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 1001 – 1085 of 1085

Anonymous said...: I've seen ya'll talking about the lawyers, but i've only see for myself the part where she requested the lawyer who took considerable time away from preparing for the Nov. trial to then just drop out due to a conflict of interest that he should have known about and said something about immediately when he found out - not as late as he did.

I saw another lawyer with no criminal murder case experience from what i've read here, given two months to prepare, and then lose the case for her.

That's what I've seen.

A lawyer - you get the 1000 th post award - lights are a flashin and you are a shinin - and hey - ain't it grand

the post you mentioned was at 1:27 pm in case that confuses anyone - and thank you for your answers.

got lots of reading to do (as usual). things a lot heavier than a christmas card (hopefully) - but ya know - all i want for christmas is a nonheavy card - so read on i will.; December 13, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:09 AM wrote: "i've seen ya'll talking about the lawyers, but i've only see for myself the part where she requested the lawyer who took considerable time away from preparing for the Nov. trial to then just drop out due to a conflict of interest that he should have known about and said something about immediately when he found out - not as late as he did."

Scott Holmes disclosed the conflict immediately upon discovering it.

"I saw another lawyer with no criminal murder case experience from what i've read here, given two months to prepare, and then lose the case for her."

Make no mistake, Crystal lost the case by disregarding Meyer's very sound advice about testifying. He knew she couldn't tell the same story twice. He knew that she would get caught in all her contradictions. He tried to stop her from testifying. She's the one who did testify. The only thing she helped herself with was the larceny charge. But, Meier would have had that covered on closing argument.

Meyer did not have two months to prepare the case. He inherited a case that was fully prepared. He did a good job of cross examination. I noted it in my blog.

Crystal didn't give him much to work with. She cooked up her self defense story after Daye died. That always looks suspicious. She had a violent criminal history when it came to lovers. That ended up coming into evidence. Meyer, for the most part, kept her history of lying during the Lacrosse fiasco out of evidence, but apparently the jury remembered anyway. That's a tough issue for any attorney. What to do with a notorious client with a terrible history? The only was to deal with that successfully is to embrace it and get the jury to commit to trying the case on just the facts of the crime charged, not her horrible history. And that is a dangerous gambit. I won't criticize Meyer for not trying that. I doubt Crystal would have let him, if he wanted to try.

Walt-in-Durham; December 13, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:27 PM wrote: "However, Walt, if a patient wanted to know what their rights were to fully understand what a doctor is doing or planning to do, and how that will affect them before signing a consent, (and especially without signing a consent), where would they look to find their rights in a place that is easily available to all patients? Do you know?"

First of all, a physician can do very little to a patient without the patient's consent. Just very basic life saving steps. Beyond that, Lance and A lawyer have provided the answers you seek.

Walt-in-Durham; December 13, 2013 at 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Mangum has issues with trust in lawyers that anyone would have developed after what she has been through with already in the durham / duke court and justice system.

She thought her lawyer would be able to get a continuance so that they could have more time to prepare together for the case. That did not happen. Had Ms. Mangum had time to build trust and prepare with the new lawyer - the case would have been presented differently and she might have fared better.

Both Ms. Mangum and her lawyer needed more time to prepare together for this case. Her new lawyer was in no way obliged to follow the lead of the previous lawyers, if that was what Ms. Mangum and he decided after sufficient time to work and build the case under his lead. That did not happen as they did not have the time to do that.

The justice system brought and lost the case for Ms. Mangum - just as would be expected in the durham / duke court system.; December 13, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...: ya know my reply about the patient knowledge and consent question based on your current reply will be that:

the basic life saving steps in Mr. Daye's case killed him at Duke

things to think about; December 13, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 13, 2013 at 12:09 AM

"I've seen ya'll talking about the lawyers, but i've only see for myself the part where she requested the lawyer who took considerable time away from preparing for the Nov. trial to then just drop out due to a conflict of interest that he should have known about and said something about immediately when he found out - not as late as he did.

I saw another lawyer with no criminal murder case experience from what i've read here, given two months to prepare, and then lose the case for her.

That's what I've seen.

A lawyer - you get the 1000 th post award - lights are a flashin and you are a shinin - and hey - ain't it grand

the post you mentioned was at 1:27 pm in case that confuses anyone - and thank you for your answers.

got lots of reading to do (as usual). things a lot heavier than a christmas card (hopefully) - but ya know - all i want for christmas is a nonheavy card - so read on i will."

More garbage from the faricator alligator noncorroborator.; December 13, 2013 at 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 13, 2013 at 12:53 AM

"Ms. Mangum has issues with trust in lawyers that anyone would have developed after what she has been through with already in the durham / duke court and justice system."

You mean like when she falsely accused three innocent men of raping her and her sordid, unsavory past came out when the case self destructed?

"She thought her lawyer would be able to get a continuance so that they could have more time to prepare together for the case. That did not happen. Had Ms. Mangum had time to build trust and prepare with the new lawyer - the case would have been presented differently and she might have fared better."

She had plenty of time to prepare. Instead she bought into SIDNEY's assurances that the state would never take the case to trial.

"Both Ms. Mangum and her lawyer needed more time to prepare together for this case. Her new lawyer was in no way obliged to follow the lead of the previous lawyers, if that was what Ms. Mangum and he decided after sufficient time to work and build the case under his lead. That did not happen as they did not have the time to do that."

Crystal, relying on SIDNEY's assurances that the state would drop the charges. Her poor decisions and SIDNEY's interference cost her the time to prepare. A defendant does not get a pass for sabotaging her own case.

"The justice system brought and lost the case for Ms. Mangum - just as would be expected in the durham / duke court system."

Crystal, with the not inconsiderable help of SIDNEY HARR lost her own case.; December 13, 2013 at 4:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous December 13, 2013 at 12:09 AM

"I've seen ya'll talking about the lawyers, but i've only see for myself the part where she requested the lawyer who took considerable time away from preparing for the Nov. trial to then just drop out due to a conflict of interest that he should have known about and said something about immediately when he found out - not as late as he did.

I saw another lawyer with no criminal murder case experience from what i've read here, given two months to prepare, and then lose the case for her.

That's what I've seen."

You again presume a fact not in evidence. You can't see because you choose to be blind.; December 13, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 12:09 AM wrote: "i've seen ya'll talking about the lawyers, but i've only see for myself the part where she requested the lawyer who took considerable time away from preparing for the Nov. trial to then just drop out due to a conflict of interest that he should have known about and said something about immediately when he found out - not as late as he did."

Scott Holmes disclosed the conflict immediately upon discovering it.

"I saw another lawyer with no criminal murder case experience from what i've read here, given two months to prepare, and then lose the case for her."

Make no mistake, Crystal lost the case by disregarding Meyer's very sound advice about testifying. He knew she couldn't tell the same story twice. He knew that she would get caught in all her contradictions. He tried to stop her from testifying. She's the one who did testify. The only thing she helped herself with was the larceny charge. But, Meier would have had that covered on closing argument.

Meyer did not have two months to prepare the case. He inherited a case that was fully prepared. He did a good job of cross examination. I noted it in my blog.

Crystal didn't give him much to work with. She cooked up her self defense story after Daye died. That always looks suspicious. She had a violent criminal history when it came to lovers. That ended up coming into evidence. Meyer, for the most part, kept her history of lying during the Lacrosse fiasco out of evidence, but apparently the jury remembered anyway. That's a tough issue for any attorney. What to do with a notorious client with a terrible history? The only was to deal with that successfully is to embrace it and get the jury to commit to trying the case on just the facts of the crime charged, not her horrible history. And that is a dangerous gambit. I won't criticize Meyer for not trying that. I doubt Crystal would have let him, if he wanted to try.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, Meier did a horrendous job and it cost Crystal a case in which she should have prevailed. I warned her against placing her trust in him... but she didn't take my advice, unfortunately.; December 13, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Ms. Mangum has issues with trust in lawyers that anyone would have developed after what she has been through with already in the durham / duke court and justice system.

She thought her lawyer would be able to get a continuance so that they could have more time to prepare together for the case. That did not happen. Had Ms. Mangum had time to build trust and prepare with the new lawyer - the case would have been presented differently and she might have fared better.

Both Ms. Mangum and her lawyer needed more time to prepare together for this case. Her new lawyer was in no way obliged to follow the lead of the previous lawyers, if that was what Ms. Mangum and he decided after sufficient time to work and build the case under his lead. That did not happen as they did not have the time to do that.

The justice system brought and lost the case for Ms. Mangum - just as would be expected in the durham / duke court system.

The problem with Mangum's attorney Meier (and all of her attorneys for that fact) was that he put protecting Duke University Hospital above the interests of his client. This strategy doomed her from the start. Mangum's attorneys should have attacked the medical examiner's autopsy report and pushed the fact that the esophageal intubation caused Daye's death.

I will discuss this in great length in one of my upcoming flogs.; December 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The very first lawyer should have had a full professional medical expert witness review of those records to determine the problem with the discrepancies as soon as they were received into evidence instead of Ms. Mangum having to ask you, Dr. Harr, to review them for her.

If he was the one who dealt with Dr. Roberts, he should have had the written reports submitted to him immediately. Hard to believe Ms. Mangum had to ask for those records herself when the trial started, and that she was given only a lunch break to consider what to do with them and her new lawyer of only 2 months with how to proceed in her own defense. I strongly doubt anyone would accept that as justice or a fair or equal trial.

Those issues should have been dealt with right away with full consideration of the DA's office of the problems and possibly wrong charges based upon a full professional medical review by expert witness with written and signed testimony to their non conflict of interest with duke or the state or durham, and all of duke's associates and political backers / benefactors, etc. (As well as their conflicts of opinion, etc., having to do with the lacrosse and other cases).

The corruption, unprofessionalism, and duke centeredness in the durham / duke judicial and court systems needs to stop. People are seriously tired of it.; December 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: With this case, duke (and therefore durham), has officially become a hostile and threatening environment for all. Their weapons of choice at the moment: fear mongering, corruption, and trachea tubes.

what sf's; December 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, Meier did a horrendous job and it cost Crystal a case in which she should have prevailed. I warned her against placing her trust in him... but she didn't take my advice, unfortunately."

Boy are you trying to cover your ass. Crystal sabotaged her own trial by listening to your bullshit that the state had no cas.; December 13, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, Meier did a horrendous job and it cost Crystal a case in which she should have prevailed. I warned her against placing her trust in him... but she didn't take my advice, unfortunately."

This from the man who said he would prevail against Duke, who said he would humiliate the state bar.

I say again, you are just trying to cover your ass.; December 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem with Mangum's attorney Meier (and all of her attorneys for that fact) was that he put protecting Duke University Hospital above the interests of his client. This strategy doomed her from the start. Mangum's attorneys should have attacked the medical examiner's autopsy report and pushed the fact that the esophageal intubation caused Daye's death."

There was nothing from which Duke needed to be protected. You have not established as fact that esophageal intubtion took place.

And you claim Crystal would have prevailed if she had taken your advice. The only advice you give shows you know nothing about the facts of the case.

"I will discuss this in great length in one of my upcoming flogs."

Which means again you will make a greater fool of yourself by trying to distort the facts.; December 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM
A Lawyer said...: Sidney Said Then:

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.

Sidney Says Now:

The problem with Mangum's attorney Meier (and all of her attorneys for that fact) was that he put protecting Duke University Hospital above the interests of his client. This strategy doomed her from the start.

Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

(Actually, I vote for "both."); December 13, 2013 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke had to think that they could get away with the malpractice on Mr. Daye in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder, or they would not have done it, (or would they - this is duke were talking about).

They figured their records would never come into play in a trial in a justice system that is stacked most heavily in their favor.

They thought Ms. Mangum would not question the records, and if she did, she would not recieve answers that she needed to do anything other than to continue to frame herself for murder.

They were not counting on Dr. Harr to lead the charge against them, which essentially he didn't at first from what I've read so far, since his main concern is and was with the ME and the faulty autopsy reports used to falsely charge Ms. Mangum with a murder she did not commit, (because the medical malpractice at the hands of duke was and is a huge issue that casts significant doubt on that reality).

Even after massive efforts by Dr. Harr to have the discrepancies and errors addressed and corrected for the sake of the defense of Ms. Mangum, the world is still required to watch duke try to cover up what should be an obvious part of any case with similar issues such as those posed in this case.

In addition, they expect everyone to go along with the continued injustice in the durham / duke injustice systems and in their own organization, since now they continue to weild another manipulative weapon in the form of fear-mongering with intentional medical malpractice and false prosecution through the durham/duke injustice system ... and get away with it ... while everyone is watching ... again.; December 14, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Anonymous said...: There are a lot of people at Duke who study and master these type political and societal mind control practices for a living.

Knowing they are watching and remaining silent for their own purposes as well as Dukes makes the crime of what has and is being done in these cases even more malicious, intentional, and criminal.

They can't say they have no way of knowing what they are doing, since they are the well known professors, researchers, and expert witnesses on these matters in many cases.

Who would you pose that complaint to at Duke in order to receive their explanation for why they don't take more responsibiity for what they do, and why they thus destroy their own trustworthiness in all that they do, including the performance of their medical practices and procedures?; December 14, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of res ipsa loquitur, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said...: you first; December 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:17:

Aren't you clever?; December 14, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you are an idiot. There was no protection of Duke. There was a trial of the case based on the evidence. You are right, there were discrepancies in the records, and questions about treatment. You are wrong that those weren't addressed and discussed. The ME and Duke doctors, who were clued into the issues well in advance because you did all you could to get the conviction YOU wanted all along (it's too bad Crystal ever trusted you - thinking you were helping her not yourself). They explained the issues fully. You are not entitled to that explanation, and are mad you didn't get it. But it was given, and was not introduced not in an attempt to protect Duke but in an attempt to protect Crystal.

Had you stayed out if it, things would have been better for Crystal and you know that, and you are worried about a chance of success on her appeal so you are going to try sabotage that. Your only regret in this is she didn't get LWOP, so you lose your martyr in another 12 years.

What is sad is that despite all evidence a handful of people still believe your drivel (though I suspect a lot if those deluded posters are you).; December 14, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of Corpus Delicti, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of in statu pupillari, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of falsi crimem, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of cum onere, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of a mensa et toro, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of de minimis non curat lex, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain the concept of in flagrante delicto, if you dare.; December 14, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: What's wrong - are you having trouble understanding Harry Potter?

What is so daring about explaining those concepts?

Tell you what, you dare to explain them, then all us blog people who want to dare too will see if we can top it (or whatever).; December 14, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Ya know Dr. Harr,

If you could get together a team of retired docs to qualify as 'expert witnesses' and maybe a few nonretired lawyers with no conflict of interest with duke and a willingness and ability to 'take on' duke and the durham/duke/nc judicial system, you might be able to develop quite a wealth and power base, and business indentity and standing in NC.

I am sure there are many more people than Ms. Mangum who would reach out to you and your team of professionals in desperate need of rescue from duke and the duke/durham/nc justice system, as well as other identities.

Is there ANY identity like that in NC or the USA today?

If no, see, it would be novel concept indeed. If you could prevail, you would do a tremendous service for the people of NC and the USA.

First - a business plan.
However, you will need lawyers - so it's not going to be an easy quest - but one of worthy endeavor.; December 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:26pm:

The lacrosse defendants were able without difficulty to find a "few nonretired lawyers with no conflict of interest with duke and a willingness and ability to 'take on' duke and the durham/duke/nc judicial system."

This does not appear to be as challenging as you presume.; December 15, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, you are an idiot. There was no protection of Duke. There was a trial of the case based on the evidence. You are right, there were discrepancies in the records, and questions about treatment. You are wrong that those weren't addressed and discussed. The ME and Duke doctors, who were clued into the issues well in advance because you did all you could to get the conviction YOU wanted all along (it's too bad Crystal ever trusted you - thinking you were helping her not yourself). They explained the issues fully. You are not entitled to that explanation, and are mad you didn't get it. But it was given, and was not introduced not in an attempt to protect Duke but in an attempt to protect Crystal.

Had you stayed out if it, things would have been better for Crystal and you know that, and you are worried about a chance of success on her appeal so you are going to try sabotage that. Your only regret in this is she didn't get LWOP, so you lose your martyr in another 12 years.

What is sad is that despite all evidence a handful of people still believe your drivel (though I suspect a lot if those deluded posters are you).

Discrepancies in the medical examiner's autopsy report and the other medical records is significant. I will go into that in more depth in a future flog.

Mangum did make a huge mistake by placing her trust in her lawyers who sold her out. She would have fared best had she listened to me.

After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her. As a result she wound up convicted and facing 14 years.; December 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @5:43, 5:41, 5:40, 10:43, 10:41, 10:39, 9:10, 5:12:

You aren't very clever either. Googling legal phrases and then challenging Sidney to explain them is rather childish.; December 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING.; December 16, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Discrepancies in the medical examiner's autopsy report and the other medical records is significant."

They are, only to the extent that Duke did a poor job of record keeping. Nichols saw the body, you did not. He has a basis of knowledge, you do not. Because his observations are based on actually seeing the body of the deceased, he is believable.

"I will go into that in more depth in a future flog."

You tried that once and didn't do anything other than confirm Dr. Nichols' better understanding of what went on.

"Mangum did make a huge mistake by placing her trust in her lawyers who sold her out. She would have fared best had she listened to me."

The only person who sold her out was you.

"After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her. As a result she wound up convicted and facing 14 years."

Crystal set a trap for you. She gave you some information and sat back to see what you would do with it. You breached the attorney/client confidence and you breached her trust in you.

I have written it before, but it is worth repeating, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; December 16, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Walt said...: Anonymoust at 3:54 PM wrote:

"The very first lawyer should have had a full professional medical expert witness review of those records to determine the problem with the discrepancies as soon as they were received into evidence instead of Ms. Mangum having to ask you, Dr. Harr, to review them for her."

That's exactly what the defense asked the court for, an independent medical review. The court appointed Dr. Roberts. Roberts gave Crystal and Woody Vann an oral report. It is unclear now if there was a written report or not. Sid has said there was, and he has said there was not. If there was not a written report, A Lawyer, Lance and I have explained why the defense decided not to ask for it. We do know from Sid's breach of trust that the oral report concurred with Dr. Nichols findings. Thus, any defense lawyer would prefer not to bolster the state's case by providing them with a written report saying the same thing. Given Dr. Nichols' termination from the Medical Examiner's office, that decision turned out to be a good one. With that written report in hand, the State could have summoned Dr. Roberts, put her on as a hostile witness (defense expert) and had her give the medical examiner's report. As it was, the state had to use Nichols. It turned out that he was a solid witness for them, but no one could be certain of that until he testified.

"... Hard to believe Ms. Mangum had to ask for those records herself when the trial started, and that she was given only a lunch break to consider what to do with them and her new lawyer of only 2 months with how to proceed in her own defense."

No, Mangum had that information long ago and Meier got it when he took over the case.

"I strongly doubt anyone would accept that as justice or a fair or equal trial."

If the defense had only a lunch break to consider evidence, it might not be fair, but that is not the way it unfolded. You really need to pay attention.

"Those issues should have been dealt with right away with full consideration of the DA's office of the problems and possibly wrong charges based upon a full professional medical review by expert witness with written and signed testimony ...."

That's not the way it works. North Carolina has no provision for pre-trial testimony. The only discovery provisions in our law are for the defense to discover what is in the state's file.

Walt-in-Durham; December 16, 2013 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: She asked the judge for the written reports from Dr. Roberts at the beginning of the trial - and the judge agreed.

Then the day of her defense testimony - she appeared to receive the report - or at the least - the judge asked her what she wanted to do with the report before the lunch break - Ms. Mangum seemed hesitant - so the judge gave her the lunch break to decide what to do with it. That was right before her defense testimony.; December 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 11:26 AM wrote: "She asked the judge for the written reports from Dr. Roberts at the beginning of the trial - and the judge agreed.

Then the day of her defense testimony - she appeared to receive the report - or at the least - the judge asked her what she wanted to do with the report before the lunch break - Ms. Mangum seemed hesitant - so the judge gave her the lunch break to decide what to do with it. That was right before her defense testimony."

Sid wrote: "After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her."

You calling Sid a liar?

It doesn't really matter who is telling the truth here, Crystal was present at a meeting with Vann and Dr. Roberts where Roberts gave her oral report. No injustice done.

Walt-in-Durham; December 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: did i say Dr. Harr you are a liar?

is that what you're asking walt?

of course i did not.

but i did watch the trial and that is what i say happen, and read in papers from what i recall.

people misunderstand what they think other people say or intend to say quite frequently.; December 16, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Discrepancies in the medical examiner's autopsy report and the other medical records is significant."

They are, only to the extent that Duke did a poor job of record keeping. Nichols saw the body, you did not. He has a basis of knowledge, you do not. Because his observations are based on actually seeing the body of the deceased, he is believable.

"I will go into that in more depth in a future flog."

You tried that once and didn't do anything other than confirm Dr. Nichols' better understanding of what went on.

"Mangum did make a huge mistake by placing her trust in her lawyers who sold her out. She would have fared best had she listened to me."

The only person who sold her out was you.

"After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her. As a result she wound up convicted and facing 14 years."

Crystal set a trap for you. She gave you some information and sat back to see what you would do with it. You breached the attorney/client confidence and you breached her trust in you.

I have written it before, but it is worth repeating, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, Crystal does need friends like me. The problem is that she has forsaken me and placed her trust in a turncoat attorney whose primary priority was to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner.

Because of her misguided trust, she has been convicted and sentenced to 14 - 18 years in prison.

I don't know what Dr. Nichols saw, but whatever it was, the only thing he recorded with photographs was the lung. Why is that? Why not photograph injuries to the other alleged organs. I never saw any photographs of multiple scabbed over lesions on the left upper extremity... only a itty-bitty scratch (hardly what I would call a defensive injury).

Stay tuned, Walt. An upcoming flog will clearly demonstrate problems with Dr. Nichols and his autopsy report.; December 16, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymoust at 3:54 PM wrote:

"The very first lawyer should have had a full professional medical expert witness review of those records to determine the problem with the discrepancies as soon as they were received into evidence instead of Ms. Mangum having to ask you, Dr. Harr, to review them for her."

That's exactly what the defense asked the court for, an independent medical review. The court appointed Dr. Roberts. Roberts gave Crystal and Woody Vann an oral report. It is unclear now if there was a written report or not. Sid has said there was, and he has said there was not. If there was not a written report, A Lawyer, Lance and I have explained why the defense decided not to ask for it. We do know from Sid's breach of trust that the oral report concurred with Dr. Nichols findings. Thus, any defense lawyer would prefer not to bolster the state's case by providing them with a written report saying the same thing. Given Dr. Nichols' termination from the Medical Examiner's office, that decision turned out to be a good one. With that written report in hand, the State could have summoned Dr. Roberts, put her on as a hostile witness (defense expert) and had her give the medical examiner's report. As it was, the state had to use Nichols. It turned out that he was a solid witness for them, but no one could be certain of that until he testified.

"... Hard to believe Ms. Mangum had to ask for those records herself when the trial started, and that she was given only a lunch break to consider what to do with them and her new lawyer of only 2 months with how to proceed in her own defense."

No, Mangum had that information long ago and Meier got it when he took over the case.

"I strongly doubt anyone would accept that as justice or a fair or equal trial."

If the defense had only a lunch break to consider evidence, it might not be fair, but that is not the way it unfolded. You really need to pay attention.

"Those issues should have been dealt with right away with full consideration of the DA's office of the problems and possibly wrong charges based upon a full professional medical review by expert witness with written and signed testimony ...."

That's not the way it works. North Carolina has no provision for pre-trial testimony. The only discovery provisions in our law are for the defense to discover what is in the state's file.

Walt-in-Durham

I don't know what's in Dr. Roberts' report. From what Crystal told me before, it does confirm that the intubation was esophageal. Unfortunately Mangum allowed her attorney to talk her out of bringing Dr. Roberts into the trial. Big mistake... and it resulted in her conviction. Mangum should've listened to me and worked with me. If she had, she would probably be free now.; December 16, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I don't know what Dr. Nichols saw...."

You're right Sid, you don't know what he saw. But, he does and he testified. I, and more importantly, the jury belives him. With good reason, I might add. You, saw nothing and are not even qualified to testify. I will believe the guy who laid eyes on the victim over a turncoat who breached the attorney client confidence and tried to sabotage the case.

Sid wrote: "Mangum should've listened to me and worked with me. If she had, she would probably be free now."

She did work with you and you filed frivolous motions, you got sanctioned and your frivolous motions were denied. She trusted you with confidential information and you released it to anyone who could read. Including some people from the DA's office. That undermined Crystal's case. Yeah, you're a great one to have in her corner. She had to be wondering just how you would try to sabotage her case again.

Walt-in-Durha; December 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:32 wrote: "did i say Dr. Harr you are a liar?

is that what you're asking walt?

of course i did not."

Then Crystal musth have been lying. That is the heart of the defense problem in this case. To believe Crystal, you must always disbelieve someone else. Here, either Crystal is telling the truth or Sid is. While Sid has a poor track record with the truth, his version is supported by circumstantial evidence. Crystal also has a poor track record with the truth and her version is not supported any circumstantial evidence.

Walt-in-Durham; December 16, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her. As a result she wound up convicted and facing 14 years.

You keep harping on that - yet you should know that there was NO report from Dr. Roberts until after the trial started. They had a whole hearing on it. You were in a snit because Crystal wouldn't share something she didn't have with you.

Discrepancies in the medical examiner's autopsy report and the other medical records is significant. I will go into that in more depth in a future flog.

No one said they weren't - what's been said is that in your efforts to get Crystal convicted, you made sure to tip the ME and Doctors off to those discrepancies so they had answers ready by the time the trial started. Once again, you are just mad that others have information you don't have, like the explanation that was provided.; December 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: If Ms. Mangum lost her case because of lawyers - then it isn't justice - and it isn't her fault (as her losing a case because of lawyers does not equal she killed a man).

This case is not about what lawyers or da's did, (unless it shows a pattern of practice harmful to justice and health for Ms. Mangum), before duke became involved in Mr. Daye's death - as he was not dead until after duke's practice took his life.

It is about what duke did that made it so Mr. Daye did not leave duke alive after he entered duke alive and was expected to live from the emergency treatment of his wound that they provided.

In this case, because of the lawyers, and da's and justice system and duke doctors, cops, and admin and the ME - Ms. Mangum is charged and convicted of a murder that she did not commit.

So yes, could she say one thing and not be lying - and all those other people could say another and be duke driven and centered - of course she could. This is DUKE / durham INjustice in USA nonwonderland in this case. It is the way duke is. To understand duke, in part, you have to look at the things they actually practice, perfect, and produce.; December 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: well, sidney, what's the big strategy this time to spring Mangum from prison in January, 14? (as you stated). Can't wait for you and Sister to be seen, arm in arm, on the prison steps.....free at last, free at last!
Here's my prediction, bro. Mangum will be in prison in January, 14 and in prison for many more years to come. and you, you will just continue in your racist fueled dementiam, trying to extort money, unsuccessfully.; December 17, 2013 at 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...: oops, dementia......

My new bumper sticker has arrived.....it reads STILL a proud Duke Hooligan, since 2006! It's on the truck!; December 17, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Does it have a devil on it?

Can anyone get one, or was it special made?

You actually see a lot fewer devils grinnin at ya from flags and cars around the place since 2006 - but hey - go for it.; December 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: That's the way, aha, aha
I like it, aha, aha
That's the way, aha, aha
I like it, aha, aha
That's the way, aha, aha
I like it, aha, aha
That's the way, aha, aha
I like it, aha, aha; December 17, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Shouldn't Dr. Roberts be charged with obstruction of justice in this case for not providing the written report sooner to the defense?

It seriously affected the fairness of the trial and justice in obvious ways that Dr. Roberts had to be ordered to produce it by the judge only after the actual trial had started and Ms. Mangum had to stand there against her lawyer and request it on her own from the judge. Why did the judge not give her enough time with the evidence, and why did not the lawyer also request the written reports and sufficient time to examine and prepare for trial with it? It is obvious that his decision on this matter helped to lose the case for Ms. Mangum as well.; December 18, 2013 at 2:17 AM
Anonymous said...: How much time is allowed for the appeal to be submitted after the trial?

Has it been submitted yet?

Who exactly is responsible for writting and submitting the appeal?; December 18, 2013 at 4:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually, asshat, the bumper sticker has crossed LAX sticks on it and a Duke emblem. I have had it on my truck for years...and very proud of it. If you knew anything, AT ALL, about the history of the LAX rape hoax, you would understand the sticker really has far less to do with Duke than it does with scumbag Nifong.; December 18, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:37 AM wrote: "How much time is allowed for the appeal to be submitted after the trial?"

Notice of appeal must be made at trial or within 14 days of the entry of verdict. App.R.4. This was done at trial. Because this is an indigent appeal, the court clerk has 60 days to prepare a transcript and furnish copies to both sides. App.R.7(a)2 & App.R.7(b). The record must be served on opposing counsel within 30 days of the notice of appeal. App.R.9.
Disputes about the record and transcript must be settled by the parties within 30 days of the filing of the transcript or record whichever comes later. App.R.11. If the parties cannot settle any disputes, those are submitted to the Superior Court. The Superior Court is required to have a hearing on any unsettled disputes within 15 days of the parties submission of the dispute. The Judge shall settle the record within 20 days of the hearing. App.R.11. Once the record is settled, it must be filed within 15 days. App.R.12. Within 30 days of filing the record, the appellant (defendant in Crystal's case) must file her brief. App.R.13. After the appellant's brief is served on the appellee (the state) the reply brief must be filed. App.R.13. If permitted by App.R.28(h), a reply brief must be filed within 21 days of Appellee's brief. App.R.13.

"Has it been submitted yet?"

The court reporter is in the process of preparing the transcript. The Appellate Public Defender is preparing the record.

"Who exactly is responsible for writting and submitting the appeal?"

See above.

Walt-in-Durham; December 18, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: "Shouldn't Dr. Roberts be charged with obstruction of justice in this case for not providing the written report sooner to the defense?"

No. Dr. Roberts' report was extremely damaging to the defense. Basically, it supported the State's theory of the case and the State's medical evidence -to wit, that Crystal Mangum killed Mr. Daye.

As has been previously explained here by other lawyers, requiring Dr. Roberts to produce a written report would be damaging to Ms. Mangum's defense and against her interests. Under the circumstances, the decision not to produce a written report helpful to the prosecution was entirely appropriate and in Ms. Mangum's interest. The soonest that Dr. Roberts could release her report in way that did not damage Ms. Mangum was after the prosecution rested.; December 18, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you Walt.

Does App. refer to Appeals Rules?

Where do you find these rules?

Is Ms. Mangum involved in reviewing all the paperwork, or only the court clerk?

Can she request what she wants and have heard any complaints or concerns that she has about the appeal?

Does she have an indigent lawyer assigned to answer any questions she may have?; December 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: What does the written report from Dr. Roberts say?

Where can it be viewed?; December 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no evidence that Dr. Roberts ever produced ANY written report. Have you not been reading this site? How many times do you have to be informed?
If she DID produce a written report, it is NOT public information. It would be considered confidential and only Mangum, or her designee, could release it. There was no report from Roberts, verbal or written, introduced by either the defense or the prosecution. Why can you not understand? Roberts' opinion supported Nichols findings and conclusions, per what Mangum told Harr. Had there been a written report, it was have had to have been turned over to the prosecution.....and, as such, it would NOT have been helpful to any claim by Mangum that Nichols was in error.
Got it?; December 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: No, she does not have an indigent lawyer assigned to her. Most lawyers who are practicing law are not indigent.; December 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Upon what basis, in fact, do you make the claim that there are fewer flags, etc, supporting Duke since 2006? What is your source for that claim?
He who asserts, must prove......otherwise, stuff it; December 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:25 AM wrote: "Does App. refer to Appeals Rules?"

App. is the way we cite the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is an accurte way to tell readers what rule is being cited.

"Where do you find these rules?"

I subscribe to Thompson/West for a hard copy. However, they are available electronically from the Administrative Office of Courts website. I suspect there are other sources.

"Is Ms. Mangum involved in reviewing all the paperwork, or only the court clerk?"

Crystal is responisble for preparing the record. The clerk prepares the transcript of what was said at trial. The record is all the paper filed in the case, or at least that part of the papers that Crystal wants as a record. If she omits something the state wants, they can ask that she include it. If she refuses, then there is a disupute to present to the Superior Court for settlement.

"Can she request what she wants and have heard any complaints or concerns that she has about the appeal?"

See above.

"Does she have an indigent lawyer assigned to answer any questions she may have?"

The case is with the NC Office of Indigent Defendant Services Appellate Defender division. I don't know if a specific attorney has been assigned. I would think there has been though.

Walt-in-Durham; December 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: harr lied to make it his story match facts as they unfolded.........just as did Mangum, over and over.; December 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, that was very helpful, as always, thank you.

Other poster - i don't have to prove anything. How can you prove that anyway, unless you saw around here before 2006 and then after and now? Don't believe me ... no one else is braggin bout sporting a duke hooligan bumper sticker cept you ... maybe that should be your proof ... don't know. Does it have a devil on it?

The report from Dr. Roberts was given to Ms. Mangum on the last day of the trial, and she had the lunch break before she testified to decide what to do with it with her lawyer. I do not know what it says since it was not a part of the trial after that accept for Ms. Mangum to be questioned by the judge about it after the lunch break as to what she wanted to do with it - which she followed her lawyer and did nothing at the time.; December 18, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I don't know what Dr. Nichols saw...."

You're right Sid, you don't know what he saw. But, he does and he testified. I, and more importantly, the jury belives him. With good reason, I might add. You, saw nothing and are not even qualified to testify. I will believe the guy who laid eyes on the victim over a turncoat who breached the attorney client confidence and tried to sabotage the case.

Sid wrote: "Mangum should've listened to me and worked with me. If she had, she would probably be free now."

She did work with you and you filed frivolous motions, you got sanctioned and your frivolous motions were denied. She trusted you with confidential information and you released it to anyone who could read. Including some people from the DA's office. That undermined Crystal's case. Yeah, you're a great one to have in her corner. She had to be wondering just how you would try to sabotage her case again.

Walt-in-Durha

Hey, Walt. True, I don't know what Dr. Nichols saw, but I do know that what he wrote in his autopsy report is bogus and what he testified in trial not only conflicts with the medical reports but with his own report.

In short, the autopsy report by Nichols is totally unreliable.

Mangum's decision to trust the attorney and not follow my advice is the reason she was convicted. She should have had her attorney go after the medical aspects. Meier talked her out of having Dr. Roberts' report brought into the case... and that sealed any possibility she had of at least having a hung jury.

I am aware that the attorneys that she was assigned would have Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner as their top priorities over her... that is why I tried to allow the Courts to give me permission to represent Mangum in court. But, it is very likely that even though the Courts may have agreed to such a deal that Mangum would've chosen to be represented by a turncoat defense attorney anyway.; December 19, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
After Crystal told me that she had a report from Dr. Roberts but would not share it with me, I kept my distance from her. As a result she wound up convicted and facing 14 years.

You keep harping on that - yet you should know that there was NO report from Dr. Roberts until after the trial started. They had a whole hearing on it. You were in a snit because Crystal wouldn't share something she didn't have with you.

Discrepancies in the medical examiner's autopsy report and the other medical records is significant. I will go into that in more depth in a future flog.

No one said they weren't - what's been said is that in your efforts to get Crystal convicted, you made sure to tip the ME and Doctors off to those discrepancies so they had answers ready by the time the trial started. Once again, you are just mad that others have information you don't have, like the explanation that was provided.

I don't know for a fact if Dr. Roberts produced a written report, if one exists, or whether or not Crystal saw one or had one in her possession. All I know is what she tells me. She told me prior to the trial getting underway that she had a written document from Dr. Roberts. She would not share it with me, so that is when I distanced myself from her.

The prosecution had discovery, so they knew or should have known about the discrepancies between the autopsy report and the medical records. My presenting them publicly did not alter anything. They were not able to better prepare. Dr. Nichols just said that he didn't know how the differences occurred and Meier didn't press him. Instead, Meier started talking about chest tubes (which I don't believe were even involved in Daye's hospitalization) and instead never even mentioned the endotracheal tube. Meier sabotaged Mangum's case. Surely, I didn't because I had nothing to do with the defense presented in court.; December 19, 2013 at 7:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
If Ms. Mangum lost her case because of lawyers - then it isn't justice - and it isn't her fault (as her losing a case because of lawyers does not equal she killed a man).

This case is not about what lawyers or da's did, (unless it shows a pattern of practice harmful to justice and health for Ms. Mangum), before duke became involved in Mr. Daye's death - as he was not dead until after duke's practice took his life.

It is about what duke did that made it so Mr. Daye did not leave duke alive after he entered duke alive and was expected to live from the emergency treatment of his wound that they provided.

In this case, because of the lawyers, and da's and justice system and duke doctors, cops, and admin and the ME - Ms. Mangum is charged and convicted of a murder that she did not commit.

So yes, could she say one thing and not be lying - and all those other people could say another and be duke driven and centered - of course she could. This is DUKE / durham INjustice in USA nonwonderland in this case. It is the way duke is. To understand duke, in part, you have to look at the things they actually practice, perfect, and produce.

December 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Finally... a truly enlightened commenter. You are absolutely correct in your assessment.; December 19, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
well, sidney, what's the big strategy this time to spring Mangum from prison in January, 14? (as you stated). Can't wait for you and Sister to be seen, arm in arm, on the prison steps.....free at last, free at last!
Here's my prediction, bro. Mangum will be in prison in January, 14 and in prison for many more years to come. and you, you will just continue in your racist fueled dementiam, trying to extort money, unsuccessfully.

My strategy for springing Mangum is simple... Expose the truth. The truth that Duke University Hospital was responsible for Daye's death, not Mangum, and that the autopsy report upon which the murder charge was based is false, misleading and fraudulent.

Unfortunately, Dr. Nichols, the prosecution, Mangum's defense attorneys, and the biased mainstream media have been suppressing the truth.

Don't count on any photos of me walking Mangum hand in hand out of prison as I am one who does not seek publicity.; December 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
oops, dementia......

My new bumper sticker has arrived.....it reads STILL a proud Duke Hooligan, since 2006! It's on the truck!

If you send me a photo of your bumper sticker I would be more than happy to post it.; December 19, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Shouldn't Dr. Roberts be charged with obstruction of justice in this case for not providing the written report sooner to the defense?

It seriously affected the fairness of the trial and justice in obvious ways that Dr. Roberts had to be ordered to produce it by the judge only after the actual trial had started and Ms. Mangum had to stand there against her lawyer and request it on her own from the judge. Why did the judge not give her enough time with the evidence, and why did not the lawyer also request the written reports and sufficient time to examine and prepare for trial with it? It is obvious that his decision on this matter helped to lose the case for Ms. Mangum as well.

December 18, 2013 at 2:17 AM

You are absolutely correct that Dr. Roberts' refusal to present a written report significantly damaged Mangum's case. Because Mangum was represented by turncoat attorneys and because Dr. Roberts didn't want to implicate Dr. Nichols, a written report was never forthcoming to my knowledge until possibly, as commenter stated, hours before Mangum was forced to make a decision by Whirlwind Judge Ridgeway... and she was talked out of doing so by Meier.; December 19, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 4:37 AM wrote: "How much time is allowed for the appeal to be submitted after the trial?"

Notice of appeal must be made at trial or within 14 days of the entry of verdict. App.R.4. This was done at trial. Because this is an indigent appeal, the court clerk has 60 days to prepare a transcript and furnish copies to both sides. App.R.7(a)2 & App.R.7(b). The record must be served on opposing counsel within 30 days of the notice of appeal. App.R.9.
Disputes about the record and transcript must be settled by the parties within 30 days of the filing of the transcript or record whichever comes later. App.R.11. If the parties cannot settle any disputes, those are submitted to the Superior Court. The Superior Court is required to have a hearing on any unsettled disputes within 15 days of the parties submission of the dispute. The Judge shall settle the record within 20 days of the hearing. App.R.11. Once the record is settled, it must be filed within 15 days. App.R.12. Within 30 days of filing the record, the appellant (defendant in Crystal's case) must file her brief. App.R.13. After the appellant's brief is served on the appellee (the state) the reply brief must be filed. App.R.13. If permitted by App.R.28(h), a reply brief must be filed within 21 days of Appellee's brief. App.R.13.

"Has it been submitted yet?"

The court reporter is in the process of preparing the transcript. The Appellate Public Defender is preparing the record.

"Who exactly is responsible for writting and submitting the appeal?"

See above.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, thanks for the enlightenment regarding court procedures. It is appreciated by all.; December 19, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
There is no evidence that Dr. Roberts ever produced ANY written report. Have you not been reading this site? How many times do you have to be informed?
If she DID produce a written report, it is NOT public information. It would be considered confidential and only Mangum, or her designee, could release it. There was no report from Roberts, verbal or written, introduced by either the defense or the prosecution. Why can you not understand? Roberts' opinion supported Nichols findings and conclusions, per what Mangum told Harr. Had there been a written report, it was have had to have been turned over to the prosecution.....and, as such, it would NOT have been helpful to any claim by Mangum that Nichols was in error.
Got it?

Commenter, your premise is valid only if you believe that Mangum's defense attorneys had her best interests at heart. Fact is that Mangum's defense attorneys, along with the medical examiner, have always put Duke University Hospital's reputation ahead of Mangum's freedom. It's simple as that. That is why Meier fought so hard to keep the Roberts report from being introduced. Meier sold his client down the river.; December 19, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYONE... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Just wanted to let you know that I am currently well into work on my next flog. It will be chock full of information and evidence. Estimated date of posting is shortly after Christmas.

As you were.; December 19, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Commenter, your premise is valid only if you believe that Mangum's defense attorneys had her best interests at heart. Fact is that Mangum's defense attorneys, along with the medical examiner, have always put Duke University Hospital's reputation ahead of Mangum's freedom. It's simple as that. That is why Meier fought so hard to keep the Roberts report from being introduced. Meier sold his client down the river.

Sid, one thing that never changes - you still really are nothing but an idiot who is upset Crystal didn't get the LWOP you were seeking for her.; December 19, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sid - If Crystal Mangum had accepted the plea deal offered to her (the one you specifically advised her NOT to take), she would be free now.

IIRC, it was your advice (to continue switching lawyers) that prolonged the case as well.

Do you really have Crystal Mangum's best interest in mind?

How does it feel knowing that you are uniquely responsible for her current situation?; December 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Walt said...: Things turned ugly again tonight with the Huerta protesters and DPD. I have more at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/12/another-protest-and-now-tear-gas.html

Walt-in-Durham; December 19, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Something needs to change with the justice system in duke/durham land soon for the better, or it will become another test ground - not that it obviously isn't already - this time for the type event you know 'they' are itching for in their quest for more gun control instead of actually providing healthy and available mental health treatment and services in NC and USA (which duke helped to destroy, manipulate, and corrupt - mental health in USA - and which they make billions off of for their benefit only); and cops acting like rambo patrol and legions of the military with their brand new toys that they just have to try out. Even if they have to cause events in order to do so. Yup - why not duke/durham - since duke likes to be masters of the games and durham has always been their minions and slaves.

so ... is this the end ... or just the beginning of this 'event'?; December 20, 2013 at 2:58 AM
Anonymous said...: It's ironic that you would post something like this on a website that defends and celebrates Mike Nifong that is operated by a man who supported police and prosecutorial misconduct in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax and to this day continues to cheer on and advocate for the perpetrator of the hoax.; December 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM
A Lawyer said...: You are absolutely correct that Dr. Roberts' refusal to present a written report significantly damaged Mangum's case. Because Mangum was represented by turncoat attorneys and because Dr. Roberts didn't want to implicate Dr. Nichols, a written report was never forthcoming to my knowledge until possibly, as commenter stated, hours before Mangum was forced to make a decision by Whirlwind Judge Ridgeway... and she was talked out of doing so by Meier.

Dr. Harr:
What is your evidence that Mr. Meier was a "turncoat"? That is a very serious allegation to make against a lawyer.

I have seen zero evidence to support that claim, from you or from anyone else, except for the fact that Meier didn't want Dr. Roberts' written report in evidence. But wanting Dr. Roberts' report kept out is not evidence of Meier's disloyalty to his client unless the written report contradicted Dr. Nichols. If the written report supported Dr. Nichols' conclusions, Meier's wanting to keep it out of evidence shows his loyalty to his client, not the opposite.

What evidence do you have that Roberts' written report contradicted Nichols? None that I have seen. And there are two pieces of evidence that show that Roberts' report confirmed Nichols' report: (1) you have previously stated that Roberts' oral report supported Nichols; and (2) Mangum, after reading Roberts' written report, didn't go back to the judge and say that she had a problem with her lawyer trying to keep out exculpatory evidence.

Mangum has Roberts' written report and can show it to you. If it contradicts Nichols, she can move for a new trial on grounds that her lawyer did not afford her adequate representation. If the report is not forthcoming, the only inference is that it supports Nichols, and that you have been libeling Mr. Meier.; December 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: No irony. duke/durham in nonwonderland is what it is ... a test ground for duke's political games.

Even the lacrosse case happened with duke's backing and consent ... it is the way it is.

An event of this nature would be a way for duke to gain more power and control and shoot for billions more through nonexistant or nonhealthy mental health nontreatments and nonservices in NC and the USA ... it is the way it is.

CNN wrote about the incident today. It is news ... with no signs of stopping any time soon.; December 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM
A Lawyer said...: An event of this nature would be a way for duke to gain more power and control and shoot for billions more through nonexistant or nonhealthy mental health nontreatments and nonservices in NC and the USA ... it is the way it is.

CNN wrote about the incident today. It is news ... with no signs of stopping any time soon.

What in the wide world of sports are you babbling about this time?; December 20, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: the way it is - in nonwide world of sports land - meaning: reality in the wide world of USA and NC for most and anyone else duke can reach with their social political economic control policies and practices and nefarious research tactics on whole societies - regardless of the outcome, etc.

mental health is a big part of what duke affects for all - yet - they are loath to admit people have mental health that could be negatively affected by what duke does (or a brain for that matter) in many cases

why is that?; December 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: obamacare:

a. now docs can deny service based on insurance (not that they couldn't before - but now it seems more pronounced)

b. now a tax or law or penalty against seeking services without insurance that most people cannot afford in today's economy (the penalty, the services, or the insurance)

c. insurance that actually limits whether life saving practices can be given and paid for (by them). Does this effect how the docs provide services based on money and ability to pay by the patient?

d. in nc you just sort of watch - knowing your state was trying to succeed from the USA and refuses to 'do' obamacare - or does it - does it only refuse to do the obamacare that actually helps people? ??? This is a tricky question due to the fact that the reason they aren't doing it (given by the gov.) is that medicaid is too messed up in NC to add more to the mess - which is true from what you read in the papers.; December 20, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Merry Christmas, Everybody.; December 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 11:32: In Canada, single-payer universal health care from cradle to grave. Less spent per capita (No obscene Insurance Company Profits); 100% coverage and a healthier population. And, yes, we have no death panels. Every time a single person dies while waiting for a surgery ( extremely rare) the lobbyist there play it up big time ignoring the hundreds of thousand down there that die because they came to treatment too late as a result of having no insurance coverage. No one there ever goes bankrupt or loses their home because of illness. The Medical Associations and the Insurance companies fought the same battles there 50 years ago and lost. This should be informative to all who oppose state health care.; December 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Merry Christmas, Sid. May the many gifts of this blessed season be
yours.; December 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1085 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