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:

1 – 200 of 1085 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Morning, Walt....gonna be another exciting day in the saga downtown. Mangum will eventually testify, right? I see Jackie has shown up again. Pretty soon we will see her on TV, one way or the other.
Not looking too good for Mangum at the moment....but, of course, Sid can always show up and save the day.

I have not seen the entire trial, but the media is bound to misrepresent what is actually going on. I'd expect most people who get the news from the media would believe that things are going bad for Mangum.

Problem for the prosecution is that it really hasn't presented much of a case. Mangum admitted to stabbing Daye in self-defense. Prosecution has no motive... and of course, Daye's death had nothing to do with the stab wound. Defense will probably pull punches when it comes to this, however.; November 18, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
walt - what exactly did the cop do wrong that Dr. Harr could have sued him for?

My sentiments, exactly. Even if legalese strategy called for it, I would not sue someone without cause.; November 18, 2013 at 8:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
He didn't have a problem with the cop doing his job - especially since the cop didn't arrest him for nothing.

He had a problem with the cop being told to get rid of him for nothing (the cop didn't even know why he was getting rid of him in the first place).

got it?

It bears repeating. Thank goodness I documented it on an audio recorder.; November 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Problem for the prosecution is that it really hasn't presented much of a case. Mangum admitted to stabbing Daye in self-defense."

So what. Self defense is an affirmative defense. What case can Crystal make for self defense. None, based on what you say is the evidence for self defense.

"Prosecution has no motive... and of course,"

So say you.

"Daye's death had nothing to do with the stab wound. Defense will probably pull punches when it comes to this, however."

Who is going to prove that in court? You? Hardly. As an untrained, inexperienced, probably incompetent physician, you have no authority to make that statement.; November 18, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"My sentiments, exactly. Even if legalese strategy called for it, I would not sue someone without cause."

Your sentiments do not void the law.

Yes you do sue people without cause. Your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit against Duke shows you do. So does your history of filing and losing multiple frivolous lawsuits.; November 18, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"It bears repeating. Thank goodness I documented it on an audio recorder."

What the recording documents is that you picked a fight with the security guard.

If, as you say, you were already leaving, what cause did you have to demand of the guard an explanation of why he directed you to leave. Most individuals would have just left. Deluded megalomaniac decided to make an issue of it, probably because he believed he could use the issue to shake down Duke for a lot of money.; November 18, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: No, bro, wrong again. The trial is being televised, every word, every second of it.......with or without the jury present. No distortion at all..........it is what it is.
Try again, bro...; November 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: I have seen all of it......no media interference at all.; November 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, he just does not get it..........either too dumb or willfully being ignorant because he thinks it makes him look intelligent. Dumb as a stump....; November 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: wow, after an hour of sheer terror, poor sister got a tiny pinprick of a mark on her cheek (which she easily could have self inflicted, given what her nails looked like in the photos shown today...........and, oh my goodness, bless her heart, a little abrasion on her wrist.........holy god, what a beating, punching, choking beating she took!; November 18, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum made contact, personally, with Walker two weeks before the trial.....trying to influence him not to testify.
That's tampering and a felony.; November 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, what was all the groaning performance that Walker did on the stand? Sounded like he was either constipated or absolutely wigged out on drugs. Poor man.....
this is the guy Mangum admitted belittling during a interview for the TV program.....saying she made fun of his private parts. She really IS such a nice sweet Christian woman, isn't she! A pillar of the community, no doubt.....and such a fine mother, too.........; November 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Just saw photos taken of Mangum the night of the Daye killing. NO evidence of anything that looks even mildly similar to beating, choking and face punching. She just looks boozed up, clothes rumpled, hair messy, etc. I was especially sad to see the room where her child/children were staying....photos of the "child's room" were shown.....clothes strewn on the floor, in piles on shelves, items on the carpet, looks completely messy and disorderly.; November 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM.

"Walt, he just does not get it..........either too dumb or willfully being ignorant because he thinks it makes him look intelligent. Dumb as a stump...."

More impotent name calling by someone who is obviously jealous of Walt's intellectual gifts.; November 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: oh, lord, see what I mean, Walt. ??? the anon thinks I mean the sentence to read as: (that)Walt, he just does get it.
Anon, you really should do some remedial work in reading and writing basic.
The sentence is addressed TO Walt...it is not ABOUT Walt,
bless your heart....; November 18, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah evil duke troll - bless your heart; November 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous wrote "walt - what exactly did the cop do wrong that Dr. Harr could have sued him for?"

If we are to believe Sid, Duke's decision to kick him off campus was a violation of Sid's civil rights. (It was not, but for purposes of discussion, we will treat it as a violation.) The DUPD officer, acting under the color of state law was enforcing the discrimination. Thus, the cause of action, if any was against the DUPD in the person of its officer. The DUPD was the agency allegedly enforcing the disrimination. Thus, that's the only defendant under Section 1983. Remeber, there is no vicarious liability under 1983.

Sid wrote: "My sentiments, exactly. Even if legalese strategy called for it, I would not sue someone without cause."

But, you did at least twice. First, you sued Duke in 2010 without cause. Remember, there is no vicarious liability under Section 1983. Now, having lost once against Duke you sued them again for the exact same thing. So we have evidence that you have at least twice sued without cause.

Walt-in-Durham; November 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Gonna be fun hearing Mangum explain why there were knives all over the place, multiple broken knives and multiple knives with blood on them. Can't wait to hear her story about that!
By the way, the facial "injury" consisted of a tiny pinpoint indentation, about the size of a pencil lead. Looks like a pimple mark with the head scratched off. Her wrist had a small scratch mark....maybe half inch long or less.....superficial, not bleeding. Her lip did not look injured....just pouty and full, the way it always looks in her photos, especially when she has been photographed drunk or on drugs. There were NO bruises, punch marks, choking bruises, nothing.
I hope the state goes into some detail about the hair samples. the samples they showed today were, at most, two inches long. She had what appeared to be very long hair, plus weaves or whatever. And, short hair, that is PULLED out will have a root attached. Be interesting to hear the analysis, if they go into it. The state may concede that both were drinking, both were fighting, and compare her injuries to his......; November 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 18, 2013 at 10:28 AM

"oh, lord, see what I mean, Walt. ??? the anon thinks I mean the sentence to read as: (that)Walt, he just does get it.
Anon, you really should do some remedial work in reading and writing basic.
The sentence is addressed TO Walt...it is not ABOUT Walt,
bless your heart...."

No matter how you read it, you are still calling Walt names because you are jealous of his intellect.; November 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM:

"yeah evil duke troll - bless your heart"

More unimaginative, impotent name calling by the fabricator.; November 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say that you, a retired physician, have been claiming for the past two years that the autopsy report on Reginald Daye is fraudulent.

You are a retired, untrained, inexperienced physician whose professional competence is non existent. And you expect the court to accept your word at face value without demonstrating you are capable of knowing about which you are talking.; November 18, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say it is your understanding that Crystal is in possession of documents which state that Reginald Daye died from an esophageal intubation.

Have you not read Walt's recent posts?

Explain, why would Crystal and her attorney request the court to order Dr. Roberts to produce a written report. If what you say is true, they already had what they needed to impeach Dr. Nichols.

If Dr. Roberts' written report upholds Dr. Nichols, it would impeach whatever documents Crystal has.; November 18, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say that the nature of Dr. Nichols' wrongdoing has bever been disclosed.

Check this out:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/15/3374660/prosecutor-former-top-state-pathologist.html

The SBI investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing and Dr. Nichols is demanding his firing be recersed.; November 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Bingo!!!!! ding ding ding....Mangum told an officer that "she had a pimple on her forehead that had popped"! there you go.......the wild drunken man popped a pimple on her.....oh lord jesus....trauma!!!; November 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: ooops, my bad........the wild pimple popping was done by Walker, per Mangum........not by Daye; November 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You call the discrepancies between the autopsy report and other records are glaring.

It is not at all uncommon that an autopsy will find things that were not found on surgery, which were not obvious pre mortem.

I have done surgery. I have done autopsies as part of my surgical training.

Dr. Anonymous; November 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Anon - you expect us to believe you are a retired doctor when all you do is call other people fabricators for talking about things they read in the news and stating their opinions and have been dubbed the evil duke troll because of your being an evil duke troll on this blog and a nonsensical fabricator allegator to the nth degree?

seriously? why?

by your own standards you are yourself a retired anon doc fabricator; November 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous wrote: "Mangum will eventually testify, right?"

Not if her attorney has anything to say about it. He knows that most defendants who testify convict themselves. Shan Carter is a prime example taken from this blog site. Most of the evidence that convinces me Carter is guilty and deserves the death penalty comes from his own words.

Meier knows Crystal has never been able to stick to a story under even them most gentle of questioning. That bodes ill for her if she testifies. I suspect that Meier will hope to use the police investigation, perhaps her statement to the psychologist for her competency evaluation and whatever else he can cobble together rather than put her on the stand and have the lacrosse hoax come up.

Walt-in-Durham; November 18, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: nonymous November 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM

"Dr. Anon - you expect us to believe you are a retired doctor when all you do is call other people fabricators for talking about things they read in the news and stating their opinions and have been dubbed the evil duke troll because of your being an evil duke troll on this blog and a nonsensical fabricator allegator to the nth degree?

seriously? why?

by your own standards you are yourself a retired anon doc fabricator"

I do not expect you to be capable of anything more thanmore than fabricating allegations and indulging in unimaginative and impotent name calling.

Dr. Anonymous; November 18, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Correction of typos:

Anonymous November 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM

"Dr. Anon - you expect us to believe you are a retired doctor when all you do is call other people fabricators for talking about things they read in the news and stating their opinions and have been dubbed the evil duke troll because of your being an evil duke troll on this blog and a nonsensical fabricator allegator to the nth degree?

seriously? why?

by your own standards you are yourself a retired anon doc fabricator"

I do not expect you to be capable of anything more than fabricating allegations and indulging in unimaginative and impotent name calling.

Dr. Anonymous; November 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: so you insult everyone's intelligence instead ... got it; November 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought Meier was trying to get her entire mental health records……..pre 2006, etc. Is that not accurate, Walt? Weren't these sealed?; November 18, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM

"so you insult everyone's intelligence instead ... got it"

Since you have no intelligence, how can I or any one else insult it?; November 18, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:25 PM wrote: "I thought Meier was trying to get her entire mental health records……..pre 2006, etc. Is that not accurate, Walt? Weren't these sealed?"

They are not sealed from her. I think what Meier was looking for was the psych eval done when Shella raised the possibility of her competency to assist in her own defense.

Walt-in-Durham; November 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: ah, got it. thanks, walt. Hard to see how Meier is going to pull all the bits and parts together……but certainly the door damage is questionable helps her case because Daye admitted to doing the damage. BUT his same story was that HE was the one trying to leave and that she stabbed him in the back.
Is Meier trying to build a case for mental instability, over a long period?; November 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I sure hope they put this ugly murdering hooker away for good.How did she ever make any money as a stripper or a prostitute.All of her clients must have been blind or black.No way any white man would touch her.Back in the good old days she would already be hanging from a tree.Let's never forget the true victims - Mr.Daye and the Duke lacrosse players.; November 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Anonymous said...: A post on liestoppers makes a very good point. Having worked around rape victims before, I have some basic familiarity with typical post traumatic behavior of true rape victims. The post points out that Mangum was resistant to the officer's attempts to get her out of Roberts' car in front of the grocery story, after what was supposed to have been a gang rape. Mangum refused to answer even simple questions, struggled with the officer and said nothing about needing help, having been raped, etc. Basically, she acted exactly like what she was……drunk. Period.
True victims of sexual violence CLING to their rescuers, officers, nurses, etc. True victims literally collapse into the arms of anyone who offers them safety. Had she been really a victim of rape, intoxicated or not, Mangum would have reacted to the first officer she saw in an entirely different manner.
As they say in poker, so many "tells", might as well fold.
A pattern emerges about her behavior…….she commits an act of violence against Walker and Daye……then, when the law arrives, she resists and/or pretends injury and pain. I'm hurt….I've been raped…..my back hurts…..
and so on, and so on…….; November 19, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe she's been hurt by police officers or the like before and it is part of her illness. She does cling - in that she kept going back to the view of the cop that was outside as the fight unfolded - but he had told them to take it inside to Mr. Daye - so perhaps at that point Ms. Mangum was still clinging to the hope that she wasn't in as bad a situation as she apparently was but was looking for a way to make things better and still listen to what the cop said to them earlier.

You should try to view it with a more open eye to all possibilities of abuse from all sources where Ms. Mangum is concerned perhaps.

It would be easier if you realized that she is not the only one with problems in her life scenerios, and some of those with problems involved duke, the justice system, the health system, and politics which were very much out of her control, as has been proven.; November 19, 2013 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Sid, judges do not convict. Signed, a former juror; November 19, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Nichols testified...direct and cross by Meier. There were noted differences between autopsy finding and details in the autopsy report....however, nothing was brought out that would override Welch or Holesclaw. Nothing.; November 19, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Anon - you expect us to believe you are a retired doctor when all you do is call other people fabricators for talking about things they read in the news and stating their opinions and have been dubbed the evil duke troll because of your being an evil duke troll on this blog and a nonsensical fabricator allegator to the nth degree?

seriously? why?

by your own standards you are yourself a retired anon doc fabricator

Can you explain how the trauma surgeons managed to miss sutured lacerations to the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney and fundus of the stomach?

I don't think so.; November 19, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dear Sid, judges do not convict. Signed, a former juror

That may be, but they can influence jurors and the course of a trial by denying the defense attorney adequate time to prepare. Also the judge can determine what objections to sustain and overrule that may influence the trial. Also jury instructions can also determine the outcome of the trial.

By moving the trial ahead at warp speed, it increases the likelihood of conviction in this case.; November 19, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Can you explain how the trauma surgeons managed to miss sutured lacerations to the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney and fundus of the stomach?

I don't think so."

You are incapable of thinking, which is why you don't think so.

If the lacerations were sutured, who put the sutures there, if not the surgeons?

You admit that Reginald Daye had more extensive injuries than a nick in the colon.

Dr. Anonymous; November 19, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "It's [NCCU Law School]located in Durham and I live in Raleigh. Besides, I'm not an NCCU student and I don't know if it is even open to the public. Do you?"

Two words for you, Sid:
Triangle Transit.

And yes, the NCCU law school library is open to the public. It also provides research and reference services by trained legal and library professionals.; November 19, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Bro, you are a discredited tired old racist who spends his time pretending to be a doctor and a lawyer. ........... keep it up....you entertain yourself, at least.........
The truth is you have embarrassed yourself over and over by lying. that's sad....; November 19, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank God Daye DID and DOES have a voice in this trial. He gave two separate statements to an officer. As we all know, he admitted to kicking the door and grabbing Mangum. BUT, what Harr conveniently forgot to mention all along...is that Daye told the officer that HE was leaving the apartment when she came after him and stabbed him. This is the first time we know Daye's FULL side of the story. Funny, isn't it, how Harr conveniently leaves out the parts (called evidence) that don't fit his stupid racist narrative!
Mangum, seen on video, in the holding room, after the killing...is CLEARLY intoxicated. Falling over, asleep, is NOT how a person would be acting if they had just stabbed somebody, in self defense, for fear of being killed by a drunken maniac. She's crocked on the video.; November 19, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
That may be, but they can influence jurors and the course of a trial by denying the defense attorney adequate time to prepare."

It was Crystal who, by not cooperating with them and dismissing them, gave her defense attorneys little time to prepare. The actual preparation which was done was compromised by your illegally accessing and posting proscution discovery files.

"Also the judge can determine what objections to sustain and overrule that may influence the trial. Also jury instructions can also determine the outcome of the trial."

Crystal's refusal to cooperate with her defense attorneys and your interference in the case, e.g. leaking that Christena Roberts supported Dr. Nichols' report did more to influence the case negatively than did any objection the judge might sustain or overrule.

"By moving the trial ahead at warp speed, it increases the likelihood of conviction in this case."

The death took place in early 2010. The case went to trial in late 2013. That is hardly warp speed.; November 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Based on your comments today, I now believe the discrepancies you reported, between the Operation report and the autopsy report were discrepancies because you did not post everything that was in the operation report. In other words it was not the autopsy report which was fraudulent but what you posted as the operation report.

Figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Dr. Anonymous.; November 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Based on your comments today, I now believe the discrepancies you reported, between the Operation report and the autopsy report were discrepancies because you did not post everything that was in the operation report. In other words it was not the autopsy report which was fraudulent but what you posted as the operation report.

Figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Dr. Anonymous.

I can only post what I have. The operative report that is shown in my blog site is the complete and entire and unadulterated report... period.; November 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Thank God Daye DID and DOES have a voice in this trial. He gave two separate statements to an officer. As we all know, he admitted to kicking the door and grabbing Mangum. BUT, what Harr conveniently forgot to mention all along...is that Daye told the officer that HE was leaving the apartment when she came after him and stabbed him. This is the first time we know Daye's FULL side of the story. Funny, isn't it, how Harr conveniently leaves out the parts (called evidence) that don't fit his stupid racist narrative!
Mangum, seen on video, in the holding room, after the killing...is CLEARLY intoxicated. Falling over, asleep, is NOT how a person would be acting if they had just stabbed somebody, in self defense, for fear of being killed by a drunken maniac. She's crocked on the video.

You consider Daye to be credible? He also allegedly told investigators that Mangum stole $700 and stabbed him. Then, according to Officer Bond she admits that Daye told her he gave the two cashier's checks worth $700 to Mangum. Daye's story has more holes than a colander.; November 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"It's [NCCU Law School]located in Durham and I live in Raleigh. Besides, I'm not an NCCU student and I don't know if it is even open to the public. Do you?"

Two words for you, Sid:
Triangle Transit.

And yes, the NCCU law school library is open to the public. It also provides research and reference services by trained legal and library professionals.

Thanks for the info. By the way, I am familiar with Triangle Transit.

However, can you give me one good, with emphasis on "good," reason why I should not be allowed access to the Federal Courthouse law library in Raleigh... especially since I am representing myself Pro Se in a case in U.S. District Court?; November 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Can you explain how the trauma surgeons managed to miss sutured lacerations to the left lung, diaphragm, left kidney and fundus of the stomach?

I don't think so."

You are incapable of thinking, which is why you don't think so.

If the lacerations were sutured, who put the sutures there, if not the surgeons?

You admit that Reginald Daye had more extensive injuries than a nick in the colon.

Dr. Anonymous

Don't you think it curious that the surgeons didn't make any mention of suturing the left lung, diaphragm, stomach and left kidney, if, in fact, they did? Truth is that the report stated that the stomach was normal and made no mention of the left lung and diaphragm.; November 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I can only post what I have. The operative report that is shown in my blog site is the complete and entire and unadulterated report... period."

I do not believe you. Period. Exclamation point.; November 19, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You consider Daye to be credible? He also allegedly told investigators that Mangum stole $700 and stabbed him. Then, according to Officer Bond she admits that Daye told her he gave the two cashier's checks worth $700 to Mangum. Daye's story has more holes than a colander."

You want us to consider you credible after all the distortions you have published? You couldn't recognize a collander if you saw one.; November 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"However, can you give me one good, with emphasis on "good," reason why I should not be allowed access to the Federal Courthouse law library in Raleigh... especially since I am representing myself Pro Se in a case in U.S. District Court?"

What Federal Statute grans you the right of access to the Federal Courthouse law library just because you represent yourself in Federal Court? Your attitude again seems to be that you are above the law.; November 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Don't you think it curious that the surgeons didn't make any mention of suturing the left lung, diaphragm, stomach and left kidney, if, in fact, they did? Truth is that the report stated that the stomach was normal and made no mention of the left lung and diaphragm."

What I think is that lacerations of the left lung, diaphragm and stomach are consistent with the kind of stab wound Reginald Daye suffered and that you are the one distorting things.

Dr. Anonymous; November 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: ", can you give me one good, with emphasis on "good," reason why I should not be allowed access to the Federal Courthouse law library in Raleigh... especially since I am representing myself Pro Se in a case in U.S. District Court?

You're not a lawyer.; November 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: I had several posts that recently disappeared, so here goes yet another try:

Victim stabbed trying to escape.; November 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Another little tidbit that seems to get left out of both Sid and Kenhyderal's version of the relationship between Mr. Daye and Ms. Mangum:

Daye told [domestic violence investigator] Bond that sometimes Mangum went on dates with men and came back with $200 to $300.

Read more here.; November 19, 2013 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: If Daye is a colander, then Mangum is bleepin' sinkhole. She wouldn't know the difference between a lie and the truth if it bit her in the ass.....; November 19, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Why didn't the investigative officer digitally record the interviews between herself and Mr. Daye that she had with him twice in Duke Hospital?

The jury was probably put to sleep by watching Ms. Mangum sleep in the investigation room for over an hour only to say nothing, but had to listen to the same investigative officer tell two different versions of some aspects of what Mr. Daye said happened when he was barely conscious and super drunk and when he was in a great deal of pain (and/or hopefully under the influence of pain meds given by the duke docs) per her notes of what he said at those times only. ???

Ms. Mangum, being still in possession of the checks and therefore responsible for them until which time she could deliver them safely to the payee or back to Mr. Daye if needed when she next saw him was NOT committing larcency - she was being responsible for them until the rent was paid or she could give them to Mr. Daye if need be (she did not 'take' them - Mr. Daye gave them to her to pay the rent and demanding them back when he was so drunk would have been irresponsible on her part to give them to him at that time (since he was so drunk per the readings taken at the hospital)).

There was no reason to object to questioning Dr. Nichols about the possibility of Mr. Daye surviving the wounds from the knife wounds since the autopsy report stated complications of stab wound as cause of death - not the stab wound itself to begin with. Right?
Why would the judge allow the state to object to that line of questioning when that is what the report said and therefore was open to questioning it would seem?; November 19, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Why didn't the investigative officer digitally record the interviews between herself and Mr. Daye that she had with him twice in Duke Hospital?"

While most police organizations have digital recording capability in interview rooms, I doubt that many have provided their officers with the tools to record onsite. There's also legal considerations with regard to hospitals that may prevent this.

"Ms. Mangum, being still in possession of the checks and therefore responsible for them until which time she could deliver them safely to the payee or back to Mr. Daye if needed when she next saw him was NOT committing larcency"

read the statute.; November 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Sound recording devices are NOT that expensive - school teachers buy supplies for their students and themselves if need be - not a valid excuse as far as providing the same type level of evidence from both the plantiff and the defense that could easily have been made available to the jury. Instead, the jury got to watch Ms. Mangum sleep as recorded for more than an hour and received heresay evidence for the plaintiff as comparison to watching her sleep from the same investigative officer.; November 19, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 19, 2013 at 2:12 PM:

"There was no reason to object to questioning Dr. Nichols about the possibility of Mr. Daye surviving the wounds from the knife wounds since the autopsy report stated complications of stab wound as cause of death - not the stab wound itself to begin with. Right?
Why would the judge allow the state to object to that line of questioning when that is what the report said and therefore was open to questioning it would seem?"

Yes there was. Dr.Nichols was conducting an autopsy to determine why Reginald Daye had died. He was in no position to know whether or not he would have lived.

In any event, whether or not he could have survived is not irrelevant, but it would be the function of a morbidity and mortality conference involving the people who had actually treated him prior to his death.

Whatever the cause of death, the legal principle, as laid out by Walt and by A Lawyer is that he would not have been exposed to the risk of dying had Crystal not stabbed him.; November 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: The larceny charge stands.
Hmmm, so Sister goes out on dates and come home with $200 to $300 . My, My, My….dating is a profitable business, isn't it, troll! All who think Mangum wasn't hooking, raise your hand. All who think Mangum was selling it, raise your hand. Count my hand raised on the "she was selling it" side…..
Anybody who thinks Mangum wasn't a working girl is an idiot.
If Sister looked and acted like Beyonce, maybe she could have booked in $300 a night. But…..Mangum is no looker, that is for sure.; November 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, the judge is white so naturally he is in cahoots with Rae and the GeeHaw. Doggone it. where's a black judge when you need one…..
Oh, better yet……..how come bro can't put on a robe so we can all boogie down and sing, "Here come da judge, here come da judge"; November 19, 2013 at 4:37 PM
The Rectumfinder said...: Sidney, please post your address so we can send you a crying towel for when Crystal gets convicted.; November 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Lance,

You do not understand.

Daye admitted he gave the checks to Mangum for safekeeping. Sidney and the anonymous poster properly dismiss as irrelevant any testimony that he told her to return them and she refused.

Daye's decision is irrevokable. Daye had no right to demand that Mangum return the checks. Mangum had no obliagation to do so. Moreover, if he attempted to recover them, he was stealing from her, and Mangum had every right to stab him in self defense.

Mangum did not intend to use fatal force, and she reasonably believed she did not. Therefore, she bears no responsibility.

I hope this elucidation is helpful.; November 19, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Walt said...: I have a posting up discussing Dr. Nichols' testimony. It did not go well for Crystal.

You can find my posting here: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/11/dr-clay-nichols-testifies.html

Walt-in-Durham; November 19, 2013 at 7:38 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:12 PM wrote: "There was no reason to object to questioning Dr. Nichols about the possibility of Mr. Daye surviving the wounds from the knife wounds since the autopsy report stated complications of stab wound as cause of death - not the stab wound itself to begin with. Right?"

Wrong. The question lacked a foundation. The question called for the witness to speculate. Dr. Nichols had already given an expert opinion of the cause of death, thus the question was asked and answered.

"Why would the judge allow the state to object to that line of questioning when that is what the report said and therefore was open to questioning it would seem?"

Once a question is asked and answered, it may not be re-asked. The defense could have asked to clarify. Or it could have laid a foundation to ask a different question if the wound was likely fatal. I thought Meier might be going there. But, he wisely backed off that track as Nichols was obviously a professional witness. Nichols would have probably testified: "while there may be times when this sort of wound is not fatal, that was not the situation here. Mr. Daye died as a result of the stabbing." All that would do is reinforce the opinion in the minds of the jurors.

Walt-in-Durham; November 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Don't you think it curious that the surgeons didn't make any mention of suturing the left lung, diaphragm, stomach and left kidney, if, in fact, they did? Truth is that the report stated that the stomach was normal and made no mention of the left lung and diaphragm."

Nichols testified to personal knowledge of the injuries. If you watch the video of his testimony, he was very convincing. Having had the opportunity now to see and hear Nichols as well as read his report, I am convinced he is correct.

Walt-in-Durham; November 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Whatever the cause of death, the legal principle, as laid out by Walt and by A Lawyer is that he would not have been exposed to the risk of dying had Crystal not stabbed him"......
That assumes he could of then continued to get his daily "fix" of alcohol. If a broken ankle had taken him to Duke Hospital the same misfortune could have possibly befallen him. Evans notwithstanding, the cause of death should have included a determination of what led him to be intubated; a post operative infection or the, also, suspected delirium tremens. If it was a post operative infection the Evans ruling could apply but if it was delirium tremens then it should not. Then, alcohol withdrawal and not the repaired stab would be the antecedent cause. His alcoholism and subsequent withdrawal symptoms, if that was the case, are unrelated to any action of Crystal. I'm really at a loss as to why so many reasonable people want to deny the possibility that Daye was alcoholic. But, whether he was or was not only matters if it was Crystal who exposed him to the medical treatment that killed him and not a pre-existing disease of alcoholism.; November 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: He took only one hour to perform the autopsy. In a recent news article about the ME's firing, the representative of his national association that sets the standards for his profession stated that it is rececommended that ME's perform a maximum of 4 autopsies in one day and that each autopsy should take at least 2 to 3 hours, and that they shouldn't perform more than in the range of the 200s in hours of autopsies per year. The paper also reported that the ME was performing up to 10 autopsies in one day, and performed twice the recommended number of hours on autopsies in one year than was recommended by his professional standardization association.

Did the ME have the medical records to refer to when he performed the autopsy? That was not answered.

Either there is something wrong with the duke reports and what they did - or there is something wrong with the ME reports and what he did, (or both), as their reports do NOT say the same thing.; November 19, 2013 at 9:10 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.; November 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: 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 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Manslaughter, guilty. Murder I, no. Murder II, maybe? Self defense, not guilty……no way.
Meier is going to have to build one helluva case if he thinks he can overcome all the evidence presented by the state. Having now heard all the state's evidence, presented in court, without the liar Harr distorting it……..it is a strong case against Mangum. Very strong.
All she has is him kicking in the door and pulling her hair. that's it. Which likely leads to manslaughter. All the rest of the hard evidence goes against her…..and that leaves her with having to testify. Walt, did she say yesterday she was or was not going to testify? I heard the judge give instruction about it, but did not hear a decision on her part. The state does not even have to get to the LAX lies to prove she is a liar. She lied in the Walker case evidence that has already been presented and she lied to the investigators in the Daye incident.; November 20, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum's lip did NOT have an injury to it from a blow by Daye. What she had was very dry chapped lips with a place that had, due to the chapping, been raw. If you look at the many photos of her, and the video of her taken during the trial, it is clear that her lower lip turns outward significantly more than her upper lip and protrudes. The description of her mouth was a crusty lesion…….that's not a busted lip from a blow. Daye told Bond he never hit her. So, who do we believe?
All those in favor of believing Mangum, raise your hand.; November 20, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"But, whether [Reginald Daye] was or was not [an alcoholic] only matters if it was Crystal who exposed him to the medical treatment that killed him and not a pre-existing disease of alcoholism."

It is up to the Jury, not you, not SIDNEY to determine "it was Crystal who exposed him to the medical treatment that killed him". If he died of complications of the stab wound, it WAS Crystal. Whether or not he was alcoholic would not relieve Crystal of criminal liability for his death.; November 20, 2013 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: It was fairly clear that there was no intention of foul play that night, only a drunken brawl between someone who was super drunk per his readings at the hospital and who admits to physically assualting Ms. Mangum first by kicking down the bathroom door and dragging her to the bedroom by her hair. There is hard proof for that. The other part of the picture is a woman showing signs of an illness related to battering. Ever wonder why soldiers are disabled with PTSD? The reactions they sometimes exhibit is based on a flight or fight reaction within the brain and body. She took flight in the locked door of the bathroom and her request for a ride to pick her up - but Mr. Daye turned the flight into fight when he assualted her by kicking down the door and dragging her out by her hair.

Those flight or fight reactions are part of the illness - and actually part of most people - just amplified due to changes in the brains and adrenals of those who suffer with PTSD or similar illnesses. It could be a reason why she goes limp or gets so tired and is in pain - her system is overloaded and being unable to physically escape - her body (and possibly brain) shuts down. ???; November 20, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: " Instead, the jury got to watch Ms. Mangum sleep as recorded for more than an hour and received heresay evidence for the plaintiff..."

I suggest you look up the legal definition of hearsay.; November 20, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "But, whether he was or was not only matters if it was Crystal who exposed him to the medical treatment that killed him and not a pre-existing disease of alcoholism."

We have been through this before. A pre-existing condition is not an intervening cause.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said November 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

"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."

Irrelevant.

Dr. Nichols findings on autopsy, stab wound of the chest which penetrated the diaphragm and injured multiple organs, WAS life threatening.; November 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM
Walt said...: Anonynmous at 9:37 PM wrote: "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."

No, that is not correct. Medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. St. v. Welch, and St. v. Holesclaw.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:02 AM wrote: "...of those who suffer with PTSD or similar illnesses."

Assuming facts not in evidence. A trial is about evidence, not speculation. The defense had a psych eval done on Crystal and no such diagnosis (PTSD) was made. So, don't expect that to come up. You will be much more persuasive if you analyze the facts rather than venture off into fiction.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Evans notwithstanding, the cause of death should have included a determination of what led him to be intubated; a post operative infection or the, also, suspected delirium tremens. If it was a post operative infection the Evans ruling could apply but if it was delirium tremens then it should not."

Wrong.

First, the case for Reginald Daye being an alcoholic is tenuous at best. With a normal liver, f he did have a blood alcohol of almost 300, he should have been comatose. If he was able to tolerate a level that high, he would have shown liver damage. Your statement that some alcoholics do not show liver damage is not significant. Just about all end stage alcoholics show liver damag. If he could have tolerated an alcohol level that high, he would have been end stage.

Even if he were alcoholic, an alcoholic admitted for emergency surgery is at risk of withdrawl. The stab wound which Crystal inflicted put him at risk of all the potential complications of emergency surgery including alcohol withdrawl, if he were an alcoholic.; November 20, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM

"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(emphasis added) 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."

Two fallacies here.

The injury, as I have stated in another comment WAS life threatening.

Complications from surgery are not avoidable. The risk is always there, even in the most minor, elective surgery. A surgeon does his or her best to deal with the risks. It is not 100% possible to prevent the risks from happening.

If you have ever done surgery, you would have known that.; November 20, 2013 at 6:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 20, 2013 at 4:02 AM

"It was fairly clear that there was no intention of foul play that night, only a drunken brawl between someone who was super drunk per his readings at the hospital and who admits to physically assualting Ms. Mangum first by kicking down the bathroom door and dragging her to the bedroom by her hair. There is hard proof for that. The other part of the picture is a woman showing signs of an illness related to battering. Ever wonder why soldiers are disabled with PTSD? The reactions they sometimes exhibit is based on a flight or fight reaction within the brain and body. She took flight in the locked door of the bathroom and her request for a ride to pick her up - but Mr. Daye turned the flight into fight when he assualted her by kicking down the door and dragging her out by her hair.

Those flight or fight reactions are part of the illness - and actually part of most people - just amplified due to changes in the brains and adrenals of those who suffer with PTSD or similar illnesses. It could be a reason why she goes limp or gets so tired and is in pain - her system is overloaded and being unable to physically escape - her body (and possibly brain) shuts down. ???"

I am not a lawyer, but I think what you propose would be called an affirmative defense. It would be up to Crystal's lawyer to prove an affirmative defense.

What you are proposing is that Crystal's lawyer put forth an affirmative defense and the prosecution disprove it.

You are like those who said, after Crystal falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players, they had to disprove her allegations.

It doesn't work that way.; November 20, 2013 at 6:10 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:34 AM wrote: "Meier is going to have to build one helluva case if he thinks he can overcome all the evidence presented by the state."

I agree. However, Dr. Nichols being the good and even handed physician he is, did leave the defense an opening. He testified that the stab wound was front to back. If I was arguing this case for the defense, I'd be reasonably happy with Dr. Nichols this morning. My self-defense claim just got a lot better.

Mind you, Nichols made the state's case and the defense still has to convince the jury that it was self-defense. But, Nichols gave them an opening. He also gave the state a lot of ammunition to counter-attack. Nichols gave an unobjected to opinion that Daye had defensive injuries on his left arm. If I was prosecuting, I would be planning on using that left arm one last time to protect against Crystal's claim of self-defense.

See this post and more at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-anonymous-poster-at-j4n-wrote-meier.html

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Walt said:
" If I was prosecuting, I would be planning on using that left arm one last time to protect against Crystal's claim of self-defense."

Walt I would add Lt. Bond's testimony that Reginald Daye "had a black eye and several cuts and bruises" when she interviewed him as well.; November 20, 2013 at 6:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Crystal is testifying in her own defense... which is what she should do. She needs to get her story out.; November 20, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Crystal on the stand.; November 20, 2013 at 6:59 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Crystal is testifying in her own defense... which is what she should do. She needs to get her story out."

No, SIDNEY. What you want is for her to put out your version of the story.; November 20, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Missed the last 10 minutes or so before the recess due to poor internet connection....Did I miss anything outstanding?; November 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

The state's lawyer used some of what you interpreted that Ms. Mangum said and had to consistently defend on this blog as someone who was a credible known witness in her case. Does this now mean that you can also be used by the defense as credible witness about the discrepancies you point out in some of your flogs that exist between the medical reports and the ME's reports, and your questioning of the malpractice that may or may not have been an intentional attempt to frame Ms. Mangum for Mr. Daye's death by Duke?; November 20, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Whoever is representing the DA's office sounds like Paula Deen.; November 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

The state's lawyer used some of what you interpreted that Ms. Mangum said and had to consistently defend on this blog as someone who was a credible known witness in her case. Does this now mean that you can also be used by the defense as credible witness about the discrepancies you point out in some of your flogs that exist between the medical reports and the ME's reports, and your questioning of the malpractice that may or may not have been an intentional attempt to frame Ms. Mangum for Mr. Daye's death by Duke?

Good question. I would think that the State most definitely opened the door by talking about me, but I would defer to Walt's legal expertise on the matter. But I think you bring up a valid point and I would think that you are correct.

That said, I don't think the defense is interested in attacking Duke as it tried to blame an infection from the stab wound as being responsible for complications causing Daye's death. Although Meier might be fighting to have Mangum acquitted, I think his uppermost priority is to protect Duke... and to a lesser extent the medical examiner.; November 20, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"That said, I don't think the defense is interested in attacking Duke as it tried to blame an infection from the stab wound as being responsible for complications causing Daye's death. Although Meier might be fighting to have Mangum acquitted, I think his uppermost priority is to protect Duke... and to a lesser extent the medical examiner."

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th words of this paragraph form the only valid part of the paragraph, "I don't think".; November 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Walt said...: Lance wrote: "Crystal on the stand."

Risky move by the defense. Her psych eval must not have had the right story to tell. Internet connection at work won't let video play reliably, so I'll reserve comment until I get somewhere that I can watch her testimony.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I kept a running tab of the number of times Sister actually told a lie by contradicting herself from earlier versions, or, by claiming that at least NINE other people (including FIVE officers and three EMS) people did not say what they had testified to, under oath, during the trial! The total count of lies so far, as clearly noted by the state......is 44! That's pretty damned amazing. This woman would not know the truth if it paid her money and "dated" her.; November 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh boo hoo, now we get crying crystal......the poor dear.
pardon me while I throw up....; November 20, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Nichols was credible. Completely. The fact that he did NOT try to explain differing information between the findings in the autopsy and the operative report ADDS to his credibility. He told the truth. For those who insist on referring to Bro as "Dr. Harr", it might be useful to remember he does NOT have a license to practice in NC, and has NEVER spent ONE DAY engaged in ANY of the medical specialties I have noted above.
The TRUTH is that it is not at all unusual for there to be differences in what appears in medical records during an admission and what appears in an autopsy. Anybody who has ever worked in surgery, pathology, forensics, trauma care, pulmonary care or served as an ME....KNOWS this difference occasionally occurs.
I say again, just for the slow witted people who can't seem to recall, read Welch and Holesclaw.; November 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: oops, my error. I should have said, "any of the medical specialities noted below."; November 20, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, you figure the angle of entry of the knife , as noted by Nichols, is explainable as only possible face to face? Daye told Bond he was turning to leave....when she stabbed him....and Nichols said the wound was "right on the side". If the knife trajectory was front to back, high to low, what do you make of this point? if anything....?; November 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: If Mangum hid "behind the mattress" that was off the bed, to shield herself from the knife-throwing crazy Daye, then how did the mattress get back on the bed? It was on the bed in the photos, and, there were clear blood trails that spot flowed from the top of the matress, down the side, onto the box spring..........in line.
I guess Sister thinks a stabbed Daye, bleeding like a stuck pig, bent over and picked up the mattress somehow, with his good arm, and laid down on it....
riiiiiiight!; November 20, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "I guess Sister thinks a stabbed Daye...."

Now, Now...Crystal only "poked" Reginald Daye with a knife. I heard he say so this morning.; November 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: heard *her* say so.

Obviously, I didn't here Reginald Daye say so....; November 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Just watched her video testimony again. She gives off numerous clear indications of lying, over and over. Closing eyes, looking up at the ceiling, licking her lips, eyes fliting back and forth, hesitating to frame an answer when she is lying versus quick answer when not, using a pause phrase, over and over, like "uh, getting agitated when pressed by the ADA and giving louder voiced responses. What a performance. She basically threw Bro under the bus, too, claimed she never said what he claims she said. Hilarious!; November 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:29 AM wrote: "Nichols said the wound was "right on the side". If the knife trajectory was front to back, high to low, what do you make of this point? if anything....?"

I could argue that one either way. If I was defending, I would argue that shows he was the aggressor, or at least refutes the prior testimony that he was retreating.

If I was representing the State, I would argue that the defensive wounds on Daye's left arm show she was attacking him and I would argue that his statement that he was leaving meant he was backing away because you can't trust her with a knife.

Anonymous at 10:58Am wrote: "Just watched her video testimony again. She gives off numerous clear indications of lying, over and over. Closing eyes, looking up at the ceiling, licking her lips, eyes fliting back and forth, hesitating to frame an answer when she is lying versus quick answer when not, using a pause phrase, over and over, like "uh, getting agitated when pressed by the ADA and giving louder voiced responses."

The value of being able to see and hear the witness. Makes you wonder how Nifong could have been so dumb as to go forward with nothing but her.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh brother, now they are putting on a social worker who is just one year out from her Bachelor's degree.......who basically is saying only women are abused. HolyGenderPickle, here we go with the poor sister, battered mother of three, bullshit; November 20, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: sister has now changed her mind and agrees with meier NOT to bring
Roberts in.....
she's a mental giant, isn't she.....; November 20, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Defense just stated they were NOT going to call Dr. Roberts as a witness.; November 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Oops - Anonymous beat me to it :); November 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: The decision not to call Dr. Roberts is a mistake as Meier has been trying his best to protect Duke University... especially by stating that Daye died due to complications of an infection and disregarding the obvious esophageal intubation.

Terrible decision.; November 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Black eyes all of the time
Don't spend a dime
Clean up this grime
And you there down on your knees begging me please come
Watch me bleed

Only women bleed
Only women bleed....; November 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The decision not to call Dr. Roberts is a mistake as Meier has been trying his best to protect Duke University... especially by stating that Daye died due to complications of an infection and disregarding the obvious esophageal intubation."

What obvious esophageal intubation? What is obvious is you are a deluded megalomaniac.; November 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: The social worker looks like she was trained in the same school as Tara Levicy........:); November 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: both sides have rested......; November 20, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The decision not to call Dr. Roberts is a mistake as Meier has been trying his best to protect Duke University... especially by stating that Daye died due to complications of an infection and disregarding the obvious esophageal intubation."

Apparently you did not take the opportunity to see and hear Dr. Nichols testimony. He was very convincing. He testified to what he observed. He showed his photos and where he did not have photos, he said so plainly. Everything he testified to is verifiable. He found no esophageal intubation. While he was tendered as an expert witness, most of what he testified to was strictly factual. The defense did not budge him on the facts.

When Dr. Nichols did offer an opinion, he said the cause of death was the result of a stab wound. The defense did not object to that, nor did the defense disprove that. Now, they have declined to call their own expert. That means one of two things: (1) Dr. Roberts will be more damaging to the defense than Dr. Nichols or (2) she will confirm his conclusion.

"Terrible decision."

For Sid, it is. He previously staked his claim on Dr. Roberts. Then when she did not agree with him, he proceeded to sabotage the defense by leaking her conclusion. Crystal did the best she could do, and let Roberts go. The state has her written report and knows what she will say. Crystal and Meier have known for months. Sid's the one left out. No esophageal intubation, no medical murder, not even malpractice. Another one of Sid's promises unfulfilled.

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: I really thought the "larceny of chose in action" charge was simply an attempt to force Crystal Mangum into accepting a plea deal.

It certainly appears that they will find her guilty of this charge. My assumption is that this will have a direct impact on the "felony murder" charge as well.

What are the odds that Crystal and her lawyer come back after the break and attempt to plead guilty to a lesser charge?; November 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: She did not get agitated when pressed by the ADA - she remained incredibly calm when the ADA kept saying things that she imagined of Ms. Mangum with no basis for her statements at all.

Why did the defense allow those questions from the ADA when she was 'in Ms. Mangum face' (she was rather rude and vicious in her questioning) based on no fact? It sounded like a schoolyard bully (girl bully) 'screamin' at some kid (girl) their jealous of or something? I thought Ms. Mangum did incredibly well under those circumstances and that the defense lawyer should have objected - but didn't.; November 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Why didn't the defense lawyer question the discrepancies between the medical reports and the autopsy reports further (except to protect duke and the ME)?

How does that help the defense?; November 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: There was no evidence given as to whose fingerprints were on the knives. Why?; November 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "There was no evidence given as to whose fingerprints were on the knives. Why?"

Why do you need fingerprint evidence? Crystal Mangum has already admitted to stabbing Mr. Daye.; November 20, 2013 at 1:29 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

what b.s.
(as usual)
if Ms. Mangum 'loses' it is the judicial systems fault for not defending her properly in the first place (and dukes for framing her with Mr. Dayes death by their malpractice that caused his brain death and eventual death). I have no hard evidence proof to the contrary and neither does anyone else.; November 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: " I have no hard evidence proof to the contrary and neither does anyone else."

Thanks to Sid, you have the treatment records from Mr. Daye's saty at DUMC.

Feel free to identify any hard evidence to prove malpractice. Sid, who at least used to be a physician, has tried and failed.; November 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM:

"I have no hard evidence proof to the contrary and neither does anyone else."

Irrelevant.

You are asserting. You must prove. You must present hard evidence that Duke caused Reginald Daye's death. So far all you have presented is fabrication.

I haven't seen any hard evidence that Crystal did not kill Reginald Daye. According to your ideas of justice, she must present hard evidence she did not kill Reginald Daye. Otherwise she is guilty.; November 20, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: It's all bullshit anyway. Duke had nothing to do with it….and we all know it. She stabbed him. He died. Period. The only question now is whether it's murder or manslaughter. I'm still betting manslaughter because Daye admitted to kicking the door grabbing her hair. All the rest of th evidence is against her. All of it.
Walt, agree, disagree?; November 20, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: The hard evidence so far is that she stabbed him (in apparent self-defense since he was stabbed after he kicked down the bathroom door and pulled her out by her hair and not before); he died at duke under their health services sought to repair a knife wound that was nonfatal if proper medical treatment was given to mitigate any life threatening complications from the stab wound (per the ME's witness statement that yes he could have survived the knife wound except for complications which were not properly treated to mitigate death). The ME didn't perform the autopsy however, his intern did from what I heard him say. Although that does not free him from responsibility apparently, as he also said 'that is not what I saw' when questioned about the discrepancy between the medical reports which stated the only organ damaged by the knife wound was the intestines and the ME's report that states several different organs were damaged as well as the spleen was removed (which also is not documented in the medical reports from what I remember being pointed out by Dr. Harr in his flogs).; November 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM.

The hard evidence so far is that she stabbed him (in apparent self-defense since he was stabbed after he kicked down the bathroom door and pulled her out by her hair and not before);"

There is no evidence of self defense.

"he died at duke under their health services sought to repair a knife wound that was nonfatal if proper medical treatment was given to mitigate any life threatening complications from the stab wound (per the ME's witness statement that yes he could have survived the knife wound except for complications which were not properly treated to mitigate death)."

The ME did not say that. You fabricate.

"The ME didn't perform the autopsy however, his intern did from what I heard him say. Although that does not free him from responsibility apparently, as he also said 'that is not what I saw' when questioned about the discrepancy between the medical reports which stated the only organ damaged by the knife wound was the intestines and the ME's report that states several different organs were damaged as well as the spleen was removed (which also is not documented in the medical reports from what I remember being pointed out by Dr. Harr in his flogs)."

The person you call Dr. Harr is an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent physician.

That you believe SIDNEY HARR while making uncorroborated allegations against Duke shows how stupid you are.; November 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Did you even listen to the trial or read the local news about the trial? You have no idea what you are talking about evil duke troll. You are simply being an evil duke troll as usual and for the record - you are wrong on all accounts of your accusations (including all about fabrications and allegations) against me ... thanks. You are nothing but a troll, and never stop trolling anyone who questions or even talks about anything negative against duke that everyone can read in news in any way. What b.s.; November 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:01:

Dr. Harr has shown himself to be a liar, willing to say anything that he believes helps his cause (e.g., the failure to find DNA that matched none of the defendants was not exculpatory in a case in which the accuser alleged that a rapist ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out).

Because Dr. Harr has been shown to be a liar, why do you accept him as a credible authority. I do not trust liars. You apparently views liars as the fount of wisdom.

Why do you you trust a proven liar?; November 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM

"Did you even listen to the trial or read the local news about the trial? You have no idea what you are talking about evil duke troll. You are simply being an evil duke troll as usual and for the record - you are wrong on all accounts of your accusations (including all about fabrications and allegations) against me ... thanks. You are nothing but a troll, and never stop trolling anyone who questions or even talks about anything negative against duke that everyone can read in news in any way. What b.s."

More impotent, unimaginative name calling from the fabricator, who trashes a great medical center but who worships an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent physician; November 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously?

you are the one trashing me and worshiping duke probably to have said such a thing to begin with - i do not worship anyone actually - but hey - if that's your thang - you got the right

as far as duke - it is what it is; November 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM:

"seriously?

you are the one trashing me and worshiping duke probably to have said such a thing to begin with - i do not worship anyone actually - but hey - if that's your thang - you got the right

as far as duke - it is what it is"

More impotent, unimaginative name calling from the fabricator who trashes Duke while worshiping SIDNEY HARR, the untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent physician.; November 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Does anyone recll these "promises".

The state has no case against Crystal Mangum, mark my words. Crystal will not go to trial if I have anything to say about it. The charges will be dismissed. Send me your address and I will send you a crying towel after the charges are dismissed.; November 20, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Manslaughter……..unless the jury picks up on the state's belief that Mangum threw the knives around the place in an attempt to make it appear there was a struggle, that she did, in fact, stab him when he was trying to leave, that the defensive injuries on Daye prove he was trying to get away from her knife slashes, that she did take his property (the money orders), etc…………in this case, maybe murder II.
I'm still thinking manslaughter……..time served plus a year or two.; November 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: The social worker Meier put up was laughable. She added nothing and actually may have made things worse for Mangum. Not at all credible.
The state call Daye's former woman friend/lover…….as rebuttal to the defense claim that he was some kind of serial abuser. She WAS credible….explicit, clear, and no bull to her answers. There is not one shred of evidence that he ever raised his hand to another woman, that he had any kind of drinking problem. Her testimony was another nail in Mangum's prison bars; November 20, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I gotta give it to Meier. He did try…..and it was gutsy putting Mangum on the stand. She was terrible…….one lie after another. Good lord. The lies just never stopped. She kept tripping over her own stories. Meier must have been cringing….; November 20, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Walt said...: I have a couple of posts up about Crystal's direct and cross examination. Watch the video and you will see why most defendants convict themselves when they testify.

http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2013/11/crystal-on-cross-examination.html

Walt-in-Durham; November 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: The previous girlfriend of Mr. Daye was cross examined by the defense lawyer and she stated that she never told Ms. Bond that Mr. Daye did not drink (that is what I remember hearing). That was one of the few cross examination questions that the defense asked actually. He might bring it up again in closing statements if that actually was what was said (that part I would want to reexamine again as it was a key defense cross examination question perhaps).; November 20, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't you love it!!! Mangum says she called a "friend" who told her she should not have given Daye head. Well, there you go, folks…….
She blew him and he blew up…..went nuts, got drunk, became a wild man, and beat the cow stink out of her. My goodness, you'd think that great big man would have been able to punch her hard enough to leave more than a pinhead mark on her cheek. Maybe he was kinda light in his loafers and didn't really know how to put his weight into a swing.
The hair pulling nonsense was comical. What happened was that Daye grabbed her and pulled out several strands of her weave(s). He didn't pull out her natural hair by the roots.
Oh, and I loved the story about "stella rose" who, according to Mangum, had broken the cognac decanter some time ago and poor Mangum didn't even know there was glass on the floor. …….while she and her KIDS had been living there.
Isn't it kinda interesting that not one single gender-class-race loon has commented…..where's Jesse? Where's the black panthers? where's the pot bangers? where's brodhead? where's Victoria BigotButt? Lots of noisy silence from the Sister Cult….; November 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Incorrect. Meier tried to lead her, saying she had said Daye drank too much. She corrected Meier and said, "I never said that…(that he drank too much". and she did not . What she said was that he drank Bud.
She also said Daye had never raised a hand to her in the eleven years of their relationship.; November 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum did a great job for the state…….

she even said she did not tell Bro information that Bro claimed she said. wow, Sidney himself is part of the jihad! Who knew!!!!!!; November 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Amazing……Mangum has just, according to her, had the holy crap beaten out of her, just "poked" a drunken wild man, just been arrested……..and she admits on the stand that she was flirting with the officers and the EMS guys. Now that's what I call a hard working-working girl; she never misses the opportunity to prospect for a future client.; November 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: She was not asked if her relationship involved circumstances similar to the relationship that existed and was evolving between Mr. Daye and Ms. Mangum. That would probably make a big difference when considering the true relevance of her assertion that Mr. Daye never raised a hand to her in 11 years of relationship with him, since her's and Ms. Mangum's circumstances were probably different in many aspects.; November 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM
The Rectumfinder said...: Anon @ 7:30,
You spin more than a Whirlpool washing machine.; November 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: What is the rule for when key evidence is lacking in order to form a complete view of the case to enable reaching a decision that meets the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt for murder?

Also, there is no probable cause for larcency as the cashiers checks were partially paid for by Ms. Mangum in their payment agreements for the purposes of paying the rent and with the intention and direction of Mr. Daye when he gave her the checks to pay the rent on the next Monday when due. There is no proof of larcency nor intent to defraud, nor ability in which to achieve such a thing by Ms. Mangum with the cashier checks, as they were issued by the bank, and were written out to the landlord for a certain apartment number, and as signed or not signed by Mr. Daye, and as was the intention of both Ms. Mangum and Mr. Daye.

Why did the state's lawyer so aggressively try to imply in her questioning of Ms. Mangum that Ms. Mangum took the cashiers checks to pay for her children's church field day event to the beach that Sunday? How absurd to even think such a thing or imply the same about her or someone else. How did she expect Ms. Mangum to obtain cash to pay for a Sunday school field trip for her children with those two cashier's checks between 4:00 am that same Sunday and whatever time the church sunday school trip started the same morning? Makes no sense and she has no proof or reasonable cause to assert such a thing (especially in such an aggressive manner as she did to Ms. Mangum).; November 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm still shaking my head in amazement that the state's lawyer actually tried to have the friend and child care woman disallowed from testifying for the defense by falsly accusing the woman of being at the courthouse before the lunch break and in the short period after the break before she was called to the stand. The woman was at work and on the clock in a different city until after 1:00 and arrived at the courtroom at 2:30 pm as instructed from her testimony. Why did the state's lawyer do that? How did she know the lady was there or not and what proof did she have or present to back her sudden claims against the woman? She also fought for certain restrictions on what the expert witness for the defense could present, and then kept asking leading questions against those restrictions unfavorable to the defense until the judge stopped her. Amazing to watch.

What is the rule that the prosecutor cannot hide evidence favorable to the defense from the defense and the jury (or is it just the defense)?; November 20, 2013 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps she did that in hopes that the judge would take her side in her sudden frivolous charges against the friend and 'aunt', and therefore further give the impression to the jury that her making unproven frivolous claims in order to enable her to successfully charge and imprison Ms. Mangum for murder was an OK thing to do.

Sort of like further brain washing of the jury and the public into think that making Ms. Mangum 'pay' for whatever in such a dire way without real proof of such a thing (the death of Mr. Daye by anyone other than duke) was a reasonable thing for the duke/durham injustice in wonderland 'committee' to be doing.; November 21, 2013 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Walt and Lance, what do you think? Closings finished today? The state has a challenge ahead in organization....i.e., pulling together the mountain of evidence they have in a coherent form....that helps the jury. Meier has Mangum's testimony, the door, the hair, and that's it. I think it comes down to the kicked door and the hair....her testimony was terrible for her.
Could you please review the options for judge's instructions, range of charges for the jury, etc?; November 21, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Interesting.....the state had Nifong lined up to testify, if they felt they needed him...........I suspect they would have used him to demonstrate her LACK of credibility. Not needed, apparently. She nailed herself, over and over.; November 21, 2013 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: OK, let's get the poll going.
Vote 1, if she gets off free, not guilty, self defense
Vote 2, if she gets murder I
Vote 3, if she gets murder II
Vote 4, if she gets manslaughter
Vote 5, if it's a hung jury.
No cheating, Victoria, one vote per bigot allowed

First vote of the day:
I vote 4.; November 21, 2013 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: 5.

Hung jury. This is Durham.; November 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Guys -- Here's NCGS § 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

"A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole"

I think there's a really good chance that the "larceny of chose in action" charge will stick, especially with the testimony of both Officer Knight and Carlos Wilson.

If that's the case, I can't see any way she doesn't get convicted of Murder I.; November 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "I'm still shaking my head in amazement that the state's lawyer actually tried to have the friend and child care woman disallowed from testifying for the defense by falsly [sic] accusing the woman of being at the courthouse before the lunch break and in the short period after the break before she was called to the stand. The woman was at work and on the clock in a different city until after 1:00 and arrived at the courtroom at 2:30 pm as instructed from her testimony. Why did the state's lawyer do that?"

To some people, we all look alike....; November 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
OK, let's get the poll going.
Vote 1, if she gets off free, not guilty, self defense
Vote 2, if she gets murder I
Vote 3, if she gets murder II
Vote 4, if she gets manslaughter
Vote 5, if it's a hung jury.
No cheating, Victoria, one vote per bigot allowed

First vote of the day:
I vote 4.

Wishful thinking on your part.

I vote 5 - hung jury - because the one juror who places Durham's reputation over justice will hold out for conviction on some charge.; November 21, 2013 at 6:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
What is the rule for when key evidence is lacking in order to form a complete view of the case to enable reaching a decision that meets the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt for murder?

Also, there is no probable cause for larcency as the cashiers checks were partially paid for by Ms. Mangum in their payment agreements for the purposes of paying the rent and with the intention and direction of Mr. Daye when he gave her the checks to pay the rent on the next Monday when due. There is no proof of larcency nor intent to defraud, nor ability in which to achieve such a thing by Ms. Mangum with the cashier checks, as they were issued by the bank, and were written out to the landlord for a certain apartment number, and as signed or not signed by Mr. Daye, and as was the intention of both Ms. Mangum and Mr. Daye.

Why did the state's lawyer so aggressively try to imply in her questioning of Ms. Mangum that Ms. Mangum took the cashiers checks to pay for her children's church field day event to the beach that Sunday? How absurd to even think such a thing or imply the same about her or someone else. How did she expect Ms. Mangum to obtain cash to pay for a Sunday school field trip for her children with those two cashier's checks between 4:00 am that same Sunday and whatever time the church sunday school trip started the same morning? Makes no sense and she has no proof or reasonable cause to assert such a thing (especially in such an aggressive manner as she did to Ms. Mangum).

The larceny of chose in action was strictly a trumped up charge for the purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree.

There is no way that Mangum could have used that check as she was not the payee or remitter. Also, Daye, even without physical control of the cashier's checks had the ability to redeem them for their full value. What's the problem? This charge makes no sense and Judge Ridgeway should have granted the motion to dismiss it.; November 21, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I vote 5 - hung jury - because the one juror who places Durham's reputation over justice will hold out for conviction on some charge."

Interesting comment.

Your boy, corrupt DA NIFONG, who you say was only doing his job when he wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men for raping Crystal, made all these public comments vouching for the case before he had any evidence. One of those was(paraphrasing) was that he did not want Durham to be known as a city in which rich white men could get away with raping poor black women.; November 21, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"I vote 5 - hung jury - because the one juror who places Durham's reputation over justice will hold out for conviction on some charge."

Interesting comment.

Your boy, corrupt DA NIFONG, who you say was only doing his job when he wrongfully prosecuted three innocent men for raping Crystal, made all these public comments vouching for the case before he had any evidence. One of those was(paraphrasing) was that he did not want Durham to be known as a city in which rich white men could get away with raping poor black women.

Out of context. Mike Nifong was not on a jury trying to influence others when he made those statements to the media.; November 21, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: I thought Meier did an excellent job in his final argument presentation... of course I fault him for pulling a punch by omitting that Daye's death was due to an esophageal intubation. He never even mentioned the words "Duke" or "Duke University Hospital."; November 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Does anyone recll these "promises".

The state has no case against Crystal Mangum, mark my words. Crystal will not go to trial if I have anything to say about it. The charges will be dismissed. Send me your address and I will send you a crying towel after the charges are dismissed.

My statements were not "promises" but rather my intentions. Unfortunately circumstances were out of my control. My attempts were in part unsuccessful because the judge rushed the trial forward... Also, the defense attorney unfortunately made it clear that he would not challenge the cause of death and never mentioned the esophageal intubation.; November 21, 2013 at 8:21 AM
A Lawyer said...: I haven't watched the whole trial, but, from the parts I heard, Ms. Mangum hurt her own case very badly by testifying. So my vote is 3 or 4.; November 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: If Ms. Mangum is found guilty by the jury of murder, does that also mean that Duke's role in the dual proximate cause, (if found guilty), means they too will be guilty of the murder of Mr. Daye?

If Ms. Mangum is found guilty, will there then be another trial to charge Duke with their proven and/or probable contributory proximate cause role in the thus determined murder of Mr. Daye?

Were the jurors also questioned about their opinions and biases against Duke, the doctors, the ME's, and Mr. Daye's surviving family members, or only about Ms. Mangum?; November 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I thought Meier did an excellent job in his final argument presentation... of course I fault him for pulling a punch by omitting that Daye's death was due to an esophageal intubation."

Unlike you, Meier deals in reality. The law requires him to argue facts in evidence. The evidence on death was limited to Dr. Nichols testimony that the death was the result of a stab wound.

Walt-in-Durham; November 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:02 AM wrote: "OK, let's get the poll going.
Vote 1, if she gets off free, not guilty, self defense
Vote 2, if she gets murder I
Vote 3, if she gets murder II
Vote 4, if she gets manslaughter
Vote 5, if it's a hung jury.
No cheating, Victoria, one vote per bigot allowed."

I'm not buying the larceny charge. It's really the only defense Crystal had. Meier got her to do a good job testifying on that issue. Everything else she said was either inconsistent or harmful to the defense.

Murder I or Murder II can be supported by assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor, but I don't think the state put their effort into proving the case that way. I would have done that part of the case differently.

I vote "4". Self defense all but assured her of a conviction for manslaughter once Nr. Nichols testified to the defensive wounds. Of course, Crystal admitting to flirting with the police and EMTs after her arrest makes her seem pretty calloused. Which, she is.

Walt-in-Durham; November 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: I vote 4….manslaughter, for the following reasons.
1. Daye kicked the door in and grabbed her hair. He said so. That made it appear he was at least part of the fighting.
2. Hard to prove premeditate, even indirectly.
Were it not for these two issues, I would vote Murder I, without a shadow of a doubt.
She is a cold hearted liar and a killer.; November 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Anonymous said...: The proof of cause of death was NOT proven beyond a shadow of doubt due to the discrepancies between the ME's reports and Duke's medical reports that were noted to exist by the testimony of the expert witness Dr. Nichols called by the state on the prosecution's behalf.

All evidence to prove or disprove the case of murder based on hard evidence of an autopsy report proving cause of death to provide evidence of guilt of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt is therefore not available to the jury at this time.; November 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: 12.32, you really do need to consider getting some help. you need therapy; November 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM
A Lawyer said...: The proof of cause of death was NOT proven beyond a shadow of doubt due to the discrepancies between the ME's reports and Duke's medical reports that were noted to exist by the testimony of the expert witness Dr. Nichols called by the state on the prosecution's behalf.

Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not required. Only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary for a conviction. if this jury doesn't believe Dr. Nichols, they have the power to acquit. If they believe him and convict, the conviction will not be overturned on that ground, because the jury has the unfettered power to decide what testimony they will credit and what testimony they will not.; November 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: A lawyer, what's your vote on the poll?; November 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM
A Lawyer said...: If Ms. Mangum is found guilty by the jury of murder, does that also mean that Duke's role in the dual proximate cause, (if found guilty), means they too will be guilty of the murder of Mr. Daye?

No. First, they haven't been charged; second, there is zero evidence of any criminal conduct on the part of Duke.

If Ms. Mangum is found guilty, will there then be another trial to charge Duke with their proven and/or probable contributory proximate cause role in the thus determined murder of Mr. Daye?

Ther ewill be no criminal trial of Duke unless the prosecutors charge Duke with a crime, which seems unlikely as there is no evidence of criminal conduct by Duke. If Duke was negligent (negligence is not a crime), Mr. Daye's family can sue them civilly for damages.; November 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM
A Lawyer said...: A lawyer, what's your vote on the poll?

See above at 10:29.; November 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Out of context. Mike Nifong was not on a jury trying to influence others when he made those statements to the media."

Had the Lacrosse case gone to trial, it would have been in Durham. The people in Durham would have been the Jury pool(there was a concerted effort to deny a change of venue). Corrupt DA NIFONG was trying to convince all the potential jurors in Durham that members of the Lacrosse team were guilty.; November 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: What is the NC statutes of limitations for Mr. Daye's family to sue Duke for negligence in their medical practice contributing to his death?; November 21, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I thought Meier did an excellent job in his final argument presentation... of course I fault him for pulling a punch by omitting that Daye's death was due to an esophageal intubation. He never even mentioned the words 'Duke' or 'Duke University Hospital.'"

Meier never proved by factual evidence that there was an esophageal intubation. Neither have you. Had he included that accusation, the Judge would have had to instruct the Jury to disregard it as it was assuming facts not in evidence.

I believe you have never done an intubation in your life. Therefore you are not qualified to say there was an esophageal intubation.; November 21, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"My statements were not "promises" but rather my intentions. Unfortunately circumstances were out of my control."

BULLSHIT!!!! You are a delusional megalomaniac who believed you were in control. You got your butt burned, and you are trying to cover it.

"My attempts were in part unsuccessful because the judge rushed the trial forward..."

Crystal was arrested in early 2011. The trial took place in November of 2013. That is not rushing the trial forward, except to a deluded megalomaniac.

"Also, the defense attorney unfortunately made it clear that he would not challenge the cause of death and never mentioned the esophageal intubation."

Who established esophageal intubation as the cause of death? You? HAH!!! You are, I say again, you are an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent physician who is totally unqualified to establish anything as a cause if death.; November 21, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM:

"If Ms. Mangum is found guilty by the jury of murder, does that also mean that Duke's role in the dual proximate cause, (if found guilty), means they too will be guilty of the murder of Mr. Daye?

If Ms. Mangum is found guilty, will there then be another trial to charge Duke with their proven and/or probable contributory proximate cause role in the thus determined murder of Mr. Daye?

Were the jurors also questioned about their opinions and biases against Duke, the doctors, the ME's, and Mr. Daye's surviving family members, or only about Ms. Mangum?"

More delusions, more uncorroborated allegations by the fabricator.

How do you intend to prove Duke should be criminally charged. I anticipate your answer.; November 21, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: From Liestoppers today:

“It’s only guilty if beyond a reasonable doubt the state can show that Ms. Mangum was guilty and that her self-defense was not warranted,” [Daniel] Meier said.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/5293956/3/

I think Meier got it wrong. I have read that self defense is an affirmative defense. The Defense has to prove Crystal acted in self defense. Meier seems to have said, we raised the issue of self defense and the prosecution has to prove it wasn't.; November 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: In order to set the stage for criminal charges against duke I would first make the argument that had duke not provided negligent medical services allowing for complications that caused brain death and ultimate death, or whatever circumstances are actually proven as reasonable fact after investigating the discrepancies between the ME report and the medical reports and testimonies, that Mr. Daye would not be dead due to complications from medical treatment of the knife wound, and thus, could not be murdered with the knife being the murder weapon as charged.; November 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "In order to set the stage for criminal charges against duke I would first make the argument that had duke not provided negligent medical services allowing for complications that caused brain death and ultimate death, or whatever circumstances are actually proven as reasonable fact after investigating the discrepancies between the ME report and the medical reports and testimonies, that Mr. Daye would not be dead due to complications from medical treatment of the knife wound, and thus, could not be murdered with the knife being the murder weapon as charged."

Good luck with that.; November 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "What is the NC statutes of limitations for Mr. Daye's family to sue Duke for negligence in their medical practice contributing to his death?"

IIRC, lawsuits for wrongful death must always be brought within two years of the date of death.; November 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be nice if people actually researched the law. Larceny of Chose in Action, as a non-violent, class H Felony, cannot support a finding of felony murder. And, in any event, Felony Murder was not presented to the jury as an option. Felony Murder has never been an option in this case.; November 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh dear, so many lawyer wannabes, so few actual lawyers. Try again, anon. The felony murder rule has been discussed here, in this case, over and over. And yes, it is in play. She used a deadly weapon and the larceny of chose in action is a felony. Whether she gets convicted of murder I remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt it will stick.
i figure it's manslaughter. But, hell, it's Durham. You never know. She has been given a pass so many times, what's a little matter of murder to the good citizens?
Walt, you figure a verdict tomorrow before 3P? Wouldn't surprise me. They got the case on a today, so that usually means a Friday verdict.
There is always the change of a hung jury, I guess.
Walt, it wasn't a first degree or walk kind of charge, was it? I figured they got to look at all four options: one, two, MS or NG.
Wonder why the state didn't nail her ass on many of the lies and contradictions? Either the jury believes Crystal Mangum….or….they have to believe that at least ten people lied.; November 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Listen to the instructions ... The jury was NOT instructed on felony murder. Period. It is not in play. The State didn't even argue the Larceny counts.; November 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Non, what do you think Murder I is? …….nvolving use of a deadly weapon, etc? what a waste of bandwidth….; November 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: ……NC FMR…….
"Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole "……
She used a deadly weapon…..willfully and deliberate……..that murder I; November 21, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Where

is

Kenny

the

troll?; November 21, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The information just quote above is the FELONY MURDER RULE in NC…..and, yes, it applies in the Mangum case. Whether she will get convicted of Murder I, Murder II, Manslaughter or go free…..remains to be seen. But, yes, the FMR is involved here; November 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: kennyhyderal,

Who's

your

daddy?; November 21, 2013 at 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If those other organs actually were damaged like Dr. Nichols testifies, if they were not repaired immediately because they were not noted or treated as indicated and documented on duke's medical reports,
would Mr. Daye have presented with more severe reactions to the negligent treatment of his wound immediately after or in closer proximity to the surgery that did not repair all damage as recorded in the medical records but in discrepancy to the ME reports?

What negative medical reactions would Mr. Daye have presented with in the event his other organs were not repaired promptly as recorded in the medical records?; November 22, 2013 at 12:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous November 22, 2013 at 12:19 AM:

"Dr. Harr,

If those other organs actually were damaged like Dr. Nichols testifies, if they were not repaired immediately because they were not noted or treated as indicated and documented on duke's medical reports,
would Mr. Daye have presented with more severe reactions to the negligent treatment of his wound immediately after or in closer proximity to the surgery that did not repair all damage as recorded in the medical records but in discrepancy to the ME reports?

What negative medical reactions would Mr. Daye have presented with in the event his other organs were not repaired promptly as recorded in the medical records?"

You are not going to get anything close to a meaningful answer to such a question from an untrained, inexperienced, questionably competent person such as SIDNEY HARR.; November 22, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Anonymous said...: The state's lawyer viciously accusing Ms. Mangum of trying to take the checks to pay for her childrens' church sunday field trip for the day is made even more absurd because the state is ignoring actual facts in it's possession and knowledge that directly pertain and had an effect on the actual proximate cause and circumstances of Mr. Daye's death.

But no, the contrived story about stealing her own rent money, paid for in part by herself, is SOOOOOOO much more important to this case to require vicious cross-examination and unwarranted and unproven or documented totally ludricous and frivilous accusations and charges of taking her own rent money to convert to cash at 4:00 am to pay for a church field trip for her kids for the day and somebody else agreeing to that for her that Sunday morning. right.

Does the state's lawyers really think a parent would spoil their child so much to do such a thing for a mere field trip when they have to provide a place to live as a greater priority and for which the cashier checks were explicitly made out for and intended for by all accounts of testimony and facts as the greater priority and intention?

She has no proof, no facts, just absurd frivilous prejudicial accusations and charges that actually accuse more people than Ms. Mangum of larcency or contributing to larcency and lying with absolutely NO proof or reasonable facts in which to do so.

But yet, proving the actual cause of death is NOT as important to durham/duke justice system from the trial so far as an absurd frivilous and contrived lie that has no proof, motive, reason, or logic and facts, and ignores completely the fact that Ms. Mangum was abused by Mr. Daye first in this domestic situation and feared for her safety and life and therefore went to seek safety and help from her friends and family, taking her purse, which still contained the checks within in as was instructed by Mr. Daye for her to do and was her intention to on the next business day. Ignores THAT completely.

It shows how little they actually value Mr. Daye's life or care about the actual threat to the lives of many innocent victims that the possibility of duke killing patients with negligent medical treatment, especially in criminal cases, (whether their motives are in question by circumstantial evidence or not), or for the reasonable basis for their justice system to even exist under those circumstances.

It is an insult and a threat of injustice, malice, cohercion, disregard for providing a nonthreatening and safe environment for the entire public and all patients, and possibility of harm to all (millions).; November 22, 2013 at 1:22 AM
Anonymous said...: 1.22………get some sleep. Rest your giant brain.; November 22, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: I love people who quote pattern jury instructions instead of the ones given. Listen to the ones given - Felony Murder was NOT included. It is NOT at play in this case. The State never even mentioned the larceny in it's close.; November 22, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: There is seriously no way that the injustice by the durham/duke/nc justice system can be allowed to continue as a big ol' joke that everyones supposed to sit here and laugh at and accept as ok, or shake their heads in amazement at, but not be able to do anything to effectively make it stop in its injustice and harm to ALL.

The continued injustice that all have had to witness occurring in the durham/duke/nc justice system for so long, especially when involving duke, is in itself criminally and professionally negligent to all.; November 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM
Anonymous said...: The felony murder rule is not a charge, in and of itself, nor does it come up, as such, in instructions from a judge. The jury does have the option to convict on murder I, the definition of which, in the state statutes, is the essence of the FMR> A judge does not instruct a jury using the term "felony murder rule". The larceny charge has been thought, by most of us, to be loose and weak. However, two officers heard Daye tell her to give back his property. That information might be enough to firm up the larceny charge in some juror minds. She used a deadly weapon.
It's far more likely that she gets either murder II or manslaughter. Hard to supper premeditation in this case though her behavior of going for the knife in the kitchen, coming after him, and her behavior after he left the house…..throwing knives around, etc……might be enough to convince some jurors it's murder I. I doubt it.
I still think it's manslaughter. But, hey, it's Durham……she could go free and then Victoria and Sidney can have a party at the pole vaulting; November 22, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Clearly you aren't a lawyer and can't be bothered to read. Felony murder is not automatic, and the definition of 1st Degree in this case did not include the definition of felony murder. The Jury can only find first degree if they show unlawful killing, with malice and premeditation and deliberation. That's the law of this case.; November 22, 2013 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: In this case the apparent and continued presence of injustice, malice, retaliation, frivilous and unproven nor reasonable charges and prosecution on the behalf of Duke by the Durham justice system in the harm of others is what is demonstrated, proven, and at present, forced upon the public's sense of justice, safety, and freedom of rights and equality of legal, health and political services and representation in a just, equal, and nonthreatening nor cohersive USA public justice, health, political, and education systems in Durham, Duke, and NC.

That can be inferred from this one case alone if it is understood to be what it actually is, and if it is allowed to continue to exist as acceptable professional, legal, judicial, political, and health practices to be applied to any and all at duke's malicious and unlawful decisions or neglectful professional services, procedures, and practices.

There is no way to place professional trust in any who willfully practice professionally in a system proven to be frought with continued, professionally supported, and esteemed threat of life or limb as unjustified means of cohersion and control of any, including themselves.; November 22, 2013 at 5:30 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:12 AM wrote: "The felony murder rule is not a charge, in and of itself,..."

This is correct.

"... nor does it come up, as such, in instructions from a judge."

Here we differ. I heard the judge give NC Pattern Jury Instruction (NCPI) 206.10 which is the main Murder I instruction. What I did not hear was NCPI 206.15 Murder in perpetuation of a felony.

Walt-in-Durham; November 22, 2013 at 6:23 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:19 AM wrote: "If those other organs actually were damaged like Dr. Nichols testifies, if they were not repaired immediately because they were not noted or treated as indicated and documented on duke's medical reports,..."

Didn't you listen to Dr. Nichols testimony. He said he noted repairs. Anon at 12:19 AM is letting his bias show.; November 22, 2013 at 6:26 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 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