Saturday, May 11, 2013
Mainstream media - a cog in the Durham prosecutor's wheel of conspiracy against Mangum
Word count: 2,639
In order to pull off a first degree murder charge against Crystal Mangum in the death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye, Durham prosecutors had to rely upon four conspiratorial contingents because their case against the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser was weak to the point of being non-existent.
The Durham prosecutors were seeking a life sentence in their vendetta prosecution against Mangum as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… and they knew, or should have known, that Mangum acted in self defense and that the stab wound played no part in Daye’s death.
In actuality, Mangum was the domestic violence victim of an intoxicated Mr. Daye during the early Sabbath morning hours of April 3, 2011. Prosecution discovery confirms that she sustained blows to the head, fingernail gouges to the face, clumps of hair forcibly pulled from her scalp, and that a locked bathroom door was battered off its frame by Daye, enraged by jealousy.
The incident’s terminal event was a single stab wound with a steak knife by Mangum into Daye’s left side, which she claims was an act of desperation as her attacker was atop her with his hands around her neck strangling her.
Daye’s emergency surgery at Duke University Hospital was a success, as trauma surgeons repaired the laceration to the colon and minor lesion to the spleen. Postoperative prognosis was for a full recovery.
On the third post-op day, complications from delirium tremens led to Daye’s transfer to the intensive care unit where a determination was made to intubate him in order to protect his airway and provide oxygen.
Unfortunately, the 8 mm endotracheal tube was placed into the esophagus instead of the trachea, which resulted in Daye’s brain death. Misplacement of the tube was recognized after Daye went into cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was begun. This included removing the errantly positioned tube and replacing it with another… according to records this tube being 7.5 mm in diameter. With its proper placement, oxygen flow was restored to the lungs, blood, and cells of the body and the heart recovered. The brain did not, and Mr. Daye remained in a coma.
After a week of observation without signs of improvement, the medical staff at Duke University Hospital electively removed Daye from life support after which he died… the stabbing and its treatment playing no part in his demise.
To confront the challenge of dismissing the reality of Reginald Daye’s death and instead placing the blame on Crystal Mangum, prosecutors required the cooperation of the following four entities: (1) the medical examiner; (2) Mangum’s defense counsel; (3) the mainstream media; and (4) the enablers.
The medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, was required to produce a false and misleading autopsy report upon which would serve as the foundation for the prosecution’s murder charge against Mangum. This fraudulent document would divert responsibility for Daye’s death from Duke University Hospital to Crystal Mangum.
Mangum’s defense counsel would be called upon to ignore the serious faults in the autopsy report as well as Duke University Hospital’s hand in Daye’s death. If a conviction seemed unattainable, these turncoat lawyers’ plan B would be to convince their client to accept a plea deal with the harshest terms possible.
Mainstream media’s role was to keep the masses uninformed and ignorant of the true facts and realities of the autopsy report and Daye’s death. Its purpose was to poison the potential jury pool against Mangum and to go after her supporters without giving them fair representation or voice.
Enablers are the politicians, civil rights activists and organizations, clergy, and other community leaders who lack Nifongian courage to speak up or take action in this morality play.
However, of the four plotters in lot with the Durham prosecutors, it is the mainstream media faction that most influences the attitudes, thoughts, and opinions of the populous… unfairly and adversely against Crystal Mangum.
It cannot be said that the media was unaware of Mangum’s plight and the fact that the Durham murder charge against her was based on a purposefully flawed autopsy report because I personally notified them in writing… as early as November 2011 – a mere three weeks after the official autopsy report on Reginald Daye was released to the public.
In April 2012, I reached out to local media with letters detailing the fraud and injustice… in particular I contacted WRAL-5 News, ABC-11 News, NBC-17 News, The News & Observer, and Capitol Broadcasting Company… a mega-media conglomerate whose holdings include WRAL-5 and Fox-50 News.
Nationally and outside of North Carolina, I attempted to engage the Associated Press, USA Today, Thomson-Reuters News Service, The Washington Post, and The Washington Times.
In September 2012, I forwarded copies of a handwritten letter by Mangum, who was still incarcerated, to members of the local media… a document in which she professed her innocence and alluded to discrepancies between the autopsy report and other medical records.
The mainstream media, both local and national took no action regarding my passionate entreaties, and did not even have the courtesy to respond to them. It was truly as though they were acting in unison… as one giant whole in ignoring me and my concerns.
View the conclusion of this fvog in Part Two for a complete understanding of how the media plays its Jedi mind-tricks on the people, regarding the Mangum murder case, by their omission, obfuscation, misdirection, inaction, and outright falsehoods.
The media has two basic and important functions in society. The first is informative… to present news, ideally, in a fair and completely objective manner. Its second function is to help protect the masses and preserve democratic principles and ideals by exposing corruption and injustice through its investigative and editorializing branches. Only when armed with knowledge, do the people truly have direction.
The mainstream media fails miserably when it comes to dealing with the Crystal Mangum murder case. Since the wee morning hours of April 3, 2011 self-defense stabbing incident, the mainstream media has generally let down its viewers and readers in the following four ways: (1) concealment, or cover-up; (2) misrepresentation and diversionary reporting; (3) failure to investigate; and (4) refusal to editorialize.
A prime example of concealment is the across the board media silence regarding Reginald Daye’s weeklong coma. Even after Daye’s death on April 13, 2011, following his removal from life-support, most local media failed to mention that his death was preceded by a seven day coma. Of course, the event at Duke University Hospital that precipitated Daye’s brain death… the esophageal intubation… is rarely mentioned.
Mainstream media is aware that the autopsy report on Daye that was produced by the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols is false and misleading in its findings and conclusion, but yet it secrets this from their subscribers.
Misrepresentation and diversion go hand in hand with the media’s concealment in reporting on Mangum. One of the most egregious examples of both comes from an Associated Press article released around February 20, 2013 which stated, “The 34-year-old mother is representing herself in court, saying she killed Daye in self-defense.” Crystal Mangum told me that she never stated that she “killed Daye…” She said she never used the word “kill.” I was not at that hearing and do not have its transcripts, but I believe that Mangum did not accept responsibility for Daye’s death as she is aware that Duke University Hospital staff’s esophageal intubation led to his brain death and subsequent removal from life support.
Using the word “kill” was neither negligent nor sloppy reporting, but rather a calculated move to make it appear as though Mangum concedes that she is responsible for Daye’s death and that her defense is solely one of self defense. In this not-so-subtle way, the media is diverting attention from questions regarding the cause of his death to focusing on the issue of self-defense… thereby omitting the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital from the equation. In other words, the media is attempting to protect the medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, and Duke University Hospital.
The previous paragraph is also false and misleading with its statement, “Crystal Mangum was released Wednesday from the Durham County jail, where she had been held since her April 2011 arrest for the fatal stabbing of Reginald Daye.” The term “fatal stabbing” is absolutely incorrect as the stab wound was non-life threatening and was successfully treated with emergency surgery. The stab wound had nothing to do with Daye’s death, but the Associated Press is deliberately trying to put in the mind of the people that it directly caused his demise. Daye’s descent into delirium tremens is the event that led to his fatally errant intubation. An example of the media using Jedi-mind tricks on the masses.
The article’s opening paragraph began, “The woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her…” This routinely used media preface is false in itself, as it was never proven as fact that Mangum was not sexually assaulted at the 2006 Duke Lacrosse party… and Ms. Mangum has consistently maintained that she was. By attaching the label of false accuser to Mangum, the media is poisoning the potential jury pool against her in her upcoming trial. The media wants jurors at her trial to disregard her story or any testimony she may give.
The fourth of five paragraphs can be adjudged to be the most accurate and it reads as follows: “In 2006, Mangum claimed Duke lacrosse players gang raped her at a team party where she was hired as a stripper.” Although not necessarily misleading it fails to mention the following facts: (1) the Duke lacrosse player who called the escort service to arrange for the entertainment used an alias, contracted the dancers under false pretenses stating it was for a small bachelor party of four or five rather than a beer-guzzling keg party of fifty or more; (2) the client requested Caucasian dancers, but the escort service sent two African American women; and (3) partygoers shouted the n-word racial epithet at Mangum as she was leaving. The exclusion of these facts deprives the article of balance.
The first sentence of the final paragraph reads, “The three arrested were eventually declared innocent by North Carolina's attorney general after Mangum's story crumbled and her mental stability was called into question.” Although technically the three may have been under arrest, by using the word “arrested” the media is subtly attempting to engender reader sympathy for the three by imply that they served time in jail… which they did not!
It then states that they were declared innocent by the NC attorney general… something which is irrelevant as he has no such legal authority, and to do so is irresponsible and unprecedented. The media has constantly misled the public on this important issue. The last sentence stating the prosecutor, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, championed her case. Mr. Nifong no more championed her case than Prosecutors Gauger and Coggins-Franks are championing the case of Reginald Daye’s family in the murder case against Ms. Mangum. Words matter, and to use the word “champion” in referring to Nifong’s prosecution of the case is, again misleading and calculated. The only thing that Mike Nifong championed as a prosecutor was the cause of equal justice for all.
In other words, he didn’t make exceptions and allow “rare deals” when the defendants hailed from families of wealth, power, and privilege… and he didn’t give “raw deals” to suspects who were poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
It was because Mr. Nifong was a prosecutor of uncommon independence and integrity that he was disbarred because of the Duke Lacrosse case… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar in its eighty year existence. Again, something that the article omitted.
Unfortunately, the Associated Press version is the one that is utilized by media outlets nationwide… including the Huffington Post.
WRAL-5 News, ABC-11 News, The News & Observer, and other media proclaim to be deeply involved in investigative work… for the purpose of protecting the people. That’s the way it should be, but that is not the reality… especially when it comes to Crystal Mangum.
Jim Goodmon, the President and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting Company, was contacted on April 24, 2012, with a letter about the injustices against Crystal Mangum. He was alerted to the fact that the autopsy report on Reginald Daye, which was the basis for the murder charge against Mangum, was fraudulent. Other local mainstream media were notified about discrepancies with the autopsy report at that time, as well… but none bothered to investigate, much less respond.
Recently, The News & Observer, a McClatchy newspaper, along with other local media, has focused its investigative spotlight on former UNC-Chapel Hill football coach Butch Davis. The media even went to court in order to obtain copies of his personal cell phone records so they could see if a tutor called him.
The media’s investigative arm also seems to have spent a lot of time, money, and resources delving into who paid the parking tickets for the Tar Heel football player.
And, of course, the African American Studies program at UNC has been scapegoated by the investigative press for allowing the school’s athlete’s to remain eligible to play by providing courses that are not considered academically challenging enough.
Yet, when the integrity of a justice system is on the line… for example, a prosecutor who is in collusion with a medical examiner in manufacturing a fraudulent autopsy report in order to trump up a murder charge against an innocent mother of three… then the mainstream media is simply not interested… especially when the defendant is Crystal Mangum.
Op-ed pieces provide a forum for public discourse that helps engage subscribers in meaningful thought on topics of relevance and importance. Opinions can be enlightening, and they can serve to alter or enhance attitudes and views. It is a valuable media tool.
Since Crystal Mangum’s arrest on April 3, 2011, there has been no editorial view from the staff of The News & Observer about Crystal Mangum’s case. No mention about the problems with the inconsistencies about the autopsy report on Reginald Daye. No mention about the refusal of the defense expert forensic pathologist to provide Mangum with a written report. No mention about Duke University Hospital’s culpability in Daye’s death… nothing.
John Drescher, the editor of The News & Observer, frequently editorializes, but again, he refuses to broach the subject of Mangum’s mistreatment.
I don’t hold Mr. Drescher at fault for the way Mangum is represented, misrepresented, or not represented in his newspaper because I know him. In my opinion he is a fine person who I like and respect. I even gave him a cameo in my comic strip, “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” – not an honor that is indiscriminately bestowed.
As with all media outlets, be they television, radio, online, or print, it is the people at the very top who make policy that determines how the news is reported. Newpaper editors, news anchors, and news reporters are accountable to the CEOs of the companies for which they work.
A broad scale national conspiracy is possible only at the top of networks and publishing corporations with transactions regarding policy then filtering down to local stations and newspapers.
… and that conspiracy by the mainstream media, to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital, has long been in effect – since April 2011 – and it has been extremely effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
140 comments:
Dr. Harr,
I believe I speak for all of your 13 Facebook fans when I ask that you not lose sight of your original goal of ensuring Justice 4 Nifong. It appears you have abandoned DA Nifong. DA Nifong devoted his career to public service and you should devote this blog to restoring his good name and reputation.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Mainstream media - a cog in the Durham prosecutor's wheel of conspiracy against MangumMainstream media - a cog in the Durham prosecutor's wheel of conspiracy against Mangum".
Repetition of another lie.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Also, work has begun on the next flog which delves into the widespread misconceptions about State v. Welch."
Coming from the person who said he would prevail in a frivolous lawsuit against Duke and would humiliate the NC State Bar, this should be good.
There is no way the state of North Carolina will give a lying scumbag like Mike Nifong his law license back.Not gonna happen.
When does the murdering ho go on trial? Hope she ends up like Jodi Arias.
Sidney:
State v. Welch is settled law. I hope you analysis explains why it is not applicable to this case, instead of why you disagree with it. We already know the answer to the latter inquiry: you disagree with State v. Welch because it supports the charges against Mangum and therefore must be disregarded.
I am hopeful that we will get a sound analysis of the law and why it does not apply to Ms. Mangum's case, and not just a diatribe about why the law should not be applied to Ms. Mangum. Don't let us down again.
widespread misconceptions? What misconceptions? How widespread? How do you know any such misconceptions are widespread? What is your source to determine just how others perceive state v welch?
......"“Second-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation." State v. Robbins, 309 N.C. 771, 775, 309 S.E.2d 188, 190 (1983). “'Proximate cause is an element of second degree murder[.]'” State v. Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App.696, 699, 257 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1979)(quoting State v. Sherrill, 28 N.C. App. 311, 313, 220 S.E.2d 822, 824 (1976)). A defendant will be held criminally responsible for second-degree murder if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death. State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 439, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). To escape responsibility based on an intervening cause, the defendant must show that the intervening act was “the sole cause of death.” Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App. at 699, 257 S.E.2d at 652. ".......
Walt, comments? It would appear that Mangum's stabbing of Daye caused or directly contributed to Daye's death.....and.....there is no evidence to show that there was no intervening act that was the sole cause of Daye's death. I can hear Sidney howling to the contrary....which is his right, to express his opinion. However, the LAW seems clear.
I spoke incorrectly in my last post. I should have said, it appears that there was no intervening act that was the sole cause of Daye's death.
Anonymoust at 4:33 AM wrote: " A defendant will be held criminally responsible for second-degree murder if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death. State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 439, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). To escape responsibility based on an intervening cause, the defendant must show that the intervening act was “the sole cause of death.” Holsclaw, 42 N.C. App. at 699, 257 S.E.2d at 652. ".......
Walt, comments?"
You have it exactly right.
Walt-in-Durham
Interesting quandry, then, Walt.....which way would Mangum have to argue? That she stabbed him (with no mention of the self defense notion) and that Duke killed Daye...or, that she stabbed Daye, in self defense, with no mention of the claim that Duke killed Daye. hmmmmm. If I were her attorney, I would be hoping for a plea....manslaughter, with time served and a couple of years. There is no evidence to support Harr's allegation that Duke either deliberately or, in error, killed Daye.....and, if I understand all this correctly, Holsclaw sure set the bar high. My ignorance once again, as you say, proves the value of an actual legal education.....:)
The two theories aren't mutually exclusive. Why can't someone claim that they used deadly force in self-defense, and that the deadly force was not the cause of the victim's death?
We know in Mangum's case that she can't make the claim that her stab wound did not kill Daye but, in the proper case, why can't a defendant simultaneously claim both self defense and that they did not cause the death of the victim?
Not sure, poster....but I believe Walt has previously commented about this.....I may be wrong, as usual. I think it relates to the defendant's willingness to admit that SHE CAUSED his death. (emphasis mine....)
anyway, reasonable question to ask.....that a lawyer is qualified to answer.......certainly not me.....certainly not Harr
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
I believe I speak for all of your 13 Facebook fans when I ask that you not lose sight of your original goal of ensuring Justice 4 Nifong. It appears you have abandoned DA Nifong. DA Nifong devoted his career to public service and you should devote this blog to restoring his good name and reputation.
Not to worry. Justice for Mr. Nifong is still the ultimate goal of this organization. However, there are many parallels betwixt the way Mr. Nifong was treated by the State and the media and the way Crystal Mangum is being treated by the State and the media.
Helping Mangum, who is being terribly mistreated by the justice system, will go a long ways towards helping Mr. Nifong.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"Also, work has begun on the next flog which delves into the widespread misconceptions about State v. Welch."
Coming from the person who said he would prevail in a frivolous lawsuit against Duke and would humiliate the NC State Bar, this should be good.
It won't be good, it'll be great. Put on your shades, cuz the rays of enlightenment will soon shine brightly. I have completed the dialogue and will start to narrate it next. Then adding the visuals... the flog will hopefully be posted by week's end.
Subscribe to the blog site so you'll get notification as soon as it's posted.
Anonymous said...
When does the murdering ho go on trial? Hope she ends up like Jodi Arias.
The trial date has been scheduled for July 8, 2013. However, don't count on the case going to trial because the State doesn't have a case. They'll try to force Mangum to take a plea deal... probably for time served because they're desperate.
Anonymous said...
Sidney:
State v. Welch is settled law. I hope you analysis explains why it is not applicable to this case, instead of why you disagree with it. We already know the answer to the latter inquiry: you disagree with State v. Welch because it supports the charges against Mangum and therefore must be disregarded.
I am hopeful that we will get a sound analysis of the law and why it does not apply to Ms. Mangum's case, and not just a diatribe about why the law should not be applied to Ms. Mangum. Don't let us down again.
It is presumptuous for you to think that I would disagree with State v. Welch. I agree with it, in fact. I just do not believe that it is applicable.
Anonymous said...
I spoke incorrectly in my last post. I should have said, it appears that there was no intervening act that was the sole cause of Daye's death.
The intervening act in Daye's death is his removal from life support. As in the Joshua Wrenn case, he was not removed from life support and he eventually emerged from his coma. If Mr. Wrenn would have been removed from life support before his miraculous recovery, he would have died and his death would have been attributed to the intervening cause of his removal from life support.
Is further elucidation required?
Anonymous said...
The two theories aren't mutually exclusive. Why can't someone claim that they used deadly force in self-defense, and that the deadly force was not the cause of the victim's death?
We know in Mangum's case that she can't make the claim that her stab wound did not kill Daye but, in the proper case, why can't a defendant simultaneously claim both self defense and that they did not cause the death of the victim?
I agree with you that the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive. However, laws are made by men... they are not handed down from the heavens like manna. Some laws, such as those that allowed slavery not long ago, are bad laws... and bad laws are usually put in place to help prosecutors win their convictions.
HEY, EVERYBODY. LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU TO PONDER!
What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
(I don't know. Please provide me with enlightenment on this matter. Thank you.)
SIDNEY HARR:
"Not to worry. Justice for Mr. Nifong is still the ultimate goal of this organization. However, there are many parallels betwixt the way Mr. Nifong was treated by the State and the media and the way Crystal Mangum is being treated by the State and the media.
Helping Mangum, who is being terribly mistreated by the justice system, will go a long ways towards helping Mr. Nifong."
BULLSHIT!!!
SIDNEY HARR:
"The intervening act in Daye's death is his removal from life support. As in the Joshua Wrenn case, he was not removed from life support and he eventually emerged from his coma. If Mr. Wrenn would have been removed from life support before his miraculous recovery, he would have died and his death would have been attributed to the intervening cause of his removal from life support.
Is further elucidation required?"
You are presuming facts not in evidence, that Reginald Daye woud have recovered.
Do you require elucidation on what that means? Obviously.
SIDNEY HARR:
"HEY, EVERYBODY. LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU TO PONDER!
What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
(I don't know. Please provide me with enlightenment on this matter. Thank you.)"
I don't know either. However it is as obvious as Washington's face on Mount Rushmore that it isn't you.
SIDNEY HARR:
"HEY, EVERYBODY. LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU TO PONDER!
What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
(I don't know. Please provide me with enlightenment on this matter. Thank you.)"
Hey everyone.Watch out. SIDNEY is looking for more people to blame for Crystal's sociopathic behavior.
SIDNEY HARR:
"HEY, EVERYBODY. LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU TO PONDER!
What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
(I don't know. Please provide me with enlightenment on this matter. Thank you.)"
Do you seriously think you could convince any real expert that the Autopsy report was fraudulent.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It is presumptuous for you to think that I would disagree with State v. Welch. I agree with it, in fact. I just do not believe that it is applicable."
So what. You still believe your frivolous lawsuit against Duke has merit.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It won't be good, it'll be great. Put on your shades, cuz the rays of enlightenment will soon shine brightly."
Boy are you out of touch with reality.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The trial date has been scheduled for July 8, 2013. However, don't count on the case going to trial because the State doesn't have a case. They'll try to force Mangum to take a plea deal... probably for time served because they're desperate."
More from the legal non eagle who predicted he would prevail against Duke and predicted he would humiliate the NC State Bar.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I agree with you that the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive. However, laws are made by men... they are not handed down from the heavens like manna. Some laws, such as those that allowed slavery not long ago, are bad laws... and bad laws are usually put in place to help prosecutors win their convictions."
You mean the way corrupt DA NIFONG tried to comvict three innocent, falsely accused men of raping Crystal?
Dear Sidney, when Me findings are brought into evidence in a criminal case, the defense attorney has a right to bring forward EXPERT witnesses to give a different opinion.....an opinion that the defense believes would cast doubt upon the ME's findings and conclusions. Your lack of education and familiarity with even the most rudimentary ......further shows just how much of a whack you truly are. So, in answer to your question, it's generally up to a jury to make determinations .....and, by inference, to determine whether they believe the MEs findings are credible.
So, sidney thinks that plea deals are proposed by prosecutors because the prosecutors have weak cases? Is that it? And , of course, defense attorneys would NEVER advise a client to refuse a plea deal, knowing how weak the prosecutor's case might be, right, sidney? For your information, sidney, plea deals are NEGOTIATED between the defense and the prosecution. Mangum does NOT have to accept a plea deal, wing nut! If she thinks she can previal in court, she and refuse any deal, take her chances in court and have at it. So, it is up to HER if she wants to accept a plea deal.....IF one is even offered. Don't be stupid and try to make anybody believe that Mangum would be FORCED to accept a plea deal. Personally, given the evidence, I think she would be a damn fool not to accept a plea for time served and a couple of years. But, hey, if she wants to go to court........and let the jury decide.........bully for her!!
Sid wrote: "The intervening act in Daye's death is his removal from life support."
No, it was not. St. v. Welch. Blaming the victim, Sid, is not persuasive argument.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 11:01 wrote: "Not sure, poster....but I believe Walt has previously commented about this.....I may be wrong, as usual. I think it relates to the defendant's willingness to admit that SHE CAUSED his death. (emphasis mine....)
anyway, reasonable question to ask.....that a lawyer is qualified to answer.......certainly not me.....certainly not Harr"
I'm not sure I agree that self-defense and an intervening cause are mutually exclusive. Under NC law if there is evidence of self-defense the issue must be submitted to the jury if the Defendant so requests. However, the courts in NC normally treat the two as mutually exclusive. While I might be tempted to argue the issue in a stronger case, this isn't it.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt:
When has a court ever treated the two as mutually exclusive? If the facts support both claims, how can a court force a defendant to abandon one in lieu of the other?
Eg - Mistress has a married boyfriend. They have an argument and he attacks her. She stabs him in self-defense. The wife, in a fit of jealousy, poisons the husband as he is recuperating from the stab wound and he dies. The mistress is charged with his murder. Are you saying she cannot plead self defense ("Yes I stabbed him, but it was in defense") and an interveing cause ("The stab wound I inflicted did not kill him anyhow; it was the poison his wife fed him that did him in.")? I find that hard to believe.
Your example presumes the wife is known to have committed a criminal act and has not been arrested or charged. In Mangum's case, there is not one shred of evidence that Duke Hospital, its physicians, etc, did anything wrong, at all, in caring for Daye. Sidney Harr can rant all he wants.....the evidence simply does not support his conspiracy based theories. state v. welch applies here. remember, the defense hired a forensics expert to review the medical record and autopsy. According to Harr (who initially raved about her and later called her a criminal conspirator), Dr. Roberts found nothing wrong with the care record or the autopsy report. Apparently Dr. Roberts was well qualified to review the record and only became a charlatan criminal, in cahoots with Rae Evans, when Dr. Roberts told Mangum there was nothing wrong with the care and record.
So, my point is that you cannot equate Duke Hospital's intervention and care of Daye with the wife's intervention (poisoning) of the boyfriend.....in your example. In order to do so, there would have to be evidence......I said evidence.....that Duke murdered Mr. Daye......and, to my knowledge, no such evidence is out there. And, no, sidney harr's rnating is not evidence.
My example presumes nothing except that the defendant wishes to claim self defense and also present evidence that someone/something else caused the victim's death.
My question has nothing to do with Mangum's case. Rather, it relates to the broader issue of whether a person who claims self defense is precluded from also arguing intervening cause.
It has been suggested that a person who wishes to claim self defense must admit that they are responsible for killing the victim and cannot claim someone/something else did. I created a fact pattern (completely separate from and unlike the facts in the Mangum case) where both defenses could apply.
Anonymous at 7:23 wrote: "Eg - Mistress has a married boyfriend. They have an argument and he attacks her. She stabs him in self-defense. The wife, in a fit of jealousy, poisons the husband as he is recuperating from the stab wound and he dies. The mistress is charged with his murder. Are you saying she cannot plead self defense...."
That is a much stronger case for intervening cause. As a trial lawyer, I would probably go that way rather than self-defense. However, as an appellate lawyer, I would be tempted to argue both, especially under NC law which says if you have any evidence of self-defense the question must be submitted to the jury if the defense so requests. (Assuming the self-defense evidence was as strong as the intervening cause evidence.) I would do so to try and clarify that the two defenses are not mutually exclusive.
But, that's not the situation for Mangum. She has no evidence of an intervening cause. Worse for her, Holsclaw and Welch set the bar very high. In Mangum's case, it's self-defense all the way.
"It has been suggested that a person who wishes to claim self defense must admit that they are responsible for killing the victim and cannot claim someone/something else did."
That is correct. Self-defense requires admission of the killing or wounding and the use of the doctrine as an excuse.
Walt-in-Durham
"What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
Sid -- The North Carolina Medical Examiner System is maintained by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The OCME in turn is a branch in the Epidemiology Section of the Division of Public Health.
The CME is Deborah Radisch, MD, MPH.
I think The head of DPH is the State Health Director, Laura Gerald, M.D., M.P.H.
Sid wrote:
"However, laws are made by men... they are not handed down from the heavens like manna."
Really? What about "thou shalt not kill"?
I think Sid's question about the ME's autopsy report accuracy, fairness and objectivity does, in fact, relate to how a jury ultimately votes.....though I understand Lance's response as well. Dr. Radisch might comment to Dr. Nichols, in this case, about accuracy.....but, fairness and objectivity? Seems to be Dr. Radisch would be hardpressed to decide whether Dr. Nichols wrote a "fair" autopsy report.
I think sid's basic problem is that he thinks that if a particular law does not support his point of view, then the law itself is flawed and deserves to be ignored. Further, I think that Sid has repeatedly focused on sidebar issues, that suit his particular biased tastes, rather than focusing his so-called justice efforts on core issues in our state. Sure, laws that worked for some, yesterday, are now known to be deeply offensive and fundamentally wrong. We didn't get rid of laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages until, when, the 60s, 70s? The point here is that we don't ignore laws because we don't like them.....we work actively to get such laws changed or thrown out altogether. Sidney just does not believe that inconvenient statutes like the felony murder rule should apply in Mangum's case.......I think the underlying question of whether the felony murder rule is constitutional should be the proper focus for social justice advocates who have the interests of ALL of us in mind.
Hey, sidney, ask yourself this question? Which individual or entity is responsible for the accuracy, fairness and objectivity of the SBI and its operations? Which individual or entity should have been responsible for determining whether the District Attorney in the LAX case performed his duties with accuracy, fairness and objectivity? hmmmm.......
Anonymous: May 14, 2013 at 7:49 AM
"Seems to be Dr. Radisch would be hardpressed to decide whether Dr. Nichols wrote a 'fair' autopsy report."
Not as hard pressed as SIDNEY was.
Agree, poster. My point is that "fairness" isn't generally in the realm of what a Dr Radisch oversight role would cover. Dr. Radisch would have a responsibility to determine whether Nichols's professional work meets internal standards for his role, whether he meets professional standards for his license, etc. But, "fairness" of an autopsy report? Does the police chief decide whether a speeding ticket issues by an officer was "fair"? Usually, it's a judge who makes that call. Does the Supervisor of a city zoning permits office decide whether an employee's permit decision was "fair"? No, usually citizens take their beef about permit denial or modification to a city council or similar body for review. Sidney Harr has no credential nor standing to determine whether Nichols' report is accurate, fair or objective. I absolutely agree on that point!
Hey Walt, any word on whether Peterson will get a new trial? I heard previously the decision might not come till late summer. Also, any rumors floating about whether Holmes will seek and get a trial date delay?
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"What group, person, or entity has oversight to assure that the medical examiner's autopsy report is accurate, fair, and objective?
Sid -- The North Carolina Medical Examiner System is maintained by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The OCME in turn is a branch in the Epidemiology Section of the Division of Public Health.
The CME is Deborah Radisch, MD, MPH.
I think The head of DPH is the State Health Director, Laura Gerald, M.D., M.P.H.
Thank you for the information. I wrote Dr. Radisch over a year ago, and she never responded. I will consider contacting Dr. Gerald.
Anonymous said...
I think sid's basic problem is that he thinks that if a particular law does not support his point of view, then the law itself is flawed and deserves to be ignored. Further, I think that Sid has repeatedly focused on sidebar issues, that suit his particular biased tastes, rather than focusing his so-called justice efforts on core issues in our state. Sure, laws that worked for some, yesterday, are now known to be deeply offensive and fundamentally wrong. We didn't get rid of laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages until, when, the 60s, 70s? The point here is that we don't ignore laws because we don't like them.....we work actively to get such laws changed or thrown out altogether. Sidney just does not believe that inconvenient statutes like the felony murder rule should apply in Mangum's case.......I think the underlying question of whether the felony murder rule is constitutional should be the proper focus for social justice advocates who have the interests of ALL of us in mind.
The "felony-murder rule" has come under heavy criticism by a wide group of individuals, many in the legal realm. I agree with them that it is a horrendous law.
However, in Mangum's case, it doesn't apply because Mangum was not involved in a commission of a felony when she stabbed Daye. That act was self-defense, and for the prosecution to claim that she committed a felony by stealing two cashier's checks that were given to her by Daye is totally ludicrous. So even though I don't agree with the rule, it's not even applicable in Mangum's case.
It's your OPINION that the felony murder should not apply. It is not FACT. Please try to learn how to distinguish between your opinions and facts. In FACt, at this point, the prosecution has not reduced the charges against Mangum. In FACT, you are not aware, unless you are psychic or you have been in contact with Mangum, of whether the prosecution has offered a plea deal. You are entitled to your OPINIONS. You are not entitled to falsely represent your OPINIONS as FACTS without being challeneged and called out for such misrepresentations.
Dr. Radisch has been on the faculty at UNC for years. She got her medical training at Wake Forest and UNC. So, now, are you going to say that Dr. Radisch is part of the evil Duke empire and the Evans conspiracy?
Which "wide group of individuals, many in the legal realm" are you referring to, sidney? And just exactly how do you know how many individuals, in or not in the legal realm, disagree with the felony murder rule? You make wild statements, unsupportable by facts, and expect others to swallow your bull. Yes, I expect there are individuals and organizations that would love to see the FMR taken down. But, a wide group? and just how wide? Oh, and by the way, I would expect there is a "wide group of individuals, some in the legal realm", who DO endorse and support the FMR. So, what is your point? Right now, it IS the law in NC and, whether you like it, it IS presently in play in the Mangum case. I have said before, and will say again, it looks to me like she was overcharged by no-conscious Cline and that this is going to wind up manslaughter....IF she is lucky. But, the facts are that, as of today, the FMR is still in play in Mangum's case. You really should try harder to learn how to express your opinions.....as what they are....your opinions.
Sid wrote: "However, in Mangum's case, it doesn't apply because Mangum was not involved in a commission of a felony when she stabbed Daye."
We have covered this ground so many times, that I would have thought you would have learned by now. Felony Assault is a sufficient felony to invoke the felony murder rule. But, thank you for again pointing out the value of a legal education.
"That act was self-defense, and for the prosecution to claim that she committed a felony by stealing two cashier's checks that were given to her by Daye is totally ludicrous."
Again you fail to recognize the scope of the charges against Mangum. Another Sid-Fail.
"So even though I don't agree with the rule, it's not even applicable in Mangum's case."
I recall one of your pleadings in the injunction case asked that you be allowed to defend Mangum. How fortunate she was that the court denied your request. Otherwise she would have a fool for a lawyer.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 8:24 wrote: "Hey Walt, any word on whether Peterson will get a new trial?"
The case is on appeal.
"Also, any rumors floating about whether Holmes will seek and get a trial date delay?"
That's been Crystal's go to defense all along, cause delay. If things get desperate for the defense, they'll trot out Sid to file one of his frivolous motions.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, thanks......:)
SIDNEY HARR:
"in Mangum's case, it(the Felony Murder rule) doesn't apply because Mangum was not involved in a commission of a felony when she stabbed Daye. That act was self-defense".
It has not been established as fact that Crystal acted in self defense.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Thank you for the information. I wrote Dr. Radisch over a year ago, and she never responded."
Why would a person in a responsible position respond to a non entity crackpot?
Walt, you said,
"Self-defense requires admission of the killing or wounding and the use of the doctrine as an excuse."
What about cases where self defense does not result in death of the victim? Surely self-defense is not limited to homocide cases in NC? Can't a person admit to stabbing someone in self defense, but not killing them - even if they die an hour, day, week, year or decade after the stabbing?
I can't believe there is any case or statutory law in NC that says that in order to claim self defense, a defendant must admit to homocide and waive any other defenses that might exist.
You've certainly piqued my interest and I intend to look into this further.
Just so you know I'm not a Sidney troll, I agree with you that intervening cause isn't available to Crystal. I'll even go fartherthan that: I'm not 100% sure she'll be able to get a self defense claim in front of the jury, although having an attorney will help her in that regard.
Anonymous at 5:28 PM wrote: "What about cases where self defense does not result in death of the victim?"
Did I not write "killing or wounding?" Or, did you not read it? You did quote me, so I am leaning toward troll.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey Walt, I stayed up last night and read this article...."Does the Felony-Murder Rule Deter?
Evidence from FBI Crime Data
Anup Malani†"......long, technical but clearly and well written scholarly paper with citations. Can you provide other educational references for those of us who would like to learn and understand more about the felony murder rule? I am sincerely interested in this and would like to educate myself. The more I read, in terms of superficial internet goggle superficial information, the more confused I become.
Thanks, as always....a learner
ooops, redundant redundant superficial superficial......:) Ooops, again.....goggle, scratch that...googel....no, uh, goigelle....darn it, GOOGLE.....thanks, walt.......
Walt......."The basic rule was expressed in State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159, 170 n.3 (2000): In “cases involving a single assault victim who dies of his injuries . . . the assault on the victim cannot be used as an underlying felony for purposes of the felony murder rule. Otherwise, virtually all felonious assaults . . . that result in . . . death would be first-degree murders via felony murder, thereby negating lesser homicide charges such as second-degree murder and manslaughter.” So it is clear that when A fatally shoots B, A cannot properly be charged with felony murder using, for example, AWDWIK as the predicate felony. As an aside, while this appears to be the majority rule nationally, some states have rejected it. In Georgia, for example, part-and-parcel assaults may form the basis of felony murder charges. State v. Huntley, 518 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1999). "......So, is the above the reason for the "backup" larceny of chose charge, because the underlying felony (stabbing with a deadly weapon, intent to kill or inflict serious injury cannot be used to impose the FMR, by and of itself? Help....a learner......
Sidney....in case you have trouble understanding state v. welch.....
""It is clear from the evidence that Lemmons' act in declining a blood transfusion was not "the sole cause of death." Id. Indeed, all of Lemmons' injuries resulted from the stabbing inflicted by defendant. Thus, BUT FOR defendant's act, Lemmons would not have been in need of a blood transfusion. Furthermore, Dr. Stanton could not state with certainty whether Lemmons would have survived had she received a blood transfusion. Therefore, [***8] we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence of proximate cause to submit the charge of second-degree murder to the jury,..."
Sidney, you need to educate yourself as to "but for" and proximate casue". State v. Welch is clear......and it does apply in Mangum's case. Duke did not withhold care, the family gave consent, there is no documented evidence of DTs (there was a question of whether Daye was experiencing DTs or whether his symptoms related to an infection...which, the record shows, is exactly what was happening.
Walt said...
Anonymous at 8:24 wrote: "Hey Walt, any word on whether Peterson will get a new trial?"
The case is on appeal.
"Also, any rumors floating about whether Holmes will seek and get a trial date delay?"
That's been Crystal's go to defense all along, cause delay. If things get desperate for the defense, they'll trot out Sid to file one of his frivolous motions.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt. Did you forget that there's an injunction against me to keep me from filing motions, especially in Crystal's case? Seeing as how I'm a law-abidin' citizen, there's no way I'm gonna file anything.
Anonymous said...
Walt......."The basic rule was expressed in State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159, 170 n.3 (2000): In “cases involving a single assault victim who dies of his injuries . . . the assault on the victim cannot be used as an underlying felony for purposes of the felony murder rule. Otherwise, virtually all felonious assaults . . . that result in . . . death would be first-degree murders via felony murder, thereby negating lesser homicide charges such as second-degree murder and manslaughter.” So it is clear that when A fatally shoots B, A cannot properly be charged with felony murder using, for example, AWDWIK as the predicate felony. As an aside, while this appears to be the majority rule nationally, some states have rejected it. In Georgia, for example, part-and-parcel assaults may form the basis of felony murder charges. State v. Huntley, 518 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1999). "......So, is the above the reason for the "backup" larceny of chose charge, because the underlying felony (stabbing with a deadly weapon, intent to kill or inflict serious injury cannot be used to impose the FMR, by and of itself? Help....a learner......
Thanks for the enlightenment about the State v. Jones case... which makes sense, and is the reason why the Durham prosecutors used the "Larceny of chose in action" charge for the felony-murder rule.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"in Mangum's case, it(the Felony Murder rule) doesn't apply because Mangum was not involved in a commission of a felony when she stabbed Daye. That act was self-defense".
It has not been established as fact that Crystal acted in self defense.
Evidence from prosecution discovery supports self-defense!!
What cannot be proven is that Mangum committed a felony while in the act of stabbing Daye.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Radisch has been on the faculty at UNC for years. She got her medical training at Wake Forest and UNC. So, now, are you going to say that Dr. Radisch is part of the evil Duke empire and the Evans conspiracy?
Yes, Dr. Radisch is part of the conspiracy against Crystal Mangum. She has been alerted that the autopsy report by her Deputy Chief ME is fraudulent, and she has done nothing to rectify the situation and its subsequent injustice.
By remaining silent and not doing nothing about the false autopsy report, Dr. Radisch has become a co-conspirator after the fact.
You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge what all the rest of us know......Mangum is charged with commission of a felony when she assaulted Daye with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily injury. As to whether these charges can or will be proven, all the rest of us, not being psychic and all, will wait until her trial....so that we can learn the jury verdict, based on evidence. As for you, you can rant till hell freezes over and nobody but your hairbrained wingnut band of bigots, losers and halfwits will give a hoot. And, frankly, I doubt many of them care either.
Oh, silly me.......we all should have known. Radisch is a conspirator, too. wow, who knew!!!!
and here I was thinking about separate branches of the government....and ongoing criminal cases.....
sidney, don't be too sure you understand the state v. jones case implications. I suggest, even though you are no doubt way smarter than Walt or other lawyers, that you might want to ask Walt his opinion and interpretation.......and, whether the case has ANY relationship to Mangum's. But, of course, you being the asshat that you are, I assume you already know everything..........
SIDNEY HARR:
"Hey, Walt. Did you forget that there's an injunction against me to keep me from filing motions, especially in Crystal's case? Seeing as how I'm a law-abidin' citizen, there's no way I'm gonna file anything."
If you were a law abiding citizen, you would not have tried to file motions in the first place. You would not have accessed or published Reginald Daye's medical records.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Evidence from prosecution discovery supports [that Crystal acted in] self-defense!!"
It would have been more correct to say, DIDNEY says there is such evidence in the prosecution discovery file.
SIDNEY aso said he would prevail in his frivolous lawsuit against Duke and would humiliate the NC State Bar.
That is solid evidence that when SIDNEY says something exists in a legal situation, it does not. It is a figment of his deluded imagination.
SIDNEY HARR:
"By remaining silent and not doing nothing about the false autopsy report, Dr. Radisch has become a co-conspirator after the fact."
As you have never established as fact that the autopsy report was fraudulent, you have never established any conspiracy to do nothing about a fraudulent report, you have not established Dr. Radisch is a co conspirator.
As I said earlier, in a legal situation, when SIDNEY says something is, that is strong evidence that said something is not.
SIDNEY HARR:
"By remaining silent and NOT DOING NOTHING(emphasis added) about the false autopsy report, Dr. Radisch has become a co-conspirator after the fact."
By "not doing nothing" someone is doing something.
...sidney, perhaps it would be wise to learn the proper use of the phrase, "after the fact"......
Sidney, who is NOT in the conspiracy at this point.....besides you, and, perhaps Mangum? Name one public figure who is not a part of your jihad conspiracy? You might say James Coleman....where has he been in this injustice and conspiracy? Why have you not alerted your friend and why is he not making public statements in support of your point of view? How about William Barber? How about Eric Holder? How about Mangum's family? How about her pastor? How about any of her prior employers? How about somebody from NCCU? If you could track down the President who awarded her degree with honors (he went to Florida and then got forced out from there after some band members, whom he supported, made a little oopsie and killed a bandmember during a hazing stunt). How about one of her neighbors in the apartment(s) where she has lived? How about one or two of the fathers of her children? Where's good old Matt? Seems to me you ought to be able to dig up at least ONE person who would publicly say you are not a crackpot in your thinking and that poor Mangum is just an innocent hard working mother of three............
Anonymous at 7:05 AM wrote: "Walt......."The basic rule was expressed in State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159, 170 n.3 (2000): In “cases involving a single assault victim who dies of his injuries . . . the assault on the victim cannot be used as an underlying felony for purposes of the felony murder rule."
You miss the import of St. v. Jones, it's a capital murder case. In that instance, the state must prove specific intent. Different from the non-capital charge against Mangum. In our previous round of FMR discussions, I cited the controlling FMR case. While, St. v. Jones is critical in the capital context, it's not to the discussion about Mangum.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "Evidence from prosecution discovery supports self-defense!!
What cannot be proven is that Mangum committed a felony while in the act of stabbing Daye."
Actually the state's evidence does meet the burden of proving its prima facie case of a felony.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "By remaining silent and not doing nothing about the false autopsy report, Dr. Radisch has become a co-conspirator after the fact."
It also means that yet another actual medical professional has looked at the autopsy results and agreed with them. That makes Nichols, Radisch, and Roberts. Dr. Anonymous agrees as well. I'm seeing a trend here.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, thanks......capital versus non capital....got it!!
Well, Walt, of course we all know that the entire medical community, in the entire state of NC, is part of the grand conspiracy to rack up Mangum. So, if even Dr. Kildare(or was it Kildaire??)reviewed the record........Sidney is going to say, in his ignorant bliss.....that any physician who does not see things his way is a criminal boob.
Sidney, name one....just ONE....public figure who agrees with and supports your conspiracy theory. Name one other physician, one lawyer, one police officer, one judge, one investigator. How about the Fongster? How come good old defunct DA Nifong doesn't come forth, publicly, and say he agrees with you? How come Mangum's family members, pastor, neighbors, friends, co-workers, don't come forward, publicly, and endorse your conspiracy theory?
Why doesn't James Coleman come forward, publicly, and (a)say you were correct in your assessment of what went down at Duke, and (b)say you are correct in your conspiracy theory? Why not?
These are fair questions........as my childhood pals used to say, I double dog care you to answer specifically, without evasion, without your usual dodge, without lying..........and I triple dog dare you to provide ONE name of a person who will come forward, publicly, and agree with you.
Well, heck, poster,.....you gotta let sidney have Kenny Troll.....as his one name. After all, it's Ken Edwards, the Hissyfit boy, as some refer to him........and he's all up in sidney's corner. Oh, and the wonderful mistrail-recluse. That's TWO!
Anonymous said...
sidney, don't be too sure you understand the state v. jones case implications. I suggest, even though you are no doubt way smarter than Walt or other lawyers, that you might want to ask Walt his opinion and interpretation.......and, whether the case has ANY relationship to Mangum's. But, of course, you being the asshat that you are, I assume you already know everything..........
State v. Jones clearly rules out the so-called "assault" as being a felony upon which to base the felony murder rule. It is important to keep in mind that the stabbing had nothing to do with Daye's death. The proximate cause of his brain death was the esophageal intubation. The proximate cause of his actual death was his removal from life support.
Let me know if further elucidation is required.
Anonymous said...
Sidney, who is NOT in the conspiracy at this point.....besides you, and, perhaps Mangum? Name one public figure who is not a part of your jihad conspiracy? You might say James Coleman....where has he been in this injustice and conspiracy? Why have you not alerted your friend and why is he not making public statements in support of your point of view? How about William Barber? How about Eric Holder? How about Mangum's family? How about her pastor? How about any of her prior employers? How about somebody from NCCU? If you could track down the President who awarded her degree with honors (he went to Florida and then got forced out from there after some band members, whom he supported, made a little oopsie and killed a bandmember during a hazing stunt). How about one of her neighbors in the apartment(s) where she has lived? How about one or two of the fathers of her children? Where's good old Matt? Seems to me you ought to be able to dig up at least ONE person who would publicly say you are not a crackpot in your thinking and that poor Mangum is just an innocent hard working mother of three............
It's not that there's a lot of people involved in the conspiracy (which there are), but those who are in position to do something about the injustice and remain silent are, in effect, conspirators after the fact. I also refer to them as enablers.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "By remaining silent and not doing nothing about the false autopsy report, Dr. Radisch has become a co-conspirator after the fact."
It also means that yet another actual medical professional has looked at the autopsy results and agreed with them. That makes Nichols, Radisch, and Roberts. Dr. Anonymous agrees as well. I'm seeing a trend here.
Walt-in-Durham
I don't even know if Dr. Anonymous is a doctor. What are his/her credentials?
Anyway, Dr. Radisch, Dr. Roberts, all of the physicians at the North Carolina Medical Board, members of the mainstream media, and others know that the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols is false and fraudulent. I sorta feel sorry that you are being misled, Walt.
Anonymous said...
Well, Walt, of course we all know that the entire medical community, in the entire state of NC, is part of the grand conspiracy to rack up Mangum. So, if even Dr. Kildare(or was it Kildaire??)reviewed the record........Sidney is going to say, in his ignorant bliss.....that any physician who does not see things his way is a criminal boob.
Dr. Kildare might wimp out and not say anything about Dr. Nichols' fraudulent autopsy report on Daye... but my man, Dr. Ben Casey would tell it like it is. Dr. Casey has Nifongian courage... no doubt about that.
Anonymous said...
Sidney, name one....just ONE....public figure who agrees with and supports your conspiracy theory. Name one other physician, one lawyer, one police officer, one judge, one investigator. How about the Fongster? How come good old defunct DA Nifong doesn't come forth, publicly, and say he agrees with you? How come Mangum's family members, pastor, neighbors, friends, co-workers, don't come forward, publicly, and endorse your conspiracy theory?
Why doesn't James Coleman come forward, publicly, and (a)say you were correct in your assessment of what went down at Duke, and (b)say you are correct in your conspiracy theory? Why not?
These are fair questions........as my childhood pals used to say, I double dog care you to answer specifically, without evasion, without your usual dodge, without lying..........and I triple dog dare you to provide ONE name of a person who will come forward, publicly, and agree with you.
I'm not going to put any public figures on the spot. When they are ready to express their opinions on the case, they will.
I'm a justice rectifier... a lobbyist for equal justice for all Tar Heelians... a Lay Advocate. It is not my purpose to do harm or cause discomfort to another human being whether or not they agree with me. Capiche?
HEY, EVERYBODY! LISTEN UP!
Important update!
Work is going smoothly on my next flog about State v. Welch. Should be posted by this coming weekend.
As you were.
Walt has CLEARLY pointed out, State v. jones is not applicable because it pertains to capital murder. Once again, sidney, you prove just how ignorant you are....
Doncha love how sidney persists in his delusions and hilarious lawyer wannabe language. And, such a master of obfuscation and deceit!
Sidney's mother: Did you steal six cookies out of the cookie jar?
Sidney: No!
Mom: I saw you do it, I was standing over there and watched you steal six cookies.
Sidney: No, I did not steal six cookies. I only stole five and a half cookies.....
Mom: Oh, gosh, honey, you're right.....sorry I falsely accused you.
Walt:
You said:
"Did I not write "killing or wounding?" Or, did you not read it? You did quote me, so I am leaning toward troll.
You are correct that you said killing or wounding. I missed that. My fault. I am sorry you think I am a troll. I won't trouble you again.
I'm kinda surprised the trial date has not already been pushed out even further....with Holmes saying he has had inadequate time to prepare, etc. Maybe he waits till the very last minute...and then...he asks for more time....which, of course, would make sense...as it would make more even more delay, overall.
Anonymous at 8:33AM wrote: "You are correct that you said killing or wounding. I missed that. My fault. I am sorry you think I am a troll. I won't trouble you again."
We're good. All is forgiven.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "State v. Jones clearly rules out the so-called "assault" as being a felony upon which to base the felony murder rule."
No Sid, St. v. Jones rules it out in a death penalty case. St. v. Terry 337 N.C. 615, 447 S.E.2d 328 (1996) says a conviction under NCGS 14-32 (Assault) is a predicate felony for the felony murder rule. Again, proving the value of a legal education over that of a lay advocate and a not so competent disbarred former DA.
Walt-in-Durham
SIDNEY HARR:
"It is important to keep in mind that the stabbing had nothing to do with Daye's death."
Yes it did.
"The proximate cause of his brain death was the esophageal intubation."
There was no esopageal intubation.
"The proximate cause of his actual death was his removal from life support."
Brain death was the consequence of the complications of medical treatment necessitated by the stab wound inflicted Crystal.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It's not that there's a lot of people involved in the conspiracy (which there are), but those who are in position to do something about the injustice and remain silent are, in effect, conspirators after the fact. I also refer to them as enablers."
Since there is no conspiracy, there can be no people who are enabling said non existent conspiracy.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I don't even know if Dr. Anonymous is a doctor. What are his/her credentials?"
That's OK SIDNEY. I don't know you either(actually I don't want to know you, you non entity) but I do know your credentials are non existent."
"Anyway, Dr. Radisch, Dr. Roberts, all of the physicians at the North Carolina Medical Board, members of the mainstream media, and others know that the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols is false and fraudulent."
The autopsy report is not fraudulent.
"I sorta feel sorry that you are being misled, Walt."
You are the only one trying to mislead people. You have been trying it unsuccessfully for almost 6 years. You have no effect on Walt.
Dr. Anonymous
SIDNEY HARR:
"I'm a justice rectifier... a lobbyist for equal justice for all Tar Heelians... a Lay Advocate. It is not my purpose to do harm or cause discomfort to another human being whether or not they agree with me."
Only in your megalmaniacal delusional dreams.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Dr. Kildare might wimp out and not say anything about Dr. Nichols' fraudulent autopsy report on Daye... but my man, Dr. Ben Casey would tell it like it is. Dr. Casey has Nifongian courage... no doubt about that."
Dr. Ben Casey does not exist, except as a fictional character. On the other hand, Nifongian Courage does not exist, period.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I'm not going to put any public figures on the spot. When they are ready to express their opinions on the case, they will."
You putting public figures on a spot? I bet you also think you can walk on water.
Watching a bit of the IRS scandal. Sidney, you wanna see a conspiracy? A coverup? You wanna see corruption? Take a look at what's happening in DC and in the White House this week........
Anonymous said...
Watching a bit of the IRS scandal. Sidney, you wanna see a conspiracy? A coverup? You wanna see corruption? Take a look at what's happening in DC and in the White House this week........
Scandal... conspiracy... cover up? Hah! The Republicans are just getting a little taste of their own medicine and they're crying like babies!
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"I'm not going to put any public figures on the spot. When they are ready to express their opinions on the case, they will."
You putting public figures on a spot? I bet you also think you can walk on water.
Not only can I walk on water, but I have in the past! Of course the lake was frozen at the time.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Not only can I walk on water, but I have in the past! Of course the lake was frozen at the time."
Just like your brain?
Sid always reverts to form: "The Republicans are just getting a little taste of their own medicine and they're crying like babies!" Once again with the two wrongs make a right. Of course there is no recent evidence of the IRS targeting liberal groups. But, Sid has never let the facts stand in the way either.
Walt-in-Durham
I didn't know Charlie Rangel was a republican....Does he have ties to Duke?
sidney is consistent, isn't he. if it is white, it's evil....if it's black, it's a victim. If it's liberal, it's godly. If it conservative, it's the devil. Amazing....
Let's see....McCarthy? When exactly was that? And when, exactly, did the IRS target liberals, progessive churches and pro palestinian groups? Hmmmmm......?
You know, I realize the mess in DC is off topic here.....but I do have to say that IRS targeting of Obama's apparent political enemies, forcing the AP to hand over phone records and not responding adequately to the cries for help in Benghazi.....add up to more than mere fodder for the republicans to cry over, sidney. If I were you, I'd be concerned that we have a president who apparently is in charge of everything and responsible for nothing. I am neither jackass nor dinosaur......so it isn't about the political parties to me. It is about corruption in government, and it smacks of the worst kind of McCarthy-ism to think that the IRS can pretty much destroy individuals at will
Closing time
Open all the doors and let you out into the world
Closing time
Turn all of the lights on over every boy and every girl
Closing time
One last call for alcohol so finish your whiskey or beer
Closing time
You don't have to go home but you can't stay here
Sounds like the lyrics from one of my favorite songs, "Turn out the lights, the party's over".........:)
Who put up Mangum's bail money? Sure wasn't sidney........perhaps Matt? Kenny? The Group of 88? Nah, don't think so. the taxpayers will, of course, pay Scott Holmes and you can bet he will not be doing this work pro bono. but who paid to spring sister from jail?
Holmes, by most accounts, is a good criminal defense attorney. Of interest, though, is that he takes civil rights cases as well. I am beginning to wonder how Holmes' civil rights history will influence Mangum's defense strategy. Are we going to get an ear-full of Harr's conspiracy theories? About poor Sister, a hard working innocent African American mother of three....versus the evil white people? Get out the crying towels and the Pepto Bismol, folks!
So, "cutting edged" Sid...Any updates on when you're converting all these sh*tty flash files to HTML5?
Anonymous said...
So, "cutting edged" Sid...Any updates on when you're converting all these sh*tty flash files to HTML5?
You've been drinking too much "Hater-Ade."
Fact is that my blog site is "cutting edge." Do you know of any other blog site that even features flogs? I doubt it. If so, enlighten me.
And, I certainly wouldn't consider Flash as being prehistoric.
Anonymous said...
Holmes, by most accounts, is a good criminal defense attorney. Of interest, though, is that he takes civil rights cases as well. I am beginning to wonder how Holmes' civil rights history will influence Mangum's defense strategy. Are we going to get an ear-full of Harr's conspiracy theories? About poor Sister, a hard working innocent African American mother of three....versus the evil white people? Get out the crying towels and the Pepto Bismol, folks!
Sorry, but I can't give enlightenment regarding Mr. Holmes' legal defense strategy as he as not shared it with me.
Also, I have not been contacted by him or his investigator regarding Mangum's case. Does that tell you anything?
Anonymous said...
Who put up Mangum's bail money? Sure wasn't sidney........perhaps Matt? Kenny? The Group of 88? Nah, don't think so. the taxpayers will, of course, pay Scott Holmes and you can bet he will not be doing this work pro bono. but who paid to spring sister from jail?
It is all too obvious why you want to know who sprung Mangum from the hoosgow...! In order to try and get retribution against him/her!
If I was responsible for satisfying Mangum's bail requirements I wouldn't hesitate to acknowledge it. But I didn't, so I won't.
Anonymous said...
Closing time
Open all the doors and let you out into the world
Closing time
Turn all of the lights on over every boy and every girl
Closing time
One last call for alcohol so finish your whiskey or beer
Closing time
You don't have to go home but you can't stay here
Love it! Commenters to this blog site are a special breed that not only addresses the serious issues at hand, but provides cultural interludes and respites... be they poetry or lyrics.
Thank you.
Anonymous said...
You know, I realize the mess in DC is off topic here.....but I do have to say that IRS targeting of Obama's apparent political enemies, forcing the AP to hand over phone records and not responding adequately to the cries for help in Benghazi.....add up to more than mere fodder for the republicans to cry over, sidney. If I were you, I'd be concerned that we have a president who apparently is in charge of everything and responsible for nothing. I am neither jackass nor dinosaur......so it isn't about the political parties to me. It is about corruption in government, and it smacks of the worst kind of McCarthy-ism to think that the IRS can pretty much destroy individuals at will
Sorry, but your entreaty is not enough to convince me to bring out the crying towel for Tea Party Conservative Republicans. All the Republicans have done is try to destroy the presidential legacy of Obama... with the majority of American people as collateral damage in the process.
IRS-gate is much ado about nothing. Benzaghi is water under the bridge. Checking AP phone records to look for security leaks... Not the biggest intrusion on freedom of the press. Besides, the press, both locally and nationally, has shown that it can be bought and sold just like any commodity... that's why the restrictive and non-coverage of the fraudulent autopsy report in the murder case against Crystal Mangum.
Why don't Republicans work on keeping jobs in America, decreasing release of greenhouse gases that are responsible for severe weather/global warming, and work to provide assistance to the thousands of Americans whose lives have been destroyed by hurricanes in the midwest and other natural disasters across the country?
SIDNEY HARR:
"Fact is that my blog site is "cutting edge." Do you know of any other blog site that even features flogs? I doubt it. If so, enlighten me."
I will enlighten you, although it will do no good. You are as cutting edge as a dull scalpel blade.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Sorry, but I can't give enlightenment regarding Mr. Holmes' legal defense strategy as he as not shared it with me.
Also, I have not been contacted by him or his investigator regarding Mangum's case. Does that tell you anything?"
Yes. Mr. Holmes is trying to afford Crystal the effective defense to which she is entitled under the law, something you have never come close to doing since you believe you are above the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"It is all too obvious why you want to know who sprung Mangum from the hoosgow...! In order to try and get retribution against him/her!"
Boy are you deluded.
"If I was responsible for satisfying Mangum's bail requirements I wouldn't hesitate to acknowledge it. But I didn't, so I won't."
Which really means you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
Sid Says:
"Sorry, but your entreaty is not enough to convince me to bring out the crying towel for Tea Party Conservative Republicans. All the Republicans have done is try to destroy the presidential legacy of Obama... with the majority of American people as collateral damage in the process.
IRS-gate is much ado about nothing. Benzaghi is water under the bridge. Checking AP phone records to look for security leaks... Not the biggest intrusion on freedom of the press. Besides, the press, both locally and nationally, has shown that it can be bought and sold just like any commodity... that's why the restrictive and non-coverage of the fraudulent autopsy report in the murder case against Crystal Mangum.
Why don't Republicans work on keeping jobs in America, decreasing release of greenhouse gases that are responsible for severe weather/global warming, and work to provide assistance to the thousands of Americans whose lives have been destroyed by hurricanes in the midwest and other natural disasters across the country?"
This has to be the most UNENLIGHTENED statement you've ever made. There is so much publically available evidence to the contrary just on global warming alone that it makes your assertions worthless
Poor sidney, it's all about him....all the time, isn't it. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether you posted bail, which we already know you didn't......you don't put your money where your mouth is....we all know that about you. I think your comment about retribution against whoever put up her bail is hilarious. If I were that fool, I would be worrying that plunking down 20K and losing it. Whoever was dumb enough to spring her....that's their problem. As to your site, it is so poorly done, boring, and, frankly, DULL in it's presentation.....nobody, and I do mean, nobody...wants to listen to your speaking voice while a series of images flash on a screen. trust me on this, your site is not fifth grade work....
we all already know that your view the world through racist evil white conspiracy eyes....so your comments about the republicans are comic and boring. again, sidney, find some new material. you are as stale as obama's wit....and as weak minded as joe biden.
" Do you know of any other blog site that even features flogs? I doubt it. If so, enlighten me."
There are many -- but more and more of them are converting over to HTML5, because the most popular mobile devices (ipad, iphone and now newer versions of the android OS) no longer support flash.
But you probably didn't take that class at Wake Tech.... v
This site is about as innovative as a Big Chief tablet and a number 2 pencil. Give me a break........BORING.
Sidney said:
"IRS-gate is much ado about nothing. Benzaghi is water under the bridge. Checking AP phone records to look for security leaks... Not the biggest intrusion on freedom of the press."
That being the case, why should anyone care about your allegations of lies by government officals, conspiracies, and abuse of governmental power directed against people the government opposes as it pertains to Crystal? By the standard you ennunciate, it does not matter.
As a person who bemoans the media's unwillingness to adopt your view of the case against Ms. Mangum, you should be able to appreciate how the illegal government monitoring of the press's communications can have a chilling effect on the willingness of sources/whistleblowers to come forward and provide important information about the government to the press. In a world where surreptitious governmental monitoring of communications between the press and its sources, I would think you would be at understanding, if not supportive, of the press adopting the government's offcial position viz-a-viz Ms. Mangum and giving no heed to opinions that run counter to the official view.
Your thought process is very, very confusing to follow.
Anonymous @May 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM: Your thought process is very, very confusing to follow.
I disagree.
I find Sidney's thought process to be quite straightforward and highly consistent.
Sidney reaches his conclusions independent of his analysis of the facts. His conclusions are based on what he wants to believe. This may be motivated by his support of parties he particularly likes (e.g., Mangum, Nifong, Obama, Cline) or his opposition to parties be dislikes (e.g., Republicans).
Once he has reached his conclusion, he begins to evaluate the facts. He ignores any facts that contradict his conclusion (e.g., Mangum's written statement, the law relating to intervening causes) and exaggerates beyond all belief the importance of facts that he believes support his conclusion (e.g., Rae Evans' job 25 years earlier and her statement that Nifong would pay... ).
The naysayers unfairly malign Sidney as inconsistent. These naysayers are confused.
What appear to cynics as double standards are models of consistency.
For example, Sidney likes and supports Mangum. As a result, he concludes she is credible. Because she is credible, her rape allegations alone, despite her inconsistencies and evidence that contradicted them, required that the lacrosse case go to trial. Only a jury could determine whether the accusations were credible. On the other hand, because she is credible, her self-defense claim requires that the charges be dismissed. Although self defense is an affirmative claim that she can raise in trial, and the jury can determine whether it is credible, her credibility is so apparent that a trial is a waste of time and money.
The cynics see an allegation and a denial in both cases and unfairly claim that Sidney inconsistently demands a trial in one case and a dismissal in another.
When you start with the conclusion that Mangum is credible, he is entirely consistent.
Sidney's other analysis is consistent for the same reasons.
I believe you completely misunderstand Sidney. I suggest that you apologize.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner, as Walt would say........best post of the week goes to Break. Hilarious!!!!!!
Break the Conspiracy said...
Anonymous @May 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM: Your thought process is very, very confusing to follow.
I disagree.
I find Sidney's thought process to be quite straightforward and highly consistent.
Sidney reaches his conclusions independent of his analysis of the facts. His conclusions are based on what he wants to believe. This may be motivated by his support of parties he particularly likes (e.g., Mangum, Nifong, Obama, Cline) or his opposition to parties be dislikes (e.g., Republicans).
Once he has reached his conclusion, he begins to evaluate the facts. He ignores any facts that contradict his conclusion (e.g., Mangum's written statement, the law relating to intervening causes) and exaggerates beyond all belief the importance of facts that he believes support his conclusion (e.g., Rae Evans' job 25 years earlier and her statement that Nifong would pay... ).
The naysayers unfairly malign Sidney as inconsistent. These naysayers are confused.
What appear to cynics as double standards are models of consistency.
For example, Sidney likes and supports Mangum. As a result, he concludes she is credible. Because she is credible, her rape allegations alone, despite her inconsistencies and evidence that contradicted them, required that the lacrosse case go to trial. Only a jury could determine whether the accusations were credible. On the other hand, because she is credible, her self-defense claim requires that the charges be dismissed. Although self defense is an affirmative claim that she can raise in trial, and the jury can determine whether it is credible, her credibility is so apparent that a trial is a waste of time and money.
The cynics see an allegation and a denial in both cases and unfairly claim that Sidney inconsistently demands a trial in one case and a dismissal in another.
When you start with the conclusion that Mangum is credible, he is entirely consistent.
Sidney's other analysis is consistent for the same reasons.
I believe you completely misunderstand Sidney. I suggest that you apologize.
Thank you, Break, for your insightful comments. Unfortunately, some people just refuse to see the light.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT FLOG UPDATE!
I am nearly completed with the flog regarding the State v. Welch case. It should be completed later today and posted tomorrow afternoon... Saturday morning at the latest.
Prepare to be enlightened.
As you were.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Thank you, Break, for your insightful comments. Unfortunately, some people just refuse to see the light."
Thus says SIDNEY who has never shed light on anything.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Prepare to be enlightened."
As enlightened as we were when we learned you had tried to conceal evidence that Reginald Daye WAS NOT an habitual violent abuser of women?
Dear Sidney, your silly web site and blog are rapidly losing steam and becoming increasingly boring. I can't wait, of course, for you to sit in the courtroom when Mangum goes to trial. Twitter feeds from bigot land, no less!
Sidney,
On behalf of all your readers, I want to thank you for your remarkable candor. You provided real insight into your analytical skills.
Break described your thought process as follows:
Sidney reaches his conclusions independent of his analysis of the facts. His conclusions are based on what he wants to believe... Once he has reached his conclusion, he begins to evaluate the facts. He ignores any facts that contradict his conclusion... and exaggerates beyond all belief any facts that he believes support [it].
You endorsed this description of your thought process in your reply:
Thank you, Break, for your insightful comments.
Thank you, Sidney, for your honesty. You have provided an alternative explanation for the failure of the media to investigate your claims.
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney
Another example of how far divorced from reality SIDNEY HARR is.
Post a Comment