[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog1.html
Media bias against Crystal Mangum has been evident for some time… made obvious by the unflattering and misleading moniker given to her “the False Accuser.” This title which is almost always affixed to her name is false and misleading. She stands by her story that she was sexually assaulted in March 2006, and a court has not made a ruling in the Duke Lacrosse case, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.
However, the A.G. took an unprecedented step on April 11, 2007 of proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent,” a proclamation which was overreaching and which carried no legal weight. People in the legal profession and most media-types are aware of that and realize that only a jury, or a judge in lieu of a jury can determine “innocence” or “guilt.” If the Attorney General possessed such power, there would be no need to hold a trial. The A.G. could simply review the evidence presented by the prosecution and render a decision.
The media could barely contain itself, anxious to declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and/or “falsely accused.” Never mind that it was aware that it was misleading the public by declaring the defendants “innocent” and by labeling Ms. Mangum as the “False Accuser.” Its goal was to mold the minds of the gullible flock to believe that the determination of “innocence” had been legally reached and carried legal weight.
During the February 17, 2010 incident involving Crystal Mangum and her ex-boyfriend, the media toned down its coverage after realizing that the charges against her were a bunch of crock. A domestic violence call was placed to 911 by Crystal’s children because she was being beaten up by her ex. When police who responded became aware that Ms. Mangum was the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, all attention was focused on trumping up charges against her which would result in a lengthy jail sentence. So Durham Police, who were the only ones with motive, means, and opportunity, set clothes in the bathtub on fire, made no attempt to extinguish them, and called the Durham Fire department.
Police were so intent on trumping up charges against her that they purposely did not even address the fact that Crystal’s ex-boyfriend instigated the physical clash between the two by repeatedly punching her in the face.
Charges brought against Crystal by police were excessive and without merit, and she was placed under a million dollar bail. Media-types, aware that the charges against Mangum were bogus, devoted most of their news stories to re-hashing Mangum’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case… which also afforded the opportunity to mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.”
Although the charges against Ms. Mangum were pathetic, the jury sided with the prosecution on the misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather weight defense by Mangum’s counsel, the jury could not bring itself to wrongfully convict her of the arson charge, and Ms. Mangum walked away from court with a sentence of 88 days time served.
The city’s unjust treatment and incarceration of Ms. Mangum was the proximate cause of her losing her job, apartment, being dropped from graduate program at NCCU, losing custody of her children, losing personal property, and losing her independence. Furthermore, the notoriety from that case in combination with media vilification regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, made it impossible for her to just pick up from where she was at the time of her arrest on February 17,, 2010. She had trouble finding employment and someone willing to rent her an apartment. This situation spawned her ill-fated symbiotic relationship with Reginald Daye.
Reginald Daye, at 46 years of age, was 14 years senior to Crystal. From what I had been told, Daye’s reputation was anything but sterling. Sources told me that he had had run-ins with the law, that he was a heavy consumer of alcoholic beverages, that his alcohol induced drunken states had led to clashes with police, and that he had the capacity and a reputation for physically abusing women with whom he had relationships.
The media, however, refused to sully Mr. Daye’s reputation, printing and broadcasting only the positive… of which there was very little, and some fabrication. To my knowledge, there was never any mention of his criminal record, which I have been told is extensive. Yet, the media stresses Mangum’s record, and gives credence to the charges stemming from the February 17, 2010 incident in which she was an assault victim and against whom charges were trumped up.
In an ABC-11 online article, Reginald Daye was said to have been employed at the time of his stabbing, working at Scotts Painting and Decorating, however, my sources have informed me that he was unemployed at the time. It is further my understanding that he was two months behind in his rent payments when he met Ms. Mangum. In addition, it was Ms. Mangum who was employed, doing the only work she could get at the time, dancing. She had been attending a trade school in preparation of seeking another position which would be considered more socially acceptable. I was told that she was anticipating getting a sizeable tax refund, as well.
By moving in with Daye, she prevented his impending eviction and was able to provide shelter for herself and her three children. Whether or not an intimate relationship between the two existed, I do not know.
I was told that early Sunday, April 3, 2011, Crystal and Reginald were involved in an argument about money which she had earned. She wanted the money to go towards rent, and I believe a money order or check had been made out to go towards rent. He wanted the money to go towards something other than rent. Money that he had not generated. However, the media only reported that a search warrant stated that responding Durham police officers said Daye told them that Mangum stabbed him and took his money. This statement by Daye was evidently enough for police to charge Mangum with two counts of larceny, regardless of the fact that they were cohabiting and possibly in a relationship. Again, an example of aggressive over-charging by the Durham police.
According to WRAL 5 news, Daye underwent emergency surgery for his stab wound to the torso and was expected to make a full recovery. However, the wral.com article posted on April 5th, two days after the incident exhibited prime examples of shoddy biased reporting. The headline, for example, blares, “Police seize knives from Duke Lacrosse accuser’s apartment.” The apartment was, in fact, rented by Daye, and not Ms. Mangum… therefore, police seized knives from Daye’s apartment. By conferring apartment rental status to Mangum, it suggests that its contents belonged to her and not Daye. Mention was made of a set of brass knuckles, but reporters made no attempt to determine its ownership. My guess would be that the brass knuckles belonged to Reginald Daye. Ownership of the knives which were confiscated during the execution of the search warrant was not addressed in the article.
WRAL’s article further states that in the February 2010 incident Mangum was accused of assaulting a “different boyfriend” and setting his clothes on fire. This statement is disingenuous and misleading as Ms. Mangum was the victim of the assault, being repeatedly punched in the face in the incident instigated by her ex-boyfriend. WRAL is trying its best, along with other media, to establish a pattern of specific criminal conduct that does not exist.
As is usual media protocol, wral.com misled the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent. Not only that, but an attempt was made to give credence to the innocence declaration by stating that officials, plural, were responsible for the determination... but, in fact, the media had based its claim of Duke Lacrosse innocence solely on the April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper.
This article is a prime example of media reporting on a Duke Lacrosse case related story that is false and misleading throughout.
In addition to Reginald Daye’s criminal record which is publicly available to the people and media alike, a source of mine also procured a copy of Reginald Daye’s death certificate which lists the cause of death as “pending.” However, CNN writer Maria White, in her April 14, 2011 piece takes the liberty to mislead by claiming that Daye died “as a result of the stabbing…” Keep in mind, this is well after WRAL reported a couple of days post-op that Daye was “expected to make a full recovery.”
In an article in “The Daily Beast” by David Graham titled “Murder Charge Latest Twist for Duke Lacrosse Accuser,” a friend of Daye’s told the “Beast” on April 5th, two days following surgery, that Daye was recovering. The rumor in the Durham community was that Daye died due to something other than as a result of his stab wound… a rumor which is only logical. Whether Daye’s death was due to complications from another unrelated pre-existing medical condition, due to medical mistakes, or the result of premeditated homicide, it is unknown, but I believe it is safe to say that he did not die due to the stab wound he received on April 3rd.
For a death which has the potential for being the handiwork of a homicidal fanatic who might have been motivated by a strong desire to see charges against Mangum to be upgraded to murder, the Durham Police department and Durham County District Attorney’s Office seem to approach this incident in a lackadaisical manner. To my knowledge, the potential crime scene was not secured, surveillance cameras were not reviewed, and no steps taken to ascertain whether or not Daye’s care might have been intentionally compromised or sabotaged. Instead, without even having a cause of death, the prosecutors make a dash to the grand jury seeking an indictment on the charge of first degree murder.
According to the article in “The Daily Beast,” the Durham County Medical Examiner stated that an autopsy might not be available for 120 days, or roughly four months. And he stated that there would not be a preliminary autopsy report issued. The postmortem treatment of Daye by the medical examiner is not routine, and there is a reason for that… to conceal, to shield, to coverup, to obfuscate the truth. Rest assured, that had autopsy findings directly linked the Mangum-inflicted stab wound to Daye’s death, a final report would have already been published and eagerly carried by the media to the people.
Some media outlets try to suggest Daye’s April 13th death was a result of the wounds he received ten days earlier on April 3rd. ABC-11 News, which is extremely biased in its reporting stated that “Daye died days later..” suggesting that he succumbed to wounds sustained. This is an example of misleading media spin at its best.
David Graham’s article in “The Daily Beast,” is one of the most balanced accountings of the April 3rd story that I have seen. Unfortunately, like the rest of the mainstream media, it too insisted on referring to Mangum’s rape allegations as false… as though decided by a court of law. Duke law professor James Coleman questions the appropriateness of the first degree murder charge against Mangum that was handed down by the Grand Jury on Monday, April 18th. Taking their domestic relationship into consideration Coleman represented that a more suitable charge would be voluntary manslaughter.
I don’t know what kind of investigation the Durham Police Department undertook with regards to the stabbing incident, but with Daye’s criminal record (which I have been told includes an assault against a female) there is a great likelihood that the April 3rd stabbing was an act of self-defense on Crystal Mangum’s part.
There is no doubt in my mind that the authorities, courts, and media are, and have been, out to get Crystal Mangum because of her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case. The excessive overcharging, the exceedingly high bail, the secrecy with public reports, and biased, selective, and misleading reporting by the media has been engaged for the purpose of punishing Crystal Mangum because of her claims about being sexually assaulted in 2006.
The success in carrying out their vendetta against Ms. Mangum can be attributed in large measure to the silence of politicians representing Durham. To my knowledge, U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall have been silent and made no attempt to challenge the gross mistreatment of Ms. Mangum by the authorities and the court. Likewise, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP under state President Reverend Doctor William Barber has been quiet as dormice. As far as I know, women’s rights organizations and those which profess to protect battered women, stand by while Ms. Mangum is slaughtered by the state and the media. The viciousness of the attacks against Crystal Mangum rivals only those launched against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Although I am not a Durham County resident I have been appalled at the recent treatment of Ms. Mangum by the state, and on the morning of Monday, April 18th, I mailed letters to Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez and Durham District Attorney Tracy Cline advising them against seeking to indict Ms. Mangum in Reginald Daye’s death. I later learned that at the time I was dropping off my letter at the post office, a Grand Jury had been convened and had given the prosecution the murder indictment against Ms. Mangum that it had sought.
An indictment for first degree murder when the victim’s cause of death had not even been determined in a patient who postoperatively had the prognosis of making a full recovery. First degree murder wherein the victim and the offender were in a domestic relationship wherein the possibility of self-defense was not even considered by the authorities. First degree murder in which the victim was well on his way to recovery and close to discharge when he suddenly and without explanation lapsed into a deep and irreversible coma. First degree murder in a man whose death was without doubt not related to a stab wound he had received.
I wrote the letters to Lopez and Cline in hopes of preventing the murder indictment which I felt might come against Mangum, but which I strongly believed was based on irrational Duke Lacrosse case bias instead of the objective and fairly applied rule of law. Durham County, in a swirl of Duke Lacrosse aftermath litigation, is dead set on taking its frustration and hostilities out on Ms. Mangum, Mike Nifong, Mike Nifong supporters, and others with empathy towards Nifong. I have made my voice heard on the Duke Lacrosse-related issues, while the voices of Price, McKissick, Michaux, and Hall have remained silent. They remain hushed because they lack the will and the courage to protect their most vulnerable of constituents from the bullying and vindictive individuals in positions of power in law enforcement and the prosecutors’ office who are motivated to carry out the vitriolic vendetta against those perceived by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
Towards the unethical goal of unjustly saddling Crystal Mangum with a first degree murder conviction, the media is doing its part by portraying Reginald Daye in the best light possible… amplifying the good, concealing the bad, and giving an ambitious makeover on the ugly.
370 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 370 of 370Interesting.
Evans had a scratch on his arm in the NTO photographs taken on 3/23, but the DPD didn't notice the scratch (or he didn't have it) when they interviewed him and took DNA samples on 3/16. It would have partially healed by 3/23 and been less obvious at that time.
Are Gottlieb, Himan, Clayton and other DPD officers all incompetent?
Kilgo, how would a scratch obtained after 3/16 be relevant for an alleged rape on 3/14?
They did not do so [investigate the missing money] because they could not make a case for the theft
I disagree.
The DPD had enough evidence that an investigation (at least a cursory investigation) was merited, even if they believed that Mangum was not credible.
After the 3/16 execution of the search warrant and the interviews of the captains, they had should have investigated the allegation. There was agreement that the players had paid Mangum $400. Mangum had alleged that someone had taken it (at various times, she accused players or Kim of taking it, claimed she left it in Barfield's car, or deposited it in an ATM). When the DPD executed the search warrant, they found only a portion of it with her phone and make up bag. In his statement, Evans stated that two players had taken money, and he told them to replace it. He named the players.
That is easily enough to justify an investigation. The DPD did nothing.
If they believed that the rape allegation had any merit, the alleged theft provided an opportunity to obtain information from the accused players. They could offer to drop misdemeanor charges against players who took Mangum's money in return for testimony regarding the rape.
The failure of the DPD to conduct even a cursory investigation of the theft allegation demonstrates that either (1) Gottlieb, Himan and other DPD officers are all completely incompetent or (2) they didn't believe Mangum had been assaulted.
The most likely explanation is that they ignored the theft allegation to avoid discovering evidence which would completely discredit Mangum's rape allegation. In other words, they were attempting to frame players for a crime they did not believe had even occurred.
I see the failure of the DPD to investigate the theft allegation as additional evidence that the DPD attempted a frame.
Remember that each time that Kilgo discusses this allegation. Some of the players may have been guilty of misdemeanors; DPD investigators may have been guilty of felony obstruction of justice.
Kilgo, which is worse?
Sherlock2 said...
"The FoCM in Durham suggest that Sid use his resources to investigate why Chris Shella took over the Mangum case when he did. This takeover occurred immediately after Woody Vann--a past friend of Mike Nifong--was quoted expressing pondering questions about the autopsy and the delayed ME report. The media asked no questions. (Receiving a letter from another lawyer saying that I'm taking over your case isn't how a transfer is typically done.) Sid should remember real well the brouhaha he caused over Clayton Jones. Hint: A judge had to relieve appointed Vann. Who was the judge and why was this did done in secret?"
I was not responsible for any brouhaha or for Clayton Jones, the public defender, removing himself from Crystal Mangum's February 17, 2010 case. Surely his skin is thick enough to withstand a few letters of correspondence. I can understand a better reason for not wanting to represent Ms. Mangum... he did not want to throw the case in which he knew, or should have known, that the Durham Police were responsible for setting clothes on fire in the bathtub.
Anonymous said...
"Crazy Sidney, what do you think of this?
'I tell you, the more you hear about his[Nifong's] missteps, the more you have to question whether it’s purely a matter of incompetence or worse,' said JAMES E. COLEMAN[emphasis added], a law professor at Duke University who has been critical of Nifong."
Law Professor Jame Coleman is entitled to his opinion, and this is one with which I do not share. I am sure that we would agree on the prosecutions' incompetence and worse in the cases involving Gregory Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Alan Gell, Darryl Hunt, and others.
...
V I C T O R Y ! ! !
The Great Kilgo Remains Undefeated !
...
Kilgo,
You are undefeated. You keep providing more evidence that supports the theory that the DPD attempted to frame the defendants--Gottlieb's deposition, the theft allegation....
What other evidence do you have?
kilgo:
A lot of mugshots are viewable on line, including David Evans'. None of them show the suspects arms. The shots are all so small that a scratch would not be easily visible.
There is a strong suspicion you fabricated this scratch.
You have already fabricated a tale of your extensive knowledge about the false accusations directed against the Duke Lacrosse players.
From Sidney:
"Regarding Gell, yes. I believe that evidence was present pre-trial in the prosecutor's possession that should have led prosecutor David Hoke to dismiss the murder charge against him."
So, answer this question. Should a person falsely accused of a crime have to go to trial to determine guilt.
Further, if a person is falsely accused of a crime, why would he not be innocent of that crime.
My point should be obvious. The evidence of rape is non existent. Therefore there was no crime. Therefore the accused could not have committed said crime. Therefore, they ARE innocent as a matter of FACT and should not have to have gone to trial.
Again, I remind you, they were charged with first degree rape.
Anonymous @ May 3, 2011 6:04 AM.
With regard to my last comment(May 3, 2011 9:13 AM) I stand corrected.
Thank you for making the point, there is no evidence that a struggle on the night of 13-14 March of 2006 involving David Evans and Crystal Mangum.
kilgo again shows he is incapable of meaningful comment.
Sidney, with regard to my question about one falsely accused and a trial:
Irving Joyner is on record for opposing a change of venue for the trial of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had they gone to trial. His reasons were that a Durham Jury would have more black members and a Durham Jury would be more likely to bring in a guilty verdict.
Mr. Joyner was advocating the Defendants' Constitutional right to a fair trial.
Why should any criminal defendant have to have guilt determined by an unfair trial by a jury already biased to believe that defendant guilty?
Most of the pro Crystal people and pro Nifong people opposed a change of venue. I suspect you did also.
kilgo has never won anything in his life.
It is sort of like what was suggested once to end the Viet Nam war. Declare victory and then go home.
"I am sure that we[Sidney Harr and James Coleman] would agree on the prosecutions' incompetence and worse in the cases involving Gregory Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Alan Gell, Darryl Hunt, and others.
So quote something from Professor Coleman which would support your belief.
In any event, those other cases are irrelevant to the case in which Crystal Mangum falsely accused three innocent Lacrosse players of raping her.
Are you now stating, via your comparison, that Mike Nifong was incompetent and that his prosecution of the innocent men was unethical? If so, why should he not be prosecuted? Because others got away with the type of wrongs he perpetrated?
Your PAPEN is really: Prosecute Every Prosecutor Except Nifong.
Sidney, with regard to my question about one falsely accused and a trial:
Irving Joyner is on record for opposing a change of venue for the trial of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had they gone to trial. His reasons were that a Durham Jury would have more black members and a Durham Jury would be more likely to bring in a guilty verdict.
Mr. Joyner was advocating the denial to the Defendants of the Constitutional right to a fair trial.
This is what I should have posted at May 3, 2011 9:28 AM.
Why should any criminal defendant have to have guilt determined by an unfair trial by a jury already biased to believe that defendant guilty?
Most of the pro Crystal people and pro Nifong people opposed a change of venue. I suspect you did also.
Sidney, I say, what you really advocate is conviction of the Lacrosse defendants by a jury who believed in their guilt pre trial.
...
V I C T O R Y ! ! !
The Lacrosse Cranks are Humiliated
in the Sorrow of their Ignoble Defeat.
...
kilgo again declares victory and then runs away.
kilgo runs away from multiple failures.
kilgo fails to explain how a scratch detected ten days after an alleged assault implicates anyone in that assault.
kilgo fails to explain how DNA on a false fingernail is indicative of a rape.
kilgo fails to explain why forensic exam of the rape kit failed to show any evidence of the rape which was alleged.
kilgo fails to explain why the DNA found on the alleged victim did not match the DNA of any suspect.
I understand now why kilgo has been referred to as silly CHICKEN killy.
Sidney, has your friend Professor Coleman ever made any statement that AG Cooper's behavior was excessive or of no legal weight?
I think not.
Had he ever made such a statement, you would have published it.
Have you ever tried to have him make such a statement?
V I C T O R Y ! ! !
The GREAT ANONYMOUS Remains Undefeated !
The Silly KILGO is Humiliated
in the Sorrow of her Ignoble Defeat.
See? I can do this, too.
"Regarding Gell, yes. I believe that evidence was present pre-trial in the prosecutor's possession that should have led prosecutor David Hoke to dismiss the murder charge against him."
Syd is guilty of a double standard when it comes to the hoax.
Walt-in-Durham
Soooo....Crystal was supposed to appear in court today, but didn't, apparently due to "severe backaches".
..
As we await Sidney's ace reporting,
let us pause to remember another
Victim of the Lacrosse Culture
of Drunken Bullyness and Arrogant Entitlement,
Yeardley Love
killed at the hands of Virginia Lacrosse Player
George Huguely
one year ago today.
..
Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko.
Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko.
Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko.
Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko. Kilgo, stinko.
kilgo again shows he/she/it has no capacity to make meaningful comment.
kilgo, if we are waiting for Sidney's ace reporting, we have an eternity to wait.
Kilgo. If the lacrosse culture killed yeardley love, then the black culture killed that unc coed who was slaughtered by two black males a year ago and thrown in a ditch.
How utterly stupid can you be? The man who murdered ms love was a hate filled twisted killer The men who killed the unc coed were equally full of nothing but hate and disdain for human life. Neither of these crimes had anything to do with either sport or race. Both were all about deeply flawed individual character, control of and violence against women.
City to appeal lacrosse suit ruling
The Herald Sun
05.03.11 - 10:11 pm
By Ray Gronberg
DURHAM -- City lawyers have served notice that they're going to appeal a federal judge's ruling that allowed members of Duke University's 2005-06 men's lacrosse team to continue pursuing civil rights claims against Durham's government.
The city's legal team filed a formal notice of appeal in connection with the three ongoing lawsuits Monday. It came little more than a month after U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. ruled that the players' claims are plausible enough to merit further court proceedings.
A similar appeal notice came last Friday from lawyers representing former City Manager Patrick Baker, former Police Chief Steve Chalmers and other Police Department officials who were in the chain of command in 2006 as detectives were investigating stripper Crystal Mangum's [phony] rape allegation against the lacrosse team.
Details of what the city and the officials are appealing remain pending -- and likely won't surface until later this spring, or perhaps early in the summer.
The judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first formally have to ask the lawyers to explain why they should reverse Beaty.
The appeal will almost certainly delay proceedings in the three lawsuits.
Appellate reviews on the state-court level usually take a year. And the issues in the federal lacrosse cases are complex enough that it took Beaty, the first judge to review them, 10 months of study and 490 pages of analysis to sort them all out once the contending lawyers finished trading briefs.
Beaty's March 31 rulings were a win for the players because he stopped well short of embracing the city's contention that the lawsuits should tossed on governmental-immunity and other grounds.
The judge left open the possibility that he someday might agree to dismiss most or all of the players' claims. But he said he wouldn't be able to make that decision, one way or another, until the contending sides establish and explain the underlying facts.
That means trading documents and depositions about how police, other city officials and former District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the investigation of Mangum's rape allegations.
Beaty singled out as perhaps the most serious allegation against the city the players' claim that authorities fabricated or rigged evidence to bolster Mangum's charges.
That, he said, involves "significant abuses of government power" that merit a factual inquiry because they're "exactly the type" of conduct the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is supposed to prevent.
kilgo, in other words the City of Durham is still desperately trying to avoid having discovery take place.
If they did nothing wrong, why have they hired lawyers to keep them from the opportunity to exonerate themselves in open court?
I predict you will run from this, just like you have run from every real issue in this case.
Syd, where is your great expose on the victim's criminal history? The world waits.
Walt-in-Durham
oh yeah, Kilgo....I lest we forget....I guess we should all blame football culture for the murders OJ carried out! Ooops, I forgot, he was innocent. And Ike never beat up Tina. And Madonna is still a virgin. And Mangum is just a "hard workin' single mom trying to get through graduate school and take care of her three kids"
Come on, Kilgo.....get your meds adjusted.
Anonymous said...
From Sidney:
"'Regarding Gell, yes. I believe that evidence was present pre-trial in the prosecutor's possession that should have led prosecutor David Hoke to dismiss the murder charge against him.'
So, answer this question. Should a person falsely accused of a crime have to go to trial to determine guilt.
Further, if a person is falsely accused of a crime, why would he not be innocent of that crime.
My point should be obvious. The evidence of rape is non existent. Therefore there was no crime. Therefore the accused could not have committed said crime. Therefore, they ARE innocent as a matter of FACT and should not have to have gone to trial.
Again, I remind you, they were charged with first degree rape."
First of all, the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not go to trial. In the Alan Gell case, prosecutors had exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not have committed the murder, and they concealed that evidence from the defense and proceeded ahead with the prosecution.
In the Duke Lacrosse case, it has not been proven that a sexual assault did not occur. The Attorney General made the decision to dismiss the charges. That is his prerogative, but to declare the defendants "innocent" is exceeding his bounds and is unheard of. The problem is that the media began misleading the masses into believing that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been adjudicated to be "innocent." That was not the case.
Walt said...
"Syd, where is your great expose on the victim's criminal history? The world waits.
Walt-in-Durham"
Hey, Walt.
Got a little side-tracked. Defendants in my discrimination case filed a Motion to Dismiss, so my attention has been diverted. The flogs (Flash blogs) are time-intensive in their own right, so I should hopefully have it posted at the earliest on Thursday... and at the latest Saturday.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, I say, what you really advocate is conviction of the Lacrosse defendants by a jury who believed in their guilt pre trial."
I have not and never have advocated for the conviction of the Duke Lacrosse defendants because I do not know if they are innocent or guilty. A trial was never held and evidence never presented. What I do advocate is justice for a prosecutor who was selectively and singularly mistreated by the State and the State Bar, and cruicified in the media. I seek justice for Mike Nifong and others who are innocent and have been mistreated by the NC justice system.
"have not and never have advocated for the conviction of the Duke Lacrosse defendants because I do not know if they are innocent or guilty. A trial was never held and evidence never presented."
The question is, why should they have had to go to trial when they were falsely accused?
Your heartburn over calling them innocent screams that you believe they are guilty.
Your heartburn over no trial shows you believe they should have go to trial.
De facto, you wanted them tried in front of a biased jury.
"Got a little side-tracked. Defendants in my discrimination case filed a Motion to Dismiss, so my attention has been diverted."
Why are we not surprised?
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, has your friend Professor Coleman ever made any statement that AG Cooper's behavior was excessive or of no legal weight?
I think not.
Had he ever made such a statement, you would have published it.
Have you ever tried to have him make such a statement?"
Professor Coleman and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong. I would not expect him to be critical of A.G. Cooper's "innocence promulgation" and would not ask him to comment on it. Even if he were willing to make a statement, and I felt that it would be possibly be professionally or otherwise detrimental to him, I would not publish it.
I am not licensed by the Bar... and I am retired. Therefore, I can pretty much say what I want without dire consequences. I try to protect others, as well. Especially individuals whom I consider to be friends.
"In the Duke Lacrosse case, it has not been proven that a sexual assault did not occur."
Sidney, you reveal hear your bias.
You would have denied the defendants the presumption of innocence.
For a case to go to trial, the prosecution has to show probability that a crime DID occur. That it was not proven a crime(sexual assault) did not occur has, in your words, no legal weight.
You obviously did not run this past your so called friend James Coleman before you posted this.
"The Attorney General made the decision to dismiss the charges. That is his prerogative, but to declare the defendants 'innocent' is exceeding his bounds and is unheard of."
Sidney, get some legal education before you again go up against Duke's Attorneys.
You admit there was no evidence of rape. You say the case should have gone to trial because a sexual assault could not be disproven. Who did you think should have disproven the alleged crime? Obviously you believe the defendants should have.
Did Alan Gell have to prove he did not commit murder? No. However, there was a murder.
In the Lacrosse case there was no crime. The best you can say about sexual assault is, it could have happened without leaving evidence. Ask your friend Professor Coleman. That is not enough to take a criminal case to trial.
The alleged crime was rape. There was no evidence of rape. There was, by your own de facto admission, no evidence of sexual assault. Forensic examination showed no crime had occurred.Therefore, there was NO reason to suspect guilt. As a matter of FACT, not proclamation, they were innocent..
I say again, in the face of no evidence, you believe the Lacrosse defendants are guilty and should have been tried by a biased jury.
Sidney, to my previous comment, I add, it is way out of line for a prosecutor to take defendants to trial when he had no evidence of the crime with which they were charged. Mr. Nifong had no evidence. He only allegations from a non credible witness who COULD NOT reliably identify any of those accused. Certainty does not equal reliability.
Sidney, with regard to your assertion, sexual assault had not been disproven, ask your friend Professor Coleman who has the obligation to prove in a criminal case.
In connection with my last comment, since when has a criminal defendant required to go to trial to disprove a crime had happened?
Plus, Mr. Nifong did wilfully withhold evidence which was exculpatory.
"I seek justice for Mike Nifong and others who are innocent and have been mistreated by the NC justice system."
Why do you advocate injustice for the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants.
There is no doubt in my mind you advocate they be tried for a crime which did not happen before a biased jury who likely would have convicted them.
"The problem is that the media began misleading the masses into believing that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been adjudicated to be 'innocent.' That was not the case."
Sidney, the question is, why should the case have been adjudicated by a court. Via your statement, that a sexual assault had not been disproven, you yourself have admitted Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present.
Name an ethica;l attorney who would have taken a criminal case to trial when there was no evidence to present?
Sidney, you have a real legal incompetent representing you in your lawsuit.
"I have not and never have advocated for the conviction of the Duke Lacrosse defendants because I do not know if they are innocent or guilty."
If you say they should have gone to trial because they could not disprove a crime had happened, you admit they could not have been found guilty.
Why do you say a trial should have happened when there was no evidence of a crime?
"First of all, the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not go to trial."
On the one hand, via your own words, you do admit there was no evidence they had committed any crime.
On the other hand, you do say they should have gone to trial.
Talk about one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
Mangum lawyer mum on venue
The Herald Sun
05.03.11 - 10:11 pm
By John McCann
DURHAM -- The lawyer representing slaying suspect Crystal Mangum isn't commenting on whether he'll seek a change of venue for his well-known client, and Monday in court he told a judge the voice on a recorded exchange from the prosecutor's side of the case is not Mangum's.
Defense lawyer Chris Shella said Mangum hasn't made an official statement about her murder charge.
Durham County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Gauger acknowledged the mistake regarding the recording and said it would be noted for correction.
A grand jury last month indicted Mangum on charges of murder and larceny.
Mangum is accused of stabbing a Durham man said to be her boyfriend, Reginald Daye.
According to earlier reports, police officers were called on April 3 to 3507 Century Oaks Drive. They got there and found Daye, 46, had been stabbed in the torso with a kitchen knife.
Daye was taken to Duke University Hospital and treated for serious injuries before dying days later, according to the reports.
The larceny charge Mangum is facing has to do with the alleged theft of a money order, Durham Police Department spokeswoman Kammie Michael said.
Shella also told Durham County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson he hasn't been able to take a look at the crime scene because the police and the prosecutor have given him the runaround.
Outside the courtroom, Mangum supporter Victoria Peterson questioned why Mangum is in jail on a charge of murdering Daye when the medical examiner's report doesn't list a cause of death. And Peterson wants Mangum's $300,000 bond lowered so she can get out of jail.
Peterson also was a supporter of Michael Peterson, the former Durham mayoral candidate and writer sentenced in 2003 to life in prison for killing his wife. She said Michael Peterson was able to get out of jail prior to his murder trial, and Mangum should have the same opportunity.
Mangum was not in the courtroom Monday. Mangum was the woman who falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players in 2006 of rape. The three later were exonerated by the North Carolina attorney general.
"Mangum was the woman who FALSELY[emphasis added] accused three Duke lacrosse players in 2006 of rape. The three later were EXONERATED[emphasis added] by the North Carolina attorney general."
kilgo finally reported something true, even if he was quoting a newspaper article.
..
"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant
more ignorant and the crazy crazier."
H. L. Mencken
..
"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant
more ignorant and the crazy crazier."
H. L. Mencken
And kilgo is a perfect example.
"First of all, the Duke Lacrosse defendants did not go to trial. In the Alan Gell case, prosecutors had exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not have committed the murder, and they concealed that evidence from the defense and proceeded ahead with the prosecution."
Sidney, even the evidence you said was not exculpatory showed no rape had occurred. Yet Mr. Nifong tried to prosecute three innocent men for that non existent rape. How do you justify that?
"The lawyer representing slaying suspect Crystal Mangum isn't commenting on whether he'll seek a change of venue for his well-known client..."
The FOCM would oppose changing the venue to one which they could not influence.
Sidney, I put this to you again.
You have said that a sexual assault could not have been disproven.
How does that justify charging anyone with said sexual assault and taking them to trial?
Sidney, answer this question.
How could Mike Nifong have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a fair and unbiased jury that any Lacrosse player had perpetrated a sexual assault on Ms. Mangum?
As Irving Joyner's quote indicated, a Durham Jury would not have been fair and unbiased.
Sidney, do you think Ms. Mangum should be tried by a jury which would be more likely to deliver a guilty verdict?
" I do not know if they are innocent or guilty. A trial was never held and evidence never presented."
Unless Nifong concealed some more evidence, all the state's evidence has been presented and it failed to amount to enough to even go forward with a prosecution. I would not put it past Nifong to conceal more evidence, he's just that dishonest. However, he lost control of the case to the Special Prosecutors and it appears they went through everything the state had.
Turning to the evidence, we had a series of failed and flawed identifications by Crystal. That makes the DNA critical to the state's case, if they are to have one. For, without a reliable visual identification of the perpetrators, the state has to rely on scientific evidence to prove identity. The SBI and DNASI were able to isolate several distinct strands of DNA that could be used to identify any perpetrators. That evidence did not match any of the defendants. No identification, no prosecution.
But, the case does not fail just on identification. There is the problem of the basic story. Crystal continually changed her story about the circumstances including the rape or sexual assault. That problem alone would not doom the case if there was corraborating evidence to at least a version of events. Say some forensic evidence. But, here like the identification issue, there is no corraborating evidence. Worse, there is a great deal of contradictory evidence to each version of Crystal's story. In short, the case doesn't add up.
If there was a rape, it did not happen on Buchannon Street. It did not happen on the night of March 13-14. It did not involve any lacrosse player from Duke.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, to my previous comment, I add, it is way out of line for a prosecutor to take defendants to trial when he had no evidence of the crime with which they were charged. Mr. Nifong had no evidence. He only allegations from a non credible witness who COULD NOT reliably identify any of those accused. Certainty does not equal reliability."
So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect.
Also, just because a person may have credibility issues in the past does not preclude them from being victimized by sexual predators. Would you suggest that anyone with a past history of credibility issues be excluded from complaining about an assault?
Anonymous said...
"In connection with my last comment, since when has a criminal defendant required to go to trial to disprove a crime had happened?
Plus, Mr. Nifong did wilfully withhold evidence which was exculpatory."
It is the role of the jury to determine whether a crime has been committed and if the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Regarding Mike Nifong withholding exculpatory evidence, that is a media misconception spread via Jedi mind-tricks.
Anonymous said...
"'The problem is that the media began misleading the masses into believing that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been adjudicated to be 'innocent.' That was not the case.'
Sidney, the question is, why should the case have been adjudicated by a court. Via your statement, that a sexual assault had not been disproven, you yourself have admitted Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present.
Name an ethica;l attorney who would have taken a criminal case to trial when there was no evidence to present?"
I never said Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present... because I don't know what evidence he had. I was not privvy to the investigation.
With regards to ethical prosecutors, Mr. Nifong is the paragon of one. Unethical prosecutors include Bill Wolfe who wrongfully prosecuted James Arthur Johnson, Tom Ford who wrongfully prosecuted Greg Taylor, David Hoke who wrongfully prosecuted Alan Gell, and Michael Parker who wrongfully prosecuted Floyd Brown.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, do you think Ms. Mangum should be tried by a jury which would be more likely to deliver a guilty verdict?"
If the case goes to trial, I think Ms. Mangum should be tried by an unbiased jury, preferably in a jurisdiction outside of Durham.
"In connection with my last comment, since when has a criminal defendant required to go to trial to disprove a crime had happened?"
The answer (note Sid fails to answer this) is "Never."
In America, a defendant cannot be convicted unless the government has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--but also must instruct on the presumption of innocence--by informing the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent.
"If the case goes to trial, I think Ms. Mangum should be tried by an unbiased jury, preferably in a jurisdiction outside of Durham."
Where do you think the Lacrosse defenders should have been tried? In Durham before a jury biased to return a guilty verdict or before an unbiased, fair jury?
Why would you think Crystal's enablers would want her tried outside of Durham? They would have little to no influence on a jury from outside Durham.
Why have you never taken Irving Joyner to task, for saying the Lacrosse defendants should be tried before a jury which was more likely to return a guilty verdict?
"Mr. Nifong is the paragon of an ethical prosecutor"??? This statement wins the 2011 award of the DUMBASS COMMENTS FROM THE APPARENTLY TERMINALLY IGNORANT category. Let's see.....hmmmm, found guilty of lying to a judge, withholding evidence, making prejudicial statements.....disbarred, sent to jail......hmmmm. Yup, a paragon!
As Bill Engvel would say, "Here's your sign"......
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
Sidney, how does this prevent innocent people from being falsely accused?
The principle is, whoever asserts must prove. In a post many months ago, kilgo pointed out that the accusing witness does not have to rove. The state has to prove.
Further, the defendants have no obligation to prove or disprove anything.
If the prosecutor can not show the crime took place, he can not prosecute. His obligation to prove means he has to prove the crime occurred and that the accused did it. The standard he has to meet is beyond a reasonable doubt.
An alleged assault victim may file suit against the alleged assailants in civil court. The alleged victim WOULD have to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the assault did take place. Otherwise the alleged victim would not win his/her case.
These are all precautions to prevent innocent people from being harmed by false accusers like Crystal Mangum.
If you doubt this, check with your friend, Professor Coleman.
"With regards to ethical prosecutors, Mr. Nifong is the paragon of one."
Sidney, Mr. Nifong prosecuted without evidence of a crime, without evidence implicating those accused of said crime. How does become a paragon of ethical an ethical prosecutor?
"Also, just because a person may have credibility issues in the past does not preclude them from being victimized by sexual predators."
There was no evidence that any Lacrosse player was a sexual predator.
Crystal's credibility problem arose from the rape allegation itself, not from any previous behavior.
Let me retell the story.
Post party, Crystal was in Kim Roberts' car. Kim Roberts called 911 and reported that males at 610 N. Buchanan called her and her girlfriend "n----r". She did not report a rape.
She then drove Crystal to a Kroger parking lot. There she had the police called to remove Crystal from her car. She did not drive Crystal to a police station(there was a station closer than the Kroger).
The olice who responded did not think Crystal had been raped. They thought Crystal was intoxicated and took her to the Durham access center. There a nurse asked Crystal had she been raped. Crystal said yes.
After the initial yes, Crystal waivered between yes I was raped and no I wasn't before deciding on yes I was.
In initial lineup procedures, she could not identify with 100% certainty any Lacrosse player as an assailant. She did identify Brad Ross as a party attendee, even though he had not been at the party.
That does not add up to a credible allegation of rape.
"I never said Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present... because I don't know what evidence he had. I was not privvy to the investigation."
I said you de facto admit Mr. Nifong had no evidence of rape, no evidence of sexual assault.
I say this in response to your statements, namely:
Mr. Nifong prosecuted for sexual assault.
Mr. Nifong did not need evidence of rape to prosecute for sexual assault.
Mr. Nifong was justified in prosecuting because sexual assault could not be disproven.
If Mr. Nifong did have evidence which he did not reveal, he did violate Open Discovery and Brady versus Maryland. He also lied to the court when he told them he had given the defense everything he had.
You claim that Mr. Nifong released everything he had to the defense. Why do you claim now that he might have had evidence of which you know nothing?
"Unethical prosecutors include Bill Wolfe who wrongfully prosecuted James Arthur Johnson, Tom Ford who wrongfully prosecuted Greg Taylor, David Hoke who wrongfully prosecuted Alan Gell, and Michael Parker who wrongfully prosecuted Floyd Brown."
How about Tracey Cline who prosecuted Leon Brown? The Jury in that case told Ms. Cline she had wasted their time because she had no case to start with?
"It is the role of the jury to determine whether a crime has been committed and if the defendant is guilty of the crime."
You have got that wrong. The Jury determines whether or not someone charged with a crime is guilty or not guilty.
What you seem ignorant about is that when there is no evidence of a crime pretrial, when there is no evidence incriminating the accused, a prosecutor may neither charge the individual nor take him/her to trial. Why else do we have things like grand juries, probable cause hearings, pretrial conferences and motions.
Regardless of what you have actually said, you have no knowledge of any evidence that Crystal Mangum was raped, was sexually assaulted, or that any Lacrosse player was a perpetrator.
So explain why any Lacrosse player should have been charged or tried for a sex crime against Ms. Mangum.
Ms. Mangum's word, even if credible, was an allegation, not evidence. Her identifications were not reliable.
"Regarding Mike Nifong withholding exculpatory evidence, that is a media misconception spread via Jedi mind-tricks."
Are you again maintaining Mr. Nifong turned over to the defense all the evidence he had?
If so, why do you claim you have no knowledge of the evidence he had?
If Mr. Nifong had evidence he did not turn over, you have no basis for claiming Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence.
Regardless of whether or not Mr. Nifong turned over all evidence, there was ample public evidence to establish that the alleged crime had not happened, thst no LaCrosse player ever assaulted her,
That establishes Ms. Mangum as a false accuser, It establishes that Mr. Nifong had no probable cause to charge yhe Lacrosse players or to take them to trial.
Sidney, let's put this to you in a different way.
Even if a sexual assault could not be disproven, how could it have been proven. It could not have been proven to a fair, unbiased jury only on the basis of Ms. Mangum's allegations or her identifications.
You seem to be saying in a different way, Crystal should have gotten her day in court. Where in the Constitution or in the Law that one has a right to accuse another of a crime and then have the accused then simply charged and tried?
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
If someone says, I have been severely beaten all over my body, but medical exam reveals no evidence of a severe beating, then why should anyone be charged with a beating?
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
Sidney, what established any Duke Lacrosse player as a suspect. Her allegations were not credible. The id's she made were not reliable.
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
Sidney, you seem to be saying, if the prosecutor can not establish probable cause that a crime occurred, he should have the complaining witness simply identify someone, then the prosecutor should charge that identified individual and take him/her to trial.
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
If a prosecutor can not establish probable cause that a crime was committed, what justification does he have to name anyone as a suspect?
"So in other words, unless an assault victim can prove that he/she has been assaulted, then the prosecutor should not charge any suspect."
Does the prosecutor has to take measures to insure an innocent individual is not charged?
How can he do that if he can not first establish a crime actually happened?
"I never said Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present... because I don't know what evidence he had. I was not privvy to the investigation."
Sidney, I said Mr. Nifong had no evidence to present. I say again, what was alleged was a rape. the perpetrators of the alleged crime would have left evidence on the rape kit. They would have left their DNA.
Forensic examination revealed no evidence of a rape. The only DNA recovered did not match the DNA of any Duke Lacrosse player.
By simple logic, the only conclusion possible is, there was no rape. To say there is a possibility that it was a sexual assault short of rape which left no evidence is ridiculous.
If you say you were not privy to the case file, you say you have no first hand knowledge of any evidence of either a rape or sexual assault short of rape. So your statements that a sexual assault could have occurred without leaving evidence, or that a sexual assault could not be disproven, are meaningless.
Mr. Cooper was privy to the case file. That makes his statements, that there was neither corroborating evidence to the crime, that there were no corroborating witnesses to the crime, that he and his investigators believed the accused were innocent, were significantly meaningful.
Isn't it about time for more meaningless babble from kilgo?
..
Why you all are doing
a very fine job, thank you.
..
kilgo emits more inane babble.
? ? ?
How do you Rape a Stripper ?
? ? ?
kilgo again shows he is incapable of meaningful comment.
little squirmy wormy quacky kilgo, here is your chance to again declare victory and run away:
How does a scratch detected on a man ten days after an alleged assault implicate the man in said assault?
How does a DNA possibly from a certain male found on a woman's false fingernail implicate that man in an alleged rape of that female, especially when the DNA of multiple males was found on that fingernail?
If a rape did occur, why did forensic examination of the rape kit reveal no evidence of that rape?
Why was the no DNA from the accused found on the rape kit?
Why did the only DNA found on the rape kit match none of the accused?
Where is the new post, Sidney?
Anonymous said...
"'I seek justice for Mike Nifong and others who are innocent and have been mistreated by the NC justice system.'
Why do you advocate injustice for the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants.
There is no doubt in my mind you advocate they be tried for a crime which did not happen before a biased jury who likely would have convicted them."
Regarding the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I do not advocate on their behalf neither for nor against. What I find abhorent is the mainstream media's blatantly misleading statements that the defendants have been found to be legally "innocent." That is what I find objectionable.
As to advocating for Mike Nifong and other innocents of the NC justice system, such as Erick Daniels, Greg Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, and Floyd Brown, I would hardly consider putting the Duke Lacrosse defendants in such a category as they never served a day in jail, and enjoy $20 million each as a result of their irresponsible debauchery of March 13, 2006.
Anonymous said...
"'If the case goes to trial, I think Ms. Mangum should be tried by an unbiased jury, preferably in a jurisdiction outside of Durham.'
Where do you think the Lacrosse defenders should have been tried? In Durham before a jury biased to return a guilty verdict or before an unbiased, fair jury?
Why would you think Crystal's enablers would want her tried outside of Durham? They would have little to no influence on a jury from outside Durham.
Why have you never taken Irving Joyner to task, for saying the Lacrosse defendants should be tried before a jury which was more likely to return a guilty verdict?"
If the Duke Lacrosse defendants were scheduled to go to trial, and their attorneys felt the jury pool and local public sentiment woud be adverse to them prevailing, and if they thought another venue would be more to their advantage, then they should seek a change of venue.
With regards to Irving Joyner's statement, I am not familiar with it or the context in which it was made. Could you send a link which references it?
Anonymous said...
"Where is the new post, Sidney?"
I have just filed my response in my lawsuit against Duke. I anticipate the latest flog will be posted later in the day tomorrow, Saturday, but most assuredly Sunday at the latest. Thanks for your patience, but in order to make the flog interesting, informative, and entertaining, it takes a lot of time. It's just about ready.
"Regarding the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I do not advocate on their behalf neither for nor against. What I find abhorent is the mainstream media's blatantly misleading statements that the defendants have been found to be legally 'innocent.' That is what I find objectionable."
Sidney, your blog does advocate that the Lacrosse players are not innocent, that they should have gone to trial.
Like little wormy squirmy kilgo, you are ducking and running.
What is objectionable to referring to the Lacrosse players as innocent? Why should they have gone to trial? That you call it objectionable to call them innocent shows you advocate against them.
The fact is the crime of which they were accused never happened. Therefore they could not have committed that alleged crime. Therefore they are in fact innocent.
"If the Duke Lacrosse defendants were scheduled to go to trial, and their attorneys felt the jury pool and local public sentiment woud be adverse to them prevailing, and if they thought another venue would be more to their advantage, then they should seek a change of venue."
They did move for a change of venue, something Irving Joyner opposed
"...I would hardly consider putting the Duke Lacrosse defendants in such a category as they never served a day in jail, and enjoy $20 million each as a result of their irresponsible debauchery of March 13, 2006."
You do advocate against the Lacrosse players, as this quote shows.
You were not at the party, so you have no first hand knowledge of any debauchery.
Since you never spent a day in jail as a result of your run in with Duke authorities, how can you claim tou were damaged.
If Duke hadn't done anything wrong, why would they pay each of them
$20 million? Wouldn't it have been less expensive to defend the case in open court?
Defendants in a civil lawsuit usually settle with plaintiffs with such an amount because they can not defend their actions in open court.
Why should the Duke defendants have been arrested and charged in the first place? There was no evidence of a crime.
Since you were never even arrested as a result of your encounter with Duke, how can you claim to have suffered harm?
"As to advocating for Mike Nifong and other innocents of the NC justice system..."
By your own criteria, Mr. Nifong is not innocent.
He was tried in a fair trial before the state bar and found guilty of multiple ethics violations.
he was tried in open court for criminal contempt and found guilty.
Your advocacy of Mr. Nifong, your advocacy against the innocent Lacrosse players, demonstrate beyond doubt you do not understand guilt or innocence at all.
Sidney, give us a hint of how you responded to the motion to dismiss. Based upon what legal theory/theories, why should your suit go forward?
Syd wrote: "As to advocating for Mike Nifong and other innocents of the NC justice system, such as Erick Daniels, Greg Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, and Floyd Brown, I would hardly consider putting the Duke Lacrosse defendants in such a category as they never served a day in jail,..."
But for the fact that they did not spend a night in jail (they were jailed) there is no difference. The lacrosse defendants benefitted from the fact that they could afford thorough representation. That is an indictment of the system of indigent defense in this state, not proof that they are somehow guilty of a crime. Of course, there has always been a touch of envy driving Nifong and his cronies.
"... as a result of their irresponsible debauchery of March 13, 2006."
There was no debauchery the night of March 13-14 2006. There was a fraud though begun by Crystal Mangum when she untruthfully described a rape that did not take place when or where she said it did nor by people she said did it.
A fraud made into a fiasco by the dishonest Mike Nifong who deceitfully prosecuted three innocent men for a crime that never took place.
Nifong, the worst of the worst when it comes to dishonest deceitful prosecutors.
Walt-in-Durham
..
Wow !
Hiring two women to strip naked
and fondle each other on your
living room floor is not Debauchery
anymore.
..
litte wormy soquirmy quacky kilgo says:
"Hiring two women to strip naked
and fondle each other on your
living room floor is not Debauchery
anymore."
That would be debauchery.
However, outside of the hiring of Kim Roberts and the false accuser Crystal Mangum, there is no evidence of debauchery. By all reliable accounts, the performance was too boring to be considered debauchery.
hey, little wormy squirmy quacky kilgo:
A couple more episodes of your meaningless babble and we'll have 300 comments n this blog posting.
Surely you can afford the effort to give us some more meaninglessness.
motormouth
little wormy squirmy quacky kilgo, let's make it necessary for only one more example of your babbling.
You are again ducking and running from relevant questions:
"How does a scratch detected on a man ten days after an alleged assault implicate the man in said assault?
How does a DNA possibly from a certain male found on a woman's false fingernail implicate that man in an alleged rape of that female, especially when the DNA of multiple males was found on that fingernail?
If a rape did occur, why did forensic examination of the rape kit reveal no evidence of that rape?
Why was the no DNA from the accused found on the rape kit?
Why did the only DNA found on the rape kit match none of the accused?"
..
Well they could have used a Broomstick !
How about a Lacrosse Stick ?
Eewwweee ! !
Is that Debauched enough
for our Farm Animals ?
..
squirmy wormy quacky little kilgo produces comment number 300, another example of meaninglessness.
There was no evidence anyone actually parpetrated that kind of debauchery.
The only individual associated with the lacrosse false rape case was Houston Baker.
little wormy squirmy kilgo again ducks and runs when confronted with the evidence which shows Crystal was a false accuser.
What I should have said:
squirmy wormy quacky little kilgo produces comment number 300, another example of meaninglessness.
There was no evidence anyone actually parpetrated that kind of debauchery.
The only individual associated with the lacrosse false rape case who behaved like a farm animal was Houston Baker.
..
Yes, let's skin those b*tches
and cum into our Duke issued Spandex !
Whoopee ! ! !
..
little squirmy wormy quacky killy runs farther away from the truth about the Duke Rape Case false accuser.
Kilgo, you are a master debater.
..
Okay Lacrosse fans.
Here is your homework for the weekend.
Answer this question:
How do you Rape a Stripper ?
Is it even Possible ?
..
little squirmy wormy quacky kilgo retreats even farther from the truth.
little wormy squirmy quacky kilgo, here are again questions which deal with the truth of the Duke rape case.
"How does a scratch detected on a man ten days after an alleged assault implicate the man in said assault?
How does a DNA possibly from a certain male found on a woman's false fingernail implicate that man in an alleged rape of that female, especially when the DNA of multiple males was found on that fingernail?
If a rape did occur, why did forensic examination of the rape kit reveal no evidence of that rape?
Why was the no DNA from the accused found on the rape kit?
Why did the only DNA found on the rape kit match none of the accused?"
This was supposed to be in the previous post.
Squirm kilgo squirm
Run kilgo run.
Duck kilgo duck.
From kilgo:
"How do you Rape a Stripper ?
Is it even Possible ?"
It is not possible for anyone to commit the rape alleged by Crystal Mangum and not leave evidence.
Anonymous said...
"'If the Duke Lacrosse defendants were scheduled to go to trial, and their attorneys felt the jury pool and local public sentiment woud be adverse to them prevailing, and if they thought another venue would be more to their advantage, then they should seek a change of venue.'
They did move for a change of venue, something Irving Joyner opposed"
Irving Joyner has the right to his opinion regarding venue. I feel that venue, wherever it is, should give the defendants the benefit with jury pool and jury selection. The judge in the James Arthur Johnson case, in which Joyner was also involved on behalf of the defendant, refused Joyner's motion for a change of venue from Wilson, which was highly divided racially in that case. (By the way, the Family and Friends of Brittany Willis still owe Johnson the $20 thousand reward.)
Anonymous said...
"'As to advocating for Mike Nifong and other innocents of the NC justice system...'
By your own criteria, Mr. Nifong is not innocent.
He was tried in a fair trial before the state bar and found guilty of multiple ethics violations.
he was tried in open court for criminal contempt and found guilty.
Your advocacy of Mr. Nifong, your advocacy against the innocent Lacrosse players, demonstrate beyond doubt you do not understand guilt or innocence at all."
I know your comment is meant as a bad joke, but I will pretend that it is serious and respond. The State Bar that tried Mike Nifong was more of a kangaroo court than a disciplinary hearing. There was absolutely no evidence for F. Lane Williamson to reach the conclusions he did. You, for example, cannot even tell me why Mr. Nifong was disbarred. You cannot tell me why Mr. Nifong was found in contempt of court. And don't say that he withheld evidence because he didn't. Nor did he lie about what he believed to be true. One thing Williamson is not is a mind reader. For Williamson to even suggest that Nifong increased his chances of being elected to the position he held as District Attorney by wooing the "black vote," is an even worse joke than your comment... no offense meant.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, give us a hint of how you responded to the motion to dismiss. Based upon what legal theory/theories, why should your suit go forward?"
The question is, why should it not? The reasons for it to go forward are obviously because it has to do with important issues related to individual civil rights and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In April 2010, I was invited to attend an event on the Duke campus (advertised as open to the public). I attended and was acting as others similarly situated... in other words I was not boisterous, loud, or disruptive. Duke administration knew that I would be attending because I mentioned so in a complimentary letter to them. They maliciously, and with premeditation, plotted to arrest me for the sole purpose of my being a Nifong Supporter. That explains why the Duke Police officer was called by the Security Guard. Had I not run into Professor James Coleman, who vigorously interceded on my behalf, I would have been arrested. Then you can bet that the media would have given me some ink and air time. They would've put out the lies that would've been given by the officer and security, making me look like a trouble-maker and rabble rouser... and insane... in an attempt to damage the reputation and role of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.
The bigger issue is this, do you believe that Duke University should be able to arrest you or kick you off campus because it doesn't agree with what you think or believe. Duke may be a private university, but it has on its property the Nasher Museum, and the Duke Cathedral which are open to the public... as well as some exhibits in its school library. Events at these venues and at the Duke Law School are off limits to me because I do not have a desire to be humiliated, intimidated, embarrassed or arrested.
So that's why in a nut shell.
Still a lot of work to go yet on my flog. Will try to finish it up by tomorrow. If not, I should have it finished by Monday. Thanks for your patience. It should be worth the wait.
"They maliciously, and with premeditation, plotted to arrest me for the sole purpose of my being a Nifong Supporter."
How do you intend to disprove that.All you offer in support are more unsupported allegations.
"The question is, why should it not?"
Thar statement has no legal weight. You are making the assertion. You have to prove.
Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.
"I know your comment is meant as a bad joke"
I assure you it is not.
"They maliciously, and with premeditation, plotted to arrest me for the sole purpose of my being a Nifong Supporter."
How do you intend to disprove that.All you offer in support are more unsupported allegations.
I should have said, how do you intend to prove that. You have the obligation to prove.
"he bigger issue is this, do you believe that Duke University should be able to arrest you or kick you off campus because it doesn't agree with what you think or believe."
No one believes any agency has the authority to arrest anyone.
Duke does have the right to enforce its solicitation policy. If Duke can prove you violated its solicitation policy, you lose.
It is up to the court to decide on the evidence whether or not you violated Duke's policy. Your assertion you did not is not proof.
"By the way, the Family and Friends of Brittany Willis still owe Johnson the $20 thousand reward."
You have no authority to decide that.
You are broadcasting your opinion as if it had been adjudicated in a court of law.
Why do you not arrange legal representation on Mr. Johnson's behalf so he can sue and have a court of law determine whether or not he is owed the reward money.
"Events at these venues and at the Duke Law School are off limits to me because I do not have a desire to be humiliated, intimidated, embarrassed or arrested."
I think, if that is your case, you will have a tough, if not impossible task proving it.
I remind you, you have the obligation to prove.
"The State Bar that tried Mike Nifong was more of a kangaroo court than a disciplinary hearing."
That is an assertion only. Just because a tribunal delivers a decision with which you disagree does not render that tribunal a kangaroo court.
You seem to think everyone should accept your assertions at face value and without proof. If that is your approach to your lawsuit, you will certainly use.
"You, for example, cannot even tell me why Mr. Nifong was disbarred."
I can not tell you every reason. I know the bar tribunal had evidence which showed he did make inflammatory guilt presuming pre trial statements.
The bar tribunal had evidence that he did conceal exculpatory evidence from the defendants.
In and of themselves are pretty serious ethics violations.
Your assertions that they do not do not negate the damning nature of the evidence.
Sidney, to my last comment I add, it was obvious, from the lack of evidence of the crime which was alleged, Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Defendants knowing he had not established probable cause of a crime. He had established no connection between the accused and the crime.
The last time I checked knowingly prosecuting without probable cause is a violation of prosecutorial ethics.
Saying a sexual assault could have happened without leaving evidence does not establish probable cause.
To say that a sexual assault could not be disproven does not establish probable cause.
Ms. Mangum's identifications did not establish probable cause.
Ask your friend, Professor Coleman.
From a previous post:
No one believes any agency has the authority to arrest anyone.
I should have said, No one believes any agency has the authority to ARBITRARILY arrest anyone.
I will also say again, YOU have the obligation to show Duke tried arbitrarily to arrest you.
"For Williamson to even suggest that Nifong increased his chances of being elected to the position he held as District Attorney by wooing the " 'black vote,' is an even worse joke than your comment... no offense meant."
The joke is your assertion that Mr. Nifong almost lost the election because of the Duke Rape Case. What is your evidence that Mr. Nifong was ever winning.
The only poll taken before the primary showed 20% of the electorate supported Mr. Nifong, compared to 37% for Freda Black. Mr. Nifong did not dispute this in that he never produced any poll result to show differently.
To call the poll result rigged without having proof is a meaningless argument.
The result of the election showed Mr. Nifong had considerably more than 20% of both the white and black vote.
That shows definitively that the Duke Rape case did not almost cost Mr. Nifong the election.
His documented statement, that he was getting $1 million worth of free publicity from the Duke Rape case says he was using the Duke Rape case to win votes.
Even if he wasn't, it is still obvious he prosecuted the Defendants without probable cause.
"The reasons for it to go forward are obviously because it has to do with important issues related to individual civil rights and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
That is not obvious. That is something you have to prove.
To my last comment I add, Ask your friend, Professor Coleman.
"You cannot tell me why Mr. Nifong was found in contempt of court. And don't say that he withheld evidence because he didn't."
The court, not I, determined based on the evidence that Mr. Nifong did conceal evidence.
Since, by your own admission, you are not familiar with the evidence. Therefore, you are in no position to determine whether or not Mr. Nifong concealed anything.
Further, unlike a court, you have no legal authority to make a determination of innocence or guilt.
This is just like your lack of any legal or, for that matter, moral authority to rule on whether Mr. Cooper had the right to say, "We believe these men are innocent."
"Had I not run into Professor James Coleman, who vigorously interceded on my behalf, I would have been arrested."
If you say this to the court, you are saying Professor Coleman was a witness. The court would then ask you, where is Professor Coleman. If you were to tell them you saw no need to call Professor Coleman, you would give the defense ammunition. They would probably point out to the court, the plaintiff says there is a witness but he will not call that witness. That would damage your credibility.
Did it ever occur to you that the defense could call Professor Coleman. I do not think you would like that. Why else would you not call Professor Coleman if he could support your case?
To say you fear Duke retaliation against Professor Coleman is meaningless. An experienced Jurist like Professor Coleman would know how to deal with Duke should Duke retaliate for his testifying in your behalf.
The court, not I, determined based on the evidence that Mr. Nifong did conceal evidence.
I nadd, the court also determined Mr. Nifong had lied to the court about concealing evidence.
The only poll taken before the primary showed 20% of the electorate supported Mr. Nifong, compared to 37% for Freda Black. Mr. Nifong did not dispute this in that he never produced any poll result to show differently.
A preponderance of the evidence showed pre primary that Mr. Nifong was losing.
"You cannot tell me why Mr. Nifong was found in contempt of court. And don't say that he withheld evidence because he didn't."
I can and will tell you, Mr. Nifong not only withheld evidence, he lied to the court about it.
Whether or not you listen is up to you.
The fact that you choose not to accept the court's verdict does not negate that verdict.
..
Has old ' Jackie-in-Wonderland '
provided any of her free campaign
managing services lately ?
Or is she a full-time Lie- Stoopiding
Carpetbagging Useful Idiot now ?
..
little squirmy wormy quacky kilgo retreats farther from the truth
"Events at these venues and at the Duke Law School are off limits to me because I do not have a desire to be humiliated, intimidated, embarrassed or arrested."
In other words, you, not Duke, are placing those events off limits to you. That is not proof that Duke is out to get you.
"And don't say that he[Mr. Nifong] withheld evidence because he didn't."
Yes he did.
"I know your comment is meant as a bad joke"
Your numerous unsupported allegations show you know nothing."
"Nor did he[Mr. Nifong] lie about what he believed to be true."
Even if that were true(and it is not) Mr. Nifong had an obligation as DA to know what was true. For whatever the reason, he did not turn over all the evidence he had to the Defense. Ignorance is no defense for what he did.
Explain, when he knew it was not true that Lacrosse players perpetrated a gang rape, why did Mr. Nifong prosecute them?
Kilgo:
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Sidney:
Mike Nifong committed multiple ethics violations.
Mike Nifong committed criminal contempt of court.
Mike Nifong knowingly prosecuted innocent men.
Mike Nifomg was disbarred because he conducted one of the grossest wrongful prosecutions in history.
"I know your comment is meant as a bad joke"
Sidney recoils from the truth the way a vampire recoils from a cross.
----------------------((((((
Reminder to all lacrosse fans:
----------------------((((((
Your homework assignment is due
at the beginning of the next thread.
----------------------((((((
"How do you Rape a Stripper ?"
----------------------((((((
Kilgo:
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Kilgo:
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
Who's your daddy?
"You cannot tell me why Mr. Nifong was found in contempt of court."
Yes I can. He concealed exculpatory evidence and lied about it to the court.
.
Who's your daddy?
Today is Mother's Day, dumb dumb.
.
little squirmy wormy quacky kilgocontinues to shrink from confrontation with the truth.
Kilgo,
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Kilgo,
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Kilgo,
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Kilgo,
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
Who's your momma?
..
Ah yes, Mother's Day.
Just think it was five years ago
this Mother's Day that my new
fellow Duke Alumnus Dave Evans
received his Diploma.
And was indicted for rape
the very next day ! !
..
And in April of 2007, David Evans, indicted by a rogue prosecutor, was exonerated, along with two other falsely accused man.
Even before DDavid Evans nd his fellow defendants were exonerated, it was obvious to any reasonable individual that they were innocent.
little squirmy wormy quacky kilgo still ducks when asked to explain the following:
How a scratch on David Evans' arm, detected 10 days after an alleged assault, implicated him in that assault.
Why DNA which was possibly his DNA found on Ms. Mangum's false fingernail, implicated him in the alleged rape of Ms. Mangum.
Why no evidence of rape was found on the rape kit. The alleged rape could not have happened without evidence being left.
Why DNA matching David Evans, why DNA matching the other two accused, was not found on the rape kit.
Why the only male DNA on the rape kit did not match any Duke Lacrosse player.
Surely, if little kilgo were so great, he would not be frightened off by these questions.
This whole thread is getting terminally boring. Sid, give us some new revelation, some new message from your "sources" so we can all be enlightened.
Breathlessly awaiting Reverend Sid's next sermon.....
Anonymous said...
"'By the way, the Family and Friends of Brittany Willis still owe Johnson the $20 thousand reward.'
You have no authority to decide that.
You are broadcasting your opinion as if it had been adjudicated in a court of law.
Why do you not arrange legal representation on Mr. Johnson's behalf so he can sue and have a court of law determine whether or not he is owed the reward money."
It is a fact that prior to Johnson coming forward to police, the family and friends of Brittany Willis offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the apprehension of the guilty party. Johnson, who had no involvement in the crime, provided authorities with information that led to the arrest of the killer, who confessed. Ergo, Johnson deserves the reward.
I would not recommend that the Johnsons seek legal representation as it would result in them throwing away more money, as legal costs would rapidly exceed the reward amount.
Why do you feel Johnson should not be entitled to the reward?
Anonymous said...
"'Events at these venues and at the Duke Law School are off limits to me because I do not have a desire to be humiliated, intimidated, embarrassed or arrested.'
In other words, you, not Duke, are placing those events off limits to you. That is not proof that Duke is out to get you."
I am placing events at Duke off limits for myself precisely because I do not want to be humiliated, intimidated, harassed, and arrested. I was extremely fortunate to get off campus without being arrested once. I am not foolish enough to chance it again.
Anonymous said...
"This whole thread is getting terminally boring. Sid, give us some new revelation, some new message from your 'sources' so we can all be enlightened.
Breathlessly awaiting Reverend Sid's next sermon....."
The wait is over. I will upload the Flog that gives further information about the events that transpired on April 3, 2011 regarding the stabbing of Reginald Daye. The flog is a little less than twenty minutes in length. Enjoy.
"I was extremely fortunate to get off campus without being arrested once."
You will have to prove that. How do you intend to do thar?
"Why do you feel Johnson should not be entitled to the reward?"
Any opinion I might have on that matter is meaningless. What is meaningful is, the family of Brittainy Willis believes he does not deserve the award. Your proclamation that he does carries no legal or, for that matter, moral weight. You have no authority to proclaim that as if it had been adjudicated.
Why do Mr. Johnson and/or his supporters not go to court and sue for the award. Probably, it is because he would then have to prove he did, and he can not. It might also be due to Mr. Johnson's reluctance to have the Willis Family explain in open court why they will not give him the reward.
"The wait is over. I will upload the Flog that gives further information about the events that transpired on April 3, 2011 regarding the stabbing of Reginald Daye. The flog is a little less than twenty minutes in length. Enjoy."
Sidney, your blog of May 9, 2011, is just another compilation of unsubstantiated allegations and lies you have already told about the Lacrosse case.
Little wormy squirmy quacky kilgo does not deny that:
In the rape alleged by Ms. Mangum, the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence and DNA.
Forensic exam of the rape kit found no evidence of rape.
Forensic exam found no DNA from any of the suspects.
Forensic exam did find male DNA which did not match the DNA of any suspect.
That, in turn, shows that no one could have wiped down Ms. Mangum to remove evidence.
"Why do Mr. Johnson and/or his supporters not go to court and sue for the award. Probably, it is because he would then have to prove he did, and he can not."
I should have said "Why do Mr. Johnson and/or his supporters not go to court and sue for the award. Probably, it is because he would then have to prove he did deserve the reward, and he can not."
Sidney, why don't you and your j4n gangsters and Irving Joyner and the
NC NAACP get together and pay the costs necessary for Mr. Johnson to sue for the reward.
I read that the Willis family believed Mr. Johnson was involved in the death of Btittainy Willis. If Mr.Johnson did sue, that hight open the door for the Willis Family to present evidence he was involved. Maybe the NC NAACP and Irving Joyner do not want that.
They sure did not want the innocent Lacrosse players found not guilty.
While you rant and rave about the Lacrosse players' innocence not being adjudicated before a court of law. Consider this.
Mr. Nifong did not want the case adjudicated at all unless the verdict would have been guaranteed as guilty. That is evident from his documented public inflammatory guilt presuming made before he had any evidence.
The title 'false accuser' is not FALSE OR MISLEADING - the evidence cleared them fully.
Well after this event, I researched this event and was completely disgusted by every aspect of support for this woman. History of accusations of rape in the past, drug abuse, DNA tests, EVERYTHING indicated she was a liar.
Oh yeah, she had plenty of 'sperm' inside her, just none of it was theirs.
MEDIA BIAS? After all the support and vicious allegations against the people she accused FALSELY, GOOD PEOPLE - maybe that drugged up whore did get raped, somewhere else after they kicked her disgusting ass out - and she was too drugged up to even know who did it!
I don't know and I don't care. She's got a long and clear history of being a liar, a drug abuser, a criminal, a whore, a violent person, a thief and god knows what else.
The fact that you waste precious life time on this SHIT blog just proves you're insane.
Post a Comment