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 401 – 490 of 490

Anonymous said...: If the duke lacrosse team players had the same type lawyers as Ms. Mangum did, the lawyers would have concluded that the DNA evidence was of no help to them, (who knows if it was or wasn't - i mean seriously - nobody can fracking believe ANYTHANG about that case since it was so fracked up), and then refused to give them a copy of the DNA report so that they could get expert witness analysis of it until the very last day of a REAL trial, all the while enduring the phenomenon of evil duke trolls consistently demanding that the DNA evidence was of no help to them - so that's why their lawyers wouldn't give them a copy of the report or any follow-up report - if'n it was the lacrosse case with the same lawyers and not Ms. Mangum that is.; September 6, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: oh, i see

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

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

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

that distrusting durham / duke / and the system is not based on the fact of the obvious and clear presentation and existance of this fracked up system that cannot be trusted to deliver services that do not harm in malicious and intentional and professionally negligent manners ...; September 6, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: exactly what do you think this blog is anyway, KC's evil duke troll gang hangout where Dr. Harr, Kenny, or anyone else has to answer to your trolling bullying harrassment and your constant crazy making bs

egad ... and egad

i've never seen anything like this - and this is what epitomizes duke - amazing isn't it?; September 6, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: i don't think anyone has to answer me actually, esp. since i'm not even talkin' bout most of the bs ya'll are

go away, poof be gone, off with ya now, and all that

thanks; September 6, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Nifong has been thrown out of office, disbarred, imprisoned, bankrupted and disgraced. He will never get his law license back or have a meaningful job.

Mangum is currently serving a long prison sentence for murder.

You can tell an awful lot about a person by the company they keep and the type of people they support.; September 6, 2014 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: what the frack g ...

stop copying my posts and trolling me

what is your problem?; September 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Crazy tin foil and Sid are so delusional these days the blog is no longer fun. Either they are not remotely serious and recognize this is all a joke, or they really are pathetic and sad, and it's mean to pick on them.; September 6, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Nifong has been thrown out of office, disbarred, imprisoned, bankrupted and disgraced. He will never get his law license back or have a meaningful job.

Mangum is currently serving a long prison sentence for murder.

You can tell an awful lot about a person by the company they keep and the type of people they support.

Thrown out of office, disbarred, imprisoned, bankrupted, and disgraced... so what? Nifong was forced out of office and disbarred by a corrupted system. He was sentenced to jail on a bogus contempt of court charge by a partial judge. Bankrupted... Donald Trump filed bankruptcy -- big deal!!

The media wants those whose minds are easily melded to believe that Mike Nifong has been disgraced and that the world's deadliest prosecutor Joe Freeman Britt (responsible for the wrongful 30 year incarcerations of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown) was a fine district attorney.; September 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Mike Nifong, like Crystal Mangum, is a victim of a vendetta formulated by the Carpetbagger Jihadists. The truth is that Nifong was a courageous prosecutor and that Durhamians are the biggest losers because of his resignation.

More of this on my next blog which I hope to complete and have posted by this coming Wednesday... if not sooner.; September 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Notice I said "most"! Mike Nifong was singularly independent and courageous... definitely not like most prosecutors. Nifong was the rare prosecutor who exemplified a Minister of Justice... putting justice before winning.

Durham will probably never again see such a paragon of prosecutorial excellence.; September 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Most prosecutors will not prosecute a person they know to be innocent. Fewer still will orchestrate and participate in an effort to frame innocent people. That's what makes Nifong so unique in the annals of prosecutorial misconduct: not only was he willing to prosecute innocent people, he actively participated in framing them. That is why his career is over, his reputation is in tatters and he is broke. He will live the rest of his days and die in ignominy and shame.; September 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid, other than the fact Nifong actually started the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players, do you know anything about him as a prosecutor, or do you base everything about him on your completely unhealthy and unnatural obsession with Mangum?; September 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "Durham will probably never again see such a paragon of prosecutorial excellence.

We can only hope.

We are now aware of 2 cases where Mike Nifong has withheld exculpatory evidence.

Once there is the establishment of an inquiry commission to audit of all of Nifong's cases, I'm sure a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct will emerge.; September 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: I trust other readers appreciate the irony in the title of this sharlog: "Insanity, denial and delusion... "; September 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid:

Most prosecutors will not prosecute a person they know to be innocent. Fewer still will orchestrate and participate in an effort to frame innocent people. That's what makes Nifong so unique in the annals of prosecutorial misconduct: not only was he willing to prosecute innocent people, he actively participated in framing them. That is why his career is over, his reputation is in tatters and he is broke. He will live the rest of his days and die in ignominy and shame.

Mike Nifong is a prosecutorial paragon... as will be shown in my next sharlog. Hope to have it posted this week.

He never attempted to frame anyone... he merely prosecuted what he believed to be a crime. Problem is that the media, with its Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, vilified him and the public was unable to discern fact from fable.

Although Nifong has been persecuted by the State and crucified in the media, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and myself will resurrect him.; September 9, 2014 at 12:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, other than the fact Nifong actually started the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players, do you know anything about him as a prosecutor, or do you base everything about him on your completely unhealthy and unnatural obsession with Mangum?

I know Mike Nifong, though I may not know all of his cases. However, I do know about a couple of cases of prosecutor Joe Freeman Britt, and if any a prosecutor should be disbarred it is him. Of course, that'll never happen.; September 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, except that there was no crime, Nifong knew it and he withheld evidence that exonerated the defendants, lied to the court and made inflammatory, false and guilt presuming statements to the media about the defendants. Other than that, Nifong did a great job.; September 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
"Durham will probably never again see such a paragon of prosecutorial excellence.

We can only hope.

We are now aware of 2 cases where Mike Nifong has withheld exculpatory evidence.

Once there is the establishment of an inquiry commission to audit of all of Nifong's cases, I'm sure a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct will emerge.

Hah! Don't count on it. If I'm not mistaken, all of Nifong's cases have already been investigated. What should be done is an investigation into all of the cases of the World's Deadliest Prosecutor... NC's own D.A. Joe Freeman Britt. But no... everyone considers him a good prosecutor even though he put two mentally impaired African Americans on death row based on a confession forced out of them when there was no physical evidence tying them to a murder and another man who had committed similar crimes was active right under his nose. But... Britt's a good D.A., ..right?; September 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Yeah, except that there was no crime, Nifong knew it and he withheld evidence that exonerated the defendants, lied to the court and made inflammatory, false and guilt presuming statements to the media about the defendants. Other than that, Nifong did a great job.

Answer me this... what evidence did Nifong withhold? What lied did he make to the Court? What did he say to the press that was so inflammatory?

Mike Nifong conscientiously prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case unlike Joe Freeman Britt who withheld exculpatory evidence, did a slipshod investigation, and concocted two confessions from mentally handicapped teenaged African American boys.

But you think Mike Nifong is more deserving of being disbarred... right?

My next sharlog will cover this topic in greater depth.; September 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "Hah! Don't count on it. If I'm not mistaken, all of Nifong's cases have already been investigated. What should be done is an investigation into all of the cases of the World's Deadliest Prosecutor... NC's own D.A. Joe Freeman Britt. But no... everyone considers him a good prosecutor even though he put two mentally impaired African Americans on death row based on a confession forced out of them when there was no physical evidence tying them to a murder and another man who had committed similar crimes was active right under his nose. But... Britt's a good D.A., ..right?"

Straw Man Fallacy; September 9, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Lance the Intern said...: I know Mike Nifong, though I may not know all of his cases. However, I do know about a couple of cases of prosecutor Joe Freeman Britt, and if any a prosecutor should be disbarred it is him. Of course, that'll never happen."

Tu Quoque Fallacy; September 9, 2014 at 1:24 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Nobody's said Joe Britt is a good prosecutor. We may find that he's just as bad as Nifong. This does not, however, make Nifong any better.; September 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Britt is retired and no longer practicing so they cant disbar him.; September 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I realize you won't answer, because you refuse to show you can learn, but I do still have 2 questions, because these are still things you bring up, that are totally wrong, which destroy any credibility a court may give you with regards to Mangum, because it conclusively shows you refuse to understand the law ...

1. Why do you keep saying that the Larceny of a Chose in Action was used for the Felony Murder Rule? Felony Murder was not an option in the case, and a non-violent felony (as has been shown to you with statutes) cannot be used for Felony Murder - 1st degree was Premeditation and Deliberation, not Felony Murder - yet you still keep bringing it up. You are wrong ... why do you keep doing this?

2. Daye's prior criminal record - as noted, dismissals are not remotely admissible, so it couldn't be brought up, yet you continue to claim it's a problem it wasn't brought up. Why?

Oh, and idiot tin-foil - this isn't trolling, this is a legitimate question - he wants the Court to believe him, and think he's right, but the fact is if you continue to show the Court you are wrong in areas, they won't believe you in any area. You have to learn and do it right. Sid refuses to, which shows it's not about him.; September 10, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Nobody's said Joe Britt is a good prosecutor. We may find that he's just as bad as Nifong. This does not, however, make Nifong any better.

gui, mon ami,

Joe Freeman Britt is the worst of the worst, and my point is that no one has ever been critical of him or questioned any of the other cases in which he's convicted people of capital murder. The media has treated him kind... even many of the recent stories about McCollum and Brown have omitted mentioning him as the prosecutor. Had Mike Nifong been the prosecutor the media headlines would've been bad-mouthing Nifong for the wrongful conviction! Something like they did for Darryl Howard when it became aware that an alleged memo in the possession of the police had not been seen by the defense team. For that Nifong was said by Judge Hudson to have been horrendous in his conduct! See the discrepancies?; September 10, 2014 at 2:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Britt is retired and no longer practicing so they cant disbar him.

True, but the State Bar wouldn't if it could. That's because the Powers-That-Be do not want to malign his reputation because he put away a lot of poor, disenfranchised, people of color who couldn't afford decent legal counsel.

Instead they disbar Nifong for what? And now they're after Tracey Cline! What a waste of resources, time, and money.; September 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

I realize you won't answer, because you refuse to show you can learn, but I do still have 2 questions, because these are still things you bring up, that are totally wrong, which destroy any credibility a court may give you with regards to Mangum, because it conclusively shows you refuse to understand the law ...

1. Why do you keep saying that the Larceny of a Chose in Action was used for the Felony Murder Rule? Felony Murder was not an option in the case, and a non-violent felony (as has been shown to you with statutes) cannot be used for Felony Murder - 1st degree was Premeditation and Deliberation, not Felony Murder - yet you still keep bringing it up. You are wrong ... why do you keep doing this?

2. Daye's prior criminal record - as noted, dismissals are not remotely admissible, so it couldn't be brought up, yet you continue to claim it's a problem it wasn't brought up. Why?

Oh, and idiot tin-foil - this isn't trolling, this is a legitimate question - he wants the Court to believe him, and think he's right, but the fact is if you continue to show the Court you are wrong in areas, they won't believe you in any area. You have to learn and do it right. Sid refuses to, which shows it's not about him.

It is obvious that the Larceny of chose in action charge was used to make the murder charge first degree by using the felony murder rule. Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony... That is why larceny was not used as it requires theft of more than one grand to be a felony and the two checks added up to only $700. Finally, if the prosecution was serious about the larceny of chose in action charge, why did they wait until after Daye died and then file it along with the murder charge?
It's elementary!

Also, regarding Daye's criminal record, not all criminal charges against him were dismissed. Problem is that Mangum's defense attorney went along with the prosecution's angelic portrayal when they should've brought to light his real character... far from being a goodie-two shoes; especially with his brass knuckles.; September 10, 2014 at 2:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Just to apprise you of the fact that the latest member of our organization resides in England, ergo the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is now international!!

Work on the sharlog is progressing nicely... the animation/images application to the soundtrack is about half-way finished. Should be completed and posted by this weekend.

As you were.; September 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: t is obvious that the Larceny of chose in action charge was used to make the murder charge first degree by using the felony murder rule. Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony... That is why larceny was not used as it requires theft of more than one grand to be a felony and the two checks added up to only $700. Finally, if the prosecution was serious about the larceny of chose in action charge, why did they wait until after Daye died and then file it along with the murder charge?
It's elementary!

Also, regarding Daye's criminal record, not all criminal charges against him were dismissed. Problem is that Mangum's defense attorney went along with the prosecution's angelic portrayal when they should've brought to light his real character... far from being a goodie-two shoes; especially with his brass knuckles.

Proof that you refuse to learn - it has been pointed out that a non-violent Class H felony cannot form the basis of felony murder - the jury didn't have the option of felony murder, they couldn't. The statutes, and jury instructions were pointed out to you, but you still ignore them.

What, in Daye's record, was less than 10 years old and was a conviction?

Again, because you continue to ignore basic legal concepts, you have zero credibility with the Court, so they ignore you. When you can't understand very basic and clear concepts, but continue to push them, they assume you are just operating from an agenda, and not a legitimate basis, and ignore you.

If you actually cared about Mangum and your causes, instead of just yourself, you'd actually attempt to learn.

You are totally wrong on the Felony Murder, no grey area. There is no way under our laws that those non-violent Class H felonies could be used as the basis of felony murder. Period.

And, please provide where Daye was convicted of anything, let alone the last 10 years (which is all that would be admissible). The record you posted showed old, dismissed, assault on a female charges, which are totally inadmissible.; September 11, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Here is felony murder, again defined:

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole.

See - this was not a robbery, or any other felony committed with the use of a deadly weapon ... the larceny is not something that ever made this eligible for the felony murder.

The fact you try to provide legal advice when your analytical/research skills are less than a first grader is just sad. That people actually listen to you is just scary.; September 11, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: You have the jury instructions - look at them - no felony murder.; September 11, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
t is obvious that the Larceny of chose in action charge was used to make the murder charge first degree by using the felony murder rule. Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony... That is why larceny was not used as it requires theft of more than one grand to be a felony and the two checks added up to only $700. Finally, if the prosecution was serious about the larceny of chose in action charge, why did they wait until after Daye died and then file it along with the murder charge?
It's elementary!

Also, regarding Daye's criminal record, not all criminal charges against him were dismissed. Problem is that Mangum's defense attorney went along with the prosecution's angelic portrayal when they should've brought to light his real character... far from being a goodie-two shoes; especially with his brass knuckles.

Proof that you refuse to learn - it has been pointed out that a non-violent Class H felony cannot form the basis of felony murder - the jury didn't have the option of felony murder, they couldn't. The statutes, and jury instructions were pointed out to you, but you still ignore them.

What, in Daye's record, was less than 10 years old and was a conviction?

Again, because you continue to ignore basic legal concepts, you have zero credibility with the Court, so they ignore you. When you can't understand very basic and clear concepts, but continue to push them, they assume you are just operating from an agenda, and not a legitimate basis, and ignore you.

If you actually cared about Mangum and your causes, instead of just yourself, you'd actually attempt to learn.

You are totally wrong on the Felony Murder, no grey area. There is no way under our laws that those non-violent Class H felonies could be used as the basis of felony murder. Period.

And, please provide where Daye was convicted of anything, let alone the last 10 years (which is all that would be admissible). The record you posted showed old, dismissed, assault on a female charges, which are totally inadmissible.

My bad. What I should've been saying is the "felony-murder rule" instead of "felony murder." I took it for granted that the reader understood what I meant just by its context. The "felony-murder rule" enables a murder to be classified as first degree if a person dies during the commission of a felony.; September 11, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
t is obvious that the Larceny of chose in action charge was used to make the murder charge first degree by using the felony murder rule. Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony... That is why larceny was not used as it requires theft of more than one grand to be a felony and the two checks added up to only $700. Finally, if the prosecution was serious about the larceny of chose in action charge, why did they wait until after Daye died and then file it along with the murder charge?
It's elementary!

Also, regarding Daye's criminal record, not all criminal charges against him were dismissed. Problem is that Mangum's defense attorney went along with the prosecution's angelic portrayal when they should've brought to light his real character... far from being a goodie-two shoes; especially with his brass knuckles.

Proof that you refuse to learn - it has been pointed out that a non-violent Class H felony cannot form the basis of felony murder - the jury didn't have the option of felony murder, they couldn't. The statutes, and jury instructions were pointed out to you, but you still ignore them.

What, in Daye's record, was less than 10 years old and was a conviction?

Again, because you continue to ignore basic legal concepts, you have zero credibility with the Court, so they ignore you. When you can't understand very basic and clear concepts, but continue to push them, they assume you are just operating from an agenda, and not a legitimate basis, and ignore you.

If you actually cared about Mangum and your causes, instead of just yourself, you'd actually attempt to learn.

You are totally wrong on the Felony Murder, no grey area. There is no way under our laws that those non-violent Class H felonies could be used as the basis of felony murder. Period.

And, please provide where Daye was convicted of anything, let alone the last 10 years (which is all that would be admissible). The record you posted showed old, dismissed, assault on a female charges, which are totally inadmissible.

My bad. What I should've been saying is the "felony-murder rule" instead of "felony murder." I took it for granted that the reader understood what I meant just by its context. The "felony-murder rule" enables a murder to be classified as first degree if a person dies during the commission of a felony.; September 11, 2014 at 8:07 AM
A Lawyer said...: My bad. What I should've been saying is the "felony-murder rule" instead of "felony murder." I took it for granted that the reader understood what I meant just by its context. The "felony-murder rule" enables a murder to be classified as first degree if a person dies during the commission of a felony.

No, it doesn't. The felony murder rule is quoted right up above your post. Only violent felonies trigger the felony murder rule. So you are just wrong, and your attempt to explain yourself just demonstrates that you are totally clueless about the law.

And where is the conviction of Daye within the past 10 years that you claim should have been used by Mangum's defense? I haven't seen you cite one.; September 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... you are still wrong. The larceny of chose in action had nothing to do with first degree murder. Read the rule - is your reading comprehension really that bad?

I hope you weren't trying to convince Crystal of the felony murder rule - cause you are dead wrong on it.

And, yes, where are those convictions?

You are exposing your self as a narcissitic fraud.; September 12, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: w
h
e
r
e

i
s

k
e
n
n
y

t
h
e

t
r
o
l
l
?; September 13, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: k
e
n
n
y

k
e
n
n
y

k
e
n
n
y

k
e
n
n
y; September 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: ken-ny

ken-ny

ken-ny

ken-ny

ken-ny

ken-ny; September 13, 2014 at 6:00 PM
Tin-Foil Hat said...: dr harr

when will you ban the trolls and hate criminals from this site?; September 14, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I still find it funny that you consider it trolling to point out where Dr. Harr is wrong.

Can you explain why you still defend him and his claims about Daye's criminal record, and felony murder, when he's been shown to be demonstrably wrong on those issues?

Do you not understand why the Courts and others give him zero credibility because he is so clearly wrong on some basic things, and won't correct it?; September 14, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Tin-Foil Hat said...
dr harr

when will you ban the trolls and hate criminals from this site?

Hey, Tin-Foil.

I want this site to be as inclusive as possible and to get views from all divergent positions. I do prefer comments that are civil, made in good faith, and in good taste.

It is my hope that discourse between the trolls/hate criminals and well-reasoned individuals such as yourself will help enlighten them and make a positive in their lives.; September 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid ... you are still wrong. The larceny of chose in action had nothing to do with first degree murder. Read the rule - is your reading comprehension really that bad?

I hope you weren't trying to convince Crystal of the felony murder rule - cause you are dead wrong on it.

And, yes, where are those convictions?

You are exposing your self as a narcissitic fraud.

Answer me this: Why did the prosecutors wait until after Daye died and then charge her with larceny of chose in action along with first degree murder?

Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony. Am I right? The felony-murder rule requires the commission of a felony in conjunction with the death of a victim to upgrade murder to first degree... right? What is it that you find so difficult to understand?

Also, do you believe Mangum should have been charged with larceny of chose in action?; September 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

It had been my intention to post my latest sharlog by this weekend, but other events came up which precluded me from devoting time necessary to complete it. The sharlog is close to completion and should be posted hopefully by the middle of this week. It is titled "Mike Nifong: A true Minister of Justice."; September 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: As you were.; September 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Answer me this: Why did the prosecutors wait until after Daye died and then charge her with larceny of chose in action along with first degree murder?

Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony. Am I right? The felony-murder rule requires the commission of a felony in conjunction with the death of a victim to upgrade murder to first degree... right? What is it that you find so difficult to understand?

Also, do you believe Mangum should have been charged with larceny of chose in action?

You just refuse to read - not every felony leads to first degree - and larceny of a chose in action does not - you have the jury instructions - felony murder was not an option.

You are wrong, why do you refuse to admit it?; September 14, 2014 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: No, I do not believe she should have been charged with it - and even the DA didn't argue for them in the end. Why was she charged? Because prosecutors over charge, but it had nothing to do with felony murder or first degree murder.

They probably charged because they knew you'd freak out and obsess over it and mis-advise Crystal to her detriment.

You still refuse to explain why you cling to this when you are wrong.

You also refuse to point out what criminal acts Daye was convicted of in the last 10 years as part of his "lengthy" criminal history you keep harping on.

C'mon, are you that incapable of defending yourself? It's why you have zero credibility.; September 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM
A Lawyer said...: Answer me this: Why did the prosecutors wait until after Daye died and then charge her with larceny of chose in action along with first degree murder?

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say that it would be so they could argue that the theft was a motive for the murder.

Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony. Am I right?

Yes.

The felony-murder rule requires the commission of a felony in conjunction with the death of a victim to upgrade murder to first degree... right?

No, for the third or fourth time. Only a violent felony can trigger the felony murder rule. Larceny of a chose in action can never trigger a felony-murder charge. This has been explained to you many times, and the statute is quoted just above on this thread.

What is it that you find so difficult to understand?

I was about to ask you that.

Also, do you believe Mangum should have been charged with larceny of chose in action?

Probably not. But so what? She was acquitted of that charge, thanks to Meier.; September 14, 2014 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Even Sid's paranoid defenders have finally realized how ridiculous and wrong he is. I'm still waiting for his response to the Felony Murder and Criminal Record issues ...

Wanna bet they never happen? He won't have time, he will move on to something else. And then, next time, he will bring them up again.; September 15, 2014 at 2:50 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Answer me this: Why did the prosecutors wait until after Daye died and then charge her with larceny of chose in action along with first degree murder?

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say that it would be so they could argue that the theft was a motive for the murder.

Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony. Am I right?

Yes.

The felony-murder rule requires the commission of a felony in conjunction with the death of a victim to upgrade murder to first degree... right?

No, for the third or fourth time. Only a violent felony can trigger the felony murder rule. Larceny of a chose in action can never trigger a felony-murder charge. This has been explained to you many times, and the statute is quoted just above on this thread.

What is it that you find so difficult to understand?

I was about to ask you that.

Also, do you believe Mangum should have been charged with larceny of chose in action?

Probably not. But so what? She was acquitted of that charge, thanks to Meier.

Hey, A Lawyer.

The North Carolina definition of the "Felony-murder rule" is pasted below, and there is no mention of "violent" felony being a pre-requisite.

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000

Regarding charging Mangum with theft of the cashier's checks that doesn't even make sense as she couldn't even convert them for her use... but more importantly Daye admitted to giving them to her.

Mangum was acquitted of the silly larceny charges because the prosecution never even made a case to try and convict her of them. If Meier could've found a way, I'm sure he would've had her convicted of them. Face the facts, any attorney, even you, could've gotten Mangum acquitted with only a modicum of effort.; September 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
No, I do not believe she should have been charged with it - and even the DA didn't argue for them in the end. Why was she charged? Because prosecutors over charge, but it had nothing to do with felony murder or first degree murder.

They probably charged because they knew you'd freak out and obsess over it and mis-advise Crystal to her detriment.

You still refuse to explain why you cling to this when you are wrong.

You also refuse to point out what criminal acts Daye was convicted of in the last 10 years as part of his "lengthy" criminal history you keep harping on.

C'mon, are you that incapable of defending yourself? It's why you have zero credibility.

Daye's criminal record speaks for itself. Three pages worth... and yes, I would call that lengthy.

Also, you seem a bit cavalier with regards to prosecutors overcharging when it comes to Mangum. I think overcharging is horrendous... but you're correct. It happens all the time. Very sad.; September 16, 2014 at 9:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Even Sid's paranoid defenders have finally realized how ridiculous and wrong he is. I'm still waiting for his response to the Felony Murder and Criminal Record issues ...

Wanna bet they never happen? He won't have time, he will move on to something else. And then, next time, he will bring them up again.

I have been quite busy recently, as a matter of fact... but have just cleared up some free time. Hopefully I will be able to use it to complete my latest sharlog titled "Mike Nifong: A true Minister of Justice." It should be posted some time this week.; September 16, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Daye's criminal record speaks for itself. Three pages worth... and yes, I would call that lengthy.

Also, you seem a bit cavalier with regards to prosecutors overcharging when it comes to Mangum. I think overcharging is horrendous... but you're correct. It happens all the time. Very sad.

There were no convictions within the last 10 years ... so totally inadmissible, no matter how lengthy.

And the felony murder says it has to be committed with the use of a deadly weapon.

You are dead wrong and a blithering idiot.

Plus, Meier argued self-defense, which was the only way Crystal could get a NG, and you have yet to explain what he did wrong there, other than the inadmissible criminal record, and the prior abuse which a witness said happened, but Mangum explicitly denied.; September 16, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- Keep reading that felony murder statute. I'm sure you'll get it.

Eventually.; September 16, 2014 at 9:48 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

The felony murder part of the statute is this:

or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon

All violent felonies. Where do you "larceny of a chose in action" there?; September 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

The felony murder part of the statute is this:

or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon

All violent felonies. Where do you "larceny of a chose in action" there?; September 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Plus, read the jury instructions - there is/was nothing in there about them finding her guilty of first degree murder for anything other than premeditation and deliberation. Felony murder is nowhere in there.

You really can't read can you?; September 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Regarding charging Mangum with theft of the cashier's checks that doesn't even make sense as she couldn't even convert them for her use... but more importantly Daye admitted to giving them to her."

And she was acquitted. Acquitted after an excellent defense was mounted. I too wondered about the theft charge. But, over-charging by Nifong was common.

Walt-in-Durham; September 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Daye's criminal record speaks for itself. Three pages worth... and yes, I would call that lengthy.

Also, you seem a bit cavalier with regards to prosecutors overcharging when it comes to Mangum. I think overcharging is horrendous... but you're correct. It happens all the time. Very sad.

There were no convictions within the last 10 years ... so totally inadmissible, no matter how lengthy.

And the felony murder says it has to be committed with the use of a deadly weapon.

You are dead wrong and a blithering idiot.

Plus, Meier argued self-defense, which was the only way Crystal could get a NG, and you have yet to explain what he did wrong there, other than the inadmissible criminal record, and the prior abuse which a witness said happened, but Mangum explicitly denied.

AND

Anonymous said...
Daye's criminal record speaks for itself. Three pages worth... and yes, I would call that lengthy.

Also, you seem a bit cavalier with regards to prosecutors overcharging when it comes to Mangum. I think overcharging is horrendous... but you're correct. It happens all the time. Very sad.

There were no convictions within the last 10 years ... so totally inadmissible, no matter how lengthy.

And the felony murder says it has to be committed with the use of a deadly weapon.

You are dead wrong and a blithering idiot.

Plus, Meier argued self-defense, which was the only way Crystal could get a NG, and you have yet to explain what he did wrong there, other than the inadmissible criminal record, and the prior abuse which a witness said happened, but Mangum explicitly denied.

A Lawyer, and Anonymous,

When Daye first spoke with police he told them that "Mangum stabbed me and took my money." This, of course was a lie, as Mangum neither took his money nor cashier's checks. The Police didn't believe Daye either, as they didn't charge Mangum with larceny at the time.

However, after Daye died, the prosecution's story was that Mangum used a dangerous weapon (steak knife) in an attempted robbery... and that Daye died as a result of the stabbing. Do you comprende? That's where the felony-murder rule comes in and that's how they arrive at murder with first degree.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; September 17, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Regarding charging Mangum with theft of the cashier's checks that doesn't even make sense as she couldn't even convert them for her use... but more importantly Daye admitted to giving them to her."

And she was acquitted. Acquitted after an excellent defense was mounted. I too wondered about the theft charge. But, over-charging by Nifong was common.

Walt-in-Durham

Hah! Seriously, Walt. An excellent defense mounted... now that's funny!

Mangum's so-called defense did nothing except to sabotage her case. It was necessary for Mangum to have a turncoat defense team in order for the prosecution to prevail. Mangum had a better chance representing herself and bringing up Dr. Roberts as a witness and bringing up her report to counter falsities uttered by Dr. Nichols.

As for the larceny charges, the prosecution never even made an attempt to justify them. Pathetic.; September 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Plus, read the jury instructions - there is/was nothing in there about them finding her guilty of first degree murder for anything other than premeditation and deliberation. Felony murder is nowhere in there.

You really can't read can you?

Can you explain to me why the prosecution charged Mangum with two counts of a Class H felony? They didn't charge her with simple larceny because the amount of the rent in the two checks would've been less than a thousand dollars and therefore a misdemeanor. Larceny of chose in action, however is an automatic felony regardless of the amount the checks may be written for or if they are not filled out.

Prosecutors definitely did not prove premeditation. On the other hand, a drunken Daye did bash in the locked bathroom door and drag Mangum out by her hair. Daye should've been charged with domestic violence... but he wasn't. Instead, prosecutors painted him as a kind-hearted saint who wouldn't hurt a fly, flea, or a gnat. And, Mangum's attorney did nothing to counter this ridiculous characterization.; September 17, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: They clearly didn't prove premeditation - that's why it wasn't 1st degree ...

You just can't admit you are wrong, right? She wasn't charged with robbery, but larceny, it was not, is not, and never was felony murder - as evidenced by the fact that the Jury instructions did not allow the jury to consider 1st degree on that basis.

You are completely and totally wrong, and it's just proof that this is all about you, and not helping Crystal, because if you wanted to help her, you would try to do it right.; September 17, 2014 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: prosecutors painted him as a kind-hearted saint who wouldn't hurt a fly, flea, or a gnat. And, Mangum's attorney did nothing to counter this ridiculous characterization.

And, Crystal kept talking about what a great and wonderful person Daye did because some fucking idiot (Sid Harr) kept telling her that Duke murdered Daye and nothing else mattered, so she ignored the only G/NG part of the case - Self-Defense.

Crystal was asked repeatedly if Daye ever yelled at her (no she said); hit her (no she said); what about the neighbor who heard screaming, yelling, and hitting (she's lying she said). Yes, you say the attorney asked her to lie, but you can't say they didn't try to get Daye painted in a bad light, but when Crystal herself talks about what a great and wonderful guy he was, there isn't a lot else to go on.

She got bad advice from Sid, and he is still continuing the trend of screwing her over.; September 17, 2014 at 1:07 PM
A Lawyer said...: However, after Daye died, the prosecution's story was that Mangum used a dangerous weapon (steak knife) in an attempted robbery... and that Daye died as a result of the stabbing. Do you comprende?

No, you don't "comprende." The indictment didn't charge "attempted robbery." It charged "larceny of a chose in action," and didn't allege that the larceny was committed with a deadly weapon. Robbery with a deadly weapon could have been a predicate for felony murder; larceny of a chose in action, never.

That's where the felony-murder rule comes in and that's how they arrive at murder with first degree.

The indictment didn't charge felony murder; it charged first-degree premeditated murder.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

I've been trying to "elucidate" this for you, Lord knows, but you refuse to see.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; September 17, 2014 at 8:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Why does it matter now anyway?; September 17, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
prosecutors painted him as a kind-hearted saint who wouldn't hurt a fly, flea, or a gnat. And, Mangum's attorney did nothing to counter this ridiculous characterization.

And, Crystal kept talking about what a great and wonderful person Daye did because some fucking idiot (Sid Harr) kept telling her that Duke murdered Daye and nothing else mattered, so she ignored the only G/NG part of the case - Self-Defense.

Crystal was asked repeatedly if Daye ever yelled at her (no she said); hit her (no she said); what about the neighbor who heard screaming, yelling, and hitting (she's lying she said). Yes, you say the attorney asked her to lie, but you can't say they didn't try to get Daye painted in a bad light, but when Crystal herself talks about what a great and wonderful guy he was, there isn't a lot else to go on.

She got bad advice from Sid, and he is still continuing the trend of screwing her over.

I am the only reason that Crystal Mangum will not serve her complete 18 year sentence. Had she not gotten the prosecution discovery to me, she wouldn't stand a chance of getting out because the system is stacked against her.

Mangum's situation is due to the fact she put faith in her attorneys who sold her out. Simple as that. She would've stood a better chance had she taken my advice.; September 18, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
They clearly didn't prove premeditation - that's why it wasn't 1st degree ...

You just can't admit you are wrong, right? She wasn't charged with robbery, but larceny, it was not, is not, and never was felony murder - as evidenced by the fact that the Jury instructions did not allow the jury to consider 1st degree on that basis.

You are completely and totally wrong, and it's just proof that this is all about you, and not helping Crystal, because if you wanted to help her, you would try to do it right.

Answer me this... why was Crystal charged with larceny of chose in action, and why was she not charged with it until after Daye had died? ... other than the "prosecutors always overcharge" baloney excuse.

The prosecution didn't prove anything regarding the two counts of larceny... they didn't try because they knew that they couldn't without appearing like idiots.; September 18, 2014 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't matter why they charged her with the Larceny of Chose in Action - it does not implicate the felony murder rule at all, and you have the statute, and the jury instructions, and the indictments on murder which all conclusively prove/demonstrate that the felony murder rule was not in play in this case.

You are wrong.; September 18, 2014 at 8:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: September 17, 2014 at 1:07 PM
Delete
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
However, after Daye died, the prosecution's story was that Mangum used a dangerous weapon (steak knife) in an attempted robbery... and that Daye died as a result of the stabbing. Do you comprende?

No, you don't "comprende." The indictment didn't charge "attempted robbery." It charged "larceny of a chose in action," and didn't allege that the larceny was committed with a deadly weapon. Robbery with a deadly weapon could have been a predicate for felony murder; larceny of a chose in action, never.

That's where the felony-murder rule comes in and that's how they arrive at murder with first degree.

The indictment didn't charge felony murder; it charged first-degree premeditated murder.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

I've been trying to "elucidate" this for you, Lord knows, but you refuse to see.

Hey, A Lawyer.

I understand the difference between robbery and burglary, but I was merely pointing out the most logical scenario for the prosecution even charging Mangum with the little known/rarely used Larceny of chose in action charge.

Why do you think they charged her with those Class H felonies if they didn't even plan to prosecute them? Malicious prosecution.

The problem from the start has been the short form indictment in which the prosecutors failed to provide any information upon which to base either the murder charge or the larceny charge. Mangum's first attorneys had to ask the Court to have an explanation as to reasons for the charges as they were so vague... especially the larceny of chose in action.; September 18, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
It doesn't matter why they charged her with the Larceny of Chose in Action - it does not implicate the felony murder rule at all, and you have the statute, and the jury instructions, and the indictments on murder which all conclusively prove/demonstrate that the felony murder rule was not in play in this case.

You are wrong.

Yes, and the statute doesn't specify that a violent crime is required in order for the "felony-murder rule" to be invoked. It merely states any "felony."

End of sentence/paragraph/story.; September 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.

I am going to try and complete my latest sharlog today and post it by tomorrow (Friday) afternoon.

It is full of enlightenment.

As you were.; September 18, 2014 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: "Yes, and the statute doesn't specify that a violent crime is required in order for the "felony-murder rule" to be invoked. It merely states any "felony."

Really? Isn't "murder" required in order for the felony-murder rule to be invoked?; September 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM
A Lawyer said...: the statute doesn't specify that a violent crime is required in order for the "felony-murder rule" to be invoked. It merely states any "felony."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It doesn't say "any felony." It says, "which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Larceny of a chose in action isn't arson, rape, a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping or burglary, and the indictment didn't charge that the larceny was committed with a deadly weapon.

This has been explained to you over and over. Talk about "denial and delusion."; September 18, 2014 at 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...: You are an idiot ... if felony murder was in play, wouldn't it have been in the jury instructions?

And, you still haven't shown anything admissible in Daye's prior record.

I realize you can't be this stupid, this is really just proof this is all about feeding your ego - you keep repeating stuff you know to be completely wrong because you don't care about helping Crystal at all, you like the ego boost when you think you are getting attention.

At least now you aren't even hiding the fact that you yourself know this is all a big joke and not remotely a serious endeavor.; September 18, 2014 at 9:40 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Mangum's so-called defense did nothing except to sabotage her case."

Interesting choice of word. It was...oh yes, Sid Harr, who sabotaged the case by leaking confidential defense discovery.

"Mangum had a better chance representing herself and bringing up Dr. Roberts as a witness and bringing up her report to counter falsities uttered by Dr. Nichols."

That would be the report that confirmed Nichols' findings. I guess you missed that opportunity to further sabotage the defense.

"As for the larceny charges, the prosecution never even made an attempt to justify them. Pathetic."

You apparently didn't watch the trial. The state didn't make much of an effort with the larceny charge, but Mangum's defense was outstanding. The only part of her testimony that was believable was in respect to the larceny charges.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2014 at 9:41 AM
A Lawyer said...: ...and further to my last comment, "larceny of a chose in action" can't, by definition, be committed with the use of a deadly weapon, because then it would be robbery (a forcible taking), not larceny (a stealthy taking).; September 18, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Walt said...: " A Lawyer said..."

Now, be gentle with Sid, it's obvious he has a limited vocabulary. Probably stems from his inadequate education. Or, it could be his general lack of inquisitiveness.

Walt-in-Durham; September 19, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: lawyer you are seriously being a very evil duke troll hailing from the nonwonderland blog website in your own major bs hate driven ways with an agenda of causing others harm here and elsewhere with your hate-filled agendas.; September 20, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Again - why is it trolling to point out where Sid is completely and totally wrong, and to try and get him to acknowledge it, and learn so his advocacy might actually have a chance at being successful?

When he clings to things that are clearly wrong, no Court or lawyer is going to give him any credibility because he clearly can't/won't listen/learn - which means he is operating from a political agenda (his own ego) or something other than actual advocacy.; September 20, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
the statute doesn't specify that a violent crime is required in order for the "felony-murder rule" to be invoked. It merely states any "felony."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It doesn't say "any felony." It says, "which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Larceny of a chose in action isn't arson, rape, a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping or burglary, and the indictment didn't charge that the larceny was committed with a deadly weapon.

This has been explained to you over and over. Talk about "denial and delusion."

A Lawyer, it is the prosecution that you should be talking to... not me, as they were the ones who tried to perpetrate the bogus activity. The whole purpose for the larceny of chose in action was to justify the first degree charge. The only reason they weren't successful in doing so is because I interfered with their plans. Otherwise her turncoat attorney might've allowed her to end up receiving a life sentence.

The prosecutors were the ones desperately trying to make the murder charge first degree... and they did so my using the Larceny of chose in action to go along with the felony-murder rule. It's really all very simple.; September 20, 2014 at 11:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You are an idiot ... if felony murder was in play, wouldn't it have been in the jury instructions?

And, you still haven't shown anything admissible in Daye's prior record.

I realize you can't be this stupid, this is really just proof this is all about feeding your ego - you keep repeating stuff you know to be completely wrong because you don't care about helping Crystal at all, you like the ego boost when you think you are getting attention.

At least now you aren't even hiding the fact that you yourself know this is all a big joke and not remotely a serious endeavor.

When Mangum was charged with first degree murder and larceny of chose in action it was the prosecution's intent of using the later to justify first degree murder using the felony-murder rule. Once I got involved in the mix the plan was jettisoned... and no attempt was made to even pursue the larceny charge because by then I had published the police report in which Daye admitted giving the cashier's checks to Crystal.

Yes, I thwarted the prosecution attempt to have Mangum put away for life.; September 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Comment of September 19, 2014 at 4:40pm went afoul of the kenhyderal doctrine and was therefore banished to the hinterland.; September 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Mangum's so-called defense did nothing except to sabotage her case."

Interesting choice of word. It was...oh yes, Sid Harr, who sabotaged the case by leaking confidential defense discovery.

"Mangum had a better chance representing herself and bringing up Dr. Roberts as a witness and bringing up her report to counter falsities uttered by Dr. Nichols."

That would be the report that confirmed Nichols' findings. I guess you missed that opportunity to further sabotage the defense.

"As for the larceny charges, the prosecution never even made an attempt to justify them. Pathetic."

You apparently didn't watch the trial. The state didn't make much of an effort with the larceny charge, but Mangum's defense was outstanding. The only part of her testimony that was believable was in respect to the larceny charges.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, Dr. Nichols' conclusion that Daye died due to complications of a stab wound to the chest is an outright lie. That Dr. Roberts tried to legally find a way to back it up does nothing but prove her lack of integrity and Nifongian courage... in other words, to back up the conclusion by Dr. Nichols is yet another instance of lying.

Keep in mind, the proximate cause of Daye's death was the esophageal intubation!!! Treatment of the stab wound had a prognosis for a full recovery!; September 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

It was my plan to have the latest sharlog (on Mike Nifong) posted today, but got busy with other things. It is nearly completed and should be ready for posting by tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon.

As you were.; September 20, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: The prosecutors were the ones desperately trying to make the murder charge first degree... and they did so my using the Larceny of chose in action to go along with the felony-murder rule. It's really all very simple.

They didn't - you are an idiot. A complete and total idiot. If they wanted to use felony murder - they would have charged robbery, the prosecutors know larceny can't lead to felony murder.

Again, it's not even in the jury instructions.

You are an idiot.; September 20, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: You aren't even trying to pretend you have credibility anymore.

You have become a sad, pathetic joke.

It's not even worth pointing out your errors anymore because you are hopelessly delusional.; September 20, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: The law says larceny can't be felony murder - it has nothing to do with anything you did. All you did was convince Crystal she was facing first degree due to felony murder, when that was never the case.; September 20, 2014 at 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: The fact that KC's evil duke troll gang made / makes trying to figure out what the heck is going on in order just to get assured of professional and safe medical services due to the malpractice issues feels like a hate crime since it probably is with all the abuse I've witnessed and been made a part of by just being more open minded, community aware and concerned for the welfare of others, posting here and on KC's blog with questions not aligned to their agendas, and whatever else these haters choose to hate; September 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: when you live in a state with blue devils flown proudly from flags and plastered to vehicles and grinning from t-shirts (i saw that once - there was this nurse and she had on these deep blue scrubs with devils grinning at you from all over her outfit - a nurse mind you) at the homes of some of the persons considered (by them by others who knows) to weild power over others even in life and death situations - and you have an on-line gang of hate crime trolls beating people up who for saying boo about them (or to them) - you can see why many find THAT very disturbing - not to mention that they are seriously starting to BE the evil. that's the thing in NC - you are actually encouraged to BE the whatever (like evil with a blue devil grinning from your shirt) if you want - or crazy with blue paint shouting insults at patients - yeah - that's the ticket - just as long as you actually BE that.; September 21, 2014 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: This, and the recent comments aren't about Duke. Duke has nothing to do with Sid's ego and his refusal to admit when he is wrong.; September 21, 2014 at 6:00 AM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Walt inaccurately summarized Sidney's contribution to Mangum's defense: Sid Harr, who sabotaged the case by leaking confidential defense discovery.

This is unfair. Sidney's contributions to Mangum's defense went far beyond leaking confidential information.

Sidney strengthened Mangum's defense considerably when he convinced her that the prosecution had no case and would drop all charges prior to trial and that all of her attorneys were conspiring against her.

As a result, Sidney convinced Mangum not to take seriously the first degree murder charges she faced. She could fire her attorneys, represent herself, reject any plea bargain offered, ignore the evidence--all with no downside. The prosecution would drop charges.

When the trial began, Sidney continued to exude the same confidence. Mangum's testimony was critical. Because Mangum's honesty and credibility are unquestioned, the jury could not fail to believe her, rather than relying on evidence that contradicted much of what she said.

Sidney's advice has been consistent. His legal analysis supports the conclusions that (1) an esophageal intubation fully eliminates Mangum's legal responsibility for Daye's death, irrespective of what condition required the intubation and (2) because Daye was the initial aggressor, Mangum had the right to use deadly force with no limitation, irrespective of what happened thereafter. No other facts are relevant.

With his legal acumen and flawless judgment, Sidney was able to reach these legal conclusions without undertaking any research. He recognized that identifying relevant case law was a fool's errand. No prior case has comparable facts.

Little evidence is required to prove Mangum's innocence. The initial prognosis was for a complete recovery. The initial intubation was esophageal. Daye dragged Mangum by the hair. Case proven.

For this reason, Sidney relies on ad hominem attacks. If people reach different legal conclusions, they are either liars, conspirators or fools.; September 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 490 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