justice4nifong: Duke University: Successful, but devoid of a soul

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Duke University: Successful, but devoid of a soul

640 comments:

1 – 200 of 640 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Duke was not on trial in the current case - they couldn't be held accountable. Whether the Daye family sued them and/or pursued a claim to hold them accountable, if they could prove negligence, is a different matter, and wouldn't have been relevant to the current case.

I know no one wants to believe it, but really, even if it was malpractice, because Mangum was A proximate cause (she stabbed him), she'd be responsible. And, everyone can scream self-defense all they want, the Jury obviously believed his story over hers - namely that yes, he did attack her, yes, he did hit her, yes, he did drag her by her hair, but then he let her go and stopped the conflict, and she ran into the kitchen to get a knife and then came back at him (which would no longer be self-defense, the right to self-defense ends when the parties retreat from the conflict).

They believed him, not her, hence no self-defense. Once you get beyond self-defense, then it's just a question of murder v. manslaughter. The ME specifically testified that the knife would was not the direct cause of the death, that it was a proximate cause of the death (because, again, while Walt has beaten everyone upside the head about this, Sid and the rest want to pretend it isn't true, just because they don't like it, EVEN IF IT WAS MALPRACTICE, that would not cut off Mangum's liability/criminal responsibility under our laws).

What is Sid going to say whenever his next flog goes up: The ME identified a bunch of organs that he said were damaged, but he didn't photograph, and that the operative report NEVER indicated were repaired (the operative report only notes the colon and spleen). Dr. Nichols admitted that his report conflicts with the operative report. He also had pictures of a damaged lung (not infected, damaged).

It was an incredibly sloppy report, with a lot of mistakes, and conflicted with the medical records and operative report (which were also sloppy and contained errors). None of that adds up to fraud, or any of the issues that Sid is going to claim, nor is it anything that her attorneys (and her) likely weren't fully aware of and explored - remember, they had a medical expert review everything and chose not to use that expert.

Yes, Mangum's attorney chose not to use Dr. Roberts and talked Mangum out of it... but he did so to protect Duke University and the medical examiner.

He had photos of the lung, allegedly, but it's curious that he did not take any of the abdomen or abdominal organs... or the left upper extremity. The lung was not even entered during the operation. Dr. Nichols was in on the conspiracy along with the prosecuting attorneys. Simple as that!; January 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous asked:

"Do you really expect Dr. Harr to answer to your trolling and bullying?"

No. Sid has a history of making outrageous claims and then not backingthem up. I don't expect him to change. It deserves to be highlighted, though.

Sidney is free to censor his blog, or stop blogging altogether, if he feels bullied. I suspect he enjoys the attention too much to do either.

My purpose in running this blog site is three-fold and can be summed up as follows: (1)to enlighten; (2)to educate; and (3)to entertain. The importance of enlightenment is obvious due to the biased reporting of the mainstream media. Educating the people about legal and medical issues is one facet of the flogs about Mangum's case. And I attempt to make my presentations as entertaining as possible without sacrificing the enlightenment and educational components.

The justice system in North Carolina is under attack... it is corrupted and has been hijacked. I am trying to rescue it so that all Tar Heelians can receive equal justice.; January 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"That's an easy one. Go to the web site and you will see the names and faces of members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Need I say more?"

Yes. I know that you have picture of people on your website, but that does not answer my questions. So, I will ask again:

1. Please list as many people as you can who CURRENTLY support Mike Nifong.

2. Please show where and how they have expressed their current support for Mike Nifong (eg., letters to the editor, petitions, participation at public events, donations, etc.).

I'll give you a pass on the wise and knowledgeable part. They just need to be actual people who currently support Nifong and have actually expressed their support in some way. They can be as dumb as rocks.

You made the claim, now back it up. For once.

I will answer your question one last time. The names and faces of the people on the website called "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong" obviously are there because they are supportive of Mike Nifong. That should not be all that difficult for you to understand. They show their support for Nifong by belonging to the Committee.

If you require further elucidation then I would refer you to the previous paragraph.; January 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Yes, Mangum's attorney chose not to use Dr. Roberts...." Because Dr. Roberts confirmed the Medical Examiner's findings. How do we know this? Sid divulged Robers' findings in an unprecedented act of sabotage to Crystal's case. Everything else he has to say about the medical treatment is to cover up his monumental act of sabotage.

"My purpose in running this blog site is three-fold and can be summed up as follows: (1)to enlighten;..."

Not really.

"... (2)to educate;..."

You have consistently refused to accept the law as it is. Instead you have ignored inconvenient law. That is not education. That is propaganda.

"... and (3)to entertain."

I will give you that. Your activities have been often times amusing. Never more so than your predictions about winning hearings and whole trials.

Walt-in-Durham; January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
No, the prediction is for the posting of the next flog.

Do you deny that you previously (just last month, in fact) predicted that Mangum would be freed by January 14, 2014?

For that matter, do you deny that you previously predicted that the State would never take Mangum to trial? Or that she would be acquitted even if she had a turncoat lawyer?

I don't pretend to be Nostrodamus... Yeah, my predictions crashed and burned... but I made them with the mistaken belief that the jurors would see through the flimsy vendetta driven prosecutorial case. It is hard to overcome a turncoat attorney, but Crystal surely did not help herself when she allowed her attorney Meier to talk her out of allowing Dr. Roberts to testify and present her report. Had Dr. Roberts report been allowed to be presented, I'm sure there would have been at least a hung jury. But as I predicted, her attorney was more concerned about protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner than his own client.; January 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr is not a lawyer Walt. You have not given support nor laws that would benefit the defense of Ms. Mangum or the people, so your advice is propoganda for duke - that's all. If Ms. Mangum had competent non-conflicted legal assistance, than she would not have to ask for Dr. Harr's advice nor assistance.

What's your excuse?; January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:01 PM, you apparently don't read this blog much. I, Lance, A Lawyer and Break have cited the law time and time again to Sid. But, Sid has ignored it.

The law is what it is. Ignoring the case law, ignoring the statutes and making wild unsubstantiated claims is propaganda. Not the accurate statement of the laws.

"If Ms. Mangum had competent non-conflicted legal assistance, than she would not have to ask for Dr. Harr's advice nor assistance."

Again, you are wrong. Crystal had plenty of good legal assistance that did not have a conflict of interest. She appears to have ignored that advice until Meier and even then she didn't follow his advice fully. Sid, on the other hand, decided to sabotage her case.

Walt-in-Durham; January 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Daniel Meier said...: Honestly, I'm just glad Sid spells my name right. So many people add a y or an s.; January 15, 2014 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah right!

More propoganda.

Any one of her lawyers could have taken control of that case and defended her so there would be no question of their competence or conflicts of interest in their handling of the cases - yet none did - even to this day.

What?

Is this case going to be tried forever in the court of public opinion just the same as the lacrosse case because the trial was such a sham that it is all that can be said about it - the injustice and deception of it all.

That is all it is and you know it - yet you continue on with your propoganda, which is as sick as anything else about these cases.

bs ... as usual; January 15, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: That is so weird, because if you were lying about the evidence you present in your flogs that clearly show reasonable doubt about the proximaty of the actual knife wound to Mr. Daye's death, (which is very much favorable evidence for the defense in this case), and the only thing that the duke lawyer is concerned about is that you don't write to anybody at duke - but not about the evidence you clearly outline against duke and the ME in this case - then isn't that like duke admitting that what you present is true - since they don't demand that you stop presenting the information - since it is obviously correct.

Your evidence shows professional neglect in both the administrative handling in this case as far as accountability and demonstrating any professional regard to uphold their legal duty to take responsibility for malpractice in their organization, it also demonstrates their lack of concern for the pain and suffering of either Mr. Daye and family or Ms. Mangum and family, or every other patient or potential patient or responsible parties thereof of duke who are aware of the unignorable breach of ethics, morality, and civil and legal responsibility for issues that could possibly negatively effect any and all in this case - by duke and the ME.

Yet even in spite of all that,they only tell you to stop writing duke people except for the lawyer - who only cares about that - not this case or the evidence that you clearly outline to support your accusations and claims against duke and the ME, or even the conflicted lawyers in this case.

Simply amazing.; January 16, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You ask everyone to do something about the injustice of this case.

Do you actually think that if anyone else writes to duke that it will change anything?

Wouldn't the people to write to be someone in the justice system or legal system, etc.? They are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws for the people, not the people per se. Therefore, if they do not reply or do their jobs in this case to uphold justice for all in this case, then they too will be held responsible for their actions or non-actions. That is what the justice system is for. It must be made to work for the people, not against them. You writing them and showing their responses will do more for the people in this case than writing duke apparently.

Duke can't and won't do that for the people - nor will they assist in this case apparently in disregard of their own legally mandated responsibilities to be accountable for their own malpractice, etc..

Who are the people in the justice system that you could write to, (even again), about this case? What are their responsibilities in this case, and why are you writing them? You are talking about many years in jail for Ms. Mangum for a death committed at the hands of Duke. Writing duke isn't going to change that.; January 16, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...: The problem is that y'all ignore Walt, the other lawyers, and basic facts and evidence. Sid is not saying anything that wasn't known. He doesn't have the answers because he isn't entitled to them, it's only his narcissism that makes him think he is entitled to it and if they aren't telling him it's there. Dr Roberts wouldn't have helped Mangum, Mangum herself told Sid that, yet he refuses to acknowledge that and still clings to his fantasy land.; January 16, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: If what the first ME said on his autopsy report has discrepancies by his own admission, than if the second ME report simply repeats what the first ME said - it too has discrepancies. How is the second autopsy done if all the organs have already been removed, etc.? Where can it be viewed? Did the jury ever see it?; January 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Given the expertise of the last lawyer in corporate hospital administration with none in criminal defense - and his unwillingness to question dukes medical malpractice nor the ME's discrepancies in the actual defense of Mr. Mangum - it is quite easy to see that this trial should be retryed or dismissed on grounds the durham public defenders office could not or would not provide a competent non-conflicted and experienced in the criminal defense of murder lawyer to assist Ms. Mangum in her constitutional right to a fair and equal trial. The assignment of his services for Ms. Mangum based upon his lack of legal criminal defense experience, and his hospital management expertise and business and personal affiliations seems akin to fraud (to say the least).; January 16, 2014 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:

"Given the expertise of the last lawyer in corporate hospital administration with none in criminal defense - and his unwillingness to question dukes medical malpractice nor the ME's discrepancies in the actual defense of Mr. Mangum - it is quite easy to see that this trial should be retryed or dismissed ..."

Another, saner, way of looking at it is that the conduct of Ms. Mangum's last attorney substantiates what Walt and every lawyer who has looked this case has concluded and eviscerates Sid's claims that Duke killed Mr. Daye.

When given a choice between sane and crazy, you should always go with sane.; January 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Interesting that the person Sid sites for support for his claims against Atty Meier is Spencer C. Young. If you look at his website, he's crazier than Sid, at a minimum. Also, his son was on the Duke Lacrosse team, and he blames Crystal Mangum for pretty much all of the corruption and evil in Durham, and backs Duke with all his heart.; January 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing about any of her lawyers nor Walt show anything but that they did not follow through and present the evidence of the ME and duke medical reports in trial and in Ms. Mangum's defense, even though there were and are many discrepancies and questions left unanswered that creates reasonable doubt as to who actually killed Mr. Daye and the cause of his death.; January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: And Meier was working for him and his son? That is legal conflict-of-interest that even he can't deny if so. Did the durham public defender's office not see that website when they chose him to represent Ms. Mangum, and did he inform them that he represented a duke client with obvious conflict-of-interest against Ms. Mangum?; January 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: This case so far shows that duke and the lawyers who align with them in this case have no regard for justice for the people of the USA - as all could be effected by this obvious lack of respect for the people of the USA and the justice system which they uphold and give power to with their nationally supported and authorized constitution of the USA that mandates a fair and equal trial and justice system ... for all.; January 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Everyone still ignores the posts they don't like. Why assume that the lawyers didn't investigate the discrepancies? As was noted, a saner way to look at it is that they did investigate, and Dr. Roberts investigated, and it was determined that while it was there, there was an explanation that wouldn't be helpful to Mangum, so rather than put everyone on the stand and explain it, and hurt Mangum, they left it out there, hoping for more doubt.

Again, just because the investigation and results haven't been provided to Sid or the public doesn't mean they weren't done and aren't out there.; January 16, 2014 at 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: So what are you trying to say then?; January 16, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: That Sid is simply wrong. You can either believe that there really is a vast conspiracy out there, or as someone else noted - you can believe that Sid simply doesn't have the whole story, so is making wild assumptions, but the fact that every person not named Sid who has looking into this (and actually seen ALL the evidence, and the results of the investigations) has come to a different conclusion than Sid.

Either Sid is absolutely right based on his limited information and conspiracy theory, or Sid is wrong.

Logic would say Sid is wrong, especially since even he admits that Mangum told him Dr. Roberts' report wouldn't be helpful to her, but the Duke haters are going to say it's all a Duke plot and Sid is the only one who is right, even though by his own admission he is lacking a lot of information.; January 16, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: That's disingenuous and bs as usual.

I for one am standing for a fair and equal trial for Ms. Mangum or anyone in USA, esp. in duke/durham/nc justice system when duke is involved in this case or any other case - especially because their medical services, politics and policy making and professional services, etc., effects all in NC and USA.

You on the otherhand seem interested only in insuring that Dr. Harr and any other that questions duke and the duke/durham/nc justice system be disparaged and dissed - once again.

that's all

...

as usual

...; January 16, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, given that we are both "Anonymous" it's actually us talking to ourselves ...

But, no, what I'm saying is those things were investigated, it was a fair trial, you just don't like the outcome, and Sid just doesn't like that he doesn't have the answers to his questions. But, Mangum does, her lawyers do, and the people who had a need to know did.

You can either assume that everyone but Sid is corrupt and incompetent (which you clearly do), or you can assume that the people who actually know the law, and know how to conduct trials did their jobs, got the answers to Sid's questions, and then proceeded as they did, because the answers were not helpful.

Sid can ask all he wants, but I don't assume that everyone else is corrupt and didn't look into these issues.

Remember, and I know you (me? we seem to be the same person), Sid, and many others want to ignore this: if everything Sid says about the intubation and malpractice is right - since the ONLY reason Daye was in the hospital was because Crystal stabbed him, that (and her) is still A proximate cause of the death, even if not THE main cause. The law in NC on that issue is harsh, and ignoring it or pretending it isn't doesn't change that fact.

Had Daye not been stabbed, he would not have been in the hospital. Unless it was an intentional act by Duke, it doesn't change the outcome. Medical Malpractice is NOT an intervening cause, no matter how many times Sid says it.; January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: ya know ... when i read some of your posts i find it hard not to just stop reading right away and point out the obvious to you

1. We are not just talking to ourselves - that seems to be a problem of yours - assuming different identities as your own - like pretending to be meier back there ...

ok - that is you with THAT problem - not any of your other made up personas

i will read more of it later; January 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Why assume that wasn't really Meier? Have you asked him? It's not a stretch that he would know about this blog and be amused by it.; January 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: it would be more unprofessional than what he has already done and would only draw negative attention to himself if he were out here amusing himself to his unprofessionalism; January 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not sure how reading a blog is unprofessional, but then again, I guess if you believe everything Sid is saying, you pretty much think all Durham lawyers (certainly Vann, Shella, Holmes, and Meier) are unprofessional, so it doesn't seem to take much.

I suspect Walt wouldn't be surprised that the blog was monitored, nor would A Lawyer. And, given the outlandish claims, this blog is quite amusing sometimes - and Sid wants that - it's one of his reasons for the blog - entertainment, he said so himself.; January 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah ... but you don't have to troll here for your own amusement ... i think that is the message that most people here have tried to convey to you; January 16, 2014 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: How is pointing out that Sid might be wrong trolling? Yes, they guys who praise Duke, bash Nifong, and post about Lacrosse are trolling, but when did simply asking questions and attempting to clarify become "trolling"? If that's the case, isn't this entire blog one big troll?; January 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: basically by the evil duke troll mob that you like to continually incite here and on other blogs - for your own amusement - yes

so ... what else is new?

seriously
you only fool yourselves
bet ya even duke would want you to stop - or meier for that matter

at least don't troll me anymore
thanks; January 16, 2014 at 2:09 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Daniel Meier said...
Honestly, I'm just glad Sid spells my name right. So many people add a y or an s.

Daniel Meier,
Welcome to the party, pal. Glad to have your comment. I wish you would've contacted me so that I could've helped you prepare for the trial. I was under the impression that you did not talk with any medical professionals as you mentioned a chest tube when one was not inserted, you failed to mention the esophageal intubation and its significance, you did not really go after Dr. Nichols regarding the discrepancies in his report, and by implying that an infection secondary to the stab wound caused Daye's demise really put the responsibility for Daye's death on her.

Feel free to comment here or to contact me by e-mail (justice4nifong@gmail.com). Take care.; January 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
That is so weird, because if you were lying about the evidence you present in your flogs that clearly show reasonable doubt about the proximaty of the actual knife wound to Mr. Daye's death, (which is very much favorable evidence for the defense in this case), and the only thing that the duke lawyer is concerned about is that you don't write to anybody at duke - but not about the evidence you clearly outline against duke and the ME in this case - then isn't that like duke admitting that what you present is true - since they don't demand that you stop presenting the information - since it is obviously correct.

Your evidence shows professional neglect in both the administrative handling in this case as far as accountability and demonstrating any professional regard to uphold their legal duty to take responsibility for malpractice in their organization, it also demonstrates their lack of concern for the pain and suffering of either Mr. Daye and family or Ms. Mangum and family, or every other patient or potential patient or responsible parties thereof of duke who are aware of the unignorable breach of ethics, morality, and civil and legal responsibility for issues that could possibly negatively effect any and all in this case - by duke and the ME.

Yet even in spite of all that,they only tell you to stop writing duke people except for the lawyer - who only cares about that - not this case or the evidence that you clearly outline to support your accusations and claims against duke and the ME, or even the conflicted lawyers in this case.

Simply amazing.

Although I currently have a lawsuit against Duke University for discriminating against me in 2010, I wrote to pertinent Duke individuals in hopes that they would publicly admit that the proximate cause of Daye's death was an esophageal intubation and that his death had nothing to do with the stab wound or its treatment. I merely tried to appeal to their conscience in hopes that they would do the right thing and prevent an innocent mother of three from serving a fourteen plus year sentence for a mistake made by staff at Duke University Hospital.; January 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You ask everyone to do something about the injustice of this case.

Do you actually think that if anyone else writes to duke that it will change anything?

Wouldn't the people to write to be someone in the justice system or legal system, etc.? They are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws for the people, not the people per se. Therefore, if they do not reply or do their jobs in this case to uphold justice for all in this case, then they too will be held responsible for their actions or non-actions. That is what the justice system is for. It must be made to work for the people, not against them. You writing them and showing their responses will do more for the people in this case than writing duke apparently.

Duke can't and won't do that for the people - nor will they assist in this case apparently in disregard of their own legally mandated responsibilities to be accountable for their own malpractice, etc..

Who are the people in the justice system that you could write to, (even again), about this case? What are their responsibilities in this case, and why are you writing them? You are talking about many years in jail for Ms. Mangum for a death committed at the hands of Duke. Writing duke isn't going to change that.

I disagree with you to an extent. If enough people were to write letters to Duke University it might make them work towards a resolution that would have Mangum freed and her conviction overturned. The jury that convicted Mangum was under the impression that Daye died secondary to infectious complications of a stab wound inflicted by Mangum. She might not have been convicted, even despite public scorn generated against her by the media, if the jurors were aware that an esophageal intubation directly led to Daye's brain death and subsequent death. I don't even recall Duke University Hospital even being mentioned during the trial.

My hope is that public pressure in the form of letters from concerned citizens, such as yourself, would force the university to man-up and accept responsibility for Daye's death. Such would be the first step towards freedom for Mangum.; January 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
That Sid is simply wrong. You can either believe that there really is a vast conspiracy out there, or as someone else noted - you can believe that Sid simply doesn't have the whole story, so is making wild assumptions, but the fact that every person not named Sid who has looking into this (and actually seen ALL the evidence, and the results of the investigations) has come to a different conclusion than Sid.

Either Sid is absolutely right based on his limited information and conspiracy theory, or Sid is wrong.

Logic would say Sid is wrong, especially since even he admits that Mangum told him Dr. Roberts' report wouldn't be helpful to her, but the Duke haters are going to say it's all a Duke plot and Sid is the only one who is right, even though by his own admission he is lacking a lot of information.

Believe it... there is a broad scale conspiracy... much bigger than you can imagine. Why else do you think Dr. Nichols produced a false and fraudulent autopsy report and gave perjured testimony at trial. He had been given assurances of immunity by the Powers-That-Be who have hijacked the justice system.

That is why Mike Nifong was disbarred, persecuted by the State, and crucified in the media. He was too independent and a man of integrity... he had to go because he could not be controlled (as was evidenced by his pursuit of the Duke Lacrosse case).

Why do you think the media has stayed away from the Mangum story as much as possible and has failed to call for an investigation?

Why do you think the Orange County District Attorney, the Attorney General, and no other agency will have the SBI conduct an investigation into Dr. Nichols' report... They investigated him and fired him for allegedly mishandling a bullet casing in a Cumberland County case. Yet, no investigation for claims of producing a fraudulent autopsy report.

Yes, there is a conspiracy, it is broad, and it has hijacked the justice system... just like certain groups such as ALEC are trying to hijack the political system.; January 16, 2014 at 2:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I'm not sure how reading a blog is unprofessional, but then again, I guess if you believe everything Sid is saying, you pretty much think all Durham lawyers (certainly Vann, Shella, Holmes, and Meier) are unprofessional, so it doesn't seem to take much.

I suspect Walt wouldn't be surprised that the blog was monitored, nor would A Lawyer. And, given the outlandish claims, this blog is quite amusing sometimes - and Sid wants that - it's one of his reasons for the blog - entertainment, he said so himself.

Being entertaining and enlightening are compatible qualities. Of the two, enlightenment is what I believe to be most important... and what I strive most to bring to viewers.

Regarding my claims, they are about outlandish actions. I merely present them for the benefit of all Tar Heelians.; January 16, 2014 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I understand what you are trying to do as far as getting the truth about the reports into court, but the only way to do that is to get the court to present them and review them and your claims - not Duke.

Duke will not do it, they can't, and they won't ... not for you and not for anyone else unless they are made to in trial. That is the way it is.

She is in jail - you have to go to the court to get her out of jail - not to Duke.

If you go to the court you can record what they do here in response to your letter (or don't do) ... but first you have to know what to do.

Maybe start by asking the DA - what should I do? That would be interesting to know his reply.

And then - look for the next step that is the right one in the chain of court ot justice systems - that is the only way to do it with justice in mind. It is what it is.; January 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Remember - an appeal was filed. There will be the appropriate judicial review and there are procedural issues that may lead to relief.; January 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: How does the public get to view the appeal file? Is the entire appeals process and files available to the public, and how are they accessed?

When was the appeal filed?; January 16, 2014 at 3:56 PM
Daniel Meier said...: I'm not going to get into a back and forth on a blog with folks who did serious damage to my client's case (as I've publicly stated). You did not/do not have access to the majority of the discovery, but that hasn't stopped you from wild accusations and publicly releasing things that should never have been made public. Yes, there was a chest tube, though you don't have the complete medical records. Yes, there was consultation with experts, there was a lot of work done, but since you had nothing to do with the case, and had already done a lot of damage, there was no reason/interest in reaching out to you and/or discussing anything with you. There still isn't.

You are free to keep doing what you are doing, every attorney Mangum has had has explained that your efforts are actually harming her in very real ways, but you plunge on. Why do you think I, or anyone else, would reach out to you?

Yes, I read the blog, it's amusing. But, there is so much information you don't have, but you still plunge forward, that it's sad. I wish you'd focus on the plight of the poor in the criminal justice system and the abuses there rather than continue to damage Crystal's case, but you are free to do what you wish. But, you are NOT helping, trust me.

I realize it's a mistake to post here, and I will no longer respond on the blog, if anyone wants to reach me, I'm easy to find, though I'm not going to divulge privileged information, nor stoop to answering spurious attacks based on incomplete information.

Dr. Harr, if you hadn't gone public with everything, and allowed the State and others to more fully respond, your analysis would have been helpful, instead you sough the spotlight and released information that never should have been released, and greatly harmed the person you claimed to be wanting to help. So, no, I didn't reach out to you, nor do I intend to.

I wish you'd stop and let the process work, but I know you won't.

And, yes, I am Daniel Meier, though since it is incredibly easy to fake a name on this blog, some will believe it, some won't. Such is life. I won't be responding further on the blog, so please don't ask me questions in this forum if you actually want me to even consider answering, and don't assume a non-response means anything other than I do find the blog and assumptions amusing, and I am sure I will continue reading it, but understand nothing you have stated is remotely new, it was all investigated and examined, and you are missing a LOT of information.; January 16, 2014 at 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: sooooo????

why should we or anyone else believe that?

if that is the truth - why didn't you present it in trial for Ms. Mangum's defense instead of sitting out here pretending to be meier who is a professional lawyer - when you obviously are not based on your performance in that case and posting here - and thinking anyone WOULD actually believe that to begin with? seriously ... get real ... you are an intellectual snob if you think you can shove that crap down the USA's mouth and anyone would believe you ... oh wait ... hmmmm ... is that an ingrained traight that develops in the health system industry ???

?
???; January 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently you missed the part where the answers wouldn't have helped Mangum. You don't throw things into a trial that are detrimental to your client, and every attorney Mangum had reached that same conclusion - that the information would do more harm than good, so they kept it out. You obviously don't trust them, and think that an untrained doctor who has filed many lawsuits that get tossed knows a lot more about trial strategy and the legal process than them.

But, such is life. You don't want to be educated, you want to hate/blame Duke.; January 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: the only thing meier accomplished was to get her a longer sentence in jail

you are a bs evil duke troll
... lance; January 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: Attorney Meier,I honestly can't see how any Jury could find there was no reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defense. She took the stand and subjected herself to cross examination. Daye's statements to the detective were never questioned. It was easy for a badgering prosecutor to confuse Crystal on the minutiae of positioning and sequence in this violent and traumatic confrontation that happened many months before in a small apartment. This in no way should meant Crystal was lying about being violently attacked and in fearing for her life stabbed her attacker in self-defence; January 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: No white man would ever want to have sex with Crystal Mangum much less go to all the trouble of raping her in a bathroom that was too small.We like beautiful white women or Asian chicks.; January 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny whines: It was easy for a badgering prosecutor to confuse Crystal on the minutiae of positioning and sequence

Kenny, don't be so disingenuous.

Crystal's testimony was filled with inaccuracies throughout. You can't really complain when you insist that others should believe verbatim some of Crystal's statements and completely disregard others. As you know, that is utterly self-serving.

Face it. Crystal makes a horrible witness. You know that and should have advised her against testifying.

Let's ask Sidney to post a transcript of Crystal's testimony. Then the posters on the blog can go through it and identify the misstatements. You can then justify each one of those misstatements and explain again why Crystal should be believed.; January 16, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Those last 2 posters are trolls. As for Kenhyderal ... juries do odd things, that's why trials are always a risk - you'd have to ask the jurors why they had issues with the self-defense argument, but clearly they did.; January 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: probably because meier did not defend Ms. Mangum against the prosecutors' onslaught, nor question any witness in any meaningful way (including Ms. Mangum), did not sufficiently address the discrepancies in the ME's reports and conclusions, did not question duke about their part in Mr. Daye's death, and let the jury believe that the conviction she received was a conclusion that was in anyway logical or deserved or that there was evidence to prove such a thing, etc.; January 16, 2014 at 7:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said...
Kenny whines: It was easy for a badgering prosecutor to confuse Crystal on the minutiae of positioning and sequence....KHF Supporter, I suppose you, having watched the trial and heard the testimony, are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal murdered Reginald Daye and there is no reasonable possibility she was acting in self-defence. In my opinion the failure of Attorney Meier to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury represented a grave failure on his part and I believe most experienced Criminal Defence Lawyers would agree with this. That, as well as admitting testimony from Milton Walker about a prior incident and the short time Meier had to mount a defence certainly suggests she should get a new trial. Vann and Shella did absolutely nothing at all for Crystal while she languished for many months in gaol and Holmes quit precipitously claiming a conflict of interest, tenuous at best, against Crystal's wishes.; January 16, 2014 at 8:52 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
You know very well it's your fault that Crystal's in gaol. Stop whining.; January 16, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

When reading the report that outlines what happened when Mr. Daye became agitated in Duke hospital due to suspected delirium tremens - it appears to state that the intubation was performed 3 times, not 2 while he was medically paralyzed. Could it be that either of the first 2 failed intubation attempts also damaged the lung, which then led to infection in the lung while Mr. Daye was on life support? Is there anything in the medical records at all that indicate that Mr. Daye was treated for a lung infection?; January 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not real sure what another march in Durham will accomplish in the realm of justice for Jesus. A vigil without being gassed - yes sounds great! A march where everyone knows they are just pushing the cops to push back - yeah right - what for? What about Charns? Is it too unbelievable that he will be able to achieve justice through the justice system to actually be given a chance to do his job for justice by the those who will march? I mean, I don't know - why march when you have a lawyer - unless the lawyer is not expected to achieve justice - or the lawyer is pushing justice through marches or whatever because he doesn't think he will be able to achieve justice in the justice system either?

???

On other false flag news front - i've seen where a nuclear detonation off coast of USA was stopped by some military leaders against Obama's command on nov. 19 2013 per youtube type 'news'. Also read where a lot of military nuclear folks were being taken off their jobs due to questionable infractions. Seriously hope that's all hype and not real ... except for if the event was actually stopped - which is good news (if real).

sad state of affairs for sure; January 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Instead of a march, Charns could organize a community meeting - have a submission of all complaints about the cops and/or justice system submitted - put it together - and submit it in a scheduled fashion - up the justice chain of command - to the US attorney general - to be completed in a timely manner with the public in full knowledge of the schedule and aware of the results - and able to know and see that justice is being done (or not done) in a timely manner. THAT would be a change - if nothing else.

People in Boiling Springs Lake and Southport and surrounding areas may need the example of how to plea for help from the US attorney general as well - we'll see.; January 17, 2014 at 3:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen's sarcasm is just as mean and ugly as the racist comments at 5:43 PM 1-16-14; January 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM
guiowen said...: There's no sarcasm, Kenny. If you and Sidney hadn't told Crystal she was untouchable, things would never have come to this. She would have learned to control her temper, and would never have stabbed Reggie.
Unfortunately you and Sidney can't take advice from someone who doesn't totally agree witg you.; January 17, 2014 at 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: maybe duke should learn to control theirs ... eh? 3 intubation attempts and bam ... he's dead ... and they still pin the whole thing on Ms. Mangum and then shove the injustice of her defense on the entire population who now has to worry about duke killing any or all for control, power, and revenge on the operating table (or elsewhere)

get real; January 17, 2014 at 2:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said " She would have learned to control her temper, and would never have stabbed Reggie"...It takes "Jesus-like" forbearance not to become angry when you are being attacked, dragged by the hair, choked and beaten by an angry, jealously insane, drunk larger and more powerful then oneself.; January 17, 2014 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: For those warning to watch Crystal's testimony - just go to YouTube and search for crystal Mangum testimony and you can see it for yourself, you don't need Sid to post a transcript.; January 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny asks: I suppose you, having watched the trial and heard the testimony, are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal murdered Reginald Daye and there is no reasonable possibility she was acting in self-defence.

I did not follow the trial closely. However, I watched much of Crystal's testimony.

I found Crystal to have little credibility. I did not believe much of what she said. Many of her statements were not consistent with the evidence. I found her demeanor to suggest that she was not being truthful.

I admit that my familiarity with the lacrosse frame would have disqualified me from serving on the jury. I am familiar with many of her inaccurate statements in that case. I concluded that she was unreliable--much as did Cooper, the special prosecutors, Baker, Himan, and others.

I believe I could have believed her statements if they had been supported by evidence. They were not.

I do not have the same animosity toward Crystal as do many other observers. I blame those in power--Nifong and the DPD--for the attempted frame. I believe they used Crystal for their own unethical purposes.

You would also be disqualified from jury duty as a close personal friend. You have demonstrated an complete inability to be impartial, with far worse bias than many of Nifong's critics.

You rationalize every misstatement by Crystal.

You suggest that one must regard every one of Crystal's statements as true unless a particular statement can be proven false, and then that statement and only that statement should be disregarded. Statements proven false, you argue, cannot affect the credibility of statements not proven false. Those statement must continue to be regarded as true and completely reliable.

That is not impartial analysis.

Once again I remind you, if you recommended that Crystal testify, you owe her an apology.; January 17, 2014 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: What are your thoughts about what Duke and the ME medical and autopsy reports show, as far as medical malpractice and seriously questionable autopsy report conclusions in relation to the medical reports?; January 17, 2014 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Even if Ms. Mangum's statements didn't match the evidence or scenerio presented in trial by the prosecution - there was no credible evidence to prove that what she was saying was not true - none. The other players in this case - namely the duke/durham justice and court system, the cops, duke medical and administration inc., the lawyers, DA's, judges, ME, and ... - have ALL been proven to be as uncredible as Ms. Mangum was preceived in the lacrosse case, and other recent, etc. cases.

There is plenty of proof about the malpractice at duke that killed Mr. Daye and the discrepancies in the autopsy reports, etc. that falsly charged and convicted Ms. Mangum, and duke not taking legally mandated responsibility for their own malpractice yet to be held accountable in the fair and equal justice of this case.

Need that to decide this case in the first place, since the cause of death is still not proven in any credible manner, due to the coverup of duke's malpractice.

If no bias - than the whole thing is bs and Mr. Daye said he attacked her and gave her the cheques to pay the rent which she had no time or thought in safety terms to remove from her purse when she left the apartment for safety after he attacked her - and she defended herself to get away - so ...

Why was there even a trial to begin with except for even more revenge and blame from duke and the duke/durham/nc justice system shoveled upon Ms. Mangum. Hard to watch ... as usual.; January 17, 2014 at 5:19 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
If so, then she shouldn't have taunted him. Unfortunately you and Sid had convinced her that she was untouchable.; January 17, 2014 at 5:32 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:19 PM wrote: "Need that to decide this case in the first place, since the cause of death is still not proven in any credible manner, due to the coverup of duke's malpractice."

Malpractice is not an intervening cause to cut off criminal liability. St. v. Welch and St. v Holesclaw. It is disappointing that two and a half years after drawing this cite's attention to the state of the law in North Carolina that so many remain unaware. Or, do you just choose to disregard the law?

"Why was there even a trial to begin with..."

The state had probable cause to support the charges. Indeed, the state had proof beyond a reasonable doubt on Manslaughter.

Walt-in-Durham; January 17, 2014 at 6:12 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "That is why Mike Nifong was disbarred, persecuted by the State, and crucified in the media. He was too independent and a man of integrity..."

A man of integrity does not lie to a Superior Court Judge.

Walt-in-Durham; January 17, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Anonymous said...: A man of integrity does not attempt to frame innocent defendants.; January 17, 2014 at 6:17 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "the only thing meier accomplished was to get her a longer sentence in jail

you are a bs evil duke troll
... lance"

This is my first post on this particular blog entry. Rest assured - when I post a comment, you will be able to attribute it to me.; January 17, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, you will probably find that 99.9 percent of the USA public would be more concerned that Duke be held accountable for their malpractice and possible criminal liability in this case, than whether or not Ms. Mangum is. Most in USA are NOT that 'Duke blind' for better way of saying it. Most understand domestic violence. Most do not understand why they have to be harmed by health services (or Duke), etc..; January 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: You, Sid and all the people who are concerned about Duke's
"malpractice and possible criminal liability in this case" should form a bowling team. It would be good for all of you to get out in the real world.; January 17, 2014 at 9:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "If so, then she shouldn't have taunted him"......By speaking to a male friend? By calling for a male friend to come and rescue her from danger? This is blaming the victim.; January 17, 2014 at 9:19 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
That's her story -- which no one -- no one in any position of importance -- believes.; January 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: "I believe I could have believed her statements if they had been supported by evidence. They were not"........... The hard evidence supported her version of events; eg. the kicked in door, the torn out hair weaves. The discrepancies occurred in sequences and in temporal positioning, necessarily fluid in this type of a confrontation but which an aggressive prosecution can use to try and discredit the victim. You like so many of the evangelized Duke Lacrosse Supporters suffer from Crystal Mangum "derangement syndrome". Crystal is a person you only know from scurrilous gossip and hearsay. I, on the other hand, know Crystal first hand and she is a kind, honest and credible person. When lazy and biased public defenders don't themselves believe in the innocence of the clients assigned to them they don't want them to take the stand. With the truth on her side Crystal, naïvely, believed if she testified she would be exonerated; not realizing that an unscrupulous and deliberately obfusticating cross examination by a vengeful prosecutor would make a jury doubt her truthful testimony; January 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM
guiowen said...: they didn't just doubt her; they found her testimony untrue beyond a reasonable doubt.; January 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm so glad that nasty hooker Crystal Mangum has to pay for at least some of her crimes.Not that someone with her low IQ could ever learn anything.; January 17, 2014 at 10:32 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:15 PM wrote: "Walt, you will probably find that 99.9 percent of the USA public would be more concerned that Duke be held accountable for their malpractice and possible criminal liability in this case, than whether or not Ms. Mangum is."

I have not seen any opinion polling on that issue and you didn't cite any. That said, there is no evidence of malpractice. I have always assumed malpractice for purposes of the argument to point out that in North Carolina and the vast majority of common law jurisdictions, medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. So, no matter how you feel about Duke, malpractice does not intervene to cut off criminal liability. If you wish it were otherwise, then tell us why medical malpractice should let a killer go free.

"Most in USA are NOT that 'Duke blind' for better way of saying it."

I criticize Duke frequently. I criticize the university and hospital system when it is due criticism. On this very blog, I wrote that DUHS did a poor job of record generation and record keeping. That does not arise to malpractice, let alone a crime.

"Most understand domestic violence."

I suspect they do. And the certainly recognize that killing a domestic partner is the most grave act of domestic violence there is.

"Most do not understand why they have to be harmed by health services (or Duke), etc.."

That, I have seen data on. Duke is right in the norm for medical errors among teaching hospitals. That is, they have fewer medical errors than non-teaching hospital systems and about the average number for teaching hospitals. Duke is not harming people. In fact, they are helping them.

If you want to criticize Duke, find something fact based to criticize them about.; January 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:31 PM wrote: "the only thing meier accomplished was to get her a longer sentence in jail"

It was Mangum who decided to go on the stand and testify against her lawyer's advice. She convicted herself by telling a tale so inconsistent that it was unbelievable.

Walt-in-Durham; January 18, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"The hard evidence supported her version of events; eg. the kicked in door, the torn out hair weaves. The discrepancies occurred in sequences and in temporal positioning, necessarily fluid in this type of a confrontation but which an aggressive prosecution can use to try and discredit the victim. You like so many of the evangelized Duke Lacrosse Supporters suffer from Crystal Mangum "derangement syndrome". Crystal is a person you only know from scurrilous gossip and hearsay. I, on the other hand, know Crystal first hand and she is a kind, honest and credible person. When lazy and biased public defenders don't themselves believe in the innocence of the clients assigned to them they don't want them to take the stand. With the truth on her side Crystal, naïvely, believed if she testified she would be exonerated; not realizing that an unscrupulous and deliberately obfusticating cross examination by a vengeful prosecutor would make a jury doubt her truthful testimony

January 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.; January 18, 2014 at 5:19 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kenny whines:

Kenny, don't be so disingenuous.

The hard evidence supported only that portion of her version of events that was not in dispute.

There is no question that Daye initiated the confrontation, kicked in the door, dragged her by her hair. No one disputed that.

As you know, the question is whether Crystal stabbed him while he continued to attack her (as she claimed} or after he had stopped and had begun to leave (as he claimed). Here the hard evidence supported Daye's version and not Crystal's.

You may find the evidence unimportant because the situation was "fluid." The jury disagreed.; January 18, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"Guiowen's sarcasm is just as mean and ugly as the racist comments at 5:43 PM 1-16-14"

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember, the entire case basically came down to what happened after Daye kicked in the door and drug Crystal out by her hair - NO ONE disputes that happened.

Daye said he let her go, and turned to leave - she ran to the kitchen, and got a knife, and came back at him. That wouldn't be self-defense.

Mangum said he drug her into the bedroom, and was choking her when she stabbed him.

The jury believed Daye's version. NO ONE disputes that there was a fight, a neighbor said that Daye was loud and abusive in the weeks that Mangum lived there - said she frequently heard yelling, and loud banging as if someone was being thrown into a wall. Mangum specifically DENIED all of this, and said prior to that night, Daye had never so much as raised her voice at him.

But, ultimately, the issue was the jury believed Daye's version of the stabbing, not Crystal's, hence no self-defense.; January 18, 2014 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction: Raised his voice at her.; January 18, 2014 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: If she was afraid that he was going to harm her further - and he was close enough to do so to get stabbed with a steak knife by her in self-defense - it was self-defense.; January 18, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"If she was afraid that he was going to harm her further - and he was close enough to do so to get stabbed with a steak knife by her in self-defense - it was self-defense."

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: my evil duke troll shadow is BACK!

hey

repeat this: blah

....

blah

...

blah

,,,; January 18, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 8:45 AM
kenhyderal said...: So, Daye, fearing for his life, abandoned his own home; leaving it to Crystal. Minutes before, he claimed he was trying to prevent her from leaving, citing the danger of her going out so late at night as his reason. Trying to get at her in the locked bathroom, he claims was to prevent her from calling a friend to come and take her away. You buy this incredible version basing it on where blood spatter was found and where knives and broken knives were found strewn. Lets consider a more reasonable explanation based on common sense. An angry Daye jealous that Crystal had spoken/flirted with a Police officer gave her a hard time and when she decided, because of this verbal/physical abuse, to leave and possibly to end the sharing arrangement she had entered into with him, in a rage assaulted her. Remember he was bigger, stronger, grossly intoxicated and insanely jealous. While he was on top of her and choking her, it was her fearing for her own life.; January 18, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: It is rather telling that the .01 percent of the population that thinks someone should be harmed if they are defending themselves against duke centers in the one place that has been shown to want to harm others for defending themselves against duke. In this case - duke could be projected onto the person of Mr. Daye who was actually harming Ms. Mangum at the time. Perhaps they killed him because they thought he did such a lousy job of harming her in the first attempt - that they thought to help the process along - with his help. The attitude and perspectives displayed are simply a repeat of what was seen in news and in the actual consequences of actions by others in the lacrosse case. Hard to see it any different than that.; January 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: you are a bully evil duke troll; January 18, 2014 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"So, Daye, fearing for his life, abandoned his own home; leaving it to Crystal. Minutes before, he claimed he was trying to prevent her from leaving, citing the danger of her going out so late at night as his reason. Trying to get at her in the locked bathroom, he claims was to prevent her from calling a friend to come and take her away. You buy this incredible version basing it on where blood spatter was found and where knives and broken knives were found strewn. Lets consider a more reasonable explanation based on common sense. An angry Daye jealous that Crystal had spoken/flirted with a Police officer gave her a hard time and when she decided, because of this verbal/physical abuse, to leave and possibly to end the sharing arrangement she had entered into with him, in a rage assaulted her. Remember he was bigger, stronger, grossly intoxicated and insanely jealous. While he was on top of her and choking her, it was her fearing for her own life."

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken that is the argument made by her attorney. The Jury disbelieved it. You can disagree with the jury's verdict (many do), but that is the argument they heard, and they disagreed. And did not find self-defense.; January 18, 2014 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril."

Stop being disingenuous. Let's have honest discussion. You know full well that this person is making mischief here by copying old posts of mine and passing them off as his own views, proceeded with the tag "right on kennyhyderal" Once again I call on Dr. Harr to exercise his duty and put a stop to such abuses.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; January 18, 2014 at 10:31 AM
guiowen said...: Malek,
I guess the question is whether you stand by your previous posting. If so, say so. If not, then disavow it.; January 18, 2014 at 10:58 AM
guiowen said...: Malek,
I guess the question is whether you stand by your previous posting. If so, say so. If not, then disavow it.; January 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: The facts of this case so far simply reinforces the pattern that duke will harm another in the same manner as they harmed the many in the lacrosse case, (or this case), will think they can get away with the harm even though they must take responsibility for the harm if made to do so by law, will corrupt the legal system to assist in getting away with the harm and not taking responsibility for the harm - even in very obvious ways, and then will wait to see if they can get away with that as well until or unless they are required to take responsibility for any of the harm that they do or have done ... by law

... and they do it with a duke evil devil grin as their symbol of reason or right to do what they do ... for the sport and the game ... because that is all that any of this is to them ... and that is what they are.; January 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I understand what you are trying to do as far as getting the truth about the reports into court, but the only way to do that is to get the court to present them and review them and your claims - not Duke.

Duke will not do it, they can't, and they won't ... not for you and not for anyone else unless they are made to in trial. That is the way it is.

She is in jail - you have to go to the court to get her out of jail - not to Duke.

If you go to the court you can record what they do here in response to your letter (or don't do) ... but first you have to know what to do.

Maybe start by asking the DA - what should I do? That would be interesting to know his reply.

And then - look for the next step that is the right one in the chain of court ot justice systems - that is the only way to do it with justice in mind. It is what it is.

Not long ago I wrote a letter to Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall asking him to investigate the autopsy report and circumstances surrounding Daye's death. Haven't heard from him. In July 2012 and several times subsequently, I have asked the NC Attorney General to investigate. I even wrote Eric Holder in D.C. and asked him to investigate. No one has committed yet.; January 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: ok, well let's do it again ... but do it with community input this time (drafts first) ... and then send it to holder again ... if that is where you are at in this judicial process so far ... do it again ... now ... with community input ... we all know the trolling - so what

just the facts
to holder again
with community input
so we can all see what he says
for Ms. Mangum
and for the people

what do you think?; January 18, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Daniel Meier said...
I'm not going to get into a back and forth on a blog with folks who did serious damage to my client's case (as I've publicly stated). You did not/do not have access to the majority of the discovery, but that hasn't stopped you from wild accusations and publicly releasing things that should never have been made public. Yes, there was a chest tube, though you don't have the complete medical records. Yes, there was consultation with experts, there was a lot of work done, but since you had nothing to do with the case, and had already done a lot of damage, there was no reason/interest in reaching out to you and/or discussing anything with you. There still isn't.

You are free to keep doing what you are doing, every attorney Mangum has had has explained that your efforts are actually harming her in very real ways, but you plunge on. Why do you think I, or anyone else, would reach out to you?

Yes, I read the blog, it's amusing. But, there is so much information you don't have, but you still plunge forward, that it's sad. I wish you'd focus on the plight of the poor in the criminal justice system and the abuses there rather than continue to damage Crystal's case, but you are free to do what you wish. But, you are NOT helping, trust me.

I realize it's a mistake to post here, and I will no longer respond on the blog, if anyone wants to reach me, I'm easy to find, though I'm not going to divulge privileged information, nor stoop to answering spurious attacks based on incomplete information.

Dr. Harr, if you hadn't gone public with everything, and allowed the State and others to more fully respond, your analysis would have been helpful, instead you sough the spotlight and released information that never should have been released, and greatly harmed the person you claimed to be wanting to help. So, no, I didn't reach out to you, nor do I intend to.

I wish you'd stop and let the process work, but I know you won't.

And, yes, I am Daniel Meier, though since it is incredibly easy to fake a name on this blog, some will believe it, some won't. Such is life. I won't be responding further on the blog, so please don't ask me questions in this forum if you actually want me to even consider answering, and don't assume a non-response means anything other than I do find the blog and assumptions amusing, and I am sure I will continue reading it, but understand nothing you have stated is remotely new, it was all investigated and examined, and you are missing a LOT of information.

I never doubted your identity, and I admire your courage in responding. Although it may be considered unwise to comment here, I will not take advantage.

The true facts are that an esophageal intubation resulted in Daye's brain death... that was an intervening and proximate cause of Daye's brain death which led to his elective removal from life support. He did not die secondary to some complication of the stab wound or the emergency surgery for it... there was no blood cultures or infectious disease specialists brought in the case. By going along with Dr. Nichols and stating that a complication, however vague, resulted in Daye's death is wrong and it lays blame on Mangum.

If the biased mainstream media had instead reported fairly and accurately, then there would be no reason for me to act as a watchdog looking out for all Tar Heelians.

Anyway, thanks again for your contributions to the comments on this blog site.; January 18, 2014 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do you think the Orange County District Attorney, the Attorney General, and no other agency will have the SBI conduct an investigation into Dr. Nichols' report... They investigated him and fired him for allegedly mishandling a bullet casing in a Cumberland County case. Yet, no investigation for claims of producing a fraudulent autopsy report.

Because, the ME's office was in Orange County when the alleged violations occurred, so the Orange County DA (and the Wake County DA since that is where the office is now) have jurisdiction, and would be the ones to decide to prosecute. Your conspiracy theory falls apart with simple answers, you just choose to ignore them.; January 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt has been trying for years, but you clearly refuse to listen because you don't like the law.

1st: The jury had to decide on self-defense vs no self-defense. They obviously decided no self-defense.

And, even if the esophageal intubation killed Daye, unless it was intentional, under the law of NC, as Walt has repeatedly pointed out, since the only reason he was in a position for Duke to "screw up" was because he was stabbed, Mangum would still be A proximate cause of his death, and thus criminally responsible.

That's the part you refuse to acknowledge. You don't like the law, but it is what it is. Mangum put him in the hospital, he died in the hospital, Mangum was/is one of the proximate causes of his death, even if there were many others, and under our laws, that's all it takes.

Not that you will listen or care - you've been ignoring Walt for years.; January 18, 2014 at 1:25 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney said:
"I even wrote Eric Holder in D.C. and asked him to investigate. No one has committed yet."

Sidney, some years go I asked whether you had gone to Eric Holder. For this, your friend Kenny accused me of bullying you -- an opinion in which you concurred. But it seems you were indeed, contacting Holder. I am sorry to see you don't even have the courage to stand up to your convictions.; January 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Sidney, some years go I asked whether you had gone to Eric Holder. For this, your friend Kenny accused me of bullying you"............ Come on Guiowen; at the time you were being facetious. You know it and so do we. If you're suggesting that, in view of Dr. Harr now writing Holder about the Nichol's autopsy, your suggestion at the time was given in good faith well, stop pretending.; January 18, 2014 at 3:51 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So far as I can see, Sidney is simply afraid to disagree with you. If he was indeed going to Holder, he should have said so.; January 18, 2014 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course, the problem with going to all of these people is they don't ignore the laws they consider inconvenient, and realize that basing an entire theory on significantly less than complete information is ludicrous, and thus they ignore Sid. As has been repeated and pointed out on this blog incessantly for years, he is barking up a wrong tree, but he refuses to acknowledge any contrary information/evidence/facts, which destroys his credibility, and thus people ignore him.

Plus, let's be honest, if Duke is as all powerful as is claimed (though they don't seem to care about this blog or stopping any of the people here), they've already bought off anyone Sid can contact, and they are just telling everyone to ignore him because they want to mess with him.

I for one welcome our Duke overlords. :-) (Yes, that's a troll.)

But, in all seriousness, he refuses to acknowledge the information provided by Walt and others, so why does he think people would take him seriously? People with actual legal training and experience say Sid is wrong, he ignores them. It's not gonna change. You can't change their mind by refusing to acknowledge your errors.; January 18, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"Of course, the problem with going to all of these people is they don't ignore the laws they consider inconvenient, and realize that basing an entire theory on significantly less than complete information is ludicrous, and thus they ignore Sid. As has been repeated and pointed out on this blog incessantly for years, he is barking up a wrong tree, but he refuses to acknowledge any contrary information/evidence/facts, which destroys his credibility, and thus people ignore him.

Plus, let's be honest, if Duke is as all powerful as is claimed (though they don't seem to care about this blog or stopping any of the people here), they've already bought off anyone Sid can contact, and they are just telling everyone to ignore him because they want to mess with him.

I for one welcome our Duke overlords. :-) (Yes, that's a troll.)

But, in all seriousness, he refuses to acknowledge the information provided by Walt and others, so why does he think people would take him seriously? People with actual legal training and experience say Sid is wrong, he ignores them. It's not gonna change. You can't change their mind by refusing to acknowledge your errors."

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"Come on Guiowen; at the time you were being facetious. You know it and so do we. If you're suggesting that, in view of Dr. Harr now writing Holder about the Nichol's autopsy, your suggestion at the time was given in good faith well, stop pretending"

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 18, 2014 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: There is really no way to stand on the side of duke in all these cases, as what they do is intentional, malicious, harmful, and so opposite of what one would expect based upon a normal concept of right and wrong for the average USA citizen when considering the fields and practices where dukes services are protected by professional expectations, mandates, and laws that they help to develop and set in place, yet never seem to respect nor follow for the protection or wellbeing of the citizen.

To do so would put most in harms way, if only in that they are required to shutter their own conscious when dealing with duke to retain their own civil and legal humanity and values - which could be deemed a harm too heavy to bear for some, and probably, ultimately, for many.

It is hard to watch what they do that causes harm and agree with them in any way.; January 18, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"There is really no way to stand on the side of duke in all these cases, as what they do is intentional, malicious, harmful, and so opposite of what one would expect based upon a normal concept of right and wrong for the average USA citizen when considering the fields and practices where dukes services are protected by professional expectations, mandates, and laws that they help to develop and set in place, yet never seem to respect nor follow for the protection or wellbeing of the citizen.

To do so would put most in harms way, if only in that they are required to shutter their own conscious when dealing with duke to retain their own civil and legal humanity and values - which could be deemed a harm too heavy to bear for some, and probably, ultimately, for many.

It is hard to watch what they do that causes harm and agree with them in any way.

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 19, 2014 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: ...

...

...

(even the dots are wounded)

...

...

...; January 19, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Sidney,

Thank you for this important flog. You have confirmed the conclusion among your acolytes and other supporters that Crystal was unfairly convicted in a vendetta prosecution.

However, you provided little to convince the naysayers. They will complain that this flog is a repetition of earlier flogs, with no new evidence presented or discussed. Because many who can determine Crystal’s fate focus on inconsequential matters, I ask that you address their concerns. Otherwise, I fear her conviction will not be overturned.

Please re-address case law. Show the so-called lawyers that they are wrong in their interpretation of the law.

Walt and A Lawyer discussed State v Welch and related cases. You concluded last May that Welch was not applicable, but your response did not convince the naysayers.

Walt and A Lawyer quote the conclusion in Welch that a defendant remains responsible for the death of the injured party unless an intervening cause is “the sole cause of death.” An initial diagnosis that the patient is expected to recover does not eliminate this responsibility.

They note that medical malpractice does not eliminate this responsibility. Holsclaw and Jones state: “Even if the doctor was negligent, the defendant will not escape liability.” Negligence appears to be your contention in this flog.

The naysayers question your ability to discuss legal matters.

One noted that you claimed the failure during the lacrosse case to find DNA that matched the defendants was not exculpatory, in a case where Crystal claimed that one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. This naysayer concluded that you are either dishonest and willing to say anything you think will help your case or incredibly stupid and genuinely unable to engage in critical thinking. This conclusion is obviously unfair.

Your acolyte, kennyhyderal, addresses the legal implications. He argues that intubation was due to the DTs and wholly unrelated to the stabbing. While you touch on this, you do not develop your argument. I ask that you apply your expertise to prove that, although trauma may bring on or exacerbate DTs, the DTs were not a possible complication of this stabbing. If the DTs were related to the stabbing, Crystal would remain responsible. Specific evidence will be required to convince the naysayers that the stabbing did not bring on the DTs. Your assertion without evidence does not convince the naysayers.

The naysayers believe you ignore adverse case law and pretend that it does not exist. In this blog, you ignore the view expressed by Walt and A Lawyer. I suggest you address it directly: the case law is unfair; no defendant should be responsible for malpractice. A competent attorney would ask the jury to disregard an unfair law.

You should address how the failure of a jury to nullify an unfair law provides grounds for appeal.; January 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, the law that states duke has to take responsibility for their own malpractice is all that is needed to support claims of dukes responsibility in the death, since it was caused by their malpractice.

The ME trying to cover it up is another crime that bears responsibile legal accountability - for this case and obviously for others as well.

That whole trial was a scam - your trying to sound all legaleze and patronizing doesn't change that.

Those other lawyers carry their own burden of blame - they could have done their jobs for the defense and the people - and they didn't - because of duke/durham/nc justice system as it is - and duke as whatever it is that they are today that most cannot stand because so many are harmed by them.; January 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: It's still funny how many, anonymous, and otherwise, have pointed out that the discrepancies Sid has noted were explained by the Defense experts, Duke Doctors, and discussions with the ME. But, since those explanations weren't provided to Sid (just to Mangum, and the people who needed to know), he refuses to acknowledge them. Remember - he has only a bit of the information, not the full story. People with the full story ignore Sid. Only Sid and a few others think they must be wrong.

But, remember, Sid is basing his entire theory on less than complete information. That's always a risky proposition, and you need to be careful in relying on him too much and trusting him too far.

He's not entitled to full information and will never get it, and probably wouldn't care if he saw it, but that is where we stand.; January 19, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

When reading the report that outlines what happened when Mr. Daye became agitated in Duke hospital due to suspected delirium tremens - it appears to state that the intubation was performed 3 times, not 2 while he was medically paralyzed. Could it be that either of the first 2 failed intubation attempts also damaged the lung, which then led to infection in the lung while Mr. Daye was on life support? Is there anything in the medical records at all that indicate that Mr. Daye was treated for a lung infection?

I believe that some of the wording is a little confusing. In the one report, the first paragraph goes over what happened, but the second paragraph gives an important timeline.

It is clear that the first intubation was esophageal (supported by the EtCO2 monitor and the fact that it precipitated cardiac arrest), and that the second intubation was properly positioned in the trachea (conversely because the EtCO2 monitor was positive and that the heart was resuscitated).

There is no indication in the records that Daye contracted pneumonia (a lung infection) or any other infection. Certainly no infectious disease consult was involved.

Finally, an infection does nothing to explain Daye's acute lapse into a comatose state and his cardiac arrest. Both of those would be irrefutably related to esophageal intubation.

An attempt was made to implicate infection as being responsible for Daye's death was an attempt to place responsibility for Daye's death squarely on Mangum's stab wound.; January 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: That's bs and you know it.

When you patronize like that ... do you actually think people will believe you? Around here, people get used to it and ignore it ... that's the way it is. Most are tired of the bs - you fool only yourself as usual.; January 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: OK Dr. Harr, thank you.

When I read it - it seems like it was done once, done again, and then done a third time when he needed CPR (something like that). Anyway, thank you.; January 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney said:
"I even wrote Eric Holder in D.C. and asked him to investigate. No one has committed yet."

Sidney, some years go I asked whether you had gone to Eric Holder. For this, your friend Kenny accused me of bullying you -- an opinion in which you concurred. But it seems you were indeed, contacting Holder. I am sorry to see you don't even have the courage to stand up to your convictions.

Hey, gui.

I doubt that I would consider anything you said to me as bullying. When I wrote that comment, I probably had not yet written to Attorney General Holder. It was much later during the Mangum case when I wrote him... probably around March 2013 prior to going to Washington, DC.

Contacting the U.S. Department of Justice had always been on the table as a latter resort.; January 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
OK Dr. Harr, thank you.

When I read it - it seems like it was done once, done again, and then done a third time when he needed CPR (something like that). Anyway, thank you.

You're welcome. Yes, it is confusing and I think it would be easier to understand if the first paragraph was omitted.; January 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney,

Thank you for this important flog. You have confirmed the conclusion among your acolytes and other supporters that Crystal was unfairly convicted in a vendetta prosecution.

However, you provided little to convince the naysayers. They will complain that this flog is a repetition of earlier flogs, with no new evidence presented or discussed. Because many who can determine Crystal’s fate focus on inconsequential matters, I ask that you address their concerns. Otherwise, I fear her conviction will not be overturned.

Please re-address case law. Show the so-called lawyers that they are wrong in their interpretation of the law.

Walt and A Lawyer discussed State v Welch and related cases. You concluded last May that Welch was not applicable, but your response did not convince the naysayers.

Walt and A Lawyer quote the conclusion in Welch that a defendant remains responsible for the death of the injured party unless an intervening cause is “the sole cause of death.” An initial diagnosis that the patient is expected to recover does not eliminate this responsibility.

They note that medical malpractice does not eliminate this responsibility. Holsclaw and Jones state: “Even if the doctor was negligent, the defendant will not escape liability.” Negligence appears to be your contention in this flog.

The naysayers question your ability to discuss legal matters.

One noted that you claimed the failure during the lacrosse case to find DNA that matched the defendants was not exculpatory, in a case where Crystal claimed that one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. This naysayer concluded that you are either dishonest and willing to say anything you think will help your case or incredibly stupid and genuinely unable to engage in critical thinking. This conclusion is obviously unfair.

Your acolyte, kennyhyderal, addresses the legal implications. He argues that intubation was due to the DTs and wholly unrelated to the stabbing. While you touch on this, you do not develop your argument. I ask that you apply your expertise to prove that, although trauma may bring on or exacerbate DTs, the DTs were not a possible complication of this stabbing. If the DTs were related to the stabbing, Crystal would remain responsible. Specific evidence will be required to convince the naysayers that the stabbing did not bring on the DTs. Your assertion without evidence does not convince the naysayers.

The naysayers believe you ignore adverse case law and pretend that it does not exist. In this blog, you ignore the view expressed by Walt and A Lawyer. I suggest you address it directly: the case law is unfair; no defendant should be responsible for malpractice. A competent attorney would ask the jury to disregard an unfair law.

You should address how the failure of a jury to nullify an unfair law provides grounds for appeal.

Hey, Break.

Yes, I do not concentrate so much on the law, although I have tried to address the State v. Welch issue. I mainly have concentrated on the medical issues, which are my strong suit, and have sacrificed spending time on the legal aspects. My next flog will be important and address what transpired during trial and point to major flaws in the prosecution case and the defense presented by Meier.

Thank you for your suggestions about placing more emphasis on case law, etc. Once I complete my next flog, I will try to concentrate on legal aspects of her case.; January 19, 2014 at 12:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Why do you think the Orange County District Attorney, the Attorney General, and no other agency will have the SBI conduct an investigation into Dr. Nichols' report... They investigated him and fired him for allegedly mishandling a bullet casing in a Cumberland County case. Yet, no investigation for claims of producing a fraudulent autopsy report.

Because, the ME's office was in Orange County when the alleged violations occurred, so the Orange County DA (and the Wake County DA since that is where the office is now) have jurisdiction, and would be the ones to decide to prosecute. Your conspiracy theory falls apart with simple answers, you just choose to ignore them

I fail to comprehend the point you are trying to make. Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall had jurisdiction over the Medical Examiner's office in April 14, 2011 when Dr. Nichols conducted the autopsy on Reginald Daye. Yet he refuses to investigate the Nichols autopsy report and circumstances of Daye's death. Can you provide me with some elucidation with regards to this?; January 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Because, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the autopsy and the rest have been investigated. Why do you assume the autopsy and not the operative report is what is/was incorrect? And remember, the defense had their own expert review Everythng, and came to the same conclusion as Dr Nichols and wasn't helpful to Mangum. The discrepancies have straightforward explanations that were addressed and resolved. Just not shared with you.; January 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: So what explanation did duke come up with to save the day?; January 19, 2014 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Why would you assume you'd be entitled to that? As many have said - the people who were working on the case and investigating would get that information, and use it as they see fit, and I trust they did. I'm not big into assuming everyone is corrupt. CryStal herself said DR Roberts wouldn't be helpful, but Sid still insists she would be (even though he hasn't seen the report - he obviously doesn't trust crystal).; January 19, 2014 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: And you really expect anyone to believe that? Why are you trolling here?; January 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Harr himself said Crystal told him the Dr Roberts report supported Nichols conclusion. Why do you think you'd be entitled to the information? Because you post anonymously on a blog? I've seen no evidence from people involved and who had full information (including Crystal according to DR Harr himself) who still support Sid and his theories.; January 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Either DR Roberts and Crystal herself are in on the conspiracy, or once they were provided with full information, they concluded DR Harr is wrong - and not maliciously, but he doesn't have full info. Try do, and they disagree with him.; January 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: that is what they want you to believe ... so ... hey ... for you ... it worked

yeah; January 19, 2014 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: So Harr, who says Crystal told him the Roberts report wasn't helpful ... Who was wrong than?; January 19, 2014 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: does it matter?

to whom if it does?

seriously

this blog is not a court - i'm not going to sit here and retry and whatch you rehash what i saw going on here the last year that's for sure - the trial needs to retried - but this blog is just that - a blog ... get real

STOP trolling ... how's that?

blah ... seriously; January 19, 2014 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Given that those questions were likely already answered, even if there is a retrial, they are probably not going to be brought up. Again, you have to assume Sid is right, and everyone else is wrong. There are reasons for the case to come back, Sid's debunked theories aren't one if them and wouldn't likely play a role in a new trial.; January 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: None of Dr. Harr's theories (as you call 'them') have been debunked ... they have been ignored and covered up so far ... that's all. Nothing else and nothing new.; January 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Only on this blog, not by the people who have actually looked into them, and he still ignores that even if crystal didnt cause his death, if it wasn't self defense she'd still be guilty of something, nor has he ever shown why Welch and the rest wouldn't apply and she'd be responsible as A proximate cause even if not THE proximate cause. Everyone with legal training has told him Welch and it's progeny apply. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will address the issue in this appeal, it was preserved.

But we will see. Sid still has plenty of time to do more harm while pretending to care.; January 19, 2014 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: really ... so you think this blog will actually come into play - or what Dr. Harr claims about the medical and autopsy reports in the appeal and/or retrial will be taken into serious consideration and reinvestigated and tryed?; January 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: No not remotely. I think there is a good chance at a retrial, and I think DR Harr's crazy claims will have no part of that either.; January 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: I think the autopsy and discrepancies were already investigated and the questions answered, but those "answers" not released to people who don't need them, so they continue to whine about Duke and call anyone who doubts Sid a troll.; January 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr's 'claims' are not crazy - they are a comparison between Duke's medical reports and the first ME's autopsy report that have already been proven to contain discrepancies, and to document malpractice involved and contributing to Mr. Daye's death in the form of complications.

The extent of Duke's complimentary assistance to the death of Mr. Daye has yet to be tryed and determined in order to establish and confirm beyond reasonable doubt the actual cause and reason for Mr. Daye's actual legal death.

So, if these issues are not presented in an equal and fair manner for the defense in the appeal or a retrial, then the whole thang will still all be a scam, since Mr. Daye's death is still in question as to true cause and reason.; January 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: You ignore that those were examined and explained already as has been noted here. Yes, there are discrepancies - either the autopsy is wrong, or the operative report has errors (something Sid has never considered). But the defense had an expert, and while Sid keeps screaming for the report, even Crystal told him that after she investigated, while she notes the errors, she ultimately supports DR Nichols's conclusion. Sid is mad he hasn't seen that report, but he doesn't dispute that's what Crystal said.

No one disputes the discrepancies, but you assume they can't be explained just because no one has provided you with the explanation, and you discount that even the defense expert said the examation doesn't help crystal.

And no matter what happens you will consider it a scam because you are blinded by hatred of Duke and refuse to acknowledge they had nothing to do with the trial, and even if it was malpractice, it wouldn't be an intervening cause no matter how many times Sid pretend it would.; January 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously, you are a troll ... nothing else

i want to know the truth of duke's 'professional' services since it effects everyone in this state and has put someone in jail for their mistakes ... you however want to annoy everyone here and patronize me to give you reason to not look truly insane as you repeatedly troll this blog to 'tell' your duke-sided version of thangs and so you can continue to feel justified in your trolling of everyone here - go evil duke troll ... go ...; January 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You may want to know, but aren't "entitled" to know - there is a difference. So Mangum and her attorneys should have sacrificed their defense for your curiosity, even if it would have hurt her? And I'm the troll? You are delusional.; January 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: You don't even address duke's malpractice or acknowledge that they have to take responsibility for it as mandated by law and the THAT is a far greater concern for the publics' safety if they don't. That law is there for many reasons, one which would be why you continue to deny duke did anything 'wrong'.

You call someone delusional for wanting to see evidence brought to trial to clear up obvious discrepancies, legal causes and reasons for a death charged as a murder, etc., etc., etc., etc., ... instead of just believin' it since you said so cuz that's what you would want duke to say apparently - and/or you 'r' duke (sic) - which is all that what you are saying is anyway ... and you think anyone actually believes your trolling obnoxious bs that basically everyone has asked you to stop doing since you are truly annoying ... and that makes it aok ... so ok - you win:

you are a truly annoying evil duke troll

there ... happy?; January 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no dispute that the knife would was survivable - the state admitted it, the ME admitted it, the defense argued it. But legally since whatever happened with Duke (the esophageal intubation) wasn't intentional, but either a mistake or malpractice (2 different things) under the unfair laws of NC, Crystal was still legally responsible. Guilty or not guilty hinged on self defense. The jury denied self defense, and went with 2nd degree because of a compromise verdict (which unfortunately they do too often).

But yes, Duke messed up, Daye should have survived, but he didn't, and since malpractice isn't considered an intervening cause under our laws, crystal is tagged with it.

Sid isn't saying anything that wasn't shown in the trial, he just won't acknowledge it. Under Welch, which does apply, crystal is still liable for Dukes malpractice. No one is going to say that's fair (except maybe the prosecution), but it is the law under welch and it's progeny.

Too many people here forget that. The jury didnt but self-defense (and Sid isn't focused on that), therefore Crystal is responsible for the consequences.

Sid is right, there was an esophageal intubation that led to brain death. I have no doubt her attorneys, Crystal, and the defense experts are fully aware of that. But they Re also aware of other evidence, and the law, which make that not as legally (morally is a different question) important as Sid and this blog pretend, even if it should be.; January 19, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Like all healthcare providers, duke routinely commits malpractice (it happens) and are routinely sued, and routinely pay out lots of money (held responsible). Malpractice is so routine (sady) it's not considere an independent intervening cause in NC.

Whether they had to pay Daye family money, who knows - not relevant to this case - again, even if malpractice, it wouldn't change the outcome of the trial, whether or not Duke accepts responsibility. Daye should have survived, but he didn't, but it wasn't an intentional act on Duke's part that caused it.

The law is unfair but it is what it is.; January 19, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: So are other laws.

Like the one that says Duke's malpractice is Duke's responsibility (not Ms. Mangum's).

It is there to stop the unfairness and inequality of the welch law y'all insist gives duke/durham/nc 'justice' the right to be unfair and unequal and place full blame on Ms. Mangum in this case - it doesn't - nothing does.; January 19, 2014 at 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: The precedent contained in Welch does not "place full blame on Ms. Mangum" as you suggest. It simply does not eliminate Ms. Mangum 's responsibility.

Duke has a responsibility to Daye's family.; January 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: There is much more evidence and facts of 'intentional harm' committed against all the Mr. Daye's and Ms. Mangum's that Duke has intentionally harmed over the years, than there is to prove that Ms. Mangum intentionally killed Mr. Daye.; January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Whether Duke has a responsibility to Daye's family or not is between them and Daye's family - and for all we know they reached a settlement with Daye's family, or Daye's family decided to not pursue a claim.

An organization (or individual) is only held liable for their negligence if someone pursues a claim, and whether or not Daye's family did is between them and Duke, it has no bearing on Mangum.

You acknowledge she has some responsibility - so she has criminal liability, would you feel better if Duke also paid $100k in money?

What is your point? The fact Duke has some liability is irrelevant to Crystal under our laws. Whether the Daye family wants to pursue that claim or not (or did) isn't relevant to Crystal (she wasn't/isn't family), and I doubt they are reading this blog for guidance, but they may well have reached a settlement - do you know they didn't?; January 19, 2014 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Already Duke has 'lost' in the minds of the public. They have lost their credibility and the trust of the many - which to them is cash in the bank and all some have. So that's why you have you's trolling me's or similar behaviors - yet still the Dr. Harrs and many others insist on Duke being held accountable, while the corrupted justice system tries to turn the other way and hope to make it all go away (for duke).

And everyone is watching Duke try to avoid the reality they shovel on others by labeling others delusional or patronizing them with misinformation or ignoring like there ain't no tomorrow - so they can continue to cash in on the Mr. Dayes and Ms. Mangums without too many yous or mes or Dr. Harrs or Ms. Mangums to mess their sterling image up (not that we actually have anything to do with it of course - since if they took responsibility for what they did - all of this would be a nonissue to begin with).

that's all; January 19, 2014 at 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: There is much more evidence and facts of 'intentional harm' committed against all the Mr. Daye's and Ms. Mangum's that Duke has intentionally harmed over the years

And what is this mountain of evidence that Duke has intentionally harmed many over the years?

You have over the last several months cited three cases: the baby burned in the incubator in the early 1990's, the girl from Latin America and Daye. You have provided no evidence that any of these tragic errors were intentional.; January 19, 2014 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: slaves

we are NOT duke slaves

why does that still seem a relevant statement today?; January 19, 2014 at 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: slaves

we are NOT duke slaves

why does that still seem a relevant statement today?

I don't know. Why does it?; January 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: if you don't know perhaps you don't know enough about duke/durham/nc to be arguing about these issues to begin with

obviously, you aren't made to pay for their mistakes in any way ... how lucky for you; January 19, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I have not been in NC for about 35 years. The New York Times does not carry the stories about Duke intentionally harming people. You make allegations, but you don't provide specifics.

I am not arguing these issues. I am trying to get more information. And you aren't providing any. I suppose that you don't really believe what you say if you don't care enough to answer simple questions.; January 19, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 19, 2014 at 7:38 PM
Anonymous said...: so you don't know nc as it is now

it is NOT the same as 35 years ago in some respects (tho the slavery thang has been here for some time)

you arguing like you know what it is you are arguing about is more than disingenuous at this point since i asked you to stop trolling me cuz i knew you didn't know what you were trolling me about way back when you first started trolling me

you don't even know enough to understand why i will not give you specifics - even tho this case shoves it right in your face

get real; January 19, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I never said that I knew what NC was like today. I have no idea why you thought that I did. I asked questions because I do not know the answers. When I was in NC 35 years ago, it was for a couple of days on business. I didn't really get a good understanding of the state.

You are mistaken. You have never asked me to stop trolling you. You told another anonymous poster to stop trolling you. That wasn't me.

I have tried googling "duke intentional harm" and other things like that. I found no relevant stories. I wonder why that is.

Where can I find more information if you are going to be so incredibly rude. Can other posters help?; January 19, 2014 at 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: most people round these parts take to thinkin for themselves after while - if'n they haven't already learned to do so before they actually need to - that is; January 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I have learned to think for myself. Thank you. I have found that conclusions reached without facts are frequently incorrect. That is why I asked for information.; January 19, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: asked and givin

... next; January 19, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I have no idea what you are saying. Asked and givin? What the hell does that mean?; January 19, 2014 at 8:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Break the Conspiracy: Esophogeal intubation aside, you seem to be one of the few posters here that doesn't suffer from Crystal Mangum derangement syndrome. So, I'd like to ask if you believe that Crystal acted in self-defence and deserves a new trial; January 19, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"@ Break the Conspiracy: Esophogeal intubation aside, you seem to be one of the few posters here that doesn't suffer from Crystal Mangum derangement syndrome. So, I'd like to ask if you believe that Crystal acted in self-defence and deserves a new trial"

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 20, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: She would not get a new trial because of "self-defense" - that was argued, and the Jury specifically found against it, the Court won't overturn the jury on that. There are other grounds they can do it, but since that issue was specifically put in front of the jury, and there was evidence where they could find yes on self-defense (her story), or no (his story), and they chose his - the Court won't overturn that. Hopefully she gets a new trial on other grounds.

Regarding whether it is "fair" to hold Crystal and Duke both responsible (Duke would be up to the Daye family), remember, under our laws, multiple people are often held liable for a single crime, and it's not uncommon that the least culpable person (say the driver) gets the harshest sentence. It happens.

And, under felony murder (which, again, despite what keeps getting said, was NEVER in play here - the jury was never even instructed on it, and simple felony larceny cannot form the basis of it), even if you don't intend to kill, you can get tagged with it. Let's say you and 2 friends agree to rob a gas station. You all say specifically - don't hurt anyone, we don't want anyone to get hurt. You drive the car and wait in the parking lot. The clerk resists, and one of your buddies shoots and kills him. You can all be convicted of first degree murder, and could all get the death penalty, and there are many cases where the lookout or driver gets the death sentence or LWOP while the shooter gets a lesser sentence.

If Duke committed malpractice, it is/was up to the Daye family to file that lawsuit - they would be the only ones with the right to do so. The State doesn't investigate or prosecute malpractice.; January 20, 2014 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum has no grounds for appeal...at all....with the exception that the judge did not excuse and replace the juror who was talking out of school about the case. Otherwise, nothing.....
She will serve the majority years of her sentence.....I bet eight to ten years.; January 20, 2014 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: I appreciated Mr. Meier's comments. He was saddled with an impossible defense and a mess of a case....in part because of Mangum's worst enemy, Sidney the asshat. I would have expected him to try to keep Mangum off the stand, but he had no choice..........no way to really get her story/side into evidence otherwise. As it turned out, she lied so often, so oddly, and so stupidly......she convicted herself before the jury ever left the box.
I was particularly amused by her wild off-the-cuff use of the name "Stella Rose" or Stella Rosa", in describing the woman she claimed was around when the decanter was broken. (or some such wild nonsense). Mangum pulled that name out of her ass....given that it's a wine. The prosecutor just stood back and let Mangum convict herself in lie after lie.
I am glad this woman is off the streets, at least for a few years. Far more important is that she will not get her hands on the children........maybe, just maybe, they will have a shot at a decent life.; January 20, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke sucks even worse for having done what they did in this case.

Now everyone has to sit by and watch them still hoping to get away with the harm they caused instead of taking their legal responsibility to the people and their patients and society seriously by actually taking responsibility for the harm that they do and insuring it will not continue, etc..

Bolstering their image by terrorizing, blaming, and harming others who they perceive as worthy of THAT type treatment only makes their services fit for their own savages who agree with the harm they do - not for those who actually value services free from the terror and harm that they 'offer' and the manner in which they administer their offerings.; January 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: There is absolutely no way to try that case or any other concerning Duke in this state if this case is allowed to stand as it is.

ALL are terrorized and put at risk by what this case clearly shows is a contributing factor to the inability to receive either legal or public judgement free from bias or conflict-of-interest when dealing with Duke in this state because of the threat that Duke poses to ALL as emplified in this case.; January 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Are you going to be brave enough to actually question what they are doing to their faces if you have to receive their services for any reason - or are you going to feel compelled to be sheeple to feel some fleeting sense of safety while in the vicinity or realm of where you can be harmed by them?

That is what they want afterall: sheeple.; January 20, 2014 at 10:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 6:22 said: Magnum pulled that name out of he a** ... given that it's a wine................. You should google Stella Rose, Durham N.C. As is usual here, blind hatred for Crystal, engendered by the meta-narrative, is showing; January 20, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: At this point it seems like there would be reason to hold the Duke / Durham judicial system liable for creating and maintaining a judicial environment where NO-ONE can recieve fair and equal treatment in any issue relating to Duke due to the undue burden of fear for loss of life that this case clearly shows exists for all when dealing with Duke in any way due to their proven inability to take legal responsibility for their own malpractice as prescribed by law, and the Duke/Durham judicial system's inability to uphold that law for all.; January 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny asks whether I believe Crystal acted in self-defense.

I did not follow the trial closely and have not listened to all of her testimony. However, I heard enough to form an opinion. I do not believe Crystal acted in self-defense.

I assess the credibility of a witness based on the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence.

I thought Crystal was a terrible witness. Her decision to testify may have resulted in a conviction for second-degree murder rather than manslaughter.

Neither you nor Sidney has made any credible arguments that convince me she acted in self-defense. Sidney ignored her testimony.

Your analysis of her testimony has been disingenuous. You act as though you do not understand arguments made by those who disagree with you. You focus on facts that are not disputed, rely on straw man arguments and rationalize her errors.

The fact that Daye initiated the confrontation is not in dispute. He admitted that he was angry. He admitted that he broke down the bathroom door and dragged her by her hair into the bedroom. He admitted that he was on top of her and physically restrained her.

At this point, the claims of Crystal and Daye diverge.

Daye claims he began to leave; Crystal then got a knife, and came after him into the hallway, where she stabbed him. Crystal claims she grabbed a knife on the bedroom floor and stabbed him while he was on top of her, strangling her.

Whose claim is more credible is the critical question. If Daye had begun to leave, Crystal was no longer in any danger, and she then became the attacker. Daye’s version does not support self-defense; Crystal’s does.

I believe the evidence supports Daye’s version. Blood was found in the hallway and not in the bedroom. The mattress was found on the bed, not on the floor where Crystal claimed it had fallen when Daye dragged her off. Except for hair weaves on the floor, Crystal had only minor injuries, inconsistent with her description of the attack.

You claim a witness may not accurately remember details. I agree, but find Crystal’s testimony riddled with too many errors. You excuse her errors as trivial. I disagree.

Crystal’s track record for accuracy provides no support. In her press conference, she denied knowing who set the Walker fire. She admitted to it earlier and later. Her allegations during the lacrosse case were inconsistent with evidence and her other statements.

You have zero credibility in assessing Crystal’s reliability. You excuse every misstatement. You dismiss her denial as unproven; Sidney and numerous reporters all misunderstood her. You create a fantasy of mystery rapists to explain why the failure to find player DNA did not disprove her claim of rape.

KHF Supporter accurately summarizes you:

You suggest that one must regard every one of Crystal's statements as true unless a particular statement can be proven false, and then that statement and only that statement should be disregarded. Statements proven false, you argue, cannot affect the credibility of statements not proven false. Those statements must continue to be regarded as true and completely reliable.

That is not impartial analysis. If you advised Crystal to testify based on that analysis, you are a fool.

I do not know whether Crystal will be granted a new trial.

The failure of the jury to believe her has no merit in appeal. Unless evidence supports the conclusion that the stabbing was completely unrelated to the intubatation or the case law is wrong, medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. The failure of the jury to disregard law has no merit in appeal.

An appeal must be based on other claims. I was surprised Walker’s testimony was allowed; Walt explained the decision was typical. The failure to dismiss the misbehaving juror is inexplicable. A delay to review allegations against Nichols was reasonable. I do not know if evidence was excluded improperly.; January 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: You can replace Duke with Ms. Mangum in what you say bout her in many instances above, and see that same type behavior you complain of from her amplified in ALL OF DUKE - personally, if all that is true for Duke if not for Ms. Mangum - the question of whether the intubation was the actual cause of death as shown in the medical reports and not what is stated on the autopsy report in major discrepancy to the medical reports - THAT IS THE MOST PRESSING item of this case, who, how, when, why, and where was Mr. Daye actually murdered ... THAT is the question isn't it?

oi; January 20, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: If Mangum was not acting in self-defense, she'd still be convicted of a crime for the stabbing, so it's not the irrelevant question you claim that it is, and you still IGNORE everyone who has said that even if there was the esophageal intubation, and malpractice, she'd still be liable for the death. And, it's been noted that Duke did make a mistake, and it may have been malpractice, but this trial was the State v. Crystal Mangum - Duke was not a party to the lawsuit, and wasn't on trial, and again, even if malpractice Crystal would still be liable.

If the Daye family had sued Duke, then Duke would have been on trial and you'd have seen everything then. But, Duke's malpractice (if it exists) wasn't relevant to Mangum's defense (as has been repeatedly explained), so it wasn't on trial.

Yes, call me a Duke troll again ... that's your solution to anyone who says anything you don't want to agree with - you just ignore it, and then wonder why you aren't learning anything or your "questions" aren't getting answered - they are, you just don't like the answer, so you keep asking, pretending they haven't been answered.; January 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously - jumpin on my ... doesn't exactly prove that your NOT an evil duke troll now does it?

anyway - yes - i don't remember all legal specifics and have asked those again if i needed clarification and repeating of those - that is allowed you know - but don't jump on my ... again as I am a current witness to this case ... thanks

blah; January 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: There is one Stella Rose listed in Durham. Her age does not fit with the case. If Stella Rose existed and was, indeed, a part of Mr. Daye's life, and was present, as Mangum claimed, when the decanter was supposedly broken.....funny that she never mentioned it at any other time. And equally odd that the decanter was in many pieces in the living room and hallway where her children had been walking barefoot according to Mangum. but, hey, Kenny, your fantasy has to live on, right.....; January 20, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Your continual persecution of Ms. Mangum has to live on if you want to know how what you blog could be perceived by many. Kenny is just your tool to achieve those ends on this blog is another perception that many could agree with.; January 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: The decanter being broken isn't overly relevant - there was clearly a fight, so it could have gotten knocked over. The issue with the decanter was that Daye and his witnesses said that he didn't drink, but he had a decanter created specifically for liquor. Now, to be fair, those witnesses said it was decorative and not full, and there was no evidence the floor was wet, so there were limits, but it didn't help the argument that Daye never drank liquor when he had that.

But, it being broken "before" wasn't helpful either - because with kids around, why would you leave broken glass everywhere? And, remember, Crystal said Ms. Haynes (the neighbor) was lying when she said she heard Daye and Crystal yelling and fighting a lot since they lived together.

It was noted on the other thread, but most likely grounds for a new trial:
1. Proceeding while ME was undergoing criminal investigation.
2. Introducing Milton Walker evidence, either in total, or when it was done.
3. Excluding scene reconstruction demonstration/evidence.
4. Not excusing the juror and/or declaring a mistrial in the beginning with the "look out for Durham comments."

There would be some other ancillary ones, but those would seem to be the biggest issues - but the Appellate Counsel will certainly have their own ideas.

Each of those issues was preserved, so the Court of Appeals will get to weigh in on them and decide if they matter.; January 20, 2014 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: As for people trying to figure out the sentence if the appeal is unsuccessful ... North Carolina eliminated Parole a long time ago, so she would serve the 170 months minimum (14 years, 2 months). She would get credit for time served (about 2 years), but the minimum incarceration is 14 years 2 months, the maximum was the 16 or 17. She won't serve more than the max, but she can't serve less than the minimum. There is no mechanism for release after 8, 9, 10 or whatever years, absent a successful appeal.; January 20, 2014 at 1:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Break said: If Daye had begun to leave, Crystal was no longer in any danger"..... Let's use some common sense. Why would a drunken and enraged Daye be so fearful that he wanted to flee his own apartment. When he got off Crystal and started to flee why would she then go looking for a knife and chase him down. How do you explain all the knives and broken knives scattered around the apartment. The mattress was not picked up by a small, weak girl and used as a shield. As knives were thrown at her and she couched by the bed, she picked up the end of the mattress to shield herself. A deceased Daye could not be cross-examined on his statements. What if he was lying and his version was self serving to mitigate his culpability. Reasonable doubt should then come into play; January 20, 2014 at 4:57 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny whines: Let's use some common sense. Why would a drunken and enraged Daye be so fearful that he wanted to flee his own apartment.

Kenny, stop being disingenuous. I never said that I concluded that Daye was "fearful." I said that he he began to leave.

Let me offer two suggestions to both you and Sidney.

1. Stop treating all of those who disagree with you as uninformed assholes.

You have said all this before, and I did not find it convincing. Repeating it will be no more convincing. I told you the evidence I found most compelling was the blood in the hallway. I do not find her "mistake" to be trivial.

2. Do not make outrageous and unsupported claims if you want people to take you seriously.

Your mystery rapist theory eliminates any credibility you might have had in convincing me that Crystal should be given the benefit of the doubt when her statements are contradicted by evidence. You have demonstrated the willingness to say anything--no matter how ridiculous--in order to avoid the obvious conclusion.; January 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Daye began to leave; why? The location of blood spatter does not always coincide with the exact spot the penetration occurred at, especially in a clothed individual and in a fluid situation. You are no more objective then I am and I have a rationale for my bias. I know Crystal you neither know her or Daye. You accept the entirety of Daye's statement based on where blood spatter was found un-vetted by blood spatter experts. This causes you to dismiss all doubt that Daye may have been telling self-serving lies to the investigator. You concede that Daye attacked and assaulted Crystal but you can't accept that she may defended herself against this aggressor and instead cling to his outrageous and unsupported claim that he was feeing from her. Remember she fled him into a locked bathroom which he proceeded to kick in. Perhaps Meier didn't raise reasonable doubt with the jury but I'm sure other then being reluctant to admit to a possibility that any other opinion but your own, you, deep down, recognize that in this case the jury got it wrong because there was reasonable doubt; more so then in many other recent cases; January 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal ... You can continue to cling to your opinion about where/how the stabbing took place, but the jury clearly disagreed. Continuing to harp on that is meaningless. The Jury was presented with Daye's story about when/how the stabbing took place, and Crystal's, and they chose Daye's. It doesn't mean they got it right, but the Court of Appeals will not make a decision based on that, they won't overturn the jury decision on a question of fact when they had some evidence upon which to base their decision.

While you can believe what you want and believe the jury got it wrong, you can't keep of ignoring that the jury decided that issue conclusively and they decided Crystal wasn't credible

Hopefully she will get a new trial on other grounds but it won't be on the theory of self-defense. That was fully presented and argued and the jury found Daye's story more credible than Crystal's and the COA won't disrupt that. It will be re argued if the case comes back, but pretending that the jury didn't find that isn't helpful, especially since it was presented and argued.; January 20, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: The defense had no time to prepare a defense - and certainly did NOT present one - like Meier said - they were not ready for trial after only 2 months to prepare together for her defense.

What happens if you ask for a continuance because you have had no time to prepare for trial, the judge says no, so you just walk out, since you are not ready for trial?; January 21, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: The judge knew he had convicted Ms. Mangum as soon as he told her defense lawyer that he could not be afforded sufficient time to present a defense. Very convenient for the state prosecutors.; January 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: As it stands now, that is all this trial proved, that the judge did not give the defense time to prepare, the defense was not prepared and did not defend Ms. Mangum, the jury was corrupted by duke/durhamism before the trial was even presented against Ms. Mangum, there are discrepancies in the autopsy report as stated by the ME who was just fired so isn't credible to begin with, a key piece of evidence had to be demanded again by Ms. Mangum against her defense lawyer's wishes to the judge - showing clearly that the defense was NOT ready for trial - and then the judge STILL ignores that the defense is not ready - and expects Ms. Mangum to decide what to do with the key evidence of the second ME report before consulting with her defense lawyer - and then again after only one short lunch break before her actual defense presentation started to confer with her lawyer for legal advice and decide how to precede.

Other than that and the prosecution proving they were truly over board in charging her with larcency by choice to begin with since there were no witness to their absurd claims of her trying to exchange unexchangable cashier checks for money at 4:00 on a sunday morning to send her kids on a sunday school day field trip ... what kinda crap was that anyway?

... that and the prosecution had this real thang about some things and made themselves look like ridiculous schoolyard bullies while the unprepared defense attorney just watched on - still not ready to defend.; January 21, 2014 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: The defense was prepared. As has been noted here, repeatedly, just because they didn't buy into Sid's claims (remember, they had an expert examine them, and would have interviewed the Duke doctors and the ME prior to trial) doesn't mean they weren't prepared. It means they understood the law and that was that whether or not Crystal intended to kill Daye (and there was a lot of evidence she didn't, and since the Jury did not find first degree they seem to agree she didn't intend to kill him), but she stabbed him and that stab wound started a chain of events that led to his death, and was therefore a proximate cause unless there was an independent intervening act, and malpractice is not that no matter how many times DR Harr ignores the law.

The real key was self-defense or not and that was fully litigated and evaluated by the jury, and they chose to believe Daye's version, not Crystal's. Why they chose second over manslaughter is something only they can answer but probably had a lot to do with her testimony and Milton Walker.

But just because the defense isn't buying what Sid is selling doesn't mean they weren't prepared. Sid ignores the law (either intentionally or not), and continues to cling to his theory that every lawyer and the defense experts fully investigated and discounted.

Yes, there were discrepancies, but Sid insists it is the autopsy report not the operative report that is wrong. Why is he so sure Duke was right in that 1 area only? And because he can't comprehend an explanation, he refuses to believe one exists. And, he still refuses to acknowledge that even if it were DTs and malpractice, because Cryatal put him in the hospital, she'd still be liable for the consequences (namely the death) the question would be manslaughter v murder unless she could show self defense.; January 21, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Meier said he wasn't prepared when he asked the judge to continue the case so that he could have time to prepare a case to defend his client.

Everything about what the defense did proved he was not lying to the judge when he said he needed more time to prepare.; January 21, 2014 at 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum will not win on appeal. She will serve her time.; January 21, 2014 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: He said that in relation to the ME - couldn't prepare with an active criminal investigation going on. Not the entire trial.; January 21, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: I'd have to listen to it again.

If that is all he referred to - than he wasn't prepared to admit that he wasn't prepared - since he wasn't - unless he needed no time to prepare to lose the case for Ms. Mangum that is - since he did - because he obviously wasn't prepared for the trial in anyway to present a defense. What a joke.; January 21, 2014 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Other than Sid's theories which every attorney and expert has rejected, what defenses weren't presented?; January 21, 2014 at 8:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 11:22 said: " You can continue to cling to your opinion about where/how the stabbing took place, but the jury clearly disagreed. Continuing to harp on that is meaningless" .......No, what I cling to is the opinion that exactly where, in space, within that small apartment, during a violent struggle,that the stabbing took place is totally irrelevant. It's a red-herring introduced only to discredit Crystal because common sense and Daye's own admissions suggest that he, in a jealous rage, violently attacked her and she, fearing for her life, had every right to defend herself. It's only reasonable and so there is reasonable doubt. The Jury got it wrong and if that isn't enough to win an appeal then hopefully the errors in law that were also present will. Any good experienced Criminal Lawyer should be able to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of any fair jury that Crystal could have acted in self-defence.; January 21, 2014 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you watch the closing arguments? What would you have argued differently to convince the jury to see it that way? The jury had evidence they could use to say it wasn't self-defense (Daye), and that it was (Crystal, and a lot of Daye). They chose Daye, a Court of Appeals would not overturn that.

No one disputes Daye attacked Crystal, and she tried to get away by going into a locked door (Daye thought she was calling for help, Crystal denied that). He kicked it in and continued the fight. That was undisputed. What happened next was in dispute, and you say there is no way Daye could have been right, that he let her go, and she ran into the kitchen to get the knife?; January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: It wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt about what happened after he attacked her so there was no way to convict her of murder and not self-defense since he had just attacked her, and obviously, in her state of mind after being attacked so violently, the only credible evidence points to the fact she was in defense mode (not 2nd degree murder mode).

That's all.; January 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Obviously the jury disagreed.; January 21, 2014 at 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: If all the cops had CIT training and were required to abide by non-violent methods of crisis intervention (that didn't base it's theories on the pharma & co., etc., but solid scientific knowledge and understanding of the human species and nature), the USA would be safer from terror than all the billions of dollars that the war mongering government has spent on the war on terror (in one month probably).; January 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny whines: No, what I cling to is the opinion that exactly where, in space, within that small apartment, during a violent struggle,that the stabbing took place is totally irrelevant.

No, Kenny. The jury disagreed. They apparently found it quite relevant.

Your opinion is totally irrelevant. The failure of the jury to believe Crystal will not be the basis of an appeal.

Anyone who has concluded that Crystal was raped at the lacrosse party by mystery rapists deserves to be ignored. You make this ridiculous claim on the basis of her accusation that she was raped and the failure of the DPD to investigate the DNA that matched none of the players.

I will listen to your review of evidence. I find your opinions and theories to be worthless.; January 21, 2014 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: So obviously, if cops need CIT knowledge of the human species and nature of behavior when a human in a defensive state of mind and possibly burdened with illnesses that some, like veterans and other cops and emergency workers, may suffer from in the course of their lifetimes and job duties, the jury probably would not have that store of knowledge and information to understand Ms. Mangum's state of mind at the time to make a qualified judgement on whether self defense or the criteria it would take to make the self defensive stab wound amount to a 2nd degree murder charge existed or not since:

the expert witness that the defense presented at trial was denied testimony and the ability to assist in the defense of Ms. Mangum by the sharing of the understanding that the jury would be required to know and understand before making a qualified judgement of the matters of judging Ms. Mangums state of mind at the time of the attack because the prosecution insisted and the judge agreed that the expert witness presented was not professionally medically qualified to present that infromation at trial as an expert witness.

The defense did not have time to obtain an expert witness with a medical degree and experience that the prosecution insisted upon.

Funny thing is - those expert witnesses are obtained and trained at or by duke in many instances - so there is absolutely NO excuse for duke to not understand the nature of those situations and situational type illnesses (unless of course they are not paying attention to the safety of the public by insuring their own emergency workers, cops, doctors, nurses, etc., etc., are all well trained and mental health monitored for the protection of the public in those type matters on their properties, etc. at all times).; January 21, 2014 at 12:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Break said: "No, Kenny. The jury disagreed. They apparently found it quite relevant".......I know your opinion and mine doesn't matter but can you honestly tell us if you believe because of where the blood spatter was found there was no reasonable doubt at all that Crystal may of acted in self-defence.; January 21, 2014 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

Break said: "No, Kenny. The jury disagreed. They apparently found it quite relevant".......I know your opinion and mine doesn't matter but can you honestly tell us if you believe because of where the blood spatter was found there was no reasonable doubt at all that Crystal may of acted in self-defence.

A sarcastic man is a bitter man.; January 21, 2014 at 4:51 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny,

Based on what I have heard, I do not believe reasonable doubt exists that Crystal acted in self-defense. I place significant weight on the blood spatter in the hallway in rejecting Crystal's statement as false and self-serving. Reasonable doubt is a lower standard than the metaphysical certainty you require asymmetrically in your analysis.

I did not follow the trial closely. Evidence of which I am not aware could change my opinion. However, the jury had access to everything entered into evidence. I have heard nothing to second guess their decision. Your theories are insufficient to create reasonable doubt.

I told you I would respond to additional evidence. You have ignored that request. I take your failure to honor my request as either (a) you have no evidence or (b) you do not really want to convince anyone.

I indicated earlier why I do not value your opinion. Because you have not responded, I trust you understand.; January 21, 2014 at 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously?

get real

this is a real trial - you do know that - and it isn't over yet

watch the trial on you tube if you want to argue about what the jury did or didn't do

nothing more should be said here - there i'll say it for the lawyer that Ms. Mangum may or may not have

what bs; January 21, 2014 at 7:14 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Any good experienced Criminal Lawyer should be able to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of any fair jury that Crystal could have acted in self-defence."

Not when your client gets on the stand and give so many inconsistent statements that nothing she says is credible.

Walt-in-Durham; January 21, 2014 at 7:28 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:06 AM wrote: "Other than Sid's theories which every attorney and expert has rejected, what defenses weren't presented?"

At this point, defenses, presented or not are not material.

The appeal will turn on three issues;

(1) the 404(b) evidence,
(2) juror misconduct, and
(3) defense time to prepare.

(1) Meier did a good job objecting to the 404(b) evidence from Milton Walker. Personally, and as a one time criminal defense lawyer, I really do not like 404(b) evidence. It always puts the defendant on trial for another crime, not the one(s) charged. That said, the Judge's ruling was not out line with NC case law. I get it that Crystal has been out of control for a long time and escalating. But, I really don't think the state needed to prove common scheme or plan to convict her. However, I expect Walker's testimony to be "harmless error."

(2) If I had been presiding, I would have tossed the juror who made the comments before deliberation. But, in NC and most states, Judges have wide latitude in how to handle juror misconduct. The Judge's admonition will probably be sufficient for the Court of Appeals.

(3) Crystal claiming she did not have sufficient time to prepare is akin to someone killing their parents and then asking the court for mercy because they are an orphan. She caused a host of delays. She filed frivolous motions. She refused to cooperate with numerous attorneys leading to their withdrawal. Delay was the only consistent defense she offered through the entire case. I don't see the COA deciding to make law with this set of facts.

Walt-in-Durham; January 21, 2014 at 7:44 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 640 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Duke University: Successful, but devoid of a soul

640 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me