justice4nifong: Potpourri of Sensational Snippets -- June 2013

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Potpourri of Sensational Snippets -- June 2013

Click on the panel above to access

the interactive flogazine

421 comments:

1 – 200 of 421 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Nope, Harr, you must not have taken your medicine today. the poster correctly states the inverse relationship.....the bigger the mouth, the smaller the intellectual capacity. read it anyway you wish, the point here.....in all the silliness of your web site, is that you have shown your racist biased colors for years. .....and spouted the same incorrect medical pseudo-psycho babble.....and come to the same meaningless strawman conclusions.....and made an ass of yourself . We all know what to expect from you..........as the quote of Lilo and Stitch so wonderfully says....."you aint nothing but a big old trashcan full of poo"......

What the poster specifically stated was: "The size of one's mouth is inversely proportional to the lack of one's intellectual capacity." The poster's use of the word "lack" makes all the difference in the world. Ask Walt. Even he will tell you that I interpreted the poster's statement accurately.; June 6, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Hey Sid, you might want to check on the "Dogbert" character's image. It's use here may be considered copyright infringement.

FWIW, I believe you interpreted the anonymous poster's statement correctly.; June 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

The graphic contains "Words of Wisdom".

You ARE seriously deluded if you believe you have ever poste any words of wisdom.

I say again, I believe you are hiding unfavorable information about yourself an abot your truncated medical career.; June 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: The poster probably did not state the intended point correctly........however, let's not fault the poster for not conveying the message as he or she likely intended. I think it's pretty clear to anybody who has read Harr's dribble that the biggest part of him is his mouth and the smallest part of him is his intelligence. Oh, wait, I forgot his ego...scratch the mouth notation, and insert....the biggest part of Harr is his ego.
I also agree on the Lilo and Stitch quote.....truer words were never spoken.; June 6, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Potpourri typically means a vessel or small container of pleasant scented herbs, leaves, oils or other objects. There is nothing in this post that smells good.; June 6, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Potpourri typically means a vessel or small container of pleasant scented herbs, leaves, oils or other objects. There is nothing in this post that smells good.; June 6, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Potpourri typically means a vessel or small container of pleasant scented herbs, leaves, oils or other objects. There is nothing in this post that smells good.; June 6, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: I am tickled at harr's pompous insistence that the poster apparently said the opposite of what the poster no doubt intended. The humor, can you say ironic humor, in all of this is Harr's history of making statements that he later has to eat. He refuses to admit to his lies, distortions and false conclusions....usually blaming somebody else, trying to play dodger, and wallowing in self pity. Remember when Mangum LIED and said she didn't set the fire in Walker's apartment and Harr was indignant.. ranting on and on about how the police framed her and accusing the officers of deliberately setting the fire. Well, then she stuck her foot in her mouth on TV and admitted she set it....laughing about how she got away with it. Would Harr have the character to admit he lied? Nope, he never admitted to it...instead, he tried to cover it up by yelling that the officers should have put the fire out rather than calling the FD.
Most people have enough character/integtrity to admit when they make a mistake, when they falsely accuse others. But, somehow the unethical duo of Mangum-Harr lack even enough grace and decency to admit their lies and their false accusations.; June 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey All, I am the poster who put up the contribution about Harr's mouth and his intelligence. He was correct. I made a mistake. Now, Harr, how about showing all the rest of us that you have at least as much "integrity" (as the poster said) as I do....and admit you not only made a mistake in claiming Mangum didn't set the fire, but also deliberately lied when you said a policeman did it. Huh, gonna be a man and admit it?; June 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal admitted to setting the clothes on fire immediately after her arrest, while she was being interrogated. A video-tape of this was shown to the jury. What she disputed was that she had committed arson. Unfortunately, Dr. Harr confused her assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire and then jumped to premature conclusions, quite; uncharacteristic for him.; June 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Ah, more excuse making. More denial. More bull. She lied. Then, he lied. Period. Now Kenny Hissy Boy wants to, once AGAIN, cover up and make excuses for Sister and her geriatric sugar daddy; June 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal admitted to setting the clothes on fire immediately after her arrest, while she was being interrogated. A video-tape of this was shown to the jury".

So why did SIDNEY insist that a member of the Durham Police Department set the fire?; June 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: well, poster, you can't really call harr her sugar daddy, can you? .....seeing as how the man did not give up one miserable dollar to bail her criminal backside out of the slammer. sugar daddies usually give their babies trinkets and cash. I think harr is more her interfering dingbat uncle.....; June 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: How exactly, Kenny, do you know what was shown to the jury? you are supposedly in a foreign country. Perhaps you got your information from that truthful person herself, the totally honest Sister Mangum.; June 6, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: perhaps kenny just happened to miss the lovely Crystal during her TV performance on "Wives with Knives". Durhing that show, AND during the interview that set up the show, Mangum specifically said she didn't admit to setting the fire and, later, laughed and said, well, yeah, she did.; June 6, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny claims: Unfortunately, Dr. Harr confused her assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire

Unfortunately, Crystal also confused her own assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire.

In her June 30, 2010 press conference, she claimed that not only did she not set the clothes on fire, but she did not know who did so.; June 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: "December 14 2010 The News and Observer James de Conto" : "DURHAM — In a videotaped interrogation shown to the jury Tuesday morning, Crystal Mangum confessed to smashing her boyfriend Milton Walker’s windshield with a vacuum cleaner, slashing his tires and setting his clothes on fire because she says he punched her in the face repeatedly. The jury could begin deliberating today after Mangum’s attorney Mani Dexter calls two witnesses and both sides deliver closing arguments. The prosecution rested its case on Tuesday"; June 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I just watched the first few minutes or so and you continue to repeat two lies.

Crystal Mangum is the false accuser/victimizer in the Duke Lacrosse case, not the accuser/victim.

There is no evidence that the autopsy report on Reginald Daye is criminally false.

I say again, you have not established your credibility as one who can determine whether or not an autopsy report is false.

A physician who retired after a truncated career who will not give the explanation why his career was cut short is not a reliable witness to anything which requires a bit of medical expertise.; June 7, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny caught in a lie again. you keep trying to pass off lies as truth. i; June 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Walt said...: Again, Sid wants to trash the separation of powers in our constitution to put an end to a criminal prosecution of someone accused of killing another person. Great Sid, let's just do away with the whole notion of courts and justice. We'll do away with all those civil rights you are so willing to trample. Does that work out for you?

Walt-in-Durham; June 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
Hey Sid, you might want to check on the "Dogbert" character's image. It's use here may be considered copyright infringement.

FWIW, I believe you interpreted the anonymous poster's statement correctly.

Supreme Poster,

You might be correct about the copyright issue, but I think that the creator of Dilbert will be flattered and appreciate the free advertisement.

Regarding the poster, if you say I interpreted it correctly, I must be right.; June 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The poster probably did not state the intended point correctly........however, let's not fault the poster for not conveying the message as he or she likely intended. I think it's pretty clear to anybody who has read Harr's dribble that the biggest part of him is his mouth and the smallest part of him is his intelligence. Oh, wait, I forgot his ego...scratch the mouth notation, and insert....the biggest part of Harr is his ego.
I also agree on the Lilo and Stitch quote.....truer words were never spoken.

Is having a big ego a bad thing?; June 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I am tickled at harr's pompous insistence that the poster apparently said the opposite of what the poster no doubt intended. The humor, can you say ironic humor, in all of this is Harr's history of making statements that he later has to eat. He refuses to admit to his lies, distortions and false conclusions....usually blaming somebody else, trying to play dodger, and wallowing in self pity. Remember when Mangum LIED and said she didn't set the fire in Walker's apartment and Harr was indignant.. ranting on and on about how the police framed her and accusing the officers of deliberately setting the fire. Well, then she stuck her foot in her mouth on TV and admitted she set it....laughing about how she got away with it. Would Harr have the character to admit he lied? Nope, he never admitted to it...instead, he tried to cover it up by yelling that the officers should have put the fire out rather than calling the FD.
Most people have enough character/integtrity to admit when they make a mistake, when they falsely accuse others. But, somehow the unethical duo of Mangum-Harr lack even enough grace and decency to admit their lies and their false accusations.

In the hypothetical... if I repeat something that someone tells me is the truth, but it is in fact false, then that does not make me a prevaricator. Comprende?; June 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Crystal admitted to setting the clothes on fire immediately after her arrest, while she was being interrogated. A video-tape of this was shown to the jury. What she disputed was that she had committed arson. Unfortunately, Dr. Harr confused her assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire and then jumped to premature conclusions, quite; uncharacteristic for him.

Hey, kenhyderal.

Welcome back. Your contributions to the comment section add much needed sanity and reason.

Regarding the video tape contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification.; June 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You(Lance) might be correct about the copyright issue, but I think that the creator of Dilbert will be flattered and appreciate the free advertisement.

Boy you are delusional.; June 8, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Again, Sid wants to trash the separation of powers in our constitution to put an end to a criminal prosecution of someone accused of killing another person. Great Sid, let's just do away with the whole notion of courts and justice. We'll do away with all those civil rights you are so willing to trample. Does that work out for you?

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt. I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government. That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt."

As far as trampling on civil rights of people, the Republican legislators in the state are doing a pretty good job of it themselves.; June 8, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"In the hypothetical... if I repeat something that someone tells me is the truth, but it is in fact false, then that does not make me a prevaricator. Comprende?"

Did anyone tell you that a DPD officer set Milton Walker's clothes on fire deliberately to frame Crystal? I think hot. You seem to be trying to camouflage the fact that you did lie about that.; June 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding the video tape(of Crystal admitting she had set Milton Walker's clothes on fire) contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification."

Why did you tell a lie, that a DPD officer had deliberately set the clothes on fire in order to frame Crystal?; June 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"You(Lance) might be correct about the copyright issue, but I think that the creator of Dilbert will be flattered and appreciate the free advertisement.

Boy you are delusional.

Why don't you write Scott Adams and get his opinion. That would certainly be more pertinent than yours.; June 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Walt. I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government. That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt.'"

The issue was, why do you deny that AG Cooper was not free to express his personal belief that the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were innocent. He did not proclaim anything. He expressed his belief.

"As far as trampling on civil rights of people, the Republican legislators in the state are doing a pretty good job of it themselves."

Why do you object to AG Cooper's right to express his opinions. Why do you try to defend corrupt DA NIFONG for his attempts to trample on the civil rights of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players?; June 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY!! LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I should have another feature posted to the flog mag by Sunday afternoon.

As you were.; June 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Regarding the video tape contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification.

When did you first learn about the video? At Crystal's trial? Or in Ken's comment on this thread?; June 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Why don't you write Scott Adams and get his opinion. That would certainly be more pertinent than yours."

Why don't you. The underlying principle is. He who asserts must prove. Prove Scott Adams would be flattered that you used one of his characters without his permission?

In addition to being delusional, you truly believe you are above the law.; June 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

Can you post a transcript? I cannot play the audio at work and my iPad does not support flash.; June 8, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY!! LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I should have another feature posted to the flog mag by Sunday afternoon.

As you were."

Another posting of SIDNEY's total divorcement from reality is coming up.; June 8, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Is having a big ego a bad thing?"

Yes it is if you have done nothing to justify having a big ego. Retiring from Medicine 17 years post medical school without ever completing a residency of obtaining board certification is no accomplishment.; June 8, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Welcome back. Your(KHYAL's) contributions to the comment section add much needed sanity and reason."

Boy are you seriously deluded. Or do you want me to ask KENHYDERAL if his comments add sanity and reason to your blog? That would be like asking Crystal to confirm she had been raped at the Lacrosse party. Even with a rigged lineup, she fingered two men who were not there as her perpetrators and fingered a man who had always been clean shaven as having a mustache at the time of the assault.; June 8, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Regarding the video tape contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification.

When did you first learn about the video? At Crystal's trial? Or in Ken's comment on this thread?

I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment.; June 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney,

Can you post a transcript? I cannot play the audio at work and my iPad does not support flash.

I've decided to going to the magazine format so that I would be able to post smaller and more frequent articles and features. Much is lost in reading the transcipts alone, as interactive documents and visual animation is what sets the flogs apart from other blogs.

What I possibly can do is put a link to the transcript in the future. I'll see what I can do to make a transcript available.; June 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment."

Why did you falsely accuse a DPD police officer of trying to frame Crystal for arson by going into the apartment and setting Milton Walker's clothes on fire?; June 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said:

"I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government. That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming 'innocence or guilt.'"

But an ethical prosecutor, after having reviewed the evidence, must decline to prosecute a case based on the fact that his review revealed no crime had occurred and the defendants were innocent.

For a prosecutor to continue to prosecute a case even though he knew the defendants were demonstrably innocent would be truly "Nifongian" - in otherw ords, unethical and illegal.; June 8, 2013 at 1:33 PM
guiowen said...: sidney,
I hope you're aware that "pourri" is the French word for rotten; June 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney: I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment.

Interesting.

Perhaps you can explain on what basis you commented on this interview previously. Perhaps you can also explain why you ignored the content of the comments to which you reacted with your own comments.; June 8, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment."

Why did you falsely accuse a DPD police officer of trying to frame Crystal for arson by going into the apartment and setting Milton Walker's clothes on fire?

I accused the DPD of setting the fire to clothes in the bathtub because of what had been told to me by Crystal Mangum. However, the Police irresponsible response of making no effort to simply douse the fire in the bathtub by turning on the faucet and instead calling the fire department and allowing fifteen minutes to elapse before anything was done to extinguish the fire, gave me justifiable reason to believe the police were responsible for setting the clothes on fire.

Did you follow that, or should I regurgitate?; June 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...

sidney,
I hope you're aware that "pourri" is the French word for rotten

Gui, mon ami, I was unaware of the definition in French because I am not proficient in that language. Thank you for the educational edification.; June 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
I accused the DPD of setting the fire to clothes in the bathtub because of what had been told to me by Crystal Mangum."

In other words Crystal lied to you and you passed on the lie.

"However, the Police irresponsible response of making no effort to simply douse the fire in the bathtub by turning on the faucet and instead calling the fire department and allowing fifteen minutes to elapse before anything was done to extinguish the fire, gave me justifiable reason to believe the police were responsible for setting the clothes on fire."

Irresponsible irrelevant bullshit on your part to cover your butt over having lied. It doesn't work, SIDNEY.; June 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Gui, mon ami, I was unaware of the definition in French because I am not proficient in that language. Thank you for the educational edification.

There are a lot of disciplines in which you are lacking in proficiency, including Medicine, the law, and telling the truth.

You are proficient in deluding yourself.; June 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: All, please note that Harr continues to do EXACTLY what I said he was doing........refusing to admit that he LIED about the fire incident, blaming an officer and then, trying to hide his lies behind the silliness of saying that officers were wrong to call the fire department. Harr is a liar.
Please note that Mangum changed her story numerous times about the fire incident. The jury could not agree on the arson count. What's important in the Walker incident is that she DID got convictions on all the rest of the charges. She DID commit violence against his property....like the low class person she is. She DID threaten to stab him in the presence of an officer. She DID commit acts of violence against him and his property, she DID set the fire.......in the presence of at least one of her children.; June 10, 2013 at 3:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's not forget that Mangum has nine convictions, ranging from 2002 (that we know about) through 2010.....with a trial coming up.....charged with murder for killing Reginald Daye. It's easy to get distracted and lose focus on the REAL issue....that a man lost his life. I will also remind Harr and all his deluded band of excuse-ists.......Mangum got her first of many convictions FOUR YEARS before the LAX party. Unless Rae Evans had the ability to time travel......Mangum's life of crime started FOUR YEARS before Dave Evans ever met Sister.
Let's also not forget that Mangum deserves a fair trial. And I hope to God her face and her name will be out of the headlines for good after the trial.....no matter how the jury decides.; June 10, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Let's not forget that Mangum has nine convictions, ranging from 2002 (that we know about) through 2010.....with a trial coming up.....charged with murder for killing Reginald Daye. It's easy to get distracted and lose focus on the REAL issue....that a man lost his life. I will also remind Harr and all his deluded band of excuse-ists.......Mangum got her first of many convictions FOUR YEARS before the LAX party. Unless Rae Evans had the ability to time travel......Mangum's life of crime started FOUR YEARS before Dave Evans ever met Sister.
Let's also not forget that Mangum deserves a fair trial. And I hope to God her face and her name will be out of the headlines for good after the trial.....no matter how the jury decides.

Yes, Daye did lose his life, but don't lose focus of the real reason for his loss of life... medical negligence and malpractice at Duke University Hospital when it intubated him in the esophagus.

Keep in mind the stab wound was non-life threatening.

And you can forget about a trial because there'll be none. Prosecutors will be forced to drop all charges because they have no case!!!; June 10, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: No matter how many times you repeat your lie, it is still a lie. Remember that, sidney.
There was no negligence. Nichols got it right. Period.
If no trial occurs, it will be for one of two reasons.......Holmes gets another delay and stall tactic, or, Mangum is offered and accepts (of her own free will), a plea deal. We will see.; June 10, 2013 at 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: I understand "but for", which you do not. I understand "proximate cause", which you do not. I understand State v. Welch, which you do not. You are either dumb as a stump or deliberately refusing to accept the truth. Either way, you continue to make a fool of yourself.; June 10, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Yes, Daye did lose his life, but don't lose focus of the real reason for his loss of life... medical negligence and malpractice at Duke University Hospital when it intubated him in the esophagus."

You have not established as fact that there was medical negligence or that there was an esophageal intubation. Considering your truncated medical career and lack of credentials you wouldn't recognize medical negligence

Keep in mind the stab wound was non-life threatening.

And you can forget about a trial because there'll be none. Prosecutors will be forced to drop all charges because they have no case!!!; June 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: sidney harr is not qualified to determine whether Daye's wound was life threatening. Further, BUT FOR the stab wound, the complications would not have occurred.; June 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Keep in mind the stab wound was non-life threatening."

You are not capable of making an authoritative statement to that effect.; June 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"And you can forget about a trial because there'll be none. Prosecutors will be forced to drop all charges because they have no case!!!"

Whether any of your readers forget about a trial is irrelevant. The prosecutors are determined to have a trial. That is what counts.; June 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: well, what's thestraw vote now, folks?
1 = completely not guilty, she's free
2 = guilty as charged on all counts
3 = guilty, manslaughter
4 = plea deal, no trial
5 = no trial, all charges dropped
6 = other, explain

I vote, number 3. BUT I am still betting Holmes tries to delay the trial; June 10, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I repeat.....friends who are doctors have looked at the notes Harr illegally posted here. They ALL agree that his claim of negligence or medical mistake is completely groundless.; June 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

Recently, you denied any knowledge of Mangum’s videotaped confession to having set Walker’s clothes on fire in the bathtub. You thanked kenhyderal for the “edification” he provided when he summarized the confession (which is a repeat of an earlier comment he made).

Regarding the video tape contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification.

I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment.

However, as most readers know, Mangum’s videotaped confession was discussed at length on this blog at the time of her trial, when the videotape was played for the jurors. After attempting to avoid discussing the confession for several weeks, you finally addressed it on the January 25, 2012, thread:

Regarding the confession, that was achieved through Gestapo interrogation tactics... and it is evident from the video and transcript that it was given under duress. It is especially telling when Crystal states, "If I tell you what you want to hear, will you stop?" (paraphrasing)

In 2012, you discussed both the video and the transcript in some detail and even quoted from it. In 2013, you denied all knowledge.

I have several questions:

1. What did you think you had to gain by lying about your knowledge of Mangum’s videotaped confession?

2. Why did you believe your readers would not identify your lie?

3. Most importantly, because you have been exposed as a liar, why should anyone believe anything you say?

I do not accept your allegation that the autopsy report is fraudulent, not because you have failed to establish your medical credentials, but because time and again you have exposed yourself as a liar. I do not trust liars. Your medical credentials are irrelevant.; June 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Excellent post. Once again Harr has been caught in a lie. I continue to be amazed at how very much alike Harr and Mangum actually are......in their character and in the behaviors that result. For example, both:

Blame others for their own misfortunes that result from their own behaviors. It's always somebody else's fault.

Lie and then try to weasel out of lies

Use excuses

Look for ways to profit themselves by creating lies about others......like Harr's silly lawsuit against Duke and Mangum's viscious lies about the LAX guys

You'd think they were related.....; June 11, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Proves my point.......Harr's big mouth (and small brain) have once again gotten him into trouble of his own making........... He runs his mouth about the video, then lies, then gets caught in a lie.; June 11, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 11, 2013 at 4:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
sidney harr is not qualified to determine whether Daye's wound was life threatening. Further, BUT FOR the stab wound, the complications would not have occurred.

It was documented that the wound was non-life threatening. That is supported by the fact that he was not rushed immediately into surgery. Furthermore, the hospital spokesperson said postoperatively that Daye was expected to make a full recovery.; June 11, 2013 at 6:45 AM
A lawyer said...: Dr. Harr said: I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government. That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt."

Dr. Harr also said: And you can forget about a trial because there'll be none. Prosecutors will be forced to drop all charges because they have no case!!!

Does anyone else but me notice any inconsistency?; June 11, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney,

Recently, you denied any knowledge of Mangum’s videotaped confession to having set Walker’s clothes on fire in the bathtub. You thanked kenhyderal for the “edification” he provided when he summarized the confession (which is a repeat of an earlier comment he made).

Regarding the video tape contents, I had never seen them and was unaware of what she said on it. Thanks for the edification.

I was aware that an interview of Crystal was taken and played at trial, but I never knew of the information reported by kenhyderal until I read his comment.

However, as most readers know, Mangum’s videotaped confession was discussed at length on this blog at the time of her trial, when the videotape was played for the jurors. After attempting to avoid discussing the confession for several weeks, you finally addressed it on the January 25, 2012, thread:

Regarding the confession, that was achieved through Gestapo interrogation tactics... and it is evident from the video and transcript that it was given under duress. It is especially telling when Crystal states, "If I tell you what you want to hear, will you stop?" (paraphrasing)

In 2012, you discussed both the video and the transcript in some detail and even quoted from it. In 2013, you denied all knowledge.

I have several questions:

1. What did you think you had to gain by lying about your knowledge of Mangum’s videotaped confession?

2. Why did you believe your readers would not identify your lie?

3. Most importantly, because you have been exposed as a liar, why should anyone believe anything you say?

I do not accept your allegation that the autopsy report is fraudulent, not because you have failed to establish your medical credentials, but because time and again you have exposed yourself as a liar. I do not trust liars. Your medical credentials are irrelevant.

Let me clear the air once and for all! I never saw the video or a transcript of the video. I never said I saw the video or a transcript of the video. Mangum never gave me possession of the CD to take home and view. Although I briefly went over some of the contents of the CD containing prosecution evidence in the 2010 case, I never saw a taped interview with Mangum. Although the 2011 prosecution discovery did contain some evidence from the 2010 incident, I did not see a video of the 2010 interview. I was not in court when the video was played, so I did not see it then.

My statements were based solely on what I was told was on the video and what I believed to be true. Period! End of Story! Kaput!; June 11, 2013 at 6:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A lawyer said...
Dr. Harr said: I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government. That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt."

Dr. Harr also said: And you can forget about a trial because there'll be none. Prosecutors will be forced to drop all charges because they have no case!!!

Does anyone else but me notice any inconsistency?

I don't notice any inconsistency. Why don't you point it out for us dummies?; June 11, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
well, what's thestraw vote now, folks?
1 = completely not guilty, she's free
2 = guilty as charged on all counts
3 = guilty, manslaughter
4 = plea deal, no trial
5 = no trial, all charges dropped
6 = other, explain

I vote, number 3. BUT I am still betting Holmes tries to delay the trial

Number 3...? No way.

Number 5...(no trial, all charges dropped) is far and away the most likely outcome.; June 11, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: You lied about the video and got caught in your lies. You can try to wiggle out of your lies by chipping at words. That's called a "clinton"...."it all depends on what you mean by".... Nice try, Harr. you are a liar.; June 11, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Let me clear the air once and for all! I never saw the video or a transcript of the video. I never said I saw the video or a transcript of the video. Mangum never gave me possession of the CD to take home and view. Although I briefly went over some of the contents of the CD containing prosecution evidence in the 2010 case, I never saw a taped interview with Mangum. Although the 2011 prosecution discovery did contain some evidence from the 2010 incident, I did not see a video of the 2010 interview. I was not in court when the video was played, so I did not see it then.

My statements were based solely on what I was told was on the video and what I believed to be true. Period! End of Story! Kaput!"

Bottom line is Crystal, who did not have a reputation for credibility, lied to you and you believed her lie and repeated it. Then you got caught with your butt exposed and you have, with futility, tried to cover it.; June 11, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't notice any inconsistency. Why don't you point it out for us dummies?"

Dummies would understand when inconsistency is pointed out. You are no dummy. You are a deluded megalomaniac who is totally divorced from reality and unable to admit to your own inconsistency.; June 11, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Number 3...? No way.

Number 5...(no trial, all charges dropped) is far and away the most likely outcome."

You provide yet more evidence that you are totally divorced from reality.; June 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it fun to watch Harr squirm when he gets caught in his lies. Just as it was fun, in a weird way, to watch Nifong get "his" ....after the way he screwed over the LAX guys. As we say at our house...."sweeeet".; June 11, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: I guess harr either lied when he said he actually practiced medicine, or, he has been out of medicine so long, or, he has never actually worked in a hospital........because he apparently is totally unfamiliar with cases where "patients are expected to make a full recovery", and then take a turn for the worse. He knows damn well that there was no medical error. Daye most likely developed an infection and went south in a hurry. It happens often!!! The stab wound itself may not have been life threatening, initially. Who cares! I have worked in healthcare for decades and I have seen countless cases where the prognosis was initially favorable, and.....no big surprise....complications happened and the patient died. Harr can run his mouth till his teeth fall out. It makes no difference. Holmes is NOT going to go down this rat hole either.; June 11, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: IF, as Nichols properly noted, Mangum stabbed Daye and he died...........the key point here is "but for"......as in, but for the initial stab wound, Daye would not have had any of the complications that eventually ended his life. Harr is, as usual, on his racist rant, trying to find something to blame Duke for. He even goes so far as to say Duke killed Daye in order to get at Mangum. That's one of the lowest statements Harr has made........and, believe me, he's scrapped the bottom of his ethical barrel on numerous occasions.; June 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney:

You really don't notice your inconsistency?

On the one hand, you rail against the AG for dropping a prosecution of the lacrosse defendants in the face of uncontrovertible evidence of their actual innocence. You claim that determinations such as this are solely purview of a judge.

On the other hand, you now insist that the prosecutor drop the charges against Ms. Mangum based on a determination that she defended herself because that is what she now says (after initially fleeing the scene of the altercation and then refusing to speak to the police).

Either a DA is capable of dropping a case because he believes the defendant to be innocent, or he can't. Pick one.; June 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Harr Supporter said...: Sidney: I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt."

And I believe that a blogger on an Internet website "cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming innocence or guilt."

Sidney, stop the straw man arguments. They are intellectually dishonest.

Cooper did not "usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming guilt or innocence."

As prosecutor, Cooper asked the court to dismiss charges when he found no credible evidence to support them. A prosecutor has the power--and the obligation--to do so when he reaches that conclusion.

As prosecutor, Cooper explained his decision by discussing the conclusions reached in the investigation. He--like any prosecutor--has that right. Because of the publicity in this case, people expected and deserved an explanation.

I do not fault Cooper for providing an explanation. I fault other prosecutors when they fail to do so.

Cooper's proclamation had no legal effect. No knowledgeable person claims otherwise. Because they had not been found guilty, the defendants were innocent under the law before Cooper spoke, and they were innocent under the law afterward.

Similarly, your "proclamations" of Mangum's innocence have no legal effect. You have the right to express your opinion, just as Cooper had the right to express his.

There are two explanations for your insistence on making this ridiculous argument about Cooper: (1) you are incapable of understanding basic concepts and (2) you are a disingenuous liar.

Neither explanation helps you. People conclude your are either a fool or a liar. In either case, they ignore you.

Remember this as you complain that the media, politicians and others ignore your allegations that the autopsy is fraudulent and Mangum is innocent. You have earned this disrespect.; June 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I am reminded of an old family friend when I read Harr's persistent blathering about Cooper and Mangum. My Dad knew this guy who insisted that the Holocaust never happened. This same old fart always sat in our house, running his ignorant mouth about how the "dirty jews" had either fabricated the holocaust or deserved to be exterminated anyway. He was one of the most ignorant, bigoted and hate-filled people I recall from my childhood. When I was about eight, my Dad finally had enough and told the guy to shove it.
This is Harr.......filled with hate for white people and running his mouth about some stupid conspiracy that apparently involves the entire world v. Mangum and Harr. Sad little man.; June 12, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I guess harr either lied when he said he actually practiced medicine, or, he has been out of medicine so long, or, he has never actually worked in a hospital........because he apparently is totally unfamiliar with cases where "patients are expected to make a full recovery", and then take a turn for the worse. He knows damn well that there was no medical error. Daye most likely developed an infection and went south in a hurry. It happens often!!! The stab wound itself may not have been life threatening, initially. Who cares! I have worked in healthcare for decades and I have seen countless cases where the prognosis was initially favorable, and.....no big surprise....complications happened and the patient died. Harr can run his mouth till his teeth fall out. It makes no difference. Holmes is NOT going to go down this rat hole either.

I can assure you that any hospitalized patient's condition will deteriorate if he/she is intubated in the esophagus!; June 12, 2013 at 6:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
IF, as Nichols properly noted, Mangum stabbed Daye and he died...........the key point here is "but for"......as in, but for the initial stab wound, Daye would not have had any of the complications that eventually ended his life. Harr is, as usual, on his racist rant, trying to find something to blame Duke for. He even goes so far as to say Duke killed Daye in order to get at Mangum. That's one of the lowest statements Harr has made........and, believe me, he's scrapped the bottom of his ethical barrel on numerous occasions

Try this "but for" on for size... Had not Daye not punched, gouged, pulled hair, busted down locked bathroom door, choked, and otherwise assaulted Mangum, she would not have stabbed him.; June 12, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Harr Supporter said...
Sidney: I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt."

And I believe that a blogger on an Internet website "cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming innocence or guilt."

Sidney, stop the straw man arguments. They are intellectually dishonest.

Cooper did not "usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming guilt or innocence."

As prosecutor, Cooper asked the court to dismiss charges when he found no credible evidence to support them. A prosecutor has the power--and the obligation--to do so when he reaches that conclusion.

As prosecutor, Cooper explained his decision by discussing the conclusions reached in the investigation. He--like any prosecutor--has that right. Because of the publicity in this case, people expected and deserved an explanation.

I do not fault Cooper for providing an explanation. I fault other prosecutors when they fail to do so.

Cooper's proclamation had no legal effect. No knowledgeable person claims otherwise. Because they had not been found guilty, the defendants were innocent under the law before Cooper spoke, and they were innocent under the law afterward.

Similarly, your "proclamations" of Mangum's innocence have no legal effect. You have the right to express your opinion, just as Cooper had the right to express his.

There are two explanations for your insistence on making this ridiculous argument about Cooper: (1) you are incapable of understanding basic concepts and (2) you are a disingenuous liar.

Neither explanation helps you. People conclude your are either a fool or a liar. In either case, they ignore you.

Remember this as you complain that the media, politicians and others ignore your allegations that the autopsy is fraudulent and Mangum is innocent. You have earned this disrespect.

Harr Supporter, I have no problem with the Attorney General dropping the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and I have no problem with him explaining why he dropped them. We're on the same page so far, right?

What I have problem with is his proclaiming that they were "innocent." You and I know that his statement doesn't carry any legal weight, but it was improper and unprecedented. Have you ever heard of any prosecutor, while dismissing charges against a defendant, declaring them to be "innocent"?

What really makes it problematic is that the media takes his statement and runs with it... publishing and broadcasting, as fact, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been declared innocent and had been exonerated... misleading at best.; June 12, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Also, Harr Supporter, I agree that Mr. Cooper is entitled to his opinion, but it is inappropriate to express "innocence" as an attorney general. I'm a flogmeister, and expressing my opinion is what that description carries. If I were a prosecutor and was dismissing a case against a defendant, I would dismiss it and wouldn't even think about publicly stating that the defendant was "innocent"... even if that was my opinion.

Regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, I don't know about the innocence or guilt of the defendants. Mangum was not a defendant in that case... which is something many people seem to forget.

Regarding the murder case, there is definitely no probable cause or credible evidence to bring any charges against Mangum. She is innocent of murder and larceny of chose in action. She is being victimized by the state and media because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case... just like Mike Nifong.; June 12, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I am reminded of an old family friend when I read Harr's persistent blathering about Cooper and Mangum. My Dad knew this guy who insisted that the Holocaust never happened. This same old fart always sat in our house, running his ignorant mouth about how the "dirty jews" had either fabricated the holocaust or deserved to be exterminated anyway. He was one of the most ignorant, bigoted and hate-filled people I recall from my childhood. When I was about eight, my Dad finally had enough and told the guy to shove it.
This is Harr.......filled with hate for white people and running his mouth about some stupid conspiracy that apparently involves the entire world v. Mangum and Harr. Sad little man.

Wrong-O!

I am a man of love, peace, and true justice... a dedicated follower of the principles expounded by the Man from Nazareth.; June 12, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Harr Supporter said...: Sidney asks: Have you ever heard of any prosecutor, while dismissing charges against a defendant, declaring them to be innocent?

Yes. I have.

Too infrequently, but, yes, I have.; June 12, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 12, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Try this "but for" on for size... Had not Daye not punched, gouged, pulled hair, busted down locked bathroom door, choked, and otherwise assaulted Mangum, she would not have stabbed him."

That is a poor attempt at describing self defense, an affirmative defense that can be raised at trial.

"Harr Supporter, I have no problem with the Attorney General dropping the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants..."

That's a change for you. Previously you have said that there had to be a trial simply because there was a complaining witness.

"... and I have no problem with him explaining why he dropped them. We're on the same page so far, right?"

But, see the inconsistency below.

"What I have problem with is his proclaiming that they were "innocent.""

That's the explination for why he dropped the charges.

Further, the rules of professional conduct require prosecutors to refrain from pursuning charges which lack probable cause. R.P.C. 3.8(a). That's why Nifong was disbarred. He insisted on pursuing the case without probable cause.

In Crystal's latest case, probable cause does exist for all the elements of the crime. Her defense, medical malpractice is simply not available in North Carolina. No matter how much you want to ignore the law as set out in St. v. Welch, the doctrine there applies. Crystal's other defense which seems to be in your favor today, is one which requires that it be raised at trial. Your effort to cutoff the trial is simply denying her the right to raise self defense.

Walt-in-Durham; June 12, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I can assure you that any hospitalized patient's condition will deteriorate if he/she is intubated in the esophagus!"

However, Reginald Daye was not intubated in the esophagus. Your reasoning is, that since Mr. Daye deteriorated, it must have been the result of Medical malpractice. It's called circular reasoning.; June 12, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. I'm a firm believer of the separation of powers in our government."

Not if we take you at your word. Twice, you have asked that various elected officials should act on Crystal's behalf to stop the trail against her. The reason they have ignored you is simple, they believe in the separation of powers. On a more practical basis, they understand that they represent both Crystal Mangum and her victim Reginald Daye. To interfere in what is not their branch of government would be both an abuse of power and a no win situation for them.

"That's why I believe that an Attorney General from the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch's power by proclaiming "innocence or guilt.""

As the prosecutor in the case, the Attorney General had the duty to cease the prosecution when he discovered the case was not supported by probable cause. R.P.C. 3.8(a). It seems your problem is the Attorney General behaved ethically.

Walt-in-Durham; June 12, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Last time I checked, we still hold to a standard of "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore, as of this moment, Mangum is innocent of the charges against her......and will be so until she is proven guilty, OR, the charges are dropped. The LAX guys were innocent......they were not found guilty AND all charges were dropped.
There is NO evidence of the beating you claim Mangum had.....not ONE single photo shows any evidence. The fact that the door was damaged does not mean she was beaten, nor does your claim of hair pulling.
There is NO evidence of medical error, either. You, and you ALONE, claim that Duke did something wrong. Other doctors have looked at the records and come to no such conclusion.
Yes, you ARE a racist and, apparently, a confirmed serial liar; June 12, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Harr Supporter, I have no problem with the Attorney General dropping the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and I have no problem with him explaining why he dropped them. We're on the same page so far, right?"

Yes you do. You believe the innocent falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players should have been convicted because they were accused by a black woman.

"What I have problem with is his proclaiming that they were 'innocent.' You and I know that his statement doesn't carry any legal weight, but it was improper and unprecedented. Have you ever heard of any prosecutor, while dismissing charges against a defendant, declaring them to be 'innocent'?"

AG Cooper did not "proclim them innocent. You obviously did not watch his press conference. He said that he and his office investigated the evidence(which you never did), found no evidence that a crime had been committed, and then said, "We believe these men are innocent". Another problem you have is that the AG expressed an opinion which did not agree with your presumption of guilt, so you want that opinion suppressed.

What really makes it problematic is that the media takes his statement and runs with it... publishing and broadcasting, as fact, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been declared innocent and had been exonerated... misleading at best."

What is problematic or misleading about the fact that no crime had happened in the first place? What is problematic or misleading is what you publish that says the Lacrosse players were not exonerated.

Face reality, SIDNEY. You are a guilt presuming black racist who is in a snit because innocent Caucasian men were not wrongfully convicted.; June 12, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Try this "but for" on for size... Had not Daye not punched, gouged, pulled hair, busted down locked bathroom door, choked, and otherwise assaulted Mangum, she would not have stabbed him".

We have. It does not fit. There is no evidence that Reginald Daye beat Crystal.; June 12, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Also, Harr Supporter, I agree that Mr. Cooper is entitled to his opinion, but it is inappropriate to express 'innocence' as an attorney general. I'm a flogmeister, and expressing my opinion is what that description carries. If I were a prosecutor and was dismissing a case against a defendant, I would dismiss it and wouldn't even think about publicly stating that the defendant was "innocent"... even if that was my opinion."

I say again, you want to suppress Mr. Cooper's first amendment right to express an opinion which does not agree with your presumption of guilt"

"Regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, I don't know about the innocence or guilt of the defendants."

Which is BULLSHIT because everything you publish about the Lacrosse players presumes they are guilty, even though you do not have the b---s to admit you are presuming guilt.

"Mangum was not a defendant in that case... which is something many people seem to forget."

What you seem to forget is that she was a false accuser. You keep calling her he "accuser/victim" in the Duke Lacrosse case, which is a statement on your part which presumes guilt on the part of the innocent men she falsely accused.

"Regarding the murder case, there is definitely no probable cause or credible evidence to bring any charges against Mangum."

Oh yes there was.

"She is innocent of murder and larceny of chose in action."

While you say the Lacrosse players can not be called innocent or exonerated because they never stood trial, you say Crystal should be declared innocent and exempted from trial.

"She is being victimized by the state and media because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case... just like Mike Nifong."

Delusional BULLSHIT on your part. We have heard this before. It still stinks as bad as it did when you first tried to dump this load of BULLSHIT on the public.; June 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I am a man of love, peace, and true justice... a dedicated follower of the principles expounded by the Man from Nazareth."

More stinking delusional BULLSHIT from you.

If you were truly "man of love, peace, and true justice", you would not be presuming that innocent men who were falsely accused are guilty. In spite of your protestations, de facto you do blog that the Lacrosse players should be presumed guilty.

If you were truly "a dedicated follower of the principles expounded by the Man from Nazareth", you would follow the principle, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, e.g. falsely accusing a DPD officer of setting fire to Milton Walker's clothes to frame Crystal for arson. No matter how you try to rationalize it, that is precisely what you did.; June 12, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What really makes it problematic is that the media takes his statement and runs with it... publishing and broadcasting, as fact, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been declared innocent and had been exonerated... misleading at best."

If it is the truth, that the crime of which they were accused did not happen, where is it problematic that the media would publish that they are innocent and exonerated?

This is more evidence that you do presume the Lacrosse players are guilty.; June 12, 2013 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's all remember that Harr will try to paint/distort any plea agreement that may come about. So far as I know, there has been NO plea deal on the table. Walt may know otherwise, but us lay folks have no clue. IF a plea deal were being negotiated, Mangum would have the right to reject it. If she wants to take her chances in court, then she can say NO to any plea deal. I am certain that Harr will lie and mangle the truth.....and tell us all how the prosecutor forced her into a plea deal.
But........as of right now..........she is still going to court in less than a month.; June 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 13, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I've been busy working on the next article for the flogazine. It should be posted no later than tomorrow.

As you were.; June 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I can assure you that any hospitalized patient's condition will deteriorate if he/she is intubated in the esophagus!"

However, Reginald Daye was not intubated in the esophagus. Your reasoning is, that since Mr. Daye deteriorated, it must have been the result of Medical malpractice. It's called circular reasoning.

How many times was Reginald Daye intubated on April 6, 2011? Twice. The second intubation was performed because the first one was discovered to have been placed in the esophagus. If the initial intubation would have been tracheal, then it would not have been removed... he would have been intubated only once, and he would most likely not have lapsed into cardiac arrest.; June 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Harr Supporter, I have no problem with the Attorney General dropping the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and I have no problem with him explaining why he dropped them. We're on the same page so far, right?"

Yes you do. You believe the innocent falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players should have been convicted because they were accused by a black woman.

"What I have problem with is his proclaiming that they were 'innocent.' You and I know that his statement doesn't carry any legal weight, but it was improper and unprecedented. Have you ever heard of any prosecutor, while dismissing charges against a defendant, declaring them to be 'innocent'?"

AG Cooper did not "proclim them innocent. You obviously did not watch his press conference. He said that he and his office investigated the evidence(which you never did), found no evidence that a crime had been committed, and then said, "We believe these men are innocent". Another problem you have is that the AG expressed an opinion which did not agree with your presumption of guilt, so you want that opinion suppressed.

What really makes it problematic is that the media takes his statement and runs with it... publishing and broadcasting, as fact, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been declared innocent and had been exonerated... misleading at best."

What is problematic or misleading about the fact that no crime had happened in the first place? What is problematic or misleading is what you publish that says the Lacrosse players were not exonerated.

Face reality, SIDNEY. You are a guilt presuming black racist who is in a snit because innocent Caucasian men were not wrongfully convicted.

You can't have it both ways. First you say that Cooper did not proclaim the defendants innocent, then you quote Cooper saying, "We believe these men are innocent."

Am I missing something?; June 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt, it's time for you to start searching for a grief counselor because you're going to be cryin' the blues when the prosecution is forced to drop charges against Mangum.; June 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"How many times was Reginald Daye intubated on April 6, 2011? Twice. The second intubation was performed because the first one was discovered to have been placed in the esophagus. If the initial intubation would have been tracheal, then it would not have been removed... he would have been intubated only once, and he would most likely not have lapsed into cardiac arrest."

The documents you illegally accessed and posted said a direct laryngoscopy was done which showed the tube in the trachea.; June 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You can't have it both ways. First you say that Cooper did not proclaim the defendants innocent, then you quote Cooper saying, 'We believe these men are innocent.'

Am I missing something?"

Yes.

"We believe these men are innocent" is not a proclamation. It is an expression of an opinion. Too bad you are too dense to see that.; June 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, it's time for you to start searching for a grief counselor because you're going to be cryin' the blues when the prosecution is forced to drop charges against Mangum."

Crazy deluded SIDNEY was saying something like that to people who doubted that he would humiliate the NC State Bar.; June 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: charges dropped yet, sidney? tick tick tick....; June 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 11:42 said, in quoting AG Cooper, : "We, (the Royal "we", I note, which substantially carries the weight of a Proclamation) believe these men are innocent", Not a proclamation,eh. Hmm. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. And the reason, given, for the re-intubation was?; June 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, you idiot, in America we are innocent until proven guilty. The men were and always will be, innocent. The AG had a DUTY to drop charges because there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges. Further, the AG had the duty report the results of the investigation. That investigation showed that not only was there insufficient evidence to support the charges, but also that there was substantial compelling evidence to show that Mangum LIED. As much as you, and your racist friends, want to continue the fantasy that the poor single black mother of three was raped by the evil rich white boys........sorry , pal, Mangum was and is nothing more than a LIAR; June 14, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERL:

When AG Cooper used the term "we" he was referring to himself and his investigators. At no time did he use "we" as a royal "we" - except in your guilt presuming racist imagination.; June 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" And the reason, given, for the re-intubation was?"

According to the information SIDNEY illegally accessed and posted, the originally placed et tube was not functioning. When that happens, you replace it. You would know that if you had any intelligence.

Do not try to pass off SIDNEY as an experienced competent physician. He is not.; June 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Read the report and remarks from AG Cooper....all of it. It's all readily available online, kenny hissy. He consistently referred to his team, TEAM, of investigators. As has been noted, the "WE" was preceded by and followed by , remarks concerning the findings from the TEAM's investigation. .....There was NO context of the royal "We". Nice try, no cigar, kenny. Cooper did not say that he, or his team, FOUND the men to be innocent. There WERE always innocent .......the charges were dropped.....and they were not proven guilty. Mangum is nothing more than a common liar..........who thought she had a chance to make some fast money off some rich white boys.; June 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Ken, welcome back! We have all missed your contributions.

I wanted to follow up your earlier report.

Unfortunately, Dr. Harr confused her assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire

While the naysayers may object, this explanation makes perfect sense.

Those who know her best know that she regularly takes responsibility for her actions. While she may be criticized for setting the clothes on fire after Walker beat her, she clearly did not intend to burn down the building. Her concern for the well being of all involved can be seen in how promptly and emphatically she warned the police of the potential danger from the fire.

Similarly, we are all aware of Sidney's meticulous attention to the facts. His diligence in checking the accuracy of his sources is well known and respected.

Although almost inconceivable that he could make an error, it is easy to understand how he mistakenly believed she claimed she did not set the fire and did not know who did when she was confirming the complete accuracy of Sidney's "controlled burn" theory.

This mistake is complete out of character.

The naysayers claim that Sidney reaches his conclusions before he reviews the facts based on what he wants to believe. Nonsense. We see Sidney's remarkable evenhandedness in his many posts.

In her June 30, 2010 press conference, Crystal claimed that not only did she not set the clothes on fire, but she did not know who did so.

Unfortunately, Crystal also apparently confused her own assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire.

Again, those who know her best attest to her honesty. She obviously did not lie, but made an understandable mistake.

How could she make so serious a mistake?

The explanation is simple. She was taken in by the eloquence of Sidney's prose in which he convinced all but the naysayers that Crystal did not set the fire. Sidney convinced Crystal as well. She forgot what really happened.

It is ironic that in his valiant efforts to support Crystal, Sidney may have compromised her defense. His demonstration of her complete innocence inadvertently resulted in video tapes of Crystal making contradictory claims. That contradiction, no matter how innocent, would give the prosecution an opening to challenge Crystal's otherwise impeccable credibility. Mani Dexter wilted under pressure. She did not have Crystal testify that she set the fire in self defense.

As Sidney so patiently explained before he mistook Crystal's explanation, setting a fire in the bathtub was a rational response to Walker's provokations.; June 14, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Who told you that AG Cooper's "we" was a royal "we"? Kilgo? Crystal the liar?; June 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Break re: his 5:57 post: Sarcasm is mean and cowardly. It's the language of bullies. Do you really need to belittle others to make yourself look intelligent? You won't find me, in this regard, as forbearing as Dr.Harr.; June 14, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Break re: his 5:57 post: Sarcasm is mean and cowardly. It's the language of bullies. Do you really need to belittle others to make yourself look intelligent? You won't find me, in this regard, as forbearing as Dr.Harr."

No one can belittle SIDNEY more than SIDNEY belittles himself with his bombastic deluded megalomania.

So far as forbearing, you are as intimidating as a melted soft ice cream cone.; June 15, 2013 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"You won't find me, in this regard, as forbearing as Dr.Harr."

I am sure break is as terrified as if someone threatened to stone him with popcorn.; June 15, 2013 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Oooooooo, Kenny Hissy Boy is rattling his widdy biddy saber! Gosh, Break, you better run....... Hilarious post, Break..........!!!!; June 15, 2013 at 5:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 15, 2013 at 5:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Break the Conspiracy said...
Ken, welcome back! We have all missed your contributions.

I wanted to follow up your earlier report.

Unfortunately, Dr. Harr confused her assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire

While the naysayers may object, this explanation makes perfect sense.

Those who know her best know that she regularly takes responsibility for her actions. While she may be criticized for setting the clothes on fire after Walker beat her, she clearly did not intend to burn down the building. Her concern for the well being of all involved can be seen in how promptly and emphatically she warned the police of the potential danger from the fire.

Similarly, we are all aware of Sidney's meticulous attention to the facts. His diligence in checking the accuracy of his sources is well known and respected.

Although almost inconceivable that he could make an error, it is easy to understand how he mistakenly believed she claimed she did not set the fire and did not know who did when she was confirming the complete accuracy of Sidney's "controlled burn" theory.

This mistake is complete out of character.

The naysayers claim that Sidney reaches his conclusions before he reviews the facts based on what he wants to believe. Nonsense. We see Sidney's remarkable evenhandedness in his many posts.

In her June 30, 2010 press conference, Crystal claimed that not only did she not set the clothes on fire, but she did not know who did so.

Unfortunately, Crystal also apparently confused her own assertion, that she did not commit arson, with a claim that she had not set the clothes on fire.

Again, those who know her best attest to her honesty. She obviously did not lie, but made an understandable mistake.

How could she make so serious a mistake?

The explanation is simple. She was taken in by the eloquence of Sidney's prose in which he convinced all but the naysayers that Crystal did not set the fire. Sidney convinced Crystal as well. She forgot what really happened.

It is ironic that in his valiant efforts to support Crystal, Sidney may have compromised her defense. His demonstration of her complete innocence inadvertently resulted in video tapes of Crystal making contradictory claims. That contradiction, no matter how innocent, would give the prosecution an opening to challenge Crystal's otherwise impeccable credibility. Mani Dexter wilted under pressure. She did not have Crystal testify that she set the fire in self defense.

As Sidney so patiently explained before he mistook Crystal's explanation, setting a fire in the bathtub was a rational response to Walker's provokations.

Hey, Break.

I join you in welcoming back kenhyderal.

Regarding the 2010 arson case, Crystal told me that she did not set the fire and did not know who did. Considering the police's inaction and lack of other suspects, I concluded (based upon Crystal's statement being true) the Durham Police set the fire. Prior to Crystal denying to me that she set the fire, I had been under the impression that she initiated a controlled burn in the tub in retaliation for her ex-beau hitting her.; June 15, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

" And the reason, given, for the re-intubation was?"

According to the information SIDNEY illegally accessed and posted, the originally placed et tube was not functioning. When that happens, you replace it. You would know that if you had any intelligence.

Do not try to pass off SIDNEY as an experienced competent physician. He is not.

Harr Medical School 101:
An endotracheal tube cannot function properly when it is placed in the esophagus. --; June 15, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, it's time for you to start searching for a grief counselor because you're going to be cryin' the blues when the prosecution is forced to drop charges against Mangum."

Crazy deluded SIDNEY was saying something like that to people who doubted that he would humiliate the NC State Bar.

I do not live to humiliate the NC State Bar. I've bigger fish to fry. I only wish the Bar would function fairly and objectively. A good start would be for it to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong's law license.; June 15, 2013 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Regarding the 2010 arson case, Crystal told me that she did not set the fire and did not know who did. Considering the police's inaction and lack of other suspects, I concluded (based upon Crystal's statement being true) the Durham Police set the fire. Prior to Crystal denying to me that she set the fire, I had been under the impression that she initiated a controlled burn in the tub in retaliation for her ex-beau hitting her."

In other, fewer, more accurate words, Crystal lied, you believed her, and you added a lie of your own to the mix.; June 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I do not live to humiliate the NC State Bar."

At one time you did and it amounted to a humiliating failure for you

"I've bigger fish to fry."

Unfortunately you are incapable of lighting any kind of fire.

"I only wish the Bar would function fairly and objectively. A good start would be for it to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong's law license."

Boy are you deluded.; June 15, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Harr Medical School 101:"

An institution for doctor wannabes.

"An endotracheal tube cannot function properly when it is placed in the esophagus. --"

But it can malfunction even if it is properly placed. And you have provided no evidence that the tube was placed in the esophagus.; June 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Based on your last statement on the et tube placed in Reginald Daye's trachea I say this:

You know there was no evidence of an esophageal intubation, just like corrupt DA NIFONG knew that Crystal had not been raped. However, in true Nifongian fashion, you believe you can repeat the allegation over and over again and people will believe it.

If you truly believe you are so influential you can force people to give your untruths credibility, you are truly a deluded megalomaniac.; June 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Harr is nothing but a pathetic aging failed physician who apparently spends his time fantasizing and rationalizing his failures by blaming the evil white oppressors he dreams up. He pretends and pontificates. Sad little man.; June 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115893; June 15, 2013 at 1:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Excerpt from an editorial in The Journal "Circulation" "Recent studies on errors in medicine contend that an accepted tenet of the culture of healthcare providers is to cover up or obscure errors like unrecognized esophageal intubations" Circulation. 2000; 102: I-380-I-384; June 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL

"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115893"

That does not prove that Reginald Daye's endotracheal tube had been placed in the esophagus.; June 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Excerpt from an editorial in The Journal "Circulation" "Recent studies on errors in medicine contend that an accepted tenet of the culture of healthcare providers is to cover up or obscure errors like unrecognized esophageal intubations" Circulation. 2000; 102: I-380-I-384"

That is irrelevant to the death of Reginald Daye unless it has been proven that the endotracheal tube had been misplaced. SIDNEY has provided no evidence that the endotracheal tube had been placed in the esophagus.; June 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

What neither you nor SIDNEY seem to realize is that the intubation was a consequence of complications resulting from the stab wound Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye. Even if it had been proven that the tube went into the esophagus, it would not relieve Crystal of Reginald Daye's death, if the prosecution can prove her act was criminal.; June 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: It was non-criminal because Crystal was defending herself against a brutal assault by an enraged drunk.; June 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 3:49 said: That is irrelevant to the death of Reginald Daye unless it has been proven that the endotracheal tube had been misplaced. SIDNEY has provided no evidence that the endotracheal tube had been placed in the esophagus....... But, apparently it did have to be replaced. The reason for this was inconveniently not documented; June 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: What happened at Duke is NOT the issue. Nichols is correct. She stabbed him. He died.; June 15, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: First, Harr posted those records illegally and unethically. He is a jerk for doing so. Second, there were clear reasons for the intubation, Kenny. You are a world class dumb ass, really. Third, what happened to Daye in the hospital was far more likely due to a massive infection......which, if you had ever worked a day in healthcare, you would KNOW is a life threatening complication. Fourth, when exactly is the prosecutor going to drop all the charges......like Harr says will happen? Huh? tick tick tick tick tick......July 8th approaches......; June 15, 2013 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It was non-criminal because Crystal was defending herself against a brutal assault by an enraged drunk."

There was no evidence Crystal was acting in self defense. She did not raise the issue of self defense until Reginald Daye had died and she was facing a charge of murder 1.; June 15, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"But, apparently it did have to be replaced. The reason for this was inconveniently not documented".

Yes it was documented. The tube was not working. It was documented on direct laryngoscopy that the tube was in the trachea.

Because you can not recognize documentation when it stares you in the face does not add up to lack of documentation.; June 15, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 15, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I always wondered if unattractive black women like Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum have fantasies about being ravaged by a group of white men.As if that would ever happen in real life.; June 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum lied about the rape because (a)she wanted to avoid going to jail that night and she knew she could do so by claiming rape, and (b)she thought she could make some money off the rich white guys. Nifong, unethical creep that he was, lied about the rape because he wanted to win an election and he thought he needed the black vote to do so. Pretty simple, in the end.......immoral people like these two would do anything to get what they want.
Nobody made Mangum become a drunk stripper who stole a car and tried to run over an officer in 2002. Nobody made her LIE about the rape. Nobody made her pop out babies. Nobody made her shack up with men. Nobody made her sell it. Nobody made her get into a brawl with Walker. Nobody made her shack up with Daye. Nobody made her stay with him after (Harr) claimed she had arguments with him. Nobody made her stab him. And nobody but Mangum is responsible for her lousy choices that put her children in danger...; June 16, 2013 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous June 16, 2013 at 5:49 AM:

I would add no one made her lie about the cab stealing incident in her so called book.; June 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
First, Harr posted those records illegally and unethically. He is a jerk for doing so. Second, there were clear reasons for the intubation, Kenny. You are a world class dumb ass, really. Third, what happened to Daye in the hospital was far more likely due to a massive infection......which, if you had ever worked a day in healthcare, you would KNOW is a life threatening complication. Fourth, when exactly is the prosecutor going to drop all the charges......like Harr says will happen? Huh? tick tick tick tick tick......July 8th approaches......

If you want illegal and unethical, how about producing a fraudulent autopsy report in conspiring with prosecutors to charge an innocent single mother of three with murder? Which, I ask, is the greater evil?; June 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

"But, apparently it did have to be replaced. The reason for this was inconveniently not documented".

Yes it was documented. The tube was not working. It was documented on direct laryngoscopy that the tube was in the trachea.

Because you can not recognize documentation when it stares you in the face does not add up to lack of documentation.

I will address the massive cover up effort by Duke University Hospital in my next entry to the flogazine.; June 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

"It was non-criminal because Crystal was defending herself against a brutal assault by an enraged drunk."

There was no evidence Crystal was acting in self defense. She did not raise the issue of self defense until Reginald Daye had died and she was facing a charge of murder 1.

What reason, pray tell, did Mangum ever give for stabbing Daye, other than self-defense? She certainly didn't stab Daye in order to steal two cashier's checks that had been filled out and given to her by Daye which she couldn't convert to her own use anyway.

If not self-defense, what reason do you believe Mangum had for stabbing Daye... that makes sense?; June 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

What neither you nor SIDNEY seem to realize is that the intubation was a consequence of complications resulting from the stab wound Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye. Even if it had been proven that the tube went into the esophagus, it would not relieve Crystal of Reginald Daye's death, if the prosecution can prove her act was criminal.

So you believe the stab wound caused Daye to go into delirium tremens? Possibly, because I'm sure that at the hospital he did not have access to the case of beer that Mangum states he imbibed nightly on weeknights.; June 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"If you want illegal and unethical, how about producing a fraudulent autopsy report in conspiring with prosecutors to charge an innocent single mother of three with murder? Which, I ask, is the greater evil?"

A greatest evil is to fabricate the story of a fraudulent autopsy report in order to undermine the progress of justice.; June 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Excerpt from an editorial in The Journal "Circulation" "Recent studies on errors in medicine contend that an accepted tenet of the culture of healthcare providers is to cover up or obscure errors like unrecognized esophageal intubations" Circulation. 2000; 102: I-380-I-384

Hey, kenhyderal.

Thanks for the informative contribution. Think I might use it in my next flogazine article. It's about the cover up by Duke University Hospital.; June 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I will address the massive cover up effort by Duke University Hospital in my next entry to the flogazine."

In other words, you will devote a great deal of bandwidth trying to make something out of nothing.; June 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So you believe the stab wound caused Daye to go into delirium tremens?"

I do not believe Reginald Daye went into DTs. I argue that he died of complications of the medical treatment necessitated by the stab wound inflicted by Crystal.

"Possibly, because I'm sure that at the hospital he did not have access to the case of beer that Mangum states he imbibed nightly on weeknights."

You mean the same Crystal Mangum who lied about her cab stealing incident, who lied about being raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006, who lied about what caused the fire in Milton Walker's apartment(a lie you bought into and then compounded by one of your own lies)!?

If you believe Crystal is credible, you are truly deluded.; June 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, kenhyderal.

Thanks for the informative contribution. Think I might use it in my next flogazine article. It's about the cover up by Duke University Hospital."

Since you have never established as fact that DUMC is covering up anything, and since that article was published 10+ years before Reginald Daye died, it is of no relevance to the case. If you were not so deluded, you would realize that.; June 16, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What reason, pray tell, did Mangum ever give for stabbing Daye, other than self-defense?"

Correction: "What reason, pray tell, did Mangum ever give for stabbing Daye, other than self-defense" AFTER Reginald Daye had died and she was facing a charge of Murder1? That reason was to save her butt.

"She certainly didn't stab Daye in order to steal two cashier's checks that had been filled out and given to her by Daye which she couldn't convert to her own use anyway.

If not self-defense, what reason do you believe Mangum had for stabbing Daye... that makes sense?"

It is for the Court, not you or me, to determine such issues. So your question is irrelevant.

It is a matter of record that Crystal has been violent to men and that she is not credible.; June 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: tick tick tick.......July 8th is getting close, sidney........; June 16, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum was and is nothing but a common street prostitute who sold herself to whoever had the dollars to pay. She shacked up with men, kicked out babies, lied and used others.....for years. And now, she is going to be held accountable for killing Reginald Daye. I don't have any idea whether she will get first degree, or manslaughter or whatever........but I will tell you for sure......the charges against her are NOT going to be dropped. Finally, she will be held accountable.....at least for this latest criminal act.; June 16, 2013 at 12:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: ......the charges against her are NOT going to be dropped............................They would be dropped in New York minute if Crystal would acquiesce to a plea deal, any plea deal, that would let the Prosecution save face. The problem with that is, she is not guilty of any crimes and in accepting a plea, it might hinder her ability to regain custody of her two oldest children oldest children; June 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You never answered the questions that were raised as a result of your recent post.

Why did Crystal lie in here press conference when she denied setting the fire and knowing who set the fire?

Did her lies in her press conference hurt her defense in any way?; June 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.Harr, just to let you know that the post by Anonymous @12:57 PM is libelous and, if the poster is in North Carolina, it is a violation of North Carolina's Defamation Law. You might soon be asked to reveal that poster's IP Address; June 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous @ 3:25 .............. So, where is the video-tape of her press conference? I think you are relying on what was reported by the local media who covered the press conference. Crystal made no definitive statement like that and she was under no onus to publicly self-incriminate; June 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Yes. I am relying on the press reports. They were consistent in their reporting.

How do you know what was said and the that all of the reporting was in error?

You were busy riding camels in the desert.; June 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr.Harr, just to let you know that the post by Anonymous @12:57 PM is libelous and, if the poster is in North Carolina, it is a violation of North Carolina's Defamation Law. You might soon be asked to reveal that poster's IP Address".

Who will confirm that the statement is libelous? Kilgo? His unidentified, probably non existent Lacrosse player friend? You?

Oh come now.; June 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Anonymous @ 3:25 .............. So, where is the video-tape of her press conference? I think you are relying on what was reported by the local media who covered the press conference. Crystal made no definitive statement like that and she was under no onus to publicly self-incriminate".

SIDNEY said that Crystal told him she did not know who set the fire. Then she admits in a video she did set the fire.

I agree Crystal has the right to not say anything. Maybe you can explain SIDNEY's claim, that reading her her rights was designed to prevent her from defending herself.; June 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 16, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: What is libelous about the 12:57 post?; June 16, 2013 at 6:19 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Dr.Harr, just to let you know that the post by Anonymous @12:57 PM is libelous and, if the poster is in North Carolina, it is a violation of North Carolina's Defamation Law. You might soon be asked to reveal that poster's IP Address..."

I'm pretty sure that NC's defamation laws do not cover anonymous communications.

There's also a question of whether the comment did "...harm to that person [CGM] or...her reputation".; June 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 16, 2013 at 9:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: I'm pretty sure that NC's defamation laws do not cover anonymous communications........ It's my understanding it does. Perhaps Walt can weigh in on this. There's also a question of whether the comment did "...harm to that person [CGM] or...her reputation"......... The post at 12:57 is an untruth and a libelous defamation of Crystal's character. When Crystal's present legal troubles are resolved there is going to be retribution for many including the tax-payers.; June 16, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal Mangum belongs on death row but we all know that in feminist America women can literally get away with murder as long as their victim is a man.RIP - Reginald Daye.; June 17, 2013 at 12:55 AM
Anonymous said...: How did Crystal ever make a living as a stripper or a prostitute? I can't imagine any man,esp. a white man,would ever want to have sex with her.Maybe all of her clients were blind.; June 17, 2013 at 12:58 AM
Anonymous said...: there is nothing libelous about the statement. she did sell herself. she did shack up. she did have children. she did kill Daye.
Seems to me that if you are going to a motel, to a stranger's room, to use sex toys on YOURELF in front of said stranger, that is selling yourself.
she does not have to accept any plea deal. If sister thinks her case is strong, she will go to court and take her chances with a jury.; June 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it amazing and ironic that Kenny would get all puffed up about libelous statements......knowing that Mangum is, without a doubt, a LIAR........I recall that AG Cooper said he was not going to press charges against her because she was (I am paraphrasing) obviously whacko. And the guys never did press charges against her or sue her....in spite of her continued lies..........they knew it would be a waste of time and they knew she was whacko. So , now, Kenny tells us that Mangum is going to sue those who she claims have ruined her reputation? Realllllly?; June 17, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Hmmmmmm, sidney claims /daye was a woman beating drunken alcoholic. sidney claims duke killed date to get back at Mangum. Sidney claims policemen committed a crime. Sidney claims Nichols committed a crime. and kenny is spewing nonsense that a poster's statement (that Mangum sold herself) is libel?
Hilarious......; June 17, 2013 at 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I have said this before....and will say it again. If walks, talks, smells, looks and acts like a duck, there is a fairly good chance......it is a duck. Mangum has admitted that she went to stranger's rooms in motels, etc.....she has admitted using sex toys on herself.....she had a paid driver carrying her from one place to another.....she was making lots of money (per her) "dancing"........ walks, talks, smells, and acts like a .........
as far as I know, she has never been arrested for prostitution. Does that mean she has never sold it? Hmmmmmm..........; June 17, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The post at 12:57 is an untruth and a libelous defamation of Crystal's character. When Crystal's present legal troubles are resolved there is going to be retribution for many including the tax-payers."

You are as terrifying as a stuffed toy dog.; June 17, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The post at 12:57 is an untruth and a libelous defamation of Crystal's character. When Crystal's present legal troubles are resolved there is going to be retribution for many including the tax-payers."

You really hate the Lacrosse players, don't you, probably because they are accomplished Caucasian(an innocuous term except to a blatant unrepentant racist) men and you are not.; June 17, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You are being cowardly in your refusal to answer reasonable questions.

You were not at the press conference. How do you know what was said?

I would think the onus is on you to prove that a number of reporters are either incompetent or are lying.; June 17, 2013 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You are being cowardly in your refusal to answer reasonable questions. Who's your daddy?; June 17, 2013 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it would be a very good idea for mangum to hire herself an upstanding lawyer and for her to go after all the people she claims have libeled her. That would be fun. Just exactly how a poster's comment that she was selling herself actually hurt her reputation would be interesting....... :) As we all know, Crystal is just a fine single mother of three, a hard working, completely innocent black woman, who has been victimized by the white man (and, apparently, the white woman, rae evans). She's never done anything wrong.......never committed a single crime. All those convictions were bogus frame-ups. Rae Evans actually knew Mangum in 2002, four years before the LAX party, and had it in for Crystal way back then. Evans framed Crystal, put the car keys in her hand, put her behind the wheel of a stolen car, got her drunk as stink, and made her try to run over an officer! Then, four years later, Evans frame poor Mangum again. Why, it's a vendetta.......I betcha Evans knew Crystal when they were school kids together and, during recess, Evans bullied Sister.

Come on, Mangum, sue everybody!; June 17, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Harr's asks a good question. What was Mangum motive in stabbing Daye? I don't know whether the prosecutor has to prove motive. Walt? Lance?
What I am guessing......I said guessing....because, unlike Harr, I am not psychic....what I am guessing is that both Mangum and Daye were drunk. They got into a verbal argument over the usual....sex, booze and money.....then , it got physical with BOTH of them in a push and shove match. i think she took it up a notch when she grabbed a weapon, threatened him (I'm gonna Fxxx you up!"), and stabbed him. I don't think it's first degree......most likely manslaughter. The reason her claim of self defense falls apart is that there is no evidence of a beating! If this guy had been punching, beating and choking her, Mangum's face and neck would show it. The fact of the door being bashed in does NOT prove he was beating her. What it shows, along with the liquor and messed up apartment, is drunken stupidness. But, a beating? Nope. I doubt it was over the cashier's checks,unless........SHE wanted the money herself....it's not at all clear who said what over the checks......and, no, I don't give a damn what Harr says.
But, motive? How about just a stupid drunken argument where she lost her temper, picked up a deadly weapon and went after him....; June 17, 2013 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Just for the fun of it, sidney.......what if daye had picked up a knife and stabbed Mangum? What if she died? what if, AFTER she died, he came up with the idea that SHE had been beating the crap out of HIM? What if there was no evidence on his face and neck to prove his assertion that she was beating him? In other words, what if it were the exact opposite situation? Would YOU be on this web site, defending Daye? I sincerely absolutely doubt it......; June 17, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: which part of the poster's statement is untrue, kenny? that she killed daye? that she shacked up with men? that she had babies? Or, that she was a common street prostitute? And which part of THAT statement is untrue? that she is common? that she sells it in the street? that she is a prostitute? I think the NC laws are fairly narrow in that they define prostitution as selling the body for sexual intercourse. so, technically, selling herself for sexual pleasure of buyers by using a vibrator on herself would not, I think, be legally defined as prostitution in NC. (not sure....). so, maybe it's that part that you think is untrue, Kenny, because Mangum has not been charged with prostitution.
To be fair, let's all be clear here.......as far as we know.....Mangum has never been CHARGED WITH prostitution. Now, all those who think she might, in her dim dark past, have perhaps made a little money on the side....raise your hands. All those who think Mangum is pure as the driven snow and would never ever have made a dime off a John, raise your hands.
A common disclaimer you can find on web sites that sell "escorts" (such as the BunnyHole where Mangum was, uh, listed), is language that says the client is buying an escort and only an escort. It says that any further friendly relations that might occur are not a part of the deal and, in effect, the, uh, lady is on her own. So, in effect, if Mangum was just really friendly with guys, then Kenny is justified in his righteous panties-in-a-twist statements.; June 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the poster owes poor Mangum an apology. Killer? Lousy mother? Violent? Level 3 DUI? Nine convictions? Pole vaulter? LIAR? YES
Prostitute? No
Sorry..........; June 17, 2013 at 7:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @4:15 said: You were not at the press conference. How do you know what was said" ........... I know the Durham local media's penchant for National Enquirer type sensationalism. It must have been a slow news day back in 2002 when they sensationalized the incident with Crystal and the Taxi driver. Obviously the Judge saw past that and gave her an appropriate sentence. Her arson case was another glaring example of this. Had Crystal made bail on day one you can rest assured that Judge Jones would have sentenced her to one day in gaol. Although technically speaking, as determined by a side-bar, Crystal, though not convicted of arson, could still be found guilty of misdemeanor child neglect Jones made it clear that in his view culpability for that rose or fell on her being convicted of the arson charge and he reflected that in the way he sentenced her. As an aside, he felt compelled to set the record straight declaring that from all the evidence he heard Crystal Mangum was a good mother and obviously North Carolina Child protection concurred.; June 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: such a good mother, she killed a man and ran to where her kid was... yep, really good mother......; June 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Lets see... child protection concurred? and then.....she stabbed a man she was shacking up with......hmmmmm; June 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @4:15 said: You were not at the press conference. How do you know what was said" ........... I know the Durham local media's penchant for National Enquirer type sensationalism."

No you don't.

"It must have been a slow news day back in 2002 when they sensationalized the incident with Crystal and the Taxi driver."

The account of the Crystal Mangum car theft incident came from contemporary police records.

"Obviously the Judge saw past that and gave her an appropriate sentence."

No he didn't. He gave her a break.

"Her arson case was another glaring example of this. Had Crystal made bail on day one you can rest assured that Judge Jones would have sentenced her to one day in gaol. Although technically speaking, as determined by a side-bar, Crystal, though not convicted of arson, could still be found guilty of misdemeanor child neglect Jones made it clear that in his view culpability for that rose or fell on her being convicted of the arson charge and he reflected that in the way he sentenced her. As an aside, he felt compelled to set the record straight declaring that from all the evidence he heard Crystal Mangum was a good mother and obviously North Carolina Child protection concurred.

Like you and SIDNEY, Judge Jones was seriously deluded and divorced from reality.; June 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Jones is now off the bench. Word around the courthouse was, informally, that the remark about Mangum being a good mother was a major embarrassment to the judge......when she whacked Daye.; June 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Informal gossip. Just more of the same like the lies and character assassinations, covertly, spread by the Duke Lacrosse Trial Lawyers, in a vain attempt to bolster their greedy law-suits. Thankfully these came to naught. They frantically beat the bushes for months throughout Durham, in a lost cause, attempting to find somebody, anybody who would claim that they had paid Crystal for sex. Crystal worked in a Strip Club and for an Escort Agency. She was an employee who followed all the rules and despite desperate efforts no one has ever been able to show otherwise. All they have left is to spread gossip and innuendo which the wicked revel in and disseminate; June 17, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "This girl(Crystal Mangum)is a professional streetwalker...she would do things for twenty,thirty,forty dollars.She was more of a hooker than stripper.She was stripping as an advertisement for hooking." H.P. Thomas.It's Not about the Truth,p.50-51.; June 17, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, you poor deluded little man......; June 18, 2013 at 2:19 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

He posts more delusions.

"Informal gossip. Just more of the same like the lies and character assassinations, covertly, spread by the Duke Lacrosse Trial Lawyers, in a vain attempt to bolster their greedy law-suits."

Fact: Neither the innocent Lacrosse players not their attorneys tried to spread gossip about Crystal. Her record came to light after she falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape.

"Thankfully these came to naught. They frantically beat the bushes for months throughout Durham, in a lost cause, attempting to find somebody, anybody who would claim that they had paid Crystal for sex. Crystal worked in a Strip Club and for an Escort Agency."

Fact: All those are facts which were documented in the public record after Crystal falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of raping her.

"She was an employee who followed all the rules and despite desperate efforts no one has ever been able to show otherwise. All they have left is to spread gossip and innuendo which the wicked revel in and disseminate".

Fact(again): That Crystal was a bad actor was part of the public record before that Lacrosse rape hoax became news.

Because Crystal denied the public record in her so called book does not negate the public record.

Just because KENHYDERAL buys into the lies does not make them true.; June 18, 2013 at 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Tell you what, Kenny. Your definition of a good mother and mine are world's apart. I was NOT raised to believe a good mother would leave her children (by different men, not married to them) for long periods with other people, abuse alcohol and try to get drugs from local hospital ERs, steal a car, drive drunk, try to run over an officer, get a DUI , shack up with men, use a vibrator in front of a stranger in a motel room, simulate sex with another woman in front of strangers, destroy another person's property (Walker), and kill a man. Somehow all that behavior does not add up to "good mother" where I come from. Thank God and the state for taking the children away from Mangum. If she cleans up her life, pays for her actions, takes responsibility rather than blaming others, stops shacking up, stops abusing substances, stops dumping her children on other people.....THEN she will be a good mother.; June 18, 2013 at 7:10 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @11:09 said: ""This girl(Crystal Mangum)is a professional streetwalker...she would do things for twenty,thirty,forty dollars.She was more of a hooker than stripper.She was stripping as an advertisement for hooking." H.P. Thomas.It's Not about the Truth,p.50-51.......... OMG; you are citing Fats Thomas as a source? This ex-bouncer at the Platinum Club is hardly a reliable source. He has a lengthy criminal record that includes trafficking in cocaine.; June 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Yep, right, Kenny......H. P. Thomas KNOWS the real Mangum.....that's the point. He had nothing to gain by telling the truth. And, by the way, DUDE, his account of her behavior and reputation has been widely validated by other regulars at the infamous Platinum Club. You want to say that a pole vaulting, drunken, drug using violent woman is a "good mother"? pardon me while I gag.....; June 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"OMG; you are citing Fats Thomas as a source? This ex-bouncer at the Platinum Club is hardly a reliable source. He has a lengthy criminal record that includes trafficking in cocaine. "

You cite Crystal who does have a criminal record dating back to 2002, and a documented history of non credibility.

You also cite SIDNEY HARR as a distinguished physician, in spite of the facts that he never completed a residency, never obtained board certification and is reluctant to explain his truncated medical career.; June 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Nine days after the supposed horrible rape occurred, Mangum was selling it, yet again, in the strip club.....and the photo which is widely viewable online, proves it. I know for a FACT that a victim of rape of the type she described would NOT be jerking herself around on a strip pole.......
too damn stupid to even believe; June 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 18, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: As far as I know HP Thomas never stabbed anyone to death.; June 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 18, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 18, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; June 18, 2013 at 7:43 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 421 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Potpourri of Sensational Snippets -- June 2013

421 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me