justice4nifong: Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

kenhyderal said...: @ Walt. See this from Fordham Law Review ................."When Brady material must be disclosed is a function of the doctrine’s materiality requirement. The materiality requirement looks not to disclosure but to the retrospective impact on the outcome at a past trial, which is particularly unfortunate when Brady is considered as a discovery tool. See, e.g., John G. Douglass, Fatal Attraction? The Uneasy Courtship of Brady and Plea Bargaining, 50 Emory L.J. 437, 443 (2001) (describing the general conclusion of scholars regarding the unfortunate aspects of Brady’s retrospective “bad timing” on the doctrine as an effective disclosure device before trial). It also means that the disciplinary rule is more demanding in terms of timing, which for Brady is violated only if the information is provided too late for effective trial use. See, e.g., Stanley Z. Fisher, The Prosecutor’s Ethical Duty to Seek Exculpatory Evidence in Police Hands: Lessons from England, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 1379, 1421 n.221 (2000) (describing “in sufficient time to allow the defendant to use the evidence effectively” as the timing requirement of Brady); Robert G. Morvillo et al., Motion Denied: Systematic Impediments to White Collar Criminal Defendants’ Trial Preparation, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 157, 169 (2005) (same). Nifong disagreed with the testimony of Assistant District Attorney Marsha Goodenow that he had an obligation to turn over exculpatory information immediately. See Nifong Transcript, supra note 45, at 255 (recounting discussion between cross-examiner recounting Goodenow’s testimony and Nifong, who disagreed that there was an obligation of immediate disclosure); see also Anne Blythe, Joseph Neff & Benjamin Niolet, Charlotte Prosecutor: Nifong Did It All Wrong, News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.), June 15, 2007, at 1A. Immediate disclosure may be the proper practice, but the interpretation of the timing requirement of the disciplinary rule would be a substantial issue under different facts in the absence of more concrete direction than the word “timely” in the rule. Certainly the general ethical rule can be broader than the constitutional requirement, but that rule appears to have grown from the constitutional doctrine, and North Carolina’s provision “make timely disclosure” is taken directly from the ABA’s Model Rule. See Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.8(d) (2006). If a definite meaning is to be given to that apparently indefinite term, a statement to that effect by the rule-drafting authority is warranted rather than the interpretation of an individual panel. See D.C. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.8(e) (2000) (using the language “[i]ntentionally fail to disclose to the defense, upon request and at a time when use by the defense is reasonably feasible”).; February 21, 2017 at 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Do a Google search of the terms "Larceny of Chose in Action" and "NC". Then report back and tell us how many cases you found involving people who have been charged, arrested and convicted of that offense in North Carolina.

Consider yourself elucified.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 21, 2017 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal said:

"Anonymous said: "Do you have any legal authority who supports your obvious belief, that Nifong should have made the decision whether or not Reade Seligmann's alibi was true"....................Legal authority?? Former DA Nifong did not make any such decision, however he did have doubts about this "convenient" alibi."

You are again trying to bullshit your way out of confronting an issue which does not support your presumption of guilt on the art of the Lacrosse team.

If Nifong was thinking during the case that Reade Seligmann's alibi was "dishonest/contrived(your words)_, and refusing to look at it, then he was making the decision that Reade Seligmann's alibi was false.

It has been documented that Nifong put his hands over his ears and told defense attorneys he did not want to hear their alibi evidence. Why? Most likely because he knew he could not impeach the evidence in court.; February 21, 2017 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Your last comment, February 21, 2017 at 9:04 AM, was more bullshit.

Said comment does not address the issue of North Carolina Law regarding a Non Testimonial Order issued by a North Carolina Judge. Nifong was required by North Carolina Law to turn over the report, which included ALL of the results, including the result that the male DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation of a semen depositing gang rape did not match the DNA of the men he wanted indict, as soon as he had the report. That does mean he was obligated to turn over the report to the three men he wanted to indict before he had them indicted. Nifong had the report before he sought indictments.

You are again trying yo bullshit your way to escape confronting FACTS which do not support your presumption of Lacrosse player guilt.; February 21, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Walt. See this from Fordham Law Review ................."When Brady material must be disclosed is a function of the doctrine’s materiality requirement."

Brady is not applicable to Article 14 § 15A-271 et seq. § 15A-280 requires a return within 90 days which Nifong failed to meet. § 15A-282 requires reports be made available to the defendant or his/her attorney as soon as the report[s] are available. Which Nifong also failed to meet. There is no materiality requirement under § 15A-271 et seq., just hard deadlines.

Of course, it would be helpful for you if you read the whole quote you provided: " It also means that the disciplinary rule is more demanding in terms of timing, which for Brady is violated only if the information is provided too late for effective trial use. [emphasis mine] See, e.g., Stanley Z. Fisher, The Prosecutor’s Ethical Duty to Seek Exculpatory Evidence in Police Hands: Lessons from England, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 1379, 1421 n.221 (2000)...."

Thus, you will note that Rule 3.8(a) is more demanding than Brady. Brady is only concerned with the use of exculpatory evidence at trial. Rule 3.8(a) is also concerned with the use of exculpatory material pre-trial. That was Nifong's fatal error in his DHC defense. And, it is yours here today. As the Fordham Law Review recognizes, the Rule 3.8(a) implications of timing are far more stringent than Brady. Further, § 15A-271 et seq. provides its own timing requirements which are much more stringent than Brady and even Rule 3.8(a). Just because Nifong argued something erroneously does not make it the law. In fact the law is considerably different from Nifong's argument. You might want to put that in your general fund of knowledge.

Walt-in-Durham; February 21, 2017 at 1:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Thanks for the information. It appears to me, however, that there was no malice of forethought.; February 21, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: ?Kenhyderal:

"Thanks for the information. It appears to me, however, that there was no malice of forethought."

If you mean Nifong's concealment of the DNA found on Crystal, there was malice of forethought, namely, if Nifoong had released the evidence to the people he was obligated release it to, he would have exposed he had no case against the men he intended to indict for first degree rape.; February 21, 2017 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: It's "malice aforethought"
You might want to put that in your general fund of knowledge while you're at it.; February 21, 2017 at 3:34 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Thanks for the information. It appears to me, however, that there was no malice of forethought."

Yet another requirement that does not exist. However, I submit that Nifong was acting maliciously. § 15A-273 allows for the issuance of a non-testimonial identification order only if the state can show:
(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.

By Nifong's own admission the state failed to meet (2) the requirement that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person named... committed the offense. Nifong said that the point of the order was to identify a suspect. That is not what is contemplated. Yet, he had his ADAs submit an affidavit to a friendly judge to get a NTO that he was not entitled to for a fishing expedition. (Remember that phrase from the Ontario Supreme Court's discussion of what probable cause is not? Well, it applies equally in North Carolina.) Once again, you are ignoring the law when it does not suit your purpose.

Walt-in-Durham; February 21, 2017 at 3:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It's "malice aforethought"
You might want to put that in your general fund of knowledge while you're at it"...................... Thanks for correcting me.; February 21, 2017 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 22, 2017 at 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 21 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 313 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 8 days since February 14, 2017, 53 days since the end of 2016, 236 days since the end of June 2016, 304 days since April 24, 2016, 343 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,187 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,538 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,292 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 22, 2017 at 3:54 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: And the lie was??

I thought it was clear the lie to which I referred. I demonstrated your claim in your 2/17 9:43PM comment was false. DNA found on Crystal's person, that was not extracted from sperm, as were three samples, did not, absolutely, eliminate all the tested Players as a source.

When asked for the source of your conclusion, you quoted on 2/18 3:16PM from the DNASI report: "The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%."

I provided a number of sources that refuted your assertion.

1. Claims made in the Evans lawsuit that all of the players were excluded "with 100% scientific certainty" as potential donors from the DNA in the rape kit (you reasonably responded that these claims are not demonstrative proof).
2. Stipulated facts from Nifong's disciplinary hearing that the DNA analysis of evidence in the rape kit "excluded all of the lacrosse players as potential contributors of DNA."
3. The conclusion from the January 2007 DNA report; "Individual DNA profiles for evidence specimens (item numbers 15772, 15776, 15785, 15816-15818) consistent with male profiles that did not match DNA profiles from any reference specimens..."
4. Finally, I noted that the quote you cited as "proof" of your assertion did not, as you falsely claimed, relate to a non-exclusion of any lacrosse player to any of the DNA found on items in the rape kit, but rather to the non-exclusion of Evans from DNA found in the mixture taken from the fingernails found in his wastebasket. Indeed, the next sentence in the report makes that absolutely clear: "David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to this mixture profile." Moreover, the word "mixture" in your quote quite clearly refers to the "mixture" prepared for the fingernails. there was no "mixture" for the items taken from the rape kit.

I asked you how you made such a blatant error--whether the error was innocent or whether you deliberately attempted to deceive readers on this blog. You ignored the question, refused to admit any error and responded only by repeating your assertion and raising straw man arguments.

I recognize that your demonstrably false statement is not proof that you lied. A lie requires intent, not just ignorance.

I also recognize that my decision to label you a liar requires that I impute your motivation for making the false statement. In this case, I note that you made your false assertion repeatedly, including after you had been provided proof that it was false; you ignored the evidence that demonstrably disproved your statement; you responded with straw man arguments to deflect attention from your false statement; you ignored the evidence that your proof was taken out of context and was misleading; and declined either to acknowledge your mistake, let alone to explain how you made the mistake.

As a result, I concluded that you had deliberately misstated the context of the quote you provided as your "proof." I view a deliberate misstatement as a lie.

In this case, I do not believe that I was too quick to label you a liar. I concede that, in other cases, I have been too quick to do so. Your intellectually dishonest "debating" style, which relies dominantly on argument by assertion and straw man arguments, may make it appear to others that you are lying when in fact you are not.

I ask other comments: was I too quick to label Kenny a liar in this case?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 6:58 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: In this case, I note that you made your false assertion repeatedly, including after you had been provided proof that it was false; you ignored the evidence that demonstrably disproved your statement:......................................................................... Are you absolutely convinced that what you provided is absolute "proof" that that all those tested could be 100% eliminated as contributing to any of the DNA fragments found on the rape kit samples. I think not. I would like to have an expert in forensic DNA weigh in on this before I will concede. My limited interpretations of what I have learned, both from my own on-line research and on references you have provided cause me to think otherwise. It is, however, simply an academic question. One you have seized upon, in typical Duke Lacrosse apologist fashion, to discredit me. I have already stated that I believe all those tested have for all intents and purposes been cleared and that the extraneous DNA fragments could, like the fingernail DNA, come from possible transference, not necessarily contemporaneous with the alleged rape.; February 22, 2017 at 9:31 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Yes. I am absolutely convinced for the reasons I have explain.

You did not explain why the quote you provided as "proof" of your assertion that none of the lacrosse players had been excluded from the DNA on the rape kit items when that quote related specifically to the Evans non-exclusion from the mixture taken from the fingernails in the wastebasket in Evans' bathroom.

Every human being has unique DNA (with the exception of identical twins). Although the principles are the same (matching specific markers at specific nodes), the conclusions are not the same because of the uniqueness of each DNA.

The conclusion "The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%. David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to this mixture profile." cannot be taken to relate to refer to persons other than David Evans and DNA samples other than the one to which the statement specifically refers.

You have made no attempt to explain how you could make an error of this magnitude. I believe that your misstatement was deliberate.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D said: In this case, I note that you made your false assertion repeatedly, including after you had been provided proof that it was false; you ignored the evidence that demonstrably disproved your statement:......................................................................... Are you absolutely convinced that what you provided is absolute "proof" that that all those tested could be 100% eliminated as contributing to any of the DNA fragments found on the rape kit samples. I think not. I would like to have an expert in forensic DNA weigh in on this before I will concede."

Why do you need a Forensic DNA expert? Going back to a fundamental concept of US law, the Prosecution has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That someone can not be excluded as a suspect with 100% certainty, is irrelevant. The prosecution has to INCLUDE someone with a certain amount of certainty for that person to be suspect. That DOES NOT invariably mean that if someone is a suspect in a crime but not convicted that there must have been a crime but not enough evidence to convict, which is the basis of your guilt presuming attitude towards the Lacrosse players. In the Duke Rape Hoax there was zero evidence a crime had happened in the first place.

"My limited interpretations of what I have learned, both from my own on-line research and on references you have provided cause me to think otherwise. It is, however, simply an academic question. One you have seized upon, in typical Duke Lacrosse apologist fashion, to discredit me."

Kenny, That is more your bullshitting to get away from FACTS which do not mesh with your presumption of Lacrosse player guilt. You have thoroughly discredited yourself, with statements like, Nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape; your claim, backed up by zero evidence, that unidentified party guests raped Crystal; your statement that Nifong had no intention of concealing exculpatory evidence; your ducking issues presented to you, and here we go again: Crystal alleged a semen depositing gang rape; male DNA was found on her person, on the rape kit materials; that DNA did not match the DNA of the people subjected to the NTO, which meant they were considered suspects; Nifong subjected Crystal to lineup procedures which consisted of photos only of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal; Nifong had indicted for first degree rape three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal; Nifong made zero effort to identify the men who had left their DNA on Crystal, your explanation being that Nifong thought he could convict the Lacrosse players of Sexual Assault and kidnapping without DNA evidence.

"I have already stated that I believe all those tested have for all intents and purposes been cleared and that the extraneous DNA fragments could, like the fingernail DNA, come from possible transference, not necessarily contemporaneous with the alleged rape."

You mean the alleged rape, evidence of which was non existent. Why has your attitude always been presumption of guilt of members of the Lacrosse team?; February 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Are you absolutely convinced that what you provided is absolute "proof" that that all those tested could be 100% eliminated as contributing to any of the DNA fragments found on the rape kit samples."

Experts have weighed in. The SBI lab found no match. DNASI found no match. Both agencies are expert when it comes to criminal DNA analysis. Both eliminated all three defendants. Further, both eliminated all the people subject to the NTO as suspects. Of course you know this as the reports have been available since 2006. To claim some other fact is simply fake news.

John D. Smith wrote: "Yes. I am absolutely convinced...."

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

Walt-in-Durham; February 22, 2017 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Didn't Meehan's DNA show up in the rape kit sample test results?; February 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM
JSwift said...: Walt,

Inanition to having proven Kenny's conclusion factually incorrect, I also expressed the view that the "proof" he provided for his conclusion was misleading and the "error" was most likely deliberate.

Do you agree that Kenny's partial quotation is misleading? Kenny quoted: The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%. to support his assertion that the DNA tests did not exclude all of the tested lacrosse players from the DNA found on the rape items. As I have noted, the full quotation clearly refers to Evans and the DNA found in the mixture taken from the fingernails found in his wastebasket: The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%. David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to this mixture profile."

Moreover, although I obviously cannot read his mind, because the deletion of the second sentence removes a clear explanation of the subject matter for the first sentence, I have concluded that Kenny's misleading editing was a deliberate attempt to support his assertion. Is my conclusion unfair?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 11:59 AM
JSwift said...: Didn't Meehan's DNA show up in the rape kit sample test results?

I believe it was a non-exclusion rather than a definitive match, but I do not remember the details specifically.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 12:00 PM
guiowen said...: I pointed out some months ago that, assuming 98% of individuals could be excluded, then, if Crystal had had contact with 40 individuals over the previous week, then there was a 55% probability that at least one of them would have the particular property.
Of course he doesn't believe me. I guess mathematics is too difficult for him.; February 22, 2017 at 2:10 PM
JSwift said...: Guiowen:

I agree with your arithmetic.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 2:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Where is the fallacy in my thinking? If there was a 98% chance that the DNA on the fingernail belonged to Evans and a 2% chance it did not then why was there a 100% chance and not only a 98% chance that that the additional DNA found did not belong to any of the Players tested. As I said, this is all academic as John D. tries to find clever ways to discredit me and my arguments. We all know he uses his knowledge of Aristotelian Logic to question any and all inferences I make about the events of March 13 2006 but freely tolerates any and all inferences made by those who support the Duke Lacrosse Players. I state once again for the record I do not think that DNA came from the Players tested and I do think that the DNA on the fingernail belonged to Evans.; February 22, 2017 at 3:44 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Reread the quote you provided as well as the sentence immediately after it that you deliberately deleted. The fallacy is that you claim to have made up your mind before you considered any evidence.

The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%. David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to this mixture profile.

As you know from your research, every human's DNA is unique (except for identical twins). The vast majority (much more than 99% of human DNA is identical). DNA testing is noting matches or differences in that less than 1% that differs. .

As you know from your research, it is relatively straightforward to EXCLUDE a person with certainty; it is much harder to INCLUDE a person through DNA testing with virtual certainty.

As you know from your research, DNA testing is all about matching specific markers at specific nodes in the DNA. In order to obtain a perfect match (and 100% scientific certainty of that match) between the DNA from the evidence and the reference specimen, the market at EVERY SINGLE node must be the same.

On the other hand, a SINGLE inconsistency for markers at a SINGLE node in the two samples is sufficient to conclude with 100% certainty that the samples are NOT a match and the person who contributed the reference sample is EXCLUDED with 100% scientific certainty from being the donor.

In most DNA testing, only about 16 markers are tested. A match at all 16 markers is enough to conclude that the samples match to an extremely high probability (e.g., one chance out of a billion males is not excluded from being a potential done). that easily meets the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement in a criminal trial. Nevertheless, it is not the absolute certainty you seem to think is important in other discussions.

The problems with testing arise when the evidence DNA is degraded, due to the passage of time and other factors. If data is available at only some of the nodes included in the analysis, then fewer nodes are available for comparison. In all cases, a single inconsistency will result in a 100% exclusion. If all available markers match, the greater the number of available markers, the greater the likelihood that the samples match; the fewer the number of available markers, the lower the likelihood.

Generally, the probability is stated as a percentage of males excluded as potential donors. In the Evans' non-exclusion, DNASI was able to exclude approximately 98% of the male population. Evans was part of the 2% not excluded.

Guiowen's example was as follows: over the course of the week, Crystal had physical contact with 40 males (e.g., shaking hands, incidental contact involving her nail). The probability of any single one of those contacts being excluded is 98%; the probability of inclusion is 2%. The probability of all 40 contacts all being excluded is 98%^40 (the 98% probability of an individual exclusion raised to the 40th; the exponent is the number of individuals who are excluded). 98%^40 is approximately 45% and represents the probability that all 40 are simultaneously excluded. The probability of any one or more being included the is 100% minus the 45% probability than none are include, or 55%.

As I recall, the AG report included subsequent refinements to the analysis that reduced the potential included population as 0.1% of males rather than the 2% estimated initially by DNASI. I don't know what additional information they included. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the DNA found from the mixture came from Evans. Given the complete lack of other credible evidence, it is highly likely that this DNA was the result of secondary transference, probably from other material in the wastebasket that had Evans' DNA. .

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 22, 2017 at 4:38 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Let me explain. We have been told that only about 2% of people have this characteristic. This means that 98% of people can be eliminated. Now, Evans was one of the 2% of men who could not be ruled out. In other words, of 150 million men in this country, approximately 3 million of them could have given this DNA. Thus Evans was one among 3 million who could have done this.
Is that clear, or do I have to say it all in words of one syllable so that you can u7nderstand?; February 22, 2017 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Where is the fallacy in my thinking? If there was a 98% chance that the DNA on the fingernail belonged to Evans and a 2% chance it did not then why was there a 100% chance and not only a 98% chance that that the additional DNA found did not belong to any of the Players tested. As I said, this is all academic as John D. tries to find clever ways to discredit me and my arguments. We all know he uses his knowledge of Aristotelian Logic to question any and all inferences I make about the events of March 13 2006 but freely tolerates any and all inferences made by those who support the Duke Lacrosse Players. I state once again for the record I do not think that DNA came from the Players tested and I do think that the DNA on the fingernail belonged to Evans."

What does this have to do with the FACTS, that the male DNA found on Crystal DID NOT match the DNA of the men subjected to the NTO, did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had indicted, that Nifong made no attempt to identify the men who left their DNA on Crystal, and Nifong concealed the evidence from the men against whom he sought indictments.

For DNA analysis to incriminate a person, the DNA has to match the suspect's DNA to a level far higher than 98%. It has to match the suspect's DNA to a level on the order of 999,999%. A 98% match means there is a 2% chance it could belong to someone else. a 999999% match means a chance of 0.0001% it cold belong to another person.

Incidentally, your inferences you make about the Duke Rape Hoax are based on a presumption that members of the Lacrosse team were guilty of raping Crystal, and are supported by zero evidence. That is what makes your inferences intolerable and untenable.; February 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ John D. So what are we talking about here; what you consider to be deception by me or an attempt by me to slander all Duke Lacrosse Players. Let me concede, I do not think any of the DNA found on Crystal came from the indicted and non-indicted Players and their two identified guests, which, by the way, is nor a new concession on my part brought about by your erudite arguments. You should not however impute my motivation. Perhaps my comparison of the probability of the DNA of Evans on the fingernail with the lack of a match with the other Players tested is not scientifically valid but that does not change the situation where DNA found on Crystal alleged to have come from a rape was not identified. I fear that following AG Cooper's dropping of the case, these unidentified DNA samples were not even kept. Had DA Nifong not withdrawn I think he could of gotten the convictions for sexual assault, at least against one of the accused, that he he thought he could. He was much less likely then Cooper to drop the case because of political pressure.; February 22, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: excerpt from Kenhyderal's latest:

"Perhaps my comparison of the probability of the DNA of Evans on the fingernail with the lack of a match with the other Players tested is not scientifically valid but that does not change the situation where DNA found on Crystal alleged to have come from a rape was not identified."

So explain: Nifong had custody of that evidence. He and Meehan were the only idividualsa aware of that evidence. Why did Nifong make no attempt to identify the men who had left their DNA on Crystal? Why did Nifong seek indictments for first degree rape against men whose DNA did nor match the DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation of a semen depositing gang rape? Why did Nifong, at the time he sought indictments for first degree rape conceal that evidence from the men he wanted indicted?

"I fear that following AG Cooper's dropping of the case, these unidentified DNA samples were not even kept. Had DA Nifong not withdrawn I think he could of gotten the convictions for sexual assault, at least against one of the accused, that he he thought he could."

Nifong wanted to convict all three Lacrosse defendants of first degree rape. He switched his objective to sexual assault after Crystal changed her story, saying in December of 2006 that she could not recall actually being penetrated.Who could he have convicted? David Evans? Explain how DNA consistent with but not matching David Evans found on one of Crystal's false fingernails was evidence of a sexual assault which Crystal initially described as a semen depositing gang rape. Crystal's identification of David Evans was not reliable, considering she claimed David Evans had a mustache, and there is no evidence he ever had a mustache. And you again presume a fact not in evidence, that you can think. Guilt presumption and attempts on your part to justify your guilt presumption are not thinking but scheming, and rather ineffective scheming.

"He was much less likely then Cooper to drop the case because of political pressure."

AG Cooper dismissed the charges because there was no crime to justify the charges. AG Cooper was re elected AG by a margin post Duke Rape Hoax, in spite of a black newspaper calling for his defeat because he dismissed the charges.

Just more BS from Kenny, trying to avoid facts which do not mesh with his guilt presumption.; February 23, 2017 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I fear that following AG Cooper's dropping of the case, these unidentified DNA samples were not even kept."

So explain why Nifong, when he had custody of the DNA evidence and the opportunity to at least try to identify the men who had left that DNA on Crystal, made no attempt to identify those men and, instead, sought indictments for first degree rape against men whose DNA he knew did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

So far you have expressed no fear about what Nifong id and did not do.; February 23, 2017 at 3:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 20 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 312 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 9 days since February 14, 2017, 54 days since the end of 2016, 237 days since the end of June 2016, 305 days since April 24, 2016, 344 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,188 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,539 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,291 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 23, 2017 at 4:12 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I am glad that you finally admitted that your DNA analysis was flawed.

You should not however impute my motivation.

You should be willing to have an honest discussion. When your assertions raise questions, you should be willing to discuss honestly the implications of those assertions.

I think he could of gotten convictions for sexual assault, against at least one of the accused

You have never explained WHY either you or Nifong believe at least one of the accused was actually guilty of sexual assault. Are you implicitly supporting the view that any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent one?

Finally, you have emphasized Nifong's "doubts" about Seligmann's alibi, believing it to be "contrived." I have asked you several times why Nifong chose not to investigate that alibi, preferring to harbor his "doubts." Was Nifong's decision not to investigate that evidence a mistake?

I believe that you and I are in agreement that Nifong's failure to make any attempt to identify the nine or ten samples of unmatched male DNA found in and on Mangum was a mistake on Nifong's part. Is that correct?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 4:54 AM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "... I have concluded that Kenny's misleading editing was a deliberate attempt to support his assertion. Is my conclusion unfair?"

This has been Kenny's M.O. since he first appeared. Selective editing, imposing requirements that do not exist, ignoring facts that are inconvenient, ignoring the law. That's why he is such an ineffective advocate. I believe your conclusion is quite fair.

Walt-in-Durham; February 23, 2017 at 7:00 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Had DA Nifong not withdrawn I think he could of gotten the convictions for sexual assault, at least against one of the accused, that he he thought he could."

How? He had no way to identify any suspect. Crystal would not be able to identify anyone as the perpetrator in court. Her lineup identifications were inadmissible. With no DNA linking anyone to her, the case was dead in the water. No matter what the charge, without an identification, there is no case.

"He was much less likely then Cooper to drop the case because of political pressure."

Nifong filed the case for political reasons. Cooper, on the other hand, dismissed the case despite his political base and the prosecutors whom he closely identifies with and supports not wanting him to dismiss.

Walt-in-Durham; February 23, 2017 at 7:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: " Are you implicitly supporting the view that any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent one?". .........................You are obviously being facetious here. DA Nifong did not want to listen to Seligmann's alibi because he was convinced he could impeach it in Court.; February 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: You are obviously being facetious here.

Yes. but you still haven't answered the question of WHY he thought the three defendants were guilty of sexual assail. My facetious answer is better than your non-answer.

DA Nifong did not want to listen to Seligmann's alibi because he was convinced he could impeach it in Court.

You are describing Nifong as a lazy and incompetent moron. I asked why he didn't INVESTIGATE the alibi evidence. If I had doubts about an alibi, I would want to find out as much as a could before trial--and investigate everything. If Nifong is truly as lazy as you describe, he would be surprised in court frequently.

You also haven't explained how Nifong was convinced he could impeach it in Court before he heard it. Is he a mind reader?

On a more general note, you thought it inappropriate that I impute a motivation to you. Why is it not inappropriate for you to impute a motivation to Nifong?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D said: " Are you implicitly supporting the view that any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent one?". .........................You are obviously being facetious here. DA Nifong did not want to listen to Seligmann's alibi because he was convinced he could impeach it in Court."

Kenhyderal again trying to bullshit through something which does not mesh with his presumption of guilt on the part of the Lacrosse players.

The reason Nifong did not want to listen to Read Seligmann's alibi was he knew he could not impeach it in court.; February 23, 2017 at 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: dDKenhyderal:

"John D said: " Are you implicitly supporting the view that any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent one?". .........................You are obviously being facetious here. DA Nifong did not want to listen to Seligmann's alibi because he was convinced he could impeach it in Court."

You forget Nifong did try too impeach Reade Seligmann's alibi pre trial. Mr. Seligmann had a witness who gave a statement which supported his alibi, Moez Elmostaafa. Nifong tried to intimidate Mr. Elmostafa into changing his statement supporting Reade Seligmann.

Did Nifong withhold the DNA evidence from the defendants because he believed he could impeach the evidence in court?; February 23, 2017 at 2:36 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D. said and Walt replied : (John D. Smith wrote) ". I have concluded that Kenny's misleading editing was a deliberate attempt to support his assertion. Is my conclusion unfair?" (Walt replied) This has been Kenny's M.O. since he first appeared. Selective editing, imposing requirements that do not exist, ignoring facts that are inconvenient, ignoring the law. That's why he is such an ineffective advocate. I believe your conclusion is quite fair.................................. This was something totally immaterial. Both of you always use the tried and true Duke Lacrosse apologist tactic of attack all, concede nothing, question everything no matter how inconsequential, discredit everyone; attack, attack, attack. Not everyone who gives evidence or has a different interpretation of the facts are incompetent or liars. Whether it be RN Levicy, Dr.Manly, Dr. Meehan, Officer Gottlieb, Officer Himan, DA Nifong, Dr. Harr, Author Cohan, etc all have been unfairly and viciously maligned. It seems to me I'm in good company.; February 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 23, 2017 at 3:09 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny complains: DA Nifong... [has] been unfairly and viciously maligned.

You have imputed motivations for his actions that are unethical, lazy, stupid and incompetent.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "You also haven't explained how Nifong was convinced he could impeach it in Court before he heard it. Is he a mind reader?"............. DA Nifong was investigating the alibi. He didn't want to listen to Cooney's spin. Details of the alibi had been leaked. Nifong's interaction with Elmostafa was part of his investigation.; February 23, 2017 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Both of you(Walt and John D) always use the tried and true Duke Lacrosse apologist tactic of attack all, concede nothing, question everything no matter how inconsequential, discredit everyone; attack, attack, attack. Not everyone who gives evidence or has a different interpretation of the facts are incompetent or liars. Whether it be RN Levicy, Dr.Manly, Dr. Meehan, Officer Gottlieb, Officer Himan, DA Nifong, Dr. Harr, Author Cohan, etc all have been unfairly and viciously maligned. It seems to me I'm in good company.

RN Levicy: She was passed off as a trained, experienced SANE(Sexual Assault Examiner). She was still a SANE in training. That is not discrediting her.

Dr. Manly: You tried to say she was an experienced Gynecologist. Then you tried to say she was an experienced Emergency Room Physician. It was pointed out to you that she was a first year Emergency Medicine Resident. That is what you were saying was discrediting her.

Dr. Meehan: He admitted under oath he and Nifong agreed to withhold evidence from the Lacrosse defendants, which was contrary to what DNA Security was proper protocol. He discredited himself.

Officer Gottlieb: Was known to be biased against Duke Students. Supposedly he kept notes on a dry erase board which were erased. Months after the Duke Rape Hoax became news, he produced a document from memory which he claimed was what he noted in his previous notes, a document which just happened to dismiss all the inconsistencies in Nifong's case. Gottlieb discredited himself by trying to lie to support Nifong's bogus case

Officer Himan: He was one of the DPD officers who tried to intimidate Moez Elmostafa into changing his statement supporting REade Seligmann's alibi

DA Nifong: Nifong made public, inflammatory, guilt presuming statements about the Lacrosse team, he tried to interfere with their constitutionally guaranteed rights(remaining silent, retaining counsel), concealed exculpatory evidence, lied to the courtabout it, indicted men who he knew were innocent while willfully ignoring people who might have been guiltyy. And you believe that Duke Rape apologists discredited him. More Kenhyderal

Sidney Harr: the totally incompetent medical school graduate who has been preaching that the innocent men Nifong prosecuted are guilty. His evidence that they were guilty: no one ever proved zcrystal lied. Harr has not provided any evidence Crystal ever told the truth. That also applies to Kenhyderal.

Author Cohan: clling him an author is stretching a point. It has been documented his book contains no source notes or references which is what lestablishes him as a serious author NOT.

dThat you say you are in good company, that is you admitting you can noy distinguish between good nd genuine evil.; February 23, 2017 at 4:03 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: DA Nifong was investigating the alibi. He didn't want to listen to Cooney's spin. Details of the alibi had been leaked. Nifong's interaction with Elmostafa was part of his investigation.

How do you know that? Cooney offered the evidence to Nifong on the day Seligmann was indicted. What was leaked? Are you making up facts again (as you did with the DNA)?

The alibi evidence was not taken public until thereafter. His interaction with Elmostafa occurred after the alibi was made public.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 4:03 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny alleges: He didn't want to listen to Cooney's spin.

Why are you trying to make Nifong seem like a lazy, incompetent fool? Any competent prosecutor would want to hear the "spin" provided by the defense attorney. A close look at the evidence, plus a preview of how the defense intended to use the evidence, would be invaluable in developing a strategy to impeach it. Given your flawless ability to impute motivations to Nifong, was his decision to forego this invaluable preview based on incredible laziness or was he merely arrogantly overconfident? Either way, you describe his actions as those of an incompetent buffoon. I agree with you.

John D. Smith
New York; February 23, 2017 at 4:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ All Blog members re: Dr. Anonymous' 4:03 post. I rest my case. Ditto for J. Swift. When I have time I'll find the report that Cooney had leaked the information his client had an airtight alibi.; February 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift 4:11 once again you are being facetious. As a logician is this considered an honest form of argument?; February 23, 2017 at 4:22 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

My 4:11 comment is not facetious. As I said previously, the motivations you impute to Nifong make him look like a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. I actually agree with that conclusion.

I realize that you do not believe that Nifong actually is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. Nevertheless, the motivations you have imputed make that case.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D said: "You also haven't explained how Nifong was convinced he could impeach it in Court before he heard it. Is he a mind reader?"............. DA Nifong was investigating the alibi. He didn't want to listen to Cooney's spin. Details of the alibi had been leaked. Nifong's interaction with Elmostafa was part of his investigation. "

More of Kenny's bullshit attempts to dodge facts which do not mesh with his guilt presumption. Nifong was not investigating Reade Seligmann's alibi. He was trying to discredit it so he wouldn't have to listen to it.

Linwood Wilson, the thoroughly discredited investigator hired by Nifong for the DA's office, found a three year old, unserved warrant for Mr. Elmosrafa, accusing him of being an accomplice in a shop lifting case. Nifong ordered Mr. Elmostafa's arrest. After his arrest, Mr. Elmostafa sas asked if he wanted to change his statement supporting Reade Seligmann. Mr. Elmostafa refused. He was then charged with aiding and abetting the shoplifter and puton trial, where he was found not guilty. The police had the shoplifter in custodyat the time. They tried to intimidate her into testify ing Mr. Elmostafa had been her accomplice. She refused.

Since when is witness intimidation a legitimate investigative method?; February 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ All Blog members re: Dr. Anonymous' 4:03 post. I rest my case. Ditto for J. Swift. When I have time I'll find the report that Cooney had leaked the information his client had an airtight alibi."

Kenhyderal again trying to bullshit his way around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presumption.; February 23, 2017 at 4:41 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I look forward to your report that Cooney leaked the alibi evidence prior to Seligmann's indictment and arrest and that Nifong already had an investigation underway prior to Cooney's attempt to discuss the evidence with Nifong the day Seligmann was arrested (in my earlier post, I claimed incorrectly that this happened on the day of the indictment; I apologize for my error and any inconvenience it may have caused a reader).

I reviewed the DPD case reports, and neither Himan nor Gottlieb notes any activity related to the alibi until after the evidence was first made public. Himan calls Elmostafa, finding his phone number through the Better Business Bureau. It does not appear that Nifong's investigation into the alibi had made much progress at that point.

Your report will no doubt be informative.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 23, 2017 at 7:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "I realize that you do not believe that Nifong actually is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. Nevertheless, the motivations you have imputed make that case"..................The case to who? You? Isn't imputing characterizing someone's motivations. What motivations, that I consider good or bad, do I impute to DA Nifong that would suggest to you all the negative characteristics that you list.; February 23, 2017 at 8:41 PM
guiowen said...: The trouble is Kenny doesn't understand any arguments because he feels they are not "in context".; February 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 19 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 311 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 10 days since February 14, 2017, 55 days since the end of 2016, 238 days since the end of June 2016, 306 days since April 24, 2016, 345 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,189 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,540 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,290 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

You have asked what motivations you have imputed to Nifong support the characterization of Nifong as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. I thought my explanation has been clear.

First, when asked repeatedly why Nifong did not attempt to identify the nine or ten unmatched male DNA specimens found on and in Mangum, you repeatedly answered that Nifong believed that he could still get one or more convictions on sexual assault and kidnapping charges. Ethics regulations require that, in addition to an ability to convict, a prosecutor must have a reasonable basis to believe that each defendant is guilty. You have failed to respond to repeated questions asking why Nifong believed each of the defendants were guilty. If taken as an indication that Nifong did not have a reasonable basis, then he clearly violated the ethics requirements and can be described as unethical.

I realize that may be unfair, so I focused on the identifications made by Mangum as Nifong's support for his belief of their guilt. That, however, raises other questions you refuse to answer. Nifong designed the identification procedure, and he knew that it seriously violated standards for identification procedures and thus the identifications may be tainted. If he failed to understand these limitations, he gain be described as incompetent and stupid. He should have realized that there was a significant risk that the results of the flawed process would be inadmissible, and he would be forced to dismiss charges if that were the case. You have failed to answer questions about that possibility.

I have asked repeatedly why Nifong did not insist that the DPD conduct a bona fide investigation. You have answered that Nifong believed it was too late to ask for a full investigation, ignoring the fact that he became involved in the case much earlier than is generally the case. His reliance on flawed identifications from an inconsistent witness raised the risk of failure. This failure to insist for a real investigation suggests laziness, stupidity and incompetence.

Finally, Nifong's decision not to discuss the alibi evidence from Cooney because he had already concluded it was contrived raises questions I raised in earlier comments. The competent prosecutor would want to see the evidence first hand and to hear the "spin" from the defense. That would provide the most information to use in an impeachment at trial if the review of the evidence confirmed the initial doubts. The motivation you imputed thus suggests laziness and incompetence. Moreover, his refusal to listen to the evidence, possibly reconsidering his initial doubt raises ethical questions.

Perhaps others commenters can provide their thoughts as to whether the motivations you have imputed to Nifong support the characterization of him as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 24, 2017 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Something for you to ponder:

You are on record as saying Nifong did not conceal the DN evidence found n Crystal, that he turned over over a thousand pages of raw data months after he had the report before a trial was scheduled meant he complied with rules and regulations requiring a prosecutor to make known any exculpatory evidence he might have, and because he turned the raw data over to the defense before a trial was scheduled the defendants were not harmed.

Nifong was required by NC law to turn over a report of all the results to all those affected by the NTO, including the three men he had indicted. And, as he had the report before he sought indictments, he was obligated by NC law to turn over the evidence to the defendants before he sought indictments.

Had Nifong complied with the law and turned over the evidence before he sought indictments, keeping in mind that the sexual assault Crystal alleged was a semen depositing gang rape, the case would have never gone to trial. It would have been established before any indictments were handed down that the people Nifong had indicted, were not perpetrators.; February 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

There are 19 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 311 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 10 days since February 14, 2017, 55 days since the end of 2016, 238 days since the end of June 2016, 306 days since April 24, 2016, 345 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,189 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,540 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,290 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

I appreciate the countdown and the effort that goes into it. However, for the record, I believe that something significant will occur in Mangum's case prior to the Ides of March... and it's not an Alford Plea.; February 24, 2017 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

I will give you until the Ides of March anyway because that is the kind of a guy I am.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 24, 2017 at 6:07 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:39 wrote: "Since when is witness intimidation a legitimate investigative method?"

Anything it takes to to get a conviction. That's the way Nifong worked.

Walt-in-Durham; February 24, 2017 at 6:32 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I appreciate the countdown and the effort that goes into it. However, for the record, I believe that something significant will occur in Mangum's case prior to the Ides of March... and it's not an Alford Plea."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer noise] Run him!

ROFLMAO! Where have I heard that before? I'm sure you've exhausted your supply of Duke blue crying towels. Have a C-blue one on me.; February 24, 2017 at 6:37 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:40 AM wrote: "Had Nifong complied with the law and turned over the evidence before he sought indictments, keeping in mind that the sexual assault Crystal alleged was a semen depositing gang rape, the case would have never gone to trial. It would have been established before any indictments were handed down that the people Nifong had indicted, were not perpetrators."

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

Any ethical prosecutor, after receiving the SBI report would have turned it over as required and stopped any plans to go to a Grand Jury. No ethical prosecutor would proceed without probable cause.

Walt-in-Durham; February 24, 2017 at 6:41 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr,
Didn't you promise something by the Ides of March of last year?; February 24, 2017 at 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer:

Sid is a regular Nostradumbass.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: Seligmann Lawyer Kirk Osborn filed a motion outlining Reade's alibi on May 1st, 2006, shortly after he was indicted. KC Johnson, reported Reade's reaction when Osborn and him provided DA Nifong with the alibi evidence " Nifong was laughing and smirking as Kirk presented my alibi evidence" Subsequently, Lawyer Cooney tried to arrange a meeting with Reade and DA Nifong to go over the alibi. Already knowing the details of the alibi and unconvinced by it he refused to listen to Cooney. DA Nifong quote: "There is no such thing as an airtight alibi. There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind" According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart.; February 24, 2017 at 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: "There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind."

kenny,

This quote completely undermines the argument you have been trying (so badly) to make and supports the characterization of Nifong as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

Smart, ethical, motivated and competent prosecutors don't think or act this way. Refusing to consider all the available facts (including and especially those that challenge your pre-existing assumptions and prejudices) and failing to change your opinions and beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence is the hallmark of lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent people.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 24, 2017 at 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ JSwift: Seligmann Lawyer Kirk Osborn filed a motion outlining Reade's alibi on May 1st, 2006, shortly after he was indicted. KC Johnson, reported Reade's reaction when Osborn and him provided DA Nifong with the alibi evidence " Nifong was laughing and smirking as Kirk presented my alibi evidence" Subsequently, Lawyer Cooney tried to arrange a meeting with Reade and DA Nifong to go over the alibi. Already knowing the details of the alibi and unconvinced by it he refused to listen to Cooney. DA Nifong quote: "There is no such thing as an airtight alibi. There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind" According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

And according to the overwhelming lack of evidence of the alleged crime, Crystal was lying. So much for Sidney's "no one ever proved Crystal lied". Crystal, herself, ptoved she lied..

If Nifong was convinced Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived, why did he, unsuccessfully because of Mr. Elmostafa's integrity, try to intimidate Mr. Elmostafa into changing his statement in support of Reade Seligmann's alibi.

Neither you nor Nifong understand that because integrity is something foreign to the both of you, which is why you say no one will change your mind and continue to try to bullshit your way through facts which do not mesh with uour presumption of guilt..; February 24, 2017 at 9:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If Nifong was convinced Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived, why did he, unsuccessfully because of Mr. Elmostafa's integrity, try to intimidate Mr. Elmostafa into changing his statement in support of Reade Seligmann's alibi".................... DA Nifong did no such thing.; February 24, 2017 at 10:12 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous in me quoting me quoting DA Nifong said: "There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind."................................... This was said after he had already reviewed the evidence and arrived at his conclusion that the alibi was contrived.; February 24, 2017 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "If Nifong was convinced Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived, why did he, unsuccessfully because of Mr. Elmostafa's integrity, try to intimidate Mr. Elmostafa into changing his statement in support of Reade Seligmann's alibi".................... DA Nifong did no such thing."

Yes he did.

He also charged the Lacrosse defendants with first degree rape.

He also concealed evidence which exonerated them.

You are full of untenable denials.

More of your trying unsuccessfully to bullshit your was through facts which do not support your guilt presuming attitude rowards thwe Laceosse players.; February 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous in me quoting me quoting DA Nifong said: "There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind."................................... This was said after he had already reviewed the evidence and arrived at his conclusion that the alibi was contrived."

Wrong yet again.

Nifong refused to look at the alibi evidence and then tried to discredit Reade Seligmann's alibi by intimidating a witness(Moez Elmostafa) whose sworn statement supported Reade Seligmann's alibi.; February 24, 2017 at 10:27 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- JSwift stated:
"I look forward to your report that Cooney leaked the alibi evidence prior to Seligmann's indictment and arrest and that Nifong already had an investigation underway prior to Cooney's attempt to discuss the evidence with Nifong the day Seligmann was arrested (in my earlier post, I claimed incorrectly that this happened on the day of the indictment; I apologize for my error and any inconvenience it may have caused a reader)."

In response(?) you stated:
"Seligmann Lawyer Kirk Osborn filed a motion outlining Reade's alibi on May 1st, 2006, shortly after he was indicted. KC Johnson, reported Reade's reaction when Osborn and him provided DA Nifong with the alibi evidence " Nifong was laughing and smirking as Kirk presented my alibi evidence" Subsequently, Lawyer Cooney tried to arrange a meeting with Reade and DA Nifong to go over the alibi. Already knowing the details of the alibi and unconvinced by it he refused to listen to Cooney. DA Nifong quote: "There is no such thing as an airtight alibi. There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind" According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

Reade Seligmann was indicted on April 12, 2006 and arrested on April 18, 2006 (I believe Wikipedia states that both arrest and indictment occurred on April 18. The indictment was signed on April 12, but were sealed until the arrest).

Your comment does not prove that alibi evidence was leaked prior to Reade Seligmann's indictment/arrest.; February 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny states Seligmann Lawyer Kirk Osborn filed a motion outlining Reade's alibi on May 1st, 2006, shortly after he was indicted.

I know that Osborn filed a motion outlining the alibi. However, the timing of that motion does not address Nifong's earlier refusal to discuss the alibi evidence. I had noted that the motivation you provided as to Nifong's initial refusal to review the alibi evidence made him appear to be a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

Let us review the time line.

Crystal selected her attackers in the identification procedure on April 4. She provided her written statement on April 6. The grand jury indicted Finnerty and Seligmann on April 17. Seligmann learned he had been selected later that day and began to pull together his alibi evidence. Finnerty and Seligmann turned themselves into police on April 18.

Later that day (April 18), Osborn (not Cooney as you and I both incorrectly stated earlier; I apologize for my error) and Seligmann's other lawyer at the time (Mack) went to Nifong's office to urge him to look at the alibi evidence. Nifong refused to meet with them (on April 18) or to see the evidence. I do not understand how, as you have imputed, Nifong could have developed "doubts" about the alibi or concluded that it was "contrived" at this point. As I noted earlier, this imputed motivation makes Nifong appear to be a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

On April 21 (three days after Osborn had asked Nifong to look at the evidence), portions of the evidence were released publicly. On April 24 (six days after Osborn had asked Nifong to look at the evidence), Himan first called Elmostafa. On April 25 (seven days after Osborn had asked Nifong to look at the evidence), Elmostafa provided a written statement. DPD reports thus show that the investigation of the alibi evidence did not commence until after it was first made public and not prior to Osborn's initial attempt to present it to Nifong. As a result, your statement that Nifong was already investigating it prior to April 18 seems not to be consistent with DPD reports. I do not believe that Nifong was aware of the alibi prior to Osborn's atompt to discuss it on April 18. Thus, Nifong's refusal to meet with Osborn to discuss the alibi appears to be consistent with a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

Kenny, I have tried not to impute motivations to you, but I may have inadvertently done so in this case as well. If so, I apologize. I said that I did not think that you believed Nifong was a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. Is that correct?

If you do not believe Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool, I fail to understand why the motivations you impute to him and the evidence you provide supports the view that Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. As Abe point out earlier, the quotation you provided is consistent with the characterization of Nifong as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 24, 2017 at 11:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D. said: "I said that I did not think that you believed Nifong was a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. Is that correct? If you do not believe Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool, I fail to understand why the motivations you impute to him and the evidence you provide supports the view that Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool. As Abe point out earlier, the quotation you provided is consistent with the characterization of Nifong as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool".......... I do not. Nor do I believe how the Duke Lacrosse Apologists characterize Nurse Levicy, Dr. Manly, Officer Gottlieb. Officer Himan, Officer Wilson, Dr.Meehan, Author Cohan, Dr. Harr and especially Crystal Mangum. On the other hand neighbors, such as Bettie Crigle right across the back alley who said : " I’m sort of assuming it happened because they’ve been such arrogant kids. If you ask them to be quiet, they shout unpleasant things at you, and I’m white", give me pause about the characterization of these guys as innocent vulnerable kids being preyed on. The Crystal I know could not prey on anyone and has never has harbored an ulterior motive in her life. All who actually know her have only good to say about her.; February 24, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote, in support of his contention that the defense "leaked" the alibi evidence: "@ JSwift: Seligmann Lawyer Kirk Osborn filed a motion outlining Reade's alibi on May 1st, 2006, shortly after he was indicted."

A quick look at the North Carolina General Statutes reveals Article 14 § 15A-905(c)(1) Give notice to the State of the intent to offer at trial a defense of alibi, ....

Defense counsel is obligated under law to give notice of the alibi. Osborne was simply complying with the law. Indeed, he sought to help Nifong, who was obviously struggling with the case, by telling him in advance of the alibi evidence. Had Nifong taken Osborne's generous offer of assistance, he would have been spared the embarrassment of receiving the notice in a filing which the media would surely have picked up on. But no, Nifong was both unethical and in way over his head. He plowed on furthering his violation of Rule 3.8(a).

Walt-in-Durham; February 24, 2017 at 1:44 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Thank you for confirming that I was correct in assuming that you do not believe that Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

However, that makes the question I raised more pressing, if you do not believe that Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool, which do you impute motivations to him and why do you repeat quotations from him that reinforce the viewthat Nifong is a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 24, 2017 at 1:57 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I also raised the question of whether Nifong is a mind reader.

I asked: "You also haven't explained how Nifong was convinced he could impeach it in Court before he heard it. Is he a mind reader?"

You responded: DA Nifong was investigating the alibi. He didn't want to listen to Cooney's spin. Details of the alibi had been leaked. Nifong's interaction with Elmostafa was part of his investigation.

Osborn first asked to discuss the alibi evidence with Nifong on April 18, the day Seligmann was arrested. Nifong refused. Are you asserting that details of the evidence leaked prior to that refusal on April 18 and that Nifong's investigation had already begun prior to April 18.

Will you be providing a report to confirm that? Or were you mistaken?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 24, 2017 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: "All who actually know her have only good to say about her.".....Or their house is set or fire...or they're dead.; February 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"...Nor do I believe how the Duke Lacrosse Apologists characterize Nurse Levicy, Dr. Manly, Officer Gottlieb. Officer Himan, Officer Wilson, Dr.Meehan, Author Cohan, Dr. Harr and especially Crystal Mangum."

Yes it is unbelievable. It is unbelievable because the rape never happened. Sidney and Kenny have provided zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth about being raped. And since the rape never happened there were no rape apologists who discredited the people Kenny lists.

Ask Kenny to document how the Defense attorneys and their clients wrongfuly discredited these people, he will reply that they had proxies do it for them.

Kenny is someone who buys into the metanarrative, that well off Caucasian men seek out and ravish black women.

Kenny is also deeply resentful of Caucasian men who are better off and more accomplished than he is.; February 24, 2017 at 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Bettie Crigle right across the back alley who said : 'I’m sort of assuming it happened because they’ve been such arrogant kids. If you ask them to be quiet, they shout unpleasant things at you, and I’m white'"

So Ms. Crigle presumes guilt without any evidence. Just like you do. No wonder you cite her.; February 24, 2017 at 2:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "Osborn first asked to discuss the alibi evidence with Nifong on April 18, the day Seligmann was arrested. Nifong refused. Are you asserting that details of the evidence leaked prior to that refusal on April 18 and that Nifong's investigation had already begun prior to April 18" .......... Yes; DA Nifong heard the details of Seligmann's alibi on TV both from from Osborn and from Mack on April 18th prior to Osborn trying to present it to him who was quoted as saying I've heard it all already. DA Nifong was being prudent in wanting to conduct his own investigation of the alibi before accepting a version given him by the accused lawyers; February 24, 2017 at 8:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "So Ms. Crigle presumes guilt without any evidence. Just like you do. No wonder you cite her"................................ OK then let me cite Duke President Richard Brodhead: "As a group, there is a special history of bad behavior with this team" As Author Wm. Cohan pointed out him speaking out the truth like this turned out to be very costly for the University as these delinquents, instead of eventually being punished, were rewarded mightily for their behavior; February 24, 2017 at 9:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Ask Kenny to document how the Defense attorneys and their clients wrongfuly discredited these people, he will reply that they had proxies do it for them".........................Yeah, people like Dr. Anonymous on this blog on Feb. 23,2017 at 4:03 PM These people believed Crystal and the Duke Lacrosse Apologists systematically set out to discredit them and tried to make them out to be, in the words of JSwift stupid, unethical and incompetent fools; February 24, 2017 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D said: "Osborn first asked to discuss the alibi evidence with Nifong on April 18, the day Seligmann was arrested. Nifong refused. Are you asserting that details of the evidence leaked prior to that refusal on April 18 and that Nifong's investigation had already begun prior to April 18" .......... Yes; DA Nifong heard the details of Seligmann's alibi on TV both from from Osborn and from Mack on April 18th prior to Osborn trying to present it to him who was quoted as saying I've heard it all already. DA Nifong was being prudent in wanting to conduct his own investigation of the alibi before accepting a version given him by the accused lawyers"

Irrelevant statement as it has been established that Nifong wanted to suppress the alibi evidence not investigate it.; February 25, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "So Ms. Crigle presumes guilt without any evidence. Just like you do. No wonder you cite her"................................ OK then let me cite Duke President Richard Brodhead: 'As a group, there is a special history of bad behavior with this team'"

First, I believe te reference to Ms. Crigle comes from Cohan. It isnot from anyy other book on rhe Duke Rape Hoax hich, unlike Cohan's book, were thoroughly researched and which had source notes and references. It is reminiscent of your citation of kilgo as evidence of unidentified party attendees-totally unreliable and probably something you fabricated.

Go ahead and cite Brodhead, the gutless, spineless morally bankrupt Duke President who threw the innocent Lacrosse players under the bus because he was too frightened to observe thr principle of presumed innocent and buck the guilt presuming gang of 8, the pot bangers, the guilt presumers. That is like citing Adolf Hitler as an authority on the Jewish people.

"As Author Wm. Cohan pointed out him speaking out the truth like this turned out to be very costly for the University as these delinquents, instead of eventually being punished, were rewarded mightily for their behavior".

Cohan never cited any sources which would have documented he even knew the truth. The Duke Rape Hoax cost the University heavily because the Universith'attitude towards the innocent Lacrosse players wes, throw them under the bus, let them be wrongfully convicted and then sort it out on appeal. It would have cost the University nothing had Brodhead actd with integrity.; February 25, 2017 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Ask Kenny to document how the Defense attorneys and their clients wrongfuly discredited these people, he will reply that they had proxies do it for them".........................Yeah, people like Dr. Anonymous on this blog on Feb. 23,2017 at 4:03 PM These people believed Crystal and the Duke Lacrosse Apologists systematically set out to discredit them and tried to make them out to be, in the words of JSwift stupid, unethical and incompetent fools."

I predicted that Kenny would back down if challenged to document his allegations that there was a concerted effort to discredit Nifong and Crystal and others. Kenny, once again, lives down to low expectations as he tries to bullshit his way around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presumptions.; February 25, 2017 at 3:45 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Thank you for answering my question.

It is now clear that you are asserting that details of Seligmann's alibi and already leaked prior to Nifong's refusal to meet with Osborn on April 18 and that Nifong was already investigating that alibi when he refused to meet.

The rest of your reply was somewhat confusing.

You provide no evidence to support your assertion because presumably none exists. The report you promised to provide earlier is longer promised.

The rest of your reply seems designed to distract the reader from the lack of evidence to support your assertion. Is that correct?

For example, you begin by noting that Nifong heard the details on TV, but you fail to note that the information was released on April 21, three days later. Clearly that statement does nothing to support your assertion.

You next claim Nifong heard the details from Osborn and Mack, but he refused to meet with them on April 18. He did not, in fact, hear the details from them because of his refusal. I assume that you simply misspoke.

You then used Osborn's later attempt to discuss the alibi evidence. Again, this later refusal to meet does nothing to support your assertion.

Finally, you end with an opinion that Nifong was being prudent in his refusal to discuss the alibi. Although many attorneys noted that this refusal was odd because Nifong was not taking advantage of seeing how the attorney would "spin" the evidence, it is nevertheless an opinion.

I note that you do not mention the actions documented in the DPD case reports. Himan called Elmostafa on April 24 and took his statement on April 25, but he provides no record of attempting to review the electronic evidence and cell records. There is no record of any activities on or prior to April 18 related to the alibi.

I commend you for this effort. Unlike the false DNA statement you made (and finally had to concede error because you misstated scientific facts), a statement about evidence cannot be disproven with certainty. The complete lack of evidence to support your claim does not prove that it cannot possibly be true. This discussion does, however, confirm in many readers minds the opinion that you are not a serious commenter and your comments should be read only for their humor value.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 25, 2017 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 18 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 310 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 11 days since February 14, 2017, 56 days since the end of 2016, 239 days since the end of June 2016, 307 days since April 24, 2016, 346 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,190 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,541 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,289 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 25, 2017 at 7:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "You provide no evidence to support your assertion because presumably none exists. The report you promised to provide earlier is longer promised".................Wrong. On Apr. 18th after turning himself in with his Lawyers Osborn and Mack they went to see DA Nifong to present their alibi evidence. DA Nifong refused to see them and sent an Aide out to tell them he had heard Mr. Osborn's TV statement to reporters earlier that day "So what is there to talk about?"; February 25, 2017 at 9:14 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Your statement that I am "wrong" is false.

After Seligmann been released on bail, a reporter asked Osborn for comment. Osborn claimed that his client was innocent. A cursory statement that his client is innocent is not, as you falsely claim, a discussion of alibi evidence. I do not believe Nifong was even aware of the alibi until Osborn and Mack asked to see later that day, leaving the message that they wanted to discuss alibi evidence.

Once again, in your attempt to support Nifong, you provide evidence that supports the characterization of Nifong as a lazy, stupid, unethical and incompetent fool.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Brodhead: "Brodhead repeatedly stated that 'our students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise'". Wikipedia cites a couple of sources dating ftom December of 2006, AFTER it was revealrd Nifong had concealed exculpatory evidence.

Before that Brodhead, without any evidence, pronounced them guilty: from http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/157148/: "'If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough,' [Brodhead] said.(Posted April 20, 2006)"

No wonder Kenny admires Brodhead the guilt presumer..; February 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: @JSwift: ABC News April 19th (the next day) Over the last few days, sources close to the defense have given ABC News an exclusive look at the evidence behind one player's alleged alibi -- evidence that includes electronic records, photographs and witness statements. If that material is authentic, it could prove that it was practically impossible for him to rape, kidnap or assault the alleged victim.; February 25, 2017 at 1:27 PM
JSwift said...: I stand corrected. I apologize, but it would have been easier if you didn't raise irrelevant items.

How was Nifong going to impeach the electronic evidence? Move the time of the attack and try to impeach other evidence? Why didn't the DPD investigate all of the evidence?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 25, 2017 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: You da man Kenny, you da man.; February 25, 2017 at 5:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1187945,00.html; February 25, 2017 at 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1187945,00.html"

Said Time Magazine article does not discredit Reade Seligmann's alibi, Your wishful thinking guilt presumption notwithstanding.

And you still are doodging the issue, hat Nifong had Himan try to intimidate Moez Elmostafa into changing his statement.

Reade Seligmann's alibi aside, there is zero evidence the rape ever occurred and your speculative, wishful thinking guilt presumption is not evidence.; February 26, 2017 at 3:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You indicated months ago that you were working on a plan to win a new trial for Chrystal. How does debating about Reade Seligmann's alibi accomplish your objective?; February 26, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 17 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 309 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 12 days since February 14, 2017, 57 days since the end of 2016, 240 days since the end of June 2016, 308 days since April 24, 2016, 347 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,191 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,542 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,288 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 26, 2017 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 6:13 AM said...

"Kenny,

You indicated months ago that you were working on a plan to win a new trial for Chrystal. How does debating about Reade Seligmann's alibi accomplish your objective?"

It doesn't, but it's just plain fun (not to mention incredibly easy) to lead Kenny into the tall weeds and watch him flail. Plus, if he wasn't occupying himself with Reade Seligmann's alibi, who knows what kind of serious trouble he would get himself into.; February 26, 2017 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

February 24, 2017 at 9:07 AM

"According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

As Reade Seligmann could prove with 100% certainty that he had not been present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened, it is obvious Crystal was lying.; February 26, 2017 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: "According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

Which version was this? What was his involvement in each of the other versions? How do you choose which version to believe?; February 26, 2017 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Can you tell us where we can find the definitive account of what Mangum claims happened to her at the Duke lacrosse party in March 2006?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 26, 2017 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 16 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 308 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 13 days since February 14, 2017, 58 days since the end of 2016, 241 days since the end of June 2016, 309 days since April 24, 2016, 348 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,192 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,543 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,287 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 27, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Attention Everyone:

Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison exactly nine years from today.

As you were.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 27, 2017 at 4:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr,
Didn't you promise something by the Ides of March of last year?

Hey, A Lawyer.

To paraphrase Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" -- "The Ides of March has not yet gone." The point being that it's not even March yet. Be prepared, though, as I am hopeful something positive will occur shortly that will be extremely favorable to Ms. Mangum. Hold on to your horses.; February 27, 2017 at 5:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY, LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Just wanted to let you know that I have been working on a new sharlog. I will hopefully be able to finish it in a couple of days. At the point where I begin laying down the soundtrack... have already collected a number of images to incorporate.

Also, WRAL-5 News did file a Response to my libel suit... I received a copy of it last Friday and will begin working on my response to it shortly.

As you were.; February 27, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidnry Harr:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

To paraphrase Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" -- "The Ides of March has not yet gone." The point being that it's not even March yet. Be prepared, though, as I am hopeful something positive will occur shortly that will be extremely favorable to Ms. Mangum. Hold on to your horses."

Sidney Harr been promising things like that since before Crystal was tried, convicted, and incarcerated for her murder of Reginald Daye.

He is not very good at keeping his promises, is he.; February 27, 2017 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: You gonna post a copy of their reply?; February 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You gonna post a copy of their reply?

Not right now as I have other priorities... such as completing my sharlog and responding to WRAL's response.; February 27, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Not right now as I have other priorities... such as completing my sharlog and responding to WRAL's response."

Meaning Sidney isn't accomplishing squat.; February 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: He's not posting the reply because it clearly shows how frivolous his lawsuit is, and he knows it just further shows what a joke he is. He's nothing if not a sad coward.; February 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 15 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 307 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 14 days since February 14, 2017, 59 days since the end of 2016, 242 days since the end of June 2016, 310 days since April 24, 2016, 350 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,193 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,544 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,286 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 28, 2017 at 2:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; February 28, 2017 at 3:15 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Not right now as I have other priorities... such as completing my sharlog and responding to WRAL's response."

How long does it take to scan WRAL's response, save it in something like google docs and give us a link? Not that long.

As to your other priorities, Crystal will soon get a letter from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of NC telling her: "You have the right to file a 20-page response in opposition to the respondent's motion. Your response may be accompanied by counter affidavits or you may submit other responsive material. Ordinarily, uncontested motions are granted. Therefore, your failure to respond or, if appropriate, to file counter affidavits or evidence in rebuttal within the allowed time may cause the court to conclude that the respondent's contentions are undisputed. As a result, the court may dismiss your suit or render judgment against you. Therefore, unless you file a response in opposition to the respondent's motion, it is likely your case will be dismissed or summary judgment will be granted in favor of the respondent. Any response or counter affidavits or any other responsive material to a motion for summary judgment must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the respondent’s motion upon you."

Looks like you have a lot of deadlines. Crystal's habeas petition elicited a comprehensive brief from the Attorney General. I can't wait to see how you dance around the law on that one. But, I can guess what your response will be: (1) it's unfair to apply the law because Sid doesn't have easy access to the Federal Building's law library, (2) The law is so complicated it shouldn't apply to poor little innocent Crystal, and (3) it's all a conspiracy!

Walt-in-Durham; February 28, 2017 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Any chance you can link the AG's brief/response? Since this is the one that Sid claims will set her free?; February 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM
Walt said...: Here is a link to the the AG's brief https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7z91VniTzKQbm84MjhXVHZ6QU0

Walt-in-Durham; February 28, 2017 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr is on record claiming the autopsy Dt. Nichols performed on Reginald daye was fraudulent.

From the AG's brief/response.

"Nothing in the state court record tat Harr is a forensic pathologist or has the requisite knowledge, training or experience to contradict the expert opinions of both Dr. Nichols and the Forensic pathologist retained by Petitioner's trial counsel."

Kenny, Sidney, your opinions in this matter have no legal or medical weight.; February 28, 2017 at 11:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: The sloppy and incompetent autopsy by disgraced overworked ME Dr. Nicholls and it's half-hearted endorsement by Dr. Roberts could have been easily impeached. The reasons for the denial, with all it's tenuous citations, is a perfect example of how the US Justice System uses legalese and bafflegab to deny justice to the poor and marginalized. Had the Jury, even despite it's unfair construct, heard the whole story their common sense would have brought them to the conclusion that there was no murder.; February 28, 2017 at 4:22 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderl wrote: "The sloppy and incompetent autopsy by disgraced overworked ME Dr. Nicholls and it's half-hearted endorsement by Dr. Roberts could have been easily impeached."

With what? I know you have no legal training, and worse, you disrespect those who do, but to impeach testimony you have to have evidence. So, I ask again, with what?

"The reasons for the denial, with all it's tenuous citations,..."

Oh yes, when seeking injustice, we must disregard the law. A classic example: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," was stated by Dick the Butcher in Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare had great respect for the lawyers and judges who instilled a respect for law and order. Not Kenhyderl though. No, he wants disorder. He wants to disregard our precedent, our federal system of government, indeed our whole social contract to simply release a killer before she has completed her rehabilitation. That's Kenny. A champion of injustice.

Walt-in-Durham; February 28, 2017 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"The sloppy and incompetent autopsy by disgraced overworked ME Dr. Nicholls and it's half-hearted endorsement by Dr. Roberts could have been easily impeached."

No it wouldn't, and not by a clinical incompetent Sidney Harr.

"The reasons for the denial, with all it's tenuous citations, is a perfect example of how the US Justice System uses legalese and bafflegab to deny justice to the poor and marginalized."

You are less qualified than Sidney Harr to impeach the expert opinions of the two actual medical experts. Your statement is as meaningless as your statements as to why there was zero evidence that Crystal was raped.

"Had the Jury, even despite it's unfair construct, heard the whole story their common sense would have brought them to the conclusion that there was no murder."

Te Jury did hear the whole story abnd convicted her of murder.; February 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: from Walt:

"That's Kenny. A champion of injustice."

I would characterize Kenny as a Canadian National with no clinical or legal experience who thinks his opinions trump the law in the US. He is as delusional a megalomaniac as Sidney.; February 28, 2017 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"The reasons for the denial, with all it's tenuous citations, is a perfect example of how the US Justice System uses legalese and bafflegab to deny justice to the poor and marginalized."

That you are incapable of understanding what is in the reply/brief does not add up to "leglaese and bafflegab".; February 28, 2017 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I am confused on why the NC Attorney General responded to a brief titled:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

The response from the NC AG denied everything Mangum and Sidney have argued. It also seems to have provided a history of sorts starting with Peterson of the legal challenges that have happened over time and their outcomes.

So, in the end what is left for Mangum? Or is there still legal briefs that have to be responded to? Meaning, is the Ides of March over?; February 28, 2017 at 6:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: ":Oh yes, when seeking injustice, we must disregard the law"...................................................................................In Hamlet Shakespeare scornfully refers to the reliance of lawyers on the technicalities of the law (what he called its “quiddities” and “quillets”); February 28, 2017 at 9:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "I know you have no legal training, and worse, you disrespect those who do"....................................No, what I disrespect is efforts to defend a broken Justice System that everybody, even its honest practitioners, knows has become corrupt and incapable of meting out justice to the poor and the marginalized. Denying that is defending the indefensible.; February 28, 2017 at 9:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "I know you have no legal training, and worse, you disrespect those who do"....................................No, what I disrespect is efforts to defend a broken Justice System that everybody, even its honest practitioners, knows has become corrupt and incapable of meting out justice to the poor and the marginalized. Denying that is defending the indefensible."

Wrong.

What you disrespect ys 1( rhe US Justice system will not wrongfully convict innocent men you dislike of a c crime which never happened and 2) the US justice system will not give yout favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; March 1, 2017 at 2:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 14 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 306 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 15 days since February 14, 2017, 60 days since the end of 2016, 243 days since the end of June 2016, 311 days since April 24, 2016, 351 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,194 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,545 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,285 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 1, 2017 at 2:52 AM
Anonymous said...: You da man Kenny, you da man.; March 1, 2017 at 3:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Here is a link to the the AG's brief https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7z91VniTzKQbm84MjhXVHZ6QU0

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt. Thanks for the link.; March 1, 2017 at 5:52 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:46 AM wrote: "Wrong.

What you disrespect ys 1( rhe US Justice system will not wrongfully convict innocent men you dislike of a c crime which never happened and 2) the US justice system will not give your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes."

Ding-Ding-Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!; March 1, 2017 at 6:17 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "..No, what I disrespect is efforts to defend a broken Justice System..."

Given your lack of training, or even any real experience with the American justice system, I'll just have to say you know not of what you write.

"that everybody, even its honest practitioners, knows has become corrupt and incapable of meting out justice to the poor and the marginalized."

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true simply because many people believe it to be true. You get no debate points, nor do you persuade by resorting to such simplistic propaganda.

Walt-in-Durham; March 1, 2017 at 6:25 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. Thanks for the link."

One wonders why you can't do the same for the WRAL response?

Walt-in-Durham; March 1, 2017 at 6:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Do you have any actual facts or evidence that are admissible in court to support your claim that Mangum is innocent and was wrongly convicted, or does you entire argument depend on broadly attacking the integrity or the entire American legal system.

What substantive and procedural differences, safeguards and rights exist in Canada (or elsewhere) that would have resulted in a different outcome for Mangum? Be specific.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny stated: "According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

I asked: "Which version was this? What was his involvement in each of the other versions? How do you choose which version to believe?"

Abe asked: "Can you tell us where we can find the definitive account of what Mangum claims happened to her at the Duke lacrosse party in March 2006?"; March 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid will never post the WRAL response - he knows it destroys his case, and he doesn't want us to see it.; March 1, 2017 at 12:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Given your lack of training, or even any real experience with the American justice system, I'll just have to say you know not of what you write"................ What I know is America has more people incarcerated then any other nation. It has more Lawyers per capita All their political parties including the two major ones have criminal justice reform as an agenda. Governors even in states with the death penalty are suspending executions because of frequent false convictions and hey maybe I'll just play once again the view' for those who missed it, of a victim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiouRExqkU; March 1, 2017 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "Given your lack of training, or even any real experience with the American justice system, I'll just have to say you know not of what you write"................ What I know is America has more people incarcerated then any other nation. It has more Lawyers per capita All their political parties including the two major ones have criminal justice reform as an agenda. Governors even in states with the death penalty are suspending executions because of frequent false convictions and hey maybe I'll just play once again the view' for those who missed it, of a victim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiouRExqkU"

But then Kenhyderal dismisses real victims of injustice, the innocent Lacrosse players who were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum of rape. Kenny does not like those people so he not only advocates no only that they should they have been tried for rape but convicted and sentenced to prison, even though there was no evidence of a rape.

Can we say Hypocrite, boys and girls.; March 1, 2017 at 4:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "Do you have any actual facts or evidence that are admissible in court to support your claim that Mangum is innocent and was wrongly convicted, or does you entire argument depend on broadly attacking the integrity or the entire American legal system" .............................................After Crystal's imminent release and if the Durham Prosecutor dares to re-try her you will find out; March 1, 2017 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Abe said: "Do you have any actual facts or evidence that are admissible in court to support your claim that Mangum is innocent and was wrongly convicted, or does you entire argument depend on broadly attacking the integrity or the entire American legal system" .............................................After Crystal's imminent release and if the Durham Prosecutor dares to re-try her you will find out"

According to Sidney, Crystal's release has been imminent for years. So, basically Kenny is ducking and evading and trying to bullshit hi way through facts which do not mesh with his wishful thinking delusions.; March 1, 2017 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

How do you propose getting Mangum released without facts and evidence that she is innocent and was wrongly convicted?

If you have facts and evidence that Mangum is innocent, you shouldn't wait much longer to reveal it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 1, 2017 at 5:53 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So, when will Crystal's imminent release be? 2026?; March 1, 2017 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: You da man Kenny, you da man.; March 2, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 13 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 305 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 16 days since February 14, 2017, 61 days since the end of 2016, 244 days since the end of June 2016, 312 days since April 24, 2016, 352 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,195 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,546 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,284 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 2, 2017 at 3:52 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:31 PM wrote: "But then Kenhyderal dismisses real victims of injustice, the innocent Lacrosse players who were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum of rape."

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

Indeed, the injustice in this case was visited upon the innocent lacrosse players. Kenny has done nothing but advocate for injustice.

Walt-in-Durham; March 2, 2017 at 6:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: Poor blameless lads, subjected to such tribulations by that wicked and conniving woman. Such suffering they have had to endure. Thank goodness they had wealth, privilege and class to help them through this terrible ordeal. Thank goodness they had the vaunted American Justice System, there to save them from harm. The compensation they received can't even come close to allaying all the horrendous suffering they have faced. Do you really think anyone really buys this pathetic narrative?; March 2, 2017 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Poor blameless lads, subjected to such tribulations by that wicked and conniving woman. Such suffering they have had to endure. Thank goodness they had wealth, privilege and class to help them through this terrible ordeal. Thank goodness they had the vaunted American Justice System, there to save them from harm. The compensation they received can't even come close to allaying all the horrendous suffering they have faced. Do you really think anyone really buys this pathetic narrative?

The real question is, does anyone believe the pathetic narrative/metanrrative you and Sidney buy into, that Crystal was raped. Neither you nor Sidney have ever provided any factual evidence that the rape ever happened. You provide only the crap you use to bullshit your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming wishful thinking.

While we are at it, let's bring this up again. You are on record that the male DNA found on Crystal after she alleged a semen depositing gang rape came from rapists. So, explain why Nifong, who you say was interested only in justice for Crystal, made no attempt to identify the men who had left their DNA on Crystal, why he had Crystal view lineups which contained only photographs of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal. Why did Nifong seek indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal. How do you bullshit your way around those facts?; March 2, 2017 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

What happened in the lacrosse case is well established, widely known and not in serious dispute. You and Sid are the one's having a hard time selling a different narrative.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 2, 2017 at 12:14 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- I've wondered at times...Mangum had a driver (from the escort service?) drop her off at the LAX house.

Later that night (shortly before 12:30 am) she called the escort service. Why? I've assumed she called for her driver - but I've heard definitively.

At any rate, if the call to the escort service happened after the alleged rape, did she report it?

If she had access to her phone, why didn't she attempt to call 9-1-1?; March 2, 2017 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You haven't answered the questions. Why not?

I repeat them:

Kenny stated: "According to Crystal Reade's involvement was holding her legs apart."

I asked: "Which version was this? What was his involvement in each of the other versions? How do you choose which version to believe?"

Abe asked: "Can you tell us where we can find the definitive account of what Mangum claims happened to her at the Duke lacrosse party in March 2006?"

Well?; March 2, 2017 at 12:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: During their nefarious deeds, these deceitful characters used false names and according to Crystal used them interchangeably. Seligmann was one of the persons who used the name Matt. All these jocks looked similar to her but Seligmann was the one person from the photo line-up that she was most convinced was an attacker and her recollection of him is that he held her by the legs and lifted her off the floor. Seligmann produced an alibi to say he was not present but she is convinced that he was an attacker and she was able to convince DA Nifong of that.; March 2, 2017 at 1:10 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "All these jocks looked similar to her but Seligmann was the one person from the photo line-up that she was most convinced was an attacker and her recollection of him is that he held her by the legs and lifted her off the floor. Seligmann produced an alibi to say he was not present but she is convinced that he was an attacker and she was able to convince DA Nifong of that."

Mangum also identified Brad Ross with 100% certainty during both photo lineup procedures. What's odd about that?

1) He was the only individual she identified as being at the party with 100%

2) He definitively was not at the party.

Look -- It's obvious you chose to believe whatever Mangum says. That's your prerogative, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinions.

You are not entitled, however, to your own facts.; March 2, 2017 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You still didn't answer the question.

As you know, Magnum made allegations about a gang rape on several different occasions. As you also know, many of the specific details included in these versions contradicted the specific details included in other versions. Abe and I asked which of these versions is the definitive version, and you did not answer that question. Alternatively, do you pick and choose specific details from each of the versions as you see fit and disregard the remaining specifics?; March 2, 2017 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"During their nefarious deeds, these deceitful characters used false names and according to Crystal used them interchangeably. Seligmann was one of the persons who used the name Matt. All these jocks looked similar to her but Seligmann was the one person from the photo line-up that she was most convinced was an attacker and her recollection of him is that he held her by the legs and lifted her off the floor. Seligmann produced an alibi to say he was not present but she is convinced that he was an attacker and she was able to convince DA Nifong of that."

As Reade Seligmann could prove with 100% certainty that he was not at the site of the alleged crime at the time the alleged crime was allegedly happening it is obvious to all, except a couple of fools, that Crystal was lying.

And if Nifong was convinced that Crystal told the truth, then he should have been disbarred on that ground alone, that he had too little intelligence to comprehend the truth.; March 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Nobody buys your pathetic narrative.; March 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Seligmann produced an alibi to say he was not present but she is convinced that he was an attacker and she was able to convince DA Nifong of that."

How could Crystal have convinced Nifong that Reade Seligmann had been one of her assailants, that he was holding her legs apart? Nifong never had anyone in his office directly interview Crystal until December 2006.

Check the ABC Nightline Video on the dismissal of the rape charges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gh8oGF4iXQ.

You are yet again trying to bullshit your way around facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming wishful thinking.; March 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "As Reade Seligmann could prove with 100% certainty that he was not at the site of the alleged crime at the time the alleged crime was allegedly happening it is obvious to all, except a couple of fools, that Crystal was lying"..............................Crystal always told the truth to the best of her recollection. Remember she had been drugged when this horrific attack occurred. As a brain-washed Crystal hater you choose to believe Seligmann's alibi and you choose to characterize her as a liar rather then suggesting it was a case of mistaken identity. Also remember that this was a flawed photo line-up.; March 2, 2017 at 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Crystal always told the truth to the best of her recollection."

No she didn't. Se lied about being raped.

"Remember she had been drugged when this horrific attack occurred."

She was self drugged, and there was no horrific attack. You have provided and continue to provide zero evidence that said horrific attack ever happened.

As a brain-washed Crystal hater you choose to believe Seligmann's alibi"

I believe Reade Seligmann's alibi because he provided evidence to back it up, unlike you who have provided zero evidence Ceystal was raped.

"and you choose to characterize her as a liar rather then suggesting it was a case of mistaken identity."

She lied.

"Also remember that this was a flawed photo line-up."

So I will put this to you again. Crystal alleged a semen depositing gang rape. The only Male DNA found on Crystal did not match the men Nifong wanted to indict. So why did Nifong show her a lineup consisting of pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA foun on Crystal.; March 2, 2017 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Yu ducked answering the question. How could Crystal have convinced Nifong that Reade Seligmann wwas lying about his alibi when Nifong never had her interviewed until alost 9 moths after she falsely accused Lacrosse payers of raping her?; March 2, 2017 at 4:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Unlike the Crystal haters here I never "duck questions". DA Nifong relied on the statements Crystal had given to the DPD. He had studied all the evidence that was gathered. The DPD made many errors in their investigation not the least of which was determining who was present; March 2, 2017 at 8:30 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal never ducks questions. He repeats the same meaningless drivel all the time.; March 2, 2017 at 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

The mere fact that there needed to be other, unidentified people present at the party in order for Mangum's rape claim and your "mystery rapist" theory to be plausible does not make it so.

The burden is on the person who makes a claim to prove it. As much as you wish there were and desperately need for there to be mysterious, unidentified people at the party to support the claim Mangum was raped, the fact is, after 11 years, neither you, Mangum nor anyone else can establish there were other people at the party (much less identify who they were). That inconvenient reality destroys your "mystery rapist" theory.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2017 at 1:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 12 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 304 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 17 days since February 14, 2017, 62 days since the end of 2016, 245 days since the end of June 2016, 313 days since April 24, 2016, 353 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,196 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,547 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,283 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2017 at 3:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Unlike the Crystal haters here I never 'duck questions'."

Yes you do. These issues have been presented to you repeatedly and you have yet to address them: Crystal alleged a semen depositing gang rape; male DNA was found on Crystal in the wake of that allegation; you have said that DNA found on Crystal came from rapists; that male DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA of the men named as suspects, via the NTO; Nifong had Crystal shown in lineup procedures pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal; Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

"DA Nifong relied on the statements Crystal had given to the DPD. He had studied all the evidence that was gathered."

You willfully neglect to mention that the most crucial evidence gathered was the male DNA found on Crystal that did not match the DNA of the men named as suspects via the NTO and that Nifong, in violation of NC Law, concealed that evidence from those named as suspects, including the three men he had indicted for first degree rape.

"The DPD made many errors in their investigation"

The most egregious of which was allowing Nifong to take control of the investigation.

"not the least of which was determining who was present"

I repeat what Abe Froman has said. You have provided zero evidence that there were unidentified party attendees who raped Crystal. You have provided zero evidence that Crystal was raped.

And you are again using bullshit to duck issues which do not mesh with your guilt presuming wishful thinking.; March 3, 2017 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: You da man Kenny.; March 3, 2017 at 3:16 AM
A Lawyer said...: To paraphrase Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" -- "The Ides of March has not yet gone."

The ides of March of 2016 -- when you previously promised Crystal would be freed-- have (to paraphrase "Joe Turner's Blues") been here and gone.; March 3, 2017 at 6:48 AM
A Lawyer said...: Here is a link to the the AG's brief https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7z91VniTzKQbm84MjhXVHZ6QU0

Everyone should read this document to understand how badly Dr. Harr sabotaged Crystal's case. Dr. Harr is evidently ignorant of the rule of "exhaustion," under which no issue can be raised on federal habeas corpus if it was not first presented to the highest North Carolina court. Dr. Harr raised numerous issues in this habeas petition without having Crystal present them in state court. Even if those issues were valid, Dr. Harr's "Lay advocacy" resulted in their forfeiture.; March 3, 2017 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer:

I also noticed that the AG referenced Mangum's expert witness and the fact that she agreed with the ME re: cause of death (thanks to Sid publishing the results of her review for all to see).

Sid's insistence that the expert's report is exculpatory boggles the mind. His decision to reveal her conclusions is inexplicable.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2017 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: So -- according to you, DA Nifong relied on the word of a drugged Mangum.; March 3, 2017 at 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm still curious how Sid and Kenny think Dr. Roberts's opinion could be destroyed - Kenny has said it could easily be impeached ... how?

Don't you think the attorneys had asked her how she would answer their questions, and knew what she'd say? Or do you think they didn't talk to her at all?

Same with the other doctors. Kenny seems to think that lawyers don't talk to witnesses ahead of time, and then determine who they will, or won't, call as witnesses.

But, the AG's brief is a great blueprint of all the damage Sid has done ... pulling the key issue (Milton Morgan's testimony) so it cannot be reviewed; turning over the report to the State; harping on charges that Crystal was acquitted of (so the jury agreed with Sid and Crystal and Crystal's attorneys - not sure why Sid keeps flogging it).

If this is what Sid/Kenny are lying to Crystal about when they tell her that her release is imminent, there won't be enough Duke Blue crying towels for them to console themselves.

I can't wait to see Sid's response (though Walt already posted it - "I don't have access to law libraries that I want to use, and can't use Google" and other wah wah wah).; March 3, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 8:26:

Nifong didn't bother to speak to Mangum directly. At best, Nifong relied on the hearsay word of a drugged Mangum.

Of course, Kenny has no evidence to support the claim that Mangum was drugged by anyone except herself (by mixing alcohol with her meds). He simply wishes it to be so, because he thinks it supports the discredited rape claim, and challenges everyone else to disprove it. It's no wonder no one takes him seriously.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous March 3, 2017 at 8:40 AM

"I'm still curious how Sid and Kenny think Dr. Roberts's opinion could be destroyed - Kenny has said it could easily be impeached ... how?"

I believe at one time Kenhyderal said he would have had the defense put her on the stand and then had her declared a hostile witness.

Kenny's strategy would have been have the Defense announce to the court that their expert witness had agreed with the prosecution's expert witness.

As Walt has said in the past, Kenny has never been an effective advocate for Crystal.; March 3, 2017 at 9:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: But, the AG's brief is a great blueprint of all the damage Sid has done ... pulling the key issue (Milton Morgan's testimony) so it cannot be reviewed; turning over the report to the State; harping on charges that Crystal was acquitted of (so the jury agreed with Sid and Crystal and Crystal's attorneys - not sure why Sid keeps flogging it)"..................... It's easy enough for a member of the legal fraternity to find inconsequential breaches of meaningless insignificant and esoteric rules in order to justify a dismissal and deny justice. Had it been done by a brother lawyer of a well connected client instead of pro se incarcerated appellant it would have been artfully ignored; March 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Same with the other doctors. Kenny seems to think that lawyers don't talk to witnesses ahead of time, and then determine who they will, or won't, call as witnesses"......................I maintain, nay charge, that Meier did not speak to any of the doctors or medical personal at Duke who treated Daye or were involved in the medical mishap that killed him. I challenge Meier to come on-line and refute this.; March 3, 2017 at 10:01 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
whine, whine, whine!; March 3, 2017 at 10:03 AM
guiowen said...: Hello, Daniel Meier,
Kenhyderal challenges you to come forward and explain the reasons for your pusillanimous defense of Crystal. As you know, Kenny is a fighter and a master debater. Moreover, he has some very important information which will demolish you, and get you disbarred.
If discretion be the better part of valor, you would be well advised to yield to Kenny.
Forewarned is forearmed!; March 3, 2017 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"It's easy enough for a member of the legal fraternity to find inconsequential breaches of meaningless insignificant and esoteric rules in order to justify a dismissal and deny justice. Had it been done by a brother lawyer of a well connected client instead of pro se incarcerated appellant it would have been artfully ignored".

Kenny throws another tantrum because his favorite murderess/false accuser was not given a pass for her crimes.; March 3, 2017 at 10:17 AM
A Lawyer said...: It's easy enough for a member of the legal fraternity to find inconsequential breaches of meaningless insignificant and esoteric rules in order to justify a dismissal and deny justice.

I recently had occasion to read a case on CanLII holding that a conviction in the courts of British Columbia cannot be challenged in the federal court of Canada at all. So the U.S. rule is far more sympathetic to criminal defendants than the Canadian rule.

Had it been done by a brother lawyer of a well connected client instead of pro se incarcerated appellant it would have been artfully ignored

No, had it been done by a lawyer, the lawyer would have first exhausted the claims in state court. That's why lawyers go to law school-- to learn the law. Dr. Harr's uneducated legal help to Crystal is as useful as if I set myself up as a "lay healer" and recommended treating head wounds with a tourniquet around the neck.

I'll make you a deal, Kenny: You show me one example where a federal court ignored the exhaustion requirement for a habeas corpus petition, and I'll send $100 to Crystal's commissary account. If you can't find one by the Ides of March, you send a $100 contribution to LieStoppers.; March 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I maintain, nay charge, that Meier did not speak to any of the doctors or medical personal at Duke who treated Daye or were involved in the medical mishap that killed him."

No medical mishap killed Reginald Daye. Crystal Mangum killed him.

"I challenge Meier to come on-line and refute this."

Kenny you again are ducking and dodging. It is up to you to prove your allegation, not up to Daniel Meier to refute it.; March 3, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

I add to March 3, 2017 at 10:20 AM:

You are challenging Daniel Meier to refute your allegation is because you can not prove it, just like you can not prove Crystal was raped.; March 3, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Yet you still assume that after all these years he still follows this joke of a blog, and yo refuse to simply send him an e-mail asking him.

You answered the question posed earlier - yes, you really are this pathetic.

If you care, ask him. Or have Crystal ask him. Sid reached out to him, and he responded.

You refuse to reach out to him, and you are ignored.

Wah wah wah.; March 3, 2017 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: And, anyone could post on this blog and say they are Meier. It's easy to fake names, as has repeatedly been shown to you.

Wah wah wah.; March 3, 2017 at 2:11 PM
I'm Kenny the Whiner said...: See how easy it is? Why would you believe anyone who posted here as Meier?; March 3, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I am convinced that Mike Nifong "lurks" here in the same way that Kenny asserts that Meier "lurks" here.

I maintain, nay charge, that Nifong deliberately attempted to frame three Duke lacrosse players for a crime he knew had never occurred. I challenge Nifong to come on-line and refute this.; March 3, 2017 at 3:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Daniel Meier: I certainly don't need the likes of Guiowen to speak for me.; March 3, 2017 at 3:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Lawyer said : "I recently had occasion to read a case on CanLII holding that a conviction in the courts of British Columbia cannot be challenged in the federal court of Canada at all. So the U.S. rule is far more sympathetic to criminal defendants than the Canadian rule"................... A pox on all their houses, then; March 3, 2017 at 3:28 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You are challenging Daniel Meier to refute your allegation is because you can not prove it".................... Don't be sure.; March 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "You are challenging Daniel Meier to refute your allegation is because you can not prove it".................... Don't be sure."

I'm sure.; March 3, 2017 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm also sure.; March 3, 2017 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I am too.; March 3, 2017 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny can't prove anything. He doesn't even try.; March 3, 2017 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is a troll. These reactions are what he craves.; March 3, 2017 at 4:21 PM
Idiot Kenny said...: What's pathetic is Kenny thinks it means something when Meier doesn't respond.; March 3, 2017 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is a liar.; March 3, 2017 at 7:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Once again the peanut gallery (3:22 to 4:21)(all of them anonymous) chime
in with meaningless rants and puerile name calling. They add absolutely nothing to any discourse here. Then, cowardly Anonymous at 7:41, who calls me a liar, wont, of course, sign his name to that post. I an not a troll. I'm here to defend a dear friend from the brainwashed posters who spread libelous lies about her; someone they do not know and about whom they are dead wrong.; March 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: KtW said: " See how easy it is? Why would you believe anyone who posted here as Meier".... OK, let's see you log on un-anonymously using a google account; March 3, 2017 at 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"...cowardly Anonymous at 7:41, who calls me a liar, wont, of course, sign his name to that post."

You have gone on record as saying Nifong did not have the innocent Lacrosse players charged with rape. You have gone on record as saying Nifong did not conceal the eistence of the DNA found on Crystal,.

In both cases you lied.; March 4, 2017 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I'm here to defend a dear friend from the brainwashed posters who spread libelous lies about her; someone they do not know and about whom they are dead wrong."

No, you are here to promulgate a rather vicious lie, that members of the Lacrosse team raped Crystal.

I remind you yet again you have provided zero factual evidence that Crystal told the truth when she claimed she had been raped; March 4, 2017 at 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

And you say you are not a liar.; March 4, 2017 at 4:53 AM
A Lawyer said...: And Kenny won't take up my challenge made on 3/3 at 10:19. I know he read that post, because he quoted another part of it in one of his responses. So he once again implicitly acknowledges that his remarks have no basis in truth.; March 4, 2017 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 11 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 303 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 18 days since February 14, 2017, 63 days since the end of 2016, 246 days since the end of June 2016, 314 days since April 24, 2016, 354 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,197 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,548 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,282 days.

It has been 17 days since February 14, 2017, 62 days since the end of 2016, 245 days since the end of June 2016, 313 days since April 24, 2016, 353 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,196 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,547 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,283 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: I just saw a headline on CNN, something like, Trump claims President Obama had him wiretapped, offers no proof.

Kenhyderal and Sidney Harr claim Crystal was raped but offer no proof.

Kenny, and Sidney, very Trumpian of you.; March 4, 2017 at 9:23 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me