justice4nifong: Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

kenhyderal said...: I get clones like Robert David Johnson (alias KC) and Hershel Parker alias (Payback;shades of Rae Evans) mixed up. Both of them are motivated by Trumpian like revenge and insecurities over perceived slights. Johnson's vendetta against President Brodhead was based on his failure to gain tenure which he attributed, not to his own deficiencies but to left leaning academics like Brodhead. Parker's over a critical review of his Melville biography.; January 30, 2017 at 1:24 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
In other words, you can't even keep track of your stories.
Come to think of it, you couldn't even remember things you wrote two years ago, and have no qualms about insulting people for quoting you.; January 30, 2017 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: That wasn't much of an apology.

If Johnson was out for revenge and viewed Brodhead as a symbol of the academics which made his tenure battle more difficult, why was his initial post largely favorable to Brodhead? Johnson was supportive of Brodhead's initial actions and statements. He grew critical as Brodhead's subsequent actions and statements failed to live up to the initial promise.

There aren't too many people who have come out of the current Duke controversy looking good, but there are two that have performed about as well as possible, it seems to me, under current circumstances. The first is the editor (and by extension, the reporters) of the Duke student newspaper, the Chronicle, whose coverage has been first-rate. As the Crimson demonstrated last spring during the Summers controversy, student newspapers with talented reporters can actually outperform the regular media on campus stories.

The second is Duke's president, Richard Brodhead. He--quite appropriately, it seems to me--suspended and then cancelled the lacrosse season; based on the most benign interpretations of their actions, many of the lacrosse players were guilty of conduct unbecoming university students and gravely embarrassing the school. He's reached out to students and administrators at NCCU.

A couple of nits regarding your post: (1) "KC" is more commonly referred to as a "nickname" rather than an "alias" and (2) Johnson was granted tenure when he appealed the initial rejection due to a "lack of collegiality" cited by the committee; your characterization of his "failure to gain tenure" thus is any best misleading.

You indicated that you believe his coverage of the Duke lacrosse case was" false and misleading." Please share specific statements of John son's (not those of his "surrogates:) that you find "false and misleading." Please provide specific evidence that supports your allegations that those specific statements re "false and misleading."

I note that Johnson's failure to discuss your ridiculous hypothesis that Magnum was raped at the party by an unknown number of mystery rapists does not constitute "false and misleading" commentary.; January 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: KC Johnson gained tenure at CUNY. A number of distinguished scholars from the CUNY institutions recommended him for tenure, and it was unanimously approved by the CUNY Board of Trustees.

Seems you're trying to generate a few alternative facts, Kenny...; January 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I get clones like Robert David Johnson (alias KC) and Hershel Parker alias (Payback;shades of Rae Evans) mixed up. Both of them are motivated by Trumpian like revenge and insecurities over perceived slights. Johnson's vendetta against President Brodhead was based on his failure to gain tenure which he attributed, not to his own deficiencies but to left leaning academics like Brodhead."

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Johnson:

Brodhead had nothing to do with KC Johnson's tenure battle at Brooklyn College.Brodhead was at Yale at the time(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Brodhead).

"Parker's over a critical review of his Melville biography."

Other than a review of KC Johnson's outstanding Until Proven Innocent, Hershel Parker had really no involvemrnt inthe Duke Rape Hoax and the reaction to it.

Where do you come up with your delusions(a previous delusion that Nifong did not charge the Lacrosse Players with rape). Regardless of from where ever you derive your delusions, you show only 1) you are incredibly stupid and 2) you do not comprehend the truth; January 30, 2017 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 2:21pm stated: "you [Kenny] show only 1) you are incredibly stupid and 2) you do not comprehend the truth"

I disagree.

Kenny is a troll. He is not stupid and he does comprehend the truth. His ridiculous statements and lies are designed only to provoke angry responses from other commenters. Please do not feed the troll.; January 30, 2017 at 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Speaking of your delusions, let's again bring up your claim unknown party attendees who were not Lacrosse team players raped Crystal.

You claimed an entity named kilgo told you a Lacrosse player told t told him he had witnessed non lacrosse players raping Crystal. You said kilgo made that claim in a post he made to J4N. Then you said, kilgo disappeared from J4N and deleted all his posts.

So you can not document kilgo or anyone else told you about unidentified party attendees.

Most likely this is another delusion you dreamed up from zero to support your delusion that Crystal had been raped.; January 30, 2017 at 2:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Kenny is a troll. He is not stupid and he does comprehend the truth. His ridiculous statements and lies are designed only to provoke angry responses from other commenters. Please do not feed the troll................... Brainwashed people label anyone a troll who does not buy the metanarrative they subscribe to. I joined this blog, I stumbled upon, to counteract lies told about a friend. One good outcome to this happenstance was that I introduced Crystal to Dr. Harr a seeker of justice and a man I admire.; January 30, 2017 at 4:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 30, 2017 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Brainwashed people label anyone a troll who does not buy the metanarrative they subscribe to. I joined this blog, I stumbled upon, to counteract lies told about a friend. One good outcome to this happenstance was that I introduced Crystal to Dr. Harr a seeker of justice and a man I admire."

Well, Kenny, the only lies told in the Duke Rape Hoax were, Crystal lied when she said she had been raped, and Nifong lied when he told the judge he had turned over all evidence to the defense.

And your statement, that Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players charged with rape, I do not believe you lied, but you sure were unaware of the actual truth.

So far as it being a good thing that you introduced Crystal to Sidney, all Sidney did for her was convince her she could beat the rap after she murdered Reginald Daye. You see where that got her, where she remains in spite of Sidney's boasting.; January 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 30, 2017 at 8:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: You indicated that you believe his coverage of the Duke lacrosse case was" false and misleading." Please share specific statements of John son's (not those of his "surrogates:) that you find "false and misleading." Please provide specific evidence that supports your allegations that those specific statements re "false and misleading. Here are 11, courtesy of Law Prof Brian Leiter http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2007/12/the-duke-lacros.html; January 30, 2017 at 8:55 PM
kenhyderal said...: This is also worth reading for those who lionize KC Johnson http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-17--1263-view-347; January 30, 2017 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"You indicated that you believe his coverage of the Duke lacrosse case was" false and misleading." Please share specific statements of John son's (not those of his "surrogates:) that you find "false and misleading." Please provide specific evidence that supports your allegations that those specific statements re "false and misleading. Here are 11, courtesy of Law Prof Brian Leiter http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2007/12/the-duke-lacros.html"

Kenny again shows he can not comprehend the truth.

Faculty members of Duke demonized the innocent men falsely accused of raping Crystal. Professor Johnson called them out and exposed their biases. And Kenny criticizes Professor Johnson for doing so.

So people criticize Professor Johnson. People criticized Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, President Obama, and even Jesus CHrist Himself.; January 31, 2017 at 2:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Ienhyderal:

I guess you will next assert that the demonstrations in which protertors presumed the Lacrosse players were guilty and calling for their castration, the guilt presuming demonstration by the New Black Panthers never took place.

The bottom line is, no crime never happened, Crystal lied about being raped, the gang of 88 statement was inflammatory and guilt presuming, the corrupt DA tried to convict them on order to get himself elected, and you condemn Professot Johnson for speaking out about iy.; January 31, 2017 at 2:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Saying that the Gang of 88 statement was merely an attempt to bring attention to problems of racism and sexism on Duke is like saying Trump's recent order on Immigration was merely an attempt to secure the nation's borders. The only racism and sexism manifested as a result of the Lacrosse party was the racism and sexism manifested by those who tried to use Crystal's false rape allegations to railroad the innocent Lacrosse payers into prison.; January 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Those references you cite DO claim the Gang of 88 statement had little to nothing to do with the false allegations leveled against the innocent, wrongfully accused Lacrosse players. It is like Sidney Harr trying to say his lawsuits against Duke had no connection to the Duke Rape Hoax. Or, for that matter, they are like the statements you have put on this Blog, that Nifong gid not have the Innocent Lacrosse players charged with rape.; January 31, 2017 at 2:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

This goes to yor credibility, or lack thereof. I refer again to the fact that the male DNA found Crystal did not match the DNA of those considered potential suspects, Again, check NC law on non testimonial orders. The requestor of the NTO must have probable cause to believe the subjects of the NTO could be suspects.

The male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of those designated by the NTO as possible suspects.

NC law required that the those subjected to the NTO be given a report of the results as soon as the report was available. Nifong had that report before he sought indictments against anyone. At the time he sought indictments, he was obligated to turn over the report to those against whom he sought indictments. Instead, months after he got the indictments, he turned over more than a thousand pages of raw data, and that was not done voluntarily. It was done in response to a court order.

You claim Nifong did not conceal the evidence.

Also, you have posted repeatedly that the Police investigation was botched, one reason being the identities of the men who had left their DNA on Crystal were never determined. It was pointed out to you that Nifong had custody of that DNA evidence and had made no attempt to identify the sources. Your response was, Nifong believed he could convict those indicted of sexual assault and kidnapping without DNA.

Your situation is summed up by a line from a Simon and Garfunkle tune, I think it was titled The Boxer: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

That also sums up the attitude of those who criticized Professor Johnson. So that you cite references to those critics is meaningless.; January 31, 2017 at 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 15 days until February 14th. You have 335 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 31 days since the end of 2016, 214 days since the end of June 2016, 282 days since April 24, 2016, 321 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,165 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,516 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,314 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 31, 2017 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal,

When asked to provide specific statements by KC Johnson regarding the Duke lacrosse case that were "false and misleading" and evidence to support your view that such statements were false and misleading, you linked to two critics who objected to Johnson's characterization of the advertisement endorsed by a number of Duke faculty. I assume that your failure to provide other specific examples as "false and misleading" means that you do not object to specific statements by Johnson related to Nifong's prosecution itself, Mangum's false accusation, the failed investigation undertaken by Gottlieb and Himan, and his characterization of the SANE exam and DNASI reports.; January 31, 2017 at 5:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Your assumptions are false.; January 31, 2017 at 4:27 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So what are you complaining about? What are your objections?; January 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: And, more importantly, what is the credible evidence that supports your objections? Your opinions are utterly worthless without credible evidence to support them.

You are open with your opinions. You refuse to provide credible evidence to support them.

Posters consider you to be a troll not because you disagree with their conclusions, but because you do so with no credible evidence to support your differences. You make no attempt to persuade--you seek only to annoy.; January 31, 2017 at 6:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You refuse to provide credible evidence to support them"........Any evidence I provide is automatically judged non-credible. For example three independent witnesses testify that Crystal arrived unimpaired. You offer two possible explanations, neither of which I find convincing. 1. The non-independent party guests say she arrived impaired. 2 The beer and Flexeril she took hours before suddenly kicked-in. This had been done before without such consequences. Fact: Dr. Manly saw a fluid on Crystal that looked like semen. Your explanations 1.It's possible that she had a suppurating vaginal infection. 2. No alkaline phosphatase was detected therefore there was no semen. This is not unusual in tests done long after the fact. Fact: DNA extracted from sperm and unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history was found. Your speculation without proof. Crystal lied about her consensual sexual history. Fact: Crystal had her money stolen from her purse while she was impaired. Your explanation is she failed to complete her performance and so the Players were entitled to steal the money. In legality there only recourse was a civil against the booking agency. And if she had been poisoned with a date-rape drug she was not responsible for her inability to perform. You consider your opinions as facts and mine as speculation. I get my information from a principal you get yours from Duke Lacrosse apologists and AG Cooper's conclusions presented without supporting documents about evidence they promise exonerated the Players; January 31, 2017 at 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 14 days until February 14th. You have 334 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 32 days since the end of 2016, 215 days since the end of June 2016, 283 days since April 24, 2016, 322 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,166 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,517 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,313 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 1, 2017 at 4:21 AM
guiowen said...: The trouble, Kenny, is that you tell so many lies, that you have no credibility.; February 1, 2017 at 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal(part2):

"Fact: Crystal had her money stolen from her purse while she was impaired. Your explanation is she failed to complete her performance and so the Players were entitled to steal the money. In legality there only recourse was a civil against the booking agency."

Irrelevant as to whether or not she had been raped..

"And if she had been poisoned with a date-rape drug she was not responsible for her inability to perform."

Presumes a fact not at all in evidence, that she was administered a date rape drug. You refer to Chloral Hydrate as a drug which acts quickly and is not detectable as evidence she was drugged. But you provide no facts to establish that the party attendees had any intention of drugging her, or that they had access to Chloral Hydrate, which is not a readily available drug. More speculation on your part. More speculation.

"You consider your opinions as facts and mine as speculation."

As I have established your so called facts ARE speculation. And, again, to quote Simon and Garfunkle, you, like corrupt DA Nifong, hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest.

"I get my information from a principal"

Who? Kilgo? You can not document that kilgo was a principal in the Duke Lacrosse incident. You can not document you actually got any information from kilgo in the first place, which suggests strongly this "information" is something you fabricated out of your desire to hear only what you want to hear. Nothing you have presented is credible.

"You get yours from Duke Lacrosse apologists"

It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt(your doubt does not even come close to being reasonable), that no rape ever took place. You have presented zero evidence, Ergo, there are no Duke "rape" apologists.

"and AG Cooper's conclusions presented without supporting documents about evidence they promise exonerated the Players"

Another iteration of what has been said on J$N that the Lacrosse players could prove they were innocent. Other iterations were: a statement Sidney once posted, that the DNA found on Crystal was not exculpatory because it did not prove that the Lacrosse players did not rape Crystal; and, no one ever proved that Crystal ever lied about being raped.

Kenhyderal, you seem to be unaware of the obligation of the prosecution to prove, and that is also part of the Canadian Justice System. No defendant is required to provide exonerating evidence. The Prosecution is obligated to provide incriminating evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened and that the accused were perpetrators. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED CRIME EVER HAPPENED!!! All your speculation, all your hearing only what you want to hear, much of it from an unreliable, non credible source, adds up to zero evidence that the crime ever happened.

Congratulations on your latest spectacular crash and burn..; February 1, 2017 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Originally posted as Kenhyderal(part 1):

Deleted because Sidney or Kenhyderal or both CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

"Anonymous said: "You refuse to provide credible evidence to support them"........Any evidence I provide is automatically judged non-credible."

Wrong on two counts. What you provide is speculation, not evidence, and speculation in not credible evidence.

"For example three independent witnesses testify that Crystal arrived unimpaired."

At least three other witnesses, who had no ulterior motives, testified Crystal was impaired when she arrived and was still impaired when she left. She was taken to the Durham Access Center hours after she left, indicating she was still impaired hours after she left.

"You offer two possible explanations, neither of which I find convincing."

So? Presumes two facts not in evidence, that what you can think and that what you try to pass off as thinking is significant.

"1. The non-independent party guests say she arrived impaired."

As nothing happened at the party(I remind you, you have provided zero evidence anything criminal did happen-we'll get to that later), the party guests had zero ulterior motivation for saying Crystal was impaired.

"2 The beer and Flexeril she took hours before suddenly kicked-in. This had been done before without such consequences."

This is the opinion of no clinical experience, no clinical training Kenhyderal. Experts with clinical training and expertise have said mixing alcohol and flexeril(and Crystal admitted to drinking 44 0unces of beer before taking flexeril) causes impairment. I repeat, witnesses say Crystal was impaired when she arrived and was still impaired when she left. That she was taken to the Durham Access center after she left indicated she was still impaired after she left, which is consistent with a mix of 44 ounces of beer and Flexeril. Who documented Crystal never had any ill effects from mixing alcohol and flexeri? Crystal? Crystal was the only one in the Lacrosse incident who had an ulterior motive for anything, including claiming she was raped. See Fantastic Lies. Admittance to the Durham Access Center would have gotten Social Services involved, who would have learned that Crystal had left her children alone while she was drunk, and performing a strip tease in a skimpy costume. That is not indicative of Crystal being a fit mother.

"Fact: Dr. Manly saw a fluid on Crystal that looked like semen."

Wrong. Dr. Manly saw a whitish fluid which she thought was semen without doing a wet mount to document it was semen. Kenhyderal wants it presumed this was incriminating evidence when it was never established in the first place that it was evidence.

"Your explanations 1.It's possible that she had a suppurating vaginal infection."

No. It was thought she had some kind of infection. For no clinical experience, no clinical training Kenny's benefit, that is a reasonable differential diagnosis, especially in light of, no effort was made to document the fluid was semen.

"2. No alkaline phosphatase was detected therefore there was no semen. This is not unusual in tests done long after the fact."

The rape kit materials were taken in a timely fashion, not a long time after the alleged rape(it was never established as fact that Crystal was raped). If Crystal had been raped at the party.the rape kir materials would have tested positive for alkaline phosphatase. Kenhyderal's speculation why evidence was not there does not establish any evidence of rape.

"Fact: DNA extracted from sperm and unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history was found. Your speculation without proof. Crystal lied about her consensual sexual history."

Kenhyderal has admitted it can not be established that the DNA had been deposited at the party. His assertion, that there was never a comprehensive list of party attendees is more speculation. It does not establish any evidence that anyone at the party could have raped Crystal.; February 1, 2017 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction for Krnhyderal(part 2)

Another iteration of what has been said on J4N that the Lacrosse players could not prove they were innocent. Other iterations were: a statement Sidney once posted, that the DNA found on Crystal was not exculpatory because it did not prove that the Lacrosse players did not rape Crystal; and, no one ever proved that Crystal ever lied about being raped.; February 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said in response to my statement that I get my information from a principal: " Who Kilgo?" ................................No from Crystal herself.; February 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 1, 2017 at 9:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Yes, with the botched investigation, it could not be proved beyond a (reasonable) doubt that Party attendees raped Crystal and therefore no one could be convicted. That, however, does not mean that rape and other crime never took place; only that it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Some will believe OJ did not kill Ron and Nicole or Casey Anthony did not kill Caylee. Others are convinced they did and are entitled to that opinion; February 1, 2017 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said in response to my statement that I get my information from a principal: " Who Kilgo?" ................................No from Crystal herself."

You meanfrom Crystal who claimed she was raped in the face of zero evidence she was raped.

Yet another manifestation of, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.; February 1, 2017 at 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Yes, with the botched investigation, it could not be proved beyond a (reasonable) doubt that Party attendees raped Crystal and therefore no one could be convicted. That, however, does not mean that rape and other crime never took place; only that it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Some will believe OJ did not kill Ron and Nicole or Casey Anthony did not kill Caylee. Others are convinced they did and are entitled to that opinion".

So provide proof.

What you call proof is not proof bur speculation.

eg. If the whitishfluid found in Crystal's genital tract was in fact Semen, the rpe kit materials would test positive for alkaline phosohatase. They did not.

And your speculation why they did not does not provide any proof that alkaline phosphatase was there.; February 1, 2017 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Yes, with the botched investigation, it could not be proved beyond a (reasonable) doubt that Party attendees raped Crystal".

So explain why the investigation was borched.

You have gone onrecord that Nifong was seeking justice for Crystal. Nifong was the individual who took charge of the investigation. If he was seeking justice for Crystal rhenwhy did he not conduct a proper investigation?; February 1, 2017 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Again from Kenny:

"Anonymous said in response to my statement that I get my information from a principal: " Who Kilgo?" ................................No from Crystal herself."

You mean Crystal who told multiple conflicting stoeies about the alleged eape? Crystal, who was never interviewed by anyone in Nifong's Durham DA Office until almost 9 months after the alleged crime? Then Crystal, who originally alleged she had been prnretrated by multiple males, said she could not recall being penetrated.; February 1, 2017 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Yet again from Kenny:

"Anonymous said in response to my statement that I get my information from a principal: " Who Kilgo?" ................................No from Crystal herself."

You mean Crystal who had been shown a number of phoro arrays, lineup procedures, in which she could not identify any Lacrosse player as an assailant. Then on the final lineup, which was improperly conducted, she identified with 100% certainty two team members as her assailants, ream members who could ptove with 100% certainty they had not been present in the party house at the time the alleged crime had taken place.She picked out as her third assailant David Evans, saying David Evans had a mustache when he raped her. There is no evidence David Evans ever had a mustache. Crystal also said she was sure with 100% certainty that Brad Ross had been present at the party. Brad Eoss was not presnt at the party. He could document he was with his girlfriend. A principal to the Duke Rape Hoax she was, but reliable and credible(except to a man who hears only what he wants to hear and disregrds the rest), absolutely no way.; February 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Some will believe OJ did not kill Ron and Nicole or Casey Anthony did not kill Caylee. Others are convinced they did and are entitled to that opinion".

And what this transltes to is, you believe there was evidence of a rape but not enough to convict.

And again you got it wrong.

There was a total lack of evidence that a crime happened.; February 1, 2017 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

With regard to OJ, the Brown family and the Goldman family successfully sued him in civil court. The standard of proof in civil court is a preponderance of the evidence.

Why did Crystal not sue in Civil Court?

Trial lawyers handle civil suits on a contingency fee basis. The Lacrosse defendants all came from well off families. If Crystal could have made a case against them, there was a chance for recovery of a significant sum of money.

Crystal would hve been able to afford a trial lawyer if she had had a case.

When he had a blog up, Vincent Clark once answered a question about a civil suit by saying the case was not about money. However, Crystal had already announced that part of the proceeds from her book would have gone to women's charities. The book was no where a best seller.

Clark's excuse is hollow. Crystal did not sue in civil course because she had no case, she had zero evidence she had been raped.; February 1, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal stated: No from Crystal herself.

So, you have chosen to rely on a non-independent source. Is that correct?; February 1, 2017 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 1, 2017 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny
Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 1, 2017 at 5:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What you call proof is not proof bur speculation"............... What I proffered were four facts. #1 Three independent witnesses testified Crystal arrived unimpaired. #2 Because of a back injury Crystal took flexeril, prescribed by an orthopedic specialist who eventually operated on her to correct the spinal problem she had. She had on several occasions drank alcohol while taking it and had no such consequences.# 3 Dr. Manly observed a whitish fluid she surmised to be semen #4 DNA extracted from sperm was found on her rape kit that was unexplained by her consensual sexual history. #4 Crystal's money was stolen from her purse and later recovered by police. It was never returned to her and she still had to pay the Agency their cut. You speculate #1 The independent witnesses were either wrong or lying. # 2 Her sudden impairment was caused by the 2 large beers and her medication #3 What Dr. Manly saw was an exudate from a vaginal infection. #4 The Players were entitled to take back the money without her consent because her performances was abbreviated.; February 1, 2017 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Bawawa Bawawa Bawawa; February 2, 2017 at 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Yo Kenny, you da man.; February 2, 2017 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal(Part 2):

"You speculate #1 The independent witnesses were either wrong or lying."

Wrong. I point out the fact that they were not the only witnesses, and other witnesses did give different testimony which disputes the credibility of your witnesses. Ignoring what you want to hear does not establish your speculation as fact.

"# 2 Her sudden impairment was caused by the 2 large beers and her medication"

Wrong again. There was testimony that her impairment was not sudden. Your sudden impairment claim is but another example of you assuming as fact something not at all in evidence.

"#3 What Dr. Manly saw was an exudate from a vaginal infection."

Wrong yet again. If a fluid found to be semen is found in a woman's genital tract in the ER, the next step is to do a wet mount, to rule in or rule out the presence of motile sperm. The presence of motile sperm establishes the fluid is semen, not the surmising of the ER physician. Dr. Manly did not do a wet mount. Because she did not do a wet mount, it was a matter of speculation what the fluid was. You want it presumed, without documentation, that it was semen.

"#4 The Players were entitled to take back the money without her consent because her performances was abbreviated."

Wrong yet again. What I said is that the money is irrelevant as to whether or not Crystal was raped. Have you forgotten that the Lacrosse players were charged with nothing with regard to the money. They were charged with first degree rape.

Or maybe you did forget. At one point you were claiming as fact that the Lacrosse defendants were not charged with rape.

Congratulations again on your latest crash and burn.; February 2, 2017 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 13 days left until February 14th. You have 333 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 33 days since the end of 2016, 216 days since the end of June 2016, 284 days since April 24, 2016, 323 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,167 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,518 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,312 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 2, 2017 at 5:24 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Oh KC is too crafty, himself, to commit libel but his regular contributors, many of them anonymous, he, tacitly, never calls out for their slanderous and even racist posts."

So -- by this logic, Sid would be guilty of libel committed by his regular anonymous contributors as well, correct?

One "contributor", whose posts you can still find on this website, immediately comes to mind....; February 2, 2017 at 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Excerpts from Kim Pittman/Roberts statement:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-scandal-kim.html

I, Kim Pittman, was called by Melissa to do a Bachelor Party at 610 Buchanan St. at 11 p.m. at night...

At about 11:30 Precious arrived and came to the back where we met for the first time... we went straight the bathroom where my outfit was to change clothes. Precious came with her dancing gear on and did not need to change.

We conversed about our plan for the dance. There was a knock on the door and we were handed two drinks of equal amounts. We did sip the drinks, but Precious cup fell into the sink. We finished getting dressed and proceeded to the living room, led by Dan, to do our show. There were about 20-25 young guys there, who were all sitting down. Precious and I began our show which, in my opinion, seemed to be going well. Precious began showing signs of intoxication at this point...

That [broomstick] statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave. I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over. The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate. I went to the bathroom with Precious and I told her I wanted to leave. Precious felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet. She was uncontrollable at this point and was yelling at the boys who were knocking on the door to leave us alone. I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom, grabbed my bag and exited the house with my dancing gear on.

I went to my car, wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone. I changed my clothes in the car where some of the boys were coming to my window asking me to talk to them. I was told by one of the guys that Precious was passed out in the back and could I please do something with her.

By this point, it seemed that the fellas may have been ready for the evening to be over. I told them that if they could get her to my car, I would get her out of their hair. Within minutes, she was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. At this point, she did not have the bag that I saw her come with and I asked her if she had the most important thing, her money. She told me yes but she did not seem coherent.

She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there...

At this point, she was basically out of it... .

Kennyhyderal, I have a few questions for you:

I agree that the statement appears to support your conclusion that Magnum arrived at the party unimpaired, and her subsequent impairment occurred suddenly. The players gave drinks to both dancers. Both dancers "sipped" their drinks before Magnum spilled hers. Although both dancers "sipped" their drinks, only Magnum became impaired. You then speculate that Mangum's subsequent impairment was due to drugs placed in the drink she sipped, rather than the 44oz of high alcohol beer she admitted to drinking shortly before arriving at the party.

1. You appear to believe the other dancer, as an "independent" witness, is reliable. Is that correct?

2. If both dancers "sipped" their drinks, why did only Magnum become impaired?

3. Was only Mangum's drink spiked and Roberts' drink was not?

4. If only one drink was spiked, why did the players choose to spike only one drink and not the other?

5. If the players chose to spike the drink(s) in preparation for a planned sexual assail, as you appear to speculate, why would they not have spiked both drinks (the failure to spike both drinks would have left a coherent witness)?; February 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "What you call proof is not proof bur speculation"............... What I proffered were four facts. #1 Three independent witnesses testified Crystal arrived unimpaired."

That is a fact. It ie also a fact that other witnesses say she was impaired when she arrived, there is photographic evidence she was impaired when she left the party, and it is a fact that some time after she left the party she was taken to the Durham Access Center for involuntary committment for detoxification, which says she was still impaired for a period of time following the party. So,Kenny, hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest soes not establish it as fact that Crystal was unimpaired when she arrived, that she became intoxicated after she was given something after the party.

End of part 1 ofKenhyderal(part 1) which was published twice and then removed twice.; February 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

#2 Because of a back injury Crystal took flexeril, prescribed by an orthopedic specialist who eventually operated on her to correct the spinal problem she had. She had on several occasions drank alcohol while taking it and had no such consequences."

Who told you that? Crystal? I repeat, it is also a fact rhat other witnesses reported Crystal was impaired when she arrived,she as impaired when she left, and that after she left she was taken to the Durham Access Center for involuntary committment for detox, indicating she remained impairedfor some time after she left the party. That is consistent with drinking 44 ounces of beer and then raking flexeril, which Crystal admitted doing. It is not at all consistent with Crystal suffering no effects from her alcohol/flexeril combo.

End of part 2 of Kenhyderal(part 1), which was rwice removed by people who couldn't handle the truth.; February 2, 2017 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"# 3 Dr. Manly observed a whitish fluid she surmised to be semen".

When an ER has a woman suspected of being a rape victim, if that womanhas fkuid inher genital tract suspected to be semen, the next step is a wet mount, putting a swab of the fluid on a slide, adding a drop of saline, covering the sample with a cover slit, then looking at the sample under a microscope. If motile sperm are present, that establishes the fluid is semen, NOT the surmising of the ER Physician. Dr. Manly did not do a wet mount When informed of the results of the rape kit testing, Dr. Manly surmised the fluid was not semen but a manifestation of a vaginal yeast infection. Kenny thinks it should be presumed that the fluid found on Crystal was semen, and was incriminating evidence. It was never determined what the fluid was evidence of.

Part 3 of Kenhyderal(part 1); February 2, 2017 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"#4 DNA extracted from sperm was found on her rape kit that was unexplained by her consensual sexual history."

Kenhyderal has admitted he can not establish that said DNA was deposited on Crystal at the party. Said DNA did not match the DNA of anyone who was identified as attending the party. Kenhyderal has claimed not everyone who arrended the party was identified. He bases that claim on information he says he received from kilgo, that an unidentified Lacrosse player told kilgo that hehad witnessed unidentified party attendees raping Crystal. Kenhyderal can not document that kilgo ever gavre him the information, suggesting strongly Kenhyderal fabricated that information, from his desire to believe what he wanted to believe. not from what he actually knew. It s speculatin, nothing more, that there were unidentified party attendees. That the DNA did not match up with Crystal's known sexual history is irrelevant.

Part 4 of Kenhyderal(part 1).; February 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Too that last comment I add for Kenny's edification, it IS relevant that the DNA found on Crystal did not match up with the DNA of any identified party attendee.

And, if there were unidentified party attendees, why did Nifong, who knew of the DNA evidence and had custody of it make no attempt to identify the sources. Hint: it was not because he thought he could convict Lacrosse players of sexual assault without DNA evidence. Nifong proclaimed loud and long before he sought indictments that members of the Lacrosse team had raped Crystal. That is documented in Until Proven Innocent, It's Not About the Truth, Rush to Injustice, and in the ESPN Documentary Fantastic Lies, sources you do not know because of your propensity to hear only what you wnt to hear.; February 2, 2017 at 1:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: At Anonymous 9:44 re your questions # 1 Yes. Robert's statement corroborates the statements of Crystal's driver Taylor and of the neighbor Bissey. 2/3/4/5. Obviously only one drink was spiked. That it turned out to be the one Crystal sipped was her misfortune. Some date-rape drugs like chloral hydrate work so instantaneously that dropping the drink after taking a sip could be an indication that it had begun to incapacitate her. Since the common date rate drug GHB is easily tested for and in Crystal's case was not found (nor was any other illegal drugs) sexual predators were aware that choral hydrate was the ideal date rape drug. Since that time, tests have been developed to identify one of it's metabolites but at the time this was unavailable. Who knows why a sexual predator would only spiked one drink. I do not believe that this was an attack carefully planned by a number of party attendees. Unfortunately those who would never be involved in such a crime out of loyalty to team members who had some involvement and were friends of the criminals chose to remain silent.; February 2, 2017 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"At Anonymous 9:44 re your questions # 1 Yes. Robert's statement corroborates the statements of Crystal's driver Taylor and of the neighbor Bissey. 2/3/4/5. Obviously only one drink was spiked. That it turned out to be the one Crystal sipped was her misfortune. Some date-rape drugs like chloral hydrate work so instantaneously that dropping the drink after taking a sip could be an indication that it had begun to incapacitate her. Since the common date rate drug GHB is easily tested for and in Crystal's case was not found (nor was any other illegal drugs) sexual predators were aware that choral hydrate was the ideal date rape drug. Since that time, tests have been developed to identify one of it's metabolites but at the time this was unavailable. Who knows why a sexual predator would only spiked one drink. I do not believe that this was an attack carefully planned by a number of party attendees. Unfortunately those who would never be involved in such a crime out of loyalty to team members who had some involvement and were friends of the criminals chose to remain silent."

This amounts to presuming a fact not in evidence, that Crystal was raped, and all yor speculation about unidentified party attendees raping Crystal is speculation, and speculation establishes nothing as fact. Chloral Hydrate acts quickly and could not be identified.
You also presume, without evidence, that a date rape drug was used.You have zero evidence that a Date Rape drug was used. So you presume that Chloral Hydrate, which was undetectable at the time, was used. That is more speculation.

Finally,I repeat, you have not established as fact that Crystal was sober when she arrived at the party. You have merely chosen to disregard the evidence that Crystal WAS impaired when she arrived and remained impaired for a period of time after she left the party.; February 2, 2017 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Another irrelevant statement from Kenhyderal:

"I do not believe that this was an attack carefully planned by a number of party attendees. Unfortunately those who would never be involved in such a crime out of loyalty to team members who had some involvement and were friends of the criminals chose to remain silent."

There is zero evidence Crystal told the truth when she claimed she had been raped. Ergo there was no crime for anyone to be involved in.

I repeat, what you cire as evidence is merely speculation about how your non existent crime could have happened.; February 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal,

My question about Kim Roberts was broader than your answer. Do you believe that Roberts, as an "independent" witness, is credible? I am interested in questions other than Mangum's initial impairment.; February 2, 2017 at 3:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: You also presume, without evidence, that a date rape drug was used.You have zero evidence that a Date Rape drug was used. So you presume that Chloral Hydrate, which was undetectable at the time, was used".......................If, I accept the testimony of Taylor, Bissey and Roberts, people who are not suspects, then Crystal's sudden precipitous impairment after being given a drink is strong circumstantial evidence that this drink contained a noxious substance. Administering a noxious substance, never mind the motive, is itself a crime.; February 2, 2017 at 3:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: My question about Kim Roberts was broader than your answer. Do you believe that Roberts, as an "independent" witness, is credible? I am interested in questions other than Mangum's initial impairment......................... I can think of no motive for Roberts to provide false information about the arrival of Crystal. Roberts did not know Crystal and met her for the first time on her arrival. It was not until the performance was underway that she observed Crystal to become impaired. Since Roberts changed her testimony from saying Crystal's accusation was a crock to "I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did" She was going to be a witness in any trial.; February 2, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal- Gas chromatographic methods for the quantitative determination of chloral hydrate and its metabolites in both blood and urine have been around since the mid-seventies.; February 2, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal,

As you know, Roberts' statement differs significantly from Mangum's statement. They cannot both be correct in some significant areas.

In her statement, Magnum alleged: three guys grabbed Nikki, and "Bret, "Adam", and Matt grabbed me they seperated us at the Master bedroom door, while we tried to hold on to each other. Brett, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom...

Roberts includes no such violent separation scene in her written statement, and when asked about it in a television interview (neither Nifong nor the Durham police asked about it), she indicated that no such violent separation occurred.

Kennyhyderal, I have a few more questions for you:

1. How do you explain the significant inconsistencies between Mangum's and Roberts' statements, focusing on this alleged violent separation?

2. Did the violent separation occur?

3. If so, why did Roberts not mention it and why did she indicate that it did not occur when interviewed on television?

4. If it did not occur, why did Magnum make this false allegation?

5. Why did Nifong and the Durham Police make no attempt to reconcile this significant difference?

6. When Magnum had difficulty identifying her alleged attackers in the first two identification procedures, why did the Durham Police not ask Roberts to identify the persons who grabbed Magnum while they were being separated and to identify the persons who grabbed her?; February 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said,
She was going to be a witness in any trial.
So she was going to say, maybe yes, maybe no, but she didn't see anything?
This is your witness?; February 2, 2017 at 4:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: Keep in mind Crystal was, by then, in a state of impairment. Her recollections at that point of a violent, physical and terrifying experience while fighting to remain conscious are composed of flashbacks of this traumatic occurrence. She was separated from Kim against he will, something Kim seems to be unaware of but she does acknowledge they were separated. That's something Crystal, being dragged aside, would not have wanted with Kim being her only potential ally there and would have tried to reach out to.; February 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: She would of testified to the sober arrival of Crystal;to the episode of being given drinks while preparing in the bathroom and to the sudden impairment of Crystal immediately after that.; February 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal states: Keep in mind Crystal was, by then, in a state of impairment. Her recollections at that point of a violent, physical and terrifying experience while fighting to remain conscious are composed of flashbacks of this traumatic occurrence.

She has inconsistent recollections of portions of a violent attack, yet she remembers with 90%-100% certainty who her attackers were? Is that correct?

I repeat my earlier questions that you ignored:

5. Why did Nifong and the Durham Police make no attempt to reconcile this significant difference?

6. When Magnum had difficulty identifying her alleged attackers in the first two identification procedures, why did the Durham Police not ask Roberts to identify the persons who grabbed Magnum while they were being separated and to identify the persons who grabbed her?

I have come to the conclusion that, although you publicly profess support for him, that you privately believe that Mike Nifong was one of the most incompetent prosecutors ever. He doesn't try to identify DNA and he doesn't ask "independent" witnesses to attempt to make identifications. I agree with your private thoughts--what an incompetent moron!; February 2, 2017 at 4:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Kenhyderal- Gas chromatographic methods for the quantitative determination of chloral hydrate and its metabolites in both blood and urine have been around since the mid-seventies"..............Yes but the problem is it's quickly and completely metabolized in the body. A while back I posted a scientific article on the new and badly needed forensic test for choral hydrate and I will try and find it and repost it; February 2, 2017 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

",...Roberts changed her testimony from saying Crystal's accusation was a crock to "I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did" She was going to be a witness in any trial."

Roberts changed her testimony after Nifong had her brought in because of a probation violation.

Why do you ignore the fact that Dr. Julie Manly changed her opinion, if you will, of what she saw in Crystal's genital tract, tat it was not semen but a manifestation of a vaginal infection. Unlike Kim Roberts and Moex Elmostafa, it was not a case of anyone trying to fotce her to change her testimony. She changed her opinion after learning that the rape kit materials contained no fluid, no DNA from any males suspected of raping her. This was before Nifong got and concealed the evidence of the DNA which was found on her.

Another iteration of Kenny hearing what he wants to hear and disregarding the rest.; February 2, 2017 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Keep in mind Crystal was, by then, in a state of impairment."

You keep in mind that Crystal was in an impaired state, before, during, and after the Party.

"Her recollections at that point of a violent, physical and terrifying experience while fighting to remain conscious are composed of flashbacks of this traumatic occurrence."

As the case played out, it became obvious that Crystal had not been subjected to any violent experience.

"She was separated from Kim against he will, something Kim seems to be unaware of but she does acknowledge they were separated."

Kim Roberts/Pittman initially testified that she and Crystal were not separated. Kim Roberts/Pittman initially said Crystal's story was "a crock". Kim Roberts/Pittman said at one point that Crystal told her to put mmarks on her. Kim Roberts/Pittman switched her testimony after being pressured by Nifong's DA office.

"That's something Crystal, being dragged aside, would not have wanted with Kim being her only potential ally there and would have tried to reach out to."

Again, there is no evidence that Crystal was ever dragged aside.

Again, your attitude is, hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest. In a criminal case, one can not just ignore exculpatory evidence. A reasoon why Nifong got disbarred was he tried to suppress evidence he did not like, evidence which indicated he had no case.; February 2, 2017 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

",...Roberts changed her testimony from saying Crystal's accusation was a crock to "I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide."

Kind of a curious statement for yuu, considering you once said Nifong considered Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived. Who should have decided whether or not Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived - Nifong or the court? You seem to have decided that Nifong, not thr court should have decided.; February 2, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"@ Guiowen: She would of testified to the sober arrival of Crystal;to the episode of being given drinks while preparing in the bathroom and to the sudden impairment of Crystal immediately after that."

So?

The defense would have cross examined her. It would have come out that Kim gave other testimony which said more than that, testimony which cast doubr on Crystal's story.

Bye Bye Kim Roberts/Pittman's credibility.; February 2, 2017 at 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal- It takes 3-5 days for choral hydrate to metabolize from the bloodstream.; February 2, 2017 at 6:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Why do you ignore the fact that Dr. Julie Manly changed her opinion"..................................Dr. Manly did not change her opinion. You can provide no quote from her about that. When it was suggested to her months later by Defence Lawyer Doug Kingsbery, that the presence of the "whitish fluid could of been from a yeast infection, Dr. Manly acknowledged this might be a possibility.; February 2, 2017 at 8:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: It takes 3-5 days for chloral hydrate to metabolize from the blood stream" ...................Read this entry in Teitz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry (2012) pp.1159 especially the paragraph on analytical methods. https://books.google.ca/books?id=BBLRUI4aHhkC&pg=PA1159&lpg=PA1159&dq=detecting+the+date+rape+drug+chloral+hydrate+new+test&source=bl&ots=C2rDFVjlvS&sig=WZvMMCo-jUJ8Okk3oGS__pQ6PaM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi29-_skfPRAhVX-2MKHTsYDeQ4FBDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=detecting%20the%20date%20rape%20drug%20chloral%20hydrate%20new%20test&f=false I'm still looking for the paper on the newly developed quick convenient and much needed test for this date rape drug which I will post; February 2, 2017 at 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: " Why do you ignore the fact that Dr. Julie Manly changed her opinion"..................................Dr. Manly did not change her opinion. You can provide no quote from her about that. When it was suggested to her months later by Defence Lawyer Doug Kingsbery, that the presence of the "whitish fluid could of been from a yeast infection, Dr. Manly acknowledged this might be a possibility."

She did change her opinion.No matter how you word it, she backed off from her belief the fluid was semen.

What is relevant is, Dr. Manly did not document it was semen. The results of the rape kit testing did establish nothing had been deposited on Crystal. Your Speculation about the results of the rape kit testing does not establish a rape happened.; February 3, 2017 at 4:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Regardless of the characteristics of Chloral Hydrate, your claim that Chloral Hydrate was used is a combination of speculation and disregarding what you do not want to hear.

Let's look at Flexeril. Crystal took a large amount of alcohol and then took Flexeril. It is a fact that such a combination causes impairment. While you say Crystal had done this before and had not suffered any consequences, you do not give the source of your information. Did Crystal tell you this some time after the Lacrosse incident, after she was exposed as a false accuser? She had been convicted, years earlier, of crimes arising from stealing a cab and driving it on a suspended license and while intoxicated. The details come from police records compiled at the time, years before the Lacrosse incident. After Crystal had been exposed as a false accuser, she had published an account, in Last Dance With Grace, totally at odds with the Police records. You call that account the truth, and the other account as something concocted by the Lacrosse defense attorneys. That you can recognize truth is questionable, that you do disregard what you do not want to hear.

While you say there is testimony Crystal was not impaired when she arrived, there is also testimony she was impaired, and that testimony can not be dismissed because you don't like it.

There is also photographic evidence Crystal was impaired when she left the party. She was taken to the Durham Access Center after she left the party, to be involuntarily committed for detox, indicating she remained impaired after she left the party.

Taking EVERYTHING into consideration, not just the parts you want taken into consideration, Crystal was not drugged at the party.; February 3, 2017 at 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal - I should have been more precise and stated that chloral hydrate's metabolites -- specifically trichloroethanol and trichloracetic acid -- take 3-5 days to fully metabolize.

An increased level of trichloracetic acid in the absence of trichlorethanol indicates past exposure to chloral hydrate.

Of course, exposure to trichlorethylene (which metabolizes into trichlorethanol) could give a false positive result, but I don't think exposure to trichlorethylene is something Crystal Mangum would have to worry about (it's used in the manufacture of a range of fluorocarbon refrigerants, to clean kerosene-fueled rocket engines, and as a metal parts degreaser).; February 3, 2017 at 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal - You're link doesn't work, BTW; February 3, 2017 at 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: " Why do you ignore the fact that Dr. Julie Manly changed her opinion"..................................Dr. Manly did not change her opinion. You can provide no quote from her about that. When it was suggested to her months later by Defence Lawyer Doug Kingsbery, that the presence of the "whitish fluid could of been from a yeast infection, Dr. Manly acknowledged this might be a possibility."

Did Doug Kingsbery just "suggest" to her, or did he point out to her tjre results of the rape kit testing, no blood, no saliva, no DNA from the suspects, no alkaline phosphatse and then asking her if she still thought the fluid was semen, or was it possible the fluid was something else? If that was the case, it was more like he questioned her and impeached her original opinion that the fluid was semen.; February 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Let's go with this again.

You obviously believe the male DNA found on Crystal came from Rapists.

So, instead of waffling and evading like you usually do, explain why Nifong concealed the existence of the DNA when he got the results and made no attempt to identify who actually left their DNA on Crystal.; February 3, 2017 at 8:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: Lets go over this again; DA Nifong had no intent to conceal the DNA evidence and it was ultimately turned over to the defence long before any trial. DA Nifong believed he has sufficient evidence anyway, without a match, to proceed with kidnapping and sexual assault charges against the three. The case was ultimately taken over by AG Cooper who, it appears, himself made no effort to identify the DNA found but we will never know. The details of any investigations that Coman and Winstead conducted are sealed. Cooper was under great pressure by powerful interests to drop the charges. He, unlike Nifong, seems to have considered Crystal a person of little consequence.; February 3, 2017 at 10:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: https://books.google.ca/books?id=BBLRUI4aHhkC&pg=PA1159&lpg=PA1159&dq=detecting+the+date+rape+drug+chloral+hydrate+new+test&source=bl&ots=C2rDFVjlvS&sig=WZvMMCo-jUJ8Okk3oGS__pQ6PaM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi29-_skfPRAhVX-2MKHTsYDeQ4FBDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=detecting%20the%20date%20rape%20drug%20chloral%20hydrate%20new%20test&f=false; February 3, 2017 at 10:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Lets go over this again; DA Nifong had no intent to conceal the DNA evidence and it was ultimately turned over to the defence long before any trial."

Yes.LET'S go over this again. Nifong was obligated to turn over a report of the results to those individuals subjected to the NTO, and that included the three men he had indicted, as soon as he had the report, and he had the report before he sought any indictments, meaning he was obligated by law to turn over the report, that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted before he ever sought the indictments. Brian Meehan testified under oath that he and nifong agreed tio withhold the results from all the Lacrosse players. Nifong turned over thousands of pages of raw data to the defendants MONTHS AFTER he had the repor, and it was in response to a court order to turn over the data. That does not say Nifong had no intention of concealing thr evidence.

"DA Nifong believed he has sufficient evidence anyway, without a match, to proceed with kidnapping and sexual assault charges against the three."

Before Nifong sought indictments he went public with statements that a rape had happened, and that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated the rape. He sought indictments against the three defendants for FIRST DEREE RAPE, as well as for sexual assault and kidnapping. You are trying to pass off a lie as truth, and not a very good lie. So why should anyone believe you care about the truth.; February 3, 2017 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal(again)

"The case was ultimately taken over by AG Cooper who, it appears, himself made no effort to identify the DNA found but we will never know."

When Nifong had Ethics charges filed against him he asked AG Cooper to take over the prosecution of the three men who had been indicted. AG Cooper, unlike you and Nifong and Sidney and William Cohan, conducted a thorough, objective investigation. Also unlike you, AG Cooper did not presume, without evidence, that a crime had taken place. His investigation found absolutely no evidence that Crystal had been raped, ergo there was no possibility of the DNA coming from rapists.

"The details of any investigations that Coman and Winstead conducted are sealed. Cooper was under great pressure by powerful interests to drop the charges."

No they are not.They are a part of the public record. That you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest does not add up to the case records being sealed.

"He, unlike Nifong, seems to have considered Crystal a person of little consequence."

No, AG Cooper investigated and found no evidence that Crystal had been raped, no evidence, in other words, that Crystal ever told the truth(that was for Sidney's benefit, Sidney who preaches no one ever proved Crystal lied). That you can not recognize the truth is not surprising considering your repeated attempts to ptomulgate the LIE, that Nifong intended to prosecute the men he had indicted for first degree rape, only for sexual assault and kidnappng, not rape.

So it comes down to, if you do believe the DNA found on Crystal, rather than dodging and waffling and outright LYING, explain why Nifong concealed the evidence and made no effort to identify the sources.; February 3, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

One more.

If Nifong truly considered Crystal a person of consequence, why did he go almost 9 months without interviewing her directly. In a rape case, a DA who treats the victim/complaining witness as a person of consequence does not put off interviewing her for 9 months. Or do you believe he does?; February 3, 2017 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Another one for Kenhyderal:

"The details of any investigations that Coman and Winstead conducted are sealed. Cooper was under great pressure by powerful interests to drop the charges."

The only pressure exerted on AG Cooper was pressure exerted by the black publisher of a black newspaper on AG Cooper to prosecute the defendants and find them guilty.; February 3, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Your link doesn't say anything different than what I've posted -- quantification of chloral hydrate and it's metabolites is done via gas chromatography.

You're caught up on the "Chloral hydrate is not detected on routine, commercially available drug screens." sentence. All this means is that abuse of the drug would not show up on an employers' drug screen.

The ability to test for it in a case like Crystal Mangum's has been around for years.

To borrow a phrase, consider yourself elucidated.; February 3, 2017 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 12 days left until February 14th. You have 332 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 34 days since the end of 2016, 217 days since the end of June 2016, 285 days since April 24, 2016, 324 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,168 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,519 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,311 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 3, 2017 at 10:57 AM
Kennyhyderal Supporter said...: Kenny stated: Lets go over this again;

Kenny, you have to be more patient with your critics. They do not fully appreciate the consistency of your response. You must elaborate with the details of your thinking--what is obvious to you is not obvious to others.

DA Nifong had no intent to conceal the DNA evidence

How do we know this? Because Nifong said so. In the Canadian legal system, participants have found that the most effective way to determine whether someone is lying is to ask the accused liar if they are telling the truth. Although Kenny acknowledges that American cynics claim that Nifong's actions demonstrate no indication that he intended to turn over the underlying data without a court order, bitterly fighting the court order due to cost constraints, these cynics have not proven that, in the absence of the court order, Nifong did not intend to turn over the evidence, voluntarily incurring the costs he argued were unfair.

and it was ultimately turned over to the defence long before any trial.

Kenny notes that it is unfair to hold a prosecutor to separate requirements imposed by both state law and the Federal constitution. Because no trial had yet been scheduled, the evidence was provided in plenty of time to meet the Brady requirements. The NC law regarding the results of NTO that requires timely disclosure to all persons subject to the order (including those not indicted) of the results of the NTO can be ignored as long as the Brady requirements are met. Moreover, the NC law provides no penalties for noncompliance, and it is thus clear than compliance is optional.

DA Nifong believed he has sufficient evidence anyway, without a match, to proceed with kidnapping and sexual assault charges against the three.

The Canadian justice system appropriately takes all rape allegations as fact unless the accused can prove with absolute certainty that the alleged rape could not possibly have occurred. Moreover, in cases like this where the victim's (in Canada, she is not an alleged victim) memory is impaired and there are no cooperating eyewitnesses, in order to solve the crime, the prosecutor must select defendants to prosecute. This strategy is most effective when there is some evidence to link the defendants to the crime. In this case, attendance at the party, identifications in a flawed selection procedure and the non-excluded DNA met the requirement. The idea behind this strategy is that if the defendants did not commit the crime, a possible conviction will generally cause them to name the actual perpetrators.

In addition, the botched investigation by the Durham Police made it impossible to solve this case. Although Kenny recognizes that Nifong played an active role in the case far earlier than a prosecutor typically becomes involved, the investigation was already hopelessly botched by that point. As a result, the seemingly random indictments were the only possible method of solving the crime.

I hope that helps. Kenny, you should fill in more details I have overlooked.; February 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, Kenhyderal,
Aren't you lucky to have KH Supporter helping you?; February 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: He mischaracterize the Canadian Judicial System. Yeah, Canada has no provision like the 5th Amendment that allows criminals to refuse to answer questions under oath without being held in contempt or committing perjury. There was a lot more inculpatory evidence then just being at the house when the alleged crime took place. Certainly enough for a prosecutor to indict. But, with dream-team defence lawyers, a botched Police investigation, a flawed photo-line-up and a poor minority woman as the alleged victim this was an easy case for a lawyer to get even a guilty client off.; February 3, 2017 at 3:45 PM
Kennyhyderal Supporter said...: Kennyhyderal asserts: There was a lot more inculpatory evidence then just being at the house when the alleged crime took place.

Kenny, I can't help you explain this statement. I have seen no inculpatory evidence to incriminate Finnerty and Seligmann other than their presence at the party and Mangum's selection of them in a photo-line up that even you concede was "flawed." Apparently neither did the special prosecutors. Can you enlighten us with specifics?; February 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhuderal:

"Canada has no provision like the 5th Amendment that allows criminals to refuse to answer questions under oath without being held in contempt or committing perjury."

You are one who believes certain accused criminals be presumed guilty. In your mind, , people like Crystal should be presumed innocent. People like the innocent Lacrosse drfendants should be presumed guilty.

The 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What the 5th amendment guarantees is no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", which means no one can be compelled to confess to a crime, that someone is not obligated to answer questions by the authorities if he, someone may refuse to answer a question if he believes it will incriminate him, i.e., testify against himself. Explain how refusing to answer a question adds up to perjury.

Crystal was advised she did not to have answer questions from the police after she was arrested. Does that mean Crystal should be presumed guilty of perjury.You obviously believe the Lacrosse players who declined to talk to the police should have been presumed guilty of perjury.

"There was a lot more inculpatory evidence then just being at the house when the alleged crime took place."

You have never demonstrated what that evidence was.

And the statement is meaningless in view of the fact that no crime happened.

"Certainly enough for a prosecutor to indict."

Do you seriously believe Nifong told the Grand Jury that the DNA found on Crystal, who had alleged a semen depositing rape, did not match the DNA of the men he wanted indicted for first degree rape for that semen depositing rape? Now repeat the lie that Nifong did not have the defendants indicted for rape.

"But, with dream-team defence lawyers,"

You, like Nifong, believe the Lacrosse defendants should have been denied their right to counsel.

"a botched Police investigation,"

Who controlled the botched Police investigation? Nifong, who you say was acting on behalf of justice for Crystal.

"a flawed photo-line-up"

Who arranged for the flawed lineup? Nifong, who you say was acting in the cause of justice for Crystal.

Who concealed the DNA evidence, which you say came from rapists? Nifong who you say acted on behalf of justice for Crystal. Now let's hear you lie again that Nifong had no intention of concealing the evidence.

"and a poor minority woman as the alleged victim this was an easy case for a lawyer to get even a guilty client off."

Irrelevant statement, as there was no evidence that those indicted were guilty.

And who made no attempt to directly interview the complaining witness for almost 9 months? Nifong, who you say was acting on behalf of justice for Crystal. Even if the defendants were guilty, failing to directly interview the complaining witness for such a long time is what would have compromised any chance for a conviction.; February 3, 2017 at 5:21 PM
Kennyhyderal Supporter said...: Kennyhyderal,

I think I understand your point.

In the flawed American legal system, the prosecutor not only is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific crime occurred, but also has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific defendants charged with that crime committed it. That requirement is unfair in a case like this where a crime was alleged, but because of the impairment and trauma suffered by the alleged victim, the specific details of the crime and specific perpetrators were unknown. Moreover, the lack of physical evidence that resulted from a botched investigation made it impossible to determine these required specifics.

As you have implied, the enlightened Canadian justice system can solve these problems in the name of fairness. If a prosecutor has enough evidence to support probable cause that some crime occurred, and a group of suspects, even if the prosecutor does not know the specifics of the crime or the specific perpetrators, he can simply prosecute some random subset of the group of suspects. Group guilt is a reasonable concept in the name of fairness.

Kenny, did I get it correct?; February 3, 2017 at 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Crystal wasn't raped. The proof of that is beyond argument. The system eventually worked, in spite of Mike Nifong's efforts to manipulate it for his personal gain. Nifong paid dearly for his wrongdoings in prosecuting Crystal's rape hoax. Although Crystal got a free pass for lying about being raped (and someone died who might not have died had she been appropriately dealt with for her role for trying to frame three innocent men for a crime that didn't occur), karma eventually caught up with her and she is now serving a long prison sentence. That is reality and nothing you or Sid do or say can change it.

If you see the arc of the moral universe gradually and inevitably bending away from you, then you are on the wrong side of justice.; February 3, 2017 at 8:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 5:21 Tell me where I've got this wrong. If you refuse to answer you are contemptuous of the Court. If you answer untruthfully you commit perjury; February 3, 2017 at 9:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Kenhyderal Supporter you continue to mischaracterize the Canadian Justice System but you have raised the spectre of the difficulty in prosecuting crimes committed not by sole individuals but by mobs, gangs and criminal organizations. Individual gang members are well shielded by any group's refusal to cooperate. This can apply to violent crimes; everything from a gang-rape to a mob execution.; February 3, 2017 at 9:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ KH Supporter: Even a properly conducted photo line-up can identify the wrong suspect let alone an improper one. DA Nifong had serious concerns about the Seligman alibi which appeared to him to be constructed and contrived. When realization that most likely Police would soon be descending on the house the mob suddenly cleared out and the place fell into silent darkness?; February 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Let me see if I understand your argument.
An innocent man, having nothing to fear, would never have an alibi. Only guilty persons would go to the trouble of actually having an alibi. Ergo, Seligman must have been guilty.; February 3, 2017 at 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous 5:21 Tell me where I've got this wrong. If you refuse to answer you are contemptuous of the Court. If you answer untruthfully you commit perjury"

Explain how this has relevance to a suspect's rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, whchsays a suspect is guarded from self incrimination.

More Kenhyderal evasiveness..; February 4, 2017 at 2:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"Kenhyderal Supporter you continue to mischaracterize the Canadian Justice System but you have raised the spectre of the difficulty in prosecuting crimes committed not by sole individuals but by mobs, gangs and criminal organizations. Individual gang members are well shielded by any group's refusal to cooperate. This can apply to violent crimes; everything from a gang-rape to a mob execution. "

More evasiveness from Kenhyderal over what the 5th Amendment means.

Kenny's philosophy of justice is, presume the accused is guilty and compel the accused to admit guilt, unless Kenn's favorites is the accused and then that favorite must be proclaimed innocent.. Can we say Fascism, boys and girls.; February 4, 2017 at 2:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ KH Supporter: Even a properly conducted photo line-up can identify the wrong suspect let alone an improper one."

So Kenny believes this justifies an improper lineup procedure in which the complaining witness is coached to identify the people the DA has already presumed guilty.

"DA Nifong had serious concerns about the Seligman alibi which appeared to him to be constructed and contrived."

How could Nifong have believed that Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived when he refused to even look at the evidence. Rather, Nifong knew Reade Seligman, unlike Crystal Mangum when she murdered Reginald Daye. had a solid alibi and that he, Nifong, would never have been able to charge Reade Seligman whom Nifong had presumed guilty.

"When realization that most likely Police would soon be descending on the house the mob suddenly cleared out and the place fell into silent darkness?"

There was no such realization. There had been no crime and the Lacrosse players knew that.

Again, champion of justice NOT believes the accused shoud have been presumed guilty. Krnnyhas provided zero evidence that te crime of which he presumes the Lacrosse players guilty, ever happened. Very Trumpian, Kenny.; February 4, 2017 at 2:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Again fromKenny:

"@ KH Supporter: Even a properly conducted photo line-up can identify the wrong suspect let alone an improper one."

Kenny, champion of guilt presumption, but only for people he dislikes, believes there should be no measures in place to insure a lineup does not lead to the identification of innocent prople as suspects.; February 4, 2017 at 2:22 AM
Anonymous said...: More from Kenhyderal:

"...you have raised the spectre of the difficulty in prosecuting crimes committed not by sole individuals but by mobs, gangs and criminal organizations. Individual gang members are well shielded by any group's refusal to cooperate."

Another iteration of Kenny's belief that prople he dislikes and resents should have been presumed guilty.; February 4, 2017 at 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

This is what your drivel means.

After Crystal was arrested after she stabbed Reginald Daye, she was advised of her right to remain silent. According to you, if the DA went to court to get a court order, that Crystal had to talk to the police, she should have been cited for contempt if she still refused to do so.

Our Constitution, our supreme law, says Crystal can not be forced to talk to the police. That you think that people you dislike and resent, if charged with a crime, should be compelled to talk to the police does not trump the Constitution.; February 4, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Kennhyderal:

You have said, actually, if the Lacrosse players did not admit guilt prior to any trial or arraignment or or trial, then they should have been cited for contempt or charged with perjury. How is that compatible with the presumption of innocence, which applies also in Canadian Law? It doesn't.

Again I remind you, everything you cite as evidence has not been established by you as evidence. Guilt is not established by presenting only incriminating evidence and ignoring exculpatory evidence, something of which you choose to remain ignorant.

Jeremiah 5:21(NIV) applies to you: "Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear".; February 4, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: More for Kenhyderal:

An example of why we in the US have the 5th Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness:

"During direct examination, if the examining attorney who called the witness finds that their testimony is antagonistic or contrary to the legal position of their client, the attorney may request that the judge declare the witness hostile. If the request is granted, the attorney may proceed to ask the witness LEADING QUESTIONS(emphasis added). Leading questions either suggest the answer...or challenge (impeach) the witness' testimony."

The defendant in a criminal trial is not required to take the stand.

During Crystal's murder trial, could the prosecution have called Crystal to the stand? Obviously no, one reason being that the prosecution could have had her declared a hostile witness and then have asked her leading questions, forced her to testify against herself in other words.

Under your misinterpretation of the 5th Amendment, if Crystal refused to take the stand if called by the Prosecutor, she should have been cited for contempt.

But then, you seem to think people you dislike or resent should not be protected against forced self incrimination.; February 4, 2017 at 4:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Once more for Kenhyderal:

Considering the person you think should be(and who actually was) presumed innocent when accused of a crime and the people who you think should have been presumed guilty, it is obvious you are a guilt presuming racist.; February 4, 2017 at 6:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: Only guilty persons would go to the trouble of actually having an alibi......................Substitute "having" with "constructing" and this statement is correct.; February 4, 2017 at 8:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal willingly took the stand, of her own volition, naively believing that if she told the truth she would be exonerated. Of course her crappy disinterested Lawyer who didn't care for or believe in her preferred she did not. He knew a pit-bull Prosecutor like Coggins Franks could confuse Crystal and he was totally unprepared on her behalf to counter such tactics. By rights and in the interest of getting justice, Judge Ridgeway should not have allowed Coggins Franks to badger, confuse and mislead Crystal the way she did and Meier should of aggressively challenged her questioning. Crystal had no ally in that kangaroo court. Not her counsel not the Judge and the Jury was so constituted without objection from Meier as to constitute a bias towards the prosecution.; February 4, 2017 at 8:44 AM
guiowen said...: good old Kenny: wah, wah, wah!; February 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I am having a hard time understanding how many mystery rapists you believe raped Magnum at the lacrosse party. I asked this question last month, but you must have missed the comment and did not respond.

Kenny stated: Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time.

I believe that you are mistaken about the number of unexplained male DNA samples found on and in Magnum.

Wikipedia observes: At Nifong's subsequent ethics trial on June 14, 2007, the complete DNA findings were revealed during defense attorney Brad Bannon's testimony. According to conservative estimates, the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her underpants; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina.

January 20, 2017 at 7:49 AM

I assume you believe the number of mystery rapists is at least equal to the number of unmatched DNA samples found in and on Magnum. Otherwise, we are left with the conclusion that, in addition to being raped by three mystery rapists, Magnum also misstated her consensual sexual history. I understand you adopted the mystery rapist theory to explain unmatched DNA without needing to concede that Magnum was not accurate. As a result, we are left with the conclusion that Magnum was raped at the lacrosse party by at least nine or ten mystery rapists. Is that correct?

Given the small size of the bathroom, I assume the mystery rapists entered and left the bathroom during the rape. Cynics have argued the bathroom was too small for three rapists and a victim. I assume you would agree that the bathroom was too small for ten rapists and a victim at the same time.

In her written statement, Roberts claims she was with Magnum for all but five minutes after the dance ended. Is five minutes enough time for mystery rapists to grab Magnum, drag her into the bathroom, have at least nine of ten mystery rapists rape her as they enter and leave the bathroom, dress her, with time to stagger around the backyard where Roberts retrieved her?

Thanks for your help in clarifying these details.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 4, 2017 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: Only guilty persons would go to the trouble of actually having an alibi......................Substitute "having" with "constructing" and this statement is correct."

Another irrelevant statement, since 1) there was no crime and, ergo, 2)there were no people guilty of a crime. crime.

Reade Seligman's alibi was not contrived but absolutely solid. In suggesting it was contrived you again manifest your guilt presuming racism. You presume him guilty and then decide no evidence may bee presented to show he was innocent.; February 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Crystal willingly took the stand, of her own volition, naively believing that if she told the truth she would be exonerated. Of course her crappy disinterested Lawyer who didn't care for or believe in her preferred she did not. He knew a pit-bull Prosecutor like Coggins Franks could confuse Crystal and he was totally unprepared on her behalf to counter such tactics. By rights and in the interest of getting justice, Judge Ridgeway should not have allowed Coggins Franks to badger, confuse and mislead Crystal the way she did and Meier should of aggressively challenged her questioning. Crystal had no ally in that kangaroo court. Not her counsel not the Judge and the Jury was so constituted without objection from Meier as to constitute a bias towards the prosecution. "

If that is a reply to the scenario I presented at February 4, 2017 at 4:00 AM, it is evasive and non responsive.

You have actually proposed something to the effect that a criminal defendant who avails himself of his/her 5th Amendment rights, that defendant should be cited for contempt of couty.

The question I put to you was, if Crystal exercised her 5th Amendment rights, should she be cited for contempt. The obvious answer was, no.

Ehy you dodged giving the obvious nswer is your guilt presuming racism. You obviously believe that proplr you dislike and resent, if accused of a crime, should be presumed guilty and deptived of the protection of the 5th Amendment.; February 4, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Corrections are in order and I apologize for the typs:

Kenhyderal:

"Crystal willingly took the stand, of her own volition, naively believing that if she told the truth she would be exonerated. Of course her crappy disinterested Lawyer who didn't care for or believe in her preferred she did not. He knew a pit-bull Prosecutor like Coggins Franks could confuse Crystal and he was totally unprepared on her behalf to counter such tactics. By rights and in the interest of getting justice, Judge Ridgeway should not have allowed Coggins Franks to badger, confuse and mislead Crystal the way she did and Meier should of aggressively challenged her questioning. Crystal had no ally in that kangaroo court. Not her counsel not the Judge and the Jury was so constituted without objection from Meier as to constitute a bias towards the prosecution. "

If that is a reply to the scenario I presented at February 4, 2017 at 4:00 AM, it is evasive and non responsive.

You have actually proposed something to the effect that a criminal defendant who avails himself of his/her 5th Amendment rights, that defendant should be cited for contempt of court.

The question I put to you was, if Crystal exercised her 5th Amendment rights, should she be cited for contempt. The obvious answer was, no.

Why you dodged giving the obvious answer is your guilt presuming racism. You obviously believe that people you dislike and resent, if accused of a crime, should be presumed guilty and deprived of the protection of the 5th Amendment.; February 4, 2017 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Crystal willingly took the stand, of her own volition, naively believing that if she told the truth she would be exonerated."

Well, since she was not exonerated, doesn' that mean she did not tell the truth?

And since the Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, doesn't that mean they did tell the truth.; February 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 11 days left until February 14th. You have 331 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 35 days since the end of 2016, 218 days since the end of June 2016, 286 days since April 24, 2016, 325 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,169 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,520 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,310 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 4, 2017 at 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny prevaricated:

"Crystal willingly took the stand, of her own volition, naively believing that if she told the truth she would be exonerated. Of course her crappy disinterested Lawyer who didn't care for or believe in her preferred she did not."

It would seem that Mangum should have heeded the advice of her attorney. He warned her of the dangers of testifying. She chose to disregard his advice. The train wreck that her testimony became was entirely of her own doing.

If Mangum was going to testify she should have told the truth or, at the very least, been careful to shape her testimony so that it comported with the evidence in her case. Instead she got caught telling a few whoppers and she was rightly eviscerated by the prosecution. That is the risk that a defendant takes when the testify on their own behalf: the jury is going to disregard their lies and probably a good portion of everything lese they testify about.

It's funny that you were talking about the 5th amendment the other day. The lacrosse players and everyone at the party was willing and anxious to speak to and cooperate with the police and disgraced, disbarred and bankrupted former DA Nifong, but the police and prosecution didn't want to listen to them or consider their evidence. You know who did take the 5th? Mangum, after she stabbed Mr. Daye. She fled and when she was later arrested she refused to give a statement. As a Canadian, what does it say to you when someone flees from a crime scene and then refuses to talk to the police when they are later apprehended? That they must be guilty as hell, right?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal did not avail herself of her rights under your 5th amendment. She did exercise her Miranda rights by refusing to speak when informed of them; February 4, 2017 at 9:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: Crystal claims a rectal and vaginal rape. Three unidentified and two identified DNA samples were found. Are you and Wikipedia saying there were twelve distinct DNA samples or are you counting samples sourced in different places more then once?; February 4, 2017 at 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal

"Crystal did not avail herself of her rights under your 5th amendment. She did exercise her Miranda rights by refusing to speak when informed of them>

Check out http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html

"What are the "Miranda Rights"?

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements. As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Niranda Eights stem directly from rights guaranteed by the Constitution to any accused, including rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment..

While we are n the subjectof Constitutional Rights, another right guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to be representedby counsel. When it comes tto Constitutional rights and who is entittlrd to them, Nifong, your crusader for justice, made public statements which undermined the rightto counsel, e.g. why would anyone need alawyer if they had domne nothing and had not been charged(the context of that stattement was Nifong's public statements that members of the Lacrosse team had done something criminal and that he would be charging them).

And your statementsabout the defendants and their lawyersindicate you believe that the defendants should not have availed themselves oftheir right to counsel, even ifyou would deny that.

You are a guilt presuming rraist from Canada who would deny the right of US citizens charge with a crime under US laaw.; February 5, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ JSwift: Crystal claims a rectal and vaginal rape. Three unidentified and two identified DNA samples were found. Are you and Wikipedia saying there were twelve distinct DNA samples or are you counting samples sourced in different places more then once?"

Whatever JSwift is saying, you are trying to duck a fact, you have provided zero factual evidence that the DNA was deposited on Crystal at the party.

And you continue to duck this issue, if you really do believe the DNA came from rapists, then explain why Nifong concealed the evidence rather than trace it back to its sources, why Nifong had indicted, for first degree rape, three men who were not the sources.

On the same subject, recall your comments from February 4, 2017 at 8:23 AM, and your comments about Reade Seligman's alibi being contrived. You believe Reade Seligman was guilty of rape, even though his DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal. You will probably go back to "sexual assault" again. And again I will remind you, the "sexual assault" alleged by Ceystal was a semen depositing Rape, and Nifong had Reade Seligman indicted for Rape.; February 5, 2017 at 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Claeification fot Kenhyderal:

You are a guilt presuming racist from Canada who would deny the Constitutional rights of certain US citizens charged under US law with a crime.; February 5, 2017 at 4:26 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Crystal did not avail herself of her rights under your 5th amendment. She did exercise her Miranda rights by refusing to speak when informed of them."

BBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [Manual buzzer noise.]

Run him!

Another of your fact free posts. The rights referred to in the Miranda decision are constitutional rights. If you had any understanding of the law, you would know that Miranda tells us how to protect constitutional rights.

Walt-in-Duham; February 5, 2017 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Crystal did not avail herself of her rights under your 5th amendment. She did exercise her Miranda rights by refusing to speak when informed of them."

Something one would expect from Kenhyderal, whose explanation of why Nifong did not identify the men who had left their DNA was, Nifong believed he could convict the Lacrosse defendants of Sexual assault and kidnapping without DNA evidence. In an earlier J4N post, Kenny claimed Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players charged with rape.; February 5, 2017 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

As Walt and others explained, you are wrong yet again on a very basic and simple point. The Miranda case deals with the 5th amendment rights of criminal suspect in police custody. More specifically, it requires the police to inform suspects in police custody of their 5th amendment rights before questioning them. The Miranda case creates no new right; it simply instructs the police that they must tell suspects they take into custody of their already existing 5th amendment rights before interrogating them.

Since we straightened that out, please answer my question:

As a Canadian, what does it say to you when someone flees the scene of a crime and then refuses to talk to the police when they are later apprehended, like Mangum did? That they must be guilty as hell, right?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 5, 2017 at 6:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 10 days left until February 14th. You have 330 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 36 days since the end of 2016, 219 days since the end of June 2016, 287 days since April 24, 2016, 326 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,170 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,521 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,309 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 5, 2017 at 6:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: As a Canadian, what does it say to you when someone flees the scene of a crime and then refuses to talk to the police when they are later apprehended, like Mangum did? That they must be guilty as hell, right?".................................... If the person committed a crime and then fled the scene it would suggest guilt, Crystal acted in self defence and then fled for her life. When read her rights she chose to remain silent. She had no reason, at that time, to believe Duke Hospital would kill Daye and she would, unjustly, be charged with murdering him.; February 5, 2017 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

If Mangum acted in self defense, then why didn't she go to the police and tell them she had been attacked by Mr. Daye, or at least tell them that after they apprehended her? If I am attacked and have to use force to defend myself, the police aren't going to have to go looking for me. The first place I am going the second I escape my attacker is to the police.

You have repeatedly and falsely claimed that the Duke lacrosse players refused to speak to and cooperate with the police, even though it would have been their right to do so, and that their supposed refusal to speak with the police (as well as their decision to hire lawyers to represent them) is indicative of guilt.

Unlike the lacrosse players, Mangum actually refused to speak to the police after she stabbed Mr. Daye. What does that say about her?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Crystal did not act in self-defense. Reginald Daye let go of her and started walking away. She grabbed a knife and stabbed him in the back.; February 5, 2017 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

" Blogger kenhyderal said...

Abe said: As a Canadian, what does it say to you when someone flees the scene of a crime and then refuses to talk to the police when they are later apprehended, like Mangum did? That they must be guilty as hell, right?".................................... If the person committed a crime and then fled the scene it would suggest guilt, Crystal acted in self defence and then fled for her life."

She did not act in self defense. That was established at trial.

"When read her rights she chose to remain silent."

So what do you think of Nifong making a statement to the effect that Lacrosse players who retained counsel and then chose not to talk to the authorities, which were their rights, were maintaining a wall of silence and were indicating guilt?

"She had no reason, at that time, to believe Duke Hospital would kill Daye"

Duke Hospital did not kill Reginald Daye. Crystal did.

"and she would, unjustly, be charged with murdering him."

Crystal did murder Reginald Daye. What she did not expect, because of Sidney's interference in the case, that she would not be able to beat the rap.; February 5, 2017 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

What precluded Crystal,following the Miranda warning given to her, from telling the police she acted in self defense? Would a claim of self defense have incriminated her? Did a failure to claim self defense, for that matter, exonerate her?

What your idol Sidney Harr claimed was, the police read her a Miranda warning because they wanted to silence her, to prevent her from claiming self defense. Do you think that kind of explanation was credible?

Maybe you do. When you were challenged to explain why Nifong made no attempt to identify the sources of the male DNA found on Crystal, male DNA you said could have come from rapists, your response was the irrational, non credible, Nifong thought he could convict members of the Lacrosse team of sexual assault without DNA evidence. Not that alleged sexual assault.; February 5, 2017 at 11:40 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: @ JSwift: Crystal claims a rectal and vaginal rape. Three unidentified and two identified DNA samples were found. Are you and Wikipedia saying there were twelve distinct DNA samples or are you counting samples sourced in different places more then once?

Kenny,

I cannot find the original source. Sorry.

My recollection is that the DNA samples were from separate, distinct donors. That would suggest a large number of mystery rapists. However, even assuming duplication between locations, you should modify your narrative to include at least four or five mystery rapists. Otherwise, you are forced to admit that Mangum's admitted consensual sexual history was incomplete. I thought the point of your mystery rapist narrative was to avoid that admission.

In addition, in her written statement, Magnum also claimed that one of her assailants forced her to provide oral sex and ejaculated in her mouth. She then claimed she spit the semen onto the floor. She repeated the oral sex allegation with the special prosecutors. I believe male DNA (from one or two donors) that did not match any of the players was also found in her mouth. That was not listed by Wikipedia. If I am correct, that may be an additional mystery rapist or two to include in your narrative.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 5, 2017 at 11:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: Extracorporeal DNA from secondary transfer contamination.; February 5, 2017 at 2:35 PM
JSwift said...: Wikipedia observes: At Nifong's subsequent ethics trial on June 14, 2007, the complete DNA findings were revealed during defense attorney Brad Bannon's testimony. According to conservative estimates, the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her underpants; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina.

Kenny,

I don't understand. You note that Magnum claimed to have been vaginally raped, but there appears to have been no unidentified male's DNA in her vagina. Where is the DNA from the mystery rapist(s) who raped her vaginally?

How many mystery rapists raped her anally? I thought she claimed only that she was raped anally once. Were both of the unidentified males' DNA found in her rectum from mystery rapists or was one from "secondary transfer contamination" as you suggested?

Are you suggesting that all of the four or five males' DNA found in her underparts and the two males' DNA found on her pubic region was from "secondary transfer contamination" or did some come from mystery rapists? If only some of it came from mystery rapists, how can the prosecutor tell which donors are mystery rapists and which are not?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhygeral:

"Extracorporeal DNA from secondary transfer contamination."

The most credible explanation of how DNA COMPATIBLE with David Evans' DNA got on Crystal's false fingernail.

The least credible explanation: David Evans assaulted Crystal.

What Kenny does not want to deal with: DNA MATCHING David Evans' DNA was not found on Crystal's person.; February 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Supplemental:

What Kenny does not want to deal with: DNA MATCHING David Evans' DNA was not found on Crystal's person, and Crystal had identified him with 90% certainty as one of the men who hao perpetrted a semen depositing gang rape on her.; February 5, 2017 at 4:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: Crystal's consensual sexual history contains no history of anal sex.; February 5, 2017 at 9:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: There is no definitive conclusions that can be drawn from the 1844 pages of material from SBI about the number of unidentified DNA profiles found except that Finnerty, Seligman and Evans contributed none that were found on the submitted samples save on a towel and on Crystal's fingernail which could not exclude Evans.; February 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Crystal's consensual sexual history contains no history of anal sex."

Crystal's KNOWN consensual sexual history contains no history of anal sex.; February 6, 2017 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"There is no definitive conclusions that can be drawn from the 1844 pages of material from SBI about the number of unidentified DNA profiles found except that Finnerty, Seligman and Evans contributed none that were found on the submitted samples save on a towel and on Crystal's fingernail which could not exclude Evans."

Yes there can be definitive conclusions drawn, that there is no evidence that the three defendants could have perpetrated the alleged sexual assault described by Crystal, a semen depositing TAPE. And, there had no Semen depositing rape perpetrated at the party. If there had been, DNA from people at the party would have been found on the rape kit materials, Alkaline Phosphatase would have been detected on the rape kit materials.

That no forensic training, no forensic experience Kenhyderal does not know what definitive conclusions are is irrelevant.; February 6, 2017 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

The 1844 pages to which you refer came from DNA Security, not SBI.

And you have yet to address the issue, if the DNA came from Rapists, why did Nifong conceal the evidence and make no effort to identify the sources, why he sought indictments for first degree rape against men whose DNA did not match the DNA found by DNA Security.

And why did Nifong have conducted a lineup procedure consisting only of pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on the Rape kit?

I remind you, the justification for the NTO requiring the Caucasian members of the Lacrosse team to give samples for DNA analysis was, the DNA on the rape kit materials would identify the perpetrators.; February 6, 2017 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 9 days left until February 14th. You have 329 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 37 days since the end of 2016, 220 days since the end of June 2016, 288 days since April 24, 2016, 327 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,171 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,522 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,308 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 6, 2017 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Xorrection of typo:

Kenhyderal:

"There is no definitive conclusions that can be drawn from the 1844 pages of material from SBI about the number of unidentified DNA profiles found except that Finnerty, Seligman and Evans contributed none that were found on the submitted samples save on a towel and on Crystal's fingernail which could not exclude Evans."

Yes there can be definitive conclusions drawn, that there is no evidence that the three defendants could have perpetrated the alleged sexual assault described by Crystal, a semen depositing RAPE. And, there had no Semen depositing rape perpetrated at the party. If there had been, DNA from people at the party would have been found on the rape kit materials, Alkaline Phosphatase would have been detected on the rape kit materials.

That no forensic training, no forensic experience Kenhyderal does not know what definitive conclusions are is irrelevant.; February 6, 2017 at 5:35 AM
Walt said...: Well Sid's great plan to spring Crystal is to ask the Middle District to let her free on bail pending the court's review of her Habeas petition. Sid thinks that because the Attorney General asked for an additional thirty days to respond to Crystal's petition, she should be bonded out. Sid's main theory behind this latest frivolous motion is that he previously wrote to a number of people, including Josh Stein when he was a member of the legislature. As if Sid's letters provide anything like the information needed to respond to Crystal's petition. While I won't do Crystal or Sid's work for them, bail is possible under certain circumstances when an application for Habeas Corpus relief is pending. Suffice, to say, Sid has not favored us with any citation to authority for the court to issue bail, nor has he presented facts which would lead the District Court to admit Crystal to bail. Further, Sid and Crystal don't tell us why the court should reverse its already entered order granting the state time to reply. But, no one has ever successfully accused Sid or Crystal of being effective advocates.

Walt-in-Durham; February 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM
Walt said...: With regard to Sid's Freeman case: SIDNEY B. HARR
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
N. LORRIN FREEMAN; WAKE COUNTY, in the State of North Carolina
Defendants - Appellees
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge
requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for
rehearing en banc.

So sayeth the Fourth Circuit.

Sid loses yet again. I'm sure he'll be off to the Supreme Court. Wonder why he doesn't favor us with his court orders, just his frivolous complaints?

Walt-in-Durham; February 6, 2017 at 12:32 PM
Walt said...: With regard to Harr III:
SIDNEY B. HARR
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, President; DUKE UNIVERSITY, C/O Pamela J.
Bernard, General Counsel; ASSOCIATED PRESS; DAVID F. LEVI, Dean
Defendants - Appellees
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge
requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for
rehearing en banc.

So sayeth the Fourth Circuit.

Another loss and yet again, Sid is silent.

Hmmmmmmm. [stroking goatee]

Walt-in-Durham; February 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

Since Sid doesn't post his drivel anymore, any chance you could post his Bond Motion? Sometimes it's good for a laugh.; February 6, 2017 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 8 days left until February 14th. You have 328 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 38 days since the end of 2016, 221 days since the end of June 2016, 289 days since April 24, 2016, 328 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,172 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,523 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,307 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 7, 2017 at 5:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

Just wanted to give an update as of today I have not received a response from either Gabe Roth and Fix-the-Court or from James Goodmon and WRAL.

As far as Crystal Mangum's case goes, the end of the month should be relevant with respect to some movement on her case.

Have been working on an unrelated personal project recently which should be completed soon... at which time I will resume focus on the legal injustices at hand.

As you were.; February 7, 2017 at 6:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

Just wanted to give an update as of today I have not received a response from either Gabe Roth and Fix-the-Court or from James Goodmon and WRAL.

As far as Crystal Mangum's case goes, the end of the month should be relevant with respect to some movement on her case.

Have been working on an unrelated personal project recently which should be completed soon... at which time I will resume focus on the legal injustices at hand.

As you were."

More excuses from Sidney for his failure to deliver on his promises. What else is new?; February 7, 2017 at 7:26 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

Just wanted to give an update as of today I have not received a response from either Gabe Roth and Fix-the-Court or from James Goodmon and WRAL."

You dismissed, voluntarily, your case against Goodmon and WRAL, what were you expecting to hear? They have nothing to respond to, unless you have re-filed in state court. Have you re-filed in state court? If so, provide us your filing.

Walt-in-Durham; February 7, 2017 at 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Have they even been served? Filing is one thing, you have to have proper service.

And, Sid, Walt has already pointed out that nothing will happen with Mangum by the end of the month. She's not getting Bond.; February 7, 2017 at 2:43 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:36 PM wrote: "Walt,

Since Sid doesn't post his drivel anymore, any chance you could post his Bond Motion? Sometimes it's good for a laugh."

Ask, and ye shall receive. :-) And yes, it is a laugher.

Here is a link to Sid/Crystal's motion for bail in her Habeas case: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7z91VniTzKQa3pGY1JyUkhST0E; February 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "As if Sid's letters provide anything like the information needed to respond to Crystal's petition. While I won't do Crystal or Sid's work for them, bail is possible under certain circumstances when an application for Habeas Corpus relief is pending. Suffice, to say, Sid has not favored us with any citation to authority for the court to issue bail, nor has he presented facts which would lead the District Court to admit Crystal to bail. Further, Sid and Crystal don't tell us why the court should reverse its already entered order granting the state time to reply. But, no one has ever successfully accused Sid or Crystal of being effective advocates"...................Lawyer Walt sneers at and mocks attempts by Dr. Harr to help Crystal. He's the same guy who claims he devotes considerable time giving free legal help to the poor and the disadvantaged.; February 7, 2017 at 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Lawyer Walt sneers at and mocks attempts by Dr. Harr to help Crystal. He's the same guy who claims he devotes considerable time giving free legal help to the poor and the disadvantaged."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that Sidney is trying to help Crystal. Sidney is trying to attract attention to himself, nothing mire.

And Kenny is again manifesting his resentment and dislike for someone who is better off and more accomplished than he is.; February 8, 2017 at 4:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

Just wanted to give an update as of today I have not received a response from either Gabe Roth and Fix-the-Court or from James Goodmon and WRAL."

You dismissed, voluntarily, your case against Goodmon and WRAL, what were you expecting to hear? They have nothing to respond to, unless you have re-filed in state court. Have you re-filed in state court? If so, provide us your filing.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Yeah, I refiled the case against WRAL in the state court on January 19, 2017. It's file number is: 17-cv-000739.; February 8, 2017 at 5:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 1:36 PM wrote: "Walt,

Since Sid doesn't post his drivel anymore, any chance you could post his Bond Motion? Sometimes it's good for a laugh."

Ask, and ye shall receive. :-) And yes, it is a laugher.

Here is a link to Sid/Crystal's motion for bail in her Habeas case: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7z91VniTzKQa3pGY1JyUkhST0E

Technically, the filing was a Response to the Respondent's Motion for an Extension to File. Crystal did reasonably request relief to include a transfer to house arrest. She did not request that bail be established... although that is an interesting suggestion.; February 8, 2017 at 5:27 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Technically, the filing was a Response to the Respondent's Motion for an Extension to File."

An untimely response as the court had already granted the extension.

"Crystal did reasonably request relief to include a transfer to house arrest. She did not request that bail be established... although that is an interesting suggestion."

Again, you failed to do any research to find out what the federal rules are for granting of bail pending a hearing. Bail is the term of art in federal court for any release from incarceration under any terms. As you did not do the work to figure out how that is done, nor did you show opposing counsel the courtesy of filing your motion before the court granted the State's request, I won't help you in figuring out how to do the job. Suffice to say, I doubt that Crystal can meet the requirements for bail pre-hearing.

Walt-in-Durham; February 8, 2017 at 5:58 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: ".Lawyer Walt sneers at and mocks attempts by Dr. Harr to help Crystal. He's the same guy who claims he devotes considerable time giving free legal help to the poor and the disadvantaged."

Not just Sid, but you too Kenny. You two are the most ineffective, ill-informed "advocates" I have ever run across. Your efforts deserve nothing but mockery.

Walt-in-Durham; February 8, 2017 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 7 days left until February 14th. You have 327 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 39 days since the end of 2016, 222 days since the end of June 2016, 290 days since April 24, 2016, 329 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,173 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,524 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,306 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 8, 2017 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt:

When has kenny actually advocated on behalf of Mangum? He is a troll and an inveterate liar who likes to stir the pot from time to time with inflammatory posts. However, he has advanced no serious argument on Mangum's behalf and has never actually done or attempted to do anything that could be characterized as advocacy.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 8, 2017 at 6:43 AM
Walt said...: Abe, that's why advocates was in quotes. But, I agree, Kenny is nothing more than an uninformed troll. He has yet to advance a serious argument on Mangum's behalf. Which is why I have previously used the Animal House quote about the right guys for a truly meaningless gesture to apply to him and Sid.

Walt; February 8, 2017 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Hey, Walt.

Yeah, I refiled the case against WRAL in the state court on January 19, 2017. It's file number is: 17-cv-000739."

So that is the date your frivolous, non meritorious suit gets dismissed, right?; February 8, 2017 at 7:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Not just Sid, but you too Kenny. You two are the most ineffective, ill-informed "advocates" I have ever run across. Your efforts deserve nothing but mockery".............................Dr. Harr, although an educated man is not a Lawyer and I am a foreign lay-person without any legal knowledge, training or court experience either civil or criminal. What we do have, though, that no commentator here or any Court appointed Lawyer has had, is care and concern for our friend, Crystal, who in our mind was unjustly victimized by a justice system widely acknowledged as being in drastic need of reform. It's easy for trained Lawyers to mock and sneer at efforts of a lay person to navigate the obscure and arcane legal system constructed to maintain the status quo, which has America more Lawyered than any other society on earth. And, it's disgracefully evolved into a system where only money buys justice. No wonder this once noble profession is now held in such contempt, with only it's benefiting practitioners defending it.; February 8, 2017 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Where, exactly, is the suitable "house arrest" residential environment "Crystal" is petitioning for?

You plan on having her stay with you Sid? 'Cause that worked out so well for the last 2 men she's lived with....; February 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I find it interesting that Sid is still referencing a plea deal to time served and ten years of probation (which is actually not possible in North Carolina, the limit is 5 absent extraordinary circumstances). He had posted a letter Meier sent to Crystal (Sid pulled it down), and Meier explicitly stated that plea offer was never made. Oddly, Crystal has not claimed Meier lied to her, or filed a Bar Complaint based on that lie - if that plea offer was made, and Meier is directly lying to his client in writing, she'd have a strong claim. Odd that Sid pushes this, but Crystal doesn't.; February 8, 2017 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Walt.

Yeah, I refiled the case against WRAL in the state court on January 19, 2017. It's file number is: 17-cv-000739

Doesn't matter when it was filed, when was it served? They have 30 days to respond from the date you serve them - either via sheriff or certified mail. So, you are wondering why you don't have a response - what day was WRAL served with the lawsuit? Even if they were served that day (and they clearly weren't), they still have over 10 days left before their motion to dismiss and request for sanctions is due.; February 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's Tinfoil Hat? Where's Justice58? Where's Lance?

blah; February 8, 2017 at 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Harr, although an educated man is not a Lawyer and I am a foreign lay-person without any legal knowledge, training or court experience either civil or criminal."

Yet the both if you feel qualified to determine whether or not a trial was properly conducted.

"What we do have, though, that no commentator here or any Court appointed Lawyer has had, is care and concern for our friend, Crystal, who in our mind was unjustly victimized by a justice system widely acknowledged as being in drastic need of reform."

The combined opinions of you and Sidney do not establish that it is widely recognized that the US justice system is"widely acknowledged as being in drastic need of reform." That you would makr such a statement shaows that you, like Sidney are a delusional megalomaniac

"It's easy for trained Lawyers to mock and sneer at efforts of a lay person to navigate the obscure and arcane legal system constructed to maintain the status quo, which has America more Lawyered than any other society on earth."

Not as easy as it is for incredibly stupid delusional people like you and Sidney to declare that innocent people are guilty, that certain mutderers should get passes for their crimes

"And, it's disgracefully evolved into a system where only money buys justice. No wonder this once noble profession is now held in such contempt, with only it's benefiting practitioners defending it."

No it hasn't. This again you and Sidney grousing because your favorite murdress/false accuser couldn't beat the rap and get a pass for her crimes.; February 8, 2017 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

You grouse about the unfairness of the US Justice System.

I have asked you about Nifong and the DNA evidence found on Crystal. If you believe the DNA came from Rapists, then explain why DA Nifong concealed the evidence rather than identify the sources. Explain why had a photo lineup conducted which included only pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal. Explain why Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

Your explanations have been, shall we say bizarre, evasive, and out and out lies: Nifong did not conceal the evidence; Nifong did not have the three defendants indicted for Rape; Nifong was trying to convict the men he had indicted for first degree rape , not for first degree rape but for sexual assault and kidnapping.

So why do you expect anyone to believe you are qualified to say that the US Justice system is "widely acknowledged as being in drastic need of reform."; February 8, 2017 at 5:34 PM
guiowen said...: So, Sidney, any plans to marry Crystal? You really make a cute couple. I don't know, however, whether you really want to get too close to her outside supervision.
We saw how that worked out for poor old Reginald.

so,
sidney; February 8, 2017 at 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; February 8, 2017 at 7:13 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. Anonyymous: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/312492-criminal-justice-reform-is-ripe-for-bipartisan-achievement; February 8, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"@ Dr. Anonyymous(sic): http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/312492-criminal-justice-reform-is-ripe-for-bipartisan-achievement"

Yes our justice system can be improved. Your URL does not establish what you have said, that our justice system is "a justice system widely acknowledged as being in drastic need of reform."

For that matter, your repeated comments, that Crystal was victimized, because she could not beat the rap for murdering Reginald Daye, is purely delusional.

And that you can not comprehend the injustice of the Duke Rape Hoax, perpetrated on the Lacrosse defendants, establishes you as one who is incapable of recognizing injustice.

Your behavior regarding the DNA evidence in the Duke Rape Hoax establishes you as an advocate for injustice for people you dislike and resent.; February 9, 2017 at 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 6 days left until February 14th. You have 326 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 40 days since the end of 2016, 223 days since the end of June 2016, 291 days since April 24, 2016, 330 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,174 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,525 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,305 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 9, 2017 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: When you actually have people INSISTING duke is beyond reproach even though everyone is left to reproach or not reproach at will based upon what they know or don't know after seeing what is going on through the absence of anything reasoned or legal about what duke is doing in this case(s) to indicate any other reason other than to reproach what they are doing while continuing to watch them not take responsibility nor concern for what they are doing while they are continue to do what they do (or don't do) - and thus leaving all to be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus - because it is duke - afterall ... the only thing left is to question duke and the duke / durham justice system - what the frack are you doing?

egad
sheesh louise and heloise
and
blah; February 9, 2017 at 6:52 AM
guiowen said...: Oh, it's Grybully Tinfoil again!; February 9, 2017 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: nevermind, g..., alias evil duke troll it g...hatemonger in the pure g... form to the rescue ...; February 9, 2017 at 7:08 AM
guiowen said...: Crybully Cry,
You makw Ken Edwards sigh:
He's old enough to know better
So Crybully cry!; February 9, 2017 at 9:33 AM
A Lawyer said...: When you actually have people INSISTING duke is beyond reproach even though everyone is left to reproach or not reproach at will based upon what they know or don't know after seeing what is going on through the absence of anything reasoned or legal about what duke is doing in this case(s) to indicate any other reason other than to reproach what they are doing while continuing to watch them not take responsibility nor concern for what they are doing while they are continue to do what they do (or don't do) - and thus leaving all to be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus - because it is duke - afterall ... the only thing left is to question duke and the duke / durham justice system - what the frack are you doing?

Anyone want to try diagramming that sentence?; February 9, 2017 at 10:54 AM
guiowen said...: A Lawyer
It's just Crybully crying again.; February 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Watch out, guiowen -- you'll be reproached by those who do not reproach - or vice versus....

Which would mean that you would not be reproached by those who reproach. I guess...

Wait, would that be a bad thing?; February 9, 2017 at 12:30 PM
guiowen said...: Fake Kenny,
I'm horrified that Crybully Tinfoil might reproach me.; February 9, 2017 at 1:15 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Guiowen -- I think I'd wear Tinfoil's reproach as a badge of honor....So that most likely means I get the vice versus treatment.

But what do I know...or don't know ;); February 9, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal or Sidney oar maybe both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.; February 9, 2017 at 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Tinfoil:

I am glad you are at least alive, even if not well.

To Anonymous at 3:15 PM:

I don't know about Sid or kenny, but if I were to create an anonymous sock puppet, I would try to make it sound lucid.

To A Lawyer at 10:54 AM:

Never diagram crazy.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 9, 2017 at 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Abe:

"
I don't know about Sid or kenny, but if I were to create an anonymous sock puppet, I would try to make it sound lucid.".

When have Kenhyderal or Sidney ever behaved in a lucid manner?; February 9, 2017 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 5 days left until February 14th. You have 325 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 41 days since the end of 2016, 224 days since the end of June 2016, 292 days since April 24, 2016, 331 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,175 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,526 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,304 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 10, 2017 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...

So, Sidney, any plans to marry Crystal? You really make a cute couple. I don't know, however, whether you really want to get too close to her outside supervision.
We saw how that worked out for poor old Reginald.

so,
sidney

gui, mon ami,

Thanks for the compliment. Crystal is cute, and has a nice personality. Many good qualities that would make a good mate. However, I am more than thirty years older than she is... which I think would be the major consideration for me.

As far as getting close to her without supervision, I do not see that as being a problem as I am not a jealous type, I am not an alcoholic or one to lose control of my mental faculties, and cannot envision a situation in which I would attempt to strangle her to death... So, that issue is moot.

No serious plans can be made until she is out of jail... which should be within a matter of weeks or months (at the latest).; February 10, 2017 at 7:49 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
So you are considering it. Good.; February 10, 2017 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"gui, mon ami,

...

"As far as getting close to [Crystal] without supervision, I do not see that as being a problem as I am not a jealous type, I am not an alcoholic or one to lose control of my mental faculties, and cannot envision a situation in which I would attempt to strangle her to death... So, that issue is moot."

Well, Milton Walker was not an alcoholic or violent but Crystal went after him. Reginald Daye, in spite of the opinions of Sidney, was not an alcoholic or a violent man and did not try to strangle Crystal in a jealous rage. FInally, no one at the Lacrosse party ever assaulted or raped Crystl but she went after them. The issue is far from moot.

"No serious plans can be made until she is out of jail... which should be within a matter of weeks or months (at the latest)."

Here Sidney documents he is incapable of lucid thinking and incapable of fabricating sock puppet which would sound lucid.; February 10, 2017 at 8:53 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "No serious plans can be made until she is out of jail... which should be within a matter of weeks or months (at the latest)."

Well, weeks is plural, so if you mean that to be 472 weeks. Yes, Crystal will be out of prison in a matter of weeks, 472 to be precise.

ROFLMAO,
Walt-in-Durham; February 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 4 days left until February 14th. You have 324 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 42 days since the end of 2016, 225 days since the end of June 2016, 293 days since April 24, 2016, 332 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,176 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,527 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,303 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 11, 2017 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
So you are considering it. Good.

Thanks, gui, mon ami.

If there is a wedding, you can count on getting an invitation, along with kenhyderal.; February 12, 2017 at 6:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "No serious plans can be made until she is out of jail... which should be within a matter of weeks or months (at the latest)."

Well, weeks is plural, so if you mean that to be 472 weeks. Yes, Crystal will be out of prison in a matter of weeks, 472 to be precise.

ROFLMAO,
Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I must admit, I am seriously concerned about you. It is clear that you will take it very hard when Crystal is released from jail... and even harder after she is exonerated. Because of that I am pre-ordering several more Duke-colored crying towels for you, and I would strongly suggest that you make arrangements now for an appointment with either a psychologist or psychiatrist in order to help you cope with the future realities. It will definitely be a matter of weeks or months, at the latest, and not years.

I make these recommendations because I care about you.; February 12, 2017 at 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

I must admit, I am seriously concerned about you. It is clear that you will take it very hard when Crystal is released from jail... and even harder after she is exonerated. Because of that I am pre-ordering several more Duke-colored crying towels for you, and I would strongly suggest that you make arrangements now for an appointment with either a psychologist or psychiatrist in order to help you cope with the future realities. It will definitely be a matter of weeks or months, at the latest, and not years.

I make these recommendations because I care about you."

Sidney, who has yet to establish he is in contact with reality advises Walt in Durham to see a Psychologist or Psychiatrist.; February 12, 2017 at 8:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Harr, of course, is being facetious, unlike several unethical posters here, who qualified or not and in violation of the so-called Goldwater rule of professional ethics, make psychiatric diagnosis, unseen and unknown, about people who hold a different point of view from them on the widely held but erroneous metanarrative about Crystal Mangum.; February 12, 2017 at 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 2 days left until February 14th. You have 323 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 43 days since the end of 2016, 226 days since the end of June 2016, 294 days since April 24, 2016, 333 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,177 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,528 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,302 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 12, 2017 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Harr, of course, is being facetious, unlike several unethical posters here, who qualified or not and in violation of the so-called Goldwater rule of professional ethics, make psychiatric diagnosis, unseen and unknown, about people who hold a different point of view from them on the widely held but erroneous metanarrative about Crystal Mangum."

Irrelevant statement as the metanarrative to which Kenny refers does not exist.

The only metanarrative in the Duke Rape hoax was the metanarrative, that well off Caucasian men raped a poor, black stripper. Kenny documents that Crystal was not raped when he presents zero evidence that she was raped, when he produces speculation as to why there was no evidence, and ducks and evades and out out lies when confronted with glaring inconsistencies in his "different point of view".; February 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me