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 1401 – 1600 of 1745 Newer› Newest»Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"When Baker confronted him violently, did Carter have the right at that point to defend himself if he reasonably believed that his life was then in danger?"
The issue was and is, would Shan Carter have had reason to believe his life was in danger had he not broken into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment?
No.
Meaning that Shan Carter provoked the confrontation which led to Tyrone Baker's death at Shan Carter's hands, which eliminates self defense.
Let me try and clarify things. In the shooting incident, Baker was the aggressor and Carter merely defended himself (with knowledge aforehand that it was Baker's intention to kill him).
Did Carter foster the ill will that Baker had towards him by stealing $40,000 of Baker's ill-gotten drug money? Yes.
Does the prior burglary give Baker the right to threaten and attack Carter with intent to commit homicide? Absolutely not. In Carter's mind, it was shoot or be killed... Carter's intention not to kill but rather wound and incapacitate Baker while he took flight.
Walt said...
...When a case goes to the Jury, the Judge instructs the Jury on the Law. He tells the Jury what the law states...
So far so good.
... and what the ramifications are. He may use a specific case to illustrate a point of law.
Nope. Jury instructions are very specific statements of the law, worked out by the pattern jury commission and based on the case law from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The instructions speak for themselves and the judge does not add nor detract from them.
For example NC Pattern Jury Instruction 101.5 says: "Members of the jury: All of the evidence has been presented. It is now your duty to decide from this evidence what the facts are. You must then apply the law which I am about to give you to those facts. It is absolutely necessary that you understand and apply the law as I give it to you, and not as you think it is, or as you might like it to be. This is important because justice requires that everyone tried for the same crime be treated in the same way and have the same law applied."
There is no deviation from that instruction and no interpretation can be given by the court.
Walt, thanks for the legal educational contribution.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney is Custer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU
Hah! I enjoyed the excerpt... didn't have time to watch the entire movie. (I saw it when if first came out.) But, no-o-o-o -- I'm not Custer. Not by a long shot.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Your analogy misrepresents the truth and is therefore misleading. Keep in mind that Carter burglarized Baker's apartment in November. It wasn't until the following February that Baker attacked Carter, who at that time was minding his own business (albeit selling drugs) and not provoking Baker. Besides, word on the street was that Baker had threatened to kill whoever stole his money, and Carter was aware of the danger posed by Baker."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. Shan Carter DID provoke the confrontation with Tyrone Baker, even if there was a two month interval between the provocation and the confrontation. If "Carter was aware of the danger posed by Baker" and was on the street dealing illegal drugs and packing an illegally possessed .357 magnum, then he was looking for a confrontation, not minding his own business. That is a matter of elementary deduction, something of which you are not capable, as you have manifested on many occasions.
"Regarding Baker's flight after being shot, Carter did run a short distance in the general direction as Baker, but only for the purpose of preventing Baker from using the corner of a building as shelter from which to return fire. Carter shot in the general direction of the fleeing Baker not with the intent of hitting him, but rather to motivate him to keep running."
For a second time harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. Shan Carter did more than "run a short distance in the general direction as Baker, but only for the purpose of preventing Baker from using the corner of a building as shelter from which to return fire." He actively pursued Tyrone Baker and fired multiple shots at him, one of which struck and killed 8 year old Demetrius Greene.
"Also, forensics proves that none of the bullets fired while Baker was fleeing struck him."
Here, harr the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing a string of frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, shows he comprehends neither clinical medicine nor forensic medicine nor empirical evidence. The slugs in Tyrone Baker's body, one in his thigh, one in his torso, came from Shan Carter's .357 Magnum. The .357 Magnum round was designed as a manstopper. According to harr, Shan Carter hit Tyrone Baker with his first two shots. Shan Carter's testimony was, he aimed those first two shots at the pavement. A man who has taken a .357 slug in his thigh and in his torso would be in no condition to flee. He would have dropped immediately. Tyrone Baker did not drop until after he had fled those first two shots and after Shan Carter had continued firing at him. Again it is a matter of elementary deduction. Shan Carter shot and killed Tyrone Baker after Tyrone Baker had fled.
And again harr the hypocritical fabricator shows his inability to distinguish between reality and delusion, the delusion he concocted in his quest to get Shan Carter a pass for felony murder.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Let me see if I understand what you're saying... If a burglar steals personal property from you, you have the right to kill the burglar and he/she has no right to defend him/herself. Did I get your position correct?"
Let me show you that YOU do not understand what I am saying. It is simple. Shan Carter provoked the confrontation with Tyrone Baker when Shan Carter broke into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment.
Let me now explain what you are saying. You are saying that Shan Carter was just minding his own business when he killed Tyerone Baker in a violent confrontation which Shan Carter had provoked. Again, the two month interval between the provocation and the conflict is irrelevant. You cite Tyrone Baker's threats against the people who robbed his apartment. You do admit thereby that Shan Carter did provoke the confrontation.
I say again, when Shan Carter went out on the street to deal illegal drugs packing an illegally possessed ,357 Magnum while aware of the threats, he was looking for a confrontation.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I no more condone burglary than I do murder."
harr te hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. In your crusade to get Shan Carter a pass for felony murder, you do condone murder.
"Shan Carter clearly was in the wrong to steal from Baker's apartment... but in our so-called civilized society, the punishment for burglary is not death. What Baker should have done is gone to the police and told them that Carter broke into his apartment and stole his drug money."
What you willfully ignore is that Shan Carter who, by your own admission was aware of Tyrone Baker's threats, could have gone to the police, admitted he had robbed Tyrone Carter's apartment, and asked for protection. Instead he went out on the street to deal illegal drugs while aware of Tyrone Baker's threats and packing an illegally possessed firearm.
To go to the police, Shan Carter would have had to confess to committing a felony and would have had to give up his ill gotten gains(what else would one call the drug dealing proceeds Shan Carer stole from a fellow drug dealer?). Instead, Shan Carter was determined to keep his ill gotten gains.
Again,that is a matter of elementary deduction, something of which you are obviously incapable.
Nifong Supporter said...
"One correction, however. The time difference between the burglary of Baker's apartment and when Baker accosted Carter was not a matter of days, but rather a matter of months... the burglary, to my recollection being in November and shooting incident in which Baker died being in the following February. (After Mangum is freed and exonerated, I'm going to have to brush up on the facts of Carter's case.)"
Let's show off your ignorance again.
You yourself have admitted that Tyrone Baker made threats against the people who had broken into and robbed his apartment. You yourself admit that the burglary, committed by none other than Shan Carter was what provoked the confrontation.
The two month interval between the provocation and the confrontation in which Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker is irrelevant. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked.
The issue again is, would there have been a violent confrontation between these two drug dealers, in which Shan Carter killed 8 year old Demetrius Greene had Shan Carter not broken into and robbed Tyrone Baker's apartment?
And would there have been the violent confrontation which resulted in Shan Carter killing 8 year old Demetrius Greene if Shan Carter had gone to the police instead of trying to keep the ill gotten gains he stole from Tyrone Baker?
Sid:
You have 361 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Nifong Supporter said...
" Let me try and clarify things. In the shooting incident, Baker was the aggressor and Carter merely defended himself (with knowledge aforehand that it was Baker's intention to kill him).
Let me add further clarification. Again, when you say that Shan Carter had "knowledge aforehand that it was Baker's intention to kill him" you do admit that Shan Carter provoked the confrontation and that the two month interval between provocation and confrontation is therefore irrelevant. Would Tyrone Baker have had animosity of that magnitude had Shan Carter not broken into his apartment with the intent of stealing Tyrone Baker's profits from Baker's drug dealing. It is a matter of elementary deduction that GREED was what motivated Shan Carter when he provoked the confrontation with Tyrone Baker in which he shot and killed Demetrius Greene..
"Did Carter foster the ill will that Baker had towards him by stealing $40,000 of Baker's ill-gotten drug money? Yes.
Does the prior burglary give Baker the right to threaten and attack Carter with intent to commit homicide? Absolutely not. In Carter's mind, it was shoot or be killed..."
Again, Shan Carter had the option of going to the police and asking for protection. Instead he went out on the street to deal illegal drugs while pavking an illegally possessed .357 Magnum and while aware "that it was Baker's intention to kill him". It is a matter of elementary deduction that Shan Carter was looking for a confrontation with Tyrone Baker and was determined to keep his ill gotten gains. Again, Shan Carter's greed for Tyrone Baker's proceeds from drug dealing was a significant factor in the events which led to Shan Carter killing Tyrone Baker and killing Demetrius Greene. How does that fit the definition of Shan Carter simply "minding his own business". You are implying that Shan Carter had some sort of right to profit from the sale of illegal drugs.
" Carter's intention not to kill but rather wound and incapacitate Baker while he took flight."
Whatever his intention, it does not change the fact that Shan Carter pursued Tyrone Baker and continued shooting at him with an illegally possessed .357 magnum, a weapo with a high potential of inflicting fatal wounds. It does not change the fact that Shan Carter shot and killed Demetrius Greene with said .357 magnum while pursuing Tyrone Baker after Tyrone Baker after he fled.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I'm not Custer. Not by a long shot."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
Yes you are.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
A new letter has been posted that I wrote to Governor McCrory... the letter spurred by an article in the News and Observer about Larry Lamb. Lamb, an African American, served 20 years wrongly convicted and the governor refused to give him a pardon of innocence so that he could receive the measley compensation of $750,000 (limit, far less than$50,000/year).
Debate du jour: Is Governor McCrory a racist?
Is there justification for his refusing to grant Mr. Lamb a pardon of innocence?
Should compensation require participation of the governor?
Is the McCrory administration cruel, heartless, and lacking of a soul?
Should Mr. Lamb be required to have the breathilizer installed in a car despite not having a drop of alcohol in twenty years?
Should the State have done more to help Mr. Lamb on release other than give him $45.00 which was probably what he earned during twenty years of working in the penitentiary.
My Take: Until Governor McCrory can prove otherwise (by giving a logical and valid reason for refusing to grant a pardon of innocence to Mr. Lamb), then I believe that he qualifies as being a racist.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 361 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Hey, Abe.
Thanks for the update on the countdown. Even though this is a Leap Year, I don't think I'll need the extra day's cushion. Mangum will be freed and exonerated long before year's end.
Sid:
My countdown reaches 0 on 12/31/16,as it should. That is when you are out of time.
Any way you look at it, the clock is running. Should you really be trying to engage me in banal pedantry?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Nifong Supporter said...
"A new letter has been posted that I wrote to Governor McCrory... the letter spurred by an article in the News and Observer about Larry Lamb. Lamb, an African American, served 20 years wrongly convicted and the governor refused to give him a pardon of innocence so that he could receive the measley compensation of $750,000 (limit, far less than$50,000/year)."
harr the hypocritical fabricator shows his RACIST hypocritical colors again.
He rants andraves there was no evidence to connect Larry Lamb to the crime of which he was convicted.
In the Duke Rape Hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case-no rape happened) there was no evidence to connect the men corrupt nifong wanted to prosecute. harr the hypocritical fabricator claims there is evidence which has not been revealed because the case files have been sealed. He ignores the fact that the evidence is part of the public record and has been presented in at least three works, Until Proven Innocent, Rush to Injustice, and It's Not About the Truth. And he proclaims the Lacrosse players guilty of the non existent rape. Why? The innocent Lacrosse players are white.
Since pardons of innocence are not public record, we will never know McCrory's reasons for denying one for Larry Lamb.
You really want to help Larry Lamb? Put your money where your mouth is:
https://www.gofundme.com/helpLarryLamb
Sidney, have you tried to submit an Event for 'Black Lives Matter'?
http://blacklivesmatter.com/find-and-submit-events/
This would seem to be an avenue for you to help Magnum.
They have a Facebook page also.
https://www.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatter/timeline
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Since pardons of innocence are not public record, we will never know McCrory's reasons for denying one for Larry Lamb.
Precisely the point. Don't you understand? There's a reason that pardons of innocence are not public record... so that those responsible for denying a petition for a pardon of innocence don't have to give a legitimate reason. They can discriminate freely. If the pardon of innocence was public record, which it most definitely should be, then those making decisions on them would be held accountable and it would be much more difficult to discriminate. I am a person who believes in transparency. The opaque man-made law that made pardons for innocence not public is immoral, unfair, and removes all accountability from the process.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
My countdown reaches 0 on 12/31/16,as it should. That is when you are out of time.
Any way you look at it, the clock is running. Should you really be trying to engage me in banal pedantry?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Merely an observation, which was not all that energy or time-consuming.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, have you tried to submit an Event for 'Black Lives Matter'?
http://blacklivesmatter.com/find-and-submit-events/
This would seem to be an avenue for you to help Magnum.
They have a Facebook page also.
https://www.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatter/timeline
Thanks for the reference.
I haven't tried submitting to the Black Lives Matter, but I have e-mailed proposals to others, such as Color of Change. But to date, I have not even received acknowledgment from any of them. I might give Black Lives Matter a try a little later.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Precisely the point. Don't you understand? There's a reason that pardons of innocence are not public record... so that those responsible for denying a petition for a pardon of innocence don't have to give a legitimate reason. They can discriminate freely."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. This is another fabrication, jjust like the fabrication that corrupt nifong had a case against the innocent men he wrongfully prosecuted for rape but the evidence is being withheld.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I haven't tried submitting to the Black Lives Matter, but I have e-mailed proposals to others, such as Color of Change. But to date, I have not even received acknowledgment from any of them. I might give Black Lives Matter a try a little later."
That should be a clue to you that you don't have a case that shows crystal is innocent, that crystal really is a murderess.
I say again, you have alot of problems distinguishing between reality and your delusions.
Sid:
You have 360 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Time is slipping away.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
I believe pardons of innocence should NOT be public record. They should be a matter between the parties involved, with only 1 party (the one who either did or didn't receive the pardon) allowed to speak about them.
If that person wishes to make a public statement, then so be it. Otherwise, it's a nunya.
How much did you donate to Larry Lamb's gofundme?
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
I believe pardons of innocence should NOT be public record. They should be a matter between the parties involved, with only 1 party (the one who either did or didn't receive the pardon) allowed to speak about them.
If that person wishes to make a public statement, then so be it. Otherwise, it's a nunya.
How much did you donate to Larry Lamb's gofundme?
Fake k, thanks for your opinion. However, don't you think that if the process was totally transparent that the governor or pardon's commission would be compelled to explain the reasons behind their decision? That's why I disagree on this point.
Regarding the gofundme account for Larry Lamb, I did not donate and I have no intention of donating. (I am suspicious about where the money goes in such situations.)
Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 360 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Time is slipping away.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
During the first six days, I have accomplished much. A significant event, about which I cannot divulge any information, is scheduled to take place tomorrow, the 8th. I will have an idea of its success of failure within a week, or two at the most. And much work has been done on my official j4n investigation.
Abe, thanks again for the countdown.
Sid:
You have 359 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Unless you are talking about a prison break, there is no event taking place tomorrow that will free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Nifong Supporter said...
"During the first six days, I have accomplished much. A significant event, about which I cannot divulge any information, is scheduled to take place tomorrow, the 8th."
Considering the numerous previous occasions in which harr the hypocritical fabricator has promised significant events and then failed to deliver, I say there is a significant probability that harr is fabricating again.
Speaking of significant events, ESPN has completed their "30 for 30" documentary (called Fantastic Lies) on the Duke lacrosse case. It will air on March 13, 2016.
In re: Larry Lamb's gofundme site, the money is going to help him get his driver's license reinstated, so he can get a job at the After Incarceration Support Systems program in Springfield, Mass.
It's shameful that you would exploit Larry Lamb in an attempt to get yourself and your blog into the spotlight.
Unfortunately, it's behavior we've seen before.
For those reading this -- Larry Lamb DOES deserve a chance to get his freedom returned to him - which includes getting his drivers license back. His friends set up the gofundme site with a goal of $2500.00. They're only $270.00 away from that goal.
You can donate anonymously, if that's your desire. Help if you can.
During the first six days, I have accomplished much. A significant event, about which I cannot divulge any information, is scheduled to take place tomorrow, the 8th. I will have an idea of its success of failure within a week, or two at the most. And much work has been done on my official j4n investigation.
And when it fails just like everything else you've done, you won't mention it again, and pretend it never happened.
much work has been done on my official j4n investigation.
Your official j4n investigation? How is that different from an unofficial j4n investigation?
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
much work has been done on my official j4n investigation.
Your official j4n investigation? How is that different from an unofficial j4n investigation?
Hey, A Lawyer.
Not much difference in substance, but the official investigation will be the most comprehensive and contain the most evidence and information. It will also include a detailed chronology. I will post it as soon as it is completed... which will probably be before the next sharlog is ready.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
During the first six days, I have accomplished much. A significant event, about which I cannot divulge any information, is scheduled to take place tomorrow, the 8th. I will have an idea of its success of failure within a week, or two at the most. And much work has been done on my official j4n investigation.
And when it fails just like everything else you've done, you won't mention it again, and pretend it never happened.
Not to worry... my efforts to secure justice for Crystal will not fail because I will not throw in the towel until I am successful.
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
In re: Larry Lamb's gofundme site, the money is going to help him get his driver's license reinstated, so he can get a job at the After Incarceration Support Systems program in Springfield, Mass.
It's shameful that you would exploit Larry Lamb in an attempt to get yourself and your blog into the spotlight.
Unfortunately, it's behavior we've seen before.
For those reading this -- Larry Lamb DOES deserve a chance to get his freedom returned to him - which includes getting his drivers license back. His friends set up the gofundme site with a goal of $2500.00. They're only $270.00 away from that goal.
You can donate anonymously, if that's your desire. Help if you can.
Hey, Fake k.
You dodge the important issue. Do you believe that Larry Lamb deserves compensation from the state in the amount of $750,000.00 for twenty years of wrongful incarceration?
I believe he does. And, I believe the state should pay.
He definitely deserves more than the paltry $2,500.00 that the gofundme page is trying to raise from the people.
I do my part towards helping Mr. Lamb by bringing attention to the injustices he has suffered at the hands of a cruel, corrupt, and racist legal system.
Nifong Supporter said...
"...the official investigation will be the most comprehensive and contain the most evidence and information. It will also include a detailed chronology. I will post it as soon as it is completed... which will probably be before the next sharlog is ready."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Not to worry... my efforts to secure justice for Crystal will not fail because I will not throw in the towel until I am successful."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. Trying to get crystal, the murderess/false accuser, a pass for her crimes is not quest for justice. It ais a quest to dodge justice.
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Speaking of significant events, ESPN has completed their "30 for 30" documentary (called Fantastic Lies) on the Duke lacrosse case. It will air on March 13, 2016.
Hah! Fake k, ESPN did not have the guts to even talk with me over the phone about Crystal Mangum. I tried my darnedest to give them input about Mangum, but what I had to say was something they did not want to hear.
The only fantastic lies have been told by Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols in his fraudulent autopsy report and perjured testimony on the witness stand. Also committing lesser fantastic lies in Crystal's trial were Aykia Hanes and Durham Police Officer Curtis Knight.
Nifong Supporter said...
" Fake Kenhyderal said...
'In re: Larry Lamb's gofundme site, the money is going to help him get his driver's license reinstated, so he can get a job at the After Incarceration Support Systems program in Springfield, Mass.
It's shameful that you would exploit Larry Lamb in an attempt to get yourself and your blog into the spotlight.
Unfortunately, it's behavior we've seen before.
For those reading this -- Larry Lamb DOES deserve a chance to get his freedom returned to him - which includes getting his drivers license back. His friends set up the gofundme site with a goal of $2500.00. They're only $270.00 away from that goal.
You can donate anonymously, if that's your desire. Help if you can.'
Hey, Fake k.
You dodge the important issue. Do you believe that Larry Lamb deserves compensation from the state in the amount of $750,000.00 for twenty years of wrongful incarceration?
I believe he does. And, I believe the state should pay.
He definitely deserves more than the paltry $2,500.00 that the gofundme page is trying to raise from the people.
I do my part towards helping Mr. Lamb by bringing attention to the injustices he has suffered at the hands of a cruel, corrupt, and racist legal system."
harr the hypocritical fabricator is dodging. This comment is a lot of words in which harr the hypocritical fabricator says he does not care to actually help Mr. Lamb in any really significant way.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 359 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Unless you are talking about a prison break, there is no event taking place tomorrow that will free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
There is an event taking place today that has the potential of going a long way towards freeing and exonerating Mangum. I cannot tell you what it is because I have been sworn to secrecy, so to speak. Normally I prefer to put things out in the open, but I deferred to the demands of others involved in this specific event.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Fake Kenhyderal said...
'Speaking of significant events, ESPN has completed their "30 for 30" documentary (called Fantastic Lies) on the Duke lacrosse case. It will air on March 13, 2016.'
Hah! Fake k, ESPN did not have the guts to even talk with me over the phone about Crystal Mangum. I tried my darnedest to give them input about Mangum, but what I had to say was something they did not want to hear."
You presume a fact not in evidence, that you know anything at all about the Duke Rpe Hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case since no rape had taken place, and crystal lied about being raped).
"The only fantastic lies have been told by Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols in his fraudulent autopsy report and perjured testimony on the witness stand."
Again, harr the hypocritical fabricator, you are but a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification and you are singularly unqualified to determine whether an autopsy report was fraudulent or whether a genuine physician expert witness committed perjury. Here you manifest your feelings of inferiority and resentment to a Physician who actually accomplished something as a trained, experienced physician.
"Also committing lesser fantastic lies in Crystal's trial were Aykia Hanes and Durham Police Officer Curtis Knight."
Here harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. What he decides is perjury is any statement which does not agree with his own distorted views of reality.
Nifong Supporter said...
"There is an event taking place today that has the potential of going a long way towards freeing and exonerating Mangum. I cannot tell you what it is because I have been sworn to secrecy, so to speak."
When it is revealed what happened, harr the hypocritical fabricator will be exposed again for fabricating.
Sid:
You have 358 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Nifong Supporter said...
"Fake Kenhyderal said...
'Speaking of significant events, ESPN has completed their "30 for 30" documentary (called Fantastic Lies) on the Duke lacrosse case. It will air on March 13, 2016.'
Hah! Fake k, ESPN did not have the guts to even talk with me over the phone about Crystal Mangum. I tried my darnedest to give them input about Mangum, but what I had to say was something they did not want to hear."
Why would anyone want to talk to you about te Duke Rape Hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case because the alleged rape never happened).
You have been challenged to provide evidence that a rape did happen. The best you can come up with are things like, no one can prove crystal was not raped, and, we don't know what evidence nifong had because he never had a chance to present it in court, that the case files have been sealed.
Which is all just an admission you know nothing about the hoax. As a manifestation of your guilt presumins racism, you advocate that the accused should have been presumed guilty because the false accuser is black and they are white. And, again I say, what p---es you off with Attorney General Cooper is that he did not proclaim the Lacrosse players guilty.
Sid -- I didn't dodge any question -- Regardless of my beliefs, the state isn't going to pay Larry Lamb anything.
My beliefs aren't going to change this.
Larry Lamb, however, does need a job. In fact, he has one waiting for him once he has his driver's license. This is something we CAN help him with. Further, this is something we SHOULD help him with.
That you chose not to do so after exploiting his situation on this website is sad indeed.
Sid -- Why should ESPN talk to you? Did you even live in North Carolina in March 2006?
Walt commented on the following post:
Anonymous at 11:06 AM wrote: In this case, for example, as I noted earlier, Carter unquestionably started the sequence with his burglary. However, the burglary did not put Baker at risk because he was not there. Despite his understandable pique, Baker was not permitted as a result of that earlier burglary to approach Carter and initiate a violent confrontation with him. When he did so, he became the aggressor in that confrontation. Ordinarily, I would have thought that Carter would have the right to defend himself in the initial confrontation with the force he reasonably thought necessary to prevent his death (although as a convicted felon, I understand that he loses the right to self-defense with a gun). He made this claim for the initial confrontation the day of the shooting, and the jury rejected it due to the facts presented (a conclusion with which I agree).
However, once Baker retreated, even if his [Carter's] initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, you understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation.
Anonymous said...
"Walt-in-Durham
Walt, you understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation."
Hey Walt.
That paragraph is one posted ba another Anonymous poster(me). When I posted it(January 3, 2016 at 3:34 PM), I did not mentiony ou.
Hey Sid ... What happened today? :-)
Sid:
You have 357 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sidney, here is another avenue for Magnum:
http://blog.change.org/feed/hundreds-of-thousands-want-to-see-making-a-murderers-steven-avery-pardoned
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/netflix-takes-on-a-true-crime-story/414939/
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article53310625.html
"ESPN will air a new documentary on the Duke lacrosse case on March 13, 10 years to the day after the lacrosse team party that metastasized into a national controversy about race, class and sexual violence before ending in the downfall of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and a declaration of the players’ innocence.
“'Fantastic Lies', which airs March 13 at 9 p.m, chronicles the volatile mix of prosecutorial and police misconduct, ruined careers, and media excesses that riveted Durham and the nation a decade ago.
'The hard-hitting ‘Fantastic Lies’ goes far beyond the playing field with an examination of how multiple factors led to a miscarriage of justice,' ESPN Films Vice President John Dahl said in a press release."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article53310625.html#storylink=cpy
The problem Sid refuses to acknowledge ... Crystsl is not "innocent." She stabbed Daye, self defense was argued, fully, and rejected. The jury said she was wrong to stab Daye - and nothing at Dule or after the stabbing is relevant to that. She needed self defense to go free - and that was rejected.
Sid:
You have 356 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous said...
The problem Sid refuses to acknowledge ... Crystsl is not "innocent." She stabbed Daye, self defense was argued, fully, and rejected. The jury said she was wrong to stab Daye - and nothing at Dule or after the stabbing is relevant to that. She needed self defense to go free - and that was rejected.
Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that Daye was guilty of domestic violence and/or assault on a female after he busted down the locked bathroom door, and dragged Crystal out by her hair? Keep in mind this occurred prior to the stabbing... and keep in mind that other males have been charged with assault on a female for doing nothing more than shoving them.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 356 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Thanks, Abe. I am awaiting to see if my labors of last week will bear fruit. Also, am continuing to plant other seeds of hope this upcoming week.
Keep in mind that when the dominos start to topple, the end of Mangum's injustice and suffering will come quickly.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt commented on the following post:
Anonymous at 11:06 AM wrote: In this case, for example, as I noted earlier, Carter unquestionably started the sequence with his burglary. However, the burglary did not put Baker at risk because he was not there. Despite his understandable pique, Baker was not permitted as a result of that earlier burglary to approach Carter and initiate a violent confrontation with him. When he did so, he became the aggressor in that confrontation. Ordinarily, I would have thought that Carter would have the right to defend himself in the initial confrontation with the force he reasonably thought necessary to prevent his death (although as a convicted felon, I understand that he loses the right to self-defense with a gun). He made this claim for the initial confrontation the day of the shooting, and the jury rejected it due to the facts presented (a conclusion with which I agree).
However, once Baker retreated, even if his [Carter's] initial use of force had been justified, Carter was no longer in danger and had no continuing right to use force in self-defense. The shots he fired at the retreating Baker could never be justified as in self-defense. Carter committed a felony when he fired those shots. Hence, the murder convictions in the deaths of Baker and Demetrius Greene."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, you understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation.
Actually, Walt is partly correct in his comment. Where I disagree with Walt is that the three or four shots fired by Carter when Baker started to flee did not strike Baker and Carter's intent in firing them was as an incentive for Baker to continue running... not to strike him.
Fake Kenhyderal said...
Sid -- Why should ESPN talk to you? Did you even live in North Carolina in March 2006?
Fake K, as a matter of fact, I moved to Raleigh in November 2005. The reason ESPN should talk to me is because I am the most knowledgeable person in the world on the Crystal Mangum murder case.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that Daye was guilty of domestic violence and/or assault on a female after he busted down the locked bathroom door, and dragged Crystal out by her hair?"
harr the hypocritical fabricator, knowledgeable people believe your allegations of abuse at the hands of Reginald Daye are more fabrications. As I recall from what you posted, te officers who arrested her and the medical personnel who examined her found no evidence of injury.
That you might have does not establish that she was injured. As a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty certification and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing a string of frivolous non meritorious lawsuits rather than practicing medicine, you are singularly unqualified to determine whether or not she was injured.
To put it another way, that you might claim she was the victim of abuse does not establish it happened.
After all, you are the one who once claimed, no one can prove crystal was not raped and that establishes she was.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Keep in mind that when the dominos(sic) start to topple, the end of Mangum's injustice and suffering will come quickly."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates yet again. crystal was never subjected to any injustice,and therefore crysta never suffered because of injustice.
harr the hypocritical fabricator's proclamations that she was have no legal weight, no more than his proclamations that crystal was raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse Team have any legal weight.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, Walt is partly correct in his comment. Where I disagree with Walt is that the three or four shots fired by Carter when Baker started to flee did not strike Baker and Carter's intent in firing them was as an incentive for Baker to continue running... not to strike him."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. Shan Carter's testimony was, he aimed his first two shots not at Tyrone Baker but at the pavement. Then Tyrone Baker fled. harr the hypocritical fabricator claims Shan Carter's first two shots hit Tyrone Baker. It was determined Baker had taken two slugs from Carter's illegally possessed .357 Magnum, one in the thigh, one in his torso. A man who takes hits from a .357 Magnum, one in the thigh, one in the torso, will drop immediately. He will not be able to flee.
Baker dropped AFTER Carter pursued him and shot at him while he was fleeing. Carter killed him after he fled. It is a matter of elementary deduction, something of which harr the hypocritical fabricator is incapable.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Fake K, as a matter of fact, I moved to Raleigh in November 2005. The reason ESPN should talk to me is because I am the most knowledgeable person in the world on the Crystal Mangum murder case."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. He has no knowledgea of what hapened in the Duke Rape Hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case because no rape happened).
harr the hypocritical fabricator claims, falsely, that the details of the case are not a matter of public record, that the case files have been sealed. This butan admission by harr the hypocritical fabricator that he does not know the details of the case, that what he cals the truths about the case are his fabrications.
I point out that whoever posted as kilgo used to claim he was the most knowledgeable person regarding the Duke Rape hoax. Very strong circumstantial evidence that kilgo is a fabrication of harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Which blows out of the water kennyissy fit's belief tha kilgo knew a member of the Lacrosse team who witnessed therape of crystal.
Sid, a few things:
Yes, Daye was guilty of abuse and probably would have been charged had he lived. How ever, self-defense was argued and rejected by the jury - they did not believe that Crystal was justified in stabbing Daye, even though he admittedly kicked in the door and drug her out by her hair. The jury clearly believed Crystal could have left - they believed Daye's version of him letting her go and her running to the kitchen and coming back. Nothing that happened at Duke affects that. The jury rejected self-defense.
As to ESPN - the documentary appears to be about the lacrosse/alleged rape case - which actually has a sports connection - not her murder, so why should they talk to you? You've repeatedly admitted you know very little about the lacrosse case.
Do you know if they interviewed Crystal or anyone else involved in the murder trial?
Correction:
Nifong Supporter said...
"Fake K, as a matter of fact, I moved to Raleigh in November 2005. The reason ESPN should talk to me is because I am the most knowledgeable person in the world on the Crystal Mangum murder case."
Still a fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
To be the "most knowledgeable person in the world on the Crystal Mangum murder case" harr would have had to have extensive knowledge, medical and legal. As harr the hypocritical fabricator is but a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved hos post medical school career filing and losing a string of frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, an endeavor he continued after he moved to Durham via his attempts to shake down Duke University, all of which show he lacks the necessary legal and medical background.
Still his claim of supreme knowledgeability in the Reginald Daye murder is awfully similar to kilgo's claim of supreme knowledgeability in the Duke Rape Hoax. It does lead me to believe kilgo is a harrian fabrication.
Incidentally,harr the hypocrite, you just admitted crystal murdered Reginald Daye.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Hah! Fake k, ESPN did not have the guts to even talk with me over the phone about Crystal Mangum. I tried my darnedest to give them input about Mangum, but what I had to say was something they did not want to hear."
Which statement says you believe you are knowledgeable about the Duke Rape Hoax. Kilgo called it the Duke Rape Case, which it was not because there had been no rape. Again this suggests to me that kilgo was actually a harrian fabrication.
Sid:
You have 355 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid- The ESPN documentary isn't about the Crystal Mangun murder case. If you were doing a documentary about the murder case, would you interview KC Johnson from the Durham in Wonderland blog?
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Sid- The ESPN documentary isn't about the Crystal Mangun murder case. If you were doing a documentary about the murder case, would you interview KC Johnson from the Durham in Wonderland blog?
Fake K, the situations are not exactly the same.
Usually in a so-called documentary about a past event, the subject matter isn't limited to just the past event, but contains follow-up about the principles involved. In Mangum's case, her role in the Duke Lacrosse case was the basis for the vendetta-driven trumped up prosecution against her in Reginald Daye's death.
And, if I were doing a documentary about the Mangum murder case and K C Johnson had some contribution to make towards it, I would not hesitate to sit down with him. One thing that I do not fear is communicating with someone... my lines of communication always open to anyone.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 355 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Thanks for the reminder. The resistance is a tough nut to crack, but I will.
Sid,
Sorry to say this, but you have very low credibility. That's why no one (and I'm not only speaking about ESPN) will take the time to talk to you.
Anonymous at 10:15 AM wrote: "Walt, you understand nothing.
The law is clear. If A provokes a violent confrontation with B and kills B as a result of that confrontation, it is not self defense. Shan Carter killed Tyrone Baker as a result of a confrontation Shan Carter provoked. Had Shan Carter not committed the felony of breaking into and robbing Tyrone Baker's apartment, there would have been no confrontation."
Anon, the one who does not understand is you. As an issue of proximate cause, you are correct, there is a direct line from Carter's burglary to Baker's death. However, proximate cause alone does not justify the use of deadly force.
The anonymous poster for whom I rang the bell is correct in his understanding of the rules regarding the use of deadly force. Had Baker caught Carter in Baker's apartment, Baker could have used deadly force. Once Carter left, the use of deadly force against him was no longer lawful.
In short, burglary does not justify the use of deadly force once the burglar has left the dwelling.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid, a few things:
Yes, Daye was guilty of abuse and probably would have been charged had he lived. How ever, self-defense was argued and rejected by the jury - they did not believe that Crystal was justified in stabbing Daye, even though he admittedly kicked in the door and drug her out by her hair. The jury clearly believed Crystal could have left - they believed Daye's version of him letting her go and her running to the kitchen and coming back. Nothing that happened at Duke affects that. The jury rejected self-defense.
As to ESPN - the documentary appears to be about the lacrosse/alleged rape case - which actually has a sports connection - not her murder, so why should they talk to you? You've repeatedly admitted you know very little about the lacrosse case.
Do you know if they interviewed Crystal or anyone else involved in the murder trial?
First of all, Daye should have been arrested on the spot. There are many people who are in need of emergency medical treatment in a hospital that are placed under arrest.
As far as the prosecution's version, it was not coherent, made no sense, and there was no motive given for the stabbing. Daye had previously lied about the text of the so-called arguemnt saying that they were arguing over money. Totally false. Daye was intoxicated and in a jealous rage... how else would you describe someone breaking down a bathroom door for no reason whatsoever?
Also, keep in mind that the jury was hardly impartial and objective... with three jurors closely tied to Duke and a juror who wanted the other jurors to keep in mind that the city of Durham's reputation was on the line.
I don't know who ESPN interviewed, although I know that they tried to interview Crystal.
Sid wrote: " Where I disagree with Walt is that the three or four shots fired by Carter when Baker started to flee did not strike Baker and Carter's intent in firing them was as an incentive for Baker to continue running... not to strike him."
Unfortunately for Carter, that is not a justification for the use of deadly force. Once Baker started to retreat, Carter's very limited justification for the use of deadly force disappeared. Carter also has another problem, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Thus, he was never authorized to use a gun as deadly force.
Walt-in-Durham
guiowen said...
Sid,
Sorry to say this, but you have very low credibility. That's why no one (and I'm not only speaking about ESPN) will take the time to talk to you.
gui, mon ami,
No need to apologize as I take no offense at your comment. My credibility is based on an investigation that is open, and transparent and based on the facts taken directly from prosecution discovery. The real reason no one wants to talk to me is because they don't want to hear what I have to say... they don't want to hear the truth.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: " Where I disagree with Walt is that the three or four shots fired by Carter when Baker started to flee did not strike Baker and Carter's intent in firing them was as an incentive for Baker to continue running... not to strike him."
Unfortunately for Carter, that is not a justification for the use of deadly force. Once Baker started to retreat, Carter's very limited justification for the use of deadly force disappeared. Carter also has another problem, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Thus, he was never authorized to use a gun as deadly force.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt.
Forensics proves that the two bullets which struck Baker were fired when he was facing Carter. Ergo, when Baker was in flight, none of the bullets fired by Carter struck him. Carter insists that he fired the shots when Baker was fleeing for the sole purpose of encouraging him to keep running. He was not aiming to hit him at that time.
Yes, deadly force was used initially, but once Baker ran, the only thing Carter did was try position himself at a place where Baker could not take cover and return fire. Never was Carter in pursuit of Baker to "finish him off."
Finally, I disagree that it is unlawful for felons to use a firearm to protect themselves. To me, that just doesn't make sense.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Usually in a so-called documentary about a past event, the subject matter isn't limited to just the past event, but contains follow-up about the principles involved. In Mangum's case, her role in the Duke Lacrosse case was the basis for the vendetta-driven trumped up prosecution against her in Reginald Daye's death."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricator fabricates again. There wss no vendetta driven prosecution directed against crystal. She was prosecuted because she stabbed Reginald Daye. She was convicted because her case for self defense was another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Nifong Supporter said...
"And, if I were doing a documentary about the Mangum murder case"
Here again you do admit that crystal murdered Reginald Daye.
"and K C Johnson had some contribution to make towards it, I would not hesitate to sit down with him."
Presuming a fact not in evidence that respected blogger KC Johnson would want to sit down with a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical graduate who was never accepted into residency training, whh never achieved medical board certification, who spent most of his post medical career filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits, and who has shown himself to be a hypocritical fabricator.
"One thing that I do not fear is communicating with someone... my lines of communication always open to anyone."
But you do show an aversion to recognizing the truth. You also show a propensity for filing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits against people you imagine insulted you. You are someone no knowledgeable, intelligent peerson would want to sit down with.
Now we see why you're not in the documentary making business.
Nifong supporter said...
"First of all, Daye should have been arrested on the spot. There are many people who are in need of emergency medical treatment in a hospital that are placed under arrest."
Why? In spite of your fabrications about Reginald Daye, there was no evidence he had committed any crime.
"As far as the prosecution's version, it was not coherent, made no sense, and there was no motive given for the stabbing."
Correction. It made no sense to you. Since you are a hypocritical fabricator, a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty cetification, and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing a series of frivolous, non meritoriois lawsuits, it is obvious you are incapable of understnding the medical and legal ramifications of Reginald Daye's stabbing. Those items, plus your determination toget your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes explains why it makes no sense to you.
"Daye had previously lied about the text of the so-called arguemnt saying that they were arguing over money."
No he didn't.
"Totally false."
Another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
"Daye was intoxicated and in a jealous rage... how else would you describe someone breaking down a bathroom door for no reason whatsoever?'
It was never established Reginald Daye was intoxicated or in a jealous rage. The blood alcohol was probably a lab error. If his blood alcohol were really that high, he would have been stuporous and he was not. If he could tolerate a blood alcohol that high, he would have to been drinking heavily for many years. The police interviewed women who knew Mr. Daye and they testified he was not a heavy drinker. Jf he had been,he would have been exposing his liver in high levels of liver toxins for years, and the liver would have shown evidence of that on autopsy.His liver was normal. Not at all unusual that a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate with no medical residency training and no medical specialty certification would have been able to comprehend all that.
"Also, keep in mind that the jury was hardly impartial and objective... with three jurors closely tied to Duke and a juror who wanted the other jurors to keep in mind that the city of Durham's reputation was on the line."
Another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
"I don't know who ESPN interviewed, although I know that they tried to interview Crystal."
Why would ESPN want to interview crystal the liar. The objective of a documentary is to present the truth.
Which does explain why ESPN did not want to talk to harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Nifong Supporter said...
"No need to apologize as I take no offense at your comment. My credibility is based on an investigation that is open, and transparent and based on the facts taken directly from prosecution discovery. The real reason no one wants to talk to me is because they don't want to hear what I have to say... they don't want to hear the truth."
Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you have credibility.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Forensics proves that the two bullets which struck Baker were fired when he was facing Carter. Ergo, when Baker was in flight, none of the bullets fired by Carter struck him. Carter insists that he fired the shots when Baker was fleeing for the sole purpose of encouraging him to keep running. He was not aiming to hit him at that time."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. I repeat, according to Shan Carter's own testimomy he aimed those shots at the pavement, not at Tyrone Baker. The slugs came from Carter's illegally possessed .357 magnum. One was in Baker's torso, the other in Baker's thigh. If Baker had taken those two slugs from a .357 magnum when Carter first shot at him, he would have dropped immediately and would have been unable to flee. Shan Carter killed Baker after he had fled.
"Yes, deadly force was used initially, but once Baker ran, the only thing Carter did was try position himself at a place where Baker could not take cover and return fire. Never was Carter in pursuit of Baker to 'finish him off.'"
Harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.The facts are, Carter did pursue Baker, continurd to fire at him, and did "finish him off" after Baker fled.
"Finally, I disagree that it is unlawful for felons to use a firearm to protect themselves."
Again begs the question. Would Shan Carter have had a need to protect himself had he not been so greedily desirous to take and keep Tyrone Baker's profits from drug dealing. You seem to think Carter had some legal right to steal money for which he was greedy.
"To me, that just doesn't make sense."
To you a lot of cmmon sense does not make sense.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Thanks for the reminder. The resistance is a tough nut to crack, but I will."
You are already thoroughly cracked.
Nifong Supporter said...
"And, if I were doing a documentary about the Mangum murder case and K C Johnson had some contribution to make towards it, I would not hesitate to sit down with him."
Again, a documentary presents the truth.You try to pass off fabrications as truth.Ergo you are incapable of producing a documebtary.
Finally, I disagree that it is unlawful for felons to use a firearm to protect themselves. To me, that just doesn't make sense.
Really, Sid? You think it doesn't make sense, so you just say Walt in interpreting the law wrong? Actually, Walt is correct on the law. A Felon cannot possess a firearm for any purpose, even protection. It doesn't have to make sense to you, the law is the law whether you agree with it or not. Especially because this wasn't a situation where Shan Carter got into a fight, and grabbed a gun lying around - he carried it with him.
He was clearly in violation of the law.
And, no matter what the other guy had done to him - once someone "retreats" from the conflict, the right of self-defense is gone (it's the argument with Crystal - Daye had let her go, and turned to go to the other room, and she ran after him).
Cater had no right to shoot someone who had robbed them earlier - that's him acting as judge, jury, and executioner, for a non-capital crime.
"Daye was intoxicated and in a jealous rage... how else would you describe someone breaking down a bathroom door for no reason whatsoever?'
Mangum's attorney argued that Daye was in a jealous rage. The jury rejected it. The motive for the stabbing the prosecution offered was anger and rage. They stated that Crystal would go into a rage, and liked knives. It's why the Milton Morgan stuff was so damaging to her - it was another time she got into a fight with a boyfriend and used a knife. She had a pattern/history. Daye did not - and Crystal even denied that Daye had ever abused her, or even raised his voice to her, prior to this incident.
Anonymous said: ".His liver was normal"....... So said Dr. Clay Nicholls who also swore his spleen was absent after describing it and giving it a weight in his autopsy report
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: '.His liver was normal'....... So said Dr. Clay Nicholls who also swore his spleen was absent after describing it and giving it a weight in his autopsy report"
As I recall, at one time on this blog kenny hissy fit was citing a source that said chronic alcoholics are found at autopsy to have normal livers. He cited this as evidence that Reginald Daye's normal liver at autopsy did not rule out alcoholism. kenny hissy fit did acknowledge that Reginald Daye's liver was normal.
kenny hissy fit is now trying to dodge the issue because he wants his favorite murderess/false accuser to get a pass for her crimes.
Hey kenny hissy fit, what do you think of the distinct possibility that your buddy kilgo might have been nothing more than another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator?
Sid,
When are you going to post the transcript of the trial?
Kenny and Sid keep ignoring the main point: It doesn't matter if Daye was beating her or not prior to him kicking in the bathroom door and dragging her out by her hair. That alone was enough to grant Crystal the right of self-defense. The issue is how the stabbing took place. They believed Daye, because he provided a lot of testimony that was damaging to himself, and explained things that were bad for him. His story also fit the physical evidence.
Crystal, on the other hand, made sure that there was nothing negative about her, and directly contradicted the physical evidence in many ways.
Had Daye been on top of Crystal when she stabbed him, it would have been self-defense, and she would have walked. The Jury did not believe Crystal. They believed that Daye let Crystal go, and rather than leave, she ran into the other room, grabbed a knife, and came back at him. Once Daye showed he was leaving the fight, her right to self-defense ended.
It really just matters who you believe in that split second that decided the entire case. Her testimony didn't help her because she told so many contradictions and had so many issues, the Jury didn't believe her about anything.
Daye could have been in a drunken rage. Duke could have committed malpractice. That was only relevant to manslaughter v. murder - the only thing relevant to guilt or innocence was self-defense, and the jury rejected that - but were told, by Daye himself, that he was enraged, kicked in the door, and drug her out by the hair.
Then there is the matter of the knives scattered all over the apartment and Daye's known penchant for knife throwing.
Even if he had thrown knives at her earlier, even if knives had been scattered around the apartment - if he let her go, and she went into the other room to get a knife and go at him, it's not self-defense.
I again reiterate it is possible for a chronic alcoholic to have a normal liver. Don't take my word for it do the research.
Kenny,
I am so glad that you are back mater debating on this board. I was afraid that you had decided to master debate somewhere else.
With knives scattered all over why would she have to, as Daye claimed,
go into the kitchen drawer and find a knife to use to attack this enraged madman. Uh uh he was on top of her choking the life out of her and the knives he had previously hurled at her were lying within reach
kenhyderal said...
"Then there is the matter of the knives scattered all over the apartment and Daye's known penchant for knife throwing."
Said penchant is another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
kenhyderal said...
"Uh uh he was on top of her choking the life out of her and the knives he had previously hurled at her were lying within reach>'
Another fabrication fromharr the hypocritical fabricator.
kenny:
What is the evidence to support your claim that Mr. Daye had a penchant for knife throwing? Or that he threw knives at Mangum?
If Mr. Daye was choking the life out of Mangum, why wasn't she injured?
You should go back to masturdebating into a sock.
kenhyderal said...
"I again reiterate it is possible for a chronic alcoholic to have a normal liver. Don't take my word for it do the research."
Highly unlikely in someone who could tolerate a blood alcohol of nerly 300. The possibility such an alcoholic would have a normal liver is miniscule. kenny hissy fit would recognize that if hr had any experience in clinical medicine.
Anonymous said: "The possibility such an alcoholic would have a normal liver is miniscule. kenny hissy fit would recognize that if hr had any experience in clinical medicine"........................... Wrong. Look it up yourself. A large percentage of chronic alcoholics have normal livers. When you find the answer come back on and admit you are wrong. Or do you want me to do it for you?
Anonymous said: "What is the evidence to support your claim that Mr. Daye had a penchant for knife throwing? Or that he threw knives at Mangum?".......................That evidence is available but was not pursued by Meier. By the way did Daye ever claim Crystal threw knives at him?
Kenny asks: "Or do you want me to do it for you?"
I want to to stop master debating. You do it.
kenny,
I ask again: what is the evidence to support the claim that Mr. Daye had a penchant for throwing knives, or that he threw knives at Mangum? If Mr. Daye was "choking the life out" of Mangum, why wasn't she injured? Can you please stop masturdebating long enough to answer me?
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "The possibility such an alcoholic would have a normal liver is miniscule. kenny hissy fit would recognize that if hr had any experience in clinical medicine"........................... Wrong."
You are wrong, largely because you have no training, no training in either clinical or forensic medicinr , and yur agenda is to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes.
"Look it up yourself. A large percentage of chronic alcoholics have normal livers. When you find the answer come back on and admit you are wrong. Or do you want me to do it for you?"
I have.
Liver damage in an alcoholic is caused by exposure to the toxic metabolites of alcohol. An alcoholic who could tolerate an alcohol level of almost 300 would have exposed his liver to high levels of liver toxins for years. It is highly unlikely such an alcoholic would have a normal liver after so many years of alcohol exposure.
How many chronic alcoholics have you ever treated?
kenhyderal said..."
"That evidence is available but was not pursued by Meier."
Another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
It is similar to harr's fabrication that the evidence that crystal was raped was sealed byAG Cooper nd withheld from the public.
Kenhyderal,
Please help me! Ubes isniojifh
kilgo is probabl9y a fabrication of harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt.
Forensics proves that the two bullets which struck Baker were fired when he was facing Carter. Ergo, when Baker was in flight, none of the bullets fired by Carter struck him."
Forensics can tell us only where the bullets entered Baker and poor little Demarius Greene. They can't tell us when they were fired. The witnesses can. And the witnesses tell us that the bullets that struck and killed Baker were fired when he was in flight, crossing 10th Street. That makes the use of force unlawful and thus, murder. Murder of the capital variety.
"Carter insists that he fired the shots when Baker was fleeing for the sole purpose of encouraging him to keep running. He was not aiming to hit him at that time."
His stated intent is self-serving at best. But, he fails to take into account that his use of deadly force was unlawful at that point, even if we believe his self-serving statement.
"Yes, deadly force was used initially, but once Baker ran, the only thing Carter did was try position himself at a place where Baker could not take cover and return fire. Never was Carter in pursuit of Baker to "finish him off.""
I would disagree on two points. First the fire arm deadly force was not lawful in the first place because Carter had prior felony convictions. Both federal and state law prohibit felons from using firearms for any purpose, including self defense. Second, Carter's use of deadly force, regardless of his stated intent, once Baker started to run was unlawful. Neither the jury, nor any of the Justices on the Supreme Court believed Carter's story about trying to scare off Baker. Neither do I. It's self-serving and completely against the grain of experience.
"Finally, I disagree that it is unlawful for felons to use a firearm to protect themselves. To me, that just doesn't make sense."
You may disagree, but I have correctly stated both federal and state law. These are legal principals going back over 200 years, so they should come as no surprise to you. Again, if you think the law should change, then make an argument for a change. But, I will say that I don't like the idea of felons running loose with the right to use fire arms for any purpose.
Walt-in-Durham
Another example of harr the hypocritical fabricator:
harr argued that what happened between crystal and Milton Walker should never been admitted at evidence at her trial for the murder of Reginald Daye.
In the Duke Lacrosse Hoax(it was not the Duke Rape Case since no rape had happened) harr the hypocritical fabricator argued that the history of the Lacrosse team, as a wild, out of control lawless bunch established cause to believe that some of them had raped crystal on the night of March 13/14 2006.
harr's description of the Lacrosse team as wild and lawless and out of control was a fabrication. The Coleman report showed that team was a responsible group of young men.
Everyone on Crystal's side argued that the Milton Walker stuff should not have been admitted. It was very bad for her because it showed she could grab knives and go after boyfriends she was fighting with.
Kenny,
Where is the research you promised that shows that a large percentage of chronic alcoholics have normal livers?
This is an opportunity to demonstrate that you can go beyond your typical master debating and actually produce evidence that supports your conclusion.
Sid:
You have 354 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
I don't think you appreciate how difficult that will be to accomplish, or how long the process will take. It is going to take more than a shlog or a letter or a clandestine meeting that you can't talk about. You better get moving.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
http://gi.org/guideline/alcoholic-liver-disease/ I'd draw you attention to the section headed disease spectrum
I know by any standards Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Diagnosing alcoholism is not rocket science. Lay people are perfectly capable of doing so. Firstly, I don't trust Dr. Nicholl's flawed autopsy report but if he did find a completely normal liver ie. no Alcoholic Liver Disease, no Alcoholic hepatitis, no Cirrhosis, and not even any fatty liver. Then, at the very least, 1 in 10 chronic alcoholics have no hepatic symptoms whatsoever and as many as 7 in 10 have no Alcoholic Liver Disease.
Whether or not Daye was an alcoholic is irrelevant. He admitted that he kicked in the door and drug her out. He could have been drunk, he could have been sober. Had he then been choking her, as Crystal said, she'd have been justified in stabbing him. If he released her, as he said, and the jury believed, she wasn't.
Yes, he was enraged, he admitted that. He kicked in a door - that's not easy to do,a nd clearly shows his anger. Of course, Crystal had a history of getting enraged and coming after boyfriends with knives - that shows she has issues as well.
You and Sid keep focusing on things that aren't overly relevant, but were also brought up in trial.
So, Sidney, can you tell us anything about this secret meeting you had?
Kenhyderal,
Why won't you help me? hojn/l
confirm your identity by e-mailing me
kenhyderal said...
"http://gi.org/guideline/alcoholic-liver-disease/ I'd draw you attention to the section headed disease spectrum"
kenny hissy fit, did you read this part:
"The amount of alcohol ingested (independent of the form in which it is ingested) is the most important risk factor for the development of ALD"
You argue that the blood alcohol of nearly 300establishes that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic.
What you ignore, probably because you have no training, no experience in clinical medicine is that even chronic alcoholics would be rendered comatose by a blood alcohol level that high. Reginald daye was not.
You argue that Reginald Daye was tolerant to the effects of alcohol. To become tolerant to that level, he would have to imbibed large quantities of alcohol for year. Someone who imbibed so much alcohol in his life that he would have tolerated a blood alcohol level of nearly 300 would have ingested enough to cause significant damage to his liver. At autopsy, Reginald Daye had a normal liver, which you yourself have conceded.
That all says the blood alcohol was most likely a lab error.
It did not establish Reginald Daye as a chronic alcoholic.
kenhyderal said...
"I know by any standards Daye was a chronic alcoholic."
Youhave documented you do not know.
"Diagnosing alcoholism is not rocket science."
It does take knowledge and experience in clinical medicine, neither of which you have.
"Lay people are perfectly capable of doing so."
No they are not, particularly you, a person with no training, no experience in clinical medicine.
"Firstly, I don't trust Dr. Nicholl's flawed autopsy report"
So?
"but if he did find a completely normal liver ie. no Alcoholic Liver Disease, no Alcoholic hepatitis, no Cirrhosis, and not even any fatty liver. Then, at the very least, 1 in 10 chronic alcoholics have no hepatic symptoms whatsoever and as many as 7 in 10 have no Alcoholic Liver Disease."
Not a chronic alcoholic who could have tolerated a blood alcohol level of nearly 300.
The Great Kilgo said...
"Kenhyderal,
Why won't you help me? hojn/l"
kenhyderal said...
"confirm your identity by e-mailing me"
kenny hissy fit, kilgo is probably a fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator. He won't email you because he won't admit to fabricating things.
Anonymous said: "What you ignore, probably because you have no training, no experience in clinical medicine is that even chronic alcoholics would be rendered comatose by a blood alcohol level that high. Reginald daye was not"........................................................................................ https://books.google.ca/books?id=wE_2riRrUqUC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=what+level+of+blood+alcohol+can+a+chronic+alcoholic+tolerate+and+still+function&source=bl&ots=WVkZ-6sbBY&sig=RxmPrvwjaJiG7U-vrYyFf3F6gX4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDw6LkgqbKAhUL1B4KHYrwBh8Q6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=what%20level%20of%20blood%20alcohol%20can%20a%20chronic%20alcoholic%20tolerate%20and%20still%20function&f=false
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "What you ignore, probably because you have no training, no experience in clinical medicine is that even chronic alcoholics would be rendered comatose by a blood alcohol level that high. Reginald daye was not"........................................................................................ https://books.google.ca/books?id=wE_2riRrUqUC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=what+level+of+blood+alcohol+can+a+chronic+alcoholic+tolerate+and+still+function&source=bl&ots=WVkZ-6sbBY&sig=RxmPrvwjaJiG7U-vrYyFf3F6gX4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDw6LkgqbKAhUL1B4KHYrwBh8Q6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=what%20level%20of%20blood%20alcohol%20can%20a%20chronic%20alcoholic%20tolerate%20and%20still%20function&f=false"
Irrelevant.
Does not refue what I have said previously, tat someone who could tolerate a blood alcohol of nearly 300 is unlikely to have a normal liver
Sid:
You have 353 days left to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Apparently, what Kenny also ignores -- probably because he has no training -- is HTML tags.
Dr. Anonymous said: " Does not refue what I have said previously, tat someone who could tolerate a blood alcohol of nearly 300 is unlikely to have a normal liver......................... The key word here being unlikely. I would never choose a Physician, like you, to be my health care provider. One who is so dogmatic and so closed-minded. Your failure to accept the obvious that Reginald Day was an alcoholic is reminiscent of your onetime insistence that he was never improperly intubated in the esophagus. Then, when you could no longer cling to that position you moved on to say this fatal error did not rise to the level of medical malpractice. Having an open mind, admitting you could be wrong and adjusting your views to consider other possibilities is the mark of a good clinician; something you seen to lack. Supposedly, in the US Justice system the accused should always receive the benefit of doubt.
.
kenny,
There is no evidence that Mr. Daye was an alcoholic. It's just conjecture and speculation on your part. Even if he was, so what? Mr. Daye's alcoholism is not a defense to the charges against Mangum. It isn't even an issue in Mangum's case.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe said: "There is no evidence that Mr. Daye was an alcoholic. It's just conjecture and speculation on your part. Even if he was, so what? Mr. Daye's alcoholism is not a defense to the charges against Mangum. It isn't even an issue in Mangum's case"................................ What about a BAC of 296mg/dl in a still functioning Daye. Oh yeah might of been a lab error. What about the presumptive diagnosis of impending Delirium Tremens being the cause of his acute agitation. Oh yeah it might have been an unknown intra-abdominal infection What about Crystal's evidence about his heavy consumption of alcohol while she stayed with him. Oh yeah she might be lying. What about his drunken jealous rage. Oh yeah he might just be a social drinker who got carried away. Might of, might of, might of. Don't be like Dr. Anonymous and close your mind to anything that might show Crystal acted in self defence. Listen closely to those who testified about his drinking. They struggled to answer obliquely without exposing him as a chronic alcoholic. They needed to be vigorously cross-examined
kenhyderal said...
"The key word here being unlikely. I would never choose a Physician, like you, to be my health care provider."
So?
kenhyderal said...
"One who is so dogmatic and so closed-minded."
Yes you are, and for a number of wong reasons, mainly your crusade to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for your crimes.
"Your failure to accept the obvious that Reginald Day was an alcoholic is reminiscent of your onetime insistence that he was never improperly intubated in the esophagus."
No it isn't. You have not established Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. You are not capable of extablishing Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Neither is harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experience medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing a string of non meritorious frivolous lawsuits.
enhyderal said...
"The key word here being unlikely."
Indeed it is. And you do concede that it is unlikely that a man who could tolerate a blood alcohol level of 296 would have a normal liver. Which means it is unlikely that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. Which means it was more likely he was not a chronic alcoholic. Which means you have not established at all that Reginald Daye was a chrnic alcoholic.
kenhyderal said...
"Then, when you could no longer cling to that position you moved on to say this fatal error did not rise to the level of medical malpractice."
It did not.
The only people who say it is malpractice are you and harr the hyporitical fabricator. To establish malpractice, you need the testimony of expert medical witnesses. Neither you nor harr the hypocritical fabricator qualify as expert medical witnesses. You have established you are a layman. No court would recognize you as capable of determining what is or what is not malpractice.
kenhyderal said...
"What about a BAC of 296mg/dl in a still functioning Daye."
Let's go over this again. An alcoholic who could tolerate a "BAC of 296mg/dl" and not be comatose would have to have consumed large quantities of alcohol per year for a period of many years. In such a scenario it is unlikely his liver would have been normal. Yes, unlikely."
Oh yeah might of been a lab error. That it was unlikely that a chronic alcoholic who could tolerate a BAC of 296 woud have a normal liver means it was likely it was a lab error. It was unlikely it was a valid lab value. Which means it did not establish Reginald Daye as a chronic alcoholic.
"What about the presumptive diagnosis of impending Delirium Tremens being the cause of his acute agitation."
A presumptive diagnosis is not an established diagnosis.
"Oh yeah it might have been an unknown intra-abdominal infection".
It was a suspected intra abdominal infection. Let's go over this again, not that this will convince anyone as willfully and woefully stupid as you. The stab wound inflicted by crystal lacerated Regnald Daye's colon. The interval between the infliction of the injury and getting to him to surgery meant the abdominal cavity was exposed to contamination from the colon for a number of hours. The human colon harbors a large population of harmful bacteria. That plus the unavoidable delay in treating the injury exposed Reginald Daye to the risk of an intra abdominal infection. The risk was reduced but not eliminated by the surgery and the attendant coverage with antibiotics. Even if there was a presumptive diagnosis of DTs, that did not eliminate an intra abdominal infection as a risk. What would have been negligence in this case would have been in the attending physicians presuming it was DTs and not evaluating for an intra abdominal infection. You have never had hands on responsibility for managing a patient with such a colon wound. That is why I am not really surprised about your ignorance. However, you try to pass off your ignorance as expertise.
"What about Crystal's evidence about his heavy consumption of alcohol while she stayed with him."
Y ou mean what about crystal the liar's evidence "about his heavy consumption of alcohol while she stayed with him."
"Oh yeah she might be lying."
Her history of lying, in the Duke Rape Hoax, in the case of the theft of the tasxicab, establish her as not credible.
"What about his drunken jealous rage."
Neither you nor harr the hypocritical fabricator have established he was in a jealous rage. drystal's own testimony in court is what established doubt about his so called jealous rage. In turn that established doubt about her claim of self defense.
"Oh yeah he might just be a social drinker who got carried away. Might of, might of, might of. Don't be like Dr. Anonymous and close your mind to anything that might show Crystal acted in self defence."
Again, self defense is what is called an affirmative defense. In an affirmative defense the burden of proof is upon the defense to prove the claim. drystal's own testimony in court cast doubt on her claim of self defense.
"Listen closely to those who testified about his drinking."
Who testified about his heavy drinking. You. harr the hypocritical fabricator. crystal. None of those three qualify as a credible witness.
"They struggled to answer obliquely without exposing him as a chronic alcoholic."
Again, the people who said Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic were you and harr the hypocritical fabricator. Neither one of you is qualified to establish a diagnosis of alcoholism.
"They needed to be vigorously cross-examined".
I wish you and harr the hypocritical fabricator had been cross examined. You would have been thoroughly discredited.
kenhyderal said...
"Supposedly, in the US Justice system the accused should always receive the benefit of doubt."
Again, when crystal claimed self defense, she was putting forward an affirmative defense. The burden of proof was on her. Her own testimony in court cast doubt on her claim of self defense.
That she was convicted means there was no doubt of her guilt, meaning there was no doubt of which she could have been given any benefit.
kenhyderal said...
"Supposedly, in the US Justice system the accused should always receive the benefit of doubt."
Doubt on the part of you and harr the hypocritical fabricator is of no legal significance. Just like your crusades to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
kenhyderal said...
"Supposedly, in the US Justice system the accused should always receive the benefit of doubt."
I should have said, doubt on the part of you and of harr the hypocritical fabricator has no legal significance in any valid justice system in any country in the world.
Dr. Anonymous said: "In such a scenario it is unlikely his liver would have been normal. Yes, unlikely."...................... If Nichol's report is to be believed, it was normal and as my research has shown such a finding is certainly possible in a chronic alcoholic.
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: 'In such a scenario it is unlikely his liver would have been normal. Yes, unlikely.'...................... If Nichol's report is to be believed, it was normal and as my research has shown such a finding is certainly possible in a chronic alcoholic."
Explain how a possible but unlikely situation establishes that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. It doesn't. All it establishes is that it is ossible but unlikely that he was a chronic alcoholic. The only people who claim Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic are you and harr the hypocritical fabricator. Neither one of you is competent to make a medical diagnosis.
Kenny,
Can you please stop master debating? Master debating will not free Mangum.
The situation is this: Mangum was convicted of murder. Her appeal was rejected, both by the appeals court and the NC Supreme Court. She is in prison until 2026.
Your master debating on a poorly read website will do nothing to free Mangum.
There are three issues that must be addressed to free Mangum. Master debating is not a sufficient answer. Master debating will not work.
First, you claim that Welch is not applicable. Fine. Provide case law to support that conclusion. Otherwise, you are master debating, and master debating is not sufficient to overcome the legal analysis discussed on this board. Walt's discussion is more compelling than your master debating.
Second, you claim that the intubation was an intervening cause. Fine. Provide experts to support that conclusion. Otherwise, you are master debating, and master debating is not sufficient to overcome the expert opinions provided by Nichols and Roberts. Their opinions are more compelling than your master debating.
Third, you claim Crystal acted in self-defense, but you provide little evidence to support that conclusion. You rely on evidence you claim exists, but was not used in the trial. You ask readers to accept that evidence unseen. Again, you are master debating, and master debating is not sufficient to overcome the jury's decision to believe Daye and disbelieve Crystal. Your master debating is not compelling.
Kenny, I am forced to conclude that you do not care about freeing Crystal. You seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of master debating.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Care to respond, Kenny?
guiowen said...
So, Sidney, can you tell us anything about this secret meeting you had?
gui, mon ami,
Not much to tell. Although the meeting had been scheduled at least five days in advance, I began calling two hours prior to the meeting to confirm... I kept getting voicemail. Then a half hour prior to the meeting I was sent an e-mail (which I didn't see until about six hours later) that said the meeting was cancelled and that I would be notified when it would be re-scheduled. That's it, folks!
Too bad, Sidney, amigo mio.
Keep us informed.
Getting Crystal a new trial with competent legal representation is my agenda. I trust in Dr. Harr to accomplish this objective. Expert witnesses are available to counter the conclusion of Nichols. Negligent esophageal intubation in a ICU that impending delirium tremens took him to was the sole and proximate cause of death and not the stab wound. No Welch application. Allowing the Jury to hear Coggins Franks version and the of Daye that was never examined and refuted by Crystal's Attorney. Showing that Crystal was defending herself is the simplest of all. Refute the unexamined, unbelievable self serving, second hand account by Daye, a drunken, enraged, jealous, alcoholic, twice the size of Crystal, trying to stop her from calling for help, kicking in the bathroom door where she locked herself in for refuge, dragging her out by her hair, throwing knives to maim or kill her; then, all of a sudden becomes sober and fearing for his safety decides to flee his own apartment, defies common sense. This one sentence contains information the jury never heard or were never asked to consider.
Kenny,
Daye wasn't fleeing his apartment. He was just walking away from her. He probably thought if he did so they could both calm down and talk things over. Well,apparently Crystal didn't calm down. Too bad, Reggie!
kenhyderal said...
"Getting Crystal a new trial with competent legal representation is my agenda."
Your agenda is to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes.
"I trust in Dr. Harr to accomplish this objective."
Trusting in harr the hypocritical fabricator is like trusting in whoever wants to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
"Expert witnesses are available to counter the conclusion of Nichols."
So where are they. Produce them.
"Negligent esophageal intubation"
The esophageal intubation did not rise to the level of negligenc. Neither you nor harr the hypocrite are capable of knowing what is and is not medical negligence.
"in a ICU that impending delirium tremens took him to was the sole and proximate cause of death and not the stab wound."
You are wrong. Again I say,, neither you nor harr the hypocritical fabricator are competent to determine what the proximate cause of death was, or what was happening in the icu.
"No Welch application."
Once again, neither you nor harr the hypocritical fabricator are competent to make that decision.
"Allowing the Jury to hear Coggins Franks version and the of Daye that was never examined and refuted by Crystal's Attorney."
Because it couldn't be refuted.
"showing that Crystal was defending herself is the simplest of all."
Crystal got the opportunity to show self defense, and she herself cast doubt, a lot of doubt, on whether or not she acted in self defense.
"Refute the unexamined, unbelievable self serving, second hand account by Daye,"
Yeah, right, examine him and refute what he told the police, ignoring that he died from the stab wound crystal inflicted before he could be examined.
"a drunken, enraged, jealous, alcoholic, twice the size of Crystal, trying to stop her from calling for help, kicking in the bathroom door where she locked herself in for refuge, dragging her out by her hair, throwing knives to maim or kill her; then, all of a sudden becomes sober and fearing for his safety decides to flee his own apartment, defies common sense. This one sentence contains information the jury never heard or were never asked to consider."
That is your version, and your version is part of your agenda to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes. You have not established as fact that your version is anything more.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Not much to tell. Although the meeting had been scheduled at least five days in advance, I began calling two hours prior to the meeting to confirm... I kept getting voicemail. Then a half hour prior to the meeting I was sent an e-mail (which I didn't see until about six hours later) that said the meeting was cancelled and that I would be notified when it would be re-scheduled. That's it, folks!"
Which is a clue to your readers thatyou were perpetrating another fabrication.
kenhyderal said...
"Supposedly, in the US Justice system the accused should always receive the benefit of doubt."
kenny hissy fit shows here he is as much a hypocrite as harr the hypocritical fabricator.
In the Duke Rape Hoax(not the Duke Rape Case because there was no rape), corrupt nifong had no evidence to connect any member of the Lacrosse team to the alleged rape, no forensic evidence, no medical evidence, and crystal was not at all able to reliably identify any member of the Lacrosse team as an assailant. But kenny hissy fit has said on multiple occasions that corrupt nifong believed he had probable cause to prosecute.
Did kenny hissy fit ever say that members of the Lacrosse team deserved any benefit from the obvious doubt, the obvious doubt that the crime ever happened, the obvious doubt that they were ever involved in the alleged crime.
The overwhelmingly obvious answer is no.
Kenny,
You respond to my criticism of your master debating with more master debating. As I said before, your master debating is not compelling.
Your decision to rely on Dr. Harr to get Crystal a new trial demonstrates your lack of commitment to Crystal. Dr. Harr is also a master debater, albeit one who is less clever than you. Although Dr. Harri is willing to master debate in places other than this board, his master debating will not free Crystal.
I am forced to conclude that you do not care about freeing Crystal. You seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of master debating.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
I just posted a letter that I hand-delivered to the North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services.
It pertains to the discovery that trial judge Honorable Paul Ridgeway withheld from Crystal Mangum.
Debate du jour: Do you feel that it is proper or ethical for a judge to withhold probable exculpatory evidence from the defendant while allowing his/her counsel and prosecution to view it?
As you were.
guiowen said...
Kenny,
Daye wasn't fleeing his apartment. He was just walking away from her. He probably thought if he did so they could both calm down and talk things over. Well,apparently Crystal didn't calm down. Too bad, Reggie!
gui, mon ami,
Hah! Face the facts, Daye never fled the apartment... it was Mangum who fled after stabbing Daye and grabbing her purse. Mangum left the apartment before Daye.
Also, do you really believe they were arguing over money? No way. In fact, there was no argument... it was a one-sided berating of Mangum by an intoxicated jealous and abusive boyfriend.
What motivation do you give for the stabbing? The prosecution scenario makes absolutely no sense.
Now, address the question about Judge Ridgeway withholding discovery from the defendant Mangum.
guiowen said...
Too bad, Sidney, amigo mio.
Keep us informed.
Will let you know if and when the meeting is re-scheduled. I'm not holding my breath. This case is too political.
Sid,
What is next? An appeal to SCOTUS or an MAR?
Sid,
When are you going to post the transcript of the trial?
Sid:
You have 352 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Nifong Supporter said...
" I just posted a letter that I hand-delivered to the North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services.
It pertains to the discovery that trial judge Honorable Paul Ridgeway withheld from Crystal Mangum."
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again. "...the discovery that trial judge Honorable Paul Ridgeway withheld" were Dr. Nichols personnel records. Those records were reviewed by the trial judge and attorneys for the State and mangu, and it was decided that Dr. Nichol's personnel records had no probative value and contained no exculpatory evidence.
The letter from crystal asking that any attorney appointed for her cooperate with harr the hypocritical fabricator, the attempt to obtain Dr. Nichols' records, this is but an attempt on the part of harr the hypocritical fabricator to access confidential records which he has no right to access. Considering the distortions he published about Reginld Daye, e.g. Reginald Daye had been charged with abuse of a woman(said charge took place about 10 years before he was murdered and was dropped), harr the hgpocritical fabricator's agenda is to distort Dr. Nichols' record. harr the hypocritical fabricator, who is but the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification and who spent his post medical school career filing and losing a string of non meritorious lawsuits, is not competent to determine in a medico legal case what is or is not exculpatory evidence. With regard to the exculpatory evidence corrupt nifong withheld from the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, harr the hypocritical fabricator claimed the evidence was not exculpatory.
Debate du jour: Do you feel that it is proper or ethical for a judge to withhold probable exculpatory evidence from the defendant while allowing his/her counsel and prosecution to view it?"
Irrelevant red herring. Judge and the attorneys agreed there was no exculpatory evidence to be revealed to the defendant. Again, harr the hypocritical fabricator is not competent to proclaim there was.
Nifong Supporter said...
guiowen said...
Kenny,
Daye wasn't fleeing his apartment. He was just walking away from her. He probably thought if he did so they could both calm down and talk things over. Well,apparently Crystal didn't calm down. Too bad, Reggie!
"gui, mon ami:
Now, address the question about Judge Ridgeway withholding discovery from the defendant Mangum."
harr the hypocritical fabricator, for reasons given many times previously, is not competent to determine whether or not evidence is exculpatory. He demonstrated that in his writing on the Duk Rape Hoax.
What harr the hypocritical fabricator wants guiowen to address is an irrelevant red herring.
Nifong Supporter said...
"guiowen said...
Too bad, Sidney, amigo mio.
Keep us informed.
Will let you know if and when the meeting is re-scheduled. I'm not holding my breath. This case is too political."
Which is another indication that harr the hypocritical fabricator was fabricating when he said there was going to be some momentous development.
Most likely he tried to get someone to pay attention to his ranting and raving and then meet with him. The individual or individuals looked at harr's fabrications and then decided not to meet with the hypocritical fabricator.
harr the hypocritical fabricator is now trying to fabricate some posterior personal camouflage.
harr the hypocritical fabricator:
I have no formal legal training, although I am obviously more knowledgeable about m\legal maters than you are.
I can see through you and realize your agenda. Why do you think a judge or a legal agency will not?
"Do you feel that it is proper or ethical for a judge to withhold probable exculpatory evidence from the defendant while allowing his/her counsel and prosecution to view it?"
The party that sought this designation bore the burden of proving that it was sensitive enough to warrant such a restriction.
These "attorney's eyes only" documents can only be shared with the parties’ legal counsel, including legal staff, and under certain restrictions, outside experts. None of the specific information can be revealed to anyone associated with the client or the client itself.
Neither you nor Crystal will ever read these documents.
Sidney said,
"What motivation do you give for the stabbing? The prosecution scenario makes absolutely no sense."
She simply wanted Reginald to know that no one trifles with her. Some people had recently made her believe that she could get away with this sort of thing; that the victim would take the blame for her poor behavior (just as good old Milton had).
It's too bad those people (I'm sure you know who they are) did not explain to her, back in 2010, that she had dodged a bullet. It's too bad they did not urge her to control her temper.
Dr. Anonymous said: So where are they? ( Expert witnesses) Produce them.......................................................... They will be subpoenaed to testify at Crystal's new trial. Dr. Anonymous also said: '''''''''''''''''' The esophagel intubation did not rise to the level of negligenc. Neither you nor harr the hypocrite are capable of knowing what is and is not medical negligence....................... Esophagael intubation that is unrecognized before cerebral anoxia occurs is, by definition, medical malpractice and a trachea obscured by vomitus is not an excuse. I am taking under consideration "A Lawyer"'s admonition to me to be cautious in revealing the strategy for Crystal's Defense in a new trial
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: So where are they? ( Expert witnesses) Produce them.......................................................... They will be subpoenaed to testify at Crystal's new trial."
Who will produce them to be subpoenaed? kilgo who has been unable to produce the anonymous lacrosse player who supposedly witnessed the non existent rape? Who is going to pay the witness fees? If you want a real expert to testify on behalf of Crystal she will have to pay him. I know of a case in which a Medical Exprert Witness was paid at $750 per hour. Dr Roberts, for example, was paid for her services. I suggest you consult a real lawyer if you are presuming you can arbitraril subpoena a doc to testify on behalf of crystal and compel that doc to testify on her behalf.
"Esophagael intubation that is unrecognized before cerebral anoxia occurs is, by definition, medical malpractice and a trachea obscured by vomitus is not an excuse. I am taking under consideration "A Lawyer"'s admonition to me to be cautious in revealing the strategy for Crystal's Defense in a new trial"
The esophageal intubation did not rise to the level of negligence. Your proclamation that it was negligence has no legal weight. You have no competence to determine what is and what is not negligence.
Crystal isn't getting a new trial....Sid isn't going to read the "attorneys eyes only" documents....Shan Carter will be in prison until he dies....and Sid will never win his lawsuit against Duke.
Find something new to schlog about.
Expert witnesses may be compensated by the state to testify in a criminaltrial, but the compensation is minimal. If crystal wants expert testimony from an expert wtness, she needs to hire one to testify voluntarily.
There is the example of Dr. Christena Roberts, hired by the defense to examine Dr. Nichols report. She agreed wth Dr. Nichols conclusion. One should not just subpoena an expert witness and expect that witness to give testimony which will benefit the defendant.
Kenny,
Please stop your master debating. Your master debating will not free Crystal.
I suggest that you stop waiting for Dr. Harr to get Crystal a new trial and start doing something on your own to help her. Something other than master debating.
Crystal lost her appeal. The chances of Dr. Harr being successful in getting a new trial for her is virtually zero. He has no credibility. He has absolutely no idea what he is doing. He misunderstands the law. He ignores contrary evidence. He relies on straw man arguments. His strategy is flawed.
There will be no new trial without additional evidence. This additional evidence must be included in filings prior to getting a new trial, including expert opinions that support the conclusion that the intubation was an intervening cause and a detailed argument why the jury's decision regarding self-defense was utterly unreasonable. It is not enough to say that you disagree with the verdict. It is not enough to say that the experts were wrong.
You and Dr. Harr cannot simply master debate, spouting off conclusions, and expect success. I believe the advice you cite is flawed--you need not worry about showing your strategy in a trial. Without more hard facts--not opinions and speculation--there will be no new trial.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
Mr. Smith --
You gotta wonder what Kenny is attempting to do here on this site, anyway. He's done nothing positive to help Crystal in any meaningful way, and his comments here reach the (maybe) 8 people who bother to read the comments.
You'd think that he would at least reach out to a wider audience like Sid has been doing with his hand-delivered letters. I see no evidence of that happening.
The only conclusion to make is he's simply here trolling under an assumed identity.
Fake KH said:The only conclusion to make is he's simply here trolling under an assumed identity".............................................The "projection" one sees here, by cowardly anonymous posters, is unbelievable. To my knowledge, only Dr. Harr, myself and Walt are the only contributors who have provided readers with there true identity. Most others here meet the real definition of a computer troll.
Kenny whines: "To my knowledge, only Dr. Harr, myself and Walt are the only contributors who have provided readers with there true identity."
You seldom make useful "contributions" to a discussion.
kenhyderal said...
"To my knowledge, only Dr. Harr, myself and Walt are the only contributors who have provided readers with there true identity. Most others here meet the real definition of a computer troll."
kenny hissy fit's standard response when posters show what fools kenny and and harr the hpocritical fabricator are.
Kenny,
Names alone do not make trolls. A master debater generally is a troll.
An anonymous poster can make greater genuine contributions to a discussion than a pseudonymous one. Some of the anonymous posters here make real contributions.
TED CRUZ, MASTER DEBATER
By Drew Millard
Associate Editor
November 12, 2015
Ted Cruz looks like a sad dog with wet eyes, but he's got one big, big advantage in the GOP debates: He's a great debater. He is literally enshrined in the Princeton Debate Panel's Hall of Fame for being both the "National Championship Top Speaker" and the "North American Debating Championship Top Speaker" in 1992. According to a June 2014 New Yorker profile, Cruz specialized in parliamentary debate, in which debaters are given a topic and forced to generate their arguments on the spot. This requires being able to pull facts and figures seemingly out of your ass and being able to work the angles of any given position.
That might not seem like it would apply to presidential debates. After all, candidates pick the issues and the positions they want to argue (Mike Huckabee's is social security; Ben Carson's is the pyramids). But Cruz has a way of looking at arguments that seems uniquely tailored to the current political arena. He's not looking to score points, he wants to bend the entire discussion so that his position is self-evidently correct, no matter how odd it might be.
Related: What Would Actually Happen if Ted Cruz Abolished the IRS?
His secret, he told New Yorker reporter Jeffrey Toobin, is he believes the "essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative." He started this practice as at Princeton—his college best friend David Panton recalled to the New York Times, "Ted was not about responding to anything. He would reframe the whole debate"—and by the time he was arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court as Texas's Solicitor General, he'd perfected it. He told Toobin that when arguing before the Justices, he concentrated on articulating "those two sentences that come out of the judge's mouth" when "the judge goes home and speaks to his or her grandchild, who's in kindergarten, and the child says, 'Paw-Paw, what did you do today?'"
Cruz's rhetorical acumen was on full display at last night's Republican debate, in which the 44-year-old Senator from Texas reiterated his desire to wipe out the IRS, let ailing banks die on the vine rather than bailing them out, and return to the gold standard. He used the term "philosopher-king" twice and referenced something called "The Dead Horse Act" once. Just because he seems like a candidate out of the 19th century doesn't mean he should be underestimated—the guy's got an uncanny ability to make insane stuff seem reasonable.
Take an exchange about illegal immigration. All of the Republican candidates are vehemently against migrants crossing the US border illegally, but Cruz, whose father is Cuban and who was born in Canada, stressed that it was "a very personal economic issue," one that elites would see very differently if their jobs were being taken by immigrants. He continued, "for those of us who believe people ought to come to this country legally, and we should enforce the law, we're tired of being told it's anti-immigrant. It's offensive." In a few quick words, he moved the debate away from whether increased immigration helps or hurts the economy—it's about the elites versus the regular folks whose jobs are threatened. To disagree with Cruz means denying the experiences and perspective of blue-collar Americans.
He employed this trick again when arguing with Ohio Governor John Kasich about the issue of bailing out large banks, positioning himself as a warrior for small business and Kasich as a steward of the rich. Cruz backed Kasich into a corner, asking, "Why would you then bail out rich Wall Street banks, but not Main Street, not mom and pop?" Who doesn't love Main Street? Who is hateful enough to hate mom and pop? By the end, the audience was actually booing Kasich.
THE FALLACY OF THE MASTER DEBATER
Staged face-offs will mean little next fall.
By Quin Hillyer
Newt Gingrich: Master Debater.
Such seems to be the impression driving the Gingrich boomlet in the Republican presidential contest -- as if, by virtue of his supposed debating ability, Gingrich will be the man most likely to defeat Barack Obama next fall.
It's a myth, on multiple levels, as we shall see.
Yet the power of the Gingrich surge does show, again, a lesson taught well by neo-Nazi David Duke when Duke was ascendant in Louisiana politics two decades ago: When considering a candidate for office, almost right up until they enter the polling booth and sometimes even in the booth itself, most voters rely more on what they see and hear themselves in real time than on facts, history, logic, or learned experience. If a speaker/debater "connects" with them, a lot of voters will actively siphon out all evidence against the speaker, in effect by adopting the "hear no evil" posture of one of the three infamous monkeys. Until powerfully disabused of what they consider a "first-hand" impression (first-hand because they "experienced" it by watching it on TV), many citizens will become the polling equivalent of jury nullifiers, becoming ever more obstinate in their positions. In this case, the position most dear to them is that they want to see somebody stick it to Barack Obama, face to face, and pummel him (politically speaking) into oblivion.
“YOU MIGHT BE A CUNNING LINGUIST, BUT I’M A MASTER DEBATER”
Anonymous said: "Some of the anonymous posters here make real contributions"....................But you can't name them.c.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "Some of the anonymous posters here make real contributions"....................But you can't name them.c."
However, even if we know your name, you can not show any significant contributions you have made.
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: So where are they? ( Expert witnesses) Produce them.......................................................... They will be subpoenaed to testify at Crystal's new trial."
That is an admission on your part that no medical witnesses have come forth to support your position on the case, and that no expert medical witnesses will. Any medical witness subpoenaed to testify for crystal will most likely testify that the stab wound she inflicted on Reginald Daye is what caused his death.
Sid:
You have 351 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: So where are they? ( Expert witnesses) Produce them.......................................................... They will be subpoenaed to testify at Crystal's new trial."
As others hdave told you, to get a new trial there must be new evidence. The "new" evidence you and harr the hypocritical fabricator want to introduce is that medical malpractice unrelated to the stab wound caused reginald Daye's death. You would have to get medical experts to testify to that. So far, no medical experts have come forth to do that. Would you first ask a medical expert to do this? Tat would be wise. Suppose you subpoenaed an expert to testify and that expert testifid that Reginald Dayes death wasa complication of the stab wound(Dr. Roberts reported it was). There goes crystal's chance for a new trial.
The point is, just issuing a subpoena for some medical expert to testify is not really a god idea.
And your statement implies you believe that crystal's defense attorney, should she get a new trial(unlikely), could just issue a subpoe4ena to some expert and then compel that expert to give testimony favorable too crystal.
I do not thimk that would happen.
kenny hissy fit, to clarify:
You would need pre new trial expert medical testimony to get a new trial.
Kenny states: To my knowledge, only Dr. Harr, myself and Walt are the only contributors who have provided readers with there [sic] true identity.
Your list appears to be incomplete.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
John D. Smith said...
"Kenny states: To my knowledge, only Dr. Harr, myself and Walt are the only contributors who have provided readers with there [sic] true identity.
Your list appears to be incomplete.
John D. Smith
New York, NY"
You presume a fact not in evidence, that Kenny is knowledgeable.
Kenny, as usual, fantasizes. Medical experts, he dreams, would just come out of the woodwork. They would all testify in Crystal's favor!
Kenny, first find an expert. Find out what the expert would say. Then maybe - just maybe - you could hope for a new trial.
Kenny -- you claim to be Ken Edwards, lately from Dubai and originally from Canada. Yet there's no real proof for this claim -- give us an address Ken Hyde...err, Ken Edwards and maybe a valid email address or telephone number (as Sid has provided). Even a blog as Walt has done will do.
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
THE CORRUPT FEAR US · THE HONEST SUPPORT US · THE HEROIC JOIN US.
Identify yourself and I will provide you with my e-mail address. Dr. Harr already has it. Kenhyderal is a user name for Kenneth D. Edwards BTW Heroic people don`t join ANONYMOUS they courageously stand up to be counted.
kenhyderal said...
"Identify yourself and I will provide you with my e-mail address. Dr. Harr already has it. Kenhyderal is a user name for Kenneth D. Edwards BTW Heroic people don`t join ANONYMOUS they courageously stand up to be counted."
kenny hissy fit decompensating over being made a fool of, ignorant of the fact that he makes a fool of himself.
Speculation:
Maybe harr the hypocritical fabricator contacted some international agency like Amnesty International about crystal. Maybe the agency said they would review his data nad get back to him. Then the agency told harr the hypocritical fabricator to take off.
kenhyderal said...
"Identify yourself and I will provide you with my e-mail address. Dr. Harr already has it. Kenhyderal is a user name for Kenneth D. Edwards BTW Heroic people don`t join ANONYMOUS they courageously stand up to be counted."
kenny hissy fit trying to stone someone to death with popcorn at a range of 500 yards.
Kenny -- I have identified myself.
I am Anonymous. I am Legion. I do not forgive. I do not forget. Expect me
Ladies and Gentlemen -- I give you Kenneth D. Edwards.
Ladies and Gentlemen -- I give you Kenneth D. Edwards.
Wrong race
kenny:
You may not be one of the kennys listed above, but why should anyone take that chance?
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
kenny who's your daddy?
Hoo-oo ha-a ha-a hoo-oo
Precious moments
When will I see you again
When will we share precious moments
Will I have to wait forever
Will I have to suffer
And cry the whole night trough?
When will I see you again
When will our hearts beat together?
Are we in love or just friends?
Is this my beginning
Or is this the end?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
Hoo-oo- a hoo-oo
Precious moments
Are we in love or just friends?
Is this my beginning
Or is this the end?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
When will I see you again?
hey girl whatcha doin down there
dancing alone every nite while I live rite above you
i can hear your music playin
i can feel your body swayin
one floor below me you don't even know me
I love you
Oh my darlin
knock three times on the ceiling if you want me
twice on the pipe if the answer is no
oh my sweetness
means you'll meet me in the hallway
twice on the pipe means you ain't gonna show
if you look out your window tonite
pulling the string with the note thats attached to my heart
read how many times i saw you
how in my silence i adored you
and only in my dreams did that wall between us come apart
Oh my darlin
knock three times on the ceiling if you want me
twice on the pipe if the answer is no
oh my sweetness
means you'll meet me in the hallway
twice on the pipe means you ain't gonna show
oh i can hear the music playing
i can feel your body swayin
one floor below me you don't even know me
i love you
Oh my darlin
knock three times on the ceiling if you want me
twice on the pipe if the answer is no
oh my sweetness
means you'll meet me in the hallway
twice on the pipe means you ain't gonna show
Kenny,
I see you are not the only poster with exceptional Google skills.
So, Kenny,
Is this why you won't come to Durham?
Sid:
You have 350 days to exonerate and free Mangum. 350 days.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
I think we understand why kenny hissy fit wants to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes, why he refuses to acknowledge she achieved the status of convicted criminal before she ever became notorious as the false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Kenny,
I see you are not the only poster with exceptional Google skills."
January 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM
It is a challenge, but I am trying to meet the standard set by kenhyderal.
Post a Comment