justice4nifong: 300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

Sunday, September 8, 2013

300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

Click panels above to access sites

464 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 464 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: this is so very weird

you know this is not the trial right?

why do you do that?

do you really think this is the place to try Ms. Mangum or anyone else?; September 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM
guiowen said...: Why not?; September 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny the Troll:

First you say that doctors should not give medical opinions about anyone who is not their patient. Then when one of our anonymous friends points out that Sidney does this all the time, you ignore the question.

Why do you do this? Is it because you feel that anything you and your friends do cannot be bad, since you and your friends are such good people?; September 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " SO WHAT, troll".......................... If he was in fact an alcoholic that would hardly be immaterial for two reasons; one there is a strong association between alcoholism and violence and two it may have been alcohol withdrawal rather then his stab wound that was the more proximate cause of the the medical misadventure that led to his demise.; September 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:06 AM wrote: "I did miss that post - maybe - well anyway "

You should read it. Excellent post.

"I don't understand what you mean by the case law part."

Our system largely relies on the common law. Common law is made by judicial decision - cases. Some cases are more important than others. Hunt is very important as it announced the standard of care for medical providers in North Carolina. If a Doctor, or hospital's care falls below the standard, it is considered malpractice.

"Where do I find the case law documents that you refer to so I can read them and better understand what you are referring to?"

Cases are first reported at the Administrative Office of Courts website: http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/. Once they are reported there, Lexis and Westlaw put them in their online reporters and the AOC will give them a citation which West will then change for the hard copies. Thus Hunt v. Bradshaw, is the names of the parites, 242 N.C. 517, 521-22, stands for volume 242 of the N.C. reports (N.C. is for the supreme court, N.C.App is for the court of appeals), 517 is the page number. The second string of numbers refers to the Southeastern Reporter, West Publishing's unofficial, reporter. In this case volume 88 of the second series at page 762. The number in parentheticals is the year the case was decided. As far as finding the actual cases, law libraries, or you can pay for Lexis or Westlaw. Or, you can go to the court's website.

To be continued...; September 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Walt said...: "When you look for case law, how is the jurisdiction determined - as far as state or federal cases, and/or county cases?"

In North Carolina we don't have county courts anymore. There is the District Court and the Superior Court. Their decisions are not reported and don't have the power of precedent. The NC Court of appeals is found at N.C.App. The Supreme Court is N.C. The Southeastern Reporter does not have different volumes for the court of appeals and the supreme court. Federal cases are found in the Supreme Court Reports. There are three: U.S. (the official reporter) S.Ct. (the West publication) and L.Ed. (the lawyer's edition.) The U.S. Supreme Court cases are also available online at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/home. United States Circuit Court of Appeals decisions are published in hard copy in the Federal Reporter. (Known as F., F2d). U.S. District Court cases are published in the Federal Supplement. Naturally all the federal cases are also available online at Westlaw and Lexis.

"How can you tell if a case contains case law or not?

They all contain case law. Some are just more important than others. St. v Holsclaw, and St. v. Welch are very important because they announce important points of law. St. v. Carter, even though it is a N.C. Supreme Court case doesn't really announce any important points of law. It just applies the existing law to the facts in Shan Carter's case. To tell the difference, you have to read the cases. Lawyers have lots of research tools at our disposal. One reason law school lasts so long.

"Can every case be used for case law, and what are the jurisdiction rules with every case?"

Cases are the way the law evolves, so to that extent, yes every case can be used as case law. Some cases, as I discussed above, are more important than others.

Within North Carolina, the state Supreme Court has the final word on interpreting the law. So, they can overrule the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court and the District Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say on federal law, though not state law. Thus, the N.C. Supreme Court can, and it has, say that the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong about an issue of North Carolina law. As an example, North Carolina's version of section 1983 is much more expansive than the federal version. (A point lost on even experienced litigators.) There is nothing wrong with that unless N.C. law violates some provision of the U.S. Constitution. In which case the U.S. Supreme Court gets the last say.

"Thank you again btw."

You are most welcome.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Then when one of our anonymous friends points out that Sidney does this all the time, you ignore the question"............... No I did not ignore it. Read my post. I suggested it was wrong for him, as a Physician, to publically label Daye as an alcoholic. I say this despite there being certain indications that this was the case; not the least being Crystals description of his drinking habits.; September 11, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The reason Crystal's attorneys don't want Dr. Roberts to provide a written report is because it will implicate Duke as being responsible for Daye's death... and all of Crystal's defense attorneys to date have placed protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner above fighting for Mangum's acquittal.

It's that simple."

That's too many people in on the same conspiracy - Roberts, Shella, Vann, the DA, all the ADAs the M.E. etc. That dog just don't hunt.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous wrote: "...still taking bets on the outcome for Mangum......
Cast your vote....
1 she is released, all charges dropped
2. Manslaughter, time served with less than 2 years more added on"

My vote remains 2. Manslaughter, with time served + something added on. Juries are reluctant to go for Murder I in these cases. Still, Crystal has some risks going for self defense.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "I'd suggest that the Troll might want to consider Science Daily...which is not exactly on the top shelf of academic medical journals.....as compared to JAMA".................. Full findings are published in the January 2011 issue of Hepatology, a journal of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.; September 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Putting Crystal Mangum's veracity aside for the moment, what other "certain indications" were there that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic?; September 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: This gets funnier all the time. Harr is now saying that Roberts told Mangum she, Dr. Roberts, had no problem with Nichols' report,....said this orally. Yet, Harr is saying that what Roberts really thought was that there WERE problems....but wouldn't put this on paper....because Roberts had sold out to the evil white conspirators. Holy convoluted.
What a bunch of crap......; September 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"If he was in fact an alcoholic that would hardly be immaterial for two reasons; one there is a strong association between alcoholism and violence and two it may have been alcohol withdrawal rather then his stab wound that was the more proximate cause of the the medical misadventure that led to his demise."

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests he was not an alcoholic.; September 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"No I did not ignore it. Read my post. I suggested it was wrong for him, as a Physician, to publically label Daye as an alcoholic. I say this despite there being certain indications that this was the case; not the least being Crystals description of his drinking habits."

Crystal's description of Reginald Daye's drinking habits can hardly be considered credible evidence, considering her historical lack of truthfulness.; September 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Please tell us your reference that shows this strong relationship between violence and alcoholism. If anybody should be challenged on the basis of their substance abuse, it should be Mangum. She has a long and well documented history of substance abuse...including drugs and alcohol. AND she has a documented history of violent acts against property and persons. From 2002 forward.....; September 11, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: so ... just vote yes or no or not at all - unless you want to say more on the issue:

who here thinks the Daye family should be compensated by Duke for whatever it is that they did that made Mr. Daye become brain dead and have to go on and off life support, therefore resulting in the death of Mr. Daye?

I'll start:

yes; September 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: No. On the other hand, I hope the Daye family sues the living crap out of Mangum.; September 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, I appreciate your replies to my questions about case law.

I am not able at this time to give it the attention your reply deserves, as it appears to contain a lot of information that I would like to truly understand and will have to look into further.

I'll get back to you on it if I have further questions.

Thank you again.; September 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: just a thought for the first vote.

do you think ms. mangum is actually responsible for compensating duke's medical malpractices in any way (if it is proven there was medical malpractice)?

i mean, the law states duke IS responsible for their own malpractice from what Walt has taught us today, otherwise Ms. Mangum could feasible sue Duke to get their malpractice issues made nonexistant if she were actually responsible for Duke's malpractice in any way (i would think - any way - i certainly would take them to task for it if i were to be held responsible for it in any way). You would hope that duke has done the same - taken who ever needed taken to task for their medical errors and insured it didn't happen again.

That would be an interesting question to put before them in trial - have they fixed the issues and how, etc.

I personally want to know that answer. Lives depend on it you know. ANYONE could be blamed for the same thing someday - if so - would you look back and think - you know - i wish that had been fixed like it should have been during this case.

Things to think about ...; September 11, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I assure you, no apparent conflict exists.; September 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I mean because she could be getting blamed for Mr. Daye catching the MRSA (sp?) virus that is so deadly in duke hospitals, or whatever, EVEN though Duke is well aware that they have this problem, and have not fixed it yet, since it persists. (???)

How does that play into the case law Walt that you refer to about proximate cause - wouldn't the true proximate cause be that Duke has not fixed its known deadly virus problem even though they are well aware of it?

If Not, then duke becomes a deadly environment that one could feasibly be blamed for even entering.; September 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I think that is what gets me the most about the crazies and their antics.

Since duke bb is what most people normally think of who don't live in NC perhaps - they may not be aware that a LOT of very sick people receive services at duke hospital - or whatever sport - they are so competitive about duke 'being best' or whatever (in terms of sports or whatever) that they roll right over patients or patients families who may have legitamate complaints or who are commenting on things in the news that don't exactly indicate that 'duke is great or the best or whatever' because that too becomes something that adds to the burden of what is already weighing heavy on their minds at times (or in general).

so - then you usually have this very sick person who dying is something that is a very real possibility and that is weighing heavy on your mind - and you are basically getting slammed for that by the way duke crazies are acting or - well - like just what happened here to me when i was upset at duke for valid concerns weighing heavy on my mind.

that sucks ... big time

Walt, what laws would apply to duke creating and perpetuating a hostile or deadly environment for the patients and their families whom they serve?; September 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:12 PM wrote: "Walt, what laws would apply to duke creating and perpetuating a hostile or deadly environment for the patients and their families whom they serve?"

Asked and answered. You don't like the answer, but it doesn't change.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 7:46 PM
A Lawyer said...: just a thought for the first vote. do you think ms. mangum is actually responsible for compensating duke's medical malpractices in any way (if it is proven there was medical malpractice)?

What is that supposed to mean? Ms. Mangum "responsible for compensating [D]uke's medical malpractices"? How does a person "compensate" someone's "medical malpractices"?

Poster, I would really like to answer your questions-- I have tried to, repeatedly, above-- but I have to understand them first. I have no idea what you mean here. Not a clue, honestly.

i mean, the law states duke IS responsible for their own malpractice from what Walt has taught us today,

If Duke had committed medical malpractice against Mr. Daye, his family could sue Duke for damages. No one else could. (State or federal agencies which regulate hospitals could punish Duke if it violated laws or regulations, but no private citizen other than the patient [if he's alive] or his family [if he's dead] can sue for damages for malpractice.)

The fact that Mr. Daye's family hasn't sued Duke says a lot to me. If there were evidence of malpractice, they would have sued; most people, in my experience, don't leave lots of money sitting on the table when they walk away.

otherwise Ms. Mangum could feasible sue Duke

No, she can't; see above.

to get their malpractice issues made nonexistant

How do you "make malpractice issues nonexistant"? What are you trying to say here?

if she were actually responsible for Duke's malpractice in any way (i would think - any way - i certainly would take them to task for it if i were to be held responsible for it in any way).

How many times have I answered this? Ms. Mangum is not responsible for Duke's malpractice. She is responsible for her own actions (stabbing Mr. Daye) and for the forseeable effects of her actions (people sometimes die from stab wounds) and cannot excuse her own actions by trying to cast blame on Duke. If Duke did anything wrong, other people can take Duke to court, but that cannot and will not be a part of this trial.

You would hope that duke has done the same - taken who ever needed taken to task for their medical errors and insured it didn't happen again.

Yes, I would hope Duke would do this any time it made a medical error.

That would be an interesting question to put before them in trial - have they fixed the issues and how, etc.

It won't be asked, and if it is, an objection will be sustained. It's not relevant to this trial.

That would be an interesting question to put before them in trial - have they fixed the issues and how, etc.

I personally want to know that answer. Lives depend on it you know. ANYONE could be blamed for the same thing someday - if so - would you look back and think - you know - i wish that had been fixed like it should have been during this case.

Things to think about ...; September 11, 2013 at 8:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 5:11 said: "Please tell us your reference that shows this strong relationship between violence and alcoholism" http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm. Crystal is not an alcoholic or drug addict. She did blow over the limit in the 2002 incident but there is no other history of misuse of any substances. Only unsubstantiated gossip spread by the Lacrosse Team Trial Lawyers. What substances are you claiming that she abuses? This was all part of a meta-narrative seeded to try and discredit Crystal and bolster the greedy lawsuits. Thankfully they failed. The courts saw through them.; September 11, 2013 at 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: not correct. she was intoxicated the night of the LAX false rape claim. well documened. she was intoxicated when Cooper's staff attempted to interview her. she was intoxicated during the daye incident. also documented. blew over the limit in 200? Yep, I'd so say.......driving wildly on a city street in Raleigh, endangering others, trying to run over an officer, getting a level III DUI. Yep, that blows, all right.
If you are trying to claim that past acts are predictors of future behavior, then you just nailed Mangum's amoral backside to a prison bar........she has nine convictions, several including elements of violence against persons and property.; September 12, 2013 at 2:13 AM
Anonymous said...: ok walt, well if you actually believe what you are telling me to believe (which i don't) then ... seriously ... hope your never standing in my shoes ...

you may not be as strong

take care people

thanks for your time and thought; September 12, 2013 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal is not an alcoholic or drug addict. She did blow over the limit in the 2002 incident but there is no other history of misuse of any substances."

Yes there is.

"Only unsubstantiated gossip spread by the Lacrosse Team Trial Lawyers."

Neither the lawyers for the innocent Duke Lacrosse players nor anyone else have ever tried to spread gossip about Crystal. A lot about her background came out after she made her false accusations. Crystal, via her book, lied about her background, e.g. what happened when she stole a cab and tried to run down a law enforcement officer.

"What substances are you claiming that she abuses?"

It has been documented she abused alcohol and narcotics. During one interview with the attorney general she was noted to be impaired.

"This was all part of a meta-narrative seeded to try and discredit Crystal and bolster the greedy lawsuits."

The only metanarrative ever promulgated about Crystal was the metanarrative that she was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You continue to promulgate that metanarrative even though you have never been able to present any evidence she was raped."

"Thankfully they failed. The courts saw through them."

No, the courts failed them.; September 12, 2013 at 4:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 12, 2013 at 4:26 AM

"ok walt, well if you actually believe what you are telling me to believe (which i don't) then ... seriously ... hope your never standing in my shoes ..."

You are so crazy and so deluded no one in his/her right mind would want to be in your shoes.

"you may not be as strong"

How are you strong? By making uncorroborated fabricated allegations?; September 12, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

This is a quote from the probable cause affidavit dated March 27, 2006, giving what Crystal alleged about the rape:

"Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated. Two males, Adam and Matt pulled the victim into the bathroom. Someone closed the door to the bathroom where she was, and said "sweet heart you can't leave." The victim stated that she tried to leave, but the three males (Adam, Bret, and Matt) forcefully held her legs arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally. The victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault. As she attempted to defend herself, she was overpowered. The victim reported she was sexually assaulted for an approximately 30 minute time period by the three males."

What was described was a rape which would have left evidence on the rape kit and physical findings of trauma.

There was no evidence of rape on the rape kit. The only physical finding was diffuse vaginal edema, which is not diagnostic of rape.

The question is, again, why do you presume a rape happened.; September 12, 2013 at 4:53 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:26 AM wrote: "ok walt, well if you actually believe what you are telling me to believe (which i don't) then ..."

I am not telling you to believe or not believe anything. You are a human being with free will, only you can decide what to believe. I am telling you the law. I have provided citation to the laws. If you do not want to believe then that reflects on you and you alone. However, others may benefit, so I will continue to provide accurate information.

"seriously ... hope your never standing in my shoes ..."

While I refrain from posting about myself, I will break from that posture this time. I try to face every day from a position of reality. I am guided by the facts and try to make the best decisions possible. In that regard, I don't plan on ever being in your shoes. Call it the benefit of rational thinking and decision making.

Walt-in-Durham; September 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...: walt - i'll say one thing only

but a friggin disclaimer on your advice as to who's side your supporting - otherwise noone can understand what your talking about because they don't know if your talking about offense of defense so to speak. Would you believe you if you were me? NO you would never do that nor will I.

if you really are a lawyer - i wonder how the bar feels about what you are doing?

have you asked them yet?; September 12, 2013 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks, Walt........I appreciate the citations and explanations. Very interesting....and helpful. I do wonder just how much longer Mangum can get away with the stall tactics..worked pretty well so far..... Perhaps the judge will finally say enough.....even though Maier is entitle to adequate prep time. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge gave him a couple of months beyond November.; September 12, 2013 at 6:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "The reason Crystal's attorneys don't want Dr. Roberts to provide a written report is because it will implicate Duke as being responsible for Daye's death... and all of Crystal's defense attorneys to date have placed protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner above fighting for Mangum's acquittal.

It's that simple."

That's too many people in on the same conspiracy - Roberts, Shella, Vann, the DA, all the ADAs the M.E. etc. That dog just don't hunt.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Some conspiracies are comprised of only a few individuals. Others of many conspirators. Mangum's case has an extremely large conspiracy contingent against her. The mainstream media, for example, has the few bigwig CEOs at the top of the media outlets hand down policy regarding what to report, how to spin, and what to suppress. It is not unreasonable for defense attorneys, or any attorney to work against the best interests of their client. It happens all the time.

Yes, there is a huge conspiracy against Mangum.; September 12, 2013 at 6:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Putting Crystal Mangum's veracity aside for the moment, what other "certain indications" were there that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic?

One indication is Daye's drinking history which Mangum stated consisted of a case of beer daily and a gallon of whiskey on weekends.

Indications other than the history provided by Mangum includes Daye's level of consciousness at a blood alcohol level of 296 mg/dL. He was relatively alert at a level that would have put me and most non-alcoholic adult males in a stupor.

The second indication is that he went into delirium tremens. Had I, a non-alcoholic, been able to imbibe an amount that would place my blood alcohol level at 296 mg/dL, on withdrawal from its effects, I would not have had delirium tremens.

All of these factors make it reasonable to assume that Daye was an alcoholic.; September 12, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
so ... just vote yes or no or not at all - unless you want to say more on the issue:

who here thinks the Daye family should be compensated by Duke for whatever it is that they did that made Mr. Daye become brain dead and have to go on and off life support, therefore resulting in the death of Mr. Daye?

I'll start:

yes

I must vote yes, as well, because Duke University Hospital was responsible for Daye's death. Had he not been intubated in the esophagus, and it allowed to remain there for a lengthy period to cause brain death, then Daye would be alive today with a functioning brain.; September 12, 2013 at 6:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No. On the other hand, I hope the Daye family sues the living crap out of Mangum.

That makes no sense whatsoever. First, Mangum doesn't have assets enough for the Daye family to collect anything, according to my understanding. Second, sue Mangum on what grounds? She stab Daye in self-defense, and the stab wound was not fatal... it didn't cause or contribute to Daye's death.

You want action taken against Mangum because you don't happen to like her. You are angry at her because of accusations she made during the Duke Lacrosse case, and that colors your judgment and ability to reason with logic and fairness.; September 12, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
just a thought for the first vote. do you think ms. mangum is actually responsible for compensating duke's medical malpractices in any way (if it is proven there was medical malpractice)?

What is that supposed to mean? Ms. Mangum "responsible for compensating [D]uke's medical malpractices"? How does a person "compensate" someone's "medical malpractices"?

Poster, I would really like to answer your questions-- I have tried to, repeatedly, above-- but I have to understand them first. I have no idea what you mean here. Not a clue, honestly.

i mean, the law states duke IS responsible for their own malpractice from what Walt has taught us today,

If Duke had committed medical malpractice against Mr. Daye, his family could sue Duke for damages. No one else could. (State or federal agencies which regulate hospitals could punish Duke if it violated laws or regulations, but no private citizen other than the patient [if he's alive] or his family [if he's dead] can sue for damages for malpractice.)

The fact that Mr. Daye's family hasn't sued Duke says a lot to me. If there were evidence of malpractice, they would have sued; most people, in my experience, don't leave lots of money sitting on the table when they walk away.

otherwise Ms. Mangum could feasible sue Duke

No, she can't; see above.

to get their malpractice issues made nonexistant

How do you "make malpractice issues nonexistant"? What are you trying to say here?

if she were actually responsible for Duke's malpractice in any way (i would think - any way - i certainly would take them to task for it if i were to be held responsible for it in any way).

How many times have I answered this? Ms. Mangum is not responsible for Duke's malpractice. She is responsible for her own actions (stabbing Mr. Daye) and for the forseeable effects of her actions (people sometimes die from stab wounds) and cannot excuse her own actions by trying to cast blame on Duke. If Duke did anything wrong, other people can take Duke to court, but that cannot and will not be a part of this trial.

You would hope that duke has done the same - taken who ever needed taken to task for their medical errors and insured it didn't happen again.

Yes, I would hope Duke would do this any time it made a medical error.

That would be an interesting question to put before them in trial - have they fixed the issues and how, etc.

It won't be asked, and if it is, an objection will be sustained. It's not relevant to this trial.

Hey, A Lawyer.

First of all, you do not know whether or not the Daye family has been compensated by Duke, partially compensated by Duke, or promised compensation by Duke. Also, you don't know what arrangements have been made between Daye's family and the Durham prosecutors.

If I am wrong, further elucidation would be appreciated.; September 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Thanks, Walt........I appreciate the citations and explanations. Very interesting....and helpful. I do wonder just how much longer Mangum can get away with the stall tactics..worked pretty well so far..... Perhaps the judge will finally say enough.....even though Maier is entitle to adequate prep time. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge gave him a couple of months beyond November.

Mangum stalling? Are you kidding? Mangum is not the one responsible for Scott Holmes suddenly jumping ship. In fact, Mangum wanted Holmes to remain her lawyer on the case.

Now Mangum has been appointed an attorney with whom she has a real conflict of interest as Meier graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. In case you might have forgotten, until earlier this year the state's Medical Examiner's Office was located at UNC-Chapel Hill. There is no way that Meier will go after Medical Examiner Nichols.; September 12, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Now Mangum has been appointed an attorney with whom she has a real conflict of interest as Meier graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. In case you might have forgotten, until earlier this year the state's Medical Examiner's Office was located at UNC-Chapel Hill. There is no way that Meier will go after Medical Examiner Nichols.

You truly don't understand the concept of "conflict of interest", do you?

You never identified this as an issue when Scott Holmes (who ALSO graduated from....UNC Chapel Hill) was appointed Crystal Mangum's lawyer.; September 12, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: harr is showing his idiocy yet again. Not one word of the medical mumbo jumbo he has thrown out is accurate. Please do NOT be deceived by his pseudo science. Harr hasn't opened a medical txt, practiced, seen a patient, done an autopsy, performed surgery, worked in an ICU, intubated a patient, or performed ANY other physician-appropriate task in YEARS. He is a what most of us would call a pathetic old man who has spent years trying to ext or money out of people through filing nonsense law suits. Bull crap, harr., total bull crap.
The Daye family can file against Mangum on civil grounds, just as OJ's victims did....and, even if she does not have one thin dime, the suit , if won, can tie up her future earnings.
Mangum has been stalling...all along....because that's her only defense.....to keep herself out of prison. You truly are an asshat; September 12, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't give a damn about Mangum, harr. You have that absolutely correct. She has been a blight on Durham for years.....nine convictions, bro. BUT, she IS entitled to a fair trial. I don't have to like the woman to think she is entitled to fairness. Don't be an idiot.
Do I like what she has done, pole vaulting, shacking up, bringing kids into an unsafe environment, driving recklessly, trying to start a fire IN FRONT OF HER OWN CHILD, killing a man? Hell, no. Mangum deserves a fair trial, a jury, a verdict....and, if found guilty, she deserves to do her time. If she is found not guilty, then she can get on with her life.......and, as usual, continue her victimhood, blame others, amoral character-less living.
Again, YOU have done nothing but screw her over.....and over.....and over. Now YOU are all pissed because you have been told to butt the hell out by her attorney.; September 12, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: After 2 hours of drinking, a man between 160 and 180 lbs can have a BAC between (approximately) 268 and 304 mg/dL after 12 alcoholic drinks ( an example of an "alcoholic drink would be 1.25 oz of 80 proof distilled spirits at 40% alcohol."

Extrapolating that data a bit, a man could have 6 drinks with an alcoholic content of 2.5 oz in the same time frame, and the result would be the same.

Again, Mangum has proven time and again that her "statements" are not trustworthy, so I'll continue to ignore them.

As to your argument that "He was relatively alert at a level that would have put me and most non-alcoholic adult males in a stupor." I think 6 drinks in a 2 hour period would not put your average non-alcoholic adult male in a stupor.

I don't recall reading anything specifically about Delirium Tremens in the medical record. Can you point to the page number?; September 12, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR(to Walt)

"Hey, Walt.

Some conspiracies are comprised of only a few individuals. Others of many conspirators. Mangum's case has an extremely large conspiracy contingent against her. The mainstream media, for example, has the few bigwig CEOs at the top of the media outlets hand down policy regarding what to report, how to spin, and what to suppress. It is not unreasonable for defense attorneys, or any attorney to work against the best interests of their client. It happens all the time.

Yes, there is a huge conspiracy against Mangum."

You have not demonstrated any conspiracy against Crystal.You have just imagined one. Your imagination is not evidence of a conspiracy.; September 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"One indication is Daye's drinking history which Mangum stated consisted of a case of beer daily and a gallon of whiskey on weekends."

As Crystal is known to make u things as she goes along, her description of Reginad Daye's drinking history is not an indication that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic.

"Indications other than the history provided by Mangum includes Daye's level of consciousness at a blood alcohol level of 296 mg/dL. He was relatively alert at a level that would have put me and most non-alcoholic adult males in a stupor."

Maybe the alcohol level was a lab error? That his liver was normal at autopsy is indication he was not alcoholic. Liver damage is the consequence of liver exposure to toxic metabolites of alcohol. A man who could tolerate that high a blood alcohol level would have been exposing his liver to high levels of toxins for years.

"The second indication is that he went into delirium tremens. Had I, a non-alcoholic, been able to imbibe an amount that would place my blood alcohol level at 296 mg/dL, on withdrawal from its effects, I would not have had delirium tremens."

You have provided no evidence he went into delerium tremens.

"All of these factors make it reasonable to assume that Daye was an alcoholic."

All these are non factors and ergo do not mean it was reasonable to assume Reginald Daye was an alcoholicc.; September 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I must vote yes, as well, because Duke University Hospital was responsible for Daye's death. Had he not been intubated in the esophagus, and it allowed to remain there for a lengthy period to cause brain death, then Daye would be alive today with a functioning brain."

You have presented no evidence that there was an esophageal intubation. Ergo, your opinion means nothing.; September 12, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"That makes no sense whatsoever. First, Mangum doesn't have assets enough for the Daye family to collect anything, according to my understanding."

Yes, in that respect Crystal is judgment proof. That is why the innocent Lacrosse players did not sue her-not, as Injustice 58 claimed, because they were afraid of what a lawsuit might reveal.

"Second, sue Mangum on what grounds? She stab Daye in self-defense, and the stab wound was not fatal... it didn't cause or contribute to Daye's death."

Yes the stab wound did cause Reginald Daye's death. We have the testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Clay Nichols. SIDNEY the incompetent former physician is not qualified to dispute that. The cause of action, I surmise, if Crystal were not judgment proof, would be wrongful death.

"You want action taken against Mangum because you don't happen to like her. You are angry at her because of accusations she made during the Duke Lacrosse case, and that colors your judgment and ability to reason with logic and fairness."

SIDNEY, you want no action taken against Crystal because she is black. Your attitude is, as evidenced by your claim that Shan Carter scted in self defense, is that if a black person does it, that person should get a pass for his/her ethnicity.; September 12, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

First of all, you do not know whether or not the Daye family has been compensated by Duke, partially compensated by Duke, or promised compensation by Duke."

Neither do you.

"Also, you don't know what arrangements have been made between Daye's family and the Durham prosecutors."

You do not know whether or not Durham County prosecutors have made any arrangements with the Daye family. You may imagine they did, just like you imagined the so called conspiracy against Crystal. That does not make it so.

"If I am wrong, further elucidation would be appreciated."

Meaningless statement. Your persistence in pushing what is wrong as the truth shows you do not respond to elucidation.; September 12, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Now Mangum has been appointed an attorney with whom she has a real conflict of interest as Meier graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. In case you might have forgotten, until earlier this year the state's Medical Examiner's Office was located at UNC-Chapel Hill. There is no way that Meier will go after Medical Examiner Nichols."

Correction: there is no way that Meier will go after Medical Examiner Nichols because Medical Examiner Nichols delivered an accurate, unshakeable report on the Autopsy of Reginald Daye.

No physician other than SIDNEY HARR has questioned the report. SIDNEY's background shows SIDNEY is not competent to question Dr. Nichols' report.; September 12, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous
September 12, 2013 at 7:42 AM:

"The Daye family can file against Mangum on civil grounds, just as OJ's victims did....and, even if she does not have one thin dime, the suit , if won, can tie up her future earnings. Mangum has been stalling...all along....because that's her only defense.....to keep herself out of prison. You truly are an asshat"

Crystal would end up like Tawana Brawley, who lost a lawsuit to Steven Pagones, refused to pay up, only to have interest accrue on the judgment so that now she owes more than twice the judgment and is having her pay garnished.; September 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It has been documented she abused alcohol and narcotics" .......... Documented by who, when? What narcotic? Please reference. Crystal has never been found to be in possession of any illicit substance nor has any illicit drug ever been found in her system. You people castigate Dr.Harr for suggesting, on stronger evidence, Daye's probable alcoholism while on no evidence other then hearsay about Crystal say she is a drug addict. Absolutely slanderous.; September 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Documented by who, when? What narcotic? Please reference."

During AG Cooper's investigation, on one appearance Crystal was impaired.

Crystal was impaired when she showed up for the Lacrosse party.

After the false rape allegations, she turned up at the UNC Er seeking narcotics.

Crystal was clinically drunk after she stabbed Reginald Daye.

At her strip club, her supervisor said that on more than one occasion showed up impaired.

She was found with an elevated blood alcohol level after she stole the cab and tried to run down the police officer.

Crystal hherself admitted to drinking 44 ounces of beer shortly before showing up at the Lacrosse party.

"Crystal has never been found to be in possession of any illicit substance nor has any illicit drug ever been found in her system. You people castigate Dr.Harr for suggesting, on stronger evidence, Daye's probable alcoholism while on no evidence other then hearsay about Crystal say she is a drug addict. Absolutely slanderous."

SIDNEY HARR has presented NO evidence that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. His allegations that he was, which was SIDNEY making a diagnosis on a patient he had never seen, is what is libelous.

Your saying that white men raped Crystal, whrn you have no evidence of a crime, that is slanderous.; September 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: "By the accuser's own admission to police, she had taken both prescription Flexeril and "one or two large-size beers" before the party. It has since been confirmed by the Attorney General's office that Mangum had taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline, although when she began taking these medications is uncertain. She has a long history of mental problems and has been diagnosed with a bipolar disorder. She also has taken anti-psychotic medications such as Seroquel"

Methadone is, of course, a synthetic narcotic.
Flexeril is a skeletal muscle relaxant.
Ambien is sedative used for short-term insomnia.
Paxil is a SSRI antidepressant.
Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant.
Seroquel is a dibenzothiazepine psychotropic agent used to treat (among other things) bipolar disorder.

A combination of any of these (with each other or with alcohol)is generally not a good idea.; September 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The policeman who attempted to rouse her from a drunken stupor in the front seat of Roberts' car, in front of Kroger, said she smelled of alcohol. The woman to whose apartment she went after she stabbed Daye said she was on the floor, slurring her words, and smelled heavily of alcohol. The owner of the strip joint where she pole vaulted said she frequently "performed" drunk. She got a Level III DUI for driving 70 MPH down Capital Blvd in Raleigh, drunk.
But, oh, Troll.....we all forgot.....Mangum is just a hard working single black mother, trying to raise her children, while she goes to college.
By the way, interesting to note that Mangum got a degree from NCCU in spite of missing more than half her classes. Couldn't possibly have been that the "historic black school" gave her a bit of a pass, could it? Why no, of course not.........silly me.; September 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: To believe the great Harr conspiracy theory, we have to believe that the ENTIRE media, judicial, NC Bar, NAACP, ACLU, educational (Duke, UNC and Harvard), Durham police Department, Medical Examiner's office, Duke Hospital, Duke's lab, one of the leading trauma surgeons in the country (the man who cared for Mangum), Christine Roberts, Vann, Jones, Shella, Homes, Maier, ....are ALL in cahoots, ALL part of a grand conspiracy led by the Grand Dragon herself, Rae Evans......to fry Mangum. Oh, and let's not forget "thugniggaintellectual", Wahneeeema, Jackie, Vicktoria and the King of Ethics, Nifong.

And Kenny Hissy, Pink Pig Poster......and Mr. Professional Racist Victim Suit Filer himself.....Harr; September 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Scott Holmes must be mortified to know that no-conscious Cline graduated from NCCU.; September 12, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Steve Vaslef was the trauma surgeon who provided care for Daye. You could not find a more competent experienced and compassionate physician. He has an outstanding international reputation, runs trauma care at Duke, has been there years and has cared for thousands of patients. I have personal knowledge of his skill......involving a friend of mine. He is one of the best, if not the best trauma surgeon/critical care physicians on the East Coast.
To compare his skills, expertise, professionalism and career to the shyster flimflam defunct physician, Harr, is like comparing my guitar playing skills to Stevie Ray Vaughn's. It's downright laughable.; September 12, 2013 at 2:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " It has since been confirmed by the Attorney General's office that Mangum had taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline"......... If she did these medications were prescribed to her by a Physician. I do not believe that Crystal, as a purported crime victim, can have her prescription drug profile, her medication history, the doses she was prescribed, or their interval, properly "confirmed" or disseminated by the Attorney General. Or are you questioning the appropriateness of the therapy of her specialist?; September 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Steve Vaslef was the trauma surgeon who provided care for Daye"....... Daye received excellent care for his stab wound and was expected to make a full recovery. I wonder if the trauma team have any opinion on the post-surgical care he got which led to his eventual, unexpected demise.; September 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: " If she did these medications were prescribed to her by a Physician."

Or multiple physicians unaware of her drug-seeking behavior.

Why don't you have your buddy Sid post Mangum's complete medical record here like he did Reginald Daye's.; September 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM
A Lawyer said...: First of all, you do not know whether or not the Daye family has been compensated by Duke, partially compensated by Duke, or promised compensation by Duke. Also, you don't know what arrangements have been made between Daye's family and the Durham prosecutors.

It is possible that Mr. Daye's family made a confidential settlement with Duke without ever filing a lawsuit, but that would be unusual. That the prosecution made some arrangement with Mr. Daye's family is not something I can imagine: why? (It can't be to keep evidence of Duke's alleged malpractice out of the trial, because any such evidence would be inadmissible anyway.) And with what money? (It's not like they have a budget item for that.); September 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Daye received excellent care for his stab wound and was expected to make a full recovery. I wonder if the trauma team have any opinion on the post-surgical care he got which led to his eventual, unexpected demise."

The trauma team would have been providing the post op care.

It is not at all uncommon for a patient seemingly recovering from a successful operation to have a sudeen complication.

As Walt has been trying to explain(unsuccessfully to uninformed people lie you) that the occurrence of a complication does not relieve Crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. The legal doctrine, I believe, is that Mr. Daye would not have been exposed to complications had Crystal not stabbed him.; September 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"...are you questioning the appropriateness of the therapy of [Crystal's] specialist?"

Google the name John F. Lilly, if you believe all so called therapists prescribe appropriately.

The last I checked, there was a video of the ABC Nightline investigation into his activity.; September 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: First, Duke has no reason to settle anything with the Daye family. There was NO malpractice. Idiots on the site will continue to dribble about it.
Second, Dr. Vaslef was the discharging attending and provided all Mangum's care......his notes were illegally posted by Harr.
The full report of the Ag's investigation is widely available online. There is a complete statement in it regarding Mangum apparent drug-induced intoxicated state during her interviews.; September 12, 2013 at 4:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The trauma team would have been providing the post op care"......... That was not the case. No one involved in the surgical repair of his knife wound was treating him during his cardiac arrest. He had no diagnosis of any post-surgical infection.; September 12, 2013 at 8:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said:"Second, Dr. Vaslef was the discharging attending and provided all Mangum's care......his notes were illegally posted by Harr"........ I take it you mean Daye not Crystal Mangum. Dr. Vaslef was never present during this unfortunate incident.; September 12, 2013 at 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"That was not the case. No one involved in the surgical repair of his knife wound was treating him during his cardiac arrest. He had no diagnosis of any post-surgical infection."

You are showing how ignorant you are of hospital procedures. I said the TEAM was responsible for the post op care. The surgeon might not have been present but members of the team were.; September 13, 2013 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I take it you mean Daye not Crystal Mangum. Dr. Vaslef was never present during this unfortunate incident."

Correction:

"I take it you mean Daye not Crystal Mangum. Dr. Vaslef was never present during this unfortunate incident", which was a complication of the medical treatment necessitated by the stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal.; September 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

How do you know the surgeon was not actually present?

In spite of the fabrications of mistrial recluse, I am a retired surgeon. I have been present at a number of resuscitations and was not named on the medical record.; September 13, 2013 at 4:17 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:03 PM wrote: "The legal doctrine, I believe, is that Mr. Daye would not have been exposed to complications had Crystal not stabbed him."

Ding...Ding...Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham; September 13, 2013 at 5:28 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 13, 2013 at 5:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"Now Mangum has been appointed an attorney with whom she has a real conflict of interest as Meier graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. In case you might have forgotten, until earlier this year the state's Medical Examiner's Office was located at UNC-Chapel Hill. There is no way that Meier will go after Medical Examiner Nichols.

You truly don't understand the concept of "conflict of interest", do you?

You never identified this as an issue when Scott Holmes (who ALSO graduated from....UNC Chapel Hill) was appointed Crystal Mangum's lawyer.

That's true, but there's a big difference. Mangum had been strongly recommended by others that she would get good representation by Mr. Holmes. She made up her mind that she wanted hium to represent her. Therefore, I did not look up his background and took a wait-and-see stance. It soon became clear to me where his allegiances laid when he requested that I remove my posts from the internet.

To my knowledge Mr. Meier was unknown to Mangum when appointed to her case.; September 13, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I don't give a damn about Mangum, harr. You have that absolutely correct. She has been a blight on Durham for years.....nine convictions, bro. BUT, she IS entitled to a fair trial. I don't have to like the woman to think she is entitled to fairness. Don't be an idiot.
Do I like what she has done, pole vaulting, shacking up, bringing kids into an unsafe environment, driving recklessly, trying to start a fire IN FRONT OF HER OWN CHILD, killing a man? Hell, no. Mangum deserves a fair trial, a jury, a verdict....and, if found guilty, she deserves to do her time. If she is found not guilty, then she can get on with her life.......and, as usual, continue her victimhood, blame others, amoral character-less living.
Again, YOU have done nothing but screw her over.....and over.....and over. Now YOU are all pissed because you have been told to butt the hell out by her attorney.

Mr. Holmes didn't want be involved in Mangum's case. To date, I have not heard from Mr. Meier.; September 13, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "She made up her mind that she wanted hium [sic] to represent her."

First of all, Mangum doesn't get to chose who represents her, unless she's willing to spend her own money.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Daniel Meier served as the Ethics and Compliance Officer, Property Manager, Physician Recruiter, and Information Systems Director for HCA, Inc., so he has healthcare experience as well.

I'd think you'd find him more acceptable than Holmes.

That is, unless you're afraid a background in Ethics and healthcare is bad for Mangum's case; September 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"

That's true, but there's a big difference. Mangum had been strongly recommended by others that she would get good representation by Mr. Holmes. She made up her mind that she wanted hium to represent her. Therefore, I did not look up his background and took a wait-and-see stance. It soon became clear to me where his allegiances laid when he requested that I remove my posts from the internet."

In other words you are p---ed that Scott Holmes did something beneficial for Crystal when he told you to butt out.; September 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Mr. Holmes didn't want be involved in Mangum's case. To date, I have not heard from Mr. Meier."

If Mr. Meier has any regard for his client's welfare you never will.; September 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"She made up her mind that she wanted hium [sic] to represent her."

First of all, Mangum doesn't get to chose who represents her, unless she's willing to spend her own money.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Daniel Meier served as the Ethics and Compliance Officer, Property Manager, Physician Recruiter, and Information Systems Director for HCA, Inc., so he has healthcare experience as well.

I'd think you'd find him more acceptable than Holmes.

That is, unless you're afraid a background in Ethics and healthcare is bad for Mangum's case

Hey, Supreme Poster.

Thank you for providing a brief bio on Mr. Meier.

Actually, I take no comfort in the fact that he has a healthcare background... in fact, I find it disadvantageous as he is more likely to want to protect Duke University Hospital and Medical Examiner Dr. Nichols than would Mr. Holmes.; September 14, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"

That's true, but there's a big difference. Mangum had been strongly recommended by others that she would get good representation by Mr. Holmes. She made up her mind that she wanted hium to represent her. Therefore, I did not look up his background and took a wait-and-see stance. It soon became clear to me where his allegiances laid when he requested that I remove my posts from the internet."

In other words you are p---ed that Scott Holmes did something beneficial for Crystal when he told you to butt out.

I fail to see what Mr. Holmes did for Crystal... beneficial or otherwise. The only thing I saw him do after five months on her case is abandon her like a rat jumping ship on a cockamamie conflict of interest excuse that doesn't hold water.

Please let me know if further elucidation is required.; September 14, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, I take no comfort in the fact that he has a healthcare background... in fact, I find it disadvantageous as he is more likely to want to protect Duke University Hospital and Medical Examiner Dr. Nichols than would Mr. Holmes."

For what do Dr. Nichols or Duke University need protection? No one of sound mine takes your crazy uncorroborated allegations seriously.; September 14, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
I fail to see what Mr. Holmes did for Crystal... beneficial or otherwise."

He told you to butt out of the case. You do not see that as beneficial to Crystal becuse you are a deluded megalomaniac.

"The only thing I saw him do after five months on her case is abandon her like a rat jumping ship on a cockamamie conflict of interest excuse that doesn't hold water."

You are again showing your anger that Mr. Holmes told you to butt out. At least he did not go for your BS, which is what you are trying to dump on the case rather than water.

"Please let me know if further elucidation is required."

A deluded megalomaniac is incapable of providing elucidation to anyone, least of all himself.; September 14, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction of typo;

SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, I take no comfort in the fact that he has a healthcare background... in fact, I find it disadvantageous as he is more likely to want to protect Duke University Hospital and Medical Examiner Dr. Nichols than would Mr. Holmes."

For what do Dr. Nichols or Duke University need protection? No one of sound MIND takes your crazy uncorroborated allegations seriously.

September 14, 2013 at 8:23 AM; September 14, 2013 at 8:28 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "..., I find it disadvantageous as he is more likely to want to protect Duke University Hospital and Medical Examiner Dr. Nichols than would Mr. Holmes."

Duke doesn't need protecting. If it committed malpractice, that is insured. If it did not, then it needs even less protection. In either case, malpractice will never come into evidence.

"I fail to see what Mr. Holmes did for Crystal... beneficial or otherwise."

Based on your hugely successful attempts at litigating on your own?

"The only thing I saw him do after five months on her case is abandon her like a rat jumping ship on a cockamamie conflict of interest excuse that doesn't hold water."

You really do not understand what a conflict of interest is. Instead, you dismiss a real conflict of interest. That is indicative of your sloppy reasoning.

Walt-in-Durham; September 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Walt said...: Hey Sid, you didn't report on Duke's reply to your frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. Care to comment? Or, like most of your frivolous filings do you not even understand what you are doing?

Walt-in-Durham; September 14, 2013 at 9:46 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
This is really going well. No one can expect Meier to get ready in two months. Thus any reasonable judge will have to give him (and Crystal) a continuance -- say, until April or May of 2014. Since, moreover, Meier has (as you point out) a conflict of interest, you can probably get him removed from the case sometime around January or February. If you can get Crystal another continuance until October of 2014, you will be able to sue the DA's office for failure to give Crystal the speedy trial she deserves.
You are really good at this!; September 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @10:31 9-12-13 said: "SIDNEY HARR has presented NO evidence that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. His allegations that he was, which was SIDNEY making a diagnosis on a patient he had never seen, is what is libelous"...........
The presumptive diagnosis for Daye was delirium tremens with a post-surgical infection being the differential diagnosis. The attending Physicians felt confident enough in their presumptive diagnosis to treat that and did not find reason to to treat him for a post-surgical infection.; September 14, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The presumptive diagnosis for Daye was delirium tremens with a post-surgical infection being the differential diagnosis. The attending Physicians felt confident enough in their presumptive diagnosis to treat that and did not find reason to to treat him for a post-surgical infection."

How much hands on experience have you had with a situation like this? My guess is absolute zero, which is why I take your statements as uninformed rambling.; September 15, 2013 at 3:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Your guess is correct. And your experience? Perhaps one of the Physicians, active or retired posting here can weigh in.; September 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Your guess is correct. And your experience? Perhaps one of the Physicians, active or retired posting here can weigh in."

I am Doctor Anonymous. I completed residencies in General Surgery and Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and had boards in both specialties before I retired.

Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. I have told you the truth. This is the second time I told you the truth today. The first time was when I said your statements about the Medical Records are uninformed ranting.

Now tell me what the purpose of the vent was when one cannulated for an Coronary Artery Bypass Graft.; September 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

How did one approach the VSD in the repair of the VSD?; September 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, I take no comfort in the fact that he has a healthcare background... in fact, I find it disadvantageous as he is more likely to want to protect Duke University Hospital and Medical Examiner Dr. Nichols than would Mr. Holmes."

For what do Dr. Nichols or Duke University need protection? No one of sound mine takes your crazy uncorroborated allegations seriously.

In answer to your question, Dr. Nichols for lying on Reginald Daye's autopsy report. Duke University just wants to keep it hidden from the public that its medical staff is responsible for Daye's death... initiated with the esophageal intubation.; September 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Hey Sid, you didn't report on Duke's reply to your frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. Care to comment? Or, like most of your frivolous filings do you not even understand what you are doing?

Walt-in-Durham

If I'm not mistaken, Duke's response to my complaint is public record... if you don't have the case number, I'll try to get it to you so that you can look it up yourself.

I'm too busy trying to work on my reply to their response, as well as working on a new flog, to lend much of my valuable time to discussing Duke's response.; September 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "In answer to your question, Dr. Nichols for lying on Reginald Daye's autopsy report. Duke University just wants to keep it hidden from the public that its medical staff is responsible for Daye's death"

Please provide the name of 1 physician who agrees with you.; September 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"In answer to your question, Dr. Nichols for lying on Reginald Daye's autopsy report. Duke University just wants to keep it hidden from the public that its medical staff is responsible for Daye's death... initiated with the esophageal intubation."

Dr.Nichols did not lie on the autopsy report. DUMC is not responsible for Reginald Daye's death.

You are less capable of telling whether or not Dr. Nichols lied or that Duke caused Reginald Daye's death than you are of filing a meritorious lawsuit. a lawsuit.; September 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"If I'm not mistaken, Duke's response to my complaint is public record... if you don't have the case number, I'll try to get it to you so that you can look it up yourself.

I'm too busy trying to work on my reply to their response, as well as working on a new flog, to lend much of my valuable time to discussing Duke's response."

I say again, per month your time is less than 0.001 pre Euro Italian Lira.; September 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Can you please post duke's response at some point when you have time if possible for those of us still grappling with the innocent bystander duke body bag dilemma?; September 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, I am trying to find Duke's response to Harr's latest nonsense suit. Can you steer me in the right direction on the internet to locate it, please? Thanks....; September 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.Anonymous said:"Now tell me what the purpose of the vent was when one cannulated for an Coronary Artery Bypass Graft"...... Sorry, I ,am never sure who I'm talking to. To maintain circulation and brain perfusion; would be my guess, but you're changing the subject. Daye had no CABG. Perhaps you're just sarcastically trying to demonstrate that I am a layman in matters medical. It doesn't mean I am mentally challenged though and without the powers of reason; September 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous (Dr.?) said "How did one approach the VSD in the repair of the VSD?"....... I was unaware that Day had a ventricular septa defect?; September 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: oooo, lookie, troll knows how to find the medical terminology dictionary on the internet! Oooooo, impressive.......
Nobody gives a rat's behind, troll, whether you do or do not think Mangum was raped. She was not. You go right ahead and preach all you want, bro. Stand on a street corner and run your mouth.....; September 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Wouldn't it be comical if it turned out that Harr and troll are actually the same person? Or perhaps troll is Harr's daughter? Or Victoria the asshat bigot? Or maybe it's bathrobe boy or no conscious cline?; September 15, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Sorry, I ,am never sure who I'm talking to. To maintain circulation and brain perfusion; would be my guess, but you're changing the subject. Daye had no CABG. Perhaps you're just sarcastically trying to demonstrate that I am a layman in matters medical. It doesn't mean I am mentally challenged though and without the powers of reason".

It was a technical question on a Cardiac Surgical procedure to establish my credentials. I never said Reginald Daye needed CABG surgery. That was you showing again you are totally ignorant about hospitals and health care delivery. Ergo anything you say about medical records is meaningless.; September 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous (Dr.?) said "How did one approach the VSD in the repair of the VSD?"....... I was unaware that Day had a ventricular septa defect?"

No one(except you, maybe) said Reginald Daye had a Ventricular Septal defect.It was another technical question about Cardiac surgery to establish I am knowledgeable about surgical critical care and you are not.; September 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Your guess on the vent was absolutely wrong. You again establish you know nothing about medical care delivery, surgical critical care, or anything else of consequence.; September 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: ken Edwards is just a guy with a mouth and a racist attitude.......he wouldn't know a hemostat from a thermostat. And who cares?
Trying to find Duke's response to Harr's crap lawsuit.....anybody got the link?; September 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.Anonymous said: "It was a technical question on a Cardiac Surgical procedure to establish my credentials"..........Establish to who? I have never questioned your credentials. Why do you feel you need to demonstrate your technical expertise to me. It appears that you, after examining the record Dr. Harr published, disagreed with the primary, presumptive diagnosis of delirium tremens. Do you feel the differential diagnosis of a post-surgical infection was the correct diagnosis and if so do you question that he was not imperically treated for that condition; September 15, 2013 at 8:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Your guess on the vent was absolutely wrong".............. Please enlighten me then. I take it you also have credentials. Or maybe you are Dr. Anonymous, again. It so hard to tell. Point out the error of my guess; September 15, 2013 at 8:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 15, 2013 at 8:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: ".......he wouldn't know a hemostat from a thermostat....... http://www.hiltonhandcraft.com/images/Turning/7%20inch%20%20Interior%20Sanding%20Hemostat.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Honeywell_round_thermostat.jpg; September 15, 2013 at 8:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said "No one(except you, maybe) said Reginald Daye had a Ventricular Septal defect.It was another technical question about Cardiac surgery to establish I am knowledgeable about surgical critical care and you are not....... I said??? You said, "How did one approach "the" VSD in the repair of "the" VSD...... You need to get your articles straight, then. We were discussing Reginald Dayes's care, were we not?; September 15, 2013 at 8:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Wouldn't it be comical if it turned out that Harr and troll are actually the same person"........................ Dr. Harr is not a coward. He stands up, publically, for what he believes. He has no need to conceal his identity; September 15, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: How Duke & Durham are getting their dues in many ways:

http://www.psychetruth.net/psychology-3/general-psychology/psychiatry-big-pharma-influencing-universities/

Psychiatry & Big Pharma Influencing Universities; September 16, 2013 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You said, "How did one approach "the" VSD in the repair of "the" VSD...... You need to get your articles straight, then. We were discussing Reginald Dayes's care, were we not?"

You again show your ignorance. If I were asking a resident or a student about the surgical repair of VSD that is how I would ask the question. If a board examiner wore to ask a candidate for board certification about VSD repair, that is how he would ask the question.

Again you show why your opinions on medical matters are worth less than the per month worth of SIDNEY's time.; September 16, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Hep, Harr stands up, all right, troll. He stands up and lies. He stands up and files nonsensen suits, designed for the sole purpose of extorting money out of people......just trying to get paid in order to "go away". We have all seen his type. He stands up and blames police officers for starting fires when he KNOWS Mangum did it. He stands up and wants Carter freed...after Carter murdered an inocent little boy. He stands up and lies, defaming Reginald Daye, a dead man who cannot defend himself. Yep, harr stands up, troll.........just your kind of man, apparently.; September 16, 2013 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You need to get your articles straight, then. We were discussing Reginald Dayes's care, were we not?"

I was discussing your qualifications to comment on Mr. Daye's care. You questioned my qualifications I gave you my qualifications.

Now you are p---ed bevause you have been owned, because I have shown your knowledge of health care delivery, hospital procedure is non existent, as non existent as Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend.; September 16, 2013 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Harr is not a coward. He stands up, publically, for what he believes. He has no need to conceal his identity"

You neglect to mention that what he believes in is gross distortion of the truth, e.g. Shan Carter acted in self defense, Crystal Mangum was raped.

You may as well have complimented Satan for his beliefs.; September 16, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/justice/police-shootings/index.html

North Carolina and New York cops shooting innocent 'bystanders' in the past few days.

Can you please post Duke's replies at sometime when you have time, Dr. Harr. Thanks in advance btw.; September 16, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:32 PM wrote: "Walt, I am trying to find Duke's response to Harr's latest nonsense suit. Can you steer me in the right direction on the internet to locate it, please? Thanks...."

Unfortunately it's not on Justia only a link to PACER. You need an account with PACER to look at Duke's 12(b)(6) motion.

The short version is, Duke filed a 12(b)(6) motion and in the alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that the issue against Duke, Brodhead and Levi has previously been litigated. I don't want to comment more as I await Sid's profound response. I would note that the Clerk of Courts sent Sid a friendly letter imploring him to hire counsel. Good advice that I suspect Sid will ignore, to his detriment.

Walt-in-Durham; September 16, 2013 at 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, can Duke seek some kind of relief, damages, action against Harr for filing what it thinks is a nuisance/frivolous suit? Or, does the district court have the option to take action, tell harr to cut it out, etc? I don't know how to phrase my question properly....what I asking is whether the targets of the nonsense suits have any recourse to make harr cut it out....as in a fine, etc. Or, can he simply waste the court's time, over and over, with this stuff; September 16, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:07 AM wrote: "Walt, can Duke seek some kind of relief, damages, action against Harr for filing what it thinks is a nuisance/frivolous suit? Or, does the district court have the option to take action, tell harr to cut it out, etc?"

Oh yes they can. See FRCP 11. I suspect in the not so distant future to see a Sidney screed complaining about the oppressive carpetbagger jihad using obscure federal rules to punish him. It's all Faye Evans' fault. She controls the rules committee.

Walt-in-Durham; September 16, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks, Walt. I read FRCP 11. very interesting! Hope Sidney has some savings tucked away from all these lawsuits he has filed over the years..........; September 16, 2013 at 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Right, I am SURE Mrs. Evans is actually in charge of the global economy, the Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones, global warming, whale migrations, the Federal Reserve, and the patterns for place settings of Michelle Obama's china. ......at least in Harr's mind.; September 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"In answer to your question, Dr. Nichols for lying on Reginald Daye's autopsy report. Duke University just wants to keep it hidden from the public that its medical staff is responsible for Daye's death"

Please provide the name of 1 physician who agrees with you.

The problem is not finding a physician who agrees with me... the problem is finding one who is willing to admit it.

Nifongian courage is extremely rare.; September 16, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Can you please post duke's response at some point when you have time if possible for those of us still grappling with the innocent bystander duke body bag dilemma?

It was my intention to concentrate on strictly working on the lawsuit, but since I am such a believer in transparency, and considering the importance of this case, (and also because it is a matter of public record) I will post Duke defendants' response as soon as I get a chance.

Next on my agenda is a flog, which I hope to get posted sometime this week. Then I will work on my response to Duke's response, and after that I will post Duke's response and my response.

How's that?; September 16, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The problem is not finding a physician who agrees with me... the problem is finding one who is willing to admit it.

Nifongian courage is extremely rare."
Apparently, it takes "Nifongian courage" to admit you're wrong.; September 16, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem is not finding a physician who agrees with me... the problem is finding one who is willing to admit it."

Which is a de facto admission on your part that no practicing physician, no retired physician agrees with you.

"Nifongian courage is extremely rare."

Nifongian courage is a non entity. Just like the carpetbagger jihad.; September 16, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Something, I should add, that you appear to be lacking, Sid.; September 16, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HRR:

"It was my intention to concentrate on strictly working on the lawsuit, but since I am such a believer in transparency, and considering the importance of this case, (and also because it is a matter of public record) I will post Duke defendants' response as soon as I get a chance."

If past behavior is any indication you will distort what Duke's response will be. In other words you will lie.

"Next on my agenda is a flog, which I hope to get posted sometime this week. Then I will work on my response to Duke's response, and after that I will post Duke's response and my response."

Will you post the sanctions you will incur for filing your frivolous suits?

"How's that?"

More and more bullshit from you.; September 16, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem is not finding a physician who agrees with me... the problem is finding one who is willing to admit it.

Nifongian courage is extremely rare."

Other than you I am the only physician posting on your blog. I have been pointing out how deluded, incompetent, and just plain crazy you are.

Dr. Anonymous; September 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM
A Lawyer said...: If Dr. Harr posts Duke's response to his lawsuit, I predict it will assert precisely the grounds I mentioned in comment #2 to the "Lawsuit Filed..." thread.

When the Court rules on the motion, I predict that the lawsuit will be dismissed. The defendants may or may not be granted Rule 11 sanctions, depending on how merciful the judge is feeling.

Let's see if my predictions turn out to be more accurate than Dr. Harr's predictions that he would beat the State Bar and that the charges against Ms. Mangum would be dropped.; September 16, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Anonymous said...: good, good Dr. Harr.

I will be patient and wish you well in your endeavors (and focus to do your best).

Nifonian Courage eh?

I'll contemplate on that for a while.; September 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You may as well have complimented Satan for his beliefs".... "Always give your devil his due"; September 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "You may as well have complimented Satan for his beliefs".... "Always give your devil his due".

So you admit SIDNEY is a minion of Satan rather than a follower of the Man from Nazareth. Your recognition should have come a lot sooner. SIDNEY's allegiance has been evident for quite some time.; September 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote in the earlier thread on the lawsuit: "Dr. Harr:
The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars your lawsuit against the State of North Carolina. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity bars your lawsuit against the District Judge and Magistrate Judge. The doctrine of res judicata bars your lawsuit against Duke."

It is interesting that Duke, Brodhead and Levi's lawyer have raised the res judicata issue.

"The doctrine of standing is an additional bar to most of your lawsuit. There are other problems with your lawsuit (many of them, in fact). Your lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and you very well may be subject to monetary sanctions or other penalties.

Please note: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer. I am not giving (and cannot give) you legal advice. But I very strongly urge you to show your lawsuit to a North Carolina lawyer (perhaps your law professor friend) before you proceed on your own. The consequences for you may be very severe."

The last paragraph is amazingly similar to the Clerk's letter. While neither A Lawyer, The Clerk of the Middle District, nor I are Sid's lawyers, we've all given him the same information. Get a lawyer or face the consequences.

Walt-in-Durham; September 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Example of attempted Jedi mind trick:

SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem is not finding a physician who agrees with me... the problem is finding one who is willing to admit it."

SIDNEY thinks he can delude people that the Medical Community in te Raleigh-Durham area believes him and his uncorroborated allegation that Dr. Nichols falsified the autopsy report.

It seems SIDNEY managed to fool no one but himself with his mind trick. Well, it seems everyone but SIDNEY knows that Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minden.; September 16, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, you know there are no lawyers without a conflict of interest to duke to serve the public in Duke/Durham/NC, otherwise you wouldn't be on this blog doing what you do.; September 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I suppose it IS possible that sidney harr is the only justice-loving, truth seeking, medically qualified, lawyer-without-a-license, jesus loving, saint on the entire planet..........not likely.....but, hey, I thought it wasn't possible for Mangum to be as dumb as she is......and sure enough......she is!; September 16, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Walt, you know there are no lawyers without a conflict of interest to duke to serve the public in Duke/Durham/NC, otherwise you wouldn't be on this blog doing what you do."

Obviously, the lawyers that represented the accused Duke LAX players had no conflict of interest

There's also Tracey Cline.

Just to name a few.; September 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "I was discussing your qualifications to comment on Mr. Daye's care...... .... Posting anonymously you asked about my qualifications. I responded that I had no medical qualifications. Then I, in turn, asked what yours were. Once you identified yourself as Dr. Anonymous you could of stopped there, as you have often touted your qualifications here on this blog and they are well known to me. But I asked you a specific question, which you completely ignored. Instead you chose to try and baffle me with all your expertise. It didn't work, though, did it? Instead it just made you look silly.; September 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "So you admit SIDNEY is a minion of Satan rather than a follower of the Man from Nazareth. Your recognition should have come a lot sooner. SIDNEY's allegiance has been evident for quite some time"............... You misunderstood my adaption on the old saying. Notice I used the possessive adjective "your". Perhaps it was too subtle for you.; September 16, 2013 at 2:10 PM
guiowen said...: Oh, Kenny, aren't you subtle!!
You talk about "your devil". What does that mean? Is "your devil" the individual who works with you to try to do evil? Or is "your devil" the individual whom you have recognized as a devil, i.e., the individual who you understand tries to do evil things?
If the first case, then you are clearly Sidney's devil. If the second, then you are my devil.; September 16, 2013 at 2:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: Oh no, not you too Guiowen. I was suggesting to Dr. Anonymous that sometimes you need to give credit to someone you dislike when their assessment is correct. If you acknowledge that you may say that you're giving "your" devil his due.; September 16, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERL:

" Posting anonymously you asked about my qualifications. I responded that I had no medical qualifications. Then I, in turn, asked what yours were. Once you identified yourself as Dr. Anonymous you could of stopped there, as you have often touted your qualifications here on this blog and they are well known to me. But I asked you a specific question, which you completely ignored. Instead you chose to try and baffle me with all your expertise. It didn't work, though, did it? Instead it just made you look silly."

Wrong.

You are extremely p---ed off because you were owned and exposed as a dolt.; September 16, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You misunderstood my adaption on the old saying. Notice I used the possessive adjective "your". Perhaps it was too subtle for you."

No I didn't. Whether or not you intended to, you did admit SIDNEY is a minion of Satan.; September 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I was suggesting to Dr. Anonymous that sometimes you need to give credit to someone you dislike when their assessment is correct."

But you still ignore that SIDNEY has done nothing but distort truth. Whatever assessments he has made have been fundamentally incorrect and delusional.

"If you acknowledge that you may say that you're giving "your" devil his due."

I have given SIDNEY his due. He is a minion of Satan who trades in lies and distortions. Only someone like you would consider SIDNEY eorthy of any respect.; September 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Lance, that is incorrect.

The lawyers for both Ms. Cline and Lacrosse players DO have conflicts of interest with Duke.

whoda thunk?; September 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Hilarious.......absolutely bleepin hilarious! Mangum is going to get justice, one way or the other. either a plea bargain will be struck or this sxxxx is finally going to be held accountable for killing Mr. Daye.
Sidney Harr can run his foul mouth till his teeth fall out. Who gives a damn.; September 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The lawyers for both Ms. Cline and Lacrosse players DO have conflicts of interest with Duke"

Where is your proof regarding the lawyers for the LAX players? They got Duke to settle out-of-court (for a rather hefty sum, according to Sid).

With regard to Tracey Cline - I was referring to her (she is STILL a lawyer), not any lawyers she may have hired.; September 16, 2013 at 3:35 PM
A Lawyer said...: There are lots of lawsuits filed against Duke University and Duke Medical Center every year, so obviously there are lawyers without a conflict of interest. Dr. Harr even mentioned one of these suits (the Title IX case).; September 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: People posting here about conflict of interest do not have a bleeping clue what they are talking about. Anybody who thinks that every lawyer licensed in the state of North Carolina is somehow in the pocket of Duke University is an uniformed idiot. How dumb can you get, folks? This is all just the same old ignorant blog posting nonsense, put up by people who have not got the slightest notion what they are talking about...... There are many lawyers in NC who have represented their clients in claims, actions, etc, against various components of Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, etc........ and many of those lawyers have prevailed, in fairness, on behalf of their clients. To somehow now claim that all the lawyers in NC are sucking up to Rae Evans, the Grand Dragon of Harr's age-induced dementia field paranoia, is just plain comical.; September 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey sidney, how many of the more than 25 law suits you filed did you actually win? huh? how many times did a judge find in YOUR favor, huh? Hey, bro, how come there is a multi-year period in your life where no record of your location, activities, and way of making a living can be found? could it be that you were spending time, living at the expense of the state?; September 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: It appears our "conflict of interest" poster knows as much about conflict of interest as they do about hate crime...; September 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Now that the lawyers for the DUKE LAX players have represented them - do they not now have a DUKE LAX conflict of interest, which implies DUKE?

yes

Cline's lawyers have a conflict of interest with Duke.; September 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Below are definitions for both the medical and legal professions conflict of interest.

Here is the scenerio to apply it to: a lawyer enters Durham and gets shot as an innocent bystander which then requires that the closest hospital treat the lawyer to save their life - the nearest couple of hospitals is Duke. Can this lawyer hold a personal interest or fear for their own lives in regards to their own medical well being and still be a lawyer representing someone in Durham against or in conflict with
Duke?; September 17, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Anonymous said...: MEDICAL DEFINITION:

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conflict+of+interest

con·flict of in·ter·est

a conflict between the professional or personal interests and needs of a health care provider and his or her professional responsibilities toward a patient or other consumer (for example, financial gain based on a particular outcome or use of one drug rather than another).
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

con·flict of in·ter·est (kon'flik in'tĕr-ĕst)

Contradiction between the professional or personal interests and needs of a health care provider and his or her professional responsibilities toward a patient.
Medical Dictionary for the Dental Professions © Farlex 2012; September 17, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Anonymous said...: LEGAL DEFINITION:

Conflict of Interest:

A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.

Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.
Cross-references

Attorney Misconduct; Ethics, Legal.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

conflict of interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

conflict of interest noun conflict, divergent interests between clients, ethical breach, prohibiting acceptance or retention of a case, variance of interest between clients
Associated concepts: code of professional responsibility.
See also: disagreement

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; September 17, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Anonymous said...: so ... if the innocence commission is headed by Duke law students and Cline is now in legal trouble because she stood against Judge Hudson in his agreement with what the Duke law students were doing with their innocence commission work - and Judge Hudson lost his decisions he made based upon what the Duke law student innocence commission was doing in the specific cases in Durham against Cline -

then - if Cline's lawyers have a conflict of interest with Duke

- is there not a conflict of interest in the case with Duke on both sides of the aisle?; September 17, 2013 at 1:09 AM
Anonymous said...: So, for Dr. Harr, who communicated with Duke his plans to be on their property in order to attend the conferance and received no word telling him he wasn't welcome - so he attended the event.

Yet, once at the event, and because a media person began conversing with Dr. Harr at the event, Duke uncermoniously kicks Dr. Harr off their campus with no explanation why.

Dr. Harr, understanding he now has a conflict with Duke that could cost him his life in terms of medical care and legal support if needed, tries to resolve the issue in professional manner to the best of his abilities to insure a conflict did not exist in respect for his own medical well being.

Duke ignores him and does not alleviate the conflict of interest - therefore creating both a legal and medical conflict of interest of DUKE against DR. HARR - even though Dr. Harr has tried to communicate with them in professional manner repeatedly to insure that no conflict exists.

Does Duke now owe Dr. Harr for loss of both medical and legal services from Duke with no conflict of interest in respect for his own well-being - since Duke is the one who created, perpetuated, and maintains a continued conflict of interest against Dr. Harr?; September 17, 2013 at 1:28 AM
Anonymous said...: So ... like I said ... there are no lawyers without a conflict of interest to Duke if they practice in any area where Duke medical services may be in the picture in any way.

If there are, they do not think very deeply, they know how to 'get around the issue', or they are crazae ...

How do you 'get around the issue' Walt?; September 17, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x1x4ofpTl4

Seal - Crazy (Acoustic)

...

But we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazae ...
No we're never gonna survive unless we are a little crraeraeraaaaazzzzzaaaaaeeeee ... yeah ...
oh no, we'll never survive see unless we get a little bit crazzaaee ...
...
...

... cuz ... isn't that crazae ...
...cuz
In a world full of people, only some hope to fly, isn't that crazaaaaeeee ...
...In a heaven of people there's always someone to fly, isn't that crazaaee ...
cuz In a world full of people, there's always some.....one to fly, isn't that craaazzzaaaeeee ... crazzzaaaee ... crazzzaaaeee ....

...; September 17, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Mistrail recluse......solving the world's energy crisis one intellectual fart at a time...........; September 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I find it interesting that Harr has not denied the descriptions of his past life, incuding filing countless law suits, engaging in potential fraud (false signature?.....which, apparently, he also did with Mangum's motions?....),etc. His current behavior is consistent with his past......spends his time dreaming up false allegations, playing lawyer wannabe and fantasizing online. Remember this whole web site is based on Harr's fantasies. In truth he is a failed physician and, possibly, has gotten himself into legal troubles more than once.
There are a handfull of people who occasionally post here.......my guess is less than ten people regularly look at this site, and about that many who actually post something. The truth is that Harr has tried to push himself into actions against Duke and been soundly reprimanded by the courts/judges. The truth is that his advice to Mangum has done nothing but waste time, warn off four good attorneys, and cost taxpayers money. The truth is that he is a pathetic older man, looking for attention, dreaming up conspiracy, using people like Mangum, and FAILING.
I think he and Mangum have much in common....a sense of entitlement and victimhood, a questionable morality about lying, a pattern of blaming others, and a history of deceit. No wonder she is attracted to him.
In the end, Mangum will face accountability for her behavior. I sincerely hope she will straighten herself up, get her life back on track, demonstrate responsible choices, and, eventually, be able to see her children. And I sincerely hope she will stay FAR AWAY from users like Victoria Peterson and Sidney Harr; September 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Everything you say about Dr. Harr and Ms. Mangum can actually obviously be said about Duke.

So ... do you think duke should have 'their children' taken away and be accused of and charged with murder in a judicial system that has itself condemned itself as (forget how they termed what cline did that made durham look bad, but of course others have rightly pointed out that it already was that way ... ), and does not provide equal protection and fair due process of law?; September 17, 2013 at 5:22 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:44 AM wrote: "So ... like I said ... there are no lawyers without a conflict of interest to Duke if they practice in any area where Duke medical services may be in the picture in any way.

If there are, they do not think very deeply, they know how to 'get around the issue', or they are crazae ...

How do you 'get around the issue' Walt?"

What you pose is not an issue. Rather, your proposition is an example of convoluted reasoning with a large parcel of unsubstantiated assumptions and a measure of pure fiction.

Walt-in-Durham; September 17, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: ...."So ... do you think duke should have 'their children' taken away and be accused of and charged with murder in a judicial system that has itself condemned itself as (forget how they termed what cline did that made durham look bad, but of course others have rightly pointed out that it already was that way ... ), and does not provide equal protection and fair due process of law?"
Another example of totally convoluted un-readable and bizarre logic, sentence structure and thinking. Whew......take a aspirin, poster, and consider punctuation....; September 17, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

So you ignore and blame others if they hold a clear and reasoned concern about their own well-being and safety or about the well-being and safety of others?

Is that an indication of what Duke does as well - as example of legal practice - even when dukes legal team represents a business who's main service to many of the public whom are required by law to receive the services they provide, and/or who's major business interaction with the them is the acceptance and payment of duke medical services designed to provide health and well-being as understood by the customer?; September 17, 2013 at 7:00 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Now that the lawyers for the DUKE LAX players have represented them - do they not now have a DUKE LAX conflict of interest, which implies DUKE?"

The 3 accused LAX players are often called the "Duke LAX accused" because they attended Duke at the time of the original trial.

By the time these 3 young men sued Duke, they no longer attended Duke. The lawyers that represented them have no conflict of interest.

Ask Mike Nifong if you don't believe me.; September 17, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: As a matter of fact, several of the attorneys who represented the LAX guys have represented clients in various actions against Duke.....and prevailed. This whole silly discussion about conflict of interest is nonsense. Every lawyer in this state is obligated to disclose conflicts of interest , as did Holmes, and his actions were completely appropriate. Had he continued to represent Mangum, without disclosure, it would have been a serious ethical violation, with potentially serious consequences.
Harr's stupidity in ranting about Maier (because he is a product of UNC law school) is just plain dumb. As noted by another poster, Harr knew Holmes was ALSO a UNC law product and made no whine about it...........until, of course, Holmes kicked Harr's nasty butt out of Mangum's business. THEN, the rant against Holmes began. It's transparent as Harr's brain....and just as slimy; September 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:00 AM wrote: "Walt,

So you ignore and blame others if they hold a clear and reasoned concern about their own well-being and safety or about the well-being and safety of others?"

No, that just does not constitute a conflict of interest.

I also dispute your contention that you are clear or reasoned concern. Simply put, the statistics, which are easily available, do not support your contention that somehow people are at risk when seeking medical attention at various Duke Hospitals. While you are free to hold that notion, and even free to write it here, I am equally free to dispute it with facts. I doubt that you can be persuaded, but as others may be persuadable, I will continue to reply by pointing out the fallacy of your argument.

Walt-in-Durham; September 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Back to the core issue.........is Mangum going to go to trial? Is she going to get a plea deal? If so, will she accept? Is she going to face murder versus manslaughter? Is she going to get self defense instruction through to the jury? Does she have a defense, in the first place, that will stand withOUT her testifying? Should she testify?; September 17, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke University Medical Center, that truly terrible murdering, beheading, patient slaughtering, child killing hospital is ranked Number 12 in the country by US News..in it's 2013-2014 review. Of course, it's only number 12.....but, hey, that's out of more than 5600 hospitals in the country. And, of course, there ARE eleven hospital ranked higher across the United States.........like Mass Gen, UCSF and Hopkins. So, I guess we who live here are saddled with a really lousy murdering hospital that has somehow fooled US New, yet AGAIN.....because Duke has been on the HONOR ROLL of the best 20 hospitals in the country for 21 years. Doggone it, too bad for us.......; September 17, 2013 at 9:26 AM
guiowen said...: Maybe Rae Evans's minions are putting the squeeze on US News?; September 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: giowen asks: Maybe Rae Evans's minions are putting the squeeze on US News?

giowen, don't be so disingenuous. As you know the entire national and international media is an active participant in the carpetbagger jihad.; September 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, i'm a doubtn that U.S. News actually knows duke like many of 'us' know duke ... duke terrorizes people into silence to keep their ratings up ... corrupts the judicial systems to maintain their medical license (probably) ... corrupts the government to feed their coffers while ignoring the coffins they fill ... and ignores their customers when they have complaints - instead of resolving issues in healthy manners that respect the well-being of their customers ... and generally treats all who are not them as less thans. They have one of the lowest town-gown relationship ratings in the nation from what i've heard and experienced. All that stuff is real and effects many. Does U.S. News even count those kind of issues or rating barometers in their overall hospital ratings? ???
If they do - they seriously have no credibility. If they don't - duke owes whoever it creates a conflict with whatever would equal the loss of their expert services that can no longer be accessed because they do NOT deal with their customers in a way that would allow many customers the ability to patronize their services due to the responsiblities the customers are mindful of, and in ways that do not create, perpetuate, and continue conflicts of interest. That is evil in my eyes

sorry; September 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM

"Walt, i'm a doubtn that U.S. News actually knows duke like many of 'us' know duke ... duke terrorizes people into silence to keep their ratings up ... corrupts the judicial systems to maintain their medical license (probably) ... corrupts the government to feed their coffers while ignoring the coffins they fill ... and ignores their customers when they have complaints - instead of resolving issues in healthy manners that respect the well-being of their customers ... and generally treats all who are not them as less thans. They have one of the lowest town-gown relationship ratings in the nation from what i've heard and experienced. All that stuff is real and effects many. Does U.S. News even count those kind of issues or rating barometers in their overall hospital ratings? ???
If they do - they seriously have no credibility. If they don't - duke owes whoever it creates a conflict with whatever would equal the loss of their expert services that can no longer be accessed because they do NOT deal with their customers in a way that would allow many customers the ability to patronize their services due to the responsiblities the customers are mindful of, and in ways that do not create, perpetuate, and continue conflicts of interest. That is evil in my eyes

sorry"

(not Walt) Yes you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

Provide factual evidence to support your allegations. If you do not it strongly suggests you are fabricating your allegations.; September 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh ye of little faith, guiowen....of course, we all know that God Herself is in on the fix and working for Rae Evans. The entire population of the world is under the Grand Dragon's evil spell........with the ONE lone exception of asshat harr......of course.; September 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah, a duke conflicted retired doctor WOULD call someone a sorry excuse for a human wouldn't they - even if they are only alledged non-proven fabricated retired doc at that.

you prove the point of what i say ... hey

you prove your a REAL duke conflicted retired doc first - and then prove your not a duke troll ...; September 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Once again, mistrail recluse is confused. Pink Piggy seems to think that we all have to prove our statements....except, of course, DukeSucks poster thinks his or her posts do NOT require proof. Hey, that makes sense....at least, in asshat's world. Why don't you join J4N, poster, get yourself a button, a yellow tshirt, a sign and maybe even a secret decoder ring! wow, then you and victoria-the-bigot and asshat harr can all have we-hate-duke parties....wheeeeee; September 17, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Does U.S. News even count those kind of issues or rating barometers in their overall hospital ratings? ???
If they do - they seriously have no credibility"

Righhhht. US News has no credibility, but you, the anonymous poster, do.

Seriously -- seek help.; September 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM:

"yeah, a duke conflicted retired doctor WOULD call someone a sorry excuse for a human wouldn't they - even if they are only alledged non-proven fabricated retired doc at that.

you prove the point of what i say ... hey

you prove your a REAL duke conflicted retired doc first - and then prove your not a duke troll ..."

My, angry isn't he/ahe that he/shr has again been exposed as a fabricator.; September 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Why of course, poster, US News has no credibility. We all should have known. goodness gracious! Hospitals like duke, mass gen, Hopkins, ucsf, Barnes-jewish, the brigham.....all those places are just part of the grand asshat harr conspiracy. It takes brains like yours, with such brillant insight and sleuthing, to keep us properly informed of all the treachery out there. gosh, I am so glad you and asshat harr are on-the-case.; September 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: i don't hate duke
but ifn ya'll are indicative of them
perhaps they hate me
who knows
who cares

ya'll actually believe that person who just called me a sorry excuse for a human is actually a retired doc and you're not shocked cuz ya'll are blinded by your need for duke to be great ...

sad; September 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Back to the core issue.........is Mangum going to go to trial? Is she going to get a plea deal? If so, will she accept? Is she going to face murder versus manslaughter? Is she going to get self defense instruction through to the jury? Does she have a defense, in the first place, that will stand withOUT her testifying? Should she testify?........... Crystal was completely over-charged with first degree felony murder. Why was this done? It was done in order to coerce her into accepting a plea deal and, to reinforce this travesty, they have purposely denied her the right to a speedy trial. This, along with setting a punitive cash bail, made it virtually impossible for her family or friends to quickly raise the amount. Separation from her children has been a powerful incentive for her to cave in. Cruel and unusual punishment as any Mother can attest to Crystal has wanted to go to court from day one. Contrary to the popular belief 100% of the delay has been due to the State. The lawyers assigned her have done absolutely nothing. Legal aid clients have zero priority with all but the most altruistic of lawyers. It's seen as an unavoidable duty and a costly, time consuming, nuisance. They would rather talk her into accepting a plea deal and be done with her then to work on a defence that would exonerate her. In an ideal Justice System Crystal would take the stand testify truthfully as to what happened and an impartial jury would make the decision. Unfortunately, thanks to the years of unjust and slanderous character assassinations, done on Crystal, finding such a jury is problematic but even those who have bought into the media and blogosphere characterization of her recognize that the charge of first degree felony murder is a stretch. Those who know Crystal can't recognize "the Crystal Mangum" that's been so falsely portrayed and are nonplused by what they read and hear being so removed from the person they know.; September 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM:

"i don't hate duke
but ifn ya'll are indicative of them
perhaps they hate me
who knows
who cares

ya'll actually believe that person who just called me a sorry excuse for a human is actually a retired doc and you're not shocked cuz ya'll are blinded by your need for duke to be great ...

sad"

Yes you are one sad sorry excuse for a human being.

Provide factual evidence that Duke hates you.If you can't or won't you might again be fabricating.

I do believe you hate Duke. You have made that srlf evident.

How sad.; September 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: i am grateful to be what i am
(and not you)
I do not think talking about what i read in the media about duke that i do not agree with is something that can be termed hating duke myself. if anything, i am hoping to see better from duke myself as it means a lot to a lot of people, but it never happens, and i have been watching and waiting to see it for a while now.
what do you mean by fabricating anyway? i didn't make up those things about duke, i read them in the paper, you should try it.
I did fabricate my silly bhp - but there was good reason for that - which you probably did not catch - but - hey - that's you - not me ...

anyway; September 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM:

"i am grateful to be what i am
(and not you)"

I am very grateful that I am not you. Who in his right mind would want to be a chronic fabricator?

"I do not think talking about what i read in the media about duke that i do not agree with is something that can be termed hating duke myself."

What is hating Duke is making a lot of uncorroborated allegations about Duke, allegations which are probably fabricated.

"if anything, i am hoping to see better from duke myself as it means a lot to a lot of people, but it never happens, and i have been watching and waiting to see it for a while now."

With your attitude you will never see better from Duke. If you really wanted better from Duke you would discuss real problems, not fabricated ones.

"what do you mean by fabricating anyway? i didn't make up those things about duke, i read them in the paper, you should try it."

If these allegations you make are recorded in the media you could document where. You haven't

"I did fabricate my silly bhp - but there was good reason for that - which you probably did not catch - but - hey - that's you - not me ..."

No you did not fabricate that you are a butt headed poster. That is self evident.

"anyway"

Go fabricate something else.; September 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: at this point
wait ... really a while ago
but ... i was just concerned about you at one point ... anyway

you are very angry at me for not posting links to news articles?

seriously?

i am not going to post those links - i've already said that - doesn't mean that what i said wasn't what i read - it means i am not going to posts those news links. you can sooooo easily look it up for yourself - but yet - you use it as reason to bully and harrass me instead?

yeah right

why do you do that?; September 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal was completely over-charged with first degree felony murder. Why was this done? It was done in order to coerce her into accepting a plea deal"?

No, it was done because she stabbed Reginal Daye and he died as a consequence of the stabbing.

"and, to reinforce this travesty, they have purposely denied her the right to a speedy trial."

Check the so called justice system in NC and you will see that Crystal's situation is not unique. Leon Brown and Frankie Washington were two men falsely accused of crimes(by Tracey Cline) and incarcerated for years waiting trial.

"This, along with setting a punitive cash bail, made it virtually impossible for her family or friends to quickly raise the amount."

Exorbitant bail is the $400,000 each innocent Lacrosse player had to post after being falsely accused of raping Crystal.

"Separation from her children has been a powerful incentive for her to cave in. Cruel and unusual punishment as any Mother can attest to Crystal has wanted to go to court from day one."

Considering how Crystal has treated her children, leaving them while she worked for escort services, setting Milton Walker's apartment on fire with her children in it, that does not say Crystal holds her children in high regard.

"Contrary to the popular belief 100% of the delay has been due to the State. The lawyers assigned her have done absolutely nothing."

Nothing has been done for Crystal mainly because of SIDNEY's interference in the case, his influence over her in having her dismiss her attorneys.

"Legal aid clients have zero priority with all but the most altruistic of lawyers. It's seen as an unavoidable duty and a costly, time consuming, nuisance. They would rather talk her into accepting a plea deal and be done with her then to work on a defence that would exonerate her."

What you say about legal aid may be true. In Crystal's case it is probably impossible to exonerate her from criminal liability for Reginald Daye's death. She stabbed him. He died as a consequence. I add, SIDNEY HARR is singularly incapable of determining otherwise.

In an ideal Justice System Crystal would take the stand testify truthfully as to what happened and an impartial jury would make the decision. Unfortunately, thanks to the years of unjust and slanderous character assassinations, done on Crystal, finding such a jury is problematic but even those who have bought into the media and blogosphere characterization of her recognize that the charge of first degree felony murder is a stretch. Those who know Crystal can't recognize "the Crystal Mangum" that's been so falsely portrayed and are nonplused by what they read and hear being so removed from the person they know."

This from KENHYDERAL who believes on the basis of statement supposedly made by an individual whose existence he can not even verify. The only character assassination which was part of Crystal's legal troubles was the character assassination attempted on the innocent Lacrosse players.; September 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: That is so untrue about character assasination not being a part of Ms. Mangum's lacrosse case experience and beyond.

Everyone could read those character assasinations every time there was an article about the case or her in the paper - every time - over and over again.

Why so much hatred for anything or anyone that goes against your sterling image of Duke? If you say fabricating again, I will only have to ask why you hate yourself then, since you fabricate all the time it appears when you fasly accuse, harrass, and bully those you make into your own personal victims to be terrorized because they do not align with your uninformed version of duke, and you can't accept it.

sad; September 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Why isnt the looney tunes poster who endlessly rants about Duke just a little bit more concerned about asshat harr........a man who defends a murderer.......who killed a drug dealer AND an innocent little boy? And who wants to make excuses for the scumbag child killer? Why isn't the pink piggy poster just a little bit more concerned about asshat hard?.......the man who wants this killer, Carter, set free?
harr is a liar and a pathetic old man who wants attention for himself. that's it. nothing more.; September 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM:

"That is so untrue about character assasination not being a part of Ms. Mangum's lacrosse case experience and beyond."

No it is not.The only character assassination in the Duke phoney Rape Case was the character assassination inflicted on the men falsely accused of raping her"

"Everyone could read those character assasinations every time there was an article about the case or her in the paper - every time - over and over again."

Wrong again.The only Character assassinations anyone could read about were those directed at the innocent, falsely accused men.

"Why so much hatred for anything or anyone that goes against your sterling image of Duke? If you say fabricating again, I will only have to ask why you hate yourself then, since you fabricate all the time it appears when you fasly accuse, harrass, and bully those you make into your own personal victims to be terrorized because they do not align with your uninformed version of duke, and you can't accept it."

What sterling image of Duke, which, to use a liche, threw the innocent men under the bus to gratify the pot bangers and the group of 88ers.

"sad"

Yes you are a sad pathetic little human.; September 17, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM:

Lret's get your take on this.

Crystal alleged a gang rape in which multiple males beat her, penetrated her nd ejaculated on her. Read the Police affidavit which I put on an earlier post>

The only finding on physical exam was the finding of diffuse vaginal edema, something not at all indicative of rape. There was no evidence of rape found on the rape kit, no semen, no blood, no saliva, no evidence whidch should have been there. The only DNA found on Crystal's oerson came from men other than those named as suspects.

I guess you call it character assassination that there was no evidence to show a crime happened in the first place.; September 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh yeah, and don't forget the numerous versions of the story.......including my personal favorite....the one about the gravity defying act of Mangum being suspended in the air, in a space the size of a shrunken phone booth, while three ( or was it seven, five, whatever version she was telling....) raped her..... Oh, and don't forget that she identified one of her rapists as a man who, uh oh, just happened to be a mile away, at an ATM machine which time-stamped his photograph.............Oh, and of course, we all love the crap she told about how her rapists did NOT use condoms..........until, of course, there was none of their DNA in or on the walking sperm bank......and then she said they DID use condoms. What a load of pure bullshit from a tramp who had at least FIVE sperm samples in and on her......NONE of which came from ANY of the LAX guys.; September 17, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: It was a lie then. It is a lie now. Period. Mangum is just nothing just a common liar who got herself caught. And Nifong? A scumbag who was willing to lock up innocent young men in order to get elected.; September 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: you actually do seem to need counseling for your obsession with that case i must humbly say to you.

i tried to help you - but you are seriously either very mean or very sick.

i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and pinning duke with causing illness in yet another person.

i don't know what to say - fix the fracking duke/durham judicial system if you want better answers than what you are left with i quess would be the best solution for everyone ...

bullying me won't help you any ... sorry; September 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I have ranted on other things then duke here, like fracking, and the durham/duke judicial system, and wondered about other things in connection to hurricanes - cuz - well i guess i'm not that crazy about hurricanes and the damage it can do ...

like ... whoa ... glad i don't live in the rockies or syria (not a hurricane granted but very destructive what is going on over there) or ...

i don't know - the news bothers me sometimes ... i don't actually always read it ... but noone seems to want to really talk about it ... and very few ever read it ...

and you?; September 17, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "The lawyers assigned her have done absolutely nothing."

That is patently false.

"Legal aid clients have zero priority with all but the most altruistic of lawyers."

Legal Aid does not provide legal services in criminal cases. They do only civil cases. Leave them out of it.

"It's seen as an unavoidable duty and a costly, time consuming, nuisance."

If you are referring to the Public Defender's Office, you could not be more wrong. The PD has staff attorneys who are paid on salary to provide indigent criminal defense. In Crystal's case, she raised such a stink about the PD, that they hired contract public defenders to represent her. Outside public defenders she fired and had Sid insult on this very website. Insults that you are continuing. Who could blame the contract public defenders? Still they have agreed to represent her. And they have done an excellent job so far.

"They would rather talk her into accepting a plea deal and be done with her then to work on a defence that would exonerate her."

The problem is, she has but one possible defense. Self-defense. The case law previously discussed along with Sid's leak of the defense evidence make it clear that there is no medical defense available.

That leaves Crystal the option of trying to go for self-defense. A defense that requires she admit to intentionally killing Daye or trying to show she lacked intent thus this was Manslaughter or perhaps misdemeanor battery. Mutually exclusive defenses. She and her lawyer are going to have to pick one. When you accuse four good lawyers of doing nothing, you ignore the fact that they and Crystal have to decide on which defense to pursue. Your unwillingness to recognize the obvious does not mean good lawyers are doing nothing, it means you are willfully ignoring the situation.

"In an ideal Justice System Crystal would take the stand testify truthfully as to what happened and an impartial jury would make the decision."

Is she willing to admit to intentionally killing Daye? If she takes the stand to show self defense, that's what she's going to have to testify to. Otherwise, no self defense instruction.

Walt-in-Durham; September 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Thanks, Walt........you have tried repeatedly to be civil and clear and responsive.........I doubt it will help, but thanks for trying.
I think it is going to be very difficult for Mangum to (a)testify and (b)admit she intentionally killed Daye. First, there is the problem of her actually testifying.......and opening herself up to cross examination. If I were her attorney, I would be very worried about allowing her to testify. Second, where is the physical evidence of injury to her? Yes, it's possible to claim assault without physical evidence of injury.......but, according to Harr, Mangum suffered numerous punches to her face, head, got herself choked, etc. If I were a juror, I would want to see photos that supported this story. Yes, the door was damaged and that's her strongest piece of evidence......along with his admission that he kicked it. But, again, why didn't she retreat/run out the door when she had the chance? And she said she DID have a chance to flee. And why did she take her purse? And why didn't she call the police herself, immediately, or run to the nearest door in the apartment complex? Her behavior does NOT suggest she was a beating victim who just killed a maniac who was trying to kill her. It just does not add up.
On the other hand, manslaughter? Yes. A plea for time served plus? Yeah.........far more reasonable and, frankly, far more the real story.; September 18, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

so ... after the fatal police shooting in durham yesterday - you want to tell me again how my logic is convulted? They did close a lot of streets off - so that does indicate that they are taking the innocent bystander dilemma seriously right now ... perhaps?

um ... also ... can you do an exercise in stretching your brain a bit for us and now give the case from the viewpoint of Ms. Mangum. Actually, why don't you put yourself in her shoes (if your brain can stretch that far for us here) and give us the case from a perspective that would actually assist a person in her position.

Just a thought i thought to ask of you given that this IS Dr. Harr's blog - and therefore - your advice given on this blog (as a lawyer) should be in line with Dr. Harr's side of the issues - not against it. So, do you just give the prosecutions version of what they want to see happen, or what?

Of course, this is only a blog, so legally perhaps you are not required to? But, for brain stretching exercise sake - try and see if you can. What do think about that idea? Can you also please put a note in your replies as a bonafide lawyer that you claim to be - and let us know what side of the aisle your advice lands on when you give legal advice or perspective. Thanks Walt. It would be more interesting to see you try to do that, for a lot of people actually. No bs tho, you have to actually TRY.; September 18, 2013 at 4:29 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 464 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, September 8, 2013

300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

464 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me