justice4nifong: Official J4N Investigation into Reginald Daye's autopsy report and death

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Official J4N Investigation into Reginald Daye's autopsy report and death

594 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 594 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Crystal Magnum,Freddie Gray,Rodney King all had criminal records.Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because he attacked him and Stacey Koon practically saved King's worthless life that night.There were no rapists because no white man would ever touch Crystal.The thought of it is just too gross.; June 15, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: How could they remain silent about a rape that never happened? You aren't very bright are you ken?; June 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: In other words, ya'll attacking the DA's Nifong and Cline in the Duke / Durham / NC justice system did nothing at all to fix the system for anyone ... the DA and the system are still demonstrating the same or similar issues that Nifong and Cline were prosecuted for by ya'll in this case. So if ya'll had so much problems with the system with your duke conflicted and well paid lawyers ... ya'll obviously did nothing to fix the system for anyone else whom duke or the system choose to harm through the same broken system. One would think ya'll would be smart enough to know how unwise that course of action is for yourselves ... as well as for ALL others.; June 16, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Anonymous said...: "kenhyderal said...

These Players had a well earned reputation for bad behaviour and their sense of entitlement. Some of their professors found them to have bad attitudes. Exploiting and using vulnerable women by hiring them as exotic dancers to perform at a drunken bash and then to drug, sexually assault, and rob one of them is not the definition of character. Nor is remaining silent about a rape you know was perpetrated by some of your house guests. Then to, spreading malicious lies about the victim is immoral. They have been able to convince most but not all that they are fine outstanding citizen while at the same time falsely demonizing Crystal who, in reality is a more moral person then all of them"

This latest screed does not establish kenny as a serious thinker but as an incredibly stupid racist denier of reality.; June 16, 2015 at 4:37 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"however Crystal's rapists, George Zimmerman, Laurence Powell, Stacey Koon and Caesar Goodson were"

Crystal was not raped. That has been proven beyond any doubt. This statement proves beyond any and all reasonable doubt that kenny is incredibly stupid.

George Zimmerman acted acted in self defense. Trayvon Martin had George Zimmerman on the ground and was pounding his head on the concrete. There are pictures of the injuries. kenny denies them. Yet kenny thinks he is competent to establish malpractice as the cause of the death of Reginald Daye.

Meanwhile, Caesar Goodman has not been tried and convicted, as crystal was. ienny here shows a nifongian attitude toward justice. The defendant is white and that takes precedence over something called evidence. That establishes kenny as racist.; June 16, 2015 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Goodson is black.; June 16, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: No decision from Court of Appeals today - next Opinion Day is July 7.; June 16, 2015 at 5:12 AM
Lance the Intern said...: " spreading malicious lies about the victim[s] is immoral."

This is most certainly true.; June 16, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "@Walt: OK Walt ,can you explain to me why the esophageal intubation, for acute alcohol withdrawal, unrelated to the wound inflicted by Crystal but related to Daye's chronic alcoholism, was not the "sole" cause of death.

Two words, proximate cause. We've been over this many a time and defense counsel raised it in St. v. Jordan. But, as you have raised the question, and there might be others who are curious, Crystal sent Daye to the hospital. Assuming he did suffer from withdrawal, that was caused by a course that began with Crystal's stabbing. The same would be true of a hospital infection, or as in the facts of Welch, the refusal to have a lifesaving transfusion. An intervening cause, for example, would be if the victim had an attack of appendicitis (not caused by the assault). That was not the case here. In Daye's case, he was stabbed, he had to go to the hospital for medical treatment, during the course of that treatment he may have suffered withdrawal (facts assumed only for purpose of argument, certainly not proven). Withdrawal may have lead to delirium tremens which lead to an intubation. That is the same type of chain of events that Jordan, Welch, and Holsclaw are telling us is not broken by medical negligence or even the decision to decline or withdraw lifesaving medical treatment.

Neither Nicholls or Roberts have stated what the complication of the stab wound they relied on to draw their conclusion was."

That is not necessary as the law (particularly St. v. Jordan) does not require that. The necessary complication would have to be stated specifically only if it was an intervening cause.

When a walking talking alcoholic with a BAC 396mg/dl regardless of what sent him to Hospital, even a sprained ankle, is admitted there is the danger of acute alcohol withdrawal. You are assuming Daye was an alcoholic when that is not a fact in evidence. However, his prior condition does not relieve a criminal of responsibility. Our Supreme Court has long held that "contributory negligence as such has no place in the law of crimes." State v. Foust, 258 N.C. 453, 459, 128 S.E.2d 889, 894 (1963).

It's a known risk and protocols which were underway, with Daye, were initiated to combat this. His unfortunate death was solely due to a mistake in treating this not some unspecified "complication" That mistake rises to the level of malpractice.

That is a conclusion that is simply not supported by the law. Since you are really arguing to overturn case law in this state which dates back to St. v. Minton 234 N.C. 716, 722, 68 S.E.2d 844, ___, 31 A.L.R.2d 682 decided in 1952. You will note that Minton is mentioned in the American Law Reports (the A.L.R.2d cite) as a part of the majority rule in the U.S. So this is not a peculiarity to North Carolina law. Thus, the burden is on you who asserts, to prove the law of well over 60 years should be overturned.

Walt-in-Durham; June 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:36 AM wrote: "In other words, ya'll attacking the DA's Nifong and Cline in the Duke / Durham / NC justice system did nothing at all to fix the system for anyone ..."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nifong went back on his word on one of the major attempts to fix the justice system for everyone. Specifically, he wanted to violate General Order 4077, the rule put in place to minimize false eye witness identifications.

Cline concealed evidence that someone else committed a crime in order to extract a plea of guilty by a defendant. When caught, she didn't admit what she did. Instead, she went on a tirade against a judge and tried to preserve her faulty conviction.

Further I, and others, have written her about the need to change Rule 403(b) of the rules of evidence. You completely ignore the very real problems of 403(b) evidence. And, you have done nothing to write about how and why 403(b) should change. So, it is you and those who support Nifong and Cline who are trying to keep the flaws in the system, not us.

Walt-in-Durham; June 16, 2015 at 6:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Obviously there is a flaw in the system when Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder, and the ME can lie about Duke killing Mr. Daye in order that indeed Ms. Mangum does get charged and convicted for a murder by malpractice that Duke committed, and then the state's defense appeal attorney lies about the date of death in order to coverup it all up. What makes you think Duke wouldn't do the same to you Walt since you seem to think it is ok for them to do it to others?

I'm waiting to see what the appeal judges decide on Rule 403(b) Walt since I've watched you totally ignore the issue above that puts EVERYONE in the state at risk of death and/or murder by malpractice at Duke's and their affiliates and followers hands. Of course the state gov is in that category in large part - in many if not all areas in the NC state gov. - so ... probably most who understand that can see where the issue mentioned above is of more dire importance to all than the 403(b) issue. Why don't you understand that?; June 16, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't support any of the DA's and I don't vote for them. I think the whole system is corrupted and broken ... anyway ... that is all you every read about in the news or see on these blogs, even from Cline. Why do you think someone supports Cline or Nifong if they make a comparison to how ya'll scream about them yet cheer on a DA that does the same or worse and puts EVERYONE in the state at risk of harm by Duke and their croonies and affiliates as long as it is Ms. Mangum (or everyone else) who is harmed? Ya'll sure do push your agendas eh.

Anyway, I always did think the only reason the defense appeal attorney choose the 403(b) issue is because it was ya'll that were interested in it ... so why not use Ms. Mangum further, right? That is what it is isn't it ... don't lie.; June 16, 2015 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: If the Chief of Durham police self invites the DOJ to investigate them (the Durham police), and then the DOJ makes recommendations that they are already doing in Durham - so obviously that isn't working cuz other than shark attacks - drive by shootings, homicides, etc. in Durham fill the local news as usual although the cops didn't kill anyone so that's good - obviously there is something else wrong in Durham ... like the Durham / Duke / NC injustice system perhaps?; June 16, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously there is a flaw in the system when Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder, and the ME can lie about Duke killing Mr. Daye in order that indeed Ms. Mangum does get charged and convicted for a murder by malpractice that Duke committed, and then the state's defense appeal attorney lies about the date of death in order to coverup it all up."

Except that Duke did not kill Reginald Daye, there is no evidence that the ME lied(sid's allegations that the ME lied are as credible as any allegation that the Golden Gate just rose out of the Pacific and was there). There is no evidence that Duke committed malpractice(neither kenny nor sidney are capable of recognizing malpractice, considering their medical backgrounds, or rather lack thereof)

"What makes you think Duke wouldn't do the same to you Walt since you seem to think it is ok for them to do it to others?"

Commebter, what evidence is there that you can think?; June 16, 2015 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

This is why the 403(b) issue is important right?

If the argument against is supported by the Appeal Judges, then Ms. Mangum receives a new trial (which will be just as corrupted if ya'll continue to get your way regardless of due process or law or rules or whatever). But, this case can't be used to show what Duke and the Duke injustice system is really like in Durham in the future. Ya'll will continue to argue against Ms. Mangum receiving a fair and equal trial and will continue to back the public defender in providing defense attorneys who will actively cover-up for Duke as their number one priority in any representation.

If the argument for is supported, than Ms. Mangum needs to submit a new Appeal Brief that she actually agrees with, although she will be advised to waste more time on the 403(b) issue instead so that people cannot use this case as an example of how the system has been corrupted and intimidated by Duke. So the corruption and games will just get bolder and bigger and more deadly, because absolute power corrupts absolutely and there is no peace if there is no justice ... which there never will be ... cuz there's money to be made from war (re: no justice).

That is what the issue is about, right? Right.; June 16, 2015 at 8:40 AM
A Lawyer said...: Obviously there is a flaw in the system when Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder,

1. What motive did Duke have to frame Mangum for murder? Remember that Duke was successfully sued for being too supportive of Mangum's rape allegations and thereby throwing their own students under the bus.

2. Assuming Duke did have such a motive, who decided that Mangum should be framed and Daye should be killed? "Duke," remember, is not one person but a large institution. Is there a special subcommittee of the Duke Board of Trustees in charge of murder plots?

3. Assuming someone at Duke decided that Daye should be murdered, who communicated that to the treating doctors? How was it communicated? And, most importantly, why did the doctors go along?

and the ME can lie about Duke killing Mr. Daye in order that indeed Ms. Mangum does get charged and convicted for a murder by malpractice that Duke committed,

Walt, I and others have told you repeatedly-- there is no such thing as "murder by malpractice." The word "malpractice" means medical carelessness; "murder" requires intent to kill. So it could have been murder or it could have been malpractice (or it could have been neither), but it couldn't possibly have been both murder and malpractice-- that would be like saying "murder by accident."; June 16, 2015 at 10:02 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Except that Duke did not kill Reginald Daye, there is no evidence that the ME lied(sid's allegations that the ME lied are as credible as any allegation that the Golden Gate just rose out of the Pacific and was there). There is no evidence that Duke committed malpractice(neither kenny nor sidney are capable of recognizing malpractice, considering their medical backgrounds, or rather lack thereof)"................... Duke did, absolutely, kill Reginald Days. Intubating the esophagus with an endo-tracheal tube and not correcting it in a timely fashion until cerebral anoxia causes brain death is, absolutely, in anybody's definition, a case of medical malpractice. Even after it was pointed out to Dr. Nicholls that he had weighed Daye's spleen he dishonestly refused to admit this and insisted it was not present. This might not rise to the level of perjury but it speaks to his character and veracity not to mention his competence which others have questioned.

.; June 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Too bad Ms. Mangum doesn't have a lawyer to look into those things for her eh?

Duke was sued for orchastrating the entire case for political purposes, not for supporting Ms. Mangum.

If there is no murder by malpractice, then why is Ms. Mangum charged and convicted for it?; June 16, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Did the lacrosse players actually sue Duke for being too supportive of Ms. Mangum? How did they get away with that? What did they expect Duke to do ... say yeah lacrosse team - you raped someone! Go Duke! !!!

seriously; June 16, 2015 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 10:36:

I suggest you consider some of the statements made by certain Duke professors, which were highly supportive of Mangum.

Because you attribute any statement or action by anyone connected with Duke to "Duke" itself, these supportive statements thus are attributable to "Duke."

You are wrong by your standard.; June 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: " kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Except that Duke did not kill Reginald Daye, there is no evidence that the ME lied(sid's allegations that the ME lied are as credible as any allegation that the Golden Gate just rose out of the Pacific and was there). There is no evidence that Duke committed malpractice(neither kenny nor sidney are capable of recognizing malpractice, considering their medical backgrounds, or rather lack thereof)"................... Duke did, absolutely, kill Reginald Days. Intubating the esophagus with an endo-tracheal tube and not correcting it in a timely fashion until cerebral anoxia causes brain death is, absolutely, in anybody's definition, a case of medical malpractice."

Prior to the intubation, the doctors were working up Mr.Daye for a possible intrabdominal infection, which was a possibility in a case in which the colon and stomach had been perforated. Mr. Daye vomited and aspirated. That was recognized. What made the intubation difficult was the presence of vomitus blocking the view of the airway. That an esophageal intubation would occur does not rise to the level of negligence, regardless of what kenny might have read. Tell us, kenny, how many times you have ever intubated a patient under those circumstances. How many times have you intubated a patient at all. If you were to go to court to testify whether or not an intubation was negigent you would first have to establish to the court that you know something about intubation. You do not. You are an incredibly stupid, biased medical non expert trying to buy a pass for your favorite murderess, nothing more

"Even after it was pointed out to Dr. Nicholls that he had weighed Daye's spleen he dishonestly refused to admit this and insisted it was not present. This might not rise to the level of perjury but it speaks to his character and veracity not to mention his competence which others have questioned."

Well, what it says about your character that you believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that crystal was raped. It says you are incredibly stupid with o grasp of reality.

.

June 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM; June 16, 2015 at 10:49 AM
A Lawyer said...: Too bad Ms. Mangum doesn't have a lawyer to look into those things for her eh?

Which things? She has a lawyer. She had several lawyers before, most of whom she fired. Dr. Harr encouraged her to represent herself, which was the only time she didn't have a lawyer.

Duke was sued for orchastrating the entire case for political purposes, not for supporting Ms. Mangum.

Duke was sued for "orchestrating the entire case for political purposes"? What does that even mean-- that they organized the party at which Mangum was hired to dance? That they encouraged Mangum to report a rape? How did they "orchestrate the entire case"?

And that was not what they were sued for. The Lacrosse players' lawsuit is a matter of public record. Post it and prove me wrong if you can. (Hint: you can't.)

If there is no murder by malpractice, then why is Ms. Mangum charged and convicted for it?

Where does her indictment charge "murder by malpractice"? Her indictment is a matter of public record. Post it and prove me wrong if you can. (Hint: you can't.)

And you haven't answered my other questions:
1. Who at Duke made the decision to murder Daye?
2. How was this decision communicated to the treating physicians?
3. Why did the treating physicians follow a directive to commit murder?; June 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: If duke was sued for orchastrating the entire political event, then part of the charade might likely include professors highly supportive of Ms. Mangum to make it seem that the event was real, altho that would imply that no professors at Duke should or does have the right to speak freely about their moral views or support for an alleged rape victim. Perhaps it is best to know what Duke was actually sued for. Were the facts made public? Where?; June 16, 2015 at 11:11 AM
A Lawyer said...: Did the lacrosse players actually sue Duke for being too supportive of Ms. Mangum? How did they get away with that? What did they expect Duke to do ... say yeah lacrosse team - you raped someone! Go Duke! !!!

seriously

Duke was supposed to say, "we respect our students' constitutional rights, including the right to be presumed innocent, and will not discipline them until the charge of rape is substantiated."; June 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Daye was killed by Duke's malpractice as is in evidence in Duke's medical records which most on here have read. So if Ms. Mangum is being charged for murder, then it is murder by malpractice since that is what he was killed by ... the intubation malpractice as documented in Duke's medical records.

How am I supposed to know the answers to your questions - and again - get a lawyer to look into it like they should. You are very weird in asking that of anyone on this blog don't you think.

sheesh louise; June 16, 2015 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: The filings for McFadyen v Duke and Carrington v Duke are both posted on Justia.com.

I suggest you read them.; June 16, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 11:17:

A Lawyer's questions flow out of your post. Perhaps you did not intend to imply that someone at Duke orchestrated Daye's murder because someone else at Duke does not like Mangum. However, your post implied that. No, it is not weird that someone should ask a poster to support what they have said. If you did not mean to imply that someone at Duke deliberately murdered Daye, you should say so .; June 16, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: How did the post imply that? Ya'll are seriously just out to get people - something to jump on - something else to troll - something else to feel self-righteous about - something else to feel victimized and validated by - something else to argue about - something else to attack. It is sickening to watch ya'll pushing your duke political agendas actually. If it is not duke agendas, then what is it?; June 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually i don't get why ya'll beat everyone up over the lacrosse case because you feel victimized by it when you don't give a flying leap whether duke can kill you or others and get away with if you present as a victim in their hospitals.; June 16, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Actually i don't get why ya'll beat everyone up over the Mangum case because you feel victimized by it when you don't give a flying leap whether Mangum can kill you or others and get away with if you present as a boyfriend in your own apartment.; June 16, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Kenhyderal wrote: "@Walt: OK Walt ,can you explain to me why the esophageal intubation, for acute alcohol withdrawal, unrelated to the wound inflicted by Crystal but related to Daye's chronic alcoholism, was not the "sole" cause of death.

Two words, proximate cause. We've been over this many a time and defense counsel raised it in St. v. Jordan. But, as you have raised the question, and there might be others who are curious, Crystal sent Daye to the hospital. Assuming he did suffer from withdrawal, that was caused by a course that began with Crystal's stabbing. The same would be true of a hospital infection, or as in the facts of Welch, the refusal to have a lifesaving transfusion. An intervening cause, for example, would be if the victim had an attack of appendicitis (not caused by the assault). That was not the case here. In Daye's case, he was stabbed, he had to go to the hospital for medical treatment, during the course of that treatment he may have suffered withdrawal (facts assumed only for purpose of argument, certainly not proven). Withdrawal may have lead to delirium tremens which lead to an intubation. That is the same type of chain of events that Jordan, Welch, and Holsclaw are telling us is not broken by medical negligence or even the decision to decline or withdraw lifesaving medical treatment.

Neither Nicholls or Roberts have stated what the complication of the stab wound they relied on to draw their conclusion was."

That is not necessary as the law (particularly St. v. Jordan) does not require that. The necessary complication would have to be stated specifically only if it was an intervening cause.

Walt, in the Welch case, the need for a transfusion was directly due to the actions of the defendant. The ruling is much more restrictive than you wish to admit.

The reason that Drs. Roberts and Nichols cannot state specifically what complication it was that resulted in Daye's death is because there was no complication resulting from the stab wound. The only complication (brain death) was due to errant esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital staff. Hard as they may try, there is no way that they can provide a nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death without going through the intubation.

Daye's death, therefore, if we can agree that the esophageal intubation was accidental malpractice, was accidental and not a homicide. Mangum was convicted for an accident by Duke University Hospital. The other charge she faced (larceny of chose in action) was also one without probable cause as none of its elements could be proven.

Too much wrong with the prosecution. My next sharlog will point out additional problems with the prosecution's case against Mangum. It will lay the groundwork for Mangum's conviction to be overturned. I'm nearly finished with Part One. Part Two should be completed by the weekend sometime. It's a real eye-opener.; June 16, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Did the lacrosse players actually sue Duke for being too supportive of Ms. Mangum? How did they get away with that? What did they expect Duke to do ... say yeah lacrosse team - you raped someone! Go Duke! !!!

seriously

Duke was supposed to say, "we respect our students' constitutional rights, including the right to be presumed innocent, and will not discipline them until the charge of rape is substantiated."

C'mon, A Lawyer. Don't you think that Duke University has the right to discipline an athletic team that has a reputation for being abusive, obnoxious, and holding beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties... a team whose coach was warned to rein in his players prior to the night in question.

Also, do you think Duke University did the right thing by rolling over and forking over $20 million to each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants without even going to trial? The Duke out of court settlement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.; June 16, 2015 at 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Are you going to have Ms. Mangum 'approve' your next sharlog before you post it? I ask this, because at times you have misunderstood Ms. Mangum, which has caused her some harm given the audience on this blog. It is Ms. Mangum who needs the information the most in order to defend herself successfully. Please provide her with the sharlog in a format she can view, read, understand and approve before you post it. Thank you.; June 16, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "C'mon, A Lawyer. Don't you think that Duke University has the right to discipline an athletic team that has a reputation for being abusive, obnoxious, and holding beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties... a team whose coach was warned to rein in his players prior to the night in question."

The team's reputation does not give the University the right to violate federal law (in this case FERPA -the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), nor does it give the University employees the right to use Duke equipment to create “wanted” posters containing the lacrosse players’ photos, nor does it give Duke administrators the right to pressure Officer Christopher Day into “modifying” his March 14, 2006 operations report.

"Also, do you think Duke University did the right thing by rolling over and forking over $20 million to each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants without even going to trial? The Duke out of court settlement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Duke University did not "fork over" $20 million to each of the 3 players. This number was based upon Reade Seligmann's tax bill that was incorrectly calculated by the IRS.
Until you can get the players, Duke, or their respective lawyers to confirm the amount (hint: the settlement was confidential, so you can't), repeating this $20 million dollar value is simply a lie on your part.; June 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Lawyer said: "She had several lawyers before, most of whom she fired"......................................... She fired ONE Lawyer for failing to attend to her or work on her case.; June 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Prior to the intubation, the doctors were working up Mr.Daye for a possible intrabdominal infection, which was a possibility in a case in which the colon and stomach had been perforated" .......... The presumptive diagnosis was delirium tremens. An intra-abdominal infectious process was the differential diagnosis. For the treating Physicians and Technicians the diagnosis became moot when oxygen deprivation due to an errant esophageal intubation caused Daye's cardiac arrest and subsequent cerebral anoxia leading to his brain death. It's obvious those treating Daye went with the presumptive diagnosis but it appears the prosecution and the ME, in order to charge Crystal with murder, went with the differential diagnosis although unlike the DT's there was no evidence to support it; June 16, 2015 at 1:37 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- You're right. Two of her attorneys withdrew, largely due to Sid's interference -- posting sealed case files on this website filing motions using Mangum's name, accusing her lawyer of ineffective counsel, etc.; June 16, 2015 at 1:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt Thanks for giving me additional case law which according to you supports the charge of murder against Crystal. For the sake of argument let's say Crystal had pushed a drunken Daye away from her and he fell and broke his ankle and that's what sent him to hospital where he experienced the same outcome. Would she be then be charged with murder? If not is it because a stabbing can more often lead to death then can a push causing a fall?; June 16, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Where is your expert's report? You have no medical background and a history of consistently exercising poor judgment. I will consider your theory when an expert provides their opinion. Until then, you are wasting your time. With your preposterous theories and hypocritical double standards, you have essentially asked not to be taken seriously. No one does.; June 16, 2015 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

C'mon, A Lawyer. Don't you think that Duke University has the right to discipline an athletic team that has a reputation for being abusive, obnoxious, and holding beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling parties... a team whose coach was warned to rein in his players prior to the night in question."

Except sidney chooses to be willfully ignorant that the Coleman report debunked the charge thatthe Duke Lacrosse team was a wild out of control gang.

Well, what else can one expectofanincredibly stupid liar who expects the word to believe he is a genius.; June 16, 2015 at 1:51 PM
A Lawyer said...: Also, do you think Duke University did the right thing by rolling over and forking over $20 million to each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants without even going to trial? The Duke out of court settlement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

(a) They didn't pay $20 million each to the Lacrosse defendants.

(b) Duke is a sophisticated, powerful entity with good lawyers. Whatever amount they paid in that settlement was paid for only one reason: their lawyers advised them that, if they went to trial, they would probably winding up paying a lot more.

And still no answer by anyone to my three prior questions:

1. Who at Duke made the decision to murder Daye?
2. How was this decision communicated to the treating physicians?
3. Why did the treating physicians follow a directive to commit murder?; June 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "kenhyderal said...

"The presumptive diagnosis was delirium tremens. An intra-abdominal infectious process was the differential diagnosis."

The vomiting and aspiration happened after contrast was placed via ng tube into the stomach. That was done because a CT of the abdomen was to be done. No one treats DTs by putting contrast in the GI tract and doing a CT scan of the abdomen. These maneuvers are done if a physician suspects an intra abdominal infection. If you were't so incredibly stupid you would have realized that.

"For the treating Physicians and Technicians the diagnosis became moot when oxygen deprivation due to an errant esophageal intubation caused Daye's cardiac arrest and subsequent cerebral anoxia leading to his brain death."

Does not change the fact that the aspiration happened as a complication of a study which was being done to rule out an intra-abdominal infection. The possibility of an intra-abdominal infection was established by the stab wound inflicted by crystal which did damage the stomach and colon.

"It's obvious those treating Daye went with the presumptive diagnosis but it appears the prosecution and the ME, in order to charge Crystal with murder, went with the differential diagnosis although unlike the DT's there was no evidence to support it"

That statement only establishes that you are incredibly stupid, and are trying to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes; June 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: " kenhyderal said...

"@ Walt Thanks for giving me additional case law which according to you supports the charge of murder against Crystal. For the sake of argument let's say Crystal had pushed a drunken Daye away from her and he fell and broke his ankle and that's what sent him to hospital where he experienced the same outcome."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that the outcome would have been the same had Crystal nt stabbed him.

Again, kenny establishes his incredible stupidity.; June 16, 2015 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: One more for incredibly stupid kenny:

You are ducking the questions of how many people you have ever intubated.Ergo you are admitting that you are totally incapable of determining that the esophageal intubation rodse to the level of negligence.

Can you get an anesthesiologist or emergency physician to support you.

sidney can not. His credentials have always been minimal and today they are non existent.; June 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal Magnum,Rodney King,and Freddie Gray all had criminal records,Michael Brown had just robbed a store,and Trayvon Martin committed assault and battery numerous times.Crystal was never raped so there weren't any rapists.; June 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 11:35 asks: How did the post imply that?

Your post at 6:47 states: Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder.

I read that post as alleging that Duke deliberately murdered Daye and that the apparent malpractice was not accidental, but rather a deliberate murder. A Lawyer apparently read it the same way.

Perhaps you can clarify your statement. Was the esophageal intubation a deliberate act or was it an accident? If it was a deliberate act, A Lawyer's questions are quite reasonable and you should be expected to provide answers or at least some reasonable speculation. If the intubation was an accident, then you seem to be alleging only that Duke covered it up. In that case, A Lawyer's questions are not relevant.

I hope that explains why I believed your post inferred murder. Thanks for your help.; June 16, 2015 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: What's disgraced,disbarred Mike Nifong doing these days? I heard he committed suicide because the biggest case of his career blew up in his face.Is there any truth to that rumor? If he didn't kill himself he should have.; June 16, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: What's hard to believe is that Crystal actually made a living as a stripper or a prostitute.I feel sorry for her clients.; June 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Nifong is still alive. Sidney will resume his work in restoring Nidong's bar license as soon as he has freed Mangum and obtained compensation for her.; June 16, 2015 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Unfortunately Crystal will get out of prison someday but there's no way a loser like Nifong will ever get his law license back.Not gonna happen.; June 16, 2015 at 8:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " No one treats DTs by putting contrast in the GI tract and doing a CT scan of the abdomen. These maneuvers are done if a physician suspects an intra abdominal infection"............................................................ It's not that they suspected it. They had to rule out the intra-abdominal infectious process as a possible alternate cause of the delirium tremens like symptoms he was exhibiting. As I stated what the diagnosis was became moot. No CT scan was ever done. Nicholls however noted no signs of an intra-abdominal infectious process related to the surgery in his autopsy; June 16, 2015 at 8:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Well duke did kill Mr. Daye with intubation malpractice resulting in brain death and requiring life support - from which duke then removed him - resulting in his ultimate death.

That resulted in the state ME filing a corrupted and fraudulent autopsy report that essentially framed Ms. Mangum for the death in the form of charges and conviction of murder and cover-uped the malpractice entirely.

So far, duke and the state ME have gotten away with those two actions in the justice system without being held accountable nor responsible for those actions resulting in the basis for the true and accurate statement that: Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder.

If Duke did murder Mr. Daye on purpose which many would reasonably suspect given their knowledge of duke's true evil nature and tendency to over-react and accuse and punish people for actions before knowing their true quilt or innocence - then the statement would be: duke can kill Mr. Daye on purpose ... or duke can murder Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder. But no ... benefit of the doubt was given in the original statement, thus making the statement: Ms. Mangum was charged and convicted for murder by malpractice a logical and accurate conclusion whether duke purposefully murdered Mr. Daye or merely killed him.; June 16, 2015 at 8:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: You are ducking the questions of how many people you have ever intubated.Ergo you are admitting that you are totally incapable of determining that the esophageal intubation rodse to the level of negligence"..................... A 10 second search http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10394802; June 16, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: You could make similar statements about the cyberbullying evil duke troll who recently made this statement if Nifong did actually kill himself due to continued cyberbullying and trolling (as some have a tendency to do based on factual data given in the news, etc.):

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's disgraced,disbarred Mike Nifong doing these days? I heard he committed suicide because the biggest case of his career blew up in his face.Is there any truth to that rumor? If he didn't kill himself he should have.

June 16, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Something like: The cyberbullying evil duke troll can cyberbully and troll non-stop on the J4N blog in order to attempt to prompt Mr. Nifong to kill himself based upon the cyberbullying unrelenting trolling that it consistently engages in.; June 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Nifong should have faced the death penalty just like Mangum.He charged three innocent young men with rape when he knew it didn't happen.He's traitor to his race and treason is a capital offense.; June 17, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Your anti-Duke rankings and the rest of your posts are so incredibly stupid and over the top you have at least finally exposed them as fake.

No one can be as delusional as you.; June 17, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: " kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: You are ducking the questions of how many people you have ever intubated.Ergo you are admitting that you are totally incapable of determining that the esophageal intubation rodse to the level of negligence"..................... A 10 second search http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10394802"

Your ten month search means nothing. You do not learn how to intubate by reading papers. You get the experience by actually doing it, What establishes you as an expert is the expeerience.

So you have admitted, as a non expert, you do not know about which you are talking.

Here's a question which you will didge. If you needed a surgical procedure, who would you have do the procedure on you. Soeone who has done the procedure hundreds of times or someone who has read about the procedure hundreds of times.

Your dodges, again, establish you as incredibly stupid.; June 17, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:56:

I thank you for your reply.

You appear to be taking the position that the intubation was likely accidental, although you do not rule out a deliberate murder, simply because Duke is "evil." That suggests that A Lawyer's questions are not relevent. However, those questions suggest that the deliberate murder theory has some major weaknesses.

You claim that Duke has gotten away with the malpractice without being held responsible. As you know, malpractice rarely gives rise to criminal liability. Accidental actions or negligence generally are not criminal acts. Criminal charges for Duke personnel involved in the intubation are not possible for an accident. As a result, Duke's exposure from its actions is civil. As the damaged party, Duke's family could seek compensation for their loss through a civil lawsuit. While I am not aware of a lawsuit, Daye's family may have decided not to pursue one or they may have reached a settlement with Duke. Based on your statement, you appear to know that his family was rebuffed in their claims.

I should note that Duke's potential civil liability is largely independent of whether or not Mangum was found guilty of murder or other charges. As a result, escaping civil liability is not a motivation for "framing" Mangum. The primary motivation for a cover up seems to be one of protecting Duke's reputation.

Finally, based on Walt's analysis of several court cases, it appears that malpractice does not cut off Mangum's criminal liability. I understand that you, Kenny and Sidney think that is unfair, but none of you has provided other cases that reach a different conclusion. You and Sidney apparently believe the best way to help Mangum is to ignore the law. Kenny to his credit attempts a legal theory that at least acknowledges that the intubation does not automatically cut off liability. I am sympathetic to the argument that a jury may have reacted positively to a nullification argument, but that is not grounds for appeal.; June 17, 2015 at 4:00 AM
Anonymous said...: right ... because it was duke who was sued ... so there is no blame to be placed on them ... got cha

So ... what's the crime for blaming duke for what they did and do? Is that a crime worthy of a death penality in your mind as well?; June 17, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...: "kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " No one treats DTs by putting contrast in the GI tract and doing a CT scan of the abdomen. These maneuvers are done if a physician suspects an intra abdominal infection"............................................................ It's not that they suspected it. They had to rule out the intra-abdominal infectious process as a possible alternate cause of the delirium tremens like symptoms he was exhibiting. As I stated what the diagnosis was became moot. No CT scan was ever done. Nicholls however noted no signs of an intra-abdominal infectious process related to the surgery in his autopsy"

Again you establish yourself as incredibly stupid.

The attending physicians would not have attempted to perform an abdominal ct if they did not suspect an infection. The autopsy was actually hindsight. The attending physicians did not have the option to wait for an autopsy to rule out an infection. They had to rule it in or rule it out before an autopsy was necessary.

What set up the possibility f an infection was that Reginald Daye did have penetrating wounds to the stomach and colon. The aspiration, the esophageal intubation would not have happened had crystal not stabbed him and injured his stomach and colon.; June 17, 2015 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: to the 4:00

I have no idea what little scenerio you put together, but it is not what is going on at all ... what are your thoughts on the total corruption of the justice system in covering up the malpractice and the corruption used to cover it up?; June 17, 2015 at 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:10:

I did not put together a little scenario. I explained some facts. Perhaps you can expand on where my post was inaccurate.; June 17, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: I mean, Mr. Nifong got fired and Ms. Cline was disciplined for doing the same things, so why is it ok to watch more DA's and lawyers and doctors engaging in the same behavior and ya'll support their actions instead of demanding death penalties and the like?; June 17, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Cline complained about Judge Hudson being in leaque with the News and Observer, who is very obviously duke oriented and 'bought' (lot's of ads to do lots of different kinds of 'best of the worst' research trials in that paper in case your interested in gettin' help for your issue with death penalties and intentional malicious trolling and cyberbullying to carry out that evil deed). Ya'll do seem to have a vendetta against Mr. Nifong, Ms. Mangum, and Ms. Cline. It is very obvious and hard to deny. What's up with your death penalty rant?; June 17, 2015 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Cline was fired too - she wasn't disbarred, but she was removed from the position of District Attorney.

Duke gets sued for malpractice all the time - your constant ravings that they are immune are proven false repeatedly - they pay out millions in settlements.

That doesn't change the fact that had Crystal not stabbed Daye he wouldn't have died a few days later. She started the chain, which is proximate cause.; June 17, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't rave that they are immune - you perceive that in your own little biased antimangum and everyone else hateful scenerio mind. It is a fact that there is an over abundance of conflict of interest with Duke in Durham, especially in areas where Duke claims expertise - like the law, public policy, health policy, educuation, etc. etc. It is a very powerful and real conflict. That is a fact you see demonstrated in this case quite readily.

None of it changes the fact that if Mr. Daye hadn't become excessively intoxicated and attacked and assualted Ms. Mangum she wouldn't have felt the need to defend herself with a knife to save her life. That is what is in evidence.; June 17, 2015 at 5:39 AM
Anonymous said...: And the jury heard all of that, and rejected self-defense. You can say you think they got it wrong, but they heard all the evidence about the attack, and how she locked herself into the bathroom to call for help, he kicked in the door and drug her out - then got stabbed. That's been discussed repeatedly. The Jury believed that Mangum ran into the kitchen to get a knife (as she had done with Walker), not that he was holding her down and choking her.

The jury heard self-defense (though Sid's new groundbreaking sharlog is supposed to shed new light on that - I'm sure it will contain as many falsehoods and assumptions as we expect from him).; June 17, 2015 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: 1. The jury was conflicted and questionable at best. A murder trial demands the standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt - which the jury itself does not meet the criteria given the amount of conflict with duke and the questionable admonition to make durham (re: duke) look good. egad - you just practically issued me a death penalty in your warped mind for blaming duke for their own documented actions - so - truly - the jury issue is a big one.

2. Your scenerio was not proven beyond a reasonable standard of doubt to convict for murder.

3. The jury did not hear the entire case in order to make any decision about it.; June 17, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous said...

to the 4:00

I have no idea what little scenerio you put together, but it is not what is going on at all ... what are your thoughts on the total corruption of the justice system in covering up the malpractice and the corruption used to cover it up?

June 17, 2015 at 4:10 AM"

Irrelevant since there was no trial corruption, there was no malpractice, therefore there was no attempt to cover up malpractice.; June 17, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Anonymous said...: that's what i thought your little scenerio included

duke might have best of the worst trials on your particular brand of blindness - you should check it out if your so hype on duke; June 17, 2015 at 6:21 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "@ Walt Thanks for giving me additional case law which according to you supports the charge of murder against Crystal."

You are welcome.

"For the sake of argument let's say Crystal had pushed a drunken Daye away from her and he fell and broke his ankle and that's what sent him to hospital where he experienced the same outcome. Would she be then be charged with murder? If not is it because a stabbing can more often lead to death then can a push causing a fall?"

That would not be second degree murder because she didn't use a deadly weapon. St. v. Jones, 291 N.C. 681, 231 S.E.2d 252, (1977). Most likely, your hypothetical would be battery. However, the sentence would be enhanced by the resulting death. I can see the state arguing for application of the felony murder rule. However, I think the sentence would be roughly the same as the enhancement for battery resulting in death. The Jordan, Holsclaw, Welch analysis though would hold that negligence (assumed for purposes of argument) does not cut off criminal liability. Thus, your hypothetical would remain a felonious battery. And the sentence enhancement for death would remain.

Walt-in-Durham; June 17, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:21:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you trying to make a substantive point or are you just typing words?; June 17, 2015 at 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

I would think that pushing away a drunken Daye would be easier to prevail with a self defense plea. The facts obviously matter, but if she pushed him away as he was physically engaging her, self defense should exist.; June 17, 2015 at 6:31 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: None of it changes the fact that if Mrs. Mangum hadn't attacked and assualted [sic] Mr. Daye with a knife, he wouldn't be dead. That is what is in evidence.; June 17, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Mangum might have best of knives for your particular brand of ignorance - you should check it out if your [sic] so hype on Mangum.; June 17, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Anonymous said...: If he was taken to duke of all places, death might be a predicted outcome, however there are other hospitals very close nearby ... so there is no evidence that he would be dead since the intubation error is considered malpractice - only that Duke killed him and then participated in the coverup of their malpractice to frame Ms. Mangum for murder.; June 17, 2015 at 6:41 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Ms. Mangum was charged and convicted for murder by malpractice"

Really?

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3q0vSuwtCM

At what point does either the jury or the judge say anything about "murder by malpractice"?; June 17, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "so there is no evidence that he would be dead"

You mean other than his dead body, subsequent funeral, and grieving family?; June 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing that happened at Duke, or after he was stabbed, remotely affects the self-defense claim - which was fully litigated, and was the only way for her to get a Not Guilty. Because her testimony did not match the physical evidence, and the statements from Daye did - and because of Walker's testimony - they believed Daye and decided that it wasn't self-defense, Crystal ran into the kitchen to get a knife and went back at Daye.

Once that occurred - Crystal was guilty of a felony - whether it was Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury; Assault with a Deadly Weapon Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury, or some degree of Murder or Manslaughter was potentially shaped by what happened. He died, so it's a manslaughter v. murder issue (and Felony Murder was never in play).

But, absent self-defense she's still a convicted felon, and the Jury didn't agree on self-defense.; June 17, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Anonymous said...: No, I mean there is no evidence that he would have died from the stab wound if taken to another hospital.

There is only evidence that he died from intubation malpractice in the Duke medical records, which are supported by the defense medical examiner and contradicted in the state's autopsy report, all of which needs to still be made a part of the trial.

Another nearby hospital, by definition, would not have made that same mistake or accident ... at least there is NO evidence that they would have. There is also NO evidence that Mr. Daye could not have been driven safely to a near-by hospital instead of to Duke. That issue is a very big problem in all these cases. Obviously Duke has problems providing reasonable services when they are involved in potential or real legal conflicts.; June 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:41 and 6:56:

Your argument is becoming ever more desperate.

Duke's safety record is no worse than other local hospitals. Your comment that if taken to Duke, "death might be a predicted outcome" is an indication that you are not arguing seriously. Most cases at Duke do not end in malpractice and death. Similarly, other hospitals also commit malpractice, sometimes resulting in the death of the patient. Thus your statement that a "nearby hospital, by definition, would not have made the same mistake... " ignores medical malpractice issues in general, asserting that malpractice is a uniquely Duke problem. Unfortunately, that is not true. I suggest you drop this ridiculous argument.; June 17, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Another nearby hospital, by definition...."

What definition? Can you point me to the dictionary page for this?; June 17, 2015 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: It is the best one yet imo. There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke.

There is NO evidence that MR. DAYE would have died from the stab wound at another hospital since the surgery was deemed a success at Duke. The intubation stemmed from symptoms of agitation and DT's and duke chosing a test that carried the risk of death to confirm it. If there was an infection, a blood test would be the first course of action for most hospitals in that situation - instead of an unneeded, highly risky, negligent test - other tests don't carry the risk of death like the one that was chosen at Duke, and precautions are taken if they are. Another hospital would most likely choose differently, or at least make sure the patient did not end up dead because of it. There is NO proof that another hospital would have committed the intubation malpractice on Mr. Daye that ultimately killed him.; June 17, 2015 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:25:

You are not being serious. I will not respond further. I urge others to follow suit. PDNFTT.; June 17, 2015 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: ok ... bye (unless you plan on entertaining us with your penchant for the death penalty all day); June 17, 2015 at 7:39 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke."

Ms. Mangum was taken to Durham Center Access first. Only after she claimed that she had been raped was she transferred to DUMC.

"There is NO evidence that MR. DAYE would have died from the stab wound at another hospital"

Conversely, there is NO evidence that Mr. Daye would NOT have died from the stab wound at another hospital. At least you're admitting that Mr. Daye died from the stab wound.

"There is NO proof that another hospital would have committed the intubation malpractice on Mr. Daye that ultimately killed him."

There is NO proof that another hospital would NOT have committed....You get it.; June 17, 2015 at 8:18 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke."

I would like to explore this further, as I think you are correct. Another hospital with a correctly trained SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) would have recognized that Ms. Mangum had not been raped, thus preventing the lacrosse case altogether.; June 17, 2015 at 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Or a SANE might have gotten the test right and the DNA needed to prove guilt would have been found. Another way to look at that issue. Why do you think Ms. Mangum deserves the death penalty?; June 17, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Or a SANE might have gotten the test right and the DNA needed to prove guilt would have been found."

This completely contradicts your earlier statement that there wouldn't be a lacrosse case if Mangum had been taken to another hospital.

"Why do you think Ms. Mangum deserves the death penalty?"

I don't. Unlike some of the posters here, I am very much against capital punishment.; June 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...

"There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke."

you copied it yourself - i didn't say: there wouldn't be a lacrosse case if Mangum had been taken to another hospital did I?

What did I say? Read it again.; June 17, 2015 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous said...

Or a SANE might have gotten the test right and the DNA needed to prove guilt would have been found. Another way to look at that issue."

Irrelevant.

That statement presumes there was a rape. You can not presume guilt in a criminal case. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened, then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did it.

The evidence was collected not by the SANE in training but by the examining physician, Dr. Manley, and even Mike Nifong did not question whether or not the evidence was properly collected.; June 17, 2015 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: If duke's own SANE had not done what was done in this case, there probably would not have been such a bruhahha absurdity at Duke because if another hospital had produced the results, it would have been an open legal case - not a duke circus - from the start. Therefore, there would have been no lacrosse case like there was.; June 17, 2015 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: "Fake Kenhyderal said...

"There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke."

I would like to explore this further, as I think you are correct. Another hospital with a correctly trained SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) would have recognized that Ms. Mangum had not been raped, thus preventing the lacrosse case altogether."

Irrelevant statment.

The job of the SANE is to collect evidence. It is the duty of the prosecutor to evaluate the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Where Nifong failed is that he presumed a crime had happened and ignored evidence that it had not.; June 17, 2015 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm not presuming quilt, I'm presuming that another SANE might have found other results, including the DNA to prove quilt as a possibility. Just looking for something to attack eh? Why don't you actually try thinking for a change instead of always looking for something to attack someone about. Why do you do that? You don't even try to understand. You just see what you want from your biased perspective so that you can accuse and attack and troll and ... on and on - did duke teach you that?; June 17, 2015 at 9:40 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:26 --

You wrote "There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke." at 7:25.

The you wrote " i didn't say: there wouldn't be a lacrosse case if Mangum had been taken to another hospital did I?"

So, yes, you did say "There wouldn't even be a lacrosse case like there is if Ms. Mangum had been taken to another hospital instead of Duke."

I have no idea why you're arguing otherwise.; June 17, 2015 at 9:52 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:34 -- Yes it is true that the job of the SANE is to collect evidence.

WRT Tara Levicy and the Duke LAX case, she based her opinion that the exam was consistent with rape largely on Mangum’s demeanor and complaints of pain rather than on objective evidence.

I think, had a correctly trained SANE conducted the examination, there never would have been an investigation and subsequent indictments.; June 17, 2015 at 9:59 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:40:

How does one go about presuming and/or proving quilt?; June 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Fake Kenhyderal -- I think you check the layers.....; June 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:40 wrote: "I'm presuming another SANE might have found other results, including the DNA to prove guilt as a possibility."

Impossible. The SANE exam found DNA from at least 5 and perhaps as many as 10 to 12 males. Your possibility presumes that the Duke SANE had the ability to differentiate between player DNA and non-player DNA so that she could discard the non-player DNA. This technology does not exist. Your possibility does not exist.

Perhaps you should think before posting.; June 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: " Fake Kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:40:

How does one go about presuming and/or proving quilt?

June 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM"

By saying an accused is guilty when there is no evidence that a crime had occurred, e.g.mike nifong immediately after the story broke going public and saying, before any evidence had been evaluated, that a crime had been committed and that members of the Duke lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.

Or. like kenny, saying a crime had happened because crystal had alleged it had and bcause some blog poster calling himself kilgo claimed to have a friend on the lacrosse tam who had witnessed a crime; not evidence of the existence of the anonymous lacrosse player has turned up in over 9 years.

You are as incredibly stupid as the actual kenny.; June 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 10:23:

After you look up the definition for "sarcasm" you owe Fake Kenhyderal an apology.

You may also note that Fake Kenhyderal and 10:03 were kidding the poster about her misspelling of "guilt" as "quilt" twice in the same post.; June 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM
A Lawyer said...: Ms. Cline complained about Judge Hudson being in leaque with the News and Observer, who is very obviously duke oriented and 'bought' (lot's of ads to do lots of different kinds of 'best of the worst' research trials in that paper in case your interested in gettin' help for your issue with death penalties and intentional malicious trolling and cyberbullying to carry out that evil deed).

Is that sentence in English? I can't begin to fathom what Anonymous meant to convey through that word salad.; June 17, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Thank you, Anonymous @ 10:27.

Anonymous @ 10:23 -- The Anonymous Poster referred to as "Tinfoil Hat" has a habit of misspelling the word GUILT as QUILT (I've used capital letters here, as it is hard to differentiate the two when reading).

When typing, however, one knows when they are selecting the Q key instead of the G key. (Tinfoil likes to refer to Guiowen as "g", so we know they are familiar with the keyboard).

That leaves us with the only viable explanation -- Tinfoil doesn't know how to spell.; June 17, 2015 at 11:02 AM
A Lawyer said...: Nifong should have faced the death penalty just like Mangum.He charged three innocent young men with rape when he knew it didn't happen.He's traitor to his race and treason is a capital offense.

Here we go with the racist bull$hit again. Why don't you get lost?; June 17, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum never faced the death penalty. Or not for long - it was designated non-Capital from the beginning. And, absent some aggravating factors, it wouldn't have been eligible anyway. So other than you just trying to be a racist prick, I'm not sure your point about Nifong and Crystal facing the Death Penalty.; June 17, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Kenhyderal wrote: "@ Walt Thanks for giving me additional case law which according to you supports the charge of murder against Crystal."

You are welcome.

"For the sake of argument let's say Crystal had pushed a drunken Daye away from her and he fell and broke his ankle and that's what sent him to hospital where he experienced the same outcome. Would she be then be charged with murder? If not is it because a stabbing can more often lead to death then can a push causing a fall?"

That would not be second degree murder because she didn't use a deadly weapon. St. v. Jones, 291 N.C. 681, 231 S.E.2d 252, (1977). Most likely, your hypothetical would be battery. However, the sentence would be enhanced by the resulting death. I can see the state arguing for application of the felony murder rule. However, I think the sentence would be roughly the same as the enhancement for battery resulting in death. The Jordan, Holsclaw, Welch analysis though would hold that negligence (assumed for purposes of argument) does not cut off criminal liability. Thus, your hypothetical would remain a felonious battery. And the sentence enhancement for death would remain.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, the judge's instructions to the jury specifically said that the defendant was to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter only if they were to conclude that the stab wound was the proximate cause of death. In the hypothetical with a broken ankle, and a similar hospital outcome, the judge's instructions would automatically prevent a jury from reaching a guilty verdict for murder/manslaughter.

Ding-a-ling.; June 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Ms. Cline was fired too - she wasn't disbarred, but she was removed from the position of District Attorney.

Duke gets sued for malpractice all the time - your constant ravings that they are immune are proven false repeatedly - they pay out millions in settlements.

That doesn't change the fact that had Crystal not stabbed Daye he wouldn't have died a few days later. She started the chain, which is proximate cause.

Actually, your so-called "chain" did not begin with Crystal stabbing Daye... it began with Daye straddling her and choking her. That is why she claims that she stabbed him. It is apparent that Daye was the aggressor in this incident... intoxicated and enraged enough to bust a bathroom door off its frame. Additionally, Mangum had injuries including puncture wounds to her face and hair pulled from her scalp. The stabbing was the end result of abuse and terror at the hands of Daye.

Comprende, or is more elucidation required?; June 17, 2015 at 2:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Nifong is still alive. Sidney will resume his work in restoring Nidong's bar license as soon as he has freed Mangum and obtained compensation for her.

My friend, you know me quite well. That is precisely what will happen. I anticipate that Mangum will be released sooner rather than later. My next sharlog will shed much light on the situation and you will understand my optimism in this regard. Hope to have it posted by the weekend's end. Should finish Part One tonight.; June 17, 2015 at 2:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Well duke did kill Mr. Daye with intubation malpractice resulting in brain death and requiring life support - from which duke then removed him - resulting in his ultimate death.

That resulted in the state ME filing a corrupted and fraudulent autopsy report that essentially framed Ms. Mangum for the death in the form of charges and conviction of murder and cover-uped the malpractice entirely.

So far, duke and the state ME have gotten away with those two actions in the justice system without being held accountable nor responsible for those actions resulting in the basis for the true and accurate statement that: Duke can kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder.

If Duke did murder Mr. Daye on purpose which many would reasonably suspect given their knowledge of duke's true evil nature and tendency to over-react and accuse and punish people for actions before knowing their true quilt or innocence - then the statement would be: duke can kill Mr. Daye on purpose ... or duke can murder Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder. But no ... benefit of the doubt was given in the original statement, thus making the statement: Ms. Mangum was charged and convicted for murder by malpractice a logical and accurate conclusion whether duke purposefully murdered Mr. Daye or merely killed him.

The above is but yet another example of how enlightened commenters/visitors (to this blog site) are about the Mangum case... able to intelligently discuss issues with knowledge about the case that has been suppressed in the mainstream media.

The average person off the street who relied on the media would believe that Daye died secondary to some unspecified "complication" of the stab wound Mangum inflicted. In other words, the media has done a snow job on the people.; June 17, 2015 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

Yes, more elucidation is required to your 2:20 comment.

As you know, there are two competing version of the events leading up to the stabbing. Mangum's version is consistent with self defense. Daye's version is not. The jury apparently rejected Mangum's version and accepted Daye's version in rejecting the self defense claim.

The beginning of the chain of events is common to both versions. An intoxicated and enraged Daye was the initial aggressor. Mangum retreated to the bathroom. Daye busted the door off the frame. He dragged her by her hair, pulling some out. He straddled her.

At this point, the two versions diverge.

Mangum claims Daye pulled her off the bed, pulling the mattress off with her. Mangum claims he strangled her in the bedroom, and she stabbed him as she struggled to breathe. This is consistent with self defense.

Daye claims he released her and told her to leave. He then claims he walked away, she ran to the kitchen, got a knife and stabbed him in the hallway. This is not consistent with self defense. Once Daye broke off the attack and walked away, he was no longer the aggressor. If Mangum went into the kitchen and came back with a knife, she became the aggressor.

It would be helpful if you discussed the part of this series of events that are under debate, rather than only on those events that are not in dispute. It would also be helpful if you could assess the physical evidence and its consistency with each of the two versions. For example, the mattress was on the bed, not on the floor. The blood spatter suggested Daye was stabbed in the hallway and not in the bedroom. As a result, many observers have concluded that the evidence supports Daye's version and not Mangum's.

This will be critical in addressing the self defense claim. After you have produced the sharlog that exposes Kia Hayne's perjury, you may be able to address Mangum's.

Thanks in advance.; June 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Are you going to have Ms. Mangum 'approve' your next sharlog before you post it? I ask this, because at times you have misunderstood Ms. Mangum, which has caused her some harm given the audience on this blog. It is Ms. Mangum who needs the information the most in order to defend herself successfully. Please provide her with the sharlog in a format she can view, read, understand and approve before you post it. Thank you.

I won't get Mangum's approval before posting my next sharlog, but I will send her a copy of the transcript (which will accompany my next sharlog) with my next correspondence. I will be visiting her tomorrow and will discuss the contents of the sharlog with her again in great detail. I don't have a problem with keeping her abreast of what I'm doing, but with Ann Petersen representing her, she has very little if any influence with regards of how her appeal is being handled. Therefore, I'm concentrating on doing what I can to get her free instead of trying to rely on her appellate attorney.; June 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,

Yes, more elucidation is required to your 2:20 comment.

As you know, there are two competing version of the events leading up to the stabbing. Mangum's version is consistent with self defense. Daye's version is not. The jury apparently rejected Mangum's version and accepted Daye's version in rejecting the self defense claim.

The beginning of the chain of events is common to both versions. An intoxicated and enraged Daye was the initial aggressor. Mangum retreated to the bathroom. Daye busted the door off the frame. He dragged her by her hair, pulling some out. He straddled her.

At this point, the two versions diverge.

Mangum claims Daye pulled her off the bed, pulling the mattress off with her. Mangum claims he strangled her in the bedroom, and she stabbed him as she struggled to breathe. This is consistent with self defense.

Daye claims he released her and told her to leave. He then claims he walked away, she ran to the kitchen, got a knife and stabbed him in the hallway. This is not consistent with self defense. Once Daye broke off the attack and walked away, he was no longer the aggressor. If Mangum went into the kitchen and came back with a knife, she became the aggressor.

It would be helpful if you discussed the part of this series of events that are under debate, rather than only on those events that are not in dispute. It would also be helpful if you could assess the physical evidence and its consistency with each of the two versions. For example, the mattress was on the bed, not on the floor. The blood spatter suggested Daye was stabbed in the hallway and not in the bedroom. As a result, many observers have concluded that the evidence supports Daye's version and not Mangum's.

This will be critical in addressing the self defense claim. After you have produced the sharlog that exposes Kia Hayne's perjury, you may be able to address Mangum's.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I believe Mangum's account that Daye was totally intoxicated and angry (he told Officer Bond that they argued because she was disrespecting him, and he even used the term that she was running off at the mouth). Daye had a criminal history, and the brass knuckles surely did not belong to Crystal. Daye assaulted Crystal and should have been charged with domestic abuse and assault on a female. As you are aware, the stabbing was the last event in the series of events that took place that early morning.

I believe that Daye did get knives from the kitchen and toss them at Mangum... that would explain their distribution around the bedroom and explain why she was able to grab one that was lying around when he was atop her. After she stabbed him and he got from over her, she snatched her purse and ran.

Prosecution scenario, which doesn't make sense, has her going to the kitchen, getting a knife and stabbing Daye... with Daye leaving the apartment and Mangum remaining and then scattering knives about and removing blades from handles... doesn't make sense. Prosecution never have a logical explanation for the knives being scattered and destroyed. Amazingly, the SBI lab was unable to recover any fingerprints on the knives (Daye claimed he never touched any of the knives during the incident).

My latest sharlog will contain much information, especially involving ear-witness Aykia Hanes... very important information... new information. Part one should be finished tonight. But my next sharlog should answer a lot of questions... as well as raising more about the conduct of the State in this case.; June 17, 2015 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney.

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to understand the mattress and blood spatter and any other physical evidence. Kenny has addressed the evidence in a very disingenuous manner, suggesting that the physical evidence doesn't matter because Mangum doesn't remember trivial details such as whether the mattress was pulled onto the floor and where she stabbed him. At this point, I am inclined to believe the prosecution. Mangum and her supporters seem to think the details don't matter. That is not particularly compelling.

Thanks.; June 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM
A Lawyer said...: The above is but yet another example of how enlightened commenters/visitors (to this blog site) are about the Mangum case... able to intelligently discuss issues with knowledge about the case that has been suppressed in the mainstream media.

The "enlightened" comment you quoted says that Duke may have intentionally murdered Mr. Daye. So let me ask you the three questions no one has yet tried to answer:

1. Who at Duke made the decision to murder Mr. Daye?
2. How was the order to murder Mr. Daye communicated to the medical team treating him?
3. Why did the doctors go along with the order to commit murder?; June 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: You can make evidence at the scene fit many scenarios. The well prepared prosecution craftily used the evidence found to support the never cross-examined statement that Daye gave to Officer Bond and presented this evidence to the Jury; all the while badgering Crystal about inconsequential inconsistencies in her version and suggesting to the Jury she was lying. Attorney Meier did not. Crystal raised the corner of the mattress from off the bed as a shield from knives flying at her. When she let go it fell back into place. In a clothed individual during a violent confrontation in a small apartment very little about the moment by moment happening can be ascertained by where blood stains are found. Here`s where common sense has to come into play. A drunken jealous, enraged, alcoholic Daye with a history of knife throwing and a medical history of previously being in a knife fight and who admits he tried to restrain Crystal and prevent her from leaving his apartment suddenly decides to stop his assault and flea his own apartment. He is supposedly then attacked by a much smaller knife wielding Crystal. Yeah sure. Anybody who believes this is suspending common sense and relying on findings easily manipulated to fit a theory no matter how implausible.; June 17, 2015 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Details, Kenny, details. I asked you several times before and you have refused. I don't think you are even trying anymore to convince anyone.

Whine. Whine. Whine.; June 17, 2015 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer,

Would you mind if I added another question to yours?

After question 1:

Why did that person make the decision to murder Daye?

Our enlightened poster has said that it is "obvious" and Sidney has speculated that it could be due to Mangum's "role in the lacrosse case" or because they are a lacrosse fan. Thanks.; June 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal - who had a history of running into the other room and grabbing a knife to go after someone who had attacked her ... and physical evidence more consistent with that.

Plus, she didn't help herself with her Wives with Knives story, which was a different version.

Kenny, you are delusional and would think the sky was green if Crystal said it.; June 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I have forgotten. What was the Wives with Knives version?; June 17, 2015 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

In your reply, you emphasized that Daye had a "criminal history." As you know, Mangum also had a "criminal history." In fact, her "criminal history" was more extensive than Daye's "criminal history." Unlike Daye, Mangum had some convictions. Why is Daye's "criminal history" more important than Mangum's more extensive "criminal history."

Thanks.; June 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Daye does not have any convictions - the dismissed charges are totally inadmissible, but again, Sid doesn't care about the law - he uses his twisted version to prove to Crystal that her attorneys are working against her, because they wouldn't bring the record up. Rather than acknowledging they couldn't (dismissals are inadmissible - Sid has yet to identify any admissible record for Daye), he used it to further isolate Crystal from those actually trying to help her, and make her cling to him.; June 17, 2015 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: It won't be long before Sid starts braying about Felony Murder again, even though he was repeatedly shown that it was never in play.

He refuses to learn.; June 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:20:

I know that Daye's dismissed charges are not admissible in court. Sidney, of course, is able to include them here. I was simply asking whether it was honest of Sidney to discuss Daye's charges and completely ignore Mangum's more serious charges.; June 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: I believe I speak for a majority of the people who read this blog when I say that kenhyderal provides a thoughtful and nuanced analysis of the legal issues raised by Crystal's case. His ability to apply complex legal principles to the facts of the case is unsurpassed. Kenhyderal, we look forward to more of your posts.; June 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " In the hypothetical with a broken ankle, and a similar hospital outcome, the judge's instructions would automatically prevent a jury from reaching a guilty verdict for murder/manslaughter.

Ding-a-ling."

Well Sid, I don't think anyone has ever successfully argued that you were not a Ding-a-ling. Your post certainly does nothing to dispel that notion.

Walt-in-Durham; June 17, 2015 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: How does someone die from a broken ankle in a hospital unless malpractice is the sole cause of death?; June 17, 2015 at 7:03 PM
A Lawyer said...: The example I learned in law school (and I can't tell you if this is also the law in North Carolina) was that if a mugger punches you in the jaw to steal your wallet, and you are lightly stunned and fall into the gutter, and a drunken driver comes along a few minutes later and runs you over, the mugger is guilty of murder and the drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter.; June 17, 2015 at 8:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Details, Kenny, details. I asked you several times before and you have refused. I don't think you are even trying anymore to convince anyone"............ Which details about what? I don't refuse to answer questions unless they contain a premise I consider false Re-state your question.; June 17, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I would think the drunk driver would be guilty of murder if their driving was affected by intoxication to the point where they are driving in gutters instead of the road. That is like saying the wind would be guilty of murder if it blew you into the gutter and then a drunk driver came along driving in the gutters instead of the road. The example you give lawyer doesn't make sense.; June 17, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: It might be contributory negligence if the mugger didn't take the time to make sure the victim wasn't lying in a gutter and got help right away for the broken jaw (in case a drunk driver happens along who thinks the gutters are part of the road to be driving in). But what if the mugger called 911 to report the incident so that the victim got treatment right away and made sure the victim was in a safe place before the treatment was received? And then the 911 responders arrived and just as they got there, the wind blew them into the victim sitting in a safe place - causing the victim's immediate death? Would the wind be the cause of death? The 911 responders who's inability to control their vehicle in a strong wind - would they be responsible? How could the mugger be responsible for the wind and the 911 responders inability to control their vehicle in a strong wind?; June 17, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: I know Magnum never faced the death penalty because women tend to get more lenient treatment and if Nifong had any self-respect he would have committed suicide for making a national fool of himself just like all those who believed the lacrosse team was guilty even though none of them touched Magnum.Who would want to?; June 17, 2015 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,
you said:
"I won't get Mangum's approval before posting my next sharlog, but I will send her a copy of the transcript (which will accompany my next sharlog) with my next correspondence. I will be visiting her tomorrow and will discuss the contents of the sharlog with her again in great detail. I don't have a problem with keeping her abreast of what I'm doing, but with Ann Petersen representing her, she has very little if any influence with regards of how her appeal is being handled. Therefore, I'm concentrating on doing what I can to get her free instead of trying to rely on her appellate attorney."

Is there a reason why you don't take the transcript to her when you visit with her and have her approve it after looking it over closely? If you are talking extensively to Ms. Mangum about her open case, then posting anything in public about those discussions should be approved explictly by Ms. Mangum before being made public. It seriously does not seem to be the right thing to do in this case and on this blog, especially at this time. So why are you planning on doing it?; June 17, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: June 17, 2015 at 9:52 PM

What would she face the death penalty for?; June 17, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Murder.She stabbed someone to death.; June 17, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The stab wound was repaired successfully so the defensive stab wound was not the cause of death as the injury was reported promptly and the stabbed victim received appropriate care to survive the stab wound, so the statement that Ms. Mangum stabbed someone to death is not true and is not in evidence. Mr. Daye died from complications. So Mr. Daye could be said to have been complicated to death - which doesn't make sense right - so then you could say Mr. Daye was intubated to death (by Duke), which is in evidence.; June 18, 2015 at 12:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course there is a reason he doesn't get her approval nor ever show us she agrees with what he's doing. Whatbhecis going to do in this Shitlog is say that Kia Haynes is lying about sharing a wall - his evidence will be - a typo (or intentional lie) in the police report vs the oral testimony. Kia and Crystal said she lived next door - Sid will say Kia is lying (perjury), Crystal was confused. The police report will have a different apartment number - which could just be a typo - but will be proof of a conspiracy.

Remember - everyone is infallible and doesn't make mistakes except when Sid needs them to - or its Crystal,

He's not asking Crystal for a diagram of the apartments or if he is right - he is going on assumptions and doesn't want her to tell him he is wrong. So of course he isn't clearing it - and he knows Kenny and Tinfoil will take what he says as true, and it will fuel the conspiracy. The rest of us will not. He will still do nothing through proper channels - so he will again stoke his ego, again show Crystal he is her only true hero, and again accomplish nothing. And still never even attempt to contact those who could (if they would talk but probably not) provide him answers.; June 18, 2015 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember - Kia used to be proof Daye was abusive towards Crystal and proof Meier told Crystal to lie, until Sid made the mistake of asking Crystal. He won't make that mistake again ... He has his truth and not even Crystal can stand in the way.; June 18, 2015 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm independent of any mass conclusions (brainwashing) about anything (I think the tinfoil moniker is based on that fact). It is why I visited this blog in the first place - to figure out what was going on that was mentioned in the news. It was a real eye opener. It would be nice if so many were not so brainwashed, eh?; June 18, 2015 at 4:52 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote: "The example I learned in law school (and I can't tell you if this is also the law in North Carolina) was that if a mugger punches you in the jaw to steal your wallet, and you are lightly stunned and fall into the gutter, and a drunken driver comes along a few minutes later and runs you over, the mugger is guilty of murder and the drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter."

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

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 5:43 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:19 AM wrote: "The stab wound was repaired successfully so the defensive stab wound was not the cause of death as the injury was reported promptly and the stabbed victim received appropriate care to survive the stab wound, so the statement that Ms. Mangum stabbed someone to death is not true and is not in evidence."

As much as you might wish that to be the law, it is not.

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: You can keep saying all you want what the drunk and the robber should be guilty of - A Lawyer and Walt are telling you what the law says. If you don't like the law, s=vote and elect people to change it. Whining that you disagree with it doesn't mean the system was corrupt or the fix was in - it means you don't like the law.

And, yes, they hoped the stab wound was successfully treated - but Daye died, so it wasn't. Tens of thousands of people die each year due to medical errors - it doesn't cut off the liability of the person who put them there, even if it creates liability on the hospital part. That law has been explained repeatedly as well - and while Kenny tries to distinguish it - again, if you don't like the law, change it.; June 18, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Anonymous said...: That seems like removing the right of the victim to be in the gutter in the first place. In court, the nature of the gutter would have to be examined, because some gutters would be behind protected bike lanes, where presumably people have the right over cars one could assume. Other gutters are actually ditches on the side of the road, so the car doesn't have a right to be in the ditch to begin with, but if someone fell into the ditch - their right to not be run over there would trump the cars right to drunkenly drive into the ditch one would assume. That is a very basic example for any true court case isn't it, because immediately the gutter and the rules of the road have to be examined first. It is not cut and dry.; June 18, 2015 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Plus you keep calling it a defensive stab wound - self-defense was argued, extensively - and rejected. You can think the jury got it wrong (I bet Crystal's attorneys would tell you they think the jury got it wrong) - but that's what juries do sometimes.; June 18, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: What is in evidence is that Mr. Daye assualted and attacked Ms. Mangum in a bathroom. Therefore she was made to defend herself. Other than that, nothing else was proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt. That it why I call it a defensive wound, because she was assualted and attacked first in such a way that any person would feel the need to defend themselves. Very straightforward.; June 18, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The jury disagreed ...; June 18, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ 6:03:

"Empty cans make the most noise"
- Farah Ann Abdul Hadi; June 18, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: The jury can't pass the beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt criteria to begin with, so again, other than she was attacked and assualted and then defended herself, nothing else is proven.; June 18, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "so again, other than she was attacked and assualted [sic] and then defended herself, nothing else is proven"

Where was this proven?

And it's "assaulted", Tinfoil. Your posts wouldn't garner as much ridicule if you'd take a moment to correct your spelling and grammatical errors.; June 18, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "but I will send her a copy of the transcript (which will accompany my next sharlog) with my next correspondence."

Sid -- if you already have a transcript, why not post it here, along with your sharlog -- so that those who can't access your sharlog (for whatever reason) can still be....enlightened?; June 18, 2015 at 6:39 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sid -
I assume by "accompany" you mean that it will be part of the Flash presentation. If not, and you are going to post it as a blog entry, please disregard my last comment.

Thanks; June 18, 2015 at 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Most people just try to get the gist of a persons' comments on-line without judging their every spelling and grammer mistakes. Why do you feel the need to attack on that issue as well? Seriously. You understood what I meant - but yet you attacked. I could use the spell check though if I wanted, so your services in that area aren't required. Thanks.; June 18, 2015 at 7:08 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:53 wrote: "That seems like removing the right of the victim to be in the gutter in the first place."

The victim wasn't exercising a right. He was forced there by a criminal. Talk about victim blaming. You, Kenny and Sid are fond of blaming the victim.

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 7:29 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: It's "grammar", not "grammer".

You stated ""so again, other than she was attacked and assualted [sic] and then defended herself, nothing else is proven"

This implies that the only thing proven was that Mangum was attacked and defended herself.

So I'll ask again -- where was this proven?; June 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:58 wrote: "Plus you keep calling it a defensive stab wound - self-defense was argued, extensively - and rejected. You can think the jury got it wrong (I bet Crystal's attorneys would tell you they think the jury got it wrong) - but that's what juries do sometimes."

The jury didn't get it wrong. They saw through Crystal's self-serving testimony and rejected it. Of course, the physical evidence made her testimony all that much less credible. Add to it her dishonesty on a number of issues and there was no reason to believe her and every reason to believe the physical evidence.

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: So you are saying you wouldn't defend yourself it that situation? Most people would. It was not proven that she was not defending herself.; June 18, 2015 at 7:39 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said,
"I don't refuse to answer questions unless they contain a premise I consider false"

Thus he avoids all uncomfortable questions. Good going, Kenny!; June 18, 2015 at 7:40 AM
guiowen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 18, 2015 at 7:40 AM
guiowen said...: Anon 7:39 said
"It was not proven that she was not defending herself."

Of course it was. All the jurors thought so.; June 18, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: The jurors didn't have sufficient information and expert testimony to make that decision.; June 18, 2015 at 8:32 AM
guiowen said...: I think what happened is they said, "Well, we don't have enough information, but she's kinda ugly, so let's put her away for fifteen years."; June 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt" is not the standard for Reasonable Doubt - and in fact, the Jury Instruction is:

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt.

If you listen to Jury selection, the lawyers all specifically state it is not beyond all doubt, or beyond a shadow of a doubt ... so you keep clinging to some "beyond a shadow of a doubt" which just shows you refuse to listen. You have your version of truth and ignore the law.; June 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

So you are saying you wouldn't defend yourself it that situation? Most people would. It was not proven that she was not defending herself.

If the person who had been attacking me let me go and told me to leave, and wasn't between me and the door, I would not have run into another room, grabbed a knife, and come back - I would have left. That's why I wouldn't get charged with Murder. She had every right to defend herself, until he stopped his aggression and she ran into the other room. She came back. That's when it stopped being self-defense and started being assault again on her part. Just like he lost any earlier claim he would have had to self-defense when she retreated to the bathroom. He then became the aggressor, but he ceased being the aggressor when he let her go, and she again became the aggressor by running into the kitchen, getting a knife, and going back at him. Had she been drunk or emotionally in the heat of passion she could have used that to argue manslaughter at worst, but she insisted she wasn't intoxicated, nor in a crazed/passionate state. She knew what she was doing, by her own testimony - and that part the jury seemed to believe. They didn't believe he was on top of her choking her when he was stabbed.; June 18, 2015 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing that happened at Duke had anything to do with Self-Defense - self-defense was fully presented to the jury. But, when her testimony failed to match the physical evidence, whereas Daye's was consistent with it - you either think the police staged the scene and reset the mattress and cleaned the bedroom carpet - or you think Daye's story is correct.; June 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: The sum of Sid's, Kenhyderal's and Tinfoil's arguments:

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

Selective obliviousness at it's finest.; June 18, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: It wasn't proven. The evidence to support Ms. Mangum's defense was never gathered, never presented, and never testified to. If any one of you would except the legal defense she received in this trial as acceptable by any standard if you were the one on trial in her place ... that I would not believe.; June 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " She came back. That's when it stopped being self-defense and started being assault again on her part"....... How was this proven?; June 18, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: June 18, 2015 at 8:53 AM

If that type of abuse and assaults happened to you once or twice too often, you do not know that you too might have defended yourself in the same way. You cannot judge on what you would have done because you are not Ms. Mangum. If you want to even attempt to judge her on whether she thought she was defending herself or not, then you must first understand what her expert witness about battered woman's syndrome or similar was not allowed to testify to, because that is all anyone has every really heard about Ms. Mangum - in the context of her being abused and assaulted (and becoming ill when she was).

How did she know Mr. Daye wouldn't assault her again if the other scenerio other than her own is to be believed? Mr. Daye faced charges as well after he was released from the hospital (or should have). His testimony was hearsay and second hand ... there isn't even any proof that is what he said happened to begin with. His testimony should have been recorded to make it acceptable as evidence. Obviously, it was not thought that he would die, or perhaps that would have been done to preserve evidence acceptable for a trial.; June 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The trial did nothing but prove how corrupt and ethically and morally bankrupt Duke is. It even makes all the evidence in the lacrosse case seem less believable, after seeing the same bs happening in the Duke / Durham / NC justice system again in this case. If Duke thinks they can get away with the lies in this case that has the power to harm ALL if allowed to continue, they have overstepped their rights to have people trust them for medical services, thereby harming themselves as well. Unless of course, they decide that sports and not medicine is the way to go. Maybe that is what they are after?; June 18, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: "How was this proven?"

In court, by a jury of her peers. You should try to keep up.; June 18, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: "If Duke thinks they can get away with the lies in this case"

I'm pretty sure no one from Duke was involved with the trial. Can you identify a lie that Duke or their representative made during the trial?; June 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I can identify the lies they allowed to continue to the detriment of the safety of every citizen in NC in the state's autopsy system in order to continue the wrongful prosecution of Ms. Mangum for their documented deadly malpractice that they are legally responsible for. It is the same thing essentially. They should have taken the lead to right the wrong instead of allowing it to continue if they want to be thought of as leaders and experts. Instead they sit there with with their evil grins perpetually plastered above their chins, waiting to see how successfully they have corrupted the Appeal Judges as well in this case.; June 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: "I can identify the lies they allowed to continue to the detriment of the safety of every citizen in NC in the state's autopsy system"

Duke University has no connection to the state's autopsy system, or the report generated from the ME in regards to Mr. Daye's death.; June 18, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: That I do not believe as they are leaders and experts in the health field in NC. You do not know of what you speak obviously. In any case, all they had to do was get the DA to investigate it, which they could easily have done.; June 18, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:53 wrote: "If the person who had been attacking me let me go and told me to leave, and wasn't between me and the door, I would not have run into another room, grabbed a knife, and come back - I would have left. That's why I wouldn't get charged with Murder. She had every right to defend herself, until he stopped his aggression and she ran into the other room. She came back. That's when it stopped being self-defense and started being assault again on her part."

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

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever happened, you have no proof that she did not think she was defending herself. None.; June 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever happened, you have no proof she was defending herself. None.; June 18, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: "all they had to do was get the DA to investigate it"

What is "it" that Duke should have gotten the DA to investigate?; June 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM
guiowen said...: The trouble is the Friends of CGM got her off in 2010, and made her think she could get away with this once again in 2011, that everyone (including her victim) would accept her actions as self-defense. Unfortunately she wound up killing Daye.; June 18, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes there is, there is a busted down door and pulled out hair, a confession to the assault and attack by the perpetrator, and a plea of self-defense from the victim. That is a lot of proof right there. All that is needed actually, since it was never proven that she did not think she was defending herself.; June 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever happened, you have no proof she was defending herself. None.; June 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: She did not kill Mr. Daye. Duke documents in their own medical records that they killed him with intubation malpractice. Do you Not believe what duke documents in their medical records? Is that what you are saying?

I think she thought she was defending herself in the previous case. She seems to have an illness, and even admits to it and has been treated for it - so maybe the guilt of these actions falls into the inability of the people around her to not assault or attack her. She seems to have an issue with that.; June 18, 2015 at 12:05 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:05 PM wrote: "She did not kill Mr. Daye. Duke documents in their own medical records that they killed him with intubation malpractice."

That my be your wish, but certainly that is not the law. Contributory negligence has no place in the criminal law.

Anonymous at 11:58 AM wrote: "All that is needed actually, since it was never proven that she did not think she was defending herself."

The jury didn't believe her. Nor did I.

Walt-in-Durham; June 18, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: What is really hard to believe though is that Duke thinks they can continue to get away with not being responsbile and taking accountability for what they do to harm others. The only way they could continue is if they think they can corrupt enough people - or intimidate the many enough - or brainwash them into allowing them to continue their harm to ALL regardless of laws or public opinion, politics, or ethics.; June 18, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"I don't refuse to answer questions unless they contain a premise I consider false"

Which means you believe you know everything.

Which in turn means you are incredibly stupid.; June 18, 2015 at 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: "She did not kill Mr. Daye..."

If Mangum hadn't stabbed Mr. Daye, he wouldn't be dead.

See "A Lawyer"'s example of the mugger and drunk driver if you need enlightenment.; June 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: I misspoke. I should have said "obviously false" not that "I consider false". In other words a loaded question. But any ways restate the question you claim I have avoided answering and we'll see.; June 18, 2015 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: " She seems to have an illness, and even admits to it and has been treated for it - so maybe the guilt of these actions falls into the inability of the people around her to not assault or attack her"

Yes, she seems to have an illness, although she was shown to be competent to stand trial.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say here -- and I suspect you don't, either.; June 18, 2015 at 1:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Whatever happened, you have no proof she was defending herself. None"....... And, the only "proof" you have that she was not, was the Jury's ruling based on believing the Daye/Coggins-Frank's version, which Meier did not successfully refute nor offer them an alternate interpretation of what the evidence showed.; June 18, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: In that scenario, the drunken driver is responsible as well. So Duke (the drunk driver) needs to be put on trial to determine degrees of guilt. That was not done yet. Instead the drunk driver (Duke) let the system lie and coverup their part in the death and place the entire blame on the mugger. In this case though, Duke has a higher standard of care than a drunk driver or a mugger. They sure expect and demand a higher degree of respect to go with their higher standard of care that is expected of them. If they abuse one, they forfeit the other.; June 18, 2015 at 1:26 PM
A Lawyer said...: In that scenario, the drunken driver is responsible as well. So Duke (the drunk driver) needs to be put on trial to determine degrees of guilt.

There is no concept of "comparative fault" in criminal cases-- that's something that applies only in civil suits. If Duke committed malpractice, Mr. Daye's family could sue them, but that would have nothing to do with the criminal case against Mangum.; June 18, 2015 at 1:37 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
The trouble is the Friends of CGM got her off in 2010, and made her think she could get away with this once again in 2011, that everyone (including her victim) would accept her actions as self-defense. Unfortunately she wound up killing Daye.

gui, mon ami,

I wish we could take credit for getting Mangum off in 2010, but let's face it... the case for felony first degree arson was non-existent. Despite a featherweight defense, Mangum was not convicted of the serious felony charge and given time served for the other misdemeanor charges... vandalism, interfering with an officer, and delinquency of a juvenile.

As far as Daye goes, he is hardly blameless... an alcoholic who was intoxicated, busting down a door which Mangum locked to get away from him, being pulled by her hair, and sustaining other physical abuse at the hands of Daye (owner of a pair of brass knuckles, by the way). The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death... Duke trauma surgeons doing an expert job of treating the nonfatal wound.; June 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Yes there is, there is a busted down door and pulled out hair, a confession to the assault and attack by the perpetrator, and a plea of self-defense from the victim. That is a lot of proof right there. All that is needed actually, since it was never proven that she did not think she was defending herself.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, Daye should have been charged with domestic violence and assault on a female. All of Daye's attacks on Crystal preceded her stabbing him, which was the final event which enabled her to escape.; June 18, 2015 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I see you agree that Mangum's actions against Mr. Daye are akin to the actions of the Mugger
in the aforementioned scenario.

Enlightenment!; June 18, 2015 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

" She seems to have an illness, and even admits to it and has been treated for it - so maybe the guilt of these actions falls into the inability of the people around her to not assault or attack her"

Yes, she seems to have an illness, although she was shown to be competent to stand trial.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say here -- and I suspect you don't, either.

June 18, 2015 at 1:17 PM

That is why the expert witness on the subject needed to testify. That information is needed in order to understand Ms. Mangum's state of mind at the time in order to judge whether or not she thought she was defending herself. It is rather like giving a cop the benefit of the doubt for self-defense. Many of them appear to be ill in similar manners at times, and they certainly encounter many people with that type of illness in their jobs. They also have an increased risk of developing those type illnesses themselves. The expert witness on that subject was an important part of the self-defense testimony, which is one big reason why the jury is not informed enough to make a judgement on the self-defense issue since the expert's testimony was not allowed because she did not have a professional degree in that field of expertise.; June 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "The trouble is the Friends of CGM got her off in 2010, and made her think she could get away with this once again in 2011, that everyone (including her victim) would accept her actions as self-defense. Unfortunately she wound up killing Daye" ......................... No Crystal did not kill Daye. Duke did and if the law says that Crystal murdered Daye then; "If the law supposes that then the law is an ass".... Mr.Bumble

e; June 18, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
June 18, 2015 at 8:53 AM

If that type of abuse and assaults happened to you once or twice too often, you do not know that you too might have defended yourself in the same way. You cannot judge on what you would have done because you are not Ms. Mangum. If you want to even attempt to judge her on whether she thought she was defending herself or not, then you must first understand what her expert witness about battered woman's syndrome or similar was not allowed to testify to, because that is all anyone has every really heard about Ms. Mangum - in the context of her being abused and assaulted (and becoming ill when she was).

How did she know Mr. Daye wouldn't assault her again if the other scenerio other than her own is to be believed? Mr. Daye faced charges as well after he was released from the hospital (or should have). His testimony was hearsay and second hand ... there isn't even any proof that is what he said happened to begin with. His testimony should have been recorded to make it acceptable as evidence. Obviously, it was not thought that he would die, or perhaps that would have been done to preserve evidence acceptable for a trial.

You are absolutely correct. There is no reason to believe that Daye's account is credible. He even lied to police by telling them that Mangum took his money. Totally false. Clearly the man was out of control as he busted down a bathroom door. Clearly she was afraid of him as she locked herself in the bathroom seeking to keep away from him. Furthermore, Daye was intoxicated.; June 18, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 5:58 wrote: "Plus you keep calling it a defensive stab wound - self-defense was argued, extensively - and rejected. You can think the jury got it wrong (I bet Crystal's attorneys would tell you they think the jury got it wrong) - but that's what juries do sometimes."

The jury didn't get it wrong. They saw through Crystal's self-serving testimony and rejected it. Of course, the physical evidence made her testimony all that much less credible. Add to it her dishonesty on a number of issues and there was no reason to believe her and every reason to believe the physical evidence.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, answer me this: Do you believe that Aykia Hanes heard Mangum yell, "I'm going to f___ you up," and that she heard Daye say, "Move, just move" and/or "get the hell away" as was presented at trial? This was very important testimony that I believe was responsible for Mangum's conviction. Do you believe this testimony by Hanes?

Of course, all other commenters are invited to weigh in on this question.; June 18, 2015 at 1:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You can keep saying all you want what the drunk and the robber should be guilty of - A Lawyer and Walt are telling you what the law says. If you don't like the law, s=vote and elect people to change it. Whining that you disagree with it doesn't mean the system was corrupt or the fix was in - it means you don't like the law.

And, yes, they hoped the stab wound was successfully treated - but Daye died, so it wasn't. Tens of thousands of people die each year due to medical errors - it doesn't cut off the liability of the person who put them there, even if it creates liability on the hospital part. That law has been explained repeatedly as well - and while Kenny tries to distinguish it - again, if you don't like the law, change it.

The judge's instructions stated that in order for a guilty verdict for murder or manslaughter, the jury must determine that the wound was the proximate cause of death. The wound was not the proximate cause of death, ergo, Mangum is not guilty of murder. That's it in a nut shell.; June 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "That is why the expert witness on the subject needed to testify"

Do you mean Domestic violence expert Kit Gruelle? She did testify. She testified that Mangum was as much an abuser as a victim.; June 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "The wound was not the proximate cause of death, ergo, Mangum is not guilty of murder."

Both the ME and Dr. Roberts say you are wrong.

Please provide the name of 1 physician who agrees with your argument here.; June 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 594 Newer› Newest»

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Official J4N Investigation into Reginald Daye's autopsy report and death

594 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me