Updated Tuesday, January 27, 2015
to include correspondence and activities
during the month of October 2014
Letter (12-30-14) to Grady L. Balentine Jr.
James E. Williams, Jr. -- Orange County Public Defender and
Chair of the N.C. Public Defender Committee on Racial Inequity (01-20-15)
to include correspondence and activities
during the month of October 2014
Letter (12-30-14) to Grady L. Balentine Jr.
James E. Williams, Jr. -- Orange County Public Defender and
Chair of the N.C. Public Defender Committee on Racial Inequity (01-20-15)
525 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 525 Newer› Newest»Sid wrote: "Walt, whether or not I would benefit from using the law library is irrelevant." Actually it is relevant. Your very public refusal to learn fuels the assumption that non-lawyers should not be allowed access to law libraries.
"Is there any reason you can come up with for restricting law libraries to use by attorneys only?"
UNC and NCCU law libraries are open to the public.
"Online sources for case law cost money,..." Some do, but most do not. Google is your friend.
... and are not accessible if you don't have internet at home.
That's all about your convenience, nothing more. Ride the bus to Durham and use the NCCU library.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "It's hard for me to figure out what Ann Petersen is doing in the appeal."
Again demonstrating your refusal to learn.
"Other than the medical malpractice issues..." Which do not constitute an intervening cause.
... and perjured testimony,..." A claim for which there is no proof.
"... and fraudulent autopsy report,..." Another claim for which there is no proof. Indeed, the defense has evidence to the contrary.
"... it seems to me that the best appeals avenue would be "ineffective counsel." Again demonstrating that you have learned nothing in the years this case has been pending, despite the efforts of Lance, A Lawyer, Break, me and others. You ignore the 404(b) issue which is a very real and legitimate problem. A problem not only in this case but in a great many criminal cases. The only conclusion I can come to is you really don't care one bit about the cause of justice.
"Mangum's entire defense has been totally screwed up by her attorneys... and not by accident."
The only person who screwed up Mangum's defense was Sid Harr. He was the person who tipped the state that the defense had no evidence on the intervening cause. Worse, it was Sid Harr who breached Crystal's confidence and told the state that Crystal's own expert agreed with the Medical Examiner on the cause of death. With friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said: "Justice doesn't depend on resources, but it does depend on having something to argue"................Man, are you ever naïve. Those charged with the responsibility of providing Crystal with a defense have purposely chosen to disregard the arguments that Crystal did not murder Daye and was not even the indirect cause of his death. They also refuse to look at the possibility that it was Duke's mishandling of Daye's alcohol withdrawal that was the real cause of his death and it was unrelated to his successfully treated stab wound.
shift the blame
walt - you are wrong.
plain and simple
If you had to defend yourself, and did so in a way that the defense was effective without being fatal if proper medical services are received, and then the hospital kills the person with preventable malpractice, would you not then see the law for how the judge clarified it to be at the start of the trial (because it makes sense)? What if it were your family member who went insane (or whatever) and attacked you? Do you want the hospital to kill your family member and then blame it on you, or do you want them to provide proper medical services so that your family member can recover and get well?
"shift the blame"
Indeed.
A mantra that the Crystal Mangum enablers have been espousing for her actions for quite some time.
Drunk in the parking lot at Krogers? Shift the blame to a group of Duke LAX players and say they raped you.
Scratch and punch your boyfriend, damage his car and set his clothes on fire?
Shift the blame to him or to the responding police officers.
Stab someone to death?
Shift the blame to the hospital that treated your victim.
If Crystal has such issues, why doesn't she file a Bar complaint? You noted she filed one against Peterson, but never against Meier. If she has such issues, and thinks he betrayed her and encouraged her to lie, why wouldn't she?
Idiot - to every one of Sid's posts.
Sid and Kenny and Tin Foil are nothing but jokes. If they are pathetic enough to believe the drivel they post - they need to do the world a favor and just end it all.
If it's a joke, that's fine, but they are hurting a real person with their shit.
Kenny, the next intelligent thing you say will be the first. You just mad you lost your girlfriend? Can't you find someone else to get off with?
I just mad?
Anonymous said: "Stab someone to death? Shift the blame to the hospital that treated your victim"........................No; stab someone in self defence! Blame the hospital for causing him to die when they improperly and carelessly intubated his esophagus while treating him for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal due to his pre-existing alcoholism
end what all?
did you just tell 3 people on this blog to kill themselves?
Dr. Harr - you really need to do something about the evil duke troll who keeps calling people idiots and now is telling 3 people to kill themselves on this blog.
In all thoses instances you mention where Ms. Mangum blames others for what they have done, it is because others have done things they shouldn't - which in all those cases was to abuse and assualt her. She said she had PTSD, which seems reasonable given all the abuse, trauma, and assualts she has suffered through in her life and in just these 3 cases you mention that many are aware of. In each case, she blames the people who have assaulted her. In each case, people are surprised that she defended herself and/or got sick when she was assualted and abused. Why?
Dr. Harr,
It is still lying on the part of those attorneys because they only mention results from one of the medical reports which is totally contradicted by the other two medical report sources. So in order for what they said to not be a lie in this case, they would have to add a statement about what the other two reports say that contradict the first. Other than that, it is not the truth in this case, since they are lawyers with the evidence laid out in front of them submitting the same evidence to the judges, who themselves can read the evidence and see the contradictions. In addition, Ms. Mangum wants these issues appealed, which they are obviously ignoring her request and the evidence, and the facts in order to ignore her requests.
What is the proper way to get this information to the appeal judges? You should have an answer to that by now, eh? ???
Idiot
back at ya stupid evil duke troll it ... jerk
Dr. Harr,
I would prefer you did not include my posts in your correspondence, especially since I do not know who you would send it to or in what context. Thank you.
You are free to word things similar to how I say them, but basically, about the medical issues, we hold the same opinions since it is based on the same evidence and facts supported by duke themselves and defense medical examiner.
About duke ... I think that I may not be as lenient with their malpractice as you might be, and I do think they killed Mr. Daye on purpose, (and/or hold a civil and legal mandate not to kill people with malpractice that is avoidable and then blame it on others), in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder (since that is what they are doing).
Dr. Harr,
If the appeal lawyer only copied what Dr. Nichols said in his report as the facts of the case, then are they not in essence saying that duke and the defense medical examiner are lying in their reports? So why don't they point that out (at the very least)?
If what Dr. Nichols said in his report is true, then duke had to have seriously mutilated Mr. Daye and not given him treatment for infection after they intubated his brain to death. So, what is it? Dr. Nichols producing a fraudulent autopsy report, or duke lying in their medical reports about what they did to Mr. Daye?
Anonymous 4:12, 3:36, 2:44, etc.
You are even better than Break at yanking Sid's chain.
Well done.
What the frack is going on with all this fracking going on?
But try to understand
Try to understand
Try, try, try to understand
Ken's a magic man
Anonymous said...
seriously
get fracking real
you are probably the troll who posted that post to look like someone else just so you could then troll it too
and if you are not - (which you are since you do just that continuously on this blog) ... now ya know
blah
p.s. duke sucks nomatter - it's their image - duke - the land of 'duke's evil a... suck - and always will' ville
blah
What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucidated by a nice shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers.
blah
blah
blah
i wasn't yanking any chains evil duke troll
i'm serious
quit copy and pasting plagerized posts so that you can have something else to troll other than the facts of this case (since ya'll are wrong based on evidence and facts and have no real arguments so just make your duke side of the duke/mangum equation look even more like jerks who would certainly murder someone with malpractice to get back at Ms. Mangum if they could)
walt, the only thing rtff means on this blog (since you have yet to explain it) is: walt who trolls with rtff (wevertf that is) on this blog
so ... what is it?
hey evil duke troll it g... trolling along as usual
isn't there something else you could be doing other than going insane on this blog This weekend Too?
Note: last 3 posts courtesy of g... regurgitated copied posts so that it has something to troll and go insane about this weekend
blah
troll on evil duke troll it g...
troll on ... go insane ... have fun
egad
sheesh louise and heloise
and
blah
Dr. Harr:
It is time to extend the kenhyderal rules to posts with profanity, ad hominem attacks and those that contain no substance.
Please consider removing the previous eight posts.
Kenny,
Your problem is that you refuse to accept that your "issues" with the medical treatment were likely looked into, and, again, rather than it being a plot against Crystal, her attorneys, and Dr. Roberts, knew that there were answers, and those answers didn't help Crystal, so they tried to stay away from them.
It's either a conspiracy with a lot of people jeopardizing their careers and livelihood over Crystal (and believe me, she's not nearly as important as you think), or you and Sid are wrong, and simply don't have all the answers.
Anonymous 5:31am:
You misunderstand what Kenny is trying to achieve. Kenny understands all that you say about the conversations that Mangum's lawyers had with Roberts and doctors.
Kenny is not doing anything to actually try to obtain Mangum's freedom. He simply wants to have an academic debate with other posters here.
Kenny has set the terms of the debate: those who believe Mangum was properly convicted must prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the law requires.
This proof requires that evidence be provided on this board. It is not sufficient to claim that Kenny must prove anything (as is quite reasonable that defense lawyers did not use evidence that was harmful to her case). The unused evidence must be posted on this board; otherwise it may not be used in the debate to prove guilt.
Kenny and Sidney have been consistent in this tactic. If the known evidence does not prove what is being debated, then one must focus on the unknown evidence. The unknown evidence is always enough to maintain doubt.
Those of you who call Kenny an "idiot" who him an apology. He is actually quite clever. He has defined the rules of the debate in a way that he cannot lose, and you choose to participate anyway.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
I think the point you are missing is that this case is in the same court system that the lacrosse players had issues with, and that the proof and facts and evidence and arguments and debates need to be heard in that same court system and not on blogs (which it wasn't and still isn't to date in the appeals briefs and submittals). What, did you think only the lacrosse players were victimized by duke and the system they control, (or try to), for some odd reason?
Why did Duke attempt to frame its own students?
Crystal's trial was about her, and her charges - not Duke and the rest. I know you'd love to have thrown everything in there, even if very harmful to Crystal, but that wasn't the point of the trial. The goal was to beat the underlying charges, not satisfy your curiosity.
And, you are right about Kenny - he isn't interested in answers, he's just interested in trying to provoke a response. If he wanted answers and wanted to help, he'd communicate with the people who have those answers, but he has admittedly not done so.
Clearly no one on this board has talked with Crystal's lawyers, or Dr. Roberts, or really even Crystal, about what was, and was not, done or said - Kenny claims to "know" things - but he has provided no proof, and Crystal's grasp of the truth and ability to relay information has always been suspect anyway.
Personally, I know this board is a joke, and I just post here for the hell of it. The problem is that since we all know it's a joke, we are all just responding back to each other for the hell of it.
Oh, and the week is over Sid - once again, your "sources" are WRONG! Anyone else as shocked as I am?
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
I would prefer you did not include my posts in your correspondence, especially since I do not know who you would send it to or in what context. Thank you.
You are free to word things similar to how I say them, but basically, about the medical issues, we hold the same opinions since it is based on the same evidence and facts supported by duke themselves and defense medical examiner.
About duke ... I think that I may not be as lenient with their malpractice as you might be, and I do think they killed Mr. Daye on purpose, (and/or hold a civil and legal mandate not to kill people with malpractice that is avoidable and then blame it on others), in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder (since that is what they are doing).
The only reason for sending copies of enlightened comments in correspondence is to show that there are people who view my blog site who are enlightened as to the truth about Reginald Daye. There are many commenters who use the anonymous name tag, so I seriously doubt that any such comments can be traced. Besides, the comments only go to show that the writer is intelligent, enlightened, and reasonable.
Anonymous 7:28am:
If Kenny wanted to help free Mangum, he would find a medical expert willing to testify that both Nichols and Roberts were wrong in concluding that Daye died from complications from the stab wound. After he finds the expert, he would find another appeals lawyer willing to pursue an appeal based on the new evidence.
Kenny need not attempt to communicate with Meier, Roberts, other doctors or anyone else to find "answers" to his questions. That would accomplish nothing.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Comment of January 24, 2015 at 3:53 am has been deleted because it was in violation of the kenhyderal Doctrine. Use of the "f"-word is unacceptable and comments containing them will be removed.
Anonymous John D. Smith said...
Anonymous 7:28am:
If Kenny wanted to help free Mangum, he would find a medical expert willing to testify that both Nichols and Roberts were wrong in concluding that Daye died from complications from the stab wound. After he finds the expert, he would find another appeals lawyer willing to pursue an appeal based on the new evidence.
Kenny need not attempt to communicate with Meier, Roberts, other doctors or anyone else to find "answers" to his questions. That would accomplish nothing.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
John D. Smith,
Mangum's attorneys, no more than those of the state, want to do what is in her best interests. Medical doctors, especially those actively practicing, do not want their careers placed in jeopardy, so they will not come forward... they lack Nifongian courage, and I understand their apprehension to make a commitment for justice that might hurt them professionally. The P-T-Bs have a lot of power, as has been demonstrated with the mistreatment of Mike Nifong and others related to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Dr. Harr,
Why thank you for the kind words.
I see your point, but I still write on this blog in the context of this blog, and not for correspondence. So, I still think the same way. I do not know who you correspond with and the context of each correspondence until I read it on this blog, so ... no.
Thanks anyway though. If people want to read the blog or blog posts, you inform them where it can be read.
The trolls are obviously an issue, and they may not be aware of who you are inviting to read this blog, like the governor, the AG, etc. mainly because some of the trolls on this blog don't appear to have read the sharlogs. Like the one who says this blog is a joke. Obviously he does not realize the seriousness of this case and the fact that many innocents are harmed and put at serious risk by the some of the major duke and system issues you document and try to change for the better on this blog and with this case.
It is an eye opener to say the least to see what duke has produced by their actions and decisions (or lack thereof).
Dr. Harr:
I am afraid that your frequent use of meaningless terms like "powers that be" and Mangum's "role in the lacrosse case" result in a loss of credibility as you discuss her case.
Moreover, I am afraid that many of those with whom you correspond may react negatively to your claims of a massive conspiracy against Mangum. I urge that you eliminate the hyperbole from your letters and focus on those statements that you can prove conclusively.
Letters that are ignored do little to help Mangum.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Sid - if Duke is so all-powerful, and people are scared to do anything against them, how is it that they are sued for malpractice and other issues all the time, and pays out millions in settlements in those cases?
Doctors testify against Duke all the time.
And, yes, this question has been asked a lot - and you have never answered it - just like you've never admitted you were wrong about felony murder, and the admissibility of Daye's prior record, and other things.
Dr. Harr,
I agree with the poster who suggested that you expand the kenhyderal rule. There is no place on this blog for posts that ridicule Crystal's dear friend, kenhyderal.
Frankly, there is no place on this blog for posts that ridicule anyone. Those that criticize Kenny are no worse than those that ridicule evil duke trolls. In many cases, those that criticize Kenny at least make some attempt to provide an explanation. Those that criticize evil duke trolls often are just gratuitous insults.
Anonymous said: "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that your "issues" with the medical treatment were likely looked into, and, again, rather than it being a plot against Crystal, her attorneys, and Dr. Roberts, knew that there were answers, and those answers didn't help Crystal, so they tried to stay away from them".......... This may possibly of been the case with Dr. Roberts and Attorney Vann. At their joint meeting Crystal was told Dr. Roberts concurred with Dr. Nichols but then refused to provide her with a copy of the report, supposedly, although unstated, out of fear that she would then provide Dr. Harr with a copy. To Crystal's knowledge none of her subsequent Attorneys, up to and including Meier and now Petersen have spoken to Duke. People here continually say oh they must have. An adequate defense would have demanded that they had. If it was done, then why would such information not be given to Crystal? I know they can, legally, not share information from their client but it does raise the question as why they would do that in this case.
Did Crystal tell you personally that none of her subsequent lawyers reported on any conversations with Roberts or other medical professionals?
If you did not hear this first hand, how do you know the information is accurate?
Right on kenhyderal supporter. Anyone who actually knows Ken Edwards rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy his credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Ken. I ask them, don't you find it strange that his friends, his professors, his classmates his teachers, his pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of him and have provided him with character references. Hearing these references caused Dr. Harr to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he believed him to be "a good friend" of Crystal. Ken is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Ken was a responsible parent. Ken was a responsible member of his community. Ken, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better live for himself and his children. His Pastor advised him not to choose cutting and pasting as a way to support his opinions because, regardless of his character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..
Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996
Anonymous said: "Did Crystal tell you personally that none of her subsequent lawyers reported on any conversations with Roberts or other medical professionals".......She told me they did speak with Dr. Roberts but, not, to her knowledge, those involved in treating Daye.
"Frankly, there is no place on this blog for posts that ridicule anyone. Those that criticize Kenny are no worse than those that ridicule evil duke trolls. In many cases, those that criticize Kenny at least make some attempt to provide an explanation. Those that criticize evil duke trolls often are just gratuitous insults."
no ... actually the 'original' evil duke troll adjective came about in defense to major and constant abusive trolling by the evil duke trolls on this blog of anyone who actually took what Dr. Harr was saying on this blog. They (some of them) had a drinking bet to see if they could make this blog into a joke that noone would take seriously. Since some did bother to read the reports, watch the trial, and see what was going on with this case and took it seriously, they proceeded to ramp up the evil duke trolling and continued on non-stop for months on end. So, there is a reason for the evil duke troll adjective - one which still exists. It is not gratuitous insults at all actually - it was and is done for a reason that is understandable to most. But you know that, as you are one of the ones that participated in the drinking games, no? They are called evil duke trolls for a reason - and as long as that reason persists - that is what they will be called. However, the evil duke trolls then made a drinking bet to see how many times they could have evil duke troll said on this blog, so the copy and paste evil duke trolling is how they tried to cheat each other out of free drinks. Par for the course.
As you know, Crystal's memory has at times been inaccurate. Did you validate her statement at all or did you take it at face value?
Do you expect those treating Daye to say anything different than Dr. Nichols said - namely the knife wound should have been survivable, the surgery was successful, but there was a complication?
Again, I know you harp on DTs, but Dr. Roberts said they were excluded (I know you disagree), but even with those, but for the stab wound, Daye wouldn't have been there.
And, if all the attorneys, and Dr. Roberts said the information was unhelpful, why do you and Sid keep insisting they are lying?
As to the "report" - as has been noted here, repeatedly, and was stated in open court, on the record, by Meier, it was not prepared until it was Ordered by the Court, not to keep it from Harr, but to keep it from the Prosecution, because once an expert produces a written report, it must be turned over, so if it is harmful to your case, you don't get a written report prepared.
Of course, Meier could easily have been lying to the court, risking his law license and career, and had the report all along. Sid certainly seems to think so.
Since you've apparently talked to Crystal - I assume she confirms that Dr. Roberts and all the attorneys told her that because of the conclusion, Dr. Roberts would hurt Crystal, not help, correct? It was only you and Sid who kept deluding her into thinking otherwise, and if she gets a new trial, it will be even more difficult.
Fortunately for her, because of the way the law works, if she gets a new trial, the worst-case scenario for her is 2nd degree Murder with this sentence. Fortunately 1st Degree is no longer on the table (and, no Sid, it has nothing to do with the lack of the Larceny of Chose in Action - those never had anything to do with Murder, no matter how many times you say it - you are wrong, wrong, wrong, on that point as has been repeatedly pointed out - but you refuse to learn, as has also been repeatedly pointed out.
The law is not written to give duke or any other hospital a free pass on malpractice at any time, which is the way it should logically be since there is also a law against them not taking responsibility for their own malpractice. Just because someone is in duke hospital does not give them the right at any time to provide malpractice to anyone and not take responsibility for it. Even Mr. Daye.
Anonymous 9:40am:
Your post is inaccurate. I ask that you correct the errors contained in it. Thanks.
Anonymous said: "Do you expect those treating Daye to say anything different than Dr. Nichols said - namely the knife wound should have been survivable, the surgery was successful, but there was a complication"............. I would expect then to say "unrelated to the knife wound"
Anonymous also said: "Again, I know you harp on DTs, but Dr. Roberts said they were excluded (I know you disagree), but even with those, but for the stab wound, Daye wouldn't have been there".............. Can you show us where Dr. Roberts said, in writing, that delirium tremens was excluded
First, it's never been established there was malpractice - as Walt and others have noted here, that wouldn't change anything for Crystal anyway, they'd both be responsible - Crystal for Murder, Duke for Wrongful Death due to Malpractice. Duke gets sued for Malpractice and Wrongful Death all the time. Do you know that the Daye family didn't sue? Perhaps they reached a settlement with Duke, and so Duke did take responsibility.
Just because they aren't taking the blame because Crystal stabbed Daye doesn't mean they didn't take the blame.
Remember - self-defense was argued, the Jury rejected it - but either way, had Crystal not stabbed Daye, he wouldn't have died. Duke didn't stab Daye, Crystal did.
It has been pointed out before - she explicitly states they considered DTs, and started the treatment, but when he didn't respond, they stopped. That's what "ruled out" means - you suspect something, you start the treatment, when it doesn't work, you rule it out and suspect something else.
I bet the lawyers and Dr. Roberts all told Crystal DTs were ruled out, but because it's not 100% explicit, you ignore it.
But, again, you can speculate all you want - you refuse to actually talk to anyone who could answer that question.
Anonymous 9:50am:
I disagree with your suggestion. Kenny should not "talk to" anyone. He needs to find a medical expert that is willing to testify to a different conclusion. Unless he does that, nothing he does will benefit Mangum. His debate benefits only his own ego.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Anonymous said: "you refuse to actually talk to anyone who could answer that question".......... Who would that be? Will Attorney Meier, with permission from Crystal, answer to me when he no longer represents her
Simultaneous post with Mr. Smith. If there is a new trial I expect this to happen
I have no idea what he would, or would not, answer - but he's still the attorney of record at the trial level, and she was still his client with regards to the case, and it would still be covered by privilege and conflict rules - so without permission he wouldn't say shit to you, with permission, who knows. This case is over a year old, I imagine he's had many more since then and has moved on.
If she gets a new trial, Crystal has made it clear she will ask to have him removed and another attorney appointed - just have to see what a judge says.
But, absent permission from Crystal, I am certain he'd ignore you - or certainly on anything privileged, with permission, who knows. For that matter, Crystal could always ask him, for that matter, perhaps she has. She did ultimately agree Dr. Roberts would be a mistake - they must have told her something for her to realize that.
Anonymous said: "Duke didn't stab Daye, Crystal did"............. Crystal didn't kill Daye; Duke did
But, looking at other cases that come back from the Court of Appeals with a new trial (or the Superior Court) - they have the same attorney that last represented them until that attorney is removed/replaced. Given we see that all the time - I suspect Meier would still be the attorney of record if the COA grants a new trial, until a Judge orders otherwise. But, Walt could probably explain better, or A Lawyer.
As to finding an expert - Sid has a lot of the Discovery (though admittedly not all of it) - why not look for an expert now? That way, if the appeal is successful you are ready to help, and if it isn't, you are ready with post-conviction work/help.
But, again, you really aren't interested in actually doing anything to help Crystal, you just like providing lip service.
So, you are squarely in the Duke intentionally murdered Daye to get back at Crystal?
Cause if it was malpractice, as has been explained, that still wouldn't cut off Crystal's liability.
If Crystal hadn't stabbed Daye, Duke wouldn't have been anywhere near him.
Anonymous said: "She did ultimately agree Dr. Roberts would be a mistake - they must have told her something for her to realize that".............. Very reluctantly and under threat.
Anonymous said: "So, you are squarely in the Duke intentionally murdered Daye to get back at Crystal? Cause if it was malpractice, as has been explained, that still wouldn't cut off Crystal's liability"........... No, it was a mistake that rose to the level of malpractice. You are interpreting Welch too broadly. She would not be liable if the intubation was for reasons other then and unrelated to the stab wound
Malpractice is malpractice.
Unless you personally take someone to a particular hospital against their wishes, how can anyone be resonsible for malpractice other than those whom provide it?
Do you see lawsuits saying such and such gave this person the flu which ended them up in the hospital? While in the hospital, this person was provided intubation malpractice which caused this person's brain to 'die'? Therefore, the person who gave this person the flu is guilty of murder, since this person died in the hospital from intubation malpractice.
Anonymous 10:26am:
Please refrain from the use of straw man arguments. That is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device. Thanks.
Kenny:
You state that: "You are interpreting Welch too broadly."
I assume from your tone that you are a practicing lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, can you explain why readers on this blog should view your legal opinions as more accurate than the posters who claim to be practicing attorneys? More importantly, can you explain why Mangum is well served by taking legal advice from friends who have no training in the la?
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Also, kenny, can you explain why the grand jury, petit jury, every attorney involved in this case, the Trial Judge and, shortly, the appellate court came to the opposite conclusion re: their interpretation and applicability of Welch?
John Q. Public
Chicago, IL
What was this alleged threat that kept Crystal from insisting on putting Dr. Roberts on the stand? You and her reference one. What was it?
John Q. Public, Chicago, IL:
Welcome to this blog. I agree with Kenneth D. Edwards, Canadian, Dubai, UAE, that posters who provide their names are more credible than those who post anonymously. I am glad to see that you agree.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Mr. Smith said: "I assume from your tone that you are a practicing lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, can you explain why readers on this blog should view your legal opinions as more accurate than the posters who claim to be practicing attorneys? More importantly, can you explain why Mangum is well served by taking legal advice from friends who have no training in the la"......... I have no legal training whatsoever. I am however able to read, comprehend, and apply common sense. I don`t believe the law intends to hold an accused responsible for the death of a chronic alcoholic being treated for delirium tremens. If it says she is then the "law is an ass" I have listened to Judge Ridgeway`s instructions to the Jury
He made the conditions clear. Friends of Crystal, unlike the Court appointed attorneys, have her best interests at heart.
To Mr. Smith and Mr. Public. I do appreciate you posting using a name, be it real or just a user-name. That makes it easier to reply to your comments. Sincerely Ken Edwards
Anonymous said: "What was this alleged threat that kept Crystal from insisting on putting Dr. Roberts on the stand? You and her reference one. What was it?........................ I assume it was a threat to withdraw. I will ask her what exactly was the specific treat. Here is what she said to Tamara Gibbs of Channel 11
"That report would've told the inconsistencies of Dr. Nichol's report," said Mangum. "My attorney argued with me and pretty much threatened me" In retrospect, I wish she had insisted and forced Meier`s hand. That may of caused a mistrial.
kenny said:
"You are interpreting Welch too broadly. She would not be liable if the intubation was for reasons other then and unrelated to the stab wound"
You are going in circles again. The expert testimony (as backed by the defense's own expert) concluded that the intubation was related to the stab wound. In 5 years Mangum's lawyers, you, Sid and whoever else is in the clown car with him haven't been able to locate a single medical professional in the world who will testify otherwise. More importantly, the jury rendered its verdict on the cause of death. If you were an actual legal professional you wouldknow that finding will not be reviewed in the appeal.
You and Sid are tilting at windmills. I know it's all you've got, but it isn't going to do anything to help Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
At Abe: Dr. Nichols was unable to specify what was the complication related to the surgery that Daye experienced. The treating physicians listed the presumptive diagnosis as DT`s with a possible secondary diagnosis being an intra-abdominal infectious process. Dr. Nichols without evidence chose to go with the secondary because it supported what his sloppily conducted autopsy found. The experts who can give a definitive opinion are those who treated Daye. They are known and should have been brought into court If they testify that Daye did not have DT`s and it was a post-surgical infectious process that sent Daye to the ICU then yes Welch will apply.
Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago?
I doubt he threatened to withdraw - he probably told her she'd get 1st.
Why would he withdraw? It's not his case - if crystal wanted to shoot herself in the foot, why would he care?
Kenny:
Thank you.
I now understand. You have no legal training, but nevertheless ask that we rely on your legal judgment.
You have conducted an extensive review of the medical documents. What is your medical training? Why is your medical expertise sufficient that we should rely on it to overcome the opinions of Nichols and Roberts?
John D. Smith
New York, Ny
Seriously, this isn't a court or a trial. You have been seriously led astray by the Durham In-Wonderland blog to think that people actually hold trials on blogs. How absurd.
Funniest was when you came on this blog one day and said something like: ok, let's get started: and then proceeded to list all these arguments about the lacrosse case (for the millionth time) like that is what was even being discussed on this blog at the time in the first place (it wasn't - this case was).
Ya'll have done a good job in trying to win your drinking bets - i'll give ya that.
Anonymous 4:08pm:
Please refrain from straw man arguments.
Funny how you eliminate the quotes cause that isn't remotely what she said. I suspect Meier told her it was her choices he didn't care, but she'd be getting LWOP if she went forward. Why would a lawyer withdraw just because a client wants to be an idiot?
Has Kenny done anything to show he isn't an idiot with his comments? I think not.
Anonymous 4:28pm:
Kenny has shown how clever he is. He induces other posters to engage in a debate in which he sets the rules. You agreed to participate.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
If doctors are not charged with murder, but rather malpractice when they kill someone with faulty medical procedures, then how can anyone else be charged with murder as a result of death by malpractice?
That's the law.
Mr. Smith said: "I now understand. You have no legal training, but nevertheless ask that we rely on your legal judgment. You have conducted an extensive review of the medical documents. What is your medical training? Why is your medical expertise sufficient that we should rely on it to overcome the opinions of Nichols and Roberts"....................... Likewise, I have no medical training. However I can read, understand and come to an informed lay opinion. Because it is my friend whose freedom is at stake I have made the effort to inform myself of the issues. The two posters here, other then Dr. Harr, who are physicians at one time both claimed, from there reading of the hospital notes that there was no esophageal intubation only to have it later confirmed by Dr. Roberts. Dr. Anonymous still insists Daye was not an alcoholic a preposterous position given the evidence for a Physician to hold
You mean Dr. Anonymous, alias John D. Smith, alias John Q. Public, alias Abe Foreman, alias Malek Williams, alias ... (at least a dozen other characters on this blog)?
... including the one at 11:11 who's post will probably be deleted when Dr. Harr sees it because of your kendhryl rules?
"Why did Duke attempt to frame its own students?"
Because they weren't a doctor performing deadly malpractice in order to frame someone else for murder?
... but, really, money talks at duke, so it had to do with a potential for big political and donation dollars for duke if the democrats won the election (in the form of President Obama and ObamaCare and whatever).
... the same way 'they' used the Trayvon Martin case. However, Zimmerman is not white - he is hispanic, black and white - but still 'they' achieved their goals by pushing a white vs. black agenda and Obama won a second term in office.
Duke then proceeded, (during the lacrosse case and beyond) to agressively take over the DHHS in NC because that is where a lot of money is for them. That is why the Republicans won in this state, because everyone was so disgusted in what the duke led democrates did to this state through the DHHS. However, that was just a ruse all along, since Duke needed a candidate in the governor's office on their side of the fracking debate which just happened to be a republican candidate.
Next they will find a democratic candidate who will support obamacare in this state, because the current governor does not because of his professed concern with the major corruption in the duke democratic led DHHS. How will they do it? Perhaps a major ramp up of the killing of black persons in this state by cops will do the trick? However, perhaps they thought this latest Mangum/Duke case would do the trick at the appropriate time to keep the Republican governor in office until fracking is well under way in this state? Or does duke even want obamacare fully implemented in this state afterall? Does the money they get from the fracking political issues outweigh the money they get from obamacare and increased medicaid dollars in this state?
However the political winds blow next in this state, you can be sure duke will be masterminding their massive social games to achieve their set monetary and political agendas.
Anonymous 11:49pm:
You are mistaken.
I have never posted as Dr. Anonymous, John Q. Public, Abe Froman or Malek Williams as you suggest.
I have posted anonymously until Kenneth D. Edwards called on me to provide my name.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Anonymous 11:52pm:
No. I did not post the despicable racist comment at 11:11pm. Your allegation that I did so is almost equally despicable. You have absolutely no evidence to support such a despicable charge.
I believe that Dr. Harr should expand the kenhyderal rules further to delete posts in which posters like you make such spurious and despicable charges.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Anonymous 12:26am:
You suggest that Duke framed its own students because it wanted Obama to win the presidential election and then enact Obamacare?
That seems a bit far fetched. Had Obama even announced his candidacy in March 2006? The lacrosse frame occurred well before the 2006 midterm election.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Who is John A. Smith from NY, who posted on January 22, 2015 at 2:47 PM?
Kenny:
So you a neither or a lawyer, but you believe your opinions are more credible and more informed than those of posters who claim expertise.
Your criticism of Dr. Anonymous is fair. He denied that the medical records indicated that the initial intubation was esophageal. In fairness to Dr. Anonymous, Dr. Harr did an incredibly ineffective job of pointing out that the Duke medical records themselves contained that disclosure. Even you deny that fact. Moreover, in disagreeing with everything Dr. Harr ever said, Dr. Anonymous was correct almost all the time. As you know, Dr. Harr consistently shows bad judgment.
I do not remember the second self-identified physician.
I also accept the probability that Daye was an alcoholic. Unfortunately for Mangum, treatment for a pre-existing condition may not be enough to terminate legal responsibility for the chain of events that culminated in his death.
Once again, I strongly encourage you to find legal and medical experts to assist you. In addition to your lack of expertise, your close personal friendship may result in a bias that impairs your judgment.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
I apologize. I dropped some words from the prior post.
The first clause should read: "So you are neither a doctor or a lawyer... "
I apologize for the inconvenience.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
The fact that Tinfoil still equates Duke University with Duke Energy tells you all you need to know about his delusions.
And Kenny, I imagune the attorneys always knew what was in the medical records, as did Dr. Roberts. Why does the fact that a few anonymous commentators on this blog didn't know that make you think the attorneys and Roberts were/are corrupt? This certainly what your post implies.
Idiot.
Mr. Smith said: "I do not remember the second self-identified physician............... He posted under his real name Dr. Mark Orgel
"...
You too are an idiot.
Oh, and I'm John A. Smith from NY.
January 22, 2015 at 2:47 PM"
And John D. Smith from NY?
There are a lot of John Smith's from NY - fortunately we all have different middle initials. And we all know Kenny is an idiot.
Kenny:
Thank you. Now I remember Dr. Orgel.
Can you explain why Sidney did such an ineffective job of highlighting the specific reference in the Duke medical records that indicated explicitly that the initial intubation had been esophageal? I understand why, particularly given the user-unfriendly method of posting, someone could have missed the reference. Even you missed it.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
P.S. I am not John A. Smith from New York. That is a different poster.
Why should anyone answer you on this blog if you thing everyone is an idiot?
Kenny thinks Meier and others should answer him. Can't we expect the same from Kenny?
Sid - week's over - you were wrong again. You gonna expose the source that lied to you? Or just admit you made it up again,
While it is a longshot, if Mangum gets a new trial on the appeal you gonna apologize to Peterson?
Sid,
This is the website you will want to look at in order to see when the decision comes down on Mangum's appeal:
http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/#
They issue them about every 2 weeks (they include the next date on the website).
Whatever decision the Court makes can be appealed to the Supreme Court - if it's a split panel (2-1), then the appeal is automatic, if it's unanimous, the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear the appeal.
The only two options for the Court or Appeals are to order a new trial or uphold the verdict.
Dr. Harr,
At the beginning of the trial Mr. Meiers asked the judge to postpone the trial to:
a. Give him more time to prepare.
b. Make sure the issues with Dr. Nichols concerning his firing for others actions he took in other murder cases were completely resolved.
The judge said no to more time to prepare, and said there was no problem with Dr. Nichols testifying.
However, Ms. Mangum had to ask for Dr. Roberts report herself that document the errors of Dr. Nichols' medical analysis and performance in her case (against Mr. Meier's wishes). In addition, Dr. Nichols preceeded to perjure himself on the stand per your medical analysis.
When the report was received, Mr. Meier himself should have asked again of the judge his concern with Dr. Nichols performance as documented in Dr. Roberts' report and his ability to provide reliable testimony in this case, as well as more time to prepare based upon the newly received report documenting these errors. He did not.
What is the correct manner to get these issues addressed before a judge? Can you not find the correct answer to this question in order to present these concerns?
Anonymous said...
Sid,
This is the website you will want to look at in order to see when the decision comes down on Mangum's appeal:
http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/#
They issue them about every 2 weeks (they include the next date on the website).
Whatever decision the Court makes can be appealed to the Supreme Court - if it's a split panel (2-1), then the appeal is automatic, if it's unanimous, the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear the appeal.
The only two options for the Court or Appeals are to order a new trial or uphold the verdict.
Thank you for the elucidation regarding this issue. It may have been pointed out to me in the past. I will check it out.
I'm sure I speak on behalf of all commenters and viewers when I say that I appreciate all comments, but especially informative ones.
Anonymous said...
Sid - week's over - you were wrong again. You gonna expose the source that lied to you? Or just admit you made it up again,
While it is a longshot, if Mangum gets a new trial on the appeal you gonna apologize to Peterson?
Apologize to Petersen for what?
It looks as though I received some misinformation regarding Crystal and the Appeals Court. Misinformation happens.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
At the beginning of the trial Mr. Meiers asked the judge to postpone the trial to:
a. Give him more time to prepare.
b. Make sure the issues with Dr. Nichols concerning his firing for others actions he took in other murder cases were completely resolved.
The judge said no to more time to prepare, and said there was no problem with Dr. Nichols testifying.
However, Ms. Mangum had to ask for Dr. Roberts report herself that document the errors of Dr. Nichols' medical analysis and performance in her case (against Mr. Meier's wishes). In addition, Dr. Nichols preceeded to perjure himself on the stand per your medical analysis.
When the report was received, Mr. Meier himself should have asked again of the judge his concern with Dr. Nichols performance as documented in Dr. Roberts' report and his ability to provide reliable testimony in this case, as well as more time to prepare based upon the newly received report documenting these errors. He did not.
What is the correct manner to get these issues addressed before a judge? Can you not find the correct answer to this question in order to present these concerns?
It seems as though the Appeals Court judges, like most judges, are pretty much insulated. I've been trying to find a way to alert them to the fact that the court is being misled by attorneys on both sides of Mangum's appeal. I will continue to try and find a way to enlighten them without drawing the ire of the State Bar.
Comment posted January 21, 2015 @ 8:59 PM was in violation of the kenhyderal Doctrine and has therefore been deleted.
kenhyderal said...
At Abe: Dr. Nichols was unable to specify what was the complication related to the surgery that Daye experienced. The treating physicians listed the presumptive diagnosis as DT`s with a possible secondary diagnosis being an intra-abdominal infectious process. Dr. Nichols without evidence chose to go with the secondary because it supported what his sloppily conducted autopsy found. The experts who can give a definitive opinion are those who treated Daye. They are known and should have been brought into court If they testify that Daye did not have DT`s and it was a post-surgical infectious process that sent Daye to the ICU then yes Welch will apply.
Hey, kenhyderal.
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for your enlightened comment.
Anonymous said...
Malpractice is malpractice.
Unless you personally take someone to a particular hospital against their wishes, how can anyone be resonsible for malpractice other than those whom provide it?
Do you see lawsuits saying such and such gave this person the flu which ended them up in the hospital? While in the hospital, this person was provided intubation malpractice which caused this person's brain to 'die'? Therefore, the person who gave this person the flu is guilty of murder, since this person died in the hospital from intubation malpractice.
Your analogy is right on the money. As you stated, a person hospitalize for any condition, if intubated in the esophagus for a critical period of time, will develop brain death that will progress to actual death. Esophageal intubation if left unchecked has a 100% fatal outcome.
Anonymous said...
First, it's never been established there was malpractice - as Walt and others have noted here, that wouldn't change anything for Crystal anyway, they'd both be responsible - Crystal for Murder, Duke for Wrongful Death due to Malpractice. Duke gets sued for Malpractice and Wrongful Death all the time. Do you know that the Daye family didn't sue? Perhaps they reached a settlement with Duke, and so Duke did take responsibility.
Just because they aren't taking the blame because Crystal stabbed Daye doesn't mean they didn't take the blame.
Remember - self-defense was argued, the Jury rejected it - but either way, had Crystal not stabbed Daye, he wouldn't have died. Duke didn't stab Daye, Crystal did.
Esophageal intubation is not only malpractice, but fatal malpractice. Even Dr. Roberts, though reluctantly, admits that the initial intubation was esophageal. Ergo, malpractice in Daye's treatment is established.
Dr. Harr,
It's beyond the 11th hour in the appeals process! Did Ms. Mangum ever find out if she could present something to the appeal judges herself?
Anonymous John D. Smith said...
Dr. Harr:
I am afraid that your frequent use of meaningless terms like "powers that be" and Mangum's "role in the lacrosse case" result in a loss of credibility as you discuss her case.
Moreover, I am afraid that many of those with whom you correspond may react negatively to your claims of a massive conspiracy against Mangum. I urge that you eliminate the hyperbole from your letters and focus on those statements that you can prove conclusively.
Letters that are ignored do little to help Mangum.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Hey, John D. Smith.
The simple fact of the matter is that there does exist a vast conspiracy against those considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case... such as former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum. Duke is extremely powerful, as are those in the media who have taken to biased reporting. (For example referring to Daye's demise as a "stabbing death." Intentionally prejudicing the people and contributing to depriving Mangum of a fair trial.) Why is it that despite the obvious discrepancies and faults in the autopsy report on Daye and perjured testimony by M.E. Dr. Nichols that the D.A.s in Orange and Durham Counties as well as the NC Attorney General's Office, and all politicians refuse to get involved? Even the timorous NAACP and ACLU stay at arm's length away from the case. Not only that but Mangum has been represented by nothing but turncoat attorneys.
Those who are enlightened will clearly see the widespread conspiracy against Mangum.
Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
It's beyond the 11th hour in the appeals process! Did Ms. Mangum ever find out if she could present something to the appeal judges herself?
I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that the Appeals Court has already taken (as of January 20th) the inadequate appeal drafted by Ann Petersen into deliberation. I would presume that there is no further information that the judges will consider.
Anonymous said...
Sid - if Duke is so all-powerful, and people are scared to do anything against them, how is it that they are sued for malpractice and other issues all the time, and pays out millions in settlements in those cases?
Doctors testify against Duke all the time.
And, yes, this question has been asked a lot - and you have never answered it - just like you've never admitted you were wrong about felony murder, and the admissibility of Daye's prior record, and other things.
What you say may be true, however, these cases are not political at their root. The Duke Lacrosse case is probably one of the most political cases, not only in North Carolina, but in the United States since recorded time. It is extremely political and is responsible for the unfair treatment of many individuals... myself included.
Also, Daye's death was high-profile because of Mangum, and the prosecutors need to lay the blame on Mangum for his death. If Duke University Hospital was to do the right thing and accept responsibility for Daye's death, then the murder charge against Mangum would be baseless... as it should be.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Tomorrow, Tuesday, January 27th, I will update my Corresponding for Justice... it will include letters and activity during October 2014. I will also begin work on the next sharlog which I hope to have posted by the end of the week.
As you were.
Dr. Harr,
So, did you lead Ms. Mangum on or what?
Dr. Harr,
Like did you keep telling her you were going to win her freedom despite the court system, even while people on this blog kept telling you that you needed to give her a detailed medical analysis report and include a summary of the arguments discussed on this blog so she could present it to her lawyer to include in her appeal brief ASAP! No time to waste! Is she still waiting on you to assist her?
Do those other cases involve duke killing someone with malpractice and then not taking responsibility for it or the fact the medical examiner basically documented that they mutilated Mr. Daye, didn't treat his infection, and left out the intubation malpractice completely in his autopsy report in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder when it was their own malpractice that killed him?
No. The use of court precedents does not involve a set of identical facts.
One involved the failure to treat significant loss of blood with a transfusion. Another involved a pre-existing condition. Malpractice was identified explicitly as not being an intervening cause.
I suggest you review them and report back as to why they are not applicable.
Seriously, what cases were they exactly, and where and how did you find them?
They have been discussed repeatedly.
Anonymous said: "or the fact the medical examiner basically documented that they mutilated Mr. Daye, didn't treat his infection"............There wasn't any mutilation. Nicholls described damage that just wasn't there, according to the hospital surgical notes. No infection was ever identified.
Start with Welch, Holsclaw and Jones.
Where were they discussed repeatedly and when? On this blog?
Where and how does a non lawyer find these cases to read?
Are they the cases you mention about nontimely blood transfusions and preexisting conditions - and are these cases you mention murder cases? Do they involve fraudulent autopsy reports?
Yes. They were discussed on this blog. Repeatedly.
I found them through Google.
Are they murder cases? Read them.
That's great Kenhdryl, but that is not what the appeals attorneys just submitted to the appeal judges. They submitted an acount that if the truth says duke mutilated Mr. Daye, didn't treat an infection, and didn't intubate the man to brain death and ultimate death. So - which is it? If the Appeal judges make a judgement against Ms. Mangum based on what the appeals attorney presented to them - they too will be ignoring the fact that basically they have no proof that what the appeals attorney presented to them as truth about the actual cause of death based on Dr. Nichols' autopsy report is actually the truth. Noone does at this point in time until all these doctors involved are put on the stand and questioned in depth and detail about what Duke actually did to Mr. Daye to cause his death, unless you take Duke's medical records as the truth, which, like I just said, the appeals attorneys did not.
They have not been discussed in over a year on this blog that I have seen (except for Welch). None of the other cases were mentioned. Didn't you read them? Don't you remember if they were murder cases or not?
???
I did read them. They are referenced in Welch.
They obviously involve murder cases. If they didn't, I would not have raised them as precedent.
Start with Welch. Read it and follow though with each of the cases referenced therein. Read each of those cases and follow through with the cases referenced therein. Google concepts and terms discussed.
Actually do some research. Don't be lazy like Sid and whine that you can't go to the law library you want to use. The internet is fine.
Anonymous at 12:00 PM wrote: "That's great Kenhdryl, but that is not what the appeals attorneys just submitted to the appeal judges. They submitted an acount that if the truth says duke mutilated Mr. Daye, didn't treat an infection, and didn't intubate the man to brain death and ultimate death. So - which is it? If the Appeal judges make a judgement against Ms. Mangum based on what the appeals attorney presented to them - they too will be ignoring the fact that basically they have no proof that what the appeals attorney presented to them as truth about the actual cause of death based on Dr. Nichols' autopsy report is actually the truth."
It appears we have a poster for whom English is not a first language. I conclude from your rambling statement that you don't really grasp what courts of appeal do. Let me try to help you, as Sid and Kenny don't know, or would rather you not know.
Courts of appeal do not re-weigh the evidence. The only facts they have before them are those contained in the record of proceedings at trial. So, to understand the facts of the case you probably need to watch the videos of the trial. They can be found on youtube beginning here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oprVLsBur3M.
Once the courts are done with the case, the original transcript and record will be available for viewing at the Administrative Office of Courts in Raleigh. Until then, the videos are the best opportunity you will have to see the trial.
The judges on the panel have had their case conference already, so the vote has been taken and a judge has been assigned to write a preliminary opinion. However, they do not reveal their vote until the opinion is drafted and at least two judges have signed on to it. That normally happens within a couple of months or the case conference. There is no opportunity to present "new" evidence to the court once the trial is over. New evidence may be considered on a Motion for Appropriate Relief under NCGS 15A-1415. However, Mangum has not filed a MAR (Motion for Appropriate Relief) and she would have to prove an excuse for why she did not present the evidence at trial. This is going to be especially difficult for her as Sid revealed to all the existence of her expert's opinion years before the trial began. But, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't really need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "I've been trying to find a way to alert them to the fact that the court is being misled by attorneys on both sides of Mangum's appeal."
In other words, you have been trying to inappropriately influence the cause of justice.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt,
The defense autopsy report contains specific contradictions to the Nichols' report that support what Dr. Harr is saying.
The conclusion she supported was based on the erroneous facts in the state's autopsy report and on her non lawyerly understanding of the law as clarified in the case by the judge at the beginning of the trial.
Noone has to take her conclusion as fact, and she is not free from cross examination and questioning in the trial.
If people actually based a charge or convinction without questioning the first autopsy report when it directly contradicted what was said in the duke medical reports, then it is not a conclusion free from reasonable doubt, and therefore does rise to the level of law in order to convict.
If the conviction stands then, Duke is deemed a massive liar per Dr. Nichols' autopsy report in this case, and the court supports that opinion.
Duke has not stood against the Nichols' report, so they must concur that their doctors have produced a fraudulent medical record in this case.
So now, anyone who wants to prove Duke lies big time in its medical records, that the duke adminstration does mind if their doctors produce fraudulent medical reports to cover grave malpractice (mutilating Mr. Daye and/or not treating the wounds as described in the Nichol's autopsy report, not treating infection promptly or adequately, using a different medical excuse to explain his death), and not taking responsibility for any of the malpractice as they are mandated to do per law, and that the state doesn't seem to mind that they do so - can.
Dr. Harr caused the state to do something either way in this case? How odd. They seem to be ignoring him.
How and when does someone submit a MAR (without a lawyer)?
To the 10:45,
Wonderful! You have the needed evidence to get Crystal out! Now do something with it.
I'm not a lawyer evil duke troll it g...
What do you propose a non-lawyer who is not Ms. Mangum do with it since you're so full of self-rightous non-sensical commands today (like ever other time you post on this blog).
Was that you who just deleted several posts after the one you just made? Why did you do that?
Walt,
Your statement:
"It appears we have a poster for whom English is not a first language."
is rather discriminatory don't you think? What, is someone who has does not have English as their first language less deserving of your respect and ability to comprehend what is said? Interesting.
An MAR is filed after the appeals are exhausted, if there is a reason. The problem is - as Kenny and Sid like to ignore - when your only real evidence of a problem is that you think everyone else is a traitor and a turncoat, that's not evidence. There is no evidence that Dr. Roberts is a traitor or a turncoat. No evidence Meier is in the pocket of Duke. You disagree with Dr. Roberts' analysis, but you've never talked to her to see how she could/would have supported it on the stand - which would have hurt Crystal.
On a different note:
Sid, have you gotten anything from IDS about the payments?
To the 2:15:
Do something! Stop whining!
To the 3:10:
The problem is that sometimes it's quite difficult to understand what people are trying to say. Comprendes lo que te estoy diciendo? O me vas a decir que no me respetas porque estoy hablando otro idioma?
Tu vois comme cela devient difficile quand les gens ont des difficultes avec les langues etrangeres?
"Your statement:...is rather discriminatory don't you think? What, is someone who has does not have English as their first language less deserving of your respect and ability to comprehend what is said? Interesting."
I'm not Walt, but I thought he did an excellent job of explaining what courts of appeal do, as well as pointing you (I assume it was you) to the videos.
What's "interesting" is your taking Walt's response to help you better understand the appeals process as "discriminatory".
Now, that I find interesting.
Lance,
You know they don't want enlightenment, or the truth - they want their delusions spoon-fed to them, and they won't accept any answer or help if it doesn't fit their conspiratoral world view and beliefs.
The fact that none of them offer proof that Crystal remotely supports what they are doing, and they don't actually attempt to find answers to their questions is all the proof you need that they know this whole exercise is a joke to feed Sid's ego.
If they really wanted the answers to all of these "questions" they'd get permission from Crystal to discuss the details with her attorneys, and they'd ask the attorneys. Instead, Kenny screams for answers on a blog, and Sid sends letters with unfounded accusations to everyone, but the people who actually matter.
We all know he is going to be dead wrong on these payments, but he's already admitted that if he is, he will chalk it up to another IDS conspiracy. He's predictable. That's the great thing about conspiracy nuts - you can never prove them wrong, you can only prove that the conspiracy is bigger than they originally thought.
When you have Kenhyderal posting things like "Who would that be? Will Attorney Meier, with permission from Crystal, answer to me when he no longer represents her"
Without
a: Actually seeking permission from Crystal
or
b: Contacting Daniel Meier
You can see that they have little interest in actually helping Crystal, and are really just trolling the site in order to stroke their own narcissistic egos.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
Like did you keep telling her you were going to win her freedom despite the court system, even while people on this blog kept telling you that you needed to give her a detailed medical analysis report and include a summary of the arguments discussed on this blog so she could present it to her lawyer to include in her appeal brief ASAP! No time to waste! Is she still waiting on you to assist her?
The fact is that Mangum's appeals attorney is more interested in protecting Duke University Hospital than having Mangum exonerated... which would place blame on Duke where it rightly belongs.
Long ago I had e-mailed Ms. Petersen and told her that I would be available to discuss the medical issues of Crystal's case. She told me she would get back to me and never did. Meier never contacted me. Scott Holmes invited me and other Mangum supporters to his office so that he could get me to remove everything from my blog site about Crystal's case. I never had any contact with Chris Shella.
Woody Vann is the only attorney who spent any time discussing medical issues with me regarding Mangum's case. After I pointed out discrepancies between the autopsy report and the medical records using pages on my blog site, Vann stated that he would get a forensic pathologist to look into the case. Then, he, along with the subsequent Mangum attorneys used their efforts to keep Mangum from seeing a written report... all of them doing their best to deter her from the medical issues and focusing solely on the self-defense issue. It wasn't until the third day of her trial that Meier gave Mangum a copy of the Roberts report, and according to Crystal, he warned her not to show it to anyone or risk being in contempt of court.
Sadly, Mangum's legal fate appears to be in the hands of a turncoat appeals attorney... one who will not do what's in Mangum's best interests as long as it points the finger of responsibility for Daye's death towards Duke University Hospital.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I've been trying to find a way to alert them to the fact that the court is being misled by attorneys on both sides of Mangum's appeal."
In other words, you have been trying to inappropriately influence the cause of justice.
Walt-in-Durham
Hahaha. You're funny, Walt.
I'm not the one trying to subvert justice. Both the state and Mangum's turncoat attorney are doing a great job of it by misleading the Court about the facts of the case by using statements by Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols to lay out supposed "facts" of the case while completely ignoring the hospital records which are contradictory.
Like it or not, Walt, I am the light of truth.
Anonymous said...
An MAR is filed after the appeals are exhausted, if there is a reason. The problem is - as Kenny and Sid like to ignore - when your only real evidence of a problem is that you think everyone else is a traitor and a turncoat, that's not evidence. There is no evidence that Dr. Roberts is a traitor or a turncoat. No evidence Meier is in the pocket of Duke. You disagree with Dr. Roberts' analysis, but you've never talked to her to see how she could/would have supported it on the stand - which would have hurt Crystal.
On a different note:
Sid, have you gotten anything from IDS about the payments?
As a matter of fact, I did. Stay tuned for the next sharlog.
Why would Meier contact you? You admitted you never reached out to him, and at the time Meier got involved, even Crystal had turned her back on you. So, why would he reach out to a crackpot with a website who had already done a lot of damage to the case, and shown he can't be trusted?
He had his medical experts - and was able to ask them everything they needed to know.
Your ego is amazing. Too bad it's hurting Crystal.
As a matter of fact, I did. Stay tuned for the next sharlog.
Let me guess ... they are in on the Conspiracy too ... you aren't wrong, they just won't admit you are right.
I find it odd that you think it is a result of your influence that a forensic pathologist was hired in a murder case to look at cause of death. That's pretty standard practice, unless cause of death is clear (like someone shot in the head).
Again, your ego is amazing.
Anonymous 1/26 12:02, 11:47, 11:44, 9:52, 9:01:
Did you find the cases I recommended? I take it that you are in the midst of preparing your legal analysis. It will be interesting to see your explanation of why you find them to be on point or not.
Anonymous 1/26 10:45pm asks: How and when does someone submit a MAR (without a lawyer)?
Walt provided a reference to the statute in his earlier post. I thought the statute contained useful information. Did you agree?
You know Sid refuses to look up how to do things. Remember, he doesn't have access to the law library, and rather than use Google (which is an easy reference to use), he'd rather just bitch and moan about it.
Generally a MAR is only used after the appeals have been unsuccessful, though it can be done before, it's usually not a good idea, and almost always unsuccessful. Once the appeals are over, if she doesn't get the relief she is seeking (namely a new trial), she can file a MAR. She can either do it herself (she has legal resources at the prison), or she can see if Prisoner's Legal Services will assist.
Right now, all Crystal can do is wait for the Court of Appeals to issue their decision and go from there. If she gets a new trial, then she comes back to Durham, and that process starts again, and depending on if she wants Meier removed (which it seems she does, but who knows), and the Court removes him, and they appoint her a 5th attorney on the case (only 4 were appointed, 1 was volunteer), then they will set the trial date.
If the Court of Appeals denies her appeal, then she can look to the N.C. Supreme Court, and if they deny it (or refuse to hear it), then her only hope would be a MAR, if she can find appropriate grounds for the MAR.
Sid's vast anti-Mangum/pro-Duke conspiracy isn't a sufficient reason. It has to be real, not imaginary.
Other than Sid's fevered imagination, there is no evidence that all these other attorneys were traitors and turncoats - so it's unlikely the Courts are going to take his arguments seriously. That's the problem. He needs to get experts and admissible testimony if he wants a chance. His CDs won't cut it.
"Not being a lawyer" and "no access to a law library" are Sid's excuses for all his failures.
You can't just take those excuses away. Then he'd have no one to blame for his failures except himself
Anonymous at 10:45 PM wrote: "The defense autopsy report contains specific contradictions to the Nichols' report that support what Dr. Harr is saying."
No, Dr. Roberts independent record review does not support what Sid is saying. Her opinion, based on the records and her education, training and experience is Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal.
"The conclusion she supported was based on the erroneous facts in the state's autopsy report and on her non lawyerly understanding of the law as clarified in the case by the judge at the beginning of the trial."
You do not seem to grasp the difference between a fact witness and an expert witness. Dr. Roberts is not a fact witness. She did not treat Daye. She was not present at his autopsy. She did not exhume him and perform a second autopsy. Thus, she is not a fact witness and she cannot testify to any facts. Instead, Dr. Roberts is an expert witness. Dr. Nichols is both a fact witness and an expert. Thus there are two components to Dr. Nichols' testimony. He first testified to the facts he observed during the autopsy. Second, he offered an opinion as to the cause of death. Specifically, he opined that Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal.
Only Expert witnesses may offer opinions. Dr. Roberts was and is solely an expert. As such, the jury cannot make any finding of fact from her testimony. However, her testimony can be the basis for a conclusion specifically the cause of death. On that issue, Roberts and Nichols are in complete agreement. Thus, the defense wisely decided not to put her on the stand to bolster the state's case on cause of death.
"Noone has to take her conclusion as fact, and she is not free from cross examination and questioning in the trial."
That is correct, but she offered no conclusions of fact. Only expert opinion. Opinion that the jury could disregard, but since it confirms that of the Medical Examiner, I think her opinion is highly influential.
"If people actually based a charge or convinction without questioning the first autopsy report when it directly contradicted what was said in the duke medical reports, then it is not a conclusion free from reasonable doubt, and therefore does rise to the level of law in order to convict."
Nonsense.
"If the conviction stands then, Duke is deemed a massive liar per Dr. Nichols' autopsy report in this case, and the court supports that opinion."
Duke's conduct is not an issue in this case.
"Duke has not stood against the Nichols' report, so they must concur that their doctors have produced a fraudulent medical record in this case."
Where Duke stands is not an issue in this case.
"So now, anyone who wants to prove Duke lies big time...."
Not an issue in this case. Whether Duke lies, tells the truth or something in between has nothing to do with this criminal case.
"How and when does someone submit a MAR (without a lawyer)?"
Did you not read the statute I cited? It is available online for free to anyone who wants to read it.
Walt-in-Durham
No doubt what Walt says is technically correct, however, it illustrates plainly, for all to see why the legal profession, which he belongs to, is held in so much disregard and why The North Carolina Justice System is widely regarded at home and abroad as failing to provide equal justice to the poor and to minorities and those same technicalities are used as a weapon and structured to maintain that injustice
Kenhyderal,
Is there any way that we can get you to stop whining?
Question for Kenny, Sid, and the rest:
If Daye had refused medical treatment for the stab wound and bled out and died, do you believe Crystal would have been responsible for that death? Wound was treatable, Daye refuses treatment and dies as a result of that refusal. Murder or no?
Ken:
Can you provide support for your statement that the NC justice system is widely regarded at home and abroad as failing to provide equal justice?
Can you explain how releasing Mangum - a convicted murderer with a prior violent criminal record - would improve the NC justice system's image?
To the extent the NC justice system's reputation is tarnished, isn't Mangum's highly publicized false rape claim and the wrongful prosecution it spawned a big reason for it?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous said...
Why would Meier contact you? You admitted you never reached out to him, and at the time Meier got involved, even Crystal had turned her back on you. So, why would he reach out to a crackpot with a website who had already done a lot of damage to the case, and shown he can't be trusted?
He had his medical experts - and was able to ask them everything they needed to know.
Your ego is amazing. Too bad it's hurting Crystal.
The reasons Meier should have contacted me as counsel for Mangum:
(1) I am a physician;
(2) I have repeatedly voiced my opinions about problems with the medical examiner long before the "Fatally Flawed" series by the News & Observer;
(3) I am probably more knowledgeable about Mangum's case than anyone;
(4) I could've helped him prepare for trial and worked with Dr. Roberts, too... so that, for example, he would've noticed Dr. Nichols' perjury (Prosecutor Coggins-Franks picked it up immediately); and
(5) I am a friend of Mangum and have her best interests at heart.
Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.
Anonymous said...
As a matter of fact, I did. Stay tuned for the next sharlog.
Let me guess ... they are in on the Conspiracy too ... you aren't wrong, they just won't admit you are right.
Hah! Nice try, but I'll not tip my hand. You'll have to wait. The narrative is more than halfway written. It should be completed today and ready to be narrated tomorrow. It'll be highly enlightening, I can tell you that!
Sid:
As a former physician who worked in the medical system, don't you suffer from the same conflicts you accuse Meiers of laboring under? Don't you have the same incentive to protect Duke at all costs?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous said...
I find it odd that you think it is a result of your influence that a forensic pathologist was hired in a murder case to look at cause of death. That's pretty standard practice, unless cause of death is clear (like someone shot in the head).
Again, your ego is amazing.
So, your position is that the cause of Daye's death is not clear. We agree on that point.
You may regard what I say as being attributed to a big ego... I merely consider it telling the truth. The truth of the matter is that after I pointed out discrepancies between the autopsy report and the medical records in May 2012, Woody Vann told me that he would retain a forensic pathologist to look into the case. See, I'm just telling the truth. No ego involved.
Anonymous said...
Sid:
As a former physician who worked in the medical system, don't you suffer from the same conflicts you accuse Meiers of laboring under? Don't you have the same incentive to protect Duke at all costs?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Hey, Abe.
I don't think our positions are the same. He worked for the Hospital Corporation of America, as an executive, I believe... prior to going to law school. So I was naturally concerned when I learned that he would be representing Mangum because Duke University Hospital, I believe, is responsible for Daye's death.
As a physician, I don't harbor any warm feelings for hospitals in general, however, I am very passionate about people being wrongly incarcerated and convicted. That's why I'm getting involved. I think Duke University Hospital is probably outstanding, but I surely wouldn't want to be a patient there.
The reasons Meier should not have contacted you as counsel for Mangum:
(1) You have not practiced medicine in YEARS.
(2) You have repeatedly filed misleading and outright fraudulent lawsuits.
(3) You posted material here on this blog that was helpful to Mangum's prosecution.
(4) You convinced Mangum to fire her lawyers and attempt to act as her own defense lawyer.
(5) It is these acts that prove you are neither a friend of Mangum, nor do you have her best interests at heart.
Anonymous said...
"Not being a lawyer" and "no access to a law library" are Sid's excuses for all his failures.
You can't just take those excuses away. Then he'd have no one to blame for his failures except himself
First, I don't know what failures you're talking about.
Secondly, it is fact that I am not a lawyer and that I do not have access to a law library.
There are no ties between Duke University Medical Center and the for-profit HCA.
Sid, of course, knows this.
Anonymous said...
Question for Kenny, Sid, and the rest:
If Daye had refused medical treatment for the stab wound and bled out and died, do you believe Crystal would have been responsible for that death? Wound was treatable, Daye refuses treatment and dies as a result of that refusal. Murder or no?
Interesting question. If Daye refused blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah's Witness (an acceptable reason by most) and the surgeons weren't able to stop the bleeding, possibly she might be liable... the case being similar to Welch.
However if he refused treatment period, and then died when available treatment would most likely have saved his life, then I think that he would be held liable. There's also the consideration as to his sobriety... as he was well within the legally drunk range, it is possible that life-saving medical/surgical treatment might have been administered despite his protestations.
First, I don't know what failures you're talking about.
Secondly, it is fact that I am not a lawyer and that I do not have access to a law library.
Every lawsuit you've ever filed. Your medical career ... those are two failures right there.
It is a fact you aren't a lawyer and don't have access to a law library. It's also a fact that you can get the same information on Google. A lot of lawyers don't pay for the legal research tools, and they also don't go to the law library - they use Google and Google Scholar. You won't, because it takes away your whining.
"First, I don't know what failures you're talking about."
Of course you don't.
How many lawsuits have you filed? IIRC, there's been at least 30.
Of those lawsuits, how many have you won?
How many complaints have you fired off to the NC State Bar?
How many of those have been acted upon?
Maybe in your dotage you don't remember these -- but they are documented....Some right here, on this blog.
Anonymous said...
There are no ties between Duke University Medical Center and the for-profit HCA.
Sid, of course, knows this.
Actually, you give me credit for knowing more than I do. Regardless, I don't see the point. Even though Duke may not be associated with HCA, Meier might still have sympathy for Duke Hospital anyway.
Anonymous said...
First, I don't know what failures you're talking about.
Secondly, it is fact that I am not a lawyer and that I do not have access to a law library.
Every lawsuit you've ever filed. Your medical career ... those are two failures right there.
It is a fact you aren't a lawyer and don't have access to a law library. It's also a fact that you can get the same information on Google. A lot of lawyers don't pay for the legal research tools, and they also don't go to the law library - they use Google and Google Scholar. You won't, because it takes away your whining.
I wouldn't say my medical career was illustrious, but I would say it was far from being a failure. Seventeen years of practice in a stressful specialty without disciplinary actions or lawsuits is far from a failure.
With regards to the lawsuits, you would have to refer to a specific one in order for me to comment.
With regards to the lawsuits, you would have to refer to a specific one in order for me to comment.
You've lost every single one of them - so it's hard to pick just one.
"With regards to the lawsuits, you would have to refer to a specific one in order for me to comment."
Oh come on, Sid -- everyone knows about your litigious history.
But, for starters:
What about your lawsuit against Anthony Bestart?
What about your libel lawsuit in W.Va?
"but I would say it was far from being a failure. Seventeen years of practice in a stressful specialty without disciplinary actions or lawsuits is far from a failure."
Ah -- but it wasn't free from either lawsuits OR disciplinary actions, was it, Sid?
Remember getting fired from a clinic in Indio, Ca, then forging Dr. Dwight James' name to a contract selling the clinic to you for $1?
Remember in W. Va when your boss wrote that your "paranoid behavior interfered with his ability to work and see patients." and that the paranoia "became progressively more pronounced when he was here."
Sid paranoid? You don't say.
At least he is finally admitting he knows of no real conflict for Meier - he just thinks there might be one.
Of course, if Meier liked hospitals so much, why'd he leave them?
Abe Froman said: "Can you provide support for your statement that the NC justice system is widely regarded at home and abroad as failing to provide equal justice"............ I only have to quote The Nation--- July 26,2013 "Late last night, the North Carolina legislature passed the country’s worst voter suppression law after only three days of debate. Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog called it “the most sweeping anti-voter law in at least decades"....... The New York Times----June 7, 2013 (Heading Racial Injustice in North Carolina) " The North Carolina Legislature repealed the state’s Racial Justice Act this week, and the Republican governor, Pat McCrory, is expected to sign the bill. But the state cannot erase the detailed and irrefutable proof of ugly racial bias that led a state trial judge to resentence four death row inmates to life without parole because of this statute
Kenhyderal -
I'll admit to not reading the article, but if repealing the act led "a state trial judge to resentence four death row inmates to life without parole because of this statute", wouldn't that be a good thing?
Kenhyderal,
If you expect us to agree with you based on some article in The Nation, you're crazier than I thought.
Kenhyderal,
You might as well have added,"A distinguished commenter on the J4N blog agrees that the NC justice system is the worst in the nation."
"With regards to the lawsuits, you would have to refer to a specific one in order for me to comment."
Specific lawsuits have been identified. We are waiting anxiously for your response.
kenny:
The articles you refernce (both of which are opinion pieces from far left publications) complain about actions taken by the legislative and executive branches of NC. Neither article has anything to do with the NC judicial system.
I ask again: Can you provide any support for your statement that the NC justice system is widely regarded at home and abroad as failing to provide equal justice.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Hey Abe --
Be careful, or Ken will have to get snooty.
Lance:
I don't worry about it. I am understanding of kenny. It's understanding that makes it possible for people like me to tolerate a person like him.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Lance said: " wouldn't that be a good thing".... Belatedly; yes
of course
Accurate or not this view is widely regarded. Think Moral Mondays, which has received world wide coverage.
Hey Abe -- You know how many times your name is mentioned on this page of comments?
9 times.
Kenhyderal said:
" Belatedly; yes"
These inmates were on Death Row. Resentencing them to LWOP would only be "belated" if they were dead when the resentencing occurred.
Abe said: "I don't worry about it. I am understanding of kenny. It's understanding that makes it possible for people like me to tolerate a person like him"......... For people like you? (superiority implied)
“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is ones best teacher.”
― Dalai Lama
Lance:
What can I say? I asked for a car, I got a computer. How's that for being born under a bad sign?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
kenny said:
"Accurate or not this view is widely regarded."
By who? And who, besides you, Sid and Tinfoil, do you think supports Mangum's release or believes her conviction and sentence for murdering Mr. Daye is an injustice?
Ken said:
"“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is ones best teacher.”
― Dalai Lama"
Longer hitter, the Lama.
Carl Spackler
Bushwood Country Club
"Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga"
― Dalai Lama
Has Sid ever been evaluated for a mental illness? His delusions and paranoia seem to have been causing issues in his life for quite a while. Maybe he's sick.
Fake said: "Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
"Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga
....... "when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." Then you will finally come to realize that the meta-narrative you so fervently adhere to is illusory
I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
"Au revoir, gopher"
- Jean Paul Sartre
I'm so outta here
Post a Comment