justice4nifong: "Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

Sunday, May 25, 2014

"Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

439 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 439 Newer› Newest»

Tin-Foil Hat said...: You keep posting that ....

Blah blah blah

You hate criminal.; May 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Stop bullying me you evil troll.; May 31, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; May 31, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; May 31, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Tin-Foil hat said...: If blah blah blah is bullying you are the biggest bully on the blog ...; May 31, 2014 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Wrong-O! I was outta the loop when Mangum's fate was determined by a jury influenced by turncoat attorney Meier. Nothing but a travesty."

You are wrongo. Your actions when you were in the loop were responsible for what happened to Crystal.

"The truth is on the horizon,"

From SIDNEY the liar? Not likely.

"and it will shine light and free Mangum... Mark my words."

Like we marked your words that Crystal would never get convicted?; May 31, 2014 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You are trying to cover your ass.

You made a mess of Crystal's defense. Now you now blame Daniel Meier because he could not clean up the mess you made.

Your definition of a turncoat attorney is an attorney who told you to butt out from the case.; May 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: ' She had well over a year to figure a way to navigate around those statements and 'come up with a well thought story' that was consistent with the facts and evidence....... This is exactly what's wrong with the Justice System. Crystal was very naïve. She thought telling the truth would set her free."

The flaw in your argument is that Crystal has shown she has little regard for the truth. Her naivite came from her marking SIDHEY's words that she would never go to trial.

"The so called physical evidence was a series of interminable minutiae about positioning, direction, space and time; all this in a violent struggle, taking place in a small apartment, months before."

The evidence was collected soon after the crime. What was presented was not a collection of terminable minutiae. Crystal's story was inconsistent with the evidence.

"What difference does it possibly make. Coggins Franks was able to badger her about these inconsequential matters and then once she became confused label her a liar."

That's not how it happened.

"All the jury had to do was consider the question of who was the aggressor. They had two versions. No evidence conclusively and with absolute certainty showed which version was true and so the benefit of doubt should have favored the accused."

Wrong. Crystal alleged that Reginald Daye was the aggressor and she acted in self defense. It was her allegation to prove that. She didn't. What was not in doubt was that Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye and he died as a result of the stab wound.

"Isn't that is how the system is supposed to work[?]"

And Crystal did not prove she stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense. Ergo, when the prosecution presented conclusive proof that she stabbed him and he died from the stab wound, the prosecution made its case.

So far as questions about the autopsy or his treatment, neither you nor SIDNEY have the qualifications to understand what happened. Your collective lack of understanding does not establish reasonable doubt about anything.; May 31, 2014 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "The fact is, Mangum had no good excuse or justification for doing what she did"...... Is your bias ever showing."

No, yours is. Your bias that your favorite murderess should get a pass for her crime.

Having the door of a bathroom, where you are seeking refuge, kicked in and you being dragged out by the hair and being physically restrained by an angry jealous drunk (these admitted to)"

What was not established was that Reginald Daye was drunk and brutal. Also what was established was that Crystal had not been brutally beaten. SIDNEY's pictures and the ER records establish that Crystal had not been beaten as you and SIDNEY alleged.

"Then her claim of being choked; although not proven seems entirely possible in kind of scenario."

Since this scenario was not established as fact, her claim of being choked was not relevant unless she could prove she was. It was part of her claim of self defense which is an affirmative defense. In an affirmative defense, the defense is required to prove it. This is not a scenario in which the prosecution is obligated to disprove.

Once again you open your mouth and remove all doubt you are a fool.

You really should leave matters legal to those who are knowledgeable.; May 31, 2014 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"And Daye who claimed he could barely even remember the events and who was never able to be cross-examined had to be believed over Crystal, on the stand and under oath."

Reginald Daye had suffered a major penetrating trauma, had lost a lot of blood, had undergone major surgery and was immediately post op when he was interviewed. He never testified under oath because he died of the stab wound Crystal inflicted. Or hadn't you noticed that?

"His two post-operative interviews by Officer Bond were gentle and sympathetic with Inconsistencies never vigorously pursued;"

The only inconsistencies were these: SIDNEY alleged Mr. Daye had a history of being a drunken, habitual serial beater of women. Interviews with two women who had known Mr. Daye better than SIDNEY showed he was not.

"quite unlike the pit-bull cross- examination by Coggins-Franks of Crystal."

So you are saying that the prosecutor should have given her a pass for her crimes.

"The rebuttal by Meier was virtually non-existent. In this situation of he said she said there is reasonable doubt and that should accrue to the defence".

It was more than He said, She said. The prosecution had conclusive evidence of murder. Crystal presented no evidence of self defense(an affirmative defense which she was required to prove).

Actually, it was a case of she said, he's dead.; May 31, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Tin-Foil Hat said...: Some of the evil duke troll gang and particularly the retired doctor whose all caps key is stuck has gone totally batty and insane after 8 years of obssessive trolling about the lacrosse case - THAT is a major issue on this blog since they apparently find harrassing, slandering, bullying, committing hate crimes against Ms. Mangum and anyone they associate with her, and other random insane trolling on this blog something that is acceptable to them, regardless of what anyone says to them about it.; May 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM

You sound like KENHYDERAL trying to get someone from responding to his posts and showing what a fool he is.; May 31, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Tin-Foil Hat said...: Blah blah blah

You hate criminal.; May 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 31, 2014 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 31, 2014 at 5:35 PM

You still sound like KENHYDERAL desperately trying to stop someone from making him like a fool. Actually now you sound more like it.; May 31, 2014 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

If you testify in court you are subject to cross examination. If you lie during your testimony, or if your testimony conflicts with the evidence, an experienced attorney will jump on you like a pit bull. If you are caught in a lie, or if the jury finds parts of your testimony unbelievable, they are well within their rights to disregard your entire testimony. That is how it works.

Contrary to your beliefs, the jury was not required to believe everything Mangum (or anyone witness) said. It is in their purview to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying, and what weight to give to particular pieces of evidence or testimony. Mangum's testimony was exposed as untruthful, or at least unbelievable. She paid the price for it.

Mangum would have been much better off not testifying. Unfortunately, she probably got bad advice from a non-lawyer in that regard.; May 31, 2014 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: It seems that KEN-Malek-HYDER-Williams-AL has struck again.; May 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM
NOT Tin-Foil Hat said...: Sid and Kenny:

Why still ignore the following:

1. Sid is wrong when he says that Daye's prior charges were admissible;

2. Sid is wrong about the felony murder;

3. Kenny admits the charged Duke kids weren't rapists, will he publicly state they were INNOCENT of rape? (You can say they were guilty of something if you want, but I want to see you say that they are INNOCENT of the rape.)

4. Why can Crystal say something wrong and it's a "mistake" but if anyone else says something contradictory it's fraud?

5. Why did Crystal deny prior abuse by Daye both on Direct and Cross?

6. What advice did each of you give her about testifying and about self-defense?; May 31, 2014 at 6:14 PM
I want a Tin-Foil Hat said...: I do wonder if any of you have actually tried to ask any of the attorneys why they did what they did, or if you just disagreed and defamed them on the web, and then wondered why they ignore you?

I mean, they probably wouldn't say anything anyway, but it's comical that both Sidney and Kenny wonder why Meier won't respond to them when they've made it clear that nothing he says would matter - they consider him a turncoat and a traitor. Why should he respond?; May 31, 2014 at 6:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: I want to see you say that they are INNOCENT of the rape"............... I believe Collin Finnerty, who Crystal mistakenly identified in the flawed photo line-up, to be innocent of the crimes committed against her. These crimes include rape, sexual assault, kidnapping and theft.; May 31, 2014 at 9:09 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,

Don't worry, no onecares what you believe.; June 1, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, Kenny believes 1 is innocent - Dr. Harr, do you concur as it relates to Mr. Finnerty?; June 1, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Tin-Foil Hat said...: my evil duke troll shadow is BACK!

hey

repeat this: blah

....

blah

...

blah

,,,; June 1, 2014 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

It has been determined that no crimes were committed against Mangum. Nifong lost his job and his law license for his conduct in wrongfully prosecuting the case. Mangum was spared prosecution for her role in the hoax because of her mental illness. And the defendants recovered millions of dollars in damages. Those are the facts. Deal with them.; June 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Don't worry, no onecares what you believe".......Except, maybe, NTFH @ 6:14 5-31-14 who wanted to hear my "proclamation of innocence"; June 1, 2014 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: What does it matter what anyone thinks about the case? It is kinda like the question: what does anyone think about the 9-11 attacks? Seriously, what does it matter? Will anything make a difference what anyone thinks about either of those cases just as long as political goals are achieved by 'them' - what difference will it ever make what anyone else thinks, eh?

???

Why do you go on and on?
Are you trying to convice people of what exactly - that you're as obssessive today as yesterday and tomorrow? ok, got it; June 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" I believe Collin Finnerty, who Crystal mistakenly identified in the flawed photo line-up, to be innocent of the crimes committed against her."

You got it doubly wrong. First, she wrongfully identified three innocent men. Second, no crimes were committed against her.

"These crimes include rape, sexual assault, kidnapping and theft."

Your deliberate refusal to recognize the obvious truth does not establish that any crime occurred.

Provide factual credible evidence that any crime occurred.; June 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Guiowen said: "Don't worry, no onecares what you believe".......Except, maybe, NTFH @ 6:14 5-31-14 who wanted to hear my 'proclamation of innocence'".

And your deliberate refusal to recognize their actual innocence as a matter of fact is another iteration of you opening your mouth and removing all doubt that you are a fool.; June 1, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 1, 2014 at 5:10 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Regards, edt; June 1, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Provide factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped.; June 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Are you pretending to be the DA now? Isn't that a job for the justice system?; June 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: It certainly was a job for the justice system. If you recall, the system determined that Mangum wasn't raped. The same system removed Nifong from his job, stripped him of his license to practice law and sent him to jail for contempt for his actions in wrongly prosecuting the lacrosse defendants. It also awarded the lacrosse players and their former coach millions upon millions of dollars for the damage done to them by Mangum's false accusations.; June 1, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

"Are you pretending to be the DA now? Isn't that a job for the justice system?"

I am just pointing out that SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL, in playing the role of prosecutor are removing all doubt that they are fools.; June 1, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous asks: Are you pretending to be the DA now? Isn't that a job for the justice system?

No one is pretending to be the DA now. People are giving their opinions. That is the purpose of this blog.

Are you pretending to be a complete moron now?; June 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

You sound like KENHYDERAL posting anonymously because he can't stand the truth.

Looks like KENHYDERAL, walks like KENHYDERAL, posts like KENHYDERAL, etc.; June 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: what bs

duke gave them millions of dollars to shut up

how much do they give you to troll obssessively about the case on these blogs?; June 1, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Now you are just being silly.

What did Duke pay them to shut up about?

How much has Duke paid Sid to shut him up?; June 1, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah right

you don't even know what you are talking about as usual; June 1, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 1, 2014 at 10:55 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Regards, edt; June 1, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's the proof of why exactly duke paid them millions then? Is there only silence from anyone who really knows?; June 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Wrong-O! I was outta the loop when Mangum's fate was determined by a jury influenced by turncoat attorney Meier. Nothing but a travesty."

You are wrongo. Your actions when you were in the loop were responsible for what happened to Crystal.

"The truth is on the horizon,"

From SIDNEY the liar? Not likely.

"and it will shine light and free Mangum... Mark my words."

Like we marked your words that Crystal would never get convicted?

I must admit that I erred in believing that the legal system had at least a scintilla of integrity. Boy, was I wrong. The State's legal process just proceeded forward like gangbusters in a frenzy to convict Mangum. Yeah, it did catch me off guard, but the truth will prevail. Just be patient.; June 1, 2014 at 11:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

You are trying to cover your ass.

You made a mess of Crystal's defense. Now you now blame Daniel Meier because he could not clean up the mess you made.

Your definition of a turncoat attorney is an attorney who told you to butt out from the case.

I made a mess of Crystal's case...? Ya gotta be kiddin'!

I did my best to try and pound some sense into the heads of the vendetta driven prosecutors and other pushing the prosecution... but to no avail as the trial, remarkably with no merit, took place.

Meier is the one who represented Mangum and suppressed the report by Dr. Christena Roberts... the report that confirmed that the initial intubation of Daye was esophageal. Meier is the one whose cross-examination of Dr. Clay Nichols lasted about ten minutes. I was kicked to the curb by Mangum shortly after Scott Holmes took over, so my involvement in her defense under Meier was zilch. Nein?; June 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke paid the lacrosse players to shup up about Duke's top secret hover technology. It was this technology that enabled the lacrosse players to levitate Mangum in the bathroom.; June 1, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: I want a Tin-Foil Hat said...
I do wonder if any of you have actually tried to ask any of the attorneys why they did what they did, or if you just disagreed and defamed them on the web, and then wondered why they ignore you?

I mean, they probably wouldn't say anything anyway, but it's comical that both Sidney and Kenny wonder why Meier won't respond to them when they've made it clear that nothing he says would matter - they consider him a turncoat and a traitor. Why should he respond?

Hey, I want a tin hat. What makes you think that I want to communicate with Meier? I never tried to contact him, and I did give my contact info to Holmes... but all he wanted from me was to take everything about Crystal's case off the blog site and not communicate with the media. He didn't contact me to help go over the autopsy report.

Woody Vann is the only attorney that went over the medical part of the case with me... and as a result, he got a hold of Dr. Christena Roberts. Too bad he then went to extremes along with his successors in withholding the Roberts report from Mangum.; June 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Now you are just being silly.

What did Duke pay them to shut up about?

How much has Duke paid Sid to shut him up?

Duke has not paid me anything because they know that, like Elliot Ness, I can't be bought!; June 1, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I had hoped to post my next sharlog this weekend, but things have come up, and the production is taking longer than anticipated. It'll be well worth the wait, however, and cover part of the Mangum trial that has heretofore received little attention. Anyway, gotta run home now and start working on it. Hopefully it will be posted hopefully by this coming Hump Day.

As you were.; June 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You seriously underestimated the strength of the State's case, to your own and, more importantly, Mangum's detriment.

You also continue to misinterpret the significance and relevance of Dr. Roberts' report. The issue in the case was not whether Mr. Daye's intubation was esophageal. The issue was what caused Mr. Daye's death. Dr. Roberts' report agreed with the State's theory and the report of its expert in that regard.

Use of Dr. Roberts' report at trial may have been personally satisfying for you, but it would have been damaging to Mangum. That is why no competent attorney would use it. As hard as it may be for you to believe, this trial was not about you, or about Daye's intubation. It was about whether Mangum killed Mr. Daye.; June 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I must admit that I erred in believing that the legal system had at least a scintilla of integrity."

What you define as "a scintilla of integrity" is that the state would have given Crystal a pass for her crimes.

"Boy, was I wrong. The State's legal process just proceeded forward like gangbusters in a frenzy to convict Mangum."

Which is why it took the state more than two years to bring her to trial and allowed her to run through a number of attorneys who represented her.

"Yeah, it did catch me off guard,"

Not surprising that true justice takes you off guard, since you have no idea what it looks like.

"but the truth will prevail. Just be patient"

In which you admit that as well as true justice you can not recognize the truth. The truth has prevailed.; June 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I made a mess of Crystal's case...? Ya gotta be kiddin'!"

Another manifestation of how ineffectively you try to deny the truth.

"I did my best to try and pound some sense into the heads of the vendetta driven prosecutors and other pushing the prosecution..."

Which is a meaningless statement because there was no vendetta driven prosecutors or prosecution.

"but to no avail as the trial, remarkably with no merit, took place."

Another meaningless statement because it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against Crystal had merit. Your lack of comprehension of the truth does not establish any doubt at all, let alone reasonable doubt.

"Meier is the one who represented Mangum and suppressed the report by Dr. Christena Roberts... the report that confirmed that the initial intubation of Daye was esophageal."

Meier's reluctance to introduce an expert witness's report which supported Dr. Nichols opinion that Mr. Daye died as a result of Crystal's stab wound was bad representation?
Shirley you jest. You also show that with your minimal training and minimal experience after MD was appended to your name that you know nothing about medical matters.

"Meier is the one whose cross-examination of Dr. Clay Nichols lasted about ten minutes."

Which means only that he rapidly realized that he could not impeach it. It is over a year since the autopsy and you still can not realize that you can not impeach it. That shows only what a fool you are. I say again, your total medical incompetence does not establish reasonable doubt.

"I was kicked to the curb by Mangum shortly after Scott Holmes took over, so my involvement in her defense under Meier was zilch. Nein?"

Hölle Nein!!!! as to your trial involvement. You got involved in the trial long before Scott Holmes(as your multiple meaningless motions show beyond a doubt) and convinced Crystal that the case would never go to trial. You had already done irreprable damage to Crystal's case before Scott Holmes appropriately told you to butt out.; June 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, I want a tin hat. What makes you think that I want to communicate with Meier? I never tried to contact him,"

But you obviously wanted to do so, which would have been much more of a detriment to Crystal than your involvement already was.

:and I did give my contact info to Holmes... but all he wanted from me was to take everything about Crystal's case off the blog site and not communicate with the media."

Which would have been immensely helpful to Crystal had you done so.

"He didn't contact me to help go over the autopsy report."

Why would any competent attorney ask a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD degree, which person had zero expertise with regard to autopsies, ask that person to go over an autopsy report? If you expected Scott Holmes to ask you you are truly insane/

"Woody Vann is the only attorney that went over the medical part of the case with me... and as a result, he got a hold of Dr. Christena Roberts."

I find that impossible to believe. Woody Vann did that on his own initiative.

"Too bad he then went to extremes along with his successors in withholding the Roberts report from Mangum."

Which statement confirms that Scott Holmes was correct in not asking you to go over the autopsy report with you.; June 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Duke has not paid me anything because they know that, like Elliot Ness, I can't be bought!"

Absolute BULLSHIT!!!!

You tried to shake down Duke and they flat out refused kicked your butt out of court. Then, not realizing you know nothing about the law you went back to court and got your butt kicked out again.

Besides, even Duke would not pay a fool like you to stop posting the evidence that you are a fool.; June 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!"

SIDNEY again craves attention.

"I had hoped to post my next sharlog this weekend, but things have come up, and the production is taking longer than anticipated."

He has to revise the distortion he is composing. Most of the stuff he posts smells like decomposition.

"It'll be well worth the wait, however, and cover part of the Mangum trial that has heretofore received little attention."

Nothing you have ever posted has been worth anything but scorn. You are going to try to distort the record again. Your attempt to portray double felony murderer Shan Carter as acting in self defense should have taught you tjat.

"Anyway, gotta run home now and start working on it. Hopefully it will be posted hopefully by this coming Hump Day."

So you are trying to add to the distortion you have already posted.; June 1, 2014 at 12:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The issue was what caused Mr. Daye's death"........... Answer: Removal from life support notwithstanding, the cause of Daye's brain death was cerebral anoxia due to an endo-tracheal tube being wrongly inserted into his esophagus. The follow up question then, is what emerging condition necessitated the diagnostic use of contrast media; June 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'The issue was what caused Mr. Daye's death'........... Answer: Removal from life support notwithstanding, the cause of Daye's brain death was cerebral anoxia due to an endo-tracheal tube being wrongly inserted into his esophagus. The follow up question then, is what emerging condition necessitated the diagnostic use of contrast media"?

And the answer was, the condition which necessitated the workup for infection which resulted in the vomiting and aspiration was the stab wound inflicted by Crystal Mangum.

Your ignorance about matters medical does not establish reasonable doubt as to what caused Reginald Daye to die. The opinion of Dr, Nichols, supported by the opinion of the Defense expert witness, both of whom are knowledgeable than you or SIDNEY, is that Mr. Daye was killed by the stab wound inflicted by Crystal Mangum.

Once more you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are a fool.; June 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM
Still Not Wearing Tin Foil said...: I'm sure the attorneys aren't all that excited to talk to Sid either. His grand contribution that he thinks is significant is that the Defense (Woody Vann) consulted a medical expert. Except in incredibly limited circumstances, I can't imagine there is a murder trial where they don't. So, Bravo Sid, you pointed out the obvious.

And, the Defense did have medical experts, and access to Dr. Nichols pre-trial, and the Duke surgeons - all of whom they could talk to about the medical records, autopsy, and the rest, and find out how they'd respond if asked about DT's, or the esophageal intubation, or the rest, and realize it wouldn't be helpful.

It's odd that you and Kenny assume that since it wasn't asked in Court it wasn't asked. You so desperately wanted to put Duke on trial, and they weren't involved in the suit.

You claim Meier and the rest had a conflict, but you have yet to provide ANY proof of that (just like you won't admit your errors on so many things).

I can't imagine any attorney wanting to talk to you - you've made it clear that your positions aren't well thought out and defended, you say them, and refuse to acknowledge/defend them if you receive contradictory information. That's not a sign of intelligence, that's a major weakness.

You can't admit you are wrong, or might be, so you can't be at all helpful in preparing to defend your position from attacks, because saying "because I said so" isn't a defense.; June 1, 2014 at 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The autopsy reports and how they were handled is a concern for every citizen of NC. The conclusion Dr. Roberts stated in her autopsy reports was subject to cross-eamination, testimony questioning, and the interpretation of the law as stated by the preciding judge, or argued by the defense lawyers. The second autopsy report was crucial to this case and ethically and legally should have triggered investigation of Dr. Nichols' autopsy methods immediately.

Mr. Holmes bailed on Ms. Mangum, leaving her only two months to prepare for a trial with a new lawyer that the judge refused to delay in order to allow fair and equal representation, including preperation for the trial by the new lawyer. Was that Mr. Holmes' main intent all along, to string Ms. Mangum along while trying to gain trust from Dr. Harr that he would provide adequate legal defense for Ms. Mangum in an attempt to get her case off this blog? That is what he tried to do and succeeded only in wasting valuable defense preparation time in this case and destroying Ms. Mangum's trust in the lawyers even more, yet thoughts on the matter do still exist on this blog - about what he did.; June 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: The autopsy reports and how they were handled is a concern for every citizen of NC. The conclusion Dr. Roberts stated in her autopsy reports was subject to cross-eamination, testimony questioning, and the interpretation of the law as stated by the preciding judge, or argued by the defense lawyers.

Why do you assume Dr. Roberts would have been helpful to the defense? Remember, the prosecution would have cross-examined her, and their goal would be to strengthen her conclusions. The Defense would have had to put her on the stand and call her wrong, and attack their own witness, then the State could go in and cross-examine and bolster her claims.

Plus, you seem to assume the Defense didn't discuss all of this with Dr. Roberts, and didn't already know how she'd respond, and what she thought of the inconsistencies and the rest. Why assume that the Defense didn't already know what the doctor would have said? Just because they didn't tell you? Standard practice would have been to discuss all of this with the experts and witnesses before trial to know what they'd say, and how they'd defend their positions, and go from there. Why do you assume that wasn't done?

And, while the issues in the ME's office may concern all of NC, this trial only concerned Crystal and what was best for her, and putting Dr. Roberts on the stand would have been a disaster for Crystal.

Again, I realize Sid's goal all along has been LWOP which is why he's upset Dr. Roberts wasn't put on the stand, because he knows shed have been a disaster for Crystal. What's your excuse?; June 2, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: So you figure the defense should have called Roberts as a witness to testify that Mr. Daye died as a result of the stab would inflicted by Mangum so the prosecutor could ask her on cross examination if she was absoluteluy 100% certain that Mr. Daye died from stab wound inflicted by Mangum? That seems like a winning strategy.

It sounds like you and Harr went to the same law school.; June 2, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM

As I have been saying to KENHYDERAL, lack of knowledge of matters medical or legal on your part does not raise any doubt as to Crystal's guilt, reasonable or otherwise.; June 2, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY:
KENHYDERAL:

Provide factual, objective, credible evidence that Crystal was raped.; June 2, 2014 at 8:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 2, 2014 at 9:55 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It's odd that you and Kenny assume that since it wasn't asked in Court it wasn't asked"...... We all know Attorney Meier is registered on this forum and that he lurks here but has chosen to quit posting. I've encouraged him to come out one more time and tell us, honestly, if he in fact interviewed the Surgeons Dr.Zani and Dr. Pascarella or the Respiratory Technician Becker, who wrongly intubated him or the physician he called called in to deal with the created complication, Dr.Young.; June 2, 2014 at 9:55 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Provide factual, objective, credible evidence that Crystal was raped"............ DNA extracted from sperm was detected that was unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history; June 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: How do you know she didn't lie about her 'consensual sexual history"?; June 2, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: How exactly does the presence of DNA prove she was raped?

Mangum was a professional sex worker. Multiple DNA samples were extracted from in/near her orifices, none of which matched the defendants (or any lacrosse players, for that matter). To my knowledge, none of Mangum's customers/clients/partners were DNA tested for matches. Moreover, Mangum never alleged any other sexual assaults and never named named anyone else as an alleged assaulter.

All evidence continues to point to the fact that Mangum was not assaulted and that she fabricated the rape claim, which is exactly what the criminal justice system ultimately concluded.

Your, Sid's and Mangum's continued failure to acknowledge this simple fact weakens any claims you may have regarding the Daye case. Simply put, people who lie - and continue to lie even after being caught in the lie - are simply not to be believed in any matters.; June 2, 2014 at 10:19 AM
guiowen said...: Come on, Daniel Meier! Don't you realize Kenhyderal is a master debater? As such, he has a right to question you; you have an obligation to answer him. Stop lurking and stand up like a man!; June 2, 2014 at 10:41 AM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, Kenny, We'll soon have Meier on the ropes!; June 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"We all know Attorney Meier is registered on this forum and that he lurks here but has chosen to quit posting. I've encouraged him to come out one more time and tell us, honestly, if he in fact interviewed the Surgeons Dr.Zani and Dr. Pascarella or the Respiratory Technician Becker, who wrongly intubated him or the physician he called called in to deal with the created complication, Dr.Young."

The thing is, why would any competent medical professional want to discuss matters medical with people who use their lack of knowledge about matters medical as establishing that they committed malpractice.; June 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'Provide factual, objective, credible evidence that Crystal was raped'............ DNA extracted from sperm was detected that was unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history".

STRIKE ONE!!!!!

You have no way of establishing that said DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March.

STRIKE TWO!!!!!

Which means you can not establish that any one determined the extent of Crystal's consensual sexual history.

STRIKE THREE!!!!!

And the failure of the SBI crime lab to find markers for semen on the rape kit means semen WAS NOT deposited on the rape kit on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Your demonstrated lack of knowledge about matters medical or legal does not raise any kind of doubt about that.

YOU"RE OUT!!!!; June 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid:

You seriously underestimated the strength of the State's case, to your own and, more importantly, Mangum's detriment.

You also continue to misinterpret the significance and relevance of Dr. Roberts' report. The issue in the case was not whether Mr. Daye's intubation was esophageal. The issue was what caused Mr. Daye's death. Dr. Roberts' report agreed with the State's theory and the report of its expert in that regard.

Use of Dr. Roberts' report at trial may have been personally satisfying for you, but it would have been damaging to Mangum. That is why no competent attorney would use it. As hard as it may be for you to believe, this trial was not about you, or about Daye's intubation. It was about whether Mangum killed Mr. Daye.

The State's case against Mangum was nothing but a house of cards built on shifting sands covering a bottomless bog. In other words, the State had no case.

Dr. Roberts acknowledged that the autopsy report was unreliable, did not follow standard protocol, and she furthermore confirmed that the initial intubation was esophageal. She then lied to try and relieve Duke University Hospital staff of liability. Dr. Roberts knows as well as I that the proximate cause of Daye's death was the esophageal intubation and not the stab wound. She lied about the stab wound in order to justify the charge against Mangum. In other words, she's a co-conspirator. This should not be too difficult to understand.; June 2, 2014 at 11:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Duke has not paid me anything because they know that, like Elliot Ness, I can't be bought!"

Absolute BULLSHIT!!!!

You tried to shake down Duke and they flat out refused kicked your butt out of court. Then, not realizing you know nothing about the law you went back to court and got your butt kicked out again.

Besides, even Duke would not pay a fool like you to stop posting the evidence that you are a fool.

You got me confused with the Duke Lacrosse defendants who were successful in shaking down Duke University for $20 million each, but unsuccessful in shaking down Durham for $10 million each.

With regards to my case, I merely followed the Magistrate's request to see if a hearing could be avoided. So in good faith I presented conditions to achieve that.

Let's face it, I have been wronged by Duke University... whereas I fail to understand why Duke folded before the Duke Lacrosse defendants and shelled out $20 million each.; June 2, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The autopsy reports and how they were handled is a concern for every citizen of NC. The conclusion Dr. Roberts stated in her autopsy reports was subject to cross-eamination, testimony questioning, and the interpretation of the law as stated by the preciding judge, or argued by the defense lawyers. The second autopsy report was crucial to this case and ethically and legally should have triggered investigation of Dr. Nichols' autopsy methods immediately.

Mr. Holmes bailed on Ms. Mangum, leaving her only two months to prepare for a trial with a new lawyer that the judge refused to delay in order to allow fair and equal representation, including preperation for the trial by the new lawyer. Was that Mr. Holmes' main intent all along, to string Ms. Mangum along while trying to gain trust from Dr. Harr that he would provide adequate legal defense for Ms. Mangum in an attempt to get her case off this blog? That is what he tried to do and succeeded only in wasting valuable defense preparation time in this case and destroying Ms. Mangum's trust in the lawyers even more, yet thoughts on the matter do still exist on this blog - about what he did.

Always refreshing to hear from an enlightened and obviously intelligent commenter.; June 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
So you figure the defense should have called Roberts as a witness to testify that Mr. Daye died as a result of the stab would inflicted by Mangum so the prosecutor could ask her on cross examination if she was absoluteluy 100% certain that Mr. Daye died from stab wound inflicted by Mangum? That seems like a winning strategy.

It sounds like you and Harr went to the same law school.

So you're saying that the esophageal intubation which blocked oxygen flow to Daye's lungs, precipitated cardiac arrest, and resulted in brain death played absolutely no role in Daye's death?; June 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"So you're saying that the esophageal intubation which blocked oxygen flow to Daye's lungs, precipitated cardiac arrest, and resulted in brain death played absolutely no role in Daye's death?"

No, you dishonestly misrepresent the significance and relevance of Dr. Roberts report from a legal standpoint.

Drs. Nichols and Roberts each independently concluded that the cause of Mr. Daye's death was the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. The discrepancies noted by Dr. Roberts, while personally interesting to you, were not helpful to Mangum.

To put a second witness on the stand to testify that Mangum's wound ultimately killed Mr. Daye would have been devastating to Mangum. For a defense attorney to call a witness to give evidence against his client would be malpractice. But you are not a lawyer, seem to have no interest in learning about the law and, as has been noted, don't have to serve a day of Mangum's sentence for your legal hijinx and misadventures, so I don't expect you to know or care about such things.; June 2, 2014 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The State's case against Mangum was nothing but a house of cards built on shifting sands covering a bottomless bog. In other words, the State had no case."

SIDNEY, we have already marked these words of yours and your were marked F minus. You do not get a change of grade just because you repeat your error over and over.

"Dr. Roberts acknowledged that the autopsy report was unreliable, did not follow standard protocol, and she furthermore confirmed that the initial intubation was esophageal."

She concluded that the stab wound was the cause of death, meaning the esophageal intubation was not. And you, a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD appended to his name can raise doubt about the cause of Reginald Daye's death. As I told KENHYDERAL, your lack of expertise in matters medical raises no doubt at all as to the cause of Reginald Daye's death.

"She then lied to try and relieve Duke University Hospital staff of liability."

How can she do that when Duke incurred no liability at all. I repeat, your lack of expertise in matters medical does not raise any suspicion of liability on the part of Duke.

"Dr. Roberts knows as well as I that the proximate cause of Daye's death was the esophageal intubation and not the stab wound."

Dr. Roberts knows, much better than you that the stab wound WAS the cause of death. She is trained and experienced enough to be satisfactory to Crystal's defense to be an expert.e

"She lied about the stab wound in order to justify the charge against Mangum. In other words, she's a co-conspirator. This should not be too difficult to understand."

She did not lie. The only person in this mentioned in this screed who does not understand things medical and legal is you. I say a third time, you lack of knowledge does not raise any questions about Reginald Daye's death or the result of Dr. Nichols' autopsy.

How upset you are that your favorite murderess, like your favorite murderer Shan Carter, did not get a pass for her crimes.; June 2, 2014 at 1:02 PM
I Can Be Whoever I Want said...: We all know Attorney Meier is registered on this forum and that he lurks here but has chosen to quit posting. I've encouraged him to come out one more time and tell us, honestly, if he in fact interviewed the Surgeons Dr.Zani and Dr. Pascarella or the Respiratory Technician Becker, who wrongly intubated him or the physician he called called in to deal with the created complication, Dr.Young.

What do you mean he's "registered" on this site? It's not a site that requires registration. Yes, someone using that name has posted on here, and it may well have been him - but as the recent posts about Tin-Foil Hats, and even this one show, it's incredibly easy to fake names on this site.

And, why would he respond? If it doesn't help Crystal, what's the point? You've made it clear you wouldn't believe him anyway, so has Sid.

If you want answers, ask him - don't pretend it's suspicious that he's ignoring blog posts he may not even see, especially since it's been months since the posts purporting to be from him were even posted.; June 2, 2014 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You got me confused with the Duke Lacrosse defendants who were successful in shaking down Duke University for $20 million each, but unsuccessful in shaking down Durham for $10 million each."

You said once in your blog that if anyone deserved $20 million from Duke it was you. That revealed that your motivation for filing your frivolous lawsuit was to shake Duke down the way you, erroneously, believed the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players did.

"With regards to my case, I merely followed the Magistrate's request to see if a hearing could be avoided. So in good faith I presented conditions to achieve that."

No, you tried to shake down Duke, because of your delusion that the Innocent, falsely accused, wrongfully prosecuted Lacrosse players did.

"Let's face it, I have been wronged by Duke University..."

You face it. You were not. Your own evidence which you have posted shows you were not.

"whereas I fail to understand why Duke folded before the Duke Lacrosse defendants and shelled out $20 million each."

First there is not credible factual proof that Duke paid out $20 million to each innocent, falsely accused, wrongfully prosecuted Lacrosse player. Why they settled is obvious to any one who understands the legal system(which group does not include you): they could not defend a lawsuit in open court.

I say yet again, your obvious lack of understanding of the legal system dose not establish any of your screeds as truth. It only establishes you are a fool.; June 2, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Always refreshing to hear from an enlightened and obviously intelligent commenter."

In this case you show you do not know "an enlightened and obviously intelligent commenter" from your posterior.

Which must be why you have such a crappy outlook on the truth.; June 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So you're saying that the esophageal intubation which blocked oxygen flow to Daye's lungs, precipitated cardiac arrest, and resulted in brain death played absolutely no role in Daye's death?"

You again show you believe your obvious lack of knowledge of matters medical or legal raises doubt as to the cause of Reginald Daye's death. It did not. The necessity for intubation and therefore the risk of complications of intubation were consequences of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal Mangum.; June 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

This is from your post of May 30, 2014 at 9:26 PM:

"All the jury had to do was consider the question of who was the aggressor. They had two versions. No evidence conclusively and with absolute certainty showed which version was true and so the BENEFIT OF DOUBT SHOULD HAVE FAVORED THE ACCUSED(emphasis added)".

With regard to the failure to detect semen markers on the rape kit, your position is, that does not preclude the possibility that a rape did not happen.

If that were true(it was not) it would mean doubt on both sides. You obviously do not believe that should have favored the defendants, the falsely accused members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Can we say hypocrisy, boys and girls.

Can we say racist, boys and girls. The Duke defendants are Caucasians so they should not have been given benefit of the doubt. Crystal is black so she should get the benefit of the doubt.; June 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If you want answers, ask him"....... I don't need to because I know he did not. I was only trying to convince those here who claim he probably did like SNWTW @ 4:04 6-1-14; June 2, 2014 at 2:34 PM
Kenny's an Idiot said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "If you want answers, ask him"....... I don't need to because I know he did not. I was only trying to convince those here who claim he probably did like SNWTW @ 4:04 6-1-14

You know that he did not because you've asked him? It's amazing what you know without asking, and what you assume without proof. No wonder no one listens to you, or believes you.; June 2, 2014 at 2:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous(most likely the race obsessed Dr. Anonymous) said: "You obviously do not believe that should have favored the defendants".......... True, but regardless of my belief it did. Can we say double standard boys and girls. The "saintly" Duke Lacrosse boys verses "the" Crystal Mangum; June 2, 2014 at 2:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: KAI said: " It's amazing what you know without asking"........... Let's get it from "the horse's mouth, then"; June 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM
What's in a Name? said...: Kenny ...

You claim to KNOW he didn't talk to any of those people - so what possible reason would he have to respond to you in any way? If he says he did, you'd say he was lying, so what's the point?

And, if, as you've said before, your source is Crystal, who says he didn't talk to them, he'd come out and publicly call his client a liar.

Again, because unlike Sid he isn't out to damage her case, why would he do that?; June 2, 2014 at 2:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "STRIKE ONE"....... Mar.13/14 is in the time frame for the disposition of DNA found. Anonymous said: "STRIKE TWO"......It was provided but it was not checked. Anonymous said: "STRIKE THREE"....... The AP test for semen is not definitive.; June 2, 2014 at 2:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " so what possible reason would he have to respond to you in any way? If he says he did, you'd say he was lying, so what's the point".......... I don't think he would lie about something like this as it would be too easy to expose it.; June 2, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'Anonymous(most likely the race obsessed Dr. Anonymous) said: "You obviously do not believe that should have favored the defendants'..........True, but regardless of my belief it did."

And you are still grousing about that, insisting that your doubt about their innocence establishes them as criminals.

"Can we say double standard boys and girls. The 'saintly' Duke Lacrosse boys verses 'the' Crystal Mangum".

You certainly have a double standard. No one ever described the Lacrosse players as "saintly". Supporters of the Lacrosse team acknowledge they were no choir boys. You and a few people believe they are criminals and sociopaths even though they have been proven not to be. "The" Crystal Mangum did have a criminal history years before she falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her. She only added to it after the Lacrosse hoax self destructed. And you and your fellow believers say, contrary to the evidence, Crystal is the saintly one, even if you have not called her that.; June 2, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "STRIKE ONE"....... Mar.13/14 is in the time frame for the disposition of DNA found. Anonymous said: "STRIKE TWO"......It was provided but it was not checked. Anonymous said: "STRIKE THREE"....... The AP test for semen is not definitive."

In this case it was.

Your next at bat starts with STRIKE ONE!!!!!; June 2, 2014 at 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "STRIKE ONE"....... Mar.13/14 is in the time frame for the disposition of DNA found. Anonymous said: "STRIKE TWO"......It was provided but it was not checked. Anonymous said: "STRIKE THREE"....... The AP test for semen is not definitive."

Another manifestation of your hypocrisy and racism.

If this were true(and in this case it was not) it still did not establish that a rape had occurred. Doubt on both sides, to borrow your concept. But you believe the doubt should have favored the prosecution.

It still does not change the fact that you can not provide objective, credible evidence that a rape happened but you still want the innocent Lacrosse players presumed guilty.; June 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'so what possible reason would he have to respond to you in any way? If he says he did, you'd say he was lying, so what's the point'.......... I don't think he would lie about something like this as it would be too easy to expose it."

When he told you something that showed Crystal was guilty you would say he was lying.

You are saying the Lacrosse players were involved in a mass, multi-person lie even though you can not provide any objective, factual, credible evidence that they were lying.

And the failure to find semen markers on the rape kit did definitively rule out that a rape had taken place.; June 2, 2014 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Mr. Jarriel L. Johnson, 32, described to police how he drove Mangum around the Raleigh-Durham area shortly before the frat-house party. He recalled that Ms. Mangum met with “clients” at three hotels. Crystal Gail Mangum “told police that she performed for a man and a woman at a hotel using a small vibrator.” (N.Y.Times, 6/12/06, pg."

This is further evidence which casts doubt that the DNA found on Crystal was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. She engaged in multiple sexual contacts before she ever got to the party. Of course you believe that meeting three people in one night is not consistent with prostitution.; June 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM
I'm Not Kenny said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " so what possible reason would he have to respond to you in any way? If he says he did, you'd say he was lying, so what's the point".......... I don't think he would lie about something like this as it would be too easy to expose it.

Yet you think Dr. Roberts would lie, even though Sid could expose her? And Dr. Nichols would lie, and everyone else would lie? If Meier is part of the conspiracy, he'd lie. If he isn't part of the conspiracy, and told the truth, you'd still say he lied.

So, what's the possible point of him responding to you? You aren't his client, and he doesn't owe you any kind of explanation.; June 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "But you believe the doubt should have favored the prosecution"...... In this case, yes, for the sake of justice, but that's only my opinion; June 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Even assuming doubt exists in the Mangum fake rape case, in what third world country does doubt favor the prosecution in a criminal case? Why would anyone advocate changing the Anglo-American system of justice just to ruin three demonstrably innocent people's lives?; June 2, 2014 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://caribbean.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0043-31442010000300010

"The likelihood of finding seminal acid phosphatase in the vaginal cavity markedly decreases with time following intercourse, with little chance of identifying this substance 48 HOURS(emphasis added) after intercourse"

Crystal's rape kit was taken a lot less than 48 hours, probably less than 3-4 hours after the alleged rape allegedly happened; June 2, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "But you believe the doubt should have favored the prosecution"...... In this case, yes, for the sake of justice, but that's only my opinion".

Which is an admission on your part that you can produce no objective, credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped. For no reason you are conducting a vendetta against innocent men.; June 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: INK said: " Yet you think Dr. Roberts would lie, even though Sid could expose her".......... Dr. Roberts at no time said Dr. Harr was wrong. She couched her language in such a way as not to embarrass Dr. Nicholls and to suggest a possible explanation for the wrongful insertion of the endotracheal tube into the esophagus, mitigating but not excusing the fatal error. She gave an opinion that the cause of death was related to treatment of complications to the successfully treated wound but never specified what those complications may have been.; June 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I find it strange that duke won't give a student a degree they earned due to things they term character flaws, but they will give a duke doctor another patient to intubate after the doc just killed a patient with the procedure. Or was the doctor who performed the deadly intubation fired and held accountable?; June 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Crystal's rape kit was taken a lot less than 48 hours, probably less than 3-4 hours after the alleged rape allegedly happened" ... It was nine plus hours. The 48 hour period is the outer limit and even after 1 hour the test is not definitive.; June 2, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskydress.html

"In late July, 1998, Lewinsky turned the dress over to Kenneth Starr's investigators after signing an immunity agreement. A blood sample was taken from Clinton on August 3, and on August 17, the FBI reported its conclusion that Clinton was the source of the semen on the dress "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

In other words, years after the contact between Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, it was possible to identify his semen on her clothes. The contact happened in 1995.; June 2, 2014 at 4:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Why would anyone advocate changing the Anglo-American system of justice"....... Not I. I believe that the benefit of the doubt should go to an accused but that did not happen in the Daye case.; June 2, 2014 at 4:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "In other words, years after the contact between Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, it was possible to identify his semen on her clothes. The contact happened in 1995"............... Semen on a dress is not flushed away Semen is a physiologic secretion and is easily flushed away, in vivo, by vaginal secretions; June 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6889824

"Acid phosphatase values greater than 50, especially those greater than 138 Sigma units/cc, correlated with intercourse within the preceding 24 hours (P .005). Values greater than 20 but less than 50 correlated with intercourse within 48 hours (P .005)."; June 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "In other words, years after the contact between Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, it was possible to identify his semen on her clothes. The contact happened in 1995"............... Semen on a dress is not flushed away Semen is a physiologic secretion and is easily flushed away, in vivo, by vaginal secretions".

However, even if the rape kit was taken 9 hours after the alleged crime allegedly happened, and the evidence as preserved, if it tested negative for acid phosphatase it was evidence that semen was not deposited.; June 2, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Why would anyone advocate changing the Anglo-American system of justice"....... Not I. I believe that the benefit of the doubt should go to an accused but that did not happen in the Daye case."

Except there was no doubt. The prosecution proved that Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye and that Reginald Daye died of the stab wound(your lack of medical expertise does not establish doubt as to that fact).

Meanwhile, arguing self defense does not in and of itself raise doubt. It is what is called an affirmative defense, and when a defendant pleads an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to prove it(which might explain why DA NIFONG did not want to see Reade Seligman's alibi because Reade could prove his alibi beyond all doubt and that would have obligated NIFONG to drop him as a defendant). Crystal was on the stand. She did not prove self defense. Ergo, she did not establish doubt.

Check with a lawyer if you question this.; June 2, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Roberts at no time said Dr. Harr was wrong."

She did not have to. It was self evident that SIDNEY was wrong. It was also self evident that SIDNEY did not have the professional credentials to establish doubt about the autopsy report.

"She couched her language in such a way as not to embarrass Dr. Nicholls"

That is assuming a fact not in evidence.

"and to suggest a possible explanation for the wrongful insertion of the endotracheal tube into the esophagus, mitigating but not excusing the fatal error."

It did not rise to the level of malpractice. Even if it were malpractice, considering the events happened as a result of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, it would not eliminate Crystal's criminal liability in the case. This is again of you presuming that your ignorance in matters medical and legal establishes doubt. It establishes only, without a doubt, you are a fool.

"She gave an opinion that the cause of death was related to treatment of complications to the successfully treated wound but never specified what those complications may have been."

The occurrence of complications says rather clearly that the injury had not been successfully treated. The complications were detailed in the medical record, which neither you nor SIDNEY were qualified to comment meaningfully upon.; June 2, 2014 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjcfm/article/S1353-1131(02)00158-X/fulltext#section8

"Our study showed that the acid phosphatase test has good sensitivity and specificity, and above all that it has a negative predictive value of 98%. It is thus valuable as a screening test and not as a confirmatory test. Study of samples which were acid phosphatase-positive but negative on cytology showed that the men had azoospermia or oligospermia, raising the question as to whether the acid phosphatase test is not more sensitive than cytology in such cases.

On the other hand, acid phosphatase detection and measurement techniques are hampered by the limited duration of enzyme activity. In our study, the longest timespan after which detection was possible was 106h between intercourse and sampling".

9 hours is a lot less than 106 hours.; June 2, 2014 at 5:08 PM
Curious said...: Dr. Roberts at no time said Dr. Harr was wrong. She couched her language in such a way as not to embarrass Dr. Nicholls and to suggest a possible explanation for the wrongful insertion of the endotracheal tube into the esophagus, mitigating but not excusing the fatal error. She gave an opinion that the cause of death was related to treatment of complications to the successfully treated wound but never specified what those complications may have been.

You claim to KNOW the Defense attorneys never talked to the other doctors - do you also KNOW that they never talked to Dr. Roberts and figured out that what she would have said would have been harmful to Crystal? Or did they just take her written report at face value and never talk to her about it?

You are the font of all knowledge ... fill us in.; June 2, 2014 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Guess there will just have to be another trial to find out all that info, eh - since the first trial tried to cover all those facts up, and succeeded in doing so to obtain an unjust convinction.

How long does an appeal typically take to conclude and send a case back to trial - especially if the person is already incarcerated and their safety is in jeoporady as documented by lack of adequate medical care in the prison?; June 2, 2014 at 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Why do all the civil rights activists organizations seem to be lacking in lawyers to assist citizen civil rights issues? What are the civil rights afforded to patients in regards to receiving health care free from retailiation, threat of harm, hazardous or hostile environments, and medical and/or professional malpractice?

Is there a certain organization that supports patients rights to adequate health services free from harm in this state or any state? Or are those matters left to each individual harmed, and therefore, in the case of systems like the medical services received in prisons or institutions like duke, the harm is allowed to continue even if complaints are made (or not) by individuals?; June 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

How do you explain that the physical exam done on Crystal by Dr. Julie Manly did not find any evidence of a severe beating? The only external injuries noted were some old, non bleeding scratches. There were no injuries to the genital or rectal areas. That, even without the definitive forensic evidence, indicated her allegations were a lie.; June 2, 2014 at 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: It is not up to him to explain any of that - you are seriously obssessed about that case - and never stop talking about it when you run out of other things to troll about like tin foil hats, and breakin' rocks and such. Why is that? Maybe that case needs to have a 'real' trial too - would that shut you up? Why don't you go appeal it on the grounds that all your rude questions were'nt answered sufficiently?; June 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The occurrence of complications says rather clearly that the injury had not been successfully treated"....The surgeons expected Daye to make a full recovery. They considered the injury to have been successfully treated. What was not successful, but should have been, was an endotracheal intubation. The Court should have heard from the surgeons. I'm sure they would dispute that their treatment was unsuccessful. No evidence of peritonitis or soft tissue infection was ever shown nor was it found on autopsy.; June 2, 2014 at 8:55 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous quoted this study: " http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjcfm/article/S1353-1131(02)00158-X/fulltext#section8"................... If the reader would check it out they will see that this study is not about semen detection. It is about the detection of sperm. In the case of Crystal the AP test was negative for semen but of course sperm was found and it's from the sperm that DNA was extracted. Semen can be washed away quickly and certainly after a few hours. Sperm on the other hand remains. It is axiomatic, though, that if sperm is detected there must have been semen the vehicle for sperm. Remember Dr. Manly saw what she assumed to be semen but did not confirm it. She later conceded that if it was not sperm then another possibility could have been an exudate from a candida infection; June 2, 2014 at 9:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Check with a lawyer if you question this"...... An affirmative defence of self defence would be that Daye dragged her by the hair. This he admitted to; June 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The surgeons expected Daye to make a full recovery. They considered the injury to have been successfully treated."

Speaking from experience, unless it is an extremely dire emergency, all surgeons expect their patients to make a full recovery. I say again, your total lack of knowledge in matters medical does not raise doubt as to the cause of Reginald Daye's death.

"What was not successful, but should have been, was an endotracheal intubation."

Here you show how incredibly stupid and uninformed you are. You have never tried to intubate anyone. When a person vomits and the vomitus is aspirated. one must, I say again must intubate. And when the upper airway is blocked by vomitus. that is not easy to perform. That the intubation was exophageal in this case does not rise to the level of malpractice. Even if it had, it would not have relieved Crystal of criminal liability for Mr. Daye's death, as Walt and A Lawyer have explained to you. However, no one can enlighten a fool who chooses to be ignorant.

"The Court should have heard from the surgeons. I'm sure they would dispute that their treatment was unsuccessful."

What they would dispute was your and SIDNEY's allegations that their treatment amounted to malpractice. Since the patient did die from complications of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, the treatment was obviously not successful.

"No evidence of peritonitis or soft tissue infection was ever shown nor was it found on autopsy." Reginald Daye was having symptoms consistent with an intraperitoneal infection. To have assumed that his symptoms were due to DTs in the face of treatment for DTx not working would have been malpractice. They were obligated to work him up for an intra-abdominal infection. That you are incapable of seeing that is irrelevant. He aspirated because of the workup. The workup was necessitated by the stab wound inflicted by Crystal.

So once again you have opened your totally ignorant mouth and have removed all doubt that you are a fool.; June 3, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Kenny is still and idiot said...: Kenny, you just love to ignore the issues that don't support your theories. Every argument you claim about self-defense was made to the jury. There was no doubt that Daye and Crystal fought, that he detained her, and that when she tried to hide in the bathroom (Daye believed to call for help), rather than let her leave, after she retreated from whatever fight there was, he then became the aggressor, kicked in the door, and drug her out by the hair. The entire self-defense issue was based on what happened next:

Did he then start choking her and was he on too of her when she grabbed a knife and stabbed him (her story); or

Did he drag her into the hall and let her go, and turn to leave - and rather than leave, she ran into the kitchen, got a knife, and went back after him (his story).

What happened after the stabbing is also undisputed - after a single stab wound to the side, he went to his Nephew's place and the nephew called 911, she went to a friend's place and called 911 after a fee other calls first.

Even if Daye were the aggressor, if he ended the fighting (let her go), she lost the right to self-defense.

All of your points were argued, the jury just disagreed (which they are allowed to do). But it all comes down to whether you believe Crystal or Daye about whether he was choking her, or had let her go. And the Walker testimony was bad for her because in that case she ran into another room to get a knife and came back at him.

Daye was absolutely the aggressor at various parts in the fight. The question is whether he had ceased to be, and the jury felt he had.; June 3, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny at least acknowledges that regardless of the cause of death, self-defense was the only NG possibility in the case - Sid still is happy to have Crystal be a convicted felon - saying she wasn't justified in the stabbing.

For some reason did thinks that the State should have dropped all charges on the basis of his medical analysis, but he still ignores the stabbing itself. If that wasn't justified, Crystal is still a convicted felon.

Again, Sid is just mad that Crystal didn't get LWOP - he wanted a martyr.; June 3, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous quoted this study: " http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjcfm/article/S1353-1131(02)00158-X/fulltext#section8"..................If the reader would check it out they will see that this study is not about semen detection. It is about the detection of sperm."

My quote from that article:

Our study showed that the acid phosphatase test has good sensitivity and specificity, and above all that it has a negative predictive value of 98%. It is thus valuable as a screening test and not as a confirmatory test. Study of samples which were acid phosphatase-positive but negative on cytology showed that the men had azoospermia or oligospermia, raising the question as to whether the acid phosphatase test is not more sensitive than cytology in such cases.

On the other hand, acid phosphatase detection and measurement techniques are hampered by the limited duration of enzyme activity. In our study, the longest timespan after which detection was possible was 106h between intercourse and sampling".

It was about detection of semen via Acid Phosphatase. Your lack of reading comprehension, probably a consequence of your vendetta against the innocent Lacrosse players, does not nullify that.

"In the case of Crystal the AP test was negative for semen but of course sperm was found and it's from the sperm that DNA was extracted."

STRIKE TWO of your second at bat. You can not say that unless you can document that the sperm was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. The negative test for Acid Phosphatase DOES definitively rule that out.

"Semen can be washed away quickly and certainly after a few hours. Sperm on the other hand remains."

Not according to the articles I cited. It is possible to detect the presence of semen post coitus as long as 48 hours out.

"It is axiomatic, though, that if sperm is detected there must have been semen the vehicle for sperm."

Except that sperm were not detected. What was detected was DNA from sperm. And you can not establish that the sperm which was the source of that DNA were deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

STRIKE THREE of your second time at bat.

"Remember Dr. Manly saw what she assumed to be semen but did not confirm it. She later conceded that if it was not sperm then another possibility could have been an exudate from a candida infection".

Which again says you can not establish that sperm was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

STRIKE 4

You have whiffed royally on this time at bat.; June 3, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Check with a lawyer if you question this"...... An affirmative defence of self defence would be that Daye dragged her by the hair. This he admitted to"

No it wasn't.

Evidence against self defense is that Crystal showed no signs of being assaulted.

Further evidence was that her account of what happened was not credible.

The standard Crystal was required to meet was a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence was that she was not acting in self defense.

You can not just choose that evidence which supports the claim is the only valid evidence.

Ergo, you again show that you believe that your ignorance in matters legal raises doubt. It only removes all doubt that you are a fool.; June 3, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM

"It is not up to him to explain any of that(why Crystal had no physical evidence of a violent brutal rape)"

KENHYDERAL is alleging that Crystal was the victim of a violent brutal rape. Therefore it is incumbent upon him to explain why the physical exam showed no evidence of that. If KENNY were to say you were a serial violent child rapist, would you say he does not have to explain it. I think not.

"you are seriously obssessed about that case - and never stop talking about it"

Maybe you should ask KENNY why he insists that Crystal was raped when he can not come up with any factual, credible evidence that she was, when all the evidence showed she was not.

"when you run out of other things to troll about like tin foil hats, and breakin' rocks and such. Why is that? Maybe that case needs to have a 'real' trial too - would that shut you up? Why don't you go appeal it on the grounds that all your rude questions were'nt answered sufficiently?"

You are awfully p---ed off that no one takes you seriously, aren't you? Maybe you could see a therapist who can help you with your self esteem problems.; June 3, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM

I add, as long as KENHYDERAL keeps showing what a fool he is, I will never run out of items about which to comment.; June 3, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM

You again raise the suspicion that you are actually KENHYDERAL posting anonymously to create the impression that he has support on this blog.

Sounds like KENHYDERAL, posts like KENHYDERAL, quacks like KENHYDERAL.....; June 3, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Curious said...
Dr. Roberts at no time said Dr. Harr was wrong. She couched her language in such a way as not to embarrass Dr. Nicholls and to suggest a possible explanation for the wrongful insertion of the endotracheal tube into the esophagus, mitigating but not excusing the fatal error. She gave an opinion that the cause of death was related to treatment of complications to the successfully treated wound but never specified what those complications may have been.

You claim to KNOW the Defense attorneys never talked to the other doctors - do you also KNOW that they never talked to Dr. Roberts and figured out that what she would have said would have been harmful to Crystal? Or did they just take her written report at face value and never talk to her about it?

You are the font of all knowledge ... fill us in.

You are absolutely correct about Roberts trying to do her best to protect Nichols, and yet not outright lie. As you noted she was vague in her conclusion, like Nichols, and never explained what complication from the stab wound caused Daye's brain death.

To my knowledge Meier, Mangum's attorney, never spoke with any physician or forensic pathologist. I'm not aware that he talked to Dr. Roberts. It's as if Meier completely disregarded the medical issues. Blatant malpractice in my book.; June 3, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Why do all the civil rights activists organizations seem to be lacking in lawyers to assist citizen civil rights issues? What are the civil rights afforded to patients in regards to receiving health care free from retailiation, threat of harm, hazardous or hostile environments, and medical and/or professional malpractice?

Is there a certain organization that supports patients rights to adequate health services free from harm in this state or any state? Or are those matters left to each individual harmed, and therefore, in the case of systems like the medical services received in prisons or institutions like duke, the harm is allowed to continue even if complaints are made (or not) by individuals?

I have contacted just about every civil rights organization I've heard of, but they all refuse to get involved in Crystal's case. I believe the reason is that the issue is too political and because these organizations seem to think that the bad reputation given to Mangum by the press and media will somehow adversely affect them.

If you're talking about Mangum's near-death health care experience at the Raleigh prison infirmary, I would say that the medical staff there didn't take Mangum's complaint seriously at the beginning. The hospital's staff that treated her bowel obstruction I think, did pretty well.; June 3, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Curious said...: To my knowledge Meier, Mangum's attorney, never spoke with any physician or forensic pathologist. I'm not aware that he talked to Dr. Roberts. It's as if Meier completely disregarded the medical issues. Blatant malpractice in my book.

If he had never talked to Dr. Roberts, how would he have known what her report was going to say to try to advise Crystal to not have it prepared? You love to make serious accusations with zero evidence to back them up.

It's odd - first you accuse him of using his medical background to work with the doctors, and Nichols, and Dr. Roberts to conceal the "truth" - now you accuse him of not even talking with any of them. Is he part of the conspiracy or not? Or you just pulling this out of your ass?

At least Kenny still believes in you.; June 3, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: I have contacted just about every civil rights organization I've heard of, but they all refuse to get involved in Crystal's case. I believe the reason is that the issue is too political and because these organizations seem to think that the bad reputation given to Mangum by the press and media will somehow adversely affect them.

Or they realize you are a nutcase who had done a lot of harm to Mangum, and aren't remotely intellectually honest (still won't admit where you are wrong), so can't be trusted or taken seriously.

So, either that, or you are right and it's a vast conspiracy.; June 3, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You are absolutely correct about Roberts trying to do her best to protect Nichols, and yet not outright lie."

And you are dead wrong since there was nothing from which Dr. Nichols needed to be protected. Except maybe your malicious attempts to make out his autopsy report to be fraudulent. That is why you say that about Dr. Roberts because she did buy into your maliciousness.

"As you noted she was vague in her conclusion, like Nichols, and never explained what complication from the stab wound caused Daye's brain death."

She wasn't vague. The vagueness was from you, form your total lack of credentials to comment on any medical issue.

To my knowledge Meier, Mangum's attorney, never spoke with any physician or forensic pathologist. I'm not aware that he talked to Dr. Roberts. It's as if Meier completely disregarded the medical issues."

Since Mr. Meier, by your own admission, never talked to you, you have not basis to make that comment. Your lack of knowledge means nothing.

"Blatant malpractice in my book."

And that is a book of contrived fairy tales in which you wish the evil villains would win, e.g. Crystal Mangum and Shan Carter.; June 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I have contacted just about every civil rights organization I've heard of, but they all refuse to get involved in Crystal's case. I believe the reason is that the issue is too political and because these organizations seem to think that the bad reputation given to Mangum by the press and media will somehow adversely affect them."

Serioussly wrongo. Crystal's evil reputation is a consequence of her own behavior. The civil rights groups know that from her false accusations against the innocent Lacrosse players. They got burned once. They are shy of getting burned again. Plus they just don't take you seriously.

"If you're talking about Mangum's near-death health care experience at the Raleigh prison infirmary, I would say that the medical staff there didn't take Mangum's complaint seriously at the beginning. The hospital's staff that treated her bowel obstruction I think, did pretty well."

You haven't presented anything except Crystal's own account. Considering Crystal's behavior when she falsely accused innocent Lacrosse players of raping her, her first hand accounts are not to be trusted. How about you get her to sign a release so you can access and publish the medical record. That is, if there is a medical record.; June 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous ( that I'm presuming is Dr.A) said: "That the intubation was esophageal in this case does not rise to the level of malpractice.................. It's taken weeks but you've finally come around to accepting that Daye was esophageally intubated. I guess you came to the realization that continuing to deny that was making you look foolish. If the wrongful insertion doesn't constitute malparactice then certainly the failure to detect the mistake until the patient became severely anoxic does.; June 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: In the criminal case against Mangum, it makes no difference whether Mr. Daye was intubated or how he was intubated. Esophageal intubation was not an element of any of the crime(s) that the state was required to prove, nor was it a defense to the charges against Mangum. It is a red herring advanced by Sid to distract and draw attention away from the State's case.; June 3, 2014 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It's taken weeks but you've finally come around to accepting that Daye was esophageally intubated."

If you were really following J4N you would have read I admitted weeks ago that I was wrong about the esophageal intubtion.

I guess you came to the realization that continuing to deny that was making you look foolish."

It is not foolish to admit an error and take responsibility for it. Humbling maybe but not foolish. Foolish is denying an error and persisting in believing it never happened. You have made gross errors in alleging Crystal was raped and you persist in those errors.

"If the wrongful insertion doesn't constitute malparactice then certainly the failure to detect the mistake until the patient became severely anoxic does."

First off, Mr. Daye probably became severely anoxic when he aspirated. Secondly, I say from my reading of Mr. Daye's records, it was recognized he was not ventilating properly and steps were taken to correct the problem.

It is SIDNEY who says he was not treated for anoxia. I say again, minimally trained minimally experienced SIDNEY is not qualified to comment on matters medical.; June 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Getting back to the issue of semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress:

Crystal did not wash up after the Lacrosse party and was clothed when Kim Roberts drove her, not to a police station or a hospital but to a grocery store to have her forcibly removed from her car. If semen had been deposited on Crystal, it would have been deposited on her clothes and would not, according to you, degraded. Her clothes were tested. No evidence of semen was found. Ergo, no semen was left.

So, STRIKE ONE!!! on your third time at bat.; June 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Let's get to another issue.

You allege there were unidentified party attendees, not Lacrosse players who raped Crystal, that their DNA was the non Lacrosse DNA found on Crystal.

Both the Prosecution and the Defense agreed that everyone who had attended the party was identified. Your belief comes from your claim that Kilgo told you that he had an anonymous friend, a Lacrosse player, who told him that most of the attendees were not Lacrosse players and they had raped Crystal.

You can not document that Kilgo ever told you this.

STRIKE TWO!!!! on your third time at bat.

Kilgo made the allegations years after the alleged crime happened, years after the DA and the Defense agreed all the party attendees had been identified. Then after(according to you) he made the allegation he disappeared and took all records of his activity in this case with him. You say you believe he was either intimidated or paid off. More likely he did not want to be questioned about his allegation-that is if he did actually make the allegation. The evidence suggests strongly he never made the allegation in the first place.

So STRIKE THREE!!!! in your third at bat. KENNY goes down wildly swinging again.

You are alleging that there were non Lacrosse player attendees. You have to prove. You haven't proven. Again, you have not established that the non LAX player DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You have wasted a whole inning of at bats showing you can not present any credible factual evidence Crystal was raped.; June 3, 2014 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: "It's taken weeks but you've finally come around to accepting that Daye was esophageally intubated."

If you were really following J4N you would have read I admitted weeks ago that I was wrong about the esophageal intubtion.

Kenny is so used to Sid and his claims of perfection, and denial of even obvious mistakes, so this just stuns him. Never fear, he will ignore this and go right back to accusing you of refusing to admit you made a mistake.; June 3, 2014 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Let's see another example of your distorted thinking.

Dr, Julie Manly identified a whitish fluid in Crystal's genital tract which she thought initially was semen. She made no attempt to confirm this by doing a wet mount to identify motile sperm. You called that CYA medicine, You wanted it presumed, without any confirmation, that semen was present(you remember-that was the time you misrepresented Emergency Medicine resident Dr. Manly as an "experienced gynecologist").

If it really were semen the vaginal swabs would have tested positive for acid phosphatase. They did not. Yet you wanted it presumed that semen was present and you say that the test for acid phosphatase was negative because the semen had degenerated into unidentifiability.

You really should see a therapist, KENNY.; June 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "If you were really following J4N you would have read I admitted weeks ago that I was wrong about the esophageal intubtion" (sic).........
I probably missed that post but since you post anonymously I'm never sure if it's you. If you can repost that confession I wont gloat and I will apologize. Just a suggestion, though, even if you wish to hide behind anonymity why not just make Dr. Anonymous your user name.; June 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. Anonymous 11:09 AM : In answer to you I will simply repost my earlier reply to you last month "
Not necessarily so. Here is a response to this question by an expert on a Yahoo Forensic Science Discussion Board "False negatives can occur for several reasons. The proteins may have
degraded or be dilute to the point that they are not detectable. In the case of a cervical swab, the spermatozoa can be present long after the proteins are gone. The technique is not very sensitive, so semen may be present, but the acid phosphatase is not detectable
May 7, 2014 at 9:16 PM; June 3, 2014 at 3:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: At any rate, amateurs like Dr. Anonymous and myself can not settle this question. Experts in forensic science need to weigh in. There never was a trial for that to happen and probably never will be. The investigative author Wm. Cohan needs to write a sequel.; June 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

At any rate, amateurs like Dr. Anonymous and myself can not settle this question. Experts in forensic science need to weigh in. There never was a trial for that to happen and probably never will be. The investigative author Wm. Cohan needs to write a sequel.

But, if they did weigh in, and you disagreed with their conclusion, you'd just discount it and say they were biased and lying. An Expert Forensic Pathologist weighed in on Daye's cause of death (2 in fact), but you still disagree with their conclusions, so why would an expert sway you in this case?

You have your beliefs and opinions, and no amount of facts or evidence will change your mind. Why do you even pretend to want to engage in an honest discussion?; June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"

Dr. Anonymous said: "If you were really following J4N you would have read I admitted weeks ago that I was wrong about the esophageal intubtion" (sic).........
I probably missed that post but since you post anonymously I'm never sure if it's you. If you can repost that confession I wont gloat and I will apologize. Just a suggestion, though, even if you wish to hide behind anonymity why not just make Dr. Anonymous your user name."

Go ahead and gloat. It means nothing. It is like getting stoned to death with popcorn at a range of 100 yards.; June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Dr. Anonymous 11:09 AM : In answer to you I will simply repost my earlier reply to you last month "
Not necessarily so. Here is a response to this question by an expert on a Yahoo Forensic Science Discussion Board "False negatives can occur for several reasons. The proteins may have
degraded or be dilute to the point that they are not detectable. In the case of a cervical swab, the spermatozoa can be present long after the proteins are gone. The technique is not very sensitive, so semen may be present, but the acid phosphatase is not detectable"

What trumps all of this is: Crystal alleged a rape in which multiple males, not using condoms, penetrated Crystal and ejaculated on her. It is impossible, I say again, impossible for such a rape to have happened without the perpetrators leaving evidence. The failure to find evidence does definitively rule out that semen deposition took place.

STRIKE ONE!!!! on your fourth at bat.; June 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"At any rate, amateurs like Dr. Anonymous and myself can not settle this question."

I have a medical background. You do not. So far as amateur, res ipsa loquitur.

"Experts in forensic science need to weigh in."

Experts in forensic science weighed in before the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were exonerated. They said the forensic results indicated no rape had occurred. One such expert was the experienced SANE who publishes the blog Forensic Talk.

"There never was a trial for that to happen and probably never will be."

That was because the evidence in the case indicated no rape had taken place. There was no crime to try.

"The investigative author Wm. Cohan needs to write a sequel."

William Cohan an investigative journalist???!!!! Shirley you jest.; June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Why are you dodging the issue of who was at the party?

Both Prosecution and Defense in the case said all the party attendees were identified, all the Caucasian attendees were tested. The DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA on any of them.

Then, years after the case self destructed, you allege, but can not document, that someone named Kilgo told you that he had a friend, a Lacrosse player, who told him that he had been at the party, that most of the attendees were not Lacrosse players, that the non Lacrosse players perpetrated the rape in which Lacrosse players participated.

Now Kilgo has vanished and all of his posts have disappeared. Said anonymous player has not come forth in over 8 years, in spite of your contention that a guilty conscience can be a terrible burden.

Please how that explains that there were unidentified party attendees who were not Lacrosse players. Provide credible, factual evidence.; June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said : "But, if they did weigh in, and you disagreed with their conclusion"........ Many high profile trials have duelling experts and the jury must weigh that evidence. As Author Wm. Cohan laments, in the Duke Lacrosse case, there was no trial. His book, he claimed, was meant to replace the trial that never happened but a shoddy and inadequate investigation, the passage of time and a failure to secure and preserve crucial evidence has all but precluded this possibility. In the words of Cohan "we may never know what happened in there". Unless that is, those who know have pangs of conscience. Hopefully, not altogether beyond the realm of possibility; June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Both Prosecution and Defense in the case said all the party attendees were identified".... Can you show me where the Prosecution stipulated that all people present at the time of the alleged rape are identified? Is there a list of there names?.; June 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " The failure to find evidence does definitively rule out that semen deposition took place".............. Evidence was found in the form of DNA extracted from sperm that was unexplained by Crystal's sexual history. No effort was made to identify the said DNA and no attempt was made to impeach the sexual history Crystal provided.; June 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said : "But, if they did weigh in, and you disagreed with their conclusion"........ Many high profile trials have duelling experts and the jury must weigh that evidence."

In the Duke rape hoax, there were not experts who said that a rape occurred in spite of the lack of evidence, just you and NIFONG and SIDNEY. DA NIFONG has twice recanted his belief in SHIT(Something Happened In There).

"As Author Wm. Cohan laments, in the Duke Lacrosse case, there was no trial."

What weeping willy suppress free speech cohan does not realize is there was no case to try.

"His book, he claimed, was meant to replace the trial that never happened"

Which only means weeping willy, like you and SIDNEY wanted the innocent men wrongfully convicted.

"but a shoddy and inadequate investigation,"

Which happened because corrupt DA NIFONG really did not care whether or not Crystal had been raped. He wanted to convict Lacrosse players.

"the passage of time"

Not much time passed before the innocent Lacrosse players were definitively exonerated.

"and a failure to secure and preserve crucial evidence has all but precluded this possibility."

Critical evidence was procured and preserved and it proved definitively no rape had happened.

"In the words of Cohan 'we may never know what happened in there'."

And in the words of a lot of other people who are familiar with what happened in the rape case, Cohan does not know that nothing happened in there because he chooses to be ignorant, just like you and SIDNEY.

"Unless that is, those who know have pangs of conscience. Hopefully, not altogether beyond the realm of possibility".

It is beyond the realm of possibility that anyone witnessed a crime at 610 Buchanan Street on 13/14 March 2006. Ergo there is no one suffering pangs of conscience over not coming forward. That it has been over 8 years since it was definitively proven no crime had happened and no one has come forth to claim otherwise, other than you who deliberately chooses to be ignorant.; June 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Both Prosecution and Defense in the case said all the party attendees were identified".... Can you show me where the Prosecution stipulated that all people present at the time of the alleged rape are identified? Is there a list of there names?."

That the prosecution subjected Caucasian members of the Lacrosse team and others identified as being at the party indicates they did not believe there were any unidentified Lacrosse players at the party.

What credible, factual evidence do you have that there were unidentified party attendees. That is the question, not whether or not anyone can prove that there were not. You are asserting. You have the obligation to prove. An unsubstantiated claim on your part that you received information from a now vanished poster on J4N proves nothing.; June 3, 2014 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: " The failure to find evidence does definitively rule out that semen deposition took place".............. Evidence was found in the form of DNA extracted from sperm that was unexplained by Crystal's sexual history."

However evidence was also found which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that said sperm could have been deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Besides the absence of semen, blood and saliva on the rape kit, there was no physical evidence of the brutal rape Crystal alleged.

"No effort was made to identify the said DNA and no attempt was made to impeach the sexual history Crystal provided."

As there was no evidence to establish that the DNA had been deposited on the night of 13/14 March there was no reason to determine from whom the DNAS came from. The only significance of the DNA found on Crystal was it did not match the DNA of anyone suspected of perpetrating the alleged crime.

Aside from the forensic evidence, I say again, the physical evidence definitively ruled out the occurrence of the rape Crystal described.; June 3, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

This is interesting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2949847

It is a report from ESPN, dated July 26, 2007, a documentation of corrupt DA NIFONG's admission he had not credible evidence that a rape ever happened.

And this:

http://www.wral.com/durham-settles-with-wrongly-accused-duke-lacrosse-players/13650645/

Durham agrees with AG Cooper that the Lacrosse players were innocent of the crimes with which they were charged.; June 3, 2014 at 6:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Yeah, Former DA Nifong was on the ropes with his professional career and his livelihood at stake. They just had to extract this final humiliation from him. It didn't help him though as they still kicked him while he was down. He all but recanted in his interview with Cohan. In the case of Durham, typical of US Justice, the City decided cut their losses and made a settlement that saved them more then winning the meritless case would have cost. Probably much to the dismay of the Trial Lawyers who would have liked their cut of any big settlement.; June 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous I presume said: "However evidence was also found which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that said sperm could have been deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006"......... I take it that this was a Freudian slip on your part.; June 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Yeah, Former DA Nifong was on the ropes with his professional career and his livelihood at stake."

That was the situation before Crystal ever falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of raping her. Corrupt DA NIFONG ran with her lies in an attempt to exploit black on white racism for his own benefit, to get himself elected and embellish his retirement benefits.

"They just had to extract this final humiliation from him. It didn't help him though as they still kicked him while he was down."

Meanwhile you turn a willfully blind eye to the way corrupt DA NIFONG tried to convict innocent men of a crime which never happened. He fell because he tripped over his own prosecutorial corruption. Had he been a decent honorable prosecutor this would have never happened. He was a corrupt prosecutor before Crystal's false allegations of rape, as the Darryl Howard case graphically showed.

"He all but recanted in his interview with Cohan."

No he didn't, according to you. According to you he convinced weeping willy cohan that SHIT(Something Happened In There) did happen. That is not recantation.

"In the case of Durham, typical of US Justice, the City decided cut their losses and made a settlement that saved them more then winning the meritless case would have cost. Probably much to the dismay of the Trial Lawyers who would have liked their cut of any big settlement."

What you say about a lot of trial lawyers is true. It is not a given that Durham would have won the case had it gone to trial. And you have yet to explain why Crystal did not file a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. The obvious explanation, something else to which you turn a willfully blind eye is, she did not have a case and no trial lawyer would have tried to make a case.; June 4, 2014 at 3:54 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Anonymous I presume said: "However evidence was also found which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that said sperm could have been deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006"......... I take it that this was a Freudian slip on your part."

No it wasn't It was obviously a typo. What was in my mind at the time was there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that sperm could not be deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Are you presuming you can read my mind? You can't. Thank you for calling my attention to the typo so that I could correct it. Now go ahead and try to stone me to death with popcorn from a range of 100 yards.

A freudian slim is something like you saying I accused you of having an Oedipal complex when I did not.; June 4, 2014 at 3:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Here again is the bottom line.

Crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple assailants beat her, penetrated her and ejaculated on her and were not using condoms.

That rape could not have happened without the perpetrators leaving forensic evidence, without leaving Crystal with evidence of a beating.

There was no forensic evidence a rape had happened. There was no physical evidence of a beating. Ergo there is no evidence of a brutal gang rape.

Again, your lack of knowledge about matters medical does not raise any doubt at all to that.; June 4, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Here's a Freudian slip for you.

You say weeping willy cohan wrote his compendium of lies as the trial which never happened. If so, it was not the kind of trial the US Constitution guaranteed criminal defendants. He convicted them by interviewing three already discredited witnesses.

Your attitude is, what need do we have of factual evidence, presume the defendants guilty and convict them.

Some advocate for justice you are.; June 4, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: But in the case if the cause of death conclusion, the experts weren't dueling. And it's odd - you seem to accept the jury has to decide between two competing views there, but somehow think it's wrong in self-defense. Again, you show yourself to be stuck in your ways and willing to shift your contentions on a whim to fit whatever view and point you are trying to make.; June 4, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Once again, only Kenny and Sid know the truth, anyone who disagrees is clearly lying or corrupt. It's great to be in the presence of such greatness on this blog. The only 2 people who are never, ever wrong.; June 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Curious said...
To my knowledge Meier, Mangum's attorney, never spoke with any physician or forensic pathologist. I'm not aware that he talked to Dr. Roberts. It's as if Meier completely disregarded the medical issues. Blatant malpractice in my book.

If he had never talked to Dr. Roberts, how would he have known what her report was going to say to try to advise Crystal to not have it prepared? You love to make serious accusations with zero evidence to back them up.

It's odd - first you accuse him of using his medical background to work with the doctors, and Nichols, and Dr. Roberts to conceal the "truth" - now you accuse him of not even talking with any of them. Is he part of the conspiracy or not? Or you just pulling this out of your ass?

At least Kenny still believes in you.

Curious, I am not in Meier's camp and am not privy as to whom he converses. He could have seen Dr. Roberts' report without having first talked to her. Unfortunately, the copy of the discovery report by Roberts that I saw does not contain a date. My belief is that the written report was produced during Vann's tenure as Mangum's attorney.

Roberts' report, although skewed to help the prosecution, was overall most beneficial to Mangum. Its use during trial, I feel, would probably spared her the conviction.; June 4, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
In the criminal case against Mangum, it makes no difference whether Mr. Daye was intubated or how he was intubated. Esophageal intubation was not an element of any of the crime(s) that the state was required to prove, nor was it a defense to the charges against Mangum. It is a red herring advanced by Sid to distract and draw attention away from the State's case.

Red herring? Shirley you jest. The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of Daye's death. Nothing in the case could be more important.; June 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Curious, I am not in Meier's camp and am not privy as to whom he converses. He could have seen Dr. Roberts' report without having first talked to her. Unfortunately, the copy of the discovery report by Roberts that I saw does not contain a date. My belief is that the written report was produced during Vann's tenure as Mangum's attorney.

So, every lawyer starting with Vann illegally withheld a written report from the prosecution, and several, including Meier, publicly, and openly, lied to the Court about whether such a report existed, which could subject them to sanctions and contempt? That's what you believe? You don't believe that they had talked to Dr. Roberts, and knew her conclusions, and knew it wouldn't be helpful, so decided NOT to have her produce a harmful written report they would have to give to the State. You believe they all lied and risked contempt?

Yeah, you are a genius.; June 4, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Roberts' report, although skewed to help the prosecution, was overall most beneficial to Mangum. Its use during trial, I feel, would probably spared her the conviction.

It said nothing about self-defense, which the jury found didn't exist - so no matter what it said, it couldn't have spared her from being a convicted felon.; June 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Curious, I am not in Meier's camp and am not privy as to whom he converses."

So what is meaningful or significant about your statement that to your knowledge Daniel Meier never spoke to any doctors. Incidentally, the term Doctor does not include you. It takes more than an MD degree to make you a real doctor. It takes training and experience practicing medicine, of which you have minimal.

"He could have seen Dr. Roberts' report without having first talked to her. Unfortunately, the copy of the discovery report by Roberts that I saw does not contain a date. My belief is that the written report was produced during Vann's tenure as Mangum's attorney."

And you base your beliefs only on your own brilliance which you have graphically demonstrated on multiple occasions, is non existent.

"Roberts' report, although skewed to help the prosecution, was overall most beneficial to Mangum. Its use during trial, I feel, would probably spared her the conviction."

How, if it said she agreed that Reginald Daye died from complications of the stab wound Crystal inflicted. I say again you base your beliefs in your non existent brilliance. If Crystal had had any chance of avoiding a murder conviction and a long prison term, you would have kept your beliefs to yourself.; June 4, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Red herring? Shirley you jest. The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of Daye's death. Nothing in the case could be more important."

Shirley, it was more of a straw fisherman holding up a red herring he had caught.

Reginald Daye needed intubation because he vomited and aspirated. He vomited and aspirated because he had to be worked up for an abdominal infection. He had to be worked up for an abdominal infection because Crystal stabbed him and inflicted intra abdominal injuries to his GI tract.

Again you show how you believe your lack of knowledge of matters medical and legal raises doubt as to Crystal's guilt. It does not. It just reinforces the certainty beyond reasonable doubt that Crystal did kill Reginald Daye.; June 4, 2014 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid prevaricated:

"Red herring? Shirley you jest. The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of Daye's death. Nothing in the case could be more important."

In all the time you have devoted to Mangum's case, you have yet to find a single expert willing to testify that the esophageal intubation was the proximate of Mr. Daye's death, or a single attorney (or judge or juror for that matter) who believes it is legally relevant to Mangum's case. That is because no such people exist. Your claims to the contrary are red herring. Your propensity for making such claims is why you repeatedly lose in court and are repeatedly proven to be wrong.; June 4, 2014 at 8:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 4, 2014 at 9:05 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " If so, it was not the kind of trial the US Constitution guaranteed criminal defendants. He convicted them by interviewing three already discredited witnesses"........ Like many guilty defendants do, they chose not to testify or in this case not to be interviewed. People with the truth on their side are not afraid to speak; June 4, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " If so, it was not the kind of trial the US Constitution guaranteed criminal defendants. He convicted them by interviewing three already discredited witnesses"........ Like many guilty defendants do, they chose not to testify or in this case not to be interviewed. People with the truth on their side are not afraid to speak

That is the single dumbest thing you have ever posted. Even the police tell you that talking to them is the worst thing you can do - they aren't there to let you talk your way out of it, they want you to convict yourself, and catch you in a lot of inconsistencies and the like.

If talking to the police was what it took, our prisons wouldn't have innocent people in them.

Walt says it best - with friends like you and Sid, Crystal doesn't need enemies. Your level of cluelessness and delusion reach staggering new heights with every post.

At least you continue to prove my theory that this blog is just a joke to you and Sid - no one can be as delusional and unwilling to face facts as the two of you pretend.; June 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: " If so, it was not the kind of trial the US Constitution guaranteed criminal defendants. He convicted them by interviewing three already discredited witnesses"........ Like many guilty defendants do, they chose not to testify or in this case not to be interviewed. People with the truth on their side are not afraid to speak".

Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans spoke up very loudly that they were innocent. Yet you still doubt them. Worse you say Reade Seligman(although he could prove with 1005 certainty he was not at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened) and David Evans(who never really was credibly identified as an assailant) are probably guilty.

If your assertion is correct, then why does Kilgo not speak up and confirm your allegation that he told you he had a Lacrosse player friend who witnessed a crime at the Lacrosse party.

You seem to be saying that because people will not come forth to offer incriminating testimony is a sign a crime had happened.

And, I say again, although you can not establish that anyone deposited semen or sperm on Crystal the night of 13/14 March 2006, the finding of DNA from sperm confirms there was a rape.

You say that even though you do acknowledge Crystal was a sexually active woman before she falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of raping her.

You forgot something that Injustice 58 once said that all guilty people protest they are innocent. The logical extension of this is that any one who pleads guilty is innocent.

Finally, you seem to think that the Constitutional guarantee against self incrimination should not have applied to the innocent defendants in the Lacrosse case. The next step to that is to say they should have been tortured until they confessed.

KENNY, you are seriously confused.; June 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 4, 2014 at 9:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Worse you say Reade Seligman(although he could prove with 1005 certainty he was not at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened) and David Evans(who never really was credibly identified as an assailant) are probably guilty"............Seligmann's alibi was checked out and although there is speculation, by some, that it was, successfully, contrived he was, probably, like Finnerty, mistakenly identified, by Crystal, in the flawed photo line-up, she was subjected to.; June 4, 2014 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Seligmann's alibi was checked out and although there is speculation, by some, that it was, successfully, contrived"

Speculation by uninformed, guilt presuming people like cohan and corrupt DA NIFONG.

"he was, probably, like Finnerty, mistakenly identified, by Crystal, in the flawed photo line-up, she was subjected to."

He was wrongfully identified by Crystal along with David Evans. The wrongful lineup was contrived by corrupt DA NIFONG who you try to pass off as a victim. He contrived the lineup because he wanted to convict Lacrosse players.

You have never addressed the issue, although you rant about it, that the sources of the DNA on Crystal sere never identified. But you never ask why corrupt DA NIFONG never tried to identify the sources, why he tried to conceal from the world that the DNA found on Crystal was not a match to the DNA of anyone suspected of the crime.

I say again, KENNY you are seriously confused.; June 4, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Seligmann's alibi was checked out and although there is speculation, by some, that it was, successfully, contrived"

If Reade Seligman's alibi checked out, it was not contrived.

With regard to your comment that the innocent always speak up, Mr. Seligman's lawyer did try to show the alibi evidence to corrupt DA NIFONG and DA NIFONG did not want to look at it, which says, again, forcefully, DA NIFONG wanted only to convict innocent men who happened to be on the Lacrosse team.; June 4, 2014 at 10:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said:(you say) "the finding of DNA from sperm confirms there was a rape"...... Yes, if it can not be correlated with Crystal's accurate history of consensual sex. Failure to identify this source means there will always be a doubt. This hurts everyone; June 4, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I say again your comment about the guilty not wanting to talk shows you think the Constitutional amendment against self incrimination should not have applied to the innocent Lacrosse defendants. Which implies you believe they should have been coerced into confessing. Some fighter for justice you are NOT!!!!

Maybe you do believe they should have been tortured until they confessed.; June 4, 2014 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Yes, if it can not be correlated with Crystal's accurate history of consensual sex. Failure to identify this source means there will always be a doubt. This hurts everyone"

Crystal's consensual history is not relevant. The forensic findings, the physical findings prove beyond any and all doubt that Crystal had not been raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006. They also prove that whatever consensual history you might have is not credible.; June 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

It would be best to acknowledge what everyone knows: Mangum was not raped atthe lacrosse party and none of the lacrosse players committed any crimes against her.

By clinging to and repeating such blatant and thoroughly discredited lies you allow people to disregard anything you have to say about the Daye case (or anything else for that matter).

Moreover, the lie that Mangum was raped at the lacrosse party is not a defense to the murder conviction against her. However, it does make anything you or she may say in her defense less believable.

I don't know what you think you are doing, or who you think you are helping by repeating lies, but it isn't you or Mangum.; June 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You yourself have said that DNA deposition can not be accurately timed. Ergo, you have admitted you can not establish that the DNA deposited on Crystal was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. But you insist it establishes the occurrence of a rape on the night of 13/14 March 2006. How do you do that. I say again if you can not match it to whatever history of consensual sex you have from Crystal, it means only you do not have an accurate consensual history from Crystal.; June 4, 2014 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The forensic findings, the physical findings prove beyond any and all doubt that Crystal had not been raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006"..... No they do not. DNA deposition can not be timed. The DNA found could have been deposited within a time frame that includes the time of the alleged rape.; June 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: ymous said: " It would be best to acknowledge what everyone knows"..... Everyone? Maybe everyone of the Duke Lacrosse cabal. Have you read Cohan's book? There are many people who believe "something happened there"; June 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"No they do not. DNA deposition can not be timed. The DNA found could have been deposited within a time frame that includes the time of the alleged rape."

You obviously did not read my last comment before you posted this, and you hang yourself with it. If "DNA deposition can not be timed" you admit the mere finding of DNA does not tell you when it got there. Which means you can not presume the non Lax DNA got on Crystal the night of 13/14 March. You have to prove it did get there on the night of 13/14 March. You have to do it in light of forensic evidence which established that Crystal did not have sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; June 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Everyone? Maybe everyone of the Duke Lacrosse cabal. Have you read Cohan's book? There are many people who believe 'something happened there'".

No there aren't. Crystal and DA NIFONG do not constitute many people. Since the publication of the book DA NIFONG has recanted his belief that SHIT(Something Happened In There) happened.

The overwhelmingly negative reviews of Cohan's compendium of lies, and the overwhelming number of negative comments on the positive reviews indicate that the overwhelming majority of people do not believe that SHIT(Something Happened In There) did not happen.; June 4, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

To my comment of June 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM I add, the forensic and physical evidence Crystal did not have sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, with any party attendee on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

You have no credible factual evidence that there were non LAX player attendees at the party. None.; June 4, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

It has been established beyond doubt that Mangum lied about being raped. Everyone remotely involved in the knows and admits it. It is a problem that haunts her to this day because she isn't decent enough to admit and apologize for it. It undermines the credibility of an statement she has given or will give in regards to any other matter. It undermines any statements you or Sid may make.

If you want to know why you are scorned, mocked and ridiculed here it is because you are a liar who repeats outrageous lies. Liars deserve no respect.

Americans are very forgiving. I think people would be much more willing to take you seriously if you told the truth.

Again, you and Sid do not help yourselves or Mangum by repeating outrageous lies.; June 4, 2014 at 11:13 AM
Sports Illustrated said...: On May 18, as required by state law, Nifong turned over about 1,300 pages of evidentiary material, the whole of his case to that date, to the defense. The contents began leaking instantly. SI has confirmed through defense motions and lawyers who have studied the files that they contain no evidence that a forensic toxicology test was performed on the accuser, though she appeared impaired to witnesses and Nifong has said that she might have been given a date-rape drug. The documents also show that the accuser recanted her charge of rape to a police officer that evening; that in the 48 hours before the party she had, by her driver's account, been on at least four one-on-one dates as an escort; that a genital swab of the accuser found DNA belonging not to a Duke lacrosse player but to her boyfriend; that the injuries the D.A. asserted were consistent with rape or sexual assault consisted of lacerations on one knee and one heel and swelling in her vagina (no vaginal abrasions or tearing were noted). The alleged victim stated that no condoms were used, yet no player's DNA was found anywhere on her person.; June 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Regarding your comment that the guilty do not talk:

If you recall, after she stabbed Reginald Daye, Crystal was arrested and charged, I believe, with assaulting Mr. Daye with a deadly weapon. She was then informed of her Miranda rights and asked if she wanted to give a statement. She said no. This was in documents SIDNEY published.

According to you, therefore, she confessed to criminal liability for the injury she inflicted on Mr. Daye. When Mr. Daye died, the charge became murder.; June 4, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Just to show you how distorted your thinking is:

The 5th Amendment was added to the Constitution in reaction to then European practice of coercing a defendant to incriminate himself, sometimes via torture.

You are saying that a defendant who avails him/herself of this right against self incrimination incriminates him/herself.

And you call yourself an advocate for justice.

You are an advocate for Nazi style justice.; June 4, 2014 at 12:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If you want to know why you are scorned, mocked and ridiculed here it is because you are a liar who repeats outrageous lies. Liars deserve no respect".........If you call me a liar you better tell your name or are you too cowardly to do so. I am not afraid of being scorned, mocked and ridiculed for my beliefs but I do not lie. Those who label me as such are treading on dangerous ground; June 4, 2014 at 2:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Regarding your comment that the guilty do not talk"... Taken out of context. What I was suggesting is that the Lawyers of guilty defendants want to keep them off the stand; especially if they don't believe in their innocence. On the other hand a defendant who knows they are innocent wants to testify to what they know to be the truth.; June 4, 2014 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"If you call me a liar you better tell your name or are you too cowardly to do so. I am not afraid of being scorned, mocked and ridiculed for my beliefs but I do not lie. Those who label me as such are treading on dangerous ground".

Every time you insist that Crystal had been raped on the night of 13/14 March at the Lacrosse party, you promulgate something which has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false. Is that not promulgating a lie?

Your lack on knowledge about matters medical and legal does not support your allegation that someone raped Crystal.

Or can you provide factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped? What you call factual, credible evidence, that DNA from men who were not at the party included DNA from sperm.

If you are going to ask, how do I know there were no unidentified attendees at the party, I will again that since you are asserting you have the obligation to prove. How do you know there were?; June 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Taken out of context. What I was suggesting is that the Lawyers of guilty defendants want to keep them off the stand; especially if they don't believe in their innocence. On the other hand a defendant who knows they are innocent wants to testify to what they know to be the truth."

CYA does not work.

In true Nifongian style you were saying that invoking one's right against self incrimination is an admission of guilt.; June 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM
Blah Blah Blah is missing ... said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Regarding your comment that the guilty do not talk"... Taken out of context. What I was suggesting is that the Lawyers of guilty defendants want to keep them off the stand; especially if they don't believe in their innocence. On the other hand a defendant who knows they are innocent wants to testify to what they know to be the truth.

You know nothing about the practice of law. Even innocent clients can get completely tripped up, and made to look bad - especially when their testimony doesn't match the physical evidence. And, it isn't the lawyer's job to determine guilt or not guilty (trials aren't about innocence they are about guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not guilty - a jury doesn't decide you are innocent, and a not guilty doesn't mean you were innocent). They defend their clients - they don't get wrapped up in distractions that can jade their thinking.

If the client can handle themselves on the stand, and their testimony is plausible, there is no issue using them. If their testimony would only complicate things, you don't want them on the stand.

I wouldn't call you a liar, but you are an idiot.; June 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

You lie about the Duke lacrosse defendants and Mangum's fake rape claim. You persist in doing so even after being confronted with the irrefuatble truth. That makes you a liar and a despicable one at that. Only a truly despicable person would falsely accuse a man of raping or assaulting a woman.

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. As long as you continue to lie, you deserve to be called a liar and identified as such, lest anyone be fooled by your lies.; June 4, 2014 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Do you think because Crystal took the stand she should have been proven not guilty?

That would go along with your belief that your favorite murderess should get a pass for her crimes.; June 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Only a truly despicable person would falsely accuse a man of raping or assaulting a woman"....... And the man I've falsely accused is who?; June 4, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Only a truly despicable person would falsely accuse a man of raping or assaulting a woman"....... And the man I've falsely accused is who?"

"At least one had an air-tight alibi but to paraphrase William Cohan, "something happened that none of us would be proud of" Not a penetrating rape by any of the three Aiding and abetting theft, drugging, sexual assault, kidnapping and failing to come forward??"

KENHYDERAL May 30, 2014 at 6:37 AM

Seems like you do believe members of the Lacrosse team were involved in a criminal assault of Crystal. You can provide no factual credible evidence that said assault had happened. That amounts to falsely accusing innocent men of a non existent crime.

"Anonymous said: " No, two had air tight alibis".... As investigative Author William Cohan pointed out, former D.A. Nifong was suspicious that the Seligmann alibi was contrived."

KENHYDERAL May 30, 2014 at 8:04 AM

This indicates you believe Reade Seligman was involved in an assault on Crystal. You would not have posted this if you did not.

Plus your attitude with regards to Kilgo is that he did have a friend who did witness an assault on Crystal at the party.

All of this adds up to, you believe someone or more than someone assaulted Crystal. Since you believe in this non existent crime, you are falsely accusing someone of raping Crystal.; June 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You have also made posts that David Evans was involved in the non existent rape because Crystal identified him(you forget Crystal identified her 3rd assailant as having a mustache and David Evans never had a mustache-however you did say Kilgo or Kilgo's friend saw a picture of David Evans with a mustache0.

You obviously did falsely accuse David Evans of involvement in a crime which never happened. Since the crime never happened any one you accuse is falsely accused.; June 4, 2014 at 4:32 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 439 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, May 25, 2014

"Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

439 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me