Saturday, March 23, 2013

Durham prosecutors need to dismiss the “larceny of chose in action” charge against Crystal Mangum


Part One


Part Two

LINK to Interactive Flog below:

Transcribed Text
Word count: 2,126

On the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, Reginald Daye told first responder police and paramedics that he and Crystal Mangum were arguing over money prior to the stabbing incident.

Daye claimed that Mangum, who gained notoriety in the media as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, either took his money or refused to return his money… his story on this point not being consistent. Never once in these early interviews with police and investigators did Daye, or his nephew Carlos Wilson, ever mention that she had taken cashier’s checks or money orders… leaving the impression that she had stolen cash.

Durham police and investigators also failed to ask how much cash was allegedly taken by Ms. Mangum. According to police reports, the question is never asked by Durham’s Finest, and Daye and Wilson never voluntarily mentioned the amount of cash allegedly stolen.

Without even having the opportunity to give her statement as to what transpired leading up to the stabbing of Daye, Crystal Mangum was arrested on sight within hours of the incident and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill.

According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated.

Daye underwent successful trauma surgery hours after his admission to Duke University Hospital through its emergency department… his prognosis was for a full recovery.

According to Officer Bond’s report, during an interview with Daye the next day, Monday, April 4, 2011, he admitted that he gave two cashier’s checks to Mangum for safekeeping. The checks totaled seven hundred dollars and were to be used to cover April rent.

More importantly, he admitted that the argument early the previous day had nothing to do with money or finances, but rather with her disrespect towards him… in particular, her flirtatious ways with other men.

On the third postoperative day,Wednesday, April 6, 2011, complications from delirium tremens set in, Daye was moved to intensive care, and an endotracheal tube was accidentally placed in his esophagus instead of his airway. By the time the grave mistake was realized, Daye was brain dead and in cardiac arrest. After twenty minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spontaneous restoration of circulation was achieved, but he remained in what was determined to be an irreversible coma.

After a week of monitoring his condition under an umbrella of media silence, Daye, having shown no signs of improvement, was electively taken off life support, and he died… the evening of April 13, 2011.

Up until the time of Reginald Daye’s death, Mangum had been charged only with assault with a deadly weapon. She had not been charged with larceny, larceny of chose in action, or any other crime.

The following Monday, April 18, 2011, Durham Prosecutor Kelly Gauger obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye. The prosecutor had also gotten an indictment for two counts of ‘larceny of chose in action’ against Mangum related to the two cashier’s checks that Daye admitted to have given her and which were in her possession at the time of her arrest. Both cashier’s checks were filled out with Daye as remitter and the apartment complex as the payee. Magnum had no ability to convert them for her own personal use even if she wanted, and Daye never was without the ability to redeem their cash value… provided he did so before they were cashed by the payee.

Larceny of chose in action is a loophole law in which neither of its two primary elements was met. Mangum was given the cashier’s checks… she did not steal or unlawfully take them. Furthermore, she merely held on to them per Daye’s request… making no attempt to alter or convert them for her use. There was no crime committed by Mangum.

However, Prosecutor Gauger, and her successor, Charlene Coggins-Franks, held on to the charge because it was automatically a class H felony… and the prosecution needed a felony for the “felony-murder rule” to be applicable. This problematic and controversial rule enables prosecutors to saddle criminals with first degree murder if an individual dies during the commission of a felony.

A vendetta prosecution from day one as payback against Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, Gauger and Coggins-Franks were seeking a life sentence against her… something that a conviction on a first degree murder charge could assure. And that was the purpose for the charge of “larceny of chose in action”… to guarantee that Mangum spend the remainder of her life incarcerated.

“Larceny of chose in action” charge should be immediately dismissed as the charge lacks probable cause… the elements of the charge missing in this case. Prosecution lacks an eyewitness to the alleged taking of the documents. Not only that, but Daye admits that he gave the checks to Mangum.

The prosecution has failed to present a plausible theory or a motive for Mangum to allegedly steal two cashier’s checks that were filled out and that she could not convert. The prosecution has yet to present a consistent scenario of events involving the cashier’s checks and the stabbing incident… and it has failed to present a connection between the two that is substantiated by their discovery.

Dropping the criminal charge against Mangum definitely would not be precedent setting, as charges throughout the state and especially in Durham County have been dismissed recently… specifically charges against Stephanie Nickerson, Michael Dorman, Stephen Lavance Oates, Shielda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, and Erick Daniels.

Late in October 2012, 25-year old Navy veteran Stephanie Nickerson was at a friend’s house when Durham Police arrived on a noise complaint. When the police wanted to enter the house, Ms. Nickerson advised the house owner that she did not have to allow the police in without a search warrant. This prompted the police officer to grab Nickerson’s wrists to place them behind her back to make an arrest. When she jerked her hands away, the officer threw her to the ground and began punching her in the face.

Nickerson sustained a broken nose, black eye, and swollen lip as a result of the beating and was charged with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. These charges, of course, were without probable cause, and they were subsequently dropped a short time later by the Durham District Attorney’s Office.

In August 2011, Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed a murder charge against Michael Dorman. Prosecutors claim Dorman inadvertently killed a woman he was attempting to rape. When apprehended years later, he had her bones in his backpack.

In his order, Hudson stated that defendant Dorman was unable to receive a fair trial because of the destruction of important evidence… the woman’s skeletal remains had been released to the victim’s family and were cremated.

It is interesting to note that Judge Hudson accused the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office of conspiring to destroy evidence and violate Dorman’s right to a fair trial. These are the same claims made by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong in Mangum’s current murder charge… specifically that the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office conspired in producing a trumped up autopsy report on Reginald Daye.

Around February 22, 2013, Durham prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Stephen Lavance Oates in the 2008 death of Duke graduate student Abhijit Mahato. The Durham prosecutor, in his order requesting the dismissal, stated that the State had been unable to locate a key witness and that it had “no other available and admissible evidence.” Oates’ attorney, Mark Edwards, had been lobbying for more than a year to have the case thrown out.

Mr. Edwards stated that the Oates case illustrated a “troubling pattern in the Durham police department.” He could have easily gone further with the inclusion in that pattern of the post-Nifong Durham District Attorney’s Office.

On June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dropped charges against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, respectively the mother and sister of Peter Lucas Moses Jr., a cult leader who pled guilty to murders of Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, and five year-old Jadon Higganbothan. The two had been held on charges of “accessory after the fact of murder.” No reason was given by prosecutors for their dismissal.

In September 2000, a home-invasion style armed robbery took place in Durham, and 14 year-old Erick Daniels was convicted of the crime despite the lack of evidence and not even having the appearance of the perpetrator… Erick’s hair was close cropped and the description of the robber was that he had cornrows. The chief witness in the case picked him out of a middle school yearbook based on the shape of his eyebrows. Durham police led him out of his middle school in handcuffs. He was sentenced to ten to fourteen years.

Erick Daniels always maintained his innocence and even passed a lie-detector test in 2003. In late 2004, Durham attorney Carlos Mahoney took up his case, and despite a January 2007 denial by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, he fought on for his client.

In September 2008, Durham prosecutors, knowing that they had a weak case against him, offered him an Alford plea deal in exchange for his immediate release from custody with seven years of time served. Had Erick Daniels accepted the plea deal he would have been forever labeled a felon with an armed robbery conviction. He declined… placing his faith in Attorney Mahoney.

During two days of a September 2008 hearing in which Mahoney sought a new trial for his client, the evidence he presented before Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson was so strong and convincing that the black rober took the initiative of dropping the felony charge and declaring Daniels innocent.

Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue denied Erick Daniels’ petition for a Pardon of Innocence… thereby preventing him from receiving compensation as mandated by legislation for his more than seven years of wrongful incarceration.

In cases outside of Durham, a first degree murder charge was dismissed against Knightdale resident Carletta Patrice Alston. She was charged by Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the June 2009 death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. The weight of the case against her consisted of gunpowder residue found on her nightgown and the fact that her account of what transpired during the early morning hours of the shooting differed from that of a neighbor.

Alston’s defense attorney pointed out to the court that the residue on the nightgown could easily be due to contamination by the lab… as there was no gunpowder residue on her hands.

At the time of her arrest, Alston had been working at two jobs at nursing homes and was hoping to save enough money to move from the residence she shared with her mother and stepfather into her own apartment. Even though the charge has since been expunged from her record, she has had difficulty landing employment because of it.

She was held in jail for nearly a year before Ford dropped the charges, without explanation or comment, and she was released.

There are other examples I could recite where baseless and reckless charges resulted in many months and years of the wrongful incarceration of innocents… but that would be superfluous.

The charges against Crystal Mangum are baseless, bogus, and vendetta-driven. Both charges she now faces are without merit and malicious and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The prosecutors should have dropped charges against her or a judge dismissed them long ago.

Now that Ms. Mangum is out on bond, the prosecutors are without their bargaining chip needed to help secure a plea deal. Although neither charge is supported by probable cause, and both are deserving to be dismissed, the “larceny of chose in action” is most egregious, and was obviously utilized with malice in the State’s sadistic plot to saddle Crystal Mangum with a life sentence.

One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney. 

370 comments:

1 – 200 of 370   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Another commpendium of your delusions and megalomania.

Also a compendium of a number of allegations for which you have provided no proof.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney."

I thought you were not longer interested in carrying on your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated."

Officer Bond informed Crystal of her Miranda rights and then asked her if she wanted to make a statement. Crystal said no. Officer Bond did not subsequently interrogate her. That was completely proper.

What you document is that Crystal had the opportunity to claim self defense and did not. That renders a self defense plea non credible, since Crystal did not make such an argument until AFTER she was charged with Murder 1.

This is sort of like the way SIDNEY blames the police for the damage to Milton Walker's apartment from the fire which Crystal admits setting.

Anonymous said...

Sidney:

A quick question: why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you repeat lies for which you have previously been caught? You lied in your last comment on the last thread. You have previously made the same lie.

SIDNEY B. HARR IS A LIAR

Anonymous said...

yeah, right. sidney....if nifong were still the DA, mangum would be free as a bird and he would be campaigning in East Durham to win himself another term. idiot....

Anonymous said...

I have one word for you Sid: Bahahahahahahahahaha.

Anonymous said...

And if she (Mangum) had made a statement, you would now be claiming that she was not read her Miranda rights in a timely manner.

cks

Walt said...

Sid, you are either an inept historian or the world's least persuasive writer. Either way, it's fun to watch you tie yourself in knots.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Hilarious......the officer follow proper procedure (the FEDERAL LAW), reads Mangum her rights, and does so at the correct time......and good old numbnut harr is whining about it. true to form, for sure. Isn't it just a teeny bit interesting that mangum didn't holler self defense until daye died? hmmmmmm....... now that the man is DEAD and cannot speak to defend HIMSELF, she screams her victim crap yet again.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney."

I thought you were not longer interested in carrying on your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players.


What does my flog have to do with the Duke Lacrosse defendants? I mentioned about five or six cases in Durham County in which charges were dropped... cases in which the victims actually spent time in jail, unlike the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated."

Officer Bond informed Crystal of her Miranda rights and then asked her if she wanted to make a statement. Crystal said no. Officer Bond did not subsequently interrogate her. That was completely proper.

What you document is that Crystal had the opportunity to claim self defense and did not. That renders a self defense plea non credible, since Crystal did not make such an argument until AFTER she was charged with Murder 1.

This is sort of like the way SIDNEY blames the police for the damage to Milton Walker's apartment from the fire which Crystal admits setting.


Actually, you misrepresent the facts of the police report. When Officer Bond first encountered Mangum, who had already been arrested and charged, she asked her if she wanted to make a statement and Mangum said yes. It was then that Bond read Mangum her Miranda rights and then Bond said "with those rights in mind, do you want to answer some questions?" There is a big difference between giving a statement and undergoing an interrogation.

The question is, why was Mangum arrested prior to police even seeking to obtain a statement from her? Why not get her side of the story before rushing to arrest?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

It would seem that Scott Holmes is NOT Crystal Mangum's lawyer yet. As it turns out, he He is not on Durham County’s list of court appointed attorneys for non-capital murder trials, and the state is not seeking the death penalty against Crystal.

More details can be found here .

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney:

A quick question: why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you repeat lies for which you have previously been caught? You lied in your last comment on the last thread. You have previously made the same lie.

SIDNEY B. HARR IS A LIAR


Further elucidation is required. I know not of which statement you are referring which you claim to be false.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hilarious......the officer follow proper procedure (the FEDERAL LAW), reads Mangum her rights, and does so at the correct time......and good old numbnut harr is whining about it. true to form, for sure. Isn't it just a teeny bit interesting that mangum didn't holler self defense until daye died? hmmmmmm....... now that the man is DEAD and cannot speak to defend HIMSELF, she screams her victim crap yet again.


I am not complaining that Officer Bond read Mangum her Miranda rights prior to question her.
I am not suggesting that it was improper for Mangum to be read Miranda rights after her arrest?

My complaint is that Mangum was arrested and charged on sight before she was afforded an opportunity to give a statement. In other words, the investigation phase of the stabbing was completed without any input from Mangum... sorta one-sided.

Please notify me if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid, you are either an inept historian or the world's least persuasive writer. Either way, it's fun to watch you tie yourself in knots.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt... at a loss for words, I see. My flog was too compelling, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What does my flog have to do with the Duke Lacrosse defendants? I mentioned about five or six cases in Durham County in which charges were dropped... cases in which the victims actually spent time in jail, unlike the three Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Would you have mentioned corrupt DA NIFONG had he not been justifiably dis barred for his illegal, unethical prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players?

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
It would seem that Scott Holmes is NOT Crystal Mangum's lawyer yet. As it turns out, he He is not on Durham County’s list of court appointed attorneys for non-capital murder trials, and the state is not seeking the death penalty against Crystal.

More details can be found here .


Supreme Poster, I'm sorry to burst your little balloon, but the soothsayer in me tells me that Mr. Holmes will end up representing Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Actually, you misrepresent the facts of the police report. When Officer Bond first encountered Mangum, who had already been arrested and charged, she asked her if she wanted to make a statement and Mangum said yes. It was then that Bond read Mangum her Miranda rights and then Bond said "with those rights in mind, do you want to answer some questions?" There is a big difference between giving a statement and undergoing an interrogation."

Crystal could have said, I stabbed him in self defense, and refused to do so. After having been read her rights and declining to give a statement, she remained silent. Had the Police sought a statement from her, they would have been in violation of the Constitution of the US.

"The question is, why was Mangum arrested prior to police even seeking to obtain a statement from her? Why not get her side of the story before rushing to arrest?"

Because they had probable cause to believe she had committed a crime. Why did DA NIFONG indict three innocent men in spite of having no evidence a crime had been committed, and having evidence that everyone on the Lacrosse team was innocent.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"What does my flog have to do with the Duke Lacrosse defendants? I mentioned about five or six cases in Durham County in which charges were dropped... cases in which the victims actually spent time in jail, unlike the three Duke Lacrosse defendants."

Would you have mentioned corrupt DA NIFONG had he not been justifiably dis barred for his illegal, unethical prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players?


First of all, I disagree with your assertion that Mike Nifong is corrupt and that his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was improper or unethical. I believe that it was absolutely proper, and to do so it undoubtedly took Nifongian courage.

Nifongian courage does not bow to political pressure or social/professional intimidation... it stays true to justice despite the consequences.

Thereby may ye go enlightened.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Further elucidation is required. I know not of which statement you are referring which you claim to be false."

Which means you are in denial about the lies you tell, one of the more egregious being that a carpetbagger jihad exists.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):

"Walt... at a loss for words, I see. My flog was too compelling, no doubt."

Which means you are in denial about your lies, your delusions and your megalomania.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster, I'm sorry to burst your little balloon, but the soothsayer in me tells me that Mr. Holmes will end up representing Ms. Mangum."

What soothsayer? The one who said you would prevail against Duke and said you would humiliate the State Bar?

More like s--tspewer. No wonder since your mouth is where your butt also is.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"First of all, I disagree with your assertion that Mike Nifong is corrupt and that his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was improper or unethical. I believe that it was absolutely proper, and to do so it undoubtedly took Nifongian courage."

Go ahead and disagree all you want. It is like Adolph Hitler disagreeing that he was ever a menace to the peace of the world.

"Nifongian courage does not bow to political pressure or social/professional intimidation... it stays true to justice despite the consequences."

Nifongian courage is inflaming racial animosity against innocent men in order to win a conviction against them, like Scottsboro courage. Only Nifongian courage emerged because a corrupt DA believed his retirements trumped the Law, legal ethics and the Constitution of the US.

"Thereby may ye go enlightened."

How, when you are trying to extinguish all the candles of truth which are enlightening the darkness?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"First of all, I disagree with your assertion that Mike Nifong is corrupt and that his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was improper or unethical. I believe that it was absolutely proper, and to do so it undoubtedly took Nifongian courage."

Your disagreement is like Satan disagreeing that he is the father of lies.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"First of all, I disagree with your assertion that Mike Nifong is corrupt and that his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was improper or unethical. I believe that it was absolutely proper, and to do so it undoubtedly took Nifongian courage."

How was it proper or ethical to prosecute anyone when you have evidence early on in the case that the men you want to prosecute are innocent?

Anonymous said...

sidney, you are the prime reason why people need to go to law school and get licensed .....what an embarrassment you are.....
arrests are FREQUENTLY made before statements are taken. Mangum was not CHARGED immediately. She was arrested for probable cause, which was proper, and......LATER.....charged Please do not be such an asshat. your ignorance is showing.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Supreme Poster, I'm sorry to burst your little balloon, but the soothsayer in me tells me that Mr. Holmes will end up representing Ms. Mangum."

Sid -- Your record for soothsaying speaks for itself. With that said:

1) It's up to the public defender’s office to appoint which attorney would represent Mangum.

2) Mangum's already gone through a number of public defenders.

3) Judge Hudson has stated that if Mangum wants Attorney Holmes, she can hire him.

Sid, your "soothsaying" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess Mangum has herself a new source of income.....hmmmm, another poor sucker in Durham????

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Walt said :"Sid, you are either an inept historian or the world's least persuasive writer. Either way, it's fun to watch you tie yourself in knots."

Walt In this case, I don't think it's an either/or situation.

Anonymous said...

Typical Mangum bull crap. she tells the judge she wants a certain lawyer, and only that lawyer, and she wants us, the taxpayers, to pay. spare me...

Anonymous said...

Isn't it fun to watch how harr uses photos taken by others, such as the one he has used of Mangum in this post....that appears in the media....with her looking all spiffy in her spring getup. My soothesayer tells me she has a new sugar daddy...........

Walt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Walt said...

"My complaint is that Mangum was arrested and charged on sight before she was afforded an opportunity to give a statement. In other words, the investigation phase of the stabbing was completed without any input from Mangum... sorta one-sided."

Sometimes it's really obvious when Nifong writes Sid's responses. This is a perfect example of how Nifong liked to try and get around of the constitutional mandate to advise people of their rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Lie about it and say she wasn't "arrested" when in fact she was not free to leave. Trampling all over people's constitutional rights is something Nifong was known for.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

"Walt In this case, I don't think it's an either/or situation."

You're probably right, Lance. He and Nifong are both inept historians and not very persuasive writers.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
sidney, you are the prime reason why people need to go to law school and get licensed .....what an embarrassment you are.....
arrests are FREQUENTLY made before statements are taken. Mangum was not CHARGED immediately. She was arrested for probable cause, which was proper, and......LATER.....charged Please do not be such an asshat. your ignorance is showing.


If I am not mistaken, according to Officer Bond's own record she told Mangum that she was under arrest and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Bond then read Mangum her Miranda rights and then asked her if she wanted to answer questions.

A law degree is not necessary in order to understand words on a written report and recite them accurately.

Bond even emphasized the Miranda rights when addressing Mangum by prefacing as follows, ".. with this in mind, do you wish to answer questions?" In other words, anything or any statement you now make can and will be used against you.

This is a prime example of a one-sided investigation... only taking statements from Reginald Daye and his nephew (who did not witness anything) and then making the decision to arrest Mangum. (Disregard the broken down bathroom door and clumps of hair on the floor...)

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"Supreme Poster, I'm sorry to burst your little balloon, but the soothsayer in me tells me that Mr. Holmes will end up representing Ms. Mangum."

Sid -- Your record for soothsaying speaks for itself. With that said:

1) It's up to the public defender’s office to appoint which attorney would represent Mangum.

2) Mangum's already gone through a number of public defenders.

3) Judge Hudson has stated that if Mangum wants Attorney Holmes, she can hire him.

Sid, your "soothsaying" is nothing more than wishful thinking.


Regarding (1), I am not, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer, so therefore I am not certain as to the details regarding the appropriate procedure in assigning defense attorneys to the indigent.

Regarding (2), neither Mr. Shella, Mr. Vann, nor Ms. Branch-Ramadan are public defenders or work out of the Durham Public Defender's Office... ergo, your statement is false on its face.

Regarding (3), to paraphrase Dick Cheney, ".. so?"

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Well, I guess Mangum has herself a new source of income.....hmmmm, another poor sucker in Durham????


Does not compute. Further elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

absolutely incorrect. the officer followed procedures, per the letter of the law, pal. to the letter. mangum had an absolute right to make a statement, not make a statement, answer questions, not answer questions........the officer gave her that right. this is ridiculous. mangum could have said anything she wished at that point. she elected not to make a statement or to answer questions. her option. there was probable cause to arrest mangum and to charge her. probable cause, sidney.....another concept you apparently do not understand. daye had been stabbed. he said mangum stabbed him. the officer had reason to believe an assault had occured. get this....harr....no matter whether what the charge had been, the officer was required BY LAW to read mangum her rights! had she not done this, I can hear you ranting now........

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"My complaint is that Mangum was arrested and charged on sight before she was afforded an opportunity to give a statement. In other words, the investigation phase of the stabbing was completed without any input from Mangum... sorta one-sided."

Sometimes it's really obvious when Nifong writes Sid's responses. This is a perfect example of how Nifong liked to try and get around of the constitutional mandate to advise people of their rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Lie about it and say she wasn't "arrested" when in fact she was not free to leave. Trampling all over people's constitutional rights is something Nifong was known for.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt. Thank you so much for honoring me by saying that my written comments come from Mike Nifong. I couldn't ask for greater praise. For the record, however, I proudly take responsibility for everything that I've written.

I must say that it's been quite some time since I've had the pleasure of speaking with him... I would easily estimate that I have not spoken, interacted, or otherwise communicated with him in more than a year. He's busy with his life, and I'm busy with mine... crusading for justice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
absolutely incorrect. the officer followed procedures, per the letter of the law, pal. to the letter. mangum had an absolute right to make a statement, not make a statement, answer questions, not answer questions........the officer gave her that right. this is ridiculous. mangum could have said anything she wished at that point. she elected not to make a statement or to answer questions. her option. there was probable cause to arrest mangum and to charge her. probable cause, sidney.....another concept you apparently do not understand. daye had been stabbed. he said mangum stabbed him. the officer had reason to believe an assault had occured. get this....harr....no matter whether what the charge had been, the officer was required BY LAW to read mangum her rights! had she not done this, I can hear you ranting now........


Stop your obfuscation!! When the officer asked her if she wanted to make a statement and Crystal said "yes," Officer Bond should have allowed her to do so. However, according to the police report by Bond herself, she then informed Mangum that she was under arrest and she read her her Miranda rights (that anything she said can and would be used against her). Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer questions (with the Miranda rights in mind)... an obvious ploy to dissuade her from telling her side of the story.

Bond is a very sly one.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Typical Mangum bull crap. she tells the judge she wants a certain lawyer, and only that lawyer, and she wants us, the taxpayers, to pay. spare me...


I can't believe you're belly-aching about Mangum asking for an attorney and its cost to taxpayers. If you were really concerned about the waste of taxpayer dollars you should have demanded that the prosecutors drop their vendetta prosecution of Mangum long ago. This bogus campaign against Mangum has been a waste of taxpayer dollars, a waste of state resources, and a waste of the court's valuable time. It's onve very expensive joke!

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

" neither Mr. Shella, Mr. Vann, nor Ms. Branch-Ramadan are public defenders or work out of the Durham Public Defender's Office... ergo, your statement is false on its face."

Sid -- Did Mangum pay for these lawyers or were they(with the exception of Branch-Ramadan, who was NEVER Mangum's lawyer at any time) appointed by the Public Defender's Office?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Sid....If you prefer, you can edit my earlier post to read "court appointed atorneys" where it states "public defenders", if it makes you feel better.

Anonymous said...

you lied about Bond's conversation with Mangum. I read it, too, word for word.
Yep, you are right, sidney....I am sick of having to pay for Mangum...in or out of jail and I wish she would move to your house in raleigh. a former doctor like you should have just bought her a lawyer, a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

How about Jones, from the 2010 incident? Wasn't Jones court appointed as well? And didn't harr and the queen of bigots run off Jones? Lance??

Anonymous said...

from the N&O
......."DURHAM — Crystal Mangum's defense attorney withdrew from her case after a court appearance Wednesday because he saw her talking to members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, Mangum said. The group is an outspoken critic of the Durham County District Attorney's Office.Outside the courtroom, Mangum said her attorney, Clayton Jones, told her she wasn't following his legal advice.Just minutes earlier, Jones had agreed to adjust his schedule to fit in a 2:30 p.m. hearing Monday to reassess the conditions of Mangum's bond. She is free on $100,000 bail and under house arrest in her parents' Savannah Avenue home.Jones said Mangum's father had recently died and her mother had fallen ill."She's requesting that her location change," Jones said. Mangum was arrested at her Lincoln Street home in February after police say she argued with her then boyfriend, set the apartment on fire and tried to kill him while her three young children and two Durham police officers were in the home.Jones said the district attorney's office has offered a plea bargain on charges of attempted murder, arson, assault and battery, identity theft, injury to personal property, resisting a public officer and misdemeanor child abuse."They're trying to get her to plead because the state doesn't have a case," said Sidney Harr, a member of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. "They are all charges that are trumped up by the prosecution."Mangum held a news conference last week, saying the district attorney's office is punishing her because her unproven accusations of rape against three former Duke University lacrosse players embarrassed the prosecution.State Attorney General Roy Cooper cleared the three men in 2007. Mangum never faced any charges in the case, which gained international headlines and led to the resignation of former Durham District Attorney Nifong after the State Bar charged him with 20 ethics violations."...
SAME CRAP FROM HARR, UMPTEENTH VERSE. MANGUM HAS NEVER PAID FOR AN ATTORNEY YET, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE...... first class victim, first class user, first class shackup, first class loser,

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"If I am not mistaken, according to Officer Bond's own record she told Mangum that she was under arrest and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Bond then read Mangum her Miranda rights and then asked her if she wanted to answer questions."

So why are you so ense on why Officer Bond did not interrogate Crystal after she invoked her right to be silent?

"A law degree is not necessary in order to understand words on a written report and recite them accurately."

So why do you have so much trouble understanding what was written in the documents you posted?

Bond even emphasized the Miranda rights when addressing Mangum by prefacing as follows, ".. with this in mind, do you wish to answer questions?" In other words, anything or any statement you now make can and will be used against you."

Again, why do you not understand why Officer Bond did not interrogate Crysta after Crystal invoked her right to remain silent?

"This is a prime example of a one-sided investigation... only taking statements from Reginald Daye and his nephew (who did not witness anything) and then making the decision to arrest Mangum. (Disregard the broken down bathroom door and clumps of hair on the floor...)"

No, this an example of an officer of the law respecting a suspect's rights as a suspect. Not surprising in view of your belief that corrupt DA NIFONG was correct un refusing to respect the rights of the innocent lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding (1), I am not, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer, so therefore I am not certain as to the details regarding the appropriate procedure in assigning defense attorneys to the indigent."

Yes you do pretend to know more about the law than any attorney.

"Regarding (2), neither Mr. Shella, Mr. Vann, nor Ms. Branch-Ramadan are public defenders or work out of the Durham Public Defender's Office... ergo, your statement is false on its face."

But your interference with Chris Shella is fact.

"Regarding (3), to paraphrase Dick Cheney, '.. so?'"

You seem to think the Judge will appointMr. Holmes to defend Crystal and then have the yaxpayers pay for him.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt. Thank you so much for honoring me by saying that my written comments come from Mike Nifong. I couldn't ask for greater praise."

You are really desperate for honors.

"For the record, however, I proudly take responsibility for everything that I've written."

When have you ever written anything to be proud of? Never.

"I must say that it's been quite some time since I've had the pleasure of speaking with him... I would easily estimate that I have not spoken, interacted, or otherwise communicated with him in more than a year. He's busy with his life,..."

What ever became of your boast that your J4N gang would coerce the NC Bar to reinstate his law license?

"and I'm busy with mine... crusading for justice."

HAH!!!

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Stop your obfuscation!! When the officer asked her if she wanted to make a statement and Crystal said 'yes,' Officer Bond should have allowed her to do so. However, according to the police report by Bond herself, she then informed Mangum that she was under arrest and she read her her Miranda rights (that anything she said can and would be used against her). Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer questions (with the Miranda rights in mind)... an obvious ploy to dissuade her from telling her side of the story."

And how would the court have reacted if Officer Bond had not read Crystal her rights?

Why did you not try to file a motion with the court alleging Officer Bond's action was designed to keep Crystal from telling her story?

Boy are you seriously deluded.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I can't believe you're belly-aching about Mangum asking for an attorney and its cost to taxpayers. If you were really concerned about the waste of taxpayer dollars you should have demanded that the prosecutors drop their vendetta prosecution of Mangum long ago. This bogus campaign against Mangum has been a waste of taxpayer dollars, a waste of state resources, and a waste of the court's valuable time. It's onve(sic) very expensive joke!"

It was not as expensive as corrupt DA NFONG's attempt to wrongfully convict three innocent men of rape.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney,

I believe the anonymous poster is unfairly accusing you of lying in your claim that AG Cooper “sealed” the evidence from the Duke lacrosse case.

While you used an inaccurate phrase (the court, not a prosecutor, has the power to “seal” evidence), the poster disingenuously ignored your main point and focused on minutiae: Cooper, unlike almost all prosecutors who dismiss criminal charges, particularly when they find no evidence to support charges, did not release the entire discovery file for public review.

You should concede that some discovery is public, including, for example, Himan’s typewritten report and handwritten notes, Gottlieb’s typewritten report, Clayton’s typewritten report, a videotape and transcript of the April 4 identification procedure, the DNASI report, the written statements of Magnum, Roberts, Mangum’s drivers, the team captains, Elmostafa and Bissey, the photographs taken by the DPD on March 16 to document Mangum’s injuries, photographs taken by players during the party, cell phone records, restaurant, ATM and gasoline receipts, and notes of Nifong’s conversation with the SBI. Testimony and depositions in Nifong’s disbarment hearing provide further information. Other readers can provide additional evidence I omitted.

However, not everything has been made public. Mangum’s 1,000-page mental health records were sealed by the court (not by Cooper). As you know, Mangum’s health records are protected by HIPAA.

The DPD focused their investigation not on the events of the party or finding evidence to support Mangum’s accusation, but rather on examining the private lives of players. Little was released. Any embarrassing information found by the DPD (even if not relevant to the allegations and not admissible in court) should be made public. The public has the right to know everything.

You have noted that we do not know what incriminating evidence has not been disclosed: Cooper’s conclusion that there was no credible evidence that the crimes for which the defendants faced charges had occurred is unconvincing, even when supported by statements by Baker, Nifong, Himan and others who reviewed the entire file. Only the public release of the entire file will suffice.

Your comment and the unfair accusation that you lied reinforce a point I made earlier. You have convinced some readers that one cannot reasonably reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence without seeing all of the evidence. For that reason, I asked you to post the entire discovery file for Mangum’s so-called murder case. You did not do so, citing the size of the discovery file as a burden.

However, your assurance that you have posted all relevant evidence is no more compelling to the naysayers than Cooper’s statement is to you. Despite your consistent record for knowledgeable and unbiased commentary, your critics claim that your close friendship with Mangum affects your judgment. While this criticism may be unreasonable, you must deal with these concerns if you genuinely want to convince others of Mangum’s innocence.

Instead of posting time-consuming flogs that repeat the same information over and over and over again, you would be more effective if you posted the entire discovery file as well as all information the defense uncovered (such as the mental health evaluation of Mangum that Shella foolishly pursued). Unless you provide your readers with all information, they, like you, cannot make reasoned decisions about guilt and innocence. If you fail to do so, you cannot object when others are unable to reach a conclusion. They have not seen all of the evidence.

Anonymous said...

The only information not published, Break, was Mangum's mental health record which you rightly point out....is protected by HIPPA. I find it interesting and ironic that Harr ignores HIPPA and publishes Daye's records while refusing to obtain and post Mangum's records. Surely his so-called friendship with Mangum would make it convenient for him to get these records from her. Posting her mental health history would help her clear up questions that have been left unanswered. Cooper, in my opinion, showed correct and fair judgment in NOT bringing Mangum's mental health records into the glare of public scrutiny. He further showed restraint in not pursuing charges against her, which manuy of us felt were absolutely warranted.
Sidney Harr is a sad little man, biased and full of racist hated. He wouldn't know an objective fact if it bit him on his ear. He has been caught in numerous lies, distortions and omissions. I challenge Harr now, as I have before to produce Mangum's entire mental health/hospital records.

Anonymous said...

The entire discovery record and evidence file for the LAX rape hoax is available with the exception of Mangum's mental health records. These records have been obtained and reviewed by numerous interested parties. Harr has been making up imaginary conspiracy crap for years and will continue to do so....because it is the fodder he uses to feed his hate and denial of Mangum's true nature. Who was it who said, "winners take responsibility for their behavior, losers blame others.". Mangum AND Harr are losers.

Anonymous said...

I say this again. SIDNEY HARR is blogging that Officer Bond's reading Crystal her Miranda rights was improper because Officer Bond did it to prevent Crystal from telling her story to the police. SIDNEY, please elucidate.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
Sid....If you prefer, you can edit my earlier post to read "court appointed atorneys" where it states "public defenders", if it makes you feel better.


Hey, Supreme Poster. Thank you for admitting that you made a mistake. That wasn't so bad, now, was it? Even I make mistakes on rare occasions. It's no really big deal.

I only brought it to your attention because it was inaccurate and I wanted to enlighten you about it. There's no need to edit your comment. I don't even edit my mistakes... to show that I'm human, and make them like everybody else.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break,

As always, you are right on target. I very well might release everything in the future. That would be a big endeavor, however. I'll give it serious thought.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt. Thank you so much for honoring me by saying that my written comments come from Mike Nifong. I couldn't ask for greater praise."

You are really desperate for honors.

"For the record, however, I proudly take responsibility for everything that I've written."

When have you ever written anything to be proud of? Never.

"I must say that it's been quite some time since I've had the pleasure of speaking with him... I would easily estimate that I have not spoken, interacted, or otherwise communicated with him in more than a year. He's busy with his life,..."

What ever became of your boast that your J4N gang would coerce the NC Bar to reinstate his law license?

"and I'm busy with mine... crusading for justice."

HAH!!!


Rome wasn't built in a day. It's going to take time to instill in the minds of the State Bar officials the wisdom and justice of reinstating Mike Nifong's law license.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I say this again. SIDNEY HARR is blogging that Officer Bond's reading Crystal her Miranda rights was improper because Officer Bond did it to prevent Crystal from telling her story to the police. SIDNEY, please elucidate.


I would not say that reading Mangum her Miranda rights was improper because Mangum had already been arrested and charged, and Officer Bond was preparing to interrogate her. By emphasizing "with this (Miranda rights) in mind, do you want to answer some questions," is is obvious that Bond is trying to discourage Mangum from saying anything.

The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault.

I hope that this elucidation will suffice.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Supreme Poster. Thank you for admitting that you made a mistake. That wasn't so bad, now, was it? Even I make mistakes on rare occasions. It's no really big deal.

I only brought it to your attention because it was inaccurate and I wanted to enlighten you about it. There's no need to edit your comment. I don't even edit my mistakes... to show that I'm human, and make them like everybody else."

Boy are you delusional.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I would not say that reading Mangum her Miranda rights was improper because Mangum had already been arrested and charged, and Officer Bond was preparing to interrogate her. By emphasizing 'with this (Miranda rights) in mind, do you want to answer some questions,' is is obvious that Bond is trying to discourage Mangum from saying anything."

No it wasn't. Officer Bond was informing Crystal of her right to remain silent, as she was required by law to do. What stopped Crystal from saying at that point, I acted in self defense. Nothing. Crystal did not invoke self defense until after she was charged with murder 1 and facing a possible sentence of life.

"The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault."

Not necessarily.

"I hope that this elucidation will suffice."

What elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Rome wasn't built in a day. It's going to take time to instill in the minds of the State Bar officials the wisdom and justice of reinstating Mike Nifong's law license."

You have already had years of time. Now you have given up the attempt, according to you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Break,

As always, you are right on target. I very well might release everything in the future. That would be a big endeavor, however. I'll give it serious thought."

If you think Break is on your side, you are more deluded than I first believed. Go ahead and enjoy your time in la la land.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "I would not say that reading Mangum her Miranda rights was improper because Mangum had already been arrested and charged, and Officer Bond was preparing to interrogate her. By emphasizing "with this (Miranda rights) in mind, do you want to answer some questions," is is obvious that Bond is trying to discourage Mangum from saying anything.

The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault.

I hope that this elucidation will suffice."


Well you have shown us just how little elucidation you offer. The Miranda rights apply before charge, not after. They apply any time the client is in custody and being questioned. This is an important right that was carefully crafted to avoid the abuse of police power.

Of course, you and Nifong, would like to skirt the Miranda rights by falsely claiming that she was not detained. Of course you would completely destroy the right by claiming it only attached once the defendant was charged. What a perfect example of the thinking of Nifong.

Walt-in-Durham

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault."

Sid -- The proper time to mirandize a suspect is after they are in police custody (i.e. "arrested") but before they are interrogated, or give a statement that may be considered self-incriminating.

Anonymous said...

Again harr shows us the face of ignorance. Miranda is a very specific and highly regulated process that every LEO receives training on.....when, where, how, under what circumstances, for what reasons, etc. In particular, LEOs are trained to make sure arrested citizens are aware of their Miranda rights when questions are asked and/or statements are given. Bond handled it EXACTLY right. Mangum had the clear opportunity to speak and elected not to do so. Her right, her choice. It was only AFTER Daye was dead that she came up with the self defense story. She could have given this version of her behavior from the beginning and did not do so. Yet another "tell" as they say in the world of poker.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I would not say that reading Mangum her Miranda rights was improper because Mangum had already been arrested and charged, and Officer Bond was preparing to interrogate her. By emphasizing "with this (Miranda rights) in mind, do you want to answer some questions," is is obvious that Bond is trying to discourage Mangum from saying anything.

The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault.

I hope that this elucidation will suffice."

Well you have shown us just how little elucidation you offer. The Miranda rights apply before charge, not after. They apply any time the client is in custody and being questioned. This is an important right that was carefully crafted to avoid the abuse of police power.

Of course, you and Nifong, would like to skirt the Miranda rights by falsely claiming that she was not detained. Of course you would completely destroy the right by claiming it only attached once the defendant was charged. What a perfect example of the thinking of Nifong.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, answer me this. Is the Miranda right suppose to be administered before an investigation is conducted? Or do you consider a one-sided investigation of an altercation valid?

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"The proper time for obtaining a statement would have been prior to arresting Mangum and charging her with assault."

Sid -- The proper time to mirandize a suspect is after they are in police custody (i.e. "arrested") but before they are interrogated, or give a statement that may be considered self-incriminating.


Supreme Poster, you continue to obfuscate! A statement given during an investigation and prior to an arrest is different than answers given during an interrogation after an arrest has been made.

Comprende?

Anonymous said...

no, sid, you are creating differences that do not exist under the law. Miranda is given at the time Lance has identified, upon arrest, i.e., when a person is taken into custody. Whether the individual is giving a statement, answering questions, etc....is not relevant. The citizen is read their Miranda when they are arrested, i.e., taken into custody. Once again, you make up windmills in your mind to suit your conspiracy purposes. I read and re-read the Bond notes and I found nothing out of order in what Bond wrote as a recollection of the Miranda conversation at all. And I have been present when these rights conversations were done with individuals on various occasions. Bond was complete correct and behaved in accord with the law.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Sid -- Two words for you:

"Probable Cause"

See NCGS 15A-401(b)(2)

The arresting officer had probable cause that a felony had occurred, so there was no need for an investigation or warrant when Mangum was arrested.

In North Carolina, stabbing someone is considered assault and battery, a Class C felony.

Anonymous said...

Sid, straight from Wikipedia, in words even you can understand......"The Miranda warning, also referred to as Miranda rights, (or a "caution" in most Commonwealth countries) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings." The LEO was correct

Anonymous said...

Sid, anybody who has been read their rights has the
right to remain silent". Mangum obviously didn't want to incriminate herself, which was her RIGHT. She is familiar with the law, believe me. She could have elected, at any point, to say that she stabbed him in self defense. She did NOT come up with this line until after he was dead. If she did, in fact, stab Daye in self defense, she could have given that story to her attorney just as soon as she saw one, or, to the police at any point PRIOR to Daye's death. The fact that she refused to answer questions says nothing about guilt or innocence....we all have the right to remain silent. And, Bond, as you now know, handled the timing of the Miranda perfectly according to procedure and the law.
You keep trying to find some tiny little loophole to squeeze through rather than facing the much larger truth....which is......that there is very little evidence to support self defense. It looks like the two were drinking and arguing....but, there is NO evidence of any kind of beating on her and you know it

Anonymous said...

Sid, is wrong about Bond's timing and he knows it. Just another lie that he refuses to admit he told. When shown the truth and proven to be a liar, yet again, he lacks the character to admit his lie. Call it a mistake or a lie, makes no difference when one refuses to admit to it. just like Mangum.......caught dead in a lie and refusing to admit to it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, answer me this. Is the Miranda right suppose to be administered before an investigation is conducted? Or do you consider a one-sided investigation of an altercation valid?"

Straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

What one sided investigation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster, you continue to obfuscate!"

No he doesnt.

"A statement given during an investigation and prior to an arrest is different than answers given during an interrogation after an arrest has been made."

Comprende?"

Obviously you do not "comprende" anything about Miranda rights.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
Sid -- Two words for you:

"Probable Cause"

See NCGS 15A-401(b)(2)

The arresting officer had probable cause that a felony had occurred, so there was no need for an investigation or warrant when Mangum was arrested.

In North Carolina, stabbing someone is considered assault and battery, a Class C felony.


Supreme Poster,
Four words for you:
Stand your ground law!

I would presume that it refers to knives as well as firearms when used in self-defense.

Self-defense is justifiable, I feel, if an individual is being strangled.

The arrest of Mangum without conducting an adequate investigation is a prime example of a "rush to judgment."

Not good.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid, straight from Wikipedia, in words even you can understand......"The Miranda warning, also referred to as Miranda rights, (or a "caution" in most Commonwealth countries) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings." The LEO was correc


Permit me to attempt another path towards enlightenment for you.
Here is what I believe the order of events should be following an incident:
(1)Investigation... taking statements from all involved;
(2) Making a determination as to guilt;
(3) Arresting the suspect;
(4) Read suspect Miranda rights;
(5) Interrogate.

Now, here's what happened in Mangum's case following the incident:
(1) fractional-investigation, talking to intoxicated victim and his nephew who did not witness anything;
(2) Arrest Mangum and charge her with assault;
(3) Read Mangum her Miranda rights;
(4) Interrogation.

You see, in Mangum's case there was no effort made to do a half-decent investigation. The police were determined to arrest Mangum irrespective of the facts.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Supreme Poster,
Four words for you:
Stand your ground law!"


Sid -- In North Carolina, the "Castle Doctrine" didn't become effective until 1 December, 2011, so it doesn't apply here.

It also applies only to the lawful occupant of the house.

I would expect someone with such legal knowledge to be aware of this.

Anonymous said...

Something happens between Crystal and Reginald, resulting in the stabbing of Reginald, and Crystal leaving the scene.
Police are called, and are told that Reginald was stabbed by Crystal Mangum. Mangum is arrested because the stabbing is considered a felony and, under "probable cause", no investigation or warrant is required.

Once arrested, she is read her miranda rights. Pretty simple and straight-forward.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster,
Four words for you:
Stand your ground law!

I would presume that it refers to knives as well as firearms when used in self-defense.

Self-defense is justifiable, I feel, if an individual is being strangled."

There is no evidence that Cryatal acted in self defense. Some of the documents you posted show Crystal was the aggressor.

"The arrest of Mangum without conducting an adequate investigation is a prime example of a "rush to judgment.'"

There was no rush to judgment.

"Not good."

No you are not.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"You see, in Mangum's case there was no effort made to do a half-decent investigation. The police were determined to arrest Mangum irrespective of the facts."

That is truly delusional on your part as you have never established any allegation you have made as fact.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr says......"Permit me to attempt another path towards enlightenment for you.
Here is what I believe the order of events should be following an incident:
(1)Investigation... taking statements from all involved;
(2) Making a determination as to guilt;
(3) Arresting the suspect;
(4) Read suspect Miranda rights;
(5) Interrogate.".....
Wow, who knew that police officers are supposed to "Make a determination as to guilt"??? Here I was thinking throughout all my professional training that the very LAST thing you would ever want an officer to do would be to determine guilt. Silly me. I thought that guilt or innocence should NEVER EVER be determined by law enforcement. On the other hand, since Sidney Harr is nothing but a mouthpiece for the amoral scum, Nifong, I can see how Nifong would say this. Nifong had the LAX guys convicted, sentenced and hung......without even a trial. And, of course, since sidney thinks the LEO should be taking a statement from Mangum BEFORE reading Mangum her Miranda, I can also see how Nifong, with his corrupt character, would have taught sidney that Miranda means nothing.....and is certainly not there to protect the citizen. god, what a stupid stupid little man....

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Walt, answer me this. Is the Miranda right suppose to be administered before an investigation is conducted?

Miranda does not care at what stage the investigation is. The Miranda rights attach when the person being questioned is "in custody." Custody is a two part test. (a) The objective circumstances and (b) given those circumstances would a reasonable person feel free to terminate the discussion and leave? Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1994).

First, the objective circumstances. The officer had stopped her and the officer had a gun, handcuffs and other means of restraint to use in the event Mangum did attempt to leave. The officer asked Mangum about the stabbing. Finally, the officer said nothing about Mangum being free to leave. Second, would a reasonable person have felt free to leave? I submit having just stabbed someone and being approached by an officer inside a room and being told the police officer wanted to talk about the stabbing you just committed would not lead a reasonable person to think they were free to terminate the interview and leave. In fact, the Miranda warnings worked as they are designed in this case. Mangum realized she had a right after being advised of those rights and she then took advantage of them.

Or do you consider a one-sided investigation of an altercation valid?

At the point the police sought to question Mangum, the investigation was not complete. It really is not complete until the matter is submitted to the petit jury. The better questions are did the DPD follow the law. The answer is yes, they did. Is the investigation now complete? No, it is still not presented to the petit jury. Has the state made a showing of probable cause? Yes, they have. Would it be better to have heard Crystal's version early? Probably not for her. Defendants tend to convict themselves when they talk.

Walt-in-Durham

Break the Conspiracy said...

Walt and Lance,

You do not understand. Sidney's criticism of the DPD for advising Mangum of her right to remain silent is badly phrased.

Sidney's real issue is that the DPD did not identify her as an obvious victim of domestic violence. I am disappointed Sidney has not accused Bond of lying. Sidney posted photographs that document the horrific beating Daye delivered. Bond must have seen the same injuries we saw in those photographs. Bond should have demonstrated the same professionalism shown by the attendant at Durham Access and asked Mangum: "Were you beaten?" HadBond asked that question, she would have realized that Mangum, not Daye, was the victim and that she was arresting the wrong person.

Sidney shows complete consistency in how he approaches the cases he analyzes. He establishes a witness' credibility independently of his review of the evidence.

He rgards Mangum as credible, initially because he read her book and more recently because they have become good friends. Because she is credible, her statements must be taken as true and accurate. In the lacrosse case, her accusation alone required that the case be decided by a jury. No other evidence was required to support her accusation. In the arson and murder cases, her claim of self-defense requires that all charges be dropped. No other evidence is required to support her claim.

Kenhyderal discussed how Mangum's statements must be analyzed.

Each of Mangum's statements must be considered separately and taken as true and accurate as long as one cannot prove with absolute certainty that the statement in question cannot possibly be true. If one of her statements is proven conclusively to be false, that statement (and only that statement) should be ignored. However, statements proven to be false do not affect Managum's credibility. In that case, each remaining statement (i.e., one that cannot be proven false with absolute certainty) must continue to be accepted as true and accurate. If Mangum makes conflicting statements (e.g., (i) she set the fire in the bathtub and (ii) she does not know who set the fire in the bathtub), one may choose which statement to accept as true and accurate and which statement to ignore as long as one cannot prove with absolute certainty which statement is true.

Sidney has been consistent in applying these rules.

Although not a trained attorney, Sidney shows a unique understanding of legal concepts. We can learn much from his judgment.

Walt said...

Break wrote: "In the arson and murder cases, her claim of self-defense requires that all charges be dropped. No other evidence is required to support her claim"

Break reminds me that Sid has never dealt with how Crystal is going to deal with the fact she's not going to get a self-defense jury instruction.

"Sidney shows a unique understanding of legal concepts."

Unique it is, though not singular. He is exhibiting a trait similar to Nifong in his desire to trample the constitution.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Haats off to Break...the master of sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

There was NO evidence of a beating. No photos. Nothing. Hair clumps on the floor do not constitute a beating. Nor does a door knocked down. Daye admitted to be upset and admitted they were arguing. A witness said she heard a female voice in the apartment say, "Im going to fxxx you up".... Mangum will not get a self defense instruction to the jury. No way. Daye had no prior record of convictions for any form of violent behavior. None. Zip. Mangum has four priors involving violence.

Anonymous said...

From a Liestoppers post regarding Mr. Holmes being appointed Crystal's attorney:

“There will be no interviews, appearances or information provided to the media by the Defense team during this case,” Holmes said in the release.

He emphasized in bold underlined words that no one else should speak for Mangum.

SIDNEY HARR, take note. Butt out.

Anonymous said...

More from Mr. Holmes, from the Durham Herald Sun;

“Anyone who makes statements about this case during the pendency of this matter is not with the Defense team and is not assisting Ms. Mangum,” he wrote.

SIDNEY, this means you.

Anonymous said...

How long will it be before Sidney complains that Holmes is conspiring against Mangum?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

How long will it be before Sidney complains that Holmes is conspiring against Mangum?"

I predict he will do so today.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Something happens between Crystal and Reginald, resulting in the stabbing of Reginald, and Crystal leaving the scene.
Police are called, and are told that Reginald was stabbed by Crystal Mangum. Mangum is arrested because the stabbing is considered a felony and, under "probable cause", no investigation or warrant is required.

Once arrested, she is read her miranda rights. Pretty simple and straight-forward.


Not really so straight forward. For example, Lieutenant Columbo would notice the bathroom door knocked off its frame, and clumps of hair at two sites in the apartment, and he would notice steak knives lying around... some with the blades pulled from their handles.

What would Lt. Columbo do? He certainly wouldn't close the case and charge Mangum with a crime.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr says......"Permit me to attempt another path towards enlightenment for you.
Here is what I believe the order of events should be following an incident:
(1)Investigation... taking statements from all involved;
(2) Making a determination as to guilt;
(3) Arresting the suspect;
(4) Read suspect Miranda rights;
(5) Interrogate.".....
Wow, who knew that police officers are supposed to "Make a determination as to guilt"??? Here I was thinking throughout all my professional training that the very LAST thing you would ever want an officer to do would be to determine guilt. Silly me. I thought that guilt or innocence should NEVER EVER be determined by law enforcement. On the other hand, since Sidney Harr is nothing but a mouthpiece for the amoral scum, Nifong, I can see how Nifong would say this. Nifong had the LAX guys convicted, sentenced and hung......without even a trial. And, of course, since sidney thinks the LEO should be taking a statement from Mangum BEFORE reading Mangum her Miranda, I can also see how Nifong, with his corrupt character, would have taught sidney that Miranda means nothing.....and is certainly not there to protect the citizen. god, what a stupid stupid little man....


So, in other words, you believe that during the course of an investigation into a crime, the police officer should read the Miranda rights to everyone he/she interviews... am I right?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said...

How long will it be before Sidney complains that Holmes is conspiring against Mangum?"

I predict he will do so today.


Not today. Sorry to upset your prediction. Haven't read the article in the newspaper yet.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
From a Liestoppers post regarding Mr. Holmes being appointed Crystal's attorney:

“There will be no interviews, appearances or information provided to the media by the Defense team during this case,” Holmes said in the release.

He emphasized in bold underlined words that no one else should speak for Mangum.

SIDNEY HARR, take note. Butt out.


Mr. Holmes is absolutely correct on the point that he, Mangum, and his defense team speaks for Mangum. I am not part of Mangum's defense team. I am a private citizen with a First Amendment Right to express my opinion. The same right that anonymi enjoy. So, I will continue to give my opinion on the case.

Sid Owes Another Apology said...

Sidney makes a straw man argument: So, in other words, you believe that during the course of an investigation into a crime, the police officer should read the Miranda rights to everyone he/she interviews... am I right?

No. You are not right.

In this case, the policer officer was not required to read Miranda rights to "everyone he/she interviews" and you know that. For example, the police officer did not read Miranda rights to Daye's nephew.

The police found Daye with a stab wound. He alleged that Mangum had stabbed him. When Bond found Mangum, she had blood on her clothes. That constituted probable cause for an arrest. As a result, Mangum was not free to go and Bond was required to read her Miranda rights.

Sidney, you have been told many times previously that the use of straw man arguments is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device. Yet you continue the practice.

You are either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid.

Which is it? In either case, you owe the commenter an apology for mischaracterizing his argument.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
Not really so straight forward. For example, Lieutenant Columbo would notice the bathroom door knocked off its frame, and clumps of hair at two sites in the apartment, and he would notice steak knives lying around... some with the blades pulled from their handles."

How do you now that is what Lieutenant Columbo would have noticed? Were you there? Are you aware that Lt. Columbo was a figment of someone's imagination? Probably not.

"What would Lt. Columbo do? He certainly wouldn't close the case and charge Mangum with a crime."

You seem unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy. To rephrase, Lt. Columbon was someone's fantasy and what he would have done is irrelevant.

Lame excuse for a pathetic excuse fot an answer.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Break,

As always, you are right on target. I very well might release everything in the future. That would be a big endeavor, however. I'll give it serious thought."

In your pot about Lt.Columbo you have established you can not tell fantasy from reality.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Not today. Sorry to upset your prediction. Haven't read the article in the newspaper yet."

It is a matter of when, not if.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"So, in other words, you believe that during the course of an investigation into a crime, the police officer should read the Miranda rights to everyone he/she interviews... am I right?"

More confirmation you can't tell reality from fantasy. If an individual is a suspect in a crime(as was Crystal) an officer who arrests her must inform her she is being arrested and inform her of her miranda rights. That is what happened, which you ibviously can not see.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Mr. Holmes is absolutely correct on the point that he, Mangum, and his defense team speaks for Mangum. I am not part of Mangum's defense team. I am a private citizen with a First Amendment Right to express my opinion. The same right that anonymi enjoy. So, I will continue to give my opinion on the case."

You did not think AG Cooper was allowed to give his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the Lacrosse defendant. Hypocrisy, thy name is SIDNEY HARR.

Walt said...

Anon at 10:04 AM wrote: "The police found Daye with a stab wound. He alleged that Mangum had stabbed him. When Bond found Mangum, she had blood on her clothes. That constituted probable cause for an arrest. As a result, Mangum was not free to go and Bond was required to read her Miranda rights."

Ding-Ding-Ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. And, I might add, a far clearer explanation of how to apply Miranda than I offered. Well Done Anon at 10:04 AM.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sydney, thank you for what you have done in trying to see justice upheld in Durham for all. You have found yourself in a horrible position, with some vicious foes found in the Duke populace whom many, if not the whole state and city, seem to be at the seemingly unjust mercy of. Things getting better for all will be refreshing if and when the changes needed for this to be a reality occur.

Sidney, many do appreciate your standing for the truth and trying to stop the victimization that all have witnessed going on for too long.

Do you think a letter to the AG to request the death by medical malpractice at the hands of Duke, and the medical examiner discrepancies to the medical records be investigated, (and problems with those issues changed for the better for all), would accomplish those needed actions, or is there something else that needs to be done to accomplish justice and reassure or reestablish trust in that application of utilizing Duke's professional services. It is highly disturbing to think that Duke would kill a patient in order to frame someone else, and yet that appears to be a true possibility in this case, given all that has gone on between Duke, Durham, and Ms. Mangum to date.

How does this investigation and request for change and justice happen? Does Ms. Mangum's lawyer file a request to have those issues investigated further, or can anyone, even a nonlawyer file a complaint, and to whom or where would the request be given/sent?

I agree that you should probably keep quiet on Ms. Mangum now, and let her lawyer do things professionally for her if he can. I also agree that if more shananigans continue in that arena, that making sure justice is served probably as you are trying to do is commendable from all standards. Thank you.

guiowen said...

To the 11:08,
I'm not surprised to see that you've migrated here. I've no doubt Sidney will appreciate your presence much more than KC did.
I am surprised to see you've decided to clean up your spelling and grammar. People will take you more seriously so.

Anonymous said...

were not surprised to see your still a bully. leave us alone.

Anonymous said...

The 11;08 poster has issues....perhaps involving medication adjustment. sidney will enjoy this.......perhaps he will want to send the poster a secret decoder ring, a badge, a t-shirt and the handbook of secret handshakes for the J4N club. how sweet.....

Anonymous said...

sidney, once again....slowly.......Miranda is read when a person is taken into custoday, i.e., not free to leave and/or arrested. why are you so damn dense? This is straight forward. Bond did things exactly right, according to procedure, with probable cause, and gave Mangum the opportunity to speak or to remain silent. No, Miranda is not read to every person an LEO talks to....don't be stupid and waste time with silly smartassed statement like this. How in god's name did you ever get out of high school?

Anonymous said...

Suggest you read the article concerning Holmes He is sending a clear message. To YOU and your little band of wingnuts. The first time Mangum even thinks about involving any of you, in any way, my bet is that this man will quit the case. I also think he has made it clear to her that he will quit if she so much as talks to you.

guiowen said...

To the 10:10,
Back to the old misspelling, etc. character? What a pity!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:08:

"It is highly disturbing to think that Duke would kill a patient in order to frame someone else, and yet that appears to be a true possibility in this case, given all that has gone on between Duke, Durham, and Ms. Mangum to date."

Nothing has happened between Durham, Cryastal, and Duke which would induce Dike to kill someone inorder to frame Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Anonymos 11:08:

"Do you think a letter to the AG to request the death by medical malpractice at the hands of Duke, and the medical examiner discrepancies to the medical records be investigated..."

There is no evidence of malpractice, no evidence of medial record discrepancies. Those are figments of SIDNEY's deluded imagination.

guiowen said...

To the 12:49,
Oh, let Sidney and his newfound friend get into their great discussions. I'm sure they'll enjoy developing their conspiracy theories.

Anonymous said...

indeed, guiowen. I cannot wait for troll senior, troll junior, and sidney to conspire......

Anonymous said...

finished? your rants are reason enough to think duke might have reason to kill a patient in order to frame someone ... along with all the other hatred spewing forth from duke and co. you only prove the point.

Anonymous said...

hey guiowen, your take on scott holmes? I liked the pronouncements about behavior during the run-up to the trial. expect the july date will get pushed back now........fall? what do you think?

guiowen said...

I would guess Holmes will try to get a new date -- sometime, say, in September.
I hope he'll try to keep Sidney out of the process, but Crystal just seems to trust Sidney and it might be difficult to keep them apart. I can't imagine Sidney will resign himself to a spectator's role, and this is likely to lead to a quarrel.
We'll just have to wait and see.

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

The hatred and evil displayed by duke and it's supporters, the lies, misdeeds, and outright bullying behavior - all these things are indicative and example of duke to many now. It has become what duke is to most.

There is no reason to trust them anymore with these new facts emerging about the medical error and coverup. The question about would duke kill a patient in order to frame someone, would they continue to cause harm and chaos in order to cause a problem that will require more civil rights and freedoms be taken from the US citizens in order to solve their duke made mess is very real. It is what they do. It is never ending.

How do you file a complaint about this death by malpractice and medical examiner's discrepancies, etc., and where do you file, and to whom? How do you get all services from duke stopped that require trust until they can be proven to be trustworthy in their medical services, especially.

Would you let a doctor treat you who you suspected of belonging to an organization who would kill you if they were trying to frame someone else, or even if they have issues with your beliefs about things, or for any other reason they consider worthy of their killing? Or from an organization who are the cause of so much societal nonwell-being to so many in general?

Many would not, so there are real issues with duke and co. by many because of all that has transpired between duke, durham, and all these cases of late.

Anonymous said...

I can just hear Holmes in front of a jury arguing that mangum was just defending herself and/or, what the heck, duke killed Mr. Daye because it was so pissed at Sister, Right! Yep, that is gonna happen, fer sure!!!
Perhaps it is going to be a little bit more likely that Holmes will argue that Mangum and Daye were arguing, drinking, and she grabbed the knife, there was a struggle, and she stabbed him. manslaughter, a far more likely outcome. I look forward to the trial and to Holmes' efforts to keep Mangum out of a long prison term. Of course, it IS Durham, so Mangum could be the new OJ.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of who's 'side' you are on, the one thing that is strikingly similar in all these cases is that Duke uses people to get what they want, even if it means framing and killing and destroying people to achieve their own means to an end. Anyone who deals with duke quickly learns that ethics in practice are not their priority - that the only thing that matters is if duke remains donation worthy and able to stand publically in their self statured positions of power, prestige, worthiness, etc.

The thing about this is that they continually slide down this obvious ethical downfall and think that ignoring or degrading or framing or killing or slandering or bullying, corrupting, etc. others who point out the obvious will make everyone else think that what they are doing is ok because they are, afterall, getting away with it because they have made all fearful of them and unable to trust anything because there is no proof of anything to trust they claim to the point where there is no justice for any.

That is how many see it because that is the way that it is.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous March 31 6PM

"How do you file a complaint about this death by malpractice and medical examiner's discrepancies, etc., and where do you file, and to whom?"

For malpractice, hire a contingency fee hungry trial lawyer to follow suit. I predict no lawyer would take the case because there is no case for malpractice.

So far as the Medical Examiner's office, why do you not hire an expert, like Dr. Christena Roberts to review the report.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"...duke might have reason to kill a patient in order to frame someone..."

No Duke wouldn't.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Troll:

"Would you let a doctor treat you who you suspected of belonging to an organization who would kill you if they were trying to frame someone else"

What evidence is there that Duke physicians killed Reginald Daye in order to frame Crystal. Before you cite SIDNEY, consider that SIDNEY has never demonstrated he has the credentials to decide that.

Anonymous said...

Why do you so conveniently misquote when anyone can look up and see that the original intent and sentence you fragmented from for your own derogatory purposes against the author of quoted material is:

"It is highly disturbing to think that Duke would kill a patient in order to frame someone else, and yet that appears to be a true possibility in this case, given all that has gone on between Duke, Durham, and Ms. Mangum to date."?

It is a true possibility given the hatred that duke demonstrates constistently for others, especially for Durham, themselves, and Ms. Mangum. There is no denying they cause harm to many.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, if you read anything about all this without bias you would know that the evidence exists, and it is, as usual, in question. And, as usual, that will probably be the end of the story after duke beats up anyone who dares to disagree as they are known to do, like you, calling someone who is talking about the subject at hand a troll just because you are for duke (it appears) anyway, you guys are bully thick, that is for sure.

I hope Sidney can answer the question of where to have these matters addressed and resolved for all, not just for duke, durham, or whomever. The answer may be there is no way, because of the system being what it is, but maybe that is not true. If it is, I would think all would be even more concerned for all, and the next question would be how do you get the entire system changed for all.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon of the run-on sentences,
Consider taking a course...perhaps "Hooked on Phonics", or, "Punctuation for Dummies". You might refer to writings by "No Conscious Cline" for examples of outstanding grammar and spelling.

Anonymous said...

seriously, that's your concern?

you typify duke

good job

Anonymous said...

Ah, Sidney has a new friend. Isn't that nice. Perhaps this is the famous "Mistrail Recluse" poster! I'm with you, guiowen, Mistrail Recluse is trying to join sidney's club.....

Anonymous said...

oh, i get it, you guys are being crazy wannabes ... you seriously give duke a bad name ... no serious discussions nor concern for reality nor harm that you cause ... just beat up whoever doesn't go along with the lies and corruption as benefits Duke.

do not bully me again.
you are proof of the tactics Duke uses to maintain their illusions of power. if you bully me again, it will speak to duke's inability to not bully others in order to try to maintain their illusions of power, simple as that.

Anonymous said...

It will indeed be fun to watch Sidney try to figure out how to keep himself in the middle of the Crystal show.....if Holmes is successful and cutting her off from the J4N wingnuts. I hope he just told her that she could choose.....a lawyer, him, or a lunatic, sidney. How long will it be before sidney starts whining and making up "facts" from his "sources"? I give it a couple of days....

Anonymous said...

Troll alert, all.

Walt said...

Anon at 1:34 wrote: "I can just hear Holmes in front of a jury arguing that mangum was just defending herself and/or, what the heck, duke killed Mr. Daye because it was so pissed at Sister, Right! Yep, that is gonna happen, fer sure!!!"

Unlike Sid, Holmes does know how to get a jury instruction for self-defense. He will have to ponder if he wants one. To get the instruction, Crystal will have to admit she did in fact kill Daye, not that he died of medical malpractice. How's that for a conundrum for Sid and his crew. Their response shall tell us where their loyalties lie.

Holmes, unlike Sid, probably knows that the medical error/malpractice theory is a non-starter. His own expert agrees with the state. He could seek a second expert opinion, but he'll have to give the state his first expert in discovery. Not that they have to dig too deep, Sid has already disclosed most of Dr. Roberts report right here and the DA's office already has those posts. Sid also argued some of that to the bar. The DA has that evidence as well. Sid has gone out of his way to compromise Crystal's defense whenever he could. So, Holmes is dealing with an already weakened case.

Against that, he knows the DA's office well. He knows that a 42-48 month sentence for Manslaughter is reasonable and Crystal has a couple of years already in. Holmes is not the deal maker that Woody Van is, but he's still good at it. I suspect that he has already told Crystal that the deal Woody supposedly got for her is a good one. It's at the low end of what she can expect from a very successful (from the defense perspective) trial.

Sid's got a conundrum on his hands and Crystal's got to make a decision.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

i find it seriously strange that people are on sidney's blog bullying him relentlessly, and calling anyone who agrees with reality of what many see in durham / duke, including the owner of the blog, a troll. It is called crazy making for a reason, which is abusive btw.

Don't read my posts or sydney's if they bother you so much. get real.

Anonymous said...

Walt that is just legal duke/durham shanigans as usual. This time the evidence does matter. Would you seriously want to receive services from an organization where all these issues of serious crimes are in questions, and there are no answers because of the way the system is set up to allow the crimes to happen in the first place? And there is NEVER any answer to Duke's crimes, only that they do these things, and always get away with it, and so they continue to do more harmful things. Why would anyone want to be their victim? Do you think you are so special that they would not victimize you too if they thought it benefited them?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding (1), I am not, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer, so therefore I am not certain as to the details regarding the appropriate procedure in assigning defense attorneys to the indigent."

Yes you do pretend to know more about the law than any attorney.

"Regarding (2), neither Mr. Shella, Mr. Vann, nor Ms. Branch-Ramadan are public defenders or work out of the Durham Public Defender's Office... ergo, your statement is false on its face."

But your interference with Chris Shella is fact.

"Regarding (3), to paraphrase Dick Cheney, '.. so?'"

You seem to think the Judge will appointMr. Holmes to defend Crystal and then have the yaxpayers pay for him.


How did I interfere with Attorney Shella? He had her case for a year and conducted no investigation, hardly ever visited her, and only filed motions to have her bail reduced.

Regarding Attorney Holmes, it seems as though taxpayers will pay his bill. If you are enraged over the waste of taxpayer money, contact the Durham District Attorney's office and demand that they drop their vendetta prosecution of Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Break,

As always, you are right on target. I very well might release everything in the future. That would be a big endeavor, however. I'll give it serious thought."

In your pot about Lt.Columbo you have established you can not tell fantasy from reality.


I never stated that Lieutenant Columbo was a real person. Neither is Sherlock Holmes. However, I used him as an example of a competent homicide investigator who looks beyond the obvious to ferrit out the truth.

It is very possible that Daye's intubation could have been purposely placed in his esophagus. Columbo would at least have ruled it out... that is, if he were a real person and working with the Durham Police Department.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"So, in other words, you believe that during the course of an investigation into a crime, the police officer should read the Miranda rights to everyone he/she interviews... am I right?"

More confirmation you can't tell reality from fantasy. If an individual is a suspect in a crime(as was Crystal) an officer who arrests her must inform her she is being arrested and inform her of her miranda rights. That is what happened, which you ibviously can not see.


For the umpteenth time, I do not object to Mangum being read Miranda rights after her arrest. What I object to is her arrest without the minimalist possible investigation. The police could have taken a statement from her about her perspective of what happened before determining that she should be arrested and charged. She is being treated differently than others.

Nifong Supporter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
i find it seriously strange that people are on sidney's blog bullying him relentlessly, and calling anyone who agrees with reality of what many see in durham / duke, including the owner of the blog, a troll. It is called crazy making for a reason, which is abusive btw.

Don't read my posts or sydney's if they bother you so much. get real.


Thank you for your refreshing comment which seeks civil discourse.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Anon at 1:34 wrote: "I can just hear Holmes in front of a jury arguing that mangum was just defending herself and/or, what the heck, duke killed Mr. Daye because it was so pissed at Sister, Right! Yep, that is gonna happen, fer sure!!!"

Unlike Sid, Holmes does know how to get a jury instruction for self-defense. He will have to ponder if he wants one. To get the instruction, Crystal will have to admit she did in fact kill Daye, not that he died of medical malpractice. How's that for a conundrum for Sid and his crew. Their response shall tell us where their loyalties lie.

Holmes, unlike Sid, probably knows that the medical error/malpractice theory is a non-starter. His own expert agrees with the state. He could seek a second expert opinion, but he'll have to give the state his first expert in discovery. Not that they have to dig too deep, Sid has already disclosed most of Dr. Roberts report right here and the DA's office already has those posts. Sid also argued some of that to the bar. The DA has that evidence as well. Sid has gone out of his way to compromise Crystal's defense whenever he could. So, Holmes is dealing with an already weakened case.

Against that, he knows the DA's office well. He knows that a 42-48 month sentence for Manslaughter is reasonable and Crystal has a couple of years already in. Holmes is not the deal maker that Woody Van is, but he's still good at it. I suspect that he has already told Crystal that the deal Woody supposedly got for her is a good one. It's at the low end of what she can expect from a very successful (from the defense perspective) trial.

Sid's got a conundrum on his hands and Crystal's got to make a decision.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

You've got to be kidding. There's no way Mangum should take a plea deal. Face it... the State doesn't have a case!

As far as Dr. Roberts goes, the reason she refuses to put anything in writing is because she knows that it will implicate Dr. Nichols, expose his autopsy report as being false, and lend credence to my assertion that the esophageal intubation was directly responsible for Daye's brain death, which was the reason for his elective removal from life support.

If you come across a written report about Daye from Dr. Roberts, please let me know.

Anonymous said...

once again, sidney, you show your lack of familiarity with and understanding of the law. Bond had clear probable cause to arrest Mangum, just as has been pointed out to you. What you appear to have wanted was.....Bond sees Daye stabbed, Daye says Mangum stabbed him, Mangum says (a) I didn't stab him, or (b)yes, I fxxxed him up, just as I said I would, but in perfect self defense........and, at that point you would have wanted Bond to make a decision on guilt or innocence and let Mangum go. Ridiculous. Bond handled it correctly and you know it. Mangum had an opportunity give a statement, answer questions, and/or be silent. She had multiple opportunities to speak, tell her side of the story.......we all know she did not come up with the self defense notion until AFTER Daye died. You also know this.
You hypotheticals involving TV characters add nothing to this discussion and are pointless.
Now, as Walt notes, Mangum is going to have to make a number of decisions and, thanks to you, her case is going to be difficult to make. Best thing you can do for Mangum, now, is to stay away from her......FAR away.

Anonymous said...

Sidney can hold all the brainless theories he wishes and he can rant about Roberts and Nichols. That's fine. When the trial begins, THEN we will see what Holmes can do. Until then, Harr can talk all he wants........that's all it is, just talk.
Hey, Walt, I would imagine the conversations between Vann and Holmes have been interesting. :)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Regardless of who's 'side' you are on, the one thing that is strikingly similar in all these cases is that Duke uses people to get what they want, even if it means framing and killing and destroying people to achieve their own means to an end. Anyone who deals with duke quickly learns that ethics in practice are not their priority - that the only thing that matters is if duke remains donation worthy and able to stand publically in their self statured positions of power, prestige, worthiness, etc.

The thing about this is that they continually slide down this obvious ethical downfall and think that ignoring or degrading or framing or killing or slandering or bullying, corrupting, etc. others who point out the obvious will make everyone else think that what they are doing is ok because they are, afterall, getting away with it because they have made all fearful of them and unable to trust anything because there is no proof of anything to trust they claim to the point where there is no justice for any.

That is how many see it because that is the way that it is.


Thank you for your insightful comment.

Duke went way out of bounds when it discriminated against me because I'm a Nifong supporter and tried to put me in jail because I'm African American. This was quite a malicious act by Duke University in April 2010, in response to a very kind letter I sent to the president and the dean of the law school. I will never set my foot on Duke property again.

Like you said, I have witnessed the evil at Duke firsthand.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY... LISTEN UP, EVERYBODY!!!
A new flog is in the works about the role that the mainstream media has played in Mangum's case.

Hopefully it will be posted as a flog, fvog (on YouTube), and blog by the end of the week.

Hope you all had a nice Easter...
and remember, today is April Fool's day.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

FACT....Harr's case against Duke was thrown out by the judge who strongly admonished Harr for Harr's choice of language and false accusations.
FACT...Harr's pronouncement that he was going to run roughshod over the NC Bar Committee and prevail in his battle to avoid an injunction.......big fat fail.
FACT.........Harr has been ranting that Mangum was going to go free, with all charges dismissed, for more than a year......and ooops, apparently, the prosecutor didn't get the memo.
Harr can blow all the hot air he wishes. FACTS count, gas does not

Anonymous said...

there is no way the trial can be held in durham with duke's and the medical examiner's role in the death in question, and their futures at stake. it will be hard to try the case, unless unbiased, fair and equal court and jury and lawyers, etc. are available, and this will not be possible if handled like the lacrosse case in the media.

How do you initiate an investigation and seperate charges against Duke and the medical examiner? Without that, they will continue to think they can continue to harm without consequence and without anyone to stop them. That is way too much to ask from most to accept.

See, that is what gets to the core of the matter. Duke does not even seem to care about their own risk to themselves that their actions cause, and they certainly do not care about the risk to others that their actions cause, not even Durham. And they make enemies out of whomever they feel like making enemies out of, when the other is not their enemy at all, but only someone/something that they will derive some sort of benefit from making the other into an enemy when they are not. Like trolling I guess you could say. They villanize others and then proudly wave the face of the world's most famous villian character as their mascot, all the while holding themselves blameless and victims of others whom they have deemed evil by their own nonlegal standards and for things that do not matter - like spelling or grammer when it doesn't matter or is not important at the time.

And then they expect others to accept that they murder, etc., when others can't even complain about the possibility of harm without fearing they will be harmed as well because all they see is them getting away with harming others and then those others getting harmed more when they complain. Is there any way to get all this to stop for everyone? How do you do that?

Man in Black said...

"when others can't even complain about the possibility of harm without fearing they will be harmed as well because all they see is them getting away with harming others and then those others getting harmed more when they complain...."

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"there is no way the trial can be held in durham with duke's and the medical examiner's role in the death in question, and their futures at stake"

The medical examiner had no role in the death of Mr. Daye.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"t is a true possibility [that Duke killed Reginald Daye to frame Crystal] given the hatred that duke demonstrates constistently for others, especially for Durham, themselves, and Ms. Mangum. There is no denying they cause harm to many.

No it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"i find it seriously strange that people are on sidney's blog bullying him relentlessly, and calling anyone who agrees with reality of what many see in durham / duke, including the owner of the blog, a troll. It is called crazy making for a reason, which is abusive btw.

Don't read my posts or sydney's if they bother you so much. get real."

You are the one who is unreal. That is self evident.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"Seriously, if you read anything about all this without bias you would know that the evidence exists".

No such evidence exists.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"Dear Anon of the run-on sentences,
Consider taking a course...perhaps "Hooked on Phonics", or, "Punctuation for Dummies". You might refer to writings by "No Conscious Cline" for examples of outstanding grammar and spelling."

To which one of us anonymi are you addressing this totally irrelevant post?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"[Waly], Would you seriously want to receive services from an organization where all these issues of serious crimes are in questions"?

There were no serious crimes on the part of the organization to which you refer. Your question is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"

How did I interfere with Attorney Shella? He had her case for a year and conducted no investigation, hardly ever visited her, and only filed motions to have her bail reduced."

You had no standing in the case. You are not a lawyer. Yet you tried to file motions on behalf of Crystal without the knowledge of her attorney. That is interference-except to someone who believes he is above the law.

"Regarding Attorney Holmes, it seems as though taxpayers will pay his bill. If you are enraged over the waste of taxpayer money, contact the Durham District Attorney's office and demand that they drop their vendetta prosecution of Mangum."

If Crystal had been prosecuted for her car theft and attempted assault on a peace officer, if she had been properly prosecuted for her false police reports accusing innocent men of rape, she probably would have had no opportunity to attack Mr. Daye with a knife.

Anonymous said...

Walt, apparently you are now Waly! The "mistrail recluse" poster has joined the wingnut band....playing first chair hot air balloon, no doubt. Hilarious, Waly!!!! :)

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I never stated that Lieutenant Columbo was a real person. Neither is Sherlock Holmes. However, I used him as an example of a competent homicide investigator who looks beyond the obvious to ferrit out the truth."

Lieutenant Columbo does not exist. It is therefore meaningless to cite him as an example of a competent investigator. That is the same as citing Snoopy as someone who is an expert on the Red Baron."

"It is very possible that Daye's intubation could have been purposely placed in his esophagus."

No it is not since the documents you have illegally posted show that the endotracheal tube was in the trachea.

"Columbo would at least have ruled it out... that is, if he were a real person and working with the Durham Police Department.'

Ding ding we have a winner. Since Columbo is a fictitious person, whether or not he would have tried to rule it out is meaningless. Why do you not consult Dr. Gannon or Dr. Kildare about the case? Maybe you should consult Quincy the Medical Examiner.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Why do you cite fictitious people to support your case but not real life experts?2733

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt.

You've got to be kidding. There's no way Mangum should take a plea deal. Face it... the State doesn't have a case!"

So say you who also said you would prevail against Duke and would humiliate the NC State Bar.

"As far as Dr. Roberts goes, the reason she refuses to put anything in writing is because she knows that it will implicate Dr. Nichols, expose his autopsy report as being false, and lend credence to my assertion that the esophageal intubation was directly responsible for Daye's brain death, which was the reason for his elective removal from life support."

You have not established as fact that the Nichols report is fraudulent. All you have established is that you are incapable of understanding it. You have not established as fact that the Endotracheal tube was placed in the esophagus. Therefore your speculations are irrelevant. What you say is you want Dr. Roberts to perjure herself.

"If you come across a written report about Daye from Dr. Roberts, please let me know."

Why should he? You have no right to know>

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Thank you for your insightful comment."

Said poster has never made an insightful comment.

"Duke went way out of bounds when it discriminated against me because I'm a Nifong supporter and tried to put me in jail because I'm African American. This was quite a malicious act by Duke University in April 2010, in response to a very kind letter I sent to the president and the dean of the law school."

You violated Duke's non solicitation policy.

"I will never set my foot on Duke property again."

If I were associated with Duke I would say Thank you for doing something good for Duke.

"Like you said, I have witnessed the evil at Duke firsthand."

No you haven't

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY... LISTEN UP, EVERYBODY!!!
A new flog is in the works about the role that the mainstream media has played in Mangum's case."

So now you are again trying to harm Crystal.

"Hopefully it will be posted as a flog, fvog (on YouTube), and blog by the end of the week."

That is not very hopeful news for Crystal.

Hope you all had a nice Easter...
and remember, today is April Fool's day.

And I am having a good time making a fool uot of you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"For the umpteenth time, I do not object to Mangum being read Miranda rights after her arrest. What I object to is her arrest without the minimalist possible investigation. The police could have taken a statement from her about her perspective of what happened before determining that she should be arrested and charged. She is being treated differently than others."

No she isn't.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"She is being treated differently than others."

Can you get an authoritative statement from Lt.Columbo to that effect? How about Perry Mason?

Anonymous said...

Oh, please here we go with the race card, sidney....duke tried to put me in jail because Im african american"???? spare us all your racist nonsense. you violated their nonsolicitation policy, on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and you got your butt handed to you by the judge. Oh, but of course, you can always claim that judge is owned by rae evans, too.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"there is no way the trial can be held in durham with duke's and the medical examiner's role in the death in question, and their futures at stake."

To echo and support a previous comment, it has not been establishd as fact, either that the Medical Examiner or Duke had anything to do with Reginald Daye's death.

Anonymous said...

Walt (Waly) or Lance, what are the material differences between and among capital, first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc? if you don't want to spell it out here, where can I go to read differences in NC...

Anonymous said...

first degree.....intent/premeditation and action to kill
second.....no premeditation but with an intent to kill
manslaughter......killing, but without plan or intent

I assume there is much more to the differences among the types of charges.....

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Anonymous at 10:16 AM: Check Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

There are some nuances - for example,if you kill someone while committing a felony (even if there was no premeditation), you can be charged with first degree murder. Just ask Crystal Mangum.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt.

You've got to be kidding."


No, I am not kidding. I have enough respect for my readers not to do that.

"There's no way Mangum should take a plea deal. Face it... the State doesn't have a case!"

You have disclosed the Medical Examiner's report that makes shows the state does have a case. You disclosed the defense expert who confirms the M.E. on all counts. Their is no deficiency in the charges that would lead to an obvious dismissal. The police report looks solid on Manslaughter. The only issue that is troubling is the theft count. But, that's not really a big deal compared to homicide. You, and more importantly, the defense expert, have failed to identify any intervening cause. I think your faith in your position is misplaced. Much as it was with the bar and the Duke U. case. A case you could have won had you postured it correctly.

"As far as Dr. Roberts goes, the reason she refuses to put anything in writing is because she knows that it will implicate Dr. Nichols, expose his autopsy report as being false, and lend credence to my assertion that the esophageal intubation was directly responsible for Daye's brain death, which was the reason for his elective removal from life support."

Unless you mischaracterized her comments to Crystal and Van, that's not what she said in her oral report. You have also failed to deal with State v. Welch, 135 N.C. App. 499 ___ S.E.2d ___, (1999), that I cited to you almost years ago. Until you address your Welch problem, you are not being serious.

"If you come across a written report about Daye from Dr. Roberts, please let me know."

You and I both know it was an oral report. You're the one who wrote it up. You're the one who breached the attorney client confidence and made it public. You're the one who handed it to the prosecution to use at trial if Crystal finds an expert who does agree with you.

I also cited case law to you that says Crystal won't get a self-defense instruction at trial. You never dealt with that either. Although, I expect Holmes knows how to deal with that problem. He's a lawyer after all.

You also fail to deal with how Crystal ever gets to self-defense. To do so, she has to admit she killed Daye and offer self-defense as an excuse. She can't just say self-defense and oh by the way, medical malpractice too. Even if Welch wasn't a problem for her, self-defense doesn't work that way. To claim self-defense, the defendant has to admit to the whole crime. Back to my point, Crystal's got a choice to make. You have a conundrum.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Walt. Always informative and right on target. "With friends like Harr", as they say. I have wondered if Sidney is actually out to sabotage Mangum....so much of what he has done and said is really destructive to her and her case.

I have a very hard time understanding how Mangum could ever win a claim of being beaten by Daye because there is just no photographic(or physical) evidence of injury to her. It looks clear they were both drunk and arguing...and the argument got physical. It's a long way from push and shove to "I'm gonna fxxx you up"....and stabbing Daye. Mangum has a history with knives, too. Remember the threat to Walker in the presence of the LEO. The apartment was trashed,yes, and Daye admitted he kicked the door. But, I assume the prosecutor will say she could have fled when she claimed he went out of the bedroom. There is also the question of the larceny charge and why she ran away instead of going to the next available door or person and screaming for help.
Daye has no prior history of domestic violence......in fact, he had prior relationships with women who would say he was not violent with them. Mangum has a well documented history of violent acts.
Dunno, a plea for manslaughter sure looks prudent to me.

Anonymous said...

Walt, with regard to Welch, does it then follow that the state would be looking to get second degree since Mangum could not overcome the proximate cause issue......assuming the larceny charge fell out.? just wondering....

Anonymous said...

If there wasn't so much conflict of interest and questions about the ability to even receive justice when dealing with duke, then you wouldn't have any of this.

There are very real problems that exist within the Duke / Durham / NC judicial system that even they point out and have problems with.

To think that anyone will accept another corrupt, one-sided, attack on Ms. Mangum's or any one else's rights to equal representation and protection under law is to discredit the good will of all people in NC.

To bully people on this blog who have issues with the injustice and malpractice that seems a constant issue in duke / durham is to invalidate their rights to not be subjected to such a hostile medical and professional environment for services that can place their lives and well being at risk. That is my main contention. There is no way to trust them because they have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that they cannot be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"To bully people on this blog who have issues with the injustice and malpractice that seems a constant issue in duke / durham is to invalidate their rights to not be subjected to such a hostile medical and professional environment for services that can place their lives and well being at risk. That is my main contention. There is no way to trust them because they have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that they cannot be trusted.

What issues of injustice and malpractice? What hostile professional and medical environment?

The only individual other than you alleging such things is SIDNEY. SIDNEY has shown that he is not capable of commenting meaningfully either on the legal or the medical environment.

Anonymous said...

fy

there, you finally got me to react to you. happy

you really suck btw

Walt said...

Anonymous at 12:00 wrote: "Walt, with regard to Welch, does it then follow that the state would be looking to get second degree since Mangum could not overcome the proximate cause issue......assuming the larceny charge fell out.? just wondering...."

When Daye died, I wrote I thought this was a Man II case. Nothing's changed since then except Sid has caused innumerable delays in the case. Much to Crystal's detriment, I should point out.

On a different issue that I have avoided so far, but feel must be addressed as Sid seems incapable of separating fact from fiction, Sid has made a number of references to Columbo and Sherlock Holmes. Both detectives are fictional characters. Neither has any obligation to comply with the constitution or British Common Law. Their writers are free to ignore any law they find inconvenient. Contrast real police officers do have to follow the law and our constitution. If they fail to, there are real consequences. Officer Bond followed the law rather well and is to be congratulated.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Why was either Ms. Mangum or Mr. Daley taken to duke in the first place since there were obvious conflicts in their cases that were apparent from the start. That seems to be a constant issue, that duke cannot be trusted with patients in criminal cases, especially where a conflict of interest exists.

There is no denying that duke and co. demonstrates a very openingly and obvious hostile and harassing attitude toward Ms. Mangum, and indeed, even towards those class of people whom Ms. Mangum represents or those who have issues with all these cases, even though everyone had/has issues with all these cases.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mistrail Recluse, the name of the victim was Reginald Daye. Suggest you show a bit of respect for the dead and learn how to spell his last name correctly. What a ditz.
Mr. Daye was taken to a Trauma Center, i.e., Duke, for treatment of his wounds. By the way, the trauma surgeon who led the team is world class.....absolutely first rate.
There is not one shred of evidence that Duke mishandled any aspect of Mr. Daye's care. Not one. Run your mouth all you wish. Nobody will take your nonsense seriously except maybe Kenny Hissy Troll and the racist asshat, harr.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Anonymous 4/1 2:05pm, 1:18, 9:05am, 6:47, 6:20, 6:10, 4:21, 4:10, 3:45; 3/31 6:00pm, 10:10am; 3/30 11:08pm:

I find it difficult to follow your comments. Do you believe someone at Duke murdered Daye? Or did they make an error, with DUMC and the ME coving up that mistake? Your comments seem to suggest both.

You appear to disagree with Sidney. He identifies Rae Evans as the mastermind behind the conspiracy. You appear to view Duke as the primary culprit.

It would be helpful if you provided an analysis of how you reached your conclusion. I did not follow your previous posts at other sites, and, now that Johnson has censored them, cannot reconstruct your argument. Your posts here began with your conclusion and do not provide sufficient background.

I ask you and all other anonymous posters to use pseudonyms. You do not need an account. Click "Name/URL" rather than "Anonymous" when posting. You will be asked for a name. We can follow the discussion more easily if all posters use pseudonyms.

Anonymous said...

I have asked sydney for the information to achieve the justice of providing evidence and charges as needed concerning these issues.

I haven't posted on these sites, nor even read them before, so did not know it was so populated with bullies and people who think they can treat people like i have been treated, so i am leaving again as far as communication goes for now. Thanks for the bullying grand time. It was real.

Sydney, thank you again.

guiowen said...

So long, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Anonymous said...

What does Mangum have to gain by going to court and exposing herself to a jury.....IF, in fact, Holmes is able to come up with a plea deal that would likely be four years, less time served? In spite of what Sidney Harr claims, it looks clearly like manslaughter, or , maybe second degree. I have no idea how she could claim self defense.......but I assume she will have to go that route if she elects to go to trial. The business about DUH killing Daye is nonsense. There is nothing to indicate any medical error, much less willful intent to off Reginald Daye. Holmes is going to have a huge hill to climb in making a claim of self defense.

Anonymous said...

She has a right to a jury, and she gains the ability to get the truth decided by a jury of her peers who have no conflict of interest, and to have the innocence of Duke and the further investigation of cause of death, etc. examined to the level of being able to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was indeed responsible for Mr. Daye's death, and not other mitagating factors beyond her control or responsibility.

That is a lot to give up for a plea deal for a murder she did not commit with 4 years of prison as icing on the cake don't you think? Would you actually do that yourself?

Why would you even want her to do that? There is no proof that Duke did not kill Mr. Daye if the medical examiner's report is in question, and if there is a conflict of interest with Duke, than many would think that, yes, there is a conflict of interest which casts doubt that cannot justify guilt on Mangum's part beyond a shadow of doubt. The law affords her equal protection and rights, just like any other american citizen.

Anonymous said...

I see that our mistrail-recluse poster is back......

Anonymous said...

....."She has a right to a jury, and she gains the ability to get the truth decided by a jury of her peers who have no conflict of interest, and to have the innocence of Duke and the further investigation of cause of death, etc. examined to the level of being able to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was indeed responsible for Mr. Daye's death, and not other mitagating factors beyond her control or responsibility."

Whew, yet another example of "dizzying intellect"....
Walt, or Waly as you call him, has repeatedly noted State v. Welch for Harr....which, of course, Harr ignores. Suggest the poster might read. Also, poster, regardless of the misrepresentation by Harr, Dr. Roberts found NOTHING in error, out of order, wrong or otherwise supportive of any malpractice in her review of the medical records/autopsy report. Harr even said this. Because Sidney Harr ran his mouth and posted Roberts' comments from a comfidential meeting, the prosecutor is aware of Roberts' assessment.......yet another screwup by Harr. In short, Roberts' oral conclusions work against Mangum's claim of some kind of medical error, conspiracy or evil deed by anybody at Duke AND on the part of Dr. Nichols. It might be helpful if you educated yourself before you do your flying leaps to conclusions that are totally unsupported by facts.

Anonymous said...

Walt or Lance, if the case goes to trial, will the state be able to call Dr. Roberts? I assume they would....and certainly want to do so......since they are aware she gave an oral opinion to Vann and Mangum. I also assume they could call both women who were in relationships with Daye earlier...who would apparently testify he was not violent with them. And, they would show the photos of Mangum that reveal no evidence of any sort of beating, punching, choking, etc..... Dunno, guys, it sure looks like a mountain of evidence against Mangum. We have not actually heard ANY direct evidence of the defense case. I do not accept ANY information from Harr as valid. It's all filtered and biased. We will have to wait till the trial to get the straight story of the defense strategy from Holmes. If Holmes attempts to negotiate a plea deal for Mangum, it will be a clear signal as to his assessment of the strength of her case.

Anonymous said...

only briefly in the interest of justice for all, including Duke not just Duke alone.

It is too easy to see the injustice of what has gone on so far, not to be supportive of the ability for all to have equal protection, rights, and the ability to obtain legal justice in a court of law, even if Duke / Durham / NC judicial system and the media, bullies, etc. are involved where even that fact becomes reason to seek legal relief to many.

Duke has only itself to blame at this point, as their own ethical errors which they have been given an enourmous amount of leeway on at the goodwill of many is their own cause for demise. The thing is is that it is so obvious, that many wonder if they are doing it on purpose to further other evil plans that has yet to become apparent. They personify evil as their mascot, which seems to many to be leading them into their own belief that they can be the evil, and noone can say otherwise to convince them that perhaps they should stop.

guiowen said...

Here I thought that "mistrail recluse" had left us.
Actually I'm glad he's back, as his conversations with Sidney should be interesting. Talk about the blind leading the blind...

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
FACT....Harr's case against Duke was thrown out by the judge who strongly admonished Harr for Harr's choice of language and false accusations.
FACT...Harr's pronouncement that he was going to run roughshod over the NC Bar Committee and prevail in his battle to avoid an injunction.......big fat fail.
FACT.........Harr has been ranting that Mangum was going to go free, with all charges dismissed, for more than a year......and ooops, apparently, the prosecutor didn't get the memo.
Harr can blow all the hot air he wishes. FACTS count, gas does not


Bottom line, mi amigo, is that Crystal Mangum is not going to be convicted of those baseless, bogus charges.... Period. I seriously doubt that the case will even go to trial, because the prosecution doesn't have a case and the only thing that will be exposed is the fraudulent autopsy report and Duke's responsibility for Daye's death with the esophageal intubation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
there is no way the trial can be held in durham with duke's and the medical examiner's role in the death in question, and their futures at stake. it will be hard to try the case, unless unbiased, fair and equal court and jury and lawyers, etc. are available, and this will not be possible if handled like the lacrosse case in the media.

How do you initiate an investigation and seperate charges against Duke and the medical examiner? Without that, they will continue to think they can continue to harm without consequence and without anyone to stop them. That is way too much to ask from most to accept.

See, that is what gets to the core of the matter. Duke does not even seem to care about their own risk to themselves that their actions cause, and they certainly do not care about the risk to others that their actions cause, not even Durham. And they make enemies out of whomever they feel like making enemies out of, when the other is not their enemy at all, but only someone/something that they will derive some sort of benefit from making the other into an enemy when they are not. Like trolling I guess you could say. They villanize others and then proudly wave the face of the world's most famous villian character as their mascot, all the while holding themselves blameless and victims of others whom they have deemed evil by their own nonlegal standards and for things that do not matter - like spelling or grammer when it doesn't matter or is not important at the time.

And then they expect others to accept that they murder, etc., when others can't even complain about the possibility of harm without fearing they will be harmed as well because all they see is them getting away with harming others and then those others getting harmed more when they complain. Is there any way to get all this to stop for everyone? How do you do that?


The problem with holding Duke accountable is that the media, politicians, and courts do their best to protect the powerful institution... and therefore, Duke feel basically invulnerable.

Duke certainly, and without provocation make an enemy of me when it attempted to arrest me at a public event on its campus.

I don't know how to go up against Duke except by informing others about the truth... as I do in my blog.

Thanks for your comment.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"there is no way the trial can be held in durham with duke's and the medical examiner's role in the death in question, and their futures at stake"

The medical examiner had no role in the death of Mr. Daye.


The medical examiner had a major role in the trumped up murder charge being brought against Mangum, and in the process concealing Duke's responsibility for Daye's death.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"

How did I interfere with Attorney Shella? He had her case for a year and conducted no investigation, hardly ever visited her, and only filed motions to have her bail reduced."

You had no standing in the case. You are not a lawyer. Yet you tried to file motions on behalf of Crystal without the knowledge of her attorney. That is interference-except to someone who believes he is above the law.

"Regarding Attorney Holmes, it seems as though taxpayers will pay his bill. If you are enraged over the waste of taxpayer money, contact the Durham District Attorney's office and demand that they drop their vendetta prosecution of Mangum."

If Crystal had been prosecuted for her car theft and attempted assault on a peace officer, if she had been properly prosecuted for her false police reports accusing innocent men of rape, she probably would have had no opportunity to attack Mr. Daye with a knife.


Yes, I filed several motions on Mangum's behalf and did not inform her attorney of record, however, the Court merely ignored them. How did that interfere with Attorney Shella's representation of Mangum?

If you will recall, a bogus motion attributed to Mangum was filed in one of the off-shoot Duke lacrosse cases not long ago. But the attorneys on that case did no throw up their hands and quit.

Am I right?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"She has a right to a jury, and she gains the ability to get the truth decided by a jury of her peers who have no conflict of interest, and to have the innocence of Duke....examined to the level of being able to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt..."

DUMC will not be on trial.

" if the medical examiner's report is in question, and if there is a conflict of interest with Duke..."

Neither the medical examiner's report or autopsy is in question -- that's fiction created by Sid. There was also no conflict of interest in DUMC treating Reginald Daye. That appears to be your creation, with no real facts to prove it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNET HARR:

"Bottom line, mi amigo, is that Crystal Mangum is not going to be convicted of those baseless, bogus charges.... Period. I seriously doubt that the case will even go to trial, because the prosecution doesn't have a case and the only thing that will be exposed is the fraudulent autopsy report and Duke's responsibility for Daye's death with the esophageal intubation."

The records you illegally posted document the endotracheal tube was in the trachea. Do you intend to testify that rhe tube was in the esophagus? What will you do when a number of experts testify the tube was in the trachea?Say they are all in the pay of the Carpetbagger jihad? I hope so. Then you would have to prove the carpetbagger jihad exists.Then you would claim that anyone who does not believe in said jihad is the victim of a Jedi mind trick.Then you would have to prove Jedi mind tricks exist. It would be an interesting spectacle.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem with holding Duke accountable is that the media, politicians, and courts do their best to protect the powerful institution... and therefore, Duke feel basically invulnerable.

Duke certainly, and without provocation make an enemy of me when it attempted to arrest me at a public event on its campus.

I don't know how to go up against Duke except by informing others about the truth... as I do in my blog.

Thanks for your comment."

Duke made an enemy of you when they settled with the Lacrosse players, de facto admitting they had committed torts against them, and did not settle with you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't know how to go up against Duke except by informing others about the truth... as I do in my blog."

This is but further confirmation that you are totally out of touch with reality.

Walt said...

Anon at 6:34 AM wrote: "Walt or Lance, if the case goes to trial, will the state be able to call Dr. Roberts?"

Sid really fouled that up for Crystal. Dr. Roberts gave an assesment that the state's expert was right. That doesn't help her case. By making that assesment public, Sid destroyed the attorney client privilege and made Roberts fair game for the state. Sid has all but assured the state's version of death will be the only evidence the jury hears. If Crystal can find an expert to dispute the M.E.s report, then expect to see Roberts in a starring role on rebuttal.

"I also assume they could call both women who were in relationships with Daye earlier...who would apparently testify he was not violent with them."

Not so fast. That depends on the defense and how they raise the self-defense issue. Generally though bolstering testimony like you propose is not admissable.

"And, they would show the photos of Mangum that reveal no evidence of any sort of beating, punching, choking, etc....."

Crystal does have a physical evidence problem.

"We will have to wait till the trial to get the straight story of the defense strategy from Holmes. If Holmes attempts to negotiate a plea deal for Mangum, it will be a clear signal as to his assessment of the strength of her case."

As it should be. Sid's misguided attempt to have himself admitted to defend Crystal would have been fun though. If a real person's liberty had not been at issue, I would have been for it, just for the humor value. As is, we'll just have to be content with Sid's ridiculous rantings and the memory of his promised victory over the bar and Duke.

Sid wrote: "the only thing that will be exposed is the fraudulent autopsy report and Duke's responsibility for Daye's death..."

You've assured that won't happen. With friends like you, Crystal really doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The medical examiner had a major role in the trumped up murder charge being brought against Mangum, and in the process concealing Duke's responsibility for Daye's death."

The murder charges were not trumped up.Ergo, the Medical Examiner could have played no role in trumping up the charges. And as Duke was not responsible for Mr.Daye's death, the Medical examiner could not have been involved in covering up any involvement on the part of Duke.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Walt or Lance, if the case goes to trial, will the state be able to call Dr. Roberts? I assume they would....and certainly want to do so......since they are aware she gave an oral opinion to Vann and Mangum. I also assume they could call both women who were in relationships with Daye earlier...who would apparently testify he was not violent with them. And, they would show the photos of Mangum that reveal no evidence of any sort of beating, punching, choking, etc..... Dunno, guys, it sure looks like a mountain of evidence against Mangum. We have not actually heard ANY direct evidence of the defense case. I do not accept ANY information from Harr as valid. It's all filtered and biased. We will have to wait till the trial to get the straight story of the defense strategy from Holmes. If Holmes attempts to negotiate a plea deal for Mangum, it will be a clear signal as to his assessment of the strength of her case.


Hah! Believe me... the last thing that the prosecution wants to bring up is the autopsy report on Daye because they know that it's bogus.... false... nothing more than fabrication that is totally unreliable.

Regarding Dr. Roberts' oral statements to Mangum saying that she agreed with the autopsy report, she was not being truthful. Roberts and Vann were trying to convince Mangum that the findings by the medical examiner were accurate. Mangum's too smart to accept that, especially after I explained it to her.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Yes, I filed several motions on Mangum's behalf and did not inform her attorney of record, however, the Court merely ignored them. How did that interfere with Attorney Shella's representation of Mangum?"

HUH? You admit you filed motions on her behalf without the knowledge of her attorney and you claim you did not interfere with her attorney?

"If you will recall, a bogus motion attributed to Mangum was filed in one of the off-shoot Duke lacrosse cases not long ago. But the attorneys on that case did no throw up their hands and quit."

In that case, the bogus motion was not filed by a non lawyer on behalf of the falsely accused Lacrosse players without the knowledge of their counsel. Different situation.

"Am I right?"

You have never been right.

Anonymous said...

It seems highly plausible that since Duke was the one who took Mr. Daye off life-support (and put him on it), that they are the one's responsible for the actual death of Mr. Daye.

Why does Duke think they can get people to automatically listen to them and believe what they are saying because they are 'Duke - yeah!' so everyone must follow their every determination blindly because they are 'Duke - yeah!', and not even question what they say? Not buying it myself. If they want others to respect their 'we're duke yeahness', which most don't anyway, then at least take responsibility for taking the guy off life support, therefore scientifically causing his death. That's fairly basic don't you think. It could probably even be scientifically repeated in many people, double blind or not.

oi

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hah! Believe me... the last thing that the prosecution wants to bring up is the autopsy report on Daye because they know that it's bogus.... false... nothing more than fabrication that is totally unreliable."

No one, especially you, has established as fact that Dr.Nichols' report is false.

"Regarding Dr. Roberts' oral statements to Mangum saying that she agreed with the autopsy report, she was not being truthful. Roberts and Vann were trying to convince Mangum that the findings by the medical examiner were accurate."

I say again, no one has established that Dr. Nichols' report was fraudulent.

"Mangum's too smart to accept that, especially after I explained it to her."

If Crystal accepted your explanation, she has manifested no evidence of being smart.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll:

"It seems highly plausible that since Duke was the one who took Mr. Daye off life-support (and put him on it), that they are the one's responsible for the actual death of Mr. Daye."

No it doesn't. Mr. Daye was put on life support as a result of complications of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. No stab wound, no need for medical treatment, no risk of medical complications.

Why does Duke think they can get people to automatically listen to them and believe what they are saying because they are 'Duke - yeah!' so everyone must follow their every determination blindly because they are 'Duke - yeah!', and not even question what they say? Not buying it myself. If they want others to respect their 'we're duke yeahness', which most don't anyway, then at least take responsibility for taking the guy off life support, therefore scientifically causing his death. That's fairly basic don't you think. It could probably even be scientifically repeated in many people, double blind or not."

If you have followed this blog, as you claim, Duke has not said anything about this case. What we know of Duke's involvement in this case comes from SIDNEY's illegally accessing and publishing Mr. Daye's records. SIDNEY has tried to distort what those records say.

"oi"

oi indeed. You are blind to the truth.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 370   Newer› Newest»