Sunday, September 21, 2014

Mike Nifong: A true Minister of Justice


139 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bahahahahahahahahaha


Bahahahahahahahahaha


Bahahahahahahahahaha


Nifong Supporter said...


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.



Break, good to hear from you.

My response will follow below.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break, good to hear from you.

Yes, I thought the prosecution would have enough sense not to proceed with the trumped up and baseless case. And I told her that her attorneys were acting against her... which was true as they withheld from her the Roberts report. And, of course Meier really sold her out by keeping out everything related to the true proximal cause of Daye's death-- the esophageal intubation.

Far from telling her to adopt a cavalier attitude, I did my best to try and get her to study her case and work hard to prepare for trial. She is an intelligent woman and if she set her mind to it could've represented herself far better than Meier... especially with my non-lawyerly assistance. She knew the importance of the Roberts report, yet she allowed Meier to talk her out of it.

Months before the trial I had not been in contact with Mangum as the August 22, 2013 Indy Week hatchet job article about me probably convinced Mangum to throw in her lot with her attorney Meier. So my active influence was nil long before the November trial.

The esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of Daye's death and she should therefore not been convicted for it. Regardless of the indication for the intubation, which was related to delirium tremens and had nothing to do with the stab wound.

As far as deadly force is concerned, I have pretty much neglected the self-defense issue although I believe her position that she stabbed him in self defense is very plausible considering his drunken state, busting down the locked bathroom door, dragging her out by her hair, and physical injuries she sustained.

As far as case law goes, I do not have access to a law library, I do not have home internet, and I cannot therefore pay the rip-off legal companies to access it. I have referred to relevant cases such as that of Crystal Kavanaugh and Dottie Amtey.

Fact is that the conclusion reached by professionals used to support a charge of murder against Mangum is false. Daye did not die due to a complication of the stab wound. Drs. Nichols and Roberts did so to deceive the jurors and public... and they are therefore accurately defined as liars. There is much conspiracy involved as well.

Anonymous said...

So completely and totally delusional. Have you even tried to talk to Meier or anyone else, or do you just pull shit out of your ass, throw it against the wall, and call it evidence?

We know you have wrongfully filed 2 Writs of Habeas Corpus - you've said you were going to file more ... have you?

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney,

I thank you for your response.

I find your confidence to be remarkable.

The disagreement you have with your critics, including Walt, A Lawyer and others, deals entirely with the proper interpretation of the law.

As I understand their interpretation, Walt, A Lawyer and others hold that medical malpractice, such as an esophageal intubation, does not necessarily eliminate Mangum's responsibility for Daye's death. If the intubation was necessary as a result of a condition resulting from the stab wound (in other words, a complication) Mangum remains responsible.

For example, if the intubation was required due to an infection (whether or not the infection resulted from a surgical error), Mangum remains responsible. If the intubation was required due to the DTs and the DTs were exacerbated by the stab trauma (as I have read can be the case), Mangum remains responsible.

Only if the intubation was required due to a cause wholly unrelated to the stab wound or doctors concluded that Daye would have survived in the absence of the intubation does Mangum escape liability. Because infection is the most likely explanation and the certainty of survival is a difficult threshold, I expect that the defense must provide evidence to support this.

On the other hand, you have interpreted the law to hold that an esophageal intubation eliminates Mangum's responsibility. However, you have provided no case law to support this interpretation. You have provided no medical evidence to support your claim that the intubation was the "sole" "proximate" cause of his death. You have ignored requests to discuss the need for the intubation, apparently concluding that the cause is irrelevant.

You appear to rely on the initial prognosis for a complete recovery as cutting off Mangum's liability. This claim demonstrates your lack of seriousness. Particularly as a retired physician, you know that complications can occur in cases where a recovery is expected.

You readily admit that you have no legal training. You admit that you have done little research.

Two posters, who both claim to be attorneys, disagreed with your interpretation and provided and discussed case law to support their interpretation. My reading of Welch and Jones is in line with their interpretation.

If your legal interpretation is flawed, and Walt and A Lawyer are correct, one can explain this case without a massive world-wide conspiracy. Prosecutors did not drop the case because they had a strong case. Shella, Vann, Holmes and Meier did not conspire against Mangum. Nichols and Roberts did not lie about a conclusion that Daye died of complications from the stab wound. The media, politicians, civil rights organizations ignored you because they found your arguments flawed.

You and I have different philosophies. I am hesitant to provide advice when I have no knowledge or expertise, particularly when the stakes are high. I would follow up suggestions made by others, particularly when the stakes are high. You, on the other hand, give advice to murder defendants despite a lack of legal expertise. You ignore suggestions that your advice is flawed.

I can understand your reluctance to admit that your legal interpretation may have been flawed. To do so would require that you understand that you may have given Mangum atrocious advice and may have resulted in a longer prison sentence.

I couldn't sleep with that guilt.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

It has been more than six weeks since the last sharlog. You indicated that you have been busy. What were the interruptions?

Anonymous said...

I still wonder how you think it would have worked to put Dr. Roberts on the stand and call her a liar - did you think she would break down and admit your vast anti-Mangum conspiracy? Or, more likely, she'd have explained her findings, and other than saying "I think you are lying" no one could do anything with it, and Crystal would have gotten first.

You are so pathetically transparent these days - you don't want Crystal out of jail, you are upset she didn't get LWOP. Everything you have done, and are doing, is clearly calculated to harming her and her case. What is sad is that she, or anyone else, ever listened to you.

No wonder you were driven out of California under the cloud of scandal. You are a disgrace.

And, you still won't explain what in Daye's criminal record you wanted admitted - there was NOTHING in that record that was admissible.

Anonymous said...

There is NO ONE who knows what really happened to Mr. Daye in Duke hospital to cause his death except for the attending doctors and medical attendees. THAT is why there needs to be another trial, because the reports of both the ME's are so conflicted with each other and the duke medical reports, albeit Dr. Roberts' report follows the Duke medical reports more closely than
Dr. Nichols' report, which was and is the main reason for protesting the charge and conviction of murder in the first place, and rightly so.

NO ONE knows how or why he died STILL except for the Duke doctors, and they aren't talking ... go figure.

THAT is why Dr. Roberts' report is so important to the defense, as is a defense attorney who is not afraid of Duke and who has courage and experience to do the job right for the defense and the people in this case.

Since the crux is 'did duke kill Mr. Daye with their malpractice' vs. 'did Ms. Mangum cause his death with the defensive stab wound' any rational person will see there is nothing stopping Duke from harming them or their loved ones who may become their patients at some time as well. THAT is the most important aspect of this case to the public, and it truly FRACKING SUCKS, as does Duke because of it.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

What you say about Mr. Nifong standing up to the 'powers that be' is confusing, as Duke were the ones that persecuted and prosecuted the lacrosse team in the court of public opinion in the first place, as well as supported the charges with their medical reports, so what 'powers that be' are you referring to exactly?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Is it possible that you are overlooking the same issue that most choose to overlook when considering Ms. Mangum's abilities. You repeatedly state that she is intelligent enough to represent herself in this case, and indeed, seem to hold it against her that she did not. However, perhaps you do not consider her known and unknown medical mental health issues and the effects of the medications she is prescribed, as do most others, it seems. Why is this?

In addition, it is her right to be represented by counsel with caveats to conflict of issues and bias concerns supported by law, so, again, why do you ignore the larger picture that effects all and then choose to blame Ms. Mangum for her decision to uphold her right to competent legal representation instead of agreeing to be part of a system that supports, creates and upholds an unequal, unfair, biased and unsafe for the general public system ... for ALL.

Anonymous said...

Why do you assume that no one talked to the doctors? Because Sid, who is demonstrably wrong on almost everything, says so?

More likely, the doctors were interviewed, and they would say what Dr. Roberts said - namely that the knife would wouldn't ordinarily have been fatal (even Dr. Nichols admitted that), but that it started a chain of events which ultimately led to his death (and DTs were specifically ruled out).

So, wouldn't be helpful to Mangum - so they wouldn't be called. The fact Sid is upset that damning evidence against Crystal wasn't presented is just further proof that if there is this vast Anti-Mangum/Pro-Duke conspiracy he's the leader of it. He has done nothing to help her and a lot to hurt her.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts report shows that Dr. Nichols is wrong and all of them (Dr.s) need to be questioned in depth to figure out what really happened and why exactly Mr. Daye died ... that is all, and that is what the law requires to prove murder beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 6:22 AM wrote: "Dr. Roberts report shows that Dr. Nichols is wrong and all of them (Dr.s) need to be questioned in depth to figure out what really happened and why exactly Mr. Daye died ...[.]"

No, her report confirms Dr. Nichols findings. Try reading it for yourself. Further, why is it you believe incorrectly, that someone who never saw the corpse is a better and more persuasive witness than one who did?

"... that is all, and that is what the law requires to prove murder beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Case law to support that contention?

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid's latest posting is a repeat of his long mantra. In short, he thinks Nifong did nothing wrong and claims that Nifong is a man of great integrity.

Let's recap. In May 2006 at a discovery conference, Judge Smith asked Nifong if he had any more exculpatory evidence. This was after Nifong had traveled to Burlington and met with the DNASI lab director and had received his oral report. Nifong had not yet turned over the DNASI report to the defense. Nifong replied to Judge Smith that he had turned over all the evidence to the defense.

That was not true, Nifong turned over a pile of DNA evidence much later and in December, 2006 put DNASI's lab director, Dr. Brian Meehan on the witness stand. Long, long after he had lied to Judge Smith. Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires candor to the court. Nifong failed in that regard in May 2006. And worse, he never corrected his failure. He has not to this day.

Nifong had evidence that there was no rape as early as April 2006 when the SBI returned its results. He was within his obligations as DA to confirm those findings as the SBI lacked the sophisticated equipment to do differential DNA testing. But, Nifong should have known in early April that he had real problems with his case. But, once the DNASI results were in, Nifong no longer had probable cause to proceed against any Lacrosse player. Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct impose special duties on a prosecutor, specifically the duty to refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. Rule 3.8(a) From the moment the DNASI findings were communicated to Nifong, his only duty under 3.8(a) was to dismiss the case against the people he had falsely indicted. That, he failed to do and continued prosecuting until December 2006.

Nifong also made demonstrably false statements to the public by way of the compliant media which took his every uttering as the gospel truth. Those statements violated rule 3.8(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

A minister of justice? No.

In the case of Daryl Howard, Sid claims that Nifong might not have even seen the memo that he did not turn over to the defense. Unfortunately for Sid's argument, that falls afoul of rule 3.8(d)'s requirement of the prosecutor to make reasonably diligent inquiry and make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure, or court opinions. Now it is true that in any room full of lawyers, Nifong was always the worst prepared. Still, being bad at your job is no defense to the requirement to make a diligent inquiry.

A minister of justice? No. Nifong is the poster boy for prosecutorial abuse and injustice. He's not alone and it's a travesty of justice that so few others have not been removed. But, he's a good start. Being the worst of the worst.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts report shows that Dr. Nichols is wrong and all of them (Dr.s) need to be questioned in depth to figure out what really happened and why exactly Mr. Daye died ... that is all, and that is what the law requires to prove murder beyond a shadow of a doubt.



Her report says Dr. Nichols's autopsy was sloppy and had mistakes, but the only point of the autopsy is cause of death, and in that, she fully agreed with Dr. Nichols, that the cause of death was complications from the stab wound. So, she would be a good witness to show Dr. Nichols should have been fired (and has been fired, so not sure why Sid thinks anyone is protecting him), but a bad witness to show that Crystal was not responsible for Daye's death. Her specific conclusion was that Crystal was responsible.

She also noted that DTs were ruled out, and that the esophageal intubation wasn't malpractice.

She helps Crystal exactly nowhere.

Read the report.

And, ask yourself - do you really think she was lying in her conclusions? And even if she was, wouldn't she stick to them on the stand? Her conclusion would have sunk Crystal. She was a very bad witness for Crystal. The fact Sid keeps pushing the issue shows that he doesn't want to help Crystal, his goal is to hurt Crystal.

Anonymous said...

It is telling that, in spite of having years to do so, neither Mangum nor Sid have found a single witness willing to testify that anything other than Mangum's stab wound is responsible for Daye's death.

Anonymous said...

Silly you ... they can't find anyone because the carpet-bagger jihad and Duke are so all powerful, no one will defy them (completely ignoring that Duke pays out millions for medical malpractice on the basis of doctors testifying against them all the time).

Anonymous said...

It is telling that, in spite of having years to do so, neither Mangum nor Sid have found a single witness willing to testify that anything other than Mangum's stab wound is responsible for Daye's death.


To be fair - no one is denying that the ultimate cause of death was the endotracheal intubation and asphyxiation - not the stab wound. But, as the law makes clear, the stab wound started the chain of events that led to his death, so it was a cause, even if not the primary, or main cause.

The easiest way to understand it (which Sid refuses to do) - if Crystal hadn't stabbed him, he wouldn't have been in the hospital and had the complications which led to his death, therefore the stabbing was a proximate cause, and there is criminal liability.

Sid still ignore self-defense, even though that's the only G/NG in the whole bunch.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
So completely and totally delusional. Have you even tried to talk to Meier or anyone else, or do you just pull shit out of your ass, throw it against the wall, and call it evidence?

We know you have wrongfully filed 2 Writs of Habeas Corpus - you've said you were going to file more ... have you?


The evidence I use comes from prosecution discovery that Mangum gave me... and fortunate that she did or otherwise there would be no prayer for her getting out before her 18 year sentence ended.

I did not seek out Meier to offer my help... which I would've readily given had he asked. I did not think that likely from what I googled about him... his association with the HCA, for example, and other accusations of selling out clients.

I did meet Meier in the Durham D.A.'s office on September 2nd when I went to drop off a letter for the new district attorney and get an appointment. Mr. Meier came up in line behind me. I introduced myself and we shook hands. He seems like a very nice fellow and I like him, however, Mangum is unjustly incarcerated and I am therefore forced to attack him. Don't like doing that.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Break.

Just to touch upon one point you made. It was directly from the judge's instructions to the jury that he said that medical negligence or neglect could not be used as an excuse unless it was the sole cause of death. In Daye's case, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of Daye's brain death... which led to his elective removal from life support and actual death. On that basis alone, Mangum's conviction should be overturned.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the medical records to suggest an infection or any surgical or wound complication... no infectious disease specialist was called in the case... just a neurologist from what I could ascertain.

Anonymous said...

Sid prevaricated:

"In Daye's case, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of Daye's brain death..."

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. You have not found a single, competent member of the medical community willing to testify to that in court. Your claim fails for lack of evidence.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

It has been more than six weeks since the last sharlog. You indicated that you have been busy. What were the interruptions?


A few distractions had to do with health issues, such as a schedule of radiation therapy for prostate cancer which lasted seven and a half weeks (June/July) and a detached vitreous humor in my right eye that required attention. Other than that I have been doing the usual such as writing letters, placing sharlogs on disks and sending them out, making membership packages for three new Justice for Nifong members, traveling to Durham and giving two interviews to two journalists in hopes that they would do a story on Mangum. And I have written to Crystal. However I have not submitted any more Habeas corpus. Finally, I have had to work on my lawsuit against Duke filing briefs in Greensboro.

Sharlogs are very time and energy intensive, so in addition to not having time to work on them, the fact of producing them is itself time consuming. Hope that explains the lengthy interval between sharlogs.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I still wonder how you think it would have worked to put Dr. Roberts on the stand and call her a liar - did you think she would break down and admit your vast anti-Mangum conspiracy? Or, more likely, she'd have explained her findings, and other than saying "I think you are lying" no one could do anything with it, and Crystal would have gotten first.

You are so pathetically transparent these days - you don't want Crystal out of jail, you are upset she didn't get LWOP. Everything you have done, and are doing, is clearly calculated to harming her and her case. What is sad is that she, or anyone else, ever listened to you.

No wonder you were driven out of California under the cloud of scandal. You are a disgrace.

And, you still won't explain what in Daye's criminal record you wanted admitted - there was NOTHING in that record that was admissible.



Dr. Roberts is not dumb... she knows that there was no medical complication of the stab wound that caused Daye's death... so that's why she prefaced her conclusion by saying that because the stab wound resulted in Daye's hospitalization that whatever followed she considered to be a complication. Very disingenuous.

Not only that, but Dr. Roberts is a turncoat as she was supposed to be an expert witness for the Defense and her misleading conclusion about the cause of death was detrimental to Mangum's case. All Dr. Roberts had to do was tell the truth.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
There is NO ONE who knows what really happened to Mr. Daye in Duke hospital to cause his death except for the attending doctors and medical attendees. THAT is why there needs to be another trial, because the reports of both the ME's are so conflicted with each other and the duke medical reports, albeit Dr. Roberts' report follows the Duke medical reports more closely than
Dr. Nichols' report, which was and is the main reason for protesting the charge and conviction of murder in the first place, and rightly so.

NO ONE knows how or why he died STILL except for the Duke doctors, and they aren't talking ... go figure.

THAT is why Dr. Roberts' report is so important to the defense, as is a defense attorney who is not afraid of Duke and who has courage and experience to do the job right for the defense and the people in this case.

Since the crux is 'did duke kill Mr. Daye with their malpractice' vs. 'did Ms. Mangum cause his death with the defensive stab wound' any rational person will see there is nothing stopping Duke from harming them or their loved ones who may become their patients at some time as well. THAT is the most important aspect of this case to the public, and it truly FRACKING SUCKS, as does Duke because of it.


Actually the exact and direct cause of Daye's death is known... it was his elective removal from life support. That was the direct cause of Daye's death. He was removed from life support because he was brain dead, and his brain death was due to the esophageal intubation.

I agree with you that what is not known is whether the esophageal intubation was accidental or intentional.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

What you say about Mr. Nifong standing up to the 'powers that be' is confusing, as Duke were the ones that persecuted and prosecuted the lacrosse team in the court of public opinion in the first place, as well as supported the charges with their medical reports, so what 'powers that be' are you referring to exactly?


There are P-T-Bs in control of the media and politics, in my opinion. If they wanted me to know their identities, I would. I believe that the Carpetbagger Jihadists had the influence to orchestrate the overwhelming public persecution of Nifong. Duke has animus towards Mangum, too, because she was the spark that ignited the entire scandal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Is it possible that you are overlooking the same issue that most choose to overlook when considering Ms. Mangum's abilities. You repeatedly state that she is intelligent enough to represent herself in this case, and indeed, seem to hold it against her that she did not. However, perhaps you do not consider her known and unknown medical mental health issues and the effects of the medications she is prescribed, as do most others, it seems. Why is this?

In addition, it is her right to be represented by counsel with caveats to conflict of issues and bias concerns supported by law, so, again, why do you ignore the larger picture that effects all and then choose to blame Ms. Mangum for her decision to uphold her right to competent legal representation instead of agreeing to be part of a system that supports, creates and upholds an unequal, unfair, biased and unsafe for the general public system ... for ALL.


I don't think Mangum is mentally ill or psychotic. I do believe that in 2010/2011 she was a bit immature and very naïve. Not that I'm overly mature, but my experiences have enabled me to understand what Mangum was up against, and I did my best to help her avoid the pitfalls I clearly saw. But she placed her faith, finally, in her attorney and the system, and it cost her with a double-crossing conviction.

If she would've represented herself, she couldn't have done worse than she did with representation by Meier.

Anonymous said...

his association with the HCA, for example, and other accusations of selling out clients.


How is HCA remotely relevant? You've still never explained how working for HCA in Texas in the 1990s is relevant to anything in Durham in 2013.


And Spencer Young is mad because Meier didn't go beyond his job as a Criminal Defense attorney - Young acknowledges Meier got the charges dismissed - that's all he was supposed to do.

You are still an idio.

Anonymous said...

The spark that ignited the entire scandal was the lacrosse team who threw the party where Ms. Mangum got sick and lord knows whatever else happened, known and unknown. But I agree, Duke blames Ms. Mangum, even though they have only themselves to blame.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Sad to hear of your medical issues, and hope that your recovery is quick and complete. You got a lot done in spite of your radiation treatments, which is comendable.

I think that Ms. Mangum has stated herself that she has PTSD, and as such, this is a known mental illness that could account for much of her behavior that others might deem inappropriate or insufficient, when in actuality, it is a natural reaction of someone who is ill with PTSD such as that which Ms. Mangum might be ill from. In addition, it is actually considered an intelligent decision and it is a civil right to secure the services of competent legal counsel in court cases in USA. So again, why do you seem to discredit her for exercising this right? Is it not the Public Defender system who provided the lawyers unable to seperate from their conflicts in order to adequately defend Ms. Mangum, and not Ms. Mangum herself who has a legal right to unconflicted competent legal counsel to assist in her defense who is at fault?

Anonymous said...

What are these "conflicts" you keep claiming her attorneys had? You have still provided zero evidence that Meier had any kind of conflict.

With friends like y'all, Crystal is screwed.

Anonymous said...

Your inability to understand information that does not explicitely support your proDuke antiMangum agenda does not mean that the information you cannot accept has not been provided to you.

Anonymous said...

What information isn't being digested? You haven't provided any. You say it is obvious that working for a healthcare company in Texas in the 1990s is a conflict in Durham in 2013, but refuse to say how.

You are the one who can't comprehend information. The tinfoil is way too tight around your head.

Anonymous said...

For the record, I think Duke sucks, and Mangum got screwed in the Lacrosse case, and this case should have been manslaughter - but her problems in this case weren't from a turncoat attorney, they were from Sid Harr who did (and continues to do) everything he can to provide her with mis-information and bad advice.

Look at the evidence - the only one working directly for Duke and against Mangum in all of this isn't her lawyers, it's Sid. He is the one who continues to repeat things that are demonstrably wrong, and yet continues to pursue them knowing it makes him look like a fool.

He's the traitor and turncoat.

Anonymous said...

And your saying that Dr. Harr was able to do all that against the will of the lawyers, the DA, the AG, the US AG, the SBI, the governor and the heads of the medical and legal regulator agencies, as well as the media and several judges (and duke still sukes and the only one harming Ms. Mangum is Dr. Harr)?

???

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:34 asks: What are the "conflicts" you keep claiming her attorneys had?

You obviously have not been paying attention.

Any attorney who lives in or near Durham has a conflict with Duke. They may require medical treatment at Duke. Duke committed an error in treating Daye. They may commit an error in treating the attorney. It is possible an "error" is deliberate.

The poster recognizes no court would accept that as a valid "conflict." This blog is not a court, and posters are not bound by legal requirements.

With friends like y'all, Crystal is screwed.

This is correct. Crystal's "friends" in general do not make serious arguments.

Anonymous said...

All those people in positions of power are aware that the lives of all NC citizens and visitors to this state could possibly be negatively affected by the same aspects of this case that Ms. Mangum is fighting against in her own defense. Do they resolve the issues for the safety of all these millions of people, or do they support the produke antimagnum antipeople agenda that the lack of justice and narrow minded biases and prejudices in this case highlights? Issues brought to light that should be a concern to all, as they effect all, whether they realize it or not.

Anonymous said...

What is amazing is that they continue with the charade to this day still thinking they have a fair chance of 'winning'. That they think the public is so brainwashed by their evil ways that they will let this one go by and chalk it up to fear or conflict or revenge, and the obvious fact that all are thus made even more threatened by their evil beingness will remain unconcious to their being (at least until the case is over or unless that fear of obvious deadly reality necessitates corruption to their ways of some type in order to appease the fears of the wary) ... something like that.

all are effected and everyone pays

Anonymous said...

If Duke is all powerful, and all NC attorneys have conflicts, please explain how Duke gets sued routinely (like any large business) by local lawyers?

I really hope you all understand this website is a joke, cause if you really are that paranoid and unable to comprehend even basic information, Durham is in worse shape than any of us thought.

Anonymous said...

Then why does this case exist as it is, if there isn't a problem?

Anonymous said...

There isn't a problem ... the problem exists only in Sid's mind. Crystal and her boyfriend got into a fight, she stabbed him, he went to the hospital, and died from complications (maybe malpractice maybe not, but the stabbing was a proximate cause as determined by both the State and Defense expert witnesses). The Jury rejected her claims of self defense.

It's actually a straightforward case that people are pretending is a lot more complicated because Dr. Nichols had an incredibly sloppy autopsy report (but, again, the Defense expert supported the conclusions).

This case only exists like this in the minds of the paranoid few.

Anonymous said...

its the maybe its malpractice ... that is the problem then, and the way Dr. Nichols apparently saw a different Mr. Daye than the one operated on at Duke that got Ms. Mangum incarcerated that is the problem ... not how some may feel about the problems

Anonymous said...

No, Dr. Nichols was overworked, and performed a sloppy autopsy, with mistakes, but the Defense expert, who noted the sloppy autopsy with mistakes, also confirmed the conclusions of that autopsy.

The fact that Dr. Nichols screwed up doesn't mean that his conclusion was wrong.

The fact that Duke may have committed malpractice (though the Defense expert said it wasn't malpractice, and no one with actual training has come forward to say it was) doesn't stop the chain of events.

The fact that Dr. Harr says DTs, when the medical records, and the Defense expert show that was specifically considered and excluded as an issue, doesn't make Dr. Harr right and everyone else wrong.

The fact that Dr. Harr says no investigation was done and no one talked to the Duke doctors doesn't make that true just because no one will discuss it or share those results with him.

But, you clearly have your political agenda, and if the truth sat on your face and wiggled you'd still deny it, so nothing I, or anyone else, says will matter to you. That's the great thing about paranoid conspiracy theorists - anything that doesn't fit their theory is just further proof of how broad the conspiracy is.

Sid is 100% completely and totally wrong on felony murder - but he denies it, or changes the subject. He is 100% completely and totally wrong about the admissibility of Daye's "criminal record" but he denies it. And, he still continues to spout both of those as "failures" on the part of Mangum's attorneys, ignoring that he's the one who is wrong.

With friends like you, Mangum will sadly end up dying in prison.

Lance the Intern said...

"Any attorney who lives in or near Durham has a conflict with Duke. They may require medical treatment at Duke. Duke committed an error in treating Daye. They may commit an error in treating the attorney. It is possible an "error" is deliberate."

Do you live in the Raleigh/Durham area? There are hospitals not related to Duke available (like WakeMed or UNC Healthcare) to the public -- Even attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Well, and it's not like Duke keeps a list of names in the ER for people they think "wronged" them.

Seriously, do you loons really think that people are intentionally murdering people on behalf of Duke? Duke is so all powerful that they say the word and low-level employees and doctors will commit murder on their orders?

Wow ... such delusions!

Anonymous said...

The fact that duke sukes doesn't make their malpractice free from judicial scrutiny and their responsibility of accountability as prescribed by law able to be ignored by all.

Lance your argument makes no sense since it is the Durham not Wake judicial system that handles Duke cases, and Duke handles critical health cases for the area with specialties only they possess. Because of that and the fact that many travel through and to Durham, the issues become a concern for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Duke is accountable for their malpractice. They are sued all the time. Thing is - no one other than Sid has said this was malpractice, and it was investigated, and as has been repeatedly noted, even if it were malpractice, Crystal would still be liable under Welch.

Whether or not the Daye family sued is largely irrelevant - it doesn't matter if they did, or did not - every expert who reviewed the case found that the stab wound started the chain of events which led to the death.

Only Sid says otherwise. Do you really believe Duke never gets sued for Malpractice?

Anonymous said...

That is the problem then since it was malpractice that caused the brain death and ultimate death, not the stab wound.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
It is telling that, in spite of having years to do so, neither Mangum nor Sid have found a single witness willing to testify that anything other than Mangum's stab wound is responsible for Daye's death.


It is telling... the strength of the conspiracy against Mangum is overwhelming. Face it no one wants to get involved. Did you notice that during Mangum's trial the prosecution did not bring any other doctor to testify in support of what Dr. Nichols had said?

When you look at it, only Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts (basing her conclusion on legal rather than medical issues) state that the stab wound complication caused Daye's death.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Sad to hear of your medical issues, and hope that your recovery is quick and complete. You got a lot done in spite of your radiation treatments, which is comendable.

I think that Ms. Mangum has stated herself that she has PTSD, and as such, this is a known mental illness that could account for much of her behavior that others might deem inappropriate or insufficient, when in actuality, it is a natural reaction of someone who is ill with PTSD such as that which Ms. Mangum might be ill from. In addition, it is actually considered an intelligent decision and it is a civil right to secure the services of competent legal counsel in court cases in USA. So again, why do you seem to discredit her for exercising this right? Is it not the Public Defender system who provided the lawyers unable to seperate from their conflicts in order to adequately defend Ms. Mangum, and not Ms. Mangum herself who has a legal right to unconflicted competent legal counsel to assist in her defense who is at fault?


Thanks for your concern and kind words regarding my health issues.

I would have no problem if Mangum's attorneys acted in her best interests... but the fact that none of her attorneys wanted to discuss with me the medical issues of her case, despite my offering to do so, makes me doubt their allegiance. The case against Mangum is too political.

Anonymous said...

All the more reason to push for the Public Defenders office to do their job correctly, ethically, and legally for all since politics is generally not regarded as a legal reason to disregard law and civil rights (is it?). There is always politics where Duke is concerned, so this is a concern for any and all who deal with Duke in any way if justice is based on politics and not law.

Lance the Intern said...

"Lance your argument makes no sense since it is the Durham not Wake judicial system that handles Duke cases..."

There are 18 hospitals in the Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina metropolitan area. Not all of them are part of the Duke Medical system. Rex Hospital in Raleigh, for example, is the 6th top-ranked hospital in the state according to US News and World Report.

There's also Durham Regional, which won the 2014 Distinguished Hospital Award for Clinical Excellence.

UNC Healthcare has options for specialties ranging from diabetes to Cardiovascular to GI to children's and women's health.

Bottom line -- if you're in Durham and don't want to be treated at a Duke-related hospital, there are alternatives....

Anonymous said...

I would have no problem if Mangum's attorneys acted in her best interests... but the fact that none of her attorneys wanted to discuss with me the medical issues of her case, despite my offering to do so, makes me doubt their allegiance. The case against Mangum is too political.


True - they only wanted to discuss it with someone who would listen and knew what they hell they were talking about.

As you have repeatedly shown, you cannot admit you were wrong, so there is no constructive conversation with you.

Anonymous said...

All the more reason to push for the Public Defenders office to do their job correctly, ethically, and legally for all since politics is generally not regarded as a legal reason to disregard law and civil rights (is it?). There is always politics where Duke is concerned, so this is a concern for any and all who deal with Duke in any way if justice is based on politics and not law.



They did their jobs correctly - it's only you, Sid, and the paranoid few who still scream conflict (with no evidence) and conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

There's also Durham Regional, which won the 2014 Distinguished Hospital Award for Clinical Excellence.


To be fair - Durham Regional is owned by Duke. It was sold to them by HCA when HCA split up back in the 1990s ... oh no, maybe that's the conflict link! :-)

Lance the Intern said...

The smoking gun!!!

Anonymous said...

Lance the Intern said...

The smoking gun!!!


Absolutely - because even though at the time, HCA was over a $20 billion company, with over 390 hospitals around the country and several hundred thousand employees - Meier working in Texas would be intimately involved in the deal with Duke, and would owe nothing but loyalty to Duke forever for this deal.

Anonymous said...

Lance:

As the anonymous 4:22 poster, I am disappointed with your response.

As should be clear, I did not endorse the "explanation" of the "conflict" I summarized. My sarcasm was obvious. Please reread the comment.

Anonymous said...

you guys are a joke

you don't even know what you are talking about

at some point perhaps ya'll will have the opportunity to grow up

Lance the Intern said...


'As the anonymous 4:22 poster, I am disappointed with your response.

As should be clear, I did not endorse the "explanation" of the "conflict" I summarized. My sarcasm was obvious. Please reread the comment."


That's the issue with posting as "anonymous"....I honestly couldn't tell the difference between your post and a post from the anonymous user we call "tin foil hat".

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken.

Anonymous said...

Stop bullying me you evil Duke troll.

Anonymous said...

seriously lance get a grip

sheeeeessssshhhhhhhhhhhh


blah

Anonymous said...

I'm curious, what exactly are the conspiracies that ya'll are trying to break? Is that why you use the term tin foil hat because some troll is trying to break some conspiracie(s)?

so ... what are they?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

There is a new Real News Network youtube video interview titled:

The Frame Up - Eddie Conway on Reality Asserts Itself (6/8)

In it, Mr. Conway, who has recently been released from prison, speaks about his political incarceration as a Black Panther. The reason I mention it here to you is that he speaks at the near end of the video about his experience with the Public Defender's office, and his reflections about his reactions, outcomes, and things he might do or understand differently with hindsight that is sort of relevant to understanding the issue of politics versus law that you might find with this case or other cases where Duke is involved. He has also written a book.

Anonymous said...

Sid prevaricated:

"It is telling... the strength of the conspiracy against Mangum is overwhelming. Face it no one wants to get involved. Did you notice that during Mangum's trial the prosecution did not bring any other doctor to testify in support of what Dr. Nichols had said?

When you look at it, only Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts (basing her conclusion on legal rather than medical issues) state that the stab wound complication caused Daye's death."

Sid, the state met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mangum's stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death.

The fact remains: you are unable to locate a single medical expert who supports your theory and is willing to testify in court that Mangum's stab wound was not the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.

Your claims fail for lack of proof.

Anonymous said...

They didn't need any other doctors - there was no dispute as to the cause of death (except from Sid), so why would they need another doctor?

The Defense's own expert agreed with the conclusions - and while Sid somehow thinks that's exculpatory, he's an idiot - we all know that.

guiowen said...

Hey, now that Eric Holder is resigning, maybe the new AG will listen to Sidney and investigate the Duke/Durham/Rae Evans conspiracy.
Congratulations, Sidney!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
I would have no problem if Mangum's attorneys acted in her best interests... but the fact that none of her attorneys wanted to discuss with me the medical issues of her case, despite my offering to do so, makes me doubt their allegiance. The case against Mangum is too political.


True - they only wanted to discuss it with someone who would listen and knew what they hell they were talking about.

As you have repeatedly shown, you cannot admit you were wrong, so there is no constructive conversation with you.


Wrong about what???

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Lance the Intern said...

The smoking gun!!!


Absolutely - because even though at the time, HCA was over a $20 billion company, with over 390 hospitals around the country and several hundred thousand employees - Meier working in Texas would be intimately involved in the deal with Duke, and would owe nothing but loyalty to Duke forever for this deal.


The fact that Meier worked for a corporation that advocated for hospitals in general, I find disturbing when a reasonable defense would be to point out mistakes made by a hospital.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

There is a new Real News Network youtube video interview titled:

The Frame Up - Eddie Conway on Reality Asserts Itself (6/8)

In it, Mr. Conway, who has recently been released from prison, speaks about his political incarceration as a Black Panther. The reason I mention it here to you is that he speaks at the near end of the video about his experience with the Public Defender's office, and his reflections about his reactions, outcomes, and things he might do or understand differently with hindsight that is sort of relevant to understanding the issue of politics versus law that you might find with this case or other cases where Duke is involved. He has also written a book.


Thank you for that information. I will try to view it during one of my visits to the library.

I believe that the Public Defenders Office does not always act in the best interests of its clients. There are many times when I believe it performs poorly in order to enable the prosecution to prevail. The Public Defender would definitely have sold out Mangum... just like Meier.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid prevaricated:

"It is telling... the strength of the conspiracy against Mangum is overwhelming. Face it no one wants to get involved. Did you notice that during Mangum's trial the prosecution did not bring any other doctor to testify in support of what Dr. Nichols had said?

When you look at it, only Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts (basing her conclusion on legal rather than medical issues) state that the stab wound complication caused Daye's death."

Sid, the state met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mangum's stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death.

The fact remains: you are unable to locate a single medical expert who supports your theory and is willing to testify in court that Mangum's stab wound was not the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.

Your claims fail for lack of proof.


Just because all medical experts lack Nifongian courage to speak the truth about Daye and his autopsy, that doesn't mean my claims are not legitimate. It only means that I have the courage to speak the truth.

Anonymous said...

Wrong about what???


Felony Murder and the admissibility of Daye's criminal record for 2 things that have been extensively discussed here, and that you refuse to admit you are wrong about.

Lance the Intern said...

"The fact that Meier worked for a corporation that advocated for hospitals in general, I find disturbing when a reasonable defense would be to point out mistakes made by a hospital."

Just to be clear, Daniel Meier didn't complete his law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill until 2002....Well after Durham Regional "formed a partnership" (their words) with Duke University Health System. Any "advocating" he could have done would have certainly not been as a legal professional.

FWIW, I can't find any reference that states that Durham Regional was an HCA hospital -- it's certainly not on the "Our History" web page for Duke Regional, nor is it in the Wiki site...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, it was Raleigh Community Hospital - now Duke Raleigh Hospital.

Still not a conflict.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=63489&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=561155&highlight=

Anonymous said...

The fact that Mr. Meier didn't want to bring the lacrosse case into Ms. Mangum's defense when the lacrosse case is a huge concern when considering that Duke then turned around and killed Mr. Daye with the malpractice that was/is being used to frame Ms. Mangum for murder. That and the fact that he represented a duke lacrosse family, even though they too are obviously unhappy with his services, makes his conflicts questionable. Add the HCA affiliation to the mix and ...

Those things are obvious.

Anonymous said...

You understand that no one is saying it is malpractice but Sid, and by definition, malpractice is an accident, so Duke didn't "intend" to do it, right?

And, the Judge specifically excluded Duke lacrosse from the case, because Duke lacrosse had nothing to do with Crystal stabbing Daye.

Proof that Sid posts as anonymous, because that comment is completely idiotic.

Anonymous said...

What's obvious is that you're a moron.

Anonymous said...

Just so we're clear -- the previous post was a reply to Anonymous@ 1:57pm

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Hey, now that Eric Holder is resigning, maybe the new AG will listen to Sidney and investigate the Duke/Durham/Rae Evans conspiracy.
Congratulations, Sidney!


gui, mon ami,

That's an excellent idea. As you may know, I did write Holder and try and get an appointment to see him... got no reply and wasn't allowed into the Justice Center in D.C. when I went there in April 2013. So, yeah, it's a good idea. Will plan on doing that.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
You understand that no one is saying it is malpractice but Sid, and by definition, malpractice is an accident, so Duke didn't "intend" to do it, right?

And, the Judge specifically excluded Duke lacrosse from the case, because Duke lacrosse had nothing to do with Crystal stabbing Daye.

Proof that Sid posts as anonymous, because that comment is completely idiotic.


Huh? That doesn't make sense. I post my comments as "Nifong Supporter". Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid prevaricated:

"It is telling... the strength of the conspiracy against Mangum is overwhelming. Face it no one wants to get involved. Did you notice that during Mangum's trial the prosecution did not bring any other doctor to testify in support of what Dr. Nichols had said?

When you look at it, only Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts (basing her conclusion on legal rather than medical issues) state that the stab wound complication caused Daye's death."

Sid, the state met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mangum's stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death.

The fact remains: you are unable to locate a single medical expert who supports your theory and is willing to testify in court that Mangum's stab wound was not the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.

Your claims fail for lack of proof.


Answer me this... how did the stab wound cause Daye's brain death? (Can we stipulate that his brain death was the reason he was electively removed from life support?)

The esophageal intubation, I contend, was the direct cause of Daye's brain death.

Anonymous said...

Sid, how the stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death has been explained time and again. It has been explained by the ME and the defense's own expert. It has been explained over and over again by various commenters to this blog. More importantly, it has been explained to the satisfaction of the grand jury, trial jury and the judge.

Your theory needs to be supported by testimony and evidence in admissable form. Thus far you have failed to provide any, in spite having years to do so and in spite of knowing how important such evidence is to Mangum's case.

Your claims fail for lack of proof.

Anonymous said...

The stab wound did NOT cause his brain death any more than his own choice to drink excessively that day caused Mr. Dayes actual brain death sd Duke's intubation malpractice was the sole cause of actual brain death (Duke's medical records are proof of this).

Anonymous said...

Simply saying that Mangum's stab wound did not cause Mr. Daye's death does not make it so. You need to prove it thru evidence and testimony. The time for doing so has passed, unless Mangum can somehow get a new trial.

Break the conspiracy said...

Sidney asks: how did the stab wound cause Daye's brain death?

This comment demonstrates that Sidney ignores comments from anyone who disagrees with him. He treats readers as fools or conspirators, whose opinions have no value. His advocacy for Mangum would be well served if he considered opposing viewpoints, particularly in areas, like the law, where he has no training and has little time, resources or inclination to conduct adequate research.

On many occasions, readers demonstrate conclusively (with case law and evidence) that Sidney is wrong in his interpretation of the law. If he listened, he could stop wasting precious time on erroneous arguments with no chance of success. Even when he did not accept these opinions, he could refine his arguments to be more persuasive. Sidney ignores criticism.

Can we stipulate that his brain death was the reason he was electively removed from life support?


Sidney makes no attempt to understand his critics. No one has ever disputed this fact.

Initially, Sidney made the moronic argument that Mangum should not be charged with murder because she was not consulted in the decision to remove Daye from life support. This conclusion is contradicted by both case law and common sense. Sidney refused to acknowledge this criticism.

The esophageal intubation, I contend, was the direct cause of Daye's brain death.

Sidney makes no attempt to understand his critics.

Initially, most readers did not accept that the initial intubation was esophageal. Sidney’s presentation was ineffective. Most readers missed the reference to an esophageal intubation in one of the reports. Sidney failed to draw attention to it, distracting readers with repeated animated diagrams.

After the Roberts report, most readers now accept that the direct cause of brain death was the asphyxiation resulting from the improper intubation (see 9/22 11:15am).

Sidney declares that the intubation was the “sole” “proximate” cause of death and that therefore Mangum is “innocent.” He provides no support for this opinion.

Critics note that Welch holds that medical malpractice does not cut off Mangum’s liability. If the intubation was necessary as a result of a complication from the stab wound, Mangum remains responsible. I discussed this in my 9/21 12:57pm comment, a comment Sidney largely ignored. Due to space constraints, I will not repeat it.

I have repeatedly asked Sidney to discuss what condition required the intubation. Because he believes this is irrelevant, he has largely ignored it, suggesting DTs as a possibility, but making no effort to defend it.

The jury apparently concluded that an infection was the likely complication. The legal question is whether the defense adequately questioned this. However, Sidney has provided no support for an alternative explanation.

Sidney apparently believes the most effective way to defend Mangum is to ignore the law.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't Duke treat an infection yet mention DT's thought to be causing agressive behavior in Mr. Daye as noted in the medical records? Dr. Harr has pointed these facts out repeatedly here. A jury needs to hear these arguments and all the doctors need to be questioned in depth. As Dr. Harr has rightly pointed out as well, that would require a trial with a defense lawyer willing and able to actually defend Ms. Mangum (and the people). That is a problem apparently.

Anonymous said...

Again, why do you assume the doctors weren't talked to? Just because no one shared those conversations and investigations with Sid doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Anonymous said...

In this criminal case, the evidence from the doctors is a key part of the legal case, so no assuming necessary to judge for quilt if the nexus of beyond a reasonable is reached, which, without the doctors testimonies placed before a conflict free jury in this case, it is not.

Anonymous said...

Again, you completely ignore the law, and how to try cases.

The State had the ME linking Mangum's actions to cause of death. The Defense expert did the same. Legally that's all that is needed. Nichols' admitted his autopsy was sloppy and had mistakes, and the knife wound was survivable.

If the Doctors would have simply bolstered that case, the Defense would never call them, and the State gets to choose how to put on it's case, and they had their expert and causation. They didn't feel they needed the additional doctors.

I love how Sid and his supports claim to want to help Mangum, but are upset that the Defense didn't call witnesses that would have led directly to a 1st degree conviction.

As Walt says ... with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need enemies.

None of you have a clue what investigations, etc., were done because they weren't shared with you, because you have no right to them. Why assume that they weren't done just because no one will talk to you about them? Of course, have you even asked the people who would know?

Sid admits he's not reached out to Meier or any of her lawyers (though he did apparently shake hands with Meier in the DA's office in Durham - I assume Sid will explain what the meeting with the DA was about), so he has no clue (though he does know they'd probably ignore him).

Anonymous said...

beyond a reasonable doubt

... you argue why?

Anonymous said...

I do not see reasonable doubt.

The failure to call witnesses whose testimony likely would have been detrimental to Mangum's defense does not raise reasonable doubt simply because we don't know with certainty what they would have said if called.

You and Sid are not making serious arguments.

Anonymous said...

No argument would be necessary if there were no issues with the case, the facts, the legality of the trial in terms of what the judicial system sets for itself as minimum standards for a fair and unbiased trial, and the evidence.


Dr. Harr's arguments are based on evidence from the medical and autopsy reports, and ya'lls is based on your need to see Duke 'win' and Ms. Mangum harmed.

Anonymous said...

And, that evidence was investigated - and while it was clear that the autopsy report was sloppy, and had mistakes, the investigation showed the ultimate conclusion (the only thing the report is relevant for) was correct - the stab wound started the chain of events that ultimately caused Daye's death (and yes, they knew about the esophageal intubation - Dr. Roberts specifically references it, and notes it's not malpractice).

Again, just because an idiot like Sid keeps repeating the same debunked things over and over doesn't suddenly give them relevance.

Anonymous said...

You probably wouldn't feel that way if you might someday have to rely on Duke to not kill you like they did Mr. Daye, or the NC ME office to do their job professionally, correctly, and not fraught with errors and political medical 'findings' filled with discrepancies that are used to have you imprisoned.

Anonymous said...

So, you are in the conspiracy theory that Duke intentionally murdered Daye? Because if your issue is malpractice, Duke does commit that, and does have to pay, and works to reduce it, and one more case won't matter (and by definition, malpractice is accidental, so it would just be coincidence that Mangum got wrapped up in it).

Or, do you believe that Duke knew who Daye was, and intentionally provided substandard care to get back at Mangum?

Anonymous said...

They should have answered the questions that needed answering long ago due to the autopsy discrepancies and their malpractice ... so in that sense - yes they are quilty of not making sure anyone, including the public, was well served when they became aware of the issues.

There is nothing good to say about the fact that the case was handled as it was when considering any type of professionalism or demonstrated concern for anyone, including the public, from Duke and the Duke / Durham justice system, as well as from the ME system.

They do not seem to have any plans to actually say anything about the ME errors and their malpractice, which makes them rather suspect of a conspiracy if one exists.

Anonymous said...

"They should have answered the questions that needed answering... "

To whom does "they" refer?

What are the questions that needed answering?

How do you know that the only people entitled to the information (prosecutors and defense) did not ask the appropriate questions and receive answers?

Is providing information to the public about Daye's medical treatment consistent with privacy laws?

Should medical practitioners be required to break the law to provide this information to the public?

Anonymous said...

Guess you could try to ask about it while their trying to intubate you ... might not work out so great though.

Anonymous said...

I am not asking "them." I am asking you to explain your comment.


"They should have answered the questions that needed answering... "

To whom does "they" refer?

What are the questions that needed answering?

How do you know that the only people entitled to the information (prosecutors and defense) did not ask the appropriate questions and receive answers?

Is providing information to the public about Daye's medical treatment consistent with privacy laws?

Should medical practitioners be required to break the law to provide this information to the public?

Anonymous said...

Why do you feel that YOU are entitled to the answers/results of these investigations? How many times has Duke been sued for malpractice last year? Are you demanding answers on each one of those?

The people who needed to know/were entitled to know very likely knew, as for you, you don't matter for this case, so you didn't get anything.

Why do you think you are so important that you deserve information that really is none of your business?

If you want to see how Duke responds to malpractice, lawsuits are public. Do some work for yourself instead of sitting in your bedroom on your computer begging others to make you feel better about your paranoid life.

Anonymous said...

Seriously ... who are you that you think you are entitled to all of these answers? Crystal is entitled to them, and likely has them (even if Sid will pretend she doesn't), and she can certainly ask her attorneys.

The Daye family has them.

But, who are you that you think you are entitled to all the information out there? How many other cases of malpractice from Duke are you demanding answers for?

Your arrogance is astounding. You and Sid think the world revolves around you, and you are entitled to answers to every question you shit out.

You aren't. You aren't that important. You don't matter.

Go away idiot troll!

Anonymous said...

Seriously, you are just mad cuz Duke got caught on this one aren't ya? Admit it. They wouldn't have (wait they haven't) said anything if other doctors had not been asked to examine the medical and autopsy reports, and those doctors were brave enough to be honest and say something about the issues that were found.

Questioning them about the issues - if you want a convinction without doubt of actual guilt in this case - then doing so seems necessary since they are not forthcoming in correcting the issues themselves unless forced to from what most are aware of. Not a great way to convince customers of their professionalism and concern for taking responsibility for thier own malpractice by having someone (Ms. Mangum esp.) incarcerated for their avoidable deadly malpractice which is then covered up and lied about by the ME in the charging autopsy report and never corrected by Duke who are made well aware of the issues.

Seems they don't actually care what patients think about what they are doing that harms others, so stop with the how dare you question duke routine. Why does Duke think they are above questioning (and answering)? Most adults would find this type environment found at Duke foreign, especially when involving life and death health decisions.

Anonymous said...

Again - why do you assume that they never did get held responsible for any alleged malpractice? They weren't a party to this lawsuit, and has been made clear to anyone with a brain (which I realize eliminates you and Sid), when 2 experts (at least) provide the causal chain, the only way for Crystal to have been found not guilty was Self Defense, and for all of Sid's attacks on Meier, he still can't come up with anything he'd have done differently in self-defense except Daye's completely inadmissible criminal record.

Duke wasn't a party to this lawsuit. Your Duke hatred is so intense you can't even see straight.

Go back under your bridge with your tinfoil hat troll! No one needs to hear your inane blather anymore.

Anonymous said...


Why do you stand up for duke like you do (in such an evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making way)?


Anonymous said...

No one is standing up for Duke, or defending them in any way - just not irrationally attacking them. They weren't a part of this case - stop trying to make them so just because you have trollish hatred.

Lance the Intern said...

"...in such an evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making way"

Pot, meet kettle.

Anonymous said...

Simple. It wasn't another hospital whose records indicate malicious deadly malpractice followed up by a corrupt and fraudulent ME autopsy report that framed Ms. Mangum for murder.

So, why do you say what you say when it is so obviously wrong and duke must 'win' and remain billion of dollars donation worthy at all costs even if its to consistently and abusively troll innocent bystanders who witnesses the sheat duke does that harms others and speaks out about it? eh?

Anonymous said...

Such an evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comment.....

Anonymous said...

yeah, you're an evil duke troll it alright ... what's wrong ... missed being called that?

Anonymous said...

Do you understand that Duke is sued all the time for malpractice and pays out millions? Your entire premise that they are immune is completely and totally flawed. You are still an idiot.

And, Dr. Roberts explicitly said it was not malpractice - I guess that's just part of the conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

Did you even read the Robert's report? eh?

Anonymous said...

Hey Ass-Brain 2:41:

How did the records indicate that the intubation was "malicious"?

Deadly, yes. Malpractice, probably. Malicious? There is no evidence to support that. You are a fucking liar.

Anonymous said...

seriously

why do you get so angry about the word malicious?

it certainly wasn't beneficial or helpful deadly malpractice

Anonymous said...

it wasn't helpful, it wasn't beneficial, it was avoidable, it didn't have to happen and the only reason it did was because it was professional neglect and malpractice, AND then it is STILL being covered up and professionally mishandled in order to frame and incarcerate Ms. Mangum, and ya'll, as the evil duke troll gang and it's supporters which duke is certainly well aware of, are still obssessively abusively trolling anyone who happens to point out how malicious the whole darn thang is ... and Mr. Daye is dead

seems fairly malicious - so yeah, malicious deadly malpractice

guiowen said...

To the 8:20:
Why do you worry so much about it? It's not as if you were in jail. Crystal's probably settling down to this life. Don't complicate it any more.

Anonymous said...

why do you?

duke's had it's fun and was successful in framing, incarcerating, etc. Ms. Mangum

Ms. Mangum has been harmed

what more do ya'll want?

Anonymous said...

So, since you say it was malicious, which implies intent - you really are saying Duke didn't commit Malpractice, they committed murder ... malpractice, by definition, is an accident, and isn't with "malice" or anything else.

Why are you so afraid to say that you think Duke committed murder?

Plus, as has repeatedly been explained to your trollish brain, but you can't accept it - even if it were malpractice, Mangum would still be liable, whether or not Duke also would is a completely different issue - and would be between Daye's family and Duke.

Duke had nothing to do with the Mangum trial, and even if malpractice, because of the stabbing being a proximate cause, wouldn't have changed Mangum's outcome.

No one is supporting Duke - they are saying that your anti-Duke hatred is detracting you from trying to help Mangum.

You are using Mangum in your vendetta/agenda against Duke. You could care less about her, you only care about your Duke hatred. That's why you are the troll.

If Duke committed murder, then yes, Mangum was wrongfully convicted. If it was simply malpractice, she wasn't, and the Dr. Roberts report explicitly states the esophageal intubation was not malpractice, so other than Sid, where do you get evidence that it was?

Anonymous said...

i'm not real sure what i personally could do to help Ms. Mangum actually, but hey, not following ya'lls example of evil duke trollish behavior IS a start

blah

Anonymous said...

Such an evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comment.....

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid, how the stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death has been explained time and again. It has been explained by the ME and the defense's own expert. It has been explained over and over again by various commenters to this blog. More importantly, it has been explained to the satisfaction of the grand jury, trial jury and the judge.

Your theory needs to be supported by testimony and evidence in admissable form. Thus far you have failed to provide any, in spite having years to do so and in spite of knowing how important such evidence is to Mangum's case.

Your claims fail for lack of proof.


Face it... the jury never heard the truth about Daye's death. The prosecution, defense attorney, and judge made sure of that. The facts in the medical records support that the proximate cause of death was the esophageal intubation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The stab wound did NOT cause his brain death any more than his own choice to drink excessively that day caused Mr. Dayes actual brain death sd Duke's intubation malpractice was the sole cause of actual brain death (Duke's medical records are proof of this).


So refreshing to get a statement from an enlightened commenter.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why didn't Duke treat an infection yet mention DT's thought to be causing agressive behavior in Mr. Daye as noted in the medical records? Dr. Harr has pointed these facts out repeatedly here. A jury needs to hear these arguments and all the doctors need to be questioned in depth. As Dr. Harr has rightly pointed out as well, that would require a trial with a defense lawyer willing and able to actually defend Ms. Mangum (and the people). That is a problem apparently.


Another enlightened comment.

The jury never heard anything about the esophageal intubation as Mangum's attorney wanted to protect Duke University Hospital... so he never brought it up. Instead he talked about a chest tube of which the prosecution discovery in my possession makes no such reference. Meier worked hard to keep the jurors from hearing the truth about Daye's death, and focusing solely on self-defense.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Again, you completely ignore the law, and how to try cases.

The State had the ME linking Mangum's actions to cause of death. The Defense expert did the same. Legally that's all that is needed. Nichols' admitted his autopsy was sloppy and had mistakes, and the knife wound was survivable.

If the Doctors would have simply bolstered that case, the Defense would never call them, and the State gets to choose how to put on it's case, and they had their expert and causation. They didn't feel they needed the additional doctors.

I love how Sid and his supports claim to want to help Mangum, but are upset that the Defense didn't call witnesses that would have led directly to a 1st degree conviction.

As Walt says ... with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need enemies.

None of you have a clue what investigations, etc., were done because they weren't shared with you, because you have no right to them. Why assume that they weren't done just because no one will talk to you about them? Of course, have you even asked the people who would know?

Sid admits he's not reached out to Meier or any of her lawyers (though he did apparently shake hands with Meier in the DA's office in Durham - I assume Sid will explain what the meeting with the DA was about), so he has no clue (though he does know they'd probably ignore him).


My attempt to inform the new Durham D.A. of problems with the prosecution of Crystal Mangum, I'm afraid, fell on deaf ears. I like Roger Echols... he seems like a nice person. However, it would appear that he lacks the Nifongian courage necessary to stand up against the P-T-Bs. (I can understand the pressures he's under... especially after seeing what happened to Mike Nifong. After all, he has a position and career to think about.)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
And, that evidence was investigated - and while it was clear that the autopsy report was sloppy, and had mistakes, the investigation showed the ultimate conclusion (the only thing the report is relevant for) was correct - the stab wound started the chain of events that ultimately caused Daye's death (and yes, they knew about the esophageal intubation - Dr. Roberts specifically references it, and notes it's not malpractice).

Again, just because an idiot like Sid keeps repeating the same debunked things over and over doesn't suddenly give them relevance.


If esophageal intubation, an invariably lethal situation, is not medical malpractice then I don't know what is!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Again - why do you assume that they never did get held responsible for any alleged malpractice? They weren't a party to this lawsuit, and has been made clear to anyone with a brain (which I realize eliminates you and Sid), when 2 experts (at least) provide the causal chain, the only way for Crystal to have been found not guilty was Self Defense, and for all of Sid's attacks on Meier, he still can't come up with anything he'd have done differently in self-defense except Daye's completely inadmissible criminal record.

Duke wasn't a party to this lawsuit. Your Duke hatred is so intense you can't even see straight.

Go back under your bridge with your tinfoil hat troll! No one needs to hear your inane blather anymore.


Clearly Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts were on the same page and had the same objective... to protect Duke University Hospital and shield it from liability in Daye's death. That's why they purposely came up with false conclusions for the cause of death.

In Dottie Amtey's case however, Dr. Nichols said that when she strangled her husband it wasn't murder because he had a concurrent heart attack which killed him... and he argued that Ms. Amtey should be charged only with assault. The point I'm trying to make with this absurd reality is that you can't believe anything that the medical examiner says. Dr. Nichols has zero credibility... and Dr. Roberts, too.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Do you understand that Duke is sued all the time for malpractice and pays out millions? Your entire premise that they are immune is completely and totally flawed. You are still an idiot.

And, Dr. Roberts explicitly said it was not malpractice - I guess that's just part of the conspiracy?


Where in Dr. Roberts' report does it state that the esophageal intubation was not malpractice? I must've missed that... Could you provide me with the passage?

Nifong Supporter said...


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

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 1st, I plan on posting a mini-sharlog. Should be online before noon.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

What exactly did you ask the new DA to do to help in Ms. Mangum's case?

If he has a position and a career to think about, then he ought best be doing his job regardless of the pbt's.

Your thoughts on that simple ray of enlightenment would be interesting to hear.

Anonymous said...

How did the new DA end up appointed by the governor anyway. Just a short while ago there were news articles about several candidates considering running for the position, including at least one with Duke affiliations. Then all of a sudden the governor is appointing the DA because he won the democratic primary and there were no other candidates to choose from when the last appointed interim DA retired again - so no election required.

Dosen't seem quite democratic, eh?

Anonymous said...

Sid, you've proven you have no ability at reasoning or reading comprehension ... You still cling to debunked felony murder and inadmissible criminal records - it's no wonder you missed where Roberts discussed a known complication in regards to the intubation. Admit you are wrong sometimes - in particular on felony murder and the record and we may enlighten you some more - or refuse to admit you are wrong and prove you are a narcissistic ass who isn't worthy of enlightening because you will ignore it.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the DA - there were 3 candidates in the Democratic Primary, none in the Republican Primary. Roger Echols won the Democratic primary (in a free and fair election), and is running in November. The Governor chose to appoint him to fill the remainder of Judge Stanback's term, since he is going to be the DA starting January 1 anyway since he is running unopposed.

It was fully democratic, and the appointment from the governor only lasts until the election. You really are a troll and an idiot if you see a conspiracy there.

There was a primary, the candidate won, that's how democracy works - what part of that do you not understand?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and your all powerful Duke couldn't get their candidate elected ... realize they aren't the all powerful entity you claim yet?

But seriously, what was not democratic about the election of DA?

Anonymous said...

You do know a primary is an election, right? Anyone could have run in the primaries, or the election. The current DA beat everyone who won. That's a democracy. The fact that McCrory appointed him to fill the last few months of a term before the election (yes, he's on the ballot), doesn't mean much.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the Republican primary?

Anonymous said...

No Republican chose to run, so there wasn't a Republican primary, nor is there a Republican candidate on the ballot. Lots of elections are uncontested. But a Republican was certainly free to run, they just chose not to, hence Echols is running unopposed in the general election.

Anonymous said...

So all the candidates gathered on the Democratic ticket because Duke / Durham is a Democratic leaning county? Not to seem racist, but is he also black? Judge Hudson said he won his judgeship because he was black and his opponent was white (in not so many words), so that is why I ask.

Anonymous said...

Because Durham is a Democratic county, yes, the Republicans generally don't even bother fielding candidates (or people who are Republican register as Democrats to run). In other counties in NC, the Democrats don't bother running candidates.

Yes, he is black, but unlike Hudson, he doesn't have a special carved out district, he runs in the entire county, whether he was the most qualified or not, who knows, but in other races in the Democratic primary, white individuals won, and blacks lost - so it's not racist if the person elected is qualified.

Whether the new DA won because of race or not, who knows - Durham has had white DAs, Durham has had black DAs, in fact, Mr. Echols is the first black male DA that Durham has ever elected.

But, because Durham (it has nothing to do with Duke, Orange County is even more liberal) is so Democratic, most local elections are decided in the Democratic Primary.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Judge Hudson won because he was black, or do think that his comment was simply an indication of his personal outlook or attitudes on the issue, or what he perceives in the District?

Anonymous said...

I never saw that quote from Judge Hudson - was he referring to himself, or Echols?

Hudson has won many, many times, race may be a factor, but not the sole factor, he won the "white" vote too - but his district is specifically carved out to help him. The other 3 Superior Court Judges run in the other District. (It is common around the state for the General Assembly to design districts for specific individuals to help them either get elected, or stay elected.)

Durham has white and black Judges. 2 and 2 in Superior Court, 4 and 3 in District Court. If race is a factor, you'd think those would be much more skewed one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

It was quoted in one of the local papers after he won his reelection against the DA who was trying to take his place after the Cline / Hudson case started.

That isn't exactly what was quoted, but close and what he was referring to. I was wondering if he was being sarcastic, racist, both, or if he was trying to misinform about the real politics of his district as you make mention of.