Friday, April 1, 2016

Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway: A major conspirator in the wrongful conviction of Crystal Mangum

372 comments:

1 – 200 of 372   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal ignorant liar posts a screed called "Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway: A major conspirator in the wrongful conviction of Crystal Mangum"

harr shows again he is incapable of comprende'ing anything.

As you allwere.

Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal ignorant liar again tries to promulgate the lie that the prosecution of crystal for murder was payback for her accusing the Lacrosse players of raping her. He omits the fact that crystal FALSELY ACCUSED THE LACROSSE PLAYERS OF RAPING HER.

harr has provided no evidence to support the allegation. When challenged to produce evidence he promulgates another ir, tha AG Cooper has sealed the case files. It has pointed out to harr thay AG Cooper does not have the authority to seal the files.

He also promulgates the lie that there is no evidence that crystal was not raped, ignoring the basic principle of law, in a criminal case it is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt she was raped.

Further, the evidence clearly indicates she was not raped. Again, crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple assailants injured her, penetrated her, and ejaculated on her, which would have resulted in DNA evidence. Analysis of the rape kit materials, by the State Crime Lab(which was once cited for bending the rules to favor the prosecutors), and DNA Security revealed that the only DNA found on crystal's person did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, did not match the DNA of any of the three members nifong had indicted, AFTER nifong was aware of the DNA results. The evidence was overwhelming that no crime ever happened.

harr cites the "carpetbagger jihad". He claims that AG Cooper began investigating nifong immediately after nifong initiated the prosecution of the Lacrosse players. The three Lacrosse defendants were indicted in ealy April 2006. The State Bar began its investigation of nifong in December of 2006. It filed its first set of ethics charges in December of 2006. It filed a second set of charges in January of 2007, after it was learned nifong had concealed exculpatory evidence from the defendants. harr also cites the statement by Rae Evans, that nifong had picked on the wrong families and would pay for it every day for the rest of his life. Mrs. Evans made that statement in late January of 2007, AFTER the State Bar had complete its investigations and filed the ethics charges.

Why does harr believe he tells the truth?

Anonymous said...

Kinda sad Sid is still trying to claim felony murder rule applies.

Anonymous said...

harr againclaims that the prosecution of crystal was retaliation for crystal's accusations of rape against the members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

harr neglects to mention that crystal FALSELY accused the members of the Lacrosse team of raping her. I have challenged harr to provide evidence that crystal was raped. The best he can come up with is, the AG, Roy Cooper sealed the case file. Walt and A Lawyer have pointed out to him that the AG does not have the power to seal a case file.

harr has also claimed that there is not evidence that crystal lied about being raped. harr forgets the fundamental principle of the US Justice System, of many Justice Systems, that it is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crystal told the truth when she made her allegations. That no one can prove her allegations were false is another example of harr holding up a straw fisherman with a red herring.

In any event the evidence generated in the case is overwhelming that crystal had not been raped, that no rape had occurred and that, therefore, crystal did lie about being raped.

crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple assailants injured her, penetrated her and ejaculated on her, leaving behind DNAe evidence.

The physical exam, conducted by Dr. Julie Manly, not by minimally trained uncetified SANE in training Tara Levicy. It showed no evidence of the trauma which the rape should hae left.

the State Crime lab analyzed the rape kit materials. Then, at nifong's behest, DNA Security analyzed the rape kit materials. The only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, any party attendee.

nifong concealed that evidence.

harr said that evidence was not exculpatory.

That evidence was exculpatory. It showed that no one at the Lacrosse party could have perpetrated the rape crystal alleged.

kenny will claim that no one developed a list of all the party attendees. His claim is based on kilgo who used to leave posts on this blog told him he had a friend who was a member of the Lacrosse team who witnessed a rape of crystal by non lacrosse player party attendees. kilgo since has vanished alonw with all his J4N posts so kenny cab bit dicynebt that kilgo ever said that to him. kilgo's lacrosse player friend has never materialized, in almost 10 years. So kenny can not document that this individual even exists. Meanwhile, not only the Defense counsels and the Prosecution say all the party attendees have been identified.

So let the readers decide wgether or not harr and kenny are credible.

Anonymous said...

Boy, harr, you are sure p---ed ad your total lack of effectiveness in your endeavors.

Anonymous said...

hey, harr:

Let's review this again, from a different angle.

crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple males injured her, penetrated her, ejaculated on her.

I remind you, yet again, the prosecutor had the obligation to prove crystal told the truth.

Analysis of the rape kit materials revealed that the only male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of the men actually charged with the actual crime.

Crystal's identifications of the three men were not reliable. Certainty does not equal reliability. In at least three prior lineups, crystal was not able to identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant.

In the 4th lineup, she identified Brad Ross with 100% certainty as having been present at the party. He wasn't.

So what proved crystal was telling the truth.

I remember, the statement that no one has proven she lied. That is something which has no legal weight. The prosecutor had to prove she was telling the truth.

What proved she was telling the truth.

The Great Kilgo said...

A warning to Ubes and other visitors to this blog:

Seek immediate medical help if you experience a liestopper crank meltdown lasting more than 4 hours.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
hey, harr:

Let's review this again, from a different angle.

crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple males injured her, penetrated her, ejaculated on her.

I remind you, yet again, the prosecutor had the obligation to prove crystal told the truth.

Analysis of the rape kit materials revealed that the only male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of the men actually charged with the actual crime.

Crystal's identifications of the three men were not reliable. Certainty does not equal reliability. In at least three prior lineups, crystal was not able to identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant.

In the 4th lineup, she identified Brad Ross with 100% certainty as having been present at the party. He wasn't.

So what proved crystal was telling the truth.

I remember, the statement that no one has proven she lied. That is something which has no legal weight. The prosecutor had to prove she was telling the truth.

What proved she was telling the truth.


Crystal Mangum has not been languishing in the hoosegow for the past four plus years due to anything that happened in 2006. It is my goal to have her freed and the trumped up murder conviction overturned. I am in position to achieve those objectives because I am in possession of prosecution discovery. For the record, I have no documents related to the Duke Lacrosse case, so I am not going to waste my time on it.

Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megaomaniacal ignorant liar, or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again to delude folks into believing they have goodness or decency.

Anonymous said...

harr:

Why did you waste so much effort on your last post.

All you had to do was admit you know nothing about the Duke Rape Hoax, and you can not prove that crystal was telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

Harr, let's put this differently.

Just admit it, that it has been proven that crystal lied about being raped, and that the falsely charged lacrosse players were innocent all along.

guiowen said...

Quick, Kenhyderal,
Get to Kilgo before Ubes catches him again!

Anonymous said...

harr said

"Crystal Mangum has not been languishing in the hoosegow for the past four plus years due to anything that happened in 2006."

So why have ypu been saying the past four plus years that the prosecution of crystal iwas retaliation for crystal accusing members of the Duke Lacrosse team of raping her?

Anonymous said...

harr said

" For the record, I have no documents related to the Duke Lacrosse case, so I am not going to waste my time on it."

So, on what grounds, for the past ten plus years, have you been proclaiming that the Lacrosse players were guilty of raping crystal?

Anonymous said...

Hey harr:

As you admit you know nothing of the facts in the Duke Rape Hoax, explain why you have claimed the State Bar trumped up the ethics charges against nifong.

Anonymous said...


If you are scoring at homes (or even if you are by yourself):

Sid has 274 days to free and exonerate Mangum.

It has been 18 days since the Ides of March.

It has been 3,213 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Thank you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sid,

What is the next day something important will happen in the Magnum murder case (after February 1 and March 15)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ April 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM

Probably April 31 or June 31.

Anonymous said...

Hey harr:

check this out:

http://the-daily.buzz/north-carolina-lgbt-law/?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_e262a00ca2414dee8ddae647220073a3

your friend and J4N supporter Victoria Peterson has a track record of attacking things like this.

Anonymous said...

Is there anyone other than Kenny, Sid, Tinfoil, and the few folks they pretend to be with anonymous posts who don't realize what a sad, pathetic joke Sid, Kenny, and Tinfoil are? How miserable must their lives be for them to get so much pleasure out of abusing a woman who has been through so much?

It's sad.

kenhyderal said...

Your concern for Crystal is completely disingenuous. What is pathetic is your feeble attempts at psychiatry

Tin-Foil Hat said...

Right on kenhyderal

Anonymous said...

Tinfoil Hat = Victoria Peterson

Anonymous said...


Anonymous asked:

"Sid,

What is the next day something important will happen in the Magnum murder case (after February 1 and March 15)?"

February 2026.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...

"Your concern for Crystal is completely disingenuous. What is pathetic is your feeble attempts at psychiatry"

What is really pathetic are your attempts to pretend you are knowledgeable about the Duke Rape Hoax, about the murder of Reginald Daye by crystal.

Anonymous said...

kenny hissy fit:

Pathetic is you.

Pathetic is harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal ignorant liar.

Anonymous said...

No white men would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum even if he was passed out drunk and overdosed on Viagra at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ April 2, 2016 at 11:17 PM

You are as pathetic as harr and kenny

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked:

"Sid,

What is the next day something important will happen in the Magnum murder case (after February 1 and March 15)?"

February 2026.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

No dates of note as of now. The other dates were set in relationship to the complaint I filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission against Judge Ridgeway... which did not pan out.

Am working hard to get out a package tomorrow which will contain much of the info that is currently on the blog site.

Have no doubt that I will have Crystal out and exonerated soon.

Again, thanks for the daily update reminder.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey harr:

As you admit you know nothing of the facts in the Duke Rape Hoax, explain why you have claimed the State Bar trumped up the ethics charges against nifong.


It is crystal clear that Mike Nifong never lied to the Courts and never withheld exculpatory evidence (or any evidence for that matter) from the defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

The NC State Bar is notorious for going after attorneys who act to protect the civil rights of African American defendants... such as defense attorneys Cassandra Stubbs, Gretchen Engel, and Christine Mumma. Like Nifong they were brought before the grievance panel on nothing but trifle accusations... while taking no initiative to take action against prosecutors who have placed innocent black people in jail for decades.

One doesn't need to be an authority on the Duke Lacrosse case to see the Bar's pattern of selective injustice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr said

" For the record, I have no documents related to the Duke Lacrosse case, so I am not going to waste my time on it."

So, on what grounds, for the past ten plus years, have you been proclaiming that the Lacrosse players were guilty of raping crystal?


WRONG-0!! I have never stated that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were guilty of raping Crystal. I challenge you to bring up a blog or comment in which I made such an assertion. Not having any prosecution discovery, or any discovery, I am not in position to definitively comment on innocence or guilt in that case.

Because I believe Crystal when she said she was sexually assaulted at the Duke party in 2006, that is not the same as proclaiming as fact that she was sexually assaulted or raped.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr said

"Crystal Mangum has not been languishing in the hoosegow for the past four plus years due to anything that happened in 2006."

So why have ypu been saying the past four plus years that the prosecution of crystal iwas retaliation for crystal accusing members of the Duke Lacrosse team of raping her?


The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, the alleged sexual assault in 2006 technically had nothing to do with her arrest in 2011. Are you with me so far?

However, because of the state and media's animus against her for her 2006 assault accusations, her prosecution, conviction, and incarceration were vendetta-driven as payback for her role as accuser in that case. I hope this is crystal clear.

Anonymous said...

If you are scoring at homes (or even if you are by yourself):


Sid:

You have 273 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 19 days since the Ides of March and 3,214 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...



Sid:

You have 273 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 19 days since the Ides of March and 3,214 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Package out to where Sid?

Where is the next failed effort going to take you?

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...

"Hey, Abe.

No dates of note as of now. The other dates were set in relationship to the complaint I filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission against Judge Ridgeway... which did not pan out."

Correction. You filed a frivolous non meritorious complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission.

"Am working hard to get out a package tomorrow which will contain much of the info that is currently on the blog site."

You mean you will be compiling more garbage.

"Have no doubt that I will have Crystal out and exonerated soon."

How many times have you made that promise?How many times have you delivered? Zilch. WQhy would anyone believe you can deliver on your promises?

Again, thanks for the daily update reminder.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey harr:

As you admit you know nothing of the facts in the Duke Rape Hoax, explain why you have claimed the State Bar trumped up the ethics charges against nifong."


"It is crystal clear that Mike Nifong never lied to the Courts and never withheld exculpatory evidence (or any evidence for that matter) from the defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

You can willfully delude yourself but you can not hide the truth. nifong did conceal exculpatory evidence and did lie to the courts about it. What you document here is you do not comprehend the term "lie" and you do not comprehend the term "exculpatory. The meanings of those terms have been explained to you. Ergo you choose to remain willfully ignorant.

"The NC State Bar is notorious for going after attorneys who act to protect the civil rights of African American defendants... such as defense attorneys Cassandra Stubbs, Gretchen Engel, and Christine Mumma. Like Nifong they were brought before the grievance panel on nothing but trifle accusations... while taking no initiative to take action against prosecutors who have placed innocent black people in jail for decades."

No, you are notorious for being a black on white huilt presuming racist who hates the NC Bar for establishing that nifong became one of the most corrupt prosecutors in US and NC history who prosecuted innocent Caucasian men falsely accused of rapng a black woman just to curry favor with the racist elements of the Durham Black Electorate. nifong had almost no support from the Durham electorate before he began the wrongful prosecution of the Lacrosse players. He got enough to win the election AFTER he began said, documented wrongful prosecution.


"One doesn't need to be an authority on the Duke Lacrosse case to see the Bar's pattern of selective injustice."

You have established you are an expert on nothing and your concept of the "Bar's pattern of selective injustice" is similar to your anger at AG Cooper because he did not proclaim innocent men guilty of raping crystal. You are angry at the Bar because they exposed nifong's obvious unethical and corrupt behavior.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr said

"Crystal Mangum has not been languishing in the hoosegow for the past four plus years due to anything that happened in 2006."

So why have ypu been saying the past four plus years that the prosecution of crystal iwas retaliation for crystal accusing members of the Duke Lacrosse team of raping her?"


"The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, the alleged sexual assault in 2006 technically had nothing to do with her arrest in 2011. Are you with me so far?"

Am I with you? Yes. You are trying to dodge and cover your butt again. You did say that what happened in 2006 had nothing to do with her conviction. That was after you had been saying for+ years that the murder conviction was retaliation for he accusations against the Lacrosse players.Yet another futile inneffective attempt at personal posterior camouflage.

"However, because of the state and media's animus against her for her 2006 assault accusations, her prosecution, conviction, and incarceration were vendetta-driven as payback for her role as accuser in that case. I hope this is crystal clear."

Now you are reversing yourself and stating her conviction was a consequence of her allegations against the Lacrosse players. What is crystal clear is how futile are your attempts at personal posterior camouflage

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"However, because of the state and media's animus against her for her 2006 assault accusations, her prosecution, conviction, and incarceration were vendetta-driven as payback for her role as accuser in that case. I hope this is crystal clear."

There was no media animus against crystal. harr is deluded.

By now he has crawled back into his hole again because his personal posterior camouflage has failed.

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

I have had five comments disappear. What is happening?

John D. Smith
New York, NY

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

I have had six comments disappear. What is happening?

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

John D. Smith

I have had comments disappear. More of harr's ducing and covering his butt.

Copy the comment to a text editor or something, then repost it. Eventually it will get there.

John D. Smith said...

Anonymous 11:48 AM:

I copied it and have reposted it seven times now, shortening it each time.

Thanks.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

I have had seven comments disappear. What is happening?

John D. Smith
New York, NY

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

Today marks the fifth anniversary of Mangum's arrest. You have written dozens of letters, court filings, sharlogs and comments, but have accomplished nothing.

In five years, you have failed to address the legal issues. Your analysis is incomplete. People ignore you because you provide no evidence to support your claims. You conclude that the esophageal intubation is automatically an intervening cause. You ignore advice from attorneys that medical malpractice is NOT generally an intervening cause. Despite advice, you refuse to reconsider your conclusion or conduct research to confirm it. You make useless filings in jurisdictions with no power to overturn the conviction and file appeals on grounds a court cannot consider.

You have squandered a valuable resource. Posters on this board provide knowledgable advice, which you ignore. Magnum is not well served by efforts not grounded in reality.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

On this fifth anniversary, I thought it would be useful to summarize several time periods. More than one-third of the time between Mangum's arrest and her scheduled release has now elapsed. In five years, you have not yet addressed the legal issues surrounding this case.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Days Until Mangum's Scheduled Release on February 27, 2026
3,617
Days Since Mangum's Arrest on April 3, 2011
1,827
Days Since Mangum's Conviction on November 22, 2013
863
Percentage of Time Elapsed Between Mangum’s Arrest and Scheduled Release
33.56%
Percentage of Time Elapsed Between Mangum’s Conviction and Scheduled Release
19.26%

Anonymous said...

from:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ten-years-after-duke-lacrosse-rape-hoax-media-has-learned-nothing/article/2585793

"Then comes the spin from those committed to the narrative that 'something must have happened,' as Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst and lawyer pointed out.

'I understand people saying [that something happened in the bathroom], there's just no evidence of it. And none of it's credible. In fact, every piece of evidence points to the fact that nothing did and it was impossible for it to have happened," Bilas said. "And if you look at all of the inconsistent statements, the evidence that wasn't there, it's an impossibility.'"

harr, where is the evidence that anything happened.

Either produce the evidence or shut up.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " where is the evidence that anything happened"............ Most of it was uncollected, including a list of who was present. God only knows if the physical evidence has been preserved and if the DNA found was ever sent to the state or national data base. Instead of due diligence speculative explanations such as Crystal was engaging in unprotected sex while working as an escort and lied about not doing so. Or, the material assumed to be semen by Dr. Manly, but never tested for, was conveniently explained away as an exudate from as yeast infection. The house itself a possible crime scene was demolished

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
So do something! Go to Durham and see what you can find! Or is this too sarcastic for you? or too disingenuous?

Anonymous said...

I'll be back

Anonymous said...

I'll be back

Anonymous said...

I'm back

Anonymous said...

I'll be back

Anonymous said...

And I will keep coming back.

Anonymous said...

I know how much this p---es you off.

Anonymous said...

You sniveling coward.

Anonymous said...

harr

kenny

Where is the evidence that crystal was raped.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 272 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 20 days since the Ides of March and 3,215 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal decries the indulgence in speculative explanations and the lack of due diligence in investigating the Duke case.

kenhyderal alleges that there were uunidentified party goers wo raped crystal. He calls the DNA from ubknown males as evidence of this. He has also said no one could estabilsh the time that DNAwas deposited, which means tat it can not be established that the DNA was deposited at the party on the night of 13/14 March 2006. I read asource that said there is a 72 hour window in which DNA could be deposited on a female. As it is certain that crystal did not engage in sex after the party, the 72 hour window was from Thursday 11 March tp Saturday 13 March. Walt, I believe, has provided documentation that crystal made several contacts with males in tat period. kenny says, and I say again, KENNY says it is possible the DNAwas deposited at the party. What kenny does not say is that it is possible the DNA could have deposited before the party.

kenny's allegation that unidentified rapists raped crystal at the party is based on what kilgo told him, that he had a friend on the Lacrosse team who told kilgo he had witnessed the rape being perpetrated by non Lacrosse tram party attendees. kilgo has since vanished from J4N, along with all of his J4N posts. kenny can not document that kilgo ever told him anything about a Lacrosse player friend. that Lacrosse player friend has not materialized over the now more than ten years since the party.

So let the readers decide. Is kenny exercising due diligence in this matter. Or is kenny indulging in speculative explanations?

Anonymous said...

kenny is a pathological liar. He has been lying about the Duke lacrosse case for years.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal has also decried that no attempt was ever made to identify the ubknown males who left their DNA on crystal. Foer some reason, he implies this was the responsibility of the defendants and their attorneys. So here is some speculation.

The DNA did not match the DNA of the defendants. Why would the defendants and their attorneys try to block the revelation of other suspects, suspects whose DNA matched the DNA found on Crystal?

The defendants and their attorneys were unaware of that DNA evidence until December of 2006, about 9 months after the Lacrosse party. The presence of the DNA from unknown males on Crystal's person was made public knowledge by the defense attorneys.

The evidence was the result of a Non Testimobial order obtained by the Durham DA office, headed by nifong. Who had custody of that evidence between early April of 2006 and Decenber 2006. No one but nifong. So who was responsible for the failure to identify the males who had left their DNA No one but nifong.

So again I ak the readers. Was kenny using due diligence in alleging that mystery rapists raped crystal at the Lacrosse party. Or was he indulging in seculative explanations not based on any facts?

Anonymous said...

On the material assumed to be Semen by Doctor Manly:

I once pointed out to kenny that Dr. Manly should have done a wet mount. If the material was semen, a wet mount would have revealed motile sperm and confirmed it was semen. Kenny's response was, that would have been only cya medicine.

The rape kit materials tested negative for alkaline phosphatase, a marker for semen. NA Security also tested the rape kit materials for markers for semen and found no such markers. Those tests definitively excluded the presence of semen.

So, when kenny refers to what Dr. Manly found, is he exercising due diligence, or is he indulging in speculative explanations which have no basis in fact?

Walt said...

Anonymous at 5:29 AM wrote: " What kenny does not say is that it is possible the DNA could have deposited before the party."

The evidence suggests that it is far more likely the DNA deposits came from the activities before the party.

Walt-in-Durham

guiowen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Great Kilgo said...

Kenhyderal, please he.,,cuugdp

Ubes said...

How do you like that? He was actually going to give Kenny the name of the other guy! Good thing I stopped him in time!

Anonymous said...

kenny:

Produce evidence that crystal was raped. Your last screed was not evidence.

I was yet another attempt on your part to dodge having to produce evidence, to dodge having to concede the truth, that there is no evidence crystal was raped.

Again, instead of exercising due diligence, you are putting forth nothing but speculative explanations not at all based in fact.

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

If you really are so hot and bothered over the failure to identify the source of the male NA found on crystal, the failure to run the DNA through the National and State data bases, then engage in some due diligence and explain why nifong concealed the evidence rather than chase down the source.

Contrary to your ridiculous claim, nifong did conceal the evidence. Look at the ESPN documentary. Look at the part when under cross examination, Meehan admitted he and Nifong agreed not to report the finding of DNA from unidentified males to the defendants.

Anonymous said...

harr:

Again I remind you of the North Carolina law regarding a Non Testimonial Order:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_15A/Article_14.pdf:

"§ 15A-273. Basis for order.
An order may issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the judge and
establishing the following grounds for the order:
(1) That there is probable cause to believe that a felony offense, or a Class A1 or
Class 1 misdemeanor offense has been committed;
(2) That there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person named or
described in the affidavit committed the offense; and
(3) That the results of specific nontestimonial identification procedures will be of
material aid in determining whether the person named in the affidavit
committed the offense. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1997-80, s. 14.)"

In her allegation of rape(and crystl did describe thr sexual assault as a gang rape in which multiple males who did not use condoms penetrated her and ejaculated on her), crystal never alleged that each and every member of the Lacrosse team assaulted her, so there was no probable cause to require each and every Caucasian team member to give a sample.

"§ 15A-282. Copy of results to person involved.
A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his attorney
must be provided with a copy of any REPORTS(emphasis added) of test results as soon as the reports are available.
(1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"

You have admitted that nifong gave the defense raw data, not reports. I suggest you watch the ESPN documentary. Under cross examination,
Brian Meehan admitted he and nifong agreed not to report the finding, that the only male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of the people nifong had named as suspects.

So explain why you believe nifong did not withhold exculpatory evidence from the defendants. Explain your belief that the evidence was not exculpatory. That it did not prove the defendants did not commit rape is legally meaningless. The prosecution had the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants did commit rape. Why would the evidence, the only male DNA found on crystal's person did not match the DNA of the accused, why would that evidence not raise reasonable doubt of their guilt?

To borrow kenny's words, engage in due diligence, not in speculative explanations not at all based in fact.

And yes you havebeen preaching for the past 4+ years that crystal had been raped by mrmbers of the Lacrosse team, and that she had been prosecuted for murder in retliation fr accusing the Lacrosse team members.

kenhyderal said...

The three charged and their Attorneys probably know who the rapists are. They would have realized had they revealed such information the involvement of two of them in a sexual assault and a kidnapping might possibly of been shown.

John D. Smith said...

Kenny states: The three charged and their Attorneys probably know who the rapists are.

In my mind, the word "probable" means "more likely than not." You seem to be using it as meaning "impossible to prove false with absolute certainty." My definition appears to be much more widely accepted than yours.

Because it is far, far more likely that there were no mystery rapists, using the more common definition, it is not probable that the defendants and their attorneys do know who the mystery rapists are because there are no mystery rapists to know.

I suggest that when you adopt unusual definitions for common terms, that you clarify your use of such terms. Otherwise, readers may conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

kenny:

Again you reject due diligence in favor of speculative explanations which are not at all based on the facts.

There is no evidence that a rape ever took place.

The challenge to you and harr was to provide evidence that a rape took pace. You haven't. Now you, like harr before you are presenting a straw fisherman holding up a red herring in an attempt to dodge and duck the truth, that crystal lied about being raped.

To re issue a challenge, explain why nifong did not chase down the identities of the men who deposited their DNA on crystal, if you really do think that failure was significant.

Maybe you can answer this. Why do you and harr get such a charge out of believing crystal was the victim of a brutal gang rape. Sane rational men would not get a charge out of imagining a woman had been raped.

Anonymous said...

harr, this is for you.

You did claim that when nifong dropped the rape charges, he showed he was an honorable prosecutor.

How did you come to that idea?

Your explanation was, most prosecutors would have still prosecuted for rape.

The situation was, the alleged crime allegedly took place in March of 2006. nifong did not have his complaining witness directly interviewed until December of 2006 She said in that interview she could not recall being penetrated. In her original allegation, crystal alleged she had been penetrated, by multiple assailants. A decent, honorable prosecutor would not have waited 9 months to have his complaining witness directly interviewed. A decent honorable prosecutor would have realized his complaining witness was not credible and would have dropped all charges rather than continue to prosecute, rather than wait 9 months to interview her.

The deal was, nifong did realize he lacked any DNA evidence to implicate the men he had indicted. His thinking was, he did not need DNA to convict on a charge of sexual assault. It was a cynical attempt on his part to exclude the DNA evidence, the lack thereof actually, from the case.

I say, how wrong he was. The sexual assault alleged by crystal was a gang rape in which multiple assailants, not using condoms, had assaulted her, penetrated her and had ejaculated on her, thus leaving their DNA. nifong was either incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate if he believed he could convict by excluding the DNA evidence, which he did try to conceal.

He was desperate. This was mentioned i the ESPN Documentary of which you are so fearful. nifong promised the voters who elected him that he would not drop the case but would get convictions.

I bet now he wishes he had dropped the charges.

Anonymous said...

Blogger kenhyderal said...

"The three charged and their Attorneys probably know who the rapists are."

So why did they not name them and prevent their clients from being wrongfully prosecuted?

In any event, the statement is another meaningless statement from the king ogf meaningless. No rape had happened. The king of meaningless has presented no evidence that a rape did happen.

Anonymous said...

John D. Smith
New York, NY

"I suggest that when you adopt unusual definitions for common terms, that you clarify your use of such terms. Otherwise, readers may conclude that you are intellectually dishonest."

It has not been shown that kenny is intellectually dishonest. What has been shown is that kenny is completely intellectually incapable.

John D. Smith said...

Anonymous 11:09:

I disagree. Kenny is a troll.

I don't believe he believes his preposterous statements. He realizes most commenters were drawn here to respond to Sidney's inane support of Mike Nifong and correct his misstatements. His objective is to annoy other commenters. His invention of mystery rapists is a clever way to respond to evidence that exonerates the defendants, while continuing to insinuate they had a role in a heinous crime. He takes advantage of the failure to investigate the highest profile crime in Durham history.

In addition to trolling the commenters here, Kenny is also trolling Sidney. In the same spirit as Break, Kenny appears on the surface to agree with everything Sidney is doing and saying. Kenny realizes Sidney is utterly clueless and will accomplish nothing. No real friend of Crystal would ever encourage her to rely on Sidney for legal assistance.

It is possible Kenny is just as clueless as Sidney. I believe it is far more likely he is a "clever" troll.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Kenny isn't "clever" he's just a troll and an abuser.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "So why did they not name them and prevent their clients from being wrongfully prosecuted"........... I suggested a PROBABLE reason for that; not guilty of rape but, perhaps, guilty of a sexual assault and of kidnapping.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous (amateur psychiatrist) said: " Why do you and harr get such a charge out of believing crystal was the victim of a brutal gang rape".................. Dr. Harr and myself are, in fact, sickened and outraged by this brutal gang rape perpetrated by amoral delinquents with a sense of entitlement on Crystal, a vulnerable individual. Could this baseless charge be projection?

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...

"Anonymous said: "So why did they not name them and prevent their clients from being wrongfully prosecuted"........... I suggested a PROBABLE reason for that; not guilty of rape but, perhaps, guilty of a sexual assault and of kidnapping."

You are dodging and ducking again, indulging again in speculating on explanations which have no basis in fact.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...

"Anonymous (amateur psychiatrist) said: " Why do you and harr get such a charge out of believing crystal was the victim of a brutal gang rape".................. Dr. Harr and myself are, in fact, sickened and outraged by this brutal gang rape perpetrated by amoral delinquents with a sense of entitlement on Crystal, a vulnerable individual. Could this baseless charge be projection?"

As no rape was ever perpetrted on crystal at the Lacrosse party, you are fantasizing and getting a charge out of crystal being brutally raped.

Again provide evidence instead of speculative solutions not at all based on factual evidence.

You must have had a dysfunctional relationship with some woman in your lifr.

Anonymous said...

keny;

Just admit it. You have not and can not oprovide evidence. Besides a dysfunctional relationship with some woman,you resent Caucasian men who are better off and more accomplished thany ou are.

John D. Smith said...

Kenny stated: I suggested a PROBABLE reason for that; not guilty of rape but, perhaps, guilty of a sexual assault and of kidnapping.

Once again, you seem to be using "probable" as meaning "impossible to prove false with absolute certainty."

I again suggest that when you adopt unusual definitions for common terms, that you clarify your use of such terms. Otherwise, readers may conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal = Steve Matherly

kenhyderal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kenhyderal said...

No Kenhyderal=Ken Edwards b.t.w. Unlike Steve am not a Member of Justice4Nifong

kenhyderal said...

Amateur Psychiatrist said: : "Besides a dysfunctional relationship with some woman,you resent Caucasian men who are better off and more accomplished thany ou are"....................................... Which women and which men would those be? You know you are making a complete fool of yourself making such psychiatric diagnoses, don't you? If you are Dr. Anonymous the race obsessed cardio-thoracic surgeon you should be ashamed of yourself for such unprofessional behaviour.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr, this is for you.

You did claim that when nifong dropped the rape charges, he showed he was an honorable prosecutor.

How did you come to that idea?

Your explanation was, most prosecutors would have still prosecuted for rape.

The situation was, the alleged crime allegedly took place in March of 2006. nifong did not have his complaining witness directly interviewed until December of 2006 She said in that interview she could not recall being penetrated. In her original allegation, crystal alleged she had been penetrated, by multiple assailants. A decent, honorable prosecutor would not have waited 9 months to have his complaining witness directly interviewed. A decent honorable prosecutor would have realized his complaining witness was not credible and would have dropped all charges rather than continue to prosecute, rather than wait 9 months to interview her.

The deal was, nifong did realize he lacked any DNA evidence to implicate the men he had indicted. His thinking was, he did not need DNA to convict on a charge of sexual assault. It was a cynical attempt on his part to exclude the DNA evidence, the lack thereof actually, from the case.

I say, how wrong he was. The sexual assault alleged by crystal was a gang rape in which multiple assailants, not using condoms, had assaulted her, penetrated her and had ejaculated on her, thus leaving their DNA. nifong was either incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate if he believed he could convict by excluding the DNA evidence, which he did try to conceal.

He was desperate. This was mentioned i the ESPN Documentary of which you are so fearful. nifong promised the voters who elected him that he would not drop the case but would get convictions.

I bet now he wishes he had dropped the charges.


As I believe Mike Nifong also said, rape convictions were attained long before DNA evidence was available. With regards to being desperate for election, I disagree with the ESPN assertion that he, an incumbent, was trailing in the polls. Besides, relying on the black vote to win an election doesn't make sense and is a sure way to lose.

As far as Nifong telling black voters that he would prosecute the Duke Lacrosse case: What I get from that statement is that he is going to carry out an objective, fair, and good-faith prosecution of the case.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...

Amateur Psychiatrist said: : "Besides a dysfunctional relationship with some woman,you resent Caucasian men who are better off and more accomplished thany ou are".......................................


"Which women and which men would those be?"

Your mother, maybe, yor sister, maybe, if you have one, or some woman who jilted you, maybe.. And it does not take training in psychiatry to see how much you hate the Duke Lacrosse players.

"You know you are making a complete fool of yourself making such psychiatric diagnoses, don't you?"

No, I am making a complete fool out of you, which is not difficult to do, thanks to all the cooperation you give me.

"If you are Dr. Anonymous the race obsessed cardio-thoracic surgeon you should be ashamed of yourself for such unprofessional behaviour."

Ray Charles

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 271 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 21 days since the Ides of March and 3,216 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Time marches on.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 271 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 21 days since the Ides of March and 3,216 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Time marches on.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Yes, Abe, time does march on, but it is only a short matter of time before a leak springs from the dam, quickly widens into a large crack, the dam of prejudice fails, and a deluge of freedom floods the Mangum case like a tsunami of unheralded magnitude. Pay attention for the first signs of dam dribble.

guiowen said...

Good lord, Sidney, do you actually believe that?

Anonymous said...

Kenny

Your latest rant about me is res ipsa loquitur evidence you resent Cucasian people who are better off and more accomplished than you are.

It iss also another example of how you think you can intimidate opeople by hurling popcorn at them from a range of 500 yards/

Anonymous said...

For harr:

You say, correctly, that nifong pointed out that convictions were obtained without DNA evidence. WEhat you do not say, what nifong did not say, is that ha[ened before DNA technology was available.

Hypothetical situation: Suppose the male DNA on crystal had matched the DNA of nifong's suspects, would nifong have tried to prosecute them?

DNA technology was available in the Duke Rape Hoax. The male NA found on crystal did not match the DNA of nifong's suspects. That absolutely ruled them out as perpetrators. So why did nifong not want the DNA evidence introduced/ He wanted to prosecute the defenddants even though the DNA evidence did exonerate them.

Don't go with, nifong did not need DNA evidence to convict them of a sexual assault. Again, the sexual assault crystal described was a gng rape in which multiple males who did not use condoms left their DNA on her person. nifong could not have legitimately convicted anyone of that kind of assault without introducing DNA evidence.

You claim that nifong's intention was to conduct a good faith prosecution. nifong did not intend to conduct a good faith prosecution.

So you define a good faith prosecution as one in which a prosecutor does conceal exculpatory evidence from the defendants. Right?

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

nifong did not have crystal directly interviewed by his office until about 9 months after the alleged crime allegedly happened.

He did not try to get input from his complaining witness for about 9 months.

Does that show nifong intended to conduct a good faith prosecution?

No.

Anonymous said...

even more for harr:

You claim that courting the black vote would have cost nifong the election, based on the number of black voters throughout the nation and on how many of them vote.

That did not apply in Durham. In Durham county, nifong had to win the Democratic primary in order to win the general election. One could not win the Democratic primary in Durham without the support of the black electorate.

The only poll done in Durham prior to the primary was Freda Black's poll, which was done before the Duke Rape Hoax became an issue. It showed nifong with support of 20% of the electorate as compared to Freda Black's 38%. nifong's campaign never produced any result to show differently. After the Duke Rape Hoax became an issue and nifong became very vocal about it, when the primary happened, nifong bot more than double than 20% of the black vote, more than double 20% of the white vote. Making an issue of the rape hoax with all voters, black and white, won nifong the election.

That is elementay deduction, something of which you have shown you are incapable.

Unfortunately for you, flashing a straw fisherman holding a red herring does not trump empirically determined facts.

Anonymous said...

yet more for harr:

You told Abe that the dam of prejudice would crack and the waters of justice would flow.

Years ago, with regard to nifong and your crusade to have his law license returned, you claimed a dam would crack and the waters of justice would flow.

What hapened to that flood?

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

"Don't go with, nifong did not need DNA evidence to convict them of a sexual assault. Again, the sexual assault crystal described was a gang rape in which multiple males who did not use condoms left their DNA on her person. nifong could not have legitimately convicted anyone of that kind of assault without introducing DNA evidence."

I add, the only DNA evidence nifong had was, the only malr DNA found on crystal in the wake of that assault did not match the DNA of nifong's suspects.

The only DNA evidence nifong could have introduced would have exonerated the defendants.

So the questio for you is, why did nifong want to prosecute the case withoutt introducing thr DNA ecvidece he had obtained?

Anonymous said...

kenny hissy fit, this is for you:

I asked you, if the Lacrosse defendants did know who the mystery rapists were, why did they not identify them. Your reply was, that would have left them open to conviction on charges of sexual assault and kidnapping.

If that were true, wouldn't the identification of the mystery rapists have enhanced nifong's chances of convicting the Lacrosse defendants. Would nifong not have been aware of that?

nifong had custody of the evidence. Why then did nifong make no attempt to identify who had deposited their DNA on crystal? Why did nifong conceal the existence of evidence which would have, according to you, have enhanced his chances of convicting the Lacrosse defendants?

Anonymous said...

Corrections:

I apologize for my errors.

For harr:

You say, correctly, that nifong pointed out that convictions were obtained before DNA was available.

Hypothetical situation: Suppose the male DNA on crystal had matched the DNA of nifong's suspects, would nifong have tried to prosecute them without using the DNA evidence?

The male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of nifong's suspects. That absolutely ruled them out as perpetrators. So why did nifong not want the DNA evidence introduced. Why did want to prosecute the defendants without letting the court know that the DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of his suspects?

Don't go with, nifong did not need DNA evidence to convict them of a sexual assault. Again, the sexual assault crystal described was a gang rape in which multiple males who did not use condoms left their DNA on her person. nifong could not have legitimately convicted anyone of that kind of assault without introducing DNA evidence.

You claim that nifong's intention was to conduct a good faith prosecution. nifong did not intend to conduct a good faith prosecution.

So you define a good faith prosecution as one in which a prosecutor does conceal exculpatory evidence from the defendants. Right?

Anonymous said...

yet more for harr;

Let's put it this way>

If, and mind you I am saying IF, the male DNA found on crystal had matched the DNA of nifong's suspects, would nifong have said he would have gotten a conviction the old fashioned way relying on the medical evidence and the victim's testimony?

Just remember, nifong did not try to find out for about 9 mobths what crystal's testimony would be. When he did find out, crystal had changed her story rather drastically. Initially in March of 2006, she alleged nultiple males not wearing condoms had penetrated her. In December of 2006, she said she could not recall being penetrated.

nd you say nifong did something decent and honorable when he dropped the rape charges but continued to prosecute for sexual assault. If nifong had been decent and honorable, he would have recognized his complaining witness was not credible and would have dropped all charges.

That he did not dismiss the charges is yet more evidence nifong had no intentuion of conducting a good faith prosecution.

Now, how about you admit you have no evidence that crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

Walt said...

Kenhyderal wrote: " Dr. Harr and myself are, in fact, sickened and outraged by this brutal gang rape perpetrated by amoral delinquents with a sense of entitlement on Crystal, a vulnerable individual. Could this baseless charge be projection?"

There was no brutal gang rape.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "As I believe Mike Nifong also said, rape convictions were attained long before DNA evidence was available." Not with a lack of an admissible identification as was the situation here.

"With regards to being desperate for election, I disagree with the ESPN assertion that he, an incumbent, was trailing in the polls. Besides, relying on the black vote to win an election doesn't make sense and is a sure way to lose."

You don't know much about the makeup of the electorate in Durham.

"As far as Nifong telling black voters that he would prosecute the Duke Lacrosse case: What I get from that statement is that he is going to carry out an objective, fair, and good-faith prosecution of the case."

Except he did not.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

Check these out:

http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.net/25-wrongly-convicted-felons-exonerated-by-new-forensic-evidence/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/2007/dallas-county-cases-where-dna-has-proven-innocence

http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/steven-avery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Dotson

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/21/11756575-researchers-more-than-2000-false-convictions-in-past-23-years?lite

These are cases of convicted felons exonerated by DNA evidence, many of which were rape cases in which the male DNA recovered from the victim did not match the DNA of the accused. It has been thoroughly and extensively documented that this scenario, a rape happened, a man is accused and convicted, the DNA recovered from the victim does not match the DNA of the accused, the accused was not the rapist.

The Durham DA office, headed by nifong, was aware of this. When the DA's office requested the NTO requiring all the Cacasian males on the Lacrosse team to give samples for DNA analysis, the justification was, the DNA would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent.

In the Duke Rape Hoax, the male DNA recovered from crystal's rape kit did not match the DNA of any of the men nifong accused. So why do you call nifong's attempt to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for rape a good faith prosecution?

Citing successful prosecutions for rape when DNA technology was not available is another iteration of flashing a straw fisherman holding a red herring. It is totally inapplicable to the Duke Rape Hoax. DNA technology was obviously available, and it obviously did exonerate the accused. So why was nifong justified in prosecuting without DNA evidence of guilt. Why was nifong justified in prosecuting the Lacrosse players in spite of having DNA evidence which did prove their innocence?

This is relevant to your crusade for crystal. You have been preaching for 10+ years that crystal was raped and preaching for 4+ years that she was prosecuted for the murder of Reginald Daye in retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players of rape.

?he evidence is overwhelming that nifong had no intention of conducting a good faith prosecution.

Anonymous said...

hey harr:

Referring o Walt's comment of April 5, 2016 at 7:58 AM:

The lineup procedure i which crystal identified ReadeSeligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans, it was improper.

According to Federal Guidelines ad DPD guidelines, the lineup is to have pictures of fillers as well as suspects, several fillers to each suspect. The witness is not to be told that the suspects are in the lineup. The officer conductingthe lineup is not to be directly involved with the investigation.

This lineup contained only suspects, crystal was told the suspects were in the lineup, the lineup was conducted by Mark Gottlieb who was involved in the investigation. And this lineup was done at the order of nifong.

You once claimed nifong did not try to manufacture evidence. Via this lineup nifong DID try to manufacture evidence.

In turn, that is evidence that nifong had no intention of conducting a good faith investigation.

I am waiting to see how many straw fishermen with red herrings you will try to flash this time.

Anonymous said...

I've seen a lot of dam dribble on this site -- does that count? Or does the ram need to hit the dam first?

John D. Smith said...

Sidney,

I understand that you concluded that the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause of Daye's death and therefore Magnum is not responsible. However, you have not been clear as to your reasoning. I would appreciate greater clarity.

Particularly because two experts--both Nichols and Roberts--reached a contrary conclusion, i.e., the esophageal intubation was NOT an intervening cause, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they were in error. I agree that Nichols' autopsy was at best sloppy; its failure to summarize the chain of events that culminated in Daye's death was inexcusable. However, I do not understand your criticism of Roberts' work; you appear to conclude she is conspiring against Magnum because you disagree with her conclusion.

You have made several arguments.

Some of these arguments are not serious. For example, you argued that Daye died as a result of the voluntary decision to take him off life support, and Magnum could not be responsible because she was not consulted in that decision. This argument was ridiculous, and fortunately you dropped it. Similarly, you argue that the initial prognosis after surgery was for a full recovery, and Mangum's responsibility ended with that prognosis. This argument fails to take into account complications, such as infection, that clearly would not cut off Mangum's responsibility.

Currently, you appear to argue that the esophageal intubation represents medical malpractice and necessarily cuts off Mangum's liability. This conclusion appears to conflict with case law Walt and A Lawyer provided. You disagree with their legal conclusion, but have provided no case law and/or other information to support your conclusion.

Your other argument appears to be that the intubation was treatment for delirium tremens and not the stab wound, and therefore Magnum is not responsible for the outcome. This is an interesting argument, but you must provide additional information to be convincing.

First, rather than simply announcing your medical conclusion that the intubation was needed as a result of the DTs, you must provide a detailed and specific analysis of the medical reports that support your medical conclusion. Most of your readers are not medical experts and are not able to understand how you reached that conclusion and two experts missed it. Second, you must provide a legal analysis that supports your legal conclusion that treatment for DTs breaks the chain and cuts off Mangum's liability. Although I recognize that you are not able to use the law library most convenient for you, I suggest that you use the internet to provide case law to support your legal conclusion.

Otherwise, you appear to be arguing that we should accept your medical and legal opinions as binding despite your lack of expertise and disregard contrary opinions provided by medical and legal experts simply because they disagree with you.

Thank you in advance.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

for harr:

Another piece of harrian inconsistency.

I just finished viewing the ESPN documentary again(it's on YouTube). You said at one time, ESPN did not consult you for the documentary because the did not want to hear the truth(you should have said your version of the truth), that crystal was prosecuted for the murder of Reginald Daye as retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players of rape.

Then you recently said that nothing that happened in 2006(the year crystal made the accusations) had anything to do with why crystal is in prison.

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

I mentioned this before but it bears re mentioning.

At the timr the alleged rape was allegedly happening, crystal was making a rather lengthy cell phone call, not to 911, not to her home, but to the voice mail box of the escort service for which she worked. This comes from the records of crystal's cell phone usage.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 270 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 22 days since the Ides of March and 3,217 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

You claim nifong did not withhold anything from the defense.

According to the ESPN documentary, the defense got the raw data in December of 2006, months after DNA Security had givn the information to nifong, that the only male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of the mn=en he had accused. nifong turned the raw data over to the defense because the requested the data. nifong did not turn over the data on his own initiative.

As I have posted earlier, it has been thoroughly documented, that in this scenario, someone is accused of rape but the DNA recovered from the victim does not match the DNA of the accused, that kind of result shows conclusively that the accused was not the rapist.

And, under oath, Brian Meehan testified that he had given the information to nifong, and that he and nifong agreed they would not report all the results to the defense not only was there no DNA from the suspects on the rape kit, there was male DNA from multiple, other unidentified males.

nifong did have exculpatory evidence, he did conceal the evidence from the defense, ad he lied to the court about the evidence.

This is relevant, again, in this discussion because you have repeatedly, that crystal was prosecuted for Reginald Dayes murder by the powers that be in retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players of rape. crystal FALSELY accused the Lacrosse players of rape. And crystal was prosecuted not because she accused the Lacrosse players butbecause she killed Reginald Daye.

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

You have said that nifong turned over thousands of pages of boscovert material to the Lacrosse defendants and that is true.

Judging from what was said in the video, he did not turn the raw data from DNA Security until after he had told a judge he had turned over everything.

And he DID NOT inform the defendants in a timely manner that the only male DNA found on crystal's person after the Lacrosse party DID NOT match the DNA of any tested member of the Lacrosse team, the group of people designated as suspects by the NTO.

The fact is, nifong obtained evidence that exonerated the defendants and he concealed it.

Concealing that evidence is evidence that nifong never intended to conduct a "good faith" prosecution.

Anonymous said...

hey harr:

suppose you wanted to testify on behalf of the Daye family if they did sue for malpractice.

Do you think any trial lawyer litigating for the plaintiff in a medical malpractice casr wouldever ut you on the stand?

Anonymous said...

Hey harr:

Why was Reginald Daye at risk if an abdominal infection?

crystal stabbed him. The stab wound lacerated his colon. His intra abdominal cavity was exposed to colonic contamination for possibly a couple hours. It would take time for first resoponders to get to Reginald Daye. It would take time for them to prepare him for the ride to the hospital, e.g. they had to insert the IV. It would take time to get him admitted. It would take time to get him prepped for surgery. Itwould take time to get him anesthetized.

I know, from experience you do not hae, that exposure of the abdominal cavity to less than a minute's worth of colonic contamination can result in an intra abdominal infection. Any knowledgeable physician would know that Reginald Daye was at risk without having an Infectious Disease specialist.

The aspiration was a consequence of an evaluation for an intra abdominal infection. Reginald Daye was at risk of an intra abdominal infection because crystal stabbed him. That is the nexus you claim does not exist.

And you believe that DTs can prevent intra abdominal infections - right?

Anonymous said...

hey harr:

Concerning DTs

Your case hinges on the blood alcohol of almost 300.

A blood alcohol level that high would render even most chronic alcoholics comatose. If an alcoholic could have tolerated a Blood alcohol level that high, that could have only happened if he had ingested large quantities of alcohol over a period of years. Liver damage in an alcoholic is a consequence of heavy exposure to alcohol and the toxic substances resulting from alcohol metabolism. Anyone who could tolerate an alcohol level that high would have had liver damage. Reginald Daye's liver was normal at autopsy. Putting all that together, the blood alcohol of almost 300 was most likely a lab error.

The symptoms, fever, tachycardia, confusion, are symptoms of an infection,including an intra abdominal infection. Your continued statements, that the prognosis was for a full recovery is meaningless. It shows only that you have never treated any major surgical post op patients. Reginald Daye remained at risk for intra abdominal infections in the post op period. gain, I base that opinion on actual experience which you simply do not have.

And even if Reginald Daye had gone into DTs, that did not exclude the possibility of an intra abdominal infectious process. I say again, you seem to believe that Dts insulate a patient at risk of infection from that infection.

Anonymous said...

hey harr:

You resent Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts because they are trained and accomplished physicians and you are not. That is probably the reason you are so afraid of me.

Anonymous said...

Doctor Anonymous is great. harr and kenny are not

The Rectumfinder said...

Sidney Sez: "Pay attention for the first signs of dam dribble."

The Rectumfinder sez: The only think I see coming from Sidney is damned drivel.

Anonymous said...

for kenny hissy fit who rants nd rave about the inadequate police investigation, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unVfYKYG7K8

At the 1:19 mark the prosecutor at nifong's ethics trial points out that nifong himself took over control of the police investigtion.

So who was responsible for the inadequate investigation?

Anonymous said...

Correction:

At the 1:19 marker, what the prosecutor said nifong determined to handle the rape case himself rather than to turn it over to the person in his office who usually prosecuted alleged sex crimes. It is at the 1:28 mark that nifong told the Durham Police Department and told them he was taking over the investigation.

The question for jenny again is, who was respobnsible for the inadequate police investigation?

Anonymous said...

More for kenny hissy fit:

kenny rants and raves about crystal being forced to identify lacrosse players as her assailants. At the 8:27 mark of this video, it is noted tat the lineup at which crystal was forced to identify Lacrosse players as her assailats was done at the behest of none other than nifong.

Again, the question for kenny is, who was responsible for the inadequqte police investigation.

As aPS, referring to you as jenny was an inadvertant typo.

Anonymous said...

More for kenny, and his concern that the identities of the men who had deposited on crystal were never determined.

At the 9:33 mark, it is noted, on April 7, 2006, nifong was informed that DNA from multiple males, DNA which did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, had been found on crystal's person. So who was in a position at that time to determine the identities of the unknown males? nifong.

What did nifong do? Nifong sought indictments against Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmam. This starts at te !0:56 mark.

At the 13:45 mark what happens, the prosecutor points out that nifong wnted a written report that showed only DNA matches. He did not ask for a report which showed the DNA which did not match the DNA of the Lacrosse players. There was male DA on a false fingernail which was a partial match to David Evans. Four days after ssking for the report, nifong sought an indictment of David Evans, whose DNA did not match the Male DNA found on the Rape kit. I have previously asked this question, why DNA which is a partial match to David Evans implicate him in the alleged crime but the failure to find his DNA on the rape kit not exonerate him?

For kenny, nifong was the only one in position to identify the males who had deposited their DNA and he failed to do so.

For harr: Nifong sought indictments against three men whose DNA was not found on the rape kit.

nifong had no intention of conducting a good faith prosecution.

the relevance is, harr's contention is that crystal was raped, she accused members of the Lacrosse tram, and thaat the murder prosecution was retaliation for that.

Anonymous said...

harr you should watch the above referenced video.

Katherine Jean makes it crystal clear that nifong did conceal exculpatory evidence and then lie on multiple occasions to the court about it. It also makes cear that nifong did not willingly turn over thousands of pages of discovery to the defense. He was compelled to do so by court order.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 269 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 23 days since the Ides of March and 3,218 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Kenny hissy fit:

Who was responsible for the inadequate police investigation of crystal's rape allegation? Would it not be the person who took charge of the investigation, nifong? If crystal had been raped as she had alleged, would the perpetrators have left their DNA? Why did nifong seek indictments against men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on crystal and conceal the existence of the DNA which was found on crystal?

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal does not answer sarcastic questions. Do not annoy him.

guiowen said...

I might add that, as a master debater, Kenhyderal has Humpty Dumpty powers. Thus, any word he uses means exactly what he wants it to mean - no more, no less. In particular, "sarcastic" means "any question whose answer might prove uncomfortable.
If, moreover, you ask a sarcastic question, this makes you a "wounded" man.
Kenhyderal is under no obligation to explain what "wounded" means here.

Anonymous said...

guiowen April 7, 2016 at 6:03 AM:

kenny doesn't know what sarcastic or wounded mean. He makes meaningless quotes in a futile attempt to delude people into believing he is knowledgeable and moral. He is neither.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
hey harr:

Concerning DTs

Your case hinges on the blood alcohol of almost 300.

A blood alcohol level that high would render even most chronic alcoholics comatose. If an alcoholic could have tolerated a Blood alcohol level that high, that could have only happened if he had ingested large quantities of alcohol over a period of years. Liver damage in an alcoholic is a consequence of heavy exposure to alcohol and the toxic substances resulting from alcohol metabolism. Anyone who could tolerate an alcohol level that high would have had liver damage. Reginald Daye's liver was normal at autopsy. Putting all that together, the blood alcohol of almost 300 was most likely a lab error.

The symptoms, fever, tachycardia, confusion, are symptoms of an infection,including an intra abdominal infection. Your continued statements, that the prognosis was for a full recovery is meaningless. It shows only that you have never treated any major surgical post op patients. Reginald Daye remained at risk for intra abdominal infections in the post op period. gain, I base that opinion on actual experience which you simply do not have.

And even if Reginald Daye had gone into DTs, that did not exclude the possibility of an intra abdominal infectious process. I say again, you seem to believe that Dts insulate a patient at risk of infection from that infection.


The main problem you have is that you believe that Daye's liver was normal in appearance. The fact is that you can't believe anything in Dr. Nichols' autopsy report. Furthermore Dr. Nichols failed to take photographs of the organs per standard protocol. I place more confidence in the lab work that stated Daye had an elevated blood alcohol of 296 mg/dL than anything in the autopsy report.

Also, are you trying to blame Daye's brain death on a possible intra-abodominal infection instead of an esophageal intubation? Please clarify that issue as I require further edification.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr you should watch the above referenced video.

Katherine Jean makes it crystal clear that nifong did conceal exculpatory evidence and then lie on multiple occasions to the court about it. It also makes cear that nifong did not willingly turn over thousands of pages of discovery to the defense. He was compelled to do so by court order.

If you're talking about the video "Fantastic Lies" by ESPN, I did suffer through it... my daughter copied it on a disc for me.

As far as the State Bar goes, it had Nifong in its cross-hairs within weeks of his taking on the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case. It was excessively critical of him for interviews he gave to the media... long before he even named any suspects. Unheard of behavior by the State Bar.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
hey harr:

You resent Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts because they are trained and accomplished physicians and you are not. That is probably the reason you are so afraid of me.


I resent Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts no more than I resent Dr. Ben Carson... or Dr. Ben Casey for that matter. As far as you are concerned, you're anonymous, so I don't even know you, so how can I be afraid of you?

John D. Smith said...


Sidney asks: Also, are you trying to blame Daye's brain death on a possible intra-abodominal infection instead of an esophageal intubation? Please clarify that issue as I require further edification.

Sidney, stop being disingenuous. No one is trying to suggest Daye's brain death was not the result of the esophageal intubation. The chain of events suggested is as follows: Mangum stabbed Daye. The stab wound caused an intra-abdominal infection. Treatment for the intra-abdominal infection required an intubation. The initial intubation was esophageal, cutting off oxygen to the brain. The lack of oxygen to the brain resulted in brain death. Daye was removed from life support, and he died.

The question is whether the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. Nichols and Roberts concluded it was not, but did not explain why they reached that conclusion. You concluded that it was, but you also do not explain your conclusion or provide evidence to support it.

The stab wound and the intubation are both proximate causes of death. If the intubation was not an intervening cause, Mangum remains liable. If it was, she is not responsible. This question has both medical and legal aspects. While you have provided your medical and legal conclusions, you have failed to support them with specific evidence and case law. As a result, your analysis is incomplete. For that reason, the unsupported opinions of a friend of the defendant with no expertise are not sufficient to overcome the opinions of medical and legal experts.

As I have asked in prior comments, please finish your analysis. You have failed to do so in five years.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
hey harr:

You resent Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts because they are trained and accomplished physicians and you are not. That is probably the reason you are so afraid of me.


I resent Dr. Nichols and Dr. Roberts no more than I resent Dr. Ben Carson... or Dr. Ben Casey for that matter. As far as you are concerned, you're anonymous, so I don't even know you, so how can I be afraid of you?"

You have deleted posts I have left onyour blog.

That is res ipsa loquitur evidence that youare afraid of me.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said

"As far as the State Bar goes, it had Nifong in its cross-hairs within weeks of his taking on the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case. It was excessively critical of him for interviews he gave to the media... long before he even named any suspects. Unheard of behavior by the State Bar."

nifong began the prosecution ofthe innocent Lacrosse players in April of 2006. The NC State Bar bega its investigation of nifong in December of 2006. That has been public knowledge for almost 10 years.

As I said to kenny on a different matter, if you did not know this, you were ignorant. If you did, then you are a liar.

In either case, you show you are incapable of providing enlightenment.

Anonymous said...

Nifong supporter said

"Also, are you trying to blame Daye's brain death on a possible intra-abodominal infection instead of an esophageal intubation? Please clarify that issue as I require further edification."

You are ducking and dodging and again trying to cover your butt.

I have explained the situation. That you want further clarification is a admission you are clinically incompetent.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 268 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 24 days since the Ides of March and 3,219 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...

"As far as the State Bar goes, it had Nifong in its cross-hairs within weeks of his taking on the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case. It was excessively critical of him for interviews he gave to the media... long before he even named any suspects. Unheard of behavior by the State Bar."

What is unheard of behavior is for a Prosecutor to go public, before any investigation and state that a crime had happened, that members of a certain group were the perpetrators, and that the crime was racially motivated.

When Ben Roethlisberger was accused of a Sex crime in Georgia(http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4970050: "Tom Davis, the special agent in charge of the regional Georgia Bureau of Investigation in Milledgeville, told ESPN on Saturday that Milledgeville police and the GBI will be working the case throughout the weekend and into next week. Authorities had no plans to comment further until Monday at the earliest.").

Hypotheical situation: you are accused of a violrnt sexual assault. What kind of public statement should the prosecutor make?

Scenario 1: there was a violent sex crime. A black retired physician did it. He would not need to hire a lawyer if he did nothing. He would not remain silent if he did nothing.

OR:

Scenario 2: The incident is under investigation and we will say nothing until the investigation is completed.

Under which scenario would your rights have been violated.

Answer the question without ducking and dodging.

Anonymous said...

res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur

Anonymous said...

Revision

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...

"As far as the State Bar goes, it had Nifong in its cross-hairs within weeks of his taking on the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case. It was excessively critical of him for interviews he gave to the media... long before he even named any suspects. Unheard of behavior by the State Bar."

What is unheard of behavior is for a Prosecutor to go public, before any investigation and state that a crime had happened, that members of a certain group were the perpetrators, and that the crime was racially motivated.

Ben Roethlisberger was accused of a Sex crime in Georgia(http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4970050: "Tom Davis, the special agent in charge of the regional Georgia Bureau of Investigation in Milledgeville, told ESPN on Saturday that Milledgeville police and the GBI will be working the case throughout the weekend and into next week. Authorities had no plans to comment further until Monday at the earliest.").

Hypotheical situation: you are accused of a violrnt sexual assault. What kind of public statement should the prosecutor make?

Scenario 1: there was a violent sex crime. Some black retired physician did it. He would not need to hire a lawyer if he did nothing. He would not remain silent if he did nothing.

OR:

Scenario 2: The incident is under investigation and we will say nothing until the investigation is completed.

Eventually you were charged with the crime.

Under which scenario would your rights have been violated.

Answer the question without ducking and dodging.

Anonymous said...









r
e
s

i
p
s
a

l
o
q
u
i
t
u
r






Anonymous said...

res

Anonymous said...

ipsa

Anonymous said...

loquitur

Anonymous said...

harr, here is some more of the hypothetical scenario:

Suppose you had an alibi which proved 100% certainty you were not at the crime scene when the alleged crime allegedly happened. Should the prosecutor hear your alibi, or should he dismiss it as contrived?

Suppose, after an investigation, there was no evidence to show that you or any other black physician could have possibly committed the alleged crime. Should the prosecutor continue the attempt to charge a retired black physician, or should the prosecutor look for another suspect.

Should the prosecutor conduct a contrived lineup procedure to maneuver the alleged victim into identifying you as her assailant?

If the alleged victim recants her story(which crystal did when she was interviewed by the DA's office in December of 2006, what would be the honorable thing to do, drop the charges or continue to prosecute?

The Duke Lacrosse Hoax was this in a nutshell, the evidence showed that none of the Lacrosse players perpetrated the alleged crime, nifong did not look for other suspects, he had conducted a contrived lineup so crystal would identify members of the Lacrosse team as suspects, refused to look at alibi evidence, and conyinued to prosecute after the victim recanted.

And you are saying,if you were falsely accused of a rape, that you should be treated that way - right? After all you have said that nifong's intention was to cconduct a good faith prosecution - right?

Anonymous said...




















r
e
s

i
p
s
a

l
o
q
u
i
t
u
r










Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY (ESPECIALLY YOU, ABE)... LISTEN UP!!!
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I believe that the end of the Madness is near... that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming locomotive.

It is my belief that within a matter of a few weeks you will begin to see cracks in the buttressed walls of injustice shortly before they come tumbling down just like in Jericho... resulting in Mangum's freedom and exoneration... and the righteous shall rejoice!

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Should Abe begin the countdown to May Day?

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"HEY, EVERYBODY (ESPECIALLY YOU, ABE)... LISTEN UP!!!
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I believe that the end of the Madness is near... that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming locomotive.

It is my belief that within a matter of a few weeks you will begin to see cracks in the buttressed walls of injustice shortly before they come tumbling down just like in Jericho... resulting in Mangum's freedom and exoneration... and the righteous shall rejoice!

As you were."

Why should anyone take uou seriously?

You promised something like that wuld happen by the Ides of March

All you did was file a frivolous, non meritorious complaint to the NC Judicial standards people. Youhave a history of engaging in frivolous, non meritorious maneuvers and making bombastic promises. Why should we expect this time will be different?

Anonymous said...





















res

Anonymous said...






















ipsa

Anonymous said...






















loquitur

Anonymous said...

either harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional mrgalomaniacal ignorant liar or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again.

Anonymous said...



Dear Lord, Sid, what have you gone and done now?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

guiowen said...

So, Sidney, what's your next great plan?

Anonymous said...

guiowen said...

"So, Sidney, what's your next great plan?"

When has sidney ever had a great plan?

Anonymous said...

I want some of that res ipsa loquitur,

Anonymous said...

either harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional mrgalomaniacal ignorant liar or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again.

Anonymous said...

Sid, it's time for you to share a little of your res ipsa loquitur with Ubes.

Anonymous said...

either harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional mrgalomaniacal ignorant liar or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again.

The Great Kilgo said...

Ubes, remember that you should seek immediate medical help if you experience a liestopper crank meltdown lasting more than 4 hours.

Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal liar or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously again

The Great Kilgo said...

Whoopee ! !

Remember the Good Old Days, Ubes ?

QUACK QUACK QUACK

The Great Kilgo said...

Once again Ubes regales us with his gross ignorance.

Pray for the health of any patients this supposed doctor mad man gets near.

Tell us "Doctor" Ubes, how many times have you been sued for malpractice?

How many patients did YOU kill off in the operating theatre?

You act like a QUACK. Are you a QUACK like your friend the QUACK historian Robert David Johnson?

Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal ignrant liar and kenny hissy fit or both are posting anonymously again,

Anonymous said...

for harr:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sailor-declared-innocent-murder-rape-spending-33-years/story?id=38249082

"'This case has resulted in unspeakable loss for so many people," said Olga Akselrod, a lawyer with the Innocence Project who helped in set Harward free. "The 33 years that Mr. Harward lost cannot be returned to him. Those are years people are building careers, and families.'

Harward's petition to be declared innocent was based on DNA found at the scene that his lawyers submitted to the court they contended showed that he could not have committed the rape and murder.

Instead, the DNA profile matched Jerry Crotty, who had previously died in an Ohio prison in 2006, where he was detained for a 2002 conviction for abduction, according to the court's writ of innocence."

Explain why the Duke Lacrosse players were not innocent. crystal alleged a gang rape in which the perpetrators penetrated her and ejaculated on her. The DNA found on her person after the alleged crime did not match the DNA of the men niong had indicted. That was absolute proof of their innocence.

nifong knew of the DNA evidence when he had the men indicted.

Yet you claim his intention was to conduct a "good faith prosecution".

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 267 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 25 days since the Ides of March and 3,220 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

A Lawyer said...

Why should anyone take you seriously?

You promised something like that would happen by the Ides of March.

All you did was file a frivolous, non meritorious complaint to the NC Judicial standards people. You have a history of engaging in frivolous, non meritorious maneuvers and making bombastic promises. Why should we expect this time will be different?


Well said.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Should Abe begin the countdown to May Day?


Not necessary. But if he wants to..

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...


"HEY, EVERYBODY (ESPECIALLY YOU, ABE)... LISTEN UP!!!
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I believe that the end of the Madness is near... that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming locomotive.

It is my belief that within a matter of a few weeks you will begin to see cracks in the buttressed walls of injustice shortly before they come tumbling down just like in Jericho... resulting in Mangum's freedom and exoneration... and the righteous shall rejoice!

As you were."

Why should anyone take uou seriously?

You promised something like that wuld happen by the Ides of March

All you did was file a frivolous, non meritorious complaint to the NC Judicial standards people. Youhave a history of engaging in frivolous, non meritorious maneuvers and making bombastic promises. Why should we expect this time will be different?


True, but I keep underestimating some people's capacity for reason and common sense. But I am hopeful an upcoming event will successfully proceed to fruition... from which will commence an unstoppable domino effect to justice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...


Dear Lord, Sid, what have you gone and done now?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hah! Patience, Abe. You'll find out soon enough. Give it two weeks at the most.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
for harr:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sailor-declared-innocent-murder-rape-spending-33-years/story?id=38249082

"'This case has resulted in unspeakable loss for so many people," said Olga Akselrod, a lawyer with the Innocence Project who helped in set Harward free. "The 33 years that Mr. Harward lost cannot be returned to him. Those are years people are building careers, and families.'

Harward's petition to be declared innocent was based on DNA found at the scene that his lawyers submitted to the court they contended showed that he could not have committed the rape and murder.

Instead, the DNA profile matched Jerry Crotty, who had previously died in an Ohio prison in 2006, where he was detained for a 2002 conviction for abduction, according to the court's writ of innocence."

Explain why the Duke Lacrosse players were not innocent. crystal alleged a gang rape in which the perpetrators penetrated her and ejaculated on her. The DNA found on her person after the alleged crime did not match the DNA of the men niong had indicted. That was absolute proof of their innocence.

nifong knew of the DNA evidence when he had the men indicted.

Yet you claim his intention was to conduct a "good faith prosecution".


So, your position is that lack of DNA is enough to rule out a sexual assault?

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
So, Sidney, what's your next great plan?


gui, mon ami, I don't have just one next great plan... I have many in the pike. Any one of many great plans which has the potential to blast open Mangum's conviction like a cannonball through a large square tissue of Charmin Ultra-soft.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...


"HEY, EVERYBODY (ESPECIALLY YOU, ABE)... LISTEN UP!!!
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I believe that the end of the Madness is near... that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming locomotive.

It is my belief that within a matter of a few weeks you will begin to see cracks in the buttressed walls of injustice shortly before they come tumbling down just like in Jericho... resulting in Mangum's freedom and exoneration... and the righteous shall rejoice!

As you were."

Why should anyone take uou seriously?

You promised something like that wuld happen by the Ides of March

All you did was file a frivolous, non meritorious complaint to the NC Judicial standards people. Youhave a history of engaging in frivolous, non meritorious maneuvers and making bombastic promises. Why should we expect this time will be different?


True, but I keep underestimating some people's capacity for reason and common sense. But I am hopeful an upcoming event will successfully proceed to fruition... from which will commence an unstoppable domino effect to justice."

You are the one totally lacking in common sense. You have confirmed that on many occasions, too numerous to count.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
for harr:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sailor-declared-innocent-murder-rape-spending-33-years/story?id=38249082

"'This case has resulted in unspeakable loss for so many people," said Olga Akselrod, a lawyer with the Innocence Project who helped in set Harward free. "The 33 years that Mr. Harward lost cannot be returned to him. Those are years people are building careers, and families.'

Harward's petition to be declared innocent was based on DNA found at the scene that his lawyers submitted to the court they contended showed that he could not have committed the rape and murder.

Instead, the DNA profile matched Jerry Crotty, who had previously died in an Ohio prison in 2006, where he was detained for a 2002 conviction for abduction, according to the court's writ of innocence."

Explain why the Duke Lacrosse players were not innocent. crystal alleged a gang rape in which the perpetrators penetrated her and ejaculated on her. The DNA found on her person after the alleged crime did not match the DNA of the men niong had indicted. That was absolute proof of their innocence.

nifong knew of the DNA evidence when he had the men indicted.

Yet you claim his intention was to conduct a "good faith prosecution".


So, your position is that lack of DNA is enough to rule out a sexual assault?"

harr, yu again try the ineffective ploy to cover your butt and avoid addressing the issue, flashing a straw fisherman holding a red herring.

You are willfully ignorant of the prosecutor's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The actual issue is, does the lack of DNA evidence rule in, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a sexual assault happened?

I repeat this, not because you will ever try to comprende iy. I repeat this to again show the readers what a fool you are. The sexual assault alleged by crystal was a gang rape in which multiple assailants penetrated her, ejaculated on her, left their DNA on her. nifong could not have proven that alleged sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt without having DNA evidence. Did he have anyDNA evidence? No.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"guiowen said...
So, Sidney, what's your next great plan?


gui, mon ami, I don't have just one next great plan... I have many in the pike. Any one of many great plans which has the potential to blast open Mangum's conviction like a cannonball through a large square tissue of Charmin Ultra-soft."

harr, I remind you, each and every time you have trird to shoot off some cannon, said cannon was aimed at You. And you can't figure out why you keep gatting knocked down by the blast.

Anonymous said...

For harr:

You preach continuously that the AG's opinion, that the falsely accused Lacrosse players were innocent, has no legal weight.

Do you even know what legal weight is?

What legal weight has your belief that absence of DNA evidence did not rule out sexual assault? None.

I remind you again, the prosecutor's obligation is to rule in, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a sexual assault did happen.

And I remind you again, the sexual assault alleged by crystal was a rape in whch DNA evidence would have been left.

All the images you flash of a straw fisherman holding up a red herring do not changr that.

William Sherr said...

OK, Sidney,
We'll expect something by April 23.

Anonymous said...

Most posters are expecting that harr's track record will remain intact, so noting will happen.

John D. Smith said...

Sidney asks: So, your position is that lack of DNA is enough to rule out a sexual assault?

While I am not the commenter to which the question was directed, I will provide an answer. I believe there are similarities in my opinion and the opinion of the commenter to whom you responded.

No, I do not believe that the lack of DNA is enough to rule out all forms of sexual assault.

However, I do believe that the lack of DNA is enough to rule out a sexual assault in which the attackers ejaculated and did not use condoms. For that reason, I believe that the lack of DNA is enough to prove false specific allegations which include an attack in which the alleged perpetrators ejaculated and did not use condoms. While it is possible that a complaining witness can be mistaken as to details, I do not believe that a prosecutor can decide unilaterally to change such details when they are proven false. I believe that particularly when specific allegations are proven false that a prosecutor has the duty to discuss on a timely basis such allegations with the accuser. I believe that inaccuracies with respect to details in an accusation raise questions about the credibility of the accuser. I believe that identifications made by an accuser whose specific allegations have been proven false are unreliable, particularly when such identifications are made in a procedure that violates established standards. Finally, I believe that a prosecutor should not indict defendants based solely on unreliable identifications that are contradicted by other evidence, but rather should insist that the police conduct a full investigation.

Based on your repeated assertions that Mike Nifong is an "honorable" prosecutor, I understand that you disagree with all of the opinions I expressed in the preceding paragraph. Is that correct?

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Nifong Supporter said...


John D. Smith said...
Sidney,

I understand that you concluded that the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause of Daye's death and therefore Magnum is not responsible. However, you have not been clear as to your reasoning. I would appreciate greater clarity.



MUCH OF THE BODY OF COMMENT REMOVED TO ALLOW ENOUGH CHARACTERS FOR RESPONSE.

Otherwise, you appear to be arguing that we should accept your medical and legal opinions as binding despite your lack of expertise and disregard contrary opinions provided by medical and legal experts simply because they disagree with you.

Thank you in advance.

John D. Smith
New York, NY


Hey, John D. Smith.

I will attempt to provide sufficient edification for you regarding your queries.

First, I believe that the medical records and even Roberts' assessment are in agreement that the initial intubation of Daye was esophageal. There are many times on my blog features where I've posted the article which states that esophageal intubation is invariably fatal if not corrected immediately (because during esophageal intubation oxygen is not reaching the lungs... which means oxygen is not transferred to red blood cells... which means red blood cells do not carry oxygen to cells throughout the body).

The endotracheal tube was left in Daye's esophagus until he went into cardiac arrest, at which time the medical staff realized the errant tube placement and replaced the tube a second time... this time in the trachea. With oxygen flow re-established to the lungs and with concomitant CPR, Daye's heart was resuscitated, but his brain had been without oxygen too long. Now, can we agree that the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of brain death, and had Daye not been intubated in the esophagus with the tube left in place he would not have sustained brain death.

Mangum had nothing to do with the intubation. The intubation was not related to the stab wound or to the surgical repair. Furthermore, neither Dr. Nichols nor Dr. Roberts give a specific explanation as to the cause of Daye's brain death.

Dr. Nichols autopsy report was far worse than sloppy, it was fraudulent with the intent to mislead... to suggest injuries sustained by the knife wound were worse than they actually were and that the so-called "phantom" wounds to his left upper extremity were "defensive injuries." Dr. Nichols violated standard autopsy protocol by failing to take photos of the so-called injuries. He definitely had the opportunity to document them with photos and his failure to do so is inexcusable.

I disagree with her conclusion which tends to be more along misguided legal lines than medical ones with her stating that the stab wound resulted in him ending up in the hospital where he died, and therefore she is responsible for his death. Nonsensical reasoning. However, the main problem I have with Dr. Roberts is her attempt to shield Duke University Hospital staff from liability in Daye's brain death. Dr. Roberts is forced to admit that the initial intubation is esophageal because the end-tidal CO2 monitor reading is negative. But then she falsely states that the initial tube place in the esophagus is removed and replaced with a second tube properly situated in the trachea before Daye goes into cardiac arrest. By so doing, she removes the esophageal intubation from being in play in causing the cardiac arrest. Then Dr. Roberts states that a third intubation was done following Daye's cardiac arrest and resuscitation because of low oxygenated blood (not an excuse for replacing a tube properly in the airway).

As far as infection goes, there is no indication whatever that Daye was even treated for a systemic infection... no blood cultures, no urine cultures, no sputum cultures... and most importantly, no infectious disease consult.

Without doubt, at least in my mind, the cause of Daye's extreme agitation was delirium tremens and not an infection.

Nifong Supporter said...


William Sherr said...
OK, Sidney,
We'll expect something by April 23.


William Sherr,

Hey, pal... Welcome to the party!

Naturally, I'm hoping that I can deliver long before April 23rd. The emancipation and exoneration of Crystal Mangum is close at hand... you can take that to the bank.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr Harr Harr







Sidney Harr Harr Harr







Sidney Harr Harr Harr







Sidney Harr Harr Harr






The Great Kilgo said...

Ubes has once again lapsed into his notorious crank mode

Anonymous said...

the latest from harr, part 1:


"Hey, John D. Smith.

I will attempt to provide sufficient edification for you regarding your queries."

Right off the bat we know where this is not going. harr hasn't provided edification or enlightenment to anyone since the day he was born

"First, I believe that the medical records and even Roberts' assessment are in agreement that the initial intubation of Daye was esophageal. There are many times on my blog features where I've posted the article which states that esophageal intubation is invariably fatal if not corrected immediately (because during esophageal intubation oxygen is not reaching the lungs... which means oxygen is not transferred to red blood cells... which means red blood cells do not carry oxygen to cells throughout the body)."

You misrepresent the situation. The treating physicians did recognize the situation and did try to deal with it. That they were unsuccessful was tragic but not negligence.

"The endotracheal tube was left in Daye's esophagus until he went into cardiac arrest, at which time the medical staff realized the errant tube placement and replaced the tube a second time... this time in the trachea. With oxygen flow re-established to the lungs and with concomitant CPR, Daye's heart was resuscitated, but his brain had been without oxygen too long. Now, can we agree that the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of brain death, and had Daye not been intubated in the esophagus with the tube left in place he would not have sustained brain death."

The need for intubation arose when Reginald Daye aspirated when he was being worked up for an intra abdominal infection. He was put at risk for an intra abdominal infection when crystal stabbed him. The workup, the intubation would have never been necessary had crystal not stabbed him.

"Mangum had nothing to do with the intubation. The intubation was not related to the stab wound or to the surgical repair. Furthermore, neither Dr. Nichols nor Dr. Roberts give a specific explanation as to the cause of Daye's brain death."

I say again, the intubation was necessary because crystal stabbed him. The intubation was related to the stab wound and the surgery necessitated by the stab wound. mangum had everything to do with the intubation.

"Dr. Nichols autopsy report was far worse than sloppy, it was fraudulent with the intent to mislead... to suggest injuries sustained by the knife wound were worse than they actually were and that the so-called "phantom" wounds to his left upper extremity were "defensive injuries." Dr. Nichols violated standard autopsy protocol by failing to take photos of the so-called injuries. He definitely had the opportunity to document them with photos and his failure to do so is inexcusable."

Again harr lies.

Anonymous said...

the atest fromharr part two:

"I disagree with her conclusion which tends to be more along misguided legal lines than medical ones with her stating that the stab wound resulted in him ending up in the hospital where he died, and therefore she is responsible for his death. Nonsensical reasoning. However, the main problem I have with Dr. Roberts is her attempt to shield Duke University Hospital staff from liability in Daye's brain death."

As there was no negligence, there was no need to shield Duke from liability.

"Dr. Roberts is forced to admit that the initial intubation is esophageal because the end-tidal CO2 monitor reading is negative. But then she falsely states that the initial tube place in the esophagus is removed and replaced with a second tube properly situated in the trachea before Daye goes into cardiac arrest."

Dr. Roberts, who IS competent, which you are not, said the esophageal intubation happened because the vomitus blocked a clear view of the upper airway. Because you, te minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate are incapable of recognizing the risk of intra abdominal infection following a colon laceration, does not rule it put.

"By so doing, she removes the esophageal intubation from being in play in causing the cardiac arrest. Then Dr. Roberts states that a third intubation was done following Daye's cardiac arrest and resuscitation because of low oxygenated blood (not an excuse for replacing a tube properly in the airway)."

Which means that the treating physicians did recognize the situation an were treating it.

"As far as infection goes, there is no indication whatever that Daye was even treated for a systemic infection... no blood cultures, no urine cultures, no sputum cultures... and most importantly, no infectious disease consult."

Again harr, just because you are a completely incompetent physician who can not recognize the risk of intra abdominal following a colon laceration, that does not rule it out intra abdominal infection

"Without doubt, at least in my mind, the cause of Daye's extreme agitation was delirium tremens and not an infection."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you have the mind of a competent, experienced physician.

Anonymous said...

hay harr:

With all your spouting off, passing yourself as a medical expert, you have never established yourself as a medical expert.

Give drtails of your training and your experience.

That entails explaining why you were never accepted into residency training and never achieved medical board certifcation.

Specifically, how many intubations have you actually done. How many autopsies have you done? How many surgical procedures you have done. How many times have you treated a colon laceration and cared for the patient in the post operative period?

Unlessyou can document experiebnce in those scenarios, you can not establish you are an expert, and what you call edification and enlightenment is a spurious claim.

Anonymous said...

harr, more fior you:

I mentioned this in a comment which, coward that you are, you deleted.

I once did an incidental appendectomy on a patient, i.e. it was done in the course af another abdominal procedure.

That exposed his abdominal cavity to colonic contamination. The time of exposure was less than a minute.

Reginald Daye suffered a colon laceration from the stab wound inflicted by crystal. Because of the time it took the first responders to get there, the time it took to transport him to the hospital, the time it took to get him ready for surgery, the time it took to anesthetize him, his abdominal cavity was exposed to colonic contamination for a lot longer than a minute, probably a couple hours.

My patient developed an intra abdominal infection.

Why do you say Reginald Daye was not at risk of an abdominal infection?

Hypothetical situation;

Suppose the two of us had testified at crystal's murder trial. You testify that Reginald Daye's death was not due to the stab wound. I testified it was. I coud prove I knew what I was talking about. You could not prove you knew what you were talking about.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 266 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

There are 13 days until April 23rd.

It has been 26 days since the Ides of March and 3,221 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

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.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo,

When are you going to tell us who the mystery rapists are? Is kenny one of them?

The Great Kilgo said...

I have offered to tell kenhyderal but he will not contact me.

Anonymous said...

harr the hypocritical fabricating delusional megalomaniacal ignorant liar or krnnu hissy fit or both posting anonymously again.

harr likes to flash images of a straw fisherman holding a red herring, thinking this will ward off truths he does not want to confront.

kenhyderal said...

The person purporting to be "The Great Kilgo" said : "I have offered to tell kenhyderal but he will not contact me"................... Your e-mail account has been deleted. You have my e-mail address. It remains unchanged. If you have lost or forgotten it you can ask Dr. Harr @ justice4nifong@gmail.com B.T.W. Unbekannte is already on the speciously named Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog

The Great Kilgo said...

Kenhyderal,
Help me! I'm the real hjkr756.,

Ubes said...

Sorry, Kenhyderal, but I'm not going to let Kilgo give you the information you need.

guiowen said...

Too bad, Kenny! Looks like Ubes is still in control. But cheer up, Sidney has some fantastic plan for April 23.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...

"The person purporting to be "The Great Kilgo" said : "I have offered to tell kenhyderal but he will not contact me"................... Your e-mail account has been deleted. You have my e-mail address. It remains unchanged. If you have lost or forgotten it you can ask Dr. Harr @ justice4nifong@gmail.com B.T.W. Unbekannte is already on the speciously named Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog"

Kenhydeal knows eice as much as Unbekannte as he knows about the Duke Rape Hoax. twice zero is still zero.

Anonymous said...

kenny hissy fit:

Ray Charles.

Anonymous said...

both kenny and harr like to flash straw fishermen holding up red herrings. They think such actions will drive away the truths they don't want to confront. It won't.

Anonymous said...

harr:

kenny hissy fit:

crystal lied about being raped.

nifong is the individual responsible for what kenny calls the sloppy, botched investigation crystal's rape allegations.

Now we are at 200 comments. Now harr the hypocritical fabricating deusional megalomaniacal ignorant liar can open a hole new page of comments the next time he futilely tries to pass himself off as some kind of expert.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 372   Newer› Newest»