justice4nifong: 300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

Sunday, September 8, 2013

300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

Click panels above to access sites

464 comments:

1 – 200 of 464 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney,

I assume that you have already been in contact with Crystal's newest lawyer, Daniel Meier.

I recommend that you volunteer to provide expert testimony related to (1) the accuracy of the autopsy report, (2) the severity of the horrendous injuries Crystal suffered as a result of the horrific beating Daye inflicted and (3) how Daye's alcoholism resulted in his chronic violent behavior.

In your first meeting with Mr. Meier, I suggest that you bring a copy of Crystal's book, Last Dance for Grace, so that Mr. Meir may discover Crystal's credibility in the same way you discovered it.

I suggest that you also bring a copy of the motion to dismiss you drafted on behalf of Crystal. Although Mr. Meier may be able to incorporate some improvements, your motion almost certainly will permit him to make the filing more quickly.

This is exciting! Your skillful management of Crystal's expectations has resulted in another fresh start. Crystal has successfully removed three lawyers whom you and she believe were conspiring against her.

Hey, Break. Good to hear from you.

So far I've just learned recently about Meier being assigned as Crystal's attorney, and I did a little research on his background. Doesn't look promising to me.

I haven't contacted him yet, but do plan to do so and offer my services, much as you suggested. Haven't spoken with Crystal recently or others about how she feels about the new attorney or if she's even met him yet. Will keep you posted.; September 8, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
My current prediction:

Once he gets a chance to read the discovery file and speak to Ms. Mangum he will withdraw due to conflict of interest.

I think your prediction is on target because I believe a conflict of interest does exist.; September 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
This is great, Sidney!
With a new lawyer, I've no doubt you can postpone this three or four more months.

Hey, guiowen.

I'm not looking for a postponement... What I want is for the charges to be dropped or dismissed.; September 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: flart? well named, I'd say.....; September 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I haven't contacted [Daniel Meier] yet, but do plan to do so and offer my services, much as you suggested. Haven't spoken with Crystal recently or others about how she feels about the new attorney or if she's even met him yet. Will keep you posted."

If Daniel Meier has any regard for his client he, like Scott Holmes, will tell you to butt out.; September 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I think your prediction is on target because I believe a conflict of interest does exist."

Yeah, and you believe in the non existent carpetbagger jihad and jedi mind tricks.; September 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, guiowen.

I'm not looking for a postponement... What I want is for the charges to be dropped or dismissed."

You have been looking for the charges to be dropped for a long time.

You have been looking for the NC Bar to restore corrupt DA NIFONG's license for an even longer time.

It shows how much people think of wat you want.; September 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Your latest flog is another rehash and compendium of your uncorroborated allegations. Your reaction to the Indy Week article is not unexpected. You have been quite reluctant to reveal the details of your background, even though you insist your background gives you authority to render expert opinions on things like Dr. Nichols' autopsy report.

You claim that every physician who has read your allegations agrees with them. Besides me and you, how many physicians have read your blog? I think your allegations are a sign of your mental instability.

You are also a liar.; September 8, 2013 at 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Further evidence of your unbalanced thinking is your crusade for convicted murderer Shan Carter.

Do you seriously consider selling illegal drugs on the street just minding one's own business.

Do you really think a convicted felon packing a firearm is not a felony.

Do you seriously believe the situation would have happened had Shan Carter not provoked it.

Do you seriously call it self defense when Shan Carter is pursuing and firing on someone who is retreating?; September 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Excuse me, but you say you are also a physician?

Are you a retired duke physician then?

seriously,
and you, as a physician, kept pounding me like you did, even after i asked you to stop, and since you then gave me a lecture on using google when i would not provide links about a horrifying medical malpractice that ended in a very public even more horrifying death when asked by walt to give an example of duke killing someone - you then - as a physician kept calling me a liar instead of looking up the story in the paper as i was referring to what i read and insisted i would not be posting links

seriously?

you, sir, have serious issues and i am seriously seriously more amazed than even that pile of pink pigs i was wondering about

so ... what kinda physician are you ifn you don't mind my asking?; September 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: oink, oink, piggy poster.........here, have some BBQ; September 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: and to clarify, i am not surprised
i am simply and seriously amazed
seriously

(we all still love you tho - btw - i was concerned after all); September 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: this is seriously one of the saddest professional moments i have seen - other than all the others i have been made aware of

it is sad that duke has lead you to this - don't you think?

sorry for that

it IS very sad to watch

that's what i'm going to do for awhile anyway since ya'll are going to keep attacking anyway (i will continue to document - have fun)

dr. harr, take care and good luck with your case - i hope you amended it to add your causes and requests or whatever it is that you need to do to make it accomplish what you want it to - i think that might be necessary - but truly i do not know

hopefully, this pd lawyer thing will work for ms. mangum, if not, she should stay strong and take good care and know that others stand with her as she fights the good fight or does what is in her best interest - whatever is best for her and she decides to do

she has been through a lot and deserves a fair and just trial with due process and equal protection - more than any body else i've seen fought for lately in durham by duke

that part is also to obvious to ignore - how hyprocritical that appears from where we are sitting and watching now

thanks for your time and thought
take care; September 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM.:

"Excuse me, but you say you are also a physician?"

Yes

"Are you a retired duke physician then?"

I have never had any connection with Duke.

"seriously,
and you, as a physician, kept pounding me like you did, even after i asked you to stop, and since you then gave me a lecture on using google when i would not provide links about a horrifying medical malpractice that ended in a very public even more horrifying death when asked by walt to give an example of duke killing someone - you then - as a physician kept calling me a liar instead of looking up the story in the paper as i was referring to what i read and insisted i would not be posting links"

I asked you to corroborate your allegations. You refused. I concluded you were fabricating your allegations.

"seriously?

you, sir, have serious issues and i am seriously seriously more amazed than even that pile of pink pigs i was wondering about"

I have issues only with fabricators.

"so ... what kinda physician are you ifn you don't mind my asking?"

Unlike SIDNEY HARR, I retired as a competent physician. SIDNEY's background as revealed on the Indy Weekly reveals no competence on his part.; September 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM:

"this is seriously one of the saddest professional moments i have seen - other than all the others i have been made aware of"

You mean all the others you are fabricating.

"it is sad that duke has lead you to this - don't you think?

sorry for that

it IS very sad to watch

that's what i'm going to do for awhile anyway since ya'll are going to keep attacking anyway (i will continue to document - have fun)"

You need more time to come up with more fabrications?

"dr. harr, take care and good luck with your case - i hope you amended it to add your causes and requests or whatever it is that you need to do to make it accomplish what you want it to - i think that might be necessary - but truly i do not know"

SIDNEY's cause is to say, HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT ME. He does not care a bit about Crystal.

"hopefully, this pd lawyer thing will work for ms. mangum, if not, she should stay strong and take good care and know that others stand with her as she fights the good fight or does what is in her best interest - whatever is best for her and she decides to do"

Who is fighting with her except SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL. Other than those two idiots, no one believes Crystal.

"she has been through a lot and deserves a fair and just trial with due process and equal protection - more than any body else i've seen fought for lately in durham by duke"

What Crystal has been through is a consequence only of her sociopathic, criminal behavior.

"that part is also to obvious to ignore - how hyprocritical that appears from where we are sitting and watching now"

You are sitting and watching from a clouded in, blacked out room.

"thanks for your time and thought
take care"; September 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: and you are too lazy to go look up the news articles for your self on the internet, but not to tiring to continue to tell me about your fabrication thing when all you do is fabricate about me fabricating

you are abusive and should stop posting so much - as that too is abusive

why are you so abusive?
is that how you operated during your practice?; September 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM:

"and you are too lazy to go look up the news articles for your self on the internet,"

No, you are too lazy provide the corroboration for your allegations.

"but not to tiring to continue to tell me about your fabrication thing when all you do is fabricate about me fabricating"

You make allegations but do not back them up. I say again, that is why I believe you are fabricating.

"you are abusive and should stop posting so much - as that too is abusive"

Can't take the truth, can you?

"why are you so abusive?"

I am not. Calling me abusive is yur way of denying you are fabricating. If you can provide the facts to support yor allegations, that would show you are not fabricating. You provide no facts.

"is that how you operated during your practice?"

No, I operated with a scalpel at the operating table. My patients loved me.; September 8, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously, we had that discussion in depth a few posts ago, but you did go on and on and on and on about it, even tho i made NO allegations, therefore needed NO cooborations NOR and facts - NOR were any facts uncooborated - since i provided NONE

we wen't through all that
you can go back and read it
and yet - you continue
and will - even though i've asked you to stop
and
if
i
ask
you
to
stop
again
you
will
not
so
therefore
you
are
abusive
and
i
am
not
fabricating
that

got it?
yet?; September 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Yep, I think old mistral-recluse is doing the sniff-snit---I'm being bullied, now you stop it, I mean it , stop it.....or I am going away....good bye, I really mean it......sob sob.........
I'm baaaaaack!
Hilarious.; September 8, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM:

"seriously, we had that discussion in depth a few posts ago, but you did go on and on and on and on about it, even tho i made NO allegations, therefore needed NO cooborations NOR and facts - NOR were any facts uncooborated - since i provided NONE"

You did make allegations. Without facts to corroborate them, they were uncorroborated allegations. I suggested you provide corroboration and you refused. That suggests you are fabricating your allegations.; September 8, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: no, i'm just seriously amazed at how abusive you people really are all in the name of duke

seriously

it doesn't help your 'cause' to do what you guys are doing - but - hey - its Dr. Harr's and jfn blog - so - whatever

ciao; September 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: i made no allegations

you fabricate my making allegations

cooborate my making allegations
shouldn't be too hard since we already did this and you already lost
have fun; September 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Dormice? Baccahnalia? Sidney, bro, you really do need to get some speech therapy.
I love, I mean LOVE the photo of nifong and victoria with the guitar. that is just so very sweet. Durham's very own bigoted female asshat, handing Durham's very own scumbag ex DA a guitar.
By the way, Victoria, your drawers must really be in a wad ....what with gay folk getting married and being treated as equal human beings. Oh, tell Jackie and Wahneeeeema hey .......next time you see them lurking round the court house.; September 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

"i made no allegations"

You lie

"you fabricate my making allegations"

No I don't.

cooborate(sic) my making allegations
shouldn't be too hard since we already did this and you already lost"

No I haven't. I have made you admit, albeit involuntarily, that you make uncorroborated allegations.

"have fun"

I am having lots of fun watching you squirm over your uncorroborated allegations.; September 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM:

"no, i'm just seriously amazed at how abusive you people really are all in the name of duke

seriously

it doesn't help your 'cause' to do what you guys are doing - but - hey - its Dr. Harr's and jfn blog - so - whatever

ciao"

The only abuse you might be experiencing is self abuse.; September 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I notice in your flog, as in your 300 word reply, you do not deny anything the interviewer said, like you spent most of your time post medical school filing lawsuits rather than practicing medicine.

I can see why you are uncomfortable having your background known. It is not a very impressive background for a physician, or for any other profession for that matter.; September 8, 2013 at 6:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 5:00 PM said: " what with gay folk getting married and being treated as equal human beings. Oh, tell Jackie and Wahneeeeema hey ... But not in North Carolina. Not to mention their attack on the Voting Rights Act of two generations ago. It's an unjust and backward place. It's treatment of Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum are good examples of how corrupt it is there.; September 8, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: HEY STUPID FRACKING NON DOC

you are not a pyhsician
by the way (not you Dr Harr)

prove that you are
if you can't
you aren't

i allege you get payed by duke to sit on this blog and continually harrass dr. harr and others like a member of the crazies

you prove that you don't sit on this blog and continually harrass dr. harr and others like a crazy
and i'll let you slide on proving that your not a paid duke troll; September 9, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Here: check this out
it can be 'our' theme song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrbOR1nLkYU

CEE LO GREEEN - (GNARLS BARKLEY) - CRAZY
(lyrics on screen)

soon ... perhaps ... we will all be able to meet at the durham court house and perform one of those events where these people all start dancing in unison

ya'll practice the lyrics
we'll discuss details about the improv later; September 9, 2013 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: once you learn the lyrics, then practice to the following clip. We'll use this one to base the improv on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRLrOyxUBo; September 9, 2013 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree that the failure of Amendment One to pass was a blow to equal rights for gay people in NC. And we have black people like Victoria Peterson to identify as contributors to its defeat. You'd think black people would be FIRST in line to support equal rights. I guess not. Apparently people like Victoria the Bigot think as long as their rights are equal, who gives a damn about gay people. And, of course, god help you if you are both black AND gay.
You can thank Victoria for being the asshat that she is.......; September 9, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: i'm not victoria but i will share my thoughts on the matter:

best be askn for equal divorce rights to while your at it

thats my only thought on the matter; September 9, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the pink pig poster has a good point. He (or she) believes that nothing that is said on this blog should be believed unless it is proven. Now, THAT's logical.
For example, I cannot say that the pink piggy poster may have more than a passing interest in fracking bovine species...unless, of course, I can come up with evidence of a love child that looks like poster and smells like bacon.
And I can't say Harr is a liar unless I can prove he has made statements that have been shown to be lies. Oh, wait, well, I guess I CAN say Harr is a liar.
So, Dr. Anon and Walt, even though you continue to make intelligent, obviously professional and informed comments.......you can't claim the expertise we KNOW you possess unless you .....well, you know.
And, to be fair, the pink piggy poster will need to prove to us that he or she has spent considerable time studying the color of farm animals........up close.; September 9, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"It's treatment of Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum are good examples of how corrupt it is there."

The way corrupt DA NIFONG was lionized at the start of the Lacrosse case, the way false accuser Crystal was made out to be some kind of heroine, yes hese ARE examples of how corrupt justice is in North Carolina.; September 9, 2013 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 9, 2013 at 1:21 AM:

"HEY STUPID FRACKING NON DOC"

I presume you mean me.

"you are not a pyhsician(sic)"

Yes I am, a retired physician.

"by the way (not you Dr Harr)"

SIDNEY is an incompetent retired physician.

"prove that you are"

No.

"if you can't
you aren't"

Yes I am.

"i allege you get payed by duke to sit on this blog and continually harrass dr. harr and others like a member of the crazies"

Another allegation you will not corroborate.

"you prove that you don't sit on this blog and continually harrass dr. harr and others like a crazy
and i'll let you slide on proving that your not a paid duke troll"

Do you think I care what you will or will not let me do, you a serial fabricator and deluded troll.; September 9, 2013 at 4:20 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Are you ducking the issue again, that there was no evidence that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006? It seems so.; September 9, 2013 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny Hissy, the ducker......quack quack quack; September 9, 2013 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: ok

moving on

Dr. Harr - would you like to volunteer for the leo green part? Can you sing?

I wonder if you ask Mr. Nifong ifn he will play the prince part - good part by the way

AND:

everyone else practice the chorus and the lyrics and your own dance improv - something cool or what ever you want to do will work well

BUT

everyone will join in the very end with prince - and we'll all go:

SEE THAT?

SEE THAT?

just like prince does

and we'll point to the courthouse

got it?

Dr. Harr - you in?; September 9, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: how can you turn an improv into a fund raiser or awareness event for like a WANT AD type event?

HELP WANTED: Experienced criminal and civil justice lawyer who can handle this sheat dished at the durham/duke courthouse/judicial system. Pronto - quick - as - immediate start availability needed - or you can just get in line - whatever.

Do you think it would work - as in actually getting a lawyer to assist (without a conflict of interest)?; September 9, 2013 at 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt or A Lawyer,

With the newer version of self-defense laws outlined in the stand your ground defense - how can the law you point to apply?

How can anyone be responsible for the medical malpractice at a hospital if they are not the ones responsible for the lack of medical malpractice at the hospital?

If they (or basically everyone) IS now responsible to make sure that area hospitals are performing with NO malpractice then is it not now EVERYONE'S responsibility to insure the hospitals are NOT performing in a manner where medical malpractice becomes an issue in criminal self-defense matters?

What do you think? How do the two laws mesh now?; September 9, 2013 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: medical malpractice has nothing to do, at all, with so-called stand-your-ground laws in NC. You are confused. Take some time and educate yourself on what medical malpractice is, poster. It will help you. Also, Mangum cannot claim the stand-your-ground defense in her case; that information was provided long ago by Walt.....who we ALL know is an attorney, well qualified to comment on such matters. Again, educate yourself to understand why the SYG defense is not applicable in the killing of Reginald Daye. It isn't applicable in the double murders ...in the Carter case either.....for numerous reasons. Mangum's crime falls under the felony murder rule, which we also learned long ago. Numerous specific case law examples have been provided by Walt.......which, of course, asshat harr ignores....because it doesnit fit his delusions. I'd suggest, if you want one shred of credibility, you educate yourself and stop with the ridiculous pig-frack crap. Your posts are a waste of time and space, otherwise, and nobody gives a damn what you think.; September 9, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi Walt,
Just curious......You think Mangum's new attorney, given his experience, was picked by the PD office after Vann said no? Do attorneys connected with the PD office have the option to decline a case? I would assume they do. I also assume the new attorney is going to take the same hard line with Mangum as did Holmes......in relation to her dealings with/communications with Harr. (as in, you do it, I'm outta here....)
I know your ability to comment is limited on certain subjects....so I understand. Have just wondered about who put up the bucks to spring her out of jail....and what defense any lawyer is going to be able to mount.........given harr's stupidity in running his mouth.; September 9, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously

of course malpractice is part of what my question was

you do not have to repeat the case to me by now, i have listened/read most/some since i've been here and have been well informed - thanks

don't read my posts then
seriously - it won't bother me in the least if you don't

your abuse is obviously not stopping me from speaking my thoughts on the subject if i think they may help myself or others better understand what the frack is going on or i have questions, etc., so - hey - stop - thanks

why can't you just accept that i was interested in posting about the main hazard of fracking in nc - which is major earthquake risk because of the composition of the rocks that form the crust of this very ancient continental plate that nc and the eastern seaboard sit upon.

It is a concern which duke has been involved in protesting, even when the 900 + got arrested at the legislature probably, and actually I was hoping someone here from duke would have more thoughts on it - it was something I was thinking of at the time of importance in connection with duke.

And the pink pigs - i was reminded how amazed i was to see a pile of pink pigs - and why the pigs were pink - that's all (it was during a hurricane - which is always something on peoples minds this time of year in nc)

got it
are you going to keep complaining - cuz i'm not going to explain again - wait - except to clarify that that's where i got part of the distate at the thought of a hog waste-land from ... it was just a thought that i thought COULD happen ... that's all.

got a prob with that? what is your prob? i've asked you that before haven't i?; September 9, 2013 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: dear piggy poster.....in case you just have problems reading, the subject matter for this web site is supposed to be at least something remotely related to Nifong....it isn't supposed to be a general anything-goes free-for-all about the color of hogs, earthquakes, black helicopters, miley cyrus, your mother, or any other National Enquirer topic. Of course, you can continue to run your mouth....nobody gives a damn.; September 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: then why do you keep complaining about it?

i get it - you don't give a damn
good for you
yeah; September 9, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: That's another reason why i don't like duke.

You basically can sit here and watch them misadvise people - and tell anyone who questions the misadvice to shut up to protect their whatevers (usually money and power and prestige and their supporters who depend on the ability of duke to misinform and misadvise the public and their patients and the legislature and whomever basically in order to continue to fill their coffers (even if it DOES fill coffins)) ... they do not give a damn - and neither does duke

that is malpractice when it applies to the medical and legal profession isn't it? horrible to watch to say the least; September 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The other poster is correct. This is supposed to be a web site for discussion of topics related to Nifong. I don't know what your problem is. Well, wait a minute....I get it now, poster. Nifong = pig. Nifong = gas. Smart thinkin' there, poster.; September 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM
A Lawyer said...: Walt or A Lawyer,

With the newer version of self-defense laws outlined in the stand your ground defense - how can the law you point to apply?

I believe that North Carolina's stand your ground law was enacted after the events for which Ms. Mangum was indicted, and is therefore inapplicable to this case. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong as to the timing of the enactment.)

How can anyone be responsible for the medical malpractice at a hospital if they are not the ones responsible for the lack of medical malpractice at the hospital? If they (or basically everyone) IS now responsible to make sure that area hospitals are performing with NO malpractice then is it not now EVERYONE'S responsibility to insure the hospitals are NOT performing in a manner where medical malpractice becomes an issue in criminal self-defense matters? What do you think? How do the two laws mesh now?

No one is "responsible" for malpractice committed by Duke (if there was any malpractice) except Duke and the doctors involved, so I am not sure what you mean by your question. If you are talking about the State v. Welch rule (that malpractice by Duke is not a defense to a homicide prosecution), the point is not that Ms. Mangum is "responsible for" Duke's (alleged) malpractice; the law is that if Ms. Mangum committed a criminal assault that put Mr. Daye in the hospital, she is responsible for the forseeable results of that assault (which might include malpractice, because malpractice is something that happens sometimes).

Let me give you an analogy: If I hit you on the head to steal your wallet, knock you out and leave you lying in the street (still alive and only temporarily unconscious), I am guilty of murder if a drunk driver comes along and runs you over-- not because I am responsible for drunk driving, but because (a) I am responsible for leaving you lying in the street and (b) getting run over by a drunk driver is something that sometimes happens to people lying in the street.; September 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
flart? well named, I'd say.....

It's a portmanteau of Flash and article... similar to a flog, but with its attention directed at an article or written document. Actually, the difference is quite subtle.; September 9, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: ok well
when i think of pigs and gas i actually think of duke trying to turn hog waste into a usuable energy source - i have no idea how that idea is panning out - but the chinese did just buy some hog farms in nc.

it might be better than fracking as far as the capability to destroy the entire eastern seaboard ...

we have windmill plans in the atlantic. what are your thoughts on huge windmill blades and hurricanes, if you have any that is?

As far as Mr. Nifong is concerned, I just suggested to Dr. Harr that he see if Mr. Nifong was interested in an event to raise awareness for a need for lawyers with no conflict of interest with duke in durham.

I suggested a guitar piece played by Prince - that would be cool - it is an excellent piece of music - i'm praticing my innocent bystander joiner in part now ...

Did you watch it?
are you interested in joining in as one of the innocent bystander joiner ins? The more the merrier - even the cops could practice and be prepared - that would seriously be cool ifn they did (in a nice kinda way and all) - and then everyone just walk away as if nothing happened

.................
.; September 9, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I think your prediction is on target because I believe a conflict of interest does exist."

Yeah, and you believe in the non existent carpetbagger jihad and jedi mind tricks.

Yes, both do exist, and the mainstream media is involved in both. Your belief that they don't exist is an example of a Jedi mind-trick being played on you.; September 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
this is seriously one of the saddest professional moments i have seen - other than all the others i have been made aware of

it is sad that duke has lead you to this - don't you think?

sorry for that

it IS very sad to watch

that's what i'm going to do for awhile anyway since ya'll are going to keep attacking anyway (i will continue to document - have fun)

dr. harr, take care and good luck with your case - i hope you amended it to add your causes and requests or whatever it is that you need to do to make it accomplish what you want it to - i think that might be necessary - but truly i do not know

hopefully, this pd lawyer thing will work for ms. mangum, if not, she should stay strong and take good care and know that others stand with her as she fights the good fight or does what is in her best interest - whatever is best for her and she decides to do

she has been through a lot and deserves a fair and just trial with due process and equal protection - more than any body else i've seen fought for lately in durham by duke

that part is also to obvious to ignore - how hyprocritical that appears from where we are sitting and watching now

thanks for your time and thought
take care

Thank you for your comments. My intentions in filing the lawsuit are to address the fact that the justice system in North Carolina has been corrupted and hijacked.

Two things about Mangum's attorney will prove that her interests are priorities over Duke and the medical examiner.
1) It would be a most positive sign if the defense lawyer contacts me as I know more about the case than anyone and have a medical background; and 2) If the Defense attorney files a Motion to Dismiss based on the fraudulent autopsy report.; September 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

I notice in your flog, as in your 300 word reply, you do not deny anything the interviewer said, like you spent most of your time post medical school filing lawsuits rather than practicing medicine.

I can see why you are uncomfortable having your background known. It is not a very impressive background for a physician, or for any other profession for that matter.

The Indy Week was gracious enough to grant me a 300 word rebuttal... and as you know, that is not a lot. I believe that my exposure in that 300 word reply would be much better spent getting across important points I wanted to make rather than attempting to try and refute what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated gossip.

I am not uncomfortable talking about my past, but it tends to be an irrelevant diversion more than anything else. For the Indy Week to discuss my past in a single article is akin to compressing The Iliad and Odyssey into a short story. Impossible.

Besides, I never wanted the story to be about me... I wanted it to be about issues of importance to all Tar Heelians.; September 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: You have to put it in a summary or something - and submit it - don't you? seriously - i'm wondering

Maybe i seriously misunderstand that part (about what Walt said and cause for action and requested actions or something) - but i don't think so.

Ask Walt what he is talking about.

If you ask for something - can you please ask them to fix the public defender system so that lawyers are available in any area without a conflict of interest to the main identity of that county or region or whatever (like with duke in durham).

It is a big problem in durham that needs to be addressed - and with duke - the situation exists throughout the state, etc.; September 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM
A Lawyer said...: 2) If the Defense attorney files a Motion to Dismiss based on the fraudulent autopsy report.

As I and others have explained to you, North Carolina law does not authorize a pre-trial motion to dismiss based on a claim that an autopsy report is fraudulent. Challenges to the autopsy report may be made at trial, but not before. You seem resistant to being enlightened about the law.; September 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:41 wrote: " Just curious......You think Mangum's new attorney, given his experience, was picked by the PD office after Vann said no?" Probably

"Do attorneys connected with the PD office have the option to decline a case?"

There are two kinds of lawyers connected to the Public Defender's office. Employees and contract public defenders. Employees of the office can decline and do for many reasons. For example someone else in the office represented a snitch who set up a drug deal. Then the PD would have to decline on all the subsequent defendants. Contract public defenders, like Vann and Holmes can decline for all those reasons plus they can just tell the PD that they don't want a case.

"I also assume the new attorney is going to take the same hard line with Mangum as did Holmes......in relation to her dealings with/communications with Harr. (as in, you do it, I'm outta here....)"

I would hope so. Crytstal's ability to get a good defense depends on keeping Sid as far from her defense as possible.

"....and what defense any lawyer is going to be able to mount.........given harr's stupidity in running his mouth."

Sid has certainly compromised her case. He has caused delay, he has exposed the lack of an intervening cause to the State. (Not really that big a deal, Nichols is competent, but now the State is sure of his findings beyond all doubt, thanks to Sid.)

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "2) If the Defense attorney files a Motion to Dismiss based on the fraudulent autopsy report."

There you go again asking a lawyer to do that which is not allowed in NC. I asked you once before to point out the part of the statute that authorized such a filing. You have again failed to do so.

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:57 AM wrote: "Walt or A Lawyer,

With the newer version of self-defense laws outlined in the stand your ground defense - how can the law you point to apply?"

Stand your ground came into effect after Daye died, so it's not applicable. However, looking forward, I can see no implication for SYG on the intervening cause doctrine. But, if you feel otherwise, please explain. I look forward to it.

"How can anyone be responsible for the medical malpractice at a hospital if they are not the ones responsible for the lack of medical malpractice at the hospital?"

Medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. The criminal is not "responsible" for it. Med-mal just does not cut off their criminal responsibility.

"If they (or basically everyone) IS now responsible...."

See my comments above. Medical malpractice is not an intervening cause to break criminal liability.

"What do you think? How do the two laws mesh now?"

Which two laws?

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:10 PM wrote: "If you ask for something - can you please ask them to fix the public defender system so that lawyers are available in any area without a conflict of interest to the main identity of that county or region or whatever (like with duke in durham).

It is a big problem in durham that needs to be addressed - and with duke - the situation exists throughout the state, etc."

That certainly is not a problem in Durham or anywhere else in North Carolina. However, if you can specific situations of a conflict of interest, please do so, we all want to know.

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: thanks,walt. appreciated your response about Mangum's new attorney and the PD office. At the rate Mangum has run through attorneys, she's gonna be looking for counsel at Bob's LawSchool and Washeteria pretty soon.; September 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: that just does NOT make sense walt if they can get away with malpractice in the same courtroom that they can then be blamed for the malpractice - especially if it introduces doubt

that is how it is in durham with duke; September 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: walts answer about the pd office was not the way it really is - he just said that because he has too

seriously

you don't get that yet?; September 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: First, Holmes' conflict of interest had nothing to do with Duke, as you have already been told. Can you not read? Holmes' conflict stems from an appointment of him to lead a department in the law school at NCCU....and within that department is another lawyer who is representing someone who has some kind of legal action against Mangum. So, Holmes simply cannot be in any kind of line/supervisory or collective arrangement with another attorney who is involved with someone who has an action against Mangum. I don't understand why you can't grasp something as simple as this.
Jones quit (her Walker case). Vann has quit twice. Shella quit. Holmes withdrew due to a conflict. In each and every situation, with the exception of Holmes, the lawyer left because of interference from the ranting lunatic, sidney harr and his wing nut fans. (all three of them....). Holmes put his foot down with Mangum and basically cut off all her access to Harr. (the RIGHT thing to do). I hope Maier does the same thing.
Why you think Duke is involved IN ANY WAY is either because you are just too dumb to understand, or, because you simply are too much of a hater to accept FACTS.; September 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: i understand all that believe you me at this point

but - if it indicates hate by not looking at the true reality of the facts that actually effect anyone other then duke - then that too needs to be considered in this case.

sorry ... not buying it about duke not involved in the case when the autopsy report speaks specifically of their medical services - and Mr. Daye died while receiving it.

I would fight forever on that one - i assure you that.

why do you do that? no one is fooled but yourself - me in the least obviously; September 9, 2013 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Yes, both do exist, and the mainstream media is involved in both. Your belief that they don't exist is an example of a Jedi mind-trick being played on you."

This is a statement which confirms you do not know what you are talking about.; September 9, 2013 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Yes, both do exist, and the mainstream media is involved in both. Your belief that they don't exist is an example of a Jedi mind-trick being played on you."

It is also an admission on your part that you can not document the existence of the so called carpetbagger jihad. What can you expect from someone who thinks Perry Mason is a legal authority.; September 9, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: once again the poster wants to stick his head up his posterior rather than face the truth. There is not ONE WORD of error, fault, fraud, conspiracy or otherwise impropriety in the care of Daye and the Nichols report. Not ONE, poster. Whether you chose to accept that FACT is your own problem.
There is ONE person who has dreamed up an entire fantasy about Daye and Duke....Sidney Harr....because it suits his old man/racist/lying psyche to pretend that Mangum is anything but what she is.........a black sex worker with a criminal history and the morals of a house cat.
You believe anything you wish............I suggest, since you seem fixated on bovines, how about the "pigs fly" fantasy.
Oh, and while you are running your mouth......how about YOU provide ONE single, just ONE single tiny little bit of PROOF to support your brain dead notion that Duke killed Daye, bro??? Just one; September 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Two things about Mangum's attorney will prove that her interests are priorities over Duke and the medical examiner."

BULLSHIT!

"1) It would be a most positive sign if the defense lawyer contacts me as I know more about the case than anyone and have a medical background;"

Your medical background is non existent and your uncorroborated allegations show you know nothing about the case.

"and 2) If the Defense attorney files a Motion to Dismiss based on the fraudulent autopsy report."

Walt has already explained that can not be done before trial. It would have to be established at trial. Who is going to establish at trial that the report is fraudulent? You?
HAH!!! You do not have the expertise to evaluate the autopsy report.; September 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The Indy Week was gracious enough to grant me a 300 word rebuttal... and as you know, that is not a lot. I believe that my exposure in that 300 word reply would be much better spent getting across important points I wanted to make rather than attempting to try and refute what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated gossip."

You are reluctant to talk about your background.

"I am not uncomfortable talking about my past, but it tends to be an irrelevant diversion more than anything else. For the Indy Week to discuss my past in a single article is akin to compressing The Iliad and Odyssey into a short story. Impossible."

Yes you are uncomfortable talking about your background. Otherwise, you would talk about it.

"Besides, I never wanted the story to be about me... I wanted it to be about issues of importance to all Tar Heelians."

What issue. You have not raised any issue which is important to each and every citizen of NC. You have just imagined you have.; September 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I am not uncomfortable talking about my past, but it tends to be an irrelevant diversion more than anything else. For the Indy Week to discuss my past in a single article is akin to compressing The Iliad and Odyssey into a short story. Impossible."

Your past is so inconsequential and undistinguished, there is not enough there for a nursery rhyme.; September 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM:

:that just does NOT make sense walt if they can get away with malpractice in the same courtroom that they can then be blamed for the malpractice - especially if it introduces doubt

that is how it is in durham with duke"

As there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of Duke, it would not raise doubt as to Crystal's guilt.

You have not documented malpractice.

SIDNEY is such a joke as a physician, he is incapable of knowing malpractice.; September 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: personally, i would fight it because i know what i'm talking about from what i've seen and read and then thought about until i understood or knew i didn't understand, etc.

i believe myself more than anything else obviously

i find life is easier lived that way; September 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I am not uncomfortable talking about my past, but it tends to be an irrelevant diversion more than anything else. For the Indy Week to discuss my past in a single article is akin to compressing The Iliad and Odyssey into a short story. Impossible."

You do not want to talk about your past because it would thoroughly discredit you as a witness, as an advocate, as an advisor to Crystal.

It would not surprise anyone if, after showing the court the Indy Week article, the judge would bar from the court room.; September 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:25 PM wrote: "but - if it indicates hate by not looking at the true reality of the facts that actually effect anyone other then duke - then that too needs to be considered in this case."

The law is, what it is. Medical Malpractice does not cut off Crystal's liability and culpability for Daye's death. I have been writing the same thing since April 2011. I have been citing the precedent for that since April 2011. No matter how often you claim to the contrary, the law has not changed. Duke is not at issue here. Crystal's act is. Nothing more. If you don't want to understand, that's to your detriment.

"sorry ... not buying it about duke not involved in the case when the autopsy report speaks specifically of their medical services - and Mr. Daye died while receiving it."

That is just not the reality of the situation. Read St. v. Welch and St. v. Holsclaw. The NC Supreme Court has rejected your argument. Ignore the law if you wish, but it only makes you look foolish.

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "My intentions in filing the lawsuit are to address the fact that the justice system in North Carolina has been corrupted and hijacked."

It is you, Sid, who is trying to hijack the justice system. You have violated Crystal's right to effective counsel by revealing evidence to the state. You have written her that you want to trample on her fifth amendment right to be silent. You have filed a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit against Duke, Dean Levi and Richard Brodhead. You have filed a suit where you have no standing which will take time in court away from worthy cases. You, sir, are the hijacker.

Walt-in-Durham; September 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...: walt, it is not that people don't understand what you are saying - it is that they do not agree with the injustice of what you say is the law, without considering other aspects of laws or evidence favorable to Ms. Mangum.

personally, i think what you are doing is unprofessional and perhaps unethical. if you think Dr. Harr has been the one that is hijacking the justice system - than you and others pushing him continually on this blog has contributed to it.; September 10, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Anonymous said...: not only that - but you know it walt.

and you think people are stupid and duke brain washed enough to believe you - and if they are not you sit there and enjoy watching the paid (or unpaid) duke troll group push questioning intelligence into silence if it goes against what you are saying in your unprofessional and unethical manner. (that is duke btw)

you think you can capatilize on dukes hatred of ms. mangum to continue to push dr. harr and watch dr. harr get pushed continually and think that is amusing (since you watch it so much) just like watching and enabling the crazies in duke bb game and enjoying THAT.

it is sickening to watch to say the least - all of it.

and - you can't just ignore it
because of the medical services they provide to so many which makes it go way beyond belief that this IS duke and they CAN get away with it (again).

still not buying it about them not being held accountable for what they have done.
and won't; September 10, 2013 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: you know - when you sat there and heard the crazies screaming orphan at the bb player, did you even know whether or not the kid's parents had just died at duke (from a car accident or whatever)?

NO

noone did

it is sickening to this day that they have that attitude - especially since it simply mirrors dukes general attitude toward ALL people to this day - and it is so apparent - and that duke actually thinks people don't see it - so they keep trying to deny it - when it so apparent and sickening - and their denial games enables them to continue to do the same to any and all others

hard to get healthy treatment in an environment like that.; September 10, 2013 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 2:59 AM

"not only that - but you know it walt.

and you think people are stupid and duke brain washed enough to believe you - and if they are not you sit there and enjoy watching the paid (or unpaid) duke troll group push questioning intelligence into silence if it goes against what you are saying in your unprofessional and unethical manner. (that is duke btw)"

You have never displayed intelligence, questioning or otherwise. Making uncorroborated allegations is not a sign of intelligence.

"you think you can capatilize on dukes hatred of ms."

It would be more accurate to say you have an unreasoning hatred of Duke.

"mangum to continue to push dr. harr and watch dr. harr get pushed continually and think that is amusing (since you watch it so much) just like watching and enabling the crazies in duke bb game and enjoying THAT."

SIDNEY HARR is someone else who hates Duke. He believes the three innocent Lacrosse players "shook down" Duke for millions of dollars. He tried to shake down Duke and failed miserably.

"it is sickening to watch to say the least - all of it."

No one is forcing you to post on this blog. If you find it sickening, it is the way a bulemic finds eating sickening.

"and - you can't just ignore it because of the medical services they provide to so many which makes it go way beyond belief that this IS duke and they CAN get away with it (again)."

You have never corroborated your allegations that Duke gets away with it(whatever "it" is). You make your allegations and expect people to believe you. If they don't you bawl that they are attacking you and committing hate crimes against you.

"still not buying it about them not being held accountable for what they have done."

Prove they have done anything.

"and won't"

Which means you will keep fabricating.; September 10, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, I see.....because the kids said something stupid, the entire university is the home of satan, is that it? really, poster? really? wow. And, just exactly how many of the 12,000+ students actually yelled orphan? and are you aware that coachK spoke very strongly, admonishing the handfull of students who blurted out the stupid remarks? and are you dumb enough to tell us that college students, from ONLY duke, say stupid things? Are you? and do you think that UNC students and state students and Harvard students and nccu students don't ever say stupid things? good lord, put a sock in it, bro. you are filling up this wite with nonsense.; September 10, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Anonymous said...: by the way, poster, NCCU students have been caught yelling "cracker cowards" at sports events where their team is playing a team with white students on it. Why don't you spend your time railing against the evil NCCU school? and, of course, the UNC students routinely yell "duke pukes". and, I believe not too long ago a bunch of the UNC football and basketball team members got themselves in a wee bit of criminal trouble.......so certainly that means the entire UNC state school system must also be in control of the NC judicial system.; September 10, 2013 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: you don't get it that i do NOT give a frack about sports at duke and those other things you mention don't include people getting friggin killed and raping and 'watching' people get heads blown off at the front door of dukes hospital, etc., etc., but yes - i do understand why duke makes unc want to puke

i am concerned about people dying at and because of duke which i have 'seen' way fng too many times - too friggin many to count - and - i'm not the only one if you read the local news a bit - it is hard to watch and be subjected to - you do not get that do you

all you think about is bb
and you actually think it is ok to sit there and lecture me about all that sports sheat when that is what i am referring to - to begin with

duke sucks; September 10, 2013 at 5:27 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:23 AM wrote: "walt, it is not that people don't understand what you are saying - it is that they do not agree with the injustice of what you say is the law, without considering other aspects of laws or evidence favorable to Ms. Mangum."

Then make the argument that the law should be changed, don't write like it is not the law. So far it is you who has ignored the law and the facts, not I. Also, you need to be aware that there is no evidence of malpractice. Two competent pathologists have examined Daye's course of treatment and found nothing to indicate malpractice. Sid's claim of malpractice is based on out of date science. That's why no one has picked up on his argument. Not the M.E., not the defense expert, not any of the news outlets. It's not that he is being censored, it's that his argument is no longer supported by sound science. A fact that Dr. A, along with every science reporter and crime reporter he has had contact with has figured out very quickly.

"personally, i think what you are doing is unprofessional and perhaps unethical."

It is unprofessional and unethical to point out what the law is? Or, is it unprofessional and unethical to disagree with you?

"if you think Dr. Harr has been the one that is hijacking the justice system - than you and others pushing him continually on this blog has contributed to it."

We warned Sid not to file. Now, we are trying to educate those who read this blog why Sid is failing in his lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: and

instead of fixing that fracked up attitude that duke people have like you would think that a professional organization would do who strive to be leaders in the medical field

no

they continue to push and enable and provide fertile breeding ground for such outright hatred, animosity, and trolling, and bullying, and harrassing ...................... and killing ...... and raping ......and killing ..... and bullying ..... and trolling and ..... killing ....

and

they suck

and so do ya'll who keep doing all that - and enabling with your conflicted of interest support (or lack thereof when needed to stand against that stuff)

wouldn't you say - if you had to keep watching and being subjected to all that AND STILL HAVE TO TRUST THEM FOR LIFE SAVING MEDICAL SERVICES?

get real
i will not ignore what just happened here as far as my opinion of duke is concerned either - so thanks for that; September 10, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: walt, that is unethical and you know it; September 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:27 AM wrote: "...i am concerned about people dying at and because of duke which i have 'seen' way fng too many times - too friggin many to count - and - i'm not the only one if you read the local news a bit - it is hard to watch and be subjected to - you do not get that do you...."

Three things: you would be more persuasive if you used capitals and punctuation; profanity is not persuasive; and generalities are not persuasive.

If you know, what are Duke's mortality and morbidity statistics? How do those compare with other teaching and research hospitals? How do those compare with other community hospitals? If you don't know, do some research and present your findings. We might be surprised. You might be surprised.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Anonymous said...: so, why don't you just admit then...that you simply hate duke....and that no amount of truth/fact is going to change your biased blind uninformed opinion? at least that would be an honest admission, poster.; September 10, 2013 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Amen, Walt.; September 10, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 5:27 AM

"i am concerned about people dying at and because of duke which i have 'seen' way fng too many times - too friggin many to count - and - i'm not the only one if you read the local news a bit - it is hard to watch and be subjected to - you do not get that do you"

If you do not provide facts to back up your allegations, that suggests you are fabricating, again.; September 10, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 5:47 AM

"they continue to push and enable and provide fertile breeding ground for such outright hatred, animosity, and trolling, and bullying, and harrassing ...................... and killing ...... and raping ......and killing ..... and bullying ..... and trolling and ..... killing ...."

I say again, back up your allegations with facts. That you can not suggests you are fabricating, yet again.; September 10, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Anonymous said...: do you even read the local news?

i've been reading it for way too long i assure you - so therefore - no allegations - just talking about the local news i've read

lots of fun
you should try it

blaaaaaooooooooooohhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm; September 10, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 6:05 AM

"i've been reading it(the local news) for way too long i assure you - so therefore - no allegations - just talking about the local news i've read"

So how come you will not quote from the local news, will not provide dates and times when these so called facts were published.

It suggests, yet again, that you are fabricating.

lots of fun
you should try it

blaaaaaooooooooooohhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm; September 10, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: why don't you if you are so curious about it non proven doc - you only alledge that you know; September 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM

"why don't you if you are so curious about it non proven doc - you only alledge(sic) that you know"

I am not making any allegations about massive evil at Duke. You are. The responsibility for supporting your allegations rests with you. Since you duck your responsibility, it suggests you can not support your allegations, which, again, suggests you are fabricating your allegations.; September 10, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: alleged retired doc
prove you are a doctor first

we'll go from there to whether or not you are a paid duke troll or not; September 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Nobody who posts on the site HAS to prove anything they say. None of us. Not me. Not Walt. Not Lance. Not Kenny. and certainly not Harr.
We can all continue to make our opinions known as freely as we wish.
The point, however, is that posters who make accusations SHOULD be more than willing to PROVE with documentation. I think that's a basic principle of law, is it not? He who accuses must prove, right? So, if Harr accuses Nichols of fraud, then Harr SHOULD be quite willing to prove his accusations. He has not provided proof. What is has done, however, is restate his accusations. Over and Over. This is NOT proof. Telling a lie 100 times does not make it the truth.

Poster, Walt the lawyer has repeatedly cited case law to inform/educate and backup his explanations about Mangum's case. He is not making up information. It's all right there on the internet if you care to look. If you don't like the law, then do as he says, and become an advocate to change the law itself.
The doctor who posts here occasionally does not make accusations. He offers his opinion and does so in a highly respectful manner. If you want to offer your OPINIONS, that's great. It is when you make accusations, wild ones, without one shred of proof that your credibility is exposed.
If you want to provide proof that Duke Hospital is murdering people routinely, that the campus is a rapefest, that people get beheaded on the front steps of the Ad building, then do so.
But do NOT expect anybody to take you seriously if you make claims, expressed as accusations, and then refuse to provide documentation to support your claims. And, restating your claims over and over does NOT make them true.
I'd suggest, further, that the use of profanity and incessant references to silliness about pigs and fracking just makes you look foolish. Stop your whine about being bullied, too. It's laughable.; September 10, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: walt you are truly stupid to think i would be surprised, and truly, i'm not trying to be persuasive, will not be providing facts, and obviously will spell, punctuate, and grammeratize when i damn well feel like it ... hah

i'm not the one providing unethically based legal services that is obvious to all - you are

why do you do that?; September 10, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the poster's last response to Walt pretty well spells out the mindset, lack of integrity, lack of respect, lack of intelligence and lack of much of anything but the ability to lash out with profanity.
Trash is trash.....somebody please empty the trash.; September 10, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: i think the thing that really gets me about this particular case - regardless of who the people are - just the actions by duke and the judicial system in general:

duke did malpractice

duke tried to hide the malpractice with the assistance of the medical inspector - when it was already obvious in the medical records, etc. that there was malpractice which caused the patient to be placed on and removed from life support - ending in death

and then they turn around and try to blame the malpractice on someone else when they don't even address the malpractice straight to the patients family face as they sit there and watch someone else get blamed for it and the medical inspector get blamed for trying to hide the malpractice - thinking all that is aok

and that is the law?

yeah right

what a farce

thats duke/durham for you

... never stops

and when you complain about that - it just happens again ... and again ... and again .... and again

... never stops; September 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM

"alleged retired doc
prove you are a doctor first

we'll go from there to whether or not you are a paid duke troll or not"

Let's go from here. I do not care whether or not you believe me. Whatever you want to believe, I am telling the truth.

I believe you are a fabricator because you make a lot of fantastic allegations and then refuse to corroborate them.; September 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM

"i think the thing that really gets me about this particular case - regardless of who the people are - just the actions by duke and the judicial system in general:

duke did malpractice

duke tried to hide the malpractice with the assistance of the medical inspector - when it was already obvious in the medical records, etc. that there was malpractice which caused the patient to be placed on and removed from life support - ending in death"

How about you provide some facts to corroborate your allegation. I have seen enough facts(from the medical records SIDNEY illegally accessed and published) to know there was no malpractice.

and then they turn around and try to blame the malpractice on someone else when they don't even address the malpractice straight to the patients family face as they sit there and watch someone else get blamed for it and the medical inspector get blamed for trying to hide the malpractice - thinking all that is aok"

Provide facts to corroborate your allegations of malpractice. No facts means you are fabricating.

"and that is the law?

yeah right

what a farce"

Like SIDNEY, you are incapable of knowing what the law is.

"thats duke/durham for you

... never stops

and when you complain about that - it just happens again ... and again ... and again .... and again

... never stops"

That something started is another thing you are fabricating.; September 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: ALLEDGED NOT PROVEN DOC:

i can't even read you at this point because of the blaaooooohhhhhmmmmmm crowding in everytime i start to read your replys - the bhp is trying to say something - hmmmmmmm

prove you are a retired doctor first and perhaps i'll even consider thinking about any of your repititious 'you allege this or that because i'm too lazy to go read the news for myself' crap again

silly bhp .... shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh; September 10, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: PROVE there was malpractice.....otherwise, stuff it; September 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: In case anybody missed it, there's a good piece on DIW from Augu 27th that includes reference to Harr and the IndyWeek article, the latest news on the Wahneeeeeema, and "thugniggaintellectual" Mark Neal. Always good to read.....KC is brillant.; September 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 8:34 AM

ALLEDGED NOT PROVEN DOC:

i can't even read you at this point because of the blaaooooohhhhhmmmmmm crowding in everytime i start to read your replys - the bhp is trying to say something - hmmmmmmm"

bhp means nothing other than that you are a butt headed poster.

"prove you are a retired doctor first and perhaps i'll even consider thinking about any of your repititious 'you allege this or that because i'm too lazy to go read the news for myself' crap again"

You haven't shown me anything that would want me to believe you are capable of taking anything seriously. You are making allegations and then refusing to corroborate them. The more you say that the more you look like a fabricator.

"silly bhp ...."

Yes you are a silly butt headed poster.
"shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

You remind me of the way Lance Armstrong acted before he was outed as a cheater. You think you can cover up your fabricating by blustering and threatening and crying that you are under attack and that you are the victim of hate crimes.

The real hate crimes are the uncorroborated allegations you make against Duke.

The more you act like Lance Armstrong, the more you show you are a fabricator.; September 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Two competent pathologists have examined Daye's course of treatment and found nothing to indicate malpractice"............. No, that is not what they did. There has been no examination of the treatment that Reginald Daye received at Duke Hospital. Dr. Nichols found the cause of death was the stab wound. Dr.Roberts has yet to express an opinion but, I suppose, one can conclude that she agrees with Dr. Nichols. She wont respond to Crystal's request for a written opinion and I, sincerely, doubt if her refusal is because of an altruistic concern, for Crystal as a person, or, for a negative affect any concurring statement, she might write, may have on Crystal's Court Case; September 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "There has been no examination of the treatment that Reginald Daye received at Duke Hospital. Dr. Nichols found the cause of death was the stab wound."

Thus, it was not malpractice. However, you are right on one point, even if it was malpractice, the legal effect is nothing. Malpractice is not an intervening cause.

"Dr.Roberts has yet to express an opinion but, I suppose, one can conclude that she agrees with Dr. Nichols."

Sid has reported that she agrees with Dr. Nichols.

"...I, sincerely, doubt if her refusal [to provide a written report] is because of an altruistic concern, for Crystal as a person, or, for a negative affect any concurring statement, she might write, may have on Crystal's Court Case"

No, she was instructed by Crystal's attorney not to provide a written report. Vann had good reason to give such an instruction. He knew full well that a written report would be posted on J4N and thus available for use by the state in Crystal's prosecution. In fact, Sid breached the attorney client confidentiality and published the sum and substance of Roberts oral report to Crystal. Thus, Vann's concern was well founded.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: You are incorrect, troll....and in fact, Harr himself provided the evidence that Roberts did, in fact, find no fault with Nichols' report. In one of his past web fabrications, Harr commented that Mangum had attended a meeting with Vann and Roberts present, and, in that meeting had been told by Roberts that there was no problem with the report. (I am paraphrasing because I do not have access to the old post from Harr). Mangum was complaining to Harr that she wanted a report.
Vann rightly did NOT want Roberts to provide her findings in writing because, had she done so, the prosecution would have immediate access to fully support Nichols' finding by a witness/expert for the defense! Why can you not get this through your skull; there was NOTHING wrong with what did Duke for Daye! If Roberts, an expert who Harr PRAISED to the skies till she didn't find what he wanted her to find........was hired by Vann to review the autopsy report. This is SOP for defense in a murder case, troll. I think Roberts was hired by Vann, as a defense witness, for MORE than just determining whether there was some medical error at Duke.....Vann already knew medical malpractice is not a basis for the defendant to avoid responsibility. I think Vann wanted a general review of the medical records, wound, angle of penetration, etc....more focused on the circumstances of the stabbing than on Daye's subsequent care. Fact is, NONE of us......and that includes Harr.......know what Roberts found......we ONLY have Harr's word, which is based on what HE claims Mangum told him. So, we have a proven serial liar telling another proven serial liar ...a story.
As you and Harr have been told repeatedly, medical malpractice, HAD THERE BEEN ANY AND THERE WAS NOT, is not grounds for Mangum to escape blame for killing Daye.; September 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt said: "Two competent pathologists have examined Daye's course of treatment and found nothing to indicate malpractice"............. No, that is not what they did."

So what did they do? Nothing to indicate malpractice.

"There has been no examination of the treatment that Reginald Daye received at Duke Hospital."

As someone who has done autopsies I can assure you part of the post mortem exam is a review of the clinical chart.

"Dr. Nichols found the cause of death was the stab wound. Dr.Roberts has yet to express an opinion but, I suppose, one can conclude that she agrees with Dr. Nichols."

So two competent pathologists agree that Reginald Daye died from the stab wound and not malpractice.

"She wont respond to Crystal's request for a written opinion and I, sincerely, doubt if her refusal is because of an altruistic concern, for Crystal as a person, or, for a negative affect any concurring statement, she might write, may have on Crystal's Court Case"

Crystal wants a report that corroborate's SIDNEY's thought on the case. Such a report would be a fabrication. What Dr. Roberts will not do is compromise her professional ethics by writing a bogus report.; September 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: to the person who alledges he is a retired doctor and is having a major hissy about allegations that i have NEVER made - since i've made NO allegations - and then proceeds to bully and troll me like a .... hmmm ... bully and troll .... because he can't stand that he just got caught lying about being a retired doc - because that's obviously not the truth - since now the alleged non-doc is projecting lance armstrong on to my silly little bhp - who is mostely silent (it's supposed to have taken a vow of silence - but its struggling with it apparently) - but lance armstrong - naw - i'll ask it sometimes - it's meditating right now - do you also imagine yourself as a lance armstrong in addition to a retired doc alledged nonproven doc?; September 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 7:50 AM said "The doctor who posts here occasionally does not make accusations. He offers his opinion and does so in a highly respectful manner"...............Highly respectful,oh my God! Isn't this the same, race obsessed guy who tries to psychoanalyze people and make psychiatric diagnosis of them? Then, he throws out these opinions as fact in an attempt to publicly discredit them. That's not very respectful and not very professional.; September 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Walt said...: Self-Defense.

Crystal has one, and only one, defense in her criminal case, self-defense. Those who care about her defense or just those who care about the cause of justice (be that justice for Reginald Daye, for Crystal or just the good people of North Carolina) will be interested to know the NC Court of Appeals has just recently handed down a decision clarifying "imperfect self-defense." In State v. Gaston, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 930 (9/3/2013) the court ruled that to be entitled to an instruction for imperfect self defense, the following questions must be answered in the affirmative: "(1) Is there evidence that the defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill his adversary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm, and
(2) if so, was that belief reasonable? If both queries are answered in the affirmative, then an instruction on self-defense must be given. If, however, the evidence requires a negative response to either question, a self-defense instruction should not be given."

The court has given us a very clear road map on imperfect self defense. It is an intentional act. (Formed a belief.) Further, the defendant must prove her belief was reasonable. The facts in Crystal's case are not clear. There is some damage to the bathroom door frame. But, is that enough evidence to support a belief on Crystal's part that she had to use deadly force to protect herself from death or serious bodily harm?

As has been pointed out, Crystal's case arose before the effective date of NC's stand your ground law, as did the Gaston case.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Careful, troll, your racist bias is showing again.
The doctor is entitle to express his opinions. There is a difference between an opinion and an accusation. Anybody can post an opinion and is under no obligation to prove their opinion. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to say three words on this site. It is only when someone insists, as does Harr, that he is right....JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS HE IS RIGHT....without any documentation or proof.........that's when credibility suffers. I don't know the physician who posts here occasionally. by the way, there is more than one. As I recall there is a family practice doctor, from out of state, who sometimes comments as well.
I, myself, have asked physician friends of mine to look at the documentation Harr illegally and inappriately posted here....and ALL of them say Harr is completely WRONG.
I think Dr Anon can have his opinions anytime he wishes........and I happen to agree with him about Harr's behavior.
Opinions are like elbows and assholes, troll, ....we all have them.; September 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:06 said: "So two competent pathologists agree that Reginald Daye died from the stab wound and not malpractice" Malpractice, in itself, can not be a cause of death. It must be an action that that was considered inappropriate or incompetent which constituted malpractice; September 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, a couple of questions about imperfect self defense then....
1. Would Mangum have to prove that she had no ability to run?
2. Would there have to be some evidence to show that Mangum was, in fact, in any danger physically.....given the fact that the photo shows NO evidence of any kind of beating, etc?; September 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM
A Lawyer said...: i think the thing that really gets me about this particular case - regardless of who the people are - just the actions by duke and the judicial system in general:

duke did malpractice

I have seen no evidence of that (although as a lawyer, not a doctor, I wouldn't know anyway)

duke tried to hide the malpractice with the assistance of the medical inspector

Where do you get that from?

- when it was already obvious in the medical records, etc. that there was malpractice which caused the patient to be placed on and removed from life support - ending in death

If it's so obvious, I can only imagine someone would have noticed

and then they turn around and try to blame the malpractice on someone else

This, I am quite sure didn't happen. Please explain when and how Duke tried to blame malpractice on someone else.

when they don't even address the malpractice straight to the patients family face

if Mr. Daye's family thinks Duke committed malpractice, they can sue Duke. I have not seen any report that suggests they think there was malpractice.

as they sit there and watch someone else get blamed for it and the medical inspector get blamed for trying to hide the malpractice - thinking all that is aok

Again, no one is being blamed for Duke's alleged malpractice and no one (except for Dr. Harr) is blaming the medical examiner for hiding any malpractice.

and that is the law?

The law is that: (a) Duke is responsible for its malpractice, if it committed any; (b) no one except Mr. Daye's family, and the state officials responsible for regulating hospitals, has the right to bring any lawsuit against Duke based on its malpractice; neither Ms. Mangum nor Dr. Harr (nor you nor I) has any such right; and (c) if Ms. Mangum criminally assaulted Mr. Daye, causing him to wind up at Duke where he died of medical malpractice, that constitutes the crime of murder under North Carolina law.

I gave you the following example yesterday, which you and Dr. Harr have ignored: I hit you on the head to steal your wallet; I leave you lying in the street, temporarily unconscious but otherwise uninjured; a drunken driver comes along and runs you over. I am guilty of murder; the drunken driver is guilty of manslaughter or vehicular homicide (whichever term is used in North Carolina; states vary); your family can sue either me, the drunken driver, or both of us for civil damages; but I cannot defend the murder charge by saying you would have lived had the drunk driver not come along or not been drunk. The reason for this law is that: I criminally put you in a spot where you got killed; you wouldn't have been killed but for my criminal actions; drunk drivers are a forseeable risk to people lying in the street.

Is any of that hard to follow?; September 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: the alledged docs can have and share their opinions all they want to - they just can't repeatedly keep bullying and trolling me without my responding back and proving them alledged only docs if that person wants to keep bugging everyone with his alledged bs and accusing me of fabricating everytime i or any one else says basically anything that questions dukes greatness - if i want ... hey

it is so fracking sickening to watch you people by the way and know that lives are actually at stake in these games

seriously

you people are DUKE TROLLS

you make duke look so bad you need no help from me that you suppose i give by my commenting on why i do not like duke i assure you; September 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: If I were the state, I might be asking the jury to consider questions like...
1. why didn't Mangum run when she said herself that she could have run out the door.
2. why she behave as she did after she stabbed daye? grabbed her purse, ran away, past apartment doors where there were people clearly in view who could have helped her, to a home where her child was...thus, apparently exposing that child to the threat that a madman was coming after her.
3. why was mangum harmed if her story of being beaten, choked, scratched, hit on the head, punched, etc. is true.? one would expect all that violence to have yielded facial injuries. The only apparent possible, I mean possible, injury was a tiny pinprick dent on her cheek that could have been caused by her own nail...or could have been there before.
4. Daye had no history of violent behavior; Mangum does. (I assume there would be limits on what past history might come in.....); September 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, when I got my CCP, I remember being instructed about use of my weapon, IN MY HOME, etc.......and about the necessity of retreating if that option were available. Since this killing occurred before the SYD in NC, does those older standards about deadly force apply? .....having a duty to retreat? Being in your home? etc.?; September 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" Malpractice, in itself, can not be a cause of death. It must be an action that that was considered inappropriate or incompetent which constituted malpractice"

Oh yes it can, e.g. transfusing an incompatible unit of blood.; September 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM:

"the alledged docs can have and share their opinions all they want to - they just can't repeatedly keep bullying and trolling me without my responding back and proving them alledged only docs if that person wants to keep bugging everyone with his alledged bs and accusing me of fabricating everytime i or any one else says basically anything that questions dukes greatness - if i want ... hey

it is so fracking sickening to watch you people by the way and know that lives are actually at stake in these games

seriously

you people are DUKE TROLLS

you make duke look so bad you need no help from me that you suppose i give by my commenting on why i do not like duke i assure you"

Boy are you p---ed at being exposed as a fabricator.; September 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: No, poster, you are incorrect again. The Duke physician in the Santillian case was NOT charged with murder. Medical malpractice was not the cause of death in Santillian. The cause of her death was multi-system organ failure and, ultimately, heart failure. Yes, of course, there was admitted (from the beginning) a terrible medical error....for which Duke, and through Dr. Jaspers' malpractice insurance, took complete responsibility from a medical care perspective. However, from a criminal perspective, as in offering Mangum relief from being held accountable, medical malpractice is NOT an intervening factor.
Like it or not, that is the truth. You are confusing cause of death, medically, with factors contributing to death.....such as a patient's age, prior condition, trauma, medical error, etc.
I don't know why you persist in harping on Duke's care of Daye. For the 100th time, there is not a single bit of evidence that Duke's care of Daye was anything but correct........AND...........you have been given the specific case law that PROVES that malpractice, even if had occurred (and it did not) is not a basis for relief from responsibility for the defendant.
What the heck is wrong with you that you cannot seem to grasp this simple truth?; September 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 7:41 wrote: " Just curious......You think Mangum's new attorney, given his experience, was picked by the PD office after Vann said no?" Probably

"Do attorneys connected with the PD office have the option to decline a case?"

There are two kinds of lawyers connected to the Public Defender's office. Employees and contract public defenders. Employees of the office can decline and do for many reasons. For example someone else in the office represented a snitch who set up a drug deal. Then the PD would have to decline on all the subsequent defendants. Contract public defenders, like Vann and Holmes can decline for all those reasons plus they can just tell the PD that they don't want a case.

"I also assume the new attorney is going to take the same hard line with Mangum as did Holmes......in relation to her dealings with/communications with Harr. (as in, you do it, I'm outta here....)"

I would hope so. Crytstal's ability to get a good defense depends on keeping Sid as far from her defense as possible.

"....and what defense any lawyer is going to be able to mount.........given harr's stupidity in running his mouth."

Sid has certainly compromised her case. He has caused delay, he has exposed the lack of an intervening cause to the State. (Not really that big a deal, Nichols is competent, but now the State is sure of his findings beyond all doubt, thanks to Sid.)

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, for the umpteenth time, I have never seen anything in writing from Dr. Roberts... Period!

The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate. That's meaningless!! If that statement was true, she would not have any problem putting it in writing.; September 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: the way you guys try to make duke look better only makes them look worse when you attack people for not liking what they did when you even admit it was a horrible medical malpractice - very public experience as the child was dying and bleeding internally to death while everyone read about it. i remember reading about her brain bleeding ... why was her brain bleeding again - because they put a heart with the wrong blood type in ... how stupid is that?

i didn't say they murdered her (although essentially they did) i gave it as an example of duke killing someone ... why was her brain bleeding again? No one apologized to me for having to 'watch' that i assure you.

are you going to apologize to me when this case finally goes to court if it does and malpractice is proven and ms. mangum isn't charged? no - of course not

you DO NOT KNOW - anymore than anyone else as it is in trial and all evidence has not been presented, etc.

your attacking me won't change that - i assure you; September 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM
A Lawyer said...: The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate. That's meaningless!! If that statement was true, she would not have any problem putting it in writing.

She would have a HUGE problem putting it in writing. If it's in writing, it has to be presented to the prosecution, who can then argue to the jury, "even the defendant's own hired expert agrees with us!"

As a defense lawyer, I NEVER want an expert report to be in writing until I'm sure it's helpful to the defense.

You have been told this many times before. Haven't you been enlightened?; September 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Harr, you are truly an idiot. If Roberts had put her findings in writing......that the autopsy report, etc, were accurate......then the report would have been immediately available to the state....and would seal the deal in terms of Nichols credibility. The fact that YOU blew it by even mentioning Roberts' findings of accuracy is all it took for the state to know that Roberts assessment did NOT, at all, help Mangum's defense. If you had kept your mouth SHUT, then the state would NOT have known the oral findings from Roberts that were and are NOT in Mangum's favor. How dumb do you have to be to get this? YOU blew it for Mangum and you know it.

Roberts did not find what YOU wanted her to find. When she did not follow YOUR instruction to her, via your letter, telling her what she was supposed to find.......then you changed your assessment of her. Bull crap, sidney. total bull crap.; September 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: and for the 101th time........IF there had been any medical malpractice, AND THERE WAS NOT, it would not be an intervening factor in terms of relief for Mangum. How can you be so damn dumb as to not understand simple case law that you have been shown at least 20 times, hard?; September 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: when the media started talking about her internal bleeding - and the mother was still pleading for someone else to die so her child could receive a new heart ... seriously ... give me a break

and duke was like - ok - we'll get another heart and try to look like the saviors that we obviously aren't (they love doing THAT btw - going in and saving you like heros after almost killing you) - and the kid is bleeding to death ... and massive bleeding and swelling in her brain ...

i was wondering then ... why?
i heard more than that from others i assure you; September 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate.

Are you saying that Crystal Mangum is unreliable as a source for this statement?; September 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: and then they asked the mom if she wanted to donate her child's body parts ... which upset her even more ... (they were probably treating her like you people have treated me on this blog - same attitude)

that's duke

that's why noone will believe or take duke's lies now - that and the lacrosse case - plus everything else they have done - noone can take it any more - so quit fracking blaming anyone but duke for what duke has done; September 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: Keep in mind Crystal was charged under the First Degree Felony Murder Rule because she fled the apartment with the two Money Orders that Day had given to her; which they deemed as Larceny. I think all can agree to this being a case of extreme overcharging. Crystal did not stab Daye in order to steal these Money Orders. Using this Rule, it relieves the Prosecution from the burden of proving intent to kill. These phoney larceny charges were laid prejudicially against Crystal, hoping to get her a sentence of life in prison; a clear case of selective Justice so prevalent there in North Carolina; September 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate. That's meaningless!! If that statement was true, she would not have any problem putting it in writing."

Boy are you confused.

What can you expect from someone like SIDNEY? What is his proof that the Carpetbagger jihad exists? He says anyone who does not believe in the jihad is the victim of a Jedi mind trick. Where do Jedi mind tricks exist? In the fictional Star Wars Universe.

Then, SIDNEY believes the greatest legal mind of the US is the fictional Perry Mason.; September 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Keep in mind Crystal was charged under the First Degree Felony Murder Rule because she fled the apartment with the two Money Orders that Day had given to her; which they deemed as Larceny."

Crystal was charged with Murder after Reginald Daye died as a result of the stab wound she inflicted. Prior to his death, Reginald Daye said that Crystal had taken his money.

"I think all can agree to this being a case of extreme overcharging."

KENHYDERAL and SIDNEY might. However their collective understanding of Criminal law is zero.

"Crystal did not stab Daye in order to steal these Money Orders. Using this Rule, it relieves the Prosecution from the burden of proving intent to kill. These phoney larceny charges were laid prejudicially against Crystal, hoping to get her a sentence of life in prison; a clear case of selective Justice so prevalent there in North Carolina".

This from someone who believes the innocent Lacrosse players should be presumed guilty on hearsay evidence from a non existent source.; September 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:25 said: "The doctor is entitle(sic) to express his opinions"..... It's his Constitutional right but, for a Physician, even a retired one, to make a diagnosis about a persons mental health is unethical.; September 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: "KENHYDERAL"

"Anonymous @ 10:25 said: "The doctor is entitle(sic) to express his opinions"..... It's his Constitutional right but, for a Physician, even a retired one, to make a diagnosis about a persons mental health is unethical."

You can't tell an opinion from a diagnosis.

Considering you can not see the wrongfulness of falsely accusing men of rape, the wrongfulness of illegally accessing and posting someone's private medical record, you have no idea of what is ethical and what is not.; September 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal was charged with Murder after Reginald Daye died as a result of the stab wound she inflicted. Prior to his death, Reginald Daye said that Crystal had taken his money.......... Only to his nephew. When he was interviewed by the Police at Duke Hospital, after his successful surgery, Daye admitted that he gave Crystal the two cashier’s checks designated for their April rent.; September 10, 2013 at 2:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You can't tell an opinion from a diagnosis". Doctors should not give medical opinions about anyone; especially someone they have never examined and, most definitely, not in a public forum.; September 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Prior to his death, Reginald Daye said that Crystal had taken his money.......... Only to his nephew. When he was interviewed by the Police at Duke Hospital, after his successful surgery, Daye admitted that he gave Crystal the two cashier’s checks designated for their April rent."

Still enough for probable cause that Crystal illegally stabbed him, especially since there is no evidence that she acted in self defense.; September 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "You can't tell an opinion from a diagnosis". Doctors should not give medical opinions about anyone; especially someone they have never examined and, most definitely, not in a public forum. "

So how do you justify SIDNEY diagnosing Reginald Daye as an alcoholic, saying the autopsy report was fraudulent, claiming wrongfully that the cause of Reginald Daye's death was an esophageal intubation?

Considering SIDNEY's total lack of medical credentials, how do you justify SIDNEY's claim that being a retired physician in and of itself qualifies him to comment on the autopsy report?; September 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: No, troll, wrong again. the FMR applies in Mangum's case because of the use of the deadly weapon during the commission of the felony.....which resulted in death. the larcency charge may be an overcharge.

Most of us think the correct charge is manslaughter. I assume mangum will try to mount imperfect self defense......which is about all she has left. And, getting that instruction is going to be a real stretch.; September 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: sidney harr has NO qualifications to comment on medical care at duke or anywhere else. most people think harr is a serial law suit filer, a liar , a racist and a pathetic old man, trying to extort money out of duke .....period.; September 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: i'm just going to wait for the trial if there is one to decide - watching you people keep denying dukes medical malpractice is an interesting practice in patience though

don't talk to me personally about it again ok - if you are still trying to convince me of anything - don't waste your time or effort - won't work

why wouldn't you rather duke take the blame for what they did? that would seem the more professional approach to me. i, for one, would respect them more if they were honest and didn't always thing that if people talk about or complain about or have a problem with their mistakes that it is a reason to harm them or whatever.

that is dukes biggest mistakes
their attitude about feeling the need to lie and coverup all the time in order to prove to their donors that they are still great and deserving of billions

that in itself will eventually destroy duke - people don't take no hankering to that thar fabricating from what i hear; September 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: still taking bets on the outcome for Mangum......
Cast your vote....
1 she is released, all charges dropped
2. Manslaughter, time served with less than 2 years more added on
3. Manslaughter, time served only]
4. first degree murder
5. not guilty, self defense, set free
6. other (say what....)

Last time we conducted this poll, the result was harr saying she would be released .....three votes for manslaughter with additional time, one first degree murder and one found not guilty.
What say you now?; September 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM:

"why wouldn't you rather duke take the blame for what they did? that would seem the more professional approach to me. i, for one, would respect them more if they were honest and didn't always thing that if people talk about or complain about or have a problem with their mistakes that it is a reason to harm them or whatever."

What has Duke done? You accuse Duke of great evil but refuse to provide corroboration. That suggests you are fabricating.; September 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: i am sure that you will soon dislike duke then - have fun

and - seriously - read the news if you want to read more about duke - i read the news and don't really want to hear about them - and yet i do - continually ... it's not that hard you know; September 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous said...

"KENHYDERAL:

'Anonymous said: "You can't tell an opinion from a diagnosis". Doctors should not give medical opinions about anyone; especially someone they have never examined and, most definitely, not in a public forum. '

So how do you justify SIDNEY diagnosing Reginald Daye as an alcoholic, saying the autopsy report was fraudulent, claiming wrongfully that the cause of Reginald Daye's death was an esophageal intubation?"

Anonymous, you don't understand! The bad things you and I do are bad. The bad things that Kenhyderal and his friends do cannot be bad, because Kenny and his friends are so good.; September 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

"i am sure that you will soon dislike duke then - have fun

and - seriously - read the news if you want to read more about duke - i read the news and don't really want to hear about them - and yet i do - continually ... it's not that hard you know"

Another admission that you can not corroborate the allegations you make which suggests you are fabricating.; September 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM
A Lawyer said...: i'm just going to wait for the trial if there is one to decide - watching you people keep denying dukes medical malpractice is an interesting practice in patience though

If you wait for the trial, you will see that the jury will not hear one word about Duke's alleged malpractice, because it is irrelevant to the charges against Ms. Mangum. And I don't "deny" that Duke committed malpractice--I don't know enough to say one way or the other-- but, as a lawyer, I know that it won't come into evidence.

don't talk to me personally about it again ok - if you are still trying to convince me of anything - don't waste your time or effort - won't work

Yes, it's become painfully obvious to me that trying to enlighten you about the law is a waste of time and effort, but there are others who read this blog who may profit from an education.; September 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM
A Lawyer said...: i'm just going to wait for the trial if there is one to decide - watching you people keep denying dukes medical malpractice is an interesting practice in patience though

If you wait for the trial, you will see that the jury will not hear one word about Duke's alleged malpractice, because it is irrelevant to the charges against Ms. Mangum. And I don't "deny" that Duke committed malpractice--I don't know enough to say one way or the other-- but, as a lawyer, I know that it won't come into evidence.

don't talk to me personally about it again ok - if you are still trying to convince me of anything - don't waste your time or effort - won't work

Yes, it's become painfully obvious to me that trying to enlighten you about the law is a waste of time and effort, but there are others who read this blog who may profit from an education.; September 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at wrote: "Walt, a couple of questions about imperfect self defense then....
1. Would Mangum have to prove that she had no ability to run?"

At the time, NC was a retreat state.

"2. Would there have to be some evidence to show that Mangum was, in fact, in any danger physically.....given the fact that the photo shows NO evidence of any kind of beating, etc?"

Her belief has to be reasonable. Circumstantial or physical evidence is the best way to prove the reasonableness of the belief. However, she can testify. That too is fraught with danger. Her reputation then becomes an open question and her reputation can be established with reputation evidence.

The biggest danger though is to establish self defense, she has to admit to intentionally killing Daye. Thus, if the jury does not believe that her belief was reasonable, then she just convicted herself. This is the very reason that defense lawyers, real lawyers who have been to law school and passed the bar, are needed to advise the criminal defendant. No one should plead self defense without knowing the risks and being prepared for them.

Crystal might decide to abandon the self defense theory and just go for Man II. More or less, she defends on the grounds that this really wasn't a felony at all, she didn't really intend to kill Daye, this was just a lovers quarrel gone very bad and it's really just a case of escalating domestic violence that is, at worst, misdemeanor battery. Under the misdemeanor manslaughter rule, the conviction moves up to Man II and she gets time served plus a year and is out within a few months.

Most of the time, that's how these cases go - Man II. She could go really dumb, follow Sid's advice and get Murder I with a long sentence, maybe even life without parole. He's angling for that. But, she's not as dumb as Sid thinks she is. I suspect she will pea out or basically plead to the jury for Man II.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:42 wrote: "Walt, when I got my CCP, I remember being instructed about use of my weapon, IN MY HOME, etc.......and about the necessity of retreating if that option were available. Since this killing occurred before the SYD in NC, does those older standards about deadly force apply?

That would be a good summary of the law as it applied at the time of this crime.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 5:50 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate. That's meaningless!!"

Are you saying Crystal can't be trusted to give you an accurate report of what was said to her?

"If that statement was true, she would not have any problem putting it in writing."

Woody Vann asked her not to give a written report. He had sound legal reasons for doing so. A lawyer and Lance covered those reasons above. I, Lance and others have covered those reasons in past threads. Why do you think that Dr. Roberts should give a written report when we have told you why she should not?

Walt-in-Durham

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: are you serious a lawyer

i have asked legal questions pertinent to this case and read and understood most of what was said

and then you accuse me of not being interesting in learning the law - but that others might be

well - yeah - if you or walt actually answered questions in a way that might remotely be helpful to the people who you are advising in any way - other than the duke trolls - who you then have to fight off because their following walts's lead - and then he just sat there and watched that alledged non-doc continue to harrass me endlessly about fabricating when HE WALT kept pushing me to give an example - even though i was reluctant to do so - did he step in and get the person off my back - NO - he just sat there and laughed even tho he had just instigated the abuse from that non-doc duke troll by insisting i give an example and knew i was just talking about what i read in the news

so ... why did walt do that i wonder?

it IS unethical to keep giving one sided legal advice against dr. harr or ms. mangum on this blog obviously since they have cases in trial -- if the advice does not support them - and obviously you can't trust what ya'll say - cuz you have an apparent conflict against them.

isn't that the way it is walt or a lawyer - or am i misunderstanding the ethics of conflict of interest and legal advice?

why do you say i am not interested?
because i don't believe your answers cover the topic at hand - which are the Mangum and Harr cases - so - who's right here - you or me - that's all

you use that as excuse to cover your inability to assist without a conflict of interest on the 'wrong' side - blame me for not being interested - yeah right - i'm the one insisting durham needs lawyers without a conflict of interest to duke - remember?; September 10, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt this is what i DON'T understand:

IF ms. mangum gets blamed for duke's medical malpractice,

then why:

isn't ms. mangum then also responsibile to insure that duke never commits malpractice again - if she has to be the one responsible for it?

that is what i would do until forever - make duke NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER provide malpractice again to ANYONE.

i wonder how someone would accomplish THAT?; September 10, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: so to me walt

you're insisting ms. mangum is responsible for dukes malpractice indicates that duke IS NOT responsible for their own malpractice.

this then leads me to believe that duke will and does provide medical malpractice and does not take responsibility for it - because they know they can get away with it - so therefore they continue to do it

i mean ... like if you had someone needing intubation at duke right now - would you be concerned because they think they can get away with malpractice in the performance of intubation procedures? valid question from reading what walt is saying.

duke sucks i assure you for that; September 10, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: isn't the DPAC right across the street from the new courthouse practically (i don't know)?

is thinking about going to the dpac an adventure in wondering if you are going to become bait and body parts in some far reach of your brain ... yet?; September 10, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I think the improv of Crazy would really get the point across of the importance of getting that darn Durham courthouse working right and keeping Duke in line (for all of us).

Perhaps many would risk the innocent bystander and duke body bags thing to see Dr. Harr and Mr. Nifong and all other interested innocent bystander joiner ins assist in the improv performance.

Maybe the DPAC will also get interested and provide some sound support and equipment and video cameras etc.

We will then put it up on Youtube for further awareness of Durham/Dukes dire needs.; September 10, 2013 at 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: The Plan so far for the Crazy improv at the Durham County Courthouse front doors:

Dr. Harr performing Cee Lo Green.

Mr. Nifong as Prince on guitar (really good music btw).

As many Innocent Bystanders Joiner Ins as interested.

(this part only requires guts and whatever you want to do as far as improv and dance or singing or whatever - no violence or other things that MIGHT get you arrested though of course, the cops have been asked to practice their imrov as well - no violence or doing things that will upset us all of course by the cops either ... of course.

TO DO LIST (SO FAR):

1. Dr. Harr and Mr. Nifong agree.

2. Durham cops have to agree.

3. Perhaps DPAC will donate their support - possibly - we'll see

4. ALL interested Innocent Bystander Joiner Ins practice your improve based on the following video - as this will be what the improv is based on so we can all practice.

At the very end - when Prince goes Cee Lo - we will change that to "SEE THAT" and ALL will point to the Durham courthouse. Then EVERYONE walks away as like this is what always happens in durham ... everyday stuff ... you know ...

Here is the video the improv will be based on:

CRAZY - Cee Lo Green (featuring Prince on guitar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRLrOyxUBo

Lyrics can be found here if needed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrbOR1nLkYU

CEE LO GREEN - Crazy **(Lyrics on Screen)**; September 11, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Anonymous said...: So ... let's debate this thought for awhile:

Did the assistant durham police chief make a complaint against the durham police chief alledging:

The durham police chief said a durham public defender lawyer deserved to be shot when he was shot as an innocent bystander in durham

and then it became big news last week

because:

durham/duke is actually TRYING to scare competent lawyers who can provide services free from conflict of interest with duke away from durham by this current well-publized complaint / farce in durham - and are the durham cops in coherts with duke?

(not an allegation btw - a thought that IS possible - so thought to discuss here - now - as it does pertain to these cases we are currently discussing ... disclaimer for those who may misperceive and accuse of allegations - it is not - just a thought that needs debating (in my mind anyway)); September 11, 2013 at 1:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, it would seem very risky for her to go the self defense route......at least in my mind, with my limited awareness of the evidence. Here's why........, first, she sustained virtually no injuries. I know it's possible to prevail with a claim of assault without any obvious violence...but, Mangum's claim would have to be that she feared for her life....and that's a reach if she isn't hurt. Second, she had ample opportunity to retreat., based on her own account of what happened. (he went in the kitchen, got knives, etc.) Third, if she testifies, she is wide open to a whole bunch of questions about what happened during the court of the day, leading up to the killing.

So, I think manslaughter, as you said, Walt.....and I bet she gets time served with less than a year added on.; September 11, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: CEE LO GREEN - CRAZY (GNARLS BARKLEY)
- FEATURING PRINCE ON GUITAR -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRLrOyxUBo

I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind ...

There was something so pleasant about that PLACE ...

Even your emotions have an echo in so much space ...

* oooo ...

And when you're out there, Without care ...

I was out of touch ...

But it wasn't because I didn't know enough ...

I just knew too much ...

* yeah

Does that make me crazy? ... (crazy)
Does that make me crazy? ... (crazy)
Does that make me crazy? ...
Possibly ...

*ohhhhh

(Prince quitar solo)

*

And I hope that you are having the time of your life ...

Think twice, oh that's my only advice ... oh ya

Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are? ...

Sing it ya'll ...

(Ha, ha, ha, bless your soul ...)

Oh, have mercy, you really think you're in control? ...

* oh no

I think your crazy ... (crazy)
I think your crazy ... (crazy)
I think your crazy ...
Just like me, Just like me

* (Prince guitar solo)
oooooooooo .... ah yeah ....

And I hope that you are having the time ...

Please think twice, that's my only advice ...

oh lord

Come on now, Who do you, who do you think you are? ...

oh aha Bless your soul ...

oh lord You really think you're in control? ...

* oh no cuz

I think you're crazy ... (crazy)

Are you crazy? ... (crazy)

Are you crazy? ...

tell me, tell me ...

*

Are you crazy? ... (crazy)

Am I crazy? ... (crazy)

Are We crazy? ...

Wait and see ....

ahha ooooo ...

...

(See that?)
...
(See that?); September 11, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Lance, Carolinas Health IS a heckuva system. They did well this year with US News Survey!; September 11, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, assuming Mangum were to go with claiming self defense, then, as you note, the jury would have to determine whether her belief that her life was in danger was reasonable. I did some layman research last night on how juries have defined "reasonable"....very interesting. Words like normal, prudent, expectation, typical, etc, keep coming up.... I don't see exactly how the LAX case and the Walker case can come in during the trial....but the prosecutor, I assume, will be asking her questions about her relationship with Daye, who was paying for what, etc. Could sure be dicey.
If I were her lawyer, I would be telling her to stay off the stand!; September 11, 2013 at 5:18 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:45 PM wrote: "Walt this is what i DON'T understand:

IF ms. mangum gets blamed for duke's medical malpractice,

then why:

isn't ms. mangum then also responsibile to insure that duke never commits malpractice again - if she has to be the one responsible for it?"

It's called the doctrine of proximate cause. Mangum set into action a chain of events that lead to Daye's death. Had she not stabbed him, he would be alive today. Thus, Crystal is not responsible for every event of malpractice everywhere, just those which she is the proximate cause.
Read about it, it's in all the law books.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: so what, that doesn't mean she killed the man

she has as much right to defend herself as any one else i assure you

you people are so out to 'get her'

that could feasibly be used in the trial as well; September 11, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: ok, walt

i'll read some lawyer books

which ones should i start with?

for durham criminal and civil court for now

so she is responsible to make sure the malpractice doesn't happen again or not?; September 11, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 11:03 PM wrote: "so to me walt

you're insisting ms. mangum is responsible for dukes malpractice indicates that duke IS NOT responsible for their own malpractice."

No, that is what you are insisting. You make two errors. First, you assume there was malpractice. That is not proven or even indicated. Second, the law makes Duke and every medical provider responsible for their own malpractice.

"this then leads me to believe that duke will and does provide medical malpractice and does not take responsibility for it - because they know they can get away with it - so therefore they continue to do it"

You are not being serious. However, as others might learn something, Duke does take responsibility for its malpractice. It is fully insured. Further, Duke has a very aggressive program aimed at reducing medical errors. As of the latest statistics, Duke ranks about average in medical errors among its peer institutions and better than the national averages among community hospitals. So, yes, Duke does take responsibility. First by making provision that those harmed by its malpractice are adequately compensated and second by aggressively reducing the number of medical errors. Of course every teaching hospital in the country is doing the same thing.

"i mean ... like if you had someone needing intubation at duke right now - would you be concerned because they think they can get away with malpractice in the performance of intubation procedures?"

I would have no concern about that, because Duke cannot and does not try to avoid their responsibilities. Further, Duke provides good training and has a very good record when it comes to procedures. Having looked at the statistics, I am more concerned about hospital infections at Duke and other teaching hospitals than I am with procedures. To be fair and give equal time, UNC is no different.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 6:17 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:07 AM wrote: "she has as much right to defend herself as any one else i assure you"

Yes, she does, there was an extensive post above about the right of imperfect self defense. You should read it.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 6:20 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:16 AM wrote: "so she is responsible to make sure the malpractice doesn't happen again or not?"

RTF. I'll give you a hint, P R O X I M A T E C A U S E. Or your can read a lawyer's post above.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt......I snipped this from google )..... I wonder if the notion of a mistaken belief would apply in Mangum's case???
....."imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine of criminal procedure whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming that the use of force was on the honest but unreasonable mistake that force is necessary to repel an attack. In some jurisdictions, such a self-defender will be charged with a lesser offense than the one committed. For example, a defendant may be charged with manslaughter rather than murder because the defendant used unreasonable force to repel the attack on the honest belief that it was necessary to repel the attack."
I just review HCAPS for Duke, UNC, Carolinas, and three other teaching hospitals in NC....Duke is, as you note, struggling with opportunistic infections, especially post op....MRSA and CDIFF are still problematic for ALL academic medical center.....as are central line infections. (CLABSI). UNC's rates are worse for four of the five indicators, but I am sure you are aware that there is a huge national debate raging over whether Medicare is appropriate adjusting for acuity in these hospitals where the worst-of-the-worst are referred.; September 11, 2013 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 11, 2013 at 6:07 AM

"[Crystal] has as much right to defend herself as any one else i assure you"

However there is no evidence that Crystal was defending hersef.; September 11, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Anonymous said...: If Duke is responsible for their own malpractice then it is reasonable for anyone to assume that they too are not also responsible because the law states clearly that Duke is. Is that correct?

What exact statute states Duke is responsible for their own malpractice?

Is there a statute that states what the patients responsibility is to insure that Duke has no malpractice for them to be concerned about?; September 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Anonymous @ 6:16 said:

"...i'll read some lawyer books

which ones should i start with?

for durham criminal and civil court for now..."

I'm not Walt, but for you I'd recommend Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About The American Legal System , Levi's An Introduction to Legal Reasoning and finally Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.; September 11, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 11, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:06 AM wrote: "If Duke is responsible for their own malpractice then it is reasonable for anyone to assume that they too are not also responsible because the law states clearly that Duke is. Is that correct?"

Your premise is incorrect. Read A lawyer's post on Sept 9 at 7:41 above for an excellent analysis.

"What exact statute states Duke is responsible for their own malpractice?"

NCGS § 90-21.2 provides a standard of care for civil liability for all medical providers in North Carolina, among them Duke University Hospital. However, the statute simply codified existing common law. Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 311 S.E.2d 571 (1984), citing Hunt v. Bradshaw, 242 N.C. 517, 521-22, 88 S.E.2d 762, 765 (1955) for the common law standard of care. The doctrine of medical malpractice goes back much farther in time in North Carolina. However the current standard of care began with Hunt in 1955.

Walt-in-Durham; September 11, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks Walt,

I did miss that post - maybe - well anyway

I don't understand what you mean by the case law part.

Where do I find the case law documents that you refer to so I can read them and better understand what you are referring to?

When you look for case law, how is the jurisdiction determined - as far as state or federal cases, and/or county cases?

How can you tell if a case contains case law or not?

Can every case be used for case law, and what are the jurisdiction rules with every case?

Thank you again btw.; September 11, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it's hilarious that harr portrays himself as superman, flying around with blind lady justice tucked under his arm. perhaps to throw her in the Eno river? to dump on in Mangum's lap?; September 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Sometimes I do wonder if Harr's real agenda is to use Mangum, to simply dump her on the system as he has already done (to her detriment)....so that he can have her misfortune as his burning platform for his own pathological money-grubbing schemes. It is very very clear he does not give one good goddamn about Mangum. In fact, his behavior is consistently geared to create problems for HER. One does wonder how she could be that stupid and blind?; September 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: It's the 12th anniversary of 9-11. I will never EVER forget people I knew who died that day.....one a victim working in the south tower, two more....brave firefighters. And I will never EVER forget the cowardly acts of scum islamic extremists. God bless the United States of America and all her brave victims, military, firefighters, NYPD, caregivers and citizens.; September 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen @ 4:01 9-10-13 said: "So how do you justify SIDNEY diagnosing Reginald Daye as an alcoholic, saying the autopsy report was fraudulent, claiming wrongfully that the cause of Reginald Daye's death was an esophageal intubation?" "Anonymous, you don't understand! The bad things you and I do are bad. The bad things that Kenhyderal and his friends do cannot be bad, because Kenny and his friends are so good" I at no time said that Reginald Day was an alcoholic. In fact I have stated that I am not qualified to make such a determination. I have, however, pointed out, many times, that many alcoholics do often have normal livers and that alcoholics are able to tolerate blood alcohol concentrations that would leave a non-alcoholic unconscious, such as the reading a functioning Daye recorded on his arrival at Duke Hospital; September 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: What you fail to note, troll, is that simply because Daye was apparently intoxicated that day (assuming the lab results were accurate) is NO indication and evidence that he was an alcoholic. You make a huge, completely unsupportable leap even implying such. What we do know, based on evidence, is that they both were drinking (her relative described her as smelling of alcohol, stumbling and slurring her words), that they got into an argument, that there was pushing and shoving, that she stabbed him. That's what we know, as of this point. Most all the rest is opinion, inference, wild speculation and heresay.
It is NOT true that "many" alcoholics have normal livers. Evidence from current research (see JAMA) shows that there is evidence of damage to the liver, very early on, from even modest drinking....that is not immediately visible to the naked eye. What we do know is that people who knew Daye (including two women with whom he had intimate relationship) said he was NOT violent and that he was NOT a heavy drinker.
It's fine to speculate, as you have done, about whether Daye was an alcoholic.....so long as you also accept that there was not one bit of evidence to conclude that he was an alcoholic.
I would also point out the obvious.....let's say that Daye WAS an alcoholic....for discussion purposes........SO WHAT? How does that speculation have any material bearing on what happened? it is just as easy to speculate that Mangum was and likely is a substance abuser....including an abuser of alcohol. There is certainly evidence of prior substance abuse, as has been documented here.; September 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I think Walt has hit the core of the Mangum's case, dead on. If she pleads self defense, she is going to have to testify......and.....the jury is going to have to believe that she (a)feared for her life, and, (b)that her belief was reasonable. THAT, folks, is what this all boils down to....IMHO.; September 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: From what I have read here:

she asked a cop for help because she was afraid of Mr. Daye before they went into their home.

The cop told her (them) to take it inside. So she/they did.

She did ask for help which could be understood as an attempt to flee for her safety.

...; September 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: The other story about the policeman (also based on his statement) is that she and Daye were arguing outside and that the policeman told them to go inside. He didn't say anything in his statement about her asking him for help.....so it's not at all clear that she did. either way, she would have to testify, under oath, that she asked for help.........and I think her lawyer would be crazy to put her on the stand.; September 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: so
what
else
is
new?
(crazy)? ... (crazy)? ... (crazy ...)

maybe it's the water
just wait ... we'll see; September 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I at no time said that Reginald Day was an alcoholic. In fact I have stated that I am not qualified to make such a determination. I have, however, pointed out, many times, that many alcoholics do often have normal livers and that alcoholics are able to tolerate blood alcohol concentrations that would leave a non-alcoholic unconscious, such as the reading a functioning Daye recorded on his arrival at Duke Hospital"

You do not get it. In an earlier quote you said medical professionals should not offer professional opinions or make diagnoses in a public forum. I asked you how you justify SIDNEY HARR doing it.

You duck the issue.

Of course you could argue that SIDNEY, even with an MD after his name, has not shown the slightest whit of professionalism. Maybe you are saying that SIDNEY's lack of professionalism gives him leeway to make diagnoses and offer medical opinions on his forum.; September 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate. That's meaningless!!"

Are you saying Crystal can't be trusted to give you an accurate report of what was said to her?

"If that statement was true, she would not have any problem putting it in writing."

Woody Vann asked her not to give a written report. He had sound legal reasons for doing so. A lawyer and Lance covered those reasons above. I, Lance and others have covered those reasons in past threads. Why do you think that Dr. Roberts should give a written report when we have told you why she should not?

Walt-in-Durham

The reason Crystal's attorneys don't want Dr. Roberts to provide a written report is because it will implicate Duke as being responsible for Daye's death... and all of Crystal's defense attorneys to date have placed protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner above fighting for Mangum's acquittal.

It's that simple.; September 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
still taking bets on the outcome for Mangum......
Cast your vote....
1 she is released, all charges dropped
2. Manslaughter, time served with less than 2 years more added on
3. Manslaughter, time served only]
4. first degree murder
5. not guilty, self defense, set free
6. other (say what....)

Last time we conducted this poll, the result was harr saying she would be released .....three votes for manslaughter with additional time, one first degree murder and one found not guilty.
What say you now?

My updated vote is still the same... #1. Mangum will have all charges dismissed or dropped. I'll even go on a limb and say that I believe that it will take place prior to trial being convened.; September 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sometimes I do wonder if Harr's real agenda is to use Mangum, to simply dump her on the system as he has already done (to her detriment)....so that he can have her misfortune as his burning platform for his own pathological money-grubbing schemes. It is very very clear he does not give one good goddamn about Mangum. In fact, his behavior is consistently geared to create problems for HER. One does wonder how she could be that stupid and blind?

One of the best examples of convoluted logic I have ever seen.; September 11, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: This case is the most hyprocritical thing i have seen duke do yet.

I mean - there are always examples that amaze you - but this one seriously and truly beats them all (so far).

Not only that - they know it.

bs that is all that it is
and they know it
and they know that many people know it

so ...
what we get to watch again is just how far duke/durham will carry this hyprocritical bs out?

how long will we watch and know it is hyprocritical bs and that they know we know and that we are watching to see how far they will go with it.

that is the question.

hyprocritical bs - that's all.

they know
we know they know
they know we know they know
but can they fool the rest?

seriously?
again?; September 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"The only thing I've heard comes indirectly from Mangum who told me that Roberts told her that the Nichols autopsy report on Daye was accurate.

Are you saying that Crystal Mangum is unreliable as a source for this statement?

No, I believe that Dr. Roberts did, in fact, tell Mangum verbally that Dr. Nichols' report was accurate... however she refused to put that in writing because she knows that the autopsy report is false and fraudulent.; September 11, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "No, I believe that Dr. Roberts did, in fact, tell Mangum verbally that Dr. Nichols' report was accurate... however she refused to put that in writing because she knows that the autopsy report is false and fraudulent.

One of the best examples of convoluted logic I have ever seen...; September 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"No, I believe that Dr. Roberts did, in fact, tell Mangum verbally that Dr. Nichols' report was accurate... however she refused to put that in writing because she knows that the autopsy report is false and fraudulent."

And just how does she know the autopsy report is fraudulent?; September 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
The reason Crystal's attorneys don't want Dr. Roberts to provide a written report is because it will implicate Duke as being responsible for Daye's death... and all of Crystal's defense attorneys to date have placed protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner above fighting for Mangum's acquittal.

It's that simple."

Your logic is really something simply illogical.

You believe Dr. Roberts told Crystal that Dr. Nichols' report was not fraudulent. But she will not publish a written report to that effect because she knows it is fraudulent.

The question remains, how do you know that Dr. Roberts really considers the Nichols report fraudulent.

It can't be because what you have found out about the report. You are totally lacking in qualifications to evaluate an autopsy report.; September 11, 2013 at 12:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:30 said "It is NOT true that "many" alcoholics have normal livers. Evidence from current research (see JAMA) shows that there is evidence of damage to the liver, very early on, from even modest drinking....that is not immediately visible to the naked eye"........... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216073308.htm; September 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Does duke actually offer courses in hypocrisy?

It seems to be one of their more prevalent talents - I think they have gotten so good atit that they have forgotten that many of us did not major in that subject - so they haven't realized quite yet that they fool no one but themselves (most of the time).; September 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous@ 11:24 said "You do not get it. In an earlier quote you said medical professionals should not offer professional opinions or make diagnoses in a public forum. I asked you how you justify SIDNEY HARR doing it"........ My response was to Guiowen. As I told him I don't believe any Physician should render a diagnosis on any person they have not examined. I have said so before on this forum Dr. Harr is entitled, though, to give his opinion on a cause of death after reviewing the relevant hospital records. I also posted the results of an anonymous survey that found too often improper esophageal intubations are covered up and not documented; troubling so.; September 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd suggest that the Troll might want to consider Science Daily...which is not exactly on the top shelf of academic medical journals.....as compared to JAMA. Also consider that one article from Science Daily is hardly sufficient to assume that "many" alcoholics , etc, etc.....goodness, troll, one would think you know better.
Also I would point out that Troll conveniently avoided answering the real question....which, again, is SO WHAT? If Daye were a raging alcoholic, what is your point? SO WHAT, troll?; September 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The troll apparently didn't read the entire article that he posted....
"Studies have shown that while all heavy drinkers display signs of hepatitis steatosis (fatty liver), only 10% to 35% of alcoholics develop hepatic inflammation, with up to 20% progressing to cirrhosis......"
The point here is the first phrase.....sSTUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT WHILE ALL HEAVY DRINKERS DISPLAY SIGNS OF HEPATITIS STEATOSIS (FATTY LIVER0, ONLY 10% TO 35% OF ALCOHOLICS DEVELOP HEPATIC INFLAMMATION....ETC. ETC. Which is exactly the point.............Daye had a normal liver with NO signs of Hepatitis steatosis; ergo, it's really hard to claim, based on the findings of this article, that he was an "alcoholic". Nice try, no cigar, troll. AND AGAIN, TROLL SO WHAT IF DAYE HAD BEEN A ROARING ALCOHOLIC? WHAT IS YOUR POINT????; September 11, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: The question of whether Daye was or was NOT an alcoholic has no bearing on Mangum's case unless it is somehow tied to an assertion that he was a roaring wild man, drunk on his backside, and out to murder her himself. The ABSENCE of any physical evidence on her, of any kind of beating, makes it very hard to believe that Daye was beating, punching, choking her, in a blind alcoholic rage.
Troll and Harr, please provide the long awaited photos that YOU said would PROVE this terrible beating that Daye administere during, in YOUR words, the "Hour of sheer terror" where he beat the stuffings out of her. We are still waiting, liar.; September 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 464 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, September 8, 2013

300 word rebuttal for Indy Week article

464 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me