justice4nifong: Comparative criminal case study: Michael Peterson and Crystal Mangum

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Comparative criminal case study: Michael Peterson and Crystal Mangum

166 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
My position is that labeling me as a "Durham man" is materially false. It is not true! Is it your contention that I am a Durham man... and if so, based on what? On what does WRAL-5 News base its statement that I am a Durham man? It has never said.

So it's false. Falsity, standing alone, is not enough to support a libel claim. You have admitted that it's "not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation." Therefore, as A Charlotte Man points out, it's not libelous.

The fact that I may have mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case in my briefs does not mean that my lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, if I was to mention the Civil War in my brief, would it be logical to conclude that my lawsuit was about the Civil War? I think not.

You talked about the Duke Lacrosse case in the first four paragraphs of your Complaint. Obviously, you considered those allegations relevant to your lawsuit. Your lawsuit may have been primarily about the 2010 incident, but it was also "about" anything you included in the Complaint. So the WRAL report may have been incomplete, but it was not false.

Consider yourself re-elucidated.

No, you consider yourself re-elucidated.

Hey, A Lawyer.

At least you are willing to admit that labeling me as a "Durham man" is false. WRAL-5 News is unwilling to make that obvious concession. They continue to maintain that me being a "Durham man" is "substantially true." Yet, the station claims that it is in a "relentless pursuit of excellence"... yet refuses to give the truth to its viewers.

Regarding the subject of my lawsuit: My complaint is about the TREATMENT by DUKE UNIVERSITY towards ME in 2010.

The fact is that I have no standing to even file a complaint in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case... no more standing than you! Such a lawsuit by someone without standing would suggest the litigant is vexatious and frivolous. Hope we can now put this to bed and move on to the unfairness of the Durham Superior Court by comparing the mistreatment of Crystal Mangum as compared to Michael Peterson and other defendants whose cases crossed the path of Senior Resident of Durham County's Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. Clearly Crystal was denied a fair trial.; May 21, 2017 at 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Regarding the subject of my lawsuit: My complaint is about the TREATMENT by DUKE UNIVERSITY towards ME in 2010."

But you alleged in youe auits that Duke University's treatment of you was a consequence of your advocacy for Mfong, which advocacy would never have happened had Crystal not lied about being raped, which never would have happened had Nifong not wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men for the rape which never happened.; May 22, 2017 at 4:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You said an Alford plea indicates the prosecution has a weak case. You also say that the Alford plea allows a defendant to maintain his/her innocence while acknowledging the prosecution has enough evidence to convict. That is an admission by the defendant that the prosecution does have a strong case.; May 22, 2017 at 4:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Your blatant hypocrisy is again manifest.

Mike Nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse defendants without having any evidence, any evidence of crime, any evidence that the players whom he had indicted could have perpetrated the crime Crystal described. any reliable identifications of the players as perpetrators(yes Crystal identified them with a high degree of certainty but certainty does not equal reliability). Yet you describe Nifong as a decent, honorable minister of justice trying to do his duty.

Boy are you delusional.; May 22, 2017 at 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Can you post a transcript?; May 22, 2017 at 5:42 AM
Walt said...: Sid is uneducated as to the law. He cherry picks facts to support his own uneducated narrative. His latest "sharlog" is a waste of bandwidth.

Walt-in-Durham; May 22, 2017 at 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Couldn't watch it -- The technology used to create it is not supported on IOS (Apple). "Blogger" is a blog site - you should just write out your blog anyway -- Or create youtube videos and link to them.

-A Charlotte Man; May 22, 2017 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: So Peterson pleads guilty to manslaughter, and is freed after 14 years. Crystal was foundguilty of murder, and can hope to be free after 14 years.; May 22, 2017 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow, I can't get past all the lies and incorrect information in the first 5 minutes to even bother watching the rest.

I love how he says plea deals are rarely offered (a basic Google search would show that well over 90% of all cases are resolved via plea). He's wrong on the purpose of Alford. He's wrong on why plea deals are so popular (for both sides). He's wrong that they are not put in writing until accepted (the State generally makes a written plea offer, then they start negotiating).

I don't think you got anything right in the first 5 minutes. There is no way I will waste my time watching the rest.; May 23, 2017 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Time for Kenny to post another inane comment about how brilliant Sidney is.; May 23, 2017 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Regarding the subject of my lawsuit: My complaint is about the TREATMENT by DUKE UNIVERSITY towards ME in 2010."

What you say in paragraph 31 of Harr III:

"Basis of this[Harr's} mistreatment due to his support for NIFONG and because he is African American".

Would you have been such an ardent supporter of NIFONG had it not been for the Duke Lacrosse case.

Paragraphs 2-5 detail how your involvement with NIFONG was because of what happened to NIFONG as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case.

Paragraph 20: "Plaintiff quickly surmised that his problems with DEFENDANT stemmed mostly from the fact that he was a NIFONG supporter and because he had written letters to DEFENDANTS BRODHEAD and LEVI of his intentions of attending the Breyer interview, that someone in the officer of the school's president or the law school dean had concocted a scheme to have him arrested...because he's an African American."

How do you establish that anyone in the president's office or in the law school dean's office with the power and authority to have you arrested ever read your letters?

You also claim you were "solicited" to attend the Breyer event.

Definition of being solicited:

"to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.: He solicited aid from the minister. 2. to entreat or petition (someone or some agency): to solicit the committee for funds.
Solicited | Define Solicited at Dictionary.com."

In paragraph 30 you claim you were solicited to attend the Breyer event. You said an advertisement you read about the event was the solicitation. How does that add up to someone "to seeking [for you] by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc. to have you attend the Breyer interview?; May 23, 2017 at 9:41 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Do you actually think you have any hope of winning these lawsuits? or is the point, to show someone how diligently you work on Crystal's behalf?; May 23, 2017 at 1:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Can you post a transcript?

Sorry about that. Usually plan on doing so, but was in such a rush to get it posted that I didn't. Now am busy working on other projects, but I will post it as soon as I am able.; May 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Do you actually think you have any hope of winning these lawsuits? or is the point, to show someone how diligently you work on Crystal's behalf?

gui, mon ami, but of course I expect to prevail in the lawsuits. If I felt that I had no chance of winning and was filing to harass WRAL, then I would be acting vexatiously. And, as you should know, I am not a vexatious person.

Actually, like my lawsuit against Duke University, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court are very strong.; May 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"gui, mon ami, but of course I expect to prevail in the lawsuits. If I felt that I had no chance of winning and was filing to harass WRAL, then I would be acting vexatiously. And, as you should know, I am not a vexatious person."

Yes you are. You became an extremely vexatious person when you started this blog, on the premise that the innocent members of the Lacrosse team were actually guilty and that they got off because of the non existent machinations of your imaginary carpetbagger jihad.

"Actually, like my lawsuit against Duke University, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court are very strong."

Once again you show you are a delusional megalomaniac.

What else is new.; May 24, 2017 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael Peterson and Crystal Mangum comparison?

Let's see....Both look like they have dead animals on their heads?; May 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM
A Lawyer said...: Actually, like my lawsuit against Duke University, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court are very strong.

Your lawsuit against Duke was so "strong" that it got dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion, you got sanctioned, both the dismissal and the sanctions were affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

In that sense, your current lawsuits against WRAL and Fix the Court are equally "strong."; May 24, 2017 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Comparative criminal case study?

I watched it all and the only comment I have is that all the other defendants had real lawyers. Maybe that might be a clue as to why they were released. Not one of these defendants were "Pro Se".; May 24, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; May 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny udaman.; May 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey little man, I'm looking for you.; May 25, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Your lawsuit against Duke has been dismissed twice, the dismissal upheld on appeal, the Supreme Court refused to hear it. You were sanctioned for filing it again. You are, by your own admission, well beyond the Statute of Limitations, and you have yet to explain why it should not be applied to you.

Why do you think the 3rd iteration of that lawsuit is strong?; May 25, 2017 at 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Most commenters here could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better legal document than Sid ever made.; May 25, 2017 at 1:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Most commenters here could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better legal document than Sid ever made.

Hah! You're just jealous.; May 26, 2017 at 4:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

Your lawsuit against Duke has been dismissed twice, the dismissal upheld on appeal, the Supreme Court refused to hear it. You were sanctioned for filing it again. You are, by your own admission, well beyond the Statute of Limitations, and you have yet to explain why it should not be applied to you.

Why do you think the 3rd iteration of that lawsuit is strong?

The facts of my lawsuit against Duke are strong... so strong that Duke University concedes that its actions against me were discriminatory. It had no choice as the audio recording clearly backs my claims. The defense used by Duke is that it is a "private" institution, and therefore has the legal right to discriminate. This is the same argument that Judge Schroeder used in dismissing my complaint. Clearly an unjust ruling to appease the omnipotent and almighty Duke University. The ruling against me makes no sense as Duke University receives millions of dollars in taxpayer money and has had discrimination lawsuits adjudicated in a courtroom trial before (Heather Sue Mercer v. Duke University)

So, yes -- I believe I have an extremely strong case against Duke University.; May 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Comparative criminal case study?

I watched it all and the only comment I have is that all the other defendants had real lawyers. Maybe that might be a clue as to why they were released. Not one of these defendants were "Pro Se".

True, but what you failed to mention is that Mangum had a "real lawyer" too... Ann B. Petersen. The only difference between their representations is that the lawyers for the other defendants fought for their client's best interests. In Mangum's case, her lawyers sought to sabotage her case in the interests of the State.

Also, keep in mind that the North Carolina Prisoner Defense Services basically abandoned their client expressing that her case was unwinnable. That agency did absolutely nothing on behalf of Mangum... filed not one motion... and after more than a year of inaction gave her a manual on how to file Pro Se and said, "Good luck. You're on your own."

Consider yourself edificated.; May 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Most commenters here could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better legal document than Sid ever made.

Hah! You're just jealous."

More wishful thinking from Sidney.; May 26, 2017 at 4:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Actually, like my lawsuit against Duke University, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court are very strong.

Your lawsuit against Duke was so "strong" that it got dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion, you got sanctioned, both the dismissal and the sanctions were affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

In that sense, your current lawsuits against WRAL and Fix the Court are equally "strong."

Hey, A Lawyer.

Yes, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 News and Fix-the-Court are extremely strong. They are libel suits, and the WRAL-5 News online story clearly contained false statements. First, I am NOT a Durham man! Although not materially malicious when considered in a vacuum, it is definitely misleading. Second, my lawsuit was NOT about the Duke Lacrosse case. Anyway you slice it, my lawsuit was about an April 2010 incident that occurred at the Duke University Law School Building in which a premeditated attempt to have me arrested was thwarted by the fortuitous appearance of Professor James Coleman.

Although both WRAL-5 News and Fix-the-Court both refused to speak to me in order to civilly resolve their defamatory mention of my situation by ignoring me, Fix-the-Court at least had the sense to remove all mention of my name from the article... and another one of its articles about six months earlier.

A hearing has been set for June 26, 2017 in which WRAL-5 News will attempt to have the judge (unknown to me at this time) dismiss my case.; May 26, 2017 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"The facts of my lawsuit against Duke are strong... so strong that Duke University concedes that its actions against me were discriminatory."

More wishful thinking from delusional megalomaniac Sidney. Sidney, you are again trying to bullshit your way through facts you don't like.Your suits against Duke have also been dismissed. That means your so called facts are puny.

"It had no choice as the audio recording clearly backs my claims."

No it doesn't. It documents you got belligerent with a secutity guard who nstructed you to leave. And you were instructed to leave because you violated Duke's non solicitation policy.

"The defense used by Duke is that it is a "private" institution, and therefore has the legal right to discriminate. This is the same argument that Judge Schroeder used in dismissing my complaint. Clearly an unjust ruling to appease the omnipotent and almighty Duke University."

There was no attempt to appease Duke University. So far as receiving Government funds, I surmise you receive Social Security and are covered by Medicare. Ergo you receive Government funds. That would mean the Lacrosse players could sue for violating their rights, e.g. saying, without evidence, that they are guilty of raping Crystal(each and every time you call Crystal the victim/accuser in the Lacrosse incident you presume they are guilty). You are, according to your logic, a government agent who is violating there right to be presumed innocent.

"The ruling against me makes no sense as Duke University receives millions of dollars in taxpayer money and has had discrimination lawsuits adjudicated in a courtroom trial before (Heather Sue Mercer v. Duke University)"

Here you indicate that the real burr under your saddle is that you couldn't shake down Duke for a big settlement.

In the case of Heather Sue Mercer, Duke did violate Federal Law. Duke violated no Federal Law in expecting you to conform to Duke's non solicitation policy.; May 26, 2017 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

"Yes, my lawsuits against WRAL-5 News and Fix-the-Court are extremely strong."

You do not make that decision. The Court does, in case you haven't heard.

"They are libel suits, and the WRAL-5 News online story clearly contained false statements. First, I am NOT a Durham man! Although not materially malicious when considered in a vacuum, it is definitely misleading."

From http://www.dictionary.com/browse/libel:

"noun
1.
Law.
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
the act or crime of publishing it.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents."

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx/Default.aspx?selected=458:

n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment."

Misleading is not the same as being "damagingly misrepresent[ing]" you

How do those statements materially damage you?

You are a deluded megalomaniac who is having a fit of pique and are trying to cash in on it.

Second, my lawsuit was NOT about the Duke Lacrosse case. Anyway you slice it, my lawsuit was about an April 2010 incident that occurred at the Duke University Law School Building in which a premeditated attempt to have me arrested was thwarted by the fortuitous appearance of Professor James Coleman."

Please review the anonymous comment at May 23, 2017 at 9:41 AM. It quotes from yout filing in Harr III in which you clearly claim that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Nifong which you do admit happened because of the Duke Lacrosse incident. Your tape recording shows that Professor Coleman did not intervene on your behalf. You tried to drag him into the incident. And again, how do you establish that anyone in the President's office or in the law school dean's office, who had the power to orchestrate your arrest ever read your letters.

"Although both WRAL-5 News and Fix-the-Court both refused to speak to me in order to civilly resolve their defamatory mention of my situation by ignoring me, Fix-the-Court at least had the sense to remove all mention of my name from the article... and another one of its articles about six months earlier."

Filing a frivolous lawsuit hardly qualifies as trying to civilly resolve your dispute. And, whether or not you suffered any defamation is up to the court to resolve, not, as you seem to believe, up to you.

"A hearing has been set for June 26, 2017 in which WRAL-5 News will attempt to have the judge (unknown to me at this time) dismiss my case."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you have a case.; May 26, 2017 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous Anonymous said...
Most commenters here could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better legal document than Sid ever made.

[Sid's response]
Hah! You're just jealous."

Unfortunately for Crystal Mangum, I'm not.

...And you believe what you want about your cases -- Fact is they are weak, vexatious, and frivolous.; May 26, 2017 at 5:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

A few things:

1. You still ignore why your Duke Lawsuit should survive given that the Statute of Limitations has expired.

2. According to the printed calendar (which is available online - you need to learn these things) here is some information about the WRAL Motions:
a. It is Judge Hobgood
b. It is set for Wednesday, June 28 at 9:30am in Courtroom 10-A
c. It lists William H. Cannon as your attorney of record - how come you never told us you hired an attorney?; May 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: At least we know the WRAL lawsuit will be dismissed on June 28. I am sure Sid will appeal that dismissal.; May 26, 2017 at 10:29 AM
A Lawyer said...: The ruling against me makes no sense as Duke University receives millions of dollars in taxpayer money and has had discrimination lawsuits adjudicated in a courtroom trial before (Heather Sue Mercer v. Duke University)

As has been explained to you dozens of times before, Heather Sue Mercer sued under Title IX, which applies to private universities which receive federal funds. You did not sue under Title IX; you sued under Section 1983, which applies only to agencies of state governments.

Why do you keep repeating falsehoods, even after you've been corrected?

Consider yourself edificated.

I don't know if you're trying to be funny, or are just being unintentionally ironic, but you are the one who needs to be edified.; May 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer -- I think Sid was trying to be humorous with his use of the nonsense word "edificated", considering my earlier comment about others eating alphabet soup and crapping better legal documents than he can prepare.

But you never know....; May 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

A few things:

1. You still ignore why your Duke Lawsuit should survive given that the Statute of Limitations has expired.

2. According to the printed calendar (which is available online - you need to learn these things) here is some information about the WRAL Motions:
a. It is Judge Hobgood
b. It is set for Wednesday, June 28 at 9:30am in Courtroom 10-A
c. It lists William H. Cannon as your attorney of record - how come you never told us you hired an attorney?

Thank you for the information. I was unaware of the judge presiding over the case. As far as William H. Cannon... never heard of him. To my knowledge, this is a Pro Se case and has never been anything but that.; May 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: But, you still ignore #1 ... why? Unless you can explain that, no matter how strong your lawsuit, it will fail.; May 26, 2017 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; May 27, 2017 at 6:28 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "A hearing has been set for June 26, 2017 in which WRAL-5 News will attempt to have the judge (unknown to me at this time) dismiss my case."

Judge Hobgood will dismiss your lawsuit. The reasons are many, but, I won't help you by explaining them to you now. Not that you would learn from the explanation anyway.

Walt-in-Durham; May 27, 2017 at 2:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Harr speculating about a possible motive for Duke's discrimination against him in his statement of claim does not in any way make the suit about The Duke Lacrosse Case; rather it's about his unjust treatment by Duke. As he pointed out Duke has made the claim that because they are a private institution they CAN discriminate. The use of the schools anti-solicitation policy as their feeble excuse is totally dishonest. It seems it was the the best explanation they could come up with for their deplorable action. Readers here who claim Dr. Harr committed a dastardly act, deserving expulsion, of solicitation by handing out a business card are being equally dishonest, I challenge anyone of them to go on Campus and do the same. I guarantee there will be no consequences for them. Don't misuse a policy to justify overt discrimination; May 27, 2017 at 9:46 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny,
Are you coming to Duke soon?; May 27, 2017 at 10:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Harr speculating about a possible motive for Duke's discrimination against him in his statement of claim does not in any way make the suit about The Duke Lacrosse Case; rather it's about his unjust treatment by Duke."

Duke's alleged discrimination happened, according to Sidney, was a conspiracy on the part of Duke, the motivation being his advocacy for Nifong, which was something which stemmed from the Duke Rape Hoax. Kenny, this is but another futile attempt on your part to bullshit your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your wishful thinking.

"As he pointed out Duke has made the claim that because they are a private institution they CAN discriminate. The use of the schools anti-solicitation policy as their feeble excuse is totally dishonest."

No it isn't. What was dishonest was Sidney's ridiculously feeble attempt to claim Duke conspired to discriminate against him. He bases this on two letters he sent, one to the President of Duke, one to the Dean of the Duke law school. In his filing in Harr III, Sidney, himself said he SURMISED that people in one or both of those offices had read his letters and then set out to ambush him. Sidney has not documented that anyone in those offices, who had the authority to have him arrested, ever read his letters.

"It seems it was the the best explanation they could come up with for their deplorable action."

Again Kenny delivers an irrelevant statement by assuming a fact not in evidence, that Duke perpetrated some deplorable action. The only person who perpetrated a deplorable action was Sidney, one of many he has perpetrated in the course of his advocacy for Nifong. In this case he picked a fight with a security guard who instructed him to leave and then tried to dragoon Professor Coleman into his fight. Like it or not, that is what his recording revealed.

"Readers here who claim Dr. Harr committed a dastardly act, deserving expulsion, of solicitation by handing out a business card are being equally dishonest, I challenge anyone of them to go on Campus and do the same. I guarantee there will be no consequences for them."

Kenny, you repeat an error which arose from Sidney's delusional megalomania, that Sidney determines what does and does not violates Duke's non solicitation policy. He doesn't.

"Don't misuse a policy to justify overt discrimination".

No one at Duke ever did. Again, Sidney claims Duke conspired to discriminate against him after people in either the President's office or the Law School Dean's office or both read his letters that he was planning to attend the Breyer event. Sidney has not documented that anyone other than maybe some minor functionary, ever read his letters. And neither can you.

Just like neither you nor Sidney can document that Crystal was ever raped, can not document that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.; May 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny.; May 28, 2017 at 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

How much progress have you made in winning a new trial for Crystal?; May 28, 2017 at 4:48 AM
Anonymous said...: From what is in Sidney's posting for Harr III it is obvious Sidney is playing the race card in an attempt to get a big settlement from Duke. Just like Nifong played the race card in the Duke Rape Hoax to get himself elected.; May 28, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Desconocido said...: Hola Kenhyderal,
Veo que estas considerando venir a Durham. Que maravilla! Con tu presencia aqui, no tendremos dificultad en liberar al gordo Kilgo.; May 28, 2017 at 9:40 AM
Walt said...: Sid is nothing but a serial filer of vexatious lawsuits. Harr I, II and III lacked merit, his suit against the Lorrin Freeman was meritless and when the courts get around to it, they'll find his suits against WRAL and some website in Chicago are also mertiless. In fact, Sid has never filed a successful lawsuit. Worse, he talked Crystal out of filing a reasoned appeal to the NC Supreme Court and substituting his own ridiculous brief that not only failed to raise any issues of law, but was more about him than her. Of course, Sid's worst betrayal was when he leaked to the world, and the DA's office that Crystal's own expert agreed with the Medical Examiner on the cause of the late Daye's death.

Walt-in-Durham; May 29, 2017 at 6:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: As Walt suggests and I believe there is no real nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death, Robert's agreement with Nichols and non-relevant, inappropriately applied case law, not withstanding. It's a blight on the Justice System but Walt is probably correct. Conceal evidence, that's the immoral way. Obviously Meier believed that Roberts testimony would lead the jury to conclude that if two expert witnesses agree it would convince then Daye was stabbed to death something, if given all the facts any jury using common sense would find patently absurd.; May 29, 2017 at 9:28 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?; May 29, 2017 at 9:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Typo, them not then; May 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"As Walt suggests and I believe there is no real nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death, Robert's agreement with Nichols and non-relevant, inappropriately applied case law, not withstanding."

So? You do not understand clinical medicine. Your knowledge is much less than Sidney's, and it takes a real effort to be that ignorant.

"It's a blight on the Justice System but Walt is probably correct. Conceal evidence, that's the immoral way. Obviously Meier believed that Roberts testimony would lead the jury to conclude that if two expert witnesses agree it would convince then Daye was stabbed to death something, if given all the facts any jury using common sense would find patently absurd."

Irrelevant statement. You have shown repeatedly that you are incapable of knowing what the facts are, and therefore are incapable of knowing what a jury would have decided.; May 29, 2017 at 9:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: You mistake rage and mockery for whining.; May 29, 2017 at 9:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 29, 2017 at 10:07 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "So?"................ Are you also classifying Walt with me on our understanding of the medical issues. How many times do I have to tell you that I agree a possible post surgical infection was a possibility, even a distinct possibility and it had to be excluded, but, as it turned out, it was not present and while trying to exclude it they committed the grievous medical malpractice error that killed Daye.; May 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Are you also classifying Walt with me on our understanding of the medical issues."

I said nothing about Walt. I said something only about you, something I have said before, that you know less than squat about clinical medicine and that your opinions are worth less than rotten garbage.

"How many times do I have to tell you that I agree a possible post surgical infection was a possibility, even a distinct possibility and it had to be excluded,"

Wrong. Deny all you want but your original position was that with the presumptive diagnosis of DTs a post surgical infection was excluded.

"but, as it turned out, it was not present and while trying to exclude it they committed the grievous medical malpractice error that killed Daye."

No they did not commit malpractice.

It takes expert medical opinion to establish medical malpractice, not the non expert opinions of couple of medical incompetents like you and Sidney to establish malpractice.; May 29, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Anyway, Kenny:

The evaluation for the infection was terminated because Reginald Daye vomited and aspirated, and the vomitus, according to Dr. Roberts obscured the view of the upper airway, which was why the esophageal intubation took place. It was recognized and an attempt was made to treat it which is why it did not rise to the level of malpractice.

Even if it did, and this has been explained to you and Sidney, the need to evaluate him for infection came from the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, the stab wound which lacerated his colon. Reginald Daye would never have been exposed to the risk of infection or to the risk of malpractice, had it happened, had Crystal not stabbed him. I say again, even if malpractice did happen, it would not have relieved Crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.; May 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "A hearing has been set for June 26, 2017 in which WRAL-5 News will attempt to have the judge (unknown to me at this time) dismiss my case."

Judge Hobgood will dismiss your lawsuit. The reasons are many, but, I won't help you by explaining them to you now. Not that you would learn from the explanation anyway.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Actually, I believe that when the hearing is held in late June, the judge will rule in my favor.; May 29, 2017 at 12:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anyway, Kenny:

The evaluation for the infection was terminated because Reginald Daye vomited and aspirated, and the vomitus, according to Dr. Roberts obscured the view of the upper airway, which was why the esophageal intubation took place. It was recognized and an attempt was made to treat it which is why it did not rise to the level of malpractice.

Even if it did, and this has been explained to you and Sidney, the need to evaluate him for infection came from the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, the stab wound which lacerated his colon. Reginald Daye would never have been exposed to the risk of infection or to the risk of malpractice, had it happened, had Crystal not stabbed him. I say again, even if malpractice did happen, it would not have relieved Crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.

Anony, actually, I believe your assessment is incorrect... especially if you carefully read the judge's instructions to the jury before deliberation. Mangum was to be found not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the event that the medical malpractice was the sole cause of death and without which there would have been no death. Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result.

Had nothing to do with the stab wound which was excellently treated by Duke trauma surgeons.; May 29, 2017 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"

Anony, actually, I believe your assessment is incorrect... especially if you carefully read the judge's instructions to the jury before deliberation. Mangum was to be found not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the event that the medical malpractice was the sole cause of death and without which there would have been no death."

No, you got it wrong. First there was no medical malpractice. Second, if there had been medical malpractice it would not have been the sole cause of death. It would not have eliminated the effect of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, which is why Reginald Daye had been exposed to the risk of malpractice.; May 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

Sidney you are too clinically incompetent to issue that as an expert opinion. The aspiration, the esophageal intubation all happened because he exhibited signs and symptoms of an intra abdominal infection, at which he was placed at risk because Crystal stabbed him.

"Had nothing to do with the stab wound which was excellently treated by Duke trauma surgeons."

Another inexpert opinion from clinically incompetent Sidney. Ho matter how excellently the surgery was performed, Reginald Daye was at risk of intra abdominal infection in the post op period. I am speaking from experience here. What is your experience treating penetrating trauma of the colon. Reginald Daye was at risk of intra abdominal infection because Crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon.

Maybe you, like Kenny, believe that a presumptive diagnosis of DTs eliminated the possibility of intra abdominal infection in this scenario.; May 29, 2017 at 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

Actually, I believe that when the hearing is held in late June, the judge will rule in my favor."

This from Sidney who predicted that Crystal would never go to trial, that the state would dismiss the charges because they had no case. The same Sidney who insists, in spite of the dismissals of Harr I, II and III, that he had a strong case against Duke(maybe here Sidney, you can establish that anyone in the office of the President of Duke or in the office of the Dean of the Law School ever read the letters you sent, anyone other than some secretary who read them and then filed them). The same Sidney whose supposedly strong case against DA Freeman was dismissed.; May 29, 2017 at 12:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Maybe you, like Kenny, believe that a presumptive diagnosis of DTs eliminated the possibility of intra abdominal infection in this scenario.".........................................I do not believe that nor, I suspect, does Dr. Harr. But of course, as for me, you know that. I've said so time and time again and as recently as last evening. You like to ascribe to me things, you falsely conjure up, which you think will demonstrate your superiority by refuting them; May 29, 2017 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Maybe you, like Kenny, believe that a presumptive diagnosis of DTs eliminated the possibility of intra abdominal infection in this scenario.".........................................I do not believe that nor, I suspect, does Dr. Harr."

So did the two of you post comments to the effect that the presumptive diagnosis was DTs and there was no evidence of infection(and as I have pointed out to you that fever, tachycardia and disorientation were symptoms of an infection.

"But of course, as for me, you know that. I've said so time and time again and as recently as last evening. You like to ascribe to me things, you falsely conjure up, which you think will demonstrate your superiority by refuting them"

No I don't. You deny things you have said.; May 29, 2017 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

With regard to your comment mentioning Malpractice:

It takes medical expert testimony to establish medical malpractice. What expert testimony was there, in Crystal's trial, to establish medical malpractice. The only two experts involved in the trial agreed that Reginald Daye's death was due to murder not to medical malpractice.

Maybe you want to use Kenny's approach: Defense puts Dr. Roberts on the stand, have her designated a hostile witness, and have the defense impeach her testimony. As has been explained to you, the Defense putting Dr. Roberts on the stand would have resulted in the Jury learning that the Defense expert agreed with the Prosecution expert. Having her designated as a hostile witness would have been the Defense SPECTACULARLY telling the Jury their expert agreed with the Prosecution's expert witness.; May 29, 2017 at 2:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "No I don't. You deny things you have said".. That should be easy enough to prove.; May 29, 2017 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "No I don't. You deny things you have said".. That should be easy enough to prove.

I already have.; May 29, 2017 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

How about you prove Crystal was raped and that she told the truth when she claimed she was raped.; May 29, 2017 at 3:37 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "No I don't. You deny things you have said".. That should be easy enough to prove.

KenhyderalD

"Dr. Anonymous said: "No I don't. You deny things you have said".. That should be easy enough to prove.

I proved that recently,

w; May 29, 2017 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman G.; May 30, 2017 at 3:31 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "As Walt suggests and I believe there is no real nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death..."

Now you have taken an excursion into fantasy land. I suggested nothing of the sort.

"..., Robert's agreement with Nichols and non-relevant,..."

Of course it's relevant.

"... inappropriately applied case law, not withstanding."

The case law was applied properly. You are dwelling in fantasy land.

"It's a blight on the Justice System but Walt is probably correct. Conceal evidence, that's the immoral way."

Defense counsel is under no obligation to prove the state's case. In fact, to do so would be immoral. What would you be saying about Meier if he put Roberts on the stand to bolster the state's case. You would be, howling about his conduct.

"Obviously Meier believed that Roberts testimony would lead the jury to conclude that if two expert witnesses agree it would convince then Daye was stabbed to death..."

As does every other fair minded observer.

... something, if given all the facts any jury using common sense would find patently absurd."

Your untrained speculations are not facts. Sid never treated Daye, Sid is not an expert, he's not even licensed to practice medicine and he has no particular training in forensic medicine so he is doing nothing more than speculating. Conversely, real forensic pathologists have concluded that Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Crystal. That is more than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Walt-in-Durham; May 30, 2017 at 6:34 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Actually, I believe that when the hearing is held in late June, the judge will rule in my favor."

Based on what?

Walt-in-Durham; May 30, 2017 at 6:36 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

That's not what the real doctors said.

Walt-in-Durham; May 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt-in-DuRham:

"Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

That's not what the real doctors said."

Very loud ding-a-ling.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A GRAND PRIZE WINNER!!!; May 30, 2017 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt-in-Durham:

"Your[Sidney's] untrained speculations are not facts. Sid never treated Daye, Sid is not an expert, he's not even licensed to practice medicine and he has no particular training in forensic medicine so he is doing nothing more than speculating."

Correction:

Sidney has absolutely NO training in any Mrdical Specialt.; May 30, 2017 at 7:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Now you have taken an excursion into fantasy land. I suggested nothing of the sort".............................. Here is what you said: " Worse, he talked Crystal out of filing a reasoned appeal to the NC Supreme Court and substituting his own ridiculous brief that not only failed to raise any issues of law, but was more about him than her. Of course, Sid's worst betrayal was when he leaked to the world, and the DA's office that Crystal's own expert agreed with the Medical Examiner on the cause of the late Daye's death"...........Why would hiding from the world Dr. Roberts conclusion improve things for Crystal. It suggested to me you believed that in doing so (ie. concealing it from the Jury) it would bolster a belief that there was no nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death but by doing so Dr. Harr sealed Crystal's fate.; May 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM
JSwift said...: Kennyhyderal asks: Why would hiding from the world Dr. Roberts conclusion improve things for Crystal. It suggested to me you believed that in doing so (ie. concealing it from the Jury) it would bolster a belief that there was no nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death but by doing so Dr. Harr sealed Crystal's fate.

I agree with Walt: "you have taken an exclusion into fantasy land."

Walt has addressed this issue in great length in earlier posts.

First, Walt has stated that under the law the esophageal intubation, even if it was malpractice, does not constitute an intervening cause and does not break the "nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death." As you know, Walt has provided case law to support this conclusion.

Second, your interpretation that, in not calling Roberts to testify, Meier "would bolster a belief that there was none's between the stab wound and Daye's death" is utterly preposterous. No reasonable person could possibly make such a claim. As you know, Nichols testified that the nexus did exist. Without a expert to rebut that conclusion, the jury would almost certainly accept it, despite the issues with the autopsy and Nichols' testimony.

Third, Walt has indicated that the most significant problem with Sidney's public discussion of Roberts' conclusion was that the prosecution knew that the defense expert agreed with Nichols conclusion that Date died as a result of indirect complications from the stab wound and that the esophageal intubation was not an intervening cause. While this did not "seal Crystal's fate" by itself, it gave the prosecution additional information that Nichols' conclusion would not be successfully challenged. That may have made the prosecution less likely to offer an attractive plea.

Most importantly, Sidney's biggest betrayal of Crystal was his refusal to properly understand the law. He provided absolutely horrendous advice to her in which he encouraged her to place her fate on his legal theory that the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause and thus broke the chain of legal liability for Daye's death. He provided this opinion without performing any legal research. Despite warnings form posters on this blog that his opinion was incorrect, Sidney continued to refuse to conduct any legal research to confirm his opinion. You also betrayed Crystal when you supported Sidney's failed theory.

Only a poster who is incredibly dishonest or a fool could interpret Walt's comment as you did. I do not believe that you are a fool.

I suggest that you apologize to Walt for misrepresenting his opinion. Most importantly, I suggest you apologize to Crystal for your failure to advise her to ignore Sidney's abysmal advice.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 30, 2017 at 10:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result." That's not what the real doctors said"......................... The "real" doctor who took the stand never commented on or even mentioned those intervening factors nor did the "real" defence Lawyer. That left the Jury completely in the dark about these events and led them to irroneously believe it was only the stab wound administered by Crystal that killed him; May 30, 2017 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Referring to a post from Walt:

"Why would hiding from the world Dr. Roberts conclusion improve things for Crystal."

Maybe you should answer hat.

You once put forth what you would have done, put Dr, Roberts on the stand, have her declared a hostile witness, and then try to impeach her findings. How would that, proclaiming loudly and spectacularly to the jury that Dr. Roberts' findings agreed with Dr. Nichols' findings, have helped Crystal?; May 30, 2017 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: :Kenhyderal:

"The "real" doctor who took the stand never commented on or even mentioned those intervening factors nor did the "real" defence Lawyer. That left the Jury completely in the dark about these events and led them to irroneously(sic) believe it was only the stab wound administered by Crystal that killed him".

Clinically ignorant you only again again make manifest your own erroneous belief, that Reginald Daye did not die from the stab wound.

There were no intervening factors. The administration of contrast via NG tube,the subsequent vomiting and aspiration, the subsequent esophageal intubation happened because Reginald Daye had been put at risk of an intra abdominal infection because Crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon. Reginald Daye and was being evaluated for an intra abdominal infection because he had findings consistent with infection.; May 30, 2017 at 10:47 AM
Lance The Intern said...: I rarely drop by this blog site, but when I do, I see the same tired old arguments. It's by far the largest reason I rarely drop by, and never comment when I do.

But...I'm coming out of lurker-mode this last time in the hope (springing eternal) that I can...enlighten Kenhyderal and Sid one last time.

So here goes:

With regard to malpractice (surely Sid knows this), The concept of proximate cause is grounded in foreseeability. If the patient's injury was not foreseeable (i.e. that the physician could not foresee at the time the intubation was ordered that it would be performed incorrectly), or if some act was the catalyst for the injury, the physician will not be held liable.

Read the section in bold again. Now ask yourself (and answer truthfully) -- "What was the catalyst for Reginald Daye's injury"

If your response is anything other than the stab wound from Crystal Mangum, then you should quit posting on this subject now, because you are arguing from a false premise.

Back to lurker-mode.; May 30, 2017 at 11:40 AM
kenhyderal said...: A catalyst? Chronic alcoholism, leading to acute withdrawal when alcohol is deprived, leading to impending delirium tremens and the possible lethal implications of that condition.; May 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ John D. A fool or a liar? That's a Hobson's choice. Are you suggesting I lied when I concluded that Walt does recognize the validity of questioning whether the stab wound was the real nexus for Daye's death and not his chronic alcoholism and that I knew better and was trying to deceive people about his views. Read what I wrote and identify the lie. All Walt has to do is confirm that I am mistaken about his view. B.T.W. Offering an either or like you did seems to me to be a dishonest debating tactic. Of course you The Logician would be a better judge of that them me.; May 30, 2017 at 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

to Lance the Intern:

"A catalyst? Chronic alcoholism, leading to acute withdrawal when alcohol is deprived, leading to impending delirium tremens and the possible lethal implications of that condition."

Here Kenny again expresses his delusion that a diagnosis of DTs in a patient who had suffered penetrating colon trauma rules out an intra abdominal infection.; May 30, 2017 at 1:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: I expressed no such thing. I wonder why John.D chooses not to call you out.; May 30, 2017 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

To JSwift;

"@ John D. A fool or a liar? That's a Hobson's choice. Are you suggesting I lied when I concluded that Walt does recognize the validity of questioning whether the stab wound was the real nexus for Daye's death and not his chronic alcoholism and that I knew better and was trying to deceive people about his views."

My own view. No it was not invalid to question whether or not the stab wound caused Reginald Daye's death. The validity of questioning what was the cause of death was the reason for he autopsy.

What IS invalid is that you and Sidney question the validity of Dr. Nichols' findings, that the stab wound caused Reginald Daye's death. And this is a very valid explanation why. Neither you nor Sidney have the expertise to understand what happened to Reginald Daye and why.

"Read what I wrote and identify the lie. All Walt has to do is confirm that I am mistaken about his view. B.T.W. Offering an either or like you did seems to me to be a dishonest debating tactic. Of course you The Logician would be a better judge of that them me."

Kenny, what gives you the delusional idea that you are capable of logical thought. That you insist that Crystal was raped in the face of zero evidence that a rape ever happened, is not an indicator of a capability for logical thought.; May 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Regarding his belief that DTs occurring in a patient with a penetrating wound of the colon rules out the possibility of an intra abdominal infection:

"I expressed no such thing. I wonder why John.D chooses not to call you out."

Oh yes you did at one time.

You changed your tune when presented with an expert description of the situation(contrary to your wont you could not bullshit your way around it). Prior to that you were posting that DTs explained the symptoms.; May 30, 2017 at 2:02 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: Are you suggesting I lied when I concluded that Walt does recognize the validity of questioning whether the stab wound was the real nexus for Daye's death and not his chronic alcoholism and that I knew better and was trying to deceive people about his views.

No. That was not your suggestion.

Kenny requests: Read what I wrote and identify the lie.

Kenny's lie: It suggested to me you believed that in doing so (ie. concealing it from the Jury) it would bolster a belief that there was no nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death but by doing so Dr. Harr sealed Crystal's fate.

I explained earlier why I believed this suggestion was either deliberately false or preposterous. You ignored that explanation. As a result, I concluded that you were either a liar or a fool. I do not believe you are a fool.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 30, 2017 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; May 30, 2017 at 4:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.A. Said" "Oh yes you did at one time. You changed your tune when presented with an expert description of the situation(contrary to your wont you could not bullshit your way around it). Prior to that you were posting that DTs explained the symptoms.........No I did not and no I did not change my mind. I have been presented with no expert description of the situation other then the Hospital records. I held my position before and after Dr. Roberts report and unlike you her report did not cause me to change my mind.; May 30, 2017 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr.A. Said" "Oh yes you did at one time. You changed your tune when presented with an expert description of the situation(contrary to your wont you could not bullshit your way around it). Prior to that you were posting that DTs explained the symptoms.........No I did not and no I did not change my mind."

Yes you did,on both counts.

"I have been presented with no expert description of the situation other then the Hospital records."

How did you get hold of hospital records? Most likely illegally. Are you competent to understand any one's hospital. Unless you have had hands on clinical experience, you are not.

"I held my position before and after Dr. Roberts report"

In other words, you clung to your ignorance.

"and unlike you her report did not cause me to change my mind."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that you have a mind.; May 30, 2017 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, where do you get the idea that I changed my mind about what happened to Reginald Daye.

Reginald Daye died because Crystal stabbed him.

Had Crystal not stabbed him the necessity to intubate him would never have arisen.; May 30, 2017 at 4:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: Until Dr. Roberts's report you denied that there was an errant esophageal intubation. Dr. Harr a man you disparage was proven to be correct; May 30, 2017 at 8:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A Said: "Had Crystal not stabbed him the necessity to intubate him would never have arisen"............................................. Yeah, he could have continued keeping his blood alcohol up in the 200 plus mg/dl range staving off withdrawal; May 30, 2017 at 8:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "Kenny's lie: It suggested to me you believed that in doing so (ie. concealing it from the Jury) it would bolster a belief that there was no nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death but by doing so Dr. Harr sealed Crystal's fate. I explained earlier why I believed this suggestion was either deliberately false or preposterous. You ignored that explanation. As a result, I concluded that you were either a liar or a fool. I do not believe you are a fool"....................Really John? Such a lie! So, for the sake of argument lets say I lied about what Walt's response suggested to me. Now, what would possibly be my motive for that? Read his response, I'm sure you'll agree he seemed to be saying that if Roberts report had been concealed from the Prosecution Crystal might have won the case on doubts about whether the nexus of Daye's death was the stab wound but Robert's concurrence with Nicholls killed that possibility. I'm not saying he didn't believe there was a nexus. I'm saying he seemed to suggest that if the Jury did not hear from the Prosecution what Robert's had said and his delirium tremens had been explained to them they may have concluded Duke not Crystal killed Daye and Dr. Harr's release of that information scuttled that possibility leaving Meier to have to keep her off the stand for fear she would say the words, "I concur with Dr. Nicholls"; May 30, 2017 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"

Dr. A Said: "Had Crystal not stabbed him the necessity to intubate him would never have arisen"............................................. Yeah, he could have continued keeping his blood alcohol up in the 200 plus mg/dl range staving off withdrawal"

Just likr you hsve given zero evidence crystal was ever raped you have given zero evidence Reginald Daye was a chronic, violent alcoholic. Your information comes from Crystal who, before she murdered Reginald Daye, documented she liked to lie her way out of unpleasant situations; May 31, 2017 at 3:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman kenhyderal.; May 31, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Something Walt posted:

"Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

That's not what the real doctors said."

The real doctors were Dr. Nichols(prosecution expert witness) and Dr. Roberts(defense expert witness).; May 31, 2017 at 6:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " Conversely, real forensic pathologists have concluded that Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Crystal"........................................ And in the mind of ordinary folks (ie a Jury of Crystals peers) they would be thought wrong if that Jury had heard the entire series of events leading to Daye's demise. "Some sort of infection or other catastrophic event" would not have cut it for a Jury especially if they were told that an errant esophageal intubation which if not immediately recognized constitutes medical malpractice is what killed Daye. Nichols statements are non-specific. The medical records are highly specific (successful wound repair, full recovery expected, onset of acute alcohol withdrawal sending Daye to intensive care, an errant esophageal intubation even if it was meant to eliminate a post-surgical infection as an alternate possibility, a failure to recognize the wrong misplacement of the airway tube in a timely manner, the resulting cardiac and cerebral anoxia, the brain death, and the eventual elective removal of life support. Had the Jury heard all this along with Judge Ridgeway's instructions they would have concluded Dr. Nicholls was wrong. There was no record whatsoever of a post-surgical infection even if, as Dr. A keeps parroting, it was a distinct possibility. No the stab wound didn't kill him Duke did and Daye's alcoholism is the nexus.; May 31, 2017 at 10:28 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- Yes or No:

Reginald Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to a stab wound he received from Crystal Mangum.; May 31, 2017 at 10:50 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Based on the arguments and case law Walt, A Lawyer and others have provided, I do not believe your argument is grounded in the law. Neither you nor Sidney has made any legal argument to counter their legal analysis. Your non-legal opinions are insufficient to do so.

As a result, I believe you are arguing for jury nullification. I agree that nullification would have been worth attempting, particularly when Crystal turned out to be such an ineffective witness. I am not as convinced as you that a jury would have nullified the law in this case (for example, the posters on this board have not been convinced that Crystal should have been found not guilty), but I agree that Crystal had nothing to lose with the attempt.

Perhaps Walt or A Lawyer can explain any difficulties in attempting jury nullification in a criminal trial in North Carolina.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: " Conversely, real forensic pathologists have concluded that Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Crystal"........................................ And in the mind of ordinary folks (ie a Jury of Crystals peers) they would be thought wrong if that Jury had heard the entire series of events leading to Daye's demise."

They did.

"'Some sort of infection or other catastrophic event' would not have cut it for a Jury especially if they were told that an errant esophageal intubation which if not immediately recognized constitutes medical malpractice is what killed Daye."

The esophageal intubation would have had to be established as malpractice by expert medical testimony. The records show that the errant intubation was recognized and treatment was attempted. What Dr. Roberts put in her report was that the material Reginald Daye vomited obstructed the view of the upper airway, making it difficult to visualize the glottis. Speaking as someone with experience in these situations, something neither you nor Sidney have, it does not rise to the level of malpractice. Even if it did, as has been explained to you by actual legal experts, it would not have relieved Crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. You must be really dense thinking you can pontificate about this situation as an expert when you have no expertise.

"Nichols statements are non-specific. The medical records are highly specific (successful wound repair, full recovery expected,"

Which shows you know nothing about this kind of surgery. Complications can and do arise days after a surgical procedure has been completed. That there was no chance of Surgical complications comes from Sidney who, in spite of the MD appended to his name, has never done a surgical procedure in his life.

"onset of acute alcohol withdrawal sending Daye to intensive care,"

According to Dr. Roberts appropriate treatment was initiated and Reginald Daye was not responding to it. Why would the treating physicians have placed contrast in his stomach via an NG tube? That is not a treatment for DTs. It would be done if a CT scan of the abdomen had been ordered. Why would a CT scan of the abdomen be ordered as treatment of DTs?

"an errant esophageal intubation even if it was meant to eliminate a post-surgical infection as an alternate possibility, a failure to recognize the wrong misplacement of the airway tube in a timely manner, the resulting cardiac and cerebral anoxia, the brain death, and the eventual elective removal of life support."

As was explained to you that malpractice has to be established by expert testimony. The only expert testimony in the case, from Prosecution and Defense experts was that Reginald Daye died as the result of the stab wound. That you are willfully capable of recognizing that is meaningless. Tell us. What experience have you had actually arguing cases like this before a court of law?

"Had the Jury heard all this along with Judge Ridgeway's instructions they would have concluded Dr. Nicholls was wrong."

Awfully far reaching statement from someone who has never argued a criminal case in court.

"There was no record whatsoever of a post-surgical infection even if, as Dr. A keeps parroting, it was a distinct possibility."

There was evidence that was consistent with an infection and the most likely site for an infection was the abdomen because Reginald Daye had suffered a penetrating wound of the colon.

"No the stab wound didn't kill him"

Yes it did.

" Duke did"

No it didn't"

"and Daye's alcoholism is the nexus."

Explain how. The only evidence of Daye's alcoholism comes from Crystal who, I say again, was established as a liar before she murdered Reginald Daye.; May 31, 2017 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny:

What you are spouting off would be considered expert medical testimony if delivered in the course of a trial. Before such testimony would be accepted by the court. the one testifying would have to establish himself/herself as a medical expert.

How do you establish yourself as a medical expert?; May 31, 2017 at 11:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said: "Kenny -- Yes or No: Reginald Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to a stab wound he received from Crystal Mangum"................... Yes, one she administered to him while defending herself against a deadly assault. What sent him to intensive care, though, where he was killed, was not a consequence of the stab wound. Any condition that sent alcoholic Daye to hospital would have put him at risk of delirium tremens. Say for example a broken ankle. The nexus was not the stab wound but his chronic alcoholism. Self defence no murder, self defence no wounding with intent, self defence no manslaughter. Cause of death,. medical misadventure or medical malpractice; no post-surgical infection. Sending Crystal to prison for murder was a miscarriage of Justice.; May 31, 2017 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhuderal:

"Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said: "Kenny -- Yes or No: Reginald Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to a stab wound he received from Crystal Mangum"................... Yes, one she administered to him while defending herself against a deadly assault."

No she wasn't defending herself.

"What sent him to intensive care, though, where he was killed, was not a consequence of the stab wound."

If that were true, it would not change the reality that he was placed at risk of an intra abdominal infection when Crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon. The administration of contrast into the stomach via NG tube happened not because he was suspected to have DTs but because he was suspected to have an intra abdominal infection.

"Any condition that sent alcoholic Daye to hospital would have put him at risk of delirium tremens. Say for example a broken ankle. The nexus was not the stab wound but his chronic alcoholism."

Yes it was. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal inflicted the stab wound NOT in self defense. DTs or no, the stab wound WAS the nexus. Your wishful thinking, based solely on your lack of clinical training and lack of clinical experiece does not change that.

"Self defence no murder, self defence no wounding with intent, self defence no manslaughter. Cause of death,."

Not Self defense, not manslaughter but second degree murder.

"medical misadventure or medical malpractice; no post-surgical infection. Sending Crystal to prison for murder was a miscarriage of Justice."

No medical misadventure but a complication of a procedure necessitated by the patient's clinical condition, fever, tachycardia, disorientaion, all symptoms consistent with an intra abdominal infection, the risk of which Reginald Daye was subjected to when Crystal stabbed him. That Kenny has no experience treating a post op surgical patient who had suffered a laceration of the colon and hours of colonic contamination of the abdomen as a result of the laceration. That he can not recognize the possibility of an intra abdominal infection is irrelevant. In spite of his protestations Kenny can not identify the set of conditions which had put Reginald Daye at risk of intra abdominal infection.; May 31, 2017 at 4:37 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Walt said: " Conversely, real forensic pathologists have concluded that Daye died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by Crystal"........................................ And in the mind of ordinary folks (ie a Jury of Crystals peers) they would be thought wrong if that Jury had heard the entire series of events leading to Daye's demise. "Some sort of infection or other catastrophic event" would not have cut it for a Jury especially if they were told that an errant esophageal intubation which if not immediately recognized constitutes medical malpractice is what killed Daye. Nichols statements are non-specific. The medical records are highly specific (successful wound repair, full recovery expected, onset of acute alcohol withdrawal sending Daye to intensive care, an errant esophageal intubation even if it was meant to eliminate a post-surgical infection as an alternate possibility, a failure to recognize the wrong misplacement of the airway tube in a timely manner, the resulting cardiac and cerebral anoxia, the brain death, and the eventual elective removal of life support. Had the Jury heard all this along with Judge Ridgeway's instructions they would have concluded Dr. Nicholls was wrong. There was no record whatsoever of a post-surgical infection even if, as Dr. A keeps parroting, it was a distinct possibility. No the stab wound didn't kill him Duke did and Daye's alcoholism is the nexus.

Hey, kenhyderal.

Perfectly stated. I don't understand why other people don't seem to comprehend the clear truths we present about Daye's hospital course and death. It is crystal clear that Crystal should be cleared of any wrongdoing in Daye's death.; May 31, 2017 at 4:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Kenny -- Yes or No:

Reginald Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to a stab wound he received from Crystal Mangum.

No. Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to his choking Crystal Mangum.; May 31, 2017 at 4:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Kenny,

Based on the arguments and case law Walt, A Lawyer and others have provided, I do not believe your argument is grounded in the law. Neither you nor Sidney has made any legal argument to counter their legal analysis. Your non-legal opinions are insufficient to do so.

As a result, I believe you are arguing for jury nullification. I agree that nullification would have been worth attempting, particularly when Crystal turned out to be such an ineffective witness. I am not as convinced as you that a jury would have nullified the law in this case (for example, the posters on this board have not been convinced that Crystal should have been found not guilty), but I agree that Crystal had nothing to lose with the attempt.

Perhaps Walt or A Lawyer can explain any difficulties in attempting jury nullification in a criminal trial in North Carolina.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

I disagree with your assertion that Mangum was an ineffective witness at trial. I think she did a good job under the circumstances... with her attorney Meier coaching her to steer clear of any and all medical issues related to Daye's death. Her turncoat attorney prepared for her to skirt and avoid all the germane issues that could have led to her not being convicted. As far as her delivery, she was very believable.

The cross-examination by the prosecutor was desperate... consisting mainly of rapid-fire leading questions/accusations to which Mangum credibly and intelligently denied. The prosecution did not only not only not have a smoking gun, but they had no gun, period!; May 31, 2017 at 4:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal:

Something Walt posted:

"Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

That's not what the real doctors said."

The real doctors were Dr. Nichols(prosecution expert witness) and Dr. Roberts(defense expert witness).

Anony, real doctors who are in on the conspiracy lie. It's that simple.; May 31, 2017 at 4:57 PM
JSwift said...: Sidney stated: Perfectly stated. I don't understand why other people don't seem to comprehend the clear truths we present about Daye's hospital course and death. It is crystal clear that Crystal should be cleared of any wrongdoing in Daye's death.

Sidney,

When you objected indignantly to my "gall" in asserting that you were either unwilling or unable to engage in an honest discussion, I provided the example of your refusal to address the claims in Mangum's written statement in connection with the lacrosse frame. You refused to consider the example because you are currently not interested in that case (and you lost interest shortly after the question was first raised in 2010).

This statement provides a more current example.

People do not fail to comprehend the medical chain of events you and Kenny have outlined. With the exception of your proclamation (not supported by either Nichols or Roberts findings) that the intubation was the sole cause of Daye's death, the chaim of events is now largely accepted by readers on this blog.

The difference is in the legal interpretation of that chain of events. Walt, A Lawyer and others have provided a legal analysis, supported by case law, that concludes that Mangum's legal responsibility for Daye's death is not broken by the esophageal intubation. You and Kenny both responded with non-legal opinions. You both refused to provide any case law to support your opinions. The unsupported opinions of non-lawyers on legal issues are not persuasive in countering legal analysis provided by posters trained in the law.

Why do you refuse to honestly discuss legal issues?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 31, 2017 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, kenhyderal.

Perfectly stated. I don't understand why other people don't seem to comprehend the clear truths we present about Daye's hospital course and death. It is crystal clear that Crystal should be cleared of any wrongdoing in Daye's death."

You are not presenting truths. That is what you don't understand.; May 31, 2017 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Kenny -- Yes or No:

Reginald Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to a stab wound he received from Crystal Mangum.

"No. Daye was originally placed in the hospital due to his choking Crystal Mangum."

Untrue.

The pictures you released of Crystal showed no evidence of trauma. You mention of some swelling. You made that up. The paramedics reported Crystal did not need any treatment for anything.; May 31, 2017 at 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, JSwift.

I disagree with your assertion that Mangum was an ineffective witness at trial. I think she did a good job under the circumstances... with her attorney Meier coaching her to steer clear of any and all medical issues related to Daye's death. Her turncoat attorney prepared for her to skirt and avoid all the germane issues that could have led to her not being convicted."

You wanted Crystal to testify regarding medical issues! Oh come now. Crystal is less competent to testify about medical issues than you are, and you are not competent at all.

"As far as her delivery, she was very believable."

What makes you think that means anything. You believe Crystal was raped in the face of zero evidence the rape she alleged ever happened.

"The cross-examination by the prosecutor was desperate... consisting mainly of rapid-fire leading questions/accusations to which Mangum credibly and intelligently denied. The prosecution did not only not only not have a smoking gun, but they had no gun, period!"

You again show how delusional you are.; May 31, 2017 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Kenhyderal:

Something Walt posted:

"Sid wrote: "Without doubt, the esophageal intubation was the sole cause of his brain-death, and his brain-death induced irreversible comatose state was the reason why he was electively removed from life-support by Duke Hospital staff, and died as a result."

That's not what the real doctors said."

The real doctors were Dr. Nichols(prosecution expert witness) and Dr. Roberts(defense expert witness).

Anony, real doctors who are in on the conspiracy lie. It's that simple."

Sidney, there was no conspiracy for the doctors to be in on. You have presented zero evidence of any conspiracy, just like you have zero evidence Crystal was ever raped, just like you have zero evidence Duke ever conspired to discriminate against you at the Breyer event.; May 31, 2017 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, you have been on a roll for years. You have presented zero evidence rystal ever told the truth whenshe claimed she had been raped. You presented zero evidence there was ever a carpetbagger jihad.

It shows you do not know what evidence is.; May 31, 2017 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; June 1, 2017 at 3:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney,

How about responding.

You "surmised" people either in the office of the President or the office of the Law School Dean conspired to discriminate against you. You "surmised" this because you sent letters to those offices informing them you would be attending the Breyer event.

What evidence do you have that anyone in either office, except maybe a secretary, ever read your letters.; June 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM
the great Kilgo said...: Please, Kenhyderal, help me! This fellow shooto is holding me in an apartmrnt on the 4th floor or No. 43[kjpkn; June 1, 2017 at 6:35 AM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "Perhaps Walt or A Lawyer can explain any difficulties in attempting jury nullification in a criminal trial in North Carolina."

Only two states, that I am aware of, allow jury nullification, Indiana and Maryland. Indiana, provides in its state constitution, Article I, Section 19 that juries are the sole judges of the law and the facts in criminal cases. Not so in civil ones. The Indiana Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have held that a jury cannot alter the statutes enacted by the state legislature. Thus, a jury cannot find someone guilty of that the state has not proven all the elements. Holloway v. State, 352 N.E. 2d 523 (Ind. App. 1976, transfer denied). Even with the reversal in Holloway, Indiana juries have behaved very responsibly with their power to find both the law and the facts. Maryland Constitution Article 15 Section 5 has similar language to Indiana. In Maryland, Judges were surveyed in 1975 about the problem of jury nullification, and the judges replied that they did not think it was a significant impediment to the administration of justice. I think that juries in Maryland, like Indiana seem to take their duty seriously and do not abuse their state constitutions.

North Carolina, like the vast majority of the states and the federal government, has a jury instruction that says the trial judge determines the law and the jury applies it to the facts. Under NC law, juries cannot engage in jury nullification. More so, attorneys are prohibited from arguing for jury nullification, or even arguing the law to the jury. State v. Gardner, 316 N.C. 605 (1986). Nor, can the Prosecution argue against the presumption of innocence, State v. Wilder, 124 N.C. App. 136, 142-43 (1996). Under both Indiana and Maryland law the prosecution could not so argue. Of course, the penalty for arguing nullification in NC is very different than Indiana or Maryland. In those states, there would be no penalty, in NC, the lawyer's argument would be stricken and it is quite possible that a mis-trial would be ordered and the case would have to be re-tried to a new jury.

Walt-in-Durham; June 1, 2017 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: "...one she administered to him while defending herself against a deadly assault."

Crystal Mangum failed to prove self-defense to a jury of her peers.; June 1, 2017 at 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

If NC does not permit jury nullification in a criminal trial, it sounds as though Meier's failure to attempt jury nullification will not lead to a successful appeal, MAR or habeas.; June 1, 2017 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: That's why CGM needed a real lawyer working on her appeal, MAR, and writ of habeas corpus....; June 1, 2017 at 10:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D Said: " I believe you are arguing for jury nullification".... No. I believe Judge Ridgeway's instruction to the Jury provided them with the correct information. The only problem was they did not hear the immediate cause, all the sequential proceeding causes and the underlying cause being Daye's chronic alcoholism. A successfully repaired wound, absent any post surgical infection, was not a underlying cause.; June 1, 2017 at 8:43 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Let me clarify my statement. I believe you are arguing for jury nullification, whether or not you realize or admit it.

As I explained in the comment to which you replied, based on the analysis they have provided (an explanation you chose to ignore), I believe the legal analysis Walt, A Lawyer and others have provided is correct: the esophageal intubation is not an intervening cause and therefore does not eliminate Mangum's legal liability. I recognize that you and Sidney disagree with that legal conclusion, but you have refused to provide any legal support for your conclusion. I believe your conclusion is incorrect.

You have repeated your conclusion several dozen times. Each time you refused to provide the legal support for it. I don't care how many times you express your opinion; unless you provide the legal support, readers, including myself, will continue to reject it. I have noted earlier that I do not find argument by assertion to be an effective form of argument.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; June 2, 2017 at 2:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:
"

John D Said: " I believe you are arguing for jury nullification".... No. I believe Judge Ridgeway's instruction to the Jury provided them with the correct information. The only problem was they did not hear the immediate cause,"

Yes they did.

"all the sequential proceeding causes and the underlying cause being Daye's chronic alcoholism."

There were no sequential causes or underlying causes which caused Reginald Daye's death.

"A successfully repaired wound, absent any post surgical infection, was not a underlying cause."

This is but a presumptious statement from two clinically incompetent people who presume that once a surgical procedure is accomplished there is no possibility of complications from the surgery. It shows that neither Sidney nor Kenny know anything about Surgery or the ramifications thereof, that they basically do not know what they are talking about.; June 2, 2017 at 3:05 AM
Anonymous said...: JSwift:

"I recognize that you and Sidney disagree with that legal conclusion, but you have refused to provide any legal support for your conclusion."

Speaking from actual experience, I add, neither Kenny nor Sidney have provided any clinical support for their clinical conclusions, that there was no chance of complications following the surgery, that there was no risk of an intra abdominal infection.; June 2, 2017 at 3:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman kenhyderal.; June 2, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
JSwift:

"I recognize that you and Sidney disagree with that legal conclusion, but you have refused to provide any legal support for your conclusion."

Speaking from actual experience, I add, neither Kenny nor Sidney have provided any clinical support for their clinical conclusions, that there was no chance of complications following the surgery, that there was no risk of an intra abdominal infection.

Anony, neither I nor Kenny did not say that there was no chance of a postoperative infection... and I am not criticizing Duke Hospital for not attempting to rule it out, but I believe the differential strongly suggested DTs as the problem and precautions should have been taken if they felt benefits of doing a contrast study were warranted. For example, Daye could've been intubated prior to administration of contrast agent... that would've removed the aspiration threat.

But actually all of that is irrelevant because the problem was not with doing the procedure but that it was improperly done and not timely recognized... allowing Daye to become brain dead. It was brain-death that the staff believed to be irreversible that led to his being electively removed from life-support which was the direct cause of his death.

Consider yourself elucidated.; June 2, 2017 at 6:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Kenny,

Let me clarify my statement. I believe you are arguing for jury nullification, whether or not you realize or admit it.

As I explained in the comment to which you replied, based on the analysis they have provided (an explanation you chose to ignore), I believe the legal analysis Walt, A Lawyer and others have provided is correct: the esophageal intubation is not an intervening cause and therefore does not eliminate Mangum's legal liability. I recognize that you and Sidney disagree with that legal conclusion, but you have refused to provide any legal support for your conclusion. I believe your conclusion is incorrect.

You have repeated your conclusion several dozen times. Each time you refused to provide the legal support for it. I don't care how many times you express your opinion; unless you provide the legal support, readers, including myself, will continue to reject it. I have noted earlier that I do not find argument by assertion to be an effective form of argument.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

Clearly, Kenny is correct. The jury never heard the truth about the medical issues of the case thanks to Mangum's turncoat attorneys working in tandem with the judge. Just like the judge and the attorneys on both sides kept the truths from the jury, the mainstream media has kept the truth from the people. For example there was no media coverage during the seven days Daye was in a coma... the first reports coming only after he was removed from life-support and died. The people never knew that he was in a coma for a week prior to dying. The people never knew that his initial intubation was esophageal. (The jury was not aware of that either... in fact, the words "esophageal intubation" were never mentioned once during the entirety of the trial.)

The only source for the truth about Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye's death is this blog site. To my knowledge no media source or blogger has physical access to prosecution discovery as I do.; June 2, 2017 at 6:18 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:50 AM wrote: "If NC does not permit jury nullification in a criminal trial, it sounds as though Meier's failure to attempt jury nullification will not lead to a successful appeal, MAR or habeas."

You are exactly right.

Anonymous at 10:52 AM wrote: "That's why CGM needed a real lawyer working on her appeal, MAR, and writ of habeas corpus...."

You are exactly right.

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have two winners!

Walt-in-Durham; June 2, 2017 at 6:19 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " the problem was not with doing the procedure but that it was improperly done and not timely recognized..."

This is why Sid is not an expert witness, he does not understand the difference between negligence and intentional action.

"... allowing Daye to become brain dead. It was brain-death that the staff believed to be irreversible that led to his being electively removed from life-support which was the direct cause of his death."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer noise] Run him!

But, this is not an intervening cause as is required by our law. Again, Sid's lack of training and unwillingness to learn causes him to reach a faulty conclusion.

Walt-in-Durham; June 2, 2017 at 6:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney,

How about responding.

You "surmised" people either in the office of the President or the office of the Law School Dean conspired to discriminate against you. You "surmised" this because you sent letters to those offices informing them you would be attending the Breyer event.

What evidence do you have that anyone in either office, except maybe a secretary, ever read your letters.

I don't have any rock-solid evidence per se, but I believe any reasonable person would be able to surmise that I was ambushed because of statements made by the security guard during the conversation with me and Professor James Coleman. If you'll recall the recorded conversation the guard said something to the effect that he was "told to remove him (me) from the campus and that was what I (the security guard) was doing." This entire thing was likely pre-planned by Duke University because I wrote a letter alerting them to the fact that I intended to attend.

What other reason can you give for the security guard approaching me and asking me out of the clear blue to leave the campus? Keep in mind that I was acting as others similarly situated. Not being boisterous, not interfering with flow of traffic, and certainly not accosting Justice Stephen Breyer.

I hope that your inquiry has been sated.; June 2, 2017 at 6:28 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I don't have any rock-solid evidence per se, ..."

That is a problem, in addition to no legal grounds asserted in Harr I - III, you now admit you have no evidence either.

"... but I believe any reasonable person would be able to surmise..."

You have the burden of proof. An invitation to speculation is not grounds to haul any defendant into court, not even one as shady as Duke University.

"What other reason can you give for the security guard approaching me and asking me out of the clear blue to leave the campus?"

It is you who must prove. Not Duke or any other reader to disprove.

Walt-in-Durham; June 2, 2017 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anony, neither I nor Kenny did not say that there was no chance of a postoperative infection..."

Each and every time you come out with, the procedure was properly done and the prognosis was for a complete recovery,you WERE saying there was no possibility of a post op complication, any complication

"and I am not criticizing Duke Hospital for not attempting to rule it out, but I believe the differential strongly suggested DTs as the problem and precautions should have been taken if they felt benefits of doing a contrast study were warranted. "

The differential more strongly supported the possibility of an intra abdominal infection. That warranted a study to rule in or rule out an infection. The administration of contrast into the stomach usually is not associated with vomiting.

" For example, Daye could've been intubated prior to administration of contrast agent... that would've removed the aspiration threat."

Not necessarily. Patients have aspirated when being intubatedd, something you would know if you had any significant experience with intubation.

"But actually all of that is irrelevant because the problem was not with doing the procedure but that it was improperly done and not timely recognized... allowing Daye to become brain dead. It was brain-death that the staff believed to be irreversible that led to his being electively removed from life-support which was the direct cause of his death."

Wrong. The need for intubation was recognized, and the and an attempt to treat the complication, the problem with the ET tube was made. Otherwise why would they have done a direct laryngoscopy. Dr. Roberts noted that the problem with visualizing the glottis was that the vomitus obscured the view. None of that, although it was a tragic complication did not add up to malpractice. You are incapable of determining if mal practice happened. You do not have the experience or training which would have enabled you to do so.

The final issue, Reginald Daye would have never been exposed to the risk of intra abdominal infection or aspiration had Crystal never stabbed him.; June 2, 2017 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, JSwift.

Clearly, Kenny is correct."

Kenny has never been correct about anything on this blog.

"The jury never heard the truth about the medical issues of the case thanks to Mangum's turncoat attorneys working in tandem with the judge."

Another unproven conspiracy claimed by Sidney Harr.

"Just like the judge and the attorneys on both sides kept the truths from the jury, the mainstream media has kept the truth from the people."

Another iteration of Sidney, with zero evidence, alleging a conspiracy.

"For example there was no media coverage during the seven days Daye was in a coma... the first reports coming only after he was removed from life-support and died. The people never knew that he was in a coma for a week prior to dying."

What need to know did the public have. Did you ever think making this public might have prejudiced any jury against Crystal?

"The people never knew that his initial intubation was esophageal. (The jury was not aware of that either... in fact, the words "esophageal intubation" were never mentioned once during the entirety of the trial.)"

The Jury might have heard about the Esophageal intubation had Daniel Meier put Dr. Roberts on the stand. However the Jury would have also heard that Dr. Roberts' opinion, like Dr. Nichols' opinio, was that the stab wound was the cause of Reginald Daye's death. Of your response to this is, they were in on the conspiracy to get Crystal. However you have offered zero evidence that there was any such conspiracy.

"The only source for the truth about Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye's death is this blog site. To my knowledge no media source or blogger has physical access to prosecution discovery as I do."

Means nothing since you are incapable of understanding the ramifications of a clinical situation like this. Let me use this metaphor again. You are like a deaf blind man saying, I see and hear everything.; June 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I don't have any rock-solid evidence per se, but I believe any reasonable person would be able to surmise that I was ambushed"

So? To make your case that you were ambushed you have had to have rock solid evidence, not surmising. You would have had to establish that individuals with the power to have you arrested had ever read you letters that you were going to attend the Breyer interview. You can not establish that by surmising.

"because of statements made by the security guard during the conversation with me and Professor James Coleman. If you'll recall the recorded conversation the guard said something to the effect that he was "told to remove him (me) from the campus and that was what I (the security guard) was doing."

First off, I did hear your recording and you misrepresent it. The recording clearly indicates you got belligerent with the security guard. And you lied about Professor Coleman intervening on your behalf. You tried to drag him into the conflict.

"This entire thing was likely pre-planned by Duke University because I wrote a letter alerting them to the fact that I intended to attend."

I say again, you have provided zero evidence that anyone at Duke with the power to have you arrested ever read your letters. One thing you need to do make your case for a conspiracy is prove, PROVE, not surmise, that those who had the power ever read your letters. You haven't proven anything.

What other reason can you give for the security guard approaching me and asking me out of the clear blue to leave the campus? Keep in mind that I was acting as others similarly situated. Not being boisterous, not interfering with flow of traffic, and certainly not accosting Justice Stephen Breyer."

Here you are repeating a legal fallacy. You are saying that the defense has to disprove your allegations. You have the obligation to prove your allegations. Your case for a conspiracy is that people with the power and authority to have you arrested conspired to have you arrested after reading your letters. What evidence do you have? None. Surmising someone read them is not evidence, as you have admitted.

Finally, you were informed that you had violated Duke's non solicitation policy. That you think you determine what is or is not a violation of Duke's non solicitation policy is invalid and irrelevant and meaningless.

Just as meaningless as a statement you have made more than once, that no one proved Crystal ever lied about being rapes. Nifong had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth. He had zero evidence Crystal told the truth. Your contention that there is evidence in the case file, which was sealed by then AG Cooper, is but another iteration of you alleging a conspiracy for which you have no proof.; June 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "There were no sequential causes or underlying causes which caused Reginald Daye's death".........................................Huh? As an attending Physician did you ever have cause to fill out a Cause of Death form? For a medical doctor you really make some rather foolish and ill-considered pronouncements.; June 2, 2017 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "There were no sequential causes or underlying causes which caused Reginald Daye's death".........................................Huh? As an attending Physician did you ever have cause to fill out a Cause of Death form?"

Yes. I have also operated on hundreds of patients an have done autopsies. How many patients have you operated upon? How many times have you done autopsies. How many times have you filled out a Death Certificate?

"For a medical doctor you really make some rather foolish and ill-considered pronouncements."

No, I render valid clinical opinions based on actual hands on clinical experience. You spout off delusions based on your irrational obsession with getting your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; June 2, 2017 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenhyderal:

When is the last time you ever even looked at a real patient in a clinical situation?

What gives you the experience and clinical expertise to comment on what is going on with a sick patient?

You probably can not tell the difference between a bowel obstruction and a bowl of Jello. Heaven help any patient to whom you give clinical advice. You surely won't.; June 2, 2017 at 1:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.A. said: "You surely won't" (give clinical advice)............................ Of course I wont. Dr.A. also said: "How many patients have you operated upon? How many times have you done autopsies. How many times have you filled out a Death Certificate?................... Zero, I am not as surgeon, nor a pathologist nor a coroner but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either.; June 2, 2017 at 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr.A. said: "You surely won't" (give clinical advice)............................ Of course I wont. Dr.A. also said: "How many patients have you operated upon? How many times have you done autopsies. How many times have you filled out a Death Certificate?................... Zero, I am not as surgeon, nor a pathologist nor a coroner but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either."

Why don't you try to offer expert testimony on behalf of your favorite murderess/false accuser by giving your credentials as that you haven' fallen off some turnip truck.; June 2, 2017 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course Kenny didn't just fall off the turnip truck!

Being from Canada, where the largest agricultural sector is grains and oilseeds, he's much more likely to have just fallen off the soybean truck.

Maybe wheat....; June 2, 2017 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either."

https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/fall+off+the+turnip+truck.html:

"If someone has just fallen off the turnip truck, they are uninformed, naive and gullible."

You have shown, ever since you started posting on J4N that you ARE "uninformed, naive and gullible."

If you haven't fallen off the turnip truck yet it is because you were never capable of climbing on board in the first place.; June 3, 2017 at 4:39 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: Meet me in Lumberton kenhyderal and I will give you the information you are looking for.; June 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Judge Hobgood went to UNC ... you suppose Sid is going to try and recuse him?; June 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: https://academicwonderland.com/2017/05/31/cohan-embittered/

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-donald-trump; June 4, 2017 at 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Regarding http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-donald-trump:

Cohan says in that article that a nurse at the DUMC ER examined Crystal and concluded Crystal had been rape. That is false. Dr. Julie Manly, then a first year Emergency Resident, examined Crystal. The only finding was diffuse vaginal edema, no evidence of the brutal beating and assault Crystal alleged. See http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html.

Another lie Cohan tries to purvey as truth.

No wonder Kenny and Sidney, who admire Crystal the liar also admire Cohan the liar.; June 4, 2017 at 3:05 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal, please help e. Shooto's ho.khjtuf; June 6, 2017 at 10:03 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: Why are you ignoring me kenhyderal?; June 8, 2017 at 3:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Kilgo,
Don't expect any help from Kenny Boy. He can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk.; June 8, 2017 at 3:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny - Don’t make me have to smack the extra chromosome out of you.; June 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM

That is as inappropriate as any deliberately racist comment ever put on this blog, s inappropriate as Sidney's and Kenny's guilt presuming rant about the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.; June 10, 2017 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM

You are referring to people with Down Syndrome. Based on my experience, people with Down Syndrome tend to be loving, kind, considerate people. Kenhyderal, with his presumption of guilt on the part of the innocent lacrosse players, is anything but kind, considerate or loving. Especially that the context in which he presumes guilt is one of absolutely zero evidence that the alleged rape ever happened, that Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.; June 10, 2017 at 6:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Judge Hobgood went to UNC ... you suppose Sid is going to try and recuse him?

Anony, why should I want to have Judge Hobgood recuse himself? I only want judges to recuse themselves when they prove that they can't be impartial. And if a judge rules against me without cause, such as Judge Eagles, it clearly makes sense to have her removed.

Because Judge Hobgood went to UNC is not grounds for recusal.; June 10, 2017 at 2:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I just completed a sharlog... working like a dog on the two-parter. Plan on uploading it on Monday afternoon... Monday evening at the latest. It has to do with my libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News.

As you were.; June 10, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anony, why should I want to have Judge Hobgood recuse himself? I only want judges to recuse themselves when they prove that they can't be impartial. And if a judge rules against me without cause, such as Judge Eagles, it clearly makes sense to have her removed.

Because Judge Hobgood went to UNC is not grounds for recusal."

Your idea of a judge who is not impartial is one who recognizes your suits are without merit and rules against you. You believe your complaints should be accepted at face value even though you can provid zero evidence; June 10, 2017 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

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

In other words pay attention to me.

"I just completed a sharlog... working like a dog on the two-parter. Plan on uploading it on Monday afternoon... Monday evening at the latest. It has to do with my libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News."

Correction: your next two part sharlog is about your frivolous, non meritorious libel sui against WRAL-5 News.

"As you were."

As YOU are not.; June 10, 2017 at 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; June 11, 2017 at 4:27 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Where is the little man?; June 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, When will there be some justice 4 nifong?; June 12, 2017 at 4:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Being removed from office, disbarred, jailed for a day for contempt of court, bankrupted and disgraced is the only justice Nifong will face in this world.; June 12, 2017 at 4:50 AM
Anonymous said...: I drop a sharlog right after my morning cup of coffee....Wonder what takes Sid so long to drop his?; June 12, 2017 at 7:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: DA Nifong will be vindicated. It will be a hollow victory. Unfortunately he will never be compensated for the injustices dealt to him. Those involved in his persecution wont even feel guilt or shame. Sociopathy?; June 12, 2017 at 10:18 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: We know Mike Nifong committed prosecutorial misconduct in 2 cases (The Duke LAX case and the Darryl Anthony Howard case).

No, Mike Nifong has been "hoist with his own petar" -- and rightly so.; June 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Nifong himself isn't trying to get his license back, and literally no one is doing anything with the Lacrosse case (even Sid has moved on), so how will this vindication happen?; June 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"DA Nifong will be vindicated. It will be a hollow victory. Unfortunately he will never be compensated for the injustices dealt to him."

Irrelevant statement. Nifong was not subjected to any injustices.

"Those involved in his persecution wont even feel guilt or shame. Sociopathy?"

Another irrelevancy. Calling him to account for his wrongful prosecution of innocent men is not persecution. That was real Justice 4 Nifong.

You again are indulging in wishful thinking guilt presumption. You, like your fellow Nifong lover Sidney have presented zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped. Your guilt presumption in the presence of zero evidence is what qualifies as sociopathic.; June 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM
guiowen said...: Vindication will happen in Kenhyderal's mind. He will write Nifong a letter telling him how much he (kenny) admires him (Mike). Mike can show this letter to all his friends and neighbors.; June 12, 2017 at 12:49 PM

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Comparative criminal case study: Michael Peterson and Crystal Mangum

166 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me