Sunday, September 22, 2013

Girlfriends with knives: A comparison



Click panels above to access sites

460 comments:

1 – 200 of 460   Newer›   Newest»
Nifong Supporter said...


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


Walt, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then that helps explain why the North Carolina justice system is so screwed up. Do you know if any of the other states have such a screwy law?

Nifong Supporter said...


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?


Thanks for the encouraging words. I am trying hard to rescue Lady Justice from the well-heeled and powerful hijackers, so that all Tar Heelians can have enjoy equal justice.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then that helps explain why the North Carolina justice system is so screwed up. Do you know if any of the other states have such a screwy law?"

A more aropriate question would be, does any other state have someone as deluded and megalomaniacal as SIDNEY HARR?

Nifong Supporter said...


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."


Hey, A Lawyer.

You are correct about the doctrines of res judicata. At present I am working on my response to the Duke Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. As soon as it is completed and filed I will post the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss along with my response.

I completed the most recent flog early Saturday, and started working on my response today.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Thanks for the encouraging words. I am trying hard to rescue Lady Justice from the well-heeled and powerful hijackers, so that all Tar Heelians can have enjoy equal justice."

You give evidence against yourself as to how deluded and megalomaniacal you are.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then that helps explain why the North Carolina justice system is so screwed up. Do you know if any of the other states have such a screwy law?"

A more aropriate question would be, does any other state have someone as deluded and megalomaniacal as SIDNEY HARR?


Put another way, I'm sure that no other state has the talent, fortitude, and courage of Sidney Harr.

Nifong Supporter said...


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?


Anonymous, you bring for some interesting and practical questions. Rest assured that I would never feel comfortable in a hospital owned by Duke University. I am not certain that Daye was not intentionally murdered in the hospital in order to level a severe charge against Mangum.

Furthermore, I will never knowingly set foot on any property owned by Duke University.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

More lies and istortions in your scseed:

You call Crystal the victim/accuer in the Duke Lacrosse case. She is the victimizer/false accuser. No one victimized her, and she falsely accused three innocent men of raping her. And you avoid the issues of why there was no probable cause to believe she had been raped, no medical evidence, no forensic evidence, and she could not reliably identify any member of the Lacrose team as an assailant.

You say, again, that Reginald Daye was a violent serial abuser of women. You again try to conceal evidence he was not.

TYou allege Reginald Daye died as a result of an esophageal intubation when the records you illegally accessed and posted show that was not the case.

You allege, without presenting any proof that Dr. Clay Nichols produced a fraudulent autopsy report.

You call yourself a retired physician but try to conceal that your post medical school record(you did not deny the the information published by the Indy Weekly) shows you are a singularly untrained and unqualified physician, one wthout the expertise or experience to comment meaningfully on the Reginald Daye killing.

Nifong Supporter said...


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


What was in the "Indy Week" was essentially a bunch of garbage about issues more than twenty years old. Regarding forgery, I never forged anyone's signature in the past and I certainly didn't forge Mangum's on the motions filed with the court.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Put another way, I'm sure that no other state has the talent, fortitude, and courage of Sidney Harr.'

You have no talent as a physician, you have no talent as a lawyer and your fortitude and what you call courage is devoted to distorting truth and justice, e.g. calling Crystal a victim/accuser and saying murderer Shan Carter should get a pass for murder. States other than North Carolina are rejoicing they do not have to deal with you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Anonymous, you bring for some interesting and practical questions. Rest assured that I would never feel comfortable in a hospital owned by Duke University. I am not certain that Daye was not intentionally murdered in the hospital in order to level a severe charge against Mangum."

This answer shows how uninformed and delusional you are.

"Furthermore, I will never knowingly set foot on any property owned by Duke University."

I am sure Duke is grateful for that and will not shed any tears.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What was in the "Indy Week" was essentially a bunch of garbage about issues more than twenty years old. Regarding forgery, I never forged anyone's signature in the past and I certainly didn't forge Mangum's on the motions filed with the court."

If you wanted to testify as an expert witness on Crystal's behalf, e.g. that the autopsy report was fraudulent, that Reginald Daye died as a result of Malpractice on the part of Duk, you would have to establish your credentials as an expert. What is in the Indy Week is relevant. It shows you have no credentials. You are incapable of making meaningful statements about the autopsy report or about the cause of death.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Walt, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then that helps explain why the North Carolina justice system is so screwed up. Do you know if any of the other states have such a screwy law?" Referring to the requirement that the defendant act with intention to have valid self defense.

That is the general rule in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia. Indeed, in English law, the general common law principle is stated in Beckford v. Regina, (1988) 1 AC 130: "A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

Similar clauses are found in the legislation throughout the western world. They derive historically from article 6 of the French Penal Code of 1791, which ruled that "manslaughter is legitimate if it is indispensably dictated by the present necessity of legitimate defense of oneself or others". The modern French penal code further specifies that excessive self-defense is punishable due to "disproportion between the means of defense used and the gravity of the attack" defended against.

I have found one case, Valentine v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, 48 S.E.2d 264 (Va. 1948) where the Virginia Supreme Court upheld self defense where the defendant claimed mistaken self defense. (She forgot she had a knife in her hand. Her only intent was to use her fists to ward off her attacker.) The Virginia courts have spent the last 60 years narrowing and distinguishing the holding in Valentine so I don't know how broadly we can apply that case. While I suspect there may be other cases like Valentine, they are few and I could not find them.

Crystal's position is very much Valentine. Unfortunately, Valentine is a Virginia case. The courts in NC are generally thought to be much more progressive than those in Virginia. I suspect they (the Judges on the Court of Appeals and the Justices on the Supreme Court) don't want a Valentine defense to come up in NC. Further, I suspect they fear that the public and the GOP lead Legislature having made a limited abandonment of the retreat doctrine, that they will soon have an Aponte problem. 418 N.Y.S.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979). (Defendant didn't retreat and was acquitted.)

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Please give details about your medical training, specifically how it qualifies you to comment on areas such as surgery, pathology, forensic pathology, critical care.

Anonymous said...

Good for you, harr. Stay out of Duke Hospital and don't set foot on Duke property. I am certain they will just collaspe with grief over your absence.
Go to UNC for your healthcare....or....how about Wake Med. Uh oh, you probably shouldn't go there because a whole bunch of medical staff were trained in medicine and/or did residency at Duke..........so you can't trust any of those doctors, either. And same goes for Raleigh, Durham Regional, E. Carolina, the Carolinas system in Charlotte, Baptist....you name. Why, those lousy inept murdering physicians, nurses, techs and therapists are just like the plague in NC....running roughshod over the rights of patients, killing off people to get revenge.....lordy, you better run back to California for your healthcare. Then again.....that might not be such a good idea either.....

Anonymous said...

All we have, at this point, is Harr's word and interpretation of Mangum's story/version of events........with a smattering of evidence tht Mangum might, I say might, be able to use in her defense. However, the evidence against her story is compelling........chiefly, where's the evidence of a beating so severe that she feared he was going to kill her? Otherwise, if it was just a push n shove fight that got out of hand.......with her picking up a knife and threatening him....and him trying to wrestle it out of her hand.........then.....how does THIS scenario (which I betcha the prosecution will put forward)....how does THIS scenario support her self defense claim?
I can't stand Crystal Mangum and the rotten things she has done in our community.....BUT....she is entitled to a fair trial. If she is willing to go on the stand and (a)admit she intentionally killed Daye, (b)subject herself to cross examination.........then maybe she can prevail. But that "dog won't hunt" without pretty convincing evidence that she was, in fact, getting the crap beat out of her.

Anonymous said...

It's true that in some cases a jury believed that an assault (without physical evidence of a beating) was possible....and that the victim had to kill "her" attacker in self defense. The problem is that Mangum, through harr, has told a wild story of getting beaten, punched, choked and scratched........and there is no evidence to support that story. If she had said, all along, that she and Daye were arguing, that she picked up a knife, that they wrestled, that she didn't mean to stab him, that it was an accident....maybe, maybe, it would be possible. But, if you claim that you are getting your ass kicked by a wild man, after he is dead and can't defend himself with his version of events, and there is NO evidence of the beating......you sure have one helluva hurdle to jump with a jury.
Facial punches and head punches almost ALWAYS leave bruises, at the very least. Somebody getting violently choked and no neck marks? No, not likely at all.
And, again, Mangum had the opportunity by her own admission, to RUN. (flee). Why didn't she? And why, for pete sake, did she take her purse? It just does not add up....

Anonymous said...

All the more reason to sue Duke for creating a conflict of interest with their pompous inconsiderate throw your asses off their campus attitude for whatever stupid little reason that they feel is their right, even though they know damn well that most have to inevitably rely on and trust one or more of their medical 'students' if you live in NC and you or your family require emergency or their specialized medical care, etc.

What evil little people they are to do that with no consideration for the health and well-being of those they uncermoniously toss out with no regard for constitutional nor civil rights. How fitting to have a doctor point that out to them. They need to become more conscientious of the rights of the public to be able to access their services without a threatening environment and hostile atmosphere that they have created and are determined to maintain in NC.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 7:30 AM

"All the more reason to sue Duke for creating a conflict of interest with their pompous inconsiderate throw your asses off their campus attitude for whatever stupid little reason that they feel is their right, even though they know damn well that most have to inevitably rely on and trust one or more of their medical 'students' if you live in NC and you or your family require emergency or their specialized medical care, etc.

What evil little people they are to do that with no consideration for the health and well-being of those they uncermoniously toss out with no regard for constitutional nor civil rights. How fitting to have a doctor point that out to them. They need to become more conscientious of the rights of the public to be able to access their services without a threatening environment and hostile atmosphere that they have created and are determined to maintain in NC."

Provide factual evidence to support your allegations. Otherwise you are fabricating.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

The pictures you claim prove Crystal was subjected to a severe beating showed only minor trauma of indeterminate age which would require no treatment. According to the records you posted, the Emergency Medicine people who saw her after the incident said she required no treatment.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"What was in the "Indy Week" was essentially a bunch of garbage about issues more than twenty years old. Regarding forgery, I never forged anyone's signature in the past and I certainly didn't forge Mangum's on the motions filed with the court."

If you wanted to testify as an expert witness on Crystal's behalf, e.g. that the autopsy report was fraudulent, that Reginald Daye died as a result of Malpractice on the part of Duk, you would have to establish your credentials as an expert. What is in the Indy Week is relevant. It shows you have no credentials. You are incapable of making meaningful statements about the autopsy report or about the cause of death.


I had a medical license without a blemish. It doesn't take a medical examiner to realize the autopsy report is fraudulent... any physician would come up with the same conclusion as did I.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
All we have, at this point, is Harr's word and interpretation of Mangum's story/version of events........with a smattering of evidence tht Mangum might, I say might, be able to use in her defense. However, the evidence against her story is compelling........chiefly, where's the evidence of a beating so severe that she feared he was going to kill her? Otherwise, if it was just a push n shove fight that got out of hand.......with her picking up a knife and threatening him....and him trying to wrestle it out of her hand.........then.....how does THIS scenario (which I betcha the prosecution will put forward)....how does THIS scenario support her self defense claim?
I can't stand Crystal Mangum and the rotten things she has done in our community.....BUT....she is entitled to a fair trial. If she is willing to go on the stand and (a)admit she intentionally killed Daye, (b)subject herself to cross examination.........then maybe she can prevail. But that "dog won't hunt" without pretty convincing evidence that she was, in fact, getting the crap beat out of her.


Did you see any compelling evidence on Dawn Kavanaugh's mug shot that showed she had been severely beaten?

Kavanaugh's stabbing, unlike Mangum's, actually caused her victim's death. All things considered, how can you justify the state dropping the murder charge against her while pursuing one against Mangum?

Please enlighten me on this.

Nifong Supporter said...


Commenters, you are beating around the bush. Address the real issue of why Kavanaugh's murder charge was dropped and Mangum's hasn't been.

Obviously, Mangum has been targeted by the State... right?

Anonymous said...

Flash is not supported on my iPad. You didn't post a transcript.

Who is Kavanaugh?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I had a medical license without a blemish."

But what kind, how much post graduated professional training did you have. None. Your Medical license meant only that you graduated Medical school and finished an internship year. That does not render you qualified as any kind of medical expert.

"It doesn't take a medical examiner to realize the autopsy report is fraudulent... any physician would come up with the same conclusion as did I."

Whatever it takes, it is more than you have to offer. Dr. Roberts, according to Walt, does not think the report is fraudulent. No other Doc has posted anything on your blog in support of your misinterpretation of the autopsy report.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Did you see any compelling evidence on Dawn Kavanaugh's mug shot that showed she had been severely beaten?"

Irrelevant. What would have been relevant is if the pictures you put up of Crystal showed evidence of a significant beating. They did not.

Kavanaugh's stabbing, unlike Mangum's, actually caused her victim's death. All things considered, how can you justify the state dropping the murder charge against her while pursuing one against Mangum?

Please enlighten me on this."

Dr.Nichols has enlightened you on this. Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye and he died as a ersult of it. Dr. Nichols has a lot more qualification to determine what killed Reginald Daye than you do. You refuse to be enlightened. I say hat is evidence of your resentful attitude towards Dr. Nichols because he is a much more accomplished physician than you ever were.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Commenters, you are beating around the bush. Address the real issue of why Kavanaugh's murder charge was dropped and Mangum's hasn't been."

the Kavanaugh case has no bearing on the Reginald Daye case. And there is probable cause to believe Crystal is criminally liable for Reginald Daye's death.

"Obviously, Mangum has been targeted by the State... right?"

Wrong!

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

What legal qualifications do you have to render all the legal opinions you have published? According to the Indy Weekly(which you want to suppress because it exposed a lot about your background or lack thrteof), your legal career has consisted entirely of filing frivolous lawsuits and practicing law(rather ineffectively) without a license.

Anonymous said...

Your medical license, from a third rate school, with no residency, no specialty, no surgical experience, no pathology experience, no forensic training, ....all add up to a big fat blowhard zip.
The EVIDENCE in the Kavanaugh case did not support the charge. Have you ever heard of the word EVIDENCE before, bro? A story from Mangum is NOT evidence. It's her version of what happened, conveniently manufactured AFTER Daye died. The charges will not be dropped because there IS EVIDENCE to support them.
Dumbass.

Anonymous said...

Targeted, my ass. Mangum has been given one free pass after another. Reginald Daye just might not be dead today if Mangum had been held accountable for her numerous crimes. She is nothing but a professional sex worker and a professional victim. Targeted? Yeah right, harr............

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous at 9:15 said :"Your medical license, from a third rate school".......................... Wrong! In 2013, the US News and World Report ranked OHSU amongst the top medical schools in the country, placing the school 3rd overall in Primary Care Rankings and 31st in Research Rankings. In addition, the publication ranked the school 2nd in Family Medicine and 5th in Rural Medicine specialties.[

kenhyderal said...

Nifong Supporter said: "Obviously, Mangum has been targeted by the State... right?" ..... Only people in complete denial can possibly believe otherwise.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Your medical license, from a third rate school".......................... Wrong! In 2013, the US News and World Report ranked OHSU amongst the top medical schools in the country, placing the school 3rd overall in Primary Care Rankings and 31st in Research Rankings. In addition, the publication ranked the school 2nd in Family Medicine and 5th in Rural Medicine specialties."

So?

It does not change the fact that SIDNEY has the absolute minimum of post graduate professional training, no residency training, no specialty board certification and a medical career devoted mainly to filing frivolous lawsuits. That does not even come close to qualifying him as a distinguished physician. What it adds up to is a physician unqualified to do anything.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Nifong Supporter said: "Obviously, Mangum has been targeted by the State... right?" ..... Only people in complete denial can possibly believe otherwise."

You got that wrong. Only people who are deluded megalomaniacs or blatant unrepentant racists would believe that. Or people who believe in Kilgo's non existent Lacrosse player friend. Or who believe Crystal was raped in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "You got that wrong. Only people who are blatant unrepentant racists would believe that"................ A typical case of projection so prevalent among the many cowardly, anonymous, race obsessed individuals who post here

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "You got that wrong. Only people who are blatant unrepentant racists would believe that"................ A typical case of projection so prevalent among the many cowardly, anonymous, race obsessed individuals who post here".

More like the typical denial issued by KENHYDERAL who believes Crystal was raped but who can not explain why there was no evidence of a rape.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "More like the typical denial issued by KENHYDERAL who believes Crystal was raped but who can not explain why there was no evidence of a rape"......... Huh? Denied what?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"...In 2013, the US News and World Report ranked OHSU amongst the top medical schools in the country, placing the school 3rd overall in Primary Care Rankings and 31st in Research Rankings. In addition, the publication ranked the school 2nd in Family Medicine and 5th in Rural Medicine specialties."

Of course, the rankings now have little bearing on how good the school was when Dr. Harr attended.

But I think you know that.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "More like the typical denial issued by KENHYDERAL who believes Crystal was raped but who can not explain why there was no evidence of a rape"......... Huh? Denied what?"

You have repeatedly denied that Crystal lied about being raped. You have repeatedly denied that SIDNEY is not a distinguished physician. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there was no evience Crystal was raped.

Walt said...

Let's take a more careful look at the Dawn Kavanaugh case, shall we?

1. Sid alleges that the NC council of District Attorneys took over the case after a conflict of interest arose. In fact, the Special Prosecutor's office within the Department of Justice took over the case. Not, the NC Conference of District Attorneys. For the record, the conference is a state agency that provides training material to the 44 elected District Attorneys, not prosecutors.

2. From the outset, the defendant claimed self defense. Her claim was corroborated by other witnesses. It was not developed after the fact.

3. Dawn Kavanugh ended her relationship with Ketchum on February 10, a month before Ketchum's death. When the attack happened, he was not a permissive user of her home. Instead, he barged in to Kavanaugh's kitchen.

4. Ketchum was a paroled felon with a violent history documented by his criminal record. In fact he had a record of: robbery, larceny, drug possession and DWI, all dating back to 1993. Ketchum looks like he was escalating in crime and violence. His parole was from Federal Prison. It is worth noting that Ketchum received a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) for making a threat of death. He had a history of threatening people and was believable enough that a bank teller cleaned out her drawer in response to his robbery. That makes Kavanaugh's belief seem reasonable.

Not really comparable cases.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Is your role in life to convince people of your hatred against Ms. Mangum, Dr. Harr, or anyone who does not replicate your opinion about things? What gives on that?

Doesn't it bother you more that these cases and duke's actions have led you to post on this blog continuously about the same thing over and over again? Why do you do that?

Anonymous said...

OHSU was NOT a top ranked medical school then...or now...in ANY field that would be involved in the establishment of harr's credentials. Not surgery, not pathology, not forensics, not Emergency Medicine, not critical care and not pulmonary care. Harr NEVER COMPLETED RESIDENCY in any field or specialty. This fact alone establishes that harr has zero , I mean zero credentials to comment or have a credible opinion on anything in medicine. He does not jack shit.
And not ONE, not ONE single physician has EVER agreed with his hair brained racist crap.

Anonymous said...

The law still applies equally to both defendants, regardless of all the extraneous discriminating factors about the defendants that you mention or refer to - doesn't it Walt?

Did this case occur after the castle doctrine became law or before, and how did that effect the outcome of the case?

I'm courious if Mr. Ketchum also received malpractice leading to death in his treatment after receiving the stab wound. Do you know that part of the case Dr. Harr?

But, is Ms. Mangum receiving unfair treatment from the state? Yes, otherwise she wouldn't still be awaiting, unprepared without assurance of adequate legal assistance to stand trial or defend herself. That part of the durham/duke justice system needs to change for all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM

"Is your role in life to convince people of your hatred against Ms. Mangum, Dr. Harr, or anyone who does not replicate your opinion about things? What gives on that?"

What hatred? It is not hatred to point out the truth, that Crystal falsely accused innocent men of raping her and SIDNEY is trying to convince the world that the falsely accused men are guilty.

"Doesn't it bother you more that these cases and duke's actions have led you to post on this blog continuously about the same thing over and over again?"

No

"Why do you do that?"

To p--s off racists like you and SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL. Also to expose them to the truth which they abhor.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 3:59 PM:

"The law still applies equally to both defendants, regardless of all the extraneous discriminating factors about the defendants that you mention or refer to - doesn't it Walt?"

The problem is that SIDNEY believes the law does not apply to Crystal. SIDNEY believes she should get a pass because of her ethnicity(I am not Walt).

"Did this case occur after the castle doctrine became law or before, and how did that effect the outcome of the case?"

If the Castle Doctrine was in effect I, a non lawyer, believe it would have been applicable. Read Walt's summary. Ms. Kavanaugh was attacked in her own home.

"I'm courious if Mr. Ketchum also received malpractice leading to death in his treatment after receiving the stab wound. Do you know that part of the case Dr. Harr?"

SIDNEY HARR is totally incapable of determining whether or not there was malpractice in the treatment of Mr. Ketchum. He has shown he has no idea of what happened to Reginald Daye. His accusations of malpractice against Duke are delusions not supported by facts. If you believe SIDNEY, you are also deluded. If you can not back up your allegations of malpractice against Duke you are fabricating.

"But, is Ms. Mangum receiving unfair treatment from the state? Yes, otherwise she wouldn't still be awaiting, unprepared without assurance of adequate legal assistance to stand trial or defend herself. That part of the durham/duke justice system needs to change for all."

The people responsible for Crystal's legal problems with her defense are Crystal and SIDNEY HARR, not anyone in Duke or Durham or North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

I read the reports and they appeared to say what Dr. Harr indicates that they do. Please go back to those reports and show us EXACTLY where YOU do not understand Duke's malpractice before telling Dr. Harr or myself that we are deluded or fabicating about the malpractice again, thank you.

I obviously do not agree with you that it is not Duke/Durham judicial system and duke influence in the NC legal system that is the problem with lawyers in NC cases involving duke in any way - because it is. You could not convince me otherwise after reading about what goes on in this state with duke/durham, etc.

Anonymous said...

oh, i see
so you are doing it for no other reason than to cause negativity on purpose - got it

can you stop now?
i'm sure they have got it too by now.
thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 5:12 PM:

"I read the reports and they appeared to say what Dr. Harr indicates that they do. Please go back to those reports and show us EXACTLY where YOU do not understand Duke's malpractice before telling Dr. Harr or myself that we are deluded or fabicating about the malpractice again, thank you."

SIDNEY has not documented malpractice on the part of Duke. You have not documented Duke's malpractice. Ergo your allegations are fabrications, nothing more.

"I obviously do not agree with you that it is not Duke/Durham judicial system and duke influence in the NC legal system that is the problem with lawyers in NC cases involving duke in any way - because it is. You could not convince me otherwise after reading about what goes on in this state with duke/durham, etc."

Again, you have provided no factual documentation of your allegations. Ergo, you are fabricating.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

"oh, i see
so you are doing it for no other reason than to cause negativity on purpose - got it"

SIDNEY, KENHYDERAL and you are the purveyors of negativity. I am opposing it. Why do you react so negatively? If you weren't't, I would have nothing to comment about.

"can you stop now?
i'm sure they have got it too by now."

How about you stop. If not for tour garbage, I say again, I would have nothing about which to comment. The ball is in your court.

"thanks."

You ae welcome.

Anonymous said...

no, actually - you are being a duke troll on a blog that is discussing cases opposed to duke in some ways - so - truly - you are in the wrong.

If you do not like what is being discussed on this blog - cases opposed to duke - you do not have to post or read here.

thanks

I'm still amazed that a retired doc would continue to cause harm or distress on this blog being as the hyprocratic oath should be well ingrained in you by now. Why do you try to make others angry as a doctor?

Anonymous said...


fabricator ... incubator

hey - you want to hear the duke malpractice story about the burned babies in incubators - those were 'fun' to read - NOT

or the one about the fake blood everyone had to worry about - and how duke continued to use the fake blood in nonemergency care on inpatients - and killed people with it instead - and finally got in trouble for that after quite a few patients had died from their continued fake blood malpractice - even after the deaths were obviously apparent? How much money did they make from that deadly study?

...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM.

"no, actually - you are being a duke troll on a blog that is discussing cases opposed to duke in some ways - so - truly - you are in the wrong."

Te blog is called Justice4Nifong. The only things Duke on the blog are SIDNEY's frivolous lawsuit against Duke and SIDNEY's ridiculous fantasies about Duke killing Reginald Daye. No I am not in the wrong. You are quite wrong as to what this blog is about.

"If you do not like what is being discussed on this blog - cases opposed to duke - you do not have to post or read here."

In other words, it bothers you that I do not buy into your or SIDNEY's or KENHYDERAL's delusions and you want me to cease posting about them. That is not going to happen.

"thanks"

You are welcome.

"I'm still amazed that a retired doc would continue to cause harm or distress on this blog being as the hyprocratic oath should be well ingrained in you by now. Why do you try to make others angry as a doctor?"

The hippocratic oath does not apply to posting on blogs, only to the practice of medicine. If you don't like my postings, don't read them. It's not my fault you can not document your allegations.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 6:08 PM


"fabricator ... incubator

hey - you want to hear the duke malpractice story about the burned babies in incubators - those were 'fun' to read - NOT"

Yes I would. How about you provide a link to the stories. It shouldn't be hard for you if you do have the references. I googled "burned babies in incubators at Duke University Medical Center" and go no hits.

"or the one about the fake blood everyone had to worry about - and how duke continued to use the fake blood in nonemergency care on inpatients - and killed people with it instead - and finally got in trouble for that after quite a few patients had died from their continued fake blood malpractice - even after the deaths were obviously apparent? How much money did they make from that deadly study?"

Again, if you know where this is recorded, why don't you provide a link? I did google "fake blood at Duke" and found a reference that named a number of institutions using a blood substitute including Duke but no specific references to this as a cause of malpractice suits against Duke.

The principle is, he who asserts must prove. You are asserting but you are not proving. That is why I believe you are fabricating your stories, or at least distorting them. If you want me to stop believing that, live up to your responsibility to prove what you assert.

...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 6:08 PM:

I have googled the term "malpractice actions against Duke University Medical Center over babies burned in incubators and turned up nothing. I did a google search on "Malpractice actions against Duke University Medical Center over use of artificial blood and turned up nothing.

I say again, you are making the assertions. You are obligated to prove. Provide factual information to back up the allegations you make.

Anonymous said...

i have read the news when it wasn't on the internet occasionally - go figure

i have no idea if there were malpractice lawsuits or not

duke may have settled or had some other way of getting out of malpractice

i do not know how far back the news archives go on duke

as before - i will provide no links
but i'm sure i can think of more duke malpractice events without too much trouble - and they will be from the news - and you can believe or not - or go look it up if it's there

sorry

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM

"i have read the news when it wasn't on the internet occasionally - go figure

i have no idea if there were malpractice lawsuits or not"

But you alleged there was malpractice. It is highly unlikely if there was malpractice on the part of an institution like Duke that no malpractice suits would have been filed

"duke may have settled or had some other way of getting out of malpractice"

You still have not supported the allegations you have made. Why?

"i do not know how far back the news archives go on duke"

Well once I found news stories on a malpracticing physician in the Navy from 30 years ago.

"as before - i will provide no links"

Obviously because you can't.

"but i'm sure i can think of more duke malpractice events without too much trouble - and they will be from the news - and you can believe or not - or go look it up if it's there"

Why should I believe someone who does not prove that what he asserts?

"sorry"

I say again you are one sorry individual.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Google the name Donal M. Billig.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

The incident with Ms. Kavanaugh occurred earlier this year ( February 2013 ), so it was well after the "stand your ground" laws went into effect.

Anonymous said...

So typical of the racist mindset, isn't it........two cases, totally different evidence and circumstances, totally different............yet all hard sees is that Mangum is black and Kavanaugh is white.....so, in his racist mind......the ONLY reason for charging Mangum is because she is black and the ONLY reason charges were dropped against Kavanaugh is that she is white. More of the same pathetic victim, never-take-responsibility-for-my-actions, bull shit. Dumb, stupid ignorant racist thinking, harr.......which is all you are.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 3:59 PM wrote: "The law still applies equally to both defendants, regardless of all the extraneous discriminating factors about the defendants that you mention or refer to - doesn't it Walt?"

Of course the law applies equally. That is what the rule of law is all about. As Anonymous at 4:23 PM put it, Sid doesn't want the law to apply to Crystal.

However, I do not agree that my points were extraneous. I made four points, the first was to point out Sid's mis-identification of the prosecutor. That goes to the credibility of his report.

The second point shows the difference between Kavanaugh's story and Mangum's. Mangum did not come up with the self defense angle until after Daye was dead and could not speak for himself. Kavanaugh maintained self defense from the beginning. After formulated versions of events are never as persuasive as those formulated concurrent with the event. Goes to the credibility of the two defendants.

The third point goes to timing. Kavanaugh ended her relationship with Ketchum. Thus, he was not an expected visitor in her house. Further, that point disputes Sid's version of the facts. A version that is not supported by any of the contemporaneous news reporting.

The final point goes to the reasonableness of Kavanaugh's belief that deadly force was necessary to defend herself. Ketchum had a history of convincing people he was dangerous. He convinced a bank teller. He convinced a federal probation officer, he convinced a federal magistrate and he convinced a federal District Court Judge. That goes to the heart of the issue of self defense. How reasonable was the defendant's belief. Given how convincing Ketchum was, I think her belief was reasonable.

"Did this case occur after the castle doctrine became law...?"

Anyone who has RTF knows it was after.

"I'm courious if Mr. Ketchum also received malpractice leading to death...?"

It would not matter. Anyone who has RTF knows that St. v. Welch and St. v. Holsclaw hold that malpractice is not an intervening cause.

"But, is Ms. Mangum receiving unfair treatment from the state?"

No, she is not.

"...otherwise she wouldn't still be awaiting, unprepared without assurance of adequate legal assistance to stand trial or defend herself."

She has fired all of her attorneys but one. She, without the authorization of her many attorneys, filed numerous frivolous motions that caused delay after delay. She has had adequate, even excellent legal representation. She just doesn't like what they tell her.

"That part of the durham/duke justice system needs to change for all."

Duke and Durham have had nothing to do with Mangum's firing her own legal counsel. Duke and Durham have had nothing to do with her maneuvering to get special privileges not normally granted to indigent defendants.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Well Walt, I don't know what you mean by RTF.

I don't understand why you don't see duke/durham judicial system as a part of what Ms. Mangum and this case represent and entail - especially since both and collectively duke/durham have been sued by the lacrosse players for their nefarious judicially based procedures that caused so many, including Ms. Mangum, to suffer so much. She is not the DA, Judges, public defender, or cops, or duke admin, or docs or nurses - she had no control over what they did as far as I could see - since it was an out-of-control case from the beginning, wouldn't you say?

Also, do you imply that since she is an indigent defendant that she does not have the same and equal right to protection and due process of law in the duke/durham judicial system - which would include a lawyer who she could trust to work with to assist her in her own defense, and the right to a speedy trial - right?

Walt said...

Anonymous at 6:37 wrote: "Well Walt, I don't know what you mean by RTF."

RTF-Read The Forum.

"I don't understand why you don't see duke/durham judicial system as a part of what Ms. Mangum and this case represent and entail - especially since both and collectively duke/durham have been sued by the lacrosse players for their nefarious judicially based procedures that caused so many, including Ms. Mangum, to suffer so much."

Crystal caused the harm to the innocent lacrosse defendants.

"She is not the DA, Judges, public defender, or cops,..."

No, but she is the one who filed the frivolous motions, she fired competent counsel, she caused the delays, not the DA, not the judges and not the public defender.

" or duke admin,..."

Who had and have nothing to do with the case.

"... or docs or nurses - she had no control over what they did as far as I could see..."

Again, RTF Holesclaw and Welch. Even if there was malpractice, and there is no proof of such, it does not matter. There is no one so blind as the one who will not see, no one so deaf as the one who will not listen, no one so dumb as the one who will not learn.

"- since it was an out-of-control case from the beginning, wouldn't you say?"

Crystal was out of control. No one else.

"Also, do you imply that since she is an indigent defendant that she does not have the same and equal right to protection and due process of law...."

Equal protection and due process do not entitle a defendant to file frivolous motions. Equal protection and due process do not entitle indigent defendants to hire and fire public defenders at will. The equal protection violation here is Crystal's not the judicial system.

"...in the duke/durham judicial system -..."

That is a construct in your mind, not in reality.

"... which would include a lawyer who she could trust to work with to assist her in her own defense, and the right to a speedy trial - right?"

That is exactly what she has received and rejected. She caused the delay, not the state. She fired attorneys who were, by all accounts, giving her sound legal advice. Instead, Crystal chose to listen to Sid and file frivolous motions. One of which sought to misuse the authority regulating insurance to force the DA to dismiss charges. That filing was beyond frivolous. That was vexatious.

Lastly, I think you should remember the excellent advice Lance gave in an earlier post get a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style you really would benefit from it.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Love your posts, Walt. Sanity is refreshing. This poster is the same wingnut who is running his/her mouth on DIW...... could it be mistrail-recluse? LOLOL

Anonymous said...

"a bunch of garbage 20 years old?" Hmmmm. so what, exactly, was NOT true in the article, if it was garbage? Perhaps you didn't file 27 suits....maybe only 20? Perhaps you didn't intend to forge a signature and you just forgot to get permission to sign another person's name? Perhaps you settled out of court?
Your refusal to do anything but deny and discount the source.......simply means that you are either (a)lying and guilty of everything in the article, or, (b)you know you are guilty of at least some portion of what the article said, and you don't want to embarrass yourself and further erode your thin credibility. I doubt the IndyWeek would publish something as specific as the number "27", in reference to suits you been a party to, without getting it from some source. thin air, sidney?
I'll give you this.....you are consistent in your pattern of filing lawsuits....and LOSING

Anonymous said...

It makes no sense, at all, that a person can accidentally or recklessly commit self defense. I meant to defend myself, but, no, I didn't mean to defend myself? What?? If you defend yourself, thinking your attacker is going to kill you, then you have INTENT to purposely and willfully defend yourself.
If you could have run away, as perhaps Mangum could have run out the door....if Daye was NOT beating/choking her... as in NO evidence that he was beating or choking her.........then the jury is going to have a hard time thinking that Mangum had to stab Daye to defend herself....claiming self defense. It really is not credible to think that somebody would claim that they didn't intend to defend themselves. "Oh, it was an accident, I didn't mean to defend myself"........ please.....
Either Mangum did believe Daye was going to kill her and did, intentionally kill him..... OR....it was a mutual fight that got out of hand, they struggled, maybe he tried to wrestle the knife away, etc..........anyway, she stabbed him.....UNintentionally.....by accident.....and it's manslaughter.
Walt, am I thinking of this correctly, per what the law says?

Anonymous said...

ok walt

whatever

i WAS talking about the lacrosse case being out of control from the beginning - everyone knows that

and that the lacrosse case had nothing to do with Ms. Mangum really anyway, except that she is being used in the worst way by so much evil it is amazing to watch - and see it continue right in front of your eyes ... nonstop (it NEVER stops ... EVER)

so ... you think you constantly giving questionable legal advice and information on this blog and having Dr. Harr have to step in and assist Ms. Mangum because she couldn't get any other professional legal / medical expertise assistance to assist her in her defense and examining the discovery records and understanding them (because of the duke/durham/lacrosse case/nc judicial system etc. thing prevalent in duke/durham/nc) is a suitable substitute for a duke/durham judicial system that actually provides equal protection, representation, and due process of law to ALL (including indigent defendants)

seriously?

that is such a silly thing to defend against her or what i said as my understanding of the cases - it seems like just more of the same duke/durham bs to me

Anonymous said...

......"and that the lacrosse case had nothing to do with Ms. Mangum really anyway, except that she is being used in the worst way by so much evil it is amazing to watch - and see it continue right in front of your eyes ... nonstop..."....so says the piggy-fracker poster....

Dear Pink Piggy......"Most people who spew hatred aren’t very intelligent or motivated. They tend to be lazy, and if for some reason they are coaxed into picking up a pen, their messages are mostly incoherent and largely illiterate.”
― Damien Echols, Life After Death

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Your medical license, from a third rate school, with no residency, no specialty, no surgical experience, no pathology experience, no forensic training, ....all add up to a big fat blowhard zip.
The EVIDENCE in the Kavanaugh case did not support the charge. Have you ever heard of the word EVIDENCE before, bro? A story from Mangum is NOT evidence. It's her version of what happened, conveniently manufactured AFTER Daye died. The charges will not be dropped because there IS EVIDENCE to support them.
Dumbass.


As kenhyderal commented earlier, Oregon Health Sciences University is highly regarded. For you to call it third rate is a reflection on your bias and disregard for objectivity.

Anonymous said...

When you graduated, if you did, it was not......and still is not...in any of the specialty fields involved in this case......such as cardiothoracic surgery, pathology, forensics, and trauma medicine. By the way, why aren't you willing to disclose the details of your illustrious medical career? What experience, crednentials, etc. do YOU have, from ANY medical school, that would qualify you to comment, superficially, about an autopsy report........

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
So typical of the racist mindset, isn't it........two cases, totally different evidence and circumstances, totally different............yet all hard sees is that Mangum is black and Kavanaugh is white.....so, in his racist mind......the ONLY reason for charging Mangum is because she is black and the ONLY reason charges were dropped against Kavanaugh is that she is white. More of the same pathetic victim, never-take-responsibility-for-my-actions, bull shit. Dumb, stupid ignorant racist thinking, harr.......which is all you are.


Mangum's unjust treatment by the State and media is not solely racial... it is in large measure because she is the Duke Lacrosse accuser. As in the 2010 arson case, the current charges are as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

And, just because I point out racism that is taking place in our society, that does not make me a racist. Jesse Helms was a racist. Not me.

Anonymous said...

and of course, harr once again avoids answering the very direct question of how Mangum could have escaped his "hour of sheer terror"....beating, punching, choking....without one single bit of evidence.....

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
When you graduated, if you did, it was not......and still is not...in any of the specialty fields involved in this case......such as cardiothoracic surgery, pathology, forensics, and trauma medicine. By the way, why aren't you willing to disclose the details of your illustrious medical career? What experience, crednentials, etc. do YOU have, from ANY medical school, that would qualify you to comment, superficially, about an autopsy report........


I never said my medical career was illustrious... you did. Secondly, to discuss my medical career would be irrelevant as any individual with a medical degree would be able to understand that the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols is false and fraudulent.

Anonymous said...

Compared to YOUR racist views and behavior, Helms' racism was mild...

Oh, I get it though, Mangum isn't responsible for her own behavior. Why silly me........of course she isn't. she can run around killing people and should just get a pass.....that's it!

Anonymous said...

YOU and Sister are responsible for the delays in her trial. Period.

Anonymous said...

Hey, harr, name ONE physician who agrees with you. ONE. I can name two who do not. Nichols and Roberts. And, of course, we have Dr. Anon who posts here who has CLEARLY shown you up for the mistaken fraud you are....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As kenhyderal commented earlier, Oregon Health Sciences University is highly regarded. For you to call it third rate is a reflection on your bias and disregard for objectivity."

The question is, what did you ever do besides the absolute bare minimum, graduate from Medical school and complete an internship? The fact that you never did a residency raises the possibility that you could not get accepted into a residency.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Mangum's unjust treatment by the State and media is not solely racial... it is in large measure because she is the Duke Lacrosse accuser. As in the 2010 arson case, the current charges are as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case."

Crystal is the false accuser in the Duke phoney rape case. Her problems after the false rape case are all of her own doing. Part of her problems arrise from Crystal's continuing to insist, falsely, that she was raped.

"And, just because I point out racism that is taking place in our society, that does not make me a racist. Jesse Helms was a racist. Not me."

Yes you are a racist. Otherwise you would not be concocting false reasons to call white people racist.

So far as racista named Jesse, you forgot to name race baiter Jesse. That, in and of itself, shows you are a racist.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I never said my medical career was illustrious..."

BULLSHIT!!! You once described yourself as a retired physician eith almost 20 years experience in Emergency Medicine when the situation was that you ended your medical career bankrupt after filing a number of frivolous lawsuits(according to the Indy Weekly, which allegations you do not deny).

"you did."

More BULLSHITT!!! I described you devoting your post medical school career to largely using your ethnicity to extort money from people under the fiction of fighting for racial justice. Maybe you are so hard up for recognition as a physician you are imagining what I have written about your less than illustrious medical non career.

"Secondly, to discuss my medical career would be irrelevant as any individual with a medical degree would be able to understand that the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols is false and fraudulent."

Yet more BULLSHIT!!! It takes more than an MD degree to be able to comment meaningfully on the truth of an autopsy report. It takes credentials which you have never come close to obtaining. You are the only person with an MD degree on record as questioning Dr. Nichols' report.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 11:18 PM wrote: " I WAS talking about the lacrosse case being out of control from the beginning - everyone knows that"

Strunk and White my friend, Strunk and White. Now that you have clarified your meaning, I agree, the lacrosse case was out of control. It all started with a false allegation and it went down hill from there.

"(it NEVER stops ... EVER)"

It would if she owned up to making a false accusation.

"...having Dr. Harr have to step in and assist Ms. Mangum because she couldn't get any other professional legal / medical expertise assistance to assist her in her defense and examining the discovery records and understanding them ..."

That's just not the way it happened. Crystal had competent legal assistance from three different lawyers. She had the assistance of a very skilled physician who is an expert pathologist. She just did not like what she heard. Just like you don't like what you hear.

"...it seems like just more of the same duke/durham bs to me"

That is a construct in your mind, not in reality.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Yep, only white people are racists, right, harr and hissy boy? But, hey, I guess the asshat who shot four people in a Wal Mart in Greenville, and said it was because they were white, isn't a racist. Nah, not him. This black scumbag permanently disabled people with over 100 rounds of ammunition, picking white people at random to mow down....just because they were white. But him a racist ass? Why, no........the poor fellow....he's just a victim of evil white oppressors who MADE him fire his gun at strangers. Yep, that's it.....sure thing.......

Anonymous said...

walt,

so you think Ms Mangum deserves all the evil duke can throw at her unless she confesses to NOT being raped? seriously - that is what appears to be happening - duke still throwing all the evil that they can at her - never stopping - even at murder - and even to innocents in order to satisfy their evil duke has to be best in order to amass billions in donations ways against Ms. Mangum (and NC because of their evil corrupt ways).

you actually think that two DAs being ousted from the durham/duke judicial system for doing what ever they did to whatever people they did it to for whatever reasons the DAs were standing against them and their actions that caused such disrespect of duke/durham/nc judicial system by MOST is simply a contruct of my mind? that really sucks about duke you know - they actually think they can deny the truth - and make every one else seem like they are wrong when they point out truths that duke tries to deny and hide that are harming others. duke insults MOST people's intelligence - i can assure you.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:53 PM wrote: [Duke] "never stopping - even at murder - and even to innocents..."

Duke has not murdered anyone. I think you have pushed your canoe away from the shores of reality and left your paddle behind.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

yeah walt that's me alrite

i sit offshore from your grounds of denial of reality as it is for all others than ya'lls evil and watch amazed at all the sheat ya'll do - i do enjoy reading the news afterall

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM:

so you think Ms Mangum deserves all the evil duke can throw at her unless she confesses to NOT being raped? seriously - that is what appears to be happening - duke still throwing all the evil that they can at her - never stopping - even at murder - and even to innocents in order to satisfy their evil duke has to be best in order to amass billions in donations ways against Ms. Mangum (and NC because of their evil corrupt ways)."

You seem to think Crystal should get a pass for falsely accusing innocent men of raping her. Any evil dumped on Crystal s self inflicted.

"you actually think that two DAs being ousted from the durham/duke judicial system for doing what ever they did to whatever people they did it to for whatever reasons the DAs were standing against them and their actions that caused such disrespect of duke/durham/nc judicial system by MOST is simply a contruct of my mind? that really sucks about duke you know - they actually think they can deny the truth - and make every one else seem like they are wrong when they point out truths that duke tries to deny and hide that are harming others. duke insults MOST people's intelligence - i can assure you."

You say you read the news. So read the news on Tracy Cline and corrupt DA NIFONG. They were dismissed because of grossly inadequate performance-unless you do not believe that wrongfully prosecuting innocent men for rape is prosecutorial misconduct.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 6:10 AM:


"i sit offshore from your grounds of denial of reality as it is for all others than ya'lls evil and watch amazed at all the sheat ya'll do - i do enjoy reading the news afterall"

You give no indication you have ever read the news. You fabricate a lot of far fetched allegations against people and institutions you do not like.

Anonymous said...

you are so lost in your hatred of duke/durham mess that you do not see that most despise what you hate - we just see more than you do because we are not blinded by the corruptness of dukes evil ways - and do not choose to ignore it like you do

your argument holds no wait - since you could easily verify what i said about duke by reading the news yourself if it really mattered to you - which it doesn't - cuz you are just being a duke troll - as usual

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 7:14 AM

"you are so lost in your hatred of duke/durham mess that you do not see that most despise what you hate - we just see more than you do because we are not blinded by the corruptness of dukes evil ways - and do not choose to ignore it like you do

your argument holds no wait - since you could easily verify what i said about duke by reading the news yourself if it really mattered to you - which it doesn't - cuz you are just being a duke troll - as usual"

You are the one who is asserting.You are the one required to verify what you assert. Thus far you have refused to do so. That suggests you can not verify, which in turn suggests you are fabricating.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 7:14 AM:

Google searches on what you say is in the news returns no hits. That suggests there is nthing in the news. That, in turn, suggests you are fabricating.

Anonymous said...

can't help you there

go to the library if you are really interested i guess - it might have more of a complete archive

seriously - maybe duke made the news take their sheat down - they do have this billions dollar donar drive goin on - ya know

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 7:42 AM

"can't help you there"

Which translates, yet again, into, you will not verify the allegations you make.

"go to the library if you are really interested i guess - it might have more of a complete archive"

I say again, since it is your obligation to verify, it is your obligation, not mine, to go to the library.

"seriously - maybe duke made the news take their sheat down - they do have this billions dollar donar drive goin on - ya know"

Which looks like you are admitting you can not verify your allegations. That suggests you are fabricating.

Anonymous said...

Walt,

I understand that a witness apparently reported hearing a woman in the Daye/Mangum apartment yell: "I'm going to fuck you up!"

I don't understand how that supports Mangum's self-defense claim.

Anonymous said...

Interesting..........Mangum must like the phrase "I'm going to fxxx you up"....those are the same words she used, in the presence of an officer, when she threatened to stab Walker. Sister likes knives apparently.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if piggy fracker is really kenny hissy or sidney, gone covert, to waste other people's time with the silliness of the endless Duke bashing. Or perhaps it's Victoria, the Queen Bigot of Bull City

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey... did anyone catch "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" on television last evening? Very funny... the episode titled "The Tagger."

It aired locally on Fox-50 Tuesday at 8:30 pm. It's an extremely funny sitcom featuring SNL alum Andy Samberg.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Compared to YOUR racist views and behavior, Helms' racism was mild...

Oh, I get it though, Mangum isn't responsible for her own behavior. Why silly me........of course she isn't. she can run around killing people and should just get a pass.....that's it!


Who did Mangum kill? She didn't intubate Daye.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hey, harr, name ONE physician who agrees with you. ONE. I can name two who do not. Nichols and Roberts. And, of course, we have Dr. Anon who posts here who has CLEARLY shown you up for the mistaken fraud you are....


Where did Dr. Anon go to medical school?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Walt,

I understand that a witness apparently reported hearing a woman in the Daye/Mangum apartment yell: "I'm going to fuck you up!"

I don't understand how that supports Mangum's self-defense claim.


That so-called witness is not that credible because she also stated that she heard two women's voices coming from the apartment as well as the voices of children.

Even if Mangum may have cursed at Daye, that does not mean she attacked him. She may have cursed at him for beating her.

Anonymous said...

continuing to laugh at harr........either his dementia is getting worse or he is running out of lies. pathetic old man....and deceitful to the core

Anonymous said...

dr. anon has OWNED your ass several times in discussion here. you cannot back up one single statement you make. try again, liar

Anonymous said...

it is not up to you to decide who is credible. If it were no conscious cline, little boy killer Carter and scumbag Nifong would be Mangum's defense team.....
actually that might not be a bad team......at least she would be hanging out with liars, killers and gutless immoral jerks.......birds of her feather.

A Lawyer said...

Who did Mangum kill? She didn't intubate Daye.

Assuming that there was malpractice by Duke, Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye, which caused him to be taken to the hospital, where he died of medical malpractice. Duke's malpractice would not have killed him had he not first been stabbed. Therefore, under State v. Welch, she is responsible for his death because he wouldn't have died had she not stabbed him.

Walt and I have been over this. It doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Anonymous said...

A Lawyer,

You don't seem to understand the rules of this blog. Sidney and his acolytes are free to disregard any fact they do not like.

State v. Welch does not exist on this blog. If Crystal is convicted, Sidney and the trolls will be free to continue their one-sided discussion.

Anonymous said...

wtf this IS Dr. Harr's blog - so you are obviously confused at who the trolls are.

you don't even know what goes on in durham/duke land from what you have said - so seriously - get real

Anonymous said...

And you obviously can't read.

I didn't discuss "durham/duke land" at all. I didn't intend to do so.

So why don't you get real?

Anonymous said...

why should what walt's say be taken at face value anyway - he is on duke's side - not Ms. Mangum's - or the we the people (as in public defense) ... noone's but dukes

i refuse to allow duke to continue on unabated in their evil ways - so do many others - get over it



Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Who did Mangum kill? She didn't intubate Daye."

She did stab him and he died of complications of the stab wound, not from an esophageal intubation.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Where did Dr. Anon go to medical school?"

Jefferson Medical College, alma mater of Samuel Gross, S. Weir Mitchell, Chevalier Jackson, John H. Gibbon Jr., Jonathan Letterman, among others.

Dr.Anonymous

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

I also completed residencies in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery, had my boards in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery before I retired.

What residencies did you complete? What Board Certification did you achieve?

Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...



No one asked you to take Walt's analysis at face value. Walt gives sources. You, like everyone else on this board, is free to read the sources. Don't be so fucking lazy.

Why do you say Walt is on Duke's side? He has at times been quite critical of Duke.

You earlier have said it is obvious that Duke "hates" Mangum. I have seen no statement or action from Duke to support that view. Can you give an example?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"That so-called witness is not that credible because she also stated that she heard two women's voices coming from the apartment as well as the voices of children."

So say you, who fears what the court will say.

"Even if Mangum may have cursed at Daye, that does not mean she attacked him. She may have cursed at him for beating her."

However, there was no evidence he beat her. Ergo she did not say that in response to a beating.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 4:38 PM

"wtf this IS Dr. Harr's blog - so you are obviously confused at who the trolls are."

You are one. KENHYDERAL is another.

"you don't even know what goes on in durham/duke land from what you have said - so seriously - get real"

Considering how much you fabricate about Duke, why should anyone believe that you know anything about what goes on at Duke.

Anonymous said...

so you are an alleged doctor who thinks malpractice by duke should go ignored because you:

a. are a duke bb fan?

b. was/are a patient at duke - so you are hoping not to get put on their 'your dead meat' list by actually having a ethical moral bone on which to make a 'stand' against their evil ways?

c. you are a paid duke lakey?

d. you are a fabricator (as you like to say) and are really a paid duke troll?

e. all of the above.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 4:50 PM

"why should what walt's say be taken at face value anyway - he is on duke's side - not Ms. Mangum's - or the we the people (as in public defense) ... noone's but dukes"

Walt is on no one's side. He is a competent lawyer who provides documentation for what he posts, unlike you.

"i refuse to allow duke to continue on unabated in their evil ways - so do many others - get over it"

You have never documented that Duke perpetrates evil. Making allegations which you do not corroborate is not evidence of evil on Duke's part. It is evidence of evil on your part.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 5:07 PM:


"so you are an alleged doctor who thinks malpractice by duke should go ignored because you:"

I am a real doctor who sees you have documented no malpractice on the part of Duke, just fabricated about it.

"a. are a duke bb fan?"

I do not follow basketball, college, pro or otherwise.

"b. was/are a patient at duke - so you are hoping not to get put on their 'your dead meat' list by actually having a ethical moral bone on which to make a 'stand' against their evil ways?"

What evil ways. Your fabrications do not make Duke evil.

"c. you are a paid duke lakey?"

What is a Duke "lakey"? There is no such word in the English language.

"d. you are a fabricator (as you like to say) and are really a paid duke troll?"

You are the fabricator here, not me. You have made that self evident.

"e. all of the above."

None of the above. On the other hand you are a big nothing who likes to fabricate and then decompensates when outed.

Anonymous said...

you are stupid and laughable by this time with your inability to read the news and thinking your complaining about that negates anything that i mention since most who actually know duke / durham land know it to be old news

blah

noone believes you are a doctor btw

Anonymous said...

Actually, we ALL believe Dr. Anon is a physician.....except you, piggy. I have a personal and professional connection to Jefferson, so I know, first hand, the outstanding quality of the medical college. You continue to flash your backside, pink piggy.......none of us gives a rip.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:35 AM wrote: "Walt,

I understand that a witness apparently reported hearing a woman in the Daye/Mangum apartment yell: "I'm going to fuck you up!"

I don't understand how that supports Mangum's self-defense claim."


Indeed, it does not help her self defense claim.

As to Sid's claim the witness is not credible, how is Crystal going to dispute it? The statement is going into evidence because it's not offered for the truth of the assertion, but for the fact that it was said. (Not hearsay.) Thus, Crystal's lawyer has only one option and that's to put Crystal on the stand to deny saying it.

Another hobson's choice. Put her on the stand to deny, or not. Either way, the statement comes into evidence. Just how much weight does the jury give it? How much does Meier risk with her on the stand. Sid keeps painting Crystal into corners. She's lucky the bar and the Superior Court upheld the rule of law and didn't let him "represent" her.

Lawyers have to advise their clients about those tough choices. I am willing to venture that some other lawyers have given Crystal some of those choices and she just didn't like them. She got mad. She fired them. Just like our less than illuminating posters. They don't like the law. They really don't want it to apply to Crystal but they don't do anything show why the law either does not or should not apply. Sad really.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 5:17 PM:

"you are stupid and laughable by this time with your inability to read the news and thinking your complaining about that negates anything that i mention since most who actually know duke / durham land know it to be old news

blah"

Why do you expect me to read the news for you? Most likely it is an admission that you can not find any news that supports your allegations. That in turn is another admission you are fabricating.

"noone believes you are a doctor btw"

So you admit you are a "noone".

Anonymous said...

so

why do you post on this blog again ... ah yes ... public service

so

what is the purpose of your public service again?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

There is a story on ABC News this evening that a woman was sentenced to jail for getting her husband to shoot a man whom she claimed he was telepathically raping her.

Maybe you could now claim that Crystal was telepathically raped and that is why there is no evidence.

That would be no crazier or more unbelievable than any of your previous hypotheses.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 5:58 PM

"so

why do you post on this blog again ... ah yes ... public service

so

what is the purpose of your public service again?"

To goad you into revealing you are a fabricator. So far it is working.

Anonymous said...

evil duke troll


yeah


you must be one of the crazies


stupid


you are seriously evil

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

evil duke troll


yeah


you must be one of the crazies


stupid


you are seriously evil"

And you are reduced to impotent name calling. Again, you are one sorry excuse for a human being.

Anonymous said...

so ... how much does duke pay you for your public service?

Anonymous said...

And who pays you to act like a fucking moron?

Anonymous said...

yeah

who at duke pays you to be an evil duke troll and act like a stupid fucking moron on these blogs, etc.

others might want to apply - never know

Anonymous said...

No, asshole. You are the one that acts like a fucking moron. Duke doesn't pay anyone on this blog,and only a fucking moron would suggest otherwise.

Anonymous said...

whatever

you fool only yourself i assure you

stupid evil duke troll - don't even have the sense to see that what you do on this blog only makes duke look worse - since it is just ONE more in your face example of THEM ... don't ya know

blah

Anonymous said...

Listen, asshole.

Stop it with the moron act. No one finds it clever.

By the way, I found the story about the premature infant burned in the incubator at DUMC. You didn't fabricate that. It happened on August 31, 2003.


Anonymous said...

what - you think anyone thinks your moronic obsessive fabricating bs was clever? you are an evil duke troll to everyone - not just me

yeah ... you can google the news afterall ... clever as that eh?

Anonymous said...

Hey, asshole.

I am not the same poster that accused you of fabricating. You confused me with another anonymous poster.

Yes, I can google. Just like you can so that you can find mistakes that Duke made and then pretend that you are upset.

You owe me an apology for your mistake.

Anonymous said...

naw i made no mistake about you both being evil duke trolls

whatever ... i know it happened ... so do most people here in duke/durham land ... so what?

me being upset - seriously - A FRACKING LOT OF PEOPLE WERE SERIOUSLY UPSET - but that's ok - we understand if you aren't or weren't

blah

Anonymous said...

Hey, asshole.

Stop acting like a fucking moron. No one thinks that you are clever.

Tell me, asshole. How was I supposed to know about Duke burning a baby in an incubator. It didn't get much coverage in New York.

Anonymous said...

Hey, asshole.

Is the New York Times part of the Duke conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

how bout if we do a double blind study on unsuspecting posters?

here's your role:

act like an evil moronic duke troll

here's what the study will achieve:

determine how quickly "blah" can become the standard response to every evil duke troll post made on this blog.

ok - go

Anonymous said...

In the same year that the baby was accidentally burned, the hospital received an international award recognizing its excellence in the care of infants and children with a variety of pediatric diseases. The baby was burned because there was a friction-caused spark between materials that were proximate to a small cloth "hood" that enclosed and contained very rich oxygen the baby needed to breathe. It was a freak accident.
A root cause analysis was done and it was found that static electricity buildup, which not ever have happened, simply hit that oxygen-saturated environment.
I challenge anybody on this ridiculous web site to name one hospital in the United States, or the world, that cares for hundreds of thousands of patients ..just name ONE hospital that has never had an accident like this. I remind all of you that the name one hospital in the US, Johns Hopkins, just this past year year......discovered that one of its physicians was guilty of taking and selling pornographic images of his patients. He killed himself after it was learned he had taken photos of his female patients during pelvic examinations.
I hope anybody with at least one brain cell realizes that accidents do happen, mistakes do get made, malpractice does occur (the Duke case was not malpractice), and bad things happen to patients. Any idiot who thinks these mistakes are representative of the larger quality of care in one of the nation's finest hospitals is in need of therapy.

Anonymous said...

amazing they can do that sheat and still win top awards to brag to their donors (and others) about isn't it?

blah

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

"evil duke troll


yeah


you must be one of the crazies


stupid


you are seriously evil"

More impotent name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 6:57 PM:

"so ... how much does duke pay you for your public service?"

More impotent name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 7:09 PM:

:yeah

who at duke pays you to be an evil duke troll and act like a stupid fucking moron on these blogs, etc.

others might want to apply - never know"

More impotent name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 7:19 PM:

:whatever

you fool only yourself i assure you

stupid evil duke troll - don't even have the sense to see that what you do on this blog only makes duke look worse - since it is just ONE more in your face example of THEM ... don't ya know

blah"

More impotent name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Listen, asshole.

Stop it with the moron act. No one finds it clever.

By the way, I found the story about the premature infant burned in the incubator at DUMC. You didn't fabricate that. It happened on August 31, 2003."

So publisha link to the story.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 8:05 PM

All those incidents happened in 2003, about 10 years ago. What has happened since that proves Duke is as evil as you claim?

Sort of like SIDNEY claiming Reginald Daye was a serial violent abuser of women because of a sokitary incident ehich happened years ago.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 25, 2013 at 8:56 PM

"Hey, asshole.

I am not the same poster that accused you of fabricating. You confused me with another anonymous poster.

Yes, I can google. Just like you can so that you can find mistakes that Duke made and then pretend that you are upset.

You owe me an apology for your mistake."

I am sorry you are a fabricator.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 26, 2013 at 3:34 AM:

The incidents at Duke all happened ten yearsago, something the impotent fabricator did not mention(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.true-crime/tpDTD_Bwx_E).

Anonymous said...

Well, now we know why the impotent fabricator was reluctant to provide a link to accounts of Duke's malpractice. He did not want to admit he was referring to ten year old incidents. That is not a record of repeated Duke malpractice. What all has hapened since 2013?

Anonymous said...

Not only ten years ago, it was an accident..........good lord, hundreds of thousands of patients treated successfully.......yes, there ARE going to be problems and bad things that happen. What is this idiot's point? There is not ONE single hospital in this country that has a perfect record. Anybody who works in healthcare knows this. There is not one single airline that has never had a flight problem. There is not one single car company that has never had a crash/recall. There is not one single PERSON, including this halfwit, who is perfect. What a douche.......

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
dr. anon has OWNED your ass several times in discussion here. you cannot back up one single statement you make. try again, liar


I repeat... where did Dr. Anon go to medical school?

Anonymous said...

He answered the question. Read the answer.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Who did Mangum kill? She didn't intubate Daye.

Assuming that there was malpractice by Duke, Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye, which caused him to be taken to the hospital, where he died of medical malpractice. Duke's malpractice would not have killed him had he not first been stabbed. Therefore, under State v. Welch, she is responsible for his death because he wouldn't have died had she not stabbed him.

Walt and I have been over this. It doesn't seem to have sunk in.


As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt. It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... and the esophageal intubation was definitely an intervening cause.

Need I say more?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Where did Dr. Anon go to medical school?"

Jefferson Medical College, alma mater of Samuel Gross, S. Weir Mitchell, Chevalier Jackson, John H. Gibbon Jr., Jonathan Letterman, among others.

Dr.Anonymous


I sometimes skip around when reading the comments, so I just found the info about Dr. Anon's alleged medical training. Can you provide any verification... like say for example, your name?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Who did Mangum kill? She didn't intubate Daye."

She did stab him and he died of complications of the stab wound, not from an esophageal intubation.


What complication from a stab wound? He certainly didn't hemorrhage to death? He didn't die of an infection secondary to the wound or the emergency surgery.

He died because he was electively taken off life support. That had nothing to do with the stabbing!

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

I also completed residencies in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery, had my boards in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery before I retired.

What residencies did you complete? What Board Certification did you achieve?

Dr. Anonymous


Dr. Anonymous, how do you expect me to accept what achievements you claim without giving up your identification? For all I know you could be a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Anonymous at 8:35 AM wrote: "Walt,

I understand that a witness apparently reported hearing a woman in the Daye/Mangum apartment yell: "I'm going to fuck you up!"

I don't understand how that supports Mangum's self-defense claim."

Indeed, it does not help her self defense claim.

As to Sid's claim the witness is not credible, how is Crystal going to dispute it? The statement is going into evidence because it's not offered for the truth of the assertion, but for the fact that it was said. (Not hearsay.) Thus, Crystal's lawyer has only one option and that's to put Crystal on the stand to deny saying it.

Another hobson's choice. Put her on the stand to deny, or not. Either way, the statement comes into evidence. Just how much weight does the jury give it? How much does Meier risk with her on the stand. Sid keeps painting Crystal into corners. She's lucky the bar and the Superior Court upheld the rule of law and didn't let him "represent" her.

Lawyers have to advise their clients about those tough choices. I am willing to venture that some other lawyers have given Crystal some of those choices and she just didn't like them. She got mad. She fired them. Just like our less than illuminating posters. They don't like the law. They really don't want it to apply to Crystal but they don't do anything show why the law either does not or should not apply. Sad really.

Walt-in-Durham


Even if Crystal made a threatening shout out using the f bomb, that does not preclude her from being the victim of physical violence by Daye or from stabbing him in self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I repeat... where did Dr. Anon go to medical school?"

Read my post of September 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt."

What legal training have you had that would render you capable of makinfg such a statement. About twice as much medical residency training. Two times zero still equals zero.

"It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... and the esophageal intubation was definitely an intervening cause."

There was no esophageal intubation. Ergo it was not an intervening cause. Even if there had been an esophagel intubation, it would not have relieved Crystal of criminal liability for Reginald Daye's death. As Walt has repeatedly explained, the need for intubation would not have arisen had Crystal not stabbed him.

"Need I say more?"

You ned to say a lot more, like you haven't got thee capability to evalute the autopsy report, let alone comment on it, and you have even less capability to comment on legal matters.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What complication from a stab wound? He certainly didn't hemorrhage to death? He didn't die of an infection secondary to the wound or the emergency surgery.

He died because he was electively taken off life support. That had nothing to do with the stabbing!

Comprende?"

What you do not comprehend, because you choose not to comprehend, is that Reginald Daye as placed on life support because of a complication ofthe stab wound. Well, what more can one expect from a thoroughly untrained incompetent retired physician.

Anonymous said...

yeah, telling one of the evil duke trolls to go look in the library if it couldn't find the articles in internet news site archives doesn't refer to the fact that the incidents i mentioned happened years ago. get real.

blah
blah
blah

anyway:

i just watched another amazing youtube video in my quest for 'the news'.

this one has bill gates - think that's him (one of duke's major vaccine global health leaders/supporters/heads/donors) stating that the way to reduce CO2 level to zero (instead of relying on natures way of trees and plants etc working in tandem with other living species to do the CO2 balance job for the world) is to eliminate the human population by 10 or 15 percent if 'we' (meaning the 'we' brainwashed by 'them') do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive services ..."

start at 12:08 on the video progression slider bar - at: they want us dead.

see no evil huh? they are the evil.

YOUTUBE VIDEO TITLE:

Fox News AGENDA 21 THE UN NWO WANT US ROUNDED UP

(and NO - I do not normally read fox news)

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Dr. Anonymous, how do you expect me to accept what achievements you claim without giving up your identification?"

I don't.Why shpuld OI care whether or not a thoroughly untrained, totally incompetent retired physician thinks of me.

"For all I know you could be a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria."

So? Thus far you have shown only that you can not recognize truth when it is shown to you.

Dr.Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Anonymous September 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM.

"yeah, telling one of the evil duke trolls to go look in the library if it couldn't find the articles in internet news site archives doesn't refer to the fact that the incidents i mentioned happened years ago. get real.

blah
blah
blah

anyway:

i just watched another amazing youtube video in my quest for 'the news'.

this one has bill gates - think that's him (one of duke's major vaccine global health leaders/supporters/heads/donors) stating that the way to reduce CO2 level to zero (instead of relying on natures way of trees and plants etc working in tandem with other living species to do the CO2 balance job for the world) is to eliminate the human population by 10 or 15 percent if 'we' (meaning the 'we' brainwashed by 'them') do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive services ..."

start at 12:08 on the video progression slider bar - at: they want us dead.

see no evil huh? they are the evil.

YOUTUBE VIDEO TITLE:

Fox News AGENDA 21 THE UN NWO WANT US ROUNDED UP"


More irrelevant impotent name calling.

"(and NO - I do not normally read fox news)"

I suspect that is because you can not comprehend what you read.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I sometimes skip around when reading the comments, so I just found the info about Dr. Anon's alleged medical training. Can you provide any verification... like say for example, your name?"

How about first you convince me that I should care what you think of me.

If you had any real accomplishment as a physician, maybe I would.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Even if Crystal made a threatening shout out using the f bomb, that does not preclude her from being the victim of physical violence by Daye or from stabbing him in self defense."

The lack of any physical evidence that Crystal had been beaten severely is evidence against self defense. Plus, she did not claim self defene until after Reginald Daye was dead and she was charged with Murder 1. That undermines the credibility of self defense>

SIDNEY, you have neither the Medicl nor thr Legal background to make you an expert on self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Dr. Anonymous, how do you expect me to accept what achievements you claim without giving up your identification? For all I know you could be a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria."

If I am "a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria", how do I get access to the internet? A "high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria" would be less able to afford internet access than you are.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt."

No, we have not. You failed to grasp the legal principal expressed there. Instead you focused on the facts of the case and attempted to distinguish it. The simple fact is, St. v. Welch and St. v. Holesclaw say that medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. Ignore the law at your peril. Of course you regularly ignore the law with concurrently bad results.

"It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... and the esophageal intubation was definitely an intervening cause.

You are correct that the law recognizes intervening causes. However, you misrepresent the law when you claim that an esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. It is not. No malpractice is an intervening cause. You would have to prove someone performed an esophogeal intubation with the intention to kill Daye to have an intervening cause. That is there has to be a murder committed by someone else completely independent of the crime to have an intervening cause.

Walt-in-Durham



Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Even if Crystal made a threatening shout out using the f bomb, that does not preclude her from being the victim of physical violence by Daye or from stabbing him in self defense."

No, but it undercuts her claim of self defense. It shows that she was contemplating assaulting Daye.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Dr. Anonymous, how do you expect me to accept what achievements you claim without giving up your identification? For all I know you could be a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria."

You expected people to accept you as an experienced former physician without giving details of your background. When the Indy Weekly revealed your background, you claimed your background was irrelevant. Yet I am supposed to give you details of my background. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

I have told you I have done residencies in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery and, before I retired, had boards in General Surgery and Thoracic Surgery.

I now ask you again, what residency training have you completed, what board certifcation have you avhieved?

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "For all I know you could be a high school dropout living on skid row in the slums of Algeria."

Skid Row is in L.A. Being a Californian, I would have thought you knew that. In any case, for a high school drop out from Algeria, Dr. A seems to have a better grasp of the medical issues than you.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Everybody.

Below is a link for the hilarious new comedy that I think you'll really find funny. Very hilarious.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine


Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Everybody.

Below is a link for the hilarious new comedy that I think you'll really find funny. Very hilarious.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine


Enjoy!"

It seems you are dodging my question, what residency training have you completed, what board certification have you achieved?

I ask an additional question, if you completed no residency training, why? You supposedly graduated in 1974. At that time it was extremely rare for a med school graduate not to do residency specialty training of some sort.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt."

No, we have not. You failed to grasp the legal principal expressed there. Instead you focused on the facts of the case and attempted to distinguish it. The simple fact is, St. v. Welch and St. v. Holesclaw say that medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. Ignore the law at your peril. Of course you regularly ignore the law with concurrently bad results.

"It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... and the esophageal intubation was definitely an intervening cause.

You are correct that the law recognizes intervening causes. However, you misrepresent the law when you claim that an esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. It is not. No malpractice is an intervening cause. You would have to prove someone performed an esophogeal intubation with the intention to kill Daye to have an intervening cause. That is there has to be a murder committed by someone else completely independent of the crime to have an intervening cause.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt. I don't buy everything you say regarding State v. Welch, however, what makes you think that Daye wasn't purposely intubated in the esophagus? The motive would naturally be to try and charge Mangum with murder and force her to have a life sentence. Don't you think it's a coincident that of all the intubations successfully placed in the trachea that the one on Daye just mysteriously happens to wind up in his esophagus?

There should've been an investigation into the possibility that Daye was intentionally murdered in the hospital. Just ask yourself, "What would Lieutenant Columbo do?"

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Everybody.

Below is a link for the hilarious new comedy that I think you'll really find funny. Very hilarious.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine


Enjoy!"

It seems you are dodging my question, what residency training have you completed, what board certification have you achieved?

I ask an additional question, if you completed no residency training, why? You supposedly graduated in 1974. At that time it was extremely rare for a med school graduate not to do residency specialty training of some sort.


The real question is why you refuse to identify yourself. I back up my convictions by identifying myself. Even though I went to a prestigious medical school, I did not go around bragging about it which had led some to believe I got my degree from a Cracker Jacks box.

The point is that by not following convention and doing a residency, etc., my actions provided me with the experiences and interactions that have made me a criminal justice lay advocate beyond compare.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I sometimes skip around when reading the comments, so I just found the info about Dr. Anon's alleged medical training. Can you provide any verification... like say for example, your name?"

How about first you convince me that I should care what you think of me.

If you had any real accomplishment as a physician, maybe I would.


Being anonymous brings your credibility into question. You know that I am a doctor, for example, because you can use the internet to verify that I graduated from medical school.

How do I know that you graduated from a medical school if I can't verify it online?

I don't think you should necessarily care what I think of you, but if your credentials and accomplishments are accurate, then I am highly impressed.

By identifying yourself, then everyone reading your comments, myself included, will know that they are being made by a highly accomplished physician. Otherwise anything you say under the tag of Dr. Anon will lack credibility.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The real question is why you refuse to identify yourself. I back up my convictions by identifying myself. Even though I went to a prestigious medical school, I did not go around bragging about it which had led some to believe I got my degree from a Cracker Jacks box."

It is not from where you got your degree but what you di after you got it. You aparently did nothing.

"The point is that by not following convention and doing a residency, etc., my actions provided me with the experiences and interactions that have made me a criminal justice lay advocate beyond compare."

If you are a "criminal justice lay advocate beyond compare" it is because you are incomparably bad. That is evident by your advocacy for convicted murderer Shan Carter.

Your career following Med School was, again, a career of using your ethnicity to extort money from people under the pretext of fighting for justice. Explain how filing non meritorious lawsuits makes you an effective lay advocate for justice.

It seems you are again dodging questions, why you never completed residency training, why you never achieved board certification.

You could have been a more effective advocate for justice by going to law school instead of medical school.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Being anonymous brings your credibility into question. You know that I am a doctor, for example, because you can use the internet to verify that I graduated from medical school."

If you think identifying yourself makes you credible,it doesn't.

"How do I know that you graduated from a medical school if I can't verify it online?

I don't think you should necessarily care what I think of you, but if your credentials and accomplishments are accurate, then I am highly impressed."

You don't get it.Whether or not you are highly impressed means nothing.

"By identifying yourself, then everyone reading your comments, myself included, will know that they are being made by a highly accomplished physician. Otherwise anything you say under the tag of Dr. Anon will lack credibility."

And you believe what you say is credible, e.g. Crystal's post arrest photos show no evidence of a severe beating but you say she was severely beaten by Reginald Daye."

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

I say again, a deluded megalomaniac is incapable of elucidating anyone, least of all himself.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

If my anonymity renders me non credible, why do you expend so much effort to get me and anyone else to believe you are credible.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"There should've been an investigation into the possibility that Daye was intentionally murdered in the hospital. Just ask yourself, "What would Lieutenant Columbo do?" "

Do you often base your decision making on fictional characters?

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. I don't buy everything you say regarding State v. Welch, however, what makes you think that Daye wasn't purposely intubated in the esophagus?"

You have always said it was medical malpractice. That is negligence. Negligence is not a crime for purposes of an intervening cause.

"Don't you think it's a coincident that of all the intubations successfully placed in the trachea that the one on Daye just mysteriously happens to wind up in his esophagus?"

No, because I understand statistics. I also understand medical malpractice. It is axiomatic that inexperienced physicians and EMTs can place the tube in the esophagus.

"What would Lieutenant Columbo do?"

Whatever the script writers want him to do. You do know the difference between fact and fiction?

"...my actions provided me with the experiences and interactions that have made me a criminal justice lay advocate beyond compare."

You are singularly inept as a lay advocate. Let's recap. In Crystal's case you filed a writ of mandamus attempting to use the insurance code (Chapter 58 of the N.C. General Statutes) to compel a prosecutor to act. A Chapter of the code which by its very nature and strict terms does not apply to prosecutors. You have advocated filing motions to dismiss which are not allowed by our criminal procedure code. You violated the attorney client confidentiality to disclose to the state that the defense expert agreed with the Medical examiner's conclusions. You were sanctioned by the bar and then enjoined by the Superior court for attempting to practice law, all of which delayed Crystal's case to her detriment. With advocates like you, she doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

More about your credibility and your effectiveness as a lay legal advocate for justice:

Shan Carter, convicted felon, precipitates a conflict with another conviced felon. The conflict erupts into violence while Shan Carter s on the street dealing illegal drugs and in illegal possession of a firearm(which behavior SIDNEY characterizes as Shan Carter minding his own business). Shan Carter fires his gun at he other felon, causing him to flee, Shan Carter pursues him while continuing to fire his illegally possessed firearm. In the process Shan Carter kills an innocent bystander(8 year old Demetrius Greene) and kills the other felon.

SIDNEY HARR calls this self defense on Shan Carter's fault.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt. I don't buy everything you say regarding State v. Welch, however, what makes you think that Daye wasn't purposely intubated in the esophagus."

Only a thoroughly untrained totally incompetent physician would even suggest that someone would deliberayely place an ET tube in the esophagus in this situation.

Judging from the records you posted, SIDNEY, if someone had wanted to kill Reginald Daye via that method, he/she could have done an esophageal intubation at the time of surgery.

Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

More about your credibility and your effectiveness as a lay legal advocate for justice:

Shan Carter, convicted felon, precipitates a conflict with another conviced felon. The conflict erupts into violence while Shan Carter s on the street dealing illegal drugs and in illegal possession of a firearm(which behavior SIDNEY characterizes as Shan Carter minding his own business). Shan Carter fires his gun at he other felon, causing him to flee, Shan Carter pursues him while continuing to fire his illegally possessed firearm. In the process Shan Carter kills an innocent bystander(8 year old Demetrius Greene) and kills the other felon.

SIDNEY HARR calls this self defense on Shan Carter's PART.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney summarizes the legal issues surrounding Daye’s death:

As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt. It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... and the esophageal intubation was definitely an intervening cause.

He died because he was electively taken off life support. That had nothing to do with the stabbing!


He asks: Need I say more?

Yes. You do need to say more.

I understand that the misinterpretation advanced by both Walt and A Lawyer is almost universally accepted in the legal community. The decisions in subsequent criminal cases refer to and incorporate the conclusions reached in State v. Welch and State v. Holsclaw.

As a result, I think it would be helpful if you would restate your analysis of Welch and expand it to include an analysis of Holsclaw as well.

I will provide a summary of the issues as I understand them. Sidney, it would be helpful if you could respond to those summaries. Walt, Lance and A Lawyer, it would be helpful if you could correct my mistakes in those posts.

Break the Conspiracy said...

In this post, I consider your argument that Daye died as a result of the decision by his family to take him off life support and that Mangum cannot be held responsible because she had no input into that decision. In the past, I have suggested that you refrain from making this moronic argument. Your repetition of this argument convinces me, one of your most ardent defenders, that you cannot be taken seriously.

To a non-lawyer like myself, Welch appears to be directly on point.

In Welch, the defendant stabbed the victim. The victim and her family refused to permit a blood transfusion. The victim later died, in large part due to the loss of blood. In the Mangum case, the defendant stabbed the victim. After apparently successful initial treatment, the victim suffered a reversal, resulting in brain death. The victim’s family made the decision to end treatment, and the victim died.

The appellate court held: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the murder charge based on the theory that the victim's refusal to accept a blood transfusion was an independent and intervening cause of death cutting off defendant's responsibility for the victim's stabbing death because: (1) but for defendant's act of stabbing the victim, she would not have been in need of a blood transfusion; and (2) the doctor could not state with certainty whether the victim would have survived had she received a blood transfusion…

Defendant contends, based on the testimony of Dr. Stanton, that Lemmons' refusal to accept a blood transfusion was an independent and intervening cause of death, such as to cut off any responsibility defendant may have in the victim's death. However, it is clear from the evidence that Lemmons' act in declining a blood transfusion was not “the sole cause of death.” Id. Indeed, all of Lemmons' injuries resulted from the stabbing inflicted by defendant. Thus, but for defendant's act, Lemmons would not have been in need of a blood transfusion.

Let us compare the facts.

In both cases, the defendant stabbed the victim. In both cases, the victim’s family refused medical treatment. In Welch, the treatment refused was a blood transfusion, viewed by most as standard. In the Mangum case, the treatment refused was life support of a patient who was diagnosed as being brain dead, viewed by many as extraordinary. In both cases, the attending physicians could not state with certainty whether the victim would have survived (or, in Daye’s case, would have recovered brain function).

Based on a comparison of the facts, I believe it is unambiguous that Welch provides clear guidance to Mangum’s case: the family’s decision to take Daye off life support is not an independent and intervening cause of death. As such, this decision does not relive Mangum of responsibility.

I recognize that this analysis does not address the question of whether Daye’s death was the result of an independent and intervening cause of death that occurred prior to the decision to take him off life support. I will review your allegation of an esophageal intubation in a subsequent post.

Sidney, I remind you that I am one of your few supporters. As such, I ask that you apologize for repeating this moronic argument. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that are transparently false. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Here's a question. What probable cause do you have to believe anyone would have deliberately placed an ET tube in Reginald Daye's esophagus?

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney summarizes the legal issues surrounding Daye’s death:

[NOTE: Much of the body of the comment has been deleted in order to remain within character limit.]

As I have previously pointed out in an earlier flog, State v. Welch has been misinterpreted by you and Walt. It does not preclude intervening causes from being responsible for the death... Sidney, I remind you that I am one of your few supporters. As such, I ask that you apologize for repeating this moronic argument. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that are transparently false. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.


Hey, Break.

Let there be no doubt that I appreciate your support, however, I believe my point, though slightly different that what you stated, is valid.

First, although removal from life support was the proximal cause of Daye's death, it was the esophageal intubation that led to the brain death which was the reason for his elective removal from life support. Had not Daye been intubated in the esophagus (fatal malpractice), he would not have wound up brain dead. The brain death is the issue, not removal from life support.

Furthermore, the intubation was not even necessitated by the stab or surgery, but by delirium tremens.

Also, In Welch, the judge states that the defendant's stabbing resulted in the requirement for a transfusion... (that's a limited statement... in other words the judge did not state "your stabbing resulted in his hospitalization.")

Mangum's stabbing of Daye was adequately treated with emergency surgery. Daye would have survived his stab wound had not the intervening esophageal intubation (for a non-stab wound reason) resulted in his brain death.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Here's a question. What probable cause do you have to believe anyone would have deliberately placed an ET tube in Reginald Daye's esophagus?


Someone would deliberately intubate Daye's esophagus in order to effect his death.

Then Daye's death would be attributed to Mangum and she would be charged with first degree murder.

If convicted, she would then be sentenced to life in prison... Payback that might be enough to satiate some proponents of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

That, in a nutshell is why Daye was intubated in the esophagus.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt. I don't buy everything you say regarding State v. Welch, however, what makes you think that Daye wasn't purposely intubated in the esophagus."

Only a thoroughly untrained totally incompetent physician would even suggest that someone would deliberayely place an ET tube in the esophagus in this situation.

Judging from the records you posted, SIDNEY, if someone had wanted to kill Reginald Daye via that method, he/she could have done an esophageal intubation at the time of surgery.

Dr. Anonymous


At the time of the emergency surgery, the medical staff may not have even known about Mangum's involvement with the wound.

The decision to esophageally intubate Daye probably took some planning beforehand.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"There should've been an investigation into the possibility that Daye was intentionally murdered in the hospital. Just ask yourself, "What would Lieutenant Columbo do?" "

Do you often base your decision making on fictional characters?


No... I sometimes use Sherlockian deduction and logic.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney concedes: The brain death is the issue, not removal from life support.

I agree. I will post later with a discussion of that issue.

As I noted, my post was focused your following statement: He died because he was electively taken off life support.

I ask again that you apologize for repeating this moronic argument. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that are transparently false. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Break.

Let there be no doubt that I appreciate your support, however, I believe my point, though slightly different that what you stated, is valid.

First, although removal from life support was the proximal cause of Daye's death, it was the esophageal intubation that led to the brain death which was the reason for his elective removal from life support."

No esophageal intubation ever happened, according to the records SIDNEY illegally accessed and posted.

"Had not Daye been intubated in the esophagus (fatal malpractice), he would not have wound up brain dead. The brain death is the issue, not removal from life support."

Esophageal intubation, had it happened, would not have necessarily beb mal practice. One would not expect, however, an inadequately trained incompetent physician to know this. However the intubation was necessitated by a complication of the medical treatment caused by the stab wound.

"Furthermore, the intubation was not even necessitated by the stab or surgery, but by delirium tremens."

There was no evidence of DTs.

"Also, In Welch, the judge states that the defendant's stabbing resulted in the requirement for a transfusion... (that's a limited statement... in other words the judge did not state 'your stabbing resulted in his hospitalization.')"

SIDNEY shows how ineffective he i as a legal advocate, lay or otherwise.

"Mangum's stabbing of Daye was adequately treated with emergency surgery. Daye would have survived his stab wound had not the intervening esophageal intubation (for a non-stab wound reason) resulted in his brain death."

SIDNEY is again trying to perpetuate the lie that an esophageal intubation took place.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

More about your credibility and your effectiveness as a lay legal advocate for justice:

Shan Carter, convicted felon, precipitates a conflict with another conviced felon. The conflict erupts into violence while Shan Carter s on the street dealing illegal drugs and in illegal possession of a firearm(which behavior SIDNEY characterizes as Shan Carter minding his own business). Shan Carter fires his gun at he other felon, causing him to flee, Shan Carter pursues him while continuing to fire his illegally possessed firearm. In the process Shan Carter kills an innocent bystander(8 year old Demetrius Greene) and kills the other felon.

SIDNEY HARR calls this self defense on Shan Carter's PART.


Fact is that drug dealer Tyrone Baker publicly announced his intentions to kill those responsible for stealing $40,000 from his apartment.

Carter was minding his own business when Baker, after sucker punching one of Carter's burglary accomplices, turned to him with a coat draped over his gun hand.

Carter had reason to believe that the coat concealed a firearm and that Baker was going to use it on him to carry out his threat.

Are you telling me that Carter should not pull his gun and defend himself because he is a felon and it is against the law for him to have possession of a gun?

What would you do if you were in Carter's shoes... just stand there and do nothing while Baker blows out your brains?

Carter's self-defense was far more justified than the phony one given by vigilante George Zimmerman.

Anonymous said...

SIDNET HARR:

"No... I sometimes use Sherlockian deduction and logic."

No you don't. You rely on distorting yhe truth.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney concedes: The brain death is the issue, not removal from life support.

I agree. I will post later with a discussion of that issue.

As I noted, my post was focused your following statement: He died because he was electively taken off life support.

I ask again that you apologize for repeating this moronic argument. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that are transparently false. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.


Hey, Break.

I know we disagree on the removal from life support issue, but I believe that there is legal justification for using it.

For example, in the Joshua Wrenn case (an inmate beaten into unconsciousness by correction officers and presumed to be brain dead), his attorneys told Joshua's family not to remove him from life support or otherwise it would jeopardize their future claims of wrongful death against the State.

That is why I give attention to life support. Wrenn eventually regained consciousness several months later although doctors said that he would never awake from his comatose state. Remote as the possibility is/was, there is the slimmest of possibilities that Daye may have regained consciousness after many months on life support. Maybe not likely, but possible.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Fact is that drug dealer Tyrone Baker publicly announced his intentions to kill those responsible for stealing $40,000 from his apartment."

And Shan's fellow drug dealer Tyrone Baker would never have announced that had Drug dealer Shan Carter not robbed his apartment. Drug dealer Shan Carter provoked the confrontation,

"Carter was minding his own business when Baker, after sucker punching one of Carter's burglary accomplices, turned to him with a coat draped over his gun hand."

Shan Carter was dealing illegal drugs. What legal theoty defines that as minding your own busiess. Had Shan Carter been minding his own business he never would have robbed Tyrone Baker.

"Carter had reason to believe that the coat concealed a firearm and that Baker was going to use it on him to carry out his threat."

It does not change the fact that Shan Carter himself provoked thr threat.

"Are you telling me that Carter should not pull his gun and defend himself because he is a felon and it is against the law for him to have possession of a gun?"

I am telling ypu much more than that. Shan Carter should not have robbed Tyrone Baker. Shan Carter should not have been on the street dealing illegal drugs. As a convicted felon, Shan Carter was committing a felony possessing a firearm. He would have had no need to defend himself had he not first robbed Tyrone Baker.

"What would you do if you were in Carter's shoes... just stand there and do nothing while Baker blows out your brains?"

If I had been in Carter's shoes, I would not have robbed Tyrone Baker, I would not have been dealing illegal drugs, I would have done nothing to provoke a conflict.

"Carter's self-defense was far more justified than the phony one given by vigilante George Zimmerman."

The fact that Carter provoked the confrontation in and of itself means he could not plead self defense for killing Tyrone Baker. Check out self defense law.

George Zimmerman was acting in self defense. He was investigating a suspicious situation when he was attacked and subjected to deadly force. Or are you, the untrained incompetent former physician going to claim that banging another man's head against a concrete surface is not potentially lethal.

The photos of George Zimmerman post confrontation show real injuries, not alleged injuries.

Of course one can not expect an untrained incompetent physician to recognize that.

Break the Conspiracy said...

In this post, I consider whether Mangum can escape criminal responsibility if Daye’s brain death resulted from an esophageal intubation. For the purposes of this post, I will assume that your allegation is accurate and discuss the legal implications of that treatment.

Holsclaw considers death resulting from improper medical treatment.

In Holsclaw, the defendant shot the victim in the chest. The victim suffered from a preexisting lung condition, which condition contributed to his death. In treating a partially collapsed lung and the resulting infection, doctors treated the victim with an antibiotic to which the victim was allergic. The antibiotic treatment caused an inflammation of the heart, which was the immediate cause of death.

Holsclaw concluded that medical malpractice is not an independent and intervening cause of death unless it is the sole cause of death:

If it be conceded arguendo that the victim's death immediately resulted from improper or unskilled treatment by attending physicians, that is no defense to a charge of homicide against one who has inflicted a dangerous wound which necessitated the treatment. Neither negligent treatment nor neglect of an injury will excuse a wrongdoer unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death… Where, as here, gunshot wounds inflicted by the accused are a contributing cause of death, defendant is criminally responsible therefor…

It necessarily follows that the evidence was sufficient to carry to the jury the question whether the shotgun wounds inflicted upon the deceased by the defendant were the proximate cause of death.


For this reason, I believe that Holsclaw provides unambiguous guidance to Mangum’s case: an esophageal intubation as a result of malpractice is not an independent and intervening cause of death. As such, malpractice does not relive Mangum of responsibility.

I recognize that this analysis does not address the question of whether Daye’s death was the result of an independent and intervening cause of death that occurred prior to the decision to intubate him.

For this reason, in an effort to help you build a case, I previously encouraged you to focus your attention on why an intubation was necessary.

I noted that you suggested treatment for delirium tremens as the explanation for the intubation, but that you provided insufficient evidence to support that explanation. I noted further my understanding that an infection can contribute to delirium tremens, and that an infection resulting from the stab wound would not allow Mangum to escape responsibility for the subsequent treatment and death. However, if the stab wound did not contribute to condition of delirium tremens, one could conclude that the condition meets the requirements as an independent and intervening cause and absolve Mangum from responsibility.

As a result, I asked that you provide specific evidence to support the suggestion that Daye was treated for delirium tremens and that condition was not a complication from the stab wound.

You inexplicably ignored this suggestion, apparently preferring to repeat failed arguments contradicted by the case law cited by Walt, Lance and A Lawyer. Although you again make this suggestion, you again provide no evidence to support it.

Sidney, I remind you that I am one of your few supporters. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that are directly contradicted by case law cited by your readers. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Break.

I know we disagree on the removal from life support issue, but I believe that there is legal justification for using it."

Coming from someone with your level of legal and medical incompetence, that statement is meaningless.

"For example, in the Joshua Wrenn case (an inmate beaten into unconsciousness by correction officers and presumed to be brain dead), his attorneys told Joshua's family not to remove him from life support or otherwise it would jeopardize their future claims of wrongful death against the State.

That is why I give attention to life support. Wrenn eventually regained consciousness several months later although doctors said that he would never awake from his comatose state. Remote as the possibility is/was, there is the slimmest of possibilities that Daye may have regained consciousness after many months on life support. Maybe not likely, but possible."

That is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that Reginald Daye would have recovered. Yes there might have been a chance he would have recovered. What you ignore is that the chance he WOULD NOT have recovered were infinitely greater.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney makes the following allegation of muder:

Someone would deliberately intubate Daye's esophagus in order to effect his death.



Then Daye's death would be attributed to Mangum and she would be charged with first degree murder.



If convicted, she would then be sentenced to life in prison... Payback that might be enough to satiate some proponents of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.



That, in a nutshell is why Daye was intubated in the esophagus.


I agree that medical murder clearly meets the requirements as an independent and intervening cause. You periodically make this allegation, but provide no evidence to support it. You limit your argument to a failure to investigate this possibility (without explaining why an investigation was merited) and vague insinuations that Mangum’s “role” in the lacrosse case have resulted in a widespread conspiracy to send her to prison.

Indeed, most of your posts have focused on malpractice, not murder, as the explanation for an esophageal intubation.

While Mangum is certainly free to raise this explanation as a possibility, I would not recommend that she concentrate her defense on this argument. I would not want to bet my life on a jury accepting this explanation as credible unless I had much more than a vague insinuation of a widespread conspiracy.

Sidney, I remind you that I am one of your few supporters. I hope you realize that you lose credibility when you make and repeat arguments that have no evidence to support them. As you know, most readers believe that you are either unbelievably stupid or incredibly dishonest. Arguments like this reinforce that belief.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

While we are on the subject of corrections officers, why did you presume Markeith Council was white? If you did not know his ethnicity, you should not have tried to portray it one way or another.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

If I am a hugh school dropout living on skid row in Algiers, how come I can access the internet at will?

Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"At the time of the emergency surgery, the medical staff may not have even known about Mangum's involvement with the wound.

The decision to esophageally intubate Daye probably took some planning beforehand."

That Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye was known right after the stabbing. If someone wanted to frame Crystal for the murder of Daye as retaliation for her role in the Lacrosse case(which was to lie about being raped), it would have been easier to do it at or shortly after surgery.

Of course, it would be unsurprising that an untrained, incompetent physician would not see that.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Someone would deliberately intubate Daye's esophagus in order to effect his death.

Then Daye's death would be attributed to Mangum and she would be charged with first degree murder.

If convicted, she would then be sentenced to life in prison... Payback that might be enough to satiate some proponents of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

That, in a nutshell is why Daye was intubated in the esophagus."

That would be probable cause if you could demonstrate there was a conspiracy against Crystal. How have you established that as fact?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 460   Newer› Newest»