Thursday, April 18, 2013
Letter to Congressman G. K. Butterfield
On Thursday, March 28, 2013, I went to United States Congressman G. K. Butterfield’s Durham Office to deliver a letter to him about one of his constituents, Crystal Mangum.
Although his main office is in Wilson County, because of creative redistricting by the Republican-majority North Carolina General Assembly, he also represents individuals in Durham County… replacing David Price.
His office was closed, so I slipped the three paged letter under the door.
The following Monday, I called Congressman Butterfield’s Durham office and spoke with a gentleman named Reginald Speight. He confirmed receipt of the letter, which he did not open, and he told me it would be turned over to Mr. Butterfield’s regional director.
The following day, Tuesday, April 2, 3013, I received a phone call from Ray Rogers, the congressman’s regional director in Wilson County. He had read the contents of the letter which focused on the fraudulent autopsy report that was used as the basis to charge his constituent, Crystal Mangum, with first degree murder.
Mr. Rogers asked me what I wanted the congressman to do about the situation. I told him that I wanted Mr. Butterfield to do something… to write a letter to me, to the newspaper, to the Durham district attorney…. to call for an investigation. I told him that I wanted the congressman to do something.
I explained that I was not a politician and that Ms. Mangum was not my constituent, but that I was not going to sit by and do nothing in the face of such an injustice. Mr. Rogers told me that he would discuss the letter with others on his staff and make a determination about forwarding the letter to Congressman Butterfield.
After not hearing from the congressman or his staff, I placed a call to the Wilson office two weeks later on Tuesday, April 16, 2013. Mr. Rogers was unavailable… in a meeting, and would not return that day.
The following day, Wednesday, April 17, 2013, I called again and spoke with Mr. Rogers. He told me that the congressman would be taking no action on this issue because it was in the courts. This is not an uncommon response, as many politicians use this as an excuse to refrain from getting involved in political quagmires.
I then asked if Congressman Butterfield had even seen the letter, and Mr. Rogers told me, “No.” By not seeing the letter, the congressman automatically has deniability… he’s out of the loop, so to speak.
I can’t speak for Congressman Butterfield, but I believe it is a serious breech of justice and ethics when a medical examiner provides a fraudulent autopsy report in order to snare an innocent individual. That is what has happened in the case against Crystal Mangum.
Congressman Butterfield’s constituent, Ms. Mangum, potentially faces a life sentence based on bogus charges in a vendetta prosecution within the congressman’s district, and it appears that he is not going to do anything about it.
The congressman can’t act on an issue about which he has no knowledge. That is the purpose of this flog. To see that he learns about the tragic injustice that is going on in his district… although it is many miles away.
To viewers of this flog, I request that you contact G. K. Butterfield at one of his many offices and let him know that he’s got mail. And he can find it posted on this blog site.
Labels:
Crystal Mangum,
David Price,
G. K. Butterfield,
Sidney Harr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
130 comments:
Anonymous said...
Boring....stale....repetitive...and a waste of bandwidth, sidney
Shirley, you joust!
This blog site is the most innovative, cutting-edged blog site on the planet. It has blogs, flogs, vogs, and even old-fashioned text. The other blog sites can't hold a candle to this.
Not only that, but this site provides information that the mainstream media is trying to keep hidden from the people.
Ol' Dan'l Boone would be proud, as this site is truly a trailblazer. Ahead of its time.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.
It was my plan to post the flog today, but I had a few temporary setbacks with implementing the scroll bar feature in Flash... I got the hang of it, but it set me back and another urgent issue has arisen. So it will be a while before that is posted, and I will try to have another emergency flog posted no later than Friday.
Watch for it!"
HALLELUJAH! A reprieve!
Sorry, the reprieve is short-lived. As you can see, a new flog has been posted...
Enjoy.
Anonymous said...
For those interested in meaningful intelligent discussion, and truly brillant writing, I suggest you migrate to DIW. This site is a piece of trash....written by a tired old racist halfwit.
Durham-In-Wonderland is okay for people who are interested in trivial bits of information concerning the Duke Lacrosse case.
However, regarding current events, it is pretty lax. Haven't seen much about the murder charge against Crystal Mangum on that site. That's because my homie KC knows that the case is bogus.
Also, I'm led to believe that the infrequency of his posts is due to his heavy schedule... something that I can appreciate.
Anonymous said...
Somebody posted a request for how Mangum's trial or plea might end...with a suggestion for a vote. Here's my best guess....at the moment: Mangum is not going to go free as Harr has continually fantasized. She is either going to get and accept a plea deal or go to trial. I hope, for her sake, that Holmes is able to convince her to take a reasonable plea deal.....it sure sounds like manslaughter to me, based on the very little evidence that is available. (and, no, I don't consider any opinions Harr posts as evidence). If Mangum goes to trial, I think it will be manslaughter, maybe with more prison time. Hard to figure how the state could prevail with a higher level charge. One thing for certain, Mangum IS going to be held accountable for killing Daye.
Are you serious? Face it, Mangum stabbed an intoxicated Daye in self-defense as he even busted down the bathroom door to get at her. Secondly, she is not responsible for Daye's death... Duke University Hospital is. And one more thing, the autopsy report is totally fraudulent, uncredible, unreliable, and is, in and of itself, grounds for having all charges against Mangum dismissed.
End of story.
SIDNEY HARR:
"This blog site is the most innovative, cutting-edged blog site on the planet. It has blogs, flogs, vogs, and even old-fashioned text. The other blog sites can't hold a candle to this.
Not only that, but this site provides information that the mainstream media is trying to keep hidden from the people.
Ol' Dan'l Boone would be proud, as this site is truly a trailblazer. Ahead of its time."
Shirley, you are totally out of touch with reality.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Sorry, the reprieve is short-lived. As you can see, a new flog has been posted...
Enjoy."
And what a sorry rehash of unorroborated allegations it is.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Durham-In-Wonderland is okay for people who are interested in trivial bits of information concerning the Duke Lacrosse case."
More proof that you are disconnected with reality.
"However, regarding current events, it is pretty lax. Haven't seen much about the murder charge against Crystal Mangum on that site. That's because my homie KC knows that the case is bogus."
There is no such person as your "homie KC".
"Also, I'm led to believe that the infrequency of his posts is due to his heavy schedule... something that I can appreciate."
Unfortunately, you can not appreciate the truth when it is shown to you.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Are you serious? Face it, Mangum stabbed an intoxicated Daye in self-defense as he even busted down the bathroom door to get at her. Secondly, she is not responsible for Daye's death... Duke University Hospital is. And one more thing, the autopsy report is totally fraudulent, uncredible, unreliable, and is, in and of itself, grounds for having all charges against Mangum dismissed.
End of story."
Correction: End of SIDNEY's totally distorted spin of the story.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I can’t speak for Congressman Butterfield, but I believe it is a serious breech of justice and ethics when a medical examiner provides a fraudulent autopsy report in order to snare an innocent individual."
That is a serious breech, IF it did indeed did happen. Thus far you have provided no evidence that it did happen. And you have provided no reason why anyone should believe you are capable of knowing whether or not it happened.
Sid, let me get this straight. There is a pending criminal case. The state is charging someone with a serious crime. The defendant stabbed, whether in self-defense or without cause someone else. The defendant is free on bail. The defendant, through you, has caused delays in bringing her case to trial. The defendant has fired two lawyers, one of them twice and is on her third lawyer. All paid for by the taxpayers. The state has provided the defendant with full discovery. The case is set for trial. And the defendant is represented by a very able defense lawyer.
But, you want a separate branch of government to intervene?
You have not heard of separation of powers?
You are not getting your way, so you are going off to a congressman who may, or may not represent Mangum and certainly does not represent you. You are asking said congressman to violate the separation of powers in the constitution of the United States? And you are crying that he hasn't read a letter from someone who is not his constituent?
Pardon me, but that's nuts.
Walt-in-Durham
Have you written to the joint accredidation organization yet?
They should be concerned about this case - from the standpoint of duke's professional negligence in the medical malpractice that resulted in brain death - in that they should have taken a higher standard of care to perserve a criminal case (at least) - and in Duke's case, especially so, since they have obvious conflicts of interest with Ms. Mangum.
They need to give their opinion on the matter - for all - and get Duke to stop this practice of harming people (if they can).
Of course, they may also have a conflict of interest, I do not know.
Sid wrote: "Face it, Mangum stabbed an intoxicated Daye in self-defense as he even busted down the bathroom door to get at her."
That is an affirmative defense, available only at trial and only if the defendant admits she stabbed Daye with a deadly weapon.
"Secondly, she is not responsible for Daye's death... Duke University Hospital is."
No, the felony murder and misdemeanor manslaughter rules do not recognize medical malpractice as an intervening cause. You still have not explained why does not apply. Indeed, you have obliquely admitted that it does and you are just trying to get Mangum convicted so you can try and overturn the felony murder rule on appeal. Unfortunately, you have not been honest with her about your strategy. Further, you have absolutely no proof the so called medical malpractice even took place.
"And one more thing, the autopsy report is totally fraudulent, uncredible, unreliable, and is, in and of itself, grounds for having all charges against Mangum dismissed."
That too is an affirmative defense that Crystal has the burden of proving. Unfortunately she has no evidence to support that notion. Indeed the defense is in possession of expert testimony to the contrary. While it's fun to fill Crystal's head full of tales about lies and frauds, you have failed to prove one single lie or fraud.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
Sid, let me get this straight. There is a pending criminal case. The state is charging someone with a serious crime. The defendant stabbed, whether in self-defense or without cause someone else. The defendant is free on bail. The defendant, through you, has caused delays in bringing her case to trial. The defendant has fired two lawyers, one of them twice and is on her third lawyer. All paid for by the taxpayers. The state has provided the defendant with full discovery. The case is set for trial. And the defendant is represented by a very able defense lawyer.
But, you want a separate branch of government to intervene?
You have not heard of separation of powers?
You are not getting your way, so you are going off to a congressman who may, or may not represent Mangum and certainly does not represent you. You are asking said congressman to violate the separation of powers in the constitution of the United States? And you are crying that he hasn't read a letter from someone who is not his constituent?
Pardon me, but that's nuts.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, I'm not asking for the congressman to intervene into the judicial process, as writing a letter or calling for an investigation into an alleged crime (filing a fraudulent autopsy report) is not an unreasonable request... one that is protected by the First Amendment. If I were a politician and one of my constituents was being mistreated I would not sit still and say and do nothing.
If you're concerned about wasted taxpayer dollars, then you need to direct your venom at the Durham prosecutors for bringing the ridiculous, frivolous, and rinky-dink case against Mangum. Nothing more than a vendetta prosecution.
Anonymous said...
Have you written to the joint accredidation organization yet?
They should be concerned about this case - from the standpoint of duke's professional negligence in the medical malpractice that resulted in brain death - in that they should have taken a higher standard of care to perserve a criminal case (at least) - and in Duke's case, especially so, since they have obvious conflicts of interest with Ms. Mangum.
They need to give their opinion on the matter - for all - and get Duke to stop this practice of harming people (if they can).
Of course, they may also have a conflict of interest, I do not know.
No, I have not filed a complaint against Duke with that organization. The complaints I have filed have been with the medical board against Dr. Nichols, and I filed with the State Bar against Ms. Gauger, Ms. Coggins-Franks, and Mr. Vann... all filed as last resorts.
QUESTION FOR ALL COMMENTERS:
Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?
If so, please explain.
SIDNEY HARR:
"writing a letter or calling for an investigation into an alleged crime (filing a fraudulent autopsy report) is not an unreasonable request".
It s when there is n fraudulent autopsy report to be investigated.
SIDNEY HARR(to Walt inDurham):
"If you're concerned about wasted taxpayer dollars, then you need to direct your venom at the Durham prosecutors for bringing the ridiculous, frivolous, and rinky-dink case against Mangum. Nothing more than a vendetta prosecution."
What ridiculous frivolous rinky dink case? You have not established as fact that the case is ridiculous or frivolous.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?
If so, please explain."
YES!!! You wanted Congressman Butterfield to investigate the fraudulent autopsy report on Reginald Daye. Since no suc report exists, that would be a waste of the Congressman's time.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?
If so, please explain."
ABSOLUTELY YES! You want him to an investigate an alleged crime. You have provided no proof that said alleged crime ever happened.
why don't you try the joint accredited organization? they need to investigate this for all. It would be interesting to see what the say - but it might be the same thing - that it is in court at the moment.
if i were a congress person, i would be interested in what was going on in my district that could negatively effect my constituents
they might all have a conflict of interest - especially the congress person - as duke is in his district too
"Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?"
If your complaint is about the medical examiner, you delivered your letter to the wrong branch of government.
"why don't you try the joint accredited organization?"
You mean he Joint Commission that recognized DUMC in November 2012 for exemplary performance in the "Top Performers on Key Quality Measures" program? That organization.
Couldn't hurt...
is it possible to get a lawyer to file suit against Duke for inciting hate crimes and everything else that they have done since and during and in the decision to cause the lacrosse case and perpetuate the hate - including up to the possibility of harm by medical and professional practices at the hands of duke and hateful harm perpetuated, supported, demanded, and expected of duke et al.
stop reposting my posts whoever is doing that ...
lance, how are we the people to believe anything about duke when all we the people see is major conflicts of interest at all levels of oversite and control with duke in nc?
the hate that is seen at duke overrides all good they do in many peoples minds - their environment is too threatening, intimidating, hostile, and questionable in professional and medical management as seen from these cases and all else that has occured in news about duke since then.
duke has received bad reviews and investigations from them before.
i personally think that with the advent of the pharma and co. take over of the economy in the 1990's (i think it was 1990s- maybe sooner) - that the integrity and ethics of medicine and medical practices in the USA has declined nationwide - and that Duke is and was a leader in this. I mention this here, because the money drives a lot of corruption, inhumane decisions and practices, and abuse of we the people by instituions like duke and driven and directed by duke. for the nc citizen, it means that we are their medical research money making machines (one way or the other). that's what it feels like.
so, for anyone to be beat up for speaking out about the obvious, especially when the information is derived from the news, is absurd.
it is like duke expects noone to read or think on their own or for themselves, or have opinions about the matter against duke, esp. when around them.
i can see where duke people protect their reputation, since they all are taught to rely upon each other professionally. but that is just it, you can't expect we the people to not want their services unless they can provide services that we the people can feel the non-duke usa citizen can be able to trust. it is weird - i'm not duke - so why am i beat up for not being duke? i don't get it - it is almost like a hate crime for being an NC citizen. it feels that way anyway.
People tease you because your posts are incomprehensible. Other than your belief that Duke is evil, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I don't live in NC and the papers here don't cover the hateful harm perpetuated by Duke on all these unnamed people.
I have asked you for specifics, but you refused.
you do not have to read my posts if you do not like but i will write how i want - i do not need your critique - i am not here for that - thanks anyway
who are you to critize my writing and then ask me to write more for you anyway - i am not here to give specifics - sorry
i get my news from the news
"lance, how are we the people to believe anything about duke when all we the people see is major conflicts of interest at all levels of oversite and control with duke in nc?"
Of course, I'm only reporting what I've read. In regards to DUMC, no one in my family is either a patient there or an employee.
Personally, if given a choice, I would chose either DUMC or one of the Carolinas HealthCare System (CHS) hospitals. but that's just me.
With that said, I am one of "we the people". Can you provide me with examples of "major conflicts of interest at all levels of oversite and control with duke in nc"?
lance, i'm not here to give details
you guys know and see this stuff for yourself - i know you do
get real
Sid wrote: "Walt, I'm not asking for the congressman to intervene into the judicial process,..."
That is exactly what you are asking for.
"as writing a letter or calling for an investigation into an alleged crime (filing a fraudulent autopsy report) is not an unreasonable request...
Yes, asking one branch of government to intervene in the workings of another branch, before the work is done is unreasonable.
"If I were a politician and one of my constituents was being mistreated I would not sit still and say and do nothing."
Then you would be a very dangerous politician. Exploiting your political power is not a favorable trait in one who seeks office. Further, there is no evidence, none that Crystal is being mistreated. As I pointed out, self-defense is an affirmative defense. One that can only be raised in certain circumstances. She has the right to raise the defense. However, raising it carries certain risks.
"If you're concerned about wasted taxpayer dollars,...."
It's about your desire to abuse political power.
"...ridiculous, frivolous, and rinky-dink case against Mangum."
There is nothing ridiculous, frivolous or rinky-dink about charging someone who stabs another person to death.
"Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?"
If Congressman Butterfield has directed, as have his fellow congressmen, staff to only forward constituent correspondence to the Congressman, then I fully agree with the Regional Director's decision. Further, as Lance appropriately pointed out, you have complained to the wrong branch of government.
Walt-in-Durham
Should Congressman Butterfield have been involved? Absolutely not! Walt spells it out clearly. No need to say more. Just another one of Sidney Harr's ridiculous attempts at grabbing attention for himself.
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations does NOT involve itself in accusations of medical malpractice, or, even more idiotic, medical murder. I imagine they would, however, be very interested to know that a physician illegally published PHI, a violation of federal law. Yep, I think they would be quite unhappy with Sidney Harr's behavior.
"you guys know and see this stuff for yourself"
Actually, no, I don't. I have no idea what you are talking about. None.
Let me guess. At one time, you were a productive, intelligent person. After complications from surgery at DUMC, your intellectual capacity has been reduced to what you demonstrate in your posts.
Am I correct?
after living here watching duke do its thing - yes
"lance, i'm not here to give details
you guys know and see this stuff for yourself - i know you do"
Look - anything I post here can be readily verifiable. If asked, I can provide sources (and sometimes post the source as a link).
I did a search for "DUMC and conflict of interest", and all I can find are either articles written by someone from Duke, or policies pertaining to Duke. No news of any kind regarding ""major conflicts of interest at all levels of oversite and control with duke in nc"
So,as we used to say on the playground, put up or shut up.
Provide a source for your accusations or stop making them.
wtf - is this your playground
???
get real
i already said i'm not here to give details - go see for yourself - i could be wrong - who do you need help from to get duke to change something - think - do they have a conflict of interest with duke?
just look for yourself - maybe i am wrong - i do not know - it is a possibility - and i could be right
Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?
You would think they would owe at least their patients that much in reassurance. That is what I do not like about Duke in large part - they do these things - then expect everyone to ignore it or not care - even if they can't and they do.
That is professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive, and in some cases holds great risk for medical malpratice by undue stress to fragile patients, as well as the loss of services to others who can no longer trust their professionalism from what they have seen or experienced with these cases.
Those things need to be addressed by the Joint Accredited Commission and Duke, along with the other medical and professional errors.
Anonymous April 18, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"
Because SIDNEY has not proven his allegations.
Anonymous April 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM
"just look for yourself - maybe i am wrong - i do not know - it is a possibility - and i could be right"
No maybev about it. You are wrong.
Whoever you are,I say again......nobody gives two hoots about your wild accusations. If you want to run around screaming the moon is made of velveeta cheese and that sidney narr is Raymond Burr in drag, feel free to do so. Just don't expect anybody to give a damn. Accusations, claims, opinions, fantasies and wet dreams are as common and insigificant as today's pollen blast. Get over yourself.
We have all been listening to paranoid silly man, sidney, for years....and watching him make a total jackass of himself. The tragedy here is not sidney's wild flight into conspiratorial lala land. It is the damage he had done to Mangum. And she, clearly, is lacking in sufficient moral fiber and brain cells to know she is being jerked. Plus, of course, she is nothing but a user herself.....so the two are made for one another.
Anonymous April 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM
"i personally think..."
No you don't.
Was Rogers justified in withholding your letter from Butterfield?
Yes.
Why? You are not credible. No one takes seriously anything you say.
"That is professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive, and in some cases holds great risk for medical malpratice[sic] by undue stress to fragile patients, as well as the loss of services to others who can no longer trust their professionalism from what they have seen or experienced with these cases."
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
If you could provide some factual basis to your claim that DUMC's been "professionally negligent, emotionally and mentally abusive", it would go a long way toward giving you some credibility.
I don't see that happening.
"This blog site is the most innovative, cutting-edged blog site on the planet..."
I suppose you have an award from a recognized 3rd party stating this.
BTW -- "cutting edge" is a noun. As such, there is no past-tense version of the word. I
If any readers wish to see some true award-winning blogs, I suggest you start here.
Hey there mistrail-recluse, suppose I claim that little green men have landed at SouthPoint mall, wearing Duke Blue, wagging their tails, swinging their pitchforks and attempting to overthrow the entire Orange county government structure??? Let's just say the little green men, the Duke Devils, are midget terrorists, determined to destroy us all. Now do you think Duke ought to waste it's time refusing my claims? Don't be an ass, M-R. When you come up with something substantive, backed by FACTS, perhaps somebody will actually think you are not a worldclass crackpot. Until all you do is make silly claims, with no basis in fact.....and worthy of nothing but being IGNORED.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"Do you agree with Regional Director Ray Rogers in his withholding my letter from Congressman Butterfield?
If so, please explain."
YES!!! You wanted Congressman Butterfield to investigate the fraudulent autopsy report on Reginald Daye. Since no suc report exists, that would be a waste of the Congressman's time.
A written report by forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts does not exist (to my knowledge). I was referring to an investigation into the autopsy report provided by Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols.
Also, the intent of the letter was to inform him of injustice to one of his constituents... even though I did request that he do something about it. That doesn't necessarily mean that action be limited to calling for an investigation.
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"This blog site is the most innovative, cutting-edged blog site on the planet..."
I suppose you have an award from a recognized 3rd party stating this.
BTW -- "cutting edge" is a noun. As such, there is no past-tense version of the word. I
If any readers wish to see some true award-winning blogs, I suggest you start here.
"Cutting edge" is a noun... but it is also an adjective. I added the d because I thought "cutting-edged" sounded better.
The list that you gave includes "The Daily Beast" which is produced by a staff from Newsweek. My blogs, flogs, and vogs are written and produced by only one person... me. However, even "The Daily Beast" doesn't do flogs!!! Do you know of any other blog site that includes flogs? ... or vogs? That's what makes my blog site head and shoulders (and, yes, cutting edged) above the rest.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous April 18, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Why hasn't Duke refuted Dr. Harr's conclusions publically, especially about the medical errors when those details were published in the newspapers?"
Because SIDNEY has not proven his allegations.
Duke is keeping quiet and a low-profile, along with the media, on this issue because it does not want the people to know the truth. The only source to find the truth about this issue is this blog site.
SIDNEY HARR:
"A written report by forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts does not exist (to my knowledge). I was referring to an investigation into the autopsy report provided by Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols."
So was I. I repeat, no fraudulent autopsy report exists.
"Also, the intent of the letter was to inform him of injustice to one of his constituents... even though I did request that he do something about it. That doesn't necessarily mean that action be limited to calling for an investigation."
What injustice?
SIDNEY HARR:
"'Cutting edge' is a noun... but it is also an adjective. I added the d because I thought 'cutting-edged' sounded better.
The list that you gave includes "The Daily Beast" which is produced by a staff from Newsweek. My blogs, flogs, and vogs are written and produced by only one person... me. However, even "The Daily Beast" doesn't do flogs!!! Do you know of any other blog site that includes flogs? ... or vogs? That's what makes my blog site head and shoulders (and, yes, cutting edged) above the rest."
Noun, adjective, whatever. You are deluded if you think your productions are either cutting edge or cutting edged.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Duke is keeping quiet and a low-profile, along with the media, on this issue because it does not want the people to know the truth. The only source to find the truth about this issue is this blog site."
That is impossible since your site has never published the truth, only your uncorroborated allegations.
". I added the d because I thought "cutting-edged" sounded better."
It's still incorrect, but that's what you get for thinking.
" That's what makes my blog site head and shoulders (and, yes, cutting edged) above the rest."
Keep telling yourself that -- maybe someday you'll believe it.
Let us know when you actually receive an award recognizing your blog.
In our increasingly mobile society, more and more people are relying on mobile devices (tablets, phones). Guess what? Flash isn't supported on the most popular mobile device operating systems.
Why? Existing Flash technology uses too much memory, eats battery life, and is buggy.
Simply put, Flash doesn't work well with the most popular mobile devices and has been abandoned by many sites in favor of HTML5.
I'm sure no one's pointed this out before because no one watches your "flogs".
So much for "cutting edge".
i can assure you if the patient i was worried about when i first came on line looking for the truth to the matter of this case had died (which was a possibility at the time) - i would be doing more than asking ya'll to consider the patients wellbeing in this state right now.
thank you all for your time and Sidney, for this blog and for the work you have done for durham. I wish you the best.
To the other posters - I apologize for being so upset - you see i had this patient i was worried about at the time - so - maybe - just maybe you can forgive my trespass to negate sidney land (don't know how else to put it). but that's ok. I think everyone understands. hopefully, you guys can step back and get some perspective on this case - which is what I plan to do.
anyway, you guys take good care.
sorry to bother you if i did.
thank you for not picking on me anymore, and for stopping the meaness towards me - that is fairly awful don't you think - that is what i am talking about - would you always be so angry at people if it weren't for this mess?
i hope you guys can somehow someday find it in you to forgive those whom you feel have wronged you as that is what really matters to you (or me) as a person - that's what my daddy told me.
ya'll take good care.
thanks
I've lost count, but that must be about the tenth farewell posted by mistrail recluse.
Mistrail recluse:
Who's your daddy?
who's yours?
wtf?
i am leaving to think and read and watch the proceedings so i can better understand this case and not risk saying anything here that could jeopordize the case in anyway, as has been suggested here.
thank you and all for your time and patience, and all the interesting conversation.
please do not say anything else mean or hateful against Dr. Harr, Ms. Mangum, etc. These people are not to blame, the real problems lie in the cases which are in the nc judicial system and issues that needed to be fixed there that many are aware of already, including them. that is it.
thank you again for the deeper understanding of this case.
take good care.
p.s. i will not write again - so any more of the quotes that get posted hereafter are not being done by me.
g... i really am leaving now
bye
I'm leaving........no, not yet......wait for it.....wait for it.......I'm leaving......I really am.........I'm BAAAAACCCCCKKKKKK.......
According to Sid, J4N has 12 fans on facebook. That's remarkable.
According to Sid, J4N has 12 fans on facebook. That's remarkable.
That is Sid's reward for almost 5 years of hard work. And a real testament to his powers of persuasion.
yep twelve card carrying disciples...among them the wonderful victoria peterson....durham's homophobic bigot in residence. isn't it nice that sidney whines about injustice and makes kissy face with this bigot. I guess gay people don't really count too high on his scale though.
oh, yeah, and good old jackie wagstaff....another upstanding wing nut who has run afoul of those pesky rules about behavior while one holds public office.
just two of the twelve disciples. you'd think jesus harr would have been able to find himself at least number thirteen by now. perhaps he has.......perhaps mistral recluse has finally ordered his little yellow t-shirt and secret decoder ring......sweeeeeet!!
cuttin edged? ah, another example of literary brilliance on the part of hard-de-har-harr
Duke lacrosse just beat Rutgers to finish the regular season 11-4.Hopefully they'll win another national championship this season.
The regular season ends on May 5 against Marquette.
Well done Duke Lacrosse.
So SIDNEY HARR has twelve likes to his facebook page over how many years. I agree just about all of them are from his J4N gang. I point out again that none of his J4N gang post comments in his support on the J4N blog.
Now we are going to get a screed about how Congressman Butterfield is in thrall to the Carpetbagger Jihad(which doew not exist).
sure, , the congressman, and all the rest of the world. even obama.....is in the clutches of the evil rae evans.....who we all know is the most powerful person in the universe . poor sidney, the hits just keep coming, don't they....
Go Dukies......excellent LAX game, guys. Proud of you
W
h
e
r
e
i
s
m
i
s
t
r
a
i
l
r
e
c
l
u
s
e
?
Another attempt to grandstand on Harr's part.....this guy is nothing but an ego in a yellow t-shirt. Utter nonsense.
The Duke lacrosse team is made up of real winners all the way unlike false rape accuser,car thief,prostitute,arsonist,and murderer Crystal Mangum.
As far as I know, Mangum's trial is still set for early July. Correct? And, no plea negotiation/ deal has been made public, right? So, wouldn't it be refreshing and respectful if sidney harr simply shut up and let Holmes, a respected lawyer, do his job. Wouldn't it be helpful to his friend, Mangum, if harr quit trying to draw attention to himself and focused, instead, on demonstrating confidence in Mangum's decision to ask for Holmes! If harr truly believes Mangum is an intelligent woman, capable of making good choices, then wouldn't it be nice if he endorsed HER choice of lawyer!
I am impressed, so far, that Holmes has stuck to his path of being clear that HE and HE alone speaks for Mangum. About time.......
All this back channel nonsense spewing out of harr just proves one thing......and one thing only......it never has been, and it never will be....about Mangum. It has always been nothing but a cheap attempt to bring attention to sidney. Period.
sid is pissed that he has been held accountable by the court for the lawyer-ing stunt. He is pissed that Holmes made public statements clearly aimed at Harr....to butt the dxxx out. sidney is pissed that he can't get the media to respond to his third-world looney tunes conspiracy crap. sidney is pissed that the only people he can get to pay attention to him are folks like kenny hissy fit and mistrail recluse. Oh, and of course, bigot peterson. I forgot her.
thank goodness this case is finally going to trial. at least, I hope it will.
Sid -- Scott Holmes stated in a press release that “Anyone who makes statements about this case during the pendency of this matter...is not assisting Ms. Mangum,”
Did you speak to Attorney Holmes before attempting to send the letter to Congressman Butterfield?
Perhaps they are withholding the letter on the counsel of Attorney Holmes?
Something to consider....
Lance brings up an excellent point. Scott Holmes, whom we do know speaks for Crystal, has said that anyone who makes statements about the case is not helping Crystal. We have already established that Sid does not have Crystal's best interests at heart. Instead he wants to get her convicted of Murder in the first degree so he can have a case to seek to overturn the felony murder rule. It's time Sid for you to stop harming Crystal, if nothing else.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, I doubt sidney even understands the felony murder rule, much less has the capability to mastermind some kind of long range plot to use Mangum as a "burning platform" for an organized effort to attack the rule. He is just not that concerned with the law. Sid is concerned with Sid...period. Anything that brings attention to himself, be it groundless law suits, trying to act like a lawyer, writing ridiculous conspiracy letters, accusing duke of murdering Daye, running off lawyers for Mangum, etc.....it all winds up in a grand attempt to focus the limelight on himself. I respect your opinion greatly......you and Lance. In this case, I just think you are giving too much credit to sidney's ability to conceive and execute some kind of legitimate attack on the felony murder rule. Sadly, Mangum is being used, no matter the motive. And, of course, she is a world class user herself, so perhaps the lady is getting what she has given.
The felony murder rule is pretty straightforward, right.....as it is applied in Mangum's case. She killed Daye with a "deadly weapon", a knife. At least, this is the state's assertion, therefore, the rule applies and the felony level is established. Walt, correct? So, if she had killed Daye by running over him with her car, I assume the car becomes the deadly weapon, right? Or, if she had killed him by pushing him off the balcony of a fifth floor hotel, then what? Walt or Lance, i know you cannot give advice. Information is helpful.....can you further explain the portion of the rule that speaks to the use of a "deadly weapon"? thanks!
Of note i just watched The Staircase again, the Peterson film....and am looking forward to see the Last Chance sequel. In the case of peterson's wife"s murder, no deadly weapon was ever definitively identified. I know there was wild speculation about the blowpoke. Walt, I don' t recall. Was this case before the rule came into law?
and yes, sidney, I will say, "she killed Daye"....with a deadly weapon. I do not agree with ANY of your wild claims that Duke killed Daye, either on purpose or through some sort of medical error. Sheer nonsense. The "but for" component of proximate cause applies, sidney, whether you like it. You refuse to inform yourself by reading the cases Walt has repeatedly identified. that's your problem. ignorance is bliss, sidney, so you must be giddy.
Anon at 4:38, as far as I can tell the felony murder rule has existed in North Carolina since colonial times. It is well established law. In the Peterson case, the charge was straight out murder in the first degree. The state sought to prove direct intent to kill Mrs. Peterson. You are correct, no murder weapon was ever identified. The state said it was a fireplace poker, the defense claimed it was a homicidal owl. The evidence was tainted by the state's junk science about blood spatter from a very sketchy witness. The evidence I have seen points toward pushing her down the stairs. However, the theory that she was drunk and fell down the stairs is also possible.
In the Mangum case it is reasonably clear that she lacked the specific intent to kill Daye. Also, it is clear that she attacked him with a steak knife. The primary issue is, did she attack him intending to inflict serious bodily harm? If yes, the it's a misdemeanor. Or, did she attack him with a deadly weapon? If yes then it's a felony.
If the jury decides on the misdemeanor, then the misdemeanor manslaughter rule applies and the conviction elevates to manslaughter in the second degree, a felony because Daye died as a result of her assault resulting in serious bodily injury. There is no evidence of an intervening cause and medical malpractice or even a victim declining lifesaving medical treatment.
If the jury decides that she intentionally used a deadly weapon then the conviction is for a felony and the felony murder rule applies for the same reason as the misdemeanor manslaughter rule applies. Daye died as a result of the attack. Under felony murder, the conviction would be for murder in the first degree.
Crystal has raised the issue of self defense. That defense is available to her, however in NC it is not an easy defense to make. Imperfect self defense would only lessen the conviction from murder in the first degree to murder in the second degree. The courts don't normally accept self defense in the misdemeanor manslaughter context as manslaughter in the second degree is already a fairly light sentence. Courts will often say that if they accept self defense in such a case then they are encouraging mayhem.
Hope that helps,
Walt-in-Durham
yes, thanks Walt......your info is always welcome. I have followed the Peterson case, just out of interest, and fascination with it. Yep, no doubt it was the homicidal owl. I wondered if the judge's allowance of all that information about the other woman's death was going to be grounds for appeal. it was one helluva coincidence, huh.
I have a hard time believing it was self defense, Walt. Her behavior, grabbing her purse, running to her aunt's house where her child was, not saying from the beginning it was self defense, etc......all takes away from her credibility. I figure they got into an alcohol fueled push-n-shove, it got out of hand, she grabbed a knife and stabbed him in heated anger.....not in self defense.
What amazes me is how sidney harr is able to operate in such a wild fantasy world, endlessly, without even the minimum of respect for the law. I just don't get it. This latest mess with Butterfield is classic. Someone is charged with murder, has a lawyer (a good one, I am told), has a court date, and sidney want a congressman to step in and, apparently, just throw the whole damn thing down the tubes. wow. what next? can I call up my congressman and ask him to alter the sentence of the two animals who murdered Eve Carson? I want them both executed....so can I tell my Congressman that I want him to change the sentence? Nope!!! Not the way it works....thank god.
Sidney is either getting worse with his diminishing mental capacity or he is really very ignorant of the law....or both.
Walt, some people think the felony murder rule violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments? seems a fair question for debate, but I understand the basis for the FMR as well....at least I think I do. comment?
Anonymous at 10:50 AM, you raised the 8th and 14th Amendment argument, you tell us what you think.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, I think the felony murder rule is appropriate and fair as structured. I see no conflict with the 8th and 14th amendment, personally, so long as the FMR is applied ethically and fairly. I am not a lawyer, nor am I sophisticated in my understanding of the FMR. But.......to this lay person's eyes, the FMR does not violate due process.....even though there is an argument that defendants don't get the opportunity to defend themselves against the murder charge "aspect".....I don't agree with this argument. Killing someone while carrying out certain felonies or with use of a dead weapon is a horrible crime.......I lost a friend in another state who was shot, point blank, by a man who came in her store, pointed a shotgun in her face, and told her to give him money. She complied and, just for the fun of it, he shot her anyway. He told about $350....and murdered her. Yes, I think the FMR is fair and appropriate.
Walt, I raised the question about the FMR and violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. As I understand the FMR..... three guys plan a robbery, two go into the bank, one is waiting with the getaway car......the two inside take money from the tellers........one teller lowers his hands and one of the robbers shoot and kills him..... the two robbers flee with the third. All three are caught and all three charged under the FMR. I have no problem with this! If you participate, in ANY way, in this type crime where deadly weapons are involved.....and someone is killed......even if you are outside, waiting in the car.......to me......you are equally responsible. It sounds harsh initially.....but, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the underlying premise of the FMR. No, I don't think it is unconstitutional
I read a pretty good summary article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy......"Reconsidering the felony murder rule in light of modern criticisms" by D. Crump. It laid out the traditional arguments for and against the FMR. The more I read about it, the more I agree that the FMR has its place in our society. Of course, unethical prosecutors, like Cline and others, have a reputation of overcharging and maybe one could say that Cline could have mis-used the FMR. In Mangum's case, she used a deadly weapon......but, I suppose it remains to be seen whether it will be viewed, as Walt says, as a misdemeanor or a felony. Seems to me the FMR is particularly suited to certain types of criminal activities, like gang rapes and robberies, where groups commit specific felonies and, in the course of the felony act, kill their victim(s).
The "merger doctrine" is hard to understand.....no wonder people who practice law actually have to go to law school!!! sidney, I am sure you understand the merger doctrine, right?
Wow, sidney, you ought to have your knickers in a huge twist over the latest debauchery at Duke....that is FUNDED BY DUKE. Dear old Blue is paying for, yep, paying for the toilet-mouthed rapper, Travis Porter, to perform during the annual spring beer bust on the last day of class. I'm sure you are familiar with Travis Porter, right? The lyrics of the so-called music they spew contain repeated references to rape, violence against women, descriptiions of women as "holes", violence against older people (like you), and so forth. The foulness of their language cannot be put on this site. How come you and the Group of 88, and the pot bangers, and the New Black Panthers and Jesse and Al are not demonstrating and yelling over this endorsement of and encouragement of rape? Huh, sidney?
Could it be because Travis Porter, the group, is black? Could that be it, Sidney? God forbid anybody in the black community should stand up and speak out against the filth in rap music lyrics. I think Duke's hiring of these cretins is lousy because I hate the messages in their trash music. How about you, sidney? Gonna show your true colors and tell us all how black women "understand" that rappers don't "really" mean to condone rape with lyrics like " tie em up, choke em out, fxxx em up...black ho be a bxxxx anyway".
I am not a fan of sidney harr's views.....for a variety of reasons. His hypocrisy and obvious racist perspective are a turnoff, and, for me, a non-starter in putting in credibility into ANYthing he says. His face-changing, ever growing conspiracy theories are comical. And, to my simple mind, his lies, distortions, and half-truths make sidney harr unethical. I have a problem with a man who takes the view that anybody who disagrees with his wild claims is a fraud, a criminal, or a puppet. For example, Sidney was all hot about Roberts initially. When she reviewed the evidence, and gave her verbal opinion in Mangum's presence, and Sidney posted it.........then, all of a sudden, she was the spawn of the devil, a member of the Evans Klan. Pure nonsense.
Sidney lied about the fire setting episode in the Walker apartment. Then, when caught in his own lie, he refused to be a man of ethics, to admit his lie and, instead, went off on a silly tangent about the LEO. More dribble.
sidney ran off, through manipulation of Mangum, three good lawyers. Now he is starting his bellaching about Holmes. Same old tired racist sidney.
As a person who has worked in healthcare many years, I am deeply offended by any physician, working or not, who would violate the federal HIPPA regs around PHI. Harr lied when he claimed he didn't know what HIPPA was. Either that, or he is the dumbest, most ill-informed former doctor on the planet. His behavior in his matter is beyond shameful.
Last, I have no respect for a man who would use Mangum for his own personal agenda. And that, folks, is what sidney harr has done. he cares nothing for mangum. all he wants is attention. A pathetic man engaged in a disgraceful destructive campagin.....
Mistrail-recluse, I suggest you inform yourself before you join the club and put on your little t-shirt
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
S
I
D
?
Anonymous said...
"According to Sid, J4N has 12 fans on facebook. That's remarkable."
April 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM
The number has climbed to 13 this evening.
13? Who joined? Chavez? Lovette? Madonna? Big Bird?
Duke Lacrosse’s Jordan Wolf, Brendan Fowler and David Lawson were named to the All-ACC team. Congratulations Brendan, David and Jordan. Well done.
Walt-in-Durham
sidney must be out, jousting at conspiracy windmills ......or recruiting new flakes, uh, members for the asshat club
Hey, Walt, I assume Peterson is going to get a new trial. Is the second trial, then, considered wide open for any/all evidence to be introduced? Or is it like an appeal with limits on what can be considered? I watched one of the episodes of The Staircase: Last Chance...with Cline summarizing the state's case before Hudson...when he ruled on giving a new trial. She was embarrassingly bad. I mean B-A-D.
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
S
I
D
?
Anon at 12:07 wrote: "Hey, Walt, I assume Peterson is going to get a new trial."
The Superior Court's decision to set aside the original verdict is on appeal. Oral arguments were heard this week. The State argued that even without Deaver's testimony, there is "ample" evidence of guilt. The Defense put Deaver's testimony and exhibits in one box. They put the rest of the trial testimony and exhibits in another smaller box and argued the state's case turns on Deaver. A ruling is expected this summer.
"Is the second trial, then, considered wide open for any/all evidence to be introduced? Or is it like an appeal with limits on what can be considered?"
If the Superior Court order for a new trial is sustained on appeal, I hope the Court tells us what is not admissible from the first trial. If they do, then both sides will have a better idea of how to proceed. If the Superior Court is sustained, there is the possibility of a new trial that will be as if the first trial never happened. I doubt that Deaver's blood spatter evidence will be admissible. It's junk science at its worst.
"I watched one of the episodes of The Staircase: Last Chance...with Cline summarizing the state's case before Hudson...when he ruled on giving a new trial. She was embarrassingly bad. I mean B-A-D."
That she is.
Walt-in-Durham
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
S
I
D
?
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
S
I
D
?
Anonymous said...
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
S
I
D
?
I was away for a while. See the announcement that follows for an explanation.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
As you may have noticed, I have been missing in action on this blog site recently. No, I was not trying to find asylum in an embassy... but rather I was on the Big Hill lobbying for equal justice for all Tar Heelians. I arrived Tuesday, and spent Wednesday and Thursday morning reaching out to North Carolina congresspeople in DC. My sojourn was interesting and a bit enlightening, but not as productive as I would have hoped. I will produce a flog about it in the near future. First, however, will be the completion of the flog that I dropped off at several offices. I hope to have this interactive flog posted tomorrow.
I will try to get around to answering comments later, but for now I need to return to work on my flog.
Take care... and next time I'll try to give notice regarding any extended absences.
Sidney Harr Harr Harr
Sidney Harr-de-Harr Harr
Sidney:
I suggest you organize a rally in support of Crystal Mangum. If the PD, DA, courts, and other state and federal officials are not convinced by the facts and sound logic of your position, maybe they will the persuaded by the sheer number of people who share your view and support Ms. Mangum.
The powers that be need to know you aren't just some crank. Mangum's supporters have been silent for too long. It's time to turn loose the power of the people.
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people, right on
Obviously a massive rally should be staged in Durham. It shouldn't take more than a month to get the word out on a date and time. Smaller rallies could be staged in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago and other locations. I am thinking along the line of what the Tea Party did in 2010. If a bunch of tired, old racist cranks propped up by the Koch brothers could bring about a wave election, think what a truly organic grassroots movement comprised of informed and motivated citizens could accomplish.
Sidney, this is something only you can pull off. What do you say? Are you up for it?
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people, right on
Anonymous said...
"13? Who joined? Chavez? Lovette? Madonna? Big Bird?"
April 25, 2013 at 2:54 AM
My sources tell me it was the Fong.
Obviously a massive rally should be staged in Durham. It shouldn't take more than a month to get the word out on a date and time. Smaller rallies could be staged in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago and other locations.
I am concerned that you are asking Sid to do too much.
The massive rally in Durham is critical. Sid should concentrate all of his efforts to making that rally a huge success.
In order to focus on the rally, he should take a hiatus from his blogging, posting nothing more than updates on the rally. Rather than spending time organizing the smaller rallies in other cities, J4N can arrange busses to transport people to the Durham event.
I envision a series of speakers that focus on the injustice in the North Carolina justice system--beginning with the victims whose cases Sid has covered on this blog--Erick Daniels, James Arthur Johnson, Greg Taylor, Carletta Alton--and ending with Crystal Mangum.
This can be the event that brings real change to North Carolina.
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people
Power to the people, power to the people, right on
Anonymous said...
Obviously a massive rally should be staged in Durham. It shouldn't take more than a month to get the word out on a date and time. Smaller rallies could be staged in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago and other locations. I am thinking along the line of what the Tea Party did in 2010. If a bunch of tired, old racist cranks propped up by the Koch brothers could bring about a wave election, think what a truly organic grassroots movement comprised of informed and motivated citizens could accomplish.
Sidney, this is something only you can pull off. What do you say? Are you up for it?
I might be able to pull it off, but it would be a waste of my time and resources. My efforts are much better spent working on flogs and blogs... and I need to get back to the flog.
The flog I had hoped to post today is taking longer than expected. Hopefully it will be posted by Wednesday.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I was on the Big Hill lobbying for equal justice for all Tar Heelians. I arrived Tuesday, and spent Wednesday and Thursday morning reaching out to North Carolina congresspeople in DC."
So you finally did something good on behalf of Crystal. You got out of town for a while so you could not interfere with her defense.
Blow hard sidney.....more bullshit. mangum will either accept plea deal, if she is lucky, or she will be tried and found guilty of manslaughter, if she is lucky. period.
Heh....Sid has to get back to flogging.....
eeeeooooweeeee.....now I have this mental image in my head of sidney "flogging"......yuck.
SIDNEY HARR:
"To viewers of this flog, I request that you contact G. K. Butterfield at one of his many offices and let him know that he’s got mail. And he can find it posted on this blog site."
Be careful of what you wish for. People WILL contact Congressman Butterfield-to tell him Crystal deserves a fair trial and to get one, he should use his power and influence to keep you and your gang away from it.
Sid is devoted to proving the value of a legal education, I'll give him that. He wrote: "Are you serious? Face it, Mangum stabbed an intoxicated Daye in self-defense as he even busted down the bathroom door to get at her."
That is an affirmative defense. Crystal can only raise it at trial. Self-defense, perfect or imperfect is not something that can get a case dismissed pre-trial. People who go to law school and pay attention learn that.
" Secondly, she is not responsible for Daye's death... Duke University Hospital is. And one more thing, the autopsy report is totally fraudulent, uncredible, unreliable, and is, in and of itself, grounds for having all charges against Mangum dismissed."
You can't have it both ways. For the defendant to raise self-defense, she has to accept the state's version of events. If your argument is for an intervening cause, then self-defense is not applicable. Of course any lawyer who is minimally competent has heard of St. v. Welch. So has Sid and he has generally ignored the law when arguing this point. Anyone who can read, or has read this blog knows that St. v. Welch holds that medical malpractice or even refusing lifesaving medical treatment is not an intervening cause. Sid, if nothing else, is not a good student.
Walt-in-Durham
Just keeping my fingers crossed that Holmes has the cajones to manage Mangum....i.e., keep her the hell away from Harr till justice is served. Her only chance, now, is to place herself in the hands of a competent attorney and to keep herself isolated from wingnut Harr. If she violates what I am certain are Holmes clear instructions, and communicates with Harr, then I would bet Holmes will be the fourth lawyer to quit her case.
My gut tells me Mangum is scared stiff about her options and chances. She better pay attention to Holmes.
Walt, you have said that self defense is an affirmative defense. It would seem that Mangum's failure to claim self defense until after Daye died would hurt her claim, since it does not seem to be timely. Would Daye's admission that they were arguing help her claim? I know you can't give advice......just wondering in general how a person proves self defense when there are no eye witnesses, etc?
Anon at 2:43, your question is a good one. But, it seeks too much information that might get into legal advice.
I'll make a reference to the case law. When there is evidence that defendant acted in self-defense, the trial court must submit the issue to the jury even though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in the defendant's evidence. State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 163, 203 S.E.2d 815, 819 (1974); see State v. Guss, 254 N.C. 349, 351, 118 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1961) The jury must not only consider the case in accordance with the State's theory but also in accordance with defendant's explanation. The trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant in deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to entitle a defendant to jury instructions on self-defense. State v. Watkins, 283 N.C. 504, 509, 196 S.E.2d 750, 754 (1973).
Walt-in-Durham
Ah, gotcha. that's helpful information. I would assume that Mangum will claim that the broken down door, the hair, the intoxication of Daye....all add up in support of her claim of self defense. If I were sitting on the jury, I would ponder that evidence....and weigh it against stabbing, when she could have fled, her behavior after she fled, her intoxication, and....most important....the complete lack of any physical evidence that he hit her, or choked her, etc. Kinda hard to claim he was beating the crap out of her when all she had was a tiny little pit of a mark on her face.......that could easily be there for a thousand reasons. Manslaughter looms large.......
So Mangum can't, on the one hand, claim that Duke killed Daye (and not her)....and, on the other hand, claim self defense. Got it
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Post a Comment