justice4nifong: Dr. Harr's Struggle to Obtain Subpoenas Needed to Clear Crystal Mangum of Murdering Her Boyfriend

Wednesday, January 1, 2025

Dr. Harr's Struggle to Obtain Subpoenas Needed to Clear Crystal Mangum of Murdering Her Boyfriend

48 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

First, Adonis and I would like to wish commenters, visitors, and all of your families a fab year in 2025. May the new year find you all happy and in good health throughout '25.

This should be the year that Crystal Mangum is finally freed from prison, although the State is trying desperately to hold her until she serves her minimum sentence so she can then be released with the state, courts, and media refusing to revisit her post-release claims of injustice as being moot.

If I am allowed subpoenas, as are most defendants, then I am sure that I will prevail at the upcoming January 16, 2025 hearing. In the event the subpoenas are substantially delayed, I may seek to have an extension for the date of the hearing.

As you were.; January 1, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

I believe that you misunderstand the scope of the January 16 hearing. The sole subject of the hearing is whether or not you violated the February 18, 2013 court order prohibiting you from providing legal assistance to Ms. Mangum. You readily concede that you provided legal assistance in violation of the order.

I do not believe that the hearing will allow you an opportunity to explain WHY you felt justified in violating the court order. Your requests to subpoena Dr. Pascarella and Dr. Zani will be rejected because they do not pertain to the issue to be addressed in the hearing. .

The legal assistance you have provided to Ms. Mangum over more than ten years provides significant support for the rationale for prohibiting non-lawyers from providing legal assistance.

Incredibly, you have ignored (and continue to ignore) the critical legal question raised in this case--the question of whether or not Ms. Mangum's legal liability for Mr. Daye's death was severed by an intervening cause. Even when the state has raised the issues in Welch in their filings, you consistently ignored this issue.

Dr. Nicholls and Dr. Roberts both reached the opinion that there was no intervening cause and therefore Ms. Mangum remained legally liable for Mr. Daye's death. That is the reason NC Prisoner Legal Services and the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission declined to take her case. The facts of Mr. Daye's medical treatment, including the esophageal intubation, could not overcome the expert opinions that there was no intervening cause.

Dr. Wecht's report reached a different conclusion; namely, that the onset of delirium tremens resulting from DUMC's errors in treating Mr. Daye's acute alcohol intoxication was an intervening cause that severed Ms. Mangum's legal liability for Mr. Daye's death. However, you misstate Dr. Wecht's conclusion, preferring to emphasize his conclusion that the death was the result of an accident. While that is true, Ms. Mangum would nevertheless remain legally liable if there had not been an intervening cause.

More importantly, you misstate the importance of Dr. Wecht's conclusion. DR. WECHT'S CONCLUSION IS AN OPINION. AN OPINION IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT EXONERATES MS. MANGUM. You recognized the limitations of an opinion when you dismissed AG Cooper's opinion that the lacrosse defendants were innocent of sexually assaulting Ms. Mangum. You cannot dismiss an opinion with which you disagree as irrelevant and maintain an opinion with which you agree is legally binding.

You should have used Dr. Wecht's report as an opportunity to reengage with counsel. You now had an expert opinion that there was an intervening cause that severed Ms. Mangum's legal liability. You should have relied on a legal expert to identify case law that addressed the legal questions: (1) does the onset of delirium tremens (or another preexisting condition) constitute an intervening cause and (2) on what basis can a subsequent opinion be used to challenge a conviction.

I suggested to kenhyderal more than four years ago that he use his research skills to address those questions. He did nothing.

Frankly, you should recognize that kenhyderal is a troll. Much like Break the Conspiracy several years ago, he pretends to support everything you have done. He makes no suggestions of how you could make your appeal more effective.; January 1, 2025 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, since it was posted under the other post it will get missed, but how do you feel about Crystal being a proven liar? You keep talking about how honest she is, yet we know for a fact that she lied. It's unclear if she was lying about the original sexual assault, or if she is lying about the recantation, but it is clear she is lying.

Why should anyone trust anything she has to say now?; January 1, 2025 at 12:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 1-1-25 10:57==== No pretense on my part. I have absolutely no legal qualifications and I do not know how Dr. Harr could have been more effective. As has been shown, over and over, by Dr. Harr's efforts, something any objective person can clearly see, the fix is in by the NC Justice System and they use every means available to run-out the clock, hoping that their malfeasance, in denying Justice to an innocent person, will be forgotten once her sentence is over. I suspect that even if she had a Lawyer they woild have delivered the same decisions. A question I've asked you before. are you a Lawyer? Trolls abound here and are present in every thread.; January 1, 2025 at 4:59 PM
dhall said...: "If I am allowed subpoenas, as are most defendants, then I am sure that I will prevail at the upcoming January 16, 2025 hearing."

How would any subpoena show that you are not practicing law without a license?
How would that show you are not acting in contempt of the 2013 court order?
I agree with Marina Lemmons that your motion will be rejected. It has nothing to do with the order to show cause.; January 2, 2025 at 7:06 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal:

Your January 1, 2025 at 3:41 PM comment on the prior thread confirms that you are one of those "making sport of a serious issue being discussed.” Thank you for your clarity.

Your January 1, 2025 at 3:50 PM comment on the prior thread is unclear. I do not see in his report where Dr. Wecht opined that anyone who disagreed with his conclusion (that the onset of delirium tremens was an intervening cause) could only be acting in bad faith. Can you point out the relevant language? Thanks.; January 2, 2025 at 8:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

Yes, I did technically violate the injunction, but the reason why I did is extremely important. The reason specifically being is that the State failed to provide Ms. Mangum with legal counsel to which she was entitled. The NC Prisoner Legal Services did nothing for her and then abandoned her as a client on January 17, 2017. The NC Innocence Inquiry Commission, another state agency, refused to take Mangum as a client with four different executive directors refusing to meet or communicate with me about Crystal's innocence. If the state would have effectively represented Ms. Mangum she would have been found not guilty or the conviction would have been vacated and I would never have gotten involved... ergo, it is the State's fault that I was forced to violate the injunction.

With regards to credibility, I would take what Dr. Wecht said over the opinions of Dr. Nichols, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Aurelius. Besides being both a physician and attorney and having the respect of his peers around the world, Dr. Wecht's integrity is beyond reproach. Dr. Nichols, whose autopsy report you apparently believe to be accurate, committed material perjury, was fired from his job, was being considered for criminal investigation for his professional work in other cases, and was refused reinstatement after the criminal investigation was dropped, has Erdmann-esque level integrity, and like notorious Texas medical examiner Dr. Ralph Erdmann has a penchant for producing made-to-order autopsy reports to favor police and prosecutors at the expense of many innocents... mostly people of color.

The challenge I have for you, Ms. Lemmons, is to identify the "complication" from the stab wound that was responsible for Daye's death. No one else can.

Finally, I wish you and your family a fab 2025 and hope your year is full of happiness and good health.; January 2, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr asks: "The challenge I have for you, Ms. Lemmons, is to identify the "complication" from the stab wound that was responsible for Daye's death. No one else can."

I did that on the earlier thread. You posted my explanation.; January 2, 2025 at 10:42 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr -- The NCIIC cannot accept claims from a family member, friend, acquaintance, or neighbor. They tell you that on their website. The appropriate action was for you to provide their contact information to Ms. Mangum and have HER contact them.
Did you do that? Did she contact them?; January 2, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr speculates:

"Dr. Nichols, whose autopsy report you apparently believe to be accurate,"

I have never stated that I believe the autopsy to be accurate. On what basis do you make this claim?; January 2, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: In this post, I am responding again to Dr. Harr’s challenge to identify the “complications from a stab wound to the chest” referred to by the state. I responded to his challenge earlier.

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 state disagrees with Dr. Wecht and Dr. Harr as to the applicable law and has adopted the legal position that the onset of delirium tremens is not an intervening cause that severs Ms. Mangum’s liability for Mr. Daye’s death. In support of this legal position, the state cites cases including Welch and Holsclaw.

Under this legal position, all of the medical treatment received by Mr. Daye at DUMC is due to “complications from a stab wound to the chest.” The state does not disagree with Dr. Harr’s description of the steps included in the medical treatment and summarized in the second paragraph of this post.

Based on this interpretation of the applicable law, Ms. Mangum is responsible for Mr. Daye’s death.; January 2, 2025 at 4:37 PM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr -- Perhaps you should add someone (or several people) as an admin in the case of your absence. I'm sure you have Kenhyderal's email address, so you can invite him. You have mine as well.; January 3, 2025 at 6:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 1-2-25 , 8:59 : You are playing semantics. Does anyone here really believe Dr. Wecht did not opine that Daye's chronic alcoholism and his impending D.T. s, as a result of the inadequate treastment of acute alcohol withdrawal, in an alcoholic patient. I suggest, both Welch and Holsclaw are imperfectly applied as suitable precidents for dismissing an interrvening cause in such a circumstance as Daye's accidental death. It was Dr. Wecht's opinion that his death was not a homicide . Crystal was convicted of murder because Nichols wrongly testified that he died as a direct complication of the stab wound, something easily provable to be false and not as a complication of his hospital admission for the wound treatment. In reality, it was a complication of the Hospital's actions , improperly treating his acute alcohol withdrawal. I feel confident any Judge , asked to rule on this, would concur with Dr. Wecht's opinion. As would any Jury presenterd with the facts, something that never happened in Crystal's trial, thanks to her inadequate, state appointed, legal representation. Please look again at Dr. Wecht's examples as to why your take and what you suggest is the position of the State is not medico-legally valid, especially when citing Welch and/or Holsclaw as a rationale.; January 3, 2025 at 9:47 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal:

Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade me? I do not control Ms. Mangum's fate.

You should be trying persuade the State of North Carolina. What are you doing to persuade them?; January 4, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: You should consider whether Dr. Harr's approach to this issue has been effective and whether it could be improved. As you know, he has limited his argument to a recitation of the treatment DUMC provided and Dr. Wecht's conclusion that the death was an accident. He has steadfastly avoided any discussion of Welch and other cases, even when the State has referenced it in its filings.

Do you think that it might be more effective to do what you are doing now? You are conceding that case law does exist, but arguing why it should not apply in this case. Dr. Harr has ignored case law altogether.

Why did you not suggest to Dr. Harr how his arguments might be improved? He could acknowledge the legal arguments that the State was making and then explain why the case law was improperly applied in this case.

Instead, you have encouraged him to rely exclusively on Dr. Wecht as his legal authority. Dr. Wecht is infallible. Any one who disagrees is acting in bad faith and is an asshole. Implying that your adversary is an asshole is not always the most effective form of persuasion.

Do you really believe Dr. Wecht is infallible and that his work should be accepted as true without discussion?; January 4, 2025 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny: How does the Brady rule affect the analysis in your post on January 3 at 9:47 AM?; January 4, 2025 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Why are you refusing to comment on Crystal's lie? You claimed she is the most honest person you know, yet we now know she is a liar. She was either lying about the assault, or she's lying about the recantation, but we now know that despite your assertions, she can, and will, lie when it suits her. Why should we trust anything she says at this point?; January 4, 2025 at 6:09 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Kenhyderal: "Nichols wrongly testified that he died as a direct complication of the stab wound"

I have not gone back to listen to his testimony, but I understood that Nichols testified that he died as a complication of the stab wound, not specifying whether it was "direct" as you allege or was indirect. The broad interpretation of Welch that the State appears to have adopted does not require that the complication be direct.

Is my understanding incorrect, or did you misstate Dr. Nichols' conclusion?; January 4, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal: "Please look again at Dr. Wecht's examples"

I found only one example in his report. He described a terminal cancer patient expected to die in the next week who was killed in an automobile accident on his way to the hospital for treatment. Are there others I missed?

I found this example to be extraordinary weak and not at all on point with the facts in this case.

I agree with your comments that the facts outlined in Welch are sufficiently different from the facts relating to Mr. Daye's death to raise valid questions about its applicability, but I find Dr. Wecht's example to be even further removed.

I assume that you were overly eager in your attempt to support Dr. Wecht's opinion and did not recognize the apparent hypocrisy in your conflicting reactions. Is that correct?; January 4, 2025 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: The commenter concludes that Crystal should have been found not guilty because the evidence did not prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can include this as proof of her exoneration in the next lawsuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeTr4AGzgM; January 4, 2025 at 10:49 AM
dhall said...: Any legal argument presented in court must be based on established legal principles (i.e. existing case law). This is why Welch was so important to the Mangum prosecutors.

As it stands today, Mangum has neither corresponding case law to support her argument, nor does she have competent legal representation.

It's obvious that neither Dr. Harr or Kenhyderal can or will provide either.; January 4, 2025 at 11:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: dhall said "Any legal argument presented in court must be based on established legal principles (i.e. existing case law). "----- Or , in Crystal's case by a reasoned judicial rulling based on the unique circumstances of her case , established legal statutes defining immdiate legal cause of death, being a consequence of all factors leading up to it , in an unbroken sequance and of course by common sense. The question, is admission to hospital of an alcoholic at risk of alcohol withdrawal, in legal terms, a legal contributing cause. Once again, bear with me; my example, if a beligerrant alcoholic accosts me and I push him away, causing him to stumble, fall and fracture his ankle and who then, after having his ankle set in Hospital, suffers acute alcohol withdrawal and medical malpractice in the treatment of hs impending D.T. s kills him, am I guilty of murder?; January 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina: Am I wrong ? For a Welch precident to come into play Daye would have to have been treated for a complication of the stab wound and/or it's tratment? Is a Hospital proscription of alcohol, in an alcoholic, a legal consequence that could directly lead up to a cause of death; January 4, 2025 at 3:40 PM
DHall said...: If you were arrested, charged, put on trial, found guilty by a jury of your peers, and subsequent appeals were lost. Yes, you would be guilty.; January 4, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny: Does the Brady rule apply to the example in your post on January 4 at 3:27 PM?; January 5, 2025 at 5:11 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: What does your legal research tell you about whether you are wrong?

You did not respond to several questions I asked. Please do so.; January 5, 2025 at 6:08 AM
Tyrone Rugen said...: Marina Lemmons --
Kenny's the guy that claimed Kilgo sent him money for CGM's bail via Western Union, with the "remitter on the W/U, as I recall, was "a" J.C. Kilgo".

He's also the guy that argued about lab tests results, when Mangum herself stated (in her book, no less) the lab tests in question never occurred.

Of course he's making sport of a serious issue being discussed. He's a troll -- regardless of his "registered blogger account".; January 5, 2025 at 8:53 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr/Kenhyderal - I stand by my January 4, 2025 at 11:37 AM statement.

Kenhyderal, if the best you can do is provide a make-believe scenario to support your argument, you've lost the argument.

Unless and until either you or Dr. Harr actually do research and can provide case law that supports Crystal Mangum, any argument (even one that contains Dr. Wecht's "infallible" opinion") will fail.

FWIW, I tried to find case law supporting Mangum's position. I won't provide how I did this research, as that might be considered "acts or activities constituting the practice of law in North Carolina...", but it CAN EASILY be done.

That neither of you have bothered to do so is unfortunate for Crystal Mangum.; January 5, 2025 at 9:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous posters 1-40-25 5:51 AM and 1-5-25 5:11 AM------ Not sure what the Brady Rule has to do with the posts you eferred to. Can you elaborate?; January 5, 2025 at 10:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Marina 1-5-25 5: 11 AM My research tells me there is no exact legal precident that would apply to a case, where treatment of a hospialized individual with acute alcohol withdrawal is or is not being an intervening cause. Dr. Wecht's opinion, with all the weight that brings to the question, is that it would be. Sorry for not answering questions you posted. I may have lost track. Could you repost those questions?; January 5, 2025 at 11:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Tyrone 1--5-25 8:53 Making sport of a serious issue? How so? If I recall you were here when Kilgo, a Crystal defender, was probably the most prolifiic poster here with a history of many hundreds of posts, almost daily, claiming he knew a person who witnessed the sexual assault of Crystal. Then he went to the trouble of deleting years of posts, at a time when they had to be done one at a time. He also changed his e-mail account and cancelled his google account. Scared off or bought off , I can only speculate. He did make a generous donation to Crystal's bail fund and when a bail-bondsman posted Crystal's bail as a gesture of goodwill, the funds raised, in trust, though a Raleigh Lawyer Mark Simeon, were refunded to the donors. In Kilgo's case he asked that the money go not to him but to Crystal.; January 5, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I am calling on Dr. Harr to recognize the winner of his challenge to identify the complications from the stab wound to which Dr. Aurelius referred. An anonymous commenter provided the correct answer less than two hours after Dr. Harr announced the challenge.

I encourage the winner to donate the winnings towards the payment of any fine that Dr. Harr may be assessed in connection with his violation of the court order.

I offer my congratulations to the winner and encourage other posters to extend their congratulations as well.

The challenge:

Nifong Supporter

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

I will write a cashier's check in the amount of one hundred-fifty dollars ($150.00) and send it to any commenter who can explain, to my satisfaction, the specific complication(s) from the stab wound Reginald Daye sustained and/or its treatment that led to his death. The explanation must contain facts of the case.

Keep in mind that my assessment, buttressed with agreement by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, is that no complication(s) resulted from the wound Ms. Mangum inflicted or its treatment. That it was the errant esophageal tube placement in treating Mr. Daye's delirium tremens which led to his brain-death/comatose state and subsequent removal from life-support and his actual death.

This contest is open to all individuals aged 18 and over.

As you were.

July 6, 2024 at 4:42 AM

The winning answer:

Anonymous

Sidney, you keep asking "What complications?" From Dr. Aurelius's affidavit it is quite clear. Mr. Daye's complications were alcohol withdrawal caused by him having to be hospitalized because Mangum stabbed him. You may try to say this is a totally different problem not tied to the stab wound, but it is not. Dr. Wecht's analogy in his report, stated that someone with terminal cancer on the way to treatment dies in a car accident and thus the accident caused that person's death not the cancer. This analogy is quite weak in my opinion and does not relate to Mr. Daye's death in any way. Mr. Daye died because a chain of events happened to him after being stabbed and admitted to the hospital. I believe that if you would have just let the legal representation Mangum had after her trial continue, without your intervention, then she might be freed or at least a reduced sentence. You could have started your mucking around after all her legal attempts failed with a real lawyer. But Mangum and you for some reason did not let that happen and thus all is lost. But you got great satisfaction from filing many lawsuits that were destined to fail.

July 6, 2024 at 6:13 AM; January 5, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Congratulations. Good, concise explanation.

I missed this answer. Sid musst of missed it as well, because he keeps asking the same question.; January 5, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Look at the posts on this thread: all from January 4. Times are 4:26, 4:52, 8:53, 9:32.; January 5, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny,

Please stop misspelling the word "precedent." Your consistent misspelling makes you look like an idiot.; January 5, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Well done!; January 5, 2025 at 1:10 PM
Tyrone Rugen said...: You can’t send money through W/U using an anonymous or fake name. You have to use a legal ID. So your claim about the remitter being “J.C. Kilgo” is false. Making a claim you know to be false regarding a serious issue is making sport of that issue.

The same is true of your claim about Mangum’s lab tests. You made a false claim without even bothering to check with the people ( your alleged “good friend”) involved.

Now you’re making claims about Kilgo with nothing to support them

You’re a troll.; January 5, 2025 at 1:14 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal:

The posters are just making fun of you. Your earlier discussion of the Brady rule was one of the most moronic legal discussions Most of us have ever seen.; January 5, 2025 at 1:30 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal:

I advise that you continue with your research. That answer will not result in Ms. Mangum's exoneration.; January 5, 2025 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: In light of your previous comments at this blog, are you sure you know what the Brady rule is?; January 5, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: kenhyderal:

Bravo! This is a fabulous post.

It is the perfect response to a poster claiming you are a troll (one who "makes sport of a serious issue being discussed"). You respond with inane blather about Kilgo. This post eliminates any uncertainty that you are a troll. Your answer would only have been clearer if you had responded "I, kenhyderal, am a troll. I am one of those making sport of a serious issue being discussed."; January 5, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Congratulations on a well deserved win.; January 6, 2025 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Why have you not acknowledged and recognized the winner of your challenge? It has been six months. You aren't trying to weasel out of paying, are you?; January 6, 2025 at 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...: My post at 4:03 was directed to kenhyderal.; January 6, 2025 at 4:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Why did you keep asking the question after it had been answered?; January 6, 2025 at 5:46 AM
dhall said...: Interesting point regarding Western Union, Tyrone.

I recall winning the "lab test" bet from Kenhyderal, (oddly enough, Kenhyderal sent the money to Dr. Harr, rather than contacting me and getting my address).

IIRC, Dr. Harr did NOT show me anything from Western Union -- rather he showed me what I think was a deposit slip with his (Dr. Harr's) name on it.

I can only assume that Dr. Harr did not show me the Western Union payment because (if there was one), it would have contained Kenhderal's real name.

For anyone interested, I told Dr. Harr to place the money into Crystal Mangum's prison account (JPay? Something like that). I never received confirmation that the money was deposited for her, but I trust Dr. Harr.; January 6, 2025 at 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course he is trying to weasel out of paying. He never had any intention of recognizing a winner because he is fundamentally dishonest.; January 6, 2025 at 7:23 AM
dhall said...: From the commenter on July 6th:
"I believe that if you would have just let the legal representation Mangum had after her trial continue, without your intervention, then she might be freed or at least a reduced sentence."

That is my long-held belief as well. Dr. Harr is directly responsible for Crystal Mangum losing at least her first two lawyers.
One of them because he posted attorney-client privileged communications on this blog.; January 6, 2025 at 7:41 AM

Wednesday, January 1, 2025

Dr. Harr's Struggle to Obtain Subpoenas Needed to Clear Crystal Mangum of Murdering Her Boyfriend

48 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me