Part One
Part Two
LINK to Interactive Flog below:
Transcribed Text
On the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, Reginald Daye told first responder police and paramedics that he and Crystal Mangum were arguing over money prior to the stabbing incident.
Daye claimed that Mangum, who gained notoriety in the media as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, either took his money or refused to return his money… his story on this point not being consistent. Never once in these early interviews with police and investigators did Daye, or his nephew Carlos Wilson, ever mention that she had taken cashier’s checks or money orders… leaving the impression that she had stolen cash.
Durham police and investigators also failed to ask how much cash was allegedly taken by Ms. Mangum. According to police reports, the question is never asked by Durham’s Finest, and Daye and Wilson never voluntarily mentioned the amount of cash allegedly stolen.
Without even having the opportunity to give her statement as to what transpired leading up to the stabbing of Daye, Crystal Mangum was arrested on sight within hours of the incident and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill.
According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated.
Daye underwent successful trauma surgery hours after his admission to Duke University Hospital through its emergency department… his prognosis was for a full recovery.
According to Officer Bond’s report, during an interview with Daye the next day, Monday, April 4, 2011, he admitted that he gave two cashier’s checks to Mangum for safekeeping. The checks totaled seven hundred dollars and were to be used to cover April rent.
More importantly, he admitted that the argument early the previous day had nothing to do with money or finances, but rather with her disrespect towards him… in particular, her flirtatious ways with other men.
On the third postoperative day,Wednesday, April 6, 2011, complications from delirium tremens set in, Daye was moved to intensive care, and an endotracheal tube was accidentally placed in his esophagus instead of his airway. By the time the grave mistake was realized, Daye was brain dead and in cardiac arrest. After twenty minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spontaneous restoration of circulation was achieved, but he remained in what was determined to be an irreversible coma.
After a week of monitoring his condition under an umbrella of media silence, Daye, having shown no signs of improvement, was electively taken off life support, and he died… the evening of April 13, 2011.
Up until the time of Reginald Daye’s death, Mangum had been charged only with assault with a deadly weapon. She had not been charged with larceny, larceny of chose in action, or any other crime.
The following Monday, April 18, 2011, Durham Prosecutor Kelly Gauger obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye. The prosecutor had also gotten an indictment for two counts of ‘larceny of chose in action’ against Mangum related to the two cashier’s checks that Daye admitted to have given her and which were in her possession at the time of her arrest. Both cashier’s checks were filled out with Daye as remitter and the apartment complex as the payee. Magnum had no ability to convert them for her own personal use even if she wanted, and Daye never was without the ability to redeem their cash value… provided he did so before they were cashed by the payee.
Larceny of chose in action is a loophole law in which neither of its two primary elements was met. Mangum was given the cashier’s checks… she did not steal or unlawfully take them. Furthermore, she merely held on to them per Daye’s request… making no attempt to alter or convert them for her use. There was no crime committed by Mangum.
However, Prosecutor Gauger, and her successor, Charlene Coggins-Franks, held on to the charge because it was automatically a class H felony… and the prosecution needed a felony for the “felony-murder rule” to be applicable. This problematic and controversial rule enables prosecutors to saddle criminals with first degree murder if an individual dies during the commission of a felony.
A vendetta prosecution from day one as payback against Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, Gauger and Coggins-Franks were seeking a life sentence against her… something that a conviction on a first degree murder charge could assure. And that was the purpose for the charge of “larceny of chose in action”… to guarantee that Mangum spend the remainder of her life incarcerated.
“Larceny of chose in action” charge should be immediately dismissed as the charge lacks probable cause… the elements of the charge missing in this case. Prosecution lacks an eyewitness to the alleged taking of the documents. Not only that, but Daye admits that he gave the checks to Mangum.
The prosecution has failed to present a plausible theory or a motive for Mangum to allegedly steal two cashier’s checks that were filled out and that she could not convert. The prosecution has yet to present a consistent scenario of events involving the cashier’s checks and the stabbing incident… and it has failed to present a connection between the two that is substantiated by their discovery.
Dropping the criminal charge against Mangum definitely would not be precedent setting, as charges throughout the state and especially in Durham County have been dismissed recently… specifically charges against Stephanie Nickerson, Michael Dorman, Stephen Lavance Oates, Shielda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, and Erick Daniels.
Late in October 2012, 25-year old Navy veteran Stephanie Nickerson was at a friend’s house when Durham Police arrived on a noise complaint. When the police wanted to enter the house, Ms. Nickerson advised the house owner that she did not have to allow the police in without a search warrant. This prompted the police officer to grab Nickerson’s wrists to place them behind her back to make an arrest. When she jerked her hands away, the officer threw her to the ground and began punching her in the face.
Nickerson sustained a broken nose, black eye, and swollen lip as a result of the beating and was charged with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. These charges, of course, were without probable cause, and they were subsequently dropped a short time later by the Durham District Attorney’s Office.
In August 2011, Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed a murder charge against Michael Dorman. Prosecutors claim Dorman inadvertently killed a woman he was attempting to rape. When apprehended years later, he had her bones in his backpack.
In his order, Hudson stated that defendant Dorman was unable to receive a fair trial because of the destruction of important evidence… the woman’s skeletal remains had been released to the victim’s family and were cremated.
It is interesting to note that Judge Hudson accused the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office of conspiring to destroy evidence and violate Dorman’s right to a fair trial. These are the same claims made by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong in Mangum’s current murder charge… specifically that the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office conspired in producing a trumped up autopsy report on Reginald Daye.
Around February 22, 2013, Durham prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Stephen Lavance Oates in the 2008 death of Duke graduate student Abhijit Mahato. The Durham prosecutor, in his order requesting the dismissal, stated that the State had been unable to locate a key witness and that it had “no other available and admissible evidence.” Oates’ attorney, Mark Edwards, had been lobbying for more than a year to have the case thrown out.
Mr. Edwards stated that the Oates case illustrated a “troubling pattern in the Durham police department.” He could have easily gone further with the inclusion in that pattern of the post-Nifong Durham District Attorney’s Office.
On June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dropped charges against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, respectively the mother and sister of Peter Lucas Moses Jr., a cult leader who pled guilty to murders of Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, and five year-old Jadon Higganbothan. The two had been held on charges of “accessory after the fact of murder.” No reason was given by prosecutors for their dismissal.
In September 2000, a home-invasion style armed robbery took place in Durham, and 14 year-old Erick Daniels was convicted of the crime despite the lack of evidence and not even having the appearance of the perpetrator… Erick’s hair was close cropped and the description of the robber was that he had cornrows. The chief witness in the case picked him out of a middle school yearbook based on the shape of his eyebrows. Durham police led him out of his middle school in handcuffs. He was sentenced to ten to fourteen years.
Erick Daniels always maintained his innocence and even passed a lie-detector test in 2003. In late 2004, Durham attorney Carlos Mahoney took up his case, and despite a January 2007 denial by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, he fought on for his client.
In September 2008, Durham prosecutors, knowing that they had a weak case against him, offered him an Alford plea deal in exchange for his immediate release from custody with seven years of time served. Had Erick Daniels accepted the plea deal he would have been forever labeled a felon with an armed robbery conviction. He declined… placing his faith in Attorney Mahoney.
During two days of a September 2008 hearing in which Mahoney sought a new trial for his client, the evidence he presented before Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson was so strong and convincing that the black rober took the initiative of dropping the felony charge and declaring Daniels innocent.
Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”
North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue denied Erick Daniels’ petition for a Pardon of Innocence… thereby preventing him from receiving compensation as mandated by legislation for his more than seven years of wrongful incarceration.
In cases outside of Durham, a first degree murder charge was dismissed against Knightdale resident Carletta Patrice Alston. She was charged by Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the June 2009 death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. The weight of the case against her consisted of gunpowder residue found on her nightgown and the fact that her account of what transpired during the early morning hours of the shooting differed from that of a neighbor.
Alston’s defense attorney pointed out to the court that the residue on the nightgown could easily be due to contamination by the lab… as there was no gunpowder residue on her hands.
At the time of her arrest, Alston had been working at two jobs at nursing homes and was hoping to save enough money to move from the residence she shared with her mother and stepfather into her own apartment. Even though the charge has since been expunged from her record, she has had difficulty landing employment because of it.
She was held in jail for nearly a year before Ford dropped the charges, without explanation or comment, and she was released.
There are other examples I could recite where baseless and reckless charges resulted in many months and years of the wrongful incarceration of innocents… but that would be superfluous.
The charges against Crystal Mangum are baseless, bogus, and vendetta-driven. Both charges she now faces are without merit and malicious and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The prosecutors should have dropped charges against her or a judge dismissed them long ago.
Now that Ms. Mangum is out on bond, the prosecutors are without their bargaining chip needed to help secure a plea deal. Although neither charge is supported by probable cause, and both are deserving to be dismissed, the “larceny of chose in action” is most egregious, and was obviously utilized with malice in the State’s sadistic plot to saddle Crystal Mangum with a life sentence.
One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney.
370 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 370 of 370I said:
"I haven't posted on these sites, nor even read them before, so did not know it was so populated with bullies and people who think they can treat people like i have been treated, so i am leaving again as far as communication goes for now. Thanks for the bullying grand time. It was real."
You are a bully you know, and there is certainly no reason at this point to continue with my discussion anyway at this time because hopefully there will be clear answers to these issues presented for all to be assured of the truth.
Many want to know the truth in this case, and think that to hold Duke accountable if needed so as to not be in constant inability to receive their professional services without there always being this very real and overriding question about their ethics and ability to provide professional services is their right as potential customers of their services.
The whole situation and the entire atmosphere is too burdensome to achieve an environment free from hostility, fear, and undue stress, which on top of illness, is too much to ask of most.
That and this constant feeling that if you say or do anything to cause them to be upset in the least or lose their feeling of prestige or whatever, they might kill you or harm you or at the very least, bully you even though you ask them specifically to stop.
Thanks, walt. always good to read your comments. I understand about the problem of the prior relationships as admissible. Yep, Holmes has a case that was tough enough before Harr screwed the pooch.....now, it's a circus. Seems to me the only resource he has, at least based on what little we really know about her case (not sidney's rantings), is to base a claim of self defense on the kicked-in door and hair, plus Daye's admission that they were arguing and struggling. Otherwise, dunno.....it sure looks weak. The whole business of Duke's involvement is going no place....I cannot imagine how Holmes could plausibly make an argument that DUH deliberately killed Mr. Daye or just messed up the intubation....because the records illegally posted by Sidney sure do not support that allegation. Further, one would have to question why Mangum did not claim self defense immediately, loudly, and consistently. I believe she didn't claim self defense until after Mr. Daye died. The timing alone would create doubt.
meant to say INadmissible, Walt. My mis-steak. :)
...."The whole situation and the entire atmosphere is too burdensome to achieve an environment free from hostility, fear, and undue stress, which on top of illness, is too much to ask of most.
That and this constant feeling that if you say or do anything to cause them to be upset in the least or lose their feeling of prestige or whatever, they might kill you or harm you or at the very least, bully you even though you ask them specifically to stop"
Wow, poster, you really reallly think somebody would harm or kill you? Get your meds adjusted.
...mistrail-recluse says....""It seems highly plausible that since Duke was the one who took Mr. Daye off life-support (and put him on it), that they are the one's responsible for the actual death of Mr. Daye."
Uh, really? Apparently you don't recall that the hospital obtained the Daye family consent BEFORE life support was removed, as is required by federal law. So, I suppose the Daye family actually murdered Reginald Daye, since they gave their consent for removal of life support.
only briefly in the interest of justice for all, including Duke not just Duke alone.
It is too easy to see the injustice of what has gone on so far, not to be supportive of the ability for all to have equal protection, rights, and the ability to obtain legal justice in a court of law, even if Duke / Durham / NC judicial system and the media, bullies, etc. are involved where even that fact becomes reason to seek legal relief to many.
Duke has only itself to blame at this point, as their own ethical errors which they have been given an enourmous amount of leeway on at the goodwill of many is their own cause for demise. The thing is is that it is so obvious, that many wonder if they are doing it on purpose to further other evil plans that has yet to become apparent. They personify evil as their mascot, which seems to many to be leading them into their own belief that they can be the evil, and noone can say otherwise to convince them that perhaps they should stop.
Is English your first language? I literally cannot understand a single sentence of what you posted.
Oh brother....here we go, yet again, with the inference that the Duke Blue Devil is Satan....give me a break! For the nine millionth time.....
..."During World War I, the Chasseurs Alpins—nicknamed "les Diables Bleus"—were well-known French soldiers. They first gained attention when their unique training and alpine knowledge was counted upon to break the stalemate of trench warfare in their native region of the French Alps. Unfortunately the Vosges Campaign in March, 1915, failed to alter the status quo even though the Blue Devils won accolades for their courage. However, their distinctive blue uniform with flowing cape and jaunty beret captured public imagination. When the United States entered the war, units of the French Blue Devils toured the country helping raise money in the war effort. Irving Berlin captured their spirit in song describing them as "strong and active, most attractive . . . those Devils, the Blue Devils of France."
The Duke Board of Trustees adopted the French soldiers nickname, and apparent attire in the 20s....
Anonymous 10:59,
I'm sure most of us are grateful for some interesting information. Don't expect "mistrail recluse" to thank you, though. He'll merely point out that you're bullying him, as indeed is everyone who doesn't agree with him on everything.
Right , guiowen.......I've got a big old bully stamp in the middle of my forehead. lord, and I thought Kenny Hissy had issues.
I think I have read that money orders are considered the same as cash within the context of the larceny charge. Walt or Lance, correct? In other words, even though the two money orders in question were made to the landlord, the law would treat those papers just the same as cash money. Mangum left Daye's apartment with those money orders in her possession. Daye contended the argument was over his request for her to return the money orders to him, and her refusal to do so. Seems I recall that she said they argued over his apparent jealousy of a conversation she had with an LEO. Not sure about that.
But, isn't it correct that the money orders, even though made to the landlord, would be considered stolen by Mangum if it were provable that Daye asked her to return them.
I realize the larceny charge is significant in that it elevates the murder charge because the killing was done, according to the prosecution, in the commission of a felony. Seems like, as Walt said, the larceny charge is small potatoes compared to the question of second degree murder versus manslaughter.
Others? It would certainly be welcome if Sidney Harr would refrain from his usual oratory and endless pronouncements.......which are nothing but opinions, falsely framed as facts. He's entitled to his opinions, certainly........but it is endlessly and consistently unhelpful to read them draped in the incorrect mantle of fact. None of us knows the whole true story......NONE, Sidney.
a devil is a devil whether it's blue or french or whatever.
the person who was obviously bullying (which is quite a few of you btw) is complaining about having a bullying label on the front of their forehead (not concerned about the horns growing from the top of their and their croonies heads nor the tails scrunched up behind them). nice
the person from duke med wonderland is pushing pills as usual, and the g person is loling all the way.
you guys are part of the reason no one trusts duke btw, and a prime example of what most expect and receive from duke.
what a joke
ah, guiowen, you were right. We are growing horns and sitting on tails. lordy, who knew!!!!
The new poster plays an important role on this board. He makes Sidney look sane and articulate in comparison.
considering that Ms. Mangum is considered mentally ill, any reference that is prejudicial, derogatory, or discriminatory when discussing mental illness by those perceived to be duke supporters and otherwise is the same as duke screaming the n word at Sydney on his own blog ...
good job
Poor little boy (girl?)! Did someone hurt your feelings? Maybe someone can sing you a lullaby!
Crystal Mangum was declared competent to stand trial. I'm fairly sure that rules out any "mentally ill" defense. Nice try, though.
Amazing, this poster must be a tarhole fan or something......:)
i think she said she had PTSD.
how many cops, lawyers, judges, jury, nurses, doctors, veterans, emergency workers, etc. have ptsd?
didn't mention it as a defense, although it probably played a role in her defending herself if she was being attacked, so it could be considered in understanding what happened.
Mangum supposedly has a long history of apparent emotional and mental problems. She was hospitalized before, per her parents. She also has a long history of abusing drugs, though Sidney, of course, will say that all those pills she was popping were just for her pain and anxiety. She was known to be a frequent flyer in area EDs, engaging in drug seeking behavior, from multiple sources. During her interviews with the AG, she was described as apparently drugged up.
All that said, she was and remains declared competent to stand trial.
yes, and you have blue horned croonies pushing pills on these boards concerned with the mess that is durham/duke.
so, what is the point?
is pill pushing the way to go, and then turn around and slam the people who are drugged by the pills pushed upon them in lieu of understanding and true help?
obviously not
there is so much hatred displayed against Ms. Mangum on these boards that any could easily claim a hate crime committed by duke and co. against ANY considered to be in a protected group of people in any complaint about said hateful criminal and malicious behavior, acts, and bullying, etc.
Ms. Mangum has attracted attention since she made false accusations of rape in March 2006.
that is not proven
only what the conveniet story line is
She claimed that one of the players ejaculated in her mouth. That was proven false when no DNA was found.
False. Proven.
give me a break
now you want to justify hateful prosecution with explicitly sexual complaint explanations as reasoning and excuse.
sydney, your blog is a place of hate crimes in action and in the making i will have to say that.
please follow through with criminal action against duke if you have the evidence to prove it for the sake of all.
many will never set foot on duke again when all is said and done. They cannot be trusted with their services that demand trust draped and shrouded in so much hate.
Mangum made false accusations.
Proven.
duke made false medical reports and claims
proven
What false claims?
What false claim are proven?
Well?
Anonymous 6:38pm:
You lied. Apologize.
No one on this board is targeting Mangum. No one supports a hateful prosecution. Posters here seek only a fair trial for her.
Most posters have no connection to Duke. Most came here initially to counter Sidney's false and misleading statements on the Nifong frame. As he has moved on to other subjects, most stayed because his increasingly delusional posts are entertaining.
In general, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You appear to need some help. Seriously.
what is most obvious is the hatred actually.
this case with mangum does involve duke, so it is understandable that someone who is being attacked on this board would think that duke and co. affiliations, biases, and conflicts of interest are the basis for such hatred filled attacks that are never ending.
who are you to tell someone they need help if they have a problem with all the crimes duke and co. has been seen repeatedly to have committed in the past years during these cases. there are many. you have just committed a prejudicial assumption that all are sick who have the decency to prefer medical services from other than an organization with so many criminal issues, etc. hanging over them. you hate mangum for her perceived transgressions, yet you support duke in their obvious crimes that destroy all trust in them. makes no sense to me.
i guess all others have this duke affiliation pull in emotional hatefilled reply that is pandered to by the media, by duke themselves, and by their sport affiliations which is an obvious conflict of interest to justice and nonbias as well.
sad situation.
Obviously, as entertaining as it might seem to some to get their jollies and sense of self esteem by bullying Sidney continuously, or any others who have issues with the crimes and misdeeds committed and/or alleged to be committed at duke or by duke and co. and affiliates and croonies - it is still considered a crime by many in the form of hate crimes, etc. - which are labeled hate crimes because of the harm that is caused and the hate that is directed toward protected groups who are consistently harmed in similar manners and are therefore afforded greater protections under law.
it is funny that the g... person complained so loudly that i was a troll on both durham in wonderland and justice4nifong because i was talking about this latest case and it was considered off topic, when that same person is trolling and bullying about the same topic on this board. so ... what? are the durham in wonderland people only fed pro duke information, and the justice4nifong people are beat up for questioning the events in nonduke biased fashion (meaning they are not in fear to think for themselves and are not blind to duke's actions).
That too makes no sense unless you understand who the true bullies and trolls are, and that g... and co. utilize it freely in their dealings on these boards, and therefore are obviously abusive in their crazy making tactics to all, which lends them the ready label of bully and troll.
No white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum much less go to all the trouble of raping her in a bathroom that was too small.As a Duke co-ed explained at the time - those boys could get any girl they wanted,they would never have to stoop that low.
Sydney, you might get more support for this board if you put some kind of filter or rules that prohibit outright hate filled statements against Ms. Mangum that could be deemed as discriminatory in all regards and are made only to inflame and cause others harm.
I am definitely gone for now. Making my stand against the outright abuse and hatred filled bullying, and in support of justice for all.
A filter might be difficult, but it also could be very beneficial.
Thank you for your time and for listening to what I had to say, and for all the information you post, as it is very insightful into further understanding of what is reality in durham/duke, which is hard to tell in most of these cases because the facts are always in such question, and the conflicts of interest between duke/durham etc. is obviously real and undeniable. I have a lot to read here that you have written, and plan to do just that, so I will be watching to see how you do, and may pop in occassionally when the welcoming crowd seems more ... welcoming.
Take good care, and thank you again.
another anonymi
ooooooooo, a "blue horned croooonie"........ cool! Mistrail/Recluse must be out of medication and in need of a refill.
Say there, poster, why don't you enlighten all of us and explain to us just exactly how it is that poor Sister got her amoral backside in trouble FOUR YEARS before the LAX rape hoax ever happened. Tell us all about poor victim Mangum and how she got all framed up in 2002......apparently Rae Evans retroactively framed Mangum years before the hoax occurred. 'Splain that one to us, Lucy.
Doncha love it.......mistrail recluse has now said good bye three times by my count. Apparently the melodrama of departure is appealing . "I'm taking my toys and going....." Hey, I'm back!
"Anonymous said...
duke made false medical reports and claims
proven
April 2, 2013 at 6:56 PM"
Not proven.
"Anonymous said...
Sydney, you might get more support for this board if you put some kind of filter or rules that prohibit outright hate filled statements against Ms. Mangum that could be deemed as discriminatory in all regards and are made only to inflame and cause others harm."
In other words, SIDNEY, just as you concealed evidence that Reginald Daye was not violent, conceal the comments which show you are wrong.
sidney harr can delete any and all comments he wishes. it's his party and his rules. frankly, nobody who occasionally reads or posts here cares too much.......so, if he wants to delete a comment, no big deal. In terms of posts that involve hate speech being censored, sidney would find himself in the embarrassing position of having to delete some of his own racist posts. Sidney has illegally posted PHI involation of HIPPA, so I guess he feels comfortable in his own sandbox
Tick....tick.....tick.....still waiting for mistrail/recluse to explain how Sister was victimized in 2002 by the evil white conspiracy plot klan leader, rae evans. come on, poster, tell us the truth about how Mangum was the victim of some terrible plot when she was pole vaulting in strip join in Raleigh, gave a cabbie a "lap dance", stole his car keys, stole his car, drove at high rates of speed while being chased by police, drove the wrong way down public streets, tried to run over and officer and resisted arrest.........oh, and did all this while drunk on her backside. Explain to us blue horned crooonies just how the evil white jihad was responsible for her apparent criminal misdeeds in 2002. She got a plea deal for lesser charges and the first group of what is now nine convictions. Are we going for ten?
Oh, and please do explain how Mangum got strung up in the air by three (or was it four, seven eight?....she changed her story repeatedly), in a tiny bathroom, raped, sodomized, made to give oral sex, etc........and wound up with not ONE spec if LAX DNA in or on her. Can't wait for you to explain. Oh, by the way, Mangum told the SANE, four times, that the men did NOT use condoms....so don't try to tell us that a condom prevented the DNA presence. When Mangum found out that there was no DNA present, she CHANGED her story and said, well, heck, maybe the evil rapist did use condoms. How convenient for her.
I remind you, mistrail/recluse, that the men were declared INNOCENT by the Attorney General. You and Sidney, of course, will tell us that the evil Rae Evans, klan leader of the international evil white conspiracy, made Cooper lie. Right! And I am Pope Francis......
The culprits in the rape hoax were Nifong, Mangum, Nifong's cronies, Brodhead and the Duke apologists, the group of 88, certain media that crucified the young men, etc. Of all of these, I personally name Nifong as chief among a band of scoundrels. A sorrier excuse for a human you'd have to look long and hard to find.
ok, (just popping in for a moment - yes ... i'm back but only briefly ... so hold your absurd attacks if at all possible), here is my first thought: nc needs a pro se lawyer organization set up, with the ability to obtain actual legal advice, assistance and representation - which I know is not pro se per se - but maybe in setting a counsel for pro se lawyers - there would at least be a common place to obtain the truth of the realities of the injustice that is the NC justice system without having to beat your head against the wall until they knock you silly into representing yourself so 'they' (whoever) can easily 'win'. Obtaining competent legal assistance when dealing with duke is very difficult, which is curious with the many law schools in the area only until you realize that they are all in conflict and coherts with one another, or so it seems from what is seen by these cases in durham concerning duke.
people, i do not know anything about the lacrosse case or this new case except for what i read in the paper. why are you so angry at me and demanding answers to questions that if nothing else should have been answered in a real trial but certainly not by me - so truly - stop. wtf. leave me alone - please. i haven't even read either of those blogs yet, i was simply wanting to know the truth about duke's medical errors and possible cover up - ok - got it??? sheeeesh
You claimed that duke killed daye. you claimed this was somehow a proven fact. now you admit you know nothing but what you read in the papers. The allegation of medical murder by Duke against Mr. Daye was made by sidney harr, also without one shred of evidence to back his claim. Mangum's attorney brought in an expert to validate the autopsy report, etc. Dr. Roberts, the outside hired gun, supported the autopsy report and found no errors in it.....per HARR......who could not rationalize this finding with his theory of Duke as the Daye murderers. Harr made up a wild story that Roberts was in cahoots with Vann and the imaginary conspiracy and therefore she was FORCED to find no errors with Nichols' autopsy or Duke's care of Daye. How about how educate yourself before you make wild unsupported claims of proven medical murder? There is not ONE tiny bit of evidence to support any of Harr's claims. If you think he is right, then bully for you. His case against Duke was thrown out of court by a Judge who reprimanded Harr for his abusive and inflammatory false accusatory language. His claim that he would prevail against the NC Bar was also false. He was slapped with an injunction for trying to play lawyer without a license. Once again, educate yourself, poster...........
Harr has been advised repeatedly by posters (Walt, lance, and others) to take his claims of systemic injustice in NC to the right forum(s). Harr has consistently ignored this advice. There ARE systemic problems, no doubt. The lack of a speedy trial mandate is one of them. The past history of DAs like Tracey Cline...who was notorious for overcharging in order to get plea convictions....is another. The proven embarrassment of a lousy SBI is a third. Rather than playing lawyer, giving terrible advice to Mangum, illegally posting PHI on his web site.......Harr COULD have been an advocate and voice for pushing legislation to get a speedy trial mandate in our state. He has done NOTHING.
The poster on this site want a fair trial for Mangum. Period. Mangum, with Harr's butting in, has either fired or run off three fine attorneys. The judge pleaded with her to NOT represent herself. She ignored the judge's advice. Now she is on attorney number four, Holmes, and I would be willing to bet you that Holmes will quit, in a heartbeat if he so much as smells Sidney Harr anywhere near Mangum.
Educate yourself.
Anonymous said...
It seems highly plausible that since Duke was the one who took Mr. Daye off life-support (and put him on it), that they are the one's responsible for the actual death of Mr. Daye.
Why does Duke think they can get people to automatically listen to them and believe what they are saying because they are 'Duke - yeah!' so everyone must follow their every determination blindly because they are 'Duke - yeah!', and not even question what they say? Not buying it myself. If they want others to respect their 'we're duke yeahness', which most don't anyway, then at least take responsibility for taking the guy off life support, therefore scientifically causing his death. That's fairly basic don't you think. It could probably even be scientifically repeated in many people, double blind or not.
oi
Thank you for your enlightenment filled comment.
You are actually correct regarding Daye's death. There were several cases within the past years where young men were believed to be irreversibly brain dead, however, due to legal and religious reasons they were kept on life support and eventually came out of their coma. One was a prisoner who was beaten into unconsciousness by correction officials, the other was a young man who fell off a balcony while overseas.
Who knows whether or not Daye might have eventually recovered?
Anonymous said...
sidney harr can delete any and all comments he wishes. it's his party and his rules. frankly, nobody who occasionally reads or posts here cares too much.......so, if he wants to delete a comment, no big deal. In terms of posts that involve hate speech being censored, sidney would find himself in the embarrassing position of having to delete some of his own racist posts. Sidney has illegally posted PHI involation of HIPPA, so I guess he feels comfortable in his own sandbox
Only comments that are in violation of the kenhyderal policy are deleted from this site. Recently, however, I did accidentally post the same comment twice, so I deleted one of them.
Otherwise no comments are deleted or withheld from this blog site... which is more than I can say for Durham-In-Wonderland. (It refuses to post my comments.)
According to the medical records you illegally posted, Mr. Daye was brain dead. Please note his functional scores. It is true that in rare cases (no one knows how many, or at what rate....) patients do regain some level of functionality. In the case you mention of the fall, the man did NOT recover anything other than rudimentary functioning, required full continuous vent support, and was unable to communicate. The Daye family made the choice, with their consent, to remove life support. If you had one ounce of decency about you, you would respect that the family has to make this decision, that this decision is theirs to make, and that it is their RIGHT. This whole line of discussion is completely immaterial. Once again, read State v. Welch, pal.
If mistrail/recluse and harr would dare to spend a few hours in the library, they will find volumes of case law that clearly define the role and responsibility of the hospital and its providers in cases where removal of life support is in question. Read State v. Welch, sidney.....just to get your started.
Anonymous said...
Sydney, you might get more support for this board if you put some kind of filter or rules that prohibit outright hate filled statements against Ms. Mangum that could be deemed as discriminatory in all regards and are made only to inflame and cause others harm.
I am definitely gone for now. Making my stand against the outright abuse and hatred filled bullying, and in support of justice for all.
A filter might be difficult, but it also could be very beneficial.
Thank you for your time and for listening to what I had to say, and for all the information you post, as it is very insightful into further understanding of what is reality in durham/duke, which is hard to tell in most of these cases because the facts are always in such question, and the conflicts of interest between duke/durham etc. is obviously real and undeniable. I have a lot to read here that you have written, and plan to do just that, so I will be watching to see how you do, and may pop in occassionally when the welcoming crowd seems more ... welcoming.
Take good care, and thank you again.
another anonymi
Thank you for your contributions. I hate to see the decent driven away by the uncouth.
I am not familiar with filters and with my limited online time at the library I cannot adequately spend time necessary to do a good job.
I feel that the hate speech spewed towards Crystal is a reflection on the spewer rather than the spewee...
Your party, your rules.....post or censor whatever you wish. Nobody gives a rip
Anonymous said...
I think I have read that money orders are considered the same as cash within the context of the larceny charge. Walt or Lance, correct? In other words, even though the two money orders in question were made to the landlord, the law would treat those papers just the same as cash money. Mangum left Daye's apartment with those money orders in her possession. Daye contended the argument was over his request for her to return the money orders to him, and her refusal to do so. Seems I recall that she said they argued over his apparent jealousy of a conversation she had with an LEO. Not sure about that.
But, isn't it correct that the money orders, even though made to the landlord, would be considered stolen by Mangum if it were provable that Daye asked her to return them.
I realize the larceny charge is significant in that it elevates the murder charge because the killing was done, according to the prosecution, in the commission of a felony. Seems like, as Walt said, the larceny charge is small potatoes compared to the question of second degree murder versus manslaughter.
Others? It would certainly be welcome if Sidney Harr would refrain from his usual oratory and endless pronouncements.......which are nothing but opinions, falsely framed as facts. He's entitled to his opinions, certainly........but it is endlessly and consistently unhelpful to read them draped in the incorrect mantle of fact. None of us knows the whole true story......NONE, Sidney.
Edification for the commenter:
Supposin' for hypothetical reasons that the cashier's checks, totalling $700, were treated as cash.... then you have a misdemeanor larceny charge because the amount was less than one thousand dollars.
Prosecutors needed a felony in order to invoke the "felony-murder rule" to get the first degree murder charge, so they used a little known/rarely used law, "larceny of chose in action." Conviction of this charge is automatically a Class H felony, irrespective of the amount on the check. It does not refer to cash... only to checks, cashier's checks, money orders, etc... and even those need not be filled out. In most circumstances this law applies to blank checks.
Please let me know if further edification is required.
Hey, sidney.....would you describe what Professor Houston Baker said to the mother of one of the LAX guys as hate speech? Remember, Baker sent her an email and told her she was "the mother of a farm animal". And described the men as "rapists". Was this hate speech, bro? How about when the pot bangers carried banners that said, "Castrate them". Was that hate speech, in written form? Huh, sidney......
A lawyer said...
only briefly in the interest of justice for all, including Duke not just Duke alone.
It is too easy to see the injustice of what has gone on so far, not to be supportive of the ability for all to have equal protection, rights, and the ability to obtain legal justice in a court of law, even if Duke / Durham / NC judicial system and the media, bullies, etc. are involved where even that fact becomes reason to seek legal relief to many.
Duke has only itself to blame at this point, as their own ethical errors which they have been given an enourmous amount of leeway on at the goodwill of many is their own cause for demise. The thing is is that it is so obvious, that many wonder if they are doing it on purpose to further other evil plans that has yet to become apparent. They personify evil as their mascot, which seems to many to be leading them into their own belief that they can be the evil, and noone can say otherwise to convince them that perhaps they should stop.
Is English your first language? I literally cannot understand a single sentence of what you posted.
Hey,A lawyer said.
I had no problem comprehending the comment... and, in fact, I agree with it.
sidney says......Prosecutors needed a felony in order to invoke the "felony-murder rule" to get the first degree murder charge, so they used a little known/rarely used law, "larceny of chose in action." Conviction of this charge is automatically a Class H felony, irrespective of the amount on the check. It does not refer to cash... only to checks, cashier's checks, money orders, etc... and even those need not be filled out. In most circumstances this law applies to blank checks.
We all already know what the larency of chose charge is about, sidney. I see you could not resist engaging in your oratory. The question is whether a jury will believe the statement given by Daye before his death....that he did, in fact, ask Mangum to return the money orders to him. If the jury believes this statement, and the money orders were found in her purse, then she took them without his consent. Period.
Anonymous said...
Thanks, walt. always good to read your comments. I understand about the problem of the prior relationships as admissible. Yep, Holmes has a case that was tough enough before Harr screwed the pooch.....now, it's a circus. Seems to me the only resource he has, at least based on what little we really know about her case (not sidney's rantings), is to base a claim of self defense on the kicked-in door and hair, plus Daye's admission that they were arguing and struggling. Otherwise, dunno.....it sure looks weak. The whole business of Duke's involvement is going no place....I cannot imagine how Holmes could plausibly make an argument that DUH deliberately killed Mr. Daye or just messed up the intubation....because the records illegally posted by Sidney sure do not support that allegation. Further, one would have to question why Mangum did not claim self defense immediately, loudly, and consistently. I believe she didn't claim self defense until after Mr. Daye died. The timing alone would create doubt.
If I'm not mistaken (and I rarely am) Mangum's first attorney Mr. Shella in his first interview with the media stated that this was a self-defense stabbing.
As far as Duke's involvement in Daye's death, who do you suggest is responsible for the esophageal intubation? Certainly not Mangum!
If you read the discription of "larceny of chose" there is reference to property...including money orders, etc. If Mangum had these money orders in her possession, withOUT Daye's consent, it matters not whether and to whom the money orders were made.
Walt is correct. Mangum has much bigger fish to fry than this charge. You have made it virtually impossible for her to establish a valid claim of self defense. Nice going, sidney
Anonymous said...
sidney says......Prosecutors needed a felony in order to invoke the "felony-murder rule" to get the first degree murder charge, so they used a little known/rarely used law, "larceny of chose in action." Conviction of this charge is automatically a Class H felony, irrespective of the amount on the check. It does not refer to cash... only to checks, cashier's checks, money orders, etc... and even those need not be filled out. In most circumstances this law applies to blank checks.
We all already know what the larency of chose charge is about, sidney. I see you could not resist engaging in your oratory. The question is whether a jury will believe the statement given by Daye before his death....that he did, in fact, ask Mangum to return the money orders to him. If the jury believes this statement, and the money orders were found in her purse, then she took them without his consent. Period.
You conveniently omitted that Daye admitted to giving the cashier's checks to Mangum. Ergo, she did not steal or unlawfully take them... even if he did ask for the back later.. (which he didn't).
Poor sidney, he continues to suffer from terminal blindsidedness. There was no intubation error. As the other posters have noted, do you even begin to understand proximate cause, sidney? It's really not all that complicated.
Mangum did not make a claim of self defense until after Daye died.
Poor man.............are you unable to read.........the poster says, clearly.....if the jury believes the statement that Daye made...that he did, in fact, ask for the return of his property.....then Mangum did, in fact, have his property without his consent. You can rant all you want about your opinions....they are not facts. It will be up to the jury to decide the credibility of Daye's statement......not you.
first comment: reading about the possible medical errors in the paper is what led to my comments about the possibility of duke's medical error, the possibility of duke's framing Ms. Mangum, the reality of the injustice of the NC justice system or none of this would be happening in the first place in my opinion, and the very real existence of a very disturbing hostile environment when professional services are at stake in Duke / Durham for all, since all seem so upset and hurt and unable to trust duke/durham from what is apparent in the newspaper concerning all these actions stemming from duke or involving duke.
just the fact that someone could actually mention something they read in the paper about duke and get attacked is disturbing don't you think? yet - for those in NC it is a very real possibility - which to me indicates that all have been harmed by these cases in NC, especially since all in NC were subjected to the massive media abuse at the hands of duke.
Please try to learn the difference between opinion and fact. It will help you in life, poster. We all have elbows and opinions...and,for the most part, we express them freely. You have made statements, expressed as FACTS, when they are nothing more than unproven opinions. You will get more receptivity to your points if you will refrain from mixing up fact and opinion. You can hold the opinion that Duke is Satan's handmaiden. Nobody gives a darn. That's YOUR OPINION. When you make a statement that Duke deliberately killed Daye and that this is "proven", as you said....you are lying. No such proof has been established.
Sydney,
Thank you for taking time with your replies and supportive comments in being able to be understood in my communication.
All the attacks I was getting (and surely still will if I stick around too much) is seriously offputting, but hey, I do understand how it reflects more on the poster in some cases (although it also indicates a massive amount of frustration with the entire injustice that is felt by all so it is understandable in that respect) - but it is abusive and not something many are able to tolerate for too long. I guess you are used to it - many are not. That is why I feel Duke should be sued for causing this much grief to so many, none of this would be happening if Duke didn't always game the system in their favor to begin with. They are only harming themselves and others by doing that, but I am sure you are aware of that. Many are not it seems, or they would not be blaming anyone but Duke and co., as it is their game afterall.
i NEVER said that Duke killed Mr. Daye and that it was proven fact, as obviously that fact is in question in court right now, so how would I know. You said that, not me.
I did say it is scientifically proven that taking someone off life support typically ends in death, which was done at the hands of Duke, not Ms. Mangum, so, therefore, technically duke killed daye no matter how you look at the facts.
Anyway, other than that admittedly obvious fact, I only mentioned the possibility of duke killing daye to frame mangum as being just that, possibility, with the motive being they apparently hate her, even though they have only themselves to blame.
Next time you accuse me, please quote what you are referring to, because I think that you misread me through your own angry biases, thanks
Sid wrote: "Prosecutors needed a felony in order to invoke the "felony-murder rule" to get the first degree murder charge, so they used a little known/rarely used law, "larceny of chose in action." Conviction of this charge is automatically a Class H felony, irrespective of the amount on the check. ...
Please let me know if further edification is required."
As is so often the case, you leave your readers needing further edification. NCGS 14-32(b)Any person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon and inflicts serious injury shall be punished as a Class E felon. That is more than enough to invoke the felony murder rule. And frankly, a bigger problem for the defense. The larceny charge is and always was a backup.
You still have not dealt with Welch you still have not told us how you think the defense can get a self-defense instruction and you have not told us how you think the defense gets around your cluing the state in on Roberts opinion.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, don't you think that is up to Ms. Mangum's lawyers to decide now? seriously. Do not keep pushing Sydney now, let Ms. Mangum's lawyers work for her in her own best interest if they can as they have asked. Don't you think that would be better for all if she could actually get fair and equal legal representation and the right to have her case heard in a nonbiased, non conflicted court of law? If it becomes apparent that she is not being represented or tried fairly, it will be readily apparent to all, and there is always the appeals process, which also requires her to have a lawyer, so hopefully this time her lawyer will be able to work in her best interest.
Here's another example of what you claimed to be fact.....which is clearly not established as fact...but is rather your opinion....you said "duke made false medical reports and claims
proven".
Another poster responded to you, "not proven". That poster was correct. Your assertion is an opinion, not a fact.
Ms Mangum has had the following lawyers representing her....Jones, Vann (1) Shella, Vann (2) and now, Holmes. Jones quit because of the Harr group interference. Mangum asked for Vann, then asked for somebody else. She got Shella, He quit over Harr's interference. Then she insisted on representing herself even tho the JUDGE pleaded with her not to do this. This was ALL Sidney's idea. Now, she has changed her mind, yet again, and has Holmes. And you, poster, don't think she is represented fairly? wow......too bad Atticus is dead......but since he was only a character in a movie, maybe you and sidney would prefer Raymond Burr.
show me the first example you accuse me of as I do not agree with you on that.
i am not going to go back to the lacrosse case again to show you where the duke nurse was part of duke being sued by the lacrosse guys, and that her proof was determined false - as there was no proof determined.
what is so hard to understand about that? it can't be no proof for the lacrosse guys but proof against mangum. either there is proof or there is not. that is my understanding. my understanding is that the duke nurse's medical records and claims were false, therefore no proof, and therefore the proven in that statement.
Poster, don't be such an obvious axx. Duke removed life support for a brain dead patient after obtaining consent from next of kin. In case you did not know, this is done thousands of time, in EVERY general community hospital and academic medical center in the United States. Are we now to believe that Duke is guilty of a crime for "killing" the patient by removing life support, with family consent, upon clear evidence of brain death? Is that what you are telling us? What do you suggest? That every brain dead patient be indefinitely maintained on life support, regardless of what the family requests? That patients be hooked up to LS forever, warehoused someplace, in a vegetative state......with no regard to family wishes? What kind of asshat are you wearing? There is not ONE bit of evidence to support any assertion that DUH and its providers did anything incorrect, improper, or wrong in the care of Mr. Daye. Others, including a surgeon, have posted here....ALL saying that Harr is completely WRONG in his false claims.
"i NEVER said that Duke killed Mr. Daye and that it was proven fact, as obviously that fact is in question in court right now.."
DUMC is not on trial, so there is nothing in court right now that would conclude as "fact" that DUMC killed Reginald Daye.
It was the decision of the Daye family to remove Reginald Daye from life support.
The fact that he was on life support in the first place due directly to being stabbed by Crystal Mangum is a FACT that you seem to gloss over in an attempt to justify her actions. Pitiful, really.
yeah, too bad
everyone cheers for atticus
....."show me the first example you accuse me of as I do not agree with you on that.
i am not going to go back to the lacrosse case again to show you where the duke nurse was part of duke being sued by the lacrosse guys, and that her proof was determined false - as there was no proof determined.
what is so hard to understand about that? it can't be no proof for the lacrosse guys but proof against mangum. either there is proof or there is not. that is my understanding. my understanding is that the duke nurse's medical records and claims were false, therefore no proof, and therefore the proven in that statement.".....
If anybody can figure out what this person is saying, please advise. This is utter gibberish.
Poster, the SANE was question under oath in the Nifong hearing. In that hearing she admitted to numerous errors and omissions in her documentation of her interview with Mangum. In particular, in that hearing the SANE had to admit that Mangum said, FOUR times, the men were "definitely" NOT wearing condoms. Of course, Mangum changed her story when she found out there was no DNA in or on her. The SANE also admitted there were NO physical findings consistent with sexual assault except vaginal redness and edema......which, if you know anything at all, you know can be caused by a wide variety of intimate sexual behaviors.........including insertion of sex toys such as the vibrator Mangum admitted using on herself that same evening in a motel with another "client". I also point out that Mangum DID have male DNA in and on her, from a minimum of four males......NONE of whom were any of the LAX guys. She lied when she claimed to have had relations with only one man, the boyfriend of the day, in the past ten day period. In fact, she had intimate sexual contact with the boyfriend and at least three other males. The SANE admitted in the hearing that there were no other indications....only Mangum's subjective statements about pain. I also point out that this same pain striken, traumatized "rape" victim was video taped pole vaulting in a strip club outside Hillsborough less than ten days after the LAX party. I guess she has remarkable recouperative powers.......
the facts are in question and are in court - what more needs to be said at this point? i'm not the judge, nor will i be on the jury, as i do not trust duke. your anger is misdirected. thanks
It will be interesting to see how/whether Holmes will even attempt to obtain an instruction on self defense. Not sure how he could do that, at this point. Better Walt and Lance to comment....
In fact, there is no corroboration of any of Harr's statements about a plea deal being worked up. I cannot imagine why there should be any public disclosure during negotiations. Let's hope that Holmes clamps down on Mangum and that, for once in her life, she actually follows the instructions from a competent ethical professional
Sidney is going to need to send mistrail/recluse his yellow t-shirt and secret decoder ring soon. Wheee.....
whatever, there was no proof or there would have been a trial - instead of fiasco
how's this - you decide - and everyone will believe you about as much as anyone believes anything in that case to begin with because of the way it was tried (or wasn't)
Sidney, the law is explicit, clear and, as you should know being a retired physician, places a huge burden of documentation and necessary consent on any decision around the removal of life support. Mr. Daye's functional assessment/ functional scores were measured and documented consistent with flatline brain death. His family, not Duke, made a decision to allow removal of life support. You are doing nothing but making a pseudo-clever play on words when you say that Duke killed Mr. Daye. Again the law is clear, i.e., when sustained measurement and documentation shows no functional activity over a minimum time period, with repeated measurements, the patient is held to be brain "dead", with external devices sustaining all necessary body functions, including respirations. The family had the absolute right to make the decision they made. You are making yourself appear foolish and causing us all to doubt your credentials as a physician....by making statements that are so obviously false.
There will most likely be NO attempt by Holmes to introduce ANY notion of improper care by Duke....because (a)the record is absolutely in order, and, (b)Vann's expertise found nothing wrong in her review. You can claim otherwise till hell freezes over. Holmes is no fool. He will not go into court, as Walt as noted, with the prosecution having alerted by YOU that Vann's own hired gun would find no errors in care or in Nichols' report. You could, of course, present yourself to Holmes, give him your credentials to establish your expertise, and offer to testify to the errors and deliberate murder of Daye.
sidney didn't say that, i did sorta by making the obvious analogy of life support and death - and yes - it was fairly sarcastic - with good reason - so - hey - get your facts straight as the saying always goes - although not meant in a mean way - simply stating the obvious - as usual
to the enlightened one:
i'm not justifying anything about anyone. I think you may have a bias towards duke, or you would be more concerned about their possible medical errors and cover-up as are others who have no trust with duke due to duke's own actions negating trust in the minds of most.
that is a truth that cannot be denied
Found this interesting tidbit......written by Vincent Clark....remember him? The guy who used Mangum and published the worst book since Peyton Place? This comment is written in response to an article that appeared in May 2012 on a site called REV-volution. Clark stated the following:
......."I talked to Crystal less than an hour before Mr. Daye was stabbed. It was clear to me then that Crystal needed to get away from the situation or bad things would happen. I don't believe Crystal should be in jail charged with murder based on what I know. Nevertheless, it is where we are at the moment. ".....
So, why didn't Mr. Clark come forward immediately to the police, to offer his information about a phone conversation he claims happened one hour before Mr. Daye was stabbed? To my knowledge, no such statement by Clark has been brought forward. If it had, you can bet Mangum and Harr would be ranting about it.
Clark was and IS just exactly the same as every other user who has circled around, manipulated and done damage to Mangum. He tried to make money off a book which, by all accounts, is a piece of trash. He tried to gain limelight attention for himself by dressing her up in a business suit and holding a "press conference".
Here he was, in May 2012, making a statement that he had knowledge of her mental state and circumstance one hour before she killed Daye.....and, apparently, he does not go to ANY of Mangum's serial attorneys to report this claim.
Peculiar way of being her "friend", isn't it....
so, the overriding thing i've noticed while posting, is the fact that anyone who seemed to have a duke bias would often take what i said out of context, misquote, or accuse me of something that only they imagine - trying consistently to discredit what i said, what i thought, how i said it, who i was trying to say it to, and why i was saying it - and even if i was talking in a foreign language or not.
any thoughts on that, other than more outrageous attacks and accusations?
"to the enlightened one:
i'm not justifying anything about anyone. I think you may have a bias towards duke, or you would be more concerned about their possible medical errors and cover-up as are others who have no trust with duke due to duke's own actions negating trust in the minds of most.
that is a truth that cannot be denied"
I've read this post several times, and I honestly can't make out what the poster is trying to say.
DUMC is the #1 ranked hospital in North Carolina. It also ranks significantly higher than the state and National average in patient satisfaction (13% and 14% higher, respectively). You can see for yourself here.
DUMC has also been regognized by the ISMP (Institute for Safe Medical Practices) for setting "a superlative standard of excellence for others to follow in the prevention of medication errors and adverse drug events."
This doesn't sound like an organization rife with "medical errors and cover-up"...Fortunately for you, there are other hospitals in the area (just an FYI, none rank as high in patient satisfaction, so good luck).
"so, the overriding thing i've noticed while posting, is the fact that anyone who seemed to have a duke bias would often take what i said out of context, misquote, or accuse me of something that only they imagine - trying consistently to discredit what i said, what i thought, how i said it, who i was trying to say it to, and why i was saying it - and even if i was talking in a foreign language or not.
any thoughts on that, other than more outrageous attacks and accusations?"
Because it's difficult to decipher what you mean in your posts. Here's a hint -- if one word will express your thoughts, don't write 100.
Also try breaking you posts into multiple, meaningful sentences, rather than a single run-on sentences.
no, actually, i think duke should pay all for breaking the trust many had in them and making them unable to receive their services without undue stress, fear, and intimidation caused by all these court cases where they squadered their patients trust for injustice.
and if they are ranked number one by truth and not more lies, than they should pay extra for making so many lose so much.
noone should be penalized by duke's inability to provide services free from distrust except them, since they are the only ones to blame
and to clarify what you refuse to understand because it does not fit your world view:
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"to the enlightened one:
i'm not justifying anything about anyone.
I think you may have a bias towards duke, or you would be more concerned about their possible medical errors and cover-ups
as are (here i'll replace that with just like just for you) others who have no trust with duke
due to duke's own actions negating trust in the minds of most.
that is a truth that cannot be denied"
I've read this post several times, and I honestly can't make out what the poster is trying to say.
better?
This mistral/recluse poster is not going to listen to anybody or anything that conflicts with his or her view. Period. Facts be damned. This is troll behavior.....endlessly pontificating, running off at the mouth, saying nothing, making wild unsubstantiated claims.
I have very personal and longstanding knowledge of the care and providers at Duke...and I can say, from deep personal experience, that there is no other hospital I would trust as much. None. And that includes Hopkins. Sure, they make mistakes. All hospitals do. But to claim some sort of rampant premeditated evil motivation on the part of thousands of outstanding physicians and caregivers is not only sheer nonsense, it is only the worse kind of irresponsible bullcrap. Think what you will, poster.......in my opinion and my experience, you are totally full of worldclass BULL
"Anonymous said...
to the enlightened one:
i'm not justifying anything about anyone. I think you may have a bias towards duke, or you would be more concerned about their possible medical errors and cover-up as are others who have no trust with duke due to duke's own actions negating trust in the minds of most.
that is a truth that cannot be denied".
What possible medical errors? The records SIDNEY posted illegally do not show any evidence of medical errors.
it was an obvious statement and rather sarcastic with reason, like i said, and yes, TECHNICALLY, they killed him, but thanks for the diatribe on life support. If i could I would charge Duke for causing a situation where I actually sat here and read you direct your misguided anger at me just like all the others.
I have no idea what the medical records or the examiners report say. I do not trust duke, and I saw these questions about duke's malpractice in the paper, so if you want to get all hateful and angry with me for repeating what i read in the paper - you are obviously duke affiliated because you have degraded me for repeating what i read in the paper and questioning it by trying to learn more.
duke is seriously abusive as far as many are concerned and most are never convinced otherwise, because they are always abusive to most.
I have no preconceived notions regarding either Duke University or Duke University Medical Center, as apparently you do.
I've simply posted data from US News and World Report and ISMP showing that DUMC was ranked #1 in North Carolina, and was #1 in patient satisfaction for all of the hospitals in the area.
This patient satisfaction data would seem to negate your claims of "possible medical errors and coverup" and "[D]uke's own actions negating trust in the minds of most"
You can choose to accept that data, or provide a source for data that would back up your claims. So far, you've provided nothing but poorly worded opinion.
Mistrail/recluse....please provide specific documentation that supports your claim of Duke's cover up medical errors and, worse, deliberate killing of patients. We would all like to know the documentation you have to support these claims. If you have some kind of insider knowledge of a deep conspiracy at Duke that runs around harming patients, then I think we all deserve to hear about it. So, this is your opportunity. Put your proof where your mouth is.....
duke lies
nuff said
check out the conflict of interest with those news outlets, perhaps the answer to your doubt lies there. Also, check to see what they were rated on, and what patients gave satisfactory ratings (if they actually did at all). When were they number one? a decade or more ago? if that is current, it is probably not true.
duke loves their ratings and awards - so much that it makes people wonder what they'd do (how far would they go down the ethics scale) to achieve a top ranking.
the hatred you see directed at others by Duke is a direct result of those rankings.
you seriously need to reread my statements because i did not say that, AND, redirect your anger at Duke, not me. I said there was a possibility because Duke hate Ms. Mangum, and apparently anyone else who reads the paper.
So very typical, isn it. When confronted with facts, like patient satisfaction scores and national rankings, the poster resorts to attacking the credibility of the data. So typical. Patient satisfaction scores are tabulated by completely independent organizations, like Press Ganey, through means that have absolutely nothing to do with individual hospitals like Duke. The US NEws reports are based on rankings by people completely unassociated with Duke, from around the country. Poster, you are an embarrassment to yourself with you ignorant replies. Of course, some people have had bad experiences at Duke. You tell me any other organization that handles literally thousands of patient encounters every single day that does not have screwups. Don't be stupid, poster. Duke would not be ranked at a world class level, right up there with Hopkins, Mass Gen, Mayo, Emory, the Brigham and Women's, MD Anderson.....if it were not a wonderful hospital. Your characterization of DUMC as some kind of abusive corrupt patient killing, patient abusiing behemoth, with Satan for a talisman.....is utterly ridiculous. Grow up.
and, no, I have no connection with Duke.
"...makes people wonder what they'd do (how far would they go down the ethics scale) to achieve a top ranking.
Do you even recognize the irony in this statement?
Actually, if I recall correctly, there were lots of folks at Duke who initially ran around yelling for the heads of the LAX guys, wanting them castrated, and holding out Mangum as some kind of prototype victim. And , of course, she was the perfect victim, wasn't she. Poor black single mother, trying to work her way through college by humping a pole in a strip joint. Just a fine sweet young woman.....I believe the Black Panthers called her their "princess". And, the infoamous Duke 88 who signed a letter that all but had the LAX guys strung up.......without so much as a mid-term grade book mention of due process . And Brodhead, the ballless stenographer for the progressive agenda at Duke......who, along with Joe Aleva, made it clear it was "not about the truth". So, poster, you are dead wrong when you say Duke hated Mangum. A bunch of the wingnuts in the English, Afro American, Women's studies klan thought she was Victim-in-chief. And those evil rich white boys? Oh, My.....talk about villains!
There was only one tiny little problem......it didn't happen. Ooopsie.......what a shame....the perfect victim and the perfect villains......fubar and snafu......
i said duke hates (hate) Ms. Mangum - not hated - why do you misquote and then get so riled about your own misquote?
the others still putting me down, patients across the country rated Duke, bet none of them live in NC? perhaps i misunderstood - what patients were satisfied?
i don't believe everything i read in the paper, etc., that's why i am here to find out more - and i have been sorely abused, bullied, and trolled because I mentioned it.
what, your jollys weren't enough abusing sydney, you have to start on others too? you guys are so desperate for the ratings it is sickening.
duke is not about their patients, or none of this would have happened in the first place. they are only about money and ratings.
so, if a person has a problem now with trusting duke because of all they have seen about them, you think it is reason enough to abuse them? eh? yes?
then why would you not see how abusive duke is to many, since they have broken the trust of so many, and many here who are being abusive are duke affiliated. how world class could they be with all the harm they have caused in NC and to others?
May I suggest that the rest of us stop trying to communicate with mistrail-recluse? (I'm sure Sidney will enjoy talking to him.)
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL
yeah g... don't feed yourself
you are the one who started it
get real
agree, guiowen...... what a waste of bandwidth.
well, sidney, what say you about the myserious call that Clark says he had with Mangum an hour before she killed Daye? Why didn't Clark come forward, huh? Apparently he still has not. You would think he would want to offer his statement on her behalf, him being all concerned for her welfare.
OOOPS, I know sidney will rant and rave over my phrasing in the last post......."an hour before she killed Daye". so, to restate, "an hour before she stabbed Mr. Daye, who died several days later, as a result of complications from the stab wound inflicted by Mangum.
don't answer them sydney. like g... said, don't feed them. you do not owe any of these people an explanation for anything and this case really should go to trial unless it is outright dismissed.
hey g... thanks for starting that bullying grand time for your blog gang. most of the bandwith was wasted defending myself because of the hate misdirected my way because of your bullying. so typical duke btw. good example.
I am one of those who actually read the Mangum "book" (I hate to sully the use of the word book by attaching it to this piece of junk). From a writer's perspective, it is awful.....poorly constructed, terrible grammar and even worse content organization. Third graders do better writing. As to what she actually says, it is pages and pages of excuse, blame, whine-filled, self pity. You would think the woman would, at some point, look in the mirror and remark to herself, "Even I don't believe this bull!!". The basic premise of the, uh, "book" is that every single bad thing that has happened to Mangum is somebody else's fault. She does even begin to take personal responsibility for her behavior. I had hoped to glean some understanding of her antics through reading about her history. What comes across is a pathetic mixture of not-my-fault and they-did-it.
The degree she obtained from NCCU is laughable. We all know it was a give-away from an institutiion's president who wanted to make a name for himself. (see another post on what happened to this guy who left NCCU, went to Florida and got canned by his Board of Directors)
The essential problem with this woman is that she has been allowed to, and encouraged to, live a guilt-free blame-full life.......a user, being used....and the victim "princess" who continues to soil herself.
Whatever you do, don't waste your money buying the book. I got it from a friend, who got it from a friend....etc.
Anonymous 6:59 PM
"hey g... thanks for starting that bullying grand time for your blog gang. most of the bandwith was wasted defending myself because of the hate misdirected my way because of your bullying. so typical duke btw. good example."
What hate?
bandwith? you mean bandwidth? Wonderful inventions they are, spell checkers......
Anonymous said...
Poor sidney, he continues to suffer from terminal blindsidedness. There was no intubation error. As the other posters have noted, do you even begin to understand proximate cause, sidney? It's really not all that complicated.
Mangum did not make a claim of self defense until after Daye died.
I would definitely call the placement of an endotracheal tube in the esophagus an intubation error. The esophageal intubation is documented in two medical reports and explains Daye's cardiac arrest.
Mangum maintained that she stabbed Daye in self-defense from the beginning. The problem is that the police, investigators, and media never asked her about it until after Daye died. Furthermore, her first attorney maintained from the beginning that it was self-defense.
Anonymous said...
Sydney,
Thank you for taking time with your replies and supportive comments in being able to be understood in my communication.
All the attacks I was getting (and surely still will if I stick around too much) is seriously offputting, but hey, I do understand how it reflects more on the poster in some cases (although it also indicates a massive amount of frustration with the entire injustice that is felt by all so it is understandable in that respect) - but it is abusive and not something many are able to tolerate for too long. I guess you are used to it - many are not. That is why I feel Duke should be sued for causing this much grief to so many, none of this would be happening if Duke didn't always game the system in their favor to begin with. They are only harming themselves and others by doing that, but I am sure you are aware of that. Many are not it seems, or they would not be blaming anyone but Duke and co., as it is their game afterall.
As you've come to realize, Duke, and especially the Duke Lacrosse case, are very emotional topics in the state... for some reason. Unfortunately many lack tolerance for opinions that differ from their views and proceed to misguidedly attack those who make comments.
As far as the abuse and nastiness towards me, it rolls off my back like water off a duck. I merely try to address the serious statements that the commenter makes.
Anonymous said...
Poor man.............are you unable to read.........the poster says, clearly.....if the jury believes the statement that Daye made...that he did, in fact, ask for the return of his property.....then Mangum did, in fact, have his property without his consent. You can rant all you want about your opinions....they are not facts. It will be up to the jury to decide the credibility of Daye's statement......not you.
Whether or not Mangum had Daye's property with or without his consent is irrelevant when it comes to the larceny of chose in action charge. The fact is that Daye admitted to giving her the checks which means that she did not steal or unlawfully take them. The issue of possession is not even addressed in the larceny of chose in action charge.
Am I right?
The medical documentation illegally posted by Harr does not indicate nor support his allegations of medical mal practice. Daye's cardiac arrest was NOT caused by esophageal intubation. Read it again, Sidney. You are incorrect.
Further, your focus on any issues with the circumstances immediately prior to Reginald Daye's death are immaterial. I'm no lawyer but am familiar with proximate cause. Nichols said it well. She stabbed him. He died. Period. Roberts reviewed the records and substantiated Nichols'
finding. You can have your conspiracy theory till the cows come home. There is no evidence to support the silly jihad nonsense.
Shella made mention of Mangum's claims of self defense, as quoted in a Herald Sun article, when he quit the case...in light of claims in the motions YOU filed. There is no record, except your version of the truth, to substantiate any claim of self defense early on. Now you are saying, once again and so typically, that Mangum was apparently too damn dumb to say she stabbed him in self defense? Is that what you are saying, really? You claim nobody asked her if she wanted to make a statement? Yet you howl like a banshee when Bond gives her the opportunity to answer questions and , very appropriately reads her Miranda? If I had stabbed somebody in self defense, fighting for my life, I would be screaming bloody bleepin murder. I would not be sitting passively aggressively in my cell, waiting to be asked, for christ's sake.
Mangum conveniently came up with the self defense explanation after Daye was dead......just as she conveniently changed her story about the use of condoms by the LAX guys after she learned that none of their DNA was deposited in or on her. She's a world class lizard, changing her shape, color and story to suit the evidence.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Prosecutors needed a felony in order to invoke the "felony-murder rule" to get the first degree murder charge, so they used a little known/rarely used law, "larceny of chose in action." Conviction of this charge is automatically a Class H felony, irrespective of the amount on the check. ...
Please let me know if further edification is required."
As is so often the case, you leave your readers needing further edification. NCGS 14-32(b)Any person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon and inflicts serious injury shall be punished as a Class E felon. That is more than enough to invoke the felony murder rule. And frankly, a bigger problem for the defense. The larceny charge is and always was a backup.
You still have not dealt with Welch you still have not told us how you think the defense can get a self-defense instruction and you have not told us how you think the defense gets around your cluing the state in on Roberts opinion.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt.
Am I correct in assuming that you consider the Larceny of chose in action charge bogus?
Anyway, according to your interpretation of the law, anyone who uses a deadly weapon in attacking someone who subsequently dies (more or less as a result of the injury) can be charged with first degree murder. Is my analysis of your statement accurate? If not, could you provide much required elucidation?
Anonymous said...
The medical documentation illegally posted by Harr does not indicate nor support his allegations of medical mal practice. Daye's cardiac arrest was NOT caused by esophageal intubation. Read it again, Sidney. You are incorrect.
Further, your focus on any issues with the circumstances immediately prior to Reginald Daye's death are immaterial. I'm no lawyer but am familiar with proximate cause. Nichols said it well. She stabbed him. He died. Period. Roberts reviewed the records and substantiated Nichols'
finding. You can have your conspiracy theory till the cows come home. There is no evidence to support the silly jihad nonsense.
Shella made mention of Mangum's claims of self defense, as quoted in a Herald Sun article, when he quit the case...in light of claims in the motions YOU filed. There is no record, except your version of the truth, to substantiate any claim of self defense early on. Now you are saying, once again and so typically, that Mangum was apparently too damn dumb to say she stabbed him in self defense? Is that what you are saying, really? You claim nobody asked her if she wanted to make a statement? Yet you howl like a banshee when Bond gives her the opportunity to answer questions and , very appropriately reads her Miranda? If I had stabbed somebody in self defense, fighting for my life, I would be screaming bloody bleepin murder. I would not be sitting passively aggressively in my cell, waiting to be asked, for christ's sake.
Mangum conveniently came up with the self defense explanation after Daye was dead......just as she conveniently changed her story about the use of condoms by the LAX guys after she learned that none of their DNA was deposited in or on her. She's a world class lizard, changing her shape, color and story to suit the evidence.
Okay, so you believe Mangum stabbed Daye in order to keep from returning two cashier's checks that he gave to her earlier... checks that she could not convert for her own financial gain? If that is not what you're saying please lay on me the motive or reason why you believe Mangum stabbed Daye.
Harr versus Duke.....winner, Duke.
Harr versus NC Bar...winner, the law.
How many other legal actions have you been involved in, as a plaintiff or defendant? How many have you won and lost?
Anonymous said...
OOOPS, I know sidney will rant and rave over my phrasing in the last post......."an hour before she killed Daye". so, to restate, "an hour before she stabbed Mr. Daye, who died several days later, as a result of complications from the stab wound inflicted by Mangum.
Congratulations on correcting yourself. It shows that you have gained at least a scintilla of enlightenment.
Nope, nobody has drawn any conclusion that Mangum's motive for stabbing Daye was theft. My own personal opinion, which is just as valid as yours, is that the two were drinking, arguing, doing a push-n-shove thing in the apartment, that she got out of hand, grabbed a knife, and stabbed him. I don't think he gave her a horrific beating because there is just no evidence of anything like that level of injury. I think she grabbed her purse and fled. I think alcohol was a factor for BOTH of them. I think she has a history of violent acts and has made prior threats of using a knife on another person. But, no, I don't this smells of a murder committed during the course of a robbery or whatever....with theft as the primary motive. If you want to call this a drunken brawl, push-n-shove match, it sounds far more like manslaughter to me.
But, perfect self defense? Nope, no way.....
SIDNEY HARR:
"Congratulations on correcting yourself. It shows that you have gained at least a scintilla of enlightenment."
You haven't shown even a scintilla of enlightenment.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Okay, so you believe Mangum stabbed Daye in order to keep from returning two cashier's checks that he gave to her earlier... checks that she could not convert for her own financial gain? If that is not what you're saying please lay on me the motive or reason why you believe Mangum stabbed Daye."
If you were enlightened, you would know that Crystal has a history of being violent, Reginald Daye did not, and Crystal stabbed him in a fit of rage.
SIDNEY HARR(toWalt in Durham):
"Anyway, according to your interpretation of the law, anyone who uses a deadly weapon in attacking someone who subsequently dies (more or less as a result of the injury) can be charged with first degree murder. Is my analysis of your statement accurate? If not, could you provide much required elucidation?"
You are incapable of capably analyzing anything or of responding to elucidation.
What is your take on Capital Murder?
SIDNEY HARR:
"As you've come to realize, Duke, and especially the Duke Lacrosse case, are very emotional topics in the state... for some reason."
The reason is that demonstrably innocent men were wrongfully prosecuted for a rape which never happened by a corrupt prosecutor who thought his retirement benefits trumped the law, trumped legal ethics and trumped the US Constitution.
"Unfortunately many lack tolerance for opinions that differ from their views and proceed to misguidedly attack those who make comments."
Like you and your acolyte KENHYDERAL who insist in spite of the total lack of evidence, the non credibility of the complaining witness, and the obvious corrupt motives of the DA, that these innocent men should have been convicted of rape.
"As far as the abuse and nastiness towards me, it rolls off my back like water off a duck. I merely try to address the serious statements that the commenter makes."
Rather, you duck the real issues rather than respond to them.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I would definitely call the placement of an endotracheal tube in the esophagus an intubation error."
However, the endotracheal tube had not been placed in the esophagus.
"The esophageal intubation is documented in two medical reports and explains Daye's cardiac arrest."
Only in your misinterpretation of the records. It was not the cause of Mr. Daye's cardiac arrest.
"Mangum maintained that she stabbed Daye in self-defense from the beginning."
No she didn't. You have documented she was offered a chance to make(after Officer Bond quite correctly read her her miranda rights) and said nothing about self defense.
"The problem is that the police, investigators, and media never asked her about it until after Daye died."
How did that prevent Crystal from claiming self defense in the beginning. Only a deluded megalomaniacal legal idiot like you would interpret a Miranda warning as an attempt to discourage this defendant from defending herself
"Furthermore, her first attorney maintained from the beginning that it was self-defense."
However he never established it as fact.
A reply to the following line of thought:
quoted from above: "No she didn't. You have documented she was offered a chance to make(after Officer Bond quite correctly read her her miranda rights) and said nothing about self defense."
She didn't talk because it was her right not to, as mentioned in the Miranda Rights right?
Do you think the cops would have done anything other than arrest her even if she did claim self-defense? Or would they have investigated further? How does that work?
If anyone claimed self-defense, would the cops continue with the investigation on that basis after an arrest?
So the concern is that they did not have an investigation into the true cause of death before they arrested her right?
I agree, given the situation, that they should have, but then, given that the situation is a Duke / Mangum conflict they would have questioned, it is obvious to most to see why they didn't.
So, did Duke tell the cops that Mr. Daye's cause of death was because of the stab wound and not the intubation errors and life support decisions? Is that what happened? Or have they just remained officially silent this entire time about the matter, not intervening to correct the matter in a timely manner?
If the intubation errors are proven in court, wouldn't Duke be complicite in her false arrest and imprisonment, and liable for hate crime charges based upon the circumstances as they are as motive, as well as other applicable charges in the coverup of true cause of death?
What happens if that is found to be true in this case?
Is Duke than charged with those crimes, or is the public left only with less trust and potential for more harm from Duke and others driven to similar hatefully prejudicial behavior, and made even more worrisome and unhealthy when fueled by the medical/legal/education/media/political dominating society/organization that duke is?
Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt.
Am I correct in assuming that you consider the Larceny of chose in action charge bogus?"
I regard it as an over-charge situation. The state is doing what Nifong, Cline and even back to the days of Hardin had a bad habit of doing, over-charging in hopes of getting an easy plea to what they should have charged in the first place.
"Anyway, according to your interpretation of the law, anyone who uses a deadly weapon in attacking someone who subsequently dies (more or less as a result of the injury) can be charged with first degree murder. Is my analysis of your statement accurate?"
Not exactly. To prove the Class E felony, the state has to prove intent. I read this case early as more of the Class A misdemeanor assault resulting in serious bodily harm. Once Daye died, the misdemeanor manslaughter rule kicks it up to Man II.
I certainly could be persuaded that this is a Class E felony which given Daye died, the felony murder rule kicks it up to Murder II. However, I'd need to see more of the state's case before I am willing to go there.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 4:10 PM wrote: "If the intubation errors are proven in court, wouldn't Duke be complicite in her false arrest and imprisonment, and liable for hate crime charges based upon the circumstances as they are as motive, as well as other applicable charges in the coverup of true cause of death?"
No. Until you read St. v Welch, don't post such silliness unless you want people to believe you are a fool.
"Is Duke than charged with those crimes,..."
What crimes? Intubation errors are not a crime. Further, Sid has posted considerable documentation from Mr. Daye's medical file and there is no indication of error.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt,
Do you consider a person a fool who has not read the statute you refer to yet if they are asking questions about this case at this point in the game where news is just now in main media, and there are apparently so many questions about this case?
Where on the blog is the evidence about the exact errors Sidney refers to located if you do not mind my asking.
Thank you for your replies. Your input is helpful.
A couple of your questions merit a response.
First, your questions about self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. In general, the claim is offered during trial. I expect that the DPD would not have dropped charges when they arrested her even if she had claimed self-defense. When arrested Mangum did not exhibit signs of the horrific beating Sidney has described. Moreover, her past interaction with the DPD raises questions about her credibility.
Second, I believe that the DPD's failure to investigate Daye's death prior to the arrest was entirely appropriate. Although I have been critical of the DPD's failure to investigate crimes properly in other situations, I do not believe that they should be criticized for their failure to investigate Daye's death before he died. Mangum was arrested on April 3, and Daye died on April 13. An autopsy was performed thereafter.
I note further that Mangum was indicted for murder by a grand jury after Daye's death. Recent appellate decisions have affirmed the view that a grand jury indictment completely insulates police and prosecutors from any liability even if they lied to the grand jury. Sidney enthusiastically supported that decision. As a result, the district and Sidney support the conclusion that Mangum should have no claim against prosecutors and police.
The case that Walt has recommended supports the conclusion that Magum is responsible for Daye's death even in the event that Duke made errors in his treatment. The decision to end life support is irrelevant. Any thought that an accused assailant would have the right to dictate that his brain-dead victim be kept alive to avoid murder charges could only be held by a person totally ignorant of the law and devoid of common sense. I trust that you did not mean to suggest that it was important.
Actually I didn't refer to most of that with my question I think, but I would have to requote my whole posted questions again in order to do that at this point, so I'll leave that for another time if needed.
Your view on that part of the case is certainly helpful from a deeper understanding of the entire case and the input is appreciated.
I mentioned taking off life support as part of sequence of events I believe, as it is a rather obvious stage of the game from any perspective.
Mangum's behavior is not consistent with that of a victim of a vivacious beating who has escaped after stabbing her attacker. A self defensive stabbing, in response to a beating, would run in hysteria, screaming for help, out the door, and to the nearest apartment door, yelling her head off. She would be yelling in fear, in sheer terror, in shock, afraid for herself and terrified her attacker would be coming after her. She would immediately tell police what had happened, tell them she was attacked, tell them she fought back, etc. none of Mangum's behavior suggest a terrified woman who fought off an attacker.
Vicious. Not vivacious.....darn auto correct
I think Ms. Mangum's state of mind would need to be proven by her lawyer, as the evidence is not clear at this point in time.
That is only one version of how someone would think someone would act in that situation of course.
Other perspectives would include remorse for realizing what they just did and what just took place, and especially if they had been in similar situations before where they were similarly traumatized, the victim might be numb and seek safety or help.
I'm sure there are many other perspectives as well equally understandable in their own regards.
PTSD and past traumatizing experiences that are well know have to be considered as they are a fact that plays a role in understanding her state of mind at the time.
Anon at wrote: "Walt,
Do you consider a person a fool who has not read the statute you refer to yet if they are asking questions about this case at this point in the game where news is just now in main media, and there are apparently so many questions about this case?"
Given that I posted Welch almost two years ago and Welch describes the legal effect of medical malpractice and even the refusal to permit life saving medical care on the misdemeanor manslaughter and felony murder rules, yes I regard anyone who fails to read and understand as a fool, at best. They are not serious as posters. Now, if a poster has read Welch and wants to distinguish it, then that is a worthy poster. We can have an insightful discussion.
"Where on the blog is the evidence about the exact errors Sidney refers to located if you do not mind my asking."
You'll have to RTF or ask Sid.
Walt-in-Durham
ok walt, can you just quote a bit from this document that pertains exactly what you want understood.
I could read it and still not understand what you are referring to, so to expediate the understanding for all, lets discuss your understanding of what is important in that case for all to understand and rapidly be up to speed and be considered a serious poster by you.
thank you for your time and consideration in doing that Walt, sincerely appreciative of all your thoughts and time for all, I read your thoughts often in the paper btw, so hey (i never write in case your wondering)
In further reply to the following post: Anonymous said...
"A couple of your questions merit a response.
Questions:
1. I think I read Sydney complaint that the apartment was not investigated at a level to indicate self-defense or not. Is that true? Wouldn’t that be an aspect of any investigation to determine the facts in any case/investigation/arrest as set out in procedures, etc?
2. What signs were exhibited that would have indicated having received a horrific beating that were looked for or recorded? Is that your perception of behavior after a severe beating, or is it fact by a professional opinion admissible in court for consideration? What proof is there of that?
3. Every person is guaranteed equal protection and rights under laws that pertain to any interaction with the DPD don’t they, especially in the line of duty?
4. What are the procedures for overturning or arguing against appellate decisions?
5. Does that mean that Duke and the medical examiner have / had no say either in the grand jury procedures, events, and decisions?
6. Do they have recourse from the decisions made in the grand jury that is different from Ms. Mangum?
7. Is that just a Durham law, or NC ruling?
8. How does it relate to Federal Rights covering same protected rights, freedoms, and guarantee of equal protection under the law for all american citizens, etc.
9. I think my comments about life support have inflamed too many already. I have no other thoughts on it at this time other than it being the Technical cause of death. I don’t support that the conclusions of that case refer in equal kind to this case without seeing the circumstances and mitigating factors that are different between the cases addressed and considered and incorporated as needed for true justice for all. Many will only see the apparent injustice and conflict of interest, that getting the obvious injustice for all fixed as soon as possible What methods are used to argue a different interpretation of the law for this case beyond the decisions made in the referred case?
Thank you. That was very helpful to understand the position of many here. I appreciate your time in helping me to understand the case and arguments and positions here better.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
A reply to the following line of thought:
quoted from above: 'No she didn't. You have documented she was offered a chance to make(after Officer Bond quite correctly read her her miranda rights) and said nothing about self defense.'
She didn't talk because it was her right not to, as mentioned in the Miranda Rights right?"
Tat is correct.
"Do you think the cops would have done anything other than arrest her even if she did claim self-defense? Or would they have investigated further? How does that work?"
No.They had probable cause, as lawyer Walt in Durham has adequately explained.
"If anyone claimed self-defense, would the cops continue with the investigation on that basis after an arrest?"
Yes. But Crystal did not claim self defense until after she was charged with Murder 1.
"So the concern is that they did not have an investigation into the true cause of death before they arrested her right?"
They had probable cause to arrest her. As someone in a subsequent comment has pointed out, it is Crystal's responsibility to prove self defense.
"I agree, given the situation, that they should have, but then, given that the situation is a Duke / Mangum conflict they would have questioned, it is obvious to most to see why they didn't."
What Duke/Mangum conflict?
"So, did Duke tell the cops that Mr. Daye's cause of death was because of the stab wound and not the intubation errors and life support decisions? Is that what happened? Or have they just remained officially silent this entire time about the matter, not intervening to correct the matter in a timely manner?"
that the stab wound was the cause of death was determined by the Medical Examiner after he performed the Autopsy.
"If the intubation errors are proven in court, wouldn't Duke be complicite in her false arrest and imprisonment, and liable for hate crime charges based upon the circumstances as they are as motive, as well as other applicable charges in the coverup of true cause of death?"
No.
"What happens if that is found to be true in this case?"
It would not be found as true.
"Is Duke than charged with those crimes, or is the public left only with less trust and potential for more harm from Duke and others driven to similar hatefully prejudicial behavior, and made even more worrisome and unhealthy when fueled by the medical/legal/education/media/political dominating society/organization that duke is?"
There is no probable cause to believe Duke committed any crime.
"Anonymous said...
In further reply to the following post: Anonymous said...
"A couple of your questions merit a response.
Questions:
"1. I think I read Sydney complaint that the apartment was not investigated at a level to indicate self-defense or not. Is that true? Wouldn’t that be an aspect of any investigation to determine the facts in any case/investigation/arrest as set out in procedures, etc?"
It is Crystal's responsibility to prove self defense. ,not the Police.
"2. What signs were exhibited that would have indicated having received a horrific beating that were looked for or recorded? Is that your perception of behavior after a severe beating, or is it fact by a professional opinion admissible in court for consideration? What proof is there of that?"
There are police photographs and medical records which document Crystal was not subjected to an vicious beating.
"3. Every person is guaranteed equal protection and rights under laws that pertain to any interaction with the DPD don’t they, especially in the line of duty?"
Crystal's rights were protected.
"4. What are the procedures for overturning or arguing against appellate decisions?"
Ask Walt.
"5. Does that mean that Duke and the medical examiner have / had no say either in the grand jury procedures, events, and decisions?"
Duke was not involved in the stabbing.Duke treated Mr. Daye after he was stabbed.
"6. Do they have recourse from the decisions made in the grand jury that is different from Ms. Mangum?"
Judging from the Lacrosse case grand jury, no.
"7. Is that just a Durham law, or NC ruling?"
Is what?
"8. How does it relate to Federal Rights covering same protected rights, freedoms, and guarantee of equal protection under the law for all american citizens, etc."
read the Constitution.
9. I think my comments about life support have inflamed too many already. I have no other thoughts on it at this time other than it being the Technical cause of death. I don’t support that the conclusions of that case refer in equal kind to this case without seeing the circumstances and mitigating factors that are different between the cases addressed and considered and incorporated as needed for true justice for all. Many will only see the apparent injustice and conflict of interest, that getting the obvious injustice for all fixed as soon as possible What methods are used to argue a different interpretation of the law for this case beyond the decisions made in the referred case?"
the issue is, would Mr. Daye have been placed on life support had he not been stabbed.
"Thank you. That was very helpful to understand the position of many here. I appreciate your time in helping me to understand the case and arguments and positions here better."
There is no evidence that Mangum suffered from PTSD. Incorrect poster. Having worked with victims, I can tell you mangum's behavior was highly inconsistent with a beating victim who had stabbed her attacker and fled. It is also inconsistent with traumatized fear-state of mind that she would have grabbed her purse. As has been previously noted, she passed several locations where help would have been available and went to where her child was located......also not typical......I.e., placing her child in danger of a trailing attacker. Yes there are always exceptions but her behavior that night does not add up to the story she began telling after Daye died
The medical records illegally posted by Harr do NOT indicate any sort of medical error or mal practice. The family gave consent for removal of life support.
Cline, like Nifong, had a long history of over charging to get pleas and favorable conviction rates. I would expect that a plea might be negotiated down to manslaughter with time served.....and that Mangum will be out of prison in less than 24 months. If this case goes to trial, then who knows......2nd degree? Manslaughter maybe? Holmes will be very concerned about the composition of the jury. There is physical evidence of a scuffle and disarray in the apartment, there is Daye admitting he pushed her, there is Daye admitting he kicked in the door. There is no evidence that Mangum was beaten as she claimed.....and as the basis for her reason to stab Daye. I think, though it might not make it into court, that the statement by a neighbor regarding hearing a female voice in the apartment saying, "I going to fxxx you up " is significant. That sounds like a domestic .......with her every bit as out of control and aggressive as she claimed Daye was. But that neighbor could not say for certain it was Mangum she heard......sooooo.
Far more important to mangum's case that the focus be on decision regarding plea. If she elects to got to trial, then the jury instruction will be crucial. Holmes is a good attorney. I just hope he can keep her away from Harr
Anonymous at 8:24 wrote: "ok walt, can you just quote a bit from this document that pertains exactly what you want understood."
It's not what I want understood, it is what is necessary to understand the case. Simply put, Welch is the NC case that says medical malpractice and even refusal to take life saving medical treatment is not an intervening cause for the felony/murder or misdemeanor/manslaughter rule. In short, it matters not one bit if Duke malpracticed Daye. (They did not, but it matters not.) It doesn't even matter if Daye were to have refused lifesaving medical treatment for no reason other than religious preference. She is not relieved of responibility for his death. So, discussion of any alleged medical malpractice is a total waste of time. Given that I posted the case law almost two years ago, lingering questions in that regard are silly and indicate a total lack of seriousness on the part of the post.
Anon at 10:18 PM wrote: " 4. What are the procedures for overturning or arguing against appellate decisions?"
That depends on the posture of the case. If you are at trial and you intend to argue that a precedent should be reversed, you have to give notice in a brief of the precedent, and your reasons why it should be reversed. The trial court is obligated to follow the precedent, only a court at the level that issued the precedent or higher may reverse the precedent.
If you are on appeal and you don't like the court's decision in your case, then you can appeal to the next higher level.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
Nope, nobody has drawn any conclusion that Mangum's motive for stabbing Daye was theft. My own personal opinion, which is just as valid as yours, is that the two were drinking, arguing, doing a push-n-shove thing in the apartment, that she got out of hand, grabbed a knife, and stabbed him. I don't think he gave her a horrific beating because there is just no evidence of anything like that level of injury. I think she grabbed her purse and fled. I think alcohol was a factor for BOTH of them. I think she has a history of violent acts and has made prior threats of using a knife on another person. But, no, I don't this smells of a murder committed during the course of a robbery or whatever....with theft as the primary motive. If you want to call this a drunken brawl, push-n-shove match, it sounds far more like manslaughter to me.
But, perfect self defense? Nope, no way.....
The prosecution seems to hint as robbery (of two cashier's checks that she couldn't convert for her use) as the motive for the stabbing, but it has never presented a bill of particulars describing what events it believes took place. There scenario is based solely on Daye and his nephew's statements. There is no explanation as to the hair clumps being found or the door battered off the frame by Daye. Also, knife blades were found pulled from their handles. An totally flawed and inadequate investigation.
I disagree with a drunken brawl, although Mangum has admitted to having a few drinks, it has never been established that she was drunk. Daye was proven to be drunk.
I don't know why you have such a problem with self-defense. It's more logical than robbery or push-and-shove, if you ask me.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"Okay, so you believe Mangum stabbed Daye in order to keep from returning two cashier's checks that he gave to her earlier... checks that she could not convert for her own financial gain? If that is not what you're saying please lay on me the motive or reason why you believe Mangum stabbed Daye."
If you were enlightened, you would know that Crystal has a history of being violent, Reginald Daye did not, and Crystal stabbed him in a fit of rage.
Answer me this: Did Mangum experience this fit of rage before or after he pulled out her hair, gouged her face with his fingernails, hit her in the face with his fists, and busted down the locked bathroom door in order to get at her?
HINT: The one who was enraged was the one who broke down the bathroom door.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR(toWalt in Durham):
"Anyway, according to your interpretation of the law, anyone who uses a deadly weapon in attacking someone who subsequently dies (more or less as a result of the injury) can be charged with first degree murder. Is my analysis of your statement accurate? If not, could you provide much required elucidation?"
You are incapable of capably analyzing anything or of responding to elucidation.
What is your take on Capital Murder?
Personally, I think it is barbaric, unethical, and uncivilized. I believe it should be abolished, and on this point I believe the Man from Nazareth would agree.
Can you imagine how many innocent people have been executed? Probably more numerous than anyone would want to acknowledge.
Anonymous said...
A couple of your questions merit a response.
First, your questions about self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. In general, the claim is offered during trial. I expect that the DPD would not have dropped charges when they arrested her even if she had claimed self-defense. When arrested Mangum did not exhibit signs of the horrific beating Sidney has described. Moreover, her past interaction with the DPD raises questions about her credibility.
Second, I believe that the DPD's failure to investigate Daye's death prior to the arrest was entirely appropriate. Although I have been critical of the DPD's failure to investigate crimes properly in other situations, I do not believe that they should be criticized for their failure to investigate Daye's death before he died. Mangum was arrested on April 3, and Daye died on April 13. An autopsy was performed thereafter.
I note further that Mangum was indicted for murder by a grand jury after Daye's death. Recent appellate decisions have affirmed the view that a grand jury indictment completely insulates police and prosecutors from any liability even if they lied to the grand jury. Sidney enthusiastically supported that decision. As a result, the district and Sidney support the conclusion that Mangum should have no claim against prosecutors and police.
The case that Walt has recommended supports the conclusion that Magum is responsible for Daye's death even in the event that Duke made errors in his treatment. The decision to end life support is irrelevant. Any thought that an accused assailant would have the right to dictate that his brain-dead victim be kept alive to avoid murder charges could only be held by a person totally ignorant of the law and devoid of common sense. I trust that you did not mean to suggest that it was important.
1. I don't believe that it is mandatory for a victim of domestic violence to be beated to a bloody pulp before being permitted to defend her/himself legally. Fact is that hair was pulled from her hair, she had visible swelling, and excoriations to her face. Lieutenant Columbo woud come to the conclusion that Mangum locked herself in the bathroom to protect herself from Daye, and that he, being drunk and enraged, busted the door down.
2. The circumstances surrounding Daye's brain death are suspicious. How often do you think that esophageal intubations take place and are left in place long enough to cause brain death? HINT: Extremely rare... and what a coincidence that it enabled the authorities to have a reason to charge Mangum with first degree murder instead of only assault.
3. I think the grand jury is a joke. The fact that the murder charge is based on a fraudulent autopsy report should result in the charge being tossed. As far as compensation, Mangum deserves compensation for her 689 days of wrongful imprisonment.
4. There have been many people who have been diagnosed with irreversible brain death, and have yet come out of a coma against all odds. Had not Daye been removed from life support there is the possibility he might have recovered. A family of an inmate who was beaten unconscious and presumed to be brain dead was advised not to allow him to be removed from life support for legal reasons. After two months, he unexpectedly regained consciousness.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.
Beginning tomorrow, I will begin piecemeal postings... with my writings being posted at three different intervals. First I will post Part One of a vog (video blog) on YouTube... Then, I will post Part Two of the vog. Finally, I'll post the interactive flog and the written blog. The flog will contain more information than the vogs and will be interactive to allow scrutiny of the documents presented in the vogs. (If I can swing it, I'll try to post to post the Part One vog today... dunno cuz the library's pretty full.)
As you were.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The prosecution seems to hint as robbery (of two cashier's checks that she couldn't convert for her use) as the motive for the stabbing, but it has never presented a bill of particulars describing what events it believes took place. There scenario is based solely on Daye and his nephew's statements. There is no explanation as to the hair clumps being found or the door battered off the frame by Daye. Also, knife blades were found pulled from their handles. An totally flawed and inadequate investigation."
You say that only because you believe that Crystal, like you, is above the law and should have her violent sociopathic history, which began prior to her falsely accusing the Lacrosse players of rape, on some non existent vendetta.
"I disagree with a drunken brawl, although Mangum has admitted to having a few drinks, it has never been established that she was drunk. Daye was proven to be drunk."
It was established shortly after she was brought in that she was clinically drunk. How do you explain the female voice in Mr. Daye's apartment shrieking "I'm going to f--k you up"?
"I don't know why you have such a problem with self-defense. It's more logical than robbery or push-and-shove, if you ask me."
No it isn't considering ther is NO, I say agan, NO hard evidence of self defense.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Answer me this: Did Mangum experience this fit of rage before or after he pulled out her hair, gouged her face with his fingernails, hit her in the face with his fists, and busted down the locked bathroom door in order to get at her?"
Surely. I concede that Mr.Daye knocked down the door. How the hair got there, I do not know.You really do not know either. However ther is NO medical or photographic or Medical evidence that Crystal was beaten or gouged in the face.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Personally, I think it [capital murder] is barbaric, unethical, and uncivilized.
Yes causing the death of another individual is "barbaric, unethical, and uncivilized".
"I believe it should be abolished, and on this point I believe the Man from Nazareth would agree."
I believe the Man from Nazareth would want ALL murder abolished. However, you can not speak for the Man from Nazareth. You have documented on many occasions you are the Minion of the Father of Lies, aka Satan.
"Can you imagine how many innocent people have been executed? Probably more numerous than anyone would want to acknowledge."
This from SIDNEY HARR who believes three innocent men should have been wrongfully convicted of rape on the basis of Crystal's obviously false allegations. SIDNEY, you are one gross Hypocrite.
SIDNEY HARR:
"1. I don't believe that it is mandatory for a victim of domestic violence to be beated to a bloody pulp before being permitted to defend her/himself legally. Fact is that hair was pulled from her hair, she had visible swelling, and excoriations to her face. Lieutenant Columbo woud come to the conclusion that Mangum locked herself in the bathroom to protect herself from Daye, and that he, being drunk and enraged, busted the door down."
There is no evidence, medical or photographic that Crystal had been attacked. What Lieutenant Columbo might have thought is totally irrelevant and immaterial. In case you haven't gotten the message, Lt. Columbo does not exist. Funny how you can cite only non existent people to back up your allegations.
"2. The circumstances surrounding Daye's brain death are suspicious. How often do you think that esophageal intubations take place and are left in place long enough to cause brain death? HINT: Extremely rare... and what a coincidence that it enabled the authorities to have a reason to charge Mangum with first degree murder instead of only assault."
There is no evidence that Mr. Daye's endotracheal tube was in the esophagus. Or are you going to cite Dr.Welby or Dr. Kildare to prove it was? How about you cite Hawkeye Pierce?
"3. I think the grand jury is a joke. The fact that the murder charge is based on a fraudulent autopsy report should result in the charge being tossed. As far as compensation, Mangum deserves compensation for her 689 days of wrongful imprisonment."
You have not established that the Autopsy report was fraudulent. You have not even established that you personally are capable of establishing the report was fraudulent.
"4. There have been many people who have been diagnosed with irreversible brain death, and have yet come out of a coma against all odds. Had not Daye been removed from life support there is the possibility he might have recovered. A family of an inmate who was beaten unconscious and presumed to be brain dead was advised not to allow him to be removed from life support for legal reasons. After two months, he unexpectedly regained consciousness."
If you knew anything about brain death, you would realize what you describe is extremely rare.
well i'm outta here again for awhile to think and read more about all this.
i do appreciate all the answers to the questions above.
it is a very interesting case, and very sad from any perspective one views it.
my thoughts of well being to all.
everyone chill if possible and think abit about all the different sides to the case(es), because that is what the court will have to decide too. Since it is in court, respecting the need for maintaining the ability to receive a fair and equal trial for all is obviously something most would agree is needed at this point, and what has been asked for by the current lawyers.
respect for that is paramount many would agree.
thank you all for your time explaining the case further. it is very interesting reading and case and people and players etc., and there seems to be a lot at stack from all perspectives.
thank you again. take good care.
oh yeah, and i might even start using spell check more often, you never know
Who's your daddy?
W
h
e
r
e
i
s
K
e
n
n
y
t
h
e
t
r
o
l
l
?
Yeah it's sad all right...... For,Reginald Daye and his family. Where is your regard for them? Where is the concern for them? Harr even has the gall to claim ridicule against them for being pawns of Duke.....A truly scummy thing to do.
I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. It is not warranted in this case but if it were, I would be all for it
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"1. I don't believe that it is mandatory for a victim of domestic violence to be beated to a bloody pulp before being permitted to defend her/himself legally. Fact is that hair was pulled from her hair, she had visible swelling, and excoriations to her face. Lieutenant Columbo woud come to the conclusion that Mangum locked herself in the bathroom to protect herself from Daye, and that he, being drunk and enraged, busted the door down."
There is no evidence, medical or photographic that Crystal had been attacked. What Lieutenant Columbo might have thought is totally irrelevant and immaterial. In case you haven't gotten the message, Lt. Columbo does not exist. Funny how you can cite only non existent people to back up your allegations.
"2. The circumstances surrounding Daye's brain death are suspicious. How often do you think that esophageal intubations take place and are left in place long enough to cause brain death? HINT: Extremely rare... and what a coincidence that it enabled the authorities to have a reason to charge Mangum with first degree murder instead of only assault."
There is no evidence that Mr. Daye's endotracheal tube was in the esophagus. Or are you going to cite Dr.Welby or Dr. Kildare to prove it was? How about you cite Hawkeye Pierce?
"3. I think the grand jury is a joke. The fact that the murder charge is based on a fraudulent autopsy report should result in the charge being tossed. As far as compensation, Mangum deserves compensation for her 689 days of wrongful imprisonment."
You have not established that the Autopsy report was fraudulent. You have not even established that you personally are capable of establishing the report was fraudulent.
"4. There have been many people who have been diagnosed with irreversible brain death, and have yet come out of a coma against all odds. Had not Daye been removed from life support there is the possibility he might have recovered. A family of an inmate who was beaten unconscious and presumed to be brain dead was advised not to allow him to be removed from life support for legal reasons. After two months, he unexpectedly regained consciousness."
If you knew anything about brain death, you would realize what you describe is extremely rare.
1. I cite Lieutenant Columbo because he is the only competent criminal investigator I know.
2. When it comes to fictional doctors I prefer Ben Casey because he had Nifongian courage.
3. You think the autopsy report was accurate? It mentioned lacerations to the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney, and stomach... yet the autopsy report said the stomach was normal and didn't even mention those other three structures.
I didn't say it wasn't rare... but it is possible. Joshua Wrenn is the name of the inmate who was left on life support for legal reasons, then regained consciousness after two months. Timothy Helms, another inmate, was also in a coma for quite some time before regaining consciousness. There's always the possibility of Daye regaining consciousness as long as he's on life support. There's no possibility of that having if he's removed from it.
Comprende?
Anonymous said...
Yeah it's sad all right...... For,Reginald Daye and his family. Where is your regard for them? Where is the concern for them? Harr even has the gall to claim ridicule against them for being pawns of Duke.....A truly scummy thing to do.
I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. It is not warranted in this case but if it were, I would be all for it
Are you sad that the Durham Police Department and prosecution gave him the alias of Richard Dong?
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"The prosecution seems to hint as robbery (of two cashier's checks that she couldn't convert for her use) as the motive for the stabbing, but it has never presented a bill of particulars describing what events it believes took place. There scenario is based solely on Daye and his nephew's statements. There is no explanation as to the hair clumps being found or the door battered off the frame by Daye. Also, knife blades were found pulled from their handles. An totally flawed and inadequate investigation."
You say that only because you believe that Crystal, like you, is above the law and should have her violent sociopathic history, which began prior to her falsely accusing the Lacrosse players of rape, on some non existent vendetta.
"I disagree with a drunken brawl, although Mangum has admitted to having a few drinks, it has never been established that she was drunk. Daye was proven to be drunk."
It was established shortly after she was brought in that she was clinically drunk. How do you explain the female voice in Mr. Daye's apartment shrieking "I'm going to f--k you up"?
"I don't know why you have such a problem with self-defense. It's more logical than robbery or push-and-shove, if you ask me."
No it isn't considering ther is NO, I say agan, NO hard evidence of self defense.
Regarding the female voice that was shrieking in Daye's apartment, the witness who gave that statement also said she heard two female voices coming from the apartment. Furthermore she stated that she heard children's voices coming from the apartment, too. Mangum's children... in fact, no children, were in the apartment during this incident.
So her credibility on the events is a little shaky. However, even if Mangum did make that statement... it is reasonable when placed in the context of being battered and abused.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Regarding the female voice that was shrieking in Daye's apartment, the witness who gave that statement also said she heard two female voices coming from the apartment."
No she didn't.
"Furthermore she stated that she heard children's voices coming from the apartment, too. Mangum's children... in fact, no children, were in the apartment during this incident."
No she didn't.
"So her credibility on the events is a little shaky. However, even if Mangum did make that statement"
No it isn't.
:...it is reasonable when placed in the context of being battered and abused."
Since there was no evidence that Crystal was battered and abused, no it is not reasonable.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Are you sad that the Durham Police Department and prosecution gave him the alias of Richard Dong?"
Totally irrelevant answer, which kind of red herring answer is what SIDNEY uses when confronted with his own delusions.
SIDNEY HARR:
"1. I cite Lieutenant Columbo because he is the only competent criminal investigator I know."
As Lieutenant Columbo is fictional, it means you know of no competent criminal investigator who would accept your uncorroborated allegations.
"2. When it comes to fictional doctors I prefer Ben Casey because he had Nifongian courage."
If Ben Casey were truly Nifongian, he would diagnose someone as a rape victim without doing any examination and having overwhelming evidence that a rape actually took place, e.g. Tara Levicy.
"3. You think the autopsy report was accurate? It mentioned lacerations to the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney, and stomach... yet the autopsy report said the stomach was normal and didn't even mention those other three structures."
As someone who has done both autopsies and surgery(which is someone you are not) there can be discrepancies like this for other reasons than a deliberate attempt to falsify the autopsy. You have not established either that the autopsy was fraudulent or that you are competent to judge an autopsy report was fraudulent.
"I didn't say it wasn't rare... but it is possible. Joshua Wrenn is the name of the inmate who was left on life support for legal reasons, then regained consciousness after two months. Timothy Helms, another inmate, was also in a coma for quite some time before regaining consciousness. There's always the possibility of Daye regaining consciousness as long as he's on life support. There's no possibility of that having if he's removed from it."
Although it has happened it is highly unlikely, which means you would have kept Mr. Daye on life support indefinitely with little to no chance of recovery in order to protect Crystal. No wonder if no one wants you to practice as a physician ever again.
"Comprende?"
I do. You obviously do not.
SIDNEY HARR:
There is no carpetbagger jihad for me to be in the pay of.
Sidney: There's always the possibility of Daye regaining consciousness as long as he's on life support. There's no possibility of that having if he's removed from it.
And legally, that is completely irrelevant.
Comprende?
And when you repeat an argument that is completely irrelevant, people stop taking you seriously.
Comprende?
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
The report from the witness was that she heard a female,voice.....NOT voices.......and she made no reference to children in the apartment. However she could not say definitively that she voice she heard was mangum's.
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Post a Comment