justice4nifong: A prosecution case built on lies

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

A prosecution case built on lies

973 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 973 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

"Sidney,

Could Aykia Hanes' alarms have been set off when Daye broke down the bathroom door? I suggest you do some experiments at your own apartment. Set up alarms in the apartments next to yours that share a wall. Break down your bathroom door and see if any alarms are set off. You probably will want to repeat the experiment several,times."

Sid replied:

"Great suggestion, however, I like where I live and do not want to be evicted. Besides, I think the relevance would only be applicable to the apartments sharing the same floor plans and construction as 3507 Century Oaks Apartments N and P in Durham."

Sid,

Then you should go into Ms. Hanes' apartment building, start kicking in the doors on the floor where she lives and see if it sets off any alarms. The landlord and tenants might be upset at first, but once you tell them you are just trying to get Mangum out of prison they will understand. I am sure they would all agree that a horrible miscarriage of justice has occurred and they want her out of prison and back in their building as soon as is humanly possible.

On a serious note, have you ever approached Mangum and Daye's neighbors and asked them about Mr. Daye's alleged propensity for violence and their personal experiences and observations of Mangum and Daye? If Daye was a violent drunk with a propensity for throwing knives and beating women, I am sure his co-tenants would have first hand, eyewitness knowledge of it. Such statements and eyewitness accounts would only be helpful for Mangum. But we both know that isn't the case, don't we?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Abe, I don't live in Durham, so I did not conduct an investigation there which would've cost me much time, effort, and money. Investigators retained by Daniel Meier should've questioned the neighbors and other reasonable study that you suggest. However, Meier has refused, despite repeated requests from Mangum, to send her any written reports from the several investigators retained or others.. including the psychiatrist.; July 15, 2015 at 8:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...You must provide case law to support your conclusion that Welch is not applicable. Only then can you demonstrate that Meier's failure to introduce the esophageal intubation into evidence was an error.
July 14, 2015 at 5:12 PM"

Is there another case to retrieve case law from where Duke killed someone with intubation malpractice (or similar) during a testing procedure that did not have to be done in order to save the life of the patient and/or could have been done in different manners in order to achieve adequate and non-lethal diagnostic results - thereby achieving the result of killing the patient with negligent malpractice and consequently allowing the facts of the malpractice to be lied about on a state autopsy report so that another person (whom they have well-known negative past history with) ends up having false murder charges placed against them so they are therefore not required - nor do they - take legal accountability and responsibility for the deadly malpractice themselves as required by law.

In other words, is there another case where it is suspected that the medical facility kills a patient with malpractice in order to frame another for murder, and then allows the justice system to blatantly 'cover-up' that fact throughout the trial process so that indeed, the defendant is convicted of murder by malpractice and the medical facility is Not held accountable and responsible for their own deadly malpractice?

My interpretation of Welch is that it's far more restrictive than the way it is bandied about by commenters on this blog. I don't believe it is relevant.

Unfortunately, I have no access to the law library, and therefore would have a problem trying to find applicable case law to Mangum's case.; July 15, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Is Ms. Mangum currently writing her own MAR?

Have you been able to obtain a copy of the MAR submitted by the appeal defense attorney and rejected by Judge Hudson that you previously mentioned?

Who are these few individuals whom you plan to "force feed" the truth to who will be able to achieve Ms. Mangum's freedom?

Mangum is not drafting her own MAR at this time.

The MAR referred to by Judge Hudson in denying Mangum's motion was one she filed more than a year ago, but had mentioned in a February 2015 letter to him.

I am trying to force feed the truth to everyone!; July 15, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid queries:

"Do you think W-I-D owes me an apology for jumping the gun and accusing me of not apologizing to Aykia when I already had?"

We have no way of knowing whether you apologized to Ms. Hanes except your word, which has been repeatedly shown to be less than reliable on matters far more significant.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 15, 2015 at 9:07 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "My interpretation of Welch is that it's far more restrictive than the way it is bandied about by commenters., [sic] on this blog. I don't believe it is relevant."

Your interpretation is wrong.

"Unfortunately, I have no access to the law library, and therefore would have a problem trying to find applicable case law to Mangum's case."

Then stop arguing the law. As you don't know what it is.

Walt-in-Durham; July 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: You can google case law as well - you don't need a law library, and you do have access to the Internet.; July 15, 2015 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ...

It's great you apologized (though I doubt she cared, or even knew you had accused her of anything - you have to assume she reads the blog), but you left the incorrect Sharlog up while making the new one - that was the problem - you should have immediately removed it.

As to the reports - you've had it explained why reports aren't produced: If the information isn't helpful, a written report isn't produced. Plus, the only reports missing were the Psychiatrist, and did Crystal even cooperate? Are you sure she didn't say she wasn't going to cooperate, so no reports could even be produced?

You say a lot of things with no support, and are a proven liar, so why should anyone trust anything you say without proof?; July 15, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Thank you for replying.

Is Ms. Mangum going to write her own MAR?

Have you posted the other MAR on this blog? What letter are your referring to in reference to Judge Hudson and the other MAR?; July 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: I use the term "master debating" to describe your tactics on this blog: As master debater, you are responsible only for making assertions, and readers are required to accept each assertion as fact unless they can prove with certainty that any assertion is not true. If an assertion is disproven, it is ignored. Readers are still required to accept all remaining unproven assertions as fact. You are not required to provide evidence to support your claims; that is the sole responsibility of those who disagree with you.

Based on this definition, is Sidney also a master debater?; July 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil said,

"This is the first case I remember ever hearing about where the hospital kills the patient with 'sole cause' malpractice and then actively participates in the cover-up of the malpractice in order to frame a known 'victim of the hospital' for murder by malpractice."

You are going to have to come up with something much, much better than that if you expect to have any hope of springing Mangum from prison early.; July 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM
Fake guiowen said...: Tinfoil said,

"This is the first case I remember ever hearing about where the hospital kills the patient with 'sole cause' malpractice and then actively participates in the cover-up of the malpractice in order to frame a known 'victim of the hospital' for murder by malpractice."

Excellent, Tinfoil! Just repeat this statement to the Supreme Court. They will understand how vital this case is to the state's jurisprudence, and will soon be reversing Crystal's conviction!; July 15, 2015 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you insane 8:43 PM & 6:27 PM?; July 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Fake guiowen said...: To the 10:24,
Tinfoil has a sacred duty yo put an end to all this injustice. Please don't deter him.; July 16, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Fake guiowen said...: I'm sorry, that should have been
Tinfoil has a sacred duty to put an end to all this injustice. Please don't deter him.; July 16, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil:

8:43 PM & 6:27 PM aren't the insane ones.

You should keep carrying on about Duke killing Mr. Daye with "sole cause" malpractice and then covering it up to frame Mangum. It's worked well so far. Courts are quick to act on frivolous and recklessly made conspiracy theories that are not supported by any evidence or the law.

As Walt is fond of saying, with friends like you and Sid, Mangum doesn't need enemies.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 16, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Anonymous said...: That's what they did - so I think I will. All ya have to do is look at the date of death on the appeal briefs and decision to know that no court would disagree with me.; July 16, 2015 at 8:33 AM
Fake guiowen said...: Go for it, Tinfoil!; July 16, 2015 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: go for what g... the fake fake g...; July 16, 2015 at 8:47 AM
Fake guiowen said...: Go to the SCNC, Tinfoil!
I might add, Kenhyderal has been collecting money for Crystal's appeal. Ask him to give you some of that money so you can hire a lawyer for the SCNC presentation.; July 16, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: why don't you g...?; July 16, 2015 at 1:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid queries:

"Do you think W-I-D owes me an apology for jumping the gun and accusing me of not apologizing to Aykia when I already had?"

We have no way of knowing whether you apologized to Ms. Hanes except your word, which has been repeatedly shown to be less than reliable on matters far more significant.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Abe, did you even view the sharlog? If you did you would've noticed that the letter of apology was listed as was the certified mail and postage receipts. What more do you want?; July 16, 2015 at 2:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid ...

It's great you apologized (though I doubt she cared, or even knew you had accused her of anything - you have to assume she reads the blog), but you left the incorrect Sharlog up while making the new one - that was the problem - you should have immediately removed it.

As to the reports - you've had it explained why reports aren't produced: If the information isn't helpful, a written report isn't produced. Plus, the only reports missing were the Psychiatrist, and did Crystal even cooperate? Are you sure she didn't say she wasn't going to cooperate, so no reports could even be produced?

You say a lot of things with no support, and are a proven liar, so why should anyone trust anything you say without proof?

Taxpayers paid three investigators, a psychiatrist, the accident reconstruction expert, and the domestic violence expert. Mangum is entitled to written reports from each of them. How can it be determined whether or not information is helpful if a written report is not produced? Your statement is bereft of logic.; July 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Thank you for replying.

Is Ms. Mangum going to write her own MAR?

Have you posted the other MAR on this blog? What letter are your referring to in reference to Judge Hudson and the other MAR?

I don't know if she will write an MAR or not. To date, the courts have basically ignored her. I am currently focused on shining enlightenment on individuals in hopes of helping to win justice for Mangum.; July 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Wouldn't helping her write a MAR be a more direct route to getting her plea across to the court system in a way that they can no longer ignore the problems in this case?

Is the MAR and letter you spoke of in the public records?; July 16, 2015 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Because Sidney does not understand the legal system (and does not want to learn), he prefers to contact dozens of people in the hope that one of them will be sufficiently moved and then will know what to do. Although his arguments on this blog have not been compelling (and he has been unwilling to try to understand the criticism), he hopes that one of the dozens of people he contacts will be impressed with his showmanship and will overlook the weakness of his arguments.; July 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Abe, did you even view the sharlog? If you did you would've noticed that the letter of apology was listed as was the certified mail and postage receipts. What more do you want?"

Opening a shlog is a hit or miss proposition. They take forever to load and more often than not do not open on my computer. Still, that is no excuse. I take you at your word that the apology letter and postal receipts were on it and I apologize for stating otherwise. It was wrong of me to say otherwise without first viewing your shlog.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: ahhhh; July 16, 2015 at 4:12 PM
Fake guiowen said...: To the 1:57 p.m.,
It's all the same to me whether Crystal rots in prison. Sidney, who is my friend, would like to get her out, so I give advise to those who would like to help him.; July 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: no, you annoy everyone on this blog for your own entertainment

you troll, cyberbully, act insane, give childish commands, demand apologies when people try to defend themselves against your cyberbullying, and have stated that you made a drinking bet that people will not take this blog seriously which you think gives you license to cyberbully and all the rest of your evil duke troll tactics that you employ to annoy for your own entertainment; July 16, 2015 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: This blog sure is a favorite of members of the tin foil hat club.; July 16, 2015 at 6:59 PM
Fake guiowen said...: I'm sorry, Tinfoil. Didi I hurt your feelings again, you poor little boy?; July 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Is there some reason you are cyberbullying me again right now?

My request that you stop cyberbullying me hasn't changed since the last time I told you to stop.

Why do you persist?; July 16, 2015 at 10:19 PM
guiowen said...: Sorry, Tinfoil. I've asked Fake Guiowen not to give you any answers until you answer my questions of June 2.; July 16, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Fake guiowen said...: I'm sorry, Tinfoil, but Guiowen will cut my allowance if I don't do as he asks.; July 16, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Are you really as stupid and clueless as you come across? As to expert reports - as noted Crystal had them from everyone but the psych folks - so you can stop whining about the rest. But, you talk to the experts and see what their report would say - if it would be helpful, you have them prepare a written report - if it wouldn't be helpful (because they agree with the State for example) you don't. Because once you get a writte report it has to be turned over to the State, so you don't produce reports that are harmful to the client.

How is that so difficult for you to understand? I know you like abusing poor Crystal, but you really do seem to have a mental disease/defect in that you can't understand basic things if they aren't what you want them to be. You need help.; July 17, 2015 at 4:06 AM
Anonymous said...: The written report was not harmful to the client - the way it was withheld from the client and the jury, and the way details contained within were covered up and not investigated, questioned, or presented in court was what was harmful to the client and to all in this case.; July 17, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: The written report agreed with the prosecution that the cause of death was related to the stab wound - that was/is incredibly harmful to the Client.

You are an idiot.; July 17, 2015 at 6:45 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Taxpayers paid three investigators, a psychiatrist, the accident reconstruction expert, and the domestic violence expert. Mangum is entitled to written reports from each of them. How can it be determined whether or not information is helpful if a written report is not produced?"

The psychiatrist determined that Crystal was competent to stand trial. That determination was made pursuant to a suggestion from her that she was in fact not competent to assist at trial. Are you now saying she was not?

The accident reconstruction expert was presented at trial with an offer of proof. That means in the record is that expert's expected testimony. The Judge ruled the testimony was inadmissible. The same can be said for the domestic violence expert. You are, again, exalting form over substance.

Those last two experts were offered and their testimony is in the record. There is nothing more to report.

Walt-in-Durham; July 17, 2015 at 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...: The written report agreed with the prosecution that the cause of death was related to the stab wound - that was/is incredibly harmful to the Client.

You are an idiot.

July 17, 2015 at 6:45 AM

No, it said there were complications that happened after the stab wound that caused the death. Those complications, not the stab wound, caused the death. The death was because of intubation malpractice and removal from life support necessitated by the malpractice induced brain death. All of the issues needed to be questioned and cross examined for the jury to make a valid decision - the medical examiner reports do not take the place of a fair and equal trial and jury.; July 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:25 AM wrote: "No, it said there were complications that happened after the stab wound that caused the death. Those complications, not the stab wound, caused the death. The death was because of intubation malpractice and removal from life support necessitated by the malpractice induced brain death."

There is no one so blind as the one that will not see. There is no one so deaf as the one that will not listen. There is no one so ignorant as the one who will not learn.

Walt-in-Durham; July 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: There is none so arrogant to think that their corruption matters more than human lives. There is none so evil as duke.; July 17, 2015 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: You are still an idiot. This blog used to be amusing, now it's just pathetic. Between Sid and Kenny abusing Crystal, and everyone just faking outrage and paranoia, there is nothing left to it.

The only people we know are legit are the two abusers: Kenny and Sid. The rest, who knows.

When you have to resort to some vast conspiracy to try and justify your points - you have none.; July 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM
The great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal,
I'm in trouble. Could you please oiyflxdf; July 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"Abe, did you even view the sharlog? If you did you would've noticed that the letter of apology was listed as was the certified mail and postage receipts. What more do you want?"

Opening a shlog is a hit or miss proposition. They take forever to load and more often than not do not open on my computer. Still, that is no excuse. I take you at your word that the apology letter and postal receipts were on it and I apologize for stating otherwise. It was wrong of me to say otherwise without first viewing your shlog.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Thanks for the apology and I graciously accept it, but it wasn't necessary.

The benefit of the sharlog is that its interactivity enables the viewing of documents... as opposed to just reading the transcript of the sharlog. I have no problem bringing up the sharlog on the library computer. You might have trouble viewing the sharlog on an I-pad or I-phone... I don't know.; July 17, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The written report was not harmful to the client - the way it was withheld from the client and the jury, and the way details contained within were covered up and not investigated, questioned, or presented in court was what was harmful to the client and to all in this case.

I agree wholeheartedly. The truth is something that will free Mangum, but it is something that the prosecutors in this case fear.

The main issue is that Mangum is entitled to a written report.; July 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Taxpayers paid three investigators, a psychiatrist, the accident reconstruction expert, and the domestic violence expert. Mangum is entitled to written reports from each of them. How can it be determined whether or not information is helpful if a written report is not produced?"

The psychiatrist determined that Crystal was competent to stand trial. That determination was made pursuant to a suggestion from her that she was in fact not competent to assist at trial. Are you now saying she was not?

The accident reconstruction expert was presented at trial with an offer of proof. That means in the record is that expert's expected testimony. The Judge ruled the testimony was inadmissible. The same can be said for the domestic violence expert. You are, again, exalting form over substance.

Those last two experts were offered and their testimony is in the record. There is nothing more to report.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, are you saying that the investigators and experts who taxpayers paid for their services and who were retained by the defense attorney are not obligated to provide a written report to the attorney (who in turn has a duty to turn it over to his/her client)? I require further elucidation.; July 17, 2015 at 12:33 PM
A Lawyer said...: Walt, are you saying that the investigators and experts who taxpayers paid for their services and who were retained by the defense attorney are not obligated to provide a written report to the attorney (who in turn has a duty to turn it over to his/her client)? I require further elucidation.

If an expert prepares a written report, the attorney must turn it over to the other side. So the standard practice is for the attorney to ask first for an oral report. If the expert's opinion is damaging to the attorney's client, the attorney will tell the expert not to put their conclusions in writing.; July 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Are you still visiting with Ms. Mangum? How is she doing?; July 17, 2015 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: 11:42 AM:

"You are still an idiot."

ditto

"When you have to resort to some vast conspiracy to try and justify your points - you have none."

ditto again (the conspiracy in this case is that there was no malpractice, Mr. Daye died 3 days after the stabbing - miracuously rose from the dead - was then placed on life support equipment to keep his hollowed body alive - and then it was decided to sacrifice him to the greater good so that he could become the savior duke was looking for all along); July 17, 2015 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney says:

"The main issue is that Mangum is entitled to a written report."

Right, so Sidney can get his hands on it and make up some more stuff.; July 17, 2015 at 6:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: When a Defence Attorney wants to keep information concealed it is evidence that he does not believe in the professed innocence of his client. An innocent person, like Crystal, deserves at, the minimum, an Attorney who believes her and who then seeks out and highlights any and all evidence that supports her. And there is reams of it the Jury never heard. The biases of those who have bought into the slander of Duke Lacrosse apologists and the legal defenders of North Carolina's broken Justice System all believe Crystal's Lawyers should lie by omission and attempt to conceal facts from the Prosecution and from the Jury. Courts should seek to find truth and Crystal, with truth on her side, had nothing to hide. She did not even fear the admission of the testimony of Milton Walker and she certainly did not fear the testimony of Dr. Roberts because she believed her conclusion could not withstand examination. Not a single person on this blog save for Dr. Harr myself and Attorney Meier and including the person who claims to be her classmate know Crystal. All they know is the myriad of lies they have read none of witch contain a shred of truth; July 17, 2015 at 9:01 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
So do something about it! Come to Durham, hire an attorney! Tell the people at the Canadian consulate that you lost your passport; they'll give you a new one.
But PLEASE STOP WHINING!; July 17, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; July 18, 2015 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't think the two abusers (Kenny and Sid) have paid any attention to anything anyone else says on this Blog. Sid has already admitted that once he decides he wants to conclusion to be X, he ignores all evidence to the contrary. Kenny clearly does the same.

I wish they'd stop abusing Crystal and move on and let her be - but that's what abusers do - find vulnerable people and just keep going.; July 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

In a sane world, why would any attorney call a witness to give testimony that the attorney knows is harmful to his client's case in the hope he can later discredit the witness? What is gained by such a strategy that isn't better obtained by simply not calling the witness in the first place? What if one or more jurors believe the witness, in spite of the attorney's attempts to discredit her? What you propose sounds an awful lot like malpractice.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 18, 2015 at 5:10 PM
guiowen said...: Abe,
Please let Kenny fantasize.; July 18, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Abe, the only thing that had to be proven was that the intubation malpractice was sole cause fatal malpractice. The defense autopsy report was needed to document and question the malpractice, since the state's autopsy report covered it up and made other eroneous claims. Because of those reasons the defense autopsy report was CRITICAL to the case. The malpractice was keeping the written report from Ms. Mangum in the way that it was done since the evidence contained within it is so critical to the case.; July 18, 2015 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:06:

only thing that had to be proven was that the intubation malpractice was sole cause fatal malpractice.

Except Roberts' report does not reach that conclusion. It does not prove what you want it to prove. So please tell us why a report that does not prove the Crystal's legal liability is cut off is CRITICAL to the case.; July 18, 2015 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: But Dr. Roberts did not conclude that malpractice or intubation was the sole cause(s) of Mr. Daye's demise. To the contracry, she concluded that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from being stabbed by Mangum. For Mangum's attorney to put Dr. Roberts on the stand to reinforce the prosecution's claim that Mr. Daye died due to complications from the stab wound inflicted by Mangum would be sheer idiocy, bordering on malpractice, as would requiring her to produce a report to that effect which would then have to be turned over to the prosecution.

Nothing Dr. Roberts had to say (or write) was of any help to Mangum. I know Sid was curious about Dr. Roberts' findings, but he is neither an expert, an attorney, or even a licensed physician. Mangum's attorney and Dr. Roberts could not abandon their obligations to Mangum by having Dr. Roberts produce a written report to satisfy Sid's curiosity (based on his misunderstand of the law and facts of Mangum's case), or, worse yet, for Sid to publish on this website, for the world to see, in order to advance his baseless theories.

This point has been discussed over and over again. It is obvious to rational people. Pounding this point hasn't gotten you anywhere thus far and it never will. If anything, you lose ground when you make ridiculous, provably false claims. You really need to come up with something else.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 18, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't think as a potential patient of duke that I have to do any such thing, and I certainly don't have to accept the anti-Mangum bias and descrimination demonstrated on this blog and in the case corruption and coverup of the malpractice as a deciding factor for any medical analysis, neither does a jury or Ms. Mangum or any other citizen of this state.; July 18, 2015 at 8:39 PM
guiowen said...: Abe,
Please let them fantasize. They're not serious. If they were, they would be doing something about it (hiring a lawyer, going to the NC Supreme Court, etc.) They just want to think about the wonderful work they could do if only .... In their dreams, Crystal will be out by the end of August. Don't spoil their dreams.; July 18, 2015 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...: g... why don't you go to another blog to annoy since that is your obsession and your trolling is a joke here

the only reason you want to see anything happen is so you can troll some more

but, since you repeat yourself obsessively in your annoying evil duke trolling ... guess we will find you here at the end of this august and next repeating obsessively some annoying thoughtless drivel or another regardless; July 18, 2015 at 9:01 PM
guiowen said...: You poor little boy, have I hurt your feelings?; July 18, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...: and your a bs evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hatemonger who harrassess, trolls, slanders, commits hate crimes, pretends to be a retired doc, duke dad, and various other characters at whim, including the tin hat and tinfoil hat for the purposes of trolling itself repeatedly with others' copied/pasted posts especially on the weekends to keep itself amused, treats people like slaves, and commits abusive crazy making tactics by baiting and then blaming the persons you troll for defending themselves or others from your constant duke centered bullying, trolling, and hate crime commissions directed at anyone who does not conform to your bs evil ways and beliefs

blah ...
blah ...
blah ...; July 18, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous said...

and your a bs evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hatemonger who harrassess, trolls, slanders, commits hate crimes, pretends to be a retired doc, duke dad, and various other characters at whim, including the tin hat and tinfoil hat for the purposes of trolling itself repeatedly with others' copied/pasted posts especially on the weekends to keep itself amused, treats people like slaves, and commits abusive crazy making tactics by baiting and then blaming the persons you troll for defending themselves or others from your constant duke centered bullying, trolling, and hate crime commissions directed at anyone who does not conform to your bs evil ways and beliefs

blah ...
blah ...
blah ...

July 18, 2015 at 11:40 PM"

Boy are you incredibly stupid ans ill informed.; July 19, 2015 at 2:21 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: The poster using the name Malek Williams is an imposter.; July 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Question for Kenny and Sid - because I have yet to see any comments about it:

Have either of you bothered to read the Court of Appeals Opinion? Or you still just bleating on for the sake of abusing Crystal, but not actually looking at what could help?; July 19, 2015 at 8:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Walt, are you saying that the investigators and experts who taxpayers paid for their services and who were retained by the defense attorney are not obligated to provide a written report to the attorney (who in turn has a duty to turn it over to his/her client)? I require further elucidation.

If an expert prepares a written report, the attorney must turn it over to the other side. So the standard practice is for the attorney to ask first for an oral report. If the expert's opinion is damaging to the attorney's client, the attorney will tell the expert not to put their conclusions in writing.

Hey, A Lawyer. Thanks for the explanation, but what you have in the Mangum case is a turncoat defense attorney whose primary objective is to protect Duke University Hospital... he is also in cahoots with the prosecution to sink his own client.

The truth in the Crystal Mangum case would be a boon to her. Meier and Mangum's other attorneys did not want her to know the truth... and they surely did not want me to get a hold of the truth and document it on my blog site online.; July 19, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Are you still visiting with Ms. Mangum? How is she doing?

Yes. I visit her weekly, if I can... that is if she has no other visitors.

She is holding up remarkably well under the circumstances. I attribute that to her strongly held religious convictions. And, yes, I have given her my optimistic view that she will be soon released with her conviction overturned.; July 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney says:

"The main issue is that Mangum is entitled to a written report."

Right, so Sidney can get his hands on it and make up some more stuff.

Yes, and no. If I get my hands on the report pertaining to Mangum you can bet that I'll put it on this blog site so that it will be readily available for all humanity. I believe in openness and transparency in my investigation... unlike the State and others.

Would you prefer not to see a report and thereby remain ignorant of the facts? I don't think so...

(And to clarify... I don't make up stuff. I analyze and elucidate.); July 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Kenhyderal,
So do something about it! Come to Durham, hire an attorney! Tell the people at the Canadian consulate that you lost your passport; they'll give you a new one.
But PLEASE STOP WHINING!

gui, mon ami, you have not benefited with true enlightenment if you believe for one second that an attorney will work for Mangum in her best interests over that of Duke University Hospital. No way! They'll accept a fee, then sell her out just like Meier.; July 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
But Dr. Roberts did not conclude that malpractice or intubation was the sole cause(s) of Mr. Daye's demise. To the contracry, she concluded that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from being stabbed by Mangum. For Mangum's attorney to put Dr. Roberts on the stand to reinforce the prosecution's claim that Mr. Daye died due to complications from the stab wound inflicted by Mangum would be sheer idiocy, bordering on malpractice, as would requiring her to produce a report to that effect which would then have to be turned over to the prosecution.

Nothing Dr. Roberts had to say (or write) was of any help to Mangum. I know Sid was curious about Dr. Roberts' findings, but he is neither an expert, an attorney, or even a licensed physician. Mangum's attorney and Dr. Roberts could not abandon their obligations to Mangum by having Dr. Roberts produce a written report to satisfy Sid's curiosity (based on his misunderstand of the law and facts of Mangum's case), or, worse yet, for Sid to publish on this website, for the world to see, in order to advance his baseless theories.

This point has been discussed over and over again. It is obvious to rational people. Pounding this point hasn't gotten you anywhere thus far and it never will. If anything, you lose ground when you make ridiculous, provably false claims. You really need to come up with something else.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Abe, Notice how Dr. Roberts, like Dr. Nichols, refuse to mention the specific complication that led to Daye's death. It was the esophageal intubation that resulted in Daye's brain death. That is why Daye was removed from life-support and died... because he was brain dead. He certainly did not have an infection from the stab wound or its repair... nor did he hemorrhage out or go into shock secondary to the stab wound. Daye's demise began with the errant intubation for treatment of his delirium tremens. It's that simple.; July 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Abe, the only thing that had to be proven was that the intubation malpractice was sole cause fatal malpractice. The defense autopsy report was needed to document and question the malpractice, since the state's autopsy report covered it up and made other eroneous claims. Because of those reasons the defense autopsy report was CRITICAL to the case. The malpractice was keeping the written report from Ms. Mangum in the way that it was done since the evidence contained within it is so critical to the case.

Well said... it deserves repeating.; July 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Abe, Notice how Dr. Roberts, like Dr. Nichols, refuse to mention the specific complication that led to Daye's death. It was the esophageal intubation that resulted in Daye's brain death. That is why Daye was removed from life-support and died... because he was brain dead. He certainly did not have an infection from the stab wound or its repair... nor did he hemorrhage out or go into shock secondary to the stab wound. Daye's demise began with the errant intubation for treatment of his delirium tremens. It's that simple."

If that was going to be Mangum's defense, she needed an expert to testify to that effect. Dr. Roberts wasn't that expert. To the contrary, Dr. Roberts' opinion was that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound inflicted by Mangum.

To date you have been unable to find an expert to support your theory that the knife wound Mangum inflicted was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. Until you do, the ME's findings are uncontested facts.

There is simply no evidence to support your theory that Mangum's stab wound was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. There is no way around that for you or Mangum and nothing for a court to review or reconsider, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 19, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: mr. harr:

"He certainly did not have an infection from the stab wound or its repair... nor did he hemorrhage out or go into shock secondary to the stab wound. Daye's demise began with the errant intubation for treatment of his delirium tremens. It's that simple"

mr.harr agin shows how viciously and incredibly stupid. The only thing simple here is mr. arr, as in simpleton.; July 19, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Abe,

You misunderstand the legal analysis on this blog.

Sidney, Kenny and Tinfoil, as master debaters, are responsible only for stating their conclusions. These conclusions must be accepted as established facts unless a reader can prove with certainty that any conclusion could not possibly be true.

It is insufficient to prove a conclusion false with known evidence. Unknown evidence (I.e, that not introduced in the trial or even known to exist) is sufficient to overcome all of the evidence that is known to exist. Few, if any, conclusions can be disproven with certainty when one is forced to consider unknown evidence.

Moreover, in determining the requirements of the law, an analysis of case law is irrelevant. None of Sidney, Kenny and Tinfoil are lawyers, and none has access to the nearest law library. The internet and other libraries are inconvenient. They cannot perform any research. It is unfair for lawyers, who have access to case law, to use this advantage. As a result, any interpretation of the law proposed by Sidney, Kenny or Tinfoil must be accepted as fact.

The conclusions all must accept are as follows:

1. Mangum is not responsible for Daye's death because she was not consulted in the decision to remove him from life support.
2. Mangum is not responsible for Daye's death because the esophageal intubation cut off her liability.
3. No expert opinion is necessary to support those conclusions because Nichols and Roberts conspired against Mangum.
4. The case law discussed on this blog is irrelevant. If Sidney had access to the nearest law library, he would be able to provide cases that reached a different conclusion.
5. Mangum acted in self-defense because Daye initiated the violent confrontation when he kicked in the door and dragged Mangum by her hair. She was entitled to do anything she wanted to protect herself.
6. No case law that limits self-defense is relevant for the reasons discussed above.

I hope this explanation is helpful.; July 19, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: mr. harr said:

"And to clarify... I don't make up stuff. I analyze and elucidate.

Boy is mr. harr deluded.; July 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: mr. harr said...

"Anonymous said...
Abe, the only thing that had to be proven was that the intubation malpractice was sole cause fatal malpractice. The defense autopsy report was needed to document and question the malpractice, since the state's autopsy report covered it up and made other eroneous claims. Because of those reasons the defense autopsy report was CRITICAL to the case. The malpractice was keeping the written report from Ms. Mangum in the way that it was done since the evidence contained within it is so critical to the case."

And mr. harr, the viciously stupid simpleton deliberately ignores that Dr. Robert' report concurred with Dr. Nichols' report.; July 19, 2015 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Thank you for your replies Dr. Harr.

If I may question along this line a bit further and clarify: quite frankly as I may have stated before, my concern is that Ms. Mangum is under the impression that what you are doing outside the justice system (like making her case public on this blog) IS going to DIRECTLY result in her conviction overturned per your optimistic encouragement. THAT is NOT fair to Ms. Mangum (or any one else)

1 of 3 (continued below); July 19, 2015 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Is Ms. Mangum aware that she herself needs to write and submit a MAR in order for her concerns to be heard in the justice system where her freedom has to be won? The way to the innocence commission is through a MAR from my understanding in reading briefly about MARs. Have YOU read and understood the state's official explanation of MAR yet?

Does Ms. Mangum have ANY direct access to a legal library or the internet so that she too can understand what is required in a MAR and write and submit one herself that will be heard and judged fairly?

Do you think she will be able to accomplish writing one on her own with the information, encouragement from you, and resources that she has available to her at this time?

I would like to know beyond doubt that you are not leading her on into not actually fighting for her freedom on her own if that is what is required of her in the unjust legal and political environment that she is entrapped within.

Does she think YOU are going to submit motions and new appeals for her, or is she actively working on writing and submitting complaints, motions, MARS and a new appeal on her own?

Or, is she seeking the assistance of a different lawyer to assist her in writing and submitting these items?

2 of 3 (continued below); July 19, 2015 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Lastly, does Ms. Mangum have a copy of the MAR that the defense appeal attorney submitted yet? Is that MAR part of the public record?

Thank you again for your replies.

3 of 3; July 19, 2015 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney says:

(And to clarify... I don't make up stuff. I analyze and elucidate.)

But you do. You had the picture of both apartments from the beginning but you
decided to make up this breezeway story without any analysis of the photo or actually
going to the apartment. You made something up here and no amount of apology gets
you off the hook. You will take any discovery that comes your way from Magnum's trial
and contort it to something that is made up by just posting pieces of it in a sharlog.

You also love to make up the fact that Magnum will be out of prison by the end of July or August at the latest. But you do not state how this can happen. Other than
the truth will set Magnum free and you ordered the crying towels.; July 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said:To date you have been unable to find an expert to support your theory that the knife wound Mangum inflicted was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. Until you do, the ME's findings are uncontested facts.There is simply no evidence to support your theory that Mangum's stab wound was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.................... Yes there is. It is the expert testimony of those trauma surgeons who successfully treated the stab wound, the Doctor that diagnosed Daye's Delirium Tremens and also the sworn testimony of those who treated Daye in the ICU and were involved in the fatal medical error that SOLEY killed him. It was up to Attorney Meier to get this evidence and present it in Court to the Jury.; July 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Unless those surgeons acknowledge that while they thought he was successfully treated (something even the Police admitted), shit happens - and if he hadn't been stabbed the rest wouldn't have happened. And they started treatment for DTs and it didn't work, so they ruled it out.

See there are very simple answers to your issues (and they are noted in the medical records and Dr Roberts' report. Remember - Sid has acknowledged he doesn't have the complete records - and this could be just like the apartment - he has his theory so he is concealing evidence that contradicts his theory. He has done that many times. However, unlike the apartment, no one can get the complete records to verify it. But her lawyers and experts all had complete records and disagreed with Sid.

Again, you can believe that every lawyer and expert is part of some vast anti-Crystal conspiracy, or you can believe Sid is wrong.; July 20, 2015 at 3:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The defendant has to be able to view and review ALL the records - not just the lawyers - if they want to - so they can assist in their own defense.

Where are the rules written down that states what the defendent has a right to see when assisting in their own defense?; July 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid and Kenny aren't the Defendant - they are abusers of the Defendant. The Defendant was fully informed, until her two abusers convinced her that there was some vast conspiracy against her. It's classic abuse - make sure the person feels isolated and that everyone is against them but their abusers.

Each of Crystal's lawyers, and the experts, all told her the best avenue for her defense, and that the Roberts' report wasn't helpful. You can either believe they are all part of a vast conspiracy, despite no evidence, or you can believe that they were trying to help Crystal, but it's hard to overcome abusers - that's the whole cycle of violence that was discussed.

Sid and Kenny have been at it too long, much to Crystal's detriment, and Sid continues to do it - going to see her and pretending he's helping, when in reality he is just posting things on his Blog, which will accomplish nothing. I imagine he likes seeing her cry.; July 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: ken said:

"Yes there is. It is the expert testimony of those trauma surgeons who successfully treated the stab wound, the Doctor that diagnosed Daye's Delirium Tremens and also the sworn testimony of those who treated Daye in the ICU and were involved in the fatal medical error that SOLEY killed him. It was up to Attorney Meier to get this evidence and present it in Court to the Jury."

You are presuming facts not in evidence.; July 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: All ya'lls arguments don't even touch on the reality of the case.

If there was no problem with the malpractice - then why did Dr. Nichols risk his career and possible criminal charges to cover it up in the autopsy report? The only reason he did that was because he thought his errors would never be brought to light and that he would not be held accountable (because he was providing the same coverup and non-accountability for Duke). He was right. Now the appeal court is actively participating in the coverup and false prosecution.

The only reason anyone is aware of the corruption and cover-up is because Ms. Mangum had to ask Dr. Harr for help in understanding the discrepancies that are apparent between the state's autopsy report and duke's medical records. Otherwise, no one would know except for those whom covering up the medical issues discrepancies and malpractice benefited them personally, professionally, or politically. THAT is corruption and NO ONE has to accept that type of justice in the USA without a fight for their legally bestowed rights to fair and equal legal representation and protection.; July 20, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous said...

All ya'lls arguments don't even touch on the reality of the case.

If there was no problem with the malpractice - then why did Dr. Nichols risk his career and possible criminal charges to cover it up in the autopsy report? The only reason he did that was because he thought his errors would never be brought to light and that he would not be held accountable (because he was providing the same coverup and non-accountability for Duke). He was right. Now the appeal court is actively participating in the coverup and false prosecution.

The only reason anyone is aware of the corruption and cover-up is because Ms. Mangum had to ask Dr. Harr for help in understanding the discrepancies that are apparent between the state's autopsy report and duke's medical records. Otherwise, no one would know except for those whom covering up the medical issues discrepancies and malpractice benefited them personally, professionally, or politically. THAT is corruption and NO ONE has to accept that type of justice in the USA without a fight for their legally bestowed rights to fair and equal legal representation and protection.

July 20, 2015 at 5:17 AM"

You are viciously, delusionally and incredibly stupid all in one package.; July 20, 2015 at 7:37 AM
Anonymous said...: You are viciously, delusionally and incredibly stupid all in one package.

July 20, 2015 at 7:37 AM

you are an abusive cyberbullying evil duke troll who has been told to stop their abuse on this blog Many times, yet still persists; July 20, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous said...

You are viciously, delusionally and incredibly stupid all in one package.

July 20, 2015 at 7:37 AM

you are an abusive cyberbullying evil duke troll who has been told to stop their abuse on this blog Many times, yet still persists

July 20, 2015 at 7:46 AM"

Boy are you stressed over your incredible, deluded, vicious stupidity.; July 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Thanks for the explanation, but what you have in the Mangum case is a turncoat defense attorney...."

Sid, the only turncoat in this saga is you. You convinced Crystal to share with you her expert's report. Rather than offering her suggestions to go back to Dr. Roberts for further examination or explanation, you breached Crystal's confidence in you and published the report for the state, and all to see. They, through the turncoat Sid knew that Crystal had no evidence of an intervening act. From that sad point on, this whole blog has been an effort to cover up the fact that you are the turncoat. Not Meier, not Vann, not Shella, not Holmes. Just Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; July 20, 2015 at 11:01 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:24 wrote: "The internet and other libraries are inconvenient. They cannot perform any research. It is unfair for lawyers, who have access to case law, to use this advantage. As a result, any interpretation of the law proposed by Sidney, Kenny or Tinfoil must be accepted as fact."

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

The central failure of the master debaters is they are unwilling to learn the law. They simply wish and fantasize it to be what it is not. If they were truly interested in helping Crystal, or even if they were interested in understanding, they would figure out what the law is and then use it to understand what is going on. Instead, they rant and rave pointlessly and accomplish nothing.

Walt-in-Durham; July 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: What law gives the state's medical examiner the right to lie and coverup Duke's malpractice on the autopsy report Walt?

What law gives the appeal defense attorney the right to lie and coverup the state's ME's corrupt autopsy report and Duke's malpractice?; July 20, 2015 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Where are the rules located that govern the sharing of evidence with the defendant Walt?; July 20, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I propose that you are the master debater of legal issues on this blog Walt. Furthermore, it is evident that you rant and rave pointlessly and accomplish nothing except to egg on the evil duke troll gang and join in the abusive cyberbullying and trolling as you rant and rave about your duke centered versions of the law. In addition, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the corruption and cover-up of duke's malpractice that is very evident in this case. Lesser malpractice by duke in the lacrosse case was given your full legal attention is my guess, but greater malpractice resulting in the death of Mr. Daye is acceptable to you, as is the corruption apparent in the coverup of the same in the trial, appeal proceedings, charges and convinction. Your bias and discrimination and disregard for the safety of all citizens and visitors to this state is rather apparent.; July 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous Anonymous said...

I propose that you are the master debater of legal issues on this blog Walt. Furthermore, it is evident that you rant and rave pointlessly and accomplish nothing except to egg on the evil duke troll gang and join in the abusive cyberbullying and trolling as you rant and rave about your duke centered versions of the law. In addition, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the corruption and cover-up of duke's malpractice that is very evident in this case. Lesser malpractice by duke in the lacrosse case was given your full legal attention is my guess, but greater malpractice resulting in the death of Mr. Daye is acceptable to you, as is the corruption apparent in the coverup of the same in the trial, appeal proceedings, charges and convinction. Your bias and discrimination and disregard for the safety of all citizens and visitors to this state is rather apparent.

July 20, 2015 at 12:27 PM"

Another example of vicious delusional incredible stupidity.; July 20, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous said...

What law gives the state's medical examiner the right to lie and coverup Duke's malpractice on the autopsy report Walt?

What law gives the appeal defense attorney the right to lie and coverup the state's ME's corrupt autopsy report and Duke's malpractice?

July 20, 2015 at 11:27 AM"

Who has shown that the state medical examiner lied, that Duke committed malpractice in the first place?

mr. harr? kenny?

Neither one of those unworthies has the medical expertise to recognize malpractice or to evaluate an autopsy report.

Who really posted this. either mr. harr or kenny posting anonymously.; July 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Black lives don't matter.That's why they kill each other in such large numbers.The black murder rate is six times higher than it is for whites.; July 20, 2015 at 4:15 PM
guiowen said...: To the 4:15,
I realize you want to start trouble. No one here is going to pay attention to you.; July 20, 2015 at 5:47 PM
guiowen said...: Walt,
Why do you bother answering TinFoil et al? They just like to bitch.; July 20, 2015 at 5:47 PM
Walt said...: Guiowen wrote: "Walt,
Why do you bother answering TinFoil et al? They just like to bitch."

Someone might stumble across this blog and think tinfoil, Sid or Kenny is right about something. Plus, it's one of my weaknesses, I like to make fun of them. But, I'm workin' on that.

Walt-in-Durham; July 21, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

So now that you are going to try to play nice, mind answering the following questions:

What law gives the state's medical examiner the right to lie and coverup Duke's malpractice on the autopsy report Walt?

What law gives the appeal defense attorney the right to lie and coverup the state's ME's corrupt autopsy report and Duke's malpractice?

Where are the rules located that govern the sharing of evidence with the defendant Walt?; July 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "Where are the rules located that govern the sharing of evidence with the defendant Walt?"

I'm not Walt, but the rules can be found here.

The NC State Bar has ruled that a lawyer must allow the client the opportunity to meaningfully review relevant discovery material, unless some specific reasons exist that prevent the defendant from doing so (disclosure of the discovery materials will endanger the safety or welfare of the client or others, for example)

The rule does not require a lawyer to provide the client with a copy of the materials.; July 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: If Duke is required by law to take responsibility and accountability for their malpractice, then by law, wouldn't it be their responsibility to inform the Appeal Court that their malpractice was not mentioned in the Appeal briefs and decision to the obvious level of the date of death being misstated in order to omit their malpractice completely? Are they not legally responsible for their malpractice even to that level of accountability? If not legally, than certainly ethically and morally?

Where are the laws that govern the legal responsibility that duke has for its own malpractice located?; July 21, 2015 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walt,

So now that you are going to try to play nice, mind answering the following questions:

What law gives the state's medical examiner the right to lie and coverup Duke's malpractice on the autopsy report Walt?

What law gives the appeal defense attorney the right to lie and coverup the state's ME's corrupt autopsy report and Duke's malpractice?

Where are the rules located that govern the sharing of evidence with the defendant Walt?

July 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM"

Presumes facts not i evidence:

1) That Duke committed malpractice

2) That Dr. Nichols falsified the autopsy report

3) that Crystal's defense attorney lied to cover up for Duke and for Dr. Nichols; July 21, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Lance the Intern said...: I think that medical malpractice is covered in NCGS 90.; July 21, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for your help Lance.; July 21, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Lance the Intern said...: You're welcome :); July 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't forget Rule 9(j) for Civil Matters - in order to sue for malpractice, you need an expert appropriately qualified and willing to (or able to) testify that it was Malpractice. Sid doesn't qualify.

And, of course - tinfoil and the abusers still have no idea if Duke did commit malpractice, or even if they did, if they already took responsibility and paid.

Crystal is in prison because the Jury determined she did not act in self-defense. She is not in prison because of anything Duke did.; July 21, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: She wouldn't be in prison if duke didn't kill Mr. Daye with malpractice since the prognosis was for full recovery from the stab wound after the operation, all of which is documented and in evidence in the Duke medical reports. So, yes, Duke had a LOT to do with the death of Mr. Daye. She did not kill him with a knife. Duke killed him with an intubation tube and subsequent placement on, and removal from, life support.

The question about malpractice was about the legal obligation of Duke to take responsibility for their own malpractice. Certainly allowing the malpractice to be covered up in the autopsy report (as noted in the defense autopsy report for evidence sake) is NOT taking legal responsibility and accountability for their own malpractice.

Saying Ms. Mangum killed Mr. Daye is a gross misrepresentation of the facts in evidence in this case.; July 21, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: But for the stabbing of Mr. Daye, he would not have been in the hospital.; July 21, 2015 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: What about Reginald Daye? He clearly has some fault in this. After all, he is the one who stubbornly refused to recover, even though his surgery was successful and he was given a favorable prognosis.; July 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: She still would have been a convicted felon had Daye recovered - Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury - and would have received around 83 months, or she could have gotten lucky and only gotten the Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury and gotten 29 months. But, she'd still be a convicted felon without self-defense, and despite the abusers' whining, that was tried and rejected by the jury.; July 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:53:

The answers to your questions: no, no, no, Lance provided answer.; July 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: July 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM:

You do not know that. It would have a completely different trial if Duke had not killed Mr. Daye with sole cause malpractice since Ms. Mangum presumably would Not have had to keep fighting for legal assistance against the injustice of a state's autopsy report that differed dramatically from the Duke medical records as was documented in the defense autopsy report that was consistently withheld from her by her own lawyers, and was Not used in legal defense as she wanted, and resulted in her false arrest and conviction for murder.; July 21, 2015 at 7:22 PM
guiowen said...: Anon 7:22,
So do something about it!; July 21, 2015 at 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: What do you suggest that is reasonable and will actually bring a change to this case that is really just another example of what Duke and the Duke / Durham / NC injustice system is all about?; July 21, 2015 at 8:35 PM
guiowen said...: Hire a lawyer. Take this to the Supreme Court.; July 21, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: How do you propose finding a lawyer who is not conflicted with the Duke / NC injustice system IN NC to hire for this case?; July 22, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke gets sued all the time - clearly many lawyers have no problem suing Duke.; July 22, 2015 at 3:38 AM
guiowen said...: Find the lawyers who sued Duke on behalf of the lacrosse players.; July 22, 2015 at 4:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Certainly the lawyers who sued duke in the lacrosse case ALL have a very obvious conflict of interests with Ms. Mangum and most probably have very real conflict of interests with duke themselves ... seriously ... do you even think about what you are saying on this blog? ever?; July 22, 2015 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: If malpractice is a civil law issue then wouldn't it have been fair to assign Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was familiar with malpractice legal issues as well as murder defense issues? Quite obviously, yes.

However, instead, the Durham Public Defender's Office assigned Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was publically complained about on a dedicated web-site to the subject by a father of a Duke lacrosse team member for not taking their legal case to the civil level as they wanted after winning a dismissal of a legal case for them because he (Ms. Mangum's final defense lawyer) did NOT 'do' civil cases. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST right off the bat. In addition, he had NO murder defense experience to speak of. WHAT were they thinking? ???; July 22, 2015 at 6:05 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Certainly the lawyers who sued duke in the lacrosse case ALL have a very obvious conflict of interests with Ms. Mangum"

Why? Ms. Mangum was never identified as a co-defendant in either of the lawsuits that Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann filed against Duke or the City of Durham.; July 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Then call yourselves and report back here their answer to the question: Do You have a conflict of interest with Ms. Mangum or with Duke?

If they answer NO, ask them if they would consider giving legal defense assistance in this case.

We will all be waiting for your most accurate, un-biased, non-conflicted answers.

Right ... so off you go ...; July 22, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: If malpractice is a civil law issue then wouldn't it have been fair to assign Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was familiar with malpractice legal issues as well as murder defense issues? Quite obviously, yes.

However, instead, the Durham Public Defender's Office assigned Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was publically complained about on a dedicated web-site to the subject by a father of a Duke lacrosse team member for not taking their legal case to the civil level as they wanted after winning a dismissal of a legal case for them because he (Ms. Mangum's final defense lawyer) did NOT 'do' civil cases. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST right off the bat. In addition, he had NO murder defense experience to speak of. WHAT were they thinking? ???

So, Meier's healthcare background is now something that should be a positive? And if you think anything said on that other website is credible - that's probably the only person on the planet crazier than the two abusers. Read his website and his claims.

You are a blithering idiot who has no clue. Find some other poor woman to abuse and torture.; July 22, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at wrote: "If malpractice is a civil law issue then wouldn't it have been fair to assign Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was familiar with malpractice legal issues as well as murder defense issues? Quite obviously, yes."

She was assigned lawyers who are very familiar with medical issues. Woody Vann did exactly the right thing and got an expert to give the defense an independent medical examination. Unfortunately for Crystal, her her expert concluded that the cause of death was complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. That is evidence that confirms the state's evidence. Hence, Vann, Holmes, and ultimately Meier advised Crystal not to call Dr. Roberts as a witness. No need to confirm the Medical Examiner's conclusion. That is also why they elected not to call any treating physicians. If two M.D.s agree, it's highly unlikely that you will find a third to disagree.

"CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST right off the bat."

The only lawyer with a conflict of interest was Scott Holmes. A lawyer he was supervising at NCCU represented the father of a couple of Crystal's children in a custody and support matter against her. When Holmes discovered that conflict, he wisely withdrew from representing Crystal.

Walt-in-Durham; July 22, 2015 at 7:08 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "....ask them if they would consider giving legal defense assistance in this case."

Oh, I doubt they will give any assistance -- now if you, Kenny, and Sid were willing to pay for it, I'm sure they would consider.

Are you willing to pay?

"If malpractice is a civil law issue then wouldn't it have been fair to assign Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was familiar with malpractice legal issues as well as murder defense issues? Quite obviously, yes."

Do public defenders handle civil law cases? I thought organizations like LANC did that....; July 22, 2015 at 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: You really don't even TRY to understand what is being said on this blog do you? Ever. You just turn everything into a false accusation and maliciously distorted intent, and then turn around crazy-making style and cyberbully by slandering your own maliciously distorted intent. On and on and on. Copy and paste this post after each of your posts why don't you so you can troll some more and copy and paste this post over and over and over again until you understand. Thanks.; July 22, 2015 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

Obviously what the lawyers needed to argue was the sole cause malpractice clause of the murder law due to the death by complications (not by the stab wound). This should have been done in court due to the discrepancies in the state autopsy report at the least, but before the case went to court in pre-trial events like the DA actually investigating the state medical examiner's for the discrepancies on the autopsy report used to charge Ms. Mangum for murder. The DA had the responsibility and failed to do their duty to the public and as required by due process in this case, as is still the case apparently.; July 22, 2015 at 7:25 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "...sole cause malpractice clause of the murder law"

Can you provide a reference for this clause? Like a case name or statute?; July 22, 2015 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Meier isn't a Public Defender, he is a private lawyer and also handles Civil cases - but not for free. A Court Appointed Client gets representation on Criminal cases, not Civil cases - the State does not pay that attorney for Civil representation. Plus, the claim would have to have merit, and even a cursory review of the other website shows that individual is nuts, so no attorney would take the case.

You really need to try harder to find crazy conspiracies and reasons.

Crystal is in prison because she stabbed Daye and the jury rejected self-defense. That's it. That's why. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.; July 22, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: SHE did not murder Mr. Daye - Duke killed him with sole cause malpractice. THAT needs to be argued in court, not just on this blog. The Appeal Court mistated facts in evidence, like the date of death, to coverup Duke's malpractice COMPLETELY which is wrong and unjust any way you look at it.

Just because the lacrosse player's dad is nuts in your opinion does NOT mean that Mr. Meier did NOT become conflicted to Ms. Mangum in that case.

This case involved malpractice by Duke and the state's medical examiner, which apparently involve civil laws, so THAT is why a lawyer who is knowledgeable about malpractice civil issues AND murder defense litigation was and still is required in this criminal case for equal protection and fair representation

If you do not understand my point of view on these issues at this point, please read again until you do to satisfy your need to argue about this isssue further with me. Thanks.; July 22, 2015 at 7:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Walt,

Obviously what the lawyers needed to argue was the sole cause malpractice clause of the murder law due to the death by complications (not by the stab wound). This should have been done in court due to the discrepancies in the state autopsy report at the least, but before the case went to court in pre-trial events like the DA actually investigating the state medical examiner's for the discrepancies on the autopsy report used to charge Ms. Mangum for murder. The DA had the responsibility and failed to do their duty to the public and as required by due process in this case, as is still the case apparently.

Well stated. Durham district attorneys since Mike Nifong have failed Crystal Mangum, and current DA Roger Echols failed the recent alleged rape victim of the Duke University Fraternity.; July 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at wrote: "If malpractice is a civil law issue then wouldn't it have been fair to assign Ms. Mangum a defense lawyer who was familiar with malpractice legal issues as well as murder defense issues? Quite obviously, yes."

She was assigned lawyers who are very familiar with medical issues. Woody Vann did exactly the right thing and got an expert to give the defense an independent medical examination. Unfortunately for Crystal, her her expert concluded that the cause of death was complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. That is evidence that confirms the state's evidence. Hence, Vann, Holmes, and ultimately Meier advised Crystal not to call Dr. Roberts as a witness. No need to confirm the Medical Examiner's conclusion. That is also why they elected not to call any treating physicians. If two M.D.s agree, it's highly unlikely that you will find a third to disagree.

"CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST right off the bat."

The only lawyer with a conflict of interest was Scott Holmes. A lawyer he was supervising at NCCU represented the father of a couple of Crystal's children in a custody and support matter against her. When Holmes discovered that conflict, he wisely withdrew from representing Crystal.

Walt-in-Durham

Yeah, Walt... Woody Vann did get a forensic pathologist to look at the case after I met with him. But he should've done so long before because he had been in receipt of electronic communication on April 14, 2011 (the day following Daye's death) which clearly insinuated that a mistake with a tube was responsible for Daye's death and not the knife, and that Duke was keeping it quiet.

Ding-a-ling!; July 22, 2015 at 8:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Duke gets sued all the time - clearly many lawyers have no problem suing Duke.

Lawyers have no problem filing suit against anybody as long as they're being paid. That does not mean that they won't sell out their client in favor of Duke University or any other big-bucks defendant.; July 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Don't forget Rule 9(j) for Civil Matters - in order to sue for malpractice, you need an expert appropriately qualified and willing to (or able to) testify that it was Malpractice. Sid doesn't qualify.

And, of course - tinfoil and the abusers still have no idea if Duke did commit malpractice, or even if they did, if they already took responsibility and paid.

Crystal is in prison because the Jury determined she did not act in self-defense. She is not in prison because of anything Duke did.

Crystal is in prison because she was represented consistently by turncoat attorneys who sold her out. I could've gotten an acquittal for her if given the chance. Crystal is very intelligent, and I believe that she could've gotten an acquittal or hung jury had she represented herself... something which I tried extremely hard to get her to do. Face it, she couldn't have done any worse.; July 22, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: She could have gotten 1st Degree and LWOP, which has clearly been your goal all along.

You have some bizarre obsession with Duke, and you are abusing Crystal to feed into it.

You are a disgrace, but I know you know that - you just don't care - abusers never do.; July 22, 2015 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: She could have gotten 1st Degree and LWOP, which has clearly been your goal all along.

You have some bizarre obsession with Duke, and you are abusing Crystal to feed into it.

You are a disgrace, but I know you know that - you just don't care - abusers never do.; July 22, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
" Anonymous said...

What law gives the state's medical examiner the right to lie and coverup Duke's malpractice on the autopsy report Walt?

What law gives the appeal defense attorney the right to lie and coverup the state's ME's corrupt autopsy report and Duke's malpractice?

July 20, 2015 at 11:27 AM"

Who has shown that the state medical examiner lied, that Duke committed malpractice in the first place?

mr. harr? kenny?

Neither one of those unworthies has the medical expertise to recognize malpractice or to evaluate an autopsy report.

Who really posted this. either mr. harr or kenny posting anonymously.

Answer me this: Was Daye's spleen removed by surgeons during emergency surgery as testified to by Dr. Nichols under oath, or was Daye's spleen mildly injured and treated with electrocautery and Surgi-cel (as stated in the operative report) and was it present at autopsy described by Dr. Nichols himself in his autopsy report?; July 22, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Thanks for the explanation, but what you have in the Mangum case is a turncoat defense attorney...."

Sid, the only turncoat in this saga is you. You convinced Crystal to share with you her expert's report. Rather than offering her suggestions to go back to Dr. Roberts for further examination or explanation, you breached Crystal's confidence in you and published the report for the state, and all to see. They, through the turncoat Sid knew that Crystal had no evidence of an intervening act. From that sad point on, this whole blog has been an effort to cover up the fact that you are the turncoat. Not Meier, not Vann, not Shella, not Holmes. Just Sid.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, I can't understand your reasoning. Clearly Mangum's attorneys sold her out, otherwise she would not have been convicted. She was represented at trial by a Reverse Perry Mason.; July 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
She could have gotten 1st Degree and LWOP, which has clearly been your goal all along.

You have some bizarre obsession with Duke, and you are abusing Crystal to feed into it.

You are a disgrace, but I know you know that - you just don't care - abusers never do.

WRONG-O!! I don't have an obsession with Duke. I have an obsession with truth and justice. I am a rectifier.

As far as first degree murder, her best shot at a conviction for that was with Daniel Meier representing her. It took a skillful job of sabotage and a jury composed with a quarter of jurors related to Duke University in order to reach the second degree murder conviction.; July 22, 2015 at 8:40 AM
guiowen said...: Actually, finding a lawyer should be quite simple.
1. Go to any law firm in town.
2. Ask to talk to one of their lawyers.
3. Ask him/her whether he/she has any conflict with Duke.
4. If the answer is no, ask for a list of all cases he/she has tried over the past twenty-five years.
5.Point out that that in cases of lies, you will post the lawyer's name on the J4N blog detailing these lies.
6. Repeat with another lawyer in that firm.
7. Do this over and over with all the other law firms in town.

You will eventually find a non-conflicted lawyer. This may take time, but you would probably have spent some of this time playing tiddly-winks with your friends. Clearly setting Crystal free is more important that your tiddly-winks game.

Please keep us advised of your progress.; July 22, 2015 at 8:50 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:25 wrote: "Obviously what the lawyers needed to argue was the sole cause malpractice clause of the murder law due to the death by complications (not by the stab wound)."

You are correct. They only way the medical treatment is relevant is if it is the sole cause of death. That's what we call in the law an intervening cause. It is memorialized in the pattern jury instructions and those come from Welch and Holsclaw. However, to make this argument, there has to be evidence, either in the form of an expert to testify that the medical treatment was not related to the stab wound, or a treating physician to make that statement as an allegation of fact. The problem is, there is no expert or fact witness to say this. Lawyers cannot argue facts not in evidence. Further, just putting the medical record into evidence does not provide enough evidence for the lawyer to make the leap to sole cause in light of the fact that the ME has already testified that there is no intervening cause. Worse, the defense expert agrees with the state.

This should have been done in court due to the discrepancies in the state autopsy report..."

The discrepancies you allege are not going to support your theory. You have to have a witness to testify.

Walt-in-Durham; July 22, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: don't troll or cyberbully me again g...

in fact, due to your constant nonstop abuse, don't post anything to or about me again ... ever

thanks; July 22, 2015 at 9:00 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, I can't understand your reasoning."

Yes, you can. You know that Crystal trusted you with the IME report. You know you violated that trust and publicized that report.

"Clearly Mangum's attorneys sold her out, otherwise she would not have been convicted. She was represented at trial by a Reverse Perry Mason."

Sid is the only person who sold anyone out. Your reasoning is faulty, all I can think is your paranoia is impeding your ability to reason.

Walt-in-Durham; July 22, 2015 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Walt, the malpractice issues and discrepancy issues on the autopsy reports needs to be argued in court just like I was saying. Too bad the injustice system chose to commit even more crimes of injustice and professional malpractice by covering-up Duke's malpractice instead, eh.; July 22, 2015 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Does Ms. Mangum need assistance in writing a MAR and/or new Appeal brief herself?
Does she require assistance in addressing the errors in the current Appeal decision?; July 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You said:

"Yeah, Walt... Woody Vann did get a forensic pathologist to look at the case after I met with him. But he should've done so long before because he had been in receipt of electronic communication on April 14, 2011 (the day following Daye's death) which clearly insinuated that a mistake with a tube was responsible for Daye's death and not the knife, and that Duke was keeping it quiet."

July 22, 2015 at 8:12 AM

I was not aware of these blogs at that time Dr. Harr so am not knowledgeable about Mr. Vann's involvement in this case in large degree.

Why did Mr. Vann receive an electronic communication about the intubation malpractice the day after Mr Daye's death, and who did he receive it from?

How exactly did Mr. Vann become involved in this case?

Do you have a copy of the electronic communication you speak of, or is it already posted to this blog?; July 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:06 wrote: "So, Walt, the malpractice issues and discrepancy issues on the autopsy reports needs to be argued in court just like I was saying."

No, not the way you are saying it. Crystal needed a witness to say it. Her witness, her expert, disagreed. She can't argue facts not in evidence. No witness, no facts.

"Too bad the injustice system chose to commit even more crimes of injustice and professional malpractice by covering-up Duke's malpractice instead, eh."

There was no injustice other than Sid's. Crystal got an expert and the expert agreed with the state. That's not an injustice. That's just the facts. There is no intervening cause. What Crystal was left with is self defense. The jury didn't believe her testimony about self defense. That's not an injustice. There is plenty of evidence to tell us she was being untruthful. She was contradicted on cross examination too many times. Her testimony did not line up with the circumstantial evidence.

Walt-in-Durham; July 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil ranted:

"SHE did not murder Mr. Daye - Duke killed him with sole cause malpractice. THAT needs to be argued in court, not just on this blog. The Appeal Court mistated facts in evidence, like the date of death, to coverup Duke's malpractice COMPLETELY which is wrong and unjust any way you look at it."

That's the exact type of legal reasoning that helped get Mangum into the mess she is in.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

The circumstantial evidence needed to include many things that the prosecution either kept from the jury themselves and/or prohibited the defense from presenting and cross-examing, and/or the defense attorney did not present, cross-examine, or provide adequate defense legal assistance themselves. You can say they did, but that is more a statement on your own ethical and professional perspective which is quite obviously biased against Ms. Mangum - nothing else. You can say it is not all you want, but that will NOT change the fact that it obviously is.; July 22, 2015 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Only because the injustice system knew that is what needed to happen, but choose to coverup the malpractice instead of addressing it Abe.; July 22, 2015 at 10:00 AM
guiowen said...: Tinfoil,
I'm only trying to help you! Just for that. I won't answer any more of your questions -- at least until you answer my questions of June 2.; July 22, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: " Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
Don't forget Rule 9(j) for Civil Matters - in order to sue for malpractice, you need an expert appropriately qualified and willing to (or able to) testify that it was Malpractice. Sid doesn't qualify.

And, of course - tinfoil and the abusers still have no idea if Duke did commit malpractice, or even if they did, if they already took responsibility and paid.

Crystal is in prison because the Jury determined she did not act in self-defense. She is not in prison because of anything Duke did.

Crystal is in prison because she was represented consistently by turncoat attorneys who sold her out. I could've gotten an acquittal for her if given the chance. Crystal is very intelligent, and I believe that she could've gotten an acquittal or hung jury had she represented herself... something which I tried extremely hard to get her to do. Face it, she couldn't have done any worse.

July 22, 2015 at 8:22 AM"

mr. harr again manifests his delusional, vicious incredible stupidity.; July 22, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Nifong Supporter said

"WRONG-O!! I don't have an obsession with Duke."

Which must explain why you have spent so much time pushing your frivolous lawsuit against Duke all these years.

"I have an obsession with truth and justice."

No, your obsessions are with getting people to believe innocent men are guilty of raping crystal in the face of overwhelming evidence she lied about being raped, and in getting your favorite murderess a pass for her crime.

"I am a rectifier."

N you are merely the outlet of a rectum.; July 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Fake guiowen said...: Actually, Tinfoil, don't worry. Sidney has promised CGM will be out of jail within six weeks.; July 22, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney likes to see Crystal cry.; July 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM
guiowen said...: So, Tinfoil,
Any luck finding a lawyer?; July 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "How exactly did Mr. Vann become involved in this case?"

He was appointed after Sid caused Chris Shella to withdraw.; July 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Woody Vann was representing Crystal when it was just an Assault With a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury Charge. It was upgraded to Murder, and he was appointed to that.

Chris Shella volunteered to represent Crystal for free (the publicity), but when Sid started destroying the case, and made it clear he wouldn't stop and would turn Crystal against all of her lawyers, he withdrew.

Woody Vann was appointed again. He stayed on until Sid convinced Crystal that Woody was a Duke plant, and was betraying her and refusing to provide an adequate defense (in part because he wouldn't file Motions to Dismiss that had no basis in law).

Crystal then represented herself for a while, until she decided she probably did need some help, as she realized Sid was more of an abuser and idiot than a friend.

Scott Holmes was appointed. He did a good job of getting Crystal to see how bad Sid really was, even if he couldn't stop Sid, until he changed jobs, which created a conflict.

Daniel Meier was then appointed - and Crystal avoided Sid until the end, when he started to get worried that she might win the case, so he pushed her, and her supporters to sabotage the case by pushing for the Roberts Report, and telling Crystal that self-defense was dangerous and to be worried about Felony Murder.

Anne Peterson was appointed to represent Crystal on appeal. That was unsuccessful, so she is done with Court Appointed lawyers, unless she can convince a Judge that a MAR has merit.

That is the history of her attorneys.; July 22, 2015 at 4:13 PM
guiowen said...: That is why it's important for Tinfoil and Kenny to join forces and collect the money for an attorney. They prefer however to reject my advice, so there is little chance that Crystal will get out before 2026.; July 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal had competent attorneys (despite what her 2 abusers and deluded Tinfoil claim) - she's not getting out because it was a clean trial, based on the law, and the only betrayal was Kenny and Sid.; July 22, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: no one needs your cyberbullying advice g... on this blog

DO NOT post about me or to me again ... EVER

YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED TROLLING AND CYBERBULLYING ME SINCE DAY ONE AND THAT HAS BEEN YEARS NOW

YOU ARE A HATECRIME CYBERBULLY WHO IS BEING TOLD TO STOP BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT

THIS INCLUDES YOUR ANNONYMOUS CYBERBULLYING AND TROLLING; July 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil ... are you getting upset? It's funny - you really are delusional and paranoid - so many people post anonymously, but you think every post is about you.

Sid is a doctor - perhaps you should talk to him to see if he can help you with your obvious issues.; July 22, 2015 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:16pm:

Please stop yelling.; July 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The question you have to ask yourself, Tinfoil, is: Are you just a paranoid loon, or are they really out to get you?

Let us know when you figure it out.; July 22, 2015 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I am a citizen witness to this case who has asked ya'll to stop cyberbullying and trolling me on this blog since day one, and that has been years now. Certainly ya'll should have understood that request by now, so now you are just being intentional, malicious cyberbullies with absolutely no excuse for continuing your malicious behavior except to provide sufficiently more examples of your hate crime motivated cyberbullying.; July 22, 2015 at 5:48 PM
guiowen said...: But Tinfoil,
I'm only trying to help you. Did I inadvertently hurt your feelings?; July 22, 2015 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Please, guiowen, please stop helping him. His yelling hurts my ears.; July 22, 2015 at 5:58 PM
guiowen said...: But he's such a sweet little boy!; July 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: mr. harr:

"Answer me this: Was Daye's spleen removed by surgeons during emergency surgery as testified to by Dr. Nichols under oath, or was Daye's spleen mildly injured and treated with electrocautery and Surgi-cel (as stated in the operative report) and was it present at autopsy described by Dr. Nichols himself in his autopsy report?"

Tell us what relevamce this has as to whether Duke University Medical Center was negligent in its treatment of Reginald Daye.; July 23, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Anonymous said...: It is one of the issues used when trying to decide who was wrong in the vastly differing medical reports: what duke said they did, and how Dr. Nichols described Mr. Daye's corpse after he left duke. This line of questioning is needed, because according to Dr. Nichols, at some time while in duke major damage was done to Mr. Daye that is not documented (in fact documentation exists in evidence that contradicts many items Dr. Nichols noted on the autopsy report). In other words, for Dr. Nichols to have noted what HE saw, duke would have to have lied extensively in their medical reports and mutilated Mr. Daye horribly before sending him on to the medical examiner. So it is an indication that Dr. Nichols was lying and not duke.

Without it to indicate that Dr. Nichols was the one negligent in his autopsy exam, report, and testimony, Dr. Nichols report actually documents extensive negligent malpractice and non-truths by duke. Who is to be believed, duke medical reports or Dr. Nichols report that documents that duke did some really horrible things to Mr. Daye and then lied about it in their medical records? THAT is why these questions need to answered in a trial that convicts anyone of murder. The evidence is in doubt beyond reason as to the true cause of death.; July 23, 2015 at 4:37 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:37 AM wrote: " Dr. Nichols report actually documents extensive negligent malpractice and non-truths by duke. Who is to be believed, duke medical reports or Dr. Nichols report that documents that duke did some really horrible things to Mr. Daye and then lied about it in their medical records? THAT is why these questions need to answered in a trial that convicts anyone of murder. The evidence is in doubt beyond reason as to the true cause of death."

You may wish that to be true, but the law says that contributory negligence has no place in the criminal law. Anything done negligently by Duke simply does not constitute an intervening cause. If you don't like the law, quit pretending it is the way you want it to be and come up with an argument to change the law.

Simple conclusory statements are not argument. Tell us what policy reasons you have to change the law as it exists. Tell us why we would all benefit from a change in the law. (Getting Crystal out of jail is not a societal benefit, just a byproduct of successful argument.)

Walt-in-Durham; July 23, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Anonymous said...: The law already covers the possibility that a hospital's malpractice may be the sole cause of the death, even in a murder investigation and case, per what the judge stated at the beginning of the trial. If you think hospitals should be allowed to kill patients with their negligent deadly malpractice and not take responsibility for it contrary to what other laws state, you take it up with the justice system Walt. Seriously. Try to argue your reasoning with the court system like you do on this blog in your cyberbullying ways and we will all see how far that gets you.; July 23, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: And what is this blog getting you Tinfoil? You and the abusers keep spouting crap here - and it accomplishes nothing, but you cry a few more times, and the rest of us get a laugh at your expense.

You are a joke, this blog is a joke - and Sid only keeps it alive to further his abuse of Crystal. You stay on it because either you are in on the joke like the rest of us, or you really are just a pathetic little creature who is rapidly turning into Gollum.; July 23, 2015 at 7:37 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:52 wrote: " If you think hospitals should be allowed to kill patients with their negligent deadly malpractice and not take responsibility for it contrary to what other laws state, you take it up with the justice system Walt. Seriously."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Manual Buzzer.

The law covers that too. Negligence has no place in the common law. That is from our supreme court. So, you have to quit claiming negligence, as you just did, or you have to explain why the law should change. Try again.

Walt-in-Durham; July 23, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, State v. Faust, 258 N.C. 453, 459. (1963). How hard is it for you people to understand the law? Walt cited this for you long ago.

Any lawyer.; July 23, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is one of the issues used when trying to decide who was wrong in the vastly differing medical reports: what duke said they did, and how Dr. Nichols described Mr. Daye's corpse after he left duke. This line of questioning is needed, because according to Dr. Nichols, at some time while in duke major damage was done to Mr. Daye that is not documented (in fact documentation exists in evidence that contradicts many items Dr. Nichols noted on the autopsy report). In other words, for Dr. Nichols to have noted what HE saw, duke would have to have lied extensively in their medical reports and mutilated Mr. Daye horribly before sending him on to the medical examiner. So it is an indication that Dr. Nichols was lying and not duke.

Without it to indicate that Dr. Nichols was the one negligent in his autopsy exam, report, and testimony, Dr. Nichols report actually documents extensive negligent malpractice and non-truths by duke. Who is to be believed, duke medical reports or Dr. Nichols report that documents that duke did some really horrible things to Mr. Daye and then lied about it in their medical records? THAT is why these questions need to answered in a trial that convicts anyone of murder. The evidence is in doubt beyond reason as to the true cause of death.

July 23, 2015 at 4:37 AM"

You are just incredibly stupid.; July 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous at 4:37 AM wrote: " Dr. Nichols report actually documents extensive negligent malpractice and non-truths by duke."

No it doesn't.

"Who is to be believed, duke medical reports or Dr. Nichols report that documents that duke did some really horrible things to Mr. Daye and then lied about it in their medical records?"

You are seriously deluded.

"THAT is why these questions need to answered in a trial that convicts anyone of murder. The evidence is in doubt beyond reason as to the true cause of death."

There are no such questions. You are either kenny or mr. harr posting anonymously.; July 23, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Sid ... this latest bombshell wasn't ... what's your next plan of attack?; July 23, 2015 at 10:11 AM
The Rectumfinder said...: I am a rectifier.

Yes, but I am the Rectumfinder!

I'm gonna find your ass and drill you a new hole!; July 23, 2015 at 2:45 PM
guiowen said...: So, Tinfoil,
Have you done anything about finding an attorney? Is Kenny helping you? Are any of your friends contributing money?
Please keep us informed!; July 23, 2015 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: You really don't even TRY to understand what is being said on this blog do you? Ever. You just turn everything into a false accusation and maliciously distorted intent, and then turn around crazy-making style and cyberbully by slandering your own maliciously distorted intent. On and on and on. Copy and paste this post after each of your posts why don't you so you can troll some more and copy and paste this post over and over and over again until you understand. Thanks.; July 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: You are incredibly and viviously stupid.; July 23, 2015 at 4:57 PM
guiowen said...: But Tinfoil, you didn't answer me! All I do is try to help you and you won't answer!; July 23, 2015 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Tinfoil, we do try and understand what is being said on this blog - and we do. We have 2 people hell-bent on abusing Crystal (Kenny and Sid), and 1 person suffering from paranoid delusions (Tinfoil). Everyone else is just having fun and treating this as the joke it is.

It's sad what happened to Crystal, but she shouldn't have stabbed Daye. It's more sad that he's dead because Crystal couldn't control herself and chose to stab him rather than leave. He's the real victim here. Crystal is still alive.; July 24, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Anonymous said...: July 24, 2015 at 12:47 AM

Seems to me that you are the one suffering paranoid delusions if you think I am. I actually looked at the evidence and trial - you make everything up so you can abuse to amuse yourself further. You fool none but yourself.; July 24, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Anonymous said...: You rant and ramble about Duke - and the only "evidence" you've looked at is what the abuser Sid chooses to share - he's admitted he doesn't have access to everything, and as shown with the apartment story - he's not above lying and just making things up. Had someone not gone out and taken a picture - his lie would still be up and you'd be citing it as one more piece of "proof" that Mangum's attorney's betrayed her.

You ignore that Dr. Roberts, who reviewed everything and examined her findings to the attorneys, and Crystal herself, agreed with the autopsy conclusion. You can spin all you want, but if you think she was lying and would have folded and admitted that on the stand, you are more delusional than even we thought.

You really need to loosen the tinfoil a bit - your delusional brain is suffering from lack of oxygen!; July 24, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike Nifong is still lying about the Duke lacrosse players.He has no shame.I'm so glad they kicked him out of the legal profession but he should have been sent to prison.I hope Marilyn Moseby suffers the same fate.Free the Baltimore Six.; July 24, 2015 at 2:53 AM
Anonymous said...: I like to look at naked women as much as the next guy but Crystal Mangum - no way.She must have been a stripper for blind people.The lacrosse players found her repulsive as any normal white man would.; July 24, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: July 24, 2015 at 2:36 AM

Dr. Roberts is not exempt from questioning nor testimony in this trial. Her conclusion is NOT a verdict, and her stated findings are not clear when compared to the meaning of the law that the judge gave at the beginning of the trial. Is there some reason why you ALWAYS feel the need to demean people with each and every one of your posts? What is your problem?; July 24, 2015 at 4:45 AM
Anonymous said...: July 24, 2015 at 2:36 AM

Do you even live in NC? If so, surely you are aware of how 'broken' (that's how the papers term it) the entire government system is in NC. Have you ever asked yourself why didn't Dr. Roberts notify the DA herself about the major discrepancies she found in the state's autopsy report so that an investigation into Dr. Nichols professional medical examiner performance would be conducted right away to spare anyone else in NC to suffer similar fates of false and/or erroneous autopsy reports. Many people have suffered from that 'broken' government system and Dr. Nichols continued failure to perform his job correctly.; July 24, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Except, the Defense would have talked to Dr. Roberts, and already knew how she'd answer the questions - and already knew that she would bolster the State's case - so they didn't want her. Sid claims all these questions are unanswered - they aren't, they just weren't told to him, because he didn't (and doesn't) matter to the case.

You are an idiot, a complete and total idiot who refuses to listen and learn.

My problem is you are an idiot who won't listen. You keep repeating the same drivel and refuse to learn/comprehend.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't prove your point, it shows you are an idiot.; July 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Anonymous said...: July 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM

What are you talking about? If you didn't keep asking the same questions all the time and making up your own version of this case no one would have to repeat the same thing over TO YOU.

You convince no one, and no matter how many times the issues of importance to all are explained here, you eventually break down to you're an idiot or incredibly stupid or whatever - and truly that just means you have no argument - you just want to demean, cyberbully and troll some more. Why does this behavior of yours amuse you?; July 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM
Anonymous said...: June 29, 2015 at 12:05 PM

Actually, I am not sure about that point, that's why I stated it from all accounts to indicate a certain amount of uncertainty to that fact. It would have to be something I went back and reexamined if I was to be clear about that issue. Does that clear up your confusion on the issue?; July 24, 2015 at 5:43 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:03 AM wrote: "Have you ever asked yourself why didn't Dr. Roberts notify the DA herself ...."

Another turncoat. You make me feel sorry for Crystal. At the very least, she is entitled to her own expert who won't go running off to the DA trying to convict her. With friends like Anon at 5:03, Crystal really, really, doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; July 24, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: What ARE you talking about Walt? ???

Just looking for something else to distort and turn around and cyberbully eh?

Here, read it again:

Have you ever asked yourself why didn't Dr. Roberts notify the DA herself about the major discrepancies she found in the state's autopsy report so that an investigation into Dr. Nichols professional medical examiner performance would be conducted right away to spare anyone else in NC to suffer similar fates of false and/or erroneous autopsy reports. Many people have suffered from that 'broken' government system and Dr. Nichols continued failure to perform his job correctly.; July 24, 2015 at 6:54 AM
guiowen said...: TinFoil,
Any luck finding an attorney? Please keep us advised.; July 24, 2015 at 7:11 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 973 Newer› Newest»

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

A prosecution case built on lies

973 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me