Friday, June 6, 2014

Turncoat defense attorneys help convict their clients

403 comments:

1 – 200 of 403   Newer›   Newest»
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid:

You've previously indicated that your lawsuit against Duke, et al was an integral part of your efforts to free Mangum. Did that change?

Will you appeal the decision?

Will you re-file the same lawsuit against Duke yet another time, as you threatened?


Time for everyone to take a chill pill.

My lawsuit against Duke University et al. did include a complaint against the State, specifically the Attorney General's Office. I did file a motion for the Court to compel the AGO to investigate Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols' autopsy report... which it fought against doing. Had an investigation been undertaken by the AGO, it would've been to the benefit of Ms. Mangum.

To date, all that has taken place is that the Magistrate made a recommendation to the District Court Judge, but that judge has yet to rule, so filing an appeal at this stage is premature.

I have an opportunity to respond to the Magistrate's recommendation which I plan on doing.

Thanks for your inquiry.

Anonymous said...

Okay, a few things:

1. It's a LIFE sentence, not a LIVE sentence.

2. The Brady Rule applies to the State, not Defense - so the Defense attorneys CANNOT violate the Brady Rule - which has been explained to you, but you don't care - you are WRONG, but you don't care. And, the report didn't exist.

3. Again, you have no new evidence - just claiming that people who disagree with you are lying, but as #2 shows, you get things legally and factually WRONG all the time, without admitting it, so why would anyone take anything you say seriously?

4. You are the only one delusional enough to consider the Roberts' report exculpatory.

5. No wonder you can't win a lawsuit - your legal analysis is completely incorrect, and you ignore the actual law and just focus on what you want it to be.

At least you didn't repeat your other lies/mis-representations about the felony murder rule and Daye's prior record. I would say I hope that means you are learning, but I suspect they will make an appearance in what is sure to be another shlog you crap out in the next few weeks.

Anonymous said...

The defense attorneys had a bad client and very bad facts to work with. Plus, they had to contend with Sid's interference and meddling.

Mangum's decision to testify (and her subsequent testimony) and her refusal to consider a plea deal sealed her fate. Now she will have a long, long time to reflect on all her bad choices and, hopefully, get herself right with the world.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"My lawsuit against Duke University et al. did include a complaint against the State, specifically the Attorney General's Office. I did file a motion for the Court to compel the AGO to investigate Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols' autopsy report... which it fought against doing."

You omit that you had no legal standing to file such an order. You also assumed a fact not in evidence rather than prove it, that the autopsy report was fraudulent.

"Had an investigation been undertaken by the AGO, it would've been to the benefit of Ms. Mangum."

You assume as factual something which has proven not to be factual.

"To date, all that has taken place is that the Magistrate made a recommendation to the District Court Judge, but that judge has yet to rule, so filing an appeal at this stage is premature."

And if you think a district court judge will rule in your favor, well, you said you would triumph over Duke when you first filed your trivial lawsuit.

"I have an opportunity to respond to the Magistrate's recommendation which I plan on doing."

Which will be as effective as stoning him with popcorn at a range of 100 yards.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Of you, Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts, you are the only one who has said that the esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of death.

You are the only one of these three who lacks both the training and experience to make such a determination.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

You start your latest round of garbage by assuming several facts not in evidence, among them:

That the autopsy report was fraudulent;

The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of death;

That Crystal's attorneys betrayed her.

Plus, you say Crystal was convicted in a whirlwind trial. It took more than two years to bring her to trial. That was because of your interference in her defense. And it is hardly a whirlwind.

Walt said...

The only turncoat in this saga is none other than Sid. He violated the confidence that Crystal placed in him when she gave him confidential information. He then told the world, and more importantly, he told the state that the defense expert agreed with the ME that the proximate cause of death was a stab wound. Everything else about the ME's report and the IME is irrelevant.

So I say again: the only turncoat is Sid. With friends like him, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"SIDNEY HARR:

You start your latest round of garbage by assuming several facts not in evidence, among them:

That the autopsy report was fraudulent;

The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of death;

That Crystal's attorneys betrayed her.

Plus, you say Crystal was convicted in a whirlwind trial. It took more than two years to bring her to trial. That was because of your interference in her defense. And it is hardly a whirlwind."

It is necessary to create many facts and believe many fictions in order to exonerate Mangum. The problem with fabrications is that they ultimately collapse under their own weight. That is the problem Sid has encountered.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"Plus, you say Crystal was convicted in a whirlwind trial. It took more than two years to bring her to trial. That was because of your interference in her defense. And it is hardly a whirlwind."

Of those approx. 2 years, Sid spent most of the first 18 months or so complaining that the case was proceeding too slowly. Then when the case was FINALLY scheduled for trial he began complaining that it was going too fast.

Anonymous said...

Sid bases his entire argument on an alleged Brady violation by Crystal's attorneys (who are not subject to Brady), and a belief that a report by an expert which fully supports the State's conclusion as to cause of death is somehow exculpatory.

He really does want LWOP. You put your expert on the stand, and say "we want to believe you on X and Y, but want to call you a liar on Z" and your client is screwed.

Sid is an idiot.

The Great Kilgo said...

I see all the same cranks from liestoppers still post here.



QUACK



QUACK



QUACK



Anonymous said...

KIlgo June 7, 2014 at 4:30 AM

Tell us what you know about the DUke Lacrosse case. You have claimed to know more about the Duke Lacrosse case than any one else on the planet. So why do you not prove it.

Anonymous said...

Wacko Quacko Kilgo:

He squirms like a worm
He quacks like a duck
Silly chicken Killy
Knows he's fuuued.

The Great Kilgo said...

Oh No !


Ubes has lapsed into his

notorious Crank mode !

Anonymous said...

Kilgo:

Provide factual credible evidence you know anything about the Lacrosse case.

He's now a DUCK! said...

Hey, Blah Blah Blah has started to Quack Quack Quack ...

I find it funny how upset you get when people don't blindly buy into your dogma. If you want to actually help Crystal, or anyone facing what you consider injustice, you can't just rely on arguments that have not basis in law or fact - those get ignored, and crying when someone points out your argument is wrong doesn't prove your case.

As has been noted here, there are some chances at appeal for Mangum - but none of them are the ones Sid keeps braying about.

Sid is a blowhard, who laughs at you pathetic rubes who take what he says as gospel and go hide under your beds when someone points out your hero is wrong.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Silly chicken killy has reemerged. Why don't you get him to provide factual credible evidence he knows something about the Duke Lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

Question: Is Sid really as delusional as his posts seem to imply, or is this blog just a big joke to him?

If he really wanted to help Crystal, he wouldn't be repeating the same inaccurate stuff (like the Brady Rule, Felony Murder, and others) that have no basis in law, and will do NOTHING to help Crystal.

The fact he continues to repeat the same debunked and incorrect points just shows he is all about himself, and not actually helping Crystal or anyone else.

The Great Kilgo said...

We're witnessing another liestoppers crank meltdown.



QUACK



QUACK



QUACK


Anonymous said...

He squirms like a worm
He quacks like a duck
Silly chicken killy
shows he's f---ed.

Anonymous said...

KILGO

You are going around quacking like a duck and you say I am decompensating.

Shirley you jest.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You see what happens to KILGO when challenged to show he is knowledgeable?

He starts quacking like a duck.

Do you really think he is credible.

If you do, you show yourself to be non credible.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Kenhyderal, isn't this great?
Now that Kilgo's back you'll soon know who did everything that night! Isn't life great?

Anonymous said...

This is so exciting!

We will soon learn the identities of the three mystery rapists. We will learn what great leverage the mystery rapists had over the three defendants and the rest of the lacrosse team that prevented anyone from turning on the mystery rapists. We will soon learn what great leverage the mystery rapists had over Nifong and the Durham Police that prevented an investigation.

So many question. So few answer.

This is so exciting!

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You have ssen how KILGO reacts when questioned about his knowledge, or lack thereor, of the Lacrosse case. Do you really think he is credible?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Anonymous:

How can you possibly question The Great Kilgo's credibility? It is obvious that he quacks with such authority!

Anonymous said...

Where is Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal?

I wonder if he learned that Kilgo was going to expose him as one of the mystery rapists?

kenhyderal said...

Explain to us. why the red Blogger symbol does not prefix your posts. Could it be that you are an imposter and not a very sophisticated one at that. In order to pull off this type of ruse you would need to register anew. In order to dispel suspicion though just post how much money, exactly, you donated towards Crystal's bail fund.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Let's assume that this Kilgo is an "Imposter" as you suggest. Why is this Kilgo less credible than the "real" one?

The Great Kilgo said...

I don't have to explain anything to the little Canadian twit.

kenhyderal said...

Because he put up money where his mouth was

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The defense attorneys had a bad client and very bad facts to work with. Plus, they had to contend with Sid's interference and meddling.

Mangum's decision to testify (and her subsequent testimony) and her refusal to consider a plea deal sealed her fate. Now she will have a long, long time to reflect on all her bad choices and, hopefully, get herself right with the world.


If I have anything to say about it, Mangum won't be incarcerated much longer.

Mangum wasn't the worst client in the world... Perry Mason won cases and his clients lied to him all the time.

Fact is that I didn't meddle. I spoke only with Woody Vann and as a result he got Dr. Roberts involved. Scott Holmes only tried to have me remove everything about the case from my blog site. Daniel Meier I never communicated with... so I don't see how you figure I interfered.

According to prosecutors, they never offered Crystal a plea deal.

As far as taking the stand, I believe that it was the right thing for Mangum to do, but I would've made sure that she was prepared.

Anonymous said...

The Great Kilgo,

Why are you being so mean to Kenny? You will hurt his feelings.

Tell us, please. Is Kenny one of the mystery rapists?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Of you, Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts, you are the only one who has said that the esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of death.

You are the only one of these three who lacks both the training and experience to make such a determination.


Of the three, I am the only one who is telling the truth and the only one who does not have a priority of protecting Duke University Hospital.

kenhyderal said...

Imposter said: " I don't have to explain anything to the little Canadian twit" ...... Little. hmmm? But, hey,if you now don't your ruse has been exposed.

Anonymous said...

If I have anything to say about it, Mangum won't be incarcerated much longer.


Not if what you have to say is legally and factually incorrect.

As for your "meddling" the damage was revealing defense issues/strategies to the prosecution so that they could be fully prepared for them, and for giving Crystal delusions about her case, so she wouldn't listen to her attorneys.

Ask Crystal if she was offered a plea deal - she would be the best source. Except in Capital Murder, it would be extremely unlikely for a plea to have not been offered, and in the past, you said she had been offered one.

Amazing how your story changes when you want to adjust your facts.

You must cry every night that she didn't get LWOP. You really did want your martyr. If you care so much about her, why didn't you go to Court with her last week in Durham?

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
The only turncoat in this saga is none other than Sid. He violated the confidence that Crystal placed in him when she gave him confidential information. He then told the world, and more importantly, he told the state that the defense expert agreed with the ME that the proximate cause of death was a stab wound. Everything else about the ME's report and the IME is irrelevant.

So I say again: the only turncoat is Sid. With friends like him, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, I cannot even begin to comprehend how you come up with your conclusions. I'm not a turncoat... I'm the only one who is out there in the trenches battling for Crystal. Not much longer before the truth comes out and you will be exposed to the light.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Explain to us. why the red Blogger symbol does not prefix your posts. Could it be that you are an imposter and not a very sophisticated one at that. In order to pull off this type of ruse you would need to register anew. In order to dispel suspicion though just post how much money, exactly, you donated towards Crystal's bail fund."

There are indications this KILGO might be the real KILGO, the reference to "ubes" and the repeated quack, quack, quack.

That is the behavior he indulged in when his credibility was questioned.

Could it be you are trying to back off from having your story about the anonymous Lacrosse player friend because you can't back up the story?

Anonymous said...


Walt, I cannot even begin to comprehend how you come up with your conclusions. I'm not a turncoat... I'm the only one who is out there in the trenches battling for Crystal. Not much longer before the truth comes out and you will be exposed to the light.




If you know a "truth" you haven't yet revealed, what are you waiting for? So far, nothing you have revealed is remotely the "truth." You allege that the attorneys had conflicts and/or were acting on behalf of the prosecution, with no evidence. You stand alone in thinking it makes sense to put your own expert on the stand and attack them (ignoring that the Defense would have talked to her ahead of time, and knew what her responses would be, and they wouldn't be helpful to Crystal).

You really need to find a new cause - you've done enough harm here.

Nifong Supporter said...


He's now a DUCK! said...
Hey, Blah Blah Blah has started to Quack Quack Quack ...

I find it funny how upset you get when people don't blindly buy into your dogma. If you want to actually help Crystal, or anyone facing what you consider injustice, you can't just rely on arguments that have not basis in law or fact - those get ignored, and crying when someone points out your argument is wrong doesn't prove your case.

As has been noted here, there are some chances at appeal for Mangum - but none of them are the ones Sid keeps braying about.

Sid is a blowhard, who laughs at you pathetic rubes who take what he says as gospel and go hide under your beds when someone points out your hero is wrong.


now a Duck, my arguments are always backed up by facts... as in the documents courtesy of prosecution discovery.

A blowhard I am not. I am a crusader fighting for justice for those who have been forsaken by the media and legal system. I am Mangum's only hope. She will not come close to serving out her sentence... no way. She's already served more time than she should've.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"If I have anything to say about it, Mangum won't be incarcerated much longer."

So you are going to try to bust Crystal out by force. Are you going to get Shan Carter out so he can be your muscle?

"Mangum wasn't the worst client in the world... Perry Mason won cases and his clients lied to him all the time."

And in case you haven't noticed Perry Mason does not exist.

"Fact is that I didn't meddle."

Fat is you did.

"I spoke only with Woody Vann and as a result he got Dr. Roberts involved."

It is in a great deal of doubt that a competent attorney would get Dr. Roberts involved on the word of a minimally trained minimally experienced person who happened to have MD appended to his name.

"Scott Holmes only tried to have me remove everything about the case from my blog site."

And you refused to do so. Had you done so, you would have benefited greatly.

"Daniel Meier I never communicated with... so I don't see how you figure I interfered."

But you wanted to.

"According to prosecutors, they never offered Crystal a plea deal."

Maybe that was because you were advising Crystal not to take a deal because you would see she never went to trial. Look how that turned out to Crystal's distress.

"As far as taking the stand, I believe that it was the right thing for Mangum to do, but I would've made sure that she was prepared."

Shirley you jest. Having her believe the state had no case against her would not have been adequate preparation.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Of the three, I am the only one who is telling the truth and the only one who does not have a priority of protecting Duke University Hospital."

Shirley you jest again.

You do not have the training or experience to recognize the truth.

Duke did not have to be protected against anything. Do you really think any court would believe your allegations of malpractice. Would any trial lawyer hire you as an expert witness?

The answer to both questions is a loud, booming, resounding HELL NO!!!!!

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"mposter said: " I don't have to explain anything to the little Canadian twit" ...... Little. hmmm? But, hey,if you now don't your ruse has been exposed."

Imposter or not(and that is in question) he did tell the truth that you are a Twit.

Calling you a Canadian twit is an insult to the great nation of Canada.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, I cannot even begin to comprehend how you come up with your conclusions."

Which is an admission of how limited your powers of comprehension are.

"I'm not a turncoat..."

Since you did reveal confidential information which gave the prosecution an advantage, de facto you are.

"I'm the only one who is out there in the trenches battling for Crystal."

No, you were battling to build up your own corrupt ego.

"Not much longer before the truth comes out and you will be exposed to the light."

You again show how limited your powers of comprehension are. You have never told the truth or shone any light on anything.

You have desperately and ineffectively tried to shine some kind of spotlight on yourself, which did Crystal no good whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Sid - you say your arguments are backed up. That doesn't make them right.

You argued that Daye's record should have been brought up, but it's inadmissible.

You argued Felony Murder was in play, but it wasn't.

You claim the Roberts report is exculpatory, it isn't.

You claim a defense attorney can violate Brash, they can't. If they did what you claim, it is a problem and there is a legal term/concept for it that you clearly can't figure out.

Just cause you "back up" your arguments doesn't make them valid.

You are still wrong. And it's funny you claim you are the only one fighting for Crystal, but she does have an appellate attorney. Nice of you to attack her work before you see it.

Unbiased you are not.

kenhyderal said...

Amonymous said: "There are indications this KILGO might be the real KILGO, the reference to "ubes" and the repeated quack, quack, quack"...... In searching for responses to claims made to Kilgo's assertions, I like this imposter discovered that Kilgo's effort to delete all posts was not 100 % successful or perhaps some that contained no accusations were by-passed. Since I've been searching them they now pop up earlier in a google search. One of the same ones that now come up reference Ubes. But hey I gave him an opportunity to easily confirm who he is.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Did,you find the responses to the mystery rapists allegation you claim the "real" Kilgo made earlier on this blog? Or are you going to claim "victory" because no one can prove you wrong?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"now a Duck, my arguments are always backed up by facts..."

Which shows again how limited your powers of comprehension are. You have never presented facts. You have distorted facts.

"as in the documents courtesy of prosecution discovery."

Which are documents you have cavalierly distorted.

"A blowhard I am not."

You are right. To be correct you should have said you are an ineffective blowhard.

"I am a crusader fighting for justice for those who have been forsaken by the media and legal system."

There, Hhirley, you do jest and distort reality.

"I am Mangum's only hope."

Then she is without hope.

"She will not come close to serving out her sentence... no way."

Says the man who said he would prevail in his frivolous non meritorious suit against Duke, that the state had no case against Crystal, that he would humiliate the NC State Bar.

"She's already served more time than she should've."

No she hasn't. Not when you count the time she should have served for stealing a cab and trying to run down an officer of he law, the time she should have served for filing a false police report, the time she should have served for the fire she lit in Milton Walker's apartment.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"In searching for responses to claims made to Kilgo's assertions, I like this imposter discovered that Kilgo's effort to delete all posts was not 100 % successful or perhaps some that contained no accusations were by-passed. Since I've been searching them they now pop up earlier in a google search. One of the same ones that now come up reference Ubes. But hey I gave him an opportunity to easily confirm who he is."

And you were hoping he wouldn't so he could not call your claim about an anonymous Lacrosse player a crock.

Anonymous said...

The maximum penalty for her false rape accusation was a $500 fine. She could not have been sentenced to serve time.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

I remind you, with regard to the DNA found on Crystal, that you said a number of times that it was not possible to determine the time that DNA was deposited, and then said it had to be presumed it had been deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Only the real Kilgo would know who to call "ubes".

The Great Kilgo said...

Little Canadian twit

Because of the Lie KKK Stoppers Research Department I must protect my identity and no longer use eblogger

Anonymous said...

KILGO:

"Little Canadian twit"

You got that right.

"Because of the Lie KKK Stoppers Research Department I must protect my identity and no longer use eblogger".

Actually you try to hide from the truth which comes out on the appropriately named liestoppers.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Other than they disagree with you - since you claim to always back your arguments with facts -

What is your "proof" that Meier, Dr. Roberts, Vanm, Shella, Holmes - and whoever else you claim is a Duke supporter - have any ties to Duke let alone care one whit about protecting them?

The Statute of Linitations for any claim against Duke by Daye ran out 1 year after his death, so there was no need to "protect" Duke - if Daye's family hadn't filed a suit, it was/is too late, even if Malpractice were admitted.

C'mon - you claim to deal in facts and evidence (though this blog and your related lawsuits and interference show that's false). Provide some. Give us proof of a conflict/relationship with Duke.

guiowen said...

Hey, Kenny,
You're finally in a position to prove that there was indeed a rape! Make certain you connect with the Great Kilgo!
Aren't you excited?

Anonymous said...

Guiowen,

Please be sensitive. The Great Kilgo hurt Kenny's feelings.

kenhyderal said...

Unbekannte aka Ubes quit posting here in 2008. Let me quote a post he made on Durham-in-Wonderland in January 25, 2009................. "
To Anonymous 1/25/09 11:49 AM:

"CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many[!!!] supporters because they believe Crystal & believe Mike Nifong was punished too harshly.They just don't blast it on a blog."

I guess you have never read the delusional ravings of the justice4nifong gang of THREE on their justice4nifong blog. Since I stopped posting hardly anyone posts there. Most of the comments posted there supported neither cgm nor nifong nor the delusional head blogger.
1/25/09, 3:28 PM

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Unbekannte aka Ubes quit posting here in 2008. Let me quote a post he made on Durham-in-Wonderland in January 25, 2009................. "
To Anonymous 1/25/09 11:49 AM:

"CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many[!!!] supporters because they believe Crystal & believe Mike Nifong was punished too harshly.They just don't blast it on a blog."

I guess you have never read the delusional ravings of the justice4nifong gang of THREE on their justice4nifong blog. Since I stopped posting hardly anyone posts there. Most of the comments posted there supported neither cgm nor nifong nor the delusional head blogger."

I returned. You know me now as Dr. A.

Unbekannte means unknown which is the same as Anonymous.

Cheers.

kenhyderal said...

Unbekannte did return and had many exchanges with Kilgo. It's hard to follow these exchanges because Kilgo deleted any references to his informant. This thread from April of 2009 will give newer readers some idea of the kind discourse albeit fractured that went on.

kenhyderal said...

http://justice4nifong.blogspot.ca/2009/04/north-carolina-can-learn-from-us.html

Anonymous said...

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

You selected a rather atypical exchange. Kilgo did nothing except copy the transcript from Gottlieb's deposition. None of Kilgo's posts were deleted. Ubes made only one reply.

I found the posts to be a complete and utter waste of time. I had already read the deposition. Kilgo provided zero insight.

Having said that, most of Kilgo's posts were worthless. Kilgo was frequently vulgar and provided little insight of value.

Anonymous said...

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

Why did you provide a link to that thread? There was nothing particularly interesting about it. You wasted my time.

Thanks a lot.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Thank you for the most recent Sharlog. A preliminary question for you from a quick view of the sharlog to date is this: Why would writing Duke University do ANY good in this case at this time?

Thank you for your time and thought in answering this question for better understanding of your request for others to write duke about this case in advance if you do.

Anonymous said...

Writing duke wouldn't because despite what Sid claims, Duke had nothing to do with this case, didn't care about the outcome, and none of the attorneys cared. As noted above the statute of limitations was long gone, so no need to protect Duke existed.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said : "You selected a rather atypical exchange."........................I was replying to Anonymous @ 9:52 who said: "Only the real Kilgo would know who to call "ubes"

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous (Dr.A. I presume) said: "Calling you a Canadian twit is an insult to the great nation of Canada"........... Huh? This is typical of the sophomoric and witless comebacks we get from him.

Anonymous said...

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

I agree that many of the comments posted by Dr. Anonymous are sophomoric. However, you are in no position to criticize the quality of other posts.

As you know, you posts consistently are intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said : "You selected a rather atypical exchange."........................I was replying to Anonymous @ 9:52 who said: "Only the real Kilgo would know who to call "ubes"

No it wasn't

Dr. Anonymous(who used to post as unbekannte, known to kilgo as ubes).

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous (Dr.A. I presume) said: "Calling you a Canadian twit is an insult to the great nation of Canada"........... Huh? This is typical of the sophomoric and witless comebacks we get from him."

You are just jealous of my quick wit and ready responses. It took you almost day to come up with a lame response.

Anonymous said...

KENHYERAL:

Here is a metaphor as to how you approach the Lacrosse phoney rape:

For argument's sake, you are chairing a meeting which needs to be conducted according to Roberts' Rules. A motion is made which you dislike. You should call for discussion then call for a vote, ayes then nays. Without discussion you would call for a vote and ask all opposed to say nay. A few people in the meeting say, nay. Then you would say, there is no evidence anyone would vote aye so you declare the motion did not pass.

Maybe I am assuming too much. You have to understand Roberts' Rules to understand the metaphor.

Maybe I am assuming to much when I expect you to understand the concept of a metaphor.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Regard to whoever is posting as "the great Kilgo":

Whoever it is denies that he ever told you that he claimed some anonymous Lacrosse player witnessed a gang rape at the Lacrosse Party.

If he is the real Kilgo, that means you have fabricated the story, or that is evidence he recants his allegation.

If he is not the real Kilgo, it does not prove that Kilgo ever told you that story.

Either way, your claim that an anonymous Lacrosse player witnessed a gang rape is not supported by any credible factual evidence.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused - Kenny claims that Kilgo said that NO Lacrosse Players raped Crystal, but some non-Lacrosse players did, but out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the team, no Lacrosse players will come forward and identify non-Lacrosse players as the perpetrators?

What is the most amazing thing about Kenny, Sid, and this site is that they put Crystal on a pedestal - they need to realize she is just 1 individual, that outside of their small circle, and the sensationalist media, no one really cares about Crystal, certainly not enough to risk their own careers, and livelihood's for her.

As always, there are 2 options:

1. Crystal is a troubled young woman who trusts the wrong people and has found herself in bad circumstances throughout life, culminating in stabbing her boyfriend in a fit of rage after he attacked her (but let her go); OR

2. Hundreds of people have such innate hatred for Crystal that they are willing to risk their jobs, livelihood, and even their freedom to punish her.

Yeah, #2 makes the most sense.

Sid, Kenny, Tin-Foil Hat, Kilgo, and the rest have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that any of Crystal's attorneys had any ties/connections to Duke, nor any interest in protecting Duke, yet they persist in that. At least for the "mystery rapists" Kenny faked a source to say it happened.

They don't even have an anonymous source to say anyone was bought off by Duke (though I bet someone "comes forward" soon - it only takes 1 blog post, and they think they have all the evidence they need).

Duke is Buying Everyone! said...

In reference to the blog post above ... I talked with Kilgo yesterday, and he admitted he was bought off by Duke to protect them and vilify Crystal.

He also shared with me that Sid is also working for Duke in trying to make sure Crystal gets LWOP. Unfortunately, his efforts were thwarted, and she got 2nd Degree, but they have offered him more money and he has vowed to keep fighting and damaging her case in hopes of doing more damage.

Duke really is all powerful, and have now paid of Kilgo and Sid. Can Kenny be that far behind?

Anonymous said...

actually - most just want to not be killed by duke's medical services - and not have the injustice and corruption that is duke in NC continue that harms so many - what a jerk you are to STILL not realize that

don't complain about the damn lacrosse case on this blog and condemn others who actually give a sheat about what goes on in with duke and their services and what the injustice system does to harm those whom duke harms or who question what duke does - over and over and over again - what a troll you are

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Thank you for the most recent Sharlog. A preliminary question for you from a quick view of the sharlog to date is this: Why would writing Duke University do ANY good in this case at this time?

Thank you for your time and thought in answering this question for better understanding of your request for others to write duke about this case in advance if you do.


You're actually correct. Writing Duke University might not be an efficient use of time, as they are pretty well situated in their egotistical ways. Probably a better use of one's time would be to write to... can't really think of anyone. Politicians in North Carolina lack Nifongian courage... the guv isn't going to be moved. My last several letters have gotten no response. The media will probably not print your letters to the editor.

I guess the important thing is for people to, as Einstein said, not look on and do nothing.

Anonymous said...

Duke is Buying Everyone!:

I also spoke to Kilgo. He indicated that Duke has paid off all of the posters on this blog as well. They pay most of the posters to attack Crystal and Nifong, even if they don't actually defend Duke.

They also paid off Anonymous 11:25am to attack Duke in the most incoherent way. They apparently believe that Duke's reputation will be strengthened if its critics act like complete idiots.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

How long does the appeal process normally take?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Writing duke wouldn't because despite what Sid claims, Duke had nothing to do with this case, didn't care about the outcome, and none of the attorneys cared. As noted above the statute of limitations was long gone, so no need to protect Duke existed.


I beg to differ with you. Duke University Hospital was responsible for Daye's death. Its staff intubated Daye in the esophagus which led to his cardiac arrest and brain death.

The attorneys want to protect Duke University Hospital is evident by their refusal to give Mangum a copy of Roberts report in which she admits the initial intubation was esophageal. Sherlockian deduction and logical reasoning make it clear that the defense attorneys were out to help convict Mangum and protect Duke.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

How long does the appeal process normally take?




Not being a lawyer, I have no idea. But from what I've gathered in discussions it might take anywhere from a year to eighteen months before an appeal is heard.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

So what do you suggest doing now to get this case resolved immediately for all and freeing Ms. Mangum from incarceration and the responsible parties held accountable for their unethical and deadly actions?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"You're actually correct. Writing Duke University might not be an efficient use of time, as they are pretty well situated in their egotistical ways."

You say that because of your resentment towards Duke for not caving to your frivolous non meritorious lawsuit.

"Probably a better use of one's time would be to write to... can't really think of anyone. Politicians in North Carolina lack Nifongian courage... the guv isn't going to be moved."

Since Nifongian courage amounts to no courage, you are saying the NC politicians lack for nothing.

"My last several letters have gotten no response."

Which is a measure of how little people actually think of you.

"The media will probably not print your letters to the editor."

They would if the letters were meaningful in some good sense. Letters in support of you or your deluded megalomania are not.

"I guess the important thing is for people to, as Einstein said, not look on and do nothing."

Isn't it wonderful that people neither looked away nor did nothing when the innocent Lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape? Otherwise innocent men would have been convicted and sent to prison. On the other hand, people did nothing and looked away when corrupt DA NIFONG wrongfully prosecuted Darryl Howard and look what happened.

Here's another definition for you: Nifongian integrity; it means total and absolute corruption.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"The attorneys want to protect Duke University Hospital is evident by their refusal to give Mangum a copy of Roberts report in which she admits the initial intubation was esophageal. Sherlockian deduction and logical reasoning make it clear that the defense attorneys were out to help convict Mangum and protect Duke."

Protect Duke from what?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I beg to differ with you. Duke University Hospital was responsible for Daye's death."

You have neither the training nor the experience to determine what caused Reginald Daye's death. Do you seriously think any court would consider you, a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD appended to his name, as a medical expert?

"Its staff intubated Daye in the esophagus which led to his cardiac arrest and brain death."

They were evaluating him for an intraabdominal infection, which was proper for someone with fever, tachycardia post abdominal surgery which revealed injuries to the colon and stomach. Crystal inflicted the stab wound hat caused the injuries. Had Crystal not stabbed him, he never would have been at risk. You show yet again you haven't got the credentials to determine what might have caused death.

"The attorneys want to protect Duke University Hospital is evident by their refusal to give Mangum a copy of Roberts report in which she admits the initial intubation was esophageal."

Since Duke was not responsible for Mr. Daye's death, there were no consequences from which they needed to be protected. You can not argue that the intubation, which was a consequence of the complications of the stab wound relieved Crystal of criminal responsibility for Mr. Daye's death. Or, you can argue it but your argument is not supported by the evidence.

"Sherlockian deduction and logical reasoning make it clear that the defense attorneys were out to help convict Mangum and protect Duke."

Which is a meaningless statement since you are totally incapable of logic, Sherlockian or otherwise, and totally incapable of deducing the truth, as your continued insistence that Crystal was the victim of a rape.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Not being a lawyer, I have no idea. But from what I've gathered in discussions it might take anywhere from a year to eighteen months before an appeal is heard."

I again point out the irony that you say on the one hand you are not a lawyer then say on the other hand you are more capable of understanding the law than a trained experienced lawyer.

Case in point: your persistence in arguing that Shan Carter was acting in self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY AHRR:

If the Daye family were to sue Duke for malpractice and if they asked you to testify as an expert witness(extremely unlikely but let's just consider it for argument's sake) you would have to establish yourself as a medical expert. How would you establish yourself as an expert? By saying that anyone with a 5th grade education could see the autopsy report was fraudulent. I think not. That would only confirm that you are an ignorant, minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD degree somehow appended to your name.

Anonymous said...

Did any of Crystal's lawyers ever tell her that Daye didn't have an esophageal intubation? I imagine all of the lawyers knew about that (it is in the medical records), so what were they hiding from Crystal?

Again, the issue is cause of death, and Dr. Roberts concurred that it was complications from the stab wound - remember, it doesnt't have to be THE proximate cause, only A proximate cause. And their expert would have hung Crystal.

Is your misunderstnding of the facts and the law really all you are hanging your hat on?

Walt is right - with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need enemies because you are a friggin idiot.

Anonymous said...

Duke didn't need protection - the SOL was long gone. You have no evidence that her lawyers wanted to protect Duke anymore than I have when I say you are a Duke employee who is doing their bidding and trying to hurt Crystal. But, hey, they are both out there, and clearly both deserve equal attention.

We can point to all your efforts to damage Crystals case as proof of your complicity with Duke.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Now tinfoil hat will have nowhere to turn, EVERYONE, including the Sainted Dr. Harr, is working for Duke against him.

Anonymous said...

If the Daye family were to sue Duke for malpractice and if they asked you to testify as an expert witness(extremely unlikely but let's just consider it for argument's sake) you would have to establish yourself as a medical expert. How would you establish yourself as an expert? By saying that anyone with a 5th grade education could see the autopsy report was fraudulent. I think not. That would only confirm that you are an ignorant, minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD degree somehow appended to your name.



Remember, the Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death is 1 year - so the Day family chance to sue (and we don't know that they didn't) expired LONG before Mangum went to trial. There was NO need for anyone to protect Duke after that 1 year passed, because Duke could come out and openly say they screwed up (they didn't), and Daye's family could do NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that all these battles are being fought by others, not Mangum. Odd - if she really felt her attorneys betrayed her, she could file bar complaints and ineffective assistance of counsel complaints. Of course, that would waive attorney client privilege and allow them to defend themselves, so I can understand why she is relying on proxies - it allows her to have the only word.

Kenny keeps wanting Meier to respond - he couldn't say anything useful. If you are so close with Crystal, get a release, and contact him directly. You won't, because you are sure he would either ignore you, or destroy the house of cards you have built up. Same with Sid.

Y'all are all a disgrace, but so long as quack quack believes you, I guess you are happy in your own world.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Harr, Dr. Roberts and even, belatedly, Dr. Anonymous now all agree that the cause of Daye's brain death was cerebral anoxia caused by failure to properly insert an endotracheal tube. Dr. A and Dr. Roberts try to mitigate this error because of visualization difficulties but nonetheless it probably is medical malpractice. The only question now is, was he being treated for a post surgical intra-abdominal infection or for delirium tremens. If it was the latter, there was no murder. For the sake of justice it is critical that this question be adjudicated and a definitive answer be ascertained. Witnesses and participants involved in the diagnostic procedure he was undergoing need to testify.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: " Maybe I am assuming to much when I expect you to understand the concept of a metaphor".........................Your mouth is writing cheques your body can’t cash

kenhyderal said...

Nifong Supporter said: "Not being a lawyer, I have no idea. But from what I've gathered in discussions it might take anywhere from a year to eighteen months before an appeal is heard"" ...... Outrageous. " Justice delayed is justice denied"

Anonymous said...

The only question now is, was he being treated for a post surgical intra-abdominal infection or for delirium tremens.



Two things:

1. That is NOT a question - as Dr. Roberts, and the medical records noted - they ruled out DTs when they started treatment for that, and he didn't respond - so he was NOT being treated for DTs.

2. Even if he were being treated for DTs and/or it was malpractice, since the ONLY reason he would be suffering from that was the stab wound, Crystal would still be A proximate cause, even if not THE proximate cause, or the main proximate cause, and thus responsible.

Her guilt/innocence was Self-Defense.

But, you've had all this explained to you ad naseum, and you just don't care - you can't be reasoned with. You have your delusions, and you stick with them, no matter what.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "I'm confused - Kenny claims that Kilgo said that NO Lacrosse Players raped Crystal, but some non-Lacrosse players did, but out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the team, no Lacrosse players will come forward and identify non-Lacrosse players as the perpetrators?"....... The semen depositing rape was perpetrated by non-player attendees but they were aided and abetted by players. Players also were involved in other crimes against Crystal like kidnapping and theft.

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal claims: If it was the latter [treatment of delirium tremens], there was no murder.

How did you address the question of a pre-existing condition?

If the DTs constitute a pre-existing condition under the law, then your conclusion is incorrect.

This is a legal question.

Please provide case law to support your conclusion that treatment of delirium tremens would not represent a pre-existing condition.

I admit that I do not know the answer to this question, but the analysis provided by Walt and A lawyer appears to conflict with your conclusion. I agree that this argument is potentially the strongest that could result in Mangum not being responsible.

You have made this claim previously, and I have raised the issue of a pre-existing condition previously. You have ignored--completely ignored--these previous comments. I find your refusal to address this issue to be intellectually dishonest. I ask that you apologize for your intellectual dishonesty.

You have raised an interesting question. Finish your argument with facts and case law or readers are justified in continuing not to take you seriously.

A poster who continues to push a mystery rapists theory with no credible evidence is justifiably regarded as a joke.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " as Dr. Roberts, and the medical records noted - they ruled out DTs when they started treatment for that, and he didn't respond". You've been misled Dr. Roberts said no such thing. And as far as Welch goes you cant push it ad absurdum like if Crystal hadn't stabbed him the poor guy he could of kept on boozing

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "I'm confused - Kenny claims that Kilgo said that NO Lacrosse Players raped Crystal, but some non-Lacrosse players did, but out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the team, no Lacrosse players will come forward and identify non-Lacrosse players as the perpetrators?"....... The semen depositing rape was perpetrated by non-player attendees but they were aided and abetted by players. Players also were involved in other crimes against Crystal like kidnapping and theft."

There was no semen depositing rape.

Again your attitude is ridiculous. You say it is not possible to accurately and specifically determine the time when the DNA was deposited on Crystal. Then you turn around and say it must be presumed that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2013.

You claim that the DNA could not be explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history. Judging from a statement of Crystal's driver, you do not know what Crystal's history was. She had appointments with 4 different men before she ever went to the party. If you think she was paid for holding their hands, you are in denial.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Nifong Supporter said: "Not being a lawyer, I have no idea. But from what I've gathered in discussions it might take anywhere from a year to eighteen months before an appeal is heard"" ...... Outrageous. " "

You are not completely correct when you say "Justice delayed is justice denied". Crystal's trial was delayed two years, mainly because of SIDNEY's interference. Yet Justice was done.

Kenny is still an idiot said...

Read the Roberts report - she says they started treatment for DTs and he didn't respond so they stopped - that's a rule out. And you are exactly right - had crystal not stabbed Daye, if it were DTs he'd have been able to keep on boozing and wouldn't have suffered DTs and died - ergo the stabbing was a proximate cause even under your DT scenario.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Anonymous said: " Maybe I am assuming to much when I expect you to understand the concept of a metaphor".........................Your mouth is writing cheques your body can’t cash"

I am correct when I say you really do not understand the concept of metaphor. Quoting a line from Top Gun does not show understanding.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said" " If the DTs constitute a pre-existing condition under the law, then your conclusion is incorrect" .... Well I suppose the pre-existing condition in cases like this would be chronic alcoholism. This initiates a whole new train of events beginning with a hospital withholding alcohol from a patient who has been admitted. This would precipitate alcohol withdrawal. Doing this then requires successfully contracting the dangerous and potentially fatal withdrawal symptoms. Welch case law does not seem to apply.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Harr, Dr. Roberts and even, belatedly, Dr. Anonymous now all agree that the cause of Daye's brain death was cerebral anoxia caused by failure to properly insert an endotracheal tube."

You do not comprehend what I said. I said the esophageal intubation does not relieve Crystal from criminal liability for Mr. Daye's death.

"Dr. A and Dr. Roberts try to mitigate this error because of visualization difficulties but nonetheless it probably is medical malpractice."

Wrong. In the circumstances described, emergency intubation when the view of the airway is obstructed by vomituys, esophageal intubation does not rise to the level of malpractice. How many patients have you successfully intubated. If you were to say this under oath in court, that is the question you would be asked.

"The only question now is, was he being treated for a post surgical intra-abdominal infection or for delirium tremens."

That is not the question. Mr. Daye's symptoms were consistent with an intrabdominal infection. That he had penetrating injuries of the stomach and colon put him ar risk of intraabdominal infection. What would have risen to the level of malpractice would have been to assume that he had DTs in the face of failure of symptoms to respond to treatment for DTs.

"If it was the latter, there was no murder. For the sake of justice it is critical that this question be adjudicated and a definitive answer be ascertained. Witnesses and participants involved in the diagnostic procedure he was undergoing need to testify."

Again, if you were to say all this under oath, it would not be credible unless you can document that you are a medical expert. The real question is, what qualifies you as a medical expert. Tell us what training and experience you have had treating this kind of condition?

You have less than SIDNEY HARR. SIDNEY would never be accepted by any court as a medical expert.

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal claims: Welch case law does not seem to apply.

Walt, A Lawyer and Lance appear to have reached a different conclusion regarding the applicability of Welch. I assume that you will follow with the case law your research identifies That supports your conclusion.

Remember, Kenny, you have no credibility. Your opinion is utterly worthless unless it is backed up with facts.

As I said in the prior post:

You have raised an interesting question. Finish your argument with facts and case law or readers are justified in continuing not to take you seriously.

A poster who continues to push a mystery rapists theory with no credible evidence is justifiably regarded as a joke.

P.S. You also owe me an apology for your intellectual dishonesty.

kenhyderal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Well I suppose the pre-existing condition in cases like this would be chronic alcoholism. This initiates a whole new train of events beginning with a hospital withholding alcohol from a patient who has been admitted. This would precipitate alcohol withdrawal. Doing this then requires successfully contracting the dangerous and potentially fatal withdrawal symptoms. Welch case law does not seem to apply."

What legal training and experience have you had which would qualify you to make this statement. Your statements on the DNA found on Crystal shows you do not(timing of deposition can not be determined, it must be presumed that it was deposited at a specific time).

A preponderance of the Medical evidence(of which I am more knowledgeable than you) says Mr. Daye was not a chronic alcoholic.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said:"Then you turn around and say it must be presumed that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2013" (typo 2006)...... No, I say you must presume that it could have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/14 2006.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Then you turn around and say it must be presumed that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2013" (typo 2006)....... No I say it must be presumed that it could have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/15 2006"

In an earlier post on this forum you said, unequivocally, that a semen depositing rape had occurred on the night of 13/]14 March 2006. Your evidence that a semen depositing rape occurred is the DNA deposited which came from sperm. Ergo, although you are in denial, you ARE saying that it must be presumed that the nigh of 13/14 March 2006 was the date of DNA deposition.

I say again, your statement that it is not accounted for by Crystal's consensual sex history is meaningless. You are unaware of Crystal's history. I say again your ignorance does not raise doubt that Crystal's allegations of rape were false.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said" :A preponderance of the Medical evidence(of which I am more knowledgeable than you) says Mr. Daye was not a chronic alcoholic"....... That's what you used to say about the esophageal intubation. Got to go back on line in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Kenny: No, I say you must presume that it could have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/14 2006.

And I say we must presume that you, Kenny Edwards, a Canadian living in Dubai, could have been one of the depositors.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said:"Then you turn around and say it must be presumed that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2013" (typo 2006)...... No, I say you must presume that it could have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/14 2006"

I have said repeatedly that the SBI testing of the rape kit, no semen, no blood, no saliva, no DNA to match any of the suspects' DNA absolutely ruled out the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Ergo, I would have no justification to say that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 2006.

You lack comprehension.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Anonymous said" :A preponderance of the Medical evidence(of which I am more knowledgeable than you) says Mr. Daye was not a chronic alcoholic"....... That's what you used to say about the esophageal intubation. Got to go back on line in the morning."

I admitted my error.

However that is irrelevant.

The preponderance of medical evidence says Reginald Daye was not a chronic alcoholic.

If you want to make a case for chronic alcoholism, you have to come up with more than the Blood Alcohol level. With no histor8y of alcoholism, with a normal live at autopsy, the most likely explanation of the Blood Alcohol is a lab error.

If you are going to cite info on alcoholics who had normal livers, I remind you what damages the liver is the exposure to the toxic metabolites of alcohol. Someone who could tolerate a level as high as Reginald Daye's would have been exposing his liver to toxins for years. Overwhelmingly it is unlikely he would have had a normal liver.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said:"Then you turn around and say it must be presumed that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2013" (typo 2006)...... No, I say you must presume that it could have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/14 2006."

You again show your lack of comprehension of things legal.

If it could be "presume[d] that it COULD(emphasis added) have been deposited on the night of Mar. 13/14 2006", it does not in any way establish that a rape had occurred.

You would have to prove beyond any and all reasonable doubt that a rape had occurred.

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...

Dr. A concludes: Overwhelmingly it is unlikely he [Daye] would have had a normal liver [had he been a chronic alcoholic].

Dr. A. misunderstands Kenny's argument.

I understand your argument. It is not likely that a chronic alcoholic would have a normal liver, with no damage.

Nevertheless, it is possible. There have been cases of alcoholics with normal livers.

With, Kenny, probability is irrelevant. As long as something is theoretically possible, it must be considered and given equal weight with more likely alternatives.

Sometimes, Kenny is imprecise with his language. He sometimes states something as a known fact, when what he really means is that we must presume that something could have occurred.

Kenny really is arguing that we must presume that Daye could have been a chronic alcoholic. He notes the observation that Daye was functioning with a BAC reading that should have been incapacitating. We must presume that the BAC reading was not an error.

Now that we have established that Daye could have been a chronic alcoholic, we must examine his treatment.

Kenny really is arguing that we must presume that the intubation could have been precipitated by treatment for delirium tremens (after all, we have already established that Daye could have been a chronic alcoholic).

Dr. A claims that initial treatment was for DTs, but when he did not respond to this treatment, doctors concluded that the DT diagnosis was incorrect.

If Dr. A's claim is not correct, then we must presume that the intubation could have been precipitated by treatment for the DTs.

Even if this claim is correct, we must presume that the doctors could have been wrong and Daye really did require treatment for the DTs.

In either case, we must presume that the intubation could have been precipitated by treatment for the DTs.

Finally, despite the findings in the autopsy and Roberts' report that Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound, we must presume that both reports could have been incorrect and that the treatment for delirium tremens could have been independent of the stab wound.

Again, probability is unimportant in Kenny's analysis.

Because Daye could have been an alcoholic, and the intubation could have been precipitated by treatment for delirium tremens, and the delirium tremens could have been independent of the stab wound, Kenny concludes that reasonable doubt exists that death resulted indirectly from the stab wound.

As a result, he argues, Mangum should have been found not guilty.

I hope this has been helpful.

Anonymous said...

Kenny lied:

"The semen depositing rape was perpetrated by non-player attendees but they were aided and abetted by players. Players also were involved in other crimes against Crystal like kidnapping and theft."

Why do you continue to tell lies?

Are you not able to defend Mangum with the truth?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter June 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM.

"I hope this has been helpful."

Your analysis is faulty.

I sum it up as, it is possible Reginald Daye was in DTs and that it was possible that DTs were the cause of Reginald Daye's symptoms.

I say again the preponderance of he medical evidence was that Reginald Daye was not an alcoholic. Therefore it is a larger possibility that something other than DTs was going on.

KENHYDERAL's attitude is whatever he feels is relevant must be presumed true. His whole case for Crystal being raped is based on presuming that her allegations are true.

Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...

Dr. A

I suggest you look up the word "sarcasm" before you respond to posts like that.

I do not believe my analysis is faulty. I believe it accurately describes Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal's analysis on this blog. I did not say that I agreed with that method.

Remember, Kenny doesn't really believe that the ridiculous theories he proposes are likely to have occurred. He is only saying that they are theoretically possible.

He is just playing games with posters who claim absolute certainty when they really can claim only that something is highly likely (or near certain).

Kenny basically is saying at if you describe something as fact when it only has a probability of 99.99%, then he can describe as fact something that has a probability of 0.000001%. If you ignore probability, then you are both equally wrong.

Kenny is a troll. He posts only to annoy people.

Unless you just enjoy arguing with him, ignoring him ultimately will make him go away. Alternatively, be careful not to describe something as fact--implying in Kenny's mind metaphysical certainty, when you really only mean that it is extremely likely or nearly certain that something occurred.

kenhyderal said...

Kenny basically is saying at if you describe something as fact when it only has a probability of 99.99%, then he can describe as fact something that has a probability of 0.000001%. If you ignore probability, then you are both equally wrong.
Kenny is a troll. He posts only to annoy people......... I am not a troll I am here to defend the honor of my friend who had the temerity to report that the son's of privilege from Duke sexually assaulted her. Subsequently she was re-victimized by a relentless campaign to besmirch her. One that has been wrongly bought into by many posters here. I feel compelled to counteract these distortions. It's ironic that your attempt at sarcasm was closer to the truth. The statistics you cite are out by at least 500%. The initial presumptive diagnosis was probable(a 50% plus probability of) delirium tremens. His failure to adequately respond to a dose of benzodiazepines, does not reduce that initial diagnosis to 0.01% possibility.

Anonymous said...

KENYDERAL:

"I am not a troll I am here to defend the honor of my friend"

What honor?

"who had the temerity to report that the son's of privilege from Duke sexually assaulted her."

Correction: She lied about the so called "sons of privilege" sexually assaulting her. Forensic and medical evidence ruled out beyond all doubt that she had been sexually assaulted.

"Subsequently she was re-victimized by a relentless campaign to besmirch her. One that has been wrongly bought into by many posters here. I feel compelled to counteract these distortions."

Since she was never victimized in the first place it was impossible that she could have been revictimized. She actually was never victimized or besmirched by anyone but herself. You are not trying to correct distortions. You are trying to perpetuate the discredited distortions and create new ones.

"It's ironic that your attempt at sarcasm was closer to the truth."

No it wasn't, not even close.

"The statistics you cite are out by at least 500%."

It seems you understand as much about statistics as you do about the law and about matters medical. Three zeros add up to zero.

"The initial presumptive diagnosis was probable(a 50% plus probability of) delirium tremens. His failure to adequately respond to a dose of benzodiazepines, does not reduce that initial diagnosis to 0.01% possibility."

But it does raise the possibility of some other process going on. And what would have been malpractice would have to continue to treat for DTs and not look for something else like an intra-abdominal infection, the risk of which was a consequence of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal.

Regardless of your attempts to buy a pass for your favorite murderess, you do not show that Mr. Daye's death was not due to complications of the injury. You do not establish reasonable doubt

Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"...temerity to report that the son's [sic] of privilege from Duke sexually assaulted her?"

Interesting. Who is the "sons of privilege" here? We know it's not the LAX players, because (as you've agreed), they did not rape CGM. Is it your assumption, then, that all Duke students are sons (and daughters) of privilege?

I detect a bit of envy on this comment....

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

Let's call a spade a spade: you are a liar.

You and Mangum lied and you continue to lie about Mangum's rape claim and the innocent Duke lacrosse players. Only truly despicable people would lie about such things.

Because it has been shown that you lied and continue to lie about Mangum's false rape claim and the Duke lacrosse players, no one here should take anything you have to say about the Daye murder case - or anything else - seriously. As an unrepentant liar and despicableperson, you deserve to be held up to scorn, contempt and ridicule.

Your continued lying does nothing to help Mangum.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZzK9YivJs

It is a video of DA NIFONG's testimony to the State Bar in which he admits he never got any information about about the alleged rape before he went on his media campaign to besmirch the Lacrosse team. He admits he did not read the reports of he officers who initially interviewed Crystal in the ER which documented a number of inconsistencies in Crystal's story.

All of which says that DA NIFONG ran with the rape allegation without having any corroborating evidence. Which in turn says Crystal's allegations were not credible. Your lack of knowledge of things medical and things legal do not give her allegations credibility.

Anonymous said...

Your hatred of Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr and his 'ilk' (as you like to call it) does not make your constant trolling and denials of the facts any more than that.

Anonymous said...

The facts are that Mangum lied about being raped. She was notraped and the lacrosee players committed no crimes against her. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

As for hatred, no one hates Harr and Mangum. It is possible to disagree with, dislike - or even hate - what they have done and continue to do without hating them personally.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 9, 2014 at 11:06 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?

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

how is it possible that so much DNA evidence could be found, yet none identifying any of the accused?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Let's call a spade a spade: you are a liar"...... Put your name to that accusation.

kenhyderal said...

D.E.NY said: "how is it possible that so much DNA evidence could be found, yet none identifying any of the accused" ..Three were accused. In the case of two it was mistaken identity. The DNA of one was found on Crystal's artificial nail broken in the assault

kenhyderal said...

Lance said: " Is it your assumption, then, that all Duke students are sons (and daughters) of privilege........ My apologies to any Duke students, from humble background, who are attending University strictly on scholarship or on funds they worked for and saved in order to pay their own tuition. And if this includes Duke Lacrosse Players who attended the party and were innocent of any involvement in the what happened there. I apologize to them as well. I urge them however not to protect those who were involved.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "But it does raise the possibility of some other process going on. And what would have been malpractice would have to continue to treat for DTs and not look for something else like an intra-abdominal infection, the risk of which was a consequence of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal".............. The possibility, yes. Not looking, yes. In that respect, no malpractice. Placing an endotracheal tube into the esophagus and fatally depriving the patient of oxygen, even if the view is obscured by vomitus, is most probably malpractice. What a differential diagnosis could be at that point became moot. Once Mr. Daye was brain dead whether or not he had a intra-abdominal post surgical infection was not pursued. There remains a strong possibility that their was no post-surgical infection and that possibility should accrue to Crystal

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

" The DNA of one was found on Crystal's artificial nail broken in the assault"

Do you mean Dave Evans' DNA? If so, then you, sir, are a liar. There were a few common markers that were consistent with Dave Evans, but they could NOT be assigned to any one individual with certainty.

I can provide sources for my statement.

kenhyderal said...

Both Author William Cohan and former DA Mike Nifong claim that it identified this person with 98 % certainty. AG Cooper agrees it is probably Evans DNA but ascribes it's presence to transference.

Anonymous said...

Kenny is still an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Who cares what Cohan believes? He is not an expert.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "Let's call a spade a spade: you are a liar"...... Put your name to that accusation."

So what. You and not identify what is lie and what is truth. If you could you would not be accusing innocent men or raping false accuser Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"D.E.NY said: "how is it possible that so much DNA evidence could be found, yet none identifying any of the accused" ..Three were accused. In the case of two it was mistaken identity. The DNA of one was found on Crystal's artificial nail broken in the assault."

First you have to establish by credible factual evidence that an assault took place. You can't

Next explain the following: DNA compatible with David Evans was found on Crystal's artificial nail. DNA matching David Evans was not found on Crystal's person. How does that establish that David Evans assaulted Crystal?

If you ever shook hands with Crystal, your DNA, via STR testing for the Y chromosome, would be identified shortly thereafter. Does that raise suspicion that you sexually assaulted Crystal.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Lance said: " Is it your assumption, then, that all Duke students are sons (and daughters) of privilege........ My apologies to any Duke students, from humble background, who are attending University strictly on scholarship or on funds they worked for and saved in order to pay their own tuition. And if this includes Duke Lacrosse Players who attended the party and were innocent of any involvement in the what happened there. I apologize to them as well. I urge them however not to protect those who were involved."

Why do you not apologize to the team for falsely accusing them of involvement of the rape of Crystal. It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that no one raped Crystal.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The possibility, yes. Not looking, yes. In that respect, no malpractice. Placing an endotracheal tube into the esophagus and fatally depriving the patient of oxygen, even if the view is obscured by vomitus, is most probably malpractice."

That does not rise to the level of malpractice. Your ignorance of matters medical does not raise a suspicion of malpractice

"What a differential diagnosis could be at that point became moot. Once Mr. Daye was brain dead whether or not he had a intra-abdominal post surgical infection was not pursued. There remains a strong possibility that their was no post-surgical infection and that possibility should accrue to Crystal."

You need to improve your comprehension. The risk of infection was there. The workup had to be done. It was a complication of the workup.

Call it malpractice if you will but you are no more capable of determining what is medical malpractice than is a lump of stone.

The situation is, no stab wound, no risk of infection, no need for a workup, no death. It all goes back to the stab wound inflicted by Crystal.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

If an expert witness were asked to testify whether or not an esophageal intubation amounted to malpractice, he/she would have to establish his/her credentials. One question which would be asked is, how many intubations have you done. If the answer was none, that person would establish himself as not an expert.

So the question is, how many intubations have you done/

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

Kenhyderal- Again, you are lying. AG Cooper stated in his investigation: "to the extent that Evans's DNA could not be excluded, the SBI experts confirmed that the DNA could easily have been transferred..from other materials in the trash can."

That's far removed from saying that the DNA is"probably" Dave Evans's.

DNA Security found that the DNA mixture was consistent with 14 people in their database used by the lab for statistical analysis.

Will your next argument be that these 14 are the mystery rapists?

kenhyderal said...

DNA Security also found that in random samples taken from the general public 98% of them would be excluded but David Evans could not be excluded. Zash also handled the nails and he was excluded. Can I take it from your number that their database contained 700 samples?

Anonymous said...

Kenny - do you think 2% error rate is reasonable doubt? 2 out of 100 people convicted wrongly?

The biggest disservice you and Sid do to crystal is make her think there is a vast conspiracy against her so she can do no wrong and take responsibility for nothing.

In the Milton Walker incident, she originally denied setting the clothes on fire and you and her supporters pushed the theory that the police lit the fire to frame her. She has since admitted she started the fire.

Now the story that Daye abused her prior to the night of the stabbing is being pushed - even though on the stand Crystal denied it, and directly disputed the testimony of a neighbor who claimed to hear frequent fighting. You have yet to explain why she is now publicly claiming she lied under oath, which won't remotely be helpful if there is a retrial.

Sid still won't respond to the fact he attacks Crystal's trial counsel for not bringing up Daye's "record" even though it is totally in admissible and an unfair attack.

You and Sid seem to think that Dr. Roberts is lying about her belief of cause of death and somehow would magically change her story on the stand, or that it would help Crystal to put someone on the stand who was fully aware of the course of treatment, and defend her cause of death conclusion. Why assume she wouldn't have explained it in a way to hurt crystal?

Neither of you are capable of an intellectually honest discussion.

Sid will post more flogs screeching the same tired BS, you will still hide behind anonymous sources you claim are paid off, and eventually someone will go blah blah blah.

This blog is an amusing joke, but if you think anyone buy you and Sid consider it otherwise you are a bigger idiot than we've given you credit for.

Anonymous said...

Why was the fingernail in the trashcan to begin with?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"DNA Security also found that in random samples taken from the general public 98% of them would be excluded but David Evans could not be excluded. Zash also handled the nails and he was excluded. Can I take it from your number that their database contained 700 samples?"

Your statement is meaningless. DNA consistent with David Evans' DNA was found on Crystal's false fingernail. DNA from David Evans or any of the other members of the Lacrosse team was not found on Crystal's person. How does that add up to evidence of a sexual assault. It doesn't.

Incidentally, according to DNA Security, the sperm fraction DNA found on Crystal belonged to her boyfriend, Matthew Murchison(http://bp1.blogger.com/_k_8jgSqqBEw/RnG7LUtFURI/AAAAAAAAAAU/nPzwO3xy2QI/s1600-h/Rape+Kit+Spreadsheet-001.jpg).

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Answer the question.

How many intubations have you ever performed?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Answer the question.

DNA consistent with David Evans is found on Crystal's false fingernail.

DNA matching David Evans or any other member of the Lacrosse team IS NOT found on Crystal's person.

How does that add up to evidence of a sexual assault.

guiowen said...

Why do you argue with Kenhyderal? He's just there for comic relief.

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

"DNA Security also found that in random samples taken from the general public 98% of them would be excluded but David Evans could not be excluded"

So we are in agreement then that the DNA markers could not be assigned to Dave Evans exclusively.

Now you just need to provide a source for your "AG Cooper agrees it is probably Evans DNA...." statement.

Or admit you're lying.

Anonymous said...

We don't play that game on this blog remember?

???

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: "How many intubations have you done?"....... The grand total of zero. I am not a physician, an EMS or a respiratory technician. I do understand, though, that inserting an endotracheal tube into the esophagus causing anoxia and brain death constitutes medical malpractice. See page 4 and 9 of the following paper. "http://drkamaldeep.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/accidents-in-icu.pdf

Anonymous said...

We don't play what game?

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: " Why do you argue with Kenhyderal"....... Guiowen, Dr. A. does not argue. He makes up phoney questions and demands answers. And, when an answer is forthcoming, he responds with ad hominem attacks, usually involving race, Nazism, the inflated sense of his own accomplishment, greatness and expertise and the plight of the poor persecuted "Caucasian"

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The grand total [of intubations I have done is]...zero. I am not a physician, an EMS or a respiratory technician."

Which means you do not have the expertise to determine whether or not an esophageal intubation is zero.

"I do understand, though, that inserting an endotracheal tube into the esophagus causing anoxia and brain death constitutes medical malpractice."

Not always, especially in a situation in which you have seconds to do the intubation and the view of the airway is blocked.

"See page 4 and 9 of the following paper. "http://drkamaldeep.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/accidents-in-icu.pdf

What the paper says is, in emergency intubations there is a high risk of esophageal intubation. That an esophageal intubation in and of itself is not malpractice. It is not in and of itself negligence.

From page 9: There is a statement that any missed esophageal intubation is malpractice. Judging from the reocords published illegally by SIDNEY, when Mr. Daye's tube was not functioning it was removed and replaced and the replacement tube was working. This statement is not applicable.

If it were applicable, it would not relieve Crystal of driminal liability for Reginald Daye's death. Had Crystal not stabbed Reginald Daye there would have been no need for emergency intubation. That's not me speaking. That is the law.

Your misinterpretation of the law, arising from your ignorance of matters legal and medical, does not raise any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

I add, you do not get experience doing intubations by reading papers.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Guiowen, Dr. A. does not argue. He makes up phoney questions and demands answers."

I ask valid questions. I say again, as an example, if you were to testify in court that an esophageal intubation was malpractice, you would be asked if you had any experience doing intubations. I say again, you do not acquire experience by reading papers.

Another example is, I ask you what credible factual evidence do you have that Crystal was raped, you provide none.

"And, when an answer is forthcoming,"

Answers from you are not forthcoming. I am still waiting to get a knowledeable, meaningful answer from you.

"he responds with ad hominem attacks, usually involving race, Nazism,"

Denouncing people without proof and then expecting them to be prosecuted and convicted was a characteristic of the Nazi regime. It is also the essence of your vendetta against the innocent falsely accused lacrosse players.

"the inflated sense of his own accomplishment, greatness and expertise"

I merely point out that I do have a medical background and you do not, which renders me more able to comment on matters medical than you. You show again how resentful you are of Caucasian males who are more accomplished than you are.

"and the plight of the poor persecuted 'Caucasian'"

Again I merely point out your obvious resentment of Caucasian people who are more accomplished than you are. What says that you attempt to persecute Caucasians is your continued denunciation of Caucasian men on the basis of Crystal's obvious false allegations.

If Crystal's allegations are not false, provide credible factual evidence.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

The paper you cited defined malpractice as failure to recognize esophageal intubation.

From http://dukecheck.com/?p=2410

"He(SIDNEY HARR) claims medical records show Duke doctors incorrectly placed a tracheal breathing tube, causing Daye to go into cardiac arrest. Harr says Duke doctors replaced the tube with one in a correct position and resuscitated Daye, but his brain cells had been deprived of oxygen for too long."

The complication was recognized and dealt with. Because corecting the complication did not prevent Mr. Daye's death does not raise it to the level of Malpractice.

A Lawyer said...

Who cares if it was malpractice or not? (Well, Mr. Daye's family would care, but it's irrelevant to anything being discussed on this blog.)

Mr. Daye would not have been in the hospital if Mangum had not stabbed him. He would not have died from his medical treatment but for Mangum stabbing him. Every expert-- including the one hired by the defense-- said that Mr. Daye's death was the result of complications from his stab wound.

Kenhyderal, you have posted that State v. Welch does not apply to this situation. Which case do you think does apply?

Anonymous said...

It was a hate crime by malpractice - why else would duke cover it up with additional malpractice, corruption, and fraud by the ME?

kenhyderal said...

@ a Lawyer: .............If there has not been any precedent where a wounded person subsequently dies as a result of treatment for delirium tremens due to alcohol withdrawal because alcohol was withheld from him during the period of recovery for his repaired wound then, broadly interpreting the Welch case to cover this special situation seems excessive. It certainly was not what Judge Ridgeway outlined to Jury on this aspect. His instructions, in my mind, were misinterpreted by this Jury. Can I ask you do you see the Welch ruling as totally applicable to this case?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"If there has not been any precedent where a wounded person subsequently dies as a result of treatment for delirium tremens due to alcohol withdrawal because alcohol was withheld from him during the period of recovery for his repaired wound then, broadly interpreting the Welch case to cover this special situation seems excessive."

Seems so to you. So what? You do not have the legal expertise to make such a decision. And it is by no means a given that he was suffering from alcohol withdrawl.

"It certainly was not what Judge Ridgeway outlined to Jury on this aspect. His instructions, in my mind, were misinterpreted by this Jury."

Presuming a fact not in evidence, that you have a mind.

"Can I ask you do you see the Welch ruling as totally applicable to this case?"

Why. You won't accept the answer.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You are dodging A Lawyer's question. That indicates you know nothing about the Welch precedent.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 10, 2014 at 3:13 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?

Anonymous said...

Hey, ton-foil hat crazy man is back. I almost didn't recognize you without the blah blah blah. You really are delusional.

No fraud, no cover-up. Do you know that Daye's family didn't sue?

Anonymous said...

Projecting again are ya, evil duke troll?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 11, 2014 at 2:15 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

Anonymous said...

Judging by the fact that Duke sits atop a well known seismic fault line that runs through most of Durham and down to Lee County where fracking up the seismic fault line down there is in the works - what betcha that Duke owns a lot of earthquake damage insurance - funny how they spend so much money on new buildings before allowing fracking within the major seismic fault line they built all their newer buildings on.

Anonymous said...

If Duke was as powerful as you claim, and controls the legislature, we'd have expanded Medicaid, cause that decision to not do so is costing Duke tends of millions of dollars.

It is sad when people can't face the realities of their own lives, so they need to project all their issues and problems onto someone, or something, else - it's not their fault, this powerful entity is the problem.

Quack quack.

Anonymous said...

They don't need more medicaid patients for more money if they use the ones the already have at their disposal as guinia pigs until death do their body parts depart ... don't ya know.

Anonymous said...

The June 9 piece from KC SHREDS Cohan! I love a responder's comment....concerning both Cohan and Nifong....."a penis with ears", (AKA, dickheads).

Anonymous said...

... and if the water is contaminated and causes cancer and ill-health - well there is duke's and unc's new cancer centers to be filled to the brim in order to pay for the construction and to keep the stockholders laws and accounts from being bothered.

Anonymous said...

What I really want to know - and what people don't seem to want to talk about - is why Duke traded 5 senior Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bergdahl.

guiowen said...

To the 9:55,
Don't ask questions about this, the Duke trolls will come after you.

Anonymous said...

OK, then can we talk about what Duke should do about the situation in Iraq? Should Duke send in US ground troops, or should they limit their response to economic sanctions and direct and indirect military aid?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Here's something to enlighten you about malpractice.

The occurrence of an esophageal intubation is frequent enough that in an emergency intubstion is frequent enough that whoever intubates the patient must verify the position of the tube.

Esophageal intubation in an emergency situation is not negligence. Failure to recognize and correct it is negligence.

According to Dr. Roberts and to SIDNEY HARR, the complication was recognized and treated expeditiously. It was not negligence.

Unfortunatel the degree of aspiration was too great. And his death from aspiration does not relieve Crystal of criminal liability for his death.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Followup:

That was the point made in the article you cited.

Esophageal intubation in an emergency situation does not in and of itself rise to the level of negligence. Failing to recognize it and correct it is negligence.

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

"Can I take it from your number that their database contained 700 samples?"

3,461 profiles.

Why that matters, only you can say.

FWIW, the testing was not conclusive. It only put Evans in a category of persons who could have been the contributor. In Durham in 2006, the population was approximately 211,000. That means over 4,000 people would fall within the 2% indicated in the autosomal results.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

fCheck this out: http://www.wistv.com/story/25755705/police-investigate-attack-on-ten-year-old-girl-as-hate-crime?clienttype=generic&mobilecgbypass

Black teenaage girl makes an unprovoked attack on a 10 year old white girl. The white girl is much smaller. Police are investigating it as a hate crime.

Are you going to call the authorities and tell the that the incident did not take place?

kenhyderal said...

A racist 13 year old? A hate crime, I think not. This doesn't rise to the level of racism. The victim's Father took the right approach and tried to talk to the offenders Grandfather. This is a teaching situation. Professor James M. Jones postulates three major types of racism: (i) Personally-mediated, (ii) internalized, and (iii) institutionalized.[4] Personally-mediated racism includes the specific social attitudes inherent to racially-prejudiced action (bigoted differential assumptions about abilities, motives, and the intentions of others according to), discrimination (the differential actions and behaviours towards others according to their race), stereotyping, commission, and omission (disrespect, suspicion, devaluation, and dehumanization). Internalized racism is the acceptance, by members of the racially-stigmatized people, of negative perceptions about their own abilities and intrinsic worth, characterized by low self-esteem, and low esteem of others like them. This racism can be manifested through embracing “whiteness” (e.g. stratification by skin colour in non-white communities), self-devaluation (e.g. racial slurs, nicknames, rejection of ancestral culture, etc.), and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness (e.g. dropping out of school, failing to vote, engaging in health-risk practices, etc.) James M. Jones .Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Yale University, 1970 Author of Prejudice and Racism

kenhyderal said...

D.E. NY said: " FWIW, the testing was not conclusive. It only put Evans in a category of persons who could have been the contributor. In Durham in 2006, the population was approximately 211,000. That means over 4,000 people would fall within the 2% indicated in the autosomal results"..... Interesting. The benefit of reasonable doubt,as it should,goes to the accused. Except if the accused happens to be "the" Crystal Mangum. Not even a 2% chance she acted in self-defence.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"A racist 13 year old? A hate crime, I think not. This doesn't rise to the level of racism."

You would not say that if the victim were black and the perpetrator white.

"The victim's Father took the right approach and tried to talk to the offenders Grandfather."

The perpetrator was acting in an aggressive manner before she assaulted her victim and beat her continuously. Why did the perpetrator's grandfather not defuse the situation before it became a full blown assault?

"This is a teaching situation. Professor James M. Jones postulates three major types of racism: (i) Personally-mediated, (ii) internalized, and (iii) institutionalized.[4] Personally-mediated racism includes the specific social attitudes inherent to racially-prejudiced action (bigoted differential assumptions about abilities, motives, and the intentions of others according to), discrimination (the differential actions and behaviours towards others according to their race), stereotyping, commission, and omission (disrespect, suspicion, devaluation, and dehumanization). Internalized racism is the acceptance, by members of the racially-stigmatized people, of negative perceptions about their own abilities and intrinsic worth, characterized by low self-esteem, and low esteem of others like them. This racism can be manifested through embracing “whiteness” (e.g. stratification by skin colour in non-white communities), self-devaluation (e.g. racial slurs, nicknames, rejection of ancestral culture, etc.), and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness (e.g. dropping out of school, failing to vote, engaging in health-risk practices, etc.) James M. Jones .Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Yale University, 1970 Author of Prejudice and Racism".

Accordinng to data on the internet he is a professor of black studies at the University of Delaware. Call me racist if you will but black studies professors, e.g. Whaneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, Mark Anthony Neal have been no where objective when it comes to race relations. All three condemned the innocent Lacrosse players on the basis of their race and the race of the false accuser, as you do.

Anonymous said...

The good thing is that the innocent lacrosse players were exonerated and Crystal Magnum wound up in prison where she belongs.I hope she dies there just like O.J.Simpson,another criminal blacks defended only on the basis of skin color.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"D.E. NY said: " FWIW, the testing was not conclusive. It only put Evans in a category of persons who could have been the contributor. In Durham in 2006, the population was approximately 211,000. That means over 4,000 people would fall within the 2% indicated in the autosomal results"..... Interesting. The benefit of reasonable doubt,as it should,goes to the accused. Except if the accused happens to be "the" Crystal Mangum. Not even a 2% chance she acted in self-defence."

Crystal herself destroyed her claim pf self defense. From all accounts her testimony was not credible.

2% chance she acted in self defense means a 98% chance she did not. That is not reasonable doubt.

While we are on the subject of David Evans explain:; DNA compatible with David Evans was found on Crystal's fake fingernail; DNA matching David Evans was not found on Crystal Mangum's person. She alleged a rape in which multiple males not using condoms penetrated her and ejaculated on her. If that had been the scenario it would have been impossible for the perps not to leave evidence, your limited understandoing of matters medical and legal notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Houston Baker called the mother of one of the Lacrosse players the mother of a farm animal. Are you going to say that was not black on white racism.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A (I presume). You need to read Professor Jones' book.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: If that had been the scenario it would have been impossible for the perps not to leave evidence....... Some of them did, some of them who, nonetheless, committed a sexual assault did not.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. A (I presume). You need to read Professor Jones' book."

Why?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: If that had been the scenario it would have been impossible for the perps not to leave evidence....... Some of them did, some of them who, nonetheless, committed a sexual assault did not."


The evidence collected in the case established no assault had taken place. The non Lax DNA found on Crystal's person was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. You can not establish it was.

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

Kenhyderal- Read your last reply to me again. Even better, read it aloud to someone else.

Are you familiar with the idiom "red herring"?

kenhyderal said...

Calling that a red herring doesn't take into account the fact that the Jury and for that matter the Duke Lacrosse apologists, here on this and other blogs, did not afford to Crystal the benefit of the doubt

Anonymous said...

How did Crystal ever make any money as a stripper or a prostitute? I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole and neither the Duke Guys.She's nasty.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Calling that a red herring doesn't take into account the fact that the Jury and for that matter the Duke Lacrosse apologists, here on this and other blogs, did not afford to Crystal the benefit of the doubt".

With regard to the night of 13/14 March 2006 there was no doubt that Crystal lied about being raped.

So far as the murder of Reginald Daye, you yourself estimated the chance of Crystal acting in self defense was 2%. That did not add up to reasonable doubt. That added up to a 98% channce that Crystal did not act in self defense. It was the jury which rejected her claim of self defense.

Anonymous said...

Uh Oh, watch out!!!! Bulletin....bulletin....bulletin!
Duke just tilted the earth off its axis so that they could provide more terrible medical services to the people who injure themselves...falling down....from screwed up gravity! Oh, and get this.....Duke has future plans to turn off the sun...thus making the entire universe dark....and thus creating an opportunity to sell more terrible medical services to people who get hurt, bumping into furniture!
Duke is All Powerful!!!!!!
Be scared.....be very scared......

Anonymous said...

why are you such an ah?

Anonymous said...

Anybody who knows how old and deteriorated Durham's downtown buildings are could quickly realize that a destructive earthquake in Durham would cause quite a bit of damage (er: clearing the way for a new Durham).

If Duke wanted the fracking stopped for safety and health reasons, the fight their resources could wage over fracking would benefit the health and welfare of the entire world.

Fracking up the world is obviously not an idea that helps humanity nor the earth.

Anonymous said...

Why did Duke let them build such old buildings in Durham so long ago? Was it part of Duke's master plan? Step A: Build old buildings. Step B. Sit around and do nothing for 200 years. Step C. Wait for an earthquake to wipe the old buildings out. Step D. Gain incredible wealth and power.

Help me understand what is really going on here, for I am a simple soul who has no tinfoil.

DaveEvansNewYacht said...

"Calling that a red herring doesn't take into account the fact that the Jury and for that matter the Duke Lacrosse apologists, here on this and other blogs, did not afford to Crystal the benefit of the doubt"

CGM being convicted by a jury of her peers for the death of Reginald Daye *somehow* gives the CGM apologists the right to claim (among other untruths) that the DNA found on the fingernail was exclusively Dave Evan's?

Are you familiar with "association fallacy" and "Tu Quoque fallacy"?

V said...

I know who's responsible for all these Duke shenanigans!

Anonymous said...

It would be easier to watch duke not do anything positive about fracking and watch their entire university crackle down round bout them then to try to enlighten this crowd of active evil duke trolls.

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

Are you aware that it has been established that Mangum lied about being raped and that no one associated with the Duke lacrosse team committed anyc rimes against her? Or you intentionally lying when youc laim otherwise. Do you believe your lying about Mangum being raped helps her in some way? If so, how do you believe it helps her?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

The paper you cited defined malpractice as failure to recognize esophageal intubation.

From http://dukecheck.com/?p=2410

"He(SIDNEY HARR) claims medical records show Duke doctors incorrectly placed a tracheal breathing tube, causing Daye to go into cardiac arrest. Harr says Duke doctors replaced the tube with one in a correct position and resuscitated Daye, but his brain cells had been deprived of oxygen for too long."

The complication was recognized and dealt with. Because corecting the complication did not prevent Mr. Daye's death does not raise it to the level of Malpractice.


The esophageal intubation was the malpractice by Duke University Hospital staff that led to Daye going into cardiac arrest. It was after Daye lapsed into cardiac arrest that the effort was made to remove the mis-placed tube and re-insert another tube... this one properly placed as is evidenced by the resuscitation of the heart. However, the brain, which is very sensitive to oxygen-deprivation was brain dead... the direct and proximate result of the esophageal intubation.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The esophageal intubation was the malpractice by Duke University Hospital staff that led to Daye going into cardiac arrest. It was after Daye lapsed into cardiac arrest that the effort was made to remove the mis-placed tube and re-insert another tube... this one properly placed as is evidenced by the resuscitation of the heart. However, the brain, which is very sensitive to oxygen-deprivation was brain dead... the direct and proximate result of the esophageal intubation."

This did not rise to the level. Your lack of knowledge about things medical, a consequence of your minimal training and minimal experience does not raise it to the level of malpractice.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 403   Newer› Newest»