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:
1 – 200 of 1745 Newer› Newest»Obstruction of Justice in the Mangum CASE:
Another compilation of the megalomaniacal delusions of mr. harr's imagination.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury? Why should I be denied my day in court?
You had your day in court. Twice. And lost both times.
Juries decide disputed questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law. Which is a good thing, or else we'd still have segregation in the South.
Duke's motions to dismiss were granted because, even if every fact you alleged were true, you would still not have a claim.
If I sued you for violating my constitutional rights by wearing green pants, would I be entitled to a jury trial? Why or why not?
A Lawyer, Duke University's defense is that it is a private institution (although it receives millions of federal tax dollars in gifts) and therefore it has the legal right to discriminate. It surely doesn't deny that it discriminated against me... only that they are legally permitted to do so. Do you believe that is a reasonable defense?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Obstruction of Justice in the Mangum CASE:
Another compilation of the megalomaniacal delusions of mr. harr's imagination.
I just posted the sharlog less than ten minutes ago. So obviously you are commenting on something which you have not even seen.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid, Who is this chap they call kenhyderal?
Mr. Praline
Bolton, England
Mr. Praline, I believe that he is a supporter of Crystal Mangum who lives in Canada... a very intelligent person, no doubt.
Dr. Harr,
What specific law, etc., does Duke cite that gives them the right to discriminate because they are a private institution. How can there be a federal law saying that they are the emergency medical facility that people, (like Mr. Daye), have to be taken to that has to be followed if Duke can discriminate legally against anyone they want? Doesn't make sense.
Dr. Harr,
Is it possible that you could please post Duke's defense statement that says they can legally discriminate because they are a private institution? Thank you.
Nifong Supporter said...
"A Lawyer, Duke University's defense is that it is a private institution (although it receives millions of federal tax dollars in gifts) and therefore it has the legal right to discriminate. It surely doesn't deny that it discriminated against me... only that they are legally permitted to do so. Do you believe that is a reasonable defense?"
By your own admission, including the audio you published, you violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then precipitated a fight with a security guard who instructed you to leave. You had no cause of action against Duke. You justbelieved you could shake down Duke for a big settlement.
Blogger Nifong Supporter said...
"I just posted the sharlog less than ten minutes ago. So obviously you are commenting on something which you have not even seen."
No, I am exposing you to the truth, something which has the same effect on you as a cross has on Count Dracula.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Mr. Praline, I believe that he is a supporter of Crystal Mangum who lives in Canada... a very intelligent person, no doubt."
Another example of mr. harr's delusional state. From the posts he has left, it is obvious kenny hissy fit is as deluded and as incredibly and viciously stupid as mr.harr.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
What specific law, etc., does Duke cite that gives them the right to discriminate because they are a private institution."
Irrelevant question.
Duke did not discriminate against mr.harr. mr. harr violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then became belligerent with a security guard when told to stop.And then, delusionally believing that the innocent Lacrosse players he hates shook down Duke for big settlements, thought he could shake down Duke.
"Dr. Harr,
Is it possible that you could please post Duke's defense statement that says they can legally discriminate because they are a private institution? Thank you.
October 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM"
No it isn't. Such a statementdoes not exist. Delusional, megalomaniacal only believes it exists.
Once someone with 30 minutes to kill watched this drivel - let us know if anything new in there. There is always s first time.
Sid:
When do you think Mangum will get out of prison?
It surely doesn't deny that it discriminated against me... only that they are legally permitted to do so. Do you believe that is a reasonable defense?
The statute under which you sued applies only to discrimination by state and local governments. Duke is a private institution; the statute you used doesn't apply to them.
There are other statutes which prohibit even private institutions from discriminating based on race. You did not claim that Duke discriminated against you because of your race; there were many African-Americans at the event who weren't asked to leave. The claim you made in your lawsuit was that Duke discriminated against you because you are a Crystal Mangum supporter. There is no statute which prohibits discrimination against Crystal Mangum supporters.
What specific law, etc., does Duke cite that gives them the right to discriminate because they are a private institution.
You have it backwards. In America, you do not need to cite a specific law that says you are allowed to do something. The person suing you must cite a specific law that says you are not allowed to do it.
If I sued Dr. Harr for wearing green pants, could he cite a specific law permitting green pants? No. But I would lose the suit because I couldn't cite a law prohibiting green pants.
Are there laws against killing friends of Ms. Mangum, or supporters, with questionable, preventable negligent malpractice, and then Not taking responsibility for it?
Is there a law against framing people for murder by malpractice?
Is there a law against running an institution hostile to individuals, friends, supporters, or those whom inadvertently resemble in some way those whom Duke chooses to discriminate against?
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
What specific law, etc., does Duke cite that gives them the right to discriminate because they are a private institution.
You have it backwards. In America, you do not need to cite a specific law that says you are allowed to do something. The person suing you must cite a specific law that says you are not allowed to do it.
If I sued Dr. Harr for wearing green pants, could he cite a specific law permitting green pants? No. But I would lose the suit because I couldn't cite a law prohibiting green pants.
A Lawyer, since there is much interest in my lawsuit against Duke, I will upload a brief written piece about the feeble defense Duke used against me that was allowed by the District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Are there laws against killing friends of Ms. Mangum, or supporters, with questionable, preventable negligent malpractice, and then Not taking responsibility for it?
Is there a law against framing people for murder by malpractice?
Is there a law against running an institution hostile to individuals, friends, supporters, or those whom inadvertently resemble in some way those whom Duke chooses to discriminate against?
Anonymous,
What you will find, especially in cases such as Mangum's, is that the law is ignored in order to convict an innocent who has been targeted by the Powers-That-Be. The judges, courts, politicians, and others disregard certain laws in order to attain their devious ends.
Anonymous said...
Sid:
When do you think Mangum will get out of prison?
It is hard to say because I am not dealing with reasonable people with integrity and high moral standards. I am contending with bullies who want to power their way forward to reach diabolical ends while having the mainstream media suppress their shameful behavior. Mangum should have been released long ago. I am hopeful that the NC Supreme Court will take positive action on Mangum's Petition for Discretionary Review.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
Is it possible that you could please post Duke's defense statement that says they can legally discriminate because they are a private institution? Thank you.
Yes. I will upload a piece about Duke's defense and what the shopped judge stated as his reason for granting the defendants motion to dismiss.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Once someone with 30 minutes to kill watched this drivel - let us know if anything new in there. There is always s first time.
Clearly this sharlog centers around obstruction of justice... something not fully covered in previous sharlogs.
What is the law that prevents Duke from operating a public, (they receive government insurance funds and must provide medical services to all that need it in their ER), medical facility that is hostile to those whom they choose to discriminate against, or target?
Nifong Supporter said...
"A Lawyer, since there is much interest in my lawsuit against Duke, I will upload a brief written piece about the feeble defense Duke used against me that was allowed by the District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder."
No.
Instead you will publish another screed expressing your absurd delusional belief you were discriminated against when Duke called you out for violating its non solicitation policy. You will again demonstrate you had no legitimate cause of action against Duke.
Go right ahead and again make a fool of yourself. You must take some kind of masochistic pleasure of showing the world you are a deluded megalomaniac.
Nifong Supporter said...
"What you will find, especially in cases such as Mangum's, is that the law is ignored in order to convict an innocent who has been targeted by the Powers-That-Be. The judges, courts, politicians, and others disregard certain laws in order to attain their devious ends."
Except in mangum's case, she was not innocent and no laws were disregarded.
The individual advocating disregard of law and the truth is mr. harr, who believes a black murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes simply because she is black.
Nifong Supporter said...
"It is hard to say because I am not dealing with reasonable people with integrity and high moral standards. I am contending with bullies who want to power their way forward to reach diabolical ends while having the mainstream media suppress their shameful behavior. Mangum should have been released long ago. I am hopeful that the NC Supreme Court will take positive action on Mangum's Petition for Discretionary Review."
Again, mr. harr, black man, says a black murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes bcause she is black.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Yes. I will upload a piece about Duke's defense and what the shopped judge stated as his reason for granting the defendants motion to dismiss."
Meaning again mr. harr will demonstrate he had no legitimate cause of action against Duke, showing again his motivation was his belief he could shake Duke down into paying him a big settlement.
He shows how far out of touch with reality he is.
Anonymous at 1:26 wrote: "Except in mangum's case, she was not innocent and no laws were disregarded."
Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
No laws were disregarded. It is Sid who seeks to disregard the law. Remember, contributory negligence has no place in the criminal law. Remember State v. Smith, 238 N.C. 82, 76 S.E.2d 363(1953) quoting State v. Cope, 204 N.C. 28, 167 S.E. 456, 458, and cases there cited. Remember, Sid also wishes to ignore St. v. Welch and the other cases concerning intervening cause. It is Sid who seeks to disregard the laws. It's a further manifestation of his fixed false belief delusion. No matter how often the law is explained to him, he simply ignores that explanation in favor of his fixed false belief.
Walt-in-Durham
October 25, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Your arguments on this blog mean nothing in this case, Walt, since the facts you speak of were obstructed and blatantly withheld from the jury and the trial, which is where they needed to be presented, argued, and decided.
What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?
What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?
What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
October 25, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Your arguments on this blog mean nothing in this case, Walt, since the facts you speak of were obstructed and blatantly withheld from the jury and the trial, which is where they needed to be presented, argued, and decided.
What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?
What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?
What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?
October 26, 2015 at 12:40 AM"
Another iteration of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting annymously to create the delusion they have support?
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
October 25, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Your arguments on this blog mean nothing in this case, Walt, since the facts you speak of were obstructed and blatantly withheld from the jury and the trial, which is where they needed to be presented, argued, and decided.
What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?
What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?
What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?
October 26, 2015 at 12:40 AM"
Another iteration of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting annymously to create the delusion they have support?
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
October 25, 2015 at 4:30 PM
Your arguments on this blog mean nothing in this case, Walt, since the facts you speak of were obstructed and blatantly withheld from the jury and the trial, which is where they needed to be presented, argued, and decided.
What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?
What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?
What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?
October 26, 2015 at 12:40 AM"
Another iteration of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting annymously to create the delusion they have support?
Are there laws against killing friends of Ms. Mangum, or supporters, with questionable, preventable negligent malpractice, and then Not taking responsibility for it?
If someone dies as a result of medical malpractice, the law permits the family of that dead patient to sue for malpractice. There is no law requiring the hospital to "take responsibility for it" in any other way.
Is there a law against framing people for murder by malpractice?
"Murder by malpractice" is an oxymoron-- if it's murder, it's not malpractice, and vice versa.
Is there a law against running an institution hostile to individuals, friends, supporters, or those whom inadvertently resemble in some way those whom Duke chooses to discriminate against?
There are laws against discrimination based on race, sex and a few other categories. There is no law against discriminating against "supporters of Crystal Mangum," which is what Dr. Harr accused Duke of in his civil suit.. Since such discrimination is not illegal, which is why his lawsuit was bounced, and why that decision was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.
October 26, 2015 at 10:23 AM
1. Wouldn't the law that would apply be murder charges a lawyer? Why isn't Duke liable for not sorting out the issue immediately in the current Mangum case? What law would apply to that type responsibility and accountability?
2. Then why is Ms. Mangum in prison for the death of Mr. Daye by Duke's medical malpractice that directly killed him if there is NO murder by malpractice charges - which would apply if Duke was charged with murder in this case ... murder by malpractice ... that IS what it is at this time, which is why it is SO wrong - Ms. Mangum wasn't even there when it happened - so how could she be guilty? Did she tell Duke to kill Mr. Daye with malpractice and they actually did? Doesn't make sense, eh.
3. What are the laws against targeting these individuals then?
Also, what is the law specifically that states Duke IS subject to discrimination laws even though they claim to be a private institution?
Thank you.
Anonymous said...
"October 26, 2015 at 10:23 AM
1. Wouldn't the law that would apply be murder charges a lawyer? Why isn't Duke liable for not sorting out the issue immediately in the current Mangum case? What law would apply to that type responsibility and accountability?
2. Then why is Ms. Mangum in prison for the death of Mr. Daye by Duke's medical malpractice that directly killed him"
I am not A Lawyer. The answer is, Duke is not responsible for Reginald Daye's death. Crystal is.
1. Wouldn't the law that would apply be murder charges a lawyer?
Mangum was charged with murder and convicted. Duke cannot be charged with murder absent proof that Duke intentionally killed Mr. Daye (i.e., not through malpractice).
Why isn't Duke liable for not sorting out the issue immediately in the current Mangum case?
No idea what that sentence means. I am aware of no law regarding "failure to sort out."
What law would apply to that type responsibility and accountability?
Duke is liable to Mr. Daye's family, and no one else, if they committed malpractice.
2. Then why is Ms. Mangum in prison for the death of Mr. Daye by Duke's medical malpractice that directly killed him if there is NO murder by malpractice charges - which would apply if Duke was charged with murder in this case ... murder by malpractice ... that IS what it is at this time, which is why it is SO wrong - Ms. Mangum wasn't even there when it happened - so how could she be guilty? Did she tell Duke to kill Mr. Daye with malpractice and they actually did? Doesn't make sense, eh.
As Walt explained up above, Mangum intentionally stabbed Mr. Daye, causing him to have to go to the hospital where he died. If he died as a result of those stab wounds, of complications to those stab wounds, or from complications resulting from Duke's treatment of those stab wounds, Mangum is liable for murder; and if Duke committed malpractice, that does not excuse her.
3. What are the laws against targeting these individuals then?
Which individuals? What are you talking about?
Also, what is the law specifically that states Duke IS subject to discrimination laws even though they claim to be a private institution?
There are all sorts of anti-discrimination laws. The one most commonly applied is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers discrimination based on race, sex and national origin, but only in certain settings (e.g., places of public accommodation). There is, to the best of my knowledge, no law of any kind that prohibits anyone from discriminating against "supporters of Crystal mangum."
October 26, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Then why does Duke's medical reports say they killed Mr. Daye? Are They lying? You are wrong, which is obvious if you had actually read the medical reports.
October 26, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Why do you need sorting out explained to you?
Then she is in prison for murder by malpractice - which even you admit makes no sense. The judge stated the law differently then what ya'll keep stating on this blog. For once can you stop your hatred (that's what it seems like)? If not, could you just not post here pretending to be a lawyer? Thanks.
Duke Is a place of public accommodation - the patients are not made to sleep in the streets every night when they are in-patients. Also, the meeting Dr. Harr was attending was open to the public. Were they accommodated with seats at the meeting, or did they all have to stand in the street on a road that wasn't on Duke property?
Anon/Sid wrote: What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?"
No one obstructed anything. By "providing false witness" I assume you mean perjury. In this case, there is no evidence of perjury. Sid accused a neighbor of perjury, but it turns out she was telling the truth. Sid regularly accuses Dr. Nichols of perjury, but he cannot provide any proof. In fact, Nichols opinion and diagnosis are not really issues that are subject to perjury as they are just that an opinion. However, it is worth noting that the defense' own expert agrees with Dr. Nichols diagnosis.
"What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?"
Courts of Appeal and for that matter, trial courts deal with the evidence that is before them. In this case, the only evidence before the jury and before the Court of Appeals is Dr. Nichols testimony that the late Reginald Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. As I have written so many times before, if you want to bring in new evidence, the only way to do that is through a Motion for Appropriate Relief. That is heard by the trial court, not the Court of Appeals.
"What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?"
Repetition of the same erroneous argument does not suddenly make it correct. See above.
Walt-in-Durham
" Anonymous said...
October 26, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Then why does Duke's medical reports say they killed Mr. Daye? Are They lying? You are wrong, which is obvious if you had actually read the medical reports.
October 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM"
Another iteration of mr. harr and/or enny hissy fit posting anonymously to create the delusion that they have support for their beliefs.
Walt,
What do you mean by "Anon/Sid wrote: " ???
Are you seriously THAT fracking hateful?
Go play on your own blog and quit your unprofessional trolling and fraudulent legal advice here.
blah
Duke Is a place of public accommodation - the patients are not made to sleep in the streets every night when they are in-patients. Also, the meeting Dr. Harr was attending was open to the public. Were they accommodated with seats at the meeting, or did they all have to stand in the street on a road that wasn't on Duke property?
If Duke is a "place of public accommodation," it cannot discriminate based on race, sex or national origin. They can discriminate against "supporters of Crystal Mangum."
In Dr. Harr's lawsuits against Duke, he never even alleged discrimination based on race, sex or national origin. Many males, African-Americans and people from the U.S. attended the event and were not asked to leave. Dr. Harr alleged only "discrimination against supporters of Crystal Mangum." That is why his lawsuits got dismissed-- even if every word Dr. Harr said in his lawsuit were true, Duke had the legal right to exclude him.
" Anonymous said...
October 26, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Then why does Duke's medical reports say they killed Mr. Daye? Are They lying? You are wrong, which is obvious if you had actually read the medical reports.
October 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM"
Another iteration of kenny hissy fit or mr. harr posting anonymously to create the ilusion that they have support.
If they are discriminating based on anything, then whatever they are doing where they choose to target others for harmful actions is intentional ... what? Harrassment?
October 26, 2015 at 1:04 PM
Again you are wrong ... as usual.
Dr. Harr,
You stated recently when I questioned even using the dye to detect infection in the stomach area, that from your understanding they were looking for something (forget the word you used). But, they were looking for it in the intestinal area, correct? From common sense only, wouldn't the dye be administered not by the mouth if they were trying to ex-ray the intestines?
Dr. Harr,
Are you going to post the MAR that Ms. Mangum submitted and the letter back to her from Judge Hudson on this blog anytime soon? Is it true that none of the medical reports were in evidence in the trial? How did the Appeal attorneys even write about the death if they had nothing to go by if none of the medical reports were in evidence? None of that makes sense.
Is Ms. Mangum going to submit another MAR soon?
Anon at 2:41 PM wrote: "Is it true that none of the medical reports were in evidence in the trial?"
Watch the trial, it's on youtube. You can see and hear for yourself the evidence that was presented. You, if you cared, would note that the only medical evidence was given by Dr. Nichols. His opinion, which he is allowed to give, was confirmed by Crystal's own expert. That's why there was no other medical evidence introduced. To do so would have required Dr. Roberts to testify and that testimony would have confirmed Dr. Nichols. Even Crystal with her history of bad decision making didn't make that mistake.
"How did the Appeal attorneys even write about the death if they had nothing to go by if none of the medical reports were in evidence?"
Of course they had evidence of the cause of death. The state introduced it through the testimony of Dr. Nichols. You might recall that Dr. Nichols examined the corpse of the late Reginald Daye. He examined the medical record and reached a conclusion as to the cause of death. As an expert and a Medical Doctor, with relevant training, experience and understanding of pathology make that diagnosis. You would know this if you bothered to RTFF and/or watch the trial. Instead, you have taken Sid at his word, which is a major impediment to understanding.
"None of that makes sense."
Of course it does, unless you suffer from a fixed false belief system of delusions.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
You stated recently when I questioned even using the dye to detect infection in the stomach area, that from your understanding they were looking for something (forget the word you used). But, they were looking for it in the intestinal area, correct? From common sense only, wouldn't the dye be administered not by the mouth if they were trying to ex-ray the intestines?
October 26, 2015 at 1:35 PM"
mr. harr is not and never has been capable of understanding anything medical.
Sid/Anon wrote: Go play on your own blog and quit your unprofessional trolling and fraudulent legal advice here."
I am not your lawyer, so I am not giving you advice. This is information and none of the information I have posted here is fraudulent. It is based on the record and the law. I have cited to statutes, and decisions that are prevailing law.
You, have failed to do so. Instead, you seem to suffer from a form of delusion called a fixed false belief. In other words, no matter how often something is explained to you, you reject reality for your false belief. Explaining those facts is not trolling, just as those who disagree are not trolls. In this case, those who disagree with you/Sid are correct to do so. Name calling of course only serves to diminish you. But, that's who you are and only extensive therapy will change that.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt,
Projecting again are you? You sit on this blog and give fraudulent legal advice to Dr. Harr for years on end that only serve to further your hatred for Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr, and evil duke troll and egg on the evil duke troll gang - like going along with the other evil duke troll on this blog who is always giving everyone its opinion about blacks in very negative manners (and such) about its delusion that Dr. Harr and/or Ken Edwards uses anonymous posting (which ya'll do all the time in the form of Doctor Anonymous, Ubes, Kilgo, Fake everyone, ect., and even pretend to be the last lawyer for Ms. Mangum before the appeal level who had to write to this blog just to tell ya'll to stop). And then you sit there and act all professional and insist you are doing right after you sit on this blog and argue for a good bit with Ken Edwards about whether Ms. Mangum is a prostitute and such things. I mean the list goes on. You call yourself Walt - perhaps it is you who needs therapy?
... Oh yeah - and sit there and totally disregard the discrepancies between all the medical reports - with Dr. Nichol's being the most questionable. If Dr. Nichol's account is true - then Duke is guilty of lying on their medical records, mutilating Mr. Daye's corpse after they killed him with malpractice (or was he still alive?). I mean, by your scenario, Mr. Daye could have been given medicine to induce a coma. His family was fooled into believing his brain was dead and coerced to remove him from a life support system - all the while Duke is priming him to remove all the organs they need for their own purposes. Even Dr. Nichols claims the spleen was missing - Duke doesn't. So, aren't you curious as to what REALLY happened to Mr. Daye in order to reach a just and conclusive decision about anything in this case (other than the obvious coverups which you perpetuate with all of your unprofessional legal advice)? Of course not - since you hate Ms. Mangum.
Blah
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt,
Projecting again are you? You sit on this blog and give fraudulent legal advice to Dr. Harr for years on end that only serve to further your hatred for Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr, and evil duke troll and egg on the evil duke troll gang - like going along with the other evil duke troll on this blog who is always giving everyone its opinion about blacks in very negative manners (and such) about its delusion that Dr. Harr and/or Ken Edwards uses anonymous posting (which ya'll do all the time in the form of Doctor Anonymous, Ubes, Kilgo, Fake everyone, ect., and even pretend to be the last lawyer for Ms. Mangum before the appeal level who had to write to this blog just to tell ya'll to stop). And then you sit there and act all professional and insist you are doing right after you sit on this blog and argue for a good bit with Ken Edwards about whether Ms. Mangum is a prostitute and such things. I mean the list goes on. You call yourself Walt - perhaps it is you who needs therapy?
October 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
... Oh yeah - and sit there and totally disregard the discrepancies between all the medical reports - with Dr. Nichol's being the most questionable. If Dr. Nichol's account is true - then Duke is guilty of lying on their medical records, mutilating Mr. Daye's corpse after they killed him with malpractice (or was he still alive?). I mean, by your scenario, Mr. Daye could have been given medicine to induce a coma. His family was fooled into believing his brain was dead and coerced to remove him from a life support system - all the while Duke is priming him to remove all the organs they need for their own purposes. Even Dr. Nichols claims the spleen was missing - Duke doesn't. So, aren't you curious as to what REALLY happened to Mr. Daye in order to reach a just and conclusive decision about anything in this case (other than the obvious coverups which you perpetuate with all of your unprofessional legal advice)? Of course not - since you hate Ms. Mangum.
Blah
October 27, 2015 at 1:03 AM"
Two more iterations of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt,
Projecting again are you? You sit on this blog and give fraudulent legal advice to Dr. Harr for years on end that only serve to further your hatred for Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr, and evil duke troll and egg on the evil duke troll gang - like going along with the other evil duke troll on this blog who is always giving everyone its opinion about blacks in very negative manners (and such) about its delusion that Dr. Harr and/or Ken Edwards uses anonymous posting (which ya'll do all the time in the form of Doctor Anonymous, Ubes, Kilgo, Fake everyone, ect., and even pretend to be the last lawyer for Ms. Mangum before the appeal level who had to write to this blog just to tell ya'll to stop). And then you sit there and act all professional and insist you are doing right after you sit on this blog and argue for a good bit with Ken Edwards about whether Ms. Mangum is a prostitute and such things. I mean the list goes on. You call yourself Walt - perhaps it is you who needs therapy?
October 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
... Oh yeah - and sit there and totally disregard the discrepancies between all the medical reports - with Dr. Nichol's being the most questionable. If Dr. Nichol's account is true - then Duke is guilty of lying on their medical records, mutilating Mr. Daye's corpse after they killed him with malpractice (or was he still alive?). I mean, by your scenario, Mr. Daye could have been given medicine to induce a coma. His family was fooled into believing his brain was dead and coerced to remove him from a life support system - all the while Duke is priming him to remove all the organs they need for their own purposes. Even Dr. Nichols claims the spleen was missing - Duke doesn't. So, aren't you curious as to what REALLY happened to Mr. Daye in order to reach a just and conclusive decision about anything in this case (other than the obvious coverups which you perpetuate with all of your unprofessional legal advice)? Of course not - since you hate Ms. Mangum.
Blah
October 27, 2015 at 1:03 AM"
Two more iterations of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.
October 27, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt,
Projecting again are you? You sit on this blog and give fraudulent legal advice to Dr. Harr for years on end that only serve to further your hatred for Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr, and evil duke troll and egg on the evil duke troll gang - like going along with the other evil duke troll on this blog who is always giving everyone its opinion about blacks in very negative manners (and such) about its delusion that Dr. Harr and/or Ken Edwards uses anonymous posting (which ya'll do all the time in the form of Doctor Anonymous, Ubes, Kilgo, Fake everyone, ect., and even pretend to be the last lawyer for Ms. Mangum before the appeal level who had to write to this blog just to tell ya'll to stop). And then you sit there and act all professional and insist you are doing right after you sit on this blog and argue for a good bit with Ken Edwards about whether Ms. Mangum is a prostitute and such things. I mean the list goes on. You call yourself Walt - perhaps it is you who needs therapy?
October 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
... Oh yeah - and sit there and totally disregard the discrepancies between all the medical reports - with Dr. Nichol's being the most questionable. If Dr. Nichol's account is true - then Duke is guilty of lying on their medical records, mutilating Mr. Daye's corpse after they killed him with malpractice (or was he still alive?). I mean, by your scenario, Mr. Daye could have been given medicine to induce a coma. His family was fooled into believing his brain was dead and coerced to remove him from a life support system - all the while Duke is priming him to remove all the organs they need for their own purposes. Even Dr. Nichols claims the spleen was missing - Duke doesn't. So, aren't you curious as to what REALLY happened to Mr. Daye in order to reach a just and conclusive decision about anything in this case (other than the obvious coverups which you perpetuate with all of your unprofessional legal advice)? Of course not - since you hate Ms. Mangum.
Blah
October 27, 2015 at 1:03 AM"
Two more iterations of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.
October 27, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt,
Projecting again are you? You sit on this blog and give fraudulent legal advice to Dr. Harr for years on end that only serve to further your hatred for Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr, and evil duke troll and egg on the evil duke troll gang - like going along with the other evil duke troll on this blog who is always giving everyone its opinion about blacks in very negative manners (and such) about its delusion that Dr. Harr and/or Ken Edwards uses anonymous posting (which ya'll do all the time in the form of Doctor Anonymous, Ubes, Kilgo, Fake everyone, ect., and even pretend to be the last lawyer for Ms. Mangum before the appeal level who had to write to this blog just to tell ya'll to stop). And then you sit there and act all professional and insist you are doing right after you sit on this blog and argue for a good bit with Ken Edwards about whether Ms. Mangum is a prostitute and such things. I mean the list goes on. You call yourself Walt - perhaps it is you who needs therapy?
October 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
... Oh yeah - and sit there and totally disregard the discrepancies between all the medical reports - with Dr. Nichol's being the most questionable. If Dr. Nichol's account is true - then Duke is guilty of lying on their medical records, mutilating Mr. Daye's corpse after they killed him with malpractice (or was he still alive?). I mean, by your scenario, Mr. Daye could have been given medicine to induce a coma. His family was fooled into believing his brain was dead and coerced to remove him from a life support system - all the while Duke is priming him to remove all the organs they need for their own purposes. Even Dr. Nichols claims the spleen was missing - Duke doesn't. So, aren't you curious as to what REALLY happened to Mr. Daye in order to reach a just and conclusive decision about anything in this case (other than the obvious coverups which you perpetuate with all of your unprofessional legal advice)? Of course not - since you hate Ms. Mangum.
Blah
October 27, 2015 at 1:03 AM"
Two more iterations of either mr. harr or kenny hissy fit posting anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.
October 27, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Let's see - Sid has lost EVERY lawsuit he has filed, and has made (and continues to make) clearly erroneous conclusions about what the law is (felony murder?) - yet Walt is the one who doesn't understand the law?
You are delusional.
The following was inspired by th Geico rhetorical question commercials.
Will mr. harr followup on the recommendation of the ACLU and spend $50 for a half hour's consultation with the North Carolina Bar Association?
Was mr. harr ever accepted into any residency training program?
Was mr. harr ever certified by any medical specialty board?
Was m.harr evera competent, capable physician?
To the last commentI add:
Did mr. harr ever have a legitimate cause of action against Duke?
For once can you stop your hatred (that's what it seems like)?
Please list one thing I have posted on this board that "seems like hatred."
If not, could you just not post here pretending to be a lawyer? Thanks.
What evidence do you have that I am "pretending to be a lawyer"? Have I ever posted anything that was an incorrect statement of the law? Have not all my predictions of what would happen to Dr. Harr's lawsuits turned out to be correct?
After all the letters, all the Sharlogs, all the lawsuits, and all the visits to Crystal. Sidney definitely needs one of these:
https://img0.etsystatic.com/006/0/5659057/il_570xN.354663518_i1b1.jpg
That letter to Judge Ridgeway stating that the inmates think she should not be in prison is just classic.
To A Lawyer,
Your failure to agree with everything that TinFoil says is ipso facto proof that you hate him, Kenhyderal, and CGM.
Please tell him you lover him, and beg his forgiveness.
Correction: it should have been "Please tell him you love him..."
I still love how Sid thinks it's all a cover-up. The reason the AG objected to your Motion to Investigate Daye's death is because it was in a totally unrelated lawsuit - they didn't object out of fear, but because you still don't understand the law and how lawsuits work.
Plus, I find it funny that the entire premise of case rests on the infallibility of the Duke doctors and medical records. If there was an error in the records (and there are actually several just from looking at them), then your entire case falls apart.
So, Duke is completely corrupt, evil, and willing to commit murder out of spite - but apparently otherwise never makes mistakes.
You do know Sid, they aren't laughing with you, they are laughing at you.
October 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM
What errors are in the Duke medical records are you referring to?
Anonymous at 5:23 AM said
"I still love how Sid thinks it's all a cover-up."
What do you expect? When confronted with his numerous errors, Sid could either:
(a) Admit he is wrong, or
(b) Maintain that he is correct, but that disparate parties have united against him to form a massive and elaborate conspiracy to cover up the truth and make him appear wrong.
Occam's Washcloth
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I still love how Sid thinks it's all a cover-up. The reason the AG objected to your Motion to Investigate Daye's death is because it was in a totally unrelated lawsuit - they didn't object out of fear, but because you still don't understand the law and how lawsuits work.
Plus, I find it funny that the entire premise of case rests on the infallibility of the Duke doctors and medical records. If there was an error in the records (and there are actually several just from looking at them), then your entire case falls apart.
So, Duke is completely corrupt, evil, and willing to commit murder out of spite - but apparently otherwise never makes mistakes.
You do know Sid, they aren't laughing with you, they are laughing at you.
I don't consider an innocent African American being incarcerated for eighteen years on a trumped up murder charge to be a laughing matter. Clearly, the Attorney General's Office, like many other government agencies, is biased against Crystal Mangum... just as it is against Mike Nifong, and me.
You are still a delusional, narcissistic abuser Sid.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
After all the letters, all the Sharlogs, all the lawsuits, and all the visits to Crystal. Sidney definitely needs one of these:
https://img0.etsystatic.com/006/0/5659057/il_570xN.354663518_i1b1.jpg
That letter to Judge Ridgeway stating that the inmates think she should not be in prison is just classic.
The point being that the inmates, unlike the jurors or the NC Court of Appeals judges, were able to hear the truths about Mangum's case... including the medical malpractice by Duke University Hospital staff.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
Are you going to post the MAR that Ms. Mangum submitted and the letter back to her from Judge Hudson on this blog anytime soon? Is it true that none of the medical reports were in evidence in the trial? How did the Appeal attorneys even write about the death if they had nothing to go by if none of the medical reports were in evidence? None of that makes sense.
Is Ms. Mangum going to submit another MAR soon?
Currently I am too busy to try and get the MAR that Crystal filed and post it. Right now Crystal is awaiting the NC Supreme Court ruling on her Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review... which might be published as early as Friday, November 6th. If the court rules against her, then I have no doubt that she will file another MAR.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
You stated recently when I questioned even using the dye to detect infection in the stomach area, that from your understanding they were looking for something (forget the word you used). But, they were looking for it in the intestinal area, correct? From common sense only, wouldn't the dye be administered not by the mouth if they were trying to ex-ray the intestines?
To be honestly truthful, I don't know what the exact rationale was for administering the oral contrast agent through the nasogastric tube. I can only try to give my best guess as to their reasoning. From what evidence was available in the medical records, it seemed straightforward that the agitation was due to delirium tremens, and energy should have been expended towards treating it rather than conducting other diagnostic tests.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Duke Is a place of public accommodation - the patients are not made to sleep in the streets every night when they are in-patients. Also, the meeting Dr. Harr was attending was open to the public. Were they accommodated with seats at the meeting, or did they all have to stand in the street on a road that wasn't on Duke property?
If Duke is a "place of public accommodation," it cannot discriminate based on race, sex or national origin. They can discriminate against "supporters of Crystal Mangum."
In Dr. Harr's lawsuits against Duke, he never even alleged discrimination based on race, sex or national origin. Many males, African-Americans and people from the U.S. attended the event and were not asked to leave. Dr. Harr alleged only "discrimination against supporters of Crystal Mangum." That is why his lawsuits got dismissed-- even if every word Dr. Harr said in his lawsuit were true, Duke had the legal right to exclude him.
A Lawyer, answer me this: Can a private restaurant refuse to serve a person because he/she is a Nifong or Mangum supporter?
With regards to my lawsuit, I did aver that the reason that Duke tried to have me arrested is because I am an African American... and arresting African Americans without cause is accepted practice in North Carolina.
Sid said:
"The point being that the inmates, unlike the jurors or the NC Court of Appeals judges, were able to hear the truths about Mangum's case... including the medical malpractice by Duke University Hospital staff."
No, Sid, the inmates heard whatever story Mangum chose to tell them in a vacuum, isolated from the facts, witness testimony, physical evidence and the law, and not subject to cross examination. Once Mangum's story is put to the test, contrasted against the facts and subjected to even mild scrutiny, it crumbles.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Walt said...
Anon/Sid wrote: What are the specific laws against that type criminal behavior (obstruction, providing false witness, fraudulent medical reports, untruthful 'expert' testimony, and withholding of evidence critical to a case)?"
No one obstructed anything. By "providing false witness" I assume you mean perjury. In this case, there is no evidence of perjury. Sid accused a neighbor of perjury, but it turns out she was telling the truth. Sid regularly accuses Dr. Nichols of perjury, but he cannot provide any proof. In fact, Nichols opinion and diagnosis are not really issues that are subject to perjury as they are just that an opinion. However, it is worth noting that the defense' own expert agrees with Dr. Nichols diagnosis.
"What is your legal excuse for why the Appeal decision is so blatantly wrong on even the simplest of details, like the date and cause of death?"
Courts of Appeal and for that matter, trial courts deal with the evidence that is before them. In this case, the only evidence before the jury and before the Court of Appeals is Dr. Nichols testimony that the late Reginald Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. As I have written so many times before, if you want to bring in new evidence, the only way to do that is through a Motion for Appropriate Relief. That is heard by the trial court, not the Court of Appeals.
"What is your legal reasoning for the statement in the appeal decision that Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye to death when you know very well that is not the case, nor do the facts in evidence support that claim?"
Repetition of the same erroneous argument does not suddenly make it correct. See above.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, answer me this: Was Daye's spleen present at autopsy for Dr. Nichols' examination, or was it removed a week and a half earlier during surgery? This is the crux of the perjury allegation. Answer this question and you will have your answer on perjury.
With regards to Aykia Hanes, she testified that after she saw Daye run from his apartment after being stabbed that Mangum came to the doorway and told her boyfriend that "Everything's fine," and then slammed the door shut. Her boyfriend was never interviewed on this point by police and never testified in trial. That's because Aykia's version of events never happened. Mangum was first to leave the apartment after stabbing Daye in fear for her life... and she claims that in her flight she never encountered or spoke to anyone. I believe Mangum, ergo, Ms. Hanes obviously is producing perjured testimony... just like the other prosecution star witness Dr. Nichols.
Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
1. Wouldn't the law that would apply be murder charges a lawyer?
Mangum was charged with murder and convicted. Duke cannot be charged with murder absent proof that Duke intentionally killed Mr. Daye (i.e., not through malpractice).
Why isn't Duke liable for not sorting out the issue immediately in the current Mangum case?
No idea what that sentence means. I am aware of no law regarding "failure to sort out."
What law would apply to that type responsibility and accountability?
Duke is liable to Mr. Daye's family, and no one else, if they committed malpractice.
2. Then why is Ms. Mangum in prison for the death of Mr. Daye by Duke's medical malpractice that directly killed him if there is NO murder by malpractice charges - which would apply if Duke was charged with murder in this case ... murder by malpractice ... that IS what it is at this time, which is why it is SO wrong - Ms. Mangum wasn't even there when it happened - so how could she be guilty? Did she tell Duke to kill Mr. Daye with malpractice and they actually did? Doesn't make sense, eh.
As Walt explained up above, Mangum intentionally stabbed Mr. Daye, causing him to have to go to the hospital where he died. If he died as a result of those stab wounds, of complications to those stab wounds, or from complications resulting from Duke's treatment of those stab wounds, Mangum is liable for murder; and if Duke committed malpractice, that does not excuse her.
3. What are the laws against targeting these individuals then?
Which individuals? What are you talking about?
Also, what is the law specifically that states Duke IS subject to discrimination laws even though they claim to be a private institution?
There are all sorts of anti-discrimination laws. The one most commonly applied is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers discrimination based on race, sex and national origin, but only in certain settings (e.g., places of public accommodation). There is, to the best of my knowledge, no law of any kind that prohibits anyone from discriminating against "supporters of Crystal mangum."
A Lawyer,
In response to your answer to point number 2 ("If he died as a result of those stab wounds, of complications to those stab wounds, or from complications resulting from Duke's treatment of those stab wounds, Mangum is liable for murder") you make my point. Daye did not die from the stab wound, complications of the stab wound, or complications from treatment of the stab wound (singular). The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's brain dead-comatose state... that was solely the result of an esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital in treatment of Daye's delirium tremens.
A Lawyer, answer me this: Can a private restaurant refuse to serve a person because he/she is a Nifong or Mangum supporter?
Yes. The only illegal discrimination is race, age, gender, ethnicity, disability, national origin, or religion. Some are starting to add sexual orientation.
If the reason for the discrimination isn't one of the above, it's not illegal - unless there is a more specific statute or regulation, but most states (especially in the south like NC) don't expand on that list.
A restaurant in NC could refuse to serve a gay person, a supporter of Nifong, a cop, or whatever. Again, you don't have to agree with the law, or like it, for it to be valid. The law often sucks.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Walt, answer me this: Was Daye's spleen present at autopsy for Dr. Nichols' examination, or was it removed a week and a half earlier during surgery? This is the crux of the perjury allegation. Answer this question and you will have your answer on perjury."
That is not the crux of anything, except in your megalomaniacal imagination. Whether or not the spleen was present at autopsy has nothing to do with whether or not Reginald Daye died of a stab wound. Here you show how incredibly and viciously stupid you are.
"Let me know if further elucidation is required."
Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you are capable of providing elucidation. You have to be aware of factsto provide elucidation. You deny facts in your quest to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
Nifong Supporter said...
"In response to your answer to point number 2 ("If he died as a result of those stab wounds, of complications to those stab wounds, or from complications resulting from Duke's treatment of those stab wounds, Mangum is liable for murder") you make my point. Daye did not die from the stab wound, complications of the stab wound, or complications from treatment of the stab wound (singular). The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's brain dead-comatose state... that was solely the result of an esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital in treatment of Daye's delirium tremens."
Here again you demonstrate that you ignore the facts and that you were probably never accepted into residency training and never achieved board certification because you were so incompetent as an intern.
A Lawyer, answer me this: Can a private restaurant refuse to serve a person because he/she is a Nifong or Mangum supporter?
Yes, at least under federal Civil Rights Laws. I don't know if North Carolina Law is different, but I expect not. You certainly didn't cite any North Carolina statutes in your lawsuit.
With regards to my lawsuit, I did aver that the reason that Duke tried to have me arrested is because I am an African American... and arresting African Americans without cause is accepted practice in North Carolina.
Were there any other African-Americans at the event? How many of them were threatened with arrest?
A Lawyer,
In response to your answer to point number 2 ("If he died as a result of those stab wounds, of complications to those stab wounds, or from complications resulting from Duke's treatment of those stab wounds, Mangum is liable for murder") you make my point. Daye did not die from the stab wound, complications of the stab wound, or complications from treatment of the stab wound (singular).
There was such testimony at the trial, wasn't there?
The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's brain dead-comatose state... that was solely the result of an esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital in treatment of Daye's delirium tremens.
Was there any such testimony at the trial?
Sid wrote in reply to my post directed to Anon/Sid: Walt, answer me this:..."
Thanks for confirming you post anonymously to give the impression you have more followers than you actually do.
"Was Daye's spleen present at autopsy for Dr. Nichols' examination, or was it removed a week and a half earlier during surgery? This is the crux of the perjury allegation. Answer this question and you will have your answer on perjury."
The spleen is immaterial. For perjury to exist the statement must be material and false. St. v. Smith, 230 N.C. 198 ___ S.E.2d ___ (1949), St. v. Chaney, 256 N.C. 255, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1962). Thus, regardless of the spleen's presence, Dr. Nichols testimony was not perjury. Further, his diagnosis is by definition, an opinion. An opinion is only perjured if you can prove that Dr. Nichols had a different opinion at the time he gave his testimony. Given that not only Dr. Nichols is of the opinion that the death is a result of the stab wounds, but so is Dr. Roberts, you have a difficult task to prove Dr. Nichols held some contrary opinion at the time he testified. Until you can produce proof that Dr. Nichols held a contrary opinion, I will work on the basis that he is not perjuring himself.
"With regards to Aykia Hanes, she testified that after she saw Daye run from his apartment after being stabbed that Mangum came to the doorway and told her boyfriend that "Everything's fine," and then slammed the door shut."
Here you have no proof what so ever of your wild claim. All of us watched Ms. Hanes testify at the trial. She was not contradicted by any other witness. She had no reason to lie for the state. She had no reason to lie for Crystal. She was under oath and she impressed me as having a truthful demeanor.
"I believe Mangum, ergo, Ms. Hanes obviously is producing perjured testimony... just like the other prosecution star witness Dr. Nichols."
I don't believe Crystal. I watched her testimony at the trial and it was very clear the only issue she testified truthfully about was the checks. She has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial, so whatever she says is subject to being discounted. Further, she has a general reputation for untruthfulness.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt,
You have a general reputation for hating Ms. Mangum on this blog, with an obvious vested interest (for some odd reason) for supporting a medical examiner who was fired even before the trial for his unprofessional work that obstructed other murder cases, and for ignoring the fact that Duke killed Mr. Daye with negligent malpractice that had nothing to do with the stab wound and everything to do with their own questionable purposes which were and are consistently covered-up by the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system.
The fact that you still accuse Dr. Harr of posting anonymously is also evidence that you have great difficulty in keeping your unsupported opinions that deem to accuse others falsely based only your own biased and cyberbullying agendas to yourself and off this blog where ya'll accuse without reservation Ms. Mangum of being a false accuser with NO facts to support that accusation (NO facts that the public is aware of since there was no trial).
Also, isn't it hearsay if Ms. Mangum supposedly spoke to the boyfriend, but the only testimony is from the girlfriend and/or the cop that interviewed the girlfriend (but not the boyfriend?)?
In addition, both the medical examiners say the death was from the complications, not from the stab wound directly. Since they are both only opinions and contradict each other on many details, both are subject to questioning and cross examination at the trial, which did not happen.
What about the three duke affiliated persons on the jury? What are your unprofessional legal opinions about that fact?
Crystal Mangum has as much chance of getting her murder conviction overturned as Mike Nifong does in getting his law license back - zero.
sidney harr, who imagines himself to be a knowledgeable, competent physician in spite of never completing a residency or achieving board certification, puts anonymous posts on this blog in an attempt to convince the public his extreme view, that his favorite murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes, has support. That is my opinion.
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
K
E
N
H
Y
D
E
R
A
L
?
I'M LOOKING FOR YOU.
WHERE ARE YOU?
ARE YOU WORKING ON YOUR SECRET PLAN TO WIN CRYSTAL A NEW TRIAL?
kenny hissy fi is probably off some where dreaming up anonymous posts for this blog by which he hopes to convince people that he and mr. harr have support for their delusions.
Anonymous said...
sidney harr, who imagines himself to be a knowledgeable, competent physician in spite of never completing a residency or achieving board certification, puts anonymous posts on this blog in an attempt to convince the public his extreme view, that his favorite murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes, has support. That is my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. That's what makes America great.
Anonymous said...
Crystal Mangum has as much chance of getting her murder conviction overturned as Mike Nifong does in getting his law license back - zero.
Actually, Mangum's chances of getting her murder conviction overturned are very good. Getting the State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong's law license is doable, but a much greater challenge... more time required.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous said...
sidney harr, who imagines himself to be a knowledgeable, competent physician in spite of never completing a residency or achieving board certification, puts anonymous posts on this blog in an attempt to convince the public his extreme view, that his favorite murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes, has support. That is my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. That's what makes America great."
Your evasive answer, your lack of any attempt to deny, in my opinion, is an admission that you put anonymous posts on your blog t create the illusion that you have support. I believe that none of the people whom you lost as members of your committee have ever posted anything to support your views.
It comes down to, you are trying t get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, Mangum's chances of getting her murder conviction overturned are very good."
And since you insist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that crystal was raped, that you insist, in the face that nifong was a thoroughly corrupt prosecutor, that he was a decent, honorable, courageous minister of justice, it is obvious you do not know what "good" means.
I don't really think people are entitled to their own opinions - not when they have to submit to laws and rules that make them act against their own opinions under some type of penalty or judgement that takes away their right to hold their own opinions and act upon it as they choose - instead of how they are made to act or else their right to express that opinion is penalized in some way. People don't normally act against their own opinions (well except maybe organizations like Duke who foster hypocrisy to the extreme, and those whose opinions are formed by others, like Duke, more than willing to brainwash others into their way of thinking/opinions) - like the evil duke poster who seems rather insane because it posts on this blog on a consistent basis in a very derogatory manner degrading any and all for holding differing opinions than itself.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
I don't really think people are entitled to their own opinions - not when they have to submit to laws and rules that make them act against their own opinions under some type of penalty or judgement that takes away their right to hold their own opinions and act upon it as they choose - instead of how they are made to act or else their right to express that opinion is penalized in some way. People don't normally act against their own opinions (well except maybe organizations like Duke who foster hypocrisy to the extreme, and those whose opinions are formed by others, like Duke, more than willing to brainwash others into their way of thinking/opinions) - like the evil duke poster who seems rather insane because it posts on this blog on a consistent basis in a very derogatory manner degrading any and all for holding differing opinions than itself.
October 31, 2015 at 5:23 AM"
either mr. harr or kenny is incredibly stupidto be posting anonymous comments like these to create the illusion that people support the crusadeto get their favorite murderess a pass for her crimes.
Get real. Only cowards like you post anonymously. Dr. Sidney Harr is a man of great courage.
" kenhyderal said...
Get real. Only cowards like you post anonymously. Dr. Sidney Harr is a man of great courage.
October 31, 2015 at 10:01 AM"
Boy are you seriously out of touch with reality.
It is also my opinion that you and mr. harr are posting anonymously to create an illusion that there is support for your crusade to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
It says anonymous for the choices - not cowards. This is Dr. Harr's blog - why would he post anonymously on his own blog? ??? Ken Edwards - you live in Canada right? Do you ever visit where Duke practices medicine? If not, you should think about your coward statement in light of the fact that duke seems to have a thang for killing people - malpractice or not. Don't ya think? ???
Sid any Kenny abuse women - only cowards do that.
Anonymous said: "It says anonymous for the choices - not cowards"..................... Huh? "It" being what or who? Anonymous also said: Do you ever visit where Duke practices medicine? If not, you should think about your coward statement in light of the fact that duke seems to have a thang for killing people - malpractice or not.........................I have never been to North Carolina but why should that cause me to reconsider my statement about anonymous posters who wrongly accuse me and what has that to do with In-hospital deaths at Duke?
Anonymous said: Sid any Kenny abuse women - only cowards do that" ........................ Do you have the courage to tell us your name?
The choices to post on this blog - it says anonymous - not cowards. Get real yourself if you think Mr. Daye is the only one ever killed by duke with malpractice. Even Dr. Harr is afraid of that (that being the possibility that duke will kill him with malpractice).
Oh. Dr. Harr is rightfully afraid of Duke. That's why he will not set foot on Duke property until they are properly sanctioned by the Courts for their persecution of him. Private or not there is no other University that would make use of their non-solicitation rules to limit free speech. Considering the handing out business cards with a web address to be soliciting is cop-out and a ruse to get rid of someone with whom they disagree and who they fear could make the truth about them known
kenhyderal said...
"Oh. Dr. Harr is rightfully afraid of Duke. That's why he will not set foot on Duke property until they are properly sanctioned by the Courts for their persecution of him."
Except Duke never persecuted mr. harr. The evidwnce mr. harr posted to his blog, including the audio, makes it clear mr.harr violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then picked a fight with a security guard.
Then mr. harr sued Duke and continues to sue Duke in the delusional belief Duke will pay him a big settlement. Unlike the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, mr. harr never had a legitimate cause of action against Duke.
kenhyderal said...
"Considering the handing out business cards with a web address to be soliciting is cop-out and a ruse to get rid of someone with whom they disagree and who they fear could make the truth about them known".
Except mr. harr has made it clear he does not recognize truth when it is there. Ergo would have no fear of mr. harr telling the truth.
kenhyderal saaid to Anonymous
"Do you ever visit where Duke practices medicine?"
Have you ever practiced medicine.
Has mr. harr?
Considering he was never accepted into residency training and never certiffied by any specialty board, it is unlikely mr. harr ever did much of that.
Blogger kenhyderal said...
"why should that cause me to reconsider my statement about anonymous posters who wrongly accuse me"?
Quite a bit of hypocrisy here, since kenny hissy fit haws made it his mission in life to wrongfully accuse innocent men ofraping crystl, his favorite murderess/false accuser.
Kenny, Glad to see you are back. How's that secret plan coming along?
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
Kenny,
I think we are all pleased that you have returned to master debate on this board. Where were you master debating the three weeks you were gone?
Crystal has as much chance of getting her murder conviction overturned as a white Duke lacrosse player actually wanting to have sex with - absolutely zero.
Is is true that Nifong is dying of prostate cancer? If so it be would the very definition of karma.
Considering the embarrassment rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong brought to the North Carolina system of justice with the fake gang rape of Crystal Mangum,a crime he knew had never happened,there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he will ever get his law license back.
The posts at 7:28 and 7:30 are contemptible.
Anonymous said: "Quite a bit of hypocrisy here, since kenny hissy fit haws made it his mission in life to wrongfully accuse innocent men ofraping crystl, his favorite murderess/false accuser:................................................... Who are these men I have supposedly accused? Names please?
Crystal was never raped by anyone.Who would want to?
Kenhyderal,
Maybe you haven't named any rapists, but you have accused all the lacrosse players of covering up for them. This, if true, would be a felony. So you've accused them of a felony.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "Quite a bit of hypocrisy here, since kenny hissy fit haws made it his mission in life to wrongfully accuse innocent men ofraping crystl, his favorite murderess/false accuser:................................................... Who are these men I have supposedly accused? Names please?"
You have made it obvious you believe crystal had been raped on the night of March 13/14, 2006. The evidence shows beyond any and all doubt that crystal lied about being raed. Ergo tyou do wrongfully accuse innocent men of rape, no matter how you try to evade your responsibility.
Your evasiveness, now that is contemptible.
kenny hissy fit must really hate himself. Look at how he is trying to create the illusion that he never wrongfully accused anyone of raping his favorite murderess/false accuser.
What courage and integrity does kenny hissy fit show when he denies what he has done, even when it is so obvious what he has done? Absolutely none.
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny
Guiowen said:"Maybe you haven't named any rapists, but you have accused all the lacrosse players of covering up for them. This, if true, would be a felony. So you've accused them of a felony".................................... Yes I have.
J'accuse! Un-identified Party attendees kidnapped raped and robbed Crystal Mangum
Kenny admits{ Yes I have.
You have accused lacrosse players of a felony with no credible evidence to support your allegation. You are truly a despicable human being.
kennhyderal does have credible evidence to support his allegation. He has spoken with Kilgo.
" kenhyderal said...
Guiowen said:"Maybe you haven't named any rapists, but you have accused all the lacrosse players of covering up for them. This, if true, would be a felony. So you've accused them of a felony".................................... Yes I have."
Correction. You have WRONGFULLY accused them.
" kenhyderal said...
J'accuse! Un-identified Party attendees kidnapped raped and robbed Crystal Mangum
November 1, 2015 at 8:03 AM"
Another admission of a wrongful accusation on the part of kenny hissy fit.
There is no evedence of any unidentified party attendees.
Anonymous said: "There is no evedence of any unidentified party attendee"...................................................................... Thanks to team members withholding evidence and an inadequate Police investigation
Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..
Anonymous 8:04am stated of Kenny: You are truly a despicable human being.
No. Kenny is a master debater. A master debater is not required to provide credible evidence. Those who criticize him must prove that his allegation cannot possibly be true.
Kenny,
Is Mike Nifong one of the mystery rapists?
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "There is no evedence of any unidentified party attendee"...................................................................... Thanks to team members withholding evidence and an inadequate Police investigation".
Team members did not withhold any evidence. That was established in all the books written about the case, except william cohan's fantasy.
kenny hissy fit has never provided any evidence of any unidentified party goers.
Delusions are not evidence, kenny.
Anonymous 9:48am stated: kenny hissy fit has never provided any evidence of any unidentified party goers.
Of course not. Kenny is a master debater. A master debater is not required to provide credible evidence. Those who criticize him must prove that his allegation cannot possibly be true.
kenny hissy fit:
what established that there were unidentified raoists at the lacrosse party?
Anonymous 10:19am asks: what established that there were unidentified rapists at the lacrosse party?
Kenny is a master debater. A master debater is not required to provide credible evidence when he makes an allegation. Those who criticize him must prove that his allegation cannot possibly be true.
Kenny - there is no law that requires people to report a crime. They can't actively conceal it (I.e. Lie) but they have no obligation to talk to the
police or provide information.
Kenny,
Is Mike Nifong one of the mystery rapists?
Anonymous said: "what established that there were unidentified raoists at the lacrosse party?"........................................... The presence of DNA extracted from fresh un-degraded sperm cells found in Crystal, unexplained by her sexual history and not belonging to anyone designated as a Team member. Suspiciously, including members whether present or not.
Anonymous said: "Team members did not withhold any evidence. That was established in all the books written about the case, except william cohan's fantasy".................Established by books??? There was no trial and no witnesses were ever placed under oath.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "what established that there were unidentified raoists at the lacrosse party?"........................................... The presence of DNA extracted from fresh un-degraded sperm cells found in Crystal, unexplained by her sexual history and not belonging to anyone designated as a Team member. Suspiciously, including members whether present or not."
What established that there were fresh undegraded sperm cells. The reports were that sperm fraction dna was found but nothing about fresh undegraded sperm cells.
And who had custody of the DNA evidence? No one other than corrupt DA Nifong. Explain why the DA, if he was determined to findoutwhat hapened to crystal, why did DA NIFONG make no effort to find out who the DNA came from. I say again, why did DA NIFING make NO ATTEMPT to find out from whom the unidentified DNA came?
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "Team members did not withhold any evidence. That was established in all the books written about the case, except william cohan's fantasy".................Established by books??? There was no trial and no witnesses were ever placed under oath."
The books documented that what evidence was generated.The evidence established beyond all doubt that none of the people DA nifong named as suspects did not rape Crystal. What that meant was, the DA had no probable cause to take any member of the Lacrosse team to trial.
You re incredibly stupid.
That is the kind of answer which could have come only from a guilt presuming racist.
Hey kenny hissy fit, if you knew any thing about the rape case, you would have known that DA Nifong tried to conceal the DNA evidence, the fact is DA Nifong wanted to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for the alleged rape, and the evidence he had established that no one on the Lacrosse team had raped Crystal. The evidence, including the physical evidenc, established no rape had happened.
Kenny,
Is Mike Nifong one of the mystery rapists? Is that why he did not attempt to match the DNA?
Great play by Miami!
Even Nifong wouldn't want to have sex with Crystal Mangum.He knew she was lying the whole time.
The ACC admitted today Miami should not have been awarded the touchdown.Duke is still having a great season.
Sperm found in Crystal.That could be from any of her clients.
Is Mike Nifong one of the mystery rapists? Is that why he did not attempt to match the DNA?
No, it was Sidney Harr, wearing whiteface, who raped Crystal Mangum, so that he could frame the Duke LaCrosse team.
An
Anonymous said: " Sperm found in Crystal.That could be from any of her clients"....... Crystal did not have sex with any clients she was assigned to by Allure Escort Service. The Agency keeps records and obtains credit card information from those who order entertainers.
Anonymous said: "The evidence, including the physical evidenc, established no rape had happened"....... No it did not. All it established was that no member of the Lacrosse Team or the two non-Players attendees who happened to appear in photographs raped Crystal. It certainly did not clear them of kidnapping ,sexual assault or the theft of her money. I have been told by Kilgo that his Player friend told him that there were as many as 20 non-players there and at times these non-players seemed to dominate the proceedings
Kenhyderal,
Please get in touch with me immediately. I have important information about Daniel Meier and Anne Petersen's relations with Rae Evans.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "The evidence, including the physical evidenc, established no rape had happened"....... No it did not. All it established was that no member of the Lacrosse Team or the two non-Players attendees who happened to appear in photographs raped Crystal"
So explain why the corrupt district attorney tried to prosecute members of the Lacrosse tea for raping Crystal.
Blogger kenhyderal said...
"It certainly did not clear them of kidnapping ,sexual assault or the theft of her money."
How did it establish that a rape or sexual assault or any theft actually toook place. This is where you show how stupid you are in matters legal.
"I have been told by Kilgo that his Player friend told him that there were as many as 20 non-players there and at times these non-players seemed to dominate the proceedings".
Well, you need to establish that kilgo actually did have a friend who was on the Lacrosse team. It has been almost ten years since crystal made her false allegations of rape and said anoymous lacrosse player has yet to appear. Your specualtion that he was somehow dissuaded to come forward does not establish that he even exists.
There is no evidence crystal was ever raped and only a guilt presuming rcist would claim there was.
No one believes anything about that case except that the in-justice system and duke are corrupt news mongers out to get the 'black' vote in order to destroy the medical system in the USA for the purposes of money in the form of a totally messed up health insurance system.
hey kenny hissy fit:
Explain how your attitude, expressed by your statement to the effect that the evidence in the case did not clear any one of sexually assaulting crystal or of raping crystal, is compatible with the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence.
Blogger kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: 'The evidence, including the physical evidenc, established no rape had happened'"
So explain what evidence established that a rape happened.
Why don't you set up your own blog - you could call it Rapemongers Anonymous (ie: insane people still obsessed with the Duke lacrosse case)?
Kenny states: All it established was that no member of the Lacrosse Team or the two non-Players attendees who happened to appear in photographs raped Crystal. It certainly did not clear them of kidnapping ,sexual assault or the theft of her money. I have been told by Kilgo that his Player friend told him that there were as many as 20 non-players there and at times these non-players seemed to dominate the proceedings
Kenny is a master debater. A master debater is not required to provide credible evidence when he makes an allegation. Those who criticize him must prove that his allegation cannot possibly be true.
Kenny's arguments do fail the basic test of logic, putting what he claims in the realm of master debating.
So let's review the evidence. We have DNA reports from the SBI lab showing no links to any member of the lacrosse team. How do we know that? The State obtained, unlawfully, a non-testimonial order that required all team members plus two others who attended the party to give DNA samples. The samples were then sent to the SBI lab for testing against the samples recovered from Crystal. No matches.
How do we know who attended the party? The lacrosse co-captains gave voluntary statements to the DPD that included guest lists. So much for them not cooperating. They did.
Finding no matches, the state then sought more accurate DNA testing done by a private lab that was contracted for just this purpose. That lab's results? Negative. No matches. How do we know this? The state disclosed both sets of test results in the process of discovery during the criminal case. The lab director of DNASI did testify under oath about the lab results. A hearing that ultimately lead to Mike Nifong's well deserved disbarment.
Why are DNA results important? Crystal could not provide a proper identification. She viewed four improper line ups. In the first three line ups she didn't pick anyone. She picked three innocent men as her assailants in the fourth line up. Problem for the state. They could not possibly use the line up in court to identify any particular defendant. Not a problem before the grand jury, just don't mention that the line ups were improper. But, a big problem before a petit jury where the rules of evidence and due process apply. So, the state needed a method of identifying defendants. DNA was and is the best available.
Unfortunately, with Dr. "Obfuscation's" testimony and the DNASI lab results, we know the state had no DNA to identify any of the named defendants.
DNA results have a secondary importance, too, because they tend to show who touched Crystal. Not innocent and incidental contacts, but significant contacts. The studies tend to favor the notion that no significant contact, such as in a rape or beating, can take place without some DNA transfer between the combatants. As there was none in this case the absence of DNA supports the statements of the lacrosse co-captains that no rape took place at 601 N. Buchannan Street in March 2006. Crystal's sexual history for the time leading up to the lacrosse party includes numerous escort outcalls and at least one sexual encounter with her driver and another with her boyfriend at the time. Those encounters account for the DNA found in or about her nether regions.
Due process and the rules of professional conduct says you don't prosecute people without probable cause. Probable cause is not an issue once dealt with by a grand jury and never revisited. It is a continuing matter. Because the state, most particularly in the person of Mike Nifong, never had probable cause, the prosecution was a violation of our constitution's due process clause and our rules of professional conduct.
I know Kenny, Sid and Tinfoil don't believe in the constitution, or due process, or the rules of professional conduct, or any other such legal nicety. They have consistently argued for the unbridled power of the state to prosecute anyone based on Sid and Kenny's fantasy. That explains them for what they are. Thankfully we don't live in that sort of world.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt stated: I know Kenny, Sid and Tinfoil don't believe in the constitution, or due process, or the rules of professional conduct, or any other such legal nicety. They have consistently argued for the unbridled power of the state to prosecute anyone based on Sid and Kenny's fantasy.
Walt, you are unfair to Kenny. Kenny has not argued for the prosecution of lacrosse players. He has simply taken the complete failure of Nifong and the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation as an opportunity to slime them.
As noted earlier, Kenny is a master debater. A master debater is not required to provide credible evidence when he makes an allegation. Those who criticize him must prove that his allegation cannot possibly be true.
Kenny is significantly more "clever" in smearing the lacrosse players than is Sidney. Sidney simply pretends that a huge amount of contrary evidence does not exist, claiming that only a trial can establish innocence (although, as we have seen, Sidney does not respect a verdict he does not like).
Kenny uses the DPD's failure to investigate as an opportunity to create a ridiculous narrative that places blame on the lacrosse players. He recognizes that the failure to find the defendants' DNA makes it near impossible to argue that the defendants should have faced a trial for rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. However, this does not prove that Crystal was not raped: because the DPD did not investigate no one can "prove" with certainty that mystery rapists did not rape Crystal at the party. He "explains" the unmatched DNA by inventing new perpetrators.
Because he is a master debater, he wins.
Walt,
What BS and false accusations you blather on a consistent basis. You're the one who seems to not believe in any of those things: ie: I know Kenny, Sid and Tinfoil don't believe in the constitution, or due process, or the rules of professional conduct, or any other such legal nicety. They have consistently argued for the unbridled power of the state to prosecute anyone based on Sid and Kenny's fantasy. That explains them for what they are. Thankfully we don't live in that sort of world.
I'm the one who wants due process, the constitution and the law to prevail in these cases - you and duke and the in-justice system DO NOT. Your lies and theirs are the reason for the title of Durham In-Wonderland - not anyone else.
blah and blah
you are VERY unprofessional btw
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Walt,
What BS and false accusations you blather on a consistent basis. You're the one who seems to not believe in any of those things: ie: I know Kenny, Sid and Tinfoil don't believe in the constitution, or due process, or the rules of professional conduct, or any other such legal nicety. They have consistently argued for the unbridled power of the state to prosecute anyone based on Sid and Kenny's fantasy. That explains them for what they are. Thankfully we don't live in that sort of world.
I'm the one who wants due process, the constitution and the law to prevail in these cases - you and duke and the in-justice system DO NOT. Your lies and theirs are the reason for the title of Durham In-Wonderland - not anyone else.
blah and blah
you are VERY unprofessional btw
November 2, 2015 at 9:12 AM"
You are seriously deluded and incredibly and viciously stupid.
Sid and/or Kenny posting anonymously again?
TinFoil,
Don't you get tired of beating a dead horse?
Anonymous said: "Explain how your attitude, expressed by your statement to the effect that the evidence in the case did not clear any one of sexually assaulting crystal or of raping crystal, is compatible with the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence"................................................................... The four charged individuals in The Duke Lacrosse case most certainly received their fundamental right of "presumption of innocence"; something Crystal never received in her trial for murder but in North Carolina Black lives don't matter.
Kenny,
You haven't answered my questions.
Was Mike Nifong one of the mystery rapists? Is that why he did not attempt to match the DNA?
Kenny states: The four charged individuals in The Duke Lacrosse case...
I know that Crystal selected four of her three alleged attackers in her April 4 "identification" procedure. I thought only three were pursued and charged.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
kenhyderal said...
"Oh. Dr. Harr is rightfully afraid of Duke. That's why he will not set foot on Duke property until they are properly sanctioned by the Courts for their persecution of him."
Except Duke never persecuted mr. harr. The evidwnce mr. harr posted to his blog, including the audio, makes it clear mr.harr violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then picked a fight with a security guard.
Then mr. harr sued Duke and continues to sue Duke in the delusional belief Duke will pay him a big settlement. Unlike the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, mr. harr never had a legitimate cause of action against Duke.
On April 14, 2010 Duke University, with foreknowledge (from a complimentary letter I sent to the university president and dean of the law school to show support for their programs for the public) that I would be attending their interview with Justice Breyer, set about to ambush me... having the campus police called for the purpose of arresting me. The only reason I was not arrested was because of my fortuitously seeing Professor James Coleman who interceded on my behalf.
Fact is that I tried to resolve the issue with Duke University, but it basically ignored me, with the exception of a contentious and accusatory letter containing nonsense about violation of a solicitation policy. With Duke unwilling to work to reach an agreement with me that would enable me to feel comfortable being on their campus to attend public events, I eventually filed a lawsuit as the one year statute of limitation approached. This was never about money, but Duke damaged me far worse than it did the Duke Lacrosse defendants who it paid $20 million each for reasons which it never explained.
Note: I will soon post the information about the shopped judge using the excuse that Duke is a private university and has the right to discriminate.
Sidney,
In a response in Harr I, Duke cited the ruling in McFadyen v. Duke University as precedent for its claim that a private university is permitted to restrict the expression of opinions on its campus. On this blog, you supported the court's decision in that case as correct. In that case, Duke students were prevented from wearing anti-Nifong shirts to a football game. Again, you supported the ruling.
You are a hypocrite. Your support of the court's ruling in McFadyen, together with your criticism of the dismissal of your own cases that make an identical claim forces one to conclude that you believe pro-Nifong opinions are protected speech, but anti-Nifong opinions are not protected speech. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Shame on you.
kenhyderal said...
"The four charged individuals in The Duke Lacrosse case most certainly received their fundamental right of 'presumption of innocence';"
You are showing again how deliberately and viciously and incredibly stupid you choose to be.It is a matter of historical record that even before he had any evidence in the case that da nifong was speaking up in public, proclaiming a rape had occurred, that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators, and that the crime was racially motivated. He made statements to undermine their right to be represented by counsel, to undermine their right to remain silent and not to talk to the authorities. Only a guilt presuming racist would claim that da nifong respected the principle of presumption of innocence.
You yourself have admitted that the evidence generated in the case showed no member of the Lacrosse team could have raped Crystal. So explain how by using a rigged lineup to get something he could present to a Grand Jury in order to get an indictment, respected the presumption of innocence.dd
"something Crystal never received in her trial for murder but in North Carolina Black lives don't matter."
More stinking rotten bullshit promulgated by racist guilt presumer kenny hissy fit. No one got up in public and made guilt presuming statements by crystal. No one ever questioned her right to counsel. No one ever questioned her right to remain silent.
You are a total disgrace to the human race, and that is understating the case. You are advocating that innocent Caucasian men falsely accused of raping a black woman should be presumed guilty solely because of their ethnic background. But a black murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes.
Sidney writes: I will soon post the information about the shopped judge using the excuse that Duke is a private university and has the right to discriminate.
Sidney, I remind you to be civil in your criticism. In its decision in Harr I, the court warned you against ad hominem attacks against the court. I post a portion from the decision below.
This leaves the issue of Plaintiff’s gratuitous and vile invective directed at this court. Such comments were totally unnecessary for, as explained above, the factual distinction Plaintiff pressed was wholly irrelevant to the legal issues raised by the motion to dismiss his complaint... Plaintiff’s pro se status is not an excuse to engage in abusive conduct, and Plaintiff is warned against further personal attacks on the Magistrate Judge or any judicial officer of the federal courts... The court will not hesitate in appropriate cases to exercise its full contempt and other powers [providing power to punish misbehavior by fine or imprisonment, or both] in order to protect the dignity of the nation’s judicial system as a forum for the thoughtful resolution of legitimate grievances. Plaintiff is admonished to conduct himself accordingly...
Nifong Supporter9which is the same as being an athletic supporter for a eunuch0 said...
"On April 14, 2010 Duke University, with foreknowledge (from a complimentary letter I sent to the university president and dean of the law school to show support for their programs for the public) that I would be attending their interview with Justice Breyer, set about to ambush me... having the campus police called for the purpose of arresting me. The only reason I was not arrested was because of my fortuitously seeing Professor James Coleman who interceded on my behalf."
Bullshit. You violated Duke's no solicitation policy. You picked a fight with a security guard. Professor Coleman did not intervene. You tried to drag him into the conflict. All that was revealed in the audio clip you posted. You are just too full of yourself to realize it.
"Fact is that I tried to resolve the issue with Duke University, but it basically ignored me, with the exception of a contentious and accusatory letter containing nonsense about violation of a solicitation policy. With Duke unwilling to work to reach an agreement with me that would enable me to feel comfortable being on their campus to attend public events, I eventually filed a lawsuit as the one year statute of limitation approached."
Fact is, you thought you could take advantage of the situation to shake down Duke for a huge settlement, based on your delusional belief that Duke paid off the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, even though, according to you, those innocent, falsely accused men had no cause of action.
"This was never about money, but Duke damaged me far worse than it did the Duke Lacrosse defendants who it paid $20 million each for reasons which it never explained."
This, de facto, is an admission on your part that it was about money, that you believed you could shake down Duke, said belief based on your delusion that Duke caved in to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
"Note: I will soon post the information about the shopped judge using the excuse that Duke is a private university and has the right to discriminate."
No you won't.You will be posting more delusional megalomania.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny states: The four charged individuals in The Duke Lacrosse case...
I know that Crystal selected four of her three alleged attackers in her April 4 "identification" procedure. I thought only three were pursued and charged.
November 2, 2015 at 11:30 AM"
Yes Crystal did select four Lacrosse players as her attackers.Only three were actually indicted. I believe only three were indicted because nifong had gone on record before the lineup, before the Grand Jury presentation, that three Lacrosse players had raped crystal. Nifong has never explained why he sought indictments against three men after crystal had identified four.
The other thing about this lineup was that crystal had identified Brad Ross, with 100% certainty, as having been at the party. Brad Ross later presented evidence that showed with 100% certainty that he had not been at the party.
Sid -- A literature lesson for you...
In Miguel Cervantes's Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha came upon a row of windmills and took them for giants, their flailing arms ready to do battle. Despite Sancho Panza pointing out that they were windmills, Don Quixote set his lance, spurred his steed Rocinante, and charged the “enemy.”
Alas for the Knight of the Woeful Countenance, the windmills prevailed.
You would do well to learn from The Ingenious Gentleman, Sid.
At one point Crystal said she raped by twenty guys in the tiny bathroom and she told he AG she was assaulted by ten more guys in the backyard.She even said she was suspended in mid-air.
And Sid believes Crystal... and on that basis alone accuses Kia Hanes of perjury.
Sidney,
It's clear your letters to people in NC are having no effect. I suggest you next write Loretta Lynch. That should make it clear to Crystal that you are taking her plight seriously.
Guiowen,
Why not write Barack Obama?
No, not yet! This way the game can continue a bit longer. If Sid writes Obama, the game will be over too quickly,
What game?
November 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM
"In that case, Duke students were prevented from wearing anti-Nifong shirts to a football game."
Duke actually does that type of thing? Why do they allow for the Crazies and their smurf paint with students screaming "Orphan" at an opposing player who had just lost his parents in a murder/suicide event? Seems VERY hypocritical indeed.
Anyway, Duke couldn't prevent a non Duke student from wearing an anti-nifong t-shirt at their PUBLIC football games - or a t-shirt proclaiming "Duke Sucks" could they?
The epitome of hypocrisy in that case is that if you read a hard copy of the News and Observer, Duke solicits the public every week for drug trials and research projects. The entire paper is full of their solicitations - every week. It is sickening. In addition, you cannot even be a patient there without being solicited for some drug trial or research project. Try it - go in there and try to get medical services without signing a form that you agree to be solicited and USED by them for drug trials and/or research. It doesn't happen. And then Duke has the gall to throw their non solicitation policy in Dr. Harr's face? Egad!
The only place Crystal was ever raped by white men was in her drug and alcohol soaked imagination.
It may be hypocritical for Duke to ban some things and not others, but it's not illegal to be a hypocrit. Unless the discrimination is based on race, age, gender, ethnicity, disability, national origin, or religion - it's legal.
No one is saying Duke is a great organization - but being an ass isn't illegal. Look at Kenny and Sid - their constant abuse and idiocy is perfectly legal, even if they are just a couple of narcissistic asses. Now, Sid's drafting of legal documents is a different issue, but the State Bar can deal with that.
Actually, they solicit anyone who ventures into Walmart every year. But ya can 'buy' a paper airballon, put your name on it and paste it to a wall and throw your change down a winding tube for fun - just like being solicited at a carnival. Sickening to say the least.
Actually, if Duke has a strict non-harassment policy, then why are they allowed to harass their patients by soliciting for drug trials and research projects? And why are the Crazies allowed at all? Their main objective is to harass the opposing side. So, is it ok for them to harass and solicit everyone else, but not them?
Duke harasses and solicits their alumni and patrons ALL the time. Wonder how much their representatives harass and solicit at the General Assembly and Legislature or the governor? Every day probably. Duke is a master at harassment and solicitation. They make billions off of it. Then they throw Dr. Harr off their campus for handing out business cards and talking to the press at a PUBLIC event without giving him a reason for it - but saying they have a non-solicitation policy when he demands to know why? Since when does Duke have a non-solicitation and non-harassment policy? They wouldn't even exist without a MAJOR SOLICITATION/HARASSMENT policy. Egad and egad.
I think we all understand why Sid was told to leave.
It wasn't because Brodhead and Levi received Harr's letters and conspired to embarrass him. Harr acted like a smug, arrogant jerk--just as he does on this blog--when he offered his "enlightenment" to other attendees, whom he berated for being "brainwashed" because they failed to agree with him. Once they tired of his antics, the other attendees tried to cut off the conversation, Harr persisted until someone finally complained.
November 3, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Were you there?
November 3, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Want to know how many times Duke offers up its "smug, arrogant jerk" (your words) 'enlightenment' to the general public? Every time the News and Observer is solicited to publish yet another Duke 'professional' opinion piece - which is often - to start with. That's in their paper littered with Duke solicitations for the general public to risk their lives in their drug trials and research projects, which is weekly if not daily.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,
In a response in Harr I, Duke cited the ruling in McFadyen v. Duke University as precedent for its claim that a private university is permitted to restrict the expression of opinions on its campus. On this blog, you supported the court's decision in that case as correct. In that case, Duke students were prevented from wearing anti-Nifong shirts to a football game. Again, you supported the ruling.
You are a hypocrite. Your support of the court's ruling in McFadyen, together with your criticism of the dismissal of your own cases that make an identical claim forces one to conclude that you believe pro-Nifong opinions are protected speech, but anti-Nifong opinions are not protected speech. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Shame on you.
Actually, I don't ever recall supporting such a position. For one, I don't even consider Duke University to be "private" in many respects as it accepts federal and taxpayer monies. It certainly employs more than fifteen people. With regards to the McFayden v. Duke lawsuit, I may have supported the outcome, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support all of its legal defenses.
Most people can't even get the medical services they need in this state. That is to coerce them into drug trials and research projects since any other services are sorely lacking or not available at all - unless it is a drug trial or research project. But those persons who do participate in the drug trials and research projects are never cured or really 'helped'. That is to keep them in the pool of people to solicit and harass a bit more.
Anonymous said...
Sidney writes: I will soon post the information about the shopped judge using the excuse that Duke is a private university and has the right to discriminate.
Sidney, I remind you to be civil in your criticism. In its decision in Harr I, the court warned you against ad hominem attacks against the court. I post a portion from the decision below.
This leaves the issue of Plaintiff’s gratuitous and vile invective directed at this court. Such comments were totally unnecessary for, as explained above, the factual distinction Plaintiff pressed was wholly irrelevant to the legal issues raised by the motion to dismiss his complaint... Plaintiff’s pro se status is not an excuse to engage in abusive conduct, and Plaintiff is warned against further personal attacks on the Magistrate Judge or any judicial officer of the federal courts... The court will not hesitate in appropriate cases to exercise its full contempt and other powers [providing power to punish misbehavior by fine or imprisonment, or both] in order to protect the dignity of the nation’s judicial system as a forum for the thoughtful resolution of legitimate grievances. Plaintiff is admonished to conduct himself accordingly...
Thank you for the warning, but I don't believe that "shopped judge" is anything more than a descriptive term. Surely that was a benefit Duke University enjoyed by hiring a law firm from Greensboro... one familiar with the judges. Since judge shopping is not illegal, a case could be made that not judge shopping would be a dereliction of duty by Greensboro defense attorneys.
I really don't think that you are naive to believe that Duke's attorneys did not engage in judge shopping. Of course they did.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I think we all understand why Sid was told to leave.
It wasn't because Brodhead and Levi received Harr's letters and conspired to embarrass him. Harr acted like a smug, arrogant jerk--just as he does on this blog--when he offered his "enlightenment" to other attendees, whom he berated for being "brainwashed" because they failed to agree with him. Once they tired of his antics, the other attendees tried to cut off the conversation, Harr persisted until someone finally complained.
The plan of Duke to have me arrested at their event was premeditated and planned... nothing more than an ambush. As I have repeatedly stated, I acted as others similarly situated... there were no antics on my behalf. At the conclusion of the interview, I was heading for the exit without talking to anyone or handing out my business card when I was approached and stopped by the Associated Press reporter who asked me my opinion of the event... (clearly he was a plant by Duke). It was after the reporter left that the security guard walked straight up to me.
That's the facts. I should know. I was there, and you weren't.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Duke harasses and solicits their alumni and patrons ALL the time. Wonder how much their representatives harass and solicit at the General Assembly and Legislature or the governor? Every day probably. Duke is a master at harassment and solicitation. They make billions off of it. Then they throw Dr. Harr off their campus for handing out business cards and talking to the press at a PUBLIC event without giving him a reason for it - but saying they have a non-solicitation policy when he demands to know why? Since when does Duke have a non-solicitation and non-harassment policy? They wouldn't even exist without a MAJOR SOLICITATION/HARASSMENT policy. Egad and egad.
Actually, there was no reason given by the security guard for having me kicked off campus. He told me he didn't know why I was being asked to leave. He certainly never said I was being kicked off campus for solicitation. The solicitation excuse was the best excuse that Duke could come up with... a very weak one, at that.
guiowen said...
Sidney,
It's clear your letters to people in NC are having no effect. I suggest you next write Loretta Lynch. That should make it clear to Crystal that you are taking her plight seriously.
gui, mon ami,
Prior to Lynch's appointment, I wrote A.G. Eric Holder... that was many years ago. I believe I eventually received a letter from a paralegal which in effect denied me the ability to meet with Mr. Holder or even get an appointment to talk with one of his staff. And the letter stated that they could do nothing for Crystal.
Believe me, I have considered writing Loretta Lynch, but I don't believe that there is much chance that she would even see my correspondence. That is still an option in reserve, but at the present time, I don't think it would be successful. Thanks for the suggestion.
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Sid -- A literature lesson for you...
In Miguel Cervantes's Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha came upon a row of windmills and took them for giants, their flailing arms ready to do battle. Despite Sancho Panza pointing out that they were windmills, Don Quixote set his lance, spurred his steed Rocinante, and charged the “enemy.”
Alas for the Knight of the Woeful Countenance, the windmills prevailed.
You would do well to learn from The Ingenious Gentleman, Sid.
Hey, Fake Kenhyderal.
Thanks for the literature lesson. Think I may pick up a copy of "Don Quixote" at the next library book sale. However, I believe a better analogy than Don Quixote would be David and Goliath. And we all know how that turned out.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
November 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM
"In that case, Duke students were prevented from wearing anti-Nifong shirts to a football game."
Duke actually does that type of thing? Why do they allow for the Crazies and their smurf paint with students screaming "Orphan" at an opposing player who had just lost his parents in a murder/suicide event? Seems VERY hypocritical indeed.
Anyway, Duke couldn't prevent a non Duke student from wearing an anti-nifong t-shirt at their PUBLIC football games - or a t-shirt proclaiming "Duke Sucks" could they?
Is there a reference where Duke allegedly prevented students from wearing anti-Nifong shirts? I am unaware of such an incident or school policy to support such. I would like a reference to enlighten me on this issue. Thanks.
Sid asks: Is there a reference where Duke allegedly prevented students from wearing anti-Nifong shirts? I am unaware of such an incident or school policy to support such. I would like a reference to enlighten me on this issue. Thanks.
Read the filings in the lawsuit. The one that you rejected as frivolous.
Except Loretta Lynch is from Durham - so she may be more interested in Durham and it's citizens than Eric Holder. Or she may be in the pocket of Duke and part of the vast anti-Mangum conspiracy that is thwarting you at every turn ... the only way to find out is to write a letter.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Is there a reference where Duke allegedly prevented students from wearing anti-Nifong shirts? I am unaware of such an incident or school policy to support such."
mr. harr, you are unaware of a lot of things, e.g. what constitutes a false accusation, what constitutes malicious prosecution, what constitutes exculpatory evidence, what constitutes presumption of innocence, what constitutes violating an institution's non solicitation policy. The list goes on and on.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, there was no reason given by the security guard for having me kicked off campus. He told me he didn't know why I was being asked to leave. He certainly never said I was being kicked off campus for solicitation. The solicitation excuse was the best excuse that Duke could come up with... a very weak one, at that."
mr. harr remains in denial. The evidence he, himself, posted revealed he did violate Duke's non solicitation policy and picked a fight with a security guard who told him to stop.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The plan of Duke to have me arrested at their event was premeditated and planned... nothing more than an ambush."
More of mr. harr indulging in delusional, megalomaniacal fantasy.
No institution, not even Duke, would consider mr. harr worthy of the effort it would take to set up such an ambush.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, I don't ever recall supporting such a position. For one, I don't even consider Duke University to be 'private'".
More of mr. harr's megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur. He believes his beliefs trump reality. He also believes people take him seriously.
Well, he is seriously deluded and out of touch with reality.
Nifong Supporter said...
"However, I believe a better analogy than Don Quixote would be David and Goliath. And we all know how that turned out."
And all of us know you are no David. David had courage. You do not know what courage is. And the Goliaths you see are but figments of your megalomaniacally delusional imagination.
Post a Comment