justice4nifong: Medical Examiner's BIG LIE Conclusion about a "Complication"

Friday, November 15, 2024

Medical Examiner's BIG LIE Conclusion about a "Complication"

47 comments:

dhall said...: Subpoenas are specific to a court case. A subpoena must be valid, not over-broad, or unduly burdensome.

The case you're trying to get Dr. Pascarella subpoenaed in is Harr v. North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, in which you are claiming that the NC JSC violated your civil rights.
You admit in both your original motion to subpoena and in this response that the Pascarella discovery is not for the purpose of confirming that the NC JSC violated your civil rights, but rather to aid in the potential "release from custody, after more than 12 years of wrongful incarceration, Crystal Gail Mangum...".

Your subpoena is not specific to this case, and because it's not specific to this case, it's not valid.
It's not valid in Mangum's petition for judicial review, either. As Dr. Pascarella played no part in Judge Nelson's final decision in the PCOAH petitioned case.
I get what you're trying to do -- you want Dr. Pascarella to confirm to the best of his knowledge that there was no complication from Daye's stab wound or its surgical treatment that could have lead to Daye's death.
If there's a need for this, it should have been done during the murder trial, or one of the efforts following the murder trial (the habeus corpus proceeding, one of the numerous MARs). A proceeding that could actually effect her criminal conviction.; November 15, 2024 at 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Incredible work, Sid.; November 15, 2024 at 7:30 PM
J. Dutton said...: Ken Edwards: Please share with us your views regarding Dr. Harr’s most recent filing.; November 16, 2024 at 4:08 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: dhall
Subpoenas are specific to a court case. A subpoena must be valid, not over-broad, or unduly burdensome.

The case you're trying to get Dr. Pascarella subpoenaed in is Harr v. North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, in which you are claiming that the NC JSC violated your civil rights.
You admit in both your original motion to subpoena and in this response that the Pascarella discovery is not for the purpose of confirming that the NC JSC violated your civil rights, but rather to aid in the potential "release from custody, after more than 12 years of wrongful incarceration, Crystal Gail Mangum...".

Your subpoena is not specific to this case, and because it's not specific to this case, it's not valid.
It's not valid in Mangum's petition for judicial review, either. As Dr. Pascarella played no part in Judge Nelson's final decision in the PCOAH petitioned case.
I get what you're trying to do -- you want Dr. Pascarella to confirm to the best of his knowledge that there was no complication from Daye's stab wound or its surgical treatment that could have lead to Daye's death.
If there's a need for this, it should have been done during the murder trial, or one of the efforts following the murder trial (the habeus corpus proceeding, one of the numerous MARs). A proceeding that could actually effect her criminal conviction.

November 15, 2024 at 1:14 PM

Hey, dhall.

First, you miss the point. It is the duty of the clerk or judge (not case manager) to sign a subpoena for pro se litigants. There is nothing in the procedural rules to dictate which pro se subpoena requests should be signed and which shouldn't. To do so would require assessment of the case prior to signing a subpoena.

Whether a subpoena is valid, overbroad, or unduly burdensome is up to the target of the subpoena to argue in his objection to the subpoena.

In Mangum's case, the Court is attempting to block service of the pro se subpoena by withholding issuance of a signature which would validate it.

Hope this explanation provides clarity.; November 17, 2024 at 4:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
Incredible work, Sid.
November 15, 2024 at 7:30 PM

Hey, Anony.

Although I have been remiss in the past with regards to responding with gratitude to uplifting comments by kenhyderal and other commenters, know that I very much appreciate all words of encouragement. Thank you.; November 17, 2024 at 4:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Marina Lemmons
The following is my attempt to explain “the complications of a stab wound to the chest” in the challenge posted by Dr. Harr.

Crystal Mangum stabbed Reginald Daye on April 3, 2011. The stab wound was treated within hours of the incident. The initial postoperative prognosis was for a full recovery. However, Mr. Daye, a chronic alcoholic, suffered delirium tremens on the fourth day of his hospitalization. Medical staff, in treating this condition, errantly intubated him in his esophagus instead of his trachea. The lack of oxygen from the inerrant intubation resulted in a subsequent brain-death comatose state. Following ten days of observation without improvement, Mr. Daye was removed from life support and died within hours.

The critical question is whether the onset of delirium tremens from a preexisting condition (i.e., alcoholism) constitutes an intervening cause that eliminates Ms. Magum’s legal responsibility for Mr. Daye’s death.

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, expressed the opinion in his October 25, 2019 report that the onset of delirium tremens DOES constitute an intervening cause that severs Ms. Mangum’s responsibility for Mr. Daye’s death. As a result, he expressed the opinion that the crime for which she was charged and convicted never occurred and that that she was therefore innocent. Dr. Wecht’s reputation gives his opinion significant credibility.

Dr. Nichols, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Aurelius and Dr. Radisch apparently disagree with Dr. Wecht’s opinion. They apparently believe that the onset of delirium tremens and the errant intubation resulting from the mistreatment of that condition does NOT represent an intervening cause. As a result, they believe that it does not eliminate Ms. Mangum’s responsibility for Mr. Daye’s death. They therefore conclude that the conviction is supported by the evidence.

I note as a general matter that an opinion does not constitute “proof.” Contrary to the repeated claims made by Dr. Harr and kenhyderal, Dr. Wecht’s opinion, no matter how credible, does not “prove” Ms. Mangum’s innocence nor does it “exonerate” her. Similarly, it does not demonstrate that contrary opinions are “provably false.”

More than two years ago, I suggested that kenhyderal use his highly developed research skills to identify North Carolina cases that support Dr. Wecht’s opinion that the onset of delirium tremens represents an intervening cause under NC law. He refused, apparently believing that the unquestioned strength of Dr. Wecht’s CV should eliminate all questions and that denigrating any commenters who raise questions is a more effective use of his time.

To date, his approach has not been particularly successful in advancing Ms. Mangum’s release.
November 16, 2024 at 9:22 AM; November 17, 2024 at 4:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: NOTE: I reposted the comment above by Marina Lemmons to give it more exposure. It was assigned to the last blog post prior to the uploading of the current post.

REBUTTAL RESPONSE:
Hey, Marina Lemmons.

I am of the belief that the errant esophageal intubation was the intervening cause of death (and the direct cause of brain-death), and had it not been for the initial intubation being esophageal and not timely recognized, then Daye would not have suffered brain-death and most likely would have been vertically discharged from the hospital with a full recovery. It is proven fact that an esophageal intubation which is not timely recognized and corrected will invariably be fatal.

Assuming the esophageal intubation was not purposeful, then the manner of Reginald Daye's death was an accident, and not a homicide.

Hope this provides enlightenment.; November 17, 2024 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, As the author of the comment posted at 7:30 PM on November 15, I must advise you to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.; November 17, 2024 at 5:33 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Thank you for reposting my comment.

However, you miss the point.

It is unimportant for Crystal's case that you "are of the belief that the errant esophageal intubation was the intervening cause of death." It is far more important that the State of North Carolina holds a contrary opinion.

This is importantly a legal issue. Rather than simply restating your opinion and stating the medical events leading to Mr. Daye's death, you must persuade the State that your opinion regarding an intervening cause is correct. A legal issue requires legal research. You must identify NC court cases that support your opinion.

You have two legal issues to research (I first noted this in a post in June 2020):

1. Is the onset of delirium tremens from a preexisting condition (i.e., alcoholism) an intervening cause under NC law? That is the basis for Dr. Wecht's opinion that Ms. Mangum is not responsible for Dr. Daye's death.

2. On what basis can an opinion obtained after a conviction be used to appeal or otherwise overturn that conviction? Dr. Wecht's opinion is not new evidence; it is an opinion based on evidence available at the time of the trial.

I suggest that you retain counsel to conduct this research. Both you and kenhyderal have demonstrated the you do not understand the critical role of precedent in a justice system based on common law.; November 17, 2024 at 6:35 AM
Anonymous said...: What Marina fails to take into account is that Dr. Roberts, Dr. Aurelius and Dr. Radisch all relied on a totally unsupported cause of death, told to the Jury by Dr. Nichiols, as being a complications that arouse following treatment of the stab wound, something that is unsubstantiated and easily provable to be wrong. I don't believe they could , in good conscience, concur with Dr. Nichols if there was, in fact, no complication that was attributable to that wound and it's treatment, something the medical records clearly show and something Dr. Pascarella could, as have Dr. Wecht and Dr. Harr, attest to.; November 17, 2024 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: @ Marina 11-17-24----- The bane of the justice system is imperfectly applied precedent e.g. applying in N. C. Welch to Crystal Mangum. Cases such as hers demand a reasoned judicial decision. Prior to his stabbing Daye had a B.A. C of 296mg/dl. that would be incapacitating in a non-alcoholic. Walking and talking on his admission should have alerted Duke that this alcoholic patient would required pre-emptive treatment to stave off acute alcohol withdrawal. Where there is no perfectly equivalent case law onus should fall on the Judge . Using unequivalent precedent as an excuse to not make a ruling is a cop-out. Let me speculate on what that decision might be. His treatment for alcohol withdrawal and impending delirium tremens was not related to what sent him to hospital. Had it been a sprained ankle the result of accidental death by medical malpractice would have been the same.; November 17, 2024 at 10:44 AM
dhall said...: "Whether a subpoena is valid, overbroad, or unduly burdensome is up to the target of the subpoena to argue in his objection to the subpoena."

Dr. Harr -- A subpoena may be directed to any person who is capable of being a witness.

Further, it's your responsibility to a take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on the person being subpoenaed.

And finally, while it is true that an attorney, magistrate, judge, or a clerk of court may issue subpoenas, they don't necessarily have to -- especially if the person wanting to serve the subpoena doesn't bother to observer the 2 points I identified above.

Dr. Pascarella had nothing to do with your alleged civil violations by the NC JSC.

Dr. Pascarella had nothing to do with the final decision by Judge Nelson in the OAH petitioned case hearing.

Hope this explanation provides clarity.; November 18, 2024 at 6:39 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I assume that kenhyderal is the author of the Anonymous comments at 11/17 7:21AM and 11/17 10:44AM. I apologize in advance if that assumption is incorrect.

Dr. Roberts reached her conclusion prior to Dr. Nichols' testimony. Perhaps kenhyderal can explain how she relied on testimony that Dr. Nichols had not yet given. I note that she disagreed with certain aspects of the autopsy., so I find it clear that she did not simply accept all of Dr. Nichols' findings.

Dr. Aurelius and Dr. Radisch each claim to have reviewed the autopsy and confirmed its findings based on that review. Perhaps kenhyderal can explain how he knows they are both lying.

The conclusions of Dr. Roberts, Dr. Aurelius and Dr. Radisch that Mr. Daye's death resulted from "complications that arouse [sic] following treatment of the stab wound" is based on the legal view that there was no intervening cause. Under this legal view, all of the subsequent complications are related to the stab wound. kenhyderal's statement that this conclusion is "easily provable to be wrong" is false--it is simply based on a legal opinion with which he disagrees.

It is clear that the State is of the opinion that, contrary to Dr. Wecht's opinion, there was no intervening cause and that Ms. Mangum therefore remains responsible for Mr. Daye's death. My opinion and those of other commenters on this blog are totally irrelevant to Ms. Mangum's case. kenhyderal's repetition of his arguments on this blog is therefore useless.

His dismissal of the role of precedent due to differences in facts between individual cases demonstrates a lack of understanding of its importance in a system based on common law (which I note includes Canada). Case law is used to identify general principles on which cases should be decided. Similar cases should have similar outcomes. Uncertainty as to the rules should be minimized.

kenhyderal insists that Welch and Holsclaw are not relevant due to differences in the facts. Fine. Identify other cases where the facts are more aligned. The objective of legal research is to identify cases that support your argument and to explain why other cases merit little consideration.

I can think of three explanations for kenhyderal's complete dismissal of precedent:

1. He has researched precedent and found additional cases that support the State's opinion and found none that support his view. He dismisses the value of precedent because it weakens Ms. Mangum's case.

2. He is genuinely a friend of Ms. Mangum as he claims, but is unspeakably lazy. His posts on this blog are merely virtue signaling which make him feel better about his refusal to do something that might actually help.

3. He is a troll and has no particular interest in Ms. Magnum's release. He simply enjoys arguing with others.

Based on its interpretation of the law, the State has concluded that there was no intervening cause and that Ms. Mangum remains legally responsible for Mr. Daye's death. Dr. Harr has merely repeated the same arguments for more than 10 years and has been unable to persuade the State that its legal opinion is incorrect. kenhyderal has encouraged Dr. Harr to make no changes to this approach.

Perhaps it is time to refine the arguments.; November 18, 2024 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Ooops Sorry Marina Yes, 7:21 and 10:44 to you are my posts.; November 18, 2024 at 8:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 11-18-24 6:57 AM :--The testimony given by Dr. Nichols was a reiteration of his Autopsy Report that she reviewed. My take on her is she was loath to condemn, in too strong a way, beleaguered colleague Dr. Nichols, already in disgrace, for his poor wor; especially when it only involved a person considered to be a pariah, thanks to the " blame the victim" defense strategy of the Duke Lacrosse "Dream Team". Unlike the case of Welch, where the wound was a contributing cause of death, esophageal intubation was the sole cause of Daye's death. The superficial, repaired, wound played no role. Presumably Dr. Pascarella can attest to that. As to Holsclaw, Crystal's action also played no part in Daye's death. Crystal's inadequate Defense, given no time to prepare, did zero research; instead relying only on self-defense . Crystal, of course, knows who her friends are and knows in whose political interest it is to keep her incarcerated. How can the State conclude there was no intervening cause that Daye, when being treated for a condition, unrelated to his repaired wound, suffered a fatal medical error? I know and you know the State knows better. All one need to do is look at the medical records.; November 18, 2024 at 9:29 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I have quite a bit of sympathy for your view that the expansive interpretation of Welch and Holslaw described by Walt years ago is overly broad. .

However, given your track records, I do not regard either you or Dr. Harr as reliable sources on legal questions. In this case, you are friends of the defendant. Moreover, you have both demonstrated an ability and willingness to take inconsistent positions on an issue based on your desired outcome.

Do you really believe that Ms. Mangum is the first defendant since Welch was decided in 1999 to argue that an overly expansive interpretation would result in an unjust conviction? Do you really believe that your argument could not be made more effective by identifying these similar cases and incorporating those arguments that worked and either avoiding or modifying those arguments that were unsuccessful?

Dr. Harr has almost completely avoided this issue in the legal filings he has prepared--even when the State raised Welch in its filings. Do you really believe that avoiding the single most critical legal issue is the most effective way to seek to overturn the conviction?

You address this issue only when it is forced on you--like this exchange. Even then, you misstate the arguments. The esophageal intubation was medical malpractice or error--that cannot be an intervening cause. The onset of delirium tremens was mismanaged by Duke and that triggered the errant intubation, which led to Mr. Daye's death. That is the possible intervening cause on which you should focus.

You do not really debate the issue. For all intents and purposes, you take the view that the medical facts support your only legal opinion and that anyone who holds a contrary opinion can only do so in bad faith and that the medical record somehow "disproves" the contrary opinion.

This argument has not been successful in obtaining Ms. Mangum's release. It will not be successful in the future. I suggest you modify your arguments. A review of court cases may help you do so.; November 18, 2024 at 10:54 AM
Tyrone Rugen said...: Funny - My take on Kenny is he is loath to condemn, in too strong a way, beleaguered colleague Dr. Harr, already in disgrace, for his poor work.; November 18, 2024 at 3:50 PM
kenhyderal said...: @Marina 11-18-24n 10:54 : You said : " You do not really debate the issue. For all intents and purposes, you take the view that the medical facts support your only legal opinion and that anyone who holds a contrary opinion can only do so in bad faith and that the medical record somehow "disproves" the contrary opinion." And so they do. Read them carefully and then ask yourself what do they prove and what do they disprove.; November 19, 2024 at 10:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Tyrone 11-18-24 3:50 PM: Dr. Roberts indicated, in as feint a way as possible, how deficint Dr. Nichols' work was but, if she reviewed the medical records she would have to know Dr. Wecht's take on the cause of death is more valid than Dr. Nichols' unsubstantiated cause of death was. I admire and look up to Dr. Harr for his valiant efforts to seek justice for my friend Crystal . Had she been properly cross-examined , using the information Dr. Harr had offered regarding the true cause of death this would have been exposed. Her appointed Attorney Meier continually threatened to withdraw if she did not steer clear of the medical issues .; November 19, 2024 at 10:52 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: "And so they do."

I do not understand.

How do the medical facts disprove the expansive interpretation of Welch described by Walt several years ago? Under that view, the onset of delirium tremens and everything that occurred subsequently was related to the stab wound, i.e., Mr. Daye would not have been in the hospital and DUMC would not have the opportunity to mismanage that condition if he had not been stabbed.

While the medical facts are critical to the analysis, I believe that a legal issue cannot be resolved without considering the law itself.; November 19, 2024 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Because - the have no argument against the law, and they know it, so they just ignore it. In NC, the law is clear (even if unfair) that medical malpractice does not constitute an independent intervening cause. So long as the actions of the defendant were a proximate cause (doesn't even have to be the mani cause), they are liable for what follows - and yes, you have it right - has Daye not been stabbed, he would not have been in the hospital, the medical mistake would not have happened, he would not have died. Even though the stab wound wasn't the actual cause of death, it was a proximate cause of that death and it set off the chain of events that ended in death.

They don't like the law, so they just ignore it. Oh, and in medicine, malpractice is a "complication" so the "complication" from the stab wound that killed Daye is malpractice by Duke. You don't have to like the law, or agree with it, but unfortunately it is the law. You can keep your $50 Sid.; November 20, 2024 at 5:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 11-19-24 I refer you to Dr. Wecht's report. Also check out the legal qualifications on his CV . P.S. Do you, yourself, have any legal qualifications ? It seems to me it would take a great deal of temerity to disagree with this world reknown expert.; November 20, 2024 at 10:19 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I read his report.

I understand that in his opinion, the onset of delirium tremens was an intervening cause that severed Ms. Mangum's responsibility for Mr. Daye's death. He does not, as you suggest, conclude that the esophageal intubation was itself the intervening cause.

I note that your argument that readers should focus on Dr. Wecht's report might be more effective if your discussion of his conclusions was more accurate.

I also recognize that an opinion does not constitute "proof." You and Dr. Harr have constantly overstated the value of the Wecht report. A world renowned expert is of the opinion that because there was an intervening cause Ms. Mangum is innocent of Mr. Daye's death. That opinion is highly credible and something to build on. His report does not however "prove" her innocence or "exonerate" her. Your assertion that the medical reports "prove" her innocence is demonstrably false. You have made no attempt to do so instead relying on authority.

While I recognize that Dr. Wecht was a world renowned expert, it seems to me it would take a great deal of temerity to insist that Dr. Wecht was infallible and made no mistakes in his long and illustrious career. It would take a great deal of temerity to terminate all discussion of the report rather than to use it as a springboard to identify supporting evidence (i.e, court cases that reinforce Dr. Wecht's opinion) that will permit more compelling arguments.

Dr. Harr has repeated the medical facts to countless parties since before Ms. Mangum's conviction. He has waved Dr. Wecht's report and CV in their faces for five years. He has generally ignored the most critical legal issue in this case. His arguments have not been persuasive.

You have two choices: 1. You can encourage Dr. Harr to repeat the same unsuccessful arguments he has made over and over again for more than ten years (while expecting a different result) or 2. perform research to identify court cases or other information that will reinforce Dr. Wecht's opinion and thus permit Dr. Harr to make more effective arguments.

I know your answer.

Crystal Mangum is currently scheduled to be released on February 27, 2026. The countdown begins: she will be released in 464 days.; November 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: He isn't licensed in NC, he probably has no idea about NC law. Where he is the law is likely different. NC has a really harsh law on that point, like many others. His report does not discuss why he thinks the law is wrong, nor why he thinks the stab wound was not a proximate cause. He simply says medical malpractice is not an independent intervening act, but that's simply wrong in North Carolina.; November 20, 2024 at 2:23 PM
dhall said...: Kenhydreral -- if someone were to say to you that "the mechanism of [Reginald Daye's] death was a known complication to a procedure, specifically, aspiration following emesis after placement of a nasogastric tube for contrast administration. The initial intubation was esophageal because the emesis was blocking view of the vocal cords."

Would you agree that this person had reviewed both Daye's medical record and his autopsy report?; November 21, 2024 at 5:35 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 11-20-24 2;00 pm What you fail to take into account is, that for Welch or Holsclaw to come into play, the medical error that killed Daye would of had to occur while being treated for the stab wound, or complications thereof. No, an action that, simply, required someone to have to go to Hospital is not sufficient. An example I use is that if, in the stuggle of dragging Crystal out of the bathroom, where she had sought refuge from his murderous assault, her pushback had sprained his ankle, he would of suffered the same end. Using your take Crystal would, in that case, also be guilty of murder. Try and sell that to any Jury of her peers. What you also fail to take into account is the obvious ie. for political reasons, Gov. Stein and former Gov. Cooper do not wan't the history of this case ( what they knew and when they knew it) exposed. They , like you, justify legal technicalities, hoping to run out the clock.; November 21, 2024 at 8:46 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: First of all, I did not endorse the expansive view that Walt described several years ago. In these comments, I have attempted to make the arguments that a supporter of that view would make.

What you fail to take into account is that the State of North Carolina apparently disagrees with the legal opinion that you, Dr. Harr and Dr. Wecht have accepted. They appear to have embraced the interpretation Walt outlined.

You need to convince that State of North Carolina that their interpretation of the law is incorrect. My opinion is irrelevant.

It is not helpful to jump immediately to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. Essentially calling people assholes because of a disagreement is not generally the most effective way to persuade them.

I have simply noted the obvious: Since before Ms. Mangum was convicted, Dr. Harr has repeatedly described the medical steps that ultimately resulted in Mr. Daye's death. He has ignored the legal issue of intervening cause. He has been unsuccessful.

The decision to get an opinion from Dr. Wecht was a critical first step, but it is just a first step. It is an opinion. It does not "prove" Ms. Mangum's innocence.

Both you and Dr. Harr have used the opinion ineffectively. Dr. Harr has stressed the conclusion that Mr. Daye's death was an accident. We knew that from Dr. Roberts' report and the medical history. The critical conclusion Dr. Wecht provided deals with the legal issue of an intervening cause. Dr. Harr has downplayed that conclusion.

You have misstated in this thread Dr. Wecht's actual conclusion as to the intervening cause. You would be more effective if you were more accurate. (Should I use your approach and accuse you of misstating the conclusion not because you made a mistake, but rather are intent on deceiving the readers of this blog?)

Dr. Harr has been flogging Dr. Wecht's report and his CV for five years with no greater success. He still avoids the critical legal issue--intervening cause. That should be the focus going forward.

The NC government does not care what opinion you and Dr. Harr hold regarding intervening cause. While Dr. Wecht has far greater credibility, the State will not merely accept his opinion as fact.

Try to persuade the State of North Carolina. If they are wrong in their interpretation of the law, then prove it--with facts, with case law, NOT by merely stating your opinion. If they are correct in the law, then first concede what the law is and then try to persuade them to change the law because it results in injustice.

Finally, don't tell me ever again "what I fail to take into account" based solely your opinion. I do not value your opinion.; November 21, 2024 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny stated that for Welch or Holsclaw to come into play, the medical error that killed Daye would of [sic] had to occur while being treated for the stab wound, or complications thereof

Source?; November 21, 2024 at 2:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: @dhall 11-21-24 Yes, but that begs the question what was he being treated for.; November 21, 2024 at 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: If he hadn't been stabbed, he wouldn't have been in the hospital, he wouldn't have allegedly suffered DTs, and there wouldn't have been malpractice. It all starts with the stabbing. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change that fact. Had he not been stabbed, he would not have died when he did.; November 22, 2024 at 3:19 AM
dhall said...: The statement I quoted was from Dr. Christena Roberts. I’m glad we can agree that she reviewed both Daye’s medical record and his autopsy report.; November 22, 2024 at 4:35 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 11-21-24 2:14 PM Here is an exercise for you. Fill out thre sample NC Death Certificate box 23 and show how Daye's death can be medically tied to the stab wound . https://www.ecmort.com/NCDC2018Edit.pdf; November 22, 2024 at 7:03 AM
dhall said...: Kenhyderal @November 22, 2024 at 7:03 AM -- The death certificate for Reginald Daye has been completed. While I haven't seen the death certificate, I find it hard to believe Crystal Mangum would have been found guilty if the death certificate doesn't show that Daye's death is "medically tied to the stab wound".

Why would anyone bother filling out this document, as any response other than the one you want will not be sufficient for you?; November 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

On Friday, November 22, 2013, Crystal Mangum was convicted of second-degree murder in her boyfriend Reginald Daye's death, and began her prison sentence.

Exactly one year to the day... Friday, November 22, 2024, Crystal and I, hours ago, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against Durham District Attorney Satana Deberry. The case number is: 5:24-cv-00661-FL.

I will try to have the lawsuit and its 37 exhibits posted on this blog site by Monday, November 25th.

Have found the comments by Marina Lemmons, kenhyderal, and others to be very interesting and compelling. Have been busy, so have not been able to join in the fray.

As you were.; November 22, 2024 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina You said " Try to persuade the State of North Carolina. If they are wrong in their interpretation of the law, then prove it--with facts, with case law, NOT by merely stating your opinion. If they are correct in the law, then first concede what the law is and then try to persuade them to change the law because it results in injustice . Finally, don't tell me ever again "what I fail to take into account" based solely your opinion. I do not value your opinion"===== I have my opinions and you have your opinions. Sorry that you took offence. No offence intended. In my opinion the facts, based on the medical records show no nexus between the repaired stab wound and Daye's death. That immediately became clear to Dr. Harr and was later cofirmed by Dr. Wecht and I daresay by anyone who looked at these records. Presumably Dr. Pascrella could so testify. It's also my opinion that a legal decision regarding the Hospital admission of an alcoholic after an altercaion who is at risk of acute alcohol withdrawl must be a common occurance. Treatment of this is potential life-threatening condition is independent of the treatment for any injury which required admission and which necessitated alcohol deprivation . That requires careful controlled replacement therapy with depressants to forestall. This is a situation that requires a legal decision in an actual case . Crystal's Court appointed Attorney Meier refused to pursue the issue of accidental death due to medical mistake by Duke instead of murder or to challenge the cause of death as testified by Nichols and Roberts as a compliction of the stab wound, something easily provable, with known facts , which the Jury never saw, to be "dead" wrong .; November 22, 2024 at 2:59 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Kenhyderal: This is a situation that requires a legal decision in an actual case

And you are sure that it has never happened before?; November 22, 2024 at 4:42 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Marina: kenhyderal has done extensive research as part of his secret plan to win Crystal a new trial and compensation from North Carolina. He summarized his research earlier this year in a post regarding the Brady rule. He is certain that there are no previous legal decisions that present the same facts as Crystal’s case.; November 23, 2024 at 5:37 AM
dhall said...: "Presumably Dr. Pascrella could so testify."
How would he testify? There's no current court case where his testimony would matter.
There's no need for him to testify in Harr v. North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission as that's a civil case where Dr. Harr is claiming the NC JSC violated his civil rights.

Crystal Mangum's petition for judicial review is about Judge Nelson's final decision in the OAH petitioned case.

Dr. Harr's subpoena(s) in either case will be quashed - even if he obtains them.

Dr. Harr -- November 22 2024 is eleven years since Crystal Mangum's conviction.; November 23, 2024 at 10:22 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Dr. Harr:

Are you still confident that Crystal will be released by Thanksgiving?; November 24, 2024 at 6:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina : Are you sure it has ? If so please elucidate.; November 24, 2024 at 6:28 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal,

I have not done the research. However, I would be surprised if a similar situation had not occurred at some point in the past. Indeed, you speculated "the admission of an alcoholic after an altercaion [sic] who is at risk of acute alcohol withdrawl [sic] must be a common occurance [sic]."

That is what legal research is all about--finding cases where the fact pattern better matches the facts of the case at hand and where the conclusion was more favorable.

You have repeatedly claimed to be Ms. Mangum's friend and find her conviction and imprisonment to be a miscarriage of justice. I sympathize with your opinion, but you have done nothing to support it.

I am not willing to undertake the time to research cases if you and Dr. Harr are too lazy to do so on your own.; November 24, 2024 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: In less than 5 minutes, using only my magic phone, I found this case from the PA Supreme Court, which is remarkably similar to Mangum's case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1966/423-pa-67-0.html

Here is another case out of Minnesota:

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-smith-5435

These cases exist. I found two in less than five minutes using only the googler on my cell phone. Anyone who was genuinely interested in Mangum's case would conduct weeks of research on this issue. Either kenny and Sid can't be bothered to do the research, or they have done it and don't want anyone to know the results. I don't know which is worse.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; November 25, 2024 at 6:35 AM
dhall said...: " Crystal and I, hours ago, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against Durham District Attorney Satana Deberry."

By all means, post a link to this lawsuit.; November 25, 2024 at 6:37 AM
dhall said...: Marina Lemmons -- I think you've narrowed down which of the explanations for Kenhyderal's dismission of precedent to #2 or #3.; November 25, 2024 at 6:42 AM
dhall said...: Abe Froman @November 25, 2024 at 6:35 AM:

I'm not shocked.
Dr. Harr has already admitted that he doesn't bother to do research, and Kenhyderal's admitted that the only "help" he's provided is introducing Crystal Mangum to Dr. Harr.; November 25, 2024 at 8:39 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Dr. Harr:

Will Crystal be released by Thanksgiving?; November 26, 2024 at 2:03 PM
dhall said...: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.; November 26, 2024 at 3:42 PM

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Friday, November 15, 2024

Medical Examiner's BIG LIE Conclusion about a "Complication"

47 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me