Updated Tuesday, January 27, 2015
to include correspondence and activities
during the month of October 2014
Letter (12-30-14) to Grady L. Balentine Jr.
James E. Williams, Jr. -- Orange County Public Defender and
Chair of the N.C. Public Defender Committee on Racial Inequity (01-20-15)
to include correspondence and activities
during the month of October 2014
Letter (12-30-14) to Grady L. Balentine Jr.
James E. Williams, Jr. -- Orange County Public Defender and
Chair of the N.C. Public Defender Committee on Racial Inequity (01-20-15)
525 comments:
1 – 200 of 525 Newer› Newest»Anonymous said...
No, the defense medical examiner said 'she agreed that the death started with a chain of events from a stab wound that ended with death caused by complications. The direct cause of death was intubation error that caused brain death.' I would copy it and paste it here, but you can't copy from sharlogs - however that is the essense of what she said. She did NOT say the stab wound was the proximate cause of death - the complications, ie. intubation malpractice was the direct cause of death. She then goes on to explain many of the discrepancies between the first autopsy report and the duke medical records.
If this had been presented in court it would not have even reached the level of what the judge clarified the law to be, since the complications, (ie. intubation malpractice), was the proximate and 100% cause of death.
That is why the report was kept from Ms. Mangum until the last 3 hours of the trial after years of her asking her lawyers, the medical examiner, and the court for it. If that is not a conspiracy to suppress evidence favorable to the defense, what is?
Even now, with her appeals attorney not even stating the correct date of death so as to leave out the facts of the intubation malpractice completely in her appeal that is not Ms. Mangum's but simply her own version of whatever it is she is doing, (which isn't representing Ms. Mangum in the least), the conspiracy is made even more obvious.
It is both refreshing and rewarding to know that enlightenment from this site is reaching some of the people, as the commenter above.
Your comment is well phrased.
Anonymous said...
Lance - your logic in your statement of find a non-biased doctor to give a detailed report is exactly the logic duke is using. They never thought Ms. Mangum would be able to find a doctor to give her that: a non-biased detailed report - and since she did find one (Dr. Harr) - who's main concern at first was about the Medical Examiner issues in this state and Ms. Mangum's false arrest and convinction (rightly so as proven by evidence and fact), all they do is ignore him and still refuse to take responsibility for their malpractice and continue to falsly blame Ms. Mangum for it, (and have evil duke trolls call him delusional and stupid and anything else to discredit him or anyone who believes what he proves to be correct with facts and evidence in abundance).
Another enlightened comment. It is precisely true that prosecutors never in their wildest imagination believed that a medical doctor would challenge the autopsy report on Daye because to do so is too political. Being retired, it made it much easier for me to point out the problems and avoid professional retaliation.
Attention all Commenters:
The following comment date/timed January 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM ran afoul of the kenhyderal Doctrine, and therefore was removed.
Please be advised the a modicum of civility is required on this site.
Thank you.
Lance the Intern said...
"No more frivolous than Mike S. Adams' discrimination lawsuit against UNC-Wilmington."
Sid -- Your dispute with Duke is nothing at all like the Adams discrimination case, but thanks for bringing it to our attention.
For those not familiar with this case, you can read more here.
Hey, Lance.
Thanks for providing the link. Fact is that Mike Adams and my lawsuits are quite similar... both of us being discriminated against by universities with weak to nonexistent defenses... and both trying to win not by building a defense but rather by judge-shopping to get the case dismissed.
"Another enlightened comment. It is precisely true that prosecutors never in their wildest imagination believed that a medical doctor would challenge the autopsy report on Daye because to do so is too political. Being retired, it made it much easier for me to point out the problems and avoid professional retaliation."
So I take it you (and Tinfoil) are both conceding that you cannot find a physician who will state that the cause of Mr. Daye's death was not complications resulting from a stab wound to the chest.
There is nothing of substance in Tinfoil's comments,(which you consider "enlightened"). I suggest you look up the definitions for ad hominem and red herring.
"Your comment is well phrased."
With, of course, the exception that Dr. Roberts did not state what Tinfoil claims she does.
But you know that.
Did you even look at the report from Dr. Roberts yet?
If I knew a non-biased doctor to ask questions about this case and the reports - I would. However, I do not. That is neither a red herring or whatever, just a fact. If one can be found in this state - that is a good question worthy of an honest and non-biased answer that many would like to know the answer to I'm sure.
Again, you know Duke is frequently sued for malpractice, and frequently loses - and pays millions per year in settlements, right? How can that happen if no one will challenge them?
You really are an idiot.
Duke does however provide litigants in this state with medical expert witnesses (which is only slighly humerous since ya'll keep arguing against what duke themselves say about what happened in their own medical reports and they haven't stepped up to rectify the M.E. errors and Ms. Mangum false convinction by taking responsibility for their own malpractice yet). Therefore, the possible intimidation of other doctors in this state by duke's doctors is a reality in this state.
In addition, if examination were made of the affilitions and conflicts within the state medical board that all doctors get licensed and disciplined through in this state, there would probably be a very real and intimidating duke presence in that committee as well.
"Mike Adams and my lawsuits are quite similar.
No, they are not. The University of North Carolina–Wilmington illegally retaliated against Mike Adams when it denied him a promotion because of his conservative views.
University of North Carolina–Wilmington is a public university, while Duke is private.
Adams is an employee. You are not.
Adams was denied a promotion by a public university due to his religious and political views. You were not.
I could, of course, go on.
That wasn't his point when comparing the two cases. It was:
"both of us being discriminated against by universities with weak to nonexistent defenses... and both trying to win not by building a defense but rather by judge-shopping to get the case dismissed."
Anonymous said:
"If I knew a non-biased doctor to ask questions about this case and the reports - I would. However, I do not. That is neither a red herring or whatever, just a fact. If one can be found in this state - that is a good question worthy of an honest and non-biased answer that many would like to know the answer to I'm sure."
The fact that you can't find a single medical doctor (judge, lawyer, etc.) that agrees with you doesn't mean they are all biased. It means that you and Sid are wrong.
"That wasn't his point when comparing the two cases. It was:
"both of us being discriminated against by universities with weak to nonexistent defenses... and both trying to win not by building a defense but rather by judge-shopping to get the case dismissed." "
That is a comparison fallacy. Like saying Sid's lawsuit against Duke is similar to Brown v. Board of Education, since they are both lawsuits citing discrimination.
To accurately determine the similarities, you must examine the details. That is where Sid's (and your) argument regarding similarity fails.
""both of us being discriminated against by universities..."
I should also point out that Sid's comparison fails on this point. Sid was not discriminated against by Duke, while Mike Adams was discriminated against by UNC-Wilmington.
@ Anonymous from the previous thread Anonymous said: "You attempt to explain the absence of such evidence by concocting an elaborate and massive conspiracy that not only doesn't make sense, but is supported by no evidence. And you slime the people involved in the case in a most vile and derogatory manner............... I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. Daye receive adequate treatment at Duke for his wound. Medical mistakes do occur. However when accidental esophageal intubation is not recognized in a timely fashion that rises to the level of malpractice. The Jury needed to be told that for Welch to apply a differentiation must be made between a co-incidental event (the surgically repaired wound) and a causal event (the esophageal intubation) For all I know Duke may have confidentially settled a liability claim with Daye's Family for his wrongful death. I do "slime" Duke, not individual practitioners, for allowing Crystal to be held responsible for murdering Daye when it was medical malpractice in their institution that killed him
"Daye receive adequate treatment at Duke for his wound"
So you agree that Mangum is responsible for the stabbing that sent Mr. Daye to the hospital, correct?
"The acts of the defendant must be a real cause, a cause without which the decedent's death would not have occurred.... It is sufficient that the defendant's act...was a contributing factor which in combination with the subsequent acts of the doctor in treatment proximately caused the death. Even if the doctor was negligent, the defendant will not escape liability."
State v. Jones,
State v. Holsclaw
Kenny:
If there was medical malpractice, it was in connection with the treatment for the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. Daye was at Duke being treated for his stab wound when he was intubated and died. As Lance has pointed out, that does not relieve Mangum from culpability for killing Daye. If Mangum hadn't stabbed Daye, he isn't in the hospital, he doesn't get intubated and he doesn't die.
You are simply wrong on the facts and the law in this case.
That's like duke saying if you don't get any illness which requires hospital services, you won't be in the proximatey of our ability to provide you with deadly malpractice. What are they going to say - go sue the makers of such and such medicine, (although we have a conflict with their company anyway - so good luck on that since we are their expert witnesses and corrupted research affiliates), that made you sick enough to seek our deadly and ineffective maltreatment, and yeah sure we have other deadly medicine, (researched and approved by us), that we can give you but we rather intubate you to death instead because to us your being dead is good enough for us because we need to research these new intubation devices that have cameras and if they work then we have no excuses to intubate others to death, which comes in handy in certain cases. Sure - that is how they probably run things at duke - but does it make it legal? Not hardly.
Sid - you've never answered:
When it turns out you are wrong, and the MD was Dr. Roberts, and the other experts were the Investigator, Accident folks, the DV expert, and the Psych folks you said Crystal saw, and there aren't all these fictitious doctors - you gonna admit you were wrong and contact everyone you've sent letters to and let them know you were mistaken, so they might understand that you aren't just a crackpot who makes things up, or you gonna start another conspiracy - or then moan and groan about why there weren't other doctors?
Somehow doubt you will admit you were/are wrong.
Lance quoted: "The acts of the defendant must be a real cause, a cause without which the decedent's death would not have occurred.... It is sufficient that the defendant's act...was a contributing factor which in combination with the subsequent acts of the doctor in treatment proximately caused the death. Even if the doctor was negligent, the defendant will not escape liability."..................All this assumes that the subsequent acts of the practitioners were performed solely as a result of him being stabbed. That he was an alcoholic and suffered alcohol withdrawal because he was hospitalized and denied alcohol, leading to life threatening delirium tremens, is unrelated to Crystal's action which sent him to hospital, where he was successfully treated. It's not quite as simple as you and the disgraced Dr. Nicholls state " she stabbed him he died" As was stated "The acts of the defendant must be a real cause, a cause without which the decedent's death would not have occurred" Here, read a negligent esophageal intubation instead of a required endo-tracheal intubation in treating a case of the "DT's
l
It still amuses me that rather than think the attorneys talked to Dr. Roberts, and asked her all of these questions, and knew how she'd tie everything to the stabbing, and explain the complications, etc., and realized that her testimony would be harmful, so they didn't get reports, and did all they could to talk Crystal out of using her, Sid and Kenny and the like assume it's some vast conspiracy, simply because no one will give them the answers to the questions they keep asking.
Sid continues to insist that he believes that Meier lied to the Court when he said the report hadn't been written yet; and that all the attorneys, and Dr. Roberts, were lying and working against Crystal when they told her Dr. Roberts would be harmful.
Sid seems to think he's entitled to all of the answers, and that if the report wasn't explicit, it must not have been considered - because apparently he doesn't realize that on the stand, Dr. Roberts would be asked to expand and explain - a report is a summary, not a transcript.
Kenny doesn't think Dr. Roberts was asked if DT's were considered and ruled out (as her report implies).
Just because the answers weren't provided to you doesn't mean the questions weren't asked. And Crystal herself admits that everyone but Sid kept telling her Dr. Roberts was a bad witness for her - but, I guess that's all part of the conspiracy.
And, Sid thinks it's convoluted that Dr. Roberts could have gotten additional fee requests from IDS, like all the other experts who don't have fee apps in the file, and would rather believe in a vast conspiracy.
Y'all really are fools, and insistent on some vast conspiracy.
Sid, I just want you to admit you are wrong when it comes back that these funds aren't spent the way you are assuming/claiming.
Kenny said:
"That he [Daye] was an alcoholic and suffered alcohol withdrawal because he was hospitalized and denied alcohol, leading to life threatening delirium tremens, is unrelated to Crystal's action"
Mr. Daye was in the hospital because Mangum stabbed him.
Put the shovel down and stop digging.
Kenny:
I believe we all understand your opinion. You clearly believe that the condition that required intubation was completely independent of the stab wound, and Crystal therefore should not be responsible for Duke's malpractice.
However, you are a self described long-term close personal friend of Crystal's and therefore cannot be entirely unbiased. Of course you want to help your close friend.
You admit that you have no training in the law or in medicine, so you have legal or medial expertise on which to base your opinions. We all recognize (and are in awe of) your Googling skills, but Google does not make you an expert. Finally, you profess a belief in mystery rapists, a belief that calls into question your judgment.
You are supported by Sidney for much of your medical and legal analysis. As you know, Sidney repeatedly has shown he cannot be trusted. Sidney will say anything he believes will support his argument.
For example, he has expressed the opinion that Nifong's failure to find DNA that matched any of the lacrosse defendants was not exculpatory, even though Crystal explicitly claimed that her alleged attackers did not use condoms, even claiming that one ejaculated in her mouth.
A retired physician who makes such a preposterous claim can only be a liar. He changes legal terms, such as "exculpatory" in the lacrosse case or "proximate cause" in the Mangum murder case to suit his argument. That tactic fools no one.
Please take my advice.
Neither you nor Sidney has any credibility. No one cares what either of you say. No one listens to you. There are only a handful of people who read this board; even if you convinced someone that you were correct, it would make absolutely no difference to Crystal.
Hire experts. Hire another appeals lawyer if you don't think Petersen is doing a capable job (and you know she has abandoned the intubation argument completely). Find a medical expert that supports your conclusion that the intubation was completely independent of the stab wound and that Daye would have survived with absolute certainty if the malpractice had not occurred.
Otherwise, you and Sidney are tilting at windmills. But of course you know that.
Anonymous said: "Kenny dthinkoesn't Dr. Roberts was asked if DT's were considered and ruled out (as her report implies)"....................... Dr. Roberts might have implied but she did not state such a thing. I maintain that the Doctors who treated Daye, who could confirm that he was being treated for the DT's unrelated to his stab wound, were not consulted. People here believe they were consulted, because good defence practice would demand it, but they can not show proof that this happened. If it happened, Crystal was not made aware of it. Crystal was a indigent defendant and her case was treated as a nuisance obligation. As so often occurs this a poor minority woman was given a minimal and perfunctory defense
Break said: "Finally, you profess a belief in mystery rapists, a belief that calls into question your judgment"............... I have never used the word Mystery Rapist. That is as an appellation pro-Duke Lacrosse Team defenders have invented to ridicule me. The people who sexually assaulted Crystal are no phantoms. They are attendees at the Duke Lacrosse party. There identity is known to many, who are criminally withholding this information.
Kenny,
Thank you for your response. You confirm why people justifiably ridicule you.
Hire experts if you genuinely want to help Crystal. No one listens to you. You have earned that disrespect.
You like to say what Crystal was, or was not, told but you have no proof, and unless you've erectile you have no idea what she was told, nor what Dr Roberts may have said - you are an idiot who is too much of a wuss and liar to even try and find answers. Instead of whining like a little bitch about Meier ignoring you- get permission from Crystal to contact him and then do it. You won't because you know you are full of shit and a coward like Sid.
You are a joke and it's too bad you came back.
You were there not you've erectile - damn autocorrect - and you are too much of a wuss to get an erection anyway!
kenny:
Whenever you talk or write to someone about Mangum's murder case, make sure you let them know she was sexually assaulted by attendees at the Duke lacrosse party, that many people know who these people are but have conspired to keep it a secret. It will make you seem more credible.
Face reality - there was no rape in a bathroom that was too small.The only place a gang rape happened was in Crystal's alcohol and drug addled imagination.I always knew she would end up in prison.Too bad Mr. Daye had to die but you just can't get involved with a crazy person.
kenny:
Also, in your correspondences with others about Mangum, you should use the phrase "Nifongian courage" as often as possible. That way people will know you are a serious person.
The Anonymous poster at 6:04 and 6:06 does not deserve a direct reply. Believe me, though, he would dare not hurl those epithets at me using his real name
Oh my,
Kenny the fighter again!
Anonymous 6:04 and 6:06:
Tremble! Kenny the fighter, the master debater, is after you! Have you seen how he destroyed Daniel Meier?
He clearly has Meier on the run - Kenny is sure that Meier still monitors the board due to a post close to a year ago - and is just too scared to respond now, even though Kenny admittedly refuses to contact him directly.
He also claims to speak for Crystal, as does Sid, but neither offer any proof, nor have they ever shown they have her consent to do so.
Walt says it best / with friends like them, Crystal needs no enemies!
Lance the Intern said...
"Mike Adams and my lawsuits are quite similar.
No, they are not. The University of North Carolina–Wilmington illegally retaliated against Mike Adams when it denied him a promotion because of his conservative views.
University of North Carolina–Wilmington is a public university, while Duke is private.
Adams is an employee. You are not.
Adams was denied a promotion by a public university due to his religious and political views. You were not.
I could, of course, go on.
So, in other words, you agree that Duke discriminated against me... and UNC-W discriminated against Adams. Can we agree on that?
Anonymous said...
That wasn't his point when comparing the two cases. It was:
"both of us being discriminated against by universities with weak to nonexistent defenses... and both trying to win not by building a defense but rather by judge-shopping to get the case dismissed."
Lance, the above comment is actually better than the one I gave, and of course is right on the dime.
Lance the Intern said...
""both of us being discriminated against by universities..."
I should also point out that Sid's comparison fails on this point. Sid was not discriminated against by Duke, while Mike Adams was discriminated against by UNC-Wilmington.
Lance, I was most certainly discriminated against by Duke... because of my secular beliefs and skin color. I was in a place of public accommodation acting as others similarly situated, yet I was harassed and humiliated by security and was blessed by James Coleman's fortuitous appearance... otherwise I would have been jailed on some bogus charge.
kenhyderal said...
@ Anonymous from the previous thread Anonymous said: "You attempt to explain the absence of such evidence by concocting an elaborate and massive conspiracy that not only doesn't make sense, but is supported by no evidence. And you slime the people involved in the case in a most vile and derogatory manner............... I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. Daye receive adequate treatment at Duke for his wound. Medical mistakes do occur. However when accidental esophageal intubation is not recognized in a timely fashion that rises to the level of malpractice. The Jury needed to be told that for Welch to apply a differentiation must be made between a co-incidental event (the surgically repaired wound) and a causal event (the esophageal intubation) For all I know Duke may have confidentially settled a liability claim with Daye's Family for his wrongful death. I do "slime" Duke, not individual practitioners, for allowing Crystal to be held responsible for murdering Daye when it was medical malpractice in their institution that killed him
Hey, kenhyderal.
You're absolutely correct... especially with your interpretation of Welch.
Anonymous said...
Sid - you've never answered:
When it turns out you are wrong, and the MD was Dr. Roberts, and the other experts were the Investigator, Accident folks, the DV expert, and the Psych folks you said Crystal saw, and there aren't all these fictitious doctors - you gonna admit you were wrong and contact everyone you've sent letters to and let them know you were mistaken, so they might understand that you aren't just a crackpot who makes things up, or you gonna start another conspiracy - or then moan and groan about why there weren't other doctors?
Somehow doubt you will admit you were/are wrong.
Meier put off filing for compensation for one day shy of a year, and he did so to keep from Mangum the fact that medical doctors were consulted. I am not naïve enough to believe everything that individuals from the IDS say... Of course they will try and cover-up. I'll have a better idea once I have the actual document from IDS in my hands.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
It still amuses me that rather than think the attorneys talked to Dr. Roberts, and asked her all of these questions, and knew how she'd tie everything to the stabbing, and explain the complications, etc., and realized that her testimony would be harmful, so they didn't get reports, and did all they could to talk Crystal out of using her, Sid and Kenny and the like assume it's some vast conspiracy, simply because no one will give them the answers to the questions they keep asking.
Sid continues to insist that he believes that Meier lied to the Court when he said the report hadn't been written yet; and that all the attorneys, and Dr. Roberts, were lying and working against Crystal when they told her Dr. Roberts would be harmful.
Sid seems to think he's entitled to all of the answers, and that if the report wasn't explicit, it must not have been considered - because apparently he doesn't realize that on the stand, Dr. Roberts would be asked to expand and explain - a report is a summary, not a transcript.
Kenny doesn't think Dr. Roberts was asked if DT's were considered and ruled out (as her report implies).
Just because the answers weren't provided to you doesn't mean the questions weren't asked. And Crystal herself admits that everyone but Sid kept telling her Dr. Roberts was a bad witness for her - but, I guess that's all part of the conspiracy.
And, Sid thinks it's convoluted that Dr. Roberts could have gotten additional fee requests from IDS, like all the other experts who don't have fee apps in the file, and would rather believe in a vast conspiracy.
Y'all really are fools, and insistent on some vast conspiracy.
Sid, I just want you to admit you are wrong when it comes back that these funds aren't spent the way you are assuming/claiming.
Why should I admit to being wrong when I'm right?
Keep in mind that the Court authorized payment for $3,000. Payment to item 5 was a little over $3,500 if I'm not mistaken. I can understand IDS overshooting compensation a little. The medical doctor situation under item 3 is definitely entirely different... and without doubt were doctors contacted by Mangum's attorneys. That's the only way to justify the $8,700 payout. Not plausible to say that it went to supplement Dr. Roberts' pay under item 5. If IDS did pay more than $8,000 extra to Dr. Roberts, then I would say that it is irresponsible with taxpayer dollars.
Anonymous said...
He clearly has Meier on the run - Kenny is sure that Meier still monitors the board due to a post close to a year ago - and is just too scared to respond now, even though Kenny admittedly refuses to contact him directly.
He also claims to speak for Crystal, as does Sid, but neither offer any proof, nor have they ever shown they have her consent to do so.
Walt says it best / with friends like them, Crystal needs no enemies!
Unfortunately, you are bereft of much needed enlightenment. Mark my words... Mangum will be exonerated, sooner rather than later. She should never have been charged with Daye's murder, much less convicted.
Contrary to Walt's opinions, I am the best person Crystal could have in her corner. She's been up against the P-T-Bs... alone and without any help other than from me.
Because truth and justice is on her side, she will prevail.
You've already set it up - if you are wrong on payments, and Roberts and others had supplemental fee requests - you are going to scream cover-up. You are so predictable it's sad.
Sid:
How could things possibly be worse for Mangum? I am being serious here. How do you think the case against her would have gone differently if you weren't born?
Break said: "Thank you for your response. You confirm why people justifiably ridicule you"....................... They also ridicule Dr. Harr, former DA Nifong, Nurse Levicy Dr. Manly, investigative journalist Wm. Cohan, former chair of the Duke Board of Trustees, Robert Steele. Justifiable? I think not. Knee- jerk ridicule is the modus operandi of the fanatical Duke Lacrosse apologists. Think levitation, mystery rapists, burly bodies crowding in a small bathroom to ravish, all conjured up on to make it seem as if the victim was hallucinating
Nobody thinks the accuser (Crystal) was hallucinating. She was just making things up.
Kenny:
Another typical response from Kenny--all whining with no substance.
Let's look at your roster of all stars:
DA Nifong--prosecuted three defendants with what he later admitted was no credible evidence; created a rigged lineup; made demonstrably false statements in court and to the public; made no apparent attempt to push the DPD to investigate; made disparaging comments about Mangum.
Nurse Levicy--special prosecutors found her statements to DPD not supported by objective evidence; completed exam report before credentialed to do so.
Dr. Manly--MD performed incomplete SANE exam; terminated exam when Mangum was uncooperative; misdiagnosed probable yeast infection; not interviewed by DPD or Nifong; probably received more criticism than warranted.
William Cohen--what was claimed as definitive account found no new evidence except interviews with Nifong and attorney; lied to public with claim that description of SANE exam was new; interview claims that something happened not supported by his own book; "investigative" journalist did no meaningful investigation.
Bob Steel--a conviction is best for Duke; it will all get sorted out on appeal. Enough said.
Identify specifically what criticism was unfair and explain why. I will respond if you take that request seriously.
The reason there are very few cases of white men raping black women is because in general white men don't find black women physically appealing.Mangum made up the story about being gang raped to get out of the trouble she was in.She already had a criminal record and a history of psychiatric problems.
Sidney said:
"Contrary to Walt's opinions, I am the best person Crystal could have in her corner. She's been up against the P-T-Bs... alone and without any help other than from me."
Heavens, and here Kenny's been telling us all how much he's done for her.
Shame on you, Kenny! You talk so much and haven't helped in any way. Or are you going to tell us that Sidney's lying?
Let me remind you that a sarcastic man is a bitter man.
Sid ...
You really think your vast conspiracy about experts makes more sense, and is less convoluted than:
The initial fee request was for 10 hours, and was incorrectly filed with the court for Dr. Roberts.
As she worked on the case, she spent a lot more than 10 hours on the case, closer to 30 when you add in her travel time and meeting with Crystal, the report, and consultations with lots of different lawyers, and so additional time/fee apps were requested through IDS, as they are supposed to be, not the Court, so you don't see them. So she is the MD cited.
The other fees are the PI, the Accident folks; the DV lady; and the mental health folks you admit Crystal consulted. And their fees were also requested through IDS, not the Court.
Am I the only one who thinks that makes a lot more sense than some convoluted, complicated conspiracy between multiple attorneys, state agencies, experts, and the rest?
Sid, your delusions really are showing.
Anonymous 6:25:
You miss the bigger point. Sidney claims that payments to other MDs, none of whom produced written reports provided to Mangum, proves that their reports would have been exculpatory.
This is idiocy.
In the lacrosse case, Sidney argues that he does not know whether the defendants were guilty because the case did not go to trial and he therefore did not know what, if any, inculpatory evidence Nifong had. The massive amount of exculpatory evidence previously released is insufficient to reach an opinion.
Mangum's case did go to trial. Therefore, Sidney is forced to argue that he has not seen the massive amount of exculpatory evidence uncovered by the defense attorneys that they did not use at trial.
In all fairness to Sidney, he realizes that a narrative not supported by (or contradicted by) evidence is not compelling except to true believers. The introduction of a massive conspiracy, particularly when supported by clever phrases like Carpetbagger Jihad or ominous illusions to the powers-that-be, at least is an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence.
And please also remember that a sarcastic man is a wounded man.
You miss the bigger point. Sidney claims that payments to other MDs, none of whom produced written reports provided to Mangum, proves that their reports would have been exculpatory.
Well, that assumes payments to other MDs - personally, I suspect Dr. Roberts is the "MD" in the payments, and that she spent close to 30 hours on the case, and there were supplemental fee apps properly filed.
Of course, once it turns out there weren't other MDs, then Sid will freak about that.
And, he's missed the entire point about written reports - the reason they aren't produced, unless they are exculpatory (and he's the only one who thinks Dr. Roberts was exculpatory) is that once they are written down, they have to be produced. If they hurt Crystal, no one wants them produced.
I know all that.
True - but Sid, Kenny, and Tin-foil don't.
Kenny and Tin-foil understand that, but are just having fun. Sid actually believes that he is enlightening his readers.
Break said: "Another typical response from Kenny--all whining with no substance. Let's look at your roster of all stars:"............ And a typical come back from a knee-jerk Duke Lacrosse apologists like Break. Attack, attack, attack, anyone and everything that might suggest the Duke Lacrosse "choirboys"
had any culpability. Concede nothing, no matter how trivial. Character assassinate any and all who raises doubt. Wage a relentless campaign against them. Label them immoral and liars. Anonymously spread lies and innuendo. Author Cohan is just the latest victim of this "jihad".
Kenny,
Thank you for your response. Once again you remind readers why you are the subject of ridicule.
I ask for specifics, and you respond with generalities. You complain about attacks and innuendo, but respond with attacks and innuendo of your own. After all, those who peddle narratives supported by no credible evidence (or contradicted by credible evidence) have nothing to add to a discussion except attacks and innuendo.
Guiowen said: "Shame on you, Kenny! You talk so much and haven't helped in any way. Or are you going to tell us that Sidney's lying?"......................... I, and others have done what we can with our limited capabilities but, Dr. Harr, with his time, talent and treasure has taken on the formidable job of correcting the un-justice being done to Crystal. He is correct. He is the only person, with the talent, the ability and the desire for justice, who can coerce those of goodwill to correct this wrong.
@ Break : Lets get specific. D.A. Nifong did not admit that he purposely prosecuted without credible evidence. You've taken former Chairman Steele completely out of context. You've used terms like; "no apparent", "no meaningful", "a probable", "lied to the public" etc.,etc.
Kenny:
Thank you again for your response.
Let's focus on Nifong. We can address the others later.
First, I never claimed that Nifong admitted that he "purposely" prosecuted the defendants without credible evidence. I claimed merely that he admitted that there was no credible evidence that the defendants had committed the crimes with which they had been charged.
"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party."
Source:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1636446/
Prosecutors in the US are not supposed to prosecute defendants without credible evidence. That leaves two alternatives: Nifong did so "purposely" or he was incompetent--he conducted the prosecution without credible evidence and he did not realize that he was doing so.
My use of the term "no apparent" was used in the context that he "made no apparent attempt to push the DPD to investigate." In the past, you have been highly critical of the shoddy DPD investigation. I used the phrase "no apparent attempt" because there are two alternatives: either Nifong was part of the decision not to conduct a bona fide investigation or he was incompetent in that he did not realize that the DPD had failed to properly investigate the allegation.
We are left with malfeasance or incompetence. Either deserves ridicule, if not worse.
We agree that mistakes were made and so has former DA Nifong. These mistakes, his and the DPD made it impossible for him to get a conviction for any crime that may have happened.
Kenny:
Thank you for your response.
Shall we catalogue the "mistakes" made by Nifong and the DPD?
A thorough understanding of the magnitude of the "mistakes" can help use understand whether the "mistakes" were intentional or Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan and others were all utterly incompetent.
In either case, an intentional frame or complete incompetence, they deserve at least the ridicule to which they were subjected. Why do you disagree?
Nifong Supporter said...
"Attention all Commenters:
The following comment date/timed January 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM ran afoul of the kenhyderal Doctrine, and therefore was removed.
Please be advised the a modicum of civility is required on this site.
Thank you."
January 15, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Dr. Harr: I believe you should expand the kenhyderal Doctrine and delete all comments that ridicule kenhyderal. Given all of the abuse kenhyderal has received this week, I believe it is likely that he will become discouraged again and stop posting at this blog.
Right on kenhyderal supporter. Anyone who actually knows Ken Edwards rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy his credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Ken. I ask them, don't you find it strange that his friends, his professors, his classmates his teachers, his pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of him and have provided him with character references. Hearing these references caused Dr. Harr to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he believed him to be "a good friend" of Crystal. Ken is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Ken was a responsible parent. Ken was a responsible member of his community. Ken, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better live for himself and his children. His Pastor advised him not to choose cutting and pasting as a way to support his opinions because, regardless of his character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..
Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996
Anonymous said...
Sid:
How could things possibly be worse for Mangum? I am being serious here. How do you think the case against her would have gone differently if you weren't born?
Crystal was charged with first degree murder... the intent of the prosecutors was to convict Mangum with a life sentence. Because of my intervention... bringing up the fallacies of the "larceny of chose in action" charges and pointing out the statement by Daye that he gave Mangum the cashier's checks, prosecutors abandoned their Plan A and decided to settle for Plan B (second degree murder conviction). They knew they could not prevail in going for first degree under the circumstances, so at trial they didn't even mention the "larceny of chose in action" charge.
You are forgetting that there exists the real possibility that Mangum will be released and receive restitution for her wrongful conviction...
So, if I wouldn't have been born, Mangum would be in much worse condition.
You still ignore that absent self-defense, Crystal is still a convicted felon - and the Jury rejected self-defense, and you have yet to say anything you would have done differently, other than Daye's inadmissible criminal record, and calling Crystal a liar on the stand when she said Daye never assaulted her, nor raised her voice, prior to this incident.
That's your problem - you proclaim total innocence, but ignore that she stabbed a man, and the jury rejected self-defense.
You are still delusional.
Your intervention had nothing to do with the "fallacies" of the Larceny of Chose in Action - they were never a part of Felony Murder, and Mangum's attorneys knew it.
You are, and remain, a complete and total delusional idiot.
Why don't you come clean on the affairs and scandals that led to your departure from California and elsewhere?
Explain why you could never be put on the stand to testify.
guiowen said...
Sidney said:
"Contrary to Walt's opinions, I am the best person Crystal could have in her corner. She's been up against the P-T-Bs... alone and without any help other than from me."
Heavens, and here Kenny's been telling us all how much he's done for her.
gui, mon ami,
Who's to say henhyderal hasn't done much for Crystal. He's supportive of her in the comments, and there may be other ways in which he's acted on her behalf. Certainly what I do for Crystal doesn't preclude kenhyderal or anyone else from acting and advocating on her behalf.
Comprende?
kenhyderal supporter said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Attention all Commenters:
The following comment date/timed January 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM ran afoul of the kenhyderal Doctrine, and therefore was removed.
Please be advised the a modicum of civility is required on this site.
Thank you."
January 15, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Dr. Harr: I believe you should expand the kenhyderal Doctrine and delete all comments that ridicule kenhyderal. Given all of the abuse kenhyderal has received this week, I believe it is likely that he will become discouraged again and stop posting at this blog.
kenhyderal supporter,
Thank you for your comment and support of kenhyderal... but kenhyderal is more than capable of standing his ground against Break, Walt, and other intelligent debaters.
Too bad it's only those asking questions who are intelligent.
Sid, Kenny, Tin-foil, are all idiots.
And, I love that Sid assumes that none of Crystal's attorneys knew the law, and couldn't have beaten the Larceny of Chose in Action without him (even if he still wrongly claims it could have formed the basis for Felony Murder). The State did try to bring them up in the trial, but rapidly abandoned them, but they were irrelevant - they were not anything that could be used for felony murder, so they focused on the self-defense issue to convict Crystal.
Sid, when you ever gonna show you are serious about transparency and show us what Crystal has sent you? For all we know, she is begging you to stop ruining her life - you have never shown proof she remotely supports what you are doing.
Kenny:
Shall we continue our analysis of Nifong's "mistakes" in the lacrosse case?
Let's begin with a summary of the evidence Nifong had when he asked the grand jury to indict Seligmann and Finnerty.
The evidence that argued in favor of prosecution included: Mangum's allegation that she had been raped at the party attended by the alleged attackers, her identification of the attackers, Levicy's statement that Mangum's demeanor was consistent with her allegation, and a DNA sample from which Evans could not be excluded.
The evidence that argued against prosecution included: Mangum's changing stories, which suggested she was an unreliable witness; the significant flaws in the identification process, which made the identifications unreliable; the results of the SANE exam did not support the rape allegation; and, most importantly, there was no DNA that matched any players, but that did match individuals not tested.
In sum, the evidence Nifong had at the time of the initial indictments supported the conclusion that the specific defendants did not commit the specific crimes with which they were charged. Nevertheless Nifong proceeded with indictments against defendants he knew (or should have known) were innocent of the specific crimes included in the indictment.
I recognize that the evidence does not support the broader conclusion that no players or other attendees could not possibly have committed crimes against Mangum. If Nifong believed that Mangum had been attacked, he should have insisted on a comprehensive investigation. Indictments with no credible evidence are not a substitute for investigation.
I see Nifong's decision to prosecute with no credible evidence as either deliberate or gross incompetence. Either deserves ridicule or worse.
Why do you disagree? Was my summary of the evidence unfair? If so, how?
And, if you think she was attacked by "someone" but not the people charged - Nifong was still wrong. You cannot charge person A if you know they didn't do it, just hoping they will tell you who person B, the one you think did it, did.
Unless they participated in the crime, they have no obligation to provide information to authorities.
I love it.
Although there is no credible evidence to support it, Kenny believes that Crystal was raped by mystery rapists (but you can't use that phrase). He believes that the failure of Nifong and the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation made it impossible to identify and convict the mystery rapists (but don't use that phrase).
Finally, because he believes that the failure to conduct a real investigation was not deliberate (although he doesn't explain why), it is unfair to ridicule Nifong for his gross incompetence.
Break said: "I see Nifong's decision to prosecute with no credible evidence as either deliberate or gross incompetence. Either deserves ridicule or worse.
Why do you disagree? Was my summary of the evidence unfair? If so, how?........................ For the crimes prosecuted against suspects Finnerty and Seligman, I substantially agree. Nifong was handicapped since the initial investigation of the other crimes of sexual assault and kidnapping were not done in a timely and thorough way by the DPD. The crime of theft was never proceeded on. By the way Crystal nor her Agency ever got back the money. Every deficiency charged against DA Nifong can also be laid on AG Cooper with the difference being Nifong wanted the guilty to be found Cooper wanted the case to be put to rest.
.
.
Kenny:
Thank you again for your response.
You give Nifong far too much credit for "wanting the guilty to be found." Mangum alleged the gang rape on March 14. Nifong was first briefed on the status of the DPD's "investigation" on March 25. Little substantive investigation had take place at that point. No suspects had been identified.
DAs generally are not briefed on cases in the early stages of the investigation. It was not too late to begin an investigation at that point. Eleven days.
Did Nifong try? If not, why not? How is that consistent with "wanting the guilty to be found" as you suggest?
If Nifong's failure to press the DPD to do their job was not deliberate, then why is incompetence not a valid explanation? Why does incompetence not justify ridicule?
Kenny:
Although I appreciate your replies, I would prefer that you not change the subject. I asked specific questions that you avoid. One would think that you are simply deflecting attention from questions for which you have no answers.
Kenny:
I must admit that I object to your comparison of me to a "fanatical Duke Lacrosse apologist" when I had the temerity to claim that Nifong was a justifiable target for ridicule or worse because he prosecuted defendants with no credible evidence. I argued that he did so either deliberately or out of incompetence, but in either case was a justifiable target for ridicule.
You seem to agree that Nifong had no credible evidence to justify the prosecution of Seligmann and Finnerty and knew or should have known that they did not commit the crimes with which they were charged.
However, you appear to justify Nifong's prosecution because he "wanted the guilty to be found" and a delay of 11 days made an investigation impractical.
I obviously misunderstand your argument. If you truly believed that Nifong was justified in prosecuting defendants he knew were innocent because he had good motives, I would probably believe that you were a sociopath.
I don't believe that you are a sociopath, so I must have misunderstood your argument. However, your explanation was unclear and you have been unable to follow up. Once you raised your argument that ridicule of Nifong was unfair, you have largely been unavailable.
Please accept my apology in advance.
Former DA Nifong had grave doubts about Seligmann's innocence finding his alibi too contrived. Crystal has always believed that DA Nifong wanted justice for her. Nifong discovered he could not convict any Player of a semen depositing rape but other serious charges remained viable. The photo line-up was conducted in a flawed manner and with his belief that "something did happen" and that crimes were committed, he opted to proceed most likely with the intent to at some point withdraw against Finnerty
Kenny:
Thank you once again for your reply.
However, you are not providing the explanation I hoped in convincing me that I am correct in my conclusion that you are not a sociopath. You appear to be rationalizing Nifong's decision to prosecute with no credible evidence. That raises doubts as to the accuracy of my conclusion.
Former DA Nifong had grave doubts about Seligmann's innocence finding his alibi too contrived.
We were discussing the evidence available prior to the initial indictments. Seligmann's alibi was not released until after his indictment. As a result, it is irrelevant to this discussion. I assume that you made a mistake and were not deliberately trying to mislead the readers of this blog.
Nevertheless, the alibi evidence has largely been confirmed. Nifong's rejection of the defense as "contrived" prior to investigating it demonstrates a lack of interest in the truth. His investigation seemed focused on pressuring a poor black immigrant into changing his statement rather than determining its accuracy. I do not understand how Nifong planned to discredit the electronic evidence released.
Are you supporting Nifong's reaction to this evidence? If so, I may wish to reconsider my conclusion that you are not a sociopath.
Crystal has always believed that DA Nifong wanted justice for her.
Does Crystal understand that the lack of investigation undertaken by Nifong and the DPE virtually ensured that, had she been attacked, the attackers would not have been brought to justice? Or did Crystal simply want three players prosecuted, irrespective of whether they had done anything wrong?
Nifong discovered he could not convict any Player of a semen depositing rape but other serious charges remained viable.
I do not understand your comment here. Nifong admitted that there was no credible evidence that any of the defendants committed any of the crimes with which they had been charged. How do "serious charges remain viable" with"no credit evidence" to support them.
Do you really believe that evidence is irrelevant in a criminal case. If so, I may wish to reconsider my conclusion that you are not a sociopath.
The photo line-up was conducted in a flawed manner and with his belief that "something did happen" and that crimes were committed, he opted to proceed
You appear to be justifying Nifong's decision to bring charges with no credible evidence. Again, I may wish to reconsider my conclusion that you are not a sociopath.
Break,
This xxxx about the "contrived alibi" is just something Nifong dreamed up over the seven years he's been sitting in his kitchen. Only someone who would really like to convict the players -- someone like Cohan or Kenhyderal -- would pay any attention to it.
Guiowem:
What am I missing?
Kenny seems to be conceding that Nifong prosecuted Seligmann and Finnerty even though he knew that he had no credible evidence to support the charges and that the defendants were likely innocent of the specific charges against them. Nevertheless, Kenny seems to be claiming that Nifong was justified in doing so because Nifong thought "something happened" (or at least said he thought that) and it was inconvenient to undertake a bona fide investigation.
Have I misunderstood what Kenny is saying? For some reason, after having complained about ridiculing Nifong, he seems to unable to post with any regularity.
All this time, I have supported Kenny, arguing that he is not a sociopath. Yet he seems to be trying to undermine me. Since Kenny doesn't seem to be available, can you help explain what he is doing?
Thanks for your help.
Break,
Kenny simply cannot concede that his bosom buddy, Crystal, could have done anything wrong. For some reason, he seems to feel that Mike Nifong, who "helped" her, was always acting properly. But then he realizes that the help was less than zero. He simply cannot handle this.
Of course there remains the possibility that he's merely a sociopath. I'm beginning to think so myself.
You two throw around psychiatric diagnoses in a rather rather cavalier fashion. It's reminiscent of tactics use in totalitarian regimes to label those who disagree with you as mentally ill. There was evidence crimes were committed against Crystal. Traumatized victim don't always make the best witnesses but forensic evidence existed but was not professionally dealt with. For example the conflict between what the Lacrosse Players stated about Crystal arriving intoxicated being in conflict with what the person who drove her there, the neighbor and Kim Roberts stated. Evans DNA on Crystal's broken nail. The white exudate assumed to be semen that was not tested so it could be later dismissed as a possible yeast infection and most critically a failure to eliminate all Crystal's known sexual contacts as a source of the unknown DNA extracted from sperm. These and much more evidence needed to tested in a Court of Law
Kenhyderal,
So tell us: did Nifong do anything wrong?
As for the fingernail: it was found in Evans's waste basket. Surprise: there was some of his DNA in that basket. Who could have imagined that? Not Kenny, not Cohan? Wow!!
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?
Dr. Harr,
All the letters you have written this month are very interesting and well written. Thank you for posting them and keeping us informed. Hopefully you can provide copy's and an equivalent of the sharlogs to Ms. Mangum as well as soon as possible to keep her fully informed of that which you are attempting to accomplish on her behalf and in assistance of her defense, etc..
I hope that she is well and is able to 'fight the good fight' as she can, and that your assistance is indeed directed with success at the cause of winning her freedom and righting the true wrongs that exist in this state that have the potential to negatively effect all citizens and visitors to the state in ways that include wrongful death. In addition, we all wish well for your continued speedy recovery and healing.
The article by the New York Times columnist about the death of Tamir Rice was very moving and dead on indeed. Hopefully he can assist in Ms. Mangum's and the people of this state's right to justice and sound judicial and medical systems (even if it Does have Duke in it). That would be great indeed to see, especially if it could help open the eyes of those involved in this case both judicially and medically to the importance of providing a more sound system for ALL 'the people'!
Thank you for keeping us informed of his and all others' responses to these issues and your letters, if any.
Kenny:
Are you ready to begin a detailed catalogue of the "mistakes" made by Nifong and the DPD?
I believe that the sheer volume of "mistakes" they made in the "investigation" demonstrates that no one ever believed that Mangum was assaulted. Nifong's comments that he "believed" her (prior to having interviewed her about the allegation) and that he "wanted the guilty to be found" are nothing but throwaway lines.
If he genuinely "wanted the guilty to be found," he would have pressed the DPD to conduct an investigation. He didn't. There are so many "mistakes" that it is hard to believe that the failure to investigate was not intentional.
I find ironic your criticism that guiowen and I are using "tactics from totalitarian regimes." You seem to support a prosecution of defendants despite a lack of evidence against them because the prosecutor claims a good motive.
I find it funny that neither Sid, nor Kenny, have ever provided proof that they are speaking on behalf of Crystal, or that she remotely supports their efforts. We do know that before the trial, Crystal cut Sid off, and we know he claims to have exchanged letters with her - but he admits he's done a lot she doesn't know about.
In addition, for all his claims of transparency, he refuses to put any of those letters online.
Same with Kenny - he claims to be a good friend of Crystal, but doesn't indicate he's spoken with her recently, and while he demands her attorney speak with him, he only does it on a blog that no one reads, and the attorney probably never sees, and he won't contact him directly, nor get proof that Crystal has authorized her attorney to discuss the case with him.
I suspect they are both just making it up, and Crystal knows they are ruining her life - but they don't care. They are just using her like too many other have.
If you have proof she supports your efforts - provide it, otherwise I will assume you are acting either without her knowledge or contrary to her wishes.
Break and Guiowen -- I stated some time ago that Kenhyderal was simply an internet troll.
And internet trolls are horrible people.
Lance:
Thanks. I know Kenny is just a troll. He enjoys provoking other commenters, but not engaging in honest debate.
He demonstrated conclusively that he was just a troll when he sat by quietly while Sidney persuaded Crystal to fire her attorney and represent herself. No close personal friend would react that way and allow a friend to face first degree murder charges without legal representation.
He realizes that Sidney is an idiot, but enjoys supporting him out of his desire to annoy others.
First @ Lance- Interesting article. It helps explain to me the cruelty of many here. I am not a troll! I came here to try and counter the horrible misconceptions about my friend that many here hold. Most times it has been a losing cause. The unreasonable hatred that they hold seems beyond correcting. So many charges: first considering me a troll is a case of extreme projection. I am confident that Crystal would always and forever confirm our friendship. I don't have to prove that to anyone Daniel Meier no longer represents Crystal. I don't need to talk to him as I am fully aware that he did not consult with those who treated Daye. I only invited him to come here and admit this to convince you all, who believe he provided her with a good defense. I introduced Crystal to Dr. Harr. He is a person I admire. respect and trust. You all, completely, ignore real trolls like Malek Williams who claims to be a classmate of Crystal but of whom she has no knowledge of; the Kilgo impersonator: the hateful racist whom, thankfully, Dr.Harr has, lately, been censoring his filth that was so sickening it drove me away. To a lesser degree there is the perpetual sarcastic posters Guiowen and Break who, I fear, only pretend to want to help Crystal and I
Break said: "He demonstrated conclusively that he was just a troll when he sat by quietly while Sidney persuaded Crystal to fire her attorney and represent herself. No close personal friend would react that way and allow a friend to face first degree murder charges without legal representation"............ Crystal didn't need any persuasion to fire Lawyers who let her spend months in prison without as much a visiting consultation. She wanted Scott Holmes, after being highly recommended to her but he bailed when he discerned it would be politically incorrect and perhaps career damaging to take on such an unpopular cause. None of the others were chosen by Crystal but appointed by the Court; in all cases unenthusiastically
"None of the others were chosen by Crystal but appointed by the Court; in all cases unenthusiastically
Such is true for all public defenders. If Crystal had wanted a different lawyer she could have paid for one.
Kenny whines: To a lesser degree there is the perpetual sarcastic posters Guiowen and Break who, I fear, only pretend to want to help Crystal and I
Yes, Kenny, I adopted a sarcastic tone when I began posting under the name Break.
My earlier posts (under a different name) consisted of substantive opinions, generally supported by facts. Over time, however, I grew frustrated with Sidney's lack of honest responses. As you know, Sidney seldom accepts arguments with which he disagrees, typically responding with ad hominem attacks (the poster is brainwashed, lying or part of a massive conspiracy). When the poster provides facts to support the dissenting argument that Sidney cannot counter, he typically ignores the comment and pretends that the adverse facts do not exist.
As you know, Sidney praises as enlightened commenters who agree (or appear to agree) with him. This praise is independent of the strength of the argument.
My initial posts were intended to test whether Sidney was able to determine whether an apparently complimentary post was sincere or a parody. Guiowen immediately understood my motivation; other posters, however, initially were unsure. I attempted initially to mute the sarcasm, an attempt that appeared to be successful as it provoked a debate which invoked Poe's Law. Over time, I allowed the sarcasm to increasingly dominate, trying to determine when Sidney would catch on.
My posts directed at you have generally contained bona fide arguments (although many also contained some sarcasm, e.g., my recent statements that I didn't think you were a sociopath).
I tried to engage you in a debate when you criticized ridicule of Nifong. He prosecuted defendants with no credible evidence and failed to push the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation. I sought to engage you on that topic, ultimately to discuss the many "mistakes" made by the DPD in its "investigation" and not identified by Nifong.
However, as expected, you declined. You prefer only to state your conclusions, not to debate them. Other posters are unwilling to accept your terms of debate: anything you say must be accepted as true unless it can be proven that it cannot possibly be true, and anything your opponent says must be accepted as false unless it can be proven that it cannot possibly be false.
Who is the troll?
Court appointed attorneys aren't "unenthusiastic." They do the job because it's what they want. No one with any knowledge faults the defense for crystal. On self-defense, the only criticism is that he didn't call his client a liar on the stand or introduce inadmissible records. Self defense was fought vigorously - and was the only chance at NG.
On the medical, even the defense expert said Sid is wrong - and while Kenny and Sid don't think anyone asked Dr. Roberts or others how their testimony would have gone, and realized it was not helpful.
You are an idiot and delusional Kenny and claim to know Crystal but haven't provided any proof and have zero credibility.
Sid:
Any update on when you expect Mangum to be released and exonerated?
"On self-defense, the only criticism is that he didn't call his client a liar on the stand or introduce inadmissible records."
Kenny also criticized the failure to aggressively cross-examine Daye.
Sid is lying tonCrystal. There is nothing "immediate" to get her exonerated and released. Watch the news ... When people are freed it is after filings and hearings - none of which are in place for Crystal - which is also why Sid claims he can tell us, but won't.
Classic brainwashing - h lies to her and plays up her hopes to keep manipulating her. He is a despicable human being.
If you have real information - share it. Otherwise you are just proving it's another tool of manipulation.
Discrepancies and inconsistencies in Daye's self serving statement were never forcefully pointed out to the jury. Break virtually admits to being a troll himself by confessing he adopted a new persona which, he claims, had the sole purpose of sarcastically mocking Dr. Harr, in order to determine his ability to discern genuine encouragement and help from mockery. Of course, Guiowen, the unrelenting practitioner of cruel sarcasm was the first to catch on and vicariously applaud. Crystal's appeal in being considered tomorrow by The North Carolina Appeal Court. Unfortunately the only issue being considered is the testimony of Milton Walker.
Tomorrow, incidently, being the 23rd anniversary of Ice Cube's Good Day.
Enjoy!
Are you and Sid gonna be there to offer support?
Kenny,
Please take some advice from someone who doesn't care what happens to you or Crystal. Explain to her, if you really are her friend, that she has to mend her ways and stop attacking anyone who says or does something she doesn't like. Maybe the next time she's out, she'll be able to live properly.
I realize you won't take my advice. Tant pis.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
All the letters you have written this month are very interesting and well written. Thank you for posting them and keeping us informed. Hopefully you can provide copy's and an equivalent of the sharlogs to Ms. Mangum as well as soon as possible to keep her fully informed of that which you are attempting to accomplish on her behalf and in assistance of her defense, etc..
I hope that she is well and is able to 'fight the good fight' as she can, and that your assistance is indeed directed with success at the cause of winning her freedom and righting the true wrongs that exist in this state that have the potential to negatively effect all citizens and visitors to the state in ways that include wrongful death. In addition, we all wish well for your continued speedy recovery and healing.
The article by the New York Times columnist about the death of Tamir Rice was very moving and dead on indeed. Hopefully he can assist in Ms. Mangum's and the people of this state's right to justice and sound judicial and medical systems (even if it Does have Duke in it). That would be great indeed to see, especially if it could help open the eyes of those involved in this case both judicially and medically to the importance of providing a more sound system for ALL 'the people'!
Thank you for keeping us informed of his and all others' responses to these issues and your letters, if any.
I do send copies of most letters to Crystal to reinforce her mind with what I consider to be important aspects of it. I am hopeful that Charles Blow will get involved or at least respond to me, but I am not really optimistic about it. Unfortunately many writers talk big, but then do nothing.
I just finished mailing a letter to the chairman of the Public Defender Committee on Racial Inequity James E. Williams, Jr. An Orange County public defender, he spoke up recently at a MLK rally. I will post the four-paged letter I sent him no later than tomorrow.
I also plan on uploading correspondence in a retrograde fashion and also indicating on the calendar my other activities in addition to communications.
Thanks for your well wishes.
Anonymous said...
I find it funny that neither Sid, nor Kenny, have ever provided proof that they are speaking on behalf of Crystal, or that she remotely supports their efforts. We do know that before the trial, Crystal cut Sid off, and we know he claims to have exchanged letters with her - but he admits he's done a lot she doesn't know about.
In addition, for all his claims of transparency, he refuses to put any of those letters online.
Same with Kenny - he claims to be a good friend of Crystal, but doesn't indicate he's spoken with her recently, and while he demands her attorney speak with him, he only does it on a blog that no one reads, and the attorney probably never sees, and he won't contact him directly, nor get proof that Crystal has authorized her attorney to discuss the case with him.
I suspect they are both just making it up, and Crystal knows they are ruining her life - but they don't care. They are just using her like too many other have.
If you have proof she supports your efforts - provide it, otherwise I will assume you are acting either without her knowledge or contrary to her wishes.
I don't purport to speak for Crystal. I speak about the injustice towards Crystal. Why should she object to kenhyderal, me, or anyone doing something in her best interests? It surely beats doing nothing... which is what her attorneys have done for her. And the media has suppressed the truth about her and her case.
Anonymous said...
Sid:
Any update on when you expect Mangum to be released and exonerated?
Although I do not have any firsthand knowledge, it is my understanding that some Appeals Court event will transpire some time this week.
Anonymous said...
Are you and Sid gonna be there to offer support?
Be where? Naturally, I will offer support whenever I can.
CORRECTION: James E. Williams, Jr. is the chairman of the Public Defender Committee on Racial Equity... not Inequity.
My bad.
Although I do not have any firsthand knowledge, it is my understanding that some Appeals Court event will transpire some time this week.
Yes, as has been noted in the media, and on this blog in the comments - today is the "hearing" on her appeal - the one file by Anne Peterson. There is no oral argument, it will be decided on the briefs.
A decision should come within 90 days or so.
But, the best the Court of Appeals can do is order a new trial - so if that's what you think would lead to exoneration, you are an idiot and haven't been listening.
And, if she gets a new trial - lucky for her, her worst case is this sentence - she would go on trial for 2nd Degree and Manslaughter - because the Jury unanimously found it was not 1st Degree Murder, she cannot be retried on that.
Guiowen said: " Explain to her, if you really are her friend, that she has to mend her ways and stop attacking anyone who says or does something she doesn't ............. What needs mending is not Crystal but the disgraced and broken North Carolina Justice System
.
What needs to be explained to her is that if you stab someone, you need to focus on self-defense to win, not some pie-in-the-sky conspiracy.
Y'all are sad.
In this instance we're talking about the erroneous charge of murder
Had she prevailed on self-defense, it would have gone away. Problem is, Sid convinced her that there was some issue with Felony Murder (there wasn't), and that the only way to a NG was his conspiracy theory.
The only way to a NG was self-defense. Absent that, she was at least looking at manslaughter.
"In this instance we're talking about the erroneous charge of murder"
There was no erroneous charge of murder. As has been detailed ad nauseum, the ME, Dr. Nichols, and the defense's own medical expert, Dr. Roberts, BOTH confirmed that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound to the chest.
Sid and Kenny did (and continue to do) a huge disservice to Crystal by calling the murder charges a "mistake" and telling her not to focus on the best defense to them (self-defense), but instead to cling to their delusions that they will magically go away.
Had Crystal prevailed on self-defense (which was pushed, despite what Sid and Kenny claim), she'd be a free woman, "false" charges or not.
If she gets a new trial - self-defense is still her best bet. Putting Dr. Roberts on the stand to say the autopsy was flawed, but she agrees with the conclusion is the dumbest thing she can do - but what Sid and Kenny have apparently convinced her needs to happen.
Again, with friends like Sid and Kenny, Crystal doesn't need more enemies - she has plenty.
Anonymous said: " BOTH confirmed that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound to the chest"....................And those complications were? Some unspecified condition discovered at autopsy but not documented? Dr. Nichols was never examined about Daye's probable alcoholism and if treatment for alcohol withdrawal and impending delirium tremens took him into an ICU where medical malpractice killed him rather then complications from a surgically repaired knife wound. Were there any records or tests that show there was an intra-abdominal post surgical infection happening?.
Again, just because you haven't been provided the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. I love how you just assume that none of the Defense Attorneys considered asking Dr. Roberts that, and knew her answer would be very unhelpful to Crystal. Dr. Roberts herself met with Crystal and said her testimony would be damaging to Crystal.
You and Sid claim she, and the attorneys, were all lying as part of some vast conspiracy, and yet somehow, magically, if Dr. Roberts was put on the stand, she'd crumble and expose the whole conspiracy.
Perhaps you and Sid are wrong, and there isn't a vast conspiracy - it's just no one cares enough about you and Sid to fill you in on the details.
Proximate cause, bitch.
Look it up.
kenny:
Have you or Sid found a medical expert willing to testify that Mr. Daye died of something other than complications from the stab wound? Until you do, that finding stands.
@ Anonymous 10:42 Dr. Roberts refused to provide Crystal with a copy of her review of Dr. Nichols' autopsy until ordered by the Court to do so. Her report confirmed much of what Dr.Harr had been saying all along. What she found had to be expanded on by cross-examination, under oath, so the Jury could take it into consideration on proximate cause. No conspiracy, only a misplaced desire, by Roberts, to mitigate criticism of her colleague Dr. Nichols at the expense of a poor single mother
@ Lance: I'm sorry Lance I directed my reply at 10:37 to Anonymous. I'm so used to being accosted by anonymous posters that I missed it was your post
kenny:
You still ignore the fact that Dr. Roberts concluded that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from Mangum's stab wound. Is it your hope that Dr. Roberts would have changed her conclusion on cross examination? Have you or Sidney found a medical expert to refute Dr. Roberts' and Dr. Nichols' conclusions that Mangum's stab wound was the legal and proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death?
So, Kenny and Sidney
What happened in Mangum's appeal today? Did you both attend?
goodbye little kenhyderal
hey kenny
who's your daddy?
Kenny - you are a fucking idiot and a disgrace - you price to with every post - you need to listen to Mark Twain - better to keep your mouth shut and let them assume than open your mouth and remove all doubt. You are a coward and an idiot. Keep hiding behind blog posts and not try to find answers. We all know you are a joke. I assume you know it to.
Anonymous said "I price to with every post".............. Huh???. I, Kenneth D. Edwards, am not hiding. Like Dr. Sidney B Harr I stand on the side of Justice. What are the answers to which you refer? If you are not afraid tell us your name.
Kenny wants to know my name.
I am John D. Smith from New York, New York.
There. Are you satisfied?
Nifong Supporter said...
CORRECTION: James E. Williams, Jr. is the chairman of the Public Defender Committee on Racial Equity... not Inequity.
My bad.
My double-bad. Actually had it right the first time... it should be "Inequity." Sorry about any confusion.
Anonymous said...
Although I do not have any firsthand knowledge, it is my understanding that some Appeals Court event will transpire some time this week.
Yes, as has been noted in the media, and on this blog in the comments - today is the "hearing" on her appeal - the one file by Anne Peterson. There is no oral argument, it will be decided on the briefs.
A decision should come within 90 days or so.
But, the best the Court of Appeals can do is order a new trial - so if that's what you think would lead to exoneration, you are an idiot and haven't been listening.
And, if she gets a new trial - lucky for her, her worst case is this sentence - she would go on trial for 2nd Degree and Manslaughter - because the Jury unanimously found it was not 1st Degree Murder, she cannot be retried on that.
The latest that I heard, and not from an authenticated authorized source, is that by the end of this week there would be a revelation about Mangum's appeal.
Anonymous said...
What needs to be explained to her is that if you stab someone, you need to focus on self-defense to win, not some pie-in-the-sky conspiracy.
Y'all are sad.
It's no pie-in-the-sky when the stab wound is not the proximate cause of Daye's death or his brain death. The esophageal tube is what was responsible for Daye's death... plain and simple.
Lance the Intern said...
"In this instance we're talking about the erroneous charge of murder"
There was no erroneous charge of murder. As has been detailed ad nauseum, the ME, Dr. Nichols, and the defense's own medical expert, Dr. Roberts, BOTH confirmed that Mr. Daye died as a result of complications from a stab wound to the chest.
Lance,
Mangum not only had a turncoat defense attorney but a turncoat medical expert... that's why she got convicted. Despite being a turncoat, Dr. Roberts' testimony would have been more of a positive than negative... even if she did her best to skew it.
Anonymous said...
Again, just because you haven't been provided the answers doesn't mean they don't exist. I love how you just assume that none of the Defense Attorneys considered asking Dr. Roberts that, and knew her answer would be very unhelpful to Crystal. Dr. Roberts herself met with Crystal and said her testimony would be damaging to Crystal.
You and Sid claim she, and the attorneys, were all lying as part of some vast conspiracy, and yet somehow, magically, if Dr. Roberts was put on the stand, she'd crumble and expose the whole conspiracy.
Perhaps you and Sid are wrong, and there isn't a vast conspiracy - it's just no one cares enough about you and Sid to fill you in on the details.
The details are in the prosecution discovery... in particular the medical records. Without doubt, turncoat Roberts and Vann tried to convince Mangum that the stab wound was responsible for Daye's death, but yet they held back on providing her with a written report... until absolutely forced to do so after the trial had already gotten underway.
The latest that I heard, and not from an authenticated authorized source, is that by the end of this week there would be a revelation about Mangum's appeal.
So, some random person is telling you something will happen this week, and you think that means something?
So who is this unauthorized person, and what do they say will happen?
You know the COA can only order a new trial, right? They can't dismiss the charges.
Sid's had "sources" before.
I have asked previously -- Can anyone cite an instance where Sid's "sources" have actually given him a truthful "revelation"?
Sid has a way of embellishing and distorting facts and interpreting things to mean what he wants/wishes them to mean. Someone probably mentioned that the COA was going to consider Mangum's appeal this week and Sid expounded on that and reported it as something much more significant.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. No one who matters takes anything Sid says seriously.
They did consider her appeal, on Tuesday, January 20. It's all online, and on their docket sheet. You can see the Judges who were on the panel and everything. Their decision will come down within a few months. She will either get a new trial, or she won't. If they deny her, she can try to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they grant a new trial, she will be sent back to Durham for a new trial (she will get a Bond hearing), and in that new trial the State would not be allowed to introduce the 404(b) evidence.
It scares me how Sid thinks that Dr. Roberts would "help more than she'd hurt" Crystal and should testify. She'd sink Crystal - she said it, the attorneys have all said it. Sid has no expert to back up his version - the experts who have reviewed everything dispute his version, yet he says put them on the stand anyway and call them turncoats and traitors.
His problem is he has a vendetta against Duke, and would sacrifice Crystal to see some payback.
There was an editorial by one of the directors of the Duke Alumni Association in the N and O today who said the motto of Duke was "knowledge and religion". So ... why wouldn't duke want known what they themselves document in their own medical records in order for the jury to give a more accurate judgement based upon the known facts in this case versus the unknowing verdict that they delivered based upon the preceedings and evidence actually presented in the trial that willfully lacked full known facts favorable to the defense?
Seems like duke somewhere along the way has taken a turn upon their mottoed path and been led astray by the Saudi Islam backed CIA to fulfill it's self-appointed destiny of 'knowledge and religion'? ???
A person's medical records are confidential and protected by state and federal law. Duke isn't going to share to give someone else's confidential medical records to every crank with a conspiracy theory.
In any event, Mangum's attorneys had those records. They had a chance to seek a second opinion. They did. There was a trial in open court. The fact you don't like the outcome doesn't create a controversy for Duke and does not authorize them to violate HIPPA laws in order to prove something to you and Sid.
They need to prove it to a jury of peers at the least is my point and opinion, one which is backed by law and supportive of the tenents of knowledge (ie. - known facts, even if favorable to the defense) and justice, truth, law and religious type goodness and civil rights.
But, like I was saying, duke seems to have strayed upon its mottoed path.
Anonymous said:
"They need to prove it to a jury of peers at the least is my point and opinion, one which is backed by law and supportive of the tenents of knowledge (ie. - known facts, even if favorable to the defense) and justice, truth, law and religious type goodness and civil rights."
Almost everyone agrees that is what happened here.
There is no serious controversy whatsoever surrounding Mangum's arrest, the charges against her, her trial, or her sentence. The fact you, Sid, kenny and Tinfoil disagree with the outcome does not create a bonafide controversy or entitle you to anything.
This was an open and shut case. Mangum had her day in court. She lost. She was sentenced appropriately. The world has moved on.
Seriously, you just make duke look even worse by your 'the world has moved on' insistance while the case is still being fought in the appeals court (and beyond if necessary).
Like they did the entire case and trial - duke just totally ignored that they killed Mr. Daye with malpractice, and are counting on everyone else to do the same in order to get away with it and continue to frame Ms. Mangum for the death they caused that she holds absolutely no quilt for as she too had to deal with Mr. Daye's drinking and agitated behavior issues - so if nothing else - both should be judged based on that and what they personally did when confronted with it in this case.
Your trolling 'bout duke's strategy just make it's even more obvious - but thanks for pointing it out once again.
Anonymous said...
So who is this unauthorized person, and what do they say will happen?
You know the COA can only order a new trial, right? They can't dismiss the charges.
Actually, I didn't know that because I am not a lawyer, nor have I had any legal training.
Anyway, thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind.
Anonymous said...
They did consider her appeal, on Tuesday, January 20. It's all online, and on their docket sheet. You can see the Judges who were on the panel and everything. Their decision will come down within a few months. She will either get a new trial, or she won't. If they deny her, she can try to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they grant a new trial, she will be sent back to Durham for a new trial (she will get a Bond hearing), and in that new trial the State would not be allowed to introduce the 404(b) evidence.
I couldn't find anything on line with regards to the Court of Appeal taking any action on January 20th. Could you send a link? Thanks.
Anonymous said...
It scares me how Sid thinks that Dr. Roberts would "help more than she'd hurt" Crystal and should testify. She'd sink Crystal - she said it, the attorneys have all said it. Sid has no expert to back up his version - the experts who have reviewed everything dispute his version, yet he says put them on the stand anyway and call them turncoats and traitors.
His problem is he has a vendetta against Duke, and would sacrifice Crystal to see some payback.
You're so wrong. First, I have no vendetta against Duke. Duke has a vendetta against me for being a Nifong-supporter. That was what initiated the discrimination against me in April 2010. Not only that, how would "sacrificing" Crystal result in payback against Duke. Your logic is twisted, at best.
Anonymous said...
Seriously, you just make duke look even worse by your 'the world has moved on' insistance while the case is still being fought in the appeals court (and beyond if necessary).
Like they did the entire case and trial - duke just totally ignored that they killed Mr. Daye with malpractice, and are counting on everyone else to do the same in order to get away with it and continue to frame Ms. Mangum for the death they caused that she holds absolutely no quilt for as she too had to deal with Mr. Daye's drinking and agitated behavior issues - so if nothing else - both should be judged based on that and what they personally did when confronted with it in this case.
Your trolling 'bout duke's strategy just make it's even more obvious - but thanks for pointing it out once again.
Anonymous, you are absolutely correct. Daye's death was do to malpractice by Duke with the esophageal intubation. Mangum is unjustly saddled with his death because the attorneys from both sides are concealing the truth about Daye's death from the courts.
Why does the court need attorneys to point out to them what is wrong with this case? You document on your blog that the you have sent information and medical analysis of the records that are readily available for anyone to review and see the discrepancies easily. The DA, SBI, AG and any other various court official could do something about this case without having to play the attorney / duke ignore the evidence game. So why do they? Can they not be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) in this case?
Dr. Harr,
There is no Jan. 22, 2015 letter in your sharlog to Mr. Ballentine that I see.
Anonymous at 4:14 PM wrote: "This was an open and shut case. Mangum had her day in court. She lost. She was sentenced appropriately. The world has moved on."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "I didn't know that because I am not a lawyer, nor have I had any legal training."
Nor are you willing to learn the law.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "Anonymous, you are absolutely correct. Daye's death was do to malpractice by Duke with the esophageal intubation." No, it was not. Daye's death was caused by a stab wound at the hands of Crystal Mangum. Her own expert wrote that. The State's own medical examiner testified to that.
"Mangum is unjustly saddled with his death because the attorneys from both sides are concealing the truth about Daye's death from the courts."
As you wrote above, you are not a lawyer, nor do you have any legal training. Further, you have persistently refused to pay any attention to those who do. However, none of the lawyers have concealed anything. You don't understand, or don't want to understand proximate cause is far different from lawyers concealing anything.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
There is no Jan. 22, 2015 letter in your sharlog to Mr. Ballentine that I see.
My bad. I forgot to let you know where that letter could be found. Realized this after I got home, so I returned to library to rectify. The letter can be found on December 30, 2014.
Thanks for alerting me of the problem.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I didn't know that because I am not a lawyer, nor have I had any legal training."
Nor are you willing to learn the law.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, I also forgot to mention that I have been banned access to the law libraries in the city... they're reserved only for attorneys.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Anonymous, you are absolutely correct. Daye's death was do to malpractice by Duke with the esophageal intubation." No, it was not. Daye's death was caused by a stab wound at the hands of Crystal Mangum. Her own expert wrote that. The State's own medical examiner testified to that.
"Mangum is unjustly saddled with his death because the attorneys from both sides are concealing the truth about Daye's death from the courts."
As you wrote above, you are not a lawyer, nor do you have any legal training. Further, you have persistently refused to pay any attention to those who do. However, none of the lawyers have concealed anything. You don't understand, or don't want to understand proximate cause is far different from lawyers concealing anything.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, as I have repeatedly mentioned, Mangum's so-called "expert witness" Dr. Christena L. Roberts was a turncoat just like Mangum's attorney Daniel Meier. That should explain things perfectly.
Anonymous at 9:47 AM wrote: "Why does the court need attorneys to point out to them what is wrong with this case?"
Because that's how the system operates. The Court of Appeals hears cases appealing from lower court verdicts and decisions. The lawyers for each side point out errors and explain why the court below should be reversed. The appealling party (in this case Crystal) has every incentive to get her side of the case in front of the COA because her freedom is resting on the outcome of the appeal. The state has a good set of incentives too.
"[Sid] [y]ou document on your blog that the you have sent information and medical analysis of the records that are readily available for anyone to review and see the discrepancies easily."
Sid has not sent those to the Court of Appeals because he is not a lawyer and he is not the lawyer of record for Crystal. To do so would violate the restraining order he is under for illegally practicing law earlier in the case. Of course, every lawyer, and judge who has seen Sid's analysis has reached the same conclusion. He's wrong. Wrong on the law and probably wrong about the facts.
" The DA, SBI, AG and any other various court official could do something about this case without having to play the attorney / duke ignore the evidence game."
No one, least of all the DA has ignored any evidence. In fact, the DA produced the evidence needed to convict. Crystal obtained evidence that confirmed the DA's evidence. She, unwisely, decided to share that evidence with Sid who told the world and of course the DA. The S.B.I. is an investigatory agency. They investigate and make the D.A. aware of their findings. I am not aware that the S.B.I. was involved in Crystal's case. The Attorney General is representing the State of North Carolina against Crystal in her appeal. If you bothered to RTFF, you would know this and even find links to the State's brief signed by the appropriate Deputy Attorney General. I think it is safe to say the AG knows the facts of the case very well and is acting accordingly.
" So why do they? Can they not be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) in this case?"
See above. Are you claiming the Attorney General is somehow violating the rules of professional conduct? If so, which one[s] and how? But, the short answer to your question is yes, the Attorney General can be held accountable. The mechanism to do that is through the rules of professional conduct. So, tell us which rule is he violating and how.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: Walt, as I have repeatedly mentioned, Mangum's so-called "expert witness" Dr. Christena L. Roberts was a turncoat just like Mangum's attorney Daniel Meier. That should explain things perfectly."
That's your problem Sid. You have to explain everything by accusing people of lying. Roberts confirmed the Medical Examiner's findings. The M.E. saw the body, he had the opportunity, the training and the expertise to make a diagnosis. That they disagree with you is not evidence of being a turncoat. Rather, it is evidence that two professionals have independently reached the same correct conclusion. You never saw the body, you never treated Daye, you are not a licensed physician in N.C. You are not a pathologist. You lack the training, let alone experience, to make a diagnosis. You are an untrained advocate. And, you have reached an erroneous conclusion based on your obvious bias.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "Walt, I also forgot to mention that I have been banned access to the law libraries in the city... they're reserved only for attorneys."
Letting you in would do no good. You have refused to learn anything about the law. Further, there's this thing called the internet that gives you access to a great deal of law. Again, you have refused to learn. With you, it's not about access to information, it's about your unwillingness to learn.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, the defense medical examiner report supports what Dr. Harr has been saying all along. Her findings need to be questioned and presented in a trial. Her understanding of the law needs to be questioned as well since just the fact that Mr. Daye was in Duke hospital is NOT reason enough to blame him or anyone else for Duke's malpractice. If Mr. Daye bled out (or something) because the damage from the knife wound was so major that there was no way to stop him from dying due to the knife wound that is one thing. But for him to have a successful operation to fix the damage caused by the knife wound, and then have duke intubate him to death during a test for delirium tremens (or whatever) is in NO way caused by the knife wound itself. It was caused solely and purely from duke's intubation malpractice, which had nothing to do with the knife wound and everything to do with duke's faulty and deadly medical services provided to Mr. Daye. Did duke take responsibility for the malpractice at all?
You assume that Dr. Roberts wasn't asked those questions - again, if she was (and everything but Sid's paranoia points to the fact she was), and she could create the nexus between the stab wound and the death, and the DTs, and the rest, putting her on the stand would have sunk Crystal.
Also, Sid knows that Courts aren't going to look to websites for information. They only deal with what is in front of them, and he's smart enough to not risk jail by violating the Order on practicing law without a license.
You know he's a joke when he makes excuses for everything, and if you show he's wrong, it's because the other person is lying.
As for him saying he didn't know when the appeal was, and what it meant, and the rest - sure he did - he's read the blog posts here, and even commented on them. He either refuses to learn, or is incapable of learning, because a lot of what he was just saying he learned has been explained to him many times.
The link to the Court of Appeals Docket Sheet has also been provided, which showed the panel and date, Crystal's appeal was heard. The opinion will come out in a few month.
Let's see if Sid's source is right and "something" else happens this week. You'd be better off betting on the snowball in hell than Sid and his predicitons.
So what? Like you said, Dr. Harr is not a lawyer. His crime would be if he were leading Ms. Mangum on to believe that she shouldn't be standing up for herself every step of the way in this case (versus waiting for him to perform a miracle outside the court to win her freedom independent of what she herself needs to do in order to assist in her own defense in this case).
Do you have to possibly go to duke for emergency medical services knowing that they killed Mr. Daye and never took responsibility for it, thereby framing Ms. Mangum for the death caused by their avoidable and preventable malpractice? If not, then you probably have no idea what it really means to watch what duke and the justice system does in this case.
You are an idiot.
There is no other way to say it. You are a complete and total idiot.
We all lose IQ points every time you crawl out of your hole, take off your tinfoil hat, and post.
You really should stop - but I guess you need the world to be as dumb as you.
How could you lose IQ points by reading a post on a blog?
Can you also gain IQ points by reading a post on a blog?
Walt,
What proof do you have that Mr. Daye's deceased body was even examined by the medical examiners?
Can we agree that the endo-tracheal tube wrongly placed in the esophagus and not recognized in a timely fashion, that led to Mr. Daye's anoxia and subsequent cardiac arrest and brain death, constituted medical malpractice? Then, all we need to determine is what brought him into the ICU. Was it complications of the stab wound or something altogether unrelated like acute delirium tremens. If so, Welch does not apply. It's not good enough just to say his alcoholic withdrawal symptoms occurred because Crystal's wound sent him to hospital. There must be a complication related to his treatment for the stab wound. Dr. Nicholls said there was but he was unable or unwilling to specify what it was; probably because he doesn't know. Dr. Roberts concurred with his opinion but was not questioned as to whether it was possible a post surgical complication may not have been present. It was left to the jury, unschooled in medical matters ,to decide without hearing evidence one way or the other.
Can we agree Kenny is as big of an idiot as Tin-foil and Sid, and has asked the same question many times, and has had it answered, and refuses to listen?
When you have to claim those who disagree with you are lying and traitors, you are wrong. Find an expert (Sid doesn't qualify).
The experts who looked at it found proximate cause.
You too are an idiot.
Oh, and I'm John A. Smith from NY.
Lying traitors? I asked if it has been agreed on that the esophageal intubation was medical malpractice. I wouldn't consider anyone who disagrees with that a lying traitor. I would just consider them in error. One of the experts who said there was proximate cause weighed and described a spleen that he now, adamantly, claims was not there. The other one was never examined about her conclusion
It still amazes me that you think the lawyers never asked her about her conclusion. She met with Crystal who asked about the conclusion. Again, you just assume no one asked her cause they haven't told you. I believe the lawyers did their jobs and asked her and knew she could answer and answer in such a way that it wouldn't have helped crystal.
They told her that, Dr Roberts told her that, you and Sid kept telling her everyone else was lying.
You are an idiot, so is sid.
Kenny - it's simple:
Dr. Roberts and all 4 of Crystal's attorneys, who had access to everything and the ability to talk outside of court with witnesses, etc., all said her testimony would be harmful to Crystal and told her that.
They were either all liars and turncoats, as you and Sid claim, or you and Sid were wrong and do a huge disservice to Crystal to keep filling her head with lies.
Do you think all 5 people were/are lying, or do you accept that you and Sid, without full knowledge and access, might be wrong?
It's one or the other. You may not understand it, but that's cause no one is bothering to explain it to you.
Are those 5 liars, or is there stuff you just don't know?
Kenny:
I agree that an uncorrected esophageal intubation constitutes malpractice and what required intubation may be important in determining Mangum's responsibility.
It is not clear what your objectives are.
If you are interested in academic debate with readers who lack sufficient information and expertise to provide valid answers, but only to express uninformed opinions, then you should proceed. Debate on this blog is irrelevant to the disposition of Mangum's case. She will remain in prison whether you are unsuccessful in convincing anyone or you are successful in convincing everyone. It doesn't matter.
If you seek to free her, debate is a waste of time. What you, Sidney, Walt, A Lawyer, other readers and I believe does not matter. You must produce an expert that death was not an indirect result of the stab wound. Only an expert can overcome the expert opinions by Nichols and Roberts heard at trial or available to the defense. Non-expert opinions have zero value. You must then engage counsel to evaluate the new evidence and file a new appeal.
This issue is not part of the current appeal.
John D. Smith
New York, NY
But try to understand
Try to understand
Try, try, try to understand
Ken's a magic man
@ John D. Smith: Yes Mr. Smith
you are completely correct. Unfortunately equal justice for the poor and for minorities does not prevail in North Carolina. Court appointed attorneys, for the indigent, most often give only a minimal and half-hearted defense. This is compounded by a fear of running afoul of a powerful Duke University and in Crystal's case a fear of the fanatical and single-minded Duke Lacrosse apologists whose avowed cause is to destroy the reputation of anyone who does not buy into the meta-narrative that scheming "femme-fatale" Crystal Mangum is an evil sorceress who set out to destroy angelic but vulnerable college boys and that she was abetted in this by former DA Nifong and for that both must be severely punished in order to avenge. The Court appointed Attorney Petersen chose to go for the easy grounds for Appeal, the inclusion of Milton Walker. It had already been raised by Attorney Meier in Court and Judge Ridgeway considered it and allowed it. Following up on Daye's treatment and alcoholism requiring Duke to come under scrutiny and possible censure will not be a undertaking many Court appointed Attorneys will be willing pursue. Hansen like Meier had all the information but out of reluctance to involve Duke chose to take the easy way out and if it is unsuccessful, oh well.
Dr. Harr,
Where is Mr. Daye's body now? Has it been buried? Is it sitting in a morgue somewhere awaiting the end of this trial/case?
How long was it until Dr. Roberts examined the body for her report? Did she indeed perform an autopsy, or did she simply complete the report based on Duke medical records in comparison to Dr. Nichols' reports?
Dr. Harr,
Would you agree that the reason the 404b evidence is what is being argued in the appeal is because either way, duke is put at risk. If a new trial is ordered based upon past actions not being allowed in trial, then great. If not though, anyone can use this case as an example of how duke does not take responsibility for their own malpractice and other legal issues that harms others, and this case and the lacrosse case as examples of how duke frames people with their medical services and administrative decisions and actions.
What do you think?
Kenny:
Although you did not directly clarify your objectives, your reply nevertheless makes them apparent.
Your primary objective is an academic debate with other readers, none of whom have access to all of the evidence and few of whom have any medical or legal expertise. As a result, all,of the opinions expressed in this debate will necessarily be uninformed.
In addition to a handful of facts, you arm yourself with assumptions as you craft a narrative for this debate. Additional tools are ad hominem attacks and hyperbole.
Obtaining Mangum's freedom is at best a secondary goal for you. While I am certain that you would like to see her freed, you are not willing or able to take any substantive action that might actually achieve that goal.
As you say, "oh well."
John D. Smith
New York, NY
For all the supposed fear of Duke, how do you explain that they are sued all the time and pay out millions in damages?
Oh, and there appears to be another rape case brewing.
Again, idiots, all of you - and your comments are proof you don't losten. You have to resort to "everyone else is lying, even though I have nothing but my fevered imagination to support my position."
And Kenny somehow thinks it's telling that none of Crystal's prior attorneys, or Dr. Roberts are responding to his blog posts. Kenny, it's not cause they don't have answers, it's because they likely don't read this blog, or if they do its for amusement, and they know it's a joke. Oh, and you have no right to the answers, and lawyers don't go running around discussing privileged information with people who aren't their clients and who don't have permission from their clients.
And your claim that crystal is no longer their client - privilege still holds.
From now on the easiest response to anything Kenny says, unless he finally adds something new, is easy: idiot.
Am I the only one who thinks that Sid keeps sending his letters and posting them because he wants to try and get someone to sue him for defamation?
The fact he is ignored by everyone he defames is just proof that no one takes him seriously, and he's smart enough to know that the antagonistic way he writes his letters will never get a response.
It's all showboating for him.
Anonymous at 10:29 PM wrote: "Where is Mr. Daye's body now? Has it been buried? Is it sitting in a morgue somewhere awaiting the end of this trial/case?"
Of course he was buried. Bodies are not preserved pending the outcome of trials.
"How long was it until Dr. Roberts examined the body for her report?"
If you bothered to RTFF, you would know she did a records review. Dr. Roberts never examined the body.
"Did she indeed perform an autopsy, or did she simply complete the report based on Duke medical records in comparison to Dr. Nichols' reports?"
Have you even RTFF?
Walt-in-Durham
wtf is rtff?
Kenny wrote: "The Court appointed Attorney Petersen chose to go for the easy grounds for Appeal, the inclusion of Milton Walker. It had already been raised by Attorney Meier in Court and Judge Ridgeway considered it and allowed it."
An appeal is not a new trial. It is to correct errors made by the trial court. Thus, the only issues available for appeal are those that are raised at trial.
" Following up on Daye's treatment and alcoholism requiring Duke to come under scrutiny and possible censure will not be a undertaking many Court appointed Attorneys will be willing pursue."
That would require evidence and law. The defense sought such evidence by asking for an independent expert to review the findings. The defense expert agreed with the Medical Examiner. The death was the result of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Absent any facts to work with, the defense needed law. Unfortunately for the defense, the well settled law in North Carolina, and the rest of the U.S. is a victim's pre-existing medical condition is not an intervening cause.
No facts on their side, and no law. Crystal wisely decided not to raise that issue at trial. Thus, it is not available on appeal.
Walt-in-Durham
yeah because she was standing there threatening to stab everyone if the medical technician, doctor, or whomever didn't intubate Mr. Daye to death ... that is the only way a stabbing could have been responsible for duke intubating the poor man to his brain death ...
Why would Dr. Nichols' lie about it on the autopsy report? Surely he read the Duke medical reports as part of the autopsy investigation. If intubation death is thought of as unavoidable consequence of the stab wound, wouldn't it have been so much simpler for Dr. Nichols' to just say that is what happened since that is what duke documents that is what they did? He doesn't even mention the intubation errors that caused brain death in his report. That in itself says that the intubation was 100% avoidable and preventable and NOT a result of the stab wound, but of duke's own faulty medical services.
Instead of insisting that the stab wound caused duke to intubate Mr. Daye to brain death Walt, see if you can find case law that says intubation errors that cause brain death are NOT considered 100% malpractice. Please give exact reference, and links if you site a case here for further blog discussion. Thanks.
Idiot. (Times 3 one for each comment.)
Dr. Harr,
What exactly was your lawsuit against the AG office? Didn't you show them the medical discrepancies and errors in Dr. Nichols' autopsy report compared to the Duke medical reports at that time?
How can either one of the lawyers leave out the details in their appeal briefs and submittals that is documented in the defense autopsy report and the duke medical reports that directly contradict the state's autopsy report, relying solely on a discredited and fired Dr. Nichol's report when it has been brought to their attention that it is a major problem and incorrect in this case?
What is the correct legal way to bring this to the attention of the appeal court judges ASAP?
How are these lawyers held accountable for their current actions in this case?
Idiot.
Every one of your questions has been answered repeatedly. You obviously don't like the answer, so you just keep asking the same shit over and over.
Dr. Harr can't send stuff to the Court - he knows that, he'd be violating the consent order, and in any event - everything you claim didn't happen, actually did - it's been reviewed - no one is saying esophageal intubation isn't malpractice - it may well be (it might not be), but even if it were, under applicable case law (repeatedly cited here) Mangum would still be liable.
Why not try to read responses for once, rather than just cry Duke Troll and repost the same shit over and over proving you are an idiot.
Idiot.
Mr. Smith said: " While I am certain that you would like to see her freed, you are not willing or able to take any substantive action that might actually achieve that goal'............."They have no bread? Let them eat cake" Getting Justice should not depend on one having sufficient resources to hire a "dream team"
Idiot.
No, but it does depend on having anything to actually support your views other than your uninformed belief.
Again, 4 lawyers, the doctor, and many others who looked at this case all came to conclusion X - a disgraced former physician and a bunch of idiots say they are all on the take and lying and scared of Duke (and still ignore that people sue Duke all the time).
Justice doesn't depend on resources, but it does depend on having something to argue.
You are still too afraid to get permission from Crystal to talk to her attorneys. It's funny. You clearly know you won't like the answer (you will just say they were lying).
Idiot.
Anonymous said...
Walt, the defense medical examiner report supports what Dr. Harr has been saying all along. Her findings need to be questioned and presented in a trial. Her understanding of the law needs to be questioned as well since just the fact that Mr. Daye was in Duke hospital is NOT reason enough to blame him or anyone else for Duke's malpractice. If Mr. Daye bled out (or something) because the damage from the knife wound was so major that there was no way to stop him from dying due to the knife wound that is one thing. But for him to have a successful operation to fix the damage caused by the knife wound, and then have duke intubate him to death during a test for delirium tremens (or whatever) is in NO way caused by the knife wound itself. It was caused solely and purely from duke's intubation malpractice, which had nothing to do with the knife wound and everything to do with duke's faulty and deadly medical services provided to Mr. Daye. Did duke take responsibility for the malpractice at all?
Thank you, Enlightened Commenter. I will plan on using your comment in future correspondence.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Walt, I also forgot to mention that I have been banned access to the law libraries in the city... they're reserved only for attorneys."
Letting you in would do no good. You have refused to learn anything about the law. Further, there's this thing called the internet that gives you access to a great deal of law. Again, you have refused to learn. With you, it's not about access to information, it's about your unwillingness to learn.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, whether or not I would benefit from using the law library is irrelevant. Is there any reason you can come up with for restricting law libraries to use by attorneys only? Even restricting it from Pro Se litigants?
Online sources for case law cost money, and are not accessible if you don't have internet at home.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
Where is Mr. Daye's body now? Has it been buried? Is it sitting in a morgue somewhere awaiting the end of this trial/case?
How long was it until Dr. Roberts examined the body for her report? Did she indeed perform an autopsy, or did she simply complete the report based on Duke medical records in comparison to Dr. Nichols' reports?
I don't know what became of Daye's body. Dr. Roberts didn't get involved in the case until more than a year and a couple of months after Daye died. I don't believe Dr. Roberts examined the body... I believe that she just went over medical records and autopsy report that were present in the prosecution discovery (which is basically what I did).
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
Would you agree that the reason the 404b evidence is what is being argued in the appeal is because either way, duke is put at risk. If a new trial is ordered based upon past actions not being allowed in trial, then great. If not though, anyone can use this case as an example of how duke does not take responsibility for their own malpractice and other legal issues that harms others, and this case and the lacrosse case as examples of how duke frames people with their medical services and administrative decisions and actions.
What do you think?
It's hard for me to figure out what Ann Petersen is doing in the appeal. Other than the medical malpractice issues and perjured testimony and fraudulent autopsy report, it seems to me that the best appeals avenue would be "ineffective counsel." However, Ms. Petersen is protecting Daniel Meier by not going there. Mangum's entire defense has been totally screwed up by her attorneys... and not by accident.
Anonymous said...
Why would Dr. Nichols' lie about it on the autopsy report? Surely he read the Duke medical reports as part of the autopsy investigation. If intubation death is thought of as unavoidable consequence of the stab wound, wouldn't it have been so much simpler for Dr. Nichols' to just say that is what happened since that is what duke documents that is what they did? He doesn't even mention the intubation errors that caused brain death in his report. That in itself says that the intubation was 100% avoidable and preventable and NOT a result of the stab wound, but of duke's own faulty medical services.
Another insightful comment that people who do not visit this blog site are unaware because of selective suppression of the news by the mainstream media.
Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,
What exactly was your lawsuit against the AG office? Didn't you show them the medical discrepancies and errors in Dr. Nichols' autopsy report compared to the Duke medical reports at that time?
How can either one of the lawyers leave out the details in their appeal briefs and submittals that is documented in the defense autopsy report and the duke medical reports that directly contradict the state's autopsy report, relying solely on a discredited and fired Dr. Nichol's report when it has been brought to their attention that it is a major problem and incorrect in this case?
What is the correct legal way to bring this to the attention of the appeal court judges ASAP?
How are these lawyers held accountable for their current actions in this case?
In the summer of 2012 or 2013, I'm not sure which, I sent the Attorney General's Office a 32 page document expressing in detail the problems with the autopsy report. I never received a reply. In my lawsuit against Duke University, I added the Attorney General's Office stating that as a Nifong Supporter, I was disadvantaged unfairly with regards to my First Amendment Rights.
The lawyers on both sides get around explaining the true facts of Daye's death by quoting statements and testimony made by Dr. Nichols... a prime example being in the 12-30-14 letter to Grady Balentine that is posted under Corresponding for Justice.
ADDENDUM to above comment: By quoting Nichols, the lawyers can mislead the Court and yet be free of perjury or lying.
Anonymous said...
"yeah because she was standing there threatening to stab everyone if the medical technician, doctor, or whomever didn't intubate Mr. Daye to death ..."
That's not as far fetched a scenario as it might seem, given who you are talking about. Fortunately Mangum was in jail at the time.
Anonymous at 7:46 AM wrote: " Walt, see if you can find case law that says intubation errors that cause brain death are NOT considered 100% malpractice."
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Remember when your teachers told you there were no bad questions? Well, your teacher was kidding you. If you would RTFF, you would know this has been discussed at length. Medical Malpractice is not an intervening cause. Thus you get the buzzer for a bad question. Go try reading sometime. Then come back with an intelligent question or at least a well reasoned one.
Walt-in-Durham
Post a Comment