Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact

81 comments:

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.