Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: Basis for Crystal Mangum's release

143 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Given that you start off with your long debunked screed about Felony Murder, there is absolutely no point in watching the rest of the video, and it's just further proof you are not an honest advocate for Crystal. This entire thing is a charade to get her to like you - you are just another in a long line of abusers of Crystal.

Felony Murder was never in play, could never have been in play. That's been shown to you with statutes, and case law, and the trial itself, where felony murder was never submitted to the jury.

This whole video is pathetic even for you.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
How is this video any different than the other ones that have been debunked? You've been told what you need to do: get a statement from Milton. You refuse to do so, which is proof this is all just a game to you.

When you are told what to do that will actually help, you refuse to do it.

October 15, 2018 at 8:39 AM


Anony, this shar-video has much more information about Mangum's malicious prosecution complaint, provides more details about the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment, and links the falsities in the Larceny case with the murder case through Marianne Bond being the only witness. This production lays out the legal justification for Mangum's exoneration on the second degree murder conviction.

Consider yourself elucidated. Let me know if further enlightenment is required.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sorry, Dr. Harr -- The difference between MY assault and Dr. Ford's, is that I truly have no witnesses. She named several. Some of which specifically stated no such party occurred, and that they were never at a party at chich they AND Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh were attending at the same time. One of the witnesses even stated that Dr. Ford's lawyer pressured her to change her story.

You can't declare witnesses and have EVERY ONE deny it, and still have expected to be telling the truth -- unless you're expecting you (and Kenhyderal) to be the final arbiters of truth.

October 17, 2018 at 9:40 AM


Anony, in my humble yet brilliant opinion, it is possible that the individuals at Dr. Ford's party may have simply not remembered the party. Because they were not themselves traumatized at the event, it is not unreasonable that they may not clearly remember the party. Also, they may have been too soused to remember it. The other looming possibility for a forgetful memory is secondary to intimidation... Most people would not want to be involved in a controversy involving one of the highest positions in the country... subjected to hate mail and threats by political extremists. In such circumstances, it would be prudent for most of the partygoers to feign forgetfulness. That is most likely what most of Dr. Ford's witnesses did, in my estimation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Harr Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Where is the shar-video about the WRAL hearing? I have been sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for that one.

October 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM


Hey, Harr Supporter.

Recently I have been working on the shar-video that I just completed and presently posted. My priorities are with Crystal Mangum as she is suffering an unjust incarceration... ergo, my WRAL lawsuit has been put on a back burner. I don't know when I will produce a shar-video on it, but will address the WRAL lawsuit in the near future in this comment section.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

Given that you start off with your long debunked screed about Felony Murder, there is absolutely no point in watching the rest of the video, and it's just further proof you are not an honest advocate for Crystal. This entire thing is a charade to get her to like you - you are just another in a long line of abusers of Crystal.

Felony Murder was never in play, could never have been in play. That's been shown to you with statutes, and case law, and the trial itself, where felony murder was never submitted to the jury.

This whole video is pathetic even for you.


October 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM


Anony, here's a simple question for you. Try to answer it, if you can: For what purpose did the State indict Crystal Mangum with Larceny of Chose in Action alongside the first-degree murder indictment?

Consider that the Larceny of Chose in Action charge lacked probable cause. Consider also that there was no larceny charge sought when Mangum was arrested initially on the Assault with a Deadly Weapon charge. Consider also Larceny of Chose in Action is an automatic Class H felony. What other conclusion could a reasonable person draw other than that the purpose for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was for the collateral purpose of using its felony property to justify a first-degree murder charge using the felony-murder rule.

If you have another theory for the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment I would be very interested in hearing it.

Dr. Caligari said...

I've explained multiple times why the larceny charge was added, and why it couldn't-- and wasn't-- use to chrge felony murder. To quote John Perry Barlow, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

Anonymous said...

As has been explained to you - it doesn't matter why, all we know for sure is it had nothing to do with Felony Murder because legally it could not, and did not.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Caligari said: "I've explained multiple times why the larceny charge was added, and why it couldn't-- and wasn't-- use to chrge felony murder"...……. No you haven't. You have failed to show why it was laid and you have failed to show why couldn't be laid. Nothing you, or others, have said has been presented here with the clarity, logic and referencing that Dr. Harr has. Lay readers like myself are therefore left puzzled.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "As has been explained to you - it doesn't matter why, all we know for sure is it had nothing to do with Felony Murder because legally it could not, and did not"...… Can you site for us legal references for this pronouncement?

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

You are as big an idiot as Harr. The WHY doesn't matter - we don't know WHY. But, we have shown, conclusively, that it was NOT for Felony Murder. The fact you don't know why, and we don't know why, doesn't change that. It has been shown conclusively that it was not for felony murder.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
The trouble is that, because of context, you don't understand anything. This is why you are always puzzled.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, the legal references have been provided numerous times in other threads. The Statute, case law, and the trial itself (where the jury was not instructed on Felony Murder). You are the master researcher - search and find them. You will just ignore them. You and Sid have every other time. But they are there.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 11:03: It has, conclusively? To whom? Perhaps you can show us?

Anonymous said...

Right on kennyhyderal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
I've explained multiple times why the larceny charge was added, and why it couldn't-- and wasn't-- use to chrge felony murder. To quote John Perry Barlow, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

October 18, 2018 at 7:22 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Question for you, and other commenters: Are you satisfied, from the shar-video, that Officer Marianne Bond gave false statements to the grand jury in order for them to indict Crystal Mangum on the two-count Larceny of Chose in Action? That is, will you admit that Officer Bond committed perjury before the April 18, 2011 grand jury?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
As has been explained to you - it doesn't matter why, all we know for sure is it had nothing to do with Felony Murder because legally it could not, and did not.


October 18, 2018 at 7:26 AM


Anony, a simple YES/NO question for you, and other commenters: Do you believe that the two-count Larceny of Chose in Action indictment had probable cause?

Anonymous said...

Yes

Anonymous said...

Yes. PC exists.

Anonymous said...

Yes it does

Anonymous said...

Yes. Probable cause existed. Judge Ridgeway confirmed that when he ruled against the motion to dismiss the charges.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr --

A simple YES/NO question for you: Do you believe that if you told the police that I took 2 checks from you that were supposed to pay your rent (that I had in my possession) that a two-count Larceny of Chose in Action indictment had probable cause?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: " But they ( i.e. case law and statutes that say Felony Murder could "not" be in play, in a case where a victim was stabbed and his cashiers cheques were stolen) are there"----------- Can you point us, as per your assertion, to where that is. Yes, it has been asserted many times on this blog but no references or statutes have ever been provided to legally demonstrate, that negative with case law or statute. On the other hand, Dr. Harr shows it could and probably was.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said" "Do you believe that if you told the police that I took 2 checks from you that were supposed to pay your rent (that I had in my possession) that a two-count Larceny of Chose in Action indictment had probable cause?"...…..But Daye told Bond he "gave" them to her to pay the rent the following day and that were probably in her purse

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter of the Larceny case had PC, it was dismissed, and had nothing to do with the murder case.

You prove your dishonesty by pushing Felony Murder.

Anonymous said...

I didn't waste time watching the Shar-Video beyond the Felony Murder - because the fact you are still flogging that dead horse is proof that you aren't being honest or serious in your efforts. No point wasting time on something you don't consider serious.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, yes, they have. Case law, statutes, and the jury instructions from this case.

Anonymous said...

kenny,

Did you leave out some details?

But Daye told Bond he "gave" them to her to pay the rent the following day, after they argued, he then told her to give the checks back to him and she did not return them and that were probably in her purse

Anonymous said...

Right on kennyhyderal.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Many of the posters at your blog are being unfair to kenhyderal. He is doing his best to participate in the discussion and does not deserve to be ridiculed. It is time to show kenhyderal the respect he deserves.

guiowen said...

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." I guess we can apply that to Kenhyderal.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 10-19-2018 3:34 PM -------------------Daye told Officer Freye that Crystal stabbed him and stole his Cashier Cheques. At the Hospital he told Officer Bond that, angry over her bringing men into the apartment,he asked her to return them. After arguing over this he claimed she then went into the bathroom, locked the door and tried phoning Officer Knight to come for her. That's when he claims he lost it. Daye's statements are inconsistent. There was no attempt by Meier to reconcile them. Daye's statement to Bond were allowed to stand as given and since deceased they remained unexamined while Crystal's evidence was subject to badgering and relentless questioning which Meier never adequately countered.

Anonymous said...

Kenny never lets a few facts get in the way of his narrative.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Don’t mess with my best bud kenhyderal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Yes. PC exists.

October 19, 2018 at 6:46 AM


Anony, you believe that probable cause exists for the larceny of chose in action charge? Based upon what? Clearly, the only evidence about the transfer of the cashier's checks from Daye to Mangum is in Officer Bond's April 4, 2011 police report in which she recorded that Daye told her that he gave the cashier's checks to Mangum. According to Mangum, no one witnessed the transfer of the cashier's checks other than the two of them. During trial, the State did not present a witness or any evidence that Mangum stole the cashier's checks from Daye. Even at Mangum's Motions Hearing on August 15, 2018, the State and Bond's attorney did not make an attempt to defend the merits of the charge because they knew that the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was meritless.

I think that your opinion on this question is based upon a desired belief rather than cold hard facts presented in the evidence.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Yes. Probable cause existed. Judge Ridgeway confirmed that when he ruled against the motion to dismiss the charges.

October 19, 2018 at 9:02 AM



Hmmph! Just because Judge Ridgeway denied Mangum's Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action presented at trial by Meier, that does not mean that his ruling was fair or legally correct. Judge Ridgeway, like most of us, is a human being... a being of imperfection... ergo, capable of making mistakes. I believe that he was aware that his ruling in denying the motion was unjust and that he made it purposefully out of bias against Crystal Mangum. Besides, the case which Judge Ridgeway cited (State v. Tilley) wasn't even relevant to Mangum's case because that case involved multiple defendants and property was illegally taken and carried away... unlike in Mangum's case. So, Judge Ridgeway's ruling doesn't reinforce your claim that probable cause existed.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr --

A simple YES/NO question for you: Do you believe that if you told the police that I took 2 checks from you that were supposed to pay your rent (that I had in my possession) that a two-count Larceny of Chose in Action indictment had probable cause?

October 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM


NO!

First of all, as kenhyderal pointed out, Daye stated that he gave Mangum the cashier's checks... not that she took them.

But for the sake of answering your question, if you took two cashier's checks from me that I planned on using to pay rent (and assuming that I'm the remitter on both checks), I wouldn't go to the police. Instead I would go to the credit union and pay the nominal processing fee to have both cashier's checks re-issued, and use them to pay the rent. I wouldn't even bother with the police.

Keep in mind that cashier's checks have no intrinsic value to the remitter, as he/she, without having physical possession of them, can get them re-issued in the case of loss or theft.

The situation is different when it comes to the payee, as the payee requires the financial instrument to be in his possession in order to make the transaction. In other words, the cashier's checks have monetary value indicated with respect to the payee, and the payee suffers real loss if the cashier's checks are stolen or illegally taken and carried away from him/her. It's not the same with the remitter.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
It doesn't matter of the Larceny case had PC, it was dismissed, and had nothing to do with the murder case.

You prove your dishonesty by pushing Felony Murder.

October 19, 2018 at 12:35 PM


Anony, you missed the point of the entire shar-video. The Larceny of Chose in Action charge lacked probable cause and therefore, in order for the Grand Jury to make an indictment on it, the State's only witness before the Grand Jury had to have made false statements. Because Officer Bond, the sole witness, made false statements on the larceny charge, her testimony on the murder charge lacks credibility. There's no corroborating testimony on either charge because Bond was the sole witness.

As far as I can determine, the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment had a collateral purpose of presenting a felony for the purpose of elevating the murder charge to first-degree. I've yet to hear a better explanation for bringing a charge which obviously lacked probable cause.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
I didn't waste time watching the Shar-Video beyond the Felony Murder - because the fact you are still flogging that dead horse is proof that you aren't being honest or serious in your efforts. No point wasting time on something you don't consider serious.


October 19, 2018 at 12:37 PM


I disagree with your metaphor... the horse is alive and kicking and hasn't been broken. Call me the Horse Whisperer who is bringing the baseless Larceny of Chose in Action indictment to the fore. This should have been one of many issues Mangum's appellate attorney should have brought forth on Direct Appeal. Unfortunately, it is Mangum's attorneys who did not take her case seriously on her behalf... except for the purpose of undermining he case.

Filing the malicious prosecution complaint was/is a brilliant strategy which would have been successful had Judge Hardin presided. There was a judge swap with Roy Cooper's appointee Judge Carolyn J. Thompson that enabled the ruling to go against Mangum. Black-robers who rule on desired outcome rather than rule fairly based on evidence and facts should be of concern to all of us who want a legal system that is just.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
kenny,

Did you leave out some details?

But Daye told Bond he "gave" them to her to pay the rent the following day, after they argued, he then told her to give the checks back to him and she did not return them and that were probably in her purse

October 19, 2018 at 3:34 PM


Anony, once a piece of property is transferred from one person to another in the act of giving, then that transaction cannot later be termed a theft, even if the initial giver demands the return of the property.

Truth of the matter is that Daye never asked Mangum for the return of the cashier's checks during his jealous rage that morning of April 3, 2011. Daye was aware that Mangum put the checks in her black purse, and after having busted the bathroom door frame from the door jamb it is obvious that he could have easily removed the cashier's checks from her purse at his convenience.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Anonymous said...

We love you kenny.

Anonymous said...

Anony, once a piece of property is transferred from one person to another in the act of giving, then that transaction cannot later be termed a theft, even if the initial giver demands the return of the property.

Daye did not "give' the checks to Magnum as a gift. The checks remained his property. Magnum was holding Daye's property on Daye's behalf. Are you arguing that a person has no enforceable legal right to require the return of that person's property?

Please provide the case law that supports your conclusion.

Truth of the matter is that Daye never asked Mangum for the return of the cashier's checks during his jealous rage that morning of April 3, 2011.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Just because Judge Ridgeway denied Mangum's Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action presented at trial by Meier, that does not mean that his ruling was fair or legally correct.

This is correct; Ridgeway could have made a mistake. However, just because you have an opinion does not mean that your opinion is fair or legally correct.

Please provide the case law that supports your opinion.

Officer Bond, the sole witness, made false statements on the larceny charge

Please provide evidence to support this assertion. Your speculation is insufficient.

Anonymous said...

Stop trolling Dr. Harr.

Anonymous said...

Dr Harr,
When you put your money in a bank account, can you force the bank to give this money back to you?

Nifong Supporter said...


Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Will you appeal this miscarriage of justice?

September 29, 2018 at 6:06 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.

I am assuming you reference the September 25th ruling on my libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News. The answer is no. Filing an appeal is complex, time consuming, comes with financial expense, and has low percentage of success.

September 30, 2018 at 4:28 AM



Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
So, you’re just quitting and giving up? That’s not the SidDaddy I know.

September 30, 2018 at 4:46 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.


CLICK on this LINK

Hah!

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anony, once a piece of property is transferred from one person to another in the act of giving, then that transaction cannot later be termed a theft, even if the initial giver demands the return of the property.

Daye did not "give' the checks to Magnum as a gift. The checks remained his property. Magnum was holding Daye's property on Daye's behalf. Are you arguing that a person has no enforceable legal right to require the return of that person's property?

Please provide the case law that supports your conclusion.

Truth of the matter is that Daye never asked Mangum for the return of the cashier's checks during his jealous rage that morning of April 3, 2011.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Just because Judge Ridgeway denied Mangum's Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action presented at trial by Meier, that does not mean that his ruling was fair or legally correct.

This is correct; Ridgeway could have made a mistake. However, just because you have an opinion does not mean that your opinion is fair or legally correct.

Please provide the case law that supports your opinion.

Officer Bond, the sole witness, made false statements on the larceny charge

Please provide evidence to support this assertion. Your speculation is insufficient.

October 20, 2018 at 3:55 PM


Hey, Anony.

Regarding your first point, whether Daye gave the cashier's checks to Mangum permanently, or temporarily to hold on to, the fact remains that he GAVE them to her. She did not take them from her illegally. She did not steal them. She was given the checks voluntarily by Daye. Ergo, there is no case that can be made that she stole them... the case for Larceny of Chose in Action is kaput!

The second point: I asked Crystal about this, and she told me that Daye never asked her to return the cashier's checks during his abusive rant and rage during the wee hours of April 3, 2011. There was no audio or audio/video recording of the incident, and Mangum and Daye were the only ones involved. Daye has passed away, ergo Mangum's statement on this point is the only evidence available. The question needs to be asked is why would Crystal Mangum refuse to return the cashier's checks (which had no financial benefit to her) to Daye if he demanded their return?

Third point: NC Statute 14-75 defines Larceny of Chose in Action with one element requiring that the cashier's check be stolen or illegally taken and carried away. A second element demanded that they be then utilized to illegally benefit the taker. In the citation used by Judge Ridgeway, State v. Tilley, there was an illegal taking away of property by the defendant. Such did not happen in Mangum's case.

Fourth point: Common sense would support this reasoning: The Grand Jury makes its indictment based upon testimony given by the witness and the presentation of the prosecutor. Officer Marianne Bond was the sole witness. Officer Bond had knowledge from her interview with Daye that Mangum was given the cashier's checks. If the Grand Jury concluded that Mangum stole the cashier's checks from Daye in making its indictment, it can be deduced that the testimony of Bond and presentation of the prosecution was false in order for such a conclusion to be drawn. A transcript of the Grand Jury hearing would provide conclusive evidence that you seek.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr Harr,
When you put your money in a bank account, can you force the bank to give this money back to you?

October 21, 2018 at 12:45 AM


Anony, if I put money in a bank account, I do so voluntarily. The bank did not steal money from me if I voluntarily deposit it with the bank. I make the deposit with assurances that I will be able to withdraw it on demand. But, if for some reason the bank refuses to release the money upon my request, then the bank is possibly guilty of some crime (maybe fraud), but definitely not guilty of larceny.

Maybe a better analogy might be with an investor giving money to a person involved in a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi schemer would not be charged with larceny, but rather with fraud. At least that's my non-lawyerly belief. A Lawyer, Walt or JSwift might be better able to legally provide an explanation.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a better analogy might be with an investor giving money to a person involved in a Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps a better analogy is when something is lent/borrowed. In a borrowing, like the safekeeping of the checks in this case, the property owner "gives" physical possession of the item to another person. However, the legal ownership of the item does not change. In this case, the cashier's checks remained Daye's property even when in Mangum's possession as she held Daye's check on Daye's behalf.

See the discussion in the link below. A person who borrowed an item and refused to return it can be charged with stealing it. Intention is important for a conviction. However, the threshold for probable cause is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold for a conviction.

It appears that this analogy supports the conclusion that probable cause for the larceny charges existed: a failure to return an item in one's possession at the owner's demand can constitute a "taking."

Having said that, the larceny charges were weak; I do not believe that Mangum actually intended to keep them and convert them to her own use. However, at the time the larceny charges were filed, Daye had claimed that Mangum refused to return them upon his demand, the checks were found in Mangum's possession, and Mangum declined to answer questions (as is her right).


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/accused-of-stealing-something-borrowed.html

kenhyderal said...

Let's remember, inconsistencies in Daye's statement were never pointed out by Meier; whereas Crystal's testimony was subjected to badgering and hectoring cross-examination, especially over inconsequential, not likely to be remembered details. Whenever Crystal got confused, she was pronounced by Coggins-Franks to be lying and that was her intimation to the Jury of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Lawyers, like Meier, have no interest or incentive in mounting a real defence and besides, he was never given the time to do so. He wanted to keep Crystal off the stand because he knew the game. She knew she was innocent and wanted to testify. The Prosecution had months and months to prepare and this Prosecutor had many tricks up her sleeve to try confuse Crystal; evidence to feature in her examination, evidence to ignore and conceal and supress. Countering that would have taken some time effort and preparation on Meier's part.

guiowen said...

So, Kenny, all the more reason why you should come to Durham and help Sidney. But I guess it's much more fun to whine from the beach in Arabia.

Anonymous said...

https://www.newsobserver.com/entertainment/article220414750.html#storylink=mainstage

Anonymous said...

Sid -- Were you interviewed for "Snapped"?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

You need a fact checker to review kenhyderal’s posts.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Why do you allow trolls like kenhyderal to post at your blog?

Dr. Caligari said...

Dr. Caligari said: "I've explained multiple times why the larceny charge was added, and why it couldn't-- and wasn't-- use to chrge felony murder"...……. No you haven't. You have failed to show why it was laid and you have failed to show why couldn't be laid. Nothing you, or others, have said has been presented here with the clarity, logic and referencing that Dr. Harr has. Lay readers like myself are therefore left puzzled.

I've said this many times before:

1. The indictment charged Mangum with violating the intentional murder statute. The felony murder statute wasn't mentioned in the indictment.

2. The jury was not charged on the elements of felony murder.

3. Larceny is not one of the felonies which support a charge of felony murder. (Robbery is such a felony, but Mangum wasn't charged with robbery.)

4. My best explanation for why the larceny charge was added is that prosecutors hoped to use it to show a motive for the murder.

Dr. Caligari said...

Question for you, and other commenters: Are you satisfied, from the shar-video, that Officer Marianne Bond gave false statements to the grand jury in order for them to indict Crystal Mangum on the two-count Larceny of Chose in Action? That is, will you admit that Officer Bond committed perjury before the April 18, 2011 grand jury?

Irrelevant, because the evidence, or lack thereof, before the grand jury is not an issue that can be raised post-trial. I've already cited the Supreme Court's Costello case on this point.

Doubly irrelevant, because Mangum was acquitted of larceny. Even if there was legal error regarding the larceny charge, that wouldn't taint the murder charge.

Dr. Caligari said...

Maybe a better analogy might be with an investor giving money to a person involved in a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi schemer would not be charged with larceny, but rather with fraud. At least that's my non-lawyerly belief. A Lawyer, Walt or JSwift might be better able to legally provide an explanation.

In federal court, the charge would be fraud. In New York State court the charge would be larceny (which includes "larceny by trick" and "larceny by false promise"). Not sure what the NC statutes say.

kenhyderal supporter said...

I understand that the writers of Snapped were aware of Ken Edwards’ extensive knowledge of the trial and they consulted with him throughout the production of the show.

SidDaddy Supporter said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Will you appeal this miscarriage of justice?

September 29, 2018 at 6:06 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.

I am assuming you reference the September 25th ruling on my libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News. The answer is no. Filing an appeal is complex, time consuming, comes with financial expense, and has low percentage of success.

September 30, 2018 at 4:28 AM


Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
So, you’re just quitting and giving up? That’s not the SidDaddy I know.

September 30, 2018 at 4:46 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.


CLICK on this LINK

Hah!

October 21, 2018 at 7:25 AM



SidDaddy,

Offer to settle the case if WRAL pays you half of its cost of the appeal. It's win-win for all concerned.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Maybe a better analogy might be with an investor giving money to a person involved in a Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps a better analogy is when something is lent/borrowed. In a borrowing, like the safekeeping of the checks in this case, the property owner "gives" physical possession of the item to another person. However, the legal ownership of the item does not change. In this case, the cashier's checks remained Daye's property even when in Mangum's possession as she held Daye's check on Daye's behalf.

See the discussion in the link below. A person who borrowed an item and refused to return it can be charged with stealing it. Intention is important for a conviction. However, the threshold for probable cause is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold for a conviction.

It appears that this analogy supports the conclusion that probable cause for the larceny charges existed: a failure to return an item in one's possession at the owner's demand can constitute a "taking."

Having said that, the larceny charges were weak; I do not believe that Mangum actually intended to keep them and convert them to her own use. However, at the time the larceny charges were filed, Daye had claimed that Mangum refused to return them upon his demand, the checks were found in Mangum's possession, and Mangum declined to answer questions (as is her right).


https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/accused-of-stealing-something-borrowed.html

October 21, 2018 at 12:55 PM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the link. Interesting, but I believe that it is more supportive that there was a lack of probable cause in Mangum's case... especially with the intent issue. For what logical purpose would Mangum have to hold onto and never relinquish to the payee or remitter Daye cashier's checks of no benefit to her?

I believe Mangum's explanation that Daye gave Mangum both cashier's checks with the intent of having her take them to the apartment manager's office on Monday, April 4, 2011 for the purpose of paying the monthly rent while he was at work house-painting. The jealous rage incident occurred the day prior to that... April 3rd, and I believe that Daye never even asked Mangum for return of the cashier's checks; as she's stated. Certainly she would have readily given them to him upon his request.

Another problem has to do with the timing of the Larceny of Chose in Action charge. Why not charge her with it along with her arrest on assault with a deadly weapon charge on April 3, 2011? Why wait more than two weeks later and then charge her with larceny along with the murder charge on April 18, 2011?

But I believe that the overriding problem with the Larceny of Chose in Action charge is that there was no complaining witness. For example, when Daye allegedly told Officer Curtis Knight that Mangum had stolen his money (a lie by Daye), the officer advised him to take out a warrant against Mangum. According to Knight's report, Daye declined and said that he was not going to worry about it.

The question is, who filed the larceny complaint with the Durham Police Department? Daye certainly didn't.

Using the lawnmower scenario, if the borrower refused to return the lawnmower to its owner, can the police department file, on its own initiative and without input from the owner, a larceny charge against the owner? I'm not an attorney, but I don't think so! In Mangum's case, the State filed the criminal larceny charge against Mangum. Have you ever heard of such? I don't think so!

Anyway, thanks for your link and response.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
https://www.newsobserver.com/entertainment/article220414750.html#storylink=mainstage

October 22, 2018 at 3:41 PM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the link about the Snapped documentary. I subscribe to The News & Observer and I never saw the article. Maybe it was put only online. At any rate, notice that my name isn't even mentioned. I'm Mangum's most active advocate... true, I may not be as well known as attorney Joseph Cheshire V, but... I don't mind, of course, since I'm not a publicity hound, however, it is a point of interest.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid -- Were you interviewed for "Snapped"?

October 23, 2018 at 5:46 PM


Yes... in fact I was the first person interviewed during the filming company's stop in Raleigh/Durham area. It was a very structured interview, which did not permit me the opportunity to expound on the issues I really wanted... such as Daye's death and other problems with the prosecution's case against Mangum. Unfortunately I was prevented from wearing my Justice for Nifong tee-shirt because of their policy. That I found to be upsetting and unnecessary. But, I believe the documentary was worthwhile in bringing attention to the case.

I have not yet viewed the documentary, but I plan on doing so in the near future.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Caligari said: "I've explained multiple times why the larceny charge was added, and why it couldn't-- and wasn't-- use to chrge felony murder"...……. No you haven't. You have failed to show why it was laid and you have failed to show why couldn't be laid. Nothing you, or others, have said has been presented here with the clarity, logic and referencing that Dr. Harr has. Lay readers like myself are therefore left puzzled.

I've said this many times before:

1. The indictment charged Mangum with violating the intentional murder statute. The felony murder statute wasn't mentioned in the indictment.

2. The jury was not charged on the elements of felony murder.

3. Larceny is not one of the felonies which support a charge of felony murder. (Robbery is such a felony, but Mangum wasn't charged with robbery.)

4. My best explanation for why the larceny charge was added is that prosecutors hoped to use it to show a motive for the murder.

October 24, 2018 at 11:09 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Your fourth point:
"My best explanation for why the larceny charge was added is that prosecutors hoped to use it to show a motive for the murder", is one of interest. If the prosecution's position was that Mangum's motive for stabbing Daye on April 3, 2011 was to steal two cashier's checks (checks that had already been in Mangum's possession since March 25th and April 1st of 2011), then why was that Larceny of Chose in Action not filed at the time of her arrest on April 3rd? It is the timing of the filing more than two weeks after Mangum's arrest, that brings credibility to the proposition that the charge had a collateral purpose.

That aside, you best explanation for the filing of the larceny charge is flawed by the fact that prior to the stabbing incident on April 3, 2011, both cashier's checks had already been in Mangum's possession... specifically, inside her black purse. Daye knew where the checks were being kept, and if he had the capacity to bust a door frame from the door jamb in order to drag Mangum out by her hair, surely he could have taken the initiative to remove the cashier's checks from Mangum's purse at any time.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Question for you, and other commenters: Are you satisfied, from the shar-video, that Officer Marianne Bond gave false statements to the grand jury in order for them to indict Crystal Mangum on the two-count Larceny of Chose in Action? That is, will you admit that Officer Bond committed perjury before the April 18, 2011 grand jury?

Irrelevant, because the evidence, or lack thereof, before the grand jury is not an issue that can be raised post-trial. I've already cited the Supreme Court's Costello case on this point.

Doubly irrelevant, because Mangum was acquitted of larceny. Even if there was legal error regarding the larceny charge, that wouldn't taint the murder charge.

October 24, 2018 at 11:13 AM


Dr. Caligari, the main issue brought by the problematic Larceny of Chose in Action indictment is the credibility of the witness Officer Marianne Bond. Because Officer Bond was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, by applying the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" maxim, Bond's testimony about the murder charge becomes uncredible... Bond being the only witness, there was no possible corroborating evidence or testimony. That's the point of this shar-video.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Maybe a better analogy might be with an investor giving money to a person involved in a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi schemer would not be charged with larceny, but rather with fraud. At least that's my non-lawyerly belief. A Lawyer, Walt or JSwift might be better able to legally provide an explanation.

In federal court, the charge would be fraud. In New York State court the charge would be larceny (which includes "larceny by trick" and "larceny by false promise"). Not sure what the NC statutes say.

October 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM


Thanks, Dr. Caligari. You are aware that in opposing Meier's Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge, the State was unable to provide a citation in support of the theft from a remitter of a filled out cashier's check. I would be shocked if such a charge exists in jurisprudence history wherein an individual faced a felony charge for stealing, from the remitter, a cashier's check... as is the claim in Mangum's case. Because the remitter is able to get a replacement cashier's check (for a nominal processing fee) in the event that the original cashier's check is lost or stolen, I would believe such a case - with the exception of Mangum's - is exceedingly rare, if non-existent.

Had the cashier's check been stolen from the payee, then that would present a different situation, as the payee would require physical possession of the cashier's check in order to consummate the financial transaction. The payee has no ability to have the financial institution re-issue a cashier's check. This is what further complicates the Larceny of Chose in Action charge against Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Will you appeal this miscarriage of justice?

September 29, 2018 at 6:06 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.

I am assuming you reference the September 25th ruling on my libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News. The answer is no. Filing an appeal is complex, time consuming, comes with financial expense, and has low percentage of success.

September 30, 2018 at 4:28 AM


Anonymous SidDaddy Supporter said...
So, you’re just quitting and giving up? That’s not the SidDaddy I know.

September 30, 2018 at 4:46 AM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.


CLICK on this LINK

Hah!

October 21, 2018 at 7:25 AM



SidDaddy,

Offer to settle the case if WRAL pays you half of its cost of the appeal. It's win-win for all concerned.

October 24, 2018 at 6:18 PM


Hey, SidDaddy Supporter.

I made an many efforts to resolve the problem with the false and malicious article, but WRAL refused... which led to my first lawsuit.

Even with monetary compensation, there does not exist a win-win situation as long as the online article remains unchanged with it false and misleading statements that proclaim that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president, and its law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. WRAL's purpose was two-fold... to cover up Duke University's despicable plot to have me arrested for being a Mike Nifong supporter, and to intimate that the purpose of my lawsuit was to have criminal charges reinstated against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.

kenhyderal said...

@ Dr. Caligari: In North Carolina, are all Class H felonies not subject to the felony murder provision? Larceny of Chose in Action has elements of robbery as well as larceny. ie. "If any person shall feloniously steal, take and carry away, or take by robbery" Why is stealing $700 worth of financial instruments, by the provision, regarded as a lesser felony than stealing $700 cash especially if the victim will suffer an equal financial loss from both crimes.

Dr. Caligari said...

I made an many efforts to resolve the problem with the false and malicious article, but WRAL refused... which led to my first lawsuit.

Which you lost, which means you are not entitled to file a second lawsuit for te same thing.

Even with monetary compensation, there does not exist a win-win situation as long as the online article remains unchanged with it false and misleading statements that proclaim that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president, and its law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Read the Complaint in your 2011 lawsuit. It starts with paragraph after paragraph about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

Using the lawnmower scenario, if the borrower refused to return the lawnmower to its owner, can the police department file, on its own initiative and without input from the owner, a larceny charge against the owner? I'm not an attorney, but I don't think so! In Mangum's case, the State filed the criminal larceny charge against Mangum. Have you ever heard of such? I don't think so!

The state is always the party that presses charges--not a complaining witness. A complaining witness is NOT required in order for them to do so. In many cases, particularly with domestic violence charges, the state will proceed with a case despite decision by the alleged victim not to cooperate. a refusal of a complaining witness to cooperate obviously makes it harder to convict, but other evidence can make a conviction possible.

I agree that it is rare for the state to file larceny charges without a complaining witness due to limits on a prosecutor's resources. Had Daye not died, the state would almost certainly not have proceeded with larceny charges without a complaint from Daye. As A Lawyer (now posting as Dr. Cagliari) has suggested, the additional charges provided a possible motive for the stabbing. As others have suggested, the additional charges provided additional leverage for negotiating a plea.

See the link below. I suggest that you make an attempt to conduct some research before stating your opinions. That may prevent errors.

https://atkinsonlawoffices.com/blog/the-victim-is-not-pressing-charges-why-am-i-still-being-charged/

Anonymous said...

Anonymous@ 6:40 AM...

Sid's never bothered to conduct research before filing his lolsuits...It's not worth the time and effort to suggest he conduct research before stating his opinions.

You get points for trying, though.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
I made an many efforts to resolve the problem with the false and malicious article, but WRAL refused... which led to my first lawsuit.

Which you lost, which means you are not entitled to file a second lawsuit for te same thing.

Even with monetary compensation, there does not exist a win-win situation as long as the online article remains unchanged with it false and misleading statements that proclaim that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president, and its law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Read the Complaint in your 2011 lawsuit. It starts with paragraph after paragraph about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

October 25, 2018 at 6:25 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

The only reason I lost the initial lawsuit was because it never reached the court. It's like a team being disqualified and forfeiting a game prior to the teams taking the field. The disqualified team never having the opportunity to win, and its opponent being guaranteed a victory. Judge Bryan Collins dismissed it without giving a reason... in other words, there was no accountability in his decision.

Although my 2011 lawsuit mentioned the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, that does not mean that my lawsuit was about the 2006 incident. My 2011 lawsuit clearly was about the 2010 discrimination incident that occurred at Duke University... a case in which the university's premeditated plot to arrest me failed due to the unexpected intervention by Duke Law Professor James Coleman.

Consider this, if my 2011 lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, why was not the 3-year statute of limitation not invoked... surely, if that was the case, that would have been the first line of defense. The filing was timely because the lawsuit dealt with the 2010 event.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Using the lawnmower scenario, if the borrower refused to return the lawnmower to its owner, can the police department file, on its own initiative and without input from the owner, a larceny charge against the owner? I'm not an attorney, but I don't think so! In Mangum's case, the State filed the criminal larceny charge against Mangum. Have you ever heard of such? I don't think so!

The state is always the party that presses charges--not a complaining witness. A complaining witness is NOT required in order for them to do so. In many cases, particularly with domestic violence charges, the state will proceed with a case despite decision by the alleged victim not to cooperate. a refusal of a complaining witness to cooperate obviously makes it harder to convict, but other evidence can make a conviction possible.

I agree that it is rare for the state to file larceny charges without a complaining witness due to limits on a prosecutor's resources. Had Daye not died, the state would almost certainly not have proceeded with larceny charges without a complaint from Daye. As A Lawyer (now posting as Dr. Cagliari) has suggested, the additional charges provided a possible motive for the stabbing. As others have suggested, the additional charges provided additional leverage for negotiating a plea.

See the link below. I suggest that you make an attempt to conduct some research before stating your opinions. That may prevent errors.

https://atkinsonlawoffices.com/blog/the-victim-is-not-pressing-charges-why-am-i-still-being-charged/

October 26, 2018 at 6:40 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the link. First of all, there was no probable cause for the prosecution to make the larceny of chose in action charge. There was no witness of Mangum stealing or taking the checks... the only evidence about the transfer of the checks for Daye to Mangum from the police report with its statement by Reginald Daye that he gave the cashier's checks to Crystal Mangum. Without any probable cause or complaining witness, how can one justify prosecuting Mangum on the larceny charge?

The larceny of chose in action is not a domestic violence situation. The State had no right to intervene without a complaining witness. Filing such a complaint regarding finances involving a couple who are living together is unusual, to say the least. Finally, there's the issue of the value of the cashier's checks when taken from the remitter... Daye. As a remitter, a cashier's check can always be re-issued for a nominal fee in the event the physical check is lost or stolen. I doubt whether such a prosecution has ever been undertaken wherein a cashier's check is stolen from a remitter by a third party. I'd be interested in seeing such case law... surely, such a citation does not exist.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal,

You sure don’t hesitate to ask other people to waste their time answering your questions. What’s happened? You used to be the master of the Google universe.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 5:14 AM : Wasting their time, or questioning their pronouncement of beliefs, about matters, which they insist are codified and inviolate but which seem to me to be only vaguely and imprecisely supported by the statute and at least open to interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Please do not bully kenhyderal. He may be a troll, but he is harmless.

Anonymous said...

First of all, there was no probable cause for the prosecution to make the larceny of chose in action charge.

I disagree. The judge and prosecutor also disagree. I thought that the borrowing analogy I provided was helpful in discussing that a failure to return someone else's property can constitute an illegal taking.You did not react negatively to the borrowing analogy. I do not believe your opinion is credible. You refuse to provide case law to support it.

There was no witness of Mangum stealing or taking the checks... the only evidence about the transfer of the checks for Daye to Mangum from the police report with its statement by Reginald Daye that he gave the cashier's checks to Crystal Mangum.

This statement is dishonest in its omission. Daye also alleged that Mangum failed to return the checks upon his demand.

Without any probable cause or complaining witness, how can one justify prosecuting Mangum on the larceny charge?

For the reasons I have explained previously, I believe probable cause existed. You ignored that explanation.

The State had no right to intervene without a complaining witness.

This statement is false. The state always files charges. There was nothing in discussion at the link I provided that limited the state's right to file charges without a complaining witness to domestic abuse cases. I do not believe your opinion is credible. You refuse to provide case law to support it.

Finally, there's the issue of the value of the cashier's checks when taken from the remitter... Daye.

The safety of cashier's checks is not guaranteed. It is possible for a party other than the payee to obtain funds for a cashier's check. This point has been discussed previously on this blog. You failed to react to it.

I'd be interested in seeing such case law [wherein a cashier's check is stolen from a remitter by a third party]

I agree. If someone posts such a case, will you admit that you are wrong?

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

You owe your readers an update regarding the state’s attempt to poison Crystal. In addition, the powers that be and the mainstream media will continue to ignore you until you provide proof of the conspiracy. Have you lost the courage to step forward and do the right thing?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
First of all, there was no probable cause for the prosecution to make the larceny of chose in action charge.

I disagree. The judge and prosecutor also disagree. I thought that the borrowing analogy I provided was ...

COMMENT PARTIALLY REMOVED TO COMPLY WITH CHARACTER LIMIT

... [wherein a cashier's check is stolen from a remitter by a third party]

I agree. If someone posts such a case, will you admit that you are wrong?

October 27, 2018 at 4:13 PM

Hey, Anony.

Issue #1: The probable cause you base this case of larceny upon is the alleged failure of Mangum to return the cashier's checks to Daye. First of all, during Daye's jealous rage assault on Mangum, he never asked for the return of the cashier's checks. He was aware that the cashier's checks were in Mangum's black purse and could have retrieved them from it at any time. However, he was focused, in his drunken state, on tormenting Ms. Mangum. I believe that we both agree that Daye gave both cashier's checks to Mangum well ahead of the April 3, 2011 incident. To this, Daye even admitted. Clearly, the excuse that she refused to return them to her on demand is one used to present to police to justify his brutal use of force against Mangum.

Issue #2: Clearly Daye did not assault Mangum because she refused to return the cashier's checks. After having bashed the door frame from the door jamb, surely Mangum would have turned the cashier's checks over to him in an instant if it would have put an end to the violence.

Issue #3: I believe that Mangum should not have been prosecuted on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge because she never stole them... never had the intent to withhold them from him... and had every intent to use them as he directed; which was to pay the rent on April 4, 2011. Intent is important in bringing a criminal charge. Police and prosecutors never established that it was Mangum's intent to forever withhold them from him and/or not use them in the manner as to which they had earlier agreed.

Issue #4: I believe the State should have required a complaining witness as Officer Knight advised Daye to take out a warrant against Mangum if he wanted her arrested and charged. Clearly in his report, Officer Knight noted that Daye said that "he was not going to worry about it." Even while hospitalized and prior to his medical malpracticed induced comatose state, Daye never filed a criminal larceny complaint against Mangum.

Issue #5: If a cashier's check is lost or stolen, the remitter can always get it re-issued. In other words, if Mangum refused to return the cashier's check to Daye, he could always obtain another from the financial institution with a nominal processing fee. It would be no big deal. (As I have said before, it would be a different matter if the cashier's check(s) were stolen from the payee who requires the physical presence of the financial instrument in order to make a transaction.)

If someone manages to use a stolen cashier's check to criminally obtain funds, then that person, whose identity the financial institution should be able to confirm without question, would be subjected to criminal prosecution... most likely illegally obtaining property. But such an incident should not have bearing on the remitter.

Issue #6: If someone is able to post or provide a link to case law or an example in which an individual is prosecuted for stealing a filled out cashier's check from a REMITTER, then I will not only be thoroughly shocked, and admit that I am wrong, but I will sign off with each comment for the rest of the year (2018) as "Dunce Sid."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

You owe your readers an update regarding the state’s attempt to poison Crystal. In addition, the powers that be and the mainstream media will continue to ignore you until you provide proof of the conspiracy. Have you lost the courage to step forward and do the right thing?

October 28, 2018 at 8:14 AM


Hey, Nifong Double Supporter.

I visited Crystal yesterday. She seems in good health... my concerns about her possibly being poisoned are somewhat assuaged.

Keep in mind that I brought the issue to the attention of a couple of media-types and to this blog site for the purpose of documenting my concerns immediately. A lesson that can be learned from the Kavanaugh hearing when Dr. Blasey Ford failed to name her assailant proximately to the injury. Similarly, I made immediate note of the Raleigh police stopping me on an indecent exposure complaint. Documentation is so important.

As far as the possible poisoning issue goes, I will just continue to monitor the situation closely. Don't plan on any further action.

Am considering working on another shar-video sometime this coming week.

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

What is the subject of the new shar-video you are preparing?

Anonymous said...

Sidney @8:19AM:

1. Yes, I base probable cause on Crystal's alleged failure to return the checks. My legal interpretation is the same interpretation advanced by the prosecution and supported by the judge. You have refused to provide case law to support your different interpretation. I do not find your parsing of the statute to be compelling.

Daye apparently told the police that he told Crystal to return the checks and she failed to do so. As is her right, Crystal did not agree to be questioned, so she did not convey to police her denial that Daye asked for the checks to be returned.

Your suggestion that the prosecutor and police used this demand to justify Daye's use of force is ridiculous speculation.

2. This is a straw man argument. I never claimed that Daye assaulted her because of her failure to do so. I agree that he was in a jealous rage because he was furious that Crystal brought men to the apartment.

3. I have agreed that the Larceny charges were weak. I agree that the acquittal on these charges was correct. I also agreed that I do not believe that Crystal intended to convert them to her own use (something that is clearly illegal, but is possible to do).

The facts the grand jury had were as follows: (1) Daye gave the checks to Crystal for safekeeping; (2) Daye claimed that he told Crystal to return the checks when they argued; (3) Daye claimed that Crystal failed to return the checks; (4) Daye claimed that Crystal went into the kitchen and got a knife and stabbed him in the hallway, where the blood spatter was found; (5) the checks were found in Crystal's purse; and (6) Crystal declined to answer questions. I find that enough to support probable cause. I found Crystal's testimony on this subject sufficient to support an acquittal on those charges.

4. I don't care what you believe. They had a witness who claimed that he told Crystal to return the checks and she refused to do so. After his death, they chose to add additional charges to the murder charges.

5. It is possible to convert stolen cashier's checks for the thief's personal use. I agree that Daye has other remedies.

As A Lawyer/Dr. Cagliari has noted, this entire discussion is utterly irrelevant. Crystal was acquitted on the larceny charges, so the probable cause question is unimportant.

This sharlog provides absolutely no evidence--NONE--that Bond committed perjury. Your allegation is based entirely on your speculation.

I do not believe that Bond committed perjury. I believe her grand jury testimony on this subject at the grand jury was consistent with her testimony at the trial--Daye gave Crystal the checks, he claimed he told her to return them and she failed to do so, the checks were found in Crystal's purse, and Crystal declined to answer questions.

Grand juries are not the deliberative bodies you apparently believe they are. I am sure that you have heard the quote to the effect that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. They unfortunately are rubber stamps for prosecutors. In addition, as we learned in the Duke lacrosse defendants civil trials, a grand jury indictment can be used to immunize the prosector and police from legal liability, even when perjury is alleged (with more facts than you have provided here).

Anonymous said...

Where is the little man?

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Who is the little man?

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

I nominate you for the Dick Blumenthal Award in Self Awareness.

Anonymous said...

Who?

Is that Da Nang Dick?

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

I ask you again. Who is the little man?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

I ask you again. Who is the little man?


October 31, 2018 at 4:32 PM


Sorry, Nifong Double Supporter, I dunno. I never used that term.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Who?

Is that Da Nang Dick?

October 31, 2018 at 11:24 AM


I believe it is in reference to Dick Blumenthal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney,

I nominate you for the Dick Blumenthal Award in Self Awareness.

October 31, 2018 at 5:01 AM


Anony, thanks for the nomination, but wouldn't a more prestigious award in Self Awareness be named after Donald Trump? (I feel slighted.)

Nifong Supporter said...


Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

What is the subject of the new shar-video you are preparing?

October 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM


Nifong Double Supporter, attention to legal matters have forced me to focus on them for the time being. There are several subjects under consideration... including one directed at the State's full-throttled efforts to protect the criminal actions of Durham police officer Marianne Bond.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney @8:19AM:
PART ONE of TWO

1. Yes, I base probable cause on Crystal's alleged failure to return the checks. My legal interpretation is the same interpretation advanced by the prosecution and supported by the judge. You have refused to provide case law to support your different interpretation. I do not find your parsing of the statute to be compelling.

Daye apparently told the police that he told Crystal to return the checks and she failed to do so. As is her right, Crystal did not agree to be questioned, so she did not convey to police her denial that Daye asked for the checks to be returned.

Your suggestion that the prosecutor and police used this demand to justify Daye's use of force is ridiculous speculation.

2. This is a straw man argument. I never claimed that Daye assaulted her because of her failure to do so. I agree that he was in a jealous rage because he was furious that Crystal brought men to the apartment.

3. I have agreed that the Larceny charges were weak. I agree that the acquittal on these charges was correct. I also agreed that I do not believe that Crystal intended to convert them to her own use (something that is clearly illegal, but is possible to do).

The facts the grand jury had were as follows: (1) Daye gave the checks to Crystal for safekeeping; (2) Daye claimed that he told Crystal to return the checks when they argued; (3) Daye claimed that Crystal failed to return the checks; (4) Daye claimed that Crystal went into the kitchen and got a knife and stabbed him in the hallway, where the blood spatter was found; (5) the checks were found in Crystal's purse; and (6) Crystal declined to answer questions. I find that enough to support probable cause. I found Crystal's testimony on this subject sufficient to support an acquittal on those charges.


Regarding 1.: Mangum's turncoat attorney provided case law in his feeble attempt to dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action following the State's presentation. Clearly that case stated that property had to be taken illegally or stolen and carried away. In Mangum's case, Daye voluntarily gave her the cashier's checks.

Mangum's turncoat attorney compromised Mangum's case by stating that she had refused to give the checks back to Daye. This is not true, as during his violent outburst against Mangum he never requested the return of the cashier's checks. Mangum's attorney Meier had often undermined his client... for example when he averred as fact that an infection was the complication that resulted in Daye's death. This contention is not only false, but not presented elsewhere.

Keep in mind that Daye is not a credible witness. For example, he stated to police that Mangum stole $700.00. There is a distinct difference, as you know, between cold hard cash and a cashier's check.

Regarding 2.: You are partially incorrect. Daye was not enraged at Mangum because she brought other men to the apartment (which she did not, by the way). Keep in mind that in his report, Officer Curtis Knight stated that the two were walking hand in hand when he first saw them in the parking lot. They were lovey-dovey at that time. Then she stopped and started talking to him, having remembered him from the 2010 incident. She asked for his business card. This interaction or encounter is what incited Daye's jealous rage. That's obvious, because thereafter the verbal and physical abuse kicked in.

Regarding 3.: We are in agreement that Mangum should have been acquitted of the charge. But I would take it a step further and say that she should never had been charged with larceny to begin with. Had it been a legitimate charge, they would have included it with her initial arrest along with the assault with a deadly weapon charge. They didn't.

Nifong Supporter said...

Continued
PART TWO of TWO
4. I don't care what you believe. They had a witness who claimed that he told Crystal to return the checks and she refused to do so. After his death, they chose to add additional charges to the murder charges.

5. It is possible to convert stolen cashier's checks for the thief's personal use. I agree that Daye has other remedies.

As A Lawyer/Dr. Cagliari has noted, this entire discussion is utterly irrelevant. Crystal was acquitted on the larceny charges, so the probable cause question is unimportant.

This sharlog provides absolutely no evidence--NONE--that Bond committed perjury. Your allegation is based entirely on your speculation.

I do not believe that Bond committed perjury. I believe her grand jury testimony on this subject at the grand jury was consistent with her testimony at the trial--Daye gave Crystal the checks, he claimed he told her to return them and she failed to do so, the checks were found in Crystal's purse, and Crystal declined to answer questions.

(Last paragraph omitted due to limitations on characters)

October 28, 2018 at 7:47 PM


Regarding 4.: During Daye's assault on Mangum in the wee hours of the morning, only the two of them were involved. I don't know about whom you refer when you state there was another witness to corroborate that Mangum refused to return the cashier's checks. Do you mean Officer Knight? Daye's nephew? Daye's neighbor Aykia Hanes? If it's Hanes' testimony, then it is not credible because she gave a false narrative at trial about what happened. She claimed that Daye exited the apartment first, and that Mangum stayed behind, spoke to Aykia's boyfriend saying something to the effect that "Everything's fine," and then slammed the door shut. If that were true... if Aykia's boyfriend was the only person to immediately see and be spoken to by Mangum, then why was he not interviewed by the police (There is no documentation that he was interviewed by police or no police report of such an interview.) More importantly, why was he not subpoenaed to testify at trial? I'd like to hear your explanation on this topic.

Regarding 5.: How is it possible to convert a stolen cashier's check for the personal benefit of someone who is neither the remitter nor payee? I say that such a transaction is impossible. Please explain if you believe otherwise. Regardless, even if a thief fraudulently converted a purloined cashier's check, that would not prevent the remitter from being able to have the cashier's check re-issued for a nominal handling fee. Do you agree with this?

Also, I disagree with you, and Dr. Caligari, if you are correct in your representation of his beliefs, that the Larceny of Chose in Action charge is irrelevant or moot because she was found not guilty of that two-count charge. Her being found not guilty on that charge supports her claim for malicious prosecution. The fact that she was found not guilty on the Larceny of Chose in Action Charge is one of four required elements necessary for filing a malicious prosecution complaint in civil court. So, it is extremely relevant, and any attorney worth his/her sodium chloride (especially an appellate defense attorney) would have filed the malicious prosecution complaint shortly after her verdict was read.

Actually, failure to timely file the malicious prosecution complaint by the appellate defense attorney in Mangum's case is legal malpractice... as is evidenced by the State's sole defenses of untimely filing and improper service of the summons... the State being unable to challenge the complaint based on merits.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Anonymous said...

It's been explained why the malicious prosecution case wasn't filed by the appellate attorneys.

It's been explained that the Larceny charges were dismissed, so are not relevant.

Again, you refuse to listen and learn.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
If you steal a cashier's check, and then kill the remitter, you can probably use the check before anyone notices.

Anonymous said...

1. Daye voluntarily gave her the cashier's checks... he never requested the return of the cashier's checks.

In his interview at the hospital, Daye claimed that when they argued, he told Magnum to return the checks. As I recall, Magnum had not yet agreed to be interviewed prior to the grand jury indictments. As a result, her claim that Daye had not asked for a return of the checks was not known to prosecutors and police. Even if they had, this is a factual determination for a jury. This disagreement about the facts does not constitute a lack of probable cause.

Please post the notes or statement made by Magnum during the investigation.

2. Daye was not enraged at Mangum because she brought other men to the apartment (which she did not, by the way

kenhyderal noted in a 10/20 9:18 post that in his interview at the hospital, Daye claimed that they argued because he was angry over magnum bringing men into the apartment.

Please post the notes from this interview.

3. Had it been a legitimate charge, they would have included it with her initial arrest along with the assault with a deadly weapon charge. They didn't.

This is an utterly moronic argument.

There are numerous examples of people being arrested for a limited number of alleged criminal offenses and additional charges being added later. The assault with a delay weapon charge was sufficient to arrest magnum and set bail at a high level. Larceny charges would not have changed that.

You do not help Mangum's cause when you make foolish arguments.

4. I don't know about whom you refer when you state there was another witness to corroborate that Mangum refused to return the cashier's checks.

Don't be disingenuous. I was obviously referring to Daye as the witness who claimed that he had told Magnum to return the checks. You do not help Mangum's cause when you deliberately pretend to be stupid.

5. I say that such a transaction is impossible.

Fraud involving cashier's checks has occurred.

6. as is evidenced by the State's sole defenses of untimely filing and improper service of the summons... the State being unable to challenge the complaint based on merits.

This argument is dishonest. As you know, the briefs filed are supposed to be focused on the law. The issue address at that stage of a lawsuit is whether the plaintiff has a claim under the law under the assumption that the factual claims made by the plaintiff are true. The defendant is not supposed to contest the factual claims at that time. The defendants focused on the legal defenses rather than contesting your alleged facts because that this what they were required to so.

7. failure to timely file the malicious prosecution complaint by the appellate defense attorney in Mangum's case is legal malpractice

As you note, an acquittal is one of four required elements for a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Acquittal is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

Mangum was indicted on a serious charge of first degree murder and minor charges of larceny. As you know, she was found guilty of the serious charge of second degree murder and acquitted on the minor charges. Please provide a case in which a defendant won a malicious prosecution case after having been acquitted of minor charges and convicted of major charges.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
It's been explained why the malicious prosecution case wasn't filed by the appellate attorneys.

It's been explained that the Larceny charges were dismissed, so are not relevant.

Again, you refuse to listen and learn.

November 1, 2018 at 10:33 AM


Hey, Anony.

First of all, the fact that the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was dismissed was one of four crucial elements met to support the Malicious Prosecution civil complaint Ergo, it was not moot.

I still have no understanding as to why Mangum's appellate defense attorney would not file a malicious prosecution claim or at least advise Mangum that she has legal grounds for filing a malicious prosecution complaint. It may have been explained to me, but I require further elucidation.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
If you steal a cashier's check, and then kill the remitter, you can probably use the check before anyone notices.

November 1, 2018 at 11:13 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

When was the last time you were in a bank and tried to cash a check? I cash checks where I have an account... and where teller's know me. The tellers at other branches of the bank know me because I bank there also. My bank won't cash a cashier's check for me if I am not named as the payee. And it would almost be impossible for me to cash a cashier's check at a bank of which I am not a member. Even it the bank issued the check that I hypothetically tried to cash using the name of the payee. What would happen is that the bank would call the police and have me arrested for identity theft... and then I would be charged with murder after the body of the payee was found. Too complicated for me.

Nifong Supporter said...


To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie." What I meant to say in the above comment's next to last sentence is "after the body of the remitter was found." My bad.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS OF COMMENT
1. Daye voluntarily gave her the cashier's checks... he never requested the return of the cashier's checks.

In his interview at the hospital, Daye claimed that when they argued, he told Magnum to return the checks. As I recall, Magnum had not yet agreed to be interviewed prior to the grand jury indictments. As a result, her claim that Daye had not asked for a return of the checks was not known to prosecutors and police. Even if they had, this is a factual determination for a jury. This disagreement about the facts does not constitute a lack of probable cause.

Please post the notes or statement made by Magnum during the investigation.

2. Daye was not enraged at Mangum because she brought other men to the apartment (which she did not, by the way

kenhyderal noted in a 10/20 9:18 post that in his interview at the hospital, Daye claimed that they argued because he was angry over magnum bringing men into the apartment.
Please post the notes from this interview.

3. Had it been a legitimate charge, they would have included it with her initial arrest along with the assault with a deadly weapon charge. They didn't.

This is an utterly moronic argument.

There are numerous examples of people being arrested for a limited number of alleged criminal offenses and additional charges being added later. The assault with a delay weapon charge was sufficient to arrest magnum and set bail at a high level. Larceny charges would not have changed that.

You do not help Mangum's cause when you make foolish arguments.

4. I don't know about whom you refer when you state there was another witness to corroborate that Mangum refused to return the cashier's checks.

Don't be disingenuous. I was obviously referring to Daye as the witness who claimed that he had told Magnum to return the checks. You do not help Mangum's cause when you deliberately pretend to be stupid.



Regarding 1. When police first saw Crystal they cuffed her and placed her under arrest. Then she was read her Miranda Rights and advised that anything she said without attorney advice could be used against her. The police never approached her and asked for her input before arresting her.

Regarding 2. The story by prosecutors is that Daye was angry at her, in part, for allegedly bringing men to her apartment. But keep in mind, that at the beginning of their relationship, it was strictly platonic. Once Daye pressured Crystal into an intimate relationship, he was extremely controlling... He did not want her to receive calls from males or to retain former male friends.

Regarding 3. Don't understand why the police would wait for more than two weeks to add a charge that occurred initially. If grounds were present for the charge initially, why not charge at the time.

In the 2010 so-called arson incident, Mangum was charge with all kinds of charges which were eventually dropped... such as attempted murder and identity theft.

Regarding 4. Daye told Officer Knight that he was not going to worry about the cashier's check... and there was no reason for him to because as remitter all he had to do was go to the financial institution and have the check re-issued. No big prob.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said
PART TWO OF TWO PART COMMENT
5. I say that such a transaction is impossible.

Fraud involving cashier's checks has occurred.

6. as is evidenced by the State's sole defenses of untimely filing and improper service of the summons... the State being unable to challenge the complaint based on merits.

This argument is dishonest. As you know, the briefs filed are supposed to be focused on the law. The issue address at that stage of a lawsuit is whether the plaintiff has a claim under the law under the assumption that the factual claims made by the plaintiff are true. The defendant is not supposed to contest the factual claims at that time. The defendants focused on the legal defenses rather than contesting your alleged facts because that this what they were required to so.

7. failure to timely file the malicious prosecution complaint by the appellate defense attorney in Mangum's case is legal malpractice

As you note, an acquittal is one of four required elements for a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Acquittal is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

Mangum was indicted on a serious charge of first degree murder and minor charges of larceny. As you know, she was found guilty of the serious charge of second degree murder and acquitted on the minor charges. Please provide a case in which a defendant won a malicious prosecution case after having been acquitted of minor charges and convicted of major charges.

November 3, 2018 at 8:43 AM


Regarding 5. If financial institutions follow rules and regulations, including checking the identity of individuals unknown to them, then criminal fraudulence can occur. But it is basically impossible for someone other than a professional criminal.

Regarding 6. When the State cannot put up a defense based on the merits of the case, they are forced to resort to technicalities. The fact that untimely filing was the major defense only supports Mangum's recurrent complaint that her legal representatives did not work to her best interests.

Regarding 7. The malicious prosecution charge was related solely to the Larceny of Chose in Action charge... not the murder charge. Bond's attorney initially considered using that defense, but abandoned it at the August 15th motions hearing.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

"Remember, remember the fifth of November...
the gunpowder treason and plot.]
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot."

Hah. From my favorite movie "V for Vendetta." The movie especially resonates in today's Trumpland. Lots of similarities.

I watched the movie last night, as I usually do this time of year, to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day... my favorite holiday.

Anyway, have a great Guy Fawkes Day tomorrow.

As you were.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Right on kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Read the comic, moron. As Alan Moore (the actual writer of "V for Vendetta" stated:
"[The movie] has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. ... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives – which is not what...V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England."
Your hero, V, was an anarchist- not some liberal/socialist good guy. His character was at best morally ambiguous, and the England Moore was writing about comes about because of a conservative defeat in the 1983 elections.

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Right on Nifong Supporter.

guiowen said...


Please see the following.

Mutt & Jeff for November 05, 2018

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "Hah. From my favorite movie "V for Vendetta." The movie especially resonates in today's Trumpland. Lots of similarities."

I just watched it on Netflix and it was good. Evey being not captured after the cell episode was a little iffy. Along with the inspector finding the old tube tunnel at the very end. He just walks in on Evey like it was an open door.

I saw it as the "Deep State" being the government and Trump is the one to do the "Deep State" in :)

Anonymous said...

Right on little man.

Anonymous said...

Why did you censor my comment?

Anonymous said...

What happened to my comment from November 5 at about 11am EST? Why did you not publish it?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
What happened to my comment from November 5 at about 11am EST? Why did you not publish it?

November 6, 2018 at 1:31 PM



Hey, Anony.

Unfortunately, the publish and delete buttons are very close together. I believe I accidentally deleted your comment. However, I clicked the reverse button and the comment returned, but I cannot publish it. Unfortunately, the comments come to my cellphone only, so I can't transfer them to my laptop. I can't copy and post from my cellphone. Therefore, I will re-type your comment below. Sorry about that... or as former Texas Governor Rick Perry would say, "Oopsie."

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...

1. Because you failed to respond to the substance of my comment, I assume that you acknowledge that Daye told police that he told Mangum to return the cashier's checks and that she failed to do so. I also assume that you acknowledge that Mangum did not deny to police that Daye had asked for the checks to be returned.

2. Post the interview with Daye in the hospital so that we can see what Daye told police about why he was angry.

3. This is a ridiculous argument. There are numerous examples of cases where charges are added after an initial arrest.

4. Post the interview with Daye in the hospital to that we can see whether Daye told police that he told Mangum to return the checks and she failed to do so. What he told Officer Knight before the argument became more violent is not definitive of what he may have wanted later.

5. Agreed. Please demonstrate that Mangum has no such friends.

6. You continue to be dishonest. The state was not supposed to contest the facts in those filings. They were supposed to make legal arguments. We can apply the same standard to you because you failed to provide a legal basis for your claims in filings that required you do so, we can assume that you had no legal basis for making those claims.

7. This argument is dishonest. I made the point that malicious prosecution cases are extremely difficult to win due to absolute immunity for prosecutors in making prosecutorial decisions and qualified immunity for law enforcement personnel. Successful malicious prosecution cases are rare, but they likely are primarily cases where the defendant was acquitted of ALL charges and should not have been prosecuted at all, not cases where a defendant was found guilty of the most serious charges and acquitted of minor charges. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Bond committed perjury in her grand jury testimony. You ignored that argument altogether.

In general, your arguments, both on this blog and in your legal filings, can be summarized as follows: "I am Sidney Harr, and this is my opinion. I am not required to provide any evidence or legal precedent to support my opinion. I am entitled to ignore the arguments and facts raised by those who disagree with me. Because I believe that I am correct, you must do whatever I want."

That argument is not compelling.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

I have learned a lot about how monitoring blog sites work and the pitfalls. Unfortunately, I had to accidentally delete one of the longest comments posted. But, I learned as well, that if I accidentally delete a comment when trying instead to publish it, I can retrieve the comment, but I can't then publish it.

In the future I will plan on re-typing a comment if it is accidentally deleted.

Monitoring/screening comments is problematic because the comments are sent to my cellphone only and not my laptop. And I can only reply on my laptop. So it's complicated.

I will publish all comments as long as they adhere to the kenhyderal doctrine. If your comment is not posted in a reasonable time... more than eight or ten hours during daytime after sending, let me know. I will usually post a comment as soon as I receive it on my cellphone. There is no way on my phone to tell if a comment has already been posted, so if you do not see it, it might because I overlooked publishing it.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for retyping my comment.

Nifong Supporter said...


NOTE: The Anony comment I re-typed at November 6, 2018 at 2:48 PM is in response to my comments posted on November 4, 2018 at 3:29 PM and 4:07 PM.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Thank you for retyping my comment.

November 6, 2018 at 3:02 PM


No prob. I freaked out initially after deleting it, but am just glad I was able to retrieve it. I value your comments.

Anonymous said...

Right on Anony at 2:48.

guiowen said...

So Sidney, I gather you couldn't get good old Milton to testify in Crystal's favor?

Anonymous said...

Right on g.

Anonymous said...

Where is the little man?

kenhyderal supporter said...

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
So Sidney, I gather you couldn't get good old Milton to testify in Crystal's favor?

November 8, 2018 at 12:42 AM


hey, gui, mon ami.

I thought it would be a long shot to begin with, but the lines of communication are totally severed, at least at the time. Crystal is unable to reach Milton. Still, I don't think he's a very good witness in the first place. He's too impressionable. Meier should have been able to impeach his testimony, but he didn't. Mangum's legal representation throughout was abysmal.

What is your guess about the preservation of the audio recording... took place in March 2018? Do you think it still exists, or do you think it's been erased?

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Where is kenhyderal? We all miss the cogent comments that he posted at your blog in the past. Have you checked with his friends in Bremerton to see if they know his whereabouts?

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

I must ask you again because we are all concerned about him. Where is kenhyderal? Perhaps he is visiting his friends in Lumberton. Since you have kenhyderal’s email address, please check with him and post a comment after you hear from him.

kenhyderal said...

Present and accounted for.

Anonymous said...

The little man has returned.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Right on kenhyderal.

Anonymous said...

Right on little man.

Anonymous said...

Hallo everyone. It’s good to be back. What did I miss?

Anonymous said...

Hallo Dr. Harr. While I was gone, did you win your lawsuit against WRAL?

Anonymous said...

Hallo Dr. Harr. Would you be so kind as to provide us with an update regarding the malicious prosecution case?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hallo Dr. Harr. Would you be so kind as to provide us with an update regarding the malicious prosecution case?

November 15, 2018 at 3:38 PM


Hey, Anony.

I've been out of town and away from my laptop, so have not been able to reply to comments over the past couple of days. Went to work on a promising project to help Crystal receive justice.

Crystal has appealed Judge Thompson's ruling to dismiss her case. In fact, today I will mail out the Proposed Record on Appeal to both defendants. (Crystal is unable to mail them herself because the prisons lack USPS staffing and she is unable to mail items by certified mail.) Once the Proposed Record is agreed upon, Mangum will enter the next phase of the appellate process... filing the Record on Appeal with the NC Court of Appeals. That may not take place until late December or early next year.

Unfortunately, the process to appeal is long and complicated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hallo Dr. Harr. While I was gone, did you win your lawsuit against WRAL?

November 15, 2018 at 3:16 AM


The lawsuit against WRAL has not been resolved... at least not to my satisfaction. I am in the process of appealing the ruling against me by Judge Rebecca Holt. Working on the Proposed Record on Appeal at present.

Anonymous said...

Hallo Dr. Harr. Do you plan to sue Duke for its blatant acts of discrimination against you and its selective enforcement of the non solicitation policy?

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hallo Dr. Harr. Do you plan to sue Duke for its blatant acts of discrimination against you and its selective enforcement of the non solicitation policy?

November 16, 2018 at 5:54 PM


Hey, Anony.

At present the 2010 Duke discrimination incident (in which it tried to have me arrested) is not on my radar. I am focused on legal actions required to free Crystal Mangum and give her justice, and on my own legal fight against WRAL-5 News which is in early stages of appeal.

Also, I am pursuing secret projects to help Crystal Mangum. You will learn about them later. Let me just assure you that with the truths of her case known, support for Crystal Mangum is growing.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

I must ask you again because we are all concerned about him. Where is kenhyderal? Perhaps he is visiting his friends in Lumberton. Since you have kenhyderal’s email address, please check with him and post a comment after you hear from him.


November 11, 2018 at 4:50 AM


Hey, Nifong Double Supporter.

I think a more imperative question would be: Where is Walt, JSwift, A Lawyer, and others. Although activity is relatively slow on this blog site at present, it has been a while since they've provided commentary.

Hope to get a sharlog or shar-video posted soon. Unfortunately, my time is being confiscated by legal preparations and multiple secret projects.

Dr. Caligari said...

I think a more imperative question would be: Where is Walt, JSwift, A Lawyer, and others. Although activity is relatively slow on this blog site at present, it has been a while since they've provided commentary.

Walt apparently stopped posting here a long time ago.

I used to post as "A Lawyer," but had to switch to the name on my Google account. I still lurk here, but haven't posted in a while, because Dr. Harr refuses to learn some basic legal principles even after he has been corrected on them time and again. (For instance: Mangum wasn't, and couldn't have been, charged with felony murder; a malicious prosecution case relating to one charge cannot be used to set aside a conviction on a different charge; Milton Walker's phone message, even if it was recorded, is not admissible in evidence; perjury before the grand jury cannot be used to set aside a criminal conviction once there was a full trial; if a civil case is dismissed by a judge for failure to state a claim, it cannot be re-filed over and over again; etc.)

A Lawyer said...

Present and accounted for.

Anonymous said...

Hallo kenhyderal. Have you offered to assist Dr. Harr with his secret projects?

Anonymous said...

Did Nifong ever get his justice? Why is this site relevant in 2018?

kenhyderal said...

The Justice, due former DA Nifong will be his vindication. That vindication depends on Justice being realized for Crystal Mangum, both her acquittal of the bogus murder conviction and the conviction, probably no longer in a Court of Law but by their public naming and shaming of those who sexually assaulted her. And the eventual realization, by all, of how things were in America for vulnerable women before the Me Too Movement and how the American public disgracefully turned a blind eye to this evil.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal @1:58 PM:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

guiowen said...

Oh, don't laugh at poor Kenny the Troll! Let him dream!

Anonymous said...

Hallo Dr. Harr. Why are you censoring my posts?

kenhyderal supporter said...

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.