The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015
1,745 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1745 Newer› Newest»g your comments fit in better at the nonwonderland blog website troll. It would be helpful to all if you posted there instead of here when you feel the need to vent your obvious extreme hatred of Ms. Mangum. You would be doing that blog a great service, since they don't quite understand what Mr. Cohan was referring to when he mentioned all the haters in some of his comments documented on that blog.
OK, so that's settled - g and haters of Ms. Mangum post on the nonwonderland site where they are needed to provide enlightenment there - all others - carry on.
Oh God,
Is the cry-bully back with us again?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid asks:
A Lawyer, is there some evidence you have to support your position that the Larceny Chose of Action charge was not used to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?
To me, it is obvious that the only reason for filing such a frivolous charge as Larceny of Chose in Action is because it is a Class H felony for use in upgrading to first degree. There was no other reason for filing the charge... especially since Daye admitted to giving the cashier's checks to Mangum. Can you come up with a reason for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge?
I will respond with several observations, all of which have been made before and all of which you have ignored. Readers are reluctant to spend a lot of time researching a question as a result. If you don't like an answer, irrespective of the support for that answer, you simply ignore the answer and pretend it doesn't exist.
I note that I believe this charge was weak.
1. The felony murder change was not part of the judege's instructions to the jury. If it had been in play, it would have been included. This omission was not an oversight. If the judge made a mistake, the prosecution would have objected.
2. Tracey Cline, the district attorney at the time of the indictment, was known for overcharging defendants. Overcharging is used to pressure defendants to accept plea bargains and not go to trial. Because she is a friend of Nifong, you treat Cline as if she is immune from criticism.
3. You frequently claim that because Daye gave the checks to Mangum for her to give to the rental agency, she could not possibly be guilty of larceny. In making this claim, you appear to take the position that his giving the checks to her is irrevokable. In other words, he has no right to tel to give them back to him.
RE: 1. The judge did not include instructions on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge because it wasn't really argued in court during trial and he knew it would never prevail.
2. Tracey Cline no more overcharges than any other prosecutor in the state. With the possible exception of Mike Nifong, probably all district attorneys and their assistants overcharge on a routine basis. Also, keep in mind that the Mangum case was not one which Cline herself prosecuted.
3. No, Daye has the right to ask that the cashier's checks be returned. The point I am making is that her possession of the checks is one in which they were voluntarily given to her... this according to Daye. In other words, she did not therefore steal them or illegally take them... an element required to sustain the Larceny of Chose in Action. That charge should have been dismissed in the pretrial stage as it had no probable cause.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Felony murder was not ever involved in this case. Yet Sid keeps pretending it was/is.
Why?
I keep asking him that. He's either delusional, or just arguing in bad faith. He's been shown 100 times that felony murder (a) wasn't charged in this case, and (b) couldn't have possibly been charged, because larceny is not a "violent felony" under the felony murder statute.
A Lawyer, if I am not mistaken, the felony-murder rule is one that enables a murder charge to upgraded to first degree if a homicide takes place during the commission of a felony crime. To my understanding the crime doesn't have to be violent or of a certain Class... just a felony.
The reason I believe that it was used for the purpose of justifying the first degree charge in murder is also based on the fact that it was first charged along with the murder indictment on April 18th. Had the prosecution considered it a serious crime, they would have charged her April 3rd along with the assault charge.
By the way, thanks for your admonition to the racist commenter.
guiowen said...
So far as I can see, Sidney is not trying to abuse her. More likely, he just enjoys visiting her. He finds it pleasant to spend his Sunday afternoons with a reasonably good looking woman thirty years his junior.I would guess she's nice enough when she's not under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. She thinks he's a nice older man who is going to get her out "sooner rather than later." It's too bad that her friends (friends her age) don't get a chance to see her, but what can you do? She thinks it's better to do as Sidney tells her.
gui, mon ami, Hah! Your assessment is not far off the mark except that my visits are usually on weekday mornings instead of Sunday afternoons, and my visits do not preclude her friends from visiting her. Since most of her friends live in Durham, they do not make it here on a frequent basis to visit. When they do apply for a visit before I do, then I am precluded from visitation that week. So actually, my visits do not interfere with visits by her friends or family.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
You don't understand--
Being Sid means never having to say you're sorry
Facts don't support that. I apologized quickly to Aykia Hanes for accusations about her testimony based on my mistaken assessment of her apartment layout. There are other extremely rare instances where I made an error with regards to someone and I said publicly that I was sorry. So your premise is outright false.
Sidney,
You apologized to Aykia for misrepresenting her apartment layout, but you keep on accusing her of perjury.
Sid - your ignorance or mental illness is showing.
You are wrong on felony murder - it has to be a violent fekony, the statutes and cases have been shown to you. It also would have to be instructed, it's not automatic - you can be convicted of the felony and not the 1st degree murder (though rare).
The judge did instruct on the larceny of chose in action - the jury acquitted. It had nothing to do with felony murder.
You are either mentally ill or deliberately lying about your understanding of felony murder. Review your blog - they statutes are clear.
If you'd actually read them, I'd repost them - but you've made it clear you will continue to flog the felony murder horse no matter how wrong you are and how pathetic it makes you look.
Sid,
Thank you for your 9:22pm response. However, once again, I ask that you stop playing dumb.
1. This is a ridiculous explanation that betrays a complete lack of understanding of legal procedure. The larceny of chose charges were not dropped. If they had been sufficient to bring the felony murder rule into play, the judge would have been required to include them in the instructions. This is an example of your refusal to admit error and apologize for a mistake. Instead, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge and you willingness to say anything. You lose credibility when you do so.
2. The point was that more charges provide more pressure to agree to a plea. Indeed, the plea offered included assault with a deadly weapon and the larceny of chose charges. The point I made about Cline is that she had a reputation for overcharging. I agree that this practice is a common problem with many prosecutors.
3. I thought in his statement, Daye not only admitted to giving the checks to Crystal with instructions to give them to the rental office the next Monday, but also claimed that during the argument, he asked or told her to give them back. If so, she was no longer legally entitled to hold them. Is your argument one of semantics, I.e., that she did not "take" them, she only refused to give them back and that lacks one of the elements of the larceny in chose charges?
Sid ... because you refuse to learn ... but claim you can read:
Here is the statute that defines First Degree Murder:
§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
(a)A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.21, poison, lying in wait
, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of
a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree...
The Courts have stated:
‘It is evident that under this statute a homicide is murder in the first degree if it results from the commission or attempted commission of one of the four specified felonies or of any other felony inherently dangerous to life, without regard to whether death being intended or not.’
State v. Swift - 290 NC 383.
Larceny is not robbery (totally different definition), and is not one that is inherently dangerous to life.
Despite your claims above, it is clearly not "any felony" so you are wrong there.
I hope you've been elucidated, but I suspect you will just continue to ignore thiw, and keep flogging felony murder - not because you believe it, but because you know it's wrong, and so everyone will tell Crystal it's wrong and you can use it as proof of their betrayal of her.
Obviously the State failed to prove the Larceny of Chose in Action - Crystal was acquitted on that charge. Of course, Sid keeps flogging the idea that they should have been dismissed pretrial, even though there is no procedure for that, and Meier did ask that they be dismissed at the close of State's evidence, and the close of all evidence, and the Judge denied that motion. Since she was acquitted on those charges, that denial never went up on appeal, and even if Crystal gets a new trial, will never be addressed, because those charges are now gone forever due to the acquittal.
The Judge did include the Larceny of Chose in Action charge - he did not include felony murder.
guiowen said...
Sidney,
You apologized to Aykia for misrepresenting her apartment layout, but you keep on accusing her of perjury.
gui, mon ami, I did apologize for accusing her of perjury based upon the apartment layout, however, that does not mean that I believe that all of her testimony was truthful.
I believe Crystal's version of events in which she stated that after stabbing Daye, who then got from atop her, she grabbed her purse and fled the apartment, and during her flight she encountered no one and spoke to no one.
Aykia's version is that Daye ran from the apartment first with Crystal coming to the door, telling her boyfriend, "Everything's fine," then slamming the door... remaining in the apartment. It doesn't make sense. Daye's credibility is the one that is questionable as he told police that Mangum had or took his $700... false! He repeatedly told investigators that Mangum stabbed him and took his money... false!
The big question is if Mangum told Aykia's boyfriend "Everything's fine," then why didn't the police interview him? Why didn't the prosecution bring him to testify at trial? Can you answer me that?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid ... because you refuse to learn ... but claim you can read:
Here is the statute that defines First Degree Murder:
§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
(a)A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.21, poison, lying in wait
, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of
a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree...
The Courts have stated:
‘It is evident that under this statute a homicide is murder in the first degree if it results from the commission or attempted commission of one of the four specified felonies or of any other felony inherently dangerous to life, without regard to whether death being intended or not.’
State v. Swift - 290 NC 383.
Larceny is not robbery (totally different definition), and is not one that is inherently dangerous to life.
Despite your claims above, it is clearly not "any felony" so you are wrong there.
I hope you've been elucidated, but I suspect you will just continue to ignore thiw, and keep flogging felony murder - not because you believe it, but because you know it's wrong, and so everyone will tell Crystal it's wrong and you can use it as proof of their betrayal of her.
Simply put, here's the definition of the "felony-murder rule": "a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder." This definition does not demand that the felony be violent in nature... just that it be a felony.
That said, the prosecution's position is that Mangum robbed Daye using a knife which was responsible for his death. Daye repeatedly told police that Mangum stabbed him and took his money. I don't understand your argument... much more elucidation is required.
The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills (regardless of accidentally or without specific intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder. Second, it makes any participant in such an offence criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that offence. In short, deaths that occur in the commission of a dangerous offence or enumerated offence (enumerated = stated in statute, e.g. rape, etc.) is murder.
Sidney:
Note that it has to be a "dangerous or enumerated crime".
Anon at 5:41 AM wrote: "...I hope you've been elucidated, but I suspect you will just continue to ignore thiw, and keep flogging felony murder - not because you believe it, but because you know it's wrong, and so everyone will tell Crystal it's wrong and you can use it as proof of their betrayal of her."
Ding-Ding-Ding. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
Anon provided the relevant statutory section and case law. Sid should read it, but we all know he won't. Time and time again he has refused to believe what is proven to him. That is an example of his fixed false belief delusion. None the less, well put, Anon at 5:41 AM.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "Simply put, here's the definition of the "felony-murder rule": "a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder." This definition does not demand that the felony be violent in nature... just that it be a felony."
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer]
Anon at 5:41 provided you the statute in North Carolina. Why do you refuse to accept the obvious?
Walt-in-Durham
Because Sidney is a liar. He will say anything that believes will support his conclusion. He hopes that his readers don't actually know any better.
Sidney must really believe that his readers are stupid.
g ... i've already told you to stop copy and pasting posts that aren't even yours and then sitting there and trolling what you just posted.
seriously
get over yourself
troll doesn't even describe what you do any more g ... since you are seriously evil
DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN
thanks
Anonymous 6:46:
Please do not post again.
thanks.
Anonymous 6:51,
Don't worry about the cry-bully. Just ignore him.
Cry bully cry
Make Keen Edwards sigh
He's old enough to know better
So cry bully cry!
Whether the Larceny in Chose of Action charge did or did not raise the Murder charge it is my belief that the Prosecutors believed the former and that was their rational for, vindictively, laying this Class F felony charge.
Kenhyderal said...
"Whether the Larceny in Chose of Action charge did or did not raise the Murder charge it is my belief that the Prosecutors believed the former."
You mean they didn't even bother to read the law? Wow! Talk about stupid prosecutors!
guiowen said...
The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills (regardless of accidentally or without specific intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder. Second, it makes any participant in such an offence criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that offence. In short, deaths that occur in the commission of a dangerous offence or enumerated offence (enumerated = stated in statute, e.g. rape, etc.) is murder.
gui, mon ami, what you failed to address is the degree of murder. The seminal part of the N.C.G.A. statute 14-17 is "Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
(a)A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological... or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree..." Prosecution's position is that the felony (Class H Larceny of Chose in Action) was committed with the use of a deadly weapon (steak knife with a five-inch blade). Although the statute does name specific felonies, it includes all felonies when it clearly states "or other felony committed..." It does not say, for example "other violent felony committed.."
Hope this provides sufficient elucidation, edification, and enlightenment.
Anonymous said...
Because Sidney is a liar. He will say anything that believes will support his conclusion. He hopes that his readers don't actually know any better.
Sidney must really believe that his readers are stupid.
To the contrary, I believe that most of this blog site visitors show a modicum of intelligence by viewing the site, and all of those viewing the site have been enlightened.
Sid,
You have exposed yourself as a delusional liar and a fraud. And Kenny is clearly your syncophant. Kenny - it doesn't matter WHY the ADA charged it - if she felt it was felony murder, she was wrong.
Felony murder was not in play - it has been shown repeatedly and was not instructed.
Sid uses it to turn Crystal against everyone who tries to give her actual legal advice - and your statements show you are in on it.
How depraved and sick do you have to be to keep victimizing and taking advantage of Crystal? It's sickening.
The statute is ambiguous. P.S. Please spare us from your unqualified psychiatric pronouncements
The case law isn't - you abuser.
You are clearly just trying to side with Sid to further the abuse. And, if felony murder was possible - why was it not charged?
You are as pathetic as Sid.
Kenhyderal,
Please help me! I'm in the m.khydup hfea
Kenhyderal,
Pay no attention to that guy who claims to be the Great Kilgo. Kilgo and his lacrosse player friend are both well. They are safe and in our hands.
Anonymous said...
Sid,
You have exposed yourself as a delusional liar and a fraud. And Kenny is clearly your syncophant. Kenny - it doesn't matter WHY the ADA charged it - if she felt it was felony murder, she was wrong.
Felony murder was not in play - it has been shown repeatedly and was not instructed.
Sid uses it to turn Crystal against everyone who tries to give her actual legal advice - and your statements show you are in on it.
How depraved and sick do you have to be to keep victimizing and taking advantage of Crystal? It's sickening.
It is fortunate that Crystal gave me a copy of her prosecution discovery. For more than four years I have used it to present an open, objective, and transparent investigation for the world to see. When Crystal is freed it will be in large measure due to my efforts. I don't comprehend how you conclude that I am victimizing and taking advantage of Crystal... that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Rationalize all you want. You are a pathetic old man who clearly takes pleasure in emotionally abusing a vulnerable woman.
Crystal is where she is because of your efforts. You are just mad it wasn't LWOP. Had she listened to her lawyers she'd be out soon.
Accepting a deal and pleading guilty to a crime you did not commit is, it seems, the American way but it makes a mockery of Justice. Crystal did not cave, even though it has cost her dearly in terms of freedom and separation from her loved ones. Everyone in North Carolina will eventually pay for this injustice, morally and monetarily.
Anonymous said: "Crystal is where she is because of your efforts"............................Dr. Harr is a seeker of justice. He is not a person who would counsel an accused to commit perjury. Too bad the despised Legal Profession in America does not have the same commitment to truth, justice and equality
Blogger kenhyderal said...
"Everyone in North Carolina will eventually pay for this injustice, morally and monetarily."
So tell us Kenny, are you working on a second secret plan to recover millions from North Carolina for Crystal?
No one had to counsel Crystal to lie ... She does that all on her own. It's too bad, the truth would have set her free, but she was too interested in trying to paint an overly rosy picture of her relationship and life with Daye and saying everyone else was lying.
When your testimony contradicts everyone else, and the physical evidence, it's hard to say you are being the truthful one.
kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "Crystal is where she is because of your efforts"............................Dr. Harr is a seeker of justice. He is not a person who would counsel an accused to commit perjury. Too bad the despised Legal Profession in America does not have the same commitment to truth, justice and equality
Thanks for the kind words, kenhyderal. Unfortunately, the last true prosecutor in North Carolina to possess integrity and a commitment to truth, justice, and equality was Mike Nifong. The P-T-Bs could not control the justice system with such a person as district attorney, so they, along with the biased media, got rid of him on trumped up charges... the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception in 1933.
Sid ... here, just to prove you are an idiot who refuses to listen ... here is another prosecutor disbarred by the State Bar in North Carolina ... you are wrong. Can you stop repeating things that are wrong? Are you incapable of learning?
http://www.caswellmessenger.com/news/article_670f0103-71ea-5bf9-a18a-56a0408a8b46.html
Joel Brewer - DA for Person and Caswell Counties - was disbarred in 2011. That's been pointed out to you, but since it also doesn't fit your narrative, you simply ignore it and continue with your lie that Nifong is the only one.
Sid,
You have once again been proven to be a liar.
Please elucidate me.
Why do you expect that anyone should trust anything you have to say? After all, if you are willing to lie about something easily proven, how so we know that you aren't lying about everything else?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid ... here, just to prove you are an idiot who refuses to listen ... here is another prosecutor disbarred by the State Bar in North Carolina ... you are wrong. Can you stop repeating things that are wrong? Are you incapable of learning?
http://www.caswellmessenger.com/news/article_670f0103-71ea-5bf9-a18a-56a0408a8b46.html
Joel Brewer - DA for Person and Caswell Counties - was disbarred in 2011. That's been pointed out to you, but since it also doesn't fit your narrative, you simply ignore it and continue with your lie that Nifong is the only one.
There is a substantial difference between the two cases... Mike Nifong was disbarred due to his handling of a criminal case whereas Joel Brewer was disbarred for committing serious crimes. I believe that most viewers understand that when I discuss Mr. Nifong's disbarment I do so with reference as to his professional practice and not other reasons such as criminal activity and/or substance abuse. The problem in North Carolina is that many prosecutors practice with extreme bias... not as "ministers of justice." That is why so many of those wrongly imprisoned (mainly African Americans), have later been exonerated and freed... something that will soon happen to Crystal Mangum. (Don't expect her prosecutor to be disbarred because her life does not matter... not like the lives of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.)
Your sole evidence that his disbarment is "unfair" is that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor disbarred for his conduct in office. Many readers agree that other prosecutors should also have been disbarred, but disagree with your "two wrongs make a right" argument. In response, you doubled down in your defense of nifong, asserting (with absolutely no proof) that he is "honorable."
In the more than seven years you have hosted that blog, you have failed to provide any credible evidence to support this opinion. None.
Sidney,
Why did you lie to yor readers, falsely claiming that you have not had access to "any" of the discovery from the lacrosse case?
Sid - the fact is - you lie - it doesn't matter if there is a difference - you say that Nifong was the only prosecutor disbarred by the State Bar - that's simply a lie. Yes, there are differences, but your statement itself is a bald faced lie that you keep repeating.
You are a liar.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Unfortunately, the last true prosecutor in North Carolina to possess integrity and a commitment to truth, justice, and equality was Mike Nifong."
Except tht corrupt da nifong who knowingly prosecuted three innocent men for a crime which never happened is by no stretch of the imagination a true prosecutor. Except in your megalomaniacal imagination.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Mike Nifong was disbarred due to his handling of a criminal case"
thoroughly corrupt da nifong was disbarred for MIShandling a criminal case.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The problem in North Carolina is that many prosecutors practice with extreme bias... not as 'ministers of justice.'"
The best example of which was and still is is thoroughly corrupt nifong who prosecuted the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse layers whom he wrongfully prosecuted solely because of racial issues. nifong wanted to score points with the racist elements in Durham's black voters, hoping he would get elected and get a better retirement.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Don't expect [crystal mangum's] prosecutor to be disbarred because her life does not matter."
No legal training, no legal experience mr. harr the hypocrite, your wish that your favorite murderess/false accuser get a pass for her crimes does not add up to grounds for disbarrment.
Wrongfully prosecuting innocent men for a crime which never happened, concealing exculpatory evidence, making public inflammatory, guilt presuming statements, saying that the defendants exercise of heir constitutional right to talk to the authorities indicates guilt, saying the defendants availing themselves of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel indicates guilt, all that DOES add up to grounds for disbarment.
That you are too stupid to realize that does not give your case merit.
mr. harr the hypocrite, what established that the charges which led to nifong's disbarment were trumped up?
Dr. Harr,
Have you considered writing a letter to your close friend, Professor James Coleman, about the unfair treatment of Crystal?
Harr Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,
Have you considered writing a letter to your close friend, Professor James Coleman, about the unfair treatment of Crystal?
No. For what end? He is employed by Duke University, and even though he may be tenured, I would not want to make his relationship with the powerful university contentious and uncomfortable by his involvement on that issue. The other thing is that I don't think he would willingly get involved in the first place for the same reasons.
His involvement in my civil case with Duke University is another matter, however, as he was a witness.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr the hypocrite, what established that the charges which led to nifong's disbarment were trumped up?
Simply this... that the State Bar initiated the file against Nifong on its own within weeks of the incident. It's bogus reasoning was because of statements that Nifong made to the media... this being before any particular defendants were even named. Then to try to bolster its actions against the Durham D.A., the Bar accused Nifong of withholding exculpatory DNA evidence from the defendants. Fact is that Nifong didn't withhold any DNA evidence, and the evidence he was accused of withholding was not exculpatory.
Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Sidney,
You failed to answer by 3:15 am question:
Why did you lie to yor readers, falsely claiming that you have not had access to "any" of the discovery from the lacrosse case?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Unfortunately, the last true prosecutor in North Carolina to possess integrity and a commitment to truth, justice, and equality was Mike Nifong."
Except tht corrupt da nifong who knowingly prosecuted three innocent men for a crime which never happened is by no stretch of the imagination a true prosecutor. Except in your megalomaniacal imagination.
The fact is that neither you nor I know the truths about the Duke Lacrosse case because A.G. Roy Cooper sealed the case. Even William Cohan, in writing his book, was denied access to the case files.
The case against Mangum is different, however, because it is open, objective, and completely transparent. I have shared online all pertinent evidence to back up my assertions. No one can back up the promulgations made by A.G. Cooper in the Duke Lacrosse case because all of the evidence is sealed.
Sid - you lie. You are worse than a politician - you won't admit you are wrong you keep making excuses. You are a fraud and a liar.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,
Why did you lie to yor readers, falsely claiming that you have not had access to "any" of the discovery from the lacrosse case?
In the Mangum case, Crystal gave me copies of most of the prosecution discovery, including the all important medical records. In the Duke Lacrosse case I was neither provided with, nor did I seek any discovery or evidence from that case. I was not aggressively following that case as an advocate. It has also become apparent to me that the A.G. sealed the evidence.
Ergo, I do not comprehend the basis for your accusations of my alleged falsehoods in this matter with respect to Duke Lacrosse discovery.
Sid:
You claimed that you do not have access to "any" of the discovery from the lacrosse case.
This is a lie.
Several years ago, in commenting on Mangum's April 6, 2006, written statement, a commenter provided you a link to that statement. You acknowledged the link, promising to comment at your "earliest convenience." After you failed to do so, this commenter reminded you of this statement numerous times.
Mangum's statement was part of discovery. You had access.
You lied to your readers. I ask that you acknowledge you lie and apologize for it.
Your statement that the AG "sealed" the evidence is also a lie. An AG does not have the power to "seal" records. That is a power of a court. Discovery is not a public document under NC state law. Nevertheless much of the discovery has been made public. Your failure to review it is due to your own laziness.
I ask that you acknowledge your lie and apologize to your readers.
Mangum's statement can be found at the following link. Sidney, you promised several years ago to comment on this. Please focus your attention on Mangum's allegation that one of the alleged attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out onto the floor.
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html
Sidney,
I don't understand how one of the alleged attackers could have ejaculated in Mangum's mouth and not have left DNA. As you know, no DNA matched any of the players. The failure to find DNA would seem to prove false this specific claim.
The statement in your letters that Mangum's allegation was never proven false would seem to be erroneous. I ask that you admit your error, first to your readers, and subsequently to each of the recipients of letters in which you made this erroneous claim.
Sidney,
Doesn't this demonstrably false accusation make Mangum a "false accuser" in the lacrosse case? That is another erroneous statement for which you should apologize to your readers and the recipients of each of the letters that contains that statement.
I'm proud to call kenhyderal my friend.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The fact is that neither you nor I know the truths about the Duke Lacrosse case because A.G. Roy Cooper sealed the case.
The fact is thai I and thousands of others do know what hppened.You do not know because you choose to be ignorant.
"Even William Cohan, in writing his book, was denied access to the case files."
William Cohan is as corrupt and delusional as you are, meaning he also chooses to be ignorant.
Nifong Supporter said...
"No one can back up the promulgations made by A.G. Cooper in the Duke Lacrosse case because all of the evidence is sealed."
Which is but another manifestation of your willful ignorance.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Ergo, I do not comprehend the basis for your accusations of my alleged falsehoods in this matter with respect to Duke Lacrosse discovery."
What happened in the Duke Lacrosse se has been documented in at least three books. Until Proven Guilt, It's Not aAbout the Truth, and Rush to injustice.
That you choose to disbelieve what the books say is not at all evidence of any coverup of the facts of the case. It is only evidence of your willful ignorance.
Mr. harr the hypocrite, what established that the ethics charges against corrupt da nifong were trumped up?
Sid is a liar and an abuser - no wonder Kenny likes him - they are one and the same.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr the hypocrite, what established that the charges which led to nifong's disbarment were trumped up?
Simply this... that the State Bar initiated the file against Nifong on its own within weeks of the incident. It's bogus reasoning was because of statements that Nifong made to the media... this being before any particular defendants were even named. Then to try to bolster its actions against the Durham D.A."
Nifong's statements, which are a matter of public record. were that a crime had happened, that members of athe Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators, He made those statements before he had any evidence. Whether or not they were made before anyone was indicted is irrelevant. They are guilt presuming statements. corrupt nifong also made statements to the effect that someone retaining an attorney was an indication of guilt, which not only violated his obligation to respect the presumption of innocence, it also was an attempt to undermine a suspect's constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. His statements to the effect that refusing to talk to the authorities made good legal sense but not good moral sense violated the constitutional guarantee against self incrimination. That you choose to be so woefully and willfully ignorant of the law does not establish that the charges against corrupt nifong were trumped up.
"Then to try to bolster its actions against the Durham D.A., the Bar accused Nifong of withholding exculpatory DNA evidence from the defendants. Fact is that Nifong didn't withhold any DNA evidence,"
The evidence was obtained by a non testimonial order. Under North Carolina Law, the agency which obtained the order, in this case the Durham DA's office headed by corrupt nifong, is obligated to provided to those subjected to the NTO a REPORT of the results in a timely manner. Weeks after he had the report, corrupt nifong provided the defense counsel with pages of raw data, not the report. That is not in compliance with North Carolina law. What the results showed was that the people corrupt nifong wanted to prosecute for the crime could not have perpetrated the crime. The evidence was exculpatory, and corrupt nifong did withhold it.
Again, your willful and woeful ignorance of the law does not establish that the case against corrupt nifong was trumped up. It establishes only that nifong prosecuted innocent men for a crime they did not commit.
and the evidence he was accused of withholding was not exculpatory.
Mr harr the hypocrite, ertablish why the dna evidence was not exculpatory.
corrupt nifong said a crime had occurred. crystal's hospital statement and the police affidavit described the alleged crime in which multiple males had penetrated crystal's person and had left evidence, evidence which contained the dna of the perpetrators. corrupt nifong ordered the testing by DNA Security because he believed the perpetrators had left dna evidence. The only dna recovered from crystal did not match the dna of the people corrupt nifong had named as suspects. That meant that, if there had been a rape, none of the people corrupt nifong wanted to prosecute could have done it.
How is that fact not exculpatory?
correction to the November 21 7:38 comment. The evidence WAS, i say again, WAS exculpatory.
I apologize for the typo.
Sidney,
I ask again that you apologize for your lies. Much of the discovery from the lacrosse case is available to you.
I will post Mangum's April 6 statement in the next several posts.
On Monday May 13th, After doing my nails and my hair, I received a call from Tammy, the owner of Angels escort service. Tammy said stated that "there will be a bachelors party at 11 pm tonight, there will be a group of guys and the guys name is Dan Flannagahn. The address is 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. She that that Melissa could call back later, closer to the time of the appointment to give the directions. I then get dressed, and my father took me to Brian's house. When I arrived at Brian's it was about 9:30-10pm. At Brian's house I had two 22 ounce Ice house beers, and I took a shower. Brian and I left his house (at the Bridges of Southpoint) about 10:30, Melissa called around 10:15 to give us directions. She gave directions several times because Brian and I kept getting lost.
I arrived at the party at 11:20 pm. When I arrived I saw about 10 guys surrounding Nikki in the back yard, and they were all holding drinks including Nikki. Nikki and I greeted each other. When we started hugging the guys started screaming "yeah."
4/6/06 6:58 pm [page 1 of 5]
Nikki and i talked for about 5 minutes. She asked me my name and I asked hers. After we exchanged names we began talking about our routine, and how we were going to dance. We both agreed that this was our first time doing a bachelor party. The guys (called Dan, and Brett) showed us to the bathroom. We went into the bathroom and shut the door. "Dan" knocked on the door and asked if wanted a drink. We said yes. He gave us a drink and we continued to talk. Two of the guys started to push their way into the bathroom while Nikki and I were talking. He said "What's the problem" get out here now" There were about 15 guys outside the door screaming "come on show us something" "Let's see some action." Once Nikki and I came out. We began to dance (attempted to) when a guy said that he was going to stick a broom stick up our asses. When he said that, the other guys (about 30) started yelling "Let's fuck these black bitches," Nikki and I started crying. I told Dan that I needed
4/6/06 7:06 pm [page 2 of 5]
my money and I started to get dressed so that we could leave. We ran out to the car screaming and crying "Dan, and Adam followed us to the car and Dan appoligized to Nikki. At that point Nikki told me that they were sorry and that they were going to give us $1200 if we stay. Nikki and I got out of the car and went back into the house. As soon as we got back into the house they were more excited and angry. They were screaming "We are going to fuck ya black bithes". We are going to stick broomsticks up your asses" Nikki and Nikki I started to leave again, and three guys grabbed Nikki, and "Bret, "Adam", and Matt grabbed me they seperated us at the Master bedroom door, while we tried to hold on to each other. Brett, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom while, the other guys were watching television, and they closed the door slightly. Matt grabbed me and looked at me, he said 'sweetheart you can't leave", He grabbed the back of my neck and said I'm going to kill you nigger bitch if you don't shut up." They were all scream we are going to "fuck this nigger bitch.
4/6/06 7:15pm [page 3 of 5]
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence
"Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt"
The source of this definition: The Free Dictionary by Farlex Definition of Exculpatory evidence.
The sexual assault alleged by crystal was a rape in which multiple males penetrated her and deposited their dna.
The only male dna recovered from crystal after the alleged crime did not match the dna of the males crrupt nifong had named as suspects.
Explain how that evidence was not exculpatory.
"
They started kicking me in my behind, and my back. Matt stood behind me and bent me over onto my knees and Adam stood in front of me. Adam said I can't do this I'm getting married, and Matt and Brett said "yes, you can do it." Matt started having sex with me in my vagina and he got frustrated because he said he couldn't cum. He had sex with me for about 2 minutes in my vagina. He ten placed his penis in my anus for about 3 minutes. He said "I'm done" come on try some Adam. Adam said I can't do it. Brett said I will. So Brett go behind me while Matt held my legs. When Brett had sex with in my vagina he stopped after about 5 minutes, then he put his penis in my anus for about 2 minutes. When Brett said that he was done, Adam said he was done also. Matt hit me in my face while Dan and Brett kicked me and called me "nigger Bitch. I heard Nikki on the other side of the door and when Adam opened the door she rushed in and helped Adam to get me dressed. They dragged me out to the car because my legs would not move. Nikki said
4/6/06 7:23pm [page 4 of 5]
What happened girl," did they hurt you." I said yes, and she said that she would get help for me. She wanted to take me to Raleigh and drop me off. but I told her to take me home. She said that she would call the police. she took me to Kroger on Hilsborogh Rd. to call the police. She tried to get me out of her car before the police arrived, but I was afraid to get out. When the police came she pulled me back inot the car, and the police took e to the hospital from Kroger parking lot.
7:27pm
I would like to add that Adam ejaculated in my mouth and I spit it out onto the floor, part of it fell onto the floor after he pulled his penis out.
[page 5 of 5]
Sidney,
You lied when you stated that "all" of the discovery was not accessible to you.
Now, answer the question:
How can the allegation Mangum made in this statement possibly be true? She alleged that one of the alleged assailants (whom she named two days earlier) ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out onto the floor. No DNA that matched any of the players was found in and on her.
You lied when you stated that none of Mangum's statement had been disproven.
You owe many people apologies.
I trust that you will post the apologies you send to the recipients of all letters in which you lied.
Sidney,
Let me ask another question. You are tying to convince people that the justice system failed Crystal and that medical and legal professionals misapplied the law. Why do you think that lying to the people you are asking for help gains you credibility?
UBES IS CRANKING IT UP TODAY
SPIN UBES SPIN
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
UBES THE LEADER OF THE LIESTOPPERS PACK
SPIN UBES SPIN
You are a liar. I am not Ubes.
Our thoughts and prayers are with UBES as he deals with his identity crisis.
Boy the guilt presuming racists are p---ed off and impotent today.
What the frack UBES there you go again with your trolling
Blah blah blah
mr. harr the hypocrite, define exculpatory evidence for us.
harr the hypocrite and kenny hissy fit again posting anonymously to create the delusion they hav support.
blah
blah
blah
(in case anyone, (Dr. Harr), wonders - ubes the evil duke troll is on a roll again (for its own amusement as self-professed by it)
Harr the hypocrite again posting anonymously and impotently.
mr.harr, the hypocriyte, explain again how filing and losing a series of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits made tou such an effective advocate.
hey ubes you little fracker stop trolling me
What the frack is going on with all this fracking going on?
blah
What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucidated by a nice shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers.
blah
blah
blah
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucidated by a nice shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers."
The only hate filled people who publish on this blog are mr. harr the hypcrite and kenny hissy fit.
If you truly desire elucidation, read Until Proven Innocent.
dmr. harr the hypocrite:
The obligation to prove in a criminal case rests with the prosecution.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The sexual assault alleged
The only dn recovered from crystal's c by crystal was a rape in which multiple assailants deposited their dna.
The only dna recovered from crystal's person did not match the dna of any of the men corrupt nifong named as suspects.
How did that evidence not raise doubt about their guilt?
How was that evidence not exculpatory.
Please elucidate.
mr. harr the hypocrite is again posting anonymously to create the delusuion that he has supporters
One day, evil duke troll ubes..., when you screw up really bad as you are bound to do by the way you act so evil on this blog, ... you will need assistance in defending yourself ... and then you will see perhaps what it is like to have someone like you be so evil in the face of your struggle for justice ... and if you are lucky ... you might just learn to understand the errors of your evil ways ... and you might even want to apologize at the time for what you are doing now ... so ... to save yourself time ... just stop and think bout that for awhile ... and you can apologize now if you want
p.s. stop trolling on this blog now ... thanks
"Anonymous said...
One day, evil duke troll ubes..., when you screw up really bad as you are bound to do by the way you act so evil on this blog, ... you will need assistance in defending yourself ... and then you will see perhaps what it is like to have someone like you be so evil in the face of your struggle for justice ... and if you are lucky ... you might just learn to understand the errors of your evil ways ... and you might even want to apologize at the time for what you are doing now ... so ... to save yourself time ... just stop and think bout that for awhile ... and you can apologize now if you want
p.s. stop trolling on this blog now ... thanks
November 21, 2015 at 4:04 PM"
Boy are you p---ed off and stressed out over your incredible stupidity.
fy evil troll ubes
just anything to put me down and falsly accuse me right - nothing you say means anything anyway - since you basically sit here and troll anything and everything that anyone says on this blog that is anyway truthful about duke - everything to you is bully and troll and falsly accuse and disparage others
new low for you - or are you always this mean and stupid - oh wait - you are just trying to prove my point that duke is mean - it is a game to them - and they do not care how evil they are - as long as they feel like they 'win'
right evil duke troll? right.
Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr the hypocrite, what established that the charges which led to nifong's disbarment were trumped up?
Simply this... that the State Bar initiated the file against Nifong on its own within weeks of the incident. It's bogus reasoning was because of statements that Nifong made to the media... this being before any particular defendants were even named. Then to try to bolster its actions against the Durham D.A."
Nifong's statements, which are a matter of public record. were that a crime had happened, that members of athe Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators, He made those statements before he had any evidence. Whether or not they were made before anyone was indicted is irrelevant. They are guilt presuming statements. corrupt nifong also made statements to the effect that someone retaining an attorney was an indication of guilt, which not only violated his obligation to respect the presumption of innocence, it also was an attempt to undermine a suspect's constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. His statements to the effect that refusing to talk to the authorities made good legal sense but not good moral sense violated the constitutional guarantee against self incrimination. That you choose to be so woefully and willfully ignorant of the law does not establish that the charges against corrupt nifong were trumped up.
"Then to try to bolster its actions against the Durham D.A., the Bar accused Nifong of withholding exculpatory DNA evidence from the defendants. Fact is that Nifong didn't withhold any DNA evidence,"
The evidence was obtained by a non testimonial order. Under North Carolina Law, the agency which obtained the order, in this case the Durham DA's office headed by corrupt nifong, is obligated to provided to those subjected to the NTO a REPORT of the results in a timely manner. Weeks after he had the report, corrupt nifong provided the defense counsel with pages of raw data, not the report. That is not in compliance with North Carolina law. What the results showed was that the people corrupt nifong wanted to prosecute for the crime could not have perpetrated the crime. The evidence was exculpatory, and corrupt nifong did withhold it.
Again, your willful and woeful ignorance of the law does not establish that the case against corrupt nifong was trumped up. It establishes only that nifong prosecuted innocent men for a crime they did not commit.
and the evidence he was accused of withholding was not exculpatory.
If, as you say, the law says that the prosecution is to provide a DNA report for the defense, then that is one stupid law and should be immediately rescinded. If I am a lawyer representing a defendant, I would much rather have the raw data and analyze it myself rather than rely on a report by the prosecution. In fact, if I'm a defense lawyer, I would never rely solely on a report constructed by the prosecution. I'm sure the Duke Lacrosse defense attorney feel the same way. All the defense attorneys in the Duke Lacrosse case wanted to do is stir up controversy and malign Nifong. Big deal... so he didn't present the defendants with a report on a silver platter. If he had, you can be assured that the defense attorneys would've then complained about the report's substance, format, font used, size of type, cover, number and placement of staples... you name it.
Sid you are a liar and an abuser. You've been exposed as an abusive liar. Go away.
Hey, Anonymous 5:45,
Or should I say, Tinfoil Crybully?
Good to have you back. It's always fun reading your comments which would be mean if they weren't so idiotic.
Sidney said,
" If he had, you can be assured that the defense attorneys would've then complained about the report's substance, format, font used, size of type, cover, number and placement of staples... you name it."
No, Sidney, if he had done so, his case would have fallen apart, but he would have acted honorably.
Nifong Supporter said...
"If, as you say, the law says that the prosecution is to provide a DNA report for the defense, then that is one stupid law and should be immediately rescinded. If I am a lawyer representing a defendant, I would much rather have the raw data and analyze it myself rather than rely on a report by the prosecution."
Except you are incapable as a lawyer. As you were never accepted into residency training and never achieved board certification, you would never be able to analyze the raw data and come up with the findings. Corrupt nifong, wrongly and foolishly, believed the defense attorneys would be able to understand the results. He was trying to keep the defense unaware of the exculpatory nature of the evidence. The change in the law you advocate would allow corrupt prosecutors like nifong to conceal exculpatory evidence.
"In fact, if I'm a defense lawyer, I would never rely solely on a report constructed by the prosecution. I'm sure the Duke Lacrosse defense attorney feel the same way. All the defense attorneys in the Duke Lacrosse case wanted to do is stir up controversy and malign Nifong"
Except it was corrupt nifong himself who had already stirred up the controversy via his inappropriate, inflammatory pre indictment guilt presuming statements.
"Big deal... so he didn't present the defendants with a report on a silver platter."
The Law, which he was required to uphold as part of his job as District Attorney, required that he provide the defense with a report. Since he did not do so, he broke the law. To you, it seems, it was no big deal that he broke the law rather than uphold it.
"If he had, you can be assured that the defense attorneys would've then complained about the report's substance, format, font used, size of type, cover, number and placement of staples... you name it."
No they wouldn't. The issue was that corrupt nifong had in his custody evidence which exonerated the men he wanted to prosecute for rape, and he withheld it.
fy evil duke troll it g...
blah
Note: feel free to plagerize and repeat the above after every one of your posts ... just for amusement and all ... g...
Sidney,
YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO EVIDENCE YOU LIED.
You lied when you stated that "all" of the discovery was not accessible to you.
Now, answer the question:
How can the allegation Mangum made in this statement possibly be true? She alleged that one of the alleged assailants (whom she named two days earlier) ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out onto the floor. No DNA that matched any of the players was found in and on her.
You lied when you stated that none of Mangum's statement had been disproven.
You owe many people apologies.
I trust that you will post the apologies you send to the recipients of all letters in which you lied.
Let me ask another question. You are tying to convince people that the justice system failed Crystal and that medical and legal professionals misapplied the law. Why do you think that lying to the people you are asking for help gains you credibility?
November 21, 2015 at 8:24 AM
Hey mr. harr the hypocrite, why did corrupt nifong not provide the report when he provided the raw data? What prvented him from doing that? The only explanation was that he did not want the defense to know he was concealing exculpatory evidence from them.
And answer this question.Why was the evidence not exculpatory?
Sidney,
If the raw data is necessary, why did Nifong fight giving it in court, arguing that the request for the data was too expensive and thus burdensome?
Anonymous 5:04:
You forget. Nifong provided the DNASI report months before the court directed him, over his objections, to provide the raw data. The only problem was that the report was not fully accrue. Meehan testified that he and Nifong agreed that the report should not summarize all of the data.
Incomplete reports are the hallmark of an honorable prosecutor.
I love the way that Sidney completely ignores those posters who provide evidence that he is a liar. He seems to think that if he ignores the evidence, then it simply doesn't exist.
mr. harr is a hypocrite. With regard to AG Cooper's press conference on the disposition of the Lacrosse case, mr. harr says the Attorney General's proclamation of the innocence of the lacrosse players had no legal weight(conveniently ignoring that AG Cooper proclaimed nothing). But no legal training, no legal experience mr. harr proclaims that corrupt nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense and that the evidence he was accussd of withholding was not exculpatory. And he thinks that proclamation has legal weight.
Harr lies in the letters he sends asking for help.
Sid,
When are you going to send "corrections" to the recipients of the letters in which you lied? Why do you think that lying to people makes you more credible?
"Why do you think that lying to people makes you more credible?"
Because Sidney is perfect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU
mr. harr the hypocrite, with regard to lab report versus pages of raw data:
You are saying, if you were defending a client on a criminal charge, and the prosecutor furnished you with a laboratory report which exonerated your client, you would reject it, you would not take the report and g to the judge and move that charges against your client be dismissed.
Do you realize how incredibly stud that makes you?
Do you really expect anyone to believe that kind of thing makes you an effective advocate.
Anonymous said...
Sid you are a liar and an abuser. You've been exposed as an abusive liar. Go away.
Actually, I am an enlightener and rectifier... an enlightened rectifier. Unfortunately, sometimes, as in your case, the truth hurts.
guiowen said...
Sidney said,
" If he had, you can be assured that the defense attorneys would've then complained about the report's substance, format, font used, size of type, cover, number and placement of staples... you name it."
No, Sidney, if he had done so, his case would have fallen apart, but he would have acted honorably.
gui, mon ami, the defense attorneys' complaint about not receiving a written report is frivolous and disingenuous. Nifong provided them with all of the DNA data... we can agree on that? Why should the defense expect the opposing side to analyze and provide a written report on top of it all? A defense attorney worth his salt would not accept a report from the opposing side at face value, but rather conduct his own evaluation. The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong.
Sid,
You have been proven to be a liar. You have ignore the evidence that proves that. When are go planning to apologize.
Sid states: gui, mon ami, the defense attorneys' complaint about not receiving a written report is frivolous and disingenuous. Nifong provided them with all of the DNA data... we can agree on that? Why should the defense expect the opposing side to analyze and provide a written report on top of it all? A defense attorney worth his salt would not accept a report from the opposing side at face value, but rather conduct his own evaluation. The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong.
Sid, I would advise you not to describe others as "disingenuous" when you are being disingenuous. First, Nifong provided a written report as is required by law. The problem with the report was that it was incomplete. Why was Nifong "honorable" when he provided a report that was incomplete? Second, when the defense attorneys asked for the raw data Nifong fought that request, arguing that providing the raw data would be expensive and therefore burdensome. He only provided it pursuant to a court order, albeit a week later than the court ordered Why was Nifong "honorable" when he objected to providing the data that you claim is necessary to provide a defense?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,
YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO EVIDENCE YOU LIED.
You lied when you stated that "all" of the discovery was not accessible to you.
Now, answer the question:
How can the allegation Mangum made in this statement possibly be true? She alleged that one of the alleged assailants (whom she named two days earlier) ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out onto the floor. No DNA that matched any of the players was found in and on her.
You lied when you stated that none of Mangum's statement had been disproven.
You owe many people apologies.
I trust that you will post the apologies you send to the recipients of all letters in which you lied.
Let me ask another question. You are tying to convince people that the justice system failed Crystal and that medical and legal professionals misapplied the law. Why do you think that lying to the people you are asking for help gains you credibility?
When I said "all" I meant it as the "entirety." The entire Duke Lacrosse file was not available to me. In the Mangum case, I received most, if not all of the prosecution discovery which enabled me to fully and effectively advocate for Mangum.
With regards to allegations in the Duke Lacrosse case, I am unable to give meaningful commentary as I lack sufficient evidence and discovery related to the case. Also, regarding the DNA lab work, I do not automatically place complete faith in the government's lab findings.
Clearly the legal system failed Crystal by indicting her for crimes that never took place... neither the Larceny of Chose in Action nor the "alleged" homicide. That was only the beginning of the failures of the system in its vindictive and unprovoked attack on Mangum.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr the hypocrite, with regard to lab report versus pages of raw data:
You are saying, if you were defending a client on a criminal charge, and the prosecutor furnished you with a laboratory report which exonerated your client, you would reject it, you would not take the report and g to the judge and move that charges against your client be dismissed.
Do you realize how incredibly stud that makes you?
Do you really expect anyone to believe that kind of thing makes you an effective advocate.
No, what I am saying is that if the opposing counsel gave me a report about lab favorable to my client, I would first use my raw data to corroborate findings in the report, and satisfied as to their accuracy, then go to the judge.
Comprende? Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,
You have been proven to be a liar. You have ignore the evidence that proves that. When are go planning to apologize.
First, I disagree with your premise. Ergo, to address the question related to it would be moot.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid states: gui, mon ami, the defense attorneys' complaint about not receiving a written report is frivolous and disingenuous. Nifong provided them with all of the DNA data... we can agree on that? Why should the defense expect the opposing side to analyze and provide a written report on top of it all? A defense attorney worth his salt would not accept a report from the opposing side at face value, but rather conduct his own evaluation. The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong.
Sid, I would advise you not to describe others as "disingenuous" when you are being disingenuous. First, Nifong provided a written report as is required by law. The problem with the report was that it was incomplete. Why was Nifong "honorable" when he provided a report that was incomplete? Second, when the defense attorneys asked for the raw data Nifong fought that request, arguing that providing the raw data would be expensive and therefore burdensome. He only provided it pursuant to a court order, albeit a week later than the court ordered Why was Nifong "honorable" when he objected to providing the data that you claim is necessary to provide a defense?
I certainly do not fault Nifong for trying to save the State money. However, as I have repeatedly stated, I am focused on the Mangum murder trial, not the Duke Lacrosse case. Furthermore, I have access to evidence in the Mangum murder case to make analysis and informed comments. Allow me to make it crystal clear that my aim is to have Mangum exonerated and freed.
Nifong Supporter said...
"gui, mon ami, the defense attorneys' complaint about not receiving a written report is frivolous and disingenuous. Nifong provided them with all of the DNA data... we can agree on that?"
The law, mr. harr, was that the prosecution was to provide a REPORT in a timely manner. corrupt nifong violated the law violated the law by failing to provide the report, and he did not provide the raw data until months afte he had obtained it.
"Why should the defense expect the opposing side to analyze and provide a written report on top of it all?"
A total irrelevancy. The prosecution DID NOT have to analyze the data and generate the report. DNA Security analyzed the data and generated the report. All corrupt nifong had to do was furnish a copy of that report to the defense. That was what the law required him to do.
"A defense attorney worth his salt would not accept a report from the opposing side at face value, but rather conduct his own evaluation. The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong."
Another irrelevant comment in your incredibly stupid attempt to get your favorite corrupt prosecutor a pass for his ethical and legal failures. What do you not understand about this: NORTH CAROLINA LAW REQUIRED, I SAY AGAIN, REQUIRED CORRUPT NIFONG TO FURNISH A REPORT. He did not.
Why would any defense attorney worth his salt disputr an admission by the prosecutor that the prosecutor had no case?
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr the hypocrite, with regard to lab report versus pages of raw data:
You are saying, if you were defending a client on a criminal charge, and the prosecutor furnished you with a laboratory report which exonerated your client, you would reject it, you would not take the report and g to the judge and move that charges against your client be dismissed.
Do you realize how incredibly stupid that makes you?
Do you really expect anyone to believe that kind of thing makes you an effective advocate.
No, what I am saying is that if the opposing counsel gave me a report about lab favorable to my client, I would first use my raw data to corroborate findings in the report, and satisfied as to their accuracy, then go to the judge."
Which is yet another incredibly stupid attempt to dodge the issue. The defense attorneys in the Lacrosse case did not have a report. They did not have a report because corrupt nifong violated the section of North Carolina Law which REQUIRED, I say again, REQUIRED him to furnish them a copy of DNA Security's report in a timely manner.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I certainly do not fault Nifong for trying to save the State money."
Corrupt nifong was not trying to save the state money. He was concealing exculpatory evidence from the defendants.
"However, as I have repeatedly stated, I am focused on the Mangum murder trial, not the Duke Lacrosse case. Furthermore, I have access to evidence in the Mangum murder case to make analysis and informed comments. Allow me to make it crystal clear that my aim is to have Mangum exonerated and freed."
No, you are truying, very ineffectively I add, to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
mr.harr the hypocrite, why was the evidence corrupt nifong trird to conceal not exculpatory?
Nifong Supporter said...
"When I said "all" I meant it as the "entirety." The entire Duke Lacrosse file was not available to me. In the Mangum case, I received most, if not all of the prosecution discovery which enabled me to fully and effectively advocate for Mangum."
Why should anyone provide you with the case file for the rape hoax? Besides, what happened in the rape hoax is public knowledge, even if you choose to be willfully ignorant.
"With regards to allegations in the Duke Lacrosse case, I am unable to give meaningful commentary as I lack sufficient evidence and discovery related to the case. Also, regarding the DNA lab work, I do not automatically place complete faith in the government's lab findings."
Which means only, you think the exculpatory dna evidence should have been discarded because you have presumed the Lacrosse players guilty.
Sidney explains his inability to reach a conclusion in the lacrosse frame: When I said "all" I meant it as the "entirety."
Fine. In the same way, none of your readers can conclude that Mangum's conviction for murder is unjust. The non-expert opinion of a friend of the defendant does not overcome two expert opinions to the contrary.
Although much of the prosecution's case came out in trial, you have consistently refused to post the entirety of the discovery file you received. Your readers do not trust your analysis because you have consistently exposed yourself as a hypocritical liar.
I ask again, when will you post the entire discovery file? What are you hiding?
Anonymous said...
Sid you are a liar and an abuser. You've been exposed as an abusive liar. Go away.
Actually, I am an enlightener and rectifier... an enlightened rectifier. Unfortunately, sometimes, as in your case, the truth hurts.
The only one you are hurting is Crystal. You are a liar and an abuser.
gui, mon ami, the defense attorneys' complaint about not receiving a written report is frivolous and disingenuous. Nifong provided them with all of the DNA data... we can agree on that? Why should the defense expect the opposing side to analyze and provide a written report on top of it all? A defense attorney worth his salt would not accept a report from the opposing side at face value, but rather conduct his own evaluation. The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong.
Once again, Sid refuses to read the rules. The State is required to provide the raw data, and the report of their expert. The Defense would retain their own expert as well - but if you read the rules, the State is required to provide the report of the expert as well.
You are an idiot, liar, and abuser.
dddAgain, the harrian hypocrisy:
Mr. harr claims, wrongly, that AG Cooper proclaimed the lacrosse players innocent and that had no legal weight.
Yet he has today proclaimed that the exculpatory dna evidence DNA Security found was not exculpatory and he believes his proclamation carries great legal weight.
When will the next harrian anonymous post come, mr harr's attempt to create the illusion he has support out there.
Mr. harr the hypocrite, you havr again demonstrsted, in spite of your protestations to thr contrary, that the Lacrosse players were guilty and should have been convicted solely on the basis of your proclamation of guilt.
Actually, I am an enlightener and rectifier... an enlightened rectifier. Unfortunately, sometimes, as in your case, the truth hurts.
I am the Rectumfinder! And when I find Sidney's rectum, that will hurt!
Sidney said,
"The complaint is moot in a desperate search for a reason to attack Nifong."
What desperate search? We're all quite happy that Nifong is where he is. We have no need to look for any reason to attack him.
Guiowen said: We're all quite happy that Nifong is where he is".......... Your epicaricacy is showing Guiowen also said: "We have no need to look for any reason to attack him"........ As is your sarcasm
kenny hissy fit trying salvage corrupt nifong's long vanished unsalvageable reputation. kenny hissy fit also choosing to be willfully ignorant that corrupt nifong was the one responsible for the failure to identify the source of the male dna found on crystal.
Even Kenny has stopped defending Harr he lying, delusional abuser.
Mr. harr the hypocrite, you obviously did not want the lineup procedure of April 4, 2006, called into question, even though the procedure was not properly conducted and crystal did not reliably identify any member of the lacrosse team as an assailant. Note, certainty does not equal reliability.
The lineup was to included fillers, people who were known to be innocent. The April 4 lineup included only suspects. The procedure was to be conducted by an officer who was not familiar with the case. The April 4 lineup was conducted by Detective Sergeant Mark Gottlieb who was an investigator on the case.
Two of the men crystal had identified with 100% certainty could prove with 100% certainty they had not been present at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime had supposedly happeend. The third man, whom she had identified with 90% certainty had a mustache at the time of the alleged crime. That individual, David Evans, did not have a mustache.
So why did you cite that lineup as justification for charging three innocent men with a crie?
Kenhyderal,
We have no need to attack Mike Nifong. He is where he should be, because of his own actions. We've all turned that page, many years ago. It's too bad that you and your friend Cohan can't do so. Too bad.
P.S. I'm speaking the truth as I see it. If you feel it's sarcasm, something is wrong with you.
Sidney,
Isn't it wonderful? Kenhyderal just learned a new word.
I don't watch Bill O'Reilly
Kenny said: I don't watch Bill O'Reilly
I had you pegged for a Bill O'Reilly sort of guy. You are arrogant, contemptuous of those who disagree with you, try to control the debate and provide little support for your opinions. In short, both you and O'Reilly are master debaters.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney explains his inability to reach a conclusion in the lacrosse frame: When I said "all" I meant it as the "entirety."
Fine. In the same way, none of your readers can conclude that Mangum's conviction for murder is unjust. The non-expert opinion of a friend of the defendant does not overcome two expert opinions to the contrary.
Although much of the prosecution's case came out in trial, you have consistently refused to post the entirety of the discovery file you received. Your readers do not trust your analysis because you have consistently exposed yourself as a hypocritical liar.
I ask again, when will you post the entire discovery file? What are you hiding?
Most of the relevant documents have been posted repeatedly on my blog site. To post the entirety of the prosecution discovery I have in my possession would be confusing and counterproductive, not to mention the expansive amount of time required for such an undertaking.
You are being hypocritical.
Most of the relevant documents for the lacrosse frame are posted on the internet. That isn't enough for you. You demand "all" documents, apparently claiming that you can't review the massive amounts of information that is available, without everything.
Fine. I am making the same claim for Mangum's murder conviction. I can't review anything until I have it all. A jury found Mangum guilty, and I can't review any claim of injustice until I have everything. Stop hiding it.
In addition to all discovery, I also want you to post the transcript of the trial. I don't have time to sit through the video when I want to hear something again. When will you have it posted?
mr. harr, why was the evidence corrupt nifong concealed not exculpatory?
Why was the improper lineup procedure of April 4, 2006, justification for indicting three mrmbers of the Duke Lacrosse team for rape?
Sid, a known liar and exaggerator, refuses to put all the information out, but wants us to trust him that he is being fair in what he puts out. How anyone can believe him based on his selective release of documents is beyond me.
Of course, we know why he doesn't release it - he gets proven wrong. A few examples:
1. He talked about the failure to admit Daye's prior record - then he posted the record, and it was shown the prior record was inadmissible.
2. He said Kia Haynes was lying about the apartment location - he posted the diagram, and was shown to be lying about that.
The list goes on and on - of course he won't release all of the Discovery - if he does, his lies and myths will be exposed for all to see.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Most of the relevant documents have been posted repeatedly on my blog site. To post the entirety of the prosecution discovery I have in my possession would be confusing and counterproductive, not to mention the expansive amount of time required for such an undertaking."
Meaning, there is information there inimical to my cause of getting my favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes so, in a true display of nigongian ethics I am going to conceal it.
mr. harr, specify what established crystal was the victim of a rape or of a sexual assault.
Anonymous said: "I had you pegged for a Bill O'Reilly sort of guy. You are arrogant, contemptuous of those who disagree with you, try to control the debate and provide little support for your opinions".................................. Wrong, I'm a Reverend Al Sharpton sort of guy. Just slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders
@ Anonymous 12:28 Addressed to Dr. Harr but if I May; the presence of DNA extracted from sperm not explained by her consensual sexual history.
That's assuming you can believe what she said about her consensual sexual history. It's not clear to me that you can believe anything she said, about her sexual history or anything else.
Kenhyderal,
Al Sharpton has done a lot of good things. He fouled up entirely on the Tawana Brawley case. You have your own "Tawana Brawley" case, and have done none of the good things.
So at least you're like Sharpton in one thing.
kenhyderal said...
"Wrong, I'm a Reverend Al Sharpton sort of guy."
You mean race baiter Al, instigator of the Tawana Brawley hoax, instigator of the crown heights riots.
You admit you are a guilt presuming racist.
kenhyderal said...
"@ Anonymous 12:28 Addressed to Dr. Harr but if I May; the presence of DNA extracted from sperm not explained by her consensual sexual history."
Wrong.
As the timing of the dna could not, by your own admission, could not be narrowed to the night of March 13/14 2006, the night of the alleged crime, it did not establish that she had been assaulted that night.
And you are so fixated on thar dna, maybe you would like to explain why corrupt nifong conceale the existence of that dna rather than determine the source of it.
kenny hissy fit:
What established that the dna found on crystal's rape kit was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. It is not the presence of sperm fraction dna. Unless you can establish it was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006 it does not establish anything.
The failure to find any injuries pathognomonic of rape raises doubt, more than reasonable doubt that crystal was raped.
I again say, you have so much heartburn over the failure of the police to identify te sources of that dna, I remind you that corrupt nifong had custody of that evidence for several months after it was identified. No one was aware of that evidence until Brad Bannon, a defense attorney had analyzed the raw data, determined what it showed, and revealed the existence of that evidence to the world. Corrupt nifong got the report in May of 2006. Brad Bannon revealed the evidence in December of 2006. It was also revealed that corrupt nifong and Brian Meehan of DNA Security had conspired to keep that evidence a secret.
So stopspouting off about why no effort was made to identify the source of the dna. It is known whay no effort was made. Corrupt nifong tried to conceal that evidence.
Point 1: Although DNA deposition can't be timed the DNA found was probably deposited on March 13/14 but the time of it's deposition could not be certified definitively, thus creating some doubt. Point 2: DA Nifong believed he still had enough evidence to proceed with sexual assault. Point 3: Where he failed was in determining the source of the DNA which, with a proper investigation, could have easily been done as Crystal's Agency kept records of all her clients and she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them.
Kenhyderal said,
"Crystal's Agency kept records of all her clients and she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them."
What Nifong should have done was ask each of her clients for DNA samples. Since (as Crystal said, and you insist must be true) she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them, I have no doubt they would all have been willing, nay eager, to provide the samples.
kenhyderal said...
"Point 1: Although DNA deposition can't be timed the DNA found was probably deposited on March 13/14 but the time of it's deposition could not be certified definitively, thus creating some doubt."
Which means, it can not be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 3006. It did not establish probable cause that a rape had happened.
"Point 2: DA Nifong believed he still had enough evidence to proceed with sexual assault."
Wrong. The sexual assault alleged by crystal was a RAPE in which multiple males penetrated her and deposited dna evidence on her. There was no dna evidence to support the idea that said rape occurred. Corrupt nifong proceeded knowing he did not have enough to proceed.
"Point 3: Where he failed was in determining the source of the DNA which, with a proper investigation, could have easily been done as Crystal's Agency kept records of all her clients and she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them."
So again explain why corrupt nifong concealed the existence of the dna evidence rather than attempt to identify the sources. Why did corrupt nifong and Brian Meehan agree to withhold from public knowledge the dna evidence?
Kenny opined: Point 2: DA Nifong believed he still had enough evidence to proceed with sexual assault.
I am willing to explore further your theory that Nifong was incompetent, stupid and lazy rather than dishonest and corrupt.
This would require a detailed examination of the many failures of the DPD's faux investigation. We will have to understand why Nifong failed to recognize that the DPD had failed to investigate the most widely publicized case is the City's history, why he failed to demand that they do their jobs, and finally why he proceeded with a case based on what he later conceded was "no credible evidence" to support the charges.
This will require a fair amount of work. However, your master debating will add nothing to the process. As a result, you will have to pledge your honest cooperation with the inquiry. Is this something you wish to explore?
kenny hissy fit:
Let's go through this again.
You think it significant that no attempt was made to identify the dna found on crystal.
corrupt nifong had custody of that evidence between May of 2006 and December of 2006. If as you pointed out, he could have easily determined crystal's sexual history then why did he not do so.
Don't give me the crap that he felt he had enough to proceed against the Lacrosse players. He had nothing which would have justified proceeding against the Lacrosse players. He never believed crystal was raped. He just wanted to convict members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.
Sid,
When is the transcript going to be posted? There are a couple of things I want to focus on in my analysis. Thanks for your help.
Guiowen suggested: What Nifong should have done was ask each of her clients for DNA samples. Since (as Crystal said, and you insist must be true) she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them, I have no doubt they would all have been willing, nay eager, to provide the samples.
Guiowen, you are absolutely correct.
And, as Nifong demonstrated, the best way to ensure full cooperation with an investigation is to publicize the targets of the investigation. I have no doubt that the clients and the escort agencies would welcome the publicity that this investigation would bring. This is the perfect opportunity to destroy the myth that escort agencies are merely fronts for prostitution. I can imagine what a great marketing program the agency could run as a result: Book Bunny Hole for your private late night poetry reading and you can too provide DNA in a rape investigation. A negative test is the perfect opportunity to build trust with spouses.
UBES is reaching into his Liestoppers bag of tricks.
SPIN UBES SPIN
QUACK QUACK QUACK
We can always count on UBES and the Liestopper cranks to entertain us on Sid's blog
SPIN UBES SPIN
@Anonymous 4:59..... You are just as wounded as Guiown
Anonymous said...
You are being hypocritical.
Most of the relevant documents for the lacrosse frame are posted on the internet. That isn't enough for you. You demand "all" documents, apparently claiming that you can't review the massive amounts of information that is available, without everything.
Fine. I am making the same claim for Mangum's murder conviction. I can't review anything until I have it all. A jury found Mangum guilty, and I can't review any claim of injustice until I have everything. Stop hiding it.
In addition to all discovery, I also want you to post the transcript of the trial. I don't have time to sit through the video when I want to hear something again. When will you have it posted?
Much of the Duke Lacrosse evidence may very well be scattered throughout the internet, however, I have neither the time nor inclination to go collecting it... especially when I am focusing my efforts on Mangum's murder trial for the purpose of freeing her and having her exonerated.
With regards to the trial transcript, let me look into placing it online.
" THE GREAT KILGO said..."
There is no such entity.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Much of the Duke Lacrosse evidence may very well be scattered throughout the internet, however, I have neither the time nor inclination to go collecting it..."
How about you get a copy of Intil Proven Innocent. All the evidence is there.
You will not do so because you avoid the truth the way the Devil avoids the truth.
Sid whines: Much of the Duke Lacrosse evidence may very well be scattered throughout the internet, however, I have neither the time nor inclination to go collecting it... especially when I am focusing my efforts on Mangum's murder trial ...
I understand that you currently are busy.
The best time to have reviewed the evidence from the lacrosse frame was before you concluded Nifong had been unfairly treated and was honorable, formed the J4N committee and started this blog to present your uninformed case.
Now that you have destroyed your credibility with your uninformed advocacy of Nifong, no one takes you seriously on anything else. Well done!
Crystal's rape allegation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gh8oGF4iXQ
After the party, crystal and kim roberts/pittman drove off. Kim Roberts/Pittman called 911, not to reprt a rape but to claim that while she and her girlfriend were either walking or riding by the house on North Buchanan, someone yelled "n---er". She then drove Crystal not to a police station or to a medical treatment facility but to a grocery store where she tried to have a security guard force crystal to exit her car. The guard called the police. The responding officer thought crystal was drunk. The officer then took her to an intake center to have her committed. At the center, a nurse asked crystal if she had been raped. crystal replied yes. She was taken to Duke University Medical Center where her story alternated between yes I was and no I wasn't before she settled on yes I was. Then she described the sexual assault as an episode in hich multiple males assaulted her, penetrated her, and deposited dna on her. This is all in the published accounts of the events, except maybe for William Cohan's, and cohan is as averse to the truth as mr. harr and kenny hissy fit.
It did not add up to a credible allegation of rape.
What is sad is that Crystal still clings to the Felony Murder as well - even though I am sure all of her attorneys told her it was not an issue. But, rather than accept their advice/conclusions (which were absolutely correct in this case - felony murder was not applicable) - Sid uses their statements to sow mistrust and discord between Crystal and her attorneys by saying this is proof the attorneys are looking to betray her.
Classic abusive and isolationist behavior on the part of Sid.
As to what established crystal had been raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006. kenny hissy fit says the dna found on crystal, including sperm fraction dna, which was not explained by her sexual history, establishes she was raped.
The "sexual assault" described by crystal was a forcible rape in which multiple assailants penetrated her and ejaculated on her.
The rape kit was collected within hours of the alleged crime. The rape kit tested negative for alkaline phosphatase, a marker of semen. Regardless of what ignorant kenny reads about the impermanence of semen, if semen had been deposited on crystal's person on the night of 13/14 March 2006, the rape kit materials would have tested positive for alkaline phosphatase. The failure to test positive for alkaline phosphatase is evidence, strong evidence, that semen was not deposited on crystal's person on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Ergo, the sperm fraction dna was not deposited on the night of March 13/14 2006.
Kenhyderal wrote: "Point 1: Although DNA deposition can't be timed the DNA found was probably deposited on March 13/14 but the time of it's deposition could not be certified definitively, thus creating some doubt."
Only if it was deposited sometime before she arrived at 601 North Mangum. In fact, we know from the investigation that two DNA samples were positively identified. One as Crystal's boyfriend and a second as her driver. Both deposits were made before she arrived at 601 N. Mangum on March 13, 2006. All the party guests and hosts were forced to give DNA samples and none matched the other nine discreet DNA samples discovered on or near Crystal's nether region.
"Point 2: DA Nifong believed he still had enough evidence to proceed with sexual assault."
His belief was without any basis in fact. He had no identifiable suspect, no tangible evidence that a sexual assault took place anywhere near 601 North Mangum and in fact he did have scientific evidence that excluded everyone on the lacrosse team. In addition, he could have had evidence, if he had been willing to view it, that one of the defendants had an alibi for the time of the alleged attack.
"Point 3: Where he failed was in determining the source of the DNA which, with a proper investigation, could have easily been done as Crystal's Agency kept records of all her clients and she did not engage in sexual activity with any of them."
Well, she obviously engaged in sexual activity with some people who were not at the lacrosse party and not her boyfriend or her driver. DNA samples were located in her anus, her vagina and her underwear. Those samples didn't get in the former locations without some sexual activity. Maybe she was being chauffeured around the triangle engaging in unpaid sexual activity. More likely she was being chauffeured around to various outcalls. But, Kenny is right about one thing, the DPD at Nifong's instruction, didn't investigate the other identifiable samples.
Walt-in-Durham
kenny:
Are you suggesting that Mangum was the target of multiple Immaculate Ejaculations? That she and her garments became drenched in spooge from multiple sources w/o ever having been touched by a man?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous said...
Sid whines: Much of the Duke Lacrosse evidence may very well be scattered throughout the internet, however, I have neither the time nor inclination to go collecting it... especially when I am focusing my efforts on Mangum's murder trial ...
I understand that you currently are busy.
The best time to have reviewed the evidence from the lacrosse frame was before you concluded Nifong had been unfairly treated and was honorable, formed the J4N committee and started this blog to present your uninformed case.
Now that you have destroyed your credibility with your uninformed advocacy of Nifong, no one takes you seriously on anything else. Well done!
Whatever.
The point is that I am concentrating on the Mangum murder case because she is currently wrongly incarcerated. Resolving this issue can result in her freedom and exoneration. Dwelling on the Duke Lacrosse case will produce no appreciable and significant result.
As far as reading goes, I did read "Missoula" by Jon Krakauer. I suggest it to all commenters. The book was enlightening, however, it would have been much better had it omitted the paragraph about the Duke Lacrosse case. He got it all wrong by relying on media-types.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!
HAVE A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING!
Seriously, I am thankful for all of you individuals who contribute to this blog site with your comments... even if some of the comments are screwy... but that makes this site interesting and worth visiting. Enjoy the football and food today, and try not to get too stuffed!
As you were.
Sid states: The point is that I am currently concentrating on the Mangum murder case.
And my point is the you can concentrate all you want, but no one believes anything you have to say on any subject. You have blown your credibility with your uninformed opinions on Nifong. As a result, no one takes you seriously.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The point is that I am concentrating on the Mangum murder case because she is currently wrongly incarcerated. Resolving this issue can result in her freedom and exoneration. Dwelling on the Duke Lacrosse case will produce no appreciable and significant result."
Yet another iteration of, I want my favorite murderess/false accuser to get a pass for her crimes.
Plus you are ducking the questions you have been asked, e.g. what establishes that crystal was a victim in the Duke case. You have been repeatedly describing crystal as the victim/accuser in the Duke case and ascribing her incarceration as the result of a vendetta against her because she was the victim/accuser in the Duke case.
"As far as reading goes, I did read "Missoula" by Jon Krakauer. I suggest it to all commenters. The book was enlightening, however, it would have been much better had it omitted the paragraph about the Duke Lacrosse case. He got it all wrong by relying on media-types."
Missoula Montana has nothing to do with what the false rape allegations made by crystal mangum against innocent men. There was no rape in the night of 13/14 March 2006 in Durham, and you are ducking the challenge to establish there was. By saying that Jon Krakauer got it wrong by believing the media types, you are again saying, ignore the actual evidence and presume the innocent Lacrosse players guilty.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Seriously, I am thankful for all of you individuals who contribute to this blog site with your comments... even if some of the comments are screwy".
So why do you duck responding to the challenge. Establish that crystal was the victim in the DUke rape case. You keep describing her as the "victim/accuser", that the prosecutions against her are a vendetta against her because of her role in the phony rape case.
So establish that she was the victim.
UBES AND THE LIESTOPPER CRANKS KEEP SPINNING ON THE HOLIDAY
SPIN UBES SPIN
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
SPIN UBES SPIN
mr. harr posts anonymously again to create the illusion he has support.
mr. harr. cut the crap. You keep advertising that crystal's role in the Duke rape cse was "victim/accuser. So establish what she was a victim of. So far, all your rationalizations add up to nothing more than an admission you can not show that she was the victim of anything.
And that is driving you crazy, isn't it.
Boy is mr.harr p---ed ove how incompetent and powerless he is
ubes you are an evil duke troll and you harrass many innocent posters at Dr Harr's blog with your nonstop trolling and hate mongering ways
blah blah blah
stop trolling me you duke hate monger and evil troll
blah
mr. harr again posting anonymously to create the illusion he has support.
fy ubes
stop trolling me you evil duke troll hatemonger
blah
blah
blah
mr. harr again posting anonymously in a fruitless attempt to delude people into believing he has support.
seriously
get over yourself
troll doesn't even describe what you do any more ubes ... since you are seriously evil
DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN
thanks
mr. harr again posting anonymously in a foolish deluded attempt to convince himself he has support.
Tin foil, enough of your whining.
UBES
UBES
UBES
SPIN UBES SPIN
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
Quoting Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter, There you go again.
mr. harr, let's have a go at this again.
You repeatedly refer to crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Lacrosse case, and you attribute her prosecution for the murder of Reginald Daye as a vendetta against her because of her status(?) as the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape case. So, if she was not a victim of anything in the Duke rape case, and that is what the evidence indicates, you have no case for a vendetta driven prosecution against her. To have a case for that, you have to establish that she was a victim.
How do you establish she was a victim?
Quotation is a poor substitute for wit.
There you go again.
There you go again kilgo right in your pants.
mr. harr, how was crystal victimized in the duke lacrosse case? How do you establish that?
" Anonymous THE GREAT KILGO said...
Quotation is a poor substitute for wit.
November 27, 2015 at 8:46 AM"
Interesting as kilgo is trying to qute something, and not very accurately:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/19/quote-wit/:
Post a Comment