Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact

285 comments:

1 – 200 of 285   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

As far as I got in your latest deluded megalomaniaca LYING screed was your LIES that it was never proven the Duke defendants were innocent or that Crystal Mangum lied when she alleged she was raped at he Lacrosse party.

Comprende this:

There was no evidence that a crime never happened.

Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team, not using condoms, penetrated her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. They would have left their DNA. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team. That is incontrovertible proof that Crystal did lie when she claimed she had been raped.

Since it has been incontrovertibly proven Crystal did lie, it is also incontrovertible that the accused were innocent as a matter of real fact, not as a matter of proclamation.

What establishes a crime is that the state establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen and that the accused were the perpetrators. What deluded la la land is the source of your belief that the defendants were obligated to prove Crystal lied or that they were innocent.

I challenge you to provide proof that Crystal told the truth.

I do hope Crystal's case gets to the discovery phase because, even if you do believe you do not have to go through the discovery process, Crystal, as plaintiff, will have to submit to being deposed by defendants' counsel.

Anonymous said...

In Sid's world, you are guilty unless proven innocent.

Unless you're Crystal Mangum, Mike Nifong, or Shan Carter.

Anonymous said...

Check out http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/12/time-person-of-the-year-f0bc3eb1942dbe76-640x480.jpg

Sidney must have photoshoppped Crystal's image onto a Time Magazine Cover picturing a number of women who have made actual claims of sexual assault or Sexual harassment.

Sidney is trying to push on to the world the lie that Crystal was raped.

Can anyone think of anything disrespectful of women than this?

Anonymous said...

Does delusional megalomaniacal Sidney really believe that by creating a phony Time Magazine cover really establishes Crystal ever told the truth?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Time Magazine will have anything to say about chronic liar Sidney's totally inappropriate use of this Person of the Year Magazine cover?

Anonymous said...

If Sidney is not putting up any disclaimers about that Photoshopped Time Magazine cover, i.e., something like, this was not the actual cover of this issue of Time Magazine but a photoshopped cover, was he trying to perpetrate a fraud, trying to create the false impression that Time included Crystal on its cover>

Anonymous said...

Time Magazine?

CGM is much more likely to be on the cover of Doing Time magazine.

Anonymous said...

Time is on my side, yes it is.
Time is on my side, yes it is.

Now you all were saying that you want to be free
But you'll come runnin' back (I said you would baby),
You'll come runnin' back (like I told you so many times before),
You'll come runnin' back to me.

Time is on my side, yes it is.
Time is on my side, yes it is.

You're searching for good times but just wait and see,
You'll come runnin' back (I said you would darling),
You'll come runnin back (Spent the rest of life with ya baby),
You'll come runnin' back to me.

Go ahead baby, go ahead, go ahead and light up the town!
And baby, do anything your heart desires
Remember, I'll always be around.
And I know, I know like I told you so many times before
You're gonna come back,
Yeah you're going to come back baby
Knockin', knockin' right on my door.

Time is on my side, yes it is.
Time is on my side, yes it is.

'Cause I got the real love, the kind that you need.
You'll come runnin' back (I knew you would one day),
You'll come runnin' back (Baby I told you before),
You'll come runnin' back to me.

Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is.
Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is.
Time, time, time is on my side

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you are not only desperate but also more than a little bit vicious and more than a little bit dishonest trying to create the impression that Time Magazine considers Crystal one of the women who was sexually victimized by powerful men. You ARE trying to perpetrate a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

As you are asserting the Lacrosse defendants are not innocent and that Crystal was raped, it th to you to prove the Lacrosse defendants are guilty and that Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

So far as saying, no one has proven the Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that no one has proven Crystal had not been raped, that has absolutely no legal weight(a term with which you purport to be familiar). Saying that the case file has been sealed and you do not have access to it is just an admission that you have zero evidence that your allegations are true, you are perpetrating a fraud, and you are conducting a vicious vendetta against people you dislike.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

As you are asserting the Lacrosse defendants are not innocent and that Crystal was raped, it th to you to prove the Lacrosse defendants are guilty and that Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

So far as saying, no one has proven the Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that no one has proven Crystal had not been raped, that has absolutely no legal weight(a term with which you purport to be familiar). Saying that the case file has been sealed and you do not have access to it is just an admission that you have zero evidence that your allegations are true, you are perpetrating a fraud, and you are conducting a vicious vendetta against people you dislike.

January 11, 2018 at 6:36 AM


My problem is with the mainstream media which asserts - as fact - that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that Crystal Mangum lied about being sexually assaulted sans any proof in support.

Contrast with claims that Durham Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury when testifying before the Grand Jury... there is abundant proof to justify those assertions. Same with the perjury committed by Dr. Nichols... evidence supports those allegations.

Tried to make this crystal clear to you.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, you are not only desperate but also more than a little bit vicious and more than a little bit dishonest trying to create the impression that Time Magazine considers Crystal one of the women who was sexually victimized by powerful men. You ARE trying to perpetrate a fraud.

January 11, 2018 at 4:11 AM


Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum.

Simple.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Time Magazine?

CGM is much more likely to be on the cover of Doing Time magazine.


January 10, 2018 at 1:20 PM


Hardy-harr-harr... So funny, I almost forgot to laugh!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
If Sidney is not putting up any disclaimers about that Photoshopped Time Magazine cover, i.e., something like, this was not the actual cover of this issue of Time Magazine but a photoshopped cover, was he trying to perpetrate a fraud, trying to create the false impression that Time included Crystal on its cover>

January 10, 2018 at 11:07 AM


Hmmph. Me thinks, as Shakespeare would sayeth, that the disclaimer notion for the photoshopped Time magazine cover is much ado about nothing.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

As far as I got in your latest deluded megalomaniaca LYING screed was your LIES that it was never proven the Duke defendants were innocent or that Crystal Mangum lied when she alleged she was raped at he Lacrosse party.

Comprende this:

There was no evidence that a crime never happened.

Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team, not using condoms, penetrated her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. They would have left their DNA. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team. That is incontrovertible proof that Crystal did lie when she claimed she had been raped.

Since it has been incontrovertibly proven Crystal did lie, it is also incontrovertible that the accused were innocent as a matter of real fact, not as a matter of proclamation.

What establishes a crime is that the state establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen and that the accused were the perpetrators. What deluded la la land is the source of your belief that the defendants were obligated to prove Crystal lied or that they were innocent.

I challenge you to provide proof that Crystal told the truth.

I do hope Crystal's case gets to the discovery phase because, even if you do believe you do not have to go through the discovery process, Crystal, as plaintiff, will have to submit to being deposed by defendants' counsel.

January 10, 2018 at 9:25 AM


Hah! Give me a break! Crystal took the stand at her trial in her own defense, and the prosecutor never laid a glove on her. Crystal coolly and honestly answered all questions directed to her so aptly that it put the prosecutor on the defense. Surely she can handle a simple deposition. No prob, Baby.

FakeKenhyderal said...

Well Sid -- Where is your proof in support that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not innocent?

Anonymous said...

"Crystal Mangum said so" is not proof, any more than my saying that Sidney Harr was at the Duke LAX party and perpetrated the (alleged) crime.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Anonymoue"

:As you are asserting the Lacrosse defendants are not innocent and that Crystal was raped, it th to you to prove the Lacrosse defendants are guilty and that Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

So far as saying, no one has proven the Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that no one has proven Crystal had not been raped, that has absolutely no legal weight(a term with which you purport to be familiar). Saying that the case file has been sealed and you do not have access to it is just an admission that you have zero evidence that your allegations are true, you are perpetrating a fraud, and you are conducting a vicious vendetta against people you dislike.

January 11, 2018 at 6:36 AM


"My problem is with the mainstream media which asserts - as fact - that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that Crystal Mangum lied about being sexually assaulted sans any proof in support."

Those are facts. That you are in willful denial is of no legal weight(a phrase with which I believe you are familiar).

"Contrast with claims that Durham Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury when testifying before the Grand Jury... there is abundant proof to justify those assertions. Same with the perjury committed by Dr. Nichols... evidence supports those allegations."

You have presented zero facts. The opinion of someone as legally ignorant as you has less than zero legal weight, Contrary to your delusional megalomania, you do not decide whether or not a witness perjured him/hers self.

"Tried to make this crystal clear to you."

How cab you when you are in a permanent delusional fog.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, you are not only desperate but also more than a little bit vicious and more than a little bit dishonest trying to create the impression that Time Magazine considers Crystal one of the women who was sexually victimized by powerful men. You ARE trying to perpetrate a fraud.

January 11, 2018 at 4:11 AM


Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum."

You are yet again trying to perpetrate a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
If Sidney is not putting up any disclaimers about that Photoshopped Time Magazine cover, i.e., something like, this was not the actual cover of this issue of Time Magazine but a photoshopped cover, was he trying to perpetrate a fraud, trying to create the false impression that Time included Crystal on its cover>

January 10, 2018 at 11:07 AM


Hmmph. Me thinks, as Shakespeare would sayeth, that the disclaimer notion for the photoshopped Time magazine cover is much ado about nothing."

You again try to pull off a fraud, the fraud being that Time Magazine intended to put Crystal on its person of the year cover.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

As far as I got in your latest deluded megalomaniaca LYING screed was your LIES that it was never proven the Duke defendants were innocent or that Crystal Mangum lied when she alleged she was raped at he Lacrosse party.

Comprende this:

There was no evidence that a crime never happened.

Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team, not using condoms, penetrated her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. They would have left their DNA. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team. That is incontrovertible proof that Crystal did lie when she claimed she had been raped.

Since it has been incontrovertibly proven Crystal did lie, it is also incontrovertible that the accused were innocent as a matter of real fact, not as a matter of proclamation.

What establishes a crime is that the state establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime did happen and that the accused were the perpetrators. What deluded la la land is the source of your belief that the defendants were obligated to prove Crystal lied or that they were innocent.

I challenge you to provide proof that Crystal told the truth.

I do hope Crystal's case gets to the discovery phase because, even if you do believe you do not have to go through the discovery process, Crystal, as plaintiff, will have to submit to being deposed by defendants' counsel.

January 10, 2018 at 9:25 AM


Hah! Give me a break! Crystal took the stand at her trial in her own defense, and the prosecutor never laid a glove on her. Crystal coolly and honestly answered all questions directed to her so aptly that it put the prosecutor on the defense. Surely she can handle a simple deposition. No prob, Baby."

The prosecutor never laid a glove on her?!!! Not according to your wacko-lyte Kenny. According to Kenn, the prosecutor landed a number of telling blows which Crystal's defense counsel never challenged.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Nither you nor Crystal understand the ramifications of Crystal being questioned by the defendants' attorneys if the case ever gets to the discovery phase, highly unlikely or more likely impossible, considering what A Lawyer has explained to you.

An issue you and Crystal have made in her case is, she was the victim of a sexual assault, a rape. How will she address all the inconsistencies in the case, the total lack of evidence she was ever raped. You say the case file is sealed. The AG's report is on line and I have given you the link.

You can claim that the AG sealed the case but, just like you have zero evidence Crystal was ever raped, you have zero evidence AG Cooper is withholding anything from the public. The only thing sealed is Crystal's mental health history.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You call this latest screed perpetuating the unproven as fact.

Establish as fact that Time Magazine intended to put Crystal on its person of the year cover.

If Crystal was not available for the photograph, then explain why the people at Time would not have photoshopped her image into the picture. It would be hard to believe they do not have people on the staff of their graphic artists who were capable of such a thing. I have a copy of that issue of Time with me, and the original cover does not include Crystal.

You are so flagrantly obvious when you try to promulgate a lie.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sidney, let's go through this again.

What you said:

"Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum."

If Time Magazine did actually intend that space for Crystal why then did Time Magazine, its graphic artists, not Photoshop her image into the space like you did?

I repeat I have a copy of that issue of Time in my house and have seen the actual coverr.

You are trying to perpetrate a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

If you read the preceding comment, you will respond with another attempt at perpetrating a fraud.

You will claim that the powers that be dissuaded Time from including Crystal os its Person of the Year cover.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Time's Person of the Year issue is dated December 28, 2018.

The article on the people of thee year begins on Page 34 and runs to page 71.

Where in that article is Crystal Mangum mentioned?

A Lawyer said...

Hah! Give me a break! Crystal took the stand at her trial in her own defense, and the prosecutor never laid a glove on her. Crystal coolly and honestly answered all questions directed to her so aptly that it put the prosecutor on the defense.

Mangum's performance on cross examination was abysmal. Had she taken Meyer's advice and not taken the stand, she would likely have been convicted of nothing worse than manslaughter. Her testimony is what resulted in her conviction for second degree murder.

kenhyderal said...

Crystal naively believed if she took the stand and truthfully told what happened to her there would no way her action would not be seen as self-defence. In the American Justice System Prosecutors are more concerned with winning a conviction than in seeking justice. It was easy to concoct a scenario to counter self-defence especially if there was no effect rebuttal. Court appointed Lawyers for indigent minority defendants often have no belief in their clients and only go through the motions of providing them with a proper defence; with little or no respect for them as persons. They know the pitfalls of having a client they see as a nuisance, cross-examined by an aggressive and determined prosecutor. It's something that would requires them to mount a strong defence. This requires effort and time. Meier put in little effort, did no investigations and was not allowed adequate time to prepare. Don't complicate the workload and keep them off the stand. They probably are guilty anyway or if not they are, as people, not worth the time and effort required and the poor compensation provided.

Anonymous said...

Same old Bullsshit bullshit from Kenhyderal:

"Crystal naively believed if she took the stand and truthfully told what happened to her there would no way her action would not be seen as self-defence."

The evidence presented by the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not tell the truth, just like she did not tell the truth when she accused innocent men of raping her.

"In the American Justice System Prosecutors are more concerned with winning a conviction than in seeking justice."

Which corrupt DA Nifong more than adequately demonstrated.


"It was easy to concoct a scenario to counter self-defence especially if there was no effect rebuttal. Court appointed Lawyers for indigent minority defendants often have no belief in their clients and only go through the motions of providing them with a proper defence; with little or no respect for them as persons."

Kenny, you argued that other possible explanations exist which explain the findings at the crime scene, and that these other possible explanations should have raised reasonable doubt. Wrong. If Crystal presents an alternate explanation, she has the burden of proof to prove the alternate explanation. It is like Reade Seligman presenting his alibi and having to prove it(and he could, which is why corrupt Nifong did not want to hear, why corrupt Nifong tried to intimidate Moez Elmostafa into changing his story which ws proof of Reade Seligman's alibi).

They know the pitfalls of having a client they see as a nuisance, cross-examined by an aggressive and determined prosecutor. It's something that would requires them to mount a strong defence."

I guess you never read Sidney's earlier post claiming Crystal performed extremely well when examined by the DA.

"This requires effort and time. Meier put in little effort, did no investigations and was not allowed adequate time to prepare."

Meier was put in that situation by Crystal, who refused to cooperate with her court appointed attorneys, and by Sidney's interference in the case. It is like someone who kills his parents and then says, have mercy on me because I am an orphan.

"Don't complicate the workload and keep them off the stand. They probably are guilty anyway or if not they are, as people, not worth the time and effort required and the poor compensation provided."

Which is another way of saying your favorite murderess/false accuseer should have gotten a pass for her cries because she is black.

guiowen said...

Oh, Kenny just likes to whine.

kenhyderal said...

To Guiowen, anybody who presents an opinion, different than the Duke Lacrosse metanarrative is whining and anyone speaking out against an American justice system, in total disrepute, favoring only those with power and privilege and denying equal justice to all is also a whiner.

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

Dr. A. Says: Kenny, you argued that other possible explanations exist which explain the findings at the crime scene, and that these other possible explanations should have raised reasonable doubt. Wrong. If Crystal presents an alternate explanation, she has the burden of proof to prove the alternate explanation.................... Huh? No, it's the state who must prove their case. Crystal should have been given the benefit of reasonable doubt. Anyone who claims there is no possibility Crystal acted in self-defence is unreasonably biased or, as in this case, they have only heard the prosecutions version. A well prepared defence could have easily presented reasonable alternate explanations for evidence found at the scene. No direct witnesses. He said, in his unexamined statement accepted at face value and un-dissected by Meier vs. she said on the stand under oath with the benefit of doubt properly accruing to her.

Anonymous said...

More of Kenhyderal's Bullshit:

"To Guiowen, anybody who presents an opinion, different than the Duke Lacrosse metanarrative is whining and anyone speaking out against an American justice system, in total disrepute, favoring only those with power and privilege and denying equal justice to all is also a whiner."

The only metanarrative in the Duke Rape Hoax was that Crystal was raped by Caucasian men from well to do families.

Presuming innocent men guilty or a racially motivated crime in the face of zero evidence the crime ever happened is not just a different opinion but guilt presuming racism.

guiowen said...

Kenny,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining? I'm willing to forgive your racism, if you'll only stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Even more of Kenhyderal's Bullshit:

:Dr. A. Says: Kenny, you argued that other possible explanations exist which explain the findings at the crime scene, and that these other possible explanations should have raised reasonable doubt. Wrong. If Crystal presents an alternate explanation, she has the burden of proof to prove the alternate explanation.................... Huh?
No, it's the state who must prove their case."

And the state did, regardless of your racist guilt presuming other opinion to the contrary. We are talking here about an affirmative defense. In an Affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of proof, e.g. Reade Seligman's alibi. Reade Seligman had to provide evidence to establish his alibi. According to you, once Crystal offered an alternative explanation that should have established self defense.

"Crystal should have been given the benefit of reasonable doubt."

There was no reasonable doubt. How can totally unreasonable people like you and Sidney establish reasonable doubt?

"Anyone who claims there is no possibility Crystal acted in self-defence is unreasonably biased or, as in this case, they have only heard the prosecutions version."

No one claimed there was no possibility of self defense. The claim is that the evidence presented showed there was no self defense. Drystal's claims that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic or that he had a habit of throwing knives, unsupported by any evidence do not establish self defense. So far as Reginald Daye throwing knives, the only knife which had his DNA, I have read, was the knife with which Crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon.

"A well prepared defence could have easily presented reasonable alternate explanations for evidence found at the scene. No direct witnesses. He said, in his unexamined statement accepted at face value and un-dissected by Meier vs. she said on the stand under oath with the benefit of doubt properly accruing to her."

Again you are wrong. It is not enough to present any alternate explanations, even if considered reasonable, have to be supported by evidence, e.g. Reade Seligman's alibi, that he was not present in the party house at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened. And how was anyone going to cross examine Reginald Daye after he had been murdered. Again, and the legal experts might weigh in, in an affirmative defense the defense has to prove the alternative defense it brings up.

Finally, the obligation of the Prosecution has to prove its case does not add up to, any alternative explanation the defendant offers has to be taken at face value.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Here is a quote from this site:https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

"How Defendants Prove Affirmative Defenses
An affirmative defense of self-defense, or any other affirmative defense, doesn’t just present itself. While a criminal defendant may decide to offer no evidence during trial, hoping the prosecution will fail to meet its burden, this approach won’t work if the defendant has an affirmative defense. The defendant must offer proof at trial supporting the affirmative defense, meeting the standard of proof set by state law (usually a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser standard than the prosecution’s). If the jury concludes that, for example, a preponderance of the evidence supports the defendant’s claim of self-defense, it must acquit.

Some commentators have criticized imposing upon a criminal defendant a proof standard higher than just raising a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s case. For example, the Model Penal Code developed by the American Law Institute proposes that a criminal defendant’s evidence supporting his affirmative defense need only raise a reasonable doubt as to culpability. But the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws requiring defendants to prove affirmative defenses.

Defendants usually offer an affirmative defense only when they have more or less conceded that the prosecution can prove all of the elements of the crime. (A vigorous disputing of the prosecutor’s case in chief may not go down too well when the defendant proceeds to offer an affirmative defense. There’s a reason why the old line, taken from a closing argument, elicits laughter: “Ladies and gentlemen, you must acquit! My client wasn’t there! If he was there, he didn’t mean to do it! If he was there and meant to do it, he’s crazy!”)"

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Consider this:

If your attitude towards Crystal's claim to self defense applied to Reade Seligman, then Reade Seligman would never have been subjected to prosecution. Your attitude towards Crystal IS, she claimed self defense, and that claim should have been accepted at face value and she should have been acquitted. If that were true, then once Reade Seligman's attorneys told Nifong, Reade had an alibi, he was not present at the crime scene at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened, then Nifong should have accepted that at face value and then dismissed all charges against him.

Crystal's claim was self defense, and that COULD explain the facts. That does not, in and of itself, raise any reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's case. Crystal did assume the obligation to provide evidence she did act in self defense. She did get on the stand, declining her right not to testify. You rant and rave about the Prosecutor's cross examination. It is a part of the US judicial system that if a defendant declines to testify on his/her own behalf, then whatever he/she says can be used against him. Crystal had no right to avoid cross examination.

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "Is there any way we can get you to stop whining? I'm willing to forgive your racism, if you'll only stop whining"................................. Racist? Against what race?

Anonymous said...

Sidney at this point I think you should help Mangum with multiple civil suits so as that when Mangum does get out of jail, you and she will be in the money. You do have a suit now that only asks for 25K, that is not enough. So, based on your Sharlogs to date you should file:

1.) Civil suit against Roy Cooper and the state of NC, proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted. I would start with the DNA found in the rape kit. If this wins, then you are open to re-opening the sexual assault case against those that you proved sexually assaulted Mangum.
2.) Civil suit against Duke University also proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted.

The DNA is key here. Who does it belong to?

I would go for 10 million for each suit. Right now you are just grasping at straws and not getting anywhere. Using the #metoo approach just is not going to work.

guiowen said...

Kenny,
You are clearly racist. All you do is whine about how badly all whites treat you and Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Yet more bullshit from Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: 'Is there any way we can get you to stop whining? I'm willing to forgive your racism, if you'll only stop whining'................................. Racist? Against what race?"

Let's go through this again. When I challenged you repeatedly to prove Crystal had been raped, your response was, you do not need proof because you trusted Crystal.

I then directed you to the Scottsboro boys and pointed out that the white(they do not deserve respect because they were racist) men who persecuted the Scottsboro boys believed the white women who accused them.

Your attitude towards the innocent Caucasian men who were falsely accused of raping Crystal is the same kind of attitude the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys had.

Your attitude IS racist, and it is directed against Caucasian men whom you dislike because they are more accomplished than you are and who are better off than you are.

kenhyderal said...

Racially obsessed Dr. Anonymous said: "Your attitude IS racist, and it is directed against Caucasian men whom you dislike because they are more accomplished than you are and who are better off than you are.".......................... But some of my best friends are Ethiopians.(¡¿)

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "All you do is whine about how badly all whites treat you"....................Give an example. No, I can defend myself against bullies. I will, however, speak out against cowards who abuse the vulnerable.

guiowen said...

HO, ho, ho! Kenhyderal, you are a card!

Anonymous said...

Kenhyuderal:

"Racially obsessed Dr. Anonymous said: "Your attitude IS racist, and it is directed against Caucasian men whom you dislike because they are more accomplished than you are and who are better off than you are.".......................... But some of my best friends are Ethiopians.(¡¿)"

Does not change the fact that your attitude towards the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players is as racist as the attitude of the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys.

Anonymous said...

Yet more bullshit from Kenhydral:

"Guiowen said: "All you do is whine about how badly all whites treat you"....................Give an example. No, I can defend myself against bullies. I will, however, speak out against cowards who abuse the vulnerable."

If you are referring to the Duke Rape Hoax, presuming innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened, is hardly speaking out for the abused and vulnerable.

Because you trust a woman with a years long history of criminal and violent behavior does not establish you as an advocate for the abused and vulnerable.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A. said: "presuming (innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened-iyo), is hardly speaking out for the abused and vulnerable"........................Oh those poor marginalized and vulnerable Duke Lacrosse Players; who will stand up for them against such oppression?

guiowen said...

Another racist comment from the master racist!

Anonymous said...

Yet more bullshit from Racist Kenhyderal, more evidence he resents the Lacrosse team members because they are more acoomplished and better off than he is:

"Dr. A. said: "presuming (innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened-iyo), is hardly speaking out for the abused and vulnerable"........................Oh those poor marginalized and vulnerable Duke Lacrosse Players; who will stand up for them against such oppression?"

Kenny, PROVE thae members of Duke's 2006 Lacrosse team perpetrated any crime against Crystal. Your guilt presuming racism does not establish anything other than your own prejudices.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, you will probably claim again that there was an open and shut case against members of the Lacrosse team for stealing Crystal's money.

Well, in her statement to the police, Crystal never mentioned her money.

Considering the legal speculations in which you indulge, your legal opinions have as much significance as Hitler's opinions about the Jewish and Slavic peoples. Heil Kenny.

You again show you are the moral equivalent of a deaf blind man who claims he sees and hears everything better than anyone else.

Anonymous said...

The Duke lacrosse case has been over for more than 10 years. It is closed. Nothing will change that, or the conclusion that Crystal lied about being raped.

Attempting to rewrite the history of that case is pointless and does nothing to help Crystal in her current predicament. It's also poor advocacy. All it does is remind people of Crystal's central role in the case and that she is not a good person or someone who can be trusted to tell the truth. The ridiculous arguments used to advance claim that Crystal was raped and is a victim of some injustice (other than the one she attempted to perpetrate) persuade no one and undermine the credibility of those making such claims.

Sid and kenny have been trying to show for over ten years that someone at the lacrosse party did something to Crystal, using ad hominem attacks, insults, outright fabrication and myriad other fallacious arguments. In all that time they have persuaded absolutely no one. After ten years of trying the same thing over and over again and failing, most people would consider a different approach. However, in Sid and kenny's case, I think they should keep trying what they have been doing. It makes them easy to spot and insures that no one in a position of authority will ever take them or anything they say seriously.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Duke lacrosse case has been over for more than 10 years. It is closed. Nothing will change that, or the conclusion that Crystal lied about being raped.

Attempting to rewrite the history of that case is pointless and does nothing to help Crystal in her current predicament. It's also poor advocacy. All it does is remind people of Crystal's central role in the case and that she is not a good person or someone who can be trusted to tell the truth. The ridiculous arguments used to advance claim that Crystal was raped and is a victim of some injustice (other than the one she attempted to perpetrate) persuade no one and undermine the credibility of those making such claims.

Sid and kenny have been trying to show for over ten years that someone at the lacrosse party did something to Crystal, using ad hominem attacks, insults, outright fabrication and myriad other fallacious arguments. In all that time they have persuaded absolutely no one. After ten years of trying the same thing over and over again and failing, most people would consider a different approach. However, in Sid and kenny's case, I think they should keep trying what they have been doing. It makes them easy to spot and insures that no one in a position of authority will ever take them or anything they say seriously.

January 15, 2018 at 6:58 AM


Hey, Anony.

With knowledge gained, history is often revised for the sake of accuracy. The truth of the Mangum saga, is one that has been thus far recorded by real-time historians... news reporters. Unfortunately, the coverage on Crystal Mangum has been slanted at her disadvantage since the Duke Lacrosse case. With time, the truths of her case will be known and the current historical views will be revisited and sown with facts. Be patient, Anony.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney at this point I think you should help Mangum with multiple civil suits so as that when Mangum does get out of jail, you and she will be in the money. You do have a suit now that only asks for 25K, that is not enough. So, based on your Sharlogs to date you should file:

1.) Civil suit against Roy Cooper and the state of NC, proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted. I would start with the DNA found in the rape kit. If this wins, then you are open to re-opening the sexual assault case against those that you proved sexually assaulted Mangum.
2.) Civil suit against Duke University also proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted.

The DNA is key here. Who does it belong to?

I would go for 10 million for each suit. Right now you are just grasping at straws and not getting anywhere. Using the #metoo approach just is not going to work.
January 14, 2018 at 9:15 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the advice, but the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case was a criminal case that was dismissed, so, unlike the O.J. Simpson case where the Brown and Goldman families prevailed in a civil suit, I do not feel that that is the way to go... especially with the adverse sentiment towards Ms. Mangum.

I believe that she is best off addressing the current case for which she is incarcerated. First it is factually flawed. She undoubtedly will prevail, I believe... which will lead to her freedom and exoneration, and ability to reunite with her family. That's what she wants most. As her story becomes known, it will become evident to the public that she was a victim of the #MeToo movement with opinions changing diametrically about her and Mike Nifong.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hah! Give me a break! Crystal took the stand at her trial in her own defense, and the prosecutor never laid a glove on her. Crystal coolly and honestly answered all questions directed to her so aptly that it put the prosecutor on the defense.

Mangum's performance on cross examination was abysmal. Had she taken Meyer's advice and not taken the stand, she would likely have been convicted of nothing worse than manslaughter. Her testimony is what resulted in her conviction for second degree murder.

January 13, 2018 at 8:22 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Shirley you jest. Crystal Mangum did a magnificent job on cross-examination. It's a shame that her attorney Daniel Meier forced her to give testimony that steered clear of the medical issues.

The majority of questions posed by the prosecutor were leading questions laying out the prosecution scenario to which Mangum merely responded "No." The jury's guilty verdict was, for all intents and purposes, preordained with a jury heavily weighted by Duke University surrogates. Mangum came across as credible while the prosecutor was clearly flustered.

That Crystal only helped herself by taking the stand is crystal clear.

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "Another racist comment from the master racist!".........................Do you have even the slightest idea what racism is? I suggest you educate yourself on this evil. If you have never experienced it you'll need a degree of empathy, something, it appears, judging from your cruel and frequent sarcasm, you are bereft of.

Anonymous said...


Sid rationalized:

"With knowledge gained, history is often revised for the sake of accuracy. The truth of the Mangum saga, is one that has been thus far recorded by real-time historians... news reporters. Unfortunately, the coverage on Crystal Mangum has been slanted at her disadvantage since the Duke Lacrosse case. With time, the truths of her case will be known and the current historical views will be revisited and sown with facts. Be patient, Anony"

I agree that Mangum's saga was originally recorded by "real-time historians" or, as you call them, news reporters. Their coverage was, for the most part, sensationalistic, highly inaccurate and extremely biased and prejudicial. However, the passage of time has not been kind to Mangum. The farther removed we get from the events and initial media coverage of the case (and the early hysteria is replaced by an objective examination of the facts), the more obvious it is that Mangum was not the victim of any crime and the worse her conduct looks.

Whether you agree with the outcome or not, the book is closed on the lacrosse case. Continuing to remind people of Mangum's role in it and reinforcing that she was the false accuser who lied about being raped does not help Mangum or you. Moreover, it is not relevant to Mangum's current predicament. She doesn't get a pass on murdering Mr. Daye because you claim she was raped in 2006. Every time you identify her as the false accuser in the lacrosse case you damage her reputation and diminish your effectiveness as an advocate.

Let me put it another way. We should be able to agree that virtually everyone who followed the Duke lacrosse case believes Mangum lied about being raped and that the charges and prosecution was unjust, improper and unethical.

In advocating for someone, it is never a good idea to start by alleging things that most of the people you hope to persuade find provably false and offensive. Especially when they aren't germane to the issue you are advocating. That's just plain stupid.

A smart, schooled, effective advocate would say. "No matter what you think about the lacrosse case and Mangum's role in it, she is entitled to a presumption of innocence in the Daye case. I believe she is innocent of murdering Mr. Daye and here is why . . ." That way, you have a chance of persuading people who believe she lied about being raped, instead of turning them against you and her before you even have a chance to make your case.

But, as has been noted:

1. You do not seem to be capable of learning from your past experiences, and
2. With friends like you and kenny, Mangum does not need enemies.

So, keep doing what you have been doing and enjoy the results.

Anonymous said...

Sid fantasized:

"Crystal Mangum did a magnificent job on cross-examination. It's a shame that her attorney Daniel Meier forced her to give testimony that steered clear of the medical issues."

What medical testimony do you believe Mangum was qualified to give?

Sid also observed:

"The majority of questions posed by the prosecutor were leading questions laying out the prosecution scenario . . ."

That is what cross examination is. A trained, experienced attorney knows this and would know the hazards that Mangum subjected herself to when she decided to testify on her own behalf. Bad decisions have bad consequences.

Anonymous said...

More Bullshit from Sidney:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Duke lacrosse case has been over for more than 10 years. It is closed. Nothing will change that, or the conclusion that Crystal lied about being raped.

Attempting to rewrite the history of that case is pointless and does nothing to help Crystal in her current predicament. It's also poor advocacy. All it does is remind people of Crystal's central role in the case and that she is not a good person or someone who can be trusted to tell the truth. The ridiculous arguments used to advance claim that Crystal was raped and is a victim of some injustice (other than the one she attempted to perpetrate) persuade no one and undermine the credibility of those making such claims.

Sid and kenny have been trying to show for over ten years that someone at the lacrosse party did something to Crystal, using ad hominem attacks, insults, outright fabrication and myriad other fallacious arguments. In all that time they have persuaded absolutely no one. After ten years of trying the same thing over and over again and failing, most people would consider a different approach. However, in Sid and kenny's case, I think they should keep trying what they have been doing. It makes them easy to spot and insures that no one in a position of authority will ever take them or anything they say seriously.

January 15, 2018 at 6:58 AM


Hey, Anony.

"With knowledge gained, history is often revised for the sake of accuracy. The truth of the Mangum saga, is one that has been thus far recorded by real-time historians... news reporters. Unfortunately, the coverage on Crystal Mangum has been slanted at her disadvantage since the Duke Lacrosse case. With time, the truths of her case will be known and the current historical views will be revisited and sown with facts. Be patient, Anony."

Not by a guilt presuming racist like you. Look how many times you have tried and failed to pass off lies as truth.

Anonymous said...

Yet more bullshit from Sidney:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney at this point I think you should help Mangum with multiple civil suits so as that when Mangum does get out of jail, you and she will be in the money. You do have a suit now that only asks for 25K, that is not enough. So, based on your Sharlogs to date you should file:

1.) Civil suit against Roy Cooper and the state of NC, proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted. I would start with the DNA found in the rape kit. If this wins, then you are open to re-opening the sexual assault case against those that you proved sexually assaulted Mangum.
2.) Civil suit against Duke University also proving that Mangum was sexually assaulted.

The DNA is key here. Who does it belong to?

I would go for 10 million for each suit. Right now you are just grasping at straws and not getting anywhere. Using the #metoo approach just is not going to work.
January 14, 2018 at 9:15 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the advice, but the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case was a criminal case that was dismissed, so, unlike the O.J. Simpson case where the Brown and Goldman families prevailed in a civil suit, I do not feel that that is the way to go... especially with the adverse sentiment towards Ms. Mangum.

I believe that she is best off addressing the current case for which she is incarcerated. First it is factually flawed. She undoubtedly will prevail, I believe... which will lead to her freedom and exoneration, and ability to reunite with her family. That's what she wants most. As her story becomes known, it will become evident to the public that she was a victim of the #MeToo movement with opinions changing diametrically about her and Mike Nifong."

Crystal was never a victim of anything like what set off the #MeToo movement. She was a liar and a false accuser.

And this latest bit of bullshit is but an admission that Crystal would never prevail in a civil suit, especially with someone so ill informed about facts and the law like you thinking you are helping her.

Anonymous said...

Another round of bullshit from Sidney:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hah! Give me a break! Crystal took the stand at her trial in her own defense, and the prosecutor never laid a glove on her. Crystal coolly and honestly answered all questions directed to her so aptly that it put the prosecutor on the defense.

Mangum's performance on cross examination was abysmal. Had she taken Meyer's advice and not taken the stand, she would likely have been convicted of nothing worse than manslaughter. Her testimony is what resulted in her conviction for second degree murder.

January 13, 2018 at 8:22 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Shirley you jest. Crystal Mangum did a magnificent job on cross-examination. It's a shame that her attorney Daniel Meier forced her to give testimony that steered clear of the medical issues."

You again manifest your delusional megalomania and total lack of comprehension of legal matters. more than you Crystal has no semblance to a Medical expert, and your semblance to a medical expert is like the semblance of a lightning bug to lightning.

"The majority of questions posed by the prosecutor were leading questions laying out the prosecution scenario to which Mangum merely responded "No." The jury's guilty verdict was, for all intents and purposes, preordained with a jury heavily weighted by Duke University surrogates. Mangum came across as credible while the prosecutor was clearly flustered."

More lies from Sidney.

"That Crystal only helped herself by taking the stand is crystal clear."

The only thing that is clear is, again, you have less than zero comprehension of legal issues.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: ", it is never a good idea to start by alleging things that most of the people you hope to persuade find provably false and offensive." .........................................Conventional wisdom is oft times dead wrong.

Anonymous said...

Latest bullshit from Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: ", it is never a good idea to start by alleging things that most of the people you hope to persuade find provably false and offensive." .........................................Conventional wisdom is oft times dead wrong."

You believe your deader than wrong belief that innocent men raped Crystal will not be resurrected by you trying to bullshit your way through and around facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism.

Why do you not want to explain why you have so much invested in believing that this women whom you claim you like and respect had been brutally gang raped. Why do you get such gratification in such a belief?

kenhyderal said...

The above revolting post says nothing about me but it does indicate where Dr. A.'s perverted mind dwells. Some rather disturbed projecting, perhaps??

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
So tell us how you define racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal spewing out more Bullshit:

"The above revolting post says nothing about me but it does indicate where Dr. A.'s perverted mind dwells. Some rather disturbed projecting, perhaps??'

Projection?

Why do you get such gratification out of believing Crystal, whom you supposedly like and respect, had been brutally raped.

You are the one insisting Crystal had been raped, not me.

Anonymous said...

More for Kenhyderal:

You dwell on presuming in the face of zero evidence that the crime of raping Crystal at the Lacrosse party ever happened, on believing innocent men committed said non crime. And you claim your thought process is not perverted.

In the words of your mentor Sidney HUH!!!

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism But let me add for your edification https://www.dailydot.com/via/reverse-racism-doesnt-exist/

guiowen said...

Kenny,
Anybody who dislikes other people merely because of their race is by definition a racist. That clearly makes you a racist.
Don't give me that daily.dot junk. Maybe you believe that; I don't. I doubt anyone around here, having seen your behavior over the past 7 years, believes that.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: Why do you get such gratification out of believing Crystal, whom you supposedly like and respect, had been brutally raped........................................................................... You, suggesting such a thing is repugnant. The product of a sick mind. That Crystal was raped caused me extreme distress. I will be gratified when the perpetrators are, in the words of The New York Post, named and shamed. And then prosecuted.

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen: What a crock. What makes you think I dislike people because of their race? I do, however, dislike rapists and those who exploit the vulnerable regardless of their ethnicity. That's a complete and utter "bum-rap"

guiowen said...

Kenny,
I think you've made it quite clear to all of us that you dislike people because of their race, and are quite willing to accuse them of crimes because of their race. Sorry I don't fall for your pretension of nobility.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

https://www.dailydot.com/via/reverse-racism-doesnt-exist/

Something like William Cohan's pseudo book on the Duke Rape Hoax, a wish that certain facts did not exist.

If Black on White racism did not exist, then Nifong would not have won the election for Durham county D by pandering to black on white racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: Why do you get such gratification out of believing Crystal, whom you supposedly like and respect, had been brutally raped........................................................................... You, suggesting such a thing is repugnant."

I am suggesting nothing. I am stating, repeat stating, I believe you are getting some kind of charge out of believing Crystal had been raped.

"The product of a sick mind. That Crystal was raped caused me extreme distress."

Sick mind? Again in the words of your mentor Sidney, HUH!!! You admit your belief that Crystal was raped is solely based on Crystal's allegation she had been raped, and you have admitted you can provide zero evidence she ever told the truth. A sick mind is a mid which believes innocent men should be summarily convicted of and imprisoned for a crime which never happened. I say again, your attitude is the same kind of vicious RACIST attitude held by the scum which persecuted the Scottsboro boys.

"I will be gratified when the perpetrators are, in the words of The New York Post, named and shamed. And then prosecuted."

You will never be gratified because there were no perpetrators.

Which may be why you get your gratification out of believing Crystal had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ Guiowen: What a crock. What makes you think I dislike people because of their race?"

(not Guiowen)Personally I think you dislike Caucasian people who are better off and more accomplished than you are. You obsess in believing certain innocent Caucasian men are rapists in the face of zero evidence that said rape, in which you so obsessively believe, never happened

"I do, however, dislike rapists and those who exploit the vulnerable regardless of their ethnicity."

So why do you obsess in condemning certain people of a different ethnicity for committing a rape which never happened. Explain how that is disliking rapists. I would say PROVE PROVR PROVE. just to have you come back a=gain and admit you have zero proof.

"That's a complete and utter 'bum-rap'"

Well the part you got right is that you are a bum, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Here is an example of how a sick mind works:

Your mentor Sidney, in an attempt to identify false rape accuser with the #MeToo movement phoroshops Crystal's image into Time's Person of rge Year cover, and then tries to claim Time intended to include Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

You say:
"I do, however, dislike rapists and those who exploit the vulnerable regardless of their ethnicity."

So explain why you do not focus any attention on convicted double rapist Michael Jermaine Burke, a Black man who raped a Duke coed at a fraternity party, was out on bail, then raped a second woman and then was allowed to plead to a lesser charge.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

The Michael Jermaine Burch(Iwas mistaken when I wrote Burke) cade has been referred to as the second Duke rape case of 2006, which is inaccurate.

What is called the Duke rape case was actually the Duke Rape HOAX!!! Ergo, the Michael Jermaine Burch rape case was the ONLY Duke rape case of 2006.

Anonymous said...

Again from Kenny:

"I do, however, dislike rapists and those who exploit the vulnerable regardless of their ethnicity."

So why do you support Crystal?

That description DOES NOT describe her, not at all.

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "I think you've made it quite clear to all of us that you dislike people because of their race, and are quite willing to accuse them of crimes because of their race" ........... Now who would "all of us" be? Other than you and the race obsessed Dr. Anonymous is there one identifiable poster who will concur with that contention? I think not so, I must conclude that it's a baseless ad hominem attack.

Anonymous said...

More Bulllshit from Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "I think you've made it quite clear to all of us that you dislike people because of their race, and are quite willing to accuse them of crimes because of their race" ........... Now who would "all of us" be? Other than you and the race obsessed Dr. Anonymous is there one identifiable poster who will concur with that contention? I think not so, I must conclude that it's a baseless ad hominem attack."

You conclude that because you do not like facing the truth about yourself.

kenhyderal said...

D r. A. Said: "So why do you support Crystal? That description DOES NOT describe her, not at all".................................Oh so, all-powerful Crystal is a predator and the Duke Lacrosse choirboys, sons of power and privilege, are the vulnerable ones is that it?

guiowen said...

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

.........
So explain why you do not focus any attention on convicted double rapist Michael Jermaine Burke, a Black man who raped a Duke coed at a fraternity party, was out on bail, then raped a second woman and then was allowed to plead to a lesser charge.

guiowen said...

Quite simply, because Kenny is a racist.

Anonymous said...

Stupidity from Kenhyderal:

"D r. A. Said: "So why do you support Crystal? That description DOES NOT describe her, not at all".................................Ohhh so, all-powerful Crystal is a predator and the Duke Lacrosse choirboys, sons of power and privilege, are the vulnerable ones is that it?"

Kenny, PROVE Crystal was a rape victim. Saying you trust her is ducking and dodging the truth, that Crystal lied about being raped.

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen : I have no idea who Michael Jermaine Burke is and I have no reason to find out or to focus any attention on this case. If he is guilty of rape then I denounce him and I empathize with his victims.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
You know very well it's Burch, not Burke. Don't play the disingenuous game with me.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ Guiowen : I have no idea who Michael Jermaine Burke is and I have no reason to find out or to focus any attention on this case. If he is guilty of rape then I denounce him and I empathize with his victims."

Evidence that Kenny remains willfully ignorant of =facts he does not like.

He also states, although he probably did not intend to, that he considers a false rape allegation by a black woman against Caucasian men is more significant than an actual rapes perpetated by a black man.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

When you say you denounce all rapists and then you accuse, without any evidence that the crime ever happened, without evidence the accuser ever told the truth, innocent men of perpetrating a rape against a woman about whom you have a thing, you are a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I have no idea who Michael Jermaine Burke...If [Michael Jermaine Burch] is guilty of rape then I denounce him and I empathize with his victims."

If you did not willfully trun a blind eye to facts you do not like you would have learned that Michael Jermaine Burch was not guilty to rape because he was allowed to plead to a lesser charge, which was a de facto admission of guilt. You yourself have said that people accept plea deals because they are guilty.

kenhyderal said...

Dr.A. said: "He also states, although he probably did not intend to, that he considers a false rape allegation by a black woman against Caucasian men is more significant than an actual rapes perpetated by a black man"..............................Where did I state that?

Anonymous said...

Evidence that Crystal lied about being raped. Sidney will claim that it has not been proven that she lied or it has not been proven that the Lacrosse players are innocent, forgetting the concept of guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt and presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In her written statement to the police, Crystal alleged three members of the Lacrosse team not using condoms penetrated her and ejaculated on her. If that was true, the DNA of members of the Lacrosse team would have been detected on the Rape kit. The only male DNA detected on the rape kit did not match the DNA of anyone on the Lacrosse team. That is incontrovertible evidence no one on the Lacrosse team ever raped Crystal, meaning Crystal lied.

Then, regarding Kim ROberts/Pittman. Crystal said in her police statement that Kim was aware that she had been dragged into the bathroom, and that she had told Kim that the men had hurt her, and she alleged that Kim told her she would drive her to a grocery parking lot and call the police. Kim did call 911 from her car, but not to report a rape but to report that while she and her black girlfriend were either walking or driving past the party house, people shouted N---er at them, not to report a rape. Then, after Kim drove her to the Grocery store parking lot, it was to have a security guard forcibly remove Crystal from her car. And when the police were finally called, it was to have Crystal forcibly removed from her car. More, rather strong evidence Crystal lied about being raped.

That Kenny trusts her says more that Kenny is deluded rather than any Lacrosse player ever raped Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Again trying to duck and dodge the truth:

"Dr.A. said: "He also states, although he probably did not intend to, that he considers a false rape allegation by a black woman against Caucasian men is more significant than an actual rapes perpetated by a black man"..............................Where did I state that?"

I never claimed you said that. I say, your attitude towards the Duke Rape HOAX and your lack of knowledge er attitude towards black rapist Michael Jermaine Burch indicates you thing a false allegation of rape against Caucasian men is more significant than a couple of actual rapes perpetrated by a black man.

Do you want us believe you comprehend what you are reading.

Again citing your mentor Sidney Harr: HAH!!!

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

If you say you do not have that attitude I have described, you are in denial.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A. said: "I never claimed you said that"........ Huh?? Let me quote you "HE ALSO STATES" Dr. A. also said "Do you want us believe you comprehend what you are reading".................. Sometimes it's difficult to comprehend your disjointed and contradictory postings. I don't necessarily believe all that I read, though.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
In fact, you have made it clear that you believe this. You don't actually have to state this; it's clear from all your comments.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "I never claimed you said that"........ Huh?? Let me quote you "HE ALSO STATES" Dr. A. also said "Do you want us believe you comprehend what you are reading".................. Sometimes it's difficult to comprehend your disjointed and contradictory postings. I don't necessarily believe all that I read, though."

You WON'T comprehend anything which does not mesh with your guilt presuming racism and your delusion that you are standing up for a helpless rape victim. You are an apologist for a vctimizer/false accuser.

guiowen said...

Don't worry, Kenny: most of us believe that you don't believe half of what you say.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

In the face of zero evidence, what makes you so certain Crystal was raped?

kenhyderal said...

The presence of DNA, extracted from sperm and unidentified by her consensual sex history which I believe to be complete.

guillermo owen said...

For goodness sake, Kenny, you know very well that none of her customers were tested for DNA. Don't try to pull this over on us: we're wise to you.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"The presence of DNA, extracted from sperm and unidentified by her consensual sex history"

Said DNA did not match the DNA of the men Crystal identified as her attackers. Why did that happen?

How do you establish that the DNA was deposited on Crystal's person during the Lacrosse party.
'
We have been over this before, but let's do it again so you can show the world what a fool you are. Why did Dr. Manley not do a wet mount on the whitish fluid she saw in rystal's Genital tract. I again refer you to what I posted regarding the Scottsboro boys. A physician examined the accusers and did find semen on their persons but found no motile sperm, which showed said semen could not have been deposited at the time they alleged they had been raped. As no motile sperm was identified, even if the fluid was semen, there was nothing to document it had been deposited at the party.

Then we come to the fact that the rape kit tested negative for alkaline phosphatase. As you have stated, alkaline phosphatase deposited in semen can degrade. At the time the rape kit materials were taken, it is unlikely that alkaline phosphatase would not have been detected. The failure to detect alkaline phosphatase is something which indicates, again, the male DNA found on Crystal's rape kit was not deposited at the party. It was not deposited after the party. What is left is that the DNA was deposited before the party.

"which I believe to be complete."

What you believe is irrelevant. It does not add up to evidence. So, once again you dodge the issue, in the face of zero evidence why do you believe Crystal had been raped?

kenhyderal said...

@ Guillermo: Crystal did not have customers. They were clients of the agency she worked for. Only one of which fell within a relevant time frame. That person denied any sexual contact but without a warrant declined to provide his DNA. All of the clients she saw provided names to the agency and in most cases credit cards. It would have been easy enough to track them provided, unless unlike Dan Flannery, they provided their real names.

Anonymous said...

So you're not even certain about their names, but you say the history is complete?

kenhyderal said...

Names or aliases and most certainly venues.( eg. phoney Dan Flannigan, 610 N Buchannan Blvd.) There was no problem finding the one client who fell into the relevant time frame.

Anonymous said...

more bullshit from Kenhyderal, the apologist for a victimizer/rape false accuser:

"@ Guillermo: Crystal did not have customers. They were clients of the agency she worked for. Only one of which fell within a relevant time frame. That person denied any sexual contact but without a warrant declined to provide his DNA."

Which would suggest he had an ulterior motive to be identified as a client of Crystal. How would you have reacted if his DNA did match some of the male DNA found on Crystal?

"All of the clients she saw provided names to the agency and in most cases credit cards. It would have been easy enough to track them provided, unless unlike Dan Flannery, they provided their real names."

You have no evidence Dan Flannery ever gave a phony name. And all this is irrelevant because there is no evidence that the DNA found on Crystal's rape kit was deposited on her person at the Lacrosse party.

Anonymous said...

Yet more bulshit from Kenhyderal, the apologixt for a victimiizer/false rape accuser/murderess.

"Names or aliases and most certainly venues.( eg. phoney Dan Flannigan, 610 N Buchannan Blvd.) There was no problem finding the one client who fell into the relevant time frame."

Maybe you are referring to someone using an alias when they called an agency to hire strippers for the Lacrosse party. How does that translate into evidence that Crystal was raped?

And how does that stack up against the total lack of evidence that any crime ever happened, the total lack of evidence that Crystal ever told the truth, the total lack of evidence that there were unidentified party attendees?

Anonymous said...

More for Kenny, the apologist for victimizer/false accuser/murderess Crystal:

Since you are so into aliases, that the one identified client of Crystal maybe did not want to have his DNA tested because he did not want to be identified as a client of Crystal for sex, meaning maybe he would have been embarrassed, just like someone would be embarrassed about hiring strippers. Embarrassment is not a crime, nor is it evidence of a crime.

Except in the mind of a guilt presuming racist.

kenhyderal said...

Once again, Crystal did not have clients. She was booked by her agency to give their clients erotic entertainment performances.

Anonymous said...

Kenny claims: Once again, Crystal did not have clients. She was booked by her agency to give their clients erotic entertainment performances.

Kenny, the title of this blog is "Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact." If you listen to the blog, you will find that Sidney does NOT support stating unproven claim s as facts.

Are you implicitly telling Sidney that he is wrong?

Anonymous said...

More diversionary posting by Kenhyderal:

"Once again, Crystal did not have clients. She was booked by her agency to give their clients erotic entertainment performances."

What does that have to do with the FACT that there is zero evidence the male DNA found on Crystal, after she alleged rape at the Lacrosse party, was deposited on her person at the Lacrosse Party?

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A Said: " Kenny, the title of this blog is "Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact." If you listen to the blog, you will find that Sidney does NOT support stating unproven claim s as facts"............... But you do. One of the many things you Duke Lacrosse Apologists, like to perpetuate as a fact is that Crystal either engaged in prostitution or lied about her consensual sexual history. Facts are facts. There is no such thing as alternative facts. Inferring from the facts is a matter of opinion. You do it and I do it and my inferences are just as valid as yours.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A. Said: "What does that have to do with the FACT that there is zero evidence the male DNA found on Crystal, after she alleged rape at the Lacrosse party, was deposited on her person at the Lacrosse Party?"..................And the converse is also a Fact; i.e. there is zero evidence that it was not. The evidence was that DNA extracted from sperm was found. The evidence was that Dr. Manly observed a whitish fluid on Crystal's person, she assumed to be semen. I infer it was semen. Duke Lacrosse Apologists infer it was an exudate from some unidentified vaginal infection. Can we agree on what are facts and what are opinions.

Anonymous said...

More bullshit from Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A Said: 'Kenny, the title of this blog is "Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact.'

Wrong Kenny. I did not post that.

"'If you listen to the blog, you will find that Sidney does NOT support stating unproven claim s as facts'............... But you do. One of the many things you Duke Lacrosse Apologists,"

So again said Kenny, the apologist for Crystal, the victimizer'false accuser in the Duke Rape HOAX9and those are proven facts) and a murderess(which is also a proven fact),

"like to perpetuate as a fact is that Crystal either engaged in prostitution"

There is and always has been credible evidence that she did engage in prostitution, unlike the situation of your claim that Crystal was raped, of which you have admitted you have no credible evidence.

"or lied about her consensual sexual history."

The issue is whether or not she gave a COMPLETE sexual history, and that is irrelevant in view of the FACT that there is zero evidence that the DNA found on her had been deposited at the Lacrosse party.

"Facts are facts."

Something of which neither you nor Sidney are actually aware, considering your joint propensity to put forth allegations for which you have zero evidence as proven facts.

"There is no such thing as alternative facts."

So you say but you DO try to put forth alternate explanations unsupported by any facts as facts.

"Inferring from the facts is a matter of opinion. You do it and I do it and my inferences are just as valid as yours."

No they are not because you have zero facts to support your inferences.

Anonymous said...

Part 1 of;

Yet another attempt by Kenny to bullshit his way around and through FACTS which do note mesh with his guilt presuming racism:

"'Dr. A. Said: "What does that have to do with the FACT that there is zero evidence the male DNA found on Crystal, after she alleged rape at the Lacrosse party, was deposited on her person at the Lacrosse Party?'................."

Yes I did post that. In view of your assertion that you can always discern when I post something, this raises questions about your purported ability to discern facts.

"And the converse is also a Fact; i.e. there is zero evidence that it was not."

That is true, but consider this situation from post Viet Nam War. An American General said to a North Vietnamese General, you know you never defeated us on the battlefield. The North Vietnamese General replied, that is true, but it is also irrelevant. In the criminal justice system the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the defense is not required to disprove the prosecution's case. It had to be proven that the DNA had been deposited at the Lacrosse party, and since you do believe that said DNA came from unidentified party attendees, you have the obligation to provide proof, FACTS to prove your allegation. You are not and have never been able to provide any facts to prove your allegation, which means your allegation is nothing more than guilt presumption. Parenthetically, regarding your "alternative explanations and reasonable doubt, raising the possibility of REASONABLE doubt does not happen by arguing there m=could be alternative explanations, and I have provided you with a reference to this. For an alternative explanation to raise reasonable doubt there must be factual evidence to support it, and you have provided zero factual evidence to support the alternative explanation you give.


Anonymous said...

Part 2 of;

Yet another attempt by Kenny to bullshit his way around and through FACTS which do note mesh with his guilt presuming racism:

"The evidence was that DNA extracted from sperm was found. The evidence was that Dr. Manly observed a whitish fluid on Crystal's person, she assumed to be semen. I infer it was semen. Duke Lacrosse Apologists(again from an apologist for a false rape accuser/victimizer/convicted murderess) infer it was an exudate from some unidentified vaginal infection. Can we agree on what are facts and what are opinions."

Yes we can.

Now, how about you agree that, without factual evidence it actually was semen(factual evidence would have been, Dr, Manley doing a wet mount and identifying motile sperm,-which you once referred to as "CYA medicine", which says you do not understand the concept of factual evidence-identifying motile sperm would not only have identified the fluid as semen but established as possibility it had been deposited at the party) and without factual evidence that, if it was semen, that it had been deposited at the Lacrosse party, it was not evidence of a rape at the party. The fact that Alkaline Phosphatase was not detected on the rape kit is evidence which says, if it was semen it had not been deposited at the party. You espouse nifongism, that exculpatory evidence should be excluded.

Of you agreeing to that I doubt since you can not see beyond your obsession with believing in the face of zero factual evidence that Crystal had been raped and beyond your guilt presuming racism.

Anonymous said...

One more for Kenny:

Says Kenny, DNA extracted from sperm was found on Crystal's rape kit.

Male DNA was found on Crystal's rape kit. So why would it be inculpatory evidence that DNA from sperm was found?

It would have been inculpatory had it been established if the Male DNA found on Crystal's rape kit had been deposited at the party.

And there is zero factual evidence that the male DNA found on Crystal had been deposited at the party.

So this is only more guilt presumption on your part. I infer from this that you believe that defendants you disike have no right to be presumed innocent when accused of a crime.

Anonymous said...

Addendum to above:

Kenny will come back with, it could have been.

Could have been is not factual evidence which establishes that the DNA was deposited at the party.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, regarding your argument, that the defense should have demonstrated other possible explanations for the factual evidence in the case, and that Crystal should not have been required to provide factual evidence to establish any possible explanation:

Suppose Charles Manson argued that there may have been other explanations to account for what happened in the Tate-LaBianca murders. Should that have been enough reasonable doubt that should have gotten him off. The answer is obviously no.

So why should Crystal have gotten off simply by suggesting alternate explanations for what happened to Reginad Daye?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderalian inconsistency:

First let's give Kenny the opportunity to say I put words in his mouth.

Kenny's attitude, as expressed by his words is, that Crystal's defense should have raised the issue of alternative explanations of what happened to Reginald Daye and that should have established reasonable doubt, and Crystal should have been acquitted, without having to provide factual evidence of any alternative explanation which would have impeached any prosecution evidence.

With regard to the Duke rape HOAX, Kenny's words indicate he believes in an alternative explanation, of why the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, of any of the men she accused of raping her. Kenny's explanation is that there were unidentified attendees at the Lacrosse party who raped Crystal, and that members of the Lacrosse team were complicit. What he calls evidence is that Crystal allleged she had been raped and that Kilgo told him a Lacrosse player told Kilgo that he had witnessed non Lacrosse player attendees raping Crystal. Kenny has presented zero factual evidence to establish his alternative explanation. His attitude is, his alternative explanation establishes probable cause to believe a crime, the rape of Crystal Mangum, had happened.

It again raises an issue, just why Kenny so fervently wants to believe Crystal had been raped. Call it projection if you will, Kenny, but you are the one insisting Crystal had been raped. I am not.

Anonymous said...

Harrian hypocrisy:

Sidney titles this blog entry as "Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact".

To prove something as fact one needs factual evidence.

To establish a crime one needs factual evidence that a crime happened. To convict anyone of a crime one must have factual evidence they were the perpetrators, and the factual evidence must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sidney does not dispute that he has zero factual evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal was raped. He tries the dodge, claiming, again with zero factual evidence, that the evidence was sealed by then Attorney General Roy Cooper, in spite of being told by knowledgeable people that the AG does not have the authority to seal the evidence. But Sidney says that no one has proven that Crystal ever lied, no one has ever proven the accused Lacrosse players were innocent, and that implies he does believe the Lacrosse players were guilty.

So maybe there is no factual evidence that the Lacrosse players are innocent, but that is totally irrelevant in the criminal justice system. Let's try some common sense. If there is no evidence establishing there was a crime, there is no factual evidence that the accused ever perpetrated the alleged crime, what else can they not be innocent?

To say that they are not innocent because they did not prove themselves innocent is presumption of guilt, which is not and never has been valid in the criminal justice system.

Anonymous said...

Correction of:

"what else can they not be innocent?"

I should have said, what else can they be but innocent?

Further clarification:

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

"Actual innocence is a state of affairs in which a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of the charges against them because he or she did not commit the crime accused."

Why does Sidney say the Lacrosse defendants are not innocent when there is zero evidence the alleged crime ever happened?

I remind Sidney that his claim, no one ever proved the Lacrosse Defendants were innocent is completely and totally irrelevant. What proved they were guilty?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Where in the justice system does it say that an accused defendant must prove himself/herself innocent?

Check this out: http://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/2-4-the-burden-of-proof/

"In general, the prosecution’s evidence must overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence, which the Constitution guarantees as due process of law (In re Winship, 2010). This fulfills the policy of criminal prosecutions, which is to punish the guilty, not the innocent. If even a slight chance exists that the defendant is innocent, the case most likely lacks convincing and credible evidence, and the trier of fact should acquit the defendant."

Which means(just ask any knowledgeable lawyer, something you have never done in your life) Nifong had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Crystal was telling the truth. Why do you harp upon, no one ever proved Crystal lied. Why do you think that has any legal weight, a term you like to bandy around.

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal:

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

"An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are SELF DEFENSE(emphasis added), insanity, and the statute of limitations.

Your argument was, even if you deny it, that because Crystal alleged self defense, that in and of itself was enough to establish reasonable doubt. How did Crystal prove she acted in self defense? You allege that Reginald Daye had a history of violence and that was not true. You allege that Reginald Daye had a hobby of throwing knives around, citing the multiple knives found in the apartment but you omit something pointed out to you that Reginald Daye's finger prints were not found on the knives, that the only knife which had any evidence of contact with Reginald Daye was the knife used to inflict the wound which killed him. You claim that Crystal used the mattress on the bed to shield herself but the investigators found the mattress had not been disturbed(then you revise your claim that Crystal only held up a corner of the mattress. Crystal did not make her case for self defense.

Anonymous said...

Well, Sidney, how about it?

Your repetition of no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped, what legal weight does that have? You like to bandy around the term "legal weight".

The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That means the prosecution has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth. You have claimed AG Cooper never proved Crystal lied. As the individual taking over the prosecution of Nifong's case, his obligation was to prove Crystal told the truth.

Unlike your boy Nifong, AG Cooper did do a thorough investigation of the case. Do not try the dodge that you have no access to the discovery file in the case. AG Cooper's report is available on line and details the investigation are accessible to anyone who wants to review them. Check out http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued. AG Cooper's investigation found there was zero evidence that the crime alleged by Crystal ever happened, which is why AG Cooper expressed his belief that the accused were innocent. It was not a proclamation, regardless of what was reported in the press. The legal definition of actual innocence is that the accused did not commit the crime of which they were accused. How could the Lacrosse defendants have committed a crime which never happened?

Answer the question Sidney. Either put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

This is for Kenny:

Why did Crystal not file a civil suit against the Lacrosse players after AG Coope's Press conference. Double Jeopardy prevents a second prosecution for a crime after the defendant has been acquitted. It does not preclude a civil suit, e.g. the Brown and Goldman families sued OJ Simpson for wrongful death. I have read that OJ offered an alibi defense and lost the suit because he could not prove his alibi. It gets back to, when Crystal claimed self defense she was obligated to prove she did act in self defense.

I did some research on civil suits. The plaintiff files a complaint. The defendant has to reply to the complaint, otherwise the defendant loses by default(Tawana Brawley lost the civil suit filed by Stephen Pagones because she defauled, not because the Justice system was stacke against her-if Race Baiter Al were really her friend, he had the resources to pay for legal representation for her, and he did not). Then the defendant has to provide evidence for his denial. So the defendant in a civil suit has an obligation to prove. If Crystal wanted to sue, any number of trial lawyers would have taken her case on a contingency fee basis, if she had a case. That she did not sue is evidence that she did not have a case. What evidence could Crystal have presented?

What the defense could have presented(that is if Crystal's lawsuit had gone to trial and it is extremely likely such a suit would have never gone to trial) the Defense could have presented the following: Crystal allege a rape in which multiple assailants had deposited their DNA on her; the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men she had accused; her identifications of David Evans, Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty were the product of an improperly conducted lineup; the whitish fluid observed in Crystal's genital tract was not properly documented to be semen; the fact that the Rape kit tested negative for Alkaline Phosphatase is evidence that, if the whitish fluid was actually semen, it had been deposited before the Lacrosse party.

To prevail Crystal would have had to impeach the evidence. I know, from experience as a plaintiff and as a defendant in personal injury suits, the plaintiff can not impeach the defendant's evidence by saying, these are possible alternative explanations for the defense's evidence. The plaintiff would have had to present facts that discredit the defendant's evidence.

What it all comes down to is, you have zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped. That you trust her is meaningless.

I say, you trust her because the people she accused have less melanin in their skin than you do, and you resent such people who are better off and more accomplished than you are.

Anonymous said...

For Sidney Harr:

I reviewed one of your posts from 7 years ago. In a couple of comments you said that the male DNA found of Crystal was not exculpatory. I believe you said it did not prove the Lacrosse defendants were innocent

I remind you again that in her statement to the police Crystal alleged she had been penetrated by multiple assailants who had deposited their DNA on her. Nifong had indicted for and charged with commission of the crime which Crystal had alleged. The DNA found on Crystal following the crime she had alleged did not match the DNA of the men Nifong wanted to try for the alleged crime. So explain why the DNA was not exculatory. Or are you going to take your usual stance, that you have proclaimed the DNA was not exculpatory and it was up to someone to prove it was.

It shows how delusional is your perception of the legal system is. Like Kenny, I say, you dislike people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do, especially those of whom are more accomplished and better off than you are. You can not comprehend the presumption of innocence, the prosecution's obligation to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning Nifong was obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the trutb.

So let's have some more Bullshiut from you and Kenny as you try to bullshit your way around any and all facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racist attitude.

Anonymous said...

One more for Sidney, and his delusion that the DNA found on Crystal was not exculpatory:

check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence:

"Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to EXONERATE(Emphasis added) the defendant of guilt."

I remind you, Crystal, in her statement to the police, alleged she had been raped by multiple assailants who had left their DNA on her.

In seeking the NTO, the Durham DA's office said the DNA evidence obtained would identify the perpetrators and EXONERATE the innocent.

The DNA evidence obtained did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had indicted for and charged with raping Crystal.

So how did the DNA evidence not EXONERATE the men Nifong had charged with the crime?

The relevance is, you have repeatedly claimed Crystal has been prosecuted in retaliation for her allegations of rape directed at well off men(who have less melanin in their skin than you do). That you repeatedly refer to Crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the "Duke Rape Case" shows you believe she had been raped. Your rather pathetic, blasphemous attempt to identify Crystal as part of he #MeToo movement, shows you believe she had been raped.

The evidence shows she lied.

Anonymous said...

FOr Kenny:

I again call you someone who resents people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do. Not exactly Caucasian but I hope you find it just as objectionable.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "I again call you someone who resents people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do. Not exactly Caucasian but I hope you find it just as objectionable.". ............................Huh???? Is that you Dr. Anonymous? This post is ignorant, incomprehensible, incoherent and frankly inhuman.

Anonymous said...

from Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "I again call you someone who resents people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do. Not exactly Caucasian but I hope you find it just as objectionable.". ............................Huh???? Is that you Dr. Anonymous? This post is ignorant, incomprehensible, incoherent and frankly inhuman."

Kenny said he could unerringly tell when Dr.Anonymous is posting. He has shown twice that he can not.

And he shows he does not like being called out for the racist he is.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

SSTEW STEW STEW STEW

Anonymous said...

KENNY LIKES TO THINK HE CAN HURL POPCORN AT SOMEONE FROM A RANGE OF 100 YARDS AND INTIMIDATE THEMM.

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

Anonymous said: "Kenny said he could unerringly tell when Dr.Anonymous is posting. He has shown twice that he can not."..............................I thought he was the only poster here, obsessed with race, who constantly suggests the superiority of those he terms Caucasians, a meaningless and anachronistic term and concept.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Kenny said he could unerringly tell when Dr.Anonymous is posting. He has shown twice that he can not."..............................I thought he was the only poster here, obsessed with race, who constantly suggests the superiority of those he terms Caucasians, a meaningless and anachronistic term and concept."

kenhyderal has been challenged to prove that Crystal had been raped. He has been challenged to provide evidence that Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

Kenhyderal's response was, he does not need proof, he trusts Crystal

It has been pointed out to him that his attitude towards the Duke Rape Hoax is the same kind of attitude the white persecutors of the Scottsboro boys towards the accusing witnesses in that case, they were white so we believe them.

That makes Kenny as racist as they were.

Kenny is obsessed with race but in alternative way. He is obsessed with denying what he is, a guilt presuming racist who directs his racism against certain human beings who do not have as much melanin in their skin as he does.

Anonymous said...

Here's another one for Kenny, who is so fond of alternative explanations:

Your buddy, the not at all great non entity who has styled himself as the great kilgo got very excited over the DNA found on Crystal's artificial fingernail which was consistent with but did ot match David Evans' DNA. kilgo thought it was evidence of a sexual assault. DNA Security said it was transference, it was found in a waste basket in the bathroom which contained material from the people who lived in the house, who included David Evans.

Sell, her is an alternative explanation to Kilgo's explanation. Crystal tried to persuade David Evans to pay her for sex and he refused. That would explain the DNA, and would be more credible than kilgo's assertion that finding DNA consistent with but not matching David Evans' DNA indicated David Evans did assault her. kilgo could never explain why DNA found on Crystal's false fingernail consistent with but not matching David Evans' DNA was evidence of a sexual assault, but the failure to find DNA on Crystal's person which matched David Evans' DNA did not prove David Evans had not committed a sexual assault on Crystal, especially in view of the fact that Crystal gave the police information which indicated her assailants had left their DNA on her.

Anonymous said...

What's the frequency, Kenneth?" is your Benzedrine, uh-huh
I was brain-dead, locked out, numb, not up to speed
I thought I'd pegged you an idiot's dream
Tunnel vision from the outsider's screen
I never understood the frequency, uh-huh
You wore our expectations like an armored suit, uh-huh

I'd studied your cartoons, radio, music, TV, movies, magazines
Walt said, "Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy"
A smile like the cartoon, tooth for a tooth
You said that irony was the shackles of youth
You wore a shirt of violent green, uh-huh
I never understood the frequency, uh-huh

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?" is your Benzedrine, uh-huh
Butterfly decal, rear-view mirror, dogging the scene
You smile like the cartoon, tooth for a tooth
You said that irony was the shackles of youth
You wore a shirt of violent green, uh-huh
I never understood the frequency, uh-huh

You wore our expectations like an armored suit, uh-huh
I couldn't understand
You said that irony was the shackles of youth, uh-huh
I couldn't understand
You wore a shirt of violent green, uh-huh
I couldn't understand
I never understood, don't fuck with me, uh-huh

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

@ Anonymous 11:14 - The person/persons who believes this kind of garbage is/are three centuries behind times. Judging and labeling people by color, black, white, red, brown, yellow; what a joke. Just for our edification, though, can you tell us who it is you consider to be what you call a Caucasian? Is Caucasian a euphemism for people with ancestry from the nations of Northern Europe? Are other places s**t-holes? And what's this garbage about those with more melanin resenting these so-called Caucasians because they are better off and more accomplished then they are? What a twisted, distorted view of humankind.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"The person/persons who believes this kind of garbage is/are three centuries behind times. Judging and labeling people by color, black, white, red, brown, yellow; what a joke. Just for our edification, though, can you tell us who it is you consider to be what you call a Caucasian? Is Caucasian a euphemism for people with ancestry from the nations of Northern Europe? Are other places s**t-holes? And what's this garbage about those with more melanin resenting these so-called Caucasians because they are better off and more accomplished then they are? What a twisted, distoreted view of humankind."

Kenny is decompensating because he does not want to confront the truth, that his favorite false accuser/vctimizer.murderess did not tell the truth when she alleged she had been raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

He bandies about the phrase Duke Lacrosse aploogists. There is great honor in being an apologist for a group of innocent men who were maligned during a wrongful racially motivated prosecution of some of their members for a crime which never happened.

There is zero honor in being an apologist for a vicimizer/false accuser/murderess.

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

What exactly is the difference between you saying you do not need proof that Crystal was raped because you trusted her, and the white men who acted as if they did not need proof that the accusers of the Scottsboro boys were raped because they trusted her?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Is Caucasian a euphemism for people with ancestry from the nations of Northern Europe? Are other places s**t-holes?"

No one's words but yours.

When people comment on your obsession with believing, in the face of zero evidence that the crime ever happened, that Crystal had been raped, you respond they are projecting their own fantasies on you.

I remind you, YOU are the one claiming Crystal was raped, not any one who commented on your obsesion.

Anonymous said...

For Sidney:

Regarding your claim that Time had reserved a space on its Persons of the Year cover for Crystal.

Yesterday I saw a copy of the January 22 issue of Time. On page 7 is a picture of Timew Square in NY City. Up on a display was a picture of the cover of Time's Persons of the Year issue sans Crystal. The caption made no mention of Crystal.

So what made you think you could perpetrate a fraud viz., that Time had selected Crystal as one of its persons of the year?

kenhyderal said...

You're the only one naïve enough to think Dr. Harr was purposely trying to perpetrate a fraud on the readers of his blog. It was simply an artifact he used to draw attention to Crystal, a vulnerable, marginalized woman who had also been abused. Use a little common sense.

Anonymous said...

Kenhydeeral:

"You're the only one naïve enough to think Dr. Harr was purposely trying to perpetrate a fraud on the readers of his blog. It was simply an artifact he used to draw attention to Crystal, a vulnerable, marginalized woman who had also been abused. Use a little common sense."

From an earlier Sidney post: "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum."

From Sidney's post at January 11, 2018 at 2:24 PM.

With regard to the Duke Rape HOAX, Crystal was never assaulted, abused, marginalized. She lied about the whole thing and continues to lie about it.

Sidney was trying to get his readers to believe that Time wanted Crystal as one of its Persons of the year, a blasphemous attempt to equate victimizer/false rape accuser Crystal with women who did suffer actual sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Common sense???!!! Again in the words of your mentor Sidney,HUH???!!! HAH1111

Kenny, your obsession with believing Crystal was raped has sunk to abysmally new lows.

Anonymous said...

Correction:

Common sense???!!! Again in the words of your mentor Sidney,HUH???!!! HAH1111

should have been

Common sense???!!! Again in the words of your mentor Sidney,HUH???!!! HAH!!!!

A Lawyer said...

The person/persons who believes this kind of garbage is/are three centuries behind times. Judging and labeling people by color, black, white, red, brown, yellow; what a joke.

For once, I actually agree with Kenhyderal.

A Lawyer said...

You're the only one naïve enough to think Dr. Harr was purposely trying to perpetrate a fraud on the readers of his blog.

Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement.

It was simply an artifact he used to draw attention to Crystal, a vulnerable, marginalized woman who had also been abused.

Except there is zero evidence that she was abused, and rather overwhelming evidence that she wasn't.

kenhyderal said...

A Lawyer said" "Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement." Really? http://funny.pho.to/vogue-magazine-cover/

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"A Lawyer said" "Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement." Really? http://funny.pho.to/vogue-magazine-cover/"

Did Sidney put his photo on the cover of Vogue? No.

Did Vogue invite Sidney to put his photo on its cover? Probably not.

Did Sidney photoshop Crystal onto Time's Person of the Year Cove? Yes.

Did Time invite Sidney to put Crystal's photo on its Persons of the Year photo? No.

Did Sidney Post, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum." Yes.

From the URL given by Kenny: "Join the Vogue magazine club - put your photo on the fake cover"

Did Sidney put Crystal's photo on a fake cover? No. He put it on a picture of a real Time Magazine cover.

You bring up something completely irrelevant. Par for the course for you. And you think you are brilliant for doing so.

Doogie Howser said...

Ubes,

Are you as dull and boring as your posts would lead us to believe?

Anonymous said...

Not to mention humorless.

Anonymous said...

Either Kenny or Sidney or both posting anonymously again because they are intimidated.

Where is the not at all great non entity which styles itself as the great kilgo?

Is the not at all great non entity which styles itself as kilgo too intimidated to post any more?

Anonymous said...

Hey Sidney, Kenny, or whatever, can you come up with anything more than fictitious imaginary proxies making inane impotent comments?

Obviously not.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney, Kenny, or whatever, can you come up with anything more than fictitious imaginary proxies making inane impotent comments?

Obviously not.

January 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM


Sorry, but I do not understand the question. More clarification required.

Anonymous said...

Wow!

Sidney responds:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney, Kenny, or whatever, can you come up with anything more than fictitious imaginary proxies making inane impotent comments?

Obviously not.

January 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM


Sorry, but I do not understand the question. More clarification required.'

Sidney you are incapable of receiving clarification as your obsession with believing, in the face of zero evidence that the crime ever occurred, that Crystal was the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case(which was actually the Duke Rape HOAX).

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal:

"A Lawyer said" "Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement." Really? http://funny.pho.to/vogue-magazine-cover/"

Did Sidney put his photo on the cover of Vogue? No.

Did Vogue invite Sidney to put his photo on its cover? Probably not.

Did Sidney photoshop Crystal onto Time's Person of the Year Cove? Yes.

Did Time invite Sidney to put Crystal's photo on its Persons of the Year photo? No.

Did Sidney Post, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum." Yes.

From the URL given by Kenny: "Join the Vogue magazine club - put your photo on the fake cover"

Did Sidney put Crystal's photo on a fake cover? No. He put it on a picture of a real Time Magazine cover.

You bring up something completely irrelevant. Par for the course for you. And you think you are brilliant for doing so.


January 24, 2018 at 5:09 PM


Hey, Anony.

kenhyderal is right... it is sorta humorous to think that Time magazine would waste its time (no pun intended) and money over something so trivial as my "modified" magazine cover. In fact, I would think that the magazine would be flattered.

Fact of the matter is that on January 8, 2018, I sent a packet to Edward Felsenthal, the editor-in-chief of Time magazine that contained a letter, and a sharlog-disc with a disc cover which included my modified cover of its Person of the Year cover.

I would love to hear back from him... or even from one of his lawyers... but to date, not a peep.

Will give notice if I hear from Time.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
You're the only one naïve enough to think Dr. Harr was purposely trying to perpetrate a fraud on the readers of his blog.

Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement.

It was simply an artifact he used to draw attention to Crystal, a vulnerable, marginalized woman who had also been abused.

Except there is zero evidence that she was abused, and rather overwhelming evidence that she wasn't.

January 24, 2018 at 2:07 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Question: Is there any evidence that any of the #MeToo victims have evidence to back up their claims? Did Gretchen Carlson present evidence to back up her claims against Roger Ailes? The fact is that because no evidence is presented does not mean the alleged incident did not take place.

As far as Crystal Mangum's case goes, the door frame busted off its jamb by Daye, the excoriation/puncture wounds to Mangum's face, the clumps of Mangum's hair on the floor, are all evidence of domestic abuse by Daye against Mangum.

Daye was not charged with any crime... including assault on a female. However, there are cases of males being charged of assault on a female for doing nothing more than shoving a female. Certainly, pulling a female by her hair should qualify as an assault. Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
For Sidney:

Regarding your claim that Time had reserved a space on its Persons of the Year cover for Crystal.

Yesterday I saw a copy of the January 22 issue of Time. On page 7 is a picture of Timew Square in NY City. Up on a display was a picture of the cover of Time's Persons of the Year issue sans Crystal. The caption made no mention of Crystal.

So what made you think you could perpetrate a fraud viz., that Time had selected Crystal as one of its persons of the year?

January 24, 2018 at 2:55 AM


From looking at the Time magazine Person of the Year cover from a design perspective, it is obvious that there is a large space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person had been removed or a space provided to add another figure. All I did was fill up the space with the appropriate person... as Crystal Mangum exemplifies the consequences of breaking the silence... and she should have been honored by Time. As should Mike Nifong.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well, Sidney, how about it?

Your repetition of no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped, what legal weight does that have? You like to bandy around the term "legal weight".

The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That means the prosecution has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth. You have claimed AG Cooper never proved Crystal lied. As the individual taking over the prosecution of Nifong's case, his obligation was to prove Crystal told the truth.

Unlike your boy Nifong, AG Cooper did do a thorough investigation of the case. Do not try the dodge that you have no access to the discovery file in the case. AG Cooper's report is available on line and details the investigation are accessible to anyone who wants to review them. Check out http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued. AG Cooper's investigation found there was zero evidence that the crime alleged by Crystal ever happened, which is why AG Cooper expressed his belief that the accused were innocent. It was not a proclamation, regardless of what was reported in the press. The legal definition of actual innocence is that the accused did not commit the crime of which they were accused. How could the Lacrosse defendants have committed a crime which never happened?

Answer the question Sidney. Either put up or shut up.


January 23, 2018 at 3:56 AM


Hah! "A.G. Cooper did a thorough investigation of the case.." Shirley, you jest. Neither he nor the SBI did any investigation... they merely waited for time to pass, and then pretended like they had conducted an investigation. You have not seen their investigation. Unlike Crystal's murder case, I have shared all of the relevant prosecution discovery on this blog site. What I have put forward in support of Crystal has been transparent.

For more than six years Roy Cooper and all of the NC governors, attorney generals, and district attorneys of Wake/Durham/Orange counties have refused to even meet with me to listen to my evidence of Crystal's innocence or criminality by the medical examiner and Durham Police Officer. That they all are colluding with the mainstream media to prop up the spuriously flawed prosecution and conviction of Mangum is crystal clear.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal:

"A Lawyer said" "Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement." Really? http://funny.pho.to/vogue-magazine-cover/"

Did Sidney put his photo on the cover of Vogue? No.

Did Vogue invite Sidney to put his photo on its cover? Probably not.

Did Sidney photoshop Crystal onto Time's Person of the Year Cove? Yes.

Did Time invite Sidney to put Crystal's photo on its Persons of the Year photo? No.

Did Sidney Post, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum." Yes.

From the URL given by Kenny: "Join the Vogue magazine club - put your photo on the fake cover"

Did Sidney put Crystal's photo on a fake cover? No. He put it on a picture of a real Time Magazine cover.

You bring up something completely irrelevant. Par for the course for you. And you think you are brilliant for doing so.


January 24, 2018 at 5:09 PM"


"Hey, Anony.

kenhyderal is right... it is sorta humorous to think that Time magazine would waste its time (no pun intended) and money over something so trivial as my "modified" magazine cover. In fact, I would think that the magazine would be flattered."

An admission that you are a delusional megalomaniac who is incapable of thinking.

"Fact of the matter is that on January 8, 2018, I sent a packet to Edward Felsenthal, the editor-in-chief of Time magazine that contained a letter, and a sharlog-disc with a disc cover which included my modified cover of its Person of the Year cover."

So? Why did you claim Time intended to include Crystal on its Persons of the year cover?

"I would love to hear back from him... or even from one of his lawyers... but to date, not a peep.

Will give notice if I hear from Time."

Which really means, don't hold your breath waiting for Time to pay attention to me.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"A Lawyer said...
You're the only one naïve enough to think Dr. Harr was purposely trying to perpetrate a fraud on the readers of his blog.

Whatever Dr. Harr's intentions, he's very lucky that the readership of this blog is so small that it hasn't come to Time Magazine's attention. If it had, he would be looking at a lawsuit for trademark infringement.

It was simply an artifact he used to draw attention to Crystal, a vulnerable, marginalized woman who had also been abused.

Except there is zero evidence that she was abused, and rather overwhelming evidence that she wasn't.

January 24, 2018 at 2:07 PM


"Hey, A Lawyer.

Question: Is there any evidence that any of the #MeToo victims have evidence to back up their claims? Did Gretchen Carlson present evidence to back up her claims against Roger Ailes? The fact is that because no evidence is presented does not mean the alleged incident did not take place."

The real issue here, as it applies to Crystal is, did abuse take place. If Crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party, as you claim, as I have repeatedly said, the prosecution has the obligation to prove it happened(your argument was that the defense never proved it did not happen). Zero evidence does mean that the incident did not happen. You are talking guilt presumption.

"As far as Crystal Mangum's case goes, the door frame busted off its jamb by Daye, the excoriation/puncture wounds to Mangum's face, the clumps of Mangum's hair on the floor, are all evidence of domestic abuse by Daye against Mangum."

You lie. There was a aclump of Crystal's hair. The photos taken of Crystal did not show the serious injuries you claim were there. The police and first responders who saw Crystal in the aftermath of the incident found she did not need any medical attention for any serious injury.

Daye was not charged with any crime... including assault on a female. However, there are cases of males being charged of assault on a female for doing nothing more than shoving a female. Certainly, pulling a female by her hair should qualify as an assault. Comprende?"

Hypocritical comment as you obviously that stabbing an individual with malice and killing him is murder.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
For Sidney:

Regarding your claim that Time had reserved a space on its Persons of the Year cover for Crystal.

Yesterday I saw a copy of the January 22 issue of Time. On page 7 is a picture of Timew(sic_ Square in NY City. Up on a display was a picture of the cover of Time's Persons of the Year issue sans Crystal. The caption made no mention of Crystal.

So what made you think you could perpetrate a fraud viz., that Time had selected Crystal as one of its persons of the year?

January 24, 2018 at 2:55 AM


From looking at the Time magazine Person of the Year cover from a design perspective, it is obvious that there is a large space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person had been removed or a space provided to add another figure."

And you said, and I quote, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? That space was for Crystal Mangum."

De facto you DID state Time intended to put Crystal on its cover. Your rationalizations and denials are not credible.

"All I did was fill up the space with the appropriate person... as Crystal Mangum exemplifies the consequences of breaking the silence... and she should have been honored by Time. As should Mike Nifong."

You again show you are a delusional megalomaniac, a guilt presuming racist, and totally detached from reality.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well, Sidney, how about it?

Your repetition of no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped, what legal weight does that have? You like to bandy around the term "legal weight".

The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That means the prosecution has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth. You have claimed AG Cooper never proved Crystal lied. As the individual taking over the prosecution of Nifong's case, his obligation was to prove Crystal told the truth.

Unlike your boy Nifong, AG Cooper did do a thorough investigation of the case. Do not try the dodge that you have no access to the discovery file in the case. AG Cooper's report is available on line and details the investigation are accessible to anyone who wants to review them. Check out http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued. AG Cooper's investigation found there was zero evidence that the crime alleged by Crystal ever happened, which is why AG Cooper expressed his belief that the accused were innocent. It was not a proclamation, regardless of what was reported in the press. The legal definition of actual innocence is that the accused did not commit the crime of which they were accused. How could the Lacrosse defendants have committed a crime which never happened?

Answer the question Sidney. Either put up or shut up.


January 23, 2018 at 3:56 AM"


"Hah! "A.G. Cooper did a thorough investigation of the case.." Shirley, you jest. Neither he nor the SBI did any investigation... they merely waited for time to pass, and then pretended like they had conducted an investigation. You have not seen their investigation. Unlike Crystal's murder case, I have shared all of the relevant prosecution discovery on this blog site."

You again show you are afraid to read the AG's report because it is the truth and you fear the truth because you do not tell the truth.

" What I have put forward in support of Crystal has been transparent."

Yes, transparently false and delusional and unsupported by any factual evidence.

"For more than six years Roy Cooper and all of the NC governors, attorney generals, and district attorneys of Wake/Durham/Orange counties have refused to even meet with me to listen to my evidence of Crystal's innocence or criminality by the medical examiner and Durham Police Officer."

That is because you have no factual evidence, just your delusional megalomania and resentment that you are but a medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency, who never achieved medical board specialty certification and spent his medical school career filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. The vast maority of medical school graduates, maybe 99.999% of them help people. You never have.

"That they all are colluding with the mainstream media to prop up the spuriously flawed prosecution and conviction of Mangum is crystal clear."

Considering the outcomes of all your delusional legal maneuvers it is Crystal clear you are incapable of determining whether or not the prosecution of Crystal was spurious, just like you are incapable of determining that Crystal is a victimizer/false rape accuser/murderess, that Nifong is one of the most corrupt prosecutors in US history, and that Shan Carter is a double felony murderer.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"All I did was fill up the space with the appropriate person... as Crystal Mangum exemplifies the consequences of breaking the silence... and she should have been honored by Time."

Crystal Mangum was not at all fearful of breaking silence. As soon as whoever at the Durham Access Center asked her if she had been raped, she said yes. She gave a statement to the police: check out http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html. Crystal's hand written statement was given to the police on April 6, 2006, little more than 3 weeks after the alleged crime. In the other cases in the news, involving Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, the Gymnastic Doctor, no one came forward until years later.

Why would it have been appropriate for Time to honor Crystal rather than one of the Gymnasts molested by the Gymnastic Doctor(who is a bigger blot on the Medical Profession than you are). Said Gymnastic doctor has admitted his guilt, indicating beyond a doubt that these women and girls had told the truth. Neither Crystal nor you nor your wacko-lyte Kenny have ever provided any factual evidence that Crystal ever told the truth.

Let's bring this up again. With Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, the Gumnastic Doctor, once one victim came forward many more victims came forward. After the Duke Lacrosse team was accused of wholesale abusive behavior, including abusive behavior towards women, no other women came forward to say, that kind of thing happened to us. The Women's Lacrosse team expressed solidarity with the men's team. You make the utterly ridiculous claim that they were fearful of reprisals from Duke if they did not support the men's team. Duke was not supporting the men's team. Some Duke faculty took reprisals against members of the Duke Lacrosse team. Why would Duke take reprisals against the Women's team had they not supported the Men's team?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr, what kind of a fraud are you trying to perppetrate?


from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate:

"to bring about or carry out (something, such as a crime or DECEPTION(emphasis added))"

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

"an act of deceiving or misrepresenting"

You are trying to deceive people by misrepresenting Crystal as someone whom Time wanted to put on its Persons of the Year Cover.

Again your words, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? THAT SPACE WAS FOR CEYSTAL MANGUM(emphasis added)."

Anonymous said...

Correction of typo in previous comment

"Again your words, "Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? THAT SPACE WAS FOR CRYSTAL MANGUM(emphasis added)."

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, I'm sure Sidney knew that no one would believe him. So you can't really say he was trying to deceive you.

Anonymous said...

Sidney tries eeach and every time he posts a sharlog or comment to deceive people into believing he knows something.

kenhyderal said...

Nifong Supporter said: ", it is obvious that there is a large space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person had been removed or a space provided to add another figure. All I did was fill up the space with the appropriate person"........... My take on this was that it is an obvious deliberate artifact, by Time Magazine, meant to say, there are other vulnerable women who have been victims of abuse, that have yet gone unrecognized, who also deserve to be publically vindicated. Providing justice prevails, there may come a day when the story of a vindicated Crystal Mangum may well be featured as a Time Magazine cover

Anonymous said...

More bullshit from Kenny:

"'Nifong Supporter said: ", it is obvious that there is a large space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person had been removed or a space provided to add another figure. All I did was fill up the space with the appropriate person'".

A false rape accuser/victimizer is hardly someone to be recognized as a victim of sexual abuse or o be included with women who have been victmized.

"........... My take on this was that it is an obvious deliberate artifact, by Time Magazine,"

So why did Sidney claim that Time intended to put Crystal on its Persons of the Year cover.

"meant to say, there are other vulnerable women who have been victims of abuse, that have yet gone unrecognized, who also deserve to be publically vindicated."

That excludes Crystal who was never subjected to sexual abuse in the Duke Rape HOAX.

"Providing justice prevails, there may come a day when the story of a vindicated Crystal Mangum may well be featured as a Time Magazine cover".

Said "vindicated Crystal Mangum" does not and never will exist, not unless you provide factual evidence that she had been raped and that the perpetrators were Duke Lacrosse players, and said evidence does not and never will exist.

Why are you so obsessed with believing, in the face of zero evidence, that Crystal had been raped. What kind of charge do you get in imagining something that horrible had happened to a woman you supposedly like and respect. I remind you that YOU, not I, maintain that Crystal had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal, please help me, thisosdfdsh

Anonymous said...

Well, Sidney, Kenny, let's go through this again.

In such cases as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, women did not come forward because they were intimidated. Then someone came forward and a then many women came forward.

In the Duke Rape Hoax, as soon as someone asked Crystal if she had been raped, Crystal did not hesitate to say yes, and before that Crystal had not mentioned rape. A little more than 3 weeks after the alleged crime happened she gave a statement to the police in which she alleged three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her. Crystal told people at the club where she danced that the rich white boys were going to pay her off.

In the near 12 years since the Duke Rape Hoax became news, no other women have come forth to allege they had been assaulted or molested or harassed by members of the Lacrosse team.

So where do the two of you get off trying to pass off Crystal as a victim of harassment or abuse. The two of you have sunk to an abysmally deep low trying to push your obsession with Crystal being raped on to the public.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you are trying to push a fraud upon the public, that Time intended to include Crystal in its Persons of the year, no matter ineffectively you try to spin it.

You were never very effective trying to push your delusional megalomania on the public.

Anonymous said...

Why does Kenny always cry DENY DENY DENY whenever anyone points out to him that there is zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped?

Because he is an apologit for a victimizer/false rapeaccuser/murderess and he DENIES DENIES DENIES.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "So where do the two of you get off trying to pass off Crystal as a victim of harassment or abuse".............................................At age 14 gang-raped by her 21 year old boyfriend and two friends. Her husband 14 years older then her threatened to kill her when she was 19. She was kidnapped sexually assaulted and robbed at the Duke Lacrosse Party. She was attacked beaten and choked by Reginald Daye. In all cases she was vulnerable and dependent on older bigger stronger male assailants.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"'Anonymous said: "So where do the two of you get off trying to pass off Crystal as a victim of harassment or abuse'"


".............................................At age 14 gang-raped by her 21 year old boyfriend and two friends."

So Crystal alleges(like she alleged she had been raped at the Lacrosse Party?). She never pressed any charges(she never filed a civil suit against the Lacrosse player she falsely accused of raping her). From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Mangum: "Her husband 14 years older then her threatened to kill her when she was 19. Mangum's father said he did not believe she was raped or injured, though her mother believed such an incident could have occurred—but not in 1993. She thinks it is more likely to have happened when Crystal was 17 or 18 years old, shortly before she made the police report."

Has nothing to do with the Duke Rape HOAX. Did she ever file charges against him? Was he as rich or powerful as someone like Harvey Weinstein? Is he the husband upon whom Crystal cheated and then ended up pregnant? Check ot http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/11/crystal-gail-mangum-profile-duke-rape-accuser.html if you dare. Yes it isFox News but it refers to sources: "On June 16, 1998, [Crystal Mangum] accused her husband of taking her into a wooded area and threatening to kill her, which he has denied doing. When she failed to appear at a court hearing, the complaint was dismissed." Check out https://www.facingsouth.org/2007/04/did-durham-da-exploit-mentally-unstable-woman-for-political-gain.html: "In 1998, Mangum told authorities that her now ex-husband threatened to kill her, but charges against him were dropped after she failed to appear for the court hearing." Same story from 2 sources.

She was kidnapped sexually assaulted and robbed at the Duke Lacrosse Party."

So says Kenhyderal who has admitted he believes this not because of any factual evidence but because he trusts Crystal, an attitude similar to the attitude of the racists who persecuted the Scottsboro boys because they believed their accuseres, and Kenny says he is not racist.

She was attacked beaten and choked by Reginald Daye."

Again says Kenny, even though a jury rejected her explanation of what happened, because she did not present any factual evidence to support it. Just like Kenny believes the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal, he believes Crystal's alibi should simply be believed.


"In all cases she was vulnerable and dependent on older bigger stronger male assailants."

Oh really? Crystal was born on July 8, 1978. She was almost 28 years old at the time of the false rape allegation. David Evans was a Senior at the time he was falsely accused by Crystal. He would have been no older than 22. Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were underclassmen and younger than David Evans.

Kenny again shows how ignorant he is, how pathetically he tries to bullshit his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presuming racism.

Anonymous said...

"At age 14 gang-raped by her 21 year old boyfriend and two friends. Her husband 14 years older then her threatened to kill her when she was 19. She was kidnapped sexually assaulted and robbed at the Duke Lacrosse Party. She was attacked beaten and choked by Reginald Daye."

And you have proof of any of this, or is this statement purely based on Crystal's say-so (or the ultimate source of Kenhyderal truth, wikipedia)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ January 26, 2018 at 12:07 PM:

Kenny is on record he needs no proof because he trusts Crystal.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "And you have proof of any of this, or is this statement purely based on Crystal's say-so (or the ultimate source of Kenhyderal truth, wikipedia)?"................... "Let me quote these words of wisdom, from Dr. Harr yesterday, "Is there any evidence that any of the #MeToo victims have evidence to back up their claims? Did Gretchen Carlson present evidence to back up her claims against Roger Ailes? The fact is that because no evidence is presented does not mean the alleged incident did not take place".

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Oh really? Crystal was born on July 8, 1978. She was almost 28 years old at the time of the false rape allegation. David Evans was a Senior at the time he was falsely accused by Crystal. He would have been no older than 22. Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were underclassmen and younger than David Evans........ But she was drugged and outnumbered at least six to one by big burly athletes.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "And you have proof of any of this, or is this statement purely based on Crystal's say-so (or the ultimate source of Kenhyderal truth, wikipedia)?"................... ""Let me quote these words of wisdom, from Dr. Harr yesterday, 'Is there any evidence that any of the #MeToo victims have evidence to back up their claims? Did Gretchen Carlson present evidence to back up her claims against Roger Ailes? The fact is that because no evidence is presented does not mean the alleged incident did not take place'."

First off, Sidney has never and never will utter any words of wisdom.

And this is irrelevant in the situation of Crystal Mangum. Crystal alleged a crime. TO establish a crime did happen it must be proven by evidence, factual and circumstantial. There is zero evidence the crime ever happened. Your attitude is, and Sideney's attitude is, the absence of evidence does not mean that no crime happened, it means a crime happened and there was not enough to convict. That is not, as you might term it, an alternative explanation but guilt presumption, not at all surprising for a guilt presuming racist.

If the victims of people like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, Al Franken, were to take legal action, e.g. civil suits, they would have to provide evidence. That would be the standard by which it would be determined that the incidents took place, not your opinion or Sidney's opinion or Sidney's inability to utter words of wisdom.

Evidence in other cases or the lack thereof does not change the FACT that there was zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped, zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth.

Maybe you can explain that lack of evidence shows the incidents or crimes did take place.

You are dodging and ducking the fact that you have no evidence, no proof to back up your racist guilt presumption.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyuderal:

"Anonymous said: "Oh really? Crystal was born on July 8, 1978. She was almost 28 years old at the time of the false rape allegation. David Evans was a Senior at the time he was falsely accused by Crystal. He would have been no older than 22. Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were underclassmen and younger than David Evans........ But she was drugged and outnumbered at least six to one by big burly athletes."

You have zero evidence that any of this ever happened.

Crystal has a track record, judging from her past, of alleging crimes and then never providing any evidence that these crimes ever happened.

And Crystal contradicts you. Her allegation, as described in her police statement of April 6, 2006, was that three members of the Lacrosse team dragged her into the bathroom(which by all accounts was too small to accommodate 4 adults at once).

Again you show you are a guilt presuming racist, one who is not particularly bright or intelligent,the way you stumble into contradictions. Once, when challenged to explain why Nifong had indicted for and charged with rape(which is a matter of historical record), men who could not have possibly raped Crystal. The male DNA found on Crystal post rape allegation, did not match the DNA of the men indicted for and charge with rape. Your claim was that Nifong did not charge them with rape.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Maybe I should have said, judging from Crystal's record, she alleges crimes and somehow no evidence turns up, in two cases because she would not press the case and then came up with excuses why not.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Consider this again:

With regard to the victims of people like Harvey Weintein, Al Frannken, Matt Lauer, bill Cosby, the Gymnastics doctor, when one came forth, others came forth.

When Crystal came forth no one came forth to support her. As the AG said in his press conference, there were no corroborating witnesses, and in the nearly 12 years since the Duke Rape HOAX became news, no corroborating witnesses have come forth, and your claim that they were intimidated is but an admission you have no proof Crystal ever told the truth.

That is why the #MeeToo accusers are considered credible and Crystal is not.

Pubes Supporter said...

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes





Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes






Udaman Ubes Udaman

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Her allegation, as described in her police statement of April 6, 2006, was that three members of the Lacrosse team dragged her into the bathroom(which by all accounts was too small to accommodate 4 adults at once)".............The rapes, perpetrated by three non-Player guests, who did not appear in the Police photo line-up, were sequential not simultaneous. At least three Players had some involvement in the case. Someone there administered to her a noxious substance that rendered her quickly incapacitated and a ready target for sexual assault. The Grand Jury heard sufficient evidence to support charges by DA Nifong of sexual assault and kidnapping and she was most certainly robbed.

Anonymous said...

It seems the not at all great non entity which styles itself as the great kilgo is back in another guise manifesting its frustration that it is a phony.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

""Anonymous said: "Her allegation, as described in her police statement of April 6, 2006, was that three members of the Lacrosse team dragged her into the bathroom(which by all accounts was too small to accommodate 4 adults at once)"............."

What follows is a series of allegations for which Kenny has no factual evidence or proof:

"The rapes, perpetrated by three non-Player guests, who did not appear in the Police photo line-up, were sequential not simultaneous."

Crystal herself alleged one rape. No one, including Kenny, has ever established there were non Lacrosse player party guests. Kenny cites the unidentified male DNA found on Crystal after her allegations of rape. There is zero evidence said DNA had been deposited at the party. Kenny dodges the issue, why did Nifong go after any non Lacri=osse player party guests and instead, went after men who couldnot have possibly raped her. Kenny has claimed Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players indicted for rape, something absolutely contrary to the historical facts.

"At least three Players had some involvement in the case."

Crystal alleged one act of rape in which three men, members of the Lacrosse team, penetrated her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. The DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation did not match any member of the Lacrosse team.

End Kenhyderal part 1

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal

part 2

"Someone there administered to her a noxious substance that rendered her quickly incapacitated and a ready target for sexual assault."

crystal was tested for date rape rugs an the screen was negative. Kenny comes up with Chloral Hydrate as the date rape drug because it can not be detected in the usual screening process. That drug is not readily available. Kenny, as he has done in many other presets no evidence, factual or circumstantial to support that assertinon. He said two people testified Crystal was not impaired before the party. Others, albeit members of the Lacrosse team stated she was impaired when she arrived. Kenny calls that self serving testimony because they knew they had committed a crime, which is nothing but guilt presumption, not at all unusual considering his guilt presuming racism. What it adds up to is, we should assume Crystal had been drugged with Choral Hydrate because Kenny believes she had been drugged and Chloral Hydrate was not detectable. Crystal admitted she had consumed a large quantity of beer and taken flexeril on top of that, which is a combination known to cause impairment, Kenny claims Crystal had taken that combination before and had no impairment. Who told him that? Crystal? Crystal, judging from her subsequent behavior in the Duke Rape Hoax was the non credible, self serving witness

"The Grand Jury heard sufficient evidence to support charges by DA Nifong of sexual assault and kidnapping"

The Grand Jury did not hear all the evidence. Nifong concealed the DNA evidence found on Crystal, that the DNA did not match the DNA of the men whom he wanted indicted. The Grand Jury never that evidence. Nifong did not present Reade Seligmann's alibi evidence. Nifong himself ducked the alibi evidence and tried to intimidate a witness who gave a statement supporting Reade Seligmann's evidence.

"and she was most certainly robbed."

Where in her police statement did Crystal claim she had been robbed? She did say she had left the house but wanted her money, was told that the Lacrosse players were sorry and wanted to pay then $1200 because they were sorry, then went back into the house, when she was grabbed, dragged into the bathroom and raped. Check out http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html.

Kenny, you really are incredibly stupid trying to spin as truth a story so out of sync with the facts.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, you have never explained why Nifong went after men who could not have possibly perpetrated the rape described by Crystal.

Again, you claimed that Nifong believed they were involved in the rape, even though they night not have been rapists, and he could prosecute them for sexual assault without DNA evidence If I remember correctly, you said Nifong believed the players he had indicted would turn on the actual rapists.

The historical record is that Nifong had the players indicted for first degree rape, as well as sexual assault and kidnapping. I repeat, if you did not know that historical fact, you were ignorant. If you did know that historical fact and made that statement anyway you were a liar.

The question is, why would anyone consider you credible?

You have conceded you have zero evidence to back up your claims. You believe your claims because you trust Crystal.

Should you be indicted for rape just because some non knowledgeable person trusts someone who accuses you of rape?

Anonymous said...

Kenny, if what you claim as to why Nifong indicted three Lacrosse players who could not have raped Crystal is true, then he would have been more likely to get their cooperation by offering them a plea deal in exchange for their testimony. Nifong never did it.

An example of why you are not credible.

Pubes Supporter said...



Bahahahahahaha










Udaman Pubes

Anonymous said...

Some other non entity is posting feeble meaningless impotent banality, an indication said non t=entity is incapable of rational thought and helpless in the face of the truth about Sidney and Kenny and their obsssion with believing Crystal had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Sidney and Cknny, apologists for a false rape accuser/victimizer/convicted murderess Crystal, are frustrated at being unsuccessful in trying to pass her off ss belonging to the #MeToo movement(because she is not a #MeToo victim), resorting to senseless impotent anonymous posting.

Anonymous said...

Who is Cknny?

Anonymous said...

Ubes will tell you.

Anonymous said...

Cknny is a typo, obviously

Pubes Supporter o said...

Thank you Ubes for clarifying.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 285   Newer› Newest»