justice4nifong: Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

Friday, February 20, 2015

Corresponding for Justice: Update February 20, 2015

863 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 863 Newer› Newest»

guiowen said...: I must say this about Kenny: he's good at finding people with his own biases, and quoting them as though they were authorities.
Remember when found some character called Jai Alai, or something of the sort, who told us how great Canadian medicine was, because some
Canadians won a Nobel prize in 1923? The same Jai Alai who claimed there were more lung transplants in Canada the in the United States?; March 16, 2015 at 10:40 PM
guiowen said...: Next thing you know, Kenhyderal will be telling us all about the horrible gang rape ordeal of some woman called "Jackie" at the University of Virginia.; March 16, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: A review by Stuart Taylor. Apparently, the firm makers quote the discredited one-in-five statistic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415269/cinematic-railroading-jameis-winston-stuart-taylor-jr

Kenny, shame on you for recommending fake and fraudulent documentaries.; March 16, 2015 at 11:34 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny, I'm concerned that you won't thank me for helping you with the math. If 98% of the population can be ruled out, and CGM touched or otherwise came into contact with 200 people, then the probability that one of those would have the desired trait is 98.4%.
I realize I'm not a master debater, but try to take my word for it.; March 17, 2015 at 8:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "That text did not refer to unindicted lacrosse players"....... The indicted Players were compensated, by Duke, well beyond any legal fees they might of incurred. This is especially galling to people like Duke alumni William Cohan; March 17, 2015 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: No decision from the Court of Appeals today. The next filing date is April 7.; March 17, 2015 at 8:59 AM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

Thank you for your comment about the Duke settlement.

Of course that comment is not responsive to the point I was discussing.

When the defendants were paying millions of dollars in legal fees, there was no assurance that they would be reimbursed by Duke or anyone else. Yet you insist they covered up for mystery rapists.

Of course you know that you are not responsive. You don't actually intend to discuss anything of substance.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Kenny, I'm concerned that you won't thank me for helping you with the math".......Rest easy. What still concerns me though is that in the 48 hours prior to Crystal's assault her artificial nails came into contact, even minimally, with 200 people; March 17, 2015 at 10:08 AM
guiowen said...: Plenty of people on the bus. Plenty of people where she danced. Plenty of "friends".; March 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "When the defendants were paying millions of dollars in legal fees, there was no assurance that they would be reimbursed by Duke or anyone else. Yet you insist they covered up for mystery rapists"...........For one, or maybe two, of the accused implicating the perpetrators of the rape would also serve to self- implicate themselves of other serious crimes, such as kidnapping and sexual assault; March 17, 2015 at 10:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Plenty of people on the bus. Plenty of people where she danced. Plenty of "friends"."...... Nothing hands on, with anyone on the bus or with any she casually came in view of.; March 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM
guiowen said...: Give it up, Kenny. We both know the DNA came from the waste basket.
As for the mystery rapists, it's a fantasy of yours that no one believes in.
Any luck finding Kilgo?; March 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Nothing hands on, with anyone on the bus or with any she casually came in view of."

LOL, nothing hands on with those five discreet DNA samples in her nether regions. That has to be one of the funniest statements you have ever written.

Walt-in-Durham; March 17, 2015 at 1:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: " We both know the DNA came from the waste basket"..... Possible but not necessarily probable. He does get the benefit of the doubt, however; March 17, 2015 at 2:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said : "Any luck finding Kilgo?".... No. Any luck in impersonating him in order to create mischief and mess with Crystal and those seeking to help her.; March 17, 2015 at 2:43 PM
guiowen said...: For God's sake, Kenny, everybody knows Kilgo no longer exists. We all take turns impersonating him so as to laugh at you.; March 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt 1:39: Walt you are associating yourself with the campaign to discredit Crystal by innuendo. You are a known personality. Instead of innuendo, go ahead and make the libelous charge outright and be prepared to defend it or face possible consequences.; March 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM
guiowen said...: Oh! Threats, now!; March 17, 2015 at 2:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "For God's sake, Kenny, everybody knows Kilgo no longer exists. We all take turns impersonating him so as to laugh at you"..........The mischief you admit to is both cruel and perverse. Laughing at me alone is OK but hurting vulnerable people like Crystal is not a laughing matter.; March 17, 2015 at 2:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Oh! Threats, now"................. MYOB Guiowen. Let's let Walt respond to my advice that he can continue to be a dupe of The Duke Lacrosse Apologists but he should be careful not to make outright libelous remarks; March 17, 2015 at 3:00 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal, your threats ring hollow. But, just for the record, you are the one who has accused Crystal of escorting, not me. I was just laughing at your shallow argument.

Walt-in-Durham; March 17, 2015 at 4:30 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

I want to encourage you to get back to your original mystery rapist® argument.

I thought it was a clever way to argue that Crystal was not lying about being raped and was not delusional, while at the same time being able to argue that the lack of evidence to support a crime was not relevant.

The defendants were not the rapists, so no one should expect to find their DNA. Non-player attendees were the mystery rapists®. They were never tested because they were never included on the lists of attendees.

Nifong's failure to test the DNA found on and in Crystal played into the argument. It was not from a prior (or later) engagement, it was left by the mystery rapists®.

Your use of Kilgo as the indirect source for the information was sheer genius.

Unfortunately, you became distracted and tried to make too many arguments.

First, don't try to argue that the evidence supported a prosecution of the defendants. It didn't. You won't win that argument because too many posters know the evidence too well.

Trying to argue about a date rape drug distracts from the main mystery rapist® argument.

Similarly, your recent attempt to argue about the Evans' non-exclusion is a waste of time. That issue was investigated extensively by the special prosecutors. Yes, it is Evans, and, yes, it came from the waste basket. Stop, already.

Your attempt to argue that Seligmann helped to cover up the mystery rapists® was a disaster. You know his alibi evidence is too strong. Just because Nifong wants to embarrass himself by calling it "contrived" doesn't mean you have to embarrass yourself as well. You have mystery rapists® and Nifong doesn't. Stay with your strength.

Second, you try too hard to support Nifong. You don't need to do that. Remember, he threw Crystal under the bus with his comments about her son's DNA.

When you defended Nifong as not corrupt or unethical, I goaded you that you thought he was a lazy, stupid , incompetent buffoon. You reacted too emotionally. I tried to help you by suggesting that Nifong realized that Crystal was raped by mystery rapists® and that he needed to break the rules to identify them. You didn't realize I was trying to help.

You need to work to the question of why the defendants did nothing to save themselves. The suggestion that Evans and Seligmann had abetted the attack just doesn't work. When you try that the lack of evidence comes back into play.

A couple of other posters have tried to help you out. the suggested they talked to commenters from the TalkLeft website who confirmed the mystery rapists® and even identified them. Identifying them as Duke administrators or DPD police provides an explanation of why the team did not turn in the mystery rapists®. Either group can threaten to do things if anyone on the team turned on them.

Again, I do ask that you get back to the original theory. A rape by mystery rapists® is the best alternative explanation provided by anyone.

Thanks again for your creativity.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 17, 2015 at 5:40 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Hello, Kenhyderal!
Don't believe Guiowen. I'm still alive. The trouble is that I hardly ever have access to the internet.
Please come to Durham; we can have a good sincere talk there. I hope; March 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Kenhyderal! I've no idea who you are, but I'm not letting Kilgo write you anymore.; March 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
I know you, like Humpty Dumpty, can make a word mean anything you want.
What do you mean by "not necessarily probable"?; March 17, 2015 at 6:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Quasi probable; March 17, 2015 at 9:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: you are the one who has accused Crystal of escorting, not me. I was just laughing at your shallow argument"...... Not an accusation; she did work as an escort but she never, as you imply, work as a prostitute. Remember Crystal's consensual sexual history was investigated by the DPD and nothing was found to explain the presence of unknown DNA samples extracted from sperm; March 17, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is still focused on an old case that isn't under investigation. No matter what may have happened, the case is closed. You need to move on. Regardless of whether or not anything happened that night at the Lacrosse Party, the case has been closed. Your obsession isn't helpful to anyone.; March 18, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: I can't believe anyone is still arguing this.

Crystal was on her way to involuntary committal at the Durham Access Center. Her "rape" claim was pretty much the only way she could keep from being committed (and potentially losing her children). There was no rape.

Unfortunately for Mangum, her case was picked up by Nifong, who was at that point behind in the polls for re-election. The case was nothing more to him than a "million in free publicity dollars".

Any true friend of Mangum would be critical of Nifong's use of Mangum to further his career.

I don't see that here -- I can only conclude that there are no true friends posting their comments.; March 18, 2015 at 6:56 AM
Jai Alai said...: Mangum was raped by the 3 lax players, cleaned up, then gave it away out the window at red lights on the way to Kroger to 5 homeless men, thus accounting for the 5 discreet DNA samples.; March 18, 2015 at 6:59 AM
guiowen said...: "Quasi probable"? Hey, another meaningless term! Pretty good, Kenny! I salute you!; March 18, 2015 at 7:22 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Quasi probable"

Merriam defines "quasi" as:

having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes

Merriam defines "probable" as:
likely to happen or to be true but not certain

"..." We both know the DNA came from the waste basket"..... Possible but not necessarily probable."

Wrong. The cross-contamination is both possible and probable.

I have $100.00 that says you can trim your fingernail into my wastebasket and within 48 hrs, my DNA will be found on your fingernail.

Are you willing to come to Raleigh to take the bet?; March 18, 2015 at 7:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: ""Quasi probable"? Hey, another meaningless term! Pretty good, Kenny! I salute you"".........Oops I forgot the hyphen. But anyway, look it up in Collins or Merriam-Webster; March 18, 2015 at 9:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said:``I don't see that here -- I can only conclude that there are no true friends posting their comments.................Concerning former DA Nifong, Crystal`s true friends are taking their lead from her.; March 18, 2015 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Interesting -- So Crystal in no way feels used or betrayed by the actions of Mike Nifong?

She doesn't find it unusual that he waited months to even interview her about the alleged rape?; March 18, 2015 at 9:21 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I did indeed look it up. Here's what I found:
Sorry, no results for “quasi-probable” in the Collins American English Dictionary.

Are you trying to pull another fast one on us?; March 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM
guiowen said...: Here's what I got from Merriam- Webster:

"The word you've entered was not found. Please try your search again. "

Kenny, are you sure you can read?; March 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quasi-probable; March 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
guiowen said...: But Kenny, you said Collins or Merriam-Webster!; March 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- That's thedefinition for the word "probable" (although "quasi-probable" is listed as a related term).

I've only seen the term "quasi-probable" used to define mathematical errors in civil engineering.
YMMV; March 18, 2015 at 10:27 AM
guiowen said...: Fake Kenny,
You're right. Still, we must praise the "real" Kenny for actually finding a dictionary that saya the word exists. I bet he had to look very hard.
Congratulations, "real" Kenny! You're a winner!; March 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM
Math is fun said...: necessarily probable ≠ quasi-probable; March 18, 2015 at 10:40 AM
Fake guiowen said...: Hey, Kenhyderal, I just found a definition for "quasi-probable error":

"The square of the average of the square root of the absolute value of the true error."

So that explains it all!
Shame on you, Guiowen, and shame on you, Fake Kenhyderal, for suggesting that Kenny didn't know what he was talking about! What could be clearer than this?; March 18, 2015 at 11:30 AM
guiowen said...: Fake Guiowen, my alter ego,
How could you betray me like this? Now everybody will see that Kenny is smarter than anyone on this blog!; March 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Hey Fake G ---

That's similar to the mathematical civil engineering usage I referred to earlier....Although I'm sure that it has it's applications in other engineering fields as well -- telecommunications, maybe?; March 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: I think "Math is fun" is correct -- "necessarily probable" (most likely Kenny was attempting to use this as a legal term) IS NOT the same as "quasi-probable" (a mathematical term).

Kenny doesn't know what he's talking about.; March 18, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Just wanted to give an update on the sharlog. It's been written narrated, and the narrative soundtrack laid out. I have just begun applying visuals... this is the part that takes a little bit of time... especially if I'm extra creative. I'm anxious to get it completed soon... my guess would be that it'll be ready at the earliest by this coming Sunday. I'm going to give it top priority and hold off work on my comic strip and reduce time online.

By the way, how about that Joseph Arbour...! Now that's how a defense attorney should fight for his client. He had the Nifongian courage to challenge Judge Paul Ridgeway about his partiality favoring the prosecution. Of course, Meier would never have done that in Mangum's case... especially since he was working with the judge and prosecutor to have Mangum convicted.

Comments?

As you were.; March 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: An oversight... Joseph Arbour is the defense attorney for Jonathan Broyhill... in a case in which his victim really was stabbed to death... unlike in the Mangum case.; March 18, 2015 at 2:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Let's not get hung up on semantics. The point is the DNA on the fingernail could possibly have come, as a transfer from Evans personal trash. I don't think so but, as an accused, he must, necessarily, get the benefit of the doubt; March 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Sid --

Under the North Carolina rules of evidence, both sides must announce if they plan to call expert witnesses before a trial starts.

Arbour was attempting to use a prison psychiatrist's testimony (basically arguing that Broyhill was operating in a state of diminished mental capacity), without giving the prosecutors an opportunity to have their own mental health experts examine Broyhill.

Judge Ridgeway was correct in not allowing Arbour to call the psychiatrist.; March 18, 2015 at 2:25 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny,
I take it you're not willing to call my bet?; March 18, 2015 at 2:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Are you willing to come to Raleigh to take the bet?"....... No but I will mail you my nail clippings and a buccal swab, provided you pay to have the DNA test done and provide me a certified report of the results. In case I lose do you accept American Express?; March 18, 2015 at 2:54 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, Kenny, I realize you think of me as your principal antagonist here, but I don't even live in NC.; March 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM
guiowen said...: At this moment, Kenny, the point is you took a word, as you always do, and decided to use your Humpty-Dumpty powers on it. You then tried to make light of it, suggesting I look it up in two dictionaries, when you hadn't even bothered to look in those two.
The point is that, as usual, you tried to pull one over on us, figuring that your superior brain-power would crush us.
I know you won many debates back in high school by using your clever tricks, but you're not in high school any more and we're not in the mood for such debates.; March 18, 2015 at 3:41 PM
John D. Smith said...: Guiowen,

I am glad that you also appreciate how clever Kenny is. He overwhelms all of us with his cunning posts.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 18, 2015 at 5:05 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny- The offer was from me, not guiowen. And, cash only.

Mail your nail clippings to Sidney, along with the swab. Once he notifies me that he's received them, I'll take care of it from there.; March 18, 2015 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Truly, kenhyderal is a cunning linguist.; March 18, 2015 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: No way any white lacrosse player would ever have touched Crystal Mangum.She made up the rape story to get out of the trouble she was in.Nifong knew all along there had never been any rape.; March 18, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Sid --

Under the North Carolina rules of evidence, both sides must announce if they plan to call expert witnesses before a trial starts.

Arbour was attempting to use a prison psychiatrist's testimony (basically arguing that Broyhill was operating in a state of diminished mental capacity), without giving the prosecutors an opportunity to have their own mental health experts examine Broyhill.

Judge Ridgeway was correct in not allowing Arbour to call the psychiatrist.

Hey, Lance.

I don't disagree with you on that. But at least he fought for client a lot more vigorously than any defense attorney I've seen in a long time... and he rightly did state that Paul Ridgeway was partial towards the prosecution.

At least Arbour forced Ridgeway to dismiss the juror for misconduct. In Mangum's case, the juror who had talked to the other jurors at the beginning of the trial was never even identified by Ridgeway.; March 19, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "...and he rightly did state that Paul Ridgeway was partial towards the prosecution."

Your bias against judge Ridgeway is showing.

I've shown you the rules of evidence that clearly show that Judge Ridgeway made the correct ruling WRT the defense calling their psychiatrist.

Show me another ruling Judge Ridgeway made during the trial that was partial to the prosecution, or retract your claims.; March 19, 2015 at 7:06 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Sid --
Arbour did not "force Ridgeway to dismiss a juror for misconduct"

During the trial, a juror raised concern about another juror, who may have spoken about the case with his wife. The juror overheard the other juror talking about it during lunch at the Wake County Courthouse.

Judge Ridgeway then questioned the juror, who confirmed he had discussed the trial with his wife, who had been watching it on a livestream in her office. Ridgeway later dismissed the juror.

Your statement is incorrect. Fix it, or remain a liar.; March 19, 2015 at 7:12 AM
Lance the Intern said...: You can find details about the juror situation here.

As you can see, the discussion between juror 1 (who was subsequently dismissed) and his wife was apparently about the jurors not being shown on the lifestream, and not about the case details.

Juror 1 was dismissed, and an alternate replaced him.

The only action Arbour took was an attempt to have the judge declare a mistrial, which Judge Ridgeway (rightly) rejected.; March 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Hey, Kenny, I realize you think of me as your principal antagonist here, but I don't even live in NC." ........... My apologies for confusing you with KH Supporter; March 19, 2015 at 10:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 6:11 3/18/15 Your puerile and sophomoric attempt at humour indicates, to all, your lack of maturity; March 19, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: ...And your pompous response indicates, to all, your general asshole-ness.; March 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal,I managed to get gfokpr..; March 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal,
Don't pay any attention to the post you just received. Kilgo is not here.; March 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM
KH Supporter said...: Kenny,

My apologies for confusing you with KH Supporter.

Hey, Kenny, you may think of me as your secondary antagonist here, but I don't even live in NC.

Why don't you try again and on your third try reply to the actual poster with whom you have the bet.

Even better, why don't you send nail clippings from each of your fingers and each of your toes and Fake
Kenhyderal can place them into 20 separate wastebaskets. You can have 20 bets at $100 per clipping. Since you don't believe it is probable that any of them will be contaminated, you have little risk.; March 19, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Any word on when Mangum will be released? You have indicated multiple times in the past that her release was imminent. What is going on?; March 19, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Any word on when Mangum will be released? You have indicated multiple times in the past that her release was imminent. What is going on?; March 19, 2015 at 7:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Yeah, a confusion between Kenhyderal Supporter and Fake Kenhyderal. You Duke Lacrosse Team, apologist clones are hard to distinguish from one another.; March 20, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Wow....Passive-Aggressive much, kenny?; March 20, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Who is apologizing for the Duke lacrosse team? Some need to apologize to them - you and Mangum included - but no one has to apologize for them.

Your inability to be truthful does not help you or your cause in any way.; March 20, 2015 at 8:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: In truth, you confuse apologist with apologizer.; March 20, 2015 at 9:02 AM
A Lawyer said...: Any word on when Mangum will be released? You have indicated multiple times in the past that her release was imminent. What is going on?

Sid has to draw a new comic strip first. That will get her released.; March 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: An "apologist" is simply someone who offers a defense of something (think of, say, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession by Philipp Melanchthon), that is being attacked by other people.

The Duke LAX have no need for apologists. For them, the matter has been settled, and rightly so.; March 20, 2015 at 10:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: If you rhetorically compare AG Coopers Declaration of Innocence to the Augsburg Confession and your support of it to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession then my refutation can be compared to The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. But yes, you seem to realize that you confused apologists who defend the indefensible Duke Lacrosse Team and those who believe they were owed the apology that was given them. God knows why.; March 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM
fake guiowen said...: Very good, Kenny! In just a day or two you'll have the Catholics here fighting with the Protestants! How clever you are! Hats off!; March 20, 2015 at 2:25 PM
Fake guiowen said...: And you, Guiowen! Have you no shame? How disingenuous of you to suggest that Kenhyhderal is not much smarter than the rest you together!; March 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM
guiowen said...: Please, fake Guiowen! Is there anything I can do to apologize to this all-wise Kenhyderal?; March 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "Very good, Kenny! In just a day or two you'll have the Catholics here fighting with the Protestants! How clever you are! Hats off""........ Like President Obama I do have some Irish blood.; March 20, 2015 at 3:20 PM
Fake guiowen said...: To apologize to the all-wise Kenhderal, you are tread Henry Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua. You will then write an essay of no less than 100 pages called Apologia Pro Vita Magnifici Magistri Kenni Hyderalis. You had better do this by Friday of next week, or I shall reveal how foolish you are. Is that clear?; March 20, 2015 at 3:21 PM
guiowen said...: Aiie, Aiie, Aiie! O all-wise Kenhyderal, can you ever forgive me for doubting your wisdom?; March 20, 2015 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"In truth, you confuse apologist with apologizer."

No, kenny, I don't.

As a master debater and cunning linguist you surely know that words can have more than one meaning. As I said at 8:53 am, the Duke lacrosse needs needs no one to apologize for (i.e., defend, justify) them. They are, however, owed many apologies (statements or expression of remorse and regret for wrongdoing).

See what I did there? I used the same word in different sentences to mean two different things.

You still have not addressed the issue of your lying and untruthfulness.; March 20, 2015 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny confuses words as well, notably "probable" and "implausible."; March 20, 2015 at 4:04 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sorry Kenny - No rhetorical device, just an example of how the word is used.

I see your use of google is up to speed....too bad your reading comprehension isn't.; March 20, 2015 at 5:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Kenny confuses words as well, notably "probable" and "implausible`.......... Huh?; March 20, 2015 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If you were serious about assisting Ms. Mangum in her own defense, you would be trying to obtain a lawyer for to assist her - since it is the judicial system that she has to defend herself within at the present time and where she needs urgent assistance.

There is a system to request funds for causes which exists that seems to do well for some people and some causes. Perhaps it is something you could look into doing soon since you enjoy producing and hosting entertaining and enlightening web presentations for the public to learn about Ms. Mangum's plight. Just an idea for you to ponder further.; March 21, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

If you were serious about assisting Ms. Mangum in her own defense, you would be trying to obtain a lawyer for to assist her - since it is the judicial system that she has to defend herself within at the present time and where she needs urgent assistance.

There is a system to request funds for causes which exists that seems to do well for some people and some causes. Perhaps it is something you could look into doing soon since you enjoy producing and hosting entertaining and enlightening web presentations for the public to learn about Ms. Mangum's plight. Just an idea for you to ponder further.

Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think finding an attorney is the answer, as I believe the majority of those willing to take her case would do so probably to sell her out... just like all of her other attorneys have done. The majority of attorneys would probably not even want to represent her because of the political nature of the case. They all saw firsthand what happened to Mike Nifong.

I think the solution will have to come from another avenue... a non-lawyerly one.; March 21, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Any word on when Mangum will be released? You have indicated multiple times in the past that her release was imminent. What is going on?

Sid has to draw a new comic strip first. That will get her released.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Hah! Unfortunately I think it will take more than a comic strip. What I am absolutely certain is that Mangum will be released soon... far short of the fourteen years she has ahead of her on her sentence. Whether or not she will be released next week, or next month, I do not know... but in the big picture, it should be relatively soon.

I will have my first visitation with her this week, and at that time we can better work together on a strategy for her release... although I have been actively working since her conviction to have it overturned. Mangum will be released ere long.; March 21, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
"...and he rightly did state that Paul Ridgeway was partial towards the prosecution."

Your bias against judge Ridgeway is showing.

I've shown you the rules of evidence that clearly show that Judge Ridgeway made the correct ruling WRT the defense calling their psychiatrist.

Show me another ruling Judge Ridgeway made during the trial that was partial to the prosecution, or retract your claims.

Hey, Lance.

My upcoming sharlog will go into the issues raised about juror misconduct in Mangum's trial. It'll be quite eye-opening. The production is taking longer than anticipated. Won't be finished by this weekend. Sorry, but I do not want to present a product that is not up to my perfectionist standards. Should be completed by mid-week.; March 21, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Eye opening? It was addressed by the court - each juror was individually questioned, and each one, including the one who originally reported it, declined to identify who it was, but all said it didn't effect their thoughts. Go back to your cartoons, you are ruining this case.

But hope all is well with Crystal. Give us an update.; March 21, 2015 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Under what possible scenario will Mangum be released next week, next month or next year?; March 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said,
"I think the solution will have to come from another avenue... a non-lawyerly one."

Please, Sidney, don't try jailbreaks or anything crazy! I just don't want you to get into trouble.; March 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

What possible non legal approaches can you suggest to Ms. Mangum that will secure her release before she serves her entire sentence?; March 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Sis has been working to arrange for Gov. McCrory to commute Crystal's sentence.; March 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

In your correspondence with the governor, make sure you use the phrase "Nifongian courage" early and often. That will show him you aren't a crackpot.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 21, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The other phrase to use early and often is the "Carpetbagger Jihad."; March 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Also use "Powers-That-Be."; March 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, be sure to refer to Mangum as the "victim/accuser" in the lacrosse case, and speak to the massive conspiracies at play in in the lacrosse case as well as the Daye murder case. You may even want to include some of kenny's posts about the mystery rapists to elucidate the governor. That will demonstrate that you are lucid and intelligent, and that your request should be taken very seriously.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 21, 2015 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Make certain that you describe Mike Nifong as honorable and one of the finest prosecutors in North Carolina history.; March 21, 2015 at 1:13 PM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: I have agreed to meet next month in Durham with Malek Williams. If kenhyderal refuses to join us, perhaps Ubes will.; March 21, 2015 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If you do not know law and legal procedure and Ms. Mangum does not know what to do in the court system in order to defend herself, then how is she going to figure out what to do in her situation without the assistance of a lawyer to provide the information? Like: when can she file a motion for a prayer for relief or to bring charges against duke for what they have done in the malpractice killing of Mr. Daye and participation in the cover-up of the same or whatever legally she needs to do in order to get her case heard properly and those whom have assisted in the cover-up held responsible for their corrupted actions? ???

Do you know the answers? Does she?

How do you plan to assist her?; March 22, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney said,
"I think the solution will have to come from another avenue... a non-lawyerly one."

Please, Sidney, don't try jailbreaks or anything crazy! I just don't want you to get into trouble.

gui, mon ami,

Spoken like a true friend. Not to worry, all avenues that I will take to secure justice for Mangum will be legal... and, of course, ethical.; March 22, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Eye opening? It was addressed by the court - each juror was individually questioned, and each one, including the one who originally reported it, declined to identify who it was, but all said it didn't effect their thoughts. Go back to your cartoons, you are ruining this case.

But hope all is well with Crystal. Give us an update.

I will begin working on the comic strip after this current sharlog is completed.

Actually, I don't believe that the Judge tried to obtain the identity of the juror in question. I have the transcript of the trial that includes jury selection and I don't believe your account that the jurors refused to give the identity of the bad-conduct juror to the judge is accurate.; March 22, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

What possible non legal approaches can you suggest to Ms. Mangum that will secure her release before she serves her entire sentence?

First keep in mind that non-legal and non-lawyerly are not the same thing. I intend to follow a legal non-lawyerly plan of attack.

The obvious key to Mangum's release is enlightenment. The viewers and visitors to this blog site are more knowledgeable about Daye's death, what happened at Duke University Hospital, and the role of the esophageal intubation than the majority of people in the world who depend on the biased mainstream media... which has been suppressing the truth in an attempt to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner.

Enlightenment will lead to Mangum's release and exoneration.; March 22, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Update on Sharlog:

Work progressing nicely on sharlog... Looks like the file is going to be large and require dividing it into two parts. It will contain document pages never before seen on this site.

Estimated date of its online publication is realistically near the end of this week.

As you were.

Caio. Gotta get back to work on my sharlog at home.; March 22, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Meant ciao... my bad.; March 22, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

What are you going to do within the legal system about the juror information you are going to share with the public in your next sharlog? Nobody on this blog can do anything about it, so are you expecting miracles and are you leading Ms. Mangum on to expect the same is a logical question at this time? Can a prayer for relief motion help her in achieving these miracles, or not? Does she know how to write and file one, and then get a fair hearing on the same? ???; March 22, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Did you rely on people on this blog to cure your cancer - or did you trust a doctor to assist you?

Why do you expect people on this blog to cure the ills of the judicial system when the problems are cancerous and professional legal assistance is obviously required?; March 22, 2015 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Before you produce a comic strip, can you please take time to post to your blog the documents that you describe in your sharlogs in a format that can be printed by others? If not, please explain why not. Thank you.; March 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Does your assistance to Ms. Mangum include providing her with your written in-depth medical analysis of the discrepancies and issues with the three available medical record sources in this case as published in your sharlogs? If not, why not?; March 22, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You frequently refer to Guiowen as your friend. This is the same person who stated here that they had a drinking bet with you that no one would take this blog seriously as a valid excuse for their participation in the constant trolling that occurs on this blog. You stated you did not have a drinking bet, yet rely on others to deal with the trolling and cyberbullying that your friend and gang initiate (including Ms. Mangum and her family), even though it is your blog that one could assume you want taken seriously. Why is this? Why do you allow Ms. Mangum and others to be harmed in hate crime manner and cyberbullying tactics on your blog?; March 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM
guiowen said...: Let's get one thing clear: the only bully around here is the individual who calls me (and others also) "evil duke troll it g".

The subject of the drinking bet was whether you would continue to do this. My bet, by the way, is not with Sidney. As usual, your reading comprehension is rather poor.

I'm sorry the rest of us are not easily bullied, but what can I do?; March 22, 2015 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: So you copied and pasted plagerized posts for months on end to earn your free drinks evil duke troll it g... hatemonger blogmonger, even when asked repeatedly to stop? It is non stop trolling and cyberbully that you do - but of course you blame it others just like you did with your free drink bet plagerized posts, etc.

Why does Dr. Harr call you his friend?; March 22, 2015 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 3:37,

No one thinks that you are clever. It doesn't take much cleverness to pretend that different posters are all guiowen.

Read kennyhyderal's posts if you want to see what is clever.; March 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually i'm confused.

It was Kenhydrl who asked Dr. Harr to help Ms. Mangum right?

And Dr. Harr calls the evil duke troll it g... his friend,

but the evil duke troll it g... is constantly mocking and dissing on Kenhydrl and Ms. Mangum, and trolls and cyberbullies anyone not in the evil duke troll gang endlessly on Dr. Harr's blog,

so ...

it is confusing.; March 22, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, you are confused.; March 22, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: ... well it is confusing.

Is the evil duke troll it g... Dr. Harr's friend that he allows to freely troll and cyberbully on his blog? If so ... why?; March 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: You are dazed and confused.; March 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

The cyber bully posted today at 4:45pm, 4:34pm (the first post at that time) and 3:37pm. This poster appears to believe that ad hominem attacks are appropriate.; March 22, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: No, just confused about why Dr. Harr calls the evil duke troll it g... his friend first off.

Second about why Ms. Mangum and those whom saw the medical reports for what they were and thus question duke about their ethics are constantly cyberbullied on Dr. Harr's blog when he professes to want to assist her in her defense and continually blogs about the medical records.

Third, why Kenhydrl is trolled and cyberbullied like he is on this blog.; March 22, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Answers to your questions:

1. Guiowen is polite to Dr. Harr. Dr. Harr appreciates that.

2. Dr. Harr wants to help Mangum. Unfortunately for her he does not understand the law.

3. Kenhyderal (not Kenhydryl) is criticized for the quality of his posts. His mystery rapist theory, while quite clever, is implausible. In addition, his pompous attitude also attracts ridicule. I note that Kenny only pretends to be Mangum's friend. No real friend would fail to intervene when Dr. Harr convinced her to fire her attorney and represent herself.

I hope that is helpful.; March 22, 2015 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: The evil duke troll it g... may be polite to Dr. Harr, but it is a cyberbully to everyone else. So he encourages g... to harm others with cyberbullying on his blog yet thinks that getting Ms. Mangum's plight out in sharlog format on his blog will secure her freedom some how. ???; March 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: No, you are confused.

First, you pretend that all of the posts you attribute to evil duke troll it g are the same poster. This is incorrect. It is also not clever.

Second, all of those posters do not cyber bully everyone else. This is incorrect. What you interpret as cyber bullying is a sarcastic reaction to posters, such as Dr. Harr, Kenny and yourself, who either are or pretend to be idiots.

Third, Dr. Harr may actually be an idiot. I believe that you and Kenny only pretend to be. Dr. Harr believes that if he can convince the dozen or people who read this blog that his reading of the law is correct, that Mangum will somehow be released. He doesn't want to listen to the few posters who are serious (such as Walt, A Lawyer and Lance) as to how the law works. I note that Kenny, who pretends to be Mangum's friend, is content to allow Dr. Harr to busy himself with ineffective activities.

I hope this is helpful.; March 22, 2015 at 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't pretend that all the cyberbullying posts are from the evil duke troll it g... although it does seem that a lot of the cyberbullying is done when g... is posting. Switching between different names is something that some posters in the evil duke troll gang do frequently on this blog. When Ken Edwards left the blog due to the overwhelming cyberbullying ... the attacks became concentrated and non-stop ... at that time, all the gang seemed to merge together along with g...'s constant cyberbully and free drink bets ... so it was an understandable mistake if it was one.; March 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: No, you are confused.; March 22, 2015 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: ... walt, a lawyer, and lance are biased against Ms. Mangum and don't seem to give a flip about duke's malpractice killing of Mr. Daye and coverup of the same in the NC justice system, so how serious they are about the law is questionable - to say the least.; March 22, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree that most of the posts on this blog are from trolls.

From what you call the "evil duke troll gang," most of the posters are trolls (at least most of the time) with the exception of Walt, A Lawyer and Lance (and occasionally some the anonymous posters).

You and Kenny and trolls virtually all of the time.

I believe Dr. Harr is serious with his posts, but his paranoia and refusal to understand criticism, even when the critic provides definitive evidence that shows Dr. Harr is incorrect, makes it impossible to take his opinions seriously. His inane posts have encouraged a number of formerly serious critics to become trolls. For example, guiowen was once serious.

I hope this is helpful.; March 22, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no evidence that Walt, A Lawyer and Lance are "biased" against Mangum. It is not helpful for you to denigrate them as "biased" because you disagree with their opinions.

There is no evidence that Walt, A Lawyer and Lance "don't seem to give a flip about Dule's malpractice." As has been explained, with case law provided to support it, the law does not regard malpractice (even an esophageal intubation) as an intervening cause. It is not helpful for you to denigrate their motives because you disagree with their opinion. Neither Dr. Harr, Kenny nor you have provide case law to demonstrate their error.

You may not like the law or believe it to be fair. However, shooting the messengers accomplishes nothing.; March 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Please. All of the posts on this forum are from trolls (at least as far back as I have read or careto read); some are just better at it than others.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 22, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: There is plenty of evidence on this blog that Walt (especially) and the others are biased against Ms. Mangum and don't give a flip about duke killing Mr. Daye with malpractice and then assisting in the cover-up of the same so that Ms. Mangum was wrongly charged and convicted of murder. Ask Walt if he is biased against Ms. Mangum and what he would do to legally to address the issues of the malpractice death and cover-up if you have further doubts about that issue.; March 22, 2015 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I am not a troll by the way. I am a citizen witness to the abuse of this case. My task is made easy by the constant trolling and cyberbully I am subjected to by the evil duke troll gang on this blog. If I must fight the trolls off - or am not biased against Ms. Mangum - nor relinguish the right to be non threatened by duke's hostile environment they have created at their institution and in this state and the lack of ethics they continually demonstrate in the NC judicial system - that does not make me a troll. The evil duke troll gang of course calls it trolling since my stance is directly opposed to theirs and they think they 'own' this blog - which is weird actually. When Dr. Harr calls a major evil duke troll in the form of g... a friend - it all becomes rather confusing actually.; March 22, 2015 at 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: I have seen duke do some really evil things ... this case and the lacrosse case are just examples. At some point enough is always enough.; March 22, 2015 at 7:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "When Ken Edwards left the blog due to the overwhelming cyberbullying""........ Just to set the record straight, I left because, at the time, Dr. Harr was allowing blatantly racist posts to remain. Many of them extremely hurtful to Crystal and her Family. This has abated somewhat but if it starts occurring again I will not participate. The Duke Lacrosse apologists and Crystal haters are not able to bully me. The things they accuse me of are examples of blatant projection.; March 22, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:09 PM wrote: "There is plenty of evidence on this blog that Walt (especially) and the others are biased against Ms. Mangum and don't give a flip about duke killing Mr. Daye with malpractice and then assisting in the cover-up of the same so that Ms. Mangum was wrongly charged and convicted of murder."

Just because I point out the law disagrees with your position is not bias. I think the same is true for Lance, A Lawyer and others who disagree with you. As for Duke, I criticize it when criticism is due. However, I believe that one must refrain from criticism when there are no facts upon which to base the criticism.

"Ask Walt if he is biased against Ms. Mangum..."

Don't be repetitive.

" and what he would do to legally to address the issues of the malpractice death and cover-up if you have further doubts about that issue."

I have always given those who proclaim medical malpractice the benefit of the doubt on that point. Assuming malpractice as a given, it still is not an intervening cause in the criminal case. The malpractice would have to have been the sole cause of death. There was no testimony nor any other evidence that the assumed malpractice was the sole cause of death. In fact, the only evidence at trial was the sole cause of death was a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Unfortunately for her, her own expert agreed with that conclusion.

Walt-in-Durham; March 23, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: That's bs and you know it Walt. You repeat yourself on this blog continuously, so what a joke eh?

You have said some really rotten things about Ms. Mangum on this blog - it is documented. The latest would be your recent discussion with the evil duke troll gang insisting to Ken Edwards that Ms. Mangum is a prostitute. Convenient for you that Ms. Mangum's lawyer did not defend her in the trial isn't it?

blah; March 23, 2015 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: It is common knowledge that Mangum was a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer). What is the point in arguing over it? It has nothing to do with the charges against her for killing Mr. Daye.; March 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What is the point in arguing over it? It has nothing to do with the charges against her for killing Mr. Daye"..... Then, the Duke Lacrosse apologists should then stop constantly bringing up this bogus charge. When they do, those who know the truth are bound to want to refute it. It's all part of the unfair, orchestrated character assassination waged against her. I say it's untrue, you say it's irrelevant so let's just let it go. Why, because this gratuitous slander has caused unnecessary pain to her Family and friends. Show a little decency.; March 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM
guiowen said...: I've got an idea, Kenny. Why don't you stop denigrating Reginald Daye. Stop causing unnecessary pain to his family and friends. Stop accusing the LAX players of rape (or of covering up a rape). Stop causing unnecessary pain to their families and friends.; March 23, 2015 at 3:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Yes, I have accused Reginald Daye of Domestic Violence, a crime he admitted to. What crime, those who saw a sexual assault and failed to come forth, committed, according to North Carolina statutes, I'm not sure. Perhaps Lance, Walt or A Lawyer can enlighten me; March 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM
guiowen said...: Reginald Daye lost his temper and pulled Crystal's hair. When he realized what he was doing, he, like a gentleman, stopped and walked away. Guess what happened then? Tough luck, Reggie!
As for the lax players, you are once again accusing them of a crime that only you (and not even William Cohan) believe happened.
In both of these cases you are causing great pain to their friends and families. You should be ashamed of yourself.; March 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny asks "what crime" was committed by those players who failed to come forward and report by sexual assault by mystery rapists.

Kenny, I am not an NC lawyer, but I can answer your question.

In failing to come forward and report a rape by mystery rapists, no Duke lacrosse player committed a crime. The failure to report a fictitious assault is not a crime.

I have another idea. Stop being disingenuous. I don't believe that you aren't "sure" that the failure to report a crime that never occurred is not a crime.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 23, 2015 at 4:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: And the crime I've accused the LaX Players of is? Was it criminal or just immoral? You've acknowledged that Daye committed domestic violence and that's what I have accused him of.; March 23, 2015 at 4:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Didn't read your post, John D., before I responded to Guiowen. You said: " The failure to report a fictitious assault is not a crime" My question to the Lawyers was a general one.; March 23, 2015 at 4:51 PM
John D. Smith said...: Kenny,

Stop being a liar.

You have accused unnamed lacrosse players of assisting or covering up a rape by mystery rapists.

Stop being a liar.

You have accused Evans at various times of assisting or covering up a rape by mystery rapists.

Stop being a liar.

You have even accused Seligmann, despite his strong alibi, of covering up a rape by mystery rapists.

Kenny, stop being a liar.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; March 23, 2015 at 4:58 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,You've accused Reggie of lying on top of Crystal. He did no such thing.
Crystal, on the other hand, stabbed him in the back. That's much worse than puling her hair..; March 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: How do you know what happened g...?

Were you there?

The prosecution didn't prove anything - they just showed a video of Ms. Mangum sleeping for several hours and made her previous boyfriend, who also admitted to assaulting her in a bathroom, get on the stand and do whatever they tried to make him do ... they proved nothing.

He kicked the door in and off the frame where she had locked herself away from him before he pulled her out by the hair - with Ms. Mangum's history of being assualted in bathrooms - it is understandable that she defended herself with whatever means she had available at the time. Too bad the defense didn't have a qualified expert witness to explain the logic and reality of the illness that develops from being the victim of repeated assualts - many apparently could use some book learning on the subject.

He was stabbed in the side - not the back. Really g... - do you think no one else on this blog has been following the case enough to know you speak falsehoods?; March 23, 2015 at 8:18 PM
guiowen said...: The prosecution proved she stabbed him with intent to kill. The jury agreed -- without a reasonable doubt.; March 23, 2015 at 9:33 PM
guiowen said...: Your claim that the prosecution didn't prove anything is an obvious lie.; March 23, 2015 at 9:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D. Said: "You have accused Evans at various times of assisting or covering up a rape by mystery rapists.
You have even accused Seligmann, despite his strong alibi, of covering up a rape by mystery rapists" .... Can you show readers where I have done that?; March 23, 2015 at 9:50 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal wrote:

.
"For one, or maybe two, of the accused implicating the perpetrators of the rape would also serve to self- implicate themselves of other serious crimes, such as kidnapping and sexual assault"

March 17, 2015 at 10:20 AM; March 23, 2015 at 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: How did the prosecution prove she had an intent to kill? They had her last boyfriend say that she said she was going to stab him after he assualted her - but did she say "I am going to stab you to death"? NO!

So with one stab wound that was successfully repaired in surgery per the Duke medical records - HOW did the prosecution prove she an intent to kill? They didn't.

Any way - she died of preventable malpractice at the hands of Duke - a complication - ooooppppppsssss!!!!!!!; March 24, 2015 at 2:15 AM
Anonymous said...: ... and - since the Duke medical reports say the surgeon performed his job well and the wound was successfully repaired with prognosis for full recovery - the complication was not from the stab wound.

The complication was from what Duke did or didn't do to Mr. Daye after the successful surgery for the stab wound.; March 24, 2015 at 2:26 AM
Anonymous said...: If the prosecution proved anything - it was that they withheld evidence favorable to the defense.

Like what Duke did or didn't do to settle the malpractice death with the Daye family.

Also left out was the evidence that the autopsy report did not match what the Duke medical records said happened.

There were no finger prints to prove that any of the knives were handled by Ms. Mangum.

etc.

They did NOT prove anything but that they have issues as a judicial system when Duke is involved - which most are aware of by now.; March 24, 2015 at 2:45 AM
guiowen said...: The prosecution proved its case. Twelve persons assure me of this. I find it much easier to believe this twelve than to believe you.; March 24, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Anonymous said...: What crime, those who saw a sexual assault and failed to come forth, committed, according to North Carolina statutes, I'm not sure. Perhaps Lance, Walt or A Lawyer can enlighten me

None. In the United States, except in limited circumstances (mainly teachers and professionals), there is no obligation to report a crime. So, if you saw someone getting raped, you could stand there and do nothing about it, and not tell anyone, and not cooperate, and have no issues.

If you helped them cover it up, or participated, then that is a different issue, but if you were just a passive observer, you have no obligation to help or tell anyone.; March 24, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you watch the trial g... or do you always rely on others to form your thoughts and decisions and judgements on - you know - like a duke thing - ie: well duke says it is so - so it must be, etc.???

... i mean - that is what duke seems to want of others - ie: listen to us cuz we'ze the experts in all things.

??? ...just wondering

An appeal process is under way to address issues of question in the case - you are aware of that right?; March 24, 2015 at 8:18 AM
guiowen said...: Twelve unbiased persons tell me that
it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, are a very biased man. Whom should I believe?; March 24, 2015 at 8:36 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Guiowen --

Your bias is showing by assuming that the anonymous poster @ 8:18 is a man.; March 24, 2015 at 9:07 AM
guiowen said...: Lance, you're right.
Tinfoil: sorry. I should have said you are a very biased person.; March 24, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: What's a Tar Heelian?

I'll note that -ian is derived from the Latin -ānus...; March 24, 2015 at 9:24 AM
The Rectumfinder said...: What's a Tar Heelian?

I think it means someone who stepped in $hit...; March 24, 2015 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You need to hurry up and pinch off that new shlog. The wheels are coming off this one.; March 24, 2015 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:18,

Yes. Everyone on this board is aware that Mangum has appealed her conviction.

However, your statement that the appeal will address multiple issues is false. The appeal raises only one issue--the 404(b) issue regarding Walker's testimony. Anyone who claims the appeals court, absent another appeal, will consider the quality of Meier's representation, the jury's rejection of the self-defense claim, or the esophageal intubation is either uninformed or is lying.

I suggest that you clarify your statement.; March 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Almost everyone convicted appeals ... That's not remotely unusual.; March 24, 2015 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: The appeal judges have to review the files and evidence to make a judgement right? If they do not see that the defense appeal attorney has not filed an appeal covering all the issues of the trial or that the date and method of death has been mistated in the appeals brief - then they are not judging based on the evidence available to them from the trial. That is how I understand the appeals process based on a judge reviewing all the evidence and proceedings of the trial combined with what lawyers presents to them in appeal briefs. If the judges do not see that there are major errors in leaving out critical issues of question from the trial in the briefs, then they are not reviewing the transcripts nor the evidence properly.; March 24, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:46,

Your understanding of the appeal process is incorrect. While the appeals court ruling recites the factual summary of the case, the ruling addresses only the specific issues raised in the appeal. In this case, that issue is the 404(b) ruling.

The court will only rule on that issue. It will not address self-defense, malpractice and Meier's competence.; March 25, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no dispute regarding the date of Mr. Daye's death. An appeals court will not overturn a judgment of conviction based on a scrivener's error concerning a date. They will correct it and move on.

There is no dispute regarding the cause or method of death for the court to review. The only people who dispute it are Sid, kenny and Tinfoil, and the only place it is being disputed is on this blog. Their position is not supported by the facts and has no basis in the law. The court will not overturn a judgment of conviction based on surmisals on a blog.

As noted above, this appeal will turn solely on the 404(b) ruling.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 25, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Well no wonder the judicial system is so screwed up in NC if the courts know they can provide unfair representation and court proceedings only to have the appeals court attorneys ignore all issues except for those which they choose to address per their own agendas (for those whom have to depend on the Public Defender system especially).

This case is obvious though in that the appeal attorney mistated the date and manner of death. If the judges do not address that issue in the briefs and the trial, then they are not judging by the evidence available in the trial - simply playing the conflicted duke game right along with the rest of the system.; March 25, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:36,

The appeal process in other jurisdictions is the same. Appeals courts address only those issues raised in the filings. They do not add their own issues.

In that sense, your criticism on the NC system is misplaced. There are other areas in which the system should be criticized. This is not one of them.; March 25, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: It is the reason for the problems if they are the ones to address the problems to and they do nothing about it or ignore them all together.; March 25, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:44,

I do not understand your comment. Can you please rephrase it?; March 25, 2015 at 6:46 AM
Anonymous said...: no, it is said like it is meant

!!!
???
!!!; March 25, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Fine. I still don't understand it. I assume you do not care to have a discussion. You simply want to rant. That is your prerogative.; March 25, 2015 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: No I don't want to have a discussion actually - I said what I meant to say to clarify my position from yesterday like asked.

You need to think a bit about it if you do not understand. It is very simple and a common fact of how judicial (etc.) processes are designed to work.; March 25, 2015 at 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:02,

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the appeal process in all jurisdictions.

The appeals court addresses only the specific issues that are raised to it. It does not identify additional issues that the defense counsel could have raised in the appeal, but chose not to do so. As a result, the 404(b) issue is the only issue that will be addressed.

In addition, an appeals court does not re-determine conclusions of fact in the absence of other legal issues (e.g., new evidence available, misconduct, etc.). The jury decided that Mangum's testimony was not credible and they therefore concluded she did not act in self defense. Nichols concluded Daye died as a result of complications from the stabbing. The defense did not impeach Nichols in large part because their expert agreed with the conclusion. They had no expert to refute that conclusion. They jury accepted the only evidence. Except for a claim that Meier was incompetent, these conclusions of fact cannot be appealed.

I understand you do not like verdict. You would be more effective an advocate if you spent some time to understand what the requirements of the law actually are.; March 25, 2015 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: The defense attorney did'nt put the defense medical examiner on the stand nor take the time to question the discrepancies in the first autopsy report that was used to wrongly charge and convict Ms. Mangum. If the medical examiners are the ones to convict without review nor question - then why even have a trial or a jury?

It was not a fair trial and all evidence was not submitted and presented in just manner per law. How are these issues addressed now since the current appeal defense attorney is bereft of defense assistance for Ms. Mangum about these issues?; March 25, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:31,

As you know (and as I just said), the defense did not put Roberts on the stand because he conclusion was consistent with Nichols': Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound. Roberts would have reinforced the conclusion.

I understand that you do not believe the law is fair. You believe that malpractice should cut off legal responsibility. However, lawyers have stated it does not. They also note that this is true in most other jurisdictions.

The rest of your comment is a bit foolish. Your comment about MEs convicting without review or question is silly. Roberts did review Nichols. You don't like her conclusion.

In the end, the only way these issues get raised in an appeal is if Mangum hired an attorney who agreed to raise them. Instead of drawing cartoons and putting tougher sharlogs, shlog sand flogs, Dr. Harr should have been raising money for a defense fund. If you don't like Mangum's lawyers, then hire someone you like.; March 25, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Roberts agreed to a conclusion not based on the law as the judge clarified it to be in the trial. It was also based on an autopsy report and ME that she discredited in her own report based heavily on the evidence from the Duke medical reports, so if this conclusion is the same, it is questionable and thus needs to be questioned. Just because the defense attorney did not take the time to obtain the report before the very end of trial (but only because Ms. Mangum insisted to the judge that she receive a written copy of the defense autopsy report) does not mean that it did not hold value as defense evidence. It only means he did not bother to prepare an adequate defense about the issues - which is obvious and supported by the facts of the trial.

If Dr. Harr wants to assist Ms. Mangum without a lawyer, he will have to assist her in writing a new appeal then right? ???

Maybe we should all put aside our duke biases and hatred towards nondukies a bit on this blog and help him write a new appeal brief for Ms. Mangum if one is needed.

Dr. Harr - are you game?; March 25, 2015 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:53,

The beginning of your comment is incorrect. Nichols and Roberts conclusions are based on the law as set forth in Welch. The fact that you, Kenny and Dr. Harr disagree does not change that.

The timing or the written report is unimportant. Mangum received a verbal report (with the identical conclusion) long before.

The end of your comment is moronic. If you don't believe Petersen is serving Mangum properly, she needs a new lawyer. Assistance from Dr. Harr should be limited to fund raising.; March 25, 2015 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 7:31 AM, I don't think you understand the role of expert testimony. Normally, no one is allowed to give evidence in the nature of an opinion. The only evidence allowed is facts. For example: Witness #1 says I saw .... Witness #2 a physician says, I saw ... and treated his condition by ....

Opinion testimony is only allowed if it is of a scientific, technical or other specialized nature that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In this case, the state sought to use Dr. Nichols to give both expert and fact testimony.

In a murder case, the state must prove both the death of the victim and the means of that death. First Dr. Nichols testified that he saw the decedent and he was dead. That was fact testimony. Unimpeached fact testimony. Second, Nichols said he saw the body and described it. That too is fact testimony. Also unimpeached. Finally, he offered an opinion on the cause of death, a stabbing inflicted by Crystal. That is a mixed fact and opinion testimony. It is fact because he was a treating physician and he made a diagnosis. It is opinion because he was using his expert knowledge, science and observation to draw a conclusion that would assist the jury.

Dr. Roberts did not testify. Had she, her testimony would have been purely opinion as she never saw the body, did no autopsy and did not treat the late lamented Mr. Daye. That does not disqualify her as her expertise, training, education and experience might aid the jury in applying a scientific principal to a factual question.

However, defense counsel did not call Dr. Roberts because her opinion was Dr. Nichols was correct. Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Had she been called as a witness, Sid, and you, would have been crying and moaning about how unfair it was that she piled on doubling up the testimony of Nichols. But, that's not why defense counsel declined to call Roberts. He did so because she hurt Crystal's case. By agreeing with the state, she just made the defense that much more difficult. Of course, Sid chose to undermine the defense by releasing Roberts report long before the trial so the State was fully prepared for her if the defense was so fool as to call her as a witness. Fortunately for Crystal, her lawyer was not such a fool, nor disloyal like Sid.

Thus, as it regards the experts, it was a fair trial. On the battle of the experts, it was probably not as bad for the defense as it could have been had Roberts been called.

Of course, you overlook the very real 404(b) issues in favor of the false trail that Sid wants to lead you down. Too bad. Given the fervor of some posters on this site, a healthy 404(b) discussion might ensue.

Walt-in-Durham; March 25, 2015 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Well that is not what Dr. Harr thinks as noted above - and as thus - do you have any better ideas?

Like: Where and how would this lawyer be found if funds were raised?

Like I said, the ME's need to be put on the stand and questioned in fairness to the defense - and no, there is reason to question that the conclusion was incorrect and, as you put it, that Welch does not apply to this case because the malpractice was preventable, not needed, avoidable, 100% the reason for death, and not based on the stab wound but based on Mr. Daye's agitated behavior and a test for DT's ... or whatever.; March 25, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

I believe you are unfair to Sid. I do not believe that Sid is disloyal. I simply believe he is a moron.

Sid readily admits that he is not trained in the law. He readily admits that he does no legal research. Yet he makes legal judgments and refuses to correct his judgments when proven wrong.

I believe that he genuinely believed that the esophageal intubation cut off Mangum's legal liability and that by exposing that fact ( included in a Duke medical report), he has proven her innocence.

To this day, I do not believe that he understands the damage he caused.; March 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

You totally do not understand the discrepancies between the state's autopsy report and Duke's medical reports do you? Or you just ignore it - which makes everything you say about the issue not worth reading because you will not even look at the facts right in the first place.

You do this all the time. Is it because your version fits your agenda and not the facts? ???; March 25, 2015 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:06,

1. Dr. Harr is a moron. He is not credible. You do not help,your argument by relying on Dr. Harr.

2. There are numerous listings of lawyers. I will not name them.

3. Malpractice is preventable. Other cases cited in Welch also have preventable malpractice. This argument adds nothing.; March 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:13,

You are projecting.; March 25, 2015 at 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Then you take the list and find a suitable defense attorney that is not conflicted nor biased, and that has experience and knowledge, as well as the will to defend Ms. Mangum in this case. Report back pronto with a list of suitable candidates and we will all have a look. You could be a hero if you come up with viable candidates.

Thanks in advance. We'll be waiting - so best get started - you've got your work cut out for you!; March 25, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:27,

I am not motivated to do so. Although the typo for the date on which Daye is an obvious error, I do not believe that Petersen needs to be replaced. The 404(b) issue for which you have interest is in my opinion the best argument Mangum has.

Your comment was not particularly clever.; March 25, 2015 at 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.martindale.com/; March 25, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: From what I can tell, Sid would be happy to see Joseph Arbour representing Ms. Mangum.

Sid seems impressed by his willingness to "fight for his client".

Mr. Arbour is a graduate of SUNY Buffalo and The Franklin Pierce Law Center (now University of New Hampshire Scool of Law).

He practiced law in NY from 1985 to 2006.

He was admitted to the NC bar in 2006.

He represented Jonathan Broyhill, so he has recent murder trial experience.

I don't see any conflict or bias WRT Duke.

So there you go...

I can be your hero, baby...; March 25, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:13 AM wrote:"Walt,

You totally do not understand the discrepancies between the state's autopsy report and Duke's medical reports do you? Or you just ignore it - which makes everything you say about the issue not worth reading because you will not even look at the facts right in the first place."

I have written it before, so I don't know how you get to the notion that I either don't understand or am ignoring the facts, but, I have always assumed medical malpractice, for purposes of the discussion. If you don't want to understand the law, that's your problem not mine. But, a lack of understanding certainly makes your argument very weak.

"You do this all the time. Is it because your version fits your agenda and not the facts? ???"

I think it is you who has the agenda. To the extent I have an agenda, it is to provide accurate information from which you can decide. You are the one who rejects the information and prefers your own construct where courts of appeal conduct evidentiary hearings, where lawyers knowingly put on witnesses who will aid the opposition and who have imaginary conflicts of interest. Sorry, anon, that's not reality.; March 25, 2015 at 9:08 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:11 AM wrote: "I believe that he genuinely believed that the esophageal intubation cut off Mangum's legal liability and that by exposing that fact ( included in a Duke medical report), he has proven her innocence.

To this day, I do not believe that he understands the damage he caused."

Anon, you are quite right, Sid does not understand the damage he caused Crystal.

Walt-in-Durham; March 25, 2015 at 9:11 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If you don't like Mangum's lawyers, then hire someone you like'........ "They have no bread? Then let them eat cake!"; March 25, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny the liar is back!; March 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny = Joseph Arbour also has the advantage of being on the Public Defender roster for Wake County.

But I have to ask - do you feel Sid's time was better spent putting together his "sharlogs" than attempting to raise money for a Crystal Mangum defense fund?

For that matter, what have you done with regards to raising money for her defense?; March 25, 2015 at 9:32 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Hey Anonymous @ 8:27 -

Jackie Willingham is a Wake County public defender as well.

She served as a Marine in the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Afghanistan.

She could relate to Crystal due to their shared military backgrounds.

She's a fairly recent (2011) grad from Wake Forest.

See how easy this is?; March 25, 2015 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Fake Kenhyderal,

Do you believe Kenny acted as a concerned close personal friend of Mangum's when Dr. Harr convinced her to fire Woody Vann as her attorney and represent herself against first degree murder charges? At the time, although he was an active poster on this blog, Kenny failed to comment negatively on Dr. Harr's advice.; March 25, 2015 at 10:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: How a person is treated in the U.S. Criminal Justice System depends on who you are and how much money you have. The more money you have the better the representation you can buy. This disadvantages poor and minority defendants like Crystal; March 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

We all agree that in many cases, a top notch and expensive attorney will be more effective than a public defender not chosen by the defendant.

Tell us. How does the public defender system in Canada avoid this issue? I would think that it many cases more money buys more expertise. In the addition, an attorney chosen by the defendant may be more compatible.

However, you should answer Fake Kenny's question: do you believe Dr. Harr's time was better spent producing sharlogs than raise money for a defense fund?

After all, if money is important, why did you not encourage Dr. Harr to pursue that? He may have listened to you.; March 25, 2015 at 10:25 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 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