights, to be presumed innocent, to be represented by counsel, to remain silent, to have a fair and objective trial.

Duke's "righteous upset" was expressed in the Gang of 88 statement. Once it became obvious that no crime had occurred, that the Lacrosse players had been wrongfully prosecuted, the Gang of 88 backed off from their "righteous upset". According to Charles Piot, whom you cited, the guilt presuming statement of the Gang of 88 statement was never about the Lacrosse team.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 356   Newer› Newest»