Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The North Carolina justice system is broken, corrupted, and hijacked!



PART ONE


PART TWO


Word count: 1,112

Instead of “equal justice for all,” North Carolina follows a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” This is manifested by the fact that it is broken, corrupted, and hijacked.
That the system is broken is undeniable in lieu of the numerous incidents of innocent individuals being unjustly incarcerated for months and years, only later to be exonerated. Of few of North Carolina’s wrongly incarcerated include Erick Daniels, James Arthur Johnson, Floyd Brown, Alan Gell, Carletta Alston, and Kenneth Kagonyera.

Distinguished UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Rich Rosen, in a recent paper, cited that the Tar Heel state lagged only behind the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates found later to be innocent of committing capital crimes.

Of those innocents who have been wrongfully sentenced to death or life include Darryl Hunt, Glen Edward Chapman, Levon “Bo” Jones, Gregory Taylor, and Joseph Sledge… all of whom have been deprived of precious decades of freedom… lost years in the prime of their lives for which no amount of money can compensate.

That the system is corrupted is plainly evidenced by the facts surrounding the trumped up criminal charges against Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum. Incarcerated for 689 days prior to making bond to await trial for first degree murder in the death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye, Ms. Mangum was the true victim of a vendetta prosecution as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

The events surrounding Daye’s death clearly show that Mangum was physically assaulted in a domestic violence incident and that she stabbed Daye in self-defense. Facts point out that the prosecutors, in charging Mangum in Daye’s death, used a false and fraudulent autopsy report produced by the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols.

Discrepancies in the medical findings are readily apparent between the autopsy report and all of the other medical records, including the operative report, orthopedic consultation
report, EMS records and other documents found in prosecution discovery.

Comparisons can be made on the following directory which includes the autopsy report as well as other medical records. Clicking the “Notation” button will highlight important passages. Clicking the “Clear notes” button will return to the previous directory where another selection can be made. After completion of viewing the documents, click the “Proceed” button to continue with the flog.

Another problem with the autopsy report is its conclusion that Daye died due to “complications of a stab wound to the chest.” This is not merely misleading or disingenuous, but an outright lie… but a lie that Prosecutor Kelly Gauger required in order to charge Crystal Mangum with murder following Daye’s death. No nexus is presented by Dr. Nichols between the stab wound and Daye’s death.

All indications are that the emergency surgery, for the wound that was not considered to be life-threatening, went well with Reginald Daye’s prognosis for a full recovery.

Dr. Nichols conveniently omitted the events that contributed to Daye’s death that included delirium tremens, an esophageal intubation that precipitated cardiac arrest and brain death, a weeklong comatose state, and the elective removal from life support by the medical staff at Duke University Hospital that resulted in Daye’s demise.

The autopsy report can be compared with other medical records and documents in order to support the premise that the true cause of Daye’s death had nothing to do with the stab wound, but rather the errantly placed endotracheal tube.

That the North Carolina justice system has been hijacked is realized by the fact that the mainstream media, politicians, civil rights organization, and community leaders, despite having full knowledge of the significant problems with the autopsy report and prosecution’s case against Mangum, have elected to remain mute and idle… acting as enablers or conspirators after the fact. No one has Nifongian courage to challenge the blatant and disparate legal mistreatment of Crystal Mangum by the state.

This is the same thing that happened to then Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong six years ago when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. The state worked with the media in disparaging Mr. Nifong and raining in public contempt against a man who was merely doing his job, but in a dedicated and independent manner.

The subsequent persecution of Mr. Nifong pulled a shroud over the state’s justice system, and it is therefore no wonder that Dr. Clay Nichols would rather commit a criminal act than go against the wishes of the Powers-That-Be… those who have stolen from Tar Heelians the reins of justice.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and former Governor Bev Perdue were made aware of allegations of fraudulence in the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols. The state’s Medical Board was notified about Dr. Nichols’ fabricated autopsy report and has determined not to take action against him. The North Carolina State Bar received complaints against Durham Prosecutors Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks and it, likewise, decided not to proceed.

Currently North Carolina is a state where those in positions of power and those with a voice feel compromised because of the example made of Mr. Nifong. The State, the media, and even the defense attorneys for Mangum have as their number one priority to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital… even if it means an unlawful felony conviction and years of imprisonment for an innocent African American mother of three… Mangum.

All avenues at the state level to rectify the injustice against Mangum have been extensive and have been exhausted. It is time for the Federal government to get involved because the state is the problem.

Consider the following for example: this state absolutely adores former Senator Jesse Helms, an unrepentant racist. The media refers to him in glowing terms while ignoring his bigoted past… Congresswoman Renee Elmers wants to name a Federal Building in downtown Raleigh after him. Not only that, but the General Assembly nearly unanimously paid tribute to him (one negative vote), however, this same body cannot drum up enough votes to grant a pardon to former Governor William Wood Holden who had the audacity to confront the Ku Klux Klan and prevent its lynching of African Americans in the 19th century.

Furthermore the state is tossing out the Racial Justice Act and rushing forward to actions necessary to commence executions of the African American majority of death row inmates.

The case against Crystal Mangum is clearly one that represents the state’s justice system of one which acts selectively based on Class and Color.

Lady Justice is demanding that the Federal government intercede on behalf of the defendant, and justice itself. 

426 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 426   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

If you want to, then maybe you will understand.

Anonymous said...

You believe the Blue Devil is an evil mascot?

Why do you hate the French?

Anonymous said...

I want to. I want to. Please help me by giving me a hint.

Anonymous said...

Help me out. Did Crystal Mangum lie when she made her allegations or was she confused for some reason? If she was confused, what was the explanation?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

You believe the Blue Devil is an evil mascot?

Why do you hate the French?

May 5, 2013 at 8:07 AM

I think it is a blue devil (and that the devil is an evil mascot figure).

I do not think of it as french, and you are seriously issue laded to ask that of me.

Duke does suck btw. EVERYONE knows that, even them.

Anonymous said...

You are a francophobe.

Anonymous said...

When does the Raleigh library open? We need Sid to restore order.

Anonymous said...

Sid likes this sort of meaningless discussion.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Yes. I am speculating. That was why I said so.

My point is that we do not know what triggered the decision to remove Sidney from campus."


Or, maybe you were trying to spread false rumors and innuendo?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Sid likes this sort of meaningless discussion."


You have my nomination for post of the week.

Anonymous said...

No. Simply trying to understand what could have happened. I don't believe Harr because he is a liar.

Keep in mind that Harr had the good sense to call a Judge Magistrate a liar in a legal filing because he misstated one of Harr's allegations.

Harr was lucky he was not found in contempt.

Someone who lacks self-control could easily have annoyed others.

Anonymous said...

Tell you what.

I will stop my speculation--or spreading false rumors and innuendo--and ask Sid to remove all my comments that contain it, if Sid does the same. Of course,
Sid will have far more,to remove.

Does that seem fair?

Anonymous said...

It's not necessary. Just go sit in a corner and pat yourself on the head.

Anonymous said...

The way I see it is that the Duke Lacrosse team decided to have a party, and since then everyone else has been harmed because of it.

Unless the Duke Lacrosse team was somehow led to have that party by their Duke leaders or mentors, etc., then their decision to have that gathering has harmed all.

It is not that I am blaming them per se though, it is just that I am wondering how long (if ever) it will take for them to reach a level where they may actually help out others who have been harmed by their decision to have that gathering, instead of watching others get harmed as well because then it makes them feel vindicated or better about their own feelings of being harmed, or for whatever reason they may have to watch or be part of the harm continuing.

I know that may seem like a lofty goal, but I guess it is the reason (in part) why all have been harmed. Because Duke insists (nay demands) that they and their leaders are considered lofty types to be emmulated, the unloftiness of their actions and harm to all is equally amplified by their very own demanding of placing themselves in a position of loftiness (and having others agree with that placement and follow along where lead), and then harming anyone even more who disagrees.

They cannot have it both ways - but yet they insist that they do - and they will kill to achieve it (apparently).

That is how I see Duke today.

Anonymous said...


On 5/4/13 at 8:31 AM Anonymous said:

"Keep in mind that Harr had the good sense to call a Judge Magistrate a liar in a legal filing because he misstated one of Harr's allegations.

Harr was lucky he was not found in contempt."

As I recall, Lady Justice gave Sid a[nother] good whack to his noggin for that one. It'll be a long, longtime before Sid pulls a crass and juvenile stunt like that in a court.

Lady Justice is a tough old bird. Mess with her at your own peril.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:17 that the focus should be on the lacrosse party. The decision to hold the party showed incredibly bad taste. Although the players have apologized, that is not enough.

As a result of the party, Mangum was forced to make false accusations. When evidence discredited those false accusations, she was forced to make new accusations. She has no need to apologize.

As a result of the party, Gottlieb and Himan were forced to conduct a shoddy investigation of the accusations. They were forced to ignore the discrepancies in Mangum's different versions. They were forced to fail to conduct a real investigation. They were forced to run a rigged identification process when Mangum could not make any identifications. They were forced to perjure themselves in grand jury testimony.

As a result of the party, Nifong was forced to give dozens of interviews in which he made guilt presuming statements. Nifong was forced to lie, discussing evidence that did not exist. He was forced to demonstrate how Mangum was choked, an allegation not contained in discovery. He was forced to try the case in the media, triggering the inevitable response in which Mangum was discredited in the media. Nifong was forced to withhold evidence and make false statements in court.

As a result of the party, DPD supervisors were forced to ignore the failure of their subordinates to conduct a bona fide investigation.

As a result of the party, Durham taxpayers were forced to pay legal expenses that exceeded the insurance limits. They earlier had been forced to elect corrupt and incompetent leaders.

As a result of the party, Duke was required to let political correctness run amok. 88 professors were forced to act like complete assholes. Brodhead was forced to downplay the presumption of innocence to avoid criticism from the leftist professors.

Yes. I agree. Many have suffered from the decision to hold a tasteless party. Duke clearly is responsible for all of the bad decisions made by its students.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and you were forced to just write that to feel vindicated in your own feelings of victimhood.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and you were forced to just write that to feel vindicated in your own feelings of victimhood.

No I wasn't. I chose voluntarily to write that to demonstrate their your feelings of victimhood are misplaced.

I was not harmed by the case. I am not a victim.

However, it served as a reminder that the justice system is unfairly tilted in favor of the state. Affluent defendants at least have the resources to fight back against the deep pockets of the state. Sadly, poor defendants do not.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Yes, and you were forced to just write that to feel vindicated in your own feelings of victimhood."

May 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM



Mike, Mike, is that you?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Mike, Mike, is that you?"


May 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM



It sounds more like Cy to me.

Anonymous said...

Back to the question at hand.

Sidney, please enlighten us with your analysis of St v. Welch. According to Walt, that case is central to Crystal's case.

We all look forward to your demonstration of why he is wrong.

Anonymous said...

However, it served as a reminder that the justice system is unfairly tilted in favor of the state. Affluent defendants at least have the resources to fight back against the deep pockets of the state. Sadly, poor defendants do not.

May 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Yeah, too bad the justice system in NC is heavily saturated with Duke and its supporters. The poor in this state who fall victim to Duke (or its affiliates) in any way are doubly harmed. They even end up defending themselves without the assistance of a non-biased lawyer against murder charges brought about by Duke killing a patient and then blaming it on them sometimes, go figure.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr, also, can you tell by the medical records what type of medical personnel made the fatal intubation errors? Was it nurses, interns, doctors, or all of the above? Thank you for your time in answering if you do.


My time on the computer is limited as the computer use in the library on Sunday is very heavy.

I do not know who intubated Daye initially. According to the doctor's note, the esophageal intubation was performed by a respiratory therapist. Anyone who administers paralytics to facilitate intubation should be highly skilled with the procedure.

A negative EtC02 is pretty much indicative of an errant placement of the endotracheal tube. Unless the intubation was extremely difficult, I think the best option to take would be to remove it and re-intubate.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your answer Dr. Harr.

That was my thought as well, that the negative oxygen level should have triggered the replacement of the tube immediately. There is no time to wait for visual checks and other such things if you are concerned about not causing further harm. But I am not a medical person, that would be what I would assume would happen from common sense only.

Anonymous said...

I think Duke would have a harder time proving they were not seriously negligent in the death of Mr. Daye by intubation errors than it would be for Ms. Mangum to prove she was acting in self-defense and that Duke has a serious conflict of interest with her and this case if she had a non-biased lawyer who worked on behalf of her defense and not Duke's.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr, can you please explain exactly why it was decided to intubate Mr. Daye in the first place if possible? If it was because of the paralytic that was given to him, what was the reasoning for chemically paralyzing him in the first place? Was it because he was agitated, or is there an actual medical reason for doing this to someone in his position? Is that normal procedure when a patient experiences DT's after surgery?

I know this may seem crass, but if a person in his position is simply given some wine or beer or something, does that cure the immediate issue of DT's, or is more needed? If he had been let out of the hospital, allowed to go home and have a drink, would Mr. Daye still be alive (given no other unforseen fate)?

My apologies to Mr. Daye's family again for the emotional trauma of these questions. I do not mean to harm you further, and I am sorry if I have or do with my questions. My condolences again.

Anonymous said...

"I think Duke would have a harder time proving they were not seriously negligent in the death of Mr. Daye by intubation errors than it would be for Ms. Mangum to prove she was acting in self-defense."

The difference being, of course, is that while Ms. Mangum is charged with killing Mr. Daye, no one has come forward and charged Duke with any wrongdoing with respect to either Mr. Daye or Ms. Mangum. That undermines your entire premise.

Anonymous said...

Not yet.

Anonymous said...

This site has become even more meaningless and ridiculous than before.........which most would have considered impossible. Harr can be proud. He has attracted mistrail recluse, the bigot, who seems unable to resist the temptation toward run on on on on And on sentences. Duke has an evil mascot, the blue devil.....and they murdered Daye. Wow, who knew!!!!

Anonymous said...

You are seriously Duke centered to call me a bigot for being concerned about the welfare of patients in Duke Hospitals.

I am sure Duke appreciates your assistance in proving just how hard it is to deal with them about right now.

Anonymous said...

If you were a first rate medical facility and you wanted to kill a patient with a stab wound in a way to frame the person who stabbed him, wouldn't there be better ways to do it than to intentionally intubate him improperly? Aren't their ways that would leave virtually no trace and no connection to the facility?

The defense's theory seems shoddy.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "A negative EtC02 is pretty much indicative of an errant placement of the endotracheal tube."

That does not matter one bit. State. v. Welch.

Anonymous at 3:17 "said...
I think Duke would have a harder time proving they were not seriously negligent in the death of Mr. Daye...."


Duke does not have to prove a lack of negligence. Negligence is not an intervening cause. State. v. Welch. To write that it is ignores the law that has been cited here for more than two years.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

What are you going to do Walt if that law proves not to apply to this case since you seem to base all your arguments on it? Do you actually think that is a fair law in this case, or even applies in this case given all the facts, or is it only convenient to you since you are a Duke person and/or fan?

It is fairly sickening to watch you insist on that case being followed in this case AND gloat about Duke the way you do. You do know that don't you?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If you were a first rate medical facility and you wanted to kill a patient with a stab wound in a way to frame the person who stabbed him, wouldn't there be better ways to do it than to intentionally intubate him improperly? Aren't their ways that would leave virtually no trace and no connection to the facility?

The defense's theory seems shoddy.

May 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM

What do you suggest then? That the prosecutors claim Duke is not stupid enough to intentionally kill a patient and get caught doing it? I think they tried to cover it up with the medical examiner's report. That prosecution theory would be hilarious and sickening at the same time to watch, I can assure you.

Anonymous said...

I keep thinking about the recent shooting of the state trooper in Durham compared to this case because of the pregnant woman who is being held for a million bond (I think) for the charge of accessory to aiding and abetting the attempted fleeing of the father of her unborn child directly after he shot the trooper (which she may or may not have known about and certainly played no role in the shooting).

How is it any different for any to aid, abet, or cover up the death of Dr. Daye by intubation error causing brain death than in the case above. In the case above, the trooper did not die at Duke, and he had several major gunshot wounds. In Daye's case, he had one non-fatal stab wound, and died at Duke - and he was not a state trooper. Is it less of a crime for someone to aid and abet Duke in covering up the true cause of death of a patient than it is for someone to aid and abet someone else later accused of shooting a state trooper who did not die? Are the laws not the same, or are they different for Duke and people who harm state troopers?

I am in no way condoning either action btw, only comparing and questioning the aiding and abetting in both cases.

Anonymous said...

If Duke, Durham, or the NC Judicial System want to have any respect afforded them by the citizens of NC after this case is completed, it would seem imperative that they actually consider carefully how they use and/or misuse the justice system in this state and the goodwill, moral decency, and the respect of the judicial system held by the citizens of and visitors to NC.

Anonymous said...

So, like take me for example.

I read about the medial errors in paper, am worried about patients at Duke, and now have seen the medical examiner's and Duke medical records that clearly indicate professional negligence by both parties. I can see where Mr. Daye is made brain dead, which results in his death. Am I supposed to ignore this, and if I do, am I aiding and abetting?

I do not know the answer to that.

Anonymous said...

....."unloftines".......?????? Oooooooo, dear trail has come up with another new word.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 5, 2013 at 9:09 PM

"I think they tried to cover it up with the medical examiner's report. That prosecution theory would be hilarious and sickening at the same time to watch, I can assure you."

You presume a fact not in evidence. You presume you can think.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM

"I read about the medial errors in paper, am worried about patients at Duke, and now have seen the medical examiner's and Duke medical records that clearly indicate professional negligence by both parties. I can see where Mr. Daye is made brain dead, which results in his death. Am I supposed to ignore this, and if I do, am I aiding and abetting?

I do not know the answer to that."

It would be more accurate to say simply you do not know anything, as is evident by this comment.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"A negative EtC02 is pretty much indicative of an errant placement of the endotracheal tube."

Why don't you Google "Glottis" and look at a picture of the glottis.

Seeing on direct laryngoscopy that the tube going through the glottis and not behind it is absolutely indicative the tube was not in the esophagus. The records you illegally accessed and published document that the tube was in the trachea.

Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5/6 3:54AM:

I think it is clear that you are guilty of aiding and abetting. I urge you to turn yourself in to the Durham Police Department as soon as possible and ask to be arrested. No, demand to be arrested.

Walt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:47 said: "What are you going to do Walt if that law proves not to apply to this case since you seem to base all your arguments on it?"

Go read the case and tell me why you think it does not apply. I posted it here along with the citation two years ago. Others have posted links to the case on the COA's website and elsewhere. In those two years no one written why the rule does not apply. But, please do. That would make for an actual discussion of beneficial proportions.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

What are the laws that give cops the right to extend the death penalty to civilians if the cop feels afraid (I mean - we've been witness to cops killing people for holding cell phones, lighters, and panhandling in front of the Duke Hospital, etc. if reading the news), and someone who is clearly defending themselves against an assualt and administers a defensive knife wound with one of the knives being thrown at them in the attack that is not deadly if the proper medical intervention is administered? Duke killing the guy at the front door of their hospital, and then killing Mr. Daye with intubation errors so Ms. Mangum will be charged with murder really puts them in a position to be questioned extensively and held accountable for the deaths that the public is made to witness if reading the news.

Duke has done nothing to assure its patients or the public that they are not guilty of criminally negligent deaths at this point in time IMHO. nothing, nada, zilch. And yet, they expect people to trust them. That to me is serious professional negligence in and of itself, as now more have to face the wrath of people like you find on this list attacking others for questioning Duke's medical errors, etc. if they complain, and face the judicial system that is corrupted by Duke if they want to actually see justice be just in NC.

Anonymous said...


On 5/5/13 at 9:09 PM, Aonymous said:

"What do you suggest then? That the prosecutors claim Duke is not stupid enough to intentionally kill a patient and get caught doing it? I think they tried to cover it up with the medical examiner's report. That prosecution theory would be hilarious and sickening at the same time to watch, I can assure you."

The prosecutors will not make any claims regarding Duke. Remember, Duke is not accused of any wrongdoing in Mr. Daye's death. The prosecutors will simply submit the medical examiners report as evidence of the cause of death. If Ms. Mangum chooses to challenge the report, it will be up to her to produce evidence to refute it. If such evidence exists, she and Sidney are keeping it secret.

Anonymous said...

From what I have read in news about the cases that were recently retried with the Duke's innocence commissions hand in Durham, it is the prosecutors responsibility to check the medical examiners report AND the medical records. They cannot just ignore the evidence that shows that Ms. Mangum did not actually kill Mr. Daye, Duke did.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5/6 3:54AM:

I think it is clear that you are guilty of aiding and abetting. I urge you to turn yourself in to the Durham Police Department as soon as possible and ask to be arrested. No, demand to be arrested.

May 6, 2013 at 4:46 AM

Since I just now found out this information, and have only last week actually viewed the flog that outlines the medical errors clearly, and have been asking questions about it since, I am in no way abetting and assisting Duke in its actions. I am however, wary of the fact that now I must take responsibility as well for what I believe to be severe criminal negligence on the part of Duke and the Medical Examiner. Dr. Harr, it would seem to me, actually had no choice but to try to get these issues addressed as he has. That he has been unsuccessful in getting the assistance of many in the judicial/political sphere of NC is testament to what all face in NC when dealing with Duke in my opinion.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 5:36Am "said...
What are the laws that give cops the right to extend the death penalty to civilians if the cop feels afraid...."


In a long series of cases, the United States Supreme Court has laid out the changes from common law regarding the use of deadly force by police. First, look at the common law. Generally, police could use deadly force to arrest a fleeing felon. No matter if the felon was armed or the felony dangerous. For a misdemeanor, police could only use deadly force if the officer was threatened with harm. Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930) The court regarded that situation as too lenient. As did most states.

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Over the years, courts have heard hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases trying to implement the Tennessee v. Garner standard. For the most part it is a case by case analysis that works fairly well. The real key to a Garner analysis is probable cause. What did the officer know at the time that lead him to conclude the suspect was more likely than not to pose a danger to the officer or others?

Of course Garner is inapplicable to the matter at hand. But, you are woefully uneducated about basic civics, so I feel a need to fill in the gaps for you.

Anonymous at 10:26 PM said "Duke medical records that clearly indicate professional negligence by both parties. I can see where Mr. Daye is made brain dead, which results in his death. Am I supposed to ignore this, and if I do, am I aiding and abetting?"

Nothing, you just admitted it was professional negligence. Negligence is not a crime. Ergo, nothing to report.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "A negative EtC02 is pretty much indicative of an errant placement of the endotracheal tube."

Sid's understanding is consistent with medical literature of the mid-1990s.

Dr. Anonymous wrote: "Why don't you Google "Glottis" and look at a picture of the glottis.

Seeing on direct laryngoscopy that the tube going through the glottis and not behind it is absolutely indicative the tube was not in the esophagus. The records you illegally accessed and published document that the tube was in the trachea.


Dr. Anonymous raises an interesting point. Further, the current medical literature, which Sid is probably not following, says that that various pharmacological and physical interventions may influence ETCO2. Bottom line, medical malpractice as alleged by Sid is not proven. Instead it is contra-indicated by the current literature and Dr. Anonymous' reading of the documents.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr, can you please explain exactly why it was decided to intubate Mr. Daye in the first place if possible? If it was because of the paralytic that was given to him, what was the reasoning for chemically paralyzing him in the first place? Was it because he was agitated, or is there an actual medical reason for doing this to someone in his position? Is that normal procedure when a patient experiences DT's after surgery?

I know this may seem crass, but if a person in his position is simply given some wine or beer or something, does that cure the immediate issue of DT's, or is more needed? If he had been let out of the hospital, allowed to go home and have a drink, would Mr. Daye still be alive (given no other unforseen fate)?

My apologies to Mr. Daye's family again for the emotional trauma of these questions. I do not mean to harm you further, and I am sorry if I have or do with my questions. My condolences again.


Daye was taken to the intensive care unit because of his agitation, and doctors feared he was going into delirium tremens. While there, it was decided to have him undergo some diagnostic tests that required contrast agent. The contrast agent was administered through a naso-gastric tube (introduced in the nostril and ends up in the stomach). Oral contrast agent causes nausea and vomiting... (I vomited after swallowing contrast for a procedure a couple of years ago).

Daye vomited after receiving the contrast agent, and doctors then began to worry about him aspirating... so in order to protect his airway from aspiration or further aspiration and to be able to administer high concentrations of oxygen, it was determined to intubate him.

Paralytics are used to facilitate intubation, for to do so without it can be extremely difficult. Usually a person who administers a paralytic is well experienced in intubation... like an anesthesiologist, for example. So it is surprising that an esophageal intubation would occur under the circumstances.

He Daye had been released from the hospital shortly after his surgery, it is possible that he might have staved off the delirium tremens with alcohol. Mangum claims that he drank a case of beer a day and a gallon of whiskey on weekends. I don't think the medical staff had been able to get ahead of his withdrawal problems with the sedatives given him.

Anonymous said...

Of course Garner is inapplicable to the matter at hand. But, you are woefully uneducated about basic civics, so I feel a need to fill in the gaps for you.

Anonymous at 10:26 PM said "Duke medical records that clearly indicate professional negligence by both parties. I can see where Mr. Daye is made brain dead, which results in his death. Am I supposed to ignore this, and if I do, am I aiding and abetting?"

Nothing, you just admitted it was professional negligence. Negligence is not a crime. Ergo, nothing to report.

Walt-in-Durham

May 6, 2013 at 6:53 AM

yeah walt and you just admitted that I obviously am not educated in the law (basic civics you call it), so I obviously have no idea if negligence is the right word to describe what Duke did to Mr. Daye. So to you, as a lawyer, I am supposed to know the law and not ask or expect legal assistance that supports the person being represented in NC even though I am not a lawyer, is that correct? And if I am not a lawyer, I am supposed to accept on face value whatever legal information I can glean from the news or blogs like this because there are no lawyers in NC without a conflict of interest with Duke to ask these questions of? That is the way it is you know. Do you support that?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...

On 5/5/13 at 9:09 PM, Aonymous said:

"What do you suggest then? That the prosecutors claim Duke is not stupid enough to intentionally kill a patient and get caught doing it? I think they tried to cover it up with the medical examiner's report. That prosecution theory would be hilarious and sickening at the same time to watch, I can assure you."

The prosecutors will not make any claims regarding Duke. Remember, Duke is not accused of any wrongdoing in Mr. Daye's death. The prosecutors will simply submit the medical examiners report as evidence of the cause of death. If Ms. Mangum chooses to challenge the report, it will be up to her to produce evidence to refute it. If such evidence exists, she and Sidney are keeping it secret.


Evidence? Two words: "esophageal intubation."

Anonymous said...

This case is truly horrible. Seriously, completly, and unequivably horrible.

Thank you for your answers again Dr. Harr. That really does clear things up quite a bit.

I will be watching to see who you write to next and what their response is. I am hoping you will write to the Joint Commission Agency and the AG (Mr. Holder I assume, but Mr. Cooper's reply would be equally interesting to see). Thank you again, sincerely.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 6:53 AM wrote: "yeah walt and you just admitted that I obviously am not educated in the law (basic civics you call it), so I obviously have no idea if negligence is the right word to describe what Duke did to Mr. Daye. So to you, as a lawyer, I am supposed to know the law..."

You did not ask a question. Questions use that little punctuation mark that looks like a hook at the end. It looks like this: ?. That you did not do, thus you were not asking a question.

Had you phrased a question, I would have replied by asking you what the standard of care was in the community and how was that standard breached. That is how we define "negligence." So please, state the standard of care and show how it was breached.

Keep in mind that Dr. Anonymous has already written that he looked at the records and sees no esophageal intubation. He along with two practicing physicians who are experts at this sort of thing have also looked at the records and don't see an esophageal intubation. So the burden you have to overcome is significant if you can even state the standard of care as three physicians already disagree with your position. Further, one of those physicians has not only seen the records but has also seen the actual body. That makes your task that much more difficult. However, please lay out the facts as you see them along with the standard and try to convince us.

"...because there are no lawyers in NC without a conflict of interest with Duke to ask these questions of?"

That is a question. However, it assumes facts that are unproven. Thus it is more a transparent form of propaganda than a legitimate question. We touched on the conflict of interest question some time ago in context of an alleged conflict of interest between Roy Cooper and Duke. I wrote that Cooper's law firm had not represented Duke, the university, the tobacco company, the heirs or the utility and asked for someone to put forward where Cooper's conflict arose. No one did. Frankly, the vast majority of attorneys in North Carolina have no conflict of interest problems with Duke as they have never represented them and never will. A small number of attorneys in NC make good money suing Duke for various misdeeds so obviously they don't have a conflict. But, please do present evidence of a conflict of interest if you can. I will go first, my employer is not Duke, but a corporate legal department in RTP. Our company policy forbids us from taking cases outside of work we do for the company. The only exception is our limited pro-bono work. I do taxes for poor people as my pro-bono work. So no conflict problem for me.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said May 5, 2013 at 5:36 AM

"Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"

The question should be, why should SIDNEY's conclusions be accepted as truth? It is res ipsa loquitur that his allegations have no merit.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said May 6, 2013 at 5:37 AM

"They[the prosecutors] cannot just ignore the evidence that shows that Ms. Mangum did not actually kill Mr. Daye, Duke did."

They didn't. There is no evidence which shows Crystal did not kill Reginald Daye. As Walt has pointed out, if she wants to plead self defense, she has to admit to killing Mr. Daue. If she wants to claim that Duke malpractice killed Mr. Daye, she has to prove that in court. SIDNEY's claims do not establish that malpractice occurred.

Anonymous said...

Well that is where the cases differ than don't they. She can and probably will claim both - so the case is different.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: May 6, 2013 at 5:52 AM

"I am however, wary of the fact that now I must take responsibility as well for what I believe to be severe criminal negligence on the part of Duke and the Medical Examiner."

To put your money where your mouth is, you would have to go to court and prove that criminal negligence occurred. Alleging it on a blog is not proof.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Evidence? Two words: "esophageal intubation.""

No Sid, that is not evidence, that is a conclusion you reach based on your understanding that a declining EtCO2 proves esophageal intubation. In fact the medical literature of the 1990s supported your conclusion. A conclusion you logically reached based on the evidence (declining EtCO2) you selected. However, since that time the state of the medical science has changed and now the evidence suggests that there are a number of things that can cause declining or negative EtCO2. Drug interactions and even procedures can cause a negative EtCO2. I would not expect you to know that as you have long been out of practice. But, the current state of the science does inform the views of Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts.

Further, Dr. Nichols had the opportunity to, as Dr. Anonymous suggested, look at the epiglottis. Nichols did not see an esophageal intubation. Dr. Roberts looked at the reports and she did not see one either. Experts can differ but you have refused to acknowledge that Nichols and Roberts are in fact experts who may have a basis for differing from you. Instead you have accused them of fraud. In fact, Nichols looked at the corpse and did not see an esophageal intubation. You cannot substitute his visual examination for your own. Nichols has a scientific basis for his conclusion, the latest medical science. Your conclusion is based on solid, though outdated, medical science. Given that you have forced us to weigh the opinions, I come down on the side of Nichols and Roberts.

That said, it still does not matter. As you well know, I have given you the benefit of the doubt through these last two years and cited the case law that says medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. However, you have caused me to look at the evidence anew along with the science and I conclude that there was no esophageal intubation and thus no medical malpractice.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Evidence? Two words: 'esophageal intubation.'"

Who provided said evidence? SIDNEY HARR.

Was SIDNEY HARR present at the intubation? No.

Does SIDNEY HARR have first hand knowledge of what happened during the intubation? No.

Anonymous said...

When did the change occur Walt, after Mr. Daye's death per chance?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Mangum claims that he drank a case of beer a day and a gallon of whiskey on weekends. I don't think the medical staff had been able to get ahead of his withdrawal problems with the sedatives given him."

That is not very credible testimony considering Crystal herself showed clinical evidence of instoxication.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 9:19 AM wrote: "When did the change occur Walt, after Mr. Daye's death per chance?"

What change are you referring to?

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Regarding the so called evidence of esophageal intubation:

I suggest everyone, not just Sidney, google the term "glottis" and look at a picture of the glottis, the entrance to the trachea. If someone does a laryngoscopy, direct or indirect, it is easy to see whether or not an endotracheal tube is going into the trachea. You see the tube passing into the trachea. If the tube is in the esophagus, what you see is the tube passing behind the glottis.

Anonymous said...

Go to http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nathanclarkecommunication.wikispaces.com/file/view/Anatomy-of-the-larynx.jpg/151326099/Anatomy-of-the-larynx.jpg&imgrefurl=http://g09biorespirationa.wikispaces.com/(3)%2BRespiratory%2Bsystem%2Bstructure&h=480&w=640&sz=61&tbnid=16MM5UAAhQEfRM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__Z5gBvAxsd8ptNCyLjLWSsoWH-9g=&docid=1fmw0dd-oNoTjM&sa=X&ei=xdqHUan-N5T49gT71IDoDg&ved=0CEgQ9QEwBA&dur=36, which will take you to a picture which shows what someone doing a laryngosopy sees. Decide for yourself if it is possible to miss seeing that an endotracheal tube is in the esopohagus.

Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Sid wrote: "Evidence? Two words: "esophageal intubation.""

No Sid, that is not evidence, that is a conclusion you reach based on your understanding that a declining EtCO2 proves esophageal intubation. In fact the medical literature of the 1990s supported your conclusion. A conclusion you logically reached based on the evidence (declining EtCO2) you selected. However, since that time the state of the medical science has changed and now the evidence suggests that there are a number of things that can cause declining or negative EtCO2. Drug interactions and even procedures can cause a negative EtCO2. I would not expect you to know that as you have long been out of practice. But, the current state of the science does inform the views of Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts.

***Walt, this is what I was talking about, exactly when was this medical knowledge updated? In addition, nothing there states that a stab wound caused the loss of oxygen, replacing the intubation tube resolved the issue of the loss of oxygen.

Further, Dr. Nichols had the opportunity to, as Dr. Anonymous suggested, look at the epiglottis. Nichols did not see an esophageal intubation. Dr. Roberts looked at the reports and she did not see one either. Experts can differ but you have refused to acknowledge that Nichols and Roberts are in fact experts who may have a basis for differing from you. Instead you have accused them of fraud. In fact, Nichols looked at the corpse and did not see an esophageal intubation. You cannot substitute his visual examination for your own. Nichols has a scientific basis for his conclusion, the latest medical science. Your conclusion is based on solid, though outdated, medical science. Given that you have forced us to weigh the opinions, I come down on the side of Nichols and Roberts.

***There were other discrepencies in the Medical Examiner's report as well. What is the conflict of interest with those 2 medical examiner's with Duke?

That said, it still does not matter. As you well know, I have given you the benefit of the doubt through these last two years and cited the case law that says medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. However, you have caused me to look at the evidence anew along with the science and I conclude that there was no esophageal intubation and thus no medical malpractice.

***Mr Daye's brain died on the table because of lack of oxygen, that was corrected by reinserting a different size intubation tube with the one that was providing no oxygen - either way where it was placed - the first placement did not work and the second did. If they had immediately replaced it correctly, Mr. Daye would have gotten the oxygen he needed immediately apparently. That is what it says in the medical report, that oxygen was restored as soon as they reinserted a different sized intubation tube, but they took too long, and the brain did not recover.

Walt-in-Durham

May 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Anonymous said...

Dear Mistrail, Walt is an attorney. You are not. Credible physicians have said that Sid is full of bull. You are not a doctor. If you want to believe Sid's nonsense, that's your choice. Please do us all a favor and stop trying to pretend you have a bleepin' clue about Duke, the LAX false rape case and Mangum. Your posts are laughable.

Anonymous said...

So basically:

A female is attacked by her male partner in their home after asking a cop for assistance right before the attack because she was afraid for her safety, and the cop told her merely to take it inside. She does, and ends up getting knives thrown at her, among other violent actions taken against her, and when she is being chocked to death, she tries to save her life by using one of the knives thrown at her to get her attacker off of her and save her life. The knife wound administered is non-fatal with the aid of proper medical assistance.

However, the patient then also becomes agitated in the hospital, so the medical team decides to run more tests (for some reason - although DT's is questioned) and the patient throws up the testing medium, so then asphixation becomes a concern, and the patient is intubated, but the oxygen level is then negative, so instead of immediately taking the tube out so the patient can receive oxygen normally (at least) or with other methods or with the reinsertion of another intubation tube, the medical teams wastes precious brain saving minutes instead of immediately replacing the tube (as is standard procedure) with another, causing the brain to die because of the wasted minutes between the two intubation attempts, with the second being successful in restoring oxygen levels. However, by then the brain of the patient shows no signs of life.

So, the woman who was attacked by the agitated man is charged with murder, even though the hospital successfully treats the man for the knive wounds, but the staff dealing with the same agitated man a few days later killed the patients brain in their attempts to deal with the agitation, whereas, the woman, in her attempts to save her own life from the agitated man's agressive and violent behavior simply administers a non-fatal knife wound in self-defense to keep from being chocked to death.

Were the nurses actually attacked by the patient, or did they simply not want to deal with the agitated man any more than the woman, who was told to deal with him anyway when she asked a cop for help right before he attacked her?

How can you blame one, but not the other in that case? Either you blame both, or neither, for the very same reasons.

I think it is the cops fault for not helping the woman to begin with when she asked for help.

It is not the woman's fault, as her own life was in peril and she was doing what the cop told her to do when she initially, and immediately prior to the event, asked for help out of fear for her safety.

The malpractice is just that, malpractice, although the circumstances are suspicious given the past history between the woman and the hospital which was very negative and caused harm to both.

Since the cause of death was taking the patient off life support due to the brain death incurred during the malpractice received after the man became agitated in the hospital, but not from the surgery to repair the knife wounds administered in self defense from the same agitated man, the hospital's actions in dealing with the agitation and not the woman's actions in dealing with the agitation and agressive attack is the actual legal cause of death, and not the woman's self defensive stab wound.

Is there case law for the type scenerio to be found?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Is there case law for the type scenerio [sic] to be found?"

Yeah...St v. Welch . Perhaps you should try reading it, instead of making up fictional accounts of an incident of which you were never a witness.

Consider yourself enlightened.




Anonymous said...

You know, instead of continually telling everyone to read that case, why doesn't Walt outline exactly how the case applies to this case with all the factors in the above scenerio outlined (or something similar) since that is the account received on this blog so far?

He is the lawyer, so he will know what he is talking about, although he does seem to have a bias against Ms. Mangum.

Why ask Dr. Harr to analyze it when he is not a lawyer, and you'll will just tear apart whatever he says and degrade him at every turn for whatever he says anyway? You'll obviously have plenty of practice at that.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr, I do have one more question about the medical reports.

The ME's report states a stuture on the lungs, but the medical report gives no indication of that. But is it possible for the intubation tube to puncture the lungs, causing the oxygen level to be zero? And is it possible, after a puncture to the lung, that another intubation tube can still restore oxygen levels?

I don't know, I am just wondering. I need to look at those reports again more carefully, but it is a question that I have without fully understanding from the medical records where the tube was placed. Does it expressly state in the medical records that the tube was placed incorrectly? I do not remember.

If the lung was punctured, and Duke went in later and fixed it, shouldn't there be a medical record on that? What do they say was the cause of the first negative oxygen reading? Is it in the medical records?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM:

"Why ask Dr. Harr to analyze it when he is not a lawyer, and you'll will just tear apart whatever he says and degrade him at every turn for whatever he says anyway? You'll obviously have plenty of practice at that."

What comes forth from the mouth of SIDNEY gets torn apart because it is usually a gross distortion of the facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM

"So, the woman who was attacked by the agitated man is charged with murder, even though the hospital successfully treats the man for the knive wounds, but the staff dealing with the same agitated man a few days later killed the patients brain in their attempts to deal with the agitation, whereas, the woman, in her attempts to save her own life from the agitated man's agressive and violent behavior simply administers a non-fatal knife wound in self-defense to keep from being chocked to death."

The legal term for the above, I believe, is presuming facts not in evidence. It is also glaringly obvious the commenter has no concept of what happened.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Dr. Harr, I do have one more question about the medical reports.

The ME's report states a stuture(sic) on the lungs, but the medical report gives no indication of that. But is it possible for the intubation tube to puncture the lungs, causing the oxygen level to be zero? And is it possible, after a puncture to the lung, that another intubation tube can still restore oxygen levels?

I don't know, I am just wondering. I need to look at those reports again more carefully, but it is a question that I have without fully understanding from the medical records where the tube was placed. Does it expressly state in the medical records that the tube was placed incorrectly? I do not remember."

"If the lung was punctured, and Duke went in later and fixed it, shouldn't there be a medical record on that? What do they say was the cause of the first negative oxygen reading? Is it in the medical records?"

You again show how lacking in knowledge you are. No one who knew anything about intubation would ask such a question.

Anonymous said...

The legal term for the above, I believe, is presuming facts not in evidence. It is also glaringly obvious the commenter has no concept of what happened.

May 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM

oh surprise (not) another degradation of anything said by anyone on this list actually trying to understand the real case. yeah, horray! go duke ...

yeah!

It gets old quickly, and so expected, it loses any concept of anything except conflict of interest with duke and hatred of Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM

"You know, instead of continually telling everyone to read that case, why doesn't Walt outline exactly how the case applies to this case with all the factors in the above scenerio(sic) outlined (or something similar) since that is the account received on this blog so far?"

Walt has. You are just incapable of realizing it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
May 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM

"It is not the woman's fault, as her own life was in peril".

It has not been established as fact that Crystal's life was in peril.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM:

"The malpractice is just that, malpractice, although the circumstances are suspicious given the past history between the woman and the hospital which was very negative and caused harm to both."

It has not been established as fact that malpractice took place.

Crystal's history with Duke is that after she alleged rape, she was taken to DUMC ER and evaluated, which evaluation showed no evidence of a rape.

All that did was show Crystal was a false accuser.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM:

"Is there case law for the type scenerio to be found?"

Yes. Walt in Durham on multiple occasions has referred to State vs. Welch.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 12:46 wrote: "You know, instead of continually telling everyone to read that case, why doesn't Walt outline exactly how the case applies to this case with all the factors in the above scenerio outlined (or something similar) since that is the account received on this blog so far?"

I did analyze the case over two years ago when I posted it here. The reason I ask you, Sid and everyone else to analyze St. v. Welch is it the foundation for your understanding of the case against Crystal. If you don't understand the law, you cannot argue effectively.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

I am really glad Ms. Mangum has an attorney to assist her again, and I hope that this new lawyer is able to represent her best interests without bias towards Duke or the ME or anything else but Ms. Mangum.

I haven't read that case yet because I don't trust what Walt says yet, because he does not seem to take into account the underlying issues of Duke's hatred of Ms. Mangum, and that is all anyone has seen in the news and on these blogs - Duke hating Ms. Mangum.

If he can address that issue with the case he cites, than I might be more apt to agree with him. It is a huge factor in this case, and everyone will see it that way, because that is what everyone sees and knows - that Duke hates Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Crystal's history with Duke is that after she alleged rape, she was taken to DUMC ER and evaluated, which evaluation showed no evidence of a rape.

All that did was show Crystal was a false accuser.

May 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Well if that is the case, than it also shows the Duke SANE nurse was a false accuser, since she is the one who stated a rape occured.

She should never have been taken to Duke in the first place. Why was that done, when she was obviously involved with the entire Duke Lacrosse team, so the conflict of interest was so obvious, that whoever took her to Duke was wrong to begin with. Even Duke insisting on examination (which she declined) was wrong. They should have sent her to UNC or somewhere else as soon as they knew of the conflict of interest, which was immediately, and definetely after she tried to refuse Duke's medical care, but THEY insisted. Duke's fault again, over, and over, and over again.

Break the Conspiracy said...

I draw readers' attention to "Dr. Notes Intubation" (the third report in the second group included in this blog). Toward the end is the following: "Initial intubation turned out to be esophageal."

I encourage readers to comment on that specific report.

Esophageal intubation may not absolve Mangum of responsibility for Daye's death. As Walt has noted, St. v. Welch provides that medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. Although Sidney has finally acknowledged that case, he has not yet provided his analysis.

I commented earlier (a comment Sidney has acknowledged, but to which he has not yet provided a substantive response) that Sidney's challenge is to establish delirium tremens as the independent cause for the intubation. In doing so, he must overcome the possibility that the stab wound or infection from the stab wound triggered or worsened that condition.

Alternatively, Sidney may demonstrate why St. v. Welch is not applicable.

If his next flog does not address that case, I believe all readers must conclude that Sidney cannot be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

Naw, just you for claiming he has to do anything at all for you to take him seriously. Anyway, he is not supposed to be giving more info than he already has per the new lawyers request - so really - why do you challenge him to go against that?

Do you think the new lawyer will be able to do the job for Ms. Mangum that is needed to provide a fair and just defense?

Anonymous said...

1. Federal law, EMTALA, required that Mangum be taken to the nearest hospital by transport. She was at the Durham Access Center in Durham. She was taken to the Duke ED when she changed her story, again, and said she had been raped....during a conversation with a social worker at the DAC All this info is documented in the record of the case.
2. The SANE did NOT say Mangum had been raped. She said there was "some evidence of local redness and edema in the vaginal area" consistent with the possibility of sexual activity". When asked if she had any pain in ANY area of her genitals, Mangum reported none. Subsequently, in testimony, the SANE admitted that the redness and swelling could have come from any/all kinds of sexual activity, including the use of vibrators and other sex toys....which Mangum admitted to have been using that same night, earlier, with another "date" in a motel.
3. Duke showed NO bias against Mangum. In fact, the bias shown was against the LAX guys. If you had ever read even one word of the factual history of what transpired in 2006, you would know this. There was an astounding bias against the LAX guys, a rush to judgment, a public condemnation by the infamous Group of 88, an unforgivable lack of support from Brodhead, etc. To claim that Duke was biased against Mangum is so blatantly silly, it is comical. Read the record of FACTS before you make an ass of yourself with such nonsense.
4. State V Welch is not that difficult to read and understand. It is clear. If you do not understand proximate cause, then you need to educate yourself.
5. Sid is already bad mouthing Holmes.....because, so far, Holmes has told Sid and others, in effect, to shut the hell up.

Anonymous said...

yeah, good idea

Anonymous said...

You do know Duke used Ms. Mangum, the NC Judicial System, ALL the citizens of NC and the USA, the entire Duke organization, and lord knows who else to get what THEY wanted (and it wasn't justice).

So why are you'll SO effing mean, crass, rude, abusive, and making everyone else suffer for what Duke did? Do you think their abuse of the NC and USA public ends there? It is a continuous misuse of anything and everything that benefits them finacially or power wise or for their own edification or publicity. That is Duke.

Anonymous said...

How MANY people were subsequently raped and abused because of that case do you suppose? Don't say none, because there is data to prove that rapes in Durham increased after that case. THAT is just ONE simple example.

Duke truly sucks and owes the USA AND NC citizens a HUGE apology for what they have done and continue to do. They are the VERY WORST LEADERS ever, except for others who were worse.

Anonymous said...

"They were the very worst leaders ever, except for others who were worse"........ Worst? Worse? How can you be worse than the worst?
Dear poster, education is a wonderful thing.....sorry you missed out.....

Anonymous said...

and yet you have a problem with me trying to learn more, so, where does that put you - in the hey I know how to spell category but never say anything worth spelling right anyway, and really get into annoying others by correcting their spelling on on-line blogs - which everyone knows by now annoys the ... out of EVERYONE.

yeah for you

Anonymous said...

Even if I was given a full scholarship to Duke, I would decline.

I am not the only one who feels this way either.

That is how much I do NOT respect Duke anymore.

Anonymous said...

Trust me, dear, you would not be given a scholarship to Duke unless you understood superlatives....worst and worse than worst.....:) so, not to worry....you won't be bothered to decline.

Anonymous said...

and you know I am so very glad of that and like myself even better that I understood what I said (and so does everyone else except for you).

I know I don't ever have to worry about Duke giving me a full scholarship and I proudly wave my non-duke flag for that - yeah!

Anonymous said...

You have not read the state v welch case because you don't trust what walt says? that comment makes NO sense. if you don't trust Walt, read the case for yourself! Or, perhaps, you (being a sidney sheep) will wait for the good doctor to elucidate......him being the highly experienced lawyer-doctor-whiner-in-chief he is. I am certain that sidney knows far more about the law than Walt.....we all know how smart sidney is.......him winning all those cases before the bar.
Lord, please send a brain package to the poster......

Anonymous said...

wave your little flag, wear your little yellow t-shirt, click your heels together three times, and say, I love Dr. Harr before you go to sleepy every night.....

Poster, the point is that you need to educate yourself with FACTS. Read the case (non rape hoax) record before you leap to conclusions. Try to restrain yourself from assuming that sidney harr is preaching straight from the bible. You would not look so foolish and ignorant on the site if you took the time to inform yourself......rather than blindly following harr around by the nose

Anonymous said...

seriously, are you going to keep beating up on me for your own edification? What exactly is your problem where you feel the need to sit on this blog and abuse others, eh? Curious minds want to know - why are you so effing mean?

Anonymous said...

You know what it says about this current case that people on this blog have to consistently go back to the other case trying continuously to convince others of a non-rape hoax:

1. You think Ms. Mangum and others deserves to be treated unfairly in the judicial system and by Duke people, without anyone having a problem with it, even though it obviously was not her fault (or other people's who were not involved and did nothing wrong) for what EVERYONE else did wrong that caused so much harm to all.

2. That you will never listen to the fact that people take what they got from the justice system about that case: that there was no credible evidence and everyone got terribly emotional, mentally, and sometimes physically abused because of that case, because of politics, etc. That was it.

3. You yourself feel harmed by the case, and think it is okay to beat up on others because of it for no reason, other than you are lead to believe that it is an OK thing to do, when it is not, and never will be.

Anonymous said...

4. All the non-duke people who live in Durham and NC are now (as if they were not before - but that is a different story) Duke's tin cans to be kicked around and trashed however and whenever any Duke person feels like it and noone of Duke elk will mind or have the guts to say anything about it, or to stop the abuse, or help out Duke's latest victims.

Anonymous said...

Troll alert, all. The asshat poster who thinks "it was not Mangum's fault" is with us......
ding ding ding.......we have a winner......dumbest post of the week!

Anonymous said...

Walt, any sign, as yet, that Holmes will ask to delay the July trial date? Any news on a plea deal? I assume Holmes is doing his best to build her defense.

Anonymous said...

Duke has elk? Who knew....Where do they keep them?

Anonymous said...

LOL, poster.....elk! Perhaps they keep them in the "lee-more" cages.

Anonymous said...

You have very serious issues don't you? Go look in a mirror and pick on yourself for awhile why don't you.
Since you are so perfect and all, I'm sure it will be a very short and silent conversation. Have fun.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:09 AM -- FWIW, I make no claims to perfection. Just to being smarter and generally better informed than you.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
This case is truly horrible. Seriously, completly, and unequivably horrible.

Thank you for your answers again Dr. Harr. That really does clear things up quite a bit.

I will be watching to see who you write to next and what their response is. I am hoping you will write to the Joint Commission Agency and the AG (Mr. Holder I assume, but Mr. Cooper's reply would be equally interesting to see). Thank you again, sincerely.


Hey. I do not expect Attorney General Cooper to respond... seeing as how I wrote the formal complaint nearly a year ago.

I have also written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about this case and requested an appointment and have not heard from him either. Then when I went to Washington, DC, I could even get into the Justice Building because I didn't have an appointment.

I haven't written the Joint Commission Agency yet, but will consider it.

Inigo Montoya said...

Anonymous -- You keep using that word, "edification". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous said May 5, 2013 at 5:36 AM

"Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"

The question should be, why should SIDNEY's conclusions be accepted as truth? It is res ipsa loquitur that his allegations have no merit.


Duke University Hospital, Dr. Nichols, and the mainstream media all are aware that an esophageal intubation was responsible for Daye's brain death.

If the initial intubation was properly positioned in the trachea, why would it be removed once Daye lapsed into cardiac arrest and replaced with another endotracheal tube?

How do you explain the second intubation... or is it your belief that Daye was intubated only once?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:09 AM -- FWIW, I make no claims to perfection. Just to being smarter and generally better informed than you.

May 7, 2013 at 7:21 AM

I do not think you are smarter to keep picking on me actually, kinda dumb if you ask me.

Typical Duke stance and behavior btw. nothing new

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr, I do have one more question about the medical reports.

The ME's report states a stuture on the lungs, but the medical report gives no indication of that. But is it possible for the intubation tube to puncture the lungs, causing the oxygen level to be zero? And is it possible, after a puncture to the lung, that another intubation tube can still restore oxygen levels?

I don't know, I am just wondering. I need to look at those reports again more carefully, but it is a question that I have without fully understanding from the medical records where the tube was placed. Does it expressly state in the medical records that the tube was placed incorrectly? I do not remember.

If the lung was punctured, and Duke went in later and fixed it, shouldn't there be a medical record on that? What do they say was the cause of the first negative oxygen reading? Is it in the medical records?


The endotracheal tube could not possibly puncture the lungs because it is not long enough to even reach the lungs. Sometimes, if extended too far, the tube will be advanced past the trachea and into the bronchus, usually the right.

I do not believe that the left lung was punctured or perforated as there was never any sign of a pneumothorax (air in the sac surrounding the lungs). Although the lungs may have not been fully expanded at the bases (atelectasis), that doesn't necessarily mean that the lung was damaged.

Also, to my recollection, a chest tube was never inserted and even if one was inserted, if done properly it should not puncture the lung.

I do not believe that there was a sutured lesion to the lung. Dr. Nichols' autopsy report also claimed that he saw a suture lesion to the fundus of the stomach, whereas the operative report stated that the stomach appeared normal. The entire autopsy report is fiction.

Anonymous said...

Typical Durham behavior...Always the poor victim.

Rise above
We're gonna rise above
Think they're smart
Can't think for themselves
Rise above
We're gonna rise above
Laugh at us
Behind our backs
I find satisfaction
In what they lack

- Black Flag, "Rise Above"

Anonymous said...

Hey. I do not expect Attorney General Cooper to respond... seeing as how I wrote the formal complaint nearly a year ago.

***Did you directly write to him? I do not know, of course, what he has to say about the matter, but it would be interesting to the rest of the NC citizens as well to see what if anything he has to say about the problems in this case that basically effects everyone in NC, and especially those who have to rely on Duke for critical services, like health care and the judicial system to a large degree. He cannot continue to let Duke keep harming people like they do.

I have also written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about this case and requested an appointment and have not heard from him either. Then when I went to Washington, DC, I could even get into the Justice Building because I didn't have an appointment.

***When did you write to him? How long ago? That is abusive to all citizens of NC if he will not help get these problems fixed if it is his job to do so.

I haven't written the Joint Commission Agency yet, but will consider it.

***I am not sure they can help either, but I have seen them try to get Duke to improve their services before. They are the keepers of licensing in this state, I think, so Duke has to listen to them to some degree.

Thank you again for your replies, I wish all those others you have asked for replies from were as concerned for the welfare of NC as you appear to be. Things would be so much easier and more civilized for all if they were.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hey. I do not expect Attorney General Cooper to respond... seeing as how I wrote the formal complaint nearly a year ago.

***Did you directly write to him? I do not know, of course, what he has to say about the matter, but it would be interesting to the rest of the NC citizens as well to see what if anything he has to say about the problems in this case that basically effects everyone in NC, and especially those who have to rely on Duke for critical services, like health care and the judicial system to a large degree. He cannot continue to let Duke keep harming people like they do.

I have also written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about this case and requested an appointment and have not heard from him either. Then when I went to Washington, DC, I could even get into the Justice Building because I didn't have an appointment.

***When did you write to him? How long ago? That is abusive to all citizens of NC if he will not help get these problems fixed if it is his job to do so.

I haven't written the Joint Commission Agency yet, but will consider it.

***I am not sure they can help either, but I have seen them try to get Duke to improve their services before. They are the keepers of licensing in this state, I think, so Duke has to listen to them to some degree.

Thank you again for your replies, I wish all those others you have asked for replies from were as concerned for the welfare of NC as you appear to be. Things would be so much easier and more civilized for all if they were.


The letter I wrote to the Attorney General is on the latest flog. It was written as a formal complaint. I received no reply.

I wrote Eric Holder about Mangum's case in June or July of 2012, and most recently wrote the first part of April 2013. I received no reply.

Anonymous said...

to the poster who keeps picking on me because they think they can abuse NC citizens willy nilly because they are Duke:

Duke harmed Duke, and you (and those like you) keep harming them as well with your hateful behavior and attitudes. The rest of us, we are all about ready to tell Duke where they can stuff it if they keep it up, don't you know.

Anonymous said...

The letter I wrote to the Attorney General is on the latest flog. It was written as a formal complaint. I received no reply.

oh, I apologize, I did not read all the letters. I need to do that, and will.

I wrote Eric Holder about Mangum's case in June or July of 2012, and most recently wrote the first part of April 2013. I received no reply.

She does have another lawyer now, so that is good let's hope. Maybe the new lawyer will address these issues as well, but that remains to be seen. I do not know what to say about Mr. Holder. He refused to get involved during the Lacrosse case too from what I remember. If he had gotten involved then, things may not still be so bad in NC. He does have a conflict of interest with Duke too I believe, you do know that?

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
I draw readers' attention to "Dr. Notes Intubation" (the third report in the second group included in this blog). Toward the end is the following: "Initial intubation turned out to be esophageal."

I encourage readers to comment on that specific report.

Esophageal intubation may not absolve Mangum of responsibility for Daye's death. As Walt has noted, St. v. Welch provides that medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. Although Sidney has finally acknowledged that case, he has not yet provided his analysis.

I commented earlier (a comment Sidney has acknowledged, but to which he has not yet provided a substantive response) that Sidney's challenge is to establish delirium tremens as the independent cause for the intubation. In doing so, he must overcome the possibility that the stab wound or infection from the stab wound triggered or worsened that condition.

Alternatively, Sidney may demonstrate why St. v. Welch is not applicable.

If his next flog does not address that case, I believe all readers must conclude that Sidney cannot be taken seriously.


Hey, Break.

Overwhelming consensus is in favor of addressing State v. Welch, so I will begin working on it later this week.

And thank you for pointing out that passage in the Doctor's Notes that refers to the "esophageal intubation." Non-believers, Nay-sayers, Doubting Thomases, Ill-willers, Nifong detractors, and others of their ilk seem to have occipital lobes in their brains that prevent them from seeing those two words.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"When did you write to him? How long ago? That is abusive to all citizens of NC if he will not help get these problems fixed if it is his job to do so.

Anonymous, did you ever take a civics course at any grade level?

Here's what the job of the US Attorney General is, according to the Judiciary Act that created the role:
"to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."

Consider yourself enlightened

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, did you ever take a civics course at any grade level?


Seriously, you have a problem with a non lawyer not knowing things most people do not know as if they bugs to be squashed don't you. Your attitude sucks, and for that, so does your enlightenment.

Mr. Holder is responsbile for much more than that, I can assure you. He is the head of a very large and encompassing organization.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey. I do not expect Attorney General Cooper to respond... seeing as how I wrote the formal complaint nearly a year ago."

Why would anyone respond to a non entity?

"I have also written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about this case and requested an appointment and have not heard from him either. Then when I went to Washington, DC, I could even get into the Justice Building because I didn't have an appointment."

How strange. Are you now going to claim hey have been co-opted by the non existent carpetbagger jihad?

"I haven't written the Joint Commission Agency yet, but will consider it."

It will be just as powerful as your threats to humiliate the state bar.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The letter I wrote to the Attorney General is on the latest flog. It was written as a formal complaint. I received no reply.

I wrote Eric Holder about Mangum's case in June or July of 2012, and most recently wrote the first part of April 2013. I received no reply."

I as again, why would either respond to a non entity?

Anonymous said...

Dear DOCTOR Harr. If you ever were a physician, you would know there is no such entity as the Joint Commission Agency. The organization to which the ignorant poster may be referring, and to which you also refer, in ignorance, is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization........or, as providers in healthcare very well know, the Joint Commission, period. Also, if you ever were a physician, you would also know that JCAHO absolutely has no involvement with, no jurisdiction over, and would absolutely NOT involve itself with an active criminal case. You have once again proven to all of us that you are either lying about your professional background or you have serious mental capacity issues.
I would also point out, once again, that you have refused to provide ANY documentation of your professional background, experience, credentials and basis for expertise in ANY aspect of medicine involved with the Daye case. You have provide NO evidence to show that you EVER performed a single autopsy, that you EVER worked as a cardiothoracic surgeon, a general trauma surgeon, a pathologist or as a medical examiner. You have provided NO documentation that you have any experience in ANY field related to forensics.
I challenge you, yet again, to prove that you have even one tiny shred of relevant expertise/documentation. You might also want to sharpen up on advances in critical care/trauma care medicine. We stopped bloodletting and brain plugging sometime ago.

Anonymous said...

The entire nonsensical thread about Duke's involvement in the case is just exactly that.....nonsense. Duke is not on trial. State v. Welch, sidney........
Nichols is right. She stabbed him. He died. Period.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Your attitude sucks, and for that, so does your enlightenment."

Just to make this easy for you, focus on the key words "prosecute" and "advice and opinions...requested by the President..or heads of other departments"

You're welcome.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Anonymous@ 8:39 --

JCAHO rebranded itself "The Joint Commission" (TJC) in 2007.

Anonymous said...

Just thought everyone should know -- The US dept. of Health and Human Services is investigating
This blog site and Sidney Harr for possible HIPAA privacy violations for posting Reginald Daye's medical records.

More details as they are available.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, posting Reginald Daye's medical records appear to be a violation of Mr. Daye's civil rights.

Generally, in North Carolina, you have the right to get a deceased patient’s medical record only if you are the executor or administrator of their estate or, If the estate is not administered, you are their next of kin.

The Dept. Of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights are deciding now if they have the authority and are able to take action.

Anonymous said...

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Your attitude sucks, and for that, so does your enlightenment."

Just to make this easy for you, focus on the key words "prosecute" and "advice and opinions...requested by the President..or heads of other departments"

You're welcome.

May 7, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Since Mr. Holder is the head of the department, then asking him to do his job for NC, (since NC has judicial issues they cannot seem to fix for themeselves), seems like something that anyone in NC could do. Mr Cooper's inability to assist NC citizens with Duke makes Mr. Holder next in line.

What do you suggest to do to get the justice department in this state and country to help the citizens of NC stop Duke from their continued abuse?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Since Mr. Holder is the head of the department, then asking him to do his job for NC, (since NC has judicial issues they cannot seem to fix for themeselves), seems like something that anyone in NC could do. Mr Cooper's inability to assist NC citizens with Duke makes Mr. Holder next in line."

Both Mr. Cooper and Mr. Holder fall under the executive branch of government. Judicial issues fall under the....Wait for it....
Judicial branch of government.

It's the job of the state Supreme Court to resolve claims that there are errors in legal procedures or in judicial interpretation of the law in the lower courts.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"What do you suggest to do to get the justice department in this state and country to help the citizens of NC stop Duke from their continued abuse"

You have to start by proving that "continued abuse" exists.

Just as Sid found in his bogus civil rights claim against Duke, "abuse" is not in the eye of the beholder.

If you think you have a justifiable claim against Duke, get a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that there was a sutured lesion to the lung. Dr. Nichols' autopsy report also claimed that he saw a suture lesion to the fundus of the stomach, whereas the operative report stated that the stomach appeared normal. The entire autopsy report is fiction.

***Thank you for that explanation.
I was wondering if perhaps that was the reason for the autopsy report stating there was a suture on the lungs, but didn't see anything in the medical reports that indicated a need for it.

As far as the HIPPA violations, you probably should not have posted them, but I can understand why you did in this case. If Mr. Daye's family wants to sue you for doing so, I hope they also consider that what you have posted has also given them the information to sue Duke for putting them and Mr. Daye through so much trauma. (I don't know if they can sue you btw, I have no idea).

In NC, if patient dies, you have a statute of limitations of one year. That is probably why Duke tried to cover up the information with the autopsy report (among other reasons), or at least why they have tried to get Mr. Daye's family to blame Ms. Mangum and not them for so long ... so they could wait the year out. Very, very, very abusive if you ask me. But I do not know if that is what happened, it just appears that way at this point in time from what I have read here about what is and did happen with this case so far.

If they are now just coming to full realization of what happened, then perhaps they still have a year to file, I do not know.

Anonymous said...

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"What do you suggest to do to get the justice department in this state and country to help the citizens of NC stop Duke from their continued abuse"

You have to start by proving that "continued abuse" exists.

Just as Sid found in his bogus civil rights claim against Duke, "abuse" is not in the eye of the beholder.

If you think you have a justifiable claim against Duke, get a lawyer.

May 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Mr. Holder and Mr. Cooper are lawyers - so anyone asking for their assistance should not have to be a lawyer as well, especially when they are asking for the abuse to stop for all. If you do not think that what has been happening in Durham and NC at the hands of Duke for a very long time is not abusive (to say the least), than I would hate to see what you would call abuse from Duke.

Anonymous said...

oth Mr. Cooper and Mr. Holder fall under the executive branch of government. Judicial issues fall under the....Wait for it....
Judicial branch of government.

That seems very odd don't you think, since it was Mr. Cooper who dismissed a judicial case with the lacrosse case. Mr. Cooper is head over many branches, including the SBI, which is judicial and not executive from what I understand. He is also protector of all NC citizens against companies who abuse them, including Duke. He also decides anti-trust issues and hospital allocation issues, including Duke hospitals. If anyone is confused about his responsibilities, Mr. Cooper has only himself to blame for that.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Mr. Holder and Mr. Cooper are lawyers - so anyone asking for their assistance should not have to be a lawyer as well, especially when they are asking for the abuse to stop for all."

Mr. Holder and Mr. Cooper are both limited by the positions they hold. That is why we have separate branches of government.

It's the Judicial Branch that interprets what our laws mean and makes decisions about the laws and those who break them.

Which is why I recommend that if you think Duke is breaking the law, you should gather the appropriate information and file a suit in the appropriate court.

I also advise you to get a lawyer skilled in the necessary areas (civil or criminal -- whichever you feel Duke has violated). Sid's civil suit is a perfect example of what happens when you don't engage a lawyer

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

" since it was Mr. Cooper who dismissed a judicial case with the lacrosse case."

Not unusual -- as the state's top prosecutor, it is well within his purview to determine if the state does not have the evidence to go forward with a trial.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"...including the SBI, which is judicial and not executive from what I understand."

You'd be wrong.
Simply put, The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws.

Therefore, the police at any level (including the SBI -- which can work a case only at the request of the local department that maintains original jurisdiction) falls under the executive branch.

Anonymous said...

You'd be wrong.
Simply put, The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws.


ok, so what is your problem with asking Mr. Cooper for help in this case. We don't need him to make or interpret the law in this case, we need him to get Duke to stop breaking the law.

I know you will ask how are they breaking the law without really thinking about it, so before you do that, I will ask you the same - how do YOU think Duke is breaking the law?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"ok, so what is your problem with asking Mr. Cooper for help in this case."

I don't have a problem with it. Apparently, the North Carolina Constitution does, however. If you don't like it, get the Constitution changed.

"how do YOU think Duke is breaking the law?"

I'm not aware of any instance where Duke is currently breaking the law.

in the past, Duke violated FERPA laws with regards to education records they shared with Mike Nifong without getting permission. This was one of the reasons Duke settled the LAX player lawsuit -- they knew they were guilty.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous said...

"What do you suggest to do to get the justice department in this state and country to help the citizens of NC stop Duke from their continued abuse"

Step 1 would be for someone to come forward with a credible claim.

Thus far, we have only the unsubstantiated complaints made on this website by a single person person with indirect knowledge, questionable qualifications, a reputation as a bit of a wingnut, a history of making bogus claims, and a vendetta against Duke. No one has yet to come forth and make a credible accusation against either Duke or DUMC.

Just because you read something on the internet doesn't mean its true. The real world requires proof to back claims, and that is something Sidney isn't very good at.

Anonymous said...

HiPPA is a federal law. If, in f act, Harr is finally being investigated for apparent HIPPA violations, I applaud the investigatory action being taken. What he did was unethical.....whether it was also a violation of the law remains to be seen. ( I think it was, no question, but I am a private citizen....not the law). At the very least, Harr has repeatedly screwed with Mangum's defense, given away information that should have been strictly confidential, and otherwise caused her nothing but trouble.
Name ONE example of how Duke is currently violating the law and then provide evidence/documention to support your CLAIM. Duke handed over student records and violated FERPA, as has been pointed out to you. (in the LAX case). They made mockery of their own student handbook and made it clear there was and is NO commitment to fair and equal protection for all their students. So, again, poster, name and document with evidence one example of how Duke is violating the law today. As brillant as you think you are, your opinions are worth no more (and no less) than anybody else's who posts on this site......it's called backing up your bullshit, poster.

Anonymous said...

As brillant as you think you are, your opinions are worth no more (and no less) than anybody else's who posts on this site......it's called backing up your bullshit, poster.

mad bad little dukie, what fun

Anonymous said...


in the past, Duke violated FERPA laws with regards to education records they shared with Mike Nifong without getting permission. This was one of the reasons Duke settled the LAX player lawsuit -- they knew they were guilty.


***So did they also settle with Mr. Daye's family when they killed him with a faulty intubation attempt?

Anonymous said...

so, "mad bad little dukie, what fun" is an example of your ability and willingness to back up your bullshit? wow, you wild erudite thing, you.......

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

so, "mad bad little dukie, what fun" is an example of your ability and willingness to back up your bullshit? wow, you wild erudite thing, you.......

May 7, 2013 at 1:54 PM

naw, just negating yours

i learn fairly quickly, being around you'll is a true learning experience, I can assure you

actually, i'm just pissed at duke right now - and i am obviously not one to take continuous abuse very well - so brilliant or erudite - who cares. this is NOT about me you know, and there is no reason for Ms. Mangum to spend eons in prison for crimes she did not commit - that is so common in NC - why is it so difficult to see that in this case as well

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"***So did they also settle with Mr. Daye's family when they killed him with a faulty intubation [sic] attempt?"

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Daye's family has not pursued a lawsuit against Duke. So there's no reason for any settlement.

There's also the little matter that, had Mangum not stabbed Daye, he wouldn't have needed treatment. It's all in St v. Welch, if you'd take a few minutes to read it (and a few more minutes to look up those words you don't understand).

Anonymous said...

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"***So did they also settle with Mr. Daye's family when they killed him with a faulty intubation [sic] attempt?"

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Daye's family has not pursued a lawsuit against Duke. So there's no reason for any settlement.


***that is only because Duke lied to them probably.

There's also the little matter that, had Mangum not stabbed Daye, he wouldn't have needed treatment. It's all in St v. Welch, if you'd take a few minutes to read it (and a few more minutes to look up those words you don't understand).

***THAT does not negate the malpractice, or a suit for malpractice by Mr. Daye's family. What are they going to say, it's not their fault they decided to do procedures on him when he was already sick with dt's, so they should have resolved the dt's first, not given him liquid to make him sicker, they should have made him better first. or that it's not their fault that he had dt's? It's not Ms. Mangum's fault he was an drinker and had dt's and decided to attack her when he was so drunk, now is it? anyway, they should not have made him sicker to begin with, they should've treated the dt's first.

Anonymous said...

duke is just evil
point effing blank
and you'll can harp on that for awhile
have fun
loads of it
enjoy

Anonymous said...

There is another question of course about the discrepancies between the ME's report and medical reports.

If neither examiner saw the damage that indicated what is said on the medical report about the intubation attempt, than perhaps the damage never did take place.

That is an obvious discrepancy between the two, and someone is wrong, and it does not necessarily mean the ME's were wrong, and that Duke did what is said on the reports. That is not proven yet - who actually was 'wrong' in that instance.

Anonymous said...

Famous evil mascots:
Mighty Ducks
Saints
Fightin' Roosters
...and, of course.....the Tar Holes

Anonymous said...

leave the state and go to school somewhere else then why don't you. Duke sucks

Anonymous said...

So, sidney, I guess this web site has turned into a grade school "duke sucks" toddler rant. Aren't you proud of your followers these days?? Victoria, the bigot, mistrail recluse, the challenged, kenny hissy, the sissy-whiner, and this poster (who may be one or two of these same people, reincarnated)......the truly entertaining fearer of evil mascots. Hilarious.....

Mary said...

Hey Lance.....you are right.....the Joint shortened it up as a brand.... though old schoolers, like me, still refer to them as JCAHO, their formal name. Actually, we refer to them by a variety of names, depending on whether it's one of those 8:00AM, three year unannounced surveyors.....at the front door. :)

Anonymous said...

Duke doesn't need an evil mascot - they just are evil. Everything said here by Duke people is so obviously nonprofessional to Duke's patients and the citizens of NC it is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

ok, duke hater, explain to all of us just exactly, with a specific example you can prove, with documentation, what duke has done to deserve your hatred.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Just thought everyone should know -- The US dept. of Health and Human Services is investigating
This blog site and Sidney Harr for possible HIPAA privacy violations for posting Reginald Daye's medical records.

More details as they are available.


Are you just running off at the keyboard, or can you substantiate your claim?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I do not believe that there was a sutured lesion to the lung. Dr. Nichols' autopsy report also claimed that he saw a suture lesion to the fundus of the stomach, whereas the operative report stated that the stomach appeared normal. The entire autopsy report is fiction.

***Thank you for that explanation.
I was wondering if perhaps that was the reason for the autopsy report stating there was a suture on the lungs, but didn't see anything in the medical reports that indicated a need for it.

As far as the HIPPA violations, you probably should not have posted them, but I can understand why you did in this case. If Mr. Daye's family wants to sue you for doing so, I hope they also consider that what you have posted has also given them the information to sue Duke for putting them and Mr. Daye through so much trauma. (I don't know if they can sue you btw, I have no idea).

In NC, if patient dies, you have a statute of limitations of one year. That is probably why Duke tried to cover up the information with the autopsy report (among other reasons), or at least why they have tried to get Mr. Daye's family to blame Ms. Mangum and not them for so long ... so they could wait the year out. Very, very, very abusive if you ask me. But I do not know if that is what happened, it just appears that way at this point in time from what I have read here about what is and did happen with this case so far.

If they are now just coming to full realization of what happened, then perhaps they still have a year to file, I do not know.


Thanks for your comments about the laws in North Carolina and the statute of limitations regarding the Daye family and Duke.

Anonymous said...

Poster,please cite your reference for any such statute of limitations for "if a patient dies, you have a statute of limitations of one year". Statutes of limitation speak to the ability to file claims, take actions, bring suits, make charges, etc. Please be specific and tell us the statute to which you are referring.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

ok, duke hater, explain to all of us just exactly, with a specific example you can prove, with documentation, what duke has done to deserve your hatred.

May 8, 2013 at 6:53 AM

first you do the same for every citizen in NC and every patient or those who care about patients at Duke ... have fun

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Poster,please cite your reference for any such statute of limitations for "if a patient dies, you have a statute of limitations of one year". Statutes of limitation speak to the ability to file claims, take actions, bring suits, make charges, etc. Please be specific and tell us the statute to which you are referring.

May 8, 2013 at 8:19 AM

it is common knowledge - not a lawyer - could be wrong - but do not think so - ask Walt - he knows

Anonymous said...

So, you state it as fact, then you claim "it's common knowledge"....
the question stands...which specific statute are you referring to?

Anonymous said...

nonymous said...

So, you state it as fact, then you claim "it's common knowledge"....
the question stands...which specific statute are you referring to?

May 8, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Look it up, then maybe you'll believe what you read. Report back pronto. We are all waiting to see if you can find the answer yourself. I am not a lawyer - look it up yourself or ask walt - you can do it just as easily as anyone else. Don't know where to look? Ask Walt - he is very informative in legal matters on this blog - so he obviously would know.

Anonymous said...

In response to Sid at 8:00 am, I am most definitely not "running off at the keyboard".

But I will make you a deal. Remove all Mr. Daye's medical records from this and any other sites you have posted them to, and agree to NEVER post them again. Once this is done, I will give you the contact information at the OCR as well as the transaction number, so that you can inform them yourself that you have removed Mr. Daye's medical records.

Deal?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

In response to Sid at 8:00 am, I am most definitely not "running off at the keyboard".

But I will make you a deal. Remove all Mr. Daye's medical records from this and any other sites you have posted them to, and agree to NEVER post them again. Once this is done, I will give you the contact information at the OCR as well as the transaction number, so that you can inform them yourself that you have removed Mr. Daye's medical records.

Deal?

May 8, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Let the OCR write to you themselves Dr. Harr. You can add that to your blog too. Just another legal learning experience for us all since we are required to all be non-lawyer lawyers in NC.

Anonymous said...

Unforunately, I don't think Harr would be considered a covered entity under HIPPA. This does NOT mean that what he did was ethical. It simply means he can't be prosecuted under HIPPA. I may be dead wrong about this, and I sincerely hope I am....because I would like to see Harr held to account, to the fullest extent of the law, for what he did. But, sometimes the weasels escape out the fox's hole.

Anonymous said...

Poster, if you make a claim on this wite, it is completely reasonably that someone would ask you to back up your claim with facts and documentation. If you want to cite a statute of limitations concerning a patient's death, it is reasonable that you should provide your reference. If you don't want to, or can't, then don't get your drawers in a twist when you called a liar.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Poster, if you make a claim on this wite, it is completely reasonably that someone would ask you to back up your claim with facts and documentation. If you want to cite a statute of limitations concerning a patient's death, it is reasonable that you should provide your reference. If you don't want to, or can't, then don't get your drawers in a twist when you called a liar.

May 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I am not a liar you abusive person you. Who do you think you are anyway? go look it up yourself if you don't believe me. I already said I believe that is what it is - i am not a lawyer - ask walt didn't I. what a twid you are

Anonymous said...

Actually, the OCR is reviewing this site because posting Mr. Daye's medical records are a possible violation of his Civil Rights (and yes, apparently you still have civil rights after death).

My mistake for stating that it was for HIPAA violations.

How ironic is it that Sid is potentially guilty of the same crime he accused Duke of committing....

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Here's the statute of limitations for medical malpractice in North Carolina:

3 years after the date of injury or death.

2 years after the date the injury is discovered, if it could not have been discovered when it occurred (cases like these must be brought within 4 years of the injury or death date).

1 year after the date of discovery if an object is left inside a person -- for instance, during surgery. These cases must be brought within 10 years of the surgery date.

1 year after the date of the patient’s eighteenth birthday, if the patient was a child when the injury occurred.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Actually, the OCR is reviewing this site because posting Mr. Daye's medical records are a possible violation of his Civil Rights (and yes, apparently you still have civil rights after death).

My mistake for stating that it was for HIPAA violations.

How ironic is it that Sid is potentially guilty of the same crime he accused Duke of committing....

May 8, 2013 at 11:34 AM

It will be interesting to see if the OCR is also concerned about the malpractice, the ME's discrepancies to the medical records, and that fact that Ms. Mangum was held in jail without a the benefit of a fair and equal justice system for so long, and that Mr. Daye's family was lied to (apparently) by Duke and the ME, etc. for so long, and the fact that the entire NC and all the Duke patients are continuously abused in this state by Duke and the NC judicial system. Please OCR, do not ignore all the other civil rights violations as well. NC citizens require more than that for our own well-being and protection from the abuse that Duke applies to all through it's requirement that all must trust them, even though we can't because they have destroyed all patient trust in this state. They have the worst town-gown relationship with the populace whom they serve of all other universities in this nation, and we the people of NC need help to get them to stop their abuse of us.

Anonymous said...

Here is another example of statute of limitations in NC: (still don't know if it is right though)

"North Carolina follows a three-year personal injury statute of limitations for actions filed in NC state courts that involve common-law negligence personal injury claims. However, North Carolina follows a shorter two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims that arise from negligent conduct. Some very limited exceptions to the statute of limitations can apply in circumstances involving minors, as well as to persons who were under a disability, such as an incompetent (where a person is being cared for and has been declared incompetent, or is suffering a mental disability whether from an accident or otherwise).

In North Carolina, medical malpractice actions (involving doctor/surgeon errors, hospital malpractice, nursing home negligence/abuse) are considered personal injury actions and the three year statute of limitations will apply unless some special exception exists. One must be careful if the medical malpractice involves a wrongful death as the two-year limitation period would normally apply."

Walt - when you get the chance will you site the correct info for NC please, and reference where exactly do NC citizens go for the best source of info on statute of limitations in this state. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"It will be interesting to see if the OCR is also concerned about the malpractice...BLAH BLAH BLAH"

It will be interesting to see if you'll get off your lazy ass and file a complaint against Duke to the OCR.

Anonymous said...

Dear OCRm if you are viewing this blog please also be concerned about the malpractice, the ME's discrepancies to the medical records, and that fact that Ms. Mangum was held in jail without a the benefit of a fair and equal justice system for so long, and that Mr. Daye's family was lied to (apparently) by Duke and the ME, etc. for so long, and the fact that the entire NC and all the Duke patients are continuously abused in this state by Duke and the NC judicial system. Please OCR, do not ignore all the other civil rights violations as well. NC citizens require more than that for our own well-being and protection from the abuse that Duke applies to all through it's requirement that all must trust them, even though we can't because they have destroyed all patient trust in this state. They have the worst town-gown relationship with the populace whom they serve of all other universities in this nation, and we the people of NC need help to get them to stop their abuse of us.

Please include your reply to this formal blog request in your letter to Dr. Harr so he can share your concern with us. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"Please include your reply to this formal blog request".

Moron. There's no such thing as a "formal blog request".

The OCR, being part of the federal bureaucracy, has these things called "forms" that they require you to fill out.



Anonymous said...

Wow, our lawyer wannabe is getting him/herself all wound up! wheeeee.
Once again, as the other poster noted, it is unlikely Harr would be subject to HIPPA violations because he is not, as far as most of us know, billing for services as a physician. Poster, if you would take the time to read about HIPPA on the OCR website, you might not make wild claims that are factually incorrect.
I don't think this site would fall under the clearing house definition for HIPPA violations either. Not sure about that. Those of us who are not lawyers, or lawyer faker wannabes like Harr, will wait to see how things unfold in the courts.
Duke Hospital is not on trial in the Daye case. Poster, do yourself a favor and read state v welch. It might help you understand a bit better.

Anonymous said...

"The worst town-gown relationship of any university in the nation ? Really. poster? Really?? And just exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Provide your source of documentation to support your claim. Do you have evidence that is verifiable and reliable or are you just stating your opinion?

Anonymous said...

Getting back to a question posed earlier, Walt and or Lance, you think Holmes will succeed in getting a trial delay? Plea sea afoot?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Lance....Glad to see the statute info provided. Three years, not one. I don't see any basis for an action by the Daye family or any claim of medical malpractice. There was none. The records Harr unethically posted, to Mangum's detriment, certainly don't support any claim of negligence or, wildly, murder. The care provided by Duke was appropriate. Harr keeps trying to shift the focus from Mangum to Duke and we all know why he is engaging in the artful dodger behavior. Her self defense claim is weak.

Anonymous said...

Poster, go the OCR web site and read the information on HIPPA and PHI. You might just learn something.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
In response to Sid at 8:00 am, I am most definitely not "running off at the keyboard".

But I will make you a deal. Remove all Mr. Daye's medical records from this and any other sites you have posted them to, and agree to NEVER post them again. Once this is done, I will give you the contact information at the OCR as well as the transaction number, so that you can inform them yourself that you have removed Mr. Daye's medical records.

Deal?


No deal! Why not give me the contact information and transaction number? What are you trying to hide?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Lance....Glad to see the statute info provided. Three years, not one.

Three years is not correct in the case of death. In death the time is shorter for some reason.

Is it one or two years Walt?

Anonymous said...

Poster, do yourself a favor and read state v welch. It might help you understand a bit better.


It does not negate the malpractice which is what I am talking about right now.
Anyway, if you have one case law, you can have another that applies to the actual case at hand.

Anonymous said...

oh, I get it.....this poster is not only a doctor, this poster is also an attorney. wow, perhaps he or she is a judge, an astronaut, an exotic dancer, a postal worker and a farmer, too. wow, who knew, 2.21....?????

Anonymous said...

Nope, it is three years. can you not read.......??

Anonymous said...

Please do not feed the troll. Waste of bandwidth

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Nope, it is three years. can you not read.......??

May 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Of course, I read where he got that list from and it is not a formal legal site with the correct NC info apparently, because three years for death is NOT correct.

The info I sited was from a law office page which states it is 2 years for death in NC (NC is different apparently), but really the most recent statute of limitations for death in NC is somewhere in print that NC lawyers and judges use, but not sure where at this point in time.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 12:00 PM wrote: "Walt - when you get the chance will you site the correct info for NC please, and reference where exactly do NC citizens go for the best source of info on statute of limitations in this state. Thank you."

The North Carolina General Statutes.

Lance has the general rules right though. However, I caution that medical malpractice is a tricky cause and requires the advice of a very experienced attorney who practices in the field. I don't want to make specific comments as the issue is so complex.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 3:01 PM wrote: "THAT does not negate the malpractice,..."

It does in the criminal context.

"... or a suit for malpractice by Mr. Daye's family."

That is a private matter between Daye's Estate and Duke. Malpractice is not an intervening cause. St. v. Welch

"What are they going to say...?"

That's not how medical malpractice works in North Carolina. In NC, the plaintiff, in this instance presumably the Estate of Daye must find an expert who is willing to give a statement before filing the suit that some certain treatment or diagnosis fell below the standard of care in the community and how it did. Then, and only then is the medical provider obligated to reply. So to have a meaningful discussion, you will need to at the very least state what the standard of care is in the community and how a medical provider breached that standard. Generalities don't work. You must be very specific Until then, you are just spouting off.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 10:59 AM wrote: "That seems very odd don't you think, since it was Mr. Cooper who dismissed a judicial case with the lacrosse case." Cooper was acting as the prosecutor in the lacrosse case after Nifong recused himself. To carry out that function, the Attorney General appointed two special prosecutors, but he retained overall supervision. "The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause...."
NCRPC 3.8(a). Note the imperative shall. The prosecutor has no discretion to continue a case that is not supported by probable cause. Cooper ordered an investigation and found, correctly, that there was no probable cause to continue. The rules of professional conduct took away his discretion. Nifong's problem from that moment forward was the evidence, or lack there of, upon which Cooper's special prosecutors based their decision was the same as what Nifong had before recusing himself. A fact that even Nifong admitted to later. Thus, the Attorney General was not only within his rights to dismiss the case, but under our law he was required to dismiss.

"Mr. Cooper is head over many branches, including the SBI, which is judicial and not executive from what I understand."

You understand incorrectly. The SBI is an executive branch agency.

"He is also protector of all NC citizens against companies who abuse them, including Duke."

The Attorney General has the power to bring suit but only if he has evidence to back up his lawsuit. There's this thing in the constitution called due process, read about it someday.

"He also decides anti-trust issues and hospital allocation issues, including Duke hospitals."

Here you are making a very broad generalization. If you are referring to the Attorney General's participation in the Certificate of Need system, he is but one of several deciders. When it comes to state law anti-trust enforcement, you are correct, the Attorney General is responsible. However, he does that enforcement through the courts and must have evidence. Again, read about due process before you post.

"If anyone is confused about his responsibilities, Mr. Cooper has only himself to blame for that."

Roy Cooper has been Attorney General for a long time, but not that long. The power and roll of the Attorney General is spelled out in our state constitution, it is limited by the federal constitution, lots of different state and federal statutes, and more court decisions that can be counted. After-all the post goes back to the very beginnings of English settlement of the western hemisphere. For the most part, Roy Cooper does a good job following the law. I have watched him work for the last 13 years and have met him on several occasions. He is dedicated to carrying out the lawful duties of his office and, more importantly, he is dedicated to not overstepping the lawful limits of his power.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

So to have a meaningful discussion, you will need to at the very least state what the standard of care is in the community and how a medical provider breached that standard. Generalities don't work. You must be very specific Until then, you are just spouting off.

I do believe I have been asking those questions here Walt, but thanks for pointing out your lofty view of what I was doing - spounting off hmmmmm, do not think so if doing exactly what you said needed to be done eh? Why say do this and that, and then get mean about someone who was just trying to do that? I do not understand that attitude from you at all unless you are also truly a duke fan since you keep saying what everyone else can easily and plainly see in the records indicates evidence, facts, and serious issues as has been mentioned. Why do you do that?

Due process - where does due process enter into anything anyone actually sees coming out of Durham and with Duke involved. All anyone see's is Duke shoving people around and Durham bending over backwards to accomodate them.


Anonymous said...

To the 8:04, why don't you start your own site and lead the charge to bring down Duke.

Anonymous said...

do you think it would work?

Anonymous said...

With the compelling logic and extensive evidence used to support the criticism of Duke, I don't see how it could fail.

Anonymous said...

yeah, but then i would have to deal with all the malicious dukies trying to prove their worth to continue to be allowed to stand tall in their nonlofty loftiness.

i'd have to get much better at that. - hmmmmmm - i would need people to volunteer to be bouncers at the door - no lofty (or non-lofty lofty) dukies allowed

Anonymous said...

You are a wordsmith, a crafter of clever posts.....and a true Duke Hater..........you can do it! Go for it...

Walt said...

Anonymous at 2:04 wrote "Three years is not correct in the case of death. In death the time is shorter for some reason.

Is it one or two years Walt?"


Wrongful death actions are two years. Medical malpractice is a different tort though. Also, there is a ten year statute of repose which mostly applies to medical devices. As I wrote above, this is a very tricky area of law that requires the specific advice of an experienced medical malpractice lawyer.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:04 PM wrote: "I do believe I have been asking those questions here Walt...."

No, you have been making statements and advancing straw man arguments.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

You are a wordsmith, a crafter of clever posts.....and a true Duke Hater..........you can do it! Go for it...

May 9, 2013 at 5:42 AM

I don't hate Duke, I just DO NOT agree with what they do and how they do it (to everyone and anyone, but especially the poor, disabled, sick, ederly, children, and others they deem easy to take advantage of or have a prejudice against).

It would be like a great big counseling session which the entire state of NC has needed for a while now to deal with the abuse coming out of duke for like - forever probably.

I would need some professional lawyers, judges, prosecutors etc. to join in the concern of course.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:04 PM wrote: "I do believe I have been asking those questions here Walt...."

No, you have been making statements and advancing straw man arguments.

Walt-in-Durham

May 9, 2013 at 5:51 AM

ah, i see. nope, they were questions, sorry Walt, your prejudice shines through once again.

Anonymous said...

To the 5:54........you are entitled to your opinion. Here's a suggestion.......back up your claims with facts/documentation, don't assume you are right and don't assume others are wrong, try to understand the difference between opinion and fact. All of us have opinions....some of us love Duke, some of us hate Duke, some of us could care less, some of us believe that Duke (like any huge organization) has made terrible mistakes (as in how they handled the LAX guys).....and, at the same time, we think Duke is a great organization. To condemn an entire institution (the University, the medical center,etc.) as though it were a single monolithic one-celled, one-track mind....is silly. Sure, Duke Hospital has had its share of issues. Name me ONE Hospital that hasn't. Johns Hopkins, considered by many to be the best hospital in the world, recently had a terrible (I mean horrific) issue of a Hopkins physician, in a Hopkins clinic, taking photographs of female genitalia during pelic exams. Poster, just realize that you can think Duke is the worst place on the planet.......your right to think that. But, I, (for one) believe Duke, just like Hopkins, Mass Gen, Emory, the Brigham, Cleveland Clinic, and many others........is an outstanding institution.
I will also remind you that, other than what Harr has claimed (without any substantive evidence to back his claims), there is no other evidence, no other physician, no other credible source.....that agrees with him. In fact, a completely objective third-party forensics physician, Dr. Roberts, who was hired by Woody Vann.....found nothing wrong with the medical record of care. Harr initially sung her praises. It was only after she gave her opinion that Daye's care was in order that Harr began to call her a criminal, a fraud and a conspirator. Use your brain, poster.

Anonymous said...

To condemn an entire institution (the University, the medical center,etc.) as though it were a single monolithic one-celled, one-track mind....is silly


tell that to duke, i think they are the ones who need the advice, not me

Anonymous said...

I will also remind you that, other than what Harr has claimed (without any substantive evidence to back his claims), there is no other evidence, no other physician, no other credible source.....that agrees with him. In fact, a completely objective third-party forensics physician, Dr. Roberts, who was hired by Woody Vann.....found nothing wrong with the medical record of care. Harr initially sung her praises. It was only after she gave her opinion that Daye's care was in order that Harr began to call her a criminal, a fraud and a conspirator. Use your brain, poster.


i have and i am - and yet you still have a problem with it.

i can read what Dr. Harr posted and see the discrepancies clearly. I can also ask my questions here about them, since that is where they are posted. in addition, i think eventually this might come to trial, and hopefully the trial will be fair, equal, and just - and hopefully duke will answer for it's mistakes instead of what all have seen from them repeating itself again in this case. but the discrepancies, themselves, have to be addressed, or the trial will be another sham, which all have witnessed repeatedly in durham with duke involved.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 426   Newer› Newest»