justice4nifong: Mangum's Appeals Attorney perpetuates lies to protect Duke Hospital and the M.E.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Mangum's Appeals Attorney perpetuates lies to protect Duke Hospital and the M.E.

97 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Is Sid OK? Has anyone been in contact with him lately?
Thanks,
Lance

Hey, Lance, gui, and others concerned about my well being.

Thanks so much for caring. I've been okay, but I committed a self-quarantine, as it were, over the past several days to work on my sharlog. I wanted it finished as soon as possible, so I just stayed at home at my computer until it was completed... a couple of hours ago. There were a couple of unexpected glitches and I had to edit out some of the original... but nothing of import.

Oft times I will seclude myself away for days at a time to get work done on a sharlog, so don't be overly concerned if I'm not committing with frequency in the future.

Thanks again for your thoughts.; October 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
That's what I had heard (about Ann Petersen), too.
I just sent Sidney an email. Let's see if he answers.

gui, mon ami,

Just checked my e-mail about ten minutes ago and hadn't seen any e-mail from you. You do have my correct e-mail address: justice4nifong@gmail.com.

Would like to know if you agree with Petersen that Daye died on April 6, 2011.; October 30, 2014 at 12:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
FWIW, I was looking forward to this sharlog, as it appears that Crystal's attorney, Ann Petersen, was also Mike Nifong's lawyer for his contempt hearing.

She was also Michael Dorman's lawyer in the case that eventually led to Tracey Cline's ouster.

Hey, Lance.

If Petersen represented Nifong then that goes a long way towards explaining why he was disbarred... (of course the political cards were stacked against him) but I wouldn't be surprised if she did sell him out too... just like she's doing with Mangum.; October 30, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Nifong Supporter said...

Lance the Intern said...
Looks like Sid just posted the Sharlog....So I guess he's OK

Yeah, Good Buddy, I'm A.O.K. Thanks.; October 30, 2014 at 12:09 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Sid -- do you realize that it's the appellate court's responsibility to find prejudicial error in the trial, sentencing, or jury’s verdict?

Generally speaking, the appeal lawyer can't call witnesses or introduce new evidence.; October 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do you assume that a person's race is white when you disagree with their actions?

You did that once with a police officer in one of your blog entries, now you've done it with Ann Petersen (who is African-American).; October 30, 2014 at 12:24 PM
Lance the Intern said...: I'm glad to hear you're OK, Sid, given your recent health issues.

Do us all a favor and drop a quick note to let us know you're going to be off-line next time :)

And if you haven't already, get your flu vaccine....; October 30, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If possible, will you please post the entire appeal brief for review? Thank you in advance.

What next?

Can Ms. Mangum file an admendment?

Can she file a protest with the state bar for false statements that were submitted in the brief?

What are her time limits for these actions, and will you help her with the medical technical aspects of an admendment and/or complaint as shown in the sharlog?

Does she have access to a law library or other means to know the Exact procedures and time limits, and does she have the means to write and submit admendments and complaints?

Thank you for your time and effort in providing this information and answering questions concerning it.; October 30, 2014 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Is there a way for you to submit a complaint to the Appeals Court outlining SPECIFICALLY and in exact detail what happened to Mr. Daye according to SPECIFICALLY each medical report, ie: Duke's, Dr. Nichols, Dr. Roberts, and your specific and exact observations and details of discrepancies and facts not conflicted against Ms. Mangum as you have done in your flogs and sharlogs?

Would this type submittal be accepted by the Appeals Court as part of the legal case and able to be part of what they base their judgements on?; October 30, 2014 at 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "Can Ms. Mangum file an admendment?"

Ms. Mangum can't, unless she fires her lawyer and represents herself.

"Can she file a protest with the state bar for false statements that were submitted in the brief?"

She can file a grievance. stating that her lawyer violated the rules of professional conduct, specifically Rule 4.1 -Truthfulness in Statements to Others.

"Does she have access to a law library or other means to know the Exact procedures and time limits, and does she have the means to write and submit admendments and complaints?"

Even if she does have access to a "law library", it's been deemed constitutionally inadequate.; October 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "Would this type submittal be accepted by the Appeals Court as part of the legal case and able to be part of what they base their judgements on?"

No. See Lance's comments re: appellate court responsibility.; October 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't the lawyer conflicted, since she also represented Mr. Nifong? Has she ever represented duke associated persons, and if so, wouldn't that make her conflicted as well?; October 30, 2014 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "Does she have access to a law library or other means to know the Exact procedures and time limits, and does she have the means to write and submit admendments and complaints?"

Even if she does have access to a "law library", it's been deemed constitutionally inadequate.

- - - What are you talking about?
???

"Would this type submittal be accepted by the Appeals Court as part of the legal case and able to be part of what they base their judgements on?"

No. See Lance's comments re: appellate court responsibility.

- - - WHAT exactly is said there that supports your answer?
???; October 30, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 5:20:

No. Probably. No.; October 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: your answers hold no meaning and are most probably wrong; October 30, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

It is hard to comment on the Appeal Brief since the entire document cannot be reviewed in the Sharlog. However, just the fact that the lawyer gave the wrong date of death to appear that Mr. Daye died three days later, completely omitting the intubation malpractice on the third day, week of life support that resulted from that death inducing procedure, and the correct date and cause of death. THIS all needs to be corrected immediately obviously. How can the lawyer even be ok with what she submitted since it is SO wrong about the death itself? Completely wrong. She presents it as if it were a finding of fact and not just a detail of what occurred in the trial itself as a document of the errors in the trial? Please post the Appeals Brief in full for complete review.

Can you write her an email explaining these errors to her, post it here for witness, and then write a greivance based on her reply and the corrections made or not to present accurate information to the Appeals Court in a timely, professionally NONnegligent manner?; October 30, 2014 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

It is amazing to watch the state and ME office and Duke continue in their charades of justice and professionalism in this case, oblivous apparently to the fact that their malicious actions and deeds of fraud, harm, and professional neglect are documented on your blog for the entire public to observe and comment on as it happens, certain in their ability to achieve their corrupt and maliciously false charges and convinction without interference or penalty from a governing judicial power, professional or political oversight or review, or the rights of 'the people' themselves.

They demonstrate the extent of the corruption surrounding these identities in this state in such an obvious way ... fully aware that many are watching, commenting, and complaining ... and yet they persist as if nothing else matters except to incarcerate Ms. Mangum and protect Duke from examination and revelation of their more proximate cause to Mr. Daye's death by deadly preventable, avoidable, and medically unnecessary malpractice.

They have absolutely no concern for negative professional consequences except for, apparently, what might happen if they do not commit fraud, malicious prosecution, and the creation of a hostile environment for all citizens in support of covering up Duke's errors of deadly malpractice (which Duke themselves legally document).

This type professional behavior in NC seems to be a constant, the one thing that can typically be counted on. It is obviously expected, supported, enabled, encouraged, threatened and perpetuated with no regard for anything professionally sound, legal, or beneficial to the people or to society itself.; October 30, 2014 at 8:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous@5:29 - Look up NCICL article 873, which references Bounds v.Smith .
To meet the requirements of Bounds v. Smith, instead of beefing up jail law libraries, NC relied upon a nonprofit organization, the PLS ( Prisoner Legal Services).
This organization's contract was canceled by the state senate in 2013.; October 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Did the State Senate replace the criterial of a law library in order to defend oneself reasonably for the incarcerated accused, or do they stand out-of-bounds of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on these issues at this time?; October 30, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

There is no question that Ms. Mangum, and you in your attempts to assist her in her defense, NEED a team of professionally, non-conflicted, experienced, and dedicated lawyers to resolve all the issues that are presented in this case that are illegal, harmful, and judicially unsound for EVERYONE in the nation, and therefore a concern of importance to all. What to do about this dilemma is an obvious problem of continuing issue in obtaining justice and civil rights in NC for all people or for Ms. Mangum.; October 30, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I would give the appeals lawyer very little time to reply to your email if you send one before filing a follow-on grievance. What are your thoughts on this?; October 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Is anyone else surprised that Sid obsesses/focuses on a few minor details in the factual recitation in the brief and completely ignores that since the appeal is based on the 404b evidence (Milton Walker), and saying it should not have been admitted, and was unduly prejudicial?

Sid has his agenda, and no one who fits it is a traitor and a turncoat. And, note what he doesn't say in any of his information about his conversations with Crystal that she was upset or bothered by her contact with her Appellate Attorney, nor that she disagreed with the appeal.

Sid is still doing all of this without her permission, and he wants us to think he actually cares one bit about her.; October 31, 2014 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: The lawyer provided completely false information which Dr. Harr focuses his documentation on, and rightly so. She cannot, in all good professional performance, leave the date of death as it is and completely disregard the 2nd autopsy report and Duke's medical records completely which dispute the findings she documented in clear and legally accepted records and facts of evidence, especially when Ms. Mangum continues to insist that this is a major issue she wants resolved and more importantly, that proves she did not murder Mr. Daye. Which is the reasons for the obvious discrepancies, in order to falsly charge and convict her. All very important issues.

So why would you have a problem with Dr. Harr assisting in Ms. Mangum's defense as a pro se de facto expert medical witness on these issues, as she has asked him to do, and which he has consistently tried to accomplish?; October 31, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Why do you assume that a person's race is white when you disagree with their actions?

You did that once with a police officer in one of your blog entries, now you've done it with Ann Petersen (who is African-American).

I don't know the race of Petersen. Why did you conclude that I assumed she was white? I had not come to that conclusion, but thank you for enlightening me about it. That still changes nothing about my concerns or feelings about her representation of Mangum.; October 31, 2014 at 7:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- do you realize that it's the appellate court's responsibility to find prejudicial error in the trial, sentencing, or jury’s verdict?

Generally speaking, the appeal lawyer can't call witnesses or introduce new evidence.

Hey, Lance.

All I ask of Petersen or any appeals attorney is that they give the Court facts. First, it was never established in court or elsewhere that Daye died on April 6th. The facts suggest that the spleen was not removed during surgery on April 3rd. Prosecutor Coggins-Franks never stated that Daye died on the 6th or that his spleen was removed at surgery. Her statement of facts was bogus and detrimental to her client.

The least she could do is tell the truth in her appeals brief.

Do you agree with that?; October 31, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
I'm glad to hear you're OK, Sid, given your recent health issues.

Do us all a favor and drop a quick note to let us know you're going to be off-line next time :)

And if you haven't already, get your flu vaccine....

Thanks for the advice. I'm not a fan of flu vaccines, however. I will try to give advance notice the next time I go into seclusion to concentrate on completing a sharlog.; October 31, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

If possible, will you please post the entire appeal brief for review? Thank you in advance.

What next?

Can Ms. Mangum file an admendment?

Can she file a protest with the state bar for false statements that were submitted in the brief?

What are her time limits for these actions, and will you help her with the medical technical aspects of an admendment and/or complaint as shown in the sharlog?

Does she have access to a law library or other means to know the Exact procedures and time limits, and does she have the means to write and submit admendments and complaints?

Thank you for your time and effort in providing this information and answering questions concerning it.

I presented the entire brief at the end of the sharlog. I included what I received in the mail from Mangum, but did not include excerpts from the trial transcript.

I am willing to help Mangum with regards to medical issues, but I am uncertain as to what avenues are currently available to her legally.

I really don't know if a law library exists at the prison, or whether she has access to law books. I don't anticipate that she will be filing any amendments or anything else.; October 31, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Is there a way for you to submit a complaint to the Appeals Court outlining SPECIFICALLY and in exact detail what happened to Mr. Daye according to SPECIFICALLY each medical report, ie: Duke's, Dr. Nichols, Dr. Roberts, and your specific and exact observations and details of discrepancies and facts not conflicted against Ms. Mangum as you have done in your flogs and sharlogs?

Would this type submittal be accepted by the Appeals Court as part of the legal case and able to be part of what they base their judgements on?

I asked a friend who works at the Court of Appeals about the possibility of writing to the judges to inform them of inaccuracies within the brief. I was told that the Clerk of Court would not allow the judges to see them because they would be ex parte communications by a lay person. A lawyer might have more sway in this matter, I was led to believe.

That is why I have not already attempted to write to the Court.; October 31, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

It is hard to comment on the Appeal Brief since the entire document cannot be reviewed in the Sharlog. However, just the fact that the lawyer gave the wrong date of death to appear that Mr. Daye died three days later, completely omitting the intubation malpractice on the third day, week of life support that resulted from that death inducing procedure, and the correct date and cause of death. THIS all needs to be corrected immediately obviously. How can the lawyer even be ok with what she submitted since it is SO wrong about the death itself? Completely wrong. She presents it as if it were a finding of fact and not just a detail of what occurred in the trial itself as a document of the errors in the trial? Please post the Appeals Brief in full for complete review.

Can you write her an email explaining these errors to her, post it here for witness, and then write a greivance based on her reply and the corrections made or not to present accurate information to the Appeals Court in a timely, professionally NONnegligent manner?

To my knowledge the appeals brief was 28 pages in length, and should be included at the end of the sharlog. If that is not the case, or if it is inaccessible, let me know and I will review it again. Thanks for your comments.

I agree that the false statements are egregious, however, I believe that she was knowledgeable about them and purposely made the false statements in order to protect Duke and Dr. Nichols. I would notify her if I thought the mistakes were innocent or accidental.; October 31, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Isn't the lawyer conflicted, since she also represented Mr. Nifong? Has she ever represented duke associated persons, and if so, wouldn't that make her conflicted as well?

I'm no expert on legal ethics, but I do not see a conflict of interest. Had she represented one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants I would appreciate that a conflict existed.; October 31, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

It is amazing to watch the state and ME office and Duke continue in their charades of justice and professionalism in this case, oblivous apparently to the fact that their malicious actions and deeds of fraud, harm, and professional neglect are documented on your blog for the entire public to observe and comment on as it happens, certain in their ability to achieve their corrupt and maliciously false charges and convinction without interference or penalty from a governing judicial power, professional or political oversight or review, or the rights of 'the people' themselves.

They demonstrate the extent of the corruption surrounding these identities in this state in such an obvious way ... fully aware that many are watching, commenting, and complaining ... and yet they persist as if nothing else matters except to incarcerate Ms. Mangum and protect Duke from examination and revelation of their more proximate cause to Mr. Daye's death by deadly preventable, avoidable, and medically unnecessary malpractice.

They have absolutely no concern for negative professional consequences except for, apparently, what might happen if they do not commit fraud, malicious prosecution, and the creation of a hostile environment for all citizens in support of covering up Duke's errors of deadly malpractice (which Duke themselves legally document).

This type professional behavior in NC seems to be a constant, the one thing that can typically be counted on. It is obviously expected, supported, enabled, encouraged, threatened and perpetuated with no regard for anything professionally sound, legal, or beneficial to the people or to society itself.

Thank you for your insightful and accurate comment. I plan on using it in packages I send out in seeking justice for Mangum.; October 31, 2014 at 7:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I would give the appeals lawyer very little time to reply to your email if you send one before filing a follow-on grievance. What are your thoughts on this?

It is my intention on filing a grievance against Ms. Petersen.; October 31, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Is anyone else surprised that Sid obsesses/focuses on a few minor details in the factual recitation in the brief and completely ignores that since the appeal is based on the 404b evidence (Milton Walker), and saying it should not have been admitted, and was unduly prejudicial?

Sid has his agenda, and no one who fits it is a traitor and a turncoat. And, note what he doesn't say in any of his information about his conversations with Crystal that she was upset or bothered by her contact with her Appellate Attorney, nor that she disagreed with the appeal.

Sid is still doing all of this without her permission, and he wants us to think he actually cares one bit about her.

I believe the commenter that followed you at 5:46 pm excellently addressed your concerns and statement.; October 31, 2014 at 8:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

There is no question that Ms. Mangum, and you in your attempts to assist her in her defense, NEED a team of professionally, non-conflicted, experienced, and dedicated lawyers to resolve all the issues that are presented in this case that are illegal, harmful, and judicially unsound for EVERYONE in the nation, and therefore a concern of importance to all. What to do about this dilemma is an obvious problem of continuing issue in obtaining justice and civil rights in NC for all people or for Ms. Mangum.

I believe the reason there's been no traction on the injustices to Mangum have been in large measure due to the biased mainstream media which has suppressed information and the facts in order to place blame on Mangum for Daye's death while protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner.

What I believe would be most helpful is someone in power and influence to speak out and demand the attention of the reluctant media.; October 31, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: "Did the State Senate replace the criterial of a law library in order to defend oneself reasonably for the incarcerated accused, or do they stand out-of-bounds of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on these issues at this time?"

At the time, the Senate's idea was to make a digital library available at every jail. While this would certainly be helpful, it doesn't address those inmates who:

a) Can't read
b) Can't see
c) Don't speak English

Or any combination of the above.

Any replacement for PLS that doesn't address these issues should be considered inadequate; October 31, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Thank you for your replies. What package are you talking about that you are going to send out, and whom are you going to send it to? It was more a frustrated diatribe than anything else, but it is an accurate representation of what is seen in NC.

One issue:

You wrote:
I asked a friend who works at the Court of Appeals about the possibility of writing to the judges to inform them of inaccuracies within the brief. I was told that the Clerk of Court would not allow the judges to see them because they would be ex parte communications by a lay person. A lawyer might have more sway in this matter, I was led to believe.

That is why I have not already attempted to write to the Court.

---That is why I suggest you email your detailed complaint to the lawyer and ask her to update the Appeal Brief IMMEDIATELY. If she does not, THEN write an immediate grievance including your email and her replies if any (give her a short time limit to reply), and perhaps send a copy to the Appeals Court as well just in case a grievance is something they are allowed to see.

She will have no excuse for the fraud after you email her. The Appeal Brief has got to be corrected and include the issues surrounding the malpractice death and faulty autopsy report(s).

Also, perhaps send to the DA and to the judge in an updated Habeous Corpus request or something?

Send Ms. Mangum a letter and let her know she has got to submit an admendment herself perhaps? She can modify your email or grievance perhaps to send her own as well. She has got to document what she wants and what the issues are so that it can clearly be seen and acted on.

If the problems aren't documented in the Appeals Brief, will the issues be allowed in another trial? If not, the brief has to be corrected before the Appeal Court trial right?

Note: This is nonprofessional advice since I'm not a lawyer obviously, but just what seems like common sense from watching this case on your blog for well over a year now.; October 31, 2014 at 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I say this to you in all respect and meant kindly, but all these other people and even the media cannot accomplish any better than what you could accomplish by simply documenting in detail, like in an e-mail as suggested, the errors of the Appeals Brief and requesting in no uncertain terms that the Appeals lawyer amend the brief to no longer be erroneous, incomplete, and fraudulous, and if she does not, filing an immediate exparte grievance, documenting in full detail on your blog your every step, reply, and resulting action in the process.

Anyone else who is not a lawyer, and probably most lawyers in NC who would or will do nothing, could do no better than that at this point. The vehicles of delivery may not be exactly correct as I take them from adive given here as you are probably aware, but the method of dealing directly with the lawyer, the state bar, and the appeals court is the one which will probably achieve the needed results to assist Ms. Mangum in her defense at this critical time in the case.

What are your continued thoughts on these matters?; October 31, 2014 at 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: If the problems aren't documented in the Appeals Brief, will the issues be allowed in another trial? If not, the brief has to be corrected before the Appeal Court trial right?

If she is granted a new trial, for whatever reason, it is a new trial, they can bring up any and all issues they want, whether they were addressed in the Appellate Brief or not.; November 1, 2014 at 6:36 AM
Walt said...: Anon at 5:17 AM wrote: "Is anyone else surprised that Sid obsesses/focuses on a few minor details in the factual recitation in the brief and completely ignores that since the appeal is based on the 404b evidence (Milton Walker), and saying it should not have been admitted, and was unduly prejudicial?

Sid has his agenda, and no one who fits it is a traitor and a turncoat. And, note what he doesn't say in any of his information about his conversations with Crystal that she was upset or bothered by her contact with her Appellate Attorney, nor that she disagreed with the appeal.

Sid is still doing all of this without her permission, and he wants us to think he actually cares one bit about her."

Ding - Ding - Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham; November 2, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:36 AM wrote: "If the problems aren't documented in the Appeals Brief, will the issues be allowed in another trial? If not, the brief has to be corrected before the Appeal Court trial right?"

There is no trial at the Court of Appeals. The Superior Court (trial court) receives evidence and hears witnesses. The Court of Appeals only takes argument on legal issues, not factual ones. Thus, no trial.

Nothing is documented in a Brief. Briefs are arguments of counsel. The facts documented are in the Record. That said, the defendant's recitation of the facts is very important. Often times, that recitation will become the Court's statement of facts when it writes its opinion. When I am briefing for the Appellee and I see the Appellant has made an error in their factual statement, I do bring it to the attention of the court. It is also my experience that the Court of Appeals' law clerks will often note factual errors in both briefs and bring them to the attention of the Judges.

"If she is granted a new trial, for whatever reason, it is a new trial, they can bring up any and all issues they want, whether they were addressed in the Appellate Brief or not."

That depends on the court's ruling. If the Court of Appeals rules that the 404(b) evidence is inadmissible, then no, that evidence may not be brought up, nor may it be addressed at a new trial.

Walt-in-Durham; November 2, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "All I ask of Petersen or any appeals attorney is that they give the Court facts. First, it was never established in court or elsewhere that Daye died on April 6th."

Are you saying the record was wrong? Or are you just complaining about the brief? Because the record being wrong is a problem. The brief, not so much.

"... Her statement of facts was bogus and detrimental to her client."

You are quick to jump to conclusions. The statement of facts may simply be an error. And frankly, it's not material at all. The date of Daye's death is not in question. The cause is not in question. Remember, there is no evidence that he died of anything other than a stab wound. Evidence, admitted or proffered is the only thing that matters at this level.

Walt-in-Durham; November 2, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Break the Conspiracy said...: Walt, you and other commenters are far too harsh in your criticism of Sidney's sharlog.

Although he does not state it explicitly, Sidney's argument is based on a claim that Mangum had ineffective counsel. Ineffective counsel clearly provides grounds on which an appeal can be granted.

Sidney's "non-lawyerly" advice is focused on the legal issue of whether Mangum's legal liability is cut off as a result of the esophageal intubation. This requires an understanding of relevant case law, including Welch, Jones and other cases discussed on this blog.

Based on his extensive legal research (made more difficult because he does not have access to a law library), Sidney concludes that Mangum bears no responsibility for Daye's death because the intubation was the "sole" "proximate" cause of Daye's brain death. Neither Nichols nor Roberts supported beyond a reasonable doubt their conclusions that Daye's death was the indirect result of the stabbing.

If Sidney is correct, the failure of Meier to raise the esophageal intubation is prima facie evidence that he was either grossly incompetent or was conspiring with prosecutors against Mangum. Similarly, Peterson's failure to raise Meier's failure to raise this issue is prima facie evidence that she is either grossly incompetent or is conspiring against Mangum.

The naysayers may question whether Sidney is correct, noting that Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Peterson, Nichols, Roberts, Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and several other posters either explicitly or implicitly do not accept his interpretation.

I remind readers that Sidney's record in interpreting legal issues is remarkably consistent. Although he has failed to win any lawsuits, and his motions frequently have been rejected as without merit, Sidney asserts that his judgment has never been proven to be wrong.

Attached is a link to the NC appellate rules. He may wish to consider the rules covering amicus curiae briefs, briefs filed as a "friend of the court."

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/pdf/therules.pdf

The following link provides a discussion of these briefs.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.naccchildlaw.org/resource
/resmgr/amicus_curiae/amicuspracticalguide.pdf; November 2, 2014 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

I started reading your posts with interest (ya know, thinking maybe Walt wouldn't bs us all this time), but no, there it is:

"Walt said ... You are quick to jump to conclusions. The statement of facts may simply be an error. And frankly, it's not material at all. The date of Daye's death is not in question. The cause is not in question. Remember, there is no evidence that he died of anything other than a stab wound. Evidence, admitted or proffered is the only thing that matters at this level."

Walt, Walt, Walt, there are the Duke medical records and second autopsy report that document as EVIDENCE that Duke's own malpractice killed Mr. Daye. There is also ample evidence from them that the first autopsy report was completely fraudulent and designed to mislead the court and the public into thinking Ms. Mangum killed Mr. Daye with no intervening cause of proximate cause death by Duke. The conclusions are not facts of law, and if ya want to argue legal issues, one would be that people in the court actually pretend the autopsy conclusions were written in full understanding of the law as the judge decreed at the trial in the first place, so they cannot and should not be used as a legal conclusion to base a verdict on which some seem to take liberty with to do just that.

Why do you so blantantly lie to us and continue to ignore Dr. Harr's entire argument, and why do you do it on this blog?; November 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Break the Conspiracy said...

Attached is a link to the NC appellate rules. He may wish to consider the rules covering amicus curiae briefs, briefs filed as a "friend of the court."

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/pdf/therules.pdf

The following link provides a discussion of these briefs.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.naccchildlaw.org/resource
/resmgr/amicus_curiae/amicuspracticalguide.pdf

--- Break, where are these links to? They do not resemble an official appeals court website address or NC state gov. address, so how could one be assured that the laws, or interpretation of legal procedure for the appeals court is correct if not gained from an official Appeals Court website offering?; November 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 11:06am:

If you don't find the links helpful, then do your own research.; November 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: who cares if they are helpful if they're wrong and more bs, or worse?; November 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Thank you for your replies. What package are you talking about that you are going to send out, and whom are you going to send it to? It was more a frustrated diatribe than anything else, but it is an accurate representation of what is seen in NC.

One issue:

You wrote:
I asked a friend who works at the Court of Appeals about the possibility of writing to the judges to inform them of inaccuracies within the brief. I was told that the Clerk of Court would not allow the judges to see them because they would be ex parte communications by a lay person. A lawyer might have more sway in this matter, I was led to believe.

That is why I have not already attempted to write to the Court.

---That is why I suggest you email your detailed complaint to the lawyer and ask her to update the Appeal Brief IMMEDIATELY. If she does not, THEN write an immediate grievance including your email and her replies if any (give her a short time limit to reply), and perhaps send a copy to the Appeals Court as well just in case a grievance is something they are allowed to see.

She will have no excuse for the fraud after you email her. The Appeal Brief has got to be corrected and include the issues surrounding the malpractice death and faulty autopsy report(s).

Also, perhaps send to the DA and to the judge in an updated Habeous Corpus request or something?

Send Ms. Mangum a letter and let her know she has got to submit an admendment herself perhaps? She can modify your email or grievance perhaps to send her own as well. She has got to document what she wants and what the issues are so that it can clearly be seen and acted on.

If the problems aren't documented in the Appeals Brief, will the issues be allowed in another trial? If not, the brief has to be corrected before the Appeal Court trial right?

Note: This is nonprofessional advice since I'm not a lawyer obviously, but just what seems like common sense from watching this case on your blog for well over a year now.

Thank you for your advice. Sometimes nonprofessional advice is the best.

There is no doubt in my mind that Petersen is aware of the misstatement of facts in her brief, and that they are deliberate. That is why I have no intention of bringing them to her attention. I do plan on filing a grievance with the State Bar probably on Tuesday (It has already been drafted and needs only notarization).

As far as where to go now, I will look up the link Break made in his comment below and see what I can do, if anything, by filing an amicus brief.; November 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I say this to you in all respect and meant kindly, but all these other people and even the media cannot accomplish any better than what you could accomplish by simply documenting in detail, like in an e-mail as suggested, the errors of the Appeals Brief and requesting in no uncertain terms that the Appeals lawyer amend the brief to no longer be erroneous, incomplete, and fraudulous, and if she does not, filing an immediate exparte grievance, documenting in full detail on your blog your every step, reply, and resulting action in the process.

Anyone else who is not a lawyer, and probably most lawyers in NC who would or will do nothing, could do no better than that at this point. The vehicles of delivery may not be exactly correct as I take them from adive given here as you are probably aware, but the method of dealing directly with the lawyer, the state bar, and the appeals court is the one which will probably achieve the needed results to assist Ms. Mangum in her defense at this critical time in the case.

What are your continued thoughts on these matters?

I don't believe that contact with Mangum's attorney will yield anything positive. I plan on filing a complaint against Petersen on Tuesday, and will look into what I can do with regards to an amicus brief filing.; November 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Not believing that dealing with her lawyer will achieve anything positive is not the same as documenting that she doesn't.

Break's links are not official NC gov. weblinks, and thus, may not be correct.; November 2, 2014 at 11:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anon at 5:17 AM wrote: "Is anyone else surprised that Sid obsesses/focuses on a few minor details in the factual recitation in the brief and completely ignores that since the appeal is based on the 404b evidence (Milton Walker), and saying it should not have been admitted, and was unduly prejudicial?

Sid has his agenda, and no one who fits it is a traitor and a turncoat. And, note what he doesn't say in any of his information about his conversations with Crystal that she was upset or bothered by her contact with her Appellate Attorney, nor that she disagreed with the appeal.

Sid is still doing all of this without her permission, and he wants us to think he actually cares one bit about her."

Ding - Ding - Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

As a matter of fact, I just spoke with Crystal less than six hours ago. She is very upset with the way Petersen misrepresented facts about Daye's injury and death.

She told me that she still has not received a visit from Petersen... and she is very unhappy with the representation by Petersen.

I have no problem with the appeal on questionable admission of the 404(B) testimony at trial, but why doesn't Petersen state facts of the case? Daye didn't die on April 6, 2011. Daye's spleen wasn't removed at surgery on April 3, 2011. Daye didn't sustain injuries to the lung, diaphragm, stomach and kidney. By making these false statements it shifts blames for Daye's death from Duke Hospital(where it belongs) onto Mangum. She's selling Mangum out just like Meier did.; November 2, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 11:06, 11:23, 11:31:

Fine. If you don't think the information is reliable, then do your own research. If you aren't willing to provide any information on vale, then shut the fuck up.; November 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Not believing that dealing with her lawyer will achieve anything positive is not the same as documenting that she doesn't.

Break's links are not official NC gov. weblinks, and thus, may not be correct.

You're correct, but I don't know that documenting that I informed her would be of much use. I think she's been on Mangum's case now for close to a year and the statements Petersen made are inexcusable.

I'll see what Break's link says and if it is in any way applicable to North Carolina.

Thanks.; November 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Break the Conspiracy said...
Walt, you and other commenters are far too harsh in your criticism of Sidney's sharlog.

Although he does not state it explicitly, Sidney's argument is based on a claim that Mangum had ineffective counsel. Ineffective counsel clearly provides grounds on which an appeal can be granted.

Sidney's "non-lawyerly" advice is focused on the legal issue of whether Mangum's legal liability is cut off as a result of the esophageal intubation. This requires an understanding of relevant case law, including Welch, Jones and other cases discussed on this blog.

Based on his extensive legal research (made more difficult because he does not have access to a law library), Sidney concludes that Mangum bears no responsibility for Daye's death because the intubation was the "sole" "proximate" cause of Daye's brain death. Neither Nichols nor Roberts supported beyond a reasonable doubt their conclusions that Daye's death was the indirect result of the stabbing.

If Sidney is correct, the failure of Meier to raise the esophageal intubation is prima facie evidence that he was either grossly incompetent or was conspiring with prosecutors against Mangum. Similarly, Peterson's failure to raise Meier's failure to raise this issue is prima facie evidence that she is either grossly incompetent or is conspiring against Mangum.

The naysayers may question whether Sidney is correct, noting that Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Peterson, Nichols, Roberts, Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and several other posters either explicitly or implicitly do not accept his interpretation.

I remind readers that Sidney's record in interpreting legal issues is remarkably consistent. Although he has failed to win any lawsuits, and his motions frequently have been rejected as without merit, Sidney asserts that his judgment has never been proven to be wrong.

Attached is a link to the NC appellate rules. He may wish to consider the rules covering amicus curiae briefs, briefs filed as a "friend of the court."

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/pdf/therules.pdf

The following link provides a discussion of these briefs.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.naccchildlaw.org/resource
/resmgr/amicus_curiae/amicuspracticalguide.pdf

Hey, Break.

Good to hear your comments on Petersen's appeal. Thanks for the links, I will copy and paste them to my flash drive and see if that is an option that will pan out for me.

You make a good point, and one that is often overlooked, that neither Nichols nor Roberts gave support to their conclusion that Daye died indirectly from the stab wound.; November 2, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

It would be of use because she is the lawyer and thus the one to make the corrections to her own brief. If she does not correct her errors, then she is at fault and you have PROOF, (not just a belief), that she is not concerned professionally nor for her client OR for the court to provide correct information and facts as an Appeals Court lawyer. This will assist others as well if this behavior is confirmed by her own actions, which would be nice since she writes briefs for a lot of people, so it needs to be stopped.; November 2, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Plus time is essential of course, so give her a week to correct the errors, and if she does not to your knowledge of the facts that are in evidence, THEN send the grievance documenting your communication with her and the detail specific facts as contained in the evidence submitted at trial and in the case, which would be both autopsy reports and the Duke medical reports from what you are aware of.

Submit the grievance exparte and ask for immediate legal advice to provide to Ms. Mangum as to how SHE should now correct the brief HERSELF, or obtain immediate nonconflicted professional legal services in order to do so, (in the interest of time).; November 2, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

In addition, mention that you would also like to submit a grievance against Mr. Meier, and any of the other lawyers for conflict and non-representation in a timely manner (or whatever else), perhaps, and then send that grievance after this crisis is mitigated satisfactorily to achieve an accurate brief and sumittal to the Appeals Court on Ms. Mangum's behalf, (by a lawyer hopefully), in a timely manner.; November 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: what the frack g ...

what is your problem?; November 2, 2014 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously

get fracking real

you are probably the troll who posted that post to look like someone else just so you could then troll it too

and if you are not - (which you are since you do just that continuously on this blog) ... now ya know

blah

p.s. duke sucks nomatter - it's their image - duke - the land of 'duke's evil a... suck - and always will' ville

blah; November 2, 2014 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: why evil duke troll it g...

copy and pasting to troll yourself again, eh?

... and you were doing so good this weekend; November 2, 2014 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: why evil Tinfoil Hat,...

copy and pasting to troll yourself again, eh?

... and you were doing so good this weekend; November 2, 2014 at 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: One day, evil duke troll it g..., when you screw up really bad as you are bound to do by the way you act so evil on this blog, ... you will need assistance in defending yourself ... and then you will see perhaps what it is like to have someone like you be so evil in the face of your struggle for justice ... and if you are lucky ... you might just learn to understand the errors of your evil ways ... and you might even want to apologize at the time for what you are doing now ... so ... to save yourself time ... just stop and think bout that for awhile ... and you can apologize now if you want

p.s. stop trolling on this blog now ... thanks; November 2, 2014 at 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: One day, evil Tinfoil Hat ..., when you screw up really bad as you are bound to do by the way you act so evil on this blog, ... you will need assistance in defending yourself ... and then you will see perhaps what it is like to have someone like you be so evil in the face of your struggle for justice ... and if you are lucky ... you might just learn to understand the errors of your evil ways ... and you might even want to apologize at the time for what you are doing now ... so ... to save yourself time ... just stop and think bout that for awhile ... and you can apologize now if you want

p.s. stop trolling on this blog now ... thanks; November 2, 2014 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: well since you are ALSO the alias tinfoil hat hatemonger evil duke troll it g..., and you have also mused before how you thought you were others which was really weird but ok, you are STILL trolling yourself in essense, so ... like has been said in essense before:

we get it evil duke troll it g... tinfoil hat hate monger ... you are a crazy making, anti-anythingNotDuke, Ms. Mangum, Dr. Harr, Mr. Nifong and anyone who supports them in any way hating, hate-crime committing ... troll (to be nice)

blah; November 2, 2014 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey assholes at 3:50, 3:24, 3:13, 2:22, 2:15, 2:12, 2:10:

Stop it with the asinine posts. Dr. Harr is trying to accomplish a serious task. You assholes are distracting attention from his objective.

I can't concentrate on Dr. Harr's arguments with this bullshit. Go fuck around on some other site.; November 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: you go do the same please

be off with ya then

blah; November 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Go fuck yourself 4:05.; November 2, 2014 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: and you

blah; November 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Go fuck yourself 4:12:; November 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM
guiowen said...: To the 4:09,
I understand your frustration with 4:05, but please don't use such words.; November 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: egad egad and egad

so ... this is your latest alias and trolling trick evil duke troll it g... tin hat hatemonger

...

blah blah and blah

...

blah

p.s. what happened to your little ms. manners alias, eh?; November 2, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: nevermind, g..., alias evil duke troll it g... tin hat hatemonger in the pure g... form to the rescue ...

... blah dum; November 2, 2014 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Guiowen:

Sorry for the frustration.

Our friend is too clever. He uses "frack" as popularized in Battlestar Gallactica as a faux curse word. "Frack you" is a thinly disguised "fuck you."

I don't like it when someone tells me to fuck myself. Do you like it when someone tells you to fuck yourself? I wonder if Sidney likes it when someone tells him to fuck himself?; November 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: then why did you do it?

frack is not the same as that other word btw

???; November 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You say you are interested in assisting Ms. Mangum in her defense, that you aware she is not able to defend herself without legal advice even though she can obviously assist in her own defense if she had professional, nonconflicted, legal defense advice and assistance as quaranteed for all persons in the US judicial system.

Therefore, the only way to achieve this for her is through the very same system, as it is what it is.

I understand your frustration with her lawyer, but if her lawyer cannot correct her own errors after specifically asking her to in a timely manner to provide Ms. Mangum with her guaranteed legal rights to professional, nonconflicted, legal assistance, then a grievance is appropriate.

That course of action follows the outline of the system probably, AND provides Ms. Mangum with a documented, detailed, and specific request for her rights to be upheld within the system itself. It is what it is. She may have to submit the grievance as well the request to her lawyer, but she will have your outline to assist her at that time.

The media and blogs, and such are NOT the system, and even they too must work within the system itself in order to obtain actual results within the system.

If you just go directly to Grievance, THEN what is Ms. Mangum to do, (in a timely manner), WITH her guaranteed right of nonconflicted, professional, knowledgeable and able legal representation intact?

In otherwords, you may cause delays and more confusion for Ms. Mangum if you do not ask the lawyer to correct her own errors FIRST in detailed and specific facts based on evidence, and then ask the State Bar to insure Ms. Mangum is assigned a non-conflicted, professional, knowledgeable, and able and willing legal professional to assist in her defense to insure her appeal is handled in a more timely manner than it has so far if her current lawyer fails to do so after your direct request in Ms. Mangum's behalf for her to.

I apologize for the argument on this, but I too am frustrated with all that I see about this case as well at this point. That includes watching you possibly mess things up for Ms. Mangum at this time. You do understand that I am sure.; November 2, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Also send a copy of all this, perhaps in a Grievance to the Appeals Court if that is such a thing, or an Amicus Brief, but in some format or another UNTIL the Appeals Court is finally made aware of the issues and the Appeals Brief errors are corrected, and the corrections are taken care of through the Appeals Court as well as the State Bar, as that is where the Appeal Decision will originate - from the Appeals Court and no telling how long the State Bar will take.

There HAS to be a way to achieve these corrections, AND Ms. Mangum HAS to be informed of your actions within the system, and possibly submit in her own words the same that you submit since you are not a lawyer and it is her case.

What are your continued thoughts on this if you do not mind?; November 2, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: egad egad and egad

so ... this is your latest alias and trolling trick evil Tinfoil Hat troll ... tin hat hatemonger

...

blah blah and blah

...

blah

p.s. what happened to your little ms. manners alias, eh?; November 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Basically, since Ms. Mangum asked you to be her pro se de facto medical expert because of the situation as it was and is, she is probably relying on you to provide her with a written professional medical explanation and detail of what the three sources of medical records document and the discrepancies in professional medical terms between the reports, as well detailed information relating to how these discrepancies and errors relate to her case as far as wrongful charges, incarceration, inability to obtain proper legal counsel to assist in her defense, AND the trial itself Especially and how her legal, civil and whatever rights and laws were violated, which is what the Appeals Court will be looking for.

That is a lot, but you have done the same here on your blog in many different ways and times in your flogs, sharlogs, and comments, so that is why you are the person she is counting on to do this for her, and the only one who can.

In any case, I am sure if you do that, your professional performance in assistance of her legal defense as a pro se de facto medical expert will provide her with the professional and expert detailed explanation of all the medical reports and procedures, etc. that is needed to file the Appeal Brief with medically accurate detail and specifics. The lawyer (or a lawyer) would be able to know the laws that are violated or challenged in connection to every specific issue, but you know a lot of them, so go with what you know and ask for legal assistance to clarify and make complete. It is what the lawyers are 'there' for afterall, and what Ms. Mangum has every right to request for herself in legal assistance of her own defense.

Ask the lawyer to do it for you. Give a copy to Ms. Mangum. Ask Ms. Mangum to do it for herself as well. On each item you submit. And document here. Then both of you are working in the system, which is what Ms. Mangum has to work with in order to get out of it, with or without your assistance. It is what it is.; November 3, 2014 at 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Also, I haven't taken the time yet to read the Appeal Brief itself, as I am still working my way to understanding when to Stop and look for it, cuz if ya go to far, ya have to start from the beginning again, which I will attempt again ... soon.

But, that is not really the point except that I wonder if the issues with the jury prejudices, biases, and conflicts were addressed in the brief, and if not, (or if they were), what are your thoughts on this matter in reference to the Appeals Brief, which is where the matter needs to be addressed right?; November 3, 2014 at 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

In addition, Mr. Daye's and 'the peoples' rights to have quilt of the murder decided on evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt who the actual murderer was/is, as well as other rights if one thought about it a bit, were violated and challenged.

Were his rights included as well in the Appeal Brief as related to Duke's legal mandate to take responsibility for their own professional and medical malpractice, which was pertinent information kept out of the trial by the prosecution which would be beneficial to the defense to the extent that it is mandated by legal procedure that the prosecution share this information with the defense before the trial.; November 3, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Anonymous said...: There were no conflicts addressed in the brief, because there were no conflicts with her lawyer.

Working for a hospital company 15 years ago and in a completely different state doesn't create a conflict. The fact Sid keeps pushing crap like that just proves how delusional he really is, and why no one takes him seriously.

He's a joke, the blog is a joke, and the fact that 1 of you still doesn't realize that is even funnier.; November 3, 2014 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: better than none

which is why ya'll insist on continuing to troll on and on and on, eh? seems ya'll are only annoying yourselfs at this point, since what ya'll are doing from the perspective of ya'lls drinking bet, as crazy making as it is, fools no-one but ya'll ...

blah; November 3, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not trolling to point out mistakes - that's an attempt to help. If Sid keeps pushing stuff that is clearly wrong, no one will ever take him seriously, because he shows he isn't taking it seriously.

If he'd actually listen, and learn, and modify his arguments, people might actually believe this is a real attempt to help, and not just him feeding his ego.

As for you - you are hopeless and pathetic, so blah blah blah and egad egad egad. They really should put you in a padded cell.; November 3, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: ... gee ... hopeless and pathetic and padded cells ... oh my

your other alias self must be laughing at you in the mirror at that self-projection

...

blah; November 3, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...: You'd seem less a moron if you'd learn the difference between "guilt" and "quilt".; November 3, 2014 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously? It doesn't seem to help you any.; November 3, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Moron.; November 3, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Anonymous said...: What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucidated by a nice shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers.

blah

blah

blah; November 3, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Your first mistake was coming here to think Sid could elucidate anything.; November 3, 2014 at 11:05 AM
guiowen said...: To the 10:40,
Please mind your manners.; November 3, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @10:40:

I'm sure you are hoping to be "elucidated" by a nice schlong....; November 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I am sorry. I meant to say "elucified." I came here looking to be elucified by a nice shlog and this is what I get instead.

blah; November 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: " I came here looking to be elucified by a nice shlong"...

Were you expecting a long one or a short one?; November 3, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil at 12:31:

Mind your manners. This is a family oriented blog.; November 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I really don't care how long a shlog is, as long as it is elucificating.; November 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:50 AM wrote: "Walt, Walt, Walt, there are the Duke medical records and second autopsy report that document as EVIDENCE that Duke's own malpractice killed Mr. Daye."

No, those reports do not say that Duke's own malpractice killed Mr. Daye. In fact the only person sufficiently qualified and testifying reached the opposite conclusion. So to the defense' own expert.

Walt-in-Durham; November 4, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I have no problem with the appeal on questionable admission of the 404(B) testimony at trial, but why doesn't Petersen state facts of the case? Daye didn't die on April 6, 2011."

Apparently you do have a problem with understanding the 404(b) issues as you never discuss them. And, the 404(b) issues are the only ones likely to result in a new trial. I can only conclude that you don't really want to aid Crystal at all.

I am still unclear if you are complaining about the record or the Appellant's Brief? If the record shows an erroneous date of death, then it should be corrected.; November 4, 2014 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt asks Sid what the issue is: "I am still unclear if you are complaining about the record or the Appellant's Brief?"

Petersen misstated the date of death in her brief. Daye became brain dead on April 6, but did not die until a week later after life support was removed.

I recognize that Petersen's error (while perhaps demonstrating carelessness) is completely irrelevant as it relates to the 404(b) issue on which she bases her appeal.

Nevertheless, when one's grasp of facts is perfect as is Sid's, it can be challenging to react to mere mortals.; November 4, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Mangum's Appeals Attorney perpetuates lies to protect Duke Hospital and the M.E.

97 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me