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 601 – 640 of 640

Anonymous said...: Sid wrote:

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.

Which is exactly why the best decision Crystal ever made is to NOT give you that report.

And, you say self-defense is irrelevant - no, it isn't. Because even if you could explain away the legal standard and responsibility for the death, if no self-defense, it would still be AWDWIKISI or at least AWDWISI, and she'd still be in prison, if not for as long.; February 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid wrote ...

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.

As Walt, A Lawyer, and many others have explained to you - the fact they weren't discussed in open court is because the questions had likely been asked and investigated, and the answers wouldn't have been helpful to Crystal. You assume that because they didn't ask, they weren't investigated, the more likely answer is they weren't asked because they were investigated, and the answers weren't helpful.

It was more helpful to leave the ambiguity in the jurors' minds than to go into a full explanation that would harm Crystal.

Just because you can't figure out the explanation, and just because no one will share the results with you fully (though Crystal did tell you Dr. Roberts' conclusion, just not how she reached it) doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You really are a narcissist who thinks if it doesn't involve you it didn't happen.; February 6, 2014 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: If it would have bolstered the prosecution's case, why didn't they bring it up for the jurors' benefit to make a more solid verdict against Ms. Mangum?; February 6, 2014 at 8:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: As Walt is so fond of saying: "
DING DING DING Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner"; February 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Because, by the time the got the Dr. Roberts report, they didn't have time to subpoena Dr. Roberts to testify, so they couldn't use it. Sid would have made sure that wouldn't have been a problem, and they'd have had plenty of time, cause he's here to help Crystal.

I encourage people to look at Walt's blog and read the latest filings in Sid's Duke lawsuit ... the man has zero concept of the law and hour our court system works, yet you follow him around like sheep. I hope none of you face serious issues and actually rely on what he calls advice.; February 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:49 AM wrote: "If it would have bolstered the prosecution's case, why didn't they bring it up for the jurors' benefit to make a more solid verdict against Ms. Mangum?"

Because Dr. Roberts was a defense expert called in anticipation, not expected to testify. Under our rules of evidence and discovery, such an expert cannot be called by the other side to testify. In short, the defense gets a free look at the expert's opinion. If they like it, they can use it, if they don't, they can keep it from the jury and the state cannot bolster their case.

Sorry Kenny, you do not have a winner. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

Run him.

Walt-in-Durham; February 6, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Walt, ya gotta be kiddin'. I thought Mani Dexter's defense of Mangum for the 2010 incident was featherweight,..."

I think we've already established that you are not the the best handicapper of legal talent. But, it's nice to have confirmation.

"... He didn't even try to address the proximate cause issue...."

Because he had no evidence and no law to support that theory. I've invited you before to hand up some law, but you haven't.

"Meier's defense was nothing but a travesty."

For you, yes. Had Crystal listened to Meier, she would have faced at worst one more year in jail. Instead, she decided to get on the stand and testify inconsistently with the established facts.

Walt-in-Durham; February 6, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: What does "run him" mean Walt?; February 7, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sounds like you are trying to instruct someone to 'run him' - does that mean you are telling your evil duke troll gang to troll here again obsessively Walt - even though they and you have been asked to stop doing that? And you think they will follow that: Run him?

Why is that?; February 7, 2014 at 2:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Either Mangum is guilty of murder (as I believe and the jury concluded), in which case she got the punishment she deserved, or she is not guilty of murder, in which case she is suffering the very fate she tried to inflict on the lacrosse players. Either way justice is served.

As MLK famously said, the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. Over the many years since Mangum made her false accusation, it has been interesting to see how it has gradually yet consistently bent in favor of those who were harmed by Mangum's false claims and against Mangum and those who enabled her.; February 7, 2014 at 7:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Incredible; the Duke Lacrosse apologists invoking the universally respected and admired Dr. King and suggesting that his words would support a very different political and social agenda then the one that he advocated. That's sacrilege. Sorry to tell you, Duke Lacrosse Supporters, Dr. King would not have been on your side. If you doubt this ask the opinion of those associates closest to him who are still involved in the struggle like The Rev Jesse Jackson; February 7, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid wrote ...

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.

As Walt, A Lawyer, and many others have explained to you - the fact they weren't discussed in open court is because the questions had likely been asked and investigated, and the answers wouldn't have been helpful to Crystal. You assume that because they didn't ask, they weren't investigated, the more likely answer is they weren't asked because they were investigated, and the answers weren't helpful.

It was more helpful to leave the ambiguity in the jurors' minds than to go into a full explanation that would harm Crystal.

Just because you can't figure out the explanation, and just because no one will share the results with you fully (though Crystal did tell you Dr. Roberts' conclusion, just not how she reached it) doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You really are a narcissist who thinks if it doesn't involve you it didn't happen.

I am a realist, and I believe in evidence. The evidence, as laid out in my flogs proves that discrepancies between the autopsy report by Nichols and the medical records does, in fact, exist. I would like an explanation, and I think Crystal and all Tar Heelians are deserving of one.; February 7, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Either Mangum is guilty of murder (as I believe and the jury concluded), in which case she got the punishment she deserved, or she is not guilty of murder, in which case she is suffering the very fate she tried to inflict on the lacrosse players. Either way justice is served.

As MLK famously said, the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. Over the many years since Mangum made her false accusation, it has been interesting to see how it has gradually yet consistently bent in favor of those who were harmed by Mangum's false claims and against Mangum and those who enabled her.

Mangum is not guilty of murder and she is not deserving of a conviction based on a trumped up case fueled by a vendetta-driven prosecution. She should be freed immediately, and I will see that that happens.; February 7, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Walt, ya gotta be kiddin'. I thought Mani Dexter's defense of Mangum for the 2010 incident was featherweight,..."

I think we've already established that you are not the the best handicapper of legal talent. But, it's nice to have confirmation.

"... He didn't even try to address the proximate cause issue...."

Because he had no evidence and no law to support that theory. I've invited you before to hand up some law, but you haven't.

"Meier's defense was nothing but a travesty."

For you, yes. Had Crystal listened to Meier, she would have faced at worst one more year in jail. Instead, she decided to get on the stand and testify inconsistently with the established facts.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, there has been a vendetta against Mangum since her identity became known as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Meier successfully completed his mission, which was to conceal Duke University Hospital's role in Daye's death. He never even said the word "endotracheal tube" but he did mention "chest tube"... something that was never performed on Daye. He made his own cross examination of Dr. Nichols appear to be inept... which it most certainly was. Meier never had, as a goal, the acquittal of Mangum. I, however, would've been able to prevail had I been representing her.; February 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid says:

I am a realist, and I believe in evidence. The evidence, as laid out in my flogs proves that discrepancies between the autopsy report by Nichols and the medical records does, in fact, exist. I would like an explanation, and I think Crystal and all Tar Heelians are deserving of one.

Yes, you would like one, but you aren't entitled to one. Crystal has Dr. Roberts' report, and she got her explanation, and she's the only one entitled to it.

You make it more and more clear every time you open your mouth that this is about you, and you alone, and you don't care who you hurt in the process, especially Crystal.

You have no right to the explanation, so it wasn't provided to you. You are going to claim you don't believe Crystal was provided the explanation, but you have no evidence for that. She's not saying she wasn't provided an explanation.; February 7, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid says:

Walt, there has been a vendetta against Mangum since her identity became known as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Meier successfully completed his mission, which was to conceal Duke University Hospital's role in Daye's death. He never even said the word "endotracheal tube" but he did mention "chest tube"... something that was never performed on Daye. He made his own cross examination of Dr. Nichols appear to be inept... which it most certainly was. Meier never had, as a goal, the acquittal of Mangum. I, however, would've been able to prevail had I been representing her.

Just because you don't know there was a chest tube doesn't mean it happened. Keep reading the medical records, or perhaps you don't have complete records. But it's funny that you assume they'd just make something up with no evidence.; February 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

I, however, would've been able to prevail had I been representing her.

Not if you showed the same complete and total lack of ability to read a medical record and/or analyze the law you continue to show here, and in your Federal filings.

Your goal is LWOP for her, had you represented her, you probably would have succeeded - at least she got smart and cut you off before it was too late, though significant damage had already been done.; February 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Please define "sacrilege".; February 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM
A Lawyer said...: She should be freed immediately, and I will see that that happens.

Dr. Harr:

No disrespect intended, but, given for 0-for-everything record in court, I am dubious that you will see that any such thing happens.; February 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " I, however, would've been able to prevail had I been representing her."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT

Run him!

That's hillarious. You have never won a lawsuit. Attempting to represent Crystal would have only assured her a longer sentence. Seeing Crystal sent away for a long sentence seems to be your only goal. Breaching her confidence in you was just one of your many attempts to undermine whatever defense she might have had. With friends like you, Crystal needs no enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; February 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: I'll let the dictionary (any dictionary) do that. Or else, I'll direct you to "Google"; February 7, 2014 at 2:00 PM
guiowen said...: What's the matter, Kenny? Can't you define the words you use?

"El que lo dice lo es."; February 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Est quod est; February 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM
guiowen said...: No, Kenny, that's not what I said.
By the way, who's your deity?; February 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM
guiowen said...: When Kenhyderal uses a word, it means just what he choose it to mean — neither more nor less.; February 7, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...
"Est quod est"

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; February 7, 2014 at 7:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: Q.(sp.) "El que lo dice lo es(?)" in Inglés "Who says what it is ?" A. (l.) "Est quod est." in Anglicus "It is what it is." In common English the word sacrilege has come to have a wider application then it's original ecclesiastical meaning.; February 8, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sorry, Ken, even your favorite resource (wikipedia) still recognizes that 'sacrilege' refers to the treatment of sacred persons,places, or things.

While Dr. King was universally respected and admired, he was no saint. Neither his words or political/social agenda are considered sacred.

So...in the words of the respected and admired Walt:

'' Sorry, Kenny, you do not have a winner. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT...''; February 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: "Sacrilege has its roots in the Latin sacr-, meaning "holy." Sacrilege was originally reserved for talking about blasphemous acts that disrespect, violate, or misuse holy traditions or objects. However, today the term sacrilege carries a broader, and lighter, meaning than its origins suggest. For example, it's usually considered sacrilege to root for the out-of-town team that's playing against your home team. Ancient users of this word might think our looser definition is sacrilege".... Vocabulary.com. You know, Lance, where I'm concerned, Walt always wants to show me up. If he can't find anything significant he will, perversely, resort to the trivial.; February 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact that Sid either doesn't have complete medical records and thus doesn't know about the chest tube and other things, or the fact he has them and is lying about them, either way, people need to realize he is a con artist and trying to get people on board with his plot to destroy Crystal.; February 8, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"Q.(sp.) "El que lo dice lo es(?)" in Inglés "Who says what it is ?" A. (l.) "Est quod est." in Anglicus "It is what it is." In common English the word sacrilege has come to have a wider application then it's original ecclesiastical meaning."

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; February 8, 2014 at 11:01 AM
guiowen said...: Oh, now I understand. MLK Jr. belongs to Kenny's team. Anonymohus at 7:42 tried to get MLK Jr. to root for the opposite team. This is sacrilege!; February 8, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Regardless of what team Kenny imagines MLK is on, the arc of the moral universe has bent in a very discernible way vis-a-vis Mangum and the other participants in the Duke lacrosse debacle. Not even Kenny and Sid can deny that.; February 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM
guiowen said...: But MLK is on Crystal's team!; February 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: The arc is long.; February 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, it has been long, but it is bending, just like MLK said.; February 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"The arc is long."

A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; February 8, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: W
h
e
r
e

i
s

k
e
n
n
y

t
h
e

t
r
o
l
l
?; February 9, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Weren't we supposed to have the most enlightening flog yet at this point? One where Sid still makes critical errors because he doesn't have full information, yet pretends he is so brilliant it doesn't matter?; February 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke lacrosse won the season opener 16-10 against Jacksonville.I hope they win another national championship this year.; February 10, 2014 at 12:50 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 640 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