Sunday, February 4, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Release on Recognizance Pending Habeas Petition Ruling

194 comments:

Anonymous said...


Sidney, let's have an answer to a question I posted in your last screed.

In a comment you posted on your last screed you said and again I quote:

"Nifong and Mangum both did their best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case"

This was how you characterized the lineup procedure in which Mangum identified the three Lacrosse defendants as her assailants.

What I posted:

1) Crystal alleged in her police Statement that her assailants had been three members of the Lacrosse team who had left their DNA on her.

2) The DNA found on Crystal's person in the wake of her allegations did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team.

3) The Photo lineup in which Crystal was asked to identify her assailants included only photos of members of the Lacrosse team.

4) Crystal was presented a series of photographs of men who could not possibly.
have been assailants.

The question I posed, which you have ducked:

How does that add up to"Nifong and Mangum [doing] best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case"?

Answer if you are not a coward.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you allege felony murder, which was never applicable. Are you delusional, or intentionally lying? That issue has been conclusively shown to you to not apply, and the fact you keep pushing it discredits the rest of your arguments/contentions, because if you cannot understand that basic concept, it's clear you aren't interested in an honest discussion or the truth, just your conspiratorial spin on it.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Once again, you allege felony murder, which was never applicable. Are you delusional, or intentionally lying?That issue has been conclusively shown to you to not apply".................................................. That's the latest meta-narrative, repetitiously, pushed here. Don't be too sure that issue has been conclusively shown to universally apply in all circumstances. There is no doubt prosecutors were of the opinion it would elevate her to felony murder. Were they wrong or are you wrong? If it so certain why would such an obscure and obviously meritless, on it's own face, be charged. If you're charging for murder what is the pointless purpose of throwing this in?

Anonymous said...

You post another inconsistency included in your latest screed, the description of how the alleged assault allegedly took place.

Crystal's Statement to the Police is here: http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html

In that statement, Crystal says that she and Nikki(Kim Roberts/Pittman) started dancing, the crowd got rowdy, she and Nikki tried to leave, two Lacrosse players who identified themselves as Dan and Adam followed them to the car and offered them $1200 if they stayed and performed(the original amount agreed upon had been $800). They went back into the house. Brett, Matt and Adam grabbed Crystal and dragged her into the bathroom and raped her, while three other guys grabbed Nikki.

In your latest account(http://www.justice4nifong.com/exhibit/uLy180123/y180123.htm), Crystal and Nikki retreated into the bathroom, then three party goers raped Crystal while Nikki escaped. Then Crystal and Nikki drove away from the party house and Nikki drove Crystal to Duke University Medical Center.

What actually happened, according to Crystal's police statement is that Nikki drove her away from the house, told her she was taking her to a grocery store parking lot and was then going to call the police. Nikki(Kim) drove her to a Grocery Store Parking Lot, then asked a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car, and then did call a police officer to have the police officer forcibly remove Crystal from her car. The Police officer found her to be impaired, took her to the Durham Access Center for involuntary commitment. At the Durham Access Center a nurse asked her if she had been raped and Crystal answered yes. That was the first time in the sequence of events when the word Rape was mentioned, that is how Crystal arrived at Duke.

With all the obviously detectable inaccuracies in your filing, do you seriously think your favorite false rape accuser/victimize/murderess will prevail?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal throws in his delusions:

"Anonymous said: "Once again, you allege felony murder, which was never applicable. Are you delusional, or intentionally lying?That issue has been conclusively shown to you to not apply".................................................. That's the latest meta-narrative, repetitiously, pushed here."

The only metanarrative ever pushed in the Duke Rape Hoax is that well off Caucasian men believe they can rape black women with impunity. No one ever raped Crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Kenny has conceded he has no factual evidence that said rape ever happened.

"Don't be too sure that issue has been conclusively shown to universally apply in all circumstances."

Rather, don't be too sure Kenny knows anything.

"There is no doubt prosecutors were of the opinion it would elevate her to felony murder."

Yes there is plenty of doubt. That Kenny is willfully blind to it does not equate to anything meaningful.

"Were they wrong or are you wrong? If it so certain why would such an obscure and obviously meritless, on it's own face, be charged. If you're charging for murder what is the pointless purpose of throwing this in?"

No one is throwing this in except Sidney.

guiowen said...

As usual, Kenny pushes his own metanarrative.

A Lawyer said...

There is no doubt prosecutors were of the opinion it would elevate her to felony murder. Were they wrong or are you wrong?

When did any of the prosecutors even mention the words "felony murder"? How do you know they were of the opinion that felony murder would apply?

Answers: never and they weren't. My evidence:

1. Larceny of a chose in action is not one of the felonies that can be used to charge felony murder in North Carolina (or anywhere else that I'm aware of; felony murder applies only to felonies "inherently dangerous to life" such as arson, armed robbery and kidnapping).

2. The indictment did not charge felony murder.

3. The jury was not instructed on felony murder.

If it so certain why would such an obscure and obviously meritless, on it's own face, be charged. If you're charging for murder what is the pointless purpose of throwing this in?

A prosecutor I once tried a case against admitted to me that prosecutors often throw irrelevant things into an indictment as (his words) "jury food." In Mangum's case, my guess is they included that charge to support a jury argument that the killing was done not out of self defense but for the purpose of stealing the check.

Anonymous said...

Sidneyman

Faster than a legal eagle.
More powerful than a real lawyer.
Able to file legal briefs in a single bound.

Look! Up in the Pacer Monitor!
It's a brief. It's a suit. It's Sidneyman!

Yes, it's Sidneyman - strange in pro per from another world who came to Earth
with legal powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
Sidneyman - who can change the course of mighty laws, bend rules with
his bare hands, and who, disgusied as doctor, mild mannered senior
retiree in the great State of North Carolina, fights the never ending battle for
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidneyman

Faster than a legal eagle.
More powerful than a real lawyer.
Able to file legal briefs in a single bound.

Look! Up in the Pacer Monitor!
It's a brief. It's a suit. It's Sidneyman!

Yes, it's Sidneyman - strange in pro per from another world who came to Earth
with legal powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
Sidneyman - who can change the course of mighty laws, bend rules with
his bare hands, and who, disgusied as doctor, mild mannered senior
retiree in the great State of North Carolina, fights the never ending battle for
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

February 4, 2018 at 11:56 AM


Hardy-har-har! Luv it!! Once I get Crystal freed and exonerated and I have some time to return to my "MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" comic strip, I think I'll add Sidneyman as one of Cooper's chief antagonist! Very clever. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Sodey Harr's latest collection of garbage:

"
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidneyman

Faster than a legal eagle.
More powerful than a real lawyer.
Able to file legal briefs in a single bound.

Look! Up in the Pacer Monitor!
It's a brief. It's a suit. It's Sidneyman!

Yes, it's Sidneyman - strange in pro per from another world who came to Earth
with legal powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
Sidneyman - who can change the course of mighty laws, bend rules with
his bare hands, and who, disgusied as doctor, mild mannered senior
retiree in the great State of North Carolina, fights the never ending battle for
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

February 4, 2018 at 11:56 AM


Hardy-har-har! Luv it!! Once I get Crystal freed and exonerated and I have some time to return to my "MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" comic strip, I think I'll add Sidneyman as one of Cooper's chief antagonist! Very clever. Thanks."

How long has it bee since you first promised you would have Crystal ftreed. Far longer than you care to admit.Os Crystal Free? No.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You rant and rave about the purported inconsistencies in the case against your favorite false accuser/murderess.

Yet you ignore the glaringly gross inconsistencies between your account of what happened to Crystal at and after the Lacrosse party and Crystal's own account, as given in her statement to the Police a little more than 3 weeks after she was supposedly raped( and I again remind you that no one has ever proved Crystal ever told the truth).

There is also the glaringly obvious inconsistency between Crystal's April 2006 Police statement and what she told Nifong's investigator in December of 2006, viz., in April 2006 she said she had been raped, and in December of 2006 she is telling Nifong's investigator she could not recall being penetrated.

You are making your allegations out of thin air and your deluded, megalomaniacal imagination.

Anonymous said...

Dafuq?

Anonymous said...

Let's go through this again, Sidney.

You say, the lineup procedure of April 4, 2006 was a sincere attempt by Nifong and Crystal to identify the perpetrators of the crime Crystal had alleged.

Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape by members of the Lacrosse team, a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on her person.

The DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, and Nifong was aware that no DNA matching the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team was found.

The lineup of April 4 consisted only of pictures of members of the Lacrosse team. It was a lineup of people who could not have perpetrated the alleged crime.

How did that add up to a sincere attempt on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify perpetrators of the alleged crime?

Anonymous said...

Answer this, Sidney.

You say you do not concede that the lineup was improper.

Federal, State and Durham PD regulations say a lineup should include fillers, people known not to be suspects, 7 fillers for each suspect. The lineup should be conducted by an officer who has no involvement in the investigation, no knowledge of who was and who was not a suspect.

The lineup of April 4, 2006, included only suspects and no fillers. It was conducted by Sgt. Mark GOttlieb, who was involved in the investigation, and who knew the Lacrosse players were considered suspects.

The lineup was improper. Why do you suggest it was not?

Why was it properly conducted?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Let's go through this again, Sidney.

You say, the lineup procedure of April 4, 2006 was a sincere attempt by Nifong and Crystal to identify the perpetrators of the crime Crystal had alleged.

Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape by members of the Lacrosse team, a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on her person.

The DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, and Nifong was aware that no DNA matching the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team was found.

The lineup of April 4 consisted only of pictures of members of the Lacrosse team. It was a lineup of people who could not have perpetrated the alleged crime.

How did that add up to a sincere attempt on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify perpetrators of the alleged crime?

February 6, 2018 at 5:05 AM


For the umpteenth time... Crystal Mangum is incarcerated directly due to trumped up murder charges against her. Ergo I am focusing my efforts on that case rather than rehashing the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Answer me this, Anony: Do you believe that Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury before the Grand Jury when testifying about the alleged larceny? This is the type of pertinent questions and subject matter that should occupy your thoughts... not DNA and a photo lineup.

Anonymous said...

No. She did not commit perjury.

Anonymous said...

Latest Bullshit from Sidney:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Let's go through this again, Sidney.

You say, the lineup procedure of April 4, 2006 was a sincere attempt by Nifong and Crystal to identify the perpetrators of the crime Crystal had alleged.

Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape by members of the Lacrosse team, a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on her person.

The DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, and Nifong was aware that no DNA matching the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team was found.

The lineup of April 4 consisted only of pictures of members of the Lacrosse team. It was a lineup of people who could not have perpetrated the alleged crime.

How did that add up to a sincere attempt on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify perpetrators of the alleged crime?

February 6, 2018 at 5:05 AM"


"For the umpteenth time... Crystal Mangum is incarcerated directly due to trumped up murder charges against her. Ergo I am focusing my efforts on that case rather than rehashing the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

And you have gone on record as saying she was subjected to said trumped up murder charges because of the Duke Rape Hoax, she had been prosecuted for said trumped up murder charges becaus she was the "accuser/victim" in the Duke Rape case. The Duke Rape hoax is relevant, and you are trying to duck the fact that it was a hoax.

"Answer me this, Anony: Do you believe that Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury before the Grand Jury when testifying about the alleged larceny?"

How about you answer this. Why do you think you are competent to determine whether or not perjury took place. Your attitude is, you make allegations of perjury and your allegations should be taken at face value without you having to make your case.

"This is the type of pertinent questions and subject matter that should occupy your thoughts... not DNA and a photo lineup."

What is pertinent is, you prove Crystal had been raped in 2006. What makes it pertinent is you do claim Crystal was prosecuted for the murder of Reginald Daye as retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players of raping her. It is essential to your case that you prove Crystal was raped in the first place, and, like the coward you are, you are trying to duck that issue.

Anonymous said...

Another one for Sidney:

Again, you are on record as saying Crystal was prosecuted on "trumped up murder charges" in retaliation for her being the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case(she was the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax). You are on record as believing the indictments were justified because she identified the Duke Lacrosse defendants with 90% to 100% certainty. You have no case without proof that Crystal was raped. And, as the identifications were the result of an improperly conducted lineup, it is apparent the rape case was bogus.

That is what you are trying to duck.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sidney:

With regard to
"Answer me this, Anony: Do you believe that Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury before the Grand Jury when testifying about the alleged larceny?"

So what relevance does this have to whether Crystal's Motion for Release, all her other motions, actually authored by you meaning you have violated the State Bar injunction barring you from practicing law without a license?

You and Crystal have to convince th Court that Officer Bon committed perjury, and all you hav presented to prove it adds up to, what else could it be. That is not exactly making your case. It is as legally non weighty as your claim that no one ever proved Crystal had lied when she alleged she had been raped. Who has ever proved she told the truth. The best you have come up with there is, Crystal believes she had been raped, so she must have been raped.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, what relevance is it whether or not I think Officer Bond committed perjury? Do you think the Court will side with Crystal because I think Officer Bond committed perjury? The Court will certainly NOT rule in favor of Crystal because you say Officer Bond committed perjury. You are a total incompetent when it comes to understanding the law, since your interpretation of the law is, the law is whatever you concoct it to be from your delusional megalomania.

A Lawyer said...

For the umpteenth time... Crystal Mangum is incarcerated directly due to trumped up murder charges against her. Ergo I am focusing my efforts on that case rather than rehashing the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.


Then why do you spend the first three pages of your "Motion for Release on Recognizance" rehashing the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

If the Duke Lacrosse case has nothing to do with the murder conviction, you start your motion with three pages of irrelevancies. That is, at the very least, very poor advocacy.(Why should a judge keep reading a motion if the first three pages have nothing to do with what you're moving for?)

On the other hand, if the first three pages of your motion are relevant, then you certainly are "rehashing the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case," and a factual challenge to what you say in those pages is certainly in order.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

You ignore, repeatedly, that whatever the issues or defects in the Larceny of Chose in Action, since she was found not guilty, that matter is closed.

The fact you keep ignorantly pretending it had anything to do with Felony Murder (despite all the case citations, statutes, jury instructions, and the rest to the contrary) doesn't change that fact.

You claim to be a staunch advocate, but your inability to learn and adjust leads to you wasting a ton of time on stuff that has no chance of helping.

kenhyderal said...

A Lawyer said: "A prosecutor I once tried a case against admitted to me that prosecutors often throw irrelevant things into an indictment as (his words) "jury food." In Mangum's case, my guess is they included that charge to support a jury argument that the killing was done not out of self defense but for the purpose of stealing the check".........................................Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions. Virtually every citizen and every Political Party, in America, recognizes the US Justice system is in dire need of reform, especially for the disadvantaged. Shame on it's apologists.

Harr Supporter said...

Udaman Sid.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Kenny.

guiowen said...

Kenny,
Can't you stop whining? We'll put up with your racism if only you'll stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Kennyhyderal whines: Shame on it's apologists.

So says an apologist for Mike Nifong.

Ken Edwards Supporter said...

Hi Kenny. Who’s your daddy?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

'A Lawyer said: "A prosecutor I once tried a case against admitted to me that prosecutors often throw irrelevant things into an indictment as (his words) "jury food." In Mangum's case, my guess is they included that charge to support a jury argument that the killing was done not out of self defense but for the purpose of stealing the check".........................................Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions. Virtually every citizen and every Political Party, in America, recognizes the US Justice system is in dire need of reform, especially for the disadvantaged. Shame on it's apologists."

This from someone who considers it justice when a corrupt rogue prosecutor prosecutes innocent men falsely accused of a crime which never happened, simply because the accused have less melanin in their skin than the false accuser.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal has made it clear he does not know what the proper function of a prosecutor is. Kenny believes when a black accuser accuses someone of a crime, simply because the person accused has less melanin in his/her skin than the accuser, the accused should be presumed guilty.

That is his attitude towards the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players. Kenny has conceded he can produce zero factual evidence that the crime happened. He trusts Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Kenny likes to toss around the word apologist. Kenny is an apologist for a false rape accuser/convicted criminal, convicted murderess.

As if being an apologist for innocent men falsely accused of a crime is abhorent but being as apologist for a convicted criminal/false rape accuser/convicted murderess is some great crusade for justice.

A Lawyer said...

Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions.

You get no argument from me on that. It still doesn't mean that Mangum was charged with felony murder-- she wasn't.

guiowen said...

Kenny said,
"Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions."

So, Kenny, why do you tell us how great Good Old Mike Nifong was?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Kenny, explain how Nifong wss seeking justice when he prosecuted three innocent men for a crime which never happened.

You are not only an apologist for a false rape accuser/victimizer/convicted murderess, you are an apologist for one of the most corrupt prosecutors in the whole history of justice.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, maybe you could comment on this:

Your mentor Sidney says that the April 4, 2006 lineup was not improper and that it was a sincere attempt by Crystal and Nifong to identify Crystal's assailants.

Federal, State and Durham PD guidelines specify a lineup must consist of fillers and suspects, 7 fillers for each suspect, that it be conducted by an officer who is not familiar with the case, who does not know who the suspects are. The April 4 lineup was conducted by SGT. Mark Gottlieb who not only was involved in the case and not only knew who the suspects were but also had a bias against Duke Students. The lineup consisted only of suspects.

In her statement to the Police, Crystal alleged a rape in which members of the Lacrosse team had deposited their DNA on her. Nifong knew at the time of the lineup that no DNA from any Lacrosse player had been found on the rape kit. The lineup consisted of photos only of Lacrosse players. In other words, if Crystal's allegation was true, Nifong showed Crystal a lineup of men who could not possibly have raped her.

So explain how that was a sincere effort on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify her assailants.

Explain how Nifong, having conducted a lineup which included only men who could not have been suspects, was going for justice instead of a conviction.

Maybe you will again try the dodge that Nifong did not seek indictments against the Lacrosse players for rape but for sexual assault and kidnapping.

From Sidney's J4N post of Thursday, January 20, 2011:

"Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of 'Minister of Justice' by INITIATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE RAPE CHARGES(emphasis added) when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion."

Anonymous said...

This was on Facebook this morning;

““There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true.”

Spren Kierkegaard

Sidney and Kenny are guilty on both counts.

Quoting the title of a Doonesbury book, "GUILYY, GUILTY, GUILTY!"

Anonymous said...




Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Ubes Ubes Ubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "This was on Facebook this morning; ““There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true.”......................................Don't put too much faith in Facebook. Kierkegaard's given name is Søren not Spren. Very wise observation. Now all we have to do, in the Duke Lacrosse Case, is decide which of us is being fooled And more importantly who are the deceivers and what are their motives.

Anonymous said...

Another lame response from Kenhhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "This was on Facebook this morning; ““There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true.”......................................Don't put too much faith in Facebook."

I don't, considering people like Sidney there. However the quote did not come from Facebook.

"Kierkegaard's given name is Søren not Spren."

I complement you for noting the typo.

"Very wise observation."

Quite unlike the racist guilt presuming garbage you and Sidney spout.

"Now all we have to do, in the Duke Lacrosse Case, is decide which of us is being fooled And more importantly who are the deceivers and what are their motives."

So far you and Sidney have induged in trying to fool people, to hide the truth, that Crystal lied about being raped, Nifong prosecuted without any evidence the crime ever took place, and your motives are to deceive the public about the truth. That is self evident.

If the crime took place, then provided proof and so far you haven't, and never will, so intense is your guilt presuming racism.

Anonymous said...





Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes

Pubes Pubes Pubes


Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

It has been almost 18 years since the Duke Rape Hoax became news. No one has come forth with any factual evidence to show that the rape had actually taken place. Why?

Sidney has talked about the Carpet Bagger Jihad but has offered no evidence for it. He cites Mrs, Evans' statement towards Mike Nifong on 60 Minutes but ignores the fact that she made that statement until after the State Bar filed its ethics charges against Nifong.

Sidney claimed that the State Bar intervened in the case right after Nifong chose to prosecute. The State Bar did not get involved until it had become aware, in December of 2006, months after the hoax became news. after a number of nifong's unethical actions had become objects of complaint.

You and Sidney are just trying to bullshit your way around through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post unanimously.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny, maybe you could comment on this:

Your mentor Sidney says that the April 4, 2006 lineup was not improper and that it was a sincere attempt by Crystal and Nifong to identify Crystal's assailants.

Federal, State and Durham PD guidelines specify a lineup must consist of fillers and suspects, 7 fillers for each suspect, that it be conducted by an officer who is not familiar with the case, who does not know who the suspects are. The April 4 lineup was conducted by SGT. Mark Gottlieb who not only was involved in the case and not only knew who the suspects were but also had a bias against Duke Students. The lineup consisted only of suspects.

In her statement to the Police, Crystal alleged a rape in which members of the Lacrosse team had deposited their DNA on her. Nifong knew at the time of the lineup that no DNA from any Lacrosse player had been found on the rape kit. The lineup consisted of photos only of Lacrosse players. In other words, if Crystal's allegation was true, Nifong showed Crystal a lineup of men who could not possibly have raped her.

So explain how that was a sincere effort on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify her assailants.

Explain how Nifong, having conducted a lineup which included only men who could not have been suspects, was going for justice instead of a conviction.

Maybe you will again try the dodge that Nifong did not seek indictments against the Lacrosse players for rape but for sexual assault and kidnapping.

From Sidney's J4N post of Thursday, January 20, 2011:

"Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of 'Minister of Justice' by INITIATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE RAPE CHARGES(emphasis added) when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion."

February 7, 2018 at 3:35 AM


My understanding is that the legal definition of "rape" is more restricted in North Carolina than in other states. It was my belief that rape included penetration with any object... not merely limited to the male organ. I think that Mike Nifong dropped the "rape" charge when adhering to the more strict meaning of the term.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions.

You get no argument from me on that. It still doesn't mean that Mangum was charged with felony murder-- she wasn't.

February 6, 2018 at 4:35 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

I am confused and require elucidation. Was it a typo, or what did you mean in stating that Mangum wasn't charged with felony murder? Clearly any murder is a felony and she was indicted for murder... so, what exactly did you mean? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

He means that you keep claiming the Larceny of Chose in Action was used to elevate the murder to "felony murder" - 1st degree. It wasn't, as has repeatedly been explained to you.

She was never facing "felony murder" - it was always 1st degree based on premeditation and deliberation, not felony murder.

You really are delusional if you keep harping on that.

or, more likely, you realize this is all just one big abusive joke on Crystal and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

In response to my comment of February 7, 2018 at 3:35 AM

"My understanding is that the legal definition of "rape" is more restricted in North Carolina than in other states. It was my belief that rape included penetration with any object... not merely limited to the male organ. I think that Mike Nifong dropped the 'rape' charge when adhering to the more strict meaning of the term."

First, presumes a fact not in evidence that you are capable of understanding anything.

Nifong dropped the rape charge because, after almost 9 months after the alleged crime allegedly happened neither he nor anyone in his office had ever directly interviewed Crystal. When she was finally interviewed she said she could not remember being penetrated, which was an essential element of rape in NC. You have blogged that Crystal always maintained she had been raped. You were trying to perpetrate a fraud.

You claimed Nifong acted as a true minister of justice when he dropped the rape charge. BULLSHIT!!! I again direct you to Crystal's police statement. The sexual assault she described was a rape, a penetrating sexual assault. A true minister of justice would have dropped the rape charge rather than continue seeking a conviction. I remind you of what Kenhydera said because you seem to have willfully forgotten it: "Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions."

Answer this question, why should a prosecutor seek a conviction when he has no evidence the crime ever happened?

You continue to duck and dodge the fact that the April 4 lineup was improper and was an attempt on the part of Nifong to manufacture evidence against the men he wanted to convict. It was by no imaginable means a sincere attempt to identify perpetrators of a crime.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

'Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Disgusting! Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions.

You get no argument from me on that. It still doesn't mean that Mangum was charged with felony murder-- she wasn't.

February 6, 2018 at 4:35 PM"


"Hey, A Lawyer.

I am confused and require elucidation."

You have been confused and deluded from the first day you ever told one of your commenters, consider yourself enlightened, consider yourself elucidated.

"Was it a typo, or what did you mean in stating that Mangum wasn't charged with felony murder? Clearly any murder is a felony and she was indicted for murder... so, what exactly did you mean? Thanks."

For your elucidation, not that you are capable of elucidation:

Shan Carter, while chasing down and murdering fellow drug dealer Tyrone Bakeer, was in possession of a firearm(which was a felony since he was a convicted felon and was not allowed to be in possession of a firearm), and he was discharging that firearm on a street where other people were present(which was also a felony), and he killed Demetrius Greene. Even if he did not intend to kill Demetrius Greene(something you called an unfortunate accident), it was murder, felony murder, because he killed Demetrius Greene while he was perpetrating two different felonies.

It is pathetic the way you try to play dumb when you have to confront facts which do not mesh with your fascination with your favorite false rape accuser/vitimizer/murderess Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Another example of Harrian denial;

You have posted that the DA filed the Larceny of Chose in action charge so they could raise the level of the charge to First Degree Murder.

From https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/:

"The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer."

and:

"The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether."

Larceny of Chose in Action is not an inherently dangerous crime. So how could the DA have filed a charge of Larceny of Close action to upgrade the murder charge to Murder 1?

From http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/definition-of-larceny.html:

"Larceny is what most people think of as common theft - the taking of someone else's property without the use of force."

And what NC Law says about Larceny in Chose of action:

§ 14-75. Larceny of chose in action.
If any person shall feloniously steal, take and carry away, or take by robbery, any bankmnote, check or other order for the payment of money issued by or drawn on any bank or othermsociety or corporation within this State or within any of the United States, or any treasury warrant, debenture, certificate of stock or other public security, or certificate of stock in any corporation, or any order, bill of exchange, bond, promissory note or other obligation, either for the payment of money or for the delivery of specific articles, being the property of any other person, or of any corporation (notwithstanding any of the said particulars may be termed in law a chose in action), that person is guilty of a Class H felony.

A Class H Felony is a low level felony.

Felonies which result in danger to others are Class A felonies.

So explain how North Carolina could have used a charge of Chose in action to raise the charge against Crystal to Murder 1.

FakeKenhyderal said...

It's called google, Sid.

Since your blog service has been owned by Google since 2003, you should be somewhat familiar with it.

But here, I'll help you out:

http://bfy.tw/GUfd

You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

feom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#Elements:

"In most jurisdictions, to qualify as an underlying offense for a felony murder charge, the underlying offense must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the offense and the death must not be too remote. For example, if the recipient of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder as the cause of death is too remote from the criminal act."

So explain how the State of North Carolina could have used a non violent felony as an excuse to charge Crystal with Murder 1.

Or will you, in Kenny's words, "DENY DENY DENY" you ever claimed that.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Again on Felony Murder:

from https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/basics-felony-murder/:

"Felony murder in North Carolina. The felony murder rule in North Carolina is codified in G.S. 14-17(a).

That statute defines first-degree murder to include a homicide committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any of the following felonies:

arson;
rape or a felony sex offense;
robbery;
kidnapping;
burglary; or
a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Again, how could the State of North Carolina have used Larceny of Chose in action to charge Crystal with Murder 1.

This is part of your allegation that the prosecution of Crystal was retaliation for her accusation of the Lacrosse players of rape, that the retaliation was to charge her with the most serious charge NC could come up with.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Again on Felony Murder:

from https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/basics-felony-murder/:

"Felony murder in North Carolina. The felony murder rule in North Carolina is codified in G.S. 14-17(a).

That statute defines first-degree murder to include a homicide committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any of the following felonies:

arson;
rape or a felony sex offense;
robbery;
kidnapping;
burglary; or
a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Again, how could the State of North Carolina have used Larceny of Chose in action to charge Crystal with Murder 1.

This is part of your allegation that the prosecution of Crystal was retaliation for her accusation of the Lacrosse players of rape, that the retaliation was to charge her with the most serious charge NC could come up with.

February 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM


Hey, Anony.

If anything, the felony-murder rule needs further clarification. For example, the last example you give of an example of felony-murder rule is "a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon." The Durham prosecution's case is that Mangum was committing a felony (Larceny of Chose in Action is an automatic Class H felony) by allegedly stealing the two cashier's checks while using a deadly weapon (a steak knife).

There is no other reason to indict Mangum with the Larceny of Chose in Action charge... especially when probable cause is totally lacking. Furthermore, there is no reason why the court should not have dismissed the ridiculous charge long before the jury entered a not guilty charge on it. Why else would the prosecution try to indict Mangum on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge? Somebody, PLEASE give me a reason!!!

A Lawyer said...

Why else would the prosecution try to indict Mangum on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge? Somebody, PLEASE give me a reason!!!

Don't you read your own blog? I gave the reason on 2/4/18 at 10:59 AM.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Again on Felony Murder:

from https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/basics-felony-murder/:

"Felony murder in North Carolina. The felony murder rule in North Carolina is codified in G.S. 14-17(a).

That statute defines first-degree murder to include a homicide committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any of the following felonies:

arson;
rape or a felony sex offense;
robbery;
kidnapping;
burglary; or
a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Again, how could the State of North Carolina have used Larceny of Chose in action to charge Crystal with Murder 1.

This is part of your allegation that the prosecution of Crystal was retaliation for her accusation of the Lacrosse players of rape, that the retaliation was to charge her with the most serious charge NC could come up with.

February 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM


Hey, Anony.

If anything, the felony-murder rule needs further clarification. For example, the last example you give of an example of felony-murder rule is "a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon." The Durham prosecution's case is that Mangum was committing a felony (Larceny of Chose in Action is an automatic Class H felony) by allegedly stealing the two cashier's checks while using a deadly weapon (a steak knife).

There is no other reason to indict Mangum with the Larceny of Chose in Action charge... especially when probable cause is totally lacking. Furthermore, there is no reason why the court should not have dismissed the ridiculous charge long before the jury entered a not guilty charge on it. Why else would the prosecution try to indict Mangum on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge? Somebody, PLEASE give me a reason!!!"

You have been given abundant explanations as to why felony murder was never in play. That you are too willfully stupid to comprehend them is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr's desperate attempt to use larceny of Close action as evidence Crystal was being prosecuted on trumped up murder charges in retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players of raping her:

"he Durham prosecution's case is that Mangum was committing a felony (Larceny of Chose in Action is an automatic Class H felony) by allegedly stealing the two cashier's checks while using a deadly weapon (a steak knife)."

As stealing the cashier's checks was a class h felony which did not in and of itself pose any threat to any other person, NC could not use that as a pretext for charging Crystal with murder 1.

Sidney again shows he chooses implausible denial to defend his untenable opinions.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

If your what you try to pass off as an hypothesis is correct, that Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye in the process of taking the cashier's checks then you are conceding it was felony murder, even if you are too stupid to realize it.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr, i what you try to pass off as an hypothesis is correct, what you are describing armed robbery, a crime which would endanger the victim's life.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first deceive(or in your case try to deceive).

Anonymous said...

Hey, people, look at how desperate Sidney is to perpetrate another fraud, that the State of North Carolina filed a charge of larceny of Chose in action in order to charge Crystal with felony murder.

FakeKenhyderal said...

"The Durham prosecution's case is that Mangum was committing a felony (Larceny of Chose in Action is an automatic Class H felony) by allegedly stealing the two cashier's checks while using a deadly weapon (a steak knife).

It was reported that the argument and accusation over stolen money happened prior to the stabbing -- Therefore the alleged "felony" could not have occurred while Crystal was stabbing Daye.

Therefore, there was no "felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

Therefore, no felony murder.

It's really not the difficult to understand, Sid.

The additional charges were, as A Lawyer stated, "jury food"....Or potentially an attempt to get Crystal to plead guilty to a lesser offense than attempt a court trial.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Why else would the prosecution try to indict Mangum on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge? Somebody, PLEASE give me a reason!!!

Don't you read your own blog? I gave the reason on 2/4/18 at 10:59 AM.

February 8, 2018 at 8:11 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Yes, I read comments to the blog site, and I remember reading your comment on February 4, 2018. My point is that there needs to be more clarification on the felony-murder rule. Larceny of Chose in Action is a felony... a Class H Felony. I am unaware of any specific legal rule or regulation that claims that Larceny of Chose in Action or a Class H Felony does not qualify in meeting requisites for the felony-murder rule.

As far as a junk charge, I can understand where the prosecutor was going, however, in Mangum's case the junk charge (Larceny of Chose in Action) had no probable cause. What the prosecutor is therefore guilty of in charging Mangum with the Larceny of Chose in Action is malicious prosecution. Clearly the evidence showed that Mangum acted in self-defense in stabbing Daye. Whether the prosecution used the Larceny of Chose in Action as a junk charge, as you suggest, or for the purpose of upgrading the murder to first degree is an uncertainty... but what is clear is that the indictment should never have been brought without probable cause.

Anonymous said...

It's simple Sid --

Did Crystal Mangum "steal" the checks from Reginald Daye as she was stabbing him?

It's a Yes/No question, all I need is a Yes/No answer.

Anonymous said...

The felony murder rule does not need further clarification - there are only 2 people still confused about when it does, or does not, apply: Sid and Kenny.

For the rest of us, and the rest of society, it's clear it doesn't apply. Just because you two are idiots, please don't assume the rest of us are.

Felony murder was not charged, it was not put in front of the jury, it was never a part of this case.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr's latest:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Why else would the prosecution try to indict Mangum on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge? Somebody, PLEASE give me a reason!!!

Don't you read your own blog? I gave the reason on 2/4/18 at 10:59 AM.

February 8, 2018 at 8:11 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

"Yes, I read comments to the blog site, and I remember reading your comment on February 4, 2018. My point is that there needs to be more clarification on the felony-murder rule. Larceny of Chose in Action is a felony... a Class H Felony. I am unaware of any specific legal rule or regulation that claims that Larceny of Chose in Action or a Class H Felony does not qualify in meeting requisites for the felony-murder rule."

How about you read my comment of February 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM. It lists what, according to NC Law triggers the Felony Murder rule. Larceny of chose action does not trigger the felony murder rule.

"As far as a junk charge, I can understand where the prosecutor was going, however, in Mangum's case the junk charge (Larceny of Chose in Action) had no probable cause. What the prosecutor is therefore guilty of in charging Mangum with the Larceny of Chose in Action is malicious prosecution."

So says Sidney who is still in denial over the fact that Nifong had no probable cause to charge the Lacrosse defendants with anything. He still calls rogue corrupt prosecutora decent, honorable minister of justice. He calls the improper lineup of April 4, 2006, a collection of photos of men who could not have possibly perpetrated the rape Crystal alleged a sincere attempt on the part of Nifong and Crystal to identify perpetrators of the alleged rape.

"Clearly the evidence showed that Mangum acted in self-defense in stabbing Daye."

Sidney, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj88-97ESZI"

This is about the murder of Reginals Daye. The video notes that Reginald Daye as stabbed in the back, meaning he was stabbed when he was fleeing, and Crystal had no injuries on her when the police picked her up, did not have the kind of injuries which she should have had if she had been severely beaten. You showed pictures of Crystal you say showed the injuries. Those pictures did not. Yet another example of you trying to perpetrate a fraud on the public and on the courts.

"Whether the prosecution used the Larceny of Chose in Action as a junk charge, as you suggest, or for the purpose of upgrading the murder to first degree is an uncertainty... but what is clear is that the indictment should never have been brought without probable cause."

Your attitude towards probable cause is willful ignorance, considering you willfully choose to ignore the fact that Nifong had no probable cause to charge the Lacrosse defendants with any crime alleged by Crystal. There was no evidence she ever told the truth.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr, since you are spouting off on probable cause, tell us what probable cause Nifong had to prosecute any Lacrosse player for anything. The relevance is, you are on record that Crystal was prosecuted on a trumped up murder charge in retaliation for accusing the Lacrosse players.

You may cry, she identified three of the with 90% to 100% certainty as her accusers.

How does that stand up as a reliable identification of perpetrators considering Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape, the Durham DA office, via the NTO alleged a semen depositing rape, the testing of the rape kit demonstrated that there was no DNA on Crystal's person which matched the DNA of any Lacrosse player.

Nifong had Crystal shown a series of photographs of men who could not have been perpetrators of the alleged rape.

So where was Nifong's probable cause?

Anonymous said...





Udaman Pubes.



Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post unanimously.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, what probable cause did Nifong have to prosecute any member of the Duke Lacrosse team for the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum?

Anonymous said...

....what probable cause did Nifong have to prosecute any member of the Duke Lacrosse team for the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum?

It would probably cause the black folk of Durham County to vote him in asDurham County District Attorney....

guiowen said...

I believe good old Mike felt the case would give him a million dollars worth of free publicity.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ February 8, 2018 at 7:43 PM said...

"....what probable cause did Nifong have to prosecute any member of the Duke Lacrosse team for the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum?

It would probably cause the black folk of Durham County to vote him in asDurham(sic) County District Attorney...."

In the words of Walt in Durham, "Ding a Ling, We have a winner".

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

This is one from one of your earlier blog posts:

September 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM:

"The irrelevant DNA evidence which the defense seized upon with which to try and bring down Mr. Nifong was not exculpatory in any way."

When the Durham DA office sought the NTO which required all Caucasian Lacrosse players to give samples for DNA Analysis, the justification being that the DNA found on Crystal would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. The Durham DA office said the DNA evidence WAS relevant, and we see how far back go your efforts to bullshit your way through and around facts which do not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.

The DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, ergo, according to the Durham DA office it exonerated each and every member of the Lacrosse team. So why do you say it "was not exculpatory in any way". It was exculpatory and Nifong concealed it. You once did say it was not exculpatory because it did not prove the Lacrosse players did not rape Crystal, which was your racist guilt presumption manifesting again.

Again the relevance is, you claim Crystal was tried on trumped up murder charges because she had accused the Lacrosse team of raping her.

And again referring to your claim that the Durham DA did not have probable cause to charge Crystal with larceny of Chose in Action:

WHAT PROBABLE CAUSE DID NIFONG HAVE TO SEEK INDICTMENTS AGAINST THREE MEN WHO COULD NOT HAVE PERPETRATED THE CRIME CRYSTAL ALLEGED????

Anonymous said...

After speaking with Crystal Mangum I learned that on the night of February 17, 2010, she did not set fire to clothes in the bathtub as alleged by the Durham Police Department. Furthermore, she did not know that a fire had been set in her bathtub, and she did not know who was responsible for setting the fire.

--Sidney Harr (JUNE 16, 2010)

Anonymous said...

Unlike MSNBC, Duke University, and most media types, when I err, I move quickly to apply principles of “restorative justice” in response… which means accepting responsibility, apologizing, correcting the mistake and doing whatever possible to see that it doesn’t recur.

-- Sidney Harr (December 15, 2010)

Anonymous said...

Udaman Ubes.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously.

Anonymous said...


The person posting as "kenhyderal" has created a fake name and persona specifically for this blog. There can be only 2 conclusions:

1. It is someone willing to make an extra effort to troll this blog.
2. It is someone unwilling to let their true name be known-perhaps because of their ties to Mangum (or Nifong).

Either way, until this person reveals their true identity, ignore them.

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

So says "Anonymous" I do have ties to Crystal. She is my friend. I have no ties to former DA Nifong other then stumbling upon this Blog of Dr. Harr's and becoming upset by the lies I encountered here about Crystal by Duke Lacrosse Apologists. I resolved to defend her against all the vicious slander posted here. Many of the worst offenders are refugees from the misnamed Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Please stop whining!

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"So says "Anonymous" I do have ties to Crystal. She is my friend. I have no ties to former DA Nifong other then stumbling upon this Blog of Dr. Harr's and becoming upset by the lies I encountered here about Crystal by Duke Lacrosse Apologists. I resolved to defend her against all the vicious slander posted here. Many of the worst offenders are refugees from the misnamed Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog."

Kenhyderal ignores the advice, Oh what a tangled web weave when first we practice to deceive.

"I have no ties to former DA Nifong other then stumbling upon this Blog of Dr. Harr's and becoming upset by the lies I encountered here about Crystal by Duke Lacrosse Apologists."

There were no lies spread about Crystal. The truth is, Crystal lied, about being raped, and Crystal falsely accused innocent men of raping her. I say again, Kenny's said "Duke Lacrosse Apologists" defend innocent men who were viciously attacked by the apologists for a false rape accuser/victimizer/convicted criminal/convicted murderess, the loudest of whom are Sidney and Kenny, who is on record of knowing of no proof that Crystal told the truth but acts as her apologist because he trusts her.

"I resolved to defend her against all the vicious slander posted here."

I say again, Kenny has said he has no proof that anyone ever slandered her.

"Many of the worst offenders are refugees from the misnamed Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog."

Wrong. Many of the staunchest advocates for the truth have come from the appropriately named Liestoppers.

Kenny's problems are, 1) he gets a bit of gratification from imagining his "friend" had been brutally gang raped and 2) he dislikes people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as he does, especially those who are more accomplished than he is, who are better off than he is and who do not buy into the only metanarrative ever promulgated in the Duke Rape hoax, that the objects of Kenny's scorn believe they can rape black women with impunity.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Ubes.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said" "Kenny's problems are, 1) he gets a bit of gratification from imagining his "friend" had been brutally gang raped and 2) he dislikes people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as he does, especially those who are more accomplished than he is, who are better off than he is and who do not buy into the only metanarrative ever promulgated in the Duke Rape hoax, that the objects of Kenny's scorn believe they can rape black women with impunity"......................................Dear Readers, I ask you, can you believe this guy and his repugnant views? Obviously he believes himself superior to others. Obviously he holds discredited views about race. Obviously he unethically attempts to psychoanalyze others in violation of the Goldwater principle.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Dr. Anonymous said" "Kenny's problems are, 1) he gets a bit of gratification from imagining his "friend" had been brutally gang raped and 2) he dislikes people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as he does, especially those who are more accomplished than he is, who are better off than he is and who do not buy into the only metanarrative ever promulgated in the Duke Rape hoax, that the objects of Kenny's scorn believe they can rape black women with impunity"......................................Dear Readers, I ask you, can you believe this guy and his repugnant views? Obviously he believes himself superior to others. Obviously he holds discredited views about race. Obviously he unethically attempts to psychoanalyze others in violation of the Goldwater principle."

Kenhyderal is in denial of what he is.

Pathetic little Kenny.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

From Joseph Goebbels, who like Sidney liked to style himself as Doctor, and who was Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

This is exactly what you are doing when you insist that Crystal was raped and that members of the Lacrosse team were pepetrators.

It doesn't work that way, Kenny.

Heil Kenny!!!

Anonymous said...

Udaman kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal:

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

"The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics[1] that states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

First I am not psychiatrist so what the APA says is not applicable.

Second, you are no where near a public figure

Third, I am not trying to lay a psychiatric diagnosis on you.


Fourth you have made your views common knowledge on this public forum and you have conceded you have no factual evidence to support your views, so you have left yourself open to speculation as to why you hold such views in the face of zero factual evidence to support them, and those views include a belief that certain men who do not fit into your ethnic group raped a woman who does, so you have opened up yourself to speculation why you hold such a belief when you have no evidence that the alleged crime ever happened.

If you do not like the speculation, then the only honorable course of action for you is to admit you are just a racist guilt presumer and then go home and keep your hateful views to yourself.

Contrary to your racist guilt presuming views there is evidence that Crystal did lie about being raped.

guiowen said...

To Anonymous 10:28.
I agree that Kenny is a guilt-presuming racist. However, what really upsets me about him is the incessant whining. I have offered to forgive his racism (after all, it is just the way he was brought up) if only he would stop whining, but clearly that has not worked. I just don't know what we can do about him.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

You post nothing but hatred and racism on this forum, specifically, without any factual proof to support your allegations you accuse innocent men of raping Crystal, because they have less melanin in their skin than does Crystal, and you call my behavior repugnant for questioning why you are so invested in believing this crime happened.

Oh come now.

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "I have offered to forgive his racism (after all, it is just the way he was brought up)"....................... No Guiowen, unrepentant racism is unforgiveable. Constantly labelling those you disagree with as racists and Nazis, such as you and Dr. Anonymous do, make you look ridiculous. In this case, it's a sure sign that your pathetic attempt to defend Dr. A.'s obviously repugnant views have failed miserably.

Anonymous said...

enhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "I have offered to forgive his racism (after all, it is just the way he was brought up)"....................... No Guiowen, unrepentant racism is unforgiveable. Constantly labelling those you disagree with as racists and Nazis, such as you and Dr. Anonymous do, make you look ridiculous. In this case, it's a sure sign that your pathetic attempt to defend Dr. A.'s obviously repugnant views have failed miserably."

The fundamental disagreement is that you insist that because you believe Crystal was raped, IN THE FACE OF ZERO EVIDENCE THAT CRYSTAL EVER TOLD THE TRUTH WHEN SHE ALLEGED SHE HAD BEEN RAPED, and you say those she had accused should be pronounced guilty and imprisoned. And you call that attitude of yours not repugnant. I say again, Oh come now. My belief, which is supported by factual evidence is that Crystal lied about being raped and innocent men, whom you dislike not only because of their skin color, but they are more accomplished and better off than you are.

Your attitudes are racist and more appropriate for a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany than for a Democracy.

So again I say HEIL KENNY.

Now crawl back into your hole and hide from the truths which do not mesh with your naistic guilt presuming racism.

PS. Satan probably believes Christ's attitude towards real evil is repugnant. You are in not exactly good company.

Anonymous said...

Correction

Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "I have offered to forgive his racism (after all, it is just the way he was brought up)"....................... No Guiowen, unrepentant racism is unforgiveable. Constantly labelling those you disagree with as racists and Nazis, such as you and Dr. Anonymous do, make you look ridiculous. In this case, it's a sure sign that your pathetic attempt to defend Dr. A.'s obviously repugnant views have failed miserably."

The fundamental disagreement between you and me is that you insist that because you believe Crystal was raped, IN THE FACE OF ZERO EVIDENCE THAT CRYSTAL EVER TOLD THE TRUTH WHEN SHE ALLEGED SHE HAD BEEN RAPED, and you believe those she had accused should be pronounced guilty and imprisoned. And you call that attitude of yours not repugnant. I say again, Oh come now. My belief, which is supported by factual evidence is that Crystal lied about being raped and accused innocent men, men whom you dislike not only because of their skin color, but because they are more accomplished and better off than you are.

Your attitudes are racist and more appropriate for a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany than for a Democracy.

So again I say HEIL KENNY.

Now crawl back into your hole and hide from the truths which do not mesh with your naistic guilt presuming racism.

PS. Satan probably believes Christ's attitude towards real evil is repugnant. You are in not exactly good company.

Anonymous said...

If there was an ounce of justice in this world Crystal Mangum would have been hanged a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

Kenny and Sidney keep mouthing off about how eventually Crystal will be vindicated, that it will be established that Crystal had been assaulted in 2006.

The latest development in the wave of sexual assaults is that the New York State Attorney general will be filing a civil suit against Harvey Weinstein.

In the almost 12 years since the Duke Rape Hoax became news no one has ever come forward to corroborate Crystal's allegations. Sidney used to throw around the term Carpet bagger Jihad. Well like there is and never was any factual evidence that Crystal ever told the truth, there is and never was any evidence of a Carpet bagger jihad. Sidney has claimed that the AG stepped in immediately to derail Nifong's prosecution and force Nifong off the case, ignoring the fact that the AG did not get involved in the case until December of 2006, after Nifong recused himself when the NC Bar voted to file ethics charges against Nifong.

So Kenny, Sidney, how about you either put up or shut up. Provide factual evidence that Crystal had been assaulted and the murder prosecution was retaliation for her accusing the Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

Let's again make things repugnant for Kenny:

It is a fact, Kenny, that you believe Crystal had been raped at the Lacrosse party in March of 2006.

It is also a fact that you have no factual evidence that Crystal had been raped, a fact you have conceded-when challenged to prove Crystal had been raped you replied you do not need proof because you trusted Crystal.

Sidney has bandied about the term, what else could it be. What else could it be, other than you are wishing a woman you purportedly like and respect had been brutally gang raped.

Please explain what is not repugnant about that behavior?

Anonymous said...

This is for Sidney:

I was at a grocery today. At the checkout, in a magazine rack was a copy of Newsweek with a cover about the #MeToo movement. On another rack was a People magazine with the picture of a gymnast who had been molested by Larry Nasar.

When are you going to resume your efforts to deceive the public into believing Crystal was one of the #MeToo victims? When are you going to photoshop Crystal's image on to those magazine covers and then claim the magazines intended to put her image on their covers?

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A. said: "Now crawl back into your hole and hide from the truths which do not mesh with your naistic guilt presuming racism".....................Naistic?? Maybe you mean Naziistic, or Nazistic which are used but not actually recognized words. Nazi was a nick-name for Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartein, a fascist party which held views similar to those of Dr. A., where people of a so-called Aryan race, like people of his so-called Caucasian race, were supposedly more successful and more accomplished then people of other races. This is discredited 19th Century pseudoscience. Disgraceful views, methinks, to be held by a 21st. Century medical practitioner.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal's latest:

"Dr. A. said: "Now crawl back into your hole and hide from the truths which do not mesh with your naistic guilt presuming racism".....................Naistic??"

Sorry I left out the z. I do have a tendency to fail to correct typos.

"Maybe you mean Naziistic, or Nazistic which are used but not actually recognized words."
Yes I meant naziistic. However you are not a recognized authority on what is or is not like the Nazi movement in Germany.

"Nazi was a nick-name for Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartein, a fascist party which held views similar to those of Dr. A., where people of a so-called Aryan race, like people of his so-called Caucasian race, were supposedly more successful and more accomplished then people of other races."

My views is that the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the presumption of innocence. You obviously do not believe that people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do are entitled to the presumption. In totalitarian certain people are presumed not entitled to the presumption of innocence, e.g. the execution of anyone remotely connected with the attempt to assassinate Hitler. That demonstrated tendency of yours is more in common with a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany than it is with a democracy. So again I say HEIL KENNY!!! So far as my views on skin color and ethnicity I never said that certain are inherently more accomplished and better off than people of your ethnicity. I said, YOU resent people who do not have as much melanin in their skin as you do, especially IF they are more accomplished than you are and better off than you are, and considering the clap trap you post here, it is obvious there are millions of people who are more accomplished and better off than you are. You distort what I say. Again, that is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes like the Nazi regime. So again, HEIL KENNY!!!

"This is discredited 19th Century pseudoscience. Disgraceful views, methinks, to be held by a 21st. Century medical practitioner."

A bit of projection here. You are projecting your own racial views on me.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, Kenny, you say black on white racism does not exist, denying the existence of such things as the Tawana Brawley hoax, the Duke Rape Hoax, the guilt presuming actions of the New Black Panther Party in the Duke Rape Hoax, Victoria Peterson's actions during the Nifong ethics trial, the action of the Black Newspaper in Wilmngton NC which tried to pressure AG Cooper into pushing a wrongful prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

Check out Shani Davis/Erin Hamlin situation. When there was a vote as to who would carry the US flag in the opening ceremony there was a tie between Shani Davis and Erin Hamlin. The pre arranged procedure to break a tie was a coin toss. Erin Hamlin won the coin toss. Shani Davis played the race card and called it dishonorable, and posted a tweet suggesting he should have been picked because February is Black History month. If that is not a black man saying he should have gotten preference simply because he was black then what was it? How would you have reacted had Erin Hamlin lost the toss and then said she should have gotten the honor because she was white. YOU WOULD HAVE SCREAMED RACISM!!!, just like you are screaming racism now because the Caucasian men accused of raping Crystal have been proven innocent.

A Lawyer said...

Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?

Isn't it enough that Mangum's rape accusations were conclusively rebutted, by both DNA and alibi evidence?

Anonymous said...

Tell that to Kenny and Sidney.

Both of them say Crystal was attacked because of her race and was convicted on trumped up murder charges because she is a black woman who dared accuse powerful white men of raping her.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
This is for Sidney:

I was at a grocery today. At the checkout, in a magazine rack was a copy of Newsweek with a cover about the #MeToo movement. On another rack was a People magazine with the picture of a gymnast who had been molested by Larry Nasar.

When are you going to resume your efforts to deceive the public into believing Crystal was one of the #MeToo victims? When are you going to photoshop Crystal's image on to those magazine covers and then claim the magazines intended to put her image on their covers?

February 12, 2018 at 10:26 AM


I've already made my point with the sharlog and the Time Magazine cover... the point being that Crystal Mangum "broke the silence" long before those women honored by the magazine. As far as photoshopping, I noticed the big space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person was missing. All I did was place Mangum in the vacated spot... a relevant addition to the group.

As far as Larry Nassar goes, I don't plan on getting involved in that case. It is being given more than adequate coverage by the media as it is.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?

Isn't it enough that Mangum's rape accusations were conclusively rebutted, by both DNA and alibi evidence?

February 12, 2018 at 12:01 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

I'd love to leave race out of the issue, but unfortunately, it is an integral part of the actions taken against her by the State and media. North Carolina is admittedly a racist state... with its gerrymandering, voter suppression, repeal of the Racial Justice Act... etc. Racism is especially germane in criminal justice cases... and race, sadly, is at the crux of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case and in the vendetta-prosecution of Crystal Mangum in Daye's death. I doubt very much that had the Duke Lacrosse accuser been white in otherwise similar circumstances as Mangum, that she would have served any jail time for either the 2010 incident or the 2011 death of Daye.


"In the game of cards you play the hand you're dealt. If you're dealt the race card, you play it."

-- Harrism

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
This is for Sidney:

I was at a grocery today. At the checkout, in a magazine rack was a copy of Newsweek with a cover about the #MeToo movement. On another rack was a People magazine with the picture of a gymnast who had been molested by Larry Nasar.

When are you going to resume your efforts to deceive the public into believing Crystal was one of the #MeToo victims? When are you going to photoshop Crystal's image on to those magazine covers and then claim the magazines intended to put her image on their covers?

February 12, 2018 at 10:26 AM"


"I've already made my point with the sharlog and the Time Magazine cover... the point being that Crystal Mangum "broke the silence" long before those women honored by the magazine. As far as photoshopping, I noticed the big space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift... as though a person was missing. All I did was place Mangum in the vacated spot".

Hey Sidney, I again remind you of your comment of January 11, 2018 at 4:11 AM, and again 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(emphasis added)."

You tried to pull a fraud, tried to tell the public that Time intended to include Crystal as one of its persons of the year. You have made no point. You got caught in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud and now you are trying to cover your butt.

"[Crystal was] a relevant addition to the group." Considering Crystal falsely accused innocent men of rape, and you have never proven that she ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped, that is like saying Charles Manson should be included as one of those wrongfully incarcerated.

"As far as Larry Nassar goes, I don't plan on getting involved in that case. It is being given more than adequate coverage by the media as it is."

If you did get involved, considering your advocacy for Crystal and for Nifong, your involvement would have been like Cardinal Law's involvement in the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, in the arch diocese of Boston.


Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"
A Lawyer said...
Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?

Isn't it enough that Mangum's rape accusations were conclusively rebutted, by both DNA and alibi evidence?

February 12, 2018 at 12:01 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

I'd love to leave race out of the issue, but unfortunately, it is an integral part of the actions taken against her by the State and media. North Carolina is admittedly a racist state... with its gerrymandering, voter suppression, repeal of the Racial Justice Act... etc. Racism is especially germane in criminal justice cases... and race, sadly, is at the crux of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case and in the vendetta-prosecution of Crystal Mangum in Daye's death. I doubt very much that had the Duke Lacrosse accuser been white in otherwise similar circumstances as Mangum, that she would have served any jail time for either the 2010 incident or the 2011 death of Daye."

A Lawyer, I did say that if you want to get rid of the race card, get rid of Sidney and Kenny.

"In the game of cards you play the hand you're dealt. If you're dealt the race card, you play it."

-- Harrism"

Sidney has not, because he can not, ever proven Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped. For whatever reasons, Sidney, like Kenny, in the face of zero evidence to support his akllegations, is heavily invested in believing this woman, whom he claims he tries to help, had been brutally gang raped. Why, Sidney, what kind of gratification do you get from that.

In any event, for all the boasting you have done of having a hand full of aces, all you ever had was the race card, and you, like Kenny, are a guilt presuming racist, nothing more.

guiowen said...

Sidney might have said, "If ALL you're dealt is the race card, you play it."

Anonymous said...

Ubes:

I am your worst nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

An oldie but a goodie from Sidney, from 2012:

"During that February 2010 incident, in which it was crystal clear that Ms. Mangum was innocent of committing any crime, the Durham Police vindictively wanted to saddle her with a serious charge that carried a lengthy prison sentence, so under the pretense of smelling smoke, the apartment was emptied by the officers which presented them with the opportunity, to go along with the means and motive, to set fire to clothes in the bathtub. The police then closed the door without making any attempt to extinguish the blaze they had ignited, and allowed smoke to damage the apartment while waiting for several fire trucks and two dozen firemen to come to the scene in the middle of the night to douse some flames that had scorched some articles of clothing".

Crystal eventually admitted to setting the fire which caused all the smoke damage. Sidney claimed the police started it so they could charge Crystal with arson, and that it was retaliation for her allegations of rape directed against the Lacrosse players(and the DNA evidence proved they could not have committed the alleged crime, which DNA evidence according to Sidney was irrelevant to the case and not at all exculpatory).

Does anyone doubt Sidney plays the race card because he has never had a full deck with which to play?

Anonymous said...

For Sidney Harr:

From J4N Sunday, February 6, 2011:

Regarding the Floyd Brown case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/30/siu.rogue.justice.brown/index.html:

What you wrote: 'There was no eyewitness or forensics evidence tying Brown to the crime… in other words, there was no credible evidence for with which to charge Brown." You applauded the awarding of monetary damages to Floyd Brown

You claim repeatedly that Crystal was prosecuted on trumped up Murder Charges because she accused the Lacrosse defendants with raping her.

There were no eyewitnesses to the alleged crime, there was no physical evidence on Crystal's person of rape. Crystal alleged a DNA depositing rape. The only DNA recovered from her person did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, did not match the DNA of the men against whom Nifong sought indictments. The only evidence Nifong had to present to the Grand Jury were the identifications Crystal made at the April 4 lineup, a lineup which did not conform to Federal, NC state, or Durham PD standards for a properly conducted lineup. You say that Nifong conformed to ethical standards for a prosecutor. And you have gone on record that the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players did not deserve the settlement with which Duke agreed to, that the Lacrosse players shook down Duke for $20 million each, a figure you came up with based on a bogus claim of a $6 million Federal Tax Lien against Reade Seligmann

In one case in which a black man was prosecuted without any inculpatory evidence you, correctly, say it was a wrongful prosecution

In another case, a black woman accuses Caucasian men of raping her. There was no inculpatory evidence. In this case you continue to deny that the prosecution was wrongful, you continue to pronounce that some non existent carpet bagger jihad organized a smear campaign against Nifong to have guilty defendants declared innocent.

I compared you to Cardinal Bernard Law in the sex abuse scandals in Boston. Cardinal Law was discredited because he protected the abusers rather than the abused. You try to protect the false accuser and the corrupt prosecutor and proclaim guilty . With regard to the DNA evidence which proved conclusively that the accused could not have perpetrated the sexual assault Crystal had alleged, you are on record that you believe the DNA evidence was not relevant to the case and was not at all exculpatory.

So again, you play the race card because you do not have and never have had a full deck with which to play. You are just a guilt presuming racist.

Anonymous said...

A correction:

I compared you to Cardinal Bernard Law in the sex abuse scandals in Boston. Cardinal Law was discredited because he protected the abusers rather than the abused. You try to protect the false accuser and the corrupt prosecutor and proclaim the innocent guilty . With regard to the DNA evidence which proved conclusively that the accused could not have perpetrated the sexual assault Crystal had alleged, you are on record that you believe the DNA evidence was not relevant to the case and was not at all exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Explain why the DNA evidence was not exculpatory, in view of these facts, Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape, the Durham DA office said the DNA evidence would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent, and the DNA found on Crystal's rape kit did not match the DNA of anyone Nifong had accused of perpetrating the crime. I remind you, Nifong went public shortly after the story became public with a statement that a crime had happened and that members of the Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.

If Nifong really was an ethical prosecutor why did he order a lineup procedure which consisted of a series of photos of men who could not have perpetrated the alleged crime. Don't cop out by claiming you are focusing on Crystal's murder conviction and not the Duke Lacrosse incident. I remind you again, you say that Crystal was convicted of trumped up murder charges as retaliation for her actions in the Duke Lacrosse incident.

A Lawyer said...

Hey, A Lawyer.

I'd love to leave race out of the issue, but unfortunately, it is an integral part of the actions taken against her by the State and media.


Dr. Harr:
I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Dr. Anonymous, who keeps baiting Kenny with talk about "melanin." I don't find those comments useful to the discussion.

Anonymous said...

My response to A Lawyer was and is that Sidney and Kenny are the individuals who have inserted racism into this forum.

Their take on it, Crystal's downfall was due to racism, not due to her lies.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hey, A Lawyer.

I'd love to leave race out of the issue, but unfortunately, it is an integral part of the actions taken against her by the State and media.

Dr. Harr:
I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Dr. Anonymous, who keeps baiting Kenny with talk about "melanin." I don't find those comments useful to the discussion.

February 13, 2018 at 7:39 AM


To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie." Apologies, A Lawyer. Obviously didn't fully comprehend context of your statement. Thank you for the clarification.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hey, A Lawyer.

I'd love to leave race out of the issue, but unfortunately, it is an integral part of the actions taken against her by the State and media.

Dr. Harr:
I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Dr. Anonymous, who keeps baiting Kenny with talk about "melanin." I don't find those comments useful to the discussion.

February 13, 2018 at 7:39 AM


To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie." Apologies, A Lawyer. Obviously didn't fully comprehend context of your statement. Thank you for the clarification."

What you should have done is the following:

Admit that there is not and never was any evidence that Crystal ever told the truth, instead of continuing to repeat, no one ever proved Crystal had lied.

Admit that Nifong stirred up racist animosity among the black electorate in Durham in order to win the election for DA instead of pushing the absurd lie that stirring up those racial animosities would have cost Nifong the election.

Admit that what brought Nifong down was his obviously grossly improper wrongful prosecution of innocent men, not some racist inspired carpet baggeer jihad, something you have never proven.

Admit that AG Cooper did not proclaim the Lacrosse defendants. He and his investigators did do a thorough investigation of the case and found no evidence that the crime Crystal alleged ever happened.

Admit that the only pressure exerted on AG Cooper was exerted by a black run newspaper in Wilmington NC, pressure to not only prosecute the innocent defendants and convict them.

Admit the Lacrosse players were in actual fact innocent because the crime of which they were accused did not happen.

You will not do any of this because, in my opinion, you are so heavily invested in your guilt presuming racism.

And like your wacko-lyte Kenny you resent people who have less melanin in their skin than you do, especially such people who are more accomplished and better off than you are.

If Crystal was raped, prove she told the truth. Had the case gone to trial in a fair objective venue that would never have happened. I remind you the prosecutor, not the defense, has the obligation to prove, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser had told the truth.

kenhyderal said...

@ A Lawyer: This guy (Dr.A.) is beyond redemption. I should not let him constantly bait me but I do find it hard to allow his garbage to stand unopposed. Honorable people can agree to disagree but his views I feel are dishonorable.

Anonymous said...

Right on kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ A Lawyer: This guy (Dr.A.) is beyond redemption. I should not let him constantly bait me but I do find it hard to allow his garbage to stand unopposed. Honorable people can agree to disagree but his views I feel are dishonorable."

My view is, the Lacrosse players accused of raping Crystal are innocent because there is no evidence at all that the alleged crime ever took place. Kenhyderal's view is that the crime did take place, even though he concedes he can provide zero evidence that the crime did take place. What Kenny calls dishonorable is that I reply to his guilt presumption with facts, and he can not refute those facts.

So which view is honorable? That demonstrably innocent men should be acknowledged to be innocent. Or that demonstrably innocent men should be condemned because of their ethnicity, which is what Kenny is doing

Kenny's reply to those facts is to chant that those he calls "Duke Lacrosse apologists" just "DENY DENY DENY"

I have challenged him to PROVE PROVE PROVE.

Kenny replies, he does not need proof. He believes Crystal, which is saying, ignore the factual evidence and condemn the men solely on the uncorroborated allegation of Crystal. Just what is honorable about that. The attitude of the people who persecuted the Scottsboro boys was, condemn them solely on the word of the women who accused them. Was that honorable? Was that just a difference of opinion? No. What is honorable about Kenny adopting a Scottsboro-like attitude towards the accused Lacrosse players?

So far as Kenny saying he can not let my "garbage stand. BULLSHIT!!! What Kenny calls garbage is conclusive proof of the innocence of the accused players. So far as not allowing it to stand, I repeat Kenny has conceded he can provide zero factual evidence that the accused Lacrosse players ever assaulted Crystal. So he has conceded he can not knock my views down.

Maybe that is why he is so frustrated that an individual who does not have as much melanin in his skin as he does can knock him down.

Parting shot. Kenny, the way to knock my views down is to prove Crystal had been raped, that Crystal told the truth. PROVE PROVE PROVE Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped, and you do not do it by screaming that "Duke Lacrosse Apologists" just Deny Deny Deny. I drum it into you again. You concede that the Duke Lacrosse defendants have nothing to deny.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, if you really understand Christianity, redemption follows acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repenting of it.

How can you or Sidney or Crystal be redeemed when all of you DENY DENY DENY the fact that no crime ever took place?

kenhyderal said...

You've changes the subject. A. Lawyer, in admonishing you said: " Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?" As usual, in spite of his request, you continued to go on and on with your usual garbage about Caucasians and melanin. I addressed my remark to A. Lawyer pointing out just how incorrigible you are.

guiowen said...

Kenhderal,
If you weren't such a racist, there would be no problem.
Please don't whine.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal's latest pathetic screed:

"You've changes the subject. A. Lawyer, in admonishing you said: " Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?" As usual, in spite of his request, you continued to go on and on with your usual garbage about Caucasians and melanin. I addressed my remark to A. Lawyer pointing out just how incorrigible you are."

Guiowen put it how it exactly is.

The first person who put race into this situation was Nifong, who went public before he had any evidence a crime had happened, declaring that a crime had happened, that members of the Lacrosse tam were the perpetrators and the motive was racial.

Sidney, your mentor, frequently screeds about how he is discriminated against because he is black, because his frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits are dismissed.

I can't do anything about the garbage you and Sidney and Nifong have dumped into this situation, just point it out and object to it.

Your problem is you do not like being outed for the racist you are.

All this sounds like a real attempt at projection on your part.

Anonymous said...

For Guiowen:

You got it wrong.

If not only for Kenny but also for Sidney and Nifong being such rabid racists there would be no racism on this forum.

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

Your attitude towards your racism is DENY DENY DENY.

I am sure you are familiar with that chant.

You don't like it when your own garbage is tossed back at you, do you.

Anonymous said...

With regard to the injection of race into this sordid affair:

from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-17-nifong_N.htm:

"The case arose in March 2006 after a black stripper, who had been hired to perform at a lacrosse team party, accused David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, who are white, of raping her. Nifong denounced the players as a 'bunch of hooligans' and cast himself as the defender against racial injustice."

Nifong, the corrupt prosecutor who sought and got indictments against the innocent Lacrosse defendants(innocent because the crime with which they were charged never happened) tried to make the Duke Lacrosse hoax of case of white on black racism. Sidney and Kenny have persisted on making the Duke Rape Hoax and the ensuing incidents, the Milton Walker case in which Crystal assaulted Milton Walker and threatened to kill him, and the Reginad Daye murder as instances of white on black racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"You've changes the subject. A. Lawyer, in admonishing you said: ' Can't we leave the race stuff out of this?'"

I again remind you that you and Sidney are the individuals who have made the Crystal Mangum story a story of white on black racism.

Anonymous said...

I should have said that you, Kenny, and Sidney are the individuals who have DISTORTED the Crystal Mangum story into a story of white on black racism.

kenhyderal said...

And, for you and Guiowen, who seem to have the distorted and ridiculous view the case represents black on white racism, it's vice versa. But hey, let's take the wise advice of A Lawyer and leave race completely out of any debate we engage in about guilt or innocence. All in favour??

FakeKenhyderal said...

Duke and sexual assault back in the news:

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article199782844.html

Two of Sid's favorite people, James Coleman and Judge Orlando Hudson, are mentioned in the article....

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"And, for you and Guiowen, who seem to have the distorted and ridiculous view the case represents black on white racism, it's vice versa. But hey, let's take the wise advice of A Lawyer and leave race completely out of any debate we engage in about guilt or innocence. All in favour??"

For that to happen, you and Sidney would have to change your attitudes, which are racist.

You and Sidney would cease and desist posting, as you have just done, that the outcome of the Duke Rape Hoax was orchestrated by white on black racism, you would have to admit that no one but Crystal is responsible for Crystal's troubles, the false allegations of rape she made aganst innocent men, her assault on Milton Walker and the murder of Reginald Daye except Reginald Daye, that it was not and never was retaliation because she accused Caucasian men of raping her. It was not the result of a white on black racist carpet bagger jihad.

Sidney would have to admit his legal endeavors did not end in failure the way they did simply because he had no case and no t because he is black, that he was ordered off Duke's campus at the Breyer event because he violated Duke's non solicitation policy and not because he was discriminated against because he was a black man who advocated for Mike Nifong.

And you and Sidney would admit that Nifong's troubles were due to his stirring up black on white racist disharmony because he wanted to win an election he was losing and pad his retirement benefits.

That is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

Since you two were the people who took the actions which led to the injection of race into this forum it is incumbent upon you and no one else to eliminate it.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal, to put it more succinctly, you and Sidney acknowledge your rather egregious errors, apologize for them, and cease and desist from promulgating them in a =n attempt to get your favorite false rape accuser/convicted criminal/convicted murderess a pass for her crimes by blaming her plight on white on black racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"And, for you and Guiowen, who seem to have the distorted and ridiculous view the case(i.e. the Duke Lacrosse incident) represents black on white racism, it's vice versa."
o
The accuser was black. The accused were white. The sitting DA claimed the alleged crime had been motivated by the racism of the perpetrators. The sitting DA made a deliberate choice to prosecute white members of the Lacrosse tean, even though he had evidence that those he intended to prosecute could not have perpetrated the alleged crime. In the face of zero evidence of a crime he told a black audience at NCCU that he intended to go on prosecuting the crime.


Nifong did not get away with it because of his glaringly obvious unethical and illegal behavior during the case, making public statements to inflame public opinion against the people he had accused of perpetrating the crime, that anyone he had publicly designated a suspect who retained a lawyer was indicating guilt, that a designated suspect who availed himself of his right not to give information to the authorities was indicating guilt, that those members of the Lacrosse team who would not give statements to the police which incriminated other team members might be charged with aiding and abetting.

And Nifong did deliberately conceal evidence which did exonerate the men he chose to prosecute, the DNA evidence yielded by DNA Security, that the only male DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegations did not match the DNA of anyone Nifong had designated as a suspect. I remind you that in her statement to the police Crystal alleged the men who had assaulted her had left their bodily fluids, and therefore their DNA, on her person.

Sidney claimed that Nifong did not conceal the evidence, that he turned over all the raw data within 3 days of the Court Order directing him to do so. The evidence resulted from the NTO which the DA office obtained. I repeat this, NC Law required that whoever sought the order was to turn over a report of the results in a timely manner. How does turning over raw data in response to a Judge's order add up to turning over the report in a timely manner? It doesn't. Sidney also claimed the DNA evidence was not exculpatory. His definition of not exculpatory was, it did not prove the defendants did not commit the crime. This has a connection with Sidney's legally weightless argument that no one ever proved Crystal lied. Those statements are consistent with an attitude that the defendants were guilty unless proven innocent. Sidney did not take that approach when Crystal was charged after she assaulted Milton Walker, threatened to kill him, and set his clothes on fire. Sidney did not take that attitude when the Grand Jury indicted Crystal for the murder of Reginald Daye. You have said that when the Grand Jury indicted the Lacrosse defendants, that meant the case had to go to trial. You did not say that after a Grand Jury handed down its indictment against Crystal.

So I dare you to explain how the Duke Lacrosse incident was a case of white on black racism, and explain how your defense of Crystal in the Duke Lacrosse incident is not your ongoing black on white racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, Sidney, if you do not want to see posts like this, then confess your black on white racism and shut down this forum with an admission you are black on white racists.

kenhyderal said...

Who is surprised that Dr. A. would not take up A Lawyer's reasoned call to stop injecting race into any debates going on here? I believe OJ Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. Others, including a Jury, believe he did not When an alleged victim and an alleged perpetrator are of a convergent race, according to the logic of Dr. A. supporters of one side are racist if they too are of that race. He's too invested in the belief that people who believe alleged victim Crystal must be racist because those she accused are of a divergent race. Dr. Harr and myself do not fall into that category. Where we have complaints are with the unequal justice meted out to minorities in America; something almost everybody acknowledges.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyuderal:

"Who is surprised that Dr. A. would not take up A Lawyer's reasoned call to stop injecting race into any debates going on here?:"

DA Nifong, then Sidney, then Kenny injected racism, white on black racism, into this scenario. Now Sidney and Kenny cry, let's keep racism out of this. Sidney says he plays th race card because that is what he was dealt. Well, someone else plays a race card which trumps Sidney's race card and Sidney's wacko-lyte Kenny cries unfair. Can we say HYPOCRISY boys and girls.

"I believe OJ Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. Others, including a Jury, believe he did not"

Irrelevant.

"When an alleged victim and an alleged perpetrator are of a convergent race, according to the logic of Dr. A. supporters of one side are racist if they too are of that race. He's too invested in the belief that people who believe alleged victim Crystal must be racist because those she accused are of a divergent race."

Once again, not at all unusual for Kenny, Kenny gets it wrong. All that can be said which is true about the alleged crime is the crime was alleged. As AG Cooper pointed out in his news conference in which he expressed his belief, the belief he and his investigators that the Lacrosse defendants were and are innocent. I name you and Sidney racist to insist in the face of zero evidence that the crime happened, that it did happen and was an instance of white on back racism, that the aftermath of the crime, the outing of Crystal as a false accuser, the outing of Nifong as a corrupt rogue prosecutor, and the real innocence of the accused were instances of white on black racism, the result of a white on black racist carpetbagger jihad which never happened.

Dr. Harr and myself do not fall into that category."

What category do you fall into. If you mean you are not racists, then you are just into, using your own words, DENY DENY DENY, paraphrasing the words of Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels, repeat the big lie often enough and some people will believe it. HEIL KENNY!!!, and his Scottsboro attitude towards the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants.

"Where we have complaints are with the unequal justice meted out to minorities in America; something almost everybody acknowledges."

Then address those complaints rather than condemn innocent men of a different ethnicity from you for a crime, which both of you have described as white on black racism, a crime which never happened. How is falsely accusing innocent white men of a racially motivated hate crime against a back woman justice? You continuously try to bullshit your way around and through that issue. You do not address that issue because you are both racist. Can we again say HYPOCRISY boys and girls.

This reminds me of William Kunstler in the Tawana Brawley black on white racist hoax. He made a statement to the effect that it did not matter whether or not Tawana told the truth. Her allegations brought attention to racial injustice towards black people. Kunstler never addressed how a hoax could bring any real attention to real world problems.

So explain, do not duck, o not dodge, do not bullshit your way around and through the issue, how did the Duke Rape HOAX bring attention to the real world problem of racially motivated injustice directed against any one?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

If it is not black on whit racism on your part, then explain why you presume the Lacrosse players guilty, and you and Sidney do presume them guilty, in the face of your admission you have no factual evidence that the alleged crime ever happened, that you believe it happened only because you believe Crystal. You are also on record for saying the alleged crime was an instance of white on black racism.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, the issue comes down to is, why do you have so much invested in believing Crystal had been brutally gang raped.

Again I remind you, all you have is your desire to trust Crystal.

Why should that be considered probable cause to prosecute the Lacrosse defendants?

Since when is guilt presumption in the face of zero evidence of guilt, not just insufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but total and complete lack of evidence of guilt.

Even if people like you and Nifong and Sidney had not injected racism into this mix, how would prosecuting anyone for a crime for which there was complete and total lack of evidence add up to justice?

Your insistence that a crime did happen and that white men should have been prosecuted ad convicted of it is more than a difference of opinion. It is advocacy for lynch mob justice.

Anonymous said...

Clarification for Kenny:

"Since when is guilt presumption in the face of zero evidence of guilt, not just insufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but total and complete lack of evidence of guilt just an honorable(your word) difference of opinion?

Anonymous said...


Kenny said:

"But hey, let's take the wise advice of A Lawyer and leave race completely out of any debate we engage in about guilt or innocence. All in favour??"

In that case, what is there to engage about?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal

How can there be a debate on guilt or innocence in the face of your assumption, Sidney's assumption, that the accused Lacrosse players are guilty, even though there is zero evidence the alleged crime ever took place.

You do not believe in debate.

You believe in the presumption of guilt of these people you dislike.

And as you are on record as saying the incident was an episode of white on black racism, the accuser is black and the accused are Caucasian, it is black on white racist guilt presumption.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

The punchline:

If you really want a debate on guilt or innocence provide something other than, you believe the accuser and get rid of your racist guilt presumption.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A said: "And as you are on record as saying the incident was an episode of white on black racism," .....................................................................
I challenge you to cite such a record.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal,

We're well aware that you have a terrible memory.

Please stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A said: "And as you are on record as saying the incident was an episode of white on black racism," .....................................................................
I challenge you to cite such a record. "

You asked for it:

Challenge accepted:

From your comment from February 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM:

"AND, FOR YOU[Dr. A] AND GUIOWEN, WHO SEEM TO HAVE THE DISTORTED AND RIDICULOUS VIEW THE CASE REPRESRNTS BLACK ON WHITE RACISM, IT'S VICE VERSA(emphasis added)."

from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vice-versa:

Vice Versa:

"in reverse order from the way something has been stated; the other way around".

If your comment from February 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM was not calling the Duke Lacrosse incident a case of white on black racism, then what was it?

from https://shmaltzandmenudo.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/famous-sayings-16-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/:

Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it.

Got it?



kenhyderal said...

I shot from the hip on that one, by throwing your own words back at you, but that pales in comparison to the daily, weekly, monthly accusations of black on white racism you so gratuitously throw out at me.

Anonymous said...

Please forgive Kenhyderal for his poor memory. He never lies; it's just that he forgets things because of context.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I shot from the hip on that one, by throwing your own words back at you, but that pales in comparison to the daily, weekly, monthly accusations of black on white racism you so gratuitously throw out at me."

A rather pathetic response.

Kenhyderal first tried to deny then to to rationalize that he went on record as saying the Duke Lacrosse incident was a case of white on black racism.

The Duke Lacrosse incident was an incident in which a black woman falsely accused innocent white men of raping her. There is no evidence that the alleged crime ever happened. Kenhyderal says he believes the crime did happen, says he believes that because he trusts Crystal, that he takes her at her word, and not because there ever was any evidence of the crime. And, I say again, he did characterize the incident as a case of white on black racism. I say that does establish him as a black man with racist attitudes towards white men.

Kenny, it is not a case of you can't hide. You can't even run effectively, let alone hide.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, I say you did not do a very strong job of throwing my words back at me.

DENY DENY DEBY is not at all effective when the truth is obvious.

In the Duke Rape Hoax the obvious truth was, and is.the alleged crime did not happen and you have characterized it as a case of white on black racism.

More hurling popcorn at me from a range of 100 yards and thinking you are intimidating.

Desconocido said...

Kenhyderal,
Por favor ven a Durham! Tu amigo el gordito Kilgo esta perdiendo la cabeza, y solo tu le puedes ayudar!

Anonymous said...

Kenny, let's go over this again.

In her statement to police Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape, meaning a rape in which the perpetrators left their DNA on her person.

The only male DNA found on Crystal's person following the alleged rape did not match the DNA of any male designated as a suspect. Nifong went public early in the case with a statement to the effect that a rape had happened, members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators. The NTO, which did say the DNA recovered from the rape kit wsa relevant to the case(Sidney said the DNA which had actually been recovered was not relevant to the case).

So I challenge you to explain why the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of those named by Nifong and his DA's office as suspects.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A. said: "I say that does establish him as a black man with racist attitudes towards white men"........................................ And, vice versa, what does that say about you? No, I have negative attitudes against men of privilege who take advantage of a poor vulnerable woman, regardless of their race or of hers.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Ken.

Anonymous said...

-Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "I say that does establish him as a black man with racist attitudes towards white men"........................................ And, vice versa, what does that say about you? "

Kenny, you are ducking and dodging and trying to again bullshit your way around facts which do not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.

The issues are, no crime ever happened, you insist that the Duke Lacrosse hoax was a case of white on black racism, and you continue to insist that the crime had happened.

I again say that establishes you are a guilt presuming racist.

"No, I have negative attitudes against men of privilege who take advantage of a poor vulnerable woman, regardless of their race or of hers."

The issue here is, and you are in denial of this, is that there was no incident of men of privilege taking advantage of a poor vulnerable woman. You like to throw around the term metanarrative. The only metanarrative in the Duke Rape Hoax is the metanarrative that white men of privilege took advantage of a poor vulnerable black woman.

That you try to promulgate this metanarrative further establishes you as a guilt presuming black on white racist.

Anonymous said...

Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

kenhyderal said...

Dr.A. said" you insist that the Duke Lacrosse (hoax) was a case of white on black racism"................................Wrong; I insist that it was the case of a cowardly violent crime against a friend of mine who is a kind and vulnerable person. What the race of the perpetrators, is of no consequence to me. Hypothetically, had this been a College Basketball Team composed of African-American Players my reaction would have been the same

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Something else of which you are on record:

From your statement of February 6, 2018 at 3:57 PM:

"Ideally, should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions."

This is what happened in the Duke Rape Hoax.

Nifong had conducted a lineup consisting only of pictures of white Lacrosse players. By that time Nifong's DA Office got an NTO directing White members of the Lacrosse team to give samples for DNA analysis, justifying the NTO by saying DNA matching DNA found on Crystal would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. By that time Nifong had the information from the NC SBI crime lab, there was no DNA on the rape kit materials which matched the DNA of the white Lacrosse players.

On April 6, 2006 Crystal gave the police statement in which she alleged three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her and had deposited their bodily fluids on her, meaning they had left their DNA on her.

After that Nifong got the results from Brian Meehan's DNA Security that the only male DNA did not match the DNA of any Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team.

In May, he then went to the Grand Jury to seek indictments against men whose DNA he knew did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

How was that a case of a prosecutor seeking justice rather than convictions?

Answer.

Do not dodge.

Do not duck.

Do not try to bullshit your way through and around facts which do not mesh with your guilt presumption which I say is your racist guilt presumption.

Answer.

Anonymous said...








































Go Ubes Go

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Dr.A. said" you insist that the Duke Lacrosse (hoax) was a case of white on black racism"................................Wrong;"

You are again resorting to ducking dodging, bullshitting.

In your comment from February 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM, did you or did you not say the following:

"AND, FOR YOU[Dr. A] AND GUIOWEN, WHO SEEM TO HAVE THE DISTORTED AND RIDICULOUS VIEW THE CASE REPRESRNTS BLACK ON WHITE RACISM, IT'S VICE VERSA(emphasis added)."

That was copied and pasted, woith emphasis added, from your comment of February 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM.


"I insist that it was the case of a cowardly violent crime against a friend of mine who is a kind and vulnerable person."

You did not own up to what you said in response to repeated challenges to prove said "cowardly violent crime" ever happened, that you need no proof, that you trust Crystal. Which is saying, that the accused, who are of a different ethnicity of the accuser, should be presumed guilty and punished. Again, the attitude in the Scottsboro boys, the attitude of those of the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys was, accept the word of the accusers and convict the accused.

"What the race of the perpetrators, is of no consequence to me. Hypothetically, had this been a College Basketball Team composed of African-American Players my reaction would have been the same"

Which I doubt since you keep insisting in the face of zero evidence that a black on white racist crime had been perpetrated against Crystal and you HAVE gone on record that said "cowardly vicious crime" was a white on black racism. If "the race of the perpetrators, is of no consequence to [you]" you never have gone on record saying the alleged crime, and I say again you have conceded you have no factual evidence of said "cowardly vicious crime", had been an instance of white on black racism.

You are heavily into, and I again use your words, DENY DENY DENY.



Anonymous said...



Kenny

or

Sidney

or

both

continue

to

post

anonymously

to

create

the

illusion

that

they

have

support.





kenhyderal said...

Deconocido said: "Por favor ven a Durham! Tu amigo el gordito Kilgo esta perdiendo la cabeza, y solo tu le puedes ayudar!"...............................Bonus. Anda a Cagar

guiowen said...

Kenhyderl,
Can't you keep a proper tongue in your mouth?
For those who don't know Spanish, Kenny said, "Go take a shit."

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Does the "Kenhyderal rule" apply to Kenhyderal?

kenhyderal said...

Sorry I got carried away. I apologize to Dr. Harr and his readers. I retract that statement and substitute ¡Piérdete'. (get lost). I find this mischief making particularly disgusting, though and I obviously don't have the Christian forbearance of Dr. Harr

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Sorry I got carried away. I apologize to Dr. Harr and his readers. I retract that statement and substitute ¡Piérdete'. (get lost). I find this mischief making particularly disgusting, though and I obviously don't have the Christian forbearance of Dr. Harr".

"The Christian forbearance of Dr. Harr", like the "cowardly violent crime against a friend of mine" does not exist.

Please explain how persistently accusing innocent men of a crime which never happened is Christian forbearance.

What you call Sidney's Christian forbearance is Sidney's inability to address the obvious inconsistencies and falsehoods in his statements.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Regarding your take on Sidney's "Christian forbearance":

What exactly is Christian about proclaiming innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened.

AG Cooper, regardless of Sidney's delusions, did a thorough investigation of the Duke Lacrosse alleged rape, as is documented in his report. His finding was not insufficient evidence to convict but no evidence. No evidence means no crime, nothing more(except maybe to a guilt presuming racist, or to a corrupt rogue prosecutor who is out not for justice but for convictions).

Inconnu said...

Alors, Kenhyderal,
Qu'est-ce qui arrive? Pour quoi ne peux-tu pas venir aider to pauvre ami le gros Kilgo? Il n'est pas bien du tout.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: His finding was not insufficient evidence to convict but no evidence".......................................................That is not the case. There was sufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury to charge.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: " Please explain how persistently accusing innocent men of a crime which never happened is Christian forbearance"............. Dr. Harr shows Christian forbearance in persistently "turning the other cheek" to your unwarranted attacks on him. It's plain for all to see. On the other hand only God knows who is bearing false witness, Crystal or the Duke Lacrosse Players. As William Cohan said. "we might never know what happened there".

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"'Dr. Anonymous said: " Please explain how persistently accusing innocent men of a crime which never happened is Christian forbearance'............. Dr. Harr shows Christian forbearance in persistently "turning the other cheek" to your unwarranted attacks on him."

Wrong. What you call my unwarranted attacks on Sidney are my responses to his unwarranted attacks on innocent men wrongfully accused of perpetrating a crime which never happened.

"It's plain for all to see."

What is plain for all to see except for you two guilt presuming racists is that Crystal never told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

"On the other hand only God knows who is bearing false witness, Crystal or the Duke Lacrosse Players."

Which means only that you admit God knows that neither you nor Sidney nor Crystal nor Nifong ever told the truth.

'As William Cohan said. 'we might never know what happened there'."

Which is like Adolf Hitler saying we might never know what happened in the concentration camps. That some pretentious author, who made no effort to actually find the truth and then blinds himself to the truth is irrelevant. Cohan admits in his pathetic deformed image of piece of investigative journalism that he did not document the truth of what he asserted. He admitted that when he said he did not include end notes or references or sources in his book because all the documentation was readily available on line. Have you ever found any. If you have, post a link to it.

Do we know what happened in there. Yes we know. The actual facts unearthed in the case proved conclusively nothing criminal happened in there.

Just another iteration of you saying the accused should have been convicted on the word of the accuser because the accuser was black and the accused were not.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: His finding was not insufficient evidence to convict but no evidence".......................................................That is not the case. There was sufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury to charge."

That is totally irrelevant to what I said, that AG Cooper reported was not evidence insufficient to convict, but no evidence at all. Sidney, in calling the AG's statement was improper, said that the AG had authority only to say whether or not the evidence was sufficient to proceed.

Tell us, what evidence did Nifong actually have to present to the Grand Jury.

DNA evidence? Nifong's DA office, via the NTO, said that whatever DNA found on Crystal would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. At the time Nifong sought indictments against Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans, Nifong knew that Crystal had alleged a rape in which in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA, and Nifong knew the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he sought to have indicted.

Crystal's identifications of Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans? They were the product of an improperly conducted lineup. Would Nifong tell the Grand Jury that the identifications he had to present came from an improper lineup? Again, the only DNA evidence had to present was, the DNA recovered from Crystal's person did not match the DNA of the three named suspects.

The DNA from Crystal's false fingernail which was consistent with but which did not definitively match David Evans' DNA? What issue that raises is, how does DNA on a false fingernail which is consistent with but not definitively matching David Evans' DNA is enough to charge him with rape, but the failure to find DNA which definitively matched David Evans' DNA on Crystal's person in the wake of the rape allegation does not rule out David Evans as a suspect, especially in view of the fact that more than a month before the Grand Jury proceeding Crystal alleged a rape in which the perpetrators had left their DNA.

Did Nifong have Crystal testify before the Grand Jury. Would he have had his complaining witness testify without knowing what she would have said? It is part of the public record that Nifong did not have Crystal interviewed by his office until December of 2006, almost 9 months after Crystal made her allegations. And the story she told on that interview was inconsistent with the story she had told in her police statement, that she had been penetrated. In December she told Linwood Wilson she could not recall being penetrated.

There are facts which are part of the public record which show Nifong did not have enough to charge anyone on the Lacrosse team with raping Crystal Mangum. Which in turn shows Nifong did not make a presentation which was a search for truth but a presentation which was a search for a conviction.

If Nifong did have evidence to charge but did not disclose that to the defense, then he was in violation of NC and Federal law which required him to disclose that evidence to the defense.

Another pathetically lame attempt on the part of Kenny to bullshit his way around and through facts which do not mesh with his racist guilt presumption.

Anonymous said...

More for Kenhyderal and the Grand Jury:

At the Nifong ethics trial, Benjamin Himan testified to a conversation he had with Nifong in which Nifong's comment was, you know we're f---ed.

Some folks have rationalized the meaning of this, but it was nothing more than Nifong admitting he did not have a case against the men he wanted to indict.

Said Grand Jury hearing was in no way an attempt to obtain justice for the accuser but a naked attempt to get convictions against the men Nifong wanted to indict.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Check out https://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lacrossereport.html

From REPORT OF THE [DUKE] LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE:

"b. Social behavior

Paradoxically, in contrast to their exemplary academic and athletic performance, a large number of the members of the team have been socially irresponsible when under the influence of alcohol. They have repeatedly violated the law against underage drinking. They have drunk alcohol excessively. They have disturbed their neighbors with loud music and noise, both on-campus and off-campus. They have publicly urinated both on-campus and off. They have shown disrespect for property. Both the number of team members implicated in this behavior and the number of alcohol-related incidents involving them have been excessive compared to other Duke athletic teams. Nevertheless, their conduct has not been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses alcohol. THEIR REPORTED CONDUCT HAS NOT INVOLVED FIGHTING, SEXUAL ASSAULT OR HARASSMMENT OR RACIST BEHAVIOR(emphasis added)...Moreover, even the people who have complained about their alcohol-related misconduct often add that the students are respectful and appear genuinely remorseful when they are not drinking."

You have characterized the Lacrosse team members as a wild, undisciplined, totally out of control racist group of louts with a history which would indicate they would sexually assault someone like Crystal Mangum.

YOU LIED!!!!!

If you ever did read the report you picked and chose what you wanted out of it, ignored the rest, and then presented your distorted truncated version as the whole and entire truth. A similar situation, the part of Corinthians in which Paul said, Wives submit to your husbands. Some men do interpret that as to mean they have a God given right to dominate and control their wives. They totally ignore the rest of that part of Corinthians in which Paul says, husbands love your wives the way Christ lived the Church. They ignore the part of all the synoptic Gospels which says Christ came to serve the Church, not dominate it.

Another similar situation, Nifong suppressing exculpatory evidence in the Duke Rape Hoax, Nifong making a distorted presentation as the entire truth to the Grand Jury so he could get convictions rather than get to the truth.

For Kenny, how does that add up to Christ like behavior?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

From http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/11/miscarriage-of-justice-law-professor-james-coleman-discusses-duke-lacrosse-case

Professor Coleman quoted in the Duke Chronicle about the report on the Lacrosse team:

“We looked into the lacrosse team’s behavior in the previous five years, relative to that of other sports teams and relative to that of Duke students generally,” Coleman said. “What we found was that they were not different in any significant way from either other teams or from other students, or identifiable groups like fraternities and sororities on campus. The misconduct in which they engaged was primarily the result of drinking.”

Professor Coleman did not describe the Lacrosse team the way you have.

Why.

In spite of zero evidence of the crime which Crystal alleged, you insist the crime did happen and that the Lacrosse defendants were guilty. Each and every time you mis identify Crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the "Duke Rape Case" you proclaim the defendants are guilty.

Again for Kenny: how does such deliberate distortion of the facts add hp to Christ like behavior?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article189710904.html:

This is a link to a site which shows a letter to the editor of the Herald Sun, and her is an excerpt:

"Even if we assume that it can be proven the defendants are innocent, that does not preclude Ms. Mangum’s assertion of being sexually victimized at the party from being true ... there being more than 50 men at the tawdry affair. And, as exemplified in the nationally known Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton North Carolina rape case in the mid 1980s, eyewitness suspect identification is not fail-proof even under the best conditions and the most reliable and cognizant witness."


Excerpt form the excerpt:

"Even if we assume that it can be proven the defendants are innocent, that does not preclude Ms. Mangum’s assertion of being sexually victimized at the party".

As there was zero evidence that the indicted defendants could have perpetrated the alleged crime, it is fact, not an assumption that the defendants were innocent. And again remind you that it was the obligation of the prosecution to PROVE Crystal's allegation was true. No one was obliged to present evidence that precluded Crystal's allegation from being true.

another excerpt from the excerpt:

"there being more than 50 men at the tawdry affair."

As there were 46 members of the Lacrosse team and there were two non Lacrosse team attendees, and the DNA of those individuals DID NOT match the DNA found on Crystal following her allegation, what significance is that? I remind you that Crystal did allege her assailants deposited their DNA on her, and the Durham DA office via the NTO did declare DNA found on the rape kit was relevant, contrary to a claim you once made that the DNA found on the rape kit was not relevant.

Final excerpt from the excerpt:

"...as exemplified in the nationally known Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton North Carolina rape case in the mid 1980s, eyewitness suspect identification is not fail-proof even under the best conditions and the most reliable and cognizant witness."

A long time ago I made a statement on one of your blogs that Crystal picked at random three men out of the April 4 lineup as assailants. Your response was that Crystal identified two of he men with 100% certainty and the third man with 90% certainty. Were you saying at that time that Crystal's identifications were unreliable? I think not.

More evidence you were and are, in the face of zero evidence to show the crime alleged by Crystal ever happened, into guilt presumption. How does that translate into a quest for justice?

The relevance to this latest blog of yours is, much of Crystal's motion for release is a rehash of your version of the Duke Rape Hoax, allegations that Crystal was prosecuted on trumped up murder charges in retaliation for her accusations of rape against the Duke defendants. So answer the questions.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

More from your letter:

"Retribution against Mangum has been severe and sinister with a trumped up vendetta-driven prosecution and second-degree murder conviction (in the 2011 death of her boyfriend) as payback for the Duke lacrosse case. Evidence (a busted locked bathroom door, hair clumps, facial injuries) support physical abuse she received prior to stabbing her boyfriend."

She had no facial injuries, no other injuries with being assaulted and the stab wound inflicted to Reginald Daye was a stab wound to his back". That is evidence that she had not been abused and that she stabbed Reginald Daye while he was attempting to get away from her. That you would advocate, ignore everything except what I want to present is not at all surprising considering your advocacy for Nifong who tried to suppress and conceal evidence of the innocence of the men he wanted to indict and convict.

"The wound Mangum inflicted was nonfatal and successfully treated at Duke Hospital with a prognosis for a full recovery."

As the wound resulted in a laceration of the colon and exposure to hours of contamination of the abdomen by colonic material, that soon out of Surgery Reginald Daye was certain of recovery. Only someone who has no concept of what surgery entails would make that assessment. Have you ever operated on someone with a colon laceration and then managed such a patient post op. If you tried to present yourself oh the stand as a medical expert because of your medical degree, those are the kind of questions you would have been asked.

"As a retired physician, it is my assessment of the records that Mangum’s boyfriend died due to errant intubation in the esophagus instead of trachea (which resulted in his brain-death) while he was being treated for delirium tremens."

You are a medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved board certification in any specialty, who spent most of a truncated medical career filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits, who never performed surgery oh anyone, who never did an autopsy in your life, you are singularly unqualified to pass yourself off as an expert medical witness. Your opinion as a retired physician means less than Adolf Hitler's opinion on anti semitism.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Yet one more excerpt:

"In 2006, when Tarana Burke originated #Me Too, the Duke lacrosse case had emerged and spawned a series of occurrences that validated in Crystal Mangum the fears of all female victims of sexual assault by males in positions of power."

This is from https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/06/did-mattress-girl-tell-the-truth-not-very-likely/, a comment:

"jocelyn
OCTOBER 16, 2016 AT 5:39 PM
What’s this excuse of its “too draining” telling the truth over and over is not draining. Remembering lies is. The fact is rape allegations would be taken seriously IF and only WHEN the false the accusations stop. Your regret is not rape, your expectations of what having sex would do to your relationship and not getting it is not rape. The whole rape culture lie is damaging and irresponsible. A drunk girl can’t consent, then can a drunk man be granted the same loophole and be determined not criminally responsible. I don’t think carry around a mattress stopped a single rape. It maybe actually cast more doubt on real rape victims as your lies were exposed. So good for you maybe you should carry around a ton of garbage everywhere you go representing how you turned someone’s life into it."

False rape allegations are admittedly rare, but they do happen as Crystal Mangum, Tawana Braley, Jackie from the University of Virginia, Tyna Marie Robertson, Lacey L. Carroll have all documented. Do false rape allegations make real rape victims look non credible? Why would highly publicized false rape allegations make real rape victims think they would be believed? Are false rape allegations a factor in women hesitating to come forth and accuse people like Harvey Weinstein? Just and opinion, but if actual rape claims are to be taken seriously those issues do need to be addressed, not ignored, not treated the way a Duke official, and I can not remember who, wanted it treated, paraphrasing, if they are convicted it can be sorted out on appeal. Take this case: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/us/texas-exonerated-rape-statue/index.html: Tim Cole was convicted an sentenced to prison. DNA evidence exonerated him, TEN YEARS AFTER HE DIED IN PRISON!!!! Did he benefit from being exonerated post conviction?

Getting back to your letter, "Even if we assume that it can be proven the defendants are innocent, that does not preclude Ms. Mangum’s assertion of being sexually victimized at the party".

That reminds me of something you repeat, that the Duke defendants did not spend a day in Jail. How did that preclude the defendants from taking a lot of vilification and hostility, having their lives disrupted, having their lives threatened, having to incur high legal expenses to defend themselves?

You really are a hypocrite, Sidney.

Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 318 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2018.

It has been 47 days since the end of 2017, 597 days since the end of June 2016, 665 days since April 23, 2016, 704 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,547 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,898 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 2,933 days.

A Lawyer said...

Getting back to your letter, "Even if we assume that it can be proven the defendants are innocent, that does not preclude Ms. Mangum’s assertion of being sexually victimized at the party".

...but it does conclusively prove that Mangum was a false accuser and that Nifong indicted three innocent men.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said:(in reply to Dr.Harr's "there being more than 50 men at the tawdry affair.")
As there were 46 members of the Lacrosse team and there were two non Lacrosse team attendees."..................................... Yes, but as many as half of the 46 Players were not at the booze-up. No list of attendees was ever compiled and Kilgo's friend, supposedly a Player, reported that there were more non-Player guests than Players present when he was there.

guiowen said...

Yes, but you're not even trying to locate Kilgo, so his third-hand report is not meaningful at all.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said:(in reply to Dr.Harr's "there being more than 50 men at the tawdry affair.")
As there were 46 members of the Lacrosse team and there were two non Lacrosse team attendees."..................................... Yes, but as many as half of the 46 Players were not at the booze-up."

Judging from the pictures of the party, which are part of the public record, it was not a booze up. The booze up description is one of many frauds you and Sidney have tried and continue to try to perpetrate.

"No list of attendees was ever compiled"

Which is irrelevant inasmuch that no one, including you and Sidney, has ever established there were a large number of non Lacrosse party attendees, OR THAT CRYSTAL WAS EVER RAPED AT THE PARTY!!!

"and Kilgo's friend, supposedly a Player, reported that there were more non-Player guests than Players present when he was there."

Kilgo's friend has yet to manifest himself in the nearly 12 years since Crystal tried to perpetrate the Duke Rape Hoax, which means, said Kilgo's friend does not exist. Prove he does exist.

Kilgo, I again say, is a deaf blind man who claims he can see and hear everything better than anyone.

I again remind you, you have come up with three scenarios in which you learned of Kilgo's friend, he posted it on J4N then took down all his posts, he told you in an email but you lost the email, or that he made the claim in a J4N post and in an email he sent to you, which suggests you fabricated the story to boost your own belief in mystery rapists.

And as you have on many occasions shown you are a guilt presuming racist with a Scottsboro attitude towards the Caucasian members of the Lacrosse team, it is not at all beyond belief that you would fabricate such a story.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

If more than half the Lacrosse team was not at the party, then justify Nifong showing Crystal a lineup of pictures of members of the Lacrosse team. I remind you again, when Nifong ordered the totally improper lineup, he had information that none of the Lacrosse players had could have perpetrated the alleged rape, an alleged rape in which, according to Crystal, her assailants had deposited their DNA.

I remind you of something from one of your posts: "should not a Prosecutor's role be to seek justice and not necessarily seek convictions."

When Nifong tried to force Crystal to identify Lacrosse team members as her assailants, was he seeking justice or seeking convictions against the members of the Lacrosse team?

Kenny I have given you another opportunity to show the posters on J4N how inadequately you try to duck and dodge and DENY DENY DENY facts which do not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.

Inconnu said...

Alors, Kenhyderal,
Est-ce que tu viendras aider ton ami le gros Kilgo? Il a vraiment besoin de toi.

Fat Kilgo said...

Spin, Ubes, spin!

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal adopts another alias to post anonymously to create the illusion people believe him.

Either that or he is just frustrated over facing facts which do not mesh with his guilt presuming racism/

guiowen said...

So, Kenhyderal,
Any hope you might locate your fat friend Kilgo? Because otherwise, this isn't a third-hand report, but a fourth-hand.

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal:

from http://www.newsweek.com/duke-lacrosse-accuser-crystal-mangums-tragic-life-75197:

"Back when she'd just accused wealthy white Duke students of rape, lawyers were volunteering to work for her pro bono should she want to sue for damages."

Why would lawyers not pursue this kind of case in civil court? The most common reason is that whoever wants to sue does not have a case.

So far as working pro bono for her, did they really? Where I live, throughout the day we see tv commercials from law firms advertising, if you don't collect we don't get paid. It is the contingency fee system, the lawyer representing the plaintiff gets a percentage of whatever damages are recoveered, usually 33 1/3 percent.

Crystal would not have needed an attorney to work pro bono. She would have been suing people with deep pockets, considering the fact that Duke had settled with the indicted players for 7 figure sums(Sidney's claim that they each had received $20 million is unsubstantiated BULLSHIT. It is based on a story of an accountant claiming the IRS had informed him that one of the Lacrosse defendants, Reade Seligmann I believe, owed the IRS $6 Million in taxes. When the IRS has a problem with a tax payer, the IRS contacts the tax payer directly, not some accountant.)

Like it or not, Crystal's reluctance to file a civil suit against the Lacrosse defendants is evidence she did not have a case, that she never had a case.

So far as her book, one wonders why she chose to write a book rather than sue, if she really had a case.

Anonymous said...

More for Kenny and Sidney:

from http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/08/duke-lacrosse-saga-in-pictures.html, from the Johnsville News, a blog which Kenny would characterize as Duke Lacrosse Apologist in content. This is a quote from the probable cause affidavit prepared by Mark Gottlieb and Benjamin Himan:

"Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated. Two males, Adam and Matt pulled the victim into the bathroom. Someone closed the door to the bathroom where she was, and said "sweet heart you can't leave." The victim stated that she tried to leave, but the three males (Adam, Bret, and Matt) forcefully held her legs arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally. The victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault. As she attempted to defend herself, she was overpowered. The victim reported she was sexually assaulted for an approximately 30 minute time period by the three males..."

Here is a link to the page of the probable cause affidavit which contains what Crystal alleged: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/duke-lacrosse-rape-probe?page=3

I repeat, Sidney claims that Crystal was convicted on trumped murder charges because she had accused members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.

What was alleged by Crystal, as recorded in the Probable Cause affidavit dated 3/16/2006, as was alleged in her statement to he police on April 6, 2006, was a rape in which members of the Lacrosse team had left their DNA on her person.

The DNA recovered from her person did not match the DNA of any of the members of the Lacrosse team. None of the members of the Lacrosse team could have perpetrated the crime alleged.

So was Nifong going for justice or convictions when he showed Crystal a lineup consisting only of pictures of men who could not have been suspects?
"

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal:

Regarding the Grand Jury and your statement that they had enough evidence to charge.

This comes from Until Proven Innocent:

The Grand Jury in North Carolina is a closed, secret procedure. No records are kept. No one presents evidence except the DA. The DA is not under any obligation to show the Grand Jury any exculpatory evidence, like the only DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation of a semen depositing rape by members of the Lacrosse team, that the only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men Nifong wanted to indict.

This is from the appropriately named Liestoppers, appropriately named because this forum dealt with actual truth, not the distortions and metanarratives you and Sidney indulge in.

Under the Nifong regime in the Durham DA office, the standard way of handling a rape charge was to seek an arrest warrant. Seeking an arrest warrant triggered a probable cause hearing in which the Defense could present its side of the case.

Why did Nifong not go that route. Because he sought justice or because he sought only indictments?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

Until Proven Innocent is a thoroughly researched and resourced book on the Duke Rape Hoax, unlike the totally unresourced piece William Cohan tries to misrepresent as the definitive account. It is the definitively INNACURATE account.