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

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Duke University: Successful, but devoid of a soul

640 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 640 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: The fact that Mr. Meier had only two months to prepare was NOT Ms. Mangum's fault in any way what-so-ever.; January 21, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...: You know that about Mr. Meier and his two month issue Walt, why do you try to ignore it by placing such non understanding blame on Ms. Mangum like you do? She didn't have to just sit there in jail and not get any defense actions done on her behalf from her attorneys and not complain about it did she in order to win your favor? Seriously, what gives?; January 21, 2014 at 8:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " Delay was the only consistent defense she offered through the entire case"......... Don't be ridiculous Walt. Vann and Shella did absolutely nothing for Crystal, leaving her to rot in gaol for months. It took weekly begging on her part to even get either of them to come and visit her and hoping perhaps get her bail reduced to something her friends and family could afford so she could see her children. She objected strongly to Holmes leaving. It was the State of North Carolina, notorious for not giving an accused a speedy trial that caused all the delay. The deck is really stacked against indigent defendants because the Lawyers assigned to their cases unethically see it as a necessary nuisance and one that costs their business money and takes their time away from more lucrative work for their wealthy clients.; January 21, 2014 at 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

Walt said: " Delay was the only consistent defense she offered through the entire case"......... Don't be ridiculous Walt. Vann and Shella did absolutely nothing for Crystal, leaving her to rot in gaol for months. It took weekly begging on her part to even get either of them to come and visit her and hoping perhaps get her bail reduced to something her friends and family could afford so she could see her children. She objected strongly to Holmes leaving. It was the State of North Carolina, notorious for not giving an accused a speedy trial that caused all the delay. The deck is really stacked against indigent defendants because the Lawyers assigned to their cases unethically see it as a necessary nuisance and one that costs their business money and takes their time away from more lucrative work for their wealthy clients.

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 22, 2014 at 4:45 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Don't be ridiculous Walt."

Insults are really all you add to this blog.

Walt-in-Durham; January 22, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Not true, Walt. Some of Ken Edwards' posts are comical....like a Grade B sci-fi from the 50s. Remember "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"? Or, the "Giant Praying Mantis"? That's Edwards. No substance, devoid of facts, full of inconsistentcy, but funny as hell.; January 22, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: oops, my bad.....inconsistency!!!; January 22, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, I assume the Court would know that Mangum (and, of course, her worst enemy, sidney) created scenarios that made both Vann and Shella walk. Holmes had no choice in the matter and the judge acted properly, within the law, to allow Holmes to withdraw. I recall that lawyer Jones, a couple of years ago, also quit one of her other cases because of Mangum/sidney inappropriate behavior. Also recall that Mangum got her wish and became her own counsel...over the strong advice from the judge NOT to do so....and that nonsense caused further delay. All she had was the "stall" defense.....

Could Mangum claim that it was impossible for her to receive a fair trial in durham and get a new trial on that basis? I doubt it, but just wondering.

I thought Mangum herself, with her testimony, assured herself of murder II. Over and over she made statements that punched holes in the self defense notion...big enough to drive a truck through. Either believe her version....or believe that countless people were lying....including neighbors who didn't even know Mangum. Mangum's lies kept tripping her up and, by the end of her stint on the stand, it was pathetic. I think the prosecutor just stood there and let Mangum put on her show....; January 22, 2014 at 8:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Insults are really all you add to this blog" ... The odd time I have made mildly insulting statements such as "don't be ridiculous" pale beside the scores of insults hurled at me by a majority of poster, including yourself and many others who are not anonymous, on virtually every thread. Check it out. As usual a double standard is applied to me and the very few who don't buy the Crystal Mangum orthodoxy; January 22, 2014 at 9:41 AM
guiowen said...: "SA sarcastic man is a wounded man."; January 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: So basically Duke wanted a false flag to assist Obama in his 'care' of the USA, etc.

They needed to capatilize on the civil rights movement agenda in order to gain the votes needed for obama to be elected, so they had to choose victims in their false flag event that would net the most attention for their get Obama elected efforts.

The civil rights agenda that they most needed to focus on at the time due to the election process was to motivate persons of color to vote for Preseident Obama by drawing out the rage of the civil rights movement to initiate the action needed to illicit votes for President Obama. This turned out to be Ms. Mangum as primary victim, and the most white on black or black on white argument and support that they could muster and control in the form of the Duke LacrosseTteam case. They had and continue to develop the assistance of the Euke / Durham / NC / USA justice system to enable, push, and promote their schemes, at the expense of the USA and the world.

In addition, they also needed to practice taking control of a medical system to be able to start doing so to the entire nation, so the NC mental health system was unmercifully corrupted and turned on its head to shake out all the sick onto the streets and into the privatized prison system and research laden corrupted remains of what was once a mental health system, and to gain control of society and the governments money for the people by the people by placing an enourmous foothold into the NC health system ... one that got stuck at the heel ... and is corrupted as hell.

Knowing this as many and most do in NC as they slowly 'wake up' ... Duke / Durham continues with the charade in this case ... thinking people are that much of sheeple to go along ...

so ... what is it going to be:

blah or baaa?; January 22, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow ... While I suspect it had a long time ago, this blog has now clearly jumped the shark.; January 22, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: so i take it that's one baaa for the record?; January 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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

Walt, I am in total agreement with you about tossing the juror. Without a doubt he should've done that. What's worse is that Mangum's attorney did not fight to have him dismissed. The alternate juror who reported his misconduct would've made an excellent replacement.; January 22, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:46AM wrote: "Walt, I assume the Court would know that Mangum (and, of course, her worst enemy, sidney) created scenarios that made both Vann and Shella walk."

Unless she completely misrepresents the trial court's record when she files it, the COA will be fully informed. The withdrawal motions are replete with those facts.

"Also recall that Mangum got her wish and became her own counsel...over the strong advice from the judge NOT to do so....and that nonsense caused further delay. All she had was the "stall" defense....."

Your recall is concurrent with the record. Remember, Crystal is appealing, so she gets to file the first record. If the State does not think the record is complete, they can try to get Crystal to correct the record, if she refuses, there are steps the State can take to make the record reflect the reality.

"Could Mangum claim that it was impossible for her to receive a fair trial in durham and get a new trial on that basis? I doubt it, but just wondering."

The way to perfect that claim is to file a motion for change of venue from the county for cause. The usual result of a change of venue motion is for the Superior Court to deny it, but allow the defense more latitude in voir dire to see if potential jurors can put aside any prejudices the defense thinks they have. If a jury cannot be found in the couty where the offense took place, then the Superior Court would change venue to another county.

You will recall that there was no problem getting jurors who were willing to give Crystal a fair trial. I don't think the fair trial issue was preserved for appeal. Further, I don't think there is any evidence to support the notion that she could not get a fair trial. On both counts, no I don't think ability to get a fair trial will figure in the appeal.

Walt-in-Durham; January 22, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Walt said: " Delay was the only consistent defense she offered through the entire case"......... Don't be ridiculous Walt. Vann and Shella did absolutely nothing for Crystal, leaving her to rot in gaol for months. It took weekly begging on her part to even get either of them to come and visit her and hoping perhaps get her bail reduced to something her friends and family could afford so she could see her children. She objected strongly to Holmes leaving. It was the State of North Carolina, notorious for not giving an accused a speedy trial that caused all the delay. The deck is really stacked against indigent defendants because the Lawyers assigned to their cases unethically see it as a necessary nuisance and one that costs their business money and takes their time away from more lucrative work for their wealthy clients.

kenhyderal, you are absolutely correct with regards to delays in the trial and that Meier did not have sufficient time to prepare. However, since he was out to sabotage Mangum's case from the start, it wouldn't have made any difference how much time he had.

At least for the appearance of fairness, Judge Ridgeway should've allowed Mangum's defense more time to prepare.; January 22, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

You are correct... Meier should've been given more time to prepare, however, even if he had many months more to prepare his defense would've been just as pitiful because it was his first priority to protect Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. He purposely sold Mangum down the tubes... just as I predicted any defense attorney for Mangum would do. That is why I tried to have the Courts allow me the opportunity to represent her. But, even had they, it is still more likely than not that Mangum would've rejected my offer to represent her.; January 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: It is telling that the main lawyer contributing his advice to this blog and its viewers is also so caustic in his analysis of Ms. Mangum; supporting in every way Duke, the lawyers, and the Duke / Durham justice system, etc., against any and every obvious complaint that there is to be made in support or defense of Ms. Mangum (and the safety of the people against a far greater harm this case actually deals with than Ms. Mangum's own personal fight against the illnesses of the society she suffers from that is based on a system that willingly and maliciously entraps her and all like her); namely in the form of one of the main contributors to the manipulation of that same system that entraps and enslaves society to their illnesses and exploitation for their own personal gain (Duke, et. al).; January 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

The stab wound did not start a chain of events that led to Daye's death... the esophageal intubation did. It was the direct cause of Daye's brain death... not a complication of the stab wound, such as an infection as was hinted at by Dr. Nichols and Meier.

Also, why is it that the only photographs Nichols took were of the left lung... despite the fact that the chest cavity was not even explored during the surgery? Nichols had the opportunity to back up his so-called findings but he never took any photos of the organs which were supposedly perforated and sutured. Why?; January 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Wow ... While I suspect it had a long time ago, this blog has now clearly jumped the shark.

I have never heard the phrase "jumped the shark." It does not compute. An interpretation would be required and appreciated.; January 22, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

An excellent summation regarding Mangum's trial... outstanding!; January 22, 2014 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:

"It is telling that the main lawyer contributing his advice to this blog and its viewers is also so caustic in his analysis of Ms. Mangum"

That is because he is tethered to the real world, where the law and facts apply.; January 22, 2014 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I like your decision to sell advertising. Are you going to use the proceeds to pay for a lawyer and experts for Mangum's appeal?; January 22, 2014 at 2:05 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "I have never heard the phrase "jumped the shark." It does not compute. An interpretation would be required and appreciated."

Sid -- You may recall years ago an episode of the show "Happy Days", where the Fonzie character jumped several sharks while on water skis.

This episode was created after viewership for the show had started to drop and was interpreted by many as an outrageous story line created simply to win back viewers.

As such, anything said to have "jumped the shark" is identified as having reached that moment in evolution when it has begun to decline in quality, and the creator uses some type of "gimmick" in an attempt to keep people interested.; January 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "An excellent summation regarding Mangum's trial... outstanding!"

Well....Consider it reads like one of your legal documents ("Larceny by choice"? Really? ), I'm not surprised your would consider this "outstanding".; January 22, 2014 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, the State overcharged with the Larceny of a Chose in Action (not a choice), and even they abandoned it - but it's funny that Sid still claims it was done for Felony Murder, which again shows his lack of ability to grasp reality, since simple felony larceny isn't enough for that.

As to Sid calling everyone turncoats - there is 1 person who has repeatedly ignored the law, and been warned by everyone that his actions were doing NOTHING to help Mangum, and were in fact hurting her, but he kept on going ...

Oh, and for all you anti-Duke conspiracy theorists - you ignore that Sid is relying on the inerrency of the medical records and operative reports (prepared by Duke) to attack the ME - if Duke is so bad and evil, how can he be so sure it wasn't the Duke records that were wrong?

The only turncoat Mangum has had to fight to overcome is the one who runs this blog and continues his efforts to sabotage her case and appeal.; January 22, 2014 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually, i am not sure he died that way at duke hands, he could've been killed by them another way, and that's what they came up with to explain his brain death and need to remove life support - so ultimate death. That's what I have said here before about it - so your accusations are false and contrived.

Prove that it wasn't a false flag event. You couldn't do that if you tried and everything points to the fact that it was.; January 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Prove it wasn't a "false flag"? Seriously? Prove you aren't a russian spy trying to take down the US from within, and attacking Duke simply to destroy our healthcare system. You can't.; January 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: That makes no sense, but this does (in the realm of even being a plausible accusation to begin with): you prove that you're not trying to destroy the health system by supporting duke.; January 22, 2014 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:34/4:51: Prove that you didn't kill Daye to blame it on Duke. Prove that you didn't think that Mangum would be freed (not understanding the law regarding malpractice).

Admit you are a murderer and free Mangum now!; January 22, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: it would be harder for you to prove you didn't kill him than it would be for me to ... i can assure you; January 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: As far as jumping shark accusations - nope - wrong again

just because someone states a concise and to the point account of events that are some of the many points of continuous discussion on this blog - doesn't classify as shark jumping - just obvious statement making - and a vote on the blahness and baaaness of it all - that's all.; January 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The shark jumping is making the same points over and over again, despite them being repeatedly debunked and explained, and just ignoring those explanations and reasons because they aren't liked.

Either everyone else involved in this case (including Mangum herself who told Sid he was wrong) are corrupt and wrong, or Sid is wrong. The fact Sid keeps persisting in the face if all evidence (and Crystal's own request) shows that he is either totally delusional or really does want to keep hurting Crystal's case more than he already has.; January 23, 2014 at 4:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

I like your decision to sell advertising. Are you going to use the proceeds to pay for a lawyer and experts for Mangum's appeal?

Actually, I give advertising free to services I believe benefit all or most Tar Heelians.

As far as Mangum's appeal goes, money for attorneys and experts is a waste. It certainly didn't do any good during the original trial.

I am hoping that my lawsuit against the State will help Mangum get released and her conviction overturned.; January 23, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"I have never heard the phrase "jumped the shark." It does not compute. An interpretation would be required and appreciated."

Sid -- You may recall years ago an episode of the show "Happy Days", where the Fonzie character jumped several sharks while on water skis.

This episode was created after viewership for the show had started to drop and was interpreted by many as an outrageous story line created simply to win back viewers.

As such, anything said to have "jumped the shark" is identified as having reached that moment in evolution when it has begun to decline in quality, and the creator uses some type of "gimmick" in an attempt to keep people interested.

Hey, Lance. Thank you for the very informative elucidation regarding the term. Actually, I wasn't much of a "Happy Days" fan to begin with... "The Patty Duke Show" was more to my liking.; January 23, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"An excellent summation regarding Mangum's trial... outstanding!"

Well....Consider it reads like one of your legal documents ("Larceny by choice"? Really? ), I'm not surprised your would consider this "outstanding".

Hey, Lance... you're being too picky. "Larceny by choice" is nothing more than a shortened version of "Larceny of chose in action."; January 23, 2014 at 7:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Yes, the State overcharged with the Larceny of a Chose in Action (not a choice), and even they abandoned it - but it's funny that Sid still claims it was done for Felony Murder, which again shows his lack of ability to grasp reality, since simple felony larceny isn't enough for that.

As to Sid calling everyone turncoats - there is 1 person who has repeatedly ignored the law, and been warned by everyone that his actions were doing NOTHING to help Mangum, and were in fact hurting her, but he kept on going ...

Oh, and for all you anti-Duke conspiracy theorists - you ignore that Sid is relying on the inerrency of the medical records and operative reports (prepared by Duke) to attack the ME - if Duke is so bad and evil, how can he be so sure it wasn't the Duke records that were wrong?

The only turncoat Mangum has had to fight to overcome is the one who runs this blog and continues his efforts to sabotage her case and appeal.

In order to file a first degree murder charge against Mangum, prosecutors used the "felony murder rule" which allows for a first degree charge when death results during the commission of a felony crime. Larceny of chose in action is an automatic Class H felony regardless of the amount involved... for example a regular larceny charge would not be acceptable as the cashier's checks only amounted to $700... a misdemeanor amount.

Also, if prosecutors were serious about a larceny charge they would've filed it against her within days of her arrest, if not on the day of her arrest. Instead, they wait two weeks at the time they indict Mangum with murder.

With regards to turncoats, that is unfortunately the way of life in the justice system... many defense attorneys sell out their clients to help the prosecution. This is not unique to Mangum... but it definitely did happen to her... she was sold out by her attorneys big time.

I, on the other hand, am the one person who is fighting on her behalf. That is the reality.; January 23, 2014 at 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Well then the only shark jumping would be if he didn't do that (if that is what he is always doing).

It has to be something totally different to draw in the crowds per the meaning of shark jumping that was described.

Like a false flag event - like the lacrosse case - it has to be something totally outrageous to get attention - like a kid named Jesus blowing his head off through the front of his face while his gloved hands are cuffed behind his back - hudini style - around Christmas - something like that. (maybe Easter would have been more different of a time to call attention to Jesus killing himself in a DPD squad car and the police station, or would that have simply been too fitting and therefore NOT really considered a shark jump?); January 23, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The shark jumping is making the same points over and over again, despite them being repeatedly debunked and explained, and just ignoring those explanations and reasons because they aren't liked.

Either everyone else involved in this case (including Mangum herself who told Sid he was wrong) are corrupt and wrong, or Sid is wrong. The fact Sid keeps persisting in the face if all evidence (and Crystal's own request) shows that he is either totally delusional or really does want to keep hurting Crystal's case more than he already has.

All I can tell you is to watch for my next flog, which I will begin writing today. Hopefully it will be ready to post within a week. It will be eye-opening and make believers of even the most ardent naysayers. Elucidation on a grand scale is on the horizon.; January 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: You are completely wrong on the felony murder, which has been explained to you, felony murder was not charged, was not instructed or ever an option. Not all felonies are eligible, and a class H fellony larceny is not. But you can't admit you are wrong. And your next flog will only repeat your claims about Duke and Nichols, which were investigated by Dr Roberts and others (as Crystal herself told you), and the explanations satisfied her and everyone else to the issues, except you. You keep repeating the same completely debunked theories because you haven't seen the results of the investigations and outcomes of them, you pretend they must not exist.; January 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.ncfelonymurder.org/The%20Law/TheLaw.html

The fellony would have to be perpetrated with a sadly weapon and the state always conceded the checks were taken earlier, it was just simple larceny and this not eligible for felony murder.

The fact you can't understand something that basic, in black letter law, makes your other conclusions suspect. N C G S 14-17. If the state were pursuing felony murder there would have been an instruction.; January 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Since the duke/durham justice system is trying to keep the ME and Duke medical reports issue out of the public eye - they must consider it to be a shark jump (at least in the minds of the public, etc. that they do not want), right?

If that shark jump benefited them in any way, would they be more willing to allow its reality to be entered into the court case so that the actual cause of Mr. Daye's death can be determined before anyone is charged for the murder (since the ME report is in question that states the cause of death that they based the initial charges on)?

Or do they realize that the shark jump would be if they actually held the ME and Duke accountable, regardless of what Duke did or didn't do to be held accountable, since it is common knowledge that they normally do not hold Duke accountable?

Is it a shark jump that Ms. Mangum cannot obtain a lawyer to assist her against Duke? Doesn't seem to be does it. The shark jump would be if a lawyer actually assisted her in a fair and equal trial in the duke/durham justice system, right?; January 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: So much delusion and cluelessness on this board. Everything you say has been addressed, but you refuse to acknowledge it.; January 23, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The "system" knows Sid is wrong, everyone but Sid and a few delusional folks here do. They have no obligation to respond to his feckless claims, and he's made it clear it wouldn't stop him, so why do you expect them to waste time responding? Despite your belief, Duke could care less about Crystal or this case. And if you have nothing to hide, why not regal your name - stop hiding behind anonymous - and start posting proof of all these harms you claim duke is responsible for, beyond your vague accusations?; January 23, 2014 at 8:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: ANONYMOUS @ 8:37 said: " -stop hiding behind anonymous-"......... Huh????; January 23, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Is there a real reason to?

Seems noone really gives a hoot here what duke does or doesn't do that causes harm - and truly - if i personally had a problem with duke - they would know it first hand from me.

I cannot make claims for the others I have read about in the media who have been harmed, (not without a lawyer to represent them).

If you are so interested in what they do to harm people, then read the papers and stop asking me. That's where I get my info. We've been through this all before.; January 23, 2014 at 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: I have no doubt Duke does "harm" - but like any entity that harms people, they also often get sued and have to pay money for their harms. There are lawyers and law firms who make a lot of money suing Duke and holding them accountable for mistakes, including the girl with the wrong blood-type organs, the hydraulic fluid issue, and pretty much any other case of malpractice - just like UNC, WakeMed, and other providers, or just like McDonald's and the rest. If the injured person brings a claim and can show negligence, they will recover. Duke is hardly immune from suit like you pretend.; January 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Not when it comes to cases like this one apparently, wouldn't you say?; January 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: You really have no idea if there actually was malpractice, and/or if there was if the Daye family sued, have you? You claim Duke got away with something, but you have no clue if they did.

Remember, despite Sid's repeated claims (which will again be made in his next flog), even if Daye was expected to fully recover, since he didn't, even if it was Duke malpractice, she'd still be criminally liable (if not self-defense), even if they'd also be civilly liable.

I have no idea if the Daye family reached a settlement - and if it wasn't malpractice, there wouldn't even be a settlement (not every mistake is malpractice); January 23, 2014 at 10:13 AM
guiowen said...: Remember, too, that in these cases, part of the settlement requires that the plaintiff (in this case the Daye family) keep silent about the case. So it's almost impossible to figure out what happened.; January 23, 2014 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: The cause of death is a key piece of evidence in this case, which is in dispute due to the discrepancies in the ME report in relation to the Duke's medical reports - which indicates intubation errors that caused brain death - and then ultimate death at duke (intubation errors are considered to be malpractice). THAT is what the evidence that is available shows - and is what is in dispute - since the cause of death is a key piece of evidence in any murder case, and therefore remains an item that casts reasonable doubt in the trial as to who and how and why Mr. Daye died. THATs all.

You do understand that, right?; January 23, 2014 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Even if Duke was negligent (a point which has not been established in any competent forum, or even raised by a person competent to do so), Duke's negligence in treating Daye does nt relieve Mangum from culpability for stabbing him. Daye died while being treated by DUMC for the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. If Mangum had not stabbed Daye, he would be alive today. Thus, Mangum is a proximate cause of his death, in spite of any other intervening causes.

To claim otherwise is like intentionally pushing someone off the sidewalk and into the middle of a busy street and then claiming you are innocent of his death because it was a car (and not you) that ultimately killed him. It doesn't work that way. Even if the car was speeding, and the driver was drunk and didn't have a license, you pushed the victim in the road and therefore have responsibility for his death.

This point has been iterated and reiterated ad nauseum. It is the law. It is obvious to people of ordinary intelligence and it is why no one involved in the case or the legal system, for that matter, takes Sid's theory seriously.; January 23, 2014 at 2:36 PM
A Lawyer said...: I am hoping that my lawsuit against the State will help Mangum get released and her conviction overturned.

You have no standing to sue on behalf of Crystal Mangum. And a federal court has no jurisdiction to interfere in a pending state-court criminal case. So you hope in vain.; January 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:36 PM wrote: "... Mangum is a proximate cause of his death, in spite of any other intervening causes.

To claim otherwise is like intentionally pushing someone off the sidewalk and into the middle of a busy street and then claiming you are innocent of his death because it was a car (and not you) that ultimately killed him. It doesn't work that way. Even if the car was speeding, and the driver was drunk and didn't have a license, you pushed the victim in the road and therefore have responsibility for his death.

This point has been iterated and reiterated ad nauseum. It is the law. It is obvious to people of ordinary intelligence and it is why no one involved in the case or the legal system, for that matter, takes Sid's theory seriously."

and A Lawyer wrote: "You have no standing to sue on behalf of Crystal Mangum. And a federal court has no jurisdiction to interfere in a pending state-court criminal case. So you hope in vain."

DING DING DING! Ladies and gentlemen we have two winners!

Walt-in-Durham; January 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: That's all great and dandy - but the ME autopsy discrepancies between the malpractice indicating medical reports are still a part of this case - AND - we the people don't have to stand for outright murder by doctors to frame another if that is what happened in this case (nor does Ms. Mangum and Mr.Daye's family).

Why do you think they do Walt?; January 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: we the people don't have to stand for outright murder by doctors...

That is correct. No one, including Walt, indicated otherwise.

why do you think they do Walt?

Walt never said this. You are either mistaken or you are a despicable liar.

I suggest that you take action to bring the perpetrators to justice. Go to the Durham Police and/or the Durham District Attorney with your allegations. Be prepared to provide specific evidence that Daye was murdered by doctors or other medical professionals at Duke. Evidence that Daye was incubated improperly is insufficient to prove murder. It may be insufficient to trigger an investigation. Be prepared to discuss a specific motivation for these unnamed murderers. Mangum's "role in the lacrosse case" is likely insufficient.

This is not the forum for airing these allegations. You need to stop talking and act.

I am certain that I speak for all posters on this blog, including Walt, that if doctors murdered Daye in order to frame Mangum for murder, we all want the murderers exposed, convicted and punished.

Proving murder will indeed set Mangum free.

Good luck.; January 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 3:38:
In order to carry this out, you might want some help from Kenhyderal. Perhaps you can persuade him to come to Durham and bring some money to hire good legal counsel. I've suggested for some time that he do this, but he refuses to take advice from me -- he considers me an enemy. Maybe he'll take advice from you.; January 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: why don't ya'll go do what you suggest?

???; January 23, 2014 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't have the evidence needed.; January 23, 2014 at 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: yes ... convenient, eh?; January 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: No. I just haven't seen any evidence that Daye was murdered at Duke. You apparently have it, but have been unwilling to share it.; January 23, 2014 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: You are uniquely qualified to raise these allegations. The rest of us cannot be nearly as persuasive as you in making the case that Duke murdered Daye, just as they murder others.; January 23, 2014 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do you continue to accuse me of the most ridiculous things repeatedly on this blog - i mean that's not even trolling per se - you are just outright continuously accusing me of all types of outrageous and obviously false things.

Why is that?; January 23, 2014 at 6:04 PM
guiowen said...: No one's accusing you of anything. We are merely encouraging you to do what you feel needs to be done.; January 23, 2014 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: i am not a lawyer

give me a list of lawyers who can work this case in durham with no conflict of interest in duke and with criminal murder defense skills, as well as the financial backing to defend in this case with the required medical expert witnesses, and a duke/durham justice system able to handle the case in a fair and equal manner ... then we'll see what can be done ...; January 23, 2014 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum had many lawyers without a Duke conflict of interest, she had an expert without a conflict. They refused to side with Sid. Rather than accept he's wrong, Sid and the syncophants claim they must be corrupt because they disagree with Sid and refuse to share their information and answers with him.

Sid is the corrupt one.; January 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry. I don't live in NC. I don't know any lawyers there. You may want to try Bob Eckstrand. He has represented a number of people who have used Duke. He is also a criminal lawyer.; January 23, 2014 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Sued Duke. Typo.; January 23, 2014 at 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: what do you mean when you say: used duke?

as patients, students, etc., what exactly are you referring to?; January 23, 2014 at 6:43 PM
guiowen said...: You might look for the lawyers who represented the three indicted lacrosse players against Duke. They got a hefty sum -- some people tell me that they received $20 million each.; January 23, 2014 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Look at the next comment. I corrected the typo.

Instead of "used" Duke I intended "sued" Duke.; January 23, 2014 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Was it duke students who used this lawyer that you are referring to when they sued in the lacrosse case?; January 23, 2014 at 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke students and others. He has represented a lot of people who sued Duke. The local papers have carried a lot of stories about the lawsuits.; January 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM
guiowen said...: I remember that the three players had Bob Ekstrand, Charles Cooper, and Bill Thomas as their attorneys. Try looking them up.; January 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem with Sid's analysis of the Mangum case is that he started with a conclusion - that Crystal had to be innocent - and then worked backwards from there to justify it. To do this he had to create contrary explanations for every piece of evidence and every fact that was not favorable to Crystal, regardless of how preposterous or far fetched those explanations were. Where he could not create contrary explanations he either ignored the facts and evidence, or he conveniently blamed it on a vast conspiracy. Sid believes that creating an alternate explanation for Mr. Daye's death that does not inculpate Mangum - regardless of how outrageous and implausible it is - constitutes reasonable doubt.

In order to accept the theory espoused by Sid and adopted by Ken you have to be deeply invested in Crystal Mangum's innocence - as a matter of dogma. You have to start witha deep and unwavering belief in her innocence and work backwards from their. As such, Sid has no interest in reaching the truth; he is simply trying to justify a conclusion he reached a long time ago.

That is why the efforts made by Walt and A Lawyer have no effect: reason will not persuade a person to change an opinion or position they arrived at w/o using reason. And that is why Sid and this blog are not serious.; January 23, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Or you could look at it objectively and see that the starting place is a valid autopsy report to determine valid cause and such of death - which is still in question - and is what Dr. Harr's concerns were and are since the beginning.; January 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous @ 2:36 For Welsh to apply there has to be, or at least should be, a direct and unbroken nexus between the event and the death. Justice and common sense would demand it. In your example there is. In the case of Daye a new and unrelated action, not directly traceable to his wound at the hand of Crystal, intervened. The action that sent him to hospital is not sufficient to invoke Welch. Walt loves to hang his hat on Welsh applying it far more broadly then the ruling was ever intended. The charge against Crystal, at most, should have been wounding with intent and she should have been found not guilty of that by reason of self-defence. Anybody who does not admit there is a reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self-defence betrays themselves as biased against her because of her temerity to claim she was sexually assaulted at a Duke Lacrosse Team party; January 23, 2014 at 8:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen, as usual, is contemptuous of those without means who seek justice.; January 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM
guiowen said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 23, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken:

When you plunge a knife into someone's body there are myriad possible negative outcomes (including, but not limited to, medical mistake or malpractice). When you choose to stab someone you are responsible for the outcome. Whatever you believe ultimately killed Mr. Daye, it started with a stab wound inflicted by Mangum.

The prosecution presented evidence that disproved Mangum's self defense claim. The jury, after considering the evidence, concluded she did not act in self defense. In other words, they found the self defense claim to be unreasonable - an opinion supported by the evidnec and also by the overwhelming majority of commenters on this blog. For reasons previously explained on this blog (and known to any second year law student), the appellate court will not disturb that finding.

The bottom line is that the claims advanced by Sid and seconded by you are not plausible. They are not supported by credible evidence. They are not grounded in reality. They aren't even persuasive. No one takes them seriously.

Walt, I think, has pointed out several possible grounds for appeal. I believe the chances of a successful appeal are slim, but there are grounds for one. However, in no world, other than this blog, are Crystal's self-defense claim or Sid's preposterous theory of an intervening, superseding cause (a theory he wouldn't dare advance outside the safety of this blog) a basis for overturning the verdict.

Even if Crystal's appeal succeeds, the case will be retried. There is no reason to think the outcome will be different.; January 23, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: The cause of death is not in dispute. It was NOT the knife wound, the State and the ME concede that. It was a different issue at the hospital, the hospital she was in because if the knife wound, hence legally it was a "complication from the knife wound" whether it was malpractice, an infection, or anything else non-intentional and "foreseeable" under our laws (and malpractice is). That's Welch, and that's our law, no matter how bad you want to believe otherwise. No actual lawyer (and no non-lawyer but Sid and a few others) think otherwise.

Had the surgeon accidentally left something inside Daye and it killed him - malpractice, Crystal still responsible. Had the surgeon missed damage they didn't repair (like to the lung) maybe malpractice, Crystal still responsible. Had the surgeon been sloppy and not noted all the organs damaged and repaired, and the ME been sloppy and not photographed them, but noted them - negligence, not fraud, and Crystal still responsible under our laws. Had they dropped Daye on the way to the OR and he suffered a fatal injury as a result - malpractice, Crystal still responsible.

The simple fact is that the stab wound started a chain of events that ultimately led to Daye's death, a chain that was not broken by an intentional intervening and superseding act (because, again, malpractice isn't one, even if you were expected to fully recover) so it's A proximate cause. Even if you believe the DTs, the only reason he was suffering DTs is the forced withdrawal in the hospital, because he was stabbed, and improper treatment is malpractice, and ... Well, you know the rest, but will continue to ignore it.

You refuse to acknowledge that Sid doesn't have all the information and cling to the hope he's right. From the old parable about the blind men and the elephant, Sid is the one who grabbed the tail and swears it's a snake, and nothing anyone says will change his mind because he hasn't seen or felt the rest, but he's simply wrong because he doesn't have complete information. No matter how hard he argues it's a snake, no matter how many times he says it, it doesn't make it right, something he'd know if he has more information (which he doesn't have and isn't entitled to, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

The blog is a comical farce and the next flog will not enlighten anything as it will simply repeat the same old stuff he's been spouting all along and which everyone else (even the Defense expert, as Crystal herself told Sid) long ago investigated and debunked.; January 24, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Anonymous said...: whatever, the autopsy report is still not valid and there is no valid cause of death, etc. - and that IS what matters in this case

can't wait to read your next critique of a blog you could just as easily not frequent if you allowed yourself that opportunity of releif; January 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Clearly you can't be reasoned with. The only person saying the autopsy report is not valid is Sid, and that's because he believes, inexplicably, in the inerrancy of Duke. Because the autopsy report says things were done that Duke says weren't done (repairing certain organs) the report must be wrong, because, in Sid's eyes apparently, Duke cannot be wrong or mistaken.

And, remember, there was a Defense expert, who re-examined everything, and analyzed it, and did the work. Crystal told Sid that while she noted some errors, the ultimate conclusion of Dr Nichols was correct. So there has been outside review of everything, as Crystal herself acknowledged (and she's the one who would really care and be paying attention).

It just doesn't fit Sid's theory, so he keeps pursuing his claims in spite of that.

Face reality - Sid is keeping up his campaign for the sole purpose of harming Mangum. He denies it, but every one of his actions is to her detriment, and he knows it. He's been told (by Crystal herself) that Dr Roberts would not be helpful to her case, would in fact be harmful, yet Sid still wants this admittedly harmful report released ... And he claims to be helping Crystal?; January 24, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously

and duke thinks its patients are going to tolerate this bs about the ME reports and their medical reports, or that Ms. Mangum should sit in jail for the 14 + years because they are willing to go along with an oh well theory?

good one; January 24, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny @8:56:

You are the Google king. Cite the cases that Walt has ignored that limit the applicability of Welch as you describe. Until you have demonstrated that Walt is incorrect because he avoided cases with a contrary conclusion, your opinion is worthless.

Cases, Kenny, cases.; January 24, 2014 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: that is so weird because you insist on all this random 'proof' on this blog that means nothing, but you don't mind that the specific proof in autopsy and duke medical reports that is absent for a trial that is used to incarcerate someone is inconsequential

why is that?; January 24, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Because, as has been repeatedly stated, only Sid assumes that those questions weren't answered, because the answers weren't communicated to him (and of course you believe Sid). Again, Sid has the tail and swears it is a snake, everyone else knows it's an elephant, so when Sid keeps wanting to put it in a glass aquarium, they ignore him and get a big pen. They aren't wrong just because Sid insists they are.

If the explanations were not helpful to Mangum, they wouldn't be used. As Crystal herself said, the explanations and reviews weren't helpful to her (Dr. Roberts), so they weren't used. It's really not that complicated, unless you are so blinded by incoherent Duke rage you can't see it.

Duke was NOT on trial here, it's funny you still pretend they were, and the jury was well aware that the knife should not have been fatal, they followed the law on proximate cause.; January 24, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: duke has many patients who see that the autopsy report and the medical reports are a very big issue in this case; January 24, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Just because you are interested in the explanation doesn't mean you are entitled to the explanation, and all evidence here (but Sid's rantings) is that the explanation wouldn't be helpful to Mangum, so why should she have presented it in her trial to her detriment? Because you and Sid are interested? The trial was about her, not you, not Sid, not Duke. Sad that you think she should have hurt herself for your morbid curiosity. I guess this blog is about Justice for Nifong, not Mangum, I just didn't think you would be so explicit.; January 24, 2014 at 6:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually, this blog is about Attention for Sid. Nifong, Mangum and Duke are merely vehicles. I doubt Nifong and Duke care, but Mangum had serious criminal charges against her and she has a history of mental health issues. Shame on Sid for exploiting her.

The underlying problem is that Sid has allowed himself to be completely consumed by his Nifong crusade. His crusade depends, in part, on maintaining the illusion that Mangum is a pristine character who Nifong was bravely standing up for. To maintain that facade, Sid has to explain away the Daye charges in a way that leaves Crystal's purity and innocence intact.

The superseding intervening cause, the self defense claim and, of course, the massive conspiracy to explain away the failure of proof and other gaps in his theory were concocted for this purpose. So consumed was Sid that he did not bother to consider the collateral damage his crusade might inflict on Crystal.; January 24, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Well said.; January 24, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:27 AM wrote: "So consumed was Sid that he did not bother to consider the collateral damage his crusade might inflict on Crystal."

DING DING DING Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham; January 24, 2014 at 8:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " malpractice, Crystal still responsible".....Initially, perhaps but ultimately not for murder.; January 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: What kinda of self-serving dissing dribble is that?

You try willingly letting Duke intubate someone after this - have them die - and then have to come back to this case to get evidence of Duke's neglect in not fixing an apparent intubation issue or other malpractice issues that they may or may not have, that they also prefer to blame on others or coverup, etc.. The same goes for the ME reports. Or you have to make a decision about where to receive life saving health services based upon what Duke's involvement in this case reveals (or isn't dealt with to reveal the truth appropriately and professionally and legally).

It is criminal professional neglect to force the public to continually have to deal with duke's unprofessional behavior that is constantly displayed in the Mangum cases. THAT really bothers a lot of people who count on duke in more ways than a place to go to school and learn to be master politicians or whatever. ... ... ...

This case will not go away if these issues are not dealt with professionally by Duke for all.; January 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: The intubation was not covered up. It was in the medical records. What you refuse to acknowledge is that it does not matter in terms of the criminal charges against Mangum. When you stab someone you are responsible for the consequences that flow from that. One of the possible consequences is that the victim may receive less than perfect medical care and die as a result. That is why it is rarely a good idea to stab someone.

Stabbing someone is also a very bad way to defend yourself. A knife requires considerable strength to use effectively. It also requires you to be in close proximity to your attacker, where you risk being overpowered and having the knife turned against you. Also, unless you have medical training or are extremely lucky, it is hard to inflict a stab would that will immediately incapacitate your attacker. As anyone can tell you, a wounded animal is a dangerous one.

A person in true fear for their life would not, after being released buy their assailant, grab a knife and then pursue their attacker. A reasonable person would instead use the knife as a defensive weapon to hold the attacker at bay and use it only if the attacker came within arms reach. The fact that Crystal grabbed a knife after her scrum with Daye was over and then pursued Daye and stabbed him undermines her defense claim. I realize that Sid can create an alternate explanation, but to be effective, the explanation must be reasonable. Juries are free (indeed they are required to) disregard claims that are unreasonable.

Remember, the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond any possible doubt whatsoever." Doubt must be reasonable to result in an acquittal. That is where Sid fails.; January 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Well there certainly is reasonable doubt in what actually happened isn't there - but one thing is clear - he attacked her and she defended herself with a knife.

And there certainly is reasonable doubt about how and why and who actually killed Mr. Daye - and very clear indication that duke did not taking professional responsibility to insure that Mr. Daye did NOT die at their hands, especially since it was such a high profile criminal case (or in any case) - and that that is certainly THEIR responsibility by law and no one elses ... and there is DOUBT that goes beyond reason since everything about the records are in doubt, and there is no scale on the DOUBT, since that is all there is - DOUBT - so ... hey ...; January 24, 2014 at 10:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " The fact that Crystal grabbed a knife after her scrum with Daye was over and then pursued Daye and stabbed him undermines her defense claim".... That's the prosecution's theory. Just as reasonable is Crystal's claim that she stabbed him while he was on top of her and the angle of the wound supports her version. There is definitely reasonable doubt here.; January 24, 2014 at 10:29 AM
A Lawyer said...: kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: " malpractice, Crystal still responsible".....Initially, perhaps but ultimately not for murder.

That's not the law, as Walt has shown you repeatedly. Your legal authority for that remark is...?; January 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: why are you arguing this if this case is so reasonable and there is no doubt?; January 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous at 10:14 AM:

That is a question for Sid and Ken.; January 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: ?

???

?

???

...; January 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "That's the prosecution's theory. Just as reasonable is Crystal's claim that she stabbed him while he was on top of her and the angle of the wound supports her version. There is definitely reasonable doubt here."

No, that is not reasonable doubt. Having two competing theories is not reasonable doubt. The jury heard the evidence and they rejected Crystal's theory of the case. They did so with good reason. The jury heard Crystal testify inconsistently with the rest of the evidence. That certainly is a valid basis for the jury to reject her version. That said, the jury rejected her version.

Walt-in-Durham; January 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: and the jury was unqualified to make that decision for anyone based on the lack of evidence, etc., and supporting expert witness defense in this case

...; January 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM
guiowen said...: Anonymous said...

"the jury was unqualified to make that decision ..."

Well, maybe, from now on, juries should only be composed of experts on the matter at hand.; January 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Those claiming Duke was responsible for all of this, as a plot to attack Crystal, because it was a high profile murder ... remember, it wasn't a murder until he died, he was admitted under a pseudonym (Richard Douglas, though initially Richard Dong), and Crystal's name appears exactly no where in the medical records.

No one at Duke knew who Daye was, or who stabbed him.; January 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: No, only "twelve good men and true". But good requires they have no pre-formed bias about the accused and true requires that they use their common sense. From my view-point this jury had neither quality. Common sense should tell you that a person being assaulted within an inch of their life has every right of self-defence and that evidence of prior incidents can engender a bias in the case at hand.; January 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Don't you lecture anyone about common sense.

A person with common sense does not create wild and outrageous theories about mystery rapists as an explanation for why Crystal claimed she was raped at the lacrosse party, DNA was found from unidentified males sources, but none matched any of the lacrosse players.; January 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Common sense should tell you that a person being assaulted within an inch of their life has every right of self-defence and that evidence of prior incidents can engender a bias in the case at hand."

We have had a long discussion on this very blog about self defense. I won't trouble you with a repeat. Being entitled to self defense is not the same as being entitled to a successful self defense defense. Crystal was unsuccessful simply because she was inconsistent on so many points that the jury did not believe her.

Anonymous at 11:57 AM wrote: "and the jury was unqualified to make that decision for anyone based on the lack of evidence, etc., and supporting expert witness defense in this case" [sic]

The jury was fully qualified. They received all the evidence. There was an expert witness, further because of Sid's breach of confidence, we know the defense expert agreed with the Medical Examiner. Putting on a second expert to confirm the first is both unnecessary and it potentially would have harmed the defense.

It really comes down to this - there is no evidence to support Crystal's supporters belief. Lacking evidence, they argue the same tired discredited claims that they cannot support. If they cared about the truth or even justice, they would be arguing the 404(b) evidence. They would be inquiring about juror misconduct. They would be looking at the few real issues there are to appeal. For that matter, if they really cared, they would have articulated a reason why killers should be excused by medical malpractice. They don't. Instead, they make the same old unsubstantiated claims that are without merit.

Walt-in-Durham; January 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Expert witness to support the defense was not available to the jury when the prosecution denied the expert witness presented by the defense had the credentials and therefore nor the right to testify on Ms. Mangum's defense - therefore - the jury is not qualified to make judgement on the items not presented to them by an expert witness that was required by the defense for the jury to be qualified to make a judgement about this case.

The news had something on expert witnesses and case law just today in regards to another murder case and current decisions made by the NC justice system. This case would be similar in that regard.; January 24, 2014 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken said:

"Common sense should tell you that a person being assaulted within an inch of their life has every right of self-defence..."

So, Mangum was beaten w/in an inch of her life, yet sustained no injuries and required no medical treatment? How does that happen? You have identified yet another reason for the jury to reject Mangum's self defense claim.

You have to bear in mind that, unlike you and Sid, the jury was not free to disregard the facts and the law to reach the result they wanted.; January 24, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:15 PM wrote: "The news had something on expert witnesses and case law just today in regards to another murder case and current decisions made by the NC justice system. This case would be similar in that regard."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a loser.

Did you read the news story? Let alone the opinion of the Court of Appeals? The error was the Superior Court Judge's refusal to allow a defense expert to testify. Nothing like Crystal's case. She decided not to call her expert. Do you not understand the difference? Or, do you simply not care?

Walt-in-Durham; January 24, 2014 at 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: The Court did refuse to allow the scene reconstruction expert to testify, so we will see on that, but the Medical Expert was not called, the Judge would have allowed her to testify, but she was not called for reasons which have been repeatedly explained here (even though those explanations are ignored by people who still refuse to acknowledge that even Sid says the expert wouldn't have been helpful to the case, as Crystal herself told him).; January 24, 2014 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: You must of missed it when the expert witness that was presented by the defense was disallowed due to lack of medical degree and qualified experience.; January 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Crystal was unsuccessful simply because she was inconsistent on so many points that the jury did not believe her"......... Crystal was consistent on the basics and no one, not even you disagree with that. She was attacked and beaten. That alone should be enough, in any reasonable mind, to say she had every right to defend herself, in any way she could. The inconsistencies are all related to sequence and positioning of various pieces of evidence using their contrived construct to confuse Crystal about such non critical minutiae. The defense did not seem, at all, prepared counteract this dishonest tactic. No victim of a attack can recall, by the millisecond, the sequence and position of themselves or their assailant during a violent fluid confrontation that occurred months before. And aggressive questioning by a Prosecutor can, easily, confuse the victim. It's up to a vigorous Defence to counteract this, stressing what is critically important to the question at hand and what is trivial; January 24, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't miss it - that expert testified, fully, she was just not allowed to give her opinion about a few specific areas. So she did testify, and have most information, was just not allowed to say if, in her opinion, it was self defense. But she was able to explain battered women syndrome, how women react to abuse, and all the rest.; January 25, 2014 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny

ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny

ken-ny, ken-ny, ken-ny; January 25, 2014 at 5:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal -

You still ignore anything that doesn't fit your worldview.

Where/how the actual stabbing took place is absolutely relevant. If you are being attacked, you have the right of self-defense, however you LOSE that right if the attacker indicates they are retreating from the assault.

So, even if Crystal were the initial aggressor (and I'm not saying she was), when she retreated to the bathroom, and locked the door, Daye lost any right of self-defense. He then became the aggressor when he kicked in the door and drug her out.

However, if he is right, and he then let her go, and turned to go back, and she got up, ran into another room (the kitchen), grabbed a knife, and came back at him, that's not self-defense because he had indicated he was giving up the physical conflict.

If she were right, and she grabbed a knife while he was still assaulting her, it would be self-defense.

The jury believed him, and no matter how much you whine about how you don't think that is reasonable, the jury did, and that's what juries do.

The Defense did argue the issues with recall (they even had the expert talk about it), and how Daye wasn't really retreating because he'd been stopping her before so she had no reason to think he'd let her go this time.

The jury didn't buy it.

Where/how the stabbing took place isn't an irrelevant red herring as you pretend, it was THE issue on self-defense. If you believed Daye's version, then the only issue left for Crystal was manslaughter v some level of murder.

The jury could have still found manslaughter (heat of passion), but they found 2nd (malice), but at least not 1st (premeditation and deliberation). Milton's testimony hurt on the malice, and also bolstered the claim that sometimes Crystal will run grab a knife and come back at someone who has ceased to attack her (which lended Daye's story credibility - that's what 404b evidence does, and why it was objected to).

Not that any of this will matter to you. Facts don't matter to you.; January 25, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: facts that facts do matter to 'us' doesn't matter to you apparently - but that's ok

what other facts do you choose to ignore?; January 25, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: She was not qualified to do so apparently tho - and what's up with that - the person training cops in CA isn't even qualified to testify in NC? Where's all the qualified 'expert witnesses' on battered woman's syndrome?

She didn't really explain anything tho - she sat there and had to defend herself from the prosecutor and got no help from the defense questioning most of the time she was on the stand - just like with the rest of the trial defense.; January 25, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Crystal was consistent on the basics and no one, not even you disagree with that. She was attacked and beaten."

Not very badly. Her story was inconsistent with the injuries observed.

"That alone should be enough, in any reasonable mind, to say she had every right to defend herself, in any way she could."

Again you ignore the law we have previously discussed. In NC as in all other jurisdictions that allow self defense, the defense must be proportional. Deadly force (stabbing with a knife is deadly force even if not intended) can only be used when a reasonable person would believe that deadly force is the only way to survive. Crystal's injuries were simply inconsistent with that.

"The inconsistencies are all related to sequence and positioning of various pieces of evidence using their contrived construct to confuse Crystal about such non critical minutiae."

Not at all. Crystal testified to events (pulling the mattress down) that were not supported by the physical evidence. She invented a "friend" that no one could locate. She contradicted every witness who testified. That's not minutiae.

"The defense did not seem, at all, prepared counteract this dishonest tactic."

It was not a dishonest tactic to point out inconsistencies in a witness' testimony. That is good cross examination. The defense was prepared, Meier advised her not to testify. The judge advised her not to testify. Indeed, the only lawyer who wanted her to testify was the prosecutor who kept her mouth shut until Crystal had finished her direct testimony.

"No victim of a attack can recall, by the millisecond, the sequence and position of themselves or their assailant during a violent fluid confrontation that occurred months before."

But, they can get the basic facts right. Crystal didn't do that. She said she was violently beaten. The evidence does not support that. She said the victim threw knives at her and she sought cover by pulling a mattress down to protect herself. The mattress was found on the bed. It simply boggles the mind to think someone so frightened as you portray would stop and make the bed after such a violent attack.

"And aggressive questioning by a Prosecutor can, easily, confuse the victim."

Especially when the witness, Crystal is no victim, is not telling the truth.

"It's up to a vigorous Defence to counteract this, stressing what is critically important to the question at hand and what is trivial."

That's what Meier did by advising her not to testify. While I don't know what he said to her in private, I suspect he told her to testify truthfully. All good lawyers tell their witnesses to do that.

Walt-in-Durham; January 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:23 AM gets it right. "So she did testify, and have most information, was just not allowed to say if, in her opinion, it was self defense."

Just to add, no witness may testify to the ultimate issue of self defense. That is only for the jury to decide.

Walt-in-Durham; January 25, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: walt you are so disingenuous right now it is laughable

you didn't even watch the trial to comment on it like you do

i can tell - because if you had i would not have to point out the expert defense witness that was not allowed to testify because of insufficient medical degree and experience - or the fact that the bed was not made, etc.

it is sickening and obvious in its unprofessionalism and biased erroneous analysis of Ms. Mangum to watch you do that - for duke especially; January 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Can someone provide details on the decision by the court not to permit testimony by the scene reconstruction expert?

I did not see that portion of the trial and saw no substantive coverage of that decision. I have tried Googling and have found no information.

Who was the expert?
What were their credentials?
On what basis was the testimony not permitted?
What subjects was the witness expected to cover?
Is the decision not to permit the testimony normal?
Does this decision provide strong grounds for appeal?

This discussion would be more meaningful if posters would provide detailed information and direct sources. Vague allegations, unsupported opinions and ad hominem attacks do not substitute for substantive discussion.; January 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: there isn't really any one here like that don't think

what do you think this blog is anyway?; January 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: The entire trial is on YouTube, just do a quick search, you can learn all you want for yourself.; January 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:17 AM, it is you who is being biased. You clearly are willing to misrepresent the facts.

Anonymous at 10:14 AM I will try to answer your questions.

There are three experts at issue. The first, was Dr. Roberts. That who I was specifically referring to above. The expert the defense used for an independent medical exam review but chose not to call as a witness. Dr. Roberts does indeed have an M.D. and is a recognized expert. She was not called because she agreed with the State's Medical Examiner.

The second expert Kit Gruelle did offer expert testimony about battered women. The state objected to her testimony based on the expert report that was offered. The judge heard argument from the defense and the state. Ultimately, the court ruled the defense expert on battered women could testify about her observations, and Crystal's behavior being consistent with a person who had battered woman's syndrome. What the judge excluded was her testimony as to intent.

The final expert was a scene reconstruction witness. The judge excluded that witness based on his report because the witness did not perform tests or do his "reconstruction" based on the actual door of the apartment where the crime took place. thus under Evidence Rule 702 he found the testimony to irrelevant and under Rule 403 he found it to be unhelpful and potentially confusing to the jury.

It is common, especially when experts are involved giving opinion testimony for the trial court to rule on whether they can or cannot testify and the limits to their testimony. In the instance of the battered woman witness, the Judge gave a very clear set of limits on what the witness could testify to without invading the province of the jury. In the case of the scene reconstruction, he simply excluded based on the report.

Certainly any ruling on the admission of evidence is an issue for appeal. As to the battered spouse evidence, the state waived that issue by agreeing to the Judge's ruling. I think the defense waived as well. On the reconstruction evidence, the defense preserved that for appeal.

Note, neither of these witnesses testimony was predicated on having a medical degree and the court did not rule based on educational qualification. Some posters who did not watch the trial would like the facts to be different than what they are.

You may watch Gruelle's testimony at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPBpXogQkQ.

Walt-in-Durham; January 25, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: walt - why do you accuse of willingly misrepresenting facts - exactly???

either support your accusations or don't make them again

thanks

(not like everyone can't see through the unfounded accusations bs walt - you fool only yourself - as usual - and are just another example of what 'justice' is considered to be in this state when involving duke - just about whatever they think they can shove down peoples' throats and if that doesn't work - diss, accuse, and/or (kill) them

... and you think it actually works

so typical; January 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: How do you personally know that Dr. Roberts report matched the first ME's report. Have you seen it? Where can it be viewed by the public?

You are a duke driven bogus lawyer on this blog who does nothing but support duke and the ME and the duke/durham justice system, even if it harms all walt.

You would never agree to the same 'justice' being applied to you or some one you were actually defending would you?; January 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "How do you personally know that Dr. Roberts report matched the first ME's report..."

Anonymous@12:07 -- Sid stated it right here on this blog. You can read the details here.

Sid reported in part:
"According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate."

Are you calling Sid a liar?; January 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: No, the report is not publicly available because it is no one's business. You can whine all you want about how you are interested, but it is covered by attorney/client privilege. If Crystal wants to share it she can, but she obviously decided Sid was more trouble than not and cut him off. I would imagine only Crystal and her attorneys (and their staff) would have the information, and probably wouldn't share, but you'd have to ask them.

It's obvious from the trial that a report was produced, and that Crystal and her team decided it wasn't helpful and didn't show what Sid claimed it would.

But, Sid obviously considers Crystal a liar, and has never cared about her, so he still wants to see it. See, she only got 2nd Degree, he's hoping she gets a new trial, and then he can sabotage her to 1st degree, so of course he keeps harping on everything harmful to her.

And, you are either a naive little rodent in Sid's scheme, or are complicit in his evil attempts.; January 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: and you are a ...

(you fill in the blank - i'm interested to know what you think of yourself blogging here); January 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: My opinion is Crystal decided to testify so that she could purposely sabotage her trial and get a conviction. She wanted to go back to jail and not have to deal with normal life or society. Her testimony was so off the wall, either she is not of right mind or just wanted the state to take care of her at this point in her life. In other words, she could not handle it anymore...; January 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: She testified because her defense lawyer provided her with no other options to present a defense on her own behalf.

She needs a lawyer who is prepared to assist her in presenting a defense, just like anyone else does.

She did not have that at the trial.; January 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: And how would you have defended her?; January 25, 2014 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: With a lawyer who had no ties to duke or conflicts - therefore with a lawyer in a different state ... and one with quite a bit of experience in criminal murder defense for the defense (and the people) - to start with.; January 25, 2014 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Why are Crystal's friends such cheapskates? They had almost two years to raise money to hire a lawyer, and they did nothing.

Sid wouldn't bail her out as a matter of principle.

Did you contribute to her defense fund?; January 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: ?
???
did you?
???; January 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I think most people realize that the public defender's office is responsible for providing legal defense for many people in the duke/durham justice system - therefore - to have a public defender's office provide lawyers who can work for the people as needed, (even when questions about ME reports and Duke medical report questions, or lacrosse case issues, etc., etc. etc. exist). That is what the law probably supports for a justice system to exist in the USA, but, I am not a lawyer.; January 25, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Meier has obvious conflicts with Duke in the health services sector as well as education. He has no experience in criminal murder defense. How can either he or the Public Defenders office assign responsibility to him for the defense of Ms. Mangum in this case, and have that be considered legally acceptable?; January 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @2:27 said: "It's obvious from the trial that a report was produced, and that Crystal and her team decided it wasn't helpful and didn't show what Sid claimed it would"...... You saw what happened, a reluctant Crystal was pressured by the Judge to make a decision whether to call Roberts and was cajoled by her Attorneys to keep Roberts off the stand. She was given only the lunch hour to decide and her discomfort with acquiescing was apparent. There is no animosity with Dr. Harr. It's her court appointed Lawyers who made no contact a condition. Even taking Welsh into consideration Roberts would not be able to say on the stand that Daye's death was due to homicide.; January 25, 2014 at 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Kenny. Anonymous @2:27 provides the more reasonable explanation. I didn't see what you saw, but I didn't see mystery rapists either.; January 26, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Can you explain how working for a healthcare company in Texas 15-17 years ago is an "obvious" conflict with Duke? Wasn't Sid originally upset about the conflict with UNC?

The great thing about conspiracy theorists is they take one little nugget from a website that hasn't been updated in a while, and expand it into this grand "proof" of their point, but when you provide reams of current facts/information that disproves their worldview or point, they just ignore it and keep grasping at straws.; January 26, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...: That's not a conspiracy theory.

What reams of knowledge and facts do you have that prove Mr. Meier does not have a conflict with Duke?; January 26, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: What evidence do you have that he does? First, Duke was not on trial, but if there was a conflict, a lawyer doesn't take the case. They could get disbarred for taking cases with a conflict.

The evidence I have that he didn't have a conflict is he took the case. When there is a conflict, the attorney withdraws, or doesn't take the case.

Just because I don't like someone, or they disagree with me, I don't automatically assume there is a conflict or an issue.

But, I'm not into conspiracies.; January 26, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: I love when people throw out allegations with no evidence, or vague references to evidence, and then insist that people they accuse need to disprove them.

You are the one alleging a conflict. If you have real evidence, you'd have to present it. The presumption is no conflict, so that's the proof there. If it's wrong, then you have to prove it wrong.

You won't, you will just post again about how evil Duke is, and we are all in the bag for them, but you still refuse to provide any proof for your claims, other than vague references to people hurt.

Yes, there is malpractice and mistakes, and people sue.; January 26, 2014 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: blah; January 26, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
"She testified because her defense lawyer provided her with no other options to present a defense on her own behalf."

I thought the defense lawyer said she should NOT testify. And that she might just get manslaughter with time served at this point. But once she goes against her defense lawyer and testifies, she ends up sabotaging her case to a higher charge and more prison time.

As I said, Crystal wanted this to implode and she is totally responsible for it.; January 26, 2014 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Where did you get that thought from?

Who else was there to defend Ms. Mangum if Ms. Mangum did not defend herself?; January 26, 2014 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: With friends like y'all Crystal doesn't need enemies.; January 26, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Yep, that's the appropriate response when you have nothing. No wonder no one actually takes you seriously.; January 26, 2014 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Who's your daddy?; January 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Mangum will not win on appeal. She will serve her time.

Although I know my record at prognostication has not been stellar, let me tell you what I believe will happen. Mangum will have her conviction overturned... probably without some prolonged appeals process. She's not going to serve her full sentence on that trumped up charge.; January 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

I believe the operative report because it was dictated and transcribed long before Daye's problems due to the esophageal intubation. Furthermore, there are problems with Dr. Nichols autopsy report as anatomically it would've been impossible for a single stab wound with a steak knife to perforate all of the organs and the diaphragm as stated in the autopsy report. Also the police report and all other documents only mention injury to the colon and spleen. The orthopedic consult and EMS both denied any lesions to the left upper extremity.

I even wrote a guest column in January 2012 in The Durham News titled "Autopsy reports don't add up." This was two months before I received from Mangum copies of prosecution discovery that included the medical records and operative report.; January 27, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Can you explain how working for a healthcare company in Texas 15-17 years ago is an "obvious" conflict with Duke? Wasn't Sid originally upset about the conflict with UNC?

The great thing about conspiracy theorists is they take one little nugget from a website that hasn't been updated in a while, and expand it into this grand "proof" of their point, but when you provide reams of current facts/information that disproves their worldview or point, they just ignore it and keep grasping at straws.

That point about Meier is extremely relevant to Mangum's case. It's difficult enough to find an attorney who will put Mangum's interests before that of Duke University Hospital. But asking a corporate attorney (who had been accused of sabotaging another defense client's case) to put Mangum ahead of Duke is a fantasy. No way is that going to happen.... and it didn't.

UNC is a potential conflict with regards to Mangum as the Medical Examiner's Office was situated at UNC - Chapel Hill when Daye was autopsied. My specific objection had to do with my hearing before Judge Carl Fox, who went to school at UNC, and was a prosecutor at UNC... therefore he had a close connection and that is why I did not want him to hear my case which was brought by the State Bar.; January 27, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I assume you also believe self-defense as well? Because it's only guilty/not guilty on the basis of self-defense. Cause of death goes to the crime guilty of, but if she didn't act in self defense, she's still guilty of something.; January 27, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Why are Crystal's friends such cheapskates? They had almost two years to raise money to hire a lawyer, and they did nothing.

Sid wouldn't bail her out as a matter of principle.

Did you contribute to her defense fund?

Cheapskate...? No. Frugal..? Yes.

However I did not put money towards a lawyer because I was aware that the lawyer would merely take it and then send Crystal down the tube. My time and money was better spent working on flogs, and attempting to enlighten the masses... and I have spent plenty of money towards Crystal's case.; January 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I assume you also believe self-defense as well? Because it's only guilty/not guilty on the basis of self-defense. Cause of death goes to the crime guilty of, but if she didn't act in self defense, she's still guilty of something.

I don't think the prosecution met the bar of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the fact that Daye busted down the door reflects that he was out of control. That he pulled her by her hair is an admission of assault.

Not only that, but the jurors did not hear anything about Daye's criminal record which includes assault on a female. The turncoat defense attorney did her in.; January 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"How do you personally know that Dr. Roberts report matched the first ME's report..."

Anonymous@12:07 -- Sid stated it right here on this blog. You can read the details here.

Sid reported in part:
"According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate."

Are you calling Sid a liar?

That is precisely what Mangum told me that Dr. Roberts verbally stated... however she refused to put it in writing. I believe that Dr. Roberts said that to discourage Mangum from demanding a written report from her and because she, like everyone else, did not want Mangum to go that route of attacking the autopsy report and Duke Hospital.; January 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 4:15 PM wrote: "The news had something on expert witnesses and case law just today in regards to another murder case and current decisions made by the NC justice system. This case would be similar in that regard."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a loser.

Did you read the news story? Let alone the opinion of the Court of Appeals? The error was the Superior Court Judge's refusal to allow a defense expert to testify. Nothing like Crystal's case. She decided not to call her expert. Do you not understand the difference? Or, do you simply not care?

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, the truth is that Mangum was discouraged from having Dr. Roberts testify by her turncoat attorney. He sabotaged her case. It's that simple. Unfortunately, she put her faith in him and trusted him, contrary to my advice to her.; January 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM
Walt said...: Where to begin? Sid wrote: "... But asking a corporate attorney (who had been accused of sabotaging another defense client's case) to put Mangum ahead of Duke is a fantasy."

Meier is not a corporate attorney. He is a private practicing criminal defense lawyer. Long ago, before he went to law school he worked for a hospital company. That does not constitute a conflict of interest.

"UNC is a potential conflict with regards to Mangum as the Medical Examiner's Office was situated at UNC - Chapel Hill when Daye was autopsied."

That does not constitute a conflict of interest. Where a person goes to law school does not create a conflict of interest. Even so far as if that lawyer wanted to represent someone against his former law school. There is no rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion let alone case law to support your theory that such constitutes a conflict. You are consistent, you ignore the rules of ethics in all instances.

"My specific objection had to do with my hearing before Judge Carl Fox, who went to school at UNC, and was a prosecutor at UNC...

UNC does not have prosecutors. Judge Fox had nothing to do with Crystal's trial. In any case, Fox had no conflict of interest as regards your bar hearing either.

"... therefore he had a close connection and that is why I did not want him to hear my case which was brought by the State Bar."

Close connections do not create a conflict of interest. If Fox had represented or continued to represent UNC, that would constitute a conflict of interest or an appearance of one. However, he never represented UNC and as a sitting judge he does not represent clients.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Even if Duke was negligent (a point which has not been established in any competent forum, or even raised by a person competent to do so), Duke's negligence in treating Daye does nt relieve Mangum from culpability for stabbing him. Daye died while being treated by DUMC for the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. If Mangum had not stabbed Daye, he would be alive today. Thus, Mangum is a proximate cause of his death, in spite of any other intervening causes.

To claim otherwise is like intentionally pushing someone off the sidewalk and into the middle of a busy street and then claiming you are innocent of his death because it was a car (and not you) that ultimately killed him. It doesn't work that way. Even if the car was speeding, and the driver was drunk and didn't have a license, you pushed the victim in the road and therefore have responsibility for his death.

This point has been iterated and reiterated ad nauseum. It is the law. It is obvious to people of ordinary intelligence and it is why no one involved in the case or the legal system, for that matter, takes Sid's theory seriously.

The major flaw in your argument comes when you state that Daye died while being treated for his stab wound. That is false and misleading. Daye was being treated for delirium tremens... his stab wound had been satisfactorily treated three days earlier during emergency surgery. Not only that, but it was the esophageal intubation, an intervening action, which resulted in Daye's brain death. The stab wound had no nexus to the brain death.... comprende?; January 27, 2014 at 12:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Clearly you can't be reasoned with. The only person saying the autopsy report is not valid is Sid, and that's because he believes, inexplicably, in the inerrancy of Duke. Because the autopsy report says things were done that Duke says weren't done (repairing certain organs) the report must be wrong, because, in Sid's eyes apparently, Duke cannot be wrong or mistaken.

And, remember, there was a Defense expert, who re-examined everything, and analyzed it, and did the work. Crystal told Sid that while she noted some errors, the ultimate conclusion of Dr Nichols was correct. So there has been outside review of everything, as Crystal herself acknowledged (and she's the one who would really care and be paying attention).

It just doesn't fit Sid's theory, so he keeps pursuing his claims in spite of that.

Face reality - Sid is keeping up his campaign for the sole purpose of harming Mangum. He denies it, but every one of his actions is to her detriment, and he knows it. He's been told (by Crystal herself) that Dr Roberts would not be helpful to her case, would in fact be harmful, yet Sid still wants this admittedly harmful report released ... And he claims to be helping Crystal?

Mangum's conviction of second degree murder and sentence of 14-18 years in prison is an outcome not of my making.... and it couldn't have turned out worse for Mangum.

I will be the one to get this nonsense rectified.; January 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: ATTENTION, EVERYBODY... IMPORTANT UPDATE...
Just to let you know that I've completed writing and narrating the next flog. Next will lay it out before filling in the images.

As you were.; January 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I don't think the prosecution met the bar of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt."

The jury did. Failing to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt is not an appealable issue. The court will not disturb a jury verdict on the facts.

"I think that the fact that Daye busted down the door reflects that he was out of control. That he pulled her by her hair is an admission of assault."

Assuming for purposes of the argument the above, that does not give her the right to use deadly force. We have been over this before. You simply wish the law was different. If that is the case, you need to make the argument for why the court should change the law. You don't. Frankly, I do not understand why you never argue that the court should change the law.

"Not only that, but the jurors did not hear anything about Daye's criminal record which includes assault on a female."

Because that would be inadmissible evidence under rule 404(b) and the cases decided thereunder.

"The turncoat defense attorney did her in."

You constantly make that charge without a shred of evidence to back it up. If anyone was a turncoat, it was Sid Harr who took information in confidence and revealed it to one and all.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Not only that, but the jurors did not hear anything about Daye's criminal record which includes assault on a female. The turncoat defense attorney did her in.

Do you have proof that Daye had convictions for Assault on a Female within the last 10 years (which is all that is relevant)? If he was charged with AOF, and not convicted, it's irrelevant, and even if convicted, if more than 10 years ago, inadmissible.

Not that you've ever bothered trying to understand the law.; January 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: The major flaw in your argument comes when you state that Daye died while being treated for his stab wound. That is false and misleading. Daye was being treated for delirium tremens... his stab wound had been satisfactorily treated three days earlier during emergency surgery. Not only that, but it was the esophageal intubation, an intervening action, which resulted in Daye's brain death. The stab wound had no nexus to the brain death.... comprende?"

It is you who does not comprende. I won't waste the bandwidth to explain intervening cause again. But, medical malpractice does not constitute an intervening cause. Again, you make a claim - treatment for delirium tremens - that is not supported by the evidence. If, and there is no proof of DTs, he was suffering from DTs, that was brought on by the course of medical treatment which was made necessary by the stabbing with a knife. I have provided the case law on that as well. Once again, you refuse to even argue why the case law should be overturned.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Mangum's conviction of second degree murder and sentence of 14-18 years in prison is an outcome not of my making...."

No, it is ultimately the result of her unlawfully stabbing Daye resulting in his untimely death. An act of severe domestic violence committed by Crystal Gayle Mangum. However, you did your level best to make sure she did not get a quick trial by filing numerous frivolous motions, and convincing her to file her own frivolous motions and convincing her that her lawyers were not acting in her best interest when they were. Further, you acted outrageously to harm the defense by disclosing confidential information to the state and everyone else about Crystal's lack of intervening cause evidence.

"...and it couldn't have turned out worse for Mangum."

Yes it could.

"I will be the one to get this nonsense rectified."

The nonsense here is your frivolous motions, those certainly should be regarded as nonsense. Harmful to the defense nonsense. I don't know how you rectify that damage at this point, but an apology to Crystal might be a start.; January 27, 2014 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Plus, as you and Kenhyderal and others keep ignoring ... there was NO dispute that there was a fight, there was no dispute that Daye kicked in a door and went after Crystal, and drug her out by her hair, so even if Daye had those convictions (something you allege, but don't show), they wouldn't add anything.

The ENTIRE self-defense issue came down to who the jury believed about how the actual stabbing occurred - either Crystal was let go and ran into another room to get a knife and went back at Daye (no self defense); or Daye was choking her in the bedroom when she stabbed him (self defense). Whether Daye had prior Assaults isn't relevant to that question.

And, remember, while a neighbor testified that she often heard Daye and Mangum arguing, and things that sounded like people being thrown into the wall (hard enough to set off her alarm), Crystal explicitly denied that on the stand. Said prior to this night Daye had never even raised his voice at her.

And, as Walt and others have repeated, and you ignore - had Daye not been stabbed, he wouldn't have been in the hospital for Duke to "mess up" therefore Crystal is responsible. Even if it was DTs, the only reason he would be suffering alcohol withdrawal was because he had been stabbed, and couldn't get alcohol in the hospital.; January 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: If Ms. Mangum is responsible for how Duke intubates people incorrectly and/or kills them by malpractice - how does she go about fixing that issue at Duke (malpractice induced brain death and/or ultimate death at the hands of Duke)?

When does that investigation and trial start? Does she get paid for her 'work' at Duke while 'fixing' them?; January 27, 2014 at 2:11 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "If Ms. Mangum is responsible for how Duke intubates people incorrectly and/or kills them by malpractice..."

The only thing Ms. Mangum is responsible for is the unlawful stabbing of Mr. Daye, which resulted in his death.

Is there a need to further define any of these words? You seem to have an issue comprehending them.; January 27, 2014 at 2:43 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:11 PM wrote: "If Ms. Mangum is responsible for how Duke intubates people incorrectly and/or kills them by malpractice - how does she go about fixing that issue at Duke (malpractice induced brain death and/or ultimate death at the hands of Duke)?"

The simple fact of the matter is, medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and it does NOT relieve someone of culpability for their criminal act.

"When does that investigation and trial start? Does she get paid for her 'work' at Duke while 'fixing' them?"

DUHS did an M&M conference on this case. The conference and the results are confidential, so you will never know the outcome of that investigation. But, it is done. If there was malpractice, then Daye's heirs have been compensated, if not, they have not. Regardless, medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and it does NOT relieve someone of culpability for their criminal act.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: That is evidence that is favorable to the defense and should have been presented in trial.; January 27, 2014 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: When was the conference held Walt? Where do you get that information from?; January 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: M&M conferences (morbidity and mortality, for those not familiar with the terminology)are performed with the goal of improving patient care. It's an educational opportunity for hospitals with residency training programs.

The fact Mr. Daye's treatment at DUMC was the subject of an M$M conference has no bearing on the trial whatsoever.; January 27, 2014 at 4:06 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Man...There's a lot of typos in that last post.

My apologies....; January 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: So if they had a M&M conference - it is an admission that proper training has not previously been given at their facility on the same matters?; January 27, 2014 at 4:19 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:19 PM wrote: "So if they had a M&M conference - it is an admission that proper training has not previously been given at their facility on the same matters?"

No, it is not an admission.

Further, repeat after me: medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and it does NOT relieve someone of culpability for their criminal act.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:29 PM wrote: "That is evidence that is favorable to the defense and should have been presented in trial."

The results of an M&M conference and the discussions are not admissible. Further, repeat after: medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and it does NOT relieve someone of culpability for their criminal act.; January 27, 2014 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously walt

try actually adressing the issues relevant to the defense of Ms. Mangum

here: repeat this:

If i am truly a professional lawyer - i am compromising my professional career by blogging here like I do in support of duke, the ME's, and duke/durham justice system.; January 27, 2014 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @4:52:

Why do you believe that insults and ad hominem attacks will increase support for Ms. Mangum?; January 27, 2014 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: You think Walt is "bad" because he is telling you the law, and not some wild conspiracy theory?

It's just funny that you are so convinced that Duke is evil that you ignore the evidence that all of these issues were investigated and looked into by the Defense, and a decision was made that it wasn't helpful to Crystal's defense. However, with no information or knowledge of those investigations, you have decided that they have to be wrong, because you are an insane Duke hater.

And, to further bolster his claims, Sid is citing another person who has issues with Meier - but what's funny is if you read that person's website, he is mad because Meier only got his felony charges dismissed, but he wouldn't pursue criminal charges against the District Attorney or Judge. All Meier did was his job.

Oh, and Spencer Young thinks Crystal is the devil, and Mike Nifong is the most corrupt and contemptable person on the planet.

Odd how Sid claims Young is so right in some areas, and so wrong in others.

But, he still has no real evidence to back up his claims ... again, he's pulling on the elephant's tail claiming it's a snake.

The fact some of you at least pretend to take him seriously is astounding and telling.; January 27, 2014 at 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I have no idea what the defense did or didn't do except for what i saw done in the trial which i have commented upon as i saw fit.

Where do you get your evidence that all these issues were investigated by the defense if they weren't presented in the trial?

I stand for the rights of the 99.9 percent to a fair and equal trial, including Ms. Mangum ... and you?; January 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @5:12:

Why do you believe that straw man arguments will increase support for Ms. Mangum?; January 27, 2014 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I've never said the Defense wasn't prepared. Just because they didn't present the trumped up BS Sid was trying to sell, which EVERY lawyer, and the Defense Expert apparently discounted (Sid says they are ALL corrupt), doesn't mean they weren't prepared.; January 27, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Because I don't sit around with pre-conceived notions that Duke is absolute evil, and everyone I disagree with is corrupt, I assume the Defense did what is generally done in these cases (and what appears to have been done here):

Hire an expert to review the medical records and autopsy report (which they did, and while Sid claims she was lying, she apparently largely validated the autopsy report - again, Sid disagrees, so she's corrupt). Interview the doctors and others involved, and conclude they have explanations for the discrepancies, and those explanations wouldn't be helpful.

Remember, Sid publicly exposed the discrepancies on a repeated basis, so of course Duke, the ME, and the State could be prepared to answer them. Rather than catch them off guard, Sid gave them plenty of notice so they were prepared to answer them.

Yet, despite everyone warning Sid and telling him his actions were hurting Crystal, he proceeded, and you folks still think he is doing this for any reason other than his own self-interest and is hurting Crystal.

Sid put the State on notice of issues, and made sure they were prepared with answers.

But, you still blame everyone else.

Deluded much?; January 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: well ... don't give strawman answers to legitamate questions about your strawman accusations then

try it

it will be like shark jumping

we're all watching in anticipation

ya ready?; January 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: your accusations make no sense as they are based on other than the reality of the trial and this case

you fool only yourself - so right now it is only you fooling yourself and doing it because of why? exactly?

because it amuses you to troll here?
is that you evil duke troll doing what you said you were doing for the reason of amusing yourself by trolling here previously mentioned by you when I asked you why you were doing it before, or do you have a different reason for doing so at this time?; January 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: actually, i stand for the .o1 percent having the right to a fair and equal trial too - as long as the other side has a fair and equal trial as well - there should be no problems (if the laws are fair and equal for the 99.9 percent as well that the trial is based on - ya know - in all fairness ... and equality).; January 27, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's a question based on recent local news:

It was announced that there was another person interested in running for the office of District Attorney in the next elections to replace the current acting DA who is actually a retired judge.

This latest person was noted to have ties to the health industry.

With Duke having so much control on actual life and death issues that effect all in Duke / Durham, etc., how will this extra added control by a health industry conflicted DA in the Duke / Durham justice system effect the health and well being and ability to receive fair and equal trials, charges, convictions, ect. of any who must deal in any way with Duke or any health services issues like this case, etc.? Especially if the Public Defender's office is also Duke conflicted?

Would this constitute fraud or what in the inability to maintain a fair and just and nonbiased justice system in Durham?

Who is responsible for insuring and maintaining a fair and equal justice system in duke/durham?; January 27, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow ... you really think Duke gives a rat's ass who the DA is? You really are paranoid.; January 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously?

You speak for Duke and complain about DA Nifong continuously, all the while trolling and bashing anyone who questions Duke, and then have the audacity to say that about Duke who employs many who vote for and have influence on the votes for the DA and the governor who occassionally assigns DA's like as in Durham, etc.?

???
...; January 27, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: If Duke were that politically powerful we wouldn't have a legislature that refused to expand Medicaid, this costing Duke and others tens of millions of dollars.

And most people could care less who their employer says to vote for.

Are other healthcare organizations this evil too (UNC, WakeMed, Wake Forest, etc.), or you just have a special hatred for Duke?; January 28, 2014 at 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: We are talking about duke/durham here and i have stated clearly on this blog why i dislike duke - for the evil they do that harms many

Why are you so upset that someone would dislike duke for the obvious evil that they do?; January 28, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Anyway, i was simply referring to the fact that many people who vote for the DA in durham and the governor in NC are employed by duke.

Are you trying to imply that those people don't actually give a when they vote - they just vote to vote - or not at all?

Or that a university steeped in politics does not actually vote or effect the votes of others?

What's up with that?

???; January 28, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Anonymous said...: I was exploring the news like i usually do and heard this one thing that struck me as true from what i've seen and read in NC:

The people with health insurance are the people who will often be the most harmed in the health system - because of the exploitation of the insurance companies monetary resources (not because of the benefit to health that more unneccessary (and often harmful) medical intervention can do for the patient).

The governor is of course focused on the money when he refuses to implement medicaid in NC, but in doing so, he has also saved thousands from the exploitation and destruction of their health that is fed through programs like medicaid.

I am not against insurance mind you, only against the exploitation and destruction of health for the monetary benefit of any.; January 28, 2014 at 6:14 AM
A Lawyer said...: The people with health insurance are the people who will often be the most harmed in the health system - because of the exploitation of the insurance companies monetary resources (not because of the benefit to health that more unneccessary (and often harmful) medical intervention can do for the patient).

Can anyone translate that sentence into English?; January 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Apparently you only get sick if you go to the doctor?

I still wonder if only Duke is bad, or they are all bad. Can we move to Chapel Hill and be safe?; January 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM
guiowen said...: Chapel Hill is beautiful. Move and find out how the medical service is there.; January 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The gov. used to be democrat.

It is just now repub. because the democrats couldn't take what the democrats were doing to the government and health services, politics, etc. in terms of corruption and harm and money wasted instead of services, or too much services, or not right type, etc., etc., etc., ...).

So ... now you have a repub. gov. who the democrates just got over 900 strong arrested for protesting his republican agenda at the legislature ... since they didn't really want a republican governor - they wanted the corruption and harm and waste, exploitation, and lack of services, etc., etc., etc., to stop - but still have a democratic governor (most would think anyway).

But now it is a repub agenda with the same corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, harm - or more or less - the same - yet worse? Does that hinge on whether you are a dem or a repub or whether you have insurance or not?

???

...; January 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM
A Lawyer said...: ???

The only part of that post I could begin to understand.; January 28, 2014 at 8:57 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 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