Finally, I would like to mention that I believe that the discrimination against the lesbian couple at Cameron Village was despicable, and in no way did I intend to minimize its egregious nature when writing the blog.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Duke could learn a thing or two from York Properties
The blog that was posted on October 16, 2010, has been removed because it has caused grief to someone who I love very much. She asked me not to post the blog on the subject, but I thought that I could successfully navigate through the topic without causing distress for her, but that was not the case. I took much caution in writing the article not to cause offense, but I did, and for that I am truly sorry, and I offer her my deepest apology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
257 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 257 of 257"To blame Nifong for deciding to send over the rape kit for further testing is insane."
Uh... in his bar testimony Nifong said he has SBI sent over the rape kit.
His “primary interest” in going to DSI was “ferreting out” fingernail mixture; but felt that he had no choice but to give DSI everything—“didn’t worry too much” about specifics—“I figured they would know.”
WRONG AGAIN.
To the anonymous "99.9%" poster -- You are aware that the DNA found on the fingernail matched had a mixture from 14 people, aren't you? I'd suggest you look up a little something called "DNA transfer"...I'd also remind you that Meehan found HIS OWN DNA when he tested the rape kit. Meehan's contamination via "DNA transfer" had a much stronger profile than Dave Evans' fingernail profile.
What does this mean?
One more. I can not resist this.
Sidney, a few blogs ago you wrote about R. C. Soles.
You wrote in that blog that Mr. Soles was never charged with anything and that the media never reported on him.
Via the media I found that Mr. Soles was initially charged with a felony but was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor(just like Crystal Mangum after she stole a cab and, among other things, tried to run down a police officer).
I call your writing incomplete and deceptive. What do you call it?
From ROBOSPAMMER!!!
"To the anonymous "99.9%" poster -- You are aware that the DNA found on the fingernail matched had a mixture from 14 people, aren't you? I'd suggest you look up a little something called "DNA transfer"...I'd also remind you that Meehan found HIS OWN DNA when he tested the rape kit. Meehan's contamination via "DNA transfer" had a much stronger profile than Dave Evans' fingernail profile.
What does this mean?"
I was aware of all this.
My opinion is that Mr. Meehan was a more likely suspect than David Evans.
Mr. Nifong, however said he would make his case without evidence. So, since there was evidence against Mr. Meehan than was stronger than the evidence against Mr. Evans, maybe Mr. Nifong thought he shouldn't prosecute.
This blogger almost always seems to not understand the point of the discussion.
I have read a lot about DNA testing.
The DNA. Dave Evans could not be excluded from the fingernails. And yes, potentially many men would not be excluded. Possibly thousands.
But all other lacrosse players were excluded. Only Dave Evans was not excluded.
One cannot say that DNA Security stated that Evans did not match. They never said that.
The forensic evidence says that he could be a match.
That is very different than saying he was not a match.
The defense would have had to deal with this.
This was one piece in the narrative that the prosecution was developing.
Dave Evans had a scratch on his arm. Yes, it could have got there by a game.
She described someone attacking her from behind, etc. Yes, it could have been made up.
There were many ways to defend against all of these things. None of these things proved that Evans raped Mangum.
But what you cannot say is that the DNA fingernail forensic evidence proved that Evans did not rape Mangum. It doesn't.
And you cannot say that not excluding Evans from the fingernail exonerates him.
And you cannot say that an non-exclusion means there's no match.
It's these subtleties that get lost in this kind of hammering discussion.
The defense would have dealt with the evidence of non-exclusion.
But you can't say it was something that helped the defense.
Meehan's own DNA in there to me means that the whole testing was inaccurate.
The defense argued that Meehan's own DNA in there meant how intense the test that it could pick up everything and still did not find players DNA on the rape kit.
To me it means, (and this is only my opinion), that the test was contaminated. That either Meehan was incompetent or the testing could not be taken seriously.
Or that Meehan could have raped Mangum.
Here's another way to phrase it, the test that showed no players had DNA on the rape kit, was contaminated by the researcher.
How reliable is that test?
That's why the defense sought to show that Meehan's contamination meant how good the testing was, not how bad the testing was.
"But what you cannot say is that the DNA fingernail forensic evidence proved that Evans did not rape Mangum. It doesn't."
The question is, what proved that Dave Evans did do it?
Legally Mike Nifong's obligation was to prove that Dave Evans did do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why was DNA matching Dave Evans, i.e. excluding all other males by odds of at least 1 million to 1, not found on Ms. Mangum's person. The crime, I repeat again, as described was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left DNA. The failure to find DNA from Ms. Mangum's rape kit excluded David Evans as a perpetrator of the alleged rape.
My opinion is, you understand neither DNA testing nor the legal system.
"And you cannot say that not excluding Evans from the fingernail exonerates him."
Exonerates him from what? Nothing happened.
The point is not whether a non-exclusion result of a false fingernail found in the man's own waste basket "exonerates" him but whether it links him to any physical contact with Mangum whatsoever - being that it was used to determine probable cause.
Could Nifong ever demonstrate that the false fingernail was attached to Mangum?
"That's why the defense sought to show that Meehan's contamination meant how good the testing was, not how bad the testing was."
If the testing was indeed so good, then why do you not accept test results which were exculpatory.
The only male DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person did not match the DNA of the suspects. The suspects were excluded as sources of that DNA with a certainty of 100%. By any math, the evidence that did exclude David Evans was stronger than the evidence not excluding him.
How does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that David Evans was guilty?
There was no evidence not excluding Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty. The case for the innocence of Mr. Seligman and Mr. Finnerty was even stronger.
So, what would have proven them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Someone who really knew anything about DNA matching would be able to answer that question with something other than an ad hominem attack.
"Meehan's own DNA in there to me means that the whole testing was inaccurate."
You can not explain why Mr. Nifong proceeded with prosecution with nothing but unreliable eyewitness evidence.
Now you need to explain why Mr. Nifong sought evidence with a testing method which was unreliable.
Someone who understood DNA testing would not question the reliability of that kind of DNA testing.
"But all other lacrosse players were excluded. Only Dave Evans was not excluded."
Someone who understood the legal system would understand that not excluding someone as the perpetrator of the crime is not proof of anything. It does not establish probable cause that the individual committed the crime. It could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any honest, ethical, competent prosecutor would have understood that.
"And you cannot say that an non-exclusion means there's no match."
To be an exclusive match, the testing would have to establish odds of at least 1 million to 1 against any other individual being the source of that DNA. In an area the size of Durham county, odds of 1000 to 1 against any other man being the source of the DNA still means that thousands of other men were not excluded. That by any math is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What anonymous Pro Nifonger tries to dodge is, the odds against David Evans leaving DNA on Ms. Mangum's person are infinite, a 100 to 0 probability. Mathematically, that is greater than odds of 1 million to 1 of excluding any other man.
Anyone who understood the legal system and who understood DNA testing would realize that.
Anonymous says "None of these things proved that Evans raped Mangum."
Then robo-scammer attacks this poster saying that the DNA doesn't prove anything.
Is robo-scammer retarded?
I know he''s a paranoid. But he can't even understand when someone is agreeing with him.
"The point is not whether a non-exclusion result of a false fingernail found in the man's own waste basket "exonerates" him but whether it links him to any physical contact with Mangum whatsoever - being that it was used to determine probable cause."
It would be reasonable to believe, if male DNA could be found on a false fingernail attached to a female hand, then female DNA should be found.
Was Ms. Mangum's DNA ever found on that fingernail.
If not, it would exclude to a great extent the possibility that said false fingernail was ever attached to Ms. Mangum's hand.
That, in turn would create doubt that the male DNA on the female was the result of contact between the male and the female, let alone illegal forced intimate contact between the two?
Anonymous pro Nifonger, do you know if Ms. Mangum's DNA was ever found on the fingernail?
"Anonymous says "None of these things proved that Evans raped Mangum."
Anonymous pro Nifonger:
I did not leave that comment.
ROTFLOL
ROBOSPAMMER!!!
"And you cannot say that not excluding Evans from the fingernail exonerates him."
Any you cannot say that this convicts him.
I never said that "not excluding Evans from the fingernail exonerates him."
I said the exclusion of David Evans with 100% certainty as a source of the DNA found on Ms. Mangum's rape kit exonerated him.
ROBOSPAMMER!!!!
"Then robo-scammer attacks this poster saying that the DNA doesn't prove anything.
Is robo-scammer retarded?"
Anonymous pro Nifonger again shows he knows nothing by posting another ad hominem attack.
He does not know even whom he is attacking.
ROBOSPAMMER!!!
"I have read a lot about DNA testing."
But the only thing you can say in response to issues about the DNA testing is another ad hominem attack.
ROBOSPAMMER!!!!
"The forensic evidence says that he could be a match.
That is very different than saying he was not a match."
It is also a very different thing that there was a match.
If there was no exclusive match, there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.
That is especially true when the DNA recovered from Ms. Mangum excluded with 100% certainty any of the defendants as perpetrators.
Anyone knowledgeable about the legal system and about DNA testing would realize this.
"And you cannot say that an non-exclusion means there's no match."
No exclusion also means no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is especially true when the DNA result from the Rape kit excludes the defendants as perpetrators with 100% certainty.
Why would evidence from a fingernail outweigh evidence from the rape kit?
Anyone familiar with DNA testing and the legal system could answer the question. It doesn't.
"The defense would have dealt with the evidence of non-exclusion."
Wrong!!!!
The prosecution would have to have dealt witn the non-inclusion.
The prosecution has the obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Non exclusion is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone familiar with the legal system would understand that.
"But you can't say it was something that helped the defense."
Combined with the fact that the DNA recovered from the Rape Kit excluded the defendants as perpetrators by a certainty of 100%, it meant the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, Mr. Nifong tried to exclude that DNA evidence from the case.
Anyone familiar with the legal system would understand this.
DNA deposition can not be timed.
"But what you cannot say is that the DNA fingernail forensic evidence proved that Evans did not rape Mangum. It doesn't."
Combined with the fact that the DNA from the rape kit showed with 100% certainty that the Lacrosse defendants did not rape Ms. Mangum, it did nothing to prove the case.
What you do not understand is that the defense has no obligation to prove anything. Only the prosecution in a criminal trial has an obligation to prove. The prosecution has the obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone familiar with the legal system would understand that.
"DNA deposition can not be timed."
What does that mean?
"DNA deposition can not be timed."
If so, then how can Sidney argue that the DNA on the rape kit can not exonerate the defendants because it was deposited before the rape?
"And you cannot say that not excluding Evans from the fingernail exonerates him."
In case I have not said so before, this does not convict him. The prosecutor, to convict, must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence which only fails to exclude does not eliminate reasonable doubt.
"But all other lacrosse players were excluded. Only Dave Evans was not excluded."
What evidence included David Evans.
The obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecutor has to include David Evans. He did not do so.
"RUN KILGO RUN
DUCK KILGO DUCK
DECOMPENSATE KILGO DECOMPENSATE
MELT DOWN KILGO MELT DOWN"
Who is Kilgo and why would they need to run from anything?
"Who is Kilgo and why would they need to run from anything?"
Kilgo used to post on J4N. He would claim to have extensive intimate knowledge of the rape case. When challenged to reveal what he knew, kilgo would respond with really vulgar ad hominem attacks and then duck and run.
Anonymous pro Nifongdom acts like kilgo.
"Who is Kilgo and why would they need to run from anything?"
Kilgo does not want to admit he knows nothing, that he necer knew anything.
"Kilgo does not want to admit he knows nothing, that he never knew anything."
Didn't Kilgo once say he/she lived near the lacrosse party house?
He/she must know something, wouldn't you think?
"Didn't Kilgo once say he/she lived near the lacrosse party house?
He/she must know something, wouldn't you think?"
If Kilgo said he/she lived near the party house I would not believe it. Kilgo on multiple occasions said he/she had earth shaking news. Each time he/she was challenged to reveal it, he/she ran.
Wow. I'd run, too. No matter where I live.
People tend to run from madmen,
Wow, Sidney!
234 posts.
Someone is on the run.
Don't worry. As soon as you change this thread
we can start all over.
Whoopee ! !
Let's get drunk and hire strippers !
DNA deposition can not be timed.
"Wow. I'd run, too. No matter where I live.
People tend to run from madmen,"
If you can't stand heat, stay out of the kitchen.
If, unlike Sidney Harr, you do not have the courage of your convictions, don't advertise that you have any.
If you are unwilling or unable to back up what you say, then don't say it.
People who don't tell the truth run away from the truth when they hear it. They also those who tell the truth madmen.
Whatever else, Sidney Harr is not afraid to confront those who challenge him. Can the same be said of Kilgo?
"Wow, Sidney!
234 posts.
Someone is on the run.
Don't worry. As soon as you change this thread
we can start all over.
Whoopee ! !
Let's get drunk and hire strippers !"
Yeah Sidney. Let's get it on. I am ready to confront the anonymous pro Nifongers.
"Let's get drunk and hire strippers !"
The only one acting drunk at the Lacrosse party was Ms. Mangum, according to the statements of David Evans and Dan Flannery.
Whoever cited those statements as evidence of theft of Ms. Mangum's money never mentioned that.
That whoever never explained how those statements happened if Mr. Flannery and Mr. Evans were refusing to cooperate with police.
"DNA deposition can not be timed."
If true, then the non LAX DNA found on Ms. Mangum could have been deposited on 13-14 March 2006. If that is true, it would rule out with 100% certainty that any Lacrosse player ever raped Ms. Mangum. If that is true, then Mr. Nifong did prosecute innocent men while the real perpetrators got away.
Way to go Duke men's lacrosse !!!
Your latest SEX SCANDAL was the
Headline story on ABC News Nightline last night!
Oh the debauchery.
You know, I've read some of these posts.
Do you think the people who stop posting are not running, but bored with this neurotic poster?
I know I am.
I agree with last person about being bored.
It's like you get invited into a room for a discussion, you walk in and there's this guy with a lampshade on his head, screaming nonsensical words like Kligo and whatever, just giggerish, laughing, taunting and congratulating himself, drunk or high on something, smashing bottles against the wall, and it's like...
Umm... Okay, excuse me. And you back out , close the door and walk into the normal waking world.
Right. But at the same time as you're leaving, he's screaming at you that you have no guts. But you can't understand him because the froth around his mouth is so thick.
Talking to our selves again.
Now that is neurotic.
Anonymous said...
I agree with last person about being bored.
It's like you get invited into a room for a discussion, you walk in and there's this guy with a lampshade on his head, screaming nonsensical words like Kligo and whatever, just giggerish, laughing, taunting and congratulating himself, drunk or high on something, smashing bottles against the wall, and it's like...
Umm... Okay, excuse me. And you back out , close the door and walk into the normal waking world.
October 19, 2010 6:26 AM
Anonymous said...
Right. But at the same time as you're leaving, he's screaming at you that you have no guts. But you can't understand him because the froth around his mouth is so thick.
October 19, 2010 6:30 AM
Maybe we should do a comparative analysis of the lacrosse vs. baseball "equipment".
We have the data set. Are any of you lechers up for it?
Anonymous said...
"One more. I can not resist this.
Sidney, a few blogs ago you wrote about R. C. Soles.
You wrote in that blog that Mr. Soles was never charged with anything and that the media never reported on him.
Via the media I found that Mr. Soles was initially charged with a felony but was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor(just like Crystal Mangum after she stole a cab and, among other things, tried to run down a police officer).
I call your writing incomplete and deceptive. What do you call it?"
According to the media reports available to me at the time I wrote the blog, I may have been misled into making a misstatement. But what you should ask yourself is this: Why was the charge of shooting an unarmed man with his back turned and who was walking away and not a threat dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor? Why was no police report about the incident ever filed? Why was Mr. Soles never arrested (handcuffed) and taken to jail? Why did the North Carolina State Bar not launch an investigation based on his lack of judgment and criminality in the incident? The reason has to do with the state's tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color" which pampers the well-healed and crushes the downtrodden... the same system that selectively and unjustly disbarred Mike Nifong.
Thanks, everyone, for your lively, thoughtful, spirited, and mostly civilized debate on the topic.
Next, let's look into the written policy that the state used to tilt the playing field against the defendants. A policy long in place that has resulted in many of the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color wrongly being charged, convicted, and incarcerated.
YES ! ! !
We have crashed the Robo-Spammer ! ! !
WHOOO HOOO ! ! !
"Way to go Duke men's lacrosse !!!
Your latest SEX SCANDAL was the
Headline story on ABC News Nightline last night!
Oh the debauchery."
You know what, you're ABSOLUTELY right. The fact that some kids on the lacrosse team several years later had sex with a women who compiled a sex diary PROVES that everyone who ever played on the team is a debauched wretch who likely would rape any woman who came along.
Who needs probable cause? You're on the lacrosse team, you're a suspect! Think of Claude Rains' character (Renault) in Casablanca.
I love it when innuendo and bigotry replace reason!
"everyone who ever played on the team is a debauched wretch who likely would rape any woman who came along."
BINGO ! ! !
We have a Winner ! ! !
"BINGO ! ! !
We have a Winner ! ! !"
Thank you, Mr./Ms. Irrational Bigot. May I borrow your tinfoil hat?
Sidney said, "Why was the charge of shooting an unarmed man with his back turned and who was walking away and not a threat dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor? Why was no police report about the incident ever filed? Why was Mr. Soles never arrested (handcuffed) and taken to jail?"
Why was Ms. Mangum allowed to plead to misdemeanor charges after committing multiple felonies, amont them auto theft and assault with such auto on a police officer. In view of what happened to Ms. Mangum, what happened to Mr. Soles was not particularly extraordinary.
Why were Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans handcuffed and taken to jail when there was no evidence that they had ever committed any crime?
Was Mr. Soles offense done in his attorney as a lawyer? Really, explain to me why this should have resulted in disbarment? The statute says a criminal conviction must be shown to show unfitness to practice law. Mr. Soles said he was defending himself. Just as it is up to Duke University to determine what violates its policy on solicitation, it is up to the State Bar to determine unfitness to practice. If Mr. Soles was unfit to practice, how could Mr. Nifong, who deliberately prosecuted innocent men fit to practice?
Maybe you should ask Mr. Soles before passing judgment on him. Even a criminal is entitled to a defense before he/she is condemned. You condemn based on an incomplete review of what happened.
"Way to go Duke men's lacrosse !!!
Your latest SEX SCANDAL was the
Headline story on ABC News Nightline last night!
Oh the debauchery."
Way to go, anonymous pro Nifonger.
You are condemning the Lacrosse team over something not even relevant to the Alleged but never proven Duke rape case. You can not address the issues raised by the Duke case, like why were innocent men prosecuted without probable cause. So you sling dirt.
Can you notice all the soil you have accumulated on your own hands.
"You know, I've read some of these posts.
Do you think the people who stop posting are not running, but bored with this neurotic poster?
I know I am."
So why are you now posting another ad hominem attack?
ad hominy ad hominum ad hominy grits. ad hominy grits idso fatso hominy ad ad ad hominy ad hominy grits quid pro ip se fu ku ad hominy grit.
see, I'm intelligent.
"ad hominy ad hominum ad hominy grits. ad hominy grits idso fatso hominy ad ad ad hominy ad hominy grits quid pro ip se fu ku ad hominy grit.
see, I'm intelligent."
No. Anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks to answer questions shows no sign of intelligence, just symptoms of irrationality.
Sidney
Even if this were not a rape case, Mr. Nifong would have shown he was unfit to practice law.
He publicly proclaimed people guilty before he ever proved anything, jeopardizing suspects' right to a fair trial, risking that the case might be dismissed before it ever got to trial.
He threatened to charge people with criminal charges if they did not come forward with incriminating information. After that, anyone coming forward with such information would be tainted. The prosecution could not show that such a witness was testifying to the truth rather than to avoid criminal charges.
He did not, by his own admission, not interview the complaining witness in a timely fashion, allowing her memory to fail, again jeopardizing his ability to make his case.
He was one awful lawyer.
Post a Comment