The defendant, Crystal Mangum, was not present for her hearing, which lasted (I have been told) about three minutes, at most. To date, Mr. Vann has been twiddling his thumbs, without any sign of urgency, while his client continues to languish in jail… this posting date being day 494 of her unjust incarceration.
Since the March 2012 hearing before Duke Lacrosse Judge Osmond Smith III, in which he quickly denied Chris Shella’s request for Mangum’s bond to be lowered from a ridiculously high $200,000.00, there has been no further motion for bail reduction. This is problematic in light of the fact that Judge Osmond Smith, who a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts, would not consider him capable of being impartial when it comes to Crystal Mangum. Since Mr. Vann has taken over Mangum’s case, he has done essentially nothing for his client. His inaction is making his predecessor Shella look like Perry Mason in comparison.
Also, on Tuesday, August 7th, I filed two petitions with the court in Mangum’s case, but as a Pro Se petitioner… therefore, not lawyering. One was a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for petitioners Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback and Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks, requesting that the Courts issue a writ of mandamus instructing the respondents to dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge against Crystal Mangum due to lack of credible evidence and lack of probable cause. To begin with the two cashier’s checks at the heart of the issue were given to Mangum, having been filled out by Reginald Daye, and she was listed as neither the payee nor remitter. Secondly, she made no attempt or showed any intent to illegally convert them for her benefit. Thirdly, no where in the police reports that I had access to did Reginald Daye or his nephew Carlos Wilson claim that Mangum took cashier’s checks… they only referred to money, or rent money. For example, Wilson did not say to officers that he heard Daye shout, “Give me back my cashier’s checks” or “Give me back my money orders.” The Larceny of Chose in Action requires that cashier’s checks, money orders, bank notes and other certificates other than money or currency be stolen… and this did not happen.
Finally, a look at the timeline will confirm that had the larceny charge been serious, Mangum would have been indicted for it a day or two following the self-defense stabbing incident… it would not have taken prosecutors a couple of weeks later before making the charge against her. The fact that the larceny of chose in action charge was attained by a grand jury at the same time as the first degree murder charge makes it plain that the charge was trumped up in order to kick in the “felony-murder rule” to upgrade the murder charge to first degree. (Note: this is the same tactic that Andrew Curliss of The News & Observer criticized former Durham D.A. Tracey Cline of employing in his biased and scathing series about her just months ago… yet when it comes to Prosecutor Coggins-Franks using them on Mangum, the newspaper is conveniently muzzled… no complaints… no outrage.)
I believe that prosecutors initially planned to use the first degree murder charge to railroad through a life sentence for Mangum. However, due to the backlash of Mangum supporters, including members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, the prosecution is now going to try and use it to eventually wring out a plea deal for “time served in order to let the prosecutors and the city of Durham off the liability hook for malicious prosecution and unjust incarceration.” (Similar to what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case.)
In order for the prosecutors to force a plea deal from Mangum, it will be necessary for them to have the cooperation of her defense attorney, and they are counting on Mr. Vann to come through for them, in my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Vann’s priorities are in the following order: (1) Protect the reputation of Duke University Hospital, which was responsible for Daye’s death – not Mangum; (2) Protect the city of Durham from any civil liability for its malicious prosecution of Mangum; and lagging a distance behind (3) Possibly trying to see that Mangum doesn’t spend too long in jail.
The second petition filed on Tuesday was against respondent H. Wood Vann, requesting the Court to issue a writ of mandamus for him to turn over the entire prosecution discovery and all evidence to his client Mangum. Since her incarceration on April 3, 2011, she has never seen photographs from prosecution discovery, despite repeatedly asking her attorneys for them. Ms. Mangum has also not seen the report from Dr. Christena L. Roberts who reviewed the autopsy report of Reginald Daye that was submitted by Orange County Medical Examiner. By depriving Ms. Mangum of access to discovery and evidence, she is being denied the ability to best help in her own defense. It is bad enough when prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense, but when the defense attorney withholds it from his client, that is the height of professional misconduct.
Because of the aforementioned acts of withholding evidence from Ms. Mangum and his propensity to ignore Mangum’s request to see him, I filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against Mr. Vann on Wednesday, August 8, 2012. Needless to say, I do not expect it to take any action.
I can understand why politicians, such as Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr., and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall are mum on this great injustice… it is because they learned from the example that was made of Mike Nifong by the state and the media. They saw what happened when a man of integrity took a stand on principles and acted independently on moral conscientiousness regarding a justice issue that was contrary to the position held by the Powers-That-Be… Mr. Nifong was horrendously persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. For the same reason, civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU have shied away from the injustice towards Ms. Mangum… it’s certainly not due to ignorance of what has been sadly transpiring.
It takes courage to take a stand against an unpopular position, and even though the cause in support of Mangum is one of justice and is sound morally, community leaders, members of the North Carolina General Assembly, and clergy, are afraid to take a stand. It is a rare courage that only Mangum and Nifong supporters are bringing against a justice system that is selectively and overtly bias, racist, cruel, and inhumane in its treatment of Ms. Mangum… Joan of Arc received better treatment by the British courts.
What I find most disheartening about all of this injustice towards Crystal Mangum is the fact that the mainstream media is actively involved in the corruption and conspiracy swirling around this case. The media’s priorities are not unlike Vann’s… to first protect Duke University (which heavily advertises, especially on WRAL and The News & Observer), secondly to protect the city of Durham from civil liability due to its misdeeds and malfeasance, and finally, to carry out the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda to destroy everyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case (that includes Mangum, Nifong, and their supporters… and yours truly).
Despite the best efforts of the media (using its selective, skewed and one sided reporting) to keep the gross wrongdoings against Mangum hidden from the public, the stench is starting to leak out… and the cover-up in this case can not go on in perpetuity. It’s time for the media to start questioning and investigating the following:
(1) the problems with the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols;
(2) what grounds does Durham prosecutors have for their larceny charge against Mangum;
(3) why is Mr. Vann keeping discovery and evidence from his client Mangum;
(4) why has a judge not been assigned to Mangum’s case;
(5) what role did Duke University have in Reginald Daye’s death; and
(6) why is Governor Bev Perdue and Attorney General Roy Cooper standing on the sidelines.
I believe that if Durhamians and Tar Heelians knew the truth about the injustices against Crystal Mangum, they would not allow it to continue… the truth will set Crystal Mangum free. The question I have is how long will the mainstream media attempt to keep it hidden from the people.
LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/manusAB/masMen.htm
82 comments:
" I filed two petitions with the court in Mangum’s case, but as a Pro Se petitioner… therefore, not lawyering. One was a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for petitioners Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback and Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks, requesting that the Courts issue a writ of mandamus instructing the respondents to dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action "
Sid, if you think you have standing to file that motion, then you are practicing law. Otherwise, you have again wasted the court's time and caused delay attributable to the defense. With friends like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
SIDNEY HARR:
You say your motion against Woody Vann(and I personally think you still have him confused with Woody Hayes) is to compel him to cease withholding evidence from his client. First you have to prove he is withholding evidence.
Suppose the court rules that Mr. Vann turn over all the evidence to Crystal but with the proviso that she NOT allow you access to said evidence?
That would shock you since what you really want is to access the evidence, which you have no legal right to do.
SIDNEY HARR:
You complain that Crystal has not had a chance to review Christena Roberts' report on the Reginald Daye autopsy. What you want is a chance for you to review the report. What gives you the legal right to do that? That would be part of Mr. Daye's confidential medical record, which you have no right to access.
You again show you believe you are above the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"...Judge Osmond Smith, who a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts, would not consider him capable of being impartial when it comes to Crystal Mangum."
SIDNEY, you have repeatedly demonstrated that neither are you reasonable, nor do you have any clue as to the facts of the case. Therefore your statement about Judge Smith has no weight, legal, moral, logical or whatever.
SIDNEY HARR:
"By depriving Ms. Mangum of access to discovery and evidence, she is being denied the ability to best help in her own defense."
What is likely is that Ms. Mangum is being denied access to confidential information because she has improperly shared that confidential information with an unauthorized person, namely you.
If anyone is to blame for the situation, it is you, who believes himself to be above the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
In your own words, tell us what a Writ of Mandamus is.
From Wickipedia:
"A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin; pronounced /mænˈdeɪməs/ man-DAY-məs), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly."
You have to demonstrate that the subject of the writ is not performing his duties properly.
If you asked your so called friend, Professor Coleman, I think he would tell you that you have no standing in this case to request such a writ.
HI bleepin larious!!!!! Bro you make my day with this crap.
You know, you have to show that you have a legal right in order to compel the respondents from....You know what? Never mind...I swear sometimes a discussion with you is like yelling down an empty well...All we get back is an echo (growing more and more vague)...
I noticed you coined a new term, "factor", instead of the overly used "carpetbagger jihad". Nice touch.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I believe that prosecutors initially planned to use the first degree murder charge to railroad through a life sentence for Mangum. However, due to the backlash of Mangum supporters, including members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, the prosecution is now going to try and use it to eventually wring out a plea deal for “time served in order to let the prosecutors and the city of Durham off the liability hook for malicious prosecution and unjust incarceration.” (Similar to what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case.)"
On multiple previous occasions you said that the charges against Crystal would not stand if you and your J4N gang had anything to say about it. You and your J4N gang have said much about it. The charges against Crystal still stand.
SIDNEY HARR:
" It is bad enough when prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense..."
This from someone who claims DA NIFONG did not withhold evidence from the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Because of the aforementioned acts of withholding evidence from Ms. Mangum and his propensity to ignore Mangum’s request to see him, I filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against Mr. Vann on Wednesday, August 8, 2012. Needless to say, I do not expect it to take any action."
Needless to say, you have no status to file such a complaint.
You continue to misunderstand the concept of he who asserts must prove. You expect your allegations to be accepted as true without proof.
You manifest more evidence that you believe you are above the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It is a rare courage that only Mangum and Nifong supporters are bringing against a justice system that is selectively and overtly bias, racist, cruel, and inhumane in its treatment of Ms. Mangum… Joan of Arc received better treatment by the British courts."
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
Crystal is incarcerated and protected from such punishment. Yet you think she is being treated worse than Joan of Arc!
I say again, if you and the J4N gang have been so concerned about Crystal's incarceration why have you made no attempt to have her bailed out.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It’s time for the media to start questioning and investigating the following:
(1) the problems with the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols;
(2) what grounds does Durham prosecutors have for their larceny charge against Mangum;
(3) why is Mr. Vann keeping discovery and evidence from his client Mangum;
(4) why has a judge not been assigned to Mangum’s case;
(5) what role did Duke University have in Reginald Daye’s death; and
(6) why is Governor Bev Perdue and Attorney General Roy Cooper standing on the sidelines."
(1)That you allege there were problems in said report does not mean there actually were problems.
(2)That you allege there are no grounds does not make it true. In view of your demonstrated failings as a would be lawyer, there is no justification for investigating your belief.
(3)Probably because he does not want confidential information leaked to you.
(4)Because there is no cause to do so. You certainly demonstrated no cause.
(5)None. That is evident from the Medical Record.
(6)Because they have no authority or cause to intervene.
My suggested solution to Crystal's access to the Prosecution Discovery file is that it be granted under the condition that Crystal have no contact with you, that if you attempt to have contact with Crystal you be found in contempt and incarcerated.
SIDNEY HARR:
Your two petitions are re hashes of the unsupported allegations contained in your frivolous lawsuit against Duke and your previous motions regarding Crystal Mangum. Everything is the result of the injustices done to Crystal and to DA NIFONG in the Duke Rape case.
It has been established as fact that Crystal and DA NIFONG were the perpetrators of, not the victims of injustice.
Your ravings did not fly previously. What makes you think they will fly now?
Is it your contention that you are telling the truth which will set Crystal free?
All the time you have been passing this junk off as truth, Crystal has remained in jail. Therefore you have not been telling the truth.
I have some sympathy for Sidney's frustration. It is unconscionable that no court date has been set for Mangum after 500 days. Sidney blames the defense attorneys when he sees no progress, particularly when there have been no public attempts to move the case along through motions to dismiss, etc.
I had the same frustration in the lacrosse case. However, the defense filed numerous non-discovery motions, beginning early in the case. None were ever heard. For more than 8 months, no hearing covered any subject other than discovery.
Sidney does not realize that the delays are not due to Mangum's attorneys, but to the system itself. He flails around trying to do something, filing frivolous motions and complaints, hoping the court will respond.
The NC case management system permits a DA to control the schedule and select the judge. The first setting is devoted to discovery, and the case cannot progress until discovery is completed. Sidney supports this system and refused to criticize a DA who abused it. He rationalized that timely discovery is not required until a court date is set.
Sidney, the NC justice system is broken. The lacrosse case exposed the problems for the world. You could have had allies, but you told them you didn't want their help: it was more important that affluent white defendents should suffer through an unfair system than to fix the system to improve the lot of the poor minority defendants the system generally abuses.
You made your bed. Now lie in it.
" I filed two petitions with the court in Mangum’s case, but as a Pro Se petitioner… therefore, not lawyering. One was a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for petitioners Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback and Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks, requesting that the Courts issue a writ of mandamus instructing the respondents to dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action "
Sid, if you think you have standing to file that motion, then you are practicing law. Otherwise, you have again wasted the court's time and caused delay attributable to the defense. With friends like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt.
Like the media, you can’t see the leopard cause you’re focused on its spots. You zero in on whether or not I’m practicing law or if my petitions will be even heard in court, yet you ignore the bigger issues of: (1) whether or not the prosecution should drop its larceny of chose in action charge against Mangum; and (2) if defense attorney Woody Vann has the right to withhold evidence and prosecution discovery from his client Mangum.
Walt, I consider you to be one of the few intelligent commenters on this blogsite, and one whose opinion I value… therefore, I would like for you to answer the following four questions, feeling free to give explanations.
Question #1: Do you believe that Woody Vann or any defense attorney has the right to withhold evidence or prosecution discovery from his client?
Question #2: Do you feel that the Durham prosecutors should dismiss the larceny of chose in action charge against Mangum when the following is taken into consideration: (1) there is no proof that she took two cashier’s checks which she states were given to her by Reginald Daye; (2) the cashier’s checks were filled out and not blank checks, and she was listed as neither the payee nor remitter; (3) there is no evidence that she altered or attempted to illegally convert the cashier’s checks for her own use; (4) that no where in the police reports is there a claim by Daye or his nephew Carlos Wilson that Mangum took or stole cashier’s checks; (5) that Mangum’s account that Daye gave her the cashier’s checks so that she could pay the rent during apartment office hours when he would be at work makes sense; (6) that there is no motive for Mangum to steal two filled out cashier’s checks that she cannot convert for her benefit; and (7) the prosecutors did not initially file the larceny charge but waited for two weeks and only then did they file the larceny of chose in action charge along with the murder charge… obviously so they could use the larceny charge and the felony-murder rule to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?
Question #3: Name one thing that Woody Vann has done for his client Mangum after being at the helm of her case for four months? At least Chris Shella filed several motions to have her bail reduced, and the defense attorneys for George Zimmerman (the Florida man who stalked and killed an unarmed 17 year-old African American boy Trayvon Martin) have released favorable documents and photographs to the media, got him out on bail, and are currently preparing to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge against their client.
Question #4: List the following in their overall importance to the issue of justice… from most important to least. They are arranged by my order of importance:
1. issue surrounding the dismissal of the larceny of chose in action charge against Mangum; 2. issue of defense attorney withholding evidence and prosecution discovery from his client Mangum; and 3. issue of Sidney B. Harr filing motions and petitions with the court related to Mangum’s case.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
You say your motion against Woody Vann(and I personally think you still have him confused with Woody Hayes) is to compel him to cease withholding evidence from his client. First you have to prove he is withholding evidence.
Suppose the court rules that Mr. Vann turn over all the evidence to Crystal but with the proviso that she NOT allow you access to said evidence?
That would shock you since what you really want is to access the evidence, which you have no legal right to do.
So you believe that the defendant is only entitled to see evidence and prosecution discovery under conditions established by his/her attorney or the Courts? Is that really your position?
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
You complain that Crystal has not had a chance to review Christena Roberts' report on the Reginald Daye autopsy. What you want is a chance for you to review the report. What gives you the legal right to do that? That would be part of Mr. Daye's confidential medical record, which you have no right to access.
You again show you believe you are above the law.
Mr. Vann isn't withholding evidence and discovery from me... he's withholding it from his client, Mangum. Isn't she entitled to have access to it? Does the law state that a defense attorney can use his discretion as to what pieces of information and discovery he wants to share with his client? Please enlighten me on this as I am not an attorney and have no legal training.
Lance the Intern said...
You know, you have to show that you have a legal right in order to compel the respondents from....You know what? Never mind...I swear sometimes a discussion with you is like yelling down an empty well...All we get back is an echo (growing more and more vague)...
I noticed you coined a new term, "factor", instead of the overly used "carpetbagger jihad". Nice touch.
"Factor" refers to the influence of the Duke Lacrosse case, whereas "the Carpetbagger Jihad" refers specifically to the vendetta. Similar, but not exactly the same.
SIDNEY HARR:
"So you believe that the defendant is only entitled to see evidence and prosecution discovery under conditions established by his/her attorney or the Courts? Is that really your position?"
Red Herring, SIDNEY, an indication that you can not address the issue raised.
How can you prove that Woody Vann is withholding evidence from Crystal.
How does that have anything to do with my position on the evidence?
It doesn't.
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):
"Question #1: Do you believe that Woody Vann or any defense attorney has the right to withhold evidence or prosecution discovery from his client?"
The question is irrelevant unless you can show that Woody Vann is withholding evidence.
Here, SIDNEY, you have constructed a straw fisherman holding up a straw red herring.
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):
"Question #2: Do you feel that the Durham prosecutors should dismiss the larceny of chose in action charge against Mangum when the following is taken into consideration: (1) there is no proof that she took two cashier’s checks which she states were given to her by Reginald Daye; (2) the cashier’s checks were filled out and not blank checks, and she was listed as neither the payee nor remitter; (3) there is no evidence that she altered or attempted to illegally convert the cashier’s checks for her own use; (4) that no where in the police reports is there a claim by Daye or his nephew Carlos Wilson that Mangum took or stole cashier’s checks; (5) that Mangum’s account that Daye gave her the cashier’s checks so that she could pay the rent during apartment office hours when he would be at work makes sense; (6) that there is no motive for Mangum to steal two filled out cashier’s checks that she cannot convert for her benefit; and (7) the prosecutors did not initially file the larceny charge but waited for two weeks and only then did they file the larceny of chose in action charge along with the murder charge… obviously so they could use the larceny charge and the felony-murder rule to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?"
Again irrelevant. You haven't established as fact there is no evidence to support the charges. You have just proclaimed it.
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):
"Question #3: Name one thing that Woody Vann has done for his client Mangum after being at the helm of her case for four months? At least Chris Shella filed several motions to have her bail reduced, and the defense attorneys for George Zimmerman (the Florida man who stalked and killed an unarmed 17 year-old African American boy Trayvon Martin) have released favorable documents and photographs to the media, got him out on bail, and are currently preparing to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge against their client."
Comparing Crystal to George Zimmerman is irrelevant. Maybe Woody Vann has not released favorable information about Crystal because there is none to release.
As I recall, you objected to the attorneys for the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players releasing information favorable to their clients.
Is that because you believe Innocent Caucasian men should not be afforded the protection of law?
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):
"
Question #4: List the following in their overall importance to the issue of justice… from most important to least. They are arranged by my order of importance:
1. issue surrounding the dismissal of the larceny of chose in action charge against Mangum; 2. issue of defense attorney withholding evidence and prosecution discovery from his client Mangum; and 3. issue of Sidney B. Harr filing motions and petitions with the court related to Mangum’s case."
You have not shown that the larceny charge should be dismissed, only proclaimed it. You have not shown that Woody Vann is withholding evidence from Crystal. You have not shown why the Court should consider you as someone who should file motions.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Mr. Vann isn't withholding evidence and discovery from me... he's withholding it from his client, Mangum. Isn't she entitled to have access to it? Does the law state that a defense attorney can use his discretion as to what pieces of information and discovery he wants to share with his client? Please enlighten me on this as I am not an attorney and have no legal training."
If you admit you have no legal training as an attorney, you admit you are not qualified to comment expertly about any legal case, let alone a complicated one. So why should any court allow you to participate in a legal case?
Yes, Woody Vann is probably withholding evidence from you, because you have shown a reckless disregard for attorney/client privilege. In accord with your belief that you are above the law, you think you should be allowed to access and publish confidential information in this case.
You are angry about Woody Vann not releasing Dr. Roberts report to Crystal because you want Crystal, in turn, to give you access to that report.
Did you ever think that Woody Vann would not release the report if it were favorable to his case?
Considering your penchant for publishing disinformation as the truth, it is no wonder any attorney would not want you to have access to case information.
More Jeopardy
Answer: A lawyer and a football coach.
Question: What can SIDNEY HARR not tell the difference between.
SIDNEY HARR:
"'Factor' refers to the influence of the Duke Lacrosse case, whereas 'the Carpetbagger Jihad' refers specifically to the vendetta. Similar, but not exactly the same."
Wrong. "Factor" and Carpetbagger Jihad" in this context refer to two figments of SIDNEY's deluded, megalomaniacal imagination.
Sid,
In answer to your questions:
1. Sometimes a lawyer must withold evidence from his client. Those are rare situations. But, where the client might harm her own best interests, as Crystal has done in this case, that can justify witholding evidence.
2. I wrote early in this case, I thought it was Manslaughter 2. It appears the D.A. has upcharged in hopes of getting a plea. Given Crystal's history, I might have just charged the case straight out as Man 2 and fast tracked it for trial. As far as dismissing the theft count, the question comes down to probable cause. Once the state lacks PC, they must dismiss or run afoul of Rule 3.8(a) which caught Nifong. Otherwise, as Crystal pointed out in her hand written motion, the state can maintain the charge until the close of evidence at trial.
3. I don't want to interfere in the attorney client relationship, however, it appears that Woody Vann is thoroughly investigating relevant defenses and trying, without much success, to establish a disconnect between Mr. Daye's death and being stabbed. That is not as easy as you make it out to be. He needs evidence of an external cause that is not your concoction, but that will hold up in court. I have cited too many times the relevant rules. You have decided to disregard those rules. However, if Vann is to successfully defend Crystal, he has to abide by the case law that I cited to you and find an intervening cause. That appears to be his focus at the moment.
4. My biggest concern in this case is the lag between the event and today. This case has drug on far too long. This is the direct result of NC having no coherent set of rules for giving meaning to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution. As that is my biggest concern, your filings have caused delays which are attributed to the defense. Thus, your conduct has waived Crystal's rights under our constitution to a speedy trial.
My second concern is you have compromised the defense by revealing Crystal's theory of the case in your first round of filings which ultimately lead to Shella's withdrawl from the case.
My third concern is does the theft count have a basis in probable cause. For I think that the prosecution's violation fo Rule 3.8 has been indemic to the Durham County D.A. for as long as Mike Nifong was employed there and since. Tracy Cline, Freda Black and David Saacs all seemed to engage in that sort of conduct. I don't want Stanback to go there now.
Walt-in-Durham
Name one action you have taken that has helped mangum You cannot. Your interference has hurt her defense and caused delays. Your intrusion has caused shella to withdraw. Butt out. You are making a fool of yourself, and doing nothing but trying to draw attention to yourself. You are transparent in your motives.
SIDNEY HARR:
The basic truth is that YOU want access to the prosecution discovery file. You want Woody Vann to give Crystal access because you hope Crystal will in turn give you access.
Save your protestations about poor Crystal. As the previous commenter has pointed out, you have done nothing to help Crystal. To you, your own self interest is paramount.
SIDNEY HARR:
Whenever someone points out the truth to you, that you have done nothing to help Crystal, you always respond by dragging in another straw fisherman holding a red herring. You cry, what has Woody Vann done.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):
"Question #1: Do you believe that Woody Vann or any defense attorney has the right to withhold evidence or prosecution discovery from his client?"
The question is irrelevant unless you can show that Woody Vann is withholding evidence.
Here, SIDNEY, you have constructed a straw fisherman holding up a straw red herring.
Crystal told me that she has been trying to get discovery photographs from Mr. Vann but he refused to give them to her. She also sent the father of her child to pick the photos up from Mr. Vann and he refused to release them to her. I have personally tried to get copies of the photos from a disc to print and send to Crystal, but he has refused. Further more Crystal said that Mr. Vann would not turn over the photos and other discovery to her until she was out of jail. He is withholding prosecution discovery.
Anonymous said...
Name one action you have taken that has helped mangum You cannot. Your interference has hurt her defense and caused delays. Your intrusion has caused shella to withdraw. Butt out. You are making a fool of yourself, and doing nothing but trying to draw attention to yourself. You are transparent in your motives.
I filed five documents with the Court... three motions and two petitions. That's five more than Mr. Vann.
In addition to that, I've written letters, and produced flogs and blogs.
Walt said...
Sid,
In answer to your questions:
1. Sometimes a lawyer must withold evidence from his client. Those are rare situations. But, where the client might harm her own best interests, as Crystal has done in this case, that can justify witholding evidence.
2. I wrote early in this case, I thought it was Manslaughter 2. It appears the D.A. has upcharged in hopes of getting a plea. Given Crystal's history, I might have just charged the case straight out as Man 2 and fast tracked it for trial. As far as dismissing the theft count, the question comes down to probable cause. Once the state lacks PC, they must dismiss or run afoul of Rule 3.8(a) which caught Nifong. Otherwise, as Crystal pointed out in her hand written motion, the state can maintain the charge until the close of evidence at trial.
3. I don't want to interfere in the attorney client relationship, however, it appears that Woody Vann is thoroughly investigating relevant defenses and trying, without much success, to establish a disconnect between Mr. Daye's death and being stabbed. That is not as easy as you make it out to be. He needs evidence of an external cause that is not your concoction, but that will hold up in court. I have cited too many times the relevant rules. You have decided to disregard those rules. However, if Vann is to successfully defend Crystal, he has to abide by the case law that I cited to you and find an intervening cause. That appears to be his focus at the moment.
4. My biggest concern in this case is the lag between the event and today. This case has drug on far too long. This is the direct result of NC having no coherent set of rules for giving meaning to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution. As that is my biggest concern, your filings have caused delays which are attributed to the defense. Thus, your conduct has waived Crystal's rights under our constitution to a speedy trial.
My second concern is you have compromised the defense by revealing Crystal's theory of the case in your first round of filings which ultimately lead to Shella's withdrawl from the case.
My third concern is does the theft count have a basis in probable cause. For I think that the prosecution's violation fo Rule 3.8 has been indemic to the Durham County D.A. for as long as Mike Nifong was employed there and since. Tracy Cline, Freda Black and David Saacs all seemed to engage in that sort of conduct. I don't want Stanback to go there now.
Walt-in-Durham
Thanks for your feedback, Walt. One thing you seem to forget is that for one year I did not get involved in Crystal's case.
The defense attorneys for George Zimmerman (the Florida man who stalked and killed the unarmed 17 year-old Trayvon Martin)are planning to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge.
Face it, the Larceny of chose in action charge should have been the immediate target of a motion to dismiss.
There has been very little, if any, investigation by the defense... no interviews to my knowledge of Daye's former girlfriends about abuse.
The prosecution actually should be taken to task for not filing charges and placing Reginald Daye under arrest for domestic violence, assault on a female, and unlawful imprisonment.
Defense attorneys for Mangum have their priorities as being the protection of Duke University Hospital and the city of Durham. Ditto for the mainstream media.
SIDNEY HARR:
" I have personally tried to get copies of the photos from a disc to print and send to Crystal, but he has refused."
So you admit your goal is to access the prosecution discovery file. What right do you have to do so?
SIDNEY HARR:
" [Crystal] also sent the father of her child to pick the photos up from Mr. Vann and he refused to release them to her."
In other words, Crystal tried to have Mr. Vann release the discovery file to someone who was not authorized to have the file. It does not add up to simply withholding evidence.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Crystal told me that she has been trying to get discovery photographs from Mr. Vann but he refused to give them to her."
"...Crystal said that Mr. Vann would not turn over the photos and other discovery to her until she was out of jail. He is withholding prosecution discovery."
You neglect to mention, probably deliberately, that when represented by Chris Shella, Crystal allowed an unauthorized person, namely you, to illegally access and publish discovery information she had.
I say again, your problem with Woody Vann not sharing evidence with Crystal is your heartburn about not being able to access the information.
That you think you should be able to access said information shows you believe you are above the law and do not have to respect the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The prosecution actually should be taken to task for not filing charges and placing Reginald Daye under arrest for domestic violence, assault on a female, and unlawful imprisonment."
There is no evidence that Reginald Daye physically abused Crystal. Crystal made her allegations after she had been arrested, charged with Murder 1, and was facing a possible life sentence. That would indicate Crystal was trying to c---r her b--t.
SIDNEY HARR:
"There has been very little, if any, investigation by the defense... no interviews to my knowledge of Daye's former girlfriends about abuse."
That is because there is no prior abuse to question former girlfriends about.
You are going to proclaim that Mr. Daye was charged with violence against a female. Then, like the lying megalomaniac you are, you will deliberately neglect to say that said charge was dismissed by the DA.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Face it, the Larceny of chose in action charge should have been the immediate target of a motion to dismiss."
You, who admit you have no training or experience as a lawyer, make this statement as if you can speak authoritatively on legal matters.
Are you schizpphrenic?
SIDNEY HARR:
"Defense attorneys for Mangum have their priorities as being the protection of Duke University Hospital and the city of Durham. Ditto for the mainstream media."
Defense attorneys' priority is protecting Crystal's right to a fair trial by keeping you out of the case.
You believed the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players should not have had a fair trial. It is not surprising that you can not recognize you are jeopardizing Crystal's rights.
SIDNEY HARR:
"
I filed five documents with the Court... three motions and two petitions. That's five more than Mr. Vann.
In addition to that, I've written letters, and produced flogs and blogs."
All that may be true, but it is all irrelevant. None of what you have cited has done Crystal any good. Some of the motions you filed resulted in the person she wanted for her attorney withdrawing from the case.
If you truly believe you have been helping Crystal, you may indeed be schizophrenic.
Definition of Schizophrenia from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/:
"Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it hard to:
Tell the difference between what is real and not realThink clearly
Have normal emotional responses
Act normally in social situations"
Anonymous @ 9:20 said: "If you truly believe you have been helping Crystal, you may indeed be schizophrenic"............. This, disgusting type of "psycho-babble" comes from posters who are outraged at any suggestion that Reginald Daye may have been an alcoholic
KENHYDERAL:
"'If you truly believe you have been helping Crystal, you may indeed be schizophrenic'............. This, disgusting type of "psycho-babble" comes from posters who are outraged at any suggestion that Reginald Daye may have been an alcoholic".
This is KENHYDERAL throwing one of his patented KEN-HISSY-FITS because no one believes him when he declares, without adequate evidence, that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic.
KENHYDERAL:
You have yet to explain why someone who could tolerate a Blood Alcohol of 296 would have no evidence of liver damage.
The liver toxicity comes from the exposure of the liver to the byproducts of alcohol metabolism. In someone who could tolerate that high an alcohol level, the liver would be producing extremely high levels of toxic metabolic byproducts.
So explain why you think Reginald Daye had a normal liver? Your previous explanation, you read it in a source that 70% of Chronic alcoholics have normal liver, is a dodge. The critical factor is degree of exposure of the liver to liver toxins.
Right on, kennyhyderal.
Five motions that were,filed by a lawyer wannabe that did nothing but waste court time and screw the defense, Wow, bro, bully for you. You have done nothing but buttib, screw mangum, draw attention to yourself and get yourself ib trouble with the Bar. Youcould have raised money for bail or gotten mangum a lawyer you like.......but that would involve more thanyour ignorant loud mouthed nonsense.
Sid wrote: "The defense attorneys for George Zimmerman ...are planning to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge."
The difference between NC and Florida. You, or at least Crystal cited State v. Small that stands for the proposition that the state can maintain a charge until the close of evidence at trial. You're stuck with the law you cited.
"Face it, the Larceny of chose in action charge should have been the immediate target of a motion to dismiss." Only if the state has no probable cause. That's where your argument runs afoul of Nifong's earlier position. Oops. You can't have it both ways Sid.
"There has been very little, if any, investigation by the defense... no interviews to my knowledge of Daye's former girlfriends about abuse." That you know of. Neither Vann nor Shella should share one bit of defense investigation with you. If they do, then that is subject to discovery by the state. Because Crystal went and showed you the defense file which included important theory of the defense material, Shella quit the case and Vann is not giving her all the information. Or, she's not giving it to you. In either situation, Vann is right. You have compromised the defense too much already.
"The prosecution actually should be taken to task for not filing charges and placing Reginald Daye under arrest for domestic violence, assault on a female, and unlawful imprisonment." He's dead.
"Defense attorneys for Mangum have their priorities as being the protection of Duke University Hospital and the city of Durham." The moon is made of green cheese. Both claims are nonsense.
"Ditto for the mainstream media." Crystal has lied to the media, mainstream and otherwise so many times, I've lost count. That's on her. Having been lied to countless times, the media is no doubt gun shy of anything she might say.
Walt-in-Durham
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny.
Anonymous @ 11:09 said "This is KENHYDERAL throwing one of his patented KEN-HISSY-FITS because no one believes him when he declares, without adequate evidence, that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic"................ I have made no such declaration.
KENHYDERAL:
"'This is KENHYDERAL throwing one of his patented KEN-HISSY-FITS because no one believes him when he declares, without adequate evidence, that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic'................ I have made no such declaration."
Oh yes you have. Now you are trying to cover your butt.
Now go out and throw another Kenny-Hissy fit.
Anonymous @ 5:35 said: "Oh yes you have. Now you are trying to cover your butt".............. I stand behind what I say. You will find no quote by me proclaiming Reginald Daye to be an alcoholic so stop saying I have.
KENHYDERAL:
"I stand behind what I say. You will find no quote by me proclaiming Reginald Daye to be an alcoholic so stop saying I have."
Nevertheless, you have proclaimed that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic.
That was not as bad, however, as your proclamation that Crystal the false accuser was raped by innocent Caucasian men.
Right on, kennyhyderal.
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny.
You da man, Kenny, you da man.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"Face it, the Larceny of chose in action charge should have been the immediate target of a motion to dismiss."
You, who admit you have no training or experience as a lawyer, make this statement as if you can speak authoritatively on legal matters.
Are you schizpphrenic?
No.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "The defense attorneys for George Zimmerman ...are planning to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge."
The difference between NC and Florida. You, or at least Crystal cited State v. Small that stands for the proposition that the state can maintain a charge until the close of evidence at trial. You're stuck with the law you cited.
"Face it, the Larceny of chose in action charge should have been the immediate target of a motion to dismiss." Only if the state has no probable cause. That's where your argument runs afoul of Nifong's earlier position. Oops. You can't have it both ways Sid.
"There has been very little, if any, investigation by the defense... no interviews to my knowledge of Daye's former girlfriends about abuse." That you know of. Neither Vann nor Shella should share one bit of defense investigation with you. If they do, then that is subject to discovery by the state. Because Crystal went and showed you the defense file which included important theory of the defense material, Shella quit the case and Vann is not giving her all the information. Or, she's not giving it to you. In either situation, Vann is right. You have compromised the defense too much already.
"The prosecution actually should be taken to task for not filing charges and placing Reginald Daye under arrest for domestic violence, assault on a female, and unlawful imprisonment." He's dead.
"Defense attorneys for Mangum have their priorities as being the protection of Duke University Hospital and the city of Durham." The moon is made of green cheese. Both claims are nonsense.
"Ditto for the mainstream media." Crystal has lied to the media, mainstream and otherwise so many times, I've lost count. That's on her. Having been lied to countless times, the media is no doubt gun shy of anything she might say.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, although I'm no lawyer and do not pretend to be, it is my opinion that a defendant it entitled to see all defense in his/her case, Period. I do not believe that defense attorneys have the right to withhold it from their defendant clients under any circumstance... no more than the prosecution has from withholding discovery from the defendant.
The moon is not made of green cheese, but Crystal's attorneys are in cahoots with the prosecutor to try and force Mangum to accept a plea deal for lesser charge for time served. It is a tactic used all the time by prosecutors and works extremely well when defense attorneys are in on it too.
As far as the media goes, it's a joke. The newspapers are more interested in getting Butch Davis's private phone records rather than investigating the problems with the autopsy report on Daye. The media, like the prosecution, and defense attorney are trying to keep the truth from the people.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Walt, although I'm no lawyer and do not pretend to be, it is my opinion that a defendant it entitled to see all defense in his/her case, Period. I do not believe that defense attorneys have the right to withhold it from their defendant clients under any circumstance... no more than the prosecution has from withholding discovery from the defendant."
First, although you say you are not a lawyer, you act as if you are a highly skilled lawyer. That is kind of schizophrenic.
Personally, although I am not a lawyer, I think a defense counsel is justified in not sharing confidential material with his client when there is another individual, not authorized to see the confidential material, who is trying through the defendant to get the confidential material.
SIDNEY, you are not upset because Crystal can not see the material but because you can not, through Crystal, see the material.
I think Crystal should see the material under the condition, established by a court order, that you are forbidden under penalty of contempt of court to have any contact with Crystal or to make any attempt to access the prosecution discovery file.
Of course, because you believe you are above the law, you would object to such a condition.
"Crystal's attorneys are in cahoots with the prosecutor to try and force Mangum to accept a plea deal for lesser charge for time served. It is a tactic used all the time by prosecutors and works extremely well when defense attorneys are in on it too. "
A claim, of course, that you have no way of proving.
It's ridiculous statements like this that I'm sure endeared you to Chris Shella and now Woody Vann.
SIDNEY HARR:
"As far as the media goes, it's a joke. The newspapers are more interested in getting Butch Davis's private phone records rather than investigating the problems with the autopsy report on Daye. The media, like the prosecution, and defense attorney are trying to keep the truth from the people."
You are as great a pathologist as you are a lawyer. So on what basis do you qualify yourself capable of saying there were problems with the autopsy report.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"Walt, although I'm no lawyer and do not pretend to be, it is my opinion that a defendant it entitled to see all defense in his/her case, Period. I do not believe that defense attorneys have the right to withhold it from their defendant clients under any circumstance... no more than the prosecution has from withholding discovery from the defendant."
First, although you say you are not a lawyer, you act as if you are a highly skilled lawyer. That is kind of schizophrenic.
Personally, although I am not a lawyer, I think a defense counsel is justified in not sharing confidential material with his client when there is another individual, not authorized to see the confidential material, who is trying through the defendant to get the confidential material.
SIDNEY, you are not upset because Crystal can not see the material but because you can not, through Crystal, see the material.
I think Crystal should see the material under the condition, established by a court order, that you are forbidden under penalty of contempt of court to have any contact with Crystal or to make any attempt to access the prosecution discovery file.
Of course, because you believe you are above the law, you would object to such a condition.
Of course I would object to such conditions being applied. As a defendant, especially in a first degree murder case, Mangum has the unconditional right to see any prosecution discovery that is in the possession of her defense attorney. For her attorney to withhold information from her for fear that I would get hold of it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as the prosecution is knowledgeable of it, and it is trying to put her away for life.
I am on Crystal's side... too bad her legal representation isn't.
Lance the Intern said...
"Crystal's attorneys are in cahoots with the prosecutor to try and force Mangum to accept a plea deal for lesser charge for time served. It is a tactic used all the time by prosecutors and works extremely well when defense attorneys are in on it too. "
A claim, of course, that you have no way of proving.
It's ridiculous statements like this that I'm sure endeared you to Chris Shella and now Woody Vann.
Intern, fortunately I'm not a defendant being represented by Shella and Vann. For that matter, if I were a defendant, you can bet that I would represent myself.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"As far as the media goes, it's a joke. The newspapers are more interested in getting Butch Davis's private phone records rather than investigating the problems with the autopsy report on Daye. The media, like the prosecution, and defense attorney are trying to keep the truth from the people."
You are as great a pathologist as you are a lawyer. So on what basis do you qualify yourself capable of saying there were problems with the autopsy report.
It doesn't take a medical degree or even a high school degree to see that there are problems with the autopsy report. All that is required is fifth grade reading and comprehension skills to recognize the discrepancies betwixt the autopsy report and the operative report. The autopsy report states that there were perforations of the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney, and fundus of the stomach along with sutured repairs of each. The operative report does not mention damage to those structures nor any repairs, and in fact, states that the stomach is normal.
How do you explain the discrepancies?
SIDNEY HARR:
"Of course I would object to such conditions being applied. As a defendant, especially in a first degree murder case, Mangum has the unconditional right to see any prosecution discovery that is in the possession of her defense attorney. For her attorney to withhold information from her for fear that I would get hold of it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as the prosecution is knowledgeable of it, and it is trying to put her away for life.
I am on Crystal's side... too bad her legal representation isn't."
First, if the court did grant Crystal access to the confidential information under such conditions, your only real options would be to comply or to obey.
Second, you have shown a propensity to publish confidential information in violation of Federal Law(are you going to plead ignorance of the law again?) and that would put you on a non share list.
Third, you are not on Crystal's side, you are on your own side. If you were on Crystal's side you would have tried to bail her out instead of preaching about the truth setting her free. You really, in spite of all your hypocritical protestations, do not want her free.
SIDNEY HARR:
"
It doesn't take a medical degree or even a high school degree to see that there are problems with the autopsy report. All that is required is fifth grade reading and comprehension skills to recognize the discrepancies betwixt the autopsy report and the operative report. The autopsy report states that there were perforations of the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney, and fundus of the stomach along with sutured repairs of each. The operative report does not mention damage to those structures nor any repairs, and in fact, states that the stomach is normal."
So again, in spite of your MD degree, what level of education at which you function. Anyone with that level, i.e. a 5th Grade education is not capable of understanding a pathology report. One who claims that is all it takes is not capable of being a physician.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Intern, fortunately I'm not a defendant being represented by Shella and Vann. For that matter, if I were a defendant, you can bet that I would represent myself."
You would lose the case and then appeal on the ground you had inadequate representation.
SIDNEY HARR:
"
How do you explain the discrepancies [in the autopsy report]?"
What discrepancies. You admit you are functioning at the level of one with a 5th grade education. Just because someone with a 5th grade education sees discrepancies is hardly evidence that they are there.
Sid wrote: "I am on Crystal's side... too bad her legal representation isn't."
Except you have harmed Crystal's defense at every turn. You divulged the defense theory of the case. You breached confidentiality by making public information that should have been limited to the defense. Your frivolous motions have delayed the case to the detriment of the defense. With allies like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
You are a sad little man, using a weak amoral woman, to gain attention for yourself. Pathetic.
Where's my man kennyhderal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIJr08Vq0AM&list=HL1344914878&
feature=mh_lolz
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny.
August 12, 2012 11:09 AM
Anonymous August 14, 2012 5:59 PM
The last line is funny, something like, I hope they let me keep my guitars.
SIDNEY HARR:
What legal theory justifies you seeing the prosecution discovery file in the Reginald Daye stabbing case?
What legal standing do you have in the case?
Is it your claim that anyone with a 5th grade education should be able to arbitrarily butt into a criminal case?
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I am on Crystal's side... too bad her legal representation isn't."
Except you have harmed Crystal's defense at every turn. You divulged the defense theory of the case. You breached confidentiality by making public information that should have been limited to the defense. Your frivolous motions have delayed the case to the detriment of the defense. With allies like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, the problem is that the Defense attorney's plan is the same as the prosecutions' which is to keep quiet and allow Mangum to remain in jail. I am not to blame for any delays in the court case. Put it where it belongs, with the prosecution... and the defense attorneys have done precious little to help in her defense.
A friend like me, and other members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is exactly what Crystal needs.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
What legal theory justifies you seeing the prosecution discovery file in the Reginald Daye stabbing case?
What legal standing do you have in the case?
Is it your claim that anyone with a 5th grade education should be able to arbitrarily butt into a criminal case?
I am not asking to see the prosecution discovery... only that Mangum's defense attorney turn it over to her as she has repeatedly requested.
The legal standing I have in Mangum's case is thoroughly laid out in both of the Petitions for Writ of Mandamus that I recently filed.
I'm not saying that everyone with a fifth grade education should be able to butt into Mangum's case, but that they should be able to understand the injustice that is going on in it. It takes courage to get involved when injustice is an acceptable standard as when applied to Mangum, Nifong, and their supporters.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Walt, the problem is that the Defense attorney's plan is the same as the prosecutions' which is to keep quiet and allow Mangum to remain in jail. I am not to blame for any delays in the court case. Put it where it belongs, with the prosecution... and the defense attorneys have done precious little to help in her defense."
The delay in the court case results from North Carolina not having a speedy trial law. You did not object to that when rogue DA NIFONG was wrongfully prosecuting three innocent Duke Lacrosse players for raping Crystal Mangum after it became obvious she had falsely accused them.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I'm not saying that everyone with a fifth grade education should be able to butt into Mangum's case, but that they should be able to understand the injustice that is going on in it."
Why can you not see that no injustice is happening. Why were and are you incapable of seeing the injustice of prosecuting three innocent men for a crime which, it was obvious, they did not commit.
SIDNEY HARR:
"
The legal standing I have in Mangum's case is thoroughly laid out in both of the Petitions for Writ of Mandamus that I recently filed."
No you haven't. You have no legal standing in this case.
That you believe you do is more evidence that you believe you are above the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
" It takes courage to get involved when injustice is an acceptable standard as when applied to Mangum, Nifong, and their supporters."
That is an admission that you have no courage. You and your gang are not pushing for justice, you have not identified any injustice. You believe you are above the law and that your unsubstantiated allegations should be accepted as God's truth. That is not surprising as you once equated yourself with God - you made a statement once that you and the truth are one.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I am not asking to see the prosecution discovery... only that Mangum's defense attorney turn it over to her as she has repeatedly requested."
You want Woody Vann to turn over the discovery to Crystal so that through Crystal you can get access to it. That is how you illegally accessed Reginald Daye's confidential medical information(and then denied you had violated any law because you did not know about Federal law on the confidentiality of medical records).
I would support that Crystal be granted access to the records under the proviso that she have no contact with you. You have no right to object to that, since you have demonstrated you have used Crystal to get access to confidential material, and since you have no legal standing in the case, no right to see the material. Crystal, if she receives the material would be legally obligated NOT to share it with you.
Of course you will object to that because you believe the law does not apply to you, that you are above the law.
Post a Comment