Sunday, December 21, 2014

Dr. Christena L. Roberts: A bad choice for the Lacy case

Correspondence updated on December 7, 2014
to include first week in December 2014.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

33 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


When I uploaded the current sharlog, somehow I managed to lose all of my illustration files for the buttons on the blog site page, so I will have to over time replace them in another folder.

Clicking on the boxed x's will still link you to whatever they're linked to.

As my current sharlog points out, Dr. Roberts was not a good choice, in my opinion, for the Lacy case. Her work may have been just adequate enough for the FBI to get involved, but had she strongly stated that she believed Lacy's death was homicide... still one would require the FBI to get involved as the SBI was part of the cover-up. (What happened to the shoes?)

Roberts was a no-show at Mangum's trial, and even tried to convince Mangum that she was responsible for Daye's death. Roberts could've stopped the prosecution of Mangum or prevented her from being convicted; but that wasn't part of her agenda.

December 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...

Have you found a medical professional who will render a report and tesify that Mangum is NOT responsible for Mr. Daye's death?

December 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...

It amazes me how much you reach and stretch to prove your conspiracies. How old are you? 60s or 70s? The kid plays football, some articles list him at 6 feet, but the autopsy is closer to 5'9" ... you do know it is routine for athletes to lie and exaggerate about their height right?

Or do you really think there is something nefarious in the fact that some people said he was taller than he really is? In the NFL, most players are shorter than they are listed.

It's shit like this that makes people realize you are nothing more than a joke.

December 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...

I agree the death of Lacy is very suspicious, and I'm glad it's being more fully investigated, though it is too bad that it was so poorly mishandled from the beginning it may be hard to prove anything. But, your constant claims that everyone who doesn't agree with you is biased and corrupt is just ridiculous. Even when it is shown you are wrong, you keep going on about the same things.

Why should anyone listen to you, or trust you, when you can't even admit you are wrong about basic things? You aren't seeking justice - you are seeking confirmation of your paranoid delusions.

December 22, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I agree the death of Lacy is very suspicious, and I'm glad it's being more fully investigated, though it is too bad that it was so poorly mishandled from the beginning it may be hard to prove anything. But, your constant claims that everyone who doesn't agree with you is biased and corrupt is just ridiculous. Even when it is shown you are wrong, you keep going on about the same things.

Why should anyone listen to you, or trust you, when you can't even admit you are wrong about basic things? You aren't seeking justice - you are seeking confirmation of your paranoid delusions.


Name one instance where I was wrong about something. I base my statements on facts and usually provide documentation to back them up.

Regarding Lennon Lacy's height I read somewhere that he was six foot tall. I will look for that article and post it. Why I would tend to consider 6' rather than 5'-9 is that it is not reasonable for someone that small to realistically consider playing the linebacker position in the NFL. Also, he supposedly has size 12 shoes. I'm 5'-10" and my shoe size is 10.5. Hard for me to believe someone an inch shorter than me has feet that require a shoe size that much larger than me... and I don't consider my feet to be dainty.

December 22, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Have you found a medical professional who will render a report and tesify that Mangum is NOT responsible for Mr. Daye's death?


I have no doubt as to how Dr. Cyril Wecht would respond... and I'm sure he would determine that Mangum was not responsible for Daye's death. The problem is that I cannot afford him.

December 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM
guiowen said...

Sidney said,
"I have no doubt as to how Dr. Cyril Wecht would respond... and I'm sure he would determine that Mangum was not responsible for Daye's death. The problem is that I cannot afford him."

Sorry that he's so expensive. Still, there are plenty of people around (including the 35 or so on the J4N committee) who might be interested in contributing to the cause. Kenhyderal, Kilgo, and TinFoil Hat should be willing to cooperate with you.

December 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM
guiowen said...

Sidney said,
"I have no doubt as to how Dr. Cyril Wecht would respond... and I'm sure he would determine that Mangum was not responsible for Daye's death. The problem is that I cannot afford him."

Sorry that he's so expensive. Still, there are plenty of people around (including the 35 or so on the J4N committee) who might be interested in contributing to the cause. Kenhyderal, Kilgo, and TinFoil Hat should be willing to cooperate with you.

December 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...

Name one instance where I was wrong about something. I base my statements on facts and usually provide documentation to back them up.


The felony murder, Daye's prior record - those are just 2 examples you keep bringing up where you have been shown to be demonstrably wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge that. You will say "why did they charge with felony murder" or point out it was a Class H felony while ignoring all the times you were shown that not all felonies qualify, and it didn't. And the inadmissibility of Daye's prior record has been shown, but you still bring that up too.

So, there are at least 2, and there are many more.

December 22, 2014 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid:

At various times you have claimed: a) that the State offered Mangum a plea deal for time served; (b) that the State would never bring the case against Mangum to trial; (c) that Mangum would be quickly acquitted at trial and that not even a turncoat attorney couldlose the case; (c) that you would beat Duke University in your civil lawsuits; (d) that Nifong would have his license to practice law reinstated; (e) finally, you have predicted several times, that Mangum was going to be released from prison.

The better question is: when have you been right about anything?

December 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...

My son is 5'8" and wears size 12 shoes. height is not the best indicator of shoe size.

As a physician, you should know that.

December 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...

Test.

December 22, 2014 at 3:51 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney: Name one instance where I was wrong about something.

Consider your claim about the lacrosse case that the failure to find the defendants' DNA in or on Mangum was not exculpatory..

Mangum alleged that the defendants did not use condoms during a violent gang rape and ejaculated in and on her. She alleged that one ejaculated in her mouth, and she spit the semen onto the floor. Because she was examined hours after the alleged attack, DNA evidence would almost certainly have been found had the allegation been true.

Exculpatory evidence is "evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes toward negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness." The lack of DNA proved that Mangum's specific allegation was almost certainly inaccurate and that she either was lying or did not remember what had happened. That conclusion supported the defense. Exculpatory evidence need not prove innocence with absolute certainty.

In your attempt to argue that Nifong acted honorably, you cannot admit that he ignored exculpatory evidence. As a result, you change the definition, requiring (but only for the lacrosse case) that exculpatory evidence must prove with absolute certainty that defendants could not possibly have committed not just the specific crime alleged (rape in which they ejaculated), but any crime, including another form of sexual assault not specifically alleged by Mangum.

Your definition of "exculpatory evidence" in the lacrosse case is inconsistent with the legal definition, case law, and your own use of the term in every other case you have analyzed.

Although this error has repeatedly been brought to your attention, particularly in 2009 and 2010, you have failed to retract or correct it.

December 22, 2014 at 4:15 PM
Walt said...

Anonymous at 4:15 PM wrote: "...Exculpatory evidence need not prove innocence with absolute certainty.

In your attempt to argue that Nifong acted honorably, you cannot admit that he ignored exculpatory evidence. As a result, you change the definition, requiring (but only for the lacrosse case) that exculpatory evidence must prove with absolute certainty that defendants could not possibly have committed not just the specific crime alleged (rape in which they ejaculated), but any crime, including another form of sexual assault not specifically alleged by Mangum...."

DING-DING-DING, Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham

December 23, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...

Hell, Sid still thinks an expert report that notes errors in the original autopsy, but agrees with the conclusions, and disagrees with everything else Sid says is exculpatory. He's not the brightest bulb in the lot.

At least he is smart enough to know with his history and background of lawsuits and scandals he could never be an expert - he'd be destroyed on the stand.

December 23, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Anonymous said...

You can be involved in lots of lawsuits and have personal scandals and still be an expert in a particular subject area. What disqualifies Sid from being an expert is his lack of expertise.

Sid had a brief and, to put it charitably, undistinguished medical career. He has no notable professional achievements, beyond obtaining an MD degree (which does not, in itself, qualify one as an expert). He has not published anything professionally, he has no special training or advanced certification, he is not recognized as an authority in anything and he is not acquried expertise in any area of medicine. Ergo, he cannot be an expert.

He is also an extremely outspoken (some would say unhinged) advocate for Mangum, which precludes him from rendering expert testimony on her behalf.

December 23, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Lance the Intern said...

Bladen County Coroner Hubert Kinlaw said he signed a death certificate calling the cause of death a suicide because that's how the form came back from the medical examiner.

The medical examiner, Dr. Deborah Radisch, said she based her ruling partially on Kinlaw's conclusion that Lacy killed himself.

Sid -- If you want to help the Lacy family, I think looking into the actions of the County Coroner would be a better use of your time.

December 23, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Lance the Intern said...
Bladen County Coroner Hubert Kinlaw said he signed a death certificate calling the cause of death a suicide because that's how the form came back from the medical examiner.

The medical examiner, Dr. Deborah Radisch, said she based her ruling partially on Kinlaw's conclusion that Lacy killed himself.

Sid -- If you want to help the Lacy family, I think looking into the actions of the County Coroner would be a better use of your time.


Hey, Lance.

That's interesting. Where did you get that info? Could you give me a link? That only proves that things are more corrupt and screwed up than I thought.

December 23, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney: Name one instance where I was wrong about something.

Consider your claim about the lacrosse case that the failure to find the defendants' DNA in or on Mangum was not exculpatory..

Mangum alleged that the defendants did not use condoms during a violent gang rape and ejaculated in and on her. She alleged that one ejaculated in her mouth, and she spit the semen onto the floor. Because she was examined hours after the alleged attack, DNA evidence would almost certainly have been found had the allegation been true.

Exculpatory evidence is "evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes toward negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness." The lack of DNA proved that Mangum's specific allegation was almost certainly inaccurate and that she either was lying or did not remember what had happened. That conclusion supported the defense. Exculpatory evidence need not prove innocence with absolute certainty.

In your attempt to argue that Nifong acted honorably, you cannot admit that he ignored exculpatory evidence. As a result, you change the definition, requiring (but only for the lacrosse case) that exculpatory evidence must prove with absolute certainty that defendants could not possibly have committed not just the specific crime alleged (rape in which they ejaculated), but any crime, including another form of sexual assault not specifically alleged by Mangum.

Your definition of "exculpatory evidence" in the lacrosse case is inconsistent with the legal definition, case law, and your own use of the term in every other case you have analyzed.

Although this error has repeatedly been brought to your attention, particularly in 2009 and 2010, you have failed to retract or correct it.


Hey, Break.

Mike Nifong, on his own initiative, dropped the rape charge against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, so the DNA issue I believe would be moot. However, I have not concentrated that much on actually what happened at that party on March 13, 2006... or what Mangum testified with relation to that incident. My concentration on the past nearly four years has been related to the murder charge lodged against Daye. My strengths and focus are on that case and not so much the Duke Lacrosse case.

December 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid:

At various times you have claimed: a) that the State offered Mangum a plea deal for time served; (b) that the State would never bring the case against Mangum to trial; (c) that Mangum would be quickly acquitted at trial and that not even a turncoat attorney couldlose the case; (c) that you would beat Duke University in your civil lawsuits; (d) that Nifong would have his license to practice law reinstated; (e) finally, you have predicted several times, that Mangum was going to be released from prison.

The better question is: when have you been right about anything?


I have made predictions which have turned out to be wrong... mainly because I believed that prosecutors had more sense than they actually did. But regarding facts, I usually back them up with sources.

December 23, 2014 at 9:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
My son is 5'8" and wears size 12 shoes. height is not the best indicator of shoe size.

As a physician, you should know that.


There are exceptions to just about everything, but I believe that common sense dictates that as a rule, the taller someone is, the larger his shoe size and feet will be. Doesn't that make sense?

December 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney said,
"I have no doubt as to how Dr. Cyril Wecht would respond... and I'm sure he would determine that Mangum was not responsible for Daye's death. The problem is that I cannot afford him."

Sorry that he's so expensive. Still, there are plenty of people around (including the 35 or so on the J4N committee) who might be interested in contributing to the cause. Kenhyderal, Kilgo, and TinFoil Hat should be willing to cooperate with you.


gui, mon ami, would you consider being the first to contribute to a fund to hire Dr. Wecht?

I am not, nor is the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, in the business of soliciting money or fundraising of any kind. It only complicates things and lends itself to investigations and unnecessary complications. I'm sure the state would jump at the chance to investigate the Committee... accusing it of fraud.

Think I'll pass on your suggestion.

December 23, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


gui, Walt, Break, Lance, and all anonymi,

I hope that you all have a wonderful Christmas and that Santa brings you all the toys on your wish list. The library will be closed until Saturday, so I'll sign off for now until then.

December 23, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Lance the Intern said...


Name one instance where I was wrong about something. I base my statements on facts and usually provide documentation to back them up.

Mangum offered Plea Deal

Mr. Elmostafa visited by Seligmanns.

Crystal Mangum did not commit arson,.

No bond in Dillon Tart case.

I could keep going....

December 23, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Lance the Intern said...

Merry Christmas to you and yours, Sid. And to everyone else (even you, Tinfoil Hat) as well!

December 23, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

You said in response to the following questions:
Dr. Harr,

So Ms. Mangum is waiting for you to do something that will actually work to free her, and does NOT have the medical analysis information in report form from you which she can use to defend herself ASAP as needed? Is she aware of this?

Your Response:
I am communicating with people in position to help Mangum. Although Mangum may not have access to the sharlogs, I have seen to it that the few individuals who might do something to help her have access to them.

After all I've sent to her and discussed with her, she should have a pretty good understanding of her case. Hopefully an anticipated break will come through soon.

My latest thoughts on the matter:

Perhaps 'a pretty good understanding of her case' is not good enough for her to communicate her case to her lawyers? What then? Have you actually asked Ms. Mangum if she would prefer that what you provide to the public you provide to her AS WELL in a format that she can read and understand and use in her own defense, or better yet, a concise and complete report from all the various sharlogs? If so, what does she say about the matter?

Why again haven't you done this for her yet? Why do you present the information ONLY in sharlog format, and not in a format that can actually be used by Ms. Mangum in her own defense? I still do not understand your reasoning for not doing so in light of your insistance that Ms. Mangum compromise her legal assistance in order to receive a written report from the defense's medical examiner. Can you not also provide a written report as well to Ms. Mangum then? Why wouldn't you?

Who are these few people who may be able to help her?

Why would the state charge the J4N committee with fraud if they raised funds for a lawyer for Ms. Mangum?

December 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM
Walt said...

Merry Christmas to Sid, Lance, A Lawyer, Gui, Kenny, Kilgo, Anon, even Tin Foil.

Walt-in-Durham

December 24, 2014 at 5:11 AM
guiowen said...

Merry Christmas to Sid, Lance, Walt, Kenny, and even TinFoil.

December 24, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...

As always, Sid is NEVER wrong (though he refuses to address the faulty felony murder and inadmissible prior record), it's everyone else was in a conspiracy.

Sid, you are wrong - admit it, stop pushing bullshit theories, and people might listen to your other points.

Keep pushing stuff that everyone knows to be false, and you discredit everything else you have to say.

And don't hide behind your usual "why did they charge them then" - it's been shown, through statutes, jury instructions, and case law, that these charges were not eligible for felony murder. Stop pretending they were.

And, the prior record - dismissals are inadmissible, as are matters over 10 years old.

Until you stop being a deluded narcissist who obsesses when he is wrong, no one will listen to you on areas you may have a valid point.

December 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...

I like Sid's reaction to other areas where he is wrong: he doesn't have to admit he is wrong because he is no longer interested in the subject.

December 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas to Sidney, A Lawyer, guiowen, Lance, Break, Kenny, Kilgo and all the anonymous commenters.

December 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...

hey sid, where is the christmas card from the j4n gang of losers?

December 24, 2014 at 3:46 PM
Kilgo said...





MERRY XMAS TO KENHYDERAL WHEREVER HE IS

December 25, 2014 at 6:14 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)