justice4nifong: "Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

Sunday, May 25, 2014

"Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

439 comments:

1 – 200 of 439 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
AnonymousMay 24, 2014 at 5:36 AM

"does Dr. Harr need a competent, non-conflicted, professional, and capable lawyer to assist Ms. Mangum if he truly wants to assist in her defense ... yes"

You forget that Crystal had the services of a number of capable lawyers who left the case because of SIDNEY's interference.

Keep in mind that all of Crystal's so-called capable attorneys violated the Brady Rule by withholding exculpatory evidence that was in the Roberts report.

Do you actually believe Daniel Meier did a good job defending Crystal? He apparently defended her about as well as he defended Spencer C. Young.; May 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You quoted Albert Einstein as saying that the world was a dangerous place not because of those who do evil but because of those who do noting in the face of evil

How true.

If good people like KC Johnson, Stuart Taylor, all the Liestoppers had done nothing about the evil of the false Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal's false allegations, DA NIFONG's corrupt, wrongful prosecution of the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players, three innocent men would have ended up convicted and sentenced to prison for 30 years each.; May 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Keep in mind that all of Crystal's so-called capable attorneys violated the Brady Rule by withholding exculpatory evidence that was in the Roberts report."

The Roberts Report was not exculpatory. Exculpatory evidence is evidence which says the defendant didn't do it. The Roberts report said, in effect, Crystal did do it.

"Do you actually believe Daniel Meier did a good job defending Crystal? He apparently defended her about as well as he defended Spencer C. Young."

He did a better job of defending her than you could have. Had you defended her she would have been convicted of murder 1 and would have gotten life without parole.; May 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Keep in mind that all of Crystal's so-called capable attorneys violated the Brady Rule by withholding exculpatory evidence that was in the Roberts report.

Do you actually believe Daniel Meier did a good job defending Crystal? He apparently defended her about as well as he defended Spencer C. Young.

The Brady Rule applies to the State. And, I love how you keep pointing to Spencer Young - his website is www.morganstanleygate.com for anyone who wants to review it.

To give you some background:

His son was on the Duke Lacrosse Team, and was at the party (and grew up with Colin Finnerty). Spencer considers Mangum to be the devil incarnate, and Mike Nifong to be the most corrupt prosecutor ever.

If you read his website, he's crazier than Sidney.

Oh, and his "issue" with Meier is this:

Meier was able to get the felony charges DISMISSED. But, Meier wouldn't prosecute a Sitting Judge and the District Attorney (the fact Meier had no ability to do that is irrelevant - Spencer's legal skills/knowledge are about as good as Sidney's).

So, yes, a dismissal - that's a pretty good defense Sidney.

How stupid are you, really?

You prove yourself to be an idiot every time you open your keyboard and type a post.

You said before you'd never reviewed Spencer's website - is that still the case? Is that how you operate - find something that seems to agree with you, and run with it, without any research?

No wonder you were a shitty doctor and a loser in life and lawsuits.; May 25, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You are the only one, besides KENHYDERAL and the tin hat poster who claims the autopsy report was fraudulent.

With your lack of training, with your lack of experience, no court would ever recognize you as competent to render such an opinion.

KENNY and tin hat have less experience than you.; May 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 25, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Calling SIDNEY a doctor, shitty or otherwise, is an insult to all the doctors in the world.

SIDNEY is a person who happens to have an MD degree appended to his name. He does not have the training or experience to make him a real Doctor.; May 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, Sid. I lost IQ points just reading your crap. You really don't have anything new to say, do you?

You refuse to research, you refuse to do anything. You just keep repeating the same thing, over and over and over again, expecting a different result - that's the definition of insanity.

If you'd ever actually respond to questions people ask, and show you care about the truth (like Daye's inadmissible record), you MIGHT have a smidgen of credibility, but as it is, you don't.

You take what you want, and ignore the rest, no matter how clearly WRONG you are. A man who can't admit he is wrong on anything is delusional and shouldn't be taken seriously on anything.; May 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Since Sid won't do it ... I would invite Kenny and Tin-Foil Hat Anonymous to look at Spencer Young's website and see if he really has any credibility:

www.morganstanleygate.com

Just be careful - he does consider Crystal to be a huge liar, so don't let that hurt your feelings.; May 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Attorney Meier was not given the sufficient time he requested to mount a strong defence

It was a strong defense - as strong as possible under the circumstances - he fully argued self-defense (as even you acknowledged, since you wouldn't argue anything differently), and he had the medical experts and the rest. The issue was that the only real defense was self-defense, and the jury didn't buy it.

Sid convinced Crystal that she needed to ignore self-defense (I believe he even said on this blog that arguing self-defense was a mistake because it meant admitting to 1st degree murder, which is completely wrong - it only required admitting to having stabbed Daye). Crystal had a good defense, and the jury rendered their decision.

Manslaughter would have been preferable, but at least it wasn't LWOP (much to Sid's continuing frustration).

Meier never asked for a continuance to better prepare himself for trial. In fact he stated before trial that he was "ready to go." He did ask for a continuance until the situation involving Dr. Nichols could be resolved... but that's about it. Nothing significant... He's nothing but smoke and mirrors.; May 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous May 25, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Calling SIDNEY a doctor, shitty or otherwise, is an insult to all the doctors in the world.

SIDNEY is a person who happens to have an MD degree appended to his name. He does not have the training or experience to make him a real Doctor.

Have any of you detractor-commenters even bothered to read the "Fatally Flawed" series?

Even though it left out the most serious issues, such as producing false and fraudulent autopsy reports and committing perjury, it still is a damning indictment of the medical examiner system in this state... a system which you lionize just because it enabled the vendetta-driven prosecution, with the help of turncoat attorney Meier, to convict Crystal.; May 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous May 25, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Calling SIDNEY a doctor, shitty or otherwise, is an insult to all the doctors in the world.

SIDNEY is a person who happens to have an MD degree appended to his name. He does not have the training or experience to make him a real Doctor.

Have any of you detractor-commenters even bothered to read the "Fatally Flawed" series?

Even though it left out the most serious issues, such as producing false and fraudulent autopsy reports and committing perjury, it still is a damning indictment of the medical examiner system in this state... a system which you lionize just because it enabled the vendetta-driven prosecution, with the help of turncoat attorney Meier, to convict Crystal.; May 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Meier never asked for a continuance to better prepare himself for trial. In fact he stated before trial that he was "ready to go." He did ask for a continuance until the situation involving Dr. Nichols could be resolved... but that's about it. Nothing significant... He's nothing but smoke and mirrors."

Blame Crystal and yourself for Meier's supposed lack of time. Crystal did have multiple attorneys and ample time for a defense. Instead of listening to her attorneys she listened to you, and because of your interference she kept dismissing attorneys and requesting new ones. I guess you believe, because Crystal was and is your favorite Murderess(Shan Carter is a MurderER), she should have been allowed to play these games to her and your hearts' content. The Judicial system does not work that way.

I suppose you believe that you are a law unto yourself and that your are above the law, it should work that way.

More of your megalomaniacal delusions.; May 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Even though it(the Fatally Flawed Series) left out the most serious issues, such as producing false and fraudulent autopsy reports and committing perjury,"

As the autopsy report was neither false nor fraudulent, and there was no perjury, these can not be considered issues.

"it still is a damning indictment of the medical examiner system in this state... a system which you lionize just because it enabled the vendetta-driven prosecution, with the help of turncoat attorney Meier, to convict Crystal."

Wrong yet again. There was no vendetta driven prosecution of Crystal. Daniel Meier was not a turncoat.; May 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Why do you still refuse to admit you are wrong about the admissibility of Daye's prior charges?

And, why do you cite Spencer Young? In the past you said you hadn't bothered to read his website, but since he'd made the accusation, you wanted to get it out there. Have you still not read it? And, if you think just the accusation gives something merit, then you have to admit that there is some merit to the argument that your are a megalomaniacal narcissist who is an incompetent doctor and litigator who hurt Crystal since it's "out there" and by your standard, deserves some merit. Or have you now researched Spencer Young, and you stand by his claims (and if so, what about his accusations against Mangum and Nifong)?; May 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, I read the first bit of your "expose" but since you continue to cling to the thoroughly discredited and disproved assertion that the Larceny of Chose in Action was intended to lead to the Felony Murder Rule (despite others having provided you proof from the statute, and the lack of jury instructions that it CAN NOT and COULD NOT have been the basis for felony murder) shows that you just don't care, and are incapable of a logical analysis or learning.

The State pursued (and the jury was instructed on) Premeditation and Deliberation, NOT Felony Murder - but you can't admit that mistake, like so many others.

Since you refuse to acknowledge clear cut errors and incorrect assertions on the law, why should anyone take you seriously? For all we know, you made many mistakes, but just refuse to acknowledge them.; May 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Referring back to the Einstein quote I again say How True.

The system did nothing about Crystal's crimes when she was living with Milton Walker. As a result she was able to stab and murder Reginald Daye.; May 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Getting back to the Einstein quote.

Thanks to the many good people who did not stand by and do nothing after William Cohan published his hatchet job, people might have taken seriously.

They don't.

Good triumphs over evil.; May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM
Whatchoo tawkin 'bout, Sidney? said...: Sidney the legal eagle @ May 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM said...

Keep in mind that all of Crystal's so-called capable attorneys violated the Brady Rule by withholding exculpatory evidence that was in the Roberts report.

My gawd, Sidney, listen to yourself. Brady applies to prosecutors' disclosure of evidence to the defense.

Yo ignunt.; May 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNET HARR and his screed about the Brady vs. Maryland decision, it is something like his screed about reciprocal discovery in the Lacrosse hoax. He called the defense attorneys unethical because they did not disclose all their evidence to the prosecutor.

The defense has to disclose evidence to the prosecution only if it intends to offer a affirmative defense such as an alibi.

Reade Seligman's attorney wanted DA NIFONG to see Mr. Seligman's alibi. DA NIFONG refused. It was the prosecutor who blocked reciprocal discovery.

It seems SIDNEY is still the legal eagle NOT!!! He maintains misconceptions about the law which were pointed out to him years ago.

As Walt is wont to say, with friends like SIDNEY Crystal doesn't need enemies.; May 25, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: When Sid uses a legal term it means exactly what he wants it to mean. Any other meaning is wrong.; May 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: It would have been impossible for the Duke lacrosse players to have raped Crystal Mangum.There isn't that much Viagra or alcohol in the world.Besides the bathroom was too small.; May 25, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I am interested in reading your latest Sharlog about the autopsy reports, and appreciate the time and effort you took in presenting the information to your readers on this blog.

However, and please do excuse my complaint, but I have trouble reading lengthy text in the little windows that can't be expanded to enable more text and less scrolling. When I try to scroll down, the scroll keeps skipping text. Hence, I end up not being able to read the text, which I was interested in doing.

Can you place lengthy text in larger windows in your sharlog or in ones that can be expanded to facilitate reading? Thank you.

Maybe for now you could just place the text into a blog entry so that it can be read or something like that. I am talking about the first part of the sharlog where there is a newspaper to the left and a little text box with your lengthy observation about the series to the right.

Thank you for considering my request.; May 26, 2014 at 12:23 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Keep in mind that all of Crystal's so-called capable attorneys violated the Brady Rule by withholding exculpatory evidence that was in the Roberts report."

ROFLOL. Ladies and gentlemen, we have new winner in the deliberate misrepresentation category. For the record, Brady v. Maryland does not apply to the defense. Don't use the excuse that you can't get into the federal court's law library. It's available online. You just deliberately misrepresented the holding of the case. In class, you would get no credit for participation today. In a court room, that is a much more serious violation.

"Do you actually believe Daniel Meier did a good job defending Crystal? "

A lot better than you possibly could. Sid, go put your dunce cap on and stand in the corner.; May 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Meier never asked for a continuance to better prepare himself for trial."

Yet another deliberate misrepresentation

Walt-in-Durham; May 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh no ... Duke-ND are playing for lacrosse national championship - attorney Meier went to ND, Sid claims he is in the pocket of Duke (with no evidence) who will he root for?; May 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke wins again.They just beat Notre Dame for the national championship,the third time they've won since the team was falsely accused of raping a repulsive stripper named Crystal Magnum who is now serving time in prison for murder.; May 26, 2014 at 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: It has been rewarding to see how those people and institutions on the right side of the Duke/Mangum false rape fiasco have consistently fared well and those on the wrong side have consistently fared poorly. The arc of the moral universe continues to bend towards justice.; May 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM
guiowen said...: To the 1:44,
This is sacrilege! How dare you use such words without Kenhyderal's permission?; May 26, 2014 at 1:52 PM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, Kenny! I'll watch your back.; May 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: to the moral arc comment poster:

Who is the 'right' side of the case and who is 'wrong' side of the case (to you), and what exactly do you thing 'they' deserve as justice?; May 26, 2014 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: In the lacrosse case Duke was found in the wrong about a LOT of things apparently - yet - seemingly have also taken it into their power to seemingly bend justice to their will of apparent 'revenge' against Ms. Mangum and others whom they have harmed greatly in the process of doing so. So, who is the right and who is the wrong in these scenerios, especially when you consider the perspective of Duke's greater power, professional responsibility, and ability to affect the lives of many by their actions and/or nonactions in these cases?; May 26, 2014 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I am the anonymous poster at 1:44pm.

Included among those on the right side of the case were:

1. The three defendants.
2 The entire Duke lacrosse team.
3. Their coach.
4. Their lawyers.
5. Their supporters.

Included on the wrongs ide of the case:

1. Mangum.
2. Nifong.
3. Police officers, detectives, investigators, laboratory personnel and ADA's whose acts, ommissions and words aided and abetted the prosecution.
4. Much of the Duke administration and the so-called Gang of 88.

One group has, by and large, done quite well for themselves. The other, not so much.; May 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: great - so don't dump your sheat here cuz there ain't none of those people on this blog

the only people on this blog are those who have to watch all the bs and face duke and same god forsaken system - and fight against the corruption and injustice the same and more

thanks; May 26, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Anonymous said...: some of us'n even get to suffer along with patients getting trached while watching all this bs and fighting for the mere justice of assurance that Duke isn't going to trach to death another patient, nor are they going to blame others for their malpractice

sound like fun?

yeah, seriously - and then have the evil duke troll gang bully the fracking hell out of ya for having that grandest of opportunities

blah; May 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: luckily for me i have a bandaid in my first kit that'll work just fine for me when i finally ... just ... scream; May 26, 2014 at 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: anyway ... so what the protestors need to do next monday is everyone file into the legislative building and at a predetermined time - rip off the tape and - scream (best to choose kiddy bandaids for this one people or ya'll will be screamin for real). anyway ... the screamin' needs to take less time than normal conversation - so say a 30 second heart felt SCREAM - and then put the bandaid back on - and silently file back out with finger raised in defiant silent protest

couldn't hurt and at least one point will be made; May 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

There was a more recent article about the ME system that talked about a fix the govenor was suggesting. This included a raise of $150.00 to $250.00 per case and more training. What it appeared to lack was any oversight, accountability, or responsibility taken for the harm committed against all citizens and visitors of this state by this broken system, (one among many in this state). None. As usual. Just ok, raises for everyone and damn em' all (as usual).; May 27, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Anonymous said...: The last I looked on Amazon, the tally for weeping willie's screed was 78 one star reviews to 26 positive or neutral reviews.

Public opinion does not agree with weeping willie, and that is a good thing, a very good thing.; May 27, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...: your on the wrong blog again ... just in case ya didn't know; May 27, 2014 at 7:47 AM
guiowen said...: To the 7;47,
Please mind your manners.; May 27, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: watch your annoying bs evil duke troll ways g...

go post another 1 star review on amazon so the other evil duke troll can add it to the total brag tally and let us know all about it; May 27, 2014 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: It is odd that his cronies don't ever expect Sid to answer when he's demonstrably wrong - the fact they continue to follow him, and believe everything he says, is proof there can be no rational discussion with them, because they will never admit they are wrong about anything.

Sid, why do you not admit you are wrong about:

1. The admissibility of Daye's prior criminal charges.

2. The Felony Murder Rule - which was never applicable in the Mangum case.

3. The fact that Brady v. Maryland only applies to the State.

4. The fact that Dr. Roberts's written report is not helpful to Crystal because it supports the same conclusion as Dr. Nichols.

There are many, many, many, more, but those are clear cut, and absolutely verifiable by anyone - yet you continue to cling to them like a petulant child.; May 27, 2014 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: hey evil duke troll

this is an open case and is in appeal

stop your bs bullying and harrassment here - sure you've heard that one before

thanks; May 27, 2014 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: It's a closed case, but it is on appeal, but does that excuse Dr. Harr from being wrong? SO, he can be wrong, and spread false/misleading information, but no one else can ask him about it?

If you think talking about the case is a problem, then shouldn't Sid shut his entire blog down?

And, why is it evil and trolling to ask someone to explain why they are wrong?

Are you really that weak and pathetic minded that you can't stand someone telling you that something you believe is wrong, or that one of your heroes can make a mistake? Sid is wrong, he should be willing to admit it, and it doesn't affect the case at all.

A case on appeal is not "open" it is closed, and the conviction stands, unless or until the Court of Appeals, or some other Court overturns it.; May 27, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: actually i'm fairly sick of the evil duke troll gang on this blog that runs between KC's blog, liestoppers, and the Amazon 1 star rating attack of Cohan's book

you just go on and on and on and on

about the same damn thing - over and over and over again

doesn't matter what answers are given or not, doesn't matter that other people are harmed by what you do cuz you will just troll on and on and on

hater; May 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 27, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Counting in Barnes and Noble and Books a Million, the score is 29 favorable and neutral reviews and 87 one star reviews for weeping willy's compendium of lies and innuendo.; May 27, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Another correlation that can be made to the ME autopsy system in NC that affects everyone in this nation and many, if not most in the world, is the fact that so many medicines are tested on citizens of this state from what one can assume and can see in relation to the dense concentration of pharmaceutical companies and their well-financed need for human trial testing and research studies, etc.

The results of these trials are obviously not well documented nor recorded if death is the long term side affect of these medicines tested in NC apparently based upon the facts given in the News and Observer Medical Examiner investigative series and examples of the system given in this case.; May 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: NC court overturns Darryl Howard conviction, finds prosecutorial misconduct by Nifong.; May 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Another feather in 'Fong's cap.; May 27, 2014 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Kind of something that SIDNEY is trying to get Shan Carter off on murder charges when, if one examines the record, there is no doubt he committed felony murder.

Now here is an innocent man, an innocent black man, who was framed for murder supposedly by corrupt DA NIFONG, about whom he will say nothing.

Except maybe, I am not familiar with the case.

Neither was I until now. The difference is, I have familiarized myself with the case. SIDNEY HARR never will.; May 27, 2014 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid refuses to look at, or acknowledge, anything that doesn't fit his pre-determined view of the world, and the story he wants to present.

No matter how demonstrably wrong he is, he will just ignore you, and the facts, and keep prattling on, repeating the same thing over and over.; May 27, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid is never wrong; the facts and the law are.; May 27, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Tomorrow I will post a first-hand account of the medical problem at the women's prison that nearly took Crystal Mangum's life.

As you were.; May 27, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I almost wish Sid succeeded in having Nifong's law license reinstated. It would be fun to watch him lose it again.; May 27, 2014 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Tomorrow I will post a first-hand account of the medical problem at the women's prison that nearly took Crystal Mangum's life.

As you were."

It waits to be seen whether what you publish will be credible. You have published a lot of non credible crap, one of the more notable was that DA NIFONG was a decent, honorable prosecutor, especially in light of the recent Darryl Howard revelations.; May 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: No one wants to hear (or read) a first-hand account of CGM's bowel obstruction...Even if they found, like, wooden pieces in her anal area.; May 27, 2014 at 12:59 PM
guiowen said...: It sounds to me as though she ate too much. Perhaps she passed a kidney stone.
It's a good thing she was in custody. If she'd been carousing with her "gentleman friends", God only knows where she'd be now.; May 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Tomorrow I will post a first-hand account of the medical problem at the women's prison that nearly took Crystal Mangum's life.

As you were."

It waits to be seen whether what you publish will be credible. You have published a lot of non credible crap, one of the more notable was that DA NIFONG was a decent, honorable prosecutor, especially in light of the recent Darryl Howard revelations.

Unless he has a signed release, he will be illegally releasing confidential medical information - so I can believe it's "credible." He doesn't care about the law. I assume Crystal knows you will be doing this.

Plus, other than showing the deplorable state of our prison's and our prisoner healthcare system - this has nothing to do with guilty or innocence.; May 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/05/27/n-c-judge-overturns-darryl-howard-conviction-finds-prosecutor-misconduct-by-mike-nifong/

I am sure Sid will just ignore that.; May 27, 2014 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I am sure that as I type this, Sid is convening an emergency meeting of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong to evaluate the Howard decision as well as their continued support for Nifong. Sid is a man of integrity and I am sure he will let us know whatthe Committee decided.; May 27, 2014 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The number of posts on this site for CGM > the number of posts for Nifong anyway.

Sid'll prolly just change the name of the gang to "Justice4Mangum".; May 27, 2014 at 3:09 PM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Here's the order vacating Mr. Howard's conviction and granting him a new trial.

Sid -- If you want to know what a true Brady violation looks like, read the order.
So much for the "honorable" Mike Nifong.; May 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Does anyone suppose Sidney Harr has curled up under his bed in a fetal position after learning of the involvement of Mike Nifong in the wrongful conviction of Darryl Howard?; May 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: No, he will refuse to read it, either just totally ignoring it; or saying his focus is elsewhere. It doesn't fit the narrative he wants to tell, so he will simply ignore it and move on, and those of us who try to bring it up will be called trolls.; May 28, 2014 at 3:45 AM
Anonymous said...: what do you want him to say to make you a happy evil duke troll, troll?; May 28, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Anonymous said...: There has to be a trial and hopefully the News and Observer will not gloat and disrespect the victims, 'the people', the justice system and Ms. Cline like they did with the Cline vendetta.

Meanwhile, the protests continue.

The people affected most severely need to have data to show to the legislators. Like a budget - this is how much my low wage job i was forced into by the cuts in unemployment benefit pays - this is how much my expenses are. Here's my budget for food and health care: -$0.0 after all expenses - something like that to combat the earned income tax and other negative changes and restrictions imposed upon them by a state government that does not seem to fully understand what they are asking of 'the people' apparently.; May 28, 2014 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: what do you want him to say to make you a happy evil duke troll, troll?

I'd like an honest discussion - I want him to admit that he is sometimes wrong, then perhaps me, and others, could respect his other views. But since he absolutely refuses to acknowledge he can ever be mistaken, regardless of the evidence, it's clear that you can't trust a thing he says, because it shows an absolute willingness to ignore facts and data that contradict with his view. So, we don't know if his analysis of things is legitimate, or he's just making it up, especially when he's made it clear he will just make things up as he goes along.

I'd like him to at least pretend to be fair.

And, if you consider that trolling, you really are the biggest idiot on this blog. Trolling is the guy who posts the racists comments about Mangum, or the Duke Lacrosse stuff. Asking a question is only trolling if you know you have nothing to back-up your claims but have such tremendously low self-esteem you can't handle criticism. (Yes, that was a bit of a troll on you.)

I just want Sid to admit he isn't perfect, and show that he's open to an honest discussion/debate. He hasn't shown that yet, which is why no one will engage him.

He wants to know why Crystal's lawyers and the media and everyone else ignore him - because he has yet to show he's honest about his motives or what he does, and his absolute refusal to acknowledge even clear errors shows that he's more interested in his agenda and self-promotion than any legitimate attempt at the truth.; May 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: What is there that merits honest discussion? This website/blog is based on the premises that (a) Mangum was raped/sexually assaulted at the Duke lacrosse party and (b) Nifong was an honest, ethical prosecutor who was unjustly prosecuted for charging and prosecuting the three defendants. Both premises are deeply dishonest and fly in the face of well established facts. How is it possibe to have an honest discussion with someone that is based on a flawed, incorrect and deeply dishonest premise?; May 28, 2014 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

First your account of Crystal's life threatening illness opens with you continuing to promulgate lies, that Crystal's conviction was the result of a vendetta against her, that the report of the autopsy was fraudulent.

Second, the account is Crystal's account. If true, it would be disturbing. However, considering Crystal's action in the Lacrosse hoax, there is justification for questioning her credibility.

Publish the actual medical records.; May 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 28, 2014 at 4:05 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 28, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Does anyone suppose Sidney Harr has curled up under his bed in a fetal position after learning of the involvement of Mike Nifong in the wrongful conviction of Darryl Howard?

Not to worry... I've been too busy working on sharlogs for the luxury of curling on or under a bed. I haven't read the specifics of the Darryl Howard case, but there is no doubt in my mind that Mike Nifong acted fairly and with integrity. Of course, the media is going to do its best to bad-mouth Mike... What's new? McClatchy newspapers can't bring themselves to write about the Durham prosecutors who colluded with Mangum's attorney to withhold exculpatory evidence from her. Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum as a vendetta against her. Mike Nifong has never done any such thing. Could Nifong have possibly convicted an innocent person during the thousands of cases he prosecuted? That's a distinct possibility that one or two people convicted by Nifong may have been innocent... but that doesn't mean that intentional fraud was involved... as in the murder charge against Mangum. Joe Neff and the N & O will have a field day on the Howard case, but keep in mind that this newspaper is extremely biased in its reporting about Nifong.

I've got to get back home soon to get back to work on my next sharlog. Hope to have it posted by this weekend.; May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Not to worry... I've been too busy working on sharlogs for the luxury of curling on or under a bed."

You presume a fact not in evidence, that people worry about you.

"I haven't read the specifics of the Darryl Howard case,"

Not surprising, considering your aversion to the truth.

"but there is no doubt in my mind that Mike Nifong acted fairly and with integrity."

There should be. There would be if you had bothered to read about the Howard case instead of retreating into denial.

"Of course, the media is going to do its best to bad-mouth Mike... What's new? McClatchy newspapers can't bring themselves to write about the Durham prosecutors who colluded with Mangum's attorney to withhold exculpatory evidence from her."

That's because there was no collusion between the prosecutors and the defense to withhold exculpatory evidence from Crystal. The evidence from the Roberts report was overwhelmingly inculpatory.

"Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum as a vendetta against her."

There was no such vendetta.

"Mike Nifong has never done any such thing."

I do not doubt that DA NIFONG would have conducted a vendetta against Crystal. That would not have endeared him to the Durham black electorate.

"Could Nifong have possibly convicted an innocent person during the thousands of cases he prosecuted? That's a distinct possibility that one or two people convicted by Nifong may have been innocent..."

How many cases did Nifong prosecute? Maybe we will find out now that the Howard case has come to light. Then we will learn the true expanse of DA NIFONG's corruption.

"but that doesn't mean that intentional fraud was involved..."

There was intentional prosecutorial misconduct in the Duke Lacrosse hoax and in the Darryl Howard case. Now we may find out how much more intentional prosecutorial conduct corrupt DA NIFONG perpetrated.

"as in the murder charge against Mangum."

Again you have assumed as fact something for which you have no credible factual proof.

"Joe Neff and the N & O will have a field day on the Howard case, but keep in mind that this newspaper is extremely biased in its reporting about Nifong."

No it is not. It is extremely truthful.; May 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not the media saying Nifong violated all these rights, it's the Judge/Court, but you consider them biased as well.

You do prove the point - you don't care about reality, only yourself.; May 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: naw, man

ya'll troll over and over and over again about the same damn thing and asks the same damn questions over and over and over again (even after they've been answered to you several times before).

not only that - but you project quite a bit - just a thought i'm throwing out to ya as an idea you might want to consider when you are insulting people here

i don't have to answer any questions on this blog - and certainly none that may harm another as you like to troll others into doing.

it is you who must have self-esteem issues and can't handle criticism if you still don't understand that and take it personally or something, but that's ok, just stop obssessively trolling here for once since it does no good obviously and since you do it on purpose for your own entertainment at the expense of others

thanks; May 28, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 28, 2014 at 10:40 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You call your latest a first hand account of how Crystal almost died in custody. It is a first hand account from Crystal.

As I have said before, there are reasons to question Crystal's credibility. She supposedly gave a first hand account of being raped at the Lacrosse party. That first hand account has been proven to be wrong, totally fabricated.; May 28, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I haven't read the specifics of the Darryl Howard case, but there is no doubt in my mind that Mike Nifong acted fairly and with integrity."

You seem to have passing familiarity with the notion that the state should provide exculpatory evidence in its files to the defense. So tell me how the idea of integrity squares with the duty to share exculpatory evidence in this circumstance: "The State conceded that this document [the exculpatory memo] was in its file and specifically in the screening section of the District Attorney's file."

No, Nifong is not a man of integrity. He has been framing defendants since at least 1995, if not before.

Walt-in-Durham; May 28, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: What does it matter what Dr. Harr thinks or believes about Mr. Nifong?; May 28, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Since Duke has shown itself to be an institution that is prone to use of framing others to suit their agendas, as well as to coverup malpractice, or as a twisted type of injust 'justice' - it is kinda strange to see ya'll insisting that Mr. Nifong utilizes framing as a method of justice, yet continue to deny the obvious 'framing' death by malpractice of Mr. Daye assisted by a fraudulent autopsy based conflicted convinction of Ms. Mangum in the current case at the same justice system.

Why do ya'll do that?; May 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 28, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Except that Dr. Roberts said it wasn't malpractice, and even if it was, as has been explained ad naseum, under our laws (which may be unfair, but they are the law), even if it were malpractice, Crystal is still responsible.

Kinda funny that after all this time you are still too dense to recognize that.

Oh, and how does it hurt anyone for Sid to admit he's wrong on the admissibility of the prior convictions and the felony murder?; May 28, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: To make it easier for tinfoil hat anonymous to respond ... you can just cut and paste:

blah blah blah blah blah (you normally only use 3, I gave you a few extra just in case).; May 28, 2014 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 12:58 wrote: "What does it matter what Dr. Harr thinks or believes about Mr. Nifong?"

Nothing, if you don't care about the truth. I care to set the record straight.

Walt-in-Durham; May 28, 2014 at 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Any idea where in Crystal's small intestine the life-threatening blockage was?
In the jejunum and ileum, one of the largest causes for intestinal blockage is....foreign body.

Just sayin'; May 28, 2014 at 4:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "as has been explained ad naseum,(sic) under our laws (which may be unfair, but they are the law), even if it were malpractice, Crystal is still responsible.............. Not if there was no nexus between the wound she administered to Daye, in self-defence, and the medical malpractice that killed him. If he was being treated for alcohol withdrawal "your" law would not apply. In order to have that law apply a "specific" medical complication to the stab wound must be demonstrated. Crystal, unlike the unprepared Barrister Meier, was not afraid of the truth. If Daye died of complications of the wound she inflicted, let's have the specific complications made public. Keep in mind that only the most distrustful, jaundiced and misogynist Duke Lacrosse apologists are sure and without reasonable doubt that Crystal was an aggressor, not acting in self-defence. The Jury was tainted by a feeble defence, a wrongful admission of evidence by Walker and a venue where "the" Crystal Mangum could not get a fair trial because of years of organized public slander; May 28, 2014 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Not if there was no nexus between the wound she administered to Daye, in self-defence, and the medical malpractice that killed him. If he was being treated for alcohol withdrawal "your" law would not apply.

But, he wasn't, and even if he was, the only reason for the withdrawal was the stabbing. You can say it a million different ways, but it doesn't change the answer. How paranoid and delusional are you?; May 28, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: The Jury was tainted by a feeble defence

You keep saying that, yet you've admitted you wouldn't have done anything differently on the self-defense issue (which was the only guilty/not-guilty). What would you have done differently on self-defense?

And, if the Walker testimony was admitted improperly (as attorney Meier argued), then the Court of Appeals will address the issue, similarly with the exclusion of other expert testimony).

Again, how delusional and pathetic are you? I guess anytime you don't get your way, it's everyone else's fault? You know, sometimes people simply won't agree with you - it doesn't mean they are corrupt or incompetent.; May 28, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, IF Mangum acted in self defense and IF there was no nexus between the wound she inflicted and Mr. Daye's death she would not be criminally culpable.

However, those aren't the facts of the case. As you well know, the jury rejected Mangum's self defense claim and the medical testimony and evidence established a nexus between the knofe wound and Mr. Daye's death.

It is also important to note that an independent expert hired for te defense corroborated the nexus between the stab wound inflicted by Mangum and Mr. Daye's death. For all your complaining, neither Sid nor you have identified a single expert who would give a contrary opinion.

Let's stick to the facts of this case and stay away from hypotheticals based on different facts.; May 28, 2014 at 4:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "and the medical testimony and evidence established a nexus between the knofe wound and Mr. Daye's death"......... And that evidence would be what?; May 28, 2014 at 4:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 28, 2014 at 4:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " As you well know, the jury rejected Mangum's self defense claim"........................ The Jury got it wrong. There was reasonable doubt; May 28, 2014 at 4:51 PM
Whatchoo tawkin 'bout, Sidney? said...: kenhyderal said...

The Jury got it wrong. There was reasonable doubt

Oh well. Payback for OJ?

The streets of Durham are safer now with her locked up for 18, as are Mangum's chirrens, thank god.; May 28, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: You had reasonable doubt, the jury obviously didn't, unfortunately. That is not an issue that will be dispositive on appeal.; May 28, 2014 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Not if there was no nexus between the wound she administered to Daye, in self-defence,"

You are assuming something as fact which Crystal failed to establish as fact, that Crystal acted in self defense. If she was asserting self defense, it was her obligation to prove it. Self defense is an affirmative defense.

"and the medical malpractice that killed him."

Again you assume something as fact that there was medical malpractice. If you are relying on SIDNEY, I again remind you he has minimal training, minimal experience to go with his MD degree. No court would recognize him as capable of establishing that there was malpractice.

"If he was being treated for alcohol withdrawal "your" law would not apply. In order to have that law apply a "specific" medical complication to the stab wound must be demonstrated."

Your "if" is irrelevant and immaterial. The preponderance of evidence was he was not in DTs. A specific connection and the stab wound was demonstrated. You are so ignorant of Medical matters you can not see it. If you can not see it because of your ignorance, it hardly establishes no connection between the stab wound and Reginald Daye's death.

"Crystal, unlike the unprepared Barrister Meier, was not afraid of the truth."

Crystal the liar and false accuser not afraid of the truth. HAH!!!!

"If Daye died of complications of the wound she inflicted, let's have the specific complications made public."

First, establish why they should be made public. Neither you nor SIDNEY has any right or need to know Mr. Daye's medical records.

"Keep in mind that only the most distrustful, jaundiced and misogynist Duke Lacrosse apologists are sure and without reasonable doubt that Crystal was an aggressor, not acting in self-defence."

Wrong. It was the Jury which was sure and without reasonable doubt that Crystal was the aggressor and not acting in self defense. Judging from the accounts of her testimony, it was her testimony which convinced them.

"The Jury was tainted by a feeble defence, a wrongful admission of evidence by Walker and a venue where "the" Crystal Mangum could not get a fair trial because of years of organized public slander".

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong again. You do not have the legal knowledge or expertise to declare that Milton Walker's testimony was inadmissable or that the defense was feeble. There was no organized campaign of public slander directed against Crystal.

The bottom line again is, you believe your favorite murderess should get a pass for her crime.; May 28, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "and the medical testimony and evidence established a nexus between the knofe wound and Mr. Daye's death"......... And that evidence would be what?"

The evidence is obvious to any one with a medical background. That excludes you and SIDNEY.

The autopsy showed there were injuries to the colon and stomach. That put him at risk of infection. They were working him up for infection when he vomited and aspirated. It would have never been necessary to do the workup had he not been stabbed.

Your lack of medical expertise does not raise any doubt as to the cause of death.; May 28, 2014 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: " As you well know, the jury rejected Mangum's self defense claim"........................ The Jury got it wrong. There was reasonable doubt"

Your lack of knowledge about matters medical and legal does not raise reasonable doubt as to the guilt of your favorite murderess.; May 28, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny said:

"Anonymous said: "and the medical testimony and evidence established a nexus between the knofe wound and Mr. Daye's death"......... And that evidence would be what?"

Mr. Daye's medical records and the expert medical testimony of the ME. Did you not follow the trial? Furthermore, the defense's own expert came to the same conclusion regarding Mr. Daye's cause of death.

For all your whining, neither you nor Sid have produced a single record or report, or identified a single competent expert to support a claim that Mr. Daye died from anything other than the knife wound inflicted by Ms. Mangum.; May 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken's nose up CGM's @ss caused a near-fatal bowel obstruction.; May 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: One good reason not to lie about being rape is that it tends to makes people less likely to believe you about other things, like when you say you have abdominal pains.; May 28, 2014 at 6:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "First, establish why they(the putative post surgical complications that led to Daye's death) should be made public"..........Because Crystal was charged with murdering him and if his death was not due to speculated complications, that were never confirmed, then the most she should have been charged with was "wounding with intent". This would not changed her claim of self-defence, though.; May 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Again you assume something as fact that there was medical malpractice"........... Insertion of an endo-tracheal tube into the esophagus that led to cerebral anoxia, uncorrected in a timely manor and regardless of the view of it's placement being blocked by emesis is still medical malpractice. Duke knows it and it's immoral for them not to come forward and admit, publicly their culpability; May 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "There was no organized campaign of public slander directed against Crystal"...Three words. (or is it four) Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers. And the supposed liar they are trying to stop is who? Sid, Kilgo, Ken, Cohan. They don't slander any of us.; May 28, 2014 at 9:38 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Is there some way we can get you to stop whining? I've already gone out of my way to help you get Meier to answer you. Others among us are helping to explain to you what you can do to help Crystal (as opposed to your fantasizing). We do this not out of love for you, but merely to help you make sense and stop repeating the same discredited arguments over and over again.; May 29, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Except the defense expert said it wasn't, and I won't even point out, again, how even if it was, it wouldn't cut of liability cause you will just blather on ablt yor discredited DTs again.; May 29, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Lie stoppers is no more a public campaign than this. At most 10-15 people look at both blogs.; May 29, 2014 at 3:14 AM
Anonymous said...: So, would you consider this blog a public attempt to discredit and slander those you attack on this blog? You are admitting to a public vendetta of defamation?; May 29, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Because Crystal was charged with murdering him and if his death was not due to speculated complications, that were never confirmed, then the most she should have been charged with was 'wounding with intent'. This would not changed her claim of self-defence, though.

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his death was due to actual, not speculated, complications. I say again, because you can not see that because of your total lack of medical expertise does not establish reasonable doubt.

What was not proven, and it was Crystal's obligation to prove, was that Crystal acted in self defense.; May 29, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Three words. (or is it four) Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers. And the supposed liar they are trying to stop is who? Sid, Kilgo, Ken, Cohan. They don't slander any of us."

One word: BULLSHIT!!! You show you have never read Liestoppers. Liestoppers is overwhelmingly devoted to other topics.

While you bring it up, you, Kilgo, SIDNEY and weeping willie stifle free speech cohan are all quite obviously liars.

Incidentally, it may have been unintentional but you do say Crystal was a liar. Freudian slip?; May 29, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Insertion of an endo-tracheal tube into the esophagus that led to cerebral anoxia, uncorrected in a timely manor and regardless of the view of it's placement being blocked by emesis is still medical malpractice. Duke knows it and it's immoral for them not to come forward and admit, publicly their culpability.

You say Duke knows it. That is incorrect. You should be saying. you do not know it. I say again, your total ignorance of matters medical does not establish something as medical malpractice.; May 29, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Do you know, for a fact, that it was malpractice? As probable by experts? Cause the one doctor who knew all the facts said it wasn't malpractice. Do you have an expert to say it was? A real one, not Sid? And even if it was (won't rehash that) do you know for a fact that Duke didn't settle with the Daye family?

Do you know they didn't take civil responsibility? (Which wouldn't alleviate Crystal's criminal responsibility - more than 1 person is often "responsible" for a crime - many people in prison and on death row were merely minor participants or lookouts when someone else did the killing, they are convicted just the same).

You clearly aren't interested in the truth or an honest discussion - cause you ignore clear times when you and Sid are wrong.; May 29, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: well if that's the case then someone(s) at duke should be in jail right now too; May 29, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

With regard to SIDNEY HARR whom you have referred to a s distinguished former physician, his lack of training and lack of experience would not qualify him as an expert witness in any court in the land. His opinion as to Duke's alleged malpractice is as meaningless as yours. I might say less meaningless, but less than zero applies only in math.; May 29, 2014 at 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...: well if that's the case then someone(s) at duke should be in jail right now too

Except malpractice isn't criminal - so no, they shouldn't - unless they intentionally killed/harmed Daye, their worst exposure would be civil, IF it was malpractice. But that still wouldn't alleviate Mangum's criminal liability.

Our laws may suck but they aren't going to get changed by a ranting crazy man on a blog who can't have a rational argument because he refuses to admit he's wrong, and a paranoid follower who would just cry "troll" at the legislature who tried to talk to him, then go blah blah blah.; May 29, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I believe you have never visited the appropriately named Duke Lacrosse Liestopper web site.

I just finished looking at about 20 pagers from the web site. On the first 10 pages their are two threads which refer to Crystal, one of which is a repost of a DIW blog in which Professor KC Johnson questions weeping willie's call of Crystal as credible. In the last ten pages, from 6 years ago there are no threads about Crystal.

You yourself have been promulgating a lie about Liestoppers. I believe Liestoppers does not pay attention to you because they realize you are singularly uninformed about anything. It is like you are trying to stone them to death with popcorn.; May 29, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously, the judge said what the interpretation of the law was in this case, which is not what you seem to think it is.

i don't imagine anyone in the legislature would ever consider taking responsibility for another's malpractice, do you?

troll is someone on the internet ... trolling

so ... unless the legislature is trolling here ... probably not (i might however blah them someday ... who knows); May 29, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Do really think anyone takes you seriously? I doubt it after you promulgate such obvious lies.; May 29, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: :Anonymous said: " As you well know, the jury rejected Mangum's self defense claim"........................ The Jury got it wrong. There was reasonable doubt[.]"

No, there was no reasonable doubt. The jury heard all the witnesses. The jury listened to Crystal's testimony. They listened to her inconsistencies and found her testimony, except for the larceny issue, incredible. That is now an unassailable fact. She has never been a good witness. And the only thing she was at all credible about was the checks.

Further, the jury heard the other witnesses, disinterested witnesses as well as relatives of the late Reginald Daye. From that mountain of evidence, the jury got it right. Crystal was not credible in her self defense claim. She stabbed Daye. Even her own expert agreed that Daye died as a result of her stabbing him.

Now, it's time for Crystal to move on with her rehabilitation. And, she needs a lot of rehabilitation. The kind that only the Department of Corrections can supply in a custodial setting.

Walt-in-Durham; May 29, 2014 at 9:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It was "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt that his death was due to "actual", not speculated,complications"........(dws) And those actual complications were? Infective peritonitis? If so what organism were suspected? Why were no antibiotics given? Atelectasis? Why were no bronchodilators given. Delirium Tremens; oh yeah, that was the one treated for with benzodiazepines? But hey, Dr. Anonymous said because he failed to respond to that treatment it absolutely eliminated it as a presumptive diagnosis. Keep in mind, though, that Dr. A. is much more accomplished then I am.; May 29, 2014 at 2:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "you do say Crystal was a liar"..... Your reading comprehension skills seem to be deficient.; May 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYUDERAL:

"And those actual complications were? Infective peritonitis? If so what organism were suspected? Why were no antibiotics given? Atelectasis? Why were no bronchodilators given. Delirium Tremens; oh yeah, that was the one treated for with benzodiazepines?"

The chart was clear. An intraperitoneal infection was suspected in view of the symptoms and the knife wound which injured the stomach and colon. While he was being treated, he vomited and aspirated. That you can not recognize what the complication was in view of your total lack of knowledge and experience in matters medical does not invalidate the fact that the complication happened.

"But hey, Dr. Anonymous said because he failed to respond to that treatment it absolutely eliminated it as a presumptive diagnosis."

I said that because he did not respond the doctors, very appropriately, looked for other causes rather than just continue with a treatment which was not working.

"Keep in mind, though, that Dr. A. is much more accomplished then I am."

You got that right. I am infinitely more accomplished than you. Your level of accomplishment is zero. To get a mathematical expression of the ratio of my competence to yours, you would have to divide my competence by zero. The result of any quantity divided by zero is infinity.

You really ought to leave the medical judgments to those who are experienced and knowledgeable. That, I say again, leaves out you and SIDNEY.; May 29, 2014 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Anonymous said: "you do say Crystal was a liar"..... Your reading comprehension skills seem to be deficient."

No they aren't. Your powers of expression are minimal. What you said was tantamount to admitting Crystal is a liar.; May 29, 2014 at 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Provide credible factual evidence that you ever read Liestoppers. Your claim that Liestoppers is devoted to slandering Crystal suggests very very strongly you do not.; May 29, 2014 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Do you have an MD or DO degree?

Have you ever done a residency or obtained specialty board certification?

Have you ever done surgery?

Have you ever had hands on responsibility for treating a surgical complication.

Unless you can answer yes to each and every one of those questions and then support your answers with credible factual evidence, then you are confirming what I have been saying, that you are completely ignorant of matters medical and totally unqualified to comment on Reginald Daye's treatment.; May 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: etzyUiWalt said: "No, there was no reasonable doubt"....... Walt you're an intelligent man. I don't think you, honestly, believe that a bigger, stronger drunken and jealous Reginald Daye, after kicking in a bathroom door and dragging Crystal out by the hair, suddenly became fearful and decided to flee his own apartment. And Crystal, who moments before was a victim turned into an aggressor and pursued the fleeing Daye with homicidal intent. Keep in mind that Daye said in his Police interview he was trying to keep her from leaving. Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity.; May 29, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Here is an example of something which would be medical malpractice.

The doctor treating Mr. Daye postoperatively continues treatment for DTs which is not working because of the questionably significant lab value and neglects to look for other causes of Mr. Daye's symptoms.; May 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's just think of what would have happened had KENHYDERAL been a doctor treating Reginald Daye. He WOULD have continued the ineffective DT treatment rather than looking other causes probably because he believed if Reginald Daye had died from DTs his favorite murderess woould get a pass.; May 29, 2014 at 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt you're an intelligent man."

You got that right. Too bad you aren't.

"I don't think you, honestly, believe that a bigger, stronger drunken and jealous Reginald Daye, after kicking in a bathroom door and dragging Crystal out by the hair, suddenly became fearful and decided to flee his own apartment."

Walt, in my opinion, would not think that because there is not evidence that this was the scenario. There was no evidence Reginald Daye was intoxicated except for a lab value of questionable significance.

"And Crystal, who moments before was a victim turned into an aggressor and pursued the fleeing Daye with homicidal intent."

Here you indulge in your habit of presuming facts not in evidence, that Crystal was a victim.

"Keep in mind that Daye said in his Police interview he was trying to keep her from leaving."

That is not evidence he was brutalizing her. Further evidence that he was not brutalizing her are the pictures SIDNEY posted showing NO physical signs of a severe beating and the ER record which did not find Crystal was severely beaten.

'Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity."

You would rather Walt associate with you and your ridiculous non credible hypotheses as to what happened to Crystal, your racist presumption that Caucasian men raped Crystal. You should now know that you have no one's respect, that no one like Walt would ever associate with you.

I say again, you have NEVER provided any factual credible evidence that Crystal had been raped.; May 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Your hubris is truly remarkable.

You did not respond to the issues Walt raised. Instead you tried to shame him into abandoning his position. Why would any honorable Lawyer not want to be on the side of the honorable Lawyers who demolished the attempt of corrupt DA NIFONG to wrongfully convict and improson innocent men for a crime which never happened.

I say again you have never provided any credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped.; May 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Second guessing (by amateurs) of DUMC's treatment of Mr. Daye does not relieve Mangum from culpability for stabbing him.

You can't go around stabbing people and then say it's the hospital's fault for not saving them. It doesn't work that way.; May 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

In my opinion your last round of posts show how pathologically resentful of men who are more accomplished than you are.; May 29, 2014 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The jury disagreed. All that was argued, but the State said Daye let Crystal go, and rather than leave, she went to the kitchen to get a knife. The Defense argued everything you've said, and a lot more and pointed out that she had no reason to believe he'd let her go, so she had to defend herself with a single stab wound, and then left to call 911. The jury disagreed.; May 29, 2014 at 4:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "While he was being treated, he vomited and aspirated"......... Treated for what. I thought the emesis was a consequence of a diagnostic procedure.; May 29, 2014 at 4:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Why would any honorable Lawyer not want to be on the side of the honorable Lawyers who demolished the attempt of corrupt DA NIFONG to wrongfully convict and imprison(sic) innocent men for a crime which never happened"....... You're off topic. Walt was addressing me on the issue of Crystal's trial for stabbing Reginald Daye. Remember in this case the Duke Lacrosse rape allegation was inadmissible.; May 29, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: The State was prohibited from introducing the Lacrosse case throughout. They came close to opening the door, and as was reported, the defense had subpoenaed Nifong to respond if necessary.; May 29, 2014 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" Treated for what. I thought the emesis was a consequence of a diagnostic procedure."

You assume a fact not in evidence, that you can think.

It was a diagnostic procedure, a procedure which was necessitated by the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. The knife Crystal used punctured the stomach and colon which set him at risk for a post op infection. It would have been malpractice not to evaluate him for an infection considering the symptoms which were described.; May 29, 2014 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: " Why would any honorable Lawyer not want to be on the side of the honorable Lawyers who demolished the attempt of corrupt DA NIFONG to wrongfully convict and imprison(sic) innocent men for a crime which never happened"....... You're off topic."

HUH?

You said to Walt, "Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity."

I asked you why Walt would not want to be associated with the honorable men who resisted DA NIFONG's rather dishonorable attempt to convict innocent men of a non existent crime.

"Walt was addressing me on the issue of Crystal's trial for stabbing Reginald Daye. Remember in this case the Duke Lacrosse rape allegation was inadmissible."

So why did you say to Walt, "Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity."?

YOU referred to "the Duke Lacrosse rape allegation [which] was inadmissible." Legally it is called opening the door. You have just shown again how uninformed and ignorant you are about legal matters.

Nice of you to pick up my typo. Too bad you could not copy and paste it accurately.; May 29, 2014 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

This is an accurate copy and paste of my post:

"Why would any honorable Lawyer not want to be on the side of the honorable Lawyers who demolished the attempt of corrupt DA NIFONG to wrongfully convict and improson innocent men for a crime which never happened."

Please check out the typo in the word I typed before I typed "innocent men".; May 29, 2014 at 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal prevaricated:

"Anonymous said: "While he was being treated, he vomited and aspirated"......... Treated for what. I thought the emesis was a consequence of a diagnostic procedure."

Mr. Daye was being treated for a stab wound. Are you really that dull witted.; May 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Obviously the trial was not a complete and accurate presentation of the facts of the case, nor did it adequately address the judges interpretation of the law - indeed - the judge himself did not allow an accurate representation of his interpretation of the law by not allowing adequate time for a complete investigation of Dr. Nichols involvement in errors in other autopsys, nor did he order a complete investigation of Dr. Nichols involvement in this case based on noted discrepancies within the first autopsy report that are highlighted in the second autopsy report and even in Dr. Nichols own testimony, or seem overly concerned that Ms. Mangum quite obviously did not have sufficient time, evidence, nor adequate and unbiased legal assistance to assist in her own reasonable defense concerning the matters of the autopsy reports and the evidence as presented.

That much IS obvious from the trial.; May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM

"Obviously the trial was not a complete and accurate presentation of the facts of the case, nor did it adequately address the judges interpretation of the law - indeed - the judge himself did not allow an accurate representation of his interpretation of the law by not allowing adequate time for a complete investigation of Dr. Nichols involvement in errors in other autopsys, nor did he order a complete investigation of Dr. Nichols involvement in this case based on noted discrepancies within the first autopsy report that are highlighted in the second autopsy report and even in Dr. Nichols own testimony, or seem overly concerned that Ms. Mangum quite obviously did not have sufficient time, evidence, nor adequate and unbiased legal assistance to assist in her own reasonable defense concerning the matters of the autopsy reports and the evidence as presented.

That much IS obvious from the trial."

No it isn't. What is obvious is you get your information from two unreliable sources, KENHYDERAL and SIDNEY HARR.; May 29, 2014 at 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Actually you sound like KENHYDERAL publishing anonymously to create the impression someone besides himself believes his drivel.; May 29, 2014 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM:

"Ms. Mangum quite obviously did not have sufficient time, evidence, nor adequate and unbiased legal assistance to assist in her own reasonable defense concerning the matters of the autopsy reports and the evidence as presented."

But she had the biased and rather inadequate advice of SIDNEY HARR, which is the main reason she ended up in prison for 14-18 years.; May 29, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM:

As I said to KENHYDERAL, your total lack of knowledge and experience regarding matters medical and legal does not establish that there was anything faulty with Crystal's trial.; May 29, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I actually watched and thought about all the arguments on this blog for a year, watched and thought about the Investigative Series recently published in the News and Observer about the Medical Examiner system in NC, and watched the trial closely and thought about it a great deal in order to reach that unbiased conclusion about the trial and this case so far.

I am not any of those you frequently accuse me of being in what could be termed as a hate crime by the way you do what you do against them and myself and any others whom you would treat the same, although others do seem to try to emulate me at times and even accuse me of being them at odd times - and even repost some of my past posts obsessively so they can then troll those reposts as well, etc. ...; May 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "So why did you say to Walt, "Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity" ? ............Because the discrediting of Crystal is the name of their game and they have been very successful convincing people that they are defenders of truth and Crystal is the liar that needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, some people of goodwill have been hoodwinked into participating in their cabal; May 29, 2014 at 8:55 PM
kenhyderal said...: Actually you sound like KENHYDERAL publishing anonymously to create the impression someone besides himself believes his drivel"...........................I Ken Edwards do not post anonymously.; May 29, 2014 at 9:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 29, 2014 at 9:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Mr. Daye was being treated for a stab wound. Are you really that dull witted"... Not at that time. That successful treatment concluded three days before.; May 29, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Because the discrediting of Crystal is the name of their game and they have been very successful convincing people that they are defenders of truth and Crystal is the liar"

It is obvious that Crystal herself is responsible for showing the world that "they are defenders of truth and Crystal is the liar"

"that needs to be stopped."

It can not be stopped as Crystal herself has caused it, by falsely accusing innocent men of raping her.

"Unfortunately, some people of goodwill have been hoodwinked into participating in their cabal".

You get it wrong again. Their is no cabal. Why do you believe in such a cabal when you can come up with no credible, factual evidence. Go ahead and cite the appropriately named Liestoppers. You are lying about Liestoppers devoting itself to slandering Crystal. I say again, you have never read Liestoppers.; May 30, 2014 at 3:42 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Actually you sound like KENHYDERAL publishing anonymously to create the impression someone besides himself believes his drivel"...........................I Ken Edwards do not post anonymously."

Looks like KENHYDERAL, walks like KENHYDERAL, quacks like KENHYDERAL...

And we know KENHYDERAL repeatedly lies about the appropriately named Liestoppers.; May 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: Mr. Daye was being treated for a stab wound. Are you really that dull witted"... Not at that time. That successful treatment concluded three days before."

You show again how ignorant you are of matters medical. He was being treated for his stab wound. At the time he vomited, he was under treatment for his stab wound. Treatment does not stop once the operation was complete. You would know that if you were a retired surgeon like me.

You should heed tho adage, it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

You removed all doubt a long time ago. For some insane reason you feel a compulsion to continue to remove all doubt.; May 30, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?; May 30, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny - you have admitted that Crystal identified 3 men as raping her who did not rape her (whether she was actually raped is a different issue). Why are you so opposed to Cooper saying those 3 were innocent? You yourself admit they weren't rapists.

If you really want to help Crystal, get Sid to STFU. He did tremendous damage to her case and is doing all he can to damage her appeal. If you are really her friend you should help her with that. She has apparently gotten back in touch with Sid again (she had cut him off according to Sid). You, as a friend, need to tell her what a horrible mistake that is and work to get her to stop.; May 30, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: In Ken's world, Crystal wasn't ''lying'', she was simply ''mistaken''. It's a view he inherited from Sidney.
One can only assume she was ''mistaken'' when she stated they found you know, wood pieces in her @ss and vagina.; May 30, 2014 at 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny obfuscated:

"Anonymous said: Mr. Daye was being treated for a stab wound. Are you really that dull witted"... Not at that time. That successful treatment concluded three days before."

If Mr. Daye's treatment for his stab wound had been successfully concluded he would have been released from the hospital.; May 30, 2014 at 6:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Why are you so opposed to Cooper saying those 3 were innocent"......At least one had an air-tight alibi but to paraphrase William Cohan, "something happened that none of us would be proud of" Not a penetrating rape by any of the three Aiding and abetting theft, drugging, sexual assault, kidnapping and failing to come forward??; May 30, 2014 at 6:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Failure to come forward is not a crime. Except in limited circumstances (generally involving certain professions and suspected crimes against children) no one has to report a crime. So long as you aren't participating, you can watch a rape, and not stop it and not report it, and you haven't committed a crime.

You can't help the rape occur or help cover it up, but you have the absolute right to remain silent and not report it/talk about it.; May 30, 2014 at 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"At least one had an air-tight alibi"

No, two had air tight alibis. Crystal identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache. David Evans, who was indicted on Crystal's word, never had a mustache.

"but to paraphrase William Cohan, 'something happened that none of us would be proud of'"

And, like you, weeping willie stifle free speech provided no credible factual evidence.

"Not a penetrating rape by any of the three Aiding and abetting theft, drugging, sexual assault, kidnapping and failing to come forward??"

I say again, provide credible factual evidence that anything like that ever happened. If you can't, and you have been unable to do so for several years, you are making baseless, uncorroborated allegations.

What you had, Crystal said she was raped, Kilgo said he had a Lacrosse player friend who witnessed a rape, was not credible evidence.

Now you add weeping willie stifle free speech cohan to the mix. If you ever studied math you would know that nothing added to nothing is still nothing.

Your misnamed crusade for justice is a vendetta against innocent men whom you happen to dislike.; May 30, 2014 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

What you call "failing to come forward" was members of the Lacrosse team refusing to knuckle under to corrupt DA NIFONG's attempt to coerce them to perjure themselves.

Once again you show you know nothing about matters legal. Once again you remove all doubt that you are a fool.; May 30, 2014 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Outside of your dishonest, fertile imagination there is no evidence to support a claim that anything happened in that bathroom, besides a stripper fabricating a rape claim and falsely accusing three innocent men of something that never happened. That is why the Attorney General had a moral and ethical obligation to exonerate the defendants.

Contrary to your dishonest assertion, it is established that everyone at the party was fully cooperative with the authorities. The fact thatthey did not cooroborate the Mangum's false claim, or help Nifong prosecute the hoax does not mean they "failed to come forward."

These are well established facts.
dim witted and dishonest is no way to go thru life. You may not be to blame for your intelligence but even dull people can tell the truth. Why won't you?

Since you persist in lying about the rape hoax - in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence - why would anyone take seriously anything you have to say about the Daye murder?; May 30, 2014 at 7:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " No, two had air tight alibis".... As investigative Author William Cohan pointed out, former D.A. Nifong was suspicious that the Seligmann alibi was contrived.; May 30, 2014 at 8:04 AM
guiowen said...: Wow! Nifong was suspicious! He realized that only guilty people have alibis. An innocent person would never have an alibi!; May 30, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"As investigative Author William Cohan"

Shirley you jest

"pointed out, former D.A. Nifong was suspicious that the Seligmann alibi was contrived."

On what ground? Corrupt DA NIFONG refused to look at Reade Seligman's alibi evidence. So how could he have come to that suspicion? If he really believed Mr. Seligman's alibi was contrived, he would have looked at it so he could impeach whatever evidence Mr. Seligman could present.

You again have opened your mouth and removed all doubt you are a fool.; May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

If you really did read the appropriately named Lieestoppers you would know that DA NIFONG, source of weeping willie stifle free speech cohan's belief in SHIT(Something Happened In There) recanted his statement.

This was the second time since the Lacrosse case started that corrupt DA NIFONG recanted that belief.; May 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Citing William Cohan as a reliable source is like citing Satan as a reliable source on the truth.; May 30, 2014 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Calling William Cohan an investigative author is like calling minimally trained minimally experienced SIDNEY HARR a distinguished former physician-delerious wishful thinking on your part.

It would be more appropriate to call SIDNEY an extinguished former physician.; May 30, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM:

"Ms. Mangum quite obviously did not have sufficient time, evidence, nor adequate and unbiased legal assistance to assist in her own reasonable defense concerning the matters of the autopsy reports and the evidence as presented."

But she had the biased and rather inadequate advice of SIDNEY HARR, which is the main reason she ended up in prison for 14-18 years.

Wrong-O! I was outta the loop when Mangum's fate was determined by a jury influenced by turncoat attorney Meier. Nothing but a travesty.

The truth is on the horizon, and it will shine light and free Mangum... Mark my words.; May 30, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Wanna bet you are as wrong in this as in ever other assertion you've made about this case?; May 30, 2014 at 9:43 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Walt you're an intelligent man."

Thanks.

"I don't think you, honestly, believe that a bigger, stronger drunken and jealous Reginald Daye, after kicking in a bathroom door and dragging Crystal out by the hair, suddenly became fearful and decided to flee his own apartment."

You are assuming facts not in evidence. What we do know is Crystal got a knife. Further, the jury heard all the evidence and rejected your explination. There is no reasonable doubt.

"And Crystal, who moments before was a victim turned into an aggressor and pursued the fleeing Daye with homicidal intent."

That is how she responds. She is quick to resort to violence.

"Keep in mind that Daye said in his Police interview he was trying to keep her from leaving."

Now you're just being patronizing.

"Wanting to be associated with the pro Duke Lacrosse Defence and to keep your credentials with them intact it seems to me you've lost all objectivity."

It's rather the other way around. I looked at the facts, drew a conclusion and defended it. So, if the folks liestoppers agree with me, or disagree, that is because they are persuaded by my analysis. Not I by theirs.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt-in-Durham; May 30, 2014 at 10:05 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "You are assuming facts not in evidence. What we do know is Crystal got a knife. Further, the jury heard all the evidence and rejected your explination. There is no reasonable doubt".........That Daye was bigger, stronger, jealous and intoxicated; that he kicked in the bathroom door and that he dragged Crystal by the hair are also facts in evidence; May 30, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Wrong-O! I was outta the loop when Mangum's fate was determined by a jury influenced by turncoat attorney Meier. Nothing but a travesty."

In one sense, Sid is right. From the time Holmes took the case, he was out of the loop. Holmes, and Crystal figured out that Sid was willing to reveal confidential information to the state through this blog. That sort of treachery will get you put out of the loop in a hurry as well it should.

However, Crystal was not done in by a turncoat lawyer. What little chance she had with a med-mal defense was torpedoed by Sid blabbing the IME's conclusion. The state knew it had nothing to fear from that. That is squarely on Sid. The decision to pursue a self-defense defense was Crystal's She bungled that by telling so many inconsistencies in her testimony that no lawyer could have saved that part of the case.

Really, Crystal's best defense was a plea bargain. Woody Van is the guy to bargain a case. He's the best in Durham. He knows the state better than anyone else. Once she fired Van, she saddled herself with lawyers who were better courtroom advocates than bargainers. Still, Holmes or Meier might have been able to cut a misdemeanor deal for time served. They are good enough to do that. But, Crystal didn't want to go that route. She wanted a trial and Meier gave her the best that there was given what she left him to work with. (Ultimately, she told the untrustworthy Sid about the IME.)

"The truth is on the horizon, and it will shine light and free Mangum... Mark my words."

We've heard that from you before. You were going to beat the bar in court. You were going to get the charges dismissed even after Lance, Break and I explained to you that dismissal was not an option. No, we know the truth, the jury found it. Crystal killed Reginald Daye with a knife. Daye died a slow and painful death thanks to Crystal's violent temper.

There, you've been enlightened again.

Walt-in-Durham; May 30, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Daye died from malpractice induced brain death which took about 20 minutes - and the family ended life support after a week. Not VERY slow, and did he actually 'feel' pain if his brain was dead?

???

egad; May 30, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt said: "You are assuming facts not in evidence. What we do know is Crystal got a knife. Further, the jury heard all the evidence and rejected your explination. There is no reasonable doubt".........That Daye was bigger, stronger, jealous and intoxicated; that he kicked in the bathroom door and that he dragged Crystal by the hair are also facts in evidence

Correct - and the jury heard ALL of that. But, what the decision hinged on, is they believed Daye when he said he let Crystal go, and instead of leaving, she ran into the kitchen, got a knife, and came back at him (similar to what happened with Milton Walker, which is why that evidence was so damaging).

That's why the Jury said it wasn't self-defense. They believed he let her go, and she went and got a knife. They didn't believe her story that he was on top of her choking her.; May 30, 2014 at 12:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: And Daye who claimed he could barely even remember the events and who was never able to be cross-examined had to be believed over Crystal, on the stand and under oath. His two post-operative interviews by Officer Bond were gentle and sympathetic with Inconsistencies never vigorously pursued; quite unlike the pit-bull cross- examination by Coggins-Franks of Crystal. The rebuttal by Meier was virtually non-existent. In this situation of he said she said there is reasonable doubt and that should accrue to the defence; May 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

The problem is that the State had a very strong case and Meier had a shit case and a shit client. He did not have much to work with. Mangum sank herself when she decided to take the stand and testify on her own behalf. As any first year law student can tell you, that is almost never a good idea. I am sure Meier advised against, but Mangum being Mangum, she decided otherwise. Look at where it got her.; May 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Almost every case involves two parties telling two different versions of the same event. It is up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth. Simpluy because the two sides disagree on thefacts does not prevent the jury from reaching its own conclusion. If that werethe case, convictions would rarely happen. Jurors are free to disregard testimony if they find it, or the person giving it, to be uncredible and nontruthful.

They also consider other evidence besides the testimony of eye witnesses. Mangum's story did not match the physical evidence. Once a jury has decided you have not been truthful, they are free to disregard everything you say. That is likely what happened in Mangum's case.

This was as close to an open and shut case as you are likely to see - especially after Sid leaked that the IME agreed that Mr. Daye died as a direct result of the stab wound. It screamed for a plea deal. Unfortunately, Mangum (egged on by Sid) acted irrationally (I know, what a surprise) and now she is paying the price.; May 30, 2014 at 3:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "As any first year law student can tell you, that is almost never a good idea"..... No wonder the profession is held in such low esteem. There is a principle that an accused deserves their day in court. When Lawyers don't believe in their client's innocence they want to keep them off the stand. Such Lawyers can only give half-hearted representation A defendant even an indigent one deserves a Counsellor who believes in them. A Lawyer who could not raise the possibility to a Jury that Crystal acted in self-defence has by definition given a flawed defence.; May 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said : "Almost every case involves two parties telling two different versions of the same event. It is up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth". And in this case the one version was never subjected to a vigorous cross-examination to point out it's glaring inconsistencies to the Jury. It was entered into evidence as a second hand account. Constable Bond who interviewed Daye was never questioned about these inconsistencies.; May 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: When someone is dead and therefore unavailable to testify, their statements about who killed them and what happened are admissable. That is another reason why it isn't a good diea to kill someone.

What is ironic is that Mr. Daye's statements mostly fit the physical evidence. Mangum had the benefit of having ample time to go over Mr. Daye's statements and the physical evidence and still could not conjure up a credible story that fit the facts.

In this case, Mangum had a distinct advantage in that she had the benefit of knowing the statements and evidence against her in advance. Those statemenst could never be changed or explained because she killed the person who gave them. She had well over a year to figure a way to navigate around those statements and come up with a well thought story that was consistent with the facts and evidence. Her inability to do so is what ultimately did her in.

The fact is, Mangum had no good excuse or justification for doing what she did, she had no defense to the state's claim and she was entirely unbelievable. It caught up with her in a big way and she is paying a hefty price for it.; May 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: She didn't need to fit her testimony to the evidence presented by the state and make up a story to fit such evidence if the states evidence and version of what happened was false, even if she did have a year in which to do so. She had to tell the truth, which there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she did'nt. Just because the state did'nt provide the evidence of what happened due to their own faulty investigation or biases or whatever, does not mean that is not what happened.

Ya'll's judgements about the case are so obviously biased against Ms. Mangum that the only thing that is evident is the hate driven vendetta against her. Not one of you would stand for the same justice metted to her for yourself or the duke lacrosse players.; May 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: No one has established that the State's evidence and version of what happened was false. To the contrary, the State proved what happened in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt.; May 30, 2014 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: In general white men are not interested in having sexual relations with black women. That's why cases of white men raping black women are practically nonexistent.; May 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Ya'll's judgements about the case are so obviously biased against Ms. Mangum that the only thing that is evident is the hate driven vendetta against her. Not one of you would stand for the same justice metted to her for yourself or the duke lacrosse players.

Except that Crystal's story was inconsistent with the physical evidence, and inconsistent with all the other testimony of other witnesses. That's the problem. You either believe that Crystal alone was telling the truth (even though she has since admitted she lied about prior abuse), and that every other witness and all the physical evidence was wrong, or you believe that Crystal was mistaken, and the other witnesses and physical evidence were right.

I know y'all are conspiracy theorists, so you really do believe that Duke murdered Daye, the physical evidence was faked, and every witness was corrupted by Duke against Crystal, but that's not overly rational, and the jury didn't believe it.

WHY did Crystal lie about prior abuse on the stand? IF Daye had abused her before, why did she repeatedly deny it?; May 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: There was no proof beyond reasonable doubt is the point, and the state did not allow the defendant reasonable time to work with her new lawyer to develop the trust that would be a reasonable requirement in presenting a defense to begin with given the obvious history of her not trusting the lawyers working with her during this case, and the previous lawyer obviously breaking that trust even more by reclusing himself after gaining her trust and then squandering it with no regard to her rights to be represented fairly. THAT in itself is outrageous and unreasonable given all that Ms. Mangum has been put through already by the duke / durham injustice system to expect the defense to be prepared for trial in that short two month time allowed by the state.

What a sham.; May 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: The State isn't going to keep indefinitely delaying a case because a defendant irrationally refuses to trust her attorneys cause she is overly influenced by outside people. She never trusted her attorneys because she kept relying on Kenny and Sid and others - that was her fault, and her downfall. What should the State have done for her?; May 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: The DA should have investigated the discrepancies with the autopsy report and the medical reports immediately. It is their responsibility for 'the people', and it is their fault that they didn't, and all others and Ms. Mangum are aware of that and responsible only to their awareness of that since they are not the DA.; May 30, 2014 at 7:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " She had well over a year to figure a way to navigate around those statements and "come up with a well thought story" that was consistent with the facts and evidence....... This is exactly what's wrong with the Justice System. Crystal was very naïve. She thought telling the truth would set her free. The so called physical evidence was a series of interminable minutiae about positioning, direction, space and time; all this in a violent struggle, taking place in a small apartment, months before. What difference does it possibly make. Coggins Franks was able to badger her about these inconsequential matters and then once she became confused label her a liar. All the jury had to do was consider the question of who was the aggressor. They had two versions. No evidence conclusively and with absolute certainty showed which version was true and so the benefit of doubt should have favored the accused. Isn't that is how the system is supposed to work; May 30, 2014 at 9:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The fact is, Mangum had no good excuse or justification for doing what she did"...... Is your bias ever showing. Having the door of a bathroom, where you are seeking refuge, kicked in and you being dragged out by the hair and being physically restrained by an angry jealous drunk (these admitted to) Then her claim of being choked; although not proven seems entirely possible in kind of scenario.; May 30, 2014 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kenhyderal. 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.

Malek "J" Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; May 31, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: The facts of this case so far simply reinforces the pattern that duke will harm another in the same manner as they harmed the many in the lacrosse case, (or this case), will think they can get away with the harm even though they must take responsibility for the harm if made to do so by law, will corrupt the legal system to assist in getting away with the harm and not taking responsibility for the harm - even in very obvious ways, and then will wait to see if they can get away with that as well until or unless they are required to take responsibility for any of the harm that they do or have done ... by law

... and they do it with a duke evil devil grin as their symbol of reason or right to do what they do ... for the sport and the game ... because that is all that any of this is to them ... and that is what they are.; May 31, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: If the 'law' would do their jobs 'right' for the people, the people wouldn't have to do it for them, like the lacrosse guys and their supporters at various blogs who make their way to this blog eventually and treat everyone like you do evil duke troll - you wouldn't have to do that if the 'law' was the 'law' in duke / durham. When the only law is dukes' games where they kill, rape, murder, lie, deceive the 'masses' continuously, etc., etc. - quess that is what happens. People 'scream' lot bout it and some people take it all out on whatever convenient scrape goat they can find since the 'law' doesn't 'work' - which to you is this blog.

Since the 'law' is the real problem, perhaps you can give all others a break and direct your ample critique energy at the true problem - duke and the 'law'. Do you think you would be able to do any good for the people if you did so?; May 31, 2014 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: It seems to be considered a badge of honor or some great deed to be considered worthy for an individual to sacrifice their integrity, intelligence, better judgement, moral decency and even future and present careers in order to insure that duke is seen in history as the winner, or at the least, definitely not responsible for anything 'wrong' in any more than the least (if that).

Like with the lacrosse players, they were expected to take the blame even if they personally were not responsible for whatever by some duke people; or Cohen writing a book that immediately gets questioned about the true intent or even the intent of having a trial that should have happened but didn't but now it is; or like Dr. Nichols obviously producing such a fraudulent and corrupted autopsy report; or all Ms. Mangum's lawyers in this case doing whatever they did or didn't do to assist in allowing her time in jail; or the duke people who haven't pointed out the discrepancies themselves in the autopsy reports or made public any settlement that they did or did not make with the Daye family and the reasons for their decisions for whatever they did or did'nt do about the malpractice in terms of taking legal responsibility as is law; or the evil duke troll gang doing their thang and thinking its ok; ... etc.

Of everything seen so far from these cases, that aspect of moral / ethical decay is the most obvious. What is truly amazing is that the charades and duke centered / driven harm can and does continue for so long even when what they are doing is so obvious to so many, and so many are harmed by what is done or not done on duke's behalf.; May 31, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: here walt i'll kick the stupidity can way down the road for ya

run and get it and give it a whack on its way walt

run em, run em walt, yeah ... watch you go

give it a good kick now

we're all watching ya run em

evil duke troll is waiting down the road for his turn at the game again so kick it that way

blah; May 31, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, that book and everything else is just a repeat of the same arguments you make on this blog almost daily for years.

All your questions have been answered by Dr. Harr before. He seems very busy on other more important things right now, so truly, why do you keep trolling him over and over and over again except to annoy him and everyone else (except your fellow evil duke troll gang who cheers your harrassment on perhaps).

Dr. Harr, if I may give you just a bit of advice which I'm sure you already know, ignore the troll. The troll(s) do not deserve your time while you have more important things to think about.

Anyway, the trolls are as annoying as the gov. pushing the 10 billion dollar coal ash cleanup on consumers, (wonder why they didn't store the ash the right way to begin with ya know and WHY does it cost 10 Billion), while its revealed that duke energy will be one of the main consumers of natural gas, and a new pipeline and immediate drilling on state owned lands is on the push table. Ya know, that's so fracked up, makes a person want to knock on the door at the gov. mansion and ask the man why, ya know, why are ya'll so greedy and why are so many public school teachers resigning, and do you give a damn about anything but duke, but, hey, he might not like that one would assume.

anyway ... that was just in the news ...

so ... yeah the troll(s) are as annoying as that on purpose, and they think it's a.o.k. to do what they do cuz it's duke just like the gov.

Duke wants people to be naive about them obviously as shown by the coverup in this case. It is disturbing to watch them in action that is a fact that unfortunately more and more will finally realize, hopefully before it is too late. One can only hope, but mother nature is always so much more powerful and unpredictable, ya just never know what might happen. Course then duke will charge the consumers 20 billion to clean up their destruction, probably ...

How to stop them is the 64 billion dollar question.

You have important work to do with what your doing on these current cases.; May 31, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Why would you want AG Cooper to become the governor, yet you have labeled him Super Duper Cooper? Just because he is a democrat? Why can't there be more than one democratic interested person in the future elections to select from? I am disappointed in his inability to investigate this case from the very start.

I have suffered the pain of all the abuse I've witnessed and been made to endure in order just to ask you, a de facto lawyer trying to assist in this case in your own ways, about the malpractice issues from what little I read about this case in the papers that led me here to find out more about that a little over a year ago.

If AG Cooper and the Durham DA and Duke had done their jobs professionally and responsibly, and at the very least, immediately, to insure that all NC citizens are able to depend on a non-corrupt medical examiner and basic non-malpractice, (or at least responsibility professionally and honestly taken for any malpractice), then it would have prevented my witnessing here and on KC's blog what I have about this case and the lacrosse case, as well as the harm caused by the need to possibly have to go back and reexamine 400 plus autopsy reports to insure the credibility and reliability of autopsy reports for all NC citizens, Ms. Mangums' incarceration and victimization, and all the other harm caused by the failure of Duke and the justice system to perform their duties professionally without conflict and unreasonable harm.

The fact that KC's evil duke troll gang made / makes trying to figure out what the heck is going on in order just to get assured of professional and safe medical services due to the malpractice issues feels like a hate crime since it probably is with all the abuse I've witnessed and been made a part of by just being more open minded, community aware and concerned for the welfare of others, posting here and on KC's blog with questions not aligned to their agendas, and whatever else these haters choose to hate.

Anyway, your case is interesting from what I've seen of it in the sharlog. I hope it works.; May 31, 2014 at 5:01 AM
Anonymous said...: my evil duke troll shadow is BACK!

hey

repeat this: blah

....

blah

...

blah

,,,; May 31, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Tin-Foil Hat Anonymous said...: Blah blah blah ...

That's all I can say ...

blah blah blah ...

I really have nothing else.; May 31, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr:

Would that be considered child endangerment if a parent who duke had issues with took their child (or was taken) to duke for medical services in light of this current case?

Like Ms Mangum now, would it be considered child endangerment if one of her children were taken to duke for medical services - say - if they cut themselves with a knife chopping an onion or something - since they may become dukes victim if duke wanted to try to pin child abuse or murder charges on Ms. Mangum or her children's caretakers as well?; May 31, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won; May 31, 2014 at 9:52 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 439 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, May 25, 2014

"Fatally Flawed" series is, itself, fatally flawed

439 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me