justice4nifong

Sunday, June 10, 2012

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog21.html

To access the flog, click on the link above. Audio required... this is not interactive.

185 comments:

Anonymous said...: Sid, you must have something better to do with your time.; June 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: None of the lacrosse players ever had any physical contact with Grystal Mangum.Who would want to?; June 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Anonymous said...: White women are beautiful.; June 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Silly waste of time. Who gives a rip what harr thinks? What a world class loser.....; June 11, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Apparently harr realizesmhe was not going to weasel out of questions with his usualmsource,or truth setmyou freencrap......so we have the next avoidance tactic.....a new flop. What ridiculous waste of bandwidth.
Too bad harr and his phonebooth size mob have caused two highly competent attorneys to bolt in disgust. Now mangun gets the yokel who said he thought nifong would see the case through. Vann knows mangum well; this ought to be fun. Perhaps he should call upon harr for his expertise.
Cline wants the taxpayers to pay for her lawyer bills . Hilarious. Harr works for free. Let him defens that intellectual giant, no conscious cline.; June 11, 2012 at 5:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny says he is bosom buddies with mangum. All i can say is yuck.......poor Mangum.
Cline will be held accountable before the Bar in Oct hearing. That, sports fans, will be fun to watch. Cirque du Durham is about to begin!; June 11, 2012 at 5:57 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Dr. Harr --The Daily Beast article is from April 2011, and you stated that they were "false and misleading" when they reported that the Daye/Mangum incident was a fight over rent money.

What were you reporting up until earlier this you as the cause of the fight?; June 11, 2012 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: so that makes what you said, harr, equally false and misleading.....but, of course, you refuse to accept responsibility yourself and always blame others....as in, this time, blaming your non-existent "sources".
the comments from peterson in the article are just as obnoxious and telling today as they were back then......blaming everybody else, blaming the rich white boys. too bad, victoria, it must really just chap your axx that the boys didn't do it!!!; June 11, 2012 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: 2010....convicted, found guilty of child abuse/neglect, injury to personal property and resisting an officer during an arrest. split jury and dropped....arson charge.
GUILTY of child abuse! and the judge said he thought she was a "good mother".
Then, a year later, she stabs a man to death....and her CHILD winds up being told to call 911 and is given instructions on what to say...by a drunken "good mother".
Astonishing......
If Mangum were truly the victim and truly stabbed a wild drunken maniac in self defense......do you honestly think she would RUN to the very place where her child and older female relative were? Realllly???? I say again, any person who has been the victim of potential violence, already, and then somehow escapes....does NOT run to the place where her child is. She RUNS to nearest door, bangs on it, screams bloody murder and continues screaming till somebody answers. Oh, by the way, an innocent victim of violence from a drunken maniac does NOT stop and pick up her purse!!!!!! She RUNS!!! screw the purse.
harr, your theory is so damn dumb and it is an insult to any woman who has EVER been attacked by a violent drunken man. How stupid can you get?
If Mangum had spent the last hour having the crap beat out of her, there would have been far more serious injuries ......not a slight laceration that "no treatment necessary" from the notes. Duh, harr!
If Mangum had been the victim and fighting in self defense, she would have RUN out the door, screaming, the FIRST opportunity she got. Duh again, harr!
A self defense victim does NOT conveniently pick up her purse, with HIS money in it, and flee, passing several apartments en route to a place where her child is.....passing up the opportunity to yell for help.
Once again Mangum proves, through her behavior, what an amoral sorry person she is.; June 11, 2012 at 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: funny coincidence....???
in 2006 and in 2011, mangum claims that her attacker(s) said, "you're not going anywhere".....
come on, harr, even YOU can dream up a better story....; June 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I would really love to hear harr explain how mangum could have gotten the stuffing beat out of her for an "hour of terror" without leaving anything worse than a tiny facial laceration (which did not require treatment). Per sister and harr, Mr. daye is punching and slapping her in the face, pulling out her hair, rolling around on the floor with her, jerking her backward. One officer noted minor lip swelling, the other said chapped lips. geez, mr. daye gave her chapped lips. Oh my god!
In fact, the entire self defense theory that harr puts forward is based, entirely, on mangum's tale.....which, apparently, changes, lizard like, to suit the evidence.
The infamous clumps of hair? Somebody needs to provide physical verificable EVIDENCE that shows whose hair it is, if anybody's, evidence that any hair was PULLED out, evidence that shows that any hair was pulled out THAT NIGHT, evidence that shows that Daye PULLED IT....as opposed to Mangum. She has a history of self injury to gain attention and drugs. There is also no evidence that daye kicked in the door, when he may have kicked in it, for what reason, etc. Mangum is absolutely capable of injury to personal property of others. (she has a conviction for it).
Mangum has a record of alcohol abuse (driving drunk)
Mangum has a record of violence and injury to propertyn (conviction)
Mangum has a record of theft (stole car keys from lap dance customer)
Mangum has a record of child abuse. (conviction)
Day's record? driving without insurance, unpaid ticket, and a DROPPED CHARGE of domestic dispute!

As harr has beent told repeatedly, the cashier's checks would be considered, by the law, to be the same as hard cash/money. And he has been told that it is a no-brainer to alter these checks. Criminals do it all the time.
If I had to guess what happened the night mr. daye was stabbed, I would bet the argument WAS about money.....HIS money. I bet Mangum was the one who wanted him to not use that money to pay the rent and I bet Mangum was the one who wanted the money, herself, to spend on herself. And I bet both were drinking and arguing and I bet SHE was the one who got violent toward him.

Mangum has a record of resisting arrest (conviction)
Mangum has a record of; June 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Apparently harr realizesmhe was not going to weasel out of questions with his usualmsource,or truth setmyou freencrap......so we have the next avoidance tactic.....a new flop. What ridiculous waste of bandwidth.
Too bad harr and his phonebooth size mob have caused two highly competent attorneys to bolt in disgust. Now mangun gets the yokel who said he thought nifong would see the case through. Vann knows mangum well; this ought to be fun. Perhaps he should call upon harr for his expertise.
Cline wants the taxpayers to pay for her lawyer bills . Hilarious. Harr works for free. Let him defens that intellectual giant, no conscious cline.

I would like to defend Tracey Cline in her legal situation, however, since I am not a licensed attorney in the state, that would be considered unauthorized practice of law... and as you should be aware, I respect the law and abide by laws... even the ones I don't agree with.; June 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Dr. Harr --The Daily Beast article is from April 2011, and you stated that they were "false and misleading" when they reported that the Daye/Mangum incident was a fight over rent money.

What were you reporting up until earlier this you as the cause of the fight?

I was misinformed when I earlier stated that the argument between Daye and Mangum was about money. However, when I directly spoke to Crystal about it, she enlightened me as to the truth. The argument was about Daye's jealous nature and what he perceived as Crystal flirting with a police officer.

At least I admit when I make a mistake, unlike the mainstream media... with but a few rare exceptions.; June 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I would really love to hear harr explain how mangum could have gotten the stuffing beat out of her for an "hour of terror" without leaving anything worse than a tiny facial laceration (which did not require treatment). Per sister and harr, Mr. daye is punching and slapping her in the face, pulling out her hair, rolling around on the floor with her, jerking her backward. One officer noted minor lip swelling, the other said chapped lips. geez, mr. daye gave her chapped lips. Oh my god!
In fact, the entire self defense theory that harr puts forward is based, entirely, on mangum's tale.....which, apparently, changes, lizard like, to suit the evidence.
The infamous clumps of hair? Somebody needs to provide physical verificable EVIDENCE that shows whose hair it is, if anybody's, evidence that any hair was PULLED out, evidence that shows that any hair was pulled out THAT NIGHT, evidence that shows that Daye PULLED IT....as opposed to Mangum. She has a history of self injury to gain attention and drugs. There is also no evidence that daye kicked in the door, when he may have kicked in it, for what reason, etc. Mangum is absolutely capable of injury to personal property of others. (she has a conviction for it).
Mangum has a record of alcohol abuse (driving drunk)
Mangum has a record of violence and injury to propertyn (conviction)
Mangum has a record of theft (stole car keys from lap dance customer)
Mangum has a record of child abuse. (conviction)
Day's record? driving without insurance, unpaid ticket, and a DROPPED CHARGE of domestic dispute!

As harr has beent told repeatedly, the cashier's checks would be considered, by the law, to be the same as hard cash/money. And he has been told that it is a no-brainer to alter these checks. Criminals do it all the time.
If I had to guess what happened the night mr. daye was stabbed, I would bet the argument WAS about money.....HIS money. I bet Mangum was the one who wanted him to not use that money to pay the rent and I bet Mangum was the one who wanted the money, herself, to spend on herself. And I bet both were drinking and arguing and I bet SHE was the one who got violent toward him.

Mangum has a record of resisting arrest (conviction)
Mangum has a record of

Are you kidding? A cashier's check is not as good as cold hard cash unless you are listed as the payee or remitter. Crystal was neither and could not convert it to cash.

I can use cash and buy a weeks worth of groceries. I can't pay for a stick of gum with a cashier's check if I am neither the payee nor remitter.

Thereby go ye enlightened.; June 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Ah -- But you didn't go back and change those posts, yet you expect The Daily Beast to do so?

A quick search shows that The Daily Beast hasn't had any article about Crystal Mangum since April 19, 2011. Who knows? Maybe they were getting their information from your "contacts"?

Tell you what -- when they publish a new story that still gets the facts wrong, then we'll set them straight...But calling them out on "facts" that you yourself were espousing at the time (from your much-vaunted "contacts")is the height of hypocrisy.; June 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Unfortunately for you, Dr. Harr, I think you're about to get a first-hand lesson in what is and is not "unauthorized practice of law"; June 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't be a fool, harr. Criminals, as in check artists, easily and routinely alter cashier's checks. surely you can't be as dumb as you appear....; June 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: typical harr.....he focuses on the cashier checks and ignores the rest of the poster's comments.....which are right on point.; June 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I like the poster's theory about the checks. Maybe daye wanted the checks back from Mangum and she would not hand them over. Maybe he was angry that she was already supposed to have paid the rent and didn't do so. Note that one of the checks was dated several days prior to the incident. Point of this is that NONE of us know what happened... frankly, the last person whose word I would trust would be the serial liar, mangum. After her, I would rank harr right up there with her.....in terms of being capable of fabricating a story, that seems to be changing, just to make it fit evidence.; June 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it interesting that harr has taken to considering himself the critic of other people's work and writing about the LAX hoax and Mangum........
the self appointed critic, posing as the authority, the source of truth, justice and the socialist way.
wow, who knew......??; June 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymmous @ June 10, 2012 11:31 PM

You would not think so if you had ever got a glimpse of the New Jersey tanning mom.

Ano-n(innu)-mous; June 11, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I would like to defend Tracey Cline in her legal situation, however, since I am not a licensed attorney in the state, that would be considered unauthorized practice of law... and as you should be aware, I respect the law and abide by laws... even the ones I don't agree with."

If you are not going to defend Tracey Cline, that is her good fortune.

That you respect the law is not true.

Under the law, a criminal defendant is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not respect that part of the law in your postings about the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

You do not respect federal laws regarding accessing and publishing confidential medical records.; June 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I was misinformed when I earlier stated that the argument between Daye and Mangum was about money. However, when I directly spoke to Crystal about it, she enlightened me as to the truth. The argument was about Daye's jealous nature and what he perceived as Crystal flirting with a police officer."

Who misinformed you?

I suspect it was Crystal.; June 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I would like to defend Tracey Cline in her legal situation, however, since I am not a licensed attorney in the state, that would be considered unauthorized practice of law... and as you should be aware, I respect the law and abide by laws... even the ones I don't agree with."

Yet you presume to intervene on Crystal's behalf even though as you have admitted you were not aware of the laws you violated, the laws regarding patient confidentiality.

That performance of yours was not a manifestation of respect for the law.

Another reason why I name you hypocrite.; June 12, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Absolutely comical that harr says he would like to represent cline and that he is a respector of the laws of our state. Hilarious!
harr uses ignorance of the law as an excuse....which, of course, it is not.
I say again, harr does not give a damn about mangum or nifong or anybody else but HARR. We all know it....and find it shameful.; June 12, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Your filings in your frivolous lawsuit against Duke, full of personal attacks on the judiciary, is a glaring example of your disrespect for justice.; June 12, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Questions never answered by harr.
1. NO DNA, but mangum claiming ejaculate was on her and on the floor.
2. Claiming Seligman was one of her attackers when he had proof, ATM ID that was time stamped, that he was NOT even present during the time she claimed she was attacked
3. Mangum claimed no sex with anybody but her boyfriend, one week prior to the party, but multiples samples of males in/on her.....none LAX guys.
4. Mangum claimed to be restrained, suspended, strangled, punched, with oral, anal, and vaginal penetration....in a very small bathroom, with at least three big guys and NO DNA .....no injuries except what the ultimately discredited SANE described as vaginal swelling.
5. Mangum initial claim of absolute certainity that attackers did NOT use condoms; subsequent change of story, to fit the evidence, and subsequent claim that they DID use condoms.
No explanation, harr. you can dodge till hell freezes over......the TRUTH names you for what you are.; June 12, 2012 at 5:11 AM
Anonymous said...: The question still remains as to whether Mangum did, in fact, authorize Harr to "file" motions on her behalf. He says her signature on the documents is proof enough. She continues to deny that she authorized him to file the documents. I wonder whether she had any idea, at all, what she was signing, IF the signatures are, in fact, legit. He also claims that she gave him "discovery". I doubt that Harr told her he was going to publish all the documents on his web site. And, I also doubt that Mangum has even a remote clue about the illegality and total inappropriateness of publishing those documents. She may have a degree from NCCU but that obviously, in no way, provides any evidence that she is "educated". Cline went to NCCU and the woman has the educational preparation of a snail.
Harr should, and I fervently hope, will be held accountable for his behavior in filing those motions and publishing those documents.; June 12, 2012 at 7:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Ah -- But you didn't go back and change those posts, yet you expect The Daily Beast to do so?

A quick search shows that The Daily Beast hasn't had any article about Crystal Mangum since April 19, 2011. Who knows? Maybe they were getting their information from your "contacts"?

Tell you what -- when they publish a new story that still gets the facts wrong, then we'll set them straight...But calling them out on "facts" that you yourself were espousing at the time (from your much-vaunted "contacts")is the height of hypocrisy.

A hypocrit I am not. Sure, I had some faulty info early on, which I conveyed to the loyal readers of this blog, but I was quick to set the record straight as soon as I found out the truth.

In addition, there is a big difference between disparity in the subject matter of an argument and to state that Mangum had a prior stabbing arrest... There was no fact to substantiate that. The topic of the argument was speculation until I spoke with Crystal directly.; June 12, 2012 at 7:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Don't be a fool, harr. Criminals, as in check artists, easily and routinely alter cashier's checks. surely you can't be as dumb as you appear....

My point exactly! The cashier's checks had not been altered. If Crystal would have altered the cashier's checks in order to illegally convert the cash to herself, then she would be considered to be guilty of the "Larceny of chose in action" charge. But she didn't.

Furthermore, Daye gave the checks to Mangum days prior to the incident. She did not take them from her!!

End of story.; June 12, 2012 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I like the poster's theory about the checks. Maybe daye wanted the checks back from Mangum and she would not hand them over. Maybe he was angry that she was already supposed to have paid the rent and didn't do so. Note that one of the checks was dated several days prior to the incident. Point of this is that NONE of us know what happened... frankly, the last person whose word I would trust would be the serial liar, mangum. After her, I would rank harr right up there with her.....in terms of being capable of fabricating a story, that seems to be changing, just to make it fit evidence.

Why would Daye want the cashier's checks back? As the remitter, he had the opportunity to redeem the value of the cashier's checks whether or not he had physical possession of the pieces of paper or not!

And why would Mangum want the cashier's checks if she could not redeem them?

Daye purchased the cashier's checks on the two Friday's prior to the Sunday April 3, 2011 incident. He did not have the full rent until Friday, April 1, 2011, and he had given the checks to Crystal so that she could pay rent on Monday, April 4, 2011.

Understand now?; June 12, 2012 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Your THEORY about the checks holds absolutely no water at all. First, you only have her word...which, in my mind, is as worthless as this blog. Second, she could have intended to alter the checks and intended to keep them, herself, which could have been the cause for the argument. Third, she had the first check a full week and could have made a partial payment to the landlord. Fourth, there is no evidence that Daye even GAVE the checks to her. For all we know, she stole the checks from him.
All you have is your THEORY and Mangum's story. Not one shred of credible evidence otherwise.
I think the poster's THEORY about the checks is every bit as plausible as yours. In fact, given Mangum's well documented history of LYING, I suspect the poster's theory might even be MORE credible and plausible.
You are notorious for presenting fantasy and theory as FACT....and then, when evidence totally contradicts your so-called "facts,", conveniently making up excuses for the necessity to change your "FACTS". We are all on to your tactics, and it is getting quite easy to recognize you for the con artist that you are.; June 12, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"A hypocrit(si) I am not."

A hypocrite(note proper spelling) you are.

When the New Black Panthers marched through Durham threatening a defendant and trying to force a guilty verdict, you defend that as Constitutionally protected free speech.

When Attorney General Roy Cooper expressed his belief, based on a thorough review of the evidence, that the Lacrosse Defendants, you call that improper.

You say you respect the law and would never do anything illegal.

You have no law license. Yet you attempted to practice law on the part of Crystal, which is practicing law without a license.

You access and publish confidential medical records in violation of Federal laws regarding patient confidentiality.

You show great disrespect to the court when you file your frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

The fact that you filed a frivolous lawsuit in the first place is evidence of your hypocrisy with regard to the law.; June 12, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Sure, I had some faulty info early on, which I conveyed to the loyal readers of this blog, but I was quick to set the record straight as soon as I found out the truth."

Why do you not reveal who was the source of that faulty information?

I believe many people believe your original knowledgeable source was Crystal Mangum.; June 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: The entire story about the cashier's checks is entirely unsubstantiated at this point. All we know is that Mangum had two cashier's checks in her possession, made to Daye's landlord, with the checks having been dated about a week apart. That is all we know as fact. The rest is all Harr's story which he says is based, in turn, on Mangum's story.
I assume, Lance and Walt, that the reason Mangum was charged with first degree murder is the related larcency charge. Is that correct? So, if the prosecutor fails to prove larcency, then isn't it likely to fall to second degree? It would be useful and informative to hear from a COMPETENT ATTORNEY what the actual differences in the charge levels for murder are in NC. I have zero interest in hearing Harr ramble on about this.; June 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: First degree murder.....intentional/planned and premeditated?
Second degree murder.....intentional but not planned?
First degree, murder in conjunction with a felony?
Sounds like second degree murder of Mr. Daye. If Mangum stabbed him in the torso, grabbed her purse and fled the scene.
Walt and Lance, what do you think?
I wonder how Vann is going to prove that Daye "gave" the checks to Mangum, since it seems like the question of theft versus handing over for safekeeping or other purpose with consent, is a question.....????; June 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I find these so-called reviews of other writings (by Harr) to be laughable. A person not known for his perspicacity ought not to be doing the post mortem on anybody else's work OR on Daye's medical care and records.
Perhaps it would be useful to do some lookback at Harr's years of rambling writing.....inaccuracy, inconsistency, outright lies, racist namecalling, and misdirection, anyone?; June 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ June 12, 2012 10:16 AM:

An example of SIDNEY HARR's inaccurate rambling is this whole issue of a Carpetbagger jihad as the cause of DA NIFONG's downfall.

SIDNEY HARR claims the jihad was initiated by Mrs. Rae Evans when she said on "60 Minutes" that DA NIFONG had picked on the wrong families and would be paying for it for the rest of his life.

Mrs. Evans mae that statement in mid to late January of 2007 - I can not remember the exact date. It was long after any action by the State Bar was initiated against DA NIFONG.

It has been pointed out to SIDNEY that Mrs. Evans' statement was made after the State Bar initiate action against Mr. Nifong. Sidney still insists Mrs. Evans' statement initiated the Jihad.; June 12, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: AGree with the 10:16... Harr knows that no such silly heehaw exists. I don't blame Mrs. Evans ONE BIT for making her statement exactly as she did. I was watching the interview and heard/saw her say it. Had it been my kid, you can damn well bet I would say the same thing...probably even stronger.
But, in fact the statement was made well AFTER the Bar action. What is comical is the Mrs. Evans, a person Harr describes as having the entire national media in her purse, worked for several years, in a mid-level job, for one network long long ago. She did not rise to anything remotely resembling a power position.
Talk about being disrespectful....Harr refuses to condemn Houston Baker, a person I find to be pond scum. Remember this creep? The Duke pseudo academic who sent Mrs. Evans a note saying she had given birth to a farm animal? How about Harr refusing to condemn the behavior of the black panther crowd, running around in their little neo-nazi uniforms, looking all lethal and threatening, glaring at the TV cameras in front of the LAX house, while the pot bangers had meltdowns over the "horrible crime" that did NOT happen. How about Harr refusing to condemn the NCCU student who was quoted in the media (that Harr says was biased against his sweetmeat, Mangum) as saying that it was fine if the LAX guys got sent to prison, guilty or not, because it would be justice for and make up for all the crimes done to black people that never got punished. How about Harr's refusal to condemn not only the sorriest excuse for a DA ever to stumble into Durham (Nifong) but also the most recent version, Nifong Junior, also known as Cline, the Hooked on Phonics dropout. Cline can make wild accusations, label an outstanding judge a "rapist", saying he has a "reprobate mind"....and Harr is silent.....BECAUSE CLINE IS BLACK AND BECAUSE CLINE IS A NIFONG SPAWN.; June 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Let's get back to the issue, your claim that a SANE nurse and a Doctor reported "injuries consistent with rape".

This is from Forensics Talk A Forensic Nurse's Weblog. The post is about the duke rape case.

"October 17, 2006 8:46pm
I'd like to add to the previous comments regarding Sergeant Gottlieb's conversation with the SANE nurse. I noticed a remark by another forensics nurse on the Liestoppers forum. Gottlieb said he asked the SANE nurse if the accuser's injuries were "consistent with sexual assault", and she replied, "Yes."

The discussion board nurse stated, " We don't talk like that!"

She's absolutely correct and I should have mentioned this on here before. We don't talk like that. In fact, I've never had a detective ask me if a patient's injuries were consistent with sexual assault. They just ask if she had any injuries and I tell them yes or no and what type. But then again, maybe they do things differently in North Carolina."

This is the on line biography of the Blogger:

Hi, I'm Kathleen. I'm a forensic nurse with 35 years of clinical nursing experience, along with paralegal training, health care fraud, document tampering, criminalistics and Medico-legal Death Investigation training.

Former founder & Director BRBC Community Outreach program. Former Medical Board investigator. Member Assoc. of Certified Fraud Examiners.

Independent Forensic & Legal Nurse Consultant.

URL: http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/2006/10/cbs_60_minutes_.html

No doubt you will make an issue about Liestoppers.

The point is, as I have told you, "injuries consistent with rape" ia a medico-legally meaningless statement. No competent SANE nurse or physician would have made such a statement. Competent individuals would have mentioned specific injuries.; June 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Also, to add to the post about the "injuries consistent with rape" remakr, the doctor at Duke did not, personally, examine Mangum's entire physical body, including her vaginal tissues. The SANE noted redness and made an inference and completely inappropriate conclusion that the cause of the redness was rape. The SANE noted NO OTHER PHYSICL findings of pain or trauma. All the rest was subjective complaints from Mangum, coupled with a request for pills.
At the Nifong hearing, the SANE had to admit that she made an inference and made a conclusion. She also had to admit that Mangum completely changed her story about the use of condoms.
The SANE was fully and completely discredited.
I have said before and will say again that use of sex toys, such as vibrators, and frequent sexual activity can (and routinely does) lead to redness, swelling and irritation of the vaginal tissues......without any necessity for the element of force/rape being involved.; June 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

This is from Forensics Talk A Forensic Nurse's Weblog. It is a description of what happens after a date rape drug is administered:

"The typical scenerio is that a patient will come in saying she woke up in a strange place, not knowing where she was, how she got there, or what, if anything, had happened. Of the patients I've had, where GHB was suspected, they usually just gave me blank looks when I asked them questions. They could remember before taking a drink or two but not after."

It is not a description of how Crytal acted after the party.; June 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Just went back and watched, on YouTube, the questioning of the SANE at the Nifong hearing. She admitted that, in three places in her notes from the March 2006 direct interview and conversation with Mangum, that Mangum said THREE TIMES that the men did NOT use condoms. Mangum said, in one of her many versions of the events of that night, that at least one of her attackers ejaculated in and on her and that some of the ejaculate fell on the floor.
Pray tell how then, Harr, there was no DNA from the LAX guys.; June 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

http://www.medicinenet.com/chloral_hydrate-oral/page4.htm

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-8629-Chloral+Hydrate+Oral.aspx?drugid=8629&drugname=Chloral+Hydrate+Oral

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091779

These are a few web sites which give information on Chloral Hydrate. None of them list any symptoms similar to those caused by the most used Date Rape drugs.; June 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum exhibited none of the physicial behaviors common with women who are given date rape drugs. The officer at the grocery story where she was taken by Roberts said that she appeared to be faking unconsciousness.; June 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Lance the Intern said...: I believe that when all is said and done, Crystal will be convicted of 2nd degree murder (the felony theft charges will be dropped -- which is the only reason they pursued a 1st degree charge).

Crystal will get a sentence somewhere between 8-15 years (with time served taken into consideration), and she'll be eligible for parole in about 3 years.

Then she'll move into Sid's basement and all will be well in Dur'm...; June 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Gosh, no chance kenny will swoop in and take to canada??? I would help pay for her ticket!!; June 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Harr Supporter said...: Anonymous 6/11 7:11: "do you honestly think she would RUN to the very place where her child and older female relative were?"

Of course not. You have the facts wrong. I am surprised Sidney did not call you a liar for misstating the facts (as he did to the magistrate in his Duke filing).

Once Crystal believed that Daye had given up, she WALKED to her aunt's. She did not RUN as you allege.

Sidney 5/29: "once free of imminent danger, Crystal Mangum began walking to her aunt's residence."

Sidney 5/6: "after her escape, she walked to her aunt's residence."

Sidney's protagonists do not panic; they WALK from danger. For example, in his Shan Carter posts, Carter WALKED from the crowded intersection after he accidentally shot and killed two people.

I suggest you apologize to Sidney for your error.; June 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Mea culpa sidney. Golly, it's a wonder sister didn't just sit herself down and have a colt 45' then pack up her purse, skip hippity hop over to auntie's house and jump on her pole. She walked......i said WALKED, strolled, lolly-gagged her way along, over the river and thru the woods,......just so Daye, that wildly manaical, drunken cad would be sure to follow her.....right to her child.
Having spent a hour of sheer terror getting the holy crap beaten out of her, i might think old mangum would at least be limpin' .........but noooooooo, she just grabbed up her purse and casually sauntered over with, of course, her purse.
Golly sidney, mea maxima culpa.......; June 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; June 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; June 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; June 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: As I understand larceny, it involves taking someone's property, without their consent, with an intent not to return it. It's a form of theft, separate from robbery or burglary. So, IF Mangum took the checks, without Daye's consent, with an intent to keep them....I assume that is larceny. So, other than Mangum's version of events, how would the prosecutor prove that Daye did not give the checks to Mangum? Since these were cashier's checks that can be (in spite of what harr says), altered for cashing by other than the originally intended recipient......and since Mangum walked off from the scene of the stabbing with his property in her purse, I can see how the larceny charge might stick. On the other hand, it seems like it's going to be hard to prove. I suppose it has importance because it has a bearing on whether she winds up facing first or second degree murder? Lance, Walt? Correct?
Betcha it will be second degree....and, if she is found guilty, I'm guessing ten years.
She might walk with self defense......you never know, after all, this IS whacko Durham.; June 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Your THEORY about the checks holds absolutely no water at all. First, you only have her word...which, in my mind, is as worthless as this blog. Second, she could have intended to alter the checks and intended to keep them, herself, which could have been the cause for the argument. Third, she had the first check a full week and could have made a partial payment to the landlord. Fourth, there is no evidence that Daye even GAVE the checks to her. For all we know, she stole the checks from him.
All you have is your THEORY and Mangum's story. Not one shred of credible evidence otherwise.
I think the poster's THEORY about the checks is every bit as plausible as yours. In fact, given Mangum's well documented history of LYING, I suspect the poster's theory might even be MORE credible and plausible.
You are notorious for presenting fantasy and theory as FACT....and then, when evidence totally contradicts your so-called "facts,", conveniently making up excuses for the necessity to change your "FACTS". We are all on to your tactics, and it is getting quite easy to recognize you for the con artist that you are.

I am an artist, but not a con artist.

Fact is that Mangum's story is sound and logical, as opposed to yours and the other commenter. Fact is that the cashier's checks were not altered and there is no indication or evidence that she tried to convert them to cash for her own use. Daye was the remitter of the checks, and as long as they were not cashed in by the payee, he had the ability to redeem their worth. Daye never lost the value of the checks... he always retained their value of $700. So what's the big deal? If the larceny charge wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious.; June 13, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"A hypocrit(si) I am not."

A hypocrite(note proper spelling) you are.

When the New Black Panthers marched through Durham threatening a defendant and trying to force a guilty verdict, you defend that as Constitutionally protected free speech.

When Attorney General Roy Cooper expressed his belief, based on a thorough review of the evidence, that the Lacrosse Defendants, you call that improper.

You say you respect the law and would never do anything illegal.

You have no law license. Yet you attempted to practice law on the part of Crystal, which is practicing law without a license.

You access and publish confidential medical records in violation of Federal laws regarding patient confidentiality.

You show great disrespect to the court when you file your frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

The fact that you filed a frivolous lawsuit in the first place is evidence of your hypocrisy with regard to the law.

Thank you for enlightening me about the spelling of the word "hypocrite." (See, even I, on very rare occasions, make mistakes.)

Regarding Cooper's promulgation, it was inappropriate, unprecedented, and full of folly. All he did by claiming that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent is play into the hands of Cheshire and his comrades in the shake down of Duke University for a total of $60 million. They are using Cooper's ill-advised proclamation to further try and relieve Durham of $30 million taxpayer dollars.

I respect the law, and would not knowingly do anything to break the law. Not being a lawyer or having legal training, I did not know that it was against the law to help someone draft a motion. Now I know better and will refrain from doing so in the future.; June 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Sure, I had some faulty info early on, which I conveyed to the loyal readers of this blog, but I was quick to set the record straight as soon as I found out the truth."

Why do you not reveal who was the source of that faulty information?

I believe many people believe your original knowledgeable source was Crystal Mangum.

I do not understand the need to know the identity of my sources. Suffice it to say that it was only within the past several weeks that I had direct communication with her, and I attributed her as the source of such statements. The later statements, coming from Crystal herself, supercedes those statements I received earlier from other sources.; June 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Sid --
ignorance of the law is, of course, no excuse....and stating that you'll refrain from breaking laws in the future doesn't absolve you of the guilt of committing those crimes you've committed.

Now -- An honest question...Why didn't you ask Mike Nifong about the legality of your actions?; June 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I find these so-called reviews of other writings (by Harr) to be laughable. A person not known for his perspicacity ought not to be doing the post mortem on anybody else's work OR on Daye's medical care and records.
Perhaps it would be useful to do some lookback at Harr's years of rambling writing.....inaccuracy, inconsistency, outright lies, racist namecalling, and misdirection, anyone?

Hey, good idea. I welcome the scrutiny.; June 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
I believe that when all is said and done, Crystal will be convicted of 2nd degree murder (the felony theft charges will be dropped -- which is the only reason they pursued a 1st degree charge).

Crystal will get a sentence somewhere between 8-15 years (with time served taken into consideration), and she'll be eligible for parole in about 3 years.

Then she'll move into Sid's basement and all will be well in Dur'm...

Hah, Lance. I love your fanciful imagination.

First, Crystal will not even go to trial, as the charges against her do not hold air... they are totally bogus. They will be dropped even though the prosecution and media will try to bull them through. The prosecution simply does not have a case in either of the charges.

At least you have sense enough to realize that the larceny charge is garbage.; June 13, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Sid --
ignorance of the law is, of course, no excuse....and stating that you'll refrain from breaking laws in the future doesn't absolve you of the guilt of committing those crimes you've committed.

Now -- An honest question...Why didn't you ask Mike Nifong about the legality of your actions?

Lance, suppose the Republican-led General Assembly passes a law that makes it a crime to help old women cross the street. Then suppose, I did not hear about the law, and I helped an old lady cross the street, and a policeman witnessed it, and arrested me. According to you, I'm just tough out of luck! Right?

I rest my case... and thereby go ye enlightened.; June 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Ignorance of the law is no excuse......just check with the IRS, harr, and try out your old lady story on them.
you played junior lawyer and you are going to get yourself in a world of trouble.....I suspect you already have; June 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Lance, suppose the Republican-led General Assembly passes a law that makes it a crime to help old women cross the street. Then suppose, I did not hear about the law, and I helped an old lady cross the street, and a policeman witnessed it, and arrested me. According to you, I'm just tough out of luck! Right?

I rest my case... and thereby go ye enlightened."

You again show you are incapable of enlightening yourself.

We are not talking about some ridiculous hypothetical law which would never be enacted. This is a straw woman ye have constructed.

Federal law regarding patient confidentiality states rather clearly that one must have written permission from an individual or his family to access or publish that individual's medical record. You did not have such permission from Reginald Daye's family. Ergo, you violated Federal Law, and your ignorance of that law does not exempt you from that law. Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

As a retired physician you should have known that law. Any patient, when he/she first visits a health care provider, that patient has to sign a HIPPA statement allowing that provider to, among other things, release the patient's info to an insurance provider.

That you plead ignorance of that law means only that you had to exert a tremendous effort to be ignorant of that law - like burying your head neneath a mile of sand.

This post is evidence of your belief that you are above the law.; June 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"First, Crystal will not even go to trial, as the charges against her do not hold air... they are totally bogus. They will be dropped even though the prosecution and media will try to bull them through. The prosecution simply does not have a case in either of the charges."

This is for the court, not you, to decide. You have demonstrated you are unwilling to go to court.

That you would post this comment is more evidence that you believe you are above the law.

In turn, that belief is evidence you DO NOT respect the law.; June 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I do not understand the need to know the identity of my sources."

That is because you do not want to admit that Crystal was your original source.

Your credibility is deficient.; June 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding Cooper's promulgation, it was inappropriate, unprecedented, and full of folly. All he did by claiming that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent is play into the hands of Cheshire and his comrades in the shake down of Duke University for a total of $60 million. They are using Cooper's ill-advised proclamation to further try and relieve Durham of $30 million taxpayer dollars."

This is but one lie you have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to promulgate.

You have yet to explain why Duke would settle with the Lacrosse defendants if they could have prevailed, at a much smaller cost, in court.

That you would deny Mr. Cooper the right to express his opinion is another example of your hypocrisy. Your frivolous lawsuit against Duke showed you should have freedom to express your unsupported statements about the Lacrosse case.; June 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Fact is that Mangum's story is sound and logical, as opposed to yours and the other commenter."

It is for the court to decide whether or not Crystal's story is fact.

How will the court hear Crystal's story unless she tells it herself? If you were to go to court and tell it, it would be hearsay and not admissable as evicence.

Just ask your friend Profesor Coleman.; June 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Thank you for enlightening me about the spelling of the word "hypocrite." (See, even I, on very rare occasions, make mistakes.)"

There you show you are incapable of enlightening yourself.

Most of what you have published in this blog has been wrong, e.g. your repeated statements that your frivolous lawsuit against Duke had merit, that the Lacrosse players are not innocent.; June 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "Lance, suppose the Republican-led General Assembly passes a law that makes it a crime to help old women cross the street. Then suppose, I did not hear about the law, and I helped an old lady cross the street, and a policeman witnessed it, and arrested me. According to you, I'm just tough out of luck! Right?"

Creating a straw man argument is an intellectually dishonest strategy and not useful for getting at the truth. Something you should consider.

Thereby go ye enlightened; June 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"All [AG Coper] did by claiming that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent is play into the hands of Cheshire and his comrades in the shake down of Duke University for a total of $60 million."

Here is another example of something you got wrong.

AG Cooper and his investigators thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the case(the claim that there is unreleased evidence is an urban legend) and concluded that no crime had occurred and that as a matter of fact the Lacrosse defendants were innocent.

You have admitted in your blog that you are unfamiliar with the evidence in the case. Unlike AG Cooper, you have never done a thorough review of the evidence.

You also show you believe you are above the law and that you do not respect the law. Otherwise, you would not deny AG Cooper his right of free speech while maintaining your own.; June 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Lance the Intern at June 13, 2012 1:36 PM:

I think you got it wrong :-).

SIDNEY did not create a straw man.

He created a straw little old lady.; June 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I respect the law, and would not knowingly do anything to break the law. Not being a lawyer or having legal training, I did not know that it was against the law to help someone draft a motion."

No you do not respect the law. Otherwise you would not believe you are above the law.

Why did you not ask your friend Professor Coleman whether or not it was legal for you to access Reginald Daye's records or to file motions on behalf of Crystal.

This is a case of you trying to institute personal posterior camouflage.

Your camouflage is as ineffective as your lies.; June 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Now I know better(that it is illegal for a layman like himself to practice law) and will refrain from doing so in the future."

Another lame attempt on the part of SIDNEY to institute personal posterior camouflage.; June 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Anonymous @ 1:36 PM, I stand corrected.

Dr Harr, in the words of William F. Buckley, Jr, "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."; June 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: mangum will not only go to trial, the jury will actually hear EVIDENCE.....not your crap. and all of the durham dullards who think she is miss victim, 2012, will pose in front of the TV cameras yet again. (all three of you)
can't wait for the circus to begin; June 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Once again harr evades questions.........
there is not one bit of evidence that shows that daye GAVE the checks to Mangum. None. zip, harr. further, the face that she had them in her possession, when she left his apartment after she stabbed him, is grounds for the charge. whether they were yet altered is not the point. she could have been planning to alter them. he could have asked for them back when he found out she had not paid the rent and thus....the argument.
you have nothing to support your airbag theory but the infamous liar, Mangum.; June 13, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Larceny charge or not, as Nichols said, she stabbed him. He died. the real question is whether it is first, second or.....self defense, etc. So far, there has been no evidence that it was self defense except harr's lizard-changing story from Mangum, with, of course, his embellishments. We will have to wait till the trial to see whether Vann actually has anything.; June 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The infamous quote......"You're not going anywhere".......from Mangum TWICE.....
1. she claims she distinctly remembered one of the LAX guys said this to her
2. she claims she distinctly remembers Daye saying this to her.
Hmmmmm......; June 14, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: An interesting tidbit......per the Herald Sun......Woody Vann was originally assigned to handle Mangum's defense when she was charged with murdering Daye. She objected and asked for Shella. We all know what happened next. Harr and his merry band of looneytunes interferred and Shella had the good sense to tell the court "thanks, but no thanks". And then, Woody Vann gets reassigned to the case.
Well, I guess thanks to Harr, Mangum has the attorney, now, that she did not want, then.; June 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"First, Crystal will not even go to trial, as the charges against her do not hold air... they are totally bogus. They will be dropped even though the prosecution and media will try to bull them through. The prosecution simply does not have a case in either of the charges."

This is for the court, not you, to decide. You have demonstrated you are unwilling to go to court.

That you would post this comment is more evidence that you believe you are above the law.

In turn, that belief is evidence you DO NOT respect the law.

Let me try and enlighten you about the bogus charges currently facing Ms. Mangum. Because of the intervention of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong, the prosecution is aware that it cannot con its case through the court... so it is now hoping to keep Crystal locked away as long as possible by dragging its feet, so to speak, and then trying to force her to accept a plea deal for time served. The prosecution doesn't want this case to go to trial because they are aware that they would be embarrassed by their failure to convict. Prosecution's main goal now is to have Mangum serve as much time as possible without being convicted of any crime... similar to what the prosecution did to James Arthur Johnson who served 39 months without his case going to trial.

The case will not go to trial because the prosecutors will be forced to drop the charges because their lack of a case against Mangum will be increasingly exposed, despite efforts by the mainstream media to keep the people in the dark about the truth. And, as I have said, the truth will set Crystal Mangum free. Count on it.; June 14, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding Cooper's promulgation, it was inappropriate, unprecedented, and full of folly. All he did by claiming that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent is play into the hands of Cheshire and his comrades in the shake down of Duke University for a total of $60 million. They are using Cooper's ill-advised proclamation to further try and relieve Durham of $30 million taxpayer dollars."

This is but one lie you have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to promulgate.

You have yet to explain why Duke would settle with the Lacrosse defendants if they could have prevailed, at a much smaller cost, in court.

That you would deny Mr. Cooper the right to express his opinion is another example of your hypocrisy. Your frivolous lawsuit against Duke showed you should have freedom to express your unsupported statements about the Lacrosse case.

Suppose you tell me the reasons why Duke University shelled out $20 million to each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. I have absolutely no idea. What could Duke possibly have done to warrant paying out $20 million to the raucous Duke Lacrosse defendants who were participants in a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling debaucherous event with underaged drinking and the shouting of a racial epithet. Besides, the president had even warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players.

Somehow, Joe Cheshire managed to shakedown Duke for an outrageous settlement. I don't know how he did it or why Duke rolled over. If you find out, let me know.; June 14, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"First, Crystal will not even go to trial, as the charges against her do not hold air... they are totally bogus. They will be dropped even though the prosecution and media will try to bull them through. The prosecution simply does not have a case in either of the charges."

This is for the court, not you, to decide. You have demonstrated you are unwilling to go to court.

That you would post this comment is more evidence that you believe you are above the law.

In turn, that belief is evidence you DO NOT respect the law.

I am not against the case going to trial with the exception that it would be a waste of time and taxpayer money. First, a motion to dismiss should have already been filed... and any impartial judge with full knowledge of the facts of the case would immediately drop both charges. Why go to trial and go through the motions of pretending that the prosecutors' case against Mangum has merit.

Just dismiss the charges and release Mangum! That's what Lady Justice demands.; June 14, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
mangum will not only go to trial, the jury will actually hear EVIDENCE.....not your crap. and all of the durham dullards who think she is miss victim, 2012, will pose in front of the TV cameras yet again. (all three of you)
can't wait for the circus to begin

What you refer to as "crap" is actually evidence from prosecution discovery... and I would have to agree with you that that is exactly what it is... and that is exactly what the prosecution's case amounts to.; June 14, 2012 at 8:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Once again harr evades questions.........
there is not one bit of evidence that shows that daye GAVE the checks to Mangum. None. zip, harr. further, the face that she had them in her possession, when she left his apartment after she stabbed him, is grounds for the charge. whether they were yet altered is not the point. she could have been planning to alter them. he could have asked for them back when he found out she had not paid the rent and thus....the argument.
you have nothing to support your airbag theory but the infamous liar, Mangum.

For your edification, let me provide a brief timeline for you. Daye gave a cashier's check for $300 to Crystal on March 25th, and a cashier's check for $400 on April 1st, a Friday. Crystal was given the checks so that she could pay the $700 rent on Monday, April 4th, while Daye was at work... he was scheduled to leave for work at 6 am and return home after 5 pm. The rental office hours were open when Daye was at work, and that is why he gave the checks to Crystal.

Also, besides statements from Crystal about the cashier's checks, it only makes logic. Why would she steal cashier's checks which she could not convert to cash? It doesn't make sense, yet you think she did it so she could alter it for the purpose of cashing it? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.; June 14, 2012 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Larceny charge or not, as Nichols said, she stabbed him. He died. the real question is whether it is first, second or.....self defense, etc. So far, there has been no evidence that it was self defense except harr's lizard-changing story from Mangum, with, of course, his embellishments. We will have to wait till the trial to see whether Vann actually has anything.

You don't have to wait for a trial... and Vann doesn't even have to conduct an investigation. The evidence is already in prosecution discovery to support that Crystal Mangum was the victim of a physical assault by Daye. Why not just put a merciful end to the prosecution's charade and drop charges against Mangum and release her? Why continue to waste taxpayer dollars to satiate the vindictive appetites of the avaricious Carpetbaggers who are thristing for more blood?; June 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The case will not go to trial because the prosecutors will be forced to drop the charges because their lack of a case against Mangum will be increasingly exposed, despite efforts by the mainstream media to keep the people in the dark about the truth."

Would you put money on that. Would you be willing to pay James Johnson the reward money promised by the Willis family if the charges against Crystal are dismissed.

I know you will argue that the WIllis Family owes James Johnson the money. If you are willing to pay him in lieu of the family, wouldn't that be a solid expression of faith in Crystal's innocence?; June 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

In addition to my last comment I ask, if the case against Crystal is so insubstantial, why not let it go to trial and let the prosecution make a fool of itself, just like Tracey Cline did when she put Leon Brown on trial?; June 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Suppose you tell me the reasons why Duke University shelled out $20 million to each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. I have absolutely no idea. What could Duke possibly have done to warrant paying out $20 million to the raucous Duke Lacrosse defendants who were participants in a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling debaucherous event with underaged drinking and the shouting of a racial epithet."

I have already told you, Duke paid out because they knew they would not prevail if the case went to trial and Duke did not want its tortious behavior to become part of the public record. That is the most common reason a defendant settles with the plaintiff rather than defend. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

To give you another answer, the Duke defendants WERE NOT "participants in a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling debaucherous event...".

You have never been able to prove it was a "beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling debaucherous event...".; June 14, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Somehow, Joe Cheshire managed to shakedown Duke for an outrageous settlement. I don't know how he did it or why Duke rolled over. If you find out, let me know."

Why? Do you think you can use the same strategy to get your frivolous lawsuit against Duke reinstated, so you can shake down Duke?

I have on multiple previous occasions given you a plausible reason why Duke would pay off rather than defend. You are ignorant of why Duke would settle rather than defend because, as with Federal Laws on the confidentiality of medical records, you bury your head under tons of sand and then plead ignorance.; June 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Just dismiss the charges and release Mangum! That's what Lady Justice demands."

Who authorized you to speak for Lady Justice, you who believe you are above the law, who believes you do not have to respect the law.

Crystal didn't. According to news reports, she never authorized you to file any motions on her behalf. Your protestations to the contrary are not credible.

In any event, if Crystal could authorize you to speak for her, it is only for her. You presume too much to say you speak for Lady Justice.

Which is another example of your deluded megalomania.; June 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Let me try and enlighten you about the bogus charges currently facing Ms. Mangum. Because of the intervention of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong, the prosecution is aware that it cannot con its case through the court".

SIDNEY, thus far, in all your blogging, you haven't enlightened anyone, least of all yourself. So it is presumptious of you to say you have enlightened the court.; June 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Also, besides statements from Crystal about the cashier's checks, it only makes logic."

That the statements come from Crystal is an indication that those statements do not, as you put it, in no way "makes logic."; June 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The evidence is already in prosecution discovery to support that Crystal Mangum was the victim of a physical assault by Daye."

I say again, that is for the court, not you, to decide.

That you feel you are the ultimate decider is another manifestation of your sense of being above the law, of your having no respect for the law.; June 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why continue to waste taxpayer dollars [prosecuting Crystal] to satiate the vindictive appetites of the avaricious Carpetbaggers who are thristing for more blood?

This is one of the grossest lies you promulgate in your blog. There is no Carpetbagger jihad. You have never offered up any evidence of said Jihad, just unsupported allegations.; June 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

In addition to my last comment I ask, why not go to court and present your evidence of this so called Carpetbagger Jihad? Submit a motion to the court which lays out all your evidence.

If you could show by hard evidence that a Carpetbagger Jihad is behind the prosecution of Crystal, wouldn't the court be forced to dismiss the charges.

More importantly, wouldn't there be an official investigation into this so called Jihad which would blow it to pieces?; June 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why would she steal cashier's checks which she could not convert to cash? It doesn't make sense,".

I think Crystal was trying to convert the checks into dollars.; June 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why not just put a merciful end to the prosecution's charade and drop charges against Mangum and release her?"

Why not, through Crystal's counsel, demand a hearing in which you could present evidence of Crystal's innocence?

Is that because you have no evidence to back up your allegations?

It seems so.; June 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"And, as I have said, the truth will set Crystal Mangum free."

If that is so, Crystal should abandon any and all faith and hope she has in you.

You do not tell the truth.; June 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe it is not such a good idea to ask Dr. Harr to bet on whether or not the charges against Crystal Mangum will be dropped.

Several months ago, Dr. Harr offered to pay money to anyone who could prove a certain point about Rae Evans. It was contingent, however, on whether or not the Willis family paid James Arthur Johnson the reward Dr.Harr said he deserved.

The Willis family had already made it clear they would not pay Mr. Johnson because they believed he was involved in the abduction, rape and murder of Brittany Willis.

Dr. Harr was aware of this. His offer of a reward was something he had no intention of paying.

If he says he will pay James Arthur Johnson the reward the Willis family had offered, it would say Dr. Harr really does not believe the charges against Ms. Mangum will be dropped.; June 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: @Anonymous !!:50 AM 6/12/12 http://www.emedicinehealth.com/club_drugs/page8_em.htm; June 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: There's a two word term for anyone whoever believed the Duke Lacrosse players raped Crystal Mangum - mentally retarded.; June 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM
Anonymous said...: KEN HYDERAL:

With regard to your last link, what does it prove.

Crystal did not act like someone who had been given a date rape drug.

There was evidence she was impaired when she arrived at the party.

If you want the full name of the author of Forensics Talk A Forensic Nurse's Weblog, it is given in Until Proven Innocent, something you probably avoid the way Count Dracula avoids a cross.; June 15, 2012 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KEN HYDERAL:

If you would check out Forensics Talk A Forensic Nurse's Weblog you would learn that Flexeril is not an appropriate treatment for chronic low back pain.; June 15, 2012 at 5:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"The case will not go to trial because the prosecutors will be forced to drop the charges because their lack of a case against Mangum will be increasingly exposed, despite efforts by the mainstream media to keep the people in the dark about the truth."

Would you put money on that. Would you be willing to pay James Johnson the reward money promised by the Willis family if the charges against Crystal are dismissed.

I know you will argue that the WIllis Family owes James Johnson the money. If you are willing to pay him in lieu of the family, wouldn't that be a solid expression of faith in Crystal's innocence?

Why should I pay the reward money to Johnson if the charges are dismissed... which I believe will be the case? Furthermore, the Willis Family and friends owe Johnson the reward money... they just lack the integrity to honor the commitment they made. After he solved the murder of Brittany Willis, they elected to just hold on to their money... and, of course, the media didn't get involved.

Anyway, I know that you are not willing to bet because you won't even identify yourself.; June 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

In addition to my last comment I ask, if the case against Crystal is so insubstantial, why not let it go to trial and let the prosecution make a fool of itself, just like Tracey Cline did when she put Leon Brown on trial?

By the time the prosecution is "ready" to go to trial, several more years will have elapsed during which time Crystal will still be in jail at taxpayer expense. All the prosecution is hoping for is to keep Mangum in jail for as long as possible... just like in the Johnson case.; June 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Somehow, Joe Cheshire managed to shakedown Duke for an outrageous settlement. I don't know how he did it or why Duke rolled over. If you find out, let me know."

Why? Do you think you can use the same strategy to get your frivolous lawsuit against Duke reinstated, so you can shake down Duke?

I have on multiple previous occasions given you a plausible reason why Duke would pay off rather than defend. You are ignorant of why Duke would settle rather than defend because, as with Federal Laws on the confidentiality of medical records, you bury your head under tons of sand and then plead ignorance.

Let me rephrase the argument, if possible. Explain to me what Duke University did to the Duke Lacrosse defendants that was so egregious that it resulted in the Duke Lacrosse defendants threatening Duke with a lawsuit?

Try your best to enlighten me about this particular point.; June 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"All the prosecution is hoping for is to keep Mangum in jail for as long as possible... just like in the Johnson case."

You mean just like disgraced, Black, dismissed former DA Tracey Cline did to Frankie Washington and Leon Brown.

Those two individuals have been mentioned so often in this blog. Have you yet found time to do a google search on those names and verify for yourself that your girl Tracey wrongfully prosecuted them?; June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Let me rephrase the argument, if possible. Explain to me what Duke University did to the Duke Lacrosse defendants that was so egregious that it resulted in the Duke Lacrosse defendants threatening Duke with a lawsuit?"

SIDNEY, you are ducking the question. The question is, why would Duke settle the lawsuits out of court instead of defending them if they could have prevailed in court?

Had you asked your friend, Professor Coleman, he would likely tell you, a defendant like Duke would settle a suit like the ones the innocent Lacrosse defendants filed because they can not defend it. They do not want the allegations made in the suit to become part of the public record.

Ergo, rather than burying you head under tons of sand because you fear the truth, be enlightened.

Actually, I have little hope of that. You have repeatedly demonstrated that a deluded megalomaniac like yourself is incapable of enlightenment.; June 15, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why should I pay the reward money to Johnson if the charges are dismissed... which I believe will be the case?"

Because, as you have demonstrated on many occasions, you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is.; June 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Anyway, I know that you are not willing to bet because you won't even identify yourself."

So why not bet on the outcome, which you think is a sure thing, and show me up some more?

Because you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is?; June 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"...the Willis Family and friends owe Johnson the reward money... they just lack the integrity to honor the commitment they made."

Thank you for living down to my expectation of you, that you would attack the Willis family.

It is not up to you but to the Willis family to determine whether or not James Johnson deserved the reward which was offered.

That you claim that your decision that James Johnson is entitled to the money is again evidence that you do not respect the law, that you believe you are above the law, that you are a deluded megalomaniac.; June 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why should I pay the reward money to Johnson if the charges are dismissed... which I believe will be the case?"

If you are unwilling to bet on a sure thing, maybe you do not believe the thing is really so sure.; June 15, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Lance the Intern said...: " Explain to me what Duke University did to the Duke Lacrosse defendants that was so egregious that it resulted in the Duke Lacrosse defendants threatening Duke with a lawsuit?"

Illegal search. Warrantless raids. Violation of privacy as protected by FERPA.Violations of the students' 4th, 5th, and fourteenth amendment rights (per a Durham County judge, The Honorable Criag Brown)...

You know what? All of this is well documented. If you REALLY want to know, hop on a bus to the local library and google it.; June 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 5:21 AM said : "If you would check out Forensics Talk A Forensic Nurse's Weblog you would learn that Flexeril is not an appropriate treatment for chronic low back pain".................. Her Physician who is a pain specialist prescribed that for her.; June 15, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Her Physician who is a pain specialist prescribed that(Fleceril) for her."

I bet Crystal told you that.

Whatever, it seems it is not indicated in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal back pain.

Whether or not it was indicated, it was inappropriate for Crystal to take Flexeril on top of drinking 44 ounces of beer(or vice versa if that was the case).

Was Crystal exaggerating the intensity of her pain in order to procure drugs?; June 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Here is another possible bet.

You pay money to James Arthur Johnson only if the case against Crystal is not dismissed but go to trial.

Judging from you comments, it is a sure thing that the charges will be dismissed. So, why would you not want to take this bet?

Is it because you do not want to put your money where your mouth is?; June 15, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"All the prosecution is hoping for is to keep Mangum in jail for as long as possible... just like in the Johnson case."

You mean just like disgraced, Black, dismissed former DA Tracey Cline did to Frankie Washington and Leon Brown.

Those two individuals have been mentioned so often in this blog. Have you yet found time to do a google search on those names and verify for yourself that your girl Tracey wrongfully prosecuted them?

I have not had the opportunity to look up Washington and Brown... I believe that they are now free? I am concentrating on Crystal because she still remains in jail on seriously bogus charges. Comprende?; June 15, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Why should I pay the reward money to Johnson if the charges are dismissed... which I believe will be the case?"

Because, as you have demonstrated on many occasions, you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is.

I believe that the charges against Mangum will be dismissed, so you think that I should pay Johnson if the charges are dismissed... right?

That's like betting against myself... almost like placing chips on the No Pass line in craps... except in craps you can bet against yourself and still win.; June 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
" Explain to me what Duke University did to the Duke Lacrosse defendants that was so egregious that it resulted in the Duke Lacrosse defendants threatening Duke with a lawsuit?"

Illegal search. Warrantless raids. Violation of privacy as protected by FERPA.Violations of the students' 4th, 5th, and fourteenth amendment rights (per a Durham County judge, The Honorable Criag Brown)...

You know what? All of this is well documented. If you REALLY want to know, hop on a bus to the local library and google it.

So you're saying that Duke University commandos conducted a raid on the residences of the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and that Duke police conducted illegal searches of the defendants? Look, Lance, you need to venture into the world of reality. Police conduct warrantless raids and illegal searches all of the time, and I never heard of them shelling out $20 mil to their victims.

You weren't really serious... right?; June 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Harr is just being deliberately stupid and dense to bait and annoy......so,that he can play his silly little games . That is all this is, folks. Pure trash from a pathetic loser who thinks other people pay attention to him. What is the one thing a wing nut like harr cannot stand ? To be ignored. Harr does not give a damn about mangum. We all know it. He is a loudmouth whose intrusion into mangum' s case caused her to lose the attorney SHE wanted in the first place.......and to get Vann back, with delays.
Come on harr......bail her out ....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!; June 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Just so I'm on the same page, Sid -- in YOUR reality, its OK for a private institution to violate a person's 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.

Hmm...didn't YOU file a (frivolous) lawsuit against Duke for (supposedly) violating your rights?

But you're not hypocritical...Right.

A couple of things come to mind:

1) Your lawsuit failed, while there's didn't because Duke KNEW they were guilty of the charges against the LAX players -- just as they KNEW they were innocent of the charges you brought against them.

2) It is your jealousy (they won, you didn't) driving your opinion, rather than actual facts.; June 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 11:26 said: "Was Crystal exaggerating the intensity of her pain in order to procure drugs" .............. You've been taken in by the campaign to discredit Crystal in all ways. You are always ready, in a knee-jerk fashion, to ascribe the worst possible motive to anything she does. This is a person you only know via yellow journalism and blogs such as Liestoppers created solely for the purpose of supporting the Players and their greedy Lawyers by trashing Crystal. Pain is always subjective but to the patient it's always real. Crystal's pain was intense enought that she had to undergo surgery on her cervical spine, which was curative. Dr. Orgel, no supporter of Crystal, as a Family Physician should have empathy wil someone who had chronic musculo-skeletal pain with neurological complications. Although in theorey Flexeril should not be used I'm sure that Dr. Orgel can also confirm in family practive it is widely used; June 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
I have not had the opportunity to look up Washington and Brown... I believe that they are now free?"

In other words you continue to bury your head in the sand rather than confront facts.; June 15, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I believe that the charges against Mangum will be dismissed, so you think that I should pay Johnson if the charges are dismissed... right?"

See the description of the other bet you could consider making.

"That's like betting against myself... almost like placing chips on the No Pass line in craps... except in craps you can bet against yourself and still win."

The bottom line is you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is.; June 15, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Police conduct warrantless raids and illegal searches all of the time, and I never heard of them shelling out $20 mil to their victims."

Totally irrelevant. Another straw man constructed by SIDNEY because he does not want to answer the question put to him, why would Duke settle with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players if they knew they could have prevailed in court.

Stop ducking, like wacko quacko Kilgo, SIDNEY. Answer the question.; June 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You've been taken in by the campaign to discredit Crystal in all ways."

Impossible situation. There was no campaign to discredit Crystal. Ergo, I could not have been taken in by said campaign. Like the alleged rape, it did not exist. Just like wacko quacko Kilgo's Lacrosse player friend.; June 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This is a person you only know via yellow journalism and blogs such as Liestoppers created solely for the purpose of supporting the Players and their greedy Lawyers by trashing Crystal."

Impossible Situation, again. The Lacrosse players are not suing Crystal. They are suing the people involved in the attempt to wrongfully convict them, Durham, the Durham Police Department, various Durham Police officers, and corrupt prosecutor NIFONG.

Crystal is a non entity. She has been thoroughly discredited as a witness, completely shown to be a false accuser. There is nothing she can do to impede the lawsuits.

Wacko quacko Kilgo's Lacrosse player friend does exist. If he did exist, he would not have a lot of credibility if he came forward six years after the alleged crime and claim that he witnessed it.; June 15, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Pain is always subjective but to the patient it's always real."

To drug abusers seeking narcotics, the pain is somehow always realer than it is in non drug abusers. I believe you have no concept of to what lengths a Drug abuser will go in order to obtain drugs.; June 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So you're(Lance the Intern) saying that Duke University commandos conducted a raid on the residences of the Duke Lacrosse defendants..."

SIDNEY, if you really comprehended Lance's post, you would understand that is not what he said.

This comment of yours is one of your more pathetic attempts to make your case by setting up and demolishing a straw man.; June 15, 2012 at 3:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @3:26 said: "To drug abusers seeking narcotics, the pain is somehow always realer than it is in non drug abusers. I believe you have no concept of to what lengths a Drug abuser will go in order to obtain drugs"......... Crystal is not a drug abuser. She has never used any illegal means to obtain a narcotic analgesic. Because addicts often try to fake symptoms to obtain narcotics at emergency rooms they are understadable suspicious of people who appear at emergeny departments after hours seeking analgesia. Because of this people with genuine pain syndromes who cant reach their doctors and go to a hospital emergeny are often met with suspicion. This happened to Crystal and somehow the hospital records indicating this suspicion became public. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Crystal is not an addict. She does not committ any crimes to support an addiction; June 15, 2012 at 8:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 3:22 said: "The Lacrosse players are not suing Crystal".......... No, they sue only thoses with deep pockets. Anonymous also said: "Crystal is a non entity. She has been thoroughly discredited as a witness"........ Yes, and in my opinion, thanks to a well organized and on-going campaign of lies orhestrated by those who seek to obtain an even larger windfall for the Players.; June 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Because addicts often try to fake symptoms to obtain narcotics at emergency rooms they are understadable suspicious of people who appear at emergeny departments after hours seeking analgesia. Because of this people with genuine pain syndromes who cant reach their doctors and go to a hospital emergeny are often met with suspicion. This happened to Crystal and somehow the hospital records indicating this suspicion became public."

Who told you this? Probably Crystal who has been outed as a non credible person as well as a false accuser.; June 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Yes, and in my opinion, thanks to a well organized and on-going campaign of lies orhestrated by those who seek to obtain an even larger windfall for the Players."

This is a manifestation of how worthless and meaningless your opinion is.

There was no organized campaign to discredit Crystal. She discredited herself. Then, with the help of enabler Vincent Clark, she published a revisionist history in her so called book.; June 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You try to duck responsibility for illegally accessing and publishing confidential medical records by claiming you were not a lawyer and not aware of Federal laws regarding confidentiality of medical records.

Then you go and declare, as if your word is the definitive word on the matter, that the innocent, falsely accused(by Crystal Mangum) Duke Lacrosse players had no cause of action against Duke.

Another reason why I name you hypocrite.; June 16, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"in my opinion, [there was] a well organized and on-going campaign of lies orhestrated by those(the innocent Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys) who seek to obtain an even larger windfall for the Players."

Deny it if you will, you are saying that the innocent Lacrosse defendants submitted to a wrongful prosecution as par of a scheme to win millions of dollars in a subsequent lawsuit.

Another reason why I name you Delusional.; June 16, 2012 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This is a person you only know via yellow journalism and blogs such as Liestoppers created solely for the purpose of supporting the Players and their greedy Lawyers by trashing Crystal."

What would the appropriately named Lirstoppers hope to ger by(your words) "trashing Crystal"?

Crystal is a person you do not really know. You know only her revisionist, unsupported history of what happened.

Evidence documented that Crystal's allegations were false.; June 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 4:52 said: " Deny it if you will, you are saying that the innocent Lacrosse defendants submitted to a wrongful prosecution as par of a scheme to win millions of dollars in a subsequent lawsuit.
Another reason why I name you Delusional".......... I'm saying no such thing. They were prosecuted. They retained lawyers. The Lawyers raised reasonable doubt as to their guilt. They then saw a serindipitous opportunity to sue civilly big-time. Thart's reality not delusion; June 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I'm saying no such thing. They were prosecuted. They retained lawyers. The Lawyers raised reasonable doubt as to their guilt. They then saw a serindipitous opportunity to sue civilly big-time. Thart's reality not delusion."

Raising reasonable doubt As to whether or not a criminal defendant is guilty is not a cause for action for wrongful prosecution. If it were, every DA in the country would have been sued for wrongful prosecution. Why don't you ask SIDNEY to ask his friend Professor Coleman, whether raising reasonable doubt is a cause of action for wrongful prosecution?

What created a cause for action for wrongful prosecution was that DA NIFONG prosecuted them even though he had no evidence. I remind you of your own words. The DNA results exonerated the members of the Lacrosse team. DA NIFONG had those results before he sought indictments. He sought indictments anyway.

And you ARE saying they submitted to that wrongful prosecution in order to have a cause of action to sue for wrongful prosecution.

You ARE, in my opinion, delusional.; June 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 8:59 said: "What would the appropriately named Lirstoppers hope to ger by(your words) "trashing Crystal"?

Crystal is a person you do not really know. You know only her revisionist, unsupported history of what happened".........Tell me this; what is the purpose of the blog "Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers"? This case is over 6 years old and yet this blog pupblishes every single day. It viciously attacks Crystal and others, they perceive to be on the "wrong-side" of this case. The posters are educated and articulate people. Their posts are meticulous and detailed. They have been the source of most of the malicious and untrue gossip about Crystal. I know Crystal better then you do and better then anyone who posts on Liestoppers.; June 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Let's put it differently.

The Innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, their lawyers, did not have to raise reasonable doubt after they were indicted.

Strong doubt as to the merit of DA NIFONG's case for prosecuting them existed before he had indictments.

What legal ethics are in Canada I do not know. In the US, when a DA prosecutes a defendant when knowing there is doubt as to whether the crime ever happened is unethical and cause of action to sue for wrongful prosecution.

When said DA, before indictment, tried to undermine the fundamental rights of those whom he intended to indict in the absence of any evidence of a crime, that is an even stronger cause of action.

DA NIFONG violated the rights of the suspects by not respecting their right to be presumed innocent, by not respecting their right to be represented by counsel, by not respecting their right to remain silent rather than speak to the authorities.

He also engaged in intimidation of witnesses who could support the innocence of those he intended to indict.; June 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Their(Liestoppers) posts are meticulous and detailed. They have been the source of most of the malicious and untrue gossip about Crystal. I know Crystal better then you do and better then anyone who posts on Liestoppers."

Wrong. If you really followed Liestoppers, very few of their posts talk about Crystal.

This again shows you are delusional.

Liestoppers is devoted to stopping the lies about the false rape allegations against three innocent men, like the allegation that there was a rape in the first place.

To my knowledge, Kilgo once posted on Liestoppers. He was the only Liestopper poster who tried to promulgate lies rather than stop them.; June 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Their(Liestoppers) posts are meticulous and detailed. They have been the source of most of the malicious and untrue gossip about Crystal."

That is more than can be said about your posts.

You are saying that Liestoppers, which started after March 14, 2006, is the source of the story about Crystal's theft of a cab rather than the police records which were compiled years before 14 March 2006?

If so, it is another indication you are indeed delusional.; June 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:21 said: " DA NIFONG had those results before he sought indictments. He sought indictments anyway" Here is a interesting discussion by experts on this issue http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/04/14/experts-answer-what-does-dna-evidence-prove/; June 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This case is over 6 years old and yet this blog(Liestoppers) pupblishes(sic) every single day."

That is because for the past 6 years people like you and SIDNEY and Kilgo and, for good measure, a character named Justice58, have been promulgating lies about the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.

One lie you try to promulgate is that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006 by unidentified males at the Lacrosse party, that members of the Lacrosse team were aiders and abetters, that innocent Lacrosse players submitted to wrongful prosecution rather than name the perpetrators.

Forensic evidence showed definitively no rape had occurred.; June 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Here are some excerpts from the link you provided:

"Here, all experts agreed that it is possible for DNA to not be left behind by a rapist, but different experts seemed to DISAGREE ABOUT HOW LIKELY THAT IS(emphasis added)."

In the Duke Rape hoax, experts consulted agreed it was highly unlikely that the alleged rape could have happened the way Crystal described without leaving evidence.

"Jennifer Friedman, of the Los Angeles County Innocence Project, gave an answer which implied that it’s extremely unlikely that anyone could rape and not leave DNA behind (unless they used a condom). “In general, if there is a sexual assault with penetration either vaginal or anal and no condom is used one would expect DNA to be present. Even if the perpetrator did not ejaculate, his epithelial cells will often times be left behind. In order to answer this question most accurately, I would need to know specifically what is alleged to have occurred. Occasionally, DNA may be left on the alleged victim and yet the person who swabbed the area may have missed the area with the DNA, but this is rare.”

Crystal, upon whom you say you rely, denied that her attackers had used condoms. Tara Levicy noted that in multiple places in the medical record.

"...Simon Ford believes that CSI has given the public an inflated idea of how certain and quick DNA tests are, and writes 'If the claim is such that one would expect to see biological material and none is found, then sure it may be an indication of a false claim, but there are really so many other potential explanations, particularly when just dealing with the first round of DNA testing, such as issues like condom use, vasectomy, choice of test (autosomal STR v. Y-STR), choice of samples to test, many other things like this can all play a part.'"

Issues like vasectomy and condom use did not apply to the phony Duke Rape case. Y-STR, which is what DNA Security did, confirmed that no Lacrosse player had had intimate contact with Crystal. The DNA findings did not establish that said DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

"And William Shields wrote 'unless the victim stated that she was sure there no condoms used the absence of DNA could not prove she was mistaken much less that she made a false report.'"

It was established by the Medical Record that Crystal was sure her attackers did not use condoms.

"Despite the DNA evidence, from what the experts say it’s possible that condoms were used, preventing DNA evidence from being left behind. It’s also possible that the rapists were party guests but not members of the lacrosse team."

"I don’t deny that it’s possible no rape took place, and clearly this possibility is supported (but far from proved) by initial DNA results."

What the author omits from this is that no semen was found on the rape kit. Contrary to your denials, considering the time the rape kit was collected, considering Crystal's denials that condoms were used, it is highly unlikely, unlikely to the point of it being impossible, that Crystal was raped.

You are not establishing any facts. You are indulging in speculation and conjecture. In spite of your speculation and conjecture, the evidence is overwhelmingly that Crystal was not raped.; June 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:32 said " Liestoppers is devoted to stopping the lies about the false rape allegations against three innocent men, like the allegation that there was a rape in the first place"......... Ah, I get it, just a bunch of concerned Citizens looking for justice for the poor abused LaX Players. People willing to devote their time, talent and energy, on an ongoung basis, to see if they can help get a multi-million dollar recompence for the horrendous ordeal they all faced at the hands of that sorceress Crystal and the US Justice System's, people elected, DA. Give me a break. This wasn't just spontaneous outrage. It is well orchestrated and directed campaign.; June 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

From Jeniffer Friedman:

"In order to answer this question most accurately, I would need to know specifically what is alleged to have occurred."

I point out, Crystal was unable to reliably identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant.

Ergo, it was not possible to find out "specifically what is alleged to have occurred."; June 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:
"Ah, I get it, just a bunch of concerned Citizens looking for justice for the poor abused LaX Players. People willing to devote their time, talent and energy, on an ongoung basis, to see if they can help get a multi-million dollar recompence for the horrendous ordeal they all faced at the hands of that sorceress Crystal and the US Justice System's, people elected, DA. Give me a break. This wasn't just spontaneous outrage. It is well orchestrated and directed campaign."

An example of how you are ducking the question and trying to make your case by setting up a straw man and demolishing it.; June 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I don’t deny that it’s possible no rape took place, and clearly this possibility is supported (but far from proved) by initial DNA results."

This is from the link you provided.

The author seems unaware, just like you are unaware, that the defendant in a criminal case is under no obligation to prove a crime did not occur. It is the prosecutor who has the obligation of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

This link you provided shows that DA NIFONG could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was apparent before he sought indictments he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.; June 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:45 said: " That is because for the past 6 years people like you and SIDNEY and Kilgo and, for good measure, a character named Justice58, have been promulgating lies about the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players" I don't have a blog. I only discovered Justice4Nifong a short time ago around the time of the Milton Walker Case and as a friend of Crystal I liked what Dr. Harr was writing. I put Crystal in touch with him; June 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Let's give you another chance to dodge.

Your words were that DNA deposition can not be timed.

In comments to another post, I have provided links to information which indicates that male DNA deposited in the female genital tract can persist for longer than 48 hours.

So how does the finding of male DNA in Crystal's genital tract establish that it was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006, especially since there was no evidence of semen deposition on the night of 13/14 2006?

You can come up for reasons why no semen would be present. Most of those reasons do not apply to the crime alleged by Crystal Mangum.

That there are reasons why semen was not present, how does that establish that semen actually WAS present?

It doesn't.; June 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I don't have a blog. I only discovered Justice4Nifong a short time ago around the time of the Milton Walker Case and as a friend of Crystal I liked what Dr. Harr was writing. I put Crystal in touch with him".

Well, that does change things. Maybe you haven't been promulgating lies for 6 years. However, you joined in with those who have been.

That you like what SIDNEY HARR is writing is evidence that you are delusional, in my opinion. His writing is so blatantly untrue.

What attracted you to SIDNEY's lies?; June 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

With regard to this character JUSTICE58, she was very rabidly insisting that the three Lacrosse players were guilty.

However, she disappeared altogether from the blogosphere a long time ago.

It may be an indication of exactly how much support Crystal does have.; June 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

More from the link you supplied:

"Despite the DNA evidence, from what the experts say it’s possible that condoms were used, preventing DNA evidence from being left behind. It’s also possible that the rapists were party guests but not members of the lacrosse team."

How does establishing something as possible establish it as fact.

It doesn't; June 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

More from the link you provided:

"I don’t deny that it’s possible no rape took place, and clearly this possibility is supported (but far from proved) by initial DNA results."

In other words, there was reasonable doubt that any Lacrosse player raped Crystal. As the DNA tests were completed and known to DA NIFONG before he sought indictments, reasonable doubt existed before he sought any indictments.

That, if anything, indicates DA NIFONG determined to carry out a wrongful prosecution. In turn, that is what provided a cause of action for wrongful prosecution.

The attorneys did not discover it after their clients were indicted. It was there all along.

Even if they had established reasonable doubt after the indictments, DA NIFONG was ethically and legally obligated to drop the charges. If he did not drop the charges after reasonable doubt had been established, that would have been cause of action for wrongful prosecution.

The ball was in DA NIFONG's court. And he misplayed it.; June 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:26 said: "With regard to this character JUSTICE58, she was very rabidly insisting that the three Lacrosse players were guilty. However, she disappeared altogether from the blogosphere a long time ago" ....... Justice58 was before my time. I've just been googling some of the things she posted back then and I certainly liked what I read. I'm sorry that she has chosen to no longer post here as she was making a solid cotribution to this blog. Perhaps the blatent racism of some posters that often appears here, drove her away. I know it's nearly caused that reaction in me on numerous occasions. I also wish Kilgo would return. Although, I did not like his frequent vulgarity the things he claimed he was told by a Player co-incided with Crystal's recollections, despite her feeling that she had been drugged and feeling terrified by the traumatic assult.; June 16, 2012 at 2:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:26 said: "That there are reasons why semen was not present, how does that establish that semen actually WAS present".................. It does not nor does the white fluid seen intravaginally by Dr. Manly that she assumed to be semen but unfortunately didn't confirm and for which the Defence quickly offered alternate possibilities for it's nature. Sperm is delivered via, semen as it's vehicle. The finding of unidentified DNA extracted from sperm cells means that these were delivered by semen. When, that was possibly deposited, was within a time period that included the date of the claimed assult. Crystal's given sexual history of consensual sex could not account for these found sperm cells. Only circumstantial evidence; true but suggestive of two possibilities. One, she was concealling consensual contacts or two the sperm came from a non-consensual encounter.; June 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I also wish Kilgo would return. Although, I did not like his frequent vulgarity the things he claimed he was told by a Player co-incided with Crystal's recollections, despite her feeling that she had been drugged and feeling terrified by the traumatic assult."

Kilgo will never return because he does not like being exposed as a fraud. His Lacrosse player friend does not exist.

That you believe Kilgo, because he agrees with you that Crystal was raped, is more evidence of that you are delusional.; June 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The finding of unidentified DNA extracted from sperm cells means that these were delivered by semen. When, that was possibly deposited, was within a time period that included the date of the claimed assult. Crystal's given sexual history of consensual sex could not account for these found sperm cells. Only circumstantial evidence; true but suggestive of two possibilities. One, she was concealling consensual contacts or two the sperm came from a non-consensual encounter."

The absence of evidence of semen on the rape kit eliminates the possibility that sperm was deposited on her person on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

"Crystal's given sexual history of consensual sex could not account for these found sperm cells."

According to you, "Crystal's given sexual history of consensual sex" was never established. Ergo, the above statement is meaningless.

"When, that(male DNA) was possibly deposited, was within a time period that included the date of the claimed assult(sic)."

Crystal told the medical staff the male DNA was deposited on her person on the night of March 13/14 2006. If that were true, testing of the rape kit would have found semen. It did not. Ergo the male DNA was not there because of a non consensual sexual encounter.

"The finding of unidentified DNA extracted from sperm cells means that these were delivered by semen."

True. However, there is no evidence that sperm cells were deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006.nz5a sockor; June 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Justice58 was before my time. I've just been googling some of the things she posted back then and I certainly liked what I read."

All that means is that you are a racist.

That a rabid Crystal supporter no longer posts in support of Crystal suggests even she no longer believe's Crystal's story.; June 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"When, that(male DNA) was possibly deposited, was within a time period that included the date of the claimed assult(sic)."

To make a criminal case against anyone, one would have to establish that the DNA was deposited at the time Crystal alleged the assault took place.

Checking all of Crystal's male partners is not possible, since it was never determined how many partners she had in the week preceding the night of 13/14 March 2006.

In any event, there was no evidence ever generated to prove that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; June 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Only circumstantial evidence; true but suggestive of two possibilities. One, she was concealling consensual contacts or two the sperm came from a non-consensual encounter."

What makes a non consenual sex a possibility? Crystal's allegations?

Crystal's encounter with the police on the morning of 14 March 2006, wavering between yes I was raped and no I was not established her as not credible.

The improper lineup procedure established that Crystal was not credible.

That you believe her is meaningless.; June 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The finding of unidentified DNA extracted from sperm cells means that these were delivered by semen."

It does not mean that semen was deposited on her person on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

I repeat, if one were to have a criminal case against anyone, one would have to establish it as fact that the sperm cells were deposited at the time Crystal alleged the rape happened.; June 16, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"[Justice58] was making a solid cotribution to this blog".

Only if you regard unsupported allegations and dodging relevant issues as solid contributions.; June 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Perhaps the blatent racism of some posters that often appears here, drove [Justice58] away."

No it wasn't. Justice58's own blatant racism. She did not like being called out on her own racism.

She also did not like confronting issues like, why was there no forensic evidence of rape on the rape kit.

I remember when asked why there was no DNA from any of the accused on the rape kit, she replied she did not know and that the questioner should ask Crystal.

At the time, Crystal was a bit loathe to discuss why there was no forensic evidence of rape on the rape kit.; June 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I also wish Kilgo would return."

You and SIDNEY are probably the only ones.; June 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "It does not nor does the white fluid seen intravaginally by Dr. Manly that she assumed to be semen but unfortunately didn't confirm and for which the Defence quickly offered alternate possibilities for it's nature. Sperm is delivered via, semen as it's vehicle. The finding of unidentified DNA extracted from sperm cells means that these were delivered by semen. When, that was possibly deposited, was within a time period that included the date of the claimed assult. Crystal's given sexual history of consensual sex could not account for these found sperm cells. Only circumstantial evidence; true but suggestive of two possibilities. One, she was concealling consensual contacts or two the sperm came from a non-consensual encounter."

Brilliant analysis, kennyhyderal.; June 17, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on, kennyhyderal.; June 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I would say, Left off, KENHYDERAL; June 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I would say, Brilliant analysis NOT!, KENHYDERAL; June 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: I would say, unsupported allegations, conjecture, speculation not supported by the evidence, KENHYDERAL; June 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It does not [document the presence of semen] nor does the white fluid seen intravaginally by Dr. Manly that she assumed to be semen but unfortunately didn't confirm".

Why did you, at one time, call the performance of a wet mount, which would have established whether or not semen was present, would have been unnecessary cya medicine?

Brilliant analysis NOT! KENHYDERAL; June 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Harr is just being deliberately stupid and dense to bait and annoy......so,that he can play his silly little games . That is all this is, folks. Pure trash from a pathetic loser who thinks other people pay attention to him. What is the one thing a wing nut like harr cannot stand ? To be ignored. Harr does not give a damn about mangum. We all know it. He is a loudmouth whose intrusion into mangum' s case caused her to lose the attorney SHE wanted in the first place.......and to get Vann back, with delays.
Come on harr......bail her out ....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

Au contrare, mon ami... nothing could be further from the truth than that I am seeking attention. Truth is that I see gross injustice in the vendetta conspiracy against Mangum, and instead of sitting on my duff and doing nothing, I am taking action to help deliver justice to Mangum.

With regards to her prior attorney, can you tell me what substantive inroads he made on her case during the year he was representing Mangum? I am unaware of any.

Charges against Mangum will be dismissed without her going to trial... if I have anything to say about it.; June 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Just so I'm on the same page, Sid -- in YOUR reality, its OK for a private institution to violate a person's 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.

Hmm...didn't YOU file a (frivolous) lawsuit against Duke for (supposedly) violating your rights?

But you're not hypocritical...Right.

A couple of things come to mind:

1) Your lawsuit failed, while there's didn't because Duke KNEW they were guilty of the charges against the LAX players -- just as they KNEW they were innocent of the charges you brought against them.

2) It is your jealousy (they won, you didn't) driving your opinion, rather than actual facts.

Lance, read my lips. I do not believe that it is okay for any individual or corporation, public or private, to deprive a person of their civil rights, period.

Regarding my lawsuit against Duke University, it is meritorious and it is not yet over... not by a long shot.; June 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Harr Supporter said...: Sidney: "Regarding my lawsuit against Duke University, it is meritorious and it is not yet over... not by a long shot."

You filed your appeal more than two months ago. I ask again that you post your filing so that your readers may see what legal arguments, if any, you raised in your appeal.

As you know, in your initial filing, you ignored the legal issue raised by the defendants and accepted by the Court, preferring to characterize it as "legalese mumbo-jumbo." Making no substantive arguments, you directed "vile invective" at the Court and were admonished by the Court.

I hope for your sake that you adopted a different legal strategy for your appeal.; June 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNRY HARR:

"Au contrare(sic), mon ami... nothing could be further from the truth than that I am seeking attention. Truth is that I see gross injustice in the vendetta conspiracy against Mangum, and instead of sitting on my duff and doing nothing, I am taking action to help deliver justice to Mangum."

Refusing to put your money where your mouth is, i.e., coming up with bail money for Crystal, is sitting on tour duff. Your poorly instituted personal camouflage is not working.

Incidentally, as I have pointed out before, the proper spelling is "au CONTRAIRE".

You show a definite inability to learn from your glaring previous mistakes.; June 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Lance, read my lips. I do not believe that it is okay for any individual or corporation, public or private, to deprive a person of their civil rights, period."

Prior to indictment of any suspect, DA NIFONG conducted a campaign to deprive suspects of the right to be presumed innocent and to undermine their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to counsel and to remain silent. You condoned that activity via your claim that DA NIFONG conducted his prosecution within acceptable ethical standards for a prosecutor.

You defended attempts of the NBP to affect the verdict of any upcoming trial as Constitutionally protected free speech. Yet you would deny AG Cooper his right to express his opinion as to the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants.

SIDNEY, again I name you HYPOCRITE.; June 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding my lawsuit against Duke University, it is meritorious and it is not yet over... not by a long shot."

It is up to the court to decide whether or not your frivolous lawsuit has merit, not you. That you make this statement is evidence of your belief you are above the law and that you have no respect for the law. So far the court has decided your suit does not have merit.

What is a long shot, an extremely long long shot, is that any court will decide your suit has merit.; June 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"With regards to her prior attorney, can you tell me what substantive inroads he made on her case during the year he was representing Mangum? I am unaware of any."

This from the individual who believes the Duke Lacrosse defendants had no cause of action against Duke.

This above is just an admission that you are ignorant.; June 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Charges against Mangum will be dismissed without her going to trial... if I have anything to say about it."

So far you have had a lot to say about it. It has had as much effect as the impact of a frozen pea on a steel plate.; June 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Harr Supporter:

"I hope for your(SIDNEY HARR's) sake that you adopted a different legal strategy for your appeal."

SIDNEY has been asking how the Duke defendants and teir attorneys "shook down" Duke for a substantial settlement.

I think SIDNEY, in the belief that he, too, can shake down Duke, wants to copy their strategy.; June 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "Lance, read my lips. I do not believe that it is okay for any individual or corporation, public or private, to deprive a person of their civil rights, period.

Unless it is the Duke LAX 3, of course. We get it Sid...; June 18, 2012 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

More about the persistence of male DNA in the female genital tract following intercourse:

From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_sperm_live_when_it%27s_inside_the_body, male DNA can be detected in the female genital tract 5 to 10 days after sex.

From http://www.ehow.com/about_5502992_long-sperm-stay-womans-body.html, Sperm can persist in the female genital tract as long as 5 days

It seems that the presence of male dna in the female genital tract does not establish a 48 hour window in which the sperm could be deposited. The window is a bit longer.; June 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum lied. she said she had only had intercourse with one man.....and that this event occured one week prior to the LAX party. The analysis showed multiple male samples....not just one. and NONE were LAX guys.
She LIED>; June 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; June 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Great to have you back, kennyhyderal. Where were you? Visiting Bremerton again?; June 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Sunday, June 10, 2012

185 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me