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 401 – 600 of 652 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: You truly are an idiot, troll. Mangum's fingernail was found in the trash in the bathroom, along with numerous other items from the house......tissue, paper, etc....all that very very likely contain DNA from the residents of the house....and all of which would and could easily contaminate her fingernail. You just are incapable of seeing anything other than your own silly racist image square in the mirror, aren't you. What a loser....
Mangum had four or five samples in her sperm bank, pal............NONE of which belonged to any of the three men she falsely accused. You are supporting a vicious LIAR who would have sent innocent men to prison. what kind of scumbag are you.....??; October 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Keep in mind DNA possibly belonging to David Evans was found on Crystal's broken fingernails"

Keep in mind, it wasn't a broken fingernail, it was a press-on nail that was recovered from a trashcan. Dave Evans' trashcan. A trashcan that contained items like used tissue, etc that could have easily transferred DNA to the press-on nail.

Next.; October 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Posters apparently do not understand the rules of this blog.

Sidney and his supporters have the right to expect their statements to be accepted as true unless one can prove with absolute certainty that a statement cannot possibly be true. On the other hand, statements made by non-supporters cannot be accepted as true unless one can prove with absolute certainty that the statements cannot possibly be false.

Each statement made by Mangum must be considered separately and accepted as true unless one can prove with absolute certainty that the statement in question cannot possibly be true. If one statement is proven with certainty to be false, that statement should be disregarded. A false statement, however, does not affect the credibility of other statements made by Mangum. Individual details of a statement can be disregarded if proven false without affecting the reliability of the remainder of that statement.

Kenny deserves recognition for the quality of his commentary. Unlike Sidney, who ignores evidence that disproves his statements, Kenny adapts to available evidence. Kenny's mystery rapist theory responds to DNA evidence that proves none of the defendants raped Mangum and alibi evidence that proves neither Seligmann nor Finnerty were at the house at the time of a possible attack. His allegation of unidentifed non-player attendee rapists avoids contradictory evidence yet remains consistent with Mangum's general claim.

The arguments made by other posters only support the conclusion that the mystery rapist theory is preposterous and extremely improbable. That is insufficient on this blog. One must prove that the theory could not possibly be true. Kenny invokes the non-investigation by the DPD to assert that no one can meet this threshold: if the DPD had conducted an investigation, they might have identified other evidence... And because they didn't, we will never know what they may have discovered.; October 16, 2013 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"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. "

So you say that LAX players who were there knew a number of non LAX players were there. I again point out the only "evidence" KENHYDERAL gives is a piece of hearsay from a source he can not prove even exists.

KENHYDERAL persists in his Nazi-istic campaign to wrongfully convict men he does not like of raping Crystal.; October 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Keep in mind DNA possibly belonging to David Evans was found on Crystal's broken fingernails."

You mean on one of Crystal's false fingernails. Did you think that might have happened because Crystal touched him in an attempt to score with him? Maybe she fingered him because she was angered because he spurned her.

Maybe you should explain why no DNA matching David Evans on Crystal's person, on parts of Crystal's person which would have been contaminated by LAX player DNA if LAX players had actually raped her.

Again KENHYDERAL persists in his Nazi-istic campaign to falsely convict innocent men he does not like of raping Crystal.; October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Break the Conspiracy said" If one statement is proven with certainty to be false, that statement should be disregarded".... In the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, can you give an example of this.; October 16, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Break, have you ever considered a career in writing? SNL would love you!!! Hilarious!!!!!!; October 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: To add to Lance's comment , in case Troll does not know what a press-on nail is......these are individual plastic-like nails with a highly adhesive substance already embedded in the surface. Most women ADD to the stick-i-ness by using a kind of glue on the surface of the press-on. When a press-on nail is removed, it STICKS to just about anything.....and anything near the nail STICKS to it. Fibers, hair, cells, you name it.

I would also add the obvious.......so what if Dave Evans' trace DNA was found on her press-on nail in the trash can? What the hell does that prove? He LIVED there, troll.

Why don't you tell us all how three full grown men could rape, sodomize, have oral sex with, strangle, restrain, and suspend Mangum...in a tiny bathroom....without leaving one SHRED of their DNA in and on her? Oh, and of course, initially she said they did NOT use condoms, bro. After she learned there was no DNA, she changed her story......then she claimed they were using condoms. What kind of lying piece of trash is this woman and what kind of racist are you?; October 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Geez, I guess the young man who was two miles away, at a bank using an ATM (which photographic time stamped evidence) must have teleported himself back just in time to run in and poke Sister....and then teleported himself out to a restaurant and to his dorm...where he swiped his ID, time stamped. Dumb ass.........I guess all the teleporting ability would explain how Mangum could have, with certainty, said he raped her while he was magically someplace else!!!!!!; October 16, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps while Miss Pole Vaulter was swinging in the air in the bathroom, the LAX magically raped her without getting ANY DNA on her...by using a DNA removal hose.......sucking up the evidence and flushing it down the toilet. YEP, that's it......the magic DNA hose.

Or, perhaps, the mystery rapists (was it three, or five, or twelve???) snuck in, drug sister into the bathroom, had their way with her, snuck out of the house and left her......right!!!!!!! got it!!!!!

Or perhaps Victoria Peterson was actually the rapist....so no semen got deposited. No, that can't be it........because there HAVE been rumors that Peterson is actually Fred Phelps in drag....; October 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Break the Conspiracy said' If one statement is proven with certainty to be false, that statement should be disregarded'.... In the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, can you give an example of this."

How about Crystal's statements that she had been raped, all of which had been disproven by the lack of forensic evidence and the lack of physical evidence of rape?; October 16, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyeral wrote: "Keep in mind DNA possibly belonging to David Evans was found on Crystal's broken fingernails."

No match though. Close does not count in DNA.

Walt-in-Durham; October 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " without leaving one SHRED of their DNA in and on her"..... DNA unaccounted for by Crystal's consensual sexual history was found. A proper Police investigations could have proven or disproven that. Saying they didn't want to unnecessarily embarrass anyone (such sensitivity) It instead fed into the canard that she was acting as a prostitute for highly placed individuals including by some Durham Policemen. The DNA extracted from sperm, in my view, came from her rape at the Duke Lacrosse party. DNA deposition can't be timed. It does deteriorate with time but, that found was within the time window of the Duke Lacrosse party.; October 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "In my view".....views do not count as evidence, troll. If you believe Mangum who LIED about three men...would give a true consensual sex history, then you go ahead and hold to your beliefs. The truth is that she was a walking sperm bank with deposits from at least four or five men who were NOT the guys she falsely accused of raping her. And she is STILL lying today!! She has NEVER apologized to those men, NEVER admitted she lied.; October 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: The DNA that was found could have been deposited well before the LAX party, troll. The time window included DAYS, not hours, before the LAX party. Mangum lied about her "consensual" sex history. She claimed she only had sex with her boyfriend. That statement was a lie.; October 17, 2013 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: The point here is that there was not one bit of evidence to support Mangum's claim of rape. Not one. The point is that she named three men as her rapists.....a lie by her.....and never recanted nor apologized to the men she falsely accused. The point is that samples from at least four other males (likely five) were found in and on her..........which she has to explain as either deposited with her consent or via force........and, by yelling rape, she avoided going to jail for her drunkenness....and, instead, went to Duke ED. Convenient.; October 17, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"DNA unaccounted for by Crystal's consensual sexual history was found."

However, the fact that the rape kit tested negative for semen established it was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

"A proper Police investigations could have proven or disproven that. Saying they didn't want to unnecessarily embarrass anyone (such sensitivity) It instead fed into the canard that she was acting as a prostitute for highly placed individuals including by some Durham Policemen."

Again, you omit facts from the situation. There was not police investigation because corrupt DA NIFONG concealed the evidence. Corrupt DA NIFONG did not want the world to know that the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the people he wanted to convict.

"The DNA extracted from sperm, in my view, came from her rape at the Duke Lacrosse party. DNA deposition can't be timed. It does deteriorate with time but, that found was within the time window of the Duke Lacrosse party."

Again, you ignore the fact that the rape kit tested negative for semen, which did establish that the DNA was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Your view arises from your presumption of guilt and your Nazi-istic determination to convict innocent men you do not like of raping Crystal.; October 17, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "The DNA extracted from sperm, in my view, came from her rape at the Duke Lacrosse party."

All but one at the party were tested pursuant to the NTO. No matches found. There are ample photos of who was at the party. They were identified, voluntarily by the hosts and subjected to the NTO. No witness has claimed there were any other attendees. If you have such a witness, bring him forward. Just remember, the photos still exist.

"DNA deposition can't be timed."

Interesting change of tune. That does nothing for your credibility.

"It does deteriorate with time but, that found was within the time window of the Duke Lacrosse party."

Yes, but the NTO excludes all but one attendee and Crystal herself excluded him. Not that Crystal is all that credible. She did, with 100% certainty, pick one guy who was more than a mile away getting photographed at an ATM. The evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the three people accused are innocent and the evidence excludes all attendees at the lacrosse party.

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 5:36 AM
Walt said...: Anonymour at 5:27 AM raises an excellent point: "Again, you ignore the fact that the rape kit tested negative for semen, which did establish that the DNA was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006."

Well worth repeating. Of course those who deny the truth, like Sid and Kenny are the reason why so many of us post here to make sure the truth has a champion.

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 5:42 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:59 AM raises a good point: "She has NEVER apologized to those men, NEVER admitted she lied."

That is her way out. Tell the truth even if it is "I don't know what happened, I never knew, I just didn't want to get committed. But, I should never have made those men responsible for my problems. All I can do is beg their forgiveness."

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: There was no match to Evans and it was not a broken fingernail. It was a press-on nail she threw in a trashcan that had material in it from the occupants of the house, including Evans.
nice try, no cigar.........

If Seligman had oral sex with her, why didn't she have ANY of his DNA in or on her? As in salvia swabs taken at the hospital, or DNA on her face?; October 17, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, yeah, and just exactly how do Reade manage to for himself on Sister while he was being photographed at an ATM?; October 17, 2013 at 7:34 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If Seligman had oral sex with her, why didn't she have ANY of his DNA in or on her".... He was misidentified by the faulty photo line-up; October 17, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: " He was misidentified by the faulty photo line-up"

No, he was misidentified by Crystal Mangum during the faulty photo line-up.

Her identification of Seligmann is an example of a statement proven to be false.; October 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Again, you ignore the fact that the rape kit tested negative for semen, which did establish that the DNA was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006."
.... SBI didn't receive the rape kit from the Durham Police until March 27th The negative test for semen at that stage is meaningless. Far more meaningful is Dr. Manley observation of, what she assumed to be, semen which she failed to confirm, then, later, agreed that there is a reasonable doubt it could possibly have been a discharge from an undiagnosed yeast infection; October 17, 2013 at 9:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Her identification of Seligmann is an example of a statement proven to be false"... Yes, but you are prejudicially implying this was done deliberately.; October 17, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Far more meaningful is Dr. Manley observation of, what she assumed to be, semen which she failed to confirm, then, later, agreed that there is a reasonable doubt it could possibly have been a discharge from an undiagnosed yeast infection...."

Again with the supposition. No scientific evidence of semen. A physician in doubt. That is far from persuasive, but those are the shifting sands upon which you base your fantasy. Simply this, no rape happened at 610 N. Buchanan on the night of March 13-14, 2006.

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal -- you disingenuously state that Reade Seligmann was "misidentified by the faulty photo line-up", as if Crystal Mangum wasn't involved in the process.

She could have easily stated that she didn't recognized him. Or selected someone that perhaps she DID recognize.

She did neither of these things.

Her selection of Reade Seligmann from the photos shown to her was a deliberate act. How statement identifying Reade Seligmann "with 100% certainty" we know to be false.

Spin it how you will.; October 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; October 17, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

I am eccentric, not common. I have compassion for all peoples, and am definitely not a racist. I am an introvert that shies away from publicity. I maintain a spartan life style and am void of avarice. Finally, I don't need to puff myself up because I am content to lead my life according to that of the Man from Nazareth.; October 17, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that.; October 17, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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?

Mangum hasn't killed anyone.; October 17, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that."
Even Shan Carter admits that the fatal shots could have occurred "as he [Tyrone Baker]turned to run". If Shan Carter can admit that, why can't you?; October 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'If Seligman had oral sex with her, why didn't she have ANY of his DNA in or on her'.... He was misidentified by the faulty photo line-up"?

So why did corrupt DA NIFONG have him indicted? What probable cause did he have to indict Reade Seligman?

Answer to question 2 is none.

Answer to question 1 is, corrupt DA NIFONG wanted to convict Lacrosse players, without regard to actual guilt or innocence.; October 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"SBI didn't receive the rape kit from the Durham Police until March 27th The negative test for semen at that stage is meaningless."

Wrong wrong wrong. The test i for acid phosphatase, a marker for semen which does persist. The negative test for Acid Phosphatase establishes semen was not deposited on the rape kit.

"Far more meaningful is Dr. Manley observation of, what she assumed to be, semen which she failed to confirm, then, later, agreed that there is a reasonable doubt it could possibly have been a discharge from an undiagnosed yeast infection".

What is meaningful is 1) if it was semen, acid phosphatase would have been detected on the rape kit and 20 acid phosphatase was not detected.

KENHYDERAL is again acting nazi-istic.; October 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Lance said: 'Her identification of Seligmann is an example of a statement proven to be false'... Yes, but you are prejudicially implying this was done deliberately."

No he isn't. You are ignoring the fact that the identification was not reliable but that Reade Seligman was indicted anyway. You do not think that was an injustice by corrupt DA NIFONG. Your latent Nazism again emerges.; October 17, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I am eccentric, not common."

No, you are eluded and megalomaniacal.

"I have compassion for all peoples,"

No you don't, especially if they were Duke Lacrosse players.

"and am definitely not a racist."

Comparison of your attitudes towards George Zimmerman and Shan Carter shows you are.

"I am an introvert that shies away from publicity."

Your seeking out an interview with the Indy Weekly, your frivolous lawsuits say different.

"I maintain a spartan life style and am void of avarice."

So why have you filed a large number of frivolous lawsuits seeking monetary damages.

"Finally, I don't need to puff myself up because I am content to lead my life according to that of the Man from Nazareth."

The Man from Nazareth did not condone lying. You lie all the time and then lie about doing it. You are no follower of Jesus Christ.; October 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that."

You are dodging having to explain how Tyrone Baker could have fled with a .357 Magnum slug in his thigh and a .357 slug in his chest.; October 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Mangum hasn't killed anyone."

Yes she has. She killed Reginald Daye. It remains t be seen if the killing was a criminal act.

For a proclamation without any legal weight whatsoever, read your own words on the Reginald Daye killing.; October 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Correction of typos:

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am eccentric, not common."

No, you are DELUDED and megalomaniacal.

"I have compassion for all peoples,"

No you don't, especially if they were Duke Lacrosse players.

"and am definitely not a racist."

Comparison of your attitudes towards George Zimmerman and Shan Carter shows you are.

"I am an introvert that shies away from publicity."

Your seeking out an interview with the Indy Weekly, your frivolous lawsuits say different.

"I maintain a spartan life style and am void of avarice."

So why have you filed a large number of frivolous lawsuits seeking monetary damages.

"Finally, I don't need to puff myself up because I am content to lead my life according to that of the Man from Nazareth."

The Man from Nazareth did not condone lying. You lie all the time and then lie about doing it. You are no follower of Jesus Christ.; October 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that."

The bullet that killed Demitrius Greene was certainly fired after Baker fled. Intent follows the bullet. According to Shan Carter's own testimony, “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.” One of those rounds killed Demitrius Greene. Intent follows the bullet. That was murder in the first degree. Murder done with no remorse what so ever. A murder for which Carter apparently still feels no remorse. Only the death penalty can rehabilitate Carter, or at least deter him from killing again.

The claim of self defense fails as well. Witnesses testified that Baker was unarmed. Baker did not use a weapon on Temony. Carter testified that he didn't want to shoot Baker, but he did so intentionally because he didn't want Baker to kill him. That belief was not reasonable because no witness saw Baker armed with a weapon. Excessive force. The jury was right to reject Carter's claim of self defense even though we who were not in the courtroom should not second guess the jury. In this case, they were demonstrably right.

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM
Walt said...: And, let's remember when Carter murdered Demitrius Greene, Carter was a convicted felon. That means he forfeited his right to even posses a firearm. So when Sid says that somehow Carter had the right to self defense, he did not have the right to use a firearm in self defense. That's one of the rights you lose by being a felon.

Further, Carter was committing felonies when this all took place. Drug dealing on the streets of Wilmington. Using a firearm to protect your corner isn't legal, and it certainly isn't justice.

Walt-in-Durham; October 17, 2013 at 1:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said : "What is meaningful is 1) if it was semen, acid phosphatase would have been detected on the rape kit and 20 acid phosphatase was not detected"..................... After 14 days absolutely wrong. If that was the case why wasn't the semen from the un protected consensual sex she had with her boyfriend detected or the 20-acid phosphatase from the semen of the 3 unidentified DNA samples extracted from sperm; October 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You have got it wrong again. If evidence is not collected shortly after a rape, then evidence of a rape will not be found. If the evidence is properly collected and preserved than the kit can be tested and will yield evidence of rape.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/aftermath-of-sexual-assault/preserving-and-collecting-forensic-evidence

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061001230643AA5QD8F

http://www.pandys.org/articles/rapekit.html

http://www.juneaupolice.com/viewindividualdispatch.php?UID=268

http://home.earthlink.net/~elnunes/rapekits.htm

http://www.surviverape.org/forensics/sexual-assault-forensics/answers-to-faq

What all these refer to is that the crucial factor is how rapidly the evidence collected.; October 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"After 14 days absolutely wrong. If that was the case why wasn't the semen from the un protected consensual sex she had with her boyfriend detected or the 20-acid phosphatase from the semen of the 3 unidentified DNA samples extracted from sperm".

What that establishes, again, is that semen was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; October 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/articles/The%20persistance%20of%20seminal%20constituents%20in%20the%20human%20vagina.pdf

"Seminal acid phosphatase sometimes remained detectable up to 3 days after sexual
intercourse. The test was most useful on swabs taken within 1 day and rarely useful after
2 days."

Whether or not acid phosphatase is detected depends on how expeditiously evidence is collected.; October 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous @3:25 and at 3:32.... Not a single one of the references you provided contradicts my contention that the negativePSA and AP tests conducted by SBI are meaningless. But here's a reference for you "Richard Li, Forensic Biology: Identification and DNA Analysis of Biological Evidence (2008). Analyses of post-coital vaginal swabs show that AP activity will markedly decrease after 24 hours and diminish after 48 hours". There is no substitute, in timing the deposition of DNA, extracted from sperm, other then a careful and complete review and confirmation of the victim's sexual history, for the previous 72hours. Defense suggested that the three unknown DNA samples came from consensual intercourse prior to the Party which she lied about and snidely intimated that this was a result of prostitution. This was a convenient two pronged strategy designed to cast doubt on timing, in order to exonerate those at the Party and to impugn Crystal's character. With the Durham Police and the DA failing to do their job this strategy worked and Justice was not served. That's par for the course for minorities and the poor in North Carolina; October 17, 2013 at 9:05 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Please stop whining.; October 17, 2013 at 10:18 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " this strategy worked and Justice was not served."

What a lie. In this case, three innocent men were falsely and deliberately accused of rape. They did not rape Crystal Mangum, yet she persisted in lying that they did. Fortunately, the forensic evidence proved her lies and they were exonerated. Justice was ultimately done.

What is an injustice is the lies that Crystal and her dishonest supporters continue to tell. Their dishonest harms the cause of justice. But, that is their intent.

Walt-in-Durham; October 18, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal -- Here I'll note that you have not responded to my last post regarding Crystal Mangum's identification "with 100% certainty" of Reade Seligmann.; October 18, 2013 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Not a single one of the references you provided contradicts my contention that the negativePSA and AP tests conducted by SBI are meaningless."

Yes they do.The establish that the key to obtaining evidence from a rape kit is how expeditiously evidence is collected. Evidence from Crystal was collected within hours of the alleged rape. It did establish that no rape had occurred. Your latent guilt presuming Nazism surfaces again.

"But here's a reference for you 'Richard Li, Forensic Biology: Identification and DNA Analysis of Biological Evidence (2008). Analyses of post-coital vaginal swabs show that AP activity will markedly decrease after 24 hours and diminish after 48 hours'."

AP will diminish in activity within 24 hours because it is left in a biological environment and is metabolized. That is why it is vital to collect it. Evidence from Crystal was collected in much less than 24 hours. When evidence is collected it is preserved, not metabolized.

"There is no substitute, in timing the deposition of DNA, extracted from sperm, other then a careful and complete review and confirmation of the victim's sexual history, for the previous 72hours."

Read carefully. The failure to identify AP on Crytal's rape kit established that the DNA WAS NOT deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.How do you establish it was? You can't.

"Defense suggested that the three unknown DNA samples came from consensual intercourse prior to the Party which she lied about and snidely intimated that this was a result of prostitution. This was a convenient two pronged strategy designed to cast doubt on timing, in order to exonerate those at the Party and to impugn Crystal's character."

There was never any campaign to impugn Crystal's character. Crystal impugned her own character before she became infamous from the contrived Duke rape case. There never was any certainty about when the DNA was deposited, EXCEPT that it was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

"With the Durham Police and the DA failing to do their job this strategy worked and Justice was not served. That's par for the course for minorities and the poor in North Carolina".

Correction. Corrupt DA NIFONG's attempt at injustice was not served. You again forget that the police and corrupt DA NIFONG did not trace who had left DNA on Crystal because corrupt DA NIFONG wanted to convict members of the Lacrosse team. It was not done to undermine Crystal's rape allegations against the innocent Lacrosse players. It was not done because it WOULD have undermined corrupt DA NIFONG's case against the Lacrosse players.

I finally remind you that the only evidence you have that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006 is not evidence. It is a piece of hearsay from a source the existence of which you can not prove.; October 18, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Defense suggested that the three unknown DNA samples came from consensual intercourse prior to the Party which she lied about and snidely intimated that this was a result of prostitution. This was a convenient two pronged strategy designed to cast doubt on timing, in order to exonerate those at the Party and to impugn Crystal's character."

There were more than three unidentified DNA samples, more like 4 or 5.

Further, they were identified by a technique, STR analysis for the Y chromosome. It is a very sensitive technique used to identify male DNA in situations where it otherwise would not be identified.

It suggests the DNA could have been left there much longer than 72 hours before 13/14 March 2006.

Which means you can not establish it was deposited on 13/14 March 2006 and is not justification for presuming a rape had taken place. You ARE presuming.; October 18, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

One thing about str testing for the Y chromosome.

You have the same y chromosome as your father or your brothers. So what if the DNASI findings were traced down. Suppose an individual was identified whose DNA matched the DNA found in Crystal. If that individual had brothers, each brother's y chromosome would match the y chromosome found on Crystal. So which one would be identified as a rapist, especially if none of them had been at the party?

I opine that the testing done by DNASI was significant only in showing that none of corrupt DA NIFONG's suspects was a rapist. Chasing down the sources of the non Lax DNA would not necessarily identify any rapist.; October 18, 2013 at 6:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 6:28 said: "I opine that the testing done by DNASI was significant only in showing that none of corrupt DA NIFONG's suspects was a rapist. Chasing down the sources of the non Lax DNA would not necessarily identify any rapist"........ I concur. DA Nifong failed to take into account the presence of non-Player attendees, other then the two that happened to appeared in photographs. Keep in mind many Players, know to be present, did not appear in any of the photographs. His admission that he did not attempt to confirm or refute Crystal's consensual history because he did not want to embarrass the innocent is particularly lame.; October 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: Here I'll note that you have not responded to my last post regarding Crystal Mangum's identification "with 100% certainty" of Reade Seligmann"...... She made an identification mistake but it was done in good faith and, in her mind, with certainty. This glaringly points out the flaws in this flawed process; October 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "She made an identification mistake but it was done in good faith and, in her mind, with certainty. This glaringly points out the flaws in this flawed process...."

There was no good faith what so ever involved.; October 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "I concur. DA Nifong failed to take into account the presence of non-Player attendees, other then the two that happened to appeared in photographs."

Except there were no unidentified guests. Your hearsay source doesn't count.

Walt-in-Durham; October 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I concur. DA Nifong failed to take into account the presence of non-Player attendees, other then the two that happened to appeared in photographs. Keep in mind many Players, know to be present, did not appear in any of the photographs. His admission that he did not attempt to confirm or refute Crystal's consensual history because he did not want to embarrass the innocent is particularly lame."

And I, in agreement wit Walt, say, yet again, the only bit of evidence you have that there were unidentified attendees at the party, is not evidence but a piece of hearsay from an anonymous source the existence of which you have not proven.; October 18, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "She made an identification mistake but it was done in good faith"

Ken -- We're all human. We all make mistakes, even ones done in good faith. The typical action when one makes a mistake is to apologize for it. Crystal Mangum had a perfect venue for an apology to Reade Seligmann (her book), and she didn't do it. Why is that?; October 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: Because Reade was involved in an avaricious lawsuit which Crystal did not want to prejudice.; October 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Reade [Seligman] was involved in an avaricious lawsuit which Crystal did not want to prejudice.

No he was mot. The lawsuits happened because Crystal did falsely accuse members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.; October 18, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: bullshit, troll. she lying her whoring ass off, blamed Reade for something he did NOT do, and has never had the decency to admit she LIED. The lowest skank...; October 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Reade [Seligman] was involved in an avaricious lawsuit which Crystal did not want to prejudice."

Since, Crystal was trying to pass herself off as a victim under the tutelagev of Vincent Clark, it is more believable that Crystal would have tried to sabotage the lawsuits.

If Crystal did not want to sabotage Reade's lawsuit(which was a response to the wrongful prosecution triggered by Crystal's false allegations), she would have admitted she had not been raped.; October 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal is a loyal citizen of Durham from a pioneer North Carolina Family. She believed that the tax payers of Durham should not be taken; October 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Because Reade was involved in an avaricious lawsuit which Crystal did not want to prejudice"

Duke settled out of court with David Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann in 2007, before Last Dance for Grace was published.

But let's give Crystal the benefit of the doubt and assume that at the time she wrote the book, the court case was still pending.

She's still had since 2008 to apologize. Why hasn't she?; October 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal is a loyal citizen of Durham from a pioneer North Carolina Family. She believed that the tax payers of Durham should not be taken".

BULLSHIT!!!!; October 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Duke settled out of court with David Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann in 2007, before Last Dance for Grace was published".....
Civil suits against Durham were then underway. The loss is being appealed.; October 18, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Civil suits against Durham were then underway. The loss is being appealed."

The Supreme Court declined to hear the falsely accused players’ appeal of the 4th circuit’s dismissal of their case.

But keep making excuses. The bottom line Crystal Mangum made a false statement (one you apparently feel should be disregarded, just as Break the Conspiracy noted).

Not only has she failed to admit to making this false statement, she has failed to apologize for making it in the first place.; October 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:24 said: "And I, in agreement wit Walt, say, yet again, the only bit of evidence you have that there were unidentified attendees at the party, is not evidence but a piece of hearsay from an anonymous source the existence of which you have not proven"......... The source is anonymous because he, like many others there, withheld information from the DA. Common sense, though, would tell you that at a drunken spring break bash, hosted by Lacrosse Team members where exotic dancers were hired, would be exclusively limited. A majority of the team members themselves were not even present. No one, to my knowledge, has ever seen a list of those who were there present and I'm beginning to doubt if any serious, attempt, whatsoever was made to compile such a list.; October 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "The Supreme Court declined to hear the falsely accused players’ appeal of the 4th circuit’s dismissal of their case" Thanks for the information. That's very good news. Now, maybe, the relentless campaign to besmirch Crystal will come to an end. There will be nothing to gain by continuing this outrage; October 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The source is anonymous because he, like many others there, withheld information from the DA. Common sense, though, would tell you that at a drunken spring break bash, hosted by Lacrosse Team members where exotic dancers were hired, would be exclusively limited. A majority of the team members themselves were not even present. No one, to my knowledge, has ever seen a list of those who were there present and I'm beginning to doubt if any serious, attempt, whatsoever was made to compile such a list."

The source is anonymous and has been anonymous for over seven years because the source does not exist. What you have posted is not evidence that he does exist but rather another deluded fantasy, springing from your latent Nazism and your unrepentant racism.; October 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Lance said: "The Supreme Court declined to hear the falsely accused players’ appeal of the 4th circuit’s dismissal of their case"

Kenny responded: "Thanks for the information. That's very good news. Now, maybe, the relentless campaign to besmirch Crystal will come to an end. There will be nothing to gain by continuing this outrage."

The Supreme Court made that announcement on October 4. Crystal has had two weeks since the announcement to make her apologies and she has failed to do so. Why is that? The reason you indicated is no longer valid.

Please ask her to announce her apology in the next several days. Thanks.; October 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Do you think that Crystal wants readers' help in drafting the apologies she will deliver in the next few days?; October 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal regrets mistakenly and inadvertently identifying Seligman as one of her attackers but she decries the greedy attempt to profit from her unintentional error. Thankfully the Courts saw through it.; October 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be far more meaningful is Crystal apologized for herself rather than having you apologize on her behalf. It is hard to tell her sincerity when she is unwilling to make the apology directly.

In addition to Seligmann, will she also be apologizing to Finnerty?

You have conceded that the identification of Finnerty was also mistaken.; October 18, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

I think the readers on this blog will have to congratulate you when you are successful in convincing Crystal to deliver apologies to Seligmann and Finnerty.

I envision a formal press conference attended by media from all over the world in attendance.

For the first time, she will public take responsibility for her mistakes, even if they are inadvertent. Perhaps she can explain why she waited for more than seven years to apologize for her mistake.; October 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal regrets mistakenly and inadvertently identifying Finnerty as one of her attackers but she decries the greedy attempt to profit from her unintentional error. Thankfully the Courts saw through it.; October 18, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Is Sidney aware that Crystal is planning to apologize?; October 18, 2013 at 3:22 PM
A Lawyer said...: Thankfully the Courts saw through it.

They never had a jury trial so, according to Dr. Harr, they can continue suing over and over.; October 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: I think the readers on this blog will have to congratulate you when you are successful in convincing Crystal to deliver apologies to Seligmann and Finnerty.
For the first time, she will public take responsibility for her mistakes, even if they are inadvertent. Perhaps she can explain why she waited for more than seven years to apologize for her mistake"...................... I did not need to convince Crystal of anything. I explained before why she did not insert herself in the then pending civil suits. She felt no need to bolster these greedy civil suits and in fact she was not pleased with the attempt to profit from her inadvertent and unintentional error; October 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Is Sidney aware that Crystal is planning to apologize"..... She has no such plans to do so publically. She did her best under difficult circumstances and does regret any error she may have made.; October 18, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Now, maybe, the relentless campaign to besmirch Crystal will come to an end. There will be nothing to gain by continuing this outrage".

Let's see. Crystal falsely accuses members of the Lacrosse team of raping her. Corrupt DA NIFONG takes her false accusation, runs with it, and indicts three obviously innocent members of the team. They defend themselves, in the course of which Crystal is exposed as a false accuser and bad actor. KENHYDERAL says Crystal is the one who was besmirched.

He again shows his latent Nazism-he dislikes certain men because Crystal lied about being raped and, regardless of the evidence KENHYDERAL wants innocent men convicted.; October 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL;

"Crystal regrets mistakenly and inadvertently identifying Finnerty as one of her attackers but she decries the greedy attempt to profit from her unintentional error."

Since when has Crystal expressed any regret for her part in the phoney Duke Rape case.

If anything, what Crystal regrets is that she was not able herself to profit from the non rape.; October 18, 2013 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I did not need to convince Crystal of anything. I explained before why she did not insert herself in the then pending civil suits. She felt no need to bolster these greedy civil suits and in fact she was not pleased with the attempt to profit from her inadvertent and unintentional error."

Her involvement in this situation was far from inadvertent and unintentional.

She probably did not involve herself in the suits to avoid being deposed, to being forced to again reveal herself as a false accuser/victimizer/liar.; October 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"[Crystal] did her best under difficult circumstances and does regret any error she may have made."

Crystal's best was to lie about being raped and then fingering innocent men as her assailants.

Just think how low her worst is.; October 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny notes: "She has no such plans to do so publically. She did her best under difficult circumstances and does regret any error she may have made."

I see. So she is planning on calling Selgmann and Finnerty privately and in telephone calls apologizing to them? Or is she planning on apologizing in person?

As you can certainly understand, having you deliver apologies on her behalf has not credibility.

I encourage her to make a media event of these apologies. She really should reconsider and give a heart felt apology to the assembled media from all over the world.; October 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah, right, the pole vaulting drunken common street trash is going to call a press conference and announce that, in addition to hooking and shacking up, she is also a certified liar.....who would have happily sent three men to prison......
Give me a break. What bullshit....; October 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Give "me" a break"..... And you, are who?; October 18, 2013 at 9:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: He again shows his latent Nazism-he dislikes certain men because Crystal lied about being raped and, regardless of the evidence KENHYDERAL wants innocent men convicted"........You throw charges of Nazism around awfully freely. I do dislike men who rape, though, and I want the guilty convicted.; October 18, 2013 at 9:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " I see. So she is planning on calling Selgmann and Finnerty privately and in telephone calls apologizing to them? Or is she planning on apologizing in person?......... Stop being facetious. Crystal regrets mistakenly identifying them from the photo line-up. Photo line-ups like she was subjected to are fraught with the risks of misidentification. Crystal has nothing to apologize for. In a retrospective study on line-ups from Australia, where the offender is not present in the line-up and a person known to be innocent is selected, this result occurs in 20 to 50 per cent of cases. Seligman and Finnerty showed no remorse for the ruthless and relentless character assassination of Crystal carried out in their name.; October 18, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.; October 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You throw charges of Nazism around awfully freely. I do dislike men who rape, though, and I want the guilty convicted."

You advocate that a crime happened even though you have no factual evidence of a crime. I remind you that a piece of hearsay from an anonymous, non existent source is not evidence. Ergo, you do not want any guilty convicted. You want innocent men wrongfully convicted.

Proclaiming one guilty of a crime, without any legal procedure to show there was a crime was a characteristic of what the Nazis called justice. Your crusade for injustice is nazi-istic.; October 19, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: ' I see. So she is planning on calling Selgmann and Finnerty privately and in telephone calls apologizing to them? Or is she planning on apologizing in person?"......... Stop being facetious. Crystal regrets mistakenly identifying them from the photo line-up."

What Crystal should be regretful of is lying about being raped and then falsely accusing members of the lacrosse team of raping her.

"Photo line-ups like she was subjected to are fraught with the risks of misidentification. Crystal has nothing to apologize for."

She has a great deal to apologize for. And remember the lineup in which she wrongfully identified three innocent men as rapists was done at the behest of corrupt DA NIFONG, who wanted to wrongfully convict members of the Lacrosse team.

"In a retrospective study on line-ups from Australia, where the offender is not present in the line-up and a person known to be innocent is selected, this result occurs in 20 to 50 per cent of cases."

Which means you should be asking yourself, how did corrupt DA NIFONG establish probable cause for a crime. You have blogged that corrupt DA NIFONG did establish probable cause.

"Seligman and Finnerty showed no remorse for the ruthless and relentless character assassination of Crystal carried out in their name."

That is because there was no such character assassination of Crystal carried out in their name. Crystal's lack of credibility was revealed when they defended themselves of being wrongfully accused of raping her.

Right now you are displaying Orwellian type 1984 attitudes. If you do not like the actual history of what happened, change the history and declare your altered version as true. KENHYDERAL the advocate of totalitarian justice.; October 19, 2013 at 5:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM

"Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril."

KEN-Malek-HYDER-Williams-AL strikes again.; October 19, 2013 at 5:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny whines: Seligman and Finnerty showed no remorse for the ruthless and relentless character assassination of Crystal carried out in their name.

Provide specific examples of the "ruthless and relentless character assassination" with sources.; October 19, 2013 at 6:22 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Provide specific examples of the "ruthless and relentless character assassination" with sources"................. How about yesterday, October 18th at 6:26PM right here on this blog by a cowardly anonymous poster.; October 19, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Do I understand you correctly? Seligmann and Finnerty are somehow responsible for apologizing for anonymous comments on the Internet, but Crystal is not required to apologize for her own mistakes?

Is that correct?; October 19, 2013 at 9:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: It's being done in their name and for that they should apologize. It's purposely causing her and her children hurt. She, without malice and like 50% to 80% of people subjected to this procedure, inadvertently picked them from a photo line-up. Crystal regrets this error she made and she regrets whatever consequences this caused them. But ask yourself, what are the sources, for all the slander that frequently appears? Where did such false and vicious characterizations originate?; October 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It's being done in their name and for that they should apologize."

No it isn't.

"It's purposely causing her and her children hurt."

The outing of Crystal's unsavory past never have happened had Crystal not lied about being raped and then accused innocent men.

"She, without malice and like 50% to 80% of people subjected to this procedure, inadvertently picked them from a photo line-up."

Considering her documented behavior in the Milton Walker case and in the stabbing of Reginald Daye, I find it hard to believe Crystal is without malice.

"Crystal regrets this error she made and she regrets whatever consequences this caused them."

Crystal should be regretting that she lied about being raped and that she did accuse innocent men of raping her.

"But ask yourself, what are the sources, for all the slander that frequently appears? Where did such false and vicious characterizations originate?"

What slander? Her non credible stories, the lack of forensic evidence of a rape, the lack of physical evidence of a rape, all indicate Crystal lied when she first said she had been raped. She did falsely accuse innocent men or raping her.

But then you consider a piece of hearsay from an anonymous source whose existence you can not prove as evidence.

KENHYDERAL, the advocate of totalitarian Nazi like justice.; October 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

""[Crystal}], without malice and like 50% to 80% of people subjected to this procedure, inadvertently picked them from a photo line-up."

So explain how the lineup established probable cause that a crime had occurred? The lineup results are what corrupt DA NIFONG used to have the Grand Jury indict the innocent Lacrosse players.

KENHYDERAL, the advocate of totalitarian Nazi style justice says that their defense of their innocence was defamatory to Crystal.; October 19, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Nifong was Honourable said...: Kenny,

While we are on the subject of "ruthless... character assassination" of Crystal Mangum, we should consider Mike Nifong's comments about Ms. Mangum.

Joe Neff and Ann Blythe in the N&O (in a story no longer posted on the Internet) summarized Nifong's explanation of the unidentified male DNA found on Mangum's panties and in her vagina and rectum. This explanation was provided under oath in his contempt trial.

"It could have come from anybody," Nifong said. "She had a son, a very young son."

Kenny, you have been extremely critical of comments you contend portray Ms. Mangum unfairly. For some reason, you have never criticized Nifong's comments.

I have a number of questions I will continue to post until both you and Sidney answer all of the questions. Disingenuous answers will not be accepted.

1. Do you believe DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?

2. Do you believe that Nifong was justified when he speculated that the unidentified DNA could be explained if DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?

3. Do you believe that Nifong was honorable when he speculated that the unidentified DNA could be explained if DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?

4. Why have you not criticized Nifong if you believe he was not justified and/or honorable when he speculated that the unidentified DNA could be explained if DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?

5. What is an innocent explanation for the possibility that DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?

6. Do you believe that the speculation that Mangum is a prostitute is significantly worse than Nifong's insinuation that Mangum engaged in activities that would result in DNA from Mangum's young son being found in her vagina or in her rectum?

7. Would Judge Jone have declared Ms. mangum to be a "good mother" if he believed that DNA from Mangum's young son was found in her vagina or in her rectum?; October 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks likea duck, behaves like a duck.....the chances are pretty damn good, it's a duck. Mangum has been selling it for years........period.
She is an unrepentant liar and a killer.; October 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: ANONYMOUS @ 11:18 You are beneath contempt. You have purposely distorted Nifong's statement and I hope he discovers your identity and sues you. Dr. Harr why do you allow perverted posting from cowardly Anonymous posters? This is a new low. Even the amoral Trial Lawyers that sued on behalf of the Lacrosse Players never stooped this low; October 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Even the amoral Trial Lawyers that sued on behalf of the Lacrosse Players never stooped this low".

The players for the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players never stooped low.

Stooping low is lying about being raped and then accusing innocent men.

Stooping even lower is presuming innocent men are guilty of rape based on the word of a false accuser.

What else can one expect from KENHYDERAL, advocate of totalitarian Nazi style justice.; October 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYERAL:

Whatever corrupt DA NIFONG might have actually said, he did say that the non lax player DNA, which was found in certain intimate areas of her body might have come from her son.

And you do not consider that an obnoxious statement.

You still haven't explained how corrupt DA NIFONG established probable cause for the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury indicted Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty whom, you admit, were not rapists. Did DA NIFONG have presented to the Grand Jury the evidence which established they had not perpetrated the alleged crime. No.

Then you say Reade Seligman and Colin FInnerty owe Crystal an apology. They defended themselves against wrongful charges of rape. They did not disparage Crystal. Their defense against wrongful charges exposed Crystal's rather sordid background.

You again manifest you support a totalitarian, Nazi type of justice. Anyone you dislike, if accused of a crime, must be presumed guilty.; October 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Harr why do you allow perverted posting from cowardly Anonymous posters?"

Why do you accept a piece of hearsay from an anonymous, non existent source as proof that Crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party?; October 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Nifong was Honourable said...: Kenny,

How did I distort Nifong's statement? Why did he introduce Mangum's son into a discussion of DNA in and on Mangum? Please explain how I "purposeley distorted" Nifong's statement. I discussed what I believe are the logical implications of that statement.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe that it is a reasonable explanation. I do not believe that Nifong was justified or honourable when he speculated in that way. I believe that Nifong's speculation is far, far worse than the suggestion that Mangum was a prostitute.

You apparently seek to protect Nifong. Why?; October 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Nifong DID make that statement and he DID make it in the context of explaining non-dentified male DNA in and on the sperm bank. If that statement offends you, troll, too bad. She was sleeping with more than one male........either just for the hell of it or she was selling it. You got a problem with her being an unrepentant liar? tough. You got a problem with her being a pole vaulter? tough. You got a problem with her having multiple convictions and facing murder charges? TOUGH.; October 19, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

What is the real reason you think Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty should apologoize to Crystal?

Does Crystal want to sue someone?
If Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty did apologize would that not be an admission of slander and/or libel and facilitate a lawsuit for slander and/or libel?

Unfortunately for you and Crystal, neither Reade Seligman nor Colin Finnerty did anything to defame Crystal. So just try and find a trial lawyer to take the case.

Did SIDNEY advise you and Crystal she might have a case? That sounds like something megalomaniacal SIDNEY would push.; October 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.; October 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: These disgusting posters are devoid of any human decency. I ask you Dr. Harr to provide me with former DA Nifong's contacts. You have my e-mail address; October 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM

"Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril."

KEN-Malek-HYDER-Williams-AL strikes again.; October 20, 2013 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"These disgusting posters are devoid of any human decency. I ask you Dr. Harr to provide me with former DA Nifong's contacts. You have my e-mail address"

Inappropriate comment frome someone who thinks human decency is presuming innocent men are guilty of a crime which never happened.; October 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Why did Nifong say what he did?; October 20, 2013 at 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal; October 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Troll, what are you so twisted about? The poster told the truth. Nifong made those statements. You ought to be pissed at Nifong, not the poster. And while you are getting all twisted up, why don't you get pissy with Harr....since he is up Nifong's dress all the time.; October 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "Anyhow, the unidentified DNA had nothing to do with the crime", stated Nifong. "She had a son, a very young son". This...from Nifong.....in the courtroom!!!!!
You got a problem with the statement, hissy boy, take it up with the person who said it........Mr. scumbag.

He linked DNA in and on Mangum to the fact she had a young male child...AND.....he said the unidentified DNA had nothing to do with the crime. (NON crime actually). I'd say this is one perverse twisted sick bastard of a DA........; October 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal; October 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anybody who would draw that inference from what DA Nifong said has a filthy dirty sexually perverted mind. I wouldn't condone children to be around such a sick individual; October 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anybody who would draw that inference from what DA Nifong said has a filthy dirty sexually perverted mind. I wouldn't condone children to be around such a sick individual"

Anybody who presumes innocent men raped Crysta when all the evidence establishes Crystal lied about being raped has a perverted sense of justice.; October 21, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Did you ever consider, this whole situation about the non LAX DNA found on Crystal could have been averted. All DA NIFONG had to do is announce that the only DNA found on Crystal did not match any of the suspects and that he was not going to prosecute any member of the Lacrosse team.; October 21, 2013 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards, suppose you just call you bathrobe boy and ask him what he meant by linking the discussion of nonidentified DNA to his statement that Sister had a young son? Go directly to the source and ask him to explain.
I think most of us would agree that the implication, FROM NIFONG, was disgusting. HE was the one who made the comment, in the courtroom, so you should ask him just exactly what he was saying with that kind of remark, in that context.
And, of course, the real issue is that the men falsely identified by the lying Mangum were NOT among those who made deposits in the sperm bank.; October 21, 2013 at 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: If Mangum had any kind of morals, ethics or conscience, all she has to do is call up the three men and say,
I made a mistake. I lied. I am sorry". That's all. No big deal for a person with even an ounce of character. But, no, years later still the bullshit denials, still the half truths, still the excuses, till the blaming. Bullshit!; October 21, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Have you ever considered, if DA NIFONG had decided not to prosecute three innocent members of the Lacrosse team, then neither Reade Seligman nor Colin FInnerty nor David Evans would have ever needed to defend themselves, and Crystal's unsavory past would nave never become an issue.; October 21, 2013 at 7:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "I think most of us would agree that the implication, FROM NIFONG, was disgusting. HE was the one who made the comment, in the courtroom, so you should ask him just exactly what he was saying with that kind of remark, in that context:...... What is disgusting, in the extreme, is that sick filthy-minded individuals would take such an implication from DA Nifong's words.; October 21, 2013 at 10:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "I made a mistake. I lied. I am sorry". Crystal did not lie. Crystal is sorry that she, like a majority of people subjected to a photo- line-up, made a mistake and wrongly identified Seligmann and Finnerty.; October 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"What is disgusting, in the extreme, is that sick filthy-minded individuals would take such an implication from DA Nifong's words."

What is more disgusting is that an advocate of totalitarian Nazi style justice would want to convict innocent men of a crime that never happened.; October 21, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal did not lie. Crystal is sorry that she, like a majority of people subjected to a photo- line-up, made a mistake and wrongly identified Seligmann and Finnerty."

Crystal did lie. She was not raped but she told the police she was. She then accused members of the Lacrosse team of being rapists, which is what lead to Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman being wrongfully charged.

You do not mention David Evans, who was also wrongfully chharged. Which indicates you still wrongfully believe that a rape did happen and David Evans was involved.

If so, that is also something which is rather disgusting about your attitude towards this alleged
rape which never happened.

You yourself are a rather disgusting advocate of totalitarian Nazi style justice.; October 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal is sorry that she, like a majority of people subjected to a photo- line-up, made a mistake and wrongly identified Seligmann and Finnerty."

Would you like to explain why, some weeks ago, you were saying that corrupt DA NIFONG established to the satisfaction of a Grand Jury that Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty were rapists?; October 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

It seems you are trying to change what happened at the Grand Jury presentation. If you have ever read George Orwell's 1984, you would know that was something practiced by his totalitarian regimes.

Which is why I say you are an advocate of totalitarian, Nazi style justice.; October 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: OH, I get it....Lie....and create a rape which did not happen. then, lie and pick out people with 100% certainty as your rapists.....then, lie again and again and again......when every opportunity presents itself to tell the truth. But, hey, it's not lying? Right...? Am I hearing this correctly? It's the fault of the police lineup guys that Mangum lied? Are you shitting me?
Hilarious!!!!; October 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that."
Even Shan Carter admits that the fatal shots could have occurred "as he [Tyrone Baker]turned to run". If Shan Carter can admit that, why can't you?

Supreme Poster,
What are you talking about? I have consistently said that the first two shots Carter fired struck Baker. The other shots were fired in Baker's direction to motivate him to keep moving and not turn around and fire his weapon. That's Carter's version, that's what I believe happened, and that's the version I relay on my blog site.; October 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I am eccentric, not common."

No, you are eluded and megalomaniacal.

"I have compassion for all peoples,"

No you don't, especially if they were Duke Lacrosse players.

"and am definitely not a racist."

Comparison of your attitudes towards George Zimmerman and Shan Carter shows you are.

"I am an introvert that shies away from publicity."

Your seeking out an interview with the Indy Weekly, your frivolous lawsuits say different.

"I maintain a spartan life style and am void of avarice."

So why have you filed a large number of frivolous lawsuits seeking monetary damages.

"Finally, I don't need to puff myself up because I am content to lead my life according to that of the Man from Nazareth."

The Man from Nazareth did not condone lying. You lie all the time and then lie about doing it. You are no follower of Jesus Christ.

First of all, I never wanted the Indy Week to do a story about me. That was the only way they said that they would cover the important issues related to the false autopsy report and circumstances surrounding Daye's death. They had already begun trying to dig up dirt about me for an article to discredit me so unfortunately there was no turning back. But that Indy story is not something that I wanted or sought.; October 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Forensics, i.e. entrance, exit wounds etc., have shown that Baker was facing Carter when he was struck. Had he been fleeing when shot, there would have been evidence to that."

You are dodging having to explain how Tyrone Baker could have fled with a .357 Magnum slug in his thigh and a .357 slug in his chest.

One bullet went into Daye's left thigh, to my understanding, and the second bullet entered the left side of his abdomen... I don't believe it entered his chest or lung.

Even with potentially fatal bullet wounds, it is still possible for a gunshot victim to run a short distance prior to collapsing.; October 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Mangum hasn't killed anyone."

Yes she has. She killed Reginald Daye. It remains t be seen if the killing was a criminal act.

For a proclamation without any legal weight whatsoever, read your own words on the Reginald Daye killing.

Daye's stab wound was non-fatal. The person responsible for Daye's brain death was the medical staff person who intubated Daye's esophagus and allowed it to remain in place. Daye's brain death was the reason he was electively removed from life support and died.

Mangum has no liability for that string of events.; October 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Would you like to explain why, some weeks ago, you were saying that corrupt DA NIFONG established to the satisfaction of a Grand Jury that Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty were rapists"............ They came up with alibis. The Grand Jury indicted based on evidence they saw that a crime happened (Probable Cause) and "a" so-called photo line-up identified these two; wrongly it turned out.; October 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What are you talking about? I have consistently said that the first two shots Carter fired struck Baker. The other shots were fired in Baker's direction to motivate him to keep moving and not turn around and fire his weapon. That's Carter's version, that's what I believe happened, and that's the version I relay on my blog site."

So that is the version of Shan Carter, narrated after his conviction on two counts of felony murder. So what if you believe that is what happened. You also believe in the carpetbagger jihad and jedi mind tricks.

You yet to explain how someone with a .357 magnum round in thigh and a .357 magnum round in his chest would be able to flee.; October 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
First of all, I never wanted the Indy Week to do a story about me."

You blogged that you first contacted the Indy week and were surprised when the responded."

"That was the only way they said that they would cover the important issues related to the false autopsy report and circumstances surrounding Daye's death. They had already begun trying to dig up dirt about me for an article to discredit me so unfortunately there was no turning back."

First, you have not established as fact that the autopsy report was fraudulent. You are incapable of doing so considering your lack of training and lack of expertise. Did you think the Indy Weekly would not check your background?

"But that Indy story is not something that I wanted or sought."

Maybe that story was not want you wanted-you have never wanted your background revealed to the public-but did seek attention from the Indy Weekly, thinking they would publish your charges and never check your credibility.; October 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"One bullet went into Daye's left thigh, to my understanding, and the second bullet entered the left side of his abdomen... I don't believe it entered his chest or lung."

According to Court documents, one bullet went into his leg, the other into his chest. Both bullets were recovered, tested, and found to have come from the same gun.

"Even with potentially fatal bullet wounds, it is still possible for a gunshot victim to run a short distance prior to collapsing."

According to court documents, Tyrone Baker was across the street from Shan Carter when he collapsed. A .357 magnum slug in the leg causes enough damage to drop a man. A .357 magnum slug in either the chest or in the abdomen, both vital areas, would be enough to drop a man immediately.

You have not explained how Tyrone Baker, with a .357 magnum slug in his leg and a .3578 magnum slug in his chest, was able to flee.

Dr. Anonymous; October 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Daye's stab wound was non-fatal."

Dr. Nichols, who is a much more highly trained physician than you are, who is much more experienced in forensic pathology than you are, says he did. With your lack of training, your lack of expertise, your absence at the autopsy, you have presented nothing to contradict that. Dr. Roberts agrees with Dr. Nichols.

"The person responsible for Daye's brain death was the medical staff person who intubated Daye's esophagus and allowed it to remain in place."

You have not documented that Reginald Daye was intubated in the esophagus. The records show the tube was replaced expeditiously.

"Daye's brain death was the reason he was electively removed from life support and died.

Mangum has no liability for that string of events."

That string of events would never have occurred had Crystal not stabbed him.; October 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The Grand Jury indicted based on evidence they saw that a crime happened (Probable Cause) and "a" so-called photo line-up identified these two; wrongly it turned out."

You are straining to provide yourself with personal posterior camouflage.

Corrupt DA NIFONG had no evidence to present other than that Crystal identified three men as her attackers. As you admit the identifications were not reliable.

You also forget that DA NIFONG refused to look at Reade Seligman's alibi evidence, and tried to intimidate a witness who supported Reade Seligman's alibi.

Corrupt DA NIFONG did not establish probable cause.

That you will not admit that is not surprising, considering your advocacy of totalitarian, Nazi style justice for those whom you dislike.; October 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The other shots were fired in Baker's direction to motivate him to keep moving and not turn around and fire his weapon."

You omit to mention, probably deliberately, tat one of those bullets struck and killed Demetrius Green.; October 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: This cowardly anonymous poster who ridiculously used to characterize me as a reverse racist has now started characterizing me as a advocate of Naziism. I would ask any posters here, who are Jewish, to tune him in about the total inappropriateness of comparing what happened to The Duke Lacrosse Team to what happened under Naziism to European Jewry; October 21, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny,

I enjoyed your recent posts. No one on this blog does mock outrage better than you.

It is clear the poster "Nifong was Honourable" was pulling your leg--even the pseudonym says as much. He interpreted Nifong's ill-considered statement literally to ridiculous effect.

I agree that Nifong's comment did little to damage Mangum's reputation. Most interpreted it as a pathetic attempt to evade blame for his decision not to investigate unidentifed male DNA. You rightly criticize this decision in other posts.

We know what Nifong was trying to say, even if he is circular: he did not investigate the DNA because he concluded the DNA was not relevant. I find it remarkable how quickly Nifong threw Mangum under the bus to try to save himself.

The poster also wanted to bring out the hypocrisy you incorporate into your "Ken Edwards" role. He provoked you into criticizing him for a literal, perhaps overly graphic, interpretation of Nifong's pathetic statement, rather than criticizing Nifong for having said it in the first place. To your credit, you stayed in character and protected Nifong. Well done.; October 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This cowardly anonymous poster who ridiculously used to characterize me as a reverse racist has now started characterizing me as a advocate of Naziism. I would ask any posters here, who are Jewish, to tune him in about the total inappropriateness of comparing what happened to The Duke Lacrosse Team to what happened under Naziism to European Jewry"

I am not comparing what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players to the Holocaust. You are erecting a straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

What I am saying is, that you advocate that innocent men be presumed guilty of a non crime because you dislike them. And in doing that, I am saying you are advocating a totalitarian Nazi type of Justice.

I still call you a blatant unrepentant racist.; October 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Kenny. The Nazi comparisons are a bit much and add nothing. You lose credibility.; October 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/479-01-1.htm:

"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 [Green](Mother of Demetrius Green) began to hear 'fussing' near the intersection of 10th and Dawson. This 'fussing' was quickly followed 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."

I concede the document says Tyrone Baker was shot in the torso, meaning he could have been shot in the abdomen. Baker was shot after he was fleeing and died shortly thereafter.

If Shan Carter was not aiming at Tyrone Baker, how did he manage to hit him twice.

How did Tyrone Baker manage to flee with a .357 slug in his leg and a .357 slug in his torso.

According to court documents, Tyrone Baker died shortly after being hit. He was unable to flee much further after being hit.; October 21, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I notice, like the poster who made fantastic but unsupported allegations against Duke University Hospital, you are indulging in impotent name calling.; October 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM
A Lawyer said...: The other shots were fired in Baker's direction to motivate him to keep moving and not turn around and fire his weapon. That's Carter's version, that's what I believe happened, and that's the version I relay on my blog site.

Every criminal tells a "version" of the story in which they are innocent. That's why we have jury trials in this country. The jury was not required to accept Carter's version; they could have (and, it appears from the verdict, did) concluded that Carter was lying and that he intentionally murdered Baker in order to keep the drug money he stole from him. Given that Carter was an admitted thief and drug-dealer, and given his prior criminal record, the jury had good grounds to find him unworthy of belief.; October 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM
A Lawyer said...: The Nazi comparisons are a bit much and add nothing. You lose credibility.

I agree as well.; October 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Break at 4:26.... I assure you, Break, as a friend of Crystal Mangum, my outrage was real. I am not sure what you are implying by saying I was role playing. I am my own person and I can assure you that kenhyderal is not a pseudonym for either Dr. Harr, DA Nifong or any other person. And, for that matter, I have only one account here and do not post under any other user-name such as the so-called Malek Williams who often plagiarizes my previous posts; October 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

Have the other defendants responded yet to your lawsuit? Will you be posting copies of their motion papers when you receive them?; October 21, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

"I agree with Kenny. The Nazi comparisons are a bit much and add nothing. You lose credibility."

No, KENHYDERAL loses his cool.; October 21, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer October 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM:

"The Nazi comparisons are a bit much and add nothing. You lose credibility.

I agree as well."

It is your right to disagree. Personally, I do think that KENHYDERAL is advocating summary conviction of people he believes are guilty of a crime, a crime which never happened. That is a characteristic of totalitarian justice, and the Nazis were absolutely totalitarian.; October 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: To Whomever:

Is saying KENHYDERAL advocates totalitarian Nazi style justice as bad as KENHYDERAL advocating innocent men be prosecuted on the word of an anonymous, non existent source?; October 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: To Whomever:

Personally I think KENHYDERAL has a distorted sense of what is right for insisting Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty apologize to Crystal because her false accusations backfired on her and exposed her unsavory past.; October 21, 2013 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: To Whomever:

Actually the one responsible for exposing Crystal's unsavory past is corrupt DA NIFONG. An ethical DA would not have prosecuted. Nifong should have known Crystal's allegations were not credible, should have known he had no evidence, and should have dropped the investigation. Instead he ran with it, because he wanted to be elected to a full term as DA and enhance his retirement.

If DA NIFONG had not believed his own personal welfare trumped the law, the Constitution, legal ethics, there would have been no Lacrosse case.; October 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"And, for that matter, I have only one account here and do not post under any other user-name such as the so-called Malek Williams who often plagiarizes my previous posts".

Having one account would not prevent someone from posting anonymously.; October 21, 2013 at 5:50 PM
A Lawyer said...: It is your right to disagree.

...and, of course, yours to disagree with me.

Personally, I do think that KENHYDERAL is advocating summary conviction of people he believes are guilty of a crime, a crime which never happened.

He is. And I agree that the crime never happened.

That is a characteristic of totalitarian justice, and the Nazis were absolutely totalitarian.

...and that's where I part company with you. Throwing the "Nazi" label on a pitiful fool like Kenny diminishes the horror of the Holocaust.; October 21, 2013 at 8:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: I'm nobodies fool and I don't need any pity. You are reiterating exactly what I have been saying about this poster who is "foolish" enough to draw such an unmeasured comparison; October 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I'm nobodies fool and I don't need any pity. You are reiterating exactly what I have been saying about this poster who is "foolish" enough to draw such an unmeasured comparison".

Do you think you are wise or just to presume men are guilty of a crime, the occurrence of which you have no evidence, of which you can provide no evidence?; October 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...: I am curious, Walt. Did Harr have a right to record the conversation with the security guard and Coleman? Was he obligated to tell each one of them that he was recording their voices? I wonder if Coleman knew he was being recorded.
It was clear that Coleman wanted nothing to do with the situation in which Harr entangled him. That was obvious.
And, I wonder how Coleman feels, knowing that he was recorded and that the recording was published on this web site. In fact, I wonder if he knows it is here.???; October 22, 2013 at 2:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards is nothing but a racist....plain and simple. He posts here because he enjoys reading his own dribble........a troll is a troll.; October 22, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "What are you talking about? I have consistently said that the first two shots Carter fired struck Baker. The other shots were fired in Baker's direction to motivate him to keep moving and not turn around and fire his weapon. That's Carter's version, that's what I believe happened, and that's the version I relay on my blog site."

Simply stated, Sid -- your version and that of Shan Carter's do not agree. I refer you to Shan's "We the People" blog for details regarding his version of the events.

Perhaps you could post Tyrone Baker's autopsy report.; October 22, 2013 at 5:51 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:53 AM wrote: "I am curious, Walt. Did Harr have a right to record the conversation with the security guard and Coleman?"

They were in a public place although on private property, they were not using the telephones and were not involved in interstate commerce. Under NC law, Harr had every right to record in that situation. Harr may have been in violation of a Duke rule, but that can only be grounds for a decision by Duke. Duke certainly is within its rights as well to restrict recording on its campus. It does. For example no video or audio recordings at Cameron Indoor. No video or audio recordings of lectures unless specifically permitted. It's not grounds for an independent criminal charge, though. I think Sid was well within his rights under state law to record. Duke could tell him not to specifically, or could use his recording to trespass him off the premises. They did trespass him.

"Was he obligated to tell each one of them that he was recording their voices?"

No. If he decides to sell the recording, or otherwise profit from it, he will need to obtain releases from all involved.

"... In fact, I wonder if he [Coleman] knows it is here.???

He knows.

Walt-in-Durham; October 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Walt said...: Just got around to reading the Court of Appeals decision about Tracey Cline's removal from office. (COA12-964 for those of you interested in reading the full decision. The case is not yet up on Lexis or S.E.2d.)

"This argument is without merit." The COA used that phrase so fequently, I wondered if Sid had helped on Tracey's brief. In another Sid like moment in the brief, Cline admitted her statements were made maliciously. She made this rather startling admission so as to assert what she claimed was an absolute constitutional privilege to free speech. The court pointed out that while the right to engage in malicious speech may be free, a District Attorney has no right make statements, malicious or otherwise, about a judge that lack a basis in fact. Those sorts of malicious statements are not protected from removal from office. The problem is, by admitting malice, Cline proved the petitioner's argument under a case Sid would very much like to ignore, Moore v. v. Evans, 124 N.C. App. 35, 48, 476 S.E.2d 415, 425 (1996). Moore v. v. Evans, sets out North Carolina's qualified immunity rules for public office holders. The portion of Moore v. v. Evans, that Sid's buddy Nifong ran afoul of is slightly different from the malice issue that got Cline into trouble. The court held there was no qualified immunity to make untruthful statements with reckless disregard for the truth.

Walt-in-Durham; October 22, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Walt said...: Sid has not favored us with North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. However, A lawyer had it right. The 11th Amendment makes an appearance. And, I liked this turn of phrase from Deputy Attorney General Shields:"the plaintiff has failed to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the State is not a person amenable to suit...." If nothing else, a legal education might have prevented Sid from making that mistake.

In a somewhat interesting turn of events, John Brubaker, the Clerk his own self, has warned Sid: "You are reminded that affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence and be made by one shown to be competent to testify. A false statement under oath or
under penalty of perjury may be a crime punishable as provided by law."

Burbaker is not giving advice, Sid, he's giving you a warning.

Walt-in-Durham; October 22, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: The police officer was the only actor in this melodrama that was acting under color of the state (or whatever that phrase is??)...right, Walt? and of course, sidney paid no attention to what you told him.......before and after the fact.......and of course, tried to name everybody BUT the officer in his suit....
yet again proving stupidity is as common as chiggers....; October 22, 2013 at 8:38 AM
A Lawyer said...: Walt,
Can you post a link to the State's papers?; October 22, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Like it or not, Harr, as always, refuses to face the fact of the law. My garage sale example still holds. If I set up a public garage sale and he comes on my property and I decide I want him off my property.....I can tell him to leave......and if he does not....I can call the police, tell them I have told him to leave my property, and if he refuses....he is tresspassing. And, that is precisely what happened at Duke. They were under no obligation to tell Harr "why" they wanted him off Duke property. The minute they said leave...and he refused....he was tresspassing. Harr is either stupid or demented or just unwilling to accept the truth....when the truth is an inconvenience to his racist delusions.; October 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM:

SIDNEY's problem is, he is a deluded megalomaniac who believes he is a law unto himself, who believes that puts him above the law of the land.; October 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer asked: Can you post a link to the State's papers?

I have started a blog that has the 12(b)(6) memos among other items. Here is a link to the memos: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/10/harr-v-duke-et-al-12b6-memos.html; October 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:38 AM wrote: "The police officer was the only actor in this melodrama that was acting under color of the state (or whatever that phrase is??)...right, Walt? and of course, sidney paid no attention to what you told him.......before and after the fact.......and of course, tried to name everybody BUT the officer in his suit....
yet again proving stupidity is as common as chiggers...."

Right you are. Sid didn't name the one person who might have gotten him past 12(b)(6) and he wants to repeat the same mistake. He does not want to learn. I guess we cannot make him learn.

Walt-in-Durham

October 22, 2013 at 8:38 AM; October 22, 2013 at 3:05 PM
A Lawyer said...: I have started a blog that has the 12(b)(6) memos among other items

Thanks, Walt. I can't wait for the federal judges' motion to dismiss-- that one will be fierce.

Can you say "absolute judicial immunity," boys and girls? I knew you could!; October 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

Hope you are well.

I have questions - if you could please find the kindness to answer after thought - this could perhaps clear up confusion that might exist on these issues.

It would seem that all the events that have transpired in the Durham/Duke court system that has led Ms. Cline to lose her position because she brought disgrace to the court by using malice in her statements against a judge as a DA would be grounds that could be used in other cases in the system to reverse decisions due to the 'disgrace' that was under trial.

In addition, having a former judge who was placed to fill her position by Gov. Purdue instead of actually being voted into the position like is norm causes yet more uncertainty in the Durham/Duke court house justice system it would seem.

It leaves great uncertainty as to the conflict of interest in the current DA - who is standing in for Ms. Cline while her case is decided and who was a former judge who probably holds a bias in how judges should be treated by DA's - by virtue of what this person has ruled on in his career favorable in interest to any specific identities or peoples and their interests, or provided support and trustful business engagement, or been assigned to positions of power by others who have a conflict of interest with Duke, etc.

In addition, Ms. Cline was represented by lawyers with a known conflict of interest with Duke - therefore placing her in a category to also hold a conflict of interest with Duke that could - in all theory - provided bias in her decisions as a conflict of interest in all cases - and who indeed was in charge of prosecution during the time that Ms. Mangum was charged in this current case that holds Duke's actions once more in question under law.

With former Governor Purdue now attending and teaching at Duke - it would seem that she too has a great conflict of interest with Duke that could very well have influenced her assignment of the former judge to replace the former DA Cline who was so publically outed for dissing a judge and bringing disgrace to the Durham/Duke court house justice system as specific reason for her dismissal.

My question is this: On what law, statute, case law etc. can a private citizen make a stand to:

a. win in stating that the Durham/Duke court justice system was/is unavailable for justice to prevail for any with a conflict of interest to Duke (etc.) at the present time until a new DA can be elected to office and the questions of Cline's case are cleared up for all to know that the Durham/Duke court house justice system IS a viable avenue for justice to be delivered and take place for any and all?

b. reverse any decisions or charges made during that time on the basis that these apparent conflict of interests exist and had/have a probable possible negative affect on decisions for any based on the contested 'disgrace' and obvious bias issues.

c. reverse actions that occured during the time(s) that the Durham/Duke courthouse was determined to be found unfit by Ms. Clines actions and the questions that arise/arose because of it about Judge Hudson's professional conduct?

Thank you for your thoughtful answers to these questions Walt. Have you seen these arguments being made in the court system at any time?; October 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Making more unproven allegations again.; October 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @3:37:

You have a unique perspective.

I believe the answers to your questions are:

a. None
b. None
c. None
No.

Conflicts of interest are resolved in the standard way discussed earlier on this blog.; October 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Read the documents, Walt. I'd say Bro got his butt handed to him on a plate. What a flaming waste of time and money.
Does this guy actually think he can extort money out of Duke by harrassing them with his stupid suit? Or is it just that he is so damned egotistical and attention-seeking, that he keeps on trying to get somebody to "take his picture"? What a clown.; October 22, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:37 PM, your questions have been addressed above. However, in the interest of civility, I will answer your questions once again:

a. To quote our Court of Appeals, your argument has no merit,

b. To quote our Court of Appeals, your argument has no merit, and

c. To quote our Court of Appeals, your argument has no merit.

Walt-in-Durham; October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, you quote the Court of Appeals to answer my questions. Thank you.

However, I am left unsure of what case you state contains a qoute by the Court of Appeals that answers my questions a b and c in their full intent of each question.

How can Ms. Cline be fired for 'disgracing' the durham/duke court judicial system, but everyone else be expected to deal with the same 'disgraced' court system as usual until assurances are in place that ends Ms. Cline's complaints officially and the system is fixed to 'normal'.

In addition, I do not recall these questions being answered specifically in any of the previous conversations, so, if you could, please explain further what you refer to specifically.

Thank you again; October 22, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:26 PM wrote: "How can Ms. Cline be fired for 'disgracing' the durham/duke court judicial system....."

As you should know, if you had read the case cited, she was not fired for disgracing the durham/duke court judicial system. Such a thing does not exist. She was removed from office for bringing her office into disrepute. Specifically for making statements in court which lacked a basis in fact and were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. In her case, she admitted she made the statements maliciously.

I submit that you are doing the same thing. Making statements that are both untrue and you are recklessly disregarding the truth.

"In addition, I do not recall these questions being answered specifically in any of the previous conversations, so, if you could, please explain further what you refer to specifically."

Then you need to RTF.

Walt-in-Durham; October 22, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously, what exactly is untrue about ANYTHING i've said on this blog... NOTHING i assure you. You understood what I was trying to convey with my words - which was basically similar in scope to the exact words you quote - and you accuse of being untrue? seriously - prove it - prove what i said was untrue and not just a similarity to the actual quoted words. geesh and louis ...

RTF - I still do not understand that - how do you RTF?; October 23, 2013 at 1:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I had some time to kill so I read some of the Carter "we the people" bullshit. First, this scumbag is not worthy of including himself in "we the people". A drug dealing murderer is not "we" nor is he "people". Carter is the lowest form of animal.....no insult to the animal kingdom intended.
Second, the trash in that piece of 2nd grade writing is pure nonsense. It's typical criminal, "they done me wrong" crap.
Third, sign me up.....I will gladly push the plunger...; October 23, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Poor thing.....just can't quite grasp it, Walt. Wow, most be a graduate of the NCCU law school.....; October 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:43 wrote "seriously, what exactly is untrue about ANYTHING i've said on this blog"

Since you post as anonymous, like almost every other poster except those who make some effort at identifying themselves, it is impossible to determine if you have ever posted anything previously.

"... NOTHING i assure you."

Is exactly the number of facts you posted above. The rule is he who proclaims must prove. You proclaim something, then you have to prove it. For example if I say that federal courts apply state law in diversity cases and to prove it I cite Erie v. Tompkins.

The post at 3:37 PM was devoid of a single fact. Now had you claimed that there was a conflict of interest between a judge sitting in District Court in Mecklenburg County and various big companies, you could cite to a Charlotte Observer article noting the suspension of Judge Belk's law license for refusing to resign from the Board of a company. But, you don't cite facts to support your argument, thus the argument is without merit.

"RTF - I still do not understand that..."

That is apparent. If you would read the forum, your questions would have been answered. For example, Anon at 4:14 wrote: "Conflicts of interest are resolved in the standard way discussed earlier on this blog." So, I say again, RTF and let me add, Strunk & White.

Walt-in-Durham; October 23, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Walt said...: most be a graduate of the NCCU law school..

The writing style does seem reminiscent of NCCU's most infamous prosecutrix.; October 23, 2013 at 5:27 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Walt -- Thanks for posting the memos. I can see why Sid has avoided placing these here for everyone to read.; October 23, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:

Have the other defendants responded yet to your lawsuit? Will you be posting copies of their motion papers when you receive them?

Hey, A Lawyer.

Yes, as a matter of fact I just finished filing a response to the Defendant State of North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss. I plan to post it's motion and my response as soon as possible.

Of course, the Duke Defendants already filed and I replied to its Motion to Dismiss.

I dropped the Magistrate Judge as a defendant, and Judge Schroeder has been delayed in filing a response due to the shenanigans in Capitol Hill and the Tea Partyers.

In a couple of days I should have a very important and interesting flog and its YouTube video version (fladeo) uploaded. Hopefully by this weekend.

Also will commence working on the Next Big Thing... it's a sock knocker off-er.; October 23, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I had some time to kill so I read some of the Carter "we the people" bullshit. First, this scumbag is not worthy of including himself in "we the people". A drug dealing murderer is not "we" nor is he "people". Carter is the lowest form of animal.....no insult to the animal kingdom intended.
Second, the trash in that piece of 2nd grade writing is pure nonsense. It's typical criminal, "they done me wrong" crap.
Third, sign me up.....I will gladly push the plunger...

Gladly push the plunger? Where's your humanity? First of all, Carter did not commit a capital crime, and (sorry to disappoint you) he is going to be released... if I have anything to say about it.; October 23, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Read the documents, Walt. I'd say Bro got his butt handed to him on a plate. What a flaming waste of time and money.
Does this guy actually think he can extort money out of Duke by harrassing them with his stupid suit? Or is it just that he is so damned egotistical and attention-seeking, that he keeps on trying to get somebody to "take his picture"? What a clown.

The Duke Lacrosse defendants are the ones who extorted money out of Duke.

Assuming that you are referring to me in you comment, Duke discriminated against me and tried to have me arrested... all with malice and premeditation. I have suffered as a result of its diabolical actions and I deserve compensation for it. It's really very simple.

Let me know if further edification is required.; October 23, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Since you do NOT have anything to say about Carter's fate, we can all rest a bit easier....knowing this piece of trash will not be wandering our streets, dealing drugs, and murdering children.
Humanity? Mine? It is ALL directed toward that little child the scum shot, bro. ALL........; October 23, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: the asshat thinks he should be compensated...... hilarious.....

what's the matter, bro? running out of money, sucking off somebody else?; October 23, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 8:38 AM wrote: "The police officer was the only actor in this melodrama that was acting under color of the state (or whatever that phrase is??)...right, Walt? and of course, sidney paid no attention to what you told him.......before and after the fact.......and of course, tried to name everybody BUT the officer in his suit....
yet again proving stupidity is as common as chiggers...."

Right you are. Sid didn't name the one person who might have gotten him past 12(b)(6) and he wants to repeat the same mistake. He does not want to learn. I guess we cannot make him learn.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I'm not going to file any lawsuit against the Security guard or the Duke campus policeman because they were only doing what they were told by some unknown person who Duke refuses to identify... probably from Dean Levi or President Brodhead's office. The guard repeatedly said that he was only doing what he was told. There's no way that I'm going to attack in court a person who is only doing as instructed. (If he didn't, he wouldn't be employed for very long.) I have no ill will against him, and, in fact, I appreciate him for not following through with the initial plan to arrest me. My beef is not with the guard or the campus police.

Comprende?; October 23, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
the asshat thinks he should be compensated...... hilarious.....

what's the matter, bro? running out of money, sucking off somebody else?

No... to both.; October 23, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

Yes, as a matter of fact I just finished filing a response to the Defendant State of North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss. I plan to post it's motion and my response as soon as possible."

And it will again show how you believe you are a law unto yourself, how you believe you are above the law.

"Of course, the Duke Defendants already filed and I replied to its Motion to Dismiss."

Which mption to dismiss will be upheld.

"I dropped the Magistrate Judge as a defendant, and Judge Schroeder has been delayed in filing a response due to the shenanigans in Capitol Hill and the Tea Partyers."

So you will continue to harass him.

"In a couple of days I should have a very important and interesting flog and its YouTube video version (fladeo) uploaded. Hopefully by this weekend."

When have you ever posted anything important or interesting?

Also will commence working on the Next Big Thing... it's a sock knocker off-er.; October 23, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Also will commence working on the Next Big Thing... it's a sock knocker off-er."

You wish.; October 23, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous October 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM:

SIDNEY's problem is, he is a deluded megalomaniac who believes he is a law unto himself, who believes that puts him above the law of the land.

Face it, the laws of the land are not sacred. Many are unjust and immoral. Those that are not fair and just are the ones that need to be challenged by all civic minded citizens who want to make a positive improvement in society.; October 23, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Like it or not, Harr, as always, refuses to face the fact of the law. My garage sale example still holds. If I set up a public garage sale and he comes on my property and I decide I want him off my property.....I can tell him to leave......and if he does not....I can call the police, tell them I have told him to leave my property, and if he refuses....he is tresspassing. And, that is precisely what happened at Duke. They were under no obligation to tell Harr "why" they wanted him off Duke property. The minute they said leave...and he refused....he was tresspassing. Harr is either stupid or demented or just unwilling to accept the truth....when the truth is an inconvenience to his racist delusions.

You and your garage sale and Duke holding a conference open to the public are two entirely different things. Let me repeat, I was in the process of leaving the campus when I was intercepted by the security guard and repeatedly threatened with arrest. I certainly did deserve an answer as to why I was being asked to leave when there was no reason for the guard to do so.

I'm sure that if you were in a store and were asked, without reason, to leave, the first thing out of your mouth would be, "Why?"; October 23, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"...Carter did not commit a capital crime,"

Yes he did. Funny how you think AG Cooper was inappropriate to say the Duke Lacrosse defendants(who did not commit the crimes with which they were charged-those crimes never happened), thn you think you can proclaim a double murderer innocent.

"and (sorry to disappoint you) he is going to be released..."

No he won't

"if I have anything to say about it."

That is like a 5 year old with a pea shooter threatening a tank, only a 5 year old would have enough sense to realize he is no threat to a tank.; October 23, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid has not favored us with North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. However, A lawyer had it right. The 11th Amendment makes an appearance. And, I liked this turn of phrase from Deputy Attorney General Shields:"the plaintiff has failed to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the State is not a person amenable to suit...." If nothing else, a legal education might have prevented Sid from making that mistake.

In a somewhat interesting turn of events, John Brubaker, the Clerk his own self, has warned Sid: "You are reminded that affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence and be made by one shown to be competent to testify. A false statement under oath or
under penalty of perjury may be a crime punishable as provided by law."

Burbaker is not giving advice, Sid, he's giving you a warning.

Brubaker needs to direct his warning to Dr. Nichols. I'm not the person who authored a perjured autopsy report.; October 23, 2013 at 7:55 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 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