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 401 – 600 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Do you actually believe that anonymous posters who call Sid crazy are psychiatrists who are rendering a professional opinion about a public figure? Are you claiming the "Goldwater rule" makes it unethical to call someone crazy?

Telling lies about something is not expressing "a different point of view." Telling outrageous lies is not an acceptable expression of opinion. Lies are not entitled to respect and acceptance. When you lie, you deserve to be called out, mocked and ridiculed for it. That's the price you pay for lying.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 12, 2017 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

check out:

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

"The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7.3 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) code of ethics, which states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person and obtained consent from to discuss their mental health in public statements".

Sidney Harr is in no way a public figure the way Senator Goldwater was. And the people making the comments about him are not psychiatrists.

So the Goldwater rule is not at all applicable in this case.

You sure have a knack of sticking your foot in your mouth.; February 12, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny's latest comment is an attempt on the part of Kenny and probably also Sidney to silence people who disagree with them.

Very Trumpian.; February 12, 2017 at 12:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: Any Physician, retired or not should refrain from diagnosing anyone's mental or physical health based on their public persona. Dr. Anonymous being the best example of someone who regularly engages in this unethical practice.; February 12, 2017 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Any Physician, retired or not should refrain from diagnosing anyone's mental or physical health based on their public persona. Dr. Anonymous being the best example of someone who regularly engages in this unethical practice."

Another iteration of Kenhyderal wanting to suppress things he does not want to hear.

Just like he wants to suppress evidence that Crystal wasimpaired before she showed up there.

Again I say, very Trumpian, Kenny.; February 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it not curious that Kenny and Sidney can publish statements falsely accusing innocent men of a crime which never happened,but, according to those two, it is not acceptable for others to publish comments which shows their obviously disordered thinking.; February 12, 2017 at 3:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: Is it not curious that you ignore testimony, to the contrary, of three independent witnesses but accept testimony of persons who were suspects; February 12, 2017 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Is it not curious that you ignore testimony, to the contrary, of three independent witnesses but accept testimony of persons who were suspects"

You are again, by misstating the situation, trying to weasel out of a situation with which you do not want to deal. All testimony in a criminal case must be considered, by the court, testimony for the suspects and testimony against the suspects. There is testimony, according to you, that Crystal was unimpaired when she arrived at the party. There was also evidence that she was impaired that she was impaired when she arrived. And you have provided zero evidence that she was drugged at the party. Speculation is not evidence.

You are saying suspects should be presumed guilty, in the face of of the overwhelming lack of evidence that the crime ever happened. In the US judicial system, the suspects are presumed innocent until and unless the Prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened and that the suspects perpetrated the crime. You are in denial of the fact that there was no evidence the crime ever happened.

Which brings us back to a situation you have been ducking and dodging. You obviously believe the DNA found on Crystal came from Rapists. Yet you will not explain 1) why Nifong, who had custody of the evidence, concealed it rather than identify the sources, 2) why Nifong had conducted a photo lineup consisting only of pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and he knew that their DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, 3) why Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and Nifong knew when he sought the indictments against them for first degree rape that their DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

Feel free to again to dodge, waffle, and outright lie. You will document you are far removed from reality.; February 12, 2017 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Is anyone tired of the meaningless debate that has been going on for four years between Kenny and Ubes?; February 12, 2017 at 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Presumes a fact not in evidence, that Kenny is capable of debate. He isn't. One has to be capable of rational thinking to debate. Kenny can not think, let alone think rationally.; February 12, 2017 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Dodging issues rather than confronting them is not debating.; February 12, 2017 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: You da man Ubes; February 12, 2017 at 7:09 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: 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.

Hah. Of course, kenhyderal is correct. My advise to Walt to seek professional help is strictly in jest, as I am sure Walt is aware. There are instances, when on the fringes of heart-felt expressions, I will incorporate a bit of levity to make a point. Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe Walt is as sane and emotionally stable as me and Crystal Mangum.; February 13, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:34 PM wrote: "... Speculation is not evidence."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Kenny loves to speculate in the absence of evidence, or when the evidence is contrary to his beliefs.

"You are saying suspects should be presumed guilty, in the face of of the overwhelming lack of evidence that the crime ever happened."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Well done, anon, two excellent observations in one post. Someone who clearly gets it. Rack him!

Walt-in-Durham; February 13, 2017 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Tomorrow is February 14th. You have 322 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 44 days since the end of 2016, 227 days since the end of June 2016, 295 days since April 24, 2016, 334 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,178 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,529 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,301 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 13, 2017 at 7:40 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous saying and Walt concurring: "You are saying suspects should be presumed guilty, in the face of of the overwhelming lack of evidence that the crime ever happened."..................... No I am saying there was sufficient evidence to charge them.; February 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said with Walt concurring: "(Kenhyderal speculates) when the evidence is contrary to his beliefs....................... Both of you do this. eg. all the DNA found was deposited before the Party, Bissey, Roberts and Taylor were mistaken or lying when they say Crystal arrive unimpaired, the presence of any date rape drug was excluded ; a complete comprehensive list of Party attendees was compiled, the untested exudate, presumed by Dr. Manly on Crystal to be semen was in fact due to an infection; the negative acid phosphatase test definitively ruled out a rape etc,etc,; February 13, 2017 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hah. Of course, kenhyderal is correct."

Presuming Kenhyderal is correct is a risky proposition, e.g. Kenhyderal has said things like, Nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence(he turned over to the defense, in response to a court order, thousands of pageso raw data, months after he had a report-Nifong was obligated by NC Law to turn over a report containing all the results when he had the report, which was prior to his seeking indictments for first degree rape against the Lacrosse players), he has said Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players with rape.

"My advise to Walt to seek professional help is strictly in jest, as I am sure Walt is aware."

Sidney being evasive and going into denial.

"There are instances, when on the fringes of heart-felt expressions, I will incorporate a bit of levity to make a point."

Except Sidney, in the entire history, has never made a valid point.

"Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe Walt is as sane and emotionally stable as me and Crystal Mangum."

Which is meaningless, because you and Crystal have never manifested mental stability.; February 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous saying and Walt concurring: "You are saying suspects should be presumed guilty, in the face of of the overwhelming lack of evidence that the crime ever happened."..................... No I am saying there was sufficient evidence to charge them."

And you are wrong and Guilt presuming. Taking into account all the evidence developed, Crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple males, not wearing condoms, who deposited their DNA on her, no findings on physical exam consistent with a brutal gang rape, no evidence that semen was deposited on her(Dr. Julie Manly's surmising was not evidence), the only DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation of a brutal semen depositing gang rape did not match the DNA of anyone identified as party attendees, no evidence of any unidentified party attendees(what you have from kilgo is doublr hearsay, and you can not document kilgo ever told you that), taking into ALL the evidence, not just the evidence you want taken into consideration, there was no where sufficient evidence to charge anyone with anything. Even if Crystal was sober when she arrived at the party, and there is evidence you want excluded from consideration that she was not, there is zero justification for charging anyone identified as being at the party with anything.; February 13, 2017 at 11:16 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " No I am saying there was sufficient evidence to charge them."

There you go again, simply making up the law as you wish it to be. In fact, under North Carolina, and for that matter every other jurisdiction I am familiar with, law requires a "good faith and based upon practical consideration of everyday life, belief the suspect committed the crime for which he was later charged." State v. Zuniga 312 N.C. 251, 322 S.E.2d 140 (1984)

You will notice that the probable cause must be particular to the crime. It is not a generalized suspicion that would support an ongoing investigation as in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed. ___ (1964). The standard is evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe a specific crime has been committed. Here, there was self-serving and contradictory evidence that a crime even took place. The circumstantial evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely that a gang rape took place in a tiny depression era bathroom.

Second, probable cause must particularly identify the suspect charged. There is no way around the second prong of probable cause, it has to identify someone. Here, Crystal failed to identify anyone in an admissible lineup. Thus, the state sought to use DNA evidence to meet the second prong of the probable cause requirement, that is identity of the suspect. The State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab found no match to anyone who was tested from the party. (Ignoring, for the moment the question of if anyone else might have been at the party. Because anyone else being present, or not, is irrelevant to the particularity of the suspect requirement.) Without a DNA match from the SBI, the state had no particular defendant they could charge under the law. So, the state turned to DNASI for a different test. DNASI's testing reached the same conclusion as the SBI, no match.

Under Rule 3.8 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (and all other jurisdictions with which I am familiar) special responsibilities are imposed on a prosecutor. First, a prosecutors shall refrain from prosecuting a charge which is not supported by probable cause. That is the problem that Nifong had as of the moment the SBI lab reported no matches. He had no probable cause to charge any particular defendant. From that point on, Nifong's prosecution was doomed.

Had he waited, he probably would have survived with his law license intact. Under Terry he could have continued investigating. The state could have continued investigating. They could not have held anyone though. Nifong could have run the unidentified samples through more and broader databases in hopes of getting some hits. Given that North Carolina has no statute of limitations on felonies, he was under no time pressure to file charges. Yet he did and he did failing to at the very least meet the particular defendant prong of probable cause.

The short answer to your position is, no, there was not probable cause because the sparse evidence present did not particularly identify the people charged.

Walt-in-Durham; February 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said with Walt concurring: "(Kenhyderal speculates) when the evidence is contrary to his beliefs....................... Both of you do this. eg. all the DNA found was deposited before the Party,"

Wrong.

What I have said is that you have offered no proof that the DNA was deposited during the party. The rape kit materials, said rape kit being taken in response to Crystal's allegation of a gang rape in which multiple males deposited semen on her tested negative for alkaline phosphatase, which was evidence that Semen was not deposited. Your speculation why it tested negative for Alkaline phosphatase does not establish semen was deposited. Bottom line, there was zero evidence that Crystal was subjected to a semen depositing gang rape at the party.; February 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

" Bissey, Roberts and Taylor were mistaken or lying when they say Crystal arrive unimpaired".

Wrong again. What I have pointed out is that there is also testimony that Crystal was impaired when she arrived at the party. That testimony can not be discarded simply because it does not support your presumption of guilt.; February 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"the presence of any date rape drug was excluded "

Wrong again. The presence of a date rape drug was not established. You presume there was because of the testimony you cite that Crystal was not impaired when she arrived at the party. There was other testimony, which must be considered, that she was impaired when she arrived at the party.

That Chloral Hydrate could not be detected on the drug screen does not establish that Crystal was given Chloral Hydrate.

More guilt presumption on your part.; February 13, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"a complete comprehensive list of Party attendees was compiled,"

This goes back to your assertion that there were unidentified party guests at the party who raped Crystal.

Both prosecution and defense agreed that all the party attendees had been identified. The part of the DNA Security testing which was given to the defendants was that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any identified party attendee.

You say that kilgo told you that a Lacrosse player told him that unidentified party guests raped Crystal. That, as has been pointed out to you, is double hearsay which is not evidence. It is inconsistent with the physical exam which showed no evidence of a brutal gang rape. You can not document that someone named kilgo ever told you that. You have zero evidence that there were unidentified party attendees.

More of your guilt presuming speculation.; February 13, 2017 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"the untested exudate, presumed by Dr. Manly on Crystal to be semen was in fact due to an infection;"

First off, if you call what Dr. Manly saw an exudate you say that it was not semen. Semen is not an exudate. Exudates are caused by infoections.

To have established it as semen, Dr. Manly should have done a wet mount. If a wet mount demonstrated motile sperm, that would have established it as semen. I say again, no wet mount was done. Dr. Manly's presumption did not establish it was semen.; February 13, 2017 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"the negative acid phosphatase test definitively ruled out a rape etc,etc,"

What I said was the rape kit materials tested negative for ALKALINE phosphatase, which is a marker of semen. That the rape kit tested negative for ALKALINE phosphatase says semen was not deposited. If semen had not been deposited then there could not have been a semen depositing rape, the sexual assault Crystal alleged.

You offer speculation as to why the kit tested negative for ALALINE Phosphatase. Your argument is, the presence of ALKALINE Phosphatase was not definitively ruled out. That statement is irrlelvant.

It is the obligation of the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, in this case the crime of rape. What the prosecution would have had to rule in definitively was that ALKALINE Phosphatase was present.

More guilt presuming speculation on your part.; February 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Excuse my confusion between acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase. I am not a chemist or a laboratory technician however it is my understanding that a negative test for this does not rule out that semen was previously present; February 13, 2017 at 3:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt: Thanks for the citations. Nevertheless a Grand Jury was satisfied with the evidence they were presented.; February 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Wrong again. What I have pointed out is that there is also testimony that Crystal was impaired when she arrived at the party. That testimony can not be discarded simply because it does not support your presumption of guilt"............................................... They both can't be right. One of them is either lying or mistaken. Unlike those charged Bissey, Roberts and Taylor had no motive to lie.; February 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny states: Nevertheless a Grand Jury was satisfied with the evidence they were presented.

Please demonstrate that neither Himan nor Gottlieb lied to or misled the grand jury that indicted Finnerty and Seligmann and that Himan did not lie to or mislead the grand jury that indicted Evans (Gottlieb did not testify before the second grand jury).

Do you believe that police officers who testify before a grand jury should be permitted to lie to or mislead the grand jury in order to obtain indictments? Do you believe that, if Himan or Gottlieb had lied to or misled the grand jury, the indictment would be tainted? In answering the questions, please respond to comments made by grand jurors who spoke anonymously to the media about their decision.

"Knowing what I know now and all that's been broadcast on the news and in media, I think I would have definitely … made a different decision," stated one of the jurors.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2852337&page=1

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 13, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderral:

"@ Walt: Thanks for the citations. Nevertheless a Grand Jury was satisfied with the evidence they were presented."

I ask this again. Do you seriously think the Grand Jury was presented with the evidence that the DNA found on Crystal in the wake of this alleged semen depositinng rape did not match the DNA of the men whom Nifong sought to have indicted, for first degree rape?

You, who have gone on record that the DNA found on Crystal was from Rapists, have yet to explain why Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.; February 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Wrong again. What I have pointed out is that there is also testimony that Crystal was impaired when she arrived at the party. That testimony can not be discarded simply because it does not support your presumption of guilt"............................................... They both can't be right. One of them is either lying or mistaken. Unlike those charged Bissey, Roberts and Taylor had no motive to lie."

The individuals who gave statements that Crystal was impaired when she arrived had no motive to lie. What would have given them motive was that they had committed a crime. As the case developed, there was no evidence that the crime ever happened.

In addition to the statements of the players who said Crystal was impaired when she arrived we have: no physical evidence of a brutal gang rape; no documentation of the presence of semen on Crystal's person in the wake of this alleged semen depositing rape(Dr. Manly's surmising was not evidence, especially after she admitted she could have been mistaken about what this fluid was); the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of anyone identified as having been at the party(and, incidentally, I did not say that it was established that the DNA was deposited before the party but that you could not establish that the DNA was deposited at the party); no evidence that there were unidentified party attendees who could have raped Crystal; Crystal could not reliably identify any member of the Lacrosse team as an assailant, even in a rigged photo lineup set up so Crystal would identify members of the Lacrosse team(Sidney at one time said she identified her assailants with certainty. Certainty is not equivalent to reliability)(and you, who claim the DNA found on Crystal came from rapists have continued to duck the issue, why did Nifong insist on a lineup procedure which included only men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and he knew at the time of the lineup that their DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal).

You have only guilt presumption, not evidence.; February 13, 2017 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Excuse my confusion between acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase. I am not a chemist or a laboratory technician however it is my understanding that a negative test for this does not rule out that semen was previously present"

Which is but an admission of your lack of understanding.

What you willfully fail to understand is that ruling out that semen was previously present is meaningless. The prosecution's obligation to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt meant the prosecution had to prove semen was present, not that semen could have been present; February 13, 2017 at 5:00 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "@ Walt: Thanks for the citations. Nevertheless a Grand Jury was satisfied with the evidence they were presented."

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer noise]
Run him!

You make the same mistake Nifong made at his DHC hearing. Rule 3.8(a) makes it a continuing obligation of the prosecutor to have probable cause. You, like Nifong, fail to cite any authority to the contrary. Instead, you make the same failed argument that is not supported by the law or the facts. Worse, you assume that in the roughly 90 seconds the grand jury had to consider this case and rule that they were even presented with the lack of identification evidence. As Grand Jury proceedings are secret in North Carolina and the prosecutor has the full and unfettered discretion what to present or not, a Grand Jury finding is completely irrelevant. Which of course you should know if you paid attention to the case facts. So either you are again misrepresenting the facts (which you do frequently) or you are simply unaware of them.

Regardless, you have failed to argue the facts or the law effectively.; February 13, 2017 at 8:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Yeah, US Grand Juries are notorious for being a rubber stamp for prosecutors whereas the Canadian equivalent, to determine probable cause, is the Preliminary Hearing. There evidence from both sides is presented. It's one more example of the broken, unfair US Justice System. Had this crime occurred in Canada, though, there would have been sufficient evidence to send it to trial. Had DA Nifong been allowed to prosecute it I'm sure he could have impeached the testimony of Evans and Seligman.; February 13, 2017 at 8:50 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Your 8:50 comment once again shows your confusion. I agree that NC law with respect to grand juries is flawed.

The victims of Nifong's attempted frame were not entitled to a probable cause hearing because they were indicted prior to their arrest. Mangum, on the other hand, was entitled to a probable cause hearing because she had been arrested prior to an indictment. I cannot remember whether Shella waived the probable cause hearing.

Your assertion that "had this crime occurred in Canada, though, there would have been sufficient evidence to send it to trial" is essentially an assertion that the Canadian justice system has even greater flaws than the US system. Either you believe the Canadian system requires no evidence to support prosecution against specific defendants or you believe that identifications from a flawed procedure require no support from other evidence and must be accepted as valid. Either explanation is consistent with a broken system.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 14, 2017 at 2:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Today is February 14th. You have 321 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 45 days since the end of 2016, 228 days since the end of June 2016, 296 days since April 24, 2016, 335 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,179 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,530 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,300 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 14, 2017 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Has the "seismic" event originally scheduled for today been rescheduled to the end of February? Should Abe modify his countdown to add the new scheduled date for the "seismic" event?; February 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Had DA Nifong been allowed to prosecute it I'm sure he could have impeached the testimony of Evans"

How would Nifong impeach this: theSEXUAL ASSAULT Crystal alleged was a semen depositing RAPE. The DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA of David Evans or the DNA of Reade Seligman or Colin Finnerty.

OOPS1 I forgot. Nifomg's plan waNow go ahead and again make the discredited claim that Nifong had no intention of concealing the evidence.

"and Seligman."

A cab driver named Moez Elmostafa gave Reade Seligman a ride away from the party. At the time Nifong alleged he was raping Crystal, Reade Seligman was not present at the alleged crime scene. Nifong had Mr. Elmostafa arrested on a bogus charge. After he was brought in, hwe was asked if he would change his statement he gave to corroborate Reade Seligman's alibi. Mr. Elmostafa refused. Mr. Elmostafa was then bound over for trial(he was acquitted). That was how Nifong wanted to impeach Reade Seligman's testimony.

The last time I checked, witness intimidation is not acceptable as a method of impeaching a witness's testimony. Where did you get the idea it was?; February 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"...US Grand Juries are notorious for being a rubber stamp for prosecutors".

So why do you cite Nifong's Grand Jury presentation as indicative of a valid case against the Lacrosse defendants.

I say again, when he sought indictments, for FIRST DEGREE RAPE against the Lacrosse players, Nifong knew that male DNA had been found on Crystal, and that DNA did not match the DNA of the men he wanted indicted.; February 14, 2017 at 6:18 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Had this crime occurred in Canada, though, there would have been sufficient evidence to send it to trial."

Your assertion is wrong. The Ontario Supreme Court ruled in Regina v. Sanchez, 93 CCC (3d) 357 (1994), "the standard of reasonable grounds [probable cause] to believe is greater than mere suspicion but less than on a balance of probabilities when the totality of the circumstances are considered. It is also greater than "[m]ere suspicion, conjecture, hypothesis or ‘fishing expeditions’""

You will note again the two part test used by the Ontario Supreme Court. First there must be more than mere suspicion that a particular crime took place (the greater than mere suspicion language) and that must be a definite suspect (the fishing expedition language). So no, Canada would not have allowed this prosecution to proceed under its law.

"Had DA Nifong been allowed to prosecute it I'm sure he could have impeached the testimony of Evans and Seligman."

With what? He had nothing to identify either man. No DNA, no eyewitness testimony. "I accuse" may work for you, but in our system of justice that works fairly well, we require evidence, not supposition and accusation. The only broken system of justice is in your head.

Walt-in-Durham; February 14, 2017 at 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Edited comment:

Kenhyderal:

"Had DA Nifong been allowed to prosecute it I'm sure he could have impeached the testimony of Evans"

How would Nifong impeach this: the SEXUAL ASSAULT Crystal alleged was a semen depositing RAPE. The DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA of David Evans or the DNA of Reade Seligman or Colin Finnerty.

OOPS! I forgot. Nifomg's plan was to conceal the DNA evidence from the defendants and their attorneys. Now go ahead and again make the discredited claim that Nifong had no intention of concealing the evidence. The last time I checked, concealment of exculpatory evidence is not a legitimate way to impeach a defendant's testimony. Where did you get the idea it was?; February 14, 2017 at 6:25 AM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "Your assertion that "had this crime occurred in Canada, though, there would have been sufficient evidence to send it to trial" is essentially an assertion that the Canadian justice system has even greater flaws than the US system. Either you believe the Canadian system requires no evidence to support prosecution against specific defendants or you believe that identifications from a flawed procedure require no support from other evidence and must be accepted as valid. Either explanation is consistent with a broken system."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham; February 14, 2017 at 6:25 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:13 AM wrote: "The last time I checked, witness intimidation is not acceptable as a method of impeaching a witness's testimony. Where did you get the idea it was?"

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Indeed, Mr. Elmostafa's treatment by the ever unscrupulous Mike Nifong was deplorable. Though indicative of the sort of person Mike Nifong was and remains.

Walt-in-Durham; February 14, 2017 at 6:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Trying to make a martyr of Mr. Elmostafa is a real stretch. It's one more indication of the Duke Lacrosse Defence strategy; miss no ploy, question everything, concede nothing, discredit all. Attack, attack, attack. Circumstances around Seligman's alibi seem, at the least, to be unusual. They give indications of being suspiciously contrived. There was no attempt by DA Nifong to blackmail Elmostafa into giving false evidence. Suggesting this is part of the Defence Strategy; February 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "You will note again the two part test used by the Ontario Supreme Court. First there must be more than mere suspicion that a particular crime took place (the greater than mere suspicion language) and that must be a definite suspect (the fishing expedition language). So no, Canada would not have allowed this prosecution to proceed under its law".............................. DA Nifong met this higher standard.; February 14, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Trying to make a martyr of Mr. Elmostafa is a real stretch. It's one more indication of the Duke Lacrosse Defence strategy; miss no ploy, question everything, concede nothing, discredit all. Attack, attack, attack. Circumstances around Seligman's alibi seem, at the least, to be unusual. They give indications of being suspiciously contrived. There was no attempt by DA Nifong to blackmail Elmostafa into giving false evidence. Suggesting this is part of the Defence Strategy"

Kenhyderal LIES.; February 14, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "You will note again the two part test used by the Ontario Supreme Court. First there must be more than mere suspicion that a particular crime took place (the greater than mere suspicion language) and that must be a definite suspect (the fishing expedition language). So no, Canada would not have allowed this prosecution to proceed under its law".............................. DA Nifong met this higher standard."

Kenhyderal LIES yet again.

The "higher standard" to which Nifong adhered consisted of: proclaiming in public that a crime had happened and that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators before any investigation was done; making statements in public that seeking counsel and refusing to talk to the authorities were indications of guilt: concealing exculpatory evidence; lying to the court about concealing exculpatory evidence(go ahead, Kenny, and repeat your lie about that); refusing to look at alibi evidence; intimidating a witness who corroborated Reade Seligman's alibi(Kenny lied about that in his comment of February 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM); failing to have the complaining witness directly interviewed by his office for almost 9 months; having conducted an improper lineup procedure(even Kenny admits the procedure was improper); failing to identify the men who left their DNA on Crystal(Kenny's take on this was, Nifong believed he could have convicted of sexual assault men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal).

None of that meets any higher standard, none of that meets the standard cited by Walt in Durham that a prosecutor should prosecute any one without evidence to establish probable cause.

Of course, Kenny has gone on record that Witness intimidation and concealment of exculpatory evidence are acceptable techniques for impeaching the credibility of suspects.

Let's mention this again. Kenny has gone on record that the DNA found on Crystal came from rapists. But he will not explain why Nifong set up a lineup procedure which included only photographs of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and Nifong knew that when he had the lineup done. Kenny will not explain why Nifong sought indictments for FIRST DEGREE RAPE against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and Nifong knew their DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.; February 14, 2017 at 11:14 AM
guiowen said...: To Anonymous 10:45,
I'm not sure he lies. He simply cannot tell fact from fiction. So he figures his latest fiction must be fact, and tells us all about it.; February 14, 2017 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Guiowen February 14, 2017 at 11:16 AM:

Point is well taken and I respect your opinion. However, in accord with the principle, that the simplest explanation is the valid explanation, my opinion is Kenny is simply a liar, and a not very good one at that.; February 14, 2017 at 11:36 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asserted: Circumstances around Seligman's alibi seem, at the least, to be unusual. They give indications of being suspiciously contrived.

You and Nifong have an interesting vocabulary.

Seligmann's alibi is "contrived" when it is corroborated by other witnesses (Elmostafa and one of the players), phone records, GPS records, electronic credit card records, video at the ATM, electronic ATM records and the electronic door card data at the dorm. On the other hand, Magnum's statement is not "contrived" even though it is contradicted by photographs, numerous witnesses, medical and physical evidence and even by other versions of her statement.

There was no attempt by DA Nifong to blackmail Elmostafa into giving false evidence.

How common are charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft? What sort of pressure is faced by an immigrant who is seeking to become a citizen when even misdemeanor charges can derail citizenship? Is a Is the case a strong one when the star witness' testimony (a security guard) is contradicted by the video available to the prosecution and no evidence except the testimony supports the prosecution? Why did Nifong take a personal interest in the Elmostafa case?

DA Nifong met this higher standard.

You describe a Canadian legal system that is completely broken.

As I stated previously to which you did not respond: "Your assertion that "had this crime occurred in Canada, though, there would have been sufficient evidence to send it to trial" is essentially an assertion that the Canadian justice system has even greater flaws than the US system. Either you believe the Canadian system requires no evidence to support prosecution against specific defendants or you believe that identifications from a flawed procedure require no support from other evidence and must be accepted as valid. Either explanation is consistent with a broken system."

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: JSwift:

I read somewhere that the police had in custody the shoplifter and tried to force her to testify that Moez Elmostafa had been her accomplice in the shoplifting. She refused to do so.; February 14, 2017 at 12:45 PM
JSwift said...: Anonymous 12:45pm:

Agreed. That was the report (although "encouraged" may be a better verb than "forced"). As I recall, she was taken by police from the prison to the courthouse and then the prosecutor failed to call her to testify.

John D. Smith
New York; February 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D. Said: "So why do you cite Nifong's Grand Jury presentation as indicative of a valid case against the Lacrosse defendants"................... Because of his, character, his professionalism and his reputation for seeking justice for all; including those, in North Carolina, like minorities and the poor, victims and accused who have not received the justice that is their due.; February 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: I can't read any of Kenny's comments without picturing him singing this song.; February 14, 2017 at 1:14 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " DA Nifong met this higher standard."

No, he did not. Nifong failed to meet the identification test. Given your lack of legal training, I'll just have to leave it at that. You simply refuse to accept the law as it is in either country and you lack the training to understand the law. Which, of course, renders your posts rather useless.

Walt-in-Durham; February 14, 2017 at 1:16 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny asserted: John D. Said: "So why do you cite Nifong's Grand Jury presentation as indicative of a valid case against the Lacrosse defendants".

You are again confused. I did not say that. That question was asked by an anonymous commenter. You provided a non-answer to the question.

I note that you did not answer my questions regarding whether Himan and/or Gottlieb lied to or misled the grand jury.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 14, 2017 at 1:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "How common are charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft?"......................................Probably about as uncommon as larceny of chose in action.; February 14, 2017 at 1:23 PM
Anonymous said...: JSwift February 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM

Thank you for the information.; February 14, 2017 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D. Said: 'So why do you cite Nifong's Grand Jury presentation as indicative of a valid case against the Lacrosse defendants'"

John D. did not say that. I know for certain. How about you apologize.

"Because of his, character, his professionalism and his reputation for seeking justice for all; including those, in North Carolina, like minorities and the poor, victims and accused who have not received the justice that is their due."

Nifong did not have Crystal interviewed for almost 9 months had passed since the alleged crime. How does that qualify aas ptofessionalism and seeking justice for all?

DAs who withhold evidence and try to convict innocent men are not crusaders for justice.

I remind you again, that Crystal alleged a gang rape in which males deposited semen on her person. You will not explain the following: why did Nifong make no effort to identify the men who had deposited semen on Crystal; why did Nifong arrange a lineup of photos of men whose DNA, he knew, did not match the DNA found on Crystal; why did Nifong seek indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA, he knew, did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

Explain how that adds up to a DA who seeks justice.; February 14, 2017 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

What were the specific "Circumstances around Seligman's alibi [which made said Alibi] seem, at the least, to be unusual." How did "They give indications of being suspiciously contrived."

Considering your explanations of why Nifong made no effort to identify the men who had left DNA on Crystal, your claim that Nifong did not have the defendants he had indicted charged with rape, your claim that Nifong had no intention of concealing exculpatory evidence from the defendants, this should be interesting.; February 14, 2017 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: You are pretty much guaranteed a charge of "larceny of chose in action" any time checks are stolen and subsequently forged....So I imagine the instances of this charge are not as rare as you and Sid make it out to be.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that there's at least 1 inmate jailed within the last 30 days at the Durham County Jail for a charge of (or related to) larceny of chose in action.

Put up or Shut up, Kenny.; February 14, 2017 at 2:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Despite what the anonymous Grand Jurors said about things they had subsequently "learned", principally from the biased media, I do not believe Hinman or Gottlieb intentionally lied or tried to mislead the Grand Jury. Although there was discrepancies between the two of them. Much to the benefit of the accused they conducted such a flawed and deficient investigation the deficiencies of which rendered DA Nifong's job difficult; February 14, 2017 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 14, 2017 at 3:37 PM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 2:01,
Kenny believes an innocent man would not bother to have an alibi. Ergo, an alibi is proof that the individual is guilty.; February 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said "you lack the training to understand the law. Which, of course, renders your posts rather useless"..................................... Useless, eh. You are beginning to sound like Dr. Anonymous, by showing utter contempt for those who do not have your qualifications. Of course you know more about the law/medicine then we as lay persons do. We do not question your pronouncements on matters of law/medicine. Most people, however, prefer practitioners like Dr. Harr or DA Nifong who show more humility and less distain. Law and Medicine are as much an art as a science and the bias, dogmatism and close-mindedness you express is a barrier to obtaining success for ones clients.; February 14, 2017 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Despite what the anonymous Grand Jurors said about things they had subsequently "learned", principally from the biased media,"

Early on, in the Duke Rape Hoax, all the media bias was on Nifong's side'

I do not believe Hinman or Gottlieb intentionally lied or tried to mislead the Grand Jury."

What you believe or do not believe is meaningless. Did Himan or Gorrlieb tell the whole truth. It is obvious they did not.

"Although there was discrepancies between the two of them. Much to the benefit of the accused they conducted such a flawed and deficient investigation the deficiencies of which rendered DA Nifong's job difficult".

You forget, probably willfully, Nifong was the individual who controlled the Police investigation.; February 14, 2017 at 4:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What were the specific "Circumstances around Seligman's alibi [which made said Alibi] seem, at the least, to be unusual." How did "They give indications of being suspiciously contrived."........................... Getting picked up a block from the crime scene. The overkill of four, easily manipulated, electronic records between leaving the scene and arriving at home. Stopping for food. Giving a huge tip. Going with his Father to confirm that the taxi driver remembered him.; February 14, 2017 at 4:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D Said: 'You are again confused. I did not say that. That question was asked by an anonymous commenter. You provided a non-answer to the question".................................... My apologies for the mistake. I'm not surprised you considered my response to that poster to be a "non-answer"; February 14, 2017 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said "you lack the training to understand the law. Which, of course, renders your posts rather useless"..................................... Useless, eh. You are beginning to sound like Dr. Anonymous, by showing utter contempt for those who do not have your qualifications."

You have it wrong. I show contempt for your and Sidney's complete LACK of qualifications, and for your and Sidney's claim to expertise in spite of your total lacjk of qualifications to understand what is going on.

"Of course you know more about the law/medicine then we as lay persons do."

So why do you act like you are omniscient in matters of law and medicine?

"We do not question your pronouncements on matters of law/medicine."

Another lie. Yes you do.

"Most people, however, prefer practitioners like Dr. Harr or DA Nifong who show more humility and less distain(sic)."

You mean Sidney Harr who graduated in 1974, completed an internship, was never accepted into Residency training, who never achieved Medical Board certification and who spent his truncated post medical school career filing and losing frivolous lawsuits? This is the same Sidney who has tried to say on many occasions that his failures made him something awesome. That is not humility and it is disdain for people more accomplished than he is. And you think Nifong, who had knowledge of his suspects' innocence but tried to prosecute and convict them anyway, is in demand as a legal consultant? If you do, you are deluded.

Law and Medicine are as much an art as a science and the bias, dogmatism and close-mindedness you express is a barrier to obtaining success for ones clients."

Irrelevant statement. Recognizing that you and Sidney advocate for the conviction of innocent men for a crime which never happened is neither bias, dogmatism nor closed mindedness. You and Sidney are the individuals showing dogmatism, bias, and close mindedness, refusing to look at the actual details of the case and simply declaring the accused guilty.; February 14, 2017 at 4:45 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: Much to the benefit of the accused they conducted such a flawed and deficient investigation the deficiencies of which rendered DA Nifong's job difficult

Kenny, any explanation of why "they [Gottlieb and Himan] conducted such a flawed and deficient investigation" of Mangum's allegation? Any explanation of why Nifong didn't insist they they didn't do their job? Any explanation of towhy DPD supervisors didn't properly supervise the investigation? Any explanation of why you seem to blame the defendants for the DPD's failure?

I have some questions as to flaws in the investigation. Perhaps you would be willing to answer them to explain why the investigation failed to undertake what seem to be basic steps.

Despite what the anonymous Grand Jurors said about things they had subsequently "learned", principally from the biased media, I do not believe Hinman or Gottlieb intentionally lied or tried to mislead the Grand Jury.

Kenny, what do you think Gottlieb's and Himan's and testimony contained? Remember that they had about 90 to 120 seconds to introduce themselves and provide evidence.

For example, Kenny, do you believe the following statement is complete:

"I am Benjamin Himan, an Investigator for the Durham Police Department. This is Mark Gottlieb, a Sergeant for the Durham Police Department. On March 16, we were asked to take over responsibility for an investigation into an allegation that a young woman had been brutally raped by three Duke students on March 13 or March 14.

The accuser was hired to perform as an exotic dancer at a party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team on March 13. There was one other dancer also hired to perform at the party. The party took place at a house near the Duke campus rented by three of the captains of the team. This party was attended by more than 30 players and an unknown number of other students. At the party, there was a significant amount of drinking, including of alcoholic beverages by underage players. Although several witnesses stated that the accuser showed no signs of impairment when she arrived at the party, shortly after drinking a drink provided by the players, shortly thereafter, she began to show signs of impairment.

Shortly after the dance performance began, it was interrupted when a player made a disgustingly lewd comment. The dancers broke off the performance and were separated from each other for an undetermined length of time. When the dancers left, some of the players made racially charged comments. The accuser was unable to find her purse and cell phone when she left the party. It was not returned by the players.

After the party, the accuser was taken to Durham Access, where she alleged that she had been raped. She was transferred to Duke Medical Center for a sexual assault exam. The nurse who conducted the exam stated that the accuser's demeanor was consistent with her allegation.

In her statement provided to the Durham Police in the context of the investigation, the accuser alleged that she had been brutally raped vaginally, anally and orally by three attackers in one of the bathrooms in the house. This brutal attack lasted an estimated 30 minutes. Her attackers physically prevented the accuser from leaving the bathroom. She later identified with 100% certainty two of her attackers in a photographic array conducted as part of the investigation.

Today, we ask that you indict for rape, sexual assault and kidnapping the two players she positively identified.

Do any jurors have any questions? [Pause.]

No? We thank you for your time."

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "What were the specific "Circumstances around Seligman's alibi [which made said Alibi] seem, at the least, to be unusual." How did "They give indications of being suspiciously contrived."........................... Getting picked up a block from the crime scene."

Irrelevant statement as there was no evidence that the house ever was a crime scene. Just more guilt presumption on your part.

"The overkill of four, easily manipulated, electronic records between leaving the scene and arriving at home."

Please explain how Reade Seligman could have manipulated the records. How would he have access to where the records were maintained. access to wherever the records were stored. You are fabricating again, just like you fabricated in response to the questions, why did Nifong conceal the DNA evidence, why did Nifong make no attempt to identify who left their DNA on Crystal.

"Stopping for food."

Nothing suspicious about that.

"Giving a huge tip."

Not at all suspicious. I tip more than the usual amount when I eat out or when I travel by cab, or when someone helps me with my luggage. You seem to think that anyone who tips generously is trying to fashion an alibi for some crime. Very guilt presuming of you.

"Going with his Father to confirm that the taxi driver remembered him."

So Nifong is making a public event about members of the Lacrosse team raping Crysral, a member of the Lacrosse team takes his father to ralk to a man who can confitm he was not at the alleged crime scene. Very suspicious, but only in the mind of a guilt presuming racist like Kenny.; February 14, 2017 at 5:07 PM
JSwift said...: Going with his Father to confirm that the taxi driver remembered him.

He and his father confirmed the alibi after he was indicted for multiple felonies.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 14, 2017 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 320 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 1 day since February 14, 2017, 46 days since the end of 2016, 229 days since the end of June 2016, 297 days since April 24, 2016, 336 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,180 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,531 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,299 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 15, 2017 at 2:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

What was supposed to happen on or before yesterday?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 15, 2017 at 2:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Sid:

What was supposed to happen on or before yesterday?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

I believe that you are referencing my comment related to Mangum's Pro Se Habeas Corpus in which the State was given a late January 2017 deadline by which to respond. However, since the Court granted a thirty day extension, a reply has effectively been delayed by thirty days, so by the Ides of March 2017, Mangum should have received a reply from the State and made one of her own.

In short, we're waiting for a response from the State with regards to her Habeas Corpus... the deadline being February 27th.

To date, no answer has been filed... I just checked PacerMonitor. The State has twelve days in which to respond.

Hope this response to your comment provides sufficient elucidation.; February 15, 2017 at 6:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You are pretty much guaranteed a charge of "larceny of chose in action" any time checks are stolen and subsequently forged....So I imagine the instances of this charge are not as rare as you and Sid make it out to be.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that there's at least 1 inmate jailed within the last 30 days at the Durham County Jail for a charge of (or related to) larceny of chose in action.

Put up or Shut up, Kenny.

Mangum's case does not even meet elements of Larceny of Chose in Action because the checks were never stolen! To begin with, Daye admitted to giving both cashier's checks to Crystal Mangum. The State never provided any evidence that Crystal stole them or took them illegally. Once the cashier's checks were in her possession, she never relinquished them until they were picked up by Durham police long after she was arrested. Furthermore, she never committed forgery or in any way manipulated the checks. At any time, Daye could have redeemed the value of the cashier's checks despite the fact that they were not in his possession. The physical presence of the checks in Mangum's possession did not provide any monetary value to Crystal. The larceny charge, which was not lodged until after Daye's death is totally illogical and I challenge you to find any such similar case in the annals of jurisprudence anywhere in the United States history.

Consider yourself elucidated.; February 15, 2017 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Harr -- Nothing was ever said about Mangum's case and Larceny of chose in action. The comment was in reference to Kenhyderal's comment that charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft were as uncommon as larceny of chose in action.

My point was that charges of larceny of chose in action aren't as rare as he (or you, for that matter) make them out to be.

I stand by my comment -- I am willing to bet 1 duke blue crying towel that there is at least 1 inmate jailed within the last 30 days at the Durham County Jail for charges of (or related to) larceny of chose in action.; February 15, 2017 at 6:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh -- Next time try reading the comments in context.; February 15, 2017 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Looks like my inmate has been released (after 9 days of incarceration, I should add) -- but my point still stands. At least 1 inmate jailed in the last 30 days for charges of or related to related to larceny of chose in action.

Perhaps you should start monitoring the Durham County Jail. These inmates need a lay advocate for this little known/rarely used law!; February 15, 2017 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Mangum's case does not even meet elements of Larceny of Chose in Action ..."

Crystal's allegations did not even come close to adding up to rape.

"I challenge you to find any such similar case in the annals of jurisprudence anywhere in the United States history."

I challenge you to provide evidence that Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

To claim that the case file has been sealed is not answering the challenge. It is ducking and dodging because you can not meet the challenge.; February 15, 2017 at 7:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Please explain how Reade Seligman could have manipulated the records. How would he have access to where the records were maintained. access to wherever the records were stored"................................................ Obviously when I used the word manipulate I spoke figuratively. All the electronic records presented were subsequent to when Seligman left the scene. In order for them to be his alibi the exact time of any, supposed photographically unrecorded sexual assault had to be accurately chronologically determined; February 15, 2017 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Please explain how Reade Seligman could have manipulated the records. How would he have access to where the records were maintained. access to wherever the records were stored"................................................ Obviously when I used the word manipulate I spoke figuratively. All the electronic records presented were subsequent to when Seligman left the scene. In order for them to be his alibi the exact time of any, supposed photographically unrecorded sexual assault had to be accurately chronologically determined"

Kenny again wavering, waffling, being evasive after making a totally unsustainable allegation.

The statement is also irrelevant. There was no evidence of any sexual assault, which Kenny just admitted.

Kenny is waffling about using the term Rape. Curious since the sexual assault Crystal alleged was a semen depositing gang rape. Is he trying to back up his preposterous claims, that Nifong did not have the three defendants indicted for rape, that Nifong made no attempt to identify who left their DNA on Crystal because he thought he coud convict the defendants of sexual assault without DNA evidence?; February 15, 2017 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Mangum's case does not even meet elements of Larceny of Chose in Action because the checks were never stolen!"

Curious statement from someone who clearly does not know what the elements of a non frivolous, meritorious lawsuit are.; February 15, 2017 at 9:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Kenny is waffling about using the term Rape"..................Were talking about Seligman's alibi. No DNA from Seligman was present.; February 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid is corrrext, the Laeceny of Chose in Action sweet poor charges, and the jury dismissed them. Where Sid is wrong - they were not charged for the purposes of felony murder since they legally could not be used for felony murder, and the state never proceeded on the theory of felony murder.

Even said is right occasionally. The Larceny charges weren't ever a real issue for Crystal (but he's also wrong that there is a mechanism for a pretrial motion to dismiss).; February 15, 2017 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: I doubt any inmate is in custody on the Larceny of Chose in Action. It's a rarely used charge. But again wasn't used for felony murder.; February 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: How often does larceny of Chose in Action need to be charged before it ceases to be "rare"? That's my point. Kenny, Sid and now you are stating it's "rarely used", but I can point to at least 1 use in Durham County within the last 30 days. If I expanded that to all of North Carolina, I'm betting I could find more.

So -- at what point does the charge cease to become rare? You, Sid, Kenny -- give me a number.; February 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Kenny is waffling about using the term Rape"..................Were talking about Seligman's alibi. No DNA from Seligman was present."

Previous comment from Kenhyderal:

"Circumstances around Seligman's alibi seem, at the least, to be unusual. They give indications of being suspiciously contrived."

Today, you Are admitting Reade Seligman could not have raped Crystal.

Earlier you were saying that Reade Seligman's alibi, which documented he was not at the scene of the alleged crime, was made up and did not exonerate him(and note I am not quoting you).

It brings back again to somewhere you do not want to go. You are on record for saying the DNA found on Crystal came from rapists. Nifong had carried out a lineup procedure which consisted of pictures of men whose DNA Nifong knew did not match the DNA found on Crystal after Crystal had alleged a semen depositing gang rape. Nifong had indicted three men whose DNA Nifong knew did not match the DNA found on Crystal.; February 15, 2017 at 10:20 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said,
"Obviously when I used the word manipulate I spoke figuratively."

Kenny's always speaking figuratively. All his arguments are figurative. But that's all right because he's a master debater.; February 15, 2017 at 10:21 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Guiowen and others -- Why bother debating this with Kenny anyway? In a discussion with Lance, he agreed that Finnerty and Seligmann did not commit a sexual assault.

It's in the comments section of this blog:
http://justice4nifong.blogspot.com/2012/11/petition-filed-in-mangum-case.html

He's trolling you.; February 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"I believe that you are referencing my comment related to Mangum's Pro Se Habeas Corpus in which the State was given a late January 2017 deadline by which to respond. However, since the Court granted a thirty day extension, a reply has effectively been delayed by thirty days, so by the Ides of March 2017, Mangum should have received a reply from the State and made one of her own."

Actually, I was referencing your predictions that there would be a seismic ruling in Mangum's case on or before the middle of February and your promise that you would give us a full accounting and enlightenment. None of that has happened and I am wondering why.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than kenny has ever made.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
I was really expecting you to tell us (by 14 February) that you and Crystal were getting married. I don't know whether I'm disappointed or relieved.; February 15, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous said...
I doubt any inmate is in custody on the Larceny of Chose in Action. It's a rarely used charge. But again wasn't used for felony murder."

Tell that to Thom Erik Mcgann, born 7/16/78, who was booked into the Gaston County Jail on 12/21/16 for Larceny, Chose In Action.

Or Kimberly Dawn Lail, 20, of Vernon Bradley, Old Fort, who just last month was indicted for one count larceny of chose in action.

Or Kaitlyn Schay Styles, 19, of Fletcher, who was charged with 12 felony counts of larceny of chose in action from the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office last June.

Or any of the numerous other people arrested, charged and imprisoned in NC for larceny of chose in action that a simple Google search will disclose.; February 15, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 11:26:

I get the impression that for some people, the definition of "rare" is "I've never heard of it, and I've never bothered to look".; February 15, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Can you search for those in jail for conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft?; February 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Abe -- I'm stealing your "alphabet soup" quote. Just so you know :); February 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @ 11:35:

Google is your friend.; February 15, 2017 at 11:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: " In a discussion with Lance, he agreed that Finnerty and Seligmann did not commit a sexual assault"...... I still hold the opinion I had 3 plus years ago about Finnerty but more recently I have become suspicious of the Seligmann alibi, thanks in part to interviews I heard with Wm. Cohan and with his contention that DA Nifong, an experienced prosecutor, himself, was always suspicious of this "too pat" alibi.; February 15, 2017 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Fake KH said: " In a discussion with Lance, he agreed that Finnerty and Seligmann did not commit a sexual assault"...... I still hold the opinion I had 3 plus years ago about Finnerty but more recently I have become suspicious of the Seligmann alibi, thanks in part to interviews I heard with Wm. Cohan and with his contention that DA Nifong, an experienced prosecutor, himself, was always suspicious of this "too pat" alibi."

William Cohan does not know squat about the Duke Rape Hoax because he never seriously tried to find out what happened considering, as reviewers have pointed out, his book has no end notes, no list of sources..

Nifong himself established Nifong as a corrupt District Attorney.

Whether or not Nifong was skeptical of Reade Seligman's alibi is irrelevant. Reade Seligman had a right to present his alibi evidence. It was not Nifong who decided whether or not Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived, but the court. Again, the last time I checked, suppression of exculpatory evidence by a prosecutor is an illegal and unconstitutional means of securing a conviction. By refusing to listen to Reade Srligman's alibi evidence, Nifong WAS trying to suppress exculpatory evidence(as he was trying to do when he concealed from the defendants the existence of the DNA found on Crystal).

Kenny, as I expected, you painted yourself into a corner when I challenged you to show "What were the specific "Circumstances around Seligman's alibi [which made said Alibi] seem, at the least, to be unusual", and How did "They give indications of being suspiciously contrived." And you are sloppily covering yourself with wet paint trying to convince people you did not paint into said corner.; February 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM
guiowen said...: Why do you pester Kenhyderal with questions? As a master debater, he does not need to answer questions.; February 15, 2017 at 5:26 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: William Cohan is trying to sell books. He's going to say anything to do that. Did he specifically put this theory about a "too pat alibi" in his book?; February 15, 2017 at 8:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 319 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 2 days since February 14, 2017, 47 days since the end of 2016, 230 days since the end of June 2016, 298 days since April 24, 2016, 337 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,181 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,532 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,298 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 16, 2017 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Fake Kenhyderal:

"William Cohan is trying to sell books. He's going to say anything to do that. Did he specifically put this theory about a "too pat alibi" in his book?"

I believe Nifong told Cohan he thought Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/16/fantastic-lies-10-appalling-moments-from-the-duke-lacrosse-case/

“We tried to convince him that we had a story to tell ourselves. Mr. Nifong put his hands over his ears and said I don’t want to hear it,” said Wade Smith, attorney for accused player Collin Finnerty."

and:

"He literally put his hands over his ears,” said Jim Cooney, lawyer for accused player Reade Seligmann."; February 16, 2017 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyferal:

Deal with this.

How could Nifong know Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived when he tried so hard not to know what his alibi was?; February 16, 2017 at 6:36 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Interestingly, in an interview with Diane Rehm, William Cohan called Seligmann's alibi "quite credible".; February 16, 2017 at 9:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: Taken out of context. In the same interview @ 11:45 he said: "Mike Nifong thinks that [Seligmann’s] alibi is sort of convenient. If you did something wrong why did -- if you didn’t do anything wrong why did you have the cab pick him up around the corner? And if you were trying to establish an alibi, of course he would go to an ATM machine and then a restaurant and then pay a big tip to the cab driver and all of this. So Mike Nifong has doubts about Reade Seligmann’s alibi"; February 16, 2017 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike Nifong's "doubts about Reade Seligmann's alibi" are self-serving.; February 16, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: At best, Mike Nifong is unspeakably incompetent. Although he had "doubts about Reade Seligmann's alibi" he chose to ignore it rather than to have it investigated. Why?; February 16, 2017 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike Nifong is a convicted liar. Why do you consider the statements of a convicted liar to be important?; February 16, 2017 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Taken out of context. In the same interview @ 11:45 he said: "Mike Nifong thinks that [Seligmann’s] alibi is sort of convenient. If you did something wrong why did -- if you didn’t do anything wrong why did you have the cab pick him up around the corner? And if you were trying to establish an alibi, of course he would go to an ATM machine and then a restaurant and then pay a big tip to the cab driver and all of this. So Mike Nifong has doubts about Reade Seligmann’s alibi"

So it is really William Cohan saying that Mike Nifong said years after the Duke ape Hoax that he thought Reade Seligman's alibi was contrived.

It has been documented that at the time Nifong made a public issue of Crystal's rape allegations, Nifong did not want to look at anyone's alibi evidence. At the time he wanted to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for Rape, so his refusal to look at alibi evidence from the people he wanted to prosecute amounted to an attempt by Nifong to suppress exculpatory evidence.

And it comes back to the issues you want to duck. Crystal alleged a semen depositibg gang rape. Male DNA was found on the Rape kit materials. Nifong knew the NA did not match the DNA of anyone identified as having been at the party. Rather than identify the soutces, Nifong concealed the evidence. He had a lineup procedure done which included photos only of men whose DNA did not match the DNA foud on Crystal, and Nifong knew that. Then Nifong sought indictments for FIRST DEGREE RAPE against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and Nifong knew that.

Instead od Dodging and waffling and lying, explain why Nifong did that.; February 16, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Just so we're clear -- you've based your beliefs not on what William Cohan himself thinks, but rather what convicted liar Mike Nifong believes.

Interesting.; February 16, 2017 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

With regard to Nifong's attitude towards Reade Seligman's alibi, this happened years after Nifong was criticized for the way he handled the case(to put it mildly). At the time he was prosecuting the case, HE REFUSED TO LOOK AT ANY ALIBI EVIDENCE. He did nor know at that time what Reade Seligman's alibi was. So how could he have had doubts about it back then?; February 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM
JSwift said...: Fake Kenhyderal said...Just so we're clear -- you've based your beliefs not on what William Cohan himself thinks, but rather what convicted liar Mike Nifong believes.

I would modify your comment slightly: Just so we're clear -- you've based your beliefs not on what William Cohan himself thinks, but rather what convicted liar Mike Nifong says that he believes.

As I am sure that you agree, Mike Nifong's actual beliefs and Mike Nifong's stated beliefs are not necessarily the same.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 16, 2017 at 11:13 AM
JSwift said...: Michael B. Nifong stated:

"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party."

"They were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives."

"I sincerely apologize to Mr. (Reade) Seligmann, Mr. (Collin) Finnerty, Mr. (David) Evans and to their families. It is my hope that all of us can learn from the mistakes of this case, and that all of us can begin to move forward. It is my hope that we can start this process today."

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 16, 2017 at 1:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "Just so we're clear -- you've based your beliefs not on what William Cohan himself thinks, but rather what convicted liar Mike Nifong believes.................. It's pretty clear that Author Cohan agrees with former DA Nifong's suspicions eg. take Prof. Mark Wylie's critical review on Amazon of the Price of Silence "Cohan has implied in interviews that he shares Nifong's groundless suspicions"; February 16, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

From Mark Wylie's review:

"Cohan's book is completely unsourced, and as a consequence it is unreliable. At the end of the book, where a reader would expect to find a detailed set of end notes identifying the sources for the innumerable quotes and factual claims in the book, Cohan instead gives us a brief "note on sources" where he informs us that he decided it would be "superfluous" to identify his specific sources, because "the vast majority of them are easily accessible to anyone online." Even if, as Cohan helpfully tells us, most of them are available "at little or no cost," how is a reader supposed to know which of the tens of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, online documents, and blog posts to "access," if Cohan does not identify which of these sources he used?"

The lack of any source notes or references, again, shows Cohan did little to no effort to find out anything about the Duke Lacrosse incident. That he agreed with Nifong's beliefs is as meaningful as Adolf Hitler agreeing with the beliefs of Julius Streicher.; February 16, 2017 at 1:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "As I am sure that you agree, Mike Nifong's actual beliefs and Mike Nifong's stated beliefs are not necessarily the same" ............. DA Nifong was in my opinion, saying what his Lawyer convinced him to say in an effort to try and mitigate any censure. It's very like Crystal's coerced response to Judge Ridgeway that it was her decision not to call ME Roberts to the stand. That was against her conviction That's how US Justice works and that's how it will continue play out when Lawyers preferentially opt for plea deals or encourage clients against their convictions to say and do what they're told. In Crystal's case suggesting to the Jury that if I call Dr. Roberts she will say that I murdered Reginald, something I know I did not do and in DA Nifong's case to say I'm guilty, I'm sorry, take mercy on me.; February 16, 2017 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"John D said: "As I am sure that you agree, Mike Nifong's actual beliefs and Mike Nifong's stated beliefs are not necessarily the same" ............. DA Nifong was in my opinion, saying what his Lawyer convinced him to say in an effort to try and mitigate any censure."

You remain willfully oblivious to the fact that Nifong faced censure because he committed a number of ethical violations in his quest to convict three innocent men for a crime which did not happen.

"It's very like Crystal's coerced response to Judge Ridgeway that it was her decision not to call ME Roberts to the stand."

Doctor Roberts was not called to the stand because she agreed with Dr. Nichols, that Reginald Daye died as a consequence of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Her testimony would have harmed Crystal's case.

"That was against her conviction That's how US Justice works and that's how it will continue play out when Lawyers preferentially opt for plea deals or encourage clients against their convictions to say and do what they're told."

Your biased attitude towards the US system, summed up as, defendants like Crystal should get a pass for their crimes. Defendants like the Lacrosse players, who you obviously dislike and resent should be convicted, even though there was no crime.

"In Crystal's case suggesting to the Jury that if I call Dr. Roberts she will say that I murdered Reginald, something I know I did not do"

Correction: if I call Dr. Roberts to the stand her testimony will help convict m, but I will not worry because Sidney said I will beat the rap.

"and in DA Nifong's case to say I'm guilty, I'm sorry, take mercy on me."

And you remain willfully ignorant. Nifong WAS guilty, of ethics violations, and of at least one criminal violation, concealing exculpatory evidence and lying to the court.; February 16, 2017 at 4:30 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: The suspicions that William Cohan has expressed are that "something happened" - a suspicion he apparently shares with Nifong.

I've never read or heard comments from Cohan specifically about Reade Seligmann's alibi being "too pat".

Care to point one of these out?; February 16, 2017 at 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 318 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 3 days since February 14, 2017, 48 days since the end of 2016, 231 days since the end of June 2016, 299 days since April 24, 2016, 338 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,182 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,533 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,297 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 17, 2017 at 2:34 AM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "I've never read or heard comments from Cohan specifically about Reade Seligmann's alibi being "too pat"..... The expression he used was "sort of convenient"; February 17, 2017 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Reade Seligman's alibi could be considered suspicious only if you presume guilt.

I remind you, you have provided zero evidence a crime ever occurred.

The last time I checked, presumption of guilt in this country is not acceptable as justifying a conviction of anyone.

What makes presumption og guilt evidence of a crime in Canada?; February 17, 2017 at 10:24 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: ...The expression he used was "sort of convenient"

Where did Cohan use this expression?; February 17, 2017 at 10:40 AM
guiowen said...: Actually, alibis are generally convenient. Otherwise there would be no use for them.; February 17, 2017 at 10:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: ?? The same interview you quoted with Diane Rehm @ the 11:45 mark; February 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

from: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1133573/?

"The defense claims the woman told an investigator for the prosecution on Dec. 21 that the reported attack happened between 11:35 p.m. and midnight on March 13.

The defense goes on to say the claim contradicts the accuser's own cellular phone records, which show an incoming call at 11:36 p.m. and that someone stayed on the line for three minutes.

Records also show that Reade Seligmann received a call on his cell phone during that period, the defense said."

"In her latest statement, according to the defense, the accuser says Seligmann did not commit any sex act on her. Although he was repeatedly urged to take part in the alleged attack, she recalled, he said he could not participate because he was getting married."

How could Reade Aeligmann ave contrived those events.; February 17, 2017 at 1:12 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sorry Kenny -- This is what Cohan states (@11;44 mark):

"Okay. So the cab driver that he's talking about was the cab driver that drove Reade Seligmann, picked him up at the house around the corner from the house where this party occurred.... basically Mr. Mostafa the cab driver was saying.... I picked him up here, I took him here. And this formed the basis of Reade Seligmann's alibi, which actually seems quite credible." [bolding mine].

Here's the "sort of convenient" comment:

"Mike Nifong thinks that that alibi is sort of convenient. if you didn't do anything wrong why did you have the cab pick him up around the corner? And if you were trying to establish an alibi, of course he would go to an ATM machine and then a restaurant and then pay a big tip to the cab driver and all of this.So Mike Nifong has doubts about Reade Seligmann's alibi. It seems pretty airtight to me..."[bolding mine]

As you can plainly see, Cohan states that Seligmann's alibi seems "quite credible" and "pretty airtight". It's Mike Nifong (not Cohan) that thinks the alibi is "sort of convenient".

So I will ask again -- Show me where Cohan agrees with Nifong regarding Reade Seligmann's alibi.; February 17, 2017 at 2:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Fake KH: OK, how about Cohan on C-span, quote "You know, he had – you’d have to give him – he had a pretty airtight alibi about where he was at various points in the evening including, you know, calling a cab, going to an ATM machine, having his picture taken at the ATM machine, taking money out and then going to a restaurant and getting some food, you know 12:30 – 12:45 in the evening and then going back his dorm. You know, he had an affidavit from the cab driver who, you know, basically testifying that Reade Seligmann was in his car during the time that supposedly this incident occurred. Now, you know, I asked Mike Nifong about that. What do you think about the Reade Seligmann alibi and, you know, he made his points where he thought it was could very well have been a manufactured alibi. He had his doubts about the alibi. And he points to the fact that when Reade Seligmann asked for the cab to come pick him up, instead of picking him up at that house which is no longer in existence at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard he had the cab go to house around the corner. Which Mike Nifong thinks is a very strange behavior. Why would you do that? Obviously he wanted to get away from that house. I have a suspicion and Mike Nifong has this suspicion and Crystal Mangum has a suspicion that, you know, something untoward did in fact happen in that bathroom. It may not have happened with Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty or David Evans, although there is questions about David Evans that are stronger than questions about the other two. But one does get the sense that something happened that none of us would be proud of. You’d have to give him” an alibi? It could “very well have been a manufactured alibi”. I'm not sure why you are of the opinion that Cohan has confidence in Seligmann's alibi.; February 17, 2017 at 3:22 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

When you are asked why Nifing made no attempt to match the numerous samples of male DNA found in and on Magnum, you respond only that, despite the lack of physical and medical evidence to incriminate specific people, Nifong thought the three specific defendants he indicted were guilty of sexual assault and that he had enough evidence without DNA to obtain convictions.

However, you never explain WHY Nifong thought he had indicted the correct defendants--there was no physical or medical evidence or third party statements to implicate two of them other than the selections made by Magnum in what Nifong knew was a flawed procedure (after all, he designed it). If, as many legal experts have suggested, the identifications were inadmissible because of the many egregious procedural flaws, Nifong would have nothing to identify either Finnerty or Seligmann. What was Nifong going to do then?

You have repeatedly asserted that Magnum was raped by precisely three mystery rapists at the lacrosse party and that three of the nine or ten unmatched male DNA samples found in and on Magnum by DNASI were deposited by the mystery rapists (with the remaining six or seven unmatched DNA samples found in and on Magnum the result of secondary transference). I infer from your other comments (you declined to answer my question) that making an attempt to identify the donors would permit one to differentiate between mystery rapists and secondary transfers. Is that correct? It sound as though you believe that Nifong erred when he failed to attempt to identify the nine or ten donors. Is that correct?

Now you claim that Nifong had "doubts" about Seligmann's alibi, thinking it could be "manufactured" despite phone, electronic and photographic evidence and eyewitness statements to confirm the alibi. As you know, Seligmann's attorneys attempted to provide this evidence directly to Nifong (I believe they offered to bring in Seligmann to answer questions as well). As you also know, Nifong refused to accept this evidence, allegedly putting his hands over his ears.

Why did Nifong refuse to accept the alibi evidence? I assume that the answer is that, despite the lack of physical and medical evidence to incriminate any specific people and the alibi which suggested that one of the defendants was not at the house at the time of an attack, Nifong nevertheless thought the three specific defendants he indicted were guilty of sexual assault and that he had enough evidence without DNA to obtain convictions. Is that correct? Do you believe Nifong erred when he refused to accept or discuss the alibi evidence or do you believe that prosecutors should rely on their intuition when evidence is not available?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 17, 2017 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

What Nifong described about Reade Seligmann's alibi, how could that behavior be suspicious. If there had been a crime, and there is zero evidence there was a crime, it would have been suspicious. Nifong is trying to cover his butt. He refused to look at the defendants' alibi evidence because he was hell bent on prosecuting them. And now he wants to delude people into believing he was only doing his job in prosecuting them. only guilt presuming racists like you and Sidney believe that.

So far as there being stronger questions about David Evans, that was not true. So far as the DNA found in Crystal's false fingernail, it did not match DNA. And that evidence can dot be considered in isolation. That DNA matching David Evans was not found on Crystal's person. Crystal was unable to identify him in previous lineups. In the April lineup in which she identified him with 90% certainty, she claimed he had a mustache. He never had a mustache. If there were questions about credibility regarding Crystal and David Evans, those questions were exclusively questions calling into question Crystal's credibility.

Cohan, like you, has zero evidence that any rape ever happened to Crystal in that house. His sense of something happening in the house, is like yous, a combination of delusion anfd guilt presumption.; February 17, 2017 at 4:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ John D.: DNA found on Crystal's person, that was not extracted from sperm, as were three samples, did not, absolutely, eliminate all the tested Players as a source. But, like DNA consistent with Evans that was found on Crystal's broken fingernail, it was not demonstrative that, specifically, Evans was it's only possible source.; February 17, 2017 at 9:43 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
As usual, you're giving us "figurative" arguments.; February 17, 2017 at 9:57 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

The nine or ten male DNA samples found on and in Mangum absolutely excluded all of the players and the two non-players tested as possible donors. As a result, your comparison to the Evans non-exclusion is false.

I also asked why Nifong did not investigate the Seligmann alibi evidence, apparently preferring to harbor "doubts" that it was "contrived." Was his failure to investigate the alibi evidence a mistake on his part?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 18, 2017 at 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ John D.: DNA found on Crystal's person, that was not extracted from sperm, as were three samples, did not, absolutely, eliminate all the tested Players as a source."
But, like DNA consistent with Evans that was found on Crystal's broken fingernail, it was not demonstrative that, specifically, Evans was it's only possible source."

Explain, if you dare:

Crystal alleged a semen depositing gang rape. The only male DNA found ion her person did not match the DNA of the men identified as party attendees, including each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team and you are saying that did not "absolutely" exclude them as suspects?

If my understanding of DNA analysis is correct, if DNA does not match the DNA of a specific individual, it means that the possibility of that DNA belonging to that individual is less than 1 chance in more than 1 million. That means if there was a rape, and there is zero evidence a rape happened, the probability of the perpetrators being men who were not at the party(and there is zero evidence there were any unidentified party attendees) was more than 1 million times greater than the probability any member of the Lacrosse team did it.

So you are saying Nifong was correct in considering members of the Lacrosse team and no one else as suspects? I remind you, Nifong concentrates his efforts ONLY on members of the Lacrosse team.; February 18, 2017 at 4:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
I was really expecting you to tell us (by 14 February) that you and Crystal were getting married. I don't know whether I'm disappointed or relieved.

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Hah! Actually, I believe you'll find Crystal to be an extremely nice person. Sometime after she is released and exonerated (talking about a matter of weeks or months), I will try to arrange to bring her to California to meet you in person.; February 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"I believe that you are referencing my comment related to Mangum's Pro Se Habeas Corpus in which the State was given a late January 2017 deadline by which to respond. However, since the Court granted a thirty day extension, a reply has effectively been delayed by thirty days, so by the Ides of March 2017, Mangum should have received a reply from the State and made one of her own."

Actually, I was referencing your predictions that there would be a seismic ruling in Mangum's case on or before the middle of February and your promise that you would give us a full accounting and enlightenment. None of that has happened and I am wondering why.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

I think I was considering that by the end of January 2017, the State would respond to the Habeas Corpus and by mid-February the Magistrate Judge would make a Recommendation favorable to Mangum. Since the State's Motion for an Extension was granted, I re-adjusted by prediction to be that the seismic event would take place around the Ides of March.; February 18, 2017 at 5:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Harr -- Nothing was ever said about Mangum's case and Larceny of chose in action. The comment was in reference to Kenhyderal's comment that charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanor theft were as uncommon as larceny of chose in action.

My point was that charges of larceny of chose in action aren't as rare as he (or you, for that matter) make them out to be.

I stand by my comment -- I am willing to bet 1 duke blue crying towel that there is at least 1 inmate jailed within the last 30 days at the Durham County Jail for charges of (or related to) larceny of chose in action.

When I met with Woody Vann in May 2012, he told me that "Larceny of Chose in Action" was an extremely rare charge and that the charge in Mangum's case was the first he had ever come across.

I am aware of only one case other other than Mangum's where the charge was levied. It involved a Wake County man who stole a bunch of blank checks from his mother's business and used them to pay for property and services. It was in the newspaper, but can't come up with the name right now. But, at least, his case met elements of the crime. Crystal's case didn't as she neither stole or illegally took the two cashier's checks, nor attempt to convert them to her own financial benefit.; February 18, 2017 at 5:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Looks like my inmate has been released (after 9 days of incarceration, I should add) -- but my point still stands. At least 1 inmate jailed in the last 30 days for charges of or related to related to larceny of chose in action.

Perhaps you should start monitoring the Durham County Jail. These inmates need a lay advocate for this little known/rarely used law!

For the enlightenment, edification, and elucidation of me and other visitors to this site, could you reference the single case during the last 30 days who was charged with "Larceny of Chose in Action." Maybe a link, name, or media article would be appreciated.

Thank you.; February 18, 2017 at 5:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Jimmy Pegram - he is in custody in the Durham County Jail right now, and one of his charges is Larceny of Chose in Action. You can check their website to confirm.

I am sure there are others who are not in custody.

But, check NCCourts to confirm, check the jail website.

You have been elucidated. Where is my $1,000?; February 18, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Please provide an update on your efforts to win a new trial for Chrystal.; February 18, 2017 at 8:15 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said,\
"Hah! Actually, I believe you'll find Crystal to be an extremely nice person. Sometime after she is released and exonerated (talking about a matter of weeks or months), I will try to arrange to bring her to California to meet you in person."

Looking forward to it.; February 18, 2017 at 8:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: :The nine or ten male DNA samples found on and in Mangum absolutely excluded all of the players and the two non-players tested as possible donors. As a result, your comparison to the Evans non-exclusion is false" ...................No it is not. These DNA fragments only excluded non-indicted players by 98%. They were termed unidentified because they lacked 100% specificity and were left out of the initial report for privacy reasons so unindicted Players would not be identified as not 100% cleared. The so-called Blog Hooligans seized on this to erroneously suggest this indicated that Crystal had lied about her consensual sexual history and the unidentified DNA came from her engaging in prostitution. Further suggesting that Nifong not seeking to identify the source was to protect the privacy of "Johns" rather than non-indicted Players. No mention was ever made about the likelihood of non-Player attendees. The DPD failed, in a timely manner, to complete a list of all those present until it was too late and the Players stopped cooperating with the Police. This put DA Nifong at a great disadvantage. They were then limited to two sources for determining who was present. Firstly membership, as a Player, a totally imprecise and patently ridiculous criteria (even Players who were out of state were tested) and secondly ones appearance in cell-phone photographs at the house. This cohort along with Crystal's consensual sexual partners constituted the reference DNA.; February 18, 2017 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

The are 25 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 317 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 4 days since February 14, 2017, 49 days since the end of 2016, 232 days since the end of June 2016, 300 days since April 24, 2016, 339 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,183 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,534 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,296 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal:

"John D said: :The nine or ten male DNA samples found on and in Mangum absolutely excluded all of the players and the two non-players tested as possible donors. As a result, your comparison to the Evans non-exclusion is false" ...................No it is not."

Yes it did

"These DNA fragments only excluded non-indicted players by 98%. They were termed unidentified because they lacked 100% specificity and were left out of the initial report for privacy reasons so unindicted Players would not be identified as not 100% cleared."

Did you forget that the Durham DA's office said the DNA results would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. Now Kenhyderal is saying something different. What cleared everyone suspected in the case was the fact that there was no evidence of a crime.

"The so-called Blog Hooligans seized on this to erroneously suggest this indicated that Crystal had lied about her consensual sexual history and the unidentified DNA came from her engaging in prostitution."

No they didn't.

"Further suggesting that Nifong not seeking to identify the source was to protect the privacy of "Johns" rather than non-indicted Players. No mention was ever made about the likelihood of non-Player attendees."

Privacy of the unidentified males was used to justify his failure to turn the evidence to the defendants. The actual reason was, and your denials aaare meaningless, the evidence would have cleared all Lacrosse team members, inclufing the team members Nifong wanted to prosecute.

"The DPD failed, in a timely manner, to complete a list of all those present until it was too late"

You have provided zero evidence that there were unidentified party attendees. Your statement is meaningless and irrelevant.

"and the Players stopped cooperating with the Police."

What the players did was refuse to talk to the police, exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution. That you think rhat right should be available only ro people you favor is irrelevant.

"This put DA Nifong at a great disadvantage."

Nifong put himself at a disadvantage when he decided he would prosecute members of the Lacrosse team without any evidence of a crime. I remind you, you have presented zero evidence there was a crime.

"They were then limited to two sources for determining who was present. Firstly membership, as a Player, a totally imprecise and patently ridiculous criteria (even Players who were out of state were tested)"

You forget that Nifong went public,before he had any evidence, with statements that a rape had occurred and that members of the Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.

"and secondly ones appearance in cell-phone photographs at the house. This cohort along with Crystal's consensual sexual partners constituted the reference DNA."

Correction: the cohort contained only people known to be Crystal's sexual partners. Unless you can establish that the DNA was deposited on Crystal at the party, and establish that there were unidentified party attendees, and you have failed to do that in years of posting to J4N, you have zero proof that unknown party attendees raped Crystal, and the DNA does indicate Crystal's sexual history was not completely known.

And you, who have gone on record as believing the DNA came fro rapists, have not explained why Nifong concealed the evidence and sought indictments for first degree rape against men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.; February 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

One thing you say is irrelevant, that that the players were not 100% cleared. No suspect is obligated to clear himself of the crime whichhe/she might be charged. To convict anyone of a crime thr Prosecution is obligated to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, you are saying Nifong was justified in going after members of the Lacrosse team although what evidence he had, indicated, if there had been a crime, it was overwhelmingly more likely that the perpetrators were not members of the Lacrosse team, or party attendees.; February 18, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny stated: These DNA fragments only excluded non-indicted players by 98%.

Please provide your source.

I assume that it is coincidental that the percentages for each of the non-exclusions were exactly the same as the Evans non-exclusion. It is also interesting that Nifong and the media, who made a big deal about the potential implications of the Evans non-exclusion, had no interest whatsoever in the other player non-exclusions.; February 18, 2017 at 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Who is Ubes?; February 18, 2017 at 3:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: "The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%" From the DSI 1844 page report "We were trying to do what we thought was the right thing to do was minimize the exposure of the rest of the players. It would have· meant that we produced profiles and names of all of those people" From Bannon's cross examination of Dr. Meehan State v. Finnerty; February 18, 2017 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

""The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%" From the DSI 1844 page report "We were trying to do what we thought was the right thing to do was minimize the exposure of the rest of the players. It would have· meant that we produced profiles and names of all of those people" From Bannon's cross examination of Dr. Meehan State v. Finnerty"

This Brian Meehan Bullshit, Meehan trying to cover his butt after dmitting under cross examination admitting that he and Nifong conspired to withhold the DNA evidence from the defendants, that the only male DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation of a semen depositing gang rape at the Lacrosse party, did not match the DNA of anyone identified as being at the party(and I again remind you that neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence of unidentified party attendees).

Regardless of how much bullshit you cite, NC law required Nifong to turn over a report of all the results of the DNA Security testing to David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty before he sought indictments against them for first degree rape.; February 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM
JSwift said...: A description of the DNA evidence from the lawsuit. I provide a link as well.

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/duke%20lax%20lawsuit.pdf

202. On April 7, 2006, DSI produced sperm-fraction and non-sperm (epithelial) fraction DNA extractions from the panties, cheek scrapings, oral swabs, vaginal swabs, and rectal swabs contained in the rape kit, assigning them item numbers specific to that lab.
203. On April 7, 2006, DSI also performed seratic PSA presumptive tests for the presence of semen on the rape kit items, all of which were negative.
204. On April 8, 9, and 10, 2006, DSI performed analyses of the rape kit items that resulted in the exclusion with 100% certainty of all members of the lacrosse team, including the three innocent Plaintiffs, as possible donors of DNA found on the rape kit items. Specifically, DSI reached the following conclusions with respect to the rape kit items:
a. On Item 15780, the epithelial fraction of Stain D from the rape kit panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males. With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as sources of that DNA material.
b. On Item 15767, the sperm fraction of Stain A from the rape kit panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males. With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as sources of that DNA material.
c. On Item 15776, the sperm fraction from the rectal swab, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least one male. With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as the source of that DNA material.
d. On Item 15777, the epithelial fraction of Stain A from the rape kit panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least four males. With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as sources of that DNA material.
e. On Item 15778, the epithelial fraction of Stain B from the rape kit panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males. With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as sources of that DNA material.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 18, 2017 at 8:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: I'm not a Lawyer but is this not just a "Statement of Claim" ? Where do the quotes and statistics attributed to DSI come from. Not the 1844 page document turned over to The Defence or in the testimony of Dr. Meehan.; February 18, 2017 at 9:25 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Give it up. No one believes anything you say.; February 18, 2017 at 9:43 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

You are correct that this is a statement of claim. Attorneys are not, however, permitted to include claims that are demonstrably false. This claim was repeated in the presentation the defense lawyers made to the only meeting of the Whichard Commission.

However, as you realize, Dr. Meehan is not an "independent" witness. He was trying to rationalize an incomplete report that violated industry requirements and his own company's protocol. His claims of not wanting to name the other players, whose names were already widely disseminated, was widely criticized.

I am willing to review the final DNASI report (but not the raw data), but I cannot find a link after this amount of time. If you have a copy, I suggest you ask Sidney to post it for you. If you have a link, post the link.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 24 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 316 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 5 days since February 14, 2017, 50 days since the end of 2016, 233 days since the end of June 2016, 301 days since April 24, 2016, 340 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,184 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,535 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,295 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 19, 2017 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Who is Ubes?; February 19, 2017 at 5:11 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

The following were included in the "Stipulated Facts" from Nifong's disciplinary hearing. I do not have a link.

100. Between April 7 and April 10, 2006, DSI performed testing and analysis of DNA characteristics found on the rape kit items. (A.C. at 199).

101. In performing this initial testing, DSI found DNA from up to four different males on several pieces of evidence from the rape. kit (A.C. at 200).

102. By April 10, 2006, DSI had analyzed the DNA characteristics from at least some of the evidence specimens from the rape kit containing multiple male DNA characteristics and excluded all of the lacrosse players as potential contributors of the DNA it had analyzed from the rape kit. (A.C. at 201).

Your statement (in which you alleged that lacrosse players had not been eliminated as potential donors) is incorrect.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 19, 2017 at 7:46 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

In the January 2007 DNASI report, I found the language you quoted above: "The probability of excluding a randomly selected individual from the mixture autosomal DNA profile is greater than 98%." It continues: "David Evans cannot be excluded as a contributor to this mixture profile." (page 6 of January 12, 2007 report)

As you know, I questioned your statistic, noting the apparent coincidence that the percentage non-exclusion you claimed for the evidence analyzed in the rape kit was exactly the same as the percentage non-exclusion for the fingernail. Now we know why. The language you quoted addressed the fingernail and not, as you falsely claimed, the evidence in the rape kit.

The report concludes: Individual DNA profiles for evidence specimens (item numbers 15772, 15776, 15785, 15816-15818) consistent with male profiles that did not match DNA profiles from any reference specimens..." It details separately the non-exclusions for Evans and Coleman and the match to Murchison. The Evans summary is quoted above.

I do not have a link. However, the January 2007 report is Exhibit 240. Perhaps Sidney can post it.

I suggest that you correct your error.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 19, 2017 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Being Kenny means never having to say you are wrong.; February 19, 2017 at 8:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: The same exclusion principles that applied to the fingernail also apply to the extra-corporeal autosomal DNA fragments, not extracted from spermatozoa, found on Crystal's swabs and test materials. This does not, with 100% certainty, exclude any randomly selected individual. It does not matter if it was on her broken off fingernail or on findings on the rape kit. In the case of Evens it's 98% likely the DNA was his. In the rape kit there is a 2% possibility that the DNA is from any one the reference donors. The findings have some probative value but not much.; February 19, 2017 at 9:12 AM
kenhyderal said...: Too bad we do not have someone here with DNA knowledge and experience who can settle the issue of whether the findings indicate a possible rape by three individuals or whether Crystal's stated consensual sexual history can be proven wrong by these findings. I think not.; February 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

I demonstrated that the statement you quoted was taken completely out of context.

How did you make such a blatant error? Was your error innocent or did you deliberately attempt to mislead the readers on this blog?

You are correct in that the same "principles" are applicable in analyzing the DNA found on the fingernail or on the other evidence in the rape kit. No one disputed that. As a result, you are making a straw man argument. I have asked you previously to refrain from using intellectually dishonest rhetorical devises in your replies to me. Why can you not horn that request?

Your 9:17 comment raises yet another straw man argument. DNA analysis cannot "settle the issue of whether the findings indicate a possible rape by three (or nine or ten) individuals or whether Crystal's stated sexual history can be proven wrong." The DNA evidence can only prove that Crystal had recent sex not included in the stated sexual history. A complete investigation is required. One

Your theory that Crystal was raped at the lacrosse party by mystery rapists may not be directly supported by any credible evidence (essentially you rely on disputed observations that Crystal was not impaired when she arrived and her general accusation--ignoring the details disproven by other evidence), but at least it cannot be disproven with virtual certainty.

Your current argument is false. Nifong stipulated that all of the players were excluded. The January 2007 report reaches that conclusion. The phrase "did not match" does not imply a 2% possibility.

I suggest you revert back to your mystery rapist hypothesis. This argument weakens your credibility even further.

John D. Smith
New York, N; February 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"The same exclusion principles that applied to the fingernail also apply to the extra-corporeal autosomal DNA fragments, not extracted from spermatozoa, found on Crystal's swabs and test materials. This does not, with 100% certainty, exclude any randomly selected individual."

How does it incriminate any individual. Probable cause(you seem ignorant of that term so go look it up and enlighten yourself) is not established by failure to exclude anyone as a perpetrator. It is established by showing someone could be the perpetrator.

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

Probable cause is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"

Odds of 49 to 1 against an individual being a perpetrator do not establish probable cause to believe the individual is a perpetrator.

"It does not matter if it was on her broken off fingernail or on findings on the rape kit."

BULLSHIT!!! Finding male DNA on a woman's false fingernail does not establish probable cause that she was sexually assaulted. Finding male DNA in certain areas of her body does.

"In the case of Evens it's 98% likely the DNA was his."

Irrelevant, unless the finding of male DNA on a woman's false fingernail does not establish that the source of the DNA was a rapist, not at all.

"In the rape kit there is a 2% possibility that the DNA is from any one the reference donors. The findings have some probative value but not much."

In the Duke rape Hoax, the probative value was this: if there was a rape, the perpetrators more likely would have been people other than the men the DA wanted to indict.; February 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Too bad we do not have someone here with DNA knowledge and experience who can settle the issue of whether the findings indicate a possible rape by three individuals or whether Crystal's stated consensual sexual history can be proven wrong by these findings. I think not."

You presume facts not in evidence:1) that you can think: 2)that anyone rakes you seriously when you claim you can think.

Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape at the party. If you are referring to the male DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegation, it did not match the DNA of any male identified at the party. It did not establish probable cause that a rape had occurred at the party.

You say that no comprehensive list of party attendees was ever established. That is you saying, it can not be ruled out that there were unidentified party attendees. Well, if you think unidentified party attendees you have to rule in that there were unidentified party attendees, and you have not.

I say again, you claim kilgo told you that a Lacrosse player told him that unidentified party attendees raped Crystal. You can not verify that kilgo ever told you that. Your speculation as to why you can not verify kilgo ever told you that(kilgo disappeared from J4N, deleted all his posts, because he was either paid off or intimidated) does not establish kilgo told you anything. Ergo, there is a strong probability you fabricated that story to support your unsupported claim of unidentified rapists.; February 19, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Who is Ubes?; February 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: "I suggest you revert back to your mystery rapist hypothesis. This argument weakens your credibility even further"......................
I have never abandoned that. You know that. Go back and read what I posted. I do not believe that any of the tested individuals raped Crystal. What was found does not eliminate them with 100% certainty but hey 98% is a good enough probability for me. Unlike Dr. Anonymous who believes we should not conclude Evans was the source of the DNA on the fingernail, I conclude that none of those who were tested raped Crystal. I'm not convinced though as far as a sexual assault, a kidnapping and a theft as well the possibility of aiding and abetting a rape commited by others and obstruction of justice by silence.; February 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM
A Lawyer said...: obstruction of justice by silence.

No such crime exists.; February 19, 2017 at 4:14 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: I have never abandoned that.

Perhaps. How does it help your mystery rapist theory to create false narratives about DNA test results and then continue to continue to argue when your lies have been exposed?

John D. Smith
New York, Ny; February 19, 2017 at 5:49 PM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: Kenny,

I have the information you want. This is your last chance to contact me.; February 19, 2017 at 6:19 PM
guiowen said...: JSwift,
Kenny enjoys arguing for the sake of argument. It makes him feel good, even when his arguments ave been exposed as lies.; February 19, 2017 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

" Unlike Dr. Anonymous who believes we should not conclude Evans was the source of the DNA on the fingernail,"

Kenhyderal, you,like Nifong, are a liar. What I said was that the DNA found on Crystal's false fingernail was compatible with David Evans' DNA but was not a match. What I asked you, what you are trying to duck, just like Nifong tried to duck Reade Seligmann's alibi, was, how does finding DNA compatible with but not matching David Evans' DNA establish probable cause that David Evans was a perpetrator in the alleged semen depositing gang rape Crystal alleged, why does the failure to find DNA matching David Evans' DNA on Cystal's person not exclude him as a perpetrator.

"I conclude that none of those who were tested raped Crystal. I'm not convinced though as far as a sexual assault, a kidnapping and a theft as well the possibility of aiding and abetting a rape commited by others and obstruction of justice by silence."

Irrelevant statement in view of the fact that there was zero evidence Crystal was raped.

And, speculation based on guilt presumption does not establish probable cause for anything.; February 19, 2017 at 7:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: John D said: " How does it help your mystery rapist theory to create false narratives about DNA test results and then continue to continue to argue when your lies have been exposed?.....................................
And the lie was??; February 19, 2017 at 8:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Lawyer said: "obstruction of justice by silence. No such crime exists"........................Were talking semantics but DA Nifong did threaten to prosecute for aiding and abetting by not coming forward WRAL: "The district attorney's office said team members deny the accusations, but admit there was underage drinking at the party. Otherwise, they are not cooperating with authorities. Nifong, who said Monday that he himself will prosecute the case, said authorities may apply for more search warrants in the case and that more charges for aiding and abetting may be possible against partygoers. "There's a good chance, if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can't do this,' it might not have happened," said Nifong; February 19, 2017 at 9:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. A. and John D. You two to are very quick to label people you disagree with as liars; February 19, 2017 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. and John D. You two to are very quick to label people you disagree with as liars".

You do lie when confronted with a situation which does not mesh with your presumption of guilt of the Lacrosse team members.

Nifong was on record early in the case that a rape had happened and that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators. You were on record that the DNA found on Crystal came from Rapists.

Nifong made no attempt to identify who left their DNA on Crystal. He showed Crystal, in lineup procedures including the improper procedure in April, only pictures of men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal, and Nifong was aware of that when he had her shown those pictures. Nifong had indicted three men whose DNA, he knew, did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

Your take was, Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players charged with rape. Nifong believed he could convict the lacrosse players of Sexual Assault and Kidnapping without DNA evidence. Said sexual assault, which supposedly happened after Crystal was dragged into the bathroom, was described by CRYSTAL as a semen depositing gang rape.; February 20, 2017 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 23 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 315 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 6 days since February 14, 2017, 51 days since the end of 2016, 234 days since the end of June 2016, 302 days since April 24, 2016, 341 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,185 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,536 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,294 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 20, 2017 at 5:48 AM
Walt said...: Guiowen wrote: "Actually, alibis are generally convenient. Otherwise there would be no use for them."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham; February 20, 2017 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A Lawyer said: "obstruction of justice by silence. No such crime exists"........................Were talking semantics but DA Nifong did threaten to prosecute for aiding and abetting by not coming forward WRAL: "The district attorney's office said team members deny the accusations, but admit there was underage drinking at the party. Otherwise, they are not cooperating with authorities. Nifong, who said Monday that he himself will prosecute the case, said authorities may apply for more search warrants in the case and that more charges for aiding and abetting may be possible against partygoers. "There's a good chance, if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can't do this,' it might not have happened," said Nifong"

Except, as the investigation proceeded, the investigation you say was botched, the evidence, or lack thereof, showed no crime had happened. Nifong's threat to prosecute people for "not cooperating" was a naked attempt at witness intimidation, nothing more. Considering what happened to Moez Elmostafa, considering Nifong's public statements, that a rape had happened and that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators, his refusal to look at alibi evidence, Nifong was looking for incriminating evidence. And, as there was no incriminating evidence, Nifong was trying to force members to give false evidence. If Nifong wanted that evidence given under oath, he was trying to suborn perjury.; February 20, 2017 at 8:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: (in quoting Guiowen) "Guiowen wrote: "Actually, alibis are generally convenient. Otherwise there would be no use for them." Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner"....................Make no mistake about it, DA Nifong, an experienced Prosecutor, was suspicious that Seligmann set out to purposely create an alibi. His use of the word "convenient" was a euphemism, expressing his opinion that the alibi was dishonest/contrived; February 20, 2017 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderl:

"Walt said: (in quoting Guiowen) "Guiowen wrote: "Actually, alibis are generally convenient. Otherwise there would be no use for them." Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner"....................Make no mistake about it, DA Nifong, an experienced Prosecutor, was suspicious that Seligmann set out to purposely create an alibi. His use of the word "convenient" was a euphemism, expressing his opinion that the alibi was dishonest/contrived"

As the evidence showed, the rape Crystal alleged never happened(and I remind you yet again, you have provided zero evidence that the crime did happen), Reade Seligmann was not trying to establish an alibi.

If Nifong was suspicious that Reade Seligmann set out to create an alibi, if he felt the alibi was "dishonest/contrived", then why did he refuse to listen to it, why did he try to suppress it, why was he reluctant to let Reade Seligmann present his alibi in court? An "experienced prosecutor" could have easily shot down in open court a "dishonest/contrived" alibi..

The truth(and you are adverse to telling the truth) is that Nifong was hell bent on prosecuting members of the Lacrosse team regardless of whether or not they were innocent, and could not discredit Reade Seligmann's alibi in court. And that is why Nifong tried to to suppress all exculpatory evidence.; February 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

from http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=lawfaculty:

"Some years later, now a law professor, and increasingly exposed to academic
perspectives on the ethical responsibilities of "virtuous" prosecutor^,^ I was
surprised to learn that several of these commentators believe that it is NOT(emphasis added) the prosecutor's function to make a personal evaluation of the truth; it is the JURY's(emphasis added) function".

That is the opinion of Bennett L. Gershman, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University

Do you have any legal authority who supports your obvious belief, that Nifong should have made the decision whether or not Reade Seligmann's alibi was true.; February 20, 2017 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Regarding the Grand Jury:

from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-prosecutors-present-evidence-helps-the-defendant-grand-juries.html

"Majority View: Exculpatory Evidence is a Must

In most states, prosecutors can’t present half-truths to grand juries. If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. That doesn’t mean, however, that they have to offer every piece of evidence that’s helpful to the accused or that might be used at trial by the defense."

Maybe that is not the case in North Carolina. Maybe that is a flaw in the NC Gand Jury System which Nifong exploited to get indictments against innocent men

The question is, why was the DNA evidence found on Crystal(i.e. the DNA found on Crystal in the wake of the semen depositing rape she alleged did not match the DNA of the men against whom Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape) not credible evidence that pointed to the innocence of the men Nifong wanted to prosecute for said alleged semen depositing gang rape? It was evidence generated by the lab Nifong retained to examine the rape kit materials.; February 20, 2017 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Even Kenny must realize Sid isn't really trying to help Crystal anymore - he's rehashing stuff from almost a decade ago, that has zero relevance to anything going on now.; February 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 10:21; An excellent and extensively referenced paper by Professor Gershman. From my careful reading of this paper, DA Nifong did not fail in his duty; especially in the area of Brady vs Maryland that he is accused of. On the other hand, Prosecutor Coggins-Franks, in Crystal's trial, has failed miserably on many, if not most, of these ideal criteria. Thanks for posting this link.; February 20, 2017 at 4:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 10:33; It depends on what the meaning of timely is ( to paraphrase Pres. Clinton). Long before the accused were to go to trial he turned over the evidence, albeit by order. They suffered no adverse consequence from this delay.; February 20, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous 10:21; An excellent and extensively referenced paper by Professor Gershman. Yes he did, and spectaculaely.From my careful reading of this paper, DA Nifong did not fail in his duty; especially in the area of Brady vs Maryland that he is accused of."

Yes he did and he did so spectacularly. Your guilt presumption regarding the innocent Lacrosse players does not change that.

"On the other hand, Prosecutor Coggins-Franks, in Crystal's trial, has failed miserably on many, if not most, of these ideal criteria. Thanks for posting this link."

So says Kenhyderal who tries to believe that Nifong, who prosecuted innocent men and who concealed evidence to obtain confessions and who lied about it to the court, did nothing wrong.; February 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny; February 20, 2017 at 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

With regard to Bennett L. Gershman, the question posed to you was, "
Do you have any legal authority who supports your obvious belief, that Nifong should have made the decision whether or not Reade Seligmann's alibi was true."

You failed to answer that question. Imstead you have triedto bullshit your way to avoid an issue which does not mesh with your presumption of Lacrosse player guilt.; February 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous 10:33; It depends on what the meaning of timely is ( to paraphrase Pres. Clinton)."

Check out http://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2005/chapter_15a/article_14.html, a reference to NC State law on non testimonial orders. That is what establishes timeliness in this situation. The Durham DA office, headed by Nifong, was obligated by law to give the report of all the results to each and every member of the Lacrosse team who was subjected to the NTO, including the three men Nifong wanted indicted, as soon as rhe report was available. With regard to the Lacrosse defendants, Nifong was obligated by law to give them the report BEFORE he sought indictments, Months after he had rhe report, months after he sought indictments, in response to a court order, Nifong turned over thousands pf pages of raw data. According to NC law, Nifong DID NOT turn the report over in a timely manner.

"Long before the accused were to go to trial he turned over the evidence, albeit by order." They suffered no adverse consequence from this delay."

The Lacrosse players were subjected to months of hateful action because of the bogus charges, e.g. the guilt presuming demonstration by the New Black Panther Party. I again remind you, Crystal alleged a semen depositing gang rapr. DNA Security found male DNA on Crystal's person which did not match the DNA of the accused. Had Nifong complied with the law, the defense would have had that information. Their attorneys would have had information which would have gotten the charges dismissed long before AG Cooper took over the case and conducted a proper investigation.

Don't try to purvey the untrue Bullshit that the Defendants suffered no "adverse consequences" because of Nifong's violation of NC law.

You re again trying to bullshit tour way into avoiding FACTS which do not mesh with your presumption of Lacrosse player guilt.; February 21, 2017 at 3:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 22 days until the Ides of March 2017. You have 314 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 7 days since February 14, 2017, 52 days since the end of 2016, 235 days since the end of June 2016, 303 days since April 24, 2016, 342 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,186 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,537 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,293 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 21, 2017 at 4:13 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 3:20 AM raises a good point. The NC statute that authorizes a non-testimonial identification procedure Art. 15 § 15A-271, et seq. imposes two deadlines. First § 15A-280 requires a return (basically an inventory or report of the results) be filed with a Judge designated in the order. If when that return is made, there is no probable cause to suspect the person subject to the order, then the Judge must return the information or physical evidence seized from the person to him.

Second, § 15A-282 requires that the results of the order be made available to the subject or his attorney (the statute provides a right of counsel even where one would not otherwise attach) when the state receives those results. In short, Nifong was under an obligation to turn over the DNASI results the same day he got them from his meeting with Dr. Meehan. Not months later. There is no "harm" requirement in the statute. Just a hard deadline. Nifong failed in meeting his § 15A-282 duty. He compounded the error by lying about turning over the results in the May 2006 hearing.

Walt-in-Durham; February 21, 2017 at 4:34 AM
Walt said...: ^^^ Correction ^^^ That should be Article 14.

Walt-in-Durham; February 21, 2017 at 4:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Jimmy Pegram - he is in custody in the Durham County Jail right now, and one of his charges is Larceny of Chose in Action. You can check their website to confirm.

I am sure there are others who are not in custody.

But, check NCCourts to confirm, check the jail website.

You have been elucidated. Where is my $1,000?

What $1,000.00? You feel that you're entitled to a grand? Why?

Anyway, I looked up Mr. Pegram and found that one of approximately eight different charges included "Larceny of Chose in Action." I tried to google his name to find an article about the alleged crimes he committed, but was unable. Possibly he did steal some blank checks. I doubt very seriously that the Larceny of Chose in Action charge is related to a check that had been filled out and he was listed as neither payee nor remitter. I would be shocked, if that was the case.

Mangum, actually, should never have been charged with Larceny of Chose in Action, because first and foremost, Daye gave the cashier's checks to her. Secondly, she merely held on to them... never attempting to manipulate them to her benefit.

Let me know if you can come across any information about the crimes he committed... especially with reference to the Larceny of Chose in Action charge.

Thanks for the single lone reference. (Seems as though approximately 60,000 criminal cases were recorded in Durham County's District Court last year... and so far, you found one Larceny of Chose in Action charge.) As I said, I agree with Durham attorney Woody Vann that Larceny of Chose in Action is an extremely rare charge.; February 21, 2017 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: That's just the one in custody - hard to know how many have that charge who bonded out. There isn't an easy mechanism to search by charge.; February 21, 2017 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: And, most people agree that the Larceny of Chose in Action wasn't something Crystal was guilty of (and the jury did acquit her). The disagreement people have with you is why she was charged with it. As has been repeatedly explained to you, it had nothing to do with Felony Murder, because it cannot form the basis of felony murder (and the State never proceeded on the theory of felony murder).

Why was it charged? Who knows - probably because they figured you and others would waste time chasing that red herring.; February 21, 2017 at 7:27 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Do you have any legal authority who supports your obvious belief, that Nifong should have made the decision whether or not Reade Seligmann's alibi was true"....................Legal authority?? Former DA Nifong did not make any such decision, however he did have doubts about this "convenient" alibi.; February 21, 2017 at 8:32 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: "Thanks for the single lone reference"

Well,Sid -- in Anonymous' defense, you DID only ask for one. IIRC, the "fee" was actually 1 Duke blue crying towel, however (not $1,000); February 21, 2017 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm convinced Kenny is an asshole and a troll. Any excuse he attempts to prove otherwise is contrived.; February 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 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