justice4nifong: Crystal G. Mangum v. Oxygen Media LLC, et al.

Friday, August 27, 2021

Crystal G. Mangum v. Oxygen Media LLC, et al.

368 comments:

1 – 200 of 368 Newer› Newest»

Guiowen said...: SO, KENNY,
When is Cyril going to testify?
WE'RE WAITING!; August 27, 2021 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Bahahahahaha

Bahahahanaha

Bahahahahaha

Good luck with your lawsuit, Sid.

Kenny, by all means, let us know what you think about the lawsuit.; August 27, 2021 at 10:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: So, there you have it, once again. I don't know how anyone, in good conscience, can legally justify, in any way, the continued incarceration of Crystal Mangum. Anyone who knows the facts, especially those with the power to correct this miscarriage of Justice but wont merely to "save face" are guilty of cowardice and blatant immorality. I accuse faith leaders in this indictment as well as Civil Rights organization like the N.A.A.C.P., The Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, Legislators both State and Federal and the Forth Estate. In the great tradition of African American, "do the right thing" .; August 27, 2021 at 10:34 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Actually, it's Cyril Wecht who is doing nothing. Why doesn't he help you get this before a court of law? Is he really so important that he's not allowed to help? Or is he simply senile?; August 27, 2021 at 11:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
I am angry that Wecht refuses to take a stand for Crystal. The only excuse that would cause me to forgive him is that he is too senile to speak.
I'm sorry you won't hire Sharpe. Don't you want to get Crystal ot?

August 23, 2021 at 6:10 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

What Dr. Wecht did was review the autopsy report of Dr. Clay Nichols on Reginald Daye. Dr. Mandy Cohen refuses to have an autopsy report reviewed. Do you think that any other forensic pathologist would be willing to review Dr. Nichols' autopsy report? I doubt it.

If Sharpe works for the IDS, then I believe his loyalties will be with the State rather than with Crystal Mangum. All of Mangum's attorneys who represented her have worked in the best interests of the State and Duke. Don't think Sharpe would be any different.; August 27, 2021 at 11:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
@ Guiowen: What leads you to believe Dr. Wecht wont testify. As an expert pathologist and medical-legal scholar he testifies whenever he is subpoenaed, be it by a Prosecutor or by a Defence Lawyer. That's what he does. What he does not do is become an advocate. That's why his testimony carries so much weight and why his opinion is so definitive. I'm sorry, you can't seem to get that through your head. Given Dr. Wecht's unmatched reputation and credentials you make yourself look awfully foolish suggesting he is senile, uncertain and conflicted. Time to get real Guiowen.

August 24, 2021 at 9:39 AM

Hey, kenhyderal.

You're absolutely correct. Testifying at trials as an expert witness is part of what Dr. Wecht does. There is no reason to believe that he would refuse to testify at Mangum's courtroom activities.; August 27, 2021 at 11:47 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Well, in that case I guess Crystal will be out in early 2026. Hope you get along with her at that time.; August 27, 2021 at 11:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Who did Crystal sue this time? State Court or Federal Court?

Sharpe is the Capital Defender with IDS - use Google, you can find him.

August 24, 2021 at 10:59 AM

Hey, Anony.

As you can see, Mangum's lawsuit is in Federal Court due to diversity jurisdiction.

Don't plan on getting an attorney for Crystal Mangum. She doesn't need one. The facts speak for themselves... especially with the report by Dr. Wecht.; August 27, 2021 at 11:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid -- "Crystal filed a lawsuit today... Pro Se! Will have it posted in a couple of days."

That was posted on Aug 23rd. More than "a couple of days" have passed since.

When can we expect to see this lolsuit?

August 26, 2021 at 10:00 AM

Hey, Anony.

It takes time to prepare the brief for online access... especially with links to the exhibits. I think it's better for viewers if I take the time to make it easier to navigate through the brief. Also, I am working on many projects, including writing letters, sending e-mails, making phone calls, and dealing with a few personal incidents... Not to mention interference from my Siamese cat Adonis who loves to sit on my laptop while I'm trying to work.; August 27, 2021 at 12:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid's latest lawsuit on behalf of Crystal is ridiculous even by his usual standards. It will go nowhere.

August 26, 2021 at 10:42 AM

Hey, Anony.

I'm not sure to which lawsuit you are referring. I didn't post it until August 27th and your post is on the 26th.; August 27, 2021 at 12:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
I mean, the claims for relief ask the Court to order people who are not remotely a party to the lawsuit to do anything.

Sid must be mentally ill, because as many lawsuits as he's filed, and as many times he's been told what he's doing wrong, he repeats the same basic mistakes over and over again - the true definition of insanity.

And, even Kenny has to admit it's not a "corrupt" system that says a Court can't order random people to do something when they aren't parties to the lawsuit - that's actually a sign of due process.

This lawsuit is pathetic even on Sid's low standards.

August 26, 2021 at 10:48 AM

Hey, Anony.

I'm going to assume that you and the previous commenter may have gone online and viewed the lawsuit against Oxygen Media.

With response to claims for relief, I wish you would be more specific so I can know about what to reply. There are reasons for claims for relief about which you are unaware. But the more specific your questions are, the better I can respond.; August 27, 2021 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't matter what the claims for relief are - the Federal Court in a Civil Case against a NY company cannot order Crystal released, cannot order documents unsealed, or any of the other things you ask. The Court cannot order anyone who is not a party to do anything - so every claim for relief other than money from Oxygen Media or that asks Oxygen Media to do something is irrelevant, improper, and has zero chance of even being considered - no matter your reason for inclusion.

And, you know this, because it's been explained every time you do this in your lawsuits.; August 27, 2021 at 12:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
It doesn't matter what the claims for relief are - the Federal Court in a Civil Case against a NY company cannot order Crystal released, cannot order documents unsealed, or any of the other things you ask. The Court cannot order anyone who is not a party to do anything - so every claim for relief other than money from Oxygen Media or that asks Oxygen Media to do something is irrelevant, improper, and has zero chance of even being considered - no matter your reason for inclusion.

And, you know this, because it's been explained every time you do this in your lawsuits.

August 27, 2021 at 12:20 PM

Hey, Anony.

What you seem to ignore is the following... NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!! In the vast majority of cases, there is usually a crime involved. Her innocence is absolute. There's no reason why she should be held in custody. So even though it may not seem standard practice, because of the egregiousness of Mangum's wrongful conviction and justice demands that she be released, it is not unreasonable to at least request the relief. As they say, "nothing ventured, nothing gained." Or, "you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket."; August 27, 2021 at 12:30 PM
A Durham Man said...: Sid,

Your chances of winning the lottery are a sure bet compared to the likelihood that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss.; August 27, 2021 at 1:12 PM
Guiowen said...: Sidney,
If and when Wecht presents his findings in a court of law, then, assuming he makes a good presentation, I will be willing to believe that Crystal is innocent of murder -- though she might still br guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Until Wecht makes his presentation, I have not made up my mind about this case.; August 27, 2021 at 2:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Anonymous Guiowen said...SO, KENNY, When is Cyril going to testify? WE'RE WAITING!-------------------------In the event AG Stein call's for a new trial, he would be called on to testify. More appropriately, Gov. Cooper should dismiss the case outright, free Crystal immediately and compensate her for the injustice she has suffered. With his instinct for political survival, at any cost, he would most likely chose the retrial route, using the excuse new information has come forth. That would be a cop-out because he knew of her innocence all along. He would still have to settle with Crystal, though, at the expense of the NC Taxpayer but it would most likely be a non-disclosure settlement the details of which would be kept unknown to the citizens of NC.; August 27, 2021 at 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: At the time the article was written, Crystal Mangum had been found guilty of second-degree murder by a jury of her peers.

There is no libel or defamation. the information contained in the article was correct based on the information available at the time.

Now, should Crystal have her conviction overturned, or in some way get another trial and be found not guilty, or she serves her time, she may have legal rights to have links to articles about these convictions to be removed from search engines, and she is certainly within her rights to ask Oxygen to remove the article or update it.; August 27, 2021 at 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It IS unreasonable to request release from prison (following the loss of a CRIMINAL case) as relief for a CIVIL case.

As they say, "wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills fastest".; August 27, 2021 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: How about Dr. Phil:

https://www.drphil.com/be-on-the-show/categories/

under the category "Current Events/In The News"

As you say: "nothing ventured, nothing gained"

And your story does have television appeal, down to you and Mangum getting married.; August 27, 2021 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Dream on, Kenny.; August 27, 2021 at 8:30 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Please provide us with your critique of Crystal’s most recent lawsuit. Is the lawsuit likely to be successful? If not, should Sid redirect his efforts to assist Crystal?

We look forward to your response.; August 28, 2021 at 5:34 AM
Anonymous said...: You should see if you can get Ronnie Long involved.; August 28, 2021 at 9:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous guiowen said...
Sidney,
Well, in that case I guess Crystal will be out in early 2026. Hope you get along with her at that time.

August 27, 2021 at 11:49 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

The playbook/game plan for Cooper and the State is to hold Mangum in prison until 2026 with help from the courts and media, then release her and refuse to revisit the injustices as being moot. My objective is to have her released before then. I believe that any attorney working for Mangum would do their best to stall the legal process and help run out the clock until she served her sentence. That is what is going on currently.; August 28, 2021 at 10:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Durham Man said...
Sid,

Your chances of winning the lottery are a sure bet compared to the likelihood that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss.

August 27, 2021 at 1:12 PM

Hey, A Durham Man.

Don't understand why a judge would dismiss this lawsuit. Defendants can't claim statute of limitations! Clearly a claim subject to relief is presented by all elements of libel and defamation have been met. But as you, like defendants, are aware, their only practical way to prevail is if the complaint is summarily dismissed and never goes before a jury.; August 28, 2021 at 10:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Guiowen said...
Sidney,
If and when Wecht presents his findings in a court of law, then, assuming he makes a good presentation, I will be willing to believe that Crystal is innocent of murder -- though she might still br guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Until Wecht makes his presentation, I have not made up my mind about this case.

August 27, 2021 at 2:16 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Though not in a courtroom, Dr. Wecht has already presented his findings... and in writing. They're in his report of October 25, 2019.

As far as assault with a deadly weapon, that charge was never argued in court... no verdict rendered on it. Ergo, seems it would be irrelevant.; August 28, 2021 at 10:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
At the time the article was written, Crystal Mangum had been found guilty of second-degree murder by a jury of her peers.

There is no libel or defamation. the information contained in the article was correct based on the information available at the time.

Now, should Crystal have her conviction overturned, or in some way get another trial and be found not guilty, or she serves her time, she may have legal rights to have links to articles about these convictions to be removed from search engines, and she is certainly within her rights to ask Oxygen to remove the article or update it.

August 27, 2021 at 2:39 PM

Hey, Anony.

I understand where you're coming from but my argument would be that a demand for a correction to Oxygen Media's online article came in May 2020, more than a year after the article was published. The demand for correction was based on the report of arguably the world's foremost forensic pathologist and medicolegal consultant in the world... Dr. Cyril Wecht. I submit that Oxygen Media, after receiving the demand and report by Dr. Wecht, had a duty to review its article to ascertain the truth of the headline... that is, was the stab wound really fatal? Oxygen Media could have had any forensic pathologist of their choosing review the case and Dr. Wecht's report... or they could have merely removed the word "fatally" from the title and enclosed a correction about the manner of death based on Dr. Wecht's report.

Unfortunately Oxygen Media hubris led it to ignore me and return my second packet unopened via Return-To-Sender.

As far as a retrial goes, that's not even a remote possibility because Durham prosecutors first need to establish that a crime's been committed.; August 28, 2021 at 10:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
It IS unreasonable to request release from prison (following the loss of a CRIMINAL case) as relief for a CIVIL case.

As they say, "wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills fastest".

August 27, 2021 at 3:02 PM

Hey, Anony.

First of all, I hate your adage... horrible visuals. Couldn't you find a better one?

Now, regarding the substantive part of your comment... The civil lawsuit deals directly with the crux of the criminal case. If Mangum prevails, as I expect, the implication would be that a crime was not committed; Mangum's innocence is absolute. Now, although the judge in the civil court may not be able to overturn a criminal court judge's ruling, it might be possible for him to provide some relief (i.e., house arrest or house arrest under monitor... especially in the COVID-19 era). In the interests of justice, the possibilities can be unlimited and unimaginable.

I believe in shooting for the stars.; August 28, 2021 at 10:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
How about Dr. Phil:

https://www.drphil.com/be-on-the-show/categories/

under the category "Current Events/In The News"

As you say: "nothing ventured, nothing gained"

And your story does have television appeal, down to you and Mangum getting married.

August 27, 2021 at 5:52 PM

Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the suggestion. I think its been more than a year since Crystal wrote to the Dr. Phil Show about her story... something she took the initiative to do without my knowledge. Though I'm not a Dr. Phil fan, I learned afterwards that a friend of ours helped reach out to him. Another friend of mine also suggested to try Dr. Phil... long after Mangum's first attempt. She never heard back from Dr. Phil or any of the show's producers.

Regarding Mangum marrying me, a retired physician, that should be newsworthy and the media has known about our engagement for years. However, that is not the narrative it wants to paint of Crystal, so it has never mentioned it. The media wants to portray Mangum as being incapable of being in a relationship with a decent professional man. The media has already defined her has having poor choice in male partners/boyfriends.; August 28, 2021 at 11:02 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
When someone presents his ideas/findings in court, he is subject to cross-examination. This would allow him to show that he is certain about it, that he is not senile, etc. This is why simply writing about it is not enough
As fr as assault with a deadly weapon, Crystal was originally charged with that. This was upgraded to murder after Daye died. You might want to check on whether this charge can be reinstated, assuming she is innocent of murder.; August 28, 2021 at 11:18 AM
guiowen said...: Actually, Sidney, I think people have generally felt that it was Milton Walker and Reginald Daye who made a poor choices in their girl friend.; August 28, 2021 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Wecht’s report, while certainly informed, is still an opinion. It has no legal standing in regard to Crystal Mangum’s murder trial and subsequent conviction of second-degree murder.

Oxygen’s headline is consistent with the facts of the case as decided by a jury of her peers.

As Anonymous @2:39 points out until those facts change through the appropriate legal process, there is no defamation or libel.; August 28, 2021 at 3:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man August 28, 2021 at 5:34 AM:------------ I believe I answered this in the first two sentences of my post of August 27, 2021 at 10:34 AM; August 28, 2021 at 4:03 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You should see if you can get Ronnie Long involved.

August 28, 2021 at 9:58 AM

Hey, Anony.

I met Ronnie Long and his wife last November at a gathering outside the Governor's Mansion. I related to them my advocacy for Mr. Long, told them a little about Mangum's plight, and gave them my contact information. I haven't heard from them. Part of that I believe is due to their focus on getting compensation. Also, I don't think their attorneys would encourage them to stick their necks out for Crystal Mangum.

If Ronnie Long reaches out to me/Crystal, then I will follow up. I don't think the Longs' are thinking about Mangum... they're concentrating on their own situation.

I believe that people who are exonerated (e.g., Greg Taylor) are more interested in moving on with their lives and making up for lost time of incarceration... not getting involved in advocacy work.; August 28, 2021 at 5:47 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

And how will this lawsuit result in an end to Crystal’s incarceration? Are you really as uninformed as your posts indicate?; August 28, 2021 at 5:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
When someone presents his ideas/findings in court, he is subject to cross-examination. This would allow him to show that he is certain about it, that he is not senile, etc. This is why simply writing about it is not enough
As fr as assault with a deadly weapon, Crystal was originally charged with that. This was upgraded to murder after Daye died. You might want to check on whether this charge can be reinstated, assuming she is innocent of murder.

August 28, 2021 at 11:18 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

I understand what you say, but cross-examination won't faze Dr. Wecht because his opinions are based on facts as laid out by the medical records. The problem is that the State cannot defend the autopsy report and that a crime (murder) was committed. That's why Dr. Mandy Cohen won't order a review of the autopsy. Dr. Wecht is a professional medicolegal consultant and forensic pathology expert who has testified and been cross-examined hundreds of times in court. The cross-examination will be a piece of cake for Dr. Wecht.

As far as assault with a deadly weapon, she was not charged or indicted for that crime. Also, if Mangum is exonerated because of a determination by the courts that a crime was not committed, then there would be no way the State would go after her on the assault charge after she has served nearly a decade in prison for a crime that was not committed.; August 28, 2021 at 6:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Actually, Sidney, I think people have generally felt that it was Milton Walker and Reginald Daye who made a poor choices in their girl friend.

August 28, 2021 at 2:32 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

The media doesn't want people to know that a mature, decent, professional man, who is somewhat respected, would be romantically interested in Crystal Mangum. You see, Mangum's relationship with me would be a "no-trauma, no-drama" one as I am not an alcoholic and have a very mellow personality. A relationship with Mangum is one in which arguments will play no part... one that is respectful and non-confrontational. In other words, neighbors won't be complaining and police won't be responding to domestic calls at the Harr/Mangum household.; August 28, 2021 at 6:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Wecht’s report, while certainly informed, is still an opinion. It has no legal standing in regard to Crystal Mangum’s murder trial and subsequent conviction of second-degree murder.

Oxygen’s headline is consistent with the facts of the case as decided by a jury of her peers.

As Anonymous @2:39 points out until those facts change through the appropriate legal process, there is no defamation or libel.

August 28, 2021 at 3:08 PM

Hey, Anony.

My argument is not with the initial October 7, 2018 article. My position is that the October 25, 2019 report by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht was new evidence which was presented to Oxygen Media in a packet sent May 2020. At that time, Oxygen Media had a duty - after reviewing Dr. Wecht's report - to review its own evidence on the issue. It obviously did not do that. Instead, Oxygen Media ignored me and did not make the effort to remove the word "fatally" from the title and put up a correction regarding Daye's manner of death. Then Oxygen Media refused a certified packet from me and returned it Return-to-Sender unopened in April 2021.

Had Oxygen Media acted civilly and appropriately and negotiated with me, the lawsuit could have been avoided.; August 28, 2021 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: A Durham Man,

Keep in mind that Kenny has shown many times that he is nothing but a troll. You are wasting your time.; August 29, 2021 at 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Wecht’s report is not “new evidence”. It’s never been legally presented in a trial. Don’t believe me? Google the legal definition of “evidence” and show me I’m wrong.

No media outlet has a duty to change a headline based on someone’s opinion.; August 29, 2021 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: So…You did write this lawsuit, then?; August 29, 2021 at 11:52 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Get a lawyer for Crystal. Get Wecht to preset his ideas in court. Until you do that, you're just wasting time; August 29, 2021 at 5:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous in his response to a Durham Man: ("Keep in mind that Kenny has shown many times that he is nothing but a troll")......... Thus says a anonymous poster, too cowardly to post under a registered name. Let the readers decide who the troll is.; August 30, 2021 at 8:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said.. "Dr. Wecht’s report is not “new evidence”. It’s never been legally presented in a trial. Don’t believe me? Google the legal definition of “evidence” and show me I’m wrong."............ The use of semantics is just one more artifact the so-called American Justice System uses to produce results that it favors. Common sense has no place in that corrupt system. It's reminiscent of how the "pit-bull" Prosecutor Coggins-Franks convinced a jury that enraged, maniacal, drunken, door-busting, knife hurling Reginald Daye pinning her to the floor with hands on her throat, suddenly, fearing for his life got off her and fled. Crystal then chased him down and stabbed him.; August 30, 2021 at 9:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiiowen You are a broken record. AG Klein is a Lawyer and so is Gov. Cooper. What you are saying is pay tribute to the system by giving your money to a Lawyer when Crystal herself with the help of Dr. Harr has proven she is innocent of any crime.; August 30, 2021 at 9:33 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
As far as I can see, you and Crystal should be married around March 2026. I sincerely hope you have "no trauma, no drama". Good luck with that.; August 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Once again you prove that, because of context, you misunderstand everything. How, exactly, has Crystal proved herself innocent?; August 31, 2021 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sid,

The media is covering your latest nonsense lawsuit.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/duke-lacrosse-accuser-suing-for-defamation-after-media-reported-she-fatally-stabbed-her-boyfriend-she-was-convicted-of-second-degree-murder?fbclid=IwAR30i_TaOCEN6um9YFF0BlK8EvzVU4gdJm6Y1s6NBOok_9xY5ctsQgk9G-o; August 31, 2021 at 11:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Hey Sid,

The media is covering your latest nonsense lawsuit.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/duke-lacrosse-accuser-suing-for-defamation-after-media-reported-she-fatally-stabbed-her-boyfriend-she-was-convicted-of-second-degree-murder?fbclid=IwAR30i_TaOCEN6um9YFF0BlK8EvzVU4gdJm6Y1s6NBOok_9xY5ctsQgk9G-o

August 31, 2021 at 11:13 AM

Hey, Anony.

Hah! Once again a commenter comes through. Your comment was the first that I had heard of the article. I consider it to be well written and accurate.

Thanks for the notification and link.; September 1, 2021 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: So, you consider the article "well written and accurate"? So you aren't going to sue them later for comments like this? And you admit it's accurate when they report that one of the claims in your lawsuit is demonstrably false? No wonder your lawsuits all fail, you clearly have no ability to comprehend what you read.

Mangum’s lawsuit also claims she did not falsely accuse members of the Duke Lacrosse team of rape, even though extensive evidence – including a DNA report – showed the crime had not been committed. Mangum now claims she didn’t receive media support in 2006 when she made the accusations, unlike women now who make such allegations as part of the #MeToo movement.

This is demonstrably false, as media outlets and Duke University officials accepted her allegations as fact from the beginning.

It should be noted that Harr has repeatedly defended Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who pursued the Duke Lacrosse members even when evidence pointed to their innocence. Nifong was disbarred for his actions in the case. Mangum was never charged with filing a false police report.; September 1, 2021 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- Why aren't you posting my comment about your plagiarizing the title of your previous blog entry?; September 1, 2021 at 8:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid -- Why aren't you posting my comment about your plagiarizing the title of your previous blog entry?

September 1, 2021 at 8:40 AM

Hey, Anony.

I post what I receive. Try re-submitting. Also, it would help if you used a tag other than Anony.; September 1, 2021 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: OK Sid -- Here we go.
"Justice dies in Darkness" is the name of a piece done by an organization called "Justice Hub" back in 2017 about Bahraini journalist Nazeeha Saeed, who was tortured by state officers during the Arab Spring.

Since it's obvious you plagiarized the name for your blog entry, you should either:

1) Change the name of your blog entry

2) Civilly negotiate an appropriate relief with "Justice Hub" for plagiarizing their headline.; September 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: It and variations of it are in the public domain. Here is one in 2002 of an LA Times headline https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-apr-03-ed-detroit03-story.html; September 2, 2021 at 4:54 PM
guiowen said...: So,Sidney,
How's your latest lawsuit coming along?; September 3, 2021 at 2:38 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: (a) If the article was accurate when printed, Oxygen has no duty to correct it later even if it is subsequently found to have been inaccurate.

(b) In any event, Mangum cannot argue that she is innocent until her criminal conviction is set aside, under the rule of collateral estoppel.

(c) As others pointed out, a judge has no power to order anyone who is not a party to the case to do anything.

Expect a speedy dismissal.; September 5, 2021 at 9:01 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: My argument is not with the initial October 7, 2018 article. My position is that the October 25, 2019 report by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht was new evidence which was presented to Oxygen Media in a packet sent May 2020. At that time, Oxygen Media had a duty - after reviewing Dr. Wecht's report - to review its own evidence on the issue. It obviously did not do that. Instead, Oxygen Media ignored me and did not make the effort to remove the word "fatally" from the title and put up a correction regarding Daye's manner of death.

Before drafting this lawsuit, did you research North Carolina defamation law to see if there is a duty to correct articles which were true when published?; September 5, 2021 at 1:10 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Are you all right? Haven't heard from you in five days.; September 6, 2021 at 10:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
So,Sidney,
How's your latest lawsuit coming along?

September 3, 2021 at 2:38 PM

gui, mon ami,

My lawsuit against WRAL-5 News in Federal Court is over as the Fourth Circuit refused my Petition for rehearing en banc.

This means that whenever anyone reads the WRAL article of July 4, 2016, they will believe that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president and law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Absurd. But that's the justice system. To reach a desired outcome, summarily dismiss a lawsuit.; September 7, 2021 at 3:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
OK Sid -- Here we go.
"Justice dies in Darkness" is the name of a piece done by an organization called "Justice Hub" back in 2017 about Bahraini journalist Nazeeha Saeed, who was tortured by state officers during the Arab Spring.

Since it's obvious you plagiarized the name for your blog entry, you should either:

1) Change the name of your blog entry

2) Civilly negotiate an appropriate relief with "Justice Hub" for plagiarizing their headline.

September 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM

Hey, Anony.

Did you even look at the shar-video? The prologue contains an interview between PBS commentator Christiane Amanpour and then Executive Editor of The Washington Post Martin Baron discussing the paper's motto "Democracy Dies in Darkness." The purpose of the shar-video was facetiously to express how justice dies in darkness by referencing the suppression of the truths of Mangum's innocence by the media collectively. By no means do I intend to imply ownership of the phrase. It was nothing more than a springboard upon which to launch my criticism of the media that professes to value shining lights in dark corners.

Consider yourself elucidated.; September 7, 2021 at 4:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
So, you consider the article "well written and accurate"? So you aren't going to sue them later for comments like this? And you admit it's accurate when they report that one of the claims in your lawsuit is demonstrably false? No wonder your lawsuits all fail, you clearly have no ability to comprehend what you read.

Mangum’s lawsuit also claims she did not falsely accuse members of the Duke Lacrosse team of rape, even though extensive evidence – including a DNA report – showed the crime had not been committed. Mangum now claims she didn’t receive media support in 2006 when she made the accusations, unlike women now who make such allegations as part of the #MeToo movement.

This is demonstrably false, as media outlets and Duke University officials accepted her allegations as fact from the beginning.

It should be noted that Harr has repeatedly defended Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who pursued the Duke Lacrosse members even when evidence pointed to their innocence. Nifong was disbarred for his actions in the case. Mangum was never charged with filing a false police report.

September 1, 2021 at 5:43 AM

Hey, Anony.

I believe I said that the article, in general, was accurate. I've learned the importance of choosing battles... and to argue about an irrelevant aside involving the Duke Lacrosse case will do nothing to advance my objective to free and exonerate Crystal. The lacrosse statements were not given prominence, as they were placed at the end of the article. What I found most gratifying was the mention of Dr. Wecht's report and its implications... although it should have explained Dr. Wecht's high regard in the world of forensic pathology.

In response to your question, there is no way I would file lawsuit against them. Despite being a conservative media organization I applaud them for even writing the article... something which liberal leftist media have refused to do.; September 7, 2021 at 4:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
(a) If the article was accurate when printed, Oxygen has no duty to correct it later even if it is subsequently found to have been inaccurate.

(b) In any event, Mangum cannot argue that she is innocent until her criminal conviction is set aside, under the rule of collateral estoppel.

(c) As others pointed out, a judge has no power to order anyone who is not a party to the case to do anything.

Expect a speedy dismissal.

September 5, 2021 at 9:01 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Regarding (a), I disagree on that point, especially when it comes to an online article that may be posted for eternity. If your position was accurate, then there would be no necessity for media to append corrections or update articles. As you know, many articles in the media contain corrections.

Regarding (b), what Mangum is actually arguing is that she was convicted for a crime that never happened. Her position is that her innocence is absolute.

Regarding (c), Mangum is asking the judge not to order just any third party to comply, but is asking the court itself (although in the criminal division instead of civil) to take specific action. There is a difference. This might even be a case of first impression.; September 7, 2021 at 4:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
My argument is not with the initial October 7, 2018 article. My position is that the October 25, 2019 report by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht was new evidence which was presented to Oxygen Media in a packet sent May 2020. At that time, Oxygen Media had a duty - after reviewing Dr. Wecht's report - to review its own evidence on the issue. It obviously did not do that. Instead, Oxygen Media ignored me and did not make the effort to remove the word "fatally" from the title and put up a correction regarding Daye's manner of death.

Before drafting this lawsuit, did you research North Carolina defamation law to see if there is a duty to correct articles which were true when published?

September 5, 2021 at 1:10 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

No, I did not do such research... and not being legally trained, I would not even know where to begin. But as I stated in a prior comment, I believe the media does have a duty to make corrections when made aware of errors in their articles... especially online articles which have long longevities.; September 7, 2021 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Are you all right? Haven't heard from you in five days.

September 6, 2021 at 10:08 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Thanks for the concern. I'm okay... just been busy. Sending out a lot of letters and e-mail... but ran into a temporary obstacle yesterday when my printer broke. Spent all day trying to get another. One will be available in a week, so I may spend more time on another shar-video.

Was extremely pleased with the Daily Wire article... something from which the mainstream media has steered away.

Also, I need to focus on Mangum's lawsuit against WRAL-5 News.; September 7, 2021 at 4:43 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: This means that whenever anyone reads the WRAL article of July 4, 2016, they will believe that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president and law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Anyone who reads the first two pages of your 2011 lawsuit would believe exactly that, because that is what the opening part of your Complaint talks about.; September 7, 2021 at 1:34 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: No, I did not do such research... and not being legally trained, I would not even know where to begin.

Then maybe filing lawsuits is not the best use of your time.; September 7, 2021 at 4:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. I thought a Statements of Claim should contain background information to give context to the action before making the claim and asking relief for the damage suffered.; September 7, 2021 at 8:22 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: I thought a Statements of Claim should contain background information to give context to the action before making the claim and asking relief for the damage suffered.

Read any Complaint filed by an experienced lawyer. It will start with a short paragraph saying what the lawsuit is about, before launching into any background facts.

Beyond that, the Lacrosse incident wasn't properly even background to the 2011 lawsuit; it was completely irrelevant to the claim.; September 8, 2021 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case had no bearing whatsoever on Sid's 2011 Duke University case, other than Sid wearing a J4N t-shirt and handing out J4N business cards.

He could have written that up in 1 paragraph.

He didn't. IIRC, he wrote 2 PAGES about the Duke LAX case -- starting on page 2 and ending on page 4.

He doesn't even mention the alleged event where his civil rights were violated until page 6.

There's context, and there's BS. Sid's document contains much more of the latter.; September 8, 2021 at 12:34 PM
Fake Abe Froman said...: Dr. C,

Don’t feed the troll.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 8, 2021 at 6:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. Thanks for your opinion but I disagree. Supporting former DA Nifong, who on behalf of a black single mother took on carpetbagger Duke University students and their rich Families, by an African America retired Physician was seen to be a challenge to the order of things. His treatment should be seen as a violation of his constitutional rights. This is the context that relates to Crystal's claim of sexual assault. B.T. W. I wouldn't react to a fake and anonymous poster calling others trolls.; September 9, 2021 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal - It's rather simple. Share Sid's 2011 document with a legal expert of your choice and ask them how much (if any) of the 2006 Duke LAX case should have been included in the document.

Feel free to let us know both your legal expert's CV and their response.; September 9, 2021 at 8:39 AM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Please confirm for us which of Sid’s constitutional rights were violated and how they were violated.; September 9, 2021 at 10:11 AM
Fake Abe Froman said...: Kenny,

We’re waiting for your answer to Durham Man.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 10, 2021 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm waiting to see what your legal expert has to say about Sid's 2011 lawsuit.; September 10, 2021 at 4:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: Although it's not definitive, like it is in Canada where neither Public or Private entities cant discriminate, the 14th Amendment, states that all Americans are all entitled to equal treatment under law. Thus laws which allow different treatment for people based on race are unconstitutional. Duke claimed that as a Private entity it could enforce it's regulations anyway it wanted and was exempt from these constitutional guarantees. No other University in a free society would throw someone off Campus for handing out cards with an invitation to visit a web-site. Universities have non-solicitation policies to protect naïve students from predatory marketing. Duke used this, in place regulation, to justify it's discriminatory actions. I challenge anyone to show me where a white person who acted the same way as Dr. Harr suffered his fate. He had two strikes against him, his race and the unpopularity of his causes. Get real, this was a lame excuse for their disgraceful conduct and attempt to censor the free speech of a Black American and selectively apply it's regulations on him because of race and his beliefs.; September 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Are you telling us that is the most persuasive argument you have? It’s obvious why the few people who follow this blog consider you to be a total joke.; September 10, 2021 at 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, please stop whining. I realize your racism drives your ideas, but look at the proposed law in California:

California Law Would Define "Harass" to Include Approaching Within 30 Feet to Give Leaflets to Strangers, or to Try to Speak to Them
The bill—focused on speech outside vaccination centers (except labor protests)—just passed both houses of the Legislature, and is waiting for Governor Newsom's signature.
EUGENE VOLOKH | 9.9.2021 10:57 AM

As I wrote about in early August, the California Legislature is set to enact a law providing such a definition, in a content-based, unconstitutionally broad restriction on speech outside vaccination centers. Since my post, the Assembly passed the bill as well, joining the Senate, though with a slight revision that changes the nature of the content discrimination—in a way that is even more definitively unconstitutional. The bill is now on the governor's desk.

[1.] The bill begins:

(a) It is [a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1000] to knowingly approach within 30 feet of any person while a person is within 100 feet of the entrance or exit of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking entry or exit to a vaccination site, for the purpose of obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with that person or vehicle occupant.

Now that sounds modest: After all, it's limited to approaching for the purpose of "obstructing" (defined as blocking access), "injuring," "harassing," "intimidating" (defined as making a true threat of physical harm), or "interfering with" (defined as restricting freedom of movement). Who can be in favor of that sort of behavior?

But wait—here's how "harassing" is defined:

(c)(1) "Harassing" means knowingly approaching, without consent, within 30 feet of another person or occupied vehicle for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with, that other person in a public way or on a sidewalk area.

Such ordinary speech—familiar from a wide range of peaceful protests—would now be criminal "harassment." Yet the First Amendment of course protects speech on public sidewalks, including offering leaflets, displaying signs, or conveying oral messages to people who haven't "consen[ted]" (whether because they haven't thought about the matter, or even if they affirmatively don't want to see the sign or hear the message).; September 10, 2021 at 11:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: I doubt if section (c)(1) could survive a legal challenge on Constitutional grounds.; September 11, 2021 at 10:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 9-10-21 4:14 PM. I have no legal expert. I rely on common sense and I definitely know discrimination when I see it.; September 11, 2021 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: People discriminate all the time, Kenny. Sid does it all the time by not posting my comments. That doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of those discriminated against.

You know why?

The Constitution only protects you from discrimination by the state.; September 11, 2021 at 8:13 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal,

Have you recommended to Dr. Harr that he sue Duke in a Canadian court?; September 12, 2021 at 4:41 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: I doubt if section (c)(1) could survive a legal challenge on Constitutional grounds.

I don't often agree with kenhyderal's comments, but I agree 100% with this one.; September 12, 2021 at 8:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
This means that whenever anyone reads the WRAL article of July 4, 2016, they will believe that my 2011 lawsuit against Duke University, its president and law school dean was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Anyone who reads the first two pages of your 2011 lawsuit would believe exactly that, because that is what the opening part of your Complaint talks about.

September 7, 2021 at 1:34 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I believe that Duke University planned to kidnap me with an arrest on a trumped up charge not only because I am an African American, but because I was an outspoken Mike Nifong supporter... wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee-shirt. It was necessary for me to lay the foundation of my Nifong support in order for the court to understand why Duke University acted against me. Had I not expressed my relationship to Nifong and his relationship to the Duke Lacrosse case, then the court would have no idea for the motivation of the university against me. Being black is not actionable, in and of itself, by the university against me. However, the addition of my support for Mike Nifong gives full understanding of why a plot by Duke would be undertaken.

The fact is that I had absolutely no standing in the Duke Lacrosse case... which was a criminal one. My civil lawsuit was against different parties than those in the Duke Lacrosse case. Surely, had my lawsuit been against the Duke Lacrosse case, WRAL-5 News' first line of defense would have been statute of limitations... as my lawsuit was filed in April 2011 and the Duke Lacrosse case was from 2013 until April 2007 when Roy Cooper dropped his criminal investigation into the Duke Lacrosse case.; September 12, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
No, I did not do such research... and not being legally trained, I would not even know where to begin.

Then maybe filing lawsuits is not the best use of your time.

September 7, 2021 at 4:21 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

It is necessary to use the legal system in order to get Crystal's conviction overturned. A civil lawsuit may be a very promising way to get justice for her. I think the lawsuit filings are a very good way for me to spend my time.; September 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ KHS Supporter: That violation of rights occurred in America. It has never happened on any University Campus in Canada and if it ever did that University, private or public, could be fined, ordered to publicly apologize and perhaps even ordered to compensate for pain and suffering. Failing to comply could lead to a loss of it's Charter or even the gaoling of it's President; September 12, 2021 at 8:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
I thought a Statements of Claim should contain background information to give context to the action before making the claim and asking relief for the damage suffered.

Read any Complaint filed by an experienced lawyer. It will start with a short paragraph saying what the lawsuit is about, before launching into any background facts.

Beyond that, the Lacrosse incident wasn't properly even background to the 2011 lawsuit; it was completely irrelevant to the claim.

September 8, 2021 at 12:16 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

To be concise, the relevance of the Duke Lacrosse case is to provide motivation by Duke University against me, in addition to race.; September 12, 2021 at 8:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case had no bearing whatsoever on Sid's 2011 Duke University case, other than Sid wearing a J4N t-shirt and handing out J4N business cards.

He could have written that up in 1 paragraph.

He didn't. IIRC, he wrote 2 PAGES about the Duke LAX case -- starting on page 2 and ending on page 4.

He doesn't even mention the alleged event where his civil rights were violated until page 6.

There's context, and there's BS. Sid's document contains much more of the latter.

September 8, 2021 at 12:34 PM

Hey, Anony.

I am not legally trained and the format may have been unconventional. In discussing the facts of the case I went in a chronological order... the Duke Lacrosse case, and development of my support for Mike Nifong to the point where I founded a committee with tee-shirts and business cards occurred almost three years before the lawsuit was filed.

Clearly, my lawsuit was about the April 2010 event at which Duke University tried to kidnap me. The only problem is that WRAL-5 News did not want to write about that and instead made up the big lie that my lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case. Comprende?; September 12, 2021 at 8:58 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

What is the statute of limitations for prosecuting an attempted kidnapping?; September 13, 2021 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid's "Harr v. Duke" documents were all posted in Flash -- so they're no longer available.

From what I recall, his was a civil suit alleging discrimination, and he never reported an attempted kidnapping to the police or filed any official report alleging attempted kidnapping (a felony).

He has claimed "attempted kidnapping" here and on youtube (and possibly other sites as well).

Sid -- feel free to correct me.

FWIW, there's no statute of limitations for felonies in North Carolina.; September 13, 2021 at 8:40 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: A civil lawsuit may be a very promising way to get justice for her. I think the lawsuit filings are a very good way for me to spend my time.

How many lawsuits have you filed in your lifetime?

How many of them have accomplished anything?; September 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: In writing 2 pages specifically about the Duke LAX case, you made your lawsuit about the Duke LAX case. That you reject that reality and substitute your own only shows you don't care about the technical facts.

That you chose the wrong plaintiffs in your civil lawsuit has been known for over 10 years now -- Walt posted back in 2011:

"Sid may have a claim, Duke did treat him poorly. Not unlike it treated three innocent students.

However, Sid elected to proceed under 28 USC 1343 for discrimination based on his opinions. As Duke correctly points out, section 1343 must be applied to individuals and Sid must show that the individuals named acted under the color of state law. Sid failed to sue the one person involved in this matter who did act under the color of state law. Thus, Duke is correct, Sid's case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Sid even stated at one point that the ONE person that could have been considered as acting under color of state law did nothing. There were never any grounds for a disrimination claim.; September 13, 2021 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: I doubt Sid will approve this, but here goes...

I was looking back for some more Walt quotes on the Harr v. Duke lawsuit(s).

While not a Walt quote, I came across this:

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...
Show me your thong, Crystal Gail, Crystal Gail
I got your drinking money, show me your tail
People said she was useless, them people are the fools
'Cause Crystal Gail was the finest stripper to ever falsely accuse

Once upon a time, Sid, you had GOLD on this site. I wish Walt were back -- but THIS guy...I think he may even be responsible for the name of one of of the current commenters.

I'll let you guys quess which one.; September 13, 2021 at 11:25 AM
guiowen said...: Dr. C:
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. One of these days, Sidney will actually win a lawsuit.; September 13, 2021 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I'd forgotten how...blunt...Walt could be. Here's a July 2016 response from Walt to a question asked by an anonynous commenter:

"Anonymous at 7:28 wrote: "Can Magnum sue Sid because of his breach?"

She could. She does have a contributory negligence problem. She did give him the information, knowing he was unreliable and prone to doing self-defeating things with any information he might obtain.

She also has another problem, Sid is judgment proof. Seventeen years of medical practice left him living in subsidized housing, surviving on his minimal social security benefit and food stamps. It's not like Sid has ever earned much money from a profession that usually showers money on even it's most mediocre practitioners. She would also be standing in line behind the California Franchise Tax Board which has an assessment against Sid from when he tried to steal a medical practice."

Walt and A Lawyer brought the HEAT!; September 13, 2021 at 1:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: The Great Walt, cut and ran once he realized Dr. Harr, the person whom he so aggressively mocked and pilloried. had been "dead right" all along. It's time for him to show character, come back and face up to the fact that he had, out of a sense of misguided superiority, underrated Dr. Harr and to lend his considerable prestige in North Carolina to a call for Crystal to receive justice. If he is too proud to say he was wrong, he can always say the newly publicized definitive report from Dr Wecht contradicting what was heard in Court by Dr. Nicholls caused him to change his mind. He can redeem himself by becoming an ally in this cause. (NB This can also apply to such other ex-posters as A. Lawyer, J. Swift and Abe Forman.); September 14, 2021 at 7:14 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Have you considered filing a report with the Durham Police to report Duke’s attempted kidnapping?; September 15, 2021 at 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt schoolboyed you so many times you’re still butthurt about it Kenny….

While I like to think Walt said all he felt he needed to say and road off to enjoy his retirement, I honestly don’t think that’s the case. I also believe you think that, too- which is why you so easily jump to pillory him. You know he’s not going to defend himself.

Walt’s loss to this site is measurable- all Sid needs to do is look at the number of people who view this site now, compared to prior to 2017. Also look at the number of comments per post then compared to now,

I will also say that Sid then, as he does now, continues to do a disservice to Crystal Mangum. Filing lolsuits that have unactionable claims of relief does not help her. Filing meaningless lolsuits that mention himself as much as they do her do not help her. Telling her to fire her lawyers and let him do the work does not help her. Failing to do even minimal research about a given lolsuit to see if the claims it makes meet the legal definition of actual crimes does not help her. You sitting back and encouraging Crystal that what Sid is doing is the right thing when it’s obviously not does not help her.

I’ll leave you with this….

With friends like Sid and Kenny, Crystal doesn’t need any enemies.; September 15, 2021 at 5:50 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: This can also apply to such other ex-posters as A. Lawyer, J. Swift and Abe Forman.

I was the one who used to post as "A Lawyer" [no period], until someone else started posting as "A. Lawyer" and saying stupid things I didn't want to be associated with. So I changed my handle to Dr. Caligari (and explained that on the site at the time).; September 15, 2021 at 8:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said :n "While I like to think Walt said all he felt he needed to say and road off to enjoy his retirement, I honestly don’t think that’s the case. I also believe you think that, too- which is why you so easily jump to pillory him. You know he’s not going to defend himself".............. . You are wrong. I would absolutely welcome Walt back. He was a poster you could have a reasonable debate with. I don't pillory Walt, I simply ask him, in the light of Dr. Wecht's definitive report, to publicly consider changing his views; September 16, 2021 at 8:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: Sorry Dr. C. You have continued to stay and debate but I do believe you too have second thoughts about Crystal being guilty of murder. It's the fake A Lawyer who left. And yes I do recall you clarified this.; September 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
As usual, because of context, you get half of everything wrong. Wecht's report is not a "definitive report". A far as I can see, it's just some ranting from a senile old geezer who's afraid of standing up for what he said.; September 16, 2021 at 9:30 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Sorry Dr. C. You have continued to stay and debate but I do believe you too have second thoughts about Crystal being guilty of murder.

Mangum's guilt or innocence is not a topic I typically debate about. I usually post about the legal flaws in Dr. Harr's lawsuits.; September 16, 2021 at 3:02 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal,

Was Duke guilty of attempted kidnapping under Canadian law?; September 16, 2021 at 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I think the poster is saying something happened to Walt that prevents him from posting….and they think you believe this, too.; September 16, 2021 at 5:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. : But, surely you have formed an opinion on the subject. I suppose, though, you don't care to publicly express it, given how unpopular it would be and how embarrassing it would be acknowledging the flaws in the broken American Justice System of which you are a part I've assumed you are a Lawyer and it must be disconcerting to realize how despised your chosen profession has become, thanks to the broken US Justice System, it's blatant racial disparity, a lack of tort reform and with the Prison Industrial Complex with more prisoners than anywhere else including dictatorships.; September 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 9--16-21 5:30 PM. I have no knowledge of anything that would prevent Walt from coming back. Is there something I should be made aware of.; September 16, 2021 at 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Caligari - Posting about the legal flaws in Sid’s lawsuits sounds like a full-time job…

Are you aware of anyone winning a civil lawsuit and later using that win to force a retrial of a criminal case?

Also- and honestly, I can’t keep track, is there any option left for Crystal with regard to her criminal conviction?; September 16, 2021 at 8:03 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal,

I am looking forward to you answer.; September 18, 2021 at 3:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ KHS re: 9-16-21 and 9-18-21 A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; September 18, 2021 at 7:10 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal,

You apparently misunderstood the purpose of my question.

You indicated earlier in this thread that Duke violated Dr. Harr’s constitutional rights. When asked to explain your statement, you stated that Duke’s actions violated Canadian law. Therefore, since Dr. Harr believes Duke attempted a kidnapping, why are you unwilling to analyze his case under Canadian law?

My post is not intended to criticize you and, as Dr. Harr’s readers know, I am proud to call you my friend.; September 19, 2021 at 5:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ KHS I would have to know the North Carolina legal definition of Kidnapping. What happened to Dr. Harr at Duke, in Canada, would be a violation against free speech and a violation against racial discrimination; mainly because of the selective application of their non-soliciting regulation. As I said no white person expressing free speech in the manner Dr. Harr did at Duke would have been similarly treated and in Canada a University would not have dared to look for a rational to cover up racist actions by applying a non-soliciting policy. Nor, in Canada, is their any exemption for violations done on institutions privately held.; September 19, 2021 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You either do not understand the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or you are lying about it. Or both. Probably both, given your history.

The section of the Charter protecting "freedom of expression" (Section 2(b)) does not extend to all places. Private property falls outside the protected sphere of section 2(b) absent state-imposed limits on expression, since state action is necessary to implicate the Charter.

Your right to say what you want ends at my property line - in Canada as well as the US. You may have Freedom of Speech, or the watered down "Right of Expression" embodied in the Canadian Charter, but that doesn't mean I have to let you on my land and provide you with a stage, podium and microphone.

Try harder. Be better.; September 20, 2021 at 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: No, Kenny, it wouldn't - because like in the US, those protections in Canada only apply to government actors.

Stop being an idiot.; September 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I have asked you, more than once, to check with me before posting your opinions here.I try to protect you, but you make it impossible for me.; September 20, 2021 at 6:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: No you are wrong. The leverage lies with the right to revoke a government granted charter to a University. In the celebrated case of Viola Desmond, a racist, who privately owned a Movie Theatre, forced her to sit in the balcony and when she refused she was arrested charged with tax fraud because there was a Provincial Tax of pennies on each ticket. This was in 1946. This kind of discrimination never widespread in Canada became totally illegal in 1954. Viola is now on our $10.00 bill. In the case of Dr. Harr at any University in Canada his Rights and Freedoms would have been violated. Universities and businesses that require licensing can not discriminate.; September 20, 2021 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...: No Kenny you are wrong. Duke's "no soliciting" policy is not a discriminatory policy as defined by the Canadian Human Rights Act. And most (if not all) Canadian Universities have a "no solicitation" policy of some kind defined.

Removing someone from the premises for violating such policy is not discriminatory, even IF the person was unaware of the policy.

Ask one of your lawyers friends and let us know if he agrees. Make sure you point this person to the Harr V. Duke I, II, III documents for a full understanding of the issue.; September 21, 2021 at 2:23 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: Are you aware of anyone winning a civil lawsuit and later using that win to force a retrial of a criminal case?

No, I've never heard of that. In fact, I can't imagine how Mangum could even do the first part (win the civil suit), let alone the second.

The Supreme Court held in a case called Heck v. Humphrey back in the 1990s that, if you could only win your civil case by proving that you were innocent of a crime you had been convicted of, you couldn't file that civil case until the criminal conviction had been set aside on appeal or habeas corpus. (Heck was a civil rights case, but I suspect [I haven't researched the issue] the same logic would apply in a libel case.) Mangum can only win her libel case by proving that she wasn't guilty of murder, but the North Carolina courts have already found her guilty. Her civil case is a non-starter unless that conviction is set aside.

The civil case is also a non-starter because Mangum would have to prove that the defendant knew of the falsity of the statement when it was made, which she doesn't even claim. (And there are other problems as well, including the statute of limitations.); September 21, 2021 at 8:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

What is the statute of limitations for prosecuting an attempted kidnapping?

September 13, 2021 at 5:58 AM

Hey, kenhyderal supporter.

I don't know if there is a statute of limitations for criminally prosecuting an attempted kidnapping, or if there is, what it would be.

My supposition that Duke University attempted to kidnap me is utilizes the definition of a baseless arrest-- and that was what I believe Duke University had planned for me. I have no solid proof that that was its plan, so I would not take action either civilly or pursue criminal charges.; September 22, 2021 at 4:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid's "Harr v. Duke" documents were all posted in Flash -- so they're no longer available.

From what I recall, his was a civil suit alleging discrimination, and he never reported an attempted kidnapping to the police or filed any official report alleging attempted kidnapping (a felony).

He has claimed "attempted kidnapping" here and on youtube (and possibly other sites as well).

Sid -- feel free to correct me.

FWIW, there's no statute of limitations for felonies in North Carolina.

September 13, 2021 at 8:40 AM

Hey, Anony.

You are absolutely correct. At first, and for some time, I never realized the serious nature of this event. It actually wasn't until a several years ago that I became fully aware that the premeditated plot was to arrest me by campus police. My fate, following the arrest is anybody's guess. But it wasn't good. That's why I believe Duke Law Professor James Coleman very likely saved my life.

(Note: During Trump administration's quelling protests in Portland, OR, and picking up civilians in unmarked vans is when the seriousness of my situation became apparent to me. However, instead of being instituted by the government, this was done by a business conglomerate.); September 22, 2021 at 4:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
A civil lawsuit may be a very promising way to get justice for her. I think the lawsuit filings are a very good way for me to spend my time.

How many lawsuits have you filed in your lifetime?

How many of them have accomplished anything?

September 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I don't know how many lawsuits I have filed.

As far as the outcomes of them, almost all have never even been brought before a jury, as they've been summarily dismissed. My lawsuits on behalf of Crystal Mangum are to achieve justice... and I believe the civil defamation lawsuits will help bring about positive change for her criminal case.; September 22, 2021 at 5:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous guiowen said...
Dr. C:
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. One of these days, Sidney will actually win a lawsuit.

September 13, 2021 at 11:54 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Naturally, I believe in "nothing ventured..." There are many lawsuits that I should have won, but never was given my day in court because of judges' ruling based on desired outcome rather than facts and merits of the case.

I believe that Mangum will be successful in her defamation lawsuits. The facts are indisputably in her favor.; September 22, 2021 at 5:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
I'd forgotten how...blunt...Walt could be. Here's a July 2016 response from Walt to a question asked by an anonynous commenter:

"Anonymous at 7:28 wrote: "Can Magnum sue Sid because of his breach?"

She could. She does have a contributory negligence problem. She did give him the information, knowing he was unreliable and prone to doing self-defeating things with any information he might obtain.

She also has another problem, Sid is judgment proof. Seventeen years of medical practice left him living in subsidized housing, surviving on his minimal social security benefit and food stamps. It's not like Sid has ever earned much money from a profession that usually showers money on even it's most mediocre practitioners. She would also be standing in line behind the California Franchise Tax Board which has an assessment against Sid from when he tried to steal a medical practice."

Walt and A Lawyer brought the HEAT!

September 13, 2021 at 1:16 PM

Hey, Anony.

Yeah, I miss comments from Walt... JSwift, and many others.; September 22, 2021 at 5:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
The Great Walt, cut and ran once he realized Dr. Harr, the person whom he so aggressively mocked and pilloried. had been "dead right" all along. It's time for him to show character, come back and face up to the fact that he had, out of a sense of misguided superiority, underrated Dr. Harr and to lend his considerable prestige in North Carolina to a call for Crystal to receive justice. If he is too proud to say he was wrong, he can always say the newly publicized definitive report from Dr Wecht contradicting what was heard in Court by Dr. Nicholls caused him to change his mind. He can redeem himself by becoming an ally in this cause. (NB This can also apply to such other ex-posters as A. Lawyer, J. Swift and Abe Forman.)

September 14, 2021 at 7:14 PM

Hey, kenhyderal.

I agree wholeheartedly.; September 22, 2021 at 5:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Have you considered filing a report with the Durham Police to report Duke’s attempted kidnapping?

September 15, 2021 at 4:36 AM

Hey, kenhyderal supporter.

Have never considered filing a report because I do not have evidence to support such an allegation... only obvious supposition. Besides, there is, and has never been, an appetite in Durham society to pursue criminal charges against Duke University. As it is, SBI, district attorneys, the NC attorney general, the U.S. Justice Department, and others continue to ignore me. Why waste any more time on the 2010 incident... serious as it was?; September 22, 2021 at 5:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Caligari - Posting about the legal flaws in Sid’s lawsuits sounds like a full-time job…

Are you aware of anyone winning a civil lawsuit and later using that win to force a retrial of a criminal case?

Also- and honestly, I can’t keep track, is there any option left for Crystal with regard to her criminal conviction?

September 16, 2021 at 8:03 PM
's

Hey, Anony.

Crystal's defamation lawsuit against the media is a singular issue. The media have stated as fact that Daye's manner of death was a homicide by using terms such as "fatally stabbed" and "stabbing death." To force the media to retract not only makes the true manner of death as being an accident, but brings attention to the determination being made by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht.

I win in the defamation lawsuit could, I believe, provide grounds for an MAR or another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.; September 22, 2021 at 5:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Are you aware of anyone winning a civil lawsuit and later using that win to force a retrial of a criminal case?

No, I've never heard of that. In fact, I can't imagine how Mangum could even do the first part (win the civil suit), let alone the second.

The Supreme Court held in a case called Heck v. Humphrey back in the 1990s that, if you could only win your civil case by proving that you were innocent of a crime you had been convicted of, you couldn't file that civil case until the criminal conviction had been set aside on appeal or habeas corpus. (Heck was a civil rights case, but I suspect [I haven't researched the issue] the same logic would apply in a libel case.) Mangum can only win her libel case by proving that she wasn't guilty of murder, but the North Carolina courts have already found her guilty. Her civil case is a non-starter unless that conviction is set aside.

The civil case is also a non-starter because Mangum would have to prove that the defendant knew of the falsity of the statement when it was made, which she doesn't even claim. (And there are other problems as well, including the statute of limitations.)

September 21, 2021 at 8:19 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

The premise of Mangum's libel/defamation lawsuit is that the media has a duty to make corrections to their articles when provided with evidence of mistakes. Both WRAL-5 News and Oxygen Media, after receiving evidence of Mangum's innocence (Dr. Wecht's report), should have reevaluated the defamatory issues in questions and appended a correction. The statute of limitations is therefore not in play.

What remedy, other than a defamatory lawsuit, would you recommend when a media-type receives evidence controverting their news article and yet refuses to publish a correction?; September 22, 2021 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- I'll try to explain this again..
The legal definition of evidence is:
Every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.

Dr. Wecht's opinion is NOT evidence.

Dr. Wecht's opionion cannot be used to force corrections upon any news media for information contained in an article that was correct based on the information available at the time. The facts from her trial and conviction have not changed.

IF Mangum's criminal conviction is somehow set aside (don't hold your breath), THEN she can ask for these articles to be corrected.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?; September 22, 2021 at 6:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

In Crystal Mangum's federal lawsuit against Oxygen Media et. al, it appears as though the company was successfully served on September 8th and has 21 days to submit a response. The attempt to serve Oxygen's Vice President for Communications Jennifer Geisser, however, was unsuccessful.

LINK to summons and service by NY Sheriff's Office

As you were.; September 22, 2021 at 7:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 2:23 9-21-21 These kind of dodges, proffered as a defense for discriminating, rarely work in Canada. They are seen for what they are, attempts to defend the indefensible. Yeah they do have non-solicitation regulations on Canadian University Campuses. The purpose, ostensibly, being to protect naive students from predatory companies hoping to lure students, presently vulnerable but with bright futures into credit commitments. The usual suspects are credit card companies, insurance companies, etc. The other category would be cults. These rules were never meant to curtail unpopular speech or to discriminate against groups or individuals. I've no doubt Duke realized their action was not in line with the values of a university but, as Duke always does, it covered up by misusing an in place regulation as their justification. Much as it covered up the medical error that led to the death of Reginald Daye.; September 22, 2021 at 8:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.

I just returned from the Raleigh Federal Courthouse, and I hope that my interaction there is not a harbinger of ill headwinds. The reason for going there was to drop off the NY Sheriff's notice of service to Oxygen Media... for placement in the Mangum v. Oxygen Media file. When I tried to confirm that procedure called for entry of such a document was required as proof of service, both of the receptionists in the Clerk of Court office interpreted my question as being legal and said they could not provide me with an answer. I tried couching the question in differing ways but received the same response... "I don't know."

So I just gave them the document and asked them to put it in the case file, which they did. This may seem a petty issue; and very well may be. But I am very concerned, having dealt with hostile courts in the past.

Anyway, the commenters to this site are very insightful when it comes to legal matters, so I would appreciate your opinion. Is asking the clerk whether or not a document from the Sheriff's Office about service of a summons and complaint a legal or a procedural question.

As you were.; September 22, 2021 at 9:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid -- I'll try to explain this again..
The legal definition of evidence is:
Every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.

Dr. Wecht's opinion is NOT evidence.

Dr. Wecht's opionion cannot be used to force corrections upon any news media for information contained in an article that was correct based on the information available at the time. The facts from her trial and conviction have not changed.

IF Mangum's criminal conviction is somehow set aside (don't hold your breath), THEN she can ask for these articles to be corrected.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

September 22, 2021 at 6:56 AM

Hey, Anony.

I understand the gist of what you are saying, but I think semantics are getting in the way. Although Dr. Wecht's report (containing his opinion) may not be itself considered new evidence, a written report by an expert witness regarding the matter could be. Dr. Wecht's conclusion in this particular instance should be no less valued than the conclusion or opinion of Dr. Clay Nichols... specially considering his firing and professional history. Falsities in the Nichols autopsy report are readily demonstrable, and just because his autopsy was the basis for the State's prosecution and conviction of Mangum does not validify his findings.

Although it might be a bit unconventional to try to win a civil case to help overturn a criminal conviction, Mangum's case suits it well as the defamation in question is directly related to the manner of death. If a judge or jury finds in favor of Mangum, i.e., the media libeled her by stating the knife wound was responsible for Daye's death, then that should throw the door open for confronting the criminal conviction.

Again, I appreciate your point of view and hope I was able to elucidate my position as well as you did.; September 22, 2021 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: No Sid -- it doesn't work that way.

Dr. Nichols conclusion and his testimony WERE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

Dr. Wecht's opinion was not.

It's not "semantics getting in the way" (I doubt you know the definition of "semantics" without looking it up).

"It's semantics" is what you say when you mean your opinion is more valid than mine.

It's not.

I gave you the legal definition of "evidence". Dr. Wecht's opinion simply does NOT meet the requirements of that definition.

Ask your friend, James Coleman.; September 22, 2021 at 11:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 9-22-21 11:17 OK, give Crystal a new trial. Dr. Wecht will then give his expert opinion and Crystal herself, Per Se, or her Court appointed Counsel will easily be able to contrast his qualifications with those of Dr. Nicholls. AG Stein knows what Dr. Wecht opined, as does Gov. Cooper. Both, just like you, know Crystal is not guilty of murder. It's cowardly of them to know this and refrain from taking action. They've known this for a long time and they also know coming clean and admitting a miscarriage of Justice has occurred would be politically damaging. Not only that but it's really immoral on there part to make Crystal suffer, just to protect their reputations and allow them to save face. I have no doubt also that Duke knows all this as well and like their political dupes put their reputation ahead of a marginalized African American. All who know the truth and stand aside are also guilty of immorality.; September 22, 2021 at 7:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal Mangum was found guilty by a jury of her peers. That is what I know.

There were a number of options Crystal Mangum had (Motion for new trial, appeal, MAR, etc.) that were either not chosen, or were ineffective, or were handled horribly by the attempts to do them herself (or even worse, by Dr. Harr).

By choosing to allow Dr. Harr to do her legal work (as he’s shown, he doesn’t even know the definition of “evidence”), she has wasted these options. That’s on her and Dr. Harr.

If you were a true friend of Ms. Mangum, you would recognize this, and would encourage her to find true legal representation. A true friend would not have allowed Dr. Harr to do the things he’s done. A true friend of Ms. Mangum would not encourage Dr. Harr to continue.

With friends like you and Dr. Harr, Crystal Mangum doesn’t need enemies.; September 23, 2021 at 5:07 AM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

You should go back to arguing about the Canadian law that applies to universities. Your post at 7:41 is embarrassing.; September 23, 2021 at 3:31 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Just get a lawyer. He will know how to get a new trial for Crystal. We will then be able to hear Wecht's presentation, and will be in a position to decide whether his testimony is, as you call it, "definitive."; September 23, 2021 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: A court appointed lawyer “going through the motions” would be more successful than Sid. Hell, if former DA Nifong is a friend, why doesn’t he at least let Crystal know these civil lawsuits are pointless?

As a real lawyer, Dr, Caligari, stated:
“ The Supreme Court held in a case called Heck v. Humphrey back in the 1990s that, if you could only win your civil case by proving that you were innocent of a crime you had been convicted of, you couldn't file that civil case until the criminal conviction had been set aside on appeal or habeas corpus”

A true friend, one with “nifongian courage” would have told her this. A true friend, one with “nifongian courage” would have stepped in and stopped Sid from doing the things he’s done that have made it nearly impossible for Mangum’s legal actions to be taken seriously.

With friends like Kenhyderal, Sid, and Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum doesn’t need enemies.; September 24, 2021 at 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: "There are many lawsuits that I should have won, but never was given my day in court because of judges' ruling based on desired outcome rather than facts and merits of the case."

The outcome for every lawsuit you've posted here has been accurately predicted by Walt and/or Dr. Caligari before any judges ruling.

One would think you'd have learned something from this by now. Alas, that is not the case.

To quote a 1924 article in Montana's The Butte Miner, “He who serves as his own counsel has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client”; September 24, 2021 at 9:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man 9-23-21: Could you expand on what was said in my post of 9-22-21 7:41 PM that I should be embarrassed by?; September 24, 2021 at 9:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen Yeah, only those who have a Law degree know how to navigate the system and when they inadvertently don't follow the protocol it's over looked. But in Crystal's case, scrutinize carefully and turn up some anomaly to justify rejection. The point is the top Attorney in your State knows the facts but won't do anything about it. Is he not supposed to ensure Justice for the People? Or is he there to shill for protecting Lawyer's lucre or worse yet to protect the "powers that be" from the consequences of their misdeeds.; September 24, 2021 at 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: A couple of things....

In North Carolina, attempted kidnapping is either a 3rd or 4th degree felony.

In North Carolina, felonies do not have a statute of limitations.

Falsely claiming online that someone (or some organization) attempted a kidnapping (as Sid did in his post on September 12, 2021 at 8:58 AM) without any supporting evidence can be grounds for a defamation lawsuit.

Sid should feel comfortable knowing no one from Duke reads his, what do you call it, Sid? Shlog?; September 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
A couple of things....

In North Carolina, attempted kidnapping is either a 3rd or 4th degree felony.

In North Carolina, felonies do not have a statute of limitations.

Falsely claiming online that someone (or some organization) attempted a kidnapping (as Sid did in his post on September 12, 2021 at 8:58 AM) without any supporting evidence can be grounds for a defamation lawsuit.

Sid should feel comfortable knowing no one from Duke reads his, what do you call it, Sid? Shlog?

September 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM

Hey, Anony.

Hah! Who says there's no supporting evidence? There's plenty... including an audio recording of the incident. Not only that, but the security officer had a j4n business card when he approached me... and the business card was included in the letters I sent to the Duke president and law school dean.

Not to worry... Duke doesn't want to tangle with me. After all, I'm Sidney Harr, not Sidney Powell.; September 25, 2021 at 11:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
No Sid -- it doesn't work that way.

Dr. Nichols conclusion and his testimony WERE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

Dr. Wecht's opinion was not.

It's not "semantics getting in the way" (I doubt you know the definition of "semantics" without looking it up).

"It's semantics" is what you say when you mean your opinion is more valid than mine.

It's not.

I gave you the legal definition of "evidence". Dr. Wecht's opinion simply does NOT meet the requirements of that definition.

Ask your friend, James Coleman.

September 22, 2021 at 11:17 AM

Hey, Anony.

The last paragraph in world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's eight page report clearly stated that the opinions of Dr. Nichols were unreliable due to significant inconsistencies between his autopsy report and the medical records.

The state, courts, and media would rather rely on the fraudulent autopsy report by Dr. Nichols than the expert opinions of celebrated Dr. Wecht in order to satisfy the desired trumped up outcome it championed as payback for Mangum's sexual assault accusations in 2006. Shirley that is elementary.; September 25, 2021 at 11:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Crystal Mangum was found guilty by a jury of her peers. That is what I know.

There were a number of options Crystal Mangum had (Motion for new trial, appeal, MAR, etc.) that were either not chosen, or were ineffective, or were handled horribly by the attempts to do them herself (or even worse, by Dr. Harr).

By choosing to allow Dr. Harr to do her legal work (as he’s shown, he doesn’t even know the definition of “evidence”), she has wasted these options. That’s on her and Dr. Harr.

If you were a true friend of Ms. Mangum, you would recognize this, and would encourage her to find true legal representation. A true friend would not have allowed Dr. Harr to do the things he’s done. A true friend of Ms. Mangum would not encourage Dr. Harr to continue.

With friends like you and Dr. Harr, Crystal Mangum doesn’t need enemies.

September 23, 2021 at 5:07 AM

Hey, Anony.

You didn't mention that the jury that convicted Mangum of second-degree murder consisted of three jurors with ties to Duke University and/or its hospital. Two were employees and the third was the wife of a surgeon that worked at the very hospital where the fatal medical malpractice took place.

Also, the facts support that the only thing Mangum's appointed appellate defense attorney did was file a single-issue, weak Direct Appeal that was destined to be denied. The appellate attorney never filed a Habeas Petition with the Federal Court, and with the NC Prisoner Legal Services attorneys allowed the statute of limitations to expire on her valid wrongful prosecution civil case... before abandoning her as a client. None of Mangum's post-conviction attorneys filed a Habeas Petition, MAR, or any other motion. And they refused to even try to obtain a copy of the 18-page document from Dr. Nichols' folder which the trial judge deemed to be relevant to her case.

Two civil libel/defamation lawsuits are currently underway on Mangum's behalf... one in State and one in Federal Court. Is it your opinion, Anony, that she would be better off by not having these cases brought in court? I await feedback.; September 25, 2021 at 11:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Kenny,
Just get a lawyer. He will know how to get a new trial for Crystal. We will then be able to hear Wecht's presentation, and will be in a position to decide whether his testimony is, as you call it, "definitive."

September 23, 2021 at 6:24 PM

gui, mon ami, getting a lawyer for Crystal Mangum is asking the impossible because she has been so devastatingly pariah-ized by the media. The only attorneys in the past who represented her acted adversely to her best interests.

As far as Dr. Wecht goes, he conducted a twenty-minute Skype interview with CBS-17 News anchor Bill Young on November 25, 2019 in which he discussed his report in depth. Dr. Wecht expressed his hope that the interview would be aired in its entirety. Instead, the interview was never broadcast, was never uploaded on the CBS-website, and was deleted without anyone outside some in the studio ever seeing it.; September 25, 2021 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Seeing that:
1) The two civil lolsuits ask for relief that can't be granted by the plaintiffs.

2) The information contained in the articles were correct based on the information available at the time

3) The statute of limitations for defamation (North Carolina General Statutes section 1-54(3) ) had passed before either lolsuit was filed

She would be better off not filing them. They will be summarily dismissed, and she risks being identified as a "vexatious litigant" and could find herself subject to gatekeeper orders (you know all about that, right?) limiting her to restricted access to both state and federal courts.

Nice job, Sid.; September 25, 2021 at 11:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
A court appointed lawyer “going through the motions” would be more successful than Sid. Hell, if former DA Nifong is a friend, why doesn’t he at least let Crystal know these civil lawsuits are pointless?

As a real lawyer, Dr, Caligari, stated:
“ The Supreme Court held in a case called Heck v. Humphrey back in the 1990s that, if you could only win your civil case by proving that you were innocent of a crime you had been convicted of, you couldn't file that civil case until the criminal conviction had been set aside on appeal or habeas corpus”

A true friend, one with “nifongian courage” would have told her this. A true friend, one with “nifongian courage” would have stepped in and stopped Sid from doing the things he’s done that have made it nearly impossible for Mangum’s legal actions to be taken seriously.

With friends like Kenhyderal, Sid, and Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum doesn’t need enemies.

September 24, 2021 at 5:46 AM

Hey, Anony.

I have not read Heck v. Humphrey but the libel/defamation lawsuits are valid stand-alone legal actions on their own... so I don't that that the Supreme Court case cited is relevant. Mangum's premise is that the media's depiction of her as fatally stabbing Mr. Daye are false (based on the findings of a revered and respected forensic pathologist), and deserving of corrective measures to the online articles.; September 25, 2021 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you ask your friend, James Coleman, whether or not Dr. Wecht's eight page report could be considered evidence for Crystal Mangum's November 2013 murder trial?; September 25, 2021 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Having not bothered to read Heck v. Humphrey, you are in no place to say it isn’t relevant

Here’s the decision from the Supreme Court:

“ the dismissal of Heck's § 1983 action [a civil suit] was correct because both courts below found that his damages claims challenged the legality of his conviction.”; September 25, 2021 at 12:27 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: Mangum's premise is that the media's depiction of her as fatally stabbing Mr. Daye are false (based on the findings of a revered and respected forensic pathologist)

The courts say that Mangum is guilty of murder. An affidavit that has never been subjected to cross-examination doesn't change that.; September 25, 2021 at 2:21 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
What I get from all this is that Wecht is such a senile old geezer that Bill Young decided the interview was meaningless. Of course I could be wrong, but the only way you can get me -- and many other people -- to believe Wecht is in his right mind, is to have him testify in public. Until then,you and Kenny will be the only ones that believe Crystal is innocent.; September 25, 2021 at 3:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Did you ask your friend, James Coleman, whether or not Dr. Wecht's eight page report could be considered evidence for Crystal Mangum's November 2013 murder trial?

September 25, 2021 at 11:47 AM

Hey, Anony.

I haven't been to the Duke Law School or campus (with the exception to pick up some medical records) since my near-arrest on April 14, 2010. So, my visits with Professor Coleman ceased with my visits. James Coleman is very affable, and I enjoy his company, however, I do not believe my presence/friendship would be of any benefit to him... so I let it go. In other words, I haven't spoken or communicated with him since the incident... although I may have sent him an e-mail or two... can't remember for sure. I am sure that none of my communications included legal questions.; September 25, 2021 at 8:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Having not bothered to read Heck v. Humphrey, you are in no place to say it isn’t relevant

Here’s the decision from the Supreme Court:

“ the dismissal of Heck's § 1983 action [a civil suit] was correct because both courts below found that his damages claims challenged the legality of his conviction.”

September 25, 2021 at 12:27 PM

Hey, Anony.

Your comment did spur me to take a quick gander at Heck v. Humphrey, and as I expected, there is no relevance between the two cases. The case cited deals with the pro se plaintiff Heck filing a civil suit against the prosecutor Humphrey. In Mangum's case her lawsuit is against media-types for printing defamatory and libelous statements and then refusing to conduct basic research when presented with an opinion by an expert that challenges those statements.

Unlike Heck, Mangum is not challenging the constitutionality of her conviction... she's challenging the accuracy of the media's online news articles. Had both media-types not ignored her and made corrections, she would not be seeking legal remedy.

Now, whether or not the outcome of Mangum's civil case leads to reconsideration of her criminal conviction is another issue. But Mangum's case against the media is not a direct challenge to the legality of her conviction.

Thanks for the good case provoking serious thought. How did you come across it?; September 25, 2021 at 8:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Mangum's premise is that the media's depiction of her as fatally stabbing Mr. Daye are false (based on the findings of a revered and respected forensic pathologist)

The courts say that Mangum is guilty of murder. An affidavit that has never been subjected to cross-examination doesn't change that.

September 25, 2021 at 2:21 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

In her present lawsuit against the media, Crystal Mangum is not challenging the legality of her conviction. She is challenging the inaccuracies of the online news articles that are libelous and defamatory.

As powerful as Dr. Wecht's report is presents the problem of the State avoiding a review of the autopsy report because it knows the medical examiner's report was spurious and unreliable... that it served as the basis for a vindictive prosecution.; September 25, 2021 at 8:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
What I get from all this is that Wecht is such a senile old geezer that Bill Young decided the interview was meaningless. Of course I could be wrong, but the only way you can get me -- and many other people -- to believe Wecht is in his right mind, is to have him testify in public. Until then,you and Kenny will be the only ones that believe Crystal is innocent.

September 25, 2021 at 3:53 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Dr. Wecht may be a senior citizen (something to which most of us aspire) but he is certainly not senile. Keep in mind that I communicated by e-mail with Mr. Young and he did his best to get the story on the news. Without doubt the decisions to withhold the Skype interview from the public was made by those in the uppermost echelon. The logical reasoning for not exposing the interview to the general public and instead delete the interview is simply because the bigwigs at CBS didn't like the way the interview turned out... it was exonerative and the interviewer was unable to discredit Dr. Wecht. It's that simple.; September 25, 2021 at 9:07 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
So, have Wecht testify in court.; September 25, 2021 at 10:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
So, have Wecht testify in court.

September 25, 2021 at 10:17 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

That is the plan, once a trial date is placed on the court calendar.; September 26, 2021 at 6:45 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: I’m proud to call kenhyderal my friend.; September 26, 2021 at 7:17 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
So, do you have a plan for getting a trial date?; September 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: That is the plan, once a trial date is placed on the court calendar.

In what case? The libel case is certainly not going to be tried, for multiple reasons set forth above.; September 26, 2021 at 10:31 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: kenhyderal,

I emailed the information you are looking for to kenhyderal@yahoo.com. Why have you not responded to me?; September 26, 2021 at 10:39 AM
kenhyderal@yahoo.com said...: Kilgo told me that some anonymous member of the Lacrosse team told him that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006. And what Kilgo said was, told to him, by a LaX Player, who is a friend of his and was present at the party and who gave his DNA, that non-player attendees, unknown to the Police and untested where involved in the sexual assult on Crystal with some team members also complicent. Kilgo's information, came from a first hand witness and not from the orhestrated spin, designed to bolster the trial lawyers civil suits. This propaganda is what most posters here depend on.; September 28, 2021 at 10:20 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I already pointed out to you, some time ago, that your statement has about 7.8@ probability of being correct. You replied that some dean at some school is not very good at mathematical calculations, and that therefore you need not pay attention to my calculations.; September 28, 2021 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sid -- I saw that there was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (termination of a lawsuit by voluntary request of the plaintiff ) filed today in the Mangum v. Oxygen Media case.

Care to enlighten us?

Did the Anonymous comments from September 25, 2021 at 11:44 AM have any impact on CGM's decision to dismiss the lawsuit?

Oh -- I'll also note, Anonymous stated:
"The two civil lolsuits ask for relief that can't be granted by the plaintiffs."

That should have read "...can't be granted by the defendants".

Apparently, you understood what they were trying to say.

I guess Dr. Wecht's opinion won't be used in this trial after all.; September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM
guiowen said...: Sorry, that should have read 7.8%, not 7.8@; September 28, 2021 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: What happened to Nana Duffuor? Is she still around?

She still has the "free Crystal" info on her SprintMovement website, but it doesn't look like it's been updated in a while. her petition for justice for Crystal Mangum doesn't appear to have much traction, with 42 signatures out of the 100 targeted.

My assumption is that the majority of people who signed this are, or at one time were, members of the J4N committee.; September 28, 2021 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I may have missed an update on this at some point...
Whatever happened to her last MAR? Was that filed before or after you got Dr. Wecht's report?; September 28, 2021 at 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: “Don't understand why a judge would dismiss this lawsuit. Defendants can't claim statute of limitations! Clearly a claim subject to relief is presented by all elements of libel and defamation have been met. But as you, like defendants, are aware, their only practical way to prevail is if the complaint is summarily dismissed and never goes before a jury”

….unless the defendant drops the lawsuit.

Why would CGM drop a lawsuit when ALL elements of libel and defamation have been met?

Come on, Sid! Enlighten us!; September 28, 2021 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: You're going to let a post like that at September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM go by without comment?!?

Did Crystal Mangum REALLY file a notice of dismissal? Were you aware of that?

You defended this lwsuit as recently as 25 August. Surely you knew that Mangum was going to dismiss the laswuit at that time, right?; September 29, 2021 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Did Crystal Mangum drop the WRAL lolsuit as well?

FYI Anonymous@ September 28, 2021 at 3:44 PM -- Crystal Mangum (or Sid acting on her behalf) filed a MAR in October 2019, based on the Wecht report. It was subsequently denied.; September 29, 2021 at 7:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Come on, Sid -- Post a response to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal!!; September 29, 2021 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- Do you need a crying towel?; September 29, 2021 at 11:26 AM
guiowen said...: So, Sidney,
Did I understand correctly? Is Crystal (or, rather, are you) dismissing the lawsuits?
Well, if so, at least you won't have Cyril Wecht making a fool of himself in court. This will allow Kenhyderal to keep on telling us that there is absolute proof of Crystal's innocence.; September 29, 2021 at 5:27 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
So, do you have a plan for getting a trial date?

September 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

There are two dates that will need to be set on the calendar. One for a motion's hearing and one for the trial. Will plan on getting dates set within the next week at the latest.; September 29, 2021 at 5:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
That is the plan, once a trial date is placed on the court calendar.

In what case? The libel case is certainly not going to be tried, for multiple reasons set forth above.

September 26, 2021 at 10:31 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

As you say, the case might not go to trial. The judge could summarily rule in favor of Crystal Mangum at the motions hearing.; September 29, 2021 at 6:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sid -- I saw that there was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (termination of a lawsuit by voluntary request of the plaintiff ) filed today in the Mangum v. Oxygen Media case.

Care to enlighten us?

Did the Anonymous comments from September 25, 2021 at 11:44 AM have any impact on CGM's decision to dismiss the lawsuit?

Oh -- I'll also note, Anonymous stated:
"The two civil lolsuits ask for relief that can't be granted by the plaintiffs."

That should have read "...can't be granted by the defendants".

Apparently, you understood what they were trying to say.

I guess Dr. Wecht's opinion won't be used in this trial after all.

September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM

Hey, Anony.

Specifically the filing was a Notice for Dismissal of a Party. One of the defendants, Jennifer Geisser Vice President of Communications for Oxygen Media, LLC was unable to be served the Summons and Complaint by the New York County Sheriff's Office. The Summons and Complaint was successfully served on Oxygen Media, LLC, so the lawsuit will go forward against it. I discussed the problem with serving Ms. Geisser, and she felt it would be best to just move forward against Oxygen Media, as Ms. Geisser had much less liability than the media company.

Had the Sheriff's Office been successful in its service of the Summons on Ms. Geisser, then she would not have been dismissed as a defendant.

The comment of September 25th at 11:44 a.m. had no influence.; September 29, 2021 at 6:13 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
What happened to Nana Duffuor? Is she still around?

She still has the "free Crystal" info on her SprintMovement website, but it doesn't look like it's been updated in a while. her petition for justice for Crystal Mangum doesn't appear to have much traction, with 42 signatures out of the 100 targeted.

My assumption is that the majority of people who signed this are, or at one time were, members of the J4N committee.

September 28, 2021 at 3:44 PM

Hey, Anony.

Haven't heard from Nana recently. I have no reason not to believe that she is doing well.; September 29, 2021 at 6:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I may have missed an update on this at some point...
Whatever happened to her last MAR? Was that filed before or after you got Dr. Wecht's report?

September 28, 2021 at 4:04 PM

Hey, Anony.

The MAR based on Dr. Wecht's report was denied by Judge Ridgeway, the presiding judge at trial... the judge who has sealed the 18-page document from Dr. Nichols' personnel folder which he deemed to be relevant and refused to allow Crystal Mangum to see it.; September 29, 2021 at 6:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You're going to let a post like that at September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM go by without comment?!?

Did Crystal Mangum REALLY file a notice of dismissal? Were you aware of that?

You defended this lwsuit as recently as 25 August. Surely you knew that Mangum was going to dismiss the laswuit at that time, right?

September 29, 2021 at 6:21 AM

Hey, Anony.

Only one party in the multiparty complaint was dismissed... Ms. Geisser. Action against her was dismissed because the Sheriff's Office was unable to serve her with a Summons and Complaint. Had she been served, then she would still be a defendant.; September 29, 2021 at 6:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Did Crystal Mangum drop the WRAL lolsuit as well?

FYI Anonymous@ September 28, 2021 at 3:44 PM -- Crystal Mangum (or Sid acting on her behalf) filed a MAR in October 2019, based on the Wecht report. It was subsequently denied.

September 29, 2021 at 7:05 AM

Hey, Anony.

Mangum did not drop the Oxygen Media lawsuit and she has no intention of dismissing the lawsuit against WRAL-5 News.; September 29, 2021 at 6:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Come on, Sid -- Post a response to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal!!

September 29, 2021 at 11:18 AM

Hey, Anony.

Patience is a virtue. With a new cell phone I can post comments readily from my phone. However, I am extremely busy not only with helping on two lawsuits, drafting letters, and working on a new shar-video, I cannot respond immediately to comments. I will reply as soon as I have the time.; September 29, 2021 at 6:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid -- Do you need a crying towel?

September 29, 2021 at 11:26 AM

Hey, Anony.

No crying towel required... at least not by me. The Crystal Mangum detractors however could possibly use one knowing that Mangum did not dismiss the lawsuit against Oxygen Media... only one party in the case.; September 29, 2021 at 6:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
So, Sidney,
Did I understand correctly? Is Crystal (or, rather, are you) dismissing the lawsuits?
Well, if so, at least you won't have Cyril Wecht making a fool of himself in court. This will allow Kenhyderal to keep on telling us that there is absolute proof of Crystal's innocence.

September 29, 2021 at 5:27 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

You definitely misumnderstand. A single, relatively innocuous defendant was dismissed from the Oxygen Media lawsuit after the New York County Sheriff's Office was unable to serve her with a Summons and Complaint.

Lawsuits against all other defendants in both State and Federal Courts are proceeding full speed. I don't know where the Anony commenter got information that the entirety of the Oxygen Media lawsuit was dismissed. Probably wishful thinking.; September 30, 2021 at 8:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
“Don't understand why a judge would dismiss this lawsuit. Defendants can't claim statute of limitations! Clearly a claim subject to relief is presented by all elements of libel and defamation have been met. But as you, like defendants, are aware, their only practical way to prevail is if the complaint is summarily dismissed and never goes before a jury”

….unless the defendant drops the lawsuit.

Why would CGM drop a lawsuit when ALL elements of libel and defamation have been met?

Come on, Sid! Enlighten us!

September 28, 2021 at 6:30 PM

Hey, Anony.

None of Crystal Mangum's libel/defamation lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed by her. One defendant with minimum liability who was unable to be served by the sheriff's office was dismissed by Mangum however. No big deal.

I would like to know where someone got the false information about the dismissal.; September 30, 2021 at 8:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I happened to find some comments on my laptop that did not appear on my new cellphone... so I belatedly posted and responded to them. Don't know what happened. But, if your comment is in compliance with the kenhyderal Doctrine and is not posted, re-submit it and let me know. Will try to keep close track on my cellphone and on my laptop.

As you were.; September 30, 2021 at 8:33 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: As you say, the case might not go to trial. The judge could summarily rule in favor of Crystal Mangum at the motions hearing.

You heard this here first: Not. Going. To. Happen.; September 30, 2021 at 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr -- FWIW, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is listed on PACER. The user anonymous@ September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM probably saw this, but didn't bother to read the actual document.

Not that it matters -- The complaint in both lawsuits are well past the statute of limitations for defamation as per North Carolina General Statutes section 1-54(3).

You stated earlier that the "Both WRAL-5 News and Oxygen Media, after receiving evidence of Mangum's innocence (Dr. Wecht's report), should have reevaluated the defamatory issues in questions and appended a correction.The statute of limitations is therefore not in play."

However, For purposes of the North Carolina defamation statute of limitations, the "clock" begins to run on the date on which the defamatory statement is first made. If the statement is later repeated, copied, or republished verbatim and in the same manner, the one-year clock won't reset.

the statute of limitations has NOTHING to do with when you sent the Wecht report. A 5 minute google search would have explained this to you.

Why you refuse to perform the simplest of research before you file these lawsuits is, quite franky, absurd.

You're not doing Crystal Mangum any favors by acting in this manner, and I think you ARE exposing her to potential gatekeeper orders in continuing to do so.

You should really have this discussion with her and make sure she's aware of the risk before you keep going down this path.; September 30, 2021 at 10:44 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Why you refuse to perform the simplest of research before you file these lawsuits is, quite franky, absurd.

You're not doing Crystal Mangum any favors by acting in this manner, and I think you ARE exposing her to potential gatekeeper orders in continuing to do so.

You should really have this discussion with her and make sure she's aware of the risk before you keep going down this path.

I agree completely.

And, so you will know that I am not just blowing smoke, you will be able, once the court rules, to judge the accuracy of this prediction:
1. The judge will dismiss the new libel suits on the defendants' motion; and
2. The opinion granting the defendants' motion will include at least two, and probably all three, of the following phrases: "statute of limitations"; "single publication rule"; and "collateral estoppel."; September 30, 2021 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Definitely agree with both predictions, but I'm not sure that the opinion will reference "collateral estoppal", as this is (AFAIK) the first attempt by Crystal Mangum to file a civil suit against either WRAL or Oxygen Media.

When these lawsuits inevitably fail and Sid refiles them (you know he will, he's done it time and time again), you will see references to collateral estoppel in those opinions.

Because in addition to his failure to perform any research, he refuses to learn from past mistakes.; October 1, 2021 at 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Oxygen Media's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer was granted.

Their response to CGM's complaint is now due 10/20/2021.; October 1, 2021 at 12:50 PM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Oxygen Media is stalling. Do you think they will fold like a cheap suit?; October 4, 2021 at 5:28 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
Any luck with your lawsuits?
Haven't heard from you in a week.; October 8, 2021 at 10:28 AM
Harr Supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Please provide an update regarding the WRAL litigation.; October 9, 2021 at 7:14 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: kenhyderal@yahoo.com,

Thank you for sharing with us the information you received from Kilgo. kenhyderal has insisted for many years that Kilgo told him precisely the same thing. Your post has vindicated kenhyderal and restored his good name.; October 9, 2021 at 2:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr -- FWIW, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is listed on PACER. The user anonymous@ September 28, 2021 at 3:21 PM probably saw this, but didn't bother to read the actual document.

Not that it matters -- The complaint in both lawsuits are well past the statute of limitations for defamation as per North Carolina General Statutes section 1-54(3).

You stated earlier that the "Both WRAL-5 News and Oxygen Media, after receiving evidence of Mangum's innocence (Dr. Wecht's report), should have reevaluated the defamatory issues in questions and appended a correction.The statute of limitations is therefore not in play."

However, For purposes of the North Carolina defamation statute of limitations, the "clock" begins to run on the date on which the defamatory statement is first made. If the statement is later repeated, copied, or republished verbatim and in the same manner, the one-year clock won't reset.

the statute of limitations has NOTHING to do with when you sent the Wecht report. A 5 minute google search would have explained this to you.

Why you refuse to perform the simplest of research before you file these lawsuits is, quite franky, absurd.

You're not doing Crystal Mangum any favors by acting in this manner, and I think you ARE exposing her to potential gatekeeper orders in continuing to do so.

You should really have this discussion with her and make sure she's aware of the risk before you keep going down this path.

September 30, 2021 at 10:44 AM

Hey, Anony.

Statute of limitations is not in play, I believe, because this lawsuit has to do with seeking a correction after evidence is presented. Media usually offer corrections in publications without much ado. WRAL-5 News should have just complied with the request made in July 2020.

There is no indication that WRAL did any investigation into the claim by Dr. Wecht that Daye's manner of death was an accident. If Daye's manner of death is an accident, then his death cannot be a homicide... and if not a homicide, then he could not have died of a "stabbing death."

Is it your position that media has no responsibility for making corrections once flaws are documented in its online articles?; October 9, 2021 at 6:30 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Why you refuse to perform the simplest of research before you file these lawsuits is, quite franky, absurd.

You're not doing Crystal Mangum any favors by acting in this manner, and I think you ARE exposing her to potential gatekeeper orders in continuing to do so.

You should really have this discussion with her and make sure she's aware of the risk before you keep going down this path.

I agree completely.

And, so you will know that I am not just blowing smoke, you will be able, once the court rules, to judge the accuracy of this prediction:
1. The judge will dismiss the new libel suits on the defendants' motion; and
2. The opinion granting the defendants' motion will include at least two, and probably all three, of the following phrases: "statute of limitations"; "single publication rule"; and "collateral estoppel."

September 30, 2021 at 1:45 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

If Crystal Mangum sits in her cell and files no motions or lawsuits, do you believe that increases her chances for being released? "Idleness begets no relief"... - a Harrism.

Mangum's problem has been all along that her attorneys did not file on her behalf. Her attorneys did not file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for her, they did not file w wrongful prosecution for the larceny charges, they did not file MARs...

They did not even get a decent forensic pathologist with integrity... instead they got one who placed the interests of Duke University Hospital ahead of Crystal Mangum's.; October 9, 2021 at 6:43 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Definitely agree with both predictions, but I'm not sure that the opinion will reference "collateral estoppal", as this is (AFAIK) the first attempt by Crystal Mangum to file a civil suit against either WRAL or Oxygen Media.

When these lawsuits inevitably fail and Sid refiles them (you know he will, he's done it time and time again), you will see references to collateral estoppel in those opinions.

Because in addition to his failure to perform any research, he refuses to learn from past mistakes.

October 1, 2021 at 11:41 AM

Hey, Anony.

I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch. Mangum's complaints against WRAL-5 News and Oxygen Media have not yet been dismissed. Just wishful thinking on your part.; October 9, 2021 at 6:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Oxygen Media's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer was granted.

Their response to CGM's complaint is now due 10/20/2021.

October 1, 2021 at 12:50 PM

Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the info. To date Mangum has not received any response from Oxygen Media.; October 9, 2021 at 6:51 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Oxygen Media is stalling. Do you think they will fold like a cheap suit?

October 4, 2021 at 5:28 PM

Hey, Nifong Double Supporter.

I don't think Oxygen Media is stalling quite yet. I believe they are studying the case to try to find a way to resolve in their best interests. A lot may ride on what happens at Mangum's Motions Hearing against WRAL-5 News.; October 9, 2021 at 6:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Any luck with your lawsuits?
Haven't heard from you in a week.

October 8, 2021 at 10:28 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

My lawsuits against WRAL-5 News, like my lawsuits against Duke University, have been dismissed. In other words, I have been denied my day in court. That is how the big and powerful defendants are able to prevail against commoners with strong cases... the judge dismisses the case based on desired outcome rather than merits and facts.; October 9, 2021 at 7:00 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 368 Newer› Newest»

Friday, August 27, 2021

Crystal G. Mangum v. Oxygen Media LLC, et al.

368 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me