Monday, May 9, 2011

What really happened between Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye the morning of April 3, 2011.

[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.]

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog2.html


The mainstream media has once again painted a mirage for its viewers, readers, and subscribers regarding the April 3, 2011 stabbing incident involving Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye. What the media wants you to believe is that Reginald Daye was a good citizen with a kind heart who took it upon himself to try and help Crystal Mangum, who had been burdened by notoriety of the Duke Lacrosse case and the February 17, 2010 case in which she was found guilty of several misdemeanor charges. It suggested that Daye offered to share his apartment with Crystal and her three children, who were for all intents and purposes homeless. And that he did so despite a warning from his nephew about Mangum.

Then, the media would have you believe that Crystal, who had been labeled by police as the physical domestic abuser against her boyfriend in the February 17, 2010 incident, followed an established pattern by stabbing Daye, for the purpose of stealing his money. Conscious, after being wounded, Daye told police that Mangum stabbed him and took his money.

Shortly, after the incident, Mangum was apprehended and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.

Daye underwent emergency surgery on April 3, 2011, for his stab wound and was on the mend and on the verge of discharge when he suddenly went into a coma around April 9th or 10th. It was an irreversible coma and on the evening of April 13, 2011, Daye was taken off life support. The cause of death was not established at the time.

On April 18, 2011, five days after his death, Durham prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for murder, and two counts of larceny… one count for each of two money orders Crystal was alleged to have taken from Daye. At the time of the indictment, an autopsy report had not been released and there was no official cause of death listed for Reginald Daye.

On April 19, 2011, the sixth day following his death, Reginald Daye had a funeral and was laid to rest.

Before explaining what happened during the wee hours of April 3, 2011, let’s review the events which led up to the encounter… beginning with the Duke Lacrosse case. What the media persistently glosses over is the fact that Ms. Mangum’s services to entertain on March 13, 2006, were fraudulently obtained… with a Duke lacrosse party host using an alias and claiming he wanted an exotic dancer to entertain a small bachelor party of four or five. Media also frequently ignored the presence of under-aged drinking at the party… a crime. Finally, in recounting the tale, the media goes to extreme lengths to shield the fact that racial epithets were hurled at Ms. Mangum by the partygoers.

The abject bias of the specific rulings pertaining to the prosecution’s case and the media coverage is apparent as Mr. Nifong, who had always maintained an open file policy – even prior to it being mandated by law – handed over nearly 5,000 pieces of evidence to each of the three teams of defense attorneys. Brad Bannon, one of Joseph Cheshire’s underlings, led the charge that Mr. Nifong delayed turning over lab evidence, which he claimed was exculpatory. Fact is, that the so-called evidence was not exculpatory, and that the basis of the prosecution’s case was not DNA. The media, however, tried to represent before the public that Mr. Nifong had withheld evidence… especially vital exculpatory evidence. This was blatantly false and misleading.

What is not false is that when Mr. Nifong sought reciprocal discovery from the defense attorneys, he was rebuffed, ignored. Defense attorneys had no problem plying media types with snippets of videos, which may or may not have been doctored, but they refused to submit them to the prosecution. This is a twist of irony, again that the media does its best to conceal.

Aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse case fielded many innocent casualties, the most obvious being former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was selectively disbarred, selectively jailed on trumped up contempt charges, and otherwise persecuted. Subsequent to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocence Promulgation” the media began in earnest its ambitious quest to mislead the populous into believing that the boys were by legal determination found to be innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the media boldly and brashly trumpeted that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and “cleared.” Ms. Mangum, in the meantime was shackled with the label of the “false accuser.” Furthermore, the media had the audacity to intimate that grounds existed to charge Ms. Mangum – supposedly with filing a false report.

K Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, used to work as an executive for CBS News for a decade. Afterward, this enterprising lady founded a very successful public relations firm in Washington, DC. During an interview on “60 Minutes,” the CBS TV newsmagazine she expressed her unlimited enmity towards Mike Nifong, and her desire to see that he “paid every day for the rest of his life.” This statement fueled the flames of critics of Mike Nifong, and ushered in the despicable and malicious treatment against Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case… a juggernaut which has come to be known as the “Carpetbagger Jihad.”

On February 17, 2010, Durham police, like true Carpetbagger jihadists, took full advantage of their encounter with Ms. Mangum, who at the time was self-supporting, employed, independent mother, attending classes at NCCU in pursuit of a Masters degree. Durham’s finest were summoned to Ms. Mangum’s apartment by a 9-1-1 call placed by one of Mangum’s children during an altercation initated by Mangum’s ex-boyfriend who had repeatedly punched her in the face. Instead of taking him into custody, police designated him as the victim and proceeded to arrest and charge Crystal Mangum with assaulting him. To invoke more serious charges which carry heavy jail sentences, police evacuated the house on the pretense of smelling smoke and then set clothing ablaze in the bathtub. They made no attempt to extinguish it by turning on the water. Instead, the assembled law enforcers closed the bathroom door, called the Durham Fire department, and waited for there arrival.

Among the outlandish charges the police saddled on Ms. Mangum were attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, first degree arson, identity theft, child abuse, communicating threats, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer. The number and seriousness of the charges supported a bail of one million dollars, which is unheard of in a domestic violence case.

Of those charges, Ms. Mangum was indicted on felony first degree arson, three counts of child endangerment related to the fire, injury to property, and resisting a public officer. She was held under a reduced bail of $100,000. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Mangum would still be languishing in jail today awaiting trial had not a generous and benevolent bail bondsman satisfied the bond, which paved the way for Ms. Mangum’s release from the jail after 88 days of incarceration. Because prosecutors cruelly labeled Mangum’s children as victims of their mother, conditions were set by the Court regarding visitation with them, and Ms. Mangum was required to remain under house arrest.

Prosecution took the case to trial, and Ms. Mangum was convicted of the three misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather-weight defense by Mani Dexter, the prosecution was unable to prevail on the felony arson charge and a mistrial was declared. She was sentenced to time-served and released.

A friend from her church allowed Ms. Mangum to live with her in her apartment, and that is where she and her three children remained until recently. Because of the notoriety of the Duke Lacrosse case and the February 17th incident, Ms. Mangum was unable to secure employment. Apartment hunting was fruitless as well, especially with the arson tag deceitfully affixed to her by Durham police.

Taking inventory following the February 17th incident, Ms. Mangum faced the reality of having lost her job, being dropped from courses at NCCU, losing her apartment, losing many of her belongings, and basically losing her independence. Furthermore, during her incarceration, she was unable to help care for her father, and he passed away. Her mother, who was unable to care for herself, was spirited off to a nursing home by Crystal’s aunt, who then proceeded to terminate Crystal’s mother’s lease. Although her friend was gracious and generous to house Crystal and her children, by the spring of 2011, Crystal was desperate to find lodgings for herself and her family.

In the spring of 2011, Reginald Daye, who had been working as a painter, had been laid off work. He had a history of heavy alcohol consumption and a history of criminal activity, although mostly misdemeanor. According to records from the court, Daye had approximately fifteen charges against him, including two for assault… one victim in particular identified as being a female. I was told that by March 2011, Daye was a couple of months arrears in his rent, and that he was on the verge of being evicted from his apartment.

These conditions set up the symbiotic relationship which was to develop between Crystal Mangum and Reginald Daye. I am unaware as to how the two initially met or the precise nature of their relationship, other than they, including Crystal’s children, were to share the apartment. Although Daye had been laid off, there is the possibility that he was re-hired shortly before April 3, 2011… but he had not generated money to pay the rent due. Although Crystal was receiving training to enable her to become once again gainfully employed, she resorted to only avenue of employment open to her… exotic dancing at a club. Working for several days she cleared enough money to pay rent due on Daye’s apartment. In addition, she anticipated receiving a tax refund which would supplement her financially.

Around April 3, 2011, Crystal, using her money, purchased two money orders, one in the amount of three hundred, and the other for four hundred, as there was probably a five hundred dollar maximum limit. I was told that she wrote “rent” on the memo portion of the money orders, and used Reginald Daye’s name as its purchaser. The reason for using Daye’s name on the check was because he was the one listed on the rental agreement as the renter. With her negative name connotation, had Crystal placed her name as purchaser of the money order, recognition of it by the landlord might very well have jeopardized the arrangement and possibly even the apartment.

I was informed that the argument between Crystal and Reginald began because he wanted to use the money order to purchase beer or otherwise have a good time. Crystal, on the other hand, wanted the money orders to go towards paying the rent. The verbal argument, to my understanding, was quite heated and lengthy, and I am ignorant as to the proximate events which led to the stabbing itself. To my knowledge Daye was stabbed once, although he might have been stabbed as many as three times. ABC-11 news which has a very biased anti-Nifong bent, reported that Daye was stabbed as many as seven or eight times. The autopsy report, if and when it is made available to the public, may shed light on the number of wounds he sustained.

Taking a look at the Certificate of Death for Reginald Daye, a public document, you will notice that the immediate cause of death is listed as “pending.” For sequential cause of death, there is nothing which states that a stab wound or laceration was involved. In the section for “manner of death,” “pending” is checked… not “homicide.” This death certificate was dated April 18, 2011, the day that Crystal Mangum was indicted by the Grand Jury for premeditated murder. The updated cause of death will be at least four months from the time the autopsy was performed. I am further unaware if toxicology tests were performed on Daye and whether or not, if done, their results will be made available.

Examining the criminal record of Reginald Eugene Daye, as provided by the Clerk of Courts Office in Durham, you will note that the first page contains incidents involving mainly traffic offenses, including a misdemeanor involving beer or wine.

Page two lists two traffic offenses, one of which is driving while intoxicated… most likely due to alcohol consumption. On that charge he pled guilty. The other charge appears to be driving with license revoked.

Page three contains four misdemeanor charges including breaking and entering, assaulting a female, larceny, and simple assault. The fifth name on the page carries a middle name of Douglas and a birth date which differs from Reginald Eugene Daye, so this might be a different individual who shares the same first and last names.

Page four is a mixed bag containing a couple of traffic related charges and several misdemeanor charges including larceny and shoplifting.

My assessment of Daye’s criminal record is that it is not representative of a hardened career criminal. However, the presence of assault charges, along with the confiscation of brass knuckles from his apartment, indicates to me that he is not adverse to using physical force. The brass knuckles and his criminal record, in conjunction with his apparent problems with alcohol, and allegations from my sources relating multiple instances of the physical abuse of females, entertains the likelihood that Crystal Mangum’s actions were borne out of self-defense.

That Daye was stabbed by Mangum is not in dispute, but that he died by her hands most vigorously is. To charge Ms. Mangum with the murder of Reginald Daye is outlandish, and to charge her with two counts of larceny for money orders which she purchased is a joke. This extreme and vindictive scorched earth take no prisoners mindset that is and has been utilized in attacking Crystal Mangum, Mike Nifong, Nifong supporters, and others considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case is unholy, unjust, and makes the North Carolina justice system the laughing stock of the country.

The Carpetbaggers need to take charge of their own dirty work when it comes to inflicting punitive retribution against Mangum, Nifong, et al… we Tar Heelians, and Durhamians, in particular, need to immediately cease and desist from doing it for them.


345 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 345 of 345
Anonymous said...

"Regarding the Duke Lacrosse defendants, compare their case with the IMF director recently taken off a jet and arrested. He is in jail based solely on the word of an "alleged" victim. Not on DNA evidence. The case against him is not unlike that brought against the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Sidney, you do not know that the IMF director "is in jail based solely on the word of an 'alleged' victim." There was an interval between the alleged crime and the arrest. You do not know what investigation was done.

We do know, in the Duke Rape case the alleged crime could not have happened without the alleged perpetrators leaving evidence on the rape kit. There was no evidence on the rape kit. Ergo, it was never established that the alleged crime did occur.

Anonymous said...

If we are going to talk about an alleged victim's word, let's also mention Mr. Sean Lanigan, arrested, incarcerated, charged with a sexual assault solely on the word of a "victim".

The prosecution presented its case. The case went to the jury. The jury took 47 minutes to acquit Mr. Lanigan. I believe at least one juror said the case should never have been brought at all.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, it was not just the accuser's word that led to the arrest of the IMF chief.

I just read a New York Post article. Hotel Security cameras showed the maid running from his room. The IMF chief fled from his room leaving his cell phone. He was nabbed trying to board a plane about three hours later, indicating he was trying to escape from the US.

No Lacrosse players tried to flee from the police. In spite of allegations, Lacrosse players cooperated with the police. They did not behave like the IMF chief.

Walt said...

Syd wrote: "Regarding the Duke Lacrosse defendants, compare their case with the IMF director recently taken off a jet and arrested. He is in jail based solely on the word of an "alleged" victim."

No, he is in jail because he was fleeing the jurisdiction of the courts. Note, he was taken off a jet. What you omitted was the jet was bound to leave the jurisdiction of New York. Contrast the lacrosse defendants who from the time the false allegations were made to the time of their arrest never left North Carolina, but did cooperate with police up to the point of having their attorneys offer discovery before any charges were even filed.

"Not on DNA evidence. The case against him is not unlike that brought against the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Nifong in his statement to the court said that the justification for the wildly broad Non-Testimonial Order was to secure DNA which would clear the innocent. How then does Nifong explain his change?

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 6:21 PM said: "Anyway, Sidney, you are ducking the questions which have been put to you."

This is so true. Syd never gave his/Nifong's legal/medical justification for why Crystal is not responsible for Daye's death.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Tracy Cline = Mike Nifong...Interesting to see what Sid's opinion of the DA's office will be once CGM's murder trial begins.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"If we are going to talk about an alleged victim's word, let's also mention Mr. Sean Lanigan, arrested, incarcerated, charged with a sexual assault solely on the word of a 'victim'.

The prosecution presented its case. The case went to the jury. The jury took 47 minutes to acquit Mr. Lanigan. I believe at least one juror said the case should never have been brought at all."


Certainly there are plenty of men who have been arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated for rape and sexual assault charges who have been determined to be innocent at a later date. Although I am not familiar with Lanigan's case, Ron Cotton is a person convicted solely on the eyewitness identification of a rape victim. He was later cleared by DNA evidence. So, I do not doubt that prosecutors make mistakes and that innocent people suffer. However, I am not convinced that there was a mistake made with the prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case because Roy Cooper has shielded prosecutors' evidence in the case when he dismissed the charges. Also I do not believe the Duke Lacrosse defendants do not represent very sympathetic figures considering that they never spent one day in jail, and each shook down Duke University for a cool $20 mil. And they're not finished, trying to grab another $10 mil from the cash-strapped city of Durham. I do not know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty or innocent, but I do know that they, their families, and their high powered attorneys are GREEDY as Hades.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Syd wrote: 'Regarding the Duke Lacrosse defendants, compare their case with the IMF director recently taken off a jet and arrested. He is in jail based solely on the word of an 'alleged' victim.'

No, he is in jail because he was fleeing the jurisdiction of the courts. Note, he was taken off a jet. What you omitted was the jet was bound to leave the jurisdiction of New York. Contrast the lacrosse defendants who from the time the false allegations were made to the time of their arrest never left North Carolina, but did cooperate with police up to the point of having their attorneys offer discovery before any charges were even filed.

'Not on DNA evidence. The case against him is not unlike that brought against the Duke Lacrosse defendants.'

Nifong in his statement to the court said that the justification for the wildly broad Non-Testimonial Order was to secure DNA which would clear the innocent. How then does Nifong explain his change?

Walt-in-Durham"


Come now, Walt. Since when is it a crime to leave New York, or any city? When is it a crime to leave the jurisdiction of New York City? All of the other passengers on the jet were leaving for Paris, but they weren't arrested.

Now, if the police wanted him to stay, why not just ask him not to leave town? If they were concerned he might leave the country why not have the court order him to surrender his passport? They arrested him and put him in jail... and it was not because he was leaving New York.

With Mr. Nifong's statement, I would have to read it in its context. It's easy to nit-pick statements Mr. Nifong may have made before the biased media.

Anonymous said...

Sid -- You DO realize that the US has no extradition treaty with France, correct?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, it was not just the accuser's word that led to the arrest of the IMF chief.

I just read a New York Post article. Hotel Security cameras showed the maid running from his room. The IMF chief fled from his room leaving his cell phone. He was nabbed trying to board a plane about three hours later, indicating he was trying to escape from the US.

No Lacrosse players tried to flee from the police. In spite of allegations, Lacrosse players cooperated with the police. They did not behave like the IMF chief."


I know many people that run trying to catch a flight, but that doesn't mean they are fleeing a crime scene. I myself, have run to catch a bus to the airport, and have even run in the airport in order to make a connection. That the IMF chief was running from his hotel room tells me that he thought that he was at risk of missing his flight.

Now, with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case, right after Crystal Mangum left the Buchanan house amid a flurry of racial epithets, the lacrosse party-goers cleared out as fast as cockroaches from a crumb-infested floor when a light is turned on in the middle of the night. By the time police arrived at the Buchanan house, all of the lacrosse party-goers had taken flight... they were long gone!

Anonymous said...

Sid, wrong again...as usual. You absolutely amaze me. The man in NYC was arrest and HELD in custody, without bail, because he had the means ($$)and ability to leave the country. He was deemed a flight risk because he had worldwide connections that would have made it far easier for him, versus you and I, to flee. He was held and jailed not just on the basis of the apparent victim's statement. The police reported in the news that blood was found in his bedroom, there were apparent marks and bruises consistent with assualt and she identified him, within a few hours, in a properly staged police lineup. Good lord, Sid, even YOU can figure this one out. It's called probable cause, Sid. They felt they had it. If it turns out that there is no evidence to support her story, IF her story changes over and over, IF he comes up with an alibi, IF it is proved that a wrong procedure was used in the lineup, IF it turns out that none of his DNA is found, etc.................THEN, and only THEN....wil a man who has been judged a flight risk AND a suicide risk....be released.

Anonymous said...

"I am not convinced that there was a mistake made with the prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case because Roy Cooper has shielded prosecutors' evidence in the case when he dismissed the charges."

Sidney, this is one more of your unsupported allegations.

You have admitted you are not privy to the case file. You are therefore in no position to know whethrbor not anything was concealed by Mr. Cooper.

You are trying to duck the issue, namely why did Mr. Nifong prosecute when he had not established the occurrence of a crime.

Anonymous said...

"[C]ompare their [The Duke Lacrosse Players] case with the IMF director..."

I can think of 1 similarity -- a surprising lack in the presumption of innocence.

Anonymous said...

"...Crystal Mangum left the Buchanan house amid a flurry of racial epithets..."

Sidney, this is another lie you try to pass off as truth. Crystal was not subjected to any flurry of racial epithets.

Anonymous said...

"I know many people that run trying to catch a flight, but that doesn't mean they are fleeing a crime scene."

Sidney, read the New York Post article. Security cameras in the hotel showed the maid running from the room. The IMF director fled the hotel. He called the hotel looking for his lost cell phone. A couple hours later, he was taken off a plane bound for France.


That is a bit more than running to catch a plane when one is late.

Anonymous said...

"Now, with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case, right after Crystal Mangum left the Buchanan house amid a flurry of racial epithets, the lacrosse party-goers cleared out..."

Sidney, why did Ms. Roberts not report a rape when she called the police at 12:53 AM.

Why did she drive to a Kroger's instead of a police station?

Why did she try to have Crystal Mangum forcibly removed from her car?

Those are questions you have ducked.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, many of the anonymous comments which disappeared asked you to comment of little wormy squirmy wacko quacko kilgo referring to African Americans as n----rs, referring to Professor James Coleman as an Uncle Tom. You were asked to comment on kilgo's use of those racial epithets.

Why did those comments disappear?

Anonymous said...

"[E]ach [Duke Lacrosse Player] shook down Duke University for a cool $20 mil."

Sidney, why would Duke fork over a "cool $20 mil." to each Lacrosse player if Duke had done nothing wrong? They would have saved money by defending the case.

Anonymous said...

"That the IMF chief was running from his hotel room tells me that he thought that he was at risk of missing his flight."

Why was he running from his room shortly after security cameras showed the maid fleeing his room?

Anonymous said...

"With Mr. Nifong's statement, I would have to read it in its context. It's easy to nit-pick statements Mr. Nifong may have made before the biased media."

Sidney, this deals with the NTO requiring each Caucasian Lacrosse player to give samples for DNA testing and to give mug shots.

First, David Evans' mug shot showed he did not have a mustache. Ms. Mangum said her third alleged assailant had a mustache. Does that add up to a reliable identification of David Evans?

The DA's office requested the NTO order. The justification for the NTO order was that DNA would identify the alleged perpetrators and exclude anyone who was not a perpetrator. No DNA was found that matched any member of the Lacrosse team. How does that implicate any member of the team in the alleged crime?

Saying they could have perpetrated a sexual assault and not left evidence is another example of you ducking and hiding from an issue.

Anonymous said...

"I do not know whether or not the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty or innocent, but I do know that they, their families, and their high powered attorneys are GREEDY as Hades."

Sidney, I say again, you would not be saying something like this unless you believed the Lacrosse players were guilty.

One question, again one you try to duck, is why should they have had to spend time in jail when they were in fact innocent?

Since they were innocent, they were wrongfully prosecuted, and Duke University did a lot to enable the wrong prosecution. So, they were justified in seeking compensation from Duke, considering the millions of dollars they incurred in legal expenses.

Why would Duke pay off, if Duke had done nothing wrong? What leverage would the Lacrosse players have against Duke if Duke had done nothing wrong?

Anonymous said...

"Also I do not believe the Duke Lacrosse defendants do not represent very sympathetic figures considering that they never spent one day in jail..."

You DO NOT believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants DO NOT represent sympathetic figures. You have just said the Lacrosse players DO represent sympathetic defendants.

Anyway, since you were never arrested, never incarcerated, never held up to the public as a felon the way the Lacrosse players were, I do not see how your run in with Duke caused you any damage. Hence you are not entitled to damages.

Anonymous said...

"Good lord, Sid, even YOU can figure this one out. It's called probable cause, Sid."

Sid would not know probable cause even if it had been revealed to him by the Good Lord Himself.

Crystal Mangum identified two men as assailants men who had not been at the party at the time of the alleged crime. She identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache, and no Lacrosse player had a mustache. Sid says those identifications were probable cause to indict and arrest three Lacrosse players.

And let's not forget, Sid said the Lacrosse players could not prove they had not committed a crime which left no evidence. Sid said that was probable cause.

Anonymous said...

"Investigators say they are conducting DNA tests on bodily fluids found in the Manhattan hotel room where IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn allegedly sexually assaulted a chamber maid, while his accuser prepares to testify before a grand jury today."

Sidney, this comes from ABC News.

Why did Mr. Nifong not have Crystal Mangum testify before the NC Grand Jury?

Walt said...

"Come now, Walt. Since when is it a crime to leave New York, or any city? When is it a crime to leave the jurisdiction of New York City? All of the other passengers on the jet were leaving for Paris, but they weren't arrested."

It's not a crime, but it is consciousness of guilt. Especially when you are a suspect.

"Now, if the police wanted him to stay, why not just ask him not to leave town? If they were concerned he might leave the country why not have the court order him to surrender his passport? They arrested him and put him in jail."

Risk of flight, grounds to deny bail. Actual flight, consciousness of guilt.

Contrast the lacrosse team who cooperated fully. The tenants gave written statements and answered officers questions. Their lawyers offered to give Nifong discovery even though no indictments had been handed down.

"With Mr. Nifong's statement, I would have to read it in its context. It's easy to nit-pick statements Mr. Nifong may have made before the biased media."

That's not an answer, that's an evasion.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

"It's easy to nit-pick statements Mr. Nifong may have made before the biased media."

Sidney, what do you think of Mr. Nifong's statements to the "biased" media presuming guilt on the part of members of the Lacrosse team, questioning their right to retain counsel, questioning their right not to talk to the authorities?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, wrong again...as usual. You absolutely amaze me. The man in NYC was arrest and HELD in custody, without bail, because he had the means ($$)and ability to leave the country. He was deemed a flight risk because he had worldwide connections that would have made it far easier for him, versus you and I, to flee. He was held and jailed not just on the basis of the apparent victim's statement. The police reported in the news that blood was found in his bedroom, there were apparent marks and bruises consistent with assualt and she identified him, within a few hours, in a properly staged police lineup. Good lord, Sid, even YOU can figure this one out. It's called probable cause, Sid. They felt they had it. If it turns out that there is no evidence to support her story, IF her story changes over and over, IF he comes up with an alibi, IF it is proved that a wrong procedure was used in the lineup, IF it turns out that none of his DNA is found, etc.................THEN, and only THEN....wil a man who has been judged a flight risk AND a suicide risk....be released."


You make a good case for Crystal Mangum being released from jail on her own recognizance. Face it, she is definitely not a flight risk. She has no money... she doesn't even have any transportation. Where would she go? How would she survive? She did not flee during the last trial in which trumped up charges of arson were filed against her in the case in which Durham Police set clothes in the bathtub on fire.
I agree with you that Crystal Mangum should be released from jail and told when to return to court.... and the Judge needs to forget about the condition in which she is placed under house arrest with electronic monitoring... another waste of taxpayers' money.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid -- You DO realize that the US has no extradition treaty with France, correct?"


I don't know that to be the fact. Possibly with death penalty cases. Maybe if the United States abolished the death penalty, then France would consider an extradition treaty. Abolishing the death penalty is a good start, don't you agree?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'I am not convinced that there was a mistake made with the prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case because Roy Cooper has shielded prosecutors' evidence in the case when he dismissed the charges.'

Sidney, this is one more of your unsupported allegations.

You have admitted you are not privy to the case file. You are therefore in no position to know whethrbor not anything was concealed by Mr. Cooper.

You are trying to duck the issue, namely why did Mr. Nifong prosecute when he had not established the occurrence of a crime."


The IMF chief has been in jail for days now, and has the prosecution proved that a crime has been committed? Seeing a maid run from a room does not establish that a crime has been committed. Seeing a hotel guest hurriedly leave his room does not support the commission of a crime.

Your view is that it's okay for NYC police and prosecutors to arrest someone without first establishing that a crime has taken place, but that it's not okay for Mike Nifong to do so. In both cases, the alleged victim identified their alleged offenders.

I don't understand what you find so confusing about this.

Anonymous said...

From ABC News:

"The grand jury, which heard testimony Wednesday from his accuser, a 32-year-old chamber maid, gave the go ahead for Strauss-Kahn to be tried for allegedly forcing the women to submit to oral and anal sex. He is also accused of attempted rape."

Sidney, I guess in this case the suspect was indicted on the word of the alleged victim.

Please note, in this case the victim gave testimony to a grand jury. Mr. Nifong never had Crystal Mangum testify to the grand jury.

Why? Was he aware she could not give credible testimony?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'Also I do not believe the Duke Lacrosse defendants do not represent very sympathetic figures considering that they never spent one day in jail...'

You DO NOT believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants DO NOT represent sympathetic figures. You have just said the Lacrosse players DO represent sympathetic defendants.

Anyway, since you were never arrested, never incarcerated, never held up to the public as a felon the way the Lacrosse players were, I do not see how your run in with Duke caused you any damage. Hence you are not entitled to damages."


Au contrare, mi ami. I have suffered serious injury. I am not able to return to Duke University campus to enjoy the programs they present for fear of being arrested. The only reason I was not arrested was because James Coleman came by. Had he not, I surely would have been arrested.

There is no way I will ever set foot on Duke property, and as a result I am denied the basic perception of freedom that you enjoy. If I do lose in court, then you lose also because Duke University can humiliate, harass, intimidate, and arrest you without cause, even if you attend an event on their campus to which you are invited. You'd better hope I prevail in court.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"From ABC News:

'The grand jury, which heard testimony Wednesday from his accuser, a 32-year-old chamber maid, gave the go ahead for Strauss-Kahn to be tried for allegedly forcing the women to submit to oral and anal sex. He is also accused of attempted rape.'

Sidney, I guess in this case the suspect was indicted on the word of the alleged victim.

Please note, in this case the victim gave testimony to a grand jury. Mr. Nifong never had Crystal Mangum testify to the grand jury.

Why? Was he aware she could not give credible testimony?"


What you fail to understand is that the indictment was brought based on the alleged victim's statement. It is irrelevant whether the statement is made to the prosecutor or the grand jury. The decision to prosecute is not always hinged on DNA... as the Ronald Cotton case shows.

Anonymous said...

"In both cases[ the Duke rape case and the IMF case], the alleged victim identified their alleged offenders."

Sidney, in the Duke case, the victim identified as two of her assailants two men who were not at the scene at the time of the alleged crime. She identified as her third assailant a man with a mustache. No Lacrosse player ever had mustache. It is a misrepresentation to say Crystal identified any assailants.

You do not mention, probably deliberately, the id procedure was not a properly conducted procedure(suspects only, no fillers) and was tainted(conducted not by a neutral person but by an officer investigating the alleged crime and who was known for his bias against Duke students).

In the IMF case, the alleged victim did testify to the grand jury. Crystal Mangum did not, probavbly because Mr. Nifong knew she could not tell a coherent, credible story.

The forensic investigation of the IMF case is ongoing. In the Duke case, the forensic investigation had been completed and showed no crime had happened. The id procedure and the grand jury presentation took place AFTER Mr. Nifong had evidence establishing the crime had not happened.

Do not dodge by claiming a crime could have happened without leaving evidence. The alleged crime could not have happened as alleged without leaving evidence.

Explain why Mr. Nifong prosecuted sought indictments without having probable cause?

Anonymous said...

"What you fail to understand is that the indictment was brought based on the alleged victim's statement. It is irrelevant whether the statement is made to the prosecutor or the grand jury. The decision to prosecute is not always hinged on DNA... as the Ronald Cotton case shows."

What you try to dodge is that Mr. Nifong never tried to get the alleged victim's word before he sought indictments. No onew in Mr. Nifong's office interviewed Crystal Mangum until 9 months into the case, 8 1/2 months approximately after the indictments were sought.

You are trying to duck the issue, why did Mr. Nifong not have Crystal tell her stoty to the Grand Jury. Was he afraid? The prosecutors in the IMF case were not afraid to have their alleged victim tell her story to the Grand Jury.

Anonymous said...

"The decision to prosecute is not always hinged on DNA... as the Ronald Cotton case shows."

The Duke rape case should have been.

The alleged crime could not have actually happened without the perpetrators leaving evidence, including their DNA. Since no such evidence was found on Ms. Mangum's rape kit, the only legitimate legally meaningful conclusion would have been, NO CRIME HAD HAPPENED.

And an ethical, honest prosecutor would have prosecuted anyone, would not have sought id's via an improper, tainted procedure, would not have sought indictments.

No matter how you dodge, Sidney, you can not justify Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

"Au contrare, mi ami. I have suffered serious injury. I am not able to return to Duke University campus to enjoy the programs they present for fear of being arrested."

You choose not to return to the Duke campus.

What you are saying is the same as, you should receive compensation for shooting yourself in the foot because the owner of the property on which you shot yourself should have stopped you.

Anonymous said...

"The only reason I was not arrested was because James Coleman came by. Had he not, I surely would have been arrested."

Can you prove that in court?

You say you do not plan to call Professor Coleman to testify to that.

That suggests Professor Coleman would not testify to that, which in turn undermines your credibility.

Anonymous said...

"There is no way I will ever set foot on Duke property, and as a result I am denied the basic perception of freedom that you enjoy."

Correction! You deny yourself said "basic perception of freedom that [I] enjoy."

Duke owes you no compensation for that.

Anonymous said...

"If I do lose in court, then you lose also because Duke University can humiliate, harass, intimidate, and arrest you without cause, even if you attend an event on their campus to which you are invited."

That would not happen. If I ever went onto Duke's campus, I would not violate its policy on solicitation.

I have read your account of what happened and Duke's policy on solicitation. There is no doubt in my mind you violated it.

Anonymous said...

"You'd better hope I prevail in court."

Why?

You can not prove you have a case.

Any court which would find in your favor would be as corrupt as Mr.Nifong, convicted in open court of multiple ethical violations in his wrongful prosecution of innocent men.

Anonymous said...

"If I do lose in court, then...[Duke] can humiliate, harass, intimidate, and arrest you without cause."

Just like they did to the innocent Duke Lacrosse players - except they did not actually arrest them.

Duke did pay the Lacrosse players, which would not have happened had they not tried to "humiliate, harass [and] intimidate [them] without cause.

Anonymous said...

"If I do lose in court, then you lose also".

I do not think so.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, there is o way I would ever identify myself as your "ami."

I have more self respect than that

Anonymous said...

I mean

Sidney, there is NO way I would ever identify myself as your "ami."

I have more self respect than that.

Anonymous said...

"You make a good case for Crystal Mangum being released from jail on her own recognizance"

1St degree Murder != Rape (1st degree or otherwise)

Anonymous said...

You know, Sidney, you talk about Crystal's word providing probable cause whether it is given to a grand jury or to a prosecutor. Actually, Crystal never presented her allegations either to Mike Nifong or to a Grand Jury. Ergo, Mr. Nifong did not have any word from the accuser to justify indicting anyone.

Again, the id's Crystal made were not credible and were the result of a tainted, improper lineup. No ethical prosecutor would have proceeded just on the basis of the people she id'd. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, if Crystal's word was so vital to Mr. Nifong's case, why did he not have her appear before the Grand Jury?

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, Sidney, the prosecution of Sean Lanigan was no prosecutorial mistake. Mr. Lanigan was Nifonged.

Like the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, he was prosecuted for a crime which never happened.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, Durham is again trying to prevent discovery from going forward in thesuits filed by the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

Why is Durham afraid of discovery?

Don't you think the costs incurred by the innocent Lacrosse players in defending themselves against an obviously unethical wrongful prosecution left them a bit cash strapped?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'Au contrare, mi ami. I have suffered serious injury. I am not able to return to Duke University campus to enjoy the programs they present for fear of being arrested.'

You choose not to return to the Duke campus.

What you are saying is the same as, you should receive compensation for shooting yourself in the foot because the owner of the property on which you shot yourself should have stopped you."


You are absolutely correct. I choose not to return to the Duke campus out of fear of being humiliated, harassed, intimidated, and arrested without just cause. If it happened before (the only reason I wasn't arrested was because Prof. Coleman interceded on my behalf) why would I not expect it to happen again. I choose not to return to Duke University campus because I am no fool. Now had Duke gave a reasonable explanation for its treatment of me, or if it had accepted responsibility for it and promised not to allow such an occurence in the future, then I might consider returning. But since Duke disavowed any wrong-doing and blamed me for its mistreatment of me, then it is only reasonable that I stay away from Duke grounds.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'If I do lose in court, then...[Duke] can humiliate, harass, intimidate, and arrest you without cause.'

Just like they did to the innocent Duke Lacrosse players - except they did not actually arrest them.

Duke did pay the Lacrosse players, which would not have happened had they not tried to 'humiliate, harass [and] intimidate [them]' without cause."


Are you suggesting that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants should have been paid $20 million because Duke humiliated, harassed and intimidated them? I think the players, by hosting and attending the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party did that to themselves. I, on the other hand, was truly victimized by Duke University. If anyone deserves $20 mil, it is me.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, Durham is again trying to prevent discovery from going forward in thesuits filed by the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

Why is Durham afraid of discovery?

Don't you think the costs incurred by the innocent Lacrosse players in defending themselves against an obviously unethical wrongful prosecution left them a bit cash strapped?"


Are you kidding? The "innocent" Lacrosse players with the aid of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke for $20 million each. Even if they bothered to pay taxes on the motherlode, they should still have enough funds set aside to pay for competent legal representation.

The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not cash-strapped... they're just plain GREEDY.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'...Crystal Mangum left the Buchanan house amid a flurry of racial epithets...'

Sidney, this is another lie you try to pass off as truth. Crystal was not subjected to any flurry of racial epithets."


Oh, so you're of the opinion that the racial epithets, including the "N-word", were meant for the other African American dancer, and that makes it okay... right? Well, I don't happen to share your view.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, many of the anonymous comments which disappeared asked you to comment of little wormy squirmy wacko quacko kilgo referring to African Americans as n----rs, referring to Professor James Coleman as an Uncle Tom. You were asked to comment on kilgo's use of those racial epithets.

Why did those comments disappear?"


As I have stated before, I have never deleted, edited, or otherwise tampered with any comments. Commenters have the ability, I believe, to remove their own comments.

Also, I am too busy with my flogs, blogs, comic strips, and other justice advocacy work to keep track of blog comments.

Anonymous said...

"If it happened before...why would I not expect it to happen again."

It would probably happen again because you would try to violate Duke's Solicitation policy.

Anonymous said...

"But since Duke disavowed any wrong-doing and blamed me for its mistreatment of me, then it is only reasonable that I stay away from Duke grounds."

To make your case you will have to prove all that. Asserting it is not proving it, just like Crystal asserting she was raped does not prove it.

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants should have been paid $20 million because Duke humiliated, harassed and intimidated them?"

I am not suggesting it. I am stating Duke de facto admitted it by paying them.

You are asserting Duke should pay you damages just because you asserted the humiliate you. It sounds more like you humiliated yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants should have been paid $20 million because Duke humiliated, harassed and intimidated them?"

Sidney, that is another lie you promulgate. Whatever it was, that party was not the orgy you assert without proof that it was.

Anonymous said...

"I, on the other hand, was truly victimized by Duke University."

You will have to prove it.

"If anyone deserves $20 mil, it is me."

Sidney, now you admit the real reason why you are suing Duke.

Again, you will have to prove it.

I don't think your Otherwise, friend Professor Coleman thinks so. Otherwise, you would be having Professor Coleman testifying for you.

Anonymous said...

"As I have stated before, I have never deleted, edited, or otherwise tampered with any comments. Commenters have the ability, I believe, to remove their own comments."

Why did those comments all disappear? Even if an author deletes a comment, there is still something there saying "comment deleted by author". Just check some of your past blog posts.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, so you're of the opinion that the racial epithets, including the "N-word", were meant for the other African American dancer, and that makes it okay... right?"

I do not think it is right. I do not think Ms. Roberts, who admitted she provoked the comment, is entitled to any sympathy for it. I do not think she is right to have provoked the comment and then to have cried foul over it.

I also say you lie when you claim that Ms. Mangum was subjected to multiple racial epithets. That is not exactly "okay...[or] right", is it?

Anonymous said...

"The "innocent" Lacrosse players with the aid of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke for $20 million each."

Answer the question. How could the Duke defendants have accomplished this if Duke truly had not "humiliated, harassed and intimidated them"?

Anonymous said...

"Also, I am too busy with my flogs, blogs, comic strips, and other justice advocacy work to keep track of blog comments."

That seems to be another excuse for you to dodge the issue of kilgo using racial epithets you claim to detest.

Anonymous said...

"Also, I am too busy with my flogs, blogs, comic strips, and other justice advocacy work to keep track of blog comments."

That is also a dodge for you to avoid answering the questions put to you, like how is prosecuting innocent men for a crime that never happened ethical.

Anonymous said...

"Even if they bothered to pay taxes on the motherlode, they should still have enough funds set aside to pay for competent legal representation."

So you think it is right to force tremendous legal costs on innocent men by charging them with a crime that never happened.

Anonymous said...

"The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not cash-strapped... they're just plain GREEDY."

Sidney, you are saying you deserve $20 Million just because you assert that Duke treated you badly. You have not proven anything.

Again I ask you, how could the Duke Defendants shaken down Duke for $20 million apiece if they could not prove that Duke wronged them?

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants should have been paid $20 million because Duke humiliated, harassed and intimidated them?"

Sidney, that is another lie you promulgate. Whatever it was, that party was not the orgy you assert without proof that it was.

Your lie is that the party was an out of control drunken orgy.

Anonymous said...

"...(the only reason I wasn't arrested was because Prof. Coleman interceded on my behalf)..."

You will have to prove that. Asserting is not proving.

Apparently Professor Coleman will not testify to that. So how do you intend to prove it?

Anonymous said...

"Well, I don't happen to share your view."

I don't believe your lies, that the party was a wild, drunken out of control orgy, that the Lacrosse players hurled multiple racial epithets at Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

"Even if they bothered to pay taxes on the motherlode, they should still have enough funds set aside to pay for competent legal representation."

There is no evidence that any Lacrosse player ever evaded taxes, that supposed lien against Reade Seligman, filed with some accountant and not Mr. Seligman, notwithstanding.

Would they have needed legal representation had they not been falsely indicted for rape?

It's like, would Reginald Daye have been at risk for a medical complication had Ms. Mangum not stabbed him?

Anonymous said...

"I choose not to return to Duke University campus because I am no fool."

You are correct when you say YOU choose not to return to Duke University campus.

Whether or not you are no fool is debatable.

Anonymous said...

"The Duke Lacrosse defendants are not cash-strapped... they're just plain GREEDY."

If you can prove that you are a victim of a carpetbagger jihad initiated by their families, why don't you sue them?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, I have asked why Crystal has not filed a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. If she really had a case against them, every contingency fee hungry lawyer in the country would have headed for her door.

Similarly, if you deserved $20 million, a lot of contingency fee lawyers would be fighting to represent you. Have any lawyers offered to represent you?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, why do you assert there were multiple "racial epithets"?

There was one racial epithet by a Lacrosse player, directed at Kim Roberts in response to an epithet she hurled at him.

You seem to think a racial epithet hurled by an African American at another individual is "okay... right?"

Anonymous said...

Sidney, here is something for you to think about - providing you do actually think.

I got this from Liestoppers, and I am paraphrasing. Saying the innocent Lacrosse defendants brought their troubles upon themselves via underage drinking is like saying a real rape victim(which Crystal is not) brought the rape upon herself because of the way she dressed.

Anonymous said...

"In [the Duke Lacrosse case], the alleged victim identified [the] alleged offenders."

No she did not. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

"By the time police arrived at the Buchanan house, all of the lacrosse party-goers had taken flight... they were long gone!"

Sidney, why were the police called? Kim Roberts falsely reported that she and her girlfriend had been called n----r by someone in the house. The report was false because at the time she made it the house was empty.

Why didnt Ms. Roberts call the police to report a rape?

Anonymous said...

"The decision to prosecute [for rape] is not always hinged on DNA... as the Ronald Cotton case shows."

And the Innocence Project shows ignoring DNA testing in such cases can and does lead to wrongful convictions.

I say again the crime alleged in the Duke case was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left their DNA. No DNA of any member of the Duke Lacrosse team was found.

So, instead of ducking, explain why Mr. Nifong should have proceded with his prosecution, why he should have sought id's and indictments.

To say a crime could have happened without leaving evidence is a legally meaningless dodge.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
"Sid, wrong again...as usual. You absolutely amaze me. The man in NYC was arrest and HELD in custody, without bail, because he had the means ($$)and ability to leave the country. He was deemed a flight risk because he had worldwide connections that would have made it far easier for him, versus you and I, to flee. He was held and jailed not just on the basis of the apparent victim's statement. The police reported in the news that blood was found in his bedroom, there were apparent marks and bruises consistent with assualt and she identified him, within a few hours, in a properly staged police lineup. Good lord, Sid, even YOU can figure this one out. It's called probable cause, Sid. They felt they had it. If it turns out that there is no evidence to support her story, IF her story changes over and over, IF he comes up with an alibi, IF it is proved that a wrong procedure was used in the lineup, IF it turns out that none of his DNA is found, etc.................THEN, and only THEN....wil a man who has been judged a flight risk AND a suicide risk....be released."


You make a good case for Crystal Mangum being released from jail on her own recognizance. Face it, she is definitely not a flight risk. She has no money... she doesn't even have any transportation. Where would she go? How would she survive? She did not flee during the last trial in which trumped up charges of arson were filed against her in the case in which Durham Police set clothes in the bathtub on fire.
I agree with you that Crystal Mangum should be released from jail and told when to return to court.... and the Judge needs to forget about the condition in which she is placed under house arrest with electronic monitoring... another waste of taxpayers' money.

May 19, 2011 1:06 PM"

This is an example of how Sidney dodges.

Anonymous said...

"Your view is that it's okay for NYC police and prosecutors to arrest someone without first establishing that a crime has taken place, but that it's not okay for Mike Nifong to do so."

Sidney, my view is that the New York Police did establish probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Therefore they were justified in taking Mr. Strauss-Kahn into custody.

Mr. Nifong had evidence that no crime had been committed. Yet he tried to prosecute individuals anyway.

Can you see the difference. At least try to see the difference instead of dodging like you usually do.

Anonymous said...

"I think the players, by hosting and attending the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party did that to themselves."

Sidney, I say again, that is not true.

I say again, with acknowledgement to liestoppers, your statement is morally equivalent to blaming a real rape victim for her rape by saying she was dressed inappropriately.

Anonymous said...

"But since Duke disavowed any wrong-doing and blamed me for its mistreatment of me, then it is only reasonable that I stay away from Duke grounds."

That statement is not only hypocritical but ironically funny. You devote yourself to upholding Mr. Nifong's obvious wrongdoing

Anonymous said...

Sid, How is your buddy Mikey doing these days? Has he joined the FOCM?

Anonymous said...

I see Google managed finally to replace the comments they took down when blogger crashed.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Anonymous at 6:21 PM said: 'Anyway, Sidney, you are ducking the questions which have been put to you.'

This is so true. Syd never gave his/Nifong's legal/medical justification for why Crystal is not responsible for Daye's death.

Walt-in-Durham"


In order to charge Crystal with Reginald Daye's death, it is necessary to first find out what the exact cause of death is. "Pending" does not count as a cause of death, and the medical examiner is going to take his sweet time before releasing the autopsy report. What if the autopsy reveals that Daye's death was due to an injection of insulin that resulted in blood sugar dropping to a fatal level. That would suggest that the stab wound did not play a role in Mr. Daye's death. There are any number of drugs that could have been administered which would have resulted in Mr. Daye unexpectedly entering into an irreversible coma. The fact that Daye was improving post-op and was on the verge of being discharged makes me believe that the stab wound he received earlier in the week had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Daye's lapsing into a coma and later being taken off life support.

What is troublesome is the rapidity with which prosecutors charged Ms. Mangum with murder. Per the death certificate, homicide had not even been ruled in as the cause of death. This is nothing more than prosecutorial bias, with the State of North Carolina carrying out the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda. I say, let the Carpetbaggers do their own dirty work. It is shameful that North Carolina is doing it for them.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, How is your buddy Mikey doing these days? Has he joined the FOCM?"


Mr. Nifong is doing great, as far as I can tell.

I do not know about the membership of the Friends of Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that Daye was improving post-op and was on the verge of being discharged makes me believe that the stab wound he received earlier in the week had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Daye's lapsing into a coma and later being taken off life support."

Sidney, you have no way of knowing that.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'The 'innocent' Lacrosse players with the aid of their avaricious attorneys were able to shakedown Duke for $20 million each.'

Answer the question. How could the Duke defendants have accomplished this if Duke truly had not 'humiliated, harassed and intimidated them'?"


Easily, with their high-powered attorneys. Besides, Duke University was under the impression that its insurance provider would cover the $60 million payout. But were they wrong.

Also, can you tell me how Duke University humiliated, harassed and intimidated the Lacrosse defendants? It's the other way around. The Duke Lacrosse players with their raucous party and behavior embarrassed the university. The Duke Lacrosse players' avaricious attorneys then harassed and intimidated the university, forcing it to settle for the outrageous sum of $20 million each. If I were on the Duke University legal team I would have called the bluff of Cheshire et al.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, when can we expect to see your next flash blog? They really are priceless.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'The fact that Daye was improving post-op and was on the verge of being discharged makes me believe that the stab wound he received earlier in the week had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Daye's lapsing into a coma and later being taken off life support.'

Sidney, you have no way of knowing that."


I have no personal knowledge, but I report what I have been told by sources who are in the know. Do you have any information to state that following surgery Daye's condition steadily deteriorated until he entered an irreversible coma? I don't think so.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Hey Sid, when can we expect to see your next flash blog? They really are priceless."


Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment. I'm working on it now, and after writing this reply, I will resume working on it when I get home. I hope to get it uploaded by Monday at the latest.

Anonymous said...

"I have no personal knowledge, but I report what I have been told by sources who are in the know."

Who are your sources and why would any of your sources be in the know?

Anonymous said...

"Do you have any information to state that following surgery Daye's condition steadily deteriorated until he entered an irreversible coma?"

For your edification, I admit I do not. I have taken care of trauma patients. It is not uncommon for a trauma patient to die weeks or months after the trauma.

You have no knowledge that Mr. Daye was in fact recovering.

I ask again, who are your sources and why would they be in the know?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, have you revealed those sources to Crystals defense attorney. Have you revealed them to the District Attorney?

Both of those individuals would have a need to know that information.

Anonymous said...

"The Duke Lacrosse players with their raucous party and behavior embarrassed the university."

Again, with acknowledgement to liestoppers, that statement is the moral equivalentof blaming a rape victim for her rape because of the way she was dressed.

Anonymous said...

"Hey Sid, when can we expect to see your next flash blog? They really are priceless."

It would be more appropriate to say they aren't worth anything, let alone the time to listen to them.

Anonymous said...

"Easily, with their high-powered attorneys. Besides, Duke University was under the impression that its insurance provider would cover the $60 million payout. But were they wrong."

You are implying they had no right to retain counsel after they were falsely charged. Even an accused who is actually guilty is entitled to counsel. Or haven't you read the Constitution?

Why would an insurer pay out on a claim if it could have been defended at a lesser cost?

Why would Duke have paid out $60 million on a claim if it could have been defended at a much lower cost?

Sidney, this is the most ridiculous and least believable dodge you have attempted.

Anonymous said...

"In order to charge Crystal with Reginald Daye's death, it is necessary to first find out what the exact cause of death is."

No it isn't.

Crystal Mabgum stabbed Reginald Daye. Before the stabbing he was fine. After the stabbing he was dead. Tht is probable cause, certainly more probable cause that Mr. Nifong had to charge any Lacrosse player with rape.

What evidence do you have that the stab wound was not, as you have been asserting, the cause of death.

Anonymous sources which you assert are in the know are not evidence.

Anonymous said...

"...can you tell me how Duke University humiliated, harassed and intimidated the Lacrosse defendants?"

I can tell you faculty members were allowed to circulate the guilt presuming gang of 88 statement.

Duke allowed farm animal Houston Baker to malign them in a racist, guilt presuming statement.

Duyke allowed faculty member Kim Curtis to flunk Lacrosse team member Kyle Dowd just becuse he was a Lacrosse team member.

President Brodhead made a statement that whatever the Lacrosse players did was bad enough.

Board of Trustees President Bob Steele said it would be better for Duke if the Lacrosse players were found guilty. They then could sort it out on appeal.

Duke University allowed the Durham DA's office to student rooms in violation of FERPA.

Duke University did not defend its students against Mr. Nifong's obviously wrongful attempt to convict them of a crime which never happened.

You obviously would not consider that harassment. There is no doubt the Lacrosse players had more cause of action against Duke than you did.

It is also obvious in my mind that Duke would not have settled had they been able to defend itself against whatever cause of action the innocent Lacrosse players had.

Anonymous said...

"If I were on the Duke University legal team I would have called the bluff of Cheshire et al."

But they did not. That is an indication that it was no bluff.

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Nifong is doing great, as far as I can tell."

Come on Sid, tell us what the old Fonger is up to.

Anonymous said...

"Come on Sid, tell us what the old Fonger is up to."

I thought I saw Mikey bagging groceries last week at the Kroger on Hillsborough Road. I waved to him, but he ignored me.

Anonymous said...

"The Great Kilgo

is the One and Only Source

of Truth in this UnGodly Cesspool."

little wormy squirmy tiny whiney wacko quacko kilgo:

Not even tour own mother would believe you were a source of truth.

Anonymous said...

I have sources who have told me that Daye was NOT up and improving, was not ready for discharge and was not doing better. He steadily declined and took a significant turn downward. Sid is competely wrong. Competely.

Anonymous said...

"I have sources who have told me that Daye was NOT up and improving, was not ready for discharge and was not doing better."

And I have sources who told me the world was going to end yesterday. So, now we are stooping to Sid's level?

Anonymous said...

"I have sources who have told me that Daye was NOT up and improving, was not ready for discharge and was not doing better."

Let me see if I am following. We have an anonymous poster quoting anonymous sources. That proves it for me.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'In order to charge Crystal with Reginald Daye's death, it is necessary to first find out what the exact cause of death is.'

No it isn't.

Crystal Mabgum stabbed Reginald Daye. Before the stabbing he was fine. After the stabbing he was dead. Tht is probable cause, certainly more probable cause that Mr. Nifong had to charge any Lacrosse player with rape.

What evidence do you have that the stab wound was not, as you have been asserting, the cause of death.

Anonymous sources which you assert are in the know are not evidence."


I neither have evidence that the stab wound caused the death of Daye, nor that it didn't. However, the medical examiner who did the autopsy did not state that the stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death. He also did not find that Mr. Daye's death was the result of a homicide. My question is, how can the prosecution bring a charge of first degree murder against Crystal Mangum when they have no evidence that a murder has been committed. Daye's death could be the result of homicidal actions of someone at the hospital, the result of a medical mistake, or the result of a suicide. The jump to charge Mangum with murder shows the tunnel vision of the police and prosecutors... an affliction that is often seen with Carpetbagger Jihaditis.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'If I were on the Duke University legal team I would have called the bluff of Cheshire et al.'

But they did not. That is an indication that it was no bluff."


How do you figure? The city of Durham certainly isn't folding like an accordian. The beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party animals had no defense for their actions... just a trio of smooth talking avaricious attorneys.

Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... the Duke Lacrosse defendants would've been lucky to walk away with $20 if only Duke University would've stared them down.

Anonymous said...

The beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party animals had no defense for their actions...

Just like Greg Taylor... right?

The players guzzled beer. Taylor used cocaine. As a result, prosecutors were justified in both cases in pursuing felonies with no credible evidence... right?

Anonymous said...

"I neither have evidence that the stab wound caused the death of Daye, nor that it didn't. However, the medical examiner who did the autopsy did not state that the stab wound caused Mr. Daye's death. He also did not find that Mr. Daye's death was the result of a homicide."

Unfortunately, Sidney, whether or not you have evidence of anything is of no legal weight.

You have repeatedly in the past have offered up multiple assertions as true without offering evidence.

Anonymous said...

"How do you figure? The city of Durham certainly isn't folding like an accordian(sic)."

Sidney, the City of Durham is fighting desperately to have the game end without having to reveal what cards they are holding. That is not exactly calling anyone's bluff.

Anonymous said...

"The jump to charge Mangum with murder shows the tunnel vision of the police and prosecutors... an affliction that is often seen with Carpetbagger Jihaditis."

Sidney, the carpetbagger jihad is an example of an assertion you offer as truth without a shred of evidence to support your contention.

Anonymous said...

"Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... the Duke Lacrosse defendants would've been lucky to walk away with $20 if only Duke University would've stared them down."

Sidney, give us a logical reason why Duke settled rather than stare them down, if they could have avoided a multi million loss by doing so.

Saying they had high powered attorneys is not a logical reason to believe Duke had nothing to hide.

Anonymous said...

"The beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party animals had no defense for their actions..."

Sidney, you are saying your unsupported allegations of a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party justify Mike Nifong knowingly falsely charging them with rape.

Incidentally, Sidney, the captains of the Lacrosse team did apologize to Duke for the party. Duke never did apologize to them to throwing them under the bus.

Duke, however, did admit they were liable when they paid out a big settlement rather than try to defend their actions.

Anonymous said...

"Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... "

So, again, Sidney, why did Duke not go to trial? You claim going to trial would have cost them much less than the settlements.

Anonymous said...

"The beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party animals had no defense for their actions... "

Sidney, the actions of the Lacrosse players are not an issue.

The issue is that Durham was complicit in the wrongful prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse players for rape.

Durham is desperately fighting to have the case dismissed before discovery can take place.

It is all too obvious why you are on no legal team, except the one pushing your frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

Anonymous said...

"The [innocent Lacrosse players] had no defense for their actions... just a trio of smooth talking avaricious attorneys.

What actions are you talking about. There was no crime committed. That was obvious from what was learned from the rape kit. So why did they have to defend themselves against a clearly wrongful prosecution?

Anonymous said...

"Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... the Duke Lacrosse defendants would've been lucky to walk away with $20 if only Duke University would've stared them down."

Sidney, did some anonymous source who was in the know reveal this to you?

Anonymous said...

"Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... the Duke Lacrosse defendants would've been lucky to walk away with $20 if only Duke University would've stared them down."

Sidney, why did your friend Professor Coleman not dissuade Duke from setling rather than going to trial?

Anonymous said...

What actions are you talking about. There was no crime committed.

There were many crimes committed.

Many of the players were guilty of underage drinking. Some of the older players may have been guilty of providing alcohol to minors. Some may have been guilty of noise violations. Others may have been guilty of public urination. A couple may have taken back some of Mangum's money.

All misdemeanors.

Mike Nifong believed that charging three random players with felonies that he knew never occurred is the most effective way to solve all these misdemeanors.

Sid defends this as honorable.

Anonymous said...

Sidney has defined probable cause to charge the Lacrosse players as: they could not prove they had not committed some crime which had left no evidence.

Anonymous said...

And MY sourced say Daye is actually alive and living in Vegas with Elvis and Brodhead's ex wife. Give us a break with the "sources" Sid ,et al. Name 'em or hush

Walt said...

Syd, thanks for the reply. I thought you might be thinking along those lines. "In order to charge Crystal with Reginald Daye's death, it is necessary to first find out what the exact cause of death is. "Pending" does not count as a cause of death, and the medical examiner is going to take his sweet time before releasing the autopsy report. What if the autopsy reveals that Daye's death was due to an injection of insulin that resulted in blood sugar dropping to a fatal level...." I was correct in my estimation of your position. I know you are not a lawyer and don't really expect you to know the law, but Nifong was a lawyer, not a very good one, but still a lawyer, so he can help your with the law. But, how do you and Nifong explain this problem?

Under our law, a defendant will be held criminally responsible for second-degree murder if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death. State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 439, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). To escape responsibility based on an intervening cause, the defendant must show that the intervening act was “the sole cause of death.” State v. Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App.696, 699, 257 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1979)(quoting State v. Sherrill, 28 N.C. App. 311, 313, 220 S.E.2d 822, 824 (1976)).

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"And MY sourced say Daye is actually alive and living in Vegas with Elvis and Brodhead's ex wife. Give us a break with the 'sources' Sid ,et al. Name 'em or hush"


All that I will say about my sources is that they are reliable. Unless they give me explicit permission to use their name, I will not. If Walter Cronkite reported on a story would you ask him for his sources?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'Had Duke University gone to trial, there is no way that a jury would have awarded them $20 mil... the Duke Lacrosse defendants would've been lucky to walk away with $20 if only Duke University would've stared them down.'

Sidney, why did your friend Professor Coleman not dissuade Duke from setling rather than going to trial?"


I'm sure that that is exactly what he would have done, however, I do not know if he was even in the decision making process. All I know is that the decision to give over $60 million without a fight is totally irresponsible... especially to young men who acted irresponsibly by attending the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'The beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party animals had no defense for their actions...'

Sidney, you are saying your unsupported allegations of a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party justify Mike Nifong knowingly falsely charging them with rape.

Incidentally, Sidney, the captains of the Lacrosse team did apologize to Duke for the party. Duke never did apologize to them to throwing them under the bus.

Duke, however, did admit they were liable when they paid out a big settlement rather than try to defend their actions."


Am I supposed to be impressed that the Duke Lacrosse captain apologized to Duke University for the party? What would really impress me would be for him to apology to the community, the city of Durham, and especially to Crystal Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Syd, thanks for the reply. I thought you might be thinking along those lines. 'In order to charge Crystal with Reginald Daye's death, it is necessary to first find out what the exact cause of death is. 'Pending' does not count as a cause of death, and the medical examiner is going to take his sweet time before releasing the autopsy report. What if the autopsy reveals that Daye's death was due to an injection of insulin that resulted in blood sugar dropping to a fatal level....' I was correct in my estimation of your position. I know you are not a lawyer and don't really expect you to know the law, but Nifong was a lawyer, not a very good one, but still a lawyer, so he can help your with the law. But, how do you and Nifong explain this problem?

Under our law, a defendant will be held criminally responsible for second-degree murder if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death. State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 439, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). To escape responsibility based on an intervening cause, the defendant must show that the intervening act was “the sole cause of death.” State v. Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App.696, 699, 257 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1979)(quoting State v. Sherrill, 28 N.C. App. 311, 313, 220 S.E.2d 822, 824 (1976)).

Walt-in-Durham"


Walt, thanks for the legal references. However, I believe that what you state supports my position. There could have been an "intervening" act which could have led to Daye's death... and this is likely because of his sudden and unexpected coma... which led to his death. I believe that something (possibly a drug of some kind) or someone (purposely or inadvertently) was responsible for Daye's death. An autopsy would, of course, shed light on the cause of death, but for reasons which I am unable to fathom, the medical examiner is delaying its release. Why do you think that is?

If you review records at Duke Hospital or other renown hospitals, I am sure that you will not find victims of trauma who had been surgically treated and who are on the verge of discharge lapsing into an irreversible coma.

Anonymous said...

"If Walter Cronkite reported on a story would you ask him for his source"

Yes -- Considering that he died in 2009. And I still rank you lower than him with regard to reliability.

Anonymous said...

" All I know is that the decision to give over $60 million without a fight is totally irresponsible.."

Sid -- You do NOT know the amount of the settlement Duked reached with the Lacrosse players. The amount was never disclosed.

Your consistent statements regarding this amount are lies.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, in case you haven't heard, Mr. Cronkite has passed away. If no one asked him for his sources, it would have been because he had earned a reputation as an honest, reliable journalist. You haven't even come close to that achievement. That you would compare yourself to Mr. Cronkite is the grossest manifestation yet of your delusions of grandeur.

Citing unknown reliable sources and comparing yourself to Walter Cronkite is an excuse for you to pass off unsupported allegations as the truth.

Anonymous said...

"...the defendant must show that the intervening act was “the sole cause of death.” State v. Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App.696, 699, 257 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1979)(quoting State v. Sherrill, 28 N.C. App. 311, 313, 220 S.E.2d 822"

Sidney, even if Mr. Daye died from a medical complication, he would not have been exposed to such a complication had Crystal not stabbed him.

Anonymous said...

"Am I supposed to be impressed that the Duke Lacrosse captain apologized to Duke University for the party? What would really impress me would be for him to apology to the community, the city of Durham, and especially to Crystal Mangum."

For what reason should a falsely accused man apologize to the woman who falsely accused him, or to the City and University who tried to undermine his right to be presumed innocent.

Stop dodging and respond to the issues.

Anonymous said...

"All I know is that the decision to give over $60 million without a fight is totally irresponsible... especially to young men who acted irresponsibly by attending the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party."

First of all, Sidney, you do not know that the party was the way you described it. That is another unsupported allegation you pass off as the truth.

And an institution like Duke does not surrender that totally without a fight unless they know already that they have no defense.

Do you really believe Duke would have paid out tens of millions of dollars to settle a claim it could have won at a jury trial?

If you do, you are really out of touch.

Anonymous said...

"What would really impress me would be for him to apology to the community, the city of Durham, and especially to Crystal Mangum."

Sidney, that you would believe anyone would care about what impresses you is another manifestation of your delusions of your own grandeur.

Anonymous said...

"All I know is that the decision to give over $60 million without a fight is totally irresponsible..."

That they made it is an indication they did not want to fight the case. An institution like Duke pays rather than fights when it can not fight. Another reason is they do not want made public the reasons why they were sued, why they would be found liable.

Anonymous said...

"If you review records at Duke Hospital or other renown hospitals..."

Sidney, did you review the record at Duke Hospital? No.

You then present anonymous sources who are in the know as your fount of knowledge.

You again are trying to pass off unsupported allegations as the truth.

Walt said...

This certainly is Nifong quality legal analysis, or should I say sloppy Nifong legal analysis. "Walt, thanks for the legal references. However, I believe that what you state supports my position. There could have been an "intervening" act which could have led to Daye's death...." Neither one of you read the cases. For Sid, that's understanable. But, Nifong should have been familiar with them. Of course, being a lazy excuse for a lawyer, he isn't.

BTW, the cases I cited stand for the proposition that the intervening cause has to be quite exceptional to cut off criminal liability. Neither malpractice nor the refusal of medical treatment will cut off criminal liability.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

I ask you again Sidney, would Mr. Daye have been exposed either malpractice or a medical complication had he not been stabbed by Crystal Mangum?

Anonymous said...

Sid -- On May 11, you stated "...the record is plain that Reginald Daye did not die from stab wound that he received on April 3rd. He was clearly on the mend and ready for discharge when he went into a coma."

On May 8, Stephen Matherly stated "This is, of course, little more than rumor but it appears that Mr. Daye was up and walking about and about to be discharged the Friday before he died"

Now, you state the record is plain and that Mr. Daye was "clearly" on the mend. Mr. Matherly states that this is "little more than rumor". Which of you is lying?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"I ask you again Sidney, would Mr. Daye have been exposed either malpractice or a medical complication had he not been stabbed by Crystal Mangum?"


That is totally irrelevant. The question is: was the stabbing directly related to Mr. Daye's death? The answer is: No. The death of Mr. Daye has not even been filled out on his death certificate.

Don't you believe that the prosecution is way ahead of itself in charging Mangum with murder when when homicide has not been ruled in as a cause of death. And if homicide is ruled in, then whoever is responsible for Daye's death had access to him just prior to the weekend when he was found comatose. That would rule out Mangum as a suspect.

Anonymous said...

I say again, Mangum would not be relieved of responsibility if the cause were some complication of treatment. He would not have been exposed to the risk of a medical complication had Ms. Mangum not stabbed him.

If you have never done surgery(I have done hundreds of procedures, including cardiac procedures) you would not say that a death from surgery has to occur within a few days of surgery. The criterion is, a death within 30 days of surgery is a surgical death. It is not uncommon that a patient will initially do well after surgery then suffer a complication.

If homicide were ruled in, then it is not ruled in that the killer had to be someone who had access to Mr. Daye immediately before his death.

If that is offered as Crystal's defense, it is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof would be on the defense.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that she fantasizes about White men. That is what White men seemed to do with Black women when they raped and sodomized us during slavery.

BTW,most rape suspect don't think twice about how women look when they rape them. Think about another excuse to justify your racism.

I also support Crystal to the fullest and he truth will come, I may be old and grey and I may not be around to see it,but you can only do so much wrong before everything will come out in the open.

Unknown said...

You sound like an ignorant racist...take off your hood and show your face,coward

Unknown said...

Agree

Unknown said...

Sorry. My mother was forced into prostitution at 12 and we lived in a hut. There’s 3 of us. I’m the youngest. I’ve seen her abused and broken but she fought through it. As a result of her prostitution, we were raped and abused. We moved here and she swept floors at hair salons for less than min wage. We were the poorest in the ghetto. Everything that happened in my life can “excuse” me from being a good person. She’s not a victim. She is her worst enemy. You don’t be a victim and use the excuse to hurt ppl bc you’re a victim. Your DNA makes the gun, your environment loads it but it’s the person who shoots it. You either shoot at a target or shoot to kill others who you think are blocking your target.
My mom now is happily retired. Pushed herself through school. I too, did the same and became self made. I see a lot of people in my old hood blaming society for their downfalls but I remind them that in HS I didn’t see them at the college help classes or the scholarship help days. I didn’t see them fight hard like me while they criticized my clothes and called me a loner for not partying. You can choose your life to either be negative or positive

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 345 of 345   Newer› Newest»