Thursday, March 16, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds


164 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another frivolous non meritorious filing by Sidney Harr, using the technique of argument by assertion.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Even if Daye were a knife thrower - that doesn't change anything - the physical evidence supported that he let Crystal go.


What physical evidence supported that Daye "let Crystal go?"

Daye, a knife thrower, terrorized Crystal in the wee hours of April 3, 2011... and it was clear that he was in a jealous rage. His anger had a lot to do with his intoxication and nothing to do with money.

JSwift said...

Sidney asks: What physical evidence supported that Daye "let Crystal go?"

Blood spatter was found in the hallway of the apartment, not in the bedroom. This blood spatter is consistent with Daye's claim that he released Magnum and walked away, at which time Magnum grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Kenny,
We've already established that Daye did not throw those knives. Crystal threw them around, expecting that they would bolster her claims of self-defense.


gui, mon ami, Hah. Shirley you jest. How would Crystal throwing knives around bolster her claims of self-defense? First of all, Crystal was the first person out of that apartment... grabbing her purse on the way out and fleeing. Daye later left and when to his nephew's apartment.

Clearly Aykia Hanes gave false testimony about Daye leaving first then Mangum coming to the door and telling Alonzo Breden (Hanes' boyfriend) "Everything's okay." That never happened, or else Breden would have testified. There is no record that Breden was even interviewed.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I see WRAL will pursue a claim for attorney's fees. Your hobby of filing lawsuits may begin to get very expensive.

John D. Smith
New York

Nifong Supporter said...


JSwift said...
Sidney asks: What physical evidence supported that Daye "let Crystal go?"

Blood spatter was found in the hallway of the apartment, not in the bedroom. This blood spatter is consistent with Daye's claim that he released Magnum and walked away, at which time Magnum grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him.

John D. Smith
New York, NY


Hey, JSwift.

As Mangum claimed, there was blood found on the mattress in the master bedroom that would support her version of events. Records support that blood swabs were taken from the mattress.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

The blood found on the mattress did not match either Magnum or Daye. The blood spatter found in the hallway matched Daye.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Daye, a knife thrower, terrorized Crystal in the wee hours of April 3, 2011... and it was clear that he was in a jealous rage. His anger had a lot to do with his intoxication and nothing to do with money."

Who said reginald Daye was a knife thrower?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"gui, mon ami, Hah. Shirley you jest. How would Crystal throwing knives around bolster her claims of self-defense?"

Crystal, seeing Reginald Daye was seriously wounded and bleeding after she stabbed him while he was leaving the apartment and knowing she was the perpetrator would throw the knives around and then claim Reginald Daye had done it, to give her a defense when the authorities arrived.

guiowen said...

Sidney asked,
How would Crystal throwing knives around bolster her claims of self-defense?

Sidney, both you and Kenhyderal are using this argument (of Reginald throwing knives) to bolster your claim that this was self-defense.

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

It is my understanding that in a clothed and mobile individual the point at which blood is found does not necessarily correspond to the point where the knife penetration occurred.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"It is my understanding that in a clothed and mobile individual the point at which blood is found does not necessarily correspond to the point where the knife penetration occurred."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you can understand things.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 290 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 2 days since the Ides of March 2017, 31 days since February 14, 2017, 76 days since the end of 2016, 259 days since the end of June 2016, 327 days since April 24, 2016, 367 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,210 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,561 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,269 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Of course the most bizarre thing about Sid's response is that he filed one at all. Fornlawsuits, your file a Complaint, the respond with an Answer and Motions to Dismiss ... then you move to Discovery and/or hearings on their motions if you set them. You don't just respond to their Answer and Motions. So Sid wasted all his time filing a document that has no legal significance and was totally unnecessary. For a doctor he sure is incapable of doing basic online research.

Anonymous said...

And, you are an expert in this? Or do you have admissible proof? Or is this just another statement you throw out there?

JSwift said...

Kenny states: It is my understanding that in a clothed and mobile individual the point at which blood is found does not necessarily correspond to the point where the knife penetration occurred.

As a general statement, that is undoubtedly true. Moreover, the science of blood spatter is less precise than the science of DNA. Nevertheless, there is a scientific basis for the determination. The opinion of an expert who reviewed the specific blood spatter in the hallway in this specific case is much more reliable than the biased viewpoint of a self-proclaimed friend of the defendant, who claimed that he read something on the internet that concluded that it "does not necessarily correspond" to the location of an attack.

Kenny, I remind you that you are not reliable.

In our discussion about DNA, you claimed that you had done "research" on DNA that made you so certain of your conclusions that you disparaged those who disagreed with you. As we determined, you were wrong. You had no idea what you were talking about. Those whom you disparaged were correct. To make matters worse, you deliberately edited text from the DNA report to deceive readers into thinking that the report supported your conclusion. I do not believe the deceptive editing was an innocent error resulting from your ignorance of the subject. For that reason, I concluded that you lied.

You have made this claim repeatedly regarding the blood spatter, but, like all other arguments you make, you provide nothing to support it. Your "understanding" contributes little to reasonable doubt.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Sid, why won't you post what WRAL sent? You posted your Complaint, and your response to their response - but you are hiding their actual response. Why?

Anonymous said...

WRAL asking Sidney to withdraw his complaint or they will ask for attorney's fees is quite funny really. Sidney basically has no funds to pay any attorney's fees and he surely would love to continue the fight if WRAL won for fees. WRAL should know that Sidney has being filing lawsuits for years and in all those years no monetary damages has stopped him, because he has no monetary funds to pay. Sidney has the upper hand here so WRAL needs to do like Duke and others have done and quietly get it dismissed and move on(until WRAL II happens and the cycle starts again).

Anonymous said...


kenny:

If you and Sid are right, wouldn't at least one judge, lawyer, juror, witness, expert, etc. agree with you? Everyone who has been involved in or is familiar with the Daye case disagrees with your and Sid's conclusions and your characterizations of the facts, evidence and law. After 5 years you think you would be able to persuade at least one judge, juror, lawyer, expert - or someone - to your way of thinking if there was any validity at all to your position.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Walt said...

Even though Sid did not favor us with WRAL's filing, we can glean something from his misguided reply.

First, I have written it before, but it is worth repeating, when one needs a lawyer, one really needs a lawyer. Most of Sid's errors would have been solved by a modestly trained lawyer in about his or her second year of practice. Given the glut of lawyers today, there is really no excuse for Sid not seeking counsel. Or, he could have asked James Coleman to look over his frivolous complaint and his equally frivolous reply. Surely if Coleman is such a good friend, he would have happily looked over Sid's legal work and pointed him in the right direction.

Second, Sid really wasted a lot of paper by filing the second half of his reply. No answer to an answer is due unless the first answer asserts a counter-claim. Again, Sid has neglected to favor us with a copy of the Answer and Motion to Dismiss.

Third, Sid's unorthodox form of pleading combined with his usual conspiracy theories makes it very difficult to see if he really has anything. From what I can see his whole argument seems to be "nit picking" with a few phrases.
(a)He doesn't, for any explicable reason, like being identified as being from Durham. This is not actionable. Why he included residence is something I do not understand.
(b) Sid makes a big deal about how Harr I, II and III are not related to the lacrosse hoax. He's going to lose on that issue. Harr I, II and III are replete with references to the hoax.
(c) Sid is vexed about being labeled a vexatious and frivolous litigant. Unfortunately for him, that's the standard in the law that the Federal Court applied and found him to be so. WRAL has every right to publish that finding. This is possibly Sid's worst claim as it goes directly to the heart of the First Amendment. Here, he will lose and probably get sanctioned.
(d) Sid also seems upset, as we all know he is, about the Judge not recusing after she ruled against him once before. Lawyers call this a collateral attack and it won't hold up in state court. The doctrine of federalism will keep a North Carolina Superior Court from considering such a challenge to a co-equal but separate court in the federal system. Here he will lose again.

Sid doesn't really have much of a case against WRAL. They clearly erred in saying he was from Durham when he is not. However, that is such a nit picky error that the court won't award damages. Frankly, as I live in Durham, I'm probably more damaged by WRAL's statement that Sid lives here than he is.

All told, this is just another of Sid's frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. It is destined to fail as all his others have.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sid, why won't you post what WRAL sent? You posted your Complaint, and your response to their response - but you are hiding their actual response. Why?"

Sid is all about transparency. Just ask him. I am sure this was an oversight on his part that he will quickly rectify. I am positive it has nothing to do with the content of WRAL's response.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


A Lawyer said...

My favorite part of Dr. Harr's response is paragraph 25, where he identifies a headline as "accurate and truthful, but at the same time ... misleading and slanted." The same could be said about most newspaper stories. But so long as Dr. Harr admits that it is "accurate and truthful," it's not libelous.

As Walt pointed out, calling Dr. Harr a resident of Durham is inaccurate, but not libelous (because not defamatory), and saying his suits against Duke "related to" the Lacrosse case is accurate because his Complaints in those cases are full of references to the Lacrosse case.

kenhyderal said...

John D. said: In our discussion about DNA, you claimed that you had done "research" on DNA that made you so certain of your conclusions that you disparaged those who disagreed with you"......................How so?

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Does it bother you that Sid is so incapable of even basic research that he is filing documents that are totally frivolous and meaningless like this "response" to WRALs Answer? It's right in the rules ... Right here, Rule 7:

Rule 7. Pleadings allowed; motions.
(a) Pleadings. – There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim
denominated as such; an answer to a crossclaim, if the answer contains a crossclaim; a
third-party complaint if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the
provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. If the answer alleges contributory negligence, a party may serve a reply alleging last clear chance. No other pleading shall be allowed except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.


It's crystal clear "no other pleading shall be allowed" - pretty plain language - Sid can't even understand that, how do you trust him to understand anything else? And, that's not an arcane rule, that's the standard rule, easy to understand.

This pleading will be struck, and it won't be a conspiracy, or an attack on arcane rules - it will be because Sid is an idiot who refuses to read.

kenhyderal said...

@ Abe 6:28 Crystal, like most poor minority citizens of North Carolina has received poor quality representation. Her appointed councillors have not done any thorough research into her case. Lawyers there are most reluctant to take on the powers that be like Duke, especially on behalf of someone who, thanks to the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, is widely and unfairly considered to be a pariah. Nobody has done the research into this case that Dr. Harr has done but his support of former DA Nifong means no council for Crystal will even consult with him or accept his expertise on this case. Even finding a NC jury untainted by the campaign to discredit Crystal far and wide is problematic.

Anonymous said...

You keep saying that Kenny, but you have absolutely no proof. You have no clue what the lawyers have done - and Duke is sued routinely in Durham, and people make lots of money suing Duke, so not sure why you think people are scared.

You are a pathetic idiot. I used to think you were an abuser as well, but you just aren't bright enough for that.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Kenny, Does it bother you that Sid is so incapable of even basic research that he is filing documents that are totally frivolous and meaningless like this "response" to WRALs Answer? It's right in the rules".................. Dr. Harr is a brilliant man. He has no legal training but he is navigating the corrupt legal system far better than I, or I dare say anyone else on this blog who does not have a Law Degree. He is also a man dedicated to getting justice for the disadvantaged. Walt says he does that too but the U.S. is so over-run with Lawyers that maintaining a system where arcane process is designed to thwart the unconversant and trump the seeking of true justice, makes them indispensable and assures them their lucrative compensation unaffordable to the many.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "You keep saying that Kenny, but you have absolutely no proof. You have no clue what the lawyers have done"...................................... Only what I have been told by my friend; their client.

Anonymous said...

Kenhydetal:

"@ Abe 6:28 Crystal, like most poor minority citizens of North Carolina has received poor quality representation. Her appointed councillors have not done any thorough research into her case. Lawyers there are most reluctant to take on the powers that be like Duke, especially on behalf of someone who, thanks to the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, is widely and unfairly considered to be a pariah. Nobody has done the research into this case that Dr. Harr has done but his support of former DA Nifong means no council for Crystal will even consult with him or accept his expertise on this case. Even finding a NC jury untainted by the campaign to discredit Crystal far and wide is problematic."

More BS from Kenny, who is trying to BS his way around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presuming wishful thinking.

Kenny', Sifney's bullshit does not add up to serious research into the Duke Rape Hoax.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "You keep saying that Kenny, but you have absolutely no proof. You have no clue what the lawyers have done"...................................... Only what I have been told by my friend; their client."

Your friend, their client is a proven liar.

A Lawyer said...

the U.S. is so over-run with Lawyers that maintaining a system where arcane process is designed to thwart the unconversant and trump the seeking of true justice

(a) What's so hard about reading the rules?

(b) Why doesn't Dr. Harr ask his friend, Prof. Coleman, to review his filings?

(c) Can you point me to any other country that doesn't have detailed rules for court filings?

(d) "The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards." Justice Felix Frankfurter in McNabb v. United States, 318 US 332, 347 (1943).

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderl:

"Dr. Harr is a brilliant man."

Delusional megalomania does not add up to brilliance.

"He has no legal training but he is navigating the corrupt legal system far better than I, or I dare say anyone else on this blog who does not have a Law Degree."

Is that why he has compiled a record of filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits?

You document yet again how disconnected you are from reality.

kenhyderal said...

Lawyers; a profession it is to disguise matters. - St.Thomas More

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Lawyers; a profession it is to disguise matters. - St.Thomas More"

More totally irrelevant babble from Kenny.

guiowen said...

Kenny should move to Utopia, where he wouldn't need a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

It is my opinion that Kenhyderal does not really exist. Kenhyderal is a construct fabricated by Sidney Harr. Sidney has absolutely no support for his views. It is doubtful tht his Committee for Justice for Mike Nifong has dissipated. So, to create the illusion he has support, he posts as Kenhyderal, mainly laudatory posts about his brilliance. It is all a sham.

Anonymous said...

sidney Harr's construct of Kenhyderal is sort of like Madonna Constantine hanging a noose on her office door and then claiming she was targeted for a racist attack.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
the U.S. is so over-run with Lawyers that maintaining a system where arcane process is designed to thwart the unconversant and trump the seeking of true justice

(a) What's so hard about reading the rules?

(b) Why doesn't Dr. Harr ask his friend, Prof. Coleman, to review his filings?

(c) Can you point me to any other country that doesn't have detailed rules for court filings?

(d) "The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards." Justice Felix Frankfurter in McNabb v. United States, 318 US 332, 347 (1943).


It is precisely because I consider Professor Coleman to be my friend that I do not involve him in any way with my lawsuit against Duke University or with Crystal Mangum's case. After all, he still works at Duke.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
It is my opinion that Kenhyderal does not really exist. Kenhyderal is a construct fabricated by Sidney Harr. Sidney has absolutely no support for his views. It is doubtful tht his Committee for Justice for Mike Nifong has dissipated. So, to create the illusion he has support, he posts as Kenhyderal, mainly laudatory posts about his brilliance. It is all a sham.


WRONG-O!! kenhyderal is a separate human being from me, however like me, he is extremely intelligent, compassionate, and kind. That is why our views and positions are similar.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
My favorite part of Dr. Harr's response is paragraph 25, where he identifies a headline as "accurate and truthful, but at the same time ... misleading and slanted." The same could be said about most newspaper stories. But so long as Dr. Harr admits that it is "accurate and truthful," it's not libelous.

As Walt pointed out, calling Dr. Harr a resident of Durham is inaccurate, but not libelous (because not defamatory), and saying his suits against Duke "related to" the Lacrosse case is accurate because his Complaints in those cases are full of references to the Lacrosse case.


Hey, A Lawyer.

I believe that you and Walt miss the point. The libelous part of the article is the statement that Judge Eagles admonished me for my lawsuits "over the discredited 2006 Duke Lacrosse case." That is the falsity. My lawsuit was about Duke's discrimination against me at a 2010 event, and the reason WRAL did not mention it is because it doesn't want the public to know about it.

By its headline claiming that I am a supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser, and by its statement that I am a "Durham man," WRAL is correct, but misleading... and the misleading headline and statement that I am a Durham man tend to support its libelous claim that my lawsuit was over the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Never in the Eagles order does she claim that my lawsuits had anything to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"It is precisely because I consider Professor Coleman to be my friend that I do not involve him in any way with my lawsuit against Duke University or with Crystal Mangum's case. After all, he still works at Duke."

Translated: I lied about Prfess0r Coleman being my friend andI am tryingtoc0ver my butt.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"WRONG-O!! kenhyderal is a separate human being from me, however like me, he is extremely intelligent, compassionate, and kind. That is why our views and positions are similar."

You are not at all intelligent, compassi0nator kind. Ergo, neither is Kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"I believe that you and Walt miss the point. The libelous part of the article is the statement that Judge Eagles admonished me for my lawsuits "over the discredited 2006 Duke Lacrosse case." That is the falsity. My lawsuit was about Duke's discrimination against me at a 2010 event, and the reason WRAL did not mention it is because it doesn't want the public to know about it."

You miss the obvious point. Duke did not discriminate against you. Duke tried to enforce its no solicitation policy and you created an incident.

You have documented you are not at all intelligent

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"By its headline claiming that I am a supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser, and by its statement that I am a "Durham man," WRAL is correct, but misleading... and the misleading headline and statement that I am a Durham man tend to support its libelous claim that my lawsuit was over the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Never in the Eagles order does she claim that my lawsuits had anything to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

You alleged in your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits that Duke officials, the President pf Duke andthe Dean of the Law shool conspired to discriminate against you because of your support of Nifong's actions in the Duke Rape hoax.

Again yoou show you are not at all intelligent. Neither s Kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"I rest my case."

What case?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"By its headline claiming that I am a supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser, and by its statement that I am a "Durham man," WRAL is correct, but misleading... and the misleading headline and statement that I am a Durham man tend to support its libelous claim that my lawsuit was over the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Never in the Eagles order does she claim that my lawsuits had anything to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

You alleged in your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits that Duke officials, the President pf Duke andthe Dean of the Law shool conspired to discriminate against you because of your support of Nifong's actions in the Duke Rape hoax.

Again yoou show you are not at all intelligent. Neither s Kenhyderal.


My point exactly!! My complaint is about Duke's discrimination of me. It is irrelevant as to what prompted Duke to discriminate against me. Fact is that I supported Nifong because I believe that he was unjustly and selectively disbarred for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. I have never weighed in on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case either way.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"I believe that you and Walt miss the point. The libelous part of the article is the statement that Judge Eagles admonished me for my lawsuits "over the discredited 2006 Duke Lacrosse case." That is the falsity. My lawsuit was about Duke's discrimination against me at a 2010 event, and the reason WRAL did not mention it is because it doesn't want the public to know about it."

You miss the obvious point. Duke did not discriminate against you. Duke tried to enforce its no solicitation policy and you created an incident.

You have documented you are not at all intelligent

Hah! The "non-solicitation defense" is a pathetically weak argument to try and justify what was clearly an ambush intended to have me falsely arrested for the purpose of destroying my credibility and the credibility of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Fortunately, Professor Coleman saved my bacon when he came by and intervened.

I don't know what dictionary you are using, but handing out a business card and recommending, in a private conversation, that the card recipient visit the blog site can hardly be considered "solicitation."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"It is precisely because I consider Professor Coleman to be my friend that I do not involve him in any way with my lawsuit against Duke University or with Crystal Mangum's case. After all, he still works at Duke."

Translated: I lied about Prfess0r Coleman being my friend andI am tryingtoc0ver my butt.


Fact is that Professor Coleman is a friend that I visited only when I was on Duke University campus. I never was aware of his home address and never visited him at his home residence. Because of the prior ambush on April 14, 2010, I have made it a point never to venture on Duke University property... unless absolutely necessary.

As far as friendship goes, I believe we have a mutual friendship... however, I can only speak for myself. But, certainly, due to the political nature of Mangum's case, I would not want to place James Coleman in the middle of a volatile situation... and furthermore, it is probably unlikely that he would do anything to help Mangum (because of his faculty position at Duke) even if I did ask. That would include giving me advice off the record.

A Lawyer said...

On an earlier thread, I quoted the first paragraph of your lawsuit vs. Duke. It mentioned the Lacrosse rape case. Therefore, you cannot now claim that the two matters were not related. You will lose your libel suit on that ground.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 289 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 3 days since the Ides of March 2017, 32 days since February 14, 2017, 77 days since the end of 2016, 260 days since the end of June 2016, 328 days since April 24, 2016, 368 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,211 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,562 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,268 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"My point exactly!! My complaint is about Duke's discrimination of me. It is irrelevant as to what prompted Duke to discriminate against me. Fact is that I supported Nifong because I believe that he was unjustly and selectively disbarred for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. I have never weighed in on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case either way."

You lie.

You have repeatedly described Crystal as the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, which means that on multiple occasions you HAVE weighed in on the Duke Rape Hoax, weighed in to say the Lacrosse players were guilty.

Regarding the DNA evidence found on Crystal, I recall you inone of your posts saying that evidence was not exculpatory because it did not prove the defendants did not rape Crystal. That, again, is you weighing in to say the Lacrosse players were guilty.

You have weighed in on multiple occasions to say the AG's opinion that the Lacrosse players were innocent had no legal weight, which is another way of saying you believe the Lacrosse players were guilty.

And your attempts to bullshit your way around these multiple, obvious episodes of you declaring the Lacrosse players are guilty show you are anything but brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Hah! The "non-solicitation defense" is a pathetically weak argument to try and justify what was clearly AN AMBUSH INRENDED TO HAVE ME FALSELY ARRESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING MY CREDIBILITY AND THE CREDIBIITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE FOR MIKE NIFONG(emphasis added)."

And Sidney wants us to believe his lawsuit had nothing to do with the Duke Rape hoax.

"Fortunately, Professor Coleman saved my bacon when he came by and intervened."

You miserpresent the situation. Your recording of the incident revealed that you tried to dragoon Professor Coleman into the incident. He never willingly intervened for you.

You presume a fact not in evidence when you accuse Duke of trying to destroy your credibility and your J4N Committee's credibility. You and your J4N Committee never had any credibility to destroy.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"As far as friendship goes, I believe we have a mutual friendship"

What you might believe is often delusional and is therefore nor credible.

.".. however, I can only speak for myself. But, certainly, due to the political nature of Mangum's case, I would not want to place James Coleman in the middle of a volatile situation".

There was nothing political or volatile about the prosecution of Crystal Mangum. She was prosecuted because she murdered Reginald Daye.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"I don't know what dictionary you are using, but handing out a business card and recommending, in a private conversation, that the card recipient visit the blog site can hardly be considered 'solicitation.'"

Irrelevnt statement. Wat violates Duke's non solicitation policy is not determined by what you read in any Dictionary. it is defined by Duke University, and in spite of how you interpret Duke's status as a private university, you have no right to enter Duke's campus and SOLICIT support for corrupt DA Nifong.

http://policies.duke.edu/students/universitywide/solicitation.php

"Solicitation

Recognized student organizations may use the Bryan Center Plaza for the purpose of sales, distribution, or promotion of events (also known as “tabling”). Tabling is administered by University Center Activities and Events (UCAE). Contact UCAE at 919-684-4741, 036 Bryan Center, or visit studentaffairs.duke.edu/ucae for more information and detailed guidelines.

Solicitation is prohibited within a 200-foot radius of the West and East Campus bus stops.

Commercial or outside solicitors (including student employees of outside vendors) are prohibited without permission of the appropriate space manager."

You WERE soliciting on Duke's campus without obtaining permission.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

You still ignore the most obvious issue: Why did you waste all this time filing a pleading that is not allowed and will be struck?

JSwift said...

Sidney Harr, in paragraph 26 is his March 6, 2017, response: HARR-I, HARR-II, and HARR-III had absolutely nothing to do with MANGUM, HARR's support for MANGUM, or even NIFONG.

Sidney Harr, in his April 26, 2010, proposal to Duke offering to settle his claims:

[T]he General Counsel [of Duke] holds press or media conference and hand out a press release in conjunction with it. The conference and press release on Duke University stationary should cover the following:...

5) Duke University's position is that Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting what is known as the Duke Lacrosse case,was performing his duties as a prosecutor and there is no evidence to suggest any other motivations. (the claim made by F. Lane Williamson of the State Bar that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case for political gain is laughable... not even the rigged poll by SurveyUSA for WTVD ABC 11 News supports such nonsense.)...

With regard to Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, he was merely carrying out his duty. A victim (Ms. Mangum) who was lured to the party under false pretenses by a Duke Lacrosse player using a false name, made a complaint that she had been assaulted, and made identification of two defendants with 100 per cent certainty. The third defendant was indicted only after he could not be excluded by DNA testing, in conjunction with 85% certainty on identification. To Mr. Nifong's credit, when the victim could not assure him, to his satisfaction, that she had been raped, he took the initiative to dismiss the rape charges against the defendants...

If Duke University agrees to the offer presented, I will put the incident behind me...


John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucidated by a nice shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers.

blah

blah

blah

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

I think the justice system typically is more discrete when handling rape cases, due to possibilities of undue psychological damage, harm from stigma, fear, trauma, and societal pressures and customs and traditions, etc., imposed upon the alleged victim that could cause irreversable harm to the victim and their family and community, etc. Of course this does not always happen and the victim IS victimized, but the courts are aware of what they are doing and how to mitigate damages by now any reasonable citizen would assume. There is no excuse for Duke not knowing the harm they cause as they are well versed in all areas of the issues.

There seemed to be no safeguards put in place by Mr. Nifong in the handling of this case for the protection of Ms. Mangum, her family, nor her community. In essence, she could be perceived to have been exploited, and to have been made into an exploitable figure within the justice system beyond just that case. She has to fight for herself obviously in order to gain back the humanity and thus civil rights stolen from her by this exploitation, as is her right.

Are you going to provide her with the information she needs to write her own grievances and appeal amendments or whatever is needed with the appeal to get HER version of appeal in front of the appeals trial, as well as letters to the innocence commissions asking for assistance?

This is what is needed at this time if she is to gain back her civil and legal rights.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

I find it very frustrating, as a citizen witness to the current Mangum case as presented on this blog and in the news and filings, etc., to not know at this point when you are increasing distracted with other cases, whether or not Ms. Mangum has the medical analysis you provide in sharlog/flog format in a format that she can use while in jail to write her complaints/grievances/amendements/requests, etc.?

I am hoping you will answer this question soon. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

g ... i've already told you to stop copy and pasting posts that aren't even yours and then sitting there and trolling what you just posted.

seriously

get over yourself

troll doesn't even describe what you do any more g ... since you are seriously evil

DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN

thanks

blah blah blah

Anonymous said...

duke friggin' kills Mr. Daye with avoidable,preventable,nonrelated malpractice, (that THEY document themselves in their medical reports), and frames the obviously excessively abused victim in the case whom they have a well known issue with for murder with the malicious assistance and knowledge of the justice system, and all ya'll can beeach about is manners and explaining why exactly others may think they are sheathead jokes ... THAT's duke - THAT's what they are (nice example of what duke is evil duke troll its)

evil killing, raping, exploiting sheathead jokesters - their brand

Anonymous said...

One, two, three and to the fo'
Walt Dogg and Dr. G at the do'
Ready to make an entrance, so back on up
(Cause you know they 'bout had to rip shit up)
Give Walt the microphone first, so he can bust like a bubble
Raleigh and Durham together, now you know you in trouble
Ain't nothin' but a G thang, baaaaabay!
Two loc'ed out G's so we're craaaaazay!
J4N is the blog that paaaaays me!
Unfadable, so please don't try to fade this (Hell yeah)

But, uh, back to the lecture at hand
Perfection is perfected, so I'm 'a let 'em understand
From a young G's perspective
And before me dig out a bitch I have ta' find a contraceptive
You never know she could be earnin' her man,
And learnin' her man, and at the same time burnin' her man
Now you know I ain't wit that shit, Lieutenant
Ain't no pussy good enough to get burnt while I'm up in it
(yeah) Now that's realer than real-deal Holyfield
And now all you hookas and ho's know how I feel
Well if it's good enough to get broke off a proper chunk
I'll take a small piece of some of that funky stuff

It's like this and like that and like this and uh
It's like that and like this and like that and uh
It's like this and like that and like this and uh
G, creep to the mic like a phantom

Well I'm peepin', and I'm creepin', and I'm creep-in'
But I damn near got caught, 'cause my beeper kept beepin'
Now it's time for me to make my impression felt
So sit back, relax, and strap on your seatbelt
You never been on a ride like this befo'
With a producer who can rap and control the maestro
At the same time with the dope rhyme that I kick
You know, and I know, I flow some ol funky shit
To add to my collection, the selection
Symbolizes dope, take a toke, but don't choke
If ya' do, ya' have no clue
O' what me and my homey Walt Dogg came to do


*With sincerest apologies to Dr. Dre...

guiowen said...

Hey, it's the Crybully again!

guiowen said...

Crybully cry!
You make Ken Edwards sigh.
He's old enough to know better.
So Crybully cry!

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr and/or Kenhyderal or both posting anonymously to create the illusion that Sidney Harr has support.

Anonymous said...

Or maybe Sidney Harr and Kenhyderal are one and the same person.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I find it very frustrating, as a citizen witness to the current Mangum case as presented on this blog and in the news and filings, etc., to not know at this point when you are increasing distracted with other cases, whether or not Ms. Mangum has the medical analysis you provide in sharlog/flog format in a format that she can use while in jail to write her complaints/grievances/amendements/requests, etc.?

I am hoping you will answer this question soon. Thank you!


Thank you for your concern for Ms. Mangum's plight. Rest assured that she has a full and complete knowledge of the medical issues related to her murder case, and she has used them in filing to have her conviction overturned. As a matter of fact, she is awaiting a ruling now.

I found it necessary to file a libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 because of the false and misleading statements it made in an overt attempt to discredit me publicly. I delivered several letters of warning, but they were all ignored, which left me no alternative than to file. My lawsuit, and the attention to it, in no way compromises Mangum's position. If anything, it makes it stronger.

Thanks for your concern. Hopefully Crystal will receive news from the Court soon.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I think the justice system typically is more discrete when handling rape cases, due to possibilities of undue psychological damage, harm from stigma, fear, trauma, and societal pressures and customs and traditions, etc., imposed upon the alleged victim that could cause irreversable harm to the victim and their family and community, etc. Of course this does not always happen and the victim IS victimized, but the courts are aware of what they are doing and how to mitigate damages by now any reasonable citizen would assume. There is no excuse for Duke not knowing the harm they cause as they are well versed in all areas of the issues.

There seemed to be no safeguards put in place by Mr. Nifong in the handling of this case for the protection of Ms. Mangum, her family, nor her community. In essence, she could be perceived to have been exploited, and to have been made into an exploitable figure within the justice system beyond just that case. She has to fight for herself obviously in order to gain back the humanity and thus civil rights stolen from her by this exploitation, as is her right.

Are you going to provide her with the information she needs to write her own grievances and appeal amendments or whatever is needed with the appeal to get HER version of appeal in front of the appeals trial, as well as letters to the innocence commissions asking for assistance?

This is what is needed at this time if she is to gain back her civil and legal rights.


Thank you for your interest in Mangum's welfare. I think that the legal system treated Crystal unfairly based on politics... a vendetta-driven prosecution as payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. I believe that Mike Nifong, the Durham D.A. at the time, made an effort to see that she received justice by pursuing the sexual assault allegations. It is because Nifong did so that he was ostracized and demonized by the state and the media. He was made an example of... very effective, I must admit.

I do believe that Mangum was victimized twice by the system... the first when her rights as a victim of domestic violence was ignored, and the second by being indicted on charges that lacked probable cause.

Ms. Mangum has been given by me, and has a good understanding of the medical issues of her case, and I believe that she is able to proceed in the post-conviction phase effectively towards affecting her release and exoneration. Crystal and I have both written to the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission, the NC Center on Actual Innocence, the NC Justice Center, the NAACP, the ACLU, and just about every other civil rights organization you can imagine. They either refuse to get involved in Crystal's case or just outright ignore pleas for assistance. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is the only organization that has been supportive of her.

I am hopeful that she will soon hear from the court about her most recent appeal.

Hope this answers your questions.

Nifong Supporter said...


JSwift said...
Sidney Harr, in paragraph 26 is his March 6, 2017, response: HARR-I, HARR-II, and HARR-III had absolutely nothing to do with MANGUM, HARR's support for MANGUM, or even NIFONG.

Sidney Harr, in his April 26, 2010, proposal to Duke offering to settle his claims:

[T]he General Counsel [of Duke] holds press or media conference and hand out a press release in conjunction with it. The conference and press release on Duke University stationary should cover the following:...

5) Duke University's position is that Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting what is known as the Duke Lacrosse case,was performing his duties as a prosecutor and there is no evidence to suggest any other motivations. (the claim made by F. Lane Williamson of the State Bar that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case for political gain is laughable... not even the rigged poll by SurveyUSA for WTVD ABC 11 News supports such nonsense.)...

With regard to Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, he was merely carrying out his duty. A victim (Ms. Mangum) who was lured to the party under false pretenses by a Duke Lacrosse player using a false name, made a complaint that she had been assaulted, and made identification of two defendants with 100 per cent certainty. The third defendant was indicted only after he could not be excluded by DNA testing, in conjunction with 85% certainty on identification. To Mr. Nifong's credit, when the victim could not assure him, to his satisfaction, that she had been raped, he took the initiative to dismiss the rape charges against the defendants...

If Duke University agrees to the offer presented, I will put the incident behind me...


John D. Smith
New York, NY


Hey, JSwift.

Actually, I don't see any contradiction. I made a good-faith offer to Duke University to resolve their discrimination against me... all I sought were assurances that Nifong-supporters would not be abused.

When Duke refused to give my concerns any consideration, then I was forced to proceed to trial. Keep in mind that I was suing Duke University for its discrimination against me. Whether or not Duke discriminated against me because I was a Nifong-supporter or a Mangum supporter, or just because I am an African American, it is their discrimination against me that is what triggered my lawsuit... certainly nothing on my part having to do with my support for Nifong, Mangum, or anyone else.

The concession I sought in my April 26, 2010 proposal was nothing more than to assure that Nifong-supporters, and Nifong, himself, would not face the kind of harassment to which I was subjected without cause.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Just want to let you know that I will be away from the office for one week... my next comments coming no earlier than a week from this Saturday, March 25th. I will try to keep an eye on the comments on a daily basis, however. Wanted to give everyone a head's up.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Thank you for your concern for Ms. Mangum's plight. Rest assured that she has a full and complete knowledge of the medical issues related to her murder case, and she has used them in filing to have her conviction overturned. As a matter of fact, she is awaiting a ruling now."

You yourself are incapable of understanding the medical issues. So how can you caim you can make Crystal aware of the medical issues.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"I found it necessary to file a libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 because of the false and misleading statements it made in an overt attempt to discredit me publicly. "

You had already thoroughly discredited yourself years before WRAL ever broadcast their story. Your chances of recovering damages on that count are non existent, as non existent as your clinical credentials.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Ms. Mangum has been given by me, and has a good understanding of the medical issues of her case, and I believe that she is able to proceed in the post-conviction phase effectively towards affecting her release and exoneration."

You yourself lack the capability to understand the medical issues. Ergo, yoou could not have given Crystal any understanding of the medical issues.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Thank you for your interest in Mangum's welfare. I think that the legal system treated Crystal unfairly based on politics... a vendetta-driven prosecution as payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. I believe that Mike Nifong, the Durham D.A. at the time, made an effort to see that she received justice by pursuing the sexual assault allegations. It is because Nifong did so that he was ostracized and demonized by the state and the media. He was made an example of... very effective, I must admit."

Evidence that you discredited yourself long before WRAL published their story.

Crystal was the FALSE accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax. You have claimed no one ever proved Crystal lied. TO establish a crime, someone, the DA, has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Crystal told the truth. You have presented zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth. And it has been established, before the State Bar and the court that Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution for political reasons, to win the vote of the black electorate in Durham County. Your ridiculous hypothesis that courting the Black vote almost cost him the election, is not true.

Plus, if the prosecution fo Crystal was a vendetta fueled by her role in the Duke Rape Hoax, where did you get off that your lawsuit against DA Freeman was not related to the Duke Rape Case?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

More evidence that you discredited yourself long before WRAL published its story:

"
When Duke refused to give my concerns any consideration, then I was forced to proceed to trial. Keep in mind that I was suing Duke University for its discrimination against me. Whether or not Duke discriminated against me because I was a Nifong-supporter or a Mangum supporter, or just because I am an African American, it is their discrimination against me that is what triggered my lawsuit... certainly nothing on my part having to do with my support for Nifong, Mangum, or anyone else."

You alleged that officials ad=t Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Nifong. That means you admit, Duke would not have discriminated against you if you were not involved in your advocacy for Nifong.

And you expect people to believe you are brilliant.

HAH!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Yet more evidence that you discredited yourself before WRAL ever published anything about you:

"The concession I sought in my April 26, 2010 proposal was nothing more than to assure that Nifong-supporters, and Nifong, himself, would not face the kind of harassment to which I was subjected without cause."

You are alleging you were harassed because you were a supporter of Nifong. Would you have ever been a supporter of Nifong if the Duke Rape Hoax had never developed? No.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Actually, I don't see any contradiction. I made a good-faith offer to Duke University to resolve their discrimination against me..."

When you first told the story of Duke kicking you off campus, I thought you had been treated very shabbily. In fact, I told you the same thing. When you filed Harr I, it was obvious that you did not know what the law is and you were simply grasping at some legalistic sounding words. For that, I justifiably criticized you. However, it was not until you released the recording of the encounter, that the full extent of the story became obvious to me. You were not discriminated against. Duke was simply enforcing its policy that prohibits solicitation by non-students on Duke property. You behaved badly and very nearly got put in jail for your bad behavior. I have learned my lesson. I no longer take anything you say at face value. There was no discrimination involved in the Duke issue. You simply violated their rule for non-students on campus. Then you behaved badly when caught. Worse, you did not tell the truth about the incident.

"... all I sought were assurances that Nifong-supporters would not be abused."

You were not abused. I doubt that there are any other Nifong supporters other than Mike and his wife. Even they seem to be smart enough not to violate Duke's policies.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Thank you for your concern for Ms. Mangum's plight. Rest assured that she has a full and complete knowledge of the medical issues related to her murder case, and she has used them in filing to have her conviction overturned. As a matter of fact, she is awaiting a ruling now."

The problems with your "analysis" are manyfold. First, you are not an expert in any way, shape or form. Thus, you cannot give expert testimony on Crystal's behalf. Second, you are not a treating physician and cannot say you ever saw Daye, alive or dead, thus you cannot give factual testimony. Indeed the two experts, one of whom actually saw and observed Daye, contradict your unfounded conclusions. But, Crystal is trying to use your inadmissible, non-expert conclusions to wiggle her way out of prison. That is disappointing as she needs the time and rehabilitative expertise of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Only a long prison sentence and her full cooperation with prison authorities will get her anger management issues under some semblance of control.

"I found it necessary to file a libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 because" of their inconsequential error identifying me as a resident of Durham. There, FTFY.

"Thanks for your concern. Hopefully Crystal will receive news from the Court soon."

Yes, she will, her petition will be denied for failure to show grounds why it should be granted.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

fy evil duke troll it g ... insane hate-crime blog monger, and generally annoying, obnoxious, racist, and discredited crazymaking dukie

blah

Anonymous said...

p.s.

fy evil duke troll it g ... insane hate-crime blog monger, and generally annoying, obnoxious, racist, and discredited crazymaking dukie

blah

... never knew Duke was SO unprofessional as to run their business this way ... even creating their own little evil duke troll gang to terrorize anyone who questions them in any way ... even about Duke's malpractice that by law they are responsible for but aren't so ya have to read bout it in the media and on blogs and watch people put on trial and blamed for murder for the avoidable deadly malpractice that Duke themselves document in a medical record that is public information since its part of the murder trial they necessitated with their deadly and preventable malpractice

... whoda thunk

Anonymous said...

note: sometroll is plagerizing and copying again to troll themselves (evil duke troll g...). Just can't stop can ya?

Anonymous said...

FY evil duke troll it g...

seriously

do not troll me again

Anonymous said...

It is telling that duke has the type supporters it has on this blog instead of a reasoned, legal, professional, concerned reply from duke and resolution to all the issues that are left to be settled only individually in the minds of all its patients and patrons, students, employees, fans, etc., etc., etc., about this case and the lacrosse case, etc., but not in the court of law nor for the people involved in the cases or for the people in general.

When you actually have people INSISTING duke is beyond reproach even though everyone is left to reproach or not reproach at will based upon what they know or don't know after seeing what is going on through the absence of anything reasoned or legal about what duke is doing in this case(s) to indicate any other reason other than to reproach what they are doing while continuing to watch them not take responsibility nor concern for what they are doing while they are continue to do what they do (or don't do) - and thus leaving all to be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus - because it is duke - afterall ... the only thing left is to question duke and the duke / durham justice system - what the frack are you doing?

Why is that?
Is that the way duke always is?

That IS what you read and see in the 'news' about them afterall - over and over and over again - so it is not just a fluke for duke - it IS who they are and what they do to many.

Perhaps they calculate that doing as they do will bring their desired results. So - really - you have to wonder - what does duke REALLY want and why do they do what they do?

Anonymous said...

g... being evil duke troll it g...

Anonymous said...

previous post curtesey of evil duke troll it g...'s plagerizim and reposting for its own entertainment

blah

Anonymous said...

g ... i've already told you to stop copy and pasting posts that aren't even yours and then sitting there and trolling what you just posted.

seriously

get over yourself

troll doesn't even describe what you do any more g ... since you are seriously evil

DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN

thanks

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr and/or Kenhyderal or both posting anonymously again tryig to create the delusion thar Sidney has support. Of course there is the distinct possibility Sidney and Kenny are the same person. Sidney will do anything to delude himself into believing he has support.

Anonymous said...






















































































Udaman Ubes

A Lawyer said...

The libelous part of the article is the statement that Judge Eagles admonished me for my lawsuits "over the discredited 2006 Duke Lacrosse case." That is the falsity. My lawsuit was about Duke's discrimination against me at a 2010 event

Dr. Harr: Paragraph 1 of your original Complaint in your 2011 lawsuit includes these words: "Plaintiff's opinion was that NIFONG was being singularly and excessively mistreated because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case..." (I am taking the quote right off your own blog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/harrvduke.html )

Your 2011 lawsuit is about "the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case" because you chose to mention "the Duke Lacrosse case" in the very first paragraph of your own Complaint. By mentioning the "Duke Lacrosse case" in your Complaint, you made a judicial admission that the Duke Lacrosse case had something to do with your 2011 lawsuit. Ergo, the WRAL report is not libelous, because it's true.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 287 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 5 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 5 days since the Ides of March 2017, 34 days since February 14, 2017, 79 days since the end of 2016, 262 days since the end of June 2016, 330 days since April 24, 2016, 370 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,213 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,564 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,266 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Check out J4N from Sunday, October 24, 2010.

Six of twenty five comments were posted by kilgo.

You claim that Kilgo vanished from J4N and then deleted all his comments, one of which was a comment in which he told you a Lacrosse player had told him that he(the lacrosse player) had witnessed a rape of Crystal by unidentified party attendees.

You fabricated that story, didn't you.

kenhyderal said...

Kilgo posted almost every day. It appears as if, this particular thread, he missed in deleting it. He deleted literally hundreds of posts and each had to be done one by one. At any rate it was a good find. It does illustrate the irreverent style and tone of his posts. In general, Kilgo often made reference to him knowing what went on that night from a Player who was there and saw the rape. He often bragged that he knew more then anyone else just what had occurred. Posters like Guiowen and Walt can attest to that. The specific charge came to me in an e-mail from him at the time he donated a substantial amount to Crystal's bail fund when she was charged with arson. Unfortunately I did not save these e-mails. At that time I did not suspect he would precipitously disappear cancel his e-mail account and spend hours deleting his posts.

Anonymous said...

Kemhyderal:

"In general, Kilgo often made reference to him knowing what went on that night from a Player who was there and saw the rape. He often bragged that he knew more then anyone else just what had occurred."

Each and every time kilgo was challenged to show what he knew, kilgo backed down.

kilgo was as phony as you are.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"The specific charge(that some Lacrosse player told kilgo he had witnessed unidentified party attendees raping Crystal) came to me in an e-mail from him at the time he donated a substantial amount to Crystal's bail fund when she was charged with arson."

You originally claimed kilgo told you this in a comment he posted to J4N.

No matter you change your story, you can not verify that kilgo ever told you that. Which suggests strongly you fabricated the story.

Anonymous said...

















































































Udaman Kenny











kenhyderal said...

There is no statute of limitation for rape. You Duke Lacrosse Apologists desperately need to believe that Kilgo made up his conscience stricken Player friend, that confessed to him what he saw. The only rational explanation for Kilgo's subsequent actions and disappearance is that he was scared off or perhaps even bought off.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

If you really believe your last post, you are even more of an idiot than we all thought.

Anonymous said...

He doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"There is no statute of limitation for rape."

Not applicable here since there was no rape at the Lacrosse party on the night of 13/14 March 2006

"You Duke Lacrosse Apologists desperately need to believe that Kilgo made up his conscience stricken Player friend, that confessed to him what he saw."

The only one who is desperate here is you, the Crystal apologist, who is fanatically desperate to believe that Crystal had been raped in the face of zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

"The only rational explanation for Kilgo's subsequent actions and disappearance is that he was scared off or perhaps even bought off."

No, the only rational explanation of anything here, in view of the fact that you can not document that kilgo ever told you anything, and that you have changed your story of how kilgo told you his story, is that kilgo never told you anything and you have fabricated the story, out of your fanatical desperation to believe Crystal had been raped.

The Great Kilgo said...

Kenhyderal,
Please help me! I'm being held at as apartment on the 4th flo;zihywhbvk,,

Anonymous said...

Lets all meet up face to face and talk about it like real adults.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 286 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 6 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 6 days since the Ides of March 2017, 35 days since February 14, 2017, 80 days since the end of 2016, 263 days since the end of June 2016, 331 days since April 24, 2016, 371 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,214 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,565 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,265 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Walt said...

Kenhyderal wrote: "There is no statute of limitation for rape."

Your lack of understanding of the law as well as your unwillingness to learn is on full display here. Somewhere you read that North Carolina has no statute of limitations for felonies, which is correct as far as it goes. However, Article I, § 18 of the North Carolina Constitution as well as the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution require a speedy trial once someone is arrested, State v. Washington, 192 N.C. App. 277, 282 (2008). Once more than a year has passed since the arrest, the defendant is entitled to the presumption of prejudice and the State is required to show good cause for its delay, State v. Branch, 41 N.C. App. 80, 86. (1979). Given the lengthy delay and the State's previous statements clearing Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans may not now be tried for this non-existent crime.

"You Duke Lacrosse Apologists..."

No one is apologizing. There is no evidence that a rape ever took place. It is legitimate to criticize a criminal process for lack of evidence.

"...desperately need to believe that Kilgo made up his conscience stricken Player friend, that confessed to him what he saw."

Except, Kilgo, if he exists, did make up the phantom witness. Every player was interviewed, and none told the story that Kilgo tells. Years have passed, and said player has never come forward. He simply is a figment of "Kilgo's" imagination.

"The only rational explanation for Kilgo's subsequent actions and disappearance is that he was scared off or perhaps even bought off."

That is not rational nor the exclusive explanation. The more likely explanation is Kilgo realized he had propagated a falsehood that he could not sustain and simply decided to leave. To cover his tracks, he deleted his anonymous email account and his posts here. Those are not the actions of an honest person.

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

Walt said: "The more likely explanation is Kilgo realized he had propagated a falsehood that he could not sustain and simply decided to leave. To cover his tracks, he deleted his anonymous email account and his posts here. Those are not the actions of an honest person.".................And the reason for covering his tracks would be? Are you suggesting he was guilty of libel and feared being sued? Many others have expressed opinions as to guilt. There remains the possibility that his friend, who supposedly spoke to him off the record, entreated him not to violate the confidence. The Duke Lacrosse Apologists have invested much time and reputation into promoting and sustaining a belief into the character and honorability of the Players and the culpability of Crystal. Disillusionment would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.

guiowen said...

Kenny,
Maybe someone's kidnapped Kilgo. Have you tried finding him? Answering his desperate bids for help?

Anonymous said...

"The Duke Lacrosse Apologists have invested much time and reputation into promoting and sustaining a belief into the character and honorability of the Players and the culpability of Crystal."

The Duke lying wh*re fake rape accusing man-killer apologist has invested much time and reputation into promoting and sustaining a belief into the character and honorability of Crystal and the culpability of the Players. Disillusionment would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"'Walt said: "The more likely explanation is Kilgo realized he had propagated a falsehood that he could not sustain and simply decided to leave. To cover his tracks, he deleted his anonymous email account and his posts here. Those are not the actions of an honest person.'.................And the reason for covering his tracks would be? Are you suggesting he was guilty of libel and feared being sued?"

First off,just like there is no evidence Crystal told the truth when she claimed she had been raped, there is no evidence kilgo ever told you anything about the Lacrosse party. That means there is a strong possibility you fabricated the story. Why would kilgo duck and hide is simple. kilgo does not want to be exposed as the fraud he is, after all his mouthing off about knowing more about the Lacrosse case than anyone.

"Many others have expressed opinions as to guilt."

Yeah, like you and Sidney and Victoria Peterson and Nifong and William Cohan. The lot of you have provided zero evidence that Crystal had been raped.

"There remains the possibility that his friend, who supposedly spoke to him off the record, entreated him not to violate the confidence."

As there is no evidence that kilgo ever told you anything about a conscience stricken anonymous Lacrosse payer, this statement is meaningless. If that statement is true, kilgo would never have told you anything about any anonymous Lacrosse player.

"The Duke Lacrosse Apologists have invested much time and reputation into promoting and sustaining a belief into the character and honorability(sic) of the Players"

What the so called Duke apologists have invested much time and effort into is bringing out the truth, which people like you and Nifong and Crystal and Cohan have tried to conceal, that Crystal had fabricated the story of being raped. You have provided and continue to provide zero evidence that Crystal was raped.

"and the culpability of Crystal."

Crystal had become a convicted criminal and false accuser years before she lied about being raped at the Lacrosse party. Crystal's lack of credibility, her culpability, had already been established by the night of 13/14 March 2006, and had become more obvious after the innocent Lacrosse players had been exonerated via her efforts to salvage her reputation.

"Disillusionment would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow."

As is evidenced by your disillusionment over people recognizing the truth and your futile attempts to obscure the truth.

Anonymous said...


kenny:

Are you expecting an arrest to be made in the Mangum rape hoax?

Repeating the same lies over and over again isn't effective advocacy. It doesn't help Mangum and it makes you look silly.

The cat is out of the bag on the rape hoax and has been for years. That being said, the fact that Mangum lied about being raped has no bearing on whether she murdered Mr. Daye. However, the fact that you and Sid (apparently as her surrogate) would repeat those claims, in the context of her murder case makes you and her less credible.

Mangum should either admit she lied about being raped and offer some sort of explanation and apology or, barring that, assiduously avoid any reference to the false rape claim. Bringing the case up over and over again simply reminds people that she falsely accused three men of a brutal crime that never happened. Continuing to insist Mangum was assaulted, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, gives a reasonable person ample cause to discount any claims defenses Mangum or her surrogates may raise in the murder case.

Arguing the rape case is a losing proposition for Mangum. Not only is it an argument that cannot be won (given the extensive evidence that she lied) continuing to repeat it shatters any credibility you or she may have. That is one of the reasons attorneys fight so hard to have evidence of a defendant's past bad acts barred from being used at a trial. It is a basic lesson you, Sid and Mangum have refused to learn.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Walt said...

Kenhyderal wrote: "Are you suggesting he [Kilgo] was guilty of libel and feared being sued?"

Not at exactly. I am suggesting that Kilgo felt remorse for writing a falsehood. He did his best to ameliorate the harm by removing his false statements and deleting his email account.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 2:13 PM wrote: "Yeah, like you and Sidney and Victoria Peterson and Nifong and William Cohan. The lot of you have provided zero evidence that Crystal had been raped."

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

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Abe wrote: "Arguing the rape case is a losing proposition for Mangum. Not only is it an argument that cannot be won (given the extensive evidence that she lied) continuing to repeat it shatters any credibility you or she may have. That is one of the reasons attorneys fight so hard to have evidence of a defendant's past bad acts barred from being used at a trial. It is a basic lesson you, Sid and Mangum have refused to learn."

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

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

Walt said: "Not at exactly. I am suggesting that Kilgo felt remorse for writing a falsehood. He did his best to ameliorate the harm by removing his false statements and deleting his email account".................... Kilgo remorseful? Be frank Walt, does that sound like the Kilgo, you and so many others pilloried on this blog when he was posting so vehemently his outrage here; especially about David Evans whom he seemed to regard as a gang leader. I will say this, however, he showed real compassion for Crystal and her children. From what I know of him he either got scared or he deferred to the wishes of the friend who purported to be a witness; perhaps fearful himself.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Will you explain to us the origin and meaning of the name "kenhyderal?"

Anonymous said...

I have never seen someone so absolutely hopeful that their so called good friend was brutally raped, as opposed to just made it up to avoid some issues.

Personally, I'd rather my friend get in some trouble for having told a lie as opposed to them having, in fact, been brutally gang-raped.

Kenny would prefer that the friend have been raped than think the friend had lied.

I guess that's why Walt says with friends like Kenny, Crystal doesn't need enemies. Kenny should be thankful she wasn't raped. He's not.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "Not at exactly. I am suggesting that Kilgo felt remorse for writing a falsehood. He did his best to ameliorate the harm by removing his false statements and deleting his email account".................... Kilgo remorseful? Be frank Walt, does that sound like the Kilgo, you and so many others pilloried on this blog when he was posting so vehemently his outrage here;" especially about David Evans whom he seemed to regard as a gang leader."

I remind you, just like you have presented zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth about being raped, you have presented zero evidence that kilgo ever told you anything. The most logical explanation of why you claim he did is that you fabricated the story of kilgo and his anonymous Lacrosse player friend out of your desperate determination to believe Crystal had been raped. I echo the poster at March 22, 2017 at 6:35 AM: why do you get such gratification in believing a woman had been brutally raped?

"especially about David Evans whom he seemed to regard as a gang leader."

As no rape ever happened, David Evans was the ringleader of nothing except maybe of his own determination to show the truth, that he had been falsely accused of raping Crystal. What you are writing about is your own outrage at David Evans, again expressing your desperate need to believe that your so called friend had been brutally raped.

"I will say this, however, he showed real compassion for Crystal and her children."

As you fabricated the story of kilgo and his anonymous Lacrosse player friend, you are in a position to say nothing about kilgo's supposed compassion because you know nothing.

"From what I know of him he either got scared or he deferred to the wishes of the friend who purported to be a witness; perhaps fearful himself."

Which is an admission that you know nothing. Again, the indications are that you fabricated the story of kilgo and his anonymous Lacrosse player friend. Why would you fabricate such a story? Because you have a perverse need to believe a woman you call a fried had been brutally raped.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 285 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 1 week since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 7 days since the Ides of March 2017, 36 days since February 14, 2017, 81 days since the end of 2016, 264 days since the end of June 2016, 332 days since April 24, 2016, 372 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,215 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,566 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,264 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

More about kilgo.

If you remember, you claimed that Crystal claimed that Reade Seligman was holding her legs apart. Reade Seligmann's alibi evidence established with 100% certainty that he had not been present at the scene of the alleged crime when the alleged crime was happening(and the opinions of a couple of ignorant people like Nifong and William Cohan do not discredit Reade Seligmann's alibi). Ergo, if Crystal said that Reade Seligmann had been holding her legs apart, she was lying.

Well, as I have pointed out, the rape kit materials taken from Crystal, tested negative for alkaline phosphatase, a marker for semen. You may speculate why the kit materials tested negative but your speculation is based on ignorance, nothing more. The most logical, most likely reason the rape kit materials tested negative for alkaline phosphatase is that Crystal, who had alleged she had been subjected to a semen depositing gang rape, HAD NOT been subjected to a semen depositing gang rape.

Ergo,if kilgo actually did tell you about his lacrosse player friend witnessing Crystal being raped, kilgo lied. There was no rape for anyone to witness.

And it comes back to, why do you wish that a woman whom you call a friend had been subjected to a semen depositing gang rape.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Will you explain to us the origin and meaning of the name "kenhyderal?"..............................AK was taken

Anonymous said...

AK = Asshole Kenny?

kenhyderal said...

I draw readers attention to the ridiculous and perverse conclusions Dr. Anonymous reaches about me, as in his posts of 6:35 and 8:26. He's went on about this multiple times. It makes one wonder where his mind is at and if there is some sort of projection going on here. I wish Crystal had never encountered the Duke Lacrosse Team but she unfortunately did and suffered terrible and brutal consequences for that.

JSwift said...

Kenny,

I certainly do not wish to defend Dr. Anonymous.

However, I believe all readers appreciate the irony of you, who claims repeatedly with no credible evidence that Magnum was brutally gang raped by precisely three Mystery Rapists at the lacrosse party, criticizing another poster's "ridiculous and perverse conclusions."

I agree with you that "there is some sort of projection going on here."

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I draw readers attention to the ridiculous and perverse conclusions Dr. Anonymous reaches about me, as in his posts of 6:35 and 8:26."

6:35 was not me. 8:26 was.

Kenny has accused Reade Seligmann and David Evans of participating in the rape of Crystal. The points to which Kenny objects are 1)Reade Seligmann showed with 100% certainty he was not at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime happened; 2)Kenny has provided zero proof that the crime ever happened; 3) Kenny has provided zero evidence kilgo ever told him anything about an anonymous Lacrosse player who witnessed the rape of Crystal; 4) The forensic evidence from the rape kit, specifically the failure to detect alkaline phosphatase on the rape kit materials, IS strong evidence that no rape took place; 5) point 4 establishes that if kilgo ever did tell Kenny that a lacrosse player witnessed the rape of crystal, then kilgo lied. There had been no rape for anyone to witness.

I draw readers' attention to the way Kenny tries to bullshit his way through and around facts which do not fit in with his guilt presuming wishful thinking.

"He's went on about this multiple times."

And each n every time Kenny makes no attempt to address the points. He tries to ignore them.

"It makes one wonder where his mind is at and if there is some sort of projection going on here."

Where my mind is obviously: Kenhyderal has zero proof that Crystal was ever raped and yet he insists she was. The facts show Crystal was not raped, and the facts, not Projection are what raise the question of why Kenny wants to believe she was raped. Projection is but Kenny's excuse for avoiding and denying facts which do not fit with his guilt presuming wishful thinking.

"I wish Crystal had never encountered the Duke Lacrosse Team"

I bet the Lacrosse team wished they had never encountered Crystal, who lied about a number of them raping her.

"but she unfortunately did"

The people who were unfortunate from that encounter were the falsely accused members of the Lacrosse team.

"and suffered terrible and brutal consequences for that."

Not as terrible as the consequences suffered by the falsely accused Lacrosse players, and there were consequences to the rest of the team and to their coach. They suffered consequences because Crystal lied. Crystal suffered consequences because she lied and was exposed as a liar. Her suffering was self inflicted.

I say again, you have provided zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth.

Anonymous said...


Investigator Benjamin Himan's notes of his phone conversation with Kim Pittman on March 20, 2006:

"3/20/06 1010HRS - CONTACTED KIM PITMAN REFERENCE THIS CASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE DID DANCE AT 610 NORTH BUCHANAN, I ASKED HER IF SHE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT WHY I WAS CALLING. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WOULD BE GETTING A CALL FORM THE POLICE ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HEARD THAT MS. MANGUM WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, WHICH SHE STATED WAS A "CROCK" AND SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS WITH HER THE WHOLE TIME UNTIL SHE LEFT. AND THE ONLY TIME SHE WAS ALONE WAS WHEN SHE WOULD NOT LEAVE AND THAT TIME PERIOD WAS LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. WE MADE AN APPOINTMENT FOR HER TO MEET ME AT STATION 2 AND HER TO GIVE ME A STATEMENT REGARDING THE INCIDENT."

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

kenhyderal said...

John D. said: " criticizing another poster's "ridiculous and perverse conclusions."
I agree with you that "there is some sort of projection going on here.".................... You know as well as I do, John D, that this guy, hiding behind his medical qualifications, is unethically trying to label me, not someone with an opinion he disagrees with but as someone with psychosexual pathology

kenhyderal said...

@ Abe: Here's what she said to Juan Williams on Fox News later that week. Ms. ROBERTS: ...okay, first of all, one of the things that I learned was the fact that she was 27. I found out that she knew how to drink; you know, what I mean? So it made me wonder as to why in the world was she so out of it, you know. And also, I didn't even want to imagine that something like that could happen to her and I'm 20 feet away. I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did.
WILLIAMS: (said afterwards without Kim being present)) "Last week, defense lawyers filed papers highlighting statements made by Roberts to the police on the night of the incident. At that time, she said the possibility of a rape was, quote, "a crock," because she said she'd only been away from the alleged victim for a few minutes the entire night. The woman making the charges told police she was raped for 30 minutes.

The Great Kilgo said...

Kenhyderal, please help me! I can give yois'ofjng

JSwift said...

You know as well as I do, Kenny Hyderal, that you, hiding behind your self-proclaimed friendship with Magnum, is unethically trying to label me, not as someone with an opinion you disagree with, but as an apologist for people you unethically label as predators.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

Other than Alaska, what does "AK" stand for?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"John D. said: " criticizing another poster's "ridiculous and perverse conclusions."
I agree with you that "there is some sort of projection going on here.".................... You know as well as I do, John D, that this guy, hiding behind his medical qualifications, is unethically trying to label me, not someone with an opinion he disagrees with but as someone with psychosexual pathology".

When you can provide zero evidence that the woman was raped but insist she was raped, well then what do you call it?

You seem to be more than a little miffed that you have zero credentials, medical or otherwise to back up your guilt presuming wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ Abe: Here's what she said to Juan Williams on Fox News later that week. Ms. ROBERTS: ...okay, first of all, one of the things that I learned was the fact that she was 27. I found out that she knew how to drink; you know, what I mean? So it made me wonder as to why in the world was she so out of it, you know. And also, I didn't even want to imagine that something like that could happen to her and I'm 20 feet away. I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did.
WILLIAMS: (said afterwards without Kim being present)) "Last week, defense lawyers filed papers highlighting statements made by Roberts to the police on the night of the incident. At that time, she said the possibility of a rape was, quote, "a crock," because she said she'd only been away from the alleged victim for a few minutes the entire night. The woman making the charges told police she was raped for 30 minutes."

As you have admitted, that a crime could have happened is meaningless and of no legal weight. When Crystal alleged she had been a victim of a crime, it was up to the DA, in this case Nifong, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaining witness told the truth. There was zero evidence tat Crystal ever told the truth. It would have been more accurate and truthful to say, although the woman making the charges told te police she had been raped for 30 minutes, there was no evidence to support the allegations.

And as you have provided zero evidence to back up your claims, including your claim that kilgo told you about a Lacrosse player had witnessed the alleged rape,one does wonder why you have so much invested in believing that this woman, who you call your friend, had been raped.

kenhyderal said...

@ JSwift 3:38. Not much logic in your reply John D. What's unethical about calling you an apologist and what's unethical about me having a view on the Duke Lacrosse Case. Now, in the case of Dr. Anonymous medical ethics proscribe this kind of conduct. I don't suppose you really subscribe to his outrageous suggestions that I fantasize about my friend being raped. By the way, my friendship with Crystal is real, of long standing and not simply self-proclaimed

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
So why don't you do something to help her?

Anonymous said...

Hey Kenny,

What does "AK" stand for?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ JSwift 3:38. Not much logic in your reply John D. What's unethical about calling you an apologist and what's unethical about me having a view on the Duke Lacrosse Case."

Your view on the Duke Rape Hoax is, without any evidence that a rape ever happened you preach that three innocent men perpetrated the rape and and should be convicted and imprisoned. You support your position with outright lies, e.g. Nifong did not hve them charged with rape, that Nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence, that there was a witness to the rape. That is not merely unethical, that is totally evil and totally immoral.

"Now, in the case of Dr. Anonymous medical ethics proscribe this kind of conduct."

No they don't. Medical ethics do not apply to an individual posting a comment on a blog. Medical ethics apply to clinical situations, things of which neither you nor Sidney have any familiarity. Your resorting to medical ethics is but another way you try to bullshit your way around facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming wishful thinking.

"I don't suppose you really subscribe to his outrageous suggestions that I fantasize about my friend being raped. By the way, my friendship with Crystal is real, of long standing and not simply self-proclaimed"

So explain why you are so heavily invested in believing Crystal, your friend, had been raped, when you have provided zero evidence that the alleged rape ever happened, that your fried Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

Anonymous said...






































Yo Kenny









































Udaman





































JSwift said...

Kenny,

Fine. I trust you agree that it not unethical for me to call you a false rape accuser apologist.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 284 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 1 week and 1 day since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 8 days since the Ides of March 2017, 37 days since February 14, 2017, 82 days since the end of 2016, 265 days since the end of June 2016, 333 days since April 24, 2016, 373 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,216 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,567 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,263 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

JSwift said...

Kenny, the False Rape Accuser Apologist asks: I don't suppose you really subscribe to his outrageous suggestions that I fantasize about my friend being raped.

No, I don't. I don't believe that you really believe that Magnum was brutally raped by precisely three Mystery Rapists at the lacrosse party. I believe that you invented that allegation and repeat it merely to irritate other posters. I note that you have made no bona fide attempt to convince other posters.

By the way, my friendship with Crystal is real, of long standing and not simply self-proclaimed.

Perhaps. However, I note that you have provided no proof and some of your reactions on this blog are not consistent with friendship.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

kenhyderal said...

That doesn't make sense, John. How would someone go about providing proof of friendship to a disparate third party; one who only knows the principal by way of second hand bias. Crystal is in the best position to know who her friends are and who has her best interests at heart and that certainly isn't any Duke Lacrosse Apologists, no matter how dispassionate.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"That doesn't make sense, John. How would someone go about providing proof of friendship to a disparate third party; one who only knows the principal by way of second hand bias. Crystal is in the best position to know who her friends are and who has her best interests at heart and that certainly isn't any Duke Lacrosse Apologists, no matter how dispassionate."

You again willfully ignore that the so called Duke apologists were defending innocent men who were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum of raping her. What you describe as Crystal's best interests is that those innocent men be convicted and imprisoned so that Crystal could get a pass for falsely accusing them.

And the issue comes up again. As you have provided zero evidence that any rape had occurred, that you have provided zero evidence that anyone told you about any witness to said rape, why are you so heavily invested in believing Crystal had been raped?

P.S. No one knows about Crystal from second hand bias. Crystal became known to the public because of the Duke Rape hoax. She lied when she claimed she had been raped. You can blame Nifong for that, as he used the bogus rape claim as his springboard to winning the election as Durham County DA. Had Nifong behaved like a DA with integrity he would have told the public that he was not going to prosecute because he had zero evidence of a crime. Instead he made public guilt presuming statements that members of the Lacrosse team had raped Crystal(that was before he concealed the evidence which established their innocence). Had he not done so, there would have been no Duke Rape Hoax.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Prove your friendship by your actions. Come to Durham. Find your so-called friend Kilgo. Maybe those guys who claim to be trying to help you, Desconocido and Inconnu, really exist.
Make an appointment to talk to Daniel Meier. It seems I'm the only one who tries to get him to talk to you.
Talk to your friend Crystal. Help her to understand that she has to stop making such mistakes. Maybe this way she can lead a productive life once she gets out of the hoosegow.
Above all, stop making all these insane arguments!

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

Kenny "False Rape Accuser Apologist" Hyderal asks: How would someone go about providing proof of friendship to a disparate third party; one who only knows the principal by way of second hand bias[?]

At this point, we have only your assertions that you and Magnum are long-time friends. You have several times asserted that you introduced Magnum to Harr, but Harr has conspicuously declined to provide support for that assertion. Both you and Harr have credibility issues. As a result, Magnum should be the source for the required confirmation.

Mangum could confirm the details of your friendship: that Kenneth D. Edwards, a Canadian expatriate currently living in Dubai, is a long-time close personal friend, who has known her since they met in Bremerton, Washington while she was serving in the US Navy and he was serving in the Royal Canadian Navy. Given the credibility issues, this confirmation by Magnum should be in writing and notarized. It should include confirmation of all of the details of your relationship you have provided on this blog. Magnum should feel free to include other details of your relationship.

I will accept that as proof that Kenneth D. Edwards is a friend of Magnum. At that point, we can discuss how to confirm that you are Kenneth D. Edwards.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

kenhyderal said...

You can't be serious

kenhyderal said...

B.T. W. I did not serve in the Royal Canadian Navy

JSwift said...

Kenny "False Rape Accuser Apologist" Hyderal:

I am sorry I misunderstood or forgot the reason you were in Bremerton. Please accept my apology for my error. Can you remind me why you were in Bremerton and how you met Magnum?

Am I serious? Yes, in the sense that direct confirmation by Magnum is necessary for you to prove that you are a long-term friend. No, in the sense that I do not expect you to spend the time to do so. Frankly, I don't really care what you do and will continue to refer to your "self-proclaimed" friendship.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

kenhyderal said...

Like you, it matters nothing to me that you do not consider me to be a friend of Crystal. I'm having trouble comprehending why this is an issue with you. It seems rather petty. But who knows, you seem to be unduly stung by my reference to you as a Duke Lacrosse Apologist. So stung that you feel the need to retaliate.

kenhyderal said...

John D. said: "I am sorry I misunderstood or forgot the reason you were in Bremerton" ............... Wrong branch of the Service.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Like you, it matters nothing to me that you do not consider me to be a friend of Crystal. I'm having trouble comprehending why this is an issue with you. It seems rather petty. But who knows, you seem to be unduly stung by my reference to you as a Duke Lacrosse Apologist. So stung that you feel the need to retaliate."

Duke Rape Apologists: People who stood up and opposed the wrongful prosecution of innocent men falsely accused of rape.

Kenhyderal: A guilt presuming wishfult thinker who tries to perpetrate the lie that Crystal had been raped.

Kenny is seriously deluded that anyone would consider being called a Duke Rape Apologist.

Kenny is seriously stung that no everyone, except deluded megalomaniac Sidney Harr, considers him an insignificant liar.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"B.T. W. I did not serve in the Royal Canadian Navy"

Why? Probably because the Royal Canadian Navy did not want you.

A Lawyer said...

Kenhyderal wrote: "There is no statute of limitation for rape."

So what?

AS a practical matter, it is almost impossible to charge two different sets of defendants for the same crime, because whatever evidence there was against the first group automatically creates reasonable doubt as to the second group. Meaning that even if the mystery non-Lacrosse team member rapists were identified and charged, they could use in their defense Mangum's "100% positive" identification of Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty as the rapists. A jury is not going to believe a complaining witness who identifies different rapists at different times. (Not to mention that she has, in the interim, been convicted of murder.)

But it will never get that far. Suppose Kilgo surfaces and tells his story about what a Lacrosse team member supposedly told him 11 years ago. Kilgo's testimony is hearsay and inadmissible. If Kilgo names the Lacrosse team member who spoke to him, the police may not take him seriously. (First question: "why did you wait 11 years to tell us this?") If they do take him seriously and question the player, he will very likely either refuse to speak to the police (as any lawyer would advise him), or deny ever telling Kilgo that story. At that point, the case is over. If he does speak to the police and identify the alleged rapists, it will probably be impossible at this late date to prove that those people were even at the party.

So how do you envision a possible prosecution at this late date?

Anonymous said...


kenny also overlooks the fact that there is no evidence that Mangum was raped to support a charge against anyone, and overwhelming evidence that she wasn't and lied about it. These conclusions are bolstered by an investigation and report by the Attorney General. The only basis at this time for a charge is Mangum's uncorroborated and ever changing story, and both Mangum and her story have been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

In the absence of probably cause that a crime occurred we don't even have to discuss the inherent difficulties of arresting and charging a second set of defendants for it.

The rape case is over. No charges can or will be brought and no amount of lying or master debating by kenny can change it. Mangum and kenny should be grateful that no charges were brought against Mangum and that she wasn't sued for making a false report. Her punishment is that she will be known for eternity as the person who lied about being raped and falsely accused three innocent men of a crime that she made up. That stain will never wash off. Unless she confronts it, acknowledges her wrongdoing and make amends it will follow her thru the rest of her life and will be her legacy long after she is gone. It will overshadow everything she has ever done or could hope to do. What a horrible way to be remembered.

Even if, God forbid, she is actually raped or assaulted at some point in the future, it will be hard to bring charges against her assailants because of her history of lying about it previously.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

JSwift said...

Kenny "False Rape Accuser Apologist" Hyderal states: Like you, it matters nothing to me that you do not consider me to be a friend of Crystal. I'm having trouble comprehending why this is an issue with you. It seems rather petty.

You made it an issue--not me. You asserted that your self-proclaimed friendship with Magnum provided you with information not available to others. I simply noted that there was no proof of this self-proclaimed friendship. You asked how you could prove friendship. I answered.

Like everyone else, I discount your secret evidence. I will judge your self-proclaimed friendship by your actions. You failed that test.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

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

@ JSwift: I'm not sure what you mean by "my secret evidence"

JSwift said...

Kenny "False Rape Accuser Apologist" Hyderal asks: I'm not sure what you mean by "my secret evidence"

"Secret evidence" has been discussed previously. I will not repeat the discussion.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I agree Abe it would be very difficult to get a conviction."

Correction: Now, as it was then, unless the case were tried in a thoroughly biased guilt presuming venue, the kind of venue Nifong tried to create, it would have been impossible to get a conviction.

"However, Crystal's vindication, even if it is only in public opinion, will subject the perpetrators to the same degree of approbation that Crystal has had to endure over the years."

Crystal's vindication will never come.

"Even now, in the minds of some, albeit a minority, there remains is a cloud of suspicion over those involved."

Said minority consists of you and Sidney. It would have been more appropriate to call said minority a non entity, considering the total lack of intelligence shown by the both of you.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Your secret evidence is non evidence, your claim, which you can not verify, that kilgo told you there was a witness to the rape of Crystal, something which may very well be something you fabricated out of your desperate need to believe this woman, who you cal your friend, had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:


"However, Crystal's vindication, even if it is only in public opinion, will subject the perpetrators to the same degree of approbation that Crystal has had to endure over the years."

The "approbation" which Crystal suffered is the consequence of her lies, the false accusations of rape she made.

You have provided zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth, and no one ever will.

guiowen said...


Kenhyderal said
"the same degree of approbation that Crystal has had to endure over the years."

So, Kenny,what's your definition of "approbation"? Last I heard it was a synonym for "approval"/

Anonymous said...


kenny:

Mangum has much bigger fish to fry than the false rape claim. She's a convicted murderer currently serving a sentence of 14 yrs., 2 mos. to 18 years, with an earliest projected release date on February 2026. You and Sid do her no favors be continually reminding people of her role as the false accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

I understand that Duke Lacrosse in general and the young men she falsely accused in particular are doing quite nicely. The same can't be said for the people on the other side of the rape hoax Mangum perpetrated (including but not limited to Nifong and Mangum herself). But, you know what they say about karma.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen 6:12 whoops missed the "dis"

kenhyderal said...

Correction: I agree Abe it would be very difficult to get a conviction. However, Crystal's vindication, even if it is only in public opinion, will subject the perpetrators to the same degree of disapprobation that Crystal has had to endure over the years. Even now, in the minds of some, albeit a minority, there remains is a cloud of suspicion over those involved