justice4nifong: Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

Monday, November 18, 2013

Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

Part Two of the video will be posted on YouTube as soon as completed, followed by an interactive flog that will contain documents and evidence.

1,085 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1085 Newer› Newest»

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: The explanation IS simple. the medical records are incomplete.; November 26, 2013 at 6:53 AM
Anonymous said...: OCCAM'S RAZOR
The most simple explanation is the most likely explanation.
+1 for Lance's last comment.; November 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM
kenhyderal said...: If the records are incomplete then one speculation is as good as another. Did Daye die of complications from an earlier stab wound or from a medical error? Reasonable doubt as to murder. At the worst wounding with intent.; November 26, 2013 at 8:31 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal -- Read the autopsy report or listen to the testimony of Dr. Nichols -- "she stabbed him, he died".; November 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: They could saved the state some money and everyone lots of time and just had the janitor testify to that.; November 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Occam's Razor is not applicable on this blog. Here the most likely explanation is the one that requires the most widespread conspiracy to explain it.; November 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny asks: "Did Daye die of complications from an earlier stab wound or from medical error?"

Welch concludes that complications are not an intervening cause. Mangum thus remains responsible for Daye's death.

Holsclaw concludes that medical error is not an intervening cause. Mangum thus remains responsible for Daye's death.

Kenny, what is your point?

Is one explanation that holds Mangum responsible for Daye's death preferable?; November 26, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

In spite of lengthy pre-trial prep time, the assistance of several competent attorneys, access to an expert to review the state's autopsy report and Dr. Harr's help, not a shred of evidence was adduced showing that the autopsy report was inaccurate or incomplete. If you have such evidence you should come forward with it immediately. You are not helping Crystal by keeping such evidence to yourself.; November 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM
guiowen said...: Anon at 9:19,
Actually I've come to the conclusion that Kenny is not trying to help Crystal. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, but has done nothing. He's mainly interested in letting us know what a great debater he is, and how well he can look up interesting quotations in the internet.; November 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 26, 2013 at 5:07 AM:

"Anonymous at 4:19 a.m.,
Why do you feed the troll?"

Why does anyone feed the arch trolls Sidney and Kenny? Certainly not out of concern for their nutritional well being.; November 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"All along I said that discrepancies existed between Nichols' autopsy report and the medical records. Dr. Nichols even admitted that but said that he was unable to explain it. The explanation is easy and simple... he lied."

The explanation is, as Walt has explained, is that Duke kept lousy Medical records. If Dr. Nichols had wanted to protect Duke, he would not have produced a report which highlighted poor medical record keeping.

Your "simple and easy" explanation is but more confirmatory evidence that you are an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who happens to have MD behind his name. Call this racist if you want.

"Daye's brain death was due to an esophageal intubation... not any infection or any other complication. Daye's death was certainly not due to the stab wound."

Simply and easily, hese are two lies YOU have promulgated about the Reginald Daye murder, but not the only lies you have promulgated on your blog.; November 26, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"If the records are incomplete then one speculation is as good as another. Did Daye die of complications from an earlier stab wound or from a medical error? Reasonable doubt as to murder. At the worst wounding with intent."

Another irrelevancy from KENHYDERAL who thinks reading and incompletely understanding of snippets from the web makes him an expert on anything.

At trial, Dr. Nichols showed photographs of not only of wounds Reginald Daye incurred as a result of the stab wound, but also documented those injuries had been treated. Records or no, there is NO doubt that Crystal inflicted a fatal stab woubnd upon him. What convinced the jurors she was guilty of Murder 2 was her own performance on the stand, not the medical records.

What can you expect from an individual who believes an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person eho happens to have an MD after his name rather than a real forensic pathologist.

KENHYDERAL also believes Crystal was raped because of a piece of hearsay from an anonymous, non existent source.; November 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM
kenhyderal said...: Since Welch and Holsclaw are decided case law and so widely applicable, this decision cries out for jury nullification. I don't understand why Meier, in questioning former ME Nichols, failed to ask about Daye's cerebral anoxia and it's cause.; November 26, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

In spite of lengthy pre-trial prep time, the assistance of several competent attorneys, access to an expert to review the state's autopsy report and Dr. Harr's help, not a shred of evidence was adduced showing that the autopsy report was inaccurate or incomplete. If you have such evidence you should come forward with it immediately. You are not helping Crystal by keeping such evidence to yourself.

November 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Blogger guiowen said...

"He's mainly interested in letting us know what a great debater he is, and how well he can look up interesting quotations in the internet".

He's not doing a very good job of showing off any debating skills, just a lack thereof.; November 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "I don't understand...."

Trust me when I say -- we know.; November 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "KENHYDERAL also believes Crystal was raped because of a piece of hearsay from an anonymous, (non existent) source"....................... Yes and what Crystal has told me.; November 26, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Since Welch and Holsclaw are decided case law and so widely applicable, this decision cries out for jury nullification."

No it doesn't. The only one crying out for anything is you. You are crying out for Crystal to get a pass for killing Reginald Daye.

"I don't understand why Meier, in questioning former ME Nichols, failed to ask about Daye's cerebral anoxia and it's cause."

The explanation, using SIDNEY's words, is simple and easy. The cerebral anoxia happened as a result of the fatal stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal.

You show you are a great debater NOT!!!

November 26, 2013 at 9:46 AM; November 26, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "KENHYDERAL also believes Crystal was raped because of a piece of hearsay from an anonymous, (non existent) source"....................... Yes and what Crystal has told me."

Which means only that Crystal lied and you, because you are a guilt presuming racist, believed her.; November 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The cerebral anoxia happened as a result of the fatal stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal".......Can you tell us the unbroken sequence of events that caused his cerebral anoxia, then. If his recovery was interrupted by delirium tremens, the cause of death follows a completely different sequence. The cause of death then becomes his chronic alcoholism. I concede that if the recovery was complicated by a post-surgical infection then Holsclaw would prevail. However, the woeful Duke records show no indication, other then as a possible differential diagnosis, for the presumed cause of his distress which required treatment involving endo-tracheal intubation.; November 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'The cerebral anoxia happened as a result of the fatal stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal'.......Can you tell us the unbroken sequence of events that caused his cerebral anoxia, then."

Easily and simply. He was being evaluated for an infection. He aspirated and went into cardiac arrest and had to be intubated. There was no evidence of esophageal intubation. SIDNEY's allegation means nothing considering his lack of clinical expertise.

"If his recovery was interrupted by delirium tremens, the cause of death follows a completely different sequence. The cause of death then becomes his chronic alcoholism."

There is no evidence of chronic alcoholism.

"I concede that if the recovery was complicated by a post-surgical infection then Holsclaw would prevail. However, the woeful Duke records show no indication, other then as a possible differential diagnosis, for the presumed cause of his distress which required treatment involving endo-tracheal intubation."

Again the opinion of the untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent SIDNEY HARR is not evidence of an esophageal intubation. Even if there had been, the need for intubation arose as a complication of the stab wound Crystal inflicted upon him.

Dr. Nichols documented on his autopsy that the weapon with which Crystal stabbed Mr. Daye punctured his colon and his stomach. That meant his abdomen was contaminated. That was a setup for infection. He was setup for infection by the stab wound Crystal inflicted, and the setup was INDEPENDENT of any possibility of DTs. The longer the interval between injury and treatment, the more likely contamination becomes infection. Mr. Daye was not treated immediately after injury-he was stabbed, transported to the hospital, then prepared for surgery, an interval of at least an hour, more than enough time for an infection to develop. Infection was a real threat, a more serious threat to his life than delerium tremens. The need to evaluate for infection was there, regardless of whether or not he developed DTs. Complications from that evaluation caused his anoxia. He never would have had to be evaluated for infection had he not been stabbed. Even if DTs happened, it WOULD NOT relieve Crystal of criminal liability for his death.

It was Crystal's testimony which made the level of liability Murder 2.

KENHYDERAL, you show again how knowledgeable you are NOT!!!

Dr. Anonymous; November 26, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Who gives a damn what Ken Edwards thinks? Or what racist Harr thinks? Mangum is a convicted murderer and she is enjoying prison food with the butches today……..because of HER OWN DOING AND HER OWN CRAPPY CHOICES.
Want to know who to blame for Daye's death? Sidney Harr, the 88 Jesse jackson, brodhead, wahneeeeema Lubiano, Victoria Peterson, and Nifong and his thugs. That's who! Oh, and add to that list Cooper, for not filing charges against her when he could have.
All these enabling halfwits, apologists, excuse-making, victim pontificating…..ALL have Daye's blood on their hands. I hope they can never wash off the stink.; November 26, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny argues:

"If his recovery was interrupted by delirium tremens... The cause of death becomes his chronic alcoholism."

No. A pure existing condition is not an intervening cause. Mangum thus remains responsible for Daye's death.

Kenny, it appears that you are making two arguments to support an appeal:

First, you believe that the jury unfairly concluded that Mangum is not credible. Although you concede that she made some "errors" in her testimony, you argue that no one can prove she was lying. Thus you conclude that the jury was unreasonable when they chose not to believe the rest of Mangum's testimony.

Second, you believe that the law is unfair and Mangum should not be held responsible for mistakes that attending physicians and other personnel may have made. Thus you conclude that Meier did not properly defend Mangum when he failed to question whether medical errors may have been committed. Although none of these errors would be an intervening cause and eliminate Mangum's responsibility for Daye's death, this discussion may have set the stage for jury nullification, i.e., the jury acquitting Mangum because they also concluded the law was unfair.

Have I summarized your arguments fairly?; November 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry, a typo.

"Pure existing condition" should have been "prior existing condition."; November 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM
guiowen said...: That sounds like great grounds for an appeal:
"CGM did not receive a fair trial because (a) the jury refused to find her credible, and (b) the jury accepted that the law was valid."; November 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: "A sarcastic person is a wounded person"; November 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Then what are your arguments? I tried to fairly summarize them.; November 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:10 AM wrote: "Occam's Razor is not applicable on this blog. Here the most likely explanation is the one that requires the most widespread conspiracy to explain it."

Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham; November 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Since Welch and Holsclaw are decided case law and so widely applicable, this decision cries out for jury nullification."

Why? Please explain why a murderer should benefit from someone's malpractice. Not why should Crystal be let go, we know why you think that, but why all other murderers.

"I don't understand why Meier, in questioning former ME Nichols, failed to ask about Daye's cerebral anoxia and it's cause."

Because he had no evidence to support that question.; November 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Then what are your arguments? I tried to fairly summarize them"......... I was replying to Guiowen; November 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " Because he had no evidence to support that question" Duke Medical records indicated that delirium tremens was the presumptive diagnosis for his distress.; November 26, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Let me ask a third time. Did I summarize your arguments fairly at 1:18pm.; November 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Please explain why a murderer should benefit from someone's malpractice"....... If Crystal's wounding, in self-defence, did not kill Daye and he subsequently died of medical malpractice then she should not of been found guilty of murder; November 26, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Let me ask a fourth time. Did I summarize your arguments fairly at 1:18pm?; November 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 4:55,
Don't worry about Kenny the hypocrite. He can't answer my questions so he comes up with rather stupid sayings.; November 26, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

If Crystal stabbed Daye in self defense, the determination of whether there was an intervening cause becomes irrelevant. The jury rejected that claim. Therefore, your answer assumes a "fact" rejected by the jury empowered to determine fact.

Walt also asked that you extend your interpretation to other cases. You ignored that question.; November 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Let me ask a third time. Did I summarize your arguments fairly at 1:18pm"... No. Crystal did not lie. Her testimony, understandably contained some inconsequential, discrepancies. Unlike the statements of Daye that were riddled with inconsistencies. Crystal had no motive to assault Daye. I don't believe Holsclaw is applicable unless there is an unbroken nexus between the inflicted injury and the subsequent death; November 26, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Thank you for your answer.

I did not claim that Crystal lied.

Can you provide cash. Law to support your interpretation of Holsclaw?; November 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'A sarcastic person is a wounded person'".

What does that leave someone who believes innocent men should be wrongfully convicted of rape on the word of a liar and a piece of hearsay from an aninymous, non existent source?; November 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Duke Medical records indicated that delirium tremens was the presumptive diagnosis for his distress."

No, they were working him up for a post operative infection.; November 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"If Crystal's wounding, in self-defence, did not kill Daye and he subsequently died of medical malpractice then she should not of been found guilty of murder".

Except there is no evidence Crystal acted in self defense and there is no evidence Reginald Daye died from Duke malpractice. I say again, the allegations of malpractice come from an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who happens to have an MD degree after his name.; November 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: To say Ms. Mangum killed Mr. Daye is to say Duke's medical services are worthless, as in no way can Duke be expected to save ANYONE's life because they are not equipped nor staffed to handle even nonfatal medical emergencies without killing people willy nilly.; November 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"No. Crystal did not lie. Her testimony, understandably contained some inconsequential, discrepancies."

After sitting and listening to her testimony, the jury believed he did. They were more capable of determining her credibility than someone who can not recognize Crystal lied about being raped, who can not recognize that the story in her book about the cab theft is a lie.

"Unlike the statements of Daye that were riddled with inconsistencies."

No they weren't.

"Crystal had no motive to assault Daye."

So why did she inflict a deep stab wound which injured lung, colon, stomach and spleen. Dr. Nichols' report documented the injuries were there.

"I don't believe Holsclaw is applicable unless there is an unbroken nexus between the inflicted injury and the subsequent death".

You can not see there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the complications which caused Mr. Daye's death and the stab wound. You know les than nothing, either about the law or about medicine.; November 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Occam's razor says the medical records say Mr. Daye died from being removed from life support after becoming brain dead from lack of oxygen during a failed intubation attempt.

Occam's razor also says the rate of this medical error happening is low at Duke and therefore the fact that they made this mistake on a person involved in a criminal case with Ms. Mangum can be viewed as suspicious given the events surrounding the lacrosse case.

Occam's razor says Duke knew how to perform that procedure without killing Mr. Daye's brain, but chose not to.

Therefore, Occam's razor says Duke killed Mr. Daye's brain, and also took him off life-support, thus allowing and enabling him to die.

Thus, Occam's razor says Duke killed Mr. Daye's brain and ultimately, Mr. Daye.; November 26, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 26, 2013 at 6:03 PM:

"Occam's razor says the medical records say Mr. Daye died from being removed from life support after becoming brain dead from lack of oxygen during a failed intubation attempt.

Occam's razor also says the rate of this medical error happening is low at Duke and therefore the fact that they made this mistake on a person involved in a criminal case with Ms. Mangum can be viewed as suspicious given the events surrounding the lacrosse case.

Occam's razor says Duke knew how to perform that procedure without killing Mr. Daye's brain, but chose not to.

Therefore, Occam's razor says Duke killed Mr. Daye's brain, and also took him off life-support, thus allowing and enabling him to die.

Thus, Occam's razor says Duke killed Mr. Daye's brain and ultimately, Mr. Daye."

No it does not. You do.; November 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sid has long stated that '...when defendant(s) have been charged with a crime, it becomes the province of a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury to confer "innocence" or "guilt." '

A jury has conferred upon Crystal Mangum the charge of "guilty" of second degree murder.

What more do guys need?; November 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: We need an appeal; this time with an adequate defence given to Crystal. That should involve evidence from the Milton Walker case being disallowed. That should involve a thorough cross examination of Dr. Nichols and subpoenas for those involved in the treatment he received, post-operatively, at Duke. The prosecution should be charged with presenting to the jury a motive for Crystal intentionally killing Daye and they should, as well, concede that evidence shows it was his self admitted, jealousy fueled, anger that caused him to attack Crystal. Do you actually believe that there was not some reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self- defence.; November 26, 2013 at 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: None - she stabbed him in self-defense right after he kicked down the bathroom door and pulled her out by the hair. If he had not done that, there is NO evidence to indicate she would have stabbed him or been near him - since she was seeking safety in the locked doors away from him.

Cops kill in 'self-defense' legally for a hell of a lot less than that all the time. A cell-phone spooks them or someone getting scared when they are being mobbed by them for alleged panhandling gets their head's blown off at the front door of their hospital, etc. THAT is all considered 'legal' and ok. So now duke killes Mr. Daye because Ms. Mangum had to protect herself from him and then blames it on her and laughs at her as she is wrongly given the punishment of prison to go with the false blame. This is the Duke we have all come to know ... evil and liars.; November 26, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"We need an appeal; this time with an adequate defence given to Crystal. That should involve evidence from the Milton Walker case being disallowed. That should involve a thorough cross examination of Dr. Nichols and subpoenas for those involved in the treatment he received, post-operatively, at Duke. The prosecution should be charged with presenting to the jury a motive for Crystal intentionally killing Daye and they should, as well, concede that evidence shows it was his self admitted, jealousy fueled, anger that caused him to attack Crystal. Do you actually believe that there was not some reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self- defence."

Another iteration of your attitude towards the phoney rape allegations she made in the Duke Rape Case. Ignore the facts and give Crystal a pass for her criminal behavior. And you have the gall and the nerve to call yourself an advocate for justice. Like SIDNEY HARR advocating for Shan Carter, you are advocating to put a murderer back on the streets unpunished.; November 27, 2013 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 26, 2013 at 11:16 PM:

None - she stabbed him in self-defense right after he kicked down the bathroom door and pulled her out by the hair. If he had not done that, there is NO evidence to indicate she would have stabbed him or been near him - since she was seeking safety in the locked doors away from him.

Cops kill in 'self-defense' legally for a hell of a lot less than that all the time. A cell-phone spooks them or someone getting scared when they are being mobbed by them for alleged panhandling gets their head's blown off at the front door of their hospital, etc. THAT is all considered 'legal' and ok. So now duke killes Mr. Daye because Ms. Mangum had to protect herself from him and then blames it on her and laughs at her as she is wrongly given the punishment of prison to go with the false blame. This is the Duke we have all come to know ... evil and liars."

More uncorroborated allegations from the fabricator.; November 27, 2013 at 4:25 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Do you actually believe that there was not some reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self- defence."

"reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self- defence"? You are saying people should have doubted that Crystal acted in self defense.

So far as what created a lot of "reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self- defence", how about that she never claimed self defense until after Reginald Daye was dead and she was facing murder charges.; November 27, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

"The prosecution should be charged with presenting to the jury a motive for Crystal intentionally killing Daye"

They did. You were asked to comment on the motive presented and ignored the request.; November 27, 2013 at 5:17 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhyderal said:
"We need an appeal..."

Attorney Meier stated that the ruling would be appealed.; November 27, 2013 at 5:55 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "We need an appeal; this time with an adequate defence given to Crystal. That should involve evidence from the Milton Walker case being disallowed."

The court allowed the Walker case in to show motive, common scheme or plan. 8C-1 Rule 404(b). The court's decision to allow was very much within the mainstream of the rules of evidence. Thus, not error.

" That should involve a thorough cross examination of Dr. Nichols and subpoenas for those involved in the treatment he received, post-operatively, at Duke."

Courts of appeal do not receive new evidence, nor do they re-weigh evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676,
681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh’g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532
S.E.2d 522 (1999).

"The prosecution should be charged with presenting to the jury a motive for Crystal intentionally killing Daye and they should, as well, concede that evidence shows it was his self admitted, jealousy fueled, anger that caused him to attack Crystal."

Motive is not an element of the crime, nor is the state required to prove it. State v. Carver, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 725 S.E.2d 902, 905 (2012) aff'd, ___ N.C. ___, 736 S.E.2d 172 (2013) (quoting State v. Elliott, 344 N.C. 242, 273, 475 S.E.2d 202, 216 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1106, 137 L.Ed.2d 312 (1997)). It is a common trap that uneducated people fall into when they assume motive is somehow required for a criminal prosecution.

"Do you actually believe that there was not some reasonable doubt that Crystal could have acted in self-defence."

No. To believe in self-defense, you have to ignore the physical evidence, and you have to believe at least nine people are lying and Crystal testified truthfully. Unfortunately her testimony was riddled with inconsistencies that make it impossible to believe her. Conversely, the other witnesses were consistent. Crystal should not have testified.

Walt-in-Durham; November 27, 2013 at 6:11 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "All along I said that discrepancies existed between Nichols' autopsy report and the medical records. Dr. Nichols even admitted that but said that he was unable to explain it. The explanation is easy and simple... he lied."

No he did not lie. Nichols testimony was consistent with the photos. I heard and saw his testimony, he gave no indication of lying. Instead, he sounded, looked and acted truthful. While I have never seen you or heard you, Sid, I have read what you write. I am sorry to say that there have been too many inconsistencies for me to find you credible where you never saw the victim. Nichols did. He brought the photos. You didn't. His testimony convinces me. Your writings, do not.

"Daye's brain death was due to an esophageal intubation... not any infection or any other complication. Daye's death was certainly not due to the stab wound."

No, it was not. There is no competent evidence to support your claim.

Walt-in-Durham; November 27, 2013 at 6:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "They did. You were asked to comment on the motive presented and ignored the request".....The motive they suggested was so preposterous that it lacked any credibility. How would murdering Daye have ensured that Crystal would have a place for her and her Family to live. On the other hand, Daye's motive of jealousy and humiliation over what he considered as disrespect is well recognized cause of unreasonable anger; November 27, 2013 at 9:08 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Attorney Meier stated that the ruling would be appealed".......... Yes, but that he would no longer represent her. Any good Lawyer, with Criminal experience, should be able to win this flawed case. How about you Lance? It would be an easy win and the publicity, à la Johnny Cochrane, would be a real career booster.; November 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM
guiowen said...: I've got a better idea: bring back Mike Nifong!; November 27, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHDERAL:

"The motive they suggested was so preposterous that it lacked any credibility. How would murdering Daye have ensured that Crystal would have a place for her and her Family to live. On the other hand, Daye's motive of jealousy and humiliation over what he considered as disrespect is well recognized cause of unreasonable anger".

"Lance said: 'Attorney Meier stated that the ruling would be appealed'.......... Yes, but that he would no longer represent her. Any good Lawyer, with Criminal experience, should be able to win this flawed case. How about you Lance? It would be an easy win and the publicity, à la Johnny Cochrane, would be a real career booster."

Two more iterations of your attitude, ignore the evidence and the facts and give her a pass.

Your whole attitude towards Crystal's false rape allegations establishes you as incapable of recognizing a flawed case.; November 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM
A Lawyer said...: It would be an easy win and the publicity, à la Johnny Cochrane [sic], would be a real career booster.

It would not be an easy win at all. The fact that you find the prosecution's argument about motive to be "preposterous" is not a legal argument that can be raised on appeal. First, as Walt explained, the prosecution need not prove any motive at all. Second, on appeal, the appellate court is required to presume that the jury believed any evidence supporting the verdict and disbelieved any evidence favorable to the defense. So, unless you can find legal error (inaccurate instructions, error in evidentiary rulings, or the like), the appeal is a sure loser.; November 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer November 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM:

To KENHYDERAL:

"So, unless you can find legal error (inaccurate instructions, error in evidentiary rulings, or the like), the appeal is a sure loser."

What an appropriate description of Kenny and his associates.; November 27, 2013 at 10:57 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

This has been a difficult experience. We can all empathize with you.

A jury convicted your friend for murder. She will spend years in prison. I can only imagine the intense guilt you feel for the horrendous advice you provided to Crystal.

Readers asked that you take responsibility for coordinating Crystal's defense. Instead, you foolishly delegated this task to Sidney. Sidney demonstrated that he had no idea what he is doing.

He sabotaged Crystal's defense.

Sidney encouraged Crystal to fire her attorneys and represent herself. You acquiesced as he treated her trial like a game.

Sidney posted a summary of Crystal's meeting with Roberts. He alerted the prosecution that the defense expert agreed that the autopsy had no major issues. You sat quietly as Sidney concluded that Roberts' oral presentation "proved" the opposite of what she said. You allowed Sidney to misrepresent the risks Crystal faced.

You and Sidney counseled Crystal to reject a plea. Rumors suggested that the DA offered pleas: time served for assault with a deadly weapon and 42 months for manslaughter. Sidney claimed the prosecution had no case and would drop charges before trial. He implied Crystal faced no risk in trial. You worried how a pleas could affect child custody. You owe her an apology if you convinced her to reject a plea.

You and Sidney asserted Crystal was credible. Most observers view her testimony as a disaster. It may have been the critical factor in a conviction for second-degree murder. Sidney ignores false statements. You rationalize inconsistencies as insignificant and conclude she never deserves blame. Your failure to hold her accountable may have emboldened her. You owe her an apology if you encouraged her to testify.

I expect this guilt is the primary source of your denial. I can understand.; November 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM
guiowen said...: to Anonymous 1:35,
We all know how Kenny will answer:
"A sarcastic man is a wounded man."; November 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM
KHF Supporter said...: guiowen,

I was not being sarcastic.

I was candid with my criticism of Kenny, Sidney and Crystal's other supporters. No one provided her the support she truly needed. Instead they enabled her disfunction.

If Kenny is her dear friend as he claims, he owes her a huge apology. Crystal would be justified if she chose not to accept it.; November 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM
guiowen said...: KHF supporter,
I know you were not being sarcastic. Unfortunately Kenny prefers to treat any criticism as sarcasm. I wrote him earlier, criticizing him for much the same reasons. It is true that I added the phrase "That, or your mother won't give you back your passport" as the only explanation why he -- an alleged friend of CGM -- has not bothered to come to Durham. This really upset him.; November 27, 2013 at 2:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: I did not anticipate that Crystal, having such a strong case for self defence, would ever be found guilty of murder. Only Lawyers who believe there clients guilty bargain for a plea deals and are loath to put their clients on the stand. I believe the Jury, because Meier put on such a weak defence, made a grave mistake in convicting an innocent woman. In defence of Meier he did not have adequate time to prepare a strong case against a two and a half year craftily prepared vindictive State prosecution. The Judge wrongly allowed prejudicial evidence from Milton Walker to be heard. I don't know how sincere KHF Supporter is for the plight of Crystal but those of us who care for her intend to continue to work towards getting her and her Children justice.; November 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen is invariably facetious and sarcastic; cruelly so.; November 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM
guiowen said...: Oh I repent me of my cruelty! Poor Kenhyderal :(-; November 27, 2013 at 3:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What an appropriate description of Kenny and his associates"........ I have no associates. I am an friend of Crystal; November 27, 2013 at 3:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Oh I repent me of my cruelty".......... Dear Guiowen, I beg you, tell us you were lying and say it isn’t so.; November 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I did not anticipate that Crystal, having such a strong case for self defence, would ever be found guilty of murder.

"Only Lawyers who believe there clients guilty bargain for a plea deals and are loath to put their clients on the stand."

Not particularly true.

"I believe the Jury, because Meier put on such a weak defence, made a grave mistake in convicting an innocent woman."

You believe wrong.

"In defence of Meier he did not have adequate time to prepare a strong case against a two and a half year craftily prepared vindictive State prosecution."

Crystal had plenty of time to prepare a defense. She wasted that time in dismissing multiple lawyers and accepting SIDNEY's deluded megalomania that the case would not go to trial if he had anything to say about it. The prosecution was not a craftily prepared vindictive prosecution. You believe wrongly that Crystal was the victim of a vendetta. There was no vendetta against Crystal.

"The Judge wrongly allowed prejudicial evidence from Milton Walker to be heard."

It was not wrongful to have witnesses testify to prior behavior patterns of the defendant. He testified that Crystal did have a violent, aggressive nature. Again, your view that any facts that any evidence adverse to Crystal is to be ignored is what is wrongful.

"I don't know how sincere KHF Supporter is for the plight of Crystal but those of us who care for her intend to continue to work towards getting her and her Children justice."

I say again, you are working to have a murderess put back onto the street without any accountability for her crime. That is only going to encourage her to kill again.

Way to go, KENHYDERAL.; November 27, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'What an appropriate description of Kenny and his associates'........ I have no associates. I am an friend of Crystal".

Whatever. You are both, thus far, are losers. And you advocate not for justice but for having a murderess put back on the street with no penalty for her crime.; November 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

Thank you for non-response.

Your comment illustrates why Crystal should have sought unbiased and experienced advisors. You and Sidney, as close personal friends, we're unable to provide dispassionate and unbiased advice.

Sidney erroneously concluded the state had no case; you erroneously concluded Crystal had such a strong case for self-defense. You both were unable to look past your friendship in your view of the evidence.

Similarly, you both concluded Crystal would make a compelling witness. Many, more neutral observers believe that Crystal convicted herself with her testimony. She either has an extraordinarily flawed memory or shows the ability to lie quite,easily.

Unfortunately, neither of you appear to have learned from your mistakes. Crystal undoubtedly will continue to suffer at the hands of her friends.; November 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Guiowen is invariably facetious and sarcastic; cruelly so."

Meanwhile, you believe innocent men should have been convicted of raping Crystal even though there is no evidence said rape ever took place. You also argue that a convicted murderess should be put back on the street and suffer no penalty for her crime.; November 27, 2013 at 3:35 PM
guiowen said...: What can I do? I've offended poor Kenhyderal :-(; November 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: "You and Sidney, as close personal friends, we're unable to provide dispassionate and unbiased advice"......... I was the person who introduced Dr. Harr to Crystal.; November 27, 2013 at 3:38 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

I suggest that you also apologize to Crystal as the person who introduced her to Sidney.

You owe her three apologies:

1. Flawed advice to reject a plea.
2. Flawed advice to testify.
3. The introduction to Sidney.

You may also wish to apologize for failing to intervene in her decision to fire attorneys.; November 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: Don't be remorseful. I'm a big boy and I can take anything you throw at me. Your cruelty and sarcasm has no adverse effect here and, unlike the good Christian Dr. Harr, I don't turn the other cheek. There are vulnerable people to consider, though, like Crystal and her children. Verbally assaulting such vulnerable ones is evil and cowardly; November 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ KHF Guilty on counts 1 and 3. The most important thing for Crystal is to be reunited with her children. Accepting a plea deal would have compromised that. As someone not guilty of what she was charged with and convicted of, what she needs is exoneration. I did advise her to obtain the Lawyer Scott Holmes. Holmes unforgivably bailed on the case, using the weakest of excuses, thereby leaving Crystal with very little time to mount an adequate defence.; November 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM
guiowen said...: Of course, Kenny, you're not the one who's going to spend the next eight years in jail (gaol in your language). So you can certainly "take it".
I'm not assaulting Crystal or her children. Note, moreover, that I'm not the one who persuaded her to go through with this trial, or to testify. If anyone is to blame for that, it's you and Sidney. I hope you remember that I advised you, some two years ago, not to rely on Sidney. Instead you acted like a know-it-all. Who's paying, now, for your hubris?; November 27, 2013 at 4:09 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

You don't seem to have learned from this experience.

Crystal was a terrible witness. Many observers concluded that Crystal's testimony was instrumental in her murder conviction. Only her die-hard supporters came away from the trial thinking she was credible. Most thought she was a liar.

You have rationalized Crystal's "errors" in her 2002 taxi episode, her 2006 false rape allegation, her 2010 arson trial, and her 2011 murder trial. Your failure to hold her accountable for her actions has permitted her to evade responsibility. You should probably apologize to her for your failure to show her tough love.; November 27, 2013 at 4:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal naïvely believed that getting on the stand and telling the truth would serve to free her; as it should have. Meier, correctly, believed this to also be the case. Unfortunately the aggressiveness of Coggins Franks, in her hectoring cross examination, seems to have cast doubt on the truthfulness of Crystal's testimony.; November 27, 2013 at 4:38 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

You are still failing to hold her responsible.

What seems to have cast doubt on the truthfulness of Crystal's testimony are the contradictions between her testimony and physical evidence and between her testimony and the testimony of a number of other witnesses (nine by some counts).

Crystal would be best served if you stopped trying to rationalize everything she does and hold her responsible for her own actions.; November 27, 2013 at 4:49 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

You are still failing to hold her responsible.

What seems to have cast doubt on the truthfulness of Crystal's testimony are the contradictions between her testimony and physical evidence and between her testimony and the testimony of a number of other witnesses (nine by some counts).

Crystal would be best served if you stopped trying to rationalize everything she does and hold her responsible for her own actions.; November 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal naïvely believed that getting on the stand and telling the truth would serve to free her; as it should have. Meier, correctly, believed this to also be the case. Unfortunately the aggressiveness of Coggins Franks, in her hectoring cross examination, seems to have cast doubt on the truthfulness of Crystal's testimony."

Wrong. Crystal herself cast doubt on the truthfulness of her testimony; November 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Crystal naively believed that you knew something about something.; November 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"The most important thing for Crystal is to be reunited with her children. Accepting a plea deal would have compromised that."

And a guilty verdict did not?

"As someone not guilty of what she was charged with and convicted of, what she needs is exoneration."

She has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, largely by her own non credible testimony.

"I did advise her to obtain the Lawyer Scott Holmes. Holmes unforgivably bailed on the case, using the weakest of excuses, thereby leaving Crystal with very little time to mount an adequate defence."

You should have, a long time ago, not to listen to SIDNEY HARR. On his advice she bailed on her lawyers and tried to represent herself, which are what gave Mr. Meier the time he had to organize her defense.

She caused her own problems.; November 27, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'@ Guiowen: Don't be remorseful. I'm a big boy and I can take anything you throw at me."

No you can't. You decompensate whenever anyone confronts yu with the truth.

"Your cruelty and sarcasm has no adverse effect here and, unlike the good Christian Dr. Harr, I don't turn the other cheek."

SIDNEY HARR lies. Lying is not Christianity. Neither is bearing false witness.

"There are vulnerable people to consider, though, like Crystal and her children."

Crystal is separated from her children by her own self serving, sociopathic behavior, which you and SIDNEY have encouraged.

"Verbally assaulting such vulnerable ones is evil and cowardly".

But advocating that innocent men be convicted for rape when no rape happened, libeling a dead man, advocating that a murderess get a pass for her crime and be returned to the street is fighting for justice.

HUH!!!

You have no sense of morality at all.; November 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I was the person who introduced Dr. Harr to Crystal."

Much to Crystal's defriment.; November 27, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger guiowen said...

"Anon at 9:19,
Actually I've come to the conclusion that Kenny is not trying to help Crystal. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, but has done nothing. He's mainly interested in letting us know what a great debater he is, and how well he can look up interesting quotations in the internet."

November 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Kenny is not a great debater, he is a master debater.; November 27, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 27, 2013 at 5:27 PM:

"Blogger guiowen said...

'Anon at 9:19,
Actually I've come to the conclusion that Kenny is not trying to help Crystal. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, but has done nothing. He's mainly interested in letting us know what a great debater he is, and how well he can look up interesting quotations in the internet.'

November 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Kenny is not a great debater, he is a master debater."

KENHYDERAL, No you aren't, not even close.; November 27, 2013 at 5:35 PM
guiowen said...: Actually, Kenny, you should go to Crystal and say something like, "I'm sorry that because you listened to me, you'll be spending the next eight years in the hoosegow. But don't worry, I'm a big boy and I can take it."; November 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen: always "true to form" A truly cynical bitter and compassionless man; November 27, 2013 at 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Guiowen: always 'true to form' A truly cynical bitter and compassionless man".

From KENHYDERAL whose true form is to believe innocent men should be convicted of a crime which never happened and that a murderess should walk free.; November 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

I agree with you. guiowen's suggested apology is not sufficient.

In addition to apologizing for the horrendous advice you gave Crystal, which took a bad situation and made it worse (perhaps 10 years worse), you can use your apology to insist that Crystal take responsibility as well.

You can tell her that you will no longer enable her unacceptable behaviour. No longer will you make excuses for her.

You and she will be better for it.; November 27, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:35 argues to claims that Kenny is a master debater:

"KENHYDERAL, No you aren't, not even close."

There is an extra syllable in there...; November 27, 2013 at 7:43 PM
guiowen said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

'Guiowen: always "true to form" A truly cynical bitter and compassionless man'

I'm not the one who got her in this mess.; November 27, 2013 at 8:04 PM
The Rectumfinder said...: The next time Sidney Harr represents himself in court, he's gonna be asking for a writ of habeus tuchis, because I'm gonna have his ass!

I am the Rectumfinder!; November 27, 2013 at 8:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; November 27, 2013 at 8:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "I'm not the one who got her in this mess"... Yes, it was you, along with the vindictive rabble, that have participated in a relentless campaign to demonize Crystal because she dared to report that she was raped by the son's of privilege. Even if this required the canonization of Saint Reggie; November 27, 2013 at 9:06 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Temper, temper...; November 27, 2013 at 9:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: In addition to apologizing for the horrendous advice you gave Crystal, which took a bad situation and made it worse".............Which advice are you referring to. I agreed with Crystal that she should not plead guilty to a crime she did not commit. A just society depends on that. Where the innocent plead guilty because of coercion there is no justice. Until she finally made bail they did everything they could to coerce her into caving in, with separation from her children their vilest weapon I did have misgivings about her putting her fate in the flawed justice system there, that dispenses unequal justice based on race and class; November 27, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Seriously people - the fault of Ms. Mangum's stupid 'legal defense' falls squarely on the duke/durham justice system.

Always has and always will.

Just because the duke/durham justice system provides duke conflict-of-interest challenged public defenders in their duke challenged duke/durham justice system doesn't mean you too can ignore the fact that they do that (and its their responsibility with tax dollars not to).

Their fault.

Hold them accountable and things might change for the better for all (including duke).

Ignore the reality and it (justice) will continue to get worse (including for duke).

It is the same for all ...; November 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Anonymous said...: not only that

you can't just sit there and condemn those who point out and complain about the obvious lack of justice in the system and fight back by insisting on justice regardless of the system

and then also complain about being shafted by the same system by condemning those who you 'fight' who were also included in the shafting (since there are always two sides in every fight, and the fights in question are all being shafted through the system)

all the while condemning those who in that same fight being shafted - point out and complain about the obvious lack of justice in the system and fight back for justice in the system

you can do that ... of course

since you do

but that it is all it is

obviously; November 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm so glad that ugly hooker had to go away not only for killing someone but also for falsely accusing innocent young men of rape who of course found her repulsive.; November 28, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"(to guiowen)Yes, it was you, along with the vindictive rabble, that have participated in a relentless campaign to demonize Crystal because she dared to report that she was raped by the son's of privilege. Even if this required the canonization of Saint Reggie."

Another iteration of ignore the facts and give Crystal a pass.

Crystal falsely accused three innocent men of raping her. KENHYDERAL obviously thinks they deserved to be falsely accused because they are Caucasian men from well off families whom he does not like.

There was no vendetta against Crystal. When her allegations were investigated, she was exposed as a liar, and her sordid unsavory past was exposed.

KENHYDERAL, fighter for justice NOT!!! believes the innocent men should have been convicted so he would not have been exposed to her unsavory past.; November 28, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Which advice are you referring to. I agreed with Crystal that she should not plead guilty to a crime she did not commit."

But you believe innocent men should be convicted of rape because she falsely accused them.

"A just society depends on that. Where the innocent plead guilty because of coercion there is no justice."

Yet you think corrupt DA NIFONG was correct in his attempt to convict innocent men of raping Crystal using, among other illegal tactics, coercing witnesses to giving perjured incriminating testimony against them.

"Until she finally made bail they did everything they could to coerce her into caving in, with separation from her children their vilest weapon"

A figment of your hypocritical imagination.

"I did have misgivings about her putting her fate in the flawed justice system there, that dispenses unequal justice based on race and class".

Your definition of "unequal justice based on race and class": refuse to convict innocent Caucasian men falsely accused of raping a black woman.; November 28, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM

"Seriously people - the fault of Ms. Mangum's stupid 'legal defense' falls squarely on the duke/durham justice system.

Always has and always will.

Just because the duke/durham justice system provides duke conflict-of-interest challenged public defenders in their duke challenged duke/durham justice system doesn't mean you too can ignore the fact that they do that (and its their responsibility with tax dollars not to).

Their fault.

Hold them accountable and things might change for the better for all (including duke).

Ignore the reality and it (justice) will continue to get worse (including for duke).

It is the same for all ..."

More from the fabricator.; November 28, 2013 at 4:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM.

"not only that

you can't just sit there and condemn those who point out and complain about the obvious lack of justice in the system and fight back by insisting on justice regardless of the system

and then also complain about being shafted by the same system by condemning those who you 'fight' who were also included in the shafting (since there are always two sides in every fight, and the fights in question are all being shafted through the system)

all the while condemning those who in that same fight being shafted - point out and complain about the obvious lack of justice in the system and fight back for justice in the system

you can do that ... of course

since you do

but that it is all it is

obviously"

Obviously yet more from the fabricator; November 28, 2013 at 4:09 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

From the appropriately named Liestoppers:

"Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Crystal Gail Mangum goes to prison: did the system fail her victim, Reginald Daye?
There is no celebrating here. Crystal Gail Mangum is going to prison for a long time because she murdered her boyfriend, Reginald Daye. This is a tragedy, and one that might have been avoided if the very serious crime of making a false report were treated seriously."

Navigation
LIESTOPPERS MEETING
→
News & Discussion
→
DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers
→
Blog and Media Roundup - Thursday, November 28, 2013; November 28, 2013 at 4:15 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

In an attempt to explain why you found the motive the prosecution advanced in the trial to be "preposterous" you asked:

"How would murdering Daye have ensured that Crystal would have a place for her and her Family to live."

Aren't you being disingenuous?

No one suggested that stabbing Daye would ensure that Crystal and her Family would have a place to live.

However, Mangum could have become angry in reaction to Daye's decision to throw her out of the apartment. Her anger could have been further fueled by the insinuations Daye made (Mangum bringing men to the apartment; Mangum returning from meetings with men with $200 to $300). Crystal may have stabbed him in anger.

As we have seen, Mangum's actions are not always entirely rational.

Kenny, you are continuing to enable Mangum. This is not helping her.; November 28, 2013 at 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Walt, is there a routine appeal process that kicks in for defendants convicted of certain crimes? Reason I am asking is that I am questioning what grounds for appeal Mangum might chase. Inadmissibility of evidence? The juror's comments about Durham? What do you think?
I was impressed with Meier's efforts. He had a weak case at best.
Was there ever any substantive PROOF that the state offered a plea? Harr's nonsense does not count; I would like to know if there was an actual offer made. Shella Vann (twice, et al….must be just shaking their heads on this one.
Her testimony nailed Mangum, no doubt about it. Full of lies. I have said this before……..she is a terrible liar……."tells" all over the place. I kept count.
Excellent point you made about motive……not being necessary to establish or prove. Thank you.; November 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny

ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny

ken-ny, ken,ny, ken-ny; November 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny

is

a

troll; November 28, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://www.humanevents.com/2007/04/17/a-gutless-lynch-mob/

I found it on the appropriately named liestoppers. It describes how the mob and the media condemned the innocent falsely accused men, not Crystal.

Go ye and be enlightened.; November 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Ho-mer, Ho-mer, Ho-mer

Ho-mer, Ho-mer, Ho-mer

Ho-mer, Ho-mer, Ho-mer; November 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: November 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers

Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers

Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers; November 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers

Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers

Smith-ers, Smith-ers, Smith-ers; November 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:19 AM wrote: "Hey, Walt, is there a routine appeal process that kicks in for defendants convicted of certain crimes?"

There is. All defendants are entitled to appeal. The appeal in a death penalty case is directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court. All others go first to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. There are deadlines that the end of the trail triggers. The Rules of Appellate Procedure tell when the record, and briefs must be filed. Then the case will be considered. Once the decision on Crystal's pauper status was made years ago, she is entitled to a pauper attorney on her appeal.

"Reason I am asking is that I am questioning what grounds for appeal Mangum might chase. Inadmissibility of evidence?"

That is the typical grounds to challenge a verdict. Specifically, the admission of the Walker evidence comes to mind. I don't like the prior bad acts evidence rule. But, it is well established law and the Judge's ruling seems to be in the mainstream. I doubt the court is going to reverse on that issue.

"The juror's comments about Durham?"

This is as close to a mistrial as I think the case ever came.

"I was impressed with Meier's efforts. He had a weak case at best."

He played the hand he was dealt, very well. Crystal didn't give him much to work with. She leaked the defense expert report to Sid, who in turn leaked it to the state. That denied the defense the ability to keep the state off balance with the medical evidence. At trial, the State knew everything about what the defense might try with the Medical Examiner.

"Was there ever any substantive PROOF that the state offered a plea? Harr's nonsense does not count; I would like to know if there was an actual offer made."

Harr is the only source I am aware of.

"Excellent point you made about motive……not being necessary to establish or prove. Thank you."

You are most welcome.

Walt-in-Durham; November 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt, can new evidence be submitted? Since Attorney Holmes abruptly withdrew, claiming a conflict of interest and under the objection of Crystal, can she claim, on appeal, that her appointed replacement Attorney Meier did not have time to properly prepare for the case after his request for a stay was denied. This case cried out for a Defence Attorney thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the case. The other question is why did it take two years to bring this case to trial. If the Prosecution had offered her previous Attorneys a plea for manslaughter in exchange for time served and Crystal, being not guilty, would not accept it, could this be considered evidence that even the Prosecution did not see this case as first or second degree murder.; November 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt, can new evidence be submitted? Since Attorney Holmes abruptly withdrew, claiming a conflict of interest and under the objection of Crystal, can she claim, on appeal, that her appointed replacement Attorney Meier did not have time to properly prepare for the case after his request for a stay was denied. This case cried out for a Defence Attorney thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the case. The other question is why did it take two years to bring this case to trial. If the Prosecution had offered her previous Attorneys a plea for manslaughter in exchange for time served and Crystal, being not guilty, would not accept it, could this be considered evidence that even the Prosecution did not see this case as first or second degree murder."

What you are advocating is something like this: a soldier shoots himself in the leg, is discharged because of the self inflicted wound, and then claims he deserves benefits for a service connected injury.; November 29, 2013 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Who's

your

daddy?; November 29, 2013 at 5:43 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Walt, can new evidence be submitted?"

No, if you had bothered to read my post on November 27 at 6:11 AM you would know this. I will repeat the relevant portions of that post here. Courts of appeal do not receive new evidence, nor do they re-weigh evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh’g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532
S.E.2d 522 (1999).

"Since Attorney Holmes abruptly withdrew, [as required by our ethical rules] claiming a conflict of interest and under the objection of Crystal, can she claim, on appeal, that her appointed replacement Attorney Meier did not have time to properly prepare for the case after his request for a stay was denied."

She can argue anything she wants. But, the COA is going to find that the defense was fully developed and well presented when Meier got it. Thus the failure to further delay the case was harmless at best.

"This case cried out for a Defence Attorney thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the case."

Which it had. Meier was in total command of the facts of his case. His objections were on point. I watched much of the trial on video, I saw nothing to indicate he was not thoroughly familiar with the case.

"The other question is why did it take two years to bring this case to trial."

Crystal kept firing attorneys. She authorized Sid to file frivolous motions. Early on, she wanted a psych evaluation to see if she was competent to stand trial. She asked for an independent medical exam to go over the autopsy. All the delays were attributable to the defense.

"If the Prosecution had offered her previous Attorneys a plea for manslaughter in exchange for time served and Crystal, being not guilty, would not accept it, could this be considered evidence that even the Prosecution did not see this case as first or second degree murder."

No. Evidence of plea negotiations is not admissible. Chapter 8C-1 Rule 408 and 410. (NC Rules of Evidence.)

Walt-in-Durham; November 29, 2013 at 6:10 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Kenhydral wrote:

"Walt, can new evidence be submitted?"

Kren -- Walt's already answered this (from a post on 11/27):

"Courts of appeal do not receive new evidence, nor do they re-weigh evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676,
681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh’g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532
S.E.2d 522 (1999)."; November 29, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Oops....Sorry, Walt.; November 29, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Walt said...: No problem, Lance. Maybe Kenny will read that post if he hears it from two of us.

Walt; November 29, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny

is

a

troll; November 29, 2013 at 6:42 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

I thought you wanted to discuss motive.

For some reason, you ignore attempts at an honest dialogue. Why is that? You have time to complain about sarcasm, but you don't have time to respond to legitimate questions raised by your comments?; November 29, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Saying Crystal deserves a new trial because her attorney was unprepared is something like SIDNEY appealing the dismissal of his lawsuits ion the ground that he had inadequate representation.; November 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What I understand is that recently, during the lengthy period when Crystal was without her visitation privileges, she received a rare visit from her attorney Woody Vann. From what I was told, Mr. Vann suggested during his visit with Ms. Mangum that she accept a plea deal from the prosecution. The exact terms of the plea deal were not known by my source, but my source stated that if accepted by Mangum, they would be in exchange for a sentence of “time served,” and she could be released from custody. My source also related that Mr. Vann told Ms. Mangum that she had a “weak case.”

The aforementioned revelations from my source do not surprise me, and in fact I have been anticipating and predicting for some time that the prosecution would go for a plea deal for time served. Durham prosecutors really have no other option as they have absolutely no case against Mangum for either the murder charge or the larceny of chose in action charge. Taking this flimsy case to trial is totally out of the question, and the prosecutors could not expect to get a special prosecutor to even think about taking it. Even if Mangum was to be represented by the most incompetent turncoat defense attorney in the state, the prosecution could not hope to win a conviction. Actually, the prosecution would be laughed out of the courtroom with any so-called evidence that they would even dare to make public."

From your blog:

Sunday, August 26, 2012
Could it be that the end of the debacle involving Crystal Mangum is near?; November 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM
A Lawyer said...: Walt very accurately stated the rules about plea negotiations being inadmissible. The reason for this is to protect defendants, so the prosecution can't argue to the jury, "this defendant was willing to discuss pleading to a lesser charge, so don't believe them now when they say they are innocent." By the same token, it protects the prosecution from arguments that the reduced charge it once offered is the most serious crime it believes.

Most cases are resolved by plea bargains. That is because trials are drawn-out and expensive, and because juries are unpredictable, so it often makes sense for the prosecution to offer a charge and sentence that they see as less than the defendant deserves, or for the defendant to offer to plead to a charge that may be more than he or she thinks they deserve, in order to minimize the risk that the actual verdict will be something worse for one side or the other. The law permits the parties to have these discussions, and to make a deal if they can, but protects them from having the plea negotiations made public if no plea deal is reached.

It's the same rule in a civil case. The plaintiff can't argue to the jury, "don't believe the defendant when he says he wasn't negligent, he offered to pay $10,000 to settle"; and the defendant can't say, "don't believe the plaintiff when he says his injuries are worth $1 million, he offered to settle for $50,000."; November 29, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Well if you can predict the future from events that happen in the cosmos - probably not.

Check this out:

Comet Ison FlyBy of the Sun
- Nov. 28, 2013 -

www.spaceweather.com; November 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM
A Lawyer said...: Durham prosecutors really have no other option as they have absolutely no case against Mangum for either the murder charge or the larceny of chose in action charge. Taking this flimsy case to trial is totally out of the question, and the prosecutors could not expect to get a special prosecutor to even think about taking it. Even if Mangum was to be represented by the most incompetent turncoat defense attorney in the state, the prosecution could not hope to win a conviction. Actually, the prosecution would be laughed out of the courtroom with any so-called evidence that they would even dare to make public.

Dr. Harr's ludicrous predictions cannot be repeated often enough, as they serve to make clear how useless his opinions are. If he actually discouraged Mangum from taking a plea deal for time served, he served her interests very badly (although he may have inadvertently done the people of North Carolina some good by taking a violent felon off the streets before she could kill again).; November 29, 2013 at 1:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: A rhetorical question; so what happens when a jury gets it absolutely wrong? What are the State's rights to appeal an acquittal?; November 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: "I thought you wanted to discuss motive'....Reginald Daye's motive was insane jealousy. I know of no motive for Crystal wanting to harm Daye other then to defend herself from his alcohol fuelled rage.; November 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " No, if you had bothered to read my post on November 27 at 6:11 AM you would know this. I will repeat the relevant portions of that post here. Courts of appeal do not receive new evidence, nor do they re-weigh evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh’g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532
S.E.2d 522 (1999)"......... So, what happens if new evidence comes to light that could have in all probability changed the verdict? change; November 29, 2013 at 2:20 PM
K said...: Kenny,

I thank you for your response, but am disappointed that you ignored the post you had ignored previously.

On what basis do you dismiss anger as a motive for Crystal? Could any of Daye's statements I noted have made Crystal angry?; November 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

The prior post was from KHF Supporter. For some reason, blogger sent it before I was ready.; November 29, 2013 at 2:32 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

You tend to express opinions, provide no support for those opinions and expect others to be convinced. Why is that?

I suggested a number of things that could have angered Crystal. You ignored that post. Why is that? When I chided you for ignoring the post, you ignored it again. Why is that?

You seem to be trying to discourage an honest discussion. Why is that? Are you trying to discourage discussions of substance?; November 29, 2013 at 2:47 PM
A Lawyer said...: A rhetorical question; so what happens when a jury gets it absolutely wrong? What are the State's rights to appeal an acquittal?

The State can never appeal an acquittal, even when the jury gets it absolutely wrong. (I, and many others, thought the jury got it wrong in the O.J. Simpson murder trial; many people I know thought the jury got it wrong in the George Zimmerman trial; but an acquittal by a jury in a criminal prosecution in the United States can never be appealed or reconsidered.); November 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"A rhetorical question; so what happens when a jury gets it absolutely wrong? What are the State's rights to appeal an acquittal?"

You are aware of double jeopardy - or are you?; November 29, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Reginald Daye's motive was insane jealousy. I know of no motive for Crystal wanting to harm Daye other then to defend herself from his alcohol fuelled rage."

So why did Reginald Daye have defensive wounds on his arms and Crystal, according to the medical personnel who examined her and the PD pictures of her, did not.; November 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"So, what happens if new evidence comes to light that could have in all probability changed the verdict? change".

In the case of Timothy Cole, falsely accused of rape, when evidence came forth exonerating him, his conviction was overturned.

If there was such evidence which had not been presented at trial, which came to light after trial, it can and has resulted in overturning a verdict, a new trial, a pardon.

Mind you, I said new evidence which was unavailable, not evidence which already been resented.

Mind you the evidence must be credible. Something like Kilgo saying, I have an anonymous friend who witnessed the crime, is not credible evidence.; November 29, 2013 at 4:02 PM
guiowen said...: To KHF supporter:
Kenny is waiting for you to say something which he can claim is sarcasm. At that point he can point out that "a sarcastic man is a wounded man" and refuse to answer any questions from you.; November 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Typo needed correcting:

KENHYDERAL:

"So, what happens if new evidence comes to light that could have in all probability changed the verdict? change".

In the case of Timothy Cole, falsely accused of rape, when evidence came forth exonerating him, his conviction was overturned.

If there was such evidence which had not been presented at trial, which came to light after trial, it can and has resulted in overturning a verdict, a new trial, a pardon.

Mind you, I said new evidence which was unavailable, not evidence which already been presented.

Mind you the evidence must be credible. Something like Kilgo saying, I have an anonymous friend who witnessed the crime, is not credible evidence.; November 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: She is innocent until proven guilty - which didn't happen.

There was evidence to prove it was self-defense, and insufficient evidence to prove it wasn't self-defense.

In addition, evidence favorable to her case was not heard that might support a different cause of death and different killer(s), in order to 'protect' Duke and the ME - not to insure justice nor a fair trial.

Therefore, there was no proof of guilt of murder, but there was a trial that was not fair, equal, or just, not even for Mr. Daye and his family, nor the public.; November 29, 2013 at 8:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: "I suggested a number of things that could have angered Crystal"......... Your suggestions were highly speculative and you prefaced them with "could of". On the other hand Reginald Daye admitted to kicking in the bathroom door and dragging Crystal out by the hair giving as a reason for this assault that she was being disrespectful of him and letting other males in the house; November 29, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 29, 2013 at 8:27 PM

"She is innocent until proven guilty - which didn't happen."

She was proven guilty betond a reasonable doubt.

"There was evidence to prove it was self-defense, and insufficient evidence to prove it wasn't self-defense."

There was no evidence she acted in self defense. There is evidence that she attacked Reginald Daye(the defensive wounds on Reginald Daye's arms found on autopsy).

"In addition, evidence favorable to her case was not heard that might support a different cause of death and different killer(s), in order to 'protect' Duke and the ME - not to insure justice nor a fair trial."

There was no evidence of malpractice on the part of DUMC or of misconduct on the part pf the Medical examiner. The opinions of an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent individual with an MD degree do not add up to credible evidence of anything.

"Therefore, there was no proof of guilt of murder, but there was a trial that was not fair, equal, or just, not even for Mr. Daye and his family, nor the public."

Therefore, you have shown you are completely ignorant.; November 30, 2013 at 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Your suggestions were highly speculative and you prefaced them with "could of". On the other hand Reginald Daye admitted to kicking in the bathroom door and dragging Crystal out by the hair giving as a reason for this assault that she was being disrespectful of him and letting other males in the house".

On the other hand, there was physical evidence she did assault Reginald Daye and no physical evidence she was assaulted.

Another manifestation of your attitude that facts should be disregarded so your favorite murderess could be given a pass.; November 30, 2013 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Since Welch and Holsclaw are decided case law and so widely applicable, this decision cries out for jury nullification. I don't understand why Meier, in questioning former ME Nichols, failed to ask about Daye's cerebral anoxia and it's cause.; November 30, 2013 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 30, 2013 at 7:03 AM

"Since Welch and Holsclaw are decided case law and so widely applicable, this decision cries out for jury nullification. I don't understand why Meier, in questioning former ME Nichols, failed to ask about Daye's cerebral anoxia and it's cause."

You are correct about one thing. You do not understand. However, your total lack of comprehension does not justify jury nullification of anything.; November 30, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Your ranting about motive smacks of more hypocrisy.

You insist Crystal was raped. There is no evidence of rape. And you can not establish any motive.

But there is factual evidence that Crystal attacked Reginald Daye. And you argue that failure to establish motive should negate the facts.

Another manifestation that you believe the facts should be disregarded so your favorite murderess can get a pass.; November 30, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Self defence: Obvious; Daye in a jealous rage attacked her. 2 Esophageal intubation: The most likely explanation for the cerebral anoxia that rendered Daye brain dead. 3 Jury nullification": Yes, if the treatment of Daye's alcohol withdrawal symptoms led to emesis and aspiration and was unrelated to his surgery. 4 Medical murder: No but an unethical cover-up of a culpable treatment error; November 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Daye started the altercation in a jealous rage. Crystal had no motive for beginning an assault on Daye. What possible motive could Crystal of had for attacking Daye with knives. Daye was the aggressor. He admitted to trying to violently restrain her. He kicked open a locked door behind which she sought refuge. His size, his violent rage and his gross intoxication all point to Crystal being in a frightening and threatening situation; November 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Seriously people - the fault of Ms. Mangum's stupid 'legal defense' falls squarely on the duke/durham justice system.

Always has and always will.

Just because the duke/durham justice system provides duke conflict-of-interest challenged public defenders in their duke challenged duke/durham justice system doesn't mean you too can ignore the fact that they do that (and its their responsibility with tax dollars not to).

Their fault.

Hold them accountable and things might change for the better for all (including duke).

Ignore the reality and it (justice) will continue to get worse (including for duke).

It is the same for all ...; November 30, 2013 at 8:48 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

Thank you for finally responding to my comment in which I discussed anger as Mangum's motive for stabbing Daye.

As I noted, your earlier question was disingenuous. No one suggested that Mangum stabbed Daye because she believed that stabbing him would result in Daye rescinding his threat to kick her out of the apartment or help her find housing.

You dismissed anger as the explanation for Mangum's reaction as "wildly speculative." This dismissal without comment is disingenuous.

As shown by the prosecution, Mangum reacted in apparent anger in her dispute with Walker. As I recall, Mangum wanted to throw Walker out of the apartment.

Were her actions in that case rational? Would smashing his windshield and slashing his tires result in his departure? Would burning his clothes make him decide to leave immediately? Does her idle threat in the presence of police to stab Walker show her to be in control of her emotions?

Kenny, you continue to enable Mangum. This is not helping her.; November 30, 2013 at 9:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Attention Dr. Harr: I do not appreciate Anonymous posters plagiarizing posts I've previously made like at 7:03, 8:42and 8:44; November 30, 2013 at 9:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ KHF Supporter: Crystal was the lessee at the Lincoln Street property and she was the one who wanted Walker and his belongings out of her home. Walker admitted he was suffering psychosis at the time. Walker does not hold Crystal responsible for what happened. There is no doubt that Daye, out of anger and jealousy initiated the conflict. Daye told Officer Bond that he didn't want Crystal to leave because he feared for her safety. She wanted to leave because his violent drunken rage was turning physical. Reasons for Crystal to attack and murder Daye are non-existent; November 30, 2013 at 9:53 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

You continue to be disingenuous.

Anger is the most likely explanation for Crystal's irrational behaviour in the Walker episode. It provides a reasonable explanation for the stabbing. It is consistent with physical evidence.

I agree with you that "there is no doubt that Daye, out of anger and jealousy initiated the conflict." That, however, is insufficient to prove self defense.

There is evidence that Daye retreated as he claimed and that Crystal then attacked him. The most significant evidence that Crystal became the aggressor is the location of the attack. Blood was found in the hallway, where Daye claimed the stabbing occurred, and not in the bedroom, where Crystal claimed it had occurred.

Your claim that Crystal's error was insignificant is disingenuous.

It is inconceivable that the Crystal could innocently "forget" as significant a detail as the room in which the stabbing occurred. Your claim is "wildly speculative."

As you recall, Crystal earlier "forgot" in 2006 in what room she danced, claiming that she danced in the master bedroom, rather than the living room. When confronted with pictures that showed the dance taking place in the living room, she claimed the pictures were all doctored.

Kenny, you continue to enable Crystal. This is not helping her.; November 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 30, 2013 at 8:42 AM

"Self defence: Obvious; Daye in a jealous rage attacked her."

No, the facts show that Crystal attacked Reginald Daye,

"2 Esophageal intubation: The most likely explanation for the cerebral anoxia that rendered Daye brain dead."

There was no evidence of esophageal intubation.

"3 Jury nullification": Yes, if the treatment of Daye's alcohol withdrawal symptoms led to emesis and aspiration and was unrelated to his surgery."

It was not because of alcohol withdrawl and was related to his surgery

"4 Medical murder: No but an unethical cover-up of a culpable treatment error"

There was no culpable treatment error.

Your lack of comprehension is obvious.; November 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Crystal was the lessee at the Lincoln Street property and she was the one who wanted Walker and his belongings out of her home. Walker admitted he was suffering psychosis at the time. Walker does not hold Crystal responsible for what happened."

Does not alter the facts that Crystal had to be restrained from attacking Milton Walker or that Crystal committed arson(even though Judge Jones disregarded the facts and gave her a pass for it).

"There is no doubt that Daye, out of anger and jealousy initiated the conflict."

Yes there is.

"Daye told Officer Bond that he didn't want Crystal to leave because he feared for her safety. She wanted to leave because his violent drunken rage was turning physical."

That was Crystal's claim AFTER Reginald Daye had died and she was facing a charge of Murder 1.

"Reasons for Crystal to attack and murder Daye are non-existent".

Doesn't change the fact that she was the aggressor, that she provoked the conflict.

You again manifest the attitude(which you probably got from Judge Jones) that the facts should be disregarded so your favorite murderess should get a pass for killing a man.; November 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 30, 2013 at 8:48 AM

"Seriously people - the fault of Ms. Mangum's stupid 'legal defense' falls squarely on the duke/durham justice system.

Always has and always will.

Just because the duke/durham justice system provides duke conflict-of-interest challenged public defenders in their duke challenged duke/durham justice system doesn't mean you too can ignore the fact that they do that (and its their responsibility with tax dollars not to).

Their fault.

Hold them accountable and things might change for the better for all (including duke).

Ignore the reality and it (justice) will continue to get worse (including for duke).

It is the same for all ..."

More uncorroborated garbage allegations from the fabricator.; November 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Unlike Dr. Harr, I believe Daye's probable esophageal intubation was accidental. The crime was that this medical error, after the re-intubation was correctly positioned was covered up. An anonymous survey, I cited before, stated that this medical error is often unethically covered up and after correction, can't readily be proven; November 30, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Keeping a mother away from her children for no reason other then spite amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. After the Walker incident North Carolina Child Protective Services did a thorough assessment and like Judge Jones concluded, not a surprise to anyone who actually knows Crystal, that she was a good mother. Those of you here who buy the characterization of her disseminated by the "yellow press" and by the slanderous and hateful blog Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers, should question the motive of this ongoing snow-job they do on Crystal. It made it impossible for her to find rental accommodation for her and her children. That forced her into accepting Daye's offer to share his place with her.; November 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Crystal engaged in prostitution. Don't worry, had there been any, the investigators, for the defence, would have spread it far and wide. Since they found nothing all they were left with was to spread it as gossip. As far as the arson charge nine of twelve thought her innocent. Judge Jones had severe misgivings as to whether the clothes burning, in a bathtub, was arson and whether it endangered her children in any way. The misdemeanor child abuse convictions she got (3 for 1) would be the same charge if a person who left a child in a hot car or carelessly allowed them wander onto a busy street.; November 30, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal is a moral person. She has never abused her children, She is not a drug addict or an alcoholic. She was found to be a good Mother; November 30, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous 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; November 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous 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.; November 30, 2013 at 11:23 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)); November 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: I think that is what gets me the most about the crazies and their antics.

Since duke bb is what most people normally think of who don't live in NC perhaps - they may not be aware that a LOT of very sick people receive services at duke hospital - or whatever sport - they are so competitive about duke 'being best' or whatever (in terms of sports or whatever) that they roll right over patients or patients families who may have legitamate complaints or who are commenting on things in the news that don't exactly indicate that 'duke is great or the best or whatever' because that too becomes something that adds to the burden of what is already weighing heavy on their minds at times (or in general).

so - then you usually have this very sick person who dying is something that is a very real possibility and that is weighing heavy on your mind - and you are basically getting slammed for that by the way duke crazies are acting or - well - like just what happened here to me when i was upset at duke for valid concerns weighing heavy on my mind.

that sucks ... big time

Walt, what laws would apply to duke creating and perpetuating a hostile or deadly environment for the patients and their families whom they serve?; November 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal is not an alcoholic or drug addict. She did blow over the limit in the 2002 incident but there is no other history of misuse of any substances. Only unsubstantiated gossip spread by the Lacrosse Team Trial Lawyers. What substances are you claiming that she abuses? This was all part of a meta-narrative seeded to try and discredit Crystal and bolster the greedy lawsuits. Thankfully they failed. The courts saw through them.; November 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal is not an alcoholic or drug addict. She did blow over the limit in the 2002 incident but there is no other history of misuse of any substances. Only unsubstantiated gossip spread by the Lacrosse Team Trial Lawyers. What substances are you claiming that she abuses? This was all part of a meta-narrative seeded to try and discredit Crystal and bolster the greedy lawsuits. Thankfully they failed. The courts saw through them.; November 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: i am grateful to be what i am
(and not you)
I do not think talking about what i read in the media about duke that i do not agree with is something that can be termed hating duke myself. if anything, i am hoping to see better from duke myself as it means a lot to a lot of people, but it never happens, and i have been watching and waiting to see it for a while now.
what do you mean by fabricating anyway? i didn't make up those things about duke, i read them in the paper, you should try it.
I did fabricate my silly bhp - but there was good reason for that - which you probably did not catch - but - hey - that's you - not me ...

anyway; November 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: I have ranted on other things then duke here, like fracking, and the durham/duke judicial system, and wondered about other things in connection to hurricanes - cuz - well i guess i'm not that crazy about hurricanes and the damage it can do ...

like ... whoa ... glad i don't live in the rockies or syria (not a hurricane granted but very destructive what is going on over there) or ...

i don't know - the news bothers me sometimes ... i don't actually always read it ... but noone seems to want to really talk about it ... and very few ever read it ...

and you?; November 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: It would seem that the same laws that were used to achieve what the stand your ground law achieves now before it was implemented would be used in this case, with duke taking responsibility for its own malpractice as the law states that it must.

That seems more reasonable - and to me - what most people (in this area anyway - there are a LOT of highly intelligent people in this area) will understand as basic civic justice.

The same premise of understanding and not understanding exist in this case as the stand the ground laws i would think - only domestic violence and stand your ground are eventually going to clash in court anyway probably.

It is weird how now the public consciousness is opened to stand your ground principles now - and that understanding (mis understandings) will apply to the public's understanding and perception of this case as well.

On top of that, everyone has seen Duke pour its hatred upon Ms. Mangum and her family AND the lax players - that is common knowledge - and one that many of the public do not agree with nor understand - because they can so easily apply it to themselves or someone they know because of the very negative Duke town/gown relationships that exists - and then know from their social consciousness that it is neither right nor fair nor just - especially when they can so easily watch Duke mistreat others as well.

It is not that difficult to see it because so many have been harmed.

Of course, as I have stated before, I am awaiting the trial to make a final decision as is what is expected for society in the judicial realm of innocent until proven guilty. That is If there is a trial, and if all the other issues that cloud justice in the durham/duke judicial system do not prevail.

If they do, then that is what the public will see and understand and know.

Most people in these parts just want things done right - they don't want things to always be ... hmmmmm ... like you start to wonder if you need to get a passport just to enter the duke/durham blue devil nation ... or what? something like that.; November 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Basically duke (who's responsibility in the health profession it was to insure that Mr. Daye's wound was treated properly to mitigate any avoidable life threatening complications), failed in performing their duties, and therefore, since the wound was nonlife threatening if he had received proper treatment free of complications at another hospital (or even at duke), the proximate cause is the improper treatment of the knife wound by Duke - and not the knife wound itself or the maltreatment of the wound at the hands of another hospital other than duke - that caused Mr. Daye's death.

For example:

You are in hurricane and a piece of a tree limb gets blown into your side. The wound is nonlife threatening with proper medical treatement of the wound, and you are immediately transported to a nearby hospital in order to receive the needed proper medical treatment. However, the proper medical treatment is not given at the hospital you are transported to. Is the proximate cause the tree limb wound - or the improper treatment of the wound by the hospital you were transported to (since another hospital could have provided the proper treatment of the wound if you had been transported there instead, and there were several other hospitals that you could have been transported to instead of the one that provided the improper treatment of the wound - so therefore - you would not have died from the wound nor the improper treatment of the wound by the hospital that provided it).; November 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Basically duke (who's responsibility in the health profession it was to insure that Mr. Daye's wound was treated properly to mitigate any avoidable life threatening complications), failed in performing their duties, and therefore, since the wound was nonlife threatening if he had received proper treatment free of complications at another hospital (or even at duke), the proximate cause is the improper treatment of the knife wound by Duke - and not the knife wound itself or the maltreatment of the wound at the hands of another hospital other than duke - that caused Mr. Daye's death.

For example:

You are in hurricane and a piece of a tree limb gets blown into your side. The wound is nonlife threatening with proper medical treatement of the wound, and you are immediately transported to a nearby hospital in order to receive the needed proper medical treatment. However, the proper medical treatment is not given at the hospital you are transported to. Is the proximate cause the tree limb wound - or the improper treatment of the wound by the hospital you were transported to (since another hospital could have provided the proper treatment of the wound if you had been transported there instead, and there were several other hospitals that you could have been transported to instead of the one that provided the improper treatment of the wound - so therefore - you would not have died from the wound nor the improper treatment of the wound by the hospital that provided it).; November 30, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I have a seriously hard time accepting the fact that now the public is left not knowing whether to trust duke again in such a big way. wtf

duke sucks
i distrust them for causing this much distrust in the first place; November 30, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd like to see duke prove their not mean as sheat and proud of it; and that it is not all a game to them; and that they don't have the justice system in their political network, etc.. That would be a change of pace and face don't you think?; November 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: so if duke hates me, and i accidently run into you on the highway cuz you just ran into a deer that jumped into traffic that is speeding along 70 miles an hour, and although you survived the deer attack, you were harmed by my car naturally plowing into yours at 70 miles an hour when the deer attacked you a second beforehand, so duke then kills you with their medical treatment because they hate me so much that they want me to go through the hell of being charged with manslaughter because the deer attacked you - is it the deers fault, my fault, or duke's fault you are now DEAD i say DEAD!!!; November 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: perhaps it should bother everyone that duke makes people dislike them because they hate and harm the people first - and that they will kill some to frame others whom they hate - and apparently they hate many - so - many could be killed in order to frame many others by duke if that is their way of doing 'things'; November 30, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: I also think that if this is duke's policy to kill one to frame another - that ALL judicial cases involving duke would have to be tried in a different state - given the undue burden of threat to life and limb of any who crosses duke or crosses the path in accidental mishap of any who has crossed duke in anyway deeming them deserving of duke framing actions - because all who drive in any way in NC are under the same threat of duke's revenge and fear mongering hatred (and they hate to lose - and they hate many).

This is too important not to be investigated and properly dealt with because of this fact of life and duke in NC.; November 30, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous 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

November 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM

You are absolutely one hundred percent correct. If the prosecution were serious about a larceny, then they would have filed it against Mangum long before Daye was intubated in his esophagus; November 30, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: If duke basically assaulted Mr. Daye with the tube they left in his throat for too long because of whatever medical condition they deemed they needed to do tests for at the moment without actual regard to the well-known potential negative life threatening consequences of those test actions which caused Mr. Daye to become more ill and life distressed - and therefore require treatment that consequently led to his untimely demise by having a tube obstructing his ability to breath for too long to allow sufficient oxygen to reach Mr. Daye's brain therefore causing brain death which led to removal of life support which led to ultimate death - they are potentially not only civilly in the sense of medical malpractice but also criminally in the terms of murder - liable for Mr. Daye's actual death. Why aren't doctors held criminally as well as civilly responsible for the death of their patients more often under this law for their over and/or erroneous and faulty medical practices that cause death, like in Mr. Daye's case, where actual assault to a vital aspect of life functioning is committed by the medical persons in the name of 'health treatment' or 'health testing'?; November 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Unlike Dr. Harr, I believe Daye's probable esophageal intubation was accidental. The crime was that this medical error, after the re-intubation was correctly positioned was covered up. An anonymous survey, I cited before, stated that this medical error is often unethically covered up and after correction, can't readily be proven

November 30, 2013 at 11:15 AM

The important thing is that we both believe that Daye's demise was definitely due to esophageal intubation. Because of the politics and Daye's relationship to Mangum, and the prospects for saddling her with serious jail time, I believe it is very likely that Daye's death may not have been an accident.

Either way, the esophageal intubation is an intervening act and the proximal cause of Daye's brain death.; November 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Harr: Please note that the posts at 11:15, 11:16, 11:18 (twice), 11:22, 11:23 and 11:27 are all posts I made previously. I really don't appreciate this anonymous poster re-posting my contributions. It disrupts any current discussions that are taking place. For example you replied to concur with his 11:22 post.; November 30, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"Dr. Harr: Please note that the posts at 11:15, 11:16, 11:18 (twice), 11:22, 11:23 and 11:27 are all posts I made previously. I really don't appreciate this anonymous poster re-posting my contributions. It disrupts any current discussions that are taking place. For example you replied to concur with his 11:22 post."

kenny,

Do you ever stop whining?; November 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

Walt has provided case law to support his contention that medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause. You have repeatedly claimed that malpractice IS an intervening cause, but have provided no support.

You have frequently demonstated that your legal knowledge is not extensive and your legal judgment is flawed.

Why should anyone believe you?; November 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You are absolutely one hundred percent correct. If the prosecution were serious about a larceny, then they would have filed it against Mangum long before Daye was intubated in his esophagus".

Except there was no evidence he was intubated n the esophagus.; November 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"

The important thing is that we both believe that Daye's demise was definitely due to esophageal intubation."

That is the opinion of an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person who happens yo have MD after his name.

"Because of the politics and Daye's relationship to Mangum, and the prospects for saddling her with serious jail time, I believe it is very likely that Daye's death may not have been an accident."

The opinion who got his legal education from Lt. Columbo abd Perry Mason.Like those two characters, SIDNEY's legal expertise is non existent.

"Either way, the esophageal intubation is an intervening act and the proximal cause of Daye's brain death."

No it isn't.; November 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Do you ever stop whining"..... That's not whining, it's railing against injustice. Don't you ever hear the wailing of the oppressed? The psalms tell us that the Lord does.; November 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"That's not whining, it's railing against injustice."

You are no not railing against justice. You are railing to get your favorite convicted murderess a pass for her crimes.

"Don't you ever hear the wailing of the oppressed? The psalms tell us that the Lord does."

The Lord hears the grief of Reginald Daye's family. You don't. What you here s the wailing of a convicted murderess crying, give me a pass.; November 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny,

Why don't you want to discuss motive, a subject that you raised? You have time to react to posters complaining about your alleged whining, but not to discuss your opinions. Why is that?

You seem to think that you are helping Crystal when you express unsupported opinions in support of her, but not to defend those opinions. Why is that?

Why are Mangum's irrational reactions in the Walker case not helpful in understanding her motivations?

Kenny, you continue to enable Mangum. This is not helping her.; November 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "So, what happens if new evidence comes to light that could have in all probability changed the verdict?"

In North Carolina, we have a legal procedure called a Motion for Appropriate Relief. Hereafter, MAR.

There are two types of MAR, the first within 10 days of the conviction and the second can be filed at any time after 10 days from the conviction.

The first MAR filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-1414 has a limited number and type of claims that may be asserted. Essentially, the 1414 MAR is telling the trial judge that there was some error made during or before trial that can be fixed without an evidentiary hearing.

The second type of MAR can be filed more than 10 days after conviction but authorizes the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The standard to reverse a conviction based on newly discovered evidence is found at N.C.G.S. 15A-1415(c). To assert this claim, the statute requires a defendant to allege the discovery of new evidence that was unknown or unavailable at the time of trial and could not with due diligence have been discovered or made available at that time, including recanted testimony.N.C.G.S. 15A-1415(c). The defendant also must show that the evidence has a direct and material bearing upon his or her eligibility for the death penalty or guilt or innocence. This
language codifies the case law regarding newly discovered evidence. State v. Powell, 321 N.C. 364, 371 (1988).

If newly discovered evidence is the grounds for the MAR, the newly discovered evidence must be of such a nature as to show that on another trial a different result will probably be reached and that the defendant will prevail. State v. Britt, 320 N.C. 705, 712–13, ___S.E.2d ___,___ (1987). If the defendant seeks a new trial because of new evidence in the form of recanted testimony, the courts apply a different test. A defendant can obtain a new trial on the basis of recanted testimony if: the court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false, and there is a reasonable possibility that, had the false testimony not been admitted, a
different result would have been reached at the trial. State v. Britt, 320 N.C. 705 at 715, ___ S.E.2d ____ at ___, (1987); November 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Either way, the esophageal intubation is an intervening act and the proximal cause of Daye's brain death."

No, it is not. Shall I cite authority once again? Or, can you guess? I'll let you guess.

Walt-in-Durham; November 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: :Why don't you want to discuss motive, a subject that you raised" I know the motive for Daye's attacking Crystal. It comes from his own words.(Fact) On the other hand you speculate that Crystal either attacked Daye because he supposedly ordered her to leave or that she has a penchant for unprovoked attacks. I'll remind you that in the Walker case her daughter's 911 call said Walker was trying to kill her Mother and Crystal didn't lunge at Walker, until the Police brought him back into her house. She did not have a knife in her hands. Walker, himself, admits, even as a witness in the Daye case, that the incident with him was entirely his fault and at the time he was suffering a psychotic episode. I'm perplexed as to why you insist on charging that I'm refusing to discuss this issue.; November 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Mangum's family, (and Mr. Daye's probably), will someday be able to sue duke for putting them through all this sheat.; December 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I know the motive for Daye's attacking Crystal. It comes from his own words.(Fact)"

Not a fact.

"On the other hand you speculate that Crystal either attacked Daye because he supposedly ordered her to leave or that she has a penchant for unprovoked attacks."

It is a fact that Crystal attacked Reginald Daye. Reginald Daye's body showed defensive wounds. Crystal showed no physical evidence of an attack.

"I'll remind you that in the Walker case her daughter's 911 call said Walker was trying to kill her Mother and Crystal didn't lunge at Walker, until the Police brought him back into her house. She did not have a knife in her hands. Walker, himself, admits, even as a witness in the Daye case, that the incident with him was entirely his fault and at the time he was suffering a psychotic episode."

Milton Walker's testimony that he was psychotic at the time came AFTER Crystal's friends tried to intimidate him out of testifying. He did testify that Crystal had to be restrained by the police. Crystal did set the fire which damaged the apartment and then lied about it.

"I'm perplexed as to why you insist on charging that I'm refusing to discuss this issue."

You again manifest that you believe that the actual facts should be disregarded so that your favorite murderess can get a pass for killing someone. Great crusader for justice you are NOT!!!!; December 1, 2013 at 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM

"Ms. Mangum's family, (and Mr. Daye's probably), will someday be able to sue duke for putting them through all this sheat."

More garbage from the fabricator.; December 1, 2013 at 4:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Personally, I hope Reginald Daye's family files a wrongful death suit against Durham. Crystal was a menace, a menace with a history of violence. A lawsuit would reveal how Durham repeatedly glossed over Crystal's history and repeatedly give her passes rather than dealing with her.; December 1, 2013 at 4:15 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1085 Newer› Newest»

Monday, November 18, 2013

Part One: Judge Ridgeway's rush to convict

1,085 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me