Tuesday, March 31, 2015

How the NC legal system and the courts failed Crystal Mangum

1,173 comments:

1 – 200 of 1173   Newer›   Newest»
Nifong Supporter said...


Ana Steele said...
Flog me, Sid!


Ms. Steele, I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Why is it when other people get facts incorrect, it brings their credibility into question, but when you get facts incorrect, it doesn't?

A question Dr. Harr should answer, but won't.


Hey, Anonymous A Lawyer, never let it be said that I duck a question. The fact of the matter is that in most of my postings I back up what I say with documents... usually prosecution discovery given to me by Crystal. My prognostications may be off now and again, but those hardly warrant categorization as "facts." I hope this answers your question adequately.

Lance the Intern said...

I pointed out several errors you made with regard to Joseph Arbour and the Broyhill trial. You have yet to admit that you were wrong about them.

In regards to this most recent sharlog, it's just more of the same. Nothing new or enlightening -- we've heard or read it all before.

Anonymous said...

How many more times will Sid have to be told there is no mechanism for a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss? He is still claiming it was a failure to not file that in the Larceny of Chose in Action. He's been told that can't be filed ... that's a mistake you keep making Sid, and just proves you don't listen.

He also still thinks the Roberts' Report helped Mangum.

Sid is the traitor and turncoat who hurt Crystal the most, and continues to do so.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

It is amazing indeed that three people with such close ties to Duke were allowed on any jury involving Duke and Ms. Mangum after the lacrosse case. Totally unjust, unfair, and unreasonable given the abuse continually levied against her by the media in regards to the lacrosse case, and the abuse that ALL were/are subjected to by the entire case and the media and evil duke trolls (for better way of putting it at this time). There is NO excuse for that. The comment by the juror about not making Durham look bad is the same as saying not making Duke look bad. Was it said by one of the three jurors with unreasonably close Duke ties? This is a question that needs to be asked at a new trial or in a new appeal.

In regards as to what to do about the issue of the jury injustice - WHAT is the method to get the issue brought before a judge about the matter at this point in time?

WHO is an investigation requested of about this case at this point in time?

There are so many issues of injustice that are apparent in this case, it is absurd that the people involved in the case can really think that they will be allowed to continue the corruption and injustice just because it is Duke involved.

Thank you for your time on these matters and answers to questions.

guiowen said...

Is there any possibility that we can get you to stop whining?

Anonymous said...

seriously g... i've already told you to quit trolling me 1000 and 1 times ... why don't you quit whining about me commenting on this case? thanks

Anonymous said...

I love how you ask Sid questions about legal process and procedure - he has made it clear he isn't a lawyer, and doesn't know the law (he says that, it's not just his total failure in lawsuits that show it), and that he intends to proceed only through enlightenment, not the Courts.

So, your questions will be unanswered - I think Sid is hoping that now that you've become enlightened, you will take a more active role than just commenting on his blog and make things happen.

Sid doesn't want to do anything that might actually help, he just wants to pretend and keep deluding/taking advantage of poor Crystal. Makes you wonder what "payment" he expects in return.

Anonymous said...

He recently stated that he was looking for legal assistance for her - and he asks people to help at the end of his sharlog - that is why I ask. If he does not know the answers - then I am sure he will find out soon since that is what is needed apparently to assist Ms. Mangum in this case.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think Sid would find anything out? He still talks about Motions to Dismiss (which aren't legally allowed pre-trial); and the inadmissible prior record and a lot of other things.

How can you not realize by now that Sid isn't taking any of this seriously? He's a narcissist who wants to pretend he's doing something, when in reality he refuses to actually do anything to help.

You've read the letters he sends - "Nifongian Courage" and all that - he knows no one will take them seriously. He admits he doesn't care to learn the law.

The sooner you realize this is all a big joke to Sid the better off you will be.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr will have to prove what you say is true in order for me to believe it at this point in time. It will not be hard to do if he plans to assist Ms. Mangum in the judicial system without knowing the right actions to take in order to actually assist her.

A Lawyer said...

My life experiences (many of which have been taken out of context, mixed with rumors and lies to bash me in the Indy Week article of August 22, 2013) have enabled me to have an understanding of truth and reality... and that is what I'm sharing with you and everyone who visits this blog site.

You've been asked this many times before: identify one lie about you in the Indy Week article. Just one.

Anonymous said...

The title of the article should be How Crystal Mangum failed Crystal Mangum - a life of drugs,crime,arson,false rape,prostitution,and murder.

Anonymous said...

You didn't watch the current sharlog if you think that was what it was about. None of those things are proven of which you speak. The Durham court not providing a fair trial and equal representation and protection in this case is proven in the sharlog though.

Anonymous said...

Sid claims: Never let it be said that I duck a question.

A Lawyer repeats a question yet again: You've been asked this many times before: identify one lie about you in the Indy Week article. Just one.

Interesting juxtaposition.

Sid, you are a proven liar.

Anonymous said...

Why do you continue to try to discredit Dr. Harr A Lawyer? This case is NOT about Dr. Harr. It is about the Duke / Durham / NC justice system. Dr. Harr has proven this time and time again with his many sharlogs and unanswered nor heeded letters to the many elected and appointed leaders and judicial officials about the issues of concern to all in this case.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:45:

Sid is a proven liar. I do not trust liars. Why do you?

Anonymous said...

Why is it ok for the lacrosse players to sue the Duke / Durham / NC justice system for the wrongs they preceived in the lacrosse case (unsuccessfully), yet when someone else tries to address issues in order to get equal justice, representation and a fair trial in the same system - all ya'll do is put them down, harrass, bully, troll, abuse, slander, etc.?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:56:

The lacrosse players provided significant evidence that Nifong and the DPD framed them. No credible source has provided evidence or an informed opinion that Mangum did not receive a fair trial.

The esophageal intubation is not in question. What required the intubation and whether it cuts off Mangum's liability is in question. Two experts have provided conclusions.

Sid is not credible. Kenny is not credible. Their opinions are not sufficient.

Anonymous said...

That is WHY a fair trial, equal representation and protection is obviously lacking and in desperate need in this case. Those issues were not represented nor presented fairly and with equal protection for anyone in this case. Duke could obviously kill many and get away with it if this is the type of representation and protection that NC citizens receive in this state. It plays out like a horror story usually reserved for state mental hospitals.

Anonymous said...

A cop would have shot Mr. Daye dead on the spot if Mr. Daye did to a cop like he did to Ms. Mangum. And the cop would've gotten away with it because they were protecting themselves. Since the cop refused to assist Ms. Mangum and told her to deal with her issues herself, she should receive the same self defense protections as the cop would have received in the same situation.

Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have had no problem suing people you think are wrong. If the Indy Journal article about you is false, why don't you sue them?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:35:

You should make serious suggestions if you want people to take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Abe:

I agree. I lawsuit against Indy Week would be a far more productive use of Sidney's considerable litigation skills and experience than an appeal of Harr II to the Supreme Court or the filing of Harr III.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:15:

You should make serious comments if you want people to take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

The 'suggestion' as you put it is serious enough to be covered in the current stand your ground laws.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:38:

Your comment is false. Please retract it. A stand your ground law is not applicable in your hypothetical.

False comments do not make people take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

seriously ... you are a troll

blah

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:21:

Ad hominem attacks do not make people take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Self defense was argued / but because Sid and Kenny told Crystal it was irrelevant, she largely ignored it and refused to take it seriously - as was evident in her answers. For some reason (probably fear of custody consequences if the kids were in an abusive home) she denied, multiple times, that Daye had threatened and abused her before - despite testimony from a neighbor and a doctor visit. Sid claims he thinks Crystal's attorney's asked her to lie - but since it's been noted that if that were true it would get Crystal a new trial and she's never said it clearly that's not credible.

But Kenny and Sid had her so focused on some fantasy of a Duke conspiracy she ignored the one thing that could have gotten her a Not Guilty.

They still ignore that - other than Kenny whining that the jury got it wrong.

Anonymous said...

With that jury it wouldn't have mattered if her head was detached with her hair when Mr. Daye assualted her - she still would have been found quilty of defending herself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:37:

You should make serious comments if you want other readers to take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

you are seriously repetitive aren't you ... on and on and on you go

little evil duke troll
doin' its thang
trolling for no real reason
except to troll on

blah

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:58d

You should make serious comments if you want other readers to take you seriously.

Ad hominem attacks do not make people take you seriously.

I repeat this comment only because your comments are consistently inane.

Anonymous said...

... and on

... oh yeah

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:23:

You should make serious comments if you want other readers to take you seriously.

Comments that say nothing generally are not serious.

Anonymous said...

you are a evil duke troll ... I am serious about that ... this is a serious comment and thus you should take it seriously and consider what is said ... and repent of your trolling sins so that you may be forgiven

amen

Anonymous said...

"The fact of the matter is that in most of my postings I back up what I say with documents... usually prosecution discovery given to me by Crystal."

No you don't. You distort facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:50:

Making ridiculous claims and comments and then calling people names when they disagree with you is not serious. Straighten up and fly right.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 7:50 wrote: "Making ridiculous claims and comments and then calling people names when they disagree with you is not serious. Straighten up and fly right."

Ding - Ding - Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Well, I spent lunch reading Sid's latest screed. Not much new. Sid continues to complain about Dr. Roberts report that would have harmed Crystal had it been admitted at trial. One of our fellow posters has written, and I agree, Sid really doesn't know how much damage he did to Crystal's case by leaking that information to the state.

Sid is upset that various defense counsel did not file a motion to dismiss the larceny count. And then he claims motions to dismiss are the refuge of defendants who know they will lose at trial. Further evidence that Sid doesn't know what he's writing about.

Sid attacks the jury selection without demonstrating any facts to show why Meier's selections were wrong. And he ignores the fact that those decisions were Cyrstal's too. In his world, when will Crystal ever be responsible for anything? Of course, Sid not being an attorney and not having ever selected a jury he is not a very insightful critic of any lawyer's jury selection.

As usual, Sid engages in some gratuitous name calling directed at Judge Ridgeway and Judge Hudson. Not an especially persuasive technique.

Sid complains about the conflict of interest on Holmes part. In fact, a custody and child support case is a very real conflict of interest. Had Holmes continued on with the case, Sid would have complained he had a conflict. (He would have been right, too.) As it was, Holmes conflict was real and he did the right thing by withdrawing.

Sadly, Sid does not address the one real justice issue in the whole trial, the 404(b) evidence. I think this is just another piece of evidence showing how little Sid really cares about the issue of justice. Instead, he just wants to let a killer walk free.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

So if the first appeal doesn't work Walt, what is the correct way in the judicial system to file another appeal? Or are there other steps between a first appeal and second appeal that can be taken to address issues of concern to others Walt?

Anonymous said...

Walt,

What is your legal opinion for why Mr. Meier would tell Ms. Mangum that she would be held in contempt of court if she showed the defense autopsy written report to anyone? Is there actual legal precedence for the threat?

Anonymous said...

If a person doesn't have a concern about Duke killing people with malpractice and Not taking responsibility for it and then participating in the judicial coverup of the malpractice in order to frame someone else for a murder that did not happen since it was malpractice that killed the patient, what does this indicate about the person?

If they think this is an ok thing to do, but yet they defend themselves in a manner which requires hospitalization of the person defended against - and yet are not concerned that this person in the hospital receives proper medical services that will save the life of the person defended against - does that then mean they have an intent to kill while defending themselves?

However, if the person is concerned that the patient receive all the proper medical services needed in order to survive - does that not indicate that the person had no intent to kill but was simply defending themselves with no intent of murder?

Anonymous said...

In answer to the question on the appeal ... if this one is unsuccessful, the next step is the North Carolina Supreme Court.

If the Opinion in the Court of Appeals is unanimous (it's heard by a 3-judge panel), there would be a Writ of Certiori to the Supreme Court asking them to hear the appeal - they can say yes or no. (The losing party would file it.)

If the Opinion at the Court of Appeals is split 2-1 - the losing party has an appeal of right to the Supreme Court, they'd file the appeal, and it would get heard by the Supreme Court.

If that fails, then you go the post-conviction/MAR route.

As to why Meier would threaten Crystal with contempt if she released it - you'd have to ask him, which no one is willing to do about anything, and see if he ever actually said any such thing, or if Crystal is confusing facts again. The only issue with contempt would be if anything was under seal, and from my watching of the trial - the Report was not under seal, the personnel records of Dr. Nichols, which came in the same time, were. Perhaps Crystal is confusing the two. It wouldn't be the first time she got something confused.

And, she's obviously shared the Report, and no contempt.

Anonymous said...

How can she be held in contempt of court if there is no court at the time of her sharing the file to be held in contempt of and if there is no reason to hold her in contempt to begin with?

Anonymous said...

If something is under seal, you can always be held in Contempt if you violate the Court Order - but, I agree, I don't see any reason there would be a restriction on the release of the Report, and I suspect Crystal was confused on that point.

Anonymous said...

In Ms. Mangum's case, from what can be understood from this blog, she is not satisfied with the appeal to begin with since it does not cover all the concerns she has about the case, and the date of death and manner of death are clearly mistated. So why would she want to send the appeal on to the Supreme Court as it is written?

Is there a way to amend to the appeal before sending it to the Supreme Court? How are issues of concern with the appeal corrected by the defendant before another step is taken to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Thank you for your answers btw.

Anonymous said...

It's not the same appeal. It would be an entirely new brief - would still be on same issues (which are the strongest ones) but is not the same appeal.

And, we don't know what Crystal is, or is not, happy with or thinking - we only have Sid's representation of what Crystal is saying/thinking, but and we know Sid has a tendency to misunderstand and/or misrepresent things.

But, the main answer as to why Crystal would want to do that - you have to follow the proper procedures to seek relief. She can't go for a MAR without exhausting her appeals - so if Sid convinces her to not do the Supreme Court because it would be pointless, he'd be exposing himself - because she has to do it, whether she wants to or not, if she wants to seek a MAR or other post-conviction relief (assuming her appeals are unsuccessful).

Anonymous said...

So she has to write an entirely new appeal herself before the first appeal is sent on to the Supreme Court?

Does the new appeal have to be heard by the Appeal Judges before it is sent on to the Supreme Court?

After the new appeal is heard by the Appeals Court but before the first appeal is sent to the Supreme Court if that is how things work, are both appeals sent on to the Supreme Court or just the new appeal?

Note that all these questions are based on the premise that the appeals are denied at the Appeal Court level.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 3:14 PM wrote: "So she has to write an entirely new appeal herself before the first appeal is sent on to the Supreme Court?"

There is a new brief filed with the Supreme Court. If the ruling is unanimous at the COA, the petitioner must show:

1. significant public interest,
2. legal issues of major significance,
3. the COA decision was in conflict with S.Ct. precedent, or
4. on motion of the State in a criminal case.

Failing to brief one of those issues and proving it, is fatal. So, a new brief must be written.

If not a unanimous decision, then as an earlier poster pointed out, the appeal is of right. In that case, you still file a new brief but the allegation is simply the COA made an error and you essentially argue the dissent.

"Does the new appeal have to be heard by the Appeal Judges before it is sent on to the Supreme Court?"

No.

"After the new appeal is heard by the Appeals Court but before the first appeal is sent to the Supreme Court if that is how things work, are both appeals sent on to the Supreme Court or just the new appeal?"

No rehearing, so I don't really follow what you are trying to ask.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 12:25 wrote: "So if the first appeal doesn't work Walt, what is the correct way in the judicial system to file another appeal? Or are there other steps between a first appeal and second appeal that can be taken to address issues of concern to others Walt?"

See my comments above. To add, Crystal will have to wait and see what the COA ruling is. If she doesn't like it, and it's unanimous, she'll have to prove one of the first three elements above in a new brief to the S.Ct. As a matter of practice, the date of death is a non-issue before the COA. They have the record which shows the correct date, so there's nothing to correct. Crystal's failure to argue the intervening cause theory is her omission. The trial court instructed on it, so no error there unless the state wants to raise it. (The don't.) Otherwise, we will have to wait and see what the COA says.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 1:13 wrote: "Walt,

What is your legal opinion for why Mr. Meier would tell Ms. Mangum that she would be held in contempt of court if she showed the defense autopsy written report to anyone? Is there actual legal precedence for the threat?"


I think some of Nichols' record was under seal and Meier might have been admonishing her about revealing that. She may not understand the difference, or Sid may not. Or one or both my just be confused.

Walt-in-Durham

John D. Smith said...

Anonymous 12:25:

I like your suggestion about multiple appeals. While Petersen's 404(b) appeal is winding through the courts to an ultimate appeal at the Supreme Court, Mangum and her lay advisors can begin work on a new appeal--one based on arguments other than 404(b).

The second appeal will be based on Mangum's real claim. All of her attorneys, including Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier and Petersen, were all totally incompetent.

They all missed the obvious: Crystal Mangum is totally innocent because Duke committed malpractice when they intubated him in the esophagus. An esophageal intubation automatically cuts off Mangum's legal responsibility. Introducing Roberts' report and calling her to testify would have introduced this fact. Mangum would be free.

If Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier and Petersen incorrectly believed that case law makes it clear that medical malpractice does not cut off liability, then they, like Walt, A Lawyer, Lance, Break, several anonymous posters and I, are all incompetent, brainwashed or actively conspiring with those former enemies, Duke and the Carpetbagger Jihad, to frame Mangum for murder.

Similarly, the failure of Shella, Vann, Holmes and Meier to file motions to dismiss charges, particularly the larceny of chose charges, provides further evidence that they are either incompetent or conspiring against Mangum. Any good attorney should understand that the rules governing when motions to dismiss can be filed are not binding, but provide guidance in most cases. This case is singularly unique and the rules are not applicable.

Finally, the failure of the jury to accept the obvious--that Mangum acted in self-defense--was proof that Meier was incompetent. Although Meier emphasized the broken down bathroom door and that Daye dragged her by the hair, the jury was sidetracked by the irrelevant issue of whether or not Daye ended the attack, let Mangum go, and whether or not she left, got a knife, and returned to stab him. Daye was the initial attacker, and any attorney who believes that self-defense ends when an initial attack has ended does not understand the law. As Kenny has so brilliantly noted, although Mangum was fighting first degree murder charges, no reasonable person could believe her statement was self-serving. The fact that her statement consistently conflicted with the physical evidence is proof she was confused and that she was not lying.

This is clear. Incompetence is the key to Mangum's freedom.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Walt, thank you for your answers, however Ms. Mangum did not have a failure to argue anything since she was not a real party to the appeal brief that the state appeal attorney wrote from what can be understood from this blog.

If Ms. Mangum desires to add her personal issues that differ from the appeals attorney's and/or correct items in the appeal brief written by the state appeal atorney if the decision is Not unanimous - how is that accomplished?

Obviously not just the date of death was stated incorrectly - it was done in order to leave out Duke's malpractice all together and the manner of death was copied from the state's autopsy report which contains critical errors that affected the fairness of the trial and that the jury did not hear, but obviously needs to consider for a fair trial to occur - so there are critical issues in error and not represented in the current appeals brief that needs correcting to insure a fair trial (if need be).

Anonymous said...

Break, (that is you isn't it Mr. Smith - Break the Conspiracy? Your sarcasm is the same), what happened was not proven in any way beyond reasonable doubt, nor did Mr. Meier represent or defend Ms. Mangum fairly on those issues. There is more than incompetence at issue in this case.

Anonymous said...

You are a fucking idiot. What didn't meier do on the self defense? You must miss the Friday regukar with crystal don't you?

Anonymous said...

what? get a grip on your abuse evil duke troll

ok - so as a person who doesn't seem to mind that Duke would kill someone with malpractice in order to frame someone else for murder - please enlighten us all ... why?

um ... and it's fracking idiot to you on this blog ... but you know that

Anonymous said...

Is the penalty for domestic violence actions less in Durham than non domestic violence actions?

The interview with Mr. Daye at the hospital was conducted by a domestic violence official and Not recorded, so that the testimony about what is reported he said is hear-say and thus questionable and contains reasonable doubt.

If this is so, why wasn't Ms. Mangum charged with a lesser domestic violence charge instead of 1st or 2nd degree murder?

Anonymous said...

Remember - Crystal stabbed Daye - that's undisputed. Nothing that happened after the stabbing would result in a not guilty for Crystal. The only way for her to not be a convicted felon is self-defense, which was presented and rejected. Sid's claims of total innocence always only focus on Duke and ignore the stabbing. The jury rejected self-defense, so Crystal is a felon, they question is what felony, not if she's a felon.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

what? get a grip on your abuse evil duke troll

ok - so as a person who doesn't seem to mind that Duke would kill someone with malpractice in order to frame someone else for murder - please enlighten us all ... why?

um ... and it's fracking idiot to you on this blog ... but you know that

April 1, 2015 at 7:18 PM"

You are incredibly stupid.

Anonymous said...

How could someone not be defending themselves in that situation? There is absolutely NO proof that he let her go after he assaulted her. NONE. And who wouldn't think they had to defend themselves in that type situation? NO-ONE.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 6:07 PM wrote: "...however Ms. Mangum did not have a failure to argue anything since she was not a real party to the appeal brief that the state appeal attorney wrote from what can be understood from this blog."

That's not how the attorney client relationship works. The attorney speaks for the client, not the other way around. If Crystal didn't approve of the brief, it would not have gotten filed. That's her argument.

"If Ms. Mangum desires to add her personal issues that differ from the appeals attorney's and/or correct items in the appeal brief written by the state appeal atorney if the decision is Not unanimous - how is that accomplished?"

To take the last part of your long compound sentence first, there is nothing that Crystal can do to alter the Attorney General's brief. We have an adversarial system and the AG is absolutely entitled to make the argument as he sees fit. If someone disagrees with the AG, then they have to argue that disagreement in their own brief. The first part of your sentence reflects your misunderstanding of how the attorney client relationship works. That said, if on appeal to the Supreme Court, Crystal wants to raise different issues, she can but only at great peril. Remember, if the ruling from the COA is unanimous she must show one of the following three elements:
1. significant public interest,
2. legal issues of major significance, or
3. the COA decision was in conflict with S.Ct. precedent.

If the ruling has a decent, she must argue the dissent. Failing to do that will doom her appeal immediately. I've never seen the Supremes do anything other than laugh when an appellant says that both the majority and dissent from the COA are wrong.

"Obviously not just the date of death was stated incorrectly..."

An error in a brief is not an issue on appeal. Not when the record is correct. You are fixating on a meaningless error. If the record was in error, the remedy is to file a motion with the trial court to correct the record. The record is not wrong.

" - it was done in order to leave out Duke's malpractice all together..."

Your argument might have some validity if the you were writing about the record.

"... and the manner of death was copied from the state's autopsy report..."

Which is the un-controverted evidence in the record and at trial.

"which contains critical errors that affected the fairness of the trial..."

But, Crystal could find no expert to controvert those errors.

"... and that the jury did not hear, but obviously needs to consider for a fair trial to occur..."

No. Fair trials are based on evidence, not supposition.

"... - so there are critical issues in error and not represented in the current appeals brief that needs correcting to insure a fair trial (if need be)."

The brief on appeal, must allege and prove errors made by the trial judge. That is how we assure a fair trial. Fair trails do not involve supposition. They involve evidence. Crystal had no evidence that there was an intervening sole cause that cuts off her criminal liability for Daye's death. Thus she decided not to raise that issue on appeal. The sole issue she did raise was the 404(b) evidence. Her strongest issue on appeal. And, she argued it well. Focus your efforts there, and you might actually begin to understand something about this case. As is, you are focused on a sideshow that has no meaning what so ever. To the extent Crystal is doing that, it hurts her case.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Walt,

I have not read your entire statement yet - but will. However, I noticed that again you say there is no evidence to contradict the state's autopsy report. Why do you keep saying that? Did Duke mutilate Mr. Daye for the ME to draw the conclusions that he did? It directly contradicts Duke medical records, and the defense autopsy report explicitely contradicts his findings based on them.

Have you not read any of the sharlogs that clearly demonstrate this? What is the issue that you still think the state ME was correct - even though he took NO photos and showed only a deceased lung picture at trial - but who is to say who's lung that was? Even that is questionable.

So, WHY do you continue to insinuate that Duke mutilated Mr. Daye?

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
I pointed out several errors you made with regard to Joseph Arbour and the Broyhill trial. You have yet to admit that you were wrong about them.

In regards to this most recent sharlog, it's just more of the same. Nothing new or enlightening -- we've heard or read it all before.


Gimme a break, Lance. You're telling me that you knew about jury selection... that turncoat Meier allowed three people to sit on the jury who had close ties to Duke University?

Not only that, but I never had talked about Joseph Arbour before, and I haven't discussed the issues surrounding Judge Ridgeway... or how he deprived Rev. Lee Everett of his day in court.

What's not new is your same mantra that there's nothing new in my sharlogs.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

It is amazing indeed that three people with such close ties to Duke were allowed on any jury involving Duke and Ms. Mangum after the lacrosse case. Totally unjust, unfair, and unreasonable given the abuse continually levied against her by the media in regards to the lacrosse case, and the abuse that ALL were/are subjected to by the entire case and the media and evil duke trolls (for better way of putting it at this time). There is NO excuse for that. The comment by the juror about not making Durham look bad is the same as saying not making Duke look bad. Was it said by one of the three jurors with unreasonably close Duke ties? This is a question that needs to be asked at a new trial or in a new appeal.

In regards as to what to do about the issue of the jury injustice - WHAT is the method to get the issue brought before a judge about the matter at this point in time?

WHO is an investigation requested of about this case at this point in time?

There are so many issues of injustice that are apparent in this case, it is absurd that the people involved in the case can really think that they will be allowed to continue the corruption and injustice just because it is Duke involved.

Thank you for your time on these matters and answers to questions.


Thank you for your enlightened comments which are definitely on the mark. Jury selection by Meier was abysmal and helped cinch Mangum's conviction. Without doubt, the man who committed jury misconduct should've been dismissed. Joseph Arbour would've seen to that had he been representing Mangum as fiercely as he did Broyhill. Nothing about this entire court procedure is fair.

At this point in the appeals process I do not know how to get information to the judges. As far as an investigation goes, I have been unable to get any governmental agency to look into the case despite my allegations of perjury and criminal fraudulence.


Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I love how you ask Sid questions about legal process and procedure - he has made it clear he isn't a lawyer, and doesn't know the law (he says that, it's not just his total failure in lawsuits that show it), and that he intends to proceed only through enlightenment, not the Courts.

So, your questions will be unanswered - I think Sid is hoping that now that you've become enlightened, you will take a more active role than just commenting on his blog and make things happen.

Sid doesn't want to do anything that might actually help, he just wants to pretend and keep deluding/taking advantage of poor Crystal. Makes you wonder what "payment" he expects in return.


The "payment" I seek is the same as that of the Masked Man on the silver steed... to see justice done.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
My life experiences (many of which have been taken out of context, mixed with rumors and lies to bash me in the Indy Week article of August 22, 2013) have enabled me to have an understanding of truth and reality... and that is what I'm sharing with you and everyone who visits this blog site.

You've been asked this many times before: identify one lie about you in the Indy Week article. Just one.


Hey, A Lawyer.

Believe it or not, I have more important things to do than re-visit malicious drivel and comment on its absurdities. My plate is full providing enlightenment and fighting for justice. Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
You didn't watch the current sharlog if you think that was what it was about. None of those things are proven of which you speak. The Durham court not providing a fair trial and equal representation and protection in this case is proven in the sharlog though.



Thank you for your enlightened comment. Comments such as yours really makes my efforts in producing the sharlogs worthwhile.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous 4:56:

The lacrosse players provided significant evidence that Nifong and the DPD framed them. No credible source has provided evidence or an informed opinion that Mangum did not receive a fair trial.

The esophageal intubation is not in question. What required the intubation and whether it cuts off Mangum's liability is in question. Two experts have provided conclusions.

Sid is not credible. Kenny is not credible. Their opinions are not sufficient.


There is no evidence that proves that Mike Nifong, the Durham Police, or anyone else framed the Duke Lacrosse defendants. There is evidence, however, that Dr. Nichols committed perjury and that his autopsy report was fraudulent and false.

Not only that, but the Attorney General's Office has been quick to cloak the Duke Lacrosse case in secrecy... and to seal its records. In Crystal Mangum's case I have opened it up with evidence from prosecution discovery.

Finally, esophageal intubation was the proximate cause of death, not the stab wound... and for the record, the intubation was done for the treatment of delirium tremens and had nothing to do with the stab wound.

One other point, medical malpractice is relevant as an intervening cause of death when it is solely responsible for it.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:

You have had no problem suing people you think are wrong. If the Indy Journal article about you is false, why don't you sue them?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

Let me rephrase, if I may. I believe in seeking legal redress to wrongs.

With regards to the Indy Week, the article was as mean-spirited as it could be. I am not totally blameless as I made the error of initially contacting the paper about doing a story addressing the corruption in the prosecutions' case against Mangum. The paper had ulterior motives which became apparent to me on my second interview with the author John Tucker. By then the die had been case and my only recourse was a follow-up comment in the edition that followed.

My approach has been not to cower the weekly into a retraction by a long and ill-advised legal battle, but to point to the article as an example of the bias and malicious nature of the media beast.

I do not fear confronting the Indy Week, but I do not believe that it would be worth my time, energy, and efforts.

I believe in choosing my battles, and to expend my resources directed in a legal battle against the Indy Week would not be wise.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

Believe it or not, I have more important things to do than re-visit malicious drivel and comment on its absurdities. My plate is full providing enlightenment and fighting for justice. Comprende?"

Yes, Sid, we comprende that you have not identified a single lie or inaccuracy in the Indy article about you.

Do you think no one notices that your plate isn't too full to pursue frivolous lawsuits, appeals and Supreme Court writs against Duke, and to blog frivolously and incessantly about Mangum, but when a newspaper prints damaging things about your past you claim are false, you are suddenly too busy to dispute them or even identify one false statement?

Nice try, but no sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...

Walt said...
Well, I spent lunch reading Sid's latest screed. Not much new. Sid continues to complain about Dr. Roberts report that would have harmed Crystal had it been admitted at trial. One of our fellow posters has written, and I agree, Sid really doesn't know how much damage he did to Crystal's case by leaking that information to the state.

Sid is upset that various defense counsel did not file a motion to dismiss the larceny count. And then he claims motions to dismiss are the refuge of defendants who know they will lose at trial. Further evidence that Sid doesn't know what he's writing about.

Sid attacks the jury selection without demonstrating any facts to show why Meier's selections were wrong. And he ignores the fact that those decisions were Cyrstal's too. In his world, when will Crystal ever be responsible for anything? Of course, Sid not being an attorney and not having ever selected a jury he is not a very insightful critic of any lawyer's jury selection.

As usual, Sid engages in some gratuitous name calling directed at Judge Ridgeway and Judge Hudson. Not an especially persuasive technique.

Sid complains about the conflict of interest on Holmes part. In fact, a custody and child support case is a very real conflict of interest. Had Holmes continued on with the case, Sid would have complained he had a conflict. (He would have been right, too.) As it was, Holmes conflict was real and he did the right thing by withdrawing.

Sadly, Sid does not address the one real justice issue in the whole trial, the 404(b) evidence. I think this is just another piece of evidence showing how little Sid really cares about the issue of justice. Instead, he just wants to let a killer walk free.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

First of all, Mangum is not a killer. Daye's death was accidental, at best, due to medical malpractice. The stab wound was not the proximate cause of his death... You want to ignore that fact. Introducing Dr. Roberts into the conversation would clarify that the initial intubation was esophageal.

Also, I doubt very seriously that Mangum had anything to do with the jury selection. Meier had his own agenda... he wasn't acting at the behest of his client. In fact he fought his client bitterly regarding her desire to bring in Roberts... which would've undoubtedly helped her avoid being convicted.

Anonymous said...

Sid:

Nobody, except you, kenny and Tinfoil, is ignoring the facts.

Two medical professionals and the jury concluded that the stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. That decision is in accord with the facts and the law of this case. You have not produced a single medical expert or report stating otherwise.

Your only answer to the law and facts of this case is the preposterous claim that Mangum should have called her own expert to the stand, where she would testify that Mangum's stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death, so that Mangum's attorney could vigorously cross examine her about Duke and inconsistencies in the ME's report - issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mangum's guilt or innocence. Even if the prosecution stipulated that the ME was sloppy and Duke committed malpractice, it would not have changed the jury's verdict or exculpated Mangum of Mr. Daye's murder. No attorney would throw their client under the bus in that way to satiate the obsession of a non-party.

I am sorry, Sid, but you do not get a sausage. And Mangum stays in prison.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sid:

Your misunderstanding of the law and how it works is the exact reason why bar associations get so concerned when non-attorneys engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

The defense expert did not say the proximate cause was the stab wound. She said it was a chain of events that happened after a stab wound. Therefore an expert did claim that the chain of events is what caused the death, which was the intubation malpractice, not the stab wound itself.

Ms. Mangum did not receive a fair trial in any way shape or form, therefore the jury verdict cannot be taken as fair either.

Those are the facts that ya'll refuse to accept.

It is incredible that ya'll would troll incessantly about the lacrosse case and harrass insanely people who are concerned about even more corruption in the justice system involving Duke, yet totally ignore the fact that Duke could kill you if given the opportunity to do so.

Anonymous said...

What are you going to do to insure Duke doesn't kill you or others with their malpractice? Tell them - hey, I supported and covered up your killing of Mr. Daye with malpractice to frame Ms. Mangum and expect that to 'work' for you?

???

Anonymous said...

Or even - I was scared and feared for my life if I went against the corruption and cover-up of your malpractice? How is that going to work out in their minds do you think?

Anonymous said...

Tinfoil said:

"The defense expert did not say the proximate cause was the stab wound. She said it was a chain of events that happened after a stab wound."

That is what is called a distinction without a difference, at least as far as criminal justice is concerned. If you set a series of events into motion you are responsible for the outcome. This has been discussed on this blog in great detail and the jury has ruled on it. Your inability to accept it does not make it an issue.

Perhaps if you stopped insulting and sliming people who you disagree with and actually read what they have to say you would gain a better understanding.

Abe Froman
Chicago. IL

Anonymous said...

Tinfoil:

If you do not like Duke Medical Center then you should not go there.

If a medical facility or doctor commits malpractice, they can be sued and/or subjected to sanctions by any of the several agencies that licenseand/or regulate physicians and hospitals.

As yet, no one has established that Duke committed malpractice with respect to its treatment of Mr. Daye, or that malpractice was the sole cause of Mr. Daye's death so as to relieve Mangum from culpability for inflicting the stab wound that resulted in Mr. Daye's admission to the hospital and subsequent death. Simply wishing otherwise does not make it so.

No sausage for you for the rest of the month.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL.

Lance the Intern said...

"Gimme a break, Lance. You're telling me that you knew about jury selection... that turncoat Meier allowed three people to sit on the jury who had close ties to Duke University?"
Sid -- you've been complaining about the jury selection since July, 2014, when you created your writ of habeus corpus for Crystal Mangum. The jury selection details are in the trial transcript.

"Not only that, but I never had talked about Joseph Arbour before, and I haven't discussed the issues surrounding Judge Ridgeway..."

You may not have "talked" about Arbour, but you wrote about him in comments on your sharlog just prior to this one...where you also discussed issues with Judge Ridgewa. Surely you haven't forgotten already?

Anonymous said...

I only insult back as a defense - which most understand - but you can insult me again first - and sit there and expect me to do what? ???

I watched the trial. Heard what the judge explained the law to be - and it is NOT what Walt says it is.

Why don't you STOP insulting me and actually realize that others may not be so duke centered, corrupted, nor afraid to stand up to what Duke has/is doing to harm ALL - again. Some people actually do give a whazoo about the reality of what Duke REALLY is and does and how it negatively affects the safety and lives and civil/criminal rights of many, many people.

you can do it ... give it a try

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:

Nobody, except you, kenny and Tinfoil, is ignoring the facts.

Two medical professionals and the jury concluded that the stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. That decision is in accord with the facts and the law of this case. You have not produced a single medical expert or report stating otherwise.

Your only answer to the law and facts of this case is the preposterous claim that Mangum should have called her own expert to the stand, where she would testify that Mangum's stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death, so that Mangum's attorney could vigorously cross examine her about Duke and inconsistencies in the ME's report - issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mangum's guilt or innocence. Even if the prosecution stipulated that the ME was sloppy and Duke committed malpractice, it would not have changed the jury's verdict or exculpated Mangum of Mr. Daye's murder. No attorney would throw their client under the bus in that way to satiate the obsession of a non-party.

I am sorry, Sid, but you do not get a sausage. And Mangum stays in prison.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

I don't mind not getting a sausage... I lean towards vegetarian anyway. However don't bet on Mangum spending her sentence in jail... it ain't gonna happen.

As far as the conclusion reached by the jury, they did so without the facts. The prosecution and Meier kept from them the facts about the esophageal intubation and Daye's brain death and his elective removal from life support. How do you expect them to come up with a logical verdict. The jury were kept from the truths just like the media kept the truths from the people. The only ones enlightened enough to comment on the Mangum case are people who visit this blog site.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid:

Your misunderstanding of the law and how it works is the exact reason why bar associations get so concerned when non-attorneys engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Abe, I could have gotten a not-guilty verdict had I been allowed to represent Crystal Mangum... easily. The State Bar (in their brand new building) wants to control the attorneys, so that is why they prevent layperson legal representation. The State Bar can't threaten to disbar me because I don't have a law license, but it is something that it can lord over attorneys practicing law with a license in the state.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

You need to REALLY understand ALL the processes and steps in the appeals process, including the MAR motions which may be required if you want to assist Ms. Mangum. You have to do things the way the legal process is set up in order to assist her in the justice system, and you have to provide Ms. Mangum with the knowledge to fight this battle in very concrete ways. You can see that the battle is tremendous in the judicial system as it is now, therefore arming yourself with the knowledge of the correct procedures to take in order to achieve justice is paramount in this Duke centered and corrupted judicial environment. You cannot expect Ms. Mangum to be able to do this for herself, and if you lead her on she will suffer greatly as well as all other citizens and visitors to NC. Very much of a challenge indeed.

WHERE are the steps to take in the appeals process clearly and precisely spelled out?

Anonymous said...

If anyone really thinks Sid cares about helping Mangum they are delusional. Sid is interested in self promotion. When he is told the proper course of action he refuses to take it, yet deliberately takes harmful actions.

He's been a fraud and liar his while life ... It's funny that some of you still don't recognize that.

Anonymous said...

"Abe, I could have gotten a not-guilty verdict had I been allowed to represent Crystal Mangum... easily."

You show how easily self deluded you are.

Nifong Supporter said...


Question for Commenters --

If you were representing Crystal Mangum during jury selection would you allow to be seated two individuals who worked for Duke University and/or Duke University Hospital? Would you allow the wife of a surgeon at Duke University Hospital to sit on the jury? If so, please explain any rationale.

Anonymous said...

When a lawyer screws up jury selection, there is little hope for the rest of the trial.

After watching many inauspicious jury selection efforts by prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers, I realized that I might be able to contribute to the state of practitioners' jury selection art by codifying a few of the things I've learned in fourteen years of trying cases and many hours of extracurricular study.

Simple Rule Zero: One Rule to Rule Them All

Jury selection is not only–nor even mostly–about selecting (or deselecting) jurors. Your objectives in jury selection are: 1) to build rapport with the jurors, forming a group to include you; 2) to educate the jurors, or to help them educate each other, about the issues in your case; and 3) to find and eliminate unfavorable jurors. If you use voir dire simply to find the jurors whom you want to strike, you're missing out on most of the value of jury selection.

Simple Rule 1: The Nike Rule

Just do it. This is a rule on three levels.

First, the view from 30,000 feet: without picking juries, you will never learn how to pick a jury. Reading about jury selection is better than asking other people for their scripts, and watching jury selection (good, bad, or ugly) is better than reading about it, but there's no substitute for getting up in front of 24 or 601 people and trying to get them talking about what they feel and believe. Better that you should do all three–study, watch, and do–but if you have to choose one, just do it.

The second part of the Nike Rule, in the downwind leg: if you're going to trial in a court (like most federal courts) that doesn't allow the lawyers to talk to the potential jurors, figure out a way to get permission. A judge doesn't share the lawyers' three jury-selection objectives; the judge's objective in jury selection is simply to get twelve people who can promise to follow the law.

This was powerfully illustrated in a cocaine case that I helped try in U.S. District court in Houston. The first time we picked a jury, the judge brought in 45 or 50 people and gave each lawyer 40 minutes to talk. My colleague busted the panel–there weren't enough potential jurors who could commit to being fair, after he had talked with them for 40 minutes, to allow the parties to use their peremptory challenges and still get a 12-person jury. The next day Judge Atlas brought in another 45 or 50-person panel and did all of the questioning herself. She asked the typical U.S. District Judge questions–"Can you be fair?"; "This is the law; will you follow it?"–and there were more than 24 people left after we lawyers had exercised our 16 peremptory challenges–with the same facts, same law, same lawyers, and same judge.

Was the second panel intrinsically fairer than the first? That's unlikely. Demographically, it was much older, whiter, and otherwise less likely to favor our client than the first.

The difference between the two jury selections was that the lawyers' questioning was designed to get people to reveal things about themselves, and the judge's questioning was designed to get people to agree with the law. Even the best-intentioned questioner sitting up high in a black robe is never going to get the frank answers that a mere human can get, so get the judge to let you question the jury, if possible. (And if do you get to question the panel in a jurisdiction where it's usually not allowed, don't bust the panel unless you must.)

The third part of the Nike Rule comes into play on final approach, when you get up to start talking. Don't worry, don't think about it, don't plan your next question. Forget your script, forget the prosecutor, forget the judge, and talk with the people. The time for worrying and thinking and planning, for scripts and prosecutors and judges, is past. There is nothing more that you can do to be prepared for this moment.

Just do it.

Anonymous said...

5 Questions to Ask in Voir Dire . . . Always
Posted by Laurie Kuslansky on Fri, Jul 12, 2013 @ 08:45 AM

Find me on: LinkedIn Google+

inShare
47

best voir dire questions to ask mock trial federal courtby Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D.
Expert Jury Consultant


The meaning of the term "voir dire" translated literally, means "See say,” but figuratively means “to speak the truth." In common practice, "voir dire" describes the process of questioning potential jurors, by judge or litigator, in advance of a jury trial to uncover conflicts, biases or other reasons to dismiss the potential juror.

The stated goal of voir dire is to impanel an impartial jury. However, in the majority of courts that allow voir dire questions by counsel, the goal of each side of the case is to get the best jury for their client possible through a process of revealing and eliminating those who are most adverse. Through a combination of dismissals for cause and peremptory challenges, potential jurors are removed from the pool of jurors. As an example of the traditional process, see this description of the voir dire process written for those called for jury duty in the Southern District of New York.

mock jury webinar a2l kuslansky
In cases where the sides agree and the judge permits, jury selection often begins with a series of written questions agreed to by all parties. Ideally, mock jury pre-trial research is conducted to identify the most important and revealing questions to include based on the types of jurors who tend to look most unfavorably on the client's case. In court, once prospective jurors’ information and responses are received, there is often very limited time in which to conduct additional fact-finding research and evaluate the responses.

Many litigators mistakenly believe that voir dire is conducted only by judges in federal court. This is simply not true. I have conducted mock trials focused on voir dire and voir dire consulting in a majority of states in the U.S. On many occasions, this was done in preparation for a federal trial. This recent ABA article does a good job of describing the state of voir dire in the federal courts. Even in those courts where the judge or the clerk conducts the voir dire, many accept proposed questions from counsel. The key is to know which, few questions are most productive.

Since the voir dire process can help determine the outcome of a case, it is essential to use it to your advantage. With the foregoing in mind, here are five questions I would always suggest asking in voir dire, whether in state court, in federal court, on a jury questionnaire, or among the questions presented to your judge to ask.

If you were my client, would you be completely comfortable having you as a juror on this case?

Can you think of anything in your own life that reminds you of this case? What and how?

Is there anything that you have seen or heard that would make it hard for you to guarantee to judge my client the same as the other side?

Is there anything you’d prefer to discuss in private?

Is there anything we haven’t asked you that you think we should know?
Each of these questions is designed in one way or another to uncover biases that might hurt your client. Each is designed to provoke deeper thinking and candid responses, rather than meaningless knee-jerk ones which are politically correct, but not helpful in decision making during jury selection. Each is open ended and designed to avoid a simple yes or no answer.

Anonymous said...

Steps in a Trial
Selecting the Jury

Juries of six to twelve persons are selected from the jury pool. The size of jury varies from state to state and depends to some extent on the type of case at trial.

In civil cases, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, the standard size in many jurisdictions is becoming six, which can be increased by stipulation of both parties.
In misdemeanor cases there are sometimes fewer than twelve jurors, though in serious criminal cases twelve jurors are generally required.
The old requirement that juries be unanimous is also changing. In misdemeanor and civil cases particularly, states often provide for verdicts based on the agreement of three-fourths or five-sixths of the jurors.
Alternate jurors are selected in some cases to take the place of jurors who may become ill during the trial. Alternate jurors hear the evidence just as the other jurors do, but they don’t participate in the deliberations unless they replace an original juror.

In many jurisdictions, jury selection begins with the court clerk's calling twelve people on the jury list and asking them to take a place in the jury box. The judge usually makes a brief statement explaining what kind of case is to be tried and inquiring whether there is any reason the potential jurors cannot serve. The judge or the lawyers then ask them questions as to whether they have any knowledge of the case or have had specific experiences that might cause them to be biased or unfair. This questioning of the potential jurors is known as voir dire (to speak the truth).

If either lawyer believes there is information that suggests a juror is prejudiced about the case, he or she can ask the judge to dismiss that juror for cause. For example, a juror can be dismissed for cause if he or she is a close relative of one of the parties or one of the lawyers, or if he or she works for a company that is part of the lawsuit. Each lawyer may request the dismissal of an unlimited number of jurors for cause. Each request will be considered by the judge and may or may not be allowed.

In addition to challenges for cause, each lawyer has a specific number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential juror without stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a juror because of a belief that the juror will not serve the best interests of the client. Peremptory challenges are limited to a certain number determined by the kind of lawsuit being tried. They can’t be used to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

When both parties have agreed upon a jury, the jurors are sworn in to try the case by the court clerk. Those not selected are excused.

Once impaneled, the jurors’ role is to listen to the evidence conscientiously and not draw premature conclusions. They are instructed by the judge not to discuss the case with outsiders or each other (until deliberations). They generally do not have the right to ask questions of witnesses, but some judges permit jurors to submit written questions for the judge and lawyers to consider. (The lawyers have a right to object to these questions, just as they do to questions posed by lawyers during the trial.) If appropriate, the questions may be asked.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Question for Commenters --

If you were representing Crystal Mangum during jury selection would you allow to be seated two individuals who worked for Duke University and/or Duke University Hospital? Would you allow the wife of a surgeon at Duke University Hospital to sit on the jury? If so, please explain any rationale."


It always depends on the options and how many peremptory challenges remain. Sometimes I use a peremptory challenge to get to a better juror. Sometimes I use it because my feeling or my client's feeling is wrong about a juror. Frequently, I hold one in case someone really bad comes up. Jury selection is an art, not a science. You want a jury that will be fair with your client. The state wants a jury that will be fair to the state. All we can ask for is people of good intent to serve on the jury who will listen and make a fair decision based on the evidence before them.

My experience has been that the vast majority of juries get it right. Perfect? No. They are humans, like us. But, it's the best system ever devised. In Crystal's case. The jury was fair. She's the one who got on the stand and lied about things that were easily contradicted. Even then, the Jury acquitted her on the larceny count. That proves they were well able to sort out her lies from when she was telling the truth. A good jury verdict.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Question for Commenters --

If you were representing Crystal Mangum during jury selection would you allow to be seated two individuals who worked for Duke University and/or Duke University Hospital? Would you allow the wife of a surgeon at Duke University Hospital to sit on the jury? If so, please explain any rationale."

It always depends on the options and how many peremptory challenges remain. Sometimes I use a peremptory challenge to get to a better juror. Sometimes I use it because my feeling or my client's feeling is wrong about a juror. Frequently, I hold one in case someone really bad comes up. Jury selection is an art, not a science. You want a jury that will be fair with your client. The state wants a jury that will be fair to the state. All we can ask for is people of good intent to serve on the jury who will listen and make a fair decision based on the evidence before them.

My experience has been that the vast majority of juries get it right. Perfect? No. They are humans, like us. But, it's the best system ever devised. In Crystal's case. The jury was fair. She's the one who got on the stand and lied about things that were easily contradicted. Even then, the Jury acquitted her on the larceny count. That proves they were well able to sort out her lies from when she was telling the truth. A good jury verdict.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

Thanks for your input.

I will tell you, again, why I feel that the jury would have been far more likely to acquit had those related to Duke University not been seated on the jury... especially the two employees. In order to reach an acquittal, it would be obvious that all jurors voted in favor of it. I do not believe it would sit right with those in power for their employees to reach a not guilty verdict. In such a situation, the jurors could be subjected to punitive measures by Duke.. including losing their jobs or being denied promotions or raises.

By allowing Duke employees to sit on the jury, their livelihoods were at jeopardy in the event that a not-guilty verdict was reached.

Because Mangum is such a volatile figure, thanks to the media, if I were representing her I would refuse to allow anyone to be seated who had ties to Duke University and its hospital... especially since Daye died there due to medical malpractice.

Another question for you, Walt. Did you get the feeling from the content of the interview with Juror No. 5 Yuet Berry that she was overdoing it in trying to get seated on the jury? Keep in mind her sick father who lived out of state.

Anonymous said...

Always a conspiracy with Sid. He has no facts or evidence - just a vast conspiracy.

On a different note - no decision today - next Court of Appeals Opinion Day is April 21.

Anonymous said...

It's standard practice for an attorney to ask the client their thoughts on the jurors, and who they want to eliminate, and I imagine Crystal was asked for her input.

Let me guess - you are just going to assume that didn't happen, you won't ask her, or her attorneys, because facts don't matter - you are just going to continue to make things up, like you did with the expert payments.

If she gets a new trial and represents herself, the only advantage she will have is that 1st Degree Murder is no longer a possible verdict under any circumstance.

Anonymous said...

What does it matter who was on the jury if the jury selection was just one of several major items of issue that made the trial totally Not Fair and unjust? Incredible that people actually can 'sit here' on this blog and wait to see how corrupt the NC justice system really is ... and is going to be ... this time.

Anonymous said...

"By allowing Duke employees to sit on the jury, their livelihoods were at jeopardy in the event that a not-guilty verdict was reached."

I believe this is called assuming a fact not in evidence. Back up this allegation with factual evidence

Anonymous said...

"[Reginald Daye died there(Duke University Medical Center) due to medical malpractice."

Again assuming something as fact when it has not been demonstrated to be fact.

John D. Smith said...

Dr. Harr,

Like most readers, I would not automatically disqualify potential jurors because of connections to Duke.

Mangum requires a defense that applies the law as it actually exists rather than the version you desire.

For reasons that have been explained repeatedly, but you ignore, this case was not one where only one of (but not both) Mangum or Duke was responsible for Daye's death. Medical malpractice, irrespective of how severe or preventable, does not automatically cut off Mangum's legal responsibility. Duke can be guilty of malpractice through an esophageal intubation while Mangum continues to be guilty of murder or manslaughter. One need not choose. For that reason, a Duke connection is not a conflict.

I know you prefer to spin fantastic tales of persecution by a massive conspiracy led by the Carpetbagger Jihad, Duke and the Powers-That-Be. Mangum is not well served by your imagination.

Assisting Mangum requires an unbiased analysis of evidence and an accurate understanding of the law. You would do well to learn from readers who have legal training and experience you lack and to listen to those who explain why they find your analysis unpersuasive.

Unbelievable fables will not set Mangum free.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Imagine the bruhaha that would be going on if it was the Duke lacrosse team receiving the type nonjustice that Ms. Mangum is receiving in this case. The entire front page of every news paper would be filled with Duke articles - a national championship - duke killing patients to exact revenge on the lacrosse players! Wonder which articles would be read most?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:10:

You should make serious comments if you want people to take you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:13,

You should apologize to Anonymous 5:10. It is clear that she does not want to be taken seriously.

kenhyderal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kenhyderal said...

John D. Said: "Medical malpractice, irrespective of how severe or preventable, does not automatically cut off Mangum's legal responsibility:...........
.... Yes, providing Daye was, specifically, being treated for consequences of the stab wound. It is insufficient that he, having been admitted to hospital as a consequence of that wound and having not been provided with either alcohol or sufficient alternate CNS depressant drugs to stave off severe, lethal, alcohol withdrawal, that his death is a nexus to Crystal's actions. If the only nexus to the successfully treated non-lethal wound in this alcoholic was his admission to hospital for treatment of that wound then Welch should not apply Judge Ridgeway explained that to the Jury but the Jury did not have the benefit of being informed what Daye was actually being treated for. That would have required the Defence to subpoena treating physicians and technologists to tell them the wound administered by Crystal was not, even indirectly, the cause of his death. If Welch applies here then "If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass".. Mr. Bumble

April 7, 2015 at 9:05 PM

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Sorry you don't like the law. Suggest you come to NC and explain to the public why law should be changed (essentially because it is a ass).

Anonymous said...

"Yes, providing Daye was, specifically, being treated for consequences of the stab wound. It is insufficient that he, having been admitted to hospital as a consequence of that wound and having not been provided with either alcohol or sufficient alternate CNS depressant drugs to stave off severe, lethal, alcohol withdrawal, that his death is a nexus to Crystal's actions."

Again you show you are incredibly stupid.

Anonymous said...

kenny:

What is your evidence and who is your expert who will testify that Mr. Daye died of anything other than complications from being stabbed by Mangum? Because without those Mangum isn't going anywhere, no matter how many lies you tell or how hard you and Sid try to subvert justice.

Anonymous said...

It is still amusing that Sid and Kenny and TinFoil and the rest still base their argument on conspiracies and fantasies - and all these questions that "haven't been answered." They really mean no one has told them the answers.

You can either assume they are right, or you can assume the lawyers did their jobs - and talked to Dr. Roberts, and others, and knew what their responses would be, and knew it would be harmful to Crystal (and told her that).

Kenny claims Crystal was told nothing - but he provides no proof, and Crystal's idea of the truth often depends on her audience and what she thinks they want to hear.

There is a very easy way to find out these answers - but Sid and Kenny refuse to take it, because they don't care about answers, they care about self-promotion and delusions.

Get permission from Crystal to speak with her lawyers. Yes, Kenny (and Sid) will say there is no guarantee the lawyers will talk to them - which is true - but that's a total cop-out. You don't know til you try, but that's the one, very simple, step they could take to at least try to get answers, yet they refuse to do that.

If you do try, and the attorneys ignore you, then you can add that to your list of the conspiracy, but if you don't try, you are just showing how pathetic and shallow your pursuit of "answers" and alleged desire to help are.

Makes you think they know they are full of shit, doesn't it?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"[Reginald Daye died there(Duke University Medical Center) due to medical malpractice."

Again assuming something as fact when it has not been demonstrated to be fact.


It is a fact that Daye died at Duke University Hospital.
It is a fact that Daye's initial intubation was esophageal (by medical records and forensic pathologist Dr. Christena L. Roberts).
It's a fact that esophageal intubation, if not recognized and corrected immediately will lead to brain death and progress to actual death.

The above are all facts. Now, Dr. Clay Nichols stated that the cause of death was a complication due to the stab wound to the chest... What complication? What fact does he have to link the stab wound to Daye's brain death or actual death?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"By allowing Duke employees to sit on the jury, their livelihoods were at jeopardy in the event that a not-guilty verdict was reached."

I believe this is called assuming a fact not in evidence. Back up this allegation with factual evidence


The facts are that Duke employees' livelihood is in large measure dependent upon their ability to work at Duke. It can be reasonably assumed that Duke University would not be pleased with a not-guilty verdict as it would place liability for Daye's death on its hospital and remove it from Mangum. It can furthermore be considered that an acquittal would require the not-guilty vote from both Duke employees. It can be further assumed that Duke could vent its anger at a not-guilty outcome at its own employees sitting on the jury. Combining the above facts and assumptions, it is not unreasonable to believe that a not-guilty verdict would put the Duke employed juror's jobs in jeopardy.

Nifong Supporter said...


John D. Smith said...
Dr. Harr,

Like most readers, I would not automatically disqualify potential jurors because of connections to Duke.

Mangum requires a defense that applies the law as it actually exists rather than the version you desire.

For reasons that have been explained repeatedly, but you ignore, this case was not one where only one of (but not both) Mangum or Duke was responsible for Daye's death. Medical malpractice, irrespective of how severe or preventable, does not automatically cut off Mangum's legal responsibility. Duke can be guilty of malpractice through an esophageal intubation while Mangum continues to be guilty of murder or manslaughter. One need not choose. For that reason, a Duke connection is not a conflict.

I know you prefer to spin fantastic tales of persecution by a massive conspiracy led by the Carpetbagger Jihad, Duke and the Powers-That-Be. Mangum is not well served by your imagination.

Assisting Mangum requires an unbiased analysis of evidence and an accurate understanding of the law. You would do well to learn from readers who have legal training and experience you lack and to listen to those who explain why they find your analysis unpersuasive.

Unbelievable fables will not set Mangum free.

John D. Smith
New York, NY


Hey, John D. Smith.

What I don't understand, and you gave no explanation, is why you would not eliminate potential jurors with connections to Duke University... especially in light of the fact that it was medical malpractice at Duke Hospital that was the proximate cause of Daye's death. An argument on the proximate cause issue (which any competent and loyal attorney would've pursued) would relieve Mangum of liability in Daye's death and transfer it to the hospital.

I do agree with you that unbelievable fables will not set Mangum free... as I have repeated stated before, the truth will.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

I have begun working on the next sharlog... its text should be drafted by tomorrow. Have put off work on the comic strip for the time being. Should have it completed in about a week.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

The above are all facts. Now, Dr. Clay Nichols stated that the cause of death was a complication due to the stab wound to the chest... What complication? What fact does he have to link the stab wound to Daye's brain death or actual death?


Just because no one told you - or is telling you - doesn't mean there weren't answers to that question - you are just mad that you are so unimportant no one outside of TinFoil and Kenny give a shit what you think, so they won't tell you things.

I bet Dr. Roberts can do a nice nexus, which is why Crystal was always advised to keep her off the stand. And, since she was for the defense, she decided not to write it real detailed in teh report that was going to get turned over.

You are an idiot.

kenhyderal supporter said...

kenhyderal, I'm glad to see that you are posting again.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"An argument on the proximate cause issue (which any competent and loyal attorney would've pursued) would relieve Mangum of liability in Daye's death and transfer it to the hospital."

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence or testimony to support what you call the proximate cause issue. The defense attorneys weren't able to come up with any such evidence (even though they looked). You haven't even been able to come up with any evidence to support your claim that something other than Mangum's stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.

Anonymous said...

"An argument on the proximate cause issue (which any competent and loyal attorney would've pursued) would relieve Mangum of liability in Daye's death and transfer it to the hospital."

Again presuming a fact not in evidence, that you can recognize a competent attorney

Anonymous said...

Sid claims they didn't look because they were corrupt ... All things that Sidndisagrees with are a conspiracy!

Anonymous said...

Tinfoil = Myra Kindernecht

Anonymous said...

Did claims they were all corrupt - so didn't look - again, conspiracy and fantasy supports Sid's claims. How dare you challenge that. No one but Sid is honest - everyone else was/is corrupt and part of a conspiracy. How can you not see that?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The above are all facts. Now, Dr. Clay Nichols stated that the cause of death was a complication due to the stab wound to the chest... What complication? What fact does he have to link the stab wound to Daye's brain death or actual death?


Just because no one told you - or is telling you - doesn't mean there weren't answers to that question - you are just mad that you are so unimportant no one outside of TinFoil and Kenny give a shit what you think, so they won't tell you things.

I bet Dr. Roberts can do a nice nexus, which is why Crystal was always advised to keep her off the stand. And, since she was for the defense, she decided not to write it real detailed in teh report that was going to get turned over.

You are an idiot.


Actually, Dr. Roberts is unwilling to provide a medical nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death and actual death because doing so would need to include the esophageal intubation.

Despite being retained by the defense, Roberts did her best in trying to protect Duke University Hospital by suggesting that the initial esophageal intubation was recognized and replaced prior to Daye's cardiac arrest.. and then suggesting that a third intubation was performed after Daye's heart was resuscitated. This is nothing but a bunch of lies that are not supported by the medical records. There were only two intubations... the first esophageal, and the second correctly in the trachea which reestablished oxygen flow to the lungs and resulted in the heart's resuscitation.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"An argument on the proximate cause issue (which any competent and loyal attorney would've pursued) would relieve Mangum of liability in Daye's death and transfer it to the hospital."

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence or testimony to support what you call the proximate cause issue. The defense attorneys weren't able to come up with any such evidence (even though they looked). You haven't even been able to come up with any evidence to support your claim that something other than Mangum's stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.


Clearly the esophageal intubation was the direct cause of Daye's brain death as it prevented flow of oxygen to Daye's lungs, blood, and cells of his body. The brain death, which was responsible for Daye's comatose state, was determined to be irreversible and was the basis for his elective removal from life-support... removal from life-support being the direct cause of Daye's actual death.

Now if you believe the stab wound to the chest was responsible for Daye's brain death or actual death, I would like to hear the medical pathway. Drs. Clay Nichols and Christena Roberts were unable and/or unwilling to do so. Daniel Meier suggested an infection was responsible, but he provided no reasonable proof that Daye suffered an infection, was treated with antibiotics or had an infectious disease consultation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid claims they didn't look because they were corrupt ... All things that Sidndisagrees with are a conspiracy!


Clearly corruption and conspiracy worked hand-in-hand to falsely convict Crystal Mangum in the vendetta-driven prosecution and persecution.

I base my positions about Mangum's case solely on facts present in prosecution discovery.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
You know you're not going to get Crystal out with all of this blog and all these sharlogs.
Why don't you ,instead, try to help her lead a productive life when she gets out? When she does get out she'll be in her late 40's, and I doubt she can continue to make much money as an escort or stripper. Encourage her to learn some worthwhile trade while in prison. Try to get her to see a counselor who will help her control her temper. Then maybe the last thirty or so years of her life will be worthwhile and productive.
Please think about that.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 4:24 wrote: "You keep ignoring that there is no evidence or testimony to support what you call the proximate cause issue. The defense attorneys weren't able to come up with any such evidence (even though they looked). You haven't even been able to come up with any evidence to support your claim that something other than Mangum's stab wound was the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death."

Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Anonymous said...

Remember Sid - you keep ignoring that no matter what happened at Duke, since you told Crystal to ignore self-defense, and that defense failed (even though you have acknowledged there is nothing else you could have done to argue for it - that part of the trial was correct) she would be a convicted felon.

Unless the self-defense portion of the trial was corrupt as well (which I know you claim it is, but you can't point to why), then Crystal is not wrongfully a convicted felon - the issue would be the charge.

You still ignore that there are easy ways to attempt to get answers, yet you refuse to do so. You don't want to know the truth - you want to keep feeding your ego.

Anonymous said...

"
Let me know if further elucidation is required."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you can provide elucidation.

Anonymous said...

"Now if you believe the stab wound to the chest was responsible for Daye's brain death or actual death, I would like to hear the medical pathway."

Considering your training and experience or, rather, the lack thereof, you would be incapable of understanding the medical pathway, no matter how clearly it was presented to you.

Anonymous said...

"I base my positions about Mangum's case solely on facts present in prosecution discovery."

No, you base your case on your distortions of the facts.

Anonymous said...

Sid - you don't seem to understand "proximate cause." You keep crying that the intubation and brain death was the "direct cause." That's true - that's what killed him - but that doesn't mean the stab wound wasn't a proximate cause. Had he not been stabbed, the rest wouldn't have happened.

And, I know you claim that Dr. Roberts and the rest were corrupt, but again, you've never tried to talk to any of them, so you don't know how they'd answer your questions - you just want to keep crying.

You are pathetic.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
You know you're not going to get Crystal out with all of this blog and all these sharlogs.
Why don't you ,instead, try to help her lead a productive life when she gets out? When she does get out she'll be in her late 40's, and I doubt she can continue to make much money as an escort or stripper. Encourage her to learn some worthwhile trade while in prison. Try to get her to see a counselor who will help her control her temper. Then maybe the last thirty or so years of her life will be worthwhile and productive.
Please think about that.


gui, mon ami,

Thanks for your suggestions, but I believe that my efforts are better utilized in trying to obtain freedom for Crystal. I'm not ready to concede that she'll spend the next fourteen years in prison.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid - you don't seem to understand "proximate cause." You keep crying that the intubation and brain death was the "direct cause." That's true - that's what killed him - but that doesn't mean the stab wound wasn't a proximate cause. Had he not been stabbed, the rest wouldn't have happened.

And, I know you claim that Dr. Roberts and the rest were corrupt, but again, you've never tried to talk to any of them, so you don't know how they'd answer your questions - you just want to keep crying.

You are pathetic.


The stab wound had nothing to do with the intubation... the esophageal intubation not only being malpractice but an intervening and proximate cause of death. The esophageal intubation was undoubtedly the direct cause of Daye's brain death.

As far as Dr. Roberts goes, I wrote her after I learned that Woody Vann had retained her, but she never responded to my letter.

Anonymous said...

You had no release to discuss the case with her. No one will respond without permission from the client and attorney if they are retained on the case. You've admitted you refuse to ask crystal for permission to talk to the lawyers. You know you are full of shit - it's easier for you to pretend you are right and there is a conspiracy than to try and see if you can get answers from the people who have them.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " Anonymous said..."Sid - you don't seem to understand "proximate cause." You keep crying that the intubation and brain death was the "direct cause." That's true - that's what killed him - but that doesn't mean the stab wound wasn't a proximate cause. Had he not been stabbed, the rest wouldn't have happened"
...... You should listen to Judge Ridgeway's instruction to the Jury regarding proximate cause. Instructions that they obviously ignored. Not only was it the direct cause it was the sole cause.

Anonymous said...

Kenny - you are still an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Kenny claims: " You should listen to Judge Ridgeway's instruction to the jury regarding proximate cause."

I did. As has been discussed repeatedly on this blog, the instructions were the model instructions based on the precedent in Welch, Jones and other cases discussed here.

The instructions are fully consistent with the analysis provided by Walt, A Lawyer and others.

Welcome back, but try again.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

"Instructions they obviously ignored. Not only was it the direct cause it was the only cause."

There was no evidence introduced regarding the esophageal intubation.

How could the jury "ignore" evidence of which they are not aware? Two experts concluded it was not the sole cause. No evidence supports your assertion.

You lied. You owe an apology to the jury.

Anonymous said...

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


kenhyderal,

Time is running out. Do you have the courage to confront Kilgo? Or, will you continue to hide in your make-believe world in Dubai?


Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "How could the jury "ignore" evidence of which they are not aware? Two experts concluded it was not the sole cause. No evidence supports your assertion".............. Yeah, you are so right. When the Jury was purposely kept in the dark about this critical evidence they can hardly be blamed for their unwitting role in this miscarriage of justice. I shot from the hip and I apologize.

Fake guiowen said...

Let me explain Kenhyderal's reasoning:
Suppose you push someone off a cliff. You don't really want too kill him; you just want to cripple him fr life. Unfortunately someone had put a rock just in the place where your friend falls. Since hits a rock (rather than reasonably soft sand) he breaks his head and dies. Clearly it's not your fault: the ultimate cause of death is the rock. The guilty party is the fool who had put the rock there.

Nifong Supporter said...


kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: " Anonymous said..."Sid - you don't seem to understand "proximate cause." You keep crying that the intubation and brain death was the "direct cause." That's true - that's what killed him - but that doesn't mean the stab wound wasn't a proximate cause. Had he not been stabbed, the rest wouldn't have happened"
...... You should listen to Judge Ridgeway's instruction to the Jury regarding proximate cause. Instructions that they obviously ignored. Not only was it the direct cause it was the sole cause.


Hey, kenhyderal.

You are absolutely correct, and I have been making the same argument over and over. Judge Ridgeway told the jurors that in order to convict Mangum of manslaughter or murder they had to determine that the stab wound was the proximate cause of his death. Unfortunately, Meier refused to present that argument so that he could protect Duke University Hospital.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Fake guiowen said...
Let me explain Kenhyderal's reasoning:
Suppose you push someone off a cliff. You don't really want too kill him; you just want to cripple him fr life. Unfortunately someone had put a rock just in the place where your friend falls. Since hits a rock (rather than reasonably soft sand) he breaks his head and dies. Clearly it's not your fault: the ultimate cause of death is the rock. The guilty party is the fool who had put the rock there.


Hey, Fake guiowen.

Allow me to interject a little sanity into your analogy.

Suppose someone is walking next to the edge of a tall cliff overlooking a bed of sharp rocks. Then someone comes up from the side and accidently (or purposely) nudges him so that he falls of the cliff.

Your argument is that the proximate cause of death was the person who fell because he was walking close to the edge of the cliff... your reasoning: If he wouldn't have been walking next to the edge of the cliff, if he would've been nudged he wouldn't have fell off the cliff. Right?

Nifong Supporter said...


Meant "off" not of. My bad.

kenhyderal said...

The Anonymous plagiarist who signs his anonymous posts, Malek Williams and who purports to be a classmate of Crystal said: " Time is running out. Do you have the courage to confront Kilgo? Or, will you continue to hide in your make-believe world in Dubai?"........That poster is not Kilgo, just like you, at least to Crystal's knowledge, are not one of her classmates. Kilgo remains a friend of the witness to Crystal's sexual assault and in loyalty to him has chosen not to make his identify known to me and to no longer denounce this friend's teammates and their party guests. Neither this Kilgo imposter or you would dare meet with me because I would see to it that you would suffer consequences for all the harm you have been trying to inflict on Crystal

A Lawyer said...

Suppose someone is walking next to the edge of a tall cliff overlooking a bed of sharp rocks. Then someone comes up from the side and accidently (or purposely) nudges him so that he falls of the cliff. Your argument is that the proximate cause of death was the person who fell because he was walking close to the edge of the cliff... your reasoning: If he wouldn't have been walking next to the edge of the cliff, if he would've been nudged he wouldn't have fell off the cliff. Right?

No, because the person walking close to the edge didn't commit any crime.

Here's an example I learned in law school (I defer to Walt as to whether this is also the law in North Carolina): a mugger knocks somebody down and takes his wallet. The mugging victim is lying in the street, lightly stunned. A drunk driver comes along and runs him over. The mugger is guilty of murder, because the victim wouldn't have been lying in the path of the drunk driver but for the mugger's intentional assault. The drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter, because his killing of the victim was the result of reckless but not intentional conduct. But both criminals are criminally liable for the same homicide.

Anonymous said...

Suppose someone is walking next to the edge of a tall cliff overlooking a bed of sharp rocks. Then someone comes up from the side and accidently (or purposely) nudges him so that he falls of the cliff.

Your argument is that the proximate cause of death was the person who fell because he was walking close to the edge of the cliff... your reasoning: If he wouldn't have been walking next to the edge of the cliff, if he would've been nudged he wouldn't have fell off the cliff. Right?



Their walking close to the cliff was A proximate cause - Sid, you confuse the issue. You can have LOTS of proximate causes - just because there is more than 1 legal liability isn't cut off.

Yes, his walking close to the edge was a proximate cause, but that doesn't cut off the liability of the person who intentionally pushed them.

Your argument would be: Someone intentionally pushed them, but didn't mean for them to fall off, but because they were standing close, they fell off, so the person who pushed them shouldn't be liable. That's just wrong.

You clearly do not understand any legal concepts.

Anonymous said...

The issue with your example - in most states, driving drunk is considered an intentional act, so could be murder, doesn't have to be manslaughter - but yes, 2 people can (and often are) convicted in the same crime.

Anonymous said...

The other classic law school example - someone wants to commit suicide - so they jump off the 20th story of a building. As they pass the 10th floor, someone in there fires a shotgun out the window - hitting the falling person, killing them.

Is the person who fired the shotgun guilty of any crime? The falling person would have died on impact.

Under our laws - yes, because they hastened the death.

Anonymous said...

"Kilgo remains a friend of the witness to Crystal's sexual assault and in loyalty to him has chosen not to make his identify known to me and to no longer denounce this friend's teammates and their party guests."

You continue to be incredibly stupid.

Anonymous said...

"Kilgo remains a friend of the witness to Crystal's sexual assault"

You mean kilgo has not outgrown the imaginary friend stage.

What makes this friend imaginary is that there was no sexual assault on Crystal mangum for anyone to witess.

Anonymous said...

Happy Innocence Day!

This is the eighth anniversary of the day when AG Roy Cooper announced the results of the investigation conducted by the special prosecutors. As you know, they found no credible evidence that the defendants committed the crimes with which they had been charged and additional affirmative evidence that those crimes did not occur.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Ken Edwards rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy his credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Ken. I ask them, don't you find it strange that his friends, his professors, his classmates his teachers, his pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of him and have provided him with character references. Hearing these references caused Dr. Harr to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he believed him to be "a good friend" of Crystal. Ken is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Ken was a responsible parent. Ken was a responsible member of his community. Ken, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better live for himself and his children. His Pastor advised him not to choose cutting and pasting as a way to support his opinions because, regardless of his character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..

Anonymous said...

https://youtu.be/VAgLhr6sHtc?t=10s

Fake Fake guiowen said...

Sid asks Fake guiowen: Right?

No, Sid. Not right.

Fake guiowen did not make that argument at all. Once again, you make a straw man argument. That is a dishonest rhetorical device.

fake Guiowen said...

Actually, Sid, I am only here to present Kenhyderal's argument. Clearly, a push would not normally kill a man. Therefore, says Ken, it is the person who walks so close to the cliff that is to blame. Ergo, the person who pushed him is blam

fake Guiowen said...

My mistake. I should have finished "the person who pushed him is blameless."

Anonymous said...

Fake Guiowen,

You are being unfair to Kenny.

Kenny has conceded that if complications from the stab wound required the intubation that Crystal would retain responsibility. As a result, he has concluded that the intubation was due to treatment for delirium tremens. Kenny argues that the evidence we have not seen is sufficient to require that we ignore the conclusions of two experts.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Kenny argues that the evidence we have not seen is sufficient to require that we ignore the conclusions of two experts"..... No, I argue that those who actually treated Daye should have been asked what they were treating him for. Delirium tremens was the presumptive diagnosis and regardless of what is frequently said here, this diagnosis was not ruled out either by Nichols or Roberts and especially not by those who were actually treating him. Those who want to protect Duke and those who hate Crystal would like to promote the idea that Daye was being treated for unspecified complications to his successfully treated stab wound in order that, despite obvious medical malpractice on the part of Duke, Welch would come into play.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

How do you know they were not asked? You are relying on "evidence we have not seen."

Sidney refuses to post the entire prosecution discovery file. He has not received the defense file.

I suggest that Crystal instruct Meier to turn over all of his material to Sidney and that Sidney post everything from both sides.

Anonymous said...

kenny:

Mr. Daye was at Duke Medical Center in April 2011 for one reason and one reason only: because he had been stabbed by Mangum. That is why an ambulance was called to Mr. Daye's home. It is why he was admitted to the hospital. That was what he was being treated for when he died.

There is no other reason why Mr. Daye was rushed to the hospital in April 2011 and required medical treatment. The ambulance wasn't called for someone or something else and when they showed up they noticed Mr. Daye had a stab wound. Mr. Daye was not admitted at the hospital for something else and when he took off his shirt the doctors noticed he had been stabbed. He did not have any other diseases or conditions that required emergency medical treatment or hospitalization, except for the aforementioned stab wound. Mr. Daye was not released from the hospital from his treatment for the stab wound and then suddenly readmitted for something unrelated. Everyone knows these things.

Every medical record shows Mr. Daye was admitted to and being treated for a stab wound when he died. Anything that happened to him at the hospital was related to the one and only reason he was there: he had been stabbed by Mangum. Two medical experts separately concluded that Mr. Daye died from complications of the stab wounds. In the intervening four years, neither you nor Sid have been able to come up with any evidence or testimony to the contrary.

The last thing Mangum needed was for her attorney to call a slew of witnesses from DUMC and ask them why Mr. Daye was at DUMC so they could all testify, "because someone plunged a knife into him." That would not have helped Mangum in any way, shape or form; it would have only reinforced in the mind of every juror that he died because of the stabbing. The fact that you and Sid would suggest this demonstrates (a) how weak your theory is and (b)why a law school degree and experience is a prerequisite to representing anyone in a felony criminal case.

You are not being serious. Therefore, you do not get a sausage.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

"Those who want to protect Duke and those who hate Crystal would like to promote the idea that Daye was being treated for unspecified complications to his successfully treated stab wound in order that, despite obvious medical malpractice on the part of Duke, Welch would come into play."

Except that "Those who want to protect Duke and those who hate Crystal", like kilgo's anonymous lacrosse player friend do not exist.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Suppose someone is walking next to the edge of a tall cliff overlooking a bed of sharp rocks. Then someone comes up from the side and accidently (or purposely) nudges him so that he falls of the cliff. Your argument is that the proximate cause of death was the person who fell because he was walking close to the edge of the cliff... your reasoning: If he wouldn't have been walking next to the edge of the cliff, if he would've been nudged he wouldn't have fell off the cliff. Right?

No, because the person walking close to the edge didn't commit any crime.

Here's an example I learned in law school (I defer to Walt as to whether this is also the law in North Carolina): a mugger knocks somebody down and takes his wallet. The mugging victim is lying in the street, lightly stunned. A drunk driver comes along and runs him over. The mugger is guilty of murder, because the victim wouldn't have been lying in the path of the drunk driver but for the mugger's intentional assault. The drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter, because his killing of the victim was the result of reckless but not intentional conduct. But both criminals are criminally liable for the same homicide.


Hey, A Lawyer.

Your analogy is somewhat flawed because in your street example the mugger was responsible for the muggee to be lying in the street... vulnerable to a driver whether drunk or sober. And, if run over and killed, the mugger would be the proximate cause of death with the car being the direct cause of death.

In Mangum's case, the stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's being intubated in the esophagus... and it was the esophageal intubation that was the intervening and proximate cause of Daye's death. Any precondition of Daye prior to the esophageal intubation would not have resulted in a different outcome if the esophageal intubation was unrecognized and removed in a timely manner.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The other classic law school example - someone wants to commit suicide - so they jump off the 20th story of a building. As they pass the 10th floor, someone in there fires a shotgun out the window - hitting the falling person, killing them.

Is the person who fired the shotgun guilty of any crime? The falling person would have died on impact.

Under our laws - yes, because they hastened the death.


Very interesting... but a medical examiner from North Carolina could not be relied upon to accurately access the cause of death. The shotgun blast may have only wounded the falling man or he might have been fatally wounded but alive when striking the pavement below. A complex scenario.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
kenny:

Mr. Daye was at Duke Medical Center in April 2011 for one reason and one reason only: because he had been stabbed by Mangum. That is why an ambulance was called to Mr. Daye's home. It is why he was admitted to the hospital. That was what he was being treated for when he died.

There is no other reason why Mr. Daye was rushed to the hospital in April 2011 and required medical treatment. The ambulance wasn't called for someone or something else and when they showed up they noticed Mr. Daye had a stab wound. Mr. Daye was not admitted at the hospital for something else and when he took off his shirt the doctors noticed he had been stabbed. He did not have any other diseases or conditions that required emergency medical treatment or hospitalization, except for the aforementioned stab wound. Mr. Daye was not released from the hospital from his treatment for the stab wound and then suddenly readmitted for something unrelated. Everyone knows these things.

Every medical record shows Mr. Daye was admitted to and being treated for a stab wound when he died. Anything that happened to him at the hospital was related to the one and only reason he was there: he had been stabbed by Mangum. Two medical experts separately concluded that Mr. Daye died from complications of the stab wounds. In the intervening four years, neither you nor Sid have been able to come up with any evidence or testimony to the contrary.

The last thing Mangum needed was for her attorney to call a slew of witnesses from DUMC and ask them why Mr. Daye was at DUMC so they could all testify, "because someone plunged a knife into him." That would not have helped Mangum in any way, shape or form; it would have only reinforced in the mind of every juror that he died because of the stabbing. The fact that you and Sid would suggest this demonstrates (a) how weak your theory is and (b)why a law school degree and experience is a prerequisite to representing anyone in a felony criminal case.

You are not being serious. Therefore, you do not get a sausage.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

When Daye was admitted to the hospital, his primary diagnosis was stab wound to the torso, and his secondary diagnosis was alcohol intoxication. Treatment for Daye's stab wound was successful and had a prognosis for a full recovery. He was treated for his alcoholic intoxication with sedatives early in his hospital admission, however the medical staff was unable to prevent him from lapsing into delirium tremens... and it was treatment for the DTs that resulted in his esophageal intubation.

The other point is that had the initial intubation been tracheal, in all likelihood Daye would have survived his hospitalization to be discharged home.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Happy Innocence Day!

This is the eighth anniversary of the day when AG Roy Cooper announced the results of the investigation conducted by the special prosecutors. As you know, they found no credible evidence that the defendants committed the crimes with which they had been charged and additional affirmative evidence that those crimes did not occur.


True, the 11th of April was the anniversary of Promulgation Day. However, the AG's investigation has been cloaked in secrecy and sealed. Contrast that to the investigation that I have put on this blog site about Mangum's case and you will note that it contains pertinent documents and evidence from all sources. In other words, my investigation is open and transparent.

The AG did not present any evidence or proof of its findings. Their position is "just trust me."

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "How do you know they (medical personnel who treated Daye() were not asked? You are relying on "evidence we have not seen."........ If they were asked they did not confide that information with Crystal. I've asked Attorney Meier, who we all know lurks here, to deny my accusation that neither he, his predecessors or his or their investigators ever spoke to the treating personnel at Duke. His confirmation of that would add credibility to our suppositions

Anonymous said...

You've admitted you've never asked Meier directly and you have no evidence he still lurks here. You are too cowardly and pathetic to ask him directly, or get permission from Crystal to speak with him.

I know ... Whine about how you aren't a coward. Whine whine whine. It's all you do. You are almost as pathetic as Sid - actually you are more so, he at least tries to do something. You just whine. Wah wah wah.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Sid, with the exception of Mangum's mental health records, substantially all of the critical prosecution records are public.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Elucidation is required.

What evidence from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case do you need to review in order to reach a conclusion?

Anonymous said...

"Contrast that to the investigation that I have put on this blog site about Mangum's case and you will note that it contains pertinent documents and evidence from all sources. In other words, my investigation is open and transparent."

You are incredibly stupid if you believe that.

kenhyderal said...

@ Sausage King: You are stretching the Welch ruling far beyond it intent. Once again listen to Judge Ridgeways instructions to the Jury. What's too bad is that the Jury never heard about Daye's alcoholism, his potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms, Duke's medical malpractice, that what he was being treated for may not of had any direct relationship to his successfully treated stab wound, that what unspecified complication to that stab wound, if any, he may of suffered.

guiowen said...

Daniel Meier,
Kenhyderal is well aware that you are lurking here. Don't you understand that he is about to explode? Answer his questions, or else!!

Anonymous said...

Kenny @ 8:56:

It would be far more effective if you would simply provide references to the cases you considered as precedent. We listened to the instructions and, with the exception of you, Sid and Tin Foil, all found them consistent with the analysis Walt, A Lawyer, Lance, Abe and others have provided.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Kenny has already said he wk call Meier a liar if he says anything other than his goal was a conviction for Mangum, so even if he did still lurk (highly doubtful), why would he respond to Kenny? If Kenny wants a response, he should ask Meier directly. But coward Kenny won't, he will just whine. Wah wah wah.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

Elucidation is required.

What evidence from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case do you need to review in order to reach a conclusion?


Reach a conclusion about the Duke Lacrosse case? Everything in prosecution and defense discovery... however, I am not interested in embarking on that path. I'm interested in Mangum's current plight and getting her exonerated and released from prison.

Although I am not able to give a rock hard conclusion on the Duke Lacrosse case, I believe, like Mike Nifong, that something did happen to Crystal at the Buchanan House.

Nifong Supporter said...


kenhyderal said...
@ Sausage King: You are stretching the Welch ruling far beyond it intent. Once again listen to Judge Ridgeways instructions to the Jury. What's too bad is that the Jury never heard about Daye's alcoholism, his potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms, Duke's medical malpractice, that what he was being treated for may not of had any direct relationship to his successfully treated stab wound, that what unspecified complication to that stab wound, if any, he may of suffered.


Hey, kenhyderal.

You're absolutely correct. Welch was actually quite restrictive, and it has no practical bearing on the Mangum case.

Like you stated,the key is the judge's instructions to the jury. He specifically stated that Daye's death had to be a proximate cause of the stab wound... and prosecution and defense both suppressed the true proximate cause from the jury so it had no way to consider it.

Anonymous said...

"
Although I am not able to give a rock hard conclusion on the Duke Lacrosse case, I believe, like Mike Nifong, that something did happen to Crystal at the Buchanan House."

You should have stopped with saying "I am not able to give a rock hard conclusion on the Duke Lacrosse case".

That means you have no basis for believing in SHIT(Something Happened In There).

The Great Kilgo said...

Kenhyderal,
Could you pleaml'.;'
;[

Anonymous said...

Pay no attention to that!

Anonymous said...

Sid:

But the AG had full and complete access to the entire case file and all records and reports pertaining to the Mangum prosecution. The AG's office interviewed 47 witnesses, reviewed over 7,000 pages of documents and over 600 photographs. After all that, the AG came to the conclusion that the defendants were innocent and that no crime was committed against Mangum. What did the AG's team miss or get wrong in reaching its conclusion?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: You've admitted you've never asked Meier directly and you have no evidence he still lurks here. You are too cowardly and pathetic to ask him directly, or get permission from Crystal to speak with him. I know ... Whine about how you aren't a coward. Whine whine whine. It's all you do. You are almost as pathetic as Sid - actually you are more so, he at least tries to do something. You just whine. Wah wah wah........................... In this matter, I take my direction from Crystal's wishes. As far as evidence of his (Meier's) presence among us I refer you to Dr. Harr's post of March 2nd in the previous thread. Quote: " I have just received notice from an e-mail I'm assured to be from Attorney Daniel Meier in which he disavowed posting the comment of February 22, 2015 at 7:16pm. Falsely attributing a comment to another individual constitutes a violation of the kenhyderal doctrine, and as such will be removed from the comment section. I will also remove my response to that comment because it repeated the comment attributed to Mr. Meier... even though I did question its authenticity. In the future, please do not post omments under the pretense of being someone other than yourself. Thank you. March 2, 2015 at 8:05 AM You be surprised who all lurks here including numerous former Duke Lacrosse Players

Anonymous said...

You are still a coward and pathetic ass ... You refuse to take any affirmative steps. Pathetic. A total pathetic joke. You won't do anything that might help.

Pathetic. Sid needs a new rule to keep idiot pathetic losers like you from posting.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 3:59 PM wrote: "Sid,

Elucidation is required.

What evidence from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case do you need to review in order to reach a conclusion?"


Sid's a member of the liar school of evidence. The only evidence he believes is lies.

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 8:20............ Why don't you tell us your name? What are you afraid of?

Anonymous said...

Again ... Coward Kenny changes the subject and whines.

Your whining and changing the subject doesn't change the fact you are a coward and pathetic who really doesn't want to help.

Wah wah wah.

guiowen said...

So, Kenhyderal,
What in fact are you doing to help?

A Lawyer said...

Your analogy is somewhat flawed because in your street example the mugger was responsible for the muggee to be lying in the street... vulnerable to a driver whether drunk or sober.

And in this case, Crystal was responsible for Mr. Daye lying in the hospital, where he was vulnerable to medical malpractice.

Walt said...

A Lawyer wrote: "And in this case, Crystal was responsible for Mr. Daye lying in the hospital, where he was vulnerable to medical malpractice."

Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Why are you talking about medical malpractice? Has it been determined that anyone at DUMC committed medical malpractice in the treatment of Mr. Daye?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Why are you talking about medical malpractice? Has it been determined that anyone at DUMC committed medical malpractice in the treatment of Mr. Daye?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

April 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM"

Sidney has determined it was malpractice. However that is like a blind deaf man saying I see and hear everything.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid:

But the AG had full and complete access to the entire case file and all records and reports pertaining to the Mangum prosecution. The AG's office interviewed 47 witnesses, reviewed over 7,000 pages of documents and over 600 photographs. After all that, the AG came to the conclusion that the defendants were innocent and that no crime was committed against Mangum. What did the AG's team miss or get wrong in reaching its conclusion?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL



Hey, Abe.

I have not seen any evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case so I cannot fight it as aggressively as Mangum's case where she gave me access to prosecution discovery. I would be in better position to give discourse on the Duke Lacrosse case if the Attorney General's Office made prosecution and defense discovery available... instead of having it sealed. Just because the A.G.'s office goes through the motions of conducting an investigation doesn't guarantee that it will arrive at a fair and objective conclusion.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Your analogy is somewhat flawed because in your street example the mugger was responsible for the muggee to be lying in the street... vulnerable to a driver whether drunk or sober.

And in this case, Crystal was responsible for Mr. Daye lying in the hospital, where he was vulnerable to medical malpractice.


Hey, A Lawyer.

You act as though hospitals are widely accepted to be vast killing grounds. Most people admitted to the hospital with nonfatal injuries should reasonably expect to survive the hospital stay and emerge in better condition than when they entered.

I would hope and expect that medical malpractice is a relatively rare occurrence... especially such a serious medical malpractice. Esophageal intubation if not recognized immediately and corrected is 100% fatal. Face it, the likelihood of Daye surviving to discharge from the hospital would have been extremely high if he had not been intubated in the esophagus.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Why are you talking about medical malpractice? Has it been determined that anyone at DUMC committed medical malpractice in the treatment of Mr. Daye?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Abe, I think that most, if not all medical professionals consider esophageal intubation medical malpractice... and most of them, if not all, consider it fatal if not immediately recognized and corrected.

The medical records show that the initial intubation was esophageal... supported by the fact that the ETCO2 monitor was negative. Even Dr. Christena L. Roberts stated in her report that the initial intubation was esophageal.

The mainstream media is aware of the malpractice but it is trying its darnedest to keep the lay masses from knowing the truth. The truth about Daye's death and autopsy report and Mangum's case can only be access on this blog site. That is why, Abe, you are much more enlightened about the case than the average person.

Walt said...

Again, Sid seems to want to ignore the law. To assist those who care about the law, I have prepared a longer analysis at my blog. Please feel free to read it: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2015/04/intervening-cause-and-crystal-mangum.html

Walt-in-Durham

Lance the Intern said...

Thanks for the concise analysis, Walt.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"Hey, Abe.

I have not seen any evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case so I cannot fight it as aggressively as Mangum's case where she gave me access to prosecution discovery. I would be in better position to give discourse on the Duke Lacrosse case if the Attorney General's Office made prosecution and defense discovery available... instead of having it sealed. Just because the A.G.'s office goes through the motions of conducting an investigation doesn't guarantee that it will arrive at a fair and objective conclusion."

1. The AG did not have the file sealed. It is sealed by state law. The AG's office did release an extensive report and answered questions regarding its investigation and conclusions.

2. What is your basis for claiming the AG went "thru the motions of conducting an investigation" as opposed toconducting a bonafide, in depth investigation. What is your basis for implying that the AG did not arrive at a fair and objective conclusion? Are these just more irresponsible, baseless, ad hominem attacks?

3. This blog is premised on the notion that Nifong was treated unfairly for his role in the prosecution of the lacrosse players for Mangum's false rape claim. As such, your claim that you do not have the facts to "give discourse" on the AG's opinion or to aggressively fight it is disingenuous. Moreover, if you lack the facts or interest in the AG's report how can make the claims you have been making for years now that, inter alia, "something" happened to Mangum, the AG's investigation was flawed and reached the wrong conclusion and that Nifong was treated unfairly - not to mention your sliming of the falsely accused players and their families? Or is that just the way you roll?

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who is as fundamentally dishonest as you are. Your dishonesty is one of the main reasons why no one will take your calls, meet with you or respond to your letters and why you have been so ineffective as an advocate for both yourself and Mangum.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Lance the Intern said...

"You act as though hospitals are widely accepted to be vast killing ground..."

Sid -- as a (former) ER physician, I'm surprised you would make a statement like this.

The Journal of Patient Safety reported in 2013 that over a thousand people a day are dying"[emphasis mine] from medical errors.
That's more than from auto accidents and workplace accidents combined.

Anonymous said...

Also, Sid, at least one of Mangum's attorneys quit because she shared discovery with you and you posted some of it on your "Justice for Nifong" shlog, blog, shart or whatever it is called. Youa lso prepared and filed papers on Magum's behalf. These facts underscore your current claim that you did not have access to discovery, don't know much about and aren't interested in the false rape claim.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Also, Sid, at least one of Mangum's attorneys quit because she shared discovery with you and you posted some of it on your "Justice for Nifong" shlog, blog, shart or whatever it is called. Youa lso prepared and filed papers on Magum's behalf. These facts underscore your current claim that you did not have access to discovery, don't know much about and aren't interested in the false rape claim.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


The best thing Mangum ever did in her life was give me a copy of prosecution discovery. It is that discovery that will result in her exoneration and freedom. Had she not given it to me, she would definitely serve her complete sentence of 18 years... or possibly longer. Not only that, but she might have even been convicted of first degree murder and been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"You act as though hospitals are widely accepted to be vast killing ground..."

Sid -- as a (former) ER physician, I'm surprised you would make a statement like this.

The Journal of Patient Safety reported in 2013 that over a thousand people a day are dying"[emphasis mine] from medical errors.
That's more than from auto accidents and workplace accidents combined.


Hey, Lance.

The article you referenced stated that people are dying due to medical errors... Not that they were dying due to care received in hospitals.

Find a source that is relevant and deals with in-patient hospital deaths.

Lance the Intern said...

"The article you referenced stated that people are dying due to medical errors... Not that they were dying due to care received in hospitals."

Sid -- Did you even try to look up the article?

Let me ask you a question -- Do you consider The sponge left inside the surgical patient, the medication injected into a baby’s IV at a dose calculated for a 200 pound man, the excruciating infection from contaminated equipment used at the bedside "care received in hospitals"?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1173   Newer› Newest»