justice4nifong: Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

Friday, February 20, 2015

Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

863 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 863 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: You continue to ignore that you cannot file a pre-trial motion to dismiss that charge ...you still cannot read.

You are a bigger idiot than Kenny and Tin-Foil; February 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Criminal cases aren't about morale boosts ... you are exposing yourself for the idiotic disgrace that you are. Kenny ... is this still the person you want to be at the forefront of the fight for Mangum? You admit you disagree with him when he says he thinks Duke's actions with Daye were intentional ... and he has no legal training, and is leading your supposed friend astray, because he tells her people should be doing things they cannot do.

He's a disgrace, and unless you are an idiot too, you need to finally stop feeding into his delusions, and look to people who can actually help Crystal.

What do you say, Kenny, are you really Crystal's friend, or you just a fame-whore who wants to throw his name on this blog with Sid?

Sid is the worst thing to happen to Crystal Are you for Crystal, or for Sid ... you can't be both. He's proven how delusional he is ... will you?; February 28, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sydney, if Daye would have died because of an infection that set in, would this have change anything in your mind on the case? If not, why?

Yes. If Daye died due to an infection secondary to the stab wound, or even due to a complication of surgery, then I think the proximate cause of death could fairly be assigned to the stab wound... as complications of injuries include infections.

However, when an acute catastrophic malpractice event such as esophageal intubation is introduced, then that act becomes the intervening and proximate cause of death... especially if it directly results in death, or as in Daye's case it results in brain death which leads to removal from life support followed by actual death.

In Daye's case, had he not been intubated in the esophagus with resulting brain death, it is overwhelmingly likely that he would've survived and fully recovered. The other event that complicates Daye's case is his alcoholic withdrawal signs... and delirium tremens is a serious event in itself and if not properly treated can result in death.

For the record, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that Mangum acted in self-defense and that the stab wound was the final event in a serious of violence directed at her that included busting down the bathroom door, dragging her by her hair, and gouging her face with his fingernails.

Hopefully this addresses your question adequately. Let me know if further edification is required.; February 28, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you are an idiot.

A complete and total idiot.; February 28, 2015 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: If the battered woman syndrome had been allowed into testimony at the trial like the defense attempted to do, the correlation between Ms. Mangum being assualted in bathrooms by men in every case that she has been involved in during and after the lacrosse case would hold significant weight in understanding any and everything she did in self-defense. Not that the anti-mangum trolls on this blog would be able to achieve enlightenment about that fact either probably, but many others would have been able to understand her self-defense motives more clearly and benefited from that understanding. The correlation is rather obvious and common knowledge to many however, so really, there is no excuse for not understanding the correlation and self-defense after Mr. Daye attacked and assualted her in a similar situation. To ignore this fact is an injustice to all and denies equal protection and rights of an adequate defense for Ms. Mangum.; February 28, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: You are lying.

Mangum was NOT assaulted in a bathroom in the lacrosse case.

You are a liar.

I demand that you apologize for your despicable lie.; February 28, 2015 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: She believes she was. That is all that matters in what I just said. It is sad that you simply continue to refuse to understand the realities and facts in relation to what you demand apologies for.

I have no idea what happened - I was not there.; February 28, 2015 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: The fact that the Battered Woman Syndrome defense was not allowed in the trial due to the prosecution noting that the expert did not have a degree is insufficient when coupled with the fact that the mental health review that was done by a professional mental health doctor was never presented to the defense for review, nor to the jury for consideration. This alone is reason for Appeal.; February 28, 2015 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Instead the appeal defense attorney abused Ms. Mangum even more by not considering anything but her own agenda when providing defense assistance to Ms. Mangum. An agenda that included not even documenting the date of death correctly, which of course implies that she never read the Duke medical reports to begin with, or simply ignored them like so many others have in order to coverup the intubation malpractice.; February 28, 2015 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: You are an idiot and have ignored everything stated here.; February 28, 2015 at 4:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: Nifong Supporter said: " It does my heart good to know that all of my sharlogs and blogs have gotten the truth out to the people... and that some of them, such as this commenter, are now enlightened".............. If it were only so. Unfortunately, that post by Anonymous you quoted was s not presented by a member of the public, who has become enlightened by your blogs and sharlogs but it's a cut and paste of a post I made back on April 17 2014 @ 9:52; February 28, 2015 at 9:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Kenny ... is this still the person you want to be at the forefront of the fight for Mangum? You admit you disagree with him when he says he thinks Duke's actions with Daye were intentional ... and he has no legal training, and is leading your supposed friend astray, because he tells her people should be doing things they cannot do"...........Once again let me reiterate; Crystal Mangum knows who her friends are and who has her interest at heart. Unlike Dr. Harr, those who have been officially charged with defending her, care not a whit for her or for her well-being. You are the same; your words reveal how you despise Crystal and anyone who supports her. Let me quote Crystal in her interview with Tamara Gibbs "I was pressured and powerless --it was the perfect storm for a conviction -- payback for the Duke Lacrosse case. I feel like I've made enemies with some pretty powerful people and through no fault of my own, I'm paying the consequences" I don't believe Dr. Harr believes that any physicians or treating personnel purposely murdered Daye but there is at least as much evidence that this was the case as there is that she murdered Daye. It was, no doubt, a case of medical malpractice. Allowing Crystal to pay for that is completely unethical and it shows the shocking immorality of Duke; February 28, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: To the 4:57 PM poster,

What exactly do you want everyone to know and agree with on this blog, or even just the person you call an idiot in that post?; February 28, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Can you post the police reports for Mangum's murder case? I think you posted them earlier, but I can't find them.

Thanks.; March 1, 2015 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Can you also post a transcript for the trial?

Thanks.; March 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: And can you post the trial transcript in shlog form, so it is virtually impossible to navigate and takes longer than the trial itself to download?; March 1, 2015 at 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Just because Crystal is delusional enough to think that this is all payback doesn't make it true. She also still refuses to admit she actually stabbed Daye - in that same interview (and in the trial)she kept saying she just "poked" him, and in the interview she also said that a 1cm knife wound couldn't have done the damage they say it did.

It was a stabbing, and the wound was significantly bigger than 1cm. Until Crystal faces reality, she's not going to be an effective advocate for herself.; March 2, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: The evidence from the state's autopsy report has been proven to be untrue. According to the Duke medical reports, the wound was successfully treated and prognosis for a full recovery is documented as well.

What proof do you have that the state's autopsy report was true to make such a statement? Do you think Duke's medical reports and the defense's autopsy report are full of lies in comparison to the state's autopsy report?

Why doesn't Duke take responsibility for their malpractice?; March 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM
guiowen said...: Anonymous said,
"Until Crystal faces reality, she's not going to be an effective advocate for herself."

The trouble is that there are people here who are doing their best to prevent her from facing reality.; March 2, 2015 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: I have just received notice from an e-mail I'm assured to be from Attorney Daniel Meier in which he disavowed posting the comment of February 22, 2015 at 7:16pm. Falsely attributing a comment to another individual constitutes a violation of the kenhyderal doctrine, and as such will be removed from the comment section. I will also remove my response to that comment because it repeated the comment attributed to Mr. Meier... even though I did question its authenticity.

In the future, please do not post comments under the pretense of being someone other than yourself. Thank you.; March 2, 2015 at 8:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

Can you post the police reports for Mangum's murder case? I think you posted them earlier, but I can't find them.

Thanks.

A while back I inadvertently erased the buttons to many of my sharlogs. I will try to post them again, but can you tell me if there's any post in particular you are seeking?

As far as the transcript to the trial goes, I will try to figure out some type of link I can set up to get them to you online. Please give me a bit of time as I am very involved now with Mangum's case.; March 2, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Did Mr. Meier actually think that anyone really thought he posted any comment on this blog? Amazing.; March 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Meier,

Hi! Why didn't you defend Ms. Mangum against the lies and distortions that the state ME system levied against Ms. Mangum to get her falsly arrested and convicted?

Your answer to this by e-mail to Dr. Harr would be appreciated. Thank you.; March 2, 2015 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Meier has ignored all the other questions directed at him on this blog - apparently only responding when someone is trying to pretend to be him - why do you think he would respond now?

As with Kenny - if you have questions, e-mail him directly - his e-mail is public and has been posted here multiple times.; March 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: blah; March 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: The fake Meier makes a reasonable point.

If Kenny actually wants to discuss the case with him, the first step is to get Crystal's formal authorization. Without authorization, Meier would not be permitted to discuss it with him (or to discuss it in comments on this blog or in replies to e-mails). With her authorization, he will still probably have good reason not to respond.

Kenny knew that he was acting like a complete idiot. He knew that, but just wanted to whine. Similarly, the 8:36 is acting like a complete moron. 8:36 may be authentic.; March 2, 2015 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: It was a joke evil duke troll.

Is it moronic to crack a joke - or is it moronic to not 'get' when it's a just a joke?

blah; March 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...: No decision from the Court of Appeals today. The next release of Opinions is March 17.; March 3, 2015 at 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: It is hard not to wonder if the latest Duke scandal that was published in the Duke student newspaper about the basketball player that was recently let go was not done in order to give reason to rant some more about the lacrosse case in that publication in case the appeal decision was made today and it is favorable for Ms. Mangum.; March 3, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No decision from the Court of Appeals today. The next release of Opinions is March 17.

Thanks for the update.; March 3, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

As many of you are probably aware, much of my time over the past three years has been devoted to overseeing inadequacies of the State Medical Examiner System... exposing the corruption and fraudulence of it in conspiracy with government agencies and the prosecution in its cruel persecution of Crystal Mangum in the death of Reginald Daye. Production of the educational, entertaining, and enlightening sharlogs has been most time/energy/effort consuming. Because I feel that I have exhausted their application in covering the Mangum case, future sharlogs about it will be severely limited. Efforts to rectify injustices against Mangum and secure her freedom, such as letter writing and other communications will continue.

My activities will instead be re-focused on production of that beloved educational, entertaining, and enlightening comic strip "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." I began working on my first draft of Episode VI titled "The Duke Lacrosse Avenging Angels Society" this morning... and as you can guess, it will include the fiasco that has landed Crystal Mangum in prison. I hope to have the script finished within a couple of weeks... with the layout, pencilling, inking, lettering, and coloring taking much more time to complete. I anticipate this episode, which will follow the previous format, will be comprised of about a dozen weekly segments... I will know for sure once the script has been fully written.

As before, if anyone wants their likeness to be represented in a cameo or major role, e-mail me a photographic portrait... frontal and profile would be best. (justice4nifong@gmail.com.)

My comic strip strives to achieve its three E objectives using this comic strip venue in a light-hearted and non-malicious manner.

As you were.; March 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil said:

"It is hard not to wonder if the latest Duke scandal that was published in the Duke student newspaper about the basketball player that was recently let go was not done in order to give reason to rant some more about the lacrosse case in that publication in case the appeal decision was made today and it is favorable for Ms. Mangum."

You'd be surprised by how little Duke (and the world in general) thinks or cares about Mangum's case.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: And you think that says anything positive about Duke? Mr. Daye was but one patient - wonder what the rest will think.; March 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM
guiowen said...: It says nothing -- positive or negative -- about Duke.; March 3, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "No it was Daye, the known knife thrower, who was throwing knives at Crystal. While he was on top of her and choking her to death, she picked up one the knives scattered around the apartment that he had thrown at her and nearing unconsciousness plunged it into his side."

That is an application of the Kenhyderal rule that says we must believe everything Crystal says and not believe any other evidence to the contrary. The fact is, Crystal made a self serving statement that is simply not true. It is not supported by the physical evidence nor is it supported by Daye's statement. The fact is, Crystal became the aggressor and stabbed Daye.

As is pointed out above, the jury's conclusion on that matter is not subject to review on appeal. Further, Crystal herself doesn't even challenge that issue on appeal.

Walt-in-Durham; March 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: How do you know what she appeals Walt? The appeal is not hers, it is the state's appeal attorney's agenda only. You know that. Why do you ignore it to make another comment full of your own anti-mangum agenda?; March 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: How do you know what she appeals Walt? The appeal is not hers, it is the state's appeal attorney's agenda only. You know that. Why do you ignore it to make another comment full of your own anti-mangum agenda?

The brief was submitted on behalf of Crystal, by an attorney representing her. It is deemed to be hers. Now, Sid and Kenny claim she isn't happy about it, but they've provided zero proof to that effect - Sid loves to post letters, but not ones from her, same with Kenny - but neither are generally overly credible.

How do you know Crystal isn't happy with what's going on? It's it odd that all Kenny or Sid need in order to talk to Meier or her attorneys is a signed consent (doesn't mean they will talk to them, but that's the minimum), yet while both claim to be her good friends advocating on her behalf, neither of them ever do that.

Personally I don't trust that Kenny and Sid really are speaking for her unless they can provide proof.; March 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: What do they need to talk to Mr. Meier about? He is no longer her attorney.

Dr. Harr said she filed a complaint to the state bar about the appeal attorney and sent a letter to the govenor.

The appeal doesn't even get the date of death right in order to leave out Duke's malpractice. That in itself is proof that the appeal is not Ms. Mangum's.; March 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr said she did ... he provides no proof.

That's an irrelevant error to the 404b argument.

The only proof that Crystal supports Dr. Harr and/or Kenny is their own words.

And, Meier is still her trial lawyer if she gets a new trial - and if you want to know what was done, and why, he'd be the best choice

Again, only Kenny and Sid say they are working on behalf of Crystal. Let them prove it. They claim to be writing her.; March 3, 2015 at 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: The date of death seems like an important fact to get wrong by a lawyer. Leaving out Duke's malpractice as documented in their own medical records that are part of the evidence is lying to the judges by the appeal attorney.

Mr. Meier is still her trial lawyer if she gets a new trial? If so, why do you insist on others contacting him when it can be assumed he couldn't talk to them in the first place?

I don't think either Dr. Harr nor Ken Edwards represent Ms. Mangum. She represents herself. However, Dr. Harr's many letters that he has written and documents on this blog seem like proof that he has worked to assist Ms. Mangum in her defense.; March 3, 2015 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Except every legal expert and pretty much everyone not named Sidney or Kenny, state that Sid's efforts are harmful to Crystal.

Only Sid and Kenny claim they are helpful - so for all we know Crystal is opposed to them as well, because she knows they are hurting her, yet they won't share with anyone what she actually sends them.; March 3, 2015 at 2:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: The Duke Lacrosse apologists, where Crystal is concerned, question everything, concede nothing and constantly spread lies and innuendo about her. I wont be goaded into publishing any personal correspondence from her here. But, let me, once again reiterate and assure any open minded readers that those whose sole purpose is to cast doubt and brand Crystal and any who support her as immoral liars are relentlessly pursuing a well recognized strategy they have been using, consistently, since 2006. Distinguished Author and Journalist William Cohan, not to mention Dr. Harr and former DA Michael Nifong, has, like Crystal, also been a victim of this vendetta campaign. Crystal knows who her friends are and who are those who have her well being at heart. Attacking vulnerable people, like Crystal, in most cases anonymously, is cowardly.; March 3, 2015 at 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree that they goad you on ... rather relentlessly, non-stop, bullying and trolling. Good for you to not be bullied by them again!; March 3, 2015 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:

"The appeal doesn't even get the date of death right'

The date of Mr. Daye's death isn't in dispute. The appeals court can't change when he died.

You are reading too much into a simple typo.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2015 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:

"The date of death seems like an important fact to get wrong."

Actually, it isn't at all important because it is not an issue, it is not subject to review and it's not material to any of the legal issues in the case. No one disputes the date and time of Mr. Daye's death.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2015 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The attorney is lying - she got the date of death wrong in order to coverup duke's malpractice - it wasn't a typo at all - proven by the fact that she totally mistated the facts of the death as documented in duke's medical records.

Is everything in duke's medical records a typo too?; March 3, 2015 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: It is telling that the evil duke trolls on this blog from the Durham-in-Wonderland blog absolutely refuse to accept any facts that have been proven by the evidence of Duke's medical reports in comparison to the discrepancies in the state's ME autopsy report as documented in detail by Dr. Harr and the defense autopsy report. Makes the lacrosse case's defense seem even more questionable than it already is.; March 3, 2015 at 3:22 PM
John D. Smith said...: Dr. Harr,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not still mired in the Duke Lacrosse case, as my efforts are focused on working to overturn Mangum's conviction.

I did not raise the example to discuss the lacrosse case.

I raised the example out of a desire to discuss whether you are credible. You claim you make rare errors in legal judgment and you readily admit those errors. Your claim is false.

Furthermore, I disagree with you that my definition of exculpatory is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exculpatory_evidence
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exculpatory+evidence
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exculpatory-evidence/

None is consistent with your definition.

Please provide support that your definition of “exculpatory” is correct.

Otherwise I must conclude you are either delusional or a liar. No one should trust you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 3, 2015 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:

"The attorney is lying - she got the date of death wrong in order to coverup duke's malpractice."

The facts of the case in an appeal are based solely on the record on appeal (all pleadings and papers filed in the case, the transcript of the lower court proceedings, and the decisions, orders and docket entries of the lower court).

Appellate courts are not fact finders. They do not review or make findings of fact. The facts on an appeal are based solely and entirely on the facts adduced at the trial, as reflected in the record on appeal. The briefs are where the parties make legal arguments.

The date of Mr. Daye's death is not being disputed by anyone. It is not being reviewed by any court and it is not subject to argument, appeal or debate. A wrong date in Mangum's brief does not change anything or cover anything up. It is just a wrong date.

You and Sid will need much more than a scrivener's error if you ever hope to succeed in your quest to circumvent justice.

You need to sit down, enjoy a nice sausage and relax.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2015 at 7:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: The Sausage King said: "You need to sit down, enjoy a nice sausage and relax"........."Sausage Seller you are like the fishers for eels; in still waters they catch nothing but if they thoroughly stir up slime their fishing is good. In the same way that it is only in troubled times you line your pocket".....Aristophanes; March 3, 2015 at 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: If Mike Nifong is still alive did he ever get his law license back and what is he doing these days.; March 3, 2015 at 9:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D Smith said to Anonymous : "You and Sid will need much more than a scrivener's error if you ever hope to succeed in your quest to circumvent justice"....... Their quest is to obtain justice in a case where there was a blatent miscarriage of justice; March 3, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Nifong is alive and retired and has publicly stated he does not want his law license back and will never take any steps to get it back - he has stated he is happily retired.; March 4, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- It's funny that you mention William Cohan, who has stated on record that "...Obviously Crystal proved herself repeatedly to be not the most reliable witness of what happened to her... She told a lot of different stories at first, and then settled down into one version of the story. Then in December of 2006, she could no longer be sure she was assaulted by a penis, so they dropped the rape charge. When I saw her five years later, she told me a different version of events that included the use of a broomstick to assault her. She’s not the most reliable witness..."

Here's the link to the broomstick story.

So I ask you, Kenny, Sid, Tinfoil -- if you believed Crystal's story then how can you believe this now?; March 4, 2015 at 6:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Kenhyderal wrote: "No it was Daye, the known knife thrower, who was throwing knives at Crystal. While he was on top of her and choking her to death, she picked up one the knives scattered around the apartment that he had thrown at her and nearing unconsciousness plunged it into his side."

That is an application of the Kenhyderal rule that says we must believe everything Crystal says and not believe any other evidence to the contrary. The fact is, Crystal made a self serving statement that is simply not true. It is not supported by the physical evidence nor is it supported by Daye's statement. The fact is, Crystal became the aggressor and stabbed Daye.

As is pointed out above, the jury's conclusion on that matter is not subject to review on appeal. Further, Crystal herself doesn't even challenge that issue on appeal.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I agree with another commenter. Just because Mangum's appeals attorney Ann Petersen advocates a position in Mangum's appeal doesn't mean that Mangum is on board with it. There is no doubt in my mind that Petersen is a turncoat and is doing whatever she can to sabotage Mangum's case... just like her trial attorney Meier.; March 4, 2015 at 7:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
What do they need to talk to Mr. Meier about? He is no longer her attorney.

Dr. Harr said she filed a complaint to the state bar about the appeal attorney and sent a letter to the govenor.

The appeal doesn't even get the date of death right in order to leave out Duke's malpractice. That in itself is proof that the appeal is not Ms. Mangum's.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, Crystal was extremely upset with the brief filed by Ann Petersen which was essentially a regurgitation of the lies presented by Dr. Nichols in his autopsy report and in his perjured testimony at trial. I believe that Crystal filed a complaint with the State Bar against both Petersen and Meier.; March 4, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I agree with another commenter. Just because Mangum's appeals attorney Ann Petersen advocates a position in Mangum's appeal doesn't mean that Mangum is on board with it. There is no doubt in my mind that Petersen is a turncoat and is doing whatever she can to sabotage Mangum's case... just like her trial attorney Meier."

Proof? You are fond of publishing letters and the like, show us that Crystal didn't authorize her brief. Even then, at some point Crystal has to start taking responsibility. Until you can prove that Crystal did not agree to the brief prior to its filing, then we have a case where Crystal is not disputing anything but the 404(b) evidence. Which, is her strongest issue, I might add.

Walt-in-Durham; March 4, 2015 at 8:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "She’s not the most reliable witness..."............ Victims of violent traumatic sexual assaults, especially when they have been drugged, do not always make the most reliable witnesses to their own attack. This accrues an unfair benefit to the perpetrators defence. For the victim, as time goes by, it ends up becoming a series of terrifying flashbacks; March 4, 2015 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Cohan: "She’s not the most reliable witness..."

Kenny's response: "Victims of violent traumatic sexual assaults... do not always make the most reliable witnesses... "

Liars and people suffering from delusions also do not always make the most reliable witnesses.

The AG and special prosecutors considered all three explanations. They concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the view that Mangum's inaccurate statements were the result of trauma.

Because of the lack of evidence and the additional affirmative proof that these crimes did not occur during this time...

While prosecutors acknowledge that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that the State had no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.

Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, the Attorney General and his prosecutors determined that the three individuals were innocent of the criminal charges...; March 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Hey Kenny --

"And when I got to the hospital and they took the samples, it was like my skin was coming out like from the inside in my vaginal area and my anal area. And they found, like, wooden pieces. Like, I guess they used a broomstick."

As we now know from Tara Levicy's notes from Crystal Mangum's SANE exam:

Mangum had no vaginal or anal tearing, bleeding, or bruising, no grimacing, no sweating, no changes in vital signs, and no other symptoms ordinarily associated with the serious pain of which she complained. Her head, back, neck, chest, breasts, nose, throat, abdomen, and extremities were all unbruised and normal. There was no sign of rectal penetration; as noted above, Levicy recorded “nothing notable” in the section of the SANE form labeled “Anal Exam.”...Dr. Manly’s only diagnosis of any abnormality in the pelvic examination was “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls.”

The rape kit collected for CGM contained the following:
cheek scrapings, oral swabs, vaginal swabs, rectal swabs, a pubic hair combing, and a pair of white panties collected from the accuser at the Duke ER that morning. Also collected from the accuser were four items of clothing: a pair of red lace underwear, a red lace halter top, a white knit skirt, and a white knit top.

No "like, wooden pieces".

So I ask again, Kenny, Sid, Tinfoil -- if you believed Crystal's story then how can you believe this now?; March 4, 2015 at 10:07 AM
kenhyderal said...: Too bad the actual investigatory file, instead of just a summary of conclusions drawn from that investigation, can not, apparently
by law, be released. We have no way of determining the thoroughness of the investigation and if Cooper's, unprecedented, declaration of innocence can be supported. Both Cohan and Former DA Nifong believe it can not; March 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

While I agree with you in wishing that more of the investigative file had been released, the information contained in the summary, together with the significant amount of evidence that has been released separately, is sufficient to conclude that the AG's conclusion was accurate--the defendants were innocent of the charges they faced.

Only dishonest hucksters like yourself criticize the conclusion. Moreover, your tool is innuendo. You have no specific evidence on which to rely, so you concoct implausible scenarios--such as mystery rapists--that weave around the evidence.

More evidence would not change your "inability" to reach a conclusion. You would be forced to invent an even more implausible scenario. But I know you would be up to that challenge.; March 4, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny said:
"Too bad the actual investigatory file, instead of just a summary of conclusions drawn from that investigation, can not, apparently
by law, be released."

Aww..Poor Kenny. You do realize that the information I posted is from the Sexual Assault Examination Report as made available from the lawsuits:
Evans et al v. Durham et al.
McFadyen et al v. Duke et al.
Carrington et al v. Duke et al.; March 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Your description of the innocence conclusion as "unprecedented" is false.

Other declarations of innocence have been discussed on this board. I am disappointed that these declarations are so rare. Given their power to disrupt lives, prosecutors should do everything they can to remedy errors.

These discussions may have taken place prior to your arrival. I do not intend to spend time to find them for you. Publish Your Comment; March 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- You're the google expert...Why don't you try something like "attorney general drops charges" and see how many hits you get...

I'm betting > 200,000....; March 4, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny: We have no way of determining the thoroughness of the investigation and if Cooper's, unprecedented, declaration of innocence can be supported. Both Cohan and Former DA Nifong believe it can not

Nifong: I have read the report released by the attorney general, including his recitation of evidence that I did not have, obtained from his own investigation. I agree with the attorney general’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans commited any of the crimes for which they were indicted or any other crimes during the party that occurred on March 13 and 14 of 2006 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.

Kenny, you seem to be relying on Nifong's more recent self-serving statements.; March 4, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr.Nifong is happily retired.In other words he's living off the government just like convicted murderer and false rape accuser Crystal Mangum.; March 4, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: None of the lacrosse players ever touched Crystal Mangum.Who would want to?; March 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's be clear: Nifong did not retire. He was removed from office and stripped of his law license. Nifong fought to keep his job and his license every step of the way. I doubt he is happy about the way his career ended or his current situation.

Who wants a sausage?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 4, 2015 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Abe ...

He wasn't happy how it ended, but he's now content that it ended. He was allowed to keep his pension, and his wife still has a good job. He has made it clear that he has no desire to practice law again, and that he will not seek to have his law license restored.

I'm sure he wasn't happy with how it happened, but remember, it's been a lot of years - he's at peace with it. Plus he is 64 years old - even had he been working for a while, it's likely he would have retired by now. Government workers tend to get out at their 30 years.

But, in any event - can only go but what he says publicly, and that is that he's content and has no desire to practice law again, and has not, and will not, seek the restoration of his law license. He could, of course, change his mind at some point in the future - but until he actually asks for it back, nothing Sid does will matter on his behalf.; March 4, 2015 at 1:01 PM
guiowen said...: Actually, Sidney would like the bar to call Mike, apologize abjectly, and restore his license.; March 4, 2015 at 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt ...

Anything new on Sid's case against Duke? Has the Court done anything about his latest filing?; March 4, 2015 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: There is a difference between being content about something and accepting it. Nifong has probably accepted the fact that he will never practice law again, but I doubt he is content with it.

Attorneys (and MD's) usually don't retire in their late
50's/early 60's. They may start winding down, but they usually maintain a practice of some sort, do consulting work, write and/or teach. Nifong certainly didn't run for DA shortly before he was disbarred because he was ready to retire, and he didn't fight so hard to keep his job and his license just so he could retire.

Nifong's claim that he has not and will not seek restoration of his license is meaningless. No attorney wants to lose their license. I have known attorneys who have and it is throroughly humiliating and emasculating.

Likewise, what Nifong claims to desire is irrelevant. No matter what he wants or doesn't want, he can never, ever practice law There is nothing he can do about it. He has no choice in the matter.

Nifong knows there is 0% chance he will get his license back in NC, or get licensed in any other state. Saying he doesn't want his license and that he has no desire to practice law again is his way of coping with the sting and humiliation of losing his license in the first place and the realization that he will never get it back. It is like the kid who, after being rejected by a neighborhood club, says "I can't be in your club? Well I don't want to be in your stupid club anyway."

Frankly, it;s hard to imagine a worse way for an attorney to end their career. The claim that Nifong doesn't want his license back and has no desire to practice law is just his way of trying to put the best possible spin on it. He is entitled to the small comfort that comes from such self-delusion, I suppose, but he is fooling no one but himself.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 4, 2015 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Abe, you are wrong. Nifong is also fooling Sidney.; March 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH Said: "Fake Kenhyderal said...Kenny -- You're the google expert...Why don't you try something like "attorney general drops charges" and see how many hits you get".................. How about Attorney General declares the accused innocent. What Crystal needed was for the investigation to confirm her declared sexual history and make efforts to identify the source of the DNA extracted from sperm that was found. Disingenuously saying that they didn't want to embarrass anyone suggests that Crystal was engaging in prostitution which was definitely not the case. The likely source for that DNA was attendees at the Lacrosse party. No mystery.; March 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Do you even know what "disingenuous" means?
Or are you such a master debater that you can make a word mean whatever you want it to mean?; March 4, 2015 at 1:51 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny said:
"Disingenuously saying that they didn't want to embarrass anyone suggests that Crystal was engaging in prostitution which was definitely not the case. The likely source for that DNA was attendees at the Lacrosse party. No mystery."

Disingenuously changing the topic to DNA source from CGM claiming to have gotten a broomstick up her a$$ is, well, disingenuous.; March 4, 2015 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Crystal admits that she would go on dates with men and they would give her money. I know you and her deny sex - but then why are they giving her money? Is she that good at conversation?; March 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: Escort Agencies are legal licenced business. Not all escorts engage in prostitution on the side. Crystal, on behalf of her agency, was also booked to give erotic performances.; March 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said : "Disingenuously changing the topic to DNA source from CGM claiming to have gotten a broomstick up her a$$ is, well, disingenuous"................................. But it has been confirmed that a not publically identified Player did make the threat to use one on Crystal and Ms. Roberts. It was the fear of that which drove them to seek refuge in the bathroom.; March 4, 2015 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny falsely claims: "but it has been confirmed that a publically [sic] identified Player did make the threat to use one [a broomstick] on Crystal..."

No, Kenny, no threat has ever been confirmed. As you know, the players claimed that the broomstick comment was made when the "dancers" indicated that they did not bring sex toys (contrary to the promises made by the escort agency). The statements by Crystal and Roberts describing the alleged threat are not credible.

But you know that.; March 4, 2015 at 2:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Do you even know what "disingenuous" means?".......... When I was six
,instead of the bike I asked for, Santa Clause brought me a dictionary for Christmas.; March 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Erotic performances... Like the vibrator performance? Why did she forget her vibrator for the lacrosse party?; March 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Does this usage work?

Kenny "disingenuously" says that the "likely source" for the unmatched DNA were the mystery rapists at the party.

He realizes the "likely source" for the DNA are a number of "friends" Crystal "forgot" she had sex with sometime before the party.; March 4, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- In the article provided, Crystal DID NOT claim that a threat was made, she stated in no uncertain terms that the act actually occurred and that they [the hospital] "found, like, wooden pieces." in her ass.

I have shown that the SAER document and the rape kit material gathered in no way documents anything like this claim.

Stop being disingenuous. How do you account for this most recent claim?

And I'll ask for the 3rd time -- if you believed Crystal's story then how can you believe this now?; March 4, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Escort Agencies are legal licenced business."

Not in North Carolina. In fact, NC regulates more professions and business than any other state. Yet, NC does not license escort agencies.

"Not all escorts engage in prostitution on the side. Crystal, on behalf of her agency, was also booked to give erotic performances."

In fact, Crystal did engage in prostitution. Let me refresh your recollection. Her driver gave a statement detailing Crystal's travels around the triangle going to various "out-calls" during the weekend leading up to her false allegations. Crystal's differential DNA test separated and identified five distinct DNA contributors whom she could not or would not be identify. Additional contributors included her boyfriend and the aforementioned driver. Of course there was the strip club bouncer who told 60 Minutes that Crystal's dancing was more to recruit clients for her prostitution business than it was strip dancing.

Walt-in-Durham; March 4, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Walt --

What Kenny meant was that Escort Agencies are legal licenced businesses....in Canada.

He wasn't trying to be, like, disingenous.; March 4, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Well...I think Kenny's the one that needs to be checked for wooden pieces up his butt.

Maybe a nice Canada yew, or Manitoba maple.; March 4, 2015 at 2:51 PM
guiowen said...: I think Kenny disingenuously forgot to read his dictionary.; March 4, 2015 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

When did Cooper discuss the failure to identify the unmatched DNA? I don't see it in the report.; March 4, 2015 at 3:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: In fact, Crystal did engage in prostitution".......... Like all Duke Lacrosse apologists you state as fact things that are untrue. A thorough investigation could have determined that. The Agency kept records and the payment was made by credit card. Rest assured Walt if the Duke Lacrosse defence could have shown Crystal had engaged in prostitution they would have done so. They certainly tried and when they failed they resorted to innuendo. Listening to gossip from a convicted drug dealer like Hayden Thomas tells you nothing; March 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Your protestations might be taken a it more seriously if you didn't also state as fact things that are untrue.

There is significantly more credible evidence to support the claim that Crystal engaged in prostitution than to support your claim that mystery rapists raped Crystal at the lacrosse party.

You know that.; March 4, 2015 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: And to think that there is a hospital with real patients dying in it attached to all this bs you trolls dish out. Beyond incredible.; March 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:01:

Blame Kenny. He raised the lacrosse case at 9:09.; March 4, 2015 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Except he was responding to the March 4, 2015 at 6:30 AM, so that is a false statement.; March 4, 2015 at 4:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: " When did Cooper discuss the failure to identify the unmatched DNA? I don't see it in the report'..............In his summary he did not. This was stated by Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge when Cooper took over the investigation in January 2007 citing they do not want to embarrass innocent people; March 4, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: So you are referring about the ridiculous rationalization for the DPD's complete failure to conduct a bona fide investigation in the same comment in which you criticize Cooper and question his investigation. That seems a little misleading.; March 4, 2015 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You seem to be making quite a few misleading statement today. Are you deliberately trying to deceive other readers?; March 4, 2015 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: And to think there's an anonymous poster@ 4:01pm with a stick up her butt.

Maybe a nice Carolina silverbell, or a chinquapin.; March 4, 2015 at 4:57 PM
guiowen said...: Nifong knew that the DNA -- which did not come from any of the lacrosse players -- would ruin his case. He therefore hid it. When this was discovered, he and Brian Meehan disingenuously claimed they were doing so to protect innocent people.
Kenny disingenuously claims this DNA came from unnamed rapists. Apparently -- if we are to believe his disingenuous statements -- the police and Nifong felt these rapists were innocent people.; March 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM
guiowen said...: So anonymous 4:01 thinks patients will suffer because we discuss this case. Wow! How disingenuous!; March 4, 2015 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Did you realize that Ron Hodge was not involved in the special prosecutor's investigation? Perhaps you should do a little more research before you post to avoid making these types of mistakes.; March 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: It's the way ya'll discuss it - what does it matter anyway - the case is over and ya'll are as insensitive to any duke patient as you are to everyone you 'discuss' this case with.

I am not a part of the discussions or any part these cases, simply a citizen witness to the constant abuse of everyone by it all, so stop abusing me about it.; March 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt said:

"Crystal's differential DNA test separated and identified five distinct DNA contributors whom she could not or would not be identify. Additional contributors included her boyfriend and the aforementioned driver."

I pity the man who "contributed" the fifth DNA sample. I hope Mangum at least gave him a discount.; March 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:43:

As long as some asshole runs a blog that celebrates a prosecutor who attempted to frame people for a crime that never occurred, commenters are justified in discussing it.; March 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Enacting the kenhydral rules on quite a few of the comments made on this blog today would be appropriate and appreciated. In fact, if you do not, your neglect of doing so will be judged as your acceptance of the abuse you host on your blog in the form of the evil duke troll gang's constant abuse of everyone. Thank you.; March 4, 2015 at 6:01 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 5:43,
How disingenuously abusive of you!; March 4, 2015 at 6:01 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 6:01,
Now you're even threatening Sidney!
How disingenuously abusive of you!; March 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: what threat?

evil duke troll it g... - off on its nonsensical mean and mannerless trolling ... again; March 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 6:07
You know very well you threatened Sidney. Don't be disingenuous!; March 4, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:01, 5:43, 6:07:

You realize there was a reasonably serious discussion taking place for several hours before you came in and hijacked the thread. Isn't that what trolls do--hijack threads.

Congratulations. You succeeded.; March 4, 2015 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: g... your calling what was said in my request to Dr. Harr a threat is disingenuous

blah

...

no - I said to quit abusing me and everyone else with ya'lls 'diss-cussion' and asked Dr. Harr to take responsibility as the blog owner to delete some of the more abusive posts ya'll made today and noted that he would be judged, as the blog owner, for not doing so; March 4, 2015 at 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid has wooden pieces up his butt.

Maybe a nice Oregon ash or Oregon myrtle.; March 4, 2015 at 6:45 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Like all Duke Lacrosse apologists you state as fact things that are untrue."

If we are to believe you, Crystal rode around town all weekend long having sex with five unknown men for free. Either she's a slut or a prostitute. Unlike you, I know Crystal. She's not dumb enough to give it away for free to that many guys.

Anonymous at 5:48 PM wrote: "I pity the man who "contributed" the fifth DNA sample. I hope Mangum at least gave him a discount."

It boggles the mind what contributor #5 must have been thinking. I sure hope he got one big discount. It's remarkable he didn't catch anything.

The other guy who boggles the mind is the driver. He made his contribution in the middle of the weekend's activities. He knew what was going on and he knew she wasn't showering.

Walt-in-Durham; March 4, 2015 at 8:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: You know Crystal? You know nothing. You go on unjustly suggesting that she was engaging in prostitution. The Lacrosse Defence conducted investigations all over Durham trying to find some hard evidence of prostitution and failed. They then like you shifted to inuendo Crystal gave a complete sexual history of having sex with only her boyfriend and her driver Their DNA was found. The names of any who booked Crystal were available. Only one was interviewed and he refused to give his DNA but he like Crystal insisted there was no sex. Her driver knew she was not engaging in prostitution but was only working for an escort agency. When DA Nifong withdrew and AG Cooper took over Deputy Police Chief Hodge in defending the DPD said the unknown DNA was not pursued because they did not want to embarrass those who are innocent. That suited the Lacrosse defenders because it shifted suspicion away from the Party; March 4, 2015 at 9:49 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So according to you, they didn't want to embarrass the rapists?; March 5, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You never answered my question about your many misleading statements. Are you just being careless or are you deliberately trying to deceive other readers?; March 5, 2015 at 4:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Bully, troll, and goad Ken Edwards much?; March 5, 2015 at 5:07 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny never answers uncomfortable questions. He normally changes the subject or goes off on a tangent.; March 5, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:07:

Kenny can fend for himself. His preposterous mystery rapist theory is designed to goad other readers.; March 5, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Goad others into what?; March 5, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Engaging him in debate/discussion.; March 5, 2015 at 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: ???

seriously

ya'll are afraid of that?

why?; March 5, 2015 at 7:23 AM
guiowen said...: Because he's a master debater like Humpty Dumpty.; March 5, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: ???

that makes no sense g... (as usual)

the only thing hd did was sit on a wall and fall

???; March 5, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous at 7:23 AM:

A debate/discussion requires at least two serious people with competing, legitimate positions.

kenny is not serious. He is also a liar.

When you see a crazy person on the street, ranting about how the government is using radiowaves to control his mind, you don't argue with him. You simply walk past him w/o making eye contact and go about your business.

To stop and attempt to engage such a person only diminishes you and elevates their position as one that is worthy of discussion.; March 5, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny fell? Is he OK?; March 5, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: You also never engage anyone who lies. Legitimate debate and discussion is a truthful and honest exchange of ideas based on facts and supported by evidence. You cannot have a worthwile discussion with a liar. It's a waste of your time to try.; March 5, 2015 at 7:45 AM
guiowen said...: to the 7:32,
Try reading about Humpty Dumpty.; March 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...: A lesson learned and relearned on this blog repeatedly.

They have this heat machine now ... for crowd control and what not ... so the radio wave controlling people's minds thing actually isn't all that far fetched ya know.; March 5, 2015 at 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...: What kenny fails to appreciate is that Mangum's prior work as a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer; the terms are synonymous) and her false rape accusation have no bearing on whether she is guilty or innocent of murdering Mr. Daye. However, by repeatedly lying about those things, kenny makes it impossible for anyone to believe him when it comes to claims that are relevant to Mr. Daye's death and Mangum's involvement therein. Simply stated, a person who cannot tell the truth about inconsequential and irrelevant things cannot be believed when it comes to more substantial and important matters.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 5, 2015 at 9:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "So according to you, they didn't want to embarrass the rapists?"........... No, like Walt they wanted to suggest the unknown DNA came from prostitution. No reason to embarrass "Johns" who might be high placed and otherwise good citizens, wink wink. This diverts attention away from attendees at the Lacrosse Party. Suggesting the DNA came from prostitution so then there was no need to definitively identify all who were present at the party. Case closed; declare the three charged innocent of any crimes and move on. Besides rape there was drug related sexual assault kidnapping and theft. Strong evidence exists for DRSA and theft.; March 5, 2015 at 10:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You never answered my question about your many misleading statements. Are you just being careless or are you deliberately trying to deceive other readers"........... Who are you and what statements of mine do you consider misleading. Keep in mind that, in most cases, I'm debating phantoms. Telling one from the other is difficult. You can retain your anonymity and adopt a user name you know.; March 5, 2015 at 10:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer; the terms are synonymous"..........."When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more, nothing less." - Humpty Dumpty-; March 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

There you go with the lies again.

The attendees at the lacrosse party were identified early on and they gave DNA samples. They were excluded as contributors to the fluids found on Mangum. If Mangum wants the sources of the various "samples" found on her to be disclosed, it is on her to do so. We know it wasn't anyone at the lacrosse party. That's all that matters.

At this point it is common knowledge that Mangum was a prostitute. It is pointless to continue to lie about it. Beyond that, someday you may want someone to take you seriously.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 5, 2015 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: there is an article on CNN about cyberbullying

nothing good can come from it

... so ... are you EVER going to stop?; March 5, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Perhaps you should read the article, so that you can better understand the actual definition of cyberbullying. Then you'll realize that very little actually occurs here.

Comments about pieces of wood up various people's butts notwithstanding.; March 5, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: it happens here ALL the time

non-stop

without fail

anytime duke is involved - cyberbullying is the norm - especially from the evil duke troll gang from the Durham-in-Wonderland blog; March 5, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Chill out tinfoil. No one is being cyberbullied.; March 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: i do not agree - it has gone on non-stop on this blog for the past 2 years that i have witnessed; March 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Can you point to a specific posting here that is intimidating or threatening to anyone?; March 5, 2015 at 12:26 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So what you're saying is that Nifong didn't really want to catch the rapists?; March 5, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: It sounds like tinfoil has a piece of wood up his butt. Probably a Larch or Scotch Pine, maybe.; March 5, 2015 at 12:32 PM
guiowen said...: Fake Kenhyderal,
Actually, an anonymous comment at 6:01 yesterday could be considered threatening or intimidating. That poster should be banned for life.; March 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: What exactly is threatening or intimidating about the following comment g...?:

Dr. Harr,

Enacting the kenhydral rules on quite a few of the comments made on this blog today would be appropriate and appreciated. In fact, if you do not, your neglect of doing so will be judged as your acceptance of the abuse you host on your blog in the form of the evil duke troll gang's constant abuse of everyone. Thank you.; March 5, 2015 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently Sid found it threatening. We haven't seen or heard from him since you posted it. I hope he's alright.; March 5, 2015 at 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: You actually think Dr. Harr would find that post threatening or intimidating? What a non-joke.

like I said:

non-stop
without fail
cyberbullying; March 5, 2015 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It's certainly more threatening than any of the posts you complain about.; March 5, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Walt said...: Abe Froman wrote: "What kenny fails to appreciate is that Mangum's prior work as a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer; the terms are synonymous) and her false rape accusation have no bearing on whether she is guilty or innocent of murdering Mr. Daye. However, by repeatedly lying about those things, kenny makes it impossible for anyone to believe him when it comes to claims that are relevant to Mr. Daye's death and Mangum's involvement therein. Simply stated, a person who cannot tell the truth about inconsequential and irrelevant things cannot be believed when it comes to more substantial and important matters."

Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.; March 5, 2015 at 1:45 PM
Walt said...: Kenny, you are making less sense than usual when you write: " Suggesting the DNA came from prostitution so then there was no need to definitively identify all who were present at the party."

Everybody who was there, was identified.

"Case closed; declare the three charged innocent of any crimes and move on."

They were innocent. Even you admit that Reid Seligman wasn't even at the party at the time Crystal falsely alleges a rape took place.

"Besides rape there was drug related sexual assault kidnapping and theft."

No, there was not. Indeed, there was no probable cause to support any of those charges.

"Strong evidence exists for DRSA...."

What is that? Durham Recreational Soccer Association? Certainly not a crime to be a member of a recreational soccer league.

Walt-in-Durham; March 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM
kenhyderal said...: Sausage King said: "The attendees at the lacrosse party were identified early on and they gave DNA samples".... That's part of the meta-narrative. All Duke Lacrosse Team members submitted DNA samples except Devon including those who were no where near the Party. Only two non-team members that happened to appear peripherally in photographs of the girls dancing were tested. There was no definitive list made of all there present when Crystal was assaulted. There may have been as many as 20 non-Player attendees, nearly as many as Players, 18 of them unidentified.; March 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt:

I think kenny is trying to invent a new crime: Drug Related Sexual Assault, or DRSA for short. Of course, to falsely accuse the lacrosse party attendees of this non-existent crime, requires yet another lie: that Mangum's intoxication was not self induced.

Liars gotta lie.

Sid Froman
Chicago, IL; March 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: @Sausage King..........Kim Roberts and Crystal's assigned driver, Brian Taylor, both in their statements said Crystal was not impaired when she arrived. As well neighbor Jason Bissey said, from his vantage, she appeared normal upon arrival. Sudden gross impairment only began after consuming part of a drink offered to her by Dan Flanagan highly suggestive of a fast acting and short duration date rape drug like chloral hydrate that was never tested for. As it is with this drug, whose properties are well known by those with nefarious intent, it starts working within minutes and after an hour of impairment it quickly wears off. By the time Crystal reached the Hospital she showed no signs of impairment. This, in contrast to the pictures of her outside the house that showed her hardly able to navigate.; March 5, 2015 at 3:17 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny claims: There may have been as many as 20 non-Player attendees, nearly as many Players, 18 of them unidentified.

Kenny,

You have made this claim previously and provided no evidence to support it. I know that you qualified your assertion with the word "may" to claim that you are not a liar. That will not work--this statement at best is deliberately misleading.

I will reiterate the advice Abe has given you today and other posters have given you previously. Simply stated, a person who cannot tell the truth about inconsequential and irrelevant things cannot be believed when it comes to more substantial and important matters.

This is the type of statement that will ensure that no one takes you seriously. Any attempt to debate your mystery rapist theory earns you justifiable ridicule and ensures that your opinions and comments on Mangum's murder conviction will continue to be ignored.

I suggest that you either provide credible proof for this preposterous statement or retract it and apologize to the readers on this board. You wasted everyone's time.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 5, 2015 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Sydney said:

"Yes. If Daye died due to an infection secondary to the stab wound, or even due to a complication of surgery, then I think the proximate cause of death could fairly be assigned to the stab wound... as complications of injuries include infections.

However, when an acute catastrophic malpractice event such as esophageal intubation is introduced, then that act becomes the intervening and proximate cause of death... especially if it directly results in death, or as in Daye's case it results in brain death which leads to removal from life support followed by actual death.

In Daye's case, had he not been intubated in the esophagus with resulting brain death, it is overwhelmingly likely that he would've survived and fully recovered. The other event that complicates Daye's case is his alcoholic withdrawal signs... and delirium tremens is a serious event in itself and if not properly treated can result in death.

For the record, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that Mangum acted in self-defense and that the stab wound was the final event in a serious of violence directed at her that included busting down the bathroom door, dragging her by her hair, and gouging her face with his fingernails.

Hopefully this addresses your question adequately. Let me know if further edification is required."

Lets leave the self defense out at this point. I was basically asking about the treatment of Daye and its outcome. Since you have said you worked in an emergency room then from your post above, if any mistake is made in the treatment of a patient then the person who put that person in the hospital is absolved from the crime or responsibility.

A mistake can happen anytime in the treatment from the emergency room to final discharge. What is the difference between an esophageal intubation or not cleaning instruments correctly and causing an infection? You seem to want to make the esophageal intubation more important than any other mistake a hospital can make. Meaning the mistake a hospital makes has to be ranked in terms of "catastrophic malpractice event"

Now to the self defense. If you want that as the defense, does it matter about the esophageal intubation? Daye could have died any number of ways and could have died on the way to the hospital if the stab wound had been more serious. Magnum would have not been convicted if it was self defense no matter how Daye died. Why confuse the issue here?; March 5, 2015 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: John D. Smith:

At 3:48 pm you accused kenny of making a deliberately misleading statement.

There is a word for a deliberately misleading statement. The word is "lie." There is also a word for people who make such statements. The word is "liar."

kenny is a liar. He tells lies.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 5, 2015 at 6:43 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
You still haven't told me whether you think Mike Nifong was simply not interested in identifying the rapists.
(Didn't work out too well for him, did it?); March 5, 2015 at 9:34 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
You still haven't told me whether you think Mike Nifong was simply not interested in identifying the rapists.
(Didn't work out too well for him, did it?); March 5, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...: guiowen:

Even though your questions was directed toward kenny, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

My feelings toward Nifong are a little more ambivalent than others on here (from what I can tell).

Nifong had a highly charged case on his hands. The national media was creating a narrative with it. He had the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, Duke University and assorted Social Justice/Race/Wymyns Rights Warriors pressuring for charges.

Nifong was not equipped by way of background, education, experience, temperment or intelligence to deal with it all. So, he decided that as long as he had a witness saying she was raped/assaulted/? and willing to ID the alleged perps he would punt and let the courts sort it all out. I believe he felt this was, for him, the safest way to go and the way that would bring the least amount of negative publicity down on him. After he came to that conclusion he simply stopped analyzing the facts and evidence.

In his heart of hearts, Nifong probably knew Mangum was lying and the defendants were innocent (or at least that there was no probable cause to believe they were guilty), but that the best way (for him) for that come out was at a trial and that a trial was needed because the highly charged circumstances surrounding the case.

I think Nifong felt (with some cause) that he would be ruined professionally if he did not bring the case to trial. Instead, he got ruined for bringing the case to trial.

Nifong was wrong to proceed the way he did but in a way I feel some empathy toward him.

But what do I know?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 6, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Walt said...: Abe Froman wrote: "Nifong was not equipped by way of background, education, experience, temperment or intelligence to deal with it all. So, he decided that as long as he had a witness saying she was raped/assaulted/? and willing to ID the alleged perps he would punt and let the courts sort it all out. I believe he felt this was, for him, the safest way to go and the way that would bring the least amount of negative publicity down on him. After he came to that conclusion he simply stopped analyzing the facts and evidence."

I don't really give Nifong that much of a pass Abe. He had to prove rape and to do that, he had to prove that the defendants did, knowingly or intentionally have carnal knowledge of another without her consent.

The problem was that he had to have a positive ID. Some years before 2006, the Durham Superior Courts were being regularly reversed on identification issues. The DPD and the DCSD were using unreliable identification techniques such as drive byes and photo arrays administered by the investigating officer. The NC Court of Appeals and Supreme Court did not like these types of identifications and they were regularly reversing convictions based on them. At the same time the Public Defender of Durham was pushing for a different lineup system. Jim Hardin, then the DA, the Public Defender, some of the Superior Court Judges, Worth Hill, the Sheriff, and the Durham Police Chief sat down and looked at their sorry reversal rate. They decided to go with the Public Defender's idea of a new general order for identifications. Worth Hill immediately adopted the idea for the DCSD. The Judges, tired of being reversed, came on board fairly quickly, so too Hardin. The DPD took their time but ultimately wrote the best general order on lineups in North Carolina. If a police officer follows it, then there is almost no chance of reversal on appeal. The actual innocence commission has adopted the general order and the Wilmington Police have too. In fact, the DPD order is a model used across the state and even the nation.

(Part 1 of a 2 part post.; March 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM
Walt said...: Part 2

However, when Crystal was presented with a conforming lineup administered by an officer not involved in the case, she couldn't pick anyone from the party as her assailants. The DPD tried various tactics from the bad old days to get her to pick someone, but she just couldn't. So, they reverted to a completely inadmissible lineup administered by an officer directly involved in the case. This of course rendered her ID inadmissible if the judges were to stick to the agreement they made with Hill, Hardin, the Public Defender and the Chief.

Nifong knew this was his problem. No ID, his case gets tossed at a pre-trial hearing. So, Nifong did the one smart thing he did in this whole fiasco. He went looking for scientific evidence to provide identification of the perps. Then he hit a snag. The SBI lab couldn't come up with a positive ID. Worse, they ruled out all the suspects he did have.

Then, he went looking for Y/STR (differential) DNA testing that is more sensitive than what the SBI could do. Unfortunately for all concerned, he went to a dishonest lab chief in Brian Meehan. Not that Meehan's work was dishonest. It wasn't. His report though was. Meehan's lab could not find any matches either. But, Meehan was willing to give a report that could keep the case alive, at least if the defense didn't look too closely at the actual results.

Unfortunately, they did. No matches from Meehan's lab either. So, Nifong knew in May, 2006 he had no admissible eyewitness identification and he had no scientific evidence. That is a total and complete lack of probable cause to proceed.

Under Rule 3.8(a) of our Rules of Professional Conduct, Nifong had an affirmative obligation to refrain from prosecuting a charge that he knows is not supported by probable cause. That is a continuing duty, not one absolved by a Grand Jury indictment. But, it continues through the case and trial. Rule 3.3 requires all attorneys to refrain from making false statements to the court, or to correct those statements as soon as they know they are incorrect. Nifong failed on that count too. Finally, Rule 3.4 requires fairness to opposing counsel. By obscuring the DNA results in a very obtuse report, Nifong violated Rule 3.4 as well. Further, Nifong lied in his many pressers about the facts of the case. While a DA does not have the same duties to be truthful in a presser that he has in court, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not countenance lies to the public.

Let me make it clear, at no point after the DNASI report on the differential DNA testing was in Nifong's hands in May 2006, did he have probable cause to proceed. He was from that point forward obligated to dismiss the case. That, he did not do. And that is why he was disbarred and jailed.

Walt-in-Durham; March 6, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Enacting the kenhydral rules on quite a few of the comments made on this blog today would be appropriate and appreciated. In fact, if you do not, your neglect of doing so will be judged as your acceptance of the abuse you host on your blog in the form of the evil duke troll gang's constant abuse of everyone. Thank you.

I appreciate your comment and concern. It is my desire to have a forum where all can express their feelings freely, while exercising a modicum of civility and responsibility. I am aware that this is not always the case, and in the most cruel cases I will enact the kenhyderal doctrine.

As you may know, I do not have internet at home (too expensive... and free at the library), ergo my time online is somewhat limited. Much of that time I do spend online is researching for sharlogs, for correspondence... and currently for visual references in preparation for the resumption of the comic strip. Subtracting time spent on e-mail and Facebook, the rest of my online time, which I try to limit as much as possible, is devoted to the blog site. There are days when I am unable to get to the library and times when the backload of comments is overwhelming. If specific comments that are outrageously offensive are posted I will watch for them and delete them or hopefully viewers and commenters will bring them to my attention. My hope is that all commenters are able to express themselves fully and freely while respecting the sensitivities of others who visit the site.; March 6, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Actually, Sidney would like the bar to call Mike, apologize abjectly, and restore his license.

gui, mon ami, actually I could care less if the State Bar apologized to Mike Nifong because even if it did it would most likely not be sincere. As far as I'm concerned, an apology that is not heart-felt is worthless.

I would, however, very much desire to have the State Bar reinstate his license to practice law.; March 6, 2015 at 8:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D. Smith said: Simply stated, a person who cannot tell the truth about inconsequential and irrelevant things cannot be believed when it comes to more substantial and important matters::......... And what are the inconsequential and irrelevant things I have not told the truth about. I suppose the list of who was in attendance is one of those investigative notes that can not by law be released. The only stipulation of fact as to who all was there came in the disciplinary case against former DA Nifong and that was very ambiguous making reference to ex-Duke Lacrosse Players. I quote, the agreed to stipulation, " Police investigators revealed that the residents of 610 Buchanan Boulevard were members of the Duke University lacrosse team and that other attendees at the March 13 2006 party had also been members of the team; March 6, 2015 at 8:51 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Kenhyderal,
You still haven't told me whether you think Mike Nifong was simply not interested in identifying the rapists. (Didn't work out too well for him, did it?).......... I'll defer on this to Walt. I believe he has covered it very well. I will add, however, that Crystal believes DA Nifong was seeking justice for her.; March 6, 2015 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I think it would be appropriate if you were aware of the abuse that exists on your blog and dealt with it directly and in a timely manner, especially before you place any comic relief articles on your blog, or indicate you are too busy, for anyone to be abused or harmed any more. I am sure I speak for many.

I am sure you would agree that not causing harm to any, especially in the form of cyberbully and obviously harm or abuse from the justice system and/or Duke is an important responsibility in owning and running this blog. If not, I am requesting that you do so from now on.

Thank you.; March 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt:

I appreciate your comments. When laid out and explained as you did in your post, the case against Nifong is much clearer and sronger.

Let me just say, I don't think Nifong set out to do wrong. I think he was a small, petty man beset my circumstances bigger than he was able to fully comprehend or equipped to handle. He made a series of wrong decisions. I think he probably justified it by telling himself it would all work out at trial. I don't know that I buy the narrative that when the Mangum case crossed his desk he said to himself, "I can wrongly prosecute these boys I know to be innocent to become DA." Although, after reading your last post . . . I may have to reconsider my position.

Sid:

There are many things I don't know, but this I say with complete certainty: Nifong will never, ever, ever be allowed to practice law again - in NC or anywhere else. Whatever his motivations, his conduct in the Mangum rape prosecution and the complete disregard of his ethical and professional obligations is inexcusable. It demonstrates that he is unfit to practice law, or hold any position of trust and authority.

Minority communities have long been disproportionately affected by police and prosecutorial heavy handedness, misconduct and abuse of the legal system. Shame on you, Sid, for cheerleading such behavior. No sausage for you.

Abe Froman; March 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Seriously whiny Anonymous ... stop whining about the "abuse and harassment" on the board - Sid does have better things to do than to police every comment.

If you are so sensitive that what is posted upsets you, stop reading the blog.

Your incessant whining is harassing and bullying the rest of us.; March 6, 2015 at 1:03 PM
John D. Smith said...: Abe,

You grant Nifong some slack because he "had a highly charged case on his hands." You sympathize with his plight due to the media created narrative.

While Nifong certainly was not the sole impetus behind the "highly charged case," he clearly had a major role in creating the highly charged environment. He gave more than 40 interviews in which he threw gasoline on the fire. His interviews were in violation of ethics rules and also contributed to the bar's decision to disbar him.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 6, 2015 at 3:07 PM
Walt said...: Abe wrote: "Minority communities have long been disproportionately affected by police and prosecutorial heavy handedness, misconduct and abuse of the legal system. Shame on you, Sid, for cheerleading such behavior. No sausage for you."

Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Abe also wrote: "Let me just say, I don't think Nifong set out to do wrong. I think he was a small, petty man beset my circumstances bigger than he was able to fully comprehend or equipped to handle. He made a series of wrong decisions. I think he probably justified it by telling himself it would all work out at trial. I don't know that I buy the narrative that when the Mangum case crossed his desk he said to himself, "I can wrongly prosecute these boys I know to be innocent to become DA.""

I don't know that we are all that far apart. I think Nifong disregarded his duty. I think he knew he was prosecuting innocent men, after his meeting with Dr. Meehan at DNASI in May 2006. (Know by all who followed the bar hearing as Dr. Obfuscation.) That's when Nifong moved from zealous to over zealous in my book. But, even before that he was giving pressers where he described events in remarkable detail. Details that he had never heard from Crystal, because he says he never interviewed her. So, I have to wonder about his motives even before the DNASI meeting. But, I give him a certain benefit of the doubt up to the Meehan meeting. After that, he was completely unethical.

Walt-in-Durham; March 6, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Unlike Dr. Harr I do not believe Reginald Daye was deliberately put to death. I believe this was an entirely preventable death, though, and that medical misadventure was to blame. This, it seems, was followed by the unethical concealment of the errors in care that he received by practitioners there at Duke Hospital. With proper care emesis of contrast, causing aspiration, should not happen but if it does, with proper action to maintain the airways it can be handled . Misplacement of an endo-tracheal tube is a dangerous mistake. Even using a wrong size is in itself a mistake. This whole cascade of events that lead to Reginald's cardiac arrest and brain death represents a critical failure in the care that he was provided. This tragic error played right into the hands of those who wished to punish Crystal. The long-delayed autopsy completely ignored all the events that really led to Daye's death. In medicine, unlike in law where intervening causes can be dismissed, cause of death is a progression. The immediate cause of death was of course the elective removal from life-support. He was on life support because of a coma brought about by cerebral anoxia. The cerebral anoxia was brought about by circulatory collapse, brought about by cardiac arrest, brought about by cardiac arrhythmia brought about by lack of oxygen to the myo-cardium, brought about by an obstructed airway, brought about by aspiration into the trachea, brought about by emesis, brought about by the introduction of contrast media into the stomach. Was he being treated for an infection caused by his wounds or by delirium tremens. In ascertaining the cause of death Dr. Nichols should not have ignored everything beyond the stab wound that Daye was successfully treated for. Crystal wounded Daye while fending off a strangulation that she though was going to end in her demise.; March 6, 2015 at 6:00 PM
John D. Smith said...: Walt and Abe,

I believe Nifong moved from zealous to overzealous much earlier than you suggest.

Nifong had his first briefing on the case on March 27, 2006 from Gottlieb and Himan. At that meeting, they informed him that there no credible evidence to support a prosecution of anyone. Nifong responded with his often quoted "We're fucked!"

He left the interview and then proceeded to provide his first interview on the case.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 6, 2015 at 6:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Once again I have to point out that the post by Anonymous at 6:00 PM is plagiarized directly from a post I made on October 30 2013 at 9:32. I don't know what the motive of this poster is but it's something I think Dr. Harr should pursue. Continuing to cut and paste old posts, of others and passing them off as their own is, in my opinion, an exercise in dishonesty. I note they are usually off topic to the discussion currently happening; March 6, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Anonymous said...: This blog is read,(or can be - will be - could be), by any and all. That includes Ms. Mangum and her family - who are provided no protection from cyberbullying on this blog. Cyberbullying has been proven to be fatal to some, and to cause great psychological harm to its victims in many instances, especially for the young.

This fact should be acknowledged and respected by ALL before they post to this blog, and in every decision Dr. Harr makes when reviewing HIS blog for all such bullying after each day's blog comments are made.

This is not a new issue on this blog - just one with a nationally recognized terminology that is currently given the distinction and understanding as CYBERBULLYING, with the harm and potential for death widely understood as a reason for serious concern in conjunction with the term.

The evil duke troll gang does not have any recognized right to harm others. Dr. Harr does not have the right to host them on his blog without taking responsibility for consequences of harm to any. He knows who is being put at risk of harm - and is intelligent enough to know that his actions of allowing or supporting cyberbullying on his blog does not correspond with his stated attempts to assist Ms. Mangum (and her family) in her defense, as well as exposing others to the same risk.

It is not a new request. Just one made again more bluntly and with the terminolgy of cyberbullying attached that carries a clearer understanding of the potential harm it poses to all and to many.

There is NO excuse. NONE.; March 6, 2015 at 9:39 PM
guiowen said...: Oh dear me!
It must be terrible to realize that people don't agree with all you say! Can you forgive us for pointing out your deficiencies?; March 6, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "I believe Nifong moved from zealous to overzealous much earlier than you suggest.

Nifong had his first briefing on the case on March 27, 2006 from Gottlieb and Himan. At that meeting, they informed him that there no credible evidence to support a prosecution of anyone. Nifong responded with his often quoted "We're fucked!"

He left the interview and then proceeded to provide his first interview on the case."

I respect that point of view. Evidence to support your opinion. Well done. I have always given Nifong the benefit of the doubt on the timing. But, John you could very well be right.

Walt-in-Durham; March 7, 2015 at 4:16 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Only Dr.Harr can prevent others from copying posts that kenhyderal has and then re-posting. On many occasions I have implored Dr, Harr to either proscribe this behaviour or to interdict it but without success. I also have a complaint about the frequent and hurtful racist posts he allows. These posters often use a technique frequently adopted by right wing politicians in the U.S.A. and that is charging your opponents with the very crimes you, yourself, are guilty of. Calling those who beleive Crystal was sexually assulted by the LaX Team, "anti-Caucasian racists" is absolutely ludicrous. But I do call on Dr.Harr to set the record straight about my identity and to show some sensitivity in allowing such hate speech to be given an audience.; March 7, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: So much whining ... If you can't handle it - stop posting. I disagree with most of what Sid says and does, but I do agree he shouldn't waste his time constantly going back and removing comments because a few people get their panties in a wad and claim to be offended. Let the man move forward. If you can't handle the comments on the blog or want to cry about being copied - go away and/or grow up.

Sid, this is a public forum, sometimes people who comment will be mean. Don't worry about it. Produce your comic and use your time as you see fit, not as Kenny and some other overgrown babies who need to realize they don't have to read the comments want to insist.; March 7, 2015 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You need to plop a new shlog on us. This one has dried out and is starting to smell funny.; March 7, 2015 at 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:45:

You must have missed Sid's announcement. He is largely ending the production of new sharlogs. He realizes that he has nothing new to add and is concentrating his efforts to his letter writing campaign and drawing new comics.

I fully support his decision to cease production of new sharlogs, albeit that this decision is a bit late. He hasn't really said anything new for about two years.; March 7, 2015 at 7:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: KH Supporter is a plagiarist. His post at 5:42 is a cut and past of a post I made Aug.29 2012 at 8:47. Too bad that he is so dim-witted that he has no thoughts of his own; March 7, 2015 at 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever Sid is now doing, he needs to squeeze a fresh one out. This one is musty and stale.; March 7, 2015 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"KH Supporter is a plagiarist. His post at 5:42 is a cut and past of a post I made Aug.29 2012 at 8:47. Too bad that he is so dim-witted that he has no thoughts of his own"

Kenny,

It seems more than a little ironic that you whine so much about others who copy your posts. Are you forgetting that you regularly copied and pasted passages at this blog and tried to pass them off as your own? Hence, your nickname "Cut 'N Paste Ken." I am assuming that you will just ignore my question, since answering would be embarrassing for you.; March 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Don't worry. We all (except perhaps Dr. Harr) recognize when someone is plagiarizing one of your posts.

however, can you clear something up? Don't you have anything better to do than to look up the date and time you originally posted the plagiarized comment? You do you have your comments organized so that looking them up doesn't take much time?; March 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: The most effective way to rebut Kenny is to quote Kenny.; March 7, 2015 at 11:05 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It seems more than a little ironic that you whine so much about others who copy your posts. Are you forgetting that you regularly copied and pasted passages at this blog and tried to pass them off as your own? Hence, your nickname "Cut 'N Paste Ken." I am assuming that you will just ignore my question, since answering would be embarrassing for you....................Regularly; can you give an example? I remember the case well where I was first accused of this but please remember I was the one who provided the readers, here, with the original source. It was then they noted that I has used a paragraph un-sourced from the link I provided to The Asia Times. This was in March 2012. In typical Duke Lacrosse apologist tactics, since that time they have incessantly labeled me as a plagiarist. I defy anyone to find and post another example; March 7, 2015 at 2:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: I forgot to note that this was on a subject inconsequential to this blog where a reader accused Canada of wrongly voting to endorse a report praising Quaddafi for making improvements in civil rights in Libya; March 7, 2015 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Other than whining and trying to be a fame whore by claiming famous friends, has Kenny done anything on this blog?

It was so nice when he had left for a while. He's a bigger joke than Sid. At least Sid does something ... Kenny just tries to tell us how great and wonderful he is (which we know is a joke).

Whine, Kenny, Whine.; March 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Kenny just tries to tell us how great and wonderful he is ."...... Can you give us an example of me doing this?; March 7, 2015 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Care to comment, Kenny?

From Kenny's post of 11/15/11 at 5:11 p.m.:

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire."

From Wikipedia entry titled "Act Against Slavery":

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire."
March 26, 2012 at 7:28 PM; March 7, 2015 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: More from copy and paste Kenny:

From Kenny's post of 9/18/11 at 2:08 p.m.:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."

From Yahoo Answers, Why do people vomit when they dring a lot?:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."
March 26, 2012 at 8:02 PM; March 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, your plagiarism was well documented on this site by other posters.

Anonymous said...
"The point here,kenny, is that you would appear a bit more credible if you were, in fact, ethical and remembered to give credit for using the work of another. Getting caught in repeated acts of grade school cheating does not exactly bolster your claims of intellectual superiority."
March 27, 2012 at 2:54 AM; March 7, 2015 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"I defy anyone to find and post another example"

Really? I will await your explanation.; March 7, 2015 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny has been caught his pants down.; March 7, 2015 at 5:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: There is a big difference in accessing facts from a reference such as Wikipedia or Yahoo Answers in order to bolster an argument and plagiarization. The former constitute a recitation of acknowledged facts that need no citation. In stating the area of Circle equals PI r2 I need not quote Archimedes. In the examples you give, citing me for plagiarism in presenting those facts, is laughable. You Duke Lacrosse apologists are so desperate to discredit Crystal and anyone who believes in her that your charges go "from the ridiculous to the sublime"---Napoleon I, as recorded by Abbé du Pradt, and quoted in the History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, Vol. 3 (1842) by Sir Archibald Alison, p. 593-- Wikipedia. Any readers other then the knee jerk Duke apologists will see the ridiculousness of your charges as compared to my charge that an anonymous poster is digging up old posts of mine and passing them off as an original contribution.; March 7, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Cyberbullying
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cyberbullying is the use of information technology to repeatedly harm or harass other people in a deliberate manner.[1] According to U.S. Legal Definitions, Cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them.; March 7, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Cyberbullying vs. cyberstalking
Further information: Cyberstalking

The practice of cyberbullying is not limited to children and, while the behavior is identified by the same definition when practiced by adults, the distinction in age groups sometimes refers to the abuse as cyberstalking or cyberharassment when perpetrated by adults toward adults.[8] Common tactics used by cyberstalkers are performed in public forums, social media or online information sites and are intended to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Behaviors may include encouraging others to harass the victim and trying to affect a victim's online participation. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them.

Cyberstalking may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass.[9] A repeated pattern of such actions and harassment against a target by an adult constitutes cyberstalking. Cyberstalking often features linked patterns of online and offline behavior. There are consequences of law in offline stalking and online stalking, and cyberstalkers can be put in jail.[10] Cyberstalking is a form of cyberbullying.[11]; March 7, 2015 at 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Legal definition

Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as

actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.; March 7, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."[5][6]; March 7, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: A cyberbully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyberbully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target. This is known as a "digital pile-on."[7]; March 7, 2015 at 8:22 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 863 Newer› Newest»

Friday, February 20, 2015

Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

863 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me