justice4nifong: Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

Friday, February 20, 2015

Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

863 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 863 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: kenny, no one is cyberbullying you. Start behaving like an adult.; March 7, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Cyberbullying
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law enforcement: cyberbullying, cyberstalking and electronic harassment

A majority of states have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws.[26][27]

Most law enforcement agencies have cyber-crime units and often Internet stalking is treated with more seriousness than reports of physical stalking.[28] Help and resources can be searched by state or area.; March 7, 2015 at 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Schools

The safety of schools is increasingly becoming a focus of state legislative action. There was an increase in cyberbullying enacted legislation between 2006–2010.[29] Initiatives and curriclulum requirements also exist in the UK (the Ofsted eSafety guidance) and Australia (Overarching Learning Outcome 13). In 2012, a group of teens in New Haven, Connecticut developed an app to help fight bullying. Called "Back Off Bully" (BOB), the web app is an anonymous resource for computer, smart phone or iPad. When someone witnesses or is the victim of bullying, they can immediately report the incident. The app asks questions about time, location and how the bullying is happening. As well as providing positive action and empowerment over an incident, the reported information helps by going to a data base where administrators study it. Common threads are spotted so others can intervene and break the bully's pattern.[30] BOB, the brainchild of fourteen teens in a design class, is being considered as standard operating procedure at schools across the state.; March 7, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Protection for victims of any age

There are laws that only address online harassment of children or focus on child predators as well as laws that protect adult cyberstalking victims, or victims of any age. Currently, there are 45 cyberstalking (and related) laws on the books.

While some sites specialize in laws that protect victims age 18 and under, Working to Halt Online Abuse is a help resource containing a list of current and pending cyberstalking-related United States federal and state laws.[31] It also lists those states that do not have laws yet and related laws from other countries. The Global Cyber Law Database (GCLD) aims to become the most comprehensive and authoritative source of cyber laws for all countries.[32]; March 7, 2015 at 11:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Children and adolescents

Kids report being mean to each other online beginning as young as 2nd grade. According to research, boys initiate mean online activity earlier than girls do. However, by middle school, girls are more likely to engage in cyberbullying than boys.[33] Whether the bully is male or female, his or her purpose is to intentionally embarrass others, harass, intimidate, or make threats online to one another. This bullying occurs via email, text messaging, posts to blogs, and web sites.

The National Crime Prevention Association lists tactics often used by teen cyberbullies.[34]

Pretend they are other people online to trick others
Spread lies and rumors about victims
Trick people into revealing personal information
Send or forward mean text messages
Post pictures of victims without their consent; March 7, 2015 at 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Studies in the psychosocial effects of cyberspace have begun to monitor the impacts cyberbullying may have on the victims, and the consequences it may lead to. Consequences of cyberbullying are multi-faceted, and affect online and offline behavior. Research on adolescents reported that changes in the victims' behavior as a result of cyberbullying could be positive. Victims "created a cognitive pattern of bullies, which consequently helped them to recognize aggressive people."[35] However, the Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace abstract reports critical impacts in almost all of the respondents’, taking the form of lower self-esteem, loneliness, disillusionment, and distrust of people. The more extreme impacts were self-harm. Children have killed each other and committed suicide after having been involved in a cyberbullying incident.[36]; March 7, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The most current research in the field defines cyberbullying as "an aggressive, intentional act or behaviour that is carried out by a group or an individual repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself" (Smith & Slonje, 2007, p. 249).[35] Though the use of sexual remarks and threats are sometimes present in cyberbullying, it is not the same as sexual harassment, typically occurs among peers, and does not necessarily involve sexual predators.; March 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Some cases of digital self-harm have been reported, where an individual engages in cyberbullying against themselves.[37][38]; March 7, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Adults

Stalking online has criminal consequences just as physical stalking. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action to restore remedy. Cyberstalking is an extension of physical stalking.[39] Among factors that motivate stalkers are: envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life; intention to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior; the stalker is delusional and believes he/she "knows" the target; the stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status; belief they can get away with it (anonymity).[40] UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line theorizes that bullies harass victims in order to make up for inadequacies in their own lives.[41]; March 7, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...: The US federal cyberstalking law is designed to prosecute people for using electronic means to repeatedly harass or threaten someone online. There are resources dedicated to assisting adult victims deal with cyberbullies legally and effectively. One of the steps recommended is to record everything and contact police.[42][43]; March 7, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Your master debating skills are failing you.

From the Free Merriam at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary:

"Full Definition of PLAGIARIZE. transitive verb. : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source."

You claim that you did not plagiarize, but obviously you copied text verbatim from other sources without citation.; March 8, 2015 at 5:05 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree. Kenny is guilty of cyber-bullying. He repeatedly accuses the lacrosse players of abetting or covering up a gang rape.; March 8, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid is also guilty of cyber-bullying. He has a long list of cyber targets.; March 8, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Hell, Sid, Kenny, and the rest regularly accuse Crystal's attorneys of being traitors and turncoats.

Funny how Kenny can dish it, but can't take it.

Whine Kenny whine!; March 8, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid:

You need to plop a new shlog on us. This one has dried out and is starting to smell funny.

The main thing that I would like to do is work on the comic strip. Producing sharlogs takes much time and energy... that's why I took a break from producing the "MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." Although I started to draft narratives for another sharlog, I probably won't have one posted soon, but I do plan on adding to the Communication for Justice by posting the letters and e-mails, and activities during the month of September 2014.; March 8, 2015 at 11:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Another enlightened comment which accurately stated the cascade of events that led to Reginald Daye's death. It is worth repeating, and I will copy the comment and use it in future correspondence.; March 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: The only thing that I would add to the above statement that is slightly different from the commenter is that I believe the lack of oxygen to the lungs was due more to an esophageal intubation rather than obstruction due to aspiration... although possible aspiration certainly would not have helped. Otherwise, I feel the entire comment is spot-on, and most probably authored by a physician, nurse, or other highly trained health care provider.

Thank you for your comment.; March 8, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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?

Thank you for your question. Let me make it clear that there is a tremendous difference between an esophageal intubation and causing an infection. An esophageal intubation is a catastrophic mistake that will invariably progress from brain death to actual death if not recognized and corrected immediately. Not recognizing an esophageal intubation in a timely manner is probably one of the worst things that can happen in the hospital. Infections, on the other hand, are not always fatal, and can usually be treated with antibiotics. Also some infections, despite the best treatment possible, cannot be prevented... and it is difficult to trace the source of an infection.

There is no evidence that Daye had an infection... but that could've been treated with antibiotics. Anoxic brain death due to esophageal intubation that causes irreversible coma is something that can't be rectified.

But you are correct in recognizing my position as being that an esophageal intubation is probably the worst event that can take place in the hospital or in the field... if not recognized immediately and removed with re-intubation in the trachea.; March 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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

Abe, I disagree with you on just about everything you said. With regards to Mike Nifong, I believe that it is possible that his license to practice law in North Carolina will be re-instated. That is the all important issue. Whether or not he elects to practice law again would be up to him, but from talking with him I believe that it is unlikely that even if his license is reinstated, that he would practice law again.; March 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Nifong Supporter said: " Another enlightened comment which accurately stated the cascade of events that led to Reginald Daye's death. It is worth repeating, and I will copy the comment and use it in future correspondence"....... ..
Once again I have to point out that post by Anonymous 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 you should pursue. Continuing to cut and paste old posts, of others and passing them off as your own is, in my opinion, an exercise in dishonesty. I note they are usually off topic to the discussion currently happening; March 8, 2015 at 3:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Nifong Supporter said: " I feel the entire comment is spot-on, and most probably authored by a physician, nurse, or other highly trained health care provider"..... No it's just from myself, a lay person. I have, however, been enlightened on this matter both by your posted explanations and from what research I have been able to do.; March 8, 2015 at 3:56 PM
guiowen said...: Actually, I would think a good example of a cyberbully is someone who calls the rest of the commenters "evil Duke trolls". Maybe someone can count the number of times he's done this, and report this number top the police.; March 8, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...: why don't you evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hatemonger blogmonger (ie: cyberbully)?; March 9, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Cyberbullying
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methods used

Manuals to educate the public, teachers and parents summarize, "Cyberbullying is being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material using a cell phone or the internet." Research, legislation and education in the field are ongoing. Basic definitions and guidelines to help recognize and cope with what is regarded as abuse of electronic communications have been identified.

Cyberbullying involves repeated behavior with intent to harm.
Cyberbullying is perpetrated through harassment, cyberstalking, denigration (sending or posting cruel rumors and falsehoods to damage reputation and friendships), impersonation, and exclusion (intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group)[16]; March 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send emails or text messages harassing someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. It may also include public actions such as repeated threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech) or defamatory false accusations), ganging up on a victim by making the person the subject of ridicule in online forums, hacking into or vandalizing sites about a person, and posting false statements as fact aimed a discrediting or humiliating a targeted person.[17] Cyberbullying could be limited to posting rumors about a person on the internet with the intention of bringing about hatred in others' minds or convincing others to dislike or participate in online denigration of a target. It may go to the extent of personally identifying victims of crime and publishing materials severely defaming or humiliating them.[5]; March 9, 2015 at 3:02 AM
Anonymous said...: In social media

Cyberbullying can take place on social media sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. “By 2008, 93% of young people between the ages of 12 and 17 were online. In fact, youth spend more time with media than any single other activity besides sleeping.”[19] There are many risks attached to social media sites, and cyberbullying is one of the larger risks. One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year, while 90 percent of social-media-using teens who have witnessed online cruelty say they have ignored mean behavior on social media, and 35 percent have done this frequently. 95 percent of social-media-using teens who have witnessed cruel behavior on social networking sites say they have seen others ignoring the mean behavior, and 55 percent witness this frequently.[20]; March 9, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: ”The most recent case of cyber-bullying and illegal activity on Facebook involved a memorial page for the young boys who lost their lives to suicide due to anti-gay bullying. The page quickly turned into a virtual grave desecration and platform condoning gay teen suicide and the murdering of homosexuals. Photos were posted of executed homosexuals, desecrated photos of the boys who died and supposed snuff photos of gays who have been murdered. Along with this were thousands of comments encouraging murder sprees against gays, encouragement of gay teen suicide, death threats etc. In addition, the page continually exhibited pornography to minors.”[21]; March 9, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: In gaming
See also: Gamergate controversy

Sexual harassment as a form of cyberbullying is common in video game culture.[22] A study by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that this harassment is due in part to the portrayal of women in video games.[22] This harassment generally involves slurs directed towards women, sex role stereotyping, and overaggressive language.[23]; March 9, 2015 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: In one case, in which Capcom sponsored an internet-streamed reality show pitting fighting game experts against each other for a prize of $25,000, one female gamer forfeited a match due to intense harassment.[24] The coach of the opposing team, Aris Bakhtanians, stated, "The sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community… it doesn't make sense to have that attitude. These things have been established for years."[24]

A study from National Sun Yat-sen University observed that children who enjoyed violent video games were far more likely to both experience and perpetrate cyberbullying.[25]; March 9, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Whine Kenny whine ...

I love how all of you claim to support Sid's work, but want him to spend his time not researching or doing work but pouring over the comments to make sure that they don't offend overly sensitive people, or were copied from a comment from years ago that no one but Kenny even remembers.

Wah wah wah ...; March 9, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I feel the entire comment is spot-on, and most probably authored by a physician, nurse, or other highly trained health care provider."

The comment author may, or more likely may not be a medical professional. What is certain, the author is wrong about the law. As is Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; March 9, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

After re-reading the comment, I noticed that although the commenter did not mention "esophageal intubation" he was probably referring to it when he talked about the obstructed airway which followed his sequence which took place after the aspiration. What I'm trying to say, is that I totally agree with the commenter with the exception, as was noted, that I believe the probability is greater that Daye's death was no accident. On this point, I admit that I could be wrong.; March 9, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I feel the entire comment is spot-on, and most probably authored by a physician, nurse, or other highly trained health care provider."

The comment author may, or more likely may not be a medical professional. What is certain, the author is wrong about the law. As is Sid.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Granted, the law is not my forte when it comes to expertise, but I still believe that the conviction of Mangum was a travesty of justice... as I believe will bear out once Mangum is released from custody. I would believe this will happen in the near future.; March 9, 2015 at 7:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Nifong Supporter said: " I feel the entire comment is spot-on, and most probably authored by a physician, nurse, or other highly trained health care provider"..... No it's just from myself, a lay person. I have, however, been enlightened on this matter both by your posted explanations and from what research I have been able to do.

Hey, kenhyderal.

I didn't realize that the comment was a copy and paste from what you had earlier commented, but I am glad whoever it was re-posted it as it had slipped my awareness. It is such an insightful and impressive statement that I have included a copy of it in my latest correspondence.; March 9, 2015 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - you keep saying you think she will be released sooner rather than later ... and you claimed there were others working on her behalf that you could name, but won't.

So, other than waiting on the Court of Appeals, what else is going on? I mean, you've been saying she would be free (or never charged) for YEARS, yet here we are. Why should anyone believe you now?; March 9, 2015 at 10:19 AM
guiowen said...: Anonymous said...

"why don't you evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hatemonger blogmonger (ie: cyberbully)?"

March 9, 2015 at 2:29 AM

Quite frankly, it's all the same to me whether the police takes you away for your cyberbullying. Since however there are individuals here who are suffering because of you, I am giving them advice on this matter.; March 9, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously g...?

do you EVER stop, eh?

EVER?

DO NOT, AND I MEAN - DO NOT EVER - EVER TROLL ME OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BLOG AGAIN - EVER

when you do - you will confirm that you are a cyberbully - fully fitting of the term evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hatemonger blogmonger, (or versions of it), for doing so

blah; March 9, 2015 at 9:17 PM
guiowen said...: Tin Foil,
Please stop whining.; March 9, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil:

Mind your manners.; March 9, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Clr said...: I have been watching this blog for several years, from a distance, as I was the topic of one of Dr. Harr's posts. It was the most accurate and insightful depiction of a system I found myself entangled in. I was blind, but now I see that Justice, she is not.

I believe sir, that your desire for social justice is worthy, unfortunately you have not always selected the best representative of your cause, thereby being seen as wrong in the details, rather than correct in the overall discussion.; March 10, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Clr,

As you know, Sid champions the cause of the perpetrator of one of the most highly publicized cases of prosecutorial misconduct in recent history. He refuses to examine evidence for fear of upsetting his preconceptions. As a result, it is hard to take him seriously as a warrior for justice.; March 10, 2015 at 4:37 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "fully fitting of the term evil duke troll it g"

"Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient."

Emphasis mine.; March 10, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: If you ever have an intubation tube stuck down your throat while you black out and your brain begins its quick descent into death and you suffer a heartattack, all while evil duke devils grin tenaciously as they pound on your heart until you can no longer remember if you are alive or not ... you may wish then that someone in the justice system and Duke would take Dr. Harr seriously on at least the issue of Duke's malpractice and the justice system's coverup of the same!; March 10, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Clr said...
I have been watching this blog for several years, from a distance, as I was the topic of one of Dr. Harr's posts. It was the most accurate and insightful depiction of a system I found myself entangled in. I was blind, but now I see that Justice, she is not.

I believe sir, that your desire for social justice is worthy, unfortunately you have not always selected the best representative of your cause, thereby being seen as wrong in the details, rather than correct in the overall discussion.

Hey, Cir. I welcome your contributions to the blog site's comment section.

There are individuals, such as former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum, whom I believe have been maliciously impugned by the State and the mainstream media to the extent that they are essentially pariahs and no individual or organization will come to their defense. That is why I fight on their behalf because they deserve justice just like everyone else. Others who are mistreated but have the empathy of the media usually have no problem with receiving support from the media, civil rights organizations and others... they are individuals who are not in as much need of my assistance as those vilified by the medias like Nifong and Mangum.

Hope that addresses your comment.

I hope that your entanglement with the justice system had a desired outcome.; March 10, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Walt said...: It is abundantly clear that a number of our anonymous posters are not mature enough carry on a discussion.

In hopes of getting some of the less immature annonomi back on track, I have a question that might have found its way onto a law school exam in criminal law, had the facts not been true.

Some questions for you to ponder:

Mort, entered a home, not his own. Is this a crime, if so, why, if not, why not?

Mort, looked around the home and took a T.V. and an urn containing a white powdery substance with him as he left the home. Is this a crime, if so, why, if not, why not?

As Mort was driving away from the home, he snorted some of the white powdery substance. Mort made quite a discovery, the white powdery substance was not cocaine, but ashes. Is this a crime, if so why, if not, why not?; March 10, 2015 at 7:36 AM
John D. Smith said...: Walt,

I don't believe you provided enough facts to provide answers. I can provide different scenarios that require different answers depending on the facts.

For example, if Mort was invited into the home by the owner, he did not commit a crime. If he was trespassing he did.

If he was given the TV and the urn by the home, he was not guilty of a crime. If he took them with no authorization, he was

If he was given the urn by the owner, he was not guilty of a crime (even though he intended to commit one). If he had no authorization to use the powder (after having stolen the urn), he arguably committed another crime.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 10, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Walt said...: Well done John D. Smith. Reasoning, logic, what more could I ask for?

Now, can anyone hypothesize facts that would make any of these scenarios a crime, If so, how would those facts differ from John D. Smith's?

Walt-in-Durham; March 10, 2015 at 6:31 PM
guiowen said...: Perhaps Mortimer was impersonating a police officer.; March 10, 2015 at 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: John D.Smith said:

"If he was given the urn by the owner, he was not guilty of a crime (even though he intended to commit one). If he had no authorization to use the powder (after having stolen the urn), he arguably committed another crime."

Authorization or not, possessing (or attempting to possess) cocaine, and defiling (or inappropriately disposing of) human remains are crimes in most jurisdictions.

So, if Mort thought the powder in the urn was coke, he would still be guilty of attempted possession of cocaine, even though the powder was really something else (i.e., human ashes). He would also likely be guilty of charges related to the illegal possession/disposition of human remains.

There is an awful lot going on in Walt's hypothetical. Too much to analyze in a single post. Walt, do you care to reveal additional facts?; March 10, 2015 at 9:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: If Mortimer was a jonesing addict who burglarized the home, stole a TV and what he surmised to be a stash of cocaine and then tried to snort the ashes he might be guilty
of both theft and of committing an indignity to a dead body.; March 10, 2015 at 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: John D. Smith said:

"For example, if Mort was invited into the home by the owner, he did not commit a crime. If he was trespassing he did."

If Mort obtained permission to enter the home under false pretenses with the purpose and intent of committing a crime once inside, his entry probably constitutes a crime.

Abe Froman
Chiciago, IL

PS - I am the author of the post at 9:03 pm. I forgot to sign my name.; March 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Sorry John D. In posted without reading yours; March 10, 2015 at 9:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Oops I not In and that should of been directed to Abe not John; March 10, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Walt said...: John D Smith wrote: "So, if Mort thought the powder in the urn was coke, he would still be guilty of attempted possession of cocaine, even though the powder was really something else (i.e., human ashes)."

Exactly right. Mort, in your iteration of the hypo had the intent to possess cocaine. He acted to take possession of what he thought to be cocaine. In western common law jurisdictions, a crime consists of an act and intent. There must be both, the intent to commit the crime and an overt act in furtherance of the crime. Well done and thanks for contributing to the general understanding.

Walt-in-Durham; March 11, 2015 at 6:58 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "If Mortimer was a jonesing addict who burglarized the home, stole a TV and what he surmised to be a stash of cocaine and then tried to snort the ashes he might be guilty
of both theft and of committing an indignity to a dead body."

Close, but not quite there.

Burglary is a crime on its own. Burglary is (at common law):
1) the breaking and entering,
2) into the dwelling,
3) of another person,
4) for the purpose of committing a felony.

So, if we take Kenhyderal's facts of Mort entering to steal a TV and a stash of cocaine, Mort would be guilty of Burglary. Stealing the TV or the ashes he thought were cocaine would be sufficient felonies to support the charge of burglary.

Walt-in-Durham; March 11, 2015 at 7:03 AM
Walt said...: Abe wrote: "If Mort obtained permission to enter the home under false pretenses with the purpose and intent of committing a crime once inside, his entry probably constitutes a crime."

A good twist on the fact. Brings in the possibility of fraud. So Abe demonstrates how a different breaking and entering could take place. Ordinarily, if you invite someone in to your home and they steal, it's not burglary, but theft alone. Here, Abe describes how even a nominally consensual entry can become a breaking. Good twist! Good way to expand on how the law works.

Walt-in-Durham; March 11, 2015 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: What Walt is really demonstrating is that Sid and Kenny (and others) don't take the facts as they are - every one of you is adding facts, or changing the facts, to get the answer you want ... which is what is happening in Mangum.

If you refuse to take the facts as they are, then your answer is never accurate.; March 11, 2015 at 11:02 AM
guiowen said...: How about this:
Joe, recently divorced, buys a new TV set. He decides to give the old one away. Mort, working for some charity, comes to Joe's house and takes the old TV set. Joe, who is sick of looking at the urn containing his father-in-law's ashes, asks Mort, while he is there, to take the urn away. (He doesn't tell Mort what the ashes are.) Mort, who frequently makes money as a police informant, decides to try out the ashes. He's disappointed, not because he wanted to snort cocaine, but because he hoped he could tell the police about the cocaine (and make some reward money).; March 11, 2015 at 1:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: What Walt is really demonstrating is that Sid and Kenny (and others) don't take the facts as they are - every one of you is adding facts, or changing the facts, to get the answer you want ... which is what is happening in Mangum"........That Crystal stabbed Daye is a fact. That Daye busted down the bathroom door and dragged Crystal by the hair is a fact. That Daye was grossly intoxicated is a fact. That Daye's brain death was caused by cerebral anoxia is a fact.; March 11, 2015 at 9:29 PM
guiowen said...: That Crystal murdered Daye is a fact. A jury determined that.; March 11, 2015 at 9:46 PM
John D. Smith said...: That Nichols concluded that Daye died of complications from the stab wound is a fact. That Roberts agreed that Daye died of complications from the stab wound is a fact. That Dr. Harr has failed to provide any medical expert who disagrees with those conclusions is a fact. That Dr. Harr has failed to provide any legal expert who concludes that an esophageal intubation automatically cuts off Crystal's legal liability is a fact.

That Crystal claimed she stabbed Daye in self defense is a fact. That Crystal claimed she stabbed him in the bedroom is a fact. That the blood spatter in the hallway led experts to conclude the stabbing took place in the hallway is a fact. That Crystal claimed she pulled the mattress off the bed is a fact. That the mattress was on the bed is a fact. That the jury heard the evidence presented and rejected self defense is a fact.

That Crystal received horrible advice from those claiming to be her friends is opinion. Readers can determine whether Dr. Harr's advice that the state had no case was irresponsible. Readers can determine whether Kenny's advice that Crystal is a credible witness was helpful.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 12, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Walt said...: ^^^ Well put, John D. Smith.

Walt-in-Durham; March 12, 2015 at 5:29 AM
kenhyderal said...: What was claimed and what was concluded are not necessarily facts. That they were claimed, is fact but, what was claimed, is not verified fact. Crystal says she raised one corner of the mattress to shield herself. When she let go it dropped back into place.; March 12, 2015 at 9:48 AM
guiowen said...: What is fact is that Crystal is changing her story.

What is also fact is that you and your friends had an opportunity, back in 2010, to explain to her that she had dodged a bullet and might not be so lucky the next time she acted that way. It is only my opinion, of course, but such counseling might have avoided the 2011 event.; March 12, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny said:
"Crystal says she raised one corner of the mattress to shield herself. When she let go it dropped back into place"

She may be saying that now.

During her trial she said she "ran to the master bedroom and lay down on the bed" and that
“He [Reginald Daye] just got on top of me and straddled me..." and that he then "grabbed [her] by the ankles, pulled [her] off the bed, and the top mattress came off with her".

So she was either lying then, or she is lying now.; March 12, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal says she raised one corner of the mattress to shield herself. When she let go it dropped back into place.

That is not remotely what she said during trial. She said it was pulled off, and she hid behind it - and she was asked how it got back on, and she said she didn't know, but the police must have put it back, or Daye when he went back into the apartment.

It's the same as when she was asked if Daye had ever hit her or raised his voice, or anything else, since a neighbor reported fighting, and yelling, and the rest - she said, no, never happened, Daye was always the perfect gentleman, and she didn't know why the neighbor would lie - she now says that wasn't true, and he was abusive during the relationship - but that's not what she told the jury when she had the chance.

Wow, Kenny, you really are changing your facts to suit your needs, and ignoring what was actually done. You are a bigger joke than we thought.

You are so delusional and twisted, nothing you say has credibility. You are a joke. Go away, no one, especially Crystal, needs your non-credible BS anymore.

The new Kenhyderal rule should be that Sid automatically delete every post you make since it clearly is nothing but reguritated bullshit.; March 12, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Here endeth the lesson from Walt's hypothetical.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 12, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Lance the Intern said...: In light of some of the recent discussion, I found this article interesting.

Here's a snippet from the article:

"These experiments show that when people’s beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter."

Enjoy.; March 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Just realized that one of the authors of the linked article is a Ph.D candidate in the Fuqua School of Business at Duke...

So some* may have a bias against the article before they even read it ;)

*You know who you are....; March 12, 2015 at 2:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "She may be saying that now"....... She also said that in court under oath. There is not, necessarily, a contradiction. Remember, this was a violent and frightening confrontation where there was risk of death or injury.
It occurred in a small apartment, months before. Such minutiae are inconsequential to the big picture; was there or was there not self-defence. Coggins-Franks aggressive cross-examination was carefully crafted to purposely confuse Crystal on these issues. That,combined with Meier's tepid and ineffectual defence and his lack of time to properly prepare, after Holmes precipitous and unwarranted withdrawal, means the case, of inadequate representation was, of course, not made by Petersen. In Public Defender cases reluctant and poorly compensated Attorneys are unlikely to want to make such an accusation against colleagues even if the facts show this to be true.; March 12, 2015 at 2:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Lance 2:14 and 2:21..........Quoting facts that are inconsequential to the question at hand constitutes a clear case of introducing red herrings into the deliberation. I agree entirely with the conclusions of Mr. Campbell and Dr. Friesen as discussed in Scientific American; March 12, 2015 at 3:59 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: So you agree she lied under oath. She said both that the mattress was pulled off the bed, and that it fell back on the bed. One of those is a lie. Thanks for the clarification, Kenny.; March 12, 2015 at 7:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Nobody lied under oath. Both scenarios are consistent with Crystal's recollection of the events. But, to quote former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, in the Benghazi kangaroo court like hearings, "what possible difference does it make". Daye's interview with Police was full of impeachable statements but neither Meier or any one of you Duke Lacrosse apologists have ever labeled him a liar. Reggie Daye a calm, sober, honest gentleman; what a joke??; March 12, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: It's sort of off topic but I wondered if anyone had any opinions about why there are so many cases of black men raping white women but almost no cases of white men raping black women.; March 12, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like Duke Lacrosse is having another great season.6-1 so far.Let's all hope for another national championship.Crystal of course will be spending many more years in prison.If she had only been punished for lying about rape she might not be where she is today.; March 12, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: You are ignoring that Crystal repeatedly stated that prior to this day Daye had never raised his voice, hit her, threatened her, or anything else - she is the one who stated he was a calm, gentle man. A neighbor testified she often heard yelling and what sounded like fighting. Crystal said she was lying.

Yes, a Crystal said Daye drank too much, but she also said he never got violent or angry when he did. you love e planning away the mattress and other inconsistencies ... You ignore that one. Why did Crystal say the neighbor who said Daye was often angry and they were often fighting was lying, and Daye was never angry or violent, when you claim he was an angry, and violent, drunk?; March 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- it's simple:

1) Crystal says she raised one corner of the mattress to shield herself. When she let go it dropped back into place.

2) Crystal says that Reginald Daye grabbed her by the ankles, pulled her off the bed, and the top mattress came off the bed with her.

One of these is a lie. They are not consistent.

You have been presented with facts that threaten your beliefs and have taken flight to a land where facts do not matter.

As to "what possible difference does it make?"

If Crystal is going to lie about something as innocuous as the placement of a mattress, what else is she willing to lie about?; March 13, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Looks like Duke Lacrosse is having another great season.6-1 so far.Let's all hope for another national championship.Crystal of course will be spending many more years in prison.If she had only been punished for lying about rape she might not be where she is today.

The reason Crystal is in jail today is because of a lying medical examiner and turncoat defense attorneys.; March 13, 2015 at 8:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Nobody lied under oath. Both scenarios are consistent with Crystal's recollection of the events. But, to quote former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, in the Benghazi kangaroo court like hearings, "what possible difference does it make". Daye's interview with Police was full of impeachable statements but neither Meier or any one of you Duke Lacrosse apologists have ever labeled him a liar. Reggie Daye a calm, sober, honest gentleman; what a joke??

Absolutely correct, kenhyderal, and often overlooked. First thing out of Daye's mouth was that Crystal stabbed him and stole his money... a lie backed by his nephew. I'm sure the police didn't believe him because they never even asked how much money was taken.; March 13, 2015 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: He wasn't lying that Crystal stabbed him.

And, for all your claims of turncoat attorneys, you constantly focus on the ME stuff ... you have yet to say anything that wasn't vigorously fought in the self-defense, other than Daye's inadmissible record, and the fact Crystal lied about abuse.

If they were turncoats, why did they try so hard to prove self-defense, when that was the only possible way Crystal could get a NG? No self-defense and she was a convicted Felon, even if they only did the stabbing.

Oh, and Daye was telling the truth when he said Crystal stabbed him.; March 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Unlike Crystal Mangum, Reginald Daye never had an opportunity to commit perjury.

Because Crystal Mangum killed him.; March 13, 2015 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Other than saying he had let her go and she ran into the kitchen, everything Daye said helped Crystal - he admitted to hitting her, he admitted she locked herself in the bathroom trying to call to get away, he admitted he kicked in the door and drug her out by the hair.

Unlike Crystal, Daye was willing to state facts that were bad for him, so he had more credibility. Crystal refused to acknowledge any bad facts.

The entire self-defense issue came down to whether Daye had let her go, and she ran into the kitch and got the knife and came back at him, or whether he was on top of her choking her when she stabbed him.; March 13, 2015 at 9:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: One of these is a lie. They are not consistent"...... Events can happen sequentially. You people label every inconsequential anomaly in Crystal's recollection of this violent traumatic confrontation as a lie. You do not hold Daye's statement to this standard.. Many here are great at name calling,saying Crystal is a lying, drug addicted prostitute, Dr. Harr is mentally ill, Former DA Nifong is corrupt and unethical, Ken Edwards is plagiarist. It's all part of the campaign to discredit anyone who does not buy into the meta-narrative of Duke Lacrosse apologists and to canonize the Duke Lacrosse members and Saint Reggie as choirboys.

bad actors like Daye; March 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM
Anonymous said...: "The only thing that I would add to the above statement that is slightly different from the commenter is that I believe the lack of oxygen to the lungs was due more to an esophageal intubation rather than obstruction due to aspiration..."

Which is res ipsa loquitur evidence that you are stupid; March 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: "
There is no evidence that Daye had an infection..."

More res ipsa loquitur evidence that you are stupid.; March 13, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: "With regards to Mike Nifong, I believe that it is possible that his license to practice law in North Carolina will be re-instated."

Yet more res ipsa loquitur evidence you are stupid.; March 13, 2015 at 10:58 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Funny how Crystal has a lot of inconsequential anomalies in her recollection.

One would tend to think she has taken flight to a land where facts do not matter.; March 13, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: "There are individuals, such as former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum, whom I believe have been maliciously impugned by the State and the mainstream media"

You are confused. These people you describe do not exist. However false accuser Crystal and disgraced former district attorney Mike Nifong do.; March 13, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: "That they were claimed, is fact but, what was claimed, is not verified fact."

Example: Your claim that an anonymous person aka Kilgo had a friend on the Lacrosse team who witnessed a rape at the Lacrosse party.; March 13, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is still ignoring the fact that Crystal said Daye was a great guy. He is trying to figure out how to spin that without calling his girl a liar.; March 13, 2015 at 11:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal thought Daye was a great guy when he gave her and her kids a place to stay at a time when no one else in Durham would because of the Walker incident. She found out the hard way that his so-called generosity came at the price of jealously wanting to control her; March 13, 2015 at 2:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Example: Your claim that an anonymous person aka Kilgo had a friend on the Lacrosse team who witnessed a rape at the Lacrosse party".......... That fact has yet to be verified..; March 13, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: If someone is jealously trying to control you, your remedy is to leave them.

If Daye was jealous, it is because he caught his girlfriend turning tricks. Seriously, who does that and what did Mangum imagine Daye's (or any man's) reaction would be when he found out the woman he brought in from the streets and thought he was having a relationship with was tricking herself out?

The situation Mangum finds herself in is entirely of her own making. Lying (by Mangum and her supporters) doesn't and will not improve it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 13, 2015 at 2:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Untrue and libelous. Of course you will only make accusations like that anonymously. Remember Crystal wanted to leave and Daye according to his statement jealously wanted to prevent her from leaving.; March 13, 2015 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Still ignoring that Crystal said he was a great guy - and had never raised his voice or struck her before that day.; March 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny states [about Abe's post attributing Daye's jealousy to Crystal allegedly turning tricks]: Untrue and libelous.

Please stop with these inane posts. No one thinks that you are clever or witty.

You repeatedly accuse members of the lacrosse team of covering up a brutal gang rape committed by a group of mystery rapists. As you know, there is a fair amount of credible evidence to support the allegation that Crystal was a prostitute; there is none to support your preposterous allegation that mystery rapists raped Crystal at the lacrosse party.

Please don't complain when no one takes you seriously. People treat you like a fool when you act like one.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 13, 2015 at 6:38 PM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: kenhyderal,

I have the information you are looking for but you continue to ignore me.; March 13, 2015 at 7:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D Smith said: "You repeatedly accuse members of the lacrosse team of covering up a brutal gang rape committed by a group of mystery rapists. As you know, there is a fair amount of credible evidence to support the allegation that Crystal was a prostitute; there is none to support your preposterous allegation that mystery rapists raped Crystal at the lacrosse party".............. They are no mystery to many of the Lacrosse Players. The lawyers for those accused conducted investigations to see if they could uncover any evidence of prostitution by Crystal to no avail. When they came up dry they resorted to covertly spreading lies and innuendo. Such malicious gossip takes on a life of it's own and pawns like you perpetuate this canard.; March 13, 2015 at 8:55 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

It's not an allegation that Mangum was a prostitute, or that she lied about being raped at the Duke lacrosse party. It is common knowledge. Lying about it doesn't help Mangum in any way and it makes you look ridiculous and unserious.; March 13, 2015 at 8:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said:." Still ignoring that Crystal said he was a great guy - and had never raised his voice or struck her before that day"......... So she thought until that day when he went into a drunken jealous rage.; March 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It's not an allegation that Mangum was a prostitute, or that she lied about being raped at the Duke lacrosse party. It is common knowledge. Lying about it doesn't help Mangum in any way and it makes you look ridiculous and unserious"..........It is certainly nothing but an unsubstantiated allegation that Crystal engaged in prostitution. It may be commonly believed thanks to a relentless campaign of slanderous gossip. You would do well not to participate in this libel; March 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny maliciously alleges: They [the mystery rapists] are no mystery to many of the Lacrosse Players.

"Such malicious gossip takes on a life of its own and pawns like you perpetuate this canard. You would do well not to participate in this libel."

Please don't complain when no one takes you seriously. People treat you like a fool when you act like one.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 13, 2015 at 10:03 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

You dispute the conclusion that "Former DA Nifong is corrupt and unethical."

Instead of being corrupt and unethical as is commonly believed, I take it that you believe he is actually a lazy, stupid, incompetent buffoon.

Your theory may have some merit and deserves to be discussed.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 13, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny and Sidney,

I want to wish you a "Happy False Rape Accusation Day."

Nine years ago, Crystal Mangum falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players of raping her.; March 13, 2015 at 11:06 PM
guiowen said...: John D,
Don't expect Kenny to answer you. He is a master at avoiding questions.
In this, I admire him. (See Luke 16.); March 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Anonymous said...: The truth will set Crystal Mangum free. That is a proposition of which I have been a proponent for some time. Durhamians and Tar Heelians would put a kibosh on the baseless and vendetta-driven criminal charges against Crystal Mangum (the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser) if they only knew the truth about events of April 3, 2011, that were responsible for Mangum’s current entanglement with the law. But the masses are ignorant of the truth… in the dark, left standing amidst the shadows of a moonless night. The reason for the misguided opinions and sentiments surrounding this injustice is due to actions and inactions of the mainstream media… all acting in concert with one another and their fellow co-conspirators. Media’s main contribution to the conspiracy against Mangum is to keep the truth hidden… buried deep beneath diversions, misstatements, selective omissions, misinterpretations, and outright lies. Instead of acting as a torch of enlightenment in the Mangum case, it has been functioning as a shroud to strike the death knell for justice.; March 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Which truth?

Again, what you, Sid, and Kenny ignore - the entire issue is whether Daye had let Crystal go, and she ran into the kitchen and grabbed the knife and came after him and stabbed him, or if he was on top of her and choking her when she grabbed the knife and stabbed him. The other facts of that night were/are undisputed: Daye was enraged, and had choked her, and hit her, she got away and ran into the bathroom and locked the door and tried to call for help, he kicked in the door, and drug her out by her hair.

The self-defense argument hinges on if the original aggressor gave an indicated they wanted to stop the fight, which stops self-defense.

Whatever happened before Crystal locked herself in the bathroom - she clearly intended to stop the fighting, so even if she had been the aggressor earlier (and no evidence she was), she would have regained self-defense - and it was in play when Daye kicked in the door and drug her out.

But, if Daye let her go and turned to go back - so she was free to leave - then he showed an intent to retreat from the fight, and any self-defense claim stops.

Again, Crystal refused to acknowledge any facts that could be construed as bad for her - which is the problem, and what defied credibility - not everything is "good" for you in something like that. Daye acknowledged a lot of bad facts for himself. Plus, as the Milton Walker case showed, Crystal had a history of grabbing a knife and going after a boyfriend who she had been in a physical altercation with. That's why that evidence was so damaging, and why Defense attorneys hate that evidence and try to keep it out.

You can keep spinning all you want, but you cannot defeat the simple facts above. The Jury believed Daye's story, which fit with the physical evidence better than Crystal's.

There is no dispute he hit her (the extent was in dispute), but at the end of the day, no matter what he had done, the issue was if he had let her go or not.

Anything that happened at Duke only affected Manslaughter v. Murder once self-defense failed. Something Sid and Kenny refuse to acknowledge, and something they will probably continue to tell Crystal to ignore if she gets a new trial. It's sad. She blew her chance at a NG because Sid and Kenny kept telling her to ignore self-defense and focus on Duke.; March 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: The above post by Anonymous 5:53 is plagiarism of Dr. Harr's post of August 20, 2012.; March 14, 2015 at 9:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Anything that happened at Duke only affected Manslaughter v. Murder once self-defense failed"....... Wouldn't that be wounding with intent instead of murder or manslaughter?; March 14, 2015 at 9:39 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "But, if Daye let her go and turned to go back ".... If, if, if. Should not reasonable doubt come into play here?; March 14, 2015 at 9:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said to John D.: "In this, I admire him. (See Luke 16.)".................
"Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Luke 16"; March 14, 2015 at 9:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D. said: "Your theory may have some merit and deserves to be discussed"........... What you take to be a theory of mine, is simply an attempt to project one of your meritless theories on to me.; March 14, 2015 at 10:04 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: kenhyderal, if you wish to answer the duke apologists on this blog I have the information you need.; March 14, 2015 at 10:29 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
How are you ever going to prove anything if you don't call Kilgo or contact him in some way?; March 14, 2015 at 11:24 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: I suspect this is not Kilgo but instead a cruel hoaxer who sadistically gets his kicks from messing with those who are sincere in a desire to help Crystal. kenhyderal must devise a way to test the poster's authenticity before he acts on it.; March 14, 2015 at 12:31 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

I am sorry that I mischaracterized what I thought was your theory.

You object to the description of Nifong as corrupt and unethical. I thought a description of him as a lazy, stupid, incompetent buffoon was the only other possible alternative.

I am sure that you can understand how I reached that conclusion.

After all, Nifong prosecuted three young men over an extended time period. He carried out this extended prosecution for horrific felonies with no credible evidence. As you know the lack of credible evidence is not disputed by any reasonable person. Both Nifong and Patrick Baker, on behalf of the City of Durham, confirmed the AG's conclusion as to the lack of credible evidence.

I ask how an honest and competent prosecutor can prosecute with no evidence, and, even worse, maintain the prosecution over many months with no evidence. I ask how an honest and competent prosecutor cannot realize that he had no credible evidence. I ask how an honest and competent prosecutor cannot realize that the police failed to conduct a bona investigation, and that lack of investigation resulted in the lack of credible evidence.

Again, I apologize for my mistake. Perhaps you can help me understand how one can conclude that not only is Nifong not corrupt and unethical, but he is also not lazy, stupid and incompetent.

Thanks again for your help.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 14, 2015 at 1:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D Smith said: I ask how an honest and competent prosecutor cannot realize that the police failed to conduct a bona investigation, and that lack of investigation resulted in the lack of credible evidence"........... Former DA Nifong did realize this. It made the crime, he believed to have happened and that needed, for the sake of justice, to be prosecuted, impossible to get a conviction on. Crystal does not hold this against him.; March 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The photographs from the party clearly show Crystal was drunk and the lacrosse players thought she was disgusting.She was also passed out on the back porch.No way any of them would ever want to have sexual relations with her.; March 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: kenhyderal supporter said...
"I suspect this is not Kilgo but instead a cruel hoaxer who sadistically gets his kicks from messing with those who are sincere in a desire to help Crystal"............... KH Supporter; you are casting suspicion on yourself as the troll who has been plagiarizing Dr. Harr and myself. Did you, by chance, forget to use "Anonymous" when you copied and pasted that?; March 14, 2015 at 2:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "
The photographs from the party clearly show Crystal was drunk"...... Not when she arrived minutes before and not before she was given a drink? The statement of three independent people gave testament to that fact.; March 14, 2015 at 2:15 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

That you for your response. However, according to US ethics rules, prosecutors are not permitted to prosecute crimes when they realize they have no credible evidence.

If Nifong was aware of this requirement, and he prosecuted anyway, he was unethical. If he was not aware of this requirement, he was arguably incompetent.

Perhaps it is different in Canada, but prosectors in the US are supposed to have probable cause, not just that a crime occurred, but that the people charged committed that crime. A vague belief that "something" happened and that "somebody" did it is not sufficient to conduct a prosecution. Again, perhaps it is different in Canada.

If Nifong subscribes to your opinion, he is either unethical or incompetent. We can continue to discuss which.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 14, 2015 at 2:17 PM
guiowen said...: John D.,
Is it possible that Nifong studied in Canada? Maybe he thought he was still there.; March 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal, I am disappointed in your accusations. Please remember that:

"You've got a friend in me
You've got a friend in me
When the road looks rough ahead
And you're miles and miles from your nice warm bed
You just remember what your old pal said
Boy you've got a friend in me
Yeah you've got a friend in me"; March 14, 2015 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: The lacrosse case was an example of political judicial corruption. There has been no improvement seen in the Durham court system since that case. Now, it is the norm, just like it was then.

The corruption in this case would never have been noticed nor mentioned if Ms. Mangum had not been able to obtain the services of a non-conflicted medical professional to explain the discrepancies in the report to her. This expert was Dr. Harr only, since the defense medical examiner refused to provide a written report to the defendant when requested and therefore was conflicted in her services to the defense.

Political judicial corruption still the driving factor as in most cases involving Duke, but this time in the form of money and power only?; March 14, 2015 at 3:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D Smith said: However, according to US ethics rules, prosecutors are not permitted to prosecute crimes when they realize they have no credible evidence".....Former DA Nifong had evidence from Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manly that he considered credible. He realized that the negative DNA tests meant he would never be able to convict on rape but perhaps sexual assault and other serious criminal charges were still in play. The "Duke Lacrosse Three"'s "dream team" provided the aggressive defence that a poor minority woman like Crystal could only dream of, in the Daye case, from her Court appointed defenders. Their multi-faceted attack both on the victim and on the prosecutor's case left nothing unchallenged. If they'd of had Meier for a Lawyer, in my opinion, at least one of them would of been convicted.; March 14, 2015 at 4:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The corruption in this case would never have been noticed nor mentioned if Ms. Mangum had not been able to obtain the services of a non-conflicted medical professional to explain the discrepancies in the report to her. This expert was Dr. Harr only, since the defense medical examiner refused to provide a written report to the defendant when requested and therefore was conflicted in her services to the defense" ..... I agree entirely with this comment and I think this along with Meier's inadequate defence would have been a better reason for appeal then the Walker evidence which was already considered and decided by Judge Ridgeway; March 14, 2015 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Nobody gave Crystal a drink.She was already drunk and none of those young men would ever have wanted to have sex with her.It's gross to even think about.; March 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ KH Supporter re: you Duke Lacrosse Apologists They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time co-opted from Randy Newman; March 14, 2015 at 4:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 14, 2015 at 4:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 4:30 That she was handed a drink in the bathroom after her arrival while she was getting ready for her performance has been corroborated by multiple statements given to police. The rest of your statement in my opinion violate the rules of this blog. Do others here agree?; March 14, 2015 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Breaking rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; March 14, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I love you You love me
We're a happy family
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
Won't you say you love me too
I love you You love me
We're best friends like friends should be
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
Won't you say you love me too
I love you You love me
We're a happy family
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
Won't you say you love me too
I love you You love me
We're best friends like friends should be
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
Won't you say you love me too; March 14, 2015 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Who let the dogs out
{Woof, woof, woof, woof}
{Woof, woof, woof, woof}
{Woof, woof, woof, woof}
{Woof, woof, woof, woof}
Who let the dogs out {woof, woof, woof, woof}
Who let the dogs out {woof, woof, woof, woof}; March 14, 2015 at 4:51 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny claims:former DA had evidence from Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manly that he considered credible.

This statement is in part false and in part indicative of the conclusion that Nifong was either unethical or incompetent.

Neither Nifong nor the DPD ever interviewed Manly. Your statement is thus false as it relates to Manly.

The failure to interview Manley is inexcusable. Why would an investigation fail to interview the doctor who conducted the SANE exam?

When interviewed by Gottlieb, Levicy claimed that Mangum's demeanor was consistent with the allegation. The SANE report did not support that claim.

At best, Levicy's statement justified further investigation. It did not on its own justify prosecution.

If Nifong used this evidence but did not believe it justified the prosecution,he was unethical. If he believed it did, he was incompetent.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 14, 2015 at 4:53 PM
guiowen said...: As I see it, Nifong was used to running roughshod over defendants, who in general had poor attorneys representing them. To his dismay, he found out that not only that the lacrosse defendants could afford high priced lawyers, but that these lawyers actually did their job: they read the document Meehan provided, and analyzed it. Mike felt that this was totally unfair to him: why couldn't these boys just lie down and take it the way other defendants did?
At this point he should have realized he had no case, but he foolishly and stubbornly insisted in fighting it through.
Well, we all saw what came of that. Too bad, Mike!; March 14, 2015 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: For the Fong:

And now the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend I'll say it clear
I'll state my case of which I'm certain

I've lived a life that's full
I traveled each and every highway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

Regrets I've had a few
But then again too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption

I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

Yes there were times I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out, I faced it all
And I stood tall and did it my way

I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now as tears subside
I find it all so amusing

To think I did all that
And may I say not in a shy way
Oh no, oh no, not me
I did it my way

For what is a man what has he got
If not himself then he has not
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way

Yes it was my way; March 14, 2015 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal had two 22 ounce Icehouse beers at Brian Taylor's house before going to the lacrosse party.It's on page 21 of the book Until proven Innocent.So she was already drunk.Crystal spilled her drink into the sink.Mangum could neither speak or dance coherently.The guys assumed she was dead drunk or on drugs.; March 14, 2015 at 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "It was kind of boring to be honest.We were just sitting around and there was nothing to it.I was itching to get out of there.I'd rather be going to sleep to tell you the truth." - Devon Sherwood,the lone black member of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team.; March 14, 2015 at 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Zash recalled hearing secondhand that the comment was we wanted white girls not niggers.Whatever the context the use of the n-word in response to Roberts racial taunt was to launch countless false media reports that the lacrosse players had hurled multiple racial slurs at the two strippers in the house.In fact all three would be defendants had already left the house and did not hear them.; March 14, 2015 at 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: All three of the defendants were in relationships with attractive white women.No way would they want to do anything with somebody like Crystal Mangum.Yuck.; March 14, 2015 at 7:15 PM
guiowen said...: I think the following sums up my feelings on Nifong pretty well.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson161.html; March 14, 2015 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Very few white men are attracted to black women least of all ghetto hookers.; March 14, 2015 at 8:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Crystal had two 22 ounce Icehouse beers at Brian Taylor's house before going to the lacrosse party"........................... That was two hours before her arrival. She showed no signs of intoxication until she consumed that drink that instantly rendered her incapacitated, indicative of it being spiked with chloral hydrate.; March 14, 2015 at 9:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "I think the following sums up my feelings on Nifong pretty well"......... Just one of the legion of Duke Lacrosse apologists doing the work of the high powered defence Lawyers. The purpose of this editorial can be summed up in his admonishment
"Above all, Mike the key is dropping these charges now"; March 14, 2015 at 9:35 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny, you still haven't told us what you think of Mike Nifong.; March 14, 2015 at 9:38 PM
guiowen said...: Actually, Kenny, it seems to me that Bill Anderson was giving Mike Nifong good advice. "If you don't correct your behavior, you might find yourself in trouble." Do you think Mike wishes he'd taken it?

Apart from that, do you disagree with anything Bill wrote? Why?; March 14, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: She did not consume any drink.She spilled the drink in the sink.She drank some of Kim Roberts coke.Any evidence her drink was spiked with anything?No of course not.The lacrosse players would have to be the ones who were drunk to want to have sex with her and even then it wouldn't happen.Nobody touched her and they weren't in a bathroom with her.; March 14, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Kenny is telling us that Crystal is an alcoholic.

She had two 22 ounce high alcohol Ice House beers (with alcohol equivalent of almost five regular beers) and she "showed no signs of intoxication."

Five beers makes me rather drunk, and I am much larger than Crystal.; March 14, 2015 at 10:11 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

You haven't addressed the question.

I remind you that probable cause requires both that there be credible evidence that a crime was committed and that the specific people charged committed that crime.

You cite as the evidence on which Nifong proceeded the statement that Levicy provided and the failure to interview Manly.

How does Levicy's statement that Mangum's demeanor was consistent with her allegation implicate any of the three defendants?

If Nifong believed that statement provided probable cause that any of the defendants committed the crimes with which they were charged, he is even more incompetent than I thought. If he realized the statement did not implicate any specific person, then he was unethical.

Your comments aren't really defending Nifong very well, are they? You seem to be arguing that because he believed "something happened" that the rules don't apply. That seems to me to be unethical.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 14, 2015 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: If ya'll had to pay a dollar for every time ya'll ranted on about Ms. Mangum or talked sheat about her (or similar) - ya'll could start a legal defense fund.

Dr. Harr, next time you do a blog for a 'justice in spite of duke' type cause - you may want to consider making that a mandatory rule of all trolls that enter and reside on your blog for years and years saying the same sheat over and over as they lament about the fact that duke and its people aren't perfect and above the law but their near 70,000$/yr education bill still needs to protected at all costs - even if it means evil duke troll gangs and massive judicial corruption ... oh yeah.

I imagine you could set something up in paypal - making it a mandatory fine for trashing Ms. Mangum and others on your blog continuously and forever and a day.; March 14, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Anonymous said...: It is telling that duke has the type supporters it has on this blog instead of a reasoned, legal, professional, concerned reply from duke and resolution to all the issues that are left to be settled only individually in the minds of all its patients and patrons, students, employees, fans, etc., etc., etc., about this case and the lacrosse case, etc., but not in the court of law nor for the people involved in the cases or for the people in general.

When you actually have people INSISTING duke is beyond reproach even though everyone is left to reproach or not reproach at will based upon what they know or don't know after seeing what is going on through the absence of anything reasoned or legal about what duke is doing in this case(s) to indicate any other reason other than to reproach what they are doing while continuing to watch them not take responsibility nor concern for what they are doing while they are continue to do what they do (or don't do) - and thus leaving all to be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus - because it is duke - afterall ... the only thing left is to question duke and the duke / durham justice system - what the frack are you doing?

Why is that?
Is that the way duke always is?

That IS what you read and see in the 'news' about them afterall - over and over and over again - so it is not just a fluke for duke - it IS who they are and what they do to many.

Perhaps they calculate that doing as they do will bring their desired results. So - really - you have to wonder - what does duke REALLY want and why do they do what they do?; March 15, 2015 at 4:37 AM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

I want to thank you for your comments regarding whether Nifong was corrupt and unethical, he was a lazy, stupid, incompetent buffoon or he acted properly.

You provide almost no evidence to support the assertion that he acted properly. The minimal evidence you do provide only supports a decision to investigate. You rationalize the utter failure of the DPD to investigate and Nifong's failure to demand they do they job by implying that investigation would be too difficult.

You did an excellent job of demonstrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Nifong apologists. You justify Nifong's extended prosecution of three young men with no probable cause because he believed that "something happened" that required a trial. Therefore, he was completely justified in selecting three random defendents to prosecute.

Thank you again.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 15, 2015 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, you keep whining about reasonable doubt ... but on the self-defense, the jury heard everything (even you can't point to information hidden from them - and unlike Sid, you are least aren't pointing to inadmissible evidence as proof of a conspiracy). The Jury didn't have reasonable doubt. You think they got it wrong, but that's what happens with juries. They didn't see the issue.; March 15, 2015 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:15:

You are being unfair. Kenny has criticized Meier for his failure to aggressively cross-examine Reginald Daye.; March 15, 2015 at 7:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "(even you can't point to information hidden from them'...........Huh? What about how Duke killed Daye?; March 15, 2015 at 8:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anionymous said: "You are being unfair. Kenny has criticized Meier for his failure to aggressively cross-examine Reginald Daye"..... No, I criticize his failure to impeach Daye's self-serving and inconsistent statements to Police.; March 15, 2015 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

7:15 was discussing self defense. The esophageal intubation is not part of the self defense argument.

Please read comments before you respond with the snark "huh?"; March 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D. Said "You rationalize the utter failure of the DPD to investigate and Nifong's failure to demand they do they job by implying that investigation would be too difficult"...... The investigation was botched by the DPD from the onset. Once all team members present and non-present lawyered up and refused to cooperate the case became circumstantial; March 15, 2015 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny 8:20:

You frequently describe Daye's statement as inconsistent. Can you please discuss the inconsistencies?; March 15, 2015 at 8:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "7:15 was discussing self defense. The esophageal intubation is not part of the self defense argument"...... You're right. I shot from the hip.; March 15, 2015 at 8:28 AM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny whines: The investigation was botched by the DPD from the onset. Once all team members present and non-present lawyered up and refused to cooperate the case became circumstantial

I am forced to conclude that you are morally bankrupt.

You overstate the players' "refusal to cooperate." After they hired lawyers (as is their right) they refused to be interviewed without their lawyers being present (as is also their right). The DPD never really attempted to interview players with the involvement of their lawyers. Why was that? Why did Nifong not insist that they try?

Seligmann's lawyers attempted to provide Nifong with his alibi evidence. Nifong refused to look at it. Why was that? Why did he not insist on interviewing Seligmann in connection with that review?

In April, when Nifong asked for indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty, but was not yet ready to indict Evans (for whatever reason), neither Nifong nor the DPD interviewed Seligmann or Finnerty. Common practice in an investigation with multiple defendents is to try to get the defendents to turn on one another. Nifong and the DPD didn't do that. Why not?

You present an extraordinarily naive view of criminal investigations. Police are not always provided with complete cooperation on the part of all possible witnesses. In reality, the captains showed more cooperation in their initial interviews than police frequently encounter. the team appeared to have cooperated until they concluded that the investigation was not being conducted in good faith. Why should anyone cooperate with those who they believe are not acting in good faith?

Beyond player interviews, the DPD failed to investigation other witnesses. Why did they fail to do so? Does the lack of complete "cooperation" by the players justify the failure to do anything else? Why did Nifong not insist that the DPD do their job? Was he corrupt, stupid or just lazy?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 15, 2015 at 8:57 AM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

You claim the "case became circumstantial." The problem Nifong had with a "circumstantial" case is that he did not have enough "circumstantial" evidence to constitute probable cause. Again, probable cause requires both evidence that a crime occurred and evidence that the specific people charged committed that crime.

You have failed to suggest evidence that supports this requirement. Instead you argue that because Nifong thought "something happened," the rules no longer apply. For this reason, I conclude that you are morally bankrupt (or more likely that the screen character you have adopted on this blog is morally bankrupt).

If Nifong realized that his prosecution was not supported by probable cause, he was unethical. If he failed to realize this, he was incompetent.

Which explanation is correct?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 15, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: You keep attacking inconsistencies in Daye's statement, but don't address the comment above where the real issue is what happened after he kicked in the door and drug her out. His testimony was consistent with the physical evidence, hers was not, and she had done it before.; March 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 10:06:

What were the inconsistencies in Daye's statement? I have asked Kenny several times in the past, but he consistently refuses to answer the question.; March 15, 2015 at 10:26 AM
guiowen said...: You know he never answers difficult questions. In this respect he is quite admirable.; March 15, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

This morning I just completed the text for the next sharlog. I will narrate it tomorrow, and following that begin to put it together... the comic strip being put on hold temporarily. Hopefully it will be completed within a week's time.

As you were.; March 15, 2015 at 10:45 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said:Lets "What were the inconsistencies in Daye's statement? I have asked Kenny several times in the past, but he consistently refuses to answer the question'.......... Lets begin with did he want her to stay because it's a dangerous world out there for a young woman or did he want her to leave. Did he want to flea his own apartment because he was afraid of Crystal? Was Crystal hurling knives at him? Did he ever teach Crystal's son how to throw knives? Did he hit her or did he not?; March 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Can you find the link to the report?; March 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D. said: "(or more likely that the screen character you have adopted on this blog is morally bankrupt)"............ Screen character?? Which one of the New York John D. Smiths are you? I reject both of the choices you offer, concerning Former DA Nifong. To you Duke Lacrosse apologists anyone who does not agree with your meta narrative is corrupt, morally bankrupt an incompetent fool or lazy. Character assassination is your usual modus operendi.; March 15, 2015 at 4:11 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

There is only one John D. Smith from New York who posts on this blog. You must be confusing me with the John Z. Smith who posted once as I recall.

I understand you reject the characterization of Nifong as either unethical or incompetent. It would be helpful if you were to provide a valid explanation that did not lead to one of those conclusions.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: It's on one of Dr. Harr's sharlogs but you have to watch it to get to the point where you can open it. Here is the gist of it from the trial " Hospital interview

On Tuesday morning, Marianne Bond, a domestic violence investigator for the Durham Police Department, testified she interviewed Daye twice while he was at Duke Hospital.

"He said she grabbed knives and came at him three or four times," Bond said.

"He said they were arguing about Ms. Mangum being disrespectful and letting other men or males come in the house," Bond said.

Daye admitted he kicked the bathroom door down while Mangum was inside with the door locked, Bond said. He believed Mangum was calling for someone to pick her up and that he dragged her out by the hair, Bond said.

He told Bond he wasn't trying to keep Mangum from leaving but was trying to calm her down when he grabbed her.

Daye told Bond that sometimes Mangum went on dates with men and came back with $200 to $300 and that he didn't want her to go out that night, Bond said.

Daye said he went into the bedroom, and Mangum went to the kitchen and grabbed a knife and began swinging at him, Bond said.

Mangum began acting crazy, repeatedly screaming, "You don't put your hands on me," Bond said Daye told her.

Daye also told Bond about the two money orders he had previously given Mangum to hold, she said. They totaled $700 and were made out to the apartment complex to pay his rent. Mangum would not return them to him, Bond told the jury.

Daye said he was in the hallway and turning to leave the apartment when Mangum came at him and stabbed him.

Earlier in the trial, crime scene technicians showed photographs of knives and broken knives scattered throughout the house.; March 15, 2015 at 4:35 PM
guiowen said...: For God's sake, Kenhyderal, Reginald wasn't fleeing. He was walking away from her.

He wanted her, in general, to stay, but I imagine that on occasion he would lose his temper and suggest she should leave -- though he never threw her out. I'd lose my temper, too, if my girl friend was going out with other men and coming back with a few hundred dollars every time.

As to whether he hit her, all I can say is that her mug shots did not show any bruises, so he cannot have hit her very hard.

Meanwhile, I notice you still refuse to answer questions about Nifong. Is that so hard?; March 15, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Thanks for the summary of Daye's statement. I remember that version. Where is the version you discuss in your comments? I don't think I have seen that. Can you post that version as well? Thanks.; March 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: There was two interviews. I have seen them both. The one is on Dr. Harr's sharlog about the Larceny in chose of action. I'm still trying to locate the other one. Dr. Harr published that one also. When I have time I'll dig it up and post it here. You have to watch it up to the point where it comes up. I hope Dr. Harr when he comes back on can link it for us but if not I will.; March 15, 2015 at 9:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: What you and John D present are not genuine questions but are Hobson's choices. I have been critical of mistakes made by Former Da Nifong but I reiterate Crystal believes he had a genuine desire to seek justice for her. She is a member of Dr. Harr's Justice4nifong Committee; March 15, 2015 at 9:52 PM
guiowen said...: As usual, Kenny, you avoid answering questions. I applaud you.; March 15, 2015 at 10:22 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said
"Crystal believes he had a genuine desire to seek justice for her."

Let's face it, Kenny. Someone who got herself convicted for murder by taking your advice is hardly a good judge of who is actually helping her.; March 15, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Former DA Nifong had evidence from Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manly that he considered credible. He realized that the negative DNA tests meant he would never be able to convict on rape but perhaps sexual assault and other serious criminal charges were still in play."

That is simply not the case. To prove rape or sexual assault, Nifong had to have proof of who committed the sexual assault or the rape. As Crystal's identification was inadmissible and by your own admission faulty, the only way Nifong had to prove identity was DNA evidence. However, the DNA evidence proved that the accused were NOT the people who did anything. You have ignored the law's requirement to prove identity since the beginning of this fiasco.

Walt-in-Durham; March 16, 2015 at 8:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "For God's sake, Kenhyderal, Reginald wasn't fleeing. He was walking away from her"... Walking away from his own apartment(??) and leaving it to a person whom he told Officer Bond he was trying to stop her from going out into the "dangerous" night and then later that he was "not" trying to prevent her from leaving but he was "restraining" her only to "calm her down"; March 16, 2015 at 8:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "However, the DNA evidence proved that the accused were NOT the people who did anything"..... In the case of Evans it was inconclusive.; March 16, 2015 at 8:44 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal:
Could you please cut the snark?
Reginald and Crystal had a fight. When he realized that things were going over the top, he let go of her and started walking away from her. The way you put it, we're supposed to think he was running away from her.
Of course he didn't want her going out into the night again. I imagine he thought that if he left her alone for a few minutes she would calm down. Unfortunately she is not the type to calm down easily. Too bad, Reggie!; March 16, 2015 at 9:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: With great insight you "imagine" what a jealous, drunk
and enraged man thought.; March 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM
guiowen said...: Why not? You seem to think that you're the only one who can imagine these things.; March 16, 2015 at 9:33 AM
guiowen said...: I might add, the jury seemed to agree with me much more than with you.; March 16, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "In the case of Evans it [the DNA] was inconclusive."

Not sufficient under our rules of evidence or science to be admissible on the issue. For Evans, there was a 1/8,000,000 chance it was him. That is insufficient proof for even probable cause, let alone conviction. Of course, you know that and simply again disregard the facts that don't support your narrative.

Walt-in-Durham; March 16, 2015 at 10:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt: That statistic is misleading. Only one of those 8,000,000 came in contact with Crystal that evening; March 16, 2015 at 1:09 PM
guiowen said...: For god's sake, Kenhyderal, the nail was in Evans' wastebasket! Should we be surprised that it came into contact with his waste? WOW!; March 16, 2015 at 3:05 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny knows that the DNA on the fingernail was never enough to convict anyone.

He KNOWS this. He is simply quoting facts that are inconsequential to the question at hand, constituting a clear case of introducing red herrings into the deliberation.

He has taken flight to a land where facts do not matter.; March 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "That statistic is misleading. Only one of those 8,000,000 came in contact with Crystal that evening."

False on two counts. First, you ignore the science. A 1/8,000,000 chance is not an identification. Second, you don't know if at sometime during the previous 48 hours how many of those 8,000,000 people were in contact with her.

Walt-in-Durham; March 16, 2015 at 4:50 PM
John D. Smith said...: Walt,

You are unfair.

Kenny understands probable cause rules require both (1) that a crime was committed and (2) that specific persons committed that crime.

However Nifong believed Crystal was raped, or, if she wasn't raped, she was sexually assaulted, or, if she wasn't sexually assaulted, then something else happened that was really bad.

Because (1) Crystal could not identify her assailants, (2) he did not want to ask Kim if an assault occurred and to identify attackers, and (3) the players declined to talk without lawyers, it was not possible to identify who committed the despicable crimes he believed occurred. No investigation was possible.

As a result, the rules do not apply.

Nifong had a moral obligation to select defendants. He realized Crystal failed to identify assailants in two earlier attempts. He realized the procedure he designed violated guidelines and was not reliable. Unless the trial judge ignored precedent, the selections would not be admissible.

These minor issues were unimportant.

The procedure was designed to pressure players to identify the real perpetrators of this horrendous attack. For inexplicable reasons, none of the defendants or their friends broke down and identified them. This is harder to understand when one considers that DNA ruled out all of the players as possible attackers.

The defendants had their reputations dragged through the mud, paid millions of dollars in legal fees and risked being sent to prison for 30 years to protect mystery rapists who were not their teammates. Some may not have known the mystery rapists they protected so zealously.

This is easy to understand.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM
guiowen said...: Let's see about this. Is that 8,000,000 in the USA? Is it in the entire world?
If it's 8,000,000 in the US, that means one of every 20 has those characteristics. (Remember the test was only for male DNA.) I would imagine that over the previous 48 hours Crystal came in to contact with more like 200 men. (This includes not just her "close" friends, but also anyone who came close enough to touch her on the bus, etc.) So she would have touched some 10 such men in 48 hours.

Even if it's 8,000,000 in the entire world, you have to remember that such DNA is much more common here than in China or India.) With 5% of the world's population, the US has maybe 10-15% of these men. Say 1,000,000. Thus one out of every 160 men would have this DNA.

If she touched 200 men, the probability that at least one (other than Evans) had this type is about 71%.; March 16, 2015 at 5:09 PM
guiowen said...: See, Kenny? I'm always happy to help you with your math problems.; March 16, 2015 at 5:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D. said: "The defendants had their reputations dragged through the mud, paid millions of dollars in legal fees and risked being sent to prison for 30 years to protect mystery rapists who were not their teammates. Some may not have known the mystery rapists they protected so zealously"....... You overstate the consequences to the innocent team members present in saying nothing. Some may even be able to honestly say they saw nothing. Invited guests were most likely close friends of individual Players. I'm sure they realize that if they did nothing themselves all they would have to say is they saw nothing and despite DA Nifong's threats he would never be able to prove otherwise. The best strategy, which I feel is still in play, albeit a long-shot, given the rape culture so prevalent at US Universities is to appeal to the individuals conscience; March 16, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: What rape culture so prevalent at US universities? A college age woman is more likely to be raped if she does not attend a university.; March 16, 2015 at 9:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Are there any statisticians here that can confirm Guiowen's analysis? It's my understanding that 98% of the population can be excluded and that Evans is in the 2% that can not. There remains the possibility of secondary transfer from his bathroom trash, though.; March 16, 2015 at 9:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ 9:32 http://college.usatoday.com/2015/01/24/new-documentary-paints-brutal-picture-of-campus-rape-culture/" You should try and catch the movie this Friday; March 16, 2015 at 9:43 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

You mischaracterized the text you quoted. That text did not refer to unindicted lacrosse players.

The defendants had their reputation dragged through the mud. This is factually correct.

While the damage to their reputations may have been repaired when the AG announced his conclusions, the initial media coverage was decidedly negative and more intensive than the more favorable coverage that followed.

The defendants paid millions of dollars in legal fees. This is factually correct.

While they may have received a payment from Duke after charges were dismissed, there was no assurance they would be reimbursed for any of those fees.

Finally, the defendants did risk long prison sentences. This is factually correct.

Although the likelihood was high that the identifications from the flawed selection process would be not be admitted into evidence, there was the risk that the judge would fail to follow precedent. There was no assurance that charges would be dismissed.

Your response thus is misleading. I ask that you retract it.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 16, 2015 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny 9:43,

Thanks, but that doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. I will skip it.

At least the review didn't quote the discredited claim that one in five college women is raped. If the documentary makes that claim, I would conclude that the film is, to use Dr. Harr's words, "false and fraudulent."

I look forward to your review.; March 16, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

What about the rape culture in your adopted hometown? Women who are raped in Dubai frequently are,jailed.; March 16, 2015 at 10:11 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 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