justice4nifong: N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

Sunday, May 11, 2014

N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

678 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 678 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: It might be more difficult to convince them that they should change their thinking based on an argument about hate if they are being hated for believing what the church has taught them was right but is now considered wrong for hate's sake.; May 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Then we should of heard that from those who treated him. Neither you or I were there when the treatments he was receiving killed him. I would like to have heard what the surgeons, who accomplished his wound repair, would have had to say about this. Keep in mind it was the treatment of those complications (knife wound or alcohol withdrawal) and not the condition per se"

Dr. Nichols, an experienced and accomplished forensic pathologist(SIDNEY HARR notwithstanding), who reviewed the records and did the autopsy testified that Reginald Daye died of the stab wound. Apparently that was also the opinion of the Defense's expert witness. There was no need to have the attending physicians testify.

The question you raise, even though you probably did not mean to is, why did the defense not subpoena those people. The most likely reason is they would not have testified favorably for the defense. To say they would have been covering something up assumes as fact something which has not been demonstrated to be fact(which makes it a form of gossip)

SIDNEY HARR is not competent or qualified to state the autopsy report was fraudulent. He is no distinguished physician. He is a retired individual who happens to have an MD degree after his name. There is minimal training and little experience to go with that MD.

This is another iteration of your attitude that the facts should be disregarded and your favorite murderess be given a pass for her crimes and let out on the street.; May 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Regardless of what you are saying, hating other human beings, regardless of the reason, is wrong. If they persist in hating other human beings, one is not wrong to point out their hate for what it is.; May 15, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you really think being against gay marriage equates to hatred toward gays?; May 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM

When they are saying things like they are declaring war on Gay marriage and doing things like intimidating legislators to back off on supporting gay marriage, they are expressing hatred towards gay human beings.

They are also, in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religious expression, trying to push their beliefs on others.; May 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: not necessarily, they just don't believe in gay marriage

if they started a war against gays, then yes, they may be expressing hatred towards gays specifically, but this is a fight against gay marriage, not against gay people in general

you should consider that when expressing your own hatred against them for not believing in gay marriage if possible perhaps, then you may be able to convince them that gays have a right to be married because of love vs. because of hate

it is an agenda if the law doesn't work to convince for or against it; May 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If any of the lacrosse players wanted to have sex with Crystal they could have simply given her more money but nobody wanted to.As a Duke co-ed explained at the time - those guys could get any girl they wanted.They would never have to stoop that low.; May 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You are mistaking opposition and disagreement with hatred.

Could you be projecting your own hatred on me because I disagree with your views?; May 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: To my last comment I add, trying to convince conservative pastors that gay couples should have the same civil rights as heterosexual couples is usually met with accusations that we are attempting to subvert the morality of the country or to undermine marriage.

I have known a few gay couples who did truly did love and respect each other, better than some husbands and wives respected and loved each other. If one dies, the other has no survivor rights. That is what marriage equality is about.; May 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Although I strongly support same sex marriage, I agree that opposition to same sex marriage in and of itself is not necessarily the same as bigotry.

However, some opponents of same sex marriage are bigots.

I believe that was Lance's intention in having Sidney ask Victoria whether she supported same sex marriage.

In the past, if I recall correctly (but cannot find the link), she described gays as "disease ridden perverts" who were wealthy enough to pay the costs of their lifestyles.

Kenny, do you believe someone who describes gays as "disease ridden perverts" qualifies as a "bigot" or not?

Sidney, do you believe someone who describes gays as "disease ridden perverts" qualifies as a bigot?

Anonymous, do you believe someone who describes gays as "disease ridden perverts" qualifies as a bigot?

Who any of you be proud to call just an individual your friend?; May 15, 2014 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The problems of auto correct and my typing:

Last question should be:

Would any of you be proud to call such an individual your friend?; May 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: you're a crazy making evil duke troll as i have explained to you too many times already

on the gay marriage issue though - seriously i don't have a viewpoint about any of it specifically except out of curiousity as to why there is such a push for it to the point that it has become an agenda issue

stop trolling me - i've told you that before

thanks; May 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 4:38:

Your question about why the push was answered at 4:31.; May 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 15, 2014 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Aren't there other legal means to insure survivor rights regardless of marriage? Many hetrosexuals live together, even have families, and they are never married - so what do they do to insure survivor rights? Maybe that is what needs to change with the laws - the definitions of legal entaglements with survivors rights and such for nonmarried partners - not with the definition of marriage itself. That would insure the availability of civil rights for all on those issues.; May 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: As far as for the agenda on this blog - isn't it that Ms. Peterson was interviewed or something for Mr. Cohen's book that you now trying to discredit and demean Ms. Peterson with arguments against her based upon her thoughts on gays or gay marriage, and not about gays or gay marriage itself?

probably won't work, but ok, next agenda ...; May 15, 2014 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I still find it funny that just because the information wasn't shared with Sid and others who openly demonstrate they cannot be trusted and are clueless on the law, the assumption is things weren't done.

Why do you assume the Defense didn't talk to the surgeons?

Why do you assume they weren't subpoenaed? Just because the media only reported that Nifong was subpoenaed doesn't mean that others weren't, they just weren't used.

It's just funny - everyone assumes, without any evidence to the contrary, that certain things were not done, even though most defense attorneys (and people with logic) would say they were very likely done, but if the answers weren't helpful to the Defense, they weren't used.

The insane Duke-paranoid freak who wants Duke on trial - Duke wasn't on trial, and why would an attorney put them on trial when they were irrelevant?

The reality of the situation is that Duke could care less about Crystal or anyone else. Duke is a corporation, and doesn't have thoughts and feelings, and the leadership changes constantly.

There are mistakes in every trial, but that doesn't mean anyone intentionally screwed up, and Sid has everything but Crystal's best interests at heart. As EVERYONE but him and his syncophants has acknowledge - his releasing of the Discovery and meddling in the case did incredible damage to Crystal's defense because the State was ready for the issues.

It would have been great to confrton Dr. Nichols with the autopsy issues for the first time at trial, but Sid made sure he had over a year to prepare. Same with the surgeons.

Those of you who think Sid is trying to help, ask yourself why everything he did specifically helped the prosecution prepare to counter Crystal's defenses.

The sad thing is that Crystal apparently believes that y'all care about her, and she listens to y'all to her own detriment.

It's just sad.

Have any of you spoken with her attorney (any of them) or actually attempted to help? Sid knew he wouldn't ever be asked when he publicly, and repeatedly, stated he wouldn't keep anyone's confidence. What about the rest of you?

Each of her attorneys has e-mail and is accessible. They will probably completely ignore you, but have you even tried? Or do you just like to hide behind a blog and hurl insults, knowing that they can't be responded to.

Interesting that Crystal hasn't sued any of her attorneys or filed Bar Complaints - she knows that if she does, she waives attorney client privilege, so instead everyone just attacks from afar knowing that the attorneys won't respond.; May 15, 2014 at 7:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "It's just funny - everyone assumes, without any evidence to the contrary, that certain things were not done, even though most defense attorneys (and people with logic) would say they were very likely done, but if the answers weren't helpful to the Defense, they weren't used"....... Oh if it were only so. And if it were why would it be withheld from Crystal. No my friend it was not done. The Court appointed Lawyers usually don't give such cases their total effort. They see this work as a necessary nuisance that doesn't pay adequately for the time and effort required and detracts from more lucrative work A unfair as that seems in this respect indigent defendants tend to get only a half-hearted defence. Quite unlike what DRC received.; May 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: If Dr. Harr had not been involved, the issues would never have been brought to light which is what duke wanted in the first place by condoning the first ME fraudulent discredited obviously corrupted autopsy report in the first place.

The argument that the prosecution knew about the defense issues because of Dr. Harr holds no weight since it was the defense attorneys who did not do their job for the defense on the issue therefore the prosecution only had to approve of the corruption and fraud committed in relation to the autopsy reports and what the defense attorneys and DA were doing (or not doing), not actually prepare a strategy since they knew the defense attorney would not actually present the case fully on those issues, just like they didn't and haven't so far.

As far as continually arguing about this and that about the case in general, most of that is done by the trolls who attack consistently regardless of anything but to get revenge against Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr and Kenny, or any other, for trying to help her.

The prosecution was helped by the judge who rushed the case and agreed with their objections, etc., the defese attorneys who did not actually defend Ms. Mangum in this case, the ME's who obviously have issues of bias against the defense, the jury who was manipulated to think making durham 'look good' was more important than insuring justice that was not biased, conflicted, or corrupted for Ms. Mangum, Duke for not taking professional responsibility for their own malpractice and for notifying the DA themselves of the discrepancies between their medical reports and the ME autopsy reports themselves, the threat of harm to anyone that crosses duke that is inherent in the example of death by duke's malpractice in this case for everyone, the revenge factor and conflict of interest presented by the lacrosse case inherent in any case involving duke and Ms. Mangum because of the lacrosse case, etc., etc., etc. - all highlighted on this blog by Dr. Harr's assistance of defense and expert witness testimony and review of the autopsy and medical records, etc. for Ms. Mangum.

Can he be more careful about the notion that he may be harming Ms. Mangum instead of helping her - certainly - and I'm sure that he will - right Dr. Harr?; May 16, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Anonymous said...: You are an idiot and know nothing about the work court appointed lawyers do, or don't do. It is funny that you and Sid are the only ones who don't seem to realize that this blog is a complete joke and is treated as such which is why Sid posts as multiple identities and others keep making crazier statements. You have no idea what was, or was not, discussed with Crystal (only what she tells you for her self-serving purposes). Explain why she apparently (and now admittedly) lied on the witness stand about prior abuse if you are so close to her.; May 16, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: No it would have been brought to light at the proper time (in trial), without giving the State all the information ahead of time so they could be fully prepared to respond.

Sid knew Crystal had a good defense, so he had to do all he could to hurt her and help the State, so he did.; May 16, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: What would you have argued differently on the self-defense issue? Everyone harps on the Duke angle, but that would not have resulted in a Not Guilty - Crystal still would have been a convicted felon.

Self-defense was the only angle that could have resulted in a Not Guilty, and from what I saw, that was fully argued, the jury just disagreed. What would you have done differently?; May 16, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Obviously you don't understand the reality of the duke / durham justice system which makes your arguments the joke. The system never improved after the lacrosse case obviously, so your arguments are baseless as well.

You have issues about Ms. Mangum that is apparent and is even judged in terms of hate crime commissions at times.

You, who has mutiple identities on these blogs, project that onto Dr. Harr apparently as well since i am not Dr. Harr nor have I ever met Ms. Mangum, and I seriously doubt Dr. Harr has any need to act like multiple characters on his own blog.

There, capitals, punctuation, and all. Try not to troll too much today ... see if that helps you any.; May 16, 2014 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: It's funny - when someone spouts off crap with no backing, and ignores facts and explanations (you know, answers to the questions the person keeps claiming no one answers), he thinks anyone who actually takes his posts seriously and tries to respond is a troll.

Do you even know what a "troll" in the Internet sense is?

You need to loosen the tinfoil, clearly you are losing it even more.

All of your questions and issues have been responded to by many people, but you, like Sid, Kenny, and the other loons, simply ignore the answers they don't like, and keep repeating the same stuff over and over.

It doesn't matter how many times you say something with no evidence or backing, or how often you ignore answers - the truth doesn't change.

It must be sad to have such low self-esteem and confidence to refuse to accept facts and/or evidence, or do any independent research.; May 16, 2014 at 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...: You know that is a projection of yourself only evil duke troll, right?

Not true in the least since I've listened to and thought about most of the arguments presented on this blog for a year now, (some of the repeat trolling I tend to ignore of course), and watched closely at the trial in my thoughts about this case, and stated my thoughts or questions about things as I saw fit or had questions.

so truly ... don't troll me again

it's that simple; May 16, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 5:40 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 16, 2014 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Troll troll troll ...

What would you have done differently on the self-defense? Or would you have been content to let Crystal be a convicted felon?; May 16, 2014 at 6:49 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Oh if it were only so. And if it were why would it be withheld from Crystal.[?]

First, you don't know if it was withheld from Crystal. She selectively leaked information all along. She does not have a reputation for telling the truth.

" No my friend it was not done."

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The more likely is defense counsel interviewed some treating physicians after receiving the IME.

"The Court appointed Lawyers usually don't give such cases their total effort."

A form of propaganda called glittering generalities. From that we are supposed to conclude that this particular court appointed lawyer did not give his total effort. A false assumption if ever there was one. At best an assumption.

"They see this work as a necessary nuisance that doesn't pay adequately for the time and effort required and detracts from more lucrative work[.]"

Another glittering generality.

"A[s] unfair as that seems in this respect indigent defendants tend to get only a half-hearted defence."

As a generality, there is some truth to this statement. Although there is nothing in the record to indicate that Crystal was given a half-hearted defense. In fact, the defense was a good one. When she listened to her attorney, she did well, as in her testimony about the money orders. When she rejected her attorney's advice she did not do so well.

"Quite unlike what DRC received."

Indeed, the innocent lacrosse defendants paid handsomely for the best defense possible. A defense that left no stone unturned. A defense that quite effectively revealed Crystal's lies and Nifong's misdeeds. That said, did Crystal not receive a good defense? I think she did. Her error was to reject the advice of her very competent attorneys and authorize Sid to file frivolous motions and she trusted confidential information to Sid which he immediately disclosed to her detriment. You can't blame the attorneys for Crystal's trust in Sid or her poor decisions.

Walt-in-Durham; May 16, 2014 at 7:14 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 16, 2014 at 10:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Indeed, the innocent lacrosse defendants paid handsomely for the best defense possible" ..... Yeah, sure, just like OJ Simpson's "Dream Team"; May 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Walt said: 'Indeed, the innocent lacrosse defendants paid handsomely for the best defense possible' ..... Yeah, sure, just like OJ Simpson's "Dream Team'"

KENHYDERAL says he is not a gossip.He might be right. He is actually worse than a gossip.A gossip purveys things as true whrn there is no proof of truth. KENHYDERAL, as he is doing here, purveys things as true in the face of overwhelming evidence that these things are not true.

I also point out that KENHYDERAL, for all his spouting off, has never produced any factual evidence that his claimsb are true.; May 16, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Does Canada guarantee its citizens the right to legal representation. Is a court allowed to believe a defendant guilty after that defendant avails himself of legal counsel.

You are saying that the Lacrosse defendants seeking legal counsel indicates they are guilty.

You believe they are guilty, I say again, even though there is no evidence of a crime, even though you can't even manufacture evidence of a crime.; May 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM
guiowen said...: Oh, leave Kenny alone! He's just stewing over the fact that he is totally unable to help his favorite murderess out of jail.; May 16, 2014 at 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERL:

In your last post, you express again the wish that Crystal had been brutally gang raped.; May 16, 2014 at 12:08 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
If Dr. Harr had not been involved, the issues would never have been brought to light which is what duke wanted in the first place by condoning the first ME fraudulent discredited obviously corrupted autopsy report in the first place.

The argument that the prosecution knew about the defense issues because of Dr. Harr holds no weight since it was the defense attorneys who did not do their job for the defense on the issue therefore the prosecution only had to approve of the corruption and fraud committed in relation to the autopsy reports and what the defense attorneys and DA were doing (or not doing), not actually prepare a strategy since they knew the defense attorney would not actually present the case fully on those issues, just like they didn't and haven't so far.

As far as continually arguing about this and that about the case in general, most of that is done by the trolls who attack consistently regardless of anything but to get revenge against Ms. Mangum and Dr. Harr and Kenny, or any other, for trying to help her.

The prosecution was helped by the judge who rushed the case and agreed with their objections, etc., the defese attorneys who did not actually defend Ms. Mangum in this case, the ME's who obviously have issues of bias against the defense, the jury who was manipulated to think making durham 'look good' was more important than insuring justice that was not biased, conflicted, or corrupted for Ms. Mangum, Duke for not taking professional responsibility for their own malpractice and for notifying the DA themselves of the discrepancies between their medical reports and the ME autopsy reports themselves, the threat of harm to anyone that crosses duke that is inherent in the example of death by duke's malpractice in this case for everyone, the revenge factor and conflict of interest presented by the lacrosse case inherent in any case involving duke and Ms. Mangum because of the lacrosse case, etc., etc., etc. - all highlighted on this blog by Dr. Harr's assistance of defense and expert witness testimony and review of the autopsy and medical records, etc. for Ms. Mangum.

Can he be more careful about the notion that he may be harming Ms. Mangum instead of helping her - certainly - and I'm sure that he will - right Dr. Harr?

May 16, 2014 at 2:50 AM

Your insight into the case is right on, and deserves repeating.

I don't quite understand who the "he" refers to in the question in the final paragraph.; May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
What would you have argued differently on the self-defense issue? Everyone harps on the Duke angle, but that would not have resulted in a Not Guilty - Crystal still would have been a convicted felon.

Self-defense was the only angle that could have resulted in a Not Guilty, and from what I saw, that was fully argued, the jury just disagreed. What would you have done differently?

I disagree because the case should have been dismissed after it was brought to the attention of the court that the autopsy report was fraudulent. Also the turncoat defense attorney Meier sabotaged Mangum's case by not allowing in Dr. Roberts and by not arguing the proximate cause of Daye's death being due to an esophageal intubation.; May 16, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Your insight into the case is right on, and deserves repeating."

You have never shown insight into anything. Ergo, you can not comment on how well another shows insight. You do give us many insights into your deluded megalomania.

"I don't quite understand who the "he" refers to in the question in the final paragraph."

You "don't quite understand" a lot of things, e.g. self defense, exculpatory evidence, autopsies, prosecutorial ethics, the constitutional rights of defendants, first amendment rights to speak an opinion with which you disagree, a whole lot of other things.; May 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: The City of Durham, like Attorney General Roy Cooper, is incapable of pronouncing innocence or guilt. They did so in the settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to allow the plaintiffs to save face. The Duke Lacrosse defendants were ill-advised to file a lawsuit against the city to begin with... guess they thought it would be a stroll in the park after Duke University rolled over and gave them $20 million each.; May 16, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I disagree because the case should have been dismissed after it was brought to the attention of the court that the autopsy report was fraudulent."

Who brought it to the attention of the court? You. As a person with an MD degree but with only minimal experience and almost no training to go with that MD degree, your word is not even close to being sufficient to establish the autopsy report as fraudulent.

"Also the turncoat defense attorney Meier sabotaged Mangum's case by not allowing in Dr. Roberts and by not arguing the proximate cause of Daye's death being due to an esophageal intubation."

Doctor Roberts' report agreed with Dr. Nichols' autopsy findings, that the stab wound caused Reginald Daye's death. Allowing that in would have only hung Crystal out to dry-even if she had not testified and hung herself out to dry. The intubation was necessitated by complications of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal.

These so called opinions of yours explain why no court would ever accept your word that the autopsy report was fraudulent. You call yourself a retired physicians, giving all us retired physicians a blot on our reputations. You are nothing more than a person with minimal training and minimal experience to go with the MD you have appended to your name.; May 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The City of Durham, like Attorney General Roy Cooper, is incapable of pronouncing innocence or guilt."

But you, with less legal skills and expertise than a dinosaur think your pronouncements of guilt mean something(and my apologies to the dinosaurs).

"They did so in the settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to allow the plaintiffs to save face."

They did so because the evidence was beyond any and all doubt that no crime had taken place. That you can not see that is further evidence of your lack of legal expertise and an explanation why no court would ever accept your proclamation that the autopsy report was fraudulent.

"The Duke Lacrosse defendants were ill-advised to file a lawsuit against the city to begin with... guess they thought it would be a stroll in the park after Duke University rolled over and gave them $20 million each."

Wrong. Here you display why you filed your frivolous non meritorious suit against Duke. You thought Duke would roll over and pay you $20 million. Your lawsuits were worth less than 0.001 pre Euro Italian Lire.; May 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: That's cause you are a fucking idiot. The Duke stuff was murder v manslaughter - the self defense was NG/G nothing you showed at Duke would affect g/NG but you think it did you are an idiot. If crystal wasn't justified in stabbing it was a problem.; May 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I just read posts on the appropriately named Liestoppers and on Durham in Wonderland.

It seemed you posted your last comment and then ran away and hid under your bed. You are probably holding your breath until Durham reverses its settlement.

Are you now going to file a frivolous lawsuit against Durham hoping to get some kind of settlement. It seems likely, considering what you believe about Duke.

So you, with the legal acumen of a pre historic dinosaur believe you can express your opinion that Crystal was the victim of a crime, but you do not believe no one can express the view that there was no crime.

Meanwhile you, like your acolyte KENNY, have yet to provide credible, factual proof that a crime did happen.

How long is going to take you to come out from under your bed to post more of your idiocies again?; May 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Grammar correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

I just read posts on the appropriately named Liestoppers and on Durham in Wonderland.

It seemed you posted your last comment and then ran away and hid under your bed. You are probably holding your breath until Durham reverses its settlement.

Are you now going to file a frivolous lawsuit against Durham hoping to get some kind of settlement. It seems likely, considering what you believe about Duke.

So you, with the legal acumen of a pre historic dinosaur believe you can express your opinion that Crystal was the victim of a crime, but you do not believe ANYONE can express the view that there was no crime.

Meanwhile you, like your acolyte KENNY, have yet to provide credible, factual proof that a crime did happen.

How long is going to take you to come out from under your bed to post more of your idiocies again?; May 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I disagree because the case should have been dismissed after it was brought to the attention of the court that the autopsy report was fraudulent."

First, the autopsy report was not fraudulent. You have to do more than utter the word to prove it.

Second, even if the autopsy report was a fraud, and it was not, death is an element of the state's case. It is not subject to pre-trial dismissal. The state has until the close of evidence to prove death. If you paid even the least bit of attention to the law you would know that. There are very limited issues that can be brought in a criminal motion to dismiss. This has been explained to you previously. RTFF.

"Also the turncoat defense attorney..."

That is not persuasive argument. You mistake insult for argument.

"... Meier sabotaged Mangum's case by not allowing in Dr. Roberts..."

Crystal made the decision not to call Roberts. A good decision as Roberts would have confirmed the state's expert.

"... and by not arguing the proximate cause of Daye's death being due to an esophageal intubation."

There was no evidence to support that argument. Courts are not places where we can argue what we wish. We have to have facts to argue. The facts were both experts found the death to be the result of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal Mangum. It is Sid who has consistently sabotaged Crystal's case. No one person has done more harm than he has.

With friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; May 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

The City of Durham has settled with the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players. No, they did not admit guilt, showing they are gutless, spineless and totally lacking in moral courage. However they did admit they agreed with the AG's assessment, that the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players were innocent. In other words, they rejected the SHIT(Something Happened In There) which has been proclaimed.

You may want to contact SIDNEY. He is probably curled up under his bed in a fetal position. It seems he heard the news, left a screed on his blog and then ceased.; May 16, 2014 at 1:28 PM
kenhyderal said...: As morally unjust as caving in and making a settlement with the Players and their avaricious Trial Lawyers was, it probably made economic sense for The City. My suggestion is that Innocence Enquiry Commission use this money to help overturn Crystal's present case. I hope the Trial Lawyers ran up huge costs pursuing this suit and now have to eat those expenses. If I were the Players, though, I'd be worried that they might now find a "legal" loop-hole in the contingency agreement and now proceed to attempt to recover their costs from the Players.; May 16, 2014 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"As morally unjust as caving in and making a settlement with the Players and their avaricious Trial Lawyers was, it probably made economic sense for The City."

So you consider it "morally unjust" to admit to the innocent, falsely accused members of the Lacrosse team that they had been falsely accused. You show that you have no comprehension of what "morally unjust" really means. Not surprising for a blatant unrepentant racist who thinks innocent Caucasian men falsely accused of rape by a black woman should be convicted.

"My suggestion is that Innocence Enquiry Commission use this money to help overturn Crystal's present case."

Not likely. There is no evidence she was wrongfully convicted. Of course, considering your stance on the innocent Lacrosse players, you really do not comprehend what wrongfully convicted means. To you it means your favorite murderess should be give a pass for her crime and then let out on the street.

"I hope the Trial Lawyers ran up huge costs pursuing this suit and now have to eat those expenses. If I were the Players, though, I'd be worried that they might now find a 'legal' loop-hole in the contingency agreement and now proceed to attempt to recover their costs from the Players."

It is not surprising that you would wish further ill on the men whom Crystal falsely accused. Is this another manifestation of your wishful thinking that Crystal had been brutally gang raped?; May 16, 2014 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Correction:

I said, "Is this another manifestation of your wishful thinking that Crystal had been brutally gang raped?"

I should have said, Is this another manifestation of your frustration that Crystal had not been brutally gang raped?; May 16, 2014 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

It is also gratifying to see how apoplectic you are that Durham has repudiated SHIT(Something Happened In There).; May 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: My guess is they settled only to avoid further legal costs.; May 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"My guess is they settled only to avoid further legal costs."

You also say Crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party. It shows how credible you are.

No wonder you have failed to provide any credible factual evidence to prove Crystal was raped.; May 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, I was referring to you when I said 'he' as you questioned. The post was a response to the lamentation expressed in posts here that what you have done to assist Ms. Mangum in this case may have actually harmed her. It was a request for affirmation that you have not harmed her I suppose, since the part about the plea bargain arguments is confusing to me. Like, why would she be offered a plea bargain for keeping silent about the autopsy report discrepancies and the fact that Mr. Daye actually died because of Duke's malpractice?

I think if they offered a plea bargain only available to her if she kept silent about Duke's malpractice and ME autopsy errors it would be an indication of the corruption still inherent in the Duke / Durham justice system, not something actually required by anyone in order to secure their freedom from jail. The DA should have investigated the ME immediately and dropped the charges since obviously Ms. Mangum was NOT considered to have murdered Mr. Daye if she was offered a plea bargain to keep silent about Duke's malpractice and the ME's cover-up of that fact. Makes no sense to me, and it does nothing to reassure me of Duke's medical system delivery in the least, which to most, is a much bigger public safety concern than Ms. Mangum protecting herself from assualt.; May 16, 2014 at 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 3:58 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid(except maybe SIDNEY HARR who is now probably hiding under his bed in a fetal position after learning Durham admitted SHIT(Something Happened In There) did not happen in this case); May 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I disagree because the case should have been dismissed after it was brought to the attention of the court that the autopsy report was fraudulent. Also the turncoat defense attorney Meier sabotaged Mangum's case by not allowing in Dr. Roberts and by not arguing the proximate cause of Daye's death being due to an esophageal intubation.

That's cause you are an idiot. Fraudulent autopsy or not - the issue is whether or not Crystal was justified in stabbing him. You ignore that question. If she loses on self-defense, she is a convicted felon, no matter what. You ignore that. Why?; May 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: you need professional help troll; May 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Stop bullying me you evil duke troll.; May 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM
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 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Would that be considered child endangerment if a parent left their underage children to go off drinking and stripping?; May 16, 2014 at 6:25 PM
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 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @4:25:

I disagree. You are the idiot.

You are arguing as if the other poster is interested in an honest conversation. He is not. He is interested only in annoying you. He has succeeded.

He wins.; May 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: If AG Cooper does not take care of these issues I think he should be brought to task for his lack of leadership in insuring Duke provides its consumers with a non-hostile environment in which to live and visit in NC without threat of medical malpractice and all the other crap duke dishes because they think they can 'get away with it' or they have agendas not in-line with the consumers well-being. That has to stop immediately before even one more person's health is negatively targeted and affected by their inability to provide fair and reasonable services to all. If AG Cooper protects consumer rights, not protecting consumers from Duke's harm allows them to continue the harm unhindered to anyone and everyone. The fact that this case was not investigated immediately by the justice system is a clear indication that this protection for the consumer, (at the very least), is not being done, not to mention the harm it does to the justice system itself. That is not acceptable to most is a fair assumption.; May 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: my evil duke troll shadow is BACK!

hey

repeat this: blah

....

blah

...

blah

,,,; May 16, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: what the frack g ...

what is your problem?; May 16, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Whereas people at Duke are quoted to have lamented that the lacrosse players would not just tell the police about what really happened at the party to avoid whatever, there is no visible similar lamentations seen from Duke that the Medical Examiner that effects numerous cases throughout the state would not just tell the police what really happened to Mr. Daye at Duke to cause his death ... go figure; May 16, 2014 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Why should Kenny have to back up friggin' anything? This is a judicial case, and that should have been enough reason to not have repeated corrupted cases flowing from Duke point blank no questions asked. So stop trying to get Kenny or anyone else to prove to ya'll what the judicial system should be doing themselves in the first place. Seriously. You can watch the youtube video of the trial yourself if you are so truly interested in seeing how absurd that trial was. The second autopsy report withheld until the last day of the trial is proof of the outrage in and of itself.

You trolls need to get a grip and stop demanding these Duke related cases be tried in the news and courts or public opinion. That is not justice, and ya'll are fools to think that is in anyway the wise choice to make when the judicial system and public opinion are involved. Most of the public is not Duke driven nor do they appreciate all the corruption, lies, deceit, coverups, false prosecutions, media turmoil in lieu of a fair and reasonable court system, and the inability to receive equal and fair and uncompromised legal assistance as needed to even be part of a fair and reasonable court system if there was one.

So - why demand this blog be the court - or provide the Durham In-Wonderland KC lead whatever it is their doing gang anything. Get real.

sheeessshhhhh - this is seriously wholly ridiculous when viewed through the lens of what this evil duke troll gang from KC's blog is really doing.

Get real ...

blah; May 16, 2014 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Since duke has already admitted responsibility for what happened in the lacrosse case, along with the duke / durham judicial system which has been shown to be at fault in coherts with duke in most of these cases - this new case being just more of the same ... to continue to blame and incarcerate Ms. Mangum for being a victim of that mess is to ignore the reality of what really goes on in duke / durham nonjustice system and at duke. It gives Ms. Mangum a power she does not have, and absolves those with the true power, responsibility, and quilt of malicious action and frees them to do it again and again ... until you too become their victim.

Most people don't want to play and are horrified at the reality of what Duke really is and does in Durham, NC, the USA, and the world if they truly understand the 'big' picture.; May 16, 2014 at 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal,

Kilgo told me that some anonymous member of the Lacrosse team told him that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006. And what Kilgo said was, told to him, by a LaX Player, who is a friend of his and was present at the party and who gave his DNA, that non-player attendees, unknown to the Police and untested where involved in the sexual assult on Crystal with some team members also complicent. Kilgo's information, came from a first hand witness and not from the orhestrated spin, designed to bolster the trial lawyers civil suits. This propaganda is what most posters here depend on.

Malek "J" Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; May 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I must ask again, has anyone seen Kilgo?; May 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I disagree because the case should have been dismissed after it was brought to the attention of the court that the autopsy report was fraudulent. Also the turncoat defense attorney Meier sabotaged Mangum's case by not allowing in Dr. Roberts and by not arguing the proximate cause of Daye's death being due to an esophageal intubation.

The autopsy report had NOTHING to do with whether the stabbing was justified, so why would they simply dismiss, even if there were problems with it? If Daye had lived, and it wasn't self-defense, Crystal would still be a convicted felon. Self-defense was the key, you've never seemed to care/understand that.; May 17, 2014 at 1:55 AM
Anonymous said...: If I were the Players, though, I'd be worried that they might now find a "legal" loop-hole in the contingency agreement and now proceed to attempt to recover their costs from the Players.

Kenny, you really are clueless aren't you? In EVERY contingency fee agreement with an attorney, the costs come out of the settlement. The attorneys aren't eating the costs, the players ARE paying them.; May 17, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, the 'conversation' ended at the 3:58 pm - the rest is the trolls doing their copy and pasting troll behavior and their miscellaneous trolling of their own cut and pasted trolling (again).; May 17, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Blah blah blah; May 17, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: And it seems that KEN-Malek_HYDER-Williams-AL has surfaced again.; May 17, 2014 at 3:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Do you trolls actually feel justified in your trolling - i mean - all you are is annoying little sheats - doing your annoying little trolling on purpose - for what exactly? To be annoying?

ok - you win - you are annoying little sheats who troll on purpose to be annoying and for no other reason than to annoy

happy?; May 17, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Stop bullying me evil duke troll; May 17, 2014 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Again, it's not trolling to point out where you are wrong and ask you questions which you refuse to answer.; May 17, 2014 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... can you please explain why you think self-defense is/was an irrelevant defense, and only the autopsy report mattered.

If Crystal were justified in stabbing Daye (self-defense), nothing that happened afterwards matters. You keep ignoring the self-defense aspect of the case (and apparently convinced Crystal it wasn't relevant - just like you kept, wrongly, convincing her that the Larceny of Chose in Action could be used for Felony Murder).

Why would the State dismiss all charges, even if you are right and Duke intentionally killed Daye (they didn't, but you've said that)? If no self-defense, why wouldn't Crystal still be guilty of some sort of assault?

Show us some of your brilliant reasoning skills ... and answer (you won't, you will ignore).; May 17, 2014 at 5:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Stop bullying Dr. Harr evil duke troll; May 17, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 17, 2014 at 5:09 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 5:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, you have put so much time and effort into documenting these cases that your dedication to achieving or maintaining justice in Durham is admirable and appreciated by many.

Do you think one of the most causative problems in Durham/Duke justice system is the lack of lawyers who can provide equal and fair legal representation in order to not require the trying of these cases in the court of public opinion?

This lack of lawyers who can provide representation without conflict of interest in the Durham/Duke Court extends to all levels of the NC Judicial and Political System to the point of there being No justice for any in many areas of civil rights and social justice policy, decisions, and judgments it would seem.

This control extends to most of the news conglomerates as well making it quite easy to see in the use of the media to try the Lacrosse case at the time when that was done, versus not actually using this current case in the same manner. I imagine Ms. Mangum and Duke and the medical examiners are grateful for that, as are probably most of NC. There is so much politics in these cases, Sydney, that my point is this:

NC needs lawyers who can provide citizens of this state representation when dealing in legal matters when Duke is involved in order for true justice to be available for all when dealing with Duke in any way. Do you agree that this is currently Not available to most if not any in the NC judicial system?

If this aspect of being a NC citizen were mended, many in the state would feel more willing to utilize Duke's services, and the environment would not be so hostile and threatened to so many.

Any ideas on how to change this aspect of the very real lack of justice and equal legal representation in NC that affects all, whether they are aware of it or not?; May 17, 2014 at 5:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 6:34 PM:

"Why should Kenny have to back up friggin' anything?"

So if KENHYDERAL were to say Anonymous May 16, 2014 at 6:34 PM is a violent rapist, you would say in return, "Why should Kenny have to back up friggin' anything?"; May 17, 2014 at 5:14 AM
Anonymous said...: leave me alone

harrass me again and it will be termed hate crime

thanks; May 17, 2014 at 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: If Duke prevails in their plans for the future of NC, there is the very real possibility that ALL will blame them for the destruction of NC, possibly the entire eastern coast of USA through the fact of the seismic instability on the east coast which makes possibility of harm greater to all by even one well-placed larger earthquake on the east coast, and the destruction of all trust and stability in the judicial system and politics, the medical sytem, etc.

Hard to understand why others do not see that, or would support that type scenerio for the future.; May 17, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Other things to think about where duke is concerned:

Even people from Duke argued against the China site.

Some concerns are these:

A. N. Korea targeting them (or others not N. Korean - even if to create reason for another war w/N. Korea) creates the possibility that an adverse action against Duke in China will require military intervention and protection.

B. The recent eastern culture discrimination protest on Duke indicates they don't really get the significance of that or any other discrimination complaint until it becomes an issue as big to their liking as they deem necessary (so they can complain some more about the complainers - it is their game after all - one they enjoy playing for money and for sport and for whatever else benefits their needs at the moment).

C. They are evil in their ethics which is quite apparent to most. They rule with intimidation, deception, fear, and control of the media, politics, judicial, educational, medical, and by corruption, anti-trust and grooming tactics, etc.; May 17, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Anonymous said...: What are the mechanisms utilized at Duke to transfer a patient from their facility to another as capable in a safe, non-hostile, non-public, non-questioning manner in cases of conflict of interest or other issues of trust and legal ramifications?

Are there any other medical facilities that can claim non conflict of interest with Duke within a reasonable distance to insure the nonexistance of medical actions based upon conflict of interest and to insure that the hipprocratic oath and the trust in sound medical care that it implies is upheld for the wellbeing of the patient and all?; May 17, 2014 at 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 17, 2014 at 5:16 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: if you people are so concerned about what Dr. Harr is saying, then go ask Duke to get the guy to stop - it is their job and not yours btw.

why would anyone believe any of ya'll when all the posts are not its not, yes it is, blah blah blah

how any medical organization would stand for this is beyond me

one more reason not to trust them; May 17, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: do you understand when someone says in english to stop bullying them and others? no one really gives a damn about the lacrosse case. It was a huge burden to the state of nc and many others, and apparently still is.

don't read my posts - and if you do - don't bully me about them

understand?; May 17, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: you guys only make yourselves look like fools by continually harping on me. why don't you stop hating everyone who talks about these cases not to your liking? is there a specific reason for that (your inability to not hate others who post on this list if they are not in the same world view as yours)?; May 17, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Anonymous said...: a. The injustice system and reality in NC that is portrayed on this blog as Justice for Nifong effects the entire state of NC, not just Durham or Duke or Nifong, etc., because Duke has made itself a leader in NC, and therefore exerts their influence and the potential for this injustice and chaos and harm throughout the state of NC (and beyond).

b. To have this type blog and the actions it clearly portrays about a power that has the ability to affect so many in ways that can translate to the loss of life and limb, and the ability to receive even the basic of civil rights, legal protections, and sound medical practices, procedures, and actions is indicative of the need for change and the making of the stand for the people against this power - which is Duke, et. al.

3. All the lawyers and doctors needed to get the job done for the people in getting Duke to stop its maliciously harmful behavior towards the people of NC, (and elsewhere), can be found at whatever government agency is set up to oversee this type menace from Duke. Unfortunately, the tentacles of Duke’s conflict of interest reaches deep into most of those agencies. That seems to be a very real problem for all, as all have been negatively affected by these cases.

What government agencies regulate Duke? That is who needs to take charge of investigating this case further in order to get Duke to stop their malicious behavior for all.; May 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: There is the over-riding feeling that 'they' (they being those normally considered the powers that be in the one percent range of income in the world) would seriously appreciate if another race riot or something similar took place in Durham/duke land in order for more support for gun laws and civil order that will enable them to deprive all American citizens of even more civil rights, liberties, and the pursuit of justice as outlined in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is a possibility. So, achieving a change in nonviolent manner - yet still achieving the goals of liberty and justice for all by change if needed - as in the example given by all great civil rights leaders is paramount in this case - unless you actually want to play right into their hands - which most don't (since most are not of the one percent yet still hold the same rights as them in USA, and have the same and equal rights for the legal and judicial system to support and enforce those rights.; May 17, 2014 at 5:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

1. Who are the "Powers-That-Be" to whom you refer?
2. Why are the Powers-That-Be conducting a vendetta against Mangum (you refer to her "role" in the lacrosse case; please be more specific)?
3. Why is Tracey Cline (who was DA when Mangum was arrested and then charged) immune from any criticism?; May 17, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...: once you see the truth you can never go back

you are naive to think that - and argue against all who talk about otherwise - how enlightened can be?

argue against those who have experienced or seen the harm they do first hand - even if from these cases which have been tremendously awful due to duke - and negate their suffering and complaints of the harm thinking they are so special surely they will never get harmed as well.; May 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: ok dip - you can stop now with repeating some of my older posts that actually made some kinda sense when it was posted.

to all others - apparently dip enjoys my posts so much - you may see a few of them reposted for dips amusement

dip - get a grip; May 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not bullying to ask questions and challenge your assumptions. Just one more thing you are completely clueless and wrong about.; May 17, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, how exactly are you troll proof when most of the posts on this blog are done by trolls, including cutting and pasting past posts that are not theirs even when asked repeatedly to stop doing such things?

How does that make you troll proof exactly?; May 17, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"Dr. Harr, how exactly are you troll proof when most of the posts on this blog are done by trolls, including cutting and pasting past posts that are not theirs even when asked repeatedly to stop doing such things?

How does that make you troll proof exactly?"

May 17, 2014 at 6:21 AM

Stop wasting Sid's time with these trivial items. He has far more important matters to worry about.; May 17, 2014 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 17, 2014 at 5:24 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 8:14 AM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Guys, it's simple....Don't feed the trolls.; May 17, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 5:31 AM

First off, I am not Sid but I can answer'

"Sid,

1. Who are the "Powers-That-Be" to whom you refer?"

Anyone who does not buy into Sid's belief that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006

"2. Why are the Powers-That-Be conducting a vendetta against Mangum (you refer to her "role" in the lacrosse case; please be more specific)?"

No one is pursuing any vendetta against Crystal.

"3. Why is Tracey Cline (who was DA when Mangum was arrested and then charged) immune from any criticism?"

She isn't. It has been pointed out on the appropriately named Liestoppers and on Durham in Wonderland that Tracy Cline would have been Mike Nifong's second chair should the false rape case have gone to trial. She would have been deeply involved in prosecuting innocent men for a crime which never happened.; May 17, 2014 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Lance you and g are examples of the trolls that we have to deal with at this website and harass us with your trolling and mocking of Sidney Harr and Ken who both only try to have an open discussion about the unfair durham legal system that Crystal Mangum has suffered through for many years since she had the courage to stand up to duke, duke hospital and the durham police.; May 17, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM:

"Aren't there other legal means to insure survivor rights regardless of marriage? Many hetrosexuals(sic) live together, even have families, and they are never married - so what do they do to insure survivor rights? Maybe that is what needs to change with the laws - the definitions of legal entaglements(sic) with survivors rights and such for nonmarried partners - not with the definition of marriage itself. That would insure the availability of civil rights for all on those issues."

Maybe this is a partial answer.

A man and woman who live together for years and have children are recognized to have a common law marriage. If one dies, the other will have rights.

If a same sex couple lives together faithfully and lovingly for years, that is not recognized as a marriage. Ergo, if one dies, the other has no survivor rights.

The campaign for what is called equal marriage is trying to eliminate that.; May 17, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 8:22 AM

"Lance you and g are examples of the trolls that we have to deal with at this website and harass us with your trolling and mocking of Sidney Harr and Ken who both only try to have an open discussion about the unfair durham legal system that Crystal Mangum has suffered through for many years since she had the courage to stand up to duke, duke hospital and the durham police."

SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL want to have open discussion on nothing. They are trying to force the view onto the public, that Crystal was raped at the party on the night of 13/14 March 2006, and that she is persecuted for accusing people of raping her. The truth is she was not raped, she falsely accused innocent men of raping her. There was no trial because the AG investigated the case and found there was no evidence of any crime. SIDNEY and KENNY are saying he was pressured to declare the perps guilty. They have provided no evidence of guilt.

What Crystal has suffered is not the result of any vendetta or of thelegal system in Durham. It is the consequence of her own criminal behavior.

As SIDNEY is wont to say, Comprende?; May 17, 2014 at 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction:

...

AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 8:22 AM

"Lance you and g are examples of the trolls that we have to deal with at this website and harass us with your trolling and mocking of Sidney Harr and Ken who both only try to have an open discussion about the unfair durham legal system that Crystal Mangum has suffered through for many years since she had the courage to stand up to duke, duke hospital and the durham police."

SIDNEY and KENHYDERAL want to have open discussion on nothing. They are trying to force the view onto the public, that Crystal was raped at the party on the night of 13/14 March 2006, and that she is persecuted for accusing people of raping her. The truth is she was not raped, she falsely accused innocent men of raping her. There was no trial because the AG investigated the case and found there was no evidence of any crime. SIDNEY and KENNY are saying he was pressured to declare the perps INNOCENT. They(SIDNEY and KENNY) have provided no evidence of guilt.

What Crystal has suffered is not the result of any vendetta or of thelegal system in Durham. It is the consequence of her own criminal behavior.

As SIDNEY is wont to say, Comprende?

I add, there were people who were pressuring the AG to hold a trial and find them guilty, even though there was no evidence of guilt. SIDNEY and KENNY do not want to admit that. So, they do not want open discussion.; May 17, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: There your go again you evil duke troll; May 17, 2014 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive.

And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive.

And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive.; May 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 17, 2014 at 9:29 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 9:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The truth is she was "not" raped"......... In law, you are not required to prove a negative but that has not been established as "the truth". There is never an "open discussion" on the Defence side either; at least by the Duke Lacrosse apologists on this Forum. They are trying to force a view on the public that Crystal is a false accuser with the implication that she was planning to extort the Players. There was no trial because sloppy Police work meant that there was little hope of finding The Players guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What Crystal has suffered is the ravages of the relentless campaign to discredit her, designed and implemented to bolster the greedy lawsuits, which were an aftermath of dropped charges and of the unprecedented declaration of innocence. Dropping the charges was necessitated by the flawed Police investigation. She is also a victim of collateral damage in the vendetta of Former DA Nifong by Mrs. Evans.; May 17, 2014 at 9:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: Correction vendetta against not vendetta of; May 17, 2014 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'The truth is she was 'not' raped'......... In law, you are not required to prove a negative but that has not been established as 'the truth'."

Which means you buy into the idea of the Crystal apologists, that the Lacrosse players could not have proven themselves innocent in court. So you are saying the Lacrosse players should have proven Crystal was not raped. That is not how the justice system works in Canada. Canada and the US have the same criterion of the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, how could DA NIFONG have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal had been raped. He had no evidence of a crime. You have provided no evidence of a crime. Ergo, the only logical conclusion is, the truth is she was not raped.

"There is never an "open discussion" on the Defence side either; at least by the Duke Lacrosse apologists on this Forum. They are trying to force a view on the public that Crystal is a false accuser with the implication that she was planning to extort the Players."

First, the Duke Lacrosse apologists are not rape apologists, since there was no rape. They are defenders of innocent men who were falsely accused. Unless you can prove there was a crime, and you haven't come close to being close, the only logical conclusion is that Crystal did falsely accuse innocent men of rape.

"There was no trial because sloppy Police work meant that there was little hope of finding The Players guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

There was no trial because there was no evidence that the crime had happened.

"What Crystal has suffered is the ravages of the relentless campaign to discredit her, designed and implemented to bolster the greedy lawsuits, which were an aftermath of dropped charges and of the unprecedented declaration of innocence."

Crystal has suffered the consequences of falsely accusing three innocent men of raping her. If there was a crime, WHY CAN YOU NOT PROVE IT? Reporting a piece of hearsay is not providing evidence of a crime. It is only evidence of your bias against Caucasian men who are more accomplished than you are.

"Dropping the charges was necessitated by the flawed Police investigation."

Dropping the charges was necessitated by the fact that there was no evidence of a crime, i.e. no evidence a crime had happened and any prosecution would have been a wrongful prosecution.

"She is also a victim of collateral damage in the vendetta of Former DA Nifong by Mrs. Evans. Mrs Evans never instituted any vendetta against either corrupt DA NIFONG or false accuser Crystal Mangum. You are referring to her statement to 60 Minutes. That statement was made AFTER the case against the Lacrosse players had fallen apart and the Bar decided to file ethics charges against DA NIFONG.

I won't say you have a vendetta against anyone. But you do show a lot of frustration over the fact that Crystal WAS NOT brutally gang raped.; May 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I say again, if you believe Crystal was raped, provide credible factual evidence of a crime.

If you can not, you must conclude Crystal was not raped.

Since she was not raped, the allegations of rape she made against the Lacrosse players were false allegations.

You sure are frustrated that Crystal was not brutally gang raped.; May 17, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

To put it another way, provide credible factual evidence that the truth is that Crystal was raped. If you were a DA prosecuting a rape case, you would have to do that. What about the prosecution's obligation to prove do you not understand.; May 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

What factual credible evidence do you have that at least half the attendees at the party on the night of 13/14 March were not Lacrosse players.

Kilgo's assertion that he was told this by a friend who was a Lacrosse player is not evidence. It is hearsay. It remains hearsay unless someone comes forth to claim he was Kilgo's friend. As he has not come forth in over eight years, that all the members of the Lacrosse team insisted nothing happened at the party, the odds are he never will come forth.; May 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah well, the guy's not a DA but one of these days, after your obssessive trolling doesn't end ever, you might find that a DA does gets involved afterall - ya just never know in good 'ol Duke / Durham in nonwonderland; May 17, 2014 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

If you truly want open discussion about a topic you have to allow people to disagree with you. The people who have disagreed with you as to Crystal have provided reasons why they disagree. All you have provided is that Crystal alleged she was raped and that Kilgo was told by someone she had been raped. Those allegations prove nothing. You wax furious because in the face of your non existent case people disagree with you.

Ergo, you really do not want open discussion. You want people to believe you or shut up.

And I ask again, why are you so frustrated that Crystal was not raped.

If you say the truth is that Crystal was raped, then prove it. So far you haven't; May 17, 2014 at 10:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "If you can not, you must conclude Crystal was not raped".... No, I must only conclude that I can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped. If and only if she was not raped and she claimed to have been, for nefarious purposes, then are the allegations, she made, false.; May 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Supporter said...: Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal claims: There is never an "open discussion" on the Defence side either; at least by the Duke Lacrosse apologists on this Forum.

Many of the "Duke Lacrosse apologists on this Forum" have consistently shown themselves willing to engage in an "open discussion." You, Sidney and the other Nifong/Mangum apologists have been unwilling to engage in "open discussion" as most would define it. You limit your "arguments" to innuendo, misleading statement and double standards and refuse to address the evidence.

If you truly wish to engage in "open discussion," you will address the critical question:

In one of the most publicized cases in Durham's history, why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation? Why did Nifong not demand one? Why did DPD supervisors not properly oversee their subordinates?

The investigation was not "sloppy" as you characterize it. A "sloppy" investigation is one in which mistakes are made. In this case, the DPD did almost nothing correct--and Nifong seemed not to care. Nifong and the DPD appeared to deliberately avoid uncovering evidence.

Why is that?; May 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: there is no proof remember - the case was corrupted and the investigations messed up on purpose - remember?

get real and stop trolling about it

just try that for more than one day then - that is not the current case anyway - that case is over for now - give it and everyone a break about it and see if that helps you any at all

... or just keep trolling on and on and on about it since it is doing you and others so fracking much good ...

you are obviously sick about the whole thing - that is sad to watch indeed; May 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Do you think one of the most causative problems in Durham/Duke justice system is the lack of lawyers who can provide equal and fair legal representation in order to not require the trying of these cases in the court of public opinion?

What conflict? There is no evidence that ANY of Crystal's attorneys had any relationship/conflict with Duke. That's just some shit Sid pulled out of his ass that the rest of y'all are eating.

No one had a conflict. If you think there was a conflict, PROVE it, it's easy to make vague allegations, but what was the issue?

And, again, you all ignore that the big issue was SELF-DEFENSE.

And, no one has ever said that Crystal's plea deal would have required her to say nothing. I've never heard of a gag order on a plea deal, and I doubt anyone else here ever has. Those are civil things.; May 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: ok, right case but your still trolling - i have no more comments about the current case for now except for what i choose to say - which is: ... wait for it ...

yup - don't troll me again ever - don't ask me questions - don't ask me to explain - don't repost my posts - ... ever

thanks; May 17, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

ok, right case but your still trolling - i have no more comments about the current case for now except for what i choose to say - which is: ... wait for it ...

yup - don't troll me again ever - don't ask me questions - don't ask me to explain - don't repost my posts - ... ever

thanks

May 17, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Why not? Are you beliefs so fragile and unsupported by any evidence that you can't take questioning? If you can't defend your beliefs, or withstand questioning, why do you have those beliefs?; May 17, 2014 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" No, I must only conclude that I can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped. If and only if she was not raped and she claimed to have been, for nefarious purposes, then are the allegations, she made, false."

But in Crystal's case, there was absolutely no evidence Crystal was ever raped in the first place. Ergp the only logical and reasonable conclusion is that she had not been raped. Ergo, it was not a matter of being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a matter of having no crime to prosecute.; May 17, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 17, 2014 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Is that how they teach justice in Canada? If someone is falsely accused of a crime, that person must be presumed guilty of said crime even if there is no evidence of the falsely alleged crime?

Why do you have such frustration over the fact that Crystal was not brutally gang raped?; May 17, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You allege that there were unidentified party attendees who raped Crystal and that the police made no attempt to find all the people who were at the party. You have no factual basis for making that claim.

After the rape was alleged, the police did identify everyone who was at the party. Every Caucasian party attendee was DNA tested and their DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

Then a couple years later Kilgo tells you in an email that a member of the Lacrosse team told him that at least half the party attendees were not Lacrosse players.

That is a factual basis for nothing. I am familiar with the posts Kilgo left on this blog. Kilgo liked to claim he knew more about the Lacrosse case than any one else on the planet. When challenged to show what he knew, he always backed down, which says he knew nothing about the case.

So the hearsay you have from Kilgo is not even credible hearsay. Yet you persist in believing that Crystal was gang raped.

Why is it so important to you that some woman you know was brutally gang raped. A sane rational person would be grateful she was not.

AND THERE IS NOT AND NEVER WAS ANY FACTUAL CREDIBLE BASIS TO BELIEVE CRYSTAL HAD BEEN RAPED!!!; May 17, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR, KENHYDERAL:

"[Lawyer for Reade Seligman] Emery said the former prosecutor(Mike Nifong) had agreed to make a $1,000 contribution to the Innocence Inquiry Commission and reaffirm 'his statement of [the players] innocence.'”

So corrupt DA NIFONG admits that SHIT(Something Happened In There) never happened.

So with regard to William Cohan, corrupt DA NIFONG lied to him and he believed it.

From http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x1596735228/Settlement-reached-in-Duke-lacrosse-lawsuit; May 17, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Uh oh. Nifong has violated Sid's rule against prosecutors making declarations of innocence.

It had to kill the unemployed, bankrupt Nifong to stroke a $1,000 check to the Innocence Commission on behalf of the lacrosse players and to publicly declare their innocence.; May 17, 2014 at 2:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "After the rape was alleged, the police did identify everyone who was at the party"........ No, they did not. And neither they(the Police)or AG Cooper have never made that claim publically. They then took DNA samples from every team member including the majority who did not attend the party and even those out of town and out of state. Ask yourself why that was that done if not to obfuscate. Attending Players invited and brought non-Player guests. If they were lucky enough not to appear in cell-phone photographs, they were able to remain anonymous to the inferior investigation. Crystal said she was raped and I believe her. It's important for me to know who did it so I can see them brought to Justice; May 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is one of the mystery rapists. He knows too many details.; May 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr, in case you haven't seen the news most recently: the News and Observer today is running an investigative report on the Medical Examiner system in NC. In the first article of the series, a contact number is given for people to share their stories about their experiences with the medical examiners. Perhaps you can contact them and see if they will include people being charged for murders they did not commit as part of their series as in Ms. Mangum's case. It would be interesting to see if they would include Ms. Mangum's case, or similar situations about malpractice. I wonder if they would?; May 17, 2014 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'After the rape was alleged, the police did identify everyone who was at the party'........ No, they did not."

Yes they did.

"And neither they(the Police)or AG Cooper have never made that claim publically."

They never claimed publicly that there were unidentified party attendees. The only people who have claimed there were are you and Kilgo, and neither one of you are credible.

"They then took DNA samples from every team member including the majority who did not attend the party and even those out of town and out of state. Ask yourself why that was that done if not to obfuscate."

The Caucasian players on the team were required to give DNA samples because Crystal claimed(falsely it turned out) that Caucasians raped her. That is the only explanation.

"Attending Players invited and brought non-Player guests. If they were lucky enough not to appear in cell-phone photographs, they were able to remain anonymous to the inferior investigation."

You have no credible factual evidence that this was the case.

"Crystal said she was raped and I believe her."

You want to believe her lies. That reflects badly on you, not on any of those she falsely accused.

"It's important for me to know who did it so I can see them brought to Justice".

If you weren't a blatant unrepentant racist, you would acknowledge that no one did it. Justice was served when AG Cooper formally recognized that no crime had been committed and that those accused were in fact innocent.

I still wonder why it is that you so fervently wish Crystal had been raped. You say it is because you want the perpetrators brought to justice. Since there were no perpetrators, you must have some other reasons. What are they?; May 17, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...: Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

I assume that your refusal to acknowledge my questions should be taken as an admission that you have no interest in the "open discussion" in which you claim to be interested.

Instead, you resort to the intellectually dishonest tactic of making unsupported claims then insisting that your critics prove that your claim could not possibly be true.

You claim that not all attendees were identified. Provide some credible evidence to support your claim that non-players in addition to the two noted by the captains as having attended and later identified, interviewed and tested also attended the party.

Mangum's statements are not credible for reasons explained previously. The DPD's failure to investigate provides no evidence to support your claim.

I won't ask that you "prove" your claim. I simply ask that you provide some credible evidence to support it.; May 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is one of the mystery rapists.; May 17, 2014 at 2:41 PM
Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...: Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

You ask why the DPD took DNA samples from all of the white players, including those who were out of town.

The answer is obvious.

They did not believe that Mangum had been sexually assaulted and they didn't want to waste a lot of time investigating. As we have discussed previously, the DPD made no attempt to conduct a real investigation.

Nevertheless, they thought this was a great opportunity to frame some Duke students. They thought that Mangum was a prostitute (yes, I know, you have assured us that she has never been a prostitute, but the DPD officers didn't know that) and one or more of the players had paid for sex. The DNA would identify her clients, and they could charge them with rape.

It was all so easy.; May 17, 2014 at 2:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: KMRHS said: You claim that not all attendees were identified. Provide some credible evidence to support your claim that non-players in addition to the two noted by the captains as having attended and later identified, interviewed and tested also attended the party"........... Show me the list. Or is this one of the Public Records AG Cooper has to keep confidential and can't make public or show to investigative author William Cohan. Why would Lawyers permit Players who were not even present to provide DNA. They certainly didn't legally have to do. Maybe they agreed to do so to assist their brother team-members who were suspects. It created the false impression of 100% innocence. In this case, if you assert that only Players except for the two noted were there, then this time it's incumbent on you to provide evidence of that claim. I sincerely doubt if any uninvolved attending Player would state under oath that there was no other non-Players present; May 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Why is it so important to you that some woman you know was brutally gang raped. A sane rational person would be grateful she was not"...... I'm beginning to suspect that you are Dr. Anonymous that race obsessed retired surgeon who likes to play psychiatrist and unprofessionally and without qualification make psychiatric diagnosis. He never has had the courage to give his name or where he qualified. If you are not him I apologize.; May 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM
Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal Supporter said...: Kenny "Mystery Rapists" Hyderal:

You refuse to engage in the"open discussion" you claim to want, but once again resort to the intellectually dishonest tactic of innuendo.

The suggestion that Cooper is hiding the list is innuendo.

You owe me an apology.

The suggestion that the players' decision to comply with the court order to provide DNA was out of a desire to cover for others (ignoring their lawyers' advice to contest the order) is innuendo.

You owe me an apology.

I did not assert that only two non-players attended the party. I said that I had seen no evidence to question that conclusion. You misunderstood me.

You owe me an apology.

If you want an"open discussion" as you claim, I suggest that you abandon your intellectually dishonest tactics and provide evidence to support your claims.; May 17, 2014 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"'KMRHS said: You claim that not all attendees were identified. Provide some credible evidence to support your claim that non-players in addition to the two noted by the captains as having attended and later identified, interviewed and tested also attended the party'........... Show me the list. Or is this one of the Public Records AG Cooper has to keep confidential and can't make public or show to investigative author William Cohan."

This is a dodge. You assert that there were non lacrosse player attendees at the party. He who asserts must prove. This is not proof of anything. You are admitting you have no proof of any non Lacrosse player attendees.

"Why would Lawyers permit Players who were not even present to provide DNA. They certainly didn't legally have to do."

Here you show how uninformed you are about the case. Do the letters NTO ring a bell with you? They stand for Non Testimonial Order. The DA's office got an NTO which ordered each of the 46 Caucasian member of the team to, among other things, give samples for DNA analysis. They were under a legal obligation to do so.

They could have fought the order. According to NC law, a DA must have probable cause to believe the subjects of the NTO were suspects. Crystal never claimed 46 men assaulted her. Probable cause DID NOT EXIST. The players elected to comply with the order, knowing that no rape had happened.

"Maybe they agreed to do so to assist their brother team-members who were suspects. It created the false impression of 100% innocence."

The failure to match the DNA found on Crystal to any of the Lacrosse players did establish "100% innocence". And that bothers you, because you wish Crystal had been gang raped.

"In this case, if you assert that only Players except for the two noted were there, then this time it's incumbent on you to provide evidence of that claim."

Here you make another gross, egregious error. I say again, he who asserts must prove. You assert that there were non Lacrosse player attendees at the party. You and Kilgo are the only people who assert that there were. So it is up to you to prove, not up to someone to disprove. Neither you nor Kilgo is credible.

"I sincerely doubt if any uninvolved attending Player would state under oath that there was no other non-Players present".

So why did DA NIFONG not subpoena them and put them under oath? He did not. That is an indication they would not have so testified. No Lacrosse player ever said there were at least a score of non Lacrosse players in attendance.

And, again, what you propose is not at all credible. You claim that the Lacrosse players witnessed an assault on Crystal by non Lacrosse player attendees and then covered for them, even after three of their number were wrongfully charged with the crime.

You have provided no credible factual evidence for anything you have alleged. I remind you, if you assert you must prove.; May 17, 2014 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I'm beginning to suspect that you are Dr. Anonymous that race obsessed retired surgeon who likes to play psychiatrist and unprofessionally and without qualification make psychiatric diagnosis. He never has had the courage to give his name or where he qualified. If you are not him I apologize."

Yes I am Dr. Anonymous. You are privileged that I deign to respond to your bizarre allegations.

You resort to name calling. That shows that you have no credible factual evidence to back up your allegations and that you are really frustrated that Crystal was not gang raped.

You question my qualifications. However it is a matter of public knowledge that SIDNEY HARR has minimal training, minimal experience as a physician. But you regard him as a knowledgeable physician. Boy are you confused.

You want to know my name. How about you first provide credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped, provide credible factual evidence that unidentified non Lacrosse players did it.; May 17, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

You have no legal credentials and absolutely no medical credentials. Yet you presume to make medico legal pronouncements, i.e. the failure to detect semen on Crystal's rape kit is not significant.

And you question my qualifications. Oh come now.; May 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

I'll tell you my name if you can tell me what qualifies SIDNEY HARR to proclaim that Crystal was sexually assaulted or that anyone was guilty of said alleged assault.; May 17, 2014 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

I'll give you my name if you can provide factual credible evidence that Kilgo has a friend who was a Lacrosse player.

I'll give you a guideline. Saying there is no reason Kilgo would lie is no good. You have to prove he told the truth.; May 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "You resort to name calling"..... I resort to name calling? Oh my God. Talk about psychological projection. I invite the readers to check the record and see who has been guilty of ad hominem attacks. Racist, Nazi, sexual deviate. In response to those baseless insults I have called you, as a physician, unprofessional. I have also noted that you can hardly make a post without using the archaic and meaningless word Caucasian. If that's name calling I'm guilty; May 17, 2014 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

I'll tell you my name if you can provide credible factual evidence that there were as many non Lacrosse player attendees at the party as you claim.

Kilgo's hearsay is not credible factual evidence, since Kilgo himself is not credible.; May 17, 2014 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "You resort to name calling"..... I resort to name calling? Oh my God. Talk about psychological projection."

What qualifications do you have to be able to recognize psychological projection? None.

"I invite the readers to check the record and see who has been guilty of ad hominem attacks. Racist, Nazi, sexual deviate. In response to those baseless insults I have called you, as a physician, unprofessional. I have also noted that you can hardly make a post without using the archaic and meaningless word Caucasian."

If I am telling the truth it is not name calling.

"If that's name calling I'm guilty".

Wow, you have just shown some insight into your condition.; May 17, 2014 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

I'll tell you my name if you can give me factual credible evidence that Crystal was raped.

Crystal's allegation is not evidence, just an allegation.

Kilgo's claims are not evidence.; May 17, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Dr. Anonymous again.

For what it is worth, isn't believing that innocent men would commit a brutal gang rape a form of sexual deviancy? Especially when you have no credible, factual evidence that the crime ever took place in the first place.; May 17, 2014 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I just saw how schizoid you are.

I read a comment you left on J4N about 3 years ago. You said that since a jury did not convict Crystal of arson, technically no crime existed.

With the case of the Lacrosse players, no honest jury would have convicted them. In their case there was no evidence that the crime had ever happened.

But you are saying that the crime did happen, but there was not enough evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

It seems you decide on guilt or innocence based not on evidence but on your personal like of dislike for the accused.

I ask you, what right do you have to presume Crystal was raped, even though you can provide no evidence that the crime never happened.

The jury did not find Crystal guilty. They deadlocked on a verdict. Which means only that there was not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You decide on guilt or innocence based only on your personal like or dislike of the accused.

And you believe you are an advocate for justice.

HAH!!!

Dr. Anonymous; May 17, 2014 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah well you think you are a retired doctor ... that is much more hilarious, sick, and distrubing (as are all your posts) ... than ... hmmmmmmmm: ___________ well - we'll leave that blank unfilled and up to the reader's discretion

egad - do you ever plan on ending your trolling or will it be 8 more years later and you will still be here trolling for kenny and kilgo and whomever else you deem to annoy

seriously - why do you do what you do?

we've discussed this before but I've forgotten exactly what you said about why you do it except that your answer indicated it was just to amuse yourself

Practically everyone on this blog has asked you to stop at some point or another in the last year that I've watched what you were doing (esp. since you troll almost everything that I posted, and then reposted my posts again and trolled your own trolling as well just to keep trolling me even when I was posting anythang).

are you going to do the same today since you were going for a trolling record yesterday (although I've watched you have much worse trollee days) ... guess we'll all have to watch to see; May 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.; May 18, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Reginald Daye did die of complications of his surgery and not of DTs or alcohol withdrawal"......... Then we should of heard that from those who treated him. Neither you or I were there when the treatments he was receiving killed him. I would like to have heard what the surgeons, who accomplished his wound repair, would have had to say about this. Keep in mind it was the treatment of those complications (knife wound or alcohol withdrawal) and not the condition per se

But why should this case have been about what YOU wanted, and not what was good for Crystal? The medical records Sid released show they ruled out DTs, Dr. Roberts's report says DTs were ruled out. When the Defense interviewed the surgeons (which would have been standard), they likely said things that weren't helpful to Crystal - such as, it was complications from the knife wound. So, again, like Dr. Roberts, would unlikely have been helpful.

It is odd - you are so wrapped up in your conspiracy, you refuse to acknowledge that the Defense could have done it's job, and realized that their testimony, like Dr. Roberts's, would not have been helpful, so they didn't use them.

As Walt noted, it would have been the height of lunacy to put Dr. Roberts on the stand to agree with the State, and it would have been just as bad to put the surgeons on the stand to do the same.

ONLY Sid is claiming the cause of death was DTs and unrelated to the stab wound. Why would the defense put on more people just to contradict Sid?; May 18, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr Anonymous there is no question that you are the worst of the evil duke trolls even including g and you have nothing better to do with your time than troll me and repost my posts and then troll me again. you need to get a life and stop sitting in front of your computer all day acting like a troll and bullying Dr Harr, Ken and me who are only stating our opinion which you don't seem to like but which you should be willing to let us state anyway without you harassing us and trolling us every minute of the day.; May 18, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Anonymous said...: No one has a problem with stating your opinion. You and Kenny can do that all they want. Dr. Harr intentionally, and maliciously HURT Crystal and did devastating damage to her case with his actions, so he is different, and he is very open that he will do it again if given the choice.

Dr. Harr is a sociopath who cares about nothing but his own attention. He went well beyond opinions and helped make sure that Crystal went to prison for Murder - he just seems upset that it wasn't LWOP.

Go back and look through the posts, and the rational, non-trolling responses. Sid ignores answers to his questions, and comments about proper legal procedure. He's not interested in doing it right, he's not interested in helping Crystal. He wants to make sure her case keeps getting damaged.

Yes, you and Kenny, and many others, are merely expressing their opinions, and agree or disagree, that's fine. Dr. Harr goes well beyond that, and he's the disgrace.; May 18, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: are you actually trying to pretend to be me previous poster?

how odd if you are ... why don't you try to be yourself ... not me

thanks; May 18, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: the last post was for the post before - but yeah - you are only trying to troll with that comment and have people think it is me ... troll

... is this your new game then?; May 18, 2014 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: I think Dr. Harr tried to do the right thing based upon his world view - which - since he may not fully understand duke / durham very well and thus understandbly understand it based upon what he has been led to believe, as are most, about duke / durham and the justice system and these cases - and he is not a lawyer - nor could he probably acquire the services of one in this state against duke - he is trying to do the best he can.

The trolls here harm Ms. Mangum more than anything on this blog, and if Dr. Harr has harmed Ms. Mangum in anyway, it is because the duke / durham justice system is so corrupt that they could not conduct the case without his participation in Ms. Mangum's case to begin with. I mean, if they actually had a noncorrupt justice system, Ms. Mangum would have had a competent non-conflicted lawyer able to deal with the situation that is her case without Dr. Harr's expert witness advice and input, and without his attempts to be her lawyer.

So the blame is not on Dr. Harr since he is not in control of the duke / durham, NC, USA justice system obviously.; May 18, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke/Durham had NOTHING to do with Dr. Harr violating confidence and revealing defense strategies to the State so that the State could be fully prepared to counter them at trial. That was all Dr. Harr.

Duke/Durham had NOTHING to do with Dr. Harr getting Crystal to ignore self-defense on his incorrect understanding of the law.

Duke/Durham had NOTHING to do with Dr. Harr ignoring legal procedure and advice/information from attorneys throughout the process.

No, Dr. Harr knew exactly what he was doing, and he still does. He knows that his actions are harmful to Crystal, but he persists.

He assumes the Defense was biased and only he could "save" Crystal, even though he has no proof/evidence. He released information he never should have released, and continued to lie to Crystal and manipulate her, and then complains when he was cut off.

It's like the Dr. Roberts' report - it explicitly notes that there was not DTs, that it was not malpractice, and that the cause of death was "complications from the stab wound" - so clearly it wasn't helpful to Crystal, but Dr. Harr kept pushing her to demand a written report (and, Dr. Roberts had told Crystal all along what it would say). And, Dr. Harr seems to think it would have made sense to put Dr. Roberts on the stand, let her validate everything the State was trying to say (and more), and then attack her, the Defense expert? That would have all but locked up 1st degree and LWOP for Crystal, which has clearly been Dr. Harr's goal all along.

Dr. Harr knows what he is doing, it's sad the rest of you pay attention to his words (lies), not his actions. His actions show he has anything but Crystal's best interests at heart.; May 18, 2014 at 8:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " It is odd - you are so wrapped up in your conspiracy, you refuse to acknowledge that the Defense could have done it's job, and realized that their testimony, like Dr. Roberts's, would not have been helpful, so they didn't use them".....If they did this they kept that information from their client. Why? ............ Anonymous also said: " As Walt noted, it would have been the height of lunacy to put Dr. Roberts on the stand to agree with the State, and it would have been just as bad to put the surgeons on the stand to do the same".....Dr. Roberts written report, Dr. Anonymous notwithstanding, finally put to rest the meta-narrative that there was no esophageal intubation. Dr. Harr has long insisted that this is what killed him.; May 18, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: If the complications are a known part of the intubation procedure which can be prevented and dealt with successfully if properly trained doctors are performing the procedure, then how can the complications be from the stab wound?

The complications are not a known complication of the stab wound that was successfully repaired and treated as noted in Duke's medical reports, and since successfully repaired as recorded in the medical records, there were no complications from it.; May 18, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Dr. Roberts written report, Dr. Anonymous notwithstanding, finally put to rest the meta-narrative that there was no esophageal intubation. Dr. Harr has long insisted that this is what killed him."

And the need for intubation did arise out of complications of the stab wound which Crystal inflicted. No stab wound, no compllcations, no need to intubate.

KENHYDERAL whiffs again.

Dr. Anonymous; May 18, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 18, 2014 at 8:41 AM

"If the complications are a known part of the intubation procedure which can be prevented and dealt with successfully if properly trained doctors are performing the procedure, then how can the complications be from the stab wound?

The complications are not a known complication of the stab wound that was successfully repaired and treated as noted in Duke's medical reports, and since successfully repaired as recorded in the medical records, there were no complications from it."

The stab wound inflicted puncture wounds on the colon and stomach. Regardless of how expeditiously they are treated, they put Reginald Daye at risk for infection. The doctors were working up Reginald Daye for an infection when he vomited, aspirated and had to be intubated.

The deal is, no stab wound, no complications, no need for intubation.

You are as astute as KENHYDERAL. That is saying you are less astute than an inert lump of rock/; May 18, 2014 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

" Dr. Harr has long insisted that this is what killed him."

SIDNEY HARR, minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD appended to his name has long been wrong.

KENHYDERAL whiffs twice in the same inning.

Dr. Anonymous; May 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: .If they did this they kept that information from their client. Why? ............ Anonymous also said: " As Walt noted, it would have been the height of lunacy to put Dr. Roberts on the stand to agree with the State, and it would have been just as bad to put the surgeons on the stand to do the same".....Dr. Roberts written report, Dr. Anonymous notwithstanding, finally put to rest the meta-narrative that there was no esophageal intubation. Dr. Harr has long insisted that this is what killed him.

Crystal had the report, so what was kept from her? And, she isn't out saying things were kept from her. She is saying she was pressured not to use the Dr. Roberts report, but that was her choice, and it was the right one. Or, like Kilgo, are you now going to be telling us what Crystal is saying?; May 18, 2014 at 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny -

Dr. Roberts explicitly states the cause of death was complications from the stab wound. Do you really think it would have been helpful to Crystal to put her on the stand, ask her about the esophageal intubation, the DTs, and everything else she noted - and then call her WRONG when she says that, knowing all that, she sets the cause of death as the stab wound?

That is what you and Dr. Harr are ignoring. Dr. Roberts knew about the intubation, the rule-out of DTs, and the rest, and STILL agreed that the cause of death was complications from the stab wound.

HOW, exactly, do you think her testimony would have been helpful to Crystal, especially when she would have been able to explain, fully, to the jury, why she came to her conclusion?

Wasn't it better to point out a bunch of issues with Dr. Nichols (which was done), and leave it more unexplained? Unfortunately the jury still drew the conclusion, but all Dr. Roberts would have done was answered the doubts Dr. Nichols created.

There is no scenario where her testimony would have been helpful to Crystal.; May 18, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr, I was referring to you when I said 'he' as you questioned. The post was a response to the lamentation expressed in posts here that what you have done to assist Ms. Mangum in this case may have actually harmed her. It was a request for affirmation that you have not harmed her I suppose, since the part about the plea bargain arguments is confusing to me. Like, why would she be offered a plea bargain for keeping silent about the autopsy report discrepancies and the fact that Mr. Daye actually died because of Duke's malpractice?

I think if they offered a plea bargain only available to her if she kept silent about Duke's malpractice and ME autopsy errors it would be an indication of the corruption still inherent in the Duke / Durham justice system, not something actually required by anyone in order to secure their freedom from jail. The DA should have investigated the ME immediately and dropped the charges since obviously Ms. Mangum was NOT considered to have murdered Mr. Daye if she was offered a plea bargain to keep silent about Duke's malpractice and the ME's cover-up of that fact. Makes no sense to me, and it does nothing to reassure me of Duke's medical system delivery in the least, which to most, is a much bigger public safety concern than Ms. Mangum protecting herself from assualt.

Thank you for the clarification.

I don't believe that I harmed Mangum by my efforts to get the truths of her case to the public... something the mainstream media is adverse to doing.

As far as the plea deal goes, I am not sure that the prosecution actually made them ... although I believed it possible and probable considering the weakness of the charges against Mangum. A plea deal would definitely precluded bringing up Duke's responsibility for Daye's death and problems with the autopsy report.

The only way that the prosecution was able to proceed with trial with the possibility of prevailing was if Mangum was represented by a turncoat attorney... which she was. This was evidenced by the fact that they withheld Dr. Roberts report from her.; May 18, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Uh oh. Nifong has violated Sid's rule against prosecutors making declarations of innocence.

It had to kill the unemployed, bankrupt Nifong to stroke a $1,000 check to the Innocence Commission on behalf of the lacrosse players and to publicly declare their innocence.

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?; May 18, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I think Dr. Harr tried to do the right thing based upon his world view - which - since he may not fully understand duke / durham very well and thus understandbly understand it based upon what he has been led to believe, as are most, about duke / durham and the justice system and these cases - and he is not a lawyer - nor could he probably acquire the services of one in this state against duke - he is trying to do the best he can.

The trolls here harm Ms. Mangum more than anything on this blog, and if Dr. Harr has harmed Ms. Mangum in anyway, it is because the duke / durham justice system is so corrupt that they could not conduct the case without his participation in Ms. Mangum's case to begin with. I mean, if they actually had a noncorrupt justice system, Ms. Mangum would have had a competent non-conflicted lawyer able to deal with the situation that is her case without Dr. Harr's expert witness advice and input, and without his attempts to be her lawyer.

So the blame is not on Dr. Harr since he is not in control of the duke / durham, NC, USA justice system obviously.

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Without doubt, the NC legal system is corrupted and has been hijacked as is apparent by the conviction of Mangum.; May 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... what would you have argued differently on the self-defense? We know what you say about cause of death, but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just manslaughter v. murder.

What would you have done differently as far as self-defense? Or will you still pretend that's not relevant?; May 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't believe that I harmed Mangum by my efforts to get the truths of her case to the public... something the mainstream media is adverse to doing."

You are delusional, both about not harming Crystal's defense and the mainstream media.

"As far as the plea deal goes, I am not sure that the prosecution actually made them ... although I believed it possible and probable considering the weakness of the charges against Mangum."

The charges against Crystal were, obviously, very strong.

"A plea deal would definitely precluded bringing up Duke's responsibility for Daye's death and problems with the autopsy report."

Duke had no responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. Crystal did. There were no problems with the autopsy report except in your head. That is the head of a minimally trained, minimally experienced, uninformed person with an MD degree appended to his name.

"The only way that the prosecution was able to proceed with trial with the possibility of prevailing was if Mangum was represented by a turncoat attorney...which she was."

No she wassn't. The attorneys could not do their job because of your meddling.

"This was evidenced by the fact that they withheld Dr. Roberts report from her."

Which report was inculpatory for her. I can't fault you for not seeing this as you have shown you do not know the difference between inculpatory and exculpatory.

You are sure lucky that someone can point out your mistakes to you, not that you ever do anything to correct them.; May 18, 2014 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?"

With regard to DA NIFONG admitting that SHIT(Something Happened In Therre) did not happen, I do believe it.

What I do not believe is your totally delusional megalomania.; May 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Unless you believe the attorney was lying to the Court, the written report did not exist until it was ordered produced in Court, and once it was received, it was provided both to Crystal, and the prosecution. And, the report said nothing different than Dr. Roberts had said it would contain, and it wasn't helpful to Crystal.

As to the plea deal - Duke was not a party to the case, and no plea deal would have every included any requirement that Crystal, or anyone else, stay quiet about the case or what happened at Duke.

You claim to be so close to Crystal - ask her what, if any, plea deals were offered, and if there was a gag order. Or Kenny can ask her.

Of course, neither of you will, because you don't want to be proven to be wrong, and you know you would be.; May 18, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Without doubt, the NC legal system is corrupted and has been hijacked as is apparent by the conviction of Mangum."

That the NC justice system has problems is evidenced by the attempt by corrupt DA NIFONG to wrongfully convict innocent men of raping false accuser Crystal Mangum.

That Crystal was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye is not.; May 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

The falsely accused Lacrosse players are innocent and exonerated, not because any one proclaimed them so but because it has been proven beyond any and all doubt that the crime with which they were wrongfully charged DID NOT HAPPEN.; May 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Your statement that AG Cooper had no right to make public the findings of his investigation, that the Lacrosse defendants were INNOCENT, that has absolutely no significance, legal, moral, ethical or otherwise.

The only significance it does have is that you, like your acolyte KENHYDERAL, seem awfully upset that Crystal was not raped.; May 18, 2014 at 2:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "HOW, exactly, do you think her testimony would have been helpful to Crystal, especially when she would have been able to explain, fully, to the jury, why she came to her conclusion"..................... It would have given a competent defence Lawyer an opportunity to question Dr. Roberts in front of the Jury to expose the glaring discrepancies between Hospital records and the autopsies. It would have forced her to admit to the possibility that his distress which led to his botched medical treatment was not for some unidentified post surgical infection but it could well have been for delirium tremens a consequence of alcohol withdrawal in a chronic alcoholic. That would therefore eliminate the direct nexus between the stab wound and the treatment that killed him. A competent defence would have found an expert pathologist to raise doubts about the conclusion of the medical examiner/(s). The surgeons who repaired the wound, who incidentally were never interviewed by any of Crystal's Lawyers, should have been subpoenaed and asked their opinion if it was the stab wound or any direct consequence thereof that killed him; May 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 2:19: Cowards like you who hide behind anonymity are beneath contempt. Impugning the motive of those who want to help Crystal is dishonest. Moral posters here can argue about how to help her but your sick inferences are despicable.; May 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: 'HOW, exactly, do you think her testimony would have been helpful to Crystal, especially when she would have been able to explain, fully, to the jury, why she came to her conclusion'..................... It would have given a competent defence Lawyer an opportunity to question Dr. Roberts in front of the Jury to expose the glaring discrepancies between Hospital records and the autopsies."

Crystal had a competent attorney. He did not put Dr. Roberts on the stand because, as Walt has been trying to tell you, it would have been harmful to Crystal. Judging from reports there were no glaring discrepancies. The only one who says there were discrepancies is minimally trained minimally experienced person with an MD appended to his name SIDNEY HARR.

"It would have forced her to admit to the possibility that his distress which led to his botched medical treatment was not for some unidentified post surgical infection but it could well have been for delirium tremens a consequence of alcohol withdrawal in a chronic alcoholic."

According to reports, Dr. Roberts said DTs were ruled out. The only people who claim DTs were a factor are SIDNEY HARR and you, who has less medical competence than SIDNEY.

"That would therefore eliminate the direct nexus between the stab wound and the treatment that killed him. A competent defence would have found an expert pathologist to raise doubts about the conclusion of the medical examiner/(s). The surgeons who repaired the wound, who incidentally were never interviewed by any of Crystal's Lawyers, should have been subpoenaed and asked their opinion if it was the stab wound or any direct consequence thereof that killed him".

Since it would not have happened that way, your speculation is not significant. It is less significant than your contention that anonymous assailants raped Crystal. And that contention is worth zero.; May 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"@ Anonymous 2:19: Cowards like you who hide behind anonymity are beneath contempt. Impugning the motive of those who want to help Crystal is dishonest. Moral posters here can argue about how to help her but your sick inferences are despicable".

That is an ad hominem attack which is a de facto admission that you have no, repeat no credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped.

Dishonest is trying to convict innocent men of a crime which never happened, a crime for which you have provided no credible factual evidence.

Which says you are not into helping Crystal. You are into condemning innocent men whom you dislike.; May 18, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The surgeons who repaired the wound, who incidentally were never interviewed by any of Crystal's Lawyers, should have been subpoenaed and asked their opinion if it was the stab wound or any direct consequence thereof that killed him.

You know they weren't interviewed? And, Dr. Roberts was the defense expert - you don't think they talked to her, in full, about the testimony and knew how she'd answer the questions and explain the discrepancies, and still reach her conclusion and not been helpful?

You really are as clueless as Sid if you think that the defense attorneys didn't do their jobs. I have little doubt they did talk to the surgeons, and Dr. Roberts, in detail. That would be standard. I know you claim Crystal says they didn't, but she wasn't there, and she also has changed her story on whether Daye had ever hit her before - so she has some credibility questions.; May 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM
Lance The Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Pulitzer prize-winning author Dorothy Rabinowitz has a harsh review of Both William Cohan's book and his recent book tour comments at the Wall Street Journal.

Rabinowitz is known for her commentary on prosecutorial misconduct and the conviction of the innocent. Let's just say that she knows a little bit more than Diane Rehm. Enjoy.; May 18, 2014 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps the not so eminent Sidney Harr has again taken to posting comments anonymously to create the illusion he has supporters in the blogosphere. Check out comment 3 on KC Johnson's latest Durham in Wonderland post.; May 18, 2014 at 6:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You know they weren't interviewed?" ....... Come on Attorney Meier. We know you lurk here. Break your self-imposed silence, just one time, and tell us if you or any of your predecessors interviewed the emergency room surgeons who surgically repaired the non-fatal wounds that Daye suffered; May 18, 2014 at 9:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "That is an ad hominem attack which is a de facto admission that you have no, repeat no credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped"...... I notice that no one accused Dr. Anonymous of resorting to ad hominem attacks when he pleaded guilty to calling me a Nazi, a racist and schizoid and then ridiculously justifying it by saying it's not an ad hominem attach because it's the truth. Fair minded posters am I not held to a different standard?; May 18, 2014 at 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...: It wasn't the lawyer who made those comments, it was the same troll who pretends to be a retired doctor, a duke dad, various other characters, and even me. You are dealing with a gang of evil duke trolls from KC's blog, and that has not changed for a year now. Why even think anyone rational, intelligent, or able to think for themselves thinks what they say is true, logical, or worthy of reply to begin with. You are seriously harrassed, slandered, bullied, and trolled, and falsly accussed on this blog Kenny by them. Perhaps you should stop replying to them entirely since that is all they want in the first place is to troll you. Sheessshhhhh, the troll who posts here obssessively and thinks they are a retired doctor will just start posting hate crime posts against Ms. Mangum again if you ignore it for more than one day (if that), so then Dr. Harr will delete it for you. They troll you to harm Ms. Mangum, and your playing into their games will only lead to their accussations that you are harming her, which since her case is still open is possible, so why bother?; May 19, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Why would he? If he said he interviewed them, you'd just say he was lying. And you've made it clear you aren't interested in a rational discussion anyway by ignoring most of the legitimate responses/questions on the blog that reveal things you don't like.

Why don't you contact him and tell us what he says?; May 19, 2014 at 3:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "You know they weren't interviewed?" ....... Come on Attorney Meier. We know you lurk here. Break your self-imposed silence, just one time, and tell us if you or any of your predecessors interviewed the emergency room surgeons who surgically repaired the non-fatal wounds that Daye suffered".

The wounds were fatal. He died from them, or rather from complications of them. Rather than railing at respectable people, why don't you get yourself some respectability by providing credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped? Because you can't.; May 19, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Anonymous said...: But we are you ...

Duke has infiltrated your brain and given you multiple personalities! Don't you realize how powerful we really are? You need to double up on the tinfoil if you really want to keep us out!; May 19, 2014 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said: "That is an ad hominem attack which is a de facto admission that you have no, repeat no credible factual evidence that Crystal was raped"...... I notice that no one accused Dr. Anonymous of resorting to ad hominem attacks when he pleaded guilty to calling me a Nazi, a racist and schizoid and then ridiculously justifying it by saying it's not an ad hominem attach because it's the truth. Fair minded posters am I not held to a different standard?"

Why can't you hold yourself to some respectable standards, like ceasing your vendetta against the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players.

This latest screed is yet another admission on your part that you have no credible factual evidence that Crystal was ever raped.

Which again raises the question, why do you so fervently wish she was?; May 19, 2014 at 3:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 19, 2014 at 12:29 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 19, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"tell us if you(Defense Attorney Meier) or any of your predecessors interviewed the emergency room surgeons who surgically repaired the non-fatal wounds that Daye suffered"?

The only person who claims Reginald Daye's wounds were non fatal is your idol SIDNEY HARR. I say again, SIDNEY is not qualified to make such a determination. There is credible factual evidence that he is minimally trained(internship only, no residency, no board certification), minimally experienced(retired 17 years after medical school and spent most of his post medical school career filing frivolous lawsuits) person who happens to have an MD degree appended to his name.

Meanwhile, why don't you provide factual, credible evidence that Crystal was raped? You can't.

So I ask again, why do you devote so much of your time wishing she had been raped?; May 19, 2014 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:
KENHYDERAL:

Don't you just love the latest review of the William Cohan hatchet job retelling of the phoney Duke Lacrosse rape?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579558413534190406?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304081804579558413534190406.html; May 19, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I notice that no one accused Dr. Anonymous of resorting to ad hominem attacks..."

That is because they know they are not ad hominem attacks.

Dr. Anonymous; May 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

One more this morning.

You accuse people of carrying on a vendetta against Crystal because she accuse the Lacrosse players of raping her. But you fail to present any factual credible evidence that she was raped.

Which amounts to, you are carrying on a vendetta against the Lacrosse players. Why?

You do seem to deeply resent well off Caucasian men who are more accomplished and more honest than you are.

In addition to your determination to believe Crystal had been raped, you have another serious problem.

Why do you have such low self esteem?; May 19, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:
KENHYDERAL:

This was on Facebook this morning:

"The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself."

This should be a clue to you. What you spout off on this blog is not the truth. You absolutely can non defend it. That is why you indulge in ad hominem attacks against those who tell the truth.; May 19, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Anonymous said...: you do realize that noone is 'spouting off' anythang but you don't you? just another one of your little oddities ... how fun; May 19, 2014 at 4:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid ... what would you have argued differently on the self-defense? We know what you say about cause of death, but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just manslaughter v. murder.

What would you have done differently as far as self-defense? Or will you still pretend that's not relevant?

Sticking strictly with self-defense, I would have brought up the fact that Daye busted a locked bathroom door off its frame. I would've also made a point of Daye's drunken state. I would've brought to the jury's attention Daye's past lengthy criminal record that included two assaults... one on a female.

Then I would've challenged his credibility... remember he told police that they were arguing over money... or the rent. That was a lie. The argument was related to Daye's jealousy of Mangum flirting with the police officer at the scene. Daye also falsely claimed Mangum took his money and stabbed him, to make the event look like a robbery.

Furthermore, I would point to the fact that Mangum stabbed Daye only once... not multiple times, as would someone with hostile intent. I would also bring up injuries that Mangum sustained that night at Daye's hand.

Finally, I would've brought up the incident that occurred one week prior to the stabbing in which Daye assaulted Mangum and she called a friend (Larry O'Briant) to take her to the clinic for treatment. Meier never even called Briant, a friend of Mangum's, as a witness.

I would've also had my investigators locate other women who have been abused by Daye and have them testify.

There's a couple of other things, but that's a few for starters.; May 19, 2014 at 8:41 AM
guiowen said...: To the 4:21,
We know you can spell properly and use proper punctuation, proper grammar, etc.
Please do us the courtesy of writing properly.; May 19, 2014 at 9:06 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 678 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, May 11, 2014

N & O Editorial: "Save the Nigerian girls"... but not Crystal Mangum

678 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me