justice4nifong: When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 652 Newer› Newest»

kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Sid's handing out business cards is considered solicitation as Duke defines it".....Conveniently defined, as a fall-back to get them off the hook for suppressing free expression. But, to a reasonable observer, it's a complete "stretch".; October 9, 2013 at 9:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You are trying to duck the issue that your hero race baiter al bailed on Crystal"....
I did not get that impression from what he said.; October 9, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Troll, you are being evasive. The point is that Duke have a no solicitation policy that it does enforce. I know because I have worked for Duke in the past and I am very familiar with not only their enforcement of thier policies. They are consistent!
I will also remind you, troll, yet again ....and for the last time.....that you are assuming Harr was telling the truth about the extent and nature of his actions. We ALL know he lies to suit his own purposes. It is far more likely that Harr was doing far more than merely handing out business cards. And, based on the FACT that he is a serial false-suit filer who tires to extort money out of people and organizations by filing nuisance suits, you can damn well bet that he thought he could make a buck. By the way, isn't it just really interesting that this behavior of his is yet another example of how he and Mangum are alike. She told Roberts that she was going to make some money off those boys........I imagine Harr thought to himself that he would just make some money off Duke.
I will also remind you that Harr has NOT been banned from Duke property. He can still be on the property, go to Duke events, etc. That point was made clear in the letter from Duke to Harr.
This is all just another trumped up attempt to get money by this amoral old man who spend his time trying to get attention and money; October 10, 2013 at 2:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sharpton is a scum bag. Not ONE of those liberal goons who pounced on the LAX guys and carried poor innocent sweet mother of three Sister around on their shoulders had the decency to apologize to the LAX guys. Not one.....including Sharpton. They all ran their mouths about their poor darling victim until they found out she was and is nothing but a liar who wanted to get out of going to jail (by saying she was raped), who wanted to make money off the LAX guys, and who allowed the cretin Nifong to use her......; October 10, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Huh? What about the MSNBC show Politics Nation. Are you also accusing Microsft and General Electric of promoting racial strife? Get real."

Get real yourself. By giving race baiter al his platform, MSNBC and Microsoft ARE promoting racial strife.

And don't duck the issue. How did race baiter al do the right thing in the phoney Duke rape case?; October 10, 2013 at 2:53 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" No, because the circumstances there don't seem to be parallel. I'm uncertain what would be the purpose of handing out your firms cards there. I assume you have a commercial interest in promoting your IT Consulting Firm but would you be targeting the same clients using that Center? Unlike Dr. Harr, you would not be espousing ideas that the Center for Health Education would find, not to their liking. Expand on your example if you can."

Duke is not required by any legislation or Constitutional provision to provide a venue for people, like SIDNEY, to promote views it does not espouse. You think Duke is obligated. It is another manifestation of the attitude that SIDNEY is above the law.; October 10, 2013 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Lance said: "Sid's handing out business cards is considered solicitation as Duke defines it".....Conveniently defined, as a fall-back to get them off the hook for suppressing free expression. But, to a reasonable observer, it's a complete 'stretch'".

Again, what you fail to understand is that neither Duke nor anyone else is required to give SIDNEY a venue to promote his rather heinous agenda.

And if you are saying you are a reasonable person, you are pushing a fallacy.; October 10, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "You are trying to duck the issue that your hero race baiter al bailed on Crystal"....
I did not get that impression from what he said."

None so blind as he who refuses to see.; October 10, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "No, because the circumstances there don't seem to be parallel. I'm uncertain what would be the purpose of handing out your firms cards there. I assume you have a commercial interest in promoting your IT Consulting Firm but would you be targeting the same clients using that Center? Unlike Dr. Harr, you would not be espousing ideas that the Center for Health Education would find, not to their liking."

Ken -- The circurmstances are parallel. Both Sid and I would be promoting our services and the services of the organization we represent.

Both you and Sid seem hung up on this concept that Sid's "ideas" are why he was asked to leave campus. It wasn't.

Sid could have been advocating for rainbows and unicorns and the end result would have been the same.; October 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Lance is correct. I have personally witnessed ALL kinds of people soliciting and peddling and advocating for their various causes at Duke....ALL with designated permits that are visible and absolutely required. There is no doubt in my mind that Harr was doing one helluva lot more than just handing somebody a business card.......he cannot resist the temptation to run his mouth, loudly, any and every time he gets a soapbox to stand on. And, just as soon as he saw that he had an audience (and the guard), he began his little grade school play.....and then tried to buttonhole Coleman....who clearly did NOT want to do anything but go about his business.
Once again, whether harr or troll likes it or thinks it isn't fair, Duke has the right to have someone removed from their property........just as I would have the right to have Harr removed from mine. (and you can damn well bet I would!!)
By the way, Mangum, in case you are reading the web site, what excuse/tactic are you gonna use next time to stall further?; October 10, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 7:04 AM wrote: "So your saying that asking why you are being tossed off the premises of duke and expecting a reply more reasonable than cuz we want you gone is asking too much of duke?"

Duke, Walmart, the mom and pop garage sale, the same law applies. I need to give Sid credit where it is due. After he got control of himself back in Raleigh, he did the right thing and wrote Duke asking for an explanation. Giving Duke credit, they gave him an explanation in writing. Initially, Sid behaved badly and violated the trespass statute. But, he got it together and did what the law and justice expects. He didn't much like Duke's answer so he rather foolishly filed a lawsuit that did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

"Seems like a lot of risk for all parties that could be mitigated by duke handling their tossing people out and aside issues by leading in a more professional way that sets respectful examples of nonhostile communication and mediation to avoid full blown conflicts."

Sid was the only person who acted unprofessionally. You need to listen to the recording.

"Otherwise the appearance of prejudice and discrimination becomes a potential in perception, and obviously when guns and health services are involved,...."

No illegal discrimination took place.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt...

Thanks for giving me some credit, but you have got plenty of things wrong. First (follow carefully), after the interview concluded, I left the group with others en masse, when a reporter walked up to me and wanted to interview me for a story he was writing. (I saw the security guard at that time and thought nothing of it considering the importance of the guest. He was just standing there about twenty feet away.) After talking about the interview, I told the reporter about my advocacy and we exchanged business cards (Note: It was the only business card I handed out after the interview... and prior to the interview I handed out about a half dozen to people with whom I had conversed. I never handed out a card to someone with whom I had not been in conversation... and I did not hand out a card to every one with whom I spoke.)

After we ended out conversation, I headed for the door and that is when the guard made his move coming around to intercept me and then tell me I had to leave the property.

I hope that explains what happened to your satisfaction. I don't know how you conclude that I acted unprofessionally or behaved badly.

Was I upset? Yes, and I had a right to be. Just like Henry Louis Gates Jr. was upset when he was mistreated by the police.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; October 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I'm a bit confused about another issue posed by your recent case.

What led you to suddenly file this latest case as you did? It was filed rather suddenly it seems. What is your cause for action and what do you hope to achieve with this case? That is still not clear.

Do you still maintain your communication with the duke lawyer mentioned in this case, or did you lose the ability to do so with the occurance of this case?

Regarding law professor James Coleman, I really enjoyed his company. He's a very nice person and I took the initiative to introduce myself to him years earlier for the purpose of discussing views on Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case (we held diametrically opposed views on the topic). Since the first visit, I would drop by whenever I was on Duke campus attending an event. We mainly had mini-debates on the topic, but later we just had conversations on general topics.

I do miss visiting with him... and also others on the campus, including Mike Munger. I don't have contact with him otherwise.
[note: Computer time is running out, so I'll answer the remainder of you question on another comment.]; October 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"prior to the interview [with a reporter] I handed out about a half dozen to people with whom I had conversed. I never handed out a card to someone with whom I had not been in conversation... and I did not hand out a card to every one with whom I spoke.)"

You do admit you did solicit support for your NIFONG advocacy. Evidently some people did complain which is why the security guard got involved.

"After we ended out conversation, I headed for the door and that is when the guard made his move coming around to intercept me and then tell me I had to leave the property."

The question is, if you were already leaving the property, why did you pick a fight with the security guard. Your recording establishes that you, not the guard, became belligerent.

"I hope that explains what happened to your satisfaction. I don't know how you conclude that I acted unprofessionally or behaved badly."

Áour recording establishes you did behave badly. I submit using the session with Justice Breyer as a venue to solicit support for your advocacy for corrupt DA NIFONG was bad behavior((not Walt).

"Was I upset? Yes, and I had a right to be. Just like Henry Louis Gates Jr. was upset when he was mistreated by the police."

Equating yourself with Henry Louis Gates Jr is an example of your grossly exaggerated, distorted view of your own importance.

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

A deluded megalomaniac can not provide elucidation to anyone, particularly himself.; October 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I hope that explains what happened to your satisfaction. I don't know how you conclude that I acted unprofessionally or behaved badly."

I listened to your tape.

"Was I upset? Yes, and I had a right to be. Just like Henry Louis Gates Jr. was upset when he was mistreated by the police."

No you were in no way like Henry Louis Gates. He was at his home. His property. Not on someone else's property. You were not at all mistreated. The tape reveals a very professional security guard giving you the required notice that you were no longer welcome. Instead of complying, as the law requires and common decency expects, you threw a tantrum. Not unlike a spoiled child. Henry Louis Gates, you are not.

Walt-in-Durham; October 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding law professor James Coleman, I really enjoyed his company. He's a very nice person and I took the initiative to introduce myself to him years earlier for the purpose of discussing views on Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case (we held diametrically opposed views on the topic). Since the first visit, I would drop by whenever I was on Duke campus attending an event. We mainly had mini-debates on the topic, but later we just had conversations on general topics."

I doubt that Professor Coleman ever enjoyed your company. Your recording establishes that you attempted to coerce him into getting involved in the fight you picked with the security guard. You calling yourself his friend is another example of how you overstate and exaggerate your importance.

"I do miss visiting with him... and also others on the campus, including Mike Munger. I don't have contact with him otherwise."

I doubt anyone on campus enjoyed visiting with you, and, if anything Professor Coleman is relieved at your self imposed exile from campus. It is probably the kindest thing you did for him.

"[note: Computer time is running out, so I'll answer the remainder of you question on another comment.]"

So we get a respite from SIDNEY's delusions of grandeur.; October 10, 2013 at 8:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I'm a bit confused about another issue posed by your recent case.

What led you to suddenly file this latest case as you did? It was filed rather suddenly it seems. What is your cause for action and what do you hope to achieve with this case? That is still not clear.

Do you still maintain your communication with the duke lawyer mentioned in this case, or did you lose the ability to do so with the occurance of this case?

The lawsuit against the state was filed because the justice system has failed the people by refusing to investigate problems with the autopsy report on Reginald Daye. I feel I exhausted all attempts to have an investigation done on the State Medical Examiner's report... and was without success. Therefore, I am the de facto overseeing of the medical examiner's autopsy case... a position thrust upon me, and I file in part to receive compensation for it. (For example, the question my lawsuit asks is who is responsible for oversight on autopsy reports... or are those reports to be submitted without any oversight?) The other point I am making is that the justice system is prejudiced against Nifong supporters and those considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

With regards to the lawsuit against Duke University, my position is that it never went to trial and that res judicata is therefore not in play.

My view is that the law and justice are not the same, and that some laws are unjust. That case law is a way of weeding out some unjust laws and rulings... and that it is necessary for a case to be heard in a court of law before a jury in order for case law to be made.

Hopefully that answers you questions.; October 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions

I've posted links to Duke's solicitation policy in the past. Sid's handing out business cards is considered solicitation as Duke defines it.

Kenhyderal -- I currently work for a Healthcare IT consulting firm. I'll wager you that if I stand outside of the Mary Duke Biddle Trent Semans Center for Health Education handing out business cards (which reference both my firm and their website), I would be asked to desist for precisely the same reason that Sid was.
Care to take that wager?

So, Supreme Poster, anyone who hands out a business card on Duke University property is soliciting and deserves to be thrown off campus... right?; October 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Break the Conspiracy said...
A Lawyer:

I will respond on behalf of Sidney. As you can imagine, he is quite busy with the opening salvos in this legal war. The other defendants should be making their filings shortly.

In addition, with new counsel, Sidney is undoubtedly busy helping to plan Crystal's defense. Unfortunately, he remains baffled by this lesser contained charges concept.

In his filings, I do not believe Sidney made any "legal arguments."

I summarize his case:

1. Duke humiliated him because he supports Nifong.
2. Justice requires that Duke compensate him.
3. The court dismissed the first lawsuit because the law is unjust.
4. He must have the opportunity to convince a jury to disregard the law.
5. Your examples (endless litigation; Gitmo lawsuit) are irrelevant because he seeks justice and others seek to deny it.

In general, Sidney believes that you, Walt and other lawyers are not able to think broadly enough, focusing on "legalese jumbo-jumbo" instead of seeking justice.

Legal precedent has no place in the court room. An analysis of constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations, and case law serves only to pervert justice. Sidney believes that the justice system would be fairer and more efficient if he and others like himcan decide what claims have merit and if there was little consistency in how courts reach verdicts.

As a result, Sidney, despite no legal training, would be a far more effective advocate for Crystal. Legal knowledge is unimportant. Crystal needs an advocate with passion. She would be well served by the skills of persuasion Sidney consistently demonstrates on this blog.

I hope this has been helpful.

Hey, Break.

You did a great job in succintly stating my case. Thanks.; October 10, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The lawsuit against the state was filed because the justice system has failed the people by refusing to investigate problems with the autopsy report on Reginald Daye."

What problems. The only thing you have demonstrated regarding the autopsy report is that you have problems with it. Since you are no a competent or well trained physician, that is not cause to investigate the autopsy report.

"I feel I exhausted all attempts to have an investigation done on the State Medical Examiner's report... and was without success. Therefore, I am the de facto overseeing of the medical examiner's autopsy case... a position thrust upon me, and I file in part to receive compensation for it."

First off, you are not competent to be the overseer of any medical examiner. That you designate yourself the overseer does not entitle you to compensation.

"(For example, the question my lawsuit asks is who is responsible for oversight on autopsy reports... or are those reports to be submitted without any oversight?)"

Having done autopsies myself, I can assure you, SIDNEY, that autopsy reports are reviewed. I guess you never heard of a Morbidity and Mortality conference. Not unsurprising since you are an untrained, incompetent physician.

"The other point I am making is that the justice system is prejudiced against Nifong supporters and those considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case."

And that is yet another one of your uncorroborated allegations.

"With regards to the lawsuit against Duke University, my position is that it never went to trial and that res judicata is therefore not in play."

Your suit did not get to court because it lacked merit. Just because you file suit does not mean you have a right to have it tried.

"My view is that the law and justice are not the same, and that some laws are unjust. That case law is a way of weeding out some unjust laws and rulings... and that it is necessary for a case to be heard in a court of law before a jury in order for case law to be made."

In your case, you did not have a meritorious case to be made. One can not produce case law from the vacuum your case was.; October 10, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So, Supreme Poster, anyone who hands out a business card on Duke University property is soliciting and deserves to be thrown off campus... right?"

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

The bottom line, SIDNEY, is while you may be free to advocate, you are not free to use any particular event as a venue to solicit support for your advocacy.

If that were true(and KENHYDERAL, get your knickers in a twist again) no Jewish institution of higher learning would have the right to ban neo nazi groups from advocating their agendas on their campuses.; October 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Just so you know, your hero SIDNEY shows the same kind of behavior as did Adolf Hitler in his pre nazi days. He is a total failure at what he has tried to accomplish and holds everyone but himself responsible. The comparison of SIDNEY's advocacy to the Nazis is appropriate.; October 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Clarification:

SIDNEY HARR:

"So, Supreme Poster, anyone who hands out a business card on Duke University property is soliciting and deserves to be thrown off campus... right?"

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

The bottom line, SIDNEY, is while you may be free to advocate, you are not free to use any particular event as a venue to solicit support for your advocacy.

If anyone had the right to use any venue to push an agenda(and KENHYDERAL, get your knickers in a twist again), then no Jewish institution of higher learning would have the right to ban neo nazi groups from advocating their agendas on their campuses.; October 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh Break, you make my day! Ding ding ding and DING.....for the winner of the sarcasm award. Love it!!!!; October 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh Break, you make my day! Ding ding ding and DING.....for the winner of the sarcasm award. Love it!!!!; October 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Both you and Sid seem hung up on this concept that Sid's "ideas" are why he was asked to leave campus. It wasn't"...... I'm contending that if it was, you handing out cards for your Healthcare IT Consulting Firm, you would not have been evicted. It is obvious to me that Dr.Harr and his Organization were singled out because the ideas he and his group promote don't meet with their favor. Duke, then, realizing how embarrassing the curtailing of free expression would be for them, used, in this case, their anti-solicitation policy as a cover-up to accomplish the objective of getting rid of Dr.Harr and,in their mind, his objectionable views.; October 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "And don't duck the issue. How did race baiter al do the right thing in the phoney Duke rape case".......... Like he always does by advocating for victims; October 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr said: With regards to the lawsuit against Duke University, my position is that it never went to trial and that res judicata is therefore not in play.

So the unindicted Duke Lacrosse players can re-file their suit against Linwood Wilson, because Judge Beaty dismissed it without a trial?; October 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If anyone had the right to use any venue to push an agenda(and KENHYDERAL, get your knickers in a twist again), then no Jewish institution of higher learning would have the right to ban neo nazi groups from advocating their agendas on their campuses"..........There is a big difference between espousing unpopular ideas and hate speech. In most places, but not necessarily in America, a distinction is drawn. Again, I say, you are doing a big disservice to the Jewish people by drawing a comparison to the genocide Nazi Germany perpetrated on them and those accused in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Lets have a little proportionality here; October 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM
A Lawyer said...: Again, I say, you are doing a big disservice to the Jewish people by drawing a comparison to the genocide Nazi Germany perpetrated on them and those accused in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Lets have a little proportionality here

For a change, I agree with Ken. The Nazi comparisons are over the top.

But even if Duke was being obnoxious and unreasonable (which we can't really be sure of, because we don't know what happened before the tape recording was turned on, but which I'll assume for purposes of argument), that doesn't mean what they did was illegal. And even if it was illegal, it for damn sure was not a violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983. So Dr. Harr's lawsuit was properly dismissed without a jury trial. (If you bash my head in with a baseball bat in front of 100 witnesses, but I sue you in federal court for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, you acted illegally but my lawsuit will nonetheless be dismissed without a trial, and rightly so.); October 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Lance said: "Both you and Sid seem hung up on this concept that Sid's "ideas" are why he was asked to leave campus. It wasn't"...... I'm contending that if it was, you handing out cards for your Healthcare IT Consulting Firm, you would not have been evicted."

(not Lance)I am contending Lance woul have been evicted. The Justice Breyer event was not a venue which was set up NOT for the purpose of allowing anyone to solicit support for some personal agenda.

"It is obvious to me that Dr.Harr and his Organization were singled out because the ideas he and his group promote don't meet with their favor. Duke, then, realizing how embarrassing the curtailing of free expression would be for them, used, in this case, their anti-solicitation policy as a cover-up to accomplish the objective of getting rid of Dr.Harr and,in their mind, his objectionable views."

The fallacy here is that you say this was a curtailment of any right to free expression. No one has any right to commandeer some event and use it as a venue to push a personal agenda onto others. That is what SIDNEY did.; October 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "And don't duck the issue. How did race baiter al do the right thing in the phoney Duke rape case".......... Like he always does by advocating for victims"

The Falacy here is that race baiter al was advocating for a victim. Crystal was a victimizer, a false accuser.

Now race baiter al is denying he ever advocated for Crystal, which is his way of instituting personal posterior camouflage, of denying he advocated for a victimizer/false accuser.; October 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"There is a big difference between espousing unpopular ideas and hate speech. In most places, but not necessarily in America, a distinction is drawn."

If you deny that SIDNEY's crusade for corrupt DA NIFONG is hate speech that is wrong. It is rather hateful to advocate that innocent men raped Crystal. It is hateful because it is obvious from what evidence was developed that Crystal was not raped. Of course, blatant unrepentant racists like you can not see that.

Again, I say, you are doing a big disservice to the Jewish people by drawing a comparison to the genocide Nazi Germany perpetrated on them and those accused in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Lets have a little proportionality here"."

No I am not. I am pointing out to you that you have no idea of what you advocate. Not surprising, since you have little capacity for idea formation. Since when have you ever had any concern for the Lacrosse players who were wrongfully accused. The last time you mentioned David Evans, you said he was probably involved in the rape. Why? because, according to Kilgo, your unidentifiable non existent source had a picture of David Evans with a mustache.

You are practicing hate speech every time you insist someone is guilty of raping Crystal. It has been established Crystal was not raped.

Incidentally, thank you for fulfilling my prediction that you would get your knickers in a twist.; October 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

The kind of case law you want to make is case law which would allow black criminals, like Shan Carter, to get a pass for their crimes.

Or which would allow innocent, falsely accused white males to be wrongfully convicted when falsely accused by a black person, e.g. the Duke Lacrosse defendants.; October 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "So, Supreme Poster, anyone who hands out a business card on Duke University property is soliciting and deserves to be thrown off campus... right?

Obviously not -- If that person were sponsored by a recognized student organization, and they abide by all local, state, and federal laws as well as university policies.

In other words, IF the do not violate the solicitation policy.

If that person were on the Duke campus for official business and was ASKED to provide a business card, I'm sure that they would not be thrown off campus as well.

But you know this already.; October 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "... I'm contending that if it was..."

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.; October 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

With all your supposed concern for the Jewish people did you ever study what race baiter al did to Crown Heights?; October 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Again I ask, if you give no credence to anonymous sources, why do you call hearsay from an anonymous source credible evidence that Crystal was raped. I add again you can not even show that the source of the hearsay exists.; October 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey troll, how come you don't rant about the scumbag antisimite Farrakhan? Hmmmmmmm? Oh, perhaps it's because the Rev. is black and black people are not racists? I forgot. Only white people can be racists.; October 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Lance......nice quote! Did you see Drudge today?; October 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Hey Anonymous -- I don't read the Drudge Report...This is just something my Dad used to say.

With that said, I'll have to check Drudge out today.; October 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: well, John B said the same quote today in Congress.....how about that!!; October 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Poor sidney, he just keeps trying to find a windmill that has a big old klan hood draped over it.....looking for white dragons everywhere, I guess......hoping to win the big race baiter lottery.; October 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:51 said: "You are practicing hate speech every time you insist someone is guilty of raping Crystal. It has been established Crystal was not raped....................... Am I practicing hate speech when I insist O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder. He was acquitted of this. Am I practicing hate speech when I insist Casey Anthony is guilty of murder. She was acquitted of this.; October 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Incidentally, thank you for fulfilling my prediction that you would get your knickers in a twist"...........Yeah, some of us don't "suffer fools gladly"; October 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenyderal says " Am I practicing hate speech when I insist O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder. He was acquitted of this. Am I practicing hate speech when I insist Casey Anthony is guilty of murder. She was acquitted of this. "

Since "hate speech" is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it could certainly be interpreted that way.; October 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr: Can the unindicted Duke Lacrosse players re-file their suit against Linwood Wilson, because Judge Beaty dismissed it without a trial?

If they re-file and he dismisses it again, how many do-overs do they get before res judicata applies?; October 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" Am I practicing hate speech when I insist O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder. He was acquitted of this. Am I practicing hate speech when I insist Casey Anthony is guilty of murder. She was acquitted of this."

Admittedly no.

Big big difference, however.

In the phoney Duke rape case the evidence established no crime had happened. You state that a crime was perpetrated against Crystal. By that you say that innocent men should be convicted of this non existent crime. That is hateful.; October 10, 2013 at 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Incidentally, thank you for fulfilling my prediction that you would get your knickers in a twist"...........Yeah, some of us don't 'suffer fools gladly'"

You do suffer Sidney rather gladly.You also suffer Crystal gladly. Ergo, you are not one of the "some of us".; October 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

By encouraging Crystal to continue to play fool for SIDNEY, how are you doing her any good?; October 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Since "hate speech" is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it could certainly be interpreted that way"..... And, in my examples it would be necessary to ascertain if the guilt, I insist on, was based on one of those attributes. Beacause of Crystal's description of her attackers and the fact that no person of African heritage was present does not mean that her charge, which I believe in, is racially based. I know the race and gender of Simpson and Anthony and can surmise their sexual orientation but I have no idea of their religion. Take it for what it's worth; if my friend Crystal had been sexually assaulted by a group of black athletes I would be just as outraged; as I am of the beatings she received from Reginald Daye; October 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "In the phoney Duke rape case the evidence established no crime had happened" As did the evidence, at least to the satisfaction of a jury, in the Simpson and Anthony cases. Like Simpson and Anthony the Duke Lacrosse high powered defence team was able to raise such doubt. If you have the resources and or backing you can, guilty or not, raise "reasonable" doubt.; October 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "...Beacause [sic] of Crystal's description of her attackers..."

The same Crystal Mangum that told investigators in April 2006 that she was "100-percent sure" Reade Seligmann had sexually assaulted her orally, but then said in December 2006 that Seligmann did not assault her at all....That Crystal Mangum? How do you account for the complete change in her story?

She also fails to describe the physical appearance of her attackers in her book. Why is that?; October 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "...the fact that no person of African heritage was present does not mean that her charge, which I believe in, is racially based."

The sole black member of the Duke LAX team in 2006 was excluded from the lineups and DNA testing because of his race (Crystal stated all of her attackers were white), not because he wasn't present at the party on March 13, 2006.; October 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Once more for old times sake - no white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum.It's just not possible.; October 10, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Beacause of Crystal's description of her attackers and the fact that no person of African heritage was present does not mean that her charge, which I believe in, is racially based."

Yes it was. People like corrupt DA NIFONG, the gang of 88, the New Black Panthers made it racially charged. If you believe in her charge, you are racist.

"I know the race and gender of Simpson and Anthony and can surmise their sexual orientation but I have no idea of their religion. Take it for what it's worth; if my friend Crystal had been sexually assaulted by a group of black athletes I would be just as outraged; as I am of the beatings she received from Reginald Daye".

No you wouldn't because the black on white racists who turned the Crystal phony rape case into a racially charged incident would not have even noticed a black on black rape. And therefore you QWOUL3D not have noticed it. Which again raises the question of why you presume there was brutalized and raped when the evidence established she was not.

Provide factual corroboration of your and SIDNEY's allegation that Crystal was beaten by Reginald Daye. The medical record, the pictures do not show evidence of a beating.; October 10, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'In the phoney Duke rape case the evidence established no crime had happened' As did the evidence, at least to the satisfaction of a jury, in the Simpson and Anthony cases."

You got that wrong. In the OJ case and in the Casey Anthony case, the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty. There was no doubt that crimes occurred, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the body of Caylee Anthony.

"Like Simpson and Anthony the Duke Lacrosse high powered defence team was able to raise such doubt. If you have the resources and or backing you can, guilty or not, raise 'reasonable' doubt."

You are ducking the issue, that the authorities, led by corrupt DA NIFONG found zero evidence that a crime had occurred.; October 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

By comparing the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants to OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony is in and of itself a manifestation of your hatred for them.

I repeat, in the OJ case, in the Anthony case what was decided that the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There was, in each case, evidence of a crime. In the Duke phoney rape case, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME HAD OCCURRED.

Let's present this to you an see if you can come up with another dodge. Crystal alleged a rape which would have left evidence, on the rape kit and on the Physical exam. There was no evidence on either the rape kit or the physical exam.

And you deny that you are a guilt presuming racist. HAH!!!; October 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM
A Lawyer said...: Once more for old times sake - no white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum.It's just not possible.

What disgusting, racist, bull$hit. Why don't you get lost?; October 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: It's not racism.It's just crime statistics.There are almost no cases of white men raping black women.All of the young men at the party said they found Crystal repulsive as any normal white man would.; October 10, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Lance:

When you ask whether the unindicted players can refile their suit against Linwood Wilson, you are thinking too narrowly.

All of the suits can be refiled.

The indicted players can refile their lawsuits against all of the defendants, seeking to reinstate the federal civil rights claims against Durham, the DPD officers, Nifong, Meehan, etc. Because Beaty obviously was biased, they can name him as a defendant as well. Finally, since they are acting as the de-facto regulators of prosectors across the state, they can add the State of North Carolina.

In addition, any of the posters on this board can file writs of mandamus, asking courts to reinstate the suits, require immediate discovery, and other related demands that move the suits forward.

Supporters of the lacrosse players should thank Sidney for his suggestions. He is truly a crusader for justice.; October 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: A Lawyer and Lance,

I apologize. The rely I addressed to Lance should have been addressed to A Lawyer.

In any event, I believe we can all agree that Sidney is truly a crusader for justice.; October 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM
A Lawyer said...: Break the Conspiracy said:

When you ask whether the unindicted players can refile their suit against Linwood Wilson, you are thinking too narrowly.

All of the suits can be refiled.

The indicted players can refile their lawsuits against all of the defendants, seeking to reinstate the federal civil rights claims against Durham, the DPD officers, Nifong, Meehan, etc. Because Beaty obviously was biased, they can name him as a defendant as well. Finally, since they are acting as the de-facto regulators of prosectors across the state, they can add the State of North Carolina.

In addition, any of the posters on this board can file writs of mandamus, asking courts to reinstate the suits, require immediate discovery, and other related demands that move the suits forward.

Dr. Harr:
Do you agree? Why or why not?; October 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

The legal principle of proving a crime: first you must establish that a crime happened.

There was no evidence in the Duke case that a crime ever happened. That is a real world fact. You can dispute that, but you can not provide any factual proof that a crime did happen.

Which is why I regard your allegation, that the Lacrosse players got off because of legal maneuvering is an attitude generated by hate.; October 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "With regards to the lawsuit against Duke University, my position is that it never went to trial and that res judicata is therefore not in play."

A dismissal under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)is treated as a judgment on the merits unless the court indicates it is a dismissal without prejudice. I won't do Sid's legal research for him, but you can rest assured that I do know the cite and will provide it after he has filed his brief, if requested. Suffice to say, this too is law of the land. Should anyone wonder, it is an example of justice. The rule prevents the constant re-litigation of baseless claims.

"My view is that the law and justice are not the same, and that some laws are unjust."

Law is the way we carry out justice. Being humans we are not perfect, but our system of laws is far better than any previously devised. Further, our system that demands equal justice under the law is far more just than the tyranny that Sid advocates.

"That case law is a way of weeding out some unjust laws and rulings..."

The rule above is case law. In that case, law from the highest court in the land.

"... and that it is necessary for a case to be heard in a court of law before a jury in order for case law to be made."

That is not and never has been our law, or anyone's concept of justice. However, it is a grave injustice to put oneself above the law as Sid would do.

Walt-in-Durham; October 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke puts itself above the law all the time ... and no ... i'm not going to provide proof. If duke wants to argue that they don't - they are bigger fools than they were the instant before they decide to.

The computers aren't even working for obamacare to go into action. Sound familiar to anyone who has watched what has gone on and is going on in the NC DHHS black hole of ineptitude and corruption and lack of healthy services?

Obama is wrong of course - he's just playing the USA along into ruin - for what reason? The war he didn't immediately get in Syria over the chemical attack funded by the USA? He was called out then, and needs to be called out now too - along with all in government who support the war mongering fear driving constitutional breaking USA nongovernment government. They play some deadly games all in order to be able to play more deadly games. It is sickening to see the USA play savior - while actually being death drivers. How do you question the president in court about the games he plays - and ask him to STOP and DESIST and get out of my nation if your going to ruin it another day. Yeah - that's the ticket - how do you trespass the government for wrecking our great nation?; October 10, 2013 at 8:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "There was no evidence in the Duke case that a crime ever happened"............ The Grand Jury thought there was. The botched police investigation failed to develop or follow up on the evidence that was there. For example, a failure to confirm or refute Crystal's consensual sexual history, using the feeble excuse that they did not want to embarrass anybody. Yeah sure! Such sensitivity. Crystal had no objections to that being done. Also a failure to try and identify the ownership of the DNA extracted from sperm that, despite the protestations of the supporters of the Lacrosse Team, could have been deposited by unidentified non-Players present at the Party. Semen is only detected shortly after it's deposition because it is a physiologic fluid, quickly adsorbed. The likelihood of finding seminal acid phosphatase in the vaginal cavity by the time the test was conducted is remote and a negative test does not rule out it was present. Semen is the vehicle for sperm and the present of sperm is proof semen was present although the time of disposition could not be timed. But the time that Crystal alleges she was raped falls within that window. Contrary to what is said, there never was a comprehensive list compiled of Party attendees. An egregious failure by the Police and by The District Attorney. Despite claims to the contrary no such list was ever developed. Crystal was robbed and she has never been able to get back her money or her phone.; October 10, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Better yet (instead of trespassing them for wrecking our great nation) - we the people - we will lock them (the ones in power wrecking this great nation) in a big room - and make them figure out a compromise and solution for we the people as they are paid and elected to do - and NO breaks until its done ... wonder how long it would take them to sign a budget and get on with life (not death and death panels and wars and false flag depopulation world domination plans, etc.) then?; October 10, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The Grand Jury thought there was."

Before thevGrand Jury got the case there was evidence that a crime did not happen. Do you think theGrand Jury heard about the lack of forensic evidence, the lack of physical evidence, Crystal's inability to reliably identify any of corrupt DA NIFONG's suspects as an assailant. If you do you are incredibly and willfully guilt presuming.

"The botched police investigation failed to develop or follow up on the evidence that was there. For example, a failure to confirm or refute Crystal's consensual sexual history, using the feeble excuse that they did not want to embarrass anybody. Yeah sure! Such sensitivity. Crystal had no objections to that being done."

What you omit is that corrupt DA NIFONG did not want the world to know that the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of his suspects. Crystal did not object because, like the rest of the world, she did not know that evidence was there. The evidence did not become common knowledge until Brad Bannon exposed corrupt DA NIFONG's perfidy.

"Also a failure to try and identify the ownership of the DNA extracted from sperm that, despite the protestations of the supporters of the Lacrosse Team, could have been deposited by unidentified non-Players present at the Party."

Another manifestation of your willful guilt presuming stupidity. No attempt was made to identify the source of the non LAX DNA because corrupt DA NIFONG did not want the world to know it was there. What evidence have you presented that unidentified non LAX players were there. If you want to establish a crime you must present evidence. A piece of hearsay from an anonymous source is not evidence, especially when there is no factual evidence that said source exists.

"Semen is only detected shortly after it's deposition because it is a physiologic fluid, quickly adsorbed. The likelihood of finding seminal acid phosphatase in the vaginal cavity by the time the test was conducted is remote and a negative test does not rule out it was present."

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! Markers for semen persist. A finding of acid phosphatase on the rape kit is presumptive evidence semen is present. A negative test is evidene of nothing. I remind you that to establish a crime you must present evidence. You have again presented none.

"Semen is the vehicle for sperm and the present of sperm is proof semen was present although the time of disposition could not be timed. But the time that Crystal alleges she was raped falls within that window."

There were multiple dates and times which fell inside said window, which does not establish that sperm was deposited on Crystal via a forceible rape on the night of 13/14 March 2006. The negative tests for semen(by SBI and DNASI) establish semen was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006, as does the lack of evidence on the physical exam.

"Contrary to what is said, there never was a comprehensive list compiled of Party attendees. An egregious failure by the Police and by The District Attorney. Despite claims to the contrary no such list was ever developed."

You again fail to mention that said "egregious failure" was the consequence of corrupt DA NIFONG's determination to convict obviously innocent members of the Lacrosse team.

"Crystal was robbed and she has never been able to get back her money or her phone."

If anything, that was because the corrupt DA and his collaborators in the DPD were focused on convicting innocent men of rape.

You rant and rave about defense attorneys(Johnny Cochran?) manipulating the system to get guilty clients off. You are sulent about corrupt DAs manipulating the system to convict innocent men. That implies you approve of prosecutorial misconduct when it is directed against individuals of whom you disapprove. That is a rather hateful attitude.; October 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 10, 2013 at 8:39 PM:

"Duke puts itself above the law all the time ... and no ... i'm not going to provide proof. If duke wants to argue that they don't - they are bigger fools than they were the instant before they decide to."

That is an admission that you can not back up your allegations and are therefore arefabricating.

Now go ahead and act stupid again by saying you are making no allegations.; October 11, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 10, 2013 at 10:15 PM:

:Better yet (instead of trespassing them for wrecking our great nation) - we the people - we will lock them (the ones in power wrecking this great nation) in a big room - and make them figure out a compromise and solution for we the people as they are paid and elected to do - and NO breaks until its done ... wonder how long it would take them to sign a budget and get on with life (not death and death panels and wars and false flag depopulation world domination plans, etc.) then?"

I would like to see a Federal judge impose a fine of $100,000 on all those responsible, retroactive to day 1 of the shutdown, doubling every day the shutdown continues. Plus, everyone responsible for the shutdown forfeits the pay and benefits he/she would have received during the shutdown. Plus every individual responsible fot the shutdown would be liable for any losses, any hardship any citizen suffered as a result of the shutdown.

Unfortunately, the judicial branch probably does not have the power to do that.; October 11, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: really, you don't think just locking them in ONE big room with NO BREAKS AT ALL wouldn't solve the problem a lot quicker? Some of those folks got them some mulah from what i've read/heard.

we can debate whether we'll impose mandatory weapons check/security frisk before they enter the great big room after they've signed the stupid budget (geesh all they've gotta do is print some more money don't you know - simple enough).; October 11, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " The Grand Jury thought there was[evidence of a crime]."

The grand jury heard no witnesses other than one police officer for about 90 seconds. What he said was not recorded and under NC law it remains confidential. However, at least one grand juror has said that if he heard that there was no DNA link they would not have indicted. Grand Juries in NC are not so much about fact finding.

"The botched police investigation failed to develop or follow up on the evidence that was there. For example, a failure to confirm or refute Crystal's consensual sexual history, using the feeble excuse that they did not want to embarrass anybody."

We agree to an extent. The police did follow-up on some of the consensual sexual history. They did obtain elimination samples from the driver and the boyfriend. But, the DPD never did follow-up on the other samples. That of course further proves that the men indicted were completely and totally innocent.

"...could have been deposited by unidentified non-Players present at the Party."

First, that furthers the proof that the three men indicted were innocent. Second, all the statements gathered identified the same people as being at the party. The police cannot find evidence that does not exist.

"Semen is only detected shortly after it's deposition because it is a physiologic fluid, quickly adsorbed."

For purposes of DNA analysis about 72 hours. So, if a rape happened, it did so before Crystal went to 610 North Buchanan Street and involved people who were not at the lacrosse party.

"An egregious failure by the Police and by The District Attorney."

On that we agree. You can't railroad innocent people if you let the evidence stand in the way.

"Crystal was robbed and she has never been able to get back her money or her phone."

Again, there is no evidence of that, not even in Crystal's own statement. Robbery is theft by force. She never alleged anyone used force. At best, she alleged someone took her money. Theft, perhaps. Or in her drunken stupor, she lost it? She is so incredible about that night's events, no one will ever know what happened to the money.

Walt-in-Durham; October 11, 2013 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

More about Nazis:

The attitude that it is ok to direct prosecutorial misconduct towards people of whom you disapprove was a feature of the Nazi judicial system.; October 11, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny troll can whine all he wants. The FACT is that Mangum would have, with zero twinge of that character thing called conscience, sent innocent men to prison. The men she said raped her did NOT rape her. In fact, there is ZERO evidence that she was raped by anybody at that LAX party. If she was raped, it happened some other time. Does anybody with even one brain cell think this woman was raped, by anybody, that night? She had been at a motel using a vibrator on herself for paying customers. She had four or five OTHER male samples in her sperm bank. She LIED. Over and Over and Over.
But again, she was NOT RAPED by the men she falsely accused. And there was ZERO EVIDENCE that she was raped AT ALL>
Kenny Troll, you believe whatever you wish.; October 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Why would Secretary Woos - head of NC DHHS work for just one dollar?

That in itself indicates there must be an existance of corruption.

No one in their right mind is going to work for one dollar in such a high power, high stress, highly politicized and critical position as the one that she holds.

How can this be? How can NC expect people to simply watch the farce continue on for years and years on end - only to watch the situations get worse - not better - after all the complaints and people saying no to the abuse and corruption - they still do not listen - how can Mccory deny Obamacare and employ an NC DHHS director for a mere dollar and get away with it?

Either he cares naught for health care for any as he mocks the entire system in which politics and a great deal of tax money rest - and the lives and livelihood of many - or - well the only other scenerio is that he is manuvering health care to benefit only those who will make the most money from it? Is that why Secretary Woos only accepts one dollar for her service to the states citizens - to confuse the issue of who is really meant to benefit from NC DHHS - whether it is for health services for the state - or whether it is meant to line the pockets of those whom toe the political line that Mccory expounds which is certainly questionable at best from facts as they exist today and appears to actually potentially threaten the lives of NC citizens?

For the fflag dominoe crowd: two top level nuclear commanders just fired for alchol related public episodes - wonder who promted those - and why? I mean did they go and drink alone into stupidity at a bar - or were they at a sponsored type event where they were made drunk? Big difference perhaps depending on what was in the drinks possibly and who set the event up, etc.; October 11, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 11, 2013 at 10:39 PM

None so haunted as he who seeks out his own ghosts.; October 12, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: ok evil duke troll - what ghosts and who's haunted?

is woos haunted by ghosts - so she only excepts one dollar payment as pentance - or is mccory the ghost and we are all haunted by his spector when we dare to look at what the nc gov. is doing NOW?

???; October 12, 2013 at 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 12, 2013 at 5:16 AM
ok evil duke troll - what ghosts and who's haunted?

is woos haunted by ghosts - so she only excepts one dollar payment as pentance - or is mccory the ghost and we are all haunted by his spector when we dare to look at what the nc gov. is doing NOW?

???"

It is obvious you are. By ghosts of your own fabricating imagination.; October 12, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 12, 2013 at 5:16 AM

The evil you think you see in others is just a reflection of the evil in your fabricating mind.; October 12, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: ah ... so you admit you fabricated the fact that you are a retired doctor when you tried to fool everyone on this blog (and succeeded for a while apparently) then evil duke troll? how much does duke pay you, you never did enlighten the rest of the trolls on that aspect of the game. Are they still hiring?; October 12, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 12, 2013 at 6:16 AM:

"ah ... so you admit you fabricated the fact that you are a retired doctor when you tried to fool everyone on this blog (and succeeded for a while apparently) then evil duke troll? how much does duke pay you, you never did enlighten the rest of the trolls on that aspect of the game. Are they still hiring?"

More impotent name calling, reflecting more of the evil in your fabricating imagination.; October 12, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...: your stupid as usual evil duke troll
what is imagination but not fabrication silly?

go pick on yourself in the mirror why don't you - you might learn somethin bout yourself and spare the rest of us from your evil ways

ciao; October 12, 2013 at 6:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 12, 2013 at 6:33 AM

your stupid as usual evil duke troll
what is imagination but not fabrication silly?

go pick on yourself in the mirror why don't you - you might learn somethin bout yourself and spare the rest of us from your evil ways

ciao"

Yet More impotent name calling reflecting more of your own innate evil; October 12, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Break the Conspiracy said...
Lance:

When you ask whether the unindicted players can refile their suit against Linwood Wilson, you are thinking too narrowly.

All of the suits can be refiled.

The indicted players can refile their lawsuits against all of the defendants, seeking to reinstate the federal civil rights claims against Durham, the DPD officers, Nifong, Meehan, etc. Because Beaty obviously was biased, they can name him as a defendant as well. Finally, since they are acting as the de-facto regulators of prosectors across the state, they can add the State of North Carolina.

In addition, any of the posters on this board can file writs of mandamus, asking courts to reinstate the suits, require immediate discovery, and other related demands that move the suits forward.

Supporters of the lacrosse players should thank Sidney for his suggestions. He is truly a crusader for justice.

Hey, Break.

Thanks, not only for your kind words, but for the enlightening comments you contribute to make this blog site great.; October 12, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Why would Secretary Woos - head of NC DHHS work for just one dollar?

That in itself indicates there must be an existance of corruption.

No one in their right mind is going to work for one dollar in such a high power, high stress, highly politicized and critical position as the one that she holds.

How can this be? How can NC expect people to simply watch the farce continue on for years and years on end - only to watch the situations get worse - not better - after all the complaints and people saying no to the abuse and corruption - they still do not listen - how can Mccory deny Obamacare and employ an NC DHHS director for a mere dollar and get away with it?

Either he cares naught for health care for any as he mocks the entire system in which politics and a great deal of tax money rest - and the lives and livelihood of many - or - well the only other scenerio is that he is manuvering health care to benefit only those who will make the most money from it? Is that why Secretary Woos only accepts one dollar for her service to the states citizens - to confuse the issue of who is really meant to benefit from NC DHHS - whether it is for health services for the state - or whether it is meant to line the pockets of those whom toe the political line that Mccory expounds which is certainly questionable at best from facts as they exist today and appears to actually potentially threaten the lives of NC citizens?

For the fflag dominoe crowd: two top level nuclear commanders just fired for alchol related public episodes - wonder who promted those - and why? I mean did they go and drink alone into stupidity at a bar - or were they at a sponsored type event where they were made drunk? Big difference perhaps depending on what was in the drinks possibly and who set the event up, etc.

I definitely agree with you that there is something fishy in the DHHS department. Dr. Woos is getting compensated far more than one dollar for her work. Tar Heelians can see through her little smoke screen... we're not idiots.; October 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "With regards to the lawsuit against Duke University, my position is that it never went to trial and that res judicata is therefore not in play."

A dismissal under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)is treated as a judgment on the merits unless the court indicates it is a dismissal without prejudice. I won't do Sid's legal research for him, but you can rest assured that I do know the cite and will provide it after he has filed his brief, if requested. Suffice to say, this too is law of the land. Should anyone wonder, it is an example of justice. The rule prevents the constant re-litigation of baseless claims.

"My view is that the law and justice are not the same, and that some laws are unjust."

Law is the way we carry out justice. Being humans we are not perfect, but our system of laws is far better than any previously devised. Further, our system that demands equal justice under the law is far more just than the tyranny that Sid advocates.

"That case law is a way of weeding out some unjust laws and rulings..."

The rule above is case law. In that case, law from the highest court in the land.

"... and that it is necessary for a case to be heard in a court of law before a jury in order for case law to be made."

That is not and never has been our law, or anyone's concept of justice. However, it is a grave injustice to put oneself above the law as Sid would do.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

It would be great if the law worked to assure equal justice for all, but instead the laws, which are made by the more affluent in society, are made to protect the rich and keep the down-trodden under their heels.

Most laws are neither fair nor just, and if you really disect them, you'll find that they really benefit the upper echelons of society.; October 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
Important announcements.

I just updated "The Rectifier."

My next flog/video will be one of the most dramatic yet. Hope to get it posted by next Sunday... October 20th.

Also, I am working on a secret educational-enlightenment-entertainment project that will blow your socks off. With any luck, it will be available by Christmas.

As you were.; October 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr: Can the unindicted Duke Lacrosse players re-file their suit against Linwood Wilson, because Judge Beaty dismissed it without a trial?

If they re-file and he dismisses it again, how many do-overs do they get before res judicata applies?

Of course they can. I would say that because the judge dismissed the charges without a trial res judicata would not be, or should not be applicable.

Had the Un-indicted Duke Lacrosse players had a jury trial and lost, then res judicata would prevent them from re-filing.

Comprende?

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; October 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I definitely agree with you that there is something fishy in the DHHS department. Dr. Woos is getting compensated far more than one dollar for her work. Tar Heelians can see through her little smoke screen... we're not idiots."

You are an idiot. You are trying to tell us felony murderer was acting in self defense, that the autopsy report on Reginald Daye was fraudulent, that Crystal was a victim in the Duke Lacrosse case. Only an idiot would expect people to believe such blatant lies.; October 12, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Hey, Walt.

It would be great if the law worked to assure equal justice for all, but instead the laws, which are made by the more affluent in society, are made to protect the rich and keep the down-trodden under their heels.

Most laws are neither fair nor just, and if you really disect them, you'll find that they really benefit the upper echelons of society."

I say again, this is the opinion who believes Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006 in spite of overwhelming evidence she was not, a man who says the carpetbagger jihad exists(and claims that those who do not believe is said jihad are the victims of jedi mind tricks) who says Shan Carter, who killed another convicted felon in a conflict he, Shan Carter provoked, was only acting in self defense.

Your attitudes on what constitute law and justice show you are an idiot.; October 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

To my last comment I add, you believe corrupt DA NIFONG did not withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense in the Lacrosse case at least in part because you do not believe the evidence was exculpatory. You did write in your blog at one time that the evidence was not exculpatory because it did not prove the defendants did not rape Crystal.; October 12, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Most laws are neither fair nor just, and if you really disect them, you'll find that they really benefit the upper echelons of society."

One reason you think laws are unjust or unfair is because the law will not award you millions of dollars because of all the frivolous lawsuits you have filed.; October 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
Important announcements."

Another iteration of SIDNEY crying, HEY EVERYBODY, PAY ATTENTION TO ME"

"I just updated 'The Rectifier.'"

In other words you have indulged in more deluded megalomania.

"My next flog/video will be one of the most dramatic yet. Hope to get it posted by next Sunday... October 20th."

You can not rightfully say that because most of your flogs and blogs have been pathetic attempts to promote your deluded megalomania. That has not been dramatic but pitiful. What we will get from you will be your most pitiful yet.

"Also, I am working on a secret educational-enlightenment-entertainment project that will blow your socks off. With any luck, it will be available by Christmas."

You have promised multiple times to knock your readers' socks off. Each time, my socks at least, have remained in place.

"As you were."

SIDNEY saying, please pay attention to me. Pathetic.; October 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Of course they can. I would say that because the judge dismissed the charges without a trial res judicata would not be, or should not be applicable.

Had the Un-indicted Duke Lacrosse players had a jury trial and lost, then res judicata would prevent them from re-filing."

You have got it wrong. Just because you file a lawsuit does not mean the case has to go to trial. You have been told that multiple times in the past(all the frivolous suits you filed never went to trial) and you still persist in saying you do have a right to a trial if you file a suit. More evidence you are an idiot.

"Comprende?"

I do. You do not.

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

A deluded megalomaniacal idiot is incapable of elucidating anyone, especially himself.; October 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "It would be great if the law worked to assure equal justice for all, but instead the laws, which are made by the more affluent in society, are made to protect the rich and keep the down-trodden under their heels."

So the law should not protect Daye, who was certainly not one of the affluent in society. At least you are consistent in claiming the law should not protect little Demetrius Greene either. Thankfully, the law and the vast majority of the American people disagree.

Walt-in-Durham; October 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: No,Walt, you obviously don't understand poor sidney. What he means is that the law should protect the people HE decides need to be "protected", as in "does not apply" to them. That, lawyer Walt, is sidney hard. And it is disgusting.....; October 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"
Hey, Walt.

It would be great if the law worked to assure equal justice for all, but instead the laws, which are made by the more affluent in society, are made to protect the rich and keep the down-trodden under their heels.

Most laws are neither fair nor just, and if you really disect them, you'll find that they really benefit the upper echelons of society."

I say again, this is the opinion who believes Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006 in spite of overwhelming evidence she was not, a man who says the carpetbagger jihad exists(and claims that those who do not believe is said jihad are the victims of jedi mind tricks) who says Shan Carter, who killed another convicted felon in a conflict he, Shan Carter provoked, was only acting in self defense.

Your attitudes on what constitute law and justice show you are an idiot.

Is it your position that because Shan stole money from a drug dealer who then publicly threatened to kill Shan, that Shan should not stand his ground and defend himself against a man who had threatened to kill him? Shan's life was definitely in jeopardy, and had he not shot first, he undoubtedly would've been shot dead.

For that, Shan should not be criminally charged... especially with capital first degree murder. Doesn't make sense.; October 13, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

To my last comment I add, you believe corrupt DA NIFONG did not withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense in the Lacrosse case at least in part because you do not believe the evidence was exculpatory. You did write in your blog at one time that the evidence was not exculpatory because it did not prove the defendants did not rape Crystal.

The fact is that Mike Nifong did not withhold any evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defendants... he turned over everything, including all lab results. If you carefully read the complaints by the defense counsel you'll note that they complained that he didn't turn them over fast enough to suit their liking. Not only that, but he turned them over and a trial date had not even been assigned.; October 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
Important announcements."

Another iteration of SIDNEY crying, HEY EVERYBODY, PAY ATTENTION TO ME"

"I just updated 'The Rectifier.'"

In other words you have indulged in more deluded megalomania.

"My next flog/video will be one of the most dramatic yet. Hope to get it posted by next Sunday... October 20th."

You can not rightfully say that because most of your flogs and blogs have been pathetic attempts to promote your deluded megalomania. That has not been dramatic but pitiful. What we will get from you will be your most pitiful yet.

"Also, I am working on a secret educational-enlightenment-entertainment project that will blow your socks off. With any luck, it will be available by Christmas."

You have promised multiple times to knock your readers' socks off. Each time, my socks at least, have remained in place.

"As you were."

SIDNEY saying, please pay attention to me. Pathetic.

Hah. No, actually what I'm doing is giving viewers notification of some of the postings I have planned for the future.

This blog site is not about me... it's about equal justice for all Tar Heelians.; October 13, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"
Of course they can. I would say that because the judge dismissed the charges without a trial res judicata would not be, or should not be applicable.

Had the Un-indicted Duke Lacrosse players had a jury trial and lost, then res judicata would prevent them from re-filing."

You have got it wrong. Just because you file a lawsuit does not mean the case has to go to trial. You have been told that multiple times in the past(all the frivolous suits you filed never went to trial) and you still persist in saying you do have a right to a trial if you file a suit. More evidence you are an idiot.

"Comprende?"

I do. You do not.

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

A deluded megalomaniacal idiot is incapable of elucidating anyone, especially himself.

Please allow me to interject some elucidation. My position is that if a case is not allowed to go to trial (for example, a judge grants a defendant's Motion to Dismiss), then res judicata should not be applicable.; October 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "It would be great if the law worked to assure equal justice for all, but instead the laws, which are made by the more affluent in society, are made to protect the rich and keep the down-trodden under their heels."

So the law should not protect Daye, who was certainly not one of the affluent in society. At least you are consistent in claiming the law should not protect little Demetrius Greene either. Thankfully, the law and the vast majority of the American people disagree.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

You have failed to comprehend the meaning of my statements. As it is now, most laws favor the more affluent. I believe that laws should provide justice equally for all individuals regardless of their class status. Reginald Daye and Demetrius Green deserve protection by the law as does Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter.; October 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

'
Is it your position that because Shan stole money from a drug dealer who then publicly threatened to kill Shan, that Shan should not stand his ground and defend himself against a man who had threatened to kill him? Shan's life was definitely in jeopardy, and had he not shot first, he undoubtedly would've been shot dead.

For that, Shan should not be criminally charged... especially with capital first degree murder. Doesn't make sense."

You do not understand the law about self defense. What the law clearly says it is not self defense if you kill someone as a result of a conflict you instigated. The whole incident would not have happened has Shan Carter not robbed Tyrone Baker. Further Demetrius Green would not have died.

Shan Carter also could have avoided the conflict had he gone to the Police or gotten out of town.; October 13, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
The fact is that Mike Nifong did not withhold any evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defendants... he turned over everything, including all lab results. If you carefully read the complaints by the defense counsel you'll note that they complained that he didn't turn them over fast enough to suit their liking. Not only that, but he turned them over and a trial date had not even been assigned."

The DNA evidence was a result of the NTO. NC law requires the subjects of an NTO be given a report of the results of the NTO in a timely manner. What corrupt DA NIFONG turned over was raw data and no report several months after he had received a report. And it is documented that the full report was not turned over because DA NIFONG conspired with Brian Meehan not to turn it over.

Corrupt DA NIFONG did not want the world to know that the only DNA found on Crystal was DNA which did not match his suspects. He knew his suspects were innocent and he wanted to convict them anyway. SO HE DID WITHHOLD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.; October 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hah. No, actually what I'm doing is giving viewers notification of some of the postings I have planned for the future."

Considering that your postings are a combination of your delusions, distortions and outright lies, you would do your viewers a service if you just did not post them.

"This blog site is not about me... it's about equal justice for all Tar Heelians."

Your blog site is primarily is about you, a pitiful ineffective man, trying to pose as someone of importance.; October 13, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Please allow me to interject some elucidation. My position is that if a case is not allowed to go to trial (for example, a judge grants a defendant's Motion to Dismiss), then res judicata should not be applicable."

Which means a) you do not understand the law and b) you believe if you file a frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit, the court should waste its time hearing it.

Another manifestation of your belief that you are above the law.; October 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You have failed to comprehend the meaning of my statements. As it is now, most laws favor the more affluent. I believe that laws should provide justice equally for all individuals regardless of their class status. Reginald Daye and Demetrius Green deserve protection by the law as does Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter."

It is obvious from your postings that you believe the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players should not have received protection of the law.

HYPOCRITE!!!!

You also believe you deserve much more than equal protection under the law. You believe you are above the law and the law should defer to your distorted views of the law, e.g. that Shan Carter should get a pass for provoking a conflict, killing another man as a result of the conflict and killing an innocent child in the process.; October 13, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland"

"(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
(3) THE ACCUSED CLAIMING THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN THE AGGRESSOR OR pPROVOKED THE CONFLICT(emphasis added);
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.; October 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out: http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/florida-cases-interpreting-section-776-041-person-who-initially-provoked-incident-may-not-claim-self-defense/:

"InÂ Vila v. StateÂ 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011), the District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's conviction for battery. The Court stated that "The victim testified that Vila opened the door to his truck, reached inside, pulled him out, threw him to the ground, and began hitting him with a bicycle tire." The jury convicted the defendant of "burglary of a conveyance," and so the Court of Appeal concluded that the jury believed the victim's testimony on this point. The Court of Appeal found that the defendant's conduct of pulling the victim out of the car "initially provoked" the incident, and that this meant that the defendant was not entitled to claim "self-defense" to the charge of battery. The court concluded: The jury's unchallenged verdict on the burglary charge causes us to conclude that Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."; October 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw/selfdefense.html

"In order for the Defendant to have been justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense, HE MUST NOT HAVE PROVOKED THE ASSAULT(emphasis added) on him or have been the aggressor.; October 13, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/10-ways-to-lose-your-self-defense-argument/:

"There are at least 10 common ways that armed citizens who use force to protect themselves or their families end up losing the right to argue self defense in front of a jury:

Claiming the use of force was an accident
Not meeting your burden of production to qualify for self-defense
BEING PRCEIVED AS THE AGGRESSOR (THE ONE WHO STARTED THE CONFLICT)(emphasis added)
Resorting to self defense under inadequate provocation
Using excessive force either in degree or duration
Failing to use a safe avenue of retreat
Returning to an initial conflict
PURSUING AN ATTACKER(emphasis added).
Fleeing the scene of conflict
Saying too much, or not enough; October 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous:

I believe you are misinterpreting the self-defense requirements.

Carter unquestionably "provoked" the confrontation with Baker when he stole a large amount of money from Baker. However, in doing so, he did not waive forever his self-defense rights. Baker did not have the right to escalate the confrontation by killing Carter.

For example, consider if Baker had approached Carter with a gun clearly in sight, and aimed the gun at Carter, yelling "I'll kill you, you f$&@ing thief!" Carter would claim self-defense, and likely convince a jury to accept it.

When Baker approached Carter with a coat over his right arm and hand, Carter arguably could have thought that his life was in imminent danger. If so, self-defense would be applicable, but would apply only to the initial shots fired. Carter made this claim, and the jury rejected it. Based on the evidence, I agree. However, Sidney can reach a different conclusion.

The shots Carter fired at a retreating Baker, one of which struck and killed Demetrious Greene, are not subject to a valid self-defense claim. Sidney has no valid complaint for these shots, and he weakens his argument on the initial shots by completely misinterpreting the law.; October 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " If you carefully read the complaints by the defense counsel you'll note that they complained that he didn't turn them over fast enough to suit their liking. Not only that, but he turned them over and a trial date had not even been assigned."

You're misrepresenting again. Nifong was asked by defense counsel and the court if he had any more discovery, and he said he did not. In fact, the state had the exculpatory evidence and they knew it because Nifong had been at the meeting and discussed the DNASI report. That's where he got into trouble. Being untruthful with the court and opposing counsel.

Also, in possession of the exculpatory evidence, Nifong had no probable cause for pursuing the case. That violated Rule 3.8(a) of the Rules of professional conduct.

Dishonest and unethical. That's what you stand for.

Walt-in-Durham; October 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "You have failed to comprehend the meaning of my statements. As it is now, most laws favor the more affluent. I believe that laws should provide justice equally for all individuals regardless of their class status. Reginald Daye and Demetrius Green deserve protection by the law as does Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter."

You are the one wanting to deny equal protection to an eight year old boy and a domestic violence victim.

Walt-in-Durham; October 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " My position is that if a case is not allowed to go to trial (for example, a judge grants a defendant's Motion to Dismiss), then res judicata should not be applicable."

That is a position that is not supported by the law, previous judicial decision or anyone's understanding of the concept of justice. Further, Sid has failed to favor us with any cogent argument whey RJ should not apply in the absence of a jury verdict.

Walt-in-Durham; October 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

Sidney believes jury nullification is the key to justice.; October 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

My last answer was only partially correct.

Sidney believes jury nullification is the key to justice, except when he disagrees with a jury verdict (e.g, Shan Carter).; October 13, 2013 at 3:37 PM
A Lawyer said...: If lawsuits could be decided only by jury verdict, Brown vs. Bd. of Education would have been decided the other way, and we would have had segregated schools in America for many decades after the 1950s.; October 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: But, guys, Harr does not believe in the law.....not really. What Harr believes in is expedient law, i.e., law that works and is right when HE thinks it works. Law that is NOT color blind, i.e., law that applies unequally to certain races. Law that is NOT based on evidence...but based on opinion, heresay, and speculation by unqualified albeit loud parties. That's Harr's law...and it stinks.; October 14, 2013 at 4:34 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: The primary function of a jury is to find the facts in a given case, while the function of the judge is to interpret the law relative to those facts.

It seems to me that Sid either wants to ignore completely the function of the judge, or to have the function of the judge assumed by the jury (or himself).

Either way, he's wrong, as usual.; October 14, 2013 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: It's one thing to hear Sidney Harr rant about Crystal Mangum and her sorry state. But, it is an entirely different matter, at least to my thinking, that Harr would excuse the killing of an innocent little child...and just blow it off as, well, shucks, darn, too bad. That's shameful. Demetrius Greene was eight years old, right? A completely innocent victim, right? And two hardened proven drug selling scumbags get into a street brawl....and this little child is collateral damage? Just an oopsie, sidney? right? Just an , Uh-oh?
If EVER a piece of trash convict deserved to D-I-E for his crimes, it is Carter.
But, hey, sidney would have this thug out on the streets among us....happily selling his drugs, assaulting citizens, killing innocent people, and continuing to breathe while Green's family mourns.; October 14, 2013 at 6:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Troll, you are being evasive. The point is that Duke have a no solicitation policy that it does enforce. I know because I have worked for Duke in the past and I am very familiar with not only their enforcement of thier policies. They are consistent!
I will also remind you, troll, yet again ....and for the last time.....that you are assuming Harr was telling the truth about the extent and nature of his actions. We ALL know he lies to suit his own purposes. It is far more likely that Harr was doing far more than merely handing out business cards. And, based on the FACT that he is a serial false-suit filer who tires to extort money out of people and organizations by filing nuisance suits, you can damn well bet that he thought he could make a buck. By the way, isn't it just really interesting that this behavior of his is yet another example of how he and Mangum are alike. She told Roberts that she was going to make some money off those boys........I imagine Harr thought to himself that he would just make some money off Duke.
I will also remind you that Harr has NOT been banned from Duke property. He can still be on the property, go to Duke events, etc. That point was made clear in the letter from Duke to Harr.
This is all just another trumped up attempt to get money by this amoral old man who spend his time trying to get attention and money

I have more sense than to ever set foot on Duke property again. It was clear that Duke intended to arrest me... the Security guard kept saying that. When I asked for a reason he couldn't give me one, then later admitted to Law Professor James Coleman that he had been ordered to remove me from campus... He left off the part about having me arrested when he talked to Prof. Coleman.

The fact is that I tried to rectify the situation from the beginning, but Duke refused. With the statute of limitations coming up, I was finally forced to file a law suit.

That's the simple nuts and bolts of it.; October 14, 2013 at 6:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

'
Is it your position that because Shan stole money from a drug dealer who then publicly threatened to kill Shan, that Shan should not stand his ground and defend himself against a man who had threatened to kill him? Shan's life was definitely in jeopardy, and had he not shot first, he undoubtedly would've been shot dead.

For that, Shan should not be criminally charged... especially with capital first degree murder. Doesn't make sense."

You do not understand the law about self defense. What the law clearly says it is not self defense if you kill someone as a result of a conflict you instigated. The whole incident would not have happened has Shan Carter not robbed Tyrone Baker. Further Demetrius Green would not have died.

Shan Carter also could have avoided the conflict had he gone to the Police or gotten out of town.

First, the shooting of Demetrius Green was clearly accidental. Shan never even saw him. The boy was unfortunately struck by a bullet that freakishly ricocheted off the steering wheel and struck him in the head.

If someone is playing with a gun, or cleaning a gun and it goes of and kills someone, should that person be given the death penalty?

I don't think so.

Finally stealing someone's money does not give that person the right to act as a vigilante, judge, jury and executioner and kill the thief. So Shan stole cash from the drug dealer. Does that mean he forfeits the right to protect himself when the drug dealer has made it known his intention to get even by taking Shan's life?

I don't think so.; October 14, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Please allow me to interject some elucidation. My position is that if a case is not allowed to go to trial (for example, a judge grants a defendant's Motion to Dismiss), then res judicata should not be applicable."

Which means a) you do not understand the law and b) you believe if you file a frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit, the court should waste its time hearing it.

Another manifestation of your belief that you are above the law.

When I read that Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination complaint against Duke University because she was cut from the men's football team, I thought it was a frivolous case. But she was allowed her day in court and she prevailed.

All I'm seeking is my day in court... just like Ms. Mercer. I don't think that's too much to ask.; October 14, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland"

"(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
(3) THE ACCUSED CLAIMING THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN THE AGGRESSOR OR pPROVOKED THE CONFLICT(emphasis added);
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.

I believe the timeline of events is important when you discuss provocation. In its ruling, it is apparent to me that the provocative act must be immediately related to the retaliation.

In Shan's case, the "provocative" act per your definition (burglarizing the drug dealer's house and taking cash) occurred months prior to the incident. Shan was suddenly and without warning accosted by the drug dealer; and in shooting him because of reasonable fear was justified in using self defense.; October 14, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw/selfdefense.html

"In order for the Defendant to have been justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense, HE MUST NOT HAVE PROVOKED THE ASSAULT(emphasis added) on him or have been the aggressor.

George Zimmerman provoked Trayvon Martin before shooting him in cold blood... yet he got a pass with self-defense.

In Shan Carter's case, he did not immediately provoke the attack, as the burglary occurred months prior to the attack. And the aggressor made it clear that his intentions were to kill Shan, so he was well within his rights when he shot the drug dealer... more so than Zimmerman.; October 14, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The fact is that I tried to rectify the situation from the beginning, but Duke refused. With the statute of limitations coming up, I was finally forced to file a law suit."

You lost that suit once, refiling it is both frivolous and vexatious. You'll lose again.

Walt-in-Durham; October 14, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
It's one thing to hear Sidney Harr rant about Crystal Mangum and her sorry state. But, it is an entirely different matter, at least to my thinking, that Harr would excuse the killing of an innocent little child...and just blow it off as, well, shucks, darn, too bad. That's shameful. Demetrius Greene was eight years old, right? A completely innocent victim, right? And two hardened proven drug selling scumbags get into a street brawl....and this little child is collateral damage? Just an oopsie, sidney? right? Just an , Uh-oh?
If EVER a piece of trash convict deserved to D-I-E for his crimes, it is Carter.
But, hey, sidney would have this thug out on the streets among us....happily selling his drugs, assaulting citizens, killing innocent people, and continuing to breathe while Green's family mourns.

Again, the death of Demetrius Green was an extremely tragic accident... but that is what it was. An accident. I feel extremely sorry for the Green family's loss, however, my position is that Shan Carter should not be sentenced to death for an accidental shooting. That is manslaughter, and manslaughter is not a capital crime.; October 14, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "The fact is that I tried to rectify the situation from the beginning, but Duke refused. With the statute of limitations coming up, I was finally forced to file a law suit."

You lost that suit once, refiling it is both frivolous and vexatious. You'll lose again.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

First, I did not lose the lawsuit. The judge dismissed it without allowing it to go to trial... depriving me of my day in court. All I want is my day in court.; October 14, 2013 at 7:13 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "When I read that Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination complaint against Duke University because she was cut from the men's football team, I thought it was a frivolous case. But she was allowed her day in court and she prevailed."

She prevailed because she had a legal point under Title IX. It does not take a legal genius to see the difference. The law (Title IX) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex when a university accepts federal funding. You did not sue under Title IX.

You sued under Section 1983 which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin when acting under color of law. You lost on both points. You did not sue the one person who acted under color of law and you did alleged the discrimination was based on your support for Nifong. Plainly not protected by the statute. Had you done even the most elementary legal research you might have figured out the difference. Had you hired a lawyer, the fist thing he would have done is told you the difference.

"All I'm seeking is my day in court... just like Ms. Mercer. I don't think that's too much to ask."

You got your day in court. The court assumed all the facts you plead were true and found you stated no claim.

If you were half as bad a physician as you are an advocate, you were a terrible physician.

Walt-in-Durham; October 14, 2013 at 7:16 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Again, the death of Demetrius Green was an extremely tragic accident... but that is what it was. An accident."

Transferred intent. This has been explained to you before. No one so dumb as he who will not learn.

Walt-in-Durham; October 14, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Nope, you LOST. You are not above the law.
and yes, Carter deserves to die. And yes, the poster is right.........your support for the likes of Carter proves, beyond question, what kind of racist hack you are; October 14, 2013 at 7:19 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "First, I did not lose the lawsuit."

Yes, you did. A dismissal for failure to state a claim is a loss. See my comments above about the standard the court applied. Of course, the Magistrate and the District Judge correctly stated the standard and applied it to your case. You lost. Deservedly so. As you have lost so many times before.

"All I want is my day in court."

You got your day in court. You squandered it by totally and completely fouling up your complaint. That's the story of your life. You squandered the talent that got you into medical school.

Walt-in-Durham; October 14, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: From State v. Carter:

"...Defendant first became aware of Baker's presence when Baker attacked Temony, knocking him to the ground. Baker then approached defendant menacingly, with a jacket slung over his arm, concealing his hand. According to eyewitnesses, Baker was unarmed. Defendant claimed at trial that although he could not see a weapon, he feared Baker was armed and reacted in self- defense. Defendant testified: “I didn't want to shoot first, I wanted to go ahead . . . and do what I had to do before [Baker] did it to me. So I went ahead and pulled my gun out and I shot at him.” As Baker approached, defendant retreated, pulled a chrome .357 caliber revolver from under his jacket, and began shooting. Defendant testified that he pointed his gun towards the ground and intended only to force Baker away so that defendant could get to his car and leave. Defendant also testified that he did not intend to kill Baker and did not know at the time of the shooting whether any of the bullets actually hit Baker. After defendant fired the first shot, Baker turned and ran around the corner, moving down 10th Street. According to defendant, “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.”
D'April Greene and her three children lived in a housing project near 10th and Dawson. On 16 February 1997, D'April was gathering the children for a trip to the toy store. The trip was intended to reward the children for making good grades. Excited about the trip and anxious to ride in the front seat, D'April's eight-year-old son, Demetrius, ran ahead of the rest of his family. He ran across 10th Street and jumped into the front passenger seat of D'April's car, which was parked on 10th Street approximately one hundred feet south of the grocery store. As D'April and her other two children crossed the street towards the car, D'April began to hear “fussing” near the intersection of 10th and Dawson. This “fussing” was quicklyfollowed by gunfire. D'April and other witnesses then saw Baker rounding the corner with defendant in pursuit.
As Baker ran down 10th Street, defendant followed him around the corner, continuing to fire between four and six shots. At some point, Baker ran in front of or near the Greene car in an attempt to cross 10th Street. During the course of the shooting, two of the bullets from defendant's revolver struck Baker, one in the leg and one in the torso. Baker staggered across the street, collapsed in a grassy area near the sidewalk, and died shortly thereafter. A stray bullet from defendant's revolver passed through the windshield of D'April Greene's car and struck Demetrius Greene in the head. Demetrius died shortly thereafter. Forensic evidence subsequently confirmed that the bullets that struck Baker and Greene all came from the same gun, most likely a revolver."; October 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous:

"I believe you are misinterpreting the self-defense requirements."

I believe I am not. The law is pretty clear-one may not plead self defense if he kills or injures someone as a result of a conflict he provoked.

I believe that Shan Carter should have realized that Tyrone Baker would have retaliated for the theft.; October 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

" If you carefully read the complaints by the defense counsel you'll note that they complained that he didn't turn them over fast enough to suit their liking. Not only that, but he turned them over and a trial date had not even been assigned."

You misread the requirements. Corrupt DA NIFONG was required by law to expeditiously turn over the results obtained by the NTO. He did not do so. He withheld exculpatory evidence.

Had h not withheld the exculpatory evidence, the defense could have moved for, and probably gotten, a dismissal of the charges before the AG did it. Your argumrent about no trial date being set is meaningless.; October 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"First, the shooting of Demetrius Green was clearly accidental. Shan never even saw him. The boy was unfortunately struck by a bullet that freakishly ricocheted off the steering wheel and struck him in the head.

If someone is playing with a gun, or cleaning a gun and it goes of and kills someone, should that person be given the death penalty?

"I don't think so."

This is a rather grossly fat straw fisherman holding up a rotten red herring. There was nothing accidental about Shan Carter shooting Demetrius Green. It would not have happened had Shan Carter not provoked the confrontation.

"Finally stealing someone's money does not give that person the right to act as a vigilante, judge, jury and executioner and kill the thief. So Shan stole cash from the drug dealer. Does that mean he forfeits the right to protect himself when the drug dealer has made it known his intention to get even by taking Shan's life?"

Since Shan Carter should have forseen that stealing that amount of cash from a convicted felon would have provoked a violent, potentially deadly conflict, he forfeits the right to plead self defense. When he became aware of Tyrone Baker's malice, he could have protected his life by fleeing or going to the police. Instead, it is clear that Shan Carter made no attempt to avoid the conflict. He was not simply minding his business when he went out on the street to openly sell drugs, armed with an illegally possessed powerful handgun.

"I don't think so."

Th fallacy here is that you presume you can think.; October 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'In the phoney Duke rape case the evidence established no crime had happened' As did the evidence, at least to the satisfaction of a jury, in the Simpson and Anthony cases."

No it did not. The prosecution in the OJ case an the Anthony case did establish tha Murder had happened. Or do you deny that the bodies of the victims were evidence of murder? What the prosecution failed to do, at least in the Casey Anthony case, was establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the OJ case the defense played the race card-do you really want to convict a black man for killing white people.

In the Duke phoney rape case, the evidence obtained by the prosecution revealed that no crime had happened.

How abysmally dense are you?; October 14, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Is it your position that because Shan stole money from a drug dealer who then publicly threatened to kill Shan, that Shan should not stand his ground and defend himself against a man who had threatened to kill him? Shan's life was definitely in jeopardy, and had he not shot first, he undoubtedly would've been shot dead."

My position, which is also the position of the law, is that Shan Carter's life would not have been in jeopardy had he not stolen the money. I say again, Shan Carter had ample reason to know that this theft would provoke a reaction from the victim,a felon, and yhat reaction could have lead to a violent, deadly conflict.

I also say again,by going out on the street to publicly deal illegal drugs armed with an illgally possessed, powerful hand gun, shows Shan Carter had no intention of avoiding a confrontation.

"For that, Shan should not be criminally charged... especially with capital first degree murder. Doesn't make sense."

Yes he should have been charged.If it does not make sense to you, it means you, not the justice system, has the problem.; October 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Shan Carter will never get out of prison. But, if by some weird chance he should get out, he will either get his ass killed by some thug, or, he will kill somebody else. My hope is that he rots in his own miserable cell, after, of course, he becomes the little wifey to some big burly prison butch named Tyrone.; October 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Walt, any word on date changes for Mangum's November court schedule?; October 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, sidney, I assume you are going to write a piece soon about poor Lawrence Lovette, the despicable animal who murdered Eve Carson and who is soon to be on trial for murdering a Duke student. By the way, sidney, Lovette held a pillow over the Duke student's face and, while he was holding the pillow, shot the man, point blank, between the eyes.
This is YOUR kind of scumbag, sidney.....the perfect addition to your hall of honor......where Mangum and Carter are already residing! Just think, you can add this piece of trash to your collection of worthy causes. Perhaps poor Lovette ought to go free because surely he shot the Duke guy in self defense. Golly, you might even become his advocate, too!!! After all, it was a DUKE student who got murdered....so we all know poor Lovette deserves a break.; October 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "In the Duke (phoney) rape case, the evidence obtained by the prosecution revealed that no crime had happened"......... But there is un-obtained evidence that there were eye-witnesses to this crime. Despite DA Nifong's demands they have failed to come forward. They will be identified in good time, though, and be forced to give evidence. Crystal's reputation will be restored and her civil suits will give her compensation for her ordeal; October 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"But there is un-obtained evidence that there were eye-witnesses to this crime. Despite DA Nifong's demands they have failed to come forward."

Corrupt DA' Nifong's "demands" for eyewitnesses to come forth amounted to naming people as witnesses and then threatening to prosecute them for aiding and abetting anyone who did not come forth and provide inculpatory evidence. That no one came forth says that there were no witnesses to anY witnesses to any crime. The only statement that there were witnesses to a crime, I say emphatically again, is a piece of hearsay from a source which you can not prove even exists.

"They will be identified in good time, though, and be forced to give evidence. Crystal's reputation will be restored and her civil suits will give her compensation for her ordeal".

You are describing a scenario similar yo the one corrupt DA NIFONG tried to pull off. Name people as witnesses then threaten them if they do not provide evidence. That is not a way to establish the occurrence of a crime - except in a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany, the legal system of which you seem to admire, i.e. people whom you dislike should be presumed guilty.

I ask again, you whine over defense attorneys who manipulate the system to get acquittals for their clients but you see nothing wrong with a DA manipulating the system to convict innocent men.; October 15, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:26 AM wrote: "I say emphatically again, is a piece of hearsay from a source which you can not prove even exists."

That is the central problem for Ken's theory. He has a second hand source who will not come forward. Balanced against that are photos which are in the public record. They do not show any unidentified people attending the party. 46 of 47 attendees gave DNA samples and none of those matched the samples taken from Crystal.

The next problem is the just the physical concept of more then 47 attendees and two dancers within the confines of the little house at 610 N. Buchanan Street. Could there have been a 48th attendee? I suppose it is possible, but that's a lot of people for a tiny little house. So, I put that on the outer edge of possibilities.

Ken's next problem is corroboration. None of the witness statements, voluntarily given I must say, provide any corroborating evidence for the Crystal's claims.

The next problem is Crystal's ever changing story. She never told the same tale twice. That means any witness who comes forward now is likely to be contradicted by at least one of Crystal's versions of events.

Last, there is the problem of Kim Roberts Pittman. Roberts-Pittman testified against her own interests that Crystal's story was false. I believe the vernacular she used was "a crock."

The evidence is overwhelming that no rape took place at 610 N. Buchanan on the night of March 13-14, 2006. If Crystal was raped it happened sometime before she arrived at 610 N. Buchanan and involved someone other than the hosts and guests at the lacrosse party.

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 5:56 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Crystal's reputation will be restored and her civil suits will give her compensation for her ordeal"

I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out for any civil suit(s) stemming from the events of March 13, 2006.; October 15, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:44 AM wrote: "Hey, Walt, any word on date changes for Mangum's November court schedule?"

Not that I have heard of. But, you have to figure a motion to continue will be forthcoming. Defense dealys have been the routine of this case since the beginning. Why change now?

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
From State v. Carter:

"...Defendant first became aware of Baker's presence when Baker attacked Temony, knocking him to the ground. Baker then approached defendant menacingly, with a jacket slung over his arm, concealing his hand. According to eyewitnesses, Baker was unarmed. Defendant claimed at trial that although he could not see a weapon, he feared Baker was armed and reacted in self- defense. Defendant testified: “I didn't want to shoot first, I wanted to go ahead . . . and do what I had to do before [Baker] did it to me. So I went ahead and pulled my gun out and I shot at him.” As Baker approached, defendant retreated, pulled a chrome .357 caliber revolver from under his jacket, and began shooting. Defendant testified that he pointed his gun towards the ground and intended only to force Baker away so that defendant could get to his car and leave. Defendant also testified that he did not intend to kill Baker and did not know at the time of the shooting whether any of the bullets actually hit Baker. After defendant fired the first shot, Baker turned and ran around the corner, moving down 10th Street. According to defendant, “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.”
D'April Greene and her three children lived in a housing project near 10th and Dawson. On 16 February 1997, D'April was gathering the children for a trip to the toy store. The trip was intended to reward the children for making good grades. Excited about the trip and anxious to ride in the front seat, D'April's eight-year-old son, Demetrius, ran ahead of the rest of his family. He ran across 10th Street and jumped into the front passenger seat of D'April's car, which was parked on 10th Street approximately one hundred feet south of the grocery store. As D'April and her other two children crossed the street towards the car, D'April began to hear “fussing” near the intersection of 10th and Dawson. This “fussing” was quicklyfollowed by gunfire. D'April and other witnesses then saw Baker rounding the corner with defendant in pursuit.
As Baker ran down 10th Street, defendant followed him around the corner, continuing to fire between four and six shots. At some point, Baker ran in front of or near the Greene car in an attempt to cross 10th Street. During the course of the shooting, two of the bullets from defendant's revolver struck Baker, one in the leg and one in the torso. Baker staggered across the street, collapsed in a grassy area near the sidewalk, and died shortly thereafter. A stray bullet from defendant's revolver passed through the windshield of D'April Greene's car and struck Demetrius Greene in the head. Demetrius died shortly thereafter. Forensic evidence subsequently confirmed that the bullets that struck Baker and Greene all came from the same gun, most likely a revolver."

True, the witnesses never saw Baker with a gun... and neither did Shan. The gun was most likely concealed beneath the coat draped over his hand.

What is not mentioned is that after Baker was lying in the street, Renee Barnes, an acquaintance of Baker's who witnessed the shooting, ran to his side, scooped up the coat and whatever it was concealing, and left the scene with them before the police arrived minutes later. The crime scene was disturbed!; October 15, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"First, the shooting of Demetrius Green was clearly accidental. Shan never even saw him. The boy was unfortunately struck by a bullet that freakishly ricocheted off the steering wheel and struck him in the head.

If someone is playing with a gun, or cleaning a gun and it goes of and kills someone, should that person be given the death penalty?

"I don't think so."

This is a rather grossly fat straw fisherman holding up a rotten red herring. There was nothing accidental about Shan Carter shooting Demetrius Green. It would not have happened had Shan Carter not provoked the confrontation.

"Finally stealing someone's money does not give that person the right to act as a vigilante, judge, jury and executioner and kill the thief. So Shan stole cash from the drug dealer. Does that mean he forfeits the right to protect himself when the drug dealer has made it known his intention to get even by taking Shan's life?"

Since Shan Carter should have forseen that stealing that amount of cash from a convicted felon would have provoked a violent, potentially deadly conflict, he forfeits the right to plead self defense. When he became aware of Tyrone Baker's malice, he could have protected his life by fleeing or going to the police. Instead, it is clear that Shan Carter made no attempt to avoid the conflict. He was not simply minding his business when he went out on the street to openly sell drugs, armed with an illegally possessed powerful handgun.

"I don't think so."

Th fallacy here is that you presume you can think.

As far as fleeing goes, Carter cannot outrun a bullet, and to my knowledge there was not a policeman nearby who he could hide behind. Baker appeared suddenly and out of no where, and Shan realized his only option was to "stand his ground" and defend himself... which is what he did.

Sure, Shan knew the drug dealer would be angry to find his money stolen... anyone would be angry. But theft is not a capital offense.; October 15, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 10:44 AM wrote: "Hey, Walt, any word on date changes for Mangum's November court schedule?"

Not that I have heard of. But, you have to figure a motion to continue will be forthcoming. Defense dealys have been the routine of this case since the beginning. Why change now?

Walt-in-Durham

The reason for delay is to benefit the prosecution (because it doesn't have a case)... and try to give the defense attorney more time to try and coerce Mangum into accepting a plea deal.; October 15, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Hey, sidney, I assume you are going to write a piece soon about poor Lawrence Lovette, the despicable animal who murdered Eve Carson and who is soon to be on trial for murdering a Duke student. By the way, sidney, Lovette held a pillow over the Duke student's face and, while he was holding the pillow, shot the man, point blank, between the eyes.
This is YOUR kind of scumbag, sidney.....the perfect addition to your hall of honor......where Mangum and Carter are already residing! Just think, you can add this piece of trash to your collection of worthy causes. Perhaps poor Lovette ought to go free because surely he shot the Duke guy in self defense. Golly, you might even become his advocate, too!!! After all, it was a DUKE student who got murdered....so we all know poor Lovette deserves a break.

WRONG-O! I have no intention of advocating for Mr. Lovette.; October 15, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Shan Carter will never get out of prison. But, if by some weird chance he should get out, he will either get his ass killed by some thug, or, he will kill somebody else. My hope is that he rots in his own miserable cell, after, of course, he becomes the little wifey to some big burly prison butch named Tyrone.

The truth will set Shan Carter free... and, I am the Truth-bearer.; October 15, 2013 at 7:14 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "True, the witnesses never saw Baker with a gun... and neither did Shan. The gun was most likely concealed beneath the coat draped over his hand."

No Sid, what is most likely is that Baker never had a gun. If he had one, why would he attack Temony with his bare hands, rather than a weapon?

Know this Sid -- Demetrius Greene, excited about getting a toy for his good grades, had a future (perhaps one like yours or mine) taken away from him by a piece of shit scumbag drug dealing thief.

Shan Carter does deserve justice. The justice he deserves is not the "justice" you seek for him.; October 15, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The truth will set Shan Carter free"...With a needle in his arm containing a lethal combination of an ultrashort‑acting barbiturate and a chemical paralytic agent.; October 15, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"True, the witnesses never saw Baker with a gun... and neither did Shan. The gun was most likely concealed beneath the coat draped over his hand.

What is not mentioned is that after Baker was lying in the street, Renee Barnes, an acquaintance of Baker's who witnessed the shooting, ran to his side, scooped up the coat and whatever it was concealing, and left the scene with them before the police arrived minutes later. The crime scene was disturbed!"

What is mentioned, including by you, is that Tyroe Baker fled after Shan Carter opened fire, which is rather strong evidence he did not have a gun, that he did not want to confront an armed man.

That Shan Carter pursued him and continued firing also shows that Shan Carter was not trying to avoid a confrontation with Tyrone Baker which, in turn, indicates that Shan Carter was trying to keep the money he stole from Tyrone Baker.; October 15, 2013 at 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"As far as fleeing goes, Carter cannot outrun a bullet, and to my knowledge there was not a policeman nearby who he could hide behind. Baker appeared suddenly and out of no where, and Shan realized his only option was to "stand his ground" and defend himself... which is what he did."

Could Shan Caretr have gone to the police before the confrontation? Yes. That Shan Carter went out on the street to deal illegal drugs packing an illegally possessed firearm indicate Shan Carter was trying to avoid a confrontation with Tyrone Baker? No. I say, from that, Shan Carter's mindset was that if Tyrone Baker tried to recover his money, he would blow him away.

Why do you refuse to see that? Probably because you thik a felon going out in public to deal ilegal drugs while packing an illegally possessed firearm was just minding his own business.

That sounds more to me that Shan Carter was playing vigilante.

Sure, Shan knew the drug dealer would be angry to find his money stolen... anyone would be angry. But theft is not a capital offense.; October 15, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HAR:

"The reason for delay is to benefit the prosecution (because it doesn't have a case)... and try to give the defense attorney more time to try and coerce Mangum into accepting a plea deal."

SIDNEY again shows how deluded and divorced from reality he is. He also shows he is a megalomaniac. He thinks his pronunciation that Crystal is innocent means something.; October 15, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"WRONG-O! I have no intention of advocating for Mr. Lovette."

You did at one time advocate for him and Demario Atwater. When the perpetrators of the Eve Carson murder were unknown, pictures surfaced of unknown males driving her car and using her ATM card. The authorities published those pictures, saying the males, who turned out to be Demario Atwater and Lawrence Lovette were persons of interest. You blogged that the authorities were trying to try them in the media by publishing those pictures.

I provided you once with a reference to the blog in which you said that. I can do so again, if you wish.; October 15, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The truth will set Shan Carter free..."

The truth is Shan Carter committed felongy murder.

"and, I am the Truth-bearer."

Unbelievably grosse Bullshit.; October 15, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I add to my last comment, unbelievably callous attitude towards the murder of an innocent 8 year old boy by Shan Carter.; October 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...: The stand your ground law, I believe, was not in effect when Carter murdered Baker. Carter did not stand his ground. He chased Baker and shot him. The incident did not occur in Carter's residence. You are full of bullshit.; October 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment October 15, 2013 at 6:00 AM:

""Crystal's reputation will be restored and her civil suits will give her compensation for her ordeal'

I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out for any civil suit(s) stemming from the events of March 13, 2006."

What KENHYDERAL calls "Crystal's reputation" is something she manufactured for herself, under the tutelage of Vincent Clark, in her so called memoir. Even before the Lacrosse case, her reputation was something no sensible person would have wanted to reclaim.; October 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM

"The stand your ground law, I believe, was not in effect when Carter murdered Baker. Carter did not stand his ground. He chased Baker and shot him. The incident did not occur in Carter's residence. You are full of bullshit."

I believe NC's version of Stand Your Ground is the Castle Doctrine, applicable to someone defending his home or property.

Maybe SIDNEY would like to answer this: how does the Castle doctrine apply to a criminal dealing illegal drugs on the street?; October 15, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Sure, Shan knew the drug dealer would be angry to find his money stolen... anyone would be angry."

So you admit Shan Carter provoked the conflict in which he killed Tyrone Baker.

"But theft is not a capital offense."

Killing someone as a result of a conflict you provoked, especially a conflict you should have realized you were provoking, is not self defense.; October 15, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, Mangum has a reputation, for sure. My guess is that it has something to do with how much it costs, what she will do for what, and how good or bad or clean she is and what diseases you might not want to get and who her contact might be...for an evening's entertainment...............; October 15, 2013 at 8:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "The next problem is the just the physical concept of more then 47 attendees and two dancers within the confines of the little house at 610 N. Buchanan Street. Could there have been a 48th attendee".... You are being disingenuous Walt. A good many of those giving DNA samples were no where near the Party. Some were even out of State. The only non-Players who gave samples just happened to be the two who appeared in photographs. That there was 48 negative tests bolstered the defense's case and fitted well into their defence strategy. There were many non-Players in attendance, not just the two identified in photographs. What was the purpose of doing DNA testing on people who were not at the house? There does not exist a list of all who were there; a fatal error in prosecuting the case. Same with the botched photo line-up made up solely of Players but not containing non-Players, other then the two afore mentioned who were caught in photographs. Crystal was wrongly told that her assailants were present in the pictures and she "needed to" pick them out.; October 15, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"There were many non-Players in attendance, not just the two identified in photographs."

Provide factual evidence. Hearsay from an anonymous source whose existence has not been proven is not factual evidence of that. Neither is the finding of non LAX player DNAon Crystal since the forensic evidence definitively showed it was not deposited at the party.

"What was the purpose of doing DNA testing on people who were not at the house?"

That question should be addressed to the Durham DA's office. They had no justification for that. That it was done shows the DAs office wanted to convict LAX players.

"There does not exist a list of all who were there; a fatal error in prosecuting the case."

There is no evidence that any unidentified non LAX players attended the party.

"Same with the botched photo line-up made up solely of Players but not containing non-Players, other then the two afore mentioned who were caught in photographs. Crystal was wrongly told that her assailants were present in the pictures and she 'needed to' pick them out."

Which shows you are not focused on why the botched photo lineup was unjust or why the botched photo lineup was done. Corrupt DA NIFONG wanted to convict members of the LAX team. Also, the source of the unknown DNA deposited on Crystal was never determined because corrupt DA NIFONG did not want the world to know that there was evidence which exonerated his suspects.

You are really dense.; October 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "The only non-Players who gave samples just happened to be the two who appeared in photographs. That there was 48 negative tests bolstered the defense's case and fitted well into their defence strategy."

This is not an issue of strategy. Instead the DNA proves that Seligman, Finnerty and Evans were and are innocent.

"There were many non-Players in attendance, not just the two identified in photographs."

You write that, but you never offer proof. Against your unsubstantiated claims there are the voluntary statements (statements against interest and therefore more credible) that the list of party attendees is complete.

"What was the purpose of doing DNA testing on people who were not at the house?"

The state sought the DNA evidence based on Crytstal's first, or was it second story. The purpose was to identify people whom she said attacked her. As Nifong said initially, the DNA will prove who her attackers were and exhonerate the innocent. It did do the latter.

" There does not exist a list of all who were there; a fatal error in prosecuting the case."

Repitition of that claim does not make it so. Prove it.

"Same with the botched photo line-up made up solely of Players but not containing non-Players, other then the two afore mentioned who were caught in photographs."

You are correct the photo lineups were botched. But, the photos do not reveal any other attendees. None of the witness statements give anyone the opportunity to have committed any crime other than underage drinking during the time Crystal was present at 610 N. Mangum.

"Crystal was wrongly told that her assailants were present in the pictures and she "needed to" pick them out."

Only at the final linup.

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Dont you just LOVE how this troll wants everything to be everybody else's fault? Poor helpless defensely lying sex worker Mangum. boo hoo.....somebody raped me! Let's see...who can I get the most money out of? hmmmmmm....; October 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal was told "she needed to pick them out"??? So???? The spineless lying no-character Mangum flips off the lives of three guys and sticks them to the wall because somebody, according to her, told her she needed to do it? Give me a break!! How about, Mr. policeman, NONE of these guys raped me. In fact, sir, I am a lying sack of XXXX and nobody raped me. How about that, troll? How about AN ADMISSION TODAY, RIGHT NOW, TROLL, THAT SHE LIED AND THAT NONE OF THESE GUYS RAPED HER!!! How about that, troll? You say they made her pick? OK, so now, WHY is the liar STILL lying????; October 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: yep, caught Harr in yet another lie. He claims he wouldn't put Lovette in his honor hall of fame for murdering Eve carson and, apparently, the duke student as well. bullshit.
Harr didn't like it when the police published photos of the two scumbags, sitting at an ATM, trying to use Carson's ATM card to steal cash from her.....while she was being held at gun point in the back seat. Well, now, isn't that just too damn bad......
The photo was of Lovette in the driver's seat with his hoodie and his stupid ball cap and his big tough gang hairdo.....trying to use her card..
got his ass caught and convicted for murder though, didn't it, harr!! Yep, you didn't like it....too bad, DOCTOR.......; October 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's the chronology of Lovette's path to murdering TWO innocent people......
"Nov. 7, 2007: A homeowner reports a burglary. A vehicle at the home is also reported to have been broken into.
Nov. 7-9: Police investigate, and a fingerprint identifies Lovette as a suspect.
Nov. 13: Lovette is charged with felonious breaking and entering, larceny and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.
Nov. 14: At his first court appearance, Lovette is assigned a public defender. He is unable to meet his $20,000 bond and remains in jail.
Jan. 16, 2008: A plea deal gives a suspended 45-day jail sentence and probation and is ordered to pay restitution. Terms of his probation include not engaging in criminal activity. The investigating officer is in court but not allowed to testify. Lovette is released from jail.
Jan. 18: Mahato is shot to death inside his off-campus apartment.
Feb. 2: Lovette is arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle and resisting a public officer. He posts a $2,500 bond and is released.
Feb. 4: Lovette is arrested for burglary and felony theft charges. He posts a $10,000 bond and is released.
March 5: Carson is shot to death after a robbery.
March 13: Lovette is arrested and charged with first-degree murder for Carson's death.
March 17: A grand jury indicts Lovette on first-degree murder charges for the murder of Mahato".

This crime spree ending to two horrible murders could have been avoided IF Lovette had been held accountable for his earlier crimes. But, as all can see, he was not...yet more evidence that certain folks DO seem to get a break in Durham!

Just like Mangum........; October 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: FWIW -- here's an example of the "great work" that one of Sid's favorite organizations (Greenpeace) is doing.; October 15, 2013 at 1:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " But, the photos do not reveal any other attendees"......... Duh. " " None of the witness statements give anyone the opportunity to have committed any crime other than underage drinking during the time Crystal was present at 610 N. Mangum"......Despite DA Nifong's plea, the entire team maintained a wall of silence, as to what they knew or what they saw. I believe most, if not all, know what happened, if not as a direct witness themselves, as hearsay from those who were. They were probably assured, by their councils that DA Nifong's threats were idle and they ran zero risk of being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact. I speculate they were told, "just shut up and this will all go away. This victim has no credibility. We'll see to that. If your DNA isn't on her just keep you mouth shut".; October 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards, you are full of bullshit. come get Mangum and take her to Canada so she can kill people up there. We will pay for her ticket.; October 15, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL

"Despite DA Nifong's plea,"

Again, corrupt DA NIFONG's plea was to name members of the Lacrosse team witnesses to a crime, before he any evidence, and then threaten them with criminal prosecution if they did not come forth with inculpatory evidence. That would classify as witness intimidation and attempted subornation of perjury.

"the entire team maintained a wall of silence, as to what they knew or what they saw."

Which indicates they saw no crime.

"I believe most, if not all, know what happened, if not as a direct witness themselves, as hearsay from those who were."

What you are doing again is presuming guilt.

"They were probably assured, by their councils that DA Nifong's threats were idle and they ran zero risk of being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact."

There was no risk of being found guilty of being an accessory after the fact because there was no fact in the first place. That was no guarantee corrupt DA NIFONG would not have prosecuted them. Look what happened to Moez Elmostafa at his behest.

"I speculate they were told, 'just shut up and this will all go away. This victim has no credibility. We'll see to that. If your DNA isn't on her just keep you mouth shut'."

You still do not get it. The crime Crystal described in the ER, the crime described in the police affidavit is a crime in which DNA would have been left. The absence of semen, the absence of DNA from the suspects establishes that no rape took place on the night of 13/14 March 2006. And you are so committed to the attitude that people you dislike do not deserve protection under the law, you continue to presume guilt.

That you presume guilt under such circumstances says there is something wrong with you, not with anyone you would falsely accuse of rape.; October 15, 2013 at 2:16 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: " I believe...I speculate..."

Ken -- While your blind faith can be admirable, it does not meet the standard of "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs."

Finally, the so-called "blue wall of silence" surrounding the false rape case was a fiction created by Mike Nifong. it's a lie that, unfortunately, people (like you) are still buying into today.; October 15, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Despite DA Nifong's plea, the entire team maintained a wall of silence, as to what they knew or what they saw."

No blue wall of silence. Everyone who was asked, gave a written statement and did so without counsel. Nifong lied about that, just as he did about so much more of the case.

"I believe most, if not all, know what happened, if not as a direct witness themselves, as hearsay from those who were."

Your belief is based on not one single shred of evidence.

"They were probably assured, by their councils that DA Nifong's threats were idle and they ran zero risk of being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact."

Except they gave voluntary statements before they had counsel. Once they had counsel, the defense offered to share their evidence with the DA's office, but Nifong refused.

"I speculate..."

You do a lot of speculating but never provide any proof. My conclusion remains the same. Crystal lied. She was not raped at 610 N. Buchanan on the night of March 13-14, 2006.

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "True, the witnesses never saw Baker with a gun... and neither did Shan. The gun was most likely concealed beneath the coat draped over his hand."

"Most likely" is not the basis for a reasonable belief which justifies the use of deadly force. Deadly force that killed an innocent youngster.

"The crime scene was disturbed!"

That does not change the fact that Carter shot and continued to shoot, advancing as he did so. He was not in his home, he could have retreated and he was required to by our law then and now. He is, by his own admissions, guilty of two counts of murder in the first degree.

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "As far as fleeing goes, Carter cannot outrun a bullet, and to my knowledge there was not a policeman nearby who he could hide behind. Baker appeared suddenly and out of no where, and Shan realized his only option was to "stand his ground" and defend himself... which is what he did."

Except North Carolina's "stand your ground" law does not apply to doing so in public. Carter had a duty to retreat. Instead, he advance, shooting as he did so. That is murder in the first degree. Given Carter's prior felonies and the fact that he precipitated the chain of events which ultimately lead to Demitrius Greene's death, Carter deserves the death penalty.

Walt-in-Durham; October 15, 2013 at 6:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Everyone who was asked, gave a written statement and did so without counsel: ... That amounted to a grand total of three Players, Evans, Flannery and Zash; October 15, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: What's the matter, Kenny? Why can't you answer the question?
If Mangum was forced to pick somebody in the lineup, why did she do so, knowing she was LYING? What kind of person would do that? And, why, troll, is she STILL LYING? Has she EVER admitted that she LIED about picking those three men and naming them? NO!

You do not know how many of the men gave written statements. You are simply repeating what Mangum said. And Mangum is a LIAR. Whethere there were three, five, twenty, or twenty nine statements is NOT the point. The men volunteered to give DNA samples......every single one of them. The notion of some kind of conspiratorial silence was drummed up by the media types, scumbag Nifong and fueled by the pot banging whackos at Duke.
If a bunch of people were standing in front of a BLACK man's house with signs, yelling LYNCH HIM, CASTRATE HIM.....you can damn well bet you and the other black racists would be screaming rage!!!; October 16, 2013 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt said: 'Everyone who was asked, gave a written statement and did so without counsel:' ... That amounted to a grand total of three Players, Evans, Flannery and Zash"

Would those three have given statements had they been involved in a rape? No.

What happened is that the DA's office got the NTO requiring each Caucasian member of the team give samples for DNA analysis. NC law states that there must be probable cause to believe the suspects of an NTO be suspects in a crime. Even in her statements in the ER, Crystal never alleged that each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team raped her.

The NTO was illegal. The Lacrosse players cold have fought the NTO. They did not. They reported to the police to give samples and photographs. That would not have happened had they been involved in a gang rape.

You will argue they were covering for non LAX player attendees who did rape her.It is insane to believe that innocent men suspected of a gang rape would have covered for the perpetrators, especially when the corrupt DA is threatening them with criminal prosecution if they do not give inculpatory evidence.

However, it seems nothing will deter KENHYDERAL from his Nazi-istic crusade to have innocent men he dislikes wrongfully convicted of rape.; October 16, 2013 at 5:45 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal -- The 46 players that provided DNA samples also gave statements to the police.

I can find no clear citation whether these were written or verbal statements (the Newsweek article this information came from is no longer available). I assume these were verbal statements recorded by the police.

You'd have to ask Nifong and/or the police involved with the case why these remaining 43 players were never asked for written statements.; October 16, 2013 at 5:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"The truth will set Shan Carter free"...With a needle in his arm containing a lethal combination of an ultrashort‑acting barbiturate and a chemical paralytic agent.

Supreme Poster, Shan Carter's case is the poster-case for the abolition of the death penalty.

Really.; October 16, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"True, the witnesses never saw Baker with a gun... and neither did Shan. The gun was most likely concealed beneath the coat draped over his hand.

What is not mentioned is that after Baker was lying in the street, Renee Barnes, an acquaintance of Baker's who witnessed the shooting, ran to his side, scooped up the coat and whatever it was concealing, and left the scene with them before the police arrived minutes later. The crime scene was disturbed!"

What is mentioned, including by you, is that Tyroe Baker fled after Shan Carter opened fire, which is rather strong evidence he did not have a gun, that he did not want to confront an armed man.

That Shan Carter pursued him and continued firing also shows that Shan Carter was not trying to avoid a confrontation with Tyrone Baker which, in turn, indicates that Shan Carter was trying to keep the money he stole from Tyrone Baker.

Keep in mind that Shan had reasonable belief that Baker's coat concealed a firearm. As far as pursuing Baker, Carter went in his direction only so far as to take away the corner of the building from Baker to seek cover and return fire.

Also, Carter's first two shots were the only ones to strike Baker. None fired when Baker was fleeing struck him.; October 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
" I believe...I speculate..."

Ken -- While your blind faith can be admirable, it does not meet the standard of "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs."

Finally, the so-called "blue wall of silence" surrounding the false rape case was a fiction created by Mike Nifong. it's a lie that, unfortunately, people (like you) are still buying into today.

I don't know whether or not the rape allegations made by Mangum are true, but I do know that the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols is fraudulent and false.; October 16, 2013 at 7:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Sure, Shan knew the drug dealer would be angry to find his money stolen... anyone would be angry."

So you admit Shan Carter provoked the conflict in which he killed Tyrone Baker.

"But theft is not a capital offense."

Killing someone as a result of a conflict you provoked, especially a conflict you should have realized you were provoking, is not self defense.

Tell that to George Zimmerman's jury.; October 16, 2013 at 7:12 AM
Anonymous said...: abolition of the death penalty? Carter should be publicly executed. I would be happy to volunteer to pull the trigger. Oh, and while we are at it, he and Lovette should be lined up together, against a wall, and sent to their rewards..........; October 16, 2013 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: chasing somebody, firing at them, while they are running away.....is NOT what happened with Zimmerman, you idiot.

once again, we have harr the racist liar at this racist best.....defending a scumbag MURDERER; October 16, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Supreme Poster, Shan Carter's case is the poster-case for the abolition of the death penalty.

Really."

Shan Carter is a piece of shit drug dealing child murderer.

Really.

I wouldn't piss down his throat if his guts were on fire.; October 16, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Well said, Lance. Sign me up...to push the plunger. Total scumbags, Carter and Lovette.......these pieces of shit should not be allowed to contaminate the air we breathe.; October 16, 2013 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, I'll give Mangum this much....she hasn't killed a child.....yet, anyway. But, of course, who knows what the future will hold?; October 16, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster, Shan Carter's case is the poster-case for the abolition of the death penalty.

Really."

There are situations in which the death penalty would be inappropriate. Shan Carter's is not one of them.; October 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Keep in mind that Shan had reasonable belief that Baker's coat concealed a firearm."

As Lance pointed out, Tyrone Baker did not use a firearm when he assaulted one of Shan Carter's associates. Tyrone Baker fled after Shan Carter fired at him. Those were clues that Tyrone Baker was not armed.

"As far as pursuing Baker, Carter went in his direction only so far as to take away the corner of the building from Baker to seek cover and return fire.

Also, Carter's first two shots were the only ones to strike Baker. None fired when Baker was fleeing struck him."

The two shots that hit Tyrone Baker hit him in the leg and in the chest. Explain how someone with a .357 Magnum slug in his leg and a .357 Magnum slug in his chest would be able to flee? Court records say that Tyrone Baker was hit after he fled.

And Shan Carter killed Demetrius Greene while he was firing his illegally possessed .357 Magnum at a fleeing Tyrone Baker.; October 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't know whether or not the rape allegations made by Mangum are true,"

BULLSHIT! If you believed that were true you would not be blogging that Crystal was the "victim?accuser in the Duke rape case, and you would not be blogging that the falsely accused Lacrosse players were not innocent.

"but I do know that the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols is fraudulent and false."

More BULLSHIT!!! You are untrained and inexperienced and incapable of determining whether or not the report is fraudulent.; October 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Tell that to George Zimmerman's jury."

The prosecutor tried to tell the jury that it was not self defense. The Jury did not buy that. That meant the defense proved it was self defense. It is the obligation of the defense to prove self defense, although they may prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Your attitude on George Zimmerman, combined with your attitude on Shan Carter, shows you can not recognize self defense. Just like you can not comprehend a lot of legal principles, like the Lacrosse players are innocent because the crime with which they were charged never happened.; October 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Harr is nothing but a common racist who seeks attention and money through totally worthless groundless law suits and who tries to puff himself up ...........a total creep, basically.; October 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

"Harr is nothing but a common racist who seeks attention and money through totally worthless groundless law suits and who tries to puff himself up ...........a total creep, basically."

I think you inault and unfairly disparage the total creeps in this world.; October 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: You're right, poster. I apologize to the creeps......my BAD; October 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " The men volunteered to give DNA samples...every single one of them.".... Yeah, they all knew their DNA would not be found on Crystal. More then half of them were no where near the scene of the crime. Giving their DNA was just a lark for them. The Players, present, know there were a great number of non-players partying at this spring break booze bash. But hey, they insisted that they just couldn't remember who all was present. Keep in mind DNA possibly belonging to David Evans was found on Crystal's broken fingernails.; October 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 652 Newer› Newest»

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me