Tuesday, March 18, 2014

UNC bounced from ACC Championship tourney due to self-inflicted wound



Word count: 966

The UNC Tar Heel basketball team has no one to blame but themselves for their first game elimination from the ACC Championship... a precursor to the NCAA March Madness Tournament. A Roy Williams coached team with so much promise after last season began this year's round ball schedule under a shroud of mystery surrounding its leading scorer P. J. Hairston. How long would his suspension last... when would his sneakers again run up and down the hardwood when it really counted? Well, as everyone found out several games into the season, Hairston would be kept out of action for the entire season by the NCAA.

That phony, hypocritical parasitical organization which exploits student athletes while destroying athletic careers of some student-athletes in order to make itself seem relevant, did not disqualify Hairston for drug or alcohol violations... not for sexual assault or harassment... not for unauthorized possession or use of a firearm... not for talking to a sports agent... and not for any academic failures (being one of the UNC student athletes who can read at a college level). Nope, the reason the NCAA kept Hairston from joining his team this year had something to do with his foot... evidently it is made of lead.

It seems that in July 2013, Hairston was driving 75 mph on a freeway with a 65 mph limit... horrors!! Although he was initially charged with reckless driving, he later pled guilty to a reduced charge of speeding and unsafe movement. As the September 4, 2013 article in The News & Observer titled, "Hairston pleads guilty to reduced charge," noted, Hairston was suspended indefinitely hours after being cited for the traffic transgression. And the article went on to say that this was the third "off-court misstep" for the star Tar Heel basketballer who was previously cited twice for driving a rental vehicle linked to a felon. First of all, I am unaware that it is a crime to drive a rental vehicle linked to a felon. I am unaware that it is a crime to drive a vehicle owned by a felon. If that is the case, it behooves everyone to be knowledgeable of the criminal record of anyone of who he/she might think of asking to borrow a car. If there is such a ridiculous rule on the books... I would appreciate enlightenment about it.

Of course, it is possible that such a rule has been inspired by the NCAA and is applicable only to student-athletes. The point is that Hairston should never have been banned for the entire basketball season just because he might have had a need for speed. He certainly didn't violate any of the many ludicrous NCAA rules, regulations, and laws. The NCAA didn't disqualify Johnny "Football" Manziel for signing his sports memorabilia at a convention and profiting to the tune of $7,500. He was only suspended the first half of the season opening Texas A and M football game. Part of the reason for the avaricious organization's leniency was that it was profiting off Manziel's name as well by selling his jersey online. Anyway, when comparing the two discretions above, ask yourself which one is the more severe and deserves the harshest punishment. In my opinion, both are trivial with the NCAA's involvement in them being the most egregious action of all.

UNC, which did nothing to support or defend Hairston, should have "Debbie Yow'd" the NCAA. Bold and brazen as that organization is, it knows better than to mess with North Carolina State because Debbie Yow would go them like hogs in a sty at feedin' time. As the saying goes, "You don't mess with Texas or Debbie Yow." Yow not only protects Wolfpack sports programs and teams, but its fans, too. Everyone knows that those two rowdy NC State fans were out of control and that the referee was justified in having them removed from the State home game... but Yow was quick to counter-attack, with the bleeding and battered referee barely able to hold onto his job while the two State fan-agitators were greeted and treated as conquering heroes in a subsequent home basketball game.

The problem with UNC and its sports-related timidity is that it is gun-shy. After years of media-provoked meddling into the athletics and academic programs at the Chapel Hill university (which is aimed at destroying Julius Nyang'oro), it is bending over backwards to try and satiate the endless appetite for power sought by the NCAA. Face it, Nyang'oro was only doing what he could to help UNC field high caliber and competitive sports teams. That means recruiting and enrolling high school students with stellar athletic prowess, but being somewhat deficient in the academic arena. Nyang'oro was charged with seeing that the scholarly challenged athletes were able to pass GPA threshold to enable them to compete. That is exactly what he did, and as a result, Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall, is smelling blood and is going in for the kill... a waste taxpayer money, court time, and state resources to sully what reputation is left for Nyang'oro after going through the media shredder... Woodall totally bent on destroying the former educator's life and legacy.

Durhamian David Williamson wrote a common-sense comment in the People's Forum of the March 9, 2014 News & Observer... naturally, it agrees with what I'm saying and can be accessed below. The question remains, how will North Carolina fare in the NCAA Tournament? It is certainly hard to tell considering that it fielded a team lacking last year's leading scorer, but one thing is certain. By allowing P. J. Hairston to be disqualified from playing this season, the team has dug itself a pretty deep hole long before opening tip-off of March Madness begins. 


View related media content


104 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Did medical examiner’s office withhold murder evidence?" printed online News and Observer March 15, 2014 about Dr. Nichols and the reason for his firing. The incident in question happened in May 2011, and the article states Dr. Nichols started work there that year.

What is the date of the autopsy report in this case by Dr. Nichols? Did Duke request Dr. Nichols' services specifically for this case? If so, why and what proof is there of that?


What is conspicuously missing in that article is any mention of Dr. Nichols' autopsy report on Reginald Daye and claims that it was fraudulent and false... and that Dr. Nichols committed perjury. Just shows how biased the mainstream media is.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Because former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was a man of uncompromising integrity...."

Men of integrity do not lie to the court, they do not lie to adverse counsel, they do not lie to the media. Prosecutors of integrity do not prosecute cases for which they lack probable cause. Whatever he was, Nifong was not a man of integrity.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, I challenge you to state one lie that Mike Nifong allegedly made to the court, the prosecution or the media.

Anonymous said...

What is conspicuously missing in that article is any mention of Dr. Nichols' autopsy report on Reginald Daye and claims that it was fraudulent and false... and that Dr. Nichols committed perjury. Just shows how biased the mainstream media is.



That's because there is a huge difference between "false and fraudulent" and sloppy, and the only person who still claims otherwise is some crackpot with a website who thinks he's a lot smarter than he is.

Anonymous said...

False and fraudulent based upon sloppy work eh? So you think Dr. Nichol's work is sloppy, but that sloppiness does not rise to a level of producing reports that are false and fraudulent? Interesting. So is Duke is to blame for the discrepancies then and not Dr. Nichols?

Anonymous said...

False and fraudulent based upon sloppy work eh? So you think Dr. Nichol's work is sloppy, but that sloppiness does not rise to a level of producing reports that are false and fraudulent? Interesting. So is Duke is to blame for the discrepancies then and not Dr. Nichols?


Not at all - the NC ME's office is a mess. But discrepancies and sloppy reports don't necessarily lead to erroneous conclusions (as Dr. Harr has noted, Crystal has told him that the Defense expert agreed with Dr. Nichols' conclusions). If the police say the car was going at 55, and I say that is "false and fraudulent" because I can show it was only going 50 - that's a discrepancy, but if the car still ran the red light and hit the other car, it doesn't mean the person driving that car isn't still responsible for the wreck.

Anonymous said...

yeah well if you stuck a breathing tube in someones stomach and kept it there too long - your gonna kill that person's brain and ultimately that person because you just killed their brain since breathing tubes need to be in the lung and not the stomach to facilitate breathing

but that's ok if Dr. Nichols does the autopsy cuz he will be too sloppy to catch that bit of death history documented in the medical reports - so you might not actually get blamed for death by breathing tube - cuz that would require a bit more than a sloppy autopsy to detect perhaps (or reading the medical report) ... whatever

Anonymous said...

yeah well if you stuck a breathing tube in someones stomach and kept it there too long - your gonna kill that person's brain and ultimately that person because you just killed their brain since breathing tubes need to be in the lung and not the stomach to facilitate breathing

but that's ok if Dr. Nichols does the autopsy cuz he will be too sloppy to catch that bit of death history documented in the medical reports - so you might not actually get blamed for death by breathing tube - cuz that would require a bit more than a sloppy autopsy to detect perhaps (or reading the medical report) ... whatever



Unless you don't keep ignoring what Walt and others have said about how malpractice wouldn't have cut off liability for the person who put him in the hospital and started the chain of events. (I know, here is where Sid jumps up and down on DTs.)

Anonymous said...

tell that to the judge who said it did

Anonymous said...

Here is one:

"A judge has sentenced disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong to one day in jail for lying to a judge while pursuing the Duke lacrosse rape case."

"Nifong was held in criminal contempt of court Friday for lying to a judge when pursuing rape charges against three falsely accused Duke University lacrosse players."

But Sidney will say Nifong did not
intentionally lie. But the court thought otherwise.

Anonymous said...

What did he lie about?

Anonymous said...

Many things ...

Here is one violation of the law that Sidney doesn't care about (and remember, even if you agree with the conclusion that it wasn't conclusive, the law still required it to be immediately turned over):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/14/key-dna-evidence-in-duke-rape-case-withheld-from-defense-for-six-months-lawyers/

Anonymous said...

ok so relate it to the current case and the discrepancies between the ME reports and the medical reports. Any difference?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Sid is wrong about Nifong never doing anything wrong, and he's wrong about everything in this case.

Related enough for you?

Anonymous said...

Insulting to the intelligence of most people wouldn't you say - especially since you are now talking about duke medical services and ME services that affects most NC citizens and visitors to NC in life or death situations that require the upmost professionalism, skill, and dedication to the welfare and honest performance of service to those whom must depend on them for their lives and welfare as needed in the professional positions they hold that society and the law lend power of great responsibility and respect and expectation of ethical performance based upon that assumption of power and respect.

Anonymous said...

Since duke has already admitted responsibility for what happened in the lacrosse case, along with the duke / durham judicial system which has been shown to be at fault in coherts with duke in most of these cases - this new case being just more of the same ... to continue to blame and incarcerate Ms. Mangum for being a victim of that mess is to ignore the reality of what really goes on in duke / durham nonjustice system and at duke. It gives Ms. Mangum a power she does not have, and absolves those with the true power, responsibility, and quilt of malicious action and frees them to do it again and again ... until you too become their victim.

Most people don't want to play and are horrified at the reality of what Duke really is and does in Durham, NC, the USA, and the world if they truly understand the 'big' picture.

Anonymous said...

The amount of craziness and delusion still hasn't changed on this blog, even if Sid is changing the format.

Anonymous said...

yeah, coming from the evil duke troll gang, or it's remaining lingering members - that abuse was a sight to behold i must admit

Anonymous said...

Given that the jury didn't find self-defense, do you think Duke got to them too, or you just don't think Crystal has any culpability for anything?

Anonymous said...

they got to at least one of the jurors who then tried to sway the rest apparently

Anonymous said...

And they tried to get a mistrial, and the Judge said no.

Anonymous said...

wonder why since it's still an issue

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Many things ...

Here is one violation of the law that Sidney doesn't care about (and remember, even if you agree with the conclusion that it wasn't conclusive, the law still required it to be immediately turned over):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12/14/key-dna-evidence-in-duke-rape-case-withheld-from-defense-for-six-months-lawyers/


I just finished reading the referenced article. Where's the beef? The article has nothing to do with Mr. Nifong lying to the Court. It also shows that he did not withhold anything as the DNA results were "buried in thousands of documents" that were turned over to Duke Lacrosse defense in October. So what if there was a delay... preparing thousands of pages of documents in triplicate takes time. It wasn't as in the Raven Abarora case when prosecution turned over discovery (the defense attorneys had been seeking for some time) once it rested its case at trial. In October 2006, a trial date had not even been set. Besides, the DNA evidence was irrelevant and certainly not exculpatory.

Is that the best you can do to make a case that Mike Nifong lied to the Court? Another attempt is encouraged.

Nifong Supporter said...


HERE YE, HERE YE!!
LISTEN UP, EVERYBODY!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT...

A written report by forensic pathologist Dr. Christena L. Roberts does exist. In fact, yesterday, March 19th, I got my grubby little hands on it.

Though not dated, I assume it was produced sometime after Daniel Meier was assigned to the case in September 2013 as it is identified as work product for Meier.

Naturally, since this is the ultimate blog site of enlightenment, transparency, and illucidation, it will be posted here in the relatively near future. Most likely no later than next Monday as I am not making a sharlog of it.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

ok, but why the wait?

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"I challenge you to state one lie that Mike Nifong allegedly made to the court, the prosecution or the media."

Sid -- this is all well-documented, but for your enlightenment, All of this is well-documented here .

Anonymous said...

Wow. Nifong told an awful lot of lies.

Sid: why would an ethical prosecutor want to bury exonerating evidence? Wouldn't an ethical prosecutor, once he found evidence exonerating accused individuals, bring it to the forefront instead of burying it in reams of paperwork. It is almost as if Nifong wasn't interested in the truth, or ethics, and was hoping that by burying the exonerating evidence in a document dump it would be overlooked.

A Lawyer said...

Dr. Harr:
I would be interested in your reaction to this story in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/20/darryl-howard-and-the-rampaging-prosecutor-durham-learns-little-from-duke-lacrosse-debacle/

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mr. Nifong received the info in a data dump and so gave the info in a data dump? Not intentional - just how he received it?

Anonymous said...

Of course you will post the report, because everyone has told you that can't help Crystal, and your goal is to do as much harm as possible.

What will you do if it agrees with Dr. Nichols' conclusion (even if it points out the mistakes), and what if it mentions a chest tube (which you have denied all along ever existed)?

I'm sure rather than admit you were wrong, you will simply claim Dr. Roberts is now clearly in on the fix. You are nothing if not predictable.

guiowen said...

A Lawyer said...

"Dr. Harr:
I would be interested in your reaction to this story in today's Washington Post:"

I guess Rae Evans is more powerful than we suspected.

Anonymous said...

The corruption is widespread - and many who are faced with a situation where duke's actions are concerned are easily swayed to their ethical decay. It is easy to see happening in many situations involving duke, which is why Dr. Harr would be inclined to laud Mr. Nifong for appearing to have stood up to duke. In reality, he only helped them and their agenda.

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Amazing that Sid would advocate for child killer Shan Carter, while men like Darryl Howard are stuck in prison.

While I'm at it -- How 'bout that DUKE INNOCENCE PROJECT!

Anonymous said...

yeah well - how bout them?

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to hear what they have to say about this case.

Anonymous said...

What has been witnessed so far by the Innocence Commission:

1. they are duke

2. they have focused their attention and publicity on discrediting Nifong and Cline in retaliation for their participation in the duke lacrosse case

3. they have educated the public to the corruption that is the duke / durham justice system while making it quite obvious that their main motivation is to shape and mold the duke / durham justice system into something that fears the 'power' of duke - and if not then fear their 'evil' instead

4. None of their subjects of innocence commission judicial work have truly benefited from their work with it's main goal of retaliation against Nifong and Cline, they were ultimately just pawns of their interest who fared worse by the innocence commission's exploitation to achieve the commission's main agenda at their (and the public's) expense. Many were hurt, nothing was really achieved except to cause Cline to get lambasted for protesting and Hudson to be shown to be pliable to their will even if unethical of nonjust, although it was an eye opener and a validation of the corrupt nature of the duke / durham judicial system and how and why it is so corrupted.

5. they totally ignore the fact that it is duke in the duke / durham judicial system that corrupts the system while they attack Nifong and Cline - which is typical of duke actually

A Lawyer said...

Anon. at 2:29:
What did Duke have to do with the wrongful conviction by Nifong of Darryl Howard?

More here:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2014/03/comments-on-balko-article.html

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

" None of their subjects of innocence commission judicial work have truly benefited from their work..."

Did you bother to ask the "subjects", or did you just make it up?

I'm willing to bet that Darryl Hunt, Dwayne Dail, and Ronald Cotton would all disagree.

Anonymous said...

did you?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Wow. Nifong told an awful lot of lies.

Sid: why would an ethical prosecutor want to bury exonerating evidence? Wouldn't an ethical prosecutor, once he found evidence exonerating accused individuals, bring it to the forefront instead of burying it in reams of paperwork. It is almost as if Nifong wasn't interested in the truth, or ethics, and was hoping that by burying the exonerating evidence in a document dump it would be overlooked.


"Buried" was the term used by the biased mainstream media. The report could've been sitting under just one sheet of evidence and the media would've called it buried. At any rate, I'm sure Mike Nifong did not put each document together piece by piece. I'm sure that others on his staff worked on this major undertaking. The fact is that the DNA report was not withheld!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
ok, but why the wait?


I presume you are referring to why wait to upload the report by Dr. Roberts. For one thing, I have to get it scanned, and organized on a Flash file. I then have to make comments and notes about the document. Then I have to write a blog about the history of the document... and finally put it all together. It's a time consuming process. A turnaround of one week is not bad, especially when you consider that I take time out to sleep, eat, exercise, wash up, etc.

Hopefully this has been insightful.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:
I would be interested in your reaction to this story in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/20/darryl-howard-and-the-rampaging-prosecutor-durham-learns-little-from-duke-lacrosse-debacle/


Hey, A Lawyer. Thanks for the link. I viewed the article, but it didn't contain enough info for me to give a comment. I do believe that the Washington Post is anti-Nifong and it has refused to even write about the corruption in Mangum's trial. The fact is that I don't have all the facts and I am concentrating on fighting to get Crystal out of jail as quickly as possible.

The article also was vague about whether Mr. Nifong even knew about the DNA or whether police kept some information from him.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Of course you will post the report, because everyone has told you that can't help Crystal, and your goal is to do as much harm as possible.

What will you do if it agrees with Dr. Nichols' conclusion (even if it points out the mistakes), and what if it mentions a chest tube (which you have denied all along ever existed)?

I'm sure rather than admit you were wrong, you will simply claim Dr. Roberts is now clearly in on the fix. You are nothing if not predictable.


First, I will post the report by Dr. Roberts because I am one of enlightenment... I believe in transparency.

With regards to the chest tube, I did not have access to all of the hospital records... Dr. Roberts did, evidently. If she stated a chest tube was reported to have been inserted, it probably was. I did not see mention of it in the records in my possession. Also, keep in mind that Dr. Nichols denied that a chest tube was placed which brings his credibility into question. At least by not having complete records I have an excuse. Dr. Nichols has none.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

""Buried" was the term used by the biased mainstream media. The report could've been sitting under just one sheet of evidence and the media would've called it buried. At any rate, I'm sure Mike Nifong did not put each document together piece by piece. I'm sure that others on his staff worked on this major undertaking. The fact is that the DNA report was not withheld!!"

If you were an ethical and competent prosecutor the test results would cause you to have serious concern that maybe you might be prosecuting the wrong people. Instead of just dumping the raw data on the defense and daring them to find it, you would explicitly disclose that the tests EXCLUDED the defendants and contradicted the complaining witness's statement. You would not simply change the theory of your prosecution to manuever around the clearly exculpatory evidence, as was done in the lacrosse case, and charge onward w/o regard to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused.

Nifong was more interested in winning at any cost rather than in finding the truth and doing justice. Where the truth and his ethical obligations hampered with his chances of winning, he disregarded both. That is not an ethical man. And anyone who professed to be interested in the justice system would be quick to recognize and acknowledge it.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he needed time to explore the direction the DNA evidence led in private to do some type of justice or investigation with the facts of the DNA evidence and the case before making the evidence public?

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Anonymous@ 10:38 :

I'm not the one that said they didn't 'truly benefit' from the work of the Innocence Project, you did. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Anonymous said...

If you read the local news you would have heard about how many of their 'saved' weren't actually 'saved' after all ... that's all.

Don't know about all their 'saved' since the ones who weren't, but who's cases caused Ms. Cline the most public hardship in the news and in her career, were the ones that were publicized and promoted in the news the most.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:01:

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Because of the many typos, grammatical errors and poorly constructed run-on sentences, your comment is incomprehensible. In addition, you provide no examples of whatever it is that you are complaining about.

Anonymous said...

what cha say eh?

blah

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Anonymous @12:01:

I do keep up with the local news, but perhaps I've missed something somewhere. Please provide a link or headline I can search for.

Anonymous said...

seriously?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid said:

""Buried" was the term used by the biased mainstream media. The report could've been sitting under just one sheet of evidence and the media would've called it buried. At any rate, I'm sure Mike Nifong did not put each document together piece by piece. I'm sure that others on his staff worked on this major undertaking. The fact is that the DNA report was not withheld!!"

If you were an ethical and competent prosecutor the test results would cause you to have serious concern that maybe you might be prosecuting the wrong people. Instead of just dumping the raw data on the defense and daring them to find it, you would explicitly disclose that the tests EXCLUDED the defendants and contradicted the complaining witness's statement. You would not simply change the theory of your prosecution to manuever around the clearly exculpatory evidence, as was done in the lacrosse case, and charge onward w/o regard to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused.

Nifong was more interested in winning at any cost rather than in finding the truth and doing justice. Where the truth and his ethical obligations hampered with his chances of winning, he disregarded both. That is not an ethical man. And anyone who professed to be interested in the justice system would be quick to recognize and acknowledge it.


Mike Nifong, or any prosecutor is not under obligation to help prepare the defense attorney's case. The DNA referenced lab slip, which by the way was not exculpatory, was presented along with the rest of evidence during discovery for the defense team.

And from what little I've read about the current case filed by the Innocent Project, I see no smoking gun related to Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong, or any prosecutor is not under obligation to help prepare the defense attorney's case. The DNA referenced lab slip, which by the way was not exculpatory, was presented along with the rest of evidence during discovery for the defense team.

And from what little I've read about the current case filed by the Innocent Project, I see no smoking gun related to Mangum.



You really know that little about the law? The Prosecutor is required, BY LAW, to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Not bury it, not delay and sit on it, and hope the Defense misses it. You say it was "delayed" and "so what" - the so what is that he violated the law by delaying and sitting on it.

And, yes, he does have an obligation to disclose everything he knows, promptly, to the Defense. It's the Defense that doesn't have that obligation.

You really are clueless, dangerously so. You keep trying to screw up Crystal's case, and others, and you clearly don't understand what you are doing.

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Anonymous@ 8:26:

Yes, I'm serious. I would like to see a link or a headline that definitively states that people like Darryl Hunt, Dwayne Dail, and Ronald Cotton didn't ''really benefit'' from the work of the Duke Innocence Project.

Provide one, or be considered a liar...Choice is yours.

Anonymous said...

I am also serious.

I would like to see a link or headline that explains definitively why the majority of cases the Duke Innocence Project undertakes have no involvement by Nifong or Cline when the focus of the Project is discrediting and attacking Nifong and Cline.

Provide one, or be considered a moron... Choice is yours.

Anonymous said...

You are being too cute by half, Sid.

Mangum complained that she had been raped by multiple perps. She claimed that none wore condoms and that they ejaculated on and in her. Subsequent test results revealed the presence of semen on Mangum, but none of it was linked to the defendants. That is a text book definition of exculpatory evidence.

There are no excuses for Mangum and Nifong's conduct in the Duke lacrosse case. It was immoral, unethical and illegal. They deserve everything that has happened to them.

Anonymous said...

All you see in the news are the cases that brought Cline, and in her protest Hudson, into the targets of the innocence commission and their actions - and now Nifong. The rest is not news apparently.

Anonymous said...

Those cases put the Innocence Commission in the news from what i've noticed, but i didn't really read news as much until the internet made it so much easier to do so, so perhaps i missed something (shrug). Innocence Commission to me means dukes vendatta against Nifong and Cline, and the News and Observer showing definetely how duke they are (as if more difinitive proof was needed), and how news is made against and in durham by the harrassment of duke and the n and o, etc., etc., etc.

The things you pick up on if you read the local news and watch how it affects your community, etc.

Anonymous said...

... how they use the News and Observer and the Duke / Durham judicial system, and the goodwill of the people they drain by their use of the same to create their own history and subvert justice by trying their cases in the news as if the sky were falling ... (actually ... the magnosphere is falling ... eeekgad .... (cool movie tho)) ... like a defense against the chance that justice in durham might not be duke's justice - so time to pull out and publicize reminders of their evil duke dagger powers once again ... (something like that).

That's what it looks like anyway.

Anonymous said...

Stop bullying me you evil Duke troll.

Anonymous said...

seriously?

???

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

The majority of cases do not involve Nifong or Cline... Read here for details:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog-Search.php?check=true&tag=73


If you weren't a moron, you could have easily found this yourself. Apparently, since you've yet to furnish the link or headline, you're a liar in addition to being a moron.

Anonymous said...

Stop bullying me you evil Duke troll.

Anonymous said...

seriously lance get a grip

sheeeeessssshhhhhhhhhhhh


blah

Anonymous said...

Stop lying.

Anonymous said...

hard to lie about what i said actually

hard to make that stuff up as the saying goes ... sometimes it does seem like duke / durham in wonderland when observing the politics and antics through a lens of relativity ...

that's all

you are accussing as a liestopper or something - you are on the wrong blog and creating a mountain from nothing as usual - for your own entertainment and enlightenment of course

why do you do that?

Anonymous said...

You accuse Lance of lying, but you can't see or do anything other than tying it back to Duke and Nifong and Cline. The Duke innocence project works on cases throughout the State, and does good work. No one has a vendetta against Nifong - he made his bed, now he's laying in it.

You link Duke University to the Coal Ash, you link everything to Mangum - Sid admits that he was operating with less than complete information (something he always denied), and you still support him.

But it's lance and the others who ask you to prove your allegations who are stupid and bullies? They provide evidence to back up their contentions. You don't, and all you will say to this one is blah blah blah Duke Bully.

You have nothing but your paranoia.

Anonymous said...

no actually some troll was calling whomever a liar and a moron and whatever silly ... probably you ... but who cares right?

you have serious issues - you know that right?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Mike Nifong, or any prosecutor is not under obligation to help prepare the defense attorney's case. The DNA referenced lab slip, which by the way was not exculpatory, was presented along with the rest of evidence during discovery for the defense team.

And from what little I've read about the current case filed by the Innocent Project, I see no smoking gun related to Mangum.



You really know that little about the law? The Prosecutor is required, BY LAW, to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Not bury it, not delay and sit on it, and hope the Defense misses it. You say it was "delayed" and "so what" - the so what is that he violated the law by delaying and sitting on it.

And, yes, he does have an obligation to disclose everything he knows, promptly, to the Defense. It's the Defense that doesn't have that obligation.

You really are clueless, dangerously so. You keep trying to screw up Crystal's case, and others, and you clearly don't understand what you are doing.


There is a saying..."Rome wasn't built in a day."

The legal defense firms representing the Duke Lacrosse student/athlete/partygoers expected Nifong to build Rome in a day without even taking a lunch break. Their expectations are totally unrealistic.

It takes time to gather all of the discovery and make copies of them in triplicate... especially when there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents. I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong got the discovery to the defense attorneys as soon as humanly possible (he is not superhuman). After all, the Duke Lacrosse case was not the only criminal case occupying the D.A. Office's attention in 2006.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
You are being too cute by half, Sid.

Mangum complained that she had been raped by multiple perps. She claimed that none wore condoms and that they ejaculated on and in her. Subsequent test results revealed the presence of semen on Mangum, but none of it was linked to the defendants. That is a text book definition of exculpatory evidence.

There are no excuses for Mangum and Nifong's conduct in the Duke lacrosse case. It was immoral, unethical and illegal. They deserve everything that has happened to them.


First of all, Mr. Nifong turned over all of the DNA results, even though it might not've been as speedily as the Duke Lacrosse defense demanded.

Mr. Nifong made no attempt to shield any evidence from the defense as you suggest.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
You accuse Lance of lying, but you can't see or do anything other than tying it back to Duke and Nifong and Cline. The Duke innocence project works on cases throughout the State, and does good work. No one has a vendetta against Nifong - he made his bed, now he's laying in it.

You link Duke University to the Coal Ash, you link everything to Mangum - Sid admits that he was operating with less than complete information (something he always denied), and you still support him.

But it's lance and the others who ask you to prove your allegations who are stupid and bullies? They provide evidence to back up their contentions. You don't, and all you will say to this one is blah blah blah Duke Bully.

You have nothing but your paranoia.


For the record, I have never had access, or claimed to have access to all of Reginald Daye's hospital records. I did have many very important records pertaining to his hospitalization, but I lacked the day to day progress notes, for example, to which Drs. Nichols and Roberts had access.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but Sid, you repeatedly pointed to the fact that Meier asked about a chest tube as proof that he was incompetent and trying to throw Mangum under the bus. You didn't say "he must have seen records I didn't" - you said it was proof he was complicit and wrong.

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"seriously lance get a grip"

Still waiting for any proof that no one has "truly benefited" from the work of the Innocence Project.

Anonymous said...

that comment has been explained enough already for any person with normal intelligence to understand lance

at least you don't stoop to lobbing liar and moron accusations this time

good job!

Anonymous said...

that comment has been explained enough already for any person with normal intelligence to understand lance


You haven't explained anything, I guess that you are finally admitting something about your intelligence.

You haven't explained anything other than your normal "Duke is bad" rant, with no proof.

Anonymous said...

actually duke is evil in many ways from what i've seen

but ... i was talkin bout the innocence commission and what has been seen bout them in the news in past few years

blah

Anonymous said...

You understand the Innocence Commission is completely different and unrelated to the Duke Innocence Project right? Every Law School in the State (and probably the country) has a student run "innocence project" to work on cases. North Carolina also has a full-time North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, which is actually probably the one you have seen in the news. They have gotten a few exonerations, and many that didn't work out that way.

But, without jumping into the debate on whether they have helped people or not, please note there are multiple ones.

Anonymous said...

The one that has been in the news in duke / durham non-wonderland is the one i am talkin bout.

Which one is that?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you post a link and we can all find out which one has been in the news. I live in NYC and for some reason the papers here don't cover NC news very well.

Anonymous said...

That's why you have to read the local news on the internet.

The News and Observer just ran an article on them during this blog disscusion. It was on the front page one day and then slipped to some obscure news category and I don't remember the exact headline ...

Read the news on the internet - that's what i do. If you saw a print copy of the N and O, you would probably notice that almost every page has adds luring people into duke research quinihood - many about mental health ... go figure ...

it's hard to watch

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"that comment has been explained enough already for any person with normal intelligence to understand lance"

No, it hasn't.

Anonymous said...

Lance you basically have to read all the local news on the internet which includes some purely political news sources, special interest, etc.

So if you read only the News and Observer, you miss some things. If you read only WRAL, you miss what ABC11 has to offer, and they sometimes offer more insight. News14 has an odd sense of humour about some things some times which makes them interesting. Then you have the strictly Durham / Duke news sources, etc.

You can see how that would be a lot of work to list all the links to all the articles that I have read to make me confident you would lose your bet - so i'm a bein fair and letting you know you would lose your bet up front, but if you must, i bet you can stop trolling if you wanted. If you want to bet against that ... blah.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Face it, Nyang'oro was only doing what he could to help UNC field high caliber and competitive sports teams."

In doing so, he was denying young people the education they were paying for. Paying with their talents, paying with their treasure. But, Nyang'oro was not teaching them.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Walt, I challenge you to state one lie that Mike Nifong allegedly made to the court, the prosecution or the media."

Sid you never fail to fail. Read the findings of the DHC or read all about Nifong's lies to the court in his contempt hearing.

Oh, that's another grand added to your account.

Walt-in-Durham

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

In other words, this is strictly your uninformed opinion, with no supporting evidence or any substantial basis in fact. Got it.

Moving on.

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

My previous post was a reply to anonymous@ 4:03..... Not to either of Walt's posts.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Mike Nifong, or any prosecutor is not under obligation to help prepare the defense attorney's case."

No, but prosecutors are under an obligation to refrain from prosecuting cases without probable cause. NC Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a) Further, the state in the person of the prosecutor is obliged to turn over exculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed. ___, (1963) See also State v. Stevens, 295 N.C. 21, 243 S.E.2d 828, (1978) where the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, as a matter of state law, the purpose of discovery in criminal cases is to protect the defendant from the consequences of unfair surprise and enable him to have available at trial any [emphasis mine] evidence which he could legitimately offer in his defense.

" The DNA referenced lab slip, which by the way was not exculpatory,..."

Actually it was exculpatory. Further, it could be legitimately offered by the defense to disprove identity. Identity of the assailant is a required element of the state's case in chief and legitimate for attack by the defendant. St. v. Stevens, supra.

"... was presented along with the rest of evidence during discovery for the defense team."

After Nifong lied about its existence months before to the court. That is he lied after he had his meeting with Dr. Meehan at DNASI and long before he turned it over to the defense.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Ah, but Sid, you repeatedly pointed to the fact that Meier asked about a chest tube as proof that he was incompetent and trying to throw Mangum under the bus. You didn't say "he must have seen records I didn't" - you said it was proof he was complicit and wrong.


From what documents I had there was no indication that a chest tube was inserted. Not only that, but Medical Examiner Clay Nichols denied that a chest tube was inserted.

Who do you believe... or what do you believe? In your opinion was a chest tube inserted?

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Face it, Nyang'oro was only doing what he could to help UNC field high caliber and competitive sports teams."

In doing so, he was denying young people the education they were paying for. Paying with their talents, paying with their treasure. But, Nyang'oro was not teaching them.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt. What you fail to take into account is that Mr. Nyang'oro had nothing to do with recruiting or admitting these student athletes to UNC. It's not his fault if some of them read at an elementary school level. The university bigwigs charged Nyang'oro with seeing that these students were academically qualified to compete. And that was what he was doing. It's not his fault if they don't receive the same quality education as someone who is admitted based upon his/her scholarly promise and accomplishments.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Mike Nifong, or any prosecutor is not under obligation to help prepare the defense attorney's case."

No, but prosecutors are under an obligation to refrain from prosecuting cases without probable cause. NC Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a) Further, the state in the person of the prosecutor is obliged to turn over exculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed. ___, (1963) See also State v. Stevens, 295 N.C. 21, 243 S.E.2d 828, (1978) where the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, as a matter of state law, the purpose of discovery in criminal cases is to protect the defendant from the consequences of unfair surprise and enable him to have available at trial any [emphasis mine] evidence which he could legitimately offer in his defense.

" The DNA referenced lab slip, which by the way was not exculpatory,..."

Actually it was exculpatory. Further, it could be legitimately offered by the defense to disprove identity. Identity of the assailant is a required element of the state's case in chief and legitimate for attack by the defendant. St. v. Stevens, supra.

"... was presented along with the rest of evidence during discovery for the defense team."

After Nifong lied about its existence months before to the court. That is he lied after he had his meeting with Dr. Meehan at DNASI and long before he turned it over to the defense.

Walt-in-Durham


Nifong had as much probable cause to bring charges in the Duke Lacrosse case as other victims of sexual assault have in other cases prosecuted. Keep in mind that the lacrosse student-athlete-partygoers had a reputation of hosting bacchanalias in the past, and that a third of them had had run-ins with the law, many related to alcohol... and the March 13, 2006 party was definitely alcoholic with under-aged drinking. Most importantly, Nifong had a witness/victim who made the complaint... a victim who was lured to the party under false pretenses. Was he supposed to ignore all of this? I don't think so.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Nifong had as much probable cause to bring charges in the Duke Lacrosse case as other victims of sexual assault have in other cases prosecuted."

When the SBI report came back with no match, Nifong was within his rights to seek the differential DNA match. However, when the differential DNA failed to match any of the potential defendants, Nifong's probable cause evaporated.

"Most importantly, Nifong had a witness/victim who made the complaint... a victim who was lured to the party under false pretenses. Was he supposed to ignore all of this? I don't think so."

Unfortunately, the willingness of the client to make a complaint does not relieve the prosecutor of his legal and ethical obligations to proceed only with cases supported by probable cause. So yes, once the DNASI report came back with no match, Nifong was obligated to dismiss. Not ignore, but to dismiss.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. What you fail to take into account is that Mr. Nyang'oro had nothing to do with recruiting or admitting these student athletes to UNC. It's not his fault if some of them read at an elementary school level."

Nyang'oro is not relieved of his obligation to teach. He "taught the no show classes. You keep making the mistake of thinking two wrongs make a right. They don't.

Walt-in-Durham

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Sid -- Nyang'Oro was chairman of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies. That department was responsible for certain classes that instructors did not teach, undocumented grade changes and faked faculty signatures on some grade reports.

That's a far cry from "doing what he could to help UNC field high caliber and competitive sports teams."

Anonymous said...

Kinda funny -- UNC cheats in hopes to someday have a university its sports teams can be proud of...

Anonymous said...

Oops -- Meant "UNC cheats in hopes to someday have a sports team its university can be proud of..."

But I think it works either way :)

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Nifong had as much probable cause to bring charges in the Duke Lacrosse case as other victims of sexual assault have in other cases prosecuted."

When the SBI report came back with no match, Nifong was within his rights to seek the differential DNA match. However, when the differential DNA failed to match any of the potential defendants, Nifong's probable cause evaporated.

"Most importantly, Nifong had a witness/victim who made the complaint... a victim who was lured to the party under false pretenses. Was he supposed to ignore all of this? I don't think so."

Unfortunately, the willingness of the client to make a complaint does not relieve the prosecutor of his legal and ethical obligations to proceed only with cases supported by probable cause. So yes, once the DNASI report came back with no match, Nifong was obligated to dismiss. Not ignore, but to dismiss.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, what you fail to realize or ignore, is that all sexual assaults do not leave DNA by the perpetrator(s). Failure to match DNA to a suspect in a sexual assault case doesn't exclude that individual.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. What you fail to take into account is that Mr. Nyang'oro had nothing to do with recruiting or admitting these student athletes to UNC. It's not his fault if some of them read at an elementary school level."

Nyang'oro is not relieved of his obligation to teach. He "taught the no show classes. You keep making the mistake of thinking two wrongs make a right. They don't.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, you obviously did not play college football or basketball... at least in the competitive environs of todays collegiate setting, where astronomically high bonuses and compensation is given to coaches with winning records. Student-athletes, especially football and basketball, spend an enormous amount of time devoted to the sports... with practices and reviewing films, and game preparation. As it is, they hardly have time enough to study... even those reading at college level.

The entire system needs to be trashed, beginning with the purging of the NCAA or anything that remotely resembles it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Oops -- Meant "UNC cheats in hopes to someday have a sports team its university can be proud of..."

But I think it works either way :)


UNC is no different than Duke or NC State... they all "cheat" or violate the ridiculous rules of the NCAA.

UNC had a self-inflicted wound when it made no efforts to retain P. J. Hairston... just for a couple of speeding tickets. (It's not like he was doing heroin, committed vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or sexually assaulted someone.)

If UNC had Hairston playing for them this season, they would be in the Sweet Sixteen, and might have even captured the ACC Championship.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"Walt, what you fail to realize or ignore, is that all sexual assaults do not leave DNA by the perpetrator(s). Failure to match DNA to a suspect in a sexual assault case doesn't exclude that individual."

What you fail to acknowledge is that Mangum claimed the perpetrators raped and sodomized her w/o condoms and that they ejaculated in, on and near her. That would leaves DNA.

When Mangum was tested she was indeed cum soaked, but not by any of the lacrosse players. That, Sid, no matter how you care to mischaracterize, is exculpatory evidence.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Walt, what you fail to realize or ignore, is that all sexual assaults do not leave DNA by the perpetrator(s). Failure to match DNA to a suspect in a sexual assault case doesn't exclude that individual."

In this case, it did. Nifong had two problems, an unreliable witness and an identification procedure that the DPD had hopelessly fouled up. Mangum had told too many stories, seen too many lineups and given descriptions that did not match any known suspects. Further, the DPD made the situation worse by violating their own General Order 4077 (which was the result of an agreement between the DA's office, the Durham County Sheriff, and the Superior Court Judges) in conducting their lineup.

A requirement in any criminal prosecution is to prove the identity of the defendants, beyond a reasonable doubt. Crystal's multiple stories, non-matching descriptions and failure to pick anyone from a lineup made it necessary to rely on scientific evidence to provide the identification. Under the agreement and under our case law, the last lineup was not admissable in court. Further, an in court identification by Crystal would not be permitted. The DNA was the only way to identify her alleged attackers.

In this case, the DNA evidence was no match when the SBI lab reported. The SBI lacked and still lacks the equipment to do differential DNA testing. So, Nifong went to DNASI a private lab for the test. DNASI reported to Nifong that it obtained no match. Given the lack of any reliable, let alone admissable identification testimony other than the DNA, that was exculpatory evidence and it had to be turned over to the defense.

It is worth remembering that Nifong went to his meeting with DNASI's lab director, Dr. Brian Meehan before he went to court when he was asked about DNA evidence. Further, it is worth remembering that Nifong himself said, before the DNA test results were back, that DNA would tell who was guilty and clear the innocent. Unfortunately for Nifong, he didn't pay attention to his own statements. When the DNA results were in from DNASI, any probable cause that might have existed vanished. Thus, under Rule 3.8(a) Nifong was obligated to dismiss the case. That he did not do and everything he did from that day when he got the DNASI results was a perversion of justice.

Oh, your account just went up another $1,000.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "The entire system needs to be trashed, beginning with the purging of the NCAA or anything that remotely resembles it."

Sid, I was not a football or basketball player in college, neither were you. I was a scholarship athlete though. While I do not disagree that the NCAA is exploitive and needs to be changed, that does not relieve Nyang'oro from his responsibility to teach and grade honestly.

Walt-in-Durham

guillermo owen said...

Sidney, I agree that driving 75 in a 65-mile zone is not much of an offense. However, from reading the article, Hairston was actually cited for going 93 miles per hour. The judge then allowed him to plead guilty to 65, thus avoiding a trial, etc. Now, 93 in a 65-mile zone sounds pretty bad.

guillermo owen said...

As for Nyang'oro, I'll be quite candid: I've been teaching for over 50 years, and I honestly cannot conceive of teaching a "no-show" class, and giving credit to the no-show students. I have no sympathy for anyone that does something like that.

Anonymous said...

If you actually pay attention to the articles - the reason UNC suspended PJ was the drug arrest, the overuse of rental cars (provided by a convicted felon), and the lack of judgment with the speeding. And, with all the stuff with the football team, they were worried about improper benefits, and when they originally interviewed him, he was not forthcoming with the extent of his relationship with this convicted felon, and how often he was using rental cars provided by this man.

UNC was worried about additional payments coming out, and NCAA sanctions. It had little to do with the speeding and the initial drug arrest, and a lot more to do with what it exposed related to possible improper benefits, which would cause problems for the school.

Anonymous said...

If you showed up to a no-show class would you fail?