justice4nifong: Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry

73 comments:

Anonymous said...: Ummm. Okay.

What does this have to do with the Harr et al v. Deberry lolsuit?; July 2, 2025 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Let me clarify my last comment. You state here that
"...on November 22, 2024, Harr and Mangum filed lawsuit in Federal
Court for the purpose of forcing the Durham district attorney to meet with
Harr and allowing him to present evidence of Ms. Mangum's innocence."

You didn't. Go read the "WHEREFORE" section of the document you posted on this blog at http://www.justice4nifong.com/exhibit/uLhtm63/htm63.htm

It contains 5 requests of the court -- NONE of them requesting DA Deberry meet with you.; July 2, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Specifically, the narrative and exhibits of evidence in the blog entry is what I planned on presenting to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry in support of Ms. Mangum's absolute innocence.; July 3, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

For about seven years I had been trying to meet with D.A. Deberry in order to present to her evidence of Ms. Mangum's innocence in the death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye. Because she would not meet with me, I filed a lawsuit to force her to do so. The lawsuit nearly requested certain parameters be followed that would make the meeting more formal than informal... e.g., to hold the meeting in open court (presumably under oath), compel both parties and witnesses be present, and to have a record made of the meeting. The fourth request had to do with an outcome which would essentially be for D.A. Deberry prove a crime for which Mangum was convicted, was, in fact, committed... or if unable to do so, work to vacate the conviction. A reasonable request, no?

Hope this provides sufficient edification.; July 3, 2025 at 5:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Your lolsuit doesn't ask for the Deberry to meet with you. It asks for a hearing and for the court to compel Deberry to attend that hearing.
The court (if it so desires) can hold a hearing, and compel her to attend...But she doesn't have to meet with you in order to do so.

Mangum has already been convicted by a jury of her peers. Asking DA Deberry to "prove" Mangum committed a crime is an attempt to retry her for the murder of Daye. This is expressly forbidden by the 14th amendment. You're asking the court to force Deberry to violate Mangum's 14th amendment rights in a lolsuit that accuses Deberry of violating those same 14th amendment rights.

So no, a totally unreasonable request.
Hope this provides sufficient edification.; July 3, 2025 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: She stabbed Daye, the Jury found that was not in self-defense, as a result of the stabbing, she went to the hospital, where Duke's malpractice killed him. She's not innocent. Under NC's laws, as has been repeatedly explained to you, she's guilty. Malpractice is not an independent intervening cause in NC. The law sucks, the law is harsh, but it is the law. Had she not stabbed him, or had the stabbing been justified, she'd not have been convicted. You keep obsessing about the cause of death - and ignore that she stabbed him, and the jury found that stabbing was not in self-defense, even though that was argued.; July 4, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I've tried to explain to you that the hearing would be a way to hold a formalized meeting between me and D.A. Deberry. The bottom line is to have dialogue between the two parties.

Just because Ms. Mangum was convicted by a jury of her peers, doesn't prove that a crime was convicted. I can prove, along with Dr. Wecht, that a crime was not committed in Daye's death. No one can prove a crime was committed because no one can identify a specific complication from the stab wound that led to Daye's death. The inability for the State to prove a crime was committed would automatically invalidate Mangum's wrongful conviction. Would you not agree?; July 5, 2025 at 10:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thank you for admitting that "Duke's malpractice killed Daye." Let's assume that the medical malpractice was not committed purposefully... in which case, the manner of death would be an accident. If the medical malpractice was done purposefully by hospital staff, then the matter of death would be homicide... but not by Mangum.

Additionally, I do not accept on faith your claim that "Malpractice is not an independent intervening cause in NC." Convince me by providing the statute in support of your assertion.

In a case in which treatment is being provided for a non-fatal injury, it seems only reasonable that catastrophic malpractice that results in death (e.g., unrecognized esophageal intubation) would definitely be an intervening cause. Without catastrophic malpractice death would not have ensued. Same with Mangum's case: Had Duke medical staff not initially intubated Daye in his esophagus while treating his delirium tremens, surely Mr. Daye would not have gone into cardiac arrest, suffered irreversible brain-damage resulting in a comatose state... which led to his elective removal from life-support and death hours later.

So, I do not accept your malpractice/intervening cause argument. If you can, prove me wrong.; July 5, 2025 at 11:03 AM
dhall said...: “Just because Ms. Mangum was convicted by a jury of her peers, doesn't prove that a crime was convicted”
The prosecutor did, in fact, prove to a jury of her peers beyond reasonable doubt that Crystal Mangum committed the alleged crime. This is why she is in prison.

“So, I do not accept your malpractice/intervening cause argument. If you can, prove me wrong.”

With regard to malpractice, that has been discussed many time on this blog. Go back to the blogs you created during Mangum’s trial and subsequent conviction and read the comments by Walt and others,
Your not accepting the malpractice/ intervening cause argument does not change Welch or Holesclaw.; July 5, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Allow me to present the paragraph of the jury instructions in which the judge introduces the elements necessary to find the defendant guilty of murder:

"Second, the state must prove that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death. A proximate cause is a real cause, a cause, without which, the victim's death would not have occurred. The act of the accused need not be the immediate cause of the death. A defendant is legally accountable if the direct cause of death is a natural result of the criminal act. Neither medically negligent treatment nor neglect of an injury will excuse a wrongdoer, unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death. In other words, the act complained of does not have to be the sole proximate cause of death nor the last act in a sequence of time. It is enough if the defendant's unlawful act joined and concurred with other causes in producing the result."

First, the nonfatal stab wound was not the proximate or real cause of Daye's death, for even without the stab wound Daye would not have died. The unrecognized esophageal intubation, however, was the real cause of Daye's brain-death. Had Daye's intubation not been esophageal, Daye would not have sustained brain-death.

Second, Mangum is not legally accountable because the natural result of the nonfatal stab wound to the side was not brain-death. The same cannot be said of an esophageal intubation wherein the natural result of an unrecognized esophageal intubation is invariably brain-death and subsequent death.

Third, medical malpractice in the unrecognized esophageal intubation was the sole cause of Daye's brain-death, and subsequent death, which obviates Mangum's stab wound being a liability in the matter. Also, consider that the malpractice was not related to treatment of the stab wound... the intubation was undertaken to treat Daye's delirium tremens.

Ergo, by jury instructions alone, Ms. Mangum should never have been convicted of murder.

Comprende?; July 7, 2025 at 8:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

In order to reach a larger audience, I have opened a Substack account. It is titled "World v. Crystal Mangum." I plan to upload articles every Sunday... my inaugural post being yesterday, July 6th. I will also continue to upload on this blog site. The Substack articles will be free of charge, but will require one to subscribe... my priority being to spread awareness rather than accumulate income. Like this blog site, the audience will be able to make comments. This is my first venture outside the blog site, and I hope it will be successful.

As you were.; July 7, 2025 at 9:07 AM
dhall said...: "On 22 November 2013, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of second degree murder and not guilty on the larceny charges. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 170 months and a maximum term of 216 months to be served in the custody of the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction."

The state proved to the jury's satisfaction that "the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death", and enough evidence for the jury to find Mangum guilty of second-degree murder.

The 5th Amendment (not the 14th as Anonymous @ July 3, 2025 at 6:36 AM suggests) prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. As Anonymous correctly states, "Asking DA Deberry to "prove" Mangum committed a crime is an attempt to [prosecute] her for the murder of Daye."
Look, I'm pretty much through arguing this with you. A civil suit will not free Crystal Mangum.
NCGS § 15A-1415 (b) covers allowances for a MAR made more than 10 days after entry of judgment. All of the medical treatment received by Daye was available at the time of the trial, so Dr. Wecht's opinion is not new evidence.

Comprende?; July 7, 2025 at 10:41 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

I am pleased that you are finally addressing the most important legal issue. You should have done this more than 10 years ago when you first became involved. I will explain why the state has concluded that Ms. Mangum is responsible for Mr. Daye’s death.

Your use of the jury instructions is a useful start. These model instructions are based on guidance in the Welch case that you have rejected as inapplicable.

You have a tendency to identify a single cause too late in the sequence of events as “the” proximate cause (there can be multiple proximate causes).

You first argued that Ms. Mangum was not responsible for Mr. Daye’s death because he died after he was removed from life support, and you identified this removal as “the” proximate cause of his death. Ms. Mangum was not responsible because she was not involved in that decision. The removal from life support is certainly “a” proximate cause, but clearly not the sole cause. Something precipitated the removal from life support.

Moving back in time is the esophageal intubation. The esophageal intubation went uncorrected long enough to result in his brain death. As a result, you identified the esophageal intubation as “the” proximate cause and argued that Ms. Mangum is not responsible.

I remind you: “Neither medically negligent treatment nor neglect of an injury will excuse a wrongdoer, unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death.”

The esophageal intubation is certainly “a” proximate cause, but not the sole cause. Something precipitated the need for intubation.

Moving back in time is Mr. Daye’s onset of delirium tremens. This resulted in breathing difficulties that required intubation. The onset of delirium tremens is certainly “a” proximate cause. Was there an event that precipitated the onset of delirium tremens?

Moving back in time is Mr. Daye’s admission to DUMC. He had a high blood alcohol level that DUMC improperly managed. This mismanagement resulted in the onset of delirium tremens. This mismanagement is “a” proximate cause. Was there an event that precipitated the mismanagement of his alcohol level? Was he admitted to DUMC specifically to treat the alcohol level or was he there for other treatment?

The primary reason for Mr. Daye’s admission to DUMC was to treat the wound he suffered when Ms. Mangum stabbed him. The surgery was successful, and the initial prognosis was for a full recovery. Although this prognosis is useful, it is not definitive. There are many examples of complications that resulted in deaths of patients expected to make a full recovery. In this case, complications included DUMC’s mismanagement of the high alcohol level, the onset of delirium tremens, the esophageal intubation, brain death and removal from life support.

Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye. That stabbing “joined and concurred with other causes in producing the result.”

I do not accept the state’s argument in its entirety. Several years ago, I encouraged you and kenhyderal to identify case law to support your conclusion that there is an intervening cause which severed Ms. Mangum’s responsibility for Mr. Daye’s death.

kenhyderal refused; you ignored me.; July 8, 2025 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: No movement on Harr et al v. Deberry.
Also no subscriptions or likes on Sid's Substack (he does have a whopping 6 reads, though).; July 9, 2025 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: " This is my first venture outside the blog site, and I hope it will be successful."
Considering that there are only 5-6 people that bother to read/comment on your sharts (whatever you call them) here, I'm sure your substack will be just as successful.; July 9, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the update on the lawsuit. I can confirm I have not received any mail from the court and neither has Crystal.

As far as the Substack goes, its purpose is to provide truths of Crystal Mangum's wrongful conviction. I am not like the successful MeidasTouch Network which is going for six millions subscribers. I am not like the Donald who is obsessed with ratings and/or number of subscriptions.

The fact is that the Substack has been in operation for less than a week. I am sure the number of subscriptions will increase in the future. I am not working on numbers of subscribers... I'm focused on putting out the best possible product.; July 10, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I consider the venture to be a success if I am able to provide a consistently high quality and informative product each week... publishing on Sunday. If I am successful in that objective, I believe the number of reads and subscribers will increase.; July 10, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

It is never my intent to ignore. Your insightful and detailed comments deserve well thought-out responses, which I often don't have the time to deliver. However, I will say that circumstances may have dictated Reginald Daye be intubated, but had Daye been properly intubated in his trachea initially, he never would have become brain-dead and would most likely have left the hospital on his own two feet.; July 10, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: ChatGPT supports the State''s conclusion that Ms. Mangum remains responsible for Mr. Daye's death. It was unable to identify any criminal cases in North Carolina in which medical errors were found to be an intervening cause.

The ChatGPT summary follows:

Legal Summary: Causation and Medical Error under North Carolina Criminal Law

Issue: 
Whether medical errors following a stab wound — including failure to treat alcohol withdrawal and a misplacement of an intubation tube — sever the defendant’s legal responsibility for the victim’s death.

Facts (Hypothetical): 
The defendant stabbed the victim, who was hospitalized with a non-fatal wound. The victim had a high blood alcohol level. Medical staff failed to properly treat withdrawal symptoms, leading to delirium tremens and the need for intubation. The intubation tube was erroneously placed in the esophagus, resulting in brain death. The victim was later removed from life support.

Legal Standard: Under North Carolina law, a defendant remains criminally responsible for a death if their conduct is a proximate cause, unless an intervening act constitutes a superseding cause that:

Is independent of the defendant’s actions;

Is unforeseeable or extraordinary; and

Is the sole cause of death.

Application:
The stab wound necessitated medical treatment. The subsequent medical negligence — though potentially significant — was a direct response to the injury caused by the defendant.

The victim’s intoxicated state and risk of alcohol withdrawal were reasonably foreseeable in a clinical setting.

Intubation complications are known medical risks and, even if executed negligently, are not sufficiently abnormal or independent to constitute a superseding cause.

The chain of causation is not broken unless the treatment is so grossly erroneous as to be the sole, independent cause of death — a high threshold not clearly met here.

Conclusion: 
The defendant’s original stabbing remains a proximate cause of death under North Carolina law. The intervening medical errors — though negligent — are legally insufficient to sever causation. The defendant retains criminal liability for the resulting death.; July 11, 2025 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Marina Lemmons -- Sid's response will be that ChatGPT didn't read Wecht's opinion...; July 11, 2025 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: "if I am able to provide a consistently high quality and informative product each week..."

You haven't met that goal in the entirety of this blog. I doubt your Substack will meet it, either.; July 11, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Your analysis is flawed..

Allow me to present the paragraph of the jury instructions in which the judge introduces the elements necessary to find the defendant guilty of murder:

"Second, the state must prove that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death. A proximate cause is a real cause, a cause, without which, the victim's death would not have occurred. The act of the accused need not be the immediate cause of the death. A defendant is legally accountable if the direct cause of death is a natural result of the criminal act. Neither medically negligent treatment nor neglect of an injury will excuse a wrongdoer, unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death. In other words, the act complained of does not have to be the sole proximate cause of death nor the last act in a sequence of time. It is enough if the defendant's unlawful act joined and concurred with other causes in producing the result.“

First, the nonfatal stab wound was not the proximate or real cause of Daye's death, for even without the stab wound Daye would not have died.

There is a typo here; I think you mean that even with the stab wound (but not the esophageal intubation), Daye would not have died. There can be more than one proximate cause. The question is whether the treatment for the stab wound ultimately led to the intubation or whether there was an intervening cause.

The unrecognized esophageal intubation, however, was the real cause of Daye's brain-death. Had Daye's intubation not been esophageal, Daye would not have sustained brain-death.

This is correct. However, “neither medically negligent treatment nor neglect of an injury will excuse a wrongdoer, unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death.” The “sole” cause of death requires that no prior event led to the intubation. As a result, your statement is irrelevant under the law.

Second, Mangum is not legally accountable because the natural result of the nonfatal stab wound to the side was not brain-death.

Mangum is legally responsible for all subsequent events, including the esophageal intubation, unless there was an intervening cause.

The same cannot be said of an esophageal intubation wherein the natural result of an unrecognized esophageal intubation is invariably brain-death and subsequent death.

Your statement is irrelevant under the law. The question is whether there was an intervening cause that severed Mangum’s responsibility for subsequent events, including the esophageal intubation.

Third, medical malpractice in the unrecognized esophageal intubation was the sole cause of Daye's brain-death, and subsequent death, which obviates Mangum's stab wound being a liability in the matter. Also, consider that the malpractice was not related to treatment of the stab wound... the intubation was undertaken to treat Daye's delirium tremens.

You contradict yourself in this paragraph. The esophageal intubation is the “sole” cause of death only if no prior event required the intubation. You then concede that the intubation was undertaken to treat Daye’s delirium tremens. The need to intubate as a result of the onset of delirium tremens means that the intubation was not the “sole” cause of death.

The more interesting question is whether the treatment for delirium tremens was related to the stab wound. Dr. Wecht concluded it was an intervening cause; most other observers, including the state, numerous commenters on this site and ChatGPT have concluded that the risk of alcohol withdrawal was foreseeable and therefore it is not an intervening cause.

Ergo, by jury instructions alone, Ms. Mangum should never have been convicted of murder.

This statement is false.; July 11, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Your response at 7/10/25 6:12PM to my summary of the state's conclusion as to why Ms. Mangum is guilty has convinced me that the state is correct. You have no meaningful argument against their case other than to complain that you do not think the result is fair.; July 11, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: I went back to ChatGPT and added the expert opinion that the onset of delirium tremens was an intervening cause that severed legal liability. ChatGPT did not change its conclusion. It concluded that the defendant remains legally responsible, but it conceded that the opinion might work with the jury.

However, I also asked whether a new opinion based on facts known at the time of the trial could result in a new trial. ChatGPT was extremely negative, noting that an opinion that is simply a new interpretation of known facts is almost never successful in obtaining a new trial. That is particularly true because Ms. Mangum had an expert opinion prior to the trial--Dr. Wecht's opinion is simply a new interpretation.; July 11, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: “I plan to upload articles every Sunday... my inaugural post being yesterday, July 6th. I will also continue to upload on this blog site”

Well, so much for that lofty goal.

“ Your insightful and detailed comments deserve well thought-out responses, which I often don't have the time to deliver”

Sid-speak for “I can’t disprove your argument, so I’m going to ignore it.”
Typical.; July 13, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Apologies. My bad. The negligence was mine. Not being familiar with Substack, I should have at least reviewed to see that my post was timely published. Unfortunately, I didn't. But thanks to viewers of this site, such as yourself, I became aware of the fact my second post went unpublished as was anticipated. I will assure such a mishap does not occur in the future.

Regarding replies to comments, it is my intent to do so with all. Clearly the comments of Marina Lemmons are lengthy and deserving of well-thought out responses. Ergo, when time permits, I will add a reply.

Thanks again for the notification.; July 14, 2025 at 12:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: NOTE: Forgot to mention that the second post on the World v. Crystal Mangum Substack should now be accessible.; July 14, 2025 at 12:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't waste your time on the substack. It's just a rehash of the documents Sid has posted here. How about this Sid -- you notify the readers HERE when you have something new posted THERE.

"Regarding replies to comments, it is my intent to do so with all. Clearly the comments of Marina Lemmons are lengthy and deserving of well-thought out responses. Ergo, when time permits, I will add a reply."

Sid-speak for “I can’t disprove your argument, so I’m going to ignore it.”; July 14, 2025 at 7:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

I do not think ChatGPT is quite yet ready to replace a judge or jury in resolving legal disputes. Though it provides applications of the hypothetical, I do not find its conclusions to be sound. For example, the stab wound necessitated medical treatment... true. But the subsequent medical treatment of the errant esophageal intubation was not directly related to the stab wound. The errant intubation, which occurred three days following successful surgical treatment was in response on an independent/non-injury related problem... delirium tremens. I submit, Reginald Daye had two medical problems on admission to the hospital: (1) acute stab wound to his left flank and (2) chronic alcoholism with acute intoxication. The first problem was successfully treated. The second problem was not, and allowed Mr. Daye to lapse into delirium tremens which required intubation... its procedure which was problematically compounded by errant esophageal intubation... further compounded by failure to recognize misplacement until Mr. Daye went into cardiac arrest.

Yes, intubations carry risk, the most catastrophic being failure to timely recognize an esophageal intubation. Such a failure, I would believe, is extremely rare, especially with utilization of a End-tidal CO2 monitor. Sadly, the staff relied on visual observation with a laryngoscope rather than the monitor and left the tube in place with its fatal outcome.

Finally, the chain of causation of the stab wound is broken because the esophageal intubation was, without doubt, the sole and independent cause of death!! Does anyone believe that a stab wound to someone's left flank would naturally result in brain-death? However, and esophageal intubation, if not recognized in time, will invariably result in death. In Daye's case, the errant tube placement was recognized before his actual death, but not in time to prevent his brain-death. Dr. Cyril H. Wecht and I agree with regards of the chain of causation being broken in this case.

Because of the above, ChatGPT's opinion is nothing more than BE. (Bovine Excrement)

ChatGPT is not ready for primetime adjudication.; July 14, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

I believe the sole cause of Daye's brain-death was the esophageal intubation. The esophageal intubation was not the result of treating his flank wound, but rather in treating his delirium tremens, which had no nexus to the stab wound.

Also, it is my position that Mr. Daye was admitted to the hospital with two medical conditions: (1) an acute stab wound to his left flank; and (2) chronic alcoholism with acute intoxication. Treatment requiring esophageal intubation was restricted only to treating his second problem... not his first. Postoperatively Daye's prognosis was for a full recovery.

Regarding the cause of death, delirium tremens was not a proximate cause of Daye's brain-death. It was the medical malpractice of an unrecognized esophageal intubation that was the proximate cause of Daye's brain-death. The reason Daye was removed from life-support had nothing to do with his left flank wound. He was removed from life-support because medical staff believed his brain-death comatose state was irreversible. You fail to consider that the direct cause of death was his elective removal from life-support.

It may be true that alcohol withdrawal (to the extent of delirium tremens) could have been foreseeable, but what is not foreseeable is that the highly trained medical staff utilizing an End-tidal CO2 monitor would fail to timely recognize an esophageal intubation.

I would still side with Dr. Wecht over the State, commenters to this site, and ChatGPT regarding the manner and cause of Reginald Daye's death.; July 14, 2025 at 7:38 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

On 7/14/25 at 7:38 am, you falsely claimed:

You fail to consider that the direct cause of death was his elective removal from life-support.

I have never failed to include in my analysis that Mr. Daye died after he was removed from life support in an elective decision.

Indeed, I referenced that event in my comment on 7/8 /25 5:54 am: "The removal from life support is certainly “a” proximate cause, but clearly not the sole cause. Something precipitated the removal from life support."

I do not know whether you deliberately misrepresented my position or you simply did not understand my argument.

I ask that you apologize for misrepresenting my arguments and explain how you reached the erroneous conclusion that I "failed to consider Dr. Daye's removal from life support. Your statement is clearly false.

I have other comments, but will not post them until I have received an acceptable apology and explanation for your error.; July 15, 2025 at 1:50 PM
dhall said...: "I do not think ChatGPT is quite yet ready to replace a judge or jury in resolving legal disputes."
On this we certainly agree,
"Because of the above, ChatGPT's opinion is nothing more than BE. (Bovine Excrement)"
That is certainly debatable. As Marina Lemmons pointed out on July 11, 2025 at 1:15 PM, ChatGPT "conceded that [Dr. Wecht's] opinion might work with the jury." I certainly think that had Dr. Wecht's opinion been available at the time of her trial, it would have worked in her favor. That's not "Bovine excrement".
I also agree with ChatGPT's conclusion when asked whether a new opinion based on facts known at the time of the trial could result in a new trial.
A number of more knowledgeable commenters here have come to the same conclusion.

Marina Lemmons -- I doubt Dr. Harr deliberately misrepresented you. It's more likely that he only read your last point and responded to that, rather than read your entire comments. Note how he doesn't address your individual arguments, as you addressed his.; July 17, 2025 at 6:50 AM
Anonymous said...: So much for Sid and CGM’s lolsuit against D.A. Deberry. It was dismissed yesterday for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).; July 18, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: For the record, I told you on May 21, 2025 at 10:51 AM that this was going to happen.; July 18, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Anony.

I plan on posting once a week on every Sunday morning.

The subject matter on Crystal Mangum's wrongful conviction is well known by visitors to this blog site. However, the majority of people have never seen this blog site, so practically everything on the Substack will seem to be fresh.; July 19, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Anony.

My Substack posts are published once a week on Sunday mornings. Although visitors to this blog site are familiar with documents related to Ms. Mangum's wrongful conviction, the majority of people are unfamiliar with this blog site and would find the information on Substack to be new and fresh.; July 19, 2025 at 4:43 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr -- Will you be posting Judge Flanagan's order dismissing Harr et al v. Deberry?
I saw that it was dismissed without prejudice -- do you plan to refile?; July 19, 2025 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: The only way Magnum gets released early is a gubernatorial pardon, a state court grant of a MAR, or a federal court grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Anything not aimed at one of those three results is wheel-spinning- including Sid’s ridiculous “World v. Crystal Mangum” substack.; July 20, 2025 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: For those interested, you can read it here:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncedce/5:2024cv00661/214495/22; July 20, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm guessing Sid is too busy with his substack (which has no views on the last 2 posts and no comments on any of them) to respond to the recent decision.

...Or he's out buying Duke blue crying towels.; July 21, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: No, he's drafting his next screed about how they are scared of him, because they keep arguing "technicalities." This all just fuels the conspiracy in his mind. Nevermind for years people have been telling him the same thing, and he makes the same mistakes over and over.

I don't think he's as dumb as his refusal to listen makes it seem. I think he is an abuser of Crystal, and uses all these failed efforts to manipulate her, and isolate her so that she only clings to him. It is classic abuser behavior - convince them that you are the only one who cares, the only one fighting. Crystal is right where Sid wants her - a literal captive audience.

No one honestly thinks the marriage will happen when she gets out.; July 22, 2025 at 3:32 AM
dhall said...: Thanks, Anonymous @July 20, 2025 at 8:08 PM; July 22, 2025 at 9:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

It is my position that the removal from life-support was not a "proximate" but a "direct" cause of Daye's death.

I would also contend that the esophageal intubation was a proximate cause of Daye's death, but the stab wound was not. I'm of the opinion that there's no nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain-death or actual death. However, the unrecognized esophageal intubation was clearly the direct cause of Daye's brain-death, and Daye's brain-death, which was considered to be irreversible, was the reason for his elective removal from life-support and his actual death.

Hope this provides adequate elucidation on the matter.; July 23, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Can we agree that Dr. Nichols committed perjury at trial when he twice stated Mr. Daye's spleen had been removed during emergency surgery, and when he said there were lacerations to Daye's stomach, diaphragm, and left kidney?

If so, can we then ask ChatGPT whether Ms. Mangum's conviction should be vacated due to those perjured statements by the prosecution's star witness... who by the way was earlier fired from his position while being considered for criminal investigation in other forensic cases?

That would be quite enlightening, I believe.; July 23, 2025 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

For the record, I received a copy of the ruling yesterday, Tuesday, July 22nd. I will also make note that on Friday, July 18th, being unaware, I mailed a letter to Clerk Peter Moore asking about when there would be some action on the case.
LINK: Letter regarding status of lawsuit against Deberry mailed July 18th -

My question is why the delay, other than for the sake of delay, for a lawsuit filed more than eight months ago for a ruling not based on merits of the case?; July 23, 2025 at 5:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Your "told you so" prediction is not as clairvoyant as you implied. To begin with, it is a strongly held opinion that pro se litigants face enormous headwinds from the courts regardless of merits of the case. In particular, Judge Flanagan has not been impartial and treated me and/or Ms. Mangum fairly.

Her recent adverse ruling was apparent to me when she construed Ms. Mangum's letter to be a "motion" for the purpose of ruling against it. I knew then that the black-rober would not rule in Mangum's favor.; July 23, 2025 at 5:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Thanks for the info. Although I received a letter from the court yesterday, I only opened the envelope to confirm its contents and didn't bother to read Judge Flanagan's Order and Judgment. The fact that she dismissed the case without prejudice I would consider a small victory of sorts, and though it leads the door open to refiling, I do not anticipate doing so at this time.

One of the other commenters provided a link, I believe, to the document. As you can imagine, with my Substack page, another priority in addition to obtaining Ms. Mangum's release, takes priority over nonessential acts.

Again, thanks for the info. I didn't anticipate the ruling to be without prejudice.; July 23, 2025 at 5:25 AM
dhall said...: No, Dr. Harr -- We can't agree that Dr. Nichols committed perjury. I've explained this numerous times.

Your only "proof" that he did relies on your ability to read minds from video and court room reports.; July 23, 2025 at 5:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

As you are aware, other than this blog site, the only other source of information about Ms. Mangum's murder case is my new Substack page. Clearly the corporate legacy (and all other) media has steered clear of Mangum's murder case as it is aware of her absolute innocence. Heaven forbid it publish an article that might lead to justice for the black Duke Lacrosse Accuser.

Substack is only one weapon in my justice-seeking arsenal.; July 23, 2025 at 5:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Thanks, Anony.; July 23, 2025 at 5:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anonys.

My purchase of Duke-blue crying towels is for the purpose of donating them to Mangum detractors who will be profoundly depressed when she prevails in the end.

As regards the marriage, in the spring of 2020, Crystal and I were in the midst of working with Corrections to arrange a prison wedding. However, the State put a kibosh on the nuptials using the Covid-19 outbreak as a reason. You should also consider the age span of more than thirty years is not conducive to a successful long-term relationship. Whatever transpires regarding our relationship will be what is in the best interests of Ms. Mangum. Consideration of one's partner above one's own interests is the essence of love.

Besides, I have Adonis.; July 23, 2025 at 5:44 AM
dhall said...: "...not based on merits of the case?"....
In order for a court to make a ruling "based on merits of the case", the court actually has to have jurisdiction over the case and the authority to grant the requested relief.

This has long been your issue with the court and your (quite frankly) ridiculous lawsuits. You don't recognize jurisdiction -- you don't recognize things as simple as the statute of limitations.
When these things are (rightly so) used to dismiss your lawsuits, you make claims like "little-known technicalities" or "not based on merits of the case".

These are YOUR failings -- not the failings of the court.; July 23, 2025 at 8:30 AM
dhall said...: How should the court have interpreted the letter from Crystal Mangum requesting the clerk to serve 5 subpoenas? Besides, the motion to dismiss had already been filed -- The court isn't going to serve subpoenas when the case could be dismissed.
There was a 3-month gap between the initial filing by you and the filing of the motion to dismiss by the defendant.
That you didn't request (or have Mangum request) the subpoenas earlier is entirely on you.; July 23, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: “Substack is only one weapon in my justice-seeking arsenal.”

I’m sure it will be as effective as all the other weapons in your “arsenal”.; July 23, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Your response at 7/23 4:46am was entirely unresponsive.

The post to which you replied noted that you had misrepresented my position and asked for an apology and an explanation. You provided neither.

I have never “fail[ed] to consider that the direct cause of death was his elective removal from life support.” Your statement falsely represented my position.

I ask again that you apologize for your false accusation and provide an explanation of how you concluded that I did not consider Mr. Daye’s removal from life support in my analysis. The term “proximate cause” includes the “direct” cause in addition to other prior causes that led to the direct cause.

You also owe me a second apology for your failure to respond appropriately to my request. Your summary of your opinion does not explain why you misrepresented my opinion.

dhall expressed doubts that you deliberately misrepresented my position. Initially, I agreed. However, your failure to apologize and explain causes me to reconsider that conclusion. I note as well that applying to you the standard you apply to Dr. Nichols “perjury” makes you guilty of deliberately misrepresenting me.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.; July 23, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: The best use of time, for those who support and care about Mangum, is to assist in preparing for her release and transition back into society.

She will need adequate, stable housing, household furnishings and supplies, clothes and etc. She will need a means of support - whether it be public assistance, disability and/or a job (or maybe job training). Someone needs to make sure she gets (and takes) her meds, take her shopping and to appointments. She may need some counseling. She will need people to call and visit and check in on her. Nothing is worse than being all alone in a strange, new environment with no money and no one to call or talk to. It's particularly hard for a person who has lived in a highly structured environment, like prison, and is now completely on their own, with no money, resources or structure in their life. Having a whole lot of time on your hands with nothing to do and no one to talk to, is a horrible place for anyone to be in. It's a recipe for disaster.

None of this will happen on its own and you can't rely on the State to do it. It will require time, effort and money.

Mangum is still relatively young and has many years ahead of her. But she is also out of second chances. If she gets arrested again, she will go back to jail or prison. She can either make something of her life, or she can spend the rest of it in prison, on the installment plan.

It's time for those who claim to care about Mangum to show it by giving her every chance to succeed. She needs support and good people around her. Frivolous lolsuits and quixotic pursuits are not helpful.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 24, 2025 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid dropped his Substack article on Sunday. There' still no comments on any of the articles he created -- of course, they are all rehashes of his previous posts here, so I doubt anyone who reads this blog will bother to comment.

Speaking of this blog, it looks like Sid has pretty much washed his hands of it. He hasn't bothered to post any comments (I'm sure there's been some) or respond to any here. My assumption is that he wants to drive everyone to his substack.
Oh well, maybe it's time the rest of us dust this blog from our shoes and move on as well. CGM will be out of prison in 7 months, and I seriously doubt she'll be relying on Sid for much after that. Hell, he can't even pick her up from prison when she's released.; July 29, 2025 at 7:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

You point out that there's been no comments on any of my Substack pages. The question I have for you is why have you not commented?

I have not washed my hands of this blog. The main reason I have not commented frequently is due to my workload. Trying to get Crystal out of prison is my numero uno priority! That includes letters, e-mails, appointments (whenever I can get them), weekly Substack pages, and other activities which come before responding to comments on this blog site. I take responding to comments seriously and responding takes a lot of time and effort. Also, after I receive a comment I usually give plenty of time to thinking about it prior to actually responding.

Question: Why can't I pick her up from prison when she's released? Please address this query.; July 30, 2025 at 4:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Abe.

Thanks for the advice... but at present, Crystal is still unlawfully incarcerated. So, my focus will be on getting her released.

Subsequently, in the event of an early release, she would face the same challenges you mentioned as she would when released in February 2026. Ergo, Ms. Mangum and I have been in discussion about these topics during weekly visitation. Naturally, I plan to help her with her immediate needs regarding housing, clothing, getting a driver's license, etc.

Regarding lawsuits and quixotic pursuits, I do not believe them to be frivolous. They may, in fact, provide the ultimate desired results. Surely you are familiar with the phrase "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." .. or as former NFL quarterback/commentator Chris Simms would say, "No risk it, no biscuit."; July 30, 2025 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus I believe is best represented by Dr. Clay Nichols' autopsy report on Reginald Daye.

I believe that we have a basic disagreement regarding the definitions of "proximate cause" and "direct cause." Personally, I would define "direct cause" as being the immediately preceding incident prior to death. I would consider all prior events that contributed to the direct cause to be "proximate causes" of death.

Unlike Trump, I have no problem with admitting mistakes and apologizing, but I fail to understand for what I would be apologizing. Let's move on from beating this dead horse.; July 30, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: "Question: Why can't I pick her up from prison when she's released?"

You have to have a vehicle to pick her up.
Otherwise, you're just riding along while someone else picks her up.

"Why have you not commented?" Two reasons
1) You're covering the same topics on Substack that you've already covered here, and I've already commented on them. It serves no purpose

2) You can't remain anonymous on Substack

Now..Who are you writing letters and emails to that you haven't written to already? Who do you have appointments with?; July 30, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid's at it again with his Substack. This time it's about how the 2 physicians "never testified at her 2013 trial"
Nowhere in his story does he say WHY they never testified (there were never asked to testify and were never subpoenaed).

He goes on to complain about the court "interference" with obtaining subpoenas to serve on the 2 physicians, but never once mentions that the cases for those subpoenas were civil cases brought against someone other than either of the 2 doctors or their employer(s) for violating his/CGMs civil rights.

He ends his screed with the statement "Nothing more than a notarized affidavit, reciting the truth with respect to their patient’s hospital stay, is required"

Tell us Sid -- how does any affidavit from either doctor prove that your/CGM's "fifth and fourteenth" amendment rights were violated by DA Deberry, prove that DA Deberry violated NCSB rule 3.8, or that DA Deberry committed obstruction of justice in State v. Mangum?; August 4, 2025 at 7:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It seems as though you are under the impression that I do not have a vehicle. If that is the case, then you are wrong. But, even if I did not own a vehicle, I could always rent a car.

Regarding Substack, there's so much that I haven't covered or barely touched with regards to many aspects of Mangum's murder case, and other related matters. For example, there's much you do not know about the extent the State and courts have gone through to deny me and Mangum subpoenas, the comparison of Mangum's case with other cases, the efforts to deprive me and Mangum of our due-process rights, etc.

As you may be aware, I am not totally familiar with Substack, so I do not know for a fact that one can comment anonymously... but I think you should be able to use a tag name..? I just don't know.

Finally, I do not have an appointment with anyone, and that is the problem. No one wants to meet with me for fear of hearing truths of Mangum's innocence. I try communicating with others I have communicated with in the past as well individuals I have not... such as newly elected NC Attorney General Jeffrey Jackson.

Hope you have been significantly edified.; August 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

You make my point for me. The problem is that Mangum's defense attorney never subpoenaed them to testify or even provide an affidavit. Both surgeons should have been called to testify in order to disprove Dr. Nichols' assertion that Daye died secondary to a complication (unidentified) from a stab wound Mangum inflicted.

Although in court testimony from the doctors would have been preferred, an affidavit should have sufficed to counter ME Dr. Clay Nichols' testimony and autopsy report claiming that Daye died secondary to complications of a stab wound.

DA Deberry violated the American Bar Association Rule 3.8 - Special responsibilities for a prosecutor by her willful avoidance of exculpatory evidence that could potentially vindicate a wrongfully convicted person.

Most importantly and obvious is that after being abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services on January 17, 2017, Mangum was denied post-conviction legal representation.

Hope you have been elucidated.; August 5, 2025 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: You are wrong, and the reasons why have already be provided to you. I'm not going to waste my time giving you the same info numerous others already have. You refused to be elucidated. That's on you.

If you want to know why no lawyer will accept CGM as a client, look in the mirror.; August 5, 2025 at 2:13 PM
dhall said...: It looks like the blog is winding down, so I'm stepping away. Good luck in your endeavors, Dr. Harr.

As Abe rightly pointed out, there's a number of things that Crystal Mangum needs as she gets closer to release. You should be looking into how some of these things can be provided, and by whom. Mangum should be finalizing her transition plans now -- not just starting them.

Dr. Harr, you have my email address if there's something (other than legal advice) that I can help you with.

Thank you all. It truly has been a pleasure.; August 14, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

You've been a valued asset to this blog site, and mutually I appreciate your contributions. If nothing else, please visit the site every Sunday and click on the button to access a new Substack article.

I have not given up on the blog site, but have poured what efforts I might have devoted to the blog site into the Substack... which has a free subscription. I will make contributions when I have time, but currently am fighting an imminent deadline by which to free Crystal.

What Crystal needs most is an attorney, but finding one has been next to impossible due to circumstances. No one wants to get involved.

Unless thing turn around soon, I will likely have a new blog post by the end of the month.; August 16, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I don't understand your mirror comment. There is a reason lawyers don't want to represent Crystal Mangum... a simple reason. They know she's innocent. If they accept the case, with the likelihood of her conviction being vacated, then there's the possibility of them being on the receiving end of retribution by the State. Face it... The State, courts and media do not want Ms. Mangum to be freed and exonerated. Why else would the Durham D.A. Satana Deberry and NC A.G. Jeffrey Jackson refuse to even meet with me?

Clearly, it is the State and courts that are depriving Ms. Mangum of legal representation... not the man in the mirror.; August 16, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: An affidavit would not have been admissible. You really don’t learn do you? And how do you know the attorneys did not speak with them?; August 17, 2025 at 3:53 PM
dhall said...: I know I said I'm stepping away, but I have to respond.

"What Crystal needs most is an attorney..."

No -- what Crystal needs NOW is to finalize her transition plan so that she has an idea about what to do and how to do it the day she steps out of prison.
Durham Reentry Council
252-514-4828 ext. 232

Wake Reentry Council
919-754-5373 / 984-275-7259 / 919-754-5342

NC FIT

Restorative Transitions

Center for Community Transitions; August 18, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Thanks for the well-intentioned advice. However, I am going to be focused on getting Crystal freed as soon as possible. Being exonerated will be the best medicine with regards to her reentry and rehabilitation... in my opinion.; August 20, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Jeez, Sid, whether she's exonerated or not, she STILL needs housing, employment, health insurance, and access to healthcare services.

These organizations dhall identified exist for people transitioning out of jail -- regardless of the reason WHY they are transitioning. There's absolutely NO REASON why she can't both prepare for release AND any exoneration AT THE SAME TIME.

Not assisting in preparing CGM to find these things is just another way to make her dependent on you -- and there's NOTHING you can do to prepare her to find a job or access to healthcare.
You should be ashamed.
I hope she has the opportunity to read this and see how poorly you've acted.; August 20, 2025 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum is not going to be exonerated before she completes her sentence. That much is certain. There is nothing pending before any court, tribunal or government official that could possibly result in her exoneration and release from prison prior to her February 2026 release date. Any petition, complaint or application filed or submitted now will not be decided before her release date. When she is released (whether it be at the end of February or tomorrow), what is the plan for her when she walks out of prison?

That is why the focus should be on preparing Mangum for a successful transition back to society and making sure she has the support she needs to enable her to lead a productive and law abiding life. She needs and deserves at least that much.

Mangum is out of breaks. If she gets caught shoplifting (because she doesn't have the means to support herself), the next altercation she gets into, the next car she steals, the next time she "pokes" someone with a knife, the next person whose clothes she sets on fire (or falsely accuses), the next time she is drunk and disorderly (because no one is making sure she gets and takes her meds), she will be arrested and she will wind up back in jail or prison again.

This is what I mean by "life in prison on the installment plan." I've seen people who served long sentences for serious crimes get released and end up spending the rest of their lives in and out of jail on trivial charges that would ordinarily result in fines or probation or a conditional discharge with community service and/or counseling. That is because they were not prepare for life after incarceration and they used up all their "second chances." I do not want to see that happen to Mangum. I don't believe anyone who posts here or reads this blog does.

If you wish to continue to pursue frivolous lolsuits after she is released and on her feet, that is your choice to make. You and Mangum can deal with the consequences of your repetitive, frivolous litigation and endless lawfare. It will be a sad and fruitless waste of time, but it is your (and Mangum's) time to waste.

Now is the time to make wise choices.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; August 21, 2025 at 7:12 AM

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry

73 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me