justice4nifong: Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

743 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 743 of 743

Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Why are you spending so much time debating Crystal's innocence? Didn't you see Sidney's announcement? Crystal will be exonerated and released in no more than 30 days. I would expect the exonerating authority to explain the reasons for her innocence. I can sense your excitement at this wonderful news!

Rather than spending time debating, you should make plans to come to Durham for the celebration. Crystal could use your help in beginning the process of her re-integration into society.; May 31, 2016 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: No more than 740 hours.; May 31, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: hey hissy fit:

Maybe harr will vouch for your clinical acumen.

Of course that would be like kilgo telling you about his anonymous lacrosse player friend who witnessed mystery rapists raping crystal at the party.

Again, kilgo is like deaf blind man trying to tell people he sees and hears everything.; May 31, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

In the outside chance that you buy a gift for Mangum in anticipation of her impending release next month, make sure to save the receipt, and don't buy anything perishable, like delicious Froman sausages.

For what it's worth, you and Sid aren't going to get anywhere re-arguing the facts of Mangum's trial and presenting possible alternate conclusions the jury could have drawn from those facts. Those matters have already been litigated. The jury has spoken and whether or not you agree, its findings are not subject to further review.

The only way to prevail and get Mangum a new trial is to present new evidence or facts that were not available to Mangum at the time of her trial and conviction. You and Sid have utterly failed to do that. Since no such new evidence exists, Mangum will have to remain in prison and serve the remainder of her sentence.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 31, 2016 at 11:50 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " That's because none [an independent medical expert] was ever sought."

Yes, Dr. Roberts was the defense expert.

"You all claim that Meier would have spoken to the Physicians who treated Daye at duke and they did not call them as witnesses because their testimony would be unhelpful for Crystal. I have determined that this never happened."

More wishful thinking unsupported by any evidence.

"I am convinced that they would not have concurred with Nichol's cause of death and faintly endorsed by Dr. Roberts."

With no evidence to support such a wild allegation, I have to conclude you are just deluding yourself.

"Would any of you consider this to possibly be inadequate counsel."

Not when the defense has its own expert. That's the point of seeking an IME (independent medical examiner). The IME gives the defense an independent review and her best diagnosis based on the medical record and her training and experience. With that IME, defense counsel can proceed to examine other physicians, or not as the case may be. It is extremely rare that two competent physicians paid by opposing parties will reach the same conclusion only to have some other physician, of similar or better competency, come in and dispute their conclusion.

Walt-in-Durham; May 31, 2016 at 11:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.Anonymous said: "Reginald Daye was put at risk for an intra abdominal infection when crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon-or are you denying that? That risk did not end with the completion of surgery. The fever, tachycardia and disorientation were all symptoms consistennt with an infectious process. There was ample evidence an infectious process was going on. What clinical esperience have you had which shows that fever, tachycardia and disorientation are not consistent with infection. None." ..............................The fever, tachycardia and disorientation was diagnosed as impending delerium tremens. Since he could been at risk for a post-operative infection it was a differential diagnosis that needed to be eliminated as a possibility. You and Dr. Nichols chose to speculate that the primary diagnosis was wrong one and that the differential diagnosis was the correct one without any evidence other then it was being evaluated for.No Dr. it was not a post-operative infection that sent Daye to the critical care unit. It was acute alcohol withdrawal.; May 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Provide support for your medical diagnosis. Refer to specific information in the medical reports and/or expert reports.Post such reports (or at least the links to them). Although they have been posted previously, I don't have time to search for them.

An unsupported medical conclusion from someone with no medical training is not particularly compelling, particularly when the conclusion contradicts the conclusion of a medical expert. In the same way, an unsupported legal conclusion from someone with no legal training is not particularly compelling, particularly when it contradicts the conclusions of several attorneys, who do have legal training.

Your lack of expertise, coupled with your general lack of trustworthiness, does not make you a credible source.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 31, 2016 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: more inane clp trap from kenny hissy fit:

"Dr.Anonymous said: "Reginald Daye was put at risk for an intra abdominal infection when crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon-or are you denying that? That risk did not end with the completion of surgery. The fever, tachycardia and disorientation were all symptoms consistennt with an infectious process. There was ample evidence an infectious process was going on. What clinical esperience have you had which shows that fever, tachycardia and disorientation are not consistent with infection. None." ..............................The fever, tachycardia and disorientation was diagnosed as impending delerium tremens."

That did not rule out infection as a cause. Reginald Daye needed to be evaluated for an infection. Your lack of capability to see that establishes you are clinically incompetent.

"Since he could been at risk for a post-operative infection it was a differential diagnosis that needed to be eliminated as a possibility."

Wrong, and more evidence you do not know what you are talking about. Infection had to be either ruled in or ruled out. A diagnosis of impending DTs would not exclude a diagnosis of infection. Reginald Daye had to be evaluated specifically for infection. Your inability to recognize that means only that, as you have demonstrated on many occasions on this blog, you do not know what you are talking about.

"You and Dr. Nichols chose to speculate that the primary diagnosis was wrong one and that the differential diagnosis was the correct one without any evidence other then it was being evaluated for."

You again show you do not know what your are talking about. There was no speculation. There were solid clinical reasons to evaluate Reginald Daye for an infection. That he might have been suffering from DTs would not exclude an infection, and you again in this post show you do not know what you are talking about

"No Dr. it was not a post-operative infection that sent Daye to the critical care unit. It was acute alcohol withdrawal."

What you again show that you are incapable of realizing is that it was the evaluation for an infection which resulted in his death. What made that evaluation necessary was that crystal stabbed him. Any suspected diagnosis of DTs would not have eliminated the need for an evaluation for infection.

Once again I say, you do not know what you are talking about, and that does not establish that crystal did not murder Reginald Daye. She did.; May 31, 2016 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: hey, hissy fit:

What you are saying is, because you, a completely inexperienced ignoramus when it comes to evaluating a clinical situation, has decreed that DTs killed Reginald Daye, and the opinions of people with real hands on clinical experience should be disregarded, right?

Your desire to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes is irrelevant.; May 31, 2016 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Roberts specifically notes they considered DTs, started treatment, and when he wasn't getting better ruled out DTs - that's the problem with Sid and Kenny's argument - they've been considered. Dr. Roberts considered DTs, she noted the esophageal intubation - she considered everything they claim needed to be considered - she just disagrees with their assessment - so they say she is lying.

Kenny still ignore why he allows Sid to give Crystal false hope of imminent release - if she were your friend you'd actually care more about her.; May 31, 2016 at 2:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Dr. Roberts specifically notes they considered DTs, started treatment, and when he wasn't getting better ruled out DTs"...................... Dr. Roberts said no such thing.; May 31, 2016 at 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Are you excited about Dr. Harr's news about Crystal's impending release?; May 31, 2016 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: even more ignorant clap trap from kenny hissy fit:

"Anonymous said: "Dr. Roberts specifically notes they considered DTs, started treatment, and when he wasn't getting better ruled out DTs"...................... Dr. Roberts said no such thing."

No one believes you, hissy fit, considering your penchant for fabrication.

That a treatment is not working, that would be a clue to anyone with clinical experience that something else would be going on.

You don't have a clue that soething other than DTs was going on because you are completgely ignorant as to clinical medicine. That is why your opinions are worthless.; May 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What you are saying is, because you, a completely inexperienced ignoramus when it comes to evaluating a clinical situation, has decreed that DTs killed Reginald Daye, and the opinions of people with real hands on clinical experience should be disregarded, right?......................................... No I am not saying D.T.'s killed Reginald Daye although they were potentially fatal. What I am saying is a medical error killed him. Dr. Anonymous can't seem to grasp that I have no disagreement with his contention Daye needed to be evaluated for the differential diagnosis of a post-operative infection. My contention was there was no infection. If there had been one identified it would have been documented. This makes a difference because an infection would be the only link to his wound being the cause of death. Dr. Nichols Dr. Roberts and for that matter Dr. Anonymous never saw Daye. Those Doctors who treated him should have been called to testify. Without an infection being definitively ruled in the esophageal intubation that killed him is an intervening cause.; May 31, 2016 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Have you asked her Kenny, or you just assuming? Read her report - she says they started treatment for DTs, it was ineffective, so they discontinued it. What do you think that means?

You are a pathetic loser who likes to blather on like you know stuff, but you refuse to ask anyone who knows.

What did Dr. Roberts mean when she said the above?

How sad is your life that you get off abusing emotionally vulnerable women?; May 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny's analysis:

No I am not saying D.T.'s killed Reginald Daye although they were potentially fatal.

I am willing to stipulate to this.

What I am saying is a medical error killed him.

Everyone agrees with this. Everyone.

Dr. Anonymous can't seem to grasp that I have no disagreement with his contention Daye needed to be evaluated for the differential diagnosis of a post-operative infection.

If you are conceding that Daye needed to be evaluated for infection, then Harr is potentially the only party who disagrees.

My contention was there was no infection. If there had been one identified it would have been documented.

Most readers do not believe that the presence or absence of an infection is critical to the legal analysis. I explained why in an earlier post. Although you responded to the post, you ignored that specific point.

This makes a difference because an infection would be the only link to his wound being the cause of death. Without an infection being definitively ruled in the esophageal intubation that killed him is an intervening cause.

This is the critical area of disagreement. I have seen nothing in the case law discussed on this blog to support this legal conclusion. You have provided nothing to support it. On the contrary, the law generally holds that medical malpractice its not an intervening cause.

Dr. Nichols Dr. Roberts and for that matter Dr. Anonymous never saw Daye. Those Doctors who treated him should have been called to testify.

This is relevant only if Kenny's previous conclusion is correct.

Your analysis convinces me that the esophageal intubation was NOT an intervening cause and that Magnum is legally responsible for Daye's death.

My analysis is as follows: Mangum stabbed Daye. Although the initial prognosis was for a recovery, he was at risk of an infection. When his condition worsened (either because of infection, DTs or any other reason), he was evaluated for an infection. During the course of that evaluation (which is linked to the stabbing due to the risk of infection), Daye was intubated esophageally, suffered brain death, and died when taken off life support. Whether or not the intubation constituted malpractice, it is not an intervening cause.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 31, 2016 at 4:34 PM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: " Whether or not the intubation constituted malpractice, it is not an intervening cause."

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

Walt-in-Durham; May 31, 2016 at 5:37 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "What I am saying is a medical error killed him."

Even if that is the case, medical error is not an intervening cause. Remember Welch and Holsclaw?

Walt-in-Durham; May 31, 2016 at 6:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: My analysis is as follows Crystal stabbed Daye in self defence because he was choking her to death. The initial prognosis was for a full recovery. Like any surgical patient he was at risk of a post-operative infection. Because of years of heavy alcohol consumption, his hospitalization and alcohol deprivation caused him to develop acute alcohol withdrawal symptoms with impending, potentially fatal, delirium tremens. Because there was a possibility his symptoms may have been caused by an infection instead, he underwent a procedure to rule that out. Ruling out a condition that was never present but, were it present, could be linked to his surgery is insufficient to proclaim as Nichols did in his autopsy that Daye died of "complications" to the "stab wound" not complications to a diagnostic procedure performed to rule out the secondary differential diagnosis to his delirium tremens. In court he testified, unchallenged, by Meier that it was a intra-abdominal infectious process that killed Daye. We all know that not to be the case. Nichols made no mention of alcohol withdrawal, impending delirium tremens, any diagnostic procedures, an esophageal intubation with an endo-tracheal tube, cardiac arrest, cerebral anoxia, irreversible brain death and finally removal from life-support; May 31, 2016 at 8:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Even if that is the case, medical error is not an intervening cause. Remember Welch and Holsclaw?"...........................................True, if the medical error occurred while he was being "treated" for a complication to the stab wound. No complications, the treatment of which gave rise to a medical error, were ever evident. In fact, it appears that there were, no complication to the stab wound. Had there been, it would have initiated treatment and that treatment would have been documented. All available evidence, that I've seen, indicates that it was delirium tremens and not, as Nichols proclaimed, a complication of the stab wound that sent Daye into critical care where he was killed by medical error. At any rate those who treated Daye needed to testify.; May 31, 2016 at 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: more inanr clap trap from hissy fit:

"My analysis is as follows"

First off, your analysis, like many f your previous analyses of mediacal situation is based on a total lack of hands on clinical experience and therefore is not meaningful.

"Crystal stabbed Daye in self defence because he was choking her to death."

She failed to establish that at her trial.

"The initial prognosis was for a full recovery. Like any surgical patient he was at risk of a post-operative infection."

Here you again show your clinical ignorance. Most surgical patients go into surgery for reasons other than a laceration of the colon secondary to a stab wound. Reginald Daye had hours of exposure to colonic pathogenic bacteria contaminating his abdominal cavity. He was at a highly increased risk of intra abdominal nfection. He was not "Like any surgical patient".

"Because of years of heavy alcohol consumption, his hospitalization and alcohol deprivation caused him to develop acute alcohol withdrawal symptoms with impending, potentially fatal, delirium tremens."

It has not been established that Reginald Daye subjected himself to years of heavy drinking. There are statements in the records harr illegally posted that Reginald Daye was not a heavy drinker. The only one who said he was a heavy drinker was crystal, who made that statement after she was under arrest and facing, not fir the first time in her life, criminal charges.

"Because there was a possibility his symptoms may have been caused by an infection instead, he underwent a procedure to rule that out."

Another manifestation of your total clinical ignorance. The laceration of the colon, which resulted in hours of contamination of his abdominal cavity with pathogenic colonic bacteria, meant he was at high risk of an infection.

"Ruling out a condition that was never present but, were it present, could be linked to his surgery is insufficient to proclaim as Nichols did in his autopsy that Daye died of "complications" to the "stab wound" not complications to a diagnostic procedure performed to rule out the secondary differential diagnosis to his delirium tremens"

More evidence of your total clinical ignorance. The procedure instituted to rule in or rule out an infection happened because crystal stabbed him and put him at high risk of an infection. It was a complication of the stab wound. Your total clinical ignorance does not establish it wasn't.

In court he testified, unchallenged, by Meier that it was a intra-abdominal infectious process that killed Daye."

He testified that Daye died of complications of the stab wound.

"We all know that not to be the case."

Clinically ignorant you say it was not the case. Clinically knowledgeable people, and that does not include harr, say Reginald Daye did die of complications of the stab Like any surgical patient

"Nichols made no mention of alcohol withdrawal, impending delirium tremens, any diagnostic procedures, an esophageal intubation with an endo-tracheal tube, cardiac arrest, cerebral anoxia, irreversible brain death and finally removal from life-support".

None of this changes the fact that the " esophageal intubation with an endo-tracheal tube, cardiac arrest, cerebral anoxia, irreversible brain death and finally removal from life-support" all hapened as a result of the evaluation for an infection, which evaluation was made necessary by crystal stabbing Reginald Daye and lacerating his colon.; June 1, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: even more irrelevant clap trap from clinically ignorant hissy fit:

"Walt said: "Even if that is the case, medical error is not an intervening cause. Remember Welch and Holsclaw?"...........................................True, if the medical error occurred while he was being "treated" for a complication to the stab wound."

He was being evaluated for an infection,an infection to which crystal put him at risk when she stabbed him and lacerated his colon. It was in fact a complication of the stab wound.

"No complications, the treatment of which gave rise to a medical error, were ever evident."

More clinical ignorance from hissy fit. The symptoms and signs, fever, tachycardia, disorientation, were signs and symptoms of infection, occurring in a patient who was at high risk of intra abdominal infection because someone had stabbed him and had llacerated his colon. Your clinical ignorance does not establish that the medical error was not the result of the workup for infection. You are like a blind man denying that the elephant in the room is there because you can't see him.

"In fact, it appears that there were, no complication to the stab wound."

More willful ignorance from hissy fit. It appears to hissy fit that there were "no complications to the stab wound". Reginald Daye was at risk for complications of the stab wound for which Reginald Daye needed to be evaluated. hissy fit was incapable of being aware of those complications. That does not establish that there were "no complications to the stab wound".

"Had there been, it would have initiated treatment and that treatment would have been documented. All available evidence, that I've seen, indicates that it was delirium tremens and not, as Nichols proclaimed, a complication of the stab wound that sent Daye into critical care where he was killed by medical error. At any rate those who treated Daye needed to testify."

What you are capable of seeing is very very little, almost nothing. And the treating doctors should not have been forced to testify just because you, a totally clinically ignorant individual, who wants to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes, and who thinks his ignorance is profound thinking.; June 1, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...: hey hissy fit:

I doubt you like it when I point out your total clinical ignorance, your total lack of competence to render expert medical opinions.

You are trying to render expert medical opinions.

If you were in court testifying on crystal's behalf, I would bet that the prosecutors who would have cross examined you would have been a lot more vigorous pointing and less polite out your inadequacies.; June 1, 2016 at 3:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 15 days.

There are 29 days left until the end of June.

You have 214 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 39 days since April 23rd, 78 days since the Ides of March and 3,273 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 1, 2016 at 3:54 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "True, if the medical error occurred while he was being "treated" for a complication to the stab wound. No complications, the treatment of which gave rise to a medical error, were ever evident."

That is not the definition of an intervening cause. Remember, there is no place in the criminal law for contributory negligence.

"In fact, it appears that there were, no complication to the stab wound."

You are attempting to argue facts not in evidence.

"At any rate those who treated Daye needed to testify."

Only to confirm the existing expert testimony? Well, no on will ever accuse you of effective advocacy.

Walt-in-Durham; June 1, 2016 at 6:07 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "My analysis is as follows Crystal stabbed Daye in self defence because he was choking her to death."

Except he had stopped choking her and she had escaped. From that point on, she had no right to use force, deadly or otherwise.

"Because of years of heavy alcohol consumption, his hospitalization and alcohol deprivation caused him to develop acute alcohol withdrawal symptoms with impending, potentially fatal, delirium tremens."

Blaming the victim now?

"Because there was a possibility his symptoms may have been caused by an infection instead, he underwent a procedure to rule that out. Ruling out a condition that was never present but, were it present, could be linked to his surgery is insufficient to proclaim as Nichols did in his autopsy that Daye died of "complications"...."

You lack the expertise, or training, or even knowledge of the subject to make that assertion. In fact, Dr. Nichols is correct in law and medicine in his diagnosis.

"...and finally removal from life-support[.]"

Try re-reading Welch. The decision to withhold treatment or terminate treatment does not cut off criminal liability.

Walt-in-Durham; June 1, 2016 at 6:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: " If you were in court testifying on crystal's behalf, I would bet that the prosecutors who would have cross examined you would have been a lot more vigorous pointing and less polite out your inadequacies".................... I rather doubt any professional doing his job would be as disrespectful, nasty and unpleasant as you are; June 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt. The circumstances in Crystal's case, seem to be unique and quite unlike Welch. Her appeal should have raised the issue of Duke's fatal medical error, in this unique case, as an intervening cause and because of the unique aspects of this case have an Appeal Judge make a ruling on this. It might well be an issue in jurisprudence of some importance since alcoholics like Daye seem to often become involved in deadly altercations and any hospitalization puts them at risk of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens, totally independent of any injuries that send them to hospital. To go to the absurd, say Crystal has tripped Daye and he was sent to hospital with a compound fracture of the arm that had to be set under general anaesthesia by an orthopaedic surgeon and this procedure put him at risk of a post-operative infection. If impending Delerium Tremens sent him to the Critical Care Unit where the fatal medical error occurred could, under a Welch precedent, Crystal be found guilty of murder. The human foot can, if you stomp on somebodies head, also be a deadly weapon. Or to bring a real weapon into play say Crystal had picked up Daye's brass knuckles instead of the knives her had hurled at her and for dragging her by the hair and choking her put on the brass knuckles and smashed out his front teeth, requiring hospitalization and orthodontic surgery; June 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps, but you could be much less smug when voicing opinions and refusing to provide hard evidence to support them. I but that is the game you play...; June 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny whines: alcoholics like Daye seem to often become involved in deadly altercations and any hospitalization puts them at risk of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens, totally independent of any injuries that send them to hospital.

I suggested this earlier. Thus, there should be numerous precedents on which to rely.

A real advocate would have attempted to identify such cases and use cases favorably decided to strengthen one's advocacy. You have refused to conduct such research, preferring to whine. Unless you are remarkably stupid, one must conclude that you do not really care what happens to Crystal, but rather are merely playing a game.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; June 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt responding to "those who treated Daye needed to testify " said: Only to confirm the existing expert testimony' ....................................Are you sure Dr. Vaslef would do that?; June 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: You know JSwift you are beginning to post a lot like Dr. Anonymous and engage in gratuitous ad hominem attacks. You just called me a stupid, indifferent and a whiner. This is not very productive to the conversation at hand.; June 1, 2016 at 10:25 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 10:25 I beg to differ.; June 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

No, Kenny. I did not call you stupid. I don't believe you are stupid.

Earlier, I suggested researching such cases for precisely the reason you now raise and you responded with the absolutely idiotic reason that you didn't want to tip your hand to the prosecution in Crystal's retrial. As you know, Crystal will not have a retrial without new evidence being provided beforehand.

I said that unless you are stupid (which I do not believe is actually the case), I don't believe that you really care about Crystal. You prefer to complain repetitively rather than to do something that is actually productive. I call that whining.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; June 1, 2016 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: I know you disagree, However, I gave as much evidence to support my opinion as you did to support yours. As a result, it is equally valid.

Anonymous 10:25; June 1, 2016 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: mr inane claptrap from hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous said: " If you were in court testifying on crystal's behalf, I would bet that the prosecutors who would have cross examined you would have been a lot more vigorous pointing and less polite out your inadequacies".................... I rather doubt any professional doing his job would be as disrespectful, nasty and unpleasant as you are"

First off, you are presuming a fact not in evidence, that the inane claptrap you spout is worthy of respect.

I am tellig the truth. You are a clinically ignorant person trying torender an expert medical opinion.

If you ca't stand the heat of the truth, get out of the kitchen in which it is being served.; June 1, 2016 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: more inane claptrap from hissy fit:

"@ Walt. The circumstances in Crystal's case, seem to be unique and quite unlike Welch. Her appeal should have raised the issue of Duke's fatal medical error, in this unique case, as an intervening cause and because of the unique aspects of this case have an Appeal Judge make a ruling on this."

Except, as has been explained to you, the medical error was not an intervening cause. The fatal medical error happened because crystal stabbed Reginald Daye, lacerated his colon and put him at risk of an intra abdominal infection.Let me give you another metaphor. You are incapable of recognizing what an elephant is. You are sitting in a room with an elephant. And you are telling people there is no elephant in the room.

"It might well be an issue in jurisprudence of some importance since alcoholics like Daye seem to often become involved in deadly altercations and any hospitalization puts them at risk of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens, totally independent of any injuries that send them to hospital."

It has not been established that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. You are contradicting yourself. You admit that any event which puts an alcoholic into the hospital puts him at risk of DTs. But you are saying anyone who inflicts an injury on an alcoholic which requires surgical treatment in a hospital should not be held responsible for his death, if DTs cause his death. I repeat, crystal had the opportunity to make a case for self defense. She failed.

"To go to the absurd, say Crystal has tripped Daye and he was sent to hospital with a compound fracture of the arm that had to be set under general anaesthesia by an orthopaedic surgeon and this procedure put him at risk of a post-operative infection. If impending Delerium Tremens sent him to the Critical Care Unit where the fatal medical error occurred could, under a Welch precedent, Crystal be found guilty of murder."

More irrelevant clap trap. If crystal criminally caused Reginald Daye to fall and suffer an open fracture of his arm, if he had contracted an infection and died from it, she would have been criminally liable. Considering what you said earlier, and I quote, "It might well be an issue in jurisprudence of some importance since alcoholics like Daye seem to often become involved in deadly altercations and any hospitalization puts them at risk of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens", the occurrence of DTs would not have relieved crystal of criminal responsibility.

"The human foot can, if you stomp on somebodies head, also be a deadly weapon."

Irrelevant statement.

"Or to bring a real weapon into play say Crystal had picked up Daye's brass knuckles instead of the knives her had hurled at her and for dragging her by the hair and choking her put on the brass knuckles and smashed out his front teeth, requiring hospitalization and orthodontic surgery"

Again, it was crystal's statement that Reginald Daye had brass knuckles and had hurled knives. crystal had been a self serving liar before she murdered Reginald Daye. She made the statement after she was under arrest and facing criminal charges, and I repeat,it was not the first time in her life she had faced criminal charges.; June 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"Walt responding to "those who treated Daye needed to testify " said: Only to confirm the existing expert testimony' ....................................Are you sure Dr. Vaslef would do that?"

What makes a clinically ignorant individual so sure he wouldn't?; June 1, 2016 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: more from hissy fit:

"You know JSwift you are beginning to post a lot like Dr. Anonymous and engage in gratuitous ad hominem attacks. You just called me a stupid, indifferent and a whiner. This is not very productive to the conversation at hand."

The truth is not an ad hominem attack. The truth is, you are an individual totally ignorant of clinical medicine trying to render expert medical opinions.

This is opinion. Your motivation is that you want to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; June 1, 2016 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: more from hissy fit:

"@ Anonymous 10:25 I beg to differ(that Dr. Vaslef would agree with the opnions of Dr. Nichols and Dr.Roberts as to why Reginald Daye died).

You again trying to render an expert medical opinion.

What renders your begging a meaningful expert medical opinion? Nothing.; June 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: quote from hissy foit:

This is too good to pass up:

"It might well be an issue in jurisprudence of some importance since alcoholics like Daye seem to often become involved in deadly altercations and any hospitalization puts them at risk of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens"

hissy fit has admitted that the occurrence of DTs would not have relieved crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. crystal could not establish it happened in self defense. I believe that when self defense is put forward as a defense, it is the obligation of the defendant to establish it was self defense.; June 1, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Again, Dr. Roberts, in her report, addresses every issue Kenny and Sid raise from DTs, to infection, to esophageal intubation. She would have explained all of that on the stand as she repeatedly told Crystal she would, which is why she didn't feel she should be a witness, because she would be bad for Crystal.

They just seem to think she was/is lying.; June 1, 2016 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: And, it's unclear what "proof" Kenny has that no one talked to the surgeons. I am sure he will say that came from Crystal - but, like a lot of stuff he and Sid claim, they never provide proof she said it (like the plea which Meier specifically denied in his letter to Crystal - if that event really happened, Crystal has Meier lying to her in writing odd she isn't doing anything with it - kinda makes you think Sid is the one lying).

I am sure Dr. Vaslef would say what most doctors would say - we hoped he'd recover, we thought the surgery was successful, but shit happens, and he went south. It happens. Had he not been stabbed, he wouldn't have died, therefore the stabbing is A proximate cause of the death.; June 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt ... have you looked at Sid's response yet? Is it the brilliance piece of legal writing we have come to expect from him?; June 1, 2016 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "I am sure Dr. Vaslef would say what most doctors would say - we hoped he'd recover, we thought the surgery was successful, but shit happens, and he went south. It happens. Had he not been stabbed, he wouldn't have died, therefore the stabbing is A proximate cause of the death"............................................................................. We'll see, when Crystal gets her new trial and he is called to testify; June 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, we will see. Kenny, I suggest you hold your breath until she is granted a new trial.; June 1, 2016 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: more inane clap trap from hissy fit:

"Anonymous said: "I am sure Dr. Vaslef would say what most doctors would say - we hoped he'd recover, we thought the surgery was successful, but shit happens, and he went south. It happens. Had he not been stabbed, he wouldn't have died, therefore the stabbing is A proximate cause of the death"............................................................................. "We'll see, when Crystal gets her new trial"

crystal, as has been explained to your legaly ignorant mind, will not get a ew trial.

and he is called to testify"

check out:

http://surgery.duke.edu/faculty/details/0116507

Clinically ignorant hissy fit thinks he knows what this distinguished physician would say. Can anything be more ridiculous other than hissy fit himself.

hissy fit, what do your think about your admission that DTs would not relieve crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.

It is now a part of public record. I cn copy and paste your admission whenever I want.; June 1, 2016 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: more for hissy fit.

No clinical training, no clinical experience, clinically ignorant hissy fit, who never saw Reginald Daye actually thinks he knows more about Reginald Daye than the board certified anesthesiologist/surgeon.critical care specialist who actually treated Reginald Daye.

Is there any wonder why no one respects hissy fit?; June 1, 2016 at 4:59 PM
Kenny the Troll said...: Anonymous 4:59:

Kenny does not actually think he knows more. He is playing a game, and you fell for it.; June 1, 2016 at 5:10 PM
Kenny the Troll said...: Anonymous 4:46:

Kenny does not actually think he knows more. He is playing a game, and you fell for it.; June 1, 2016 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: more anonymous harr/hissyfit/kilgo temper tantrums.; June 1, 2016 at 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, Sid doesn't say Crystal is getting a new trial, he says she is getting a total exoneration ... Is Sid wrong? Are you disagreeing with your hero?; June 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It is now a part of public record. I cn copy and paste your admission whenever I want" ..................Go for it.; June 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "No clinical training, no clinical experience, clinically ignorant hissy fit, who never saw Reginald Daye actually thinks he knows more about Reginald Daye than the board certified anesthesiologist/surgeon.critical care specialist who actually treated Reginald Daye. ".......................... No I certainly do not but, I do think Dr.Vaslef knows that Reginald Daye did not have a post-surgical intra-abdominal infection following his successful treatment of Daye. I do believe, however, Dr. Vaslef is far more qualified then is Dr. Anonymous and unlike Dr. Anonymous and Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts for that matter he has seen and treated this person.; June 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 14 days.

There are 28 days left until the end of June.

You have 213 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 40 days since April 23rd, 79 days since the Ides of March and 3,274 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 2, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Anonymous said...: more inane clap trap from hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "No clinical training, no clinical experience, clinically ignorant hissy fit, who never saw Reginald Daye actually thinks he knows more about Reginald Daye than the board certified anesthesiologist/surgeon.critical care specialist who actually treated Reginald Daye. ".......................... No I certainly do not but, I do think Dr.Vaslef knows that Reginald Daye did not have a post-surgical intra-abdominal infection following his successful treatment of Daye."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you can think. trying desperately to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes does not qualify as thinking.

"I do believe, however, Dr. Vaslef is far more qualified then is Dr. Anonymous and unlike Dr. Anonymous and Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts for that matter he has seen and treated this person."

You forgot to add, unlike kenny hissy fit he has seen and treated this person, unlike kenny hissy fit he is capable of knowing what happened to this person, and unlike Dr. Vaselef and me you are not capable of knowing what happened to this person.

I agree Dr.Vaselef is more qualified than I ever was. However, I am more qualified and more knowledgeable than you ever will be.; June 2, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ June 1, 2016 at 5:10 PM and June 1, 2016 at 5:11 PM:

"
Kenny does not actually think he knows more. He is playing a game, and you fell for it."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that kenny hissy fit is clever enough to play games.; June 2, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...: more rom hissy fit:

"Anonymous said: "It is now a part of public record. I cn copy and paste your admission whenever I want" ..................Go for it."

So hissy fit will not even try to deny thatDT's, if they were present, would not have relieved crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.

I remind hissy fit that crystaldid have the opportunity to make a case for self defense and failed to do so.; June 2, 2016 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Unless you are just wildly master debating again, I would urge you to get an affidavit from Dr. Vaslef stating that he successfully treated Mr. Daye, that he had no cause to suspect that Mr. Daye might have a post-surgical intra-abdominal infection and that Mr. Daye's death was completely unrelated to and not in any way caused by the knife wound inflicted by Mangum.

If Dr. Vaslef believes these things, he must be flabbergasted at the injustice heaped on Mangum. He will be anxious to give you an affidavit to set the record straight and more than willing to assist you in addressing and rectifying this gross miscarriage of justice. Such an affidavit would be instrumental in reversing Mangum's conviction and getting her a new trial.

Let us know what Dr. Vaslef tells you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 2, 2016 at 5:19 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "We'll see, when Crystal gets her new trial..."

There will be no new trial. Crystal with Sid's help lost her best and only chance at that when she withdrew her 403(b) argument on appeal. Not that it had a great chance, but still better than the ill-informed, poorly argued, unsupported brief she did file. It has been explained to you, more than once, that a motion for appropriate relief is the only other course open to Crystal and she hasn't filed that either.

"... and he [Dr. Vaslef] is called to testify[.]"

Dr. Vaslef will not be testifying or giving an affidavit. He is prohibited from doing so under state and federal law: Section 8C-1, Rule 501 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Brandis on NC Evidence Section 54 and the Health Insurance Portability and Patient Protection Act. Of course, if you are as smart as you think you are, you already know that.

Walt-in-Durham; June 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: And, of course, Kenny and Sid could just get a waiver from Crystal and ask the attorneys. They probably wouldn't respond, but Sid did try at one point, apparently. I guess Crystal never actually granted permission.

But, Kenny is sure Meier still lurks here because of posts made years ago, and a response to a letter Crystal wrote him, which Sid posted, but then oddly deleted and has never put back up - perhaps because it contradicted much of what he is saying.

So, the fact Meier won't randomly respond to Kenny is proof he has something to hide. Cowardly Kenny can't be bothered to actually send an e-mail and try to get direct contact - he has to hide behind his keyboard and bleat like a stuck pig.

Mark Twain had Cowardly Kenny just right: Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let them think you are an idiot than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.; June 2, 2016 at 7:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Cowardly Kenny can't be bothered to actually send an e-mail and try to get direct contact - he has to hide behind his keyboard"...................... Does anybody other then me see the irony here.; June 2, 2016 at 8:10 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said "Of course, if you are as smart as you think you are, you already know that"............................... Can I assume this is directed to your cohort The Sausage King as well?; June 2, 2016 at 8:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Cowardly Kenny can't be bothered to actually send an e-mail and try to get direct contact" - Mark Twain said: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"; June 2, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: No irony Cowardly Kenny - the fact this is anonymous doesn't matter, I'm not the one screaming for answers - I think it's all been laid out clearly. You are the one with issues/questions but are too cowardly to ask.; June 2, 2016 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Curious post from hissy fit:

"Anonymous said: "Cowardly Kenny can't be bothered to actually send an e-mail and try to get direct contact" - Mark Twain said: 'Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please'".

Hissy fit has a record of not getting facts straight.

nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape.

When nifong got no DNA evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player with rape, he charged them with sexual assault.

nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence recovered from crystal in the wake of her rape allegation.

Dr. Julie Manly was an experienced gynecologist.

The police investigation was botched because the identities of the men who had deposited DNA on crystal were never determined, forgetting that nifong controlled the police investigation and had custody of the DNA evidence.

Followed by:

nifong did not determine the identities of the men who left their DNAon crystal because he believed he could convict members of the Lacrosse team without DNA evidence. It should be noted, the sexual assault of which, according to hissy fit, he was trying to convict the Lacrosse team players was initially described by crystal as a gang rape in which multiple males not wearing condoms had assaulted her, penetrated her and ejaculated on her.

hissy fit also said nifong, who had concealed the DNA evidence and who ignored crystal for almost 9 months after the alleged crime allegedly happened, was fighting for justice for crystal.; June 2, 2016 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: hey hissy fit:

Have you ever personally talked to Dr. Vaselef about the case. If not, you have no direct knowledge of what he would have said if he had testified. And you are not capable of speculating meaningfully on what he would have said, even if you were not totally and completely ignorant about clinical medicine.; June 2, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Can I assume this is directed to your cohort The Sausage King as well?"

In case it's not clear, I was directing my comments at Kenyhderal. Abe was baiting you.

Walt-in-Durham; June 2, 2016 at 10:12 AM
kenhyderal said...: The good Doctor's name is spelled Vaslef.; June 2, 2016 at 10:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: "Many fish bites if you got good bait" Taj Mahal; June 2, 2016 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: rom hissy fit:

"The good Doctor's name is spelled Vaslef."

Correct ion noted.

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

Have you ever personally talked to Dr. Vaslef?; June 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: Does anybody other then me see the irony here[?]

As one of only three posters (in addition to Kenny and Sidney) who has completely disclosed his identity, I feel well qualified to address Kenny's question.

Kenny is undoubtedly referring to the fact that the poster he quoted posts anonymously and has not disclosed his (or her) identity. Kenny equates anonymity with "cowardice." There is some validity to this opinion.

However, the anonymous poster and Kenny have radically different goals (or professed goals).

Based on the information available, the anonymous poster does not view Mangum's conviction as a miscarriage of justice and thus is not seeking to overturn it. The anonymous poster participates on this blog to correct misstatements of fact and to counter unsupported opinions provided by Sidney, Kenny and several other posters who have left. In addition, it can be fun mocking the ridiculous statements made by other posters. Although the poster can be criticized for not disclosing his identify, particularly when calling others "cowardly," the anonymous poster nevertheless achieves his goals.

Kenny professes to believe that Mangum's conviction is a miscarriage of justice and he professes to seek to overturn it. However, except for his posting on this blog under his disclosed identity of Kenneth D. Edwards, we are not aware of other contributions he has made to achieving his objectives. Indeed, he has several times expressed his decision to rely on Sidney for achieving these goals. As we are all aware, his posts on this blog have been limited to expressing his unsupported opinions, displaying impressive Google skills (frequently for irrelevant subjects raised by other posters), engaging in "what if" speculation, defending and rationalizing Mangum's behavior and statements, and creating ridiculous hypotheses, such as the one involving mystery rapists. He did nothing on this blog to discourage Sidney from convincing Magnum to fire her attorneys and defend herself against first degree murder charges.

In sum, Kenny's posts on this blog do nothing to help Magnum, but they are wildly successful in annoying other posters and provoking often childish reactions. Engaging in this activity under his real name displays courage.

Kenny, did I get it right?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; June 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: hey hisst fit, answer the question.

How do you, a completely, totally, utterly clinically ignorant individual who has never actually seen Reginald Daye under treatment and who has never talked directly to Dr. Vaslef know what Dr. Vaslef would say under oath?; June 2, 2016 at 12:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Communications I have with third parties, including Dr. Vaslef and for that matter Crystal Mangum, are private and the content of those discussions will not be posted here except with the express consent of that third party.; June 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: 679 hours 44 minutes.; June 2, 2016 at 1:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift; How can one anonymously be a "Fact-Checker" If he is here as a fact checker let him come out identify himself and provide some documentation. Instead he resorts to name-calling and ridicule. I am here for a cause not to mock and make fun of anyone. I don't have the Christian forbearance of Dr. Harr so when I'm attacked "I don't turn the other cheek"; June 2, 2016 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: more inane clap trap from hissy fit:

"Communications I have with third parties, including Dr. Vaslef and for that matter Crystal Mangum, are private and the content of those discussions will not be posted here except with the express consent of that third party."

The question asked and dodge is, have you talked personally to Dr.Vaslef, not, what did Dr. Youslef tell you. Your dodge says loudly and clearly you have not talked to Dr. Vaslef and therefore do not have a clue as to what he would have said had he testified.; June 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: more for hissy fit:

As Wslt in Durham has pointed out, there are laws regulating to whom a physician may release medical information. You were not related to Reginald Daye. You are not legally entitled to have any information from his clinical record. So, even if you had talked to Dr. Vaslef, and yoyr recent dodge says you haven't, he would not release any information to you without the permission of Reginald Daye's family. Considering your agenda is to get crystal a pass for murdering Reginald Daye and you have made a number of uncorroborated statements about Reginald Daye which are probably defamatory, I dubt the Daye family would give Dr. Vaslef permission to release his information to you.

The bottom line is, you haven't got a clue as to what Dr. Vaslef would have said had he testified.; June 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I have absolutely no idea what you are asking in your 1:27 post.

I don't believe that you are "here for a cause" as you claim. If you were, you would modify your arguments to reflect some of the well-founded criticism of them. Instead, you adopt a smug attitude and question the motivation of your critics.

Your professed care for Crystal's well being was exposed as a sham when you failed to criticize Harr's decision to convince Magnum to fire her attorneys and represent herself. No genuine friend would allow their friend to represent themselves against felony charges and take legal advice from someone like Sidney. I agree that he may be well-meaning, but he has consistently demonstrated appallingly flawed legal judgment and an unwillingness or inability to learn from his mistakes.

In your pretended support of Sidney and refusal to provide him advice, you mock him, in much the same way BreaK did earlier. Magnum is hurt when no one Sidney trusts offers criticism.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; June 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: I have communicated with Dr. Vaslef. He has not provided me with any confidential medical information about his patient the late Reginald Daye nor would he ever do so.; June 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM
No More Fake than the Real Kenhyderal said...: Kenhyderal -- Your entire "persona" is fake. There is no "Ken Edwards", AKA "kenhyderal" from Dubai or Canada outside of this website and an account created to post 1 question to Yahoo. No other social media (no LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook or Instagram)

How disingenuous of you to accuse others of being anonymous and demand they reveal themselves.; June 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: More inane clap trap from hissy fit:

"I have communicated with Dr. Vaslef. He has not provided me with any confidential medical information about his patient the late Reginald Daye nor would he ever do so."

So why do you claim you believe that Dr. Vaslef would have contradicted Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts as to how and why Reginald Daye died. Call this an ad hominem attack if you will, but the truth is you are incapable of understanding a clinical surgical situation such as a stab wound which lacerated the colon. You have never performed surgery in your life, you have never taken care of a post operative patient in your life.

You admit Dr. Vaslef gave you no information upon which you can base your belief.

So far as you communicating with Dr. Vaslef, most likely what happened is you tried to talk to him, and when he realized who you were and why you wanted to talk to him he told you to get lost.; June 2, 2016 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I also spoke with Dr. Vaslef, and he denied having spoken with anyone named Ken Edwards.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; June 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: You really can't help but engage in ad hominem attacks albeit more couched then Dr. Anonymous. Unbelievable, smug, an ungenuine sham ,a pretender, a mocker. As I once told Walt Vann and Shella did absolutely nothing for Crystal, leaving her to rot in gaol for months. It took weekly begging on her part to even get either of them to come and visit her and hoping perhaps get her bail reduced to something her friends and family could afford so she could see her children. She objected strongly to Holmes leaving. It was the State of North Carolina, notorious for not giving an accused a speedy trial that caused all the delay. The deck is really stacked against indigent defendants because the Lawyers assigned to their cases unethically see it as a necessary nuisance and one that costs their business money and takes their time away from more lucrative work for their wealthy clients.; June 2, 2016 at 3:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said" "Kenhyderal -- Your entire "persona" is fake. There is no "Ken Edwards", AKA "kenhyderal" from Dubai or Canada outside of this website and an account created to post 1 question to Yahoo. No other social media (no LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook or Instagram) Kenhyderal is a user name one I've used on Dr. Harr's blog and also on my e-mail account. As far as me being on social media well you need to improve your google skills. I am on Facebook and on Linkedin; June 2, 2016 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: From kenny hissy fit:

"@ JSwift: You really can't help but engage in ad hominem attacks albeit more couched then Dr. Anonymous. Unbelievable, smug, an ungenuine sham ,a pretender, a mocker."

hissy fit's reaction to the truth, that he is completely, totally, utterly ignorant about clinical medicine, that he dodges issues, and that he really is not knowkledgeable about anything.

The rest of his post is but another iteration of his campaign to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; June 2, 2016 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: more from hissy fit:

"As far as me being on social media well you need to improve your google skills. I am on Facebook and on Linkedin".

You need to improve your claim about fact checking. You do not deal in facts. You deal in fantasies, motivated by your desire to get your favoritr murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; June 2, 2016 at 4:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 2, 2016 at 4:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "he is completely, totally, utterly ignorant about clinical medicine"......... About like anyone who has not graduated in Medicine. I did not however just fall off the turnip truck and I am capable of making informed judgements; June 2, 2016 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: "I am capable of making informed judgements"

Really? Most would beg to differ. Your mystery rapist hypothesis disqualifies you.; June 2, 2016 at 4:34 PM
A Lawyer said...: "Many fish bites if you got good bait" Taj Mahal

"Fishin' Blues" was actually written by Henry Thomas and first recorded by him in the 1920s. It was also later recorded by the Lovin' Spoonful in the 1960s.; June 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Thanks for the information A Lawyer I am an aficionado of blues, early dixieland jazz and rag music; June 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: more inane claptrap from hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "he is completely, totally, utterly ignorant about clinical medicine"......... About like anyone who has not graduated in Medicine. I did not however just fall off the turnip truck and I am capable of making informed judgements".

Most of the decisions you have made, like there were mystery rapists, you know what Dr. Vaslef would have testified, that Reginald Daye was at no greater risk for infection than any other surgical patient were decisions based on alack of information.

No you haven't shown you can make informed decisions. Your decisions show you can not comprehend the information.; June 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit again:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "he is completely, totally, utterly ignorant about clinical medicine"......... About like anyone who has not graduated in Medicine. I did not however just fall off the turnip truck and I am capable of making informed judgements"

harr has graduated in medicine. He is as clueless about clinical medicine as yo are. Yet you have referred to him as a distinguished former physician.

It is another bit of evidence that you do not make informed decisions. His chanting that the prognosis was for a full recovery demonstrates that. harr is trying to say there was no possibility of complications after the Surgical procedure was over.

Call that an ad hominem attack against harr. The facts are, harr was never accepted into residency training, he has never achieved medical specialty certification,and he devoted most of his 17 year post medical school career to filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. That is not what makes a medical school graduate a distinguished former physician. If harr were to try to testify as an expert medical witness, he would not be allowed to do so because his expertise does not exist.; June 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Morefor hissy fit:

You say you can make informed decisions.

You are given accurate inf0rmation about the situation. It does not fit your pre conceived ideas. So you decide to disregard the information in favor of what you believe. If you disregard the true, accurate information about a situatin, you simply can not make an informed decision about the situation.

Blast fro the past.

The DNA found on crystal's person post Lacrosse party.

Both prosecution and defense agreed that every party had been identified. The DNA of the party attendees did not match theDNA found on crystal. The only credible explanation is that no one at the party raped crystal.

You come up with the idea of mystery rapists. Again, when challenged to provide evidence of mystery rapists, you come up with, kilgo told you he has a friend who witnessed the mystery rapists. When you made that statement, you could not verify that statement. As I recall, your response to that situation was, no one can prove there weren't mystery rapists.

Again, you refuse to accept the information you were given. So you made a rather uninformed decision about the situation.

And you are doing the same thing with the murder of Reginald Daye.; June 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM
A Lawyer said...: I am an aficionado of blues, early dixieland jazz and rag music

Cool, me too.; June 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 2, 2016 at 9:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: Both prosecution and defense agreed that every party had been identified. The DNA of the party attendees did not match the DNA found on crystal. The only credible explanation is that no one at the party raped crystal....................................
Has anybody ever seen a list of those who were present. Are you convinced that only Players and two Guests were in attendance. Why were Players know not to be in attendance and even out of town or out of State tested. Two guests seen in photographs, by necessity, were tested. Some Players known to be present at the party never appeared in any photographs. If it was stipulated that all attendees were identified why has no one ever seen a list. Kilgo was told by a Player that there were, not two, but dozens of non-players present and at the time of the dance may have even out-numbered the actual players present.; June 2, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I have seen the list.; June 3, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Anonymous said...: more inane clap trap from kenny hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous said: Both prosecution and defense agreed that every party had been identified. The DNA of the party attendees did not match the DNA found on crystal. The only credible explanation is that no one at the party raped crystal....................................
"Has anybody ever seen a list of those who were present."

Have you? If you have not, you have no evidence that more than two were present.

"Are you convinced that only Players and two Guests were in attendance."

I say again, you may not be convinced but you have no evidence there were any more non lacrosse player attendees. Without evidence you are offering only uncorroborated allegations. If there were more than two guests and a number of attendees, provide factual evidence. You are asserting. You must prove.

"Why were Players know not to be in attendance and even out of town or out of State tested."

The answer to that is a matter of public record. The NTO obtained by the DA's office required that all Caucasian players be tested, because crystal said her attackers were white. I say again, if you did not know that you were ignorant. If you did and you make that statement anyway, you are trying to fabricate, present as truth something for which you have no evidence.

"Two guests seen in photographs, by necessity, were tested. Some Players known to be present at the party never appeared in any photographs."

I say again, the NTO obtained by the DA's office ordered all Caucasian Lacrosse team players to be tested because crystal alleged white men had raped her. Did you know that? If you did not, and it was a matter of public record, you are ignorant. If you did and are still trying to fabricate an issue, trying to lie in other words.

"If it was stipulated that all attendees were identified why has no one ever seen a list."

Why would there be a list? You have never thought about that. How many informal college parties keep lists of attendees?

end part 1; June 3, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: part 2

"Kilgo was told by a Player that there were, not two, but dozens of non-players present and at the time of the dance may have even out-numbered the actual players present."

I say again, you made an assertion, that kilgo told you that a player told him about non Lacrosse player attendees. You did not make that assertion until you were challenged to present evidence that there were unidentified party attendees, and you made that assertion after kilgo had stopped posting on J4N and had dekleted all his posts. You made an assertion which could not be verified. An unverifiable assertion is not factual evidence.

I think you will agree with this. Identifying the men who had left their DNA on crystal could have identified who had perpetrated the alleged rape. The DA's office, in requesting the NTO, said that the DNA found would ID the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. I have pointed out to you, have I not, that nifong had custody of that DNA evidence. I asked you why nifong concealed the evidence rather than trace it back to its sources. You have given two replies. First you claimed nifong did not conceal the evidence Second, you claimed nifong believed he could convict members of the Lacrosse team of sexual assault without having DNA evidence. Both explanations were not explanations but dodges.

One can only speculate. You have said that the timing of the DNA deposition could not be determined. Well, if the DNA matched DNA of men with whom crystal had associated before the party, it would have established that the DNA had been deposited before the party, that no DNA had been deposited on crystal at the party. That would have exonerated anyone who had attended the party.

So again I ask, why did nifong conceal the evidence rather than trace it back to its sources? That suggests that nifong, who you have said was fighting for justice for crystal, and who wanted to convict lacrosse team members of raping crystal, did not actually believe crystal had been raped by anyone at the party.

It all adds up to, again, you get information. It does not fit your guilt presuming assumptions. You reject it for uncorroborated allegations you concoct. Yet you claim you are capable of making informed decisions.; June 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Kenny,

I have absolutely no idea what you are asking in your 1:27 post.

I don't believe that you are "here for a cause" as you claim. If you were, you would modify your arguments to reflect some of the well-founded criticism of them. Instead, you adopt a smug attitude and question the motivation of your critics.

Your professed care for Crystal's well being was exposed as a sham when you failed to criticize Harr's decision to convince Magnum to fire her attorneys and represent herself. No genuine friend would allow their friend to represent themselves against felony charges and take legal advice from someone like Sidney. I agree that he may be well-meaning, but he has consistently demonstrated appallingly flawed legal judgment and an unwillingness or inability to learn from his mistakes.

In your pretended support of Sidney and refusal to provide him advice, you mock him, in much the same way BreaK did earlier. Magnum is hurt when no one Sidney trusts offers criticism.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

What you fail to acknowledge is that in the end, Mangum was represented by an attorney and look what happened... she got convicted of second degree murder. If Mangum would have studied her case and worked with me, she could have at least ended up with a mistrial, if not an outright acquittal. For starters, as a Pro Se she wouldn't've allowed three jurors to be seated who had ties to Duke University, and she would have fought to have the juror guilty of misconduct to be removed. She also could've moved, once again for the judge to have the written Roberts report turned over to her much sooner than it eventually was (a couple of days prior to the verdict), and she would've been more likely to have seen the 18-page document from Dr. Nichols' personnel file which Judge Ridgeway designated as being "for attorney eyes only."

One thing is crystal clear, had she represented herself she could not have done any worse than Meier.; June 3, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 13 days.

There are 27 days left until the end of June.

You have 212 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 41 days since April 23rd, 80 days since the Ides of March and 3,275 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 3, 2016 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Mangum could have actually listened to her attorneys and followed their advice. Had she done that she likely would have been out of prison by now.

I will defer to Walt and A Lawyer on this, but I thought she had a decent case for manslaughter, right up to the point she took the stand.

The bottom line is that Mangum did exactly what you told her to do every step of the way. Stop blaming the system and other people for your and Mangum's bad decisions. It is unbecoming and not at all effective.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 3, 2016 at 4:37 AM
Walt said...: Abe Froman wrote: "I will defer to Walt and A Lawyer on this, but I thought she had a decent case for manslaughter, right up to the point she took the stand."

I agree. I divide Crystal's testimony into two parts. One, where she testified truthfully about the checks. And, the rest where she lied repeatedly. The first part, she was carefully questioned by Meier and obviously well prepared. In that truthful part, she effectively told her story about the checks. The jury obviously believed her; as did I.

However, when it came to the rest of the crime, she chose to start telling lies. While I don't know what Meier told her in his confidential preparation sessions, I am certain he admonished her to tell the truth. From his questions, it is clear that he carefully structured her testimony to limit the state's scope of cross examination. Unfortunately, Crystal's answers to his questions were so obviously false that the state had plenty of cross examination. Of course, the state took advantage of Crystal's falsehoods to render most of her testimony unreliable in the eyes of the jury.

If I have a criticism of Meier it is not stopping his direct examination with the checks questions. However, I think that Crystal forced him to question her about the rest of the matter. He did the best he could with her demand to testify about the stabbing. She convicted herself.

Walt-in-Durham; June 3, 2016 at 6:15 AM
Walt said...: Since Sid and Kenny like to ignore what went on at the trial, here is a copy of my thoughts from Dr. Nichols' testimony at the trial: Daniel Meier, the defense counsel did a good job of cross examining Nichols. He pointed out the inconsistencies between Nichols' findings and the medical records. Specifically Meier pointed out the lack of report on the lung wound or the kidney wound. He brought up the issue of a chest tube. Nichols said very plainly that there were wounds that were sutured regardless of what the post operative report did not say. He also said there was no chest tube in the left side. All told, Nichols was very convincing in his presentation.

Now, the defense will have to bring an expert to attempt to refute Nichols' testimony. However, we know from the breach of attorney - client confidentiality by a supposed supporter of Mangum's that the defense expert agrees with Dr. Nichols. Thus, it will be very difficult for the defense to make a case for an intervening cause.

Those comments are from my blog http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/11/dr-clay-nichols-testifies.html

And here are some of my comments about Crystal's testimony: Just now getting around to watching Crystal testify.

Funniest line: "It was understood I had a lot of male friends."

Shiftiest look: too many to count. But, every time she gets to a difficult question, she looks away from the jury." This is why it is so very important to get your testimony right. The jury and the jury alone gets to judge the truthfulness of a witness. Courts of appeal put great weight on those jury decisions about the truthfulness of witnesses. When a witness can't or won't look at the jury, they tend not to believe the witness.

The police officer in the parking lot, there's something missing in her testimony. She goes up to him and asks the PO to take her to her "aunt's." For no reason. Hmmmm....there's something missing there.

Then she goes into him hitting her. She never looks at the jury. She does look at the ceiling.

She describes getting her face scratched, but where are the scratches?

The mattress got pulled off the bed? Yet, the police reports and photos have the mattress on the bed. Did Daye, wounded, put the mattress back?

First she says she's hiding behind the knives in the kitchen, then she says she was hiding behind the mattress. She says Daye was throwing knives. But, Daye was not a violent person. Cannot explain how knives got to living room.

Did not call for help.

Kicked in one door, but he entered through the other? Really? Two doors, one gets kicked in, but he uses the other? This dog just don't hunt.

Crystal admits cheating on Daye, many times.

Poked him in the side. Poked? That's what you call an admission against interest.

Can't remember times.

She does smile when she talks about James Williams, the jailer. James told her not to give him any head.

After stabbing Daye, she calls James Williams, her baby daddy and her friend Larry. Finally she called 9-1-1.

Admits to being afraid of the police.

Lied to the police about her address. Can't explain why. Says it was due to past traumatic events.

how afraid were you? In defenseive mode, just trying to survive, but did not intend to kill. That's a problem."

That from: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/11/crystal-mangum-testifies.html

Walt-in-Durham; June 3, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: inane clap trap from harr:

"What you fail to acknowledge is that in the end, Mangum was represented by an attorney and look what happened... she got convicted of second degree murder."

Because she killed Reginald Dayr, and not in self defense. Your advocacy for Shan Carter shows you don't know what self defense is.

"If Mangum would have studied her case and worked with me, she could have at least ended up with a mistrial, if not an outright acquittal."

Unlikely, knowing your track record of filing and losing frivolous lawsuits, and mangum's track record of making conflicting, contradictory statements. She also has a track record of being a self serving liar, e.g. the account given in her book of the cab stealing incident, an account totally out of sync with the police reports, which were generated before became the victimizer/false accuser in the Due Rape hoax.

"For starters, as a Pro Se she wouldn't've(sic) allowed three jurors to be seated who had ties to Duke University,"

She still would have shot herself down when she testified, no matter who the jurors were. And this presumes a fact not in evidence, that the agenda was to shield Duke from the consequences of its mal[ractice. What happened did not rise to the level of malpractice. You are singularly uqualified to recognize medical malpractice.

"and she would have fought to have the juror guilty of misconduct to be removed."

What made the juror guilty of misconduct? Your opinion? Or maybe you just proclaimed that juror guilty. like you have repeatedly proclaimed the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players guilty. Your opinions and proclamations have no legal weight.

"She also could've moved, once again for the judge to have the written Roberts report turned over to her much sooner than it eventually was (a couple of days prior to the verdict),"

Which means only that it would have become known to the prosecution before the start of the trial that the defense's expert agreed with the prosecution/s expert. Or maybe you would have adopted the hissy fit strategy, putting thr defense's expert on the stand and trying to impeach her testimony-in other words emphasizing that the defense's expert agreed with the prosecution's expert.

"and she would've been more likely to have seen the 18-page document from Dr. Nichols' personnel file which Judge Ridgeway designated as being "for attorney eyes only."

She and you would still have been barred from making it public. Which you probably would have done anyway, earning yourself some significant penalties for contempt.

"One thing is crystal clear, had she represented herself she could not have done any worse than Meier."

The only thing crystal clear is you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.; June 3, 2016 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, I talked to Kilgo and he says he talked to Meier and Meier would love to talk, but says you'd need to reach out to him. Since we all know how trustworthy random comments from Kilgo are it must be true.; June 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM
No More Fake than the Real Kenhyderal said...: Provide the links to your facebook and LinkedIn accounts, Kenny.; June 3, 2016 at 12:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Is that a command or a request? Actually I already have more Facebook Followers then I need and Linkedin is jamming up my mailbox daily with invitations to connect; June 3, 2016 at 1:09 PM
No More Fake than the Real Kenhyderal said...: In other words, you chose to remain anonymous. Thanks for the clarification. You can stop bitching about other anonymous posters now.; June 3, 2016 at 1:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: Enter Your Member Number
Monday, July 14, 2003 8:04 PM
Mark as Unread

From:
"service@paypal.com"
To:
kenhyderal

Full Headers Printable View
Dear KEN EDWARDS,

This is a reminder that we need you to enter your Member Number.

The credit card to which we sent the Member Number was added to
your PayPal account on 15 July 2003, and ends in 2010.

Until you enter your Member Number, you may be limited in the amount of
money you are able to send. To find out how much you can send before entering
your Member Number:

1. Log in to your PayPal account

2. Click the View Limits link next to the yellow Balance box
(if there is not a View Limits link, your account has no Sending Limit)

3. Your sending limit will appear beneath the 'Sending Limit' heading

How to enter your Member Number
PayPal has charged a $1.95 membership fee to your credit card. You can
obtain and enter your Member Number by following the steps below:

1. In the item description section of your next credit card
statement, your 4-digit Member Number will be printed next
to the $1.95 PayPal Membership Fee. Check your next
statement to find your unique Member Number.

2. Click the link below and type in your unique Member Number:

https://www.paypal.com/MEM-NUMBER

If you access your credit card statement online, it may take up to 4
business days for your Member Number to appear. If you don't have
online access to your credit card statement, please wait for your
printed statement to arrive in the mail.*

You will be able to use this funding source after you have successfully
entered your Member Number.

Remember, completing your membership is one of the requirements for
receiving your $5 New Account bonus.

Sincerely,
PayPal Credit Card Services

* PayPal strongly discourages users from calling their credit card; June 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You are funny. Ha, ha, ha.; June 3, 2016 at 3:46 PM
Ken Edwards Supporter said...: I am one of Ken Edwards' many Facebook Followers. The man is a legend in Bremerton.; June 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: kenhyderal said...
TGK said: "kenhyderal: I sent my e-mail address to justice4nifong@gmail.com two weeks ago and have not heard from you. Care to explain"..................... Dr. Harr can you comment on this? You do have my permission to forward this e-mail to me.

May 30, 2016 at 9:02 AM

Another week has gone by kenny and I have not heard from you. Your are a fraud and a coward and I have no choice but to share my information with Malek Williams.; June 3, 2016 at 7:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: I knew the Great Kilgo. The Great Kilgo was a friend of mine. You are no Great Kilgo; June 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 12 days.

There are 26 days left until the end of June.

You have 211 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 42 days since April 23rd, 81 days since the Ides of March and 3,276 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 4, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Abe Froman wrote: "I will defer to Walt and A Lawyer on this, but I thought she had a decent case for manslaughter, right up to the point she took the stand."

I agree. I divide Crystal's testimony into two parts. One, where she testified truthfully about the checks. And, the rest where she lied repeatedly. The first part, she was carefully questioned by Meier and obviously well prepared. In that truthful part, she effectively told her story about the checks. The jury obviously believed her; as did I.

However, when it came to the rest of the crime, she chose to start telling lies. While I don't know what Meier told her in his confidential preparation sessions, I am certain he admonished her to tell the truth. From his questions, it is clear that he carefully structured her testimony to limit the state's scope of cross examination. Unfortunately, Crystal's answers to his questions were so obviously false that the state had plenty of cross examination. Of course, the state took advantage of Crystal's falsehoods to render most of her testimony unreliable in the eyes of the jury.

If I have a criticism of Meier it is not stopping his direct examination with the checks questions. However, I think that Crystal forced him to question her about the rest of the matter. He did the best he could with her demand to testify about the stabbing. She convicted herself.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I couldn't disagree with you and Abe more regarding Mangum testifying on the stand. I believe that it was imparative. If you'll notice, her testimony was consistent and logical, whereas the cross-examination by Coggins-Franks was nothing more than leading questions about the prosecution scenario which was senseless. Mangum denied all those leading questions, however, an effective defense attorney would have objected to each of them (Perry Mason 101).

Now, Walt, since you admit that you agree about the cashier's checks, do you think that that charge should have been dismissed earlier? As you know, I have no access to a law library, but are you aware of any criminal case in which someone was prosecuted for unlawfully taking a cashier's check (or money order, etc.) that was filled out with the alleged thief being neither the payee nor remitter? I would bet dollars to donuts that no such ridiculous case has ever been taken to trial by a prosecutor... because even if the remitter did not possess the check physically, he would not lose his ability to redeem the amount of the check as long as he did so prior to the payee. Also, the so-called thief would never be able to convert the check to her own benefit. The charge, besides being trumped up, never made any sense... except to upgrade the murder charge to first degree using the "felony-murder rule."; June 4, 2016 at 4:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid,

Mangum could have actually listened to her attorneys and followed their advice. Had she done that she likely would have been out of prison by now.

I will defer to Walt and A Lawyer on this, but I thought she had a decent case for manslaughter, right up to the point she took the stand.

The bottom line is that Mangum did exactly what you told her to do every step of the way. Stop blaming the system and other people for your and Mangum's bad decisions. It is unbecoming and not at all effective.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Unfortunately, Mangum did listen to her attorneys. That's why she got convicted of second degree murder. Had she followed my advice she would've jettisoned her attorneys Holmes and Meier, studied her case - with my non-lawyerly assistance, of course, and represented herself in court. This did not happen, yet you want to blame me?

By the way, I need to get back to working on my sharlog. It should be completed in a couple of hours. It will be similar to the present megablog, except that it will contain more exhibits (those not included with the original filing), and it'll be presented in a different format and Flash.; June 4, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: inane clap trap from harr:

"Hey, Walt.

"I couldn't disagree with you and Abe more regarding Mangum testifying on the stand."

Which is a claim that you are some kind of legal expert. Your track record of filing and losing frivolous lawsuita shows you are not.

"I believe that it was imparative. If you'll notice, her testimony was consistent and logical,"

No it wasn't. Again, considering your track record, things like claiming nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidenc, that the evidence nifong did conceal was not exculpatory, you are incapable of understanding what is logical and consistent.

"whereas the cross-examination by Coggins-Franks was nothing more than leading questions about the prosecution scenario which was senseless. Mangum denied all those leading questions, however, an effective defense attorney would have objected to each of them (Perry Mason 101)."

Naturally crystal would have denied any hard evidence which proved she had murdered Reginald Daye. Pointing out inconsistencies and non credibility in crystal's testimony is not an improper cross examination. As for Perry Mason 101, he, like your purported brilliance and legal acumen, is fiction.

"Now, Walt, since you admit that you agree about the cashier's checks, do you think that that charge should have been dismissed earlier? As you know, I have no access to a law library, but are you aware of any criminal case in which someone was prosecuted for unlawfully taking a cashier's check (or money order, etc.) that was filled out with the alleged thief being neither the payee nor remitter? I would bet dollars to donuts that no such ridiculous case has ever been taken to trial by a prosecutor... because even if the remitter did not possess the check physically, he would not lose his ability to redeem the amount of the check as long as he did so prior to the payee. Also, the so-called thief would never be able to convert the check to her own benefit. The charge, besides being trumped up, never made any sense... except to upgrade the murder charge to first degree using the 'felony-murder rule.'"

Irrelevant discussion. The fact, proven in open court, is that crystal murdered Reginald Daye. Your ignorance and lack of competence(established by your use of fictional Perry Mason as a reference) do not establish it was not.; June 4, 2016 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: ridiculous clap trap from harr:

"Hey, Abe.

"Unfortunately, Mangum did listen to her attorneys. That's why she got convicted of second degree murder. Had she followed my advice she would've jettisoned her attorneys Holmes and Meier, studied her case - with my non-lawyerly assistance, of course, and represented herself in court. This did not happen, yet you want to blame me?"

Why not blame you. I say again, your track record of filing and losing multiple frivolous lawsuits establishes you are anything but a competent, capable advocate. crystal did listen to you and not her attorneys and that compromised her defense. You, out of your ignorance, advised her that the state had no case and would drop the charges against her rather than go to trial.

"By the way, I need to get back to working on my sharlog. It should be completed in a couple of hours. It will be similar to the present megablog, except that it will contain more exhibits (those not included with the original filing), and it'll be presented in a different format and Flash."

In other words, a re presentation of the same old inane clap trap.; June 4, 2016 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Felony murder was never applicable, it wasn't charged to the jury. Sid is an idiot.

How does the defense object to leading questions on cross? That's what they are.

Sid is a joke, Kenny is a coward. The next shitlog will be nothing but the insane ramblings of a clearly deeply mentally ill and delusional old man who has fled from scandal to scandal and disgrace to disgrace in his life.; June 4, 2016 at 5:10 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Whoopee ! !

Remember the Good Old Days, Ubes ?

QUACK QUACK QUACK; June 4, 2016 at 7:26 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Ubes has once again lapsed into his notorious crank mode; June 4, 2016 at 7:27 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Ubes,

You ask really stoopid questions.

Maybe you should join the Liestoopids.

They can always use another crank.

While you are there, you can ask your
stoopid questions- maybe Quasi can help you.
Or are you Quasi?

Remember Ubes, it's all a vast evil conspiracy.; June 4, 2016 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Surprise surprise. More anonymous harr/hissy fit/kilgo temper tantrums.; June 4, 2016 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I should have said, more anonymous harr/hissy fit/kilgo impotent temper tantrums.; June 4, 2016 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT WARNING! AVISO!!

Clearly, it is obvious that many commenters are going to be terribly disappointed when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... hopefully sometime this month. Ergo, I would strongly advise that most of you die-hard Mangum/Nifong detractors get some preemptive psychological counseling... Right now would not be too soon to start. You, in particular, Abe. And as I recommended to y'all earlier, orders should be placed for crying towels. There will be a run on them in the not too distant future. Don't say you haven't been warned.

I just completed the sharlog... and will post it later today. Keep in mind that it contains the lawsuit against D.A. Freeman, so much of it will be repetitive with the current blog. It's value will be in the orderly presentation of exhibits (not necessarily included with the original filing.)

As you were.; June 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: more inane clap trap from harr:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT WARNING! AVISO!!"

Another iteration of, hey everyone pay attention to me.

"Clearly, it is obvious that many commenters are going to be terribly disappointed when Crystal Mangum is released and exonerated... hopefully sometime this month. Ergo, I would strongly advise that most of you die-hard Mangum/Nifong detractors get some preemptive psychological counseling... Right now would not be too soon to start. You, in particular, Abe. And as I recommended to y'all earlier, orders should be placed for crying towels. There will be a run on them in the not too distant future. Don't say you haven't been warned."

More wishful delusional thinking on the part of harr.

"I just completed the sharlog... and will post it later today. Keep in mind that it contains the lawsuit against D.A. Freeman, so much of it will be repetitive with the current blog. It's value will be in the orderly presentation of exhibits (not necessarily included with the original filing.)"

As I posted earlier, it will be another compendium of harr's inane claptrap.; June 4, 2016 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, I hope you have something other than your bullshit lawsuit against the Wake County DA fueling your comments about Mangum's exoneration. As has been explained - thay Judge has zero jurisdiction to do anything you are asking related to Mangum - so if that's why you think exoneration is at hand you are totally delusional and proving yourself just another abuser.

Do you and cowardly Kenny talk and plan who is gonna be the most pathetic loser and liar each day, or are you both so pathetic you just naturally trade off?

If Mangum is not exonerated by June 30'will you admit you are a fraud and go away?; June 4, 2016 at 10:55 AM
A Lawyer said...: If Mangum is not exonerated by June 30'will you admit you are a fraud and go away?

She won't, and he won't.; June 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Have you told Mangum about her imminent release? If so, what was her reaction? If not, why not?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 4, 2016 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: It is later in the day(8:47 Eastern time) and there is no sharlog.

Why am I not surprised?; June 4, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " If you'll notice, her testimony was consistent and logical,..."

No, it was not. She couldn't look at the jury when she got a hard question. Her version of hiding under the mattress was inconsistent with the crime scene photos. Her story about Daye breaking down one door and entering through another was just inconsistent.

"... whereas the cross-examination by Coggins-Franks was nothing more than leading questions..."

Leading questions are perfectly permissible on cross examination.

"... about the prosecution scenario which was senseless."

A scenario supported by the physical evidence as well as Daye's version of events.

"Mangum denied all those leading questions, however, an effective defense attorney would have objected to each of them (Perry Mason 101)."

Unlike Perry Mason, defense counsel lives and practices in the real world, not fiction. In our courts leading questions are perfectly allowable on cross examination.

"Now, Walt, since you admit that you agree about the cashier's checks, do you think that that charge should have been dismissed earlier?"

I have agreed for years that the larceny count was weak for the state. Further, I have written that I thought Kline, like Nifong engaged in reckless overcharging for years. However, I and A Lawyer have previously explained to you why there was no grounds for a motion to dismiss the larceny charges. It is disappointing that you have not learned from what A Lawyer and I have provided you. There are only six grounds for a motion to dismiss criminal charges: (1) speedy trial, (2) defective pleadings (that is somehow the charges are not signed by the grand jury foreperson or the District Attorney, or they don't state a crime in NC), (3) improper grand jury procedure, (4) lack of jurisdiction, (5) improper venue, or (6) double jeopardy. None of those grounds exist, so the court could not dismiss the larceny charge.

Consider yourself educated.

Walt-in-Durham; June 4, 2016 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: http://murderpedia.org/female.M/m/mangum-crystal.htm; June 4, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: About 5:30 AM on June 5 and no sharlog. Why am I not surprised?; June 5, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Give whites a pile of bricks and they will build a city.Give blacks a city and they will turn it into a pile of bricks.; June 5, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 11 days.

There are 25 days left until the end of June.

You have 210 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 43 days since April 23rd, 82 days since the Ides of March and 3,277 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; June 5, 2016 at 3:54 AM
guiowen said...: To the 3:16,
You should be ashamed of yourself.; June 5, 2016 at 4:55 AM
Walt said...: Guiowen wrote: "To the 3:16,
You should be ashamed of yourself."

Ding - Ding - Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!

Walt-in-Durham; June 5, 2016 at 6:39 AM
Anonymous said...: More than 24 hours since harr said he would post his next sharlog and still no sharlog. Again, why am I not turprised?; June 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Whoopee ! !

Remember the Good Old Days, Ubes ?

QUACK QUACK QUACK; June 7, 2016 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: another harr/hissy fit/kilgo anonymous impotent trmper tantrum.; June 8, 2016 at 6:22 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 743 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

743 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me