justice4nifong: Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

Monday, November 18, 2013

Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

Part Two of the video will be posted on YouTube as soon as completed, followed by an interactive flog that will contain documents and evidence.

1,085 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1085 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: It is also interesting that KENHYDERAL glosses over Crystal's documented history of inappropriate, sometimes violent behavior but cites the Lacrosse team's trumped up history of bad behavior as probable cause to believe they perpetrated a gang rape.; December 1, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Unbeleivable victimization! Fourteen years of incarceration, an impossibly excessive bail, loss of custody of her children, forced separation from them, loss of her apartment, her job, interuption of her education, inability to assist her aging parents not to mention the vicious and slanderous lies about her on pro Evans,Seligmann, Finnerty blogs, like Liestoppers, that she has had to endure. They repeat these lies over and over again feeding on gossip and hearsay amongst themselves. The Almighty classed gossipers along with murderers. In Canada this case would have been dealt with the next day in a Magistrate's Court. There most likely would have been a no-contact order between the couple and if it was determined that property had been damaged a restitution order made. And b.t.w. the incidece of family violence per 100,000 is lower there then in North Carolina.; December 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: The fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one. It has implications for all who wish to end selective justice that is based on race, class and means. I'm not tilting at windmills. The giants in this case are very real and destructive. They threaten society as a whole.; December 1, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Lance and others have bought into a scenario that raised reasonable doubt concerning the culbability of The Players and have run with it. And that's all the Defence had to do. The circumstantial evidence for their version of events is no more conclusive then is that for alternate versions but, hey, they accomplished all they needed to to have their clients acquitted. The successful campaign to discredit Crystal and DA Nifong has won fanatic supporters who react with pathalogical anger and righeous zeal at any person suggesting an alternate theory as to what happened, which they consider heretical. Most often they resort to name calling, insults and calls for shunning. On the other hand, I have never waged such personal attacks on them. True, I have attacked those who I beleive perpetrated a crime against my friend. Never once, though, have I brought up their race and I never use the word Caucasian to describe them. I may have also suggested, that they are the sons of privilge whereas the accuser was a person of modest circumstance. They have investigated Crystal to the nth degree and publicized anything and everything they could find exagerating each and every finding in order to portray her in the worst possible light. I dare say few of her detractors could withstand this kind of probe. Most egregious is how they have spread lies that she is a drug addict and a prostitute when their is zero evidence as to the truth of this. Fear not, had their been any arrests for illegal drugs or for soliciting they would have plastered that far and wide.; December 1, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.

As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.

The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.; December 1, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: is it possible to get a lawyer to file suit against Duke for inciting hate crimes and everything else that they have done since and during and in the decision to cause the lacrosse case and perpetuate the hate - including up to the possibility of harm by medical and professional practices at the hands of duke and hateful harm perpetuated, supported, demanded, and expected of duke et al.; December 1, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: i personally think that with the advent of the pharma and co. take over of the economy in the 1990's (i think it was 1990s- maybe sooner) - that the integrity and ethics of medicine and medical practices in the USA has declined nationwide - and that Duke is and was a leader in this. I mention this here, because the money drives a lot of corruption, inhumane decisions and practices, and abuse of we the people by instituions like duke and driven and directed by duke. for the nc citizen, it means that we are their medical research money making machines (one way or the other). that's what it feels like.

so, for anyone to be beat up for speaking out about the obvious, especially when the information is derived from the news, is absurd.

it is like duke expects noone to read or think on their own or for themselves, or have opinions about the matter against duke, esp. when around them.

i can see where duke people protect their reputation, since they all are taught to rely upon each other professionally. but that is just it, you can't expect we the people to not want their services unless they can provide services that we the people can feel the non-duke usa citizen can be able to trust. it is weird - i'm not duke - so why am i beat up for not being duke? i don't get it - it is almost like a hate crime for being an NC citizen. it feels that way anyway.; December 1, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?

You would think they would owe at least their patients that much in reassurance. That is what I do not like about Duke in large part - they do these things - then expect everyone to ignore it or not care - even if they can't and they do.

That is professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive, and in some cases holds great risk for medical malpratice by undue stress to fragile patients, as well as the loss of services to others who can no longer trust their professionalism from what they have seen or experienced with these cases.

Those things need to be addressed by the Joint Accredited Commission and Duke, along with the other medical and professional errors.; December 1, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 8:06 AM

The fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is hardly a quixotic one. It has implications for all who wish to end selective justice that is based on race, class and means. I'm not tilting at windmills. The giants in this case are very real and destructive. They threaten society as a whole.

Except those fights are for INjustice, not justice.; December 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Not only is this anonymous poster reposting my contributions as his own 7:49 (adding only 14 years of incarceration) 8:06 and 8:11 but they have also plagiarized Dr. Harr at 8:20 Perhaps now Dr. Harr you will put a stop to this abuse.; December 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Unbeleivable victimization! Fourteen years of incarceration, an impossibly excessive bail, loss of custody of her children, forced separation from them, loss of her apartment, her job, interuption of her education, inability to assist her aging parents not to mention the vicious and slanderous lies about her on pro Evans,Seligmann, Finnerty blogs, like Liestoppers, that she has had to endure. They repeat these lies over and over again feeding on gossip and hearsay amongst themselves. The Almighty classed gossipers along with murderers. In Canada this case would have been dealt with the next day in a Magistrate's Court. There most likely would have been a no-contact order between the couple and if it was determined that property had been damaged a restitution order made. And b.t.w. the incidece of family violence per 100,000 is lower there then in North Carolina.

The only lies told in the Duke phoney rape case were:

1) Crystal sayinh she had been raped.

2) Corrupt DA NIFONG telling the court he had turned over all the evidence he had developed in the Duke phony rape case.; December 1, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:10 AM wrote: " (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case;..."

His prosecution was not a persecution, nor was it unjust. What was unjust was his pursuit of innocent men.

"...(2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor;..."

Disregarding evidence, prosecuting a case without probable cause, withholding exculpatory evidence and lying to the court are not within the acceptable standards of conduct for a prosecutor. Read the Rules of Professional Conduct.

"... (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), ...."

Two wrongs don't make a right. To reinstate Nifong would be to encourage prosecutors to act like him, Ford, Hoke, Graves and Parker. Anyone interested in justice would be campaigning to have those prosecutors disbarred rather than to reinstate Nifong.

Walt-in-Durham; December 1, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 8:11 AM

"Lance and others have bought into a scenario that raised reasonable doubt concerning the culbability of The Players and have run with it. And that's all the Defence had to do. The circumstantial evidence for their version of events is no more conclusive then is that for alternate versions but, hey, they accomplished all they needed to to have their clients acquitted. The successful campaign to discredit Crystal and DA Nifong has won fanatic supporters who react with pathalogical anger and righeous zeal at any person suggesting an alternate theory as to what happened, which they consider heretical. Most often they resort to name calling, insults and calls for shunning. On the other hand, I have never waged such personal attacks on them. True, I have attacked those who I beleive perpetrated a crime against my friend. Never once, though, have I brought up their race and I never use the word Caucasian to describe them. I may have also suggested, that they are the sons of privilge whereas the accuser was a person of modest circumstance. They have investigated Crystal to the nth degree and publicized anything and everything they could find exagerating each and every finding in order to portray her in the worst possible light. I dare say few of her detractors could withstand this kind of probe. Most egregious is how they have spread lies that she is a drug addict and a prostitute when their is zero evidence as to the truth of this. Fear not, had their been any arrests for illegal drugs or for soliciting they would have plastered that far and wide."

What happened in the phoney Duke rape case is: Crystal lied about being raped; corrupt DA NIFONG took her lies and tried to convict innocent men of raping her; the case imploded; Crystal's sordid, unsavory past was exposed: guilt presuming racists are now trying to cover up her sordid, unsavory past.

The only lies regarding Crystal are the lies promulgated by SIDNEY, KENHYDERAL and Crystal herself.; December 1, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Not only is this anonymous poster reposting my contributions as his own 7:49 (adding only 14 years of incarceration) 8:06 and 8:11 but they have also plagiarized Dr. Harr at 8:20 Perhaps now Dr. Harr you will put a stop to this abuse."

Why would anyone want to copy and plaigerize your posts?

You do seem to want to create th illusion that Crystal has widespread support.; December 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"

A more appropriate question would be, why has SIDNEY not proven his allegations?

You would think they would owe at least their patients that much in reassurance. That is what I do not like about Duke in large part - they do these things - then expect everyone to ignore it or not care - even if they can't and they do.

That is professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive, and in some cases holds great risk for medical malpratice by undue stress to fragile patients, as well as the loss of services to others who can no longer trust their professionalism from what they have seen or experienced with these cases.

Those things need to be addressed by the Joint Accredited Commission and Duke, along with the other medical and professional errors.; December 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"Not only is this anonymous poster reposting my contributions as his own 7:49 (adding only 14 years of incarceration) 8:06 and 8:11 but they have also plagiarized Dr. Harr at 8:20 Perhaps now Dr. Harr you will put a stop to this abuse."

Sid,

Yes, you must protect Kenny from this bully.; December 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Previous post was premature.

Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 8:35 AM:

"Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"

A better question would be, why has SIDNEY not proven his allegations. Simply making allegations is not proof.

"You would think they would owe at least their patients that much in reassurance. That is what I do not like about Duke in large part - they do these things - then expect everyone to ignore it or not care - even if they can't and they do."

Why does Duke owe it to its patients to refute unproven allegations made by an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who has an MD after his name. It is up to SIDNEY to prove his allegations. It is not up to Duke to disprove them. SIDNEY is incapable of proving them.

"That is professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive, and in some cases holds great risk for medical malpratice by undue stress to fragile patients, as well as the loss of services to others who can no longer trust their professionalism from what they have seen or experienced with these cases."

No it isn't. It is up to SIDNEY to prove his allegations. It is not up to Duke to disprove them. SIDNEY is incapable of proving them.

"Those things need to be addressed by the Joint Accredited Commission and Duke, along with the other medical and professional errors."

JCAHO is not an investigative body.

Why should any investigative body have to investigate unproven allegations made by an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who happens to have an MD after his name.; December 1, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 8:10 AM:

"former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case".

As I said, when SIDNEY first posted it, and mightily did corrupt DA NIFONG strive to deserve this distinction.; December 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 8:33 AM

"is it possible to get a lawyer to file suit against Duke for inciting hate crimes and everything else that they have done since and during and in the decision to cause the lacrosse case and perpetuate the hate - including up to the possibility of harm by medical and professional practices at the hands of duke and hateful harm perpetuated, supported, demanded, and expected of duke et al."

No, because these are all uncorroborated allegations.; December 1, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.

As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.

The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.

December 1, 2013 at 8:20 AM

I don't know which j4n member made this comment, but you are right on target. Thanks.; December 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Actually, the Committee was founded in June 2008, so we are approaching our sixth anniversary.; December 1, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't know which j4n member made this comment, but you are right on target. Thanks."

You did. No other member of the J4N gang has ever posted anything to support you.

On target, maybe, but on target only if you are aiming on misrepresenting convicted murderers as acting in self defense.; December 1, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, the Committee was founded in June 2008, so we are approaching our sixth anniversary."

Something really to be proud of. You advocate that innocent men should be convicte for a crime which never happened. You advocate that a corrupt Prosecutor was doing nothing wrong when he prosecuted them withou having evidence of a crime, let alone evidence of guilt. You, I say again, advocate that self defense be used to give convicted murderers a pass for their crimes.; December 1, 2013 at 11:21 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said,
"I don't know which j4n member made this comment, but you are right on target. Thanks."

December 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Actually, Sidney, this was your own posting, on January 22 2012.; December 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM
A Lawyer said...: is it possible to get a lawyer to file suit against Duke for inciting hate crimes

I am a lawyer. if you came to me and asked me to file suit, these are some of the questions I would ask you:

What "hate crimes" are you referring to? Who committed them? Against whom? Who at Duke "incited" these crimes? What form did this "incitement" take?

and everything else that they have done since and during and in the decision to cause the lacrosse case

Duke made a decision to "cause the lacrosse case"? Who at Duke made that decision? How did they "cause" it? What have they done "since and during" that you are complaining about?

and perpetuate the hate - including up to the possibility of harm by medical and professional practices at the hands of duke

Any patient harmed by malpractice at the Duke Medical Center can sue. You can't.

and hateful harm perpetuated, supported, demanded, and expected of duke et al.

Who at Duke is "perpetuating, supporting, demanding and expecting" any "hateful harm"? In what manner have they "perpetuated, demanded and expected" such harm? Who has been harmed? In what manner were they harmed? How has this harm been "hateful"? How can you trace this harm to Duke's "perpetuation, support, demand and expectation"?

When you can answer these questions, we'll talk.; December 1, 2013 at 12:17 PM
guiowen said...: To A Lawyer,
I hope you realize you're bullying our anonymous friend. It wouldn't surprise me if he filed against you for hate crimes.; December 1, 2013 at 12:58 PM
A Lawyer said...: It wouldn't surprise me if he filed against you for hate crimes.

Maybe Dr. Harr could assist him in filing suit.; December 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: For those still wondering if the Daye family will now file a lawsuit against Duke or Crystal ... they can't. The Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death is 2 years.; December 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM
guiowen said...: To A lawyer,
Sidney is an experienced legal layperson.; December 1, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kinda funny, isn't it, when old Hacker Harr has told so many lies, he can't keep them straight. I swear.....Mangum is his love child.

Glad to know that Mangum spent her Thanksgiving where she belongs. Enjoy prison, Sister!; December 2, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, the Committee was founded in June 2008, so we are approaching our sixth anniversary."

Something really to be proud of. You advocate that innocent men should be convicte for a crime which never happened. You advocate that a corrupt Prosecutor was doing nothing wrong when he prosecuted them withou having evidence of a crime, let alone evidence of guilt. You, I say again, advocate that self defense be used to give convicted murderers a pass for their crimes.

I advocate for equal justice for all Tar Heelians. Shan Carter, Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum should receive the same justice as Eve Carson. I don't allow media gossip and character attacks to fog my view of true justice.; December 2, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney said,
"I don't know which j4n member made this comment, but you are right on target. Thanks."

December 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Actually, Sidney, this was your own posting, on January 22 2012.

I knew whoever made that comment had to be extremely intelligent and full of enlightenment. That explains everything.; December 2, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
It wouldn't surprise me if he filed against you for hate crimes.

Maybe Dr. Harr could assist him in filing suit.

Rest easy, A Lawyer. I strongly support your First Amendment Right to make whatever comments you wish.; December 2, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: You idiot.....Shan Carter and Mangum are murderers. Eve Carson was a victim. Yeah boy, Eve got justice...you bet she did, asshat. She was shot point blank by a black POS, five times, while she tried to pray. That's justice, asshat!!!! You bet.; December 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Kinda funny, isn't it, when old Hacker Harr has told so many lies, he can't keep them straight. I swear.....Mangum is his love child.

Glad to know that Mangum spent her Thanksgiving where she belongs. Enjoy prison, Sister!

The biggest liar in the entire murder case against Mangum is Dr. Clay Nichols. As I have said from day one, his autopsy report was false and fraudulent. Daye didn't die from any infection... his brain death resulted from an esophageal intubation which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. Certain commenters to this site, and the mainstream media are quick to accuse Mangum of lying, but are silent when it comes to Nichols.

Have you noticed that?; December 2, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Golly, I betcha A Lawyer was just trembling in fear...........oh, booohooooo, sidney is gonna sue me.....oh golly gosh, whatever shall I do....; December 2, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Clay Nichols told the truth. Crystal Mangum is a liar and a murderer and will spend the next decade married to a prison butch; December 2, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYONE... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT--

I've been busy working on the official Committee Christmas card, but will begin working on a flog about the trial's outcome. Hope to have it posted by this weekend.

As you were.; December 2, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Clay Nichols told the truth. Crystal Mangum is a liar and a murderer and will spend the next decade married to a prison butch

Ask Walt if Dr. Nichols told the truth.; December 2, 2013 at 7:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
For those still wondering if the Daye family will now file a lawsuit against Duke or Crystal ... they can't. The Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death is 2 years.

Why would the Daye Family file a lawsuit against Crystal? She didn't intubate Daye in the esophagus.; December 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: What has Duke said about the discrepancies between their own medical reports and the autopsy reports in this case?

Is there anything on record or witnessed indicating Duke acknowledges or has addressed the discrepancies and the malpractice?; December 2, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The Daye family could file suit against Crystal because she killed Daye. Indeed, if such a suit were filed, the only issue would be damages, as Crystal's guilt has already been established beyond a reasonable doubt (which is a higher standard than required to establish liability in a civil case). The reality is that Crystal is judgment proof and probably always will be. That fact, more than anything else, probably informed the Daye family's decision not to sue Crystal.; December 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: On a happier note, Crystal's conviction insures that Sidney will have something to blog about for the next 14 years or more.; December 2, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said: "Certain commenters to this site, and the mainstream media are quick to accuse Mangum of lying, but are silent when it comes to Nichols. Have you noticed that?"

No basis has been presented to draw into question Dr. Nichol's veracity or the veracity and accuracy of the autopsy report.

The better question is:

Have you noticed that not a single doctor (including Sidney) provided testimony to rebut or draw into question the veracity of Dr. Nichol's testimony, the accuracy of the autopsy report, or the cause of death of Mr. Daye?; December 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why would the Daye Family file a lawsuit against Crystal? She didn't intubate Daye in the esophagus."

Neither did anyone at DUMC who was treating Reginald Daye. Meanwhile, Crystal did stab Reginald Daye who died from complications of the stab wound.; December 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Think about that for a moment:

In a country filled with tens of thousands of medical professionals and thousands upon thousands of expert witnesses for hire, Crystal was unable to find a single, competent medical professional willing to place his or her hand on a bible and swear that Dr. Nichols' autopsy report was wrong, that his testimony was inaccurate, or that anything other than the stab wound inflicted by Crystal killed Mr. Daye.; December 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Ask Walt if Dr. Nichols told the truth."

Why? the only ones who believe Dr. Nichols did not tell the truth were a certain untrained, inexperienced, quastionably competent individual who somehow got an MD to put after his name and his acolytes.; December 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYONE... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT--"

Hey listen to me again.

"I've been busy working on the official Committee Christmas card,"

A totally worthless, non meritorious activity.

"but will begin working on a flog about the trial's outcome. Hope to have it posted by this weekend."

Another screed about the non existent vendetta against Crystal plus a repetition of your distorted view on the case.

"As you were."

You are cleared to be dumbfounded by how deluded SIDNEY's megalomania is.; December 2, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Suggested title of next flog:

"The Open and Shut Case Against Mangum Reaches its Inevitable Conclusion."; December 2, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
The biggest liar in the entire murder case against Mangum is Dr. Clay Nichols. As I have said from day one, his autopsy report was false and fraudulent. Daye didn't die from any infection... his brain death resulted from an esophageal intubation which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. Certain commenters to this site, and the mainstream media are quick to accuse Mangum of lying, but are silent when it comes to Nichols.

Have you noticed that?"

That is because Crystal is a liar and Dr. Nichols is not.

Meanwhile you again show you are untrained, inexperienced, and questionably competent.

Why you had an MD attached to your name is a mystery. You show it was not because you had any innate ability.; December 2, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

So far as lying, it is obvious that like Crystal and unlike Dr. Nichols, you are a liar.; December 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Rest easy, A Lawyer. I strongly support your First Amendment Right to make whatever comments you wish."

HAH!!!

You believe that AG Cooper, after he conducted a thorough review of the Lacrosse case, something you never did, had any right to express his belief that the accused were innocent.; December 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I knew whoever made that comment had to be extremely intelligent and full of enlightenment. That explains everything."

BULLSHIT!!!

You did not know that you had nade the comment. That shows you are anything but "extremely intelligent and full of enlightenment", something of which your commenters have been aware for years.; December 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I advocate for equal justice for all Tar Heelians. Shan Carter, Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum should receive the same justice as Eve Carson. I don't allow media gossip and character attacks to fog my view of true justice."

How were you advocating for justice for Eve Carter when you blogged that posting pictures of Demario Atwater and Lawrence Lovette driving Eve Carson's car and using her ATM card to steal her money(they were unknown persons of interest at the time) was trying them in the media?

Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter received justice when they were convicted and sentenced.; December 2, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction

SIDNEY HARR:

"Rest easy, A Lawyer. I strongly support your First Amendment Right to make whatever comments you wish."

HAH!!!

You believe that AG Cooper, after he conducted a thorough review of the Lacrosse case, something you never did, had NO right to express his belief that the accused were innocent.; December 2, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction

SIDNEY HARR:

"I advocate for equal justice for all Tar Heelians. Shan Carter, Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum should receive the same justice as Eve Carson. I don't allow media gossip and character attacks to fog my view of true justice."

How were you advocating for justice for Eve Carson when you blogged that posting pictures of Demario Atwater and Lawrence Lovette driving Eve Carson's car and using her ATM card to steal her money(they were unknown persons of interest at the time) was trying them in the media?

Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter received justice when they were convicted and sentenced.; December 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 2, 2013 at 8:34 AM:

"What has Duke said about the discrepancies between their own medical reports and the autopsy reports in this case?

Is there anything on record or witnessed indicating Duke acknowledges or has addressed the discrepancies and the malpractice?"

The only person who has said there was medical malpractice is an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent individual who somehow got an MD degree appended to his name.; December 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; December 2, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Ask Walt if Dr. Nichols told the truth."

For the record, I had the opportunity to see and hear Dr. Nichols testify via video. He convinced me that he was truthful.

Anonymous at 12:42 PM wrote: "Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter received justice when they were convicted and sentenced."

We agree that Crystal Mangum received justice when she was convicted and sentenced. As to Shan Carter, I must respectfully disagree. He won't receive the full measure of justice that is due until he is put to death.

Walt-in-Durham; December 3, 2013 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: That's was his job - an acquired skill perhaps?

In any case, what he did say indicated an even bigger problem between the autopsy reports and the medical reports in that he says he saw stutures on all those organs, but Duke did not record or report operating on nor treating all those organs.

So, not only do you have the issue with the easily hid from autopsy deadly intubation procedure that is recorded as reason for brain death in the Duke records for Mr. Daye, you also have a lot of unexplained and untreated stutures and wounds. Unexplained and untreated.; December 3, 2013 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Somebody needs to empty the trash....Carter is still using up oxygen on this planet.; December 3, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
On a happier note, Crystal's conviction insures that Sidney will have something to blog about for the next 14 years or more.

Unfortunately, injustice will always be around, so there will be no dearth of subject matter... including the recent and uncalled for indictment of UNC Professor Julius Nyang'oro. D.A. Woodall is wasting taxpayer money going after him.; December 3, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "Certain commenters to this site, and the mainstream media are quick to accuse Mangum of lying, but are silent when it comes to Nichols. Have you noticed that?"

No basis has been presented to draw into question Dr. Nichol's veracity or the veracity and accuracy of the autopsy report.

The better question is:

Have you noticed that not a single doctor (including Sidney) provided testimony to rebut or draw into question the veracity of Dr. Nichol's testimony, the accuracy of the autopsy report, or the cause of death of Mr. Daye?

What do you expect? Meier sold out his client... as would have any of the other potential defense attorneys to represent Mangum. Meier never contacted me, and I doubt that he even spoke with a physician about the case. Keep in mind that it was Meier's priority to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. That was clearly evident.; December 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Why would the Daye Family file a lawsuit against Crystal? She didn't intubate Daye in the esophagus."

Neither did anyone at DUMC who was treating Reginald Daye. Meanwhile, Crystal did stab Reginald Daye who died from complications of the stab wound.

Complications... what complication? Certainly no evidence of any infection was present in the medical records.; December 3, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Think about that for a moment:

In a country filled with tens of thousands of medical professionals and thousands upon thousands of expert witnesses for hire, Crystal was unable to find a single, competent medical professional willing to place his or her hand on a bible and swear that Dr. Nichols' autopsy report was wrong, that his testimony was inaccurate, or that anything other than the stab wound inflicted by Crystal killed Mr. Daye.

What's to think about? Clearly Meier never asked a physician to be a witness or testify.

Harrism - "If one does not seek, one shall not find."; December 3, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Suggested title of next flog:

"The Open and Shut Case Against Mangum Reaches its Inevitable Conclusion."

Thank you for the suggestion... but it's not exactly what I had in mind.; December 3, 2013 at 7:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Rest easy, A Lawyer. I strongly support your First Amendment Right to make whatever comments you wish."

HAH!!!

You believe that AG Cooper, after he conducted a thorough review of the Lacrosse case, something you never did, had any right to express his belief that the accused were innocent.

What AG Cooper did in declaring the Duke Lacrosse defendants innocent speech that is protected by the First Amendment, however it was inappropriate. What he did was unprecedented. As a prosecutor he had the right to dismiss charges only... not to render judgment.

Comprende, amigo?; December 3, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Ask Walt if Dr. Nichols told the truth."

For the record, I had the opportunity to see and hear Dr. Nichols testify via video. He convinced me that he was truthful.

Anonymous at 12:42 PM wrote: "Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter received justice when they were convicted and sentenced."

We agree that Crystal Mangum received justice when she was convicted and sentenced. As to Shan Carter, I must respectfully disagree. He won't receive the full measure of justice that is due until he is put to death.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, your opinion about Nichols' truthfulness is subjectively based solely on his statements. You ignore the fact that what he stated contradicts the medical records. The medical operative report stated that the stomach appeared normal. According to Nichols Daye's stomach had a sutured laceration in its fundus. That is merely one blaring discrepancy... a discrepancy which Nichols cannot explain. I can explain it, however... Nichols lied.

Regarding Carter, he shot the drug dealer in self defense. Death of the young boy was clearly accidental. Since when is it justified to administer capital punishment for killing someone in self defense or accidentally?; December 3, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Why would Meier contact you? You destroyed Crystal's chances.

Were there issues with the medical records and autopsy? Yes, there were, and those would have been great to spring on the Prosecutor and Doctors and ME at trial and sent them scrambling for explanations. However, Dr. Harr, in his narcissitic effort to be "helpful" (really it's all about him), made damn sure they knew many of the possible issues, and they were all absolutely ready for answers to those issues which would have been bad for Crystal. There is a reason the defense doesn't share everything ahead of time with the State.

This case was ALWAYS going to trial, Dr. Harr just knew that if Crystal actually received an acquittal, he'd lose a cause, so he did all he could to intentionally sabotage her case, and now he's doing it with others.

He claims to be seeking "justice" when in reality he is seeking the spotlight. He did more damage to Crystal and her defense than anyone else, and he continues to pretend he didn't.

Why would you expect Meier to reach out to you? You had nothing to add, you put all your "advice" out there for all to see, and for the State to prepare for, so you destroyed that line of attack.

But, really, if y'all have questions about the case, why not ask the folks involved instead of Sidney Harr, who admits he knows nothing?

The doctors were subpoenaed by both sides (it's in the file), but weren't called, likely because they had a ready answer for any alleged discrepancies Dr. Harr had previously noted and communicated to the world.; December 3, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 7:03 AM
That's was his job - an acquired skill perhaps?

"In any case, what he did say indicated an even bigger problem between the autopsy reports and the medical reports in that he says he saw stutures on all those organs, but Duke did not record or report operating on nor treating all those organs."

He took photographs of his findings and showd them in court> Where did the sutures come from if the surgeons hadn't put them there? It was poor medical record keeping on the part of the Duke physicians.

"So, not only do you have the issue with the easily hid from autopsy deadly intubation procedure that is recorded as reason for brain death in the Duke records for Mr. Daye, you also have a lot of unexplained and untreated stutures and wounds. Unexplained and untreated."

Neither unexplained nor untreated. The opinions of an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent indivdual who somehow had MD appended to his name do not render them unexplained or untreated. Any person who believes SIDNEY HARR mst also be questionably competent.

There was no evidence of an esophageal intubation.; December 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Unfortunately, injustice will always be around, so there will be no dearth of subject matter... including the recent and uncalled for indictment of UNC Professor Julius Nyang'oro. D.A. Woodall is wasting taxpayer money going after him."

You should know that. You are a purveyor of injustice. As the commenter said, following Crystal's conviction you have the motivation to further purvey injustice.; December 3, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Complications... what complication? Certainly no evidence of any infection was present in the medical records."

If you truly think there was no risk of infection, if you believe the Duke physicians had no reason to suspect infection, you document that you are untrained, inexperienced and questionably competent.

Dr. Nichols' autopsy showed penetrating injuries of the stomach and colon. That put Reginald Daye at risk of intra-abdominal infection. The delay betweemn injury and treatment increased the risk. That is fubdamental knowledge.

Dr. Anonymous; December 3, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sid said: "I can explain it, however...."

I can, too. The medical record is incomplete.; December 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Carter did not kill in self defense. He is a cold bloodied murderer. And killer of an innocent little boy... and YOU are an asshat; December 3, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: It is NOT uncommon for an autopsy report to differ from a medical record. Anybody who works in healthcare, especially in trauma, surgery, forensics, and pathology KNOWS this FACT. Operative notes do not, 100% of the time, reference every single stitch, every single noted injury, every single irregularity......that might subsequently be noted in an autopsy. Harr got himself a medical degree at some point. But, he is IN NO WAY a credible physician with ANY expertise. He is a bullshit scam artist who runs around the country filing law suits in a failed attempt to extort money.
He and the other one-celled morons who post here can whine till Mangum stop lying, and it STILL will not change the law. Welch! Holesclaw!; December 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What AG Cooper did in declaring the Duke Lacrosse defendants innocent speech that is protected by the First Amendment, however it was inappropriate. What he did was unprecedented. As a prosecutor he had the right to dismiss charges only... not to render judgment.

Comprende, amigo?"

I do. You obviously do not. AG Cooper did not render judgment. He expressed an opinion.

The crime of which they were accused did not happen. They could be nothing but innocent, and it was not inappropriate for the AG to express to the public his opinion.

You, who call yourself a purveyor of justice meanwhile, think it was appropriate for corrupt DA NIFONG to make public guilt presuming statements after Crystal falsely accused members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.

What I comprehend is that you believe any Caucasian accused of a crime by a black person should be presumed guilty even if the crime did not happen.; December 3, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, your opinion about Nichols' truthfulness is subjectively based solely on his statements."

I based my conclusion on seeing and hearing Dr. Nichols testify. I also saw, the autopsy photos that corroborated Nichols testimony. I also observed that Nichols saw the body and had the opportunity to examine it.

"You ignore the fact that what he stated contradicts the medical records."

Because Nichols saw the body and photographed it, my conclusion is the medical record is incomplete.

"I can explain it, [the stomach being sutured] however... Nichols lied."

No, the medical record is in error. Nichols had the opportunity to see the deceased and document his injuries and medical treatment. Nichols the witness is right, the medical record is in error.

"Regarding Carter, he shot the drug dealer in self defense."

No, he did not. Carter testified that he pursued the drug dealer shooting at him. That is not self-defense.

"Death of the young boy was clearly accidental."

You cannot bring yourself to write young Demitrius Greene's name. He has a name. He had a future. A future snuffed out by Carter's murderous pursuit of Baker. That is what we call transferred intent.

"Since when is it justified to administer capital punishment for killing someone in self defense or accidentally?"

This is not an accident or self-defense, but murder with malice aforethought. Carter, illegally, armed himself with a hand gun. Carter shot at Baker, pursued Baker and continued shooting, killing young Demetrius Greene.

Walt-in-Durham; December 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, your opinion about Nichols' truthfulness is subjectively based solely on his statements."

Your opinion that Dr. Nichols lied is based on your inadequate training, your inexperience, and your non existent competence as a physician.

"You ignore the fact that what he stated contradicts the medical records. The medical operative report stated that the stomach appeared normal. According to Nichols Daye's stomach had a sutured laceration in its fundus. That is merely one blaring discrepancy... a discrepancy which Nichols cannot explain."

It is not any thing important. The explanation is obvious. The original medical reports were incomplete.

"I can explain it, however... Nichols lied."

No you can't. You are not trained enough, not experienced enough, not competent enough to explain it. You have made that obvious in your many posts. You say Dr. Nichols lid because he is a trained, competent, experienced physician and you are not.

"Regarding Carter, he shot the drug dealer in self defense. Death of the young boy was clearly accidental. Since when is it justified to administer capital punishment for killing someone in self defense or accidentally?"

It isn't. However Shan Carter did not act in self defense. Tyrone Baker was killed as a result of a conflict Shan Carter provoked. Shan Carter shot and killed him after he was fleeing. The death of Demetrius Greene would not have happened had Shan Carter not pursued and fired on Tyrone Baker. It was Felony Murder.

Comprende?

No you don't.

You are incapable of comprehending the truth.; December 3, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What's to think about? Clearly Meier never asked a physician to be a witness or testify.

Harrism - 'If one does not seek, one shall not find.'"

Meier never asked anyone to testify probably because he read Dr. Roberts' written at Crystal's request, and realized Dr. Nichols' report was accurate.

Why did you not try to take the stand and testify in Crystal's behalf. You can say it was because you weren't asked. You weren't asked because you are an untrained, inexperienced, questionably individual who managed to get an MD degree appended to his name. Nothing you say about the case is credible.; December 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What do you expect? Meier sold out his client... as would have any of the other potential defense attorneys to represent Mangum. Meier never contacted me,"

hat was and is because you are an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent individual who somehow managed to get MD appended to his name. You could do nothing which would have helped Crystal's case.

"and I doubt that he even spoke with a physician about the case."

Because after you undermined Crystal's defense by revealing that Crystal's own expert found that Dr. Nichols' report was accurate and valid, there was no point in doing so. There was irrefutable evidence that Reginald Daye died from the stab wound. Your uncorroborated allegations are refutation of nothing.

"Keep in mind that it was Meier's priority to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. That was clearly evident."

No it wasn't. Neither the Medical Examiner nor Duke did anything against which they required protection. That is hat was evident.; December 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: So now that Ms. Mangum is in jail, who are you going to actively place hate and blame on for the lacrosse case and for the discriminatory issues that Ms. Mangum represents in her absence?

Are you going to keep the anger against her going for as long as you can in order to ... what?

There was no trial, only a dismissal of a trial and a lot of unaswered questions that keeps getting rehashed and refought over and over again, harming more people in the process and achieving nothing but more crime (probably) and distrust.

And to think, Duke did it all on purpose. I wonder how much money they got for that?; December 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM:

"So now that Ms. Mangum is in jail, who are you going to actively place hate and blame on for the lacrosse case and for the discriminatory issues that Ms. Mangum represents in her absence?

Are you going to keep the anger against her going for as long as you can in order to ... what?

There was no trial, only a dismissal of a trial and a lot of unaswered questions that keeps getting rehashed and refought over and over again, harming more people in the process and achieving nothing but more crime (probably) and distrust.

And to think, Duke did it all on purpose. I wonder how much money they got for that?"

More delusional garbage from the fabricator.; December 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Meier never contacted me,..."

You proved yourself untrustworthy when you breached the attorney client confidentiality and disclosed the defense expert opinions to the state. No defense attorney would ever again trust you.

"... and I doubt that he even spoke with a physician about the case."

Opinions do not equal proof. However, I did watch and listen to Meier's cross examination of Dr. Nichols. He either consulted with a physician, or is one himself.

"Keep in mind that it was Meier's priority to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. That was clearly evident."

No, it was not evident. Meier had an excellent cross examination given his theory of the case. By the way, his theory was: 1. This is not larceny because the checks had no value to Crystal as they were made out to the apartment complex, 2. This was not felony murder because the underlying felony (larceny) was not proven and the state was not seeking to use the assault with a deadly weapon as the predicate felony, 3 this was not murder in the second degre or misdemeanor assault because of self-defense. Meier's theory worked perfectly on the murder in the first degree charge. Unfortunately, it did not work for self defense. It would have been inconsistent for him to claim an intervening cause since he had no evidence of one and the rather huge problem of Welch and Holescclaw.

Walt-in-Durham; December 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, I would also add Meier admitted he did discouraged Mangum from testifying...and...certainly she absolutely, without any shadow of doubt, moved herself from manslaughter to murder II with her testimony.
You either had to believe she was truthful.....and more than 12 people, including officers, neighbors (who didn't even know her) ....were all lying......(plus you had to believe she suffered a terrible beating with no injuries)....OR she was lying. And it was very clear that she was, indeed, and once again, lying.
I've spent years involved with assessment of people based on their mannerisms, behavior,rhythm of speech, language choice, eye movements, etc.........and believe me, she lied repeatedly. If you contrast all those dimensions of speech and testimony when Nichols testified........with the same dimensions when Mangum testified, it is embarrassingly clear that he was truthful and she was not. For example, Nichols was asked by Meier about the differences in his autopsy findings and what was in the medical record. Without any hesitation, hemming/hawing, looking away, rolling his eyes, licking his licks, using stutter-step-stall phrases.....he responded clearly. Mangum repeatedly exhibited just about every known body language and speech clue in the book to show deceit. When confronted with conflicting testimony that was backed up with hard evidence...all she could do was just stare, mutter "I don't know", or contradict herself...even further. Watch the video and you can easily count the lies, when the occur, and the behaviors that give away the lying.
Meier tried his best and I thought...until she testified....she had a shot at manslaughter. Afterward, no way.....she screwed herself with her deceit.; December 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:45 wrote: "...she screwed herself with her deceit."

Ding-Ding-Ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham; December 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Check out this article:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/what-if-jameis-winston-were-a-white-lacrosse-player/

It documents that the only people demonized in the media as a result of Crystal's false rape allegations were the innocent members of the Lacrosse team she accused, not Crystal.; December 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: evil duke troll

so what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????; December 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM
evil duke troll

so what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This shows you are capable only of making uncorroborated allegations and unimaginative, impotent name calling.; December 3, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I give you the case of Jameis Winston, a prominent BLACK athlete accused of rape. The media is not condemning him the way the media did the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

You remember them. They were accused of a crime which never happened. You believe they should not be deemed innocent, even though the crime with which they were charged never happened.; December 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Evil duke troll - your too stupid to be a doctor and whine on and on about the stupidest things. The reason the media did what they did (not Ms. Mangum mind you) was to get out the black vote, just like the Zimmerman case.

Why do you condemn Ms. Mangum like the media did to the lacrosse players to get out the black vote? Do you think what the media did was a good thing or not?; December 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM

"Evil duke troll - your too stupid to be a doctor and whine on and on about the stupidest things. The reason the media did what they did (not Ms. Mangum mind you) was to get out the black vote, just like the Zimmerman case.

Why do you condemn Ms. Mangum like the media did to the lacrosse players to get out the black vote? Do you think what the media did was a good thing or not?"

More impotent and unimaginative name calling from the fabricator.; December 3, 2013 at 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously?

so whine about it again and blame Ms. Mangum - go ahead - we're all waiting; December 3, 2013 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 3:53 PM

"seriously?

so whine about it again and blame Ms. Mangum - go ahead - we're all waiting"

Boring, unimaginative, impotent name calling.; December 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM
A Lawyer said...: And to think, Duke did it all on purpose. I wonder how much money they got for that?

You're saying that Duke created the lacrosse rape case on purpose? And that Duke got money for that? Even for you, that's preposterous.; December 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

I agree that "Daye, out of anger and jealousy, initiated the conflict." However, that is insufficient to prove self defense.

Evidence supports Daye's claim that he retreated and Crystal then attacked him. The most significant evidence that Crystal became the aggressor is the location of the stabbing. Blood was found in the hallway, where Daye claimed it occurred, and not the bedroom, where Crystal claimed it occurred.

Daye had defensive wounds; Crystal did not.

Your claim that Crystal's errors were insignificant is disingenuous.

It is inconceivable that Crystal could forget as significant a detail as the room in which the stabbing occurred.

Kenny, please answer specific questions. Please do not revert to your talking points.

1. Where did Daye take Crystal after he kicked down the door when he dragged her by her hair?
2. Was it the bedroom as both he and Crystal claimed?
3. If not, how do you explain Crystal's story about being pulled off the bed?
4. Where did the stabbing occur? Was it the bedroom as Crystal claimed or the hallway as Daye claimed?
5. If the stabbing occurred in the bedroom, how do you explain the lack of blood there and the blood in the hallway?
6. If the stabbing occurred in the hallway, how did the altercation move there? I thought Daye was on top of her.
7. If Daye voluntarily got off Crystal and left to go into the hallway, was he leaving the apartment as he claimed?
8. Did Crystal follow Daye into the hallway? If so, why?
9. If Daye voluntarily got off Crystal and went into the hallway, can Crystal claim she acted in self defense if she followed him and then stabbed him?
10. If Crystal could not remember in what room she stabbed Daye, why should she be regarded as credible about other details?; December 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM
guiowen said...: KHF supporter:
Kenny does not answer sarcastic questions.; December 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: your saying the gang of 88 didn't do what they did on purpose?

that the media didn't do what they did on purpose at duke's direction, input, and engineering?

or that broadhead didn't go along for the ride and facilitate the mobility of the case knowing full well what he was doing?

etc.

and you also think duke didn't do it on purpose with USA political backing, support, request, and yes, money?

think again; December 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: btw, ya'll from the lie stoppers who so freely lie about others lying are beyond hope. get real. your being stupid and are obviously trolling and bullying for no fracking reason in case know one has mentioned that to you yet.; December 3, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM:

:your saying the gang of 88 didn't do what they did on purpose?

that the media didn't do what they did on purpose at duke's direction, input, and engineering?

or that broadhead didn't go along for the ride and facilitate the mobility of the case knowing full well what he was doing?

etc.

and you also think duke didn't do it on purpose with USA political backing, support, request, and yes, money?

think again"

Interesting comment from a poster who is showing no capability of thonking.; December 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 3, 2013 at 5:14 PM:

"btw, ya'll from the lie stoppers who so freely lie about others lying are beyond hope. get real. your being stupid and are obviously trolling and bullying for no fracking reason in case know one has mentioned that to you yet."

Now the fabricator is directing its impotent name calling at Liestoppers.; December 3, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Walt said...: Sid has been less than forthcoming about his federal case. Duke is seeking sanctions. Read all about it at my blog: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/12/duke-seeks-sanctions-against-sidney-harr.html

Walt-in-Durham; December 3, 2013 at 6:38 PM
A Lawyer said...: I warned Dr. Harr, repeatedly, that his new lawsuit was sanctions bait. His letter to Duke's counsel (posted at Walt's blog) is only going to double the sanctions. Dr. Harr, please don't say you weren't on notice. This will not end well for you.; December 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: @KHF Supporter. All this minutiae about where actions and reactions took place is irrelevant. This was a violent attack in a small apartment with the victim, Crystal, trying to escape the clutches of a larger, stronger and enraged Reginald Daye. In this melee the exact position of the attacker and the victim from second to second is a red-herring, thrown in by the Prosecution, designed to trip up Crystal. It's not a slow motion movie that Crystal can call to mind under cross examination many months later. The underlying facts are that an insanely jealous Daye manhandled Crystal. The wound she inflicted, in self-defence, did not necessarily leak blood on the exact spot, in time and space, that the knife entered his body. Blood splatter experts perhaps needed to weigh in on this evidence; December 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM
guiowen said...: KHF supporter:
A question that Kenny fails to answer is ipso facto a sarcastic question.; December 3, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@KHF Supporter. All this minutiae about where actions and reactions took place is irrelevant. This was a violent attack in a small apartment with the victim, Crystal, trying to escape the clutches of a larger, stronger and enraged Reginald Daye. In this melee the exact position of the attacker and the victim from second to second is a red-herring, thrown in by the Prosecution, designed to trip up Crystal. It's not a slow motion movie that Crystal can call to mind under cross examination many months later. The underlying facts are that an insanely jealous Daye manhandled Crystal. The wound she inflicted, in self-defence, did not necessarily leak blood on the exact spot, in time and space, that the knife entered his body. Blood splatter experts perhaps needed to weigh in on this evidence".

Just another manifestation of your attitude that the facts in the Reginald Daye murder should be dismissed so your favorite murderess can get a pass, nothing more.; December 4, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: To Walt in Durham:

Sidney's response to Duke shows again that he is a deluded megalomaniac.; December 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...: no evil duke troll - i'm saying ya'll from liestoppers - like you for instance - your being stupid and hyprocritical - your a crazy making abusive troll - and your obsessive about it - and you never stop

bet i could check back here a year from now and you will still be making the same complaint about Ms. Mangum without any understanding - and someone else will be telling you that you are a stupid evil duke troll

blah; December 4, 2013 at 2:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 4, 2013 at 2:32 AM:

"ya'll from liestoppers - like you for instance - your being stupid and hyprocritical - your a crazy making abusive troll - and your obsessive about it - and you never stop

bet i could check back here a year from now and you will still be making the same complaint about Ms. Mangum without any understanding - and someone else will be telling you that you are a stupid evil duke troll

blah"

Yet another examle of impotent and unimaginative name calling fom the fabricator.; December 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Via your answer to Duke you have given the world a graphic demonstration of hubris.

You also give the world a graphic example of greed. Because Duke settles with the innocent Lacrosse players and admitted wrongdoing, you believe you can intimidate them into paying you off.; December 4, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Why would Meier contact you? You destroyed Crystal's chances.

Were there issues with the medical records and autopsy? Yes, there were, and those would have been great to spring on the Prosecutor and Doctors and ME at trial and sent them scrambling for explanations. However, Dr. Harr, in his narcissitic effort to be "helpful" (really it's all about him), made damn sure they knew many of the possible issues, and they were all absolutely ready for answers to those issues which would have been bad for Crystal. There is a reason the defense doesn't share everything ahead of time with the State.

This case was ALWAYS going to trial, Dr. Harr just knew that if Crystal actually received an acquittal, he'd lose a cause, so he did all he could to intentionally sabotage her case, and now he's doing it with others.

He claims to be seeking "justice" when in reality he is seeking the spotlight. He did more damage to Crystal and her defense than anyone else, and he continues to pretend he didn't.

Why would you expect Meier to reach out to you? You had nothing to add, you put all your "advice" out there for all to see, and for the State to prepare for, so you destroyed that line of attack.

But, really, if y'all have questions about the case, why not ask the folks involved instead of Sidney Harr, who admits he knows nothing?

The doctors were subpoenaed by both sides (it's in the file), but weren't called, likely because they had a ready answer for any alleged discrepancies Dr. Harr had previously noted and communicated to the world.

Interesting theory, but wrong. Even though I alerted the world to the fact that discrepancies existed between the autopsy report and the medical records, Mangum's attorney took no advantage of the information. There still has been no explanation for the differences... other than the truth -- which is that Dr. Nichols lied.; December 4, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"

"Interesting theory, but wrong."

Again you give the world a graphic example of hubris

"Even though I alerted the world to the fact that discrepancies existed between the autopsy report and the medical records, Mangum's attorney took no advantage of the information."

That was because there was no advantage to be taken. By all accounts, Dr. Nichols credibly explained the discrepancies and documented the validity of his autopsy report.

"There still has been no explanation for the differences"

What you are really saying is that there is no explanation other than the one you personally accept. As if that really mattered.

"... other than the truth -- which is that Dr. Nichols lied."

That is the explanation which you accept. And it is nothing more than a far fetched allegation to which you cling even though can not corroborate it.; December 4, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: All Harr wants is money. That's it, folks. He is just trying to get Duke to pay him off....just the old scam game. His responses to Duke have been insulting, childish, arrogant, and silly.
While he pisses and moans about Duke's settlement with the LAX guys, he wants a payoff himself. Pay me and I will shut up....even though I have no case or cause, as has ALREADY been determined. But, hey, just slip me some dollars anyway. What a scumbag.
One gets the strong feeling that this has been his M O all his adult life.........i.e., filing frivolous law suits, looking for easy money. I am reminded of the kind of sleazy people who claim neck injuries in car wrecks.
Betcha THIS time his little scheme won't work...don't count on Duke giving this jerk one penny; December 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Boy, talk about a sleazy person!
Harr posts pictures of a deceased man....lies.....makes charges of criminal activity (murder) against Duke physicians and others....and then, has the gall to try to shake down the University.
I thought he was nothing but a nasty old racist hack. Now, you can apparently add scam artist/wannabe extorter to the list.; December 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Interesting theory, but wrong. Even though I alerted the world to the fact that discrepancies existed between the autopsy report and the medical records, Mangum's attorney took no advantage of the information. There still has been no explanation for the differences... other than the truth -- which is that Dr. Nichols lied.

No explanation provided to you, because you aren't owed one, but an explanation provided, that was not helpful to Ms. Mangum, hence the Duke physicians were not called to explain the discrepancies.; December 4, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM:

How sleazy is SIDNEY?

It seems the trial lawyers who advertise, call me and I will get you all the money you deserve, do not want him as a client.; December 4, 2013 at 9:31 AM
A Lawyer said...: call me and I will get you all the money you deserve

What Dr. Harr deserves from his lawsuit against Duke is bupkiss.; December 4, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Via your answer to Duke you have given the world a graphic demonstration of hubris.

You also give the world a graphic example of greed. Because Duke settles with the innocent Lacrosse players and admitted wrongdoing, you believe you can intimidate them into paying you off.

WRONG-O! I tried diligently to work out a compromise with Duke University that would allow me to feel comfortable returning to their campus. But instead of working with me, Duke attacked me by accusing me of solicitation. I waited nearly a year, before the statute of limitations kicked in before reluctantly filing the lawsuit.; December 5, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
All Harr wants is money. That's it, folks. He is just trying to get Duke to pay him off....just the old scam game. His responses to Duke have been insulting, childish, arrogant, and silly.
While he pisses and moans about Duke's settlement with the LAX guys, he wants a payoff himself. Pay me and I will shut up....even though I have no case or cause, as has ALREADY been determined. But, hey, just slip me some dollars anyway. What a scumbag.
One gets the strong feeling that this has been his M O all his adult life.........i.e., filing frivolous law suits, looking for easy money. I am reminded of the kind of sleazy people who claim neck injuries in car wrecks.
Betcha THIS time his little scheme won't work...don't count on Duke giving this jerk one penny

You forget... I am the victim in this situation. I was minding my business, in the process of leaving the Duke Law School building when I was stopped and harassed by the security guard. Had he left me alone, I would have left the campus, as was my intention.

The guard is the provoker, I am the provokee.; December 5, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Boy, talk about a sleazy person!
Harr posts pictures of a deceased man....lies.....makes charges of criminal activity (murder) against Duke physicians and others....and then, has the gall to try to shake down the University.
I thought he was nothing but a nasty old racist hack. Now, you can apparently add scam artist/wannabe extorter to the list.

The only ones who shook down Duke were the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys. All I seek is the justice that is due me... and yes, that would include financial compensation.; December 5, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous December 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM:

How sleazy is SIDNEY?

It seems the trial lawyers who advertise, call me and I will get you all the money you deserve, do not want him as a client.

Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win.; December 5, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
I warned Dr. Harr, repeatedly, that his new lawsuit was sanctions bait. His letter to Duke's counsel (posted at Walt's blog) is only going to double the sanctions. Dr. Harr, please don't say you weren't on notice. This will not end well for you.

Attorneys for the Duke University Defendants were gracious enough to give me a thirty day warning prior to filing the request for sanctions.

I just hope to have an opportunity to address it in court.; December 5, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: So now we have a duke/durham justice system that endorses and participates actively in framing whomever if the political needs justify, and a major medical facility involved so deeply in the duke/durham justice framing mess that no one in their right mind could ever truly trust them again, and all the lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, administrators, cops, patients, students, parents, etc., etc. realizing this is what Duke is and what duke/durham, (and a hell of a lot of enablers), does as a matter of practice - so now all are asked to make a moral judgement - do you ignore this too - or do you acknowledge as being too powerful for poor 'ol you and avoid if at all possible and 'deal' with if you have to - or do you complain and protest and say frack no - we ain't gonna take no more framing no more ...

i mean ... what a moral dillemma for all

funny thing is ... duke researches and masterminds real-time/life social experiments on unsuspecting and uninformed nor consenting groups of people (or individuals), gets paid to do so, brags about it, apparently doesn't give a damn about the consequences of doing such things to whoever or whatever - as long as they are recognized for being masters at it and but they don't get 'caught' doing it ... and here you have it - in your face - once again - at the hands of duke ... go figure; December 5, 2013 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"

WRONG-O! I tried diligently to work out a compromise with Duke University that would allow me to feel comfortable returning to their campus."

No you tried to shake down Duke for money.

"But instead of working with me, Duke attacked me by accusing me of solicitation."

Correction: They rightfully accused you of soliciting. You admit you were seeking support for your web site and your campaign for corrupt DA NIFONG. I guess because you did not call it soliciting, you did not violate Duke's anti solicitation party. Just like you think calling Shan Carter's killing of Tyrone Baker self defense means Shan Carter did not murder Tyrone Baker.

"I waited nearly a year, before the statute of limitations kicked in before reluctantly filing the lawsuit."

You mean you hoped Duke would cave into you and you filed when they did not.; December 5, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
"You forget... I am the victim in this situation. I was minding my business, in the process of leaving the Duke Law School building when I was stopped and harassed by the security guard. Had he left me alone, I would have left the campus, as was my intention.

The guard is the provoker, I am the provokee."

Your recording documents you picked a fight with the guard when he directed you to leave. If you were already leaving, you could have said, Officer I am complying with your order. You did not.; December 5, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The only ones who shook down Duke were the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys."

You have yet to explain why Duke would settle with the Lacrosse players if they could have prevailed in court. Your explanation that one defense attorney convinced them their insurance carrier would pay the settlement is absolute crap. Duke settled because they could not defend in court. That is a de facto admission of wrongdoing.

"All I seek is the justice that is due me... and yes, that would include financial compensation."

Justice is getting what you deserve. You do not deserve any compensation for violating Duke's solicitation policy and picking a fight with a security guard.

You say that is justice is due you. That is documentation you believe yourself above the law, a law unto yourself.; December 5, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win."

Have you won anything representing yourself?

You do not have a lawyer because no lawyer would represent you. Get a clue. You have no case. You just hope you can shake down Duke.

The Lacrosse players received a settlement from Duke because they had a case against Duke. That is the difference between the innocent Lacrosse players and you.; December 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Attorneys for the Duke University Defendants were gracious enough to give me a thirty day warning prior to filing the request for sanctions.

I just hope to have an opportunity to address it in court."

You don't have a case to present in court. Walt and A Lawyer have explained to you very clearly why you do not. The courts have warned you that you do not. But, because you are above the law, because you are a law unto yourself, you persist.

It is similar to your attitude that the Innocent Duke Lacrosse players may not be regarded as innocent, even though the crime of which they were accused never happened. You believe because Crystal, a black woman, accused them, they had to go to trial.; December 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win."

This is too good to ignore.

That must explain why you haven't won anything in all the suits you filed and in which you represented yourself.

Right on, SIDNEY; December 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win."

Yeah...That's worked so well for you in the past.; December 5, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The guard is the provoker, I am the provokee."

Interesting -- I don't recall seeing the guards name listed as one of the defendants.; December 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM
A Lawyer said...: Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win.

How many cases have you won without a lawyer?; December 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM
A Lawyer said...: The only ones who shook down Duke were the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys. All I seek is the justice that is due me... and yes, that would include financial compensation.

The lacrosse defendants were indicted, arrested, had their DNA forcibly taken from them, were suspended form college, had their reputations tarnished in the press, had to spend vast sums on lawyers, and lived under the threat of prison for (IIRC) nearly a year. You were asked to leave an event which, by your own words, you were in the process of leaving. And you say you are entitled to financial compensation and they were not?

Unbelievable.; December 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM
A Lawyer said...: Attorneys for the Duke University Defendants were gracious enough to give me a thirty day warning prior to filing the request for sanctions.

I just hope to have an opportunity to address it in court.

I am not your lawyer, so I am not permitted to give you legal advice. My prediction is that you will have the opportunity to address this in court and that it will not end well for you.; December 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM
guiowen said...: To A Lawyer,
Don't worry. What can they do to him? Send him to bed without supper? I can't imagine they can shut down this site, which is at the moment Sidney's raison d'etre.; December 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM
A Lawyer said...: What can they do to him? Send him to bed without supper? I can't imagine they can shut down this site, which is at the moment Sidney's raison d'etre.

They can't shut down the site. They can order him to pay Duke's legal fees, but Duke will have a hard time collecting. They can also order him not to sue Duke again. If such an orde ris entered and he does sue Duke again, he will be in contempt of court, and can go to jail.; December 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer:

"If such an order is entered(that SIDNEY refrain fro suing Duke) and he does sue Duke again, he will be in contempt of court, and can go to jail."

That would mean that SIDNEY's next frivolous lawsuit against Duke might be of great benefit to all tar heelians.

Go for it, SIDNEY; December 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM
A Lawyer said...: They can order him to pay Duke's legal fees, but Duke will have a hard time collecting.

I don't know if the federal judge Dr. Harr sued is also going for sanctions, but if he does and gets an order that Sidney has to pay his legal fees, those fees will be collected by the federal government (since it is the Department of Justice which represents federal judges). The government is allowed to use collection methods unavailable to Duke, including withholding tax refunds and Social Security payments.; December 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Can you update us on Mike Nifong and what you are doing to get justice for him?; December 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
I hope you've read the last several posts. I try to give you advice, but somehow you never pay attention to me.
When you first sued Duke, I wished you (sincerely) good luck. I never thought you would continue suing. If you insist, you may be in trouble. Take my advice, and desist.
As concerns CGM, I tried to give you advice. I suggested you try to reach a wider audience than the 20 or so people who read this blog; you ignored this advice. I suggested that you go to the U.S. Department of Justice, not so much that I thought they were going to help you, but because I hoped that if someone like Eric Holder turned you down, you would realize things were not as you imagined. For this, you and your acolyte (Kenny) accused me of bullying you.
I suggested that it would be better for Crystal if she took a plea deal, but you scoffed at me. You've seen what's happened: with luck she'll make it to a halfway house sometime around 2022.
I'm writing this in sorrow, not in anger. Please take my advice!!; December 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Can duke actually tell Dr. Harr not to sue them again for any reason, or only for this case? Wouldn't that simply require a judgement of dismissed with prejudice for this particular complaint and that would be that?; December 5, 2013 at 1:25 PM
A Lawyer said...: Can duke actually tell Dr. Harr not to sue them again for any reason, or only for this case?

Duke can't issue any order to Dr. Harr not to sue; only the court can. And the order would be limited to the subject matter of his prior and present suits.

Wouldn't that simply require a judgement of dismissed with prejudice for this particular complaint and that would be that?

The first suit was dismissed with prejudice. That should have been enough, but Dr. Harr sued again for the exact same event. When people do things like that, the courts will sometimes issue an injunction against suing a third time for the same thing. If such an injunction is violated, violation of the injunction constitutes contempt of court.

Sometimes, courts go even further and issue what is called a "vexatious litigant" injunction, barring a plaintiff from suing anyone for anything without first getting a judge's permission. But that only happens in extreme situations, usually where someone has brought multiple frivolous lawsuits. Given what the press reports about Dr. Harr's litigation history, he might face such an order someday, but I doubt Duke will seek one here.; December 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; December 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Please take my advice!!:......"Nihil est vanitate turpius"- Cicero (Nothing is as disgraceful as insincerity); December 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Guiowen said: 'Please take my advice!!:......'Nihil est vanitate turpius"- Cicero (Nothing is as disgraceful as insincerity)"

Except, maybe, trying to get a murderess put back on the streets, or maintaining innocent men are guilty of a crime which never happened.; December 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?
If you and Sidney had taken my advice, Crystal would today be much better off.; December 5, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: that is so weird

this is Dr. Harr's blog

Kenny seems to be Dr. Harr's supporter

are you a j4n member?

you could not post or read here if you don't want to read what they say - ya know - or don't read them - what gives?; December 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Here's some great advice for you. Why don't you give Crystal a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations? You've done so well showing us all how well you can quote, it should get her real well through the 8 years she'll be away.:-); December 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: does that make you feel better?; December 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM
guiowen said...: Incidentally, Kenny, the Latin word vanitas means pride.; December 5, 2013 at 6:35 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous said...

"does that make you feel better?"

I'm sure it will make Kenny feel better.; December 5, 2013 at 6:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Incidentally, Kenny, the Latin word vanitas means pride"...... Don't put all your faith in Google Translate"; December 5, 2013 at 8:32 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I took Latin in High School.; December 5, 2013 at 8:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: Et tu, Guiowen. Quoque me.; December 5, 2013 at 8:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Here's some great advice for you. Why don't you give Crystal a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations? You've done so well showing us all how well you can quote, it should get her real well through the 8 years she'll be away"................ You never tire of sadistically trying to wound those who are vulnerable. You really do have a mean streak; December 5, 2013 at 8:49 PM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, Kenny, you're a big boy. You can take those eight years in gaol, standing on one leg.; December 5, 2013 at 8:55 PM
guiowen said...: "Insincerity of insincerities," says preacher Kenny. "All is insincerity."; December 5, 2013 at 8:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: What Guiowen needs is a Bonfire of his Insincerities; December 5, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: No white man would ever touch an ugly black hooker like Crystal Mangum who is now in prison were she belongs.I just wanted to know if scumbag race traitor Mike Nifong ever tried to get his license back.I'm sure all the big law firms are just waiting to hire him.; December 6, 2013 at 1:43 AM
Anonymous said...: so is it:

nothing is so disgraceful as insincerity

nothing is so proud as insincerity

or

nothing is so disgraceful as pride?

????

???

proud - insincerity?
disgraceful - insincerity?
disgraceful - pride?

???

have to koan on that a bit

in what context did Cicero get quoted saying that?; December 6, 2013 at 1:46 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You(guiowen) never tire of sadistically trying to wound those who are vulnerable. You really do have a mean streak".

Your continued advocacy of Crystal(dismiss the facts so she can get pass after pass for her violent, mean behavior) shows you have no concept of what a mean streak is.; December 6, 2013 at 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...: and your showing your ability to take one statement and blow it out of context in order to find something to judge someone negatively in order to boost your own low self esteem - or lack of evidence or a case - or to fish - as the case may be walt

so ... when were the surgeries performed - what does it say on the duke operative report - how were those wounds treated at duke? where's the proof for that?; December 6, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Anonymous said...: opps - went to wrong newest - that was in answer (again probably) to this from walt:

Anonymous at 12:19 AM wrote: "If those other organs actually were damaged like Dr. Nichols testifies, if they were not repaired immediately because they were not noted or treated as indicated and documented on duke's medical reports,..."

Didn't you listen to Dr. Nichols testimony. He said he noted repairs. Anon at 12:19 AM is letting his bias show.

November 22, 2013 at 6:26 AM; December 6, 2013 at 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: some violent mean behaviors affect more people than others - depends on whose violent mean behavior your referring to and in what context (self-defense, illness, etc.) you are referring to

so

on one hand you have Mr. Daye's violent behavior

then you have Ms. Mangums' violent behavior in response to Mr. Daye's violent behavior

and lastely - duke's violent behavior in the form of an errant intubation tube and brain death

which is meaner - in context to the actual case history?; December 6, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 5:12 AM

"some violent mean behaviors affect more people than others - depends on whose violent mean behavior your referring to and in what context (self-defense, illness, etc.) you are referring to

so

on one hand you have Mr. Daye's violent behavior"

No you don't

"then you have Ms. Mangums' violent behavior in response to Mr. Daye's violent behavior"

It was not.

"and lastely - duke's violent behavior in the form of an errant intubation tube and brain death"

There is no evidence of esophageal intubation, except in the deluded megalomaniacal imagination of an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who somehow got MD attached to his name.

"which is meaner - in context to the actual case history?"

Actual case history is, Crystal stole a cab, drove recklessly while intoxicated, and tried to run down a police officer, twce falsely accused men of raping her, had to be restrained from assaulting Milton Walker, set fire to her apartment while her children were inside, and stabbed and killed Reginald Daye.; December 6, 2013 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 5:12 AM:

Crystal's case history began years before she ever falsely accused the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, before she ever stabbed Reginald Daye.; December 6, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM:

"that is so weird

this is Dr. Harr's blog

Kenny seems to be Dr. Harr's supporter

are you a j4n member?

you could not post or read here if you don't want to read what they say - ya know - or don't read them - what gives?"

I guess you haven't noticed that SIDNEY is the only J4N gangster who posts on this blog. If not for him and his acolyte KENHYDERAL this blog would have no traffic. Maybe we shouldn't feed the trolls.; December 6, 2013 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: do you seriously believe what you just implied? re: that Dr. Harr and Kenny are the trolls on 'their' own blog ?; December 6, 2013 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 7:55 AM

"do you seriously believe what you just implied? re: that Dr. Harr and Kenny are the trolls on 'their' own blog ?"

No. I am stating it as a fact.; December 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "in what context did Cicero get quoted saying that?".................
de Officiis; December 6, 2013 at 9:25 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " 'their' own blog"...... It's Dr.Harr's blog. I am only a participant here. I am not a member of The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong but I do sympathize with their objectives. My concern is for my friend Crystal Mangum who, along with the former DA Nifong, has been the victim of a vendetta, waged against the both of them, for seeking justice in the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case.; December 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It's Dr.Harr's blog. I am only a participant here. I am not a member of The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong but I do sympathize with their objectives. My concern is for my friend Crystal Mangum who, along with the former DA Nifong, has been the victim of a vendetta, waged against the both of them, for seeking justice in the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case."

From KENHYDERAL who believes that facts should be ignored so his favorite murderess can get a pass and be put back on the streets.

Crystal and corrupt DA NIFONG GOT justice,although both got rather lenient justice.

There was no rape, Crystal falsely accused members of the Lacrosse team, corrupt DA NIFONG took the charges and ran with them, hoping the black on white racism the charges would stir up would get him elected DA.

Crystal was discredited as a liar and false accuser. She should have been charged and tried.

Corrupt DA NIFONG was disbarred, found guilty of criminal contempt, served one day in jail. He should have gotten a felony conviction, a hefty fine, and a lengthy prison sentence.; December 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL, again, believed Crystal's rape allegations because some non credible source said he was told by some other anonymous source, the existence of whom has never been demonstrated, that he witnessed the rape.; December 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: yes - that's what happened by all accounts with that mess - that was / is the story as it goes

at least ya'll are sincere in your beliefs about what you think bout it all

so - therefore - no disgrace as far as ya'll are concerned - according to cicero and kenny

so ... as dr. harr likes to say ... carry on; December 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM

"yes - that's what happened by all accounts with that mess - that was / is the story as it goes

at least ya'll are sincere in your beliefs about what you think bout it all

so - therefore - no disgrace as far as ya'll are concerned - according to cicero and kenny

so ... as dr. harr likes to say ... carry on"

More garbage from the fabricator.; December 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: why do you call what i say garbage?

why do you call me a fabricator?

are you not being a troll by doing so?; December 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Cry Baby Kenny….waaah waaaaah. booo hooo.; December 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 11:06:

"why do you call what i say garbage?"

Because it is.

"why do you call me a fabricator?"

Because you fabricate.

"are you not being a troll by doing so?"

No.

Let's keep this up. We're well on our way to the 800 comments mark.; December 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"
"You forget... I am the victim in this situation. I was minding my business, in the process of leaving the Duke Law School building when I was stopped and harassed by the security guard. Had he left me alone, I would have left the campus, as was my intention.

The guard is the provoker, I am the provokee."

Your recording documents you picked a fight with the guard when he directed you to leave. If you were already leaving, you could have said, Officer I am complying with your order. You did not.

I did not see the guard ask anyone else to leave. He was discriminating against me because I am a Nifong supporter. I had every right to be upset.; December 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win."

Have you won anything representing yourself?

You do not have a lawyer because no lawyer would represent you. Get a clue. You have no case. You just hope you can shake down Duke.

The Lacrosse players received a settlement from Duke because they had a case against Duke. That is the difference between the innocent Lacrosse players and you.

What case against Duke? Duke was not prosecuting the lacrosse players. The lacrosse players had been warned against their beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties, yet they persisted... and with underaged drinking. Their lacrosse season should have been terminated. The lacrosse players need to accept responsibility for their actions.; December 6, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"The guard is the provoker, I am the provokee."

Interesting -- I don't recall seeing the guards name listed as one of the defendants.

Hey, Supreme Poster, I did not list the guard as a defendant because he was doing what he was told. Had he not, he would have risked being fired. If anything, I am grateful to the guard for not going through with the plan to arrest me. So, I'm not going to go after the security guard, or the campus police.

Had the security guard acted against me on his own, then I would have filed a complaint against him... but he did not.; December 6, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid:

Can you update us on Mike Nifong and what you are doing to get justice for him?

All advocacy work I do regarding the justice system is eventually directed to benefit Nifong... that is to have his law license reinstated. Currently I have a law suit against the State of North Carolina.; December 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Guiowen said: "Please take my advice!!:......"Nihil est vanitate turpius"- Cicero (Nothing is as disgraceful as insincerity)

I love the Latin. Thanks for the foreign language enlightenment. Adds class to the blog site. I've never noticed any Latin in comments made to DurhamWonderland.; December 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...

Sidney,
I hope you've read the last several posts. I try to give you advice, but somehow you never pay attention to me.
When you first sued Duke, I wished you (sincerely) good luck. I never thought you would continue suing. If you insist, you may be in trouble. Take my advice, and desist.
As concerns CGM, I tried to give you advice. I suggested you try to reach a wider audience than the 20 or so people who read this blog; you ignored this advice. I suggested that you go to the U.S. Department of Justice, not so much that I thought they were going to help you, but because I hoped that if someone like Eric Holder turned you down, you would realize things were not as you imagined. For this, you and your acolyte (Kenny) accused me of bullying you.
I suggested that it would be better for Crystal if she took a plea deal, but you scoffed at me. You've seen what's happened: with luck she'll make it to a halfway house sometime around 2022.
I'm writing this in sorrow, not in anger. Please take my advice!!

Hi, Gui.
I appreciate your advice, but feel compelled to follow through in order to get justice regarding Duke University. Where Mangum is concerned, she did not follow my advice... and she placed her trust in her attorney who sold her down the tube.

I am still working to try to get her conviction tossed. She should never have been charged in the first place.; December 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Do you think I would trust my case to an attorney? No Way! I want to win."

This is too good to ignore.

That must explain why you haven't won anything in all the suits you filed and in which you represented yourself.

Right on, SIDNEY

Are you speaking based on knowledge or are you going by gossip in a hatchet-job article?; December 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Yesterday, Jameis Winston, the Florida State quarterback, learned that the prosecutors were not going to charge him with sexual assault. As was appropriate, in his statement he said that he would not file charges because he did not believe that he could get a conviction. Note: He did not say that Mr. Winston is "innocent."

The April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Cooper is unheard of... unprecedented. Cooper shouldn't have said that the Lacrosse defendants were innocent. He should have said something similar to what the Florida prosecutor said... that they would not pursue charges because the evidence was unlikely to result in a conviction.

Let me know if further elucidation on this matter is required.; December 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM
A Lawyer said...: warned against their beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties

If nobody guzzled beer and ogled strippers, how would Mangum have made a living all those years?; December 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM
A Lawyer said...: He was discriminating against me because I am a Nifong supporter. I had every right to be upset.

As Walt and I have explained to you many times, "discriminating against a Nifong supporter" is not illegal. That is why your lawsuit was bounced without a jury trial: even if every word you alleged in your complaint were true, you would still lose.; December 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM
A Lawyer said...: Are you speaking based on knowledge or are you going by gossip in a hatchet-job article?

Did you ever win a lawsuit you filed without an attorney? If so, please post the citation to the decision or a copy of the final judgment.; December 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I did not see the guard ask anyone else to leave."

No one else was violating Duke's solicitation policy.

"He was discriminating against me because I am a Nifong supporter."

As Walt has pointed out, that does not mean a civil rights violation.

"I had every right to be upset."

No you didn't.; December 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What case against Duke? Duke was not prosecuting the lacrosse players."

No, but they were not supporting them the way the student handbook required them to do.

"The lacrosse players had been warned against their beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties, yet they persisted... and with underaged drinking."

You believe the lies fabricated by the gang of 88 and the pot bangers. The Coleman report documented that was not what the Lacrosse team was doing, even if Professor Coleman said it showed problems. You sure like to believe lies about people you do not like.

"Their lacrosse season should have been terminated. The lacrosse players need to accept responsibility for their actions."

They did, when they apologized for the party and cooperated with the police investigation.

Why should any member of the Lacrosse team take responsibility for a crime which never happened?; December 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Supreme Poster, I did not list the guard as a defendant because he was doing what he was told. Had he not, he would have risked being fired. If anything, I am grateful to the guard for not going through with the plan to arrest me. So, I'm not going to go after the security guard, or the campus police.

Had the security guard acted against me on his own, then I would have filed a complaint against him... but he did not."

BULLSHIT!!!!

You did not go after the guard because he did not have the deep pockets. You wanted a big payoff from Duke.; December 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"All advocacy work I do regarding the justice system is eventually directed to benefit Nifong... that is to have his law license reinstated. Currently I have a law suit against the State of North Carolina."

BULLSHIT!!!!

It is the same as your and KENHYDERAL's attitude towards Crystal. Dismiss the facts so corrupt DA NIFONG can get a pass for his corrupt, unethical, illegal behavior.

Your advocacy is for convicted criminals and against innocent men.; December 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I love the Latin. Thanks for the foreign language enlightenment. Adds class to the blog site. I've never noticed any Latin in comments made to DurhamWonderland."

So?

DIW does not advocate for convicting innocent men of a crime which never happened, like J4N does, and DIW does not advocate that convicte, violent criminals like Crystal and Shan Carter should be given a pass for their crimes and be allowed back on the street.

That is why, Latin aside, why your blog is garbage.; December 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I appreciate your advice, but feel compelled to follow through in order to get justice regarding Duke University."

Justice is getting what you deserve. You got justice when your lawsuit against Duke was tossed. You are going to get another dose of justice for refiling your suit.

"Where Mangum is concerned, she did not follow my advice... and she placed her trust in her attorney who sold her down the tube."

BULLSHIT!!! Had Crystal not listened to your advice she would have pleaded to a lesser charge of manslaughter and gotten a sentence a lot lighter than a minimum sentence of 14+ years in prison.

"I am still working to try to get her conviction tossed. She should never have been charged in the first place."

You have your cases mixed up. The innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players should never have been charged. There was no crime. There was probable cause to believe Crystal was criminally responsible for Reginald Daye's death.; December 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Are you speaking based on knowledge or are you going by gossip in a hatchet-job article?"

No.

I am referring to your track record with regard to Duke and the State Bar. You represented yourself. Did you win?

You are certifiably insane if you believe you will prevail in your current frivolous lawsuit. You will lose and probably have sanctions imposed.; December 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "KENHYDERAL, again, believed Crystal's rape allegations because some (non credible) source said he was told by some other anonymous source, the existence of whom has never been demonstrated, that he witnessed the rape.........Kilgo's source is not anonymous to him. The person with the user name Kilgo, his existence is not in doubt. He posted here for many months. I fear, because of the huge sums of money that were involved, this person got bought off. The e-mail address I used to communicate with him became defunct as soon as it appeared that I was going to involve the Police. I believe that under pressure, perhaps in itself illegal, this purported witness changed his story to now say he saw nothing. I rely, though, on what Crystal told me happened.; December 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Kilgo's source is not anonymous to him. The person with the user name Kilgo, his existence is not in doubt. He posted here for many months."

Kilgo posted repeatedly that he knew more about the Lacrosse case than anyone. When challenged to show his knowledge, he always backed down. Since that time Kilgo has disappeared, has not emerged in years to document the existence of his anonymous friend. That says his anonymous friend does not exist.

"I fear, because of the huge sums of money that were involved, this person got bought off. The e-mail address I used to communicate with him became defunct as soon as it appeared that I was going to involve the Police. I believe that under pressure, perhaps in itself illegal, this purported witness changed his story to now say he saw nothing."

The more credible explanation is that this anonymous Lacrosse player does not exist.

"I rely, though, on what Crystal told me happened."

All that means is Crystal lied and you believed her.; December 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said: "Yesterday, Jameis Winston, the Florida State quarterback, learned that the prosecutors were not going to charge him with sexual assault. As was appropriate, in his statement he said that he would not file charges because he did not believe that he could get a conviction. Note: He did not say that Mr. Winston is "innocent."

The April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Cooper is unheard of... unprecedented. Cooper shouldn't have said that the Lacrosse defendants were innocent. He should have said something similar to what the Florida prosecutor said... that they would not pursue charges because the evidence was unlikely to result in a conviction."

Nifong has every opportunity to make the same statement that the DA in the Winston case made. It certainly would have been the right thing to do and it would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble. For whatever reason he did not. Instead, he proceeded to charge and prosecute even though there was no evidence thatthey committed a crime. Moreover, in his capacity as District Attorny and acting on behalf of the State of North Carolina, Nifong made unethical, unfounded and highly charged guilt presuming statements against the lacrosse defendants.

The statement made by AG Cooper was in reply to and necessitaed by the unprecedented actions and statements of Mr. Nifong.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unprecedented actions cause unprecedented reactions.

Let me know if I can further assist you in your struggle to understand justice.; December 6, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Cooper is unheard of... unprecedented. Cooper shouldn't have said that the Lacrosse defendants were innocent. He should have said something similar to what the Florida prosecutor said... that they would not pursue charges because the evidence was unlikely to result in a conviction."

Wrong.

AG Cooper, in spite of the press, did not proclaim the Lacrosse players innocent. He said that he and his office investigated the crime(something SIDNEY never did), found no evidence that the crime never hapened, and came to the conclusion that those accused of the crime, as a matter of real world fact, were innocent.

SIDNEY believes his presumption of guilt trumps real world facts. What can one expect from such a deluded megalomaniac.; December 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's make it to 800.

SIDNEY HARR:

If no crime has been committed how can anyone be anything but innocent?; December 6, 2013 at 5:37 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1085 Newer› Newest»

Monday, November 18, 2013

Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

1,085 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me