justice4nifong: Correspondence for Justice updated 12-27-14

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Correspondence for Justice updated 12-27-14

Click to access 'Grievance filed with State Bar against Ann B. Petersen'

120 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
hey sid, where is the christmas card from the j4n gang of losers?

Too busy working to try and free Crystal to spend time on Christmas card. The cards take a very lot of time and energy... had neither this year.

Hope you had a great holiday.; December 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Merry Christmas to Sidney, A Lawyer, guiowen, Lance, Break, Kenny, Kilgo and all the anonymous commenters.

Hey, everyone. Thanks for the nice holiday wishes. Hope that everyone had a wonderful Christmas.; December 27, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT INFORMATION!

The next sharlog, which I started writing this morning is probably one of the most important that I've ever produced. Important disturbing information is included... Out of right field. I'm going to work as quickly as I possibly can to get it finished and uploaded. Ergo, I will probably resort to sequestration for the next few days, and occasionally try to find time to get to the library to respond briefly to comments.

Note: I'm aware that I misspelled Daryl's name on the button. I will correct it soon.

As you were.; December 27, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Is it truly necessary to include posts that you have not asked permission from those whom write the posts on your in your letters? Is there a reason why you don't ask first? I ask this, because having written some of those comments you submitted to the News and Observer without permission, I ask again why you don't just make a formal paper version of your in-depth medical analysis to provide to Ms. Mangum and even include in your letters. That would be highly more affective in assisting Ms. Mangum in her defense than random posts from this blog submitted to newspapers is my major thought. Your reply is requested as soon as you are able. Thank you.; December 27, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: p.s.

Please do NOT do it again without my direct express permission. Thank you.; December 27, 2014 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: p.s.s.

Dr. Harr, the facts of the medical analysis you provide in the sharlogs are what is needed to insure justice and freedom for Ms. Mangum, NOT random posts from this blog. WHY do you not agree?

It seems to me that at this point in time, you are simply exploiting Ms. Mangum, and you are exploiting random posts on this blog because you feel comfortable in doing so to Ms. Mangum? Please feel free to correct this perception as you see fit.; December 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: p.s.s.s

Do you actually think that this blog is Not being 'watched' and that all the comments and the sharlogs are not simply being ignored by those whom you send letters to? Seriously?

This is a legal battle, therefore Ms. Mangum needs a competent, non-conflicted, non-biased, experienced lawyer not afraid of Duke and willing to help her. It is her right! Write a letter to the Govenor and AG's and DA's and judges and bar associations about that AND include an in-depth medical analysis between the the three medical record sources to date. THAT is what I think you should do.

The governor does NOT care what I have to say ... nor you ... and you know that. Stand up for her rights AND quit exploiting her and others. Egad and egad!; December 27, 2014 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: test; December 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Please answer my last post from the last sharlog as well when you are able. What gives?

???; December 27, 2014 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, why do you keep deleting my last post from the last sharlog which I copy here for your convenience?

???; December 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM
Lance the Intern said...: Hey Anonymous -- By posting on Sid's blog, you are giving Sid an implied licence for at least that display on the comments page, and any other incidental reproduction or associated copying.

You don't like it? Don't post comments. It is really that simple.; December 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually i'm not giving him permission for anything.

I'm insisting that he provide the medical analysis that Ms. Mangum asked for in a format that she can read and understand to use in her own defense - which he refuses to do - and which would be highly more affective than random comments made on this blog as people are trying to figure out what is going on with the current Mangum case, Duke's medical services, and the justice system in NC.

So, truly, his exploiting random posts on this blog by sending them to people who are already ignoring him and this case will do nothing but to achieve the reaction he is getting from said exploitation in lieu of actually doing what Ms. Mangum asked and what she needs in order to defend herself.

WHY is it just another exploitation game instead of real assistance again?; December 28, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

What have you agreed to do for Duke?

What is your idea of justice for Mr. Nifong at this point in time?

If you actually wanted to help the citizens of NC, you would insist on upholding Ms. Mangum's right to legal assistance through the Durham Public Defender's office that is free from conflict, bias, and fear of Duke and with Duke. Why don't you do that instead of sending random posts without permission to people who are ignoring you and this case? Why do you send anything to the papers and governor? Why not to the AG's whom actually hold responsibility for the justice system and making sure the public is provided safe medical services and sound judicial proceedings from Duke as consumers of their services offered to ALL NC citizens and visitors to NC?

You are wrong on this matter, and I would like to know why you persist in harming Ms. Mangum and others in this regard at this point time (before another Christmas comes and goes and you are still here exploiting her and others while she remains in jail).; December 28, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Is it truly necessary to include posts that you have not asked permission from those whom write the posts on your in your letters? Is there a reason why you don't ask first? I ask this, because having written some of those comments you submitted to the News and Observer without permission, I ask again why you don't just make a formal paper version of your in-depth medical analysis to provide to Ms. Mangum and even include in your letters. That would be highly more affective in assisting Ms. Mangum in her defense than random posts from this blog submitted to newspapers is my major thought. Your reply is requested as soon as you are able. Thank you.

It seems as though you are covering two different areas. First with regard to reproducing comments from this blog site in letters sent to others, my main reason for doing this was to demonstrate that my commenters were more enlightened about the Crystal Mangum case and able to make intelligent comments than other who relied on their information from the mainstream media. I didn't feel that it was necessary to get permission from someone posting as "Anonymous" as I first would not know where to begin looking for that individual from which to ask permission. Second, commenters like Walt stand behind their comments, and I do not believe he would object to me using one of his comments.

Regarding my letters, I have attempted to give an in-depth version of the medical particulars in them, and have even sent many of them CDs that contain many sharlogs.

Again, anything I provide to Ms. Mangum she is unable to realistically use as her appeals attorney is in charge of her case. I offered my services to Ann Petersen, but she has refused, and by her appeals brief, I question her loyalty to Mangum.

Hope this explanation brings you some enlightenment.; December 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
p.s.s.

Dr. Harr, the facts of the medical analysis you provide in the sharlogs are what is needed to insure justice and freedom for Ms. Mangum, NOT random posts from this blog. WHY do you not agree?

It seems to me that at this point in time, you are simply exploiting Ms. Mangum, and you are exploiting random posts on this blog because you feel comfortable in doing so to Ms. Mangum? Please feel free to correct this perception as you see fit.

I agree that my analysis on medical aspects of the case are important for Mangum's exoneration, and I believe from everything that I've written to her and from my discussions on the phone with her that she has a good understanding of the medical issues of her case... not as in-depth as me, of course. However, even with her having in her possession all of my medical analysis, she is severely handicapped by an appeals attorney who is recognized by the court as having complete control of her case.

Ergo, I feel that it is much more effective for me to make sure that everyone else receives information about my medical analysis of Daye's case.; December 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Seriously, why do you keep deleting my last post from the last sharlog which I copy here for your convenience?

???

Note... I do not delete comments unless they run afoul of the kenhyderal Doctrine.

For me to view it, would you copy and paste it on this current page, as I do not visit comment pages of older postings.; December 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

What have you agreed to do for Duke?

What is your idea of justice for Mr. Nifong at this point in time?

If you actually wanted to help the citizens of NC, you would insist on upholding Ms. Mangum's right to legal assistance through the Durham Public Defender's office that is free from conflict, bias, and fear of Duke and with Duke. Why don't you do that instead of sending random posts without permission to people who are ignoring you and this case? Why do you send anything to the papers and governor? Why not to the AG's whom actually hold responsibility for the justice system and making sure the public is provided safe medical services and sound judicial proceedings from Duke as consumers of their services offered to ALL NC citizens and visitors to NC?

You are wrong on this matter, and I would like to know why you persist in harming Ms. Mangum and others in this regard at this point time (before another Christmas comes and goes and you are still here exploiting her and others while she remains in jail).

What have I agreed to do for Duke? I don't quite understand the question. More elucidation is required.

My idea for justice for Mike Nifong at this time is the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of his license to practice law in North Carolina without restrictions.

Public defenders are paid by the state, and would sell out Mangum as readily or more so than a defense attorney in the private sector.

I have sent the AG's office plenty, and will include them eventually with retrograde postings of correspondence. I even filed a motion to compel the Attorney General's Office to investigate Daye's death and autopsy report... something which the office fought tooth and nail against. The Court agreed with them.; December 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Sid -- for clarification you should probably add a Creative Commons licence to your blog comments page stipulating that in posting comments they agree to license them to you.; December 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Since you got the anonymous post from your blog - that would probably be the first place to look for the person who posted it - especially because we had a discussion about you calling it absolutely correct or something to that effect - and I (as the enlightened poster that you have dubbed me as) immediately pointed out to you then that it did Ms. Mangum absolutely no good for me to be absolutely correct if she did not also have the same understanding and knowledge that she could affectively communicate to her lawyers - so ... seriously ... don't bs me ... egad!; December 28, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: As the enlightened anonymous poster, I posted the entry that Sid used.

Egad!

and

Blah!; December 28, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: no you didn't you lying evil duke troll

what bs; December 28, 2014 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: What BS.

Stop trying to claim my comments, you lying evil duke it troll.

Egad!; December 28, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Ms. Mangum would NOT need you to communicate to her lawyers if you would just provide her with a written in-depth medical analysis like you present in your sharlogs to the public. So truly, why don't you do that and then she can more effectively communicate with her lawyers so they can at least get the date of death correct AND assist her in defense? She needs a report from you plain and simple. Her lawyers are NOT communicating with You, but they do have to communicate with Her. You do understand that right?; December 28, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

And thanks ya know ... the evil duke troll gang you support on this blog makes me wonder about what you have agreed to do for Duke. Why do you support the evil duke trolls like you do? It is fairly horrible to watch and be the target of their insanity and drinking games on your blog, and then have you treat them like buddies and friends of yours.; December 28, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

... Which is why I question your intentions in the Mangum case. You don't protect her or anyone else on your blog from the evil duke troll gang that hangs out here - that's what I see on the blog. In the judicial system - she has received even less protection - and that is with your input there too. You do see that right?; December 28, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Boo freakin' hoo.

You evil duke it troll.

Egad!
Blah; December 28, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

... And then, write to EVERYONE and ANYONE and include the in-depth written report (perhaps it could be edited here with input before you send it to anyone) that you will send to Ms. Mangum. Write her lawyer and give her the report and a list of all the people you have sent the report to (including Ms. Mangum). Write all the papers, the governor, the president, and certainly post it here for the evil duke troll gang. THAT might work ... who knows.; December 28, 2014 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes Sid, write to EVERYONE.

There are only 320,000,000+ people in the US (I assume you don't need to write to anyone outside of the US).

Hope you can afford the stamps.

Egad!
Blah; December 28, 2014 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Well if you need to go that far, perhaps sending it to everyone in China too might help.; December 28, 2014 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You said:

I have sent the AG's office plenty, and will include them eventually with retrograde postings of correspondence. I even filed a motion to compel the Attorney General's Office to investigate Daye's death and autopsy report... something which the office fought tooth and nail against. The Court agreed with them.

Question:

Exactly what did the Court agree with them about? What was the AG's reasoning for not investigating Mr. Daye's death and autopsy report? If it is not their responsibility, than who did the Court indicate held responsibility for an investigation (if anyone)?

Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of your motion and the AG's refusal to take responsibility for insuring the safety of all consumers of Duke's services and persons whom sadly require the services of the NC ME system and their families, the falsly accused, etc. Will you be posting your motion and the judges decision on your blog when you have the time?

In case you missed it, the News and Observer did run another article on the inability of the ME system to do its job properly for the citizens of and visitors to NC. They did not mention Ms. Mangum's case though, as the article was about infant deaths and the lack of protection and services provided to them by the ME system.; December 28, 2014 at 5:37 PM
A Lawyer said...: Happy New Year, Dr. Harr, Walt, and everyone who posts here. May 2015 bring us a world with more justice and enlightenment.; December 29, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: No more yanky my wanky!

'Fonger need food!!!; December 29, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Happy New Year, Dr. Harr, Walt, and everyone who posts here. May 2015 bring us a world with more justice and enlightenment.

Hey, A Lawyer, back at ya. I hope that 2015 brings you much happiness and good health.; December 29, 2014 at 1:39 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Ms. Mangum would NOT need you to communicate to her lawyers if you would just provide her with a written in-depth medical analysis like you present in your sharlogs to the public. So truly, why don't you do that and then she can more effectively communicate with her lawyers so they can at least get the date of death correct AND assist her in defense? She needs a report from you plain and simple. Her lawyers are NOT communicating with You, but they do have to communicate with Her. You do understand that right?

Mangum's attorneys are supposed to communicate with her but they never have... including Ms. Petersen whom Mangum has tried to have removed as her appeals attorney. Also, Ms. Petersen knew that Daye didn't die on April 6, 2011, but by using that as his date of death, it eliminated the whole issue of brain death caused by the esophageal intubation. It is a waste of time to try and communicate with Mangum's attorneys because they don't have her best interests at heart.; December 29, 2014 at 1:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- for clarification you should probably add a Creative Commons licence to your blog comments page stipulating that in posting comments they agree to license them to you.

Hey, Lance.

Interesting suggestion. I really didn't think it would be a big deal because most commenters, whether they use "Anonymous" or some other alias, have their identities concealed as it is. If commenters were using their real names then your suggestion would be worth looking into.

Also, I believe that commenters would take pride in knowing that I would use their comments in letters that I send out.; December 29, 2014 at 1:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You said:

I have sent the AG's office plenty, and will include them eventually with retrograde postings of correspondence. I even filed a motion to compel the Attorney General's Office to investigate Daye's death and autopsy report... something which the office fought tooth and nail against. The Court agreed with them.

Question:

Exactly what did the Court agree with them about? What was the AG's reasoning for not investigating Mr. Daye's death and autopsy report? If it is not their responsibility, than who did the Court indicate held responsibility for an investigation (if anyone)?

Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of your motion and the AG's refusal to take responsibility for insuring the safety of all consumers of Duke's services and persons whom sadly require the services of the NC ME system and their families, the falsly accused, etc. Will you be posting your motion and the judges decision on your blog when you have the time?

In case you missed it, the News and Observer did run another article on the inability of the ME system to do its job properly for the citizens of and visitors to NC. They did not mention Ms. Mangum's case though, as the article was about infant deaths and the lack of protection and services provided to them by the ME system.

The court agreed with the A.G.'s position that it should not be compelled to look into the autopsy report on Daye and circumstances surrounding his death. In short, the Court also agreed that my complaint had no standing with regards to the Attorney General's Office.

After Mangum is free I will try and catch everyone up on my lawsuit against Duke University.

I did see the article in the News & Observer. You are correct that the paper, though writing many stories on the medical examiner system have never mentioned Mangum's case or Dr. Nichols' autopsy report on Daye. Blatantly ignoring Mangum, despite my letters to them.; December 29, 2014 at 1:55 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS.

First, to update you on my latest sharlog which will bring out important new information that you will not find anywhere else... I have completed writing and narrating it, and will being laying out the audio tract and placing images. Hope to have it posted on Friday, January 2, 2015.

Second, it had been mentioned in the autopsy report that Lennon Lacy was 5'-9" in height, and I stated that I had been under the impression that his height was 6'-0. Anyway click on the link to find the article about his height being six feet.

As you were.; December 29, 2014 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If the lawyers have Ms. Mangum freedom and legal defense in their hands, than they are obviously the ones that Ms. Mangum and you (through Ms. Mangum) should be communicating with. Maybe with a shift in thinking this way, real progress might be made on her behalf. It is obviously worth the effort to try, since nothing else is working yet! I seriously do not even understand why you don't see what I am trying to convey to you. How could you expect Ms. Mangum to be her own attorney when you will not even give her the information you have given to the public in sharlog format in a format she can read and understand and use in own defense? It seriously makes NO sense to me. You're complaining about the lawyer is not helping. Ms. Mangum not fighting for her rights by insisting long and hard that her lawyer communicate with her about her own defense is not working (if that is what she is doing - obviously I have no idea what she is doing though). So why not try it, and see if it helps. It certainly couldn't hurt at this stage of the case, could it?; December 29, 2014 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"After Mangum is free I will try and catch everyone up on my lawsuit against Duke University."

You lost your latest lawsuit against Duke and North Carolina. You appealed and lost. You can find the decision here: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1887/14-1887-2014-12-22.html

How hard was that to do?; December 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

If you as a citizen of NC have an issue with the AG not protecting your rights to safe services as a potential consumer of Duke's medical services (willing or not), than wouldn't you have standing to file a motion (or complaint) against the AG (and all other responsible parties) for not insuring that Duke provide safe services for ALL NC citizens. Is it the AG's responsibility or not?; December 29, 2014 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

The same holds true for the ME system. And the appeals attorney. Obviously the appeal judges as well if they do not see through what the appeals attorney is doing and truly provide adequate protection and justice for Ms. Mangum and ALL NC citizens and visitors to NC. The DA's that refused to uphold the rights of Ms. Mangum and ALL, as well as the judges responsible, Duke itself of course, and all attorneys for Ms. Mangum who did the same. The defense Medical Examiner is certainly bereft of her duties by not providing the written report, and a complaint against Dr. Nichols herself immediately. ALL these people are quilty of Not protecting the rights of ALL and Ms. Mangum (and Mr. Daye himself). This injustice and putting everyone at risk of Duke's malpractice and the ME's injustice and unsafe practices cannot be allowed to stand as is. It is asking way too much of ALL for the sake of some wanting to harm Ms. Mangum in the first place (by killing Mr. Daye and then blaming her - what a farce).; December 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Couldn't they all, including the governor and the US AG, be charged legally with conspiring to cover up the murder by malpractice of Mr. Daye? Or is it accessory after the fact? Can they be charged, or is it only Duke that can be charged?; December 29, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke certainly seems to ask a LOT from everyone, more than any sane person would be willing to give. Why do they do this? It is certainly an odd outlook that they seem to possess and demonstrate repeatedly in these Mangum vs. Duke cases. AND they get the justice system to support them in their insane demands on ALL. A strange mentality indeed - something that is loathed by most I'm sure. A cop isn't willing to risk his life so he/she indiscriminately assaults and kills, yet a child is expected to risk theirs so Duke can continue the charade of being 'number one' or donation worthy or whatever it is they are doing? ???; December 29, 2014 at 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I would say then that that is another reason why I wonder what you agreed to do for Duke, because in gaining Ms. Mangum's trust and belief that what you are doing is going to gain her freedom (which it hasn't to date), you are in essence keeping her a victim to the very system and Duke that you complain about, (and you if you truly think about it). If you provided her the in-depth medical analysis report like she asked of you, she would then realize that she indeed needs to fight for her rights herself and she will have the information in a format that she can access and understand in order to more affectively do so. So, again, I ask you ... why don't you do just that? Seriously!; December 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You need to speak to Mr. Nifong yourself and get absolute confirmation from him about your idea of justice for him. It is unclear, but supposedly he has stated that he would never practice law in NC again? So why would justice for him be to reinstate his license to practice law in NC? Again, that makes no sense. He doesn't want it, so how could it be justice?; December 30, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Here is another thing that doesn't make sense: the device used for intubation - why doesn't it have a camera on it so the placement can be visualized and errors more readily prevented and/or corrected immediately as needed?; December 30, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: ... actually the better question is why didn't duke use one since they are already available for use.; December 30, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: You know - there could be this vast conspiracy against Mangum, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people risking their lives, freedom, and careers to mess with her, or Sid could be wrong.

Sid hasn't been right about anything yet, in his entire life/career - why do you think he's right now?; December 30, 2014 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: What can I say? It's a big conspiracy!; December 30, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Lance the Intern said...: "... in these Mangum vs. Duke cases.

I'm not aware of any Mangum vs. Duke cases. Care to elaborate?; December 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM
guiowen said...: Lance,
It's very simple. Crystal personifies all that is good in NC. Duke contains all that is evil. Hence any case in NC where there is a good side and an evil side, is ipso facto a Mangum vs Duke case.; December 30, 2014 at 10:56 AM
Lance the Intern said...: Hey Guiowen - How...unfortunate...for North Carolina that a stripper/"escort"/felon/confessed arsonist/convicted killer (did I leave anything out?) personifies all that is good...; December 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"After Mangum is free I will try and catch everyone up on my lawsuit against Duke University."

You lost your latest lawsuit against Duke and North Carolina. You appealed and lost. You can find the decision here: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1887/14-1887-2014-12-22.html

How hard was that to do?

It's not over til it's over. I may have lost a battle, but not the war.; December 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I would say then that that is another reason why I wonder what you agreed to do for Duke, because in gaining Ms. Mangum's trust and belief that what you are doing is going to gain her freedom (which it hasn't to date), you are in essence keeping her a victim to the very system and Duke that you complain about, (and you if you truly think about it). If you provided her the in-depth medical analysis report like she asked of you, she would then realize that she indeed needs to fight for her rights herself and she will have the information in a format that she can access and understand in order to more affectively do so. So, again, I ask you ... why don't you do just that? Seriously!

I believe that Mangum has a much better understanding of her medical case than you might give her credit... after all we have repeatedly discussed the issue, and I have written about it in letters to her frequently, in addition to sending her text of some of my sharlogs. She knew the importance of having Roberts testify and Roberts's review entered into trial, but she allowed her turncoat Meier to talk her out of it. (Had she been in my sphere of influence at the time, I would've definitely expressed to her the importance of having someone like Roberts testify... as it was, no medical person at trial opposed what Dr. Nichols said.)

Anyway, just wait until you've had a chance to view my next sharlog... which contains information never before revealed... extremely important information.; December 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"It's not over til it's over. I may have lost a battle, but not the war."

Whatever. I just caught everyone up on your lawsuit against Duke. In three sentences. It wasn't hard to do.; December 30, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You know - there could be this vast conspiracy against Mangum, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people risking their lives, freedom, and careers to mess with her, or Sid could be wrong.

Sid hasn't been right about anything yet, in his entire life/career - why do you think he's right now?

What I've said regarding Mangum's trial is backed up by prosecution discovery. How do you explain discrepancies between the autopsy report and medical records? Was the spleen present at autopsy, or was it removed eleven days earlier at surgery? The prosecution's case is thoroughly screwed up.; December 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"It's not over til it's over. I may have lost a battle, but not the war."

Whatever. I just caught everyone up on your lawsuit against Duke. In three sentences. It wasn't hard to do.

Yes you did, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to do it. As it is, my attention at the immediate time has to do with completing my next sharlog which will be an eye-opening, mind-blowing doozy.; December 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

You need to speak to Mr. Nifong yourself and get absolute confirmation from him about your idea of justice for him. It is unclear, but supposedly he has stated that he would never practice law in NC again? So why would justice for him be to reinstate his license to practice law in NC? Again, that makes no sense. He doesn't want it, so how could it be justice?

Mr. Nifong has told me the same; that even if he had his law license he would never practice again. However, that is not the point. His law license was taken from him unjustly, and symbolically that incident serves as a warning to current prosecutors that they had better follow the whims of the P-T-Bs or else risk the consequences suffered by Nifong. Exoneration of Nifong by reinstating his license unilaterally and unconditionally will help send a message to prosecutors that it is okay to act independently and with integrity without threat of persecution. That's the importance behind reinstating Mike Nifong's law license.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; December 30, 2014 at 1:24 PM
Lance the Intern said...: "It's not over til it's over. I may have lost a battle, but not the war."

I'm pretty sure it's over.

The appeals court upheld the district court's conclusion that:

"Duke Defendants shall be excused from responding to any future pleadings filed by Plaintiff in the Middle District of North Carolina pertaining or relating to the allegations or legal claims made in either of the two prior lawsuits (Harr I and Harr II) unless ordered to do so by the court"; December 30, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: "P-T-Bs"?

Power That Bes?

I think a more accurate acronym would be "Ps-T-B".; December 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

There might be a reason that Mr. Nifong says he will not practice law in NC again beyond what you realize or understand.

I do understand your reasoning, but I do not agree with your pursuing it further while the courts are so relentlessly covering up and ignoring the murder by malpractice of Mr. Daye at Duke in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder. A much larger issue for ALL than Mr. Nifong getting his NC license back since he does not want it in the first place.

I still do not agree with you about the in-depth medical analysis report. If she had it, she could give a copy to her lawyers and they would then be unable to ignore the issues like they persist in doing without incurring ample reason for prosecution for accessory after the fact to the true cause of death of Mr. Daye and Duke's illegal nonresponsibility taken for their own malpractice. I do not think she is able to communicate the facts well with what she has been given so far, as so far she has been unable to do so. Also, she would have what she asked for from you and what she obviously needs, and that apparently is very important to her case and her defense. You should reconsider as it would be very easy for you to accomplish.

Who has responsibility for investigating the autopsy report issues and the medical malpractice issues?; December 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: (Had she been in my sphere of influence at the time, I would've definitely expressed to her the importance of having someone like Roberts testify... as it was, no medical person at trial opposed what Dr. Nichols said.)

Dr. Roberts didn't oppose what Dr. Nichols said - she said his autopsy was sloppy, and incomplete, but that his conclusion was correct. She would have sealed Mangum's 1st Degree conviction - she couldn't have been put on the stand to attack Dr. Nichols, and then attacked for being a part of the conspiracy.

You really are just a hack who hates that Crystal didn't get LWOP. It is clear to anyone but the deluded few who think your shit doesn't stink.; December 31, 2014 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: As it is, my attention at the immediate time has to do with completing my next sharlog which will be an eye-opening, mind-blowing doozy.

No hints? What possible new information have you dug up?; December 31, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.wral.com/mangum-appeals-murder-conviction-in-boyfriend-s-stabbing-death/14320244/; December 31, 2014 at 6:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Not sure why that is suddenly becoming news - the conviction was appealed at the trial, the first brief was filed in September, the State's brief filed earlier this month, and Mangum's reply brief on Monday. I guess that's it - or a slow news day. It is nothing new.; December 31, 2014 at 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't you find it odd that even in an article about CGM's appeal for her murder conviction, almost as much space is used to identify her as the "woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape", and the circumstances around that case?; December 31, 2014 at 7:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
"P-T-Bs"?

Power That Bes?

I think a more accurate acronym would be "Ps-T-B".

Had given that some thought, but decided that it would sound better to say "Pee Tee Bees" rather than "Pees Tee Bee."; December 31, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

There might be a reason that Mr. Nifong says he will not practice law in NC again beyond what you realize or understand.

I do understand your reasoning, but I do not agree with your pursuing it further while the courts are so relentlessly covering up and ignoring the murder by malpractice of Mr. Daye at Duke in order to frame Ms. Mangum for murder. A much larger issue for ALL than Mr. Nifong getting his NC license back since he does not want it in the first place.

I still do not agree with you about the in-depth medical analysis report. If she had it, she could give a copy to her lawyers and they would then be unable to ignore the issues like they persist in doing without incurring ample reason for prosecution for accessory after the fact to the true cause of death of Mr. Daye and Duke's illegal nonresponsibility taken for their own malpractice. I do not think she is able to communicate the facts well with what she has been given so far, as so far she has been unable to do so. Also, she would have what she asked for from you and what she obviously needs, and that apparently is very important to her case and her defense. You should reconsider as it would be very easy for you to accomplish.

Who has responsibility for investigating the autopsy report issues and the medical malpractice issues?

You bring up many good points. First, I am focusing my energies on freeing Mangum... Nifong's reinstatement is a long process which will take time. Nothing I can do directly about it will speed it up.

I have done my best to communicate with Mangum's attorneys but have learned long ago that they are recalcitrant when it comes to working with me in Crystal's best interests. Their objectives place priority with doing what's best for Duke and the M.E.

Your final point is right on the button. There is no accountability, no oversight of the medical examiner's work. I am the only one providing oversight. Dr. Radisch, the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Wos of DHHS, and the State's Medical Board have all ignored my concerns about the fraudulence in the work regarding Daye's case. Even the legislative oversight committee at the General Assembly, as well as all other politicians, refuse to get involved. The media is certainly ignoring the issue.; December 31, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
As it is, my attention at the immediate time has to do with completing my next sharlog which will be an eye-opening, mind-blowing doozy.

No hints? What possible new information have you dug up?

Okay... just a hint as I don't want to give up the blockbuster news. The hint is: "Not all discovery has been made available."; December 31, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
(Had she been in my sphere of influence at the time, I would've definitely expressed to her the importance of having someone like Roberts testify... as it was, no medical person at trial opposed what Dr. Nichols said.)

Dr. Roberts didn't oppose what Dr. Nichols said - she said his autopsy was sloppy, and incomplete, but that his conclusion was correct. She would have sealed Mangum's 1st Degree conviction - she couldn't have been put on the stand to attack Dr. Nichols, and then attacked for being a part of the conspiracy.

You really are just a hack who hates that Crystal didn't get LWOP. It is clear to anyone but the deluded few who think your shit doesn't stink.

Dr. Roberts did a terrible job in assessing Dr. Nichols' work in my estimation. Can you tell me this from Dr. Roberts' report: When was Daye's spleen removed... at surgery, or was it present at autopsy?

Not only that but Dr. Roberts did not even mention anything about Dr. Nichols' findings of "defensive injuries" on Daye's left upper extremity. Care to expound on that?; December 31, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Don't you find it odd that even in an article about CGM's appeal for her murder conviction, almost as much space is used to identify her as the "woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape", and the circumstances around that case?

I don't find it surprising because that's what the biased media has been doing about stories concerning Mangum. I would not call it "odd" but rather "unethical journalism."; December 31, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Roberts did a terrible job in assessing Dr. Nichols' work in my estimation. Can you tell me this from Dr. Roberts' report: When was Daye's spleen removed... at surgery, or was it present at autopsy?

Not only that but Dr. Roberts did not even mention anything about Dr. Nichols' findings of "defensive injuries" on Daye's left upper extremity. Care to expound on that?

Just cause it wasn't in her written report doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. Either Mangum's attorneys talked to Dr. Roberts and knew how she'd answer those questions, and knew they wouldn't be helpful, or everyone but Sid is in on the conspiracy.

Just because Sid hasn't been provided with any of these answers doesn't mean they don't exist and weren't considered.; December 31, 2014 at 8:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
http://www.wral.com/mangum-appeals-murder-conviction-in-boyfriend-s-stabbing-death/14320244/

Thanks for the link. I visited the site. What I find most problematic with the reporting is the insistence of referring to Daye's demise as a "stabbing death." The media is trying to brain-wash the public. An accurate accounting would be to refer to it as an "intubation death."; December 31, 2014 at 8:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Roberts did a terrible job in assessing Dr. Nichols' work in my estimation. Can you tell me this from Dr. Roberts' report: When was Daye's spleen removed... at surgery, or was it present at autopsy?

Not only that but Dr. Roberts did not even mention anything about Dr. Nichols' findings of "defensive injuries" on Daye's left upper extremity. Care to expound on that?

Just cause it wasn't in her written report doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. Either Mangum's attorneys talked to Dr. Roberts and knew how she'd answer those questions, and knew they wouldn't be helpful, or everyone but Sid is in on the conspiracy.

Just because Sid hasn't been provided with any of these answers doesn't mean they don't exist and weren't considered.

How could refuting the fact that there were allegedly "defensive injuries" to the left upper extremity - when none existed - possibly be detrimental to Mangum.

Whatever she had to say to Mangum's attorney should have been in her report. I also find it very problematic that there was no date on the report. It could've been drafted when Vann was Mangum's attorney.

And the spleen issue is important, whether or not you want to believe it... as it deals with perjury by Dr. Nichols and his credibility.; December 31, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Gotta run.

Everybody, you have my best wishes for a wonderful year in 2015. I hope that everyone has much happiness in the coming year and that you all experience good health.; December 31, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Mnagum is notorious for falsely accusing three Duke lacrosse players of raping her, just as David Berkowitz is notorious for being the Son of Sam and Jeffrey Dahmer is notorious for killing nd cannibalizing people.

Her identity as the false rape accuser is something she brought on herself. It will follow her for the rest of her life and beyond.

The fact that the media would note Mangum's false rape claim in a story about her is neither odd nor unethical. Indeed, it would be odd and unethical not to note it. It would be tantamount to writing a story about Pete Rose w/o mentioning that he is major league baseball's all-time hits leader and was banned from the game for life for gambling.; December 31, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing like getting first-hand experience on how the 'news' is not the news at all, just spin and agenda. What a wonderful world it would be if the 'news' would say: the bogus trial can be viewed on youtube, and if you can find the right ones to view, Dr. Harr's sharlogs explain the 'complications' in detail.; December 31, 2014 at 9:33 AM
A Lawyer said...: The appeals court upheld the district court's conclusion that:

"Duke Defendants shall be excused from responding to any future pleadings filed by Plaintiff in the Middle District of North Carolina pertaining or relating to the allegations or legal claims made in either of the two prior lawsuits (Harr I and Harr II) unless ordered to do so by the court"

Yes, it's all over, barring a successful petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court-- something that will never happen. The 4th Circuit issued its affirmance only four days after the appeal was filed, and relied on the fact that Dr. Harr filed his appeal from the magistrate to the district judge too late, thus waiving his rights to appeal the magistrate's decision. So there is nothing for SCOTUS to review.; December 31, 2014 at 10:12 AM
A Lawyer said...: The hint is: "Not all discovery has been made available."

How Nifongian, if true.; December 31, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

You just sat on the issues about the complications for over a year, spinning sharlog after sharlog, and argueing repeatedly about how Ms. Mangum had what she needed from you in order to effectively communicate to her lawyer about the REAL issues in the trial and this case. Seriously? Why did you do this? It is more than frustrating to watch what you are doing at this point ... but sharlog on ... another year gone.; December 31, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney stated: The hint is: "Not all discovery has been made available."

A Lawyer responded: How Nifongian, if true.

Not necessarily.

Sidney did not state that the prosecution withheld discovery from the defense; he may refer to discovery was not made available to him or was not used in the trial. If so, he will bring this to the attention of his readers.; December 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Without Ms. Mangum's permission or knowledge most probably. The only way she is going to get any true help from him is if she shuns all legal assistance and relies solely on his sharlogs that she cannot even read. What is he going to do with THIS new discovery information, other than to waste even more time putting it into another sharlog? Write the governor who doesn't give a whoozoo about the citizens of this state except for his Duke croonies again? (probably) Get a competent lawyer to assist in her defense (heck no - that would be too ... unsharlog of him).; December 31, 2014 at 1:55 PM
guiowen said...: A happy new year to everyone here, including (but not limited to) Sidney, Walt, Lance, a lawyer, and Break the Conspiracy.; December 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah, the great and mighty (sic) evil duke troll gang ... all of them - and you too of course evil duke troll it g... hatemonger blogmonger; December 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM
guiowen said...: Oh gee, Tin Foil, do you feel left out?; December 31, 2014 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: So Sidney is part of the evil duke troll gang?; December 31, 2014 at 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: The N and O article is particularly bereft of concern for the citizens of NC since they are also currently running a series type information articles about the major problems with the Medical Examiner system in NC. They have even gone so far as to get a woman arrested for a second similar type death of her infants, so truly, there is absolutely NO excuse for ignoring the Medical Examiner major deception in the Mangum murder case where Duke's medical records detail themselves their own malpractice and death by intubation error of Mr. Daye that the Medical Examiner lied about on his report to the court that led to Ms. Mangum's deceictful charge and conviction of murder. NONE! They don't even mention that Mr. Daye also told everyone before he was killed by Duke's malpractice that it was he that was at fault since he attacked and assualted Ms. Mangum in the first place.; January 1, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

So what you are saying is that there is NOONE responsible for investigating the autopsy report discrepancies and errors? Shouldn't that be presented in trial than, so that the issues can be questioned and figured out by those whom have the job of judging, questioning, and presenting the evidence provided to them?

As for investigating the malpractice issues - is it also the responsibility of those affected by the malpractice to investigate the malpractice themselves? Or is it Duke? Why would the NC AG have no responsibility if they are the ones in charge of consumer protection in the state? Or the SBI, if it is a possible murder by malpractice if noone else can get an investigation done? Did the judge say it was the DA that must request the SBI to investigate, or was the issue of responsibility ignored by the AG and the judge?

Is it than the DA whom is solely responsible for the investigations that should have already been completed at the start since they were informed of the issues by Ms. Mangum and yourself from the very beginning? Is it the defense lawyers who are thus responsible for informing the DA and getting them to act on the need for further investigation, the prosecuting attorney, or both?; January 1, 2015 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Except, as has been noted - they were investigated, what do you think Dr. Roberts did? And she noted the issues and errors, but agreed with the ultimate conclusion, which is why she would have hurt Mangum.

Sid doesn't want an investigation, he wants someone to agree with him. This has been fully investigated, they just aren't bothering to share the results with Sid.

I can only assume you keep repeating yourself for the fun of it, and really aren't this stupid and clueless. If you are, that's just sad.; January 1, 2015 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually no, it was not discussed and questioned in testimony in the trial like it should and could have been. It was evidence, and it definetely was pertinent to the trial, the case, and the citizens of this state, AND the conclusions reached do not match what the judge clarified the law to be ... so you are wrong ... sorry, which he has responsibility for making sure is followed beyond reasonable doubt.

Besides, it was ALL based on Dr. Nichols 'sloppy' and whatever you can call it report ... which all translate to him lying to the court from the very beginning to get Ms. Mangum falsly charged AND convicted. Was he traumatized into doing so, or just corrupted?; January 1, 2015 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 8:53am claims: the conclusions reached do not match what the judge clarified the law to be

This statement is incorrect. The judge's instructions represented the model instructions and were entirely consistent with the analysis of State v Welch provided by Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and others on this blog.; January 1, 2015 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: You can actually watch the trial on youtube and see for yourself what the judge said.

It should also be in the transcript of the trial.

If the complications are in question as to the law, all the more reason for reasonable doubt and a trial so there is no more doubt beyond reason.

This is an argument for the courts - it is their job.

That is why there needs to be a new trial, because there is still reasonable doubt which has not been decided (since all the facts pertinent to this case that need judging were not presented in court, which is a fact).

The complications need to be decided as to the law, and the ME issues need to be presented (and something done about them.); January 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I read the transcript. Your statement is incorrect.

I find the legal analysis provided by Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and others to be more credible than the legal analysis provided by you and Sidney. Moreover, Shella, Vann, Holmes and Meier all appear to agree with Walt's analysis.

Nichols concluded that Daye died as a result of complications from the stabbing. I agree that his autopsy was incredibly sloppy and incomplete. This would open his testimony to impeachment.

The trial was Mangum's opportunity to contest the validity of Nichols' conclusions and impeach his testimony. However, Roberts, her expert, while criticizing the autopsy nevertheless agreed with its conclusion: Daye died as a result of complications from the stabbing. Unfortunately, due largely to Sidney's involvement, the prosecution was aware of her conclusions.

I fail to understand why Roberts' testimony to that effect would help Mangum.

As you know, an appeals court will not reconsider evidence available to the defendant at the initial trial. I suppose that Mangum's only way to ask the court to consider the flawed autopsy is to claim that she received inadequate legal representation. Peterson did not make that claim.

As a result, the appeals court will not reconsider the autopsy.; January 1, 2015 at 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: The complications are in question beyond reasonable doubt because the conclusions of both ME doctors is questionable as to compliance with the law as clarified by the judge at the beginning of the trial.

In addition, the complications can legally be viewed as 100% cause of death, thereby leaving this a decision for the court to decide in this case as to the law as clarified by the judge, and is certainly reason for the public to endlessly question unless proven otherwise.

Especially in question is whether the malpractice was a result of the stab wound.

Since Ms. Mangum is NOT responsible for Mr. Daye's intoxication by reason nor by fact, unless proven otherwise by fact alone, she holds no guilt since she is not responsible for his health issues brought on by his drinking.

His deliurm tremons could easily have been treated in a method that does not cause death or that does not carry the risk of death, as well as any other infections that may have set in. In fact, he may not have had deliurm tremons at all, nor an infection. That is a fact that is not proven.

In other words, there was no reason for Mr. Daye to have been killed by malpractice other than the faulty medical services and decisions made by Duke (alone) for reasons unknown.; January 1, 2015 at 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 3:01pm:

I encourage you and Sidney to continue to do what you have been doing for many months: repeat the same argument incessantly, ignore all comments as to why your arguments are not compelling, direct ad hominem attacks at your critics and then complain that no one listens to you.

That is clearly a strategy that will result in Mangum's early release.; January 1, 2015 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I have a question for Walt or A Lawyer. If the defense had challenged Nichols' conclusion by emphasizing the inconsistencies, could the prosecution have countered that attempt by calling Roberts to testify? They knew that Roberts had concluded that Daye's death was the result of a complication from the stab wound (I.e., that the esophageal intubation was the result of a complication from the stab wound).; January 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM
guiowen said...: The defense could indeed have challenged Nichols's conclusion -- by calling their medical expert, Roberts, to testify. In other words the prosecution would not have needed to call Roberts: they would merely cross-examine her.; January 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: No. I mean challenge Nichols credibility more indirectly. Raise questions about the inconsistencies between the autopsy and the medical records; whether the spleen had been removed; whether Daye had defensive wounds; why the autopsy didn't even mention the esophageal intubation; what complications required it; etc.

This raises questions about Nichols' competence. It may not have been enough for the jurors to disregard it. However, the question is if they had been successful with raising questions, could the prosecution have quashed it by calling Roberts and having her testify to her conclusion that Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound.

If so, the defense would have done everything that Sidney and Tin Foil recommend with no success.; January 1, 2015 at 6:19 PM
cristina said...: I guess you could try to cross-examine Nichols to the point where his failings became obvious. At that poont it might make sense for the prosecution to call Roberts to the stand. O don't know whether that would be allowed.; January 1, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

So what you are saying is that there is NOONE responsible for investigating the autopsy report discrepancies and errors? Shouldn't that be presented in trial than, so that the issues can be questioned and figured out by those whom have the job of judging, questioning, and presenting the evidence provided to them?

As for investigating the malpractice issues - is it also the responsibility of those affected by the malpractice to investigate the malpractice themselves? Or is it Duke? Why would the NC AG have no responsibility if they are the ones in charge of consumer protection in the state? Or the SBI, if it is a possible murder by malpractice if noone else can get an investigation done? Did the judge say it was the DA that must request the SBI to investigate, or was the issue of responsibility ignored by the AG and the judge?

Is it than the DA whom is solely responsible for the investigations that should have already been completed at the start since they were informed of the issues by Ms. Mangum and yourself from the very beginning? Is it the defense lawyers who are thus responsible for informing the DA and getting them to act on the need for further investigation, the prosecuting attorney, or both?

Nothing was presented at trial by Mangum's defense attorneys because they were interested in having her convicted and protecting Duke's role in Daye's death.

The big discrepancies between the autopsy report and the medical records would have been caught if there was some sort of oversight of Dr. Nichols' work. I found problems with his work, but no one wanted to investigate it because it would have led to Mangum being cleared of Daye's death.; January 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: cristina said...
I guess you could try to cross-examine Nichols to the point where his failings became obvious. At that poont it might make sense for the prosecution to call Roberts to the stand. O don't know whether that would be allowed.

Hey, Cristina.

Welcome to the site. It is the only place where you can be truly enlightened about what happened in the Mangum-Daye incident as the biased mainstream media is withholding the truth from the people like attorneys on both sides withheld the truth from Mangum's jurors.

What is truly amazing is that during trial Dr. Nichols' cross examination by Mangum's attorney lasted barely ten minutes, and during that time he never touched on the pertinent issues... never challenged his perjured testimony about the spleen being removed.; January 2, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I have a question for Walt or A Lawyer. If the defense had challenged Nichols' conclusion by emphasizing the inconsistencies, could the prosecution have countered that attempt by calling Roberts to testify? They knew that Roberts had concluded that Daye's death was the result of a complication from the stab wound (I.e., that the esophageal intubation was the result of a complication from the stab wound).

The esophageal intubation had nothing to do with the stab wound... The intubation resulted from treatment for delirium tremens which was not controlled with sedatives given. Intubation in the esophagus should have never taken place under an experienced intubater, and it should've been quickly recognized prior to brain death setting in.; January 2, 2015 at 1:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No. I mean challenge Nichols credibility more indirectly. Raise questions about the inconsistencies between the autopsy and the medical records; whether the spleen had been removed; whether Daye had defensive wounds; why the autopsy didn't even mention the esophageal intubation; what complications required it; etc.

This raises questions about Nichols' competence. It may not have been enough for the jurors to disregard it. However, the question is if they had been successful with raising questions, could the prosecution have quashed it by calling Roberts and having her testify to her conclusion that Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound.

If so, the defense would have done everything that Sidney and Tin Foil recommend with no success.

Dr. Roberts' "conclusion" was necessary to agree with Dr. Nichols in order to support the murder charge against Mangum. Dr. Roberts reached her conclusion by basically stating that if Mangum had not stabbed Daye then he would not have wound up in the hospital. Dr. Roberts, like Dr. Nichols, is unable to provide a nexus between the stab wound and Daye's brain death or actual death. She would not be any help to the prosecution. The problem for Mangum is that she had a turncoat attorney who forced Mangum to relent in having Dr. Roberts' report or involvement in the trial.; January 2, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
I read the transcript. Your statement is incorrect.

I find the legal analysis provided by Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and others to be more credible than the legal analysis provided by you and Sidney. Moreover, Shella, Vann, Holmes and Meier all appear to agree with Walt's analysis.

Nichols concluded that Daye died as a result of complications from the stabbing. I agree that his autopsy was incredibly sloppy and incomplete. This would open his testimony to impeachment.

The trial was Mangum's opportunity to contest the validity of Nichols' conclusions and impeach his testimony. However, Roberts, her expert, while criticizing the autopsy nevertheless agreed with its conclusion: Daye died as a result of complications from the stabbing. Unfortunately, due largely to Sidney's involvement, the prosecution was aware of her conclusions.

I fail to understand why Roberts' testimony to that effect would help Mangum.

As you know, an appeals court will not reconsider evidence available to the defendant at the initial trial. I suppose that Mangum's only way to ask the court to consider the flawed autopsy is to claim that she received inadequate legal representation. Peterson did not make that claim.

As a result, the appeals court will not reconsider the autopsy.

As you can see, I am not at all impressed by work done by Attorney Petersen regarding Mangum's appeal.; January 2, 2015 at 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: You ignore that Dr. Roberts, in her report, specifically said DTs were ruled out. When she said that on the stand, that would have destroyed your theory - what evidence would you have shown to say she was wrong? She specifically says it was considered, treated, and ruled out.

You are an idiot.; January 2, 2015 at 2:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: You ignore that Dr. Roberts, in her report, specifically said DTs were ruled out. When she said that on the stand, that would have destroyed your theory - what evidence would you have shown to say she was wrong? She specifically says it was considered, treated, and ruled out.........No she did not.; January 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

What is the next step in the Appeal Court process?; January 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Do you have any proof or evidence of when, how, and to whom Ms. Mangum presented the issues of the reasonable doubt of the complications and true cause of death to her lawyers, court officials, or the court itself?

Do you have the same from Ms. Mangum about the autopsy reports?

Can Ms. Mangum submit something herself to the Appeal's Court on her own behalf without the consent of her lawyer?; January 3, 2015 at 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Welcome back and happy new year! We have missed you!

Malek Williams
Hillside High School
Class of 1996; January 3, 2015 at 11:37 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny and Malek,
How nice to see you two again!; January 3, 2015 at 1:12 PM
KILGO said...: KENHYDERAL:

I HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND I AM WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU.; January 3, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:19 PM wrote: " However, the question is if they had been successful with raising questions, could the prosecution have quashed it by calling Roberts and having her testify to her conclusion that Daye died as a result of complications from the stab wound."

Yes they would. And, her testimony would have been devastating as she was the defense expert. At the end of the trail, you are left with only one possible conclusion from the expert testimony - Daye died as a result of Mangum's stabbing him. That is also Crystal's position on appeal.

Walt-in-Durham; January 3, 2015 at 6:06 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 11:37 PM wrote: "What is the next step in the Appeal Court process?"

The record, the transcript and the briefs have been filed. The Court of Appeals is now considering the matter. They may, or may not call for oral arguments. If they do, that will be the next step. Then, they will consider again and render an opinion.

Walt-in-Durham; January 3, 2015 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: It wouldn't have been disaterous at all for Dr. Roberts to testify. You just say that because you want to see Ms. Mangum jailed. Question the proximity, and thus cause of death, in relation to the stab wound and brain death. The only thing that will be proven is that Duke intubated Mr. Daye to death. He was not stabbed to death. The stab wound did NOT cause brain death, the faulty intubation did. There was no reason for the medical exam that contained the deadly intubation other than Duke's faulty decision to do so from the start.; January 3, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: You are so quick to believe Sid's conspiracy you don't even consider the likelihood that Crystal's attorneys DID talk to Dr. Roberts, and the Surgeons, and the rest and realized their testimony would hurt her, and tried to overcome the damage Sid did with Crystal in keeping her from being self-destructive more than she is.

There is nothing in Dr. Roberts's conclusion that would be remotely helpful to Crystal, and when she tied the intubation to the stab wound, it would have been all over for her.

Why do you believe a man who has failed at everything in life, left multiple states after scandals and failed lawsuits, and hasn't been right about anything? Just because he tells you what you want to hear?

Mangum should have been convicted of manslaughter at worst (should have been NG for self-defense), but because Sid got her obsessed with Duke, and not her actual case - she focused on the wrong things, as was obvious watching the trial.

Sid is Crystal's worst enemy, and it's sad that y'all keep encouraging him.; January 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: It has only taken 13 months since the end of Mangum's trial, but the discussion finally is focused on the question that in my mind is the critical legal question: was the intubation necessitated by a complication from the stab wound or was it completely independent of the wound?

Previously, Sidney has taken the position that demonstrating that Duke committed a mistake and intubated Daye in his esophagus was sufficient to relieve Mangum of any legal responsibility for his death. "Game over" was Sidney's legal analysis.

Now Sidney suggests that treatment for delirium tremens required the intubation. He ignores questions about whether trauma can exacerbate DTs.

Sidney's critics largely agree that Nichols' autopsy was highly flawed. It was incomplete (failing to include all of the events that led to Daye's death) and inconsistent with medical reports. It failed to meet standards in its documentation. Nevertheless, Nichols concluded that Daye's death was the indirect result of complications from the stab wound. The autopsy report failed to identify these complications, and his testimony failed to clarify this issue.

Roberts' report discussed many of these flaws in the autopsy. Nevertheless, she agreed that Daye's death was the indirect result of complications from the stab wound. She also failed to identify these complications.

The strategy advocated by Sidney and Tin Foil appears to focus on the failure by both Nichols and Roberts to identify the complications that required the intubation as not meeting the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and thus asking jurors to ignore the conclusions of Nichols and Roberts (the defense expert) as insufficient to meet that standard of proof.

I have doubts that this strategy would successful. It requires that juror disregard both medical experts without credible evidence that both are wrong.

Any reactions?; January 4, 2015 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:12:

I agree with your comment that Sidney's obsession with the esophageal intubation caused Mangum to focus on the wrong things.

Having said that, I continue to believe that Sidney genuinely believed he was helping her. His complete misunderstanding of the law caused him to believe that the esophageal intubation alone was sufficient to eliminate Mangum's responsibility for Daye's death. He apparently believed that, once the fatal intubation was acknowledged, the prosector would drop the remaining charges against Mangum out of embarrassment.

If I had represented Mangum, I would have pushed the intubation a little more, not because it cut off her liability, but to argue that she didn't intend to kill him, hoping perhaps that nullification would help her.

I agree that the broken bathroom door and clumps of hair support the self-defense claim. However, her version was inconsistent with much of the physical evidence. Importantly, her testimony was a complete disaster. It destroyed her defense. Any "friends" who encouraged her to take the stand owe her apologies.; January 4, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: The cause of death is not an issue in this case. It was investigated in the discovery/pre-trial phase of the case. There was no evidence presented at trial that Mangum's stab wound was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. (Even Mangum's expert agreed it was.) The issue was not raised on appeal.

Importantly, in spite of having almost four years to do so, Sid has been unable to find a single expert willing to testify that Mangum's stab wound was not the proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death.

Sid, more so than most people, knows how vital it was to produce expert testimony contesting the cause of death. As a former physician, he presumably would have connections within the medical profession who could help him in locating an expert witness to contest the cause of death. The fact that he has been unable to locate even one expert willing to testify that anything other than Mangum's stab wound may have caused Mr. Daye's death is powerful and compelling evidence.

The facts and the law of this case are settled, especially with regard to the cause of death. Mr. Daye was in the hospital for no other reason than that he had been stabbed by Mangum. The intubation, whether improerly done or not, was to treat complications directly related to and caused by the stab wound. Even if Duke committed malpractice (a claim Sid has not proven) it does not relieve Mangum from culpability for Mr. Daye's death.

Sid can repeat the same things over and over again, until he is blue in the face, but it does not change anything or help Mangum.; January 4, 2015 at 10:16 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Kenhyderal, I always believed you would return to this blog and continue to fight for justice. Welcome back.; January 4, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: You have no proof of most of what you profess to be the nice duke story in this case, only what you expect people to believe because it would be nice if EVERYONE went along with your story line for Duke's sake.

Unfortunately for you perhaps, real life demands the public has more protection, truth, and legal justice than that offered to anyone in this case so far.; January 4, 2015 at 12:26 PM

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Correspondence for Justice updated 12-27-14

120 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me