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 401 – 600 of 640 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: yeah

you got it!

how astute of you.; January 29, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Amen, lawyer. the poster is decompensating, right before our very eyeballs.; January 29, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: you wish

i asked you to stop trolling me

many have asked you to stop trolling here

so

really

what's ya'lls problem?; January 29, 2014 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not trolling to ask legitimate questions. Trolling is what you do - throw out statements without anything to back them up, and then run and hide when people ask for evidence.; January 29, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: What I want to know is how Rae Evans and the carpetbagger jihad fits into all this.; January 29, 2014 at 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: my general statements are generally made about the current news - so - since that is where i get my 'evidence' - you can just go to the news and see it

why don't you understand THAT?

???; January 29, 2014 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I mean that is where i first read Walt, (for years), was in the local news - so that is where you'd get the news, etc. that i mostly comment on occassionly.

Now Walt has his own blog - which is good - since he represents the opposite party to the issues of justice and cases being discussed here on this blog by Dr. Harr and others that involve Duke / Durham / NC justice - at times in a conflicted manner.

Other than that - there are trolls that run in a pack between different blogs and bully people with views that are oppositional to their own duke world view (or something) - so that is what i am wondering - why do you keep trolling and bullying like that for duke in groups on this blog when you could just as easily read the news and spare us all your ill informed trolling and bullying? Is there a reason for THAT? Do you mind if you stop?; January 29, 2014 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: In the local news you really never see anyone saying - yeah - the health system is great - yeah - duke or whoever health system - yeah.

NO - you read this health system sucks, these people are dying, this system is corrupt, that system is corrupt, those people are killing these people, that money didn't go to patients, the services for patients kill them, the cops kill patients that the system doesn't kill, the state isn't even going to do obamacare even tho (or was it because) Duke tested obamacare in durham, the health system is corrupt with this person and that person and this group and that politician and those lawmakers and these, and theres those forcing thems to do this and that and getting them killed by medicines, and procedures, and policies, and politics, and cops instead of 'helping' them - or any one ... etc., etc., etc. ... .

You just have to read it - it's all there.; January 29, 2014 at 4:14 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:14 PM wrote: "NO - you read this health system sucks, these people are dying, this system is corrupt, that system is corrupt, those people are killing these people...."

Evidence?

You made the claim, show us the evidence. The evidence I have seen from the national rating agencies is Duke is no better or worse when it comes to hospital death and infection than other teaching hospitals. The burden is on you to prove your claims.

A word to the wise, if you want to make an allegation, support it with facts. Facts that are sourced and can be verified. I know that some posters do not have the benefit of a worthwhile college education. So, let me summarize Composition 101: when writing, make an assertion, support it with facts, and draw a conclusion.

Walt-in-Durham; January 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM
guiowen said...: Walt,
Are you trying to confuse us with facts?; January 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: don't you read the news walt?; January 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @4:14: In the local news you really never see anyone saying - yeah - the health system is great - yeah - duke or whoever health system - yeah.

No, you are wrong. I have seen stories in the news about a health system providing good care, Stories about their successes. I have even seen stories about Duke's successes.

You just have to read it - it's all there.

don't you read the news, anonymous @4:14,; January 29, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: They don't do that as much as they used to do they?

Maybe they figured out that they were exploiting their patients to make other people think - hey - getting sick and going to the hosp. and doc. and research looks like fun (not) - why don't we ALL do that - so they decided to stop doing it?

???; January 29, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Thousands of people treat at Duke and other healthcare providers every day. The vast majority of them received quality care, and are alive because of that care. You take a few cases of malpractice and claim we'd all be better off without Duke?

Yes, a few years ago they messed up and transplanted the wrong organs into a patient, and she died, and Duke was sued, and paid a settlement. Does that mean we should cancel ALL transplants? What about the thousands that are still alive because of their transplant?

The fact you think Duke has injected itself into everything (you even blame Huerta on Duke, and I supposed the guy who committed suicide by cop was their fault too) shows how lost and out of touch with a thing called reality you actually are.

If you read every day, people get into car crashes too ... oh my god, General Motors is trying to kill us all!; January 30, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you actually get all that from what i said? I think that is what you think perhaps. Me - no, that's not what i said and that's not what i think - although - of course - there are always dots that connect - which i did point out - but i'm still thinking about those ...

I never said we'd be better off without duke btw - altho i do think duke has issues with harming others and themselves and not giving a hoot about it - or harming others by not giving a hoot about it when they are legally responsible to and therefore intentionally and maliciously harming others even more - which negatively effects a lot of people whether they realize it or not.

Do you think duke ALWAYS takes responsibility for the harm that they do in a way that others are no longer or further harmed by them?; January 30, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: At least one of the current asst. DA's, who is also running for DA in the upcoming elections, is a current Duke cancer patient.

How does the possibility of duke's intentional and malicious malpractice in this case impact the decisions of a group of people who must decide whether to acknowledge, investigate, and prosecute possible malicious malpractice events if one of their own team members is currently undergoing intensive medical treatment by the same medical institution that they must decide to consider for malicious intentional harm? How did it in this case?

How do you ask those questions of a person running for public office and get a public response before elections?; January 30, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:03 AM wrote: "Did you actually get all that from what i said? I think that is what you think perhaps. Me - no, that's not what i said and that's not what i think - although - of course - there are always dots that connect - which i did point out - but i'm still thinking about those ..."

When you failed to address the facts that Duke rates the same as other teaching hospitals, that is exactly what you implied.

"... altho i do think duke has issues with harming others and themselves and not giving a hoot about it - or harming others by not giving a hoot about it when they are legally responsible to and therefore intentionally and maliciously harming others even more - which negatively effects a lot of people whether they realize it or not."

Evidence?

"Do you think duke ALWAYS takes responsibility for the harm that they do in a way that others are no longer or further harmed by them?"

Duke has a good process in place. They use M&M conferences. They have a strong risk management system in place. They are fully insured for malpractice. To be sure, they do fight claims but, that is their right. Last, Duke is the best of the local teaching hospitals for charity care. Duke takes seriously that obligation. They have funds for charity care and they spend them.

Is DUHS perfect? Certainly not. They do malpractice people, but I have seen no evidence of any recklesness let alone intentional conduct. However, if you have evidence, please bring it forward.

Walt-in-Durham; January 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Those things need to be investigated by the proper authorities Walt for this case, as complications is listed as cause of death - so they too have to be investigated for their role in the complications causing death.

Yes, duke is wrong at times, and in their wrongness they harm and kill many ... their harm is their legally mandated responsibility - not anyone elses.

When they do not take responsibility for their harm, they intentionally and maliciously harm many more and break the law that demands that they take responsibility in order to prevent further harm to any.

Like in this case - why are you arguing about it if they took responsibility for their actions in the first place?; January 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:11 wrote: "Those things need to be investigated by the proper authorities Walt for this case, as complications is listed as cause of death - so they too have to be investigated for their role in the complications causing death."

And the proper authorities would be...yes, the North Carolina Medical Exmainer. Who in fact investigated. Further, the M.E. determined that the death was a result of Crystal stabbing Reginald Daye. But, the investigation did not end there. Crystal asked the court for the appointment of an independent medical examiner to aid and assist the defense. That IME physician reviewed the case and reached the same conclusion as the M.E. did. Now, repeat after me: medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and medical malpractice does NOT cut off criminal culpability.

"Yes, duke is wrong at times, and in their wrongness they harm and kill many..."

Evidence? Again, you refuse to address the statistics that are available.

"... their harm is their legally mandated responsibility - not anyone elses."

That is where you are flat out wrong, medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and medical malpractice does NOT cut off criminal culpability.

"When they do not take responsibility for their harm, they intentionally and maliciously harm many more and break the law that demands that they take responsibility in order to prevent further harm to any."

Evidence?

"Like in this case - why are you arguing about it if they took responsibility for their actions in the first place?"

You are wrong in your theory that somehow medical malpractice cuts off criminal culpability. It does not. You can post your claim as often as Sid will let you, but it does not change the law. The law has been explained her for almost three years. Medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and medical malpractice does NOT cut off criminal culpability.

You are the one who refuses to accept the law is what it says. As long as you continue to deliberately misrepresent the law, I will point out your misrepresentation.

Walt-in-Durham; January 30, 2014 at 12:54 PM
A Lawyer said...: You are the one who refuses to accept the law is what it says. As long as you continue to deliberately misrepresent the law, I will point out your misrepresentation.

Good for you, Walt. I still pop in her occasionally, but I am getting tired of talking to a wall.

BTW, Walt, any new developments in Dr. Harr's lawsuits? I don't expect to hear those from him.; January 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Ignoring half the facts like you do while you try to make yourself look 'right' doesn't make it so ... not for the other half, and not for the entire reality and facts. But you know that, right?; January 30, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Lawyers don't decide reality - reality is what it is.

Being lawyers doesn't give you the right to ignore the other side to an issue, and then degrade the other side because you refuse to acknowledge that they exist with lawful complaints, facts, issues, evidence, etc. (which you choose to ignore).

So ... really ... quite a show ya'll put on there - is this legal nonprofessionalism duke style 101 - or what?; January 30, 2014 at 1:14 PM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote: "Good for you, Walt. I still pop in her occasionally, but I am getting tired of talking to a wall."

I hear you. He is predictable. When I won't agree with him, he accuses me of being "unprofessional." Personal attacks somehow substitute for cogent argument in his world. A sad commentary on that particular anonymous poster.

"BTW, Walt, any new developments in Dr. Harr's lawsuits? I don't expect to hear those from him."

Indeed Duke filed its reply. I need to get that post up at my blog. Unfortunately, real work has been intruding. LOL. As you predicted Sid argued his frivolous argument that res judicata only applies to a jury, without citation to authority.

The Magistrate got stuck with this case as Sid sued one of the sitting judges. I suppose he's lucky they didn't assign Judge Britt.; January 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " medical malpractice is NOT an intervening cause and medical malpractice does NOT cut off criminal culpability"........ Yes, if the medical malpractice that led to death was in the treatment of the potentially fatal assault. This interpretation makes both legal and moral sense. When a trauma patient is admitted with a BAC of 296mg/dl. the possibility of alcohol withdrawal symptoms is high. This situation would also apply if there had been admission for a broken ankle after a trip. Let's say someone had purposely tripped Daye at the party that night would he have been guilty of murder?; January 30, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: As has been noted repeatedly - just because no one has shared the results of the investigation with you or Sid, why do you assume it didn't happen? Crystal was given the report, and she made decisions based on it. It's sad that you and Sid have such little faith and confidence in Crystal that you assume she wasn't smart enough to make the appropriate decision. So, clearly when she said she had made a decision, you don't believe her. Funny because on everything else you consider her word infallible even when contradicted by the evidence.; January 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM
A Lawyer said...: Crystal was given the report, and she made decisions based on it. It's sad that you and Sid have such little faith and confidence in Crystal that you assume she wasn't smart enough to make the appropriate decision. So, clearly when she said she had made a decision, you don't believe her. Funny because on everything else you consider her word infallible even when contradicted by the evidence.

Well worth repeating.; January 30, 2014 at 8:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "So, clearly when she said she had made a decision, you don't believe her. Funny because on everything else you consider her word infallible even when contradicted by the evidence"........Don't be so disingenuous. Go back and look at the trial tapes especially Day 5 part 2 from 30 min. You can see how reluctant Crystal was to acquiesce. Only reluctantly under pressure during the break she agreed to not calling Roberts; January 30, 2014 at 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Roberts did not give a written statement on her autopsy results performed a year earlier until after Dr. Nichols gave his testimony at trial, on the last day of trial, DURING defense rebuttal. There was NO time to prepare with that information what so ever.

Wonder if it supports the first version of Dr. Nichols autopsy report, a version that contains the first version findings plus the discrepancies Dr. Nichols admitted to in trial, or a completely different autopsy report based upon the medical reports and the first version autopsy report plus testified discrepancies?; January 31, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Walt said...: Again, Kenhyderal misrepresents the law when he writes: "Yes, if the medical malpractice that led to death was in the treatment of the potentially fatal assault. This interpretation makes both legal and moral sense."

That is not the rule. We have discussed this before, and since you refuse to cite authority for your claim and I know none exists, you are just misrepresenting the law.

"When a trauma patient is admitted with a BAC of 296mg/dl. the possibility of alcohol withdrawal symptoms is high. This situation would also apply if there had been admission for a broken ankle after a trip."

Wrong again. Criminals take their victims the way the find them. And they are liable for the consequences.

"Let's say someone had purposely tripped Daye at the party that night would he have been guilty of murder?"

Because a deadly weapon was not used, this is an example of misdemeanor battery. Under the misdemeanor manslaughter rule, your example is manslaughter 2. Not, Manslaughter 1 or Murder.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Don't be so disingenuous. Go back and look at the trial tapes especially Day 5 part 2 from 30 min. You can see how reluctant Crystal was to acquiesce. Only reluctantly under pressure during the break she agreed to not calling Roberts."

There you go trying to cover up for your own role in Crystal's downfall. I sincerely hope she did not listen to you, because you gave her horrible advice. Now, you're just trying to cover up your role. With friends like Kenny and Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:53 AM wrote: "...Wonder if it supports the first version of Dr. Nichols autopsy report,..?"

Of course it supports Nichols report. Otherwise Meier would have used Dr. Roberts. Of course Sid undermined any testimony from Roberts by leaking her report long ago. That complicated any decision Crystal had to make about using Roberts. If her testimony differed any from what Sid leaked, the State would dismantle her on cross-examination. If it did not, then all her testimony would do is reinforce Nichols' testimony.

However, Meier is not an idiot. In fact, he's a very good criminal defense lawyer. If Roberts report differed from what Sid leaked and what Nichols had testified to, Meier would have gone to the judge outside of the presence of the jury and asked for a continuance to submit the Roberts report and Nichols report to yet another IME physician. The judge may have denied him a second IME, but Meier did a great job of laying the record for appeal. Making the motion would have preserved the issue for appeal.

Just because you don't know how good lawyers work, doesn't mean Meier isn't good at his job. The fault here is Sid's he rendered Roberts useless to the defense and helpful for the state. Some of the fault lies with Kenny too as he apparently encouraged Crystal to trust the turncoat Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 4:07 AM
Anonymous said...: What horrible advice exactly are you referring to Walt? Seems he is just pointing out how reluctant Ms. Mangum was to make a decision about Dr. Robert's autopsy report since she had to plead with the judge on the first day of trial to get Dr. Roberts to even produce a written report, and then was given the report she asked Dr. Roberts for a year for right before the lunch break - as noted by the judge asking her how she decided on the report and then noting she had no time to decide - giving her the lunch break to confer and decide with her lawyer - right before she testified in her own defense after the lunch break.

NO ONE would accept that as justice Walt - since it wasn't.; January 31, 2014 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: In the Jesus Huerto case you can see that the DA insisted on getting the autopsy report before deciding on charges.

So how can the justice system continue in a trial with autopsy reports that clearly contain discrepancies and are therefore in dispute?

Isn't the DA responsible for the charges they bring that are based on disputed autopsy reports and therefore cause of death in any case?

There is a clear discrepancy between the two cases as far as how autopsy reports are used in deciding charges by the DA.; January 31, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember, Dr. Roberts did not prepare a written report until the Court ordered it at Crystal's insistence, but the Defense knew what that report would contain for well over a year (Crystal even told Sid what it would contain). They didn't want it put into writing, because a written report would have to be turned over to the prosecution, and the Defense wasn't interested in aiding the prosecution.

It's not like the report contained anything surprising, it's just that Sid kept telling Crystal that the written report would somehow be different from what Dr. Roberts had been saying all along, and given Crystal's ultimate decision, it wasn't.

But, the report was prepared, it was provided to the prosecution, and the Defense chose not to use Dr. Roberts because she would not have been helpful, but the Defense had known for a long time what that report would say, and wanted to keep it from the prosecution.; January 31, 2014 at 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: That is only your biased unsupported version of events of course. One that is not supported by what you can actually see happening at the trial or on this blog.; January 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "What horrible advice exactly are you referring to Walt?"

Sid has stated on this blog "the prosecution-defense strategic objective has changed from an attempt to have Mangum convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole, to having Mangum accept a plea deal in exchange for a sentence of time served."

Sid's advice was for Mangum to fire all her lawyer and attempt to represent herself.

You do see how this could be interpreted as "horrible advice", don't you?; January 31, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: She had a lawyer.

Her lawyer didn't get a chance to defend her since the judge didn't give him sufficient time to prepare a defense with the assistance of Ms. Mangum in full awareness of the ALL the legal issues involved with the autopsy reports, medical reports, and ME's resolved sufficiently to make a reasoned and informed decision in order to base a fair and equal defense nor prosecution.

That is what Ms. Mangum and her lawyer and the people were denied by the judge.

Dr. Harr helped to get the autopsy reports and medical reports issues brought to the attention of her lawyers.; January 31, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "She had a lawyer."

Only after she had stopped communicating with Sid.

Sid has been the worse thing for Mangum and her defense.; January 31, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Dr. Harr helped to get the autopsy reports and medical reports issues brought to the attention of her lawyers."

Sid did nothing to bring these documents to the attention of Mangum's lawyers -- rather, he exposed any potential defense to the prosecution.; January 31, 2014 at 9:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: Nicholls said' "She stabbed him he died" (with his death the result of that wound being implied).........Do you really think Dr. Roberts, especially if cross-examined, would concur. Welsh, depending on how you chose to interpret it, may say this doesn't matter but the de facto cause of Daye's death was not a stab wound administered by Crystal. Let's get real. The charge, at most, should have been wounding with intent and the verdict not guilty by reason of self defence.; January 31, 2014 at 10:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 31, 2014 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "There you go trying to cover up for your own role in Crystal's downfall"... Cover up how and from whom, pray tell?; January 31, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 5:24 AM said:

"So how can the justice system continue in a trial with autopsy reports that clearly contain discrepancies and are therefore in dispute?"

The purpose of a trial is to resolve conflicts, discrepancies and disputes in testimony and evidence. If there are no discrepancies or disputes a trial is not necessary.; January 31, 2014 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken said:

"Nicholls said 'She stabbed him he died' (with his death the result of that wound being implied).........Do you really think Dr. Roberts, especially if cross-examined, would concur."

Yes. According to Sid she did concur. The fact that the defense declined to use her as a witness (after reviewing her findings and meeting with her) beras this out. It is also why the defense worked so hard to keep her from putting her findings in a written report that would be extremely damaging to Mangum.; January 31, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
You are the one who refuses to accept the law is what it says. As long as you continue to deliberately misrepresent the law, I will point out your misrepresentation.

Good for you, Walt. I still pop in her occasionally, but I am getting tired of talking to a wall.

BTW, Walt, any new developments in Dr. Harr's lawsuits? I don't expect to hear those from him.

Hey, A Lawyer.
I'm glad Walt's keeping you abreast of my lawsuit against Duke and the State. I've been busy working on the most important flog that I will ever produce. It will hopefully be ready in a week.; January 31, 2014 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I seriously doubt that autopsy report would harm Ms. Mangum in any way - duke or the first ME - maybe.

Anyway, the point right now is that she did not have enough time to prepare a defense with her lawyer based on the results of the second ME written report due to the judge rushing the case along against the defense requests for more time to sort out the ME mess.

She should not have had to ask the judge herself for the written report at the beginning of the trial when she had been asking for it since it was conducted by Dr. Roberts a year earlier.

In addition, she had to ask the judge herself because it went against her lawyers wishes, which therefore also demonstrates the conflict that existed in the legal defense at the time due to the questionable autopsy reports, and the undue conflict and pressure that was placed on Ms. Mangum because of the discrepancies in the autopsy report.

In addition, the second autopsy report could easily be deemed compromised based upon the testimony that was provided in trial by the first ME.; January 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM
Walt said...: Since Sid has not favored us with his latest filings and Duke's counter filings, I have a posting at my blog about this very issue. Read it at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2014/01/more-filings-and-counter-filings-in.html

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 2:20 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:24 AM wrote: "Isn't the DA responsible for the charges they bring that are based on disputed autopsy reports and therefore cause of death in any case?

There is a clear discrepancy between the two cases as far as how autopsy reports are used in deciding charges by the DA."

The DA is responsible for prosecuting cases for which he has probable cause. RPC 3.8. Of course, there is no discrepancy here. The evidence is conclusive on that point. Speculation is not evidence. Only testimony and physical exhibits are evidence. Here, there was no inconsistency.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 2:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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?

Truth is the truth. Facts are the facts. Prosecution can't prepare for the lies and discrepancies. They got a pass only because the turncoat attorney representing Crystal pulled punches and didn't even mention the endotracheal tube that was placed in the esophagus... he did however mention a chest tube that was never inserted, stated that the liver was lacerated, and told the jury to find Mangum guilty.

The prosecution was prepared because Mangum's defense attorney was on their side... and against his client Mangum. What's the mystery?; January 31, 2014 at 2:31 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Cover up how and from whom, pray tell?"

You claim to be Crystal's friend. You advised her to: (1) testify and (2) use Roberts to refute Dr. Nichols. Both bits of advice were horrible. She was her own worst witness. Defendants usually are. They have a vested interest in telling a story to benefit themselves. They are not usually professional witnesses. And, in Crystal's case, she has a difficult time telling the same story twice. All three came into play with her testimony and the jury did not believe her. Nor did I.

She ultimately listened to her lawyer on the issue of Roberts. But, she messed around with your advice so long after Sid had sabotaged the defense that it did not help her case. If you really are her friend, you owe Crystal an apology. You can't do her time, but you do owe her an apology.

Conversely, had she listened to her lawyers and taken the deal that was floating around, or if she had listened to Meier's very sound advice and remained silent at trial, she would probably be looking at an earliest possible release date of sometime before Christmas 2014.

Sleep on this Kenny. For the next 12 Christmases Crystal won't be at home, won't be with her kids, won't be with friends and family because you and Sid undermined her defense and convinced her not to take sound advice from her lawyers. Friends like you, she does not need.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 2:31 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "They got a pass only because the turncoat ... "

The only turncoat was Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; January 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Since Sid has not favored us with his latest filings and Duke's counter filings, I have a posting at my blog about this very issue. Read it at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2014/01/more-filings-and-counter-filings-in.html

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Do you want me to put a link to your blog site on blog site? Let me know, and provide me with an image for the link if you like.; January 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

I haven't studied Spencer Young's claims against Meier, I merely mentioned them, as I believe they are relevant. I don't know the merits of his situation with respect to Meier, however, I do know Meier's conduct in Mangum's case was traitorous.; January 31, 2014 at 2:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Walt, the only information I divulged was that which I got from prosecution discovery... as the defense never did anything that resembled an investigation. How could the prosecution possibly surprised about information which they generated?

More elucidation is required.; January 31, 2014 at 2:42 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Walt -- Apparently we need permission to view Sid's document from your blog.

Thanks...; January 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM
A Lawyer said...: Walt:
I'm having the same problem as Lance. But having read Duke's filing, I would bet they get their injunction. If they do, I hope Dr. Harr obeys it.; January 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Walt, the only information I divulged was that which I got from prosecution discovery..."

You also divulged that Dr. Roberts agreed with the findings of Dr. Nichols.; January 31, 2014 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: What was the plea deal based on?

Was it an official offering that is documented in a public record?

When was the plea deal offered and through which lawyers?; January 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: According to Sid, the plea deal discussion was between the prosecution and Woody Vann.

If true, this proves that Sid's statements that Mangum's lawyers weren't working for her is false.

Of course, all we have is Sid's reporting on this matter, so you must consider the source....; January 31, 2014 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney reported some time ago that prosecutors had offered Crystal a deal under which she would plead guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and a serve a sentence of time served plus a short additional time period. They felt they had a strong case. Sidney and Kenny advised her to reject the plea, arguing that if you ignored the law and accepted Crystal's version as fact, the prosecution had no case.

What was the plea deal based on?

Prosecutors regularly offer pleas. It saves both sides the uncertainty of a trial.

Was it an official offering that is documented in a public record?

Anyone with any familiarity with the system would realize that these offers are not documented publicly unless they are accepted, in which case the offer is presented in court. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

When was the plea deal offered and through which lawyers?

Sidney wrote about it on this blog. You can find the information by reading old threads.

Sidney's information was not verified by an independent source. You may view it as credible or not credible as you wish.; January 31, 2014 at 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: So at the time Mr. Vann was the lawyer, the prosecution was aware that Ms. Mangum was not guilty of the actual death of Mr. Daye.

What made them think this in order to offer a plea of assualt with a deadly weapon?

Was it a solid deal, or something that was possile but not an actual plea deal offer from the prosectuion?

Why would someone agree to assualt if they were simply defending themselves from an assualt? At the time this was happening, was the stand your ground legislation also newly passed and/or in the news?; January 31, 2014 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: So at the time Mr. Vann was the lawyer, the prosecution was aware that Ms. Mangum was not guilty of the actual death of Mr. Daye.

If you ignore the law, you may reach this conclusion. If you choose not to ignore the law, you reach a different conclusion.

What made them think this in order to offer a plea of assualt with a deadly weapon?

How the hell should I know? Why don't you call up the prosecutors and ask them?

Was it a solid deal, or something that was possile but not an actual plea deal offer from the prosectuion?

How the hell should I know? Did you read the last post? Sidney reported on this. Ask him.

Why would someone agree to assualt if they were simply defending themselves from an assualt?

If someone knew they might make a horrible witness that the jury would find not credible, it is a way to limit one's losses. If someone knew they were not really acting in self-defense, they might also wish to take the plea.

At the time this was happening, was the stand your ground legislation also newly passed and/or in the news?

The stand your ground legislation is irrelevant in this case for the reasons previously discussed. I suggest you read old threads for more information.; January 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny,

Don’t be disingenuous. You ask what bad advice you provided?

1. You downplayed the seriousness of the charges she faced. Sidney predicted that the state would drop charges because they had no evidence and would be embarrassed to take the case to court. Crystal may have expected that the charges would simply go away. Murder charges are serious. You encouraged this cavalier attitude.

2. You fail to understand the legal process. An attorney can do little in the early stages. Until discovery is complete (and the DA can delay the discovery process with few restrictions—a power Sidney supports), the court does not hear substantive motions. Sidney wanted motions to dismiss—motions that the rules do not permit. The process is unfair. You encouraged this misunderstanding.

3. Sidney convinced Crystal to fire her attorneys and to represent herself. Sidney filed frivolous motions. No defendant should face murder charges without competent legal representation. You said nothing.

4. You encouraged Crystal to testify. Her testimony was inconsistent with other testimony and physical evidence. Her demeanor did not help. Many believe Crystal’s testimony resulted in her conviction for murder 2. You knew her problems with telling a consistent story in prior cases. You were not honest with her.

5. You convinced Crystal that a jury would adopt your ridiculous standard: They review each statement independently. They are required to accept as true any statement not proven false with absolute certainty. They disregard a false statement without affecting the credibility of statements not yet proven false. Real juries do not act this way.

6. You treat Sidney as a credible source. You base your medical conclusions largely on Sidney’s analysis. Sidney destroyed his credibility with his claim that the failure to find DNA that matched the defendants was not exculpatory. You failed to obtain independent verification.

7. You fail to understand the law. You object to the analysis Walt and A Lawyer provide. You object to the conclusions they draw from Welch, Holsclaw and Jones. You provide no case law to support your dissent. You advised Crystal to ignore the law and conclude that she is not responsible for Daye’s death. The jury applied the law.

8. Sidney disclosed that Roberts orally reported to Crystal that she found no major errors with the autopsy. In spite of this information, Sidney concluded that a written report would provide a radically different conclusion than the oral report. He encouraged Crystal to fight to obtain a written report. You encouraged Crystal to rely on this fiction.

9. You encouraged Crystal not to accept a plea. Sidney reported that the prosecutor offered a plea for time served plus a short additional time period. He advised her to reject this offer. You agreed with this strategy.

You and Sidney treated Crystal’s murder charges as a game. She trusted you. She lost.; January 31, 2014 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The good thing about drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum being in prison is she can't pump out anymore children the state will have to turn care like millions of other black women.; January 31, 2014 at 7:11 PM
A Lawyer said...: Anon @ 7:11-- what ugly, racist bullshit. Get lost.; January 31, 2014 at 7:34 PM
A Lawyer said...: Break the Conspiracy:

Very cogent analysis. Thank you.; January 31, 2014 at 7:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt: Innocent people want to testify. Lawyers who want to keep them off the stand, usually, can not give a competent defence simply because they themselves don't believe in their client's innocence. It's a sad and cynical state of affairs and one of the reasons why the legal profession is so often thought of as having no ethics. Aggressive prosecution and a weak defence insures that many vulnerable accused are wrongfully convicted. For you to feign concern for the fate of Crystal and her children is the height of hypocrisy. Those of us who genuinely care for Crystal and her children are repulsed by your mercilessness; January 31, 2014 at 8:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Break: Only # 4 First sentence and # 9 First Sentence. This is the only advice to give an innocent person. Testify truthfully and trust in the system. I realize, though, that the justice system there, is seriously flawed. The guilty, often, walk free, especially the rich and powerful and the innocent, especially the poor and disadvantaged, are wrongly convicted.; January 31, 2014 at 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal -- Perhaps you and Sid can pick up the Shan Carter cause again, given your success with Mangum.; January 31, 2014 at 8:55 PM
Anonymous said...: In Duke / Durham - since Duke has so much money and provides so many lawyers, doctors, politicians, nurses, leaders, wall street stock brokers, journalists, etc., etc., - by their very nature of who and what they are - the justice system should be more situated to assist those who must face the challenges placed upon them due to the undue influence that Duke has on their life, health, society, legal system, justice system, governmental lobbying and legislative influence backed by unlimited money, etc., etc., etc., - not less (as in having to rely on people with no legal degrees or experience to assist in their defense instead of competent non-conflicted, non-corrupted lawyers in a competent non-conflicted, non-corrupt justice system).

What Duke / Durham has and is now is still as big a joke as everyone has been laughing and arguing about since the lacrosse case, as proven by this case so far.

The fact that the malpractice and autopsy reports were not handled professionally from the start by the DA, judges, duke, the MEs, and the lawyers proves that there exists the very real possibility of people believing Duke would kill Mr. Daye to frame Ms. Mangum for murder, and Duke thinking its chances were better - as always - in chaos, nontruth, confusion, divisiness, and continued harm and threat of harm to many or any.

That is not justice - and neither Ms. Mangum, Dr. Harr, or anyone else has to stand for it.; February 1, 2014 at 1:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Generally when you testify truthfully and honestly, the physical evidence backs up your testimony, not directly contradicts it.; February 1, 2014 at 5:16 AM
KHF Supporter said...: Kennyhyderal:

Your replies to Walt and Break were disingenuous.

Why do you have a complete inability to engage in honest debate?

Both provided thoughtful critiques of your "support" for Crystal against serious charges. You respond by insulting Walt and ignoring Break. You, like Sidney, seem unable to respond to thoughtful comments except with a preprogrammed mantra.

As Walt noted, Crystal will be in prison for another 12 years. This severe sentence is not the result of critical comments on a number of blogs. It is the result of Crystal taking advice from those posing as her friends.

I have concluded that Sidney is as stupid as he acts. I don't blame him for sabotaging Crystal's defense. I believe he genuinely believed he was helping.

On the other hand, I don't believe you are that stupid. As Break suggested, you are merely playing a game. Crystal lost.; February 1, 2014 at 7:07 AM
guiowen said...: On the other hand, Kenhyderal proved he is a master debater. Unfortunately, a trial is not a debate.; February 1, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "The fact that the malpractice and autopsy reports were not handled professionally from the start by the DA, judges, duke, the MEs..."

opinion (especially uninformed opinion) ≠ fact.; February 1, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:16 AM wrote: "Generally when you testify truthfully and honestly, the physical evidence backs up your testimony, not directly contradicts it."

DING - DING - DING Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!; February 1, 2014 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Tell that to Duke and the ME's.; February 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Tell what to Duke and the MEs?; February 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: KHF Supporter said: "Why do you have a complete inability to engage in honest debate?" and Guiowen said: "On the other hand, Kenhyderal proved he is a master debater".. Perhaps I am being accused of masterful dishonesty? What KHF Supporter calls thoughtful comment is, in reality, mean-spirited and cruel sarcasm. Feigning compassion for Crystal by people who have trashed her for many years is the height of hypocrisy.; February 1, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Walt: Innocent people want to testify. Lawyers who want to keep them off the stand, usually, can not give a competent defense simply because they themselves don't believe in their client's innocence."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Walt-in-Durham; February 1, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: KHF Supporter said...

"Kennyhyderal:

I have concluded that Sidney is as stupid as he acts. I don't blame him for sabotaging Crystal's defense. I believe he genuinely believed he was helping.

On the other hand, I don't believe you are that stupid."

I disagree. Given the drivel that kenny posts on this site, it is clear that he is as stupid as Sid.; February 1, 2014 at 9:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 5: 16 said: "Generally when you testify truthfully and honestly, the physical evidence backs up your testimony, not directly contradicts it" . Generally, perhaps, especially the "critical" evidence. It's not inevitable, though. Inconsequential inconsistencies can be suggested by some physical evidence. The accused must be given the benefit of reasonable doubt. Who can definitely say that Crystal did not stab Daye in self-defence?; February 1, 2014 at 9:22 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Nothing could be farther from the truth"....... Ah, would that it were so!; February 1, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: guiowen said...

"On the other hand, Kenhyderal proved he is a master debater."

Not to mention a cunning linguist.; February 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: The Jury reasonably said it was not self-defense, as has been repeatedly stated to you, but you choose to ignore it. At the end of the day, there were 2 stories of how the actual stabbing occurred: Daye's, and Crystal's.

No one knows exactly which story is right, only 2 people were there, and they told 2 different versions. However, the rest of Daye's story fit with the physical evidence, as well as the testimony of the other witnesses, including his cousins, the officer, and others.

Crystal's story contradicted the testimony of the other witnesses, including the cousins, the officer, Kia Haynes, and others, as well as the physical evidence (whether you consider these "inconsequential" or not, the jury didn't.

So, when presented with 2 plausible stories, and up to that point, 1 person's statements fit with the physical evidence and all the other witnesses, and the other person's was directly contradicted by other witness statements and they physical evidence, a Jury could infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person who had been consistent all along was telling the truth about that last fact, and the person who had been inconsistent all along was not telling the truth.; February 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: From the standpoint of a citizen witness to this case and this blog coupled with what is known about duke from the news, etc., it is sad to watch such an esteemed and revered for its potential institution of higher learning and research for the betterment of health and social welfare for all people seen in reality as such as you see in this case, this blog and its constant legal struggles because of duke and duke / durham justice system (with cases that are handled in ways that create such unprofessional, unjust, and outrageously corrupt and malicious persecution, harm and results), and other distrubing items in the news that coupled together by connecting dots and seeing what they really do and how they really do it ... really makes a person stop and wonder ... are they different in anything else that they do?; February 1, 2014 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Different about what?; February 1, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: What is odd is that you keep pointing to Duke ... Duke had a lot less to do with the case than you pretend, and Sid's entire argument about the ME is predicated on the belief that Duke is largely infallible in their medical records, so he actually supports Duke.

Plus, the real key in this case was self-defense v. no self-defense, because if you lose on that, it's a question of manslaughter v. murder no matter what Duke did, and Duke had zero to do with that.; February 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:34 said : " there were 2 stories of how the actual stabbing occurred: Daye's, and Crystal's"............ And Crystal's version was vigorously cross-examined and some inconsequential minutiae was revealed and then extrapolated into a discrediting of her entire narrative. A bullying prosecutor was able to confuse Crystal and her, insufficiently prepared Lawyer, in re-cross, did nothing to clarify these things. On the other hand, Daye's version was accepted entirely without being subjected to any cross examination. Face it reasonable doubt is there.; February 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: What "inconsistencies" do you consider minor that were a result of confusion:

1. The officer, and Daye, said they got home, said hi, went inside and started arguing, and she came back outside with Daye yelling at her. Crystal said they never actually went back inside before he started yelling at her.

2. The neighbor said that she frequently heard yelling and screaming, and thumps as if someone was being thrown into the wall ever since Crystal moved in, said Crystal and Daye frequently argued. Crystal said that never happened, Daye had never raised his voice to her (and vice versa) prior to that night.

3. Crystal saying Daye pulled her off the bed and she hid underneath it/behind it, even though it was pressed firmly against the wall, and not on the ground.

4. Crystal giving a different address to the officers in interrogation.

5. Crystal denying she was intoxicated, despite all other witnesses saying she was.

6. Crystal flirting with the officers/EMS workers in the interrogation room.

7. Crystal saying that Daye hit her repeatedly around the head and neck, with no physical injuries (which was addressed when the officer admitted that bruises can show up later, and they never checked Crystal later).

There are certainly others. And, yes, she did get confused on some other things, but it was clear she was confused (like her "admitting" she didn't know which door Daye actually kicked in, when it was clear which one was).

I love how Sid and the rest love to blame the lawyers, even though they clearly have no idea what investigations were done, what information was provided, or anything else done to prepare for this case (or pretty much any other).

Sid and Kenhyderal kept obsessing about inconsequential larceny, somehow thinking that could lead to felony murder. Then they obsessed about Duke, ignoring the self-defense.

As has been noted, with friends like y'all, Crystal doesn't need anymore enemies.

The fact you can't even acknowledge another side shows how naive and ignorant of the processes you are - you have to anticipate the other side, and argue against their point, not dismiss it out of hand, which was done here. But, the jury believed Daye, that happens.; February 1, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny whines: What KHF Supporter calls thoughtful comment is, in reality, mean-spirited and cruel sarcasm.

Kenny, you owe me an apology.

My comments directed at you have not been sarcastic.

Earlier, I gave you my honest opinion on whether I believe Crystal acted in self-defense. When you refused to accept that opinion as valid, I gave you my honest opinion of your credibility. In the comment in question, I gave you my honest opinion on the quality of advice you provided Crystal.

Once again, you refuse to have an honest discussion. You insult Walt. You ignore me. Finally, you insult both of us, characterizing any disagreement as sarcasm.

You have no ability to convince others. When an argument fails to convince others, and they tell you why it fails to convince them, you simply repeat the same argument again and again and again. The jury and most posters do not believe Crystal's errors are "inconsequential minutiae." Your repetition does nothing to change anyone's opinion.

As i said earlier, you have no credibility. None.

Your repeated claim that mystery rapists raped Crystal at the lacrosse party destroyed any credibility you might have had. You should have thought about saying something so transparently contrived if you wanted to convince anyone of anything ever again.; February 1, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... you earlier said that Daye's prior criminal acts and Assaults on a Female were not presented in the trial. As Walt noted, they were probably time barred, but what information about Daye do you have that you think should have been admitted?

Or is this just more vague insinuations but you won't actually put forth your evidence because you know that it can easily be discounted and explained (as either not a conviction, or one more than 10 years ago) and so you'd rather keep your conspiracy going?

Plus, NO ONE denied Daye and Crystal were in a physical altercation that night, so not sure the relevance - it doesn't change any of the analysis on self-defense.

Do you believe that Daye and Crystal's relationship was abusive all along, and just culminated in that night?; February 1, 2014 at 12:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Break: How can you possibly deny, your posts on this blog, directed against me and especially against Dr. Harr, are sarcasm. Many anonymous posters on reading your posts praise you for your sarcasm and scoff at Dr. Harr for his naïveté in taking your advice seriously.; February 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:25 said "you have to anticipate the other side, and argue against their point, not dismiss it out of hand, which was done here. But, the jury believed Daye, that happens.............. Yes, Crystal's Lawyer was not properly prepared to do so. Was the failure to provide an adequate defence due to a lack of time to prepare, or a lack of experience in a murder trials, or a lack of belief in the innocence of Crystal; who can say.; February 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Kenny whines: @ Break: How can you possibly deny, your posts on this blog, directed against me and especially against Dr. Harr, are sarcasm. Many anonymous posters on reading your posts praise you for your sarcasm and scoff at Dr. Harr for his naïveté in taking your advice seriously.

Fair enough.

I admit the obvious. My comments directed to Sidney have been sarcastic. I was frustrated at Sidney's moronic posts and his fawning over any apparent support.

However, my comments to you were not sarcastic. Perhaps I disappointed you when you asked for my opinion whether Crystal acted in self-defense. You wanted sarcasm and I played it straight.

I admit that you were justified in not taking me seriously because of my earlier sarcasm. In the same way, no one can take you seriously because of your earlier non-serious posts. We are even.; February 1, 2014 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal ... you are so good at this ... there was a list of direct contradictions and issues from Crystal's testimony - which you claim are "insignificant" - how would you have handled them?

You claim the lawyers all messed up, and only you could have done it right - so given those inconsistencies, how would you have handled them differently than the Defense did?; February 1, 2014 at 3:51 PM
guiowen said...: Why, you know, Kenny would simply have told them that anyone who doesn't agree with him is cruel, and/or disingenuous, and/or sarcastic. The jurors would have had no choice but to agree with him.; February 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3:21 I maintain that in a violent confrontation with a drunken wild man, in a small apartment, action and reaction are highly fluid and erratic. This traumatic event can not be played out in slow motion in the mind of the victim especially after many months. The Defence can however easily create an imaginary sequential second by second scenario to fit on where things were found and use that to support their supposed narrative. They've had months to do so. The angle of the wound, though, suggests Daye was on top of Crystal when he was stabbed. Blood spatter in a clothed individual not rendered immobile by the wound does not necessarily indicate exactly where the penetration took place.; February 1, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "The Defence can however easily create an imaginary [emphasis added] sequential second by second scenario to fit on where things were found and use that to support their supposed narrative."

That is the fundamental disconnect between Kenny and those who disagree with him. He likes to imagine things the way he wishes the were. Those of us who want to understand this crime are stuck with reality.

Walt-in-Durham; February 2, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: So, you think Crystal's version was "imaginary"? Odd, I thought you believed her.

The problem is that both Crystal and Daye had plausible explanations for how it happened, no one had to "imagine" anything. But, it was hard to explain away the lack of physical evidence for Crystal's story up to the time of the stabbing.

What "imagining" would change whether Daye was abusive prior to that day? Or that would make bruises and marks not appear, or that would cause a bed to move?

The Jury heard Crystal's story, and it was emphasized and explained, they just didn't believe it.

Not sure what "imagination" would be needed, and the second you tell a jury to "imagine how it could have happened" instead of arguing that's how it did happen, you've lost them.

You really are clueless. Again, with friends like you ...; February 2, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: But, Kenhyderal ... let's play along:

What scenario would you have the jury "imagine" to explain all those inconsistencies noted earlier?

The Defense did point out that memory is not perfect in high stress situations (even had an expert talk about it), and how the only relevant thing the jury should focus on is the actual stabbing, and remember that by his own admission, Crystal tried to leave multiple times, and Daye wouldn't let her - in fact, Daye thought she was leaving to call for help - locked herself in the bathroom to call someone to pick her up - he didn't simply let her leave, he kicked in the door and drug her out by her hair (as even he admits), so why would Crystal think he was going to let her leave this time?

Crytal had every right to be afraid and think Daye was going to continue the pursuit, whether he was choking her when stabbed, or he let her go before getting stabbed. What would you have argued differently?

What hurt was the inconsistencies and especially the Milton Walker stuff - because that showed that she would grab a knife and pursue someone AFTER the conflict was over.

You can argue if it still should have been no worse than manslaughter (heat of passion), but unfortunately that's not what the jury decided.

But, you seem to think there is some magical "story" that could overcome all the other issues and get an acquittal, and I'm curious what it would be. You claim there was no preparation - do you know how many times they went over testimony, or how many experts were consulted, or what the Duke surgeons told the Defense, or what the ME told the Defense in interviews, or what Dr. Roberts says in her report? Do you have any clue what preparation went into the case?

What would you have done differently; February 2, 2014 at 6:29 AM
Anonymous said...: There's nothing to understand other than the following:

Mr. Daye attacked Ms. Mangum.

Ms. Mangum defended herself with one nonlethal knife wound to make him stop.

Mr. Daye's knife wound was successfully treated at duke and he was expected to live - therefore the knife wound was proven to be non-lethal given proper treatment.

Mr. Daye did NOT receive proper treatment at duke after successful treatment for the nonlethal knife wound due to issues related to the level of alcohol noted in lab tests when first arriving at duke after he attacked Ms. Daye.

Since nothing was presented to the contrary, Mr. Daye is therefore at fault for:
a. his own alchohol level and loss of judgement at the time he attacked Ms. Mangum.
b. his need for treatment for dilirium tremens inherent in inbibing too much alchohol after successful treatment of a self-defensive wound he received when he attacked Ms. Mangum.

2. Ms. Mangum is not at fault for defending herself against his alchohol fueled misjudgement in attacking her.

3. Duke is responsible by law for any malpractice committed by them in their hospital that led to the death of Mr. Daye - which is documented in their own medical records as malpractice by failed intubation procedure attempts given during treatment of the suspected dilirium tremens due to the amount of alchohol noted on Mr. Daye's lab test on first arrival at duke.

4. The ME reports and the Duke medical reports do not address the same issues for the same person - Mr. Daye - therefore there are major discrepancies between them.

5. Ms. Mangum has been trying to get those discrepancy issues reexamined and investigated since discovering them - to prove actual cause of death - to no avail in the Duke / Durham justice system.

Therefore - her charges and convictions should be dismissed based on the fact that she defended herself with a nonlethal knife wound, given proper treatment at duke, against a drunken Mr. Daye. She was not shown nor proven to be responsible for Mr. Daye's drunken state or for the medical malpractice received by Mr. Daye at duke which ultimately killed Mr. Daye at duke's hands. The ME autopsy reports are still in question, and the duke medical reports were not presented or testified to in court - leaving the true cause of Mr. Daye's death still in dispute.; February 2, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: What's odd - on the issue of the self-defense, and actually for most of the case, you are making the same argument her defense attorney did, and the one the jury rejected.

I know you are desperate to hear Sid's bizarre theories examined, but you ignore that they were, and the explanations weren't helpful to Crystal.

The Defense did argue, and did present evidence, of the fight, of the non-fatal stab wound (something even the ME admitted), and the inconsistencies in the record, and the fact he died of something else, be it DT, an infection, or whatever (never pinned down exactly on a cause).

You are just upset that you aren't getting answers you wanted, so you pretend they can't exist.

Why do you refuse to consider what Walt, A Lawyer, Crystal herself, and others have said - Dr. Roberts and the explanation of those inconsistencies would have been harmful to Crystal, so they weren't used? There was a lot of information from which a jury could have found reasonable doubt, but they didn't.

That's a problem with juries - they do crazy things sometimes. But, there was evidence they could have found either way - most cases that go to trial can go both ways.

And, the Court of Appeals may have an issue with some things, and send it back for a new trial, and I bet the Defense doesn't present Dr. Roberts or Sid's crazy theories next time. Or Crystal takes a plea. Or the Court leaves it alone, and Crystal serves another 12 years.; February 2, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Anonymous said...: It was not proven that she murdered him versus self-defense, so therefore, that decision of murder cannot be made due to reasonable doubt, however, he did attack her - and there is sufficient proof of that - making self-defense a more plausible verdict.

The jury was under informed and therefore not able to come to the conclusion of how Mr. Daye died, and who killed him.; February 2, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 6:42am:

Thank you for your concise summary of the reasons Crystal's conviction should be overturned.

1. The jury unreasonably failed to accept Crystal's self-defense plea. Daye initially attacked Crystal, and what happened afterwards should be unimportant.

2. If the law does not eliminate Crystal's responsibility for Daye's death, then the law is unfair and should be set aside. The prognosis was for a full recovery. Crystal cannot be held responsible for a pre-existing condition or mistakes in treatment.; February 2, 2014 at 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: No 1. is incorrect about what I said.

I said: what happened after she was attacked was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt - not that it was unimportant what she did after she was attacked - only that it wasn't proven what actually happened beyond a resonable doubt - altho it can be surmised she was in self-defense mode since she was just attacked.

... leaving LOTS of doubt ... that will be aurgued about forever - just like the lacrosse case - unless this case is taken seriously - which it hasn't been so far.; February 2, 2014 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Your example #1 is simply incorrect. Under the law, IF the initial aggressor retreats from the conflict, the victim loses the right of self-defense (because if they re-engage they become the initial aggressor). The Jury followed the law.

If you think it should be changed, that's fine, but are you really going to justify pursuit? Let's say Daye ran out of the house - by your argument, Crystal would have had the right to pursue him and stab him. Just like Milton Walker - had Crystal caught him, she could have stabbed him?

The Court of Appeals is not going to change the law of self-defense.; February 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't get your argument for #1 - the point of self-defense is that you need to defend yourself, not get revenge.

You are staying that if someone is attacked, everything else that happens is irrelevant? So, you are advocating vigilanties? Stepping outside this case, and what you think of the decision - do you really think that if someone attacks someone else, but then stops the attack and goes to leave, the person attacked (who is no longer in danger) has the right to stab/attack that person?; February 2, 2014 at 8:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: But, as the very astute poster @ 6:42 and 7:20 so concisely pointed out there is certainly reasonable doubt that it did not happen that way.; February 2, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: The only thing proven was that he received one non-lethal knife wound in self-defense from his attack - the rest was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

That is what i said - that is what i meant.

You can troll all you want and change what i said to mean whatever you want - but that is not what i said and not what i meant - and now - you know it.; February 2, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal - the jury obviously disagreed - you think because the defense attorney messed up, so again, I ask - how would you have addressed those inconsistencies and issues?

Ignoring Duke, because they have nothing to do with self-defense, how would you have done things differently?

What "imaginary scenario" would you have concocted, or what would you have explained?; February 2, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: that is irrevelant since he is not her lawyer; February 2, 2014 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: On the defense, they tried to keep out the evidence of Milton Walker, they had an expert to demonstrate the force of the door being kicked in (which would help show the terror), it was denied, they had an expert talking about reactions and memory issues in these situations.

They explained that nothing was overly relevant but the last bit - Crystal tried to get away, put a locked door between herself and Daye (Daye said she went in there to call a police officer to take her away, Crystal denied that - said she didn't have a phone, and Daye knew that). Daye, rather than letting her leave (after she had retreated), kicked in the door, and drug her out by her hair, where she was taken into the bedroom and she stabbed him. (Daye said differently).

The Defense even pointed out that Daye's story made no sense because he himself admitted he stopped Crystal from trying to leave, so why would she believe it this time?

So, again, what would you have done differently?; February 2, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: it is still irrelevant - since he is not her lawyer; February 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Three posters believe that the jury erred in finding Crystal Mangum guilty or murder. They contend that reasonable doubt existed that she stabbed Daye in self defense.

None of the posters explains why disagreement with a jury's verdict represents grounds for appeal.

One of these posters contends that Crystal Mangum was raped at the lacrosse party by mystery rapists. A second poster contends that Rae Evans directs a vast conspiracy targeting Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum and their supporters. The third contends that Duke maliciously harms and kills people for fun and profit.

I wonder why support for this cause has not taken off. Crystal could not have chosen more effective supporters.; February 2, 2014 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: And your an evil duke troll, so what?; February 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: The term "mystery rapists" is misleading. The persons who raped Crystal are not Lacrosse players but were guests at the Lacrosse Party and their names are know to some if not all the Players present. These were no phantoms as the Duke Lacrosse apologists like to so dismissively refer to. The Lawyers knew after hearing the true narrative that no one on the team's DNA would be found inside Crystal. The idea of getting everyone on the team to submit DNA was a plus for their defence strategy. Not only the mistakenly identified and charged Seligman and Finnerty but other Players no where near the event were also tested. No definitive list was ever compiled of who all was present. The DNA found could not be explained by any of Crystal's documented sexual history nor was the DNA preserved or submitted to a DNA registry. I am not paranoid and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories but from my observations the Justice System in North Carolina is terribly broken. I agree with Dr.Harr that minorities and the disadvantaged are the most negatively affected. I agree that there was a concerted effort by the parents of the Lacrosse Players, charged, to conduct a vendetta against Crystal and former DA Nifong for daring to accuse their angels. I agree that greedy Trial Lawyers saw dollar signs and to bolster their contingency suits orchestrated a campaign to characterize Crystal as a lying femme fatale, a gold-digger and a drug addicted prostitute. To this end they have, as allies, the bloggers at Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers, KC Johnson and even some here; although I suspect the majority here have just been duped by the propaganda they've been fed. I also believe that the medical misadventure that led to Daye's death at the hands of Duke needs to be investigated.; February 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: All this, with no credible evidence.

And you ask others to trust your judgment?; February 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said,
"I believe ..."

Which is why no one -- no one whose opinion matters -- believes you.; February 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kennyhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.; February 2, 2014 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: It is telling that duke has the type supporters it has on this blog instead of a reasoned, legal, professional, concerned reply from duke and resolution to all the issues that are left to be settled only individually in the minds of all its patients and patrons, students, employees, fans, etc., etc., etc., about this case and the lacrosse case, etc., but not in the court of law nor for the people involved in the cases or for the people in general.

When you actually have people INSISTING duke is beyond reproach even though everyone is left to reproach or not reproach at will based upon what they know or don't know after seeing what is going on through the absence of anything reasoned or legal about what duke is doing in this case(s) to indicate any other reason other than to reproach what they are doing while continuing to watch them not take responsibility nor concern for what they are doing while they are continue to do what they do (or don't do) - and thus leaving all to be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus - because it is duke - afterall ... the only thing left is to question duke and the duke / durham justice system - what the frack are you doing?

Why is that?
Is that the way duke always is?

That IS what you read and see in the 'news' about them afterall - over and over and over again - so it is not just a fluke for duke - it IS who they are and what they do to many.

Perhaps they calculate that doing as they do will bring their desired results. So - really - you have to wonder - what does duke REALLY want and why do they do what they do?; February 3, 2014 at 2:21 AM
Anonymous said...: I haven't heard anyone say Duke is infallible, what I've heard people say is that the "issues" Dr. Harr has raised were investigated and explored, he (and you, and others) are just upset that those results aren't being shared with you, since you have no real reason to need them, and the Defense obviously decided that the results were more harmful than helpful to Crystal (as even she herself stated).

What people have said is that EVEN IF Duke committed malpractice, under our laws, it wouldn't have cut off Crystal's criminal liability (if it wasn't self-defense). And, remember, Duke had/has NOTHING to do with the self-defense v. non-self determination.

But, y'all don't trust Crystal, you think she can't make up her own mind (pressured or not), so you feel YOU need to decide what's best for her.

It is telling that even Crystal told Dr. Harr (long ago, before any "pressure") that Dr. Roberts' report would hurt her. How does the helpful Dr. Harr respond? By pressuring her and demanding it be prepared to it can be presented to the prosecution, and help them in their case.

And y'all still think Dr. Harr isn't trying to intentionally harm Crystal?; February 3, 2014 at 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...: well then you go to duke after you've been nabbed by someone duke wants to frame, face their forced intubation tubes, and live (damnit)

you seriously do not get that YOU could have been Mr. Daye who didn't live do you?; February 3, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke seems to have issues with framing and blaming people - like they did in the lacrosse case - for their own personal Duke agendas - as well as for retailiation when 'Duke' is compromised in any way - it is a duke thang it does seem.; February 3, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Duke keeps a list of people it wants to kill/harm, and just waits until someone on that list shows up? And, they are powerful enough that NO ONE in the organization, not the nurses, doctors, orderlies, no one, will speak up, and in fact they will carry out these killings, for which they could be charged with, and convicted of, murder, just because Duke asks?

And you say you aren't paranoid.; February 3, 2014 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: That isn't what I said - it is what you choose to say - then blame it on me and call me paranoid ... hmmm ... must be a dukie; February 3, 2014 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: You said:

well then you go to duke after you've been nabbed by someone duke wants to frame, face their forced intubation tubes, and live (damnit)

you seriously do not get that YOU could have been Mr. Daye who didn't live do you?

How is that not paranoia and saying Duke was laying in wait to frame someone?; February 3, 2014 at 6:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I haven't heard anyone say Duke is infallible, what I've heard people say is that the "issues" Dr. Harr has raised were investigated and explored, he (and you, and others) are just upset that those results aren't being shared with you, since you have no real reason to need them, and the Defense obviously decided that the results were more harmful than helpful to Crystal (as even she herself stated).

What people have said is that EVEN IF Duke committed malpractice, under our laws, it wouldn't have cut off Crystal's criminal liability (if it wasn't self-defense). And, remember, Duke had/has NOTHING to do with the self-defense v. non-self determination.

But, y'all don't trust Crystal, you think she can't make up her own mind (pressured or not), so you feel YOU need to decide what's best for her.

It is telling that even Crystal told Dr. Harr (long ago, before any "pressure") that Dr. Roberts' report would hurt her. How does the helpful Dr. Harr respond? By pressuring her and demanding it be prepared to it can be presented to the prosecution, and help them in their case.

And y'all still think Dr. Harr isn't trying to intentionally harm Crystal?

Why should I try to harm Crystal's case? It couldn't have been damaged any more than it has... and it's not my fault.

Crystal's only chance of having her conviction overturned and being freed follows my path. And she will be freed sooner rather than later. My next flog will bring much enlightenment for all.; February 3, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Three posters believe that the jury erred in finding Crystal Mangum guilty or murder. They contend that reasonable doubt existed that she stabbed Daye in self defense.

None of the posters explains why disagreement with a jury's verdict represents grounds for appeal.

One of these posters contends that Crystal Mangum was raped at the lacrosse party by mystery rapists. A second poster contends that Rae Evans directs a vast conspiracy targeting Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum and their supporters. The third contends that Duke maliciously harms and kills people for fun and profit.

I wonder why support for this cause has not taken off. Crystal could not have chosen more effective supporters.

Mangum was convicted in large measure because she was represented by turncoat lawyers more interested in protecting Duke and the M.E. than their client. A sham of a defense, which was itself a shame.; February 3, 2014 at 7:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
There's nothing to understand other than the following:

Mr. Daye attacked Ms. Mangum.

Ms. Mangum defended herself with one nonlethal knife wound to make him stop.

Mr. Daye's knife wound was successfully treated at duke and he was expected to live - therefore the knife wound was proven to be non-lethal given proper treatment.

Mr. Daye did NOT receive proper treatment at duke after successful treatment for the nonlethal knife wound due to issues related to the level of alcohol noted in lab tests when first arriving at duke after he attacked Ms. Daye.

Since nothing was presented to the contrary, Mr. Daye is therefore at fault for:
a. his own alchohol level and loss of judgement at the time he attacked Ms. Mangum.
b. his need for treatment for dilirium tremens inherent in inbibing too much alchohol after successful treatment of a self-defensive wound he received when he attacked Ms. Mangum.

2. Ms. Mangum is not at fault for defending herself against his alchohol fueled misjudgement in attacking her.

3. Duke is responsible by law for any malpractice committed by them in their hospital that led to the death of Mr. Daye - which is documented in their own medical records as malpractice by failed intubation procedure attempts given during treatment of the suspected dilirium tremens due to the amount of alchohol noted on Mr. Daye's lab test on first arrival at duke.

4. The ME reports and the Duke medical reports do not address the same issues for the same person - Mr. Daye - therefore there are major discrepancies between them.

5. Ms. Mangum has been trying to get those discrepancy issues reexamined and investigated since discovering them - to prove actual cause of death - to no avail in the Duke / Durham justice system.

Therefore - her charges and convictions should be dismissed based on the fact that she defended herself with a nonlethal knife wound, given proper treatment at duke, against a drunken Mr. Daye. She was not shown nor proven to be responsible for Mr. Daye's drunken state or for the medical malpractice received by Mr. Daye at duke which ultimately killed Mr. Daye at duke's hands. The ME autopsy reports are still in question, and the duke medical reports were not presented or testified to in court - leaving the true cause of Mr. Daye's death still in dispute.

An enlightened comment, indeed. My next flog, which I am feverishly working on, will cast an immense amount of light on the situation.; February 3, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: This site used to be funny...at least sometimes.....when Harr babbled on about bathrobe boy. Now.....it's just boring crap.; February 3, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm sure it will be as enlightening as the last one - and won't at all just repeat the same drivel you've been spouting all along and that every outside person with actual competence looked at has dismissed.

Can hardly wait.; February 3, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: total bull from racist harr, ken edwards and a couple of people who apparently failed third grade......

when I see Walt's posts, or Lance, or A Lawyer....I read them. otherwise, dribble.....pure dribble.; February 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote:

I think your initial disclosure was a mistake on your part. Unfortunately, that mistake did harm the defense. To compound the error, you won't own up to it.

"It couldn't have been damaged any more than it has... and it's not my fault."

Your disclosure allowed the state to know that the defense had no intervening cause evidence. One less thing for them to worry about. Further, your disclosure rendered anything Roberts might testify to as worthless to the defense. Your disclosure meant that the only thing Dr. Roberts might possibly do is help the state. In a criminal case where the defense has few advantages, they really don't need to help the state.

Walt-in-Durham; February 3, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Mangum was convicted in large measure because she was represented by turncoat lawyers more interested in protecting Duke and the M.E. than their client. A sham of a defense, which was itself a shame."

The only turncoat was a guy named Sid Harr who violated trust and the attorney client privilege to sabotage the defense. Crystal had four good lawyers who gave her the best defense possible under the circumstances. In the end, she decided to testify in a manner that was unbelieveable. That upped the conviction and sentence.

Walt-in-Durham; February 3, 2014 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: That's so disingenuous Walt and you know it.

She had a lawyer - they did not have time to develop a unified defense team, evidence, strategy, etc. in the approx. two months allowed - which was all apparent in the trial.

Any one of her lawyers could have requested that the DA further investigate the discrepancies - did they?

If the 2nd autopsy report matched the 1st - than it too contains the same discrepancies as the first.

So really, the DA needs to do his job in this case and have the autopsy reports, the ME's, and duke investigated for their actions during their participation in this case, like Dr. Harr has tried to have done all along.; February 3, 2014 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: You keep assuming the discrepancies weren't investigated. Are you just that dense? Dr. Roberts investigated them, every lawyer investigated them. The fact they chose not to share those answers with you is your problem.

I have no doubt they were investigated, and the answers were NOT helpful to Crystal (which is, of course, why Sid keeps wanting those answers produced - to further harm Crystal).

You keep beating a dead horse and assuming everyone else is corrupt just because they won't answer your questions, and you haven't seen the report.; February 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The way the case has been conducted so far makes Duke / Durham look more than just bad or whatever that jury member who thought that concern was more important than a fair and equal trial in a justice system based on USA law and not on whether duke / durham looks bad or not.; February 3, 2014 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: This case is in appeal from what I've heard, so - no - not dense about what you say - i just don't agree with you obviously - do you have a problem with that?; February 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "That's so disingenuous Walt and you know it."

Apparently, you don't know the definition of the word "disingenuous".; February 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Cases are routinely appealed, and there are some issues in this case that the Court may consider. Sid's hair-brained theories that have been addressed and discounted won't be among them, and they likely wouldn't be coming out in a new trial either.

Remember, Dr. Roberts would be bad for Crystal, as Crystal herself admitted, so why would they use her in any future trial, unless the State decided to call her?; February 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM
guiowen said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

'Apparently, you don't know the definition of the word "disingenuous".'

I used the word disingenuous here some time ago, referring to another poster whose name I won't mention (it makes him extremely angry). Since then, lots of the posters have been using the word -- incorrectly, as you point out.; February 3, 2014 at 2:45 PM
guiowen said...: Sid,
I hope you're not going to meddle again. Haven't you done enough damage to that poor benighted woman?
Of course, I guess you really can't do much more damage.; February 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous @ 1:36. There has been no investigation into the unexpected death of Reginald Daye at Duke, period. A while back I referenced a confidential survey that found fatal complications to intubation errors are frequent and unless ethically documented are easily covered up. Nichol's autopsy report, upon which the murder charge was laid, said, the cause of death was complications from the stab wound, administered by Crystal. He admitted in Court, though, that he did not know what these complications were. The cause of Daye's symptoms needed to be attributed to an infection caused by the surgical repair he underwent in order to be considered a complication of the wound. If it was caused by their mishandling of his alcohol withdrawal symptoms, then there is no murder. For a murder charge to prevail this needs to be resolved. You have to tie the brain death, due to cerebral anoxia, to the wound and not just tangentially by saying that if he had not been admitted to hospital he would not have died because he then could of kept on drinking; February 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Please provide your case law to support your analysis. Thanks.; February 3, 2014 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry, kenny. I missed your response.; February 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Asking Kenhyderal and Sid to provide case law to SUPPORT their analysis? That's just funny ...; February 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM
kenhyderal said...: This may be the case that causes the Criminal Code to be amended to cover situations like this because many trauma victims have serious medical, psychiatric and substance abuse conditions that render them more prone to be involved in violence and subject to trauma. The reliance on present Case Law that is non-specific to many such situations like Crystal's case is being applied too broadly and in a manner that defies common sense.; February 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: As you recall, Ms. Mangum was trying to get away from Mr. Daye with the help of the cop outside her apartment because she was afraid of Mr. Daye due to the condition he was in and how he was acting toward her before he attacked her. She can't be held responsible for defending herself against his drunken attack or for his alchohol induced delirium tremens and resulting malpractice at duke in her situation with Mr. Daye in the condition he was in as noted by lab tests when he was first admitted to duke. If Mr. Daye was not allowing her to leave, she did have to defend herself when he attacked her since she wasn't able to just leave until he did.; February 3, 2014 at 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You contend that mystery rapists raped Crystal at the lacrosse party. You can lecture no one about common sense.; February 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:18:

The jury unanimously disagreed with your conclusion.; February 3, 2014 at 9:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:18:

The jury unanimously disagreed with your opinion.; February 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone would have defended themselves the same if in similar circumstances to what Ms. Mangum was in. Does duke kill people with malpractice everytime a patient presents with delirium tremens or is suspected of it? Do the ME's produce autopsy reports with so many obvious discrepancies in every other duke case as well?; February 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: The jury rejected self defense because Crystal's testimony had so many inconsistencies.

The answers to your questions: no and no. Read the local papers.; February 3, 2014 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: You do not have informed answers to those questions. The jury was not fully informed and had issues of misplaced concerns not related to the law in their decision process that is not allowed by law.; February 3, 2014 at 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Why was Crystal so inconsistent in her testimony?; February 3, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Did Kenny's mystery rapists sneak into the hospital and move the tube?; February 3, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I do have informed answers to those questions. I read the papers.; February 3, 2014 at 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually, Duke is just repeating what it did in the lacrosse case in this case as well by:

1. Providing sub-par medical services.

2. Convincing other judicial figures to act against their professional standards in order to obstruct justice to their ill-conceived benefits.

3. Controlling the media to try to control public opinion to their benefit.

4. Receiving the judgements, support, and corrupted mechanism within the duke / durham justice system in order to successfully carry out their ill-conceived plans for their 'benefit'.; February 4, 2014 at 3:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Your analogy with the lacrosse frame only goes so far. It appears the the frame was initiated outside of Duke, and Duke was pressured to co-operate. It is unclear that Duke benefitted.; February 4, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Why do you think duke didn't initiate both cases with their sub-par medical services?; February 4, 2014 at 4:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal,first claimed rape when prompted at Durham Access. Only then was she taken to Duke.; February 4, 2014 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember, the officer denied that Crystal ever asked him for help in getting away. That was one of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in her story that Kenhyderal is simply ignoring because he doesn't have a good explanation, so he just says "people don't always remember" and "you just have to 'imagine' a better story."

And, none of Sid's issues with Duke address the self-defense argument at all, nor the inconsistencies in Crystal's story.; February 4, 2014 at 6:29 AM
Anonymous said...: BORING BORING BORING BORING......
Mangum is gone....G-O-N-E.....at least for a few years. Hooray....one less hooker/child abuser/murderer on the streets of Durham.; February 4, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: More evidence...as if we need it...that racism DOES exist in the hearts and minds of people of ALL races, backgrounds, genders, classes and ages.
Durham folks are ranting that the Police Department needs an unbiased external oversight.....lately because of the apparent suicide of a mexican male. Many questions about that tragic death remain unanswered.
Funny though.....when the LAX guys and others were shouting to the rooftops about the CLEAR screwups of the Durham police durhing the rape hoax and subsequent investigation.....when the WHITE lax guys yelled for external unbiased review of the Durham Police..........the black folks in Durham didn't say anything in support. In fact, the black folks supported Nifong.
So, if a Durham policeman screws up....it's apparently OK so long as the victim of the screwup is white.
Double standard.....you bet your backside it is.

The Durham Police Department is a mess.....it NEEDS a thorough housecleaning......because there is evidence of lousy police work. All of us, black-white-brown-yellow-green or plaid......should be smart enough to figure this out.....together.; February 4, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps it is more like: you see people of different races sticking together when there is a protest against discrimination against their particular race - so in a lot of instances of protests against cops - you see races such as black, hispanic, etc. being victimized and protested by the same race - and in the lacrosse case - you saw whites being victimized and protested by the same race.

That's all it is.

Altho of course if all the victimized races protested together - they might actually get some results in their favor - like you said.; February 5, 2014 at 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: The case about the Southport cop who murdered a schizophrenic kid in front of his parents when they called for help to get him into a hospital so his medication could be reevaluated, (not his illness mind you - his medication needed treatment), because he didn't have time for all 'this' is at the stage of the cop receiving a grand jury indictment for voluntary manslaughter and the cop having to turn himself in by today and post bond.; February 5, 2014 at 2:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Do cops get lesser charges for their actions than regular citizens? Cuz that cop just flat out shot the kid when he was down, restrained by two other cops after just being tasered twice (he was only 100 pounds), and was getting ready to do it again if the father hadn't stopped him who said the cop then started to threaten him. This is after the offending cop stated he didn't have time for all this even though it is his job to assist the mentally ill and their families by the direction of the psychiatric docs.; February 5, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Anonymous said...: If 2nd degree murder requires the existance of intent to kill - then why didn't the cop get at least that charge - since he obviously intended to kill the kid when he shot him and was getting ready to shot him again if the father hadn't stopped him?; February 5, 2014 at 3:02 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:02 AM wrote: "If 2nd degree murder requires the existance of intent to kill - then why didn't the cop get at least that charge - since he obviously intended to kill the kid when he shot him and was getting ready to shot him again if the father hadn't stopped him?"

Murder in the second degree is NOT INTENTIONAL, but RECKLESS. The difference being planning. Murder in the second degree is not planned, but the result of some conduct which may result in death and in fact does result in death. Thus, assault with a deadly weapon, which is a misdemeanor becomes murder in the second degree because a deadly weapon (such as a steak knife) may cause death even where the the intent was not to kill. It is said to be reckless. The moral of that story, don't go around stabbing people unless you are willing to do some time.

Walt-in-Durham; February 5, 2014 at 5:30 AM
Anonymous said...: 2nd Degree also requires Malice.; February 5, 2014 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: The moral of the story could be don't mess with cops cuz they will shoot you twice to make sure you're dead - therefore with reckless abandonment and malice of forethought to insure death - even if you are just in 'need of' feeding the psy corps. and co.'s coffers cuz their meds make you sick on purpose cuz they 'need' feeding ... DON'T DO IT!!!; February 5, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:49 AM wrote: "2nd Degree also requires Malice."

NCGS § 14-17(b)(1)The malice necessary to prove second degree murder is based on an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.

Thus, the malice is found in the inherently dangerous act or omission, not a state of mind.

Walt-in-Durham; February 5, 2014 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt - it then goes on to say manifest a mind, so what you say about state of mind does not make since. What's the difference?; February 5, 2014 at 7:11 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Anonymous @6:42 AM:

First, it's "malice aforethought", not "malice of forethought".

Second, "'need of' feeding the psy corps"? Really? "Psy Corps"? Beyond, old episodes of Babylon 5, where can one find these "psy corps"?; February 5, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Its another term for pharma & co. - psy corps. & co. - get it?; February 5, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "..'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'.."

-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Oh yeah, I get it.; February 5, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Their the ones feeding these kids really unsafe meds that make them sick or kill them so their coffers can be fed (for their own benefit only) - and telling them to call the cops and say they're a danger in order that they may be placed in a jail like hosp. so they can then mess with the kids' meds and minds even more to again continue to feed their coffers - (since there is NO community care available) - or to get them killed by the cops or arrested and put in privatized jails - where they also use them to research the meds on graduated levels of 'freedom' - thereby causing them more illness and insuring that: ... yup - they'll be back ... until their dead ... psy corps. & co; February 5, 2014 at 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: In reading the articles on the Southport officer - it was the Grand Jury that chose the charges. Rather than a standard Grand Jury, they followed an incredibly rare, and generally unused, procedure - the grand jury heard from many witnesses (and the accused, which never happens), and decided between 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, and no charge, and they chose Manslaughter.

I imagine the DA could have charged 2nd Degree, but he decided to use a different procedure, and the Grand Jury selected manslaughter.

(Oh, just wait til we start hearing how unfair it was that Crystal wasn't treated like this - they will ignore that this officer is probably the only guy in the last 20 years to be treated like this - just further Duke/Durham conspiracy against Crystal.); February 5, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Why did they treat him differently?; February 5, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Only a little paranoia there ... if the kids are killed, no more money, so they clearly don't want them dead. North Carolina doesn't privatize prisons, so no profit motive there.

And, you keep saying the police respond and kill people. I suspect vastly more people are helped by calling the police than killed. Can you please provide evidence that the police "routinely" kill people they are called to help, instead of it being rare.

Yes, our mental health treatment is a disaster in this country, but you sound like you don't want it improved because you think it's a plot.; February 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: you don't read the local news or you would not say any of what you just said unless you are trolling - since none of it is based on fact

in fact, you haven't even read the conversational posts of the last few flogs where this issue has been discussed here since at least christmas due to the 'suicide' of Jesus

so ... really ... you say nothing about what i have said and only about your limited understanding of the subject that is readily understood if you just read the 'news' and stop trying to troll me; February 5, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

Why did they treat him differently?

I'm sure because he was an officer, which doesn't make it right, but at least they didn't sweep it under the rug.

He's been charged with a Class D felony, so his minimum punishment (assuming a Level 1, which is probably safe for an Officer) is 38 months in prison. So, absent a plea deal, if he's convicted on the Voluntary manslaughter he will go to prison.; February 5, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: And, he potentially could get more.

He could get as little as 38-58 months (and be eligible for release, if offered ASR) in 32 months, or as much as 80-108 months, with a presumptive sentence of 51-74 months.

So, his sentence would have a minimum of somewhere between 3-6 years, and a maximum of between 5-9 years (with rounding).; February 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:11 AM wrote: "Walt - it then goes on to say manifest a mind, so what you say about state of mind does not make since."

Since, an adverb meaning - from a past time until now. I did not quote an out of date version of NCGS § 14-17(b)(1) so I do not understand your statement.

Walt-in-Durham; February 5, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: you wouldn't; February 6, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt - you don't think weilding your legal knowledge on this blog in a trolling manner isn't unprofessional? Why is that?

I asked ya'll to stop trolling me - that includes your unprofessional lawyer ... ness.

thanks; February 6, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Giving people facts and information isn't trolling. You only claim it is because you know you can't back up/support any of your claims and so you accuse people who disagree with you of being trolls so you can ignore them, rather than recognize you are clueless.; February 6, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
Important announcement --

I am going to make my next flog into a two-parter. Too much to get on one flog. As it is, it'll run 25 minutes minimum... but it will contain very important information and facts. I would rate it as one of the most important flogs that I've ever produced.

Part One is nearly completed, and it should be posted hopefully by Saturday, February 8th... barring any unforeseen technical difficulties.

As you were.; February 6, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
BORING BORING BORING BORING......
Mangum is gone....G-O-N-E.....at least for a few years. Hooray....one less hooker/child abuser/murderer on the streets of Durham.

My anonymous friend, I think your celebration is a little premature. Yes, she's locked up currently, because she trusted the system instead of me... but I am in the process of rectifying that. You'll see in my next flog.; February 6, 2014 at 6:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Remember, the officer denied that Crystal ever asked him for help in getting away. That was one of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in her story that Kenhyderal is simply ignoring because he doesn't have a good explanation, so he just says "people don't always remember" and "you just have to 'imagine' a better story."

And, none of Sid's issues with Duke address the self-defense argument at all, nor the inconsistencies in Crystal's story.

Considering the circumstances, the self-defense issue is moot. Facts are that the medical examiner made a false and fraudulent autopsy report and that Daye was intubated in the esophagus... which is the proximate cause of his death.; February 6, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sid,
I hope you're not going to meddle again. Haven't you done enough damage to that poor benighted woman?
Of course, I guess you really can't do much more damage.

gui, mon ami, I am going to help overturn Mangum's murder conviction and have her released. The reason that she was convicted is because she put her faith and trust in her attorney and didn't listen to my non-lawyerly advice.; February 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Cases are routinely appealed, and there are some issues in this case that the Court may consider. Sid's hair-brained theories that have been addressed and discounted won't be among them, and they likely wouldn't be coming out in a new trial either.

Remember, Dr. Roberts would be bad for Crystal, as Crystal herself admitted, so why would they use her in any future trial, unless the State decided to call her?

If I have the good fortune to get my hands on a written report by Dr. Roberts (if one, does in fact, exist), you have my word that I will publish it on this blog site... and the rays of enlightenment will shine down on you. Of course, you may wish to remain huddled in the shadows.; February 6, 2014 at 7:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You keep assuming the discrepancies weren't investigated. Are you just that dense? Dr. Roberts investigated them, every lawyer investigated them. The fact they chose not to share those answers with you is your problem.

I have no doubt they were investigated, and the answers were NOT helpful to Crystal (which is, of course, why Sid keeps wanting those answers produced - to further harm Crystal).

You keep beating a dead horse and assuming everyone else is corrupt just because they won't answer your questions, and you haven't seen the report.

Do you know the reason for the discrepancies between the autopsy report and other medical records? Daniel Meier didn't seem very interested in delving very deeply into the matter.

The answer to the discrepancies is simple... Dr. Nichols lied in order to help a vendetta-driven prosecution prevail in its trumped up case against Mangum. It's elementary.; February 6, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
That's so disingenuous Walt and you know it.

She had a lawyer - they did not have time to develop a unified defense team, evidence, strategy, etc. in the approx. two months allowed - which was all apparent in the trial.

Any one of her lawyers could have requested that the DA further investigate the discrepancies - did they?

If the 2nd autopsy report matched the 1st - than it too contains the same discrepancies as the first.

So really, the DA needs to do his job in this case and have the autopsy reports, the ME's, and duke investigated for their actions during their participation in this case, like Dr. Harr has tried to have done all along.

You are absolutely correct. However, even had Mangum's defense attorneys had two years instead of two months, they would've still presented a lackluster defense. Their objective all along was to protect Duke University Hospital... that's why Meier mentioned a chest tube instead of an endotracheal tube. His cross-examination of Dr. Nichols, in which he should've tore him apart, was pitifully inadequate. As I've said all along, Mangum would've been better off representing herself. She wouldn't have fared any worse.; February 6, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Mangum was convicted in large measure because she was represented by turncoat lawyers more interested in protecting Duke and the M.E. than their client. A sham of a defense, which was itself a shame."

The only turncoat was a guy named Sid Harr who violated trust and the attorney client privilege to sabotage the defense. Crystal had four good lawyers who gave her the best defense possible under the circumstances. In the end, she decided to testify in a manner that was unbelieveable. That upped the conviction and sentence.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, ya gotta be kiddin'. I thought Mani Dexter's defense of Mangum for the 2010 incident was featherweight, but the work by Meier in this case was a hundred-fold worse. Of course, Meier did a good job of keeping Duke University Hospital out of the discussion. He didn't even try to address the proximate cause issue and instead led the jurors to believe that an infection secondary to the stab wound caused Daye's death. That did not happen. Meier's defense was nothing but a travesty.; February 6, 2014 at 7:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
total bull from racist harr, ken edwards and a couple of people who apparently failed third grade......

when I see Walt's posts, or Lance, or A Lawyer....I read them. otherwise, dribble.....pure dribble.

The next flog is guaranteed enlightenment. It'll not only be an eye-opener, but a cranium-opener.; February 6, 2014 at 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: If that is the case, then the system is mightly screwed up - just not for her - but for everyone - especially every duke patient and / or every NC citizen who must rely on the ME autopsy reports in order for justice to prevail in many legal issues as needed. But you know that.

The justice system, especially in Duke / Durham, needs to change for all in order for justice to prevail in NC. Instead of having to face the issues repeatedly in every individual case - how do major changes get made to the integrity of the NC justice system, especially with concern to the Duke / Durham injustice situation?

NoOne should have to be their own defense lawyer in a USA murder trial - her right to an attorney who can assist in an equal and fair trial is paramount for justice to prevail and guaranteed by law.; February 6, 2014 at 7:33 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 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