justice4nifong: N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

Sunday, May 11, 2014

N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

678 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 678 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: really - is that you then g... ?

ya need extra curtesy while you're being an evil duke troll - and a bs one at that?

yeah ... right; May 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Today's article in the investigative series about the NC Medical Examiner's Autopsy system that started in yesterday's News and Observer on-line edition contains information regarding Duke's autopsy system. The price received by Duke for this one autopsy mentioned in todays article was $1750.00. The price the state paid for Mr. Daye's autopsy was $100.00. Odd that Duke did not mention the discrepancies in the autopsy reports themselves if they are so well qualified in autopsies to receive a fee so much greater than the state examiners, eh? Or is that just business as usual for Duke?; May 19, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sticking strictly with self-defense, I would have brought up the fact that Daye busted a locked bathroom door off its frame. I would've also made a point of Daye's drunken state. I would've brought to the jury's attention Daye's past lengthy criminal record that included two assaults... one on a female.

You mean that "lengthy" history that is totally inadmissible because they were DISMISSED? Which, as has been explained to you means they can't be used?

No wonder you can't win lawsuits, you refuse to acknowledge the law, even when explained to you.; May 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: If you haven't caught KC's latest, don't miss it. He focuses on Dorothy Rabinowitz' review of Cohan's trash. Robinowitz is a Pulitzer Prize winner. She "eviscerates" Cohan. So, let's see how it all stacks up. Who loves the Cohan book? Harr, the wingnut, the sensationalist TV talk show "gals", and Wahneeeeeema! Well, there you go. (Oh yeah, I forgot...Victoria, the bigot probably loves it, too)
I hope the fongster bought a whole bunch of copies for his guitar playing buddies.; May 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Finally, I would've brought up the incident that occurred one week prior to the stabbing in which Daye assaulted Mangum and she called a friend (Larry O'Briant) to take her to the clinic for treatment. Meier never even called Briant, a friend of Mangum's, as a witness.

You mean the incident Crystal DENIED on the stand, when questioned by her attorney, and cross-examined by the DA? How would something the Defendant DENIES happened be helpful? Put her on the stand and call her a liar?; May 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Nobody on this blog except perhaps one of the evil duke troll gang have even read the book evil duke troll, and you are the bigot for thinking anyone has and that you know their exact thoughts about the matters so it gives you the right to hate them

of course, this blog is just your hatred dumping ground, eh?; May 19, 2014 at 10:48 AM
guiowen said...: To the 9;48,
PLEASE MIND YOUR MANNERS; May 19, 2014 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

This is an open case - which if you were the defense lawyer - you would know not to discuss the case like you are trolled here to do.

that's all it is - trolling

and then using your answers against you and Ms. Mangum

don't you realize that yet?

As far as being concerned about the autopsy discrepancies and malpractice - yes - it is good to see someone in your profession act ethically and with the cause of non-harm with a cure for the situation as intent for your motives - yes sir're - it sure as heck is.; May 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: g... little ms. evil duke troll manners hater

gotta a prob with your hollerin' bout manners today do ya?; May 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: To 10:48, you need to get your meds adjusted. Seriously.; May 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: i think the evil duke troll gang not trolling here anymore would be a better idea - what bout you - ya like meds and trolling - so that's your solution - and advice (?) - how odd

go take your meds then - then troll some more - we'll all watch and see if'n it helps ya any ... go on ... off ya go; May 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "According to reports, Dr. Roberts said DTs were ruled out". Not in her review of the Nicholls autopsy. Of the three differential diagnosis suspected only delirium tremens was pharmaceutically treated with diazepam. No antibiotics or respiratory medications were given. That says to me that the DT's were settled on by those treating him; May 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: No, when he didn't respond to the diazepam they stopped, because that meant it wasn't DTs. It's sad how little you really know, but profess to be a genius. That's what hurt crystal - she was taking advice from clueless people who reused to admit they were clueless.; May 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "No, when he didn't respond to the diazepam they stopped, because that meant it wasn't DTs".......... Huh? How does that ascertain that it wasn't DT's. That's not a conclusion one can jump to simply on the basis of discontinuation of his benzodiazepine. Besides, aren't we talking about Dr. Roberts' review of Dr. Nichols' autopsy. Just like you had to do over the issue of whether or not the endo-tracheal tube was wrongly placed into Daye's esophagus, you will eventually have to concede that Reginald Daye, a chronic alcoholic, suffered delirium tremens due to his withdrawal from alcohol. This will all come out in Crystal's new trial. It's information a Jury needs to render a just verdict. Like a typical Duke Lacrosse apologist the watchword is deny, deny, deny. Maybe someday William Cohan will do a book on the persecution of Crystal.; May 19, 2014 at 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: If the duke lacrosse team players had the same type lawyers as Ms. Mangum did, the lawyers would have concluded that the DNA evidence was of no help to them, (who knows if it was or wasn't - i mean seriously - nobody can fracking believe ANYTHANG about that case since it was so fracked up), and then refused to give them a copy of the DNA report so that they could get expert witness analysis of it until the very last day of a REAL trial, all the while enduring the phenomenon of evil duke trolls consistently demanding that the DNA evidence was of no help to them - so that's why their lawyers wouldn't give them a copy of the report or any follow-up report - if'n it was the lacrosse case with the same lawyers and not Ms. Mangum that is.; May 20, 2014 at 1:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Except in Crystal's case the report implicated her, and was harmful. In the Lacrosse case, the DNA exonerated them.

Comprende; May 20, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Why do you continue to harp on Daye's "history/criminal record" of abuse when it's been shown that those charges were dismissed, and therefore that "history" was totally inadmissible in court?

Why do you refuse to admit you are wrong on any point, even when you are demonstrably wrong? You realize that shows how unreasonable and deluded you are and destroys your credibility about everything, right? It shows a blind adherence to your views and a refusal to accept additional information or contradictory evidence, which means no one should ever try to explain anything because you will just disregard it.

Or am I missing something?; May 20, 2014 at 4:07 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Sticking strictly with self-defense, I would have brought up the fact that Daye busted a locked bathroom door off its frame."

Meier did that and it was in the police report. So no difference.

"I would've also made a point of Daye's drunken state."

Meier did that too. No difference.

"I would've brought to the jury's attention Daye's past lengthy criminal record that included two assaults... one on a female."

No you wouldn't, his prior record is inadmissible. That has been explained to you before.

"Then I would've challenged his credibility... remember he told police that they were arguing over money... or the rent."

Meier prepared his client well to testify on that issue. She actually testified well, the only part of her testimony that didn't hurt her case. The jury believed her on the checks and did not convict. So Meier did a very good job with that issue. It still didn't save her from a conviction on the other counts.

"Furthermore, I would point to the fact that Mangum stabbed Daye only once..."

Ahh, the danger of the self defense defense. You have to admit killing the decedent.

"... not multiple times, as would someone with hostile intent."

Second degree does not require intent. The jury acquitted on first degree, so you would have done no different than Meier.

"I would also bring up injuries that Mangum sustained that night at Daye's hand."

Those would have been the verified injuries. This is where a good defense lawyer, Meier and you diverge greatly. Meier wisely stayed away from making claims he could not prove.

"Finally, I would've brought up the incident that occurred one week prior to the stabbing in which Daye assaulted Mangum and she called a friend (Larry O'Briant) to take her to the clinic for treatment. Meier never even called Briant, a friend of Mangum's, as a witness."

Prior conduct is not generally admissible. So tell us on what grounds you think you could get it in.

"I would've also had my investigators locate other women who have been abused by Daye and have them testify."

Also not admissible. And don't say you are denied conveninet access to a law library, because the rules of evidence are available online. Further, you could go to NCCU or UNC and make use of their law libraries.

"There's a couple of other things, but that's a few for starters."

In every situation except the inadmissible claims, Meier did what you suggest. The difference is, he did it better than you ever could. Of course, Meier did not breach confidentiality and tell the state his IME agreed with the ME. But, that's because Meier was actually defending Crystal, not trying sabotage her.

Walt-in-Durham; May 20, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:43 wrote: "You mean the incident Crystal DENIED on the stand, when questioned by her attorney, and cross-examined by the DA? How would something the Defendant DENIES happened be helpful? Put her on the stand and call her a liar?"

Thanks. Good catch. I suppose Sid would put his witness on to impeach his own client. That would make for a disasterous closing argument. I wonder how you convince the jury to only believe someone when it helps their case and disbelieve them otherwise? The common sense rule is a witness is most believeable when she has no interest in the outcome of the litigation or barring a disinterest, when her testimony is against her interest.

Walt-in-Durham; May 20, 2014 at 6:56 AM
A Lawyer said...: Walt,
Thank you for that (accurate) analysis.

Dr. Harr,
You've been enlightened. Pay Walt his $1,000.; May 20, 2014 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Really, Walt even charges for his legal advice on this blog?

Is Walt, Dr. Harr's lawyer?; May 20, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @7:43:

Don't be an asshole.

No. Walt doesn't charge for his legal advice on this blog.

No. Walt is not Harr's lawyer.

A Lawyer's comment was a joke. It was a play on Sid's offer to pay for enlightenment in another context.

But you knew that. You just wanted to act like a fucking jerk.; May 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: I think I would add to Walt's absolutely CORRECT comments....that in order to believe Mangum, the jury had to disbelieve multiple witnesses, including several police officers and the neighbors. The jury would also have had to discount the multiple times, during Mangum's cross examination by the prosecutor, when Mangum flat-out lied and got caught in her lies. There were so many glaring inconsistencies, it was comical.
Mangum did not follow counsel's advice throughout the period she was awaiting trial...as we all know. She convicted herself, and Harr did a damn fine job ensuring her conviction. You'd think was a scorned former client of hers, wouldn't you....; May 20, 2014 at 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: actually i didn't fw evil duke troll

it isn't even part of what that enlightenment game was about - so - who's the incredibly stupid jerks ... yup ... you, lance, and Walt if you think that 'game' offer was for Walt's legal advice

you didn't even read the game offer - did you?; May 20, 2014 at 9:12 AM
guiowen said...: to the 9:12,
Please mind your manners.; May 20, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: whatcha so concerned about manners for g...? ya got a bs pc fetish or something - or you just think it's annoying - so ya keep doing it?

watch your annoying bs pc evil duke troll manners g... watch it, watch it ...; May 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
You really should do something about posters who think that it is amusing to insult others. You have, quite justifiedly,banned racist comments. Why do you allow insulting comments?; May 20, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: probably because all the evil duke troll comments like yours are insults to the intelligence of all others, g... the annoying bs evil duke troll manners hating

whine g... whine; May 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Sticking strictly with self-defense, I would have brought up the fact that Daye busted a locked bathroom door off its frame. I would've also made a point of Daye's drunken state. I would've brought to the jury's attention Daye's past lengthy criminal record that included two assaults... one on a female."

You have no firm evidence that Reginald Daye was in a drunken state. The elevated BAT was most likely a lab error since his liver on autopsy was normal(and you do not have the professional credentials to declare the report fraudulenta). His "lengthy criminal record was a record of very minor offenses. The charge of assaulting a female was dismissed. What you omit, in an attempt to mislead the public is that Mr. Daye had relationships with two women before Crystal who told the police that Reginald Daye was not alcoholic and was not violent.

Then I would've challenged his credibility... remember he told police that they were arguing over money... or the rent. That was a lie. The argument was related to Daye's jealousy of Mangum flirting with the police officer at the scene. Daye also falsely claimed Mangum took his money and stabbed him, to make the event look like a robbery."

BULLSHIT!!!

"Furthermore, I would point to the fact that Mangum stabbed Daye only once... not multiple times, as would someone with hostile intent. I would also bring up injuries that Mangum sustained that night at Daye's hand."

This from the medico expert who said that Shan Carter's shooting down of a fleeing man and killing an innocent 8 year old bystander was self defense.

Finally, I would've brought up the incident that occurred one week prior to the stabbing in which Daye assaulted Mangum and she called a friend (Larry O'Briant) to take her to the clinic for treatment. Meier never even called Briant, a friend of Mangum's, as a witness."

As I recall there is no documentation that this incident ever happened.

"I would've also had my investigators locate other women who have been abused by Daye and have them testify."

Which would have been a wild goose chase since there were none.

There's a couple of other things, but that's a few for starters.

That would have been the start of a very ineffective defense for Crystal. She would have been convicted of Murder 1 if you had represented her.; May 20, 2014 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 19, 2014 at 9:48 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?; May 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 19, 2014 at 10:48 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?; May 20, 2014 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

""According to reports, Dr. Roberts said DTs were ruled out". Not in her review of the Nicholls autopsy. Of the three differential diagnosis suspected only delirium tremens was pharmaceutically treated with diazepam. No antibiotics or respiratory medications were given. That says to me that the DT's were settled on by those treating him".

That says to me you are in denial again.

Further, you believe Kilgo has a Lacrosse player friend who witnessed the non existent rape of Crystal. That shows you are very gullible in what you believe.; May 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: do you (hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are) evil duke troll?; May 20, 2014 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

More than half of the comments on this page (comments 401 to 433) are devoted entirely or primarily to insulting other commenters or are responding to such comments. This comment and guiowen's comments are included in the total. These comments contain no or minimal discussion of any issues. I note that none of kenhyderal's comments are included in my count.

That statistic speaks volumes to the quality of discourse you have permitted to develop on this blog. I suggest you establish some guidelines.; May 20, 2014 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Huh? How does that ascertain that it wasn't DT's. That's not a conclusion one can jump to simply on the basis of discontinuation of his benzodiazepine."

The symptoms continued in spite the treatment, which meant something else was going on, not DTs.

"Besides, aren't we talking about Dr. Roberts' review of Dr. Nichols' autopsy. Just like you had to do over the issue of whether or not the endo-tracheal tube was wrongly placed into Daye's esophagus, you will eventually have to concede that Reginald Daye, a chronic alcoholic, suffered delirium tremens due to his withdrawal from alcohol."

There was no evidence that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Someone who could tolerate a Blood Alcohol would have had a severely damaged liver, in spite of your reading that some alcoholics do not. He did not.

"This will all come out in Crystal's new trial. It's information a Jury needs to render a just verdict."

For a new trial, you would have to provide credible information that a new trial was warranted. You haven't.

"Like a typical Duke Lacrosse apologist the watchword is deny, deny, deny."

Interesting. You have no factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped. The one who is in denial denial denial is you. You deny that the people she falsely accused are in fact innocent. Deny deny deny is your style.

"Maybe someday William Cohan will do a book on the persecution of Crystal."

If he does, all he will accomplish is to show again how stupid and biased he is.; May 20, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 20, 2014 at 2:30 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 20, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
"Sidney,

More than half of the comments on this page (comments 401 to 433) are devoted entirely or primarily to insulting other commenters or are responding to such comments. This comment and guiowen's comments are included in the total. These comments contain no or minimal discussion of any issues. I note that none of kenhyderal's comments are included in my count.

That statistic speaks volumes to the quality of discourse you have permitted to develop on this blog. I suggest you establish some guidelines."

Why do you continue to try and waste Sid's time? He is devoting every available minute to overturning Crystal's conviction. Why would you want him spend his valuable time monitoring the inane comments posted on this blog?; May 20, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: W
h
e
r
e

i
s

K
i
l
g
o
?; May 20, 2014 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid - you do recall that Meier not only talked about how Daye kicked the door off its frame, he actually had an accident reconstruction expert ready to testify with a demonstration and analysis of the force required for that, unfortunately the Judge would not allow that evidence in.

So, basically, your entire claim for self-defense would have been what Meier did, and then a bunch of stuff that is completely inadmissible.

How would our outcome have been different?; May 20, 2014 at 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr knows enough about the technical medical aspects of the problems with the autopsy reports and the medical reports to have led an entirely different defense altogether in this case. The fact that the lawyers refused to defend Ms. Mangum against Duke's malpractice and the corrupted NC ME autopsy reporting speaks volumes.; May 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr knows enough about the technical medical aspects of the problems with the autopsy reports and the medical reports to have led an entirely different defense altogether in this case. The fact that the lawyers refused to defend Ms. Mangum against Duke's malpractice and the corrupted NC ME autopsy reporting speaks volumes.

Except that malpractice wouldn't have cut off her liability, the Defense expert said no malpractice, and has been repeatedly explained - that would have still left Mangum a convicted felon. The ONLY chance at Not Guilty was self-defense, and Sid kept telling Crystal not to pursue that, cause he was afraid she'd get a NG.; May 20, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: What defense expert? Dr. Harr wasn't concerned about the self-defense aspect as it was obviously self-defense since Mr. Daye even admitted to assualting her, he was concerned about the faulty Medical Examiner and Duke's malpractice. He needed a lawyer to assist Ms. Mangum without a conflict of interest to either of those participants in the case. THAT did not happen.

Ya'll are still trolling him and do not even understand the case based on your questions asked and statements made. There was no basis for the charges, and the DA enabled the ME to continue to make errors in not only this case, but in other cases as well, one of which he was fired for. This is a totally corrupt system all people should be concerned about and take heed to. Dr. Harr was right to do so, and to try to bring that to the attention of all persons who's job it is to be concerned about such things for 'the people', justice, and the state. They did not, and still don't probably.

This is still an open case, so comments made about this case here need to be done with some thought and respect to that fact. Thanks.; May 20, 2014 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I needed money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won

I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

Robbin' people with a six-gun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I lost my girl and I lost my fun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won

I left my baby and it feels so bad
I guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; May 20, 2014 at 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: What defense expert? Dr. Harr wasn't concerned about the self-defense aspect as it was obviously self-defense since Mr. Daye even admitted to assualting her, he was concerned about the faulty Medical Examiner and Duke's malpractice. He needed a lawyer to assist Ms. Mangum without a conflict of interest to either of those participants in the case. THAT did not happen.

Dr. Harr keeps asserting the other lawyers had conflicts of interest with Duke. What evidence has he ever produced, or do you have, that ANY of her lawyers had a conflict of interest? I do know he claims that Meier had a conflict because 15 years ago he worked for 2 separate Hospitals in Texas, but that's hardly a conflict - there is no indication of any conflict/loyalty to Duke.

Other than Dr. Harr claiming it is so, what reason do you have to believe there was a conflict?

Why do you refuse to acknowledge when your saint, Dr. Harr, is wrong, and that perhaps he cares more about himself and his ego than Mangum?; May 20, 2014 at 7:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Some of the evil duke troll gang 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 20, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, there are trolls on the blog, but I find it funny that y'all consider anyone who isn't a Dr. Harr sycophant to be a troll - how dare anyone question what he says or point out when he's demonstrably wrong ... blind faith!

That's why he can't win anything.; May 20, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: you don't even know what you are talking about - just more trolling as usual

it's an open case - quit trolling here

thanks; May 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: it's an open case - quit trolling here

Oddly, you have no issues with Sid destroying an open case - and doing damage to it. Or, do you consider him a troll too?

Yes, it's an open case, so Sid should STFU, but he won't because he wants LWOP.; May 20, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Whatchoo tawkin 'bout, Sidney? said...: H.P. (“Fats”) Thomas, security manager at Mangum’s strip club, described Mangum as “more of a hooker than a stripper. She was stripping as advertising for hooking.”; May 20, 2014 at 8:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: Hayden P Thomas at the time was a convicted felon and a drug addict. His most recent conviction was in the same week that Crystal was convicted. The charges possession of a gun by a felon,(he had a previous ban on gun possession), maintaining a dwelling used to keep and sell drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hardly a reliable witness. Contrast that with the many witnesses attesting to Crystal's good character.; May 20, 2014 at 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I haven't seen the list of character witnesses. Can you provide the names? How did the know Crystal?; May 21, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah right, so you can go and commit hate crimes on them too?

get real

this is an open case and your trolling is not welcome on this blog

all these trolls want is to harm others because of their hatred for Ms. Mangum; May 21, 2014 at 5:45 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "this is an open case and your trolling is not welcome on this blog..."

Perhaps Walt or a Lawyer can correct me here, but I thought a "case" was considered "open" when the bailiff announced that the session had commenced and that business before the court would proceed.; May 21, 2014 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah your funny Lance

consider yourself enlightened; May 21, 2014 at 6:16 AM
Walt said...: Watchoo and Kenhyderal are raising a substantial question, is or was Crystal a prostitute?

Prostitution is a broadly defined offense in North Carolina that is almost never prosecuted. For certain, Crystal has not been convicted of prostitution under that name. However, there is a substantial body of evidence to indicate that she is or at least was a prostitute.

Crystal told police that she spent the weekend before the night of March 13 - 14 being driven around the triange going to hotel rooms to "give sex shows." She also told police, confirmed by her driver, that she obtained a hotel room and had sexual intercourse with her driver during that weekend. DNA testing revealed five distinct DNA samples from Crystal's nether regions. Samples that were not matched with her boyfriend or the driver. This information alone is sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that Crystal was in fact a prostitute. A mid-range prostitute at that. Certainly not a street walker and also not what in the trade is known as a high dollar hottie.

Add to the information confirmed by Crystal's driver, Fats Thomas statement that Crystal's dancing was more recruiting for hooking. We now have a body of evidence from several sources - Crystal, the driver and Thomas, that she was in fact a prostitute. But, don't make a decision yet!

On some message boards, Crystal was spotted in Knoxville, after the lacrosse, hoax had ended. She was reported to be doing outcalls there with varying degrees of success.

Balanced against those statements, there was at one time a general rule that "strippers don't hook and hookers don't strip." It is clear that Crystal, whatever her other business, was a sometime stripper. However, the general line between hooking and stripping has certainly blurred in the 1990s and 2000s. Thus, I don't think the general rule precludes Crystal from being a prostitute.

Finally, Crystal seems to have no visible means of support. She has not worked steadily since her discharge from the United States Navy. Yet, she seems to find a way to bring money into her household. She has had breast implants. She frequently appears with what are hair extensions. On the whole, I think the evidence is sufficient to conclude that Crystal is, when she is not in jail or prison, a prostitute.

Walt-in-Durham; May 21, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Walt said...: "this is an open case and your trolling is not welcome on this blog..."

Quite the contrary. Sid maintains this blog to comment about this case, and others of interest to him, generally open cases. Thus comments are quite clearly welcome. When you resort to name calling, it means you cannot effectively counter the arguments put forth.

Walt-in-Durham; May 21, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: ok Walt I would seriously like to know how the state bar feels about what you do on this blog

but ya want to keep harming Ms. Mangum anyway?

Kenny and Dr. Harr - if you do not lend support at this point in actually protecting Ms. Mangum on these blogs in a way in which she can actually, at some point, get a fair and equal trial in this case and continue her life free from all this hatred and the self-rightous trolls - it will be very apparent.; May 21, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.....pretty reasonable assumption that it's a duck....or, in sister's case, a prostitute. We all agree Crystal has never been convicted as such.....but reasonable common sense and the evidence Walt notes.....allows most of us to understand that Sister was a working girl. Either that, or she was just really friendly with men and/or women who liked to give her money for no apparent reason, in hotels, as she showed up with a "driver". I kinda figure that a woman who allows herself to be photographed in a tramp outfit, straddling a chair with her legs heading to Miami and Boston....on a web site called the Bunny Hole escort service................yep, that probably is a hooker. The evidence that is the most telling for her "selling it" is simply this......at least five male samples in and on her......none being the lax party goers, the driver or the boyfriend. If five guys left their calling cards, I kinda think maybe she was hookin'. Yep, I kinda think so.....; May 21, 2014 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.....pretty reasonable assumption that it's a duck....or, in sister's case, a prostitute. We all agree Crystal has never been convicted as such.....but reasonable common sense and the evidence Walt notes.....allows most of us to understand that Sister was a working girl. Either that, or she was just really friendly with men and/or women who liked to give her money for no apparent reason, in hotels, as she showed up with a "driver". I kinda figure that a woman who allows herself to be photographed in a tramp outfit, straddling a chair with her legs heading to Miami and Boston....on a web site called the Bunny Hole escort service................yep, that probably is a hooker. The evidence that is the most telling for her "selling it" is simply this......at least five male samples in and on her......none being the lax party goers, the driver or the boyfriend. If five guys left their calling cards, I kinda think maybe she was hookin'. Yep, I kinda think so.....; May 21, 2014 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHHYDERL:

"Hardly a reliable witness. Contrast that with the many witnesses attesting to Crystal's good character. "

HUH!!!!

The only character witnesses include you(a blatant unrepentant racist), SIDNEY(the barely trained, barely experienced person with the MD degree appended to his name, and Victoria Peterson, the homophobe.

The fact is, Crystal's character witnesses amount to nothing.

PS That includes Vincent Clark, the moving force behind Last Dance for Grace, and William Cohan, who wrote the compendium of lies he called The Price of Silence.; May 21, 2014 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHHYDERL:

"Hardly a reliable witness. Contrast that with the many witnesses attesting to Crystal's good character. "

HUH!!!!

The only character witnesses include you(a blatant unrepentant racist), SIDNEY(the barely trained, barely experienced person with the MD degree appended to his name, and Victoria Peterson, the homophobe.

The fact is, Crystal's character witnesses amount to nothing.

PS That includes Vincent Clark, the moving force behind Last Dance for Grace, and William Cohan, who wrote the compendium of lies he called The Price of Silence.; May 21, 2014 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 21, 2014 at 5:45 AM

Your posts qualify as hate crimes.; May 21, 2014 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, will you please consider deleting the pasts few posts that liable Ms. Mangum and others.

Thank you.; May 21, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Dr. Harr, will you please consider deleting the pasts few posts that liable Ms. Mangum and others."

Anonymous @ 7:27:

I think the word you're looking for is libel.

Consider yourself enlightened.; May 21, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: same thing; May 21, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "same thing"
No. Not even close. That you think so explains a great deal, however.; May 21, 2014 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: that you don't get it shows just about how enlightened you are('nt) lance, but ok; May 21, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: liable....? is that like labia? Is it slurder, as in, he slurred me?; May 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "none being the lax party goers".... That conclusion can only be drawn if you assume (or better yet prove) that there were only two non-players attendees at the party. P.S. You can't rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase. Do your homework and discover that for yourself.; May 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "that you don't get it shows just about how enlightened you are('nt) lance, but ok"

By all means, enlighten me.; May 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal -- Can you prove that there were more than two non-LAX players attendees at the party?

Without relying on the fictional account of the elusive Kilgo, that is.; May 21, 2014 at 9:02 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "HUH!!!!
....... Everyone of those you cited have more credibility then does Fats Thomas. At the same time as he was slandering Crystal her Pastor the late highly respected Dr. Delois Burnette who had known her all her life was attesting to her character. She had wisely counselled Crystal not to do escorting exotic dancing because despite of ones good intentions, money notwithstanding, it was fraught with peril; May 21, 2014 at 9:16 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: -- Can you prove that there were more than two non-LAX players attendees at the party?".. For now, I am only relying on my own experience and on common sense that such "bashes" are never exclusive. Why only two guests and why did they, so coincidentally, happen to show up in photos. Many attending Players did not. I have confidence that the truth will eventually come out. A guilty conscience is a heavy weight.; May 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "For now, I am only relying on my own experience and on common sense that such "bashes" are never exclusive."

Do you party often with the Duke LAX team?; May 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I guess Sister didn't pay much attention to her pastor, huh......; May 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Frankly, I could care less whether Mangum ever sold herself. Who gives a rip. In fact, transactions with working girls take at least two parties....buyers and sellers. So, the johns or joans who may have paid for her, ugh, favors...can't be left out of the equation. Apparently at least five males had intimate contact with Msssss Mangum in, what would be for most folks, a relatively short period. I doubt most women who are not getting something in return, would have five different males partying with them in close time proximity. But, again, who cares? She is a convicted murderer, serving time, and that's all that matter to me. She's off the streets. One less criminal in Durham.; May 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"For now, I am only relying on my own experience and on common sense that such "bashes" are never exclusive. Why only two guests and why did they, so coincidentally, happen to show up in photos. Many attending Players did not. I have confidence that the truth will eventually come out. A guilty conscience is a heavy weight."

All this adds up to is, you can not provide any credible, factual evidence at all, nothing to support Crystal's allegations of rape, nothing to support your belief that there were a score or more non lax party attendees.

This is really interesting. You can provide not credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped. Yet you insist she was. Meanwhile, Walt in Durham has made a credible factual case that Crystal was a prostitute. Yet you insist she was not.

I wonder about whether or not you cann recognize what is reality.

You base your claim on information you received from Kilgo. Kilgo did not appear on SIDNEY's blog until years after Crystal's false allegations were made. Basically, years after the phony rape case, Kilgo alleged he had a friend who told him that a rape had happened. That does not make for a credible allegation of wrongdoing.

You have said, you know no reason why Kilgo would lie. That is not good enough. YOU have to PROVE that Kilgo told the truth.; May 21, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"....... Everyone of those you cited have more credibility then does Fats Thomas. At the same time as he was slandering Crystal her Pastor the late highly respected Dr. Delois Burnette who had known her all her life was attesting to her character. She had wisely counselled Crystal not to do escorting exotic dancing because despite of ones good intentions, money notwithstanding, it was fraught with peril".

So what?

Did any of them show up to testify in her murder trial. If not, by then they did not believe Crystal was a person of good character.

race baiter al and race baiter jesse once stood up for Crystal. Since she was exposed as a false accuser they have kept distance between themselves and Crystal. So have some erstwhile Crystal advocates such as Wency Murphy and Nancy Grace.

Finally, through her own actions, which are matters of fact, not fabrication, has established she is not a person of good character.

I say again, I really question whether or not you are in touch with reality.; May 21, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "none being the lax party goers".... That conclusion can only be drawn if you assume (or better yet prove) that there were only two non-players attendees at the party. P.S. You can't rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase. Do your homework and discover that for yourself."

Again I question whether or not you are in touch with reality.

You are saying it is up to someone other than you to prove there were not more than two non lax players at the party.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

You are asserting there were at least half the attendees at the party. You rely on a piece of hearsay from someone named Kilgo.

It is up to YOU to prove that at least half the party attendees were non lacrosse players who went unidentified.

You have not. Your unsupported allegations are not proof. Neither is Kilgo's hearsay.

I say again, Kilgo's hearsay is particularly non credible since he did not make the allegation until years had passed since Crystal made her false allegations.; May 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Regarding your statement that one can not rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase:

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

A positive test for acid phosphatase means semen is present.

A negative test for acid phosphatase means nothing.

You are presuming that one must assume semen was present. No one can't. If one is to prove that Crystal was describing a real event, that she was gang raped by a number of men who penetrated her, not using condoms and ejaculated on her. one would have to prove Semen was present.

You should leave the interpretation of medical or medico legal testing to people who know something about it. That leaves out you and SIDNEY.; May 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 21, 2014 at 7:27 AM

The word you are looking for is libel, not liable.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you can not use words properly.

Telling the truth is not libel.; May 21, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I have confidence that the truth will eventually come out. A guilty conscience is a heavy weight."

I again question your grip on reality.

If a guilty conscience is a heavy weight, it is unlikely any one would bear it for 8+ years. The only logical conclusion is that no one has a guilty conscience. No one ever witnessed a rape at 610 Buchanan Avenue on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Your statement says, de facto, once again, you can provide no credible factual evidence Crystal was raped.

I remind you. YOU are asserting. YOU have to prove. YOU have to prove Crystal was raped. YOU have to prove there were unidentified party attendees. YOU have not.; May 21, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Please explain how one can rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase to prove a rape had happened.

I say again, I question your grip on reality.; May 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Ken -- Refresh my memory. What's the deal about acid phosphatase? We know that DNA from 5 different subjects was found.

("during Michael Nifong's ethics trial on June 14, 2007, the complete DNA findings were revealed during Brad Bannon's testimony. It revealed, according to conservative estimates, that the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her panties; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina.")*

Now, there's nothing to indicate the source of the DNA, but a negative acid phosphatase result would definitely indicate a lack of semen.
Mangum had a rape-kit exam administered only hours after the end of the party...If her story about being the victim of a semen-depositing rape were true, there's no way an acid phosphatase test would be false.

*Source: EJFI.ORG; May 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid - you do recall that Meier not only talked about how Daye kicked the door off its frame, he actually had an accident reconstruction expert ready to testify with a demonstration and analysis of the force required for that, unfortunately the Judge would not allow that evidence in.

So, basically, your entire claim for self-defense would have been what Meier did, and then a bunch of stuff that is completely inadmissible.

How would our outcome have been different?

Your restatement of my defense strategy is simplistic and far from comprehensive as I stated. Meier never did any investigation. His expert witness to discuss the door lacked relevance as there was no dispute that Daye busted the door and dragged Mangum out by the hair. The question is why did Meier not call Larry O'Briant as a witness with respect to an earlier domestic violence incident.

Meier never challenged the credibility of Daye and his cousin with regards to the apparent motive of Mangum stabbing Daye. Daye and his cousin told police that Mangum took his money, stabbed him, and then ran. No credibility. Not only that, but Daye was drunk.; May 21, 2014 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: For Lance the Supreme Poster:

Regarding Acid Phosphatase, AP is found in semen in very high concentrations. If a male deposited semen in a woman's genital tract, if a specimen were to be taken from that tract in a few hours, the specimen would test positive for acid phosphatase.

I have read, and I am sorry I can not recall the source, that finding acid phosphatase on rape kit materials is presumptive evidence that Semen is present, 97% chance. Further testing is done to confirm the presence of semen. If the materials tested are negative for acid phosphatase, it can only mean semen is not present.

KENHYDERAL has said, correctly I admit, a rape can happen and there can be no semen on the rape kit. The perpetrators wear condoms, the perpetrators did not ejaculate, the materials were not recovered and preserved in a timely fashion, the woman washed up after the rape. None of the circumstances KENHYDERAL cites would apply to the kind of rape Crystal described, a gang rape in which multiple males not wearing condoms penetrated her and ejaculated on her.

The way I think KENHYDERAL sees it, since semen is not present in some rapes, the absence of semen on Crystal's rape kit does not prove that Crystal was not raped. In his mind it must therefore be presumed she was raped.

I have read sources which quote experts who say, if the rape Crystal did happen it would have been impossible for the perps not to leave evidence. I think Professor Johnson quotes sources in UPI.

Sorry to be long winded. I could have just said, KENHYDERAL remains in denial that Crystal lied about being raped.; May 21, 2014 at 1:35 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,

More than half of the comments on this page (comments 401 to 433) are devoted entirely or primarily to insulting other commenters or are responding to such comments. This comment and guiowen's comments are included in the total. These comments contain no or minimal discussion of any issues. I note that none of kenhyderal's comments are included in my count.

That statistic speaks volumes to the quality of discourse you have permitted to develop on this blog. I suggest you establish some guidelines.

Thank you for your concerns about the content of the blog site. I wish the comments were all thoughtful and constructive... regardless of whether or not they agreed with me.

So far, the kenhyderal policy is the only one in place.. to rid the absolute worst of the worst comments. I will do my best to monitor comments but my limited online time restricts policing all comments. Also, I have been busy trying to complete my latest sharlog... it is going to be very informative and enlightening. Maybe by this weekend, if possible, it will be posted.; May 21, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Your restatement of my defense strategy is simplistic and far from comprehensive as I stated. Meier never did any investigation. His expert witness to discuss the door lacked relevance as there was no dispute that Daye busted the door and dragged Mangum out by the hair. The question is why did Meier not call Larry O'Briant as a witness with respect to an earlier domestic violence incident."

The answer probably is there was no medical record of the incident. I recall that Crystal did not make that claim until she was under arrest and charged with Murder 1. Why have you not provided the record?

Meier never challenged the credibility of Daye and his cousin with regards to the apparent motive of Mangum stabbing Daye. Daye and his cousin told police that Mangum took his money, stabbed him, and then ran. No credibility. Not only that, but Daye was drunk."

Yes what Mr. Daye's nephew said was credible, something like It was THE Crystal Mangum. So far as motive, you are arguing that since you can not come up with a motive, the stab wound did not happen, not surprising since your grasp of reality is no better than KENHYDERAL's

The preponderance of he evidence is that he was not drunk, in spite of the BAT. The police noted Crystal's behavior which was consistent with intoxication. Did any of the police records ever describe Mr. Daye's behavior as alcohol impaired?

KENHYDERAL argues that a chronic alcoholic could have tolerated a Blood alcohol that high. An alcoholic who could have tolerated a blood alcohol that high would have had a seriously damaged liver. Mr. Daye's liver was normal. KENHYDERAL's claim that some alcoholics have normal livers may be true. But most alcoholics with normal livers would not be tolerant to a blood alcohol that high.

Of course, you may argue that Dr. Nichols' report was fraudulent. In view that you do not have the professional qualifications to make that kind of judgment means your claim is baseless.; May 21, 2014 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I have been busy trying to complete my latest sharlog... it is going to be very informative and enlightening."

You again show your grip on reality is tenuous, extremely tenuous. You have never published anything which was enlightening or informative.; May 21, 2014 at 1:47 PM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Thanks for the info, anonymous.

Given the absence of AP in the rape kit, I found it difficult to see how anyone could believe CGM's claims of a semen-depositing rape.

If she's lying about the rape being semen-depositing, common sense (as Ken would say) would indicate she lied about other things as well.; May 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: " Now, there's nothing to indicate the source of the DNA, but a negative acid phosphatase result would definitely indicate a lack of semen...... DNA from sperm not explained by Crystal's history of consensual sex. Since semen is the vehicle for sperm ergo if sperm was detected then there was semen. You are wrong about the infallibility of the AP test. In an earlier posting I quoted an expert on a Forensic Science discussion group. Here is a response to this question by an expert on a Yahoo Forensic Science Discussion Board. Here is that quote. "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". It's my understanding that 48 hours is the absolute outer limit and even after a few hours since semen is a physiologic fluid vaginal secretions can, in a short period of time, render it non deductible. Lets say, for the sake of argument, a woman was raped at 12:30 AM and her rape kit was taken at 9:30 AM, this is sufficient time for semen to be washed away physiologically.; May 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The question is why did Meier not call Larry O'Briant as a witness with respect to an earlier domestic violence incident.

No, the question is, why did Mangum lie about that alleged incident if it happened?; May 21, 2014 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"DNA from sperm not explained by Crystal's history of consensual sex."

Which means only that you did not have a complete history of the consensual sexual incidents in which Crystal engaged. You are alleging that Crystal had no sexual encounters in the week prior to the party. Walt presented credible factual evidence that Crystal had multiple sexual encounters less than one week prior to the party.

"Since semen is the vehicle for sperm ergo if sperm was detected then there was semen."

You would have to prove that the sperm was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You can't.

"You are wrong about the infallibility of the AP test. In an earlier posting I quoted an expert on a Forensic Science discussion group. Here is a response to this question by an expert on a Yahoo Forensic Science Discussion Board. Here is that quote. "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'."

In the case of the rape alleged by Crystal, multiple males penetrating her, not using condoms, ejaculating into her, the specimens collected expeditiously, none of the reasons you quoted are applicable. It would be impossible for such a rape to have occurred without the perps leaving evidence.

"It's my understanding..."

Here you are assuming a fact not in evidence, that you understand.

"that 48 hours is the absolute outer limit and even after a few hours since semen is a physiologic fluid vaginal secretions can, in a short period of time, render it non deductible. Lets say, for the sake of argument, a woman was raped at 12:30 AM and her rape kit was taken at 9:30 AM, this is sufficient time for semen to be washed away physiologically."

Not in the kind of rape alleged by Crystal. Not in the kind of rape alleged by you, which was much more vicious than the one alleged by Crystal.

Bottom line: There is no evidence that sperm was deposited on Crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; May 21, 2014 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I say again, you should leave medical and medico legal matters to the people who understand them. That does not include either you or SIDNEY.

Why are you so focused on wanting Crystal to have been raped?; May 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Lets say, for the sake of argument, a woman was raped at 12:30 AM and her rape kit was taken at 9:30 AM, this is sufficient time for semen to be washed away physiologically."

Saying this for the sake of argument has not meaning. For this to be valid you would have to prove the woman was raped. You can not prove Crystal was raped.

The issue you dodge is the behavior of Crystal and Kim after the party. According to you, Kim had a brutalized, raped Crystal in her car. Kim called the police not to report a rape but to report she and her girlfriend had been called "n----r". Then, instead of driving her to a police station or to a hospital, she drove her to a grocery store and tried to have her forcibly removed from her car. Rape never came up until someone asked Crystal, suggestively, have you been raped.

Like it or not, it IS NOT a credible allegation of rape.; May 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: what the frack k ...

what is your problem?; May 21, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Ken -- Wasn't the rape kit tests used within 6-7 hours of the alleged rape? In the rape described by Mangum, there's no way there should be a negative AP result.

My overarching question, however, is why are you even arguing about AP results?

We KNOW the results of the DNA tests.

We know that the DNA results ruled out the men she claimed were responsible for the rape. She lied when she identified Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans.

Put it to rest already.; May 21, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: He's an idiot - that's his problem. And he worships at the altar of Sid. You really need to know more?; May 21, 2014 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Your allegation is that the unidentified DNA found on Crystal came from unidentified non Lacrosse player party attendees. You claim that the defense has to prove there were not unidentified Lacrosse player attendees. That is where you show your faulty idea of burden of proof. Yours is the burden of proof. As I have said before, it is up to you to prove your allegation. You have not.

And again I think it rather curious that you think that the Defense side of this case is carrying on a vendetta. I say again, as there is no credible factual evidence that the rape ever happened, you are the one who is carrying on a vendetta, against innocent men.

And you wonder why I question your sanity.; May 21, 2014 at 7:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "She lied when she identified Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans"... No Lance she made a mistake when subjected to a flawed photo line-up.; May 21, 2014 at 8:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Walt presented credible factual evidence that Crystal had multiple sexual encounters less than one week prior to the party" ... No he did not. She had consensual sex with her boyfriend and her driver and their DNA was found. Her schedule as a dancer was provided to the Police and one the only client they bothered to interview, denied any contact as did Crystal. The Police, not confirming her frank and fully cooperative consensual sexual history and her identifying the clients she gave performances for, certainly worked to her disadvantage. Her Agency certainly kept records. They did the bookings and they got their cut. Incidentally the money robbed from Crystal while she was incapacitated and seized by the Police was never returned to and the Agency was after her for their portion.; May 21, 2014 at 8:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "you are the one who is carrying on a vendetta, against innocent men"..... The vendetta against Crystal was underway and going strong long before I came on the scene and reconnected with Crystal. It was then I decided as a friend to counteract the filthy lies and to defend her character. Having chanced upon Dr. Harr's blog I put Crystal in touch with him in April of 2010; May 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Please explain how one can rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase to prove a rape had happened"..... You can't, nor can you prove that no rape occurred especially given the circumstances of this case.; May 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Odd that when Crystal says something wrong you say it's a mistake, when someone against Crystal says something wrong you call it lying and fraud.

But that also means you agree with Cooper that the 3 lacrosse boys are "innocent" of rape, correct? So why are you as outraged as Sid?; May 21, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: But, the burden of proof is on the State to prove a rape occurred, not anyone else to prove it didn't - and by your own admission, the 3 charged kids didn't commit rape and were this "innocent" of those charges. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Maybe something happened in that house, maybe it didn't, but those 3 didn't do it.; May 21, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Lance said: "She lied when she identified Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans"... No Lance she made a mistake when subjected to a flawed photo line-up."

No, KENHYDERAL. She lied when she said she had been raped and she lied when she identified three innocent men as her assailants.

I remind you you characterize corrupt DA NIFONG, the man who organized the "flawed photo lineup", as a "victim".; May 22, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDEERAL:

"'Anonymous said: Walt presented credible factual evidence that Crystal had multiple sexual encounters less than one week prior to the party' ... No he did not."

Yes he did.

"She had consensual sex with her boyfriend and her driver and their DNA was found. Her schedule as a dancer was provided to the Police and one the only client they bothered to interview, denied any contact as did Crystal."

Judging from Walt's credible factual evidence, she had a lot more than that. I guess you can be excused, to an extent for your denials. You have repeatedly indicated you do not comprehend the concept of factual, credible evidence.

"The Police, not confirming her frank and fully cooperative consensual sexual history and her identifying the clients she gave performances for, certainly worked to her disadvantage. Her Agency certainly kept records. They did the bookings and they got their cut."

It worked to her disadvantage and yours because it confirmed, as Walt pointed out to you, she was a sex worker.

"Incidentally the money robbed from Crystal while she was incapacitated and seized by the Police was never returned to and the Agency was after her for their portion."

Again you forget to mention, probably because you deny, that Crystal incapacitated herself before she ever got to the party.; May 22, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'you are the one who is carrying on a vendetta, against innocent men'..... The vendetta against Crystal was underway and going strong long before I came on the scene and reconnected with Crystal."

Wrong again. There never was any vendetta against Crystal. Your ranting and raving about the appropriately named Liestoppers proves that. Very little of what has been published on Liestoppers dealt with Crystal. You show you do not read the appropriately named Liestoppers.

"It was then I decided as a friend to counteract the filthy lies and to defend her character."

Wrong again. There were never any filthy lies told about Crystal.

"Having chanced upon Dr. Harr's blog I put Crystal in touch with him in April of 2010".

Which confirms what I have said earlier, that Kilgo never made his claim of having an anonymous Lacrosse player friend until years after the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were exonerated of the false charges filed against them.

You are alleging, with no, I say again, no factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party. Which says you have some agenda other than defending false accuser Crystal. Like you do not like Caucasian men who are better off and more accomplished than you are.

Alleging rape against innocent men you dislike IS a vendetta.; May 22, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'Please explain how one can rely on a negative test for acid phosphatase to prove a rape had happened'..... You can't, nor can you prove that no rape occurred especially given the circumstances of this case."

Which statement is a manifestation of your vendetta against the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players. That a rape cannot be proven to not have happened is meaningless. You are asserting that a rape did happen. So how have you proven it did happen? You haven't. You are just saying that because you do not like the Lacrosse players, they should be presumed guilty.

I say again you have some agenda other than defending Crystal, considering your offensive attitude against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, i.e. all your unjustified attacks on them.; May 22, 2014 at 12:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

To my comment of May 22, 2014 at 12:42 AM I add, there is credible factual evidence that Crystal was impaired already when she arrived at the party. The preponderance of the evidence gathered is that she was already impaired, the statements of the Lacrosse players describing her behavior which was the behavior of someone who drank alcohol on top of taking flexeril, her admission of drinking a lot of alcohol after taking flexeril.; May 22, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Anonymous said...: is there a point to your consistent harrassment on this blog?

exactly what is it?

tell us all - we'll all try to 'get it' - and there ya go ... your consistent need to make a point on this blog will be fulfilled and ya can go find something else to make a point about on another blog in case they don't 'get-it' either

right?

right

so ... there ya go - make your final point - and your case will be complete and we can all rest easier knowing we 'get' whatever it is that is your point ...

yeah and hooray

and amen to that; May 22, 2014 at 2:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge you are wrong about being able to use Daye's "prior history" of abuse in the trial? They were dismissed, yet you keep saying (deposited being repeatedly told you can't) that you'd have used it.

You are wrong - is it so hard to admit that you aren't perfect and can be wrong on an issue?; May 22, 2014 at 2:55 AM
Anonymous said...: so that's your point then?

is that it?

note: this is a democratic blog - so your point is taken, yet other's can have their takes on the matter as well - but for now - harrassement and trolling about your points is considered a crime (this is NC Duke and nonwonderland afterall) ... so ... next? Is that it?; May 22, 2014 at 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...: but for now - harrassement and trolling about your points is considered a crime

Seriously, considered a crime? By who? Will you have people arrested for it? Do you even know anything about the law?

I always knew you were Sid with a different alias - your total cluelessness on the law just proves it.; May 22, 2014 at 4:17 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'Anonymous said: "Reginald Daye did die of complications of his surg'ry and not of DTs or alcohol withdrawal"......... Then we should of heard that from those who treated him."

Why? That would have only put more nails in Crystal's coffin.

"Neither you or I were there when the treatments he was receiving killed him."

The treatment did not kill him. The complications of the stab wound which Crystal inflicted on him killed him. And since neither you nor SIDNEY were there, neither one of you is in position to dispute the findings of the forensic pathologists.

"I would like to have heard what the surgeons, who accomplished his wound repair, would have had to say about this."

Why? Considering your posts you would not believe the truth.

"Keep in mind it was the treatment of those complications (knife wound or alcohol withdrawal) and not the condition per se".

Here, yet again, you show you should leave the medical matters to people who know about them. The complications would have never happened had Crystal never stabbed him. Alcohol withdrawl was not one of the complications.

People who know about medical issues include neither you nor SIDNEY.; May 22, 2014 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: no - evil duke troll

you're total cluenesses about NC, Duke, and what you are talking about in comparison to it make all your comments pure unrelenting harrassment, trolling, slandering, bullying, and the commission of hate crimes (albeit I'm sure your own 'issues' play into a majority of what you say). Read the local paper for a change and quit trolling here

thanks; May 22, 2014 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 22, 2014 at 4:53 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; May 22, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 22, 2014 at 4:53 AM

"no - evil duke troll

you're total cluenesses about NC, Duke, and what you are talking about in comparison to it make all your comments pure unrelenting harrassment, trolling, slandering, bullying, and the commission of hate crimes (albeit I'm sure your own 'issues' play into a majority of what you say). Read the local paper for a change and quit trolling here

thanks"

It seem you, like KENHYDERAL, suffer from sever lack of self esteem.; May 22, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Her Agency certainly kept records. They did the bookings and they got their cut."

For a guy who claims Crystal was not a prostitute, you keep making her look like a prostitute.

Walt-in-Durham; May 22, 2014 at 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...: does that mean your going to go post somewhere else and quit trolling here then?

ok ... be well; May 22, 2014 at 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 22, 2014 at 4:53 AM

Did you have a dysfunctional relationship with your mother? You behave a lot like KENHYDERAL whenever he is confronted with his low self esteem issues.; May 22, 2014 at 5:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 22, 2014 at 5:27 AM

"does that mean your going to go post somewhere else and quit trolling here then?"

Irrelevant question.

I don't troll. Unlike SIDNEY HARR I provide real enlightenment.

Go and be enllightened.; May 22, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...: i quess ya'll are gonna continue your trolling here because ... why exactly again?

yeah Walt ... that's what it meant wasn't it ... best go shut them down then ... off ya go ... have a great time; May 22, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The question is why did Meier not call Larry O'Briant as a witness with respect to an earlier domestic violence incident."

It is rarely a good idea for defense counsel to call a witness to contradict his own client. It is even a worse idea when his own client's credibility is in question.

"Daye and his cousin told police that Mangum took his money, stabbed him, and then ran. No credibility."

That's your opinion backed up by no facts. The jury heard the cousin and heard Mangum. They disagreed with you. Nothing you say can replace the judgment of a jury as it regards issues of fact.

"Not only that, but Daye was drunk."

That is a common refrain of yours, that somehow intoxication removes the protection of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Walt-in-Durham; May 22, 2014 at 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah Walt, but the jury also heard all this prior bs about Ms. Mangum, whereas they heard no cross examination and prior bs about the cousin and Mr. Daye

fair and equal do ya think?; May 22, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid - why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge you are wrong about being able to use Daye's "prior history" of abuse in the trial? They were dismissed, yet you keep saying (deposited being repeatedly told you can't) that you'd have used it.

You are wrong - is it so hard to admit that you aren't perfect and can be wrong on an issue?

I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect and can be wrong on an issue. "I am not perfect, and can be wrong on an issue." There. However, I am not wrong in referencing a criminal record of Reginald Daye that states that he was charged with assault on a female. It's there in black and white. I'm not making it up!; May 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: But, Sid, the charge was dismissed. Therefore, (1) Daye has no criminal record of abuse and (2) as has been explained, the dismissed charge can't be used against him.

I assume you are intelligent enough to understand this. You have presented nothing to show that either assertion is incorrect. Why, then, won't you admit you are wrong for chiding the defense attorney for not mentioning Daye's non-existent criminal record and inadmissable previous charge?; May 22, 2014 at 8:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: The treatment did not kill him"........ Are you ever in denial!; May 22, 2014 at 8:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt of 5:27.... Walt you are now suggesting that the Agency Crystal worked for was pimping? You need to be careful about making such charges; May 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Did you have a dysfunctional relationship with your mother? You behave a lot like KENHYDERAL whenever he is confronted with his low self esteem issues".... If this is you Dr. Anonymous let me remind you again how unprofessional it is for a Physician to make such comments. No wonder you wont reveal your name. I'm sure your Medical Association would look unfavorably on you making psychiatric diagnoses of posters on a blog.; May 22, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

It is no secret that Mangum was a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer). In fact, it is common knowledge. It is really not a big deal, either. Deal with it and move on.; May 22, 2014 at 9:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It is no secret that Mangum was a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer). In fact, it is common knowledge".... The meta-narrative continues and the gossip, lies, libel and slander go on. The eight year long campaign has created this erroneous "common knowledge. "Conventional wisdom" is in this case dead wrong.; May 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes. As has repeatedly been explained - he was charged, but not convicted, therefore it is inadmissible. A charge is NOT admissible. You are still wrong. Even a conviction isn't admissible if more than 10 years old.; May 22, 2014 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Denying that Mangum worked as a prostitute/escort does nothing to advance her cause and only damages your credibility. If you really want to seriously discuss Mangum you must be willing to do so truthfully and honestly. Otherwise, what is the point and why shouldn't everyone continue to take you as a anything but a joke?; May 22, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect and can be wrong on an issue.

No you don't. You are wrong on the issue of whether or not DA NIFONG's prosecution of the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players was proper and you will not admit that.

"I am not perfect, and can be wrong on an issue." There."

There what? You still have not admitted and faced up to how wrong you were and are will continue to be about Crystal's false rape accusations.

"However, I am not wrong in referencing a criminal record of Reginald Daye that states that he was charged with assault on a female. It's there in black and white. I'm not making it up!"

The questions are: why do you fail to mention that this charge happened years ago and was dismissed; why do you fail to mention that two women in the intervening years told the police that Reginald Daye was not violent or an habitual drinker; why do you not mention that Reginald Daye's criminal record was a series of very minor offenses, nothing nearly as extensive and as ignominious as Crystal's prior record.

Very Nifongian. Mention only what is inculpatory, omit what is exculpatory and then claim you have proven something.

All you have proven is that you get it seriously wrong and then institute personal posterior camouflage.; May 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'Anonymous said: The treatment did not kill him'........ Are you ever in denial!"

No. It has been obvious for years that you are the one who is in denial.

Classic psychological projection.; May 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Walt of 5:27.... Walt you are now suggesting that the Agency Crystal worked for was pimping? You need to be careful about making such charges"

Empty threat KENHYDERAL screams BOO.

Walt is expressing an opinion which he backs up with credible factual evidence, something you have never done when making your allegations.; May 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"If this is you Dr. Anonymous let me remind you again how unprofessional it is for a Physician to make such comments."

By whose criteria? Yours? You who carry on a vendetta against innocent men, your standards of professional and right are sadly lacking and have been ever since you have posted on this blog.

"No wonder you wont reveal your name. I'm sure your Medical Association would look unfavorably on you making psychiatric diagnoses of posters on a blog."

Empty threat KENHYDERAL shouts BOO again.; May 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "It is no secret that Mangum was a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer). In fact, it is common knowledge".... The meta-narrative continues and the gossip, lies, libel and slander go on."

Wrong again. There was no metanarrative, except in your delusional mind. All this is another documentation of how far out of touch with reality you are.

"The eight year long campaign has created this erroneous 'common knowledge.'"

Wrong yet again. What has created this factual common knowledge is Crystal's record as a bad actress which began before she falsely accused three innocent men of raping her.

"Conventional wisdom" is in this case dead wrong".

You, who have no idea of what wisdom is, are the one who has been repeatedly wrong. You again document how far out of reality you are.; May 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

If you are not out of touch with reality you would have been able to show credible factual evidence to support your position. That you maintain that position while having no credible, factual evidence documents you do not know what wisdom is.; May 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 11:58 and 12:01; I've made no threat overtly or implied against Dr. Anonymous or Walt. In the case of Walt I was simply warning him that charges like he made could be libelous and in the case of Dr. Anonymous I was simply expressing dismay that a physician would engage in such unprofessional conduct.; May 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Anonymous 11:58 and 12:01; I've made no threat overtly or implied against Dr. Anonymous or Walt. In the case of Walt I was simply warning him that charges like he made could be libelous and in the case of Dr. Anonymous I was simply expressing dismay that a physician would engage in such unprofessional conduct."

Now, after making empty threats, KENHYDERAL tries to deny he did. See how far removed from reality he is.; May 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Acknowledging the fact that Mangum was a prostitute (or escort or working girl, if you prefer) and noting that she used an escort agency to book her "appointments" is not libelous.

No one will ever be sued for defamation for calling Mangum a prostitute.; May 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Don't be too sure.; May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Don't be too sure(that someone who called Crystal a prostitute would not be sued for libel)."

Don't be too sure that any trial lawyer would represent her, since the chance of recovery and a big contingency fee would be non existent.

Maybe SIDNEY would represent her. If he did the most likely result would be another disastrous result for Crystal.; May 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: But I am sure.; May 22, 2014 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe SIDNEY would represent her. If he did the most likely result would be another disastrous result for Crystal.

Fortunately, since he isn't a lawyer, he can't do that - which is definitely a good thing for her (he already got in trouble with the State Bar for his filing of motions and interfering on her behalf in the murder case - which is why he started drafting them and having her sign them).; May 22, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...: Many posters treat Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal unfairly. He is not a Nazi, a racist or a schizoid. He does not believe innocent people should be prosecuted for crimes without credible evidence. He does not wish that Crystal was violently raped.

Kenny wishes to facilitate what he calls "open discussion." An "open discussion" is one in which he makes wild and unsupported claims and requires others to accept those claims as valid unless they can prove that those claims cannot possibly be true. Kenny is careful not to make claims that cannot be proven false with absolute certainty. Finally, in an "open discussion," all assertions made by others must be taken as false unless it can be proven that no other explanation is even remotely possible.

Probability is irrelevant in an "open discussion." Evidence is unimportant unless it proves one of Kenny's assertions to be false with absolute certainty. In an "open discussion," Kenny "wins" the debate if his claims are theoretically possible, even if they are shown to be preposterous, implausible or extremely unlikely.

A number of posters owe Kenny an apology. They cannot accept his many "victories." As guiowen has so glowingly described, Kenny is a "master debater."; May 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Walt you are now suggesting that the Agency Crystal worked for was pimping? You need to be careful about making such charges."

No kenny, those would be your words.; May 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "However, I am not wrong in referencing a criminal record of Reginald Daye that states that he was charged with assault on a female. It's there in black and white. I'm not making it up!"

But, you are not answering the question of how you would use that record of dismissals to impeach the credibility of the late Reginald Daye. Prior bad acts are not generally admissible into evidence. Again, on what theory would you seek to admit those dismissed charges?

Walt-in-Durham; May 22, 2014 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I am retired.

No Medical Society, no State Licensing authority has any jurisdiction over me any more.

Dr. Anonymous; May 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: So now, you feel free to do what would be considered unethical by such authorities or governing bodies. That raises the question, when you were licenced did you always behave ethically in this regard?; May 22, 2014 at 8:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Here, yet again, you show you should leave the medical matters to people who know about them. The complications would have never happened had Crystal never stabbed him. Alcohol withdrawl was not one of the complications"........ Not a complication of the surgical repair, I agree. That was a complication of withholding alcohol in someone with alcohol habituation. That disease has no relationship to the wound he suffered. No nexus there. The torturous logic that says, if he had not been hospitalized he could of kept on boozing enough to stave off withdrawal just doesn't hold up; May 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "So now, you feel free to do what would be considered unethical by such authorities or governing bodies. That raises the question, when you were licenced did you always behave ethically in this regard?"

That's an easy charge to make, but you don't back it up with any rule or citation to any authority. I doubt that any of Dr. A's comments are unethical under the rules of the North Carolina medical board. But please, cite authority for your position.

Walt-in-Durham; May 23, 2014 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"So now, you feel free to do what would be considered unethical by such authorities or governing bodies. That raises the question, when you were licenced did you always behave ethically in this regard?"

You demonstrate again how resentful you are not only against Caucasian males but against anyone who is more accomplished than you are.

Why do you have such low self esteem?

Is it because you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother.

Carrying on your vendetta against innocent falsely accused men is not helping you one bit.; May 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:
"Anonymous said: "Here, yet again, you show you should leave the medical matters to people who know about them. The complications would have never happened had Crystal never stabbed him. Alcohol withdrawl was not one of the complications"........ Not a complication of the surgical repair, I agree. That was a complication of withholding alcohol in someone with alcohol habituation. That disease has no relationship to the wound he suffered."

That condition never existed.

"No nexus there."

So this judgment of yours has no significance.

"The torturous logic that says, if he had not been hospitalized he could of kept on boozing enough to stave off withdrawal just doesn't hold up".

Straw Fisherman holding up a red herring.

There is no evidence that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Ergo your argument has zero significance. Had he not been stabbed he would not have continued drinking and DT's would not have happened.

However, res ipsa loquitur: had he never suffered the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, he would never have required treatment for it and there would have been no medical complications.

I say again, leave the medical items to people who know about them, of whom you have again shown you are not one.

You take offense because of comments based on my knowledge and experience. You have no such knowledge or experience. Neither does SIDNEY HARR. Yet both of you make medical judgments.

More evidence as to how detached from reality you are.; May 23, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Maybe SIDNEY would represent her. If he did the most likely result would be another disastrous result for Crystal.

Fortunately, since he isn't a lawyer, he can't do that - which is definitely a good thing for her (he already got in trouble with the State Bar for his filing of motions and interfering on her behalf in the murder case - which is why he started drafting them and having her sign them).

You don't consider an innocent person being sentenced to 14 to 18 years in prison a disastrous result? ... and I'm not responsible for that!; May 23, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Did anyone, including you, Walt, read the five part series in The News & Observer about the sorry state of medical examiners in North Carolina? Seems as though everyone wants to avoid the topic.

I intend on posting a response to that series no later than tomorrow afternoon.

Got to run and get to working on it.

As you were.; May 23, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You don't consider an innocent person being sentenced to 14 to 18 years in prison a disastrous result? ... and I'm not responsible for that!"

Sentencing Crystal to 14 to 18 years in prison does not qualify as a disastrous result. It probably would not have happened had you not interfered with Crystal's defense, telling her the state had no case against her and the charges would be dropped before she ever went to trial.

You can not comprehend how three falsely accused innocent men can actually be innocent, so why should any one take seriously your concepts of innocence or guilt.; May 23, 2014 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

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

SIDNEY HARR pathetically cries out for attention.

"Did anyone, including you, Walt, read the five part series in The News & Observer about the sorry state of medical examiners in North Carolina? Seems as though everyone wants to avoid the topic."

It talks about how underfunded, understaffed and overworked the office is. It says nothing about the ethics of the examiners.

"I intend on posting a response to that series no later than tomorrow afternoon."

If it is like your other responses, it will be a complete distortion of the series

"Got to run and get to working on it."

SIDNEY has found another reason to rant and rave because his favorite murderess did not get a pass and was not let out on the street to wreak more mayhem.; May 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/18/4917152/problems-found-with-nc-medical.html#.U39xz5RdWzw

The Charlotte Observer told of a number of cases in which the cause of death was missed because the Medical Examiner missed findings. That was not the case with the Reginald Dayer autopsy.

If Clay Nichols and Chrestena Peterson had performed like those examiners they would have missed findings. Dr. Peterson is not from the NC Medical Examiner's office, so none of this article concerned her. Her agreement with Dr. Nichols' findings would say that the autopsy Dr. Nichols performed was accurate.

Maybe that is why you are so angry about it. Crystal was convicted because the Autopsy was correct and not a botched job in which the cause of death was missed. Had the cause of death been missed, Crystal, as you would have desired, would have walked to wreak more havoc on North Carolina.; May 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid is once again refusing to acknowledge/comment on the alleged Criminal Record of Daye because he knows he is completely WRONG and it is inadmissible.

Pretty typical.; May 23, 2014 at 9:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "I doubt that Dr. A's comments are unethical under the rules of the North Carolina Medical Board" Let me then quote Dr. Richard A. Friedman M.D. Professor of Clinical Pychiatry and Director of Psychopharmacology at the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic and the Weill Cornell Medical College. "It is intellectually dishonest for a mental health professional — or any physician — to give a diagnosis without examining the patient. A professional opinion is supposed to reflect a thorough and rigorous evaluation of a patient and all relevant clinical data obtained under the protection of strict confidentiality. Anything short of that misleads the public about what constitutes accepted medical practice and invites distrust of the profession as a whole"; May 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'Walt said: "I doubt that Dr. A's comments are unethical under the rules of the North Carolina Medical Board' Let me then quote Dr. Richard A. Friedman M.D. Professor of Clinical Pychiatry and Director of Psychopharmacology at the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic and the Weill Cornell Medical College. 'It is intellectually dishonest for a mental health professional — or any physician — to give a diagnosis without examining the patient. A professional opinion is supposed to reflect a thorough and rigorous evaluation of a patient and all relevant clinical data obtained under the protection of strict confidentiality. Anything short of that misleads the public about what constitutes accepted medical practice and invites distrust of the profession as a whole'"

Walt's question referred to the NC Medical Board. What does a professor in New York have to do with the NC medical board? Does the professor have any authority, judicial or otherwise?

In any event, I am giving you my personal opinion, based on my background and knowledge, a background and sum of knowledge which neither you nor SIDNEY possess. I point out that both you and SIDNEY, without examining a patient thoroughly, render medical opinions which you expect to be taken seriously.

And, in any event, neither the NC Medical Board nor Richard Friedman have any jurisdiction over me.

Maybe you think your empty threats put me under their jurisdiction. If so, it would not surprise me considering how unacquainted with reality you are.

I say again, leave the opinions on medical matters to those who are knowledgeable, which you are not.

You are just resentful over people who are better off and more accomplished than you are. Why do you have such poor self esteem?; May 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You know it is a bit of hubris for a Canadian Citizen trying to deny to an American Citizen the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to express opinions freely.; May 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

I suggest that you not criticize others for their intellectual dishonesty.; May 23, 2014 at 3:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: No, I'm only asking Dr. Anonymous to behave more ethically. And I ask readers, here, if they think that him making psychiatric diagnoses of me is ethical behaviour from a physician retired or not; May 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

I find his name calling and his psychiatric diagnoses to be childish. However, you earned that.

I suggest that you apologize for your own intellectual dishonesty rather than whining about others. If you acted more intellectually honest, you would not attract such childish criticism.; May 23, 2014 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"No, I'm only asking Dr. Anonymous to behave more ethically. And I ask readers, here, if they think that him making psychiatric diagnoses of me is ethical behaviour from a physician retired or not"

I am behaving ethically whether you recognize it or not. I am rendering opinions only.

Your problem is you are trying to dodge the challenge I have repeatedly issued, provide factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped.

If you do respond it is with the lame meaningless, Well, you can't prove she wasn't raped.

Who has the obligation to prove in a criminal case?; May 23, 2014 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I wonder what Dr. Richard A. Friedman M.D. would think of someone who insists, contrary to reality, that some woman was raped.

You have provided no factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped.

In spite of your inadequate attempt at research, the failure to find Semen on the rape kit materials did rule out a rape in this case.; May 23, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I wonder what Dr. Richard A. Friedman M.D. would think about some guy conducting a vendetta against men he doesn't know because he believes, contrary to reality, that they raped a woman he likes.; May 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Walt said...: " I point out that both you and SIDNEY, without examining a patient thoroughly, render medical opinions which you expect to be taken seriously."

Excellent point.; May 23, 2014 at 5:28 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: ""It is intellectually dishonest for a mental health professional — or any physician — to give a diagnosis without examining the patient."

I have never seen Dr. A. give a diagnosis. What he has given is scientific information. He has not ever tried to diagnose or treat Crystal on this site. But, offering an opinion about medical treatment is much different from offering a diagnosis.

Dr. A. never does anything that Sid doesn't do. He offers information and of opinion. But, Sid has never examined, let alone treated Crystal. Your position is a classic example of a double standard. Those who agree with you are fine, those who disagree are unethical. That's not the way it works.

Walt-in-Durham; May 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Walt said...: Now, when we get to examination and diagnosis, who did examine the late Reginald Daye? That would be Dr. Clay Nichols, M.D. a board certified pathologist. Dr. Nichols did have an opportunity to examine the late lamented Reginald Daye. Dr. Nichols did offer a diagnosis. His diagnosis was...???? Oh yeah, he diagnosed Daye as dying as a result of a stab wound. Period, end of discussion.

By Kenny's standard, no one can offer an opinion that is contrary to Kenny's unfounded, intellectually dishonest (remember it is "intellectual dishonesty to diagnose without examination) position.

So, who are the intellectually dishonest posters here?

Walt-in-Durham; May 23, 2014 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: No, I'm only asking Dr. Anonymous to behave more ethically. And I ask readers, here, if they think that him making psychiatric diagnoses of me is ethical behaviour from a physician retired or not

But you never ask Dr. Harr to behave ethically - you really that much of a hypocrite?; May 23, 2014 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Now, when we get to examination and diagnosis, who did examine the late Reginald Daye? That would be Dr. Clay Nichols, M.D. a board certified pathologist. Dr. Nichols did have an opportunity to examine the late lamented Reginald Daye. Dr. Nichols did offer a diagnosis. His diagnosis was...???? Oh yeah, he diagnosed Daye as dying as a result of a stab wound. Period, end of discussion.

And, Dr. Roberts (who is not board Certified, but is a forensic pathologist) also reviewed the records and the autopsy.; May 23, 2014 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: oh, i see

so, since durham / duke judicial system is so fracked up to the point where these allegations exist,

but people like you insist that they don't because of various reasons,

yet because of the fracked up system that cannot be accessed due to lack of viable lawyers, judges, and da's, sbi, etc. by any to insure a balance of power with duke in durham and to prove or disprove these serious allegations,

that distrusting durham / duke / and the system is not based on the fact of the obvious and clear presentation and existance of this fracked up system that cannot be trusted to deliver services that do not harm in malicious and intentional and professionally negligent manners ...; May 23, 2014 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, how exactly are you troll proof when most of the posts on this blog are done by trolls, including cutting and pasting past posts that are not theirs even when asked repeatedly to stop doing such things?

How does that make you troll proof exactly?; May 23, 2014 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously

You are a bs evil duke troll who employs crazy making daily on this blog to further your agenda of what again? Did you get a raise from duke yet for your evil duke trolling, or are they thinking of firing you since you have failed their agenda in some way?; May 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: How does that make you troll proof exactly?

Cause he is delusional and narcissitic enough to just ignore the posts that show he's wrong (like the "criminal record of Daye"), and believes that so long as they are talking about him, it doesn't matter if what they say is good or bad.

Y'all worship a false idol in Dr. Harr - it's sad how you can't see it.

And, Kenny, your entreaties to Attorney Meier - I suspect after it became clear how delusional you and Dr. Harr were, and how uninterested in real information you were, he stopped even lurking. But, even if he does, he made it clear he didn't see a point to responding. If you want his opinion, contact him, and let us know what he says.; May 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: g... you are an annoying troll aren't you ... your little ms. manners act only works on kc's blog from what i've seen since you cheer on the hate crimes here but act all ms. manners when your being dukish and better than thouish cuz you are little ms. pc duke endorsed manners ... something people round bout here are quite used to from bs dukies like you ... little ms. bs hate crimes evil duke troll gang member manners lauded by kc for the bs troll that you are

blah; May 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: and your a bs evil duke troll who harrassess, trolls, slanders, commits hate crimes, pretends to be a retired doc, duke dad, and various other characters at whim, treats people like slaves, and commits abusive crazy making tactics by baiting and then blaming the persons you troll for defending themselves or others from your constant duke centered bullying, trolling, and hate crime commissions directed at anyone who does not conform to your bs evil ways and beliefs

blah ...
blah ...
blah ...; May 23, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: You are a bs evil duke troll who employs crazy making daily on this blog to further your agenda of what again? Did you get a raise from duke yet for your evil duke trolling, or are they thinking of firing you since you have failed their agenda in some way?

Duke pays me well to mess with you. So does Reynolds Wrap ... they want me to keep getting you to buy more and more tinfoil to wrap around your head in a vain effort to keep us from getting to you ...

Soon you too will worship your Duke overlords with the same fervor you worship our ally (though he denies it), Sidney Harr. He is hurting Crystal in ways we never could, he's a great employee and minion - he's the Manchurian candidate - we got him to hurt Crystal from the inside.

If you don't think he's really on our side, you just aren't paying attention. He's clearly doing all he can to hurt Crystal on our behalf.

Try 3 layers of tin foil, the 2 are clearly not working.; May 23, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Your last 3 words are your most articulate.; May 23, 2014 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

When will you apologize for your intellectual dishonesty?; May 23, 2014 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kilgo, will you help us find the mystery rapist?; May 23, 2014 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny and Kilgo are two of the mystery rapists. Who is the third?; May 23, 2014 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr?; May 23, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 23, 2014 at 5:59 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?

Regards edt; May 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 23, 2014 at 5:59 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?

Regards edt; May 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Harr and Dr. Roberts both had issues with Dr. Nichols's Autopsy. At the time Dr. Harr was assisting Crystal, he was given access to the autopsy. After he reviewed it and found discrepancies he convinced Attorney Vann to ask for and to receive a court ordered review by another Pathologist of Nichol's autopsy. His main issue was that Nichols made no mention of the treatments that directly killed him. Despite Dr. A.'s denial, Dr. Roberts confirmed that there was a accidental esophageal intubation of the endo-tracheal tube; not exactly superfluous information in autopsy to determine a cause of death since this is a serious often fatal medical error. Evidence showed that Dr. Nichols was severely over-worked and the quality of his work suffered. His performance on the stand showed how imprecise he was. Dr. Roberts should have been put on the stand and cross- examined about the possibility that Daye's death was probably independent of his wound.; May 23, 2014 at 8:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "I have never seen Dr. A. give a diagnosis".......... Did you miss his post a few days ago when he diagnosed me as schizoid. In the past he has repeatedly diagnosed me as having a Oedipus complex and a psychosexual disorder. These are in the medical realm. As far as his ad hominem attacks he has called me a racist and a Nazi. Godwin's Law anyone? Walt you are a reasonable man stop defending the indefensible; May 23, 2014 at 9:09 PM
dhall said...: "...stop defending the indefensible."

The irony abounds.; May 23, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You owe an apology to all the readers of this blog for your intellectual dishonesty.

No more criticism of others until you have atoned for your own sins.; May 24, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Harr and Dr. Roberts both had issues with Dr. Nichols's Autopsy. At the time Dr. Harr was assisting Crystal, he was given access to the autopsy."

SIDNEY HARR was not helping Crystal. He was HINDERING her.

"After he reviewed it and found discrepancies"

SIDNEY HARR does not have the professional credentials to enable him to determine what are or are not discrepancies in the autopsy"

"he convinced Attorney Vann to ask for and to receive a court ordered review by another Pathologist of Nichol's autopsy. His main issue was that Nichols made no mention of the treatments that directly killed him."

SIDNEY, again, does not have the professional credentials to make a determination of what killed Reginald Daye. On top of that I point out you are saying SIDNEY was capable of making that determination as to what killed him without ever laid eyes or hands on him. Aren't we a little hypocritical here?

"Despite Dr. A.'s denial, Dr. Roberts confirmed that there was a accidental esophageal intubation of the endo-tracheal tube; not exactly superfluous information in autopsy to determine a cause of death since this is a serious often fatal medical error.'

Yes Dr, Roberts did say there was an esophageal intubation, because Reginald Daye had vomited and the vomitus blocked the view of the trachea. That does not rise to the level of malpractice. The vomiting occurred as a result of evaluating Mr. Daye for a post op infection. What caused him to be evaluated for an infection was the surgery necessitated by the stab wound inflicted on him by Crystal.

Evidence showed that Dr. Nichols was severely over-worked and the quality of his work suffered. His performance on the stand showed how imprecise he was."

No it didn't. It did not show that his autopsy findings were inaccurate or fraudulent.

"Dr. Roberts should have been put on the stand and cross- examined about the possibility that Daye's death was probably independent of his wound."

First, here you, a person with no medical education or training or experience, are making a medical judgment after never laying eyes or hands on the patient. You are making that judgment based on SIDNEY's opinions which, as I have shown, are irrelevant and meaningless.

Further, Dr. Roberts' report supported Dr. Nichols' report. She could not have testified that Reginald Daye's death was independent of the stab wound without perjuring herself. Are you saying you would have suborned perjury to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes?

Finally, without any legal training or experience you are rendering a legal opinion.

You should leave not only medical issues but also legal issues to those who know about them an are capable of rendering meaningful opinions.; May 24, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt said: "I have never seen Dr. "Did you miss his post a few days ago when he diagnosed me as schizoid. In the past he has repeatedly diagnosed me as having a Oedipus complex and a psychosexual disorder."

To have actually made a diagnosis I would have had to put into your medical record my statements. I was rendering opinions on a blog, opinions which you dislike. So you are, like billy cohan, crying because people do not like his opinions.

"These are in the medical realm."

And you are in no way competent to make judgments as to what is and what is not in the legal realm.

"As far as his ad hominem attacks he has called me a racist and a Nazi."

My opinion is that you are a racist. And your attitude, that you can denounce someone you dislike and then have that person punished is something consistent with the attitudes of the Nazis.

"Godwin's Law anyone? Walt you are a reasonable man stop defending the indefensible".

No he isn't.

So far as defending the indefensible, you are defending the position that Crystal was raped even though you can not produce any credible factual evidence that she was rapedd. That suggests you have little, if any, insight into your problems.

Dr. Anonymous; May 24, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I still think the idea of having a fund raiser and/or awareness event to obtain the services of professional, well trained lawyers in the duke / durham justice system who can help 'the people', Ms. Mangum included and as first beneficiary, of sound, professional, non-conflicted, legal, and certified to work in the duke / durham justice system capability would work wonders in assisting 'the people' to obtain justice in the obviously corrupted and injust system that masquarades as the NC Duke / Durham justice system vs. the duke / durham injustice system that it is.

My suggestion for Mr. Nifong to play the part of Prince in the youtube video version of "Crazy" still seems like a grand idea to me. There would be singin' and clappin', and everyone could sing along and participate, AND a qualified non-conflicted lawyer could be obtained to assist Ms. Mangum in her defense.

anyway ... just a thought

p.s. ignore the trolls cuz they are 'running them' (per Walt's command of course); May 24, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

So far as you and your mother, I asked if you had a dysfunctional relationship with your mother. YOU said I was diagnosing you with an Oedipal complex. Why would you say something like that.

Second, so far as a psychosexual disorder, I have pointed out that you devote a lot of time and effort and energy to thinking about Crystal being gang raped. Why?

You say you are fighting for justice for her. However, you can not produce any factual credible evidence she was raped. Ergo you are not fighting for justice. So what exactly are you fighting for. Why does it require that Crystal was gang raped?

Dr. Anonymous; May 24, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: And what if she would have said she was sure that it wasn't, and have a solid, legal, and precise explanation about why, medically and legally, the cause of death would still have been the stab wound and complications? You don't think the defense knew how she'd testify and that she'd actually tie a nice little bow around the State's cause of death which would have all but guaranteed 1st Degree for crystal?

It amazes me that you seem to believe that no one asked her those questions; and that the defense didn't know what she'd say on the stand and how she'd explain things, so smthey wanted to keep her (their expert) as far away from the stand as possible to help Crystal.

You don't help your client by putting on your own witness and calling them a liar with no proof to back your claims. It would have just cleared up/explained any issues with Nichols's autopsy and given the jury a very detailed and specific path from the stab wound to the death.

I guess you and Dr Harr both actually hate Crystal and are disappointed she didn't get LWOP. I thought it was just him, it's now clear it's you too.; May 24, 2014 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: What evidence do you have that any of Crystal's attorneys had conflicts due to Duke?; May 24, 2014 at 4:16 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 678 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, May 11, 2014

N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

678 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me