Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Exculpatory evidence withheld from Ms. Mangum… by her attorney

Word count: 1,549

In a criminal case against Duke Lacrosse case victim/accuser Crystal Mangum, the charges against her should never have been brought. What makes this case truly bizarre and unique is that Ms. Mangum’s attorney holds in his hands the exculpatory evidence to free his client, but is keeping it from her while he tries to convince her to plead guilty to assault with intent to kill inflicting serious injury… a class C felony. The document of interest is a report by Dr. Christena L. Roberts, a forensics pathologist who reviewed the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report on Reginald Daye. The autopsy and author of the report was Orange County Medical Examiner Clay Nichols.

Dr. Nichols’ report concluded that Mr. Daye died as a result of “complications from a stab wound to the chest,” without mentioning specifics of his death and containing major omissions, such as the deceased was victim of a botched intubation which led to his brain death… irreversible coma secondary to brain death being the prime reason for his elective removal from a weeklong’s worth of life support and proximate cause of death. In addition to Nichols’ conclusion which presented no nexus between the stab wound and Daye’s brain death or actual death, the report contained findings of injuries that were at marked variance with findings in other medical records… such as the operative report and orthopedic surgeon consultation report. Dr. Nichols’ findings suggested that the stab wound Mr. Daye sustained inflicted far more damage than that in the other hospital documents.

It is expected that Dr. Christena L. Roberts, an independent forensic pathologist, would prepare a report that starkly contrasted with the one by Dr. Nichols which was the basis for the murder charge against Ms. Mangum. In particular, it is highly likely that Dr. Roberts would confirm what Mangum supporters have long contended… that Reginald Daye’s death was not secondary to the stab wound. Without doubt, the proximate cause of Daye’s demise would be due to his elective removal from life support… the basis for it being due to his comatose state resulting from a mis-positioned endotracheal tube.

Such a review of the April 14, 2011 autopsy report by an independent pathologist would have been the first thing that a competent defense team should have done to quickly and adequately debunk the prosecution’s false assertion that the stab wound at Mangum’s hand was directly responsible for Daye’s death. A review would also represent exculpatory evidence, proving that Ms. Mangum was not responsible for the victim’s death.

For more than a year, Crystal Mangum rotted in jail while no such review was even sought. It was only after Mangum supporter Sidney B. Harr, a retired physician, spoke with Crystal Mangum’s defense attorney H. Wood Vann on May 24, 2012, that Mr. Vann took actions to put such an investigation into motion. On June 12, 2012, Mr. Vann filed an application for defense expert witness funding, and on June 16, 2012, Superior Court Judge Henry Hight signed the order for it.

The order allowed $3,000 payment to Dr. Roberts at $300/hr… compensation for roughly ten hours worth of work… to review the autopsy report and other medical records, and to draft a report.

As of the date of this posting, it has been more than two months, eighty days to be exact, since the order was given for payment for the report by Dr. Roberts, and still Crystal Mangum has not seen it. She stated that her attorney, Mr. Vann received it some time ago, and that he refuses to give her a copy of it until she is no longer incarcerated.

In addition, a mysterious report by the SBI, purportedly involving entry-trajectory knife path studies, has been completed after a yearlong research. Ms. Mangum states that Mr. Vann has possession of that report, as well.

Finally, Ms. Mangum has never seen the photographs that were taken by prosecution that document the crime scene and the injuries she sustained. Their value is extremely important as they document her condition and support that she was physically abused… in favor of her claim of self-defense. Although her first attorney Chris Shella did share some prosecution discovery with her, he always refrained from providing photographs that she requested. Mr. Vann has continued along that vein by refusing to give her copies of the photographs, as well. Like the other prosecution documents being withheld, Mr. Vann told her he would turn them over to her only after she was released from jail.

The Roberts’ report, the mysterious SBI report, and the photographs taken by prosecution are all major pieces of exculpatory evidence that is being withheld from Crystal Mangum not by the prosecution, by her own defense attorney. This is unheard of… and if not illegal, it is inappropriate action by the defense attorney. If rules and regulations demand that prosecutors turn discover (especially exculpatory evidence) over to the defendant, surely a defense attorney cannot intercept and withhold it from the intended defendant.

Consider that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of withholding exculpatory evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defendants, a myth that was pedaled by the biased mainstream media, which was the main consideration in his being disbarred. First of all, Mr. Nifong never withheld any discovery from defense in that case, and what information that defense attorneys claimed was “exculpatory” was far from being so. The media egged on the State Bar calling for Mr. Nifong’s head.

Compare that incident that occurred six and a half years ago with the current situation in which defense attorney Woody Vann is withholding exculpatory evidence from his own client, defendant Crystal Mangum who is facing a first degree murder charge and a possible sentence of life in prison without parole. Mr. Vann doesn’t want to show her prosecution discovery, thereby doing the dirty work of the prosecution for them… and of course, the media isn’t the least bit interested in the discovery (mainly because it is supportive of Mangum). The mainstream media is concentrating its efforts on learning about the names of the calls placed on former UNC head football coach Butch Davis’s cell phone, and the identities of the UNC football players who had their parking tickets paid for them several years back.

It’s not that the media doesn’t care about Ms. Mangum’s plight, because they do. They are a major part of the conspiracy that is helping to put her away for life because she accused three Duke lacrosse students, from families of wealth, power, and privilege, of sexually assaulting her… and because she’s African American. The media is playing a Jedi Mind-trick on the people by feeding them falsehoods and misinformation in their selective, skewed, and one-sided reporting. For the conspiracy to succeed, the truth behind the prosecution of Crystal Mangum must be hidden from the people… the crimes committed by the prosecution against Ms. Mangum must be concealed from the masses. A big part of that truth lies in the hands of Mangum’s attorney, Woody Vann.

Mr. Vann is aware that if he turns over the exculpatory documents and photographs currently in his possession that the truth about the grand scale conspiracy of persecution against Ms. Mangum will leak out into the public… and that would defeat his current objective. Convincing Mangum to take a plea deal for time served is the desperate play the prosecution is trying to now pull off to avoid civil liability for malicious prosecution, and to protect the reputations and work of Dr. Nichols and Duke University Hospital. If Ms. Mangum was armed with knowledge contained in the prosecution discovery that has been withheld, it is less likely that she would be as agreeable to accepting a plea deal.

One nonsensical argument for withholding prosecution discovery from Ms. Mangum is that if she had access to it, she would then send the copies of it to Sidney B. Harr. That is precisely what she should do, as Harr is a trusted friend and a physician who can best evaluate the report and help interpret it for her.

The argument then would become that if Harr got his hands on the prosecution discovery, then he would put it on the internet. What is wrong with that if, as expected, the prosecution discovery is supportive of Mangum’s innocence of the criminal charges against her? During the Duke Lacrosse case, defense attorneys, including Joe Cheshire, were repeatedly giving well-attended press conferences in which they revealed evidence that they claimed supported their clients’ blamelessness at the March 2006 beer-guzzling party.

As the defendant in a first degree murder charge, Crystal Mangum is entitled to have the entire prosecution discovery package, and it is inexcusable for her defense attorney to keep it from her. There is no logical reason for Mr. Vann to prevent Ms. Mangum from viewing and having the prosecution discovery and evidence with their exculpatory potential. By his actions, Mr. Vann brings into question his true allegiance, which surely does not appear to be with his client, Mangum.

Woody Vann needs to turn over to Crystal Mangum all prosecution discovery and evidence (including the Roberts’ report, the SBI report, and the photographs), or immediately step down from representing her as defense counsel. 

277 comments:

1 – 200 of 277   Newer›   Newest»
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid:

Guiowen's option (a) is "she's cleared." Sid's option (c) is prosecutors unconditionally dismiss all charges against her."

Sid, why are (a) and (c) any different? Isn't it true that prosecutors [would] unconditionally dismiss all charges against her" if the results of their investigation "cleared" her?

Or are you suggesting that the evidence is not relevant?


"She's cleared" is vague, and I took it to mean that she was found not guilty at trial. That is much different than the prosecution dismissing the charges against her.

Anonymous said...

I keep thinking that the last post you wrote would be your silliest. I was wrong. This one wins the weekly award for total bullxxxx by a perry mason wannabe. too funny, sidney.
perhaps you should do as others have suggested. open your purse and bail sister out....or, pay for an attorney worthy of your standards.
hi-bleepin-larious.....

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Regarding the Crystal mug shots, which is which and whether or not her hair is braided, those issues are irrelevant.

Neither picture shows any evidence of a beating. The one that is blurred is clear enough to show no evidence of the beating you allege.


One can barely make out the identity to be Crystal in the blurred photo, especially with her head tilted downward and poor lighting, in addition to the blurring.

The prosecution discovery photos will probably clearly show signs of injury to Crystal. That is why her attorneys have refused to give her copies. If they ever do, you can bet that you'll have the opportunity to see the injuries for yourself. I believe in allowing the truth to shine through... not concealing it under a shroud of deceit as Mangum's attorneys have done.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I keep thinking that the last post you wrote would be your silliest. I was wrong. This one wins the weekly award for total bullxxxx by a perry mason wannabe. too funny, sidney.
perhaps you should do as others have suggested. open your purse and bail sister out....or, pay for an attorney worthy of your standards.
hi-bleepin-larious.....


If you are so easily entertained by my blogs, then have I got a recommendation for you... I think you'd really like "Honey Boo Boo."

Naturally, I don't waste my time with it, but I'm sure it would provide you with many hours of enjoyment.

Walt said...

Ignoring the law again Sid. Until you tell us why you think the law does not apply to Crystal, you're not going to be very persuasive.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Well, it seems Woody has finally grown a pair and is doing the right thing for his client. The last thing I would do if she were my client, would be to give Mangum access to information like Harr describes.....IF, of course, it exists at all.
By the way, your posts ARE comical and I agree with another poster......it's so bad, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Cline in drag.

Lance the Intern said...

""...and if not illegal, it is inappropriate action by the defense attorney"

So....You don't really know if it's illegal or not.

Tell you what -- I'll hold off any further comments while you research the legality.

Please post what you find.

Anonymous said...

That's the point, Walt. The law does apply to Mangum, obviously, and Sidney Harr is just frosted that he can't magically make it disappear in her case. As far as I know, an attorney is not obligated to hand over information to his client. I would also add that we have Harr's version of events here. I have a suspicion that there is far more to the story that Harr is purposely not disclosing. For example, there may be a very specific instruction from the court regarding limitations on Mangum's contact with Harr. Heck, who knows????
Harr assumes that there is a Roberts report. He assumes it contains information that would be helpful to Mangum. Harr assumes that there is evidence such as photos, that would be helpful to Mangum. Harr would have us believe that Vann is keeping evidence away from Mangum in order to get her to accept a plea deal. Perhaps the truth is that Vann knows the evidence is totally against her side of the story and he knows that going to court, refusing a plea, is likely to land her in prison for a very long time. I have no reason to beieve Harr. He has proven to be capable of telling lies.

Anonymous said...

"In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the lawyer reasonably believes the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication."......suggest you study NC Rules, Sidney....re attorney client communication....

Lance the Intern said...

Since I can't edit my previous post, consider this an addendum -- In cases where a lawyer delays transmission of information to the client, it usually indicates that disclosure would harm the client.

Lance the Intern said...

Sid -- Here's the North Carolina State Bar's Revised Rules of Professional Conduct, since you're apparently having trouble finding the rules governing attorney-client communication.

Anonymous said...

This quote is from an N&O article that describes Mangum's incident in 2002. Mangum's troubles began LONG BEFORE the 2006 LAX party and any/all attempts by Harr to claim some wild grand conspiracy for the troubles in Mangum's life are completely false. Mangum has been in trouble for years, has been a sex worker for years, and has nine convictions on her record. She is no victim.....she is a convicted perpetrator.
The 2002 incident at the strip club where she stole the keys of a taxi driver for whom she was doing a lap dance......
"Her blood alcohol level was 0.19, according to court records, more than twice the legal limit to drive in North Carolina.
The woman was charged with driving while impaired, driving with a revoked license, felony speeding to elude arrest, felony assault with a deadly weapon on a government official, and felony larceny of a motor vehicle. Court documents and her criminal and driving records show that her driver's license had been revoked before the incident, but they do not indicate why.
Under a deal with prosecutors, she pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors in the car chase: larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and DWI, according to court records. She was required to serve three consecutive weekends in jail and was placed on two years' probation. She paid restitution and court costs, and completed her probation"
For anyone who cares to look, there is a clear pattern of misbehavior that is documented throughout Mangum's adult life. There is also a clear pattern of enabling her behavior by apologists such as Harr, who make excuses for her misdeeds and who conjure up imaginary evil white networks of conspirators who apparently spend their time thinking of ways to mess with Mangum. The truth is that this woman had what appears to be a pretty crappy childhood, was (by her admission) sexually active early, has had a wide variety of sexual relationships, has been a sex worker for more than ten years, has a history of making poor choices and then blaming others when her choices lead to problems for her......and.....now she is in the worst trouble of her life.....because, according to her, she made another lousy choice.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"One can barely make out the identity to be Crystal in the blurred photo, especially with her head tilted downward and poor lighting, in addition to the blurring. "

To you maybe. To any objective observer, the picture is clear enough to show the beating you alleged did not take place.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR: "It is expected that Dr. Christena L. Roberts, an independent forensic pathologist, would prepare a report that starkly contrasted with the one by Dr. Nichols which was the basis for the murder charge against Ms. Mangum. In particular, it is highly likely that Dr. Roberts would confirm what Mangum supporters have long contended… that Reginald Daye’s death was not secondary to the stab wound. Without doubt, the proximate cause of Daye’s demise would be due to his elective removal from life support… the basis for it being due to his comatose state resulting from a mis-positioned endotracheal tube."

If that were true, then Woody Vann would have made the report public, your unfounded accusations against him notwithstanding. If it has not been made public, commons sense and logic(both of which you are incapable) would say that Dr. Roberts' report is not helpful to Crystal.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
For more than a year, Crystal Mangum rotted in jail while no such review was even sought. It was only after Mangum supporter Sidney B. Harr, a retired physician, spoke with Crystal Mangum’s defense attorney H. Wood Vann on May 24, 2012, that Mr. Vann took actions to put such an investigation into motion. On June 12, 2012, Mr. Vann filed an application for defense expert witness funding, and on June 16, 2012, Superior Court Judge Henry Hight signed the order for it."

Another manifestation of your delusions of grandeur.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Consider that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of withholding exculpatory evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defendants, a myth that was pedaled by the biased mainstream media, which was the main consideration in his being disbarred."

It is not a myth. It is a documented truth which SIDNEY tries to misrepresent as a lie, a manifestation of his lack of ability to know what prosecutorial misconduct is.

DA NIFONG sought the evidence, hoping it would convict someone on the Lacrosse team. It did not. So he decided to withhold the evidence ans prosecute anyway, to influence Durham's black voters to vote for him.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
Compare that incident that occurred six and a half years ago with the current situation in which defense attorney Woody Vann is withholding exculpatory evidence from his own client, defendant Crystal Mangum who is facing a first degree murder charge and a possible sentence of life in prison without parole. Mr. Vann doesn’t want to show her prosecution discovery, thereby doing the dirty work of the prosecution for them".

More misrepresentation by SIDNEY. The last time Crystal got her hands on Prosecution discovery, she inappropriately and illegally shared it with SIDNEY who illegally and inappropriately published it on the internet(and then pleaded he was innocent of wrongdoing because he was ignorant of the law, which shows how much SIDNEY really knows about guilt or innocence).

Mr. Vann, quite appropriately, wants to keep confidential material away from SIDNEY. SIDNEY is throwing a tantrum because he can not view the discovery file.

I am sure if SIDNEY promised the court, on penalty of being charged with contempt, that he would stay away from Crystal and try to get access to the material, Mr. Vann might let Crystal see the material.

Or maybe, Mr. Vann can arrange for Crystal to be able to see the material with him without SIDNEY being present.

The main reason why Crystal has not seen the material is SIDNEY, who is too vain and too megalomaniacal to realize it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Mr. Vann is aware that if he turns over the exculpatory documents and photographs currently in his possession that the truth about the grand scale conspiracy of persecution against Ms. Mangum will leak out into the public… and that would defeat his current objective. Convincing Mangum to take a plea deal for time served is the desperate play the prosecution is trying to now pull off to avoid civil liability for malicious prosecution, and to protect the reputations and work of Dr. Nichols and Duke University Hospital. If Ms. Mangum was armed with knowledge contained in the prosecution discovery that has been withheld, it is less likely that she would be as agreeable to accepting a plea deal."

If you already know the prosecution has no case against Crystal, why are you so eager to see the prosecution's material?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Woody Vann needs to turn over to Crystal Mangum all prosecution discovery and evidence (including the Roberts’ report, the SBI report, and the photographs)...".

Perhaps so. But he does not have to allow you to see the information, especially if there is confidential information in the prosecution file which you have no legal right to see.

Admit it. You are not interested in Crystal's rights. You want access to the prosecution file so you can print more lies and unsubstantiated allegations.

I suggest again, Mr. Vann let Crystal see the material in a situation from which you are excluded, a situation in which you would not be able to see the material.

The only thing that would prevent is your unauthorized access to the material, something you are unwilling to countenance.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

",,,Mr. Nifong never withheld any discovery from defense in that case, and what information that defense attorneys claimed was “exculpatory” was far from being so."

Another lie SIDNEY, who has shown no ability to determine what is exculpatory and what is not, tries to peddle as truth.

Boy are you divorced from reality.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The argument then would become that if Harr got his hands on the prosecution discovery, then he would put it on the internet. What is wrong with that if, as expected, the prosecution discovery is supportive of Mangum’s innocence of the criminal charges against her? During the Duke Lacrosse case, defense attorneys, including Joe Cheshire, were repeatedly giving well-attended press conferences in which they revealed evidence that they claimed supported their clients’ blamelessness at the March 2006 beer-guzzling party."

The difference is that the defense attorneys were genuinely interested in their clients' innocence.

You do not believe in the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse players and are conducting a vendetta against them.

At the same time, you have no real concern for Crystal, and you have no right to see the prosecution's case file, and you want to see it so you can misrepresent it as part of your vendetta against the Lacrosse players.

If you did not have a vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, you would not be accusing them and their supporters of conducting a vendetta against Crystal.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Neither mug shot of Crystal shows any evidence of the beating you alleged she endured. Whether or not her hair is braided is irrelevant. You are desperate to hide from the truth.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As the defendant in a first degree murder charge, Crystal Mangum is entitled to have the entire prosecution discovery package..."

Just like the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players were entitled to have the exculpatory evidence DA NIFONG withheld from them.

You call DA NIFONG's actions the actions of an ethical prosecutor.

Boy are you a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
One nonsensical argument for withholding prosecution discovery from Ms. Mangum is that if she had access to it, she would then send the copies of it to Sidney B. Harr. That is precisely what she should do, as Harr is a trusted friend and a physician who can best evaluate the report and help interpret it for her."

You got that wrong. SIDNEY is a retired, grossly incompetent physician who is not competent to determine any of the medical facts of the case(as is evidenced by his claim that one need only a 5th Grade education to understand the medical facts) and whose expertise in advising others on legal matters is non existent(as evidenced by the ignominious dismissal of his frivolous lawsuit against Duke, as is further evidenced by his claim that Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players when Duke could have prevailed in court).

SIDNEY, you are the last person anyone should turn to about expert advice on anything.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

This was on the appropriately named Liestoppers Discussion Board:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4913101/1/

"Also on the lacrosse front, a lawyer for exonerated lacrosse player Reade Seligmann earlier this month indicated that his client had dealt with an IRS tax lien.

The lien, filed early in 2011, claimed Seligmann had a $6.5 million liability to federal tax collectors, presumably from the out-of-court civil settlement he and two other players had reached in 2007 with Duke University.

But the lien “was an error and the IRS was very helpful in correcting it,” lawyer Richard Emery said. He added without further elaboration that Seligmann’s actual liability for 2007 had been just “a nominal amount.”

You misrepresented the facts as to what Reade Seligman owed the IRS. That you did so shows you are conducting a vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players and that you do not care about the truth.

Why would anyone want someone like you as a legal advisor?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

With regard to Reade Seligman's phony, contrived tax troubles, are you going to claim the Carpetbagger jihad now controls the IRS?

Are you going to show us how much farther divorced from reality you have become?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/20021083/article-High-court-declines-appeal-from-lacrosse-case-DNA-tester

This is a link to the Herald Sun article with the news of the further exoneration of innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse player Reade Seligmann.

The main part of the story is about the NC Supreme Court refusing to reinstate Brian Meehan's breach of contract suit against DNA Security.

Let's here you try how the non existent Carpetbagger Jihad influenced that decision. Shoe us again how far divorced from reality you are.

Anonymous said...

Yep, "recent sexual contact with multiple males, none of whom were the LAX" guys......nice way of saying it...... she lied, too, in saying she had only had sex once in the last week before the LAX party and that it had been with her, then, boyfriend. (of the week, apparently). The results of the tests showed otherwise, as we all now know.
Glad to hear Reade is doing good. He is a class young man and did not deserve any of the horrific smear that Nifong tried to undertake. Oh, but I guess he should be sent off to prison for 30 years because he was drinking.....horrors, sidney!
Yep, sidney, I guess now you will tell us that the entire NC justice system and all its judges are in on the fix and part of the Evans grand conspiracy. wheeeeeee

Anonymous said...

Actually I am quite surprised Harr can actually spell Honey Boo Boo.....perhaps he has been taking advanced grammar at NCCU.
On a more serious note, I chatted with an attorney friend today and asked her for her opinion about whether she would, under certain/any circumstances, not give evidence/information to her client. She said she would absolutely make that judgment on a case by case basis, had not given information to clients before for various reasons, and would usually talk with a judge if there were any question in her mind about her decision. She said that she did not know of any law, as such, that would require an attorney to hand over any/all information to a client just because the client wanted it. Her final remark was that...if the client is so unhappy with an attorney over this kind of situation, why wouldn't the client fire the attorney and get another one? Good question, Harr.....why don't you and other find Mangum another attorney? One who will work for YOU and do things just the way YOU want them done. HMMMMMMM???

Anonymous said...

Well, now, isn't this cute....Sidney is attempting sarcastic humor with his "honey boo boo" quip. For those who don't know, this is some kind of reality TV show that focuses on a "redneck" family, so I assume Harr thinks he is being racially clever with his snappy comeback. Let's all collectively giggle at the thinly veiled racial reference to those who do not buy his brand of bullcorn as rednecks.
As Bill E. would say, "Here's your sign, Sidney, bless your heart"....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

""She's cleared" is vague, and I took it to mean that she was found not guilty at trial. That is much different than the prosecution dismissing the charges against her."

So what is so inappropriate about AG Cooper. He took over the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case at the behest of DA NIFONG. He thoroughly investigated the case, something DA NIFONG did not. He came to the conclusion that no crime had happened and that the accused, therefore, were innocent.

That is what you seem to want for Crystal.

Is it because you believe the accused Lacrosse players did not deserve to be cleared because they were Caucasians. Do you believe Crystal should be exonerated because she is black.

Your deluded ravings and hypocrisy indicate that is so.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The prosecution discovery photos will probably clearly show signs of injury to Crystal."

You have never established as fact that the prosecution has such photos.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Naturally, I don't waste my time with it(Honey Boo Boo), but I'm sure it would provide you with many hours of enjoyment."

No. You waste your time carrying on a vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, defaming the dead, making baseless accusations against individuals, denying your mistakes, accepting lies as truth, and a whole host of other activities.

Then you expect people to take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Interesting hypocrisy, for sure. Let Sister leave, right now, because Sidney says she is innocent and because SHE says she is innocent. Damn the lifeboats and to hell with justice. BUT, those wicked drunken debauchery-ridden LAX guys........poor old die-hard Sidney (and probably peterson, wahneeeeeema, jackie and bathrobe boy) all still think "something happened that night". so, Mangum is innocent because she says so. The guys, not so much.....in spite of a TON of evidence that they did not touch Mangum with a ten foot, uh, pole.
gimme a break, sidney.

guiowen said...

Sidney:
"prosecutors unconditionally dismiss all charges against her. And, if I have anything to say about it, that will happen!!"

Sidney, I hate to have to point this out, but you've had lots to say about this, practically every day over the last seventeen months, and nothing's happened.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sid:

Crystal must fire Vann if she believes he is part of a massive conspiracy against her.

She cannot hire anyone else if all NC attorneys are part of the conspiracy. If she represents herself, she will be entitled to all discovery. She can provide it to you to circumvent the media cover-up.

My observations:

1. The plea offered eliminates Crystal's responsibility for Daye's death. Whether her stab wound or unrelated medical malpractice caused the death becomes irrelevant. Your autopsy questions are no longer important--except for alleging bad faith by the prosecution.

2. If the charges are reduced, she still must demonstrate self-defense. Because you have decreed Crystal is credible, you merely assert that evidence supports self-defense without having see it.

3. She should see all of the evidence before taking a plea.

4. If the photographs of Crystal and the crime scene provide convincing evidence of self-defense, rejecting the plea may be a risk worth taking.

5. If the photographs do not provide convincing support, a plea for time served is a victory.

A decision to fire Vann involves significant risk. It will increase delays. The state may pull the plea offer. The unseen evidence may not support self-defense. Vann may have negotiated a good deal for his client.

Sid, I know you never make mistakes and Crystal never lies. Go for it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Consider that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of withholding exculpatory evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defendants, a myth that was pedaled by the biased mainstream media..."

Are you saying that the biased media took to their bicycles and pedaled through town carrying banners saying, "DA NIFONG withheld exculpatory evidence"?

How else could the so called biased media have "pedaled(Move by working the pedals of a bicycle)" such a story?

Anonymous said...

More Jeopardy:

Answer: SIDNEY HARR

Question: Who does not know the difference between one who drives a bicycle and "One who travels about selling wares for a living"(definition from the Free Online Dictionary)?

Anonymous said...

More Jeopardy:

Answer: The difference between a living lawyer and a deceased football coach.

Question: What would you never ask SIDNEY HARR to define?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Someone with less than a 5th grade education should be able to tell the difference between pedaling and peddling.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

As you have demonstrated you can not function even at a 5th Grade level, even by your own criteria you are not capable of understanding the medical records in the Reginald Daye stabbing case.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Woody Vann needs to turn over to Crystal Mangum all prosecution discovery and evidence (including the Roberts’ report, the SBI report, and the photographs)...".

Perhaps so. But he does not have to allow you to see the information, especially if there is confidential information in the prosecution file which you have no legal right to see.

Admit it. You are not interested in Crystal's rights. You want access to the prosecution file so you can print more lies and unsubstantiated allegations.

I suggest again, Mr. Vann let Crystal see the material in a situation from which you are excluded, a situation in which you would not be able to see the material.

The only thing that would prevent is your unauthorized access to the material, something you are unwilling to countenance.


I never said that Woody Vann must allow me to see the prosecution discovery and evidence... however, it appears we agree that he should turn it over to Ms. Mangum.

I see no problem with Ms. Mangum wanting a trusted friend and physician to review the report by Dr. Roberts and the SBI's mysterious forensic report. That is precisely what a logical person would do.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney:
"prosecutors unconditionally dismiss all charges against her. And, if I have anything to say about it, that will happen!!"

Sidney, I hate to have to point this out, but you've had lots to say about this, practically every day over the last seventeen months, and nothing's happened.


That's true, guiowen, but then, again, I have not had copies of prosecution discovery and evidence for seventeen months, and I still have not seen the reports from Dr. Roberts and the SBI, and the photographs.

The truth will set Ms. Mangum free, and once I am able to enlighten people with the truth, she will be freed.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Sid:

Crystal must fire Vann if she believes he is part of a massive conspiracy against her.

She cannot hire anyone else if all NC attorneys are part of the conspiracy. If she represents herself, she will be entitled to all discovery. She can provide it to you to circumvent the media cover-up.

My observations:

1. The plea offered eliminates Crystal's responsibility for Daye's death. Whether her stab wound or unrelated medical malpractice caused the death becomes irrelevant. Your autopsy questions are no longer important--except for alleging bad faith by the prosecution.

2. If the charges are reduced, she still must demonstrate self-defense. Because you have decreed Crystal is credible, you merely assert that evidence supports self-defense without having see it.

3. She should see all of the evidence before taking a plea.

4. If the photographs of Crystal and the crime scene provide convincing evidence of self-defense, rejecting the plea may be a risk worth taking.

5. If the photographs do not provide convincing support, a plea for time served is a victory.

A decision to fire Vann involves significant risk. It will increase delays. The state may pull the plea offer. The unseen evidence may not support self-defense. Vann may have negotiated a good deal for his client.

Sid, I know you never make mistakes and Crystal never lies. Go for it.


Break, you are a truly a breath of fresh air, and quite enlightened, I might add.

I am in agreement with just about everything you have said and the conclusions you have reached. However, being human, I have been known to make a mistake on rare occasions. Crystal, also being human, has told a lie or two in the past.

I look forward to more of your enlightened comments.

guiowen said...

Sidney:
"The truth will set Ms. Mangum free, and once I am able to enlighten people with the truth, she will be freed."

The trouble is that you're not reaching enough people with your blog. You must distribute your ideas to a wider audience. That's why I've encouraged you to should hand out fliers to people in the streets in Durham and Raleigh.

Anonymous said...


Sidney, I am amazed. A brillant person like you should recognize sarcasm when he sees it. Apparently your brillance is so bright that you are dazzled and blinded....
wow, it must be hard to be so intelligent.
"Break", hilarious......

Anonymous said...

Lets start a campaign to have Crystal Mangum represent herself with Sidney Harr as her consultant/advisor.
"Fire Vann, Crystal!!!!"

Anonymous said...

Wow, Honey BooBoo.....?? Really, Sidney?
Perhaps you should tune in to old reruns of the Dukes of Hazard or how about The Jeffersons?
What a dumb waste of time this whole silly site is.......

Lance the Intern said...

" the lien “was an error and the IRS was very helpful in correcting it,” lawyer Richard Emery said. He added without further elaboration that Seligmann’s actual liability for 2007 had been just “a nominal amount.”...."

There goes Sid's ONLY justification for claiming that the Duke LAX players received $20 million from Duke.

Sid, I expect you to publicly acknowledge that your claims to date were in fact wrong, and that you will refrain from making any such claim in the future.

Anonymous said...

Correct, Lance. BUT, as you know, Sidney does not apologize for, admit to, or take ownership of false claims he has made. (fire setting, reasons for arguments, type of knife used to kill somebody, etc, etc, etc.) He blames his "sources" and engages in other responsibility-avoidance tactics......which is EXACTLY what Crystal Mangum has done, for years! No wonder they are bosom pals......twigs from the same character-lacking branch.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"However, being human, I have been known to make a mistake on rare occasions. Crystal, also being human, has told a lie or two in the past."

Why have you blogged that you and the truth are one?

Why do you blog that Crystal's account of what happened during the Reginald Daye stabbing must be accepted at face value.

Crystal has told more than a lie or two in her career. The most egregious lie was that she was raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The truth will set Ms. Mangum free, and once I am able to enlighten people with the truth, she will be freed."

And when will that be? When you force the NC Bar to reinstate corrupt DA NIFONG's law license.

You have been proclaiming your drivel for nearly a year and a half. The charges against Crystal stand. What you are saying about the Reginald Daye stabbing, therefore, by your own criteria, must not be the truth.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
I never said that Woody Vann must allow me to see the prosecution discovery and evidence... however, it appears we agree that he should turn it over to Ms. Mangum.

I see no problem with Ms. Mangum wanting a trusted friend and physician to review the report by Dr. Roberts and the SBI's mysterious forensic report. That is precisely what a logical person would do."

You are making an issue of the prosecution discovery file only because you want access to it. You want to publish it and distort it to further your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players and those who believed in their innocence.

You are a retired, totally incompetent physician. If Crystal trusts you, she would trust Bernie Madoff with her investments, if she had any.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"That is precisely what a logical person would do."

You believe in this non existent carpetbagger jihad, the existence of which you have never been able to prove, and you think you are logical?

You are a deluded, probably schizophrenic megalomaniac, incapable of logic, incapable of enlightening anyone, particularly yourself.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that Mangum's case and the information involved with it is none of your business. If Mangum wants the information, she can demand to see it. If Vann refuses, she can fire him. This is an issue between Mangum and her attorney,,,,,or....are you now up to playing lawyer again?
By the way, PROVE that any such information (photos, Roberts report, etc. )even exists before you rant about having access to it. We all know why you want the information.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"That's true, guiowen, but then, again, I have not had copies of prosecution discovery and evidence for seventeen months, and I still have not seen the reports from Dr. Roberts and the SBI, and the photographs."

So on what basis do you assert that the prosecution must dismiss all the charges against Crystal? You apparently believe your delusions of megalomaniacal and schizophrenic grandeur trump the justice system.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Any comment about the way you presumed Reade Seligman guilty of tax evasion?

That is one of the grosser mistakes you have made. That is as gross as your assertion that Duke University settled with the Duke Lacrosse players because they were advised by one of the players' attorneys that their insurance carrier would pay the setttlement.

And you think you should advise someone charged with Murder 1 on legal matters?

That shows you are divorced from reality and certifiably insane, probably schizophrenic.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney:
"The truth will set Ms. Mangum free, and once I am able to enlighten people with the truth, she will be freed."

The trouble is that you're not reaching enough people with your blog. You must distribute your ideas to a wider audience. That's why I've encouraged you to should hand out fliers to people in the streets in Durham and Raleigh.


guiowen, you are absolutely correct, however, I believe that I can reach more people on the blog than I can on a street corner.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"guiowen, you are absolutely correct, however, I believe that I can reach more people on the blog than I can on a street corner."

With the exceptions of yourself and KENHYDERAL, all the commenters on this blog do not believe in Crystal's innocence. So why do you presume you are reaching anyone?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...

Sidney, I am amazed. A brillant person like you should recognize sarcasm when he sees it. Apparently your brillance is so bright that you are dazzled and blinded....
wow, it must be hard to be so intelligent.
"Break", hilarious......


What Break said made too much sense to be sarcastic. Until directed otherwise, I will take what Break said at face value.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

You can pretend that you did not presume Reade Seligman guilty of tax evasion. That will not make this evidence of the vendetta you are conducting against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players go away.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"That is precisely what a logical person would do."

You believe in this non existent carpetbagger jihad, the existence of which you have never been able to prove, and you think you are logical?

You are a deluded, probably schizophrenic megalomaniac, incapable of logic, incapable of enlightening anyone, particularly yourself.


The problem with you is that you have allowed the mainstream media to play a Jedi Mind-trick on you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

What legal doctrine supports you contention that someone accused of a crime is not innocent unless innocence is determined by a judge or jury.

The presumption of innocence is that one accused of a crime is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

How does your contention mesh with the presumption of innocence.

Come on, SIDNEY. Show us why you are not qualified to give anyone legal advice, let alone someone charged with Murder 1.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"he problem with you is that you have allowed the mainstream media to play a Jedi Mind-trick on you."

That is another straw fisherman holding up a red herring. De facto, it is an admission on your part that you can not prove the carpetbagger jihad exists.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Why are you afraid to comment on the fact, that Reade Seligman, contrary to your accusation, did not commit tax evasion.

Anonymous said...

If I were muslim, I would be insulted with harr's repeated use of the term jihad in this flop. if I were christian, I would be insulted with his repeated references to jesus in this flop. if I were a person of color, I would be deeply offended by his defense of Nifong. (who USED a black woman to win an election...). If I were caucasian, I would be disgusted by the purile racist content that harr spews in an attempt to pit whites and blacks against one another.
what a miserable human being....to waste time finding ways to overcompensate for his own shortcomings by drumming up hate.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Prove the existence of Jedi mind tricks outside of the Star Wars Universe.

Anonymous said...

Sidney......"What Break said made too much sense to be sarcastic. Until directed otherwise, I will take what Break said at face value.

Break......."Sid, I know you never make mistakes and Crystal never lies. Go for it."

Memo to Sidney: Look up the word sarcasm in the dictionary. It's the big book on the shelf in the library.



guiowen said...

to the 11:51:
Are you sure Sidney refers to Jesus? I've seen him refer to "the man from Nazareth". When I was in graduate school, my first roommate was a Palestinian Arab -- from Nazareth. Maybe Sidney had a similar roommate once?

Anonymous said...

guiowen September 5, 2012 2:17 PM

I do remember on one occasion SIDNEY HARR did post that he and the truth were one.

Anonymous said...

LOL guiowen......actually jesus was born in jerusalem.....so the man from nazareth references are kinda funny anyway. It's a common christian slogan apparently.......like WWJD. I saw a wonderful sign in a bookstore recently.
" WWJD? Jesus would slap the SXXX out of you!"
I think sidney likes to ttrot out the spiritual sanctimony whenever he feels like thinks us hicks are getting too uppity.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: LOL guiowen......actually jesus was born in jerusalem" Huh???

Anonymous said...

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by....

Anonymous said...

Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight...

Anonymous said...

Well there you go kenny. We all thought you would come along and catch the funny........jesus was born in wichita falls......or was it cleveland?

Anonymous said...

I dont give a squirrel's behind where jesus was born. I guess some folks seem to be pretty darn sure though. Sidney gives us the man from nazareth speech periodically when he gets all holy. I figure it is coming soon........right along with the poor crystal single mother innocent victim of the evil white people speech.

guiowen said...

I forgot to say I know many people called Jesus. (I come from South America.) Some of these men are very nice, some not so. So I'm hardly impressed when you claim Jesus would have done this or that.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Are you going to admit you wrongfully accused Reade Seligman of tax evasion?

I think not.

After all, you call corrupt DA NIFONG an ethical minister of justice after he had three wrongfully accused men indicted for a crime which had never happened.

You falsely accused a Durham Police officer of setting fire to Milton Walker's clothes and blame him for not extinguishing the fire which Crystal set.

You do not call Crystal on lying to you about the fire.

SIDNEY, you are truly a sad excuse for a human being.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"'Anonymous said: LOL guiowen......actually jesus was born in jerusalem Huh???'"

This is the same KENHYDERAL who argues that Crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party by unidentified assailants, that members of the Lacrosse team were aware of the assault, that members of the Lacrosse team covered for the assailants even after three of their number were wrongfully indicted for the crime.

HUH!!!???

Anonymous said...

I keep waiting for sidney to just finally come out with it and announce to us ....all.....what he really wants to do. Of course, that announcement would be that Mangum has fired Vann, that she is defending herself (with her find degree from NCCU being her preparation), that Harr is her advisor, that J4N members will serve as the jury, that she is to be released from jail now, and that all the white people in Durham have to pay her reparations for restorative justice! Hosanna!

Anonymous said...

WWJD? Perhaps Jesus would tell Crystal to stop blaming the rest of the world for her own poor choices and lousy behavior. Perhaps Jesus would tell her that it is time for her to take responsibility, herself, for her mistakes and for HER to pay her dues, whatever they may be, now and in the future.
then again, perhaps jesus would just throw his hands up in the air and mutter, "WTF?????"

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

What legal doctrine supports you contention that someone accused of a crime is not innocent unless innocence is determined by a judge or jury.

The presumption of innocence is that one accused of a crime is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

How does your contention mesh with the presumption of innocence.

Come on, SIDNEY. Show us why you are not qualified to give anyone legal advice, let alone someone charged with Murder 1.


What I said was that an attorney general cannot pronounce a defendant charged with a crime as "innocent." What Roy Cooper did was unprecedented. Never heard of such. His pronouncement of innocent doesn't carry the same weight as one made by a judge or jury, and it is therefore misleading.

Let me know if you require more elucidation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
If I were muslim, I would be insulted with harr's repeated use of the term jihad in this flop. if I were christian, I would be insulted with his repeated references to jesus in this flop. if I were a person of color, I would be deeply offended by his defense of Nifong. (who USED a black woman to win an election...). If I were caucasian, I would be disgusted by the purile racist content that harr spews in an attempt to pit whites and blacks against one another.
what a miserable human being....to waste time finding ways to overcompensate for his own shortcomings by drumming up hate.


Seems as though you are easily offended. What I do is not drum up hatred, but shine enlightenment upon the open-minded and reasonable.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney......"What Break said made too much sense to be sarcastic. Until directed otherwise, I will take what Break said at face value.

Break......."Sid, I know you never make mistakes and Crystal never lies. Go for it."

Memo to Sidney: Look up the word sarcasm in the dictionary. It's the big book on the shelf in the library.


You are no proxy for Break.

I think that Break can speak for him/herself, and I will take what he/she said at face value until I hear otherwise from him/her.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
to the 11:51:
Are you sure Sidney refers to Jesus? I've seen him refer to "the man from Nazareth". When I was in graduate school, my first roommate was a Palestinian Arab -- from Nazareth. Maybe Sidney had a similar roommate once?


Actually, I never met anyone from Nazareth, in person.

I talk about the Man from Nazareth based upon what I learned about Him from my many years of attending Sunday School.


Anonymous said...

Ah, the religious sidney comes out........knew it wouldnt be very long. Seems to me that the bible said someplace it is a sin to lie.......and to judge. So sidney how about you cut the lying and playing judge in the state's case against mangum?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:14 AM said: HUH!!!???............... YUP!!!

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What I said was that an attorney general cannot pronounce a defendant charged with a crime as "innocent." What Roy Cooper did was unprecedented. Never heard of such. His pronouncement of innocent doesn't carry the same weight as one made by a judge or jury, and it is therefore misleading."

So why do you want Crystal pronounced innocent without going before a judge and jury?

You are ducking the question. Te question was, what legal doctrine supports your opinion that a defendant must be pronounced innocent by a judge or jury. Is that contention of yours consistent with the presumption of innocence?

Why do you argue that the New Black Panthers' declaration of guilt on the part of the Lacrosse players is free speech protected by the first amendment. Why are you saying that the First Amendment does not guarantee AG Cooper's right to express a belief that the Duke Lacrosse players were innocent.

You reinforce my belief that your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players is racially motivated.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I talk about the Man from Nazareth based upon what I learned about Him from my many years of attending Sunday School."

Judging from the way you condone bearing false witness against the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, I say you have probably forgotten everything you ever learned about Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I think that Break can speak for him/herself, and I will take what he/she said at face value until I hear otherwise from him/her."

Like you took Crystal at face value when she told you she did not set fire to Milton Walker's clothes?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Seems as though you are easily offended. What I do is not drum up hatred, but shine enlightenment upon the open-minded and reasonable."

Another manifestation that SIDNEY is totally divorced from reality and is probably schizophrenic.

Lance the Intern said...

Sid -- Why have you avoided responding to my requests?

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- Why have you avoided responding to my requests?


Intern, mi amigo, I have not been trying to ignore responding to you or your requests. I have just been busy with my Campaign of Justice for Crystal Mangum, and the computer time online at the library is limited.

Would you please re-submit your request, and I'll make a special point of addressing it the next time I come to the library to go online. Have a nice weekend.

Adios.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"What I said was that an attorney general cannot pronounce a defendant charged with a crime as "innocent." What Roy Cooper did was unprecedented. Never heard of such. His pronouncement of innocent doesn't carry the same weight as one made by a judge or jury, and it is therefore misleading."

So why do you want Crystal pronounced innocent without going before a judge and jury?

You are ducking the question. Te question was, what legal doctrine supports your opinion that a defendant must be pronounced innocent by a judge or jury. Is that contention of yours consistent with the presumption of innocence?

Why do you argue that the New Black Panthers' declaration of guilt on the part of the Lacrosse players is free speech protected by the first amendment. Why are you saying that the First Amendment does not guarantee AG Cooper's right to express a belief that the Duke Lacrosse players were innocent.

You reinforce my belief that your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players is racially motivated.


The Duke Lacrosse players did not go before a judge or jury. The charges against them were dropped by the prosecutor. That's all I want for Crystal Mangum... for the charges to be dropped. I'm not asking for the Attorney General to declare her "innocent" like Brad Bannon did... which enabled him and the other attorneys to shake down Duke for $20 million each.

Regarding the legal doctrine issue, the attorney general does not have the power to declare a defendant either "innocent" or "guilty." If that were the case, there would be no need to hold a costly trial and present evidence and have witnesses give testimony. The AG would merely look at the defendant and make a pronouncement. But that's LahLah Land Juris Prudence. The only thing the attorney general can do is dismiss charges against a defendant. Ergo, what Roy Cooper did in proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent" was had no authority... it was of no consequence even though it was enough to force Duke into forking over big bucks in a ridiculous settlement.

Please let me know if you require further elucidation.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Intern, mi amigo, I have not been trying to ignore responding to you or your requests. I have just been busy with my Campaign of Justice for Crystal Mangum, and the computer time online at the library is limited."

A more likely reason, considering your track record, is you can not answer and you can not come up with a straw man or red herring to distract attention away from your inability to answer.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

" I'm not asking for the Attorney General to declare her 'innocent' like Brad Bannon did(with regard to the actually innocent Duke Lacrosse players)... which enabled him and the other attorneys to shake down Duke for $20 million each.

Brad Bannon did not force the AG to declare the actually innocent Lacrosse players innocent, your deluded megalomania notwithstanding. AG Cooper and his office reviewed DA NIFONG's case(something you, by your own admission, never did) and concluded they were innocent.

Explain why the NBP party could proclaim them guilty but it was inappropriate for the AG to express his opinion that they were innocent.

Your vendetta is showing.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding the legal doctrine issue, the attorney general does not have the power to declare a defendant either "innocent" or 'guilty.' If that were the case, there would be no need to hold a costly trial and present evidence and have witnesses give testimony."

If the defendants were innocent as a matter of fact(which was the case with the Duke Lacrosse players) there was no justification with charging them with a crime in the first place.

You are saying that charging an individual with a crime means the case has to go to trial. So why are you saying that Crystal should not have to go to trial?

Lance the Intern said...

Sid -- Refer to my posts -- first from 4 September @ 7:57 am, second from 8:24, same day.

I've even provided you with the necessary link.

Lance the Intern said...

"which enabled him and the other attorneys to shake down Duke for $20 million each."

The IRS lien against Reade Seligmann was an error, which has since been corrected.

Your "$20 million" claim was based off this (incorrect) IRS lien.

Making a claim based off information when you don't know that the information is wrong is an error.

Making a claim once you've been shown that the information is wrong is a lie.

You, Dr. Harr, are a liar.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

With regard to legal doctrine, the judge and jury do not determine innocence. The innocence of a criminal defendant is presumed. The judge and jury determine whether or not guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your statement that the innocence of the Lacrosse players was never evaluated by a judge or jury is legally meaningless.

However, we can not expect a meaningful legal opinion from someone whose greatest legal accomplishment is getting a frivolous lawsuit tossed ignominiously out of court.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding the legal doctrine issue, the attorney general does not have the power to declare a defendant either "innocent" or 'guilty.'"

But the Attorney General does have a right to express his opinion that the Lacrosse players were actually innocent.

You seem to believe that Caucasians are not entitled to the presumption of innocence, that Caucasians are not entitled to free speech.

That shows you are a racist.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The AG would merely look at the defendant and make a pronouncement. But that's LahLah Land Juris Prudence."

That seems to be the kind of Juris Prudence you want for Crystal. However, it is not at all clear that Crystal actually is innocent.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

" it(AG COOPER"S opinion asto the innocence of the Lacrosse players) was of no consequence even though it was enough to force Duke into forking over big bucks in a ridiculous settlement.

If Mr. Cooper's opinion was a factor in Duke's decision to settle with the Duke Lacrosse players rather than defend in court, then it most definitely had significant consequences - far more than your unsupported belief that they were guilty.

You again show how divorced you are from reality.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Please let me know if you require further elucidation."

How can you, whose greatest legal accomplishment was getting your frivolous lawsuit against Duke ignominiously thrown out of court, elucidate anyone about a legal issue?

Anonymous said...

Sidney harr is a racist and a liar. Period.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
It's very simple. Just go to the AG and ask him to evaluate the case. Explain to him why it is obvious that CGM is innocent. He will then declare her innocent, and thus allow her to sue Durham for 20 million dollars. You might even suggest that CGM sue your bete noire, Rae Evans, the brain behind this whole Carpetbagger Jihad.

Anonymous said...

I think that delaying her trial so long is wrong and costly, no question, and Harr should be focusing on this point. The question is not whether but when mangum goes before a jury. His antics obviously caused more delays, but I see no justification for such a lengthy wait till trial. She should get a fair trial and soon.
If a plea is being negotiated, Mangum KNOWS what she did and why. Supposedly she has a brain and she should be listening to her lawyer's voice.........not the voice of an unqualified quack with a racist and utterly hate filled agenda .......

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Let's try this again.

You stated that the innocence of the Lacrosse players was never determined by a judge or jury, at trial in other words.

How is that consistent with a basic premise of our system of juris prudence, that a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't try to dodge the question by dragging your meaningless opinion of AG Cooper's belief that the Lacrosse players were innocent.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding the legal doctrine issue, the attorney general does not have the power to declare a defendant either "innocent" or 'guilty.' If that were the case, there would be no need to hold a costly trial and present evidence and have witnesses give testimony."

If the defendants were innocent as a matter of fact(which was the case with the Duke Lacrosse players) there was no justification with charging them with a crime in the first place.

You are saying that charging an individual with a crime means the case has to go to trial. So why are you saying that Crystal should not have to go to trial?


There was no justicfication in charging Crystal with a crime for stabbing Daye in self defense. Daye should have been arrested and charged.

Whether or not the Duke lacrosse defendants should have been charged with a crime I do not know, as I do not have the evidence.

Finally, not everyone charged witha crime should have their case taken to court. I have no problem with the prosecution dismissing a charge that is found to be baseless. The prosecutors should have long ago dismissed charges against Mangum regarding Daye's death.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

" I'm not asking for the Attorney General to declare her 'innocent' like Brad Bannon did(with regard to the actually innocent Duke Lacrosse players)... which enabled him and the other attorneys to shake down Duke for $20 million each.

Brad Bannon did not force the AG to declare the actually innocent Lacrosse players innocent, your deluded megalomania notwithstanding. AG Cooper and his office reviewed DA NIFONG's case(something you, by your own admission, never did) and concluded they were innocent.

Explain why the NBP party could proclaim them guilty but it was inappropriate for the AG to express his opinion that they were innocent.

Your vendetta is showing.


The New Black Panther Party can proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants guilty just like AG Cooper can proclaim them innocent. Fact is that both proclamations carry the same legal weight... which is zero... as would be a proclamation of innocent or guilt from me or you. I object to the mainstream media's giving credence to Cooper's proclamation of innocence.

guiowen said...


Sidney said:
" The prosecutors should have long ago dismissed charges against Mangum regarding Daye's death."

So why don't you do something about it? Go to the AG, or hire a better lawyer!
Instead, you insist that your blogs will set CGM free. Don't you understand, Sidney, that your blog is useful only in the sense that it allows knowledgeable people like Lance and Walt to give you advice? But you have to act on this advice!

Anonymous said...

Sid: Whether or not the Duke lacrosse defendants should have been charged with a crime, I do not know, as I do not have the evidence.

As you know, most of the evidence is publicly available. What are you missing?

Anonymous said...

Guiowen:

Sidney went to the AG, and the AG ignored him.

In any event, the AG does not have the power to intervene unless the DA asks. That alternative will not work.

He really is left with the one alternative of hiring a better lawyer. However, if they are all part of the conspiracy, Crystal will have to represent herself.

If Vann is working against Crystal, she should fire him.

Crystal working pro se. What could go wrong?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I object to the mainstream media's giving credence to Cooper's proclamation of innocence."

No, you object to the media's not giving credence to your and the NBP's proclamations of guilt.

Anonymous said...

SINEY HARR:

"Whether or not the Duke lacrosse defendants should have been charged with a crime I do not know, as I do not have the evidence."

So what grounds do you have to object so vehemently to AG Cooper's belief that the Lacrosse players were innocent?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"There was no justicfication in charging Crystal with a crime for stabbing Daye in self defense. Daye should have been arrested and charged."

It has not been established as fact either that Crystal acted in self defense or that Reginald Daye perpetrated a crime against Crystal.

Common sense and logic, both of which you lack, indicate Woody Vann would not be seeking a plea deal if he could establish self defense.

You have not established it as fact that Mr. Vann is "in cahoots" with the prosecution. Your belief in that has no weight, except to show you are divorced from reality and probably schizophrenic.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, not everyone charged witha crime should have their case taken to court. I have no problem with the prosecution dismissing a charge that is found to be baseless."

So why do you have such heartburn over the fact that the charges against the innocent Lacrosse players were baseless?

Anonymous said...

SIDNY HARR:

"The New Black Panther Party can proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants guilty just like AG Cooper can proclaim them innocent. Fact is that both proclamations carry the same legal weight... which is zero".

So how come the New Black Panther proclamation did not prevent the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players from promulgating their suit against Duke?

Why do you think your proclamations of their guilt have any weight?

You would not be publishing the things you publish unless you believe they are guilty, e.g., thar Crystal was a victim.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The prosecutors should have long ago dismissed charges against Mangum regarding Daye's death."

Why? Because you say they are baseless? You have admitted that your opinion as to a Defendant's guilt or innocence is legally meaningless(which raises the question why you blog that the Lacrosse Defendants are guilty - you do so).

How do you establish as fact that the charges are baseless?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

You are still dodging the issue. You say that the innocence of the Lacrosse players was never determined by a judge or jury.

How does that uphold the fundamental principle of our justice system, that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why do you think applying that principle to the Lacrosse players was lah-lah-land Juris Prudence? Is it because you beklieve Caucasian men accused of a crime by a black woman should be presumed guilty?

guiowen said...

Anonymous 11:06 said:
"Crystal working pro se. What could go wrong?"

Everything will be fine since she'll have her trusted adviser Sidney with her.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...

Sidney said:
" The prosecutors should have long ago dismissed charges against Mangum regarding Daye's death."

So why don't you do something about it? Go to the AG, or hire a better lawyer!
Instead, you insist that your blogs will set CGM free. Don't you understand, Sidney, that your blog is useful only in the sense that it allows knowledgeable people like Lance and Walt to give you advice? But you have to act on this advice!


gui, mon ami, I am doing something about it. I informed the AG's office weeks ago of the injustice... and have received no response. Hiring a lawyer is out of the question as he will only bleed you dry financially and then work to the advantage of Duke and the Powers-That-Be. Don't feel like wasting my dinero.

The truth will set Crystal free, and once I get the prosecution discovery regarding the assessment of the April 14, 2011 autopsy report, Process Liberation will be underway.

Thanks for your suggestions, anyway... but they won't work.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, not everyone charged witha crime should have their case taken to court. I have no problem with the prosecution dismissing a charge that is found to be baseless."

So why do you have such heartburn over the fact that the charges against the innocent Lacrosse players were baseless?


I have no heartburn over the charges being dismissed by the prosecution, but the Attorney General was acting beyond professional bounds when he added that the defendants were "innocent." That's unprecedented... it's never happened before.

Hope that you have been elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"There was no justicfication in charging Crystal with a crime for stabbing Daye in self defense. Daye should have been arrested and charged."

It has not been established as fact either that Crystal acted in self defense or that Reginald Daye perpetrated a crime against Crystal.

Common sense and logic, both of which you lack, indicate Woody Vann would not be seeking a plea deal if he could establish self defense.

You have not established it as fact that Mr. Vann is "in cahoots" with the prosecution. Your belief in that has no weight, except to show you are divorced from reality and probably schizophrenic.


Self defense is easily established by the fact that Crystal had signs of physical trauma, that clumps of her hair were found at the scene, that the bathroom door was kicked in. Additionally, Daye was heavily intoxicated and he had a past history of assault on a female. There was more than enough to establish that she acted in self-defense.

I believe that a defendant is entitled to have copies of all prosecution discovery. How do you explain Mr. Vann withholding exculpatory prosecution discovery from Ms. Mangum? The obvious explanation is elementary... the deduction being that Mr. Vann is, indeed, in cahoots with the prosecution.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

" There was more than enough to establish that she acted in self-defense."

No there wasn't. The evidence you cite has not been established as fact at trial, which has to be done if a defendant is asserting self defense.

Again you defame the dead. Mr. Daye was charged with assault on a female, which assault was dismissed by the DA. You lie about that, and this incident is hardly evidence that Mr. Daye assaulted Crystal.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"How do you explain Mr. Vann withholding exculpatory prosecution discovery from Ms. Mangum? The obvious explanation is elementary... the deduction being that Mr. Vann is, indeed, in cahoots with the prosecution."

SIDNEY, the obvious explanation is that Woody Vann does not want an unauthorized person, namely you, a totally incompetent retired physician with a grudge against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, to have access to confidential material.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sid,

I apologize for my delay.

I am surprised my comment provoked controversy. I thought my words spoke for themselves.

Crystal cannot be defended by a lawyer who conspires against her. She must fire Vann if she believes this. She cannot hire another attorney if she believes they are also part of the conspiracy. Representing herself may be her only option with a conspiracy as widespread as you claim.

The strength of Crystal's self-defense claim is vital. Although you are confident Crystal would make an effective witness, the unseen evidence is critical. Crystal must see how well that evidence supports her.

If Vann refuses, you and Crystal must make an important decision without all information.

You are highly confident of your judgment. Your readers bombard you with claims of "errors." You ignore most of these comments, seeing them as frivolous and not worthy of response. You rarely acknowledge a mistake, dismissing complaints with your unimpeachable logic.

You consistently praise Crystal's honesty. You readers bombard you with unproven claims of "lies." You ignore these frivolous claims.

Your decision should not be difficult.

You believe Crystal is in a no win situation, represented by an attorney working against her. She can defend herself with a powerful weapon: the truth. With no attorney to filter evidence, Crystal can provide you with everything, which you can post without delay. If successful, you will expose flaws in the NC justice system.

Go for it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The truth will set Crystal free, and once I get the prosecution discovery regarding the assessment of the April 14, 2011 autopsy report, Process Liberation will be underway."

Dream on. You had access to confidential material from the prosecution case file and all you accomplished was to violate the law and cause Crystal's attorney of choice to give up on the case. In case you haven't noticed, Crystal is still in jail.

You haven't the chance of a rat's ass in Hades of getting access to the material, much to your obvious chagrin.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR(the great elucidator - NOT!):

" have no heartburn over the charges being dismissed by the prosecution, but the Attorney General was acting beyond professional bounds when he added that the defendants were "innocent." That's unprecedented... it's never happened before."

It may have been unprecedented but it was not in any way improper or unprofessional, considering the crime with which the defendants were charged.

You seem to think that corrupt DA NIFONG was a paragon of legal professionalism. That only shows, again, that you are completely divorced from reality and are probably schizophrenic.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I believe that a defendant is entitled to have copies of all prosecution discovery."

Nevertheless, you DO believe that the accused Lacrosse players were not entitled to the evidence DA NIFONG generated, namely, in this alleged DNA depositing rape, the only DNA found on Crystal's person did not come from any of the people DA NIFONG had indicted for the crime.

You called that evidence non exculpatory.

I remind the readers that your main legal accomplishment has been to file an obviously frivolous lawsuit against Duke only to have it ignominiously tossed out of court.

It really gripes you, that you were unable to shake down Duke for a sizeable settlement.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
When I said that "your blog is useful only in the sense that it allows knowledgeable people like Lance and Walt to give you advice", I should have included Break the Conspiracy. He/she is clearly knowledgeable. He/she is givinguyou good advice.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I have no heartburn over the charges being dismissed by the prosecution".

With regard to the innocent falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players, yes you do.

Otherwise you would not be blogging that the public's belief in their innocence is the result of a "Jedi mind trick" worked on behalf of the "carpetbagger jihad", the existence of which you can not prove.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I believe that a defendant is entitled to have copies of all prosecution discovery."

No, you believe you should have access to all the prosecution discovery, although you have no legal standing in this case and have shown yourself to be totally incompetent, as a physician and as a legal expert.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am doing something about it. I informed the AG's office weeks ago of the injustice... and have received no response."

No you didn't. You informed the AG's office of your unsubstantiated allegations of injustice.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hiring a lawyer is out of the question as he will only bleed you dry financially and then work to the advantage of Duke and the Powers-That-Be."

So how did the attorneys for the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players get Duke to agree to settle with their clients rather than defend against them in court?

Let's have you try to give an attempt at a meaningful answer rather than spouting off that the settlement was not justified.

Someone who files a frivoulous lawsuit and has it ignominiously tossed out of court is in no position to meaningfully comment on legal matters, as you have repeatedly shown.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What I said was that an attorney general cannot pronounce a defendant charged with a crime as "innocent." What Roy Cooper did was unprecedented. Never heard of such. His pronouncement of innocent doesn't carry the same weight as one made by a judge or jury, and it is therefore misleading."

SIDNEY, you are again dodging the issue, which has nothing to do with AG Cooper's opinion of the innocence of the Lacrosse players(which is a matter of fact, not proclamation, since the crime they were accused of committing never happened).

What you said was that the innocence of the Lacrosse players was never evaluated by a judge or jury.

How is that consistent with the fundamental principle of our Judicial system, that the accused is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge and Jury do not determine innocence. They determine whether or not the prosecutor has proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The explanation, what you are trying to dodge is this. You are a racist black man who believes that Caucasians, innocent or not, are not entitled to the presumption of innocence. Caucasians charged with a crime by a black woman should be presumed guilty and summarily convicted.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I have no heartburn over the charges being dismissed by the prosecution, but the Attorney General was acting beyond professional bounds when he added that the defendants were "innocent." That's unprecedented... it's never happened before."

Straw Fisherman holding up a Red Herring, SIDNEY.

The question was "So why do you have such heartburn over the fact that the charges against the innocent Lacrosse players were baseless?"

You obviously believe, although the charges were baseless, the innocent Caucasians should have been presumed guilty and summarily convicted because allegations were made by a black woman.

Otherwise you would not have tried to dodge the question.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Another issue you dodge is that you falsely accused innocent Lacrosse player of tax evasion.

You dodge it because you have a lot of heartburn over the failure of your own frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hiring a lawyer is out of the question as he will only bleed you dry financially and then work to the advantage of Duke and the Powers-That-Be."

That is a de facto admission that no lawyer has any chance of getting Crystal off, which is what you are demanding.

Do you really think your meaningless posturing intimidates anyone. You have admitted the AG's office does not respond to you. Have you heard back from the NC bar about your complaint against Woody Vann? I think not.

Talk about Lah lah land Juris prudence.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Clarification to my comment of September 7, 2012 1:33 PM.

The crime for which the Lacrosse players were indicted never happened. Therefore, it was totally appropriate that AG Cooper expressed his belief in their innocence.

What was appropriate about corrupt DA NIFONG publicly proclaiming that Lacrosse team members were guilty of a crime, a statement he made before he had any evidence. It turned out he never got any evidence that a crime had happened.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"His pronouncement of innocent doesn't carry the same weight as one made by a judge or jury, and it is therefore misleading."

You are either misleading or misled.

I have been trying to tell you, a judge or jury does not evaluate innocence. It evaluates whether or not the prosecutor has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your statements clearly show you do not believe the falsely accused Lacrosse defendants should have been presumed innocent.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Sid,

I apologize for my delay.

I am surprised my comment provoked controversy. I thought my words spoke for themselves.

Crystal cannot be defended by a lawyer who conspires against her. She must fire Vann if she believes this. She cannot hire another attorney if she believes they are also part of the conspiracy. Representing herself may be her only option with a conspiracy as widespread as you claim.

The strength of Crystal's self-defense claim is vital. Although you are confident Crystal would make an effective witness, the unseen evidence is critical. Crystal must see how well that evidence supports her.

If Vann refuses, you and Crystal must make an important decision without all information.

You are highly confident of your judgment. Your readers bombard you with claims of "errors." You ignore most of these comments, seeing them as frivolous and not worthy of response. You rarely acknowledge a mistake, dismissing complaints with your unimpeachable logic.

You consistently praise Crystal's honesty. You readers bombard you with unproven claims of "lies." You ignore these frivolous claims.

Your decision should not be difficult.

You believe Crystal is in a no win situation, represented by an attorney working against her. She can defend herself with a powerful weapon: the truth. With no attorney to filter evidence, Crystal can provide you with everything, which you can post without delay. If successful, you will expose flaws in the NC justice system.

Go for it.


Hey, Break.

You are absolutely correct. Ms. Mangum will need to dismiss her attorney and prepare to represent herself if the truth is to come out and for her to receive justice.

Thank you for clarifying that your previous statement was one of enlightenment and not one of sarcasm as some of the misguided commenters have contended.

We will go for it!! Thanks, again.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"The truth will set Crystal free, and once I get the prosecution discovery regarding the assessment of the April 14, 2011 autopsy report, Process Liberation will be underway."

Dream on. You had access to confidential material from the prosecution case file and all you accomplished was to violate the law and cause Crystal's attorney of choice to give up on the case. In case you haven't noticed, Crystal is still in jail.

You haven't the chance of a rat's ass in Hades of getting access to the material, much to your obvious chagrin.


Crystal Mangum, as a defendant, is entitled to prosecution discovery. Mangum will get it, even if it requires dismissing her attorney. And when she gets her hands on the discovery and evidence, she can share it with whomever she chooses... and it would be wise for her to share it with a trusted physician friend.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Hiring a lawyer is out of the question as he will only bleed you dry financially and then work to the advantage of Duke and the Powers-That-Be."

That is a de facto admission that no lawyer has any chance of getting Crystal off, which is what you are demanding.

Do you really think your meaningless posturing intimidates anyone. You have admitted the AG's office does not respond to you. Have you heard back from the NC bar about your complaint against Woody Vann? I think not.

Talk about Lah lah land Juris prudence.


One thing about the NC State Bar, it does respond to complaints filed with it. Yes I did hear back from the Bar about my complaint against Mr. Vann. They refused to launch an investigation against him using what I consider to be a lame excuse. Actually, I was not surprised. I filed complaints against prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks, too, and the Bar decided to take no action on those complaints either.

Yet, the Bar has no problem launching investigations of Mike Nifong, Tracey Cline, and me...

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Yet, the Bar has no problem launching investigations of Mike Nifong, Tracey Cline, and me.."

That was because DA NIFONG and Tracey Cline were corrupt prosecutors and you practiced law without a licen se. None of that applied to the people against whom you filed complaints,

Go ye and be enlightened.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Crystal Mangum, as a defendant, is entitled to prosecution discovery. Mangum will get it, even if it requires dismissing her attorney. And when she gets her hands on the discovery and evidence, she can share it with whomever she chooses... and it would be wise for her to share it with a trusted physician friend."

You got it wrong on two accounts. Crystal may not be allowed to share information covered by confidentiality provisions.

You are a totally incompetent physician whom no one should trust.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"

Hey, Break.

You are absolutely correct. Ms. Mangum will need to dismiss her attorney and prepare to represent herself if the truth is to come out and for her to receive justice.

Thank you for clarifying that your previous statement was one of enlightenment and not one of sarcasm as some of the misguided commenters have contended.

We will go for it!! Thanks, again."

If Crystal represents herself. the only way she can make a case for self defense is to present the case herself. Then she will expose herself to cross examination and the only thing that will die is her hopes for an acquittal.

How will she explain the mug shots showing no evidence of a beating. If she goes true to form, her answer will be, oh, duh, the pictures mudt have been doctored;..
SIDNEY, if you tried to interfere, you'd find yourself quickly thrown into jail for contempt, judging from your previous legal performances

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr

Anonymous said...

Break, you are hilarious. Good old sidney......bless his bigoted heart..........
Fire vann, harr......get yourself a big old briefcase and go to court with sister.

guiowen said...

You know, Sidney, Mike Nifong will soon be able to apply for reinstatement of his license. Thus, if you can only wait till that happens, you and your friends can probably get him to work , pro bono, on CGM's defense.
Why hadn't we thought of that sooner?

Anonymous said...

Guiowen, ,,,,,,, ;)

Anonymous said...

Ah break is not being sarcastic. Of course not. That's why break says harr never makes mistakes and sister never lies. Hosanna!! Who knew!!!!!?????

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr Harr Harr

Anonymous said...

Sidney we have been telling you to get sister a new attorney with your money.....for months. You have said all attorneys are basically corrupt and under the control of mrs evans. So now, if sister fires vann, and needs an attorney, who,will be worthy? And who will pay? You? Lololol. Of course mangum can represent herself. That is the best way I know for mangum to wind up in prison for a long time. She is totally unqualified to,represent herself. Since you failed in your bid to play lawyer for yourself, who is gonna work for her for free? Nifong? Nope. He will never ever be licensed as an attorney in NC again. Thank god. He also said he has zero interest in applying for a license. Sooooo, who then?
I suggest to you that any idea of mangum repeesenting herself is ludricrous and very sad. She needs the lawyer YOU caused to walk......Shella. Too bad.
If the state is desperate for a plea because their case is weak, then why doesnt sister refuse them and go to court? Your arguments make no sense, you have lied and refused to admit it, and now you advocate an action that is seriously dangerous to Mangum. Shame on you

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Crystal Mangum, as a defendant, is entitled to prosecution discovery. Mangum will get it, even if it requires dismissing her attorney. And when she gets her hands on the discovery and evidence, she can share it with whomever she chooses... and it would be wise for her to share it with a trusted physician friend."

You got it wrong on two accounts. Crystal may not be allowed to share information covered by confidentiality provisions.

You are a totally incompetent physician whom no one should trust.


My competency as a physician is totally irrelevant, and the fact is that Crystal does trust me.

Even, assuming your statement that Crystal is not permitted to share confidential material, she is still entitled to see it. Right? That's the whole point!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"

Hey, Break.

You are absolutely correct. Ms. Mangum will need to dismiss her attorney and prepare to represent herself if the truth is to come out and for her to receive justice.

Thank you for clarifying that your previous statement was one of enlightenment and not one of sarcasm as some of the misguided commenters have contended.

We will go for it!! Thanks, again."

If Crystal represents herself. the only way she can make a case for self defense is to present the case herself. Then she will expose herself to cross examination and the only thing that will die is her hopes for an acquittal.

How will she explain the mug shots showing no evidence of a beating. If she goes true to form, her answer will be, oh, duh, the pictures mudt have been doctored;..
SIDNEY, if you tried to interfere, you'd find yourself quickly thrown into jail for contempt, judging from your previous legal performances


Hah. Crystal is not afraid of "cross-examination." After all, she has justice on her side.

So far, only one blurred mug shot under extremely poor lighting conditions, has been shown by the media. The prosecution photos of her injuries that have been withheld from her will demonstrate plainly that she was abused.

Although the case will never go to trial, I have no intention of interfering... however, I will do what I legally can to assist her.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Break, you are hilarious. Good old sidney......bless his bigoted heart..........
Fire vann, harr......get yourself a big old briefcase and go to court with sister.


Break is an intellectually endowed and enlightened individual, whose comments to this site are truly blessings.

If you think Break is hilarious, then may I recommend to you the cable television show "Honey Boo Boo." I'm sure that it will provide you with many hours of entertainment.

Finally, get it through your cranium... the case is not going to trial. The prosecution would be laughed out of the courtroom if it tried.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
You know, Sidney, Mike Nifong will soon be able to apply for reinstatement of his license. Thus, if you can only wait till that happens, you and your friends can probably get him to work , pro bono, on CGM's defense.
Why hadn't we thought of that sooner?


gui, mon ami,

F'git-aboudit! Mike Nifong is not going to give the Bar the satisfaction of turning him down. Besides, he has too much integrity to even be involved with such a corrupt system.

Finally, Crystal will not need an attorney, because the case won't get to trial. All she needs is the truth, and the charges against her will be dropped. Mark my words.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Ah break is not being sarcastic. Of course not. That's why break says harr never makes mistakes and sister never lies. Hosanna!! Who knew!!!!!?????


I told you Break was serious. You may find it hard to believe, but there are intelligent people out there with common sense who grace us with their comments and insight... not just the misguided who heap on the baloney.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney we have been telling you to get sister a new attorney with your money.....for months. You have said all attorneys are basically corrupt and under the control of mrs evans. So now, if sister fires vann, and needs an attorney, who,will be worthy? And who will pay? You? Lololol. Of course mangum can represent herself. That is the best way I know for mangum to wind up in prison for a long time. She is totally unqualified to,represent herself. Since you failed in your bid to play lawyer for yourself, who is gonna work for her for free? Nifong? Nope. He will never ever be licensed as an attorney in NC again. Thank god. He also said he has zero interest in applying for a license. Sooooo, who then?
I suggest to you that any idea of mangum repeesenting herself is ludricrous and very sad. She needs the lawyer YOU caused to walk......Shella. Too bad.
If the state is desperate for a plea because their case is weak, then why doesnt sister refuse them and go to court? Your arguments make no sense, you have lied and refused to admit it, and now you advocate an action that is seriously dangerous to Mangum. Shame on you


Shella was Mangum's attorney for a year and what did he accomplish? Mr. Vann has been on the case for about four months, and all he has done is withhold exculpatory evidence from her.

Her course for salvation is clear, as Break has indicated. She needs to represent herself. However, don't worry about the case going to court as the prosecution will fold long before then.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY

"[Crystal's]course for salvation is clear, as Break has indicated. She needs to represent herself. However, don't worry about the case going to court as the prosecution will fold long before then."

You have been saying that for m9oore than a year(weren't you saying Duke would capitulate once you filed your frivolous law3suit?). So far the prosecution has shown no sign of folding.

You show again how divorced from reality you are.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, get it through your cranium... the case is not going to trial. The prosecution would be laughed out of the courtroom if it tried."

So why not let it go to trial and see?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"F'git-aboudit! Mike Nifong is not going to give the Bar the satisfaction of turning him down. Besides, he has too much integrity to even be involved with such a corrupt system."

The truth is, DA NIFONG's total lack of integrity is why he won't seek reinstatement of his license. His total lack of integrity would prevent him from successfully practicing Law again - not that he was ever very successful in the first place.

You again show how divorced from reality you are.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, Crystal will not need an attorney, because the case won't get to trial. All she needs is the truth, and the charges against her will be dropped. Mark my words."

In spite of more than a year's worth of marking your words, Crystal remains incarcerated.

The only logical explanation is that these words of yours we mark are not the truth>

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"My competency as a physician is totally irrelevant, and the fact is that Crystal does trust me."

So why do you say your status as a physician is a reason for Crystal to trust you?

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring, You seem to be acknowledging you were not a competent physician.

If you were not a competent physician, why would any court take seriously yiour interpretation of the medical records, Would tyou want a totally incompetent physician reviewing your own medical records?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Even, assuming your statement that Crystal is not permitted to share confidential material, she is still entitled to see it. Right? That's the whole point!!"

The whole point is, you want access to the material, to which you are not entitled,

Go ye and be enlightened.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:30 said; "So far the prosecution has shown no sign of folding" ... In a tactic that smacks of desparation, they have been intimating that, if Crystal does not accept their deal, she will face may more long months of incarceration and separation from her children. This kind of blackmail against a Mother is unconscionable

Anonymous said...

Ken,

Do you have any reaction to Sidney's plan to encourage Crystal to fire Vann and represent herself?

Anonymous said...

Honey boo boo? Do you watchthe Jeffersons reruns? Spare us all your attempts at humor. Please.

guiowen said...

kenhyderal said...
"This kind of blackmail against a Mother is unconscionable"
So come up with some bail money, then!

kenhyderal said...

Yeah, and if you can't afford to go to College borrow the money from your Family. The bail is $200000.00 A bail bond company will post the bond for a $20000.00 cash and a registered lien against a $180000.00 attachable asset that's located within the United States. Here's perfect example of the selective justice system, prevalent in America, where the poor are at a distict disadvantage and are suseptible to the kind pressure and blackmail to plead guilty,even when, as in Crystal's case, they are completely innocent.

guiowen said...

I thought she was your bosom buddy?

Anonymous said...

So Ken,

I take it from your silence that you have no opinion whatsoever on Sidney's plan to encourage Crystal to fire Woody Vann an represent herself.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Yeah, and if you can't afford to go to College borrow the money from your Family. The bail is $200000.00 A bail bond company will post the bond for a $20000.00 cash and a registered lien against a $180000.00 attachable asset that's located within the United States. Here's perfect example of the selective justice system, prevalent in America, where the poor are at a distict disadvantage and are suseptible to the kind pressure and blackmail to plead guilty,even when, as in Crystal's case, they are completely innocent."

It has not been established as fact that Crystal is not guilty. That she is innocent is presumed until and unless she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which presumption you are unwilling to accord Caucasian men accused of a non existent crime.

Consider Michael Jermaine Burch, black Durham resident who did rape a girl, was able to make bail, and then raped a second woman. How did that happen if the bail system is stacked against black people?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"'So far the prosecution has shown no sign of folding' ... In a tactic that smacks of desparation, they have been intimating that, if Crystal does not accept their deal, she will face may more long months of incarceration and separation from her children. This kind of blackmail against a Mother is unconscionable".

You got it wrong. SIDNEY is the one showing desperation.

Falsely accusing innocent men of rape, abandoning her children while meeting men for an escort service, setting a fire in her apartment, stealing an auto, driving while impaired, trying to run down a police officer, THAT's unconscionable.

Anonymous said...

add to the last post....attacking a man with a step ladder, doing violence to his vehicle, giving a false ID, resisting arrest, stabbing a man and running to the location where her child was (potentially putting her child at risk of a wild drunken murdering Daye.....), stealing a man's keys, stealing his car, driving recklessly the wrong way down a street, giving lap dances, doing pole vaulting, abusing prescription drugs, running around in her underwear "dance" costume, lying to put men in prison or, as she told others, "to get me some money out of those white boys",.......yep a real sweetheart of a mother, hissy boy. sounds just like the kind of chick you would want to take home to meet your Moma.

Anonymous said...

for the umpteenth time, sidney, in THIS country all of us, even you, is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Therefore, the men were innocent. There was not ONE shred of evidence that even remotely supported the false charges that Nifong brought against the LAX guys. They were and are innocent. of course, you and your wingnuts will go on, sour graping, because it gets galled you that your prototype villans did not rape your prototype victim.

Anonymous said...

sidney you continue to fail to understand our justice system. In this country the burden of proof is on the accuser. You just simply cannot stand the FACT of the LAX guy's innocence. that is so very plain. There will always be people like you who have a personal hatred that gets in the way of their reason and common sense. too bad.
as of now Mangum is innocent of the charges currently leveled against her. She will remain innocent until/unless a jury decides she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has the burden to prove her guilt. That's how it works, like it or not, sidney. You can't have it both ways........whining that the men should not have been declared innocent (they were) but whining that Mangum should be declared innocent (she is, until she is proven guilty)
If you think Mangum ought to fire Vann and represent herself, I feel sorry for Mangum. there is nothing I can see that Vann has done wrong here......why aren't you crusading against the REAL problem, i.e., the lousy performance of the state, overall, in giving people a reasonably speedy trial. I agree Mangum should not have had to wait this long. However, you caused some of the delay yourself.

Anonymous said...

I don't care what Sidney Harr thinks about the LAX guys and the case. It's his opinion and that's ALL it is. He can say whatever he wants about the AG, too. Who gives a rip. On the other hand, I do think what Harr has done with Mangum's latest case (posting the PHI, other records, filing motions improperly, etc.) has been shameful and has led to poor consequences for Mangum.
As far as I know, Mangum has the right to fire Vann if she wishes. Question is, for what purpose and for what gain? Does anybody besides Harr and his J4N people think Mangum is capable of adequately defending herself? I do not.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY

"[Crystal's]course for salvation is clear, as Break has indicated. She needs to represent herself. However, don't worry about the case going to court as the prosecution will fold long before then."

You have been saying that for m9oore than a year(weren't you saying Duke would capitulate once you filed your frivolous law3suit?). So far the prosecution has shown no sign of folding.

You show again how divorced from reality you are.


Desperation is evident in the plea deal offer that Woody Vann shopped to Crystal... time served for a plea to assault with a deadly weapon.

The prosecution is stalling and trying to force some plea deal from Crystal. That's what its all about now.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, get it through your cranium... the case is not going to trial. The prosecution would be laughed out of the courtroom if it tried."

So why not let it go to trial and see?


I'm not holding up the trial. The prosecution is the one that schedules things in this court. They are stalling because they don't have a case and they're trying to force Mangum to accept a plea deal. This is the same tactic that was used in the James Arthur Johnson case, wherein he stayed in jail for 39 months... wrongly charged for crimes he didn't commit. When the trial could no longer be delayed in that case, the prosecution handed the case over to a Special Prosecutor.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Even, assuming your statement that Crystal is not permitted to share confidential material, she is still entitled to see it. Right? That's the whole point!!"

The whole point is, you want access to the material, to which you are not entitled,

Go ye and be enlightened.


You keep missing the point... which is that Crystal is entitled to have discovery and evidence in her case. Can we stipulate to that specific point?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Honey boo boo? Do you watchthe Jeffersons reruns? Spare us all your attempts at humor. Please.


Not a fan of "The Jeffersons"... the humor is too biting and sarcastic for my taste. I do watch "The Honeymooners" whenever I can, and occasionally will watch reruns of "The Patty Duke Show."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
for the umpteenth time, sidney, in THIS country all of us, even you, is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Therefore, the men were innocent. There was not ONE shred of evidence that even remotely supported the false charges that Nifong brought against the LAX guys. They were and are innocent. of course, you and your wingnuts will go on, sour graping, because it gets galled you that your prototype villans did not rape your prototype victim.


We know for a fact that there was under-aged drinking at the party... which is a crime, in case you didn't know. The attorney general chose to overlook that, and who knows what ever other evidence which he later sealed. I don't know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent or guilty, but one thing... I'm not obsessing about it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
sidney you continue to fail to understand our justice system. In this country the burden of proof is on the accuser. You just simply cannot stand the FACT of the LAX guy's innocence. that is so very plain. There will always be people like you who have a personal hatred that gets in the way of their reason and common sense. too bad.
as of now Mangum is innocent of the charges currently leveled against her. She will remain innocent until/unless a jury decides she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has the burden to prove her guilt. That's how it works, like it or not, sidney. You can't have it both ways........whining that the men should not have been declared innocent (they were) but whining that Mangum should be declared innocent (she is, until she is proven guilty)
If you think Mangum ought to fire Vann and represent herself, I feel sorry for Mangum. there is nothing I can see that Vann has done wrong here......why aren't you crusading against the REAL problem, i.e., the lousy performance of the state, overall, in giving people a reasonably speedy trial. I agree Mangum should not have had to wait this long. However, you caused some of the delay yourself.


Y'goddabe kiddin. I didn't cause any delay in Crystal's case. Put the blame where it's due... on the prosecutors.

Regarding Woody Vann, he has withheld exculpatory prosecution discovery and evidence from his client. In my book, that's severe violation of his duty to his client.

Regarding the presumption of innocence, it's a shame that Crystal Mangum has already served more than 500 days in jail... and she's presummed innocent. That's crazy. What it should be called is what it is... having Crystal serve a sentence without being charged. This is commonly done to suspects who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.

Anonymous said...

Of course you are obsessing about it. It is all you think about....plus, of course, your own vendetta and race-based hatred. Yes, there was under-aged drinking at the party. Oh my god, horrors! Yes, it is against the law and yes, the team members were punished for it. and Yes, of course, they could have been charged with the misdemeanor offense for underaged drinking. Heaven help us.....college kids drinking! that's a crime worthy of 30 or 40 years in prison, for sure. by the way, what does their under-aged drinking have to do with the FACT that Mangum lied when she said those men raped her? Why did she conveniently change her story about the condom use when it was disclosed there there was no evidence of semen from the men in or on her?
How is she able to claim a sheer hour or terror from a wild beating and choking without any evidence when she was examined by the EMTs? and don't tell me that chapped lips and a tiny (no treatment required) spot on her cheek is evidence of face punching, brawling, choking beating. I have seen plenty of women in an ER after a beating by a man......facial punching almost ALWAYS shows very evidence bruising. You should know this as a physician.
Break IS poking fun......"harr never makes mistakes and Mangum never lies".........is sarcasm, sidney. perhaps Break is a fig newton of kenny's malek imagination. :)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I don't care what Sidney Harr thinks about the LAX guys and the case. It's his opinion and that's ALL it is. He can say whatever he wants about the AG, too. Who gives a rip. On the other hand, I do think what Harr has done with Mangum's latest case (posting the PHI, other records, filing motions improperly, etc.) has been shameful and has led to poor consequences for Mangum.
As far as I know, Mangum has the right to fire Vann if she wishes. Question is, for what purpose and for what gain? Does anybody besides Harr and his J4N people think Mangum is capable of adequately defending herself? I do not.


Mangum can adequately defend herself against the charges because the prosecution doesn't have a case.

By posting documents about the case, I have enlightened the people... something which the mainstream media has purposely tried not to do. The shame is with the media for shielding the people from the truth.

Anonymous said...

There is no question that NC is lousy in its performance regarding speedy trial. Why are you not focusing on that particular issue, in and of itself, for ALL people in jails, awaiting trial in NC. You assume there is a tactic being used to punish Mangum without a trial. and you assume it is because she is "poor, person of color". I disagree with your assumptions. Why have you made no effort to fund raise to get her out on bail? Seems to me that the state's supposed tactic of keeping her in jail to force a plea would lose all its effect if she were bailed out.......yet you have done nothing to raise money for this purpose. You do a great deal of talking but no contributing to a cause that would help her out. makes no sense to me at all.

Anonymous said...

Harr will not change his tune or his tactics. Same old bullxxxx.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Of course you are obsessing about it. It is all you think about....plus, of course, your own vendetta and race-based hatred. Yes, there was under-aged drinking at the party. Oh my god, horrors! Yes, it is against the law and yes, the team members were punished for it. and Yes, of course, they could have been charged with the misdemeanor offense for underaged drinking. Heaven help us.....college kids drinking! that's a crime worthy of 30 or 40 years in prison, for sure. by the way, what does their under-aged drinking have to do with the FACT that Mangum lied when she said those men raped her? Why did she conveniently change her story about the condom use when it was disclosed there there was no evidence of semen from the men in or on her?
How is she able to claim a sheer hour or terror from a wild beating and choking without any evidence when she was examined by the EMTs? and don't tell me that chapped lips and a tiny (no treatment required) spot on her cheek is evidence of face punching, brawling, choking beating. I have seen plenty of women in an ER after a beating by a man......facial punching almost ALWAYS shows very evidence bruising. You should know this as a physician.
Break IS poking fun......"harr never makes mistakes and Mangum never lies".........is sarcasm, sidney. perhaps Break is a fig newton of kenny's malek imagination. :)


The only time I even think about the Duke Lacrosse case and defendants is when I'm responding to comments on this site. My energies are exerted in trying to see that justice is achieved in the case against Crystal Mangum.

Regarding the mug shot... it's so blurry and with such poor lighting that you cannot make out anything in it. That's why it's important to see the prosecution discovery photos which have been withheld by Crystal's attorney. Once I get my hands on them, I'll post them... letting a few more rays of truth shine through.

Anonymous said...

With regard to posting those documents, all I can say is that it violated federal law, damaged her case, and contributed directly to Shella's withdrawal. I also think it was incredibly disrespectful to the Daye family. Harr refuses to apologize or accept responsibility for this action and I refuse to ever see this behavior as anything but shameful. end of story

Lance the Intern said...

"You keep missing the point... which is that Crystal is entitled to have discovery and evidence in her case. Can we stipulate to that specific point?

I've provided you the link to the NC State Bar's rules of conduct proving that this statement is patently false. Why would anyone stipulate to it?

Anonymous said...

Amazing to me that Harr is such a hypocrite. Here he is, yelling about withholding of exculpatory evidence from Mangum.......yet he refuses to admit that what Nifong did, in withholding exculpatory evidence from the LAX guys, was criminal. He is insisting that Mangum be released just because HE says she is innocent. Yet he fails to accept the innocence of the LAX guys. another hypocrisy. He whines about the long jail time for Mangum but refuses to open his purse to help with bail money. hypocrite. he lies about the fire setting episode but refuses to admit that he got caught in a lie. hypocrite. over and over, more and more glaring examples of his myopic view of justice.....

Anonymous said...

If the prosecution has photos of Mangum, other than the mug shot, that show injuries to her face, WHY would Vann refuse to allow her to see these photos? First, there is no proof, except in Harr's mind, that these added photos exist. But suppose they do exist. Suppose the prosecution has set of photos that show Mangum all beat to hell. How many people think that the prosecutors would keep these photos from Vann? Second, IF Vann saw these photos and then KNEW Mangum was telling the truth and then KNEW he had hard evidence of a beating, WHY would he not want to take her case to court? Only reason I can think of is that, IF all these IFs are true, then VANN and the entire Durham DA office are all in cahoots, trying to frame Mangum.

It is FAR more logical and likely that (a)these photos do not exist at all, and (b)if they do exist, they show no evidence of beating, and (c)Vann is telling Mangum that he will not give her any information because he knows she will hand it over to wingnut Sidney Harr, and(d)Harr will screw up her case yet again. It is FAR more likely that Vann is trying to do his job, to keep Mangum from going to prison for a very long time. Whether there is even a plea deal on the table has NOT been established as fact. I take nothing that Harr says as fact....when you are proven to be a liar, over and over, your credibility is shot. I think Harr is just throwing his little fit because he has been throttled by the court/vann. and he is covering it up by claiming an injustice to Mangum.
Let's all hope Mangum goes to court, gets a chance to present her side of the story, gets heard by a jury of her peers, and gets justice.......whatever that may be.

Walt said...

The Sid/Nifong double standard on full display: "We know for a fact that there was under-aged drinking at the party... which is a crime, in case you didn't know."

"The attorney general chose to overlook that, and who knows what ever other evidence which he later sealed. I don't know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent or guilty, but one thing... I'm not obsessing about it."

For the most part, Sid is making no sense. However, his last sentence is blatantly false. This whole website is about his obsession with promoting a falsehood.

Lance the Intern wrote: "I've provided you the link to the NC State Bar's rules of conduct proving that this statement is patently false. Why would anyone stipulate to it?"

Good luck getting Sid/Nifong to acknowledge the reality. I've never been successful with that. Maybe you'll get him to realize it.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Over the years I have watched (read) Harr's endless rantings and, in the past year, it is pretty clear that he has, in my humble opinion, gone over the edge with his hate and his ever-slipping grasp of reality. Sidney IS obsessed and it is unforunate for him. Mangum is obviously a very troubled, very unstable, and pathetic woman. She had a miserable childhood apparently and, through a whole series of lousy choices on HER part, she has racked up an impressive record of crimes.....and lost her children. Harr refuses to be anything but blind to Mangum's sorry state except to blame everybody else....in his growing conspiracy.
I truly believe that there is NO amount of real substantive HardCore undeniable evidence (even if she flat out admitted under oath in court) that would ever get Harr to admit the truth about Mangum. .......if she came clean and said she made up the whole sorry event back in 2006. I don't think Harr would accept her admission. He would say she had been drugged or brainwashed.
Now Mangum is in the most serious trouble of her short life, and just when she needs the best lawyering available, Harr butts in and Shella bolts. Who can blame him? Vann? Jones? What a sorry mess.....

guiowen said...

The real problem, so far as I can see it, is that Crystal is, in Sidney's mind, "Nifong's victim" -- not that Sidney thinks Mike victimized her, but rather that Nifong went all they way to help this "victim", so in a sense she now belongs to him. (Note Nifong once referred to her as "my victim".) In Sidney's mind, Mike went down fighting a noble cause, but all the sense of Mike's unfortunate career would be lost if CGM now turned out to be a liar or, worse yet, a murderer. Thus his insistence (a) that the Lax 3 have never been proven innocent, and (b) that CGM is clearly innocent. But since nobody is willing to do anything for her, he invents this huge "Carpetbagger Jihad" that's been practicing Jedi mind tricks on all of us.

Anonymous said...

You are right, guiowen.
"Proven innocent"....how sad for sidney that he still doesn't get it....
I don't think, though, that harr gives a hoot about either nifong or mangum. he (and others) were thrilled that they had the perfect villans in the rich white boys and the perfect victim in the single mom, mangum. when it all didn't work out as they had expected, I think people like Harr simply could not accept reality. Of course, the fact that mangum has been in trouble with the law since 2002, was immaterial.....as was the mountain of evidence that proved she lied.
It's really pathetic now....because Mangum is in deep doooo-dooooo and she needs best counsel available. that is NOT sidney harr

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 277   Newer› Newest»