justice4nifong: Insanity, denial, and delusion rule the NC Medical Examiner's Office

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Insanity, denial, and delusion rule the NC Medical Examiner's Office

490 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 490 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf."

That is not a right of yours, but of Crystal's.

But, you've never been one to follow the law.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt. I don't make the laws... I'm only interpreting them using the English language. By filing a petition for Habeas Corpus, I am in compliance with the law under NCGS 17-5.; August 20, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Why should she plead guilty to a crime she didn't commit? Would you plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit?"

Except she did commit a crime.

Walt-in-Durham

What crime did Mangum commit? Since when is it a crime to defend oneself... not to mention that the stab wound to Daye was not the proximate cause of his death.

Now Dottie Amtey committed a crime when she strangled her debilitated 77-year old husband with her bare hands... but the "nice lady" (according to assistant D.A. Cummings) has been sentenced to probation. Does that make sense to you?; August 20, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

There is a series starting now on "The Real News" network that is interesting in its delving into further understanding of the position that the NAACP takes on certain issues and why they do so. You might be interested in following it. I have always wondered in this case why the NAACP doesn't insure that lawyers are available to assist those they purportedly support with cases such as the current Mangum case. That would seem like a very reasonable thing for them to do to me, but since it is not seen in reality, I am hoping this series will provide a deeper understanding into the issue.

Sounds interesting. I don't have cable tv, so I don't think I'll be able to view it, but I will try to google it. Thanks for the tip.; August 20, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
There are lawyers available to assist with cases like the Mangum case. In fact, Mangum had several competent attorneys assigned to assist her free of charge in the trial of her case. She currently has a lawyer handling her appeal, also without charge to her.

Falsely and baselessly accusing Mangum's lawyers of being incompetent, part of a massive conspiracy and/or of conflicts of interest does not change those facts or create a controversy. It does nothing to help Mangum and just makes you look unserious.

Mangum's attorneys have failed to conduct a legitimate investigation, failed to study her case, failed to file pretrial motions (other than to reduce bail), and have withheld from her the Roberts report which contains exculpatory information. Mangum has been ill-served by her attorneys. Holmes abandoned her on a flimsy conflict excuse just to keep from inadvertently winning her case. Meier had no problem with sabotaging his client.; August 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

It is on the internet on YouTube.; August 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

On the series I mentioned previously currently running on the "The Real News" network, the quest speaker is actually a history professor who occassionally works at Chapel Hill (persumably UNC). He is, or was, if I heard what was said correctly, the president of a Black Association of Lawyers. It is an interesting conversation.

Thanks again for the info. I'll look into it.; August 20, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"So, I'm not bragging or talking big when I say I could've gotten Mangum off had I represented her. Anybody could... even you."

No, you are talking out of your ass. The Roberts' report concluded that Mangum was responsible for Mr. Daye's death. It would have been disastrous (bordering on malpractice) for the defense to introduce it. Not being a lawyer, you do not recognize the folly of your position.

I appreciate that you recognize that I could have represented Mangum case. However, unlike you, I am an attorney. I have done a fair amount of criminal defense work - up to and including felony jury trials.

There is no way I would have used the Roberts' report. No competent attorney would. Indeed, I would have preferred if the contents of the report remained out of the public eye and I would have done everything in my power to make sure it did. In the real world, the report was incredibly damaging to Mangum.

Your track record and history of shoddy research and abysmally poor judgment when it comes to legal matters speaks for itself. No one should listen to anything you have to say about the law.; August 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
"So what do you do when you are unlawfully detained while awaiting the Appeals process to end?"

If, like Mangum, you are convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and relevant law, you do your time. That is the price of crime.; August 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

The fact that Ms. Mangum had difficulty presenting her own defense without assistance of a lawyer capable of professionally assisting in her behalf would be reason enough to hold the goal of obtaining a lawyer who could assist her in her defense as one of the top priorities in this case.

In addition, given the same climate that causes you and others to believe that she would be better represented by herself would also affect any outcome she might be able to obtain if she did represent herself, that option seems fairly unreasonable to expect of her or anyone else without a law degree and experience.

On the Real News Series I mention that is currently running, the quest speaker sometimes resides in Chapel Hill and seems like someone who could give further understanding into this issue about obtaining competent, non-conflicted, non-biased lawyers to assist in this case (or others similar in nature).; August 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:33 AM wrote: "So what do you do when you are unlawfully detained while awaiting the Appeals process to end?"

You cannot be unlawfully detained subject to a conviction.

"That was just done in the Howard case wasn't it? Was he able to get out? What did the lawyer do in his case to try and get him out of jail?"

Howard's motion was granted after he had exhaused his appeals and it was a motion for appropriate relief. Further, Howard had evidence to support his MAR.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "What crime did Mangum commit?"

Murder in the second degree. A jury of 12 citizens good and true convicted her. You might want to read about it. It was in all the papers, of you can just go to the NC DPS website and get the very short version.

"Since when is it a crime to defend oneself... not to mention that the stab wound to Daye was not the proximate cause of his death."

The jury rejected those theories. With good reason, I might add.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:34 AM wrote: "If, like Mangum, you are convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and relevant law, you do your time. That is the price of crime."

Ding - Ding - Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2014 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: So Ms. Mangum can file a Motion for Appropriate Relief at any point in the process, like before another year or however long the Appeals Process takes?; August 20, 2014 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Do you know how to challenge the notion of "competent jurisdiction" in reference to the Duke / Durham justice system and Ms. Mangum's case and all the many circumstances and conflicts involved in the case? Is it possible to confront that issue with a motion in this case?; August 20, 2014 at 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe Mangum could've won her case had she represented herself. The only reason she lost is because her turncoat attorney Meier prevented the introduction of any of Dr. Roberts' report or any other medical opinions to contradict Nichols.

Well, it's all or none - if they'd tried to use any part of it, the whole thing would have come in, including the part validating the conclusion, which would have sunk Crystal and given her LWOP - which you prove daily is, and always has been, your goal.; August 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM
Walt said...: August at 1:11 PM wrote: "So Ms. Mangum can file a Motion for Appropriate Relief at any point in the process, like before another year or however long the Appeals Process takes?"

Yes, but an MAR must raise an issue or issues of fact which were unknown at the time of the trial and undiscoverable at the time of the trial, otherwise it must be denied.

Thus, in the Howard case, the issue was the concealment of exculpatory evidence by Nifong. (Sound familiar?) The defense alleged that Nifong concealed the evidence from trial counsel and it was only discovered years later when the file was being reviewed. The Superior Court agreed that where the defense had asked for exculpatory evidence, and the state had denied having any, it was thus undiscoverable at the time of trial.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: And, because Sid has sent letters to everyone in the world, his allegations were not "unknown" at the time of trial (they were just wrong), so a MAR is inappropriate. Plus, Sid can't file one of those, so he won't.

Instead, he is filing Writs he knows cannot legally be granted (I wonder if he told Crystal that when she said she appreciated his efforts), but it makes him feel good and allows him to blame the conspiracy, instead of his own complete disregard for the law.; August 20, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Mangum can file a MAR then based upon the 2nd written autopsy report she did not receive until the last day of trial, and thus, had no written knowledge and evidence of the contents in order to reasonably present a defense. She was also unaware that Mr. Meier was going to intimidate her in relation to that document of evidence that directly contradicts Dr. Nichols autopsy report, nor could she be aware of the ruling issued by the judge in the Amety case that demonstrates that the issues with Dr. Nichols involvement in a murder case was a generalized cause for concern for any defendant due to his questionable and questioned professionalism contrare to the Judge's opinion that it did not apply when presented with the unresolved dilemma by Mr. Meier at the beginning of the trial?; August 20, 2014 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Did the defense lawyer or Ms. Mangum get to look at the prosecution's files before or during the trial?

How does a defendant request to look at the prosecution's complete file before or during the trial?; August 20, 2014 at 6:05 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:52 PM wrote: "Ms. Mangum can file a MAR then based upon the 2nd written autopsy report she did not receive until the last day of trial, and thus, had no written knowledge and evidence of the contents in order to reasonably present a defense."

No, try being serious. The report from Dr. Roberts was her expert. She can't claim she was unaware of her own expert when Sid reported more than two years ago the contents of the report and he reported, on this very blog, that he got the contents from Crystal herself. Again, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

"She was also unaware ... of the ruling issued by the judge in the Amety case...."

I can see you don't understand the difference between law and fact. A MAR is for facts only. Law goes in the appeal.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2014 at 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Mangum did NOT receive the written autopsy report until the last day of the trial so had no way of knowing its contents, nor of using its evidence in a reasonable defense. Dr. Harr may have misinterpreted what she said, so that issue as you state it holds no weight at all.

The issue with the Amety case was not known until after the trial, and there are facts involved in that case, not just law.

Why do you accuse me of being not serious? That is a ridiculous accusation, not even understandable except in the context that perhaps you are projecting your own lack of seriousness in response to the serious question?; August 20, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: She got it long before the last day of trial - and had the oral results over a year earlier, as even Sid noted. Crystal knew that Dr. Roberts was going to say that there were problems with the autopsy, but she agreed with the conclusion on cause of death (which meant it wasn't helpful to her). Her lawyers knew that getting the report in writing meant the State would get a copy (which wouldn't be helpful). Sid conviced Crystal that Dr. Roberts had to be lying, and was just waiting for a chance to get on the stand and admit her role in a vast Duke/anti-Crystal conspiracy, so Crystal needed that damning report so she could expose Dr. Roberts (her own expert) and everyone else for frauds - based on no evidence but Sid's fevered imagination.

So, yes, the written report was not produced until it was forced by Crystal, but it contained nothing that wasn't told to Crystal long before (and told to Sid), and because it reaches the same conclusion on cause of death (which was the only relevance to the autopsy - along with the admission that the wound should have been survivable, but for "complications" which Dr. Nichols admitted), it was far more damaging to Crystal than any possible help.

Think of it this way - your car is stolen. The investigator produces a report that says Walt and A Lawyer were seen walking by the car, and Walt stole the car. You don't believe Walt would have stolen it, so you get another report - and it says - yeah, that first report was sloppy, and wrong, and had a lot of mistakes - it was Walk and Kenny who were seen walking by before Walt stole the car - you don't introduce your own report to say "see the first investigator was wrong about A Lawyer."

And, the Amety case has nothing to do with Crystal's case, and wouldn't be usable as evidence anymore than the other errors that were known. Plus, Sid's issue with Amety is that he believes the woman should be in prison - not that he feels bad they charged her. Only Crystal should get a pass in his mind.; August 21, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually the Amtey case does play a role in Ms. Mangum's case for the reasons I stated.

Dr. Harr seems like an intelligent man with the capability of learning from his mistakes and doing the right thing for Ms. Mangum's sake. Hopefully that will be achievable to the goal of a fair, just, and equal trial and defense for her.

The fact that Ms. Mangum had to ask the judge to order that she actually receive a written copy of the 2nd (defensive witness's) autopsy report is indicative of the severity of issues she incurred with that aspect of her case. The fact that she received it just hours before the end of the trial and felt intimidated by Mr. Meier not to pursue further action on it at that time is indicative of reasons for a MAR and of Mr. Meier's conflicts of interest in this case.; August 21, 2014 at 5:14 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:31 PM wrote: "Ms. Mangum did NOT receive the written autopsy report until the last day of the trial..."

BZZZZZZT - you just lost the MAR argument. You have to learn the fact after the trial, not during it.

"... so had no way of knowing its contents, nor of using its evidence in a reasonable defense."

How can you say that when she was present more than a year before trial when her own expert gave her a presentation on her report. Be serious.

"Dr. Harr may have misinterpreted what she said, so that issue as you state it holds no weight at all."

Then Crystal is going to have to come out and say that Sid lied, and she's going to have to do it in the form of an affidavit. If she accuses him of lying, I would not be entirely surprised. He has been trying to undermine her at every turn. But, I have always erred on the side of giving Sid the benefit of the doubt.

"The issue with the Amety case was not known until after the trial, and there are facts involved in that case, not just law."

None of the facts in Amety have anything to do with the Daye autopsy. They are not relevant or admissible, so they don't go in a MAR. Again, you are not being serious.

"Why do you accuse me of being not serious?"

Because you are not being serious. Instead of trying to grasp simple concepts, you are misrepresenting and trying to avoid following the law as it is. In fact, if you had bothered to RTFF, you would know that there are some real issues that can be raised on appeal. You should be addressing those, if you are serious. But, you are not. Ergo, you are not serious.

Walt-in-Du; August 21, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr, Harr has filed 2 (soon to be 3) habeas corpora...So far all have been denied.

As the Hazeldon foundation noted, "..Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."

So much for Harr being an "intelligent man with the capability of learning from his mistakes"; August 21, 2014 at 6:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, excuse me, I am not a lawyer nor do I purport to be one - so for me - I'm being serious.

And anyway, how do I or anyone here know that everything you say isn't a conflicted, convulted lie since you state your hatred for Ms. Mangum quite clearly and frequently on this blog.

What exactly do you mean by RTFF? RTFF means nothing but you saying RTFF in a snide manner to me at this point.

Why would Dr. Harr have to have Ms. Mangum put in an affidavite that he's lying for any reason? He does NOT represent her - nor does she control what he does or says - so why would she have to answer for or to him?; August 21, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Also Walt, you state you are a lawyer, so surely you would not consider going into trial with just the verbal report of a key witness to a trial who consistently refuses to provide a written autopsy report to use as evidence for a trial, for further clarification, and to prepare for a reasonable and competent defense. Would you?

If you had a scant 3 hours to prepare a defense based upon the newly received written and documented 2nd autopsy report for defense purposes, AND you were dealing with a lawyer of less than 3 months who has already stated to the judge that he needed more time to prepare your defense, AND he refuses to enter the evidence into trial as you, the defendant who has to rely on that lawyer to finish the last 3 hours of the trial and win it for you but who seems reluctant to do so if you insist on bringing the newly received autopsy report evidence, desires him to ... what would you do?

In addition, Mr. Meier requested the trial be delayed until the issues with Dr. Nichol's autopsy reports and errors therein were resolved. The judge said it was. Obviously, it was not. The Amtey case provides further fact and evidence that the issues with Dr. Nichols was not resolved yet, and this fact is new evidence that has arisen since the trial ended.; August 21, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey moron -- Dr. Robert's report CONFIRMED that the original autopsy report was correct in stating the cause of death.

That kind of document helps the prosecution, not the defendant. Her lawyers were correct on not requesting the document in written form -- it could have been used as evidence against CGM, rather than for her.

Unfortunately for CGM, Sid went ahead and posted the contents of the Robert report here anyway, so the prosecution knew that the report was not favorable to Crystal.; August 21, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: RTFF = Read the Fu##ing FAQ

It means you should take the time to read the available documentation before you make yourself look like a dumbass.; August 21, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: no, actually, ya'll take great sport and pride in trying to make others look 'less than' or whatever, when in actuality, it does just the opposite

blah

what fracking FAQ?; August 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM
guiowen said...: To the 9:42,
Please mind your manners.; August 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: "what fracking FAQ?"

There's beau coup documentation on habeas corpus, Motion for Appropriate Relief, and pretty much any other legal action you can take -- starting with Kenny's favorite resource, Wikipedia.

Go look for your answers there first. Dumb ass.; August 21, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Tin Foil said:

"Also Walt, you state you are a
lawyer, so surely you would not consider going into trial with just the verbal report of a key witness to a trial who consistently refuses to provide a written autopsy report to use as evidence for a trial, for further clarification, and to prepare for a reasonable and competent defense. Would you?"

You lie.

Roberts was the defense's expert. She made a full report of her findings to the defense attorney and Mangum. The defense wisely chose NOT to have Roberts make a written report and not to use her as a witness because her report and testimony (i.e., that Mangum's stab would was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death) was extremely damaging to the defense.

Insisting otherwise does not change these facts. It does not help Mangum and it will not be the basis of a successful appeal or any other relief for Mangum. It just makes you look unserious.; August 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Robert's conclusion was based on flawed understanding of the law as presented by the judge at the trial, so probably you are wrong. Her report was needed to show that Dr. Nichol's report was incorrect and that the cause of death was the malpractice. Those facts are paramount in this case. It is not up to her to convict Ms. Mangum. It is up to her to provide a written report when asked by the defense, which she did not do until ordered to by the judge at Ms. Mangum's insistance against Mr. Meier's wishes. At that point, the judge should have granted the rescheduling of the trial in order to give the defense time to prepare in a reasonable manner.; August 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: From this own blog (Dec. 12 2012):

"For what Ms. Mangum estimated to be three hours, she stated that Dr. Roberts went over the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report prepared by Dr. Clay Nichols, the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, point by point. According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate."

Dr. Roberts stated in no uncertain terms that she agreed that Mr. Daye died "as a result of a chain of events that began with a stab wound to the chest".

The Roberts report was NOT going to help CGM's case.

...And you're depriving a village somewhere of its idiot.; August 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you always make everything you say an attack? Why don't you try leaving out the attacks with everything you post. egad and sheeessshhhh louise, you just never stop

Who said that on this blog?

I wouldn't step one step forward on the path toward a trial until I had a written report in my hands. Would you?; August 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: To Tinfoil at 12:59 PM:

Are you saying the report Dr. Roberts gave to Mangum and her attorney in December 2012 was influenced by the instructions the judge would give to the jury over a year later?

Again, the wise decision to not have Roberts prepare a written report was made by the defense. No competent attorney would ask a witness to produce a report that was harmful to their client. Sid may disagree, but remember, he is neither an attorney nor competent. He has never won a case. He has a long and unblemished record of being wrong.; August 21, 2014 at 1:40 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:03 wrote: "Also Walt, you state you are a lawyer, so surely you would not consider going into trial with just the verbal report of a key witness..."

I would, and I have. Roberts was what in civil cases we call a witness called in anticipation of litigation and not expected to testify. Under the rules of civil procedure, her report does not need to be turned over and thus, I might get it in writing. But, in North Carolina, we do not use the rules of civil procedure in criminal courts. There, even witnesses called in anticipation of litigation not expected to testify are subject to discovery if they give written reports. Thus, counsel (three of the very best, I might add) elected not to ask Roberts for her written report. If you paid any attention to the trial, you know the state immediately asked for a copy of the report when the Judge ordered Roberts to provide it to Crystal. And, he granted it. If she had then decided to call Roberts, one of two things would have happened. Roberts could have testified consistent with her report that Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Mangum. Or she could have lied. Your guess as to which one.

"... to a trial who consistently refuses to provide a written autopsy report to use as evidence for a trial,..."

First, Roberts did not do an autopsy. She provided a medical record review after the autopsy was done. She never saw the body, performed any tests nor made any diagnosis. Second, she did not refuse, consistently or otherwise to provide a report. Crystal, on the very sound advice of counsel, did not ask for one until the trial. At that point, Roberts provided the report. Again, if you were to RTFF, you would know this.

"... for further clarification, and to prepare for a reasonable and competent defense. Would you?"

Given that Woody Van took excellent notes on the initial presentation and Roberts was available at beck and call, yes, going to trial without a written report, especially one that is harmful to the defense is very reasonable.

"If you had a scant 3 hours to prepare a defense based upon the newly received written and documented 2nd autopsy report...."

There is where you go badly wrong. Van got Roberts presentation long before the trial. Not three hours.

"In addition, Mr. Meier requested the trial be delayed until the issues with Dr. Nichol's autopsy reports ...."

Finally, you get serious. At the end of your long pointless rant. You should have put that in first and people might have taken you seriously. Or you could have RTFF (read the f**king forum) when I raised that very issue long ago. Of course, Meier raised that issue at trial so it is not appropriate for an MAR. Still, you might be getting serious.

Walt-in-Durham; August 21, 2014 at 1:43 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:59 wrote: "Dr. Robert's conclusion was based on flawed understanding of the law as presented by the judge at the trial, so probably you are wrong. Her report was needed to show that Dr. Nichol's report was incorrect and that the cause of death was the malpractice."

1. Roberts report came in long before the judge instructed the jury.

2. The judge's instruction to the jury on malpractice as an intervening cause was directly from the pattern jury instructions. No error there.

Walt-in-Durham; August 21, 2014 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Mangum did not have lawyers at times because they would not provide the defense, (her), with the written defense autopsy in hand. Without it, there is no proof for evidence, and certainly none for what you are saying was said here or whatever.

Argue on - if you insist on more answers or arguments - simply refer back to the posts on this sharlog or others that relate to your repetitive and abusive trolling by way of repetitive and abusive questioning as a form of sport to cause harm that you seem to be obssessed with. My answers would still be the same, and so would your trolling ...; August 21, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:40 PM wrote: " Sid may disagree, but remember, he is neither an attorney nor competent. He has never won a case. He has a long and unblemished record of being wrong."

Ding - Ding - Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!; August 21, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "Ms. Mangum did not have lawyers at times because they would not provide the defense, (her), with the written defense autopsy in hand"

Unfortunately for Ms. Mangum, she didn't have lawyers at times because she followed some rather poor legal advice from Sidney Harr.; August 21, 2014 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: The "For what Ms. Mangum estimated to be three hours..." quote is from your hero, Sid. There's a neat function on the blog that will let you find entries by date. Look for the December 2012 blog entries. I'm sure that, given time, you'll find it.

The Roberts quote is from the summary document posted here.; August 21, 2014 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: but he would never have been there if he hadn't been stabbed....; August 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

You have stated that, before you filed your two habeas corpus petitions for Mangum, you looked at section 17-5 of the statute, which you read to mean that you were authorized to file those petitions.
Did you also read section 17-4 (the one that comes right before 17-5)? Or did you skip over that?

If you did read it, did you understand that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used at this stage of the criminal case? Or did you interpret it to mean something else?; August 22, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: He read it, he understood it - he doesn't care. His goal isn't to actually help Crystal, it's to pretend that he is helping her and let him keep spouting off about non-existent conspiracies.; August 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"So what do you do when you are unlawfully detained while awaiting the Appeals process to end?"

If, like Mangum, you are convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and relevant law, you do your time. That is the price of crime.

That's the problem. Mangum did not commit any crime. The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death. The proximate cause of his death was the esophageal intubation. Judge's instructions demanded a guilty verdict for murder or manslaughter only if it was determined that the proximate cause of death was due to the stab wound.; August 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

The fact that Ms. Mangum had difficulty presenting her own defense without assistance of a lawyer capable of professionally assisting in her behalf would be reason enough to hold the goal of obtaining a lawyer who could assist her in her defense as one of the top priorities in this case.

In addition, given the same climate that causes you and others to believe that she would be better represented by herself would also affect any outcome she might be able to obtain if she did represent herself, that option seems fairly unreasonable to expect of her or anyone else without a law degree and experience.

On the Real News Series I mention that is currently running, the quest speaker sometimes resides in Chapel Hill and seems like someone who could give further understanding into this issue about obtaining competent, non-conflicted, non-biased lawyers to assist in this case (or others similar in nature).

I believe that Mangum is intelligent enough to represent herself. She could absolutely do a much better job than turncoat Meier. The problems that Mangum had in representing herself were due to lack of confidence and not having studied her case to know it backwards and forwards. The legal part of the process is one that she could easily learn.

Any lawyer that Mangum could retain might very well try to sabotage her case... like her other attorneys for the benefit of Duke University Hospital and the state... seeking vengeance.

I believe Mangum would be free now had she represented herself and brought up problems with the medical examiner's report.; August 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "What crime did Mangum commit?"

Murder in the second degree. A jury of 12 citizens good and true convicted her. You might want to read about it. It was in all the papers, of you can just go to the NC DPS website and get the very short version.

"Since when is it a crime to defend oneself... not to mention that the stab wound to Daye was not the proximate cause of his death."

The jury rejected those theories. With good reason, I might add.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, that the stab wound was not the proximate cause of death and that the esophageal intubation was is not theory but fact. And according to jury instructions, they were not to find Mangum guilty under those factual circumstances. Turncoat attorney Meier undermined Mangum's case by keeping jurors from hearing about the truth about Daye's death and the problems with the autopsy report. In short, Meier was play-acting during his representation of Mangum... trying to act as though he was really putting on an aggressive defense. What a bunch of baloney!!; August 22, 2014 at 12:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Do you know how to challenge the notion of "competent jurisdiction" in reference to the Duke / Durham justice system and Ms. Mangum's case and all the many circumstances and conflicts involved in the case? Is it possible to confront that issue with a motion in this case?

I'm afraid I know nothing of "competent jurisdiction" and what it means. If such a thing can be challenged, I think the Mangum case might be appropriate for such an action.; August 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Hey moron -- Dr. Robert's report CONFIRMED that the original autopsy report was correct in stating the cause of death.

That kind of document helps the prosecution, not the defendant. Her lawyers were correct on not requesting the document in written form -- it could have been used as evidence against CGM, rather than for her.

Unfortunately for CGM, Sid went ahead and posted the contents of the Robert report here anyway, so the prosecution knew that the report was not favorable to Crystal.

Time for clarification: Dr. Roberts was a turncoat defense expert witness. She had to go along with concluding that Daye's death was a complication of the stab wound to the chest, otherwise the murder charge wouldn't be valid.

Roberts sold out Mangum, just like her attorneys did.

What Roberts said in her conclusion was that since the stab wound resulted in Daye being brought to the hospital where he
subsequently died, it could therefore be concluded that Daye's death was a complication of the stab wound. What a heap of baloney!

At best, in her conclusion, Dr. Roberts is trying to use a legal means to connect the stab wound to Daye's death. She certainly can't come up with a medical explanation of how the stab wound caused Daye's brain death or actual death. Roberts' conclusion is absurd.; August 22, 2014 at 1:06 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
From this own blog (Dec. 12 2012):

"For what Ms. Mangum estimated to be three hours, she stated that Dr. Roberts went over the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report prepared by Dr. Clay Nichols, the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, point by point. According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate."

Dr. Roberts stated in no uncertain terms that she agreed that Mr. Daye died "as a result of a chain of events that began with a stab wound to the chest".

The Roberts report was NOT going to help CGM's case.

...And you're depriving a village somewhere of its idiot.

As I stated in my previous comment, the stab wound may have landed Daye in the hospital, but it was the esophageal intubation that resulted in the disastrous sequence of events that led to Daye's death.

If I were representing Mangum, I would use Dr. Roberts' conclusion to show that she was nothing more than a turncoat defense expert witness.; August 22, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
To Tinfoil at 12:59 PM:

Are you saying the report Dr. Roberts gave to Mangum and her attorney in December 2012 was influenced by the instructions the judge would give to the jury over a year later?

Again, the wise decision to not have Roberts prepare a written report was made by the defense. No competent attorney would ask a witness to produce a report that was harmful to their client. Sid may disagree, but remember, he is neither an attorney nor competent. He has never won a case. He has a long and unblemished record of being wrong.

First of all, Mangum never received a written copy of the Roberts report until the third day of her November 2013 trial... despite of requesting it for more than a year. You see, Mangum's own attorneys were withholding from her exculpatory evidence. The Roberts report, despite its ridiculous conclusion showed the ineptitude of the autopsy report and crucial lapses in following protocol and standard procedures.; August 22, 2014 at 1:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:

You have stated that, before you filed your two habeas corpus petitions for Mangum, you looked at section 17-5 of the statute, which you read to mean that you were authorized to file those petitions.
Did you also read section 17-4 (the one that comes right before 17-5)? Or did you skip over that?

If you did read it, did you understand that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used at this stage of the criminal case? Or did you interpret it to mean something else?

A Lawyer, I read 17-5, and I also read 17-8 which reads as follows:
"When the appellate division or superior court division, or any judge of either division, has evidence from any judicial proceeding before such court or judge that any person within this State is illegally imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, it is the duty of said court or judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus for his relief, although no application be made for such writ."

Ergo, my habeas corpus should alert the judge that Mangum is illegally imprisoned.; August 22, 2014 at 1:21 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, that the stab wound was not the proximate cause of death...."

Sorry to tell you Sid, but two physicians who are licensed to practice in North Carolina and have relevant training and significant experience say otherwise.

Sid also wrote: "A Lawyer, I read 17-5, and I also read 17-8...."

Sadly, he did not read NCGS § 17-4 which holds in relevant part that habeas corpus does not apply to those held subject to a conviction. See NCGS § 17-4(2).

Lastly, Sid wrote: "Ergo, my habeas corpus should alert the judge that Mangum is illegally imprisoned."

No, you will just alert the court to your lack of reasoning and complete disregard for the law. Sid's unblemished record of being wrong remains intact.

Walt-in-Durham; August 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

A murderer sentenced to prison in accordance with the law after being convicted by a jury in a court of competent jurisdiction is not illegally imprisoned. Indeed, it is the exact opposite of being illegally imprisoned. It is the very reason we build prisons - to house people convicted of serious crimes who are sentenced to incarceration.; August 22, 2014 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"First of all, Mangum never received a written copy of the Roberts report until the third day of her November 2013 trial... despite of requesting it for more than a year. You see, Mangum's own attorneys were withholding from her exculpatory evidence. The Roberts report, despite its ridiculous conclusion showed the ineptitude of the autopsy report and crucial lapses in following protocol and standard procedures."

No, Sid, the defense was trying to keep inclupatory evidence away from the prosecution. Mangum and her defense attorney knew Dr. Roberts' findings and conclusions over a year before the trial. Roberts' written report was exactly what she told Mangum and her lawyer it would be.

The issue was whether Mangum killed Mr. Daye, not whether or when his spleen was removed, or if proper records were made of the surgery. Mangum was not on trial for stealing Mr. Daye's spleen. She was on trial for killing him. The Roberts report confirmed the autopsy report in that it concluded that the stab wound inflicted by Mangum was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. That is the only significance of the Roberts' report as it pertains to Mangum's case. That is why it had to be kept out of evidence and out of the hands of the prosecution. It was extremely damaging to Mangum.; August 22, 2014 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"If I were representing Mangum, I would use Dr. Roberts' conclusion to show that she was nothing more than a turncoat defense expert witness."

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you were Mangum's attorney your would have called Dr. Roberts to testify that it was her expert opinion that the stab wound inflicted By Mangum was the cause of Mr. Daye's death.

How would that help Mangum?

How would you show Dr. Roberts was wrong?

Why would any attorney call a witness to testify against his client?; August 22, 2014 at 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The advantage Mangum has is that the law on appeal is that if she gets a new trial, the outcome can be no worse than her original outcome.

Sid lost his chance to get her LWOP, but at least her worst case is the 14-17 years - if she gets a new trial, which Sid is trying to avoid.; August 22, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: That's the problem. Mangum did not commit any crime. The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death. The proximate cause of his death was the esophageal intubation. Judge's instructions demanded a guilty verdict for murder or manslaughter only if it was determined that the proximate cause of death was due to the stab wound.

But, if the stab wound wasn't in self-defense, it was a crime, and if it was in self-defense, then the cause of death is irrelevant. Since you argue cause of death, you clearly believe the stab wound wasn't in self-defense, ergo Crystal, in your mind, committed a crime. If not, you'd focus on the self-defense, which was/is the only Guilty/Not-Guilty in the case. Cause of death is manslaughter v. murder.; August 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Can we all just agree that Sid is a fucking idiot who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a Duke plant?

Sid, why don't you come clean about why you left California, and the "scandal" that led to it.; August 22, 2014 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Can we all just agree that Sid is a fucking idiot who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a Duke plant?

Sid, why don't you come clean about why you left California, and the "scandal" that led to it.; August 22, 2014 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: If the cause of death is manslaughter or murder then duke should be on criminal trial for the malpractice that killed Mr. Daye, not Ms. Mangum.; August 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You cannot agree that Ms. Mangum should represent herself because of undue conflict of interest and bias issues without also agreeing that she has no right to fair and equal protection and representation in all court proceedings. The system needs to be fixed to provide that for her to uphold her rights (and the rights of the general public) immediately. Do you agree?; August 22, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...: What are the statutes that govern the rights of any citizen to a fair, equal, and unbiased court system and representation?; August 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The ONLY person who says that the system was/is biased is Sid and Tin Foil hat ...

There has been zero credible evidence of any conflict with any of Crystal's attorneys, and the Dr. Roberts report is so harmful to Crystal, the fact that Sid still harps on it is absolute proof that his goal in all of this is to hurt, not help, Crystal.

Let's look at Sid's arguments on the Dr. Roberts Report:
1. It is absolutely credible in that it shows the errors and issues with the Nichols autopsy - so trust her, and take that to the bank.

2. She is a traitor and a turncoat, so when she suddenly says something Sid doesn't like, it's false and wrong - so disregard that statement.

So, you want the Jury to trust Dr. Roberts in parts, and condemn her with others - with no evidence she is a traitor other than Sid's fevered imagination?

And, Sid keeps saying that "no investigation was done." He has no clue who the attorneys talked to, and their discussions with the experts like Dr. Roberts - it's very likely that they fully discussed her report/findings/testimony and discussed the esophageal intubation, the DTs, and the rest that she notes, and asked her how she could support her conclusion based on all of that, and she supported it - and would have on the stand, and, again, hurt Crystal.

There is only one person who keeps constantly taking steps that everyone is saying will hurt Crystal is Sid.

At least Tin-Foil still believes him, but no one else does, or should.; August 23, 2014 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Is that your evil duke troll decree for the day evil duke troll?; August 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Explain where it's wrong?

There has been zero evidence of a conflict, and Sid wants to say believe Dr. Roberts when she says X, but consider her a traitor and a turncoat when she says Y. I'm just curious how he really thinks that would work.

Either she is a credible witness, or she isn't - she can't be both.; August 23, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "Celebration"

Yahoo!
Celebration
Yahoo!
This is your celebration

Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)
Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)

There's a party goin' on right here
A celebration to last throughout the years
So bring your good times and your laughter too
We gonna celebrate your party with you

Come on now, celebration
Let's all celebrate and have a good time
Celebration
We gonna celebrate and have a good time

It's time to come together
It's up to you, what's your pleasure?
Everyone around the world come on!

Yahoo!
It's a celebration
Yahoo!

Celebrate good times, come on!
(It's a celebration)
Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)

There's a party goin' on right here
A dedication to last throughout the years
So bring your good times and your laughter too
We gonna celebrate and party with you

Come on now, celebration
Let's all celebrate and have a good time, yeah yeah
Celebration
We gonna celebrate and have a good time

It's time to come together
It's up to you, what's your pleasure?
Everyone around the world come on!

Yahoo!
It's a celebration
Yahoo!
It's a celebration

Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate come on now)
Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)

We're gonna have a good time tonight
Let's celebrate, it's all right
We're gonna have a good time tonight
Let's celebrate, it's all right, baby

We're gonna have a good time tonight
(Celebration)
Let's celebrate, it's all right
We're gonna have a good time tonight
(Celebration)
Let's celebrate, it's all right

Yahoo!
Yahoo!

Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)
Celebrate good times, come on!
(It's a celebration)

Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)
(Come on and celebrate tonight)
Celebrate good times, come on!
('Cause everything's gonna be alright, let's celebrate)

Celebrate good times, come on!
(Let's celebrate)
Celebrate good times, come on!; August 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; August 23, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"There has been zero evidence of a conflict, and Sid wants to say believe Dr. Roberts when she says X, but consider her a traitor and a turncoat when she says Y. I'm just curious how he really thinks that would work.

Either she is a credible witness, or she isn't - she can't be both."

Instead of following the facts and the law and forming conclusions based on them, Sid starts with the conclusion that Mangum must be innocent and works backwards from there to try and justify it. To do that, Sid must invent facts, ignore (or misstate) the law and create conspiracies to explain away evidence that is contrary to his position and bridge the gaps in hisown arguments. Such efforts are neither persuasive nor successful, as Sid continues to demonstrate on a regular basis.; August 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: But, he still ignores that the way for Crystal to win this case was self-defense. If she was acting in self-defense, it would have been NG. If she was not, she would have been a convicted felon, at least of manslaughter, even if Duke did intentionally kill Duke.

The Jury didn't buy self-defense, and Sid can scream, and rant, and hold his breath as long as he wants on the autopsy, and the rest, but the simple fact is, the only thing that would have proven Crystal's "innocence" is self-defense - which Sid still seems to ignore, and likely told her to ignore.

Sid is Crystal's worst enemy, and I have to think Tin-Foil understands that, and agrees with Sid, but they want to pretend they don't. No one can possibly be as delusional and living in fantasyland as they pretend to be.; August 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Both Sid and Mangum have claimed self defense. The problem is that the facts to support self defense are not particularly strong and neither Sid nor Mangum are credible. That's a toxic combination (weak evidence from unreliable sources) when you are trying to win in court.

At the end of the day, Mangum is suffering the consequences of a lifetime of bad decisions. Sid is too, albeit to a lesser extent. Neither will find any satisfaction, fulfillment or success on their current paths.; August 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's Sid?; August 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:

A murderer sentenced to prison in accordance with the law after being convicted by a jury in a court of competent jurisdiction is not illegally imprisoned. Indeed, it is the exact opposite of being illegally imprisoned. It is the very reason we build prisons - to house people convicted of serious crimes who are sentenced to incarceration.

Mangum is not legally imprisoned because her trial was corrupted by a false autopsy report and perjury by the medical examiner. In addition to ineffective counsel which was actually turncoat counsel intent on sabotaging her case to win a conviction.

Mangum is more deserving of being released from prison and her conviction overturned than Dottie Amtey (who strangled her feeble 77-year old husband with her bare hands) being given probation because the medical examiner screwed up on a report.; August 25, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Both Sid and Mangum have claimed self defense. The problem is that the facts to support self defense are not particularly strong and neither Sid nor Mangum are credible. That's a toxic combination (weak evidence from unreliable sources) when you are trying to win in court.

At the end of the day, Mangum is suffering the consequences of a lifetime of bad decisions. Sid is too, albeit to a lesser extent. Neither will find any satisfaction, fulfillment or success on their current paths.

Face it! A drunken Daye should've been charged with assault after be busted down a locked bathroom door to get at Crystal and drag her out by her hair. He wasn't charged.

Not only that, but Daye lied to police when he initially told them that Crystal "stabbed me and took my money." Even the police didn't believe that, otherwise they would've charged her with larceny initially... along with assault.

Crystal may have made bad decisions in her life, and I will admit that I have, but Crystal's problems with the State and media are due to the vendetta-driven attitude of trying to get payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. She's been targeted since her identity was known.; August 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

"There has been zero evidence of a conflict, and Sid wants to say believe Dr. Roberts when she says X, but consider her a traitor and a turncoat when she says Y. I'm just curious how he really thinks that would work.

Either she is a credible witness, or she isn't - she can't be both."

Instead of following the facts and the law and forming conclusions based on them, Sid starts with the conclusion that Mangum must be innocent and works backwards from there to try and justify it. To do that, Sid must invent facts, ignore (or misstate) the law and create conspiracies to explain away evidence that is contrary to his position and bridge the gaps in hisown arguments. Such efforts are neither persuasive nor successful, as Sid continues to demonstrate on a regular basis.

Dr. Roberts, like Mangum's attorneys, did not want her report published because she knew that it would contain information she knew would support Crystal and because she knew that she would have to lie in order to support Dr. Nichols' conclusion that Daye died secondary to a stab wound.

Yes, the report was exculpatory and helped Crystal, but it was also produced by a turncoat defense expert witness who did her best to protect Duke University Hospital and her fellow colleague Dr. Nichols.; August 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: NOTE: Comment dated August 23, 2014 at 8:11 am has been deleted pursuant to the kenhyderal doctrine. This doctrine pertains to comments focusing on hydrogen sulfide. Might I suggest a chemistry blog for such postings?; August 25, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You cannot agree that Ms. Mangum should represent herself because of undue conflict of interest and bias issues without also agreeing that she has no right to fair and equal protection and representation in all court proceedings. The system needs to be fixed to provide that for her to uphold her rights (and the rights of the general public) immediately. Do you agree?

I agree that the system is in need of repair... that it is corrupted and hijacked. The system allows for turncoat attorneys to represent them... and that's no problem. But let someone try to give assistance to Mangum and the State Bar goes after him with accusations of practicing law without a license.

Mangum's case was fouled up by her turncoat attorney Meier... and other turncoat attorneys. It's as simple as that.; August 25, 2014 at 1:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Can we all just agree that Sid is a fucking idiot who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a Duke plant?

Sid, why don't you come clean about why you left California, and the "scandal" that led to it.

I think everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and do not categorize anyone who disagrees with me as being a Duke plant. I only believe that they are misinformed and what I try to do is offer enlightenment.

Regarding my leaving California... that's irrelevant.; August 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
If the cause of death is manslaughter or murder then duke should be on criminal trial for the malpractice that killed Mr. Daye, not Ms. Mangum.

You are correct that Mangum should not be on trial for murder in Daye's death because she had nothing to do with it. She did not intubate Daye.

Criminal charges should be leveled against the staff person who intubated Daye's esophagus if he/she did so with intent. If it was accidental or unintentional, then I do not believe criminal charges should be brought, period!; August 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Where's Sid?

I'm around, but have recently been preoccupied with my lawsuit.

Things should ease up in my schedule shortly, and I'll get back to producing another sharlog. The next one will be about the jury selection fiasco.

Have to get home and get back to work. Until later, sayonara.; August 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Mangum is not legally imprisoned because her trial was corrupted by a false autopsy report and perjury by the medical examiner. In addition to ineffective counsel which was actually turncoat counsel intent on sabotaging her case to win a conviction."

Not a single one of these issues is relevant to habeas corpus. Either you know that and are engaging in another of your wast the time of the court frivolous filings, or you are unable to read and learn.

Walt-in-Durham; August 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "You are correct that Mangum should not be on trial for murder in Daye's death because she had nothing to do with it. She did not intubate Daye."

Two actual physicians, competent and licensed physicians disagree with you. Further, you have never been able to produce a single shred of evidence to dispute either Roberts or the ME's conclusion. Not much of an advocate.

Walt-in-Durham; August 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The system allows for turncoat attorneys to represent them... and that's no problem. But let someone try to give assistance to Mangum and the State Bar goes after him with accusations of practicing law without a license."

Your "help" consisted of filing frivolous motions and breaching attorney client confidentiality. The Bar was trying to protect Crystal from your incompetence and frankly and your treachery.

"Mangum's case was fouled up by her turncoat attorney Meier... and other turncoat attorneys. It's as simple as that."

That is totally untrue. The only person who fouled up is one Sidney Harr who filed frivolous motions and tipped the state to the fact that the defense independent medical examiner agreed with the state.

Walt-in-Durham; August 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Shouldn't the defense autopsy examiner also have notified the state of the incompentance and fraud in Dr. Nichol's autopsy examine and reports as soon as she discovered and documented the discrepancies and errors instead of ignoring what he did so that he could go on to harm other innocent and greiving families or other criminal cases? Why didn't she give Ms. Mangum the written report until the last day of the trial? Where's the accountability and professional in those actions?; August 26, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, the judge did not state the law for the trial as you interpret it (demonstrated by your years of trolling about your erroneous interpretation of the law to suit your anti-mangum agenda on this blog). In addition, the defense ME also stated her conclusions based not on the law as stated by the judge, but on the same flawed interpretation. But you know that. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?; August 26, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You cannot expect Ms. Mangum to act as her own defense attorney if she has no knowledge of how to do so and win her case. That simply insures her loss of the case, since even she insists that she has a lawyer whom she can trust to assist her. Continuing to ignore this critical point in her case achieves nothing.

If you continue to advice her against her own best judgement and her quaranteed rights on this one issue, then success is questionable. Not that success isn't questionable since there is so much bias and conflict of interest with the Duke and the ME system issues to begin with, but to expect Ms. Mangum to fight against that in addition to defending herself in a court of law without the assistance of a nonconflicted unbiased lawyer is unreasonable justice for not only Ms. Mangum, but for the entire state, etc.; August 26, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You used to communicate with a Duke Law Professor and had discussions with him about the law. Did the fact that you were escorted off Duke property affect that communication with him?

Assuming that it did and you are no longer in contact with him or other lawyers from Duke, then are there another similar resources where you can gain access to lawyers with no conflict to assist in legal areas and understandings? What are they?

Did you finish watching the Real News Series with Mr. Horne? Perhaps he can talk to you about obtaining nonconflicted legal assistance for Ms. Mangum?; August 26, 2014 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: It is nice to see you suffer from the same delusions as Dr. Harr ... Dr. Roberts' report notes that it was not malpractice, and even if it was - only Dr. Harr claims that would exonerate Mangum (but she'd still be liable for the stabbing) - everyone else acknowledges that it wouldn't.

I still find it funny that because no one told Dr. Harr about the conversations, he assumes no one on the Defense talked to any of these witnesses outside of court, and therefore had no idea what they were going to say, and how they'd respond to questions.

And, his continued calls for an investigation - there was one, that's what Dr. Roberts did - and she concluded the autopsy was sloppy (big difference between sloppy at fraudulent), but also confirmed the cause of death.

Sid still wants you to think that if she was put on the stand and called a traitor, she would have been unable to justify her conclusion (other than the obvious that but for the stabbing he wouldn't have been in the hospital, and wouldn't have needed the intubation which ultimately led to his death), and that somehow would have helped Crystal.

Sid also keeps doing things outside the law - he assumes that even though Crystal has a lawyer working on an appeal, because she refuses to consult with him, she too is a traitor.

Sid's ego is huge, and its funny how willing of worshippers he's found.; August 26, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Anonymous said...: This weird projection of yours of worshipping and delusions and whatever else you diss with is ... weird - don't you think?

???; August 26, 2014 at 4:10 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous said: "Walt, the judge did not state the law for the trial as you interpret it...."

The judge stated the law from the pattern jury instruction that is based on the case law I put forward. That you are too unwilling to learn is your problem, not mine.

Walt-in-Durham; August 26, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah right Walt, that's the problem ... i refuse to learn ... your conflicted hateful bs ... that's it alrite

... oh well

have fun at frankenstein hospital the next time you get in an accident - get hauled off to duke - and they grin their evil grin as they check their 'those awaiting organs and willing to pay for it/them list', other nefarious lists of items for research, and 'blacklisted' lists ... cuz ... accordingly to your logic ... they can ... with impunity; August 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Because Sid refuses to follow proper procedure, and continues to cling to things demonstrably false - even if he had a valid point (and he doesn't), no one would listen because they couldn't get through all the bullshit to see it.

It simply can't be true that everyone who doesn't agree with your worldview is corrupt and/or incompetent and/or a traitor and a turncoat - yet that's his answer. Not, to research, or listen, or try to learn, but to call them a traitor and a turncoat, with no evidence other than his fevered imagination.

And, you clearly have no proof Duke is intentionally harming anyone. If they were as powerful as you claim, Sid would be dead, and no lawyers would ever sue Duke, when, on the contrary, they are sued many many times every year and pay out millions in damages, just like every other large healthcare providers. Sadly, mistakes happen.; August 26, 2014 at 9:15 AM
guiowen said...: Walt,
Why do you bother to reply to anon 12;39, 4:10 etc.?
Either he actually believes what he says, in which case he's certifiably insane, or (more likely) he's just trying to get your goat, i.e. he's a troll.
Dpon't feed the trolls!; August 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: What Sid isn't telling everyone is that if he is working on his lawsuit with an appeal to the 4th Circuit, the Judge took the Magistrate's advice and dismissed his case.

Why anyone thinks Sid has the slightest clue when it comes to legal matters is beyond me - he has yet to win a single case anywhere in the country.

I know he claims here it is Duke biased against him - I guess he runs into a different conspiracy in every state cause he's lost them all.

And, why you left California is relevant, because it goes to character and the type of person you are.; August 27, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "You are correct that Mangum should not be on trial for murder in Daye's death because she had nothing to do with it. She did not intubate Daye."

Two actual physicians, competent and licensed physicians disagree with you. Further, you have never been able to produce a single shred of evidence to dispute either Roberts or the ME's conclusion. Not much of an advocate.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, Dr. Nichols' autopsy report findings are full of discrepancies with other medical reports. Can we agree on that?
His conclusion that the death was due to a complication of the stab wound is not supported by fact. How did the stab wound (which was repaired and had a postoperative prognosis for a full recovery) cause Daye' brain death or actual death? Turncoat Meier suggested that an infection might have been responsible... but where's the evidence?

Turncoat defense expert witness Dr. Roberts agreed with Nichols' conclusion because it was necessary in order for the murder charge to be valid. Like Nichols, she never showed a nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death or actual death.

Unfortunately, Dr. Roberts was part of the conspiracy against Mangum.; August 27, 2014 at 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Unfortunately, Dr. Roberts was part of the conspiracy against Mangum.

Yet you still openly advocate putting her on the stand - if she was a part of the conspiracy, that would have guaranteed LWOP for Crystal. Your true colors are continuing to shine through. You aren't mad Crystal got 2nd Degree, you are mad she didn't get first.; August 27, 2014 at 8:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Shouldn't the defense autopsy examiner also have notified the state of the incompentance and fraud in Dr. Nichol's autopsy examine and reports as soon as she discovered and documented the discrepancies and errors instead of ignoring what he did so that he could go on to harm other innocent and greiving families or other criminal cases? Why didn't she give Ms. Mangum the written report until the last day of the trial? Where's the accountability and professional in those actions?

You are absolutely correct. Dr. Roberts knew that her conclusion based on the contingency that the stabbing led to everything that happened to Daye in the hospital thereafter was bogus, but necessary in order to make the murder charge against Mangum valid. That's why she wanted to keep her report hidden from view.

Although the conclusion was false and much else in the Roberts report tried to shield Duke University Hospital, much of the report contained exculpatory evidence that contradicted Nichols and exposed his gross failure to adhere to established standards of practice and protocol. That is why Mangum's last three attorneys (Vann, Holmes, and Meier) withheld the written report from her until the last possible moment... on her third day of trial... around November 14, 2013. Mangum had tried repeatedly to get her hands on the Roberts report for more than a year without any success.

Regarding accountability and professionalism in the Medical Examiner's Office, there simply is none. Neither is there any in the DHHS.; August 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: If Dr. Roberts was a traitor, and Meier was a traitor, and the other attorneys were all traitors - why didn't they all work together, produce the report, put Dr. Roberts on the stand, and really bury Mangum?

And, how would you have argued self-defense differently? You say Meier is a traitor because he let Duke get away with it, but as has repeatedly been explained to you (though you ignore it), self-defense was the only guilty/not-guilty - cause of death was manslaughter v. murder - so Meier tried hard to get the jury to go for self-defense.

What was traitorous in that?

I still maintain you are a narcissistic loon who gets off on people talking about you, but who has no real desire to help anyone but himself.; August 27, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Unfortunately, Dr. Roberts was part of the conspiracy against Mangum.

Yet you still openly advocate putting her on the stand - if she was a part of the conspiracy, that would have guaranteed LWOP for Crystal. Your true colors are continuing to shine through. You aren't mad Crystal got 2nd Degree, you are mad she didn't get first.

Meier brought no doctor or medical person on the witness stand to refute Dr. Nichols' claim. What Roberts' testimony could've done is discredit or impeach much of what Dr. Nichols stated. Since Meier didn't bring a medical person to attack Nichols' testimony, the jurors probably considered that the cause of Daye's death was due to a complication from the stab wound... which is false.

It is Meier, not me, who wanted to see Mangum convicted, and he got his wish... unfortunately.; August 27, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You used to communicate with a Duke Law Professor and had discussions with him about the law. Did the fact that you were escorted off Duke property affect that communication with him?

Assuming that it did and you are no longer in contact with him or other lawyers from Duke, then are there another similar resources where you can gain access to lawyers with no conflict to assist in legal areas and understandings? What are they?

Did you finish watching the Real News Series with Mr. Horne? Perhaps he can talk to you about obtaining nonconflicted legal assistance for Ms. Mangum?

I used to communicate with Duke Law Professor James Coleman prior to April 14, 2010... the day that Duke discriminated against me. That was my last communication with him. I used to drop by his office whenever I was on the Duke campus to say "hello." Although our initial conversations were legal in nature and consisted of debates about Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case, after a while our visits were purely social in nature without reference to law and legal matters.

I have not sought legal help from Mr. Nifong or any other lawyer recently. I used to confer with a law professor from Campbell Law School, but that was quite a while ago... and he's no longer there. Guess I could get some legal help from legal acquaintances if I really tried... but I haven't tried and no one has volunteered.

The most help that I've gotten legally has been from death row inmate Shan Carter. He knows quite a bit about the law... and his comprehension of it is much better than mine.

I've never seen the Real News Series with Mr. Horne... I don't known where to even find it... especially if it's on cable.; August 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You cannot expect Ms. Mangum to act as her own defense attorney if she has no knowledge of how to do so and win her case. That simply insures her loss of the case, since even she insists that she has a lawyer whom she can trust to assist her. Continuing to ignore this critical point in her case achieves nothing.

If you continue to advice her against her own best judgement and her quaranteed rights on this one issue, then success is questionable. Not that success isn't questionable since there is so much bias and conflict of interest with the Duke and the ME system issues to begin with, but to expect Ms. Mangum to fight against that in addition to defending herself in a court of law without the assistance of a nonconflicted unbiased lawyer is unreasonable justice for not only Ms. Mangum, but for the entire state, etc.

I really believe that Mangum is intelligent enough to represent herself in court. The main advantage she would have is that her motivation would be to do what is in her best interests. Mangum's previous attorneys had priorities that placed Duke Hospital and the ME before her.

I believe that if Meier wanted to win the case for Mangum that he could've easily done so. It is just that he did not wish to do so. Scott Holmes didn't want to win the case for Mangum so he abandoned her with a cockamamie excuse about so alleged conflict of interest.

The key is the weakness of the State's case. A mediocre attorney could win for Mangum if he tried. Mangum's attorney Meier had to use great effort in order to lose.

If you studied Mangum's case, I believe that you would've gotten Mangum an innocent verdict.; August 27, 2014 at 8:32 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "The most help that I've gotten legally has been from death row inmate Shan Carter. He knows quite a bit about the law... and his comprehension of it is much better than mine.

Now, that is funny.

Considering that good ol' Shan has committed over 15 felonies he probably does know quite a bit about the law.

Considering that he has been convicted of over 15 felonies would cast his comprehension of the law in doubt.

Sid, you'd be better off getting your legal advice from Crystal Mangum.; August 27, 2014 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

The Real News Network is on the internet on youtube.; August 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM
A Lawyer said...: Shouldn't the defense autopsy examiner also have notified the state of the incompentance and fraud in Dr. Nichol's autopsy examine and reports as soon as she discovered and documented the discrepancies and errors instead of ignoring what he did so that he could go on to harm other innocent and greiving families or other criminal cases?

Because the defense expert's conclusions were privileged information belonging to the defendant and her lawyer, and could not be disclosed without their consent.

Why didn't she give Ms. Mangum the written report until the last day of the trial? Where's the accountability and professional in those actions?

As others have explained many times, the defense lawyers did not wan that report in writing, because then it would have to be turned over to the prosecution in discovery, which would have been harmful to Mangum's defense. It was only on the last day of trial that Mangum, acting against her lawyer's advice, insisted on getting a written report, which immediately went to the prosecution. That written report confirmed the prosecution's theory that Mr. Daye's death resulted from complications resulting from his stab wound, showing why Mangum's lawyers never wanted that report to get into the prosecution's hands.; August 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: No, it shows how wrong Dr. Nichols was, or that Dr. Roberts was writing her report based more on duke's medical reports than Dr. Nichols did.

The conclusion was not based on the law as the judge stated in the trial, so the lawyers only had to argue in court to that fact.; August 27, 2014 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 3:25pm states: The conclusion was not based on the law as the judge stated in the trial

You have made this claim repeatedly.

I believe you are mistaken. I found the instructions entirely consistent with the opinion in State v Welch and State v Jones as Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and others have discussed.

Indeed, Walt noted that the instructions were taken from the pattern jury instructions modeled on Welch.; August 27, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah well no one in their right mind would just say oh well, no need to argue since walt says so ... might as well go to jail then to argue the issue in court since walt says so on this blog

yeah right

ya'll would never except the same injustice, fraud and lies for yourself so why do you justify it for anyone else (everyone else actually)?; August 28, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...: No, she didn't base it on the "law" as Judge Ridgeway laid out - she based it on her training and experience and expertise as a forensic pathologist who determines cause of death.

Why do you and Sid assume that no one talked to her and discussed her conclusions with her? Why do you assume that if put on the stand, she'd be unable to support her conclusion, with any explanation, and would simply fold and say "you are right, I'm a fraud, all my training and expertise is meaningless, I don't have a clue what I'm doing, I did it for Duke"?

She didn't come to that conclusion without a reason, and had she testified, she'd have defended that reason, and it would have added more evidence against Crystal.

Yes, you can argue that all of the medical evidence is wrong, and their conclusions are wrong - but when you have no evidence to the contrary, your argument fails.

Meier showed the Nichols autopsy was flawed, trying to build some reasonable doubt - he also focused heavily on self-defense, since that was the only way to get a NG in the case.

But, to assume that Dr. Roberts couldn't/wouldn't support her conclusions, and that the Defense attorneys never discussed them with her to know how she'd respond on the stand is illogical and irrational.; August 28, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't really give a about the what ifs or what fors on this blog actually - real life is so much more ... real

like having these arguments in a court room with competent nonconflicted nonbiased lawyers, judges and jury - for a start; August 28, 2014 at 3:02 AM
Anonymous said...: They did ... you still have not identified a single legitimate conflict that any of Mangum's attorneys had.

And, they did argue the self-defense in Court - it would have been insane to put Dr. Roberts on the stand, knowing she would stand by her conclusions, and so the only recourse would be to call her a liar too, with no proof. Crystal would have hung.

If you could provide any proof of a single conflict, I'd eat Sid's hat. But, working for a healthcare company in Texas isn't one, nor is representing the indigent father of a Duke Lacrosse student as a court appointed attorney on completely unrelated criminal matters.

You clearly don't remotely live in the "real" world - you live in a fevered world of paranoia and delusions where the only reason you can't succeed is because of vast conspiracies against you - you refuse to take responsibility for your life and its failings.

Seriously ... provide any legitimate evidence of a conflict - you won't, you will just accuse me of trolling.

Blah blah blah (sorry, G, I know that's rude, but it fits ...); August 28, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

The Real News Network is on the internet on youtube.

Didn't know that...! Thanks for the enlightenment.; August 28, 2014 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
"The most help that I've gotten legally has been from death row inmate Shan Carter. He knows quite a bit about the law... and his comprehension of it is much better than mine.

Now, that is funny.

Considering that good ol' Shan has committed over 15 felonies he probably does know quite a bit about the law.

Considering that he has been convicted of over 15 felonies would cast his comprehension of the law in doubt.

Sid, you'd be better off getting your legal advice from Crystal Mangum.

Shan is very intelligent, and he is motivated to study the law in order to eventually gain his freedom. (In my opinion, he should not now be still imprisoned.) When other inmates are watching television, Shan is reading cases, books, and articles about the law. No doubt that he could effectively defend himself in court if given the chance.; August 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
Shouldn't the defense autopsy examiner also have notified the state of the incompentance and fraud in Dr. Nichol's autopsy examine and reports as soon as she discovered and documented the discrepancies and errors instead of ignoring what he did so that he could go on to harm other innocent and greiving families or other criminal cases?

Because the defense expert's conclusions were privileged information belonging to the defendant and her lawyer, and could not be disclosed without their consent.

Why didn't she give Ms. Mangum the written report until the last day of the trial? Where's the accountability and professional in those actions?

As others have explained many times, the defense lawyers did not wan that report in writing, because then it would have to be turned over to the prosecution in discovery, which would have been harmful to Mangum's defense. It was only on the last day of trial that Mangum, acting against her lawyer's advice, insisted on getting a written report, which immediately went to the prosecution. That written report confirmed the prosecution's theory that Mr. Daye's death resulted from complications resulting from his stab wound, showing why Mangum's lawyers never wanted that report to get into the prosecution's hands.

A Lawyer, the conclusions by Drs. Nichols and Roberts that Daye died due to complications of a stab wound are totally false. They provide no nexus as to how the stab wound caused Daye's death. For example, did the stab wound result in an infection that caused sepsis and result in Daye's death... or did a hemorrhage from an undetected lesion somewhere which was caused by the stab wound result in hypovolemic shock? Just how did the stab wound result in Daye's death? This is what Nichols, Roberts are unable to explain in their conclusions. The Roberts report would've undoubtedly accrued to Mangum's advantage had it been released.; August 28, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: This is what Nichols, Roberts are unable to explain in their conclusions. The Roberts report would've undoubtedly accrued to Mangum's advantage had it been released.

As has been noted - unless you've talked to Dr. Roberts, I'm sure she has an explanation, and I'm sure the defense attorneys asked her, and knew what her answer would be, and knew it wouldn't be helpful. Just because they don't share with you doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.; August 28, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "Shan is very intelligent.

I know several people I would consider "very intelligent". None of the have committed over 15 felonies.

Shan Carter is a child murderer and two-bit drug dealer.

He'll burn in hell before he'll ever be released from prison.; August 28, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: What role did Duke play in Shan Carter's conviction, Sid, or if not Duke, what was the powerful entity his attorney betrayed him for?; August 28, 2014 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Have you heard anything about the Writ you filed in Durham County Superior Court?; August 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM
A Lawyer said...: What Sid isn't telling everyone is that if he is working on his lawsuit with an appeal to the 4th Circuit, the Judge took the Magistrate's advice and dismissed his case.

Can anyone post the district court's opinion? Dr. Harr? Walt?; August 28, 2014 at 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, we know Sid won't - he never posts the documentation of his repeated failures - he just blames a conspiracy and moves on.; August 28, 2014 at 11:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Have you heard anything about the Writ you filed in Durham County Superior Court?

Yes. It was denied... written by Judge Orlando Hudson.; August 28, 2014 at 5:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
This is what Nichols, Roberts are unable to explain in their conclusions. The Roberts report would've undoubtedly accrued to Mangum's advantage had it been released.

As has been noted - unless you've talked to Dr. Roberts, I'm sure she has an explanation, and I'm sure the defense attorneys asked her, and knew what her answer would be, and knew it wouldn't be helpful. Just because they don't share with you doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.

If Dr. Roberts or Dr. Nichols had an explanation for how the stab wound or its complication cause Daye's brain death or actual death then they would've given it in their conclusion. They didn't have an explanation so they vaguely omitted mentioning it.

On the other hand, I explained in detail how the esophageal intubation led to Daye's brain death and actual death.; August 28, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
What Sid isn't telling everyone is that if he is working on his lawsuit with an appeal to the 4th Circuit, the Judge took the Magistrate's advice and dismissed his case.

Can anyone post the district court's opinion? Dr. Harr? Walt?

My priority when I am not working on my lawsuit against Duke is working to free Mangum. Posting the legal documents would be too much of a distraction at the moment. Just began one with transcripts about the jury selection process and how turncoat attorney Meier sabotaged Mangum's case.; August 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid doesn't learn from the past or engage in critical analysis. He does not allow facts to cloud his views or reality to inform his opinions. He just mindlessly lurches from one mistake to the next, repeating the same things over and over again - learning nothing and achieving nothing.; August 28, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Make sure you include the acupuncturist/channeled!; August 28, 2014 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

When you do get the chance, if you could post Judge Hudson's denial to your Writ, it would be much appreciated.

What was his reasoning for the denial (other than the obvious conflict he has with Duke)?; August 29, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Anonymous said...: His reasoning likely had NOTHING to do with Duke, and everything to do with the fact that a Writ cannot be granted under the current circumstances of Crystal's case, as has been repeatedly explained to Dr. Harr and you, but you refuse to listen, because anything that doesn't feed your paranoia and Duke hatred is trolling.

I really do hope you get out of the house occasionally. The real world actually isn't such a scary place.

The inability of people to think and comprehend what they read (or their total unwillingness to do so) is astounding.

Sid has said he will refile the Writ with the NC Supreme Court - it too will be denied, because as has been repeatedly noted, this is post conviction, and there is an appeal going on. The appropriate, and legal, avenue is the appeal and if the appeal is unsuccessful a MAR.

Sid knows that, but he also is trying to pretend he doesn't have to be a lawyer to file a Writ, but he knows he has to be one for the proper avenues - so he is pretending to help while simply feeding his ego.; August 29, 2014 at 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...: you must kiss some serious a.. to think you are so fracking immune from all the sheat duke dishes

... and that you actually think people are stupid enough to believe your crazy making evil duke troll ... ing gives testiment only to your own self-rightous bs

did duke give you a raise yet?; August 29, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Somebody ran out of tin foil.; August 29, 2014 at 7:53 PM
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.; August 30, 2014 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Why the frack is that case still being argued to begin with, the same issues over and over and over again? Go find Cohen and argue with him about it why don't ya? Geesh, talk about a right to a speedy trial - so many years later and the trial that didn't happen, but apparently needed to, is STILL going on in publishing wars and on various blogs, and obviously in the minds of some. Get real - everyone has their own opinions about the trial that never happened but apparently needed to since it was shoved in everyone's face like it was. Ya gonna argue bout it with everyone ya meet who has an opinion different from yours forever or what? That non-trial is OVER (for now). Crazy making bs obssessive trolling as usual from ya'll for absolutely no reason other than to cause more harm.; August 30, 2014 at 5:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

When you do get the chance, if you could post Judge Hudson's denial to your Writ, it would be much appreciated.

What was his reasoning for the denial (other than the obvious conflict he has with Duke)?

I'll put that on my "to do list." Been going through transcripts in preparation for next sharlog.; August 30, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid doesn't learn from the past or engage in critical analysis. He does not allow facts to cloud his views or reality to inform his opinions. He just mindlessly lurches from one mistake to the next, repeating the same things over and over again - learning nothing and achieving nothing.

Some times getting results requires a little perseverance. At least I am not sitting by and doing nothing in the face of injustice.; August 30, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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

Can we all at least agree that fracking is terrible and a humongous threat to the environment and health of all Tar Heelians? Greed can sometimes lead to self-destruction.; August 30, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I have seen no evidence that cracking poses a significant threat to the environment. Please provide a link. Thanks.; August 30, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: No you are not sitting by and doing nothing, but you aren't doing anything that will help. If you refuse to follow the law and continue to do things that won't work - it's not helping.; August 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

I think it is time for you to seriously consider whether your premise that Mangum is innocent and her conviction and incarceration are injustices, is wrong. It is not supported by the evidence and requires a massive conspiracy to justify. These are strong signs to a sane and rational person engaged in critical analysis that they are wrong.

Liekwise, it may be time to engage in a critical analysis of your theory that Nifong was an ethical prosecutor and his disbarment, incarceration and loss of reputation was unjust, in the light of the overwhelming and incontrovertible facts to the contrary.

Or you can continue to be wrong.

Your choice.; August 30, 2014 at 1:49 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
I was just thinking: now that you managed to get rid of Kenhyderal, maybe your blog will no longer be listed as a hate site, and you'll be able to get on the internet in your building.
Of course you might also have to get rid also of the fellow who thinks that it's fun to insult everyone.; August 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: you mean your obsessive evil duke trolling and similar evil duke gang trolling that you dish, support, laud, and ignore g... in your little ms. manners ways whilst you cheer on hate speech and actions, and harrass endlessly anyone on this blog who doesn't obviously hate Ms. Mangum, Dr. Harr, Kenny, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Nifong, and bow down to the ground duke stands on whilst supporting criminal injustice in the duke/durham/NC justice system for the sole purpose of promoting and prejudicing in duke's favor regardless of law or harm that is caused or to whom - you mean all ya'll have to leave g...?; August 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: You are wearing too much tin foil. Take a layer off.; August 30, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: you are weird ... and bossy; August 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, if I may give you just a bit of advice which I'm sure you already know, ignore the troll. The troll(s) do not deserve your time while you have more important things to think about.

Anyway, the trolls are as annoying as the gov. pushing the 10 billion dollar coal ash cleanup on consumers, (wonder why they didn't store the ash the right way to begin with ya know and WHY does it cost 10 Billion), while its revealed that duke energy will be one of the main consumers of natural gas, and a new pipeline and immediate drilling on state owned lands is on the push table. Ya know, that's so fracked up, makes a person want to knock on the door at the gov. mansion and ask the man why, ya know, why are ya'll so greedy and why are so many public school teachers resigning, and do you give a damn about anything but duke, but, hey, he might not like that one would assume.

anyway ... that was just in the news ...

so ... yeah the troll(s) are as annoying as that on purpose, and they think it's a.o.k. to do what they do cuz it's duke just like the gov.

Duke wants people to be naive about them obviously as shown by the coverup in this case. It is disturbing to watch them in action that is a fact that unfortunately more and more will finally realize, hopefully before it is too late. One can only hope, but mother nature is always so much more powerful and unpredictable, ya just never know what might happen. Course then duke will charge the consumers 20 billion to clean up their destruction, probably ...

How to stop them is the 64 billion dollar question.

You have important work to do with what your doing on these current cases.; August 30, 2014 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: what the frack g ...

what is your problem?; August 30, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: For Kenny:

Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye

Hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye

Hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye

Hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye; August 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM
guiowen said...: To the 6:22,
Please mind your manners.; August 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: what the frack g ...

you are weird ... and bossy; August 31, 2014 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: As you write you next shitlog Sid,I hope you make sure to remind everyone that each side can only eliminate 6 jurors without any reason, the others have to go "for cause" so your arguments about keeping people on needs to include that. You can't just get people off you don't want.; August 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No you are not sitting by and doing nothing, but you aren't doing anything that will help. If you refuse to follow the law and continue to do things that won't work - it's not helping.

I am of the philosophy of "nothing ventured, nothing gained." If nothing is done to help Crystal get justice, she will not get it. Simple as that.; August 31, 2014 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: You aren't looking for Justice for Crystal - you know that, we know that - you can stop pretending.

All your bullshit games and stuff you know won't work just helps destroy any modicum of credibility you may have had.

This whole exercise is for your personal ego. If you really wanted to help Crystal, you would do things right, and legally, rather than make you look like an idiot, and her look like a fool for trusting in you.

You and your efforts are a complete and total joke, and you know it.

You could have been a good resource for Crystal and her attorneys if you could be trusted, but you couldn't. You are a joke.; August 31, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: NOTICE... THE REPLIES TO THE HABEAS CORPI HAVE BEEN POSTED. To access, go to and click the gray button just below the button used to access the Habeas Corpus document. The document was the same used for filing with the NC Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of Durham.; August 31, 2014 at 11:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr, if I may give you just a bit of advice which I'm sure you already know, ignore the troll. The troll(s) do not deserve your time while you have more important things to think about.

Anyway, the trolls are as annoying as the gov. pushing the 10 billion dollar coal ash cleanup on consumers, (wonder why they didn't store the ash the right way to begin with ya know and WHY does it cost 10 Billion), while its revealed that duke energy will be one of the main consumers of natural gas, and a new pipeline and immediate drilling on state owned lands is on the push table. Ya know, that's so fracked up, makes a person want to knock on the door at the gov. mansion and ask the man why, ya know, why are ya'll so greedy and why are so many public school teachers resigning, and do you give a damn about anything but duke, but, hey, he might not like that one would assume.

anyway ... that was just in the news ...

so ... yeah the troll(s) are as annoying as that on purpose, and they think it's a.o.k. to do what they do cuz it's duke just like the gov.

Duke wants people to be naive about them obviously as shown by the coverup in this case. It is disturbing to watch them in action that is a fact that unfortunately more and more will finally realize, hopefully before it is too late. One can only hope, but mother nature is always so much more powerful and unpredictable, ya just never know what might happen. Course then duke will charge the consumers 20 billion to clean up their destruction, probably ...

How to stop them is the 64 billion dollar question.

You have important work to do with what your doing on these current cases.

It's always nice to get a kind and supportive comment. Thanks.

I usually ignore the trolls if they're rude, or cuss. My tendency is to address those whose comments are sincere.

I'm very upset about the fracking in this state, and if I had a decent handle on the criminal legal system, I would devote my time to that issue. The greedy are depriving Tar Heelians of life-saving water just to turn a profit. Shameful.; August 31, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
I was just thinking: now that you managed to get rid of Kenhyderal, maybe your blog will no longer be listed as a hate site, and you'll be able to get on the internet in your building.
Of course you might also have to get rid also of the fellow who thinks that it's fun to insult everyone.

kenhyderal is a valued and reasoned voice of this site and I hope that he has not abandoned the site as you suggest. Definitely his comments have not been a source of hate.; August 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

It looks like you were sent a form letter response from Judge Hudson. In it, it again brings up the notion of competent jurisdiction.

What is the legal definition of competent jurisdiction, and how is the notion of it existing in a certain justice system or in certain cases challenged? It seems that basing the Habeous corpus on the notion that there exists too much conflict of interest and bias to Duke in the Duke / Durham justice system is in essence saying that the jurisdiction is lacking competence in this case. That is why I ask. If the question of competence is based on conflicts and biases, than wouldn't it be highly likely that the decision would have to be decided from outside the alledgely incompetent system than from within due to the conflicts and biases inherent in the alledged incompetent system.

So ... how is the competence of the jurisdiction challenged directly to bring balance, equality, and fairness of justice to the issue of conflict of interest and bias to Duke or the ME system, (especially in this case).; September 1, 2014 at 2:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Anonymous 2:47am.

Sidney, I suggest you file a Writ of Competent
Jurisdiction with both state and federal courts. This Writ will ask that Mangum be tried in a jurisdiction free from the conflicts of interest (as defined on this site) inherent in the NC legal system. The failure of the relevant codes to provide guidelines for such writs clearly means that you, as a non-lawyer, face no restrictions in filing them.

Good luck.; September 1, 2014 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I love the idiot anonymous posters who keep trying to find a conflict. Everyone with a modicum of legal training, or ability to read, has pointed out to Sid that a Writ is not the proper document at this stage, and will not, and can not be granted - yet these idiots profess shock when the Courts follow the law and deny the writ, and wonder if it has to do with non0-existent conflicts.; September 1, 2014 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: In fact, Hudson specifically states the issue correctly - Crystal is being confined by a conviction, thus a Writ of Habeas Corpus is not proper. Her avenue now is the appeal and/or MAR.

No one is denying the Writ because of a conflict, they are denying it because it is not the proper legal filing for relief.

They aren't going to ignore/change the law for Sid.

Oh, and the one he files with the Federal Courts and the NC Supreme Court will be denied all the same ... not because of a conflict, but because it is not the proper legal document.

But, don't worry, Sid will file them to pretend he's fighting, when instead he is destroying his credibility and continuing to harm the legitimate efforts to help Crystal.; September 1, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:52am:

And I love the idiot posters who cannot recognize obvious sarcasm.

A Writ of Competent Jurisdiction? Based on the definition of conflict of interest used on this site? Not discussed in the relevant code?

Yeah, right.; September 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Just so you see why this has been classified as a hate site, here are a few of Kenhyderal's postings, just over the past two months:

"The main rationale for the KC Johnson's blog was his jealous and obsessive vendetta against Duke President Richard Broadhead. He saw an opportunity to discredit Broadhead by joining in with the Duke Lacrosse supporters and supporting their greedy lawsuit against Duke. He failed. I say about his blog, "good riddance to bad rubbish"."
July 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM

"Walt said: "DING-DING-DING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A WINNER".................. Blowhards are bluffers, Walt. Time will tell if I am bluffing. If Williams calls me on this he may be in for a big surprise."
July 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM

"Like the despicable poster, Guiowen is a wounded man consumed with hate."
July 13, 2014 at 9:35 PM

"So Malek, you think I'm a coward? Tell me, do you live in Lumberton? Can I or one of my friends pay you a visit. There is this little matter of plagiarism I'd like to take up with you."
June 29, 2014 at 3:00 PM

"Trying to suggest that negative things about Crystal that anonymous posters say actually comes from me only suggests that you yourself are nothing but a devious trouble maker."
July 12, 2014 at 9:04 AM

[To me]: "You're as sick as he is."
July 11, 2014 at 9:22 PM; September 1, 2014 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: The arc of the moral universe continues to bend away from Sid and Mangum.; September 1, 2014 at 5:16 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Anonymous on August 30, 2014 at 6:20 PM wrote:

"Duke wants people to be naive about them obviously as shown by the coverup in this case...."

You do realize that there is a difference between Duke University and Duke Energy, right?

They are no more related than Duke Energy is to Duke Company in western New York.; September 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM
A Lawyer said...: What is the legal definition of competent jurisdiction, and how is the notion of it existing in a certain justice system or in certain cases challenged? It seems that basing the Habeous corpus on the notion that there exists too much conflict of interest and bias to Duke in the Duke / Durham justice system is in essence saying that the jurisdiction is lacking competence in this case. That is why I ask.

A "court of competent jurisdiction" means that it is the kind of court that the Legislature said should handle these kind of cases. If Mangum had been sentenced for murder by a divorce court or a traffic court or the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, that would not be a "court of competent jurisdiction," because those courts are not empowered to hear murder cases. The Superior Court, however, is the kind of court that is empowered to hear murder cases, so her conviction is by a court of competent jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean that she has no remedy if her conviction was tainted by legal error, but it does mean that habeas corpus is not the right remedy. So Dr. Harr has been wasting his time, by repeatedly doing something that could never possibly help Mangum in a million years, even if he was right about everything he said in his habeas petition.; September 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Where are the laws or rules located that judges must practice by? Judge Hudson has at times been jury presiding over issues involving the lacrosse case and the duke players protests and complaints over the way that case was handled wasn't he? At what point does a judge have to recuse themselves from making further decisions about a case because they have presided over court decisions that went against the current defendant and for the other side, which just happen to be the same parties in the current trial or case as well?; September 3, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no conflict on the Writ - the Writ is not the proper legal document for this stage, and no judge will grant it.

Plus, a judge stays neutral - the fact he presides over certain cases is irrelevant unless he has a personal conflict.

But, stop looking for fictitious conflicts as the reason Sid's efforts are failing. They are failing because he is ignoring the law and doing things that simply are wrong and cannot work.

Sid is failing because he's an idiot who refuses to follow the law, not because there is a conspiracy against him.

I love how you ask Sid these legal questions - he's proven repeatedly that he can't research basic law.; September 3, 2014 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: In answer to your specific question - unless a Judge has a personal conflict, they don't have to recuse themselves just because they presided over a case that was decided one way or the other. Hudson has presided over many cases that have gone against Duke, and presided over many that have gone for Duke.

And, remember, he's the one who ultimately reduced her bond to $100k.; September 3, 2014 at 6:09 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Anonymous @ 3:17 AM wrote:

"Where are the laws or rules located that judges must practice by?"

You can find the NC Judicial Code
here..

FWIW, information like this can be found online -- quicker than what it took you to write your question.

It's called google. You should try it some time.; September 3, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: the NC Judicial Code thanks

always helps to know what your googling for

good morning to you too

ok, well then, just for the sake of googling and all, does Ms. Mangum need to now submit a Motion for Appropriate Relief from the bias and conflicts inherent in the Duke / Durham justice system? It is now going on a year that her Appeal is 'appealing' (?), so is that long enough to wait in patience and make a formal plea for appropriate relief to Judge Hudson persumably?; September 3, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

It looks like you were sent a form letter response from Judge Hudson. In it, it again brings up the notion of competent jurisdiction.

What is the legal definition of competent jurisdiction, and how is the notion of it existing in a certain justice system or in certain cases challenged? It seems that basing the Habeous corpus on the notion that there exists too much conflict of interest and bias to Duke in the Duke / Durham justice system is in essence saying that the jurisdiction is lacking competence in this case. That is why I ask. If the question of competence is based on conflicts and biases, than wouldn't it be highly likely that the decision would have to be decided from outside the alledgely incompetent system than from within due to the conflicts and biases inherent in the alledged incompetent system.

So ... how is the competence of the jurisdiction challenged directly to bring balance, equality, and fairness of justice to the issue of conflict of interest and bias to Duke or the ME system, (especially in this case).

Haven't really focused attention on the Habeas corpus and the definition of competent jurisdiction, as my attention has been directed at my next sharlog which will address Mike Nifong and the Darryl Howard case.; September 3, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 3, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: The above comment I removed was one which I accidently repeated.; September 3, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: FWIW, there are 2 types of MARS.

The first is for those seeking relief due to an error that occurred either before or during trial.

The second seeks relief because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case or the conviction was obtained in violation of the state or federal constitution.

The first type of MAR has to be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment.

The second can be filed at any time.; September 3, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I agree with Anonymous 2:47am.

Sidney, I suggest you file a Writ of Competent
Jurisdiction with both state and federal courts. This Writ will ask that Mangum be tried in a jurisdiction free from the conflicts of interest (as defined on this site) inherent in the NC legal system. The failure of the relevant codes to provide guidelines for such writs clearly means that you, as a non-lawyer, face no restrictions in filing them.

Good luck.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to look into that. In the meantime I'm working on my latest sharlog. Have completed writing and narrating it. Hope to have it posted within a week.; September 3, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Just so you see why this has been classified as a hate site, here are a few of Kenhyderal's postings, just over the past two months:

"The main rationale for the KC Johnson's blog was his jealous and obsessive vendetta against Duke President Richard Broadhead. He saw an opportunity to discredit Broadhead by joining in with the Duke Lacrosse supporters and supporting their greedy lawsuit against Duke. He failed. I say about his blog, "good riddance to bad rubbish"."
July 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM

"Walt said: "DING-DING-DING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A WINNER".................. Blowhards are bluffers, Walt. Time will tell if I am bluffing. If Williams calls me on this he may be in for a big surprise."
July 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM

"Like the despicable poster, Guiowen is a wounded man consumed with hate."
July 13, 2014 at 9:35 PM

"So Malek, you think I'm a coward? Tell me, do you live in Lumberton? Can I or one of my friends pay you a visit. There is this little matter of plagiarism I'd like to take up with you."
June 29, 2014 at 3:00 PM

"Trying to suggest that negative things about Crystal that anonymous posters say actually comes from me only suggests that you yourself are nothing but a devious trouble maker."
July 12, 2014 at 9:04 AM

[To me]: "You're as sick as he is."
July 11, 2014 at 9:22 PM

gui, mon ami,

What I don't understand is why should my blog site be rated as hateful based on comments? Doesn't make sense to me. The postings themselves should determine how a blog site is categorized... at least that's the logic in my mind.; September 3, 2014 at 8:09 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "What I don't understand is why should my blog site be rated as hateful based on comments?

Sid -- I think your site is rated as "hateful" due to the J4N committee membership -- specifically well-known homobigot Victoria Peterson.

.; September 3, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "What I don't understand is why should my blog site be rated as hateful based on comments?

Sid -- I think your site is rated as "hateful" due to the J4N committee membership -- specifically well-known homobigot Victoria Peterson.

.; September 3, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Sorry, Sid -- I inadvertently posted twice (unusual since I received a message stating that I'd mis-typed the word verification).

Feel free to remove one of the duplicates.

Thanks!; September 3, 2014 at 8:33 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
I really don't know who it is that classifies sites as "hate sites". I can only look at the postings on your site and see which ones it is that might lead someone to classify your blog that way. I also encourage posters to be polite, though I am not always successful in this.
Quite frankly, it upsets me that you have to take a bus downtown, then wait at the library, and are then limited to 30 minutes each day.; September 3, 2014 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent; September 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- While you're "looking into" things (Writ of Competent Jurisdiction? Really??), you need to look into the definition of "special pleading" fallacy.

It pretty much defines EVERYTHING you've done on this website.; September 3, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: guiowen:

You should also look at the name of this website and google "Mike Nifong." It's not hard to see why a website dedicated to defending and celebrating a man who engaged in massive prosecutorial misconduct aimed against defendants of one race to gin up voter support from people of another race might be considered hateful.; September 3, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm sure that Sid's upcoming sharlog on Nifong and Daryl Howard (which he says the narration is done and just being animated) will explain why everyone but Nifong was wrong, and the Judge should never have ordered a new trial.

Though, I thought the jury issues were next ... poor Sid - is just too busy these days.; September 3, 2014 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Seems like if they can rush the trial for whatever reason they deemed necessary to add that extra burden and obviously unequal protection unto the defense, that the Appeals Court could hurry their decision about the injustice of the unequal legal protections of the trial as well.; September 3, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil:

Mangum was arrested for stabbing Mr. Daye on April 2, 2011. Her trial began in November 2013. If the appeals court rushes the appeal at the same alarming speed as the trial court rushed the trial, they will make a decision in June or July of 2016.

I wouldn't worry, though. Mangum will get credit for all the time she serves bewteen now and then.; September 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil Hat -- Use that neat Google link someone provided earlier and look up "North Carolina speedy trial act"; September 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...: evil duke troll it - what's is it's purpose ... in your own nonbiased nonhateful and thoughtful analysis and words ... (with evidence and proof of course to back your every opinion)?

thanks, we all await your speedy reply and further insites; September 4, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Anonymous said...: It generally takes about a year to a year and a half for an appeal to be done. The transcripts have to be prepared, then the record on appeal, then the Appellant submits their brief, then the State responds, then the Court considers the briefs, and decides if a hearing is needed or if they will just rule on the briefs.

In looking at the website, the Record on Appeal was finalized recently, so Crystal's attorney is likely working on the brief, which will be submitted soon.

Don't worry, though, Sid still has time to mess up the process and do more to hurt Crystal.

But, the appeals process is being followed, and that is the only possible way Crystal can get relief - nothing Sid does will do anything but hurt and/or delay the process and make him feel better about getting his name out there.; September 4, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil Hat said:
"what's is it's purpose"

How about we look at the purpose of the apostrophe? In this case it's (see that?) indicative of a contraction, with the apostrophe replacing missing letter(s).

So, were one to replace the missing letters in your sentence, it would become:
what is is it is purpose

To which the only possible reply would be:
WTF??

In regards to the "North Carolina speedy trial act", had you bothered to look it up, you would have found that the act “required that the defendant be tried within 120 days of the date the defendant was arrested, served with criminal process, waived indictment or was indicted, whichever occurred last, unless that time was extended by certain specified events.”

You would have also found that it was, unfortunately, repealed in 1989.; September 4, 2014 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Tin:

In the US we have a constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial. Among other things, this right protects people from being detained indefinitely pending trial, from having the cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads for long periods of time, and insures that evidence and witnesses are available to the defense that could be lost or otherwise unavailable with the passage of time.

Generally, speedy trial laws are intended to prevent delays by the prosecution or the court (due to scheduling and calendaring issues) in criminal cases. However, most of the delays in Mangum's case were attributable to her, or made at her request.

In spite of her best efforts (and Sid's) Mangum eventually had to stand trial and answer to teh charges against her.

If you remember, for months and months, Sid complained that the state was dragging its feet and delaying Mangum's case. When a trial date was finally set, Sid did a 180 degree turn and suddenly started complaining that the trial was happening too quickly.

If Mangum and Sid listened to lawyers and followed the law, they would have known that criminal trials proceed at a rapid pace once a trial date is set and there is little that can be done to slow them down.

In Mangum's case additional postponements would not have helped her. They would have only served to delay her inevitable and long overdue rendevous with justice.; September 4, 2014 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: In addition - basic research (which we know Sid and Tin-foil are incapable of) would show that the Courts in NC have consistently held that a delay of 2-4 years in a first degree murder case is not a violation of the right to a speedy trial (they have upheld delays much longer than that).

And, that doesn't apply to the appellate stage - remember, Mangum was convicted by a jury - that conviction is presumed legal (which is why a Writ doesn't work), and it is challenged through the appeal process. If the appeals don't work, then it can be challenged via a MAR (if appropriate).

Sid's rantings and ravings aren't helping, and, in fact, take away the ability of the lawyers who actually know what they are doing to control the process, to Crystal's detriment.

If anyone still really thinks Sid gives a damn about helping Crystal, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Sid is a scam/con artist. His blatant disregard for the law, and refusal to acknowledge errors proves that. It's funny seeing that he's conned several people in.; September 4, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil Hat--

Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to a speedy trial generally don’t kick in until a year has passed.

After that first year, courts apply a four-factor test to determine whether a defendant’s Constitutional speedy trial rights have been compromised.; September 4, 2014 at 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: And, the Defendant has to have filed a Motion for a Speedy Trial - which was not done in Crystal's case because she kept changing lawyers.; September 4, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I'm sure that Sid's upcoming sharlog on Nifong and Daryl Howard (which he says the narration is done and just being animated) will explain why everyone but Nifong was wrong, and the Judge should never have ordered a new trial.

Though, I thought the jury issues were next ... poor Sid - is just too busy these days.

You're correct... I was beginning work on the issues with jury selection, etc. However, due to the release of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, I thought it would be best to consider doing first a post about their prosecutor (Joe Freeman Britt - the world's deadliest prosecutor) and Mike Nifong.

As far as a new trial for Howard... I have no problem with that. Notice, however, that the case against McCollum and Brown was so weak that the judge skipped another trial and just freed them on the spot!!!

I don't perceive any movement to have Britt's old cases audited.; September 4, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Sorry, Sid -- I inadvertently posted twice (unusual since I received a message stating that I'd mis-typed the word verification).

Feel free to remove one of the duplicates.

Thanks!

No prob. It merely proves you're human. Even I've double-posted a comment now and then.; September 4, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...

Sidney,
I really don't know who it is that classifies sites as "hate sites". I can only look at the postings on your site and see which ones it is that might lead someone to classify your blog that way. I also encourage posters to be polite, though I am not always successful in this.
Quite frankly, it upsets me that you have to take a bus downtown, then wait at the library, and are then limited to 30 minutes each day.

Thanks for advocating polite comments.

Actually my situation is not as dire with regards to going online as I might have led you to believe. I live on the fringe of downtown, and I walk to the library which is about a little over a mile away. Time on the computer depends on usage, but on a slow day I can have as many as three sessions lasting about an hour each. That's not every day, however.; September 4, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: You're correct... I was beginning work on the issues with jury selection, etc. However, due to the release of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, I thought it would be best to consider doing first a post about their prosecutor (Joe Freeman Britt - the world's deadliest prosecutor) and Mike Nifong.

As far as a new trial for Howard... I have no problem with that. Notice, however, that the case against McCollum and Brown was so weak that the judge skipped another trial and just freed them on the spot!!!

I don't perceive any movement to have Britt's old cases audited.

There is a move to look at Britt's old cases, and has been for years.

We can all save you the trouble of your sharlog ...

Nifong is a great prosecutor, who did nothing wrong, Hudson is just biased against him.; September 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You're correct... I was beginning work on the issues with jury selection, etc. However, due to the release of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, I thought it would be best to consider doing first a post about their prosecutor (Joe Freeman Britt - the world's deadliest prosecutor) and Mike Nifong.

As far as a new trial for Howard... I have no problem with that. Notice, however, that the case against McCollum and Brown was so weak that the judge skipped another trial and just freed them on the spot!!!

I don't perceive any movement to have Britt's old cases audited.

There is a move to look at Britt's old cases, and has been for years.

We can all save you the trouble of your sharlog ...

Nifong is a great prosecutor, who did nothing wrong, Hudson is just biased against him.

I am unaware of any push to audit Britt's work. Can you provide a reference?

What makes Nifong great is that he has the courage and independence to pursue justice in defiance of the will of the Powers-That-Be. Most prosecutors will just go along with the program... even if it means prosecuting an innocent person. That's the best way for them to protect their jobs. Am I right?; September 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You are delusional. The powers that be (Duke Universirty, DUMC, the local and national media, various and sundry rights groups, the PD, and local government, to name a few) strongly supported the prosecution of the Duke players and Nifong was happy to play along. He was all to willing and eager to fabricate evidence of a crime that did not happen, ignore and withhold evidence that exonerated the wrongly accused players and otherwise manipulate the system to appease the powers that be, advance his career and put a few extra pennies in his pocket.

The record of the nature and extent of Nifong's craven, unethical and wrongful conduct is voluminous and beyond cavil.

Nifong was rightfully disbarred, thrown out of office, imprisoned for contempt of court and bankrupted as a consequence of his conduct. His name is now synonymous for gross prosecutorial misconduct and he is widely considered to be one of the most unethical and corrupt prosecutors to have walked the face of the earth. He is an outcast and pariah in the legal, criminal justice and political communities. His name will live in infamy for generations. His only contribution will be as a cautionary tale of the dangers of succumbing to political, social and media pressure.

There is nothing that can be said or done to change this reality or rehabilitate Nifong's well earned reputation. The fact that you continue to attempt to do so speaks volumes about the true nature of this website as well as your intentions.; September 5, 2014 at 2:19 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "Most prosecutors will just go along with the program... even if it means prosecuting an innocent person. That's the best way for them to protect their jobs. Am I right?"

Ask Darryl Howard.; September 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: What you describe about Mr. Nifong is obviously par for the course in NC when Duke is involved,(so the corruption and fraud is Duke's fault in essence), as evidenced by the autopsy reports and the way the current case was defended and prosecuted. A lot of people get drawn into it.; September 5, 2014 at 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...: there is no proof remember - the case was corrupted and the investigations messed up on purpose - remember?

get real and stop trolling about it

just try that for more than one day then - that is not the current case anyway - that case is over for now - give it and everyone a break about it and see if that helps you any at all

... or just keep trolling on and on and on about it since it is doing you and others so fracking much good ...

you are obviously sick about the whole thing - that is sad to watch indeed; September 6, 2014 at 5:22 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 490 Newer› Newest»

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Insanity, denial, and delusion rule the NC Medical Examiner's Office

490 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me