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 401 – 464 of 464

Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:29 AM wrote: "Walt,

so ... after the fatal police shooting in durham yesterday - you want to tell me again how my logic is convulted?"

How was Duke involved? Yes, your reasoning is becoming more and more convoluted by the post.

"...give us the case from a perspective that would actually assist a person in her position.<"

I have given her perspective. In my post above, I commented extensively on the choices that Crystal has to make. You don't like those choices. Which does not mean that she does not have to make them.

"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."

I am certainly not giving advice, but information. One of the strengths of Sid's blog over others on this issue is his commitment to free speech.

"So, do you just give the prosecutions version of what they want to see happen, or what?"

I have been consistently pro-defense when it comes to Crystal. I don't want to see her denied a fair trial by Sid's breach of the attorney client confidentiality. I don't want to see her waste her speedy trial right by filing or authorizing the filing of frivolous motions. However, I have presented the counter arguments and I have presented the law as it is, not the way some might wish it to be.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2013 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: oh - you don't even try walt.
who said anything about duke in the articles about the shooting yesterday? nobody ... neither did i.
i would definitely fire you in heartbeat if you were my lawyer btw.

convulted - no
realistic from many people's point of view who are not you - yes

hmmm ... what else

you left out the choice of proving that duke killed Mr. Daye and not Ms. Mangum. you leave out domestic violence issues that many at duke/durham hang their flag and collect millions of tax-payer dollars to understand and research and treat in their stated objective to deal with humanely from the victim's perspective (it is 2013) ... ya know?

probably more ... but they would follow the same lines - all the things that could be used as positive for her side in understanding the issue from a more realistic position - perhaps?

you don't understand my logic - because it is up-to-date, and in many cases, far reaching in thought into what is truly happening in the world. Anyway, you obviously don't think that way - since you are so stuck on pinning blame on one person for all of dukes ills - which Ms. Mangum is just another victim of.

ok - well then don't be all mean and attack people with bs about convulted logic or whatever for not agreeing with your side of non-advice legal information that you give here.

you have NOT given laws that would actually help to understand ms. mangums position walt - only yours - that is the way i see it - since my logic obviously sees more than yours ... perhaps?; September 18, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 18, 2013 at 5:07 AM(to Walt-excerpt):

"you left out the choice of proving that duke killed Mr. Daye and not Ms. Mangum."

If you can make a case that Duke and not Crystal killed Reginald Daye, why don't you make it instead of fabricating allegations against Duke?; September 18, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: The poster is incapable of understanding proximate cause apparently. And the numerous other examples of case law previously presented here. It's a waste of time and bandwidth to offer information to a stump. Once again, pink piggy, read State v. Welch...if you want to even TRY to understand how Duke is NOT responsible for Daye's death. Duke will NOT be on trial....Mangum will.; September 18, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: perhaps in ya'lls blog world
but not in the real world
in the real world
duke will be charged
there are other laws besides the information walt has provided in this blog world that also apply to this case

this case will end up like the lacrosse case probably - with everyone left to their own conclusions in their own minds - and people fighting on about it forever ...

so ... if you look at the stand your ground law - does that eliminate the need to worry about duke's medical malpractice being blamed on anyone else again if they are protecting themselves in self-defense or not?

Was stand your ground law passed right after ms. mangum's current case because those in power said - whoa - i would NEVER take responsibility for dukes malpractice in that case ... ever

probably so; September 18, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:48 AM wrote: "perhaps in ya'lls blog world
but not in the real world..."

I think we have a poster who has pushed his canoe away from shore and left his paddle behind.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 18, 2013 at 7:48 AM:

"perhaps in ya'lls blog world
but not in the real world
in the real world
duke will be charged
there are other laws besides the information walt has provided in this blog world that also apply to this case"

Why don't you list all the laws that apply in this case?

"this case will end up like the lacrosse case probably - with everyone left to their own conclusions in their own minds - and people fighting on about it forever ..."

Everyone of sound mind is clear about the Lacrosse case. Crystal lied about being raped. SIDNEY says Crystal is the victim/accuser but ducks having to explain why there was no forensic or medical evidence of rape. KENHYDERAL believes Crystal was raped because of a piece of hearsay from a source the existence of whom he has not documented.

"so ... if you look at the stand your ground law - does that eliminate the need to worry about duke's medical malpractice being blamed on anyone else again if they are protecting themselves in self-defense or not?"

North Carolina has a Castle Doctrine in force. Briefly that means stand your ground applies only in defending your house or your property. And, again, as Walt and others have pointed out, if there was malpractice on the part of Duke, it would not relieve Crystal of criminal liability for Reginald Daye's death.

"Was stand your ground law passed right after ms. mangum's current case because those in power said - whoa - i would NEVER take responsibility for dukes malpractice in that case ... ever

probably so"

Why don't you learn what the Castle Doctrine is.; September 18, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: It would seem that the same laws that were used to achieve what the stand your ground law achieves now before it was implemented would be used in this case, with duke taking responsibility for its own malpractice as the law states that it must.

That seems more reasonable - and to me - what most people (in this area anyway - there are a LOT of highly intelligent people in this area) will understand as basic civic justice.

The same premise of understanding and not understanding exist in this case as the stand the ground laws i would think - only domestic violence and stand your ground are eventually going to clash in court anyway probably.

It is weird how now the public consciousness is opened to stand your ground principles now - and that understanding (mis understandings) will apply to the public's understanding and perception of this case as well.

On top of that, everyone has seen Duke pour its hatred upon Ms. Mangum and her family AND the lax players - that is common knowledge - and one that many of the public do not agree with nor understand - because they can so easily apply it to themselves or someone they know because of the very negative Duke town/gown relationships that exists - and then know from their social consciousness that it is neither right nor fair nor just - especially when they can so easily watch Duke mistreat others as well.

It is not that difficult to see it because so many have been harmed.

Of course, as I have stated before, I am awaiting the trial to make a final decision as is what is expected for society in the judicial realm of innocent until proven guilty. That is If there is a trial, and if all the other issues that cloud justice in the durham/duke judicial system do not prevail.

If they do, then that is what the public will see and understand and know.

Most people in these parts just want things done right - they don't want things to always be ... hmmmmm ... like you start to wonder if you need to get a passport just to enter the duke/durham blue devil nation ... or what? something like that.; September 18, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Yep, the lights are on, but nobody is home.......... whew.......frackin-piggy, take your medication; September 18, 2013 at 8:50 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Legal Aid does not provide legal services in criminal cases. They do only civil cases. Leave them out of it" ....... Thanks for the clarification. The point I am trying to get across is that, with the threat of life imprisonment, the State is trying to coerce her into accepting a plea deal for as little as time served; caring less about how that could jeopardize her ability to regain the custody of her children. Doing such a thing to a mother is pure evil. So far, the Lawyers, she has had, have also promoted this outcome. Convicting Crystal of first degree felony murder, with life in prison, would be an outrage that would raise world wide condemnation, for North Carolina, whose Justice System is already in severe disrespect. For Crystal this is a Hobson's choice, with no satisfactory outcome. If she can be found not guilty and acquitted she, with her children, can at least try and pick up their life. A skillful and dedicated defence should be able to accomplish that end.; September 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "The point I am trying to get across is that, with the threat of life imprisonment, the State is trying to coerce her into accepting a plea deal for as little as time served; caring less about how that could jeopardize her ability to regain the custody of her children."

You need to understand that if Crystal is going to pursue self defense, she must admit to intentionally killing Reginald Daye. Otherwise, she cannot get a self defense instruction and the jury cannot acquit based on self defense.

" For Crystal this is a Hobson's choice, with no satisfactory outcome."

Indeed, it is a hobson's choice for any defendant, not just Crystal.

"So far, the Lawyers, she has had, have also promoted this outcome."

Unless you too are willing to breach the attorney client privilege you cannot say that with certainty.

However, I would pose that the good lawyers she has had have all advised her of the law that says for her to go the self defense route, she will have to admit intentionally killing Daye. That would prove the state's case for Murder I if the jury did not agree with her justification for killing Daye.

Further, I would pose that the good lawyers she has had have looked high and low for evidence other than Crystal's word for the notion that she was beaten by Daye. Finding none, it would be reasonable, even excellent, advice that she avoid admitting intentionally killing him.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: You mean they couldn't find the cop who told them to take it inside?

Mr. Daye's own admission that he went after her when she tried to retreat to the bathroom by kicking in the door, and that he had given the rent payment to her to pay the bill the next working day - you do not consider those things evidence?

Why not?; September 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: the state would probably say that SHE, not Daye, was the one causing the loud disturbance outdoors. Second, he did not say "he went after her". He did admit to kicking the door. She claimed he was the one throwing knives....conveniently, she only yelled self defense AFTER Daye had died. Very very suspicious, and I think the state will have a field day with her failure to say, up front, that it was self defense. She had the opportunity to flee. Why didn't she? She took her purse? Why? If I was attacked by a maniac and had just stabbed him, I sincerely doubt I would take my purse. She has NO physical signs of any kind of beating, choking, punching in the face, or otherwise. Why not, if he was beating the crap out of her? The fact that BOTH of them were drinking is no indication that he, more so than her, was the aggressor. SHE has a history of violenct behavior....HE did not.

Self defense, maybe.....but I think it is an extremely risky move....all things considered because there is virtually NO EVIDENCE to back up her story....all of which she conveniently didn't come up with until after Daye was dead.; September 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: She was told she could (and she knew she could from her education) choose to remain silent - so she did ... and you hold that against her? Why?

Everything else is easily understood by many. There are a LOT of people in this area who are very well educated on the issues that this case presents, in part because Duke specializes in these areas and is part of every university training on these issues in this area. Universities full of very intelligent people exist in this area who do understand what you say you do not. Did you know that?; September 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Another point..........Harr said there were tufts of hair in the apartment. First, were they hers? Were they pulled out with the root intact? WHEN did they fall out or be pulled out? Hair that gets pulled out in clumps almost always has the root attached. If the hair clumps didn't have the root attached, it is unlikely that the hair was violently pulled from her head. WHO was throwing knives? HIM or HER? It's only her word on this point. And were the knives even being "thrown"? And when did the knife "throwing" occur? That day? a week before?
And WHY didn't Mangum say she killed Daye in self defense FROM THE GET GO. And, by the way, don't even try the bullshit about her shutting up when her rights were read. At ANY point, she could have made a statement. Miranda is SOP and she is certainly no stranger to the Miranda routine. She KNEW she could make a statement about stabbing him, as a defense for her life, at any point. She did not.
She is going to have to prove, with EVIDENCE, that she killed Daye, on purpose, out of fear for her life. Good luck with that!!!; September 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course she could remain silent. That is not the point. The point is that she did not come up with the self defense bit until the man was dead....and could not refute her story.; September 18, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: And, poster, two former female relationships (to Daye) said he was NOT violent with them or anybody else that they were aware of. And, a third person overheard a female voice in the apartment yelling "I'm going to fxxx you up". Doesn't sound like self defense to me, piggy; September 18, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: The key question is whether (a)she is going to admit to intentionally killing Daye, and (b)whether she testifies. I think this is reallllly risky....we will see.; September 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

I would imagine that in certain circumstances it does... however, I am not wrong. And in this particular situation, it takes Nifongian courage for physicians to admit the truth.; September 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "I would imagine that in certain circumstances it does... however, I am not wrong"

Yes, you are.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."; September 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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!

What you said about me is not only possible, but a reality.; September 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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?

If you have access to the internet, why don't you do a little research on your own and find the answers.

I'm concentrating on rescuing Lady Justice.; September 18, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "What you said about me is not only possible, but a reality."

I'm concerned for your well being, Sid.; September 18, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Kenhyderal wrote: "The point I am trying to get across is that, with the threat of life imprisonment, the State is trying to coerce her into accepting a plea deal for as little as time served; caring less about how that could jeopardize her ability to regain the custody of her children."

You need to understand that if Crystal is going to pursue self defense, she must admit to intentionally killing Reginald Daye. Otherwise, she cannot get a self defense instruction and the jury cannot acquit based on self defense.

" For Crystal this is a Hobson's choice, with no satisfactory outcome."

Indeed, it is a hobson's choice for any defendant, not just Crystal.

"So far, the Lawyers, she has had, have also promoted this outcome."

Unless you too are willing to breach the attorney client privilege you cannot say that with certainty.

However, I would pose that the good lawyers she has had have all advised her of the law that says for her to go the self defense route, she will have to admit intentionally killing Daye. That would prove the state's case for Murder I if the jury did not agree with her justification for killing Daye.

Further, I would pose that the good lawyers she has had have looked high and low for evidence other than Crystal's word for the notion that she was beaten by Daye. Finding none, it would be reasonable, even excellent, advice that she avoid admitting intentionally killing him.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, Mangum did not intentionally try to kill Daye. She stabbed him once to let him release her from his choke hold.

She should not admit to intentionally trying to kill him, or even killing him (which she did not).

The jury will not get any instructions, if I have anything to say, as the case will not even go to trial. The prosecution has no case!; September 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"What you said about me is not only possible, but a reality."

I'm concerned for your well being, Sid.

Supreme Poster, thank you for your concern... but your concern would much better be spent on the homeless and displaced flood victims in Colorado.; September 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: If Mangum's not willing to admit to intentionally trying to kill Daye, she can't claim self-defense.

Why can't you get that through your thick skull?; September 18, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, Mangum did not intentionally try to kill Daye. She stabbed him once to let him release her from his choke hold."

So then she cannot plead self defense.

"She should not admit to intentionally trying to kill him, or even killing him (which she did not)."

At one point you wanted to be her lawyer. What would you do? And don't say file a motion to dismiss the charges because we all know you don't have any grounds for that under the law. So come up with another defense.

"The jury will not get any instructions,..."

If indeed Mangum is not willing to testify that she killed Daye intentionally, you are correct, the jury won't get a self defense instruction.

"if I have anything to say, as the case will not even go to trial. The prosecution has no case!"

The prosecution has a dead man, the prosecution has a medical examiner who says the guy died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by the defendant. The state has the knife with Crystal's fingerprints on it. The state has a witness statement from Daye saying Crystal stabbed him. That's a prima facie case. But do tell, what's the flaw that keeps that from going to trial?

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:46 AM wrote: "Mr. Daye's own admission that he went after her when she tried to retreat to the bathroom by kicking in the door, and that he had given the rent payment to her to pay the bill the next working day - you do not consider those things evidence?

Why not?"

That is not evidence of necessity. Crystal's attorneys have to have evidence that her killing of Daye was both intentional (Sid says it was not) and necessary to save her own life.

They don't have retreat, because she left the bathroom and grabbed the knife later. (Which actually goes to intent except Sid says she didn't do it intentionally.) Under the law (NC was a retreat state at the time) she can't stop retreating and start advancing and still use the first retreat.

Of course Sid and Crystal have promised evidence: " (1)... he physically punched Mangum about the face and head with swelling to the left lower lip and left side of her face evident;" None of which they have ever come up with.

"(2) he physically attacked her by gouging at her face with his fingernails – depicted on police forensic photographs;" Also, not produced.

"(3) he pulled out her hair – clumps noted near the bathroom door and in the master bedroom;" Sid says there are clumps of hair on the bathroom door. No proof of who's hair.

"and (4) he busted down the locked bathroom door, knocking the frame from the jamb, in order to get at a terrified Mangum who was seeking refuge from him." The broken door is one piece of evidence they have. But, it does not prove that Mangum was terrified let alone does it prove she acted with necessity. Not like having a wounded Daye in the bathroom. As it was, she left the bathroom, got the knife and stabbed him. The timing and placement just isn't right.

I generally agree with Sid, this was not a case of self defense. The real question is, was it Murder 1 or manslaughter? I still think it was manslaughter. An in the heat of the moment battery gone very wrong.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt is correct. It was NOT self defense and there is no way a case for self defense is going to work. It was two intoxicated people, arguing, getting into a push-n-shove, which got way out of hand, and ended in death. Mangum killed Daye. Period. (no, not Duke...). and, if she has even a half a brain, which many of us doubt, she will happily take a plea for time served and get on with her life. But, hey, if she wants to go the self defense route, and testify, I will absolutely take off work and be there to watch the show...; September 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I would imagine that in certain circumstances it does... however, I am not wrong. And in this particular situation, it takes Nifongian courage for physicians to admit the truth."

Three physicians have chimed in on the autopsy report, Dr. Nichols, Dr Roberts and SIDNEY HARR. The only one who thinks the report is fraudulent is SIDNEY who is not competent to be able to evaluate an autopsy report.; September 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY ARR:

"
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!

What you said about me is not only possible, but a reality."

No it isn't. It is a megalomaniacal delusion on the part of incompetent physician SIDNEY.; September 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM
A Lawyer said...: Anonymous said (7:48 A.M.):

perhaps in ya'lls blog world
but not in the real world
in the real world
duke will be charged

Charged by whom? With what?

If you are saying that Duke's alleged malpractice will be an issue in Ms. Mangum's upcoming murder trial, you're wrong. You can take that to the bank.

there are other laws besides the information walt has provided in this blog world that also apply to this case

Which laws are those? Please enlighten us.; September 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: come on, sidney, tell us how it is humanly possible for Daye to have beaten the crap out of Mangum for, as YOU put it, an "hour of sheer terror". Punches to the head, choking, scratching her face,? Really, sidney? REALLLLYYYY????? You honestly think you can pass off such bull? Mangum had a tiny (less than quarter of an inch) pinprick spot on her left cheeck that looked like a pimple popped. That's it, bro. Some beating....

Oh, and what about the mysterious trip to another clinic for treatment from a prior beating, bro? Where's all the evidence, bro? Another bullshit lie you made up .....

and, by the way, just exactly how do you think Mangum is going to prove that it was Daye throwing knives and not her? She did not retreat when she had to clear chance. The layout of the apartment shows that she went right by the door (to escape) and, instead, according to YOUR story, went back in the bedroom and there is where she stabbed Daye. No retreat, no self defense, bro.

And, just because there may have been hair on the floor does not automatically mean it was hers, pulled out by him, during that incident, in violence. Mangum told Roberts (the night of the LAX lie) to put "marks on her" because "there was money to be made". Perhaps Mangum pulled her own hair, bro, in order to make it look like she was fighting Daye. She has the morals of a house cat.....we already know this. What's a little lie, here and there.; September 18, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, Mangum did not intentionally try to kill Daye. She stabbed him once to let him release her from his choke hold."

There is no evidence that Reginald Daye had her in a choke hold.

"She should not admit to intentionally trying to kill him, or even killing him (which she did not)."

I think this leaves her open to manslaughter.

"The jury will not get any instructions, if I have anything to say, as the case will not even go to trial. The prosecution has no case!"

You have sais a lot about this. All of what you have said reveals you to be a powerless deluded megalomaniac.; September 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney hits it right on the point....on his head. HE HAS NO SAY ABOUT WHETHER MANGUM GOES TO TRIAL, IS FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT! Thank god and little fishes, sidney harr is not in charge of the justice system in NC.; September 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it interesting how Harr ignores the direct confrontation and question of HARD EVIDENCE and PROOF to back up his claims. One would think that a physician would understand the need for evidence....but I suppose he considers it fun to waste the time of others and to waste taxpayer money by filing ridiculous law suits..........
pathetic; September 19, 2013 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Check this out if you dare:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1268933/#/vid1268933

It is a video of AG Cooper's announcement that all criminal charges against the innocent Duke Lacrosse players would be dropped.

Enjoy; September 19, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

Check out this link if you dare:

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw5/casestudies/nifong.html; September 19, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

This link

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw5/casestudies/nifong.html

comes from the appropriately named Lirstoppers.; September 19, 2013 at 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Has liestoppers posted this one yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-OUY5UHxPU

Another 19, Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects

Get them to if they haven't already.; September 19, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 19, 2013 at 5:44 AM

Has liestoppers posted this one yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-OUY5UHxPU

Another 19, Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects

Why should they. It sounds like a crackpot hypothesis, just like the hypothesis put forth by KENHHYDERAL that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

It is also irrelevant to the issues raised by the Duke Rape case.

Get them to if they haven't already.; September 19, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Anonymous said...: no, actually it is fairly detailed information

so ... WHY do you hate Ms. Mangum so much? inquiring minds want to know ... what is your connection to duke and the lacrosse players?; September 19, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: I have no clue why YOU are as blind and ignorant as you are.......but, I don't hate Mangum. I think she is an embarrassment to herself, her children, her community and her family. I think her criminal record speaks for itself, and I think her lies make her a pretty scummy individual. But hate her? No. Actually, I could care less......ESCEPT that I think she is entitled to a fair trial and I am sick and tired of hearing about her. There are thousands of decent loving hard-working citizens in our community who deserve ALL of the attention she is hogging.
I have no connection to Duke........except that I have been a patient there.....and received good care. Is Duke perfect? Of course not. What a stupid thing to even consider. But, is it some kind of monolithic evil darth vader presence in NC, no, dumbass, it isn't. You can whine and rant all you wish. Feel free. Trust me, your posts are laughable; September 19, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: oh good ... got ya laughing finally did i ... yeah; September 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: yep, side splitting laughter......you really should seek help....; September 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: what - you need more help than me to make you laugh? ok

well - hmmmmmmmm

that super duper cooper flog is funny ... the name of it alone cracks me up ... super duper cooper

is he really going to run for governor some day?; September 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM
A Lawyer said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, Mangum did not intentionally try to kill Daye. She stabbed him once to let him release her from his choke hold."

Walt wrote: "So then she cannot plead self defense."

Walt, I am a little puzzled by this. I have never tried a homicide case, and I am not admitted in NC, so there may be NC caselaw I am not familiar with, but why does self-defense require an admission that the defendant intended to kill the victim? What if the defendant testifies, "Victim was attacking me, I tried to get away and punched/shoved/stabbed him, I never intended to kill him, but I did intend to use force to get away from his attack." Why is that not self-defense? (I am not asking specifically about Mangum's case, just asking you to clarify the NC law of self-defense in general.); September 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT...

It is my hope that I will be able to post the next flog tomorrow... Friday. If not, it should be posted no later than Saturday... barring any unforeseen intervention.

I enjoy the interesting comments, and would reply now if it weren't for the fact that I am working hard to get the current flog completed and posted.; September 19, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote at 12:11: "Walt, I am a little puzzled by this. I have never tried a homicide case, and I am not admitted in NC, so there may be NC caselaw I am not familiar with, but why does self-defense require an admission that the defendant intended to kill the victim?"

In State v. Gaston, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 930 (9/3/2013) the court ruled that to be entitled to an instruction for imperfect self defense, the following questions must be answered in the affirmative: "(1) Is there evidence that the defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill his adversary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm, and (2) if so, was that belief reasonable? If both queries are answered in the affirmative, then an instruction on self-defense must be given. If, however, the evidence requires a negative response to either question, a self-defense instruction should not be given."

The Gaston court spends a lot of time rejecting the notion that the defendant can accidentally, or even recklessly commit self defense. It has to be an affirmative belief that it was necessary to kill. That's what makes the self defense doctrine such a hobson's choice in NC. If the jury doesn't believe it was necessary (i.e. could have retreated, could have harmed but not killed, or it just wasn't a deadly situation) the defendant is left with their admission of intentional killing. That opens the door to Murder I in what would ordinarily be a case of escalating battery maybe just a Class H felony (misdemeanor manslaughter). Plead self defense and all of a sudden LWOP or the rusty needle becomes a risk.

Walt; September 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 19, 2013 at 7:02 AM

"no, actually it is fairly detailed information"

No it is not.

"so ... WHY do you hate Ms. Mangum so much? inquiring minds want to know ... what is your connection to duke and the lacrosse players?"

No one hates Crystal. They do not believe(except for yourself, KENHYDERAL and SIDNEY) that she was raped, they believe she got aa pass in the Milton Walkwer case, and that she is criminally liable for the death of Reginald Daye.; September 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT..."

SIDNEY saying again, Hey everyone , look at me, I'm about to publish another delusional rant.

"It is my hope that I will be able to post the next flog tomorrow... Friday. If not, it should be posted no later than Saturday... barring any unforeseen intervention."

Let's all pray for some unforseen interventions.

"I enjoy the interesting comments, and would reply now if it weren't for the fact that I am working hard to get the current flog completed and posted."

I think it s more likely that you can't reply. You haven't given a meaningful reply to anything in all the years you have been publishing this blog.; September 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: So, we are all hoping you are feeling better soon ...
did you know that?

Actually that youtube video is also a book. The details are in-depth, and when you put them together, you can see what most people have suspected all along very easily.

It might be hard for you to take in - i guess - it does tend to make you go wtf wtf wtf a few times.

I'm actually wondering at this point in time if the cia is not trying very very hard to turn durham/duke into another flash point. i have ALWAYS had that feeling about durham/duke for a long time now, but even more recently ... i mean ... well ... anyway ... it will be interesting to see how long that video stays intact on youtube ... sometimes it appears that some of the videos are 'hijacked' ... so ... we'll see.

Anyway ... i think pushing for justice like dr. harr does through the court system is the best idea - it is nonviolent - it gets the point across hopefully - and - might - might - even be able to achieve a difference for the better for 'we the people' ... we can all hope - and try as we can - but - no uprising so to speak is recommended by myself - cuz i keep getting the feeling like that is what they want - to turn to their own purposes again.

We need more couragous lawyers to help restore the USA to the people if possible.

What do you think?; September 19, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 19, 2013 at 3:18 PM.

" So, we are all hoping you are feeling better soon ...
did you know that?

Actually that youtube video is also a book. The details are in-depth, and when you put them together, you can see what most people have suspected all along very easily.

It might be hard for you to take in - i guess - it does tend to make you go wtf wtf wtf a few times.

I'm actually wondering at this point in time if the cia is not trying very very hard to turn durham/duke into another flash point. i have ALWAYS had that feeling about durham/duke for a long time now, but even more recently ... i mean ... well ... anyway ... it will be interesting to see how long that video stays intact on youtube ... sometimes it appears that some of the videos are 'hijacked' ... so ... we'll see.

Anyway ... i think pushing for justice like dr. harr does through the court system is the best idea - it is nonviolent - it gets the point across hopefully - and - might - might - even be able to achieve a difference for the better for 'we the people' ... we can all hope - and try as we can - but - no uprising so to speak is recommended by myself - cuz i keep getting the feeling like that is what they want - to turn to their own purposes again.

We need more couragous lawyers to help restore the USA to the people if possible.

What do you think?"

That you are crazy.; September 19, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: that's craaaarararazzzzzzaaaaaeee to you - well anyway - on this blog - that's what it is ... hey ...

what's so crazae about it anyway?

at one point i heard mention that nc state was trying to succeed from the nation. wondered what happened with that quest - i haven't heard about it lately.; September 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM:

"that's craaaarararazzzzzzaaaaaeee to you - well anyway - on this blog - that's what it is ... hey ..."

No, you are just plain crazy.

"what's so crazae about it anyway?"

Everything.

"at one point i heard mention that nc state was trying to succeed from the nation. wondered what happened with that quest - i haven't heard about it lately."

You haven't heard much about anything lately.; September 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: so ... what's new with you then?; September 19, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Still waiting for Harr to show us the evidence of the beating.......tick ticktock...........tick....TICK.; September 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM
A Lawyer said...: Still waiting for Dr. Harr to show us the defendants' response to his much-touted lawsuit against the State of North Carolina. I haven't seen it yet (and have searched on-line, though not through PACER), but I would bet that the defendants raise exactly the motions to dismiss that I predicted as soon as the lawsuit was filed.

That is not because I have any great prophetic talents, but simply because any journeyman lawyer would take one look at that Complaint and say, "Res Judicata. Judicial Immunity. 11th Amendment. Standing. Younger v. Harris."; September 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM
A Lawyer said...: To clarify my prior comment, the Duke defendants will assert res judicata; the federal judge defendants will assert judicial immunity; the State of North Carolina will assert the 11th Amendment, standing, and Younger.; September 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: It looks like SIDNEY's latest flog will not be up today. Thank heaven for unforeseen complications.; September 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Still waiting for Harr to show us the evidence of the beating.......tick ticktock...........tick....TICK.

Hey, everybody... Sorry for the delay in posting the flog. It was ready to be posted yesterday, Saturday, but unfortunately all of the computers in the library were down all day. Today, Sunday afternoon, the computers are back online, however, I am not able to access the site to upload the flog. Will try again later... problem may be due to computers being off line for some time. If not able to get it uploaded by 5 pm EDT, I will try to get it posted by tomorrow morning.

Sorry for the delay... It's out of my control.; September 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Hey, everybody... Sorry for the delay in posting the flog. It was ready to be posted yesterday, Saturday, but unfortunately all of the computers in the library were down all day. Today, Sunday afternoon, the computers are back online, however, I am not able to access the site to upload the flog. Will try again later... problem may be due to computers being off line for some time. If not able to get it uploaded by 5 pm EDT, I will try to get it posted by tomorrow morning.

Sorry for the delay... It's out of my control."

We're not.; September 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Here's an http address to the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" episode.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/536234

Enjoy; September 26, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: For your convenience, below is a link:
Brooklyn Nine-Nine; September 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 464 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